IdiotSavant 1248868577|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
Voted down 63-58. National and ACT voted for slavery. Can I call them rude names yet?
Amanda Reilly 1248382630|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
May it be the first victory of many!
On a related tangent I thought this recent decision was interesting http://www.yorku.ca/ddoorey/lawblog/?p=1234 Some of the workers of Walmart's suppliers in other countries tried to hold Walmart legally accountable for abuses they'd suffered based on Walmart's "Standards for Suppliers". The Court rejected all their arguments & said the Code doesn't create any legal obligation for Walmart at all- which just goes to show that counting on voluntary Corporate Social Responsibility to further human rights objectives as the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee seems to be recommending on the Trade Aid petition, is a pretty feeble hope.
IdiotSavant 1248225055|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
The Maori Party have a bill along similar lines, which has just been drawn from the ballot.
IdiotSavant 1248221478|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
And its been drawn. Our first victory!
Now to see if it gets passed…
IdiotSavant 1248150398|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
It might be worth adapting some of the language from the new Cluster Munitions (Prohibition) Bill.
IdiotSavant 1247190438|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
Easy enough to do; I'll draft it over the weekend.
And we can add the Intelligence and Security Committee to the list of things to do in an omnibus bill.
AnitaNZ 1246684120|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
I'm not sure where this is up to, but removing the exemption for the IPCA should be on the list.
I'm not 100% sure but I think it needs a simple change to part 2 of the Ombudsmen Act to remove the parentheses (and contents) from this line:
- Crown entities within the meaning of section 7 of the Crown Entities Act 2004 (other than the Independent Police Conduct Authority)
I can't see any good reason they're exempt, particularly as the Police are covered.
AnitaNZ 1246683788|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
The IPCA finally got back to me, and they do investigate Police processes and can and do accept complaints about them. Their website has been updated, they have a new brochure and the new SOI looks clearer.
So this is no longer necessary, I'm not quite sure how to handle ending the life of a topic tho… :)
The whole process has, however, convinced me we need to extend the OIA to the IPCA (or remove their exemption) as it shouldn't've taken five months and this much chasing to get an answer, and the only mechanism to address their repeated non-responses was their Minister. I shall go add it to the Open Government topic.
IdiotSavant 1246345920|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
Oh yes, I agree on the irony. OTOH, if the aim is to highlight the general problem…
I agree that it is the perfect time to push this issue. The question is whether any of the politicians think so.
Ari54 1246326325|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
I thought it wouldn't matter so long as you were forcing them to publishing the raw averages anyway, and there seemed a certain irony in assuming the male pay was the correct rate in all cases in a bill designed to fight sexism ;)
This concept is simple enough that I'd be tempted to push it now, especially given there's a lot of political capital in it. The Greens are all billed out at the moment, so they might have to wait… I'm sure Labour would love it though.
IdiotSavant 1246325612|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
Not a bad idea, but that might make it potentially confusing, with some being female / male remuneration, and others the opposite. And given that the problem is almost always that female pay lags male pay, sticking it that way round gives consistency and focuses on the problem. Still, an option to consider when it comes time to push it at an MP…
And yes, making employers explain the gap was a major motivation for the UK version.
Ari54 1246236620|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
Allows for naming and shaming of bad employers, while employers who actually have an excuse for having different averages can publish more information to tell us why, and we get to criticise them still if it's a horrible excuse. Yay!
Small suggestion:
"(c) The difference between the two, expressed as a percentage of the average male remuneration of subsection (a)."
Make this:
"(c) The difference between the two, consisting of at least the lower average clearly labeled as a percentage of the higher average."
IdiotSavant 1245767934|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
100 employees covers 1.5% of firms but 48% of workers, which is pretty good. 50 makes it 3% and 57% respectively.
IdiotSavant 1245765066|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
Another relevant resource: report from the Equalities Office.
IdiotSavant 1245300396|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
The sticking point is that this requires a referendum, or a supermajority
IdiotSavant 1245282150|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
This is now in the ballot, fronted by Maryann Street.
IdiotSavant 1243731530|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
73 Gender pay gap information
(1) A Minister of the Crown may by regulations require employers to publish
information relating to the pay of employees for the purpose of showing
whether, by reference to factors of such description as is prescribed, there are
differences in the pay of male and female employees.
(2) This section does not apply to
(a) an employer who has fewer than 250 employees;
(b) a person specified in Schedule 19.
(3) The regulations may prescribe
(a) descriptions of employer;
(b) descriptions of employee;
(c) how to calculate the number of employees that an employer has;
(d) descriptions of information;
(e) the time at which information is to be published;
(f) the form and manner in which it is to be published.
(4) Regulations under subsection (3)(e) may not require an employer, after the first
publication of information, to publish information more frequently than at
intervals of 12 months.
(5) The regulations may make provision for a failure to comply with the
regulations
(a) to be an offence punishable on summary conviction by a fine not
exceeding level 5 on the standard scale;
(b) to be enforced, otherwise than as an offence, by such means as is
prescribed.
(6) The reference to a failure to comply with the regulations includes a reference
to a failure by a person acting on behalf of an employer.
Ari54 1243506304|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
I find it quite hilarious that with an obstructionist government on this issue it's so difficult to get an inquiry. Clearly Key doesn't yet realise that meetings are where ideas go to die. ;)
Lewis Holden 1243476021|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
Hmmm. I added the Treaty question simply because it's something raised in the debate continually.
The likelihood of any inquiry under the current government is very slim. I think it's more likely we'd elect the next Governor-General, so that's where my priorities lie.
IdiotSavant 1243469137|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
Lianne Dalziel is taking it.
