logo
Pay talk protection: National backs Labour's transparency bill

Pay talk protection: National backs Labour's transparency bill

Labour MP Dr Deborah Russell.
By Giles Dexter of RNZ
Members' bills from opposition MPs are more often than not doomed to fail, but there have been exceptions to the rule this term.
Tracey McLellan's Evidence (Giving Evidence of Family Violence) Amendment Bill received unanimous support at its second reading, with all six parties in Parliament voting in favour.
Deborah Russell's Companies (Address Information) Amendment Bill is being supported by National and ACT, but not by New Zealand First.
Others, like Camilla Belich's Crimes (Theft by Employer) Amendment Bill, have passed thanks to the support of one of the smaller coalition parties (in this case, New Zealand First).
But only one opposition bill has had the support of National, and only National this term, and it is another from Belich.
On Wednesday night, her Employment Relations (Employee Remuneration Disclosure) Amendment Bill passed its second reading, thanks to National voting alongside the three opposition parties.
The bill would ensure that pay secrecy clauses, which prevent employees from discussing their salaries with colleagues, would no longer be enforceable, meaning employers could not take legal action if an employee talked about pay.
There will be cases where pay differences were justifiable (such as different skill sets or qualifications), but the bill's intention is to shed light on situations where they were unjustifiable.
Australia, the UK, the EU, and some US states have either banned pay secrecy clauses or made them unenforceable.
Belich said people already talk about their pay with colleagues, but stopping businesses from taking action against them for it would keep New Zealand up with the times.
"It takes away the right for them to take action and discipline their employees when they talk about their pay. We know this happens already at the moment. So there's definitely a common sense, pragmatic element to this bill," she said.
"It's making sure that usual human behaviour and workplace discussions are not something that people are disciplined for."
Six National MPs took calls on the bill at its second reading.
Every one of them referenced the gender pay gap and were hopeful the bill would be a mechanism to reduce it.
Banks Peninsula MP Vanessa Weenink, who gave National's first contribution to the bill, said the party supported the bill because it had a "proud history" of driving down the gender pay gap.
"We know that pay transparency is a key factor for driving down the gender pay gap. International studies have shown that when that legislation has been brought in, that it's measurable in the amount of reduction in the pay gap. So we really want to see that continue to fall down."
Belich said it was great to see continued support for the bill.
"I was heartened by the comments made in the house, where the National Party members said they would support this right through. I hope that's what they do," she said.
"I think given the current context, where we've had significant changes to our pay equity regime, where women have had the ability to take pay equity claims severely curtailed, these types of bills, which make small changes to make a more transparent workforce, are increasingly important."
Weenink said the "optics" around pay equity had nothing to do with National's support for the bill, as the party had also supported the bill at its first reading, well before the pay equity changes were announced.
"It's just our ongoing commitment to doing what we can to make the workplace fair and improve productivity. How I see it is that if you can see you're being paid less than someone else who's working right beside you, doing the same job, then that's going to massively reduce your motivation, isn't it?"
She did not see it as National handing Labour a win, but rather an opportunity to put party politics aside and improve things for New Zealanders.
The bill passed its first reading in November.
Sometimes, a bill is given cautious support at its first reading, in order to send it to Select Committee to see if the kinks are ironed out.
The Education and Workforce Committee received 225 submissions on the bill, the majority in support.
Belich said a number of changes were made to the bill through the Select Committee process, including making it clear there would be no requirement to make a disclosure.
"It's still something that can be a private matter. It's only if you wish to that you shouldn't be disciplined for the desire to actually discuss that. So that was probably the major change through Select Committee."
She said there were some definitional tidy-ups, including making it clear what the definitions of remuneration and detriment were, as well as ensuring the bill would not be retrospective.
Some privileged or commercially sensitive information, for example, owner benefits for a business owner who also receives an employee salary, would also be excluded.
Despite the changes, ACT and New Zealand First continued to oppose the bill.
ACT said it would allow people to breach agreements they had signed up to, for which there should be consequences.
"Once you've signed something, you are supposed to oblige to the conditions that you have signed for. If you do not agree to something in the agreement that you have signed, then there is an opportunity for you to go back and renegotiate the terms and conditions that you don't agree to," Parmjeet Parmar told the House.
"But you don't just breach the agreement and say that there should be no consequences for that."
New Zealand First's Mark Patterson said it "runs smack into the brick wall" of the party's belief in the "sanctity" of contract law.
"While this bill doesn't prevent pay secrecy and that's still able to be incorporated within a contract, it does limit an employer's ability to enforce it, and that goes against what a contract should be," he said.
Belich said she found the arguments against the bill "interesting," as it was specifically designed so businesses would not need to spend money to change their contracts.
"If we'd said you cannot have a pay secrecy clause in your contract, or pay secrecy clauses are now illegal to have even in an employment document, there'd be thousands of employment agreements throughout the country that would need to be changed, that would cost money, that would take legal advice. It would be a burden on business."
The bill still needs to go through the Committee of the Whole House stage for any further tidy-ups, and then a third reading, though Weenink did not foresee any major changes.
"It took a long time to bash some of these things out, and I think we've got it to a really good place."
Acknowledging National is a "broad church" and there had been strong discussions about the bill amongst the caucus, she did not expect any changes to the party's position at the third reading.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Machinations, med schools and road cones
Machinations, med schools and road cones

