New Zealand businesses urged to prepare for pay secrecy law
The bill seeks to prohibit employers from including pay secrecy clauses in employment contracts, which currently prevent staff from discussing their remuneration. Should it pass into law, employees would be free to speak openly about their pay without risk of adverse consequences from their employer. The National Party has indicated ongoing support for the legislation, increasing expectations that it will be enacted.
Pay transparency push
According to Sanam Ahmadzadeh Salmani, Employment Counsel at Employment Hero and workplace law commentator, the proposed law focuses on greater pay transparency and addressing wage gaps. "The legislation is designed to promote greater pay transparency and equality, helping to identify and address unjustified pay disparities. While it's a welcome change that will bring New Zealand in line with countries that have implemented similar measures, such as Australia and the UK, employers should take proactive steps now to prepare for if the Bill passes," said Sanam Ahmadzadeh Salmani.
The objective of the bill is to create an environment where employees can more readily compare pay, understand the criteria used to set remuneration, and highlight unexplained pay differences.
Advice for employers
Employment Hero has advised that employers can benefit from acting ahead of the legislative changes by revising their internal practices. Ahmadzadeh Salmani elaborated on the potential benefits and necessity of pre-emptive measures. "This is an opportunity for employers to drive better pay transparency and better outcomes for both businesses and employees. Aligning with the legislation will not only ensure compliance if and when required but can also improve employee satisfaction and retention. Employees want to know they're being treated fairly and businesses that embrace this change will likely see stronger engagement and loyalty. "By preparing and making any changes before the Bill passes, employers will be on the front foot and can avoid being caught out later down the track," added Ahmadzadeh Salmani.
Ahmadzadeh Salmani outlined three key steps that employers should take now: conduct a pay review, review employment contracts, and draft clear explanations of pay determination.
Pay review
Addressing the first recommendation, Ahmadzadeh Salmani said: "Start by reviewing your current pay structures – look for any discrepancies and understand the reasons behind them – whether it's due to role differences, experience or something else. Being proactive here will help you not only stay compliant, but to spot payroll red flags early," advises Ahmadzadeh Salmani.
Contract reviews
The second step involves revisiting the language used in existing employment agreements: "Employers should also review employment agreements for any clauses that restrict pay discussions. These might not be labelled as 'pay secrecy' and they could be buried under general confidentiality or remuneration clauses. Having a clear plan of what needs updating now puts you in a better legal position once the Bill is passed," adds Ahmadzadeh Salmani.
Clear communications
The third recommendation is to improve pay-related communications with staff: "Transparency doesn't stop at removing secrecy clauses. Employers need to be ready to explain how pay is determined and what data or criteria is used, how performance factors in and how employees can progress. This builds trust and reduces confusion or resentment," she adds.
The Employment Relations (Employee Remuneration Disclosure) Amendment Bill, if enacted, would bring New Zealand into greater alignment with jurisdictions such as Australia and the United Kingdom, both of which have implemented measures relating to salary transparency in employment contracts.
Employment Hero has made free resources available to businesses in New Zealand to assist in understanding employment law updates related to pay transparency and compliance requirements.
Follow us on:
Share on:
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
12 minutes ago
- Otago Daily Times
Game council wants role in national parks
The Game Animal Council says existing conservation law is outdated, needs to recognise the contributions of hunters to the environment and it wants to take over the operating of game animals in national parks. The council yesterday released its submission to the select committee on the Game Animal Council (herds of special interest) Amendment Bill which closed last Thursday. The Bill, if passed, would allow the minister for hunting and fishing to establish herds of special interest (Hosi) in a national park and therefore exempt the herd from extermination or eradication requirements under conservation legislation. The council was fully supportive of the Bill. It said in its submission to achieve effective and inclusive conservation, hunting needs to be integrated into "our conservation narratives". "By engaging hunters as partners in conservation, we not only harness their expertise but also embody a more comprehensive approach to environmental stewardship. "Hunters play a crucial role in controlling game animal populations, harvesting more than 350,000 big game animals annually (including deer), which exceeds government pest control efforts." The council said hunters and conservationists were often seen as opposites, but they shared common aspirations for protecting nature — driven by different motivations, but united in purpose. Current conservation law and policy did not recognise these different motivations or values that people held for conservation land. The Hosi mechanism enabled game animal management while protecting biodiversity on public conservation lands. It aimed to support hunting while preserving conservation values, the council said. Hosi were designed to focus on herds highly valued by hunters. So far two applications had been made — for sika deer in the Kaimanawa and Kaweka Forest Parks and wapiti deer in Fiordland National Park. Game animals were only currently referenced in terms of extermination. Having a Hosi in a national park was a new way of thinking about conservation. The council said recreational hunting supported about 2500 jobs and the guided hunting sector directly employed more than 530 people and generated more than $100 million in annual foreign sales. "There is a growing interest in sustainable, wild-harvested meat. Using taxpayer money to remove a reliable source of high-quality protein undermines public benefit," it said. "The management of the quality and quantity of game animals harvested by hunters has the potential to offer more effective control than an expansion of government control efforts." The council in its submission said hunters were only permitted to reduce or exterminate the very animals hunters sought to access. The submission also said game animals did not stay within mapped boundaries. Without physical barriers, game animals would cross between land ownership boundaries. Limiting Hosi management to one land ownership would lead to inconsistent and inefficient management. The council wanted to adopt a more unified approach that spanned all land ownership types and it needed more power to assist the minister in establishing and managing a Hosi. A Parliament spokesman said it was unable to say how many submissions were made to the Bill. The number would be released by the Environment Committee which would hear submissions. — APL
