James Ross: Taxpayers Union Policy and Public Affairs Manager on the government's use of urgency for the pay equity law

The Government is being criticised for their use of urgency to pass legislation.  

A law to lift the threshold for gender-discrimination pay equity claims and extinguish claims under way is likely to pass today, after only being announced yesterday.   

The Government's said it could save the taxpayer billions of dollars. 

Taxpayers Union Policy and Public Affairs Manager James Ross told Kerre Woodham that urgency has a place, but it should be an emergency button as opposed to something in the government’s standard toolbox. 

He believes the reason urgency is being used in this case is because they don’t want this in the media for too long, as it’s a difficult conversation to be having. 

LISTEN ABOVE 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:06):
You're listening to the Carrywood and Morning's podcast from News
Talks hed B.

Speaker 2 (00:11):
As we've been discussing, the government has introduced legislation lifting
the threshold for pay equity claims of gender discrimination. It's
being dealt with underurgency and is expected of its third
reading this morning. Whether you agree with it or not,
I think the optics are terrible. How can you champion
something from twenty sixteen when you're in government, continue to

(00:32):
champion it when you're in opposition, try to take credit
for it when it's passed under urgency back in twenty twenty,
then scrap it a few years later. Taxpayer's Union Policy
and Public Affairs manager James Ross joins me. Now, very
good morning to you.

Speaker 3 (00:47):
Morning Gerry. Thanks for having me on.

Speaker 2 (00:49):
Oh no, thank you. Is this what happens when you
do pass something under urgency, as happened in twenty twenty,
you find it's unsustainable and unworkable because you rushed the
jaw back then.

Speaker 3 (01:02):
Yeah, Look, this is something that Takespair's Union has been
calling out for a very very very long time, the
sort of urgency ping pong that you see between governments.
The facts of the matter are that urgency has a place,
but it should be that sort of break glass in
case of emergency button and not just something in the
government's standard toolbox. This government's used urgency more than any
other since at least nineteen eighty seven. The facts of

(01:23):
the matter are that when you cut the public out
decision making, you end up with worse policy. And this
is the sort of scenario you end up with.

Speaker 2 (01:30):
I can remember, you know, hearing stories from my colleagues
and the press gallery back in nineteen eighty four when
Labor was passing legislations so rapidly that the ink wasn't
dry on the paper that the MPs were trying to read.
You know, it was. It was that quick and that rapid,
and that sort of trumpion as it looks now. But

(01:52):
I would have thought that urgency was needed, like you know,
the longer government said it was because we were nearly bankrupt.
But I would have thought it was for precisely that bankruptcy,
COVID war, that sort of thing, not for day to
day workplace legislation.

Speaker 3 (02:10):
Yeah, exactly. You know, you'll bang on the money on that.
And I think, if we're being honest, the reason why
urgency is being used in this case is because the
government don't want this in the media for too long,
because it's a difficult conversation to be having, and I
think they'd rather go away quickly. I don't think that's
a good enough reason to to give the Select Committee
process entirely. It's some democratic it's one hundred percent undemocratic exactly.

Speaker 2 (02:34):
And I mean I actually agree with what Brooke ben
Walden is saying, raise the threshold, bring it higher when
it comes to pay parity, because it's very, very difficult,
I think, to compare occupations. But but it just gives
the critics of the government so much ammunition.

Speaker 3 (02:54):
Well, I think you'll bang on the money there again.
I think this is a conversation that needs to happen.
You know, when you've got completely separate roles like you know,
librarians and engineers or you know, corrections officer, and that
work is being compared like for like, it's clear that
these these aren't necessarily reflective of well like these sort
of value judgments basically have been made by the Employment

(03:17):
Relations Commission on the back of an envelope and it's
costing a lot of money. It's a conversation that needs
to be had. The problem is when you rush things
through like this under urgency, it makes it a hell
of a lot easier for labor when they get back
in to say, no, sorry, that was a bad policy.
It was rushed, We're going to undo that probably under urgency.

Speaker 2 (03:34):
That's just good. So how on earth could you justify
pushing it through under urgency under labour back in twenty twenty,
I mean these were COVID times. How on earth could
you justify employment relations legislation going through under urgency under labor?

Speaker 3 (03:50):
Well, look exactly, I mean these were you know, it
was a reform that was made with the best of intentions.
But this is exactly what happens when you rush policy
through like this. You end up with labor checking in
a sort of policy hand grenade that has, according to
the government's own numbers, setting us up, four billions of
dollars in costs a yeah, which frankly, the country just

(04:11):
can't afford. We've got the worst primary budget deficit in
the developed world. We need to have these conversations now,
and frankly, I think that's in part why the government's
pushing this under urgency now, is because they need to
have it settled before the budget, but frankly stop the
process earlier. I don't think that's a good enough excuse.

Speaker 2 (04:27):
I don't think it's a good enough excuse either. And
it's not as though it's a three Waters labor initiative
that Labour came up with that only Labor wanted to
see pushed through. This was something that National championed in
twenty sixteen and championed it all the way through the
first Labor New Zealand, first coalition government. So how can

(04:49):
they suddenly then turn around and say it's unsustainable. What
value for money are we getting for MPs if they
stuffed it up the first time?

Speaker 3 (04:57):
No, you're bang on the money. I mean, is it
is unsustainable? It needs to be fixed. Why are we
rushing through again. Why don't we spend some time and
make sure we actually get it right this time so
we don't have to come back to it every second
or third year.

Speaker 2 (05:11):
Yeah, it's just it's just, you know, what I believe
to be the right the right thing to do, looks
so so wrong because of the urgency and because of
this undemocratic process. I mean, you know, the National, this government,
coalition government can say, oh they've been doing it all day.
Ref you know, they've been doing it. They labor did

(05:32):
it all the time when they were in power. But
that's not a good enough excuse.

Speaker 3 (05:36):
No exactly, And I think it's a big part of
the issue here. I mean, you know, look at the
newspapers today and you're going to have the public sector
unions kicking up a stink until this is put to bed.
That's what the government's trying to avoid. But I think
at some point the government just needs to front top
and say no, sorry, unions, you're wrong. This is why
we're making this change, and hold their head high on
it and bring the public along with them.

Speaker 2 (05:57):
Yeah. I really don't think they're going to do it.
I'm already getting this sort of the sort of comments
on the text mesh that I imagined I would get
that they're basically robbing from the most poorly paid to
look after their rich mates. And that's the kind of
reductive argument you get when you present something like this.

Speaker 3 (06:19):
Yeah exactly. You know, if they had had a I
wouldn't say drawn out, but if they'd have had a
proper length, deliberative process, but they could, you know, explain
to the public why this isn't actually working as a
policy and why it isn't delivering, you know, a fix
to the gender pay gap. They might put the issue
to bed and they might finally beat the unions on

(06:40):
this one, but the facts of the matter are they're
just giving more ammunition so the people who are just
just trying to drive those public sector wages up further
and further. And that's why we've seen, as was reported
on in the news today that you know, ten percent
public sector wage premium over the private sector the government.
If the government wants to tackle them, then frankly they
need to take on the unions much more openly on
this one.

Speaker 2 (07:01):
Absolutely. Thank you so much, James. James Ross, Policy and
Public Fears manager with the Time Expose Union.

Speaker 1 (07:07):
For more from Kerry Wood and Mornings, listen live to
News Talks a B from nine am weekdays, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio.