Employment Relations (Employee Remuneration Disclosure) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Employment Relations (Employee Remuneration Disclosure) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Education and Workforce Committee to consider the bill.

It’s an honour to be able to stand here and give the first reading speech on this bill, which has been a long time coming. This bill is a small step towards greater transparency in pay. The reason that this is important is that for too long in New Zealand—and indeed around the world—we’ve had persistent and unexplained discrimination in our pay, and that’s especially so for women and especially so for Māori and Pacific workers. Where there is discrimination, sunlight is often the best disinfectant. This bill brings sunlight to pay. Being secretive about pay often fuels gender and ethnic pay gaps, and can lead to discrimination.

The origins of this bill arose out of a briefing that was started under the 53rd Parliament by the Education and Workforce Committee, which I was a member of. I want to acknowledge members of that committee in the last Parliament, who were really pivotal in that particular briefing—including Marja Lubeck, who was our chair of the Education and Workforce Committee during the 53rd Parliament; and also Jan Logie, who did a lot of work in this area and worked closely with me and other members of that committee on that piece of work. The committee recommended a mandatory pay transparency regime for large businesses in New Zealand to report gender pay gaps and ethnic pay gaps within their organisations, and there was also strong support for disability pay gaps to be also reported. Another one of the recommendations from that committee was to end pay secrecy, and this is the recommendation that resulted in the bill before us today. There were some other worthy recommendations from that report, such as making pay rates mandatory on job ads, but that’s perhaps another member’s bill for another members’ day.

What does this bill do? It does something quite simple. It allows you—and when I say you, Madam Speaker, I mean individuals in New Zealand—to talk about their own pay. It means that people can talk about their own pay without fear of discipline, without fear of action taken by their employer, regardless of what their contract says. My hope is that it will make taking bigger claims like pay equity claims and equal pay claims and it will make it easier for people to do those types of claims which remedy larger discrimination within the employment system in New Zealand. It means that conversations about pay can be freely held.

Many people in New Zealand might not realise that if you have a clause in your contract that states that you cannot talk about your pay, even talking to your spouse or a family member will technically put you in breach of your contract. Now, that’s not practical. It’s also not just, and not fair, and not right. In a bigger sense, it means that conversations about pay that would lead to discrimination being addressed at an earlier stage are not happening in New Zealand. This bill addresses that problem. It provides a small step towards easier conversations, more transparent pay, and, I hope, less discrimination.

Technically, this bill amends the Employment Relations Act 2000. It introduces the term “adverse conduct for a remuneration disclosure reason”. If you disclose your own pay or inquire into someone else’s pay and you are then disadvantaged or dismissed as a result of those actions, then you can take a personal grievance under the bill. It’s quite simple and it’s quite fair. It is an individual’s pay and they should be able to talk to their colleagues about it if they wish, and their partner and their family. Importantly, this bill does not compel or force anyone to disclose anything about their own pay. It is just the ability for them to be able to share that information voluntarily if they want to.

This is important because of our persistent pay gaps in New Zealand. At the moment, the Ministry for Women notes that our gender pay gap in New Zealand is 8.2 percent, but recently, we’ve had another biannual report by Strategic Pay that looks at pay more widely and also includes things like bonuses, parking allowances, and cars to measure the gender pay gap within not only the public sector but also the private sector. Very disappointingly, this has shown that the pay gap in the private sector has actually got wider for men and women. This means that we need to take action. It means that we can’t keep doing the same thing that we have been doing, to date, and small steps like this, in voting for this bill tonight—and I would ask colleagues around the House to consider doing so—will help to address some of those inequities.

All of the literature on this recognises that pay gaps are a complex problem. There isn’t one specific cause or one specific reason that gender pay gaps, or ethnicity pay gaps, or disability pay gaps exist. A complex problem requires a complex response, and one of those small steps towards addressing it can be supporting this bill. Interestingly, the study conducted by Strategic Pay also found that females were still being paid less than males for the same-sized job. This is in New Zealand today—quite shocking for us to be still facing that.

In relation to people being disciplined for discussing their pay, some people may wonder if this is an issue in New Zealand—and it is; there have been a number of cases that I’ve been able to find. One was a case called Kar v Bakers Magnum Ltd. In this particular case, this particular worker was off work on ACC. He then showed his payslip to another worker, and then was called up and reprimanded by his employer for doing so. It wasn’t directly as a result—well, it’s not clear that it was directly as a result of that interaction that his employment ended, but that was the result. You can see that there is evidence that this occurs in New Zealand.

