Employment Relations (Employee Remuneration Disclosure) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Employment Relations (Employee Remuneration Disclosure) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

It is with great pleasure and a great sense of responsibility that I rise to take a call on the second reading of this member’s bill. It seems to me really like an age since the first reading of this member’s bill, for many reasons. The main thing that is—well, there are a few things that have happened significantly since the first reading of this bill. The first thing is, of course, we have had the select committee process. So I want to thank and acknowledge the work of the Education and Workforce Committee and the committee staff. I was a member of that committee at the start of this process and then have since left to another committee, but did participate in the discussion on this bill. I want to also thank the officials from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, who assisted us with the drafting of this bill. But, most of all, I want to thank all of those who submitted on this bill: the workers, the women’s organisations, the unions, the associations, the academics, the business people, and the members of the public—thank you.

The select committee was a very interesting process. From my perspective, there were four key points that really resonated from the select committee. The first was that the issue of pay secrecy and the lack of pay transparency is an issue in New Zealand that requires action. There were questions at the first reading of this bill as to whether there was a sufficient issue to merit legislative intervention. I was able to cite in the first reading reported cases that showed that this was an issue in New Zealand. But I feel that this select committee process, out of many others that I have been involved with, really did illustrate how much this was needed within New Zealand. So I really do want to genuinely thank the submitters who did submit on this bill.

The second issue that I think we learnt from the select committee process was that there are ongoing issues of unfairness in the workplace when it comes to pay. That’s not just issues of pay inequity between male and female dominated roles, which I expected, but also significant and unacceptable ethnicity pay gaps and, perhaps most surprisingly for me, people doing the same job and getting different pay—classic equal pay issues that I thought we legislated away in 1972. We heard on the select committee of people doing the same work and sometimes thousands and thousands of dollars of difference in their pay, and it’s just unacceptable.

We also saw, through this select committee process, widespread support for the action taken in this bill. I’ve been very clear: this bill will not solve all the issues of inequality and unfairness in pay in New Zealand. This is a small start and a small piece of the pathway that New Zealand needs to go down, in my view, in order to address some of the systemic unfairness in pay that we have in this country. But I was heartened to hear the support for this bill. As I said, 89 percent in support; only 4 percent opposed. So that, I think, clearly shows that the people of New Zealand have spoken in support of this.

The other thing we learnt is that there is much more work to do in this space. It was very important for us as a select committee to be able to hear the additional ideas and the additional steps that many submitters felt were needed in relation to addressing pay inequity and pay fairness. And many of the issues that they discussed, of course, were outside the scope of this bill. But I think, often when we’re in select committee, we should take the advice that we receive from submitters and actually take that forward in our work. So I really do hope that that is what is going to be able to be done with this particular bill. This is a small, discrete bill that helps in a small area, but what we heard in select committee was that there were considerable numbers of changes that need to be made, and I’ll speak to one of those more major ones later.

But I think also it’s important at this stage to go through some of the changes that were made at select committee. I also want to acknowledge the members of the select committee who, I feel, despite blowing somewhat hot and cold—if I can be diplomatic—on this issue, did constructively engage with improvements to the bill. I think we must all, as members of Parliament, try to do that when there are bills in front of us. So this is what happened in this particular bill.

So we changed the meaning of “detriment”—we made it consistent with the Employment Relations Act. We made sure that both the disclosee and the discloser of pay data or pay information were covered by this bill. We looked at the definition of “remuneration” and we made amendments to that to make sure that if you were a business owner, that particular information that might be privileged to the way that the business runs or was commercially sensitive was not included in that definition. So I think that gave colleagues confidence to be able to, hopefully, support this bill moving forward.

We also talked about who disclosures can be made to. We clarified the intention of the bill. The intention of this bill is that people can discuss their own pay with whomever they wish, without being disciplined. It really is that simple. The changes that we made at select committee make that even clearer. But we also talked about and we made sure that there wasn’t retrospectivity within the bill, which I think is always a good thing in a bill. We also clarified that there was no requirement to make a disclosure. That is very important. This isn’t about forcing people to do anything; it’s about recognising an existing practice where people talk about their own pay to their family members and to their colleagues. Sometimes that unearths unfairness. Sometimes when that unfairness is unearthed, you are able to address the unfairness which exists. That is all it’s really about. But there is absolutely nothing in this bill compelling anyone to say anything about what would be private information.

I acknowledge the differing view of the ACT Party and their statement that pay is private information. If that is the view of an individual in New Zealand, there is nothing in this bill that requires them to do anything different than to keep that information private. So I hope the ACT Party will change their mind and join with us, having received that assurance from me and the way that this bill is drafted.

It was a fulsome select committee process, but perhaps the most dramatic change that occurred since the last reading was, of course, that we had significant Government changes to the pay equity process, which this bill is very much linked to. We had a significant change in the legislative landscape: 33 claims cancelled, thousands of women having their entitlements to pay equity cut, and also their way that they can claim pay equity limited. This is stuff that we know, all done under urgency, all without notice. But it is my view that it was a shameful day for this Parliament and a huge step backwards for women’s rights in this country.

However, this bill is even more necessary due to those changes. The reason for that is because now we have a situation where the landscape in relation to pay equity has changed because we have a situation where we have, essentially, no existing pay equity claims. There is an even greater need for people to be able to discuss their pay to see if they have a need to make a claim—to see if there’s some injustice within their workplace. So although that was not my view and definitely not something I supported at all to see this change, I think it makes this bill even more necessary within the New Zealand context to allow those discussions to take place.

So this bill might be a small bill, it might make a simple change, but it matters. It matters to women. It matters to people who want to see progress on equality. It matters for fairness and transparency in the workplace. It is a small step forward when we have recently taken several steps back. I urge parties around the House to support it. I commend this bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s with great pride that I rise on behalf of the National Party to speak in support of the Employment Relations (Employee Remuneration Disclosure) Amendment Bill. I’d like to congratulate Camilla Belich for bringing this bill, for the luck of having it drawn, and for her tenacity throughout the process. Even though we’re no longer on that committee together, I enjoyed our time there together.

The bill seeks to ensure that employees can discuss and disclose their own pay rates to whomever they want, to others, without detrimental repercussions to their employment. The National Party supported this bill at the first reading and will continue to support it throughout the next stages. I believe that the time for this bill has really come. We’re not at the leading edge of societal change with this legislative action; we’re actually merely supporting what’s already happening quite commonly in businesses and within households across New Zealand. Younger New Zealanders are losing their inhibitions and their “ick” factor when it comes to discussing pay. They’re happy to discuss pay or pay equity or different analyses of pay, and 78 percent of under-35-year-olds say that they’ve already openly discussed their pay.

Information is power. An imbalance of information leads to inefficiency in markets, including the labour market. Some of the likely benefits of removing a barrier and potentially negative consequences of discussing pay would be things like empowering employees to negotiate further. It would lead, potentially, to a better fit of qualifications and people to roles and, overall, an enhancement in trust in the workplace. Trust and employee happiness in the workplace is directly related to productivity. If an employee sees that they are paid less for the same work as another person, and feels that they are not rewarded in the same way, they will be less motivated or they’ll withdraw, and they will not provide the same services. That has been demonstrated time and again in both psychological studies and even in animal studies. It is very clear that this is about productivity.

The National Party has a proud and strong history of reducing the gender pay gap—for example, under the last National Government, the gender pay gap went from 12 percent down to 9.7 percent by 2017, and since 2017, the pay gap has only gone from 9.7 percent to 8.6 percent. The Minister for Women has introduced the Gender Pay Gap Calculator, an app for businesses to voluntarily work out their own pay gap, and we encourage more people to do that. Also, we’re open to exploring this issue more and other ways to tackle it, because it is unacceptable.