Otago Daily Times

time3 hours ago

  • Otago Daily Times

Machinations, med schools and road cones

Although Civis desperately wants to believe in politicians, they keep letting Civis down. A big blow to faith in them came this week with the Waikato Medical School decision. Later in the week, reports emerged about the tobacco industry targeting New Zealand First and Winston Peters. This isn't the place to go into the details behind the Waikato decision. The ODT and others have outlined the machinations. Former University of Otago politics lecturer Bryce Edwards, now director of the new Integrity Institute, summed it up: ''The government's decision ... is not, at its core, a decision about health policy. It is a decision about political power, influence, and the erosion of good process. This project serves as a textbook case study of policy capture, where the interests of a well-connected institution, amplified by high-powered lobbyists, have overridden expert advice, fiscal prudence, and superior alternatives.'' Cynicism is further compounded because the government had still not released a business case that almost everyone doubts by late on Friday afternoon. This is a well-rehearsed delay tactic. The politicians wait until much of the heat has dissipated from the issue. The boat has sailed on the details of dodgy figures, assumptions and premises. The cited $233million price tag for the new medical school is ludicrously low. When costs inevitably rise, taxpayers will be left to foot the bill. Waikato University will struggle to meet even its supposed $150m contribution — let alone more. So much of what goes on across the political spectrum destroys hope and trust. This behaviour opens the door wide for a vile, dangerous beast like Donald Trump or the foolish shoot-both-your-own-feet Brexit referendum result. No wonder Civis plaintively cries, ''A plague on all your houses''. ★★★ Dear oh dear. Dear oh dear — dare we revisit the vexed world of road cones? Dunedinite Geoff Simons dobbed in dubious cones and nonsensical speed limits in an email a few weeks back. Geoff agrees we don't want to endanger workers. But for several weeks, near the Highgate end of busy Kenmure Rd, this string of cones was in place. The speed limit for about 500m was 30kmh. Geoff — like everyone else — soon ignored the 30kmh limit. Who wouldn't, when the cones didn't even extend as far as a parked car, and there was no activity for weeks? By the time workers return to such sites, motorists have ingrained the habit of ignoring those earlier, unnecessary speed signs. ★★★ Hardly a cone was in sight when Geoff visited France for two months during the Rugby World Cup in 2023. The few he spotted were on motorways and spread a lot further apart than here. Surprising, really, given France's reputation for bureaucracy. For example, French law traditionally requires those in organised sports events to provide a medical certificate confirming they're fit to participate. Athletics has further recent requirements. The Parkrun organisation abandoned hopes for French events, concluding the obligations and risks were impossible for a volunteer group. Geoff also captured the above scene, sans cones — one which would not be replicated in New Zealand. civis@

