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

Government report shows homelessness ‘appears' to be outstripping population growth
Government report shows homelessness ‘appears' to be outstripping population growth

NZ Herald

time2 hours ago

  • NZ Herald

Government report shows homelessness ‘appears' to be outstripping population growth

The report comes around halfway through this Government's term, which has included tightening emergency housing rules, and social and transitional housing initiatives. Associate Housing Minister Tama Potaka said although accurate numbers on homelessness were difficult to find, it was 'clear we have a real problem'. 'The Government takes this seriously. All New Zealanders deserve a warm, dry place to stay, and the Government is determined to make progress on this long-running challenge for New Zealand.' Associate Housing Minister Tama Potaka says it is clear New Zealand has a real problem with homelessness. Photo / Mark Mitchell Potaka said the Government was seeking advice from officials on further interventions to help rough sleepers, saying 'we are also open to new ideas that will make an enduring difference'. Officials defined homelessness as living situations where people have no way of accessing safe and secure housing. This could include having no shelter at all, living in temporary or uninhabitable accommodation, or staying in a house with others, such as couch surfing. The report estimates people living without shelter are more likely to be older, with more than a quarter aged over 65. Twelve per cent were under 15 years old. Concerns from groups, collated in the report, included people and families sleeping rough, in cars, garages or uninhabitable conditions, or couch surfing during winter. They told researchers there were increasing levels of hopelessness and complex needs because of methamphetamine use, anti-social behaviour and severe mental health concerns. Emergency housing The portion of applications for emergency housing that were declined increased from 4% in March 2024 to 32% in March 2025, the report found. This statistic comes after Potaka's emergency housing policy changes in August 2024, which included limiting discretion and tightening rules to ensure it was only accessed 'where absolutely necessary'. Reasons people were declined included that they could meet their needs another way (34.3%), their circumstances could have been 'reasonably foreseen' (22.5%), they were not eligible for a grant (16.7%) or their situation was not considered an emergency (14.7%). Labour leader Chris Hipkins says the Government has no plan for where people go when they are removed from emergency accommodation. Photo / Mark Mitchell Potaka said more than $550 million was being spent annually across a range of programmes run by multiple agencies, including Transitional Housing, Housing First, Rapid Rehousing and many other support services. The minister argued there was a 37% increase in people living in shelters between 2018 and 2023 when the previous Labour Government was in power and that the Government was also dealing with the large-scale emergency housing 'social disaster' it had inherited from Labour. In January, the Government celebrated reaching its target for reducing the number of people in emergency motels by 75% five years early. But it raised questions over where people went when they left emergency housing. Associate Housing Minister Tama Potaka (left) and Prime Minister Christopher Luxon say the Government has spent half a billion dollars helping people in homeless situations. Photo / Mark Mitchell Labour leader Chris Hipkins accused the Government of kicking 'everybody out of emergency accommodation' without having a plan for where they were to go. 'I think every New Zealander living in a main city can walk down the street and see there are more people living on the street, in cars, and that the Government's actions have contributed to that,' he said. 'When you boot everybody out of emergency accommodation ... this is what happens.' The report said for around 14% of people who left emergency housing, officials were not sure where they went. Others went into a mix of social and transitional housing, or received housing support supplements. 'We do know where 85% [of people] have gone and we're really happy that a lot of kids have come out of emergency housing. Those 14% we don't know where they've gone, but they don't have to tell us where they are going,' Potaka said. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon told reporters his Government had spent half a billion dollars helping people in these situations. 'Homelessness is a really complex issue. People often come with a complex set of needs, whether its mental health or addiction. No Kiwi wants to see homelessness.' Luxon said he was proud of 'the fact that we have taken 6000 people off the social state housing list'. 'I'm also really proud that we've got 2100 kids out of motels and into really good homes by prioritising those families.' Julia Gabel is a Wellington-based political reporter. She joined the Herald in 2020 and has most recently focused on data journalism.

Alleged ties between NZ First and vaping companies a 'dangerous risk' to New Zealanders, anti-vape group warns
Alleged ties between NZ First and vaping companies a 'dangerous risk' to New Zealanders, anti-vape group warns

RNZ News

time4 hours ago

  • RNZ News

Alleged ties between NZ First and vaping companies a 'dangerous risk' to New Zealanders, anti-vape group warns