Gender pay gaps are complex and they’re hard to calculate. However, they’re very real and they’re very stubbornly persistent. Research in New Zealand shows that lifetime earnings of women are $900,000 lower than a man’s, on average. The Retirement Commissioner’s recent research on KiwiSaver balances showed that the balances of 40- to 50-year-old women were about 36 percent lower than men, on average. Furthermore, international evidence from countries like the UK, Australia, Canada, and the European Union shows that when there is legislation that’s been enacted to improve pay transparency, there are measurable improvements and decreases in pay parity gaps. So those are very good. There was also a recent report after the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women—or CEDAW. The reporters suggested that although New Zealand is a leading light in gender equity and equality overall, there is more for us to do, and one of those improvements could be improving pay transparency within New Zealand. Also, a report on human rights showed that greater pay transparency could also lead to a reduction in discrimination of all forms within employment, and therefore improve human rights within New Zealand.

As the previous speaker mentioned, the committee process was very thorough, and I would like to thank the clerks, the Parliamentary Counsel Office, and our departmental advisers for all of their assistance on this bill. We received over 200 submissions on the bill, a majority in favour, and we heard from a wide range of people, from NGOs, businesses, employers, employees, and, of course, from unions. I want to thank those submitters, because they contributed really excellent ideas and advice for our consideration. However, many submitters thought that the bill was actually banning pay secrecy. It does not explicitly do that. However, the likely effect is that any pay secrecy clauses that do exist will be, effectively, unenforceable, and definitely not grounds for dismissal. One employer pointed out how incredibly helpful it was to the business to have gaps highlighted so that it could be resolved, adding, “I want gender and ethnic pay gaps to be a thing of the past and I endeavour to do what I can to close them”—and I still get shivers down my spine when I read those words, because I could not agree more.

People in opposition to the bill were in the minority. They expressed concerns about disharmony in the workplace, and, yes, we acknowledge that there may be some uncomfortable conversations. We know that not all pay differences are due to discrimination. There may be genuine reasons for justifiable differences. When it’s unjustifiable, though, that’s the point. A person might think that they are paid the same or do the same job as somebody else, but they might actually not understand the other person’s job. They might be doing something differently. Or the other person may in fact have other skills that the other person’s not aware of, or may have other experience or qualifications. That’s a justifiable pay difference. However, I would challenge employers—if they see a pay gap and they know that there is a pay gap that does exist, they should proactively look to change that themselves. When they know that that gap exists, work on it, action it; don’t just wait for employees, who may not be aware of that, to come forward and work it out and ask for the difference. Work it out yourselves. When this becomes more transparent and people start talking about this, would those employers be happy for their company to be named in this House, for it to be publicly aware? Would they be happy if their customers and their competitors knew that they weren’t paying a person the same just because she or they hadn’t asked?

Some submitters did express some concerns about privacy. However, this is about voluntary disclosure. It’s individuals. It’s not related to third-party disclosures between people. Employees can’t go to their accounts or pay clerks and ask them about somebody else’s pay. They have to have a willing conversation with a person. There can’t be any poor behaviour—there’s no coercion or any form of bullying. There must be mutually agreed and agreeable discussion.

As the previous speaker, Camilla Belich, discussed, we did make some clarifications and changes after all of that process. We further clarified adverse conduct definitions and what the word “detriment” meant, and we made sure that there was that broad application, because we think that that’s what’s happening in real life, in real homes, in New Zealand already. We decided that if there are legal challenges with this, there wouldn’t be retrospectivity. After all, we don’t want people to be in trouble for things that had previously been legally allowable.

As a member of the medical profession, I know that gender pay is a real issue. One of the largest gaps in pay exists in our publicly funded hospital system, between specialist doctors. It’s unacceptable. There is a single employer collective agreement that is the base rate. However, they are allowed to have individual negotiations, and that has led to massive variations not only within hospitals but across specialties and within single departments. I call on the profession to help here and to come clean. You no longer have the ability to hide behind pay secrecy clauses. If I have my way, you will all have your own pay on a full transparent basis, which will be open not only to your colleagues but to all of New Zealand to see, because I believe that transparency is a key part of reducing the gender pay gap, and when there are high rates of pay, that brings that percentage up and that number even higher. So I think it’s fundamental to New Zealand closing the pay gap that those highly paid professions take a close look at themselves, and that the Public Service in New Zealand takes a close look at itself.

This is a timely bill. It has been through the fulsome process of the select committee. We’ve given it thorough consideration by ourselves, submitters, and officials. This is an important action. We believe it will lead to a reduction in the gender pay gap and unfair treatment in general. I commend the bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Greens to support the Employment Relations (Employee Remuneration Disclosure) Amendment Bill. I basically agree with pretty much everything that’s been said by the past two speakers. I do want to begin by acknowledging Camilla Belich, who’s bringing yet another important bill before the House—through the member’s bill process as well—and the work that she has done navigating this through the House. That’s not an easy process, particularly in this particular Parliament, where we can get quite volatile, where we can get quite—how can I say it?—feisty on lots of issues but in particular on employment issues. So being able to bring something successfully through the House is something that should be commended.

This bill addresses the fact that in New Zealand, there are some contracts which include terms prohibiting employees from discussing or disclosing their pay to third parties, including other employees of the same employer, and sometimes even with family members. I do note that many of the submitters that did come to the select committee when I had the privilege of subbing in and listening to those submissions, did talk about the chilling effect of secrecy clauses. They talked about the impact on the work culture as well, and the surprise of some people: you show up to work, you’re doing the same job, and then you find out someone else is getting paid more than you—and often, the difference between the two people is gender.

So I do want to acknowledge the commitments that I’ve heard from that side of the House around addressing the gender pay gap as well, which in Aotearoa is 8.6 percent as of 2023—and, if you compare it with Pākehā incomes, the Pacific pay gap for men and women was 24 percent and 15 percent, respectively. I just acknowledge the work that was done by Saunoamaali’i Karanina Sumeo, who did the Pacific pay gap work, and how important that work was for our Pacific communities, how important that work was for our Pacific workers, because it kind of shone a light on what we as a people were missing out on in terms of the pay gap, because that was a massive, massive pay gap. Maybe this won’t solve everything overnight, because there are a lot of employment issues happening at the moment, but at least it’s a step in the right direction.

I think it does point to something that members around the House like about the member’s bill process as well, because this gives us an opportunity to actually dig deep and to really interrogate the different clauses and the different perspectives, and to not be so whipped—if I can put it that way—to not be so caught up in the dynamics of trying to react to Government bills. So I do acknowledge the work that the select committee has done, the work the clerks have done, and also the Parliamentary Counsel Office. I was there for, I think, most of the discussion around the voluntary disclosure part of the bill, where we talked about the fact that, actually, it’s important that people are able to disclose what they are being paid because then they can compare to see if they’re being ripped off or not, but they shouldn’t be forced to do so. So, once again, we noted that that was a big thing for the ACT Party, that perhaps they could have a think about that particular aspect, because no one’s being forced to actually share their pay details if they don’t want to.

All of this stuff is also happening in the context of a lot of change in the workplace space, as well. I was just out earlier—with, actually, Camilla Belich—with the Public Service Association, who were picketing the ACC because of the impacts on their workers of the negotiations that are happening for them, where many of their workers will not be being paid more than a living wage. Then to also reference the 33 pay equity claims that have been cancelled, and what that means for the workplace relations culture here within Aotearoa New Zealand. So there are a lot of things that are happening for workers that they don’t like. There are a lot of things that are happening for workers that we don’t like.

There are a lot of things that are happening for workers which means many of them have had enough; they’re going to jump on a plane, fly over to Australia, where they’ve got better workplace conditions and so on and so forth. However, it is good to see that on that side of the House, there are at least some members within the National Party who will actually want to see through the noise and want to be able to actually find a constructive way to engage with members on this side of the House, to actually get something over the line that workers support.

Nearly 90 percent of the submitters supported this bill. There were a small number that didn’t support the bill, but overwhelmingly it was about—well, pay secrecy creates chilling effects across the workplace. It has impacts on working culture and, as the previous speaker says, on productivity as well, because no one wants to find out that, actually, the person three rows down that’s doing the same job as you is being paid more because they’re a man, or they’re being paid more because of some other circumstance, as well. So it is encouraging, and I hope that bodes well for the future on that side of the House—that they will stop hitching their wagon to the ACT Party, who seem to be telling everybody what to do on that side of the House, particularly in the workplace relations space. So perhaps there can be more thorough investigations in terms of the impacts on workers’ rights—the impacts on those rights that I think everybody expects in this country. You know, you do a fair day’s work, you should get a fair day’s pay. That work should be respected, and you should have your full employee rights entrusted to you, as well. That is what people want: what they want is dignity and decent jobs.