Seymour's 'dropkick' voters comment unhelpful: minister
Seymour's 'dropkick' voters comment unhelpful: minister

Otago Daily Times

time18 hours ago

  • Otago Daily Times

Seymour's 'dropkick' voters comment unhelpful: minister

By Giles Dexter and Tuwhenuaroa Natanahira of RNZ Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith says comments made by the Deputy Prime Minister - calling voters who enrol late "dropkicks" - are "unhelpful", as changes to voter enrolment are rolled out. Justice officials say closing enrolments ahead of advance voting could result in lower turnout and reduce confidence in the electoral system. And electoral law experts are also questioning why the changes need to stretch for the whole advanced voting period. As part of a suite of Electoral Act changes, same-day election enrolments are set to be scrapped. It reverses a change brought in for the 2020 general election, which allowed for enrolments and updating details up to and including on election day. It then goes even further, ensuring voters have to enrol or update their details before advance voting begins. The government is also legislating to require 12 days of advance voting. The changes are primarily being made to improve the timeliness of the official vote count, and so give voters certainty of a result. The growth in the number of special votes has been putting a strain on processing a result, with the timeframe for a final vote count stretching into three weeks at the last election. Goldsmith said the uncertainty could be avoided if more people enrolled in a timely manner. "We never know what the circumstances are going to be after an election. We don't know what pressure the country will be under. An extra week, extra two weeks, if we do nothing could be longer, then that just creates extra uncertainty that we can easily avoid by people enrolling in a timely fashion." On Thursday, Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour backed the changes, insulting the hundreds of thousands of people who enrolled or updated their address, and voted, during the advance voting period and on election day itself. "Frankly, I'm a bit sick of dropkicks that can't get themselves organised to follow the law," he said. "It's actually made so easy to do, they even have a little orange cartoon running around telling people to do it. And if you're too disorganised to do that over a thousand days between two elections, then maybe you don't care that much." Speaking to RNZ's Morning Report programme today, Goldsmith was asked if the government did not care about those would-be voters because they were perhaps unlikely to vote for National or ACT. "That's not the case, and that, yeah, that was an unhelpful comment, frankly, from David Seymour," Goldsmith said. Officials warn of a barrier to participation In its Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS), the Ministry of Justice did not recommend the option of closing enrolment earlier. "Its impact on reducing special votes is uncertain, while its impact on democratic participation could be significant," officials said. Special votes take much longer to process than a standard vote as they need to go through a lot more scrutiny. Officials noted a positive aspect of closing enrolments earlier was it would mean enrolment processing was done by the close of polling, allowing special vote counting to begin promptly. The ministry acknowledged there was value in a timely and smooth transfer of power following an election, but it was uncertain whether any package of changes could reduce the count timeframes. The RIS acknowledged the growth of special votes in both volume and as a proportion of the total number of votes, with the largest proportion being those who were not enrolled or needed to update their details. About 300,000 to 350,000 people cast a special vote because they were not enrolled, or not enrolled at the correct address by writ day, or on the dormant roll. Māori, Asian, and Pasifika communities, as well as younger people, are more likely to cast special votes. "This option will create a barrier to participation and may be seen as a step backwards for accessibility, in light of changes to enable greater participation over recent elections. Closing enrolment earlier could harm confidence and trust if people are not able to vote because they missed the deadline or if more votes are disallowed," officials said. Goldsmith told Morning Report there would be campaigns to ensure every voter knew about the changes. "But they'll be told something different this time, which is to say there'll be clear campaigns all over next year saying, you know, you need to be enrolled before, early voting starts, and that means we can get the whole system much more efficient and take some pressure off the system that's under real pressure." At the 2020 election, the rules were changed to allow people to enrol to vote on election day, as they have been able during the advanced voting period since the 1990s. It was a response to what the then-government said was 19,000 voters feeling "disenfranchised" by being