Additionally, the Privacy Commissioner has the following advice on their website: essentially, it’s a matter of employment law. It’s not something covered by the Privacy Act, and it actually says to people if they want to look at discussing their own pay, they should actually get legal advice on that—and that’s not the situation we want. We want people to be able to talk about their pay and be able to recognise when there’s discrepancies in pay, without having to get legal advice. A conversation between colleagues should not depend on getting legal advice to be able to talk about something so simple. That’s what this bill would do.

Other countries have done this; this is not an unusual type of law to have. Australia has it as part of their fair work legislation. Ontario in Canada has a law which prohibits employers from taking reprisals against employees. The United Kingdom has a law banning reprisals for discussing pay if it’s about discovering discrimination. Nineteen states in the United States have this particular prohibition, and the European Union also banned pay secrecy clauses from 6 June 2023.

It also has support among experts. A very well-known employment lawyer, Susan Hornsby-Geluk, wrote in March 2024 that salary concealment frequently helps only the most skilled employees in negotiation and that pay transparency, on the other hand, requires that each person’s compensation be reasonable in light of all the factors.

You can see that this is a needed bill. It’s not a bill that is going to fix the fact that we do have gender pay gaps or ethnicity pay gaps or disability pay gaps in New Zealand, but is a strong signal towards continued work and will help with the other laws which remedy discrimination and work.

In closing at this first reading, I want to acknowledge the work done by the Human Rights Commission, specifically the Pacific pay gap inquiry. There’s a lot more information that I could read from this, including a lot of Pacific workers who reflect on working their entire working life on the minimum wage and not feeling that they could ask about their colleagues’ pay. I want to acknowledge especially the outgoing Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner, Saunoamaali’i Karanina Sumeo. I also want to acknowledge her for her advocacy and thus her particular strength in advocating for the Pacific pay gap to be addressed. I hope that this bill is one small step. I also want to acknowledge Dellwyn Stuart and Mind the Gap for their advocacy and support of this bill, and the CTU—the Council of Trade Unions—for their work in trying to close the gender pay gaps and their work towards pay transparency.

This is a small bill, but it provides a stepping stone towards further work which, I hope, for the sake of my daughters, this House decides to take.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, this is helpfully a very simple bill—and I’ll cut to the chase: we are going to support this to select committee—but there’s some really interesting things that I’d like to talk to about this. I have been an employee in private sector, I’ve been an employee in the public sector, and I’ve been an employer—and there are so many different circumstances where this plays out both negatively and potentially positively. For that reason, I am really interested to see where this goes in terms of public response at select committee.

One of the points is there are a lot of people out there that have been brought up to not talk about money. It’s one of those things—you don’t talk about politics, religion, and money in some people’s upbringings. It goes against people’s grain to have those conversations, and so for some that’s just taboo. As the member opposite—and to congratulate Camilla on another member’s bill out of the biscuit tin; some just have that luck to have this be coming through in the first reading and then hopefully going to select committee to be discussed.

Look, some people are in a position where there is a disadvantage. They don’t work in an organisation where there are grades; where the grades are really structured; they are really transparent in themselves, you know where you are on the grade, you know why you’re there, you know where your steps are, and you could almost make the guess. In some organisations, that’s not the case at all. In some organisations, you are sworn to secrecy as your employment agreement might stipulate, but I have very rarely seen an organisation utilise that.

The problem is you’ve got one side where you have, obviously, women being able to make an advance to get ahead. I’ve seen examples where women just don’t ask for as much as men, and that’s another issue we have to deal with altogether. When we’re talking about the gender pay gap, women understanding their worth and asking for it is something we’ve really got to work on—breaking down that stigma of, “Actually, I am worth this much and I can aim higher and have that sort of ambition that some of our male counterparts have.” It’s really important that we have this opportunity to hear that out and see how this might impact that opportunity.

I’ve also seen examples where people do use discussing their pay—and, as I say, even though this isn’t a legal thing to make this a “not-allowed-to-be”, in employment terms, people do still discuss their pay as it stands. Some people do it to cause trouble, some people do it inadvertently—they have no idea it’s a term in their contract. It is a good opportunity for us to explore how removing that from terms and conditions and people’s employment agreements can iron some of that out.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just—sorry to interrupt the member: just letting you know there’s seven minutes left. We’re having awful problems with our clocks all night, but mine’s fine. I’ll give you a five-minute bell and a two-minute bell.

