Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1994, Publication: 81st ILC session (1994)

A Government representative stated that her Government was somewhat surprised that the request for further information on the application of Convention No. 100 was raised as a matter of consideration by this Committee. The observation made by the Committee of Experts raised no issues, legal or otherwise, over New Zealand's compliance with the Convention and, therefore, there was no basis for any substantive discussion. Her Government would, of course, respond to the request for further information in the same way as it consistently complied with all of its reporting obligations. Given the nature of the information sought, this would necessarily take some time. However, this information would be included in the next report on the application of this Convention which, according to the established practice and to Convention No. 144, would also be the subject of consultation with the employers' and workers' organizations.

The Workers' members that this case on Convention No. 100 raised important problems in respect of the principles and interests which were involved. They wished to have more information on the question of whether the new approach to the functioning of the labour market promoted by the Government by virtue of the law of 1991, that favoured individual contracts at the expense of collective agreements, did not require the adoption of additional measures to guarantee equality of remuneration between men and women. As a result of this law, an increasing proportion of workers was not covered by collective agreements, and female employees who were concentrated in the services sector and in small and medium-sized enterprises were particularly affected by this approach. In 1972 and 1977 New Zealand had introduced a system of fixing wages by collective agreements inspired by the principles of the ILO. This legislation had been completed in 1990 by introducing the notion of equal pay for work of equal value and by the introduction of action plans to promote effective equality of treatment between men and women. However, this legislation was repealed by the new law of 1991 which favoured wage-fixing on an individual basis and necessarily affected the machinery for implementing equality of treatment. This affected access to the information on the level of wages, because wages paid on an individual basis could not be sufficiently made known; the effective application of the principle of equal pay for work of equal value and the complaints procedure against discrimination; and also had implications concerning the protection of women against acts of discrimination or intimidation when they sought to defend their rights before the competent tribunals or other bodies. As noted by the Committee of Experts' report, the Labour Inspectorate had received only one complaint under the Equal Pay Act during the period 1990-93. The Workers' members considered that it was an important case because equality of remuneration should be applied equitably under any labour market system, and it was for this reason that they had proposed to discuss the case. They would like the Government to provide more information on recent developments with respect to the effective implementation of equality of remuneration, including remuneration stipulated in individual contracts, in the services sector and in other sectors employing a large number of women. The Workers' members insisted that the Government should, in conformity with the requirements of the Convention, ensure that legislation and implementing machinery corresponded to the specific needs of a deregulated labour market, so as to guarantee and promote the principle of equality of remuneration.

The Employers' members noted that the comments made by the Committee of Experts were very general in nature. However, they raised concern over the possible impact of the new legislation on the question of equal treatment and equal remuneration for men and women, taking into account the increased emphasis placed by the Government on individual contracts and the reduced importance attached to collective agreements. The Employers' members fully understood that such a development was a source of preoccupation with workers, though they believed that workers could also defend their interests on the basis of individual contracts, in particular, in countries where citizens were well aware of their rights and how to implement them. They pointed out that there was no criticism levelled by the Committee of Experts with regard to the legislation and measures adopted by the Government, but that there was only a request for further information to be supplied in the next report. The Employers' members felt sure that the Government would in fact follow up this request.

The Workers' member of New Zealand stated that, after having been the first country in the world to give women the right to vote, a hundred years ago, extremist free market policies combined with an attack on the role of the State, as well as privatization, reductions in social welfare provisions and a deregulated labour market introduced by the Employment Contracts Act, had put New Zealand in serious breach of its legal obligations under this fundamental Convention. The latest statistics showed a steady trend to widening the gap between men's and women's wages since the introduction of this Act, which also rendered obsolete and totally ineffective the Equal Pay Act and its state sector equivalent. The only option left open in this situation was the use of the personal grievance provisions of the Employment Contracts Act or a complaint to the Human Rights Commission. In practice, these were totally ineffective in the environment created by the new Act, which was characterized by the following: (i) individual contracts were becoming much more common and remuneration was likely to be more varied by region, industry, firm and other factors which made it more difficult to establish discrimination in individual cases; (ii) fewer people were in a position to know what others were paid and thus whether there was any discrimination; (iii) merit and performance pay were becoming more common and there was evidence that they provided a great potential for unintended discrimination; (iv) support from a union was less likely to be available because of low levels of union coverage. Every indicator on what was happening to women in the labour force in New Zealand was showing a negative effect. The most disadvantaged were women in the clerical administration, retail and service sectors, who were low paid and increasingly casualized, and were being denied the opportunity to acquire skills and training to improve their position in the labour market. While this was a complex problem, the fundamental question for this Committee was whether the existence of a deregulated labour market was an acceptable excuse for the Government to do nothing to provide for equal pay for work of equal value. It must ask the Government what it intended to do to provide for equality of remuneration between men and women under the Employment Contracts Act and what changes were needed to this Act to meet the requirements of the Convention. She stated that the Government had not replied substantively to the Committee of Experts for the last three years and must be asked now to supply the full report for next year.

The Workers' member of Singapore considered that in evaluating the measures undertaken by the Government, one had to determine whether they were sufficient to ensure that women received equal pay for work of equal value. If the statistics showed that women's wages continued to lag significantly behind that of men, the adequacy of these measures had to be re-examined. The common difficulty with laws dealing with individual grievances was that the process of enforcing them was often arduous, time-consuming, expensive and thus generally prohibitive, especially for women who were already disadvantaged in their position in society and in the resources available to them. This was supported by the fact that between 1990 and 1993 the Labour Inspectorate in New Zealand received only one complaint under the Equal Pay Act. Wondering whether the mere publication of a manual issued by the Government was sufficient, she emphasized that a conscious effort had to be made to integrate the policy of equal pay for work of equal value at all strategic levels of decision-making. Access to information was critical in this respect and, from the comments made by the Committee of Experts, it appeared that such information was lacking and should be provided by the Government as soon as possible.

The Workers' member of the United States said that a similar experience in the United States had showed that one should examine whether there was a pattern or practice of inequity that extended beyond the experience of a single isolated individual. As was pointed out, the legislation recently enacted in New Zealand was designed for individual and not for class action complaints. Individual contracts were not an adequate substitute for collective bargaining. An isolated individual was far less likely to have the resources or knowledge of the extent of similar inequality elsewhere in the same firm, much less in the same industry or in the economy at large. In New Zealand there was substantial statistical evidence that in occupations with a large number of women, such as nurses, retail, and hotel workers, the ratio of women's pay to that of men's had declined since the new legislation was enacted. A similar philosophy in the United States - that no government was a good government - resulted in deregulation to serve that ideology, and inequality increased substantially during the decade; sweatshops and child labour, which were presumed to be historical artifacts, returned as facts of working life. For this reason he urged the Government of New Zealand to recognize that a deregulated labour market was an unequal labour market and to adjust its law and practice accordingly, so as to better conform to the Convention.

The Government member of Germany was convinced that if the Committee of Experts asked certain questions, they did so because they had the suspicion at the outset that the Convention was possibly not being implemented in the proper way. The experts were asking for an early report and their comments contained not just questions but also certain points of criticism in connection with the application of this Convention, as well as that of Convention No. 42. The Committee of Experts was asking for further information on particular measures, including arbitration procedures and the results of ongoing research and studies. The collection of such information would require time and should first be submitted to the experts for their evaluation; for that reason he considered that the position of the Government representative of New Zealand was perfectly understandable in that she could not give this Committee completely comprehensive information in respect of these points.

The Workers' member of Pakistan associated himself with the concerns expressed by other Workers' members on this vital issue of the discrimination of women, mostly in the developing countries, but also in the developed countries. The statistics invoked by the Workers' member of New Zealand showed that women were still subject to discrimination, particularly after the introduction of the new legislation. To comply with its obligations under the Convention, the Government should carry out objective appraisals of the jobs on the basis of the work performed, in consultation with the employers' and workers' organizations, in order to enforce equality in the payment of wages. Therefore, he urged the Government to take into account the observation made by the Committee of Experts in carrying out its constitutional obligation to ensure the principle of equality of treatment.

The Government member of the United Kingdom supported the comments made by the Government member of Germany. He stated that most of the information that had been given to this Committee was not included in the Committee of Experts' report. This was not the appropriate way to submit such information, as this Committee had always based its work on the report of the experts. His Government therefore considered it wrong that cases, such as this one, had been selected when there had been no explicit criticism by the experts, but only a number of requests for further information. If it was selected merely to ensure a so-called equitable, reasonable distribution of cases, his Government would suggest that the wrong criteria were being used for the selection of cases and that this could undermine the credibility of this Committee. It would be far more profitable if this Committee were to spend its valuable time either on the more serious cases of human rights abuses, which, it seemed, were being passed by for purely political purposes, or on cases of progress from which lessons could be learned. If the supervisory system was not to fall into disrepute, he hoped that this situation would not be repeated in future years, and suggested that the Committee should perhaps establish stronger criteria in future for the selection of cases.

The Workers' member of Germany, referring to the comments made by the Government members of Germany and of the United Kingdom, emphasized the significance of the discussion in this Committee on such important cases. Even if there were difficulties in providing comprehensive information, it would nevertheless have been possible for the Government representative of New Zealand to have shown the political will of the Government to fully implement Convention No. 100. She could have done this explicitly, which would have made this dialogue much more significant and relevant. He therefore considered that such cases concerning possible violations of fundamental rights should be continued to be discussed and dealt with in this Committee in the future in order to give the governments an opportunity to express a positive attitude to the supervisory machinery and to the relevant Conventions.

