Another excellent piece! Thank you for providing some clarity. Sadly when the MSM are biased it is hard to find truthful and accurate sources of information.
Thank you :) I have my own biases but I try to make it clear when I am purely sharing opinion. I wasn't sure how interested people would be in this kind of analysis so it is cool to get feedback.
I'm glad you pointed out "The actual law change was not a tax cut for landlords, it was a phased restoration of interest deductibility for residential rental properties, reversing the restrictions introduced in 2021."
Labour MPs know very well it is a lie to describe tax deductibility for interest as a "tax break" but they do it anyway.
Just as Chloe Swarbrick continues to repeat the lie that "the wealthiest pay less than half the effective tax of the average family". That lie emanated from David Parker's underhand investigation into the finances of the rich that included unrealised capital gains as "income". A very nasty piece of manipulation.
Thanks for such a speedy, knowledgeable assessment of the issue esp the comparisons between Labour's words and their actions. The way the media portrays this issue makes me feel like I'm being played. It's feelings over facts - again.
Yes, if they were actually ripping away pay equity laws entirely I would be protesting but I was actually alarmed to learn that we were allowing librarians to be compared to engineers. I have always argued that women are entitled to equal pay for equal work, but that isn't equal work.
That is actually not what pay equity is about . Pay equity is about equal pay for work of equal value. In the olden days the commonly used comparator was between male dominated Police force and female dominated nursing. In those days there was a huge difference between the pay bands between nurses and police. Usually male dominated industries are more highly paid than female dominated industries. Why is this? There is a huge amount of research etc on this point and it has been part of a suite of issues that women have been highlighting and using the legal processes to seek redress for over many years.
I know what pay equity is. The nurse comparison to police was much more appropriate. The problem is that since the law change in 2020 the comparisons have become more ill-fitted. The difference in pay needs to be able to be attributed to work done by women being undervalued not other factors like requiring different qualifications or being more dangerous or difficult. Comparing administrators to civil engineers for example is wildly out of whack.
On talking about librarians please understand they are not just shelving books. Most community librarians are dealing on a daily basis with people with mental health struggles, assisting people with job applications, helping them deal with Work and Income, researching etc etc. What 'male'job would be equitable?
You've now said administrators and engineers but earlier on you mentioned librarians and engineeers. In pay equity principles there is actually nothing that says we cannot compare any role with any other role. The mechanism to compare a librarian with an engineer is relatively simple. Shona Lindsay has given an outline on how this would work. It is an appropriate comparator. People who work in pay equity are skilled in searching for and comparing like with like and can 'unpick' a position description. Using points or percentages the process can throw up those areas that are truly equal. When observing this work in my own workplace I found that the diufferences were very much in the margins. So on site visits in inclement weather involving mud, water or other extremes of weather were much in the minority. yet these situational differences assume a great deal of importance when those unskilled in pay equity, look at jobs. In another of my workplaces I observed a surgeon relying on a specialist medical reaserch librarian to find papers on new surgical methods that he could investigate. It would have been a waste of his time to do this specialist research just as it would have been a waste of her time to attempt keyhole surgery or suturing. Even back then, certainly in the public health system there seemed to be an appreciation of each other's roles. I have no idea of the pay equity between them but I also observed that in workplaces such as this where everyone was aware of the importance of the roles of others to each others work that a sense of fairness was paramount. Often those in the workplaces where the roles are being compared have no problems with comparators. It is on the outside, in both commentaries and people in the street, where I suspect so-called male/female disparities/concept/differences/so-called inherent unsuitability for roles are still held as valid, is where the arguments are occurring.
I'm all for balanced and fully informed kōrero, and leaving divisive and disrespectful name calling to sandpits of people yet to develop the cognition and discipline of mutual open-minded listening.
And my understanding of the multiple rationale of comparing (for example) librarians with fisheries officers along with a number of other employment examples is NOT about comparing similar jobs but a deeper more complex look at training, skill, and responsibility levels involved in a wide number of female and male dominated professions to tease out the nuance of gender disparity. Its unsurprising to me that the teasing out of such differences often reveal lesser training, similar or lesser skill, lower or similar levels of responsibility and higher rates of pay for male dominated industries.
As the new law stands now we are asked to compare like with similarity - careworkers with ... careworkers.... at the very high likelihood of only having comparibly low paying examples to compare with BECAUSE by changing the law to 'like v's similarity' gender disparity is lost.
Disallowing backdated recompense is a huge loss of money for the women involved (whilst politicians give themselves a pay rise to their triple figured salary) and locking out further change for 10 years is a slap in the face to teachers who are chronically underpaid for the work they do.
National ssy this law will make the process quicker and simpler ... yet recent Spinoff article by Hayden Donnell has equity claims lawyer Fiona McMillan struggling to find how this will be operationalised after combing through the new legislation.
Add this to the unecessary haste (unless it IS all about money and budgets) of its passing and it becomes difficult NOT to cast a raised and slightly jaundiced eyebrow at this law.
Comparing professions that requires a minimum of a 4 year degree plus a Masters to go further along with professional work experience seems a valid starting point. A senior librarians earns $89,000 PA whilst a senior civil engineer earns $75,000 to $130,000 PA
I work with engineers, but wonder at how you determine their work isn't equal? transport engineer, the process typically involves a bachelor's degree in engineering (often civil or transportation engineering), followed by professional experience and potentially further postgraduate study. A bachelor's degree usually takes 3-4 years to complete. Postgraduate qualifications like a Master's degree can add another 1-2 years.
To become a qualified librarian in New Zealand, you typically need a 4-year bachelor's degree or a 2-year postgraduate degree in library and information studies. An alternative path is to complete a postgraduate degree in the field after obtaining an undergraduate degree in another subject. Entry-level roles and continuing professional development are also important.
Thank you for taking the time to respond to my piece. I appreciate what you and others are saying in this thread and suspect that many people are thinking about part time students putting away books rather than research or specialist librarians as you describe. I have found this thread super informative in any case. I am looking to write something else on the matter as I want to dig into the problem of practical valuation vs qualification-based valuation. I swear I saw someone somewhere in this thread mention social workers' qualifications - was it you? I can't find the comment now! I was triggered by an ACT social media post that compared social workers to fisheries officers and I want to make sure I am correct before I kick off.
The Wellington parasite class (which includes all the Labour activists running the unions) think that employers have unlimited dollars to deal with this.
Those of us who have to make payroll every week know better. Sometimes you cannot pay yourself because you have to pay others. Sometimes there is no cashflow.
Smart governments make it easy for businesses. The Wellington bubble has no intention to do so, and will not change untilthey government can not get the monies to keep their quite expensive narrative going.
It is a balance, right? Make it easier to do business by removing unnecessary and unfair regulation and costs but hold high standards with anti-discrimination laws.
Equal pay is easy. Equity is very very difficult. If you underpay (a) you won't get employees and (b) ird will question you -- if you don't pay an appropriate salary it can be deemed tax avoidance.
Oh dear Annie - I can feel another avalanche of toxic responses coming your way, this time mostly from women. You are spot on that the narratives are appealing to diametrically opposite positions. The bill's proponents are using logic while its opponents are using emotion. Different parts of the brain (loosely frontal lobe vs amygdala) are involved and never the twain shall meet. If people are enmeshed in the emotion of an issue no appeal to logic will sway them and vice versa. So the "winner" will be which side captures the media, and as is often the case, it will be the emotive response. It makes much better headlines and better clickbait.
The Bill's proponents have to use 'logic' to defend the Bill, and it may have been a defensible Bill had it been put forward properly - although applying changes retrospectively is always dodgy. What they can't defend is the process, so they're not really trying.
Yeah I accept the logic of the Bill and agree with ensuring claims are comparing actual similar work, but I have an issue with urgency being used and retrospective law is very dangerous. In this case, I understand that justification of wanting all claims on the same footing and to speed up the progress of the claims, but it is still a big call.
