Questions hang over what Labour’s promised repeal of the Government’s pay equity changes would actually look like if it wins power in November.
Opposition leader Chris Hipkins has committed to reinstating pay equity, but was not able to say if the principles would be the same as the previous iteration and how much it would cost, instead accusing the Government of appearing to make up figures - a statement the Government rejects.
The unofficial People's Select Committee, formed with high profile ex-MPs from across the House in response to the lack of select committee process from the changes to the pay equity legislation last year, released its report recommending repealing the changes and reinstating cancelled claims without requiring a restart of the pay equity process.
Former National MP Jackie Blue told the audience, "if the art of politics is reading the room, half of the audience has already left, women and affected families will vote accordingly, so it is an election issue".
Hipkins, who attended the report release in Wellington, was asked if he would reinstate it to the full amount.
"Are we committed to reinstating pay equity? Yes, absolutely. How much will that cost? We're trying to work that through at the moment, because the government aren't releasing any information on how they reach the figure that they appear to have just made up."
If the principles would be exactly the same if Labour were to reverse the pay equity changes, Hipkins said he wanted to consider the proposed changes that the Pay Equity Committee suggested.
Labour Deputy Leader Carmel Sepuloni also asked the select committee: "In relation to the money - we've been trying to ascertain where they have re diverted the funding that Treasury has said has now been pulled out of pay equity."
"We've been able to see that about half of it got rediverted towards investment boost, but so much of the information has been redacted, and we can't see where the other six, $7 billion has gone. And that's important information for public transparency."
Former National MP Marilyn Waring said that "everything that would answer that question is redacted".
In response, a spokesperson from Finance Minister Nicola Willis' office said the savings through the changes to the pay equity regime were outlined in her Budget day speech.
"Making those changes means the Government can re-purpose $2.7b a year, on average, towards Budget priorities like health, education, and law and order.
"A one-off $1.8 billion has also been repurposed from previous contingencies and put towards capital expenditure in this Budget, supporting investments in new hospitals, schools and other infrastructure."

They pointed to Budget 2025, where it says some funding remains in the contingency pool, which was not individually disclosed "due to negotiation sensitivity"
ACT leader David Seymour described Hipkins' comments as, "fiscal denialism".
“One way or another, the fiscal chickens will come home to roost. If Chris Hipkins genuinely believes Treasury’s numbers are wrong, he should do what real leaders do: publish his costings, show his assumptions, and tell New Zealanders what he will cut, tax, or borrow to pay for his promise."
Willis said in her Budget speeches she was; "absolutely committed to pay equity, but we have to be sure that future settlements stick to fixing pay discrepancies between occupations that are based only on sex-based discrimination, and not for other reasons"
"Otherwise, pay equity negotiations simply become a surrogate for a normal wage bargaining round."
13 Comments
"Hipkins...the government aren't releasing any information on how they reach the figure that they appear to have just made up.""
Is there anything with a half life shorter than a politicians memory?
https://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/oia-response/2020-treasury-ad…
and just like that they promise champagne on a beer budget
And they'll deliver a shandy if elected when they realise they can't find the budget for it
From my reading of the article whats going on sure is/ looks murky. I don't expect the women voters are going to take this lying down... it's going to cost the present government parties a lot of votes in the next general election and they will have a lot of difficulties spinning it otherwise.. a bit like Trump tell USA voters that food prices are going down.
Yeh fairness matters and so does affordability. Voters (hopefully) tend to notice that too
I feel like the government (esp right wing) never factor in the tax they get back when they spend. In this case they probably get 30% or so straight back in PAYE, then there is GST / alcohol / ciggies / petrol / taxes too, and the economy will also pick up with the increased spending.
I haven’t read much about the pay equity, but I sure hope it works both ways. I suspect there are plenty of male dominated jobs that don’t pay well considering how crap they are, rubbish collection etc. I sure hope the bill doesn’t mention any gender at all if it is trying to get equity.
Just listened to Carla Sepuloni on this subject.
All rant and fire. Without an idea to offer or change to suggest. Tragic.
As an almost 81 year old financially comfortable male, I don't have any expertise to offer on the subject of pay equity, but when it was announced, I was disgusted and remain so. I saw it as a kick in the teeth for the less well paid, mostly women, in our society. In a still male dominated world, women continue to be undervalued.
Sadly, given their record of incompetence last time round, I have little confidence that Labour, under the same management, would be the answer to their hopes for change.
The original legislation was constructed in a way that enabled pay equity claims based on comparisons from well outside the areas of responsibility - a list of the comparisons is here, on Newsroom's site.
Beyond the cost, the National Government's argument was that things like drawing comparisons between Oranga Tamarki workers and air traffic controllers, and admin staff at HNZ with mechanical engineers was drawing too long a bow.
So they decided to chuck the whole bow.
Strange part is they never really said it was a bad idea just that they couldn't afford it which really just points to the higher paid professions being over paid the last century or so.
National did not "chuck the whole bow" at all. They reset the legislation back to where it was before Labour unset it ~2021, kowtowing to their Union base despite Treasurys clear cost advice Hipkins now claims ignorance of (refer my post above).
Or a lack of redistribution. The wage/salary scale used to be considerably more compressed...and the ability to invest in tax exempt non labour opportunities much more constrained.
What constitutes drawing a long bow? Comparing the same jobs is of no use
Tony Alexander: 16 reasons why it’s all over for mum-and-dad property investors https://www.oneroof.co.nz/news/tony-alexander-16-reasons-mum-and-dad-in…
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.