The Government member of the United States explained her Government's view of what kind of cases should be discussed in this Committee. When the Workers' and Employers' members decided what cases should go on the list, they considered a lot of things: which cases were serious, which cases had been cited in footnotes, which were discussed in this Committee on previous occasions and whether there had been any important new developments in those cases. They tried to develop a list that included a range of countries and a range of Conventions. She believed that this Committee should not limit the list of cases to a certain type of case and discuss only serious, flagrant abuses of human rights Conventions. There were other types of Conventions and other types of problems to be looked at. Her Government believed that when a country was asked to appear before this Committee, it was not tantamount to being on some sort of a black list. If only the most serious cases had to be looked at, then by definition it would not be possible to look at cases of progress which should also be discussed in this Committee. She was glad to note that there were more discussions in this Committee on Convention No. 100 which was an important Convention. However, she hoped that there would be no exaggeration in this Committee of a case so that it appeared that the situation was more serious than the Committee of Experts had indicated it to be. This could threaten the credibility of the supervisory system.

The Government representative of New Zealand reiterated that her Government would comply fully with the Committee of Experts' request for further information in its next report and in consultation with the social partners.

The Workers' members thanked the Government representative of New Zealand for her undertaking to provide the information requested. Concerning the remarks made in relation to the list of cases, they also thanked the Government representative of the United States for having recalled the criteria and the spirit in which the draft list of cases was prepared. The Workers' members judged it necessary to deal with this case in order to draw the attention of the Government of New Zealand to the importance of the questions raised by the experts on this matter, which were also important for a number of other countries as well. As to the content of the discussion, they considered that in fact it was not yet clear whether the new law undermined equality of remuneration between men and women. However, many Workers' members stressed that, having regard to their practical experiences, the danger of this was real and it was important that it should be monitored and that the obligations under the Convention be respected. To do this, it was necessary that effective legal machinery be established and dynamic action be undertaken by the Government. It was therefore appropriate to stress in the conclusions the need to have, as soon as possible, complete information so as to be able to assess the situation in New Zealand.

The Committee took note of the statement made by the Government representative, in particular the indication that her Government would provide further information with its next report due on this Convention. The Committee also took note of the various facts and views expressed in the course of the discussion. The Committee considered that the Government should provide the information requested by the Committee of Experts concerning a survey on bargaining structures, process and outcomes. The Committee also requested the Government to supply statistics on wages earned in sectors with a large number of female employees, such as the services sector. It further requested information on how the current machinery guaranteed, in the absence of collective bargaining, the principle of equal remuneration contained in the Convention. The Committee hoped that, on the basis of this additional information, the Committee of Experts would be in a position to further examine these issues more thoroughly.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2017, published 107th ILC session (2018)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2017, published 107th ILC session (2018)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2014, published 104th ILC session (2015)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2014, published 104th ILC session (2015)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2011, published 101st ILC session (2012)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2011, published 101st ILC session (2012)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2009, published 99th ILC session (2010)

Gender earnings gap. The Committee notes from the Government’s report that in 2007 the gender earnings gap stagnated at around 13.5 per cent with a gender earnings gap of 16.7 per cent in the private sector and 18.3 per cent in the public sector. Significant gender differences persist when comparing the average hourly earnings of Maori and Pacific women as a percentage of those of European/Pakeha men (69.7 per cent and 70.5 per cent, respectively, in 2007). The Committee further notes the comments of Business New Zealand (Business NZ) that much of the gender earnings gap is attributable to the kind of jobs women choose to undertake. In this regard, the Committee notes with interest the extensive information provided by the Government on the measures being taken to promote work–life balance, the Working for Families Scheme, and the activities supported by the Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner, the Equal Employment Opportunities Trust, and the Advisory Council on the Employment of Women. The Committee also notes that research is being undertaken by the Ministry for Women’s Affairs (MWA) on occupational segregation as a major factor contributing to the gender earnings gap, which will inform further policy work. The Committee also welcomes information from the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions (NZCTU) on the union initiatives to implement the Convention, such as the job evaluation exercise comparing community support workers and health/therapy assistants, and the Multi-Employer Collective Agreements settled by the New Zealand Nurses Organisation and Service and Food Workers Union, and their efforts to negotiate such an agreement for older care workers. The Committee welcomes these initiatives and encourages the Government to continue to provide information on the implementation of the activities undertaken by the various bodies and in cooperation with the workers’ and employers’ organizations, to promote the application of the Convention. The Committee also asks the Government to continue to provide statistics on the female–male earnings gap, including in high-level posts, and to supply additional information on how current measures aimed at reducing the gender earnings gap are addressing the important gender differences between, and within, ethnic groups with respect to average hourly earnings.

Public sector. The Committee notes the pay and employment equity reviews undertaken in the district health boards (DHBs) and in a sample of schools in the compulsory education sector. It also notes that reviews for tertiary education institutions and kindergartens started in 2008, and that the national pay and employment equity response plan for the public health sector is being finalized. In November 2007 the Government also extended the pay and employment equity policy to some Government-funded outsourced services in the public health sector, and will consider extending its policy to the public service, the public education sector and the rest of the public health sector following a report to Cabinet in December 2009. With respect to funding of remedial pay settlements in situations where DHBs contract for certain services, the Committee notes Business NZ’s concern regarding the manner in which refunding has been managed, and the Government’s reply that the Plan of Action includes a structured process for managing remedial claims and settlements that may arise through pay and employment equity reviews and pay investigations. According to the Government, DHBs should ensure that pay and employment equity extends to all employees who are employed to deliver services that DHBs have the operational obligation to ensure. The Committee asks the Government to continue to provide information on the pay and employment equity reviews and response plans in the public education and health sectors, including on the action taken to follow-up on some of the responses. Noting that a bipartite National Pay and Employment Equity Response Plan for DHBs has recently been finalized, the Committee asks the Government to provide a copy of the Plan and information on its implementation.

Article 3. Job evaluation in the private sector. With respect to efforts to promote objective job evaluation in the private sector, the Committee notes the views expressed by Business NZ that a decision to extend the Action Plan on Pay and Employment Equity to this sector would be entirely inappropriate. The Committee notes the Government’s reply that further advice regarding phase three of the Action Plan, which concerns the private sector and non-government organizations, will be provided to Cabinet in 2010. At the same time, the Government indicates that while the use of the Equitable Job Evaluation Tool and the Job Evaluation Standard is voluntary, the Plan of Action provides mechanisms for, and supports and promotes, the effective implementation of existing pay and employment equity legislation, which applies to the private sector. The Committee recalls that for the purpose of ensuring gender equality in the determination of remuneration, Governments may need to promote objective job evaluation methods in both the private and public sectors. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on further developments regarding the extension of the Action Plan on Pay and Employment Equity to the private sector.

Remedial pay increases in the private sector. With respect to concerns expressed by Business NZ on difficulties encountered by employers in the private health sector in matching remedial pay increases granted to employees in public institutions, the Committee notes the Government’s reply that if remedial pay settlements in the public sector lead to pay claims in the private sector, they will be addressed through the normal bargaining process and under the provisions of the Employment Relations Act. The Committee asks the Government to monitor any specific difficulties encountered by private health sector employers in matching remedial pay increases, and provide information on the manner in which this is being addressed.

Enforcement. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that due to the absence of relevant cases dealt with by the courts or tribunals, it is not in a position to assess the impact of current procedures for bringing equal pay claims. Recalling the low number of equal pay cases brought before competent bodies, the Committee asks the Government to continue to monitor whether the current procedures are sufficient to address equal pay claims in an effective manner.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2009, published 99th ILC session (2010)

The Committee notes the extensive information in the Government’s report and the comments by the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions (NZCTU) and by Business New Zealand (Business NZ) attached to the Government’s report.

Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. Equal pay legislation. The Committee recalls that the Employment Relations Act, 2000, (ERA), the Human Rights Act, 1993, (HRA) and the Equal Pay Act, 1972, (EPA) limit the requirement for equal remuneration for men and women to the same and similar work, which is more restrictive than the concept of “equal value” provided for in the Convention. Furthermore, the ERA limits the scope of comparison to situations where men and women work for the same employer. The Committee notes the Governments’ statement that the EPA provides broad protection which is further strengthened by other legislation, policies and initiatives, including the Five-Year Plan of Action on Pay and Employment Equity. The Government also indicates that it has no current plans to review the EPA but will continue to monitor developments in this regard. The Committee recalls that in 2004 the Task Force on Pay and Employment Equity defined “pay equity” as “men and women receiving the same pay for the same work and for work which is different, but of equal value”. The Committee, recalling its 2006 general observation on this Convention asks the Government to continue to report on any developments with respect to the amendment of its equal pay legislation, with a view to giving full legal expression to the principle of equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value. The Government is also requested to provide information on any judicial decisions indicating that the Equal Pay Act is being interpreted by the courts in conformity with the broader meaning of Articles 1(b) and 2 of the Convention.

Applying the principle in the public service. The Committee notes with interest the implementation of the Five-Year Plan of Action on Pay and Employment Equity in the public service, and particularly the pay and employment equity reviews and response plans that have been undertaken in the thirty nine departments. The findings of the reviews carried out by mid-2008 indicate a gender pay gap ranging from 3 to 25 per cent, higher starting rates and performance pay for men, an under-evaluation of women’s work, an under‑representation of women in management and their concentration in administrative and clerical work with limited career paths, difficult career-advancement for part-time workers, and workplace cultures that limit women’s contributions. The Committee notes that the organizations’ responses to the pay reviews include reviewing job-evaluation methods for gender bias, undertaking job-evaluation exercises, ensuring that performance pay systems are gender-neutral, improving access to flexible work, supporting managers in managing flexible work, and improving professional development and career-paths for jobs primarily performed by women. The Government indicates that action on the responses is at an early stage but would include some of the following interventions: pay increases for re-evaluated jobs, gender-sensitive human resources policies, systems and data, more flexible work arrangements, some permanent employment contracts and new career paths across job levels. The Committee notes that two pay investigations have been agreed in public sector‑based occupations in which women are predominant. The Pay and Employment Equity Unit of the Ministry of Labour will monitor and analyse action on the responses proposed, and report on the progress made. The Committee welcomes the efforts made in promoting and applying the principle of equal remuneration for work of equal value in the public service through pay and employment equity reviews, and asks the Government to continue to report on the action taken to implement the recommendations made by the reviews.