turned away in 2017. Goldsmith did not believe the new bill would mark a return to that disenfranchisement. "We've got to balance the fact that we want to have an outcome of an election in a timely manner. It does actually matter if we have an uncertain outcome. People don't start coalition negotiations until they know the final outcome, and if that's drifting into four weeks than that creates more uncertainty." Electoral law expert Graeme Edgeler doubted the changes would prevent people from knowing the outcome of an election, as the Election Night result usually gave a good indication of the make-up of the next government. "Two weeks or three weeks, does it really matter? There's nothing stopping the politicians who look like they've been elected from negotiation before the final special votes are out," he said. "The results, we know they tended to change one or two seats or something like that. The time delay just doesn't seem like a particularly good reason for this." Edgeler did not think removing the ability to enrol on election day would not make too much of a difference, as it had only been in place for two elections. But he was concerned at closing the enrolment period before advanced voting started. "Requiring people to have a think about the election two weeks before the actual vote happens is probably more of a big change than the same-day enrolments." Goldsmith told Morning Report it did not seem to be a problem in the past. "I've got every confidence that New Zealanders will be able to figure that out and do it… It always was the way up until five years ago before Labour made the change that you weren't able to vote [sic] on election day and our democracy didn't collapse at that point, and it won't collapse... "All I'd say [is] we're asking for something that's perfectly reasonable. In the UK it's 12 days and Australia it's 26 days before the election. It's not an unreasonable thing." Opposition concerned people will be locked out On Election Day 2023, 110,000 people enrolled or updated their details. Labour's justice spokesperson Duncan Webb questioned whether the trade-off to get votes counted faster was worth it. "Counting the vote took an extra week last election. I think 110,000 votes are worth it. I think every single New Zealander is entitled to have a voice in who represents them in this place. If it takes another week, that's OK by me because democracy is worth waiting for," he said. Celia Wade-Brown, the Green Party's spokesperson for democracy and electoral reform, said it would lead to fewer people participating in democracy. "This government is reducing the number of people, particularly those who are mobile, who move around, who change addresses, and preventing them from voting. This should be a government for all New Zealanders." Parties not consulted on the Electoral Act changes University of Otago law professor Andrew Geddis said some parts of electoral law, such as changing the voting age or the term of Parliament, were protected by entrenchment provisions, requiring a 75% majority of MPs or a referendum. Everything else was 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 programme yesterday. "Democracy is more than just what a current government wants it to be. It has to be, what is the best rules for our polity, us as a group, to choose our leaders." Geddis said the growth in special votes had been causing strain, but questioned why the government had taken this option. "The government's response has essentially been to bring down a guillotine and say, 'well tough.' All of those people who haven't enrolled or changed their details before voting starts, 'tough. Your votes just won't count. We're just not going to listen to you.'" Automatic enrolment updates get a tick While officials did not recommend closing the enrolment period, they were in favour of introducing automatic enrolment updates. This option has formed part of Goldsmith's package of reforms and would allow the Electoral Commission to update people's enrolment details using data from other government agencies. The option would make it easier for electors to keep enrolments up to date, and reduce the number of special votes over time. It was something Edgeler was in favour of. "Allowing the government to do the work for you in that area, you've told one government department you've moved and got a new address, allowing that to be used for election purposes as well will hopefully mean that fewer people need to update their enrolment details during the election period itself." He said there would need to be a significant publicity campaign from the Electoral Commission reminding people of the deadlines. While that would be up to the commission in how that was communicated, Goldsmith said they had received more funding at the Budget. "Their core role up to now is to encourage people to enrol. But they've also been saying 'but by the way, you don't really need to, you can just rock up and enrol on election day.' "And so we've now got a clear message: get yourself organised, get enrolled, make sure you're enrolled before election day starts."