KATIE NIMON: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I’m happy to talk for 90 minutes 46 for ever, but I’m sure we’ll be here too late.

I think, ultimately, when it comes to what we want to get from the select committee process, it is to genuinely hear the voices, because, as the member intends, this is to help expose that pay gap and put the sunlight as the disinfectant—which is a really great metaphor—but just acknowledging that there would inadvertently be perverse outcomes. In my experience, what I have seen is that in organisations where there are really large skill gaps people don’t necessarily see that, in terms of their experience, in terms of their—you know, maybe it’s reliability; maybe it’s commitment; maybe it’s all sorts of things that are a reason that somebody has an additional dollar or so an hour, thank you very much.

Like I was saying before our little time debacle, there are occasions where people use that as a trouble-making tool—so to create dissent, to stir the pot. Then there are some people that absolutely inadvertently and for very good intention will talk to their colleagues about what they’re earning to understand whether they’re getting paid what they think they’re worth; and comparing and contrasting based on experience, based on skill, based on roles, and based on workload.

There are really two sides to this. Like I say, I’m really excited to hear from people and do implore, when we go through the select committee process and this gets opened—and I’m sure that will be in the sort of coming days or weeks—that we do get a good, broad number of contributions because we don’t just want to hear from businesses, we don’t just want to hear from the unions, and we don’t just want to hear from women, we don’t just want to hear from Pasifika. We want to hear from a really good representation of all those that will be impacted, because, ultimately, at the end of the day, this is a term that may be in people’s agreements for archaic reasons—absolutely, like I acknowledged in the beginning of my contribution. It is a very old-school terminology to say, “We don’t talk about money. You don’t talk about politics. We don’t talk about religion.”, but what would happen if we did talk about it? I am really interested to see that.

Look, I think one of the things we need to consider is why it is that we don’t share our pay, our salary, or our hourly wage? What is that in people’s employment agreements for? We’ve seen so many organisations going towards having pay grades, having stepped approaches, having a really structured rule, having internal policies as to gender and ethnicity and those salaries. That is a voluntary commitment from organisations. Would this see more people going towards that? Obviously, you’re being proactive rather than reactive, waiting for someone to come to you as an employee to raise their remuneration with you in an unfair way, perhaps, in comparison to your colleagues, but it’s not to take away from independent negotiation, and that’s something I do want to mention. Of course, we do believe in in the power of the independent employment agreement, so there still needs to be the ability for employees and employers to negotiate. I think that what we will hear from contributors—and I don’t want to speculate, but I’m sure there will be confidence that that can still be achieved through this process.

Look, I think, from my perspective—having employed, having been employed, having been in the public sector, and having been in the private sector—it really does come down to the culture of the workplace; it comes down to the structure of the remuneration; it comes down to whether you have an HR department or whether you’re an owner-operator. All of these things do make every business different. While sometimes having legislation that sort of makes blanket rules isn’t always the best approach, I think in some cases, like I say, we have some archaic rules and regulations that have just been in place. Culture has changed; times have changed. I just hope that there won’t be sort of perverse outcomes that come from this, but, again, that’s what we hopefully will draw out.

I think we have a good amount of opportunity as a House, if there is enough support, to push out to our communities, to the people we know, to really make sure their voice is heard on this. There will be some people who might be afraid of the pressure that they might feel to share their salary or their wage with their colleagues and what that might look like in terms of competition or judgment. I think these are the things that we’ve got to consider. It will be sensitive for some people, but it will be an amazing opportunity for others.

I know, obviously, as a woman, you do have a big battle to convince people of your worth in some places and occasions, and particular industries can be very difficult. I myself have worked in the transport industry—it’s predominantly a man’s world. There are all sorts of things that women do feel that they have to do to make themselves on that same level, or at least feel on the same level, whether it’s additional study or more hours or whatever else it might be that you feel gives you those credentials. If this becomes that levelling tool, then that’s a wonderful thing.

