Rights Commission that TerraNova's workability claim was overstated. Their Honours also found that the existence of s 9 of the Equal Pay 1972 was sufficient to "temper concerns about complexity and the lack of guidelines". The issue of workability was therefore not considered to be a determinative issue. Existence of a settled interpretation TerraNova made submissions to the Court which asserted that for 40 years the Equal Pay Act 1972 has been interpreted as a statute about equal pay, not pay equity. They also claimed that no determinations on the matter were made until the test case brought by the Clerical Workers Union in 1986, in which the Arbitration Court held that the Act was limited to "ensuring equal pay between male and female employees covered by the same award"; the Court of Appeal disagreed, claiming that determinations were required as early as 1977. It was accepted that regardless of subsequent interpretations, s 3(1)(b) was difficult to interpret and implement. However, the Court of Appeal agreed with the Employment Court that the Clerical Workers Union decision was not definitive, and therefore that little weight could be placed on it. Enactment and Repeal of Employment Equity Act The enactment of the Employment Equity Act 1990 and its subsequent repeal by the Employment Contracts Act 1991 was argued by TerraNova to be indicative of Parliament's policy decision against legislating for pay equity; a decision which the courts should not subvert by reinterpreting the Equal Pay Act 1972. Citing similar arguments already rejected by the Employment Court, regarding the lack of assistance from comparing and attempting to construe the intentions of differently constituted Parliaments at different times, the Court of Appeal dismissed TerraNova's argument. They acknowledged the principle of legislative harmony, which gave some merit to TerraNova's suggestion that the Employment Court's interpretation of the 1972 Act was disruptive to the overall legislative scheme, and conceded that the Employment Court was too dismissive of this point. However, they ultimately concluded that the assistance this point provided was limited, and therefore not determinative of this issue; they therefore agreed with the Employment Court's decision on this point. Employment Court's reliance on New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 The New Zealand Bill of Rights provides for the right to freedom from discrimination on the grounds of sex. The Employment Court found that TerraNova's interpretation of the Equal Pay Act 1972 would be inconsistent with