So this is a step in the right direction. Finally, something good happened on that side of the House to enable that to happen. Of course, it’s a small step, but it’s a significant step. So, once again, I acknowledge Camilla Belich and her skill in navigating this through the House and getting at least one Government party to support something that the workers will wake up to tomorrow and celebrate. On that basis, I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m taking this call on behalf of ACT. The ACT Party is not supporting the Employment Relations (Employee Remuneration Disclosure) Amendment Bill. Before I talk about the reasons, I want to acknowledge the member in charge of the bill, Camilla Belich, and the work that member did on the select committee, and all the members on the select committee for their contributions. I also want to thank all submitters as well.

I acknowledge that the intent behind this bill is a good one. I’ve listened to the speeches from that member and members from the other parties as well. The topic that is being discussed here is pay discrimination, the gender pay gap. These issues are really important issues, and the ACT Party is the party that really believes there should be no discrimination on the basis of gender, on the basis of race. But if this bill did anything to reduce pay discrimination or a gender pay gap, we would have supported it. In our view, this bill is basically a token bill which will not do anything that is being talked about here.

In the select committee, we heard from the member in charge that this idea came from an inquiry that was done by the Education and Workforce Committee in the previous term. I ask this question: if this was such an important recommendation that came out of that inquiry, why, then—because it was a Labour Government then—didn’t the Labour Government adopt that recommendation and implement this as legislation? They didn’t because they knew that what is being done through this bill is not going to deliver what the bill says or what the member says. Now it’s become a member’s bill. It was in the ballot; now it’s taking up the House’s time as well. But it will not deliver anything that the bill implies it will deliver. I want to acknowledge everybody who supported and didn’t support the bill, and also all the submitters who kind of didn’t say if they fully supported or didn’t support the bill.

The way it’s implied that this bill is going to fix pay discrimination or the gender pay gap is not something that this bill will be doing. The issue here is this: if you look at this legislation, what it does is it says that the employer can have a prohibition clause prohibiting an employee from disclosing their remuneration, but then it’s not enforceable. What kind of message are we sending out to workplaces? You can go and sign an agreement, you can agree to some terms and conditions in your agreement, but then after taking that employment, after becoming part of the team in that company or business, you can breach that condition straight away.

What this bill says is that there should be no adverse conduct consequence for that. It is sending a very, very negative message out there to workplaces, and this is not the kind of message we would like to be sent to workplaces from Parliament, from any member of Parliament. 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. But you don’t just breach the agreement and say that there should be no consequences for that.

It’s very important to note that at workplaces when you sign an employment agreement, it’s based on the principles of values of integrity, values of trust. Where is that integrity of that employee when that employee goes and signs something and then comes out and doesn’t actually oblige the conditions that the employee actually agreed to? I don’t think many people would agree to doing that and that is what is being allowed through this legislation. This is actually quite dangerous and sending a very, very negative message. This is not going to fix what this bill intends to—as the member in charge of the bill has described.

On this side, we want to see that if people have agreements, they need to oblige. For breaching those agreements, there should be consequences for them, and it’s a matter between an employee and employer what to agree to. As I said before, they can renegotiate, but here in what this bill will allow, they don’t need to renegotiate; they can just go out and break the condition that they have signed for.

Second thing: it’s a voluntary disclosure, so it’s up to that employee if they want to disclose how much they are earning, what their remuneration is. So, again, what’s the point? So if we are leaving it to employees at the moment—and also the member in charge of the bill could not give exact numbers on how many cases of this we have seen here in New Zealand. That’s, again, another issue.

It’s a problem that doesn’t even exist. Employers and employees, when they agree to something, they’re happy dealing with it. The system is not broken, the system is working fine, so if it was so important, why didn’t Labour in the previous term, when they were in Government, adopt this and make it a Government bill and implement it? They didn’t because they knew this is not going to do anything. Especially, I’m really concerned about this component in this bill which sends a very wrong message to workplaces.

On this side, we want to stand with the voice that is grounded in reason, not a voice that is grounded in assumptions. This bill is making lots of assumptions that what it is doing—it allows people to breach the conditions they have signed for and just leave it as a voluntary thing, if they want to disclose or not disclose—will somehow fix pay discrimination and fix a gender pay gap.

I’ve repeatedly heard how many people submitted and supported this bill. Yes, there was support for this bill, but there were people who didn’t support this bill and there were some substantial reasons made why people didn’t support this bill. The reasons that came from those people were quite substantial and very, very noteworthy. The recommendation from one submitter was, “Leave it as it is. The system is not broken.” This submitter also said, “Employees’ remuneration has and should always be confidential between the employer and the employee. As a business owner, there are times when you may have your hand forced to pay more than the market rate to an employee for the sake of the greater good of your company.” So that’s a very important point here made by this submitter because sometimes an employee might be bringing that revenue that is needed to keep that company’s financials in a healthy state to also support more employment. So there is an indirect benefit that other employees are getting.

The other point this submitter makes is here: “Employees should be paid based on a range of factors: skill level” We have heard this thing again and again: skill level. Yes, of course, skill level should be compared, and people should be getting paid on the basis of their skill level. But then there are other things, like attendance. If there is one employee who is turning up to work on time and is diligently doing their work, whereas other employee of similar skill level is going on holiday every second week, not turning up to work on the same day, of course the employer will say that they want to pay more to somebody who is of the same skill level but is also diligent, is also turning up to work when needed—then the effort is also counted. Length of service is also counted. You might be working in that company for 10 years and somebody comes along just like that, and you expect that somebody who has been in that company, shown loyalty, should be paid more and employers should be able to decide if they want to do that. So these things matter, and these are the kind of things we believe are important to take into consideration.

Now, another submitter says that they recommend this bill does not go through. They said they believe that if employees are allowed to discuss remuneration, it would have a negative effect as all employees have different strengths and abilities which is reflected in their remuneration, just like the other submitter said. Then another submitter said, “Scrap it and concentrate on how we can improve the economy to keep people employed instead.” These are some of the examples of submissions that didn’t support this bill.

As I said, on this side, in the ACT Party, we support things that are grounded in reason, not grounded in assumptions. So, as I said, the intention is good, the speeches are good. Is it going to fix pay parity, pay discrimination, the gender pay gap? No, it will not; actually, it is sending a very wrong message to workplaces that you can go and sign an agreement and then breach that agreement that you have signed without any consequences—without any consequences.

What it does is it means that the adverse conduct consequence is not enforceable. If an employee goes out—despite signing that they are prohibited to disclose their remuneration, despite signing that as part of their agreement—and then discloses, now where will that employer get the trust on that employee for other clauses that the employee has signed? If an employee goes and breaches one clause that they have signed, then how will the employer get trust for anything else that’s part of that agreement that that employee is going to oblige to all that?

This is sending a very wrong message. To workplaces, trust and integrity are very important values, and this bill is actually about taking those two very important values away from workplaces. That’s why the ACT Party opposes this bill.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First for this Employment Relations (Employee Remuneration Disclosure) Amendment Bill. Can I start by commending Camilla Belich, the member in charge of the bill, who, as I think I referenced in my first reading speech, is running some sort of parallel Government over there, so many bills is she bringing before the House. She’s going head to head with Brooke van Velden in the numbers game—probably coming at it from a slightly different angle most of the time, it’s fair to say, but it is an impressive feat to get two bills into the House, and it’s looking like it’s passing as well.

As we get into the second reading and look at the select committee, I note the 225 submissions, which is a pretty good number for a member’s bill, so it obviously elicited quite a bit of debate and support out there in the wider community, which suggests that it is a bill that is worthy of this House’s time. Can I commend the Education and Workforce Committee for their diligent work on this, and from New Zealand First’s perspective they have improved this bill through that work. I know, through my own time in my last term in Parliament on the Education and Workforce Committee, it was a really interesting space to play in, and also you had that dynamic between the left and the right blocs that was often a bit of a flashpoint. So there were always some really interesting debates in there, but it looks like the committee’s worked pretty well in this particular case.

