This inquiry was undertaken by a group of former Members of Parliament from across the political spectrum. We came together to ensure that the people’s voices could be heard on matters relating to the Equal Pay Amendment Act 2025 because it was passed through Parliament in one sitting, under urgency and without any public consultation.

We set out to do what the Government did not do. The select committee process invites public submissions to allow open and transparent scrutiny of legislation. Select committees deal with these submissions by reading and closely analysing them; and by hearing directly from particular submitters, typically in a public forum.
In that way, a range of views can be gathered, not only on the purpose and effectiveness of the measure under examination, but also on its regulatory and social impacts. Select committees are responsible to the House of Representatives and are therefore inherently political in function. But they are also required to carry out their functions with fairness, integrity and respect for opposing points of view.

Since the House of Representatives did not have the opportunity to refer the Equal Pay Amendment Bill to a select committee, we formed a People’s Select Committee, the first of its kind. The Committee observed, as closely as possible, the rules and procedures of Parliament, but without either Parliamentary privilege or any statutory jurisdiction. It operated under the ordinary laws of New Zealand. All submissions, written and oral, are publicly available.

We are gratified at the public’s response. Most of the evidence provided to us set out the adverse consequences, both immediate and long-term, of passing legislation without adequate consultation. Workers, employers, economists, and members of civil society described the dismay, loss of trust and sense of waste and betrayal that accompanied their realisation that embedded injustice was going to remain a reality of life for large sections of the most vulnerable in our society.

First, the Committee sees this erosion of faith in our central democratic institution as a major aspect of the problem. Second, enabling all members of society to maintain a decent level of economic autonomy, which the Committee regards as a fundamental human right, has undergone a significant assault during the policy preparation and Parliamentary debate that surrounded this legislation. We were dismayed that thirty-three existing claims for pay equity settlements could be arbitrarily stopped in their tracks.

We took the view that these two aspects justified serious attention and, if possible, resolution by way of a substituted process that allowed what our own Parliament, and our elected government, did not. We chose a course of action that mirrored as closely as possible the significant benefits that both the law-makers and the executive could have availed themselves of if they had taken the time and trouble to inquire, themselves, into the consequences of creating a hurried law with retrospective effect.