'Actual similar work' From he language you are using it would seem that you are not clear on the difference between equal pay and pay equity. They are not the same
Interesting that Simon O'Connor also opposed the manner of the change. I was his constituent when he held Tamaki, and although I'm not a right-wing voter, I did respect some of what he did, especially on human rights in China and Iran. We've now ended up with Brooke van Velden, who's lousy at answering constituents' mail. Some of us protested the cutting of money to foodbanks, after she'd featured the Auckland City Missioner in her campaigning, and had to prod her office for replies. Unluckily, if she loses next time (presumably to National), she'll get back on the List, unless ACT's Party votes tanks.
My electorate too. I voted for him and know him well. I don't know Brooke but think she has the potential to be a very good MP and minister, but she doesn't have the same warmth that Simon does when working with constituents.
I also helped elect Brooke into Tamaki (Simon was great but he needed a rest and ACT needed to grow). She’s smart & sensible. But yes, my comms via email & direct questions at a street meeting have not enjoyed much success. I hope she finds time to listen to us more.
Simon lost his seat because the women of his electorate voted against his very public stance on abortion. Brooke needs to be aware that she needs to appeal to her women constituents and she is currently doing very poorly.
Yes, I agree. I also realised that a lot of women weren't aware that he opposed abortion - guess that happens with voters for candidates in apparently safe seats - can lack specific awareness of the candidate's positions. Brooke's support is clearly tanking now, although the election is a long way off.
Take a listen to Michael Laws commentary on this yesterday on The Platform. He correctly points out that the sector who benefit the most from pay equity laws are the public service sector, who earn, on average, $10 more and hour than those in the private sector. And under every single Labour-led govt, the public sector balloons - eg under the last Labour govt this sector grew by 18000. Any sign of that being stripped out by the current lot as promised? Resounding no.
As for an expectation for truthful coverage from the media - lol.
Aww, this is my problem. I can't bear listening to Michael Laws!! He and Plunket are such windbags who love the sounds of their own voices. So no, wouldn't take any notice of anything they said relating to women.
I am perfectly aware of what the previous bill did and what the new one proposes. But that is not the point. The point is the process. What could have happened - and I think started to happen - was that the government looked at amending the Bill. That process could have continued, with the Bill going before parliament and then through the Select Committee stages where it could have been endorsed, contested, and modified. What's happened is that a cynical government with the numbers has rushed the Bill through with minimal notice, simply - and I stress simply - to fix a budget hole. Van Velden's documentation even has her saying she plans on minimal notification. The govt had to do it by tomorrow (Fri) as budget planning shuts off then.
And as for emotion, well, it depends on the cause. Normally I am concerned about the prescription of puberty blockers and suppression of the views of those who don't support them. I notice that Yvonne van Dongen has a substack about that currently. Am I taking any interest? Not now. The X-sphere, after all, still has right-wing people thinking that the big issue as regards the pay equity question is still Chris Hipkins's definition of a woman. A nasty government saving money by targeting women is my cause. I won't change your mind because we give priority to different things when women are at stake .
I agree with you on the use of urgency to push it through. Unfortunately, over the past few terms it has become more common to use it like this and I don't like it. I am a big proponent of public consultation. I am taking a break from X as it seems to be more mad than ever at the moment. I like to think that most feminists are capable of caring about multiple issues facing women at once. I certainly do.
Good post! "Politics is the business of story-telling"—annoyingly true!! In principle, this is not a bad thing if it is supported by ethical conduct. Did I say ethical? Looks like I'm proposing a self-defeating argument.
I don't think narrative can be eliminated from political discourse: it fits well with the short-term political incentives (winning elections, avoiding scrutiny) and works well at the emotional level (it is easier to manipulate), however, we should demand an ethical narrative.
Grouping the two narratives provides a good framework.
At this stage, verifying the truth is secondary to understanding narrative impact. Without undervaluing truth, this topic requires factual analysis, addressing questions like: Is the status quo a valid and affordable process? Will new rules disadvantage any group? Has the current process met its goals?