Right, in terms of New Zealand First’s position on the second reading, New Zealand First will be joining the ACT Party in not supporting this bill. We absolutely understand the intent, but this bill runs smack into the brick wall of New Zealand First’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. So it is more a technical—but an important technical—point of principle. As you could imagine, we’re led by a notable Privy Council lawyer as our leader, and things like that really matter to us and our party. So, whilst we agree with the intent of the bill, we did not feel that the magnitude of the benefits that it was purporting to bring overrode that important point of legal principle.

Of course, there may be very good reasons, based on merit primarily, why you may want to have a differential in a pay rate between two employees doing similar roles; that is as it should be. It should be merit-based at times. If you’ve got someone that is doing a superior job—working harder, more skill, and the like; showing more get up and go and more intent—then an employer should be able to remunerate that person better. There’s some equity in the workplace there where you don’t want to upset the apple cart too much, where everyone’s going around—it actually is of some benefit that people aren’t waving their pay slips around. There’s a reason why pay secrecy or, you know, some discretion around pay rates has traditionally been the norm in workplaces. It is not the case that there are nefarious reasons every time there is a pay differential. There are definitely merit-based reasons why you would differentiate pay.

That said, that doesn’t mean that there isn’t, you know, discrimination, and we have got this gender pay gap, but as the previous speaker mentioned, and as the member that introduced the bill has referenced, this isn’t the be-all and end-all in terms of that wider issue of—

Hon Jan Tinetti: It’s a tool.

Hon MARK PATTERSON: It is a tool, but it is a very modest tool, and it’s not a tool that has reached the threshold for New Zealand First of breaking the sanctity of contract law. There are other ways that we need to go about breaking down this gender pay gap, but we do not think this would have more than but a modest impact, if at all, and I think that’s been acknowledged from speakers around the Parliament tonight.

But I do want to congratulate Camilla Belich again. I think this is your second member’s bill. Last time, with the wage theft bill, we had the privilege of supporting it. We did feel that that was a bill that was worthy of passing into law. I know from that experience and the experience of dealing with this bill, it’s not the fact that you’ve brought bills that are substantive enough in nature to get genuine consideration but that you, from my experience, are as good as I’ve ever seen in terms of negotiating with other parties, trying to find where there might be some common ground, and being prepared to work with them. In this case, you have got the National Party over the line to get the numbers for this bill to pass. So it’s not totally on the merits of the bill, actually; some of it will be in the skill of the negotiation, so we do congratulate you on that. It is a fine achievement to get one bill over the line in a parliamentary term; to get two is a rather extraordinary achievement.

I feel like I’ve, essentially, laid out New Zealand First’s position on this. It is the sanctity of contract law that has trumped any benefit we may have seen through this modest clause in making it easier or with less ramifications around disclosing payment. That would be breaking an employment contract, there would be no ability for the employer to enforce it, and that is an important point of principle that New Zealand First cannot support. So, with that, New Zealand First will not be supporting this bill.

This is a split call.

Thank you so much, Madam Speaker. First of all, I want to commend Camilla Belich for bringing this bill forward. This is indeed a positive change, and she has been transparent with the House that this is not the transformation our workers deserve, but it is an important reform that will allow workers to actually be able to talk about their remuneration with each other, where people could identify potential gaps that may exist in the workplace and actually to normalise the conversations about pay. These things should not be a matter of shame or secrecy.

I think it’s really telling that New Zealand First continues putting workers last and that the ACT Party continues their completely delusional anti-worker agenda that is also completely misinformed. I can see why the National Party did not want the ACT Party speaker back when she tried to run again in Parliament, because she couldn’t even describe the bill accurately. She talked about people being obliged to disclose their wages—that’s not what’s in the bill. I can’t believe we’ve just been subjected—

Simon Court: Point of order, Madam Speaker. I understand it’s against Parliament’s Standing Orders to impute a negative reference towards somebody’s character as that member Ricardo Menéndez March has to my parliamentary colleague Dr Parmjeet Parmar. I would ask that that member withdraw and apologise for that imputation he made to my parliamentary colleague.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I do agree with the point of order. It was quite unparliamentary and you made an assumption about something, and I do think it’s worthy of an apology and withdrawal. Thank you.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: OK. I withdraw and apologise, sure. But I stand by what I said. She was completely misinformed in her commentary.

Simon Court: Point of order, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, that’s completely unacceptable to “withdraw and apologise and stand by what I say”. That member should be forced to withdraw and apologise again, and commit to not repeating the allegation.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: I withdraw and apologise for the comments I made in relationship to the National Party and the member; I stand by my comments in relationship to her comments on the bill. May I continue?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): That’s fine. Carry on.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: So the member was indeed misinformed in her views on the bill when she talked about people being obliged—

Stuart Smith: Point of order. I’m confused, I didn’t think the National Party had anything to do with what—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): That is correct, and that was the point of the point of order. Ricardo Menéndez March clarified that, and that was what his apology targeted.

Stuart Smith: It wasn’t—I didn’t find it very clear.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: OK, I can clarify it for the member.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): It’s fine. We can’t make allowances for other people’s ability to understand.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: Yep. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m glad you understood where I was heading.

Anyway, so the ACT Party member was mischaracterising the bill by stating that people would be obliged to, for example, talk about their wages. It’s appalling that she would have sat at the select committee and talked about being at the select committee and yet be completely ill-informed about the substance of the bill. I think it’s really telling that the ACT Party thinks that integrity is not being able to feel safe talking about how much you’re getting paid when we know that the gender pay gap and the ethnic pay gap continue to be issues in this country. People should not feel any level of shame of discussing this matter.

I think, once again, the sort of fake outrage and crocodile tears from the ACT Party just now speaks volumes to the fact that they’re far more offended about simple objective descriptions about, for example, their speeches in the House in relationship to the bill than actually how they treat everyday workers. The fact that they are far more concerned about the so-called integrity of secrecy around talking on remuneration than people having enough income to pay their rent, being able to afford to go to the doctor, and, actually, when the situation arises and people wish to discuss with each other how much they’re getting paid, that they’re able to do so without consequences.

I think that this reform is so common sense and it should be so bipartisan, that it says more about the political parties that are voting against it than the ones that are voting for it, because I think this is well overdue. I think most people actually will be surprised that they’re not supposed to be discussing this kind of thing in the workplace, even though it’s quite commonplace, that people do it anyway, despite knowing that they could face consequences for it. So when I hear members from the ACT Party and the New Zealand First Party talk about the integrity of these contracts, we’ve got to talk about the reality that these workers who may choose to disclose their remuneration with each other are the ones that are propping up the businesses that these political parties claim to support. These businesses are nothing without their workers, and workers deserve—at the very least—to be able to discuss their remuneration to identify whether they’re being paid fairly.

The ACT Party member listed a perfect example of an issue that maybe workers may want to identify—for example, a worker being penalised for taking annual leave far too often. That should not be happening. And the fact that the ACT Party thinks that this is an issue that, you know, someone may choose to punish someone over and give better pay to someone else, when we have those legal entitlements that exist, such as sick leave or annual leave, says that we actually should allow workers to discuss these matters, because if I was in a workplace where I was being told that because I took my legal entitlements of annual leave I was getting paid less than a counterpart, I would be raising that issue with my employer, because that would not be fair. So I don’t think the ACT Party and the New Zealand First Party understand the lived realities of many workers who currently struggle to have these conversations and raise legitimate issues around pay with employers.

I’m encouraged that the National Party supports this bill, and I want them to actually commit to putting in measures to address the gender and ethnic wage gap that exists in this country that means many women and ethnic minority groups are going without, despite doing similar—or, sometimes, the exact same—work as their peers. We should have a country where every worker is treated with respect and dignity and is free of discrimination. This bill will enable people to have conversations on their pay in a way that allows them to organise, which is something that they are scared about.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to address the House on the Employment Relations (Employee Remuneration Disclosure) Amendment Bill. I would just start off, as a number of other speakers have, and congratulate Camilla Belich for the good fortune to have her bill drawn from the ballot.

