Ani O'Brien: Amending the Equal Pay Act - anti-woman attack or sensible course correction?

Everyone thinks their side is telling the truth. Their side’s outrage is justified. Their side is fighting the good fight. The other side are the liars, cheats, and must have every single action viewed through the lens of the worst possible intentions.

The problem is the truth, although usually located somewhere and to varying degrees, is not what drives politics. Narrative is. Politics is the business of story-telling. It is about creating a vision and convincing more people than your opponents that your vision is the best one. On a micro level, everyday in Parliament, every piece of legislation debated, and every faux-pas is an exercise in narrative control. The best story-teller wins.

Of course, it is worth noting that the race to set the tone and messaging of an issue is not begun on a level playing field. The media firmly has their collective foot on the scales. The narrative that they like best is given a massive headstart.

This week, the Government introduced the Equal Pay Amendment Bill out of virtually no where and are progressing it under urgency and it has been an excellent example of how the battle of setting the narrative plays out. The Government is arguing a broken system, a law change in 2020 that hasn’t worked out, and that like work is not being compared to like work. The opposition is arguing that this is a misogynistic powerplay disadvantaging women in order to save billions of dollars to offset tax cuts to landlords.

So, where lies the truth in these tales? Let’s work through it and try to establish some facts.

Context: the history of the Equal Pay Act

The Equal Pay Act 1972 was enacted to prohibit discrimination in pay based on sex. It focused on “equal pay for equal work”, meaning women and men doing the same job must be paid the same. It was considered progressive at the time but had limited scope in addressing systemic undervaluation in female-dominated jobs. For example, jobs like nursing and teaching were (and are) considered “women’s jobs” and so have been undervalued compared to other types of work.

Over the next few decades, the law was rarely used and often narrowly interpreted by employers and courts. It did not effectively address the broader structural issue of women being paid less in different but equivalent roles.

A pivotal moment came when care worker Kristine Bartlett brought a claim against her employer (Terranova Homes). She argued her work was undervalued because it was performed mostly by women. In 2014, the Court of Appeal upheld her claim, interpreting the Equal Pay Act as allowing for pay equity, not just equal pay for the same job.

Following the Bartlett case, the government negotiated a landmark $2 billion settlement for care and support workers. The case revealed a need for a legislative framework to handle future claims without relying on lengthy and expensive litigation.

The Equal Pay Amendment Act 2020 was intended to modernise the original 1972 Act. It allowed pay equity claims for work that is not identical but of ‘comparable value’ and established a process for making and resolving claims via negotiation and mediation. The legislation was meant to emphasise “good faith bargaining” rather than adversarial legal proceedings.

The Equal Pay Amendment Bill 2025, currently before Parliament, proposes refinements the Government says will make the claim process clearer, faster, and more accessible. Changes are meant to bring changes to how a job is clarified as “predominantly female”, remove mandatory facilitation before arbitration and invest in resources to support claimants, especially those not in unions.

The details of the new amendment Bill

The Bill’s General Policy Statement explains:

“The legislative settings introduced in 2020 included a low entry threshold, limited tools for employers to contest broadly-scoped claims, and insufficient requirements for comparator choice and comparison methodology. These settings have resulted in claims progressing through the entry threshold without strong evidence of undervaluation and have made it difficult for parties to attribute differences in remuneration to sex-based undervaluation. The proposed changes to the Act will improve the process for raising and resolving a pay equity claim and provide a better framework for assessing whether there is sex-based undervaluation. Changes are being made to ensure that the process is workable and sustainable.”

These process changes will be achieved in various ways, including:

• increasing the threshold for what qualifies as work that is “predominantly performed by female employees” from 60% to 70%

• requiring unions raising a claim on behalf of multiple employees to provide evidence to demonstrate how the work covered by a pay equity claim is the same or substantially similar

• introducing a hierarchy of comparators so that comparators in closer proximity to the employer must be selected

• requiring proof that the profession has been female-dominated for at least a decade

• restricting the ability to re-raise a claim so that a claim can only be re-raised 10 years after a settlement (unless there are exceptional circumstances)

• allowing parties to agree to phase in remuneration over a maximum period of 3 years

• removing the ability of the Authority to award back pay when it is fixing remuneration.

