Pay Equity Amendment Act 2025
- secbpwnz
- May 19
- 3 min read
On 7 May 2025, Parliament passed the Equal Pay Amendment Act 2025 under urgency,
bypassing the standard select committee process. Concern has been raised by many organisations that in passing this legislation under Urgency this complex issue was not given the scrutiny it requires in order to be fair and equitable.
The changes mean that 33 claims affecting thousands of workers that were under way when legislation was adopted have been stopped, including teachers, social workers, nurses, and healthcare professionals. The majority of these do not meet the new workforce criteria (70% over 10 years), where they did meet the previous 'approximately 60%' employment threshold.
While the bill was supported by the governing coalition, it was met with strong opposition
from all other political parties and trade unions, who condemned the move as a setback in
the ongoing effort to address gender-based pay inequities.
Business and Professional Women New Zealand (BPWNZ) was deeply concerned by the
sudden passage of this legislation and responded immediately with a public statement.
Many organisations across the country continue to oppose this amendment. At BPWNZ, we
remain steadfast in our commitment to achieving pay equity as a fundamental right for all
New Zealanders. We will continue to advocate vigorously for fair and equal pay for work of
equal value.
What is the difference between Equal Pay and Pay Equity?
In New Zealand, equal pay refers to the principle that men and women should receive the
same remuneration for doing the same or substantially similar work. This means that if a
man and a woman are employed in the same role, with the same responsibilities, skills, and
working conditions, they must be paid equally. Equal pay addresses direct wage
discrimination based purely on gender within the same job. The concept is legally supported
by the Equal Pay Act 1972, which prohibits discrimination in pay rates between men and
women performing identical or equivalent jobs.
Pay equity, on the other hand, goes beyond equal pay and aims to address the systemic
undervaluation of work traditionally performed by women. It recognizes that jobs
predominantly held by women, such as caregiving or clerical roles, may be paid less not
because they are inherently less valuable, but because of historical gender biases. Pay
equity involves comparing the value of work in female-dominated occupations with male-
dominated occupations that require similar skills, effort, and responsibility, and ensuring the
pay and opportunities for advancement reflect this value. These comparisons may help identify differences as well as similarities between occupations, and each is meaningful in finding equitable solutions.
The important changes this Amendment enacts include:
An occupation must meet a higher threshold (at least 70% of workforce is female and has been for at least 10years prior to claim is raised) to qualify as 'work that is predominantly performed by female employees' This is important because the thousands of workers impacted by stopping the in-progress claims are largely in occupations where 63-68% women employed.
Employers can give notice to claimants during the assessment phase if they consider the work is not substantially similar, discontinuing the claim This requires claims to effectively have the consent of the employer in order to proceed.
Making it clearer that parties must assess 'market factors' that affect remuneration but are not related to sex-based discrimination.
Does this mean that 'low demand' or 'minimal competition' can be used as a reason to pay an employee less, rather than gender bias? If so, an employer with many applicants to a low-skill level position may be able to avoid industry-wide inequity claims.
Removing the ability for settlements to include a review clause and preventing any subsequent claims for a minimum of 10 years and without new evidence of inequity This means if anything impacts the claim that prevents fully establishing the extent of an undervaluation, there is no opportunity to review or appeal aspects of the claim.
Removing the ability of the Employment Relations Authority to award back pay when fixing remuneration and requiring a 3 yearly instalment 'phasing in' of pay amendments If inequity is proven and a settlement is awarded, it reflects that a group of workers have been undervalued for a long time. This phasing of settlements extends that period of undervaluation for at least 3 years further and doesn't recognise the time and requirements to bring the case to this point.
Requiring comparisons to be made only against similar work or workplaces when evaluating potential inequity. This is a problem when the majority of an occupation are employed by a single employer, such as teachers (Ministry of Education) and nurses (HealthNZ/Te Whatu Ora) have found.