Being transparent is fair play. Photo / Mark Mitchell
Being transparent is fair play. Photo / Mark Mitchell
Opinion
Politicians like to claim that they are transparent.
I often wonder about that. Not so much that they would not like to be thought transparent, but more whether they really know what that means.
If you were really transparent you would not need brigades of “communications managers” to allow voters to see the facts. The same goes for business.
I saw that Business New Zealand in April was “encouraging ……businesses to be transparent about their pay gaps based on gender, ethnicity or disability”.
Sounds jolly good, but I wonder how much effort is really being put into it.
The Business New Zealand opinion arose out of work that has been done in recent years by the Human Rights Commission on pay gaps and transparency lead by Saunoamaali’I Karanina Sumeo in her role as Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner.
Rob Campbell. Photo / NZME
This culminated in an Inquiry into Pacific Pay Gaps last year and associated polling which showed strong public support for pay transparency rules to be introduced.
To recap, the survey showed (in 2021) pay gaps as compared with Pakeha men and others ranging from $8817 for Maori men to $20,228 for Maori women and $24,671 for Pacific women.
Any comprehensive steps to overcome the observed gaps will include a wide range of training, social and other policies.
But there is widespread recognition that one vital aspect is to measure what the facts are.
This is true across the board but also true within industries and even firms. There is also recognition that the large gaps observed are not explicable without at least some element of discrimination occurring in employment practices.
No one with knowledge seriously argues otherwise.
The Human Rights Commission rightly proposes that part of our employment law should include reporting obligations to identify the facts and to assess progress against the measurement.
This data would feed into such processes as Fair Pay Agreements and actions under The Equal Pay Act - both of which would require amendment - but would also be influential on the ongoing employment practices within firms.
After all, it will undoubtedly be argued by employers that such discrimination as is shown will be “unconscious” and they will accordingly be keen to set the situation right.
In any legislative action that is taken it will be argued that the compliance burden alone compels such transparency to be limited to large firms.
There is danger in this, and employees, unions and large employers should resist this.
Discrimination is not likely to be higher in such firms and restricting pay transparency requirements to, say, those with 50 or more employees - as has been suggested - would leave more than 1.3 million people working for small enterprises un-measured – often among the most vulnerable.
It is true that there are issues with implementing requirements like this. But the additional burden of reporting pay levels and ethnicities is very marginal as part of existing employment records.
It is all a matter of what we think is valuable. Equity in pay outcomes will not come without recording and transparency.
Political parties should all expect to be challenged as to where they stand on this and there is an opportunity for the governing party to lead.
It has the basic data, the support of its own Commission, Business New Zealand, the unions and the polls.
The most cautious campaign manager should be able to see how that works.
Rob Campbell is a professional director and investor. He is chancellor at AUT, chairman of Ara Ake, chairman of NZ Rural Land, an adviser for Dave Letele’s BBM Charity and the former chairman of Te Whatu Ora.