I do really look forward to, like I said, hearing from businesses and hearing from employers, in all different sectors, in all different spaces, whether it’s public sector or private sector—if that’s something that we can achieve—and employees as well, both those on independent agreements and those on collective agreements. I’m sure—and I can’t speak for collective agreements to the same that I can independent—that there is a bit more understanding of what some colleagues are earning, given that those are collective in some respects. Of course, we do have some industries where they have particular rates of pay that do exist under arrangement. Look, I’m sure that we will iron that out in due course.

As I said, as a party, we’re looking forward to supporting this to select committee and really hearing those voices. I do hope that we get considerable contribution from the public so that we can really see how this stands up and what people’s views are. On that note, I commend this bill to the House.

The clocks are currently working—we’ll keep an eye on it. I call Teanau Tuiono.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Greens if the clock’s working—oh, I rise anyway if the clocks aren’t working—to speak on the Employment Relations (Employee Remuneration Disclosure) Amendment Bill, and just to signal for the House that we will be supporting this bill. It’s great to hear that bill looks like it’s destined to be heard at the select committee where it can have that more precise looking-over, which will involve submitters coming to the select committee to really give their perspectives on this bill.

This bill amends the Employment Relations Act to ensure that employees who discuss or disclose remuneration cannot be subjected to detrimental repercussions from their employer. I note that, currently, employment contracts may include firms prohibiting employees from discussing or disclosing their remuneration—tongue-twister tonight—to third parties, including other employees. Breaching this may be considered a breach of good faith, or a disciplinary matter, which could subject individuals to action from their employer.

I want to align myself with the comments that have been made around the need for people to be able to share what they’re getting paid and the importance of that transparency as well, and also to acknowledge—as the member Camilla Belich did—the work of Saunoamaali’i Karanina Sumeo. While the member was speaking, I actually had a copy of the Voices of Pacific Peoples: Eliminating pay gaps, and I was at the launch of that—it was just over there in 2022.

Noting, as others have mentioned, that the gender pay gap in Aotearoa is 8.6 percent as of 2023—and I believe the member might have had even more up-to-date data which says that that gap is getting larger—and the ethnic pay gap is also quite large as well when you compare it to Pākehā incomes. The Pacific pay gap for men and women was 24 percent and 15 percent, respectively. Asian men and women also have a pay gap of 86c and 83c to every dollar earned by Pākehā men. Also noting, compared with Pākehā incomes, the Māori pay gap was 19 percent and 12 percent for men and women.

One of the reasons for having this inquiry, thinking back to 2022, was that a lot of the voices of Pacific peoples had been talking about the importance of pay transparency for some time. In this inquiry, they mentioned the Polynesian Panthers, who, in the 1970s, called for better working conditions and equal pay for Pacific workers. That highlights that this is not a new kaupapa; the pay gap, particularly in this example for Pacific peoples, has been a generational issue.

Within this inquiry, there were a number of recommendations that I think this House should pay attention to—for example, including implementing the recommendations of the tripartite working group on better protections for contractors; establishing a national pay equity task force to ensure Pacific, Māori, and ethnic pay gaps are closed by 2042; I like this one: raise the minimum wage to the same level as the living wage to ensure that increases over time remain adequate to meet people’s living costs; and this is where this bill comes in, and it’s a recommendation from this report: to urgently introduce pay transparency legislation. I get that this is a small step, but it is a significant step.

That falls in line completely, I feel, with the recommendations out of the Voices of Pacific Peoples. I look forward to supporting the member and to listening to our communities at the select committee who, I’m sure, will be able to share with members of Parliament their particular experiences to the select committee. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would like to start by congratulating the member in charge, Camilla Belich, for bringing this bill to the House. I know it’s always exciting when a bill is drawn for any member whose bill is drawn. In the start, I just want to state this: that the ACT Party will not be supporting this bill, because we do not believe that this bill is going to deliver what it says it is going to deliver.

The intention is good behind this bill—the gender pay gap is a real issue—but the mechanism that this bill uses, thinking that it is going to address that issue, is not going to do that. We know that this bill is to amend the Employment Relations Act 2000, and this is to protect employees if they disclose their remuneration by prohibiting the clause of not disclosing in their employment agreement. We believe that an employment agreement is an agreement between an employer and an employee. We should not take that right away from them—what to include in the employment agreement or not to include in the employment agreement. Yes, of course we want to see that the basic labour laws are upheld—and we have really good labour laws here in New Zealand, in our country, and we do not want too much legislative intervention in each and everything that happens at workplaces.