The Committee is raising other points in a request addressed directly to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2007, published 97th ILC session (2008)

1. Gender earnings gap. The Committee notes from the statistics provided by the Government on the male–female earnings differentials in the public and private sectors up to 2005, that female earnings as a percentage of male earnings continue to increase and that a narrowing of the gender earnings gap will continue to occur gradually. The Committee, however, also notes from information published by the Pay and Employment Equity Unit that, although between 1984 and 2006, female average hourly earnings as a percentage of male earnings have increased, the gender pay gap has only narrowed by 7 per cent. Furthermore, average hourly earnings differentials continue to exist within and between ethnic groups, with the largest differential between the earnings of Maori and Pacific women as a percentage of those of European/Pakeha men (71.3 per cent and 64.1 per cent, respectively, in 2005). The Government indicates that the gender pay gap will nevertheless continue to decrease due to trends, such as a reduction in the male–female gap in educational attainment and years of work experience; changes in the occupational and industrial composition of male and female employment and shifts in the demand for industry-specific or occupational skills which men and women hold in different positions. The Government further provides extensive information on initiatives to promote a better work–life balance and family-friendly workplaces as a means to attain equal remuneration for men and women. Regarding the need to adopt measures to address gender segregation in the occupational and industrial composition of the labour market, the Committee refers to its comments under the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111). The Committee asks the Government continue to provide statistical information on the male–female earnings differentials, particularly those influenced by the male–female gap in accessing high-level posts in the public and private sectors.

2. Measures to promote the application of the Convention. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government on legislative measures relating to parental leave and flexible working hours as well as on the activities taken by the State Services Commission, the various ministries, the National Advisory Council on the Employment of Women (NACEW), the Equal Employment Opportunities Trust (EEO Trust) that help in improving the application of the Convention. It notes that the NACEW has commissioned research to describe the economic arguments for narrowing the gender pay gap, and that the EEO Trust has undertaken research relating to parenting and paid work. The Committee asks the Government to continue to provide information on the activities of relevant bodies to promote equal pay and on the outcome of any follow-up action given to the research undertaken by NACEW and the EEO Trust on the gender pay gap.

3. Complaints and enforcement mechanisms. The Committee recalls its previous comments regarding the low number of individual equal pay cases brought before the competent bodies and the need to take measures to ensure that cases where men and women receive unequal remuneration for work of equal value can be addressed effectively through appropriate complaints and enforcement mechanisms. The Committee notes the explanations given by the Government regarding the current proceedings available to address equal pay claims under the ERA, EPA and the HRA, including the new legislation that came into force in December 2004. The Committee also notes, however, that the NZCTU still considers that there is a need for a legally binding mechanism to enforce equal remuneration where results of pay evaluations show inequities. The Committee asks the Government to indicate how these legislative measures have helped in practice to address more effectively equal pay claims and to eliminate unequal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value. 

4. The Committee notes the decision of the Human Rights Tribunal and the High Court judgment in Talleys v. Lewis and Edwards applying the provisions of the Human Rights Act of 1993 in an equal pay case. It notes that the High Court, in determining whether jobs undertaken by men and women in Talleys, a fish‑processing plant, were substantially similar, took into account job comparisons based on job descriptions and objective evaluation criteria. The High Court ruled that the filleting role and trimming role were substantially similar and that gender discrimination existed in allocating the higher paid jobs to men and lower paid jobs to women. The Committee asks the Government to continue to provide information on relevant court decisions relating to the principle of equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value.

5. Statistics on the gender pay gap. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that the States Services Commission is providing advice to public service departments on the statistical analysis of their pay and employment equity reviews. The Government indicates that the recommendation of the Task Force on Pay and Employment Equity on the need to determine what data would be appropriate to collect to give an overview of pay and employment equity will be dealt with after the Pay and Employment Equity Unit has gained more experience of statistical requirements from completed reviews. The Committee asks the Government to keep it informed on any further developments in collecting and analysing appropriate data on the gender pay gap.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2007, published 97th ILC session (2008)

The Committee notes the extensive information in the Government’s report as well as the comments by the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions (NZCTU) and of Business New Zealand (Business NZ) attached to the Government’s reports on this Convention and on the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111).

1. Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. Equal pay legislation. The Committee recalls its previous comments in which it emphasized that the requirement in the Convention for equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value goes beyond the concept of equal remuneration for the same or similar work as currently provided for in the Employment Relations Act 2000 (ERA), the Human Rights Act 1993 (HRA) and the Equal Pay Act 1972 (EPA). Furthermore, the scope of comparison has to be as wide as possible, as allowed by the level at which wage policies, systems and structures are set, and not restricted to cases where employees work for the same employer, as provided for in the ERA. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that it has no plans to amend the current equal pay legislation. Instead, it is implementing a Pay and Employment Equity Plan of Action to give effect to the principle of equal remuneration for work of equal value. The Committee recalls its 2006 general observation on this Convention underlining the importance of legislation fully reflecting the principle of the Convention. The Committee urges the Government to consider amending its equal pay legislation at the earliest opportunity, so as to provide not only for equal remuneration for equal, the same or similar work, but also to prohibit pay discrimination that occurs in situations where men and women perform different work that is nevertheless of equal value. The Government is also requested to keep the Committee informed of any jurisprudence indicating that the relevant legislative provisions concerning equal pay are being interpreted by the courts within the broader meaning of Articles 1(b) and 2 of the Convention. 

2. Article 2. Measures to promote equal remuneration for work of equal value. The Committee recalls its previous comments regarding the recommendations made by the Task Force on Pay and Employment Equity in 2004, and notes with interest the various initiatives described in the Government’s report implementing the Five Year Plan of Action on Pay and Employment Equity. It notes in particular that pay and employment equity reviews are being carried out in the public service and the public health and education sectors, most of which will be completed in the course of 2008. Guidelines for pay investigations reviewing the value of the work and the factors and processes affecting remuneration are also being developed and will primarily target female‑dominated occupations. Claims for additional funding for remedial pay settlements arising from pay and employment equity reviews will be considered within existing budget processes through a tripartite process. The Committee further notes that Phase Two of the Action Plan will cover crown entities and state-owned enterprises and government-funded contract workers, and that consideration will be given to extending the pay and employment equity exercise to employees in local government and in the private sector. In this regard, the Committee notes the concern expressed by Business NZ that the private sector cannot rely on the taxpayer to fund pay increases for “female” occupations resulting from pay equity reviews. This would be particularly true in the health sector where private providers may have difficulty in matching “remedial” pay increases granted to nurses working in public institutions. Lower paid employees in the private health sector, where employment opportunities are often reliant on government contracting, may well be in that situation because state funding is inadequate to allow for the pay increase that might otherwise be considered necessary. According to Business NZ, most perceived payment inequities are to be found in the state sector where high numbers of women work in what are seen as the “caring” professions. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on the results achieved by the pay and employment equity reviews and the pay investigations undertaken in the public sector, as well as any specific follow-up action being given to the outcome of these reviews. The Committee also asks the Government to indicate how it intends to address difficulties encountered by employers in the private health sector in matching remedial pay increases granted to employees in public institutions. Please also keep the Committee informed of any steps that are being taken to extend the Pay and Employment Equity Plan of Action to other employees, including those in the private sector. 

3. Article 3. Job evaluation. The Committee notes with interest the development of the “equitable job evaluation tool” – a gender-neutral job‑evaluation system for use in pay investigations and for general use – which has been specifically designed to facilitate better recognition and contribution of female-dominated occupations to performance of important areas of the state services. In addition, the Committee notes that Standards New Zealand has developed a voluntary “gender inclusive job evaluation standard”, a practical guide and reference point for ensuring that job evaluation and the remuneration process are carried out in a gender-inclusive way. The Committee asks the Government to provide further details on the use of the gender-neutral job evaluation tools that have been developed and their impact on reducing gender pay differentials in the public as well as in the private sectors.

The Committee is raising other points in a request addressed directly to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2005, published 95th ILC session (2006)

1. Measures to promote the application of the Convention. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government on the activities undertaken by the various ministries, the Human Rights Commission, the State Services Commission, the National Advisory Council on the Employment of Women, and the Equal Employment Opportunities Trust, and other relevant bodies. The Government is asked to continue to provide such information in its future reports.

2. Enforcement. The Committee notes that during the reporting period, the labour inspectors received two equal pay complaints under the Equal Pay Act. One equal pay case was brought before the Employment Relations Authority under the Employment Relations Act, two complaints involving gender pay discrimination were made to the Human Rights Commission under the Human Rights Act, one of which was heard by the Human Rights Review Tribunal. Please continue to provide information on the number, nature and outcomes of equal pay cases dealt with by the bodies competent to enforce equal pay legislation, and to provide indications as to the proportion of equal pay cases brought as compared to the total of cases involving allegations and instances of sex discrimination.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2005, published 95th ILC session (2006)

1. The Committee notes the extensive information provided by the Government in its report and the attached documentation, as well as the comments made by Business New Zealand and the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions (NZCTU), and the Government’s response to these comments.

2. Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. Legislative developments. The Committee recalls that in New Zealand equal remuneration for men and women who are performing the same or substantially similar work is required under several Acts, including the Employment Relations Act 2000 (ERA), the Human Rights Act 1993 (HRA) and the Equal Pay Act 1972 (EPA). Further definition of discrimination contained in the ERA appears to be restricted to cases where employees work for the same employer. The Committee previously emphasized the requirement in the Convention for equal remuneration to be paid for "work of equal value", a reference that goes beyond the concept of the same or similar work. In addition, with respect to the scope of comparison, the Committee considered that the scope should be as wide as allowed by the level at which wage policies, systems and structures are set.

3. The Committee notes that plans to adopt new equal pay legislation were abandoned in December 2004. The Government states that such legislation will instead be considered in conjunction with the development of the Government’s other pay and employment equity initiatives. While acknowledging the need to update existing equal pay legislation to improve its workability and application, the NZCTU supported the withdrawal of the legislative amendments concerning equal pay until further work could be done to ensure that any updating of the legislation is consistent with the Convention. The Committee asks the Government to keep it informed of any new initiatives to amend the current equal pay legislation, and trusts that its comments will be taken into account, with a view to bringing the national legislation into conformity with the Convention.

4. Articles 2 and 3. Measures to promote equal remuneration. The Committee notes with interest the report of the Task Force on Pay and Employment Equity in the Public Service and the Public Health and Public Education Sectors issued in March 2004. The Task Force has defined "pay equity" as "men and women receiving the same pay for the same work and for work which is different, but of equal value". It identified three key factors that affect women’s pay and employment equity: (1) the jobs that women do; (2) how jobs are valued; and (3) how jobs are organized. Noting in particular the recommendations made by the Task Force with regard to collective bargaining, minimum wage setting, the development of a gender-neutral job evaluation tool, equal pay audits and the establishment of a process for remedial settlements of pay equity claims, the Committee asks the Government to provide information on the progress made in implementing the comprehensive set of recommendations and the plan of action put forward by the Task Force. The Government is also asked to provide information on the measures taken or envisaged to promote the application of the Convention in the private sector, including any cooperation with the social partners in this regard.

5. Complaints and enforcement mechanisms. The Committee notes that the number of individual equal pay cases brought before the competent bodies remains low. While noting Business New Zealand’s view that this could be explained by the fact that the concept of equal pay has been accepted in New Zealand, the Committee emphasizes that the absence of complaints does not indicate per se the absence of discrimination, but rather calls for an examination of the operation of complaints mechanisms currently available. The Committee also notes the NZCTU’s position that, in order to ensure compliance with the Convention, equal pay audits and remedial settlement of equal pay claims should be underpinned by legally binding enforcement mechanisms. The Government expressed the view that compliance with the Convention could be achieved effectively by addressing the underlying causes of the gender pay gap, including the development of job evaluation tools and the use of existing accountability mechanisms and collective bargaining. The Committee considers however that the application of the Convention should be achieved through a combination of various means, including effective complaints and enforcement mechanisms. While it would be up to the Government, in consultation with the social partners, to determine the nature and structure of such mechanisms, their design and operation should contribute to the Convention’s objective which is the elimination of unequal remuneration for men and women performing work of equal value. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on the measures taken to ensure that in those cases where men and women do receive unequal remuneration for work of equal value the matter can be addressed effectively through appropriate complaints and enforcement mechanisms.

6. The male-female earnings differential. The Committee notes that according to the Household Labour Force Survey Income Supplement there was a 4 per cent increase in the  female-to-male ratio of average hourly earnings between 1997 and 2003. Progress in closing the gender pay gap was made in the age groups of 24-54, while the gap slightly increased for the other age groups. According to the Government, the gender pay gap decreased similarly for the European, Maori and Pacific New Zealanders, but it remained widest among European New Zealanders. The Trust Diversity Survey Report 2004, issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Trust, indicates that the hourly earnings gap has increased since 2003, while the weekly earnings gap slightly decreased, indicating an increase in hours worked by women. The Committee asks the Government to continue to provide updates on statistical information concerning men’s and women’s earnings in the private and public sectors, including data disaggregated by sex and ethnic group. The Government is also asked to provide information on any measures taken to implement the Task Force’s recommendation that further work should be done to determine what data would be appropriate for businesses and Statistics New Zealand to collect to give an overview on pay and employment equity.

The Committee is raising other points in a request addressed directly to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2003, published 92nd ILC session (2004)

Further to its observation, the Committee notes the information contained in the Government’s report and the attached documentation.

1. The Committee notes the passage of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Paid Parental Leave) Amendment Act, 2002, and the Minimum Wage Order, 2001, and asks the Government to provide information in future reports on the impact these new laws have had on equalising remuneration levels between men and women.

2. The Committee welcomes the recent amendment to the Human Rights Act (HRA) which created an Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner, who has some responsibilities relating to equity in remuneration. The Committee asks the Government to provide relevant information on the activities of this Commissioner.

3. The Committee also notes that the National Advisory Council on the Employment of Women (NACEW), which is a ministerial advisory body on matters relating to women and paid work, is now preparing a work plan that focuses in part on equity in remuneration. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide information on the NACEW work plan, as well as other relevant reports and other publications, as they become available.

4. The Committee notes the activities of the labour inspectorate of the Department of Labour which include the dissemination of employment information to the public. In light of the low number of equal pay complaints, however, it once again stresses the importance of effective enforcement mechanisms, including the investigative function of the labour inspectorate. In this context, the Committee notes that approximately 400,000 enquiries were processed by the information centre of the labour inspectorate, and it asks the Government to supply information as to how many of these enquiries related to issues of equal remuneration. It asks the Government to continue to supply information regarding the number of equal pay complaints brought under national legislation, the actions taken and the outcomes, as well as to provide information regarding the activities of the labour inspectorate, in addition to information dissemination, to ensure observance of the principle of equal remuneration for work of equal value. At the same time, while it notes that "Next Steps" contains information on the mechanism for making equal pay claims under the Equal Pay Act (EPA), the Committee requests that the Government indicate other measures that have been taken or that are being contemplated to disseminate information to the public regarding the right to bring a complaint of pay discrimination under all pertinent legislation, and the means for doing so.

5. The Committee notes that, in 2001, the average earnings of women in the public service were 84 per cent of those of men, but that where differences were examined within each occupation, the gap reduced by about half. As is noted in the State Services Commission’s Working Paper No. 15 ("The gender pay gap in the New Zealand public service"), this gap reduction suggests that there is significant job segregation in the public service: for example, men tend to work in higher paid occupations such as administration and general managers. The Committee asks for information from the Government on its efforts specifically related to the public service both to reduce the remuneration gap between men and women, and to combat job segregation.

6. The Government affirms that the asserted reduction in the gender pay gap is due to such trends such as: a reduction of the male-female gap in educational attainment; a reduction of the male-female gap in years of work experience; changes in the industrial and occupational composition of male and female employment; and shifts in the relative demand for industry-specific or occupational skills which men and women hold in different proportions. However, the Committee notes the Government’s acknowledgement that this analysis of trends dates to its previous report and that no new analysis has been done. The Committee asks the Government if it is considering updating this critical analysis in the near future.

7. The Committee notices with interest the report by the Ministry of Women’s Affairs (MWA) entitled Maori women: Mapping inequalities and pointing ways forward, which identifies a wide range of disadvantages suffered by Maori women, including disparities in remuneration as between them and both Maori and non-Maori men. The report recommends the development of options for improving analysis of and reporting with respect to this gap, with particular attention to such matters as occupational segregation, educational and training qualifications. The Committee asks the Government to keep it informed as to any policy and other developments with respect to these matters, including the department report-backs currently coordinated by MWA.

8. The Committee notes the Government’s request for technical assistance and hopes the Office will to be able to provide it in the near future.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2003, published 92nd ILC session (2004)

1. The Committee notes the extensive information provided by the Government in its report and attached documentation, as well as the comments of Business New Zealand (BNZ) and the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions (NZCTU) and the Government’s brief response to the latter. It also notes receipt of a communication of 8 May 2003 from the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU), concerning the application of the Convention.

2. In its comments, BNZ points out that it has been illegal in New Zealand since 1977 to pay men and women differently for doing the same job in the same circumstances and with the same work experience, and that the differences in earnings rates as between men and women are attributable to factors other than sex. In BNZ’s view, the Convention calls only for equal remuneration as between women and men workers doing the same jobs, in the same circumstances, in the same employment.

3. In contrast, the NZCTU reiterates that compliance with the Convention requires a commitment not only to equal pay in the sense indicated by BNZ, but to pay equity, meaning equal remuneration as between men and women for work of equal value. In this regard, the NZCTU welcomes the appointment of an Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner within the Human Rights Commission who has some responsibilities with respect to equity in remuneration. It also appreciates the prominence given in the Government’s report to the Ministry of Women’s Affairs’ publication Next steps towards pay equity: A discussion document. The NZCTU in particular notes the opportunity that this document provides for exploration by the Government of pay equity options, although it believes the report could have concentrated more on pay equity as compared to equal pay for equal work.

4. The ICFTU refers to the existing earnings gap between men and women and the lack of a government policy to address equal pay for work of equal value.

