If Grant Robertson thinks the Covid inquiry is a "show trial", then what is about to unfold at the High Court as of the end of this month can't be far behind. 

A bunch of unions are taking the Government to court over pay equity. 

They are having several stabs at it – the Bill of Rights is in play and the democratic process is up for debate. 

One of the things the unions claim may happen if they win, is a select committee would have to hear submissions and a debate in Parliament would have to take place. 

That’s the "show trial" part. Select committees hear from the people you would expect to hear from: broadly, it's people opposed to whatever change of law is in play. 

And a debate in Parliament hears both sides, one for, one against, with the Government of the day prevailing, given it is they who have the numbers and indeed that is why they are the Government. 

Which is essentially why court is a waste of time, remembering of course the Government is the ultimate court and if they want to pass a law, they can. 

Making it complicated is the whole pay equity calculation is a mess. Secondary teachers, for example, were one of the many claimants putting an equity claim forward before the law was changed. 

To my eye being a high school teacher is not an equity issue. Men do it, women do it, there are lots of them and they aren't paid on gender. 

It's not a profession where 99% of them are women and because they are women, they are poorly paid. 

High school teachers are paid quite well. You could equally argue they are not paid as well as they could be because the union insists on them all being paid the same based on time in the classroom. If they got paid on merit it would be a different world. 

Kristine Bartlett's case became famous because we could all see the care industry was mainly female and the pay was poor. I would still argue the pay was poor because the work, although kind and worthy, is not of great numerical value. 

If it was, rest homes would pay more, charge residents more and we'd happily foot the bill. But we don’t. 

Anyway, the upshot is the best the unions can hope for is a court win. The win can then be used to beat the Government about the head as big, bad meanies. 

But it will still not get them paid under an equity deal because the court is not the Government. 

If Grant Robertson thinks the Covid inquiry is a "show trial", then what is about to unfold at the High Court as of the end of this month can't be far behind.&nbsp;
A bunch of unions are taking the Government to court over pay equity.&nbsp;
They are having several stabs at it – the Bill of Rights is in play and the democratic process is up for debate.&nbsp;
One of the things the unions claim may happen if they win, is a select committee would have to hear submissions and a debate in Parliament would have to take place.&nbsp;
That’s the "show trial" part. Select committees hear from the people you would expect to hear from: broadly, it's people opposed to whatever change of law is in play.&nbsp;
And a debate in Parliament hears both sides, one for, one against, with the Government of the day prevailing, given it is they who have the numbers and indeed that is why they are the Government.&nbsp;
Which is essentially why court is a waste of time, remembering of course the Government is the ultimate court and if they want to pass a law, they can.&nbsp;
Making it complicated is the whole pay equity calculation is a mess. Secondary teachers, for example, were one of the many claimants putting an equity claim forward before the law was changed.&nbsp;
To my eye being a high school teacher is not an equity issue. Men do it, women do it, there are lots of them and they aren't paid on gender.&nbsp;
It's not a profession where 99% of them are women and because they are women, they are poorly paid.&nbsp;
High school teachers are paid quite well. You could equally argue they are not paid as well as they could be because the union insists on them all being paid the same based on time in the classroom. If they got paid on merit it would be a different world.&nbsp;
Kristine Bartlett's case became famous because we could all see the care industry was mainly female and the pay was poor. I would still argue the pay was poor because the work, although kind and worthy, is not of great numerical value.&nbsp;
If it was, rest homes would pay more, charge residents more and we'd happily foot the bill. But we don’t.&nbsp;
Anyway, the upshot is the best the unions can hope for is a court win. The win can then be used to beat the Government about the head as big, bad meanies.&nbsp;
But it will still not get them paid under an equity deal because the court is not the Government.&nbsp;

Open your mind to the world with New Zealand’s number one breakfast radio show.

Without question, as New Zealand’s number one talk host, Mike Hosking sets the day’s agenda.

The sharpest voice and mind in the business, Mike drives strong opinion, delivers the best talent, and always leaves you wanting more.

The Mike Hosking Breakfast always cuts through and delivers the best daily on Newstalk ZB.

Open your mind to the world with New Zealand’s number one breakfast radio show. Without question, as New Zealand’s number one talk host, Mike Hosking sets the day’s agenda. The sharpest voice and mind in the business, Mike drives strong opinion, delivers the best talent, and always leaves you wanting more. The Mike Hosking Breakfast always cuts through and delivers the best daily on Newstalk ZB.

Open your mind to the world with New Zealand’s number one breakfast radio show.

Without question, as New Zealand’s number one talk host, Mike Hosking sets the day’s agenda.

The sharpest voice and mind in the business, Mike drives strong opinion,...

The Mike Hosking Breakfast

Mike's Minute: The pay equity court case is a "show trial"

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/c7268e0c-9f46-4b4e-9744-b33d0176ebc1/transcript