Scoop
7 hours ago
- Scoop
Voting Reforms, Prisoner Bans And Enrolment Changes - What You Need To Know About The Electoral Amendment Bill
Explainer - The Electoral Amendment Bill faces its first reading today in Parliament. But what does it actually say? The government has announced sweeping plans to change electoral processes before the 2026 election. In announcing the bill last week, Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith said the government was "overhauling outdated and unsustainable electoral laws". However there's been pushback at the proposed changes, especially the elimination of Election Day enrolment. The bill is set to face its first reading in Parliament on Tuesday afternoon. Here's a breakdown of what the bill proposes and the reaction to it. What the bill is The Electoral Amendment Bill claims it "makes a range of systems improvements to support the timeliness, efficiency, integrity, and resilience of the electoral system". It makes a suite of changes including ending same-day voter enrolment, banning prisoner voting, changes to treating on Election Day and expanding anonymous political donation limits. Here's the main points. You will no longer be able to enrol to vote on Election Day Same-day enrolment will be a thing of the past if the bill passes. "Allowing late enrolments, however well intentioned, has placed too much strain on the system," Goldsmith said. "The final vote count used to take two weeks, last election it took three. "If we leave things as they are, it could well take even longer in future elections. The 20-day timeframe for a final result will likely already be challenging to achieve at the next election without changes." Voters had been able to show up during the advance voting period and enrol at the same time, as well as on Election Day, with their vote being counted as a special vote. The government wants to close enrolment before advance voting begins, with people needing to enrol or update their details by midnight on the Sunday before advance voting starts on the Monday morning (in other words, 13 days before election day). The legislation sets a requirement of 12 days advance voting at each election. The changes could mean special vote processing could get underway sooner. Speaking to Morning Report this week, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said "we want enrolment to happen before early voting starts". "The experience last time was by virtue of having on the day enrolment we ended up in a situation where it took us three weeks to count the vote, which was the longest it had ever taken us as well. "We want everyone to participate, you've got plenty of time to do so. "They can participate in the voting, they just need to do it and get themselves organised earlier, that's all." University of Otago law professor Andrew Geddis said the change might affect future election results and how they lean politically. "As a whole, since 1999 special votes have favoured the parties of the left - resulting in their picking up one or two more seats in the House at the expense of parties on the right. Restricting same day enrolment and voting can thus be predicted to reduce the number of votes cast by groups that support left-of-centre parties." However, he said that impact could be offset by voters enrolling earlier. "However, the groups most affected here - younger voters, those who are transient, and minority populations - are the hardest to reach through education campaigns and the like. That means we can predict that there will still be a substantial number of people not properly enrolled when voting commences, who will as a result lose the right to have their vote counted." The changes won't actually stop people from casting a ballot on election day, he said. Special votes must still be processed. "It's just that they won't be included in the final vote count once it is determined that the person has not enrolled to vote by the required time," Geddis said. "As such, the effectiveness of this change in reducing the burden on electoral officials is open to question." The bill would also introduce automatic enrolment updates so the Electoral Commission can update people's enrolment details using data from other government agencies, and remove postal requirements for enrolment. What are those special votes again? Special votes are anyone who isn't on the electoral roll or unpublished roll, lives overseas or vote away from a polling place because they can't get to one. The number of special votes have been growing which has resulted in seats swinging in the final count compared to election night. In 2023, nearly 21 percent, or 603,257 of all votes cast, were special votes. Only 78,030 of those were from overseas voters. Processing them takes more time than regular votes. Goldsmith said late enrolments placed too much strain on the system. "If we leave things as they are, it could well take even longer in future elections. The 20-day timeframe for a final result will likely already be challenging to achieve at the next election without changes." If you're in prison serving a sentence, you'll no longer be able to vote, period The bill disqualifies all prisoners convicted and sentenced from enrolling and voting while in prison. It doesn't apply to persons who have committed a crime but are detained in a hospital or secure facility. In 2020, the Labour government amended the law so that only people serving a term of three or more years were disqualified. The National-led coalition government had earlier signalled the change back. "Everyone understands that if you violate the rights of others, you surrender certain rights of your own," ACT justice spokesperson Todd Stephenson said. "Reinstating the ban on prisoner voters makes the consequences for crime