Written by Alicia Yong
In May 2025, the National-led coalition government announced changes to pay equity legislation and policy which has been used to bring more equitable treatment to thousands of workers from many marginalised communities. It was the culmination of feminist activism over the twentieth century. By tracing the evolution of New Zealand’s pay equity legislation, it becomes clear that these changes are a slap in the face to Aotearoa’s most vulnerable communities.
From 1945, the number of women in the professional workforce grew substantially. However, they had significantly lower ranges of pay than their male counterparts: in 1945, the women’s minimum wage was only sixty per cent of the men’s minimum wage (Cook, 2011). Today, women make 8.2 per cent less than men. Although there is still work to be done, this gap has shrunk substantially, and more women than ever before are entering the professional paid workforce. In 1874 only a fifth of women aged over 15 held paid jobs (Else, 2018). As of 2024, this number stands at 63.4 per cent (Ministry for Women). We owe this progress in huge part to pay equality and equity legislation.
The Government Service Equal Pay Act 1960 and Equal Pay Amendment Act 1972 were the first significant pieces of legislation that acknowledged and sought to close the pay gap in both the public service and the private sector respectively (Nolan, 2018). It prevented differences in pay on the basis of gender for work that was the “same or substantially similar.” This act was a huge triumph and the work of feminist activists and groups, most significantly the Council for Equal Pay and Opportunity. The Council comprised several women’s organisations including the National Council of Women, Federation of Business and Professional Women’s Club, Federation of University Women, and the Young Women’s Christian Association (Cook, 2011). It resulted in the women’s wage rising from 69.9 per cent of men’s in 1972, to 78.5 per cent by 1977 (Nolan 2018).
This initial legislation, however, failed to account for occupation segregation; the confinement of certain groups to certain occupations. This occurs both horizontally, across different types of occupations, and vertically between different ranks within an occupation. As women went into professional work, further barriers to education and professional qualifications as well as systemic biases meant they ended up restricted to particular types of work. In 2024, 60 per cent of working women still only worked in four industries: health care and social assistance; retail; professional and administrative services; and education. Women were also far more likely to be in lower-paid positions rather than higher-paid managerial positions: in 2023 women made up only 31% of director positions across NZX-listed companies (Ministry for Women).
The lack of acknowledgement of occupational segregation limited the usefulness of the Equal Pay Act. Occupational segregation often meant female-dominated industries had a far lower range of pay than that of male-dominated industries, even in cases where each occupation involved similar skill or education. Yet, because the type of work was different, the Equal Pay Act could not be used to prevent pay discrimination that occurred from systemic undervaluation.
In 2012, aged care worker Kristine Bartlett brought a legal case which claimed that she suffered pay discrimination — not in relation to male support workers, but that the job as a whole was subject to sex-based undervaluation. In other words: the whole profession was underpaid for the effort and skill the job really required, because caregiving was seen as ‘women’s work’. The Court of Appeal held that the Pay Equality Act meant that equal pay was required for work of equal value rather than just the exact same type of work: pay equity, rather than pay equality (Terranova Homes & Care Ltd v Service and Food Workers Union Nga Ringa Tota Inc, 2014). Pay equity ensures that even if women are confined to particular fields of work, they receive pay appropriate for the skill and effort.
Bartlett’s case was the impetus for the formation of the Joint Working Group on Pay Equity Principles, which created a comprehensive set of principles for resolving pay equity claims. It later resulted in the Equal Pay Amendment Act 2020, which provided a comprehensive process and criteria for resolving such claims. The then-Labour government also established a Pay Equity Taskforce, a group with specialist knowledge in pay equity claims to help parties resolve disputes. Both individual and joint employees, or unions on behalf of employees, could bring a claim against an employer. The process involved determining if the work had been historically undervalued or characterised as women’s work, defined as the workforce being at least sixty per cent female. Since its passing, this legislation has helped over 100,000 women have their pay corrected (Public Service Commission).
However, the National-led government has announced several changes to the pay equity claim process: in 2024, they dismantled the Pay Equity Taskforce. In May 2025, the government raised the criteria for bringing claims from a 60 per cent female workforce to 70 per cent. Alongside this, investigation of claims is restricted to comparing male and female employees at the same employer, and unions raising a claim on behalf of multiple employees must demonstrate how the work was the same or substantially similar. Employers are now also allowed to refuse to engage in multi-employer claims without providing a reason and employees are prevented from re-raising a claim until at least ten years after the first settlement.