Photo: RNZ An advocacy group set up to keep children off nicotine wants New Zealand First to be stripped of the tobacco and vaping portfolio. The call from Vape-Free Kids comes after RNZ published documents alleging close ties between tobacco giant Philip Morris and New Zealand First. "Having such an influential party in government appearing to have a strong allegiance to the tobacco industry poses a dangerous risk to the health of New Zealanders," Vape-Free Kids co-founder Charyl Robinson, said. The documents, released as part of lawsuits against US vaping company JUUL, claim Philip Morris allegedly pitched draft legislation to NZ First as part of a lobbying campaign for its Heated Tobacco Products (HTPs). The documents also claim Philip Morris (PMI) corporate affairs staff "reached out to NZ First to try and secure regulation to advantage IQOS" - the HTP with a monopoly in the New Zealand market. Bower Group Asia, which advised JUUL on plans for a New Zealand launch, claimed NZ First leader Winston Peters "has a relationship with PMI" and "any regulation he champions is likely to be very industry friendly and highly geared towards commercial interests in the sector". The documents - largely dated from 2018 and 2019 - shed new light on controversial policy changes led by NZ First in the current coalition government, and the party's relationship with the nicotine industry. NZ First MP Casey Costello, as associate health minister, has delegated responsibility for tobacco and vaping policy. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone Last year, NZ First MP and Associate Health Minister Casey Costello halved the excise tax on HTPs at a potential cost of $200 million, a move Treasury said would mainly benefit Philip Morris as the sole importer. Costello acted despite health officials telling her there was no strong evidence that HTPs worked as a smoking cessation tool or that they were significantly safer than cigarettes. Two senior corporate communication positions at Philip Morris are held by people who previously held top roles in NZ First. David Broome, chief of staff for NZ First between 2014 and 2017, is external relations manager at Philip Morris. Apirana Dawson - who was director of operations and research in the office of Winston Peters between 2013 and 2017, and led the election campaigns for the party in 2014 and 2017 - is the company's director of external affairs. Vape-Free Kids said it was time for Prime Minister Christopher Luxon to remove the tobacco and vaping portfolio from New Zealand First. "He must step in and at the least reassign this portfolio to make it clear that public health policy in Aotearoa is not for sale," Robinson said. Vape-Free Kids co-founder Charyl Robinson Photo: Supplied But Luxon, addressing reporters on his way to Parliament, said Costello was a "great minister" and he was "very proud" of her record. RNZ put a detailed list of questions to Peters two days before publication but he did not address any of them, instead posting on social media that he was proud of NZ First's record on tobacco control. "Since New Zealand First's smokefree policy was implemented in 2020, the smoking rates have drastically decreased to the point where we are now one of the leading two countries in the world for lowest smoking rates. The smokefree legislation that we implemented is working." He did not address the allegations that New Zealand First received material from PMI, but his social media post said engagement with the tobacco industry was legitimate. "Multiple government departments have themselves proactively reached out to, and met with, 'big tobacco' for direct feedback and advice on tobacco legislation," he said on X. "Is [RNZ reporter] Guyon [Espiner] saying now that government departments including Customs and Health, have dodgy links to 'big tobacco' and that officials should be subject to his 'lynch mob' reporting," he asked. "This convenient omission by Guyon that government officials meet with 'big tobacco' for advice is palpable in its bias and contradiction." As a signatory to the World Health Organisation's Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), New Zealand promises to "protect policies from the commercial and other vested interests of the tobacco industry". "There is a fundamental and irreconcilable conflict between the tobacco industry's interests and public health policy interests," the FCTC says. The Health Ministry says the FCTC requires signatories to "observe complete transparency in their dealings with the tobacco industry". Since 2011 it has kept a public record of meetings with tobacco lobbyists. The allegations were among a trove of documents released on the Truth Tobacco Industry Documents online archive. Photo: RNZ Auckland University honorary research fellow Melissa-Jade Gregan - whose PhD explored how the alcohol, food, gambling, and tobacco industries influence politics - said New Zealand's lobbying laws were too lax. Gregan has extensively searched the JUUL papers, which are hosted on the Truth Tobacco Industry Documents archive, created in 2002 by the University of California San Francisco Library. The archive, which is still being updated, contains nearly 19 million documents, including 3.8 million relating to JUUL. "What we see through these documents isn't a conspiracy - it's standard practice for how these industries operate in New Zealand," she said. "The tobacco and vaping industries, alcohol, junk food, they've developed a sophisticated, effective approach to political influence that takes full advantage of our complete lack of lobbying regulations." Gregan said New Zealand's reputation for open and transparent government was largely a myth. "We have this political system where the industries causing health harm ostensibly have systematic and primarily unseen access to decision-makers." Labour health spokesperson Ayesha Verrall said RNZ's revelations showed why her members' bill, which would tightly restrict the influence of the tobacco industry on government, was needed. "Around the world, tobacco companies have a long history of influencing and weakening health policies to better suit their bottom line and here we see evidence of it happening in New Zealand." Verrall's bill, which would need to be drawn from the ballot to come before Parliament, would prohibit governments supporting the interests of the tobacco industry. It would also impose a six-month stand-down period before officials involved in tobacco policy could work for the industry. "It's time we get rid of the smokescreen and protect Kiwis from big tobacco's lobbying tactics - they have no place in health policy," Verrall said. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

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