'Dropkick' voters comment not helpful, says minister
'Dropkick' voters comment not helpful, says minister

Otago Daily Times

time18 hours ago

  • Otago Daily Times

'Dropkick' voters comment not helpful, says minister

By Giles Dexter and Tuwhenuaroa Natanahira of RNZ Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith says comments made by the Deputy Prime Minister - calling voters who enrol late "dropkicks" - are "unhelpful", as changes to voter enrolment are rolled out. Justice officials say closing enrolments ahead of advance voting could result in lower turnout and reduce confidence in the electoral system. And electoral law experts are also questioning why the changes need to stretch for the whole advanced voting period. As part of a suite of Electoral Act changes, same-day election enrolments are set to be scrapped. It reverses a change brought in for the 2020 general election, which allowed for enrolments and updating details up to and including on election day. It then goes even further, ensuring voters have to enrol or update their details before advance voting begins. The government is also legislating to require 12 days of advance voting. The changes are primarily being made to improve the timeliness of the official vote count, and so give voters certainty of a result. The growth in the number of special votes has been putting a strain on processing a result, with the timeframe for a final vote count stretching into three weeks at the last election. Goldsmith said the uncertainty could be avoided if more people enrolled in a timely manner. "We never know what the circumstances are going to be after an election. We don't know what pressure the country will be under. An extra week, extra two weeks, if we do nothing could be longer, then that just creates extra uncertainty that we can easily avoid by people enrolling in a timely fashion." On Thursday, Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour backed the changes, insulting the hundreds of thousands of people who enrolled or updated their address, and voted, during the advance voting period and on election day itself. "Frankly, I'm a bit sick of dropkicks that can't get themselves organised to follow the law," he said. "It's actually made so easy to do, they even have a little orange cartoon running around telling people to do it. And if you're too disorganised to do that over a thousand days between two elections, then maybe you don't care that much." Speaking to RNZ's Morning Report programme today, Goldsmith was asked if the government did not care about those would-be voters because they were perhaps unlikely to vote for National or ACT. "That's not the case, and that, yeah, that was an unhelpful comment, frankly, from David Seymour," Goldsmith said. Officials warn of a barrier to participation In its Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS), the Ministry of Justice did not recommend the option of closing enrolment earlier. "Its impact on reducing special votes is uncertain, while its impact on democratic participation could be significant," officials said. Special votes take much longer to process than a standard vote as they need to go through a lot more scrutiny. Officials noted a positive aspect of closing enrolments earlier was it would mean enrolment processing was done by the close of polling, allowing special vote counting to begin promptly. The ministry acknowledged there was value in a timely and smooth transfer of power following an election, but it was uncertain whether any package of changes could reduce the count timeframes. The RIS acknowledged the growth of special votes in both volume and as a proportion of the total number of votes, with the largest proportion being those who were not enrolled or needed to update their details. About 300,000 to 350,000 people cast a special vote because they were not enrolled, or not enrolled at the correct address by writ day, or on the dormant roll. Māori, Asian, and Pasifika communities, as well as younger people, are more likely to cast special votes. "This option will create a barrier to participation and may be seen as a step backwards for accessibility, in light of changes to enable greater participation over recent elections. Closing enrolment earlier could harm confidence and trust if people are not able to vote because they missed the deadline or if more votes are disallowed," officials said. Goldsmith told Morning Report there would be campaigns to ensure every voter knew about the changes. "But they'll be told something different this time, which is to say there'll be clear campaigns all over next year saying, you know, you need to be enrolled before, early voting starts, and that means we can get the whole system much more efficient and take some pressure off the system that's under real pressure." At the 2020 election, the rules were changed to allow people to enrol to vote on election day, as they have been able during the advanced voting period since the 1990s. It was a response to what the then-government said was 19,000 voters feeling "disenfranchised" by being turned away in 2017. Goldsmith did