Leading Employment Platform Urges New Zealand Businesses To Prepare For ‘Wage Secrecy' Changes
With New Zealands pay transparency bill gaining momentum, Employment Hero urges businesses to get ahead by doing three things – reviewing pay structures, updating employment contracts, and preparing clear explanations of how pay is determined.
Wellington
Global employment authority Employment Hero, a leading people, payroll and benefits software provider, has encouraged New Zealand employers to prepare for The Employment Relations (Employee Remuneration Disclosure) Amendment Bill before it comes into effect. The bill aims to prevent employers from enforcing pay secrecy clauses in employment contracts, making it legal for employees to openly discuss their salaries without fear of reprisal. The National Party backed the bill at its first reading and signalled during the second reading debate that it would maintain its support, increasing the likelihood that the bill will become law.
'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, Employment Counsel at Employment Hero and workplace law commentator.
'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 highlights three key actions employers should take to prepare:
Conduct a pay review
'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.
Review employment contracts
'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.
Prepare clear explanations
'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.
Employment Hero provides free resources to New Zealand businesses on employment law updates and compliance via its website. The latest resource, including Employee Remuneration Disclosure can be found here.
About Employment Hero
Employment Hero is revolutionising the world of work with the introduction of the world's first Employment Operating System (eOS), a solution designed to address the $20 billion problem of inefficient employment processes globally.
eOS is the next generation of employment technology, a revolutionary system that simplifies and automates complex employment processes, allowing businesses to streamline workflows, reduce administrative burden, and focus on growth
Employment Hero services over 300,000 businesses globally and its core platform reduces admin time by up to 80%. By launching employers toward their goals, powering more productive teams and taking employment to rewarding new heights, Employment Hero is revolutionising the employment marketplace.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
13 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
Scoop
14 hours ago
- Scoop
On National's Bid To Steal Future Elections
Other countries are expanding the ability of their citizens to vote. In Britain (from which New Zealand has long taken its constitutional cues) the franchise is being extended to 16-year-olds. In this country, we're headed in the opposite direction. The Luxon government is taking steps to make it significantly more difficult for people to cast a vote, and prisoners will lose their right to vote altogether. No valid reasons are being given for these changes. Formerly, we were world leaders in the ease of voting. People could register and vote on Election Day. But once the new legislation is passed, voters will need to have enrolled some 13 days prior to Election Day. At the 2023 election, 110,000 people registered and voted on Election Day. This was a 46% increase of same-day turnout at the prior election. During the two weeks before election day, 454,000 people registered to vote. Given those numbers, the changes being made by the coalition government will inevitably have a significant impact on the election result. No doubt, same day registration has put added pressure on the Electoral Commission to process the votes accurately, and on time. Any human error is one too many. Yet as the Auditor General's report on the 2023 election noted, 'The relatively small number of errors did not affect the overall outcome.' In the one electorate where a journalist had queried the calculations, the Auditor-General further noted, the subsequent Electoral Commission revision 'did not change the candidate or party vote outcomes.' So, at the last election, despite the sharply increased influx of votes close to election day, only minor errors occurred and these had no impact on any of the results. Yet rather than fund the Commission to be better able to process this welcome late rush of ballots, the Luxon government is choosing instead to stop latecomers from being able to vote at all. It is hard to see this as anything other than a bid by the coalition parties to skew the 2026 election results to their own benefit. When more hurdles are put in front of voters, the young and Māori stand to be disproportionately affected. No doubt it is a sheer co-incidence that those groups are statistically more likely to vote for the centre-left and/or for Te Pāti Māori. Voting in prison In addition, a National-led government will once again deny all prisoners the right to vote. Under successive Labour governments, prisoners could vote if they were serving sentences of less than three years. In 2010, the Key government abolished that right, after ignoring a critical report by the-then Attorney General Chris Finlayson on the steps being proposed. Finlayson indicated that a blanket ban on prisoner voting would be inconsistent with section 12 of our Bill of Rights legislation. In fact, [Finlayson] argued, the supposed objective of the Bill – to deter serious offending – was 'not rationally linked' to the Bill's own provisions to impose a blanket ban on prisoner voting. Reason being, serious offenders are already banned from voting by the existing law. As for everyone else : ' It is questionable that every person sentenced to any period of punishment is a serious offender. People who are not serious offenders will be disenfranchised…' The blanket ban, Finlayson concluded, cannot be justified. Having pointed out the irrationality of denying all prisoners the vote, Finlayson then went further, to show how unjust even the existing provisions could play out in practice: The avowed purpose of the Bill is to deter serious offending. Yet as Finlayson pointed out, under its provisions someone sentenced to home detention would still be able to vote, but someone sentenced to jail for the very same offence would be disenfranchised. Moreover, a serious violent offender sentenced to two and half years in jail would not lose their right to vote if their sentence fell – purely by chance – into the period between elections. Yet by the same token, someone sentenced to a week in jail for not paying their parking fines would lose their right to vote, if they were unlucky enough to be sentenced at the wrong point in the electoral cycle. 