Defining comparable jobs seems unrealistic. For example, consider two industries—one predominantly male, the other female. The male-dominated industry generates higher returns. Even if jobs in both require similar skills and qualifications, mandating equal pay would place a financial burden on the lower-revenue industry. Is this feasible in the private industry?
I may have a better chance at unifying general relativity and quantum mechanics than coming up with a fair solution to this issue.
"it is a commonly held belief that the Government did give tax cuts to landlords"
It's fact. Landlords received tax cuts/rebates under this Govt. Among other law reversals/changes in their favour.
Sure, it's a bit of a stretch to link this story directly to Landlords, but in essence, that's why the Budget has a big housing market sized hole in it.
Forgive me, please, if I’ve missed something in your thorough & (seemingly at least fairly) even-handed analysis, Ani.
“removing the ability of the Authority to award back pay when it is fixing remuneration”
This seems rather important, if I understand it correctly to mean: “okay, you can have your pay equity going forward, sorry about your luck for the years of discrimination, have a lovely life”
*If* I’m understanding it correctly, this seems to me (admittedly as a 🇨🇦 outsider) to be an irreconcilably serious issue, one that would get me out of my chair in protest supporting the women affected.
But I hope I’m wrong … and again, apologies if I missed something or misunderstood.
I haven’t followed the case law closely but I think the concept of retrospective awards was more hypothetical than practical and part of the incentive on
the parties to a claim to bargain the outcome and not have it determined by the courts.
Spoken like a true leftist coward and an idiot. Let me guess - your pronouns are "they them" you have pink hair and you are an antisemite... Pretty close? Your kit is so easy to spot!
Interesting post, I enjoyed reading! And totally agree that the 'narratives' aren't helpful.
But have you also taken sides in your analysis without saying so?
In your summary you offer 'truth' but leave out the problem that was trying to be solved: women's work is undervalued. Don't you agree that the change to the law will now make it harder for "women's work" to be paid more?
Your use of 'genuine cases' at the end of your post suggests you have an idea of how to make the law work better. What cases are you referring to?
Amazing how they know what a woman is when it suits them.
Haha, funny how they can do that...
Another excellent piece! Thank you for providing some clarity. Sadly when the MSM are biased it is hard to find truthful and accurate sources of information.
Thank you :) I have my own biases but I try to make it clear when I am purely sharing opinion. I wasn't sure how interested people would be in this kind of analysis so it is cool to get feedback.
Keep this kind of analysis up. Rational and ethically based arguments are more likely to progress society than emotive and exaggerated statements.
Good analysis! Thanks, Ani.
I'm glad you pointed out "The actual law change was not a tax cut for landlords, it was a phased restoration of interest deductibility for residential rental properties, reversing the restrictions introduced in 2021."
Labour MPs know very well it is a lie to describe tax deductibility for interest as a "tax break" but they do it anyway.
Just as Chloe Swarbrick continues to repeat the lie that "the wealthiest pay less than half the effective tax of the average family". That lie emanated from David Parker's underhand investigation into the finances of the rich that included unrealised capital gains as "income". A very nasty piece of manipulation.
Very successful piece of manipulation. It is a widely held 'truth' now.
Thanks for actually explaining what the Bill does- I was not able to find any explanation in the MSM.
No problem :) it frustrates me that people can't go to a newspaper for that kind of information. They just get the shouted slogans and drama.
Thanks for such a speedy, knowledgeable assessment of the issue esp the comparisons between Labour's words and their actions. The way the media portrays this issue makes me feel like I'm being played. It's feelings over facts - again.
Yes, if they were actually ripping away pay equity laws entirely I would be protesting but I was actually alarmed to learn that we were allowing librarians to be compared to engineers. I have always argued that women are entitled to equal pay for equal work, but that isn't equal work.