5. With regard to national legislation, the Government reiterates that equal remuneration for workers performing the same or similar jobs is required by several Acts, including the Employment Relations Act 2000 (ERA), the Human Rights Act 1993 (HRA), and the Equal Pay Act 1972 (EPA). Referring to its previous comments regarding the scope of the protection against sex-based pay discrimination provided by national legislation, the Committee notes that the ERA retains the "substantially similar" employment requirement reflected in earlier legislation and that its definition of employment discrimination appears to be restricted to cases where employees work for the same employer (see ERA, section 104(1)).

6. The Committee must once again draw the Government’s attention to the requirement in the Convention for equal remuneration to be paid for "work of equal value", a reference that goes beyond the concept of same or similar work, using instead the concept of the value of the work as the point of comparison for equality to be achieved. With respect to the reach of comparison, the Committee recalls that the scope should be as wide as allowed by the level at which wage policies, systems and structures are set. The Committee hopes the Government will consider reviewing its legislation to bring it into conformity with the Convention. It nonetheless must note the most recent efforts undertaken to promote the principle of the Convention though the publication of Next steps towards pay equity: A discussion document ("Next steps") (as well as the follow-up "Report on public submissions"), a report prepared by the Ministry of Women’s Affairs (MWA) as part of its Pay Equity Project. This project, according to the Government, is intended to raise awareness and to initiate and inform public discussion on issues concerning not only the gender pay gap, but pay equity as well. Next steps itself notes that, despite the ratification of the Convention, "no current policies address the longstanding commitment to take action on equal pay for work of equal value for women," and that the Government needs to take active steps to close this policy gap. In this regard the Committee notes with interest that the MWA, the Department of Labour and the State Services Commission are working together to develop policy directions on equal remuneration for work of equal value, including the exploration of occupational patterns by gender (and ethnicity) in recent census data, and the commissioning of research on the implementation of remuneration equity policies in overseas countries. The Committee asks the Government to report on the progress in the development and implementation of the pay equity policy which, in light of the current legislative limitations, would appear an important element for the implementation of the Convention.

7. The Committee refers to its previous comments that, for progress to be made in the promotion of the principle of equal remuneration for work of equal value, it is essential that a comprehensive approach be taken to ensuring and promoting equality of opportunity and treatment in a wider context. In this regard, the Committee notes with interest the range of continuing government initiatives promoting the principle of equal remuneration, including: (1) the promotion of positive attitudes and practices among employers; (2) research efforts by the State Service Commission such as the collection and annual publication of Public Service-wide Equal Employment Opportunities (EEO) statistics, as well as work on the pay gap in the public service, and the publication of the 2001 Human resource guidance - EEO data in the public service, which encourages public service departments to promote, develop and monitor equal employment opportunities; (3) work by the Equal Employment Opportunities Trust and the Contestable Fund (including funding by the latter of a project on equal remuneration systems and retention strategies); and (4) the development of work programmes and services by MSD/work and income, providing assistance to women to enter and remain in the workforce. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would continue to provide information on such initiatives and the results they have achieved.

8. Complaint procedures and enforcement mechanisms. Referring to its previous comments on the low number of equal pay complaints brought in New Zealand during the last reporting period, the Committee notes that, in the current reporting period, no cases of sex discrimination in pay (under the ERA) were heard by the Employment Relations Authority, that only four complaints of gender-based discrimination were received by the Human Rights Commission and no cases relating to equal pay were heard by the Human Rights Review Tribunal (under the HRA), and that no EPA cases were brought. The Committee notes in this regard the NZCTU’s reiterated assertion that this pattern shows the limitations of the current legislative approach, which requires individual claims, in a context in which information about actual rates of pay and remuneration is limited. The Committee is concerned by the lack of complaints and urges the Government to take measures to ensure the effective enforcement of relevant laws on equal pay through both complaint-based structures, labour inspection or other means. The Committee has raised other points on this matter in its direct request.

9. The male-female earnings differential. The Government acknowledges that, according to the EEO Trust Diversity Index 2001, the gender pay gap had increased. However, it asserts that, according to the analysis by the Department of Labour, which used a larger data set (including the firm-based Quarterly Employment Survey (QES) and the Household Labour Force Survey Income Supplement (HFLSIS)), the remuneration gap had in fact decreased. For example, the QES shows an increase in the percentage hourly wage earned by women as compared to men, from 84.3 per cent in June 1999 to 84.4 per cent in June 2001, while the HLFSIS medians measure, the measure the Government believes is the most reliable, shows an increase over that same period, from 85.0 per cent to 87.2 per cent. The Government considers that a further narrowing of the gap will continue to occur gradually. The Committee notes that the NZCTU cautions against the use of medians as a measure of hourly earnings for male and female earners, as they may hide many other inequities either side of the median. BNZ, by contrast, asserts that the median is the "preferred measure" for analysing the gender pay gap. Regardless of which measure is the most accurate, all are agreed that a gap in remuneration as between men and women continues to exist and has not changed significantly. The Committee accordingly trusts that the Government will continue to act, in coordination with the social partners, to reduce this gap.

The Committee has made a direct request to the Government on other points.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2001, published 90th ILC session (2002)

1. The Committee refers to its previous comments that, for progress to be made in the promotion of the principle of equal remuneration for work of equal value, it is essential for a comprehensive approach to be taken to ensuring and promoting equality of opportunity and treatment in a wider context, an approach which entails a wide range of positive activities that impact on the behaviour and attitudes of society as a whole. In this context, the Committee notes with interest the numerous initiatives carried out by the Government to promote positive attitudes and practices among employers, including the new Equal Employment Opportunity Policy to 2010 directed at the public service, the Equal Employment Opportunities Trust (a joint venture between the Government and employers) and the Equal Employment Opportunities Contestable Fund, the childcare survey and the childcare subsidy now being implemented. The Committee asks the Government to continue to provide information on such initiatives, as well as information indicating the impact of such initiatives in narrowing the male-female earnings gap.

2. The Committee notes the three reports issued by the Ministry of Women’s Affairs and supplied by the Government: Occupational sex segregation, performance pay systems and equity, and Homecare workers. According to the documentation provided, occupational sex segregation has declined over the 15 year period from 1981 to 1996, particularly among workers in the 15 24 year age bracket. The Committee notes that, while occupational sex segregation decreased for full time workers, approximating the degree of segregation in the total labour force, it increased among part-time workers. Noting that women make up the majority of part-time workers, accounting for 70.5 per cent of the part time labour force in 1996, the Committee asks the Government to provide information in its next report regarding the measures taken to reduce sex-based occupational segregation for these workers.

3. The Committee notes the report of the Ministry of Women’s Affairs on Homecare workers: A case study of a female occupation, which finds that the growing sector of homecare work is predominantly carried out by women, is low paid, and requires skills which are not formally recognized or recompensed, thereby contributing to the existing gender earnings gap. The study indicates that when unpaid costs and extra time spent with clients or travelling between clients are taken into account, the effective hourly rates of pay for homecare workers are considerably lower than the nominal rates. Moreover, the pay and conditions of homecare workers are associated with both gender and labour market practices which tend to disadvantage women. According to the study, two factors combine to give a low value to homecare work: failing to describe the true nature of the work and the impact of gender on homecare as an occupation. The study suggests that research should be done to establish a methodology for measuring the gap between the nominal hourly pay rates for homecare workers and the effective pay rates, and to determine whether, at the bottom end of the labour market, the failure to reimburse workers for core aspects of their job has a gender-based pattern. The Committee would appreciate receiving information on any measures taken or follow-up studies conducted regarding the situation of homecare workers.

4. The Committee notes the report on Performance pay systems and equity, which focuses on the design, structure and operation of performance pay systems and related performance assessment processes in five organizations that operate such systems. The report suggests that indirect discrimination in the operation of pay systems is widespread and outlines a set of best practice principles to be used as guidelines to ensure that performance pay systems not only do not discriminate against women, but also achieve the purpose of improved organizational performance. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on any measures taken or envisaged to promote the best practice principles contained in the report as well as on any studies analysing longer term data on the operation of performance pay systems and examining the role that discriminatory assumptions may play in organizational decision-making.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2001, published 90th ILC session (2002)

The Committee notes the extensive information provided by the Government in its report and attached documentation. It also notes the comments of the New Zealand Employers’ Federation (NZEF) and the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions (NZCTU), as well as the Government’s response to those comments.

1. Legislative framework. With reference to previous comments concerning the negative impact of the Employment Contracts Act, 1991 (ECA) on the application of the Convention, the Committee notes with interest the repeal of the ECA and its replacement by the Employment Relations Act, 2000 (ERA), which came into effect on 2 October 2000.

2. In its comments, the New Zealand Employers’ Federation (NZEF) notes that, for more than 20 years, it has been unlawful in New Zealand to pay individuals differently on the basis of their sex. In the view of the NZEF apparent payment disparities are due to factors other than sex.

3. The New Zealand Congress of Trade Unions (NZCTU) welcomes the enactment of the Employment Relations Act, 2000, noting that the new employment relations framework established by the Act could serve as a foundation for subsequent measures to improve the effective application of the Convention. In this regard, the NZCTU points to the important role that collective bargaining can play in reducing the male-female wage gap. The NZCTU nevertheless indicates its concern that existing legislation has not been effective in promoting equal pay and equal employment opportunities. The NZCTU reiterates that there is no legislation recognizing the concept of equal pay for work of equal value, there is no provision for bringing cross contractual equal pay complaints and the application of equal pay legislation is limited to situations where employees work for the same employer.

4. With regard to national legislation, the Government indicates that equal remuneration for workers performing the same or similar jobs is required by several Acts which provide a range of overlapping protection against gender-based salary discrimination, including the ERA, the Human Rights Act, 1993 (HRA), and the Equal Pay Act, 1972 (EPA). Referring to its previous comments regarding the scope of the protection against sex-based pay discrimination provided by national legislation, the Committee notes that the ERA retains the "substantially similar" employment requirement reflected in earlier legislation and its definition of employment discrimination appears to be restricted to cases where employees work for the same employer (see ERA, section 104(1)).

