Why is Pansy Wong so media-shy on the issue of Pay Equity?
Last night, she refused to be interviewed on a “special report” on the gender pay gap on TV One and earlier in the year she also refused to be interviewed on a documentary on the subject broadcast on Radio NZ.
Some poor bod in her office realised how bad it would look for the Minister to decline to be interviewed on TV and a statement was belatedly issued, saying “pay equity is a top priority for the Government.”
Yeah, right! If it truly was a top priority, the Minister would take every opportunity to publicise what the Government is doing.
Trouble is, the only things they have done are close down the pay and employment equity unit, scrap pay equity reviews and refuse to hear submissions on the pay equity petition signed by almost 16,000 New Zealanders. Perhaps they mean that reducing pay equity is their top priority?
Kate Shepard is probably rolling in her grave.
One gets the distinct impression that a number of National ministers are also getting gun shy.
You reckon? If so, could they be persuaded to get on the Letterman show with a series of one-liners?
Maybe she just recognises that she’d be on a hiding to nothing, due to the pay equity activists being utterly impervious to logic? It may look bad refusing to front up, but a politician also never looks good trying to deal with people whose argument is a series of non-sequiturs but who feel a burning sense of injustice. Wong ends up looking bad either way.
If a man and a woman are doing the same job they should get the same pay. Anyone disagree with that? Huh? huh? :/
Darn it
@Psyco Milt – where are the non-sequiturs in this statement released by Helen Kelly on the 14th? – your misogyny is showing! The minister has probably been told not to show up for interviews as the government position is indefensible. What is the logic in women with the same (or better) qualifications, not being paid the same as men for the same job?
“It has taken the Government six months to publish information which they had in June about the discrimination suffered by women in the public sector. In summary the Government proposes to do absolutely nothing about the central issue in gender inequity – the fact of unequal pay for work of equal value.”
“Had the Government allowed its pay and employment equity investigations to continue there might have been some hope for the thousands of women currently underpaid for the vital work they do in schools, health services and in government itself. The Government has denied them this basic fairness however, exposing its strategies as mere lip-service to the principles of pay equity.”
“At least the Department of Labour’s Pay and Employment Equity Toolkit is finally available on CD and should be taken up and acted on in all corners of the public and private sector to help avoid the continuation of this deplorable situation.”
Pansy refused to meet with School Support Staff to discuss this issue over the year. Seems she chooses to forget she holds this portfolio when the voters are not part of her electorate.
People like this should not be in Government. If you can not meet with the people then why are you there I ask????????
@ Linda – even Pansy Wong has School Support Staff as part of her electorate.
@ psycho – you may well be in “pay gap denial” but Pansy says achieving pay equity is a top priority. She just refuses to be interviewed on the matter. Her actions don’t match her words.
20 Feb 2009 – Government axes pay equity investigations. “State Services Minister Tony Ryall said the investigations would “generate an additional form of remuneration pressure that is unaffordable in the current economic and fiscal environment”.”
So, is it a priority or not?
@Psyco Milt – where are the non-sequiturs in this statement released by Helen Kelly on the 14th? – your misogyny is showing!
It’s not misogyny to expect people’s arguments to make sense. And there aren’t any arguments in the statement you quote, just some assertions. If you simply declare some people underpaid because you think they should be paid more, or declare some jobs equal in “value” because you believe they are, why would anyone be persuaded? Having a burning sense of injustice and a very strong opinion isn’t by any means the same thing as having a convincing argument.