That is actually not what pay equity is about . Pay equity is about equal pay for work of equal value. In the olden days the commonly used comparator was between male dominated Police force and female dominated nursing. In those days there was a huge difference between the pay bands between nurses and police. Usually male dominated industries are more highly paid than female dominated industries. Why is this? There is a huge amount of research etc on this point and it has been part of a suite of issues that women have been highlighting and using the legal processes to seek redress for over many years.
I know what pay equity is. The nurse comparison to police was much more appropriate. The problem is that since the law change in 2020 the comparisons have become more ill-fitted. The difference in pay needs to be able to be attributed to work done by women being undervalued not other factors like requiring different qualifications or being more dangerous or difficult. Comparing administrators to civil engineers for example is wildly out of whack.
On talking about librarians please understand they are not just shelving books. Most community librarians are dealing on a daily basis with people with mental health struggles, assisting people with job applications, helping them deal with Work and Income, researching etc etc. What 'male'job would be equitable?
You've now said administrators and engineers but earlier on you mentioned librarians and engineeers. In pay equity principles there is actually nothing that says we cannot compare any role with any other role. The mechanism to compare a librarian with an engineer is relatively simple. Shona Lindsay has given an outline on how this would work. It is an appropriate comparator. People who work in pay equity are skilled in searching for and comparing like with like and can 'unpick' a position description. Using points or percentages the process can throw up those areas that are truly equal. When observing this work in my own workplace I found that the diufferences were very much in the margins. So on site visits in inclement weather involving mud, water or other extremes of weather were much in the minority. yet these situational differences assume a great deal of importance when those unskilled in pay equity, look at jobs. In another of my workplaces I observed a surgeon relying on a specialist medical reaserch librarian to find papers on new surgical methods that he could investigate. It would have been a waste of his time to do this specialist research just as it would have been a waste of her time to attempt keyhole surgery or suturing. Even back then, certainly in the public health system there seemed to be an appreciation of each other's roles. I have no idea of the pay equity between them but I also observed that in workplaces such as this where everyone was aware of the importance of the roles of others to each others work that a sense of fairness was paramount. Often those in the workplaces where the roles are being compared have no problems with comparators. It is on the outside, in both commentaries and people in the street, where I suspect so-called male/female disparities/concept/differences/so-called inherent unsuitability for roles are still held as valid, is where the arguments are occurring.
I'm all for balanced and fully informed kōrero, and leaving divisive and disrespectful name calling to sandpits of people yet to develop the cognition and discipline of mutual open-minded listening.
And my understanding of the multiple rationale of comparing (for example) librarians with fisheries officers along with a number of other employment examples is NOT about comparing similar jobs but a deeper more complex look at training, skill, and responsibility levels involved in a wide number of female and male dominated professions to tease out the nuance of gender disparity. Its unsurprising to me that the teasing out of such differences often reveal lesser training, similar or lesser skill, lower or similar levels of responsibility and higher rates of pay for male dominated industries.
As the new law stands now we are asked to compare like with similarity - careworkers with ... careworkers.... at the very high likelihood of only having comparibly low paying examples to compare with BECAUSE by changing the law to 'like v's similarity' gender disparity is lost.
Disallowing backdated recompense is a huge loss of money for the women involved (whilst politicians give themselves a pay rise to their triple figured salary) and locking out further change for 10 years is a slap in the face to teachers who are chronically underpaid for the work they do.
National ssy this law will make the process quicker and simpler ... yet recent Spinoff article by Hayden Donnell has equity claims lawyer Fiona McMillan struggling to find how this will be operationalised after combing through the new legislation.
Add this to the unecessary haste (unless it IS all about money and budgets) of its passing and it becomes difficult NOT to cast a raised and slightly jaundiced eyebrow at this law.
Comparing professions that requires a minimum of a 4 year degree plus a Masters to go further along with professional work experience seems a valid starting point. A senior librarians earns $89,000 PA whilst a senior civil engineer earns $75,000 to $130,000 PA
Civil Engineer Salary Range in Auckland Central:
Entry-Level: $90,000 to $110,000 per year.