These changes will make it significantly harder to raise a claim because they now require far more evidence to substantiate, are therefore more expensive, and have much less chance of success. Furthermore, the requirement for comparators of substantially similar work ignores the fact that the reason so many women are underpaid is because their profession as a whole is seen as involving less skill because it is characterised as women’s work. The Public Service Association noted that these changes would make it “impossible for people in female-dominated professions to be paid fairly.”
Moreover, these changes were passed under urgency, resulting in no public submissions or expert scrutiny, and also mandated that all thirty-three current claims be halted and restarted using this harsher criteria. The government has claimed its actions were to prevent frivolous claims, but there has been no evidence presented that this was ever a significant issue.
Paid work is a huge factor in enabling financial independence and stability. In the long run, the gender pay gap has significant implications for women’s financial wellbeing: for example, men on average have 25% more in KiwiSaver savings than women, with this increasing to 37% more in retirement savings for men compared to women aged 56 to 60 years old. (Te Ara Ahunga Ora Retirement Commission). Thus, women are likely to experience greater financial stress and less financial freedom than men, which reduces their quality of life. Yet, this government now seeks to roll back rather than expand the legislation attempting to close this gap, erasing decades of work by activists and lawmakers and disempowering all groups facing systemic biases in the New Zealand workforce.
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has said that these pay equity changes will save “billions” (Moir, 2025). But at what cost? In the wider context of the Treaty Principles Bill, the Three Strikes Legislation, and Prisoner Voting Amendments, National’s revamp of pay equity policy points to a troubling pattern of eroding the rights of marginalised communities in favour of preserving the privileges of the powerful. To do so under urgency is a betrayal of New Zealanders’ trust and is particularly disappointing considering it has been led by Brooke van Velden and supported by several of her female colleagues, including Nicola Willis and Judith Collins — women who have undoubtedly benefited from this legislation and the advocacy of women before them. It all adds up to one message in flashing neon lights: the Government does not care about us — not about women, and not about any marginalised communities who are disadvantaged daily by systemic discrimination, and nor do they see women as valuable participants in the New Zealand workforce.
Former National MP, Marilyn Waring, has convened a “People’s Select Committee,” of former MPs to scrutinise these changes. But until this government sees women as worthy of appropriate compensation for the work we do, New Zealand women must continue to fight against a system that was not made for them.
References
Cook, M. (2011). Women’s labour organisations – Equal pay, mid-20th century. Te Ara – the Encyclopedia of New Zealand. http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/womens-labour-organisations/page-4
Else A. (2018). Gender inequalities – Paid employment. Te Ara – the Encyclopedia of New Zealand. http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/gender-inequalities/page-4
Manatū Taonga — Ministry for Culture and Heritage. (n.d.). Equal Pay Act passed into law. https://nzhistory.govt.nz/page/equal-pay-act-passed-law
Manatū Wāhine — Ministry for Women. (n.d.). Drivers of the gender pay gap. https://www.women.govt.nz/gender-pay-gaps/gender-pay-gap-toolkit/drivers-gender-pay-gap
Manatū Wāhine — Ministry for Women. (n.d.). Gender pay gaps. https://www.women.govt.nz/gender-pay-gaps
Manatū Wāhine — Ministry for Women. (n.d.). Labour market participation. https://www.women.govt.nz/women-and-work/labour-market-participation
Manatū Wāhine — Ministry for Women. (n.d.). Occupational segregation. https://www.women.govt.nz/women-and-work/occupational-segregation
Manatū Wāhine — Ministry for Women. (n.d.). Pay equity and equal pay. https://www.women.govt.nz/women-and-work/pay-equity-and-equal-pay
Manatū Wāhine — Ministry for Women. (n.d.). Retirement. https://www.women.govt.nz/women-and-work/retirement
Moir, J. (2025, May 6). Pay equity legislation could save ‘billions’ for government – PM. Radio New Zealand. https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/560101/pay-equity-legislation-could-save-billions-for-government-pm
Nolan, M. (1993). Employment. In Anne Else (Ed.), Women together: a history of women’s organisations in New Zealand.
Terranova Homes & Care Ltd v Service and Food Workers Union Nga Ringa Tota Inc [2014] NZCA 516, [2015] 2 NZLR 437.
Te Ara Ahunga Ora — Retirement Commission. (n.d.). Women. https://retirement.govt.nz/policy-and-research/women
Waring, M. (2025, June 12) Why I convened the people’s select committee on pay equity. The Spinoff. https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/12-06-2025/marilyn-waring-why-i-convened-the-peoples-select-committee-on-pay-equity
