Why we should be pushing back for a fair go on pay equity

Friday, 1 August 2025

Gail Pacheco is Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner with the Human Rights Commission, and a professor of economics.

OPINION: Kiwis believe in giving everyone a fair go. I would argue that halting pay equity claims for already undervalued workers is quite the opposite.

Teachers educate our children, many care workers are tasked with providing complex support for disabled people and our elders, and nurses deliver essential healthcare to our communities. Yet too often jobs dominated by women are undervalued and under paid, despite the skills, experience and responsibility needed to perform the work. A strong pay equity system is required to address this. Such a system would uphold the basic human right of equal pay for work of equal value.

We all want to live in a society that values different work fairly taking account of the skills and responsibilities of workers, not whether that work is, or historically has been, dominated by women or men. Yet for generations, employers have been measuring different types of work on a scale that reflects outdated gender norms leading to women’s professions being undervalued. This occurs particularly in industries dominated by wāhine Māori, Pacific women, and women of colour.

I can tell you the evidence is clear. Work carried out in women-dominated professions is consistently undervalued when taking into account skills, educational requirements, tasks and responsibilities of the roles. If, for example, a care worker earns significantly less than a Corrections officer despite both roles requiring comparable skills, experience, responsibility and effort, the gap is not justified.

People often say you can’t compare apples and oranges — but when it comes to pay equity, you absolutely have to. Apples and oranges are different — like women- and men-dominated jobs. Using the above example, one job is in care, the other in Corrections. But when you consider their nutritional value — via the skills, effort, responsibilities in the role —they provide equivalent nourishment. So, despite the fact that these fruits/jobs are different on the outside, they are equal in value and thus deserving of equal pay.

So the question before us is: Can we build a system that makes fair decisions about how we value work? Of course we can. We made significant progress in achieving such a system with the 2020 Equal Pay Amendment Act. It provided a rights-based, rational pathway for workers to work cooperatively with employers through a pay equity claim. This was done by comparing roles that required similar skills, effort and experience and providing a process for pay corrections moving forward.

This system was a meaningful action by our government to meet its obligations under article 11 of the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women to “take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in the field of employment”.

Unfortunately pay equity progress made thus far has been put under strain by recent changes to the act. These changes included halting 33 existing claims (which included teachers and residential support workers’ claims), removing pay equity reviews and setting higher thresholds requiring more evidence to establish pay inequities. The result: approximately $12.8 billion less over the next four years going into the pockets of people in women-dominated jobs that have been historically undervalued. We have been building the bridge to correct pay inequities and this is like stopping halfway.

All of this has happened without giving an opportunity for consultation with affected groups. Astoundingly, the Government has declined to release its own human rights analysis of the changes, despite formal OIA requests to do so. When decisions that affect the rights and livelihoods of thousands are made in the dark, it undermines not only trust but the integrity of our system.

What are some of the arguments I have heard against pay equity processes? Well, some argue that if some jobs are undervalued, workers should simply change vocations. But that ignores the reality that professions like nursing and teaching for example, require years of training, experience and ongoing certification. Switching careers comes with significant transaction costs.

Others have suggested that the market should self-correct over time. But in many of these sectors, the government is the primary employer, therefore creating a monopsony effect. In fact, the frequent shortage of nurses, teachers and care workers in New Zealand is clear evidence that the market is not correcting itself – and failing to attract and retain the frontline workers we rely on so heavily.

If you believe in equal pay for work of equal value, now is the time to act. You can make a submission to the People’s Select Committee through payequity.org.nz. This committee has been established by former MPs across the political spectrum to collect feedback and hear the voices of the people of New Zealand on pay equity.

You might wonder whether it’s worth making a submission, since the legislative changes have already passed. But it absolutely is. Submissions help build the public record and strengthen the evidence base needed to push for a fairer, more inclusive pay equity system in the future.

An accessible and robust process is essential to ensuring everyone in New Zealand is paid fairly for their work – regardless of gender or job title.

It’s not just about wages. It’s about our values, our communities, and upholding a basic principle of human rights. We’ve come too far to stop halfway.