Experienced: $70,000 to $130,000 per year.
https://www.careers.govt.nz/jobs-database/arts-and-media/culture-heritage/librarian/about-the-job
I work with engineers, but wonder at how you determine their work isn't equal? transport engineer, the process typically involves a bachelor's degree in engineering (often civil or transportation engineering), followed by professional experience and potentially further postgraduate study. A bachelor's degree usually takes 3-4 years to complete. Postgraduate qualifications like a Master's degree can add another 1-2 years.
To become a qualified librarian in New Zealand, you typically need a 4-year bachelor's degree or a 2-year postgraduate degree in library and information studies. An alternative path is to complete a postgraduate degree in the field after obtaining an undergraduate degree in another subject. Entry-level roles and continuing professional development are also important.
Thank you for taking the time to respond to my piece. I appreciate what you and others are saying in this thread and suspect that many people are thinking about part time students putting away books rather than research or specialist librarians as you describe. I have found this thread super informative in any case. I am looking to write something else on the matter as I want to dig into the problem of practical valuation vs qualification-based valuation. I swear I saw someone somewhere in this thread mention social workers' qualifications - was it you? I can't find the comment now! I was triggered by an ACT social media post that compared social workers to fisheries officers and I want to make sure I am correct before I kick off.
I agree with both Shona Lindsay and Alexandra Stewart. Their realsim on what pay equity is all about is valued.
The Wellington parasite class (which includes all the Labour activists running the unions) think that employers have unlimited dollars to deal with this.
Those of us who have to make payroll every week know better. Sometimes you cannot pay yourself because you have to pay others. Sometimes there is no cashflow.
Smart governments make it easy for businesses. The Wellington bubble has no intention to do so, and will not change untilthey government can not get the monies to keep their quite expensive narrative going.
It is a balance, right? Make it easier to do business by removing unnecessary and unfair regulation and costs but hold high standards with anti-discrimination laws.
Equal pay is easy. Equity is very very difficult. If you underpay (a) you won't get employees and (b) ird will question you -- if you don't pay an appropriate salary it can be deemed tax avoidance.
I agree this is a balance.
yes let's get it out of the equation that pay equity means equal pay. It does not. The two concepts are different.
Oh dear Annie - I can feel another avalanche of toxic responses coming your way, this time mostly from women. You are spot on that the narratives are appealing to diametrically opposite positions. The bill's proponents are using logic while its opponents are using emotion. Different parts of the brain (loosely frontal lobe vs amygdala) are involved and never the twain shall meet. If people are enmeshed in the emotion of an issue no appeal to logic will sway them and vice versa. So the "winner" will be which side captures the media, and as is often the case, it will be the emotive response. It makes much better headlines and better clickbait.
So far discussion has been productive on Substack! :)
The Bill's proponents have to use 'logic' to defend the Bill, and it may have been a defensible Bill had it been put forward properly - although applying changes retrospectively is always dodgy. What they can't defend is the process, so they're not really trying.
Yeah I accept the logic of the Bill and agree with ensuring claims are comparing actual similar work, but I have an issue with urgency being used and retrospective law is very dangerous. In this case, I understand that justification of wanting all claims on the same footing and to speed up the progress of the claims, but it is still a big call.
'Actual similar work' From he language you are using it would seem that you are not clear on the difference between equal pay and pay equity. They are not the same
A more balanced perspective than this flurry of headlines (from Bryce Edwards' briefing) offers:
PAY EQUITY, EMPLOYMENT
Janet Wilson (Post): National blows up its support from women with pay equity debacle (paywalled)
Thomas Coughlan (Herald): Under urgency, without basic paperwork, the Govt moves to change workers’ rights (paywalled)
Marc Daalder (Newsroom): National grins and bears it as Act notches wins in Parliament
Richard Harman (Politik): Saving the Budget (paywalled)
Glenn McConnell (Stuff): The equal pay law change has passed. This is who it impacts
Lillian Hanly (RNZ): Labour slams ACT for championing better lawmaking as law changes rushed through
Bridie Witton (Stuff): What is a pay equity claim, and how will it change?
