𝕍𝕒𝕟 𝕍𝕖𝕝𝕕𝕖𝕟’𝕤 ℝ𝕖𝕗𝕠𝕣𝕞𝕤 ℝ𝕒𝕚𝕤𝕖 ℂ𝕠𝕟𝕔𝕖𝕣𝕟𝕤 𝕆𝕗 ℂ𝕠𝕟𝕗𝕚𝕕𝕖𝕟𝕔𝕖, ℙ𝕦𝕓𝕝𝕚𝕔 𝕆𝕡𝕚𝕟𝕚𝕠𝕟

𝕧𝕒𝕟 𝕍𝕖𝕝𝕕𝕖𝕟’𝕤 𝕡𝕒𝕪 𝕖𝕢𝕦𝕚𝕥𝕪 𝕣𝕖𝕗𝕠𝕣𝕞𝕤 𝕞𝕒𝕪 𝕚𝕟𝕔𝕣𝕖𝕒𝕤𝕖 𝔸ℂℂ 𝕡𝕒𝕪𝕠𝕦𝕥𝕤, 𝕔𝕝𝕒𝕤𝕙𝕚𝕟𝕘 𝕨𝕚𝕥𝕙 ℕ𝕖𝕨 ℤ𝕖𝕒𝕝𝕒𝕟𝕕’𝕤 𝕘𝕖𝕟𝕕𝕖𝕣 𝕖𝕢𝕦𝕚𝕥𝕪 𝕕𝕖𝕔𝕝𝕚𝕟𝕖 𝕒𝕟𝕕 𝕡𝕦𝕓𝕝𝕚𝕔 𝕧𝕒𝕝𝕦𝕖𝕤. 𝔸ℂ𝕋’𝕤 𝕋𝕣𝕖𝕒𝕥𝕪 ℙ𝕣𝕚𝕟𝕔𝕚𝕡𝕝𝕖𝕤 𝕒𝕟𝕕 ℝ𝕖𝕘𝕦𝕝𝕒𝕥𝕠𝕣𝕪 𝕊𝕥𝕒𝕟𝕕𝕒𝕣𝕕𝕤 𝔹𝕚𝕝𝕝𝕤 𝕗𝕒𝕔𝕖 𝕤𝕥𝕣𝕠𝕟𝕘 𝕠𝕡𝕡𝕠𝕤𝕚𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟.

𝗔

CT party minister Brooke van Velden’s pay equity reforms, as New Zealand’s Workplace Relations and Safety Minister, have raised questions about her competence, with the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) warning that scrapping the existing framework could increase payout costs, contradicting her claims of fiscal savings. 

The Pay Equity Amendment Bill 2025 raises the threshold for proving historical undervaluation in female-dominated industries like care/support, nursing and teaching, while canceling ongoing claims. 

Critics, including unions and former National party MP Marilyn Waring, argue this prioritises budget savings over fairness, disproportionately harming women and exacerbating the gender pay gap. 

A 68% disapproval rate in an RNZ-Reid Research poll reflects widespread public discontent, with many New Zealanders calling for consultation, highlighting a disconnect between van Velden’s reforms and public expectations. 

New Zealand’s declining gender equity amplifies these concerns. 

The 2025 Global Gender Gap Report ranks the country 24th, a sharp drop from 4th in 2023, under Jacinda Ardern's Labour government, driven by setbacks in women’s economic participation and political empowerment. 

Van Velden’s reforms are cited as a key factor, stalling progress on systemic pay disparities in female-dominated sectors, further eroding gender equity gains. 

The ACT Party’s broader agenda, including the Treaty Principles Bill and Regulatory Standards Bill (RSB), underscores this misalignment with New Zealanders’ values. 

The Treaty Principles Bill, championed by David Seymour, seeks to redefine Te Tiriti o Waitangi principles to emphasize individual rights over collective Māori rights. 

It faced 88% opposition in over 23,000 submissions, with the Waitangi Tribunal criticising its development for breaching Treaty obligations due to insufficient Māori consultation. 

Critics like Emeritus Professor Jane Kelsey label it a rollback of indigenous rights. 

Similarly, the RSB imposes libertarian principles—prioritising property rights and economic efficiency—while excluding Te Tiriti and public interest goals like health and environmental protection. 

With 88% of submissions opposing it, the bill is seen as favouring corporate interests over collective well-being, clashing with public priorities. 

Van Velden’s pay equity reforms, alongside the Treaty Principles Bill and RSB, reflect ACT’s neoliberal focus on deregulation and individual rights, which conflicts with New Zealanders’ preferences for equity, cultural inclusivity, and Tiriti-based governance. 

The ACC’s cost warnings, combined with overwhelming opposition in polls and submissions, suggest van Velden and ACT are pursuing policies out of step with the country’s priorities. 

The lack of transparent cost-benefit analysis and rushed implementation under urgency fuels doubts about van Velden’s understanding of her reforms’ full impact. 

New Zealanders’ calls for fairness and robust consultation remain largely unaddressed, as ACT’s agenda risks deepening gender and cultural inequities.

𝗢𝗽𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗼𝗻: 𝔅𝔯𝔲𝔠𝔢 𝔄𝔩𝔭𝔦𝔫𝔢

.