web analytics

Louisa Wall – This Is Not Feminism – It’s Fiscal Evasion Dressed in Lipstick

Written By: - Date published: 8:59 am, May 15th, 2025 - 24 comments
Categories: feminism, national, nicola willis, same old national, Social issues, wages, workers' rights - Tags:

Reprinted with permission

It’s not often I find myself needing to respond to a sitting Minister of Finance. But when Nicola Willis dismisses decades of feminist struggle for gender pay equity as “a grievance industry” and calls a journalist’s pointed social commentary “sexist slurs,” it becomes clear we’re not dealing with a reasoned policy debate. We’re witnessing a deliberate, ideologically motivated reframing of fairness as fiscal burden—and that’s something I cannot stay silent about.

Let’s begin with the facts. The current Government has halted progress on 33 pay equity claims—claims by workers in feminised professions such as teaching, nursing, social work, and midwifery—roles historically undervalued not because of skill or market demand, but because they have been performed predominantly by women. These women are not asking for a handout; they are demanding what they are owed based on the principle of equal pay for work of equal value. That’s not grievance politics. That’s justice.

Nicola Willis wants us to believe she’s rescuing us from an unsustainable fiscal trajectory. But let’s be honest: it’s not that the government can’t afford to honour these claims—it’s that it won’t. Because this Government has already made its fiscal priorities clear: billions in tax cuts for landlords and property speculators, and now billions “saved” by sidelining caregivers and educators. It’s not budgeting; it’s balancing on the backs of women.

The real audacity lies in pretending this rollback is feminist. That somehow, because the Ministers wielding the axe are women, we should be comforted. But representation without responsibility is no victory. This is not feminism; this is patriarchy in drag—economic disempowerment wearing the mask of inclusion.

Feminism isn’t just about having women in power. It’s about what they do with that power. It’s about recognising, as the OECD and World Bank have long affirmed, that closing the gender pay gap boosts productivity, GDP, and the well-being of entire communities. Investing in women’s work is not a liability—it’s a long-term economic and social asset.

What the Finance Minister has done is not fix a “broken system.” She’s raised the evidentiary bar so high that future claims may never succeed. She’s denied thousands of women their rightful recognition under the guise of “reprioritisation.” And she’s done so with zero consultation, minimal transparency, and constitutional sleight-of-hand.

Let’s not forget: the 2017 landmark equal pay settlement for care and support workers was a bipartisan achievement. It was grounded in the Kristine Bartlett case and implemented under a National government—but it was made possible by sustained union advocacy, legal precedent, and a Parliament united in principle.

We could have built on that foundation. Instead, this Government has chosen to rip up the floorboards, delay justice, and rewrite the rules mid-game. Women in undervalued work aren’t stupid. They see what’s happening: their pay equity journey has been reset to zero—again.

And to those who would accuse critics of “weaponising gender,” let’s be crystal clear: calling out betrayal is not gendered. It is accountability. It is the same moral clarity that drove our mothers and grandmothers to fight for the Equal Pay Act in 1972, that kept Kristine Bartlett standing firm, and that will keep our generation of feminists pushing back when economic injustice is dressed up as responsible governance.

Pay equity is not a fiscal inconvenience. It is a constitutional and human rights imperative.

As feminist economist Marilyn Waring has long argued, when women’s unpaid and underpaid labour is rendered invisible in national accounts, we are not merely undervalued—we are erased. Her seminal work, If Women Counted, reminds us that this is not fiscal prudence. It is economic erasure: calculated, deliberate, and devastating. And no amount of lipstick on the ledger can disguise the truth—a government that refuses to value women’s work is unfit to lead a just and equal Aotearoa.

Louisa Wall

24 comments on “Louisa Wall – This Is Not Feminism – It’s Fiscal Evasion Dressed in Lipstick ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. SPC 1
    15 May 2025 at 9:20 am

    The balance being practised is the same as that of the Ruth Richardson era.

    Slashing of benefits and market rents in state housing for affordability reasons and then treating their class with the elimination of the estate tax.

    Class warfare. It is enough to convince some that patriarchy and the class system were in lockstep and undervaluing the role of women (in unpaid and paid work) was part of that.

    https://thestandard.org.nz/its-time-to-fight/#comment-2033213

    Our government was elected in 2023 despite 55% of women not supporting them.