One of the additional consequences of this Bill has attracted a lot of anger from the unions and opposition. That is that:

• “All existing claims that have not been finally settled or determined before this Bill comes into force will be discontinued. Claimants can raise a new claim under the amended Act, if they meet the new requirements for raising a claim.”

There are currently 33 existing claims in process with around 155,000 workers involved. These claims will need to be re-lodged under the criteria of the new Bill (when it is passed).

What’s the story?

Narrative #1

The Government’s story is that the law change in 2020 (that all parties in Parliament voted for at the time) took things too far. It loosened up criteria and allowed for cases where claimants could compare themselves to vastly different types of work to justify a claim.

The Minister in charge of the Bill Brooke van Velden says:

“There have been broadly scoped claims where it is difficult to determine whether the differences in remuneration are due to sex-based undervaluation. For example, the DHB, Allied, and Technical health pay equity settlement covers 90 occupations including hospital dental assistants, physiotherapists, wheelchair technicians, and cultural advisers…Health New Zealand admin and clerical staff, as an example, have been compared to mechanical engineers, Health New Zealand librarians have been compared to transport engineers, and Oranga Tamariki's social workers have been compared to air traffic controllers…Corrections officers, for example, have been used as comparators for nurses, admin support staff, and teacher aides.”

They have also argued that because of how broadened and ridiculous these claims became, they have spent more time being litigated over and so have not been resolved. This means that the women seeking amends to discrimination are still waiting.

Explaining why existing pay equity claims have been discontinued and will need to be re-raised, the minister said:

“The Government is doing this because we consider it's important that everyone is on the same playing field from the start, rather than allowing for two systems to operate at the same time for a period of time.”

In response to Labour’s Jan Tinetti describing an example of how a claim raised by librarians as been in progress for four years and now it has been discontinued, the minister has pointed out that the fact that it is taking such a long time is one of the reasons why they are making these changes. She expressed that the clarifications and improved processes would speed things up.

She concluded her speech summarising that:

“Overall, the bill will provide greater confidence that pay equity claim assessments will focus on any sex-based undervaluation and remuneration, and that any non-sex-based factors are appropriately accounted for. These changes will provide greater confidence that genuine pay equity issues will be correctly identified and addressed. I commend this bill to the House.”

The Government tone is one of common sense, rationality, “doing the right thing”, and fixing the unintentional consequences of a previous Parliament’s decision. They have endeavoured to remain calm and sensible throughout. This is to contrast themselves to their opponents who in response have chosen a highly emotive narrative.

Narrative #2

On the flip side, Deputy Labour leader Carmel Sepuloni began her contribution to the First Reading debate with:

“I don't think anyone should be mistaken: this is a war on women.”

Both the unions and the opposition parties responded to the news of the Bill with immediate outrage. Union activists made signs and congregated in front of Parliament in protest and the slogans they used communicated that they believe the Government to be sexist and putting money over women.

Former Minister for Women Jan Tinetti led the speeches from the Opposition at the First Reading stage and she set the tone as one of condemnation and outrage. She targeted the women on the Government benches saying:

“How absolutely shameful. And why is not every woman on that side of the House hanging their head in shame?”

The tactic is to turn this into a fight about women’s rights and position the Government as anti-women’s rights. It is difficult to argue against improved processes and it is even harder to get people to care about these kinds of administrative matters. By appealing to emotion and the general liberalism of New Zealanders who feel strongly about fairness and equality, Labour is able to create a villain so they can be the hero.

I hasten to add that this kind of approach is typical of opposition parties of any persuasion. Governments have to argue the merits of their law changes, but oppositions often use emotion in attempts to derail them. The media is more likely to run emotive stories with spicy quotes than considered arguments on policy points.

In order to further this narrative, Labour does not address the details of the Bill nor debate on the specifics. Instead they speak to thematic ideas of sexism and unfairness. Tinetti’s speech is full of ‘righteous’ anger and metaphoric table thumping:

“This is a disgraceful affront to women's and worker's rights, and I am absolutely disgusted that this House is even having this conversation. We should be moving forward, and this is taking us backwards. It is taking us backwards to a time when women were undervalued for their work and now we are starting—I thought this was something that we agreed upon across the House.”

