On May 7, 2025, New Zealand’s Parliament passed sweeping changes to the country’s pay equity laws, sparking intense debate and widespread criticism. The Pay Equity Amendment Bill, rushed through under urgency without select committee scrutiny or public consultation, significantly tightens the criteria for gender-based pay equity claims and extinguishes all existing active claims.

Key Changes to the Pay Equity Regime

The new legislation raises the threshold for bringing pay equity claims, requiring affected occupations to be at least 70% female-dominated for the past decade. It also introduces stricter rules on job comparisons, limiting claims to male comparator roles within the same or similar organizations. Additionally, an increased focus on whether employers can afford higher wage bills has been incorporated into the assessment process.

As a result, all 33 active pay equity claims-covering sectors such as health, education, and local government-have been halted. These claims represented more than 150,000 workers, including over 90,000 teachers and tens of thousands of care and support workers and health administrators awaiting pay corrections.

Government and Political Responses

Workplace Relations Minister Brooke van Velden defended the changes, citing concerns about previous claims where occupations like librarians compared themselves to engineers. However, union representatives and affected workers strongly rejected this characterization, emphasizing that job comparisons are a fundamental part of the pay equity process.

Labour leader Chris Hipkins condemned the amendments as sacrificing equal pay for women to balance the government budget. Greens co-leader Marama Davidson described the move as a “politically violent act” against women workers. Public Service Association national secretary Fleur Fitzsimons called the day “dark” for New Zealand women, lamenting the loss of years of progress.

Finance Minister Nicola Willis denied that the changes were motivated by the upcoming budget but acknowledged that the amendments could save the government billions of dollars. Act Party leader David Seymour praised the reforms for making pay equity “workable” and saving taxpayer money.

Impact on Workers and Unions

The abrupt cancellation of ongoing claims has left many workers-who had invested significant time and effort into their cases-back at square one. Library worker and union delegate Tessa Bowler expressed frustration at the sudden halt to their well-advanced claim, highlighting the extensive assessments and data analysis already completed.

The pay equity system, established through landmark cases such as that of caregiver Kristine Bartlett, had previously corrected pay for more than 100,000 workers since amendments in 2020. Bartlett herself described the new legislation as “hurting” and vowed to continue fighting for fair pay.

Criticism of the Legislative Process

Opponents of the bill criticized the government for bypassing normal parliamentary processes, with MPs receiving bill documents only hours before debate. Critics argue that the rushed passage undermines democratic scrutiny and reverses over a decade of gains in pay equity.

Historical Context

The pay equity framework was built on significant legal victories, including the 2017 settlement for aged-care workers following Bartlett’s case. The 2020 Equal Pay Amendment Act had strengthened workers’ rights to challenge systemic undervaluation of female-dominated roles. The new bill effectively dismantles much of this progress by raising barriers to claims and narrowing the scope of eligible comparisons.

Summary

The Pay Equity Amendment Bill’s passage marks a major shift in New Zealand’s approach to addressing gender-based pay disparities. While the government argues the reforms create a clearer, more sustainable system, unions, opposition parties, and affected workers warn that the changes will delay or deny fair pay for thousands of women in traditionally undervalued occupations. The controversy highlights the ongoing tensions between fiscal priorities and social justice in the country’s labor policies.