Just to give two scenarios as examples here, Madam Speaker, if you look at the current scenario. I meet with a lot of people, like my other colleagues here, meet with so many people on a daily basis, and I know that people don’t go around sharing their remuneration because it’s a private matter. This doesn’t mean that each and every individual that I meet with has that prohibition clause in their employment agreement, but it’s a private matter. They don’t disclose it; we don’t discuss it. That’s totally fine. Now, if somebody reaches out to them, a colleague reaches out to them, and asks for what their remuneration is, and if it is disclosed and is different from the person who has asked—more than the person who has asked—that is going to create friction at workplace.

Now look at the other scenario: if this bill goes through, then, in that case, the employers will not be able to put this clause in the employment agreement—that means everybody will know that there is no prohibition from the employer. A colleague goes to another colleague and asks what their remuneration is and they say, “Nah, I’m not disclosing that to you.”, then, again, it’s going to create friction amongst those colleagues, because they will ask that in good faith—that, yep, because there is no prohibition clause, they might disclose it for transparency, for reducing that discriminatory outcome that the member has talked about. And it won’t result in what actually the member thinks it’s going to result in.

We really think that it’s the ability of the employee to negotiate, on the basis of their skills, what they earn, and we should not take that right away from the employee. Also, it is a mechanism for the employer to incentivise employees, those who deliver more. There might be people working at the same position, but there will be people—those who come with unique skillsets—who are able to contribute more to the workplace and the employer might want to incentivise them. What will happen if this bill goes through? Then employers will stop incentivising their employees on the basis of the contribution that they make, and that will take away that motivation from employees as well to work harder at their workplaces.

It’s very important that we support our economy and we support, too, productivity, because we know that the state of the economy that is left by the previous Labour Government is causing a lot of suffering. What we should be doing is actually supporting the growth of the economy. We should be supporting increasing productivity and we should be actually supporting that people are able to invest. We should be creating environment where people feel confident about investing, not just in starting a new business but also growing their business, employing more people. These are the things we need to do to actually help people earn more, help people reach their potential where they think that they are earning that they deserve.

Everybody’s circumstances are different, skills are different, and this is a relationship between an employer and employee that should remain intact. It is a relationship of trust and respect that we should not take away by intervening. As I said before, of course we want to see that all agreements are upholding basic labour laws—and our labour laws are good. We do not support this bill.

Madam Speaker, thank you very much. It’s a pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First on this Employment Relations (Employee Remuneration Disclosure) Amendment Bill. I do like members’ day; it’s a great day for members to bring forward pieces of legislation. I have noticed, though, the times I’ve got up to speak on members’ day, it’s always a bill being put forward by Camilla Belich. It’s a bit like you’re running a parallel Government over there, Camilla, some sort of guerilla outfit—

Hon Phil Twyford: She’s a machine!

Hon MARK PATTERSON: A legislative machine, Camilla Belich. In terms of this bill, New Zealand First always takes employment relations legislation very seriously, and we have supported your previous bill to select committee, so we have had a good look at this bill and we do think the intentions are good. However, like the previous speaker in the ACT Party, Parmjeet Parmar, said, it has not crossed our threshold for support. This time, you do not need our support, so it’s still going through to the select committee and I do congratulate you on that.

I guess, from our perspective, we’re very much, like Parmjeet Parmar articulated—pay should be merit based. This is not about equity of outcome in terms of at an individual level. I know what you’re trying to address here, bridging the gender pay gap; I’m not sure that this bill does it. It potentially might, and the select committee might tease some of that out, but for us, we could not see this as being a major plank in that platform, in terms of our response to that as a Parliament.

We do think there could be some unintended consequences for this. As Katie Nimon pointed out, we don’t talk about salary or pay. Talking about money is up there with politics and religion, and we’ve failed at most of those in this House. But there is good reason for that, and for, I guess, the camaraderie of the workplace and the functioning of a workplace or an office or a farm or orchard or wherever you might be. If there’s a sense that someone may be getting something more than you—you know, if that sort of pervades around, it can be quite destabilising. I think that everyone has the ability to negotiate if they don’t think they’re getting a fair deal. If my wife’s workplace is anything to go by, she seems to have a pretty good idea of what she’s being paid compared to other people—I hope she doesn’t get arrested over this now I know that could be against the law; that wouldn’t end well for me.