'Justice, to state the obvious, should not be reduced to such games of chance.' This shabby episode is about to be played out again. This time around, a critical report by the current Attorney-General, Judith Collins is also being ignored. Similar violations of human rights will recur. To be clear: for people in jail, the sentence they are serving is the punishment for their offence. Tacking on punitive extras like losing their right to vote is petty and vengeful, and will do nothing to aid the re-integration of prisoners back into society on their release. In other respects, the Bill being proposed by Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith repeats some of the same anomalies identified 15 years ago by Chris Finlayson. People on home detention will still be able to vote but those in jail will not, even if they have committed the same offence. Thankfully, those on remand will still be allowed to vote. Not many people in prison do vote. Only 84 prisoners nationwide voted in the 2023 general election, out of circa 5,000 who were eligible to vote, and 41% of those voters identified as Maori. (Part of the overall low turnout can be attributed to the cumbersome process of enrolling and casting a special vote.) Although it is a very small cohort, the high proportion of Māori among the bloc of imprisoned voters merits further research into the rehabilitative role - for some offenders at least - of cultural identity and voter participation. To repeat: the changes being proposed look highly dubious. Instead of expanding the franchise and encouraging more people to vote, steps are being taken to limit participation, and by measures likely to penalise the current government's political opponents. Footnote One: Should 16-year-olds get the vote? Of course. They will inherit the effects of government actions and inactions, especially on climate change. There is a myth about young people not being interested in politics. In reality, the deeper problem is that politicians routinely fail to engage with the problems – climate change, high rents, too few jobs etc – that matter to them. As a percentage of those aged 18-24 eligible to vote, just over two thirds do so. Yet that participation rate has been improving, arguably as a result of last minute, Election Day registration. That conclusion is backed up by this chart – which shows that 74% of enrolled 18 to 24-year-olds voted in 2023. That turnout was higher than for every age band of enrolled voters between 30 and 45. Meaning : young people turned up on polling day, enrolled, and voted right then and there. National now wants to stop them from being able to do so. Surely, we should be trying to make it easier for the young to get enrolled, and vote. Instead, those in power are doing the reverse. As for the obvious fairness issues involved in allowing 16-year-olds to doubt, having civics lessons while 16 to 18-year-olds are still in school could be a significant help in fostering the habit of voting. Yet on those statistics cited above, the problem of non-voting by enrolled voters only really begins to kick in between 25-29, and gets worse thereafter until advanced middle age. This suggests that 20-somethings learn pretty quickly that their voices are being habitually ignored by those in power, so why bother keeping up the charade? Now.. and thanks entirely to this government, any initially disinterested/disillusioned voters who have second thoughts and engage with party politics only at the very last minute will no longer be able to enrol on Election Day. Smoking is a habit The tax break for Big Tobacco (now being extended from one to three years by New Zealand First Minister Casey Costello) is being estimated to cost about $300 million. Initially, NZF had promised that this tax break would be for only a one year trial, and be subject to research as to whether more people were actually switching from harmful nicotine to the monopoly line of heated tobacco products being sold by Philip Morris. This ' trial' and related tax giveaway has now been extended until 2027 at least. Meanwhile, as Labour's Ayesha Verrall has pointed out, the public health system – which could have made far better use of that $300 million giveaway– staggers on while under-funded, under-staffed, and under-paid. When it suits, changes get fast tracked. Not this time. For Big Tobacco, exceptions and foot dragging are the rule. Rastafarians at least, are upfront about the addictive nature of their herb of choice. Here's King Still, deejaying on top of a rhythm laid down by Clancy Eccles and the Dynamites:
Scoop
a day ago
- Scoop
Surcharge Ban May Shift Costs Rather Than Eliminate Them
Hospitality NZ supports the Government's proposal to ban surcharges on card payments, but cautions the move could result in increased costs being absorbed into general pricing for many hospitality businesses. The Government has announced that the Retail Payment System (Ban on Surcharges) Amendment Bill will be introduced by the end of 2025, with the ban expected to come into force by May 2026. It will apply to most in-store transactions using domestic Visa, Mastercard and EFTPOS. Steve Armitage, Hospitality NZ's Chief Executive, says: 'We appreciate the intent behind this change. Simplifying the checkout experience for consumers is a positive step.' 'But at the same time, it's important to recognise that electronic payments come with real costs to businesses. If surcharges are removed, many operators will have to adjust their pricing to reflect that – particularly for small hospitality operators already under pressure.' The Government estimates the move could save consumers up to $150 million a year, including $65 million in excessive surcharges. However, Hospitality NZ notes that these savings will depend on how businesses respond and whether cost recovery mechanisms remain viable. Steve Armitage continues: 'Margins across the hospitality sector remain very tight. Some operators may be able to absorb the cost, but for many, particularly smaller businesses, that won't be realistic. These businesses may have no option but to reflect those costs in their pricing.' Hospitality NZ welcomed the Commerce Commission's recent action to reduce interchange fees – a major component of payment processing costs – and supports further efforts to ensure banks and payment providers pass those savings on to merchants. Steve Armitage says: 'The reduction in interchange fees is a helpful step, and we'd like to see more transparency in how those savings are shared. 'Our priority is to make sure that any changes introduced are sustainable for hospitality businesses and ultimately deliver a fair outcome for both consumers and operators.' Hospitality NZ looks forward to engaging constructively with the Government as the Bill progresses and to ensuring practical support is available for hospitality businesses adapting to the new framework.
