Pay Equity Questions yet to be answered

If you do nothing else today – Join more than 50,000 other Kiwis and sign the Pay Equity Petition at https://www.together.org.nz/fbt_for_pay_equity

If you do nothing else today – Join more than 50,000 other Kiwis and sign the Pay Equity Petition at https://www.together.org.nz/fbt_for_pay_equity.

Thank you

____________________________________________________________________

Much has been written about the recent decision of the government to amend New Zealand’s world-leading pay equity legislation. Thomas Coughlan in the Herald has written eloquently about the lack of any basic process. Verity Johnson in Stuff wrote a justifiably angry column calling it a “drive-by political shooting”. Hon. Tracey Martin penned an article for The Post pointing out the deception involved. Alice Neville at The Spinoff has produced a list of the quotes showing “what some of the current coalition MPs have said about pay equity over the years”.

Let me be really clear. I have lived in New Zealand for 12 years. This is the worst piece of lawmaking I have seen in my time here. It ticks all the boxes for what not to do. Pass legislation under urgency that will impact hundreds of thousands. Tick. No analysis to support the change. Tick. No reason for the urgency. Tick. The Prime Minister going missing during the debate. Tick. This is craven economics and cowardly politics.

In my view, this is nothing but a short-term ruse to shore-up a Budget that was tanking. Treasury will have produced new forecasts as a consequence of Trump’s tariffs, and a slowing economy because of the current government’s appalling economic mismanagement. That, alongside promises that have never been properly paid for (such as tobacco tax reform) meant the government had to pull the emergency brake and find several billion dollars in a hurry. That is why Hon. David Seymour said that Hon. Brooke Van Velden had “saved the Budget for the government”.

But amidst all this reporting, there are many questions that have yet to be answered by the Government over this decision. I am putting them out there in the hope that they will get asked and answered. It’s only when we have some response to these questions that we know what has really gone on, and what the true scale of the damage is.

I’ve grouped these questions into themes.

Financial

1. What is the expected saving to the government as a consequence of this decision across the forecast period?

2. What is the expected saving to the government over the ten years of the Fiscal Strategy Model period?

3. What is the direct financial cost to affected workers as a consequence of this decision?

4. What are the flow-on costs to workers as a consequence of this decision, i.e.

• Kiwisaver contributions

• Student loan repayments

• Investment losses

5. What are the flow-on costs to the Crown as a consequence of this decision, i.e.

• Additional income support payments (WFF, Accommodation Supplement)

• The tax loss associated with this decision

• Additional spending required to staff ‘hard to fill’ roles

• What additional resources will be required to deal with child poverty as a consequence?

6. What advice did Ministers receive on this matter from:

• Treasury

• MBIE

• PSC

• Ministry for Women?

Population effects

7. What analysis has been undertaken of the different groups likely to be impacted by this decision?

8. What analysis has been undertaken of the likely differential impacts of this decision on Māori and Pasifika groups – as they may be more likely to be employed in affected sectors?

9. What distributional analysis has been undertaken of this decision (i.e. winners and losers by income decile)?

10. When will this impact take place, and what is the counterfactual for these groups (i.e. without this change – what would have happened to affected workers by when)?

11. What analysis has been made of the impact on potential pay equity claims in the private sector that have yet to be forthcoming?

12. What analysis has been made as to the behavioural change created by this decision on:

• Employment decisions by workers

• Flow-on to negotiating collective agreements

• The belief that the Crown is a ‘good faith’ negotiator

• Skills acquisition by workers?

Spending Choices

13. How have any monies generated by this decision to amend pay equity been distributed within the Budget?

14. What spending decisions were made after the Cabinet decision to amend pay equity - and what spending decisions were made prior to that decision?

15. What analysis has been made of the distributional impacts of those consequent spending decisions?

16. Given that savings are one-off, how is operating spending being financed when that funding is fully expensed?

17. What is the impact of this decision on:

• OBEGALx

• OBEGAL

• Net Core Crown Debt

• The Fiscal Impulse

• Capital Allowances

Timeline

18. When did Ministers commission officials to commence the work on this project?

19. At what intervals did Ministers discuss this matter with officials?

20. Why was no Regulatory Impact Statement produced given that the decision to amend the legislation was made in April 2024? – See Cabinet Paper

21. Section 5.76 of the 2023 Cabinet Manual requires that “Unless an exemption applies, any policy proposals taken to Cabinet for approval that include a regulatory option must be accompanied by an impact statement, even if the regulatory option is not what is finally proposed”.

• When was the exemption provided?

• Who signed off on the exemption?

• Was the Cabinet Office informed of the exemption?

• On what grounds was the exemption provided?

22. Given that the government made the decision to press ahead with the work in December 2024, (See Para 15 Cab paper) why was the legislation required under urgency in May 2025?

23. What is the deadline for fiscal decisions for Budget 2025?

24. When was the deadline for fiscal decisions decided? Has it been extended?

___________________________________________________________________________

New Zealanders deserve straight answers to these questions. They aren’t difficult to answer and would be the very bare minimum I would be asking if in a Ministerial Office. Not providing answers to these questions would suggest that the government has something to hide - or that it hasn’t done the basic level of due diligence that would be expected of any competent Minister holding a warrant.

I look forward to Ministers providing this clarity to the public. The hundreds of thousands of workers whose lives will be made harder by this decision should expect nothing less. Without clear and verifiable justification for this decision, it’s hard not to believe that this government cares nothing for their future or their welfare.