I guess what I’m trying to say is I think it’s possibly a solution to something that’s not really a problem. I think people do have a sense of what they’re worth for their experience that they bring to a role, the merit, how they line up with others in the workplace. If you are good at your job, even in these times of tightened financial times, there is still a skill shortage, so if you are good at your job—and we hear it all the time from employers, that they’re really screaming out for good employees.

I guess that is the basis of our position, that we just did not think that this is a solution to the problem that it’s setting out to address. We do believe in merit-based performance pay as opposed to just straight equity of outcome. We do worry that if an employer would like to perhaps remunerate one worker that’s doing better than others or a group of workers that are doing better than others, that might have a chilling effect on this, that they may feel that disrupting the workplace would not be—you know, it’s not worth disrupting the workplace and the collegiality that may exist in there. There is just that feel that this is not a solution to the problem that it’s trying to fix, that it could cause unintended consequences, and, as such, we will not be voting for this bill during this reading. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

It is an absolute pleasure to take a call. This is not usually my subject or profession, but I do have the pleasure of standing and rising in this House to support yet another bill. Camilla Belich, congratulations, and I think this is an important issue for us to talk about. I just want to draw on a whakatauki in te iwi Māori: He wāhine, he whenua, ka mate te tangata—without women and without land, the people will perish—and that is a very pre-colonial perspective of te iwi Māori.

I’ve just heard speeches from the ACT Party and New Zealand First. In their dream world, because women are still reeling from the very toxic white masculinity of women being chattels and property—[Interruption] Absolutely. Do your research—do your research. We’re still reeling from that, and let’s break that down: for every $1 a Pākehā man makes, a Māori woman makes 81c; a Pacific woman makes 79c; an Asian woman makes 88c; and Middle Eastern, Latin American, and African women make 88c—as opposed to every $1 a Pākehā man makes. You haven’t done your research. What world are you living in—what world are you living in? Over a lifetime, taking inflation into consideration, Māori women have earned over $400,000 less than a Pākehā man. That’s the reality. I don’t know what reality you’re living in. Do some research, do your due diligence, so you can come here and debate the actual essence of what this bill is trying to achieve—pay parity—and not exploit women in and around jobs here in Aotearoa.

This illustrates the intergenerational impact of pay discrimination on whānau. These aren’t just numbers; these are families, these are tamariki, these are mokopuna. Financial instruments are key drivers in the oppression and the colonisation of my people and other minority cultures, yet inattention to this oppressive tool—

Hon Members: Rubbish!

RAWIRI WAITITI: Listen, you might learn something—

Suze Redmayne: I think he’s speaking on the wrong bill.

RAWIRI WAITITI: —has enabled the greater exclusion of us from these conversations. Again, congratulations, Camilla Belich, on this particular kaupapa. We absolutely support this kaupapa. We have many conversations with wāhine-heavy industries—and we’re talking about early childhood education (ECE), we’re talking about kōhanga reo—that don’t have the same pay parity—

Laura Trask: They do.

RAWIRI WAITITI: —and we always have those conversations. How many kōhanga reo have you spoken to? None. The problem is you profess to be the party that protects the property rights and interests and employment rights of people. I’m absolutely—

Hon Phil Twyford: Only some people’s property.

RAWIRI WAITITI: Oh, only some people. Yes, only some people. I am absolutely on the right legislation here, and this is absolutely the right speech and it’s absolutely the right data that needs to be expressed in this House tonight.

We will continue to advocate for our wāhine who don’t have the same opportunities—because they don’t—and employers need to do better. They need to do better to ensure pay parity. They need to do better to ensure that wāhine are getting the due acknowledgment of their hard work and their merit. I’ve heard that kōrero: based on their merit—absolutely—because, actually, that’s an actual fact. They probably do it a lot better—they probably do it a lot better. Actually, they do do it a lot better, and I say that, if wāhine were in charge, I think the world would do a lot better. Ngā mihi nui ki a koe, Camilla Belich, ki tō pāti hoki mō tēnei pire. [Thanks to you, Camilla Belich, and your party also for this bill.]

I think this is a critical bill that will be supported by Te Pāti Māori, and we will continue to stand up for those who are less fortunate and those who are discriminated against across all spheres, even in the employment arena. We will continue to listen to our kōhanga reo kaiako, our ECE kaiako, and many of our other women in businesses that are discriminated against, and we commend this bill to the House. Kia ora tātou.

