How the Government Kept Pay Equity Law Changes Secret Until the Last Minute

In a startling revelation, internal government documents have exposed how ministers worked to keep major changes to the pay equity law under wraps until the very last moment. These measures were designed to prevent a potential surge in pay equity claims and protect the government’s fiscal position.

Behind the Scenes of a Secret Plan
Emails and internal briefings reveal that ministers and their staff were aware their proposed changes would bypass public scrutiny, potentially extinguish existing claims, and even risk breaching individuals’ rights. Despite these concerns, they proceeded with the strategy to ensure the news remained confidential until the bill was introduced in May 2025.

The announcement was sudden, and the bill was passed under urgency, leading to widespread protests across the country. The changes effectively halted 33 active pay equity claims that had been ongoing for years and raised the threshold for proving historical undervaluation of work. This meant that claims had to be restarted under the new, more stringent criteria.

A Hidden Strategy: Project Ten
The internal strategy was known as “Project Ten.” A comprehensive communications plan was prepared in advance, to be released only after the bill had been introduced and passed. One internal document explicitly stated that any announcements about the proposed amendments should only be made after the bill's introduction, due to the risk of a large increase in claims if the changes were made public beforehand.

Secrecy Measures and Confidentiality
To ensure the information remained confidential, officials were instructed to manually remove digital access to cabinet papers. One memo from Minister Brooke van Velden’s office warned that leaving the default settings in place would allow access not only to ministers but also to senior private secretaries and certain advisors. To prevent digital trails, hard copies were hand-delivered to ministers’ offices. An official from the office of Minister Brooke van Velden even humorously noted, “For context, I swear I'm not being weirdly difficult — this was the method of distribution that has been advised.”

Fiscal Motives and Controversy
The documents highlight that the government’s primary motivation was fiscal. The changes were expected to save the Crown approximately $12.8 billion over the next four years. However, the process was rushed, with no opportunity for public submissions on the bill, a move later criticized as “particularly unusual and draconian.”

Controversial and Unusual
Despite the government’s awareness of the contentious nature of the changes, it proceeded. Internal discussions acknowledged that the proposed transitional arrangements would “retrospectively remove and alter people's rights” and could potentially breach the Human Rights Act and the Bill of Rights Act. Nevertheless, the government moved forward with its plan, citing the need to meet the Budget 2025 timeline.

Public Reaction and Ongoing Debate
The changes sparked immediate backlash, with protests erupting across the country. Critics argue that the government's actions were not only secretive but also dismissive of public input and legal rights. The controversy continues to fuel debate over transparency, fairness, and the balance between fiscal responsibility and individual rights.