Teanau Tuiono. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone

The Green Party said it is another example of the lack of consultation over the changes, with thousands of workers blindsided by the government.

But the government maintains it made the changes to deliver clarity and certainty to workers, and the changes will improve the design and overall process for raising and resolving claims.

Thirty-three unsettled claims were halted by the changes passed through Parliament last month, and will need to start again under the new threshholds, due to the legislation applying retrospectively.

Review clauses under existing settled claims have also become unenforceable.

Affected workers and the wider public were not consulted on the changes ahead of their announcement, there was no Regulatory Impact Statement for the bill, and with the legislation going through under urgency there was no opportunity for a select committee process.

Through written questions, the Greens’ workplace relations and safety spokesperson Teanau Tuiono asked ministers what advice they received prior to the introduction of the legislation, about specific claims under their portfolio coverage.

Tuiono sent the questions to:

• Simeon Brown (health)
• Karen Chhour (prevention of family and sexual violence, children)
• Judith Collins (public service)
• Matt Doocey (mental health, associate health)
• Nicola Grigg (women)
• Mark Mitchell (corrections)
• Tama Potaka (Māori development, Whānau Ora, Māori Crown relations)
• Shane Reti (universities)
• David Seymour (associate education, associate health)
• Penny Simmonds (vocational education)
• Erica Stanford (education)
• Louise Upston (disability issues, child poverty reduction, community and voluntary sector)
• Brooke van Velden (workplace relations and safety)
• Simon Watts (local government)

Brown, Collins, Doocey, and Upston told Tuiono that advice they receive is available on their relevant ministry’s or agency’s website, but they did not refer to pay equity at all in their responses.

Seymour said in his capacity as an associate minister, he had not received advice, but as a Cabinet minister participated in Cabinet discussions on pay equity.

Chhour, Mitchell, Potaka, Reti, Simmonds, Stanford, and Watts confirmed they had not received advice related to specific claims.

Grigg told Tuiono the changes “do not halt claims,” and claims can still be raised “in a manner that is more robust, more sustainable, and more workable to address sex-based discrimination in the workplace.”

She said she was involved in conversations about the legislation, including policy discussions, and consultation on the Cabinet paper where advice was provided by officials.

Stanford’s response said the advice she received was regarding policy changes to address historical sex-based discrimination for women overall, and was “not limited” to particular sectors or claims.

“This government is committed to addressing sex-based discrimination in the workplace,” she wrote.

Tuiono said the ministers’ responses showed the government had not shown any thought towards the impact the changes would have on the thousands of workers going through a claim.

“I thought there would at least be some sort of analysis being done by each of those ministers to determine ‘this impacts workers within my portfolio area, what does that actually mean?’ But none of that has been done, they’ve just discarded people’s roles and jobs and treated them with the utmost disrespect,” he said.

“Where was the thought? Where was the care of thought for the impact on these people as well? Why was there no analysis done on what the ongoing impacts would be?”

The Public Service Association’s national secretary Fleur Fitzsimons said it showed arrogance in developing the changes.

“This government promised evidence-based policy, but is not even interested in seeking the views of their own agencies when coming after pay equity,” she said.

Fitzsimons said it was ironic, given the ACT Party’s principles around regulatory standards.

“It is hypocritical from the ACT Party to introduce a Regulatory Standards Bill which includes elements of consultation better than they’ve done when it comes to New Zealand women and pay equity.”

Since making the announcement last month, the government has defended the lack of consultation, and has been at pains to stress the changes do not get rid of equal pay or pay parity.

On Sunday, the Prime Minister again defended the approach.

“We moved very quickly, under urgency. We could have done it a different way… and put a lot of people and claimants into limbo for some time. We didn’t think that was fair,” Christopher Luxon said.

“We think we need one system, not two systems… you can argue if you’ve got a different view on that, but we made a decision that we wanted clarity and we wanted certainty, and that’s why we did it the way we did it.”

Van Velden, the minister who introduced the legislation, told RNZ the changes were not in response to any particular sector or claim that was underway.

Brooke van Velden. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone

“This is a policy that I said at the start of my term I was interested in pursuing. It became really clear this year that my Cabinet colleagues wanted me to work on this as quickly as I could. I am a team player and so I did my job,” she said.

“The ACT Party would love strong regulatory standards that is core to who we are as a party, but I was asked by my Cabinet colleagues to do this and I did it for the government.”

In her responses to Tuiono, van Velden gave him a list of the formal advice she had received on pay equity from February to April, including reports from Treasury, the Public Service Commission, and the Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment.

They included papers on possible legislative approaches and key questions, as well as the Cabinet papers.

She also confirmed neither she nor her office had communicated with any employer parties or their representatives regarding the changes, and no lobbyists or consultants were consulted.

But she said officials did consult other officials in the public service in the development of the changes, including some in their capacity as employers, referring to a Reviewing Policy Settings Cabinet paper.

The paper was developed by the Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment, the Treasury, and the Public Service Commission.

The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and the Crown Law Office were consulted on the paper, while the Ministry of Education and Health New Zealand were consulted on the proposals.

The paper also explained why van Velden did not make any announcements on the changes until the bill was introduced, saying she was “cognisant” of the risk announcing the changes before the bill could prompt pay equity claims being filed and potentially determined by the Employment Relations Authority under the then-existing Act. RNZ