I rise in support of this bill, and I congratulate Camilla Belich on the bill. I also just want to give a contribution to this discussion which is not the same as my colleagues’. I worked in this area for a long time in New Zealand—25 years—and I saw a lot of employees who did not have unions. That would probably be the majority of what I was doing with my days. Ones that have unions have a collective agreement, and the collective agreement is lodged and we actually all know what the pay rates are for those workers. The ones that came to my office who didn’t have a union, and that’s about 80 percent of workers—it’s slightly different from that, but it’s a lot of workers—don’t have the benefit of any kind of knowledge of what their colleagues have got in their agreements.

You can like it or not, but the reality is that when an employer gives an employment agreement to an employee, it’s only really the very highly paid that argue about the terms of that agreement. What happens is that there are fashions, so you get particular things come into the contracts by precedent, because that is what is in the employers and manufacturers’ precedent or it’s in the builders’ precedent, etc. You see the same clauses over and over again, and they’re not necessarily in the best interests of New Zealanders. They are often a fashion from overseas or they’re a fashion within a particular industry or they’re a fashion just out there in terms of plain legal community. You do see clauses that we would rather not have. This clause, I didn’t see a lot of, and it’s probably come in since I was practising, because it’s come in from Australia. Australia has had to deal with this because it’s been happening, so I urge the select committee to actually examine what’s happening in other places. We aren’t just here to solve the biggest problems that have already happened and that have a lot of the victims; we’re also here to stop problems occurring.

Now, the reason we want this is because this is sunshine. This is a chance, not for someone—let’s just dispel the myth: this is not people being forced to tell their salary to anyone. This is a matter of if they want to tell another worker what they they’re earning, they’re allowed to without being punished by their employer. It’s not a breach of their employment agreement; they can’t be dismissed for it. That’s what it is. Let’s just get it in proportion. That’s all that’s happening here. It allows people to share information that’s actually very personal to them. Who does it matter more to, the employee whose salary it is and who has earned that? Is that a right of that person in terms of autonomy to tell somebody else what they’re earning and to compare those things and make sure that they feel it’s justified, or does that right belong to an employer who’s putting it in the agreement at the beginning?

Why would an employer put that in an agreement? The reason an employer would put it in the agreement is because they don’t want employees to share that information, because they want to do whatever they want to do. Sometimes, unfortunately, what they want to do isn’t very fair. Now, if the employer has got good reasons for the difference in pay, that will out; that will actually show up in those discussions. Somebody might get a little bit of a kick that they’re not earning as much and they might actually buy in and strive for more. That’s actually one outcome of that conversation. But if, in fact, the Pacific Island, Māori woman is getting a whole lot less—in this case, I think the number given was 79c to every dollar that her colleague doing exactly the same job is getting—then actually it’s good that we know that. It’s good that they know that and they can make a decision. Their decision might be to go get a different job. Their decision might be to have a very brave conversation with the employer about earning more. They’ll learn their own worth.

Now, I just want to return to my experience being a lawyer in this area. It is only anecdotal, but I did work in the area for a very long time and I continually saw that there was almost no correlation between how hard you worked and how competent you were and what you got paid. Women, even in very senior positions, tended to think that they had to earn the right to the pay and that it would be recognised, whereas men were really good at advocating for themselves and getting better money, particularly ones at higher levels. So these are issues that are important, not just to women but to all workers who may lack a little bit of confidence. These issues are really important to get these settings right, because workers who aren’t necessarily the ones—

The member’s time has expired.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Can I just commend Camilla Belich for getting this bill to the House and for taking it from the last Parliament and into this one. As a member of the Petitions Committee, it’s really pleasing to see something come through the Petitions Committee, come in through the select committee, and, ultimately, come to the House.

As a member of the Education and Workforce Committee, I’m also looking forward to deliberating on this subject. I think that of particular interest to me is going to be the submissions that we get from both employers and employees. I’m particularly interested when they come in, and I encourage small employers and employees to actually submit. Often on bills like this, we get the form submissions from those that say they speak for all—like some of the unions—and I think that they’re not necessarily helpful to understanding the challenges that business will face and employees will face in the process. I’m looking forward to that in the select committee, and I commend this bill to the House.