clearer." Does this all make it harder for people to vote? Some have said the new bill will disenfranchise voters, while others are applauding it. "This is a significant, but necessary change," Goldsmith said. "The Electoral Commission will have plenty of time to run an education campaign to ensure people understand the new requirements." In a Regulatory Impact Statement prepared earlier this year, the Ministry of Justice did not support closing enrolment earlier. "Its impact on reducing special votes is uncertain, while its impact on democratic participation could be significant," officials said. And the government's Attorney-General, Judith Collins, has also said the legislation could breach the Bill of Rights. In a report, Collins concluded that the bill appeared inconsistent with the right to vote, to freedom of expression and the rights of prisoners in certain circumstances regarding changing penalties. She pointed to section 12 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, which states that every New Zealand Citizen who is of or over the age of 18 has the right to vote. "The accepted starting-point is the fundamental importance of the right to vote within a liberal democracy," the report states. "A compelling justification is required to limit that right." Geddis said that Collins' report was not surprising. "We know that banning all prisoners from voting is inconsistent with the Bill of Rights as the Supreme Court has declared this to be so. And in relation to removing same-day enrolment and voting for the entire voting period, the fact that there are other ways to address the problem of a slow vote count without taking away people's right to vote means it is not a justified limit. As such, the Attorney-General's conclusions are to be expected." Green Party spokesperson for Democracy and Electoral Reform Celia Wade Brown said: "These changes represent a dark day for our democracy. "Requiring enrolments before voting starts will see even more people miss out from expressing their democratic right. In the last General Election, over 200,000 people enrolled to vote or updated their details in the last 12 days. These changes would see all of these people miss out on having their say." ACT's Stephenson disagreed, calling late enrollees "lazy". "Democracy works best when voters are informed, engaged, and take the process seriously. It's outrageous that someone completely disengaged and lazy can rock up to the voting booth, get registered there and then, and then vote to tax other people's money away." ACT leader David Seymour also weighed in for the change, saying"frankly, I'm a bit sick of dropkicks that can't get themselves organised to follow the law." Those comments were later called "unhelpful" by Justice Minister Goldsmith. "I disagree with that language ... It's not language I would use," Luxon told Morning Report. Geddis said it was worrying to see an "apparent dismissiveness" by the government of concerns. "They are being warned that their proposed legislation will remove a fundamental right from thousands of New Zealanders without good enough reason. "Their response then seems to be that this is a trifling matter which can be overlooked because it is easier and more administratively convenient to simply stop allowing same day enrolment and voting. "Or, even worse, that the people whose rights are being limited are just 'dropkicks' who do not deserve any respect." Political donation changes The government has also announced that it will slightly increase the threshold for anonymous political donations. "The donation threshold for reporting the names of party donors is also being adjusted from $5000 to $6000, to account for inflation," Goldsmith said. The Greens' Wade Brown criticised that. "While the government has taken away votes from people in prison and made it harder to vote in general, it has made it easier for wealthy people to donate to political parties from the shadows by raising the disclosure threshold to $6000," she said. What is treating, and why are they cracking down on it? Treating is the practice of influencing a voter by providing them with free food, drink, or entertainment. It's already an offence, but the bill aims to make it clearer what exactly isn't allowed. The bill creates a new offence that prohibits the provision of free food, drink or entertainment within 100 metres of a voting place while voting is taking place. It will be punishable by a fine of up to $10,000. "There has been some confusion in the past around what is and isn't treating," Goldsmith said. "This will make the rules crystal clear." Election advertising or campaigning is not permitted within 10 metres of a voting place during advanced voting, and not at all on election day itself. In a Regulatory Impact Statement, Ministry of Justice officials said controlled areas around voting places would make it more straightforward to identify and prosecute offending and was more readily enforceable than the status quo. "The offence will not require that a person intends to corruptly influence an elector. Instead it will only require that they knowingly provided food, drink and entertainment within the controlled area," they said. But it was not their preferred option. "A key drawback of this option is that it is a blunt tool which does not exclusively capture harmful or corrupt behaviour. It draws a superficial line around voting places which may be arbitrary if the influencing behaviour occurs just outside the controlled area." Complaints about possible breaching of treating by providing food at a polling booth at Manurewa Marae were investigated after the 2023 election. It found those did not meet the test for treating. What's next? The first reading today will determine the path forward for the bill. If it passes a first reading, it's referred on to a Select Committee for further development, then will be further considered by Parliament. Geddis said these reforms were left to a simple majority of votes in Parliament like any other piece of legislation. "Because the government has a majority in Parliament, if it wants to do this, it can. It's just a question of whether it's the right thing to do," he told RNZ's Checkpoint.
NZ Herald
15 hours ago
- NZ Herald
National MPs on how Kiwis will react to board members' pay hike, cost of living struggles
National Party MPs believe an 80% hike to the pay framework for certain Crown board members is appropriate to lure the right talent, but some are also acknowledging Kiwis facing cost of living issues may struggle with the idea. The increase, revealed by the Herald yesterday following the quiet
