Chris Hipkins: Labour leader unveils how the party would reverse the Government's pay equity changes

Labour's leader says he would reverse the Government's pay equity changes - but that doesn't mean going back to how things were before. 

Laws passed under urgency last week halted 33 existing pay equity claims, and increased the threshold for future filings.

Chris Hipkins says he can't be specific about which settings Labour would reinstate if returned to Government next year. 

He explained they don't want to do what National did - and again halt claims that might be 18 months down the track.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
First of all, though it's been a bit of a
day for Jerry Browne, hasn't it. Not only has the
Speaker indicated he thinks the Marty Party punishment is too harsh,
but he also said he should not have allowed Labor
to ask the question that led to Brook van Valden
dropping the sea bomb yesterday. Chris Hopkins is the Labor leader.

Speaker 2 (00:14):
Hey, Chippy, how are you? As Jerry Wright?

Speaker 1 (00:17):
He shouldn't have let it go.

Speaker 2 (00:18):
Yeah, I think he's probably right on both counts. I
think we probably both the question and the answer probably
shouldn't have been allowed. You. I mean, ultimately, I'm all
for robust debate, but probably the column in question sort
of crossed the line in parliamentary gems. I'm not going
to form a judgment in terms of what editorial decisions
newspapers should make, but Parliament does have to set a

(00:41):
standard and hold itself to that standard.

Speaker 1 (00:43):
I mean, come on, Chippy, you don't have to You
don't have to make a call on editorial standards, but
surely you can make a call on whether you think
it's okay to attack women with a gendered slur like that,
Like that's not okay.

Speaker 2 (00:56):
Certainly not language that I would use. But having said that,
the journalist and is a woman with a long history
of feminist advocacy, and I'm not going to tell.

Speaker 1 (01:04):
You what bes women can be women haters too. I mean, okay,
so are you telling me so? Just say this so
that I completely understand exactly what your position is on this.
You think it's okay for senior female cabinet ministers to
be called the sea word.

Speaker 2 (01:19):
That's not what I've said, and I've said it's not
language that I would use. I've just said that I'm
not going to start making newspaper editorial decisions for them.
But I have said us not language that I would use,
And I don't think it should have been used in
the House, and I don't think we should have quote
it from the same article in the House.

Speaker 1 (01:32):
My problem with your position on this is because you
went like over the top defending just Cinda anytime somebody
sneezed something nasty in her direction. So why would you
not defend other women too?

Speaker 2 (01:44):
Well, I will, and you know where I think that
that's appropriate. But in this okay, it's a newspaper editorial decision,
So okay.

Speaker 1 (01:53):
Put it like, Okay, Let's say that I in my
Sunday start, in my Sunday column on the Herald on Sunday,
write something horrendous about one of your MPs and call
them the sea bomb. Do you think that's going to
be okay?

Speaker 2 (02:07):
Look, you're asking me a hypothetical question without seeing what
you're right. No, I'm not going to form a judgment
or something that I.

Speaker 1 (02:13):
Have any The thing is no, of course it wouldn't.
It wouldn't be okay, Nor is this okay? This is
what you said in twenty twenty three. There is no question.
Unfortunately women in leadership positions, women in politics, but women
and other leadership positions are the subject of far more
abuse and vitriol than men. I think we have a
responsibility as men to stand up, to step up and
condemn that and speak out against it.

Speaker 2 (02:32):
That was you, yes, and I stand by that statement.

Speaker 1 (02:35):
Okayle Now, are you going to reverse the changes that
the NATS are the coalition government is doing to the
pay equity legislation.

Speaker 2 (02:43):
I've said yes we will, but let's be clear that
doesn't necessarily mean going back to the law exactly as
it was in starting the clock all over again. So
one of the reasons we can't, Well, one of the
reasons we can't be more specific is I think the
last thing that we want to do is if we
get eighteen months down the track and those women have
started them whole process again, they're further along the process.
I don't want to do to them what the National

(03:03):
Party's just done, which has changed the law, and basically
start the clock all over again.

Speaker 1 (03:07):
No, but you wouldn't have to. You wouldn't have to
start the clock again, would you, Jippy, Because the thing
is you would be more lenient. Therefore they could simply
progress with their claims as they were. You don't have
to stop the claims. You don't have to be you
don't have to be retrospective. You can change it without
being retrospective. Would you do that?

Speaker 2 (03:22):
But that's exactly the point. So yes, But that doesn't
mean a direct reversal of the law change that the
government have made. So basically, I mean, maybe I'm getting
hung up on the technicalities of parliament. We're not directly
repealing the law, but we will put the situation back
that women can claim what they were able to claim previously.

Speaker 1 (03:38):
Okay, so you will take it back to sixty percent
workforce as women.

Speaker 2 (03:42):
That's correct, because why should the secondary school teachers not
be able to claim equity but primary school teachers.

Speaker 1 (03:47):
Care and you would take it back to the setting
where they're able to use the comparators that exist at
the moment.

Speaker 2 (03:53):
That is correct, because actually, if the government doesn't like
the comparators that are being used, it can negotiate different comparatives.

Speaker 1 (03:59):
The librarian comparing themselves to.

Speaker 2 (04:01):
Again, well, but that's not the point, because it.

Speaker 1 (04:07):
Was aviation workers.

Speaker 2 (04:08):
I don't have them all memory would you allow that again?
But job title is not the issue. That the value
of the work is the issue, because otherwise you get
a situation under the current law that the government have
now passed where women will be comparing their jobs to
even less relevant roles. So under the current law, for example,
the only available comparator for someone like an aged care
worker is a gardener. That's the law that the current

(04:31):
the government have just passed.

Speaker 1 (04:32):
Now, that doesn't sound outrageous to me.

Speaker 2 (04:37):
Why is that outrages because you're talking about different levels
of qualification?

Speaker 1 (04:42):
Is what is the qualification required to be an aged
care worker?

Speaker 2 (04:46):
But that's not my judgment to make.

Speaker 1 (04:47):
That's the zero qualification required to be an age care worker,
just like there is zero qualification required to be a gardener.
That seems fair to me.

Speaker 2 (04:55):
The whole point of the pay equity process is you
go through each of the jobs that you want to
compare line by line. You look at the level of
skill required, You look at the level of qualification required,
You look at the working hours, you look at the
working conditions. You look at all of those things to
make sure that you are comparing like with like, even
if the even if the work being done is different.

(05:15):
You make sure you are comparing jobs that are you know,
comparable work of comparable value. And I think that's the
key point here because in some many of these female
dominated professions, there aren't male dominated comparators that look or
sound the same. That's the point.

Speaker 1 (05:31):
Okay, Chippy, thank you, I appreciate your time. It's Chris Hopkins,
Labor Leader.

Speaker 2 (05:34):
For more from Heather Duplessy Allen Drive, listen live to
news talks. It'd be from four pm weekdays, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio.