Simon O’Connor
Husband, step-father, foster dad and longtime student of philosophy and history. Also happen to be a former politician, including chairing New Zealand's Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Committee.
I’m a great believer in gut instinct on various matters. Not so much on deciding whether something is right or wrong, but an initial impression as it were.
My gut instinct on the government’s secretive, then rushed, move to change our pay equity laws is not positive. It doesn’t pass the sniff test.
I say this as someone who is not a strong supporter of the now previous law. I have always found the criteria and comparisons arbitrary. Simply declaring a profession has an equity issue because of low pay or the sex-based composition (that is, more women are in the profession than men) is problematic. It then becomes more arbitrary when those in control start deciding what other profession to reference against, so should low paid cleaning roles for example – and somewhat tongue in cheek – be referenced against to nuclear physicists or airline pilots, graffiti artists or funeral directors?
This all started on Tuesday morning when the government suddenly announced it was changing the pay equity law, basically making it harder to make claims. There was no indication it was coming and by that evening, it was passed into law under urgency.
A law change that impacts our lowest pay workers and, from what the prime minister tells us, will “save billions” was rushed through all stages in one day and without any prior warning. This neither looks good nor is good. There was no committee process for the public to have their say; no forum for those likely most impacted to speak; no regulatory impact statement. Nothing.
I would hazard a guess, the members of parliament having to speak in support would pretty much have had no idea of the merits or otherwise – simply giving a speech from notes provided by the minister’s office. There were simply not enough hours for anyone to properly consider the change.
A cursory observation is that in order to fuel the ongoing spending of the government, and with a budget just days away, money had to be found somewhere – and targeting pay equity and the lowest paid was seen as a quick windfall.
It also makes for terrible optics – spending billions for military helicopters (which will be obsolete before they land), yet gleefully ‘saving’ billions at the expense of our lowest paid.
Adding to the egregious nature of what happened, the law is also retrospective. This means every single existing claim just got extinguished. As I noted at the start, I am not a fan of pay equity claims but this is not the right way – constitutionally, legally or morally – to handle the situation. Even at its most simplest, those seeking claims will have spent time and money doing so. Is there any compensation?
A final point and irony. So much of pay equity is focused on the work of women. Funny is it not, that all of a sudden most members of parliament have had an epiphany and worked out what an ‘adult human female’ is – including the minister in charge of the bill and the likes of Chris Hipkins.
This article was originally published by On Point.