The second part of Labour’s emotional approach is to appeal to the reverse Robin Hood trope. They accuse the Government of taking from women in order to bolster their Budget. This has been a consistent tactic of Labour this term with their most often repeated slogan being “tax cuts for landlords”. The actual law change was not a tax cut for landlords, it was a phased restoration of interest deductibility for residential rental properties, reversing the restrictions introduced in 2021. But Labour has been very successful at creating that narrative and it is a commonly held belief that the Government did give tax cuts to landlords now.

Jan Tinetti said:

“They are throwing women under the bus. Women are the people who are absolutely paying for their inability to make their budget work.”

Carmel Sepuloni said:

“They are fundamentally doing this because they cannot afford their Budget. They promised tax cuts that they were told were unaffordable; they told New Zealanders before the last election that would be better off. Now they can't afford them and who do they expect to pay the bill? It's going to be future women; women who will no longer have their pay equity claims addressed.”

Ginny Andersen said:

“Who is paying for the inability to make the Budget balance? It is women workers who do not get pay for hard work. It's absolutely disgraceful.”

Chris Hipkins said:

“…they're now legislating under urgency to do away with 33 active pay equity claims, or is it simply the case that what they're trying to do is desperately find a way to balance the budget because the tax cuts they delivered were unaffordable?”

Labour is obviously heavily aligned with the unions - an uncontroversial statement, I would think. Often, the unions can be observed running the same strategy and narrative in the media as Labour is running in Parliament. Furthermore, they are able to take the narrative further, making more drastic claims, and allowing Labour to then appear more moderate by comparison.

Fleur Fitzsimons is the National Secretary of the Public Service Association which is the union for public servants. She also ran for Labour in the seat of Rongotai at the last election, losing to the Greens’ Julie Anne Genter. She has been very vocal in the media on this issue and here are some quotes:

“…the Government is engaging in constitutional vandalism on a scale they would never tolerate if the victims were the powerful and the privileged.”

“This Government couldn’t wait to give landlords a $3 billion tax break - how can that be a priority when thousands of women in low paid work have been waiting years to be paid what they are worth?”

“We will be fighting this in the streets and in the courts. There are human rights implications and international agreements that New Zealand is betraying.”

“This is not who we are as a country, once so proud of our progress on what is fair for all, from being the first country to grant women the right to vote to marriage equality to equal pay. The Government is turning back the clock for no good reason, but just to balance the Budget. It’s shameful.”

“Women across the country will pay the price for this.”

"The government's changes today are a dark day for New Zealand women.”

 

The Government have given Labour and the unions some justification for their accusations of this being about the Budget. Christopher Luxon, David Seymour, and Brooke van Velden have all referenced that this Bill will save money. They argue that the money saved is justified as unfair claims comparing claimants jobs with completely different jobs will not progress. They say it is a positive side effect of improving the law rather than the purpose of it.

Labour are also running the narrative that this Bill is an attack on democracy. That is because the Government is passing it “under urgency” which means they speed everything up and skip parts of the usual process. They are not holding public consultation on the Bill. The Government have left themselves wind open to this criticism.

So where lies the truth?

Some truth is located in both narratives. One appeals to logic and one appeals to emotion, but both communicate elements of reality. They dial up the truth that suits them and dial down the bits that don’t.

It is true that the 2020 amendments have allowed for librarians to be compared to transport engineers, for example. It is true that the 2025 amendments will tighten criteria and this will make it more difficult for broader claims to win. It is true that 33 claims are being discontinued and will need to start again. It is true that this will save the Government money. It is true that this will be disappointing and upsetting for those who have existing claims. It is also true that the unions benefit from the criteria remaining broad. It is true that the Government is passing the Bill under urgency and skipping public consultation. It is also true that Labour did this many times when they were in Government.

It isn’t true that this is a war on woman or a particularly dark day. It isn’t true that this will impact women’s rights in any broader terms and certainly won’t prevent genuine cases of pay discrimination from progressing. It isn’t true that passing Bills under urgency is unprecedented or even unusual.

The truth is likely not to be located in the angry TikTok videos that claim New Zealand women can now be paid less than men without consequences. But that is how many, many New Zealanders get their news. Wouldn’t it be nice if we had a media willing to provide the balance?

What do you think? Good move by the Government or bad? Administrative improvements or attack on women?

Ani O'Brien comes from a digital marketing background, she has been heavily involved in women's rights advocacy and is a founding council member of the Free Speech Union. This article was originally published on Ani's Substack Site and is published here with kind permission.