Pay equity change attracts large protest

Thursday, 22 May 2025

A pay equity protest at Parliament on Budget Day has attracted hundreds.

Hundreds have taken their pay equity concerns directly to Parliament, as today’s Budget will show where the Government’s investing money from controversial law changes.

Finance Minister Nicola Willis agreed it was billions.

The majority of savings the Government has made across ministries and agencies will pay for new initiatives, set to be revealed at 2pm when the Government delivers its second Budget.

“You’ll see how much savings we have delivered from pay equity and how much we’ve allocated that to our operating and capital allowances, and what we’re investing in,” Willis said on Tuesday, as she watched the so-called Growth Budget roll off the presses.

Pay equity protest outside Vanessa Weenink's Ferry Rd office.

“And I can give you a preview. Those savings are being invested in education services and better health services, more funding for our police, rebuilding New Zealand’s Defence capability. New Zealand has pressing priorities right now, but we also have books that were left in a heavy overdraft.”

But a large crowd of critics did not want to wait, jamming Parliament’s forecourt for a vocal protest.

Willis said as 50% of taxpayers were women, they’d still benefit from the Budget, and believed New Zealanders were “realistic”.

“They want a pay equity scheme that protects women against sex-based discrimination. We have delivered that. The alternative was a scheme that had become a trojan horse for all sorts of other union bargaining.”

Finance Minister Nicola Willis in the firing line.

Equal Pay Act changes were passed earlier this month, extinguishing 33 current claims with some close to settlement, and narrowing the threshold through which future claims can be made.

Under the amended law, claims can only be made under narrower terms, including a “hierarchy of comparators” under which female claimants saying they are underpaid compared to men can compare their work to similar male-dominated industries.

Previous settled claims, largely in education, health and care settings, saw jobs in those sectors being compared to others, like Corrections and Customs officers, land surveyors and air traffic controllers using pay equity assessment tools which compared various elements of their work using a scoring system.

Under the new law, claimants must make job comparisons much more closely related to their current employer or work. Under the “hierarchy” if their employer employed one or more of the approved comparators, the claimant must select one or more. If they didn’t employ a comparator, they must pick a comparator from one or more “similar” employers. And if that option wasn’t available, they must select a comparator from within the same industry or sector. Failing that, the claim can’t proceed.

For a workforce to be predominantly considered female ‒ which it must be to make a claim ‒ it must be 70% female (previously it was 60%) for at least 10 consecutive years, and a claim must have “merit” and not just be “arguable”. The NZ Council of Trade Unions says this means claimants must be able to prove they are undervalued before they even make a claim.

The New Zealand Nurses Organisation (NZNO) yesterday told The Post it planned to forge ahead with new claims as soon as possible to give the new system a test run.

NZNO had acted on claims for about 44,000 union members, including nurses, nurse practitioners, health care assistants, and admin staff, including 35,000 members who were covered by a review of a previous Te Whatu Ora pay equity claim, which was scuttled with the law change.

Post Primary Teachers’ Association (PPTA) president Chris Abercrombie said the amendments made it “impossible” for teachers to make a new claim, as about 63% of secondary teachers were female.

The union wasn’t sure if it could reuse data that had been collected as part of claims that were then abandoned by the Government or if it had to start from scratch.

The new rules around comparisons were the most “significant” barrier.

“Even if a new claim were able to proceed, employers would likely declare that no suitable comparators exist, due to the Government’s imposed hierarchy for assessing comparability ‒ effectively preventing teachers from ever being able to progress a claim,” said Abercrombie.

While previous education claims could consolidate across different roles, for example teachers, principals, guidance counsellors, the new regime would allow employers to conclude the jobs weren’t the same or substantially similar.

And, Abercrombie said, employers were now given more time to respond, from 45 days to 60, and could decide a claim doesn’t have merit and block it before it starts, and opt out of multi-employer claims without good reason.

“So, these rules deliberately block teachers from finding valid comparators, because the whole education sector is female dominated. While there are small pockets of male- dominated roles, for example, school ground staff and caretakers, their work is not the same or substantially similar to teaching.

“The Government has chosen to rule out female-dominated comparators from claims settled before the 2025 amendments. This is an intentional decision.”

Opposition leader Chris Hipkins said Budget savings, including from the pay equity law change, were going to tax cuts for landlords, tobacco companies and multi-nationals.