5. The Committee again draws the Government’s attention to the fact that the principle of equal remuneration within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention refers to equal remuneration for "work of equal value", a reference that goes beyond the concept of the "same" or "similar" work, choosing instead the "value" of the work as the point of comparison. With respect to the scope of comparison, the Committee recalls once again that the reach of the comparison should be as wide as allowed by the level at which wage policies, systems and structures are set. The Committee once again asks the Government to indicate the measures taken to ensure the observance of the Convention and its application in practice, such as the revision of legislation, or the issue of guidelines for use in job evaluations and contract negotiations.

6. Complaint procedures and enforcement mechanisms. Referring to its previous comments on the low number of equal pay complaints brought in New Zealand during the reporting period, the Committee notes that no equal pay complaints were heard by the Employment Tribunal or the Employment Court during the reporting period, nor were any equal pay cases brought under the EPA. The report indicates that 52 complaints of sex discrimination were brought under the HRA, four of which involved complaints of sex-based salary discrimination. In this context, the Committee notes the NZCTU’s statements pointing to structural and financial impediments to monitoring compliance with existing legislation. The Committee asks the Government to indicate the measures that have been taken or are contemplated to disseminate information to the public regarding the principle of equal remuneration for work of equal value and to inform the public of the right to bring a complaint of pay discrimination.

7. The Committee notes the activities being carried out by the Labour Inspectorate of the Department of Labour to disseminate employment information to the public. In light of the low number of equal pay complaints, however, it is bound to stress also the importance of effective enforcement mechanisms, including the investigative function of the Labour Inspectorate. It asks the Government to continue to supply information regarding the number of equal pay complaints brought under the national legislation, the action taken and the outcomes, as well as to provide information regarding the activities of the Labour Inspectorate - in addition to information dissemination - to ensure observance of the principle of equal remuneration for work of equal value.

8. The male-female earnings differential. The Government indicates that it continues to be fully committed to the principle of equal remuneration for men and women workers, but recognizes that further progress remains to be made in eliminating sex-based pay differentials in the New Zealand labour market. According to the report, recent surveys from Statistics New Zealand show a further reduction in the pay gap between women and men during the reporting period. Figures from the firm-based Quarterly Employment Survey show an increase in the ratio of women’s to men’s earnings from 82.1 per cent in June 1997 to 83.9 per cent in June 1999. The household-based Household Labour Force Survey Income Supplement shows an increase of 0.16 points in the female to-male ratio of average hourly earnings, from 0.818 in June 1997 to 0.835 in June 1999. The Government suggests that this shift reflects a longer term and gradual change in the labour market.

9. The Government indicates that a research project analysing the components of the male-female earnings gap is being carried out by the Department of Labour. According to the report, the evidence collected by the project so far indicates that a range of social and economic trends contributed to the reduction of the gender pay gap between 1984 and 1999, including: a narrowing of the male-female gap in educational attainment; a reduction of the male-female gap in terms of work experience; a decrease in the number of employed women responsible for the care of dependent children; convergence in the industrial and occupational composition of male and female employment; and shifts in the relative demand for differently skilled labour.

10. The NZCTU indicates that the statistical evidence contained in the report is insufficient to support the Government’s statement that there is a gradual long term closing of the gender earnings gap. It notes that the 1999 Diversity Index of the EEO Trust does not share the Government’s confidence in a closing gender earnings gap, finding instead that the gap has not closed since the previous index. Noting the short-term nature of recorded changes in the gender earnings gap, the NZCTU cautions against concluding prematurely that the gap is closing. Instead, the NZCTU indicates that it would be beneficial to carry out more in depth research to enable the social partners to identify those areas of the labour market where work is most needed to ensure effective application of the principle of the Convention. The Committee trusts the Government will take the necessary measures to continue to reduce the remuneration gap between men and women in coordination with the social partners.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1998, published 87th ILC session (1999)

The Committee notes the detailed information supplied by the Government in its report and attached documentation. The Committee also notes the comments of the New Zealand Employers' Federation (NZEF) and the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions (NZCTU), as well as the Government's response to those comments.

1. Legislative protection. The Committee notes that the pay gap has not narrowed since 1994 (see paragraph 8 for discussion on pay gap). In its report, the Government acknowledges that the problem of earnings differentials between men and women cannot be addressed simply by legislative prescription, but requires a wide range of positive activities which impact on the attitudes and behaviour of society as a whole. It is the Committee's view that, for progress to be made in the promotion of this Convention, it is essential that a comprehensive approach be taken to ensuring and promoting equality of opportunity and treatment in a wider context. It thus notes with interest the references in the Government's report to various initiatives it has undertaken to promote the principles of equal remuneration and equal employment opportunity, to increase the participation of women in the workforce and to reduce occupational segregation. The Committee nevertheless points out that, where legislation forms part of a comprehensive approach toward the elimination of gender-based salary discrimination, it is crucial that such legislation be effective and ensure the application of the principle of equal remuneration for men and women workers for work of equal value, within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention.

2. In its comments, the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions (NZCTU) points to a constellation of factors which, it believes, renders the legislative framework ineffective and inadequate. The NZCTU indicates that the Equal Pay Act 1972 (EPA), the Employment Contracts Act 1991 (ECA) and the Human Rights Act 1993 (HRA) do not comply with the requirements of the Convention in that they fail to recognize the concept of equal pay for work of equal value; they provide no scope for cross-contractual complaints; and their application is limited to cases where employees work for the same employer. It refers to the 1986 Clerical Workers' Union decision, in which the New Zealand High Court interpreted the EPA narrowly, so that rates of pay under the Clerical Workers' Award could not be compared with rates under the Building Trades Award. According to the NZCTU, section 28 of the ECA codified the principle established in the Clerical Workers Union case that employees must hold "substantially similar" employment as a condition precedent to making an equal pay claim. The Committee notes that the HRA also reflects a "substantially similar" employment requirement in its definition of discrimination. It recalls that the 1994 Ministry of Women's Affairs Report on the Effectiveness of the Equal Pay Act raised similar concerns regarding limitations of the scope of the legislation.

3. The New Zealand Employers' Federation (NZEF), on the other hand, is of the view that the EPA is not too limited and that existing pay differentials are not based on gender. In its comments, the NZEF takes the position that the language of Article 1(b) of the Convention is not intended to permit broad wage comparisons and that allowing such comparisons would effectively amount to state intervention in the wage negotiation process. The NZEF posits that determining the value of work on an across-enterprise basis is a subjective process which can lead to distortions in wages and pay rates. For this reason, rates of remuneration in New Zealand are set for the individual enterprise and may vary based on individual ability or on the nature of the work.

4. The NZCTU maintains that the EPA has failed to redress pay discrimination in New Zealand, largely due to the impact of the ECA. It points out that, during the implementation period of the EPA, the gender pay gap began to close, but that, since 1991, progress toward equal pay has plateaued. It recalls that the structure of the EPA was predicated upon the uniform pay system created by collective awards and agreements and that the enactment of the ECA has negatively impacted the position of women in the New Zealand labour market by its shift towards a multiplicity of individual contracts containing alternative pay systems. In contrast to the position taken by the NZEF, the NZCTU points out the potential for gender pay discrimination in both performance and competency-based pay systems.

5. The Government expresses its disagreement with the NZCTU's statements, indicating that the ECA has not marginalized the position of women in the labour market. It believes that the EPA and related legislation meet the requirements of the Convention. The Government points out that the EPA was amended in 1991 to reflect the new industrial relations framework heralded by the enactment of the ECA. The Government also states that cross-contractual complaints may in fact be brought under the EPA, the HRA and the ECA.

6. The Committee must recall that the principle of equal remuneration within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention refers to equal remuneration for work of equal value. As the Committee noted in its General Survey on equal remuneration, ILO, 1986, the ILO standards go beyond a reference to the "same" or "similar" work, choosing instead the "value" of the work as the point of comparison. (See 1986 General Survey, at paragraphs 19-23, 52-70 and 138-152.) With respect to the scope of comparison, the Committee reiterates its view that the reach of the comparison should be as wide as allowed by the level at which wage policies, systems and structures are coordinated, taking into account also the degree to which wages fixed independently in different enterprises may be based on common factors unrelated to sex (see 1986 General Survey at paragraph 72). The Committee expresses its hope that the equal remuneration legislation currently in force in New Zealand will be applied in such a manner as to give full effect to the provisions of the Convention and asks the Government to indicate the measures taken to ensure the observance and application in practice of the policy contained in Article 2 of the Convention, such as the issuance of guidelines for use in job evaluations and contract negotiations. The Committee also requests the Government to indicate whether any judicial or administrative tribunals have interpreted the equal remuneration laws as permitting cross-contractual complaints and to provide copies of any such decisions.

7. Complaint procedures and enforcement. The NZTCU states that there are currently no effective remedies for equal pay violations in New Zealand. It refers to the low number of equal pay complaints brought in New Zealand, which suggests either that individuals know too little about their right to equal pay, or that pursuing available remedies for pay discrimination is simply too difficult. The NZCTU also expresses concern that the Labour Inspectorate, which received no equal pay complaints, is not playing an investigatory role. In the NZEF's view, current complaint procedures are entirely adequate to ensure that, where pay discrimination is claimed and is established, any genuine grievance can be properly addressed. The Government indicates that employees who feel they have been discriminated against in relation to their remuneration have access to three avenues for redress: (1) they may bring a personal grievance to the Employment Tribunal under the ECA; (2) they may make a complaint to the Human Rights Commission under the HRA; or (3) they may bring a complaint to the Labour Inspectorate, who may be able to resolve the situation informally, or through action in the Employment Tribunal under the EPA. The Government report refers to four equal pay complaints brought during the reporting period, out of a total of 54 complaints of sex discrimination in employment. It also highlights the active information-providing role now played by the Labour Inspectorate as well as the establishment of the EEO (Equal Employment Opportunity) Trust and the EEO Contestable Fund. The Committee notes the educational element of the activities cited by the Government and their importance; however it must also emphasize the importance of effective enforcement mechanisms. It requests the Government to continue to supply information regarding equal pay complaints brought under the EPA, the HRA and the ECA. Noting the EEO Trust and the EEO Contestable Fund, the Government is asked to indicate what initiatives it has established to involve workers' organizations within the meaning of Article 4 of the Convention.

8. Size of pay gap. The Government acknowledges in its report that the gender pay gap decreased over most of the 1984-94 period, but that no further narrowing of the gap has occurred since 1994. It indicates that factors related to women's lower participation in the workforce and their higher concentration in specific industries and occupations are key to understanding the problem of gender-related earnings differentials. Data provided by the Government from Statistics, New Zealand's quarterly employment survey, showed that the average hourly pay gap between males and females remained relatively constant at between 80.5 per cent and 81.5 per cent during the period from February 1996 to November 1997. Additional data supplied by the Government from Statistics, New Zealand's household economic survey, showed that the ratio of female to male earnings has fluctuated between 82.4 per cent and 87.5 per cent from 1994 to the present. The Government indicates that some of the reduction in the gender pay gap over the late 1980s and early 1990s was due to a convergence in the average productivity-related characteristics of male and female employees, as well as greater convergence in their educational qualifications, mean age and full-time/part-time mix. The Government states that the remaining part of the reduction in the pay gap is not presently well understood. It indicates that it is continuing its research into this problem and refers to further work being coordinated by the Ministry of Women's Affairs on the gender pay gap, employment and remuneration in home-care work and performance-related remuneration systems. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide copies of these studies as soon as they are available. Further, the Committee asks the Government to provide it with information on the outcome of its ongoing research into the interrelationships between worker characteristics and earnings, which it anticipates will contribute to a better understanding of the relationships between earnings, gender, and other worker characteristics.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1996, published 85th ILC session (1997)

The Committee notes the detailed report and annexed documents provided by the Government. The Committee also notes the comments of the New Zealand Employers' Federation (NZEF) and of the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions (NZCTU), on which the Government has furnished additional comments. In addition, the Committee notes the 1994 Conference Committee's discussion of this case.

1. In its previous observation, the Committee had requested the Government to indicate the measures being taken to ensure the implementation of the Equal Pay Act, 1972, and of the Human Rights Commission Act, 1977, more particularly in respect of individual employment contracts concluded pursuant to the Employment Contracts Act, 1991. It had also asked the Government to provide information on the measures taken to foster employment equity, including information on the use and results of job evaluation. In its report, the Government states that it is continuing to pursue legislative and non-legislative action to promote the principles of equal remuneration and equal employment opportunities, as well as to increase the proportion of women in the workforce and to reduce occupational segregation. It indicates that these measures are based on the recognition that differentials in earnings cannot be addressed simply by legislative prescription, but require a wide range of positive activities which impact on the attitudes and behaviour of society as a whole. Among the initiatives put into place recently, the Government refers to its current development of policy options to address a number of areas flowing from the Platform for Action, adopted at the United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women, Beijing, September 1995, including the gender pay gap, mainstreaming a gender perspective in the development of all of its policies and programmes and the need for more and better data collection about all aspects of women's lives.

2. The NZCTU indicates that the legislative basis for implementing the principle of the Convention is inadequate, that the protections are weak, and that the remedies are legalistic, expensive and slow. The NZCTU states that the Equal Pay Act was rendered inoperative by the Employment Contracts Act and that this was acknowledged in an official report (entitled "Effectiveness of the Equal Pay Act"), prepared in 1992 by the staff of the Ministry of Women's Affairs. It draws attention to the fact that no equal pay complaints were lodged with the Labour Inspectorate which is charged with advising on and enforcing the Equal Pay Act. The NZCTU also indicates that the Employment Contracts Act and the Human Rights Act outlaw pay discrimination on the basis of sex for the "same work" rather than for work of equal value. According to the NZCTU, it is not surprising that there are no cases where personal grievances have been heard on the grounds of gender discrimination under the Employment Contracts Act and that the Human Rights Commission has not found any similar complaint to have substance. The Government expresses disagreement with the NZCTU's criticisms of the formal mechanisms provided in respect of equal pay and states that the Labour Inspectorate, which deals with some 150,000 inquiries annually, is adequately resourced and fulfils well its information and enforcement functions; that both other Acts provide procedures and remedies to protect employees against discrimination; and that the Employment Tribunal is a low level, low cost, informal and speedy institution which can hear personal grievance cases founded on discrimination. It maintains that the combination of information, education and enforcement will achieve the same goals as formal legislative instruments in a less prescriptive, more cooperative and more efficient manner. As the Government has acknowledged in its report, the Committee has often observed that, for progress to be made in the promotion of this Convention, it is important that a comprehensive approach be taken to ensuring and promoting equality of opportunity and treatment in a wider context. Where legislation forms a component of any such approach, it is, of course, important to ascertain that it is effective. In this respect, the Committee would be grateful for the Government's comments on the 1992 report concerning the Equal Pay Act, cited by the NZCTU.

3. According to statistics provided by the Government, the gap between the average hourly earnings of males and females has remained relatively constant at around 81 per cent during the reporting period. Commenting on these figures, the NZCTU states that, in the absence of any legally established or recognized bodies responsible for determining wage rates, the gender pay gap will not close. The Government states, in this regard, that it believes the parties to an employment contract are best placed to negotiate their terms and conditions. The NZEF states that the question as to whether any of this earnings gap can be attributed to discrimination is far from established; there are numerous other factors which contribute to the gap, including the tendency of women to have different workforce experiences to men, often because of the caring work they do in the home (usually as a matter of choice); their tendency to work in service-type jobs which, by their nature, cannot attract the kind of wages paid by profitable concerns; the fact that until recently few women occupied senior positions; and the education and training undertaken by women. The NZEF also emphasizes that where the Government speaks of pay or wage differentials, it should instead be referring to earnings differentials. The Government's report also makes reference to a recently commenced process of researching the nature of earnings distribution - involving, so far, an analysis of data from Statistics New Zealand's Household Economic Survey (HES) - which is intended to contribute to a better understanding of the relationships between earnings, gender and other characteristics. Initial results show a decrease in the apparent gender pay gap and have also pointed out a variety of interrelationships between demographic characteristics and earnings. The Committee asks the Government to furnish information on the outcome of this research.

4. Further to its previous observation, the Committee notes the 1993 report (entitled "A Survey of Labour Market Adjustment under the Employment Contracts Act 1991") prepared for the Department of Labour, which concludes that: "Despite some concern and well publicized abuses of the Act, around 75 per cent of employees with new contracts are satisfied with their terms and conditions; 14 per cent are dissatisfied and the remainder are neutral. New contracts now cover 75 per cent of employees." The report indicates that some discomfort with the current balance of power in favour of employers is evidenced by the level of approval of the Act among employees being lower than might be expected given the high levels of satisfaction with terms and conditions; and that employees' views on cooperation with management, trust of management and job security are very different and less favourable than those of employers. The report also indicates that even though there was some support for changes to the operation of the Act, there was virtually no support for its abolition. However, the greatest support for change concerned the bargaining process itself and came from small employers and public sector enterprises. They emphasize the need to encourage more agreement, to provide guidelines for negotiation and even wage levels which, according to the report, indicates the difficulty that many employers face in having to negotiate wage rates with employees where previously they had a clear benchmark from industry and occupational awards. A further report supplied by the Government, which undertakes a gender analysis of the employee data collected for the above-mentioned survey of the Employment Contracts Act, concludes that overall there were few significant differences between men and women as concerns the impact of the Act and that the differences in groups of employees were more likely to be associated with their labour market position rather than with gender. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether measures have been taken, or are contemplated, to address the difficulties identified in these surveys.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1994, published 81st ILC session (1994)

The Committee notes the information contained in the Government's report and the attached documentation, in reply to its previous observation.

1. The Committee had requested the Government to indicate the measures being taken to ensure the implementation of the Equal Pay Act, 1972, and of the Human Rights Commission Act, 1977, more particularly in respect of individual employment contracts concluded pursuant to the Employment Contracts Act, 1991. In its report, the Government discusses the processes available to individuals, employed by the same employer under individual or collective employment contracts, to redress claims of pay discrimination. In addition, the report outlines the role of the Employment Tribunal established under the Employment Contracts Act to mediate or adjudicate claims received, or to examine, on its own motion, the provisions of an actual or proposed employment contract or agreement to determine its compliance with the Equal Pay Act. The Committee also notes the various measures taken to inform employees of their rights. Noting that the Labour Inspectorate received only one complaint under the Equal Pay Act during the years 1990 to 1993 inclusive, the Committee requests the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the extent to which individuals have sought to avail themselves of other processes to redress their equal pay claims and on any relevant mediation assistance or decision of the Employment Tribunal.