    They know this.

    Luxon and his boys and those women who serve them and their agenda do so as gated community (private schools and health insurance) class above and apart from the rest of society.

    They intent to establish their neo-liberal regime in place for some and not for all and they will lie about it to achieve this.

    This is a time when the right wing being more obvious about their agenda is somehow a sign of alpha male dominance – the ones who are sorted being in charge. The age of obnoxious broligarchy.

    They do not govern for the majority of men either, but sort of insinuate that men who oppose them are the ones not winners, to “emasculate” resistance as that of the weak of society. Thus males are herded along to vote with them, as per the USA, where so called real American men vote GOP, a party that largely could not care less about them.

  2. Anne 2
    15 May 2025 at 10:22 am

    Three cheers for Louisa Wall. A brilliant summation. She is the new Kate Shepherd.

    Referring to the 2017 Equal Pay Settlement she says:

    We could have built on that foundation. Instead, this Government has chosen to rip up the floorboards, delay justice, and rewrite the rules mid-game. Women in undervalued work aren’t stupid. They see what’s happening: their pay equity journey has been reset to zero—again.

    These right-wing women politicians are sociopaths. They come from privileged backgrounds – most of them private school educated and have been schooled into believing they are better and cleverer than the rest of us. The reality is quite the opposite. Most are ignorant, self serving 'grande-dames' whose abilities are surprisingly meagre after you strip away the layers of pretension and superciliousness. Judith Collins is a prime example.

    I hope Wall's contribution to the debate receives widespread coverage.

    • Kat 2.1
      15 May 2025 at 2:27 pm

      "I hope Wall's contribution to the debate receives widespread coverage…."

      It will be interesting how the voters view whats going down….the "sociopaths" are cleverly but obviously spinning the outrage card to deflect from the real effects of the pay equity issue as Louisa Wall outlined in her piece.

      If we once thought class warfare was unpalatable we now clearly have to contend with gender and racist warfare to the political discourse in parliament……and of course the media……

  3. Patrick Craddock 3
    15 May 2025 at 10:51 am

    Such a clear summary. Assume I have added an invective, not against the women, but against a system that is so cruel, and justifies itself, as is said in Papua New Guinea with Mauswara – mouthwater. Words that mean nothing.

  4. KJT 4
    15 May 2025 at 11:36 am

    Everyone who works as a Teacher, knows that the main reason it is underpaid, both men and women, is because it is considered "women's work".

    • Dan 4.1
      15 May 2025 at 12:18 pm

      If we can get equal numbers of male and female teachers, would that alleviate some of the concerns around pay equity – bearing in mind that until the 80s (I think) secondary teachers were majority male?.

      • lprent 4.1.1
        15 May 2025 at 2:26 pm

        If we can get equal numbers of male and female teachers …. until the 80s (I think) secondary teachers were majority male?.

        I have selectively quoted this so I can point out your embedded presumption.

        You were replying to a comment that started with "Everyone who works as a Teacher, …". Nothing there about secondary schools.

        The majority of teachers then and now were female.

        The reason was of course because the total number of teachers then and now were female because they were and still are (by far) the majority in pre-school and primary education. That the secondary schools may have increased the number of woman teachers, doesn't mean that has happened in pre-school or primary.

        It doesn't take a genius to figure that out.

        If you want to make a reply that doesn't respond to the content of the comment that you are responding to, then you're either stupid, lazy, or trying for diversion. These are all characteristics of a dip shit troll. But I'd go for the diversion by presumption because it is a well-worn and obvious troll path.

        There is low toleration on this site for diversion trolling as it destroys robust debate. I'd suggest that you raise your standard rapidly – see policy

  5. gsays 5
    15 May 2025 at 12:29 pm

    I thought the nurses pay equity had been settled.

    I assume when nurses are mentioned it's those that work in the private sector seeking pay parity with those in the hospital setting.

    None of which is to defend van Velden’s actions.
    We do need a better narrative to negate the comparison of rest home workers with air traffic controllers etc.

  6. Ad 6
    15 May 2025 at 3:42 pm

    Very cold to see Chris Hipkins apologise for Jan Tinetti's Parliamentary question.

    It's a slow-mo placement of your colleague under a rolling bus.

    • SPC 6.1
      15 May 2025 at 4:20 pm

      The art of practising misogyny and accusing women who criticise this of being misogynist.

