Source: Public Service Association Te Pūkenga Here Tikanga Mahi
A three-day High Court hearing on the Government’s scrapping of pay equity for more than 150,000 New Zealand women has concluded in Wellington, with the Government facing accusations that its defence of last year’s law changes does not withstand scrutiny under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.
The case was brought by the NZ Nurses Organisation, the Public Service Association, Post-Primary Teachers Association, Tertiary Education Union and the NZ Educational Institute. It asks the High Court to declare that the Equal Pay Amendment Act 2025 is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The Human Rights Commission joined the case as an intervener.
“This case goes to the heart of who this Government values and who it doesn’t. For two years women in some of our most essential professions, nurses, midwives, teachers, care and support workers, have been waiting for the justice they were promised, only to have it taken away overnight, without warning, without consultation, and without a single minute of consideration by a Parliamentary select committee,” said Fleur Fitzsimons, National Secretary for the Public Service Association Te Pūkenga Here Tikanga Mahi.
The Crown has told the Court its changes were genuine, good faith law reform intended to make the pay equity system “more robust, workable and sustainable,” and denies any bad faith or discrimination.
Dr Rodney Harrison KC, representing the unions, told the Court the Government’s account does not add up. If the changes were genuinely about building a better system, he said, there was no need to rush the law through under urgency, with no warning to affected women workers, no select committee process, and no regulatory impact statement, in breach of Parliament’s own guidelines for good lawmaking.
The unions’ submissions to the Court describe the changes as “in reality cost cutting, Budgetary window dressing and a deliberate assault on the rights of affected women dressed up as law reform.” The lawyers for the unions described the new regime to the Court as “dystopian” and “Kafkaesque.”
“Dr Harrison put it plainly to the Court: this move was cynical and opportunistic. Pay equity claims were cancelled and the money that had been earmarked for women was simply taken away,” Fitzsimons said.
“You don’t need to hide genuine reform from the people it affects. You don’t need urgency, no warning, and no select committee if you’re confident the public would back what you’re doing. The Government’s own actions tell the real story here, not the explanation its lawyers are now offering the Court.
“Every one of those cancelled claims was a group of women whose work is undervalued because of their sex, they were banned from raising claims or told to start again from scratch under a harder test, designed by the same Government that cancelled them,” Fitzsimons said.
“We’ve told the Court this was never about building a better pay equity system. It was all about finding $12.8 billion in savings, and women workers were left to pay for it.”
A declaration of inconsistency would not itself change the law, but it would trigger a formal process: the declaration must go to a select committee for consideration, which reports back to Parliament with any recommendations. The Government must then respond to that report, and a parliamentary debate must be held within six days of the Government’s response being presented.
Justice Radich told the Court he would deal with the issue expeditiously.
“Whatever the outcome, this case has forced the Government to defend, in open court, a decision it never had to defend to the women affected by it. We look forward to the Court’s decision, and we won’t stop fighting for pay equity until it’s achieved.
“Come the election in November we will certainly be reminding voters that this act was done in bad faith, lacked any evidence-based justification and hard-working women paid a price for the Government’s unprincipled decision,” Fitzsimons said.
ENDS
Background: Equal Pay Amendment Act 2025
The Act discontinued all 33 pay equity claims that were underway when it passed, affecting workforces including Plunket nurses, hospice workers, health care assistants, community midwives, teachers and care and support workers. It also stripped the right to review from pay equity settlements already agreed and imposed a ten year stand down before claims can be raised again.
Previous statements
18 August 2025 Five unions to take Government to court over pay equity
Human Rights Commission intervention a boost for landmark pay equity legal case
The Public Service Association Te Pūkenga Here Tikanga Mahi is Aotearoa New Zealand’s largest trade union, representing and supporting more than 95,000 workers across central government, state-owned enterprises, local councils, health boards and community groups.