I’ve been in and out a little bit of the Education and Workforce Committee, so I’ve sort of been involved with a part of it but not all of it. But I would just acknowledge the select committee in regards to—and it’s a shame that a lot of New Zealanders don’t get to see how we do actually get on at times in a constructive and respectful way while we endeavour to improve our legislation. So I would just acknowledge the select committee there.

I have thought a little bit about this bill and I was just trying to think what I was going to talk about. I’ve got four kids, and two of those are girls that work in predominantly male-dominated industries. As a father, I think it’s important for the girls as well, when one of our girls is at tradies night—local night at the pub—that she should actually be able to talk to fellow tradies and say, “Well, what are you getting paid?”, because she needs to understand that she’s being paid fairly based on her skill level.

Our other daughter is involved in the farming sector—again, it has traditionally been a male-dominated industry. If she’s down at the locals’ night at the pub—not always at the pub—she does need to be able to talk to other managers—

Hon Member: What’s wrong with the pub?

MIKE BUTTERICK: Nothing wrong with a pub.

Simon Court: Which pub?

MIKE BUTTERICK: Oh, we’re not going to go into which pub.

I think it’s not an unfair expectation and that she should be able to talk to other managers and ask what they’re being paid. They’ve got a good indication of where they sit in regards to their skill level and they can work out whether they’re being overpaid or underpaid, and that gives them the choice, if they’ve been underpaid, to go and talk to their employer and say, “Hey, mate, I think I need a better deal.” Or if that doesn’t resolve itself, they can go and look for another job as well where they are paid fairly.

I think it’s only a good thing that that happens. Also too, as an employer, I’ve employed a lot of people over the years and I constantly ask other employees, other shepherds, what they’re being paid, and I ask other employers what they pay their shepherds so that I can actually work out whether I’m paying the going rate and what I need to pay to retain and attract staff. It happens, so people should not be penalised for it because it’s a very normal function of being an employee or an employer.

This is a piece of legislation that, while simple in its intention, does carry implications for fairness, transparency, and the future of equity in our workforces based on competency throughout the country. I would comment that you don’t eat an elephant one bite at a time—all at once, sorry, you eat him one bite at a time. Sorry, I got that round the wrong way.

Tom Rutherford: We knew what you meant.

MIKE BUTTERICK: Yeah, yeah. Tonight, we are presented with an opportunity—an opportunity to stand on the right side of history and to address a barrier to equality in the workplace, which is pay secrecy.

This bill is about ensuring that no employee, regardless of their role or their sector, is prevented by their employer from discussing or disclosing their own pay. It is about removing the shroud of secrecy that too often contributes and allows pay inequities to persist, unchallenged and unseen. Right now there are employment contracts in New Zealand which include terms that prohibit—yes, that’s right: prohibit—employees from disclosing their remuneration, be it salaries, wages, or conditions to third parties, including their own colleagues, friends, and workmates. If an employee were to breach those terms, they might just find themselves on the receiving end of disciplinary action. This creates an environment of silence around one of the most fundamental aspects of work: how much we are paid for what we do.

This bill seeks to change that by removing any possibility for employers to enforce such prohibitive terms on their employees. This will allow open and honest discussions about what a person gets paid, free from any fear of retribution. So this is not just a technical change; it’s a cultural change. It’s a step towards greater transparency, which, in turn, is a step towards greater fairness.

Consider the case of a junior office worker who discovered that despite their excellent performance, they were earning significantly less than a colleague with the same role, experience, capability, or output. Upon attempting to discuss that discrepancy, they were reminded of the clause in their contract around sharing salary information and threatened with disciplinary action; or think about the factory worker who, despite having worked at the same establishment for a decade, remains unaware of pay disparity that might exist between themselves and newer employees on the proviso that they have the same capability and output, and their contract’s pay secrecy provision prevents that discussion that could reveal those inequities and prohibits the pursuit of a fair comparison.

In these situations, it’s all too easy for these practices to go unnoticed and unchallenged. And there will be many more examples which highlight the critical need for change. Don’t get me wrong, this bill is not about forcing employees to discuss their pay rates. This is about allowing them the choice and giving them the right to do this if they want to and without threat of repercussions.

Let’s be honest—when someone is asked to keep a secret or made to feel like something bad will happen if they open their mouth and talk about it, it’s quite likely that there might be increases of stress and anxiety that will—

Simon Court: It’s a contract; it’s confidential.

MIKE BUTTERICK: Thank you, Simon Court.

The emotional toll of keeping secrets could be substantial, could lead to feelings of shame and guilt; more so if you’re not sharing the information with those that you are closest to. For many, the workplace is a second home. It’s where relationships are built. These relationships are based on trust and mutual respect and shouldn’t be undermined by an employment contract.

This bill introduces new provisions to make it clear that if an employer takes adverse action against an employee, this will amount to unlawful conduct. So this bill is very clear that adverse conduct includes dismissing an employee; refusing to offer the same terms, conditions, or opportunities as other employees, noting that reward for capability will and should always remain; or treating the employee badly because they’ve disclosed their pay. Transparency allows inequities to be identified and for these to be remedied. It creates an environment where employees can advocate for themselves and where businesses are held to account for the fairness of their pay structures.

In supporting this bill, this side of the House does so with a track record of advancing pay equity. We introduced mandatory pay gap reporting in the public sector, ensured superannuation payments for women, set up the Equal Pay Act and the Equal Employment Opportunities Trust, launched initiatives such as Women in Trades and the Future Directors programme, and amended the Human Rights Act to protect women against discrimination.

Now, some will argue that pay secrecy clauses are necessary to preserve workplace harmony. They worry that open discussions about pay will breed resentment or disharmony, particularly when differences in pay may be due to factors such as experience, skills, or performance. Those are valid concerns, but they actually overlook the bigger picture. The purpose of transparency is not to erase all pay differences, but to ensure that those differences are justifiable—that they are based on merit and not on bias, conscious or unconscious.

Submitters have suggested that the bill include clauses clarifying that there is no obligation to disclose one’s pay and that there be protections against duress. Those are sensible suggestions. I support ensuring that the law is balanced and does not create new risks such as coercion or misuse. In legislating for transparency, we must always also safeguard privacy and freedom of choice.

Businesses have rightly pointed out that remuneration can reflect a range of legitimate factors, and some of those I have discussed—not least output, skill, and capability. However, without the ability to discuss and inquire, how can an employee know if their pay is fair? How can we measure our progress towards equity if the data is hidden behind closed doors? We take a step towards closing the gender and ethnic pay gaps that have persisted for too long. I commend this bill to the House.

I’ll just note the member’s need to read his speech. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m delighted to stand in support of this bill, and I too want to take the opportunity to congratulate my colleague Camilla Belich on her success in shepherding this bill through to its second reading here this evening. I too am like the previous member in that I was on the select committee for a short time as this bill was going through, and got the wonderful opportunity to actually sit and listen to many of the submissions, of which 89 percent expressed support for the bill, and only 4 percent expressed opposition towards the bill.

I have to say that if anyone was listening to the speeches here tonight and was wondering where they sat, they did only have to listen to the ACT member’s speech and they would be in agreeance with this bill by the end of that, because it was probably one of the most confused speeches that I have heard in this House in a very long time, and it was very obvious that the member was very confused about this bill and about what this bill would actually achieve.

At no point did any of the submitters, or indeed the member herself, say that this was the magic bullet towards changing and reducing that pay gap to zero. In fact, it has always been one tool in the tool box as part of a suite of changes. And that has been traversed here this evening, that many of those changes are things like a mandatory pay transparency scheme and mandatory reporting of the pay gap, which we do hope will be followed through on, as Labour did announce that in 2023 as an important part of absolutely reducing that pay gap that has sat stubbornly around 8 percent to 10 percent. This is an important part, and we’ve heard from some very confused speakers in ACT and New Zealand First that this would not make the difference. That is not what the research shows; in fact, this has been in place in Australia since 2022, and there is already research and work that is coming through to show that it is making a difference.

So for anybody that doesn’t think that this will make a difference, go and have a look and do your research, and don’t just spout the rhetoric around what they think it might do. Go and actually have a look and see what it actually does, and the difference and the speed at which we can see that it is making elsewhere in the world—and particularly Australia, since it came in in 2022.

