When it became clear the Government had chosen ideology over evidence in its rushed changes to the pay equity system, former National MP Dame Marilyn Waring decided to do something about it.
Waring, a long-time advocate for women’s economic justice, did not approach the issue as a partisan opponent. She approached it as someone deeply concerned about process, principle, and fairness. The result has been a sharp spotlight on the Government’s handling of pay equity reform — and serious questions about whether power has been misused.
At the heart of the controversy are recent amendments to New Zealand’s pay equity framework, originally strengthened under the Equal Pay Amendment Act 2020. That Act created clearer pathways for women in undervalued sectors — such as care and support work — to pursue claims addressing systemic gender-based pay discrimination. It was widely regarded as a milestone in acknowledging the historical undervaluation of work traditionally performed by women.
The changes introduced by the current coalition Government have been criticised as rushed and inadequately consulted on. Critics argue they raise thresholds for claims, narrow comparators, and create additional procedural barriers that will make it harder — not easier — for workers to achieve pay equity.
Concerns intensified during scrutiny before Parliament’s Education and Workforce Committee, where submitters argued that the reforms lacked an adequate evidential foundation. Advocacy groups, unions, and policy experts warned that the changes risk undermining hard-won progress. Some described the move as privileging fiscal restraint over fairness.
The central claim emerging from the select committee process is not merely disagreement over policy direction. It is the allegation that power has been exercised in a way that sidelines evidence and limits meaningful democratic engagement.
When legislation is advanced under urgency or with truncated consultation, the effect is to narrow public participation. In matters as consequential as pay equity — which directly affect thousands of predominantly female workers — such procedural compression carries serious implications. It risks weakening public confidence in the integrity of law-making itself.
Supporters of the Government argue that the amendments bring clarity, fiscal sustainability, and consistency to a system they believe had become uncertain and costly. They frame the reforms as responsible governance, aimed at ensuring claims are robust and manageable.
However, critics counter that “sustainability” cannot come at the expense of justice. Pay equity claims arise precisely because markets have historically undervalued women’s labour. To tighten access to redress without compelling evidence of systemic failure in the previous framework, they argue, shifts the burden back onto those already disadvantaged.
Marilyn Waring’s intervention signals that this debate transcends party lines. As a former National MP known for challenging orthodoxies within her own political tradition, her stance underscores a deeper constitutional principle: evidence-based policymaking matters.
So too does the obligation to ensure that reforms do not quietly erode rights previously recognised.New Zealand has long positioned itself as a leader in gender equality. From women’s suffrage to modern pay equity jurisprudence, progress has been uneven but real. The question now is whether recent reforms represent refinement — or retrenchment.
The select committee’s findings have amplified public scrutiny. Whether the Government will revisit aspects of the reforms remains to be seen. What is clear is that the debate has reignited fundamental questions: Who benefits from these changes? Whose voices were heard? And does fiscal caution justify narrowing pathways to equality?
For many women in undervalued sectors, pay equity is not an abstract policy discussion. It is about dignity, recognition, and the practical realities of making ends meet. If evidence has indeed been sidelined, as critics suggest, then the issue is not simply about wages. It is about whether the machinery of government remains anchored in fairness.
The Southern Cross News will continue to follow developments as this debate unfolds — because at stake is more than legislation. It is the integrity of our commitment to equity itself.
