Employment Relations Amendment Bill Passes First Reading
Workplace Relations and Safety Minister Brooke van Velden welcomes the successful first reading of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill, calling it a major milestone in helping businesses employ and contract with confidence.
The Employment Relations Amendment Bill will now be considered by the Education and Workforce Select Committee where people can have their say on the proposed changes.
'This Bill reflects the Government's commitment to supporting New Zealand businesses and creating more and better opportunities for workers.'
The legislation delivers on key commitments from the ACT–National Coalition Agreement, including:
Clarifying the distinction between employment and contracting arrangements, giving greater certainty to both businesses and workers.
Simplifying the personal grievance process, including the introduction of an income threshold of $180,000, above which unjustified dismissal claims cannot be pursued.
This Bill also proposes removing the 30-day rule, allowing employers and employees to negotiate mutually beneficial terms from the start of employment, reducing compliance burden and increasing flexibility.
'I encourage all interested New Zealanders to have their say on the Bill, and I see the Select Committee process as an important way of strengthening the final Bill and making sure it works for a wide variety of working relationships and situations.
'I am particularly interested in hearing feedback on whether the gateway test criteria are workable and whether the test covers a variety of genuine contracting relationships. I am also interested in hearing feedback on the high-income threshold for personal grievances, both from those who may use it as an employer and those who would be affected as a worker.
'I am looking forward to hearing what New Zealanders have to say about the Bill during the Select Committee process,' says Ms van Velden.
Notes:
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
an hour ago
- Otago Daily Times
Woman added to husband's business loan without her consent
By Susan Edmunds of RNZ A woman who discovered she had been added as a guarantor on her husband's business loan without her knowledge or consent complained to Financial Services Complaints Ltd (FSCL) when the business defaulted and she was called on to repay it. It was one of 1469 complaints received by the scheme in the year to 30 June. That is up from 1426 the previous year but almost double the number of five years earlier. In the case of the business loan, the lender offered to extinguish the woman's guarantee and release their security for her half share of the family home. FSCL chief executive Susan Taylor said it highlighted the importance of giving clear explanations and proper disclosure to everyone involved in a loan, including guarantors of business debt. "Especially when small business are borrowing under stress." FSCL was one of the external dispute resolution providers that helped with complaints that cannot be resolved directly between the customer and financial service provider. Taylor said complaints about lenders were the largest share, at 38 percent. Of the 366 cases that were formally investigated, complaints about financial advisers - including mortgage and insurance brokers, as well as wealth advisers - made up the largest proportion at 23 percent, followed by complaints about lenders at 20 percent, and insurers at 17 percent. Taylor said there had been a rise in complaints from small businesses, particularly about loans and insurance products. She said the increase in complaints over the years was partly because people were more aware of their opportunity and right to complain. "But I think it's also a reflection of the wider economic environment, we know that many New Zealanders and small businesses are struggling financially and when people are living with financial stress, they are more likely, I think, to complain. "Also, I think there's still a little bit of a hangover from Covid times in terms of the debt burdens some people are dealing with, particularly small businesses. And I also think there is a lot less tolerance now for when something goes wrong. Some years ago, people might have been prepared to chalk that up to a bad experience, but now they're more likely to want to complain and to have their complaint heard." She said sometimes complaints would alert FSCL to a possible systemic problem that needed to be taken further and referred to a regulator. Taylor said while financial providers' processes had improved, there was still room for more. Some people had to do a Google search or talk to a lawyer or friend before they knew they could take a complaint to FSCL, she said. Providers were meant to refer people to their third-party dispute provider when relevant. Taylor said complaining was difficult for some people. "Often the people have got lots of other things that they're struggling with in life. They're juggling so many balls that making a complaint is just one thing too many and that's difficult… which is where third-party support like financial mentors plays such a vital role."