There are a lot of people who were part of the last Government’s tripartite forums between Business New Zealand, unions, and the Government around what was needed in the pay gap area, and all three of those organisations were very supportive of this work. In fact, when Labour announced a mandatory pay gap reporting scheme and a pay transparency scheme, Business New Zealand stood very much proudly alongside the other two partners, saying that its time had come.

Well, time has come for pay secrecy to have the lid lifted on it here this evening, but I do want to just point to the chief executive of Chartered Accountants Australia & New Zealand, who recently wrote in The Post an opinion piece around the different areas that are needed to reduce that gender pay gap and said that another promising step is the Employment Relations (Employee Remuneration Disclosure) Amendment Bill. Introduced in March 2024 and reported back by the Education and Workforce Committee in May 2025, this bill aims to make it easier for employees to discuss pay openly, something that Australia legislated for in 2022. Another promising step towards reducing that gender pay gap. I have great pleasure in commending this bill to the House.

I rise to support the Employment Relations (Employee Remuneration Disclosure) Amendment Bill. Like many of the other members tonight, I would like to congratulate the member Camilla Belich for bringing this bill forward and, obviously, navigating it through and working very hard on the Education and Workforce Committee. I’d also like to commend the select committee for all of their hard work, of course, in bringing this bill through to the second reading.

Look, as we’ve heard tonight, this bill really does create more transparency in the workplace and it will make it safe for people to talk about their pay. That’s if they wish to, because, of course, as we’ve also heard, there are many people within a workplace that may not want to talk about their pay, that makes them anxious, and, of course, they want to keep that private and confidential.

Of course, there may be many employees who do want to talk about their pay, and those employees should have that individual choice to be able to talk about their pay in an open environment, whether that be in their workplace or whether that be at home. This is transparent, it’s fair, and they should not be punished for that. They shouldn’t be penalised for talking about their pay, which, of course, as we’ve also heard, can bridge the gender pay gap as well.

This bill will allow for those conversations about pay to happen at home and across workplaces. So if someone identifies some unfairness, they can raise that, of course, and that is fair. I mean, I believe that that is fair and that is what this bill is about, and that has been widely traversed across the select committee process.

The bill will remove the ability for employers to include terms prohibiting employees from disclosing their pay to a third party. So, currently, if an employee discloses their pay and is subject to a disclosure term in their employment contract, they will be deemed to have breached the terms and may be subject to disciplinary action. That just feels unfair. It is unfair and that needs to change, and this bill is going to drive that change. This bill will ensure that employees can discuss and disclose those pay rates.

Look, I am going to speak about the gender pay gap because, of course, that is an issue for us here in New Zealand. We have made a lot of progress over the years, but we have still got some way to go and this bill, of course, is likely to provide another tool in the tool kit to reduce that gender pay gap, and if we can get as many tools in that tool kit as possible to really make some inroads here and create some positive change, that is positive for women and female workers across New Zealand, Aotearoa. If we can move in this direction, that’s a good thing. So the National Party, on this side of the House, do remain absolutely committed to pay equity and addressing inequity in the workplace.

The National Party has a strong history, and it has already been mentioned this evening, but I would just like to put the spotlight on some of that work that has already been done, because this bill is about adding to that work and heading in the right direction. We introduced mandatory pay gap reporting in the public sector, really positive progress; we introduced superannuation payments for women; we introduced the Equal Pay Act; the Equal Employment Opportunities Trust; Women in Trades, another really positive move; the Future Directors programme; and we amended the Human Rights Act to protect women against discrimination.

The previous National Government reduced the gender pay gap from 12 percent to 9.7 percent in 2017, and, since 2017, it’s moved down to 8.6 percent. We want to see that continue to trend downward, because that is really, really important for us here in New Zealand. Our current Government has taken action to reduce the gender pay gap through development of a voluntary calculation tool that will see all businesses have access to the same measurement components to calculate their pay gaps. This is really healthy because businesses and employers should be taking action themselves to assess the gender pay gaps within their own businesses, and so this tool is about encouraging that. It’s about providing them, again, with the tools to be able to do that.

We know that many businesses across New Zealand are committed to closing the pay gaps and are already acting to voluntarily measure and report them, but we need to encourage businesses, employers, and companies to do more reporting. Of course, more transparency will bridge that gap.

Let’s move now to other jurisdictions, because it’s really important, when we look at a bill like this that’s going to take progress in this area, that we do look to other jurisdictions around the world and see what they’re doing. Many jurisdictions have moved to also prohibit contractual terms because they lead to pay secrecy and do not, obviously, encourage pay transparency between employees, and this can lead to discriminatory outcomes. This has been recognised internationally. This bill would align New Zealand with a lot of those other jurisdictions internationally around the world, with the laws in the UK, Canada, Australia, and some US states as well.

We need to align internationally on these very important issues when it comes to bridging that gender pay gap as well. So, although gender pay gaps are complex and they can be inconsistent when taking into account things like part-time workers and inclusion of bonuses and performance pay, there is absolutely no excuse for someone to be paid less as a result of their gender or ethnicity. That is absolutely unacceptable and as a modern, progressive country we should not be standing by and enabling that to happen.

Pay gaps have impacted women across New Zealand for decades, and we know there are significant pay discrepancies between men and women in New Zealand, and it is absolutely unacceptable that women, who are as productive and contribute just as much, in many professions, if not more, I might add—and they contribute significantly, of course, to our economy and our productivity and also, of course, make New Zealand a better place. We need to respect that, reward that, and recognise it. This is why we need to continue to drive change.

Trust and employee confidence is so important in a workplace. People will do a better job, as we’ve already heard tonight. We will also see better cultures within businesses and companies if we have that trust and that confidence and that transparency. Employers should have a responsibility to ensure pay equity across their businesses, organisations, and that they are moving in this direction to ensure that there is more pay equity.

This legislation is likely to show more transparency, which results in more pay equity. As we have heard internationally, more transparency makes a significant difference. Of the over 200 submissions that I understand were heard through the select committee process, 89 percent were in support of this bill, so that’s a real credit to this bill; only 4 percent were against it and opposed, and I understand some of those were relatively neutral, because most submitters believe that greater transparency will help reduce the pay gap. So, while there’s been positive progress, we still have inequities here in New Zealand for women. And, of course, I will just acknowledge that the gender pay gap is often more significant for Māori, Pacific, ethnic, and disabled women, and that is certainly something that we need to change here in New Zealand.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call on this bill. Can I congratulate my colleague Camilla Belich on what should be the successful passage of this bill at its second reading tonight.

It was interesting listening to the ACT Party contribution earlier, because the member made some assertions that this bill wasn’t required, and so I thought I might just bring an example to the House of when I’ve seen this exact issue play out in reality for women workers at a large retail store in New Zealand. This retail store has a collective agreement in place that lays out the wage rates across different parts of the business. However, it never actually stated the exact rate everyone should be paid at each level within the role that they held; it had some crazy definitions, including “the mid-point”. So whenever a negotiation occurred at bargaining, workers would be guaranteed that they had to be a certain amount above or below “the mid-point”. It wasn’t written into their contract, but the workers were told, under no uncertain terms by managers in that business, that they must not disclose their pay to each other.

They would raise this with me, and I would say, “Well of course you can discuss your pay with each other, just like you can tell somebody your birth date or your address or your weight or your height or your eye colour or the names of your parents, this is private information that is held by you. It’s not for anybody else to disclose on your behalf; it is ultimately your choice.” You can say “I am paid this.”, or you can say “I’d like to keep that information private to myself.” If you’re applying for a mortgage at the bank, they want to know how much you’re earning. You can’t really say to the bank, “Oh, I’m very sorry, but my boss told me I can’t tell anyone how much I’m paid.” It’s bizarre to think that, actually, what is basic, private information held by an individual can’t actually be disclosed on their grounds, on their choice.

There would be women workers at this large retail store sitting in a tea room, wanting to talk about pay because this business was known for having a bit of favouritism going on, and people would discover that someone was being paid more even though they’d only just started working there; didn’t have as much experience, but they were quite liked by the boss, so they got a bit of extra money. So a bill like this means that that transparency is allowed, and there’s no more kind of whispering or concern that someone’s going to get in trouble because, “Oh my goodness, I told my husband how much I earn.”

