Statutes Amendment Bill

Members, we come now to Part 40. This is the debate on clauses 166 and 167, “Amendment to Wages Protection Act 1983”. The question is that Part 40 stand part.

Thank you, Mr Chair. This is another piece of legislation that I feel affection for, the Wages Protection Act 1983—a particularly good year, I might add, and also the year of the Wages Protection Act 1983. It’s a very important piece of legislation that essentially means that wages for workers are not able to have deductions made from them in an unreasonable way. That goes back, really, to the foundation of the trade union movement, which was set up to allow workers to work together against employers who would essentially make regular deductions from their wages for things like accommodation and food and transport. Many workers, before they had any protections, would find themselves in a state of servitude, which, of course, is very objectionable. They would be working but never making any money, because all of the deductions from their salary would go towards funding other things that their employer would say were required. Of course, that was addressed before 1983, but the Wages Protection Act carries on a very noble aim of making sure that wages are in fact protected.

One of the key tenets, as I understand it, in this legislation is that all deductions must be not only consulted on but consented to prior to a deduction being made. Many of these things that we do consent to in our wages that are permissible deductions are things like—well, maybe KiwiSaver’s not a good example, because it’s opt-out. You do have to consent to things like—for example, if you’re in a staff social club, it would be contrary to the Wages Protection Act for your employer or, say, the president of the social club to deduct that from your wages without your permission. That is really the fundamental purpose, as I understand it, of the Wages Protection Act. There are many other important parts—but, of course, I’m not sure that going through the history of that would make a good question for the Minister.

My question is—this is a very important piece of legislation. The section that this bill is amending appears to make it clear that it may be possible to deduct—I’m sure that this is not correct, but I just want assurance from the Minister that what this is saying is not that you may make deductions if they’re reasonable, even if the employee has not been consulted. I’m sure that, on reading that full section, which I hadn’t had time to do today, that would not be the case, but just on the general reading of clause 167 as it is listed there, I just want that assurance that that isn’t the purpose of this particular change.

It’s not the purpose of this change. In fact, the purpose of it is the opposite. When that section was inserted, the corresponding amendment to section 11 to allow for the recovery of wages deemed to have been deducted unlawfully under section 5A was overlooked. This insertion actually allows—where wages have been deducted without the consent or knowledge of the wage earner—either the wage earner or the labour inspectorate, acting on behalf of that worker, the ability to apply to have that money returned.

Part 40 agreed to.

Part 41 Amendments to Water Services Act 2021