      By taking offence at their being offended and saying so, with all the credibility of the faux outrage shown by the Fox News talk show host.

      This is of a design to convince the right wing crowd as to when it is appropriate for them to play the offence card – then it is not being PC, but a tactic to silence those who are PC.

      By claiming some moral offence.

      The prissy defence when acting with contempt to the rights of fellow women.

      The art of being a Tory, when acting like a libertarian against collective rights.

      If Hipkins allows tactic to work, then it will be used again and again.

      They tried it with the Treaty Principles bill and they will with the the Regulatory Standards Bill.

      Principles, standards and taking offence, the libertarians are mastering the art of the Tory – so the rentier capitalism that they serve can lord it over the society.

    • tc 6.2
      15 May 2025 at 4:39 pm

      Very sad but predictable from Chipkins.

    • Mac1 6.3
      15 May 2025 at 5:28 pm

      What did Hipkins say, and in response to what question? Where was it said , and when?

        • Mac1 6.3.1.1
          15 May 2025 at 6:08 pm

          https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360605837/live-politics-blog?lid=wy0mbnybw19s&utm_source=newsletters&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=two_minutes_of_stuff

          "Labour contributed to 'distraction' with question about column, Hipkins concedes

          Opposition leader Chris Hipkins regrets his MP, Jan Tinetti, quoting from a newspaper column which used the C-word to describe the behaviour of ministers involved in the changes to the pay equity law.

          Tinetti did not repeat the slur, but Workplace Relations Minister Brooke van Velden used the expletive in her response to Tinetti. Van Velden has said she was showing a "mirror" to Labour and said the media has not reported on the abuse faced by women MPs on the political right.

          Hipkins suggested it was wrong to repeat anything from the column, published in the Sunday Star Times over the weekend, because it added to the distractions surrounding the issue, rather than the substance of the issue itself.

          "In so far as our quoting from a rather controversial comment yesterday meant that the Labor Party was contributing to the distractions around that, I think we will own that," he said.

          "I'll leave it up to the newspaper itself to defend the particular problem I think us quoting from it contributed to the distraction that took the issue away from where it needs to be which is the plight of low paid women who need to be paid fairly."

          He said: "I think we made a mistake there and added the public might feel "despondent" about the ways MPs conducted themselves over the past 24 hours."

          Hipkins regrets the distraction. A long way from throwing people under a bus. A question of tactics and timing…… nothing to do with the actual issue of low paid women.

          What Chris Hipkins is referring to, as I thought myself on TV at the time when I saw the pre-planned and Clerk of the House vetted use of the 'c' word in an attack from Brook Van Velden, is a distraction technique used by the ACT minister away from the issue of pay for women to a less important one of parliamentary language.

          I am getting the feeling that some of what this Coalition government is doing is distraction away from some deeply serious issues happening here.

          • Anne 6.3.1.1.1
            15 May 2025 at 6:51 pm

            I am getting the feeling that some of what this Coalition government is doing is distraction away from some deeply serious issues happening here.

            That chaotic scene in parliament was meticulously pre-planned down to writing the 'impassioned' speech for van Velden to read out at the appropriate moment. It was an attempt to shift the blame for the chaos over the Pay Equity Bill onto Tinetti and Labour. They knew Tinetti was going to ask that question and they set her up.

            I agree with Hipkins that the question should not have directly quoted the article in question, and he was right to own it since it came from one of his MPs.

            That is the difference between Labour and National. Labour own their mistakes. National lies and endeavours to project their mistakes onto their opponents.

  7. AB 7
    15 May 2025 at 5:45 pm

    equal pay for work of equal value

    What is 'value', who gets to determine it and who doesn't? As Craig H describes at 5.4, HR departments in large organisations do this by trying to reach some objective measure of value – such as levels of skill/education, responsibility, business risk, budget ownership, etc. But these are all proxies for value, rather than value in itself. Any pure understanding or measurement of value is very elusive.

    The neoliberal position is that these attempts at finding objective measures of value are all nonsense. Value cannot be known in the abstract, it can only be discovered by what happens in the market. Therefore, for neoliberals the remuneration that any job receives in the labour market is the best and only measure of its value. National may be motivated solely by fiscal restraint, but the ACT Party will surely be aware of the deeper ideological stakes in this argument.