The Spinoff
2 hours ago
- The Spinoff
Coalition rift opens over UN letter as Seymour defends rogue response
The Act leader's unilateral reply to the UN has exposed fresh cracks in the coalition – and created a clean-up job for Winston Peters, writes Catherine McGregor in today's extract from The Bulletin. Letter row underscores coalition strain David Seymour's fiery response to a United Nations letter has turned into a full-blown coalition controversy, exposing divisions over both diplomatic conduct and the ideological direction of government. In June, UN special rapporteur Albert K Barume wrote to the government expressing concern that Seymour's Regulatory Standards Bill failed to uphold Treaty principles and risked breaching Māori rights. Without consulting his coalition partners, Seymour fired back, sending his own letter to Barume telling him his remarks were 'presumptive, condescending, and wholly misplaced' and branding the UN intervention 'an affront to New Zealand's sovereignty'. As RNZ's Craig McCulloch reports, prime minister Christopher Luxon yesterday described Barume's letter as 'total bunkum' but agreed Seymour had overstepped and should not have responded directly. What the UN said – and what Seymour wrote back In his letter, Barume said he was concerned about reports of 'a persistent erosion of the rights of the Māori Indigenous Peoples… through regressive legislations' that may breach New Zealand's international obligations. Seymour's response was uncompromising. 'As an Indigenous New Zealander myself,' he wrote, 'I am deeply aggrieved by your audacity in presuming to speak on my behalf and that of my fellow Māori.' He dismissed concerns about Māori exclusion from consultation as 'misleading and offensive', and accused Barume of misunderstanding both the bill and New Zealand's legislative process. While Seymour has since agreed to withdraw the letter to allow foreign minister Winston Peters to respond officially, he has refused to acknowledge any wrongdoing, insisting that 'we all agree the UN's criticisms are crazy' and that the official response would be essentially the same as his own. When asked if that was the case, Peters sounded aghast, reports The Post's Kelly Dennett (paywalled). 'That's not true,' Peters told reporters. 'Why would he say that?' The government's position would be made clear only after consulting all affected ministries, Peters said. 'We don't do megaphone diplomacy in this business,' he added acidly. 'Don't you understand diplomacy? You don't speak to other countries via the media.' Māori opposition to the bill runs deep Behind the diplomatic drama lies the more substantive issue: widespread Māori opposition to the Regulatory Standards Bill itself. Writing in Te Ao Māori News, former MP Louisa Wall says Seymour's claim that the bill doesn't weaken Treaty protections is 'demonstrably false'. In fact, she says, 'the Bill is silent on Te Tiriti. It elevates a monocultural legal standard based on private property and individual liberty while excluding Māori values like tikanga, mana motuhake, and kaitiakitanga. This is not neutral. It is erasure.' Wall also defends Barume's intervention, arguing that he was fulfilling his mandate to monitor Indigenous rights worldwide and that his concerns echoed those already raised by Māori leaders and legal scholars. 'Dr Barume is not imposing an external ideology,' she writes. 'His letter reflects what Māori across the motu already know: our rights are being undermined.' Coalition fault lines widen over Seymour's bill The clash over the UN letter comes at a tense time for Act's relationship with NZ First, which has made no secret of its discomfort with parts of the bill. Seymour has 'made it clear behind the scenes' that the regulatory standards legislation is 'as bottom line as it gets', writes Thomas Coughlan in a fascinating piece for the Herald (paywalled). Translation: '[Seymour] is willing to walk away from the coalition over it, bringing down the Government and triggering an election' if he doesn't get what he wants. While that's an unlikely scenario – especially since the coalition agreement commits the government to passing some version of the legislation – Seymour's passion for the bill speaks volumes about the junior coalition partners' divergent ideologies, writes Coughlan. 'Act is willing to risk short-term unpopularity, even losing an election, for long-term foundational change; NZ First is not.'
NZ Herald
4 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Letters: A new model for our power market is needed
Bryan Leyland, Pt Chevalier. The nuclear option As always during the winter months, our energy shortage issues are again brought up. But surely we have our head in the sand to some degree, by which I mean why can't New Zealand bury the past and re-evaluate the potential of nuclear energy. The technology has come a long way and is very efficient, so why not? It would be a game-changer but would call for some very definitive and brave decision-making from our politicians, which, unfortunately, is a rare event. Paul Beck, West Harbour. Indigenous people's rights Guy Body's cartoon (July 14) depicting our Deputy Prime Minister defending New Zealand's sovereignty with a toy sword and a trash-can lid while trampling on a Māori sovereignty flag against the United Nations headquarters adds a little humour to this important issue. Twice recently a UN Special Rapporteur has expressed their concern to our Government about the erosion of indigenous people's rights. The Government has responded with indignation, so this raises the issue of the role of the UN and what powers it should have to influence decisions of all nations. We live in global society, so if we wish to carry forward an ever-advancing civilisation, then we must solve the problem of just global governance. Consultation on this issue is the need of the age we live in as the problems of anthropogenic climate change and justice for indigenous peoples must be solved at a global level. The UN Security Council has the responsibility to ensure peace with justice and, as most people agree, needs the power of veto to be removed to function effectively. So why couldn't we, through our Government, lead efforts to ensure this happens? Consultation on UN reform is not as simple or sexy as ending bottom trawling but one can suggest it is far more important! Dennis Worley, Birkenhead. Anger at actions Antisemitism is not an appropriate term to describe many of today's protests. People are furious with Israel for what it is doing in Gaza. Israel is killing mothers and children. Protests, legal or not, are against what is being done to Gaza and its people. It has nothing to do with antisemitism. Christine Henare, Miranda. All we are saying is ... President Trump has warned nations that the United States will withhold miltary aid in future conflicts unless nations ramp up their defence spending. Nations across the globe have rushed to order weapons. Including Denmark, a peace-loving nation that will increase spending by about US$7 billion ($11.7b) over the next two years. The main beneficiary will be the US arms industry. Business has never been so good. The massive increase in defence spending is a colossal waste. Nations will have no money left to spend on infrastructure or hospitals or schools. When will this madness stop? Now is the time for people to insist that their leaders give peace a chance. Now is the time to negotiate. If peace is not given a chance, it will only take one person to press the button which will light a massive bonfire that could wipe out billions of lives. Johann Nordberg, Paeroa. Health system concerns Having listened to two highly respected doctors on the TV programme Q&A, it is very concerning to see the direction in which our health minister is driving. Basically, the doctors are saying that health will become Americanised with the private system taking control. It was obvious from the interview that both doctors were strongly in favour of a tax system that directly supported health and quoted several European countries that did exactly this. Conservative governments support a vision of less public service and more private enterprise but health is, or should be, one of their core responsibilities. Reg Dempster, Albany.