That’s the level of insidiousness that came through. People were saying, “I’m not allowed to tell you.” You know, they honestly thought they weren’t allowed to tell a single soul how much they earned—these women on low pay. It was really sad, but also they felt so empowered when I said, “Well actually, it’s your private information. There’s nothing in this contract that says you can’t tell the person how many hours a week you work, the name of your role, how many years you’ve worked there, and how much you’re paid.” So it’s a great bill, it will make a difference, and I commend it to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It’s good that you’ve got a nice loud voice, Mr Rutherford, because there’s a lot of talking on your side of the House, and I’m hoping that your colleagues might listen to what you have to say.

TOM RUTHERFORD: Well, thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I like to think my voice can carry through this House. But thank you very much, Madam Speaker—I’m still wondering if my colleagues have been listening to your advice or not, but we’ll see over my five-minute contribution. No doubt it’ll be enjoyable for them.

It does give me great pleasure to rise and speak on behalf of the National Party in support of the Employment Relations (Employee Remuneration Disclosure) Amendment Bill. Congratulations to the member Camilla Belich for having the bill drawn in her name and for garnering the support across the House to have the bill progress through the process as well.

I’ve sat here for a little wee while and listened to the different contributions we’ve heard both from colleagues on the other side of the House, and my own colleagues in the National Party as well—Catherine Wedd with her marvellous contribution just before. But I just want to return us to the debate around the intention of the bill and what we’re actually striving to achieve here by amending this legislation. It removes employers’ ability to include pay secrecy clauses in employment contracts. That’s what this bill is focusing on. Currently, employees can face disciplinary action for discussing their pay with their colleagues. The bill ensures employees can discuss and disclose their own pay without fear of repercussions.

We in the National Party support it because we believe it promotes fairness and transparency in the workplace, and that’s why we supported it at first reading, supported it through the deliberations of the select committee as well, and are again supporting it tonight at its second reading.

What’s the problem that it’s addressing? Well, pay secrecy clauses prevent employees from discovering if they’re being paid unfairly. We in the National Party have a strong track record on reducing gender pay gaps. The previous National Government reduced the gender pay gap from 12 percent to 9.9 percent in 2017. I was just having a quick flick through as well, to see what had happened in the space of the gender pay gap in particular since 2017. Well, it only moved down from 9.7 to 8.6 percent, so there’s still work to do. But again, this bill isn’t solely focused on the gender pay gap, but that is a flow-on effect of this piece of legislation for transparency in the workplace.

We’ve taken action as a Government to reduce the gender pay gap through the deployment and development of the voluntary calculation tool that I know Minister Grigg has been leading as the Minister for Women. It will enable businesses to see and have access to the same measurement components to calculate their pay gaps. This is another step in the right direction around transparency in the workplace, not just for women—but that is an element of it—but for everybody in the workplace around transparency of what they earn and what they’re being paid for their work.

Let’s just address some of the concerns that have been raised both this evening and through the select committee process as well. This doesn’t force anyone to disclose their pay. There’s no enforcement of that. All it does is simply remove the ability for employers to prohibit it. So there is no forcing of people to disclose their pay. It just prohibits the employers from not allowing them to disclose it. Different pay rates can be justified by things like experience, skills, and performance, but transparency helps ensure these are the real reasons for differing pay.

This brings New Zealand into line with international best practice, and, again, I was having a look through to see what some of our friends and colleagues across the Ditch and across the world do, including the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia. They have prohibited such contractual terms as it does not encourage pay transparency. So what we’re doing as a country is we’re bringing ourselves into line with what a number of other nations across the world do that we like to compare ourselves with. That’s a good thing for New Zealand. Australia’s legislation does include some of similar protections while maintaining employee choice.

We believe in fair pay for fair work regardless of your gender or ethnicity, and transparency is a tool that helps achieve that goal. This bill is about fairness, transparency, and ensuring all New Zealanders can negotiate, from a position of knowledge, about their worth in the workplace. So I commend the bill to the House.

I listened to the excellent speech by the National Party member Vanessa Weenink at the start of this debate. If you sort of squinted your eyes, put your head on one side, you could imagine a universe where there was some consensus in the House that workers should be treated with dignity and respect, where workers would be treated as adults, free to discuss their pay, free to discuss their pay with their workmates, not able for that to be prohibited as if they were in some Dickensian master-servant relationship; a world where the National Party didn’t reflexively seize every opportunity to drive down the wages of working people and undermine their bargaining position; a world where the mad, hard-right ideology of the ACT Party wasn’t allowed to run riot in coalition negotiations and subject the country to a procession of stupid, ideological, right-wing employment relations bills. So let’s just savour the moment of this alternative universe.

It still puzzles me why the National Party chooses to define itself as the party of low pay. Now, of course they protest. They don’t like that description. When they look in the mirror in the morning, they don’t like to say, “Oh, there’s the party of low pay.”, but I give you three exhibits. Fair pay agreements: they dismantled them with relish in their first few weeks after taking Government—legislation that was designed to help the country’s lowest-paid workers negotiate decent wages. They have cut the minimum wage in real terms since they’ve been in office. And exhibit three: the destruction of pay equity, 33 different pay equity claims, nearly $13 billion in the pipeline taken away to fund their tax cuts at the expense of low-paid workers—and, particularly, female workers.

Now, look, I seriously appreciated the fathers on the select committee who talked about their daughters, and we heard that tonight: fathers that don’t like the idea that their daughters would be discriminated against in the workplace. I like that. I respect that. But is it such a big leap to have some empathy, to put yourself in the shoes of a care and support worker, a security guard, a cleaner, a retail worker, a hospo worker, an early childhood teacher, and hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders who work multiple jobs with insecure hours, who drive across the city at all hours of the day and night because they don’t have the market strength to bargain for better wages, for decent pay, for a living wage?

Is there anything about conservatism as a political ideology that requires the members on that side of the House to always, always try to strengthen the position of the owners of capital and undermine the bargaining position of people who work for a living? I don’t think there should be. There’s no logical reason why that should be so, and yet we have a legacy of 40 years in this country of policy settings that have delivered a low-wage economy that tilts the playing field away from workers. It is the root of almost all of our social and economic problems as a country. Governments these days spend all of their time subsidising low wages and cleaning up the social mess caused by poverty.

Wouldn’t it be great if the National Party actually was serious and reflected some concern that they evinced in the House tonight for fairness, for equity, being in opposition to discrimination, and actually stood up for New Zealanders getting decent pay and conditions in the workplace? Wouldn’t that be a great thing? I reckon Kiwis would really like that.

It’s a pleasure to take the last call in this debate and to restore some decorum in this debate, after the drivel that we heard from that previous speaker, the Hon Phil Twyford. In that time—in that five minutes—he didn’t even talk about the bill; didn’t even talk about the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I was expecting it in the second five minutes, but he didn’t take it.

DAN BIDOIS: That’s right. And I wouldn’t be surprised if Camilla has a word with him after this debate.

It is my pleasure to stand here and support this bill, on behalf of the National Party. I wish to congratulate my fellow Northcote constituent Camilla Belich for her courage and for bringing a real tangible issue and solution to this House.

I come to this debate as a son of a working-class mother, raised by a household of strong women, and married to an ambitious, smart, and talented wife. I also—

Hon Member: You’re a lucky man.

DAN BIDOIS: What’s that? I’m a lucky man. I also come to this debate as an economist. That’s my profession and that’s what I’ve devoted most of my working life to doing. I want to speak about the role of efficient markets and the role of transparency in efficient labour markets, because this is what we’re talking about here. This is a labour market issue. In fact, there’s a lot of research that looks at the role of transparency in market efficiency. It is all about leading to transparent pricing. Why is that important? It’s about making sure that supply and demand match and clear at a strong and efficient pricing. It’s all about making sure that there’s an efficient allocation of resources and talent across this country. If you don’t like what you’re getting paid, you can go elsewhere to a higher wage rate. It also leads to greater trust in labour markets. That trust leads to greater participation—and we’ve had lower participation rates for women ever since day dot. It also leads to greater outcomes in this country.

