Pay equity, the provision of equal pay for equal work, is a human rights issue. Pay equity claims allow women to bring a claim against their employer for increased wages and better working conditions. Such claims are on the basis that their work has been undervalued because of its gendered nature and a close assessment of the skill level, effort, risk, and responsibility shows that a comparator male profession is paid more or has better working conditions. The provision of pay equity upholds several fundamental human rights such as the right to be free from discrimination. It also serves to uphold social and economic rights such as the right to a decent standard of living. Pay inequality has the biggest impacts on older women, non-pakeha women, and disabled women which engages further human rights concerns and brings into the frame other human rights instruments such as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

It is against this backdrop that in early May 2025 the Aotearoa New Zealand government announced it would pass under ‘urgency’ significant changes to its pay equality legislation.

Much has already been said about these changes and some of that commentary has engaged with human rights concerns. For example, the New Zealand Human Rights Commission is alarmed that human rights implications were not disclosed or examined and appear to be regarded as insignificant. As other headlines supersede pay equity, it is essential that these human rights implications are not forgotten. Instead, with the benefit of more time, academics, practitioners, and advocacy groups can further their analysis.

Passing the changes under urgency means that the bill will pass through all three stages of the legislative process in one sitting. This means the bill will skip the select committee process during which public and expert input is sought. Current pay equity claims by women against their employers will be annulled and the main changes proposed by the bill include increasing several of the thresholds required for successfully lodging and establishing a claim. During parliamentary debate, the Prime Minister cited both the desire to make the regime “more robust, workable and sustainable” and budgetary costs as motivating the government’s decision.

The progression and settlement of pay equity claims has significant impacts for the individual claimants resulting in significant improvements both in pay and working conditions, as described by the Public Service Association Union in response to the changes. In addition, these claims have much broader impacts. Pay equity settlements can draw attention to the ways in which gender stereotypes contribute to the devaluation of certain kinds of work and can serve to correct narratives about those gender stereotypes. Although improved economic indicators should not be the basis for respecting or advancing human rights norms, studies in Europe have shown that addressing the gender pay gap and implementing pay equity would make substantial positive contributions to GDP (see e.g. here and here).

In their leading study into the use of urgency, Geiringer, Higbee, and McLeay, building on a list designed by the House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution, developed 10 criteria of good lawmaking. In situations where laws are passed under urgency, these principles are much harder to satisfy. Geiringer, Higbee, and McLeay  warn that “bills  that  escape  the usual  scrutiny  and  debate  run  the  risk of  infringing  the  democratic  values outlined”.  In particular, the select committee process is particularly crucial in a unicameral parliament to upholding these principles.

These concerns are particularly pronounced when legislation being passed under urgency infringes upon or implicates human rights. As  Geiringer, Higbee, and McLeay explain, the more a law affects rights, the more due process, time, and careful consideration it should be accorded. Conceptualising pay equity and associated claims processes for achieving it as a human rights issue may shape what legislative process is deemed as reasonable for restricting or reshaping such processes. I have written elsewhere (in the New Zealand Journal of Public and International law), using Covid-19 as a case study, about mechanisms that can be implemented to uphold these principles of good lawmaking even when using urgency, therefore diminishing the risk of infringing on democratic values.

These implications are not simply theoretical frameworks that make interesting analysis for academics—the impacts of an expedited process on the ability to engage in advocacy work that may improve the legislation or increase its legitimacy within the citizenry have already been reported on in mainstream media outlets. Pay equity advocates such as 2018 New Zealander of the year, Kristine Bartlett, whose landmark case paved the way for pay equity in New Zealand, noted that the lack of a select committee process made it difficult to conduct any advocacy work on the matter.

As discussion of pay equity moves into its next phase, emphasising the human rights framing can help to understand and properly assess the nature of this expedited legal process and the way in which it implicates human rights both in substance and in form.