not believe the new bill would mark a return to that disenfranchisement. "We've got to balance the fact that we want to have an outcome of an election in a timely manner. It does actually matter if we have an uncertain outcome. People don't start coalition negotiations until they know the final outcome, and if that's drifting into four weeks than that creates more uncertainty." Electoral law expert Graeme Edgeler doubted the changes would prevent people from knowing the outcome of an election, as the Election Night result usually gave a good indication of the make-up of the next government. "Two weeks or three weeks, does it really matter? There's nothing stopping the politicians who look like they've been elected from negotiation before the final special votes are out," he said. "The results, we know they tended to change one or two seats or something like that. The time delay just doesn't seem like a particularly good reason for this." Edgeler did not think removing the ability to enrol on election day would not make too much of a difference, as it had only been in place for two elections. But he was concerned at closing the enrolment period before advanced voting started. "Requiring people to have a think about the election two weeks before the actual vote happens is probably more of a big change than the same-day enrolments." Goldsmith told Morning Report it did not seem to be a problem in the past. "I've got every confidence that New Zealanders will be able to figure that out and do it… It always was the way up until five years ago before Labour made the change that you weren't able to vote [sic] on election day and our democracy didn't collapse at that point, and it won't collapse... "All I'd say [is] we're asking for something that's perfectly reasonable. In the UK it's 12 days and Australia it's 26 days before the election. It's not an unreasonable thing." Opposition concerned people will be locked out On Election Day 2023, 110,000 people enrolled or updated their details. Labour's justice spokesperson Duncan Webb questioned whether the trade-off to get votes counted faster was worth it. "Counting the vote took an extra week last election. I think 110,000 votes are worth it. I think every single New Zealander is entitled to have a voice in who represents them in this place. If it takes another week, that's OK by me because democracy is worth waiting for," he said. Celia Wade-Brown, the Green Party's spokesperson for democracy and electoral reform, said it would lead to fewer people participating in democracy. "This government is reducing the number of people, particularly those who are mobile, who move around, who change addresses, and preventing them from voting. This should be a government for all New Zealanders." Parties not consulted on the Electoral Act changes University of Otago law professor Andrew Geddis said some parts of electoral law, such as changing the voting age or the term of Parliament, were protected by entrenchment provisions, requiring a 75% majority of MPs or a referendum. Everything else was 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 programme yesterday. "Democracy is more than just what a current government wants it to be. It has to be, what is the best rules for our polity, us as a group, to choose our leaders." Geddis said the growth in special votes had been causing strain, but questioned why the government had taken this option. "The government's response has essentially been to bring down a guillotine and say, 'well tough.' All of those people who haven't enrolled or changed their details before voting starts, 'tough. Your votes just won't count. We're just not going to listen to you.'" Automatic enrolment updates get a tick While officials did not recommend closing the enrolment period, they were in favour of introducing automatic enrolment updates. This option has formed part of Goldsmith's package of reforms and would allow the Electoral Commission to update people's enrolment details using data from other government agencies. The option would make it easier for electors to keep enrolments up to date, and reduce the number of special votes over time. It was something Edgeler was in favour of. "Allowing the government to do the work for you in that area, you've told one government department you've moved and got a new address, allowing that to be used for election purposes as well will hopefully mean that fewer people need to update their enrolment details during the election period itself." He said there would need to be a significant publicity campaign from the Electoral Commission reminding people of the deadlines. While that would be up to the commission in how that was communicated, Goldsmith said they had received more funding at the Budget. "Their core role up to now is to encourage people to enrol. But they've also been saying 'but by the way, you don't really need to, you can just rock up and enrol on election day.' "And so we've now got a clear message: get yourself organised, get enrolled, make sure you're enrolled before election day starts."

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store