Kelly Dennett (Post): National Party ministers grilled on pay equity changes (paywalled)
Alice Neville (Spinoff): What have the women of the coalition said about pay equity?
RNZ: Pay Equity Amendment Bill passes under urgency
1News: Pay Equity Amendment Bill passes under urgency
Simon O’Connor: The sniff test
John MacDonald (Newstalk ZB): Don't crow about giving women the vote and then do this
Kerre Woodham (Newstalk ZB): This Government has a problem with optics
Mike Hosking (Newstalk ZB): Reform for the Pay Equity Act is good
Greg Presland (The Standard): Lies damned lies and Pay Equity Repeal excuse
Interesting that Simon O'Connor also opposed the manner of the change. I was his constituent when he held Tamaki, and although I'm not a right-wing voter, I did respect some of what he did, especially on human rights in China and Iran. We've now ended up with Brooke van Velden, who's lousy at answering constituents' mail. Some of us protested the cutting of money to foodbanks, after she'd featured the Auckland City Missioner in her campaigning, and had to prod her office for replies. Unluckily, if she loses next time (presumably to National), she'll get back on the List, unless ACT's Party votes tanks.
My electorate too. I voted for him and know him well. I don't know Brooke but think she has the potential to be a very good MP and minister, but she doesn't have the same warmth that Simon does when working with constituents.
I also helped elect Brooke into Tamaki (Simon was great but he needed a rest and ACT needed to grow). She’s smart & sensible. But yes, my comms via email & direct questions at a street meeting have not enjoyed much success. I hope she finds time to listen to us more.
Really, the makings of a very good MP? why do you think many of her parliamentary colleagues have given her the moniker 'BrookeGPT' , certainly not for charisma and political nous. And on the topic of comparing work roles in terms of equity, this is a very good article:https://newsroom.co.nz/2025/05/14/im-a-librarian-and-youre-right-mr-luxon-but-not-for-the-reasons-you-think/
Simon lost his seat because the women of his electorate voted against his very public stance on abortion. Brooke needs to be aware that she needs to appeal to her women constituents and she is currently doing very poorly.
Yes, I agree. I also realised that a lot of women weren't aware that he opposed abortion - guess that happens with voters for candidates in apparently safe seats - can lack specific awareness of the candidate's positions. Brooke's support is clearly tanking now, although the election is a long way off.
Take a listen to Michael Laws commentary on this yesterday on The Platform. He correctly points out that the sector who benefit the most from pay equity laws are the public service sector, who earn, on average, $10 more and hour than those in the private sector. And under every single Labour-led govt, the public sector balloons - eg under the last Labour govt this sector grew by 18000. Any sign of that being stripped out by the current lot as promised? Resounding no.
As for an expectation for truthful coverage from the media - lol.
Aww, this is my problem. I can't bear listening to Michael Laws!! He and Plunket are such windbags who love the sounds of their own voices. So no, wouldn't take any notice of anything they said relating to women.
I am perfectly aware of what the previous bill did and what the new one proposes. But that is not the point. The point is the process. What could have happened - and I think started to happen - was that the government looked at amending the Bill. That process could have continued, with the Bill going before parliament and then through the Select Committee stages where it could have been endorsed, contested, and modified. What's happened is that a cynical government with the numbers has rushed the Bill through with minimal notice, simply - and I stress simply - to fix a budget hole. Van Velden's documentation even has her saying she plans on minimal notification. The govt had to do it by tomorrow (Fri) as budget planning shuts off then.
And as for emotion, well, it depends on the cause. Normally I am concerned about the prescription of puberty blockers and suppression of the views of those who don't support them. I notice that Yvonne van Dongen has a substack about that currently. Am I taking any interest? Not now. The X-sphere, after all, still has right-wing people thinking that the big issue as regards the pay equity question is still Chris Hipkins's definition of a woman. A nasty government saving money by targeting women is my cause. I won't change your mind because we give priority to different things when women are at stake .