This bill is about pay gaps, fundamentally. It identifies secrecy about pay, in particular the prohibitions for employment contracts, mostly of people talking about their pay rates as an enabler of discrimination and unfairness in the workplace. It makes sense. If you can’t talk about it, how can you know and how can your workmates know if pay rates, in fact, are fair and consistent or arbitrary and discriminatory?

I wanted to respond to a couple of things that colleagues in the House have said tonight. Pay secrecy has nothing to do with the quaint and annoying New Zealand and British custom of not discussing politics, religion, or money. It’s not a matter of manners when discussing one’s pay is prohibited by contract. There’s only one reason for that to happen, and that is because it strengthens the negotiating position of the employer. Is there any other reason? I haven’t heard it. Is there any good reason to prohibit employees talking about their own rates of pay? Maybe we’ll find out at select committee.

If ACT was a proper libertarian party, it would support this bill on the grounds that it is based on freedom of expression. Why would you support the right of employers to impose a gagging order on employees? It beggars belief. Mark Patterson said that people are free to negotiate what they think is a fair rate of pay. How would you know? If no one can discuss what their pay rate is and everyone’s on an individual contract, how would you know what’s fair? Like the other members, I want to acknowledge the queen of members’ bills—particularly those about workers’ rights—Camilla Belich, and I look forward to discussing this bill at select committee.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Tom Rutherford: Bring it home, Butterick!

MIKE BUTTERICK: Bring it—ha ha! As the father of one adult son and three adult daughters, I would find it indefensible and abhorrent if I was to find that our daughters were being paid less than someone of equal skill, work ethic, and experience just because they were female. In fact, I wouldn’t mind betting that they’re actually more competent than a whole lot of the opposite sex in the job that they do, and that’s despite them working in industries that are typically male-dominated.

There is still plenty to do, but simply, in 2024, there’s no excuse for someone to be paid less as a result of their gender or their ethnicity and/or both. I really look forward to what we’ll hear in the select committee process, and I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I want to start by thanking everyone in all the parties around the House for their consideration on this bill. I want to especially acknowledge the National Party for their support of this bill and from the members of the Education and Workforce Committee who’ve expressed an interest in seeing this bill debated and discussed at select committee—I intend to do that. I also want to acknowledge the Green Party and Te Pāti Māori for their support as well: thank you for your considered words, especially referencing the Pacific pay gap, as Teanau Tuiono did; and also the intergenerational impact of pay gaps that was mentioned by Rawiri Waititi. Thank you, e hoa, for that reflection.

For those parties who have decided not to support this bill, I welcome your reconsideration after the select committee process. I think, unfortunately, this problem of us not being able to have transparency around pay does lead to quite a few different issues, and I hope that some of the outcomes that you are worried about may be able to be addressed and overcome during the select committee process or with further evidence. Please, continue to have an open mind in relation to this particular bill.

There were some comments that this bill will not solve all of the problems it’s seeking to achieve, and I agree with that. This bill will not solve the problem of gender and ethnic pay gaps in New Zealand—that is a very complex problem that will require consideration and work by this House moving forward—but I do see this bill as creating a stepping stone, as I said, towards looking at pay transparency regimes that have been discussed by this House in the past and, I think, would help to close the gender pay gap and ethnic pay gaps more effectively than this bill but are probably not the appropriate type of bill for a members’ day. I hope the House will look to those other policies that may help to address some of these problems which are entrenched.

It was good, though, to see all parties in the House recognise that this problem does exist, the problem of gender pay gaps. As I said, it is a complex problem that will require lots of different solutions. This is one part of a puzzle piece that will, I think, assist in addressing some of those issues. I think there will be, hopefully, a very valuable select committee process that we will be able to go through, and I hope that it will lead to continued discussions about what more we can do as a Parliament and as a House and as political parties to address some of the systemic inequities that are ongoing within our society.

We can’t wait for the pay gaps to close themselves—that will be beyond the time of our children—and as a parent I share the concerns of many other parents in this House: that we don’t want to wait another generation for these issues to be solved. I think this bill is a good starting point to having those discussions and making active steps to make sure that our children face fairer workplaces based on who they are as people and not where they come from or what gender they are. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

The question is, That the Employment Relations (Employee Remuneration Disclosure) Amendment Bill be considered by the Education and Workforce Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Education and Workforce Committee.

Members, thank you for your tolerance of the clocks tonight. At least one or two out of the four of them were working at any one stage, and, hopefully, by tomorrow they will be going again. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.