The sensible, strategic, non-political case for pay equity
Friday, 20 February 2026
Rob Campbell has an extensive background in trade unionism, business leadership, governance and public service.
OPINION: Pay equity is a significant election issue. Unlike many other such issues this is not because the major political parties want it to be such a big issue but because so many voting people do. This should include business people.
The current governing parties would probably prefer, having ripped up the previous arrangements for assessing and implementing pay equity and with that a number of claims in process or being prepared, that voters focused on other issues.
Labour has expressed opposition to that destruction, fought it in the parliamentary process, and has said that it still supports pay equity in principle. But has not proposed to urgently re-establish the prior structure.
My fear is that it falls into the “cautious” category of their election promises, adrift somewhere in the “we cannot reverse everything” theme. If I am wrong about that I will happily eat this column and promise never to be sceptical again. I’m not holding my breath waiting for their announcement.
The imminent release of the findings of the People’s Select Committee on Pay Equity will give new focus to the issue, a focus which is still evident in many political polls on the intentions and motivations of female voters. The issue is still very live in the membership of unions denied progression of their claims.
The People’s Select Committee (itself an interesting experiment in participatory democracy, and from reports of participants a much more satisfying experience than its desultory equivalent at Parliament) apparently has uncovered not only unmet need but supporting evidence of economic and social benefit. This should not be any surprise to anyone who has followed the issues.
Amongst those who have, or should have, followed the issues are surely business directors and executives. Even though many of the recent claims so rudely interrupted by the coalition were primarily public sector, it has always been obvious that there were private sector implications both direct and indirect.
As so often, business cheerleaders, as opposed to those actually thinking about and dealing with the issues themselves, look at things simply through the lens of first round costs. This mentality pervades and limits business circle thinking.
In my view there are very strong reasons why intelligent actors in business should be clear supporters of a a fair pay equity scheme and should not make a judgement that consists simply of “this may cost more and it’s therefore bad”.
The scheme which was abolished was well thought through, rigorous, and was in the process of being tested and strengthened through experience in its application. Many professionals on the employer side recognised this and were actively involved, offset only by instructions from above to delay, prevaricate and oppose well-researched claims which often limited acceptance of what the professionals knew to be sensible.
Set aside the interests of a business which sees short-term cost limitation and cuts as a business growth strategy. We might as well set them aside because they will not be here for long with such an outlook.
A business with a sensible and sustainable strategy will know that many changes in staffing will be essential and will be looking at:
What are the skill sets it needs now and can anticipate needing within its strategic planning period;
are those skills available or can they be developed within the business;
what recruitment, remuneration and retention approach is needed.
In doing that they will know that historical pay relativities within their workforce cannot remain stable. They will equally know that leaving the decisions to supply and demand generated by decisions of others in training programmes or to competitive businesses is not only lazy but fraught with the risks of the laggard and the loser.
Sound and responsible businesses will be thinking about the value of the various required skill sets ahead of them, not those behind. They will be assessing the various values of the skills and activities involved and making comparisons across some apparently unlike roles. They will not be limiting their views to historical patterns of gender or ethnicity involvement in various roles. They will not be acting irrationally.
Quite the opposite, they will be making assessments very like those of a pay equity process. They will not be bound by what used to be the case, whether that was right or wrong for those past times. They will look at value of the skills and other attributes of the roles it will need and expect to pay for those – planning accordingly.
Looking past the individual business to an industry, or to a whole economy, the planning, training and all the many other facets of employment with which a government is concerned, it similarly makes no sense to be bound by patterns of behaviour from the past, from a situation that no longer exists.
A serious government will want to ensure that the rules governing its own employment practices, and those of industry, are based on rational assessment of current and future required skills evaluated on a consistent basis, not just the patterns of past behaviour. It will want to know that precisely the disciplines of pay equity assessments are in play, as will its various planning and training agencies.
If you are not convinced about this, look at how business makes its executive level pay decisions. Most often they resort to various proprietary systems analysing the jobs concerned, undertaking detailed “job sizing” exercises and comparing apparently unlike jobs from the content they generate. Pretty much what a pay equity analysis does. Good for the gander?
Good businesses plan and calculate. They do not allow themselves to drift and meet their needs reactively.
So many compelling reasons not to abandon the pay equity approach - even before you get to fairness and non-discrimination on gender or ethnic grounds.
So what is it that the opponents are scared of?