2. The Committee had examined a comment of the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions concerning the limited scope in which comparisons could be made for the purpose of determining equal pay. Information had accordingly been requested on the measures taken or contemplated to apply the principle of equal pay to female employees whose possibilities for comparison were insufficient in private sector workplaces. In this respect, the Government refers to its publication and wide dissemination of the manual "Equity at Work: An Approach to Gender Neutral Job Evaluation" which was noted with interest in the Committee's 1992 observation. The Committee also notes with interest the activities of the Equal Employment Opportunities Trust to promote and publicize the benefits of equal employment opportunities, as well as those funded by the Equal Employment Opportunities Contestable Fund to help overcome those barriers to wage equity that result from men's and women's different experiences in education, training and the assumption of family responsibilities. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would continue to provide information on the measures taken to foster employment equity, including information both on the extent to which gender neutral job evaluation has been applied in practice and on any resulting pay adjustments made for women employed in predominantly female workplaces.

3. The Government also provides information concerning a survey to be undertaken on bargaining structures, process and outcomes pursuant to the 1991 Employment Contracts Act. The Committee hopes that the Government will provide information about this research, particularly in relation to any effects observed on women's employment participation and remuneration levels relative to those of men since the introduction of a decentralized wage system.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1992, published 79th ILC session (1992)

1. Further to its previous comments, the Committee notes from the report of the Government that the annual grading review carried out in 1988 resulted in correcting certain anomalies in wage relativities, regraded directors' positions, rationalised posts in the Trades group and introduced improved guidelines for setting starting salaries and processing annual salary increments. The Committee requests the Government to provide copies of both the current classification list of staff employed in the Tokelau Public Services and the above-mentioned guidelines.

2. Having noted from the 1988 report on the Inspection of the Public Service that attention would be given to upgrading the 1988 Tokelau Public Service Manual, the Committee requests the Government to furnish, if available, a copy of the revised document.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1992, published 79th ILC session (1992)

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report and the comments made by the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions and the New Zealand Employers' Federation.

1. In its previous comments under Conventions Nos. 100 and 111, the Committee noted that a review of existing measures to eliminate discrimination, which focused in particular on the Equal Pay Act, 1972, and the Human Rights Commission Act, 1977, resulted in the enactment of the Employment Equity Act in August, 1990. This legislation had, however, been repealed in December 1990, shortly after coming into force because, as is reiterated in the last report, the present Government rejects its requirements for private sector employers to comply with mandatory equal employment opportunity programmes and opposes the centralised system of wage adjustment that would have been instituted through the pay equity procedures provided for in the legislation.

The Committee notes the enactment of the Employment Contracts Act, 1991 (Act No. 22 of 1991) which, according to the Government, reflects its policy that the determination of rates of remuneration is the sole responsibility of the parties to the employment contract. The Government further states that it is no longer involved in the wage-fixing process, its role with respect to Convention No. 100 being to promote the principle of equal remuneration in both collective and individual employment contracts.

The Committee has taken due note of the provisions of this Act, and of the amendments made to the Equal Pay Act 1972, by the Equal Pay Amendment Act, 1991. This amendment has inserted into the Equal Pay Act the equivalent of section 15(1)(b) of the Human Rights Commission Act, 1977 (under which it is unlawful for employers to refuse or omit to offer or afford any person the same terms of employment, conditions of work, fringe benefits, and opportunities for training, promotion and transfer as are made available for persons of the same or substantially similar qualifications employed in the same or substantially similar circumstances on work of that description by reason of the sex of that person). Thus, the Equal Pay Act applies to employers who employ staff in the same workplace, whether on the basis of individual or collective contracts. An amendment to the Human Rights Commission Act enables individuals to make an equal pay claim either under that Act or the Equal Pay Act.

2. The Committee must clarify the scope of the obligation imposed on a ratifying State either to ensure or to promote the application of the principle of the Convention. The Committee points out that under Article 2.1 of the Convention, a ratifying government's obligation to ensure implementation of the principle is limited to those areas where the government is in a position to exert direct or indirect influence on the wage-fixing process; in all other cases, the government must promote the application of the Convention. While the Convention does not require that legislation be enacted, legislative action does, however, extend the government's competence to intervene in the field of wages and hence widen the scope for ensuring application of the principle, at least to the extent of the intervention. In the present case, the Government is obliged, by virtue of the provisions of the Equal Pay Act, 1972, and of the Human Rights Commission Act, 1977, to ensure that the provisions of those texts are complied with in all employment contracts concluded pursuant to the Employment Contracts Act, 1991. The Committee therefore requests the Government to supply information on the measures being taken to ensure the implementation of these Acts, more particularly in respect of individual employment contracts concluded pursuant to the Employment Contracts Act, 1991.

3. The Committee has also noted the comments of the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions concerning the permissible scope of comparison for the purpose of determining equal pay. The Council states that comparisons can be made only between workers employed by the same employer, whereas before the enactment of the Employment Contracts Act, it was possible, through the registration of agreements, to ensure that wage parity was applicable to all workers within the occupation or industry covered by the agreement. Of greater significance, states the Council, is the complete lack of any mechanism for ensuring that an occupation or skill which is performed largely by women workers is paid at comparable rates to those paid to workers in a comparable occupation or skill performed largely by males.

While acknowledging the difficulty in determining how broadly comparisons between the jobs performed by men and women should be permitted, the Committee observes that adequate possibilities for comparison must be available if the principle of equal pay for work of equal value is to have any application in a sex-segregated labour market. In order to ensure implementation of the principle in an occupation or industry employing mostly women, it is essential that there be a basis of comparison outside the limits of the establishment or enterprise concerned. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in its next report on the measures taken or contemplated to ensure the application of the principle of equal remuneration for work of equal value in respect of those women workers in the private sector who find their possibilities for comparison insufficient in their particular workplaces.

Recalling, moreover, that the Government Service Equal Pay Act, 1960, provides for the possibility of making comparisons with scales of pay in other sections of employment when women government employees perform work of a kind which is exclusively or principally performed by women (section 3(1)(b)), the Committee requests the Government to provide information concerning the use, in practice, of that provision.

4. The Committee has noted with interest the information provided by the Government on the measures taken to promote equal remuneration (outlined in the Government's response to the Recommendations of the Working Party on Equity in Employment, January 1991). Particular note has been taken of the publication and wide distribution of the manual, "Equity at Work; An Approach to Gender Neutral Job Evaluation" (State Services Commission, July 1991) which was developed to overcome gender bias in traditional job evaluation systems. The Committee has also noted that an Equal Employment Opportunities Trust will be established by the Government with private sector employers to promote equality. Significant funding has also been committed by the Government to promoting equality in the private sector.

The Committee hopes that the Government will supply further details on the promotional activities undertaken, including those of the Equal Employment Opportunities Trust, and requests the Government to continue to provide information concerning the impact of all of the above-mentioned initiatives on the application of the Convention.

5. The Committee has noted the statistical data provided by the Government which indicates that women's average hourly earnings are about 80-81 per cent of those of men. In this regard, the Committee notes the comment of the New Zealand Employers' Federation to the effect that the differential between female and male wages is an earnings gap which may be accounted for by many factors other than an alleged disparity in rates of pay, such as age, length of service, education and training, incidence of part-time employment and, in particular, the tendency for women - notably married women or women with partners - to take time out of the paid workforce for family responsibilities. In considering the difficulties experienced by member States in reducing the wage differential, the Committee has stressed that real progress is possible only when action to implement the Convention is taken within the broader context of measures to promote equality between women and men generally. The Committee hopes that some of the constraints to reductions in the wage differential, such as education, training, and women's family responsibilities, will be addressed in the context of the measures being taken to promote equality in general.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1990, published 77th ILC session (1990)

The Committee takes note of the Government's report and the appended documents.

The Committee notes in particular that following the equal pay study which was completed in 1987, a Working Group on Equal Employment Opportunities and Equal Pay was established to analyse the situation and submit suggestions to the Government. The Committee takes note of the Working Group's report "Toward Employment Equity" and of the recommendations contained in it. In its report, the Government indicates that it has agreed in principle to the enactment of an Employment Equity Act that covers the public and private sectors, and which would be implemented by a special committee (see the observation under Convention No. 111). The Government states that the problems encountered in applying equal remuneration in the public service for work of a different nature but of equal value should be solved by the adoption of the new legislation. The Committee also notes that the above Act would cover all individuals and collective agreements, which could also ensure observance of the principle of equal remuneration in respect of wages for jobs held mainly by women and in respect of wages paid to employees who are not covered by arbitration awards. With regard to wages that are higher than those fixed by arbitration awards, the Government indicates that no particular provision guarantees the application of the principle of equal remuneration but that any complaints would be investigated by the Labour Inspectorate. The Committee takes note of this information and of the statistics transmitted by the Government. It hopes that the remedial measures envisaged by the Government as a result of the studies conducted will ensure that the Convention is also applied in this respect. The Committee asks the Government to continue to keep it informed of developments in the situation and to provide a copy of the planned legislation as soon as it is adopted.

Furthermore, the Committee takes note of the new comments made by the New Zealand Employer's Federation on the Government's report. It notes in particular the divergencies of opinion expressed by the Federation concerning the application of the principles laid down in the Convention. In the view of the above organisation, the differences in male and female rates of pay in New Zealand are not due to distinctions on the basis of sex and that in fact the average earnings gap between men and women continues to narrow. The Committee takes note of the arguments of the New Zealand Employer's Federation, on which the Federation bases its firm opposition to the proposed pay equity legislation which, it considers, would run counter to the wage-bargaining process. The Committee points out that, pursuant to Article 2 of the Convention, the application to all workers of the principle of equal remuneration may be achieved by various means, which are set out in paragraph 2 of the above Article and, in accordance with Article 4, by co-operation with the employers' and workers' organisations concerned.