Latest news with #Belich
NZ Herald
4 days ago
- Business
- NZ Herald
Why a new slave labour commissioner won't change anything
Of course, this comes hard on the heels of a select subset of our politicians jumping up and down about Israel's mistreatment of people in Gaza and Russia's attacks on Ukraine. I am yet to see either Israel's or Russia's reaction to our protests. Probably because they didn't take notice. Perhaps we could introduce a tariff on products imported from those economies who don't abide by our anti-slavery policies? Of course, no one would take notice of that either. The reason the US can introduce tariffs is because the world cares about what they think. They're the world's biggest customer and they have the biggest defence force. But us? Get real. In a radio interview on Newstalk ZB this week, Belich suggested that if appointed, the new commissioner will not focus his or her efforts on small business. Only those with revenues of over $50 million per annum will be targeted. Excuse me? Firstly, my hazy recollection of New Zealand's issues with slavery and labour exploitation suggests that the problems have been detected in small businesses. One case that I recall involved workers doing domestic and orcharding work. Another higher-profile case involved an Auckland restaurant and migrant workers from India. Yet another saw an investigation into a bowling alley. Let's be clear, these are small businesses with revenues substantially less than $50 million. Secondly, there are plenty of privately owned businesses with perfectly good recruitment and employment records, with no historical examples or even suspicions of anything resembling slavery or labour exploitation, and with turnovers of $50 million or more. And here is a suggestion that, not content with the time wasted in those businesses responding to anti-money laundering requirements, health and safety stupidity, environmental nonsense and climate reporting, we are now going to ask them to bow to the needs of a slavery commissioner! During the radio interview, Belich admitted that she had no idea of how big a problem slavery is in New Zealand. Elsewhere, I noticed that an accompanying statement said the proposed policy was a response to a World Vision initiative urging us to do something. And so the truth comes out. The proposal to appoint an anti-slavery commissioner is yet another sop to an overseas organisation that wants to tell us how to live our lives. Labour's anti-slavery bill misses the mark. writes Bruce Cotterill. Photo / 123rf Deep down, New Zealanders are good people. We don't like the thought of labour exploitation any more than other decent human beings. But we can stand on our principles all day long. It doesn't mean those in lofty positions of power elsewhere will take any notice. But let's not underestimate the cost of taking our arguments to the world. The last time we appointed a commissioner, it was to oversee the cost of groceries. From the moment he was appointed, this writer has been highly sceptical of any benefit at all being delivered to the average New Zealand household as a result. But there he is, sitting in an office within MBIE with a 30-strong staff costing us millions. And this one would be no different. Then there is the fact that we have a very good police force. Is it not their job to sniff out criminal behaviour, including anything to do with labour exploitation or slavery? New Zealand currently criminalises slavery and trafficking under existing legislation. That legislation should be enough for the police to act where necessary. If it's not, let's upgrade the legislation instead of creating another government office. There is something sadly lacking in New Zealand political circles at present. It's called common sense. We seem to be damn keen to jump on board any bandwagon, cause, or worse, gravy train, that pops up without any logical thought about our priorities, potential outcomes, or financial cost. I'd like to suggest that our politicians would be better to focus on the things that can make a difference to our troubled little economy. New Zealand has a whole lot of challenges that I'd like to see our elected representatives focusing on. At the top of that list is this. Stop wasting money. At all levels of government, including local government, we continue to press the case to spend more money. The recent rates increases tell us that Auckland's mayor is one of the few who focuses heavily on costs. And yet it should be the job of every politician to work out what our priorities are, and then tell us how they can do more with less. But no, projects run over time and budgets are blown. Annual forecasts allow for increasingly eyewatering sums of money for what should be relatively simple and straightforward services. When you're broke, you have to focus on the things that really matter. That's where the attention goes. And that's where the funding goes. In government terms, we're not really broke, but we're not exactly flush either. The Greens will tell us that we can borrow more money and still have less debt than other nations. But they're overlooking the fact that our low productivity environment makes borrowing a lot easier than paying it back. And our interest bill is already our fourth biggest cost. We'd be foolish to allow it to go any higher unless that debt supported increased income, greater productivity or both. It's no secret that our problems are plenty. The usual suspects, Health and Education, seem well-funded but poorly resourced. What does that mean? It means there's plenty of money allocated, but not enough of it lands at the coalface. Elsewhere, our infrastructure deficit is massive and we need different thinking to work out what to do about the inadequacies of our power, water and transport infrastructure in particular. Then there are our people who can't look after themselves and those who can't cope in today's society. Not looking after those people properly leads to downstream effects, including increasing burdens from health and crime. Right now, New Zealand is not doing well enough on any of these measures. If we want to aspire to become a country that's respected and listened to internationally, we would do well to remember the following. The country that can do most to help those less advantaged, including victims of war, famine and yes, even slavery, are those countries with strong economies. Before we start telling the rest of the world how to behave, we need to build an economy that can afford to offer help, rather than just cheaply throwing words around telling others how to live their lives. As it turns out, we do have room for a new commissioner. I'd like to think we could appoint a commissioner who would make a real and substantive difference to New Zealand. Firstly a difference to the outcomes for our people but also a difference to our international standing. Fixing this one would give us greater license to tell others how to behave. Currently, that license is weakened because of our own inadequacy. You could call that person the Commissioner for our Greatest Embarrassment. But in reality, they would be a Commissioner for Child Safety. In other words, something or someone that provides a massive focus on preventing us from killing our kids. Can you believe that we have a Ministry for Children, a Social Wellbeing Agency, and ministerial portfolios for Child Poverty, and for the Prevention of Family Violence? I wonder what all that costs. And yet here we are, ranking 35th in the OECD for the wellbeing of our children. In case we've forgotten, on average, one child dies every five weeks in New Zealand at the hands of someone responsible for their care. Of the 127 children murdered between 2007 and 2020, three-quarters were under the age of 5. Let that sink in for a moment. Then tell me that the slave trade in China, Nigeria or India is more important. I'd like to think we have bigger priorities than the opposition's latest bill. Our parents used to say, worry about your own backyard first. That sounds like great advice.
Scoop
5 days ago
- Business
- Scoop
Pay Talk Protection: National Backs Labour's Transparency Bill
Members' bills from opposition MPs are more often than not doomed to fail, but there have been exceptions to the rule this term. Tracey McLellan's Evidence (Giving Evidence of Family Violence) Amendment Bill received unanimous support at its second reading, with all six parties in Parliament voting in favour. Deborah Russell's Companies (Address Information) Amendment Bill is being supported by National and ACT, but not by New Zealand First. Others, like Camilla Belich's Crimes (Theft by Employer) Amendment Bill, have passed thanks to the support of one of the smaller coalition parties (in this case, New Zealand First). But only one opposition bill has had the support of National, and only National this term, and it is another from Belich. On Wednesday night, her Employment Relations (Employee Remuneration Disclosure) Amendment Bill passed its second reading, thanks to National voting alongside the three opposition parties. The bill would ensure that pay secrecy clauses, which prevent employees from discussing their salaries with colleagues, would no longer be enforceable, meaning employers could not take legal action if an employee talked about pay. There will be cases where pay differences were justifiable (such as different skill sets or qualifications), but the bill's intention is to shed light on situations where they were unjustifiable. Australia, the UK, the EU, and some US states have either banned pay secrecy clauses or made them unenforceable. Belich said people already talk about their pay with colleagues, but stopping businesses from taking action against them for it would keep New Zealand up with the times. "It takes away the right for them to take action and discipline their employees when they talk about their pay. We know this happens already at the moment. So there's definitely a common sense, pragmatic element to this bill," she told RNZ. "It's making sure that usual human behaviour and workplace discussions are not something that people are disciplined for." Six National MPs took calls on the bill at its second reading. Every one of them referenced the gender pay gap and were hopeful the bill would be a mechanism to reduce it. Banks Peninsula MP Vanessa Weenink, who gave National's first contribution to the bill, told RNZ the party supported the bill because it had a "proud history" of driving down the gender pay gap. "We know that pay transparency is a key factor for driving down the gender pay gap. International studies have shown that when that legislation has been brought in, that it's measurable in the amount of reduction in the pay gap. So we really want to see that continue to fall down." Belich said it was great to see continued support for the bill. "I was heartened by the comments made in the house, where the National Party members said they would support this right through. I hope that's what they do," she said. "I think given the current context, where we've had significant changes to our pay equity regime, where women have had the ability to take pay equity claims severely curtailed, these types of bills, which make small changes to make a more transparent workforce, are increasingly important." Weenink said the "optics" around pay equity had nothing to do with National's support for the bill, as the party had also supported the bill at its first reading, well before the pay equity changes were announced. "It's just our ongoing commitment to doing what we can to make the workplace fair and improve productivity. How I see it is that if you can see you're being paid less than someone else who's working right beside you, doing the same job, then that's going to massively reduce your motivation, isn't it?" She did not see it as National handing Labour a win, but rather an opportunity to put party politics aside and improve things for New Zealanders. The bill passed its first reading in November. Sometimes, a bill is given cautious support at its first reading, in order to send it to Select Committee to see if the kinks are ironed out. The Education and Workforce Committee received 225 submissions on the bill, the majority in support. Belich said a number of changes were made to the bill through the Select Committee process, including making it clear there would be no requirement to make a disclosure. "It's still something that can be a private matter. It's only if you wish to that you shouldn't be disciplined for the desire to actually discuss that. So that was probably the major change through Select Committee." She said there were some definitional tidy-ups, including making it clear what the definitions of remuneration and detriment were, as well as ensuring the bill would not be retrospective. Some privileged or commercially sensitive information, for example, owner benefits for a business owner who also receives an employee salary, would also be excluded. Despite the changes, ACT and New Zealand First continued to oppose the bill. ACT said it would allow people to breach agreements they had signed up to, for which there should be consequences. "Once you've signed something, you are supposed to oblige to the conditions that you have signed for. If you do not agree to something in the agreement that you have signed, then there is an opportunity for you to go back and renegotiate the terms and conditions that you don't agree to," Parmjeet Parmar told the House. "But you don't just breach the agreement and say that there should be no consequences for that." New Zealand First's Mark Patterson said it "runs smack into the brick wall" of the party's belief in the "sanctity" of contract law. "While this bill doesn't prevent pay secrecy and that's still able to be incorporated within a contract, it does limit an employer's ability to enforce it, and that goes against what a contract should be," he said. Belich said she found the arguments against the bill "interesting," as it was specifically designed so businesses would not need to spend money to change their contracts. "If we'd said you cannot have a pay secrecy clause in your contract, or pay secrecy clauses are now illegal to have even in an employment document, there'd be thousands of employment agreements throughout the country that would need to be changed, that would cost money, that would take legal advice. It would be a burden on business." The bill still needs to go through the Committee of the Whole House stage for any further tidy-ups, and then a third reading, though Weenink did not foresee any major changes. "It took a long time to bash some of these things out, and I think we've got it to a really good place." Acknowledging National is a "broad church" and there had been strong discussions about the bill amongst the caucus, she did not expect any changes to the party's position at the third reading.
NZ Herald
6 days ago
- Business
- NZ Herald
Labour MP's pay transparency bill advances with National's support
But only one Opposition bill has had the support of National, and only National, from the other side of the House this term – and it is another from Belich. On Wednesday night, her Employment Relations (Employee Remuneration Disclosure) Amendment Bill passed its second reading, thanks to National voting alongside the three Opposition parties. The bill would ensure that pay secrecy clauses, which prevent employees from discussing their salaries with colleagues, would no longer be enforceable, meaning employers could not take legal action if an employee talked about pay. There will be cases where pay differences were justifiable (such as different skillsets or qualifications), but the bill's intention is to shed light on situations where they were unjustifiable. Camilla Belich's pay transparency bill advanced with National's support. Australia, the UK, the EU and some US states have either banned pay secrecy clauses or made them unenforceable. Belich said people already talk about their pay with colleagues, but stopping businesses from taking action against them for it would keep New Zealand up with the times. 'It takes away the right for them to take action and discipline their employees when they talk about their pay. We know this happens already at the moment. So there's definitely a common sense, pragmatic element to this bill,' she told RNZ. 'It's making sure that usual human behaviour and workplace discussions are not something that people are disciplined for.' Six National MPs took calls on the bill at its second reading. Every one of them referenced the gender pay gap and were hopeful the bill would be a mechanism to reduce it. Banks Peninsula MP Vanessa Weenink, who gave National's first contribution to the bill, told RNZ the party supported the bill because it had a 'proud history' of driving down the gender pay gap. 'We know that pay transparency is a key factor for driving down the gender pay gap. International studies have shown that when that legislation has been brought in, that it's measurable in the amount of reduction in the pay gap. So we really want to see that continue to fall down.' An Opposition bill on pay transparency is winning support from across the aisle. Photo / 123rf Belich said it was great to see continued support for the bill. 'I was heartened by the comments made in the house, where the National Party members said they would support this right through. I hope that's what they do,' she said. 'I think given the current context, where we've had significant changes to our pay equity regime, where women have had the ability to take pay equity claims severely curtailed, these types of bills, which make small changes to make a more transparent workforce, are increasingly important.' Weenink said the 'optics' around pay equity had nothing to do with National's support for the bill, as the party had also supported the bill at its first reading, well before the pay equity changes were announced. 'It's just our ongoing commitment to doing what we can to make the workplace fair and improve productivity. How I see it is that if you can see you're being paid less than someone else who's working right beside you, doing the same job, then that's going to massively reduce your motivation, isn't it?' She did not see it as National handing Labour a win, but rather an opportunity to put party politics aside and improve things for New Zealanders. The bill passed its first reading in November. Sometimes, a bill is given cautious support at its first reading, in order to send it to select committee to see if the kinks are ironed out. The Education and Workforce Committee received 225 submissions on the bill, the majority in support. Belich said a number of changes were made to the bill through the select committee process, including making it clear there would be no requirement to make a disclosure. 'It's still something that can be a private matter. It's only if you wish to that you shouldn't be disciplined for the desire to actually discuss that. So that was probably the major change through select committee.' She said there were some definitional tidy-ups, including making it clear what the definitions of remuneration and detriment were, as well as ensuring the bill would not be retrospective. Some privileged or commercially sensitive information, for example, owner benefits for a business owner who also receives an employee salary, would also be excluded. Despite the changes, Act and New Zealand First continued to oppose the bill. Act said it would allow people to breach agreements they had signed up to, for which there should be consequences. 'Once you've signed something, you are supposed to oblige [sic] to the conditions that you have signed for. If you do not agree to something in the agreement that you have signed, then there is an opportunity for you to go back and renegotiate the terms and conditions that you don't agree to,' Parmjeet Parmar told the House. 'But you don't just breach the agreement and say that there should be no consequences for that.' New Zealand First's Mark Patterson said it 'runs smack into the brick wall' of the party's belief in the 'sanctity' of contract law. 'While this bill doesn't prevent pay secrecy and that's still able to be incorporated within a contract, it does limit an employer's ability to enforce it, and that goes against what a contract should be,' Patterson said. Belich said she found the arguments against the bill 'interesting,' as it was specifically designed so businesses would not need to spend money to change their contracts. 'If we'd said you cannot have a pay secrecy clause in your contract, or pay secrecy clauses are now illegal to have even in an employment document, there'd be thousands of employment agreements throughout the country that would need to be changed, that would cost money, that would take legal advice. It would be a burden on business.' The bill still needs to go through the Committee of the Whole House stage for any further tidy-ups, and then a third reading, though Weenink did not foresee any major changes. 'It took a long time to bash some of these things out, and I think we've got it to a really good place.' Acknowledging National is a 'broad church' and there had been strong discussions about the bill amongst the caucus, she did not expect any changes to the party's position at the third reading. – RNZ
Otago Daily Times
6 days ago
- Business
- Otago Daily Times
Pay talk protection: National backs Labour's transparency bill
Labour MP Dr Deborah Russell. By Giles Dexter of RNZ Members' bills from opposition MPs are more often than not doomed to fail, but there have been exceptions to the rule this term. Tracey McLellan's Evidence (Giving Evidence of Family Violence) Amendment Bill received unanimous support at its second reading, with all six parties in Parliament voting in favour. Deborah Russell's Companies (Address Information) Amendment Bill is being supported by National and ACT, but not by New Zealand First. Others, like Camilla Belich's Crimes (Theft by Employer) Amendment Bill, have passed thanks to the support of one of the smaller coalition parties (in this case, New Zealand First). But only one opposition bill has had the support of National, and only National this term, and it is another from Belich. On Wednesday night, her Employment Relations (Employee Remuneration Disclosure) Amendment Bill passed its second reading, thanks to National voting alongside the three opposition parties. The bill would ensure that pay secrecy clauses, which prevent employees from discussing their salaries with colleagues, would no longer be enforceable, meaning employers could not take legal action if an employee talked about pay. There will be cases where pay differences were justifiable (such as different skill sets or qualifications), but the bill's intention is to shed light on situations where they were unjustifiable. Australia, the UK, the EU, and some US states have either banned pay secrecy clauses or made them unenforceable. Belich said people already talk about their pay with colleagues, but stopping businesses from taking action against them for it would keep New Zealand up with the times. "It takes away the right for them to take action and discipline their employees when they talk about their pay. We know this happens already at the moment. So there's definitely a common sense, pragmatic element to this bill," she said. "It's making sure that usual human behaviour and workplace discussions are not something that people are disciplined for." Six National MPs took calls on the bill at its second reading. Every one of them referenced the gender pay gap and were hopeful the bill would be a mechanism to reduce it. Banks Peninsula MP Vanessa Weenink, who gave National's first contribution to the bill, said the party supported the bill because it had a "proud history" of driving down the gender pay gap. "We know that pay transparency is a key factor for driving down the gender pay gap. International studies have shown that when that legislation has been brought in, that it's measurable in the amount of reduction in the pay gap. So we really want to see that continue to fall down." Belich said it was great to see continued support for the bill. "I was heartened by the comments made in the house, where the National Party members said they would support this right through. I hope that's what they do," she said. "I think given the current context, where we've had significant changes to our pay equity regime, where women have had the ability to take pay equity claims severely curtailed, these types of bills, which make small changes to make a more transparent workforce, are increasingly important." Weenink said the "optics" around pay equity had nothing to do with National's support for the bill, as the party had also supported the bill at its first reading, well before the pay equity changes were announced. "It's just our ongoing commitment to doing what we can to make the workplace fair and improve productivity. How I see it is that if you can see you're being paid less than someone else who's working right beside you, doing the same job, then that's going to massively reduce your motivation, isn't it?" She did not see it as National handing Labour a win, but rather an opportunity to put party politics aside and improve things for New Zealanders. The bill passed its first reading in November. Sometimes, a bill is given cautious support at its first reading, in order to send it to Select Committee to see if the kinks are ironed out. The Education and Workforce Committee received 225 submissions on the bill, the majority in support. Belich said a number of changes were made to the bill through the Select Committee process, including making it clear there would be no requirement to make a disclosure. "It's still something that can be a private matter. It's only if you wish to that you shouldn't be disciplined for the desire to actually discuss that. So that was probably the major change through Select Committee." She said there were some definitional tidy-ups, including making it clear what the definitions of remuneration and detriment were, as well as ensuring the bill would not be retrospective. Some privileged or commercially sensitive information, for example, owner benefits for a business owner who also receives an employee salary, would also be excluded. Despite the changes, ACT and New Zealand First continued to oppose the bill. ACT said it would allow people to breach agreements they had signed up to, for which there should be consequences. "Once you've signed something, you are supposed to oblige to the conditions that you have signed for. If you do not agree to something in the agreement that you have signed, then there is an opportunity for you to go back and renegotiate the terms and conditions that you don't agree to," Parmjeet Parmar told the House. "But you don't just breach the agreement and say that there should be no consequences for that." New Zealand First's Mark Patterson said it "runs smack into the brick wall" of the party's belief in the "sanctity" of contract law. "While this bill doesn't prevent pay secrecy and that's still able to be incorporated within a contract, it does limit an employer's ability to enforce it, and that goes against what a contract should be," he said. Belich said she found the arguments against the bill "interesting," as it was specifically designed so businesses would not need to spend money to change their contracts. "If we'd said you cannot have a pay secrecy clause in your contract, or pay secrecy clauses are now illegal to have even in an employment document, there'd be thousands of employment agreements throughout the country that would need to be changed, that would cost money, that would take legal advice. It would be a burden on business." The bill still needs to go through the Committee of the Whole House stage for any further tidy-ups, and then a third reading, though Weenink did not foresee any major changes. "It took a long time to bash some of these things out, and I think we've got it to a really good place." Acknowledging National is a "broad church" and there had been strong discussions about the bill amongst the caucus, she did not expect any changes to the party's position at the third reading.
