In a single week, decades of gender pay equity legislation has been rolled back by urgent legislative change. The Equal Pay Amendment Act 2025, passed under urgency by Parliament, marks a major shift in New Zealand’s employment law.
33 Claims Terminated Overnight
The most immediate consequence of the legislation is the abrupt termination of 33 existing pay equity claims. These include long-running cases brought forward by thousands of workers in female-dominated sectors, such as teachers, school librarians, support staff, and occupational therapists. Many had been negotiating claims for years under the previous framework.
The Act stipulates that all ongoing claims are to be discontinued, with unions and employees required to restart the process from scratch if they wish to proceed under the new, more restrictive rules. “This is particularly unusual and draconian in its impact,” employment law firm Dentons noted, adding that many of these workers now face a “legal limbo.”
A Higher Bar for Justice
Key among the reforms is a significant increase in the evidentiary threshold required to file a claim. Under the amended law, at least 70% of workers in a role must be women, and this must have held true for a minimum of 10 consecutive years. In addition, claimants must now provide proof that the work is both historically and currently undervalued due to gender-based discrimination, raising procedural and analytical barriers.
Previously, the law allowed for bargaining and negotiation before requiring extensive proof. Critics argue that the new framework effectively reverses this accessibility. “Claims have been able to progress without strong evidence of undervaluation,” said Workplace Relations Minister Brooke van Velden, defending the changes as a way to ensure claims are “robust” and “sustainable.”
Review Clauses Scrapped
Another significant change is the nullification of pay equity review clauses built into existing settlements. These clauses had guaranteed future reviews to ensure salaries kept pace with equity adjustments. Their removal erases protections many believed to be locked in.
While settled claims can technically be re-raised, they must wait 10 years and still meet the new, stricter criteria. For many, this long delay means a decade of stagnation, particularly for workers in undervalued professions already struggling with low pay.
Legislation Passed Without Public Input
The speed of the law’s passage has also drawn intense criticism. The bill was introduced and passed through all stages under urgency, bypassing the usual select committee process and eliminating opportunities for public submissions.
“[This law change is] not getting the scrutiny it deserves,” Labour leader Chris Hipkins said. “The government aren’t even explaining properly why they are doing it.” Unions and advocacy groups have echoed this sentiment, calling the process undemocratic and harmful.
Government Says It’s About Cost and Fairness
Minister van Velden maintains that the changes are necessary to prevent spiralling costs and ensure fairness in the claims process. The government estimates the cost of existing settlements has reached $1.78 billion annually, with future claims projected to further burden the Crown. “We need to ensure the process is robust,” van Velden stated, citing the example of the teachers’ claim alone involving 94,000 employees.
The minister also criticised the prior system for being too open-ended and reliant on negotiation without adequate safeguards or employer recourse. Employers now have greater ability to opt out of claims, and the Employment Relations Authority is barred from awarding backpay. Any ordered pay increases must be phased in over three years.
Critics Say Equality Is the Cost
Opponents argue that the law sacrifices fairness for fiscal savings. “Taking women’s rights backwards,” said Labour MP Jan Tinetti, summarising what many see as an ideological rollback affecting the most vulnerable, especially Māori and Pacific women in low-paid care and education roles.
Legal experts warn that the retrospective nature of the changes may invite judicial challenges, while advocacy groups are already exploring legal avenues to challenge the legislation or reinitiate claims under the new rules.