So this is an important bill for so many reasons. It’s important around equal pay, it’s important around participation, but it’s also a productivity problem. That’s what this side of the House is focused on—improving our productivity. That is why we are supportive of it.

I am surprised and dismayed at my friends in the ACT Party, who I thought valued free markets. I thought that they would not support such moves in this House. I would certainly encourage—and we’re going to through your dissenting view and I’m going to read it out. It’s the eleventh hour and I would encourage you to get on to your leader, David Seymour, and to change the vote, because I do think that the greats of the ACT Party—your Richard Prebble and your Roger Douglas and your Derek Quigley—I think they’d support this bill tonight, because they’d support it on the grounds of market efficiency. It is on that basis that I stand and support this bill.

The importance of transparency cannot be understated for efficient labour markets. We’ve got still some big issues around transparency and pay equity for women. This bill is a great example of a place where we can discuss pay. It’s probably the first time in this House that I’ve ever agreed with anything Ricardo Menéndez March has ever said. But, actually, even when it’s in contracts, people still talk about it—let’s be honest. There is nothing that can stop somebody from talking about their pay. It is a touchy subject, but it is something that we should encourage, because it’s all about making sure that there’s transparency for your current job, but also if you move up that organisation and you get a promotion, you want to make sure that that is a good, worthy promotion.

If I think of my own family circumstances, it’s also about moving to better jobs. You want to be able to talk with your future employer. And I’ll tell you what: one of the first things your future employer often asks during the interview process is, “Well, what do you get paid?” Just so they can understand what the ballpark of your current pay arrangements are. So it is so important for the lifecycle of anybody’s career to be able to disclose that.

I don’t think that there is any credible reason to be supressing and making pay a secret and not negotiable topic. It already happens anyway. I can guarantee it already happens. So that’s where we are and supportive of reducing the pay gap for women. But it’s not just about women; this happens with men too. It is all about making sure that, actually, pay increases because you should be paid what you are valued and contributing. That happens for all different types of reasons.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: There’s justified and unjustified reasons.

DAN BIDOIS: That’s right—non-justified reasons.

I do just want to again pick up on the differing view from the select committee from my colleagues in the ACT Party. I just want to talk about it, because, again, there’s just some nonsensical arguments here that I think a free marketeer would just shut down. Let’s talk about it. They talk about that it’s not needed; that it’s a private matter. Well, actually, no, it’s not a private matter. If it is a private matter, you should be to talk about it like a private matter. You shouldn’t be able to restrict what people say in private conversations.

Now, my colleague here talks about freedom of contract. I just want to say to that member that not everything of value is written into a contract and not everything in a contract is of value. I’ve been on both sides. I’ve employed people and I’ve also been a worker. I tell you what, the amount of times that I just cut and paste from a website, and there’s so much stuff that is in an employment contract that I just don’t really think is needed, but you put it in there because it’s a cut-and-paste job and you don’t want to overthink it. So there’s a lot of these types of scenarios where it just strikes me as bizarre.

Look, there’s no cost to this really for the State. I just think that what we want is a scenario where the true price is acknowledged and people are paid that price. So that is why I don’t support any differing view that says that, “Well, on the basis of good free-market economics, we cannot support this.” That just doesn’t stack up to me.

In terms of the select committee process, my colleague Vanessa Weenink ran through the comments and the changes that were made in the select committee process. I do want to say that National has a proud history, and New Zealand has a proud history. I’m honoured to be able to stand in this Parliament with you, Madam Speaker, in your role, and having the number of female Prime Ministers that we’ve had, having such distinguished colleagues all around this House, and not being able to take gender into account. I think that that is fantastic for New Zealand and it’s something that we should be really proud of. I’ve lived overseas in many different countries and I’ll tell you what, we are streaks ahead on gender issues compared to many other countries.

But we’ve still got issues to deal with. We’ve still got an 8.6 percent gender pay gap. Again, we’re not talking about just paying the same as men. We’re talking about getting paid the same as other people for work of equal value—for work of equal value. I think, actually, transparency of pay enables that price discovery to be realised and for that gap to be narrowed.

We’ve got some great things under way. We’ve got that Pay Gap Calculator that Nicola Grigg just implemented. I think that’s a really good initiative. But there’s actually a lot going on in the private sector. I just want to shout out to all our businesses across the country that are taking leadership roles to disclose for themselves to the public their gender pay gaps, and the work programme that they’ve got under way to help narrow those pay gaps. It’s not just up to the Government. In fact, I very rarely think that Government is the solution to anything these days. It is actually all of us in society that provide the solution for reducing gender or any other pay gaps for that matter.

So it is a fantastic bill and it is great to commend this bill to the House.

Dana Kirkpatrick—is this the split call number six?

Dana Kirkpatrick: Yes please.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Dana Kirkpatrick

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a great honour to come very late to the party in this and to come along and take this final five minutes for Camilla Belich’s bill, the Employment Relations (Employee Remuneration Disclosure) Amendment Bill. I want to congratulate Camilla for having this bill put into the ballot, for drawing it out and for, apparently, having great tenacity in the select committee process. But well done to the member; it’s a great honour to have a bill pulled out, and I commend you for it. The National Party could have looked at it and said, “Oh, it’s a Labour Party bill.” It’s something that we don’t really normally—you know, we would normally say, “Oh no, we won’t do that.” But when you think about the context and the actual principle of it, it made sense for us to support this bill. So I’m proud that we’re supporting it.

I was trying to think of some examples about where this actually plays out for us, and I could think of a couple. Firstly, I was a proud union card-carrying member in my misspent youth when I was a cadet reporter at the Gisborne Herald in 1980-something. I hesitate to admit it, but we actually were union members only because they gave us a really fancy card that said “Press”. That meant you could get into anything at all, pretty much. So that was the reason we did it. But what I was reflecting on was that all of our pay rates were published, and we were very clear about what you were as a first-year cadet reporter. I think I got $180 a week. I thought it was Christmas. It was just fantastic. You went up the scale from there, and it took a long time, but I was reflecting on that and thinking, “Well, there you are. There we have it. We were very clear about what we were paid. We didn’t need to discuss it with each other because we knew.”

It’s a similar kind of story, if you think about us here in Parliament where it’s exactly the same. We all know what we get paid. It’s published in the Speaker’s Directions and we have a very clear understanding of who gets paid what, up and down the scale from the top to the bottom. I think that speaks volumes in that why is there one rule for some and why are there other roles for others? It makes no sense. So I am fully in support of the member’s bill to amend the Employment Relations Act to promote pay transparency and fairness by protecting employees who discuss or disclose their remuneration.

Currently, the law allowing agreements to include provisions which prohibit workers from discussing or disclosing their remuneration with colleagues or third parties just doesn’t seem to make sense in a modern context. So I think it’s time we put that to bed, and we are very pleased to support this.

I know one of my colleagues spoke of his children and how they think about these things. I have two children in the workforce, doing their best work, and I wonder whether it would have ever occurred to them that they couldn’t discuss their pay, that they weren’t actually able to sit next to the person next door and go, “You do the same job as me, are you getting the same deal here, or what’s happening?” I think it’s important that we don’t marginalise people or that we don’t actually make it difficult for them to do that—so, you know, I think it’s really important.

I just was reading through some of the information here and it says “Why is the bill so important?” And it talked a little bit about the gender pay gap currently being at 8.2 percent. There’s been some great work done in New Zealand about the gender pay gap, where women earn, on average, 8.2 percent less than men. The time has come for that to finish. If this tool, this bill, is one way of making that happen, then I think that’s a step in the right direction.

In closing, I think that if the legislation is enacted it will profoundly impact both employers and employees. For employers, it will establish clear legal guidelines on how remuneration discussions should be handled, reducing confusion and potential legal disputes. For employees, it can promote open communication about remuneration. I think that that’s about all we’ve got to say.

I think, on our side of the House, we’re very pleased to be supporting the bill and happy that the member’s bill will proceed to its third reading and with support across the House. So, with that, I commend the bill to the House.

The question is, That the amendments recommended by the Education and Workforce Committee by majority be agreed to.