I agree with you on the use of urgency to push it through. Unfortunately, over the past few terms it has become more common to use it like this and I don't like it. I am a big proponent of public consultation. I am taking a break from X as it seems to be more mad than ever at the moment. I like to think that most feminists are capable of caring about multiple issues facing women at once. I certainly do.
While we are discussing how possible, or impossible, to compare roles in terms of pay equity this a very good article:https://newsroom.co.nz/2025/05/14/im-a-librarian-and-youre-right-mr-luxon-but-not-for-the-reasons-you-think/
You've framed pay equity as being the same as equal pay. It is not.
Good post! "Politics is the business of story-telling"—annoyingly true!! In principle, this is not a bad thing if it is supported by ethical conduct. Did I say ethical? Looks like I'm proposing a self-defeating argument.
I don't think narrative can be eliminated from political discourse: it fits well with the short-term political incentives (winning elections, avoiding scrutiny) and works well at the emotional level (it is easier to manipulate), however, we should demand an ethical narrative.
Grouping the two narratives provides a good framework.
At this stage, verifying the truth is secondary to understanding narrative impact. Without undervaluing truth, this topic requires factual analysis, addressing questions like: Is the status quo a valid and affordable process? Will new rules disadvantage any group? Has the current process met its goals?
Defining comparable jobs seems unrealistic. For example, consider two industries—one predominantly male, the other female. The male-dominated industry generates higher returns. Even if jobs in both require similar skills and qualifications, mandating equal pay would place a financial burden on the lower-revenue industry. Is this feasible in the private industry?
I may have a better chance at unifying general relativity and quantum mechanics than coming up with a fair solution to this issue.
Read this, good analysis here: https://newsroom.co.nz/2025/05/14/im-a-librarian-and-youre-right-mr-luxon-but-not-for-the-reasons-you-think/
"it is a commonly held belief that the Government did give tax cuts to landlords"
It's fact. Landlords received tax cuts/rebates under this Govt. Among other law reversals/changes in their favour.
Sure, it's a bit of a stretch to link this story directly to Landlords, but in essence, that's why the Budget has a big housing market sized hole in it.
Which part isn't fact, and is misbelief?
Forgive me, please, if I’ve missed something in your thorough & (seemingly at least fairly) even-handed analysis, Ani.
“removing the ability of the Authority to award back pay when it is fixing remuneration”
This seems rather important, if I understand it correctly to mean: “okay, you can have your pay equity going forward, sorry about your luck for the years of discrimination, have a lovely life”
*If* I’m understanding it correctly, this seems to me (admittedly as a 🇨🇦 outsider) to be an irreconcilably serious issue, one that would get me out of my chair in protest supporting the women affected.
But I hope I’m wrong … and again, apologies if I missed something or misunderstood.
I haven’t followed the case law closely but I think the concept of retrospective awards was more hypothetical than practical and part of the incentive on
the parties to a claim to bargain the outcome and not have it determined by the courts.
of course a national party hack would defend the government fucking women over, despite claiming to be a feminist lmao.
How novel, a man aggressively telling a woman she is wrong. I am quite content to not be the kind of feminist you support, William.
that's because you're not a feminist at all, ani. you're just a cunt.
Spoken like a true leftist coward and an idiot. Let me guess - your pronouns are "they them" you have pink hair and you are an antisemite... Pretty close? Your kit is so easy to spot!
I am right that you are a sick animal. I am sure of that. Karma will get you you sick man with a really small dick.
why are you thinking about my dick? why are you weird fascists constantly obsessed with everybody, especially kid's genitals?
I was wondering the same thing
Interesting post, I enjoyed reading! And totally agree that the 'narratives' aren't helpful.
But have you also taken sides in your analysis without saying so?
In your summary you offer 'truth' but leave out the problem that was trying to be solved: women's work is undervalued. Don't you agree that the change to the law will now make it harder for "women's work" to be paid more?
Your use of 'genuine cases' at the end of your post suggests you have an idea of how to make the law work better. What cases are you referring to?
Best wishes!