New Bill To Boost Labour Market Flexibility
Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety
Workplace Relations and Safety Minister Brooke van Velden says amendments to the Employment Relations Act will improve labour market flexibility and help businesses to grow, innovate, and employ with confidence and certainty.
'Today I'm announcing the introduction of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill to Parliament, marking a key milestone in this Government's efforts to help New Zealand businesses employ or contract with confidence and create more and better opportunities for workers,' says Ms van Velden.
The changes give effect to several ACT–National Coalition Agreement commitments, including to provide greater certainty for contracting parties.
'Workers and businesses should have more certainty about the type of work being done from the moment they agree to a contracting arrangement.
'The new gateway test introduced in this Bill will provide greater clarity for businesses and workers around the distinction between employment and contracting arrangements. This will provide greater certainty for all parties and will allow more innovative business models,' says Ms van Velden.
The Bill will also make changes to simplify the personal grievances process including two significant changes.
'The amendment to personal grievances will reduce rewards for bad behaviour and reduce costs for businesses in the process. Under current law, if a personal grievance is established the Employment Relations Authority or Employment Court may award remedies including reinstatement into a role, and compensation for hurt and humiliation. The changes make clear an employee whose behaviour amounts to serious misconduct will be ineligible for remedies.
'This change will ensure that hardworking New Zealanders don't see bad behaviour rewarded,' says Ms van Velden.
The Bill also introduces an income threshold of $180,000 above which a personal grievance for unjustified dismissal cannot be pursued.
High-income employees often have a major impact on organisational performance, getting the right fit is crucial. This change will provide greater labour market flexibility, enabling businesses to ensure they have the best fit of skills and abilities for their organisation. It allows employers to give workers a go in high impact positions, without having to risk a costly and disruptive dismissal process if things don't work out, benefitting those seeking to move up the career ladder.'
Another change will cut compliance at the beginning of employment. By removing the '30-day rule' employers and employees will now be free to negotiate mutually beneficial terms and conditions from the start of employment.
'I am committed to building business confidence, ensuring a strong economy that will lift wages, create opportunities, and help Kiwi workers get ahead,' says Ms van Velden.
The public and interested groups will have a chance to submit on the Bill when it is at Select Committee.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
2 days ago
- Scoop
The Employment Relations Amendment Bill: A State-Sanctioned Assault On The Working Class
The National-ACT-New Zealand First coalition government's Employment Relations Amendment Bill (ERAB), will see a sweeping series of legislative changes that reshape the legal terrain of labour in Aotearoa. These changes, billed by the government as necessary for 'labour market flexibility' and 'economic growth,' represent a radical rollback of worker protections. Cloaked in technocratic language and presented as pragmatic reform, the bill in fact amounts to a systemic attack on organised labour, unionism, and the basic rights of working people. ERAB does not signal the failure of the state to protect workers, it reveals the true nature of the state itself. The bill should be understood not as a policy misstep, but as a calculated act of class warfare by a government acting as the political arm of capital. What the Bill Contains At the heart of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill lies a multi-pronged effort to deregulate labour protections and entrench power in the hands of employers. There are four major pillars to this legislative shift: The Introduction of a 'Contractor Gateway Test' The Limitation of Personal Grievance Remedies The Repeal of the 30-Day Rule for New Employees The Restoration of Employer Powers to Deduct Wages During Partial Strikes Each of these measures contributes to the erosion of worker autonomy and legal protections, and together they mark a sharp rightward shift in employment law—one that prioritises capital accumulation over dignity, security, or fairness. Institutionalising Insecurity: The Contractor Gateway Test Perhaps the most structurally damaging reform is the introduction of a 'contractor gateway test.' This test is intended to establish a legal presumption that certain workers are not employees, but independent contractors—thereby removing them from the protections afforded under the Employment Relations Act. If a worker meets a checklist of conditions (such as having a written contract stating they are a contractor, having the theoretical ability to work for others, and not being penalised for declining work), they can be categorised as contractors regardless of the actual nature of the work. This change is designed to exploit the legal fiction of contractor 'freedom.' In practice, it will increase precarity for thousands of workers who are functionally dependent on a single employer. Gig economy workers, cleaners, hospitality staff, care workers, and migrant labourers will be among the hardest hit – those least able to negotiate or contest exploitative arrangements. By facilitating this mass misclassification, the state legitimises a race to the bottom. Sick leave, minimum wages, overtime, and holiday pay become luxuries rather than rights. Workers will be rendered atomised economic agents, responsible for their own exploitation. Making Workers the Problem: Personal Grievance Restrictions The bill also proposes restricting workers' ability to raise personal grievances, especially in cases of dismissal. Under ERAB, employers may avoid paying compensation if the dismissed worker is deemed to have contributed to their dismissal through 'serious misconduct.' In other words, the government is offering employers legal leeway to terminate employment while avoiding financial consequences. The bill also excludes workers earning more than $180,000 from being able to raise personal grievances, creating a two-tier system in which legal recourse is determined not by the justice of one's case, but by the size of one's paycheque. These provisions are punitive and ideological. They send a clear message: if a worker is sacked, it is probably their own fault. This is not an attempt to resolve disputes fairly – it is a mechanism of discipline. A demoralised, fearful workforce is a compliant one. Attacking Unionism: Repealing the 30-Day Rule Another key component of ERAB is the repeal of the 30-day rule. Previously, when a worker started a job in a workplace with a collective agreement, they would automatically receive the terms of that agreement for their first 30 days. This protected workers from being picked off and offered worse contracts before they had a chance to join a union or understand their rights. Its repeal will allow employers to immediately undercut collective agreements by offering inferior individual contracts. The aim is not to promote fairness—it is to weaken union density, divide workers, and remove the incentive for employers to negotiate with unions at all. It is a classic tactic of divide and rule. Recriminalising Solidarity: Deductions for Partial Strikes Finally, the bill reintroduces employers' ability to deduct pay for 'partial strike' actions—where workers might refuse specific duties while continuing to perform others. Partial strikes are a form of limited industrial action that allow workers to escalate disputes strategically and carefully. Punishing them with pay cuts is intended to suppress this tactic and reassert managerial authority. This reform is aimed squarely at reasserting capital's power to punish resistance. It also represents a symbolic victory for employers: a return to the draconian provisions of the Employment Contracts Act era. A Longer History of Repression While these reforms are severe, they are not novel. Rather, they follow a decades-long trajectory of neoliberal labour market restructuring in Aotearoa. The 1991 Employment Contracts Act, spearheaded by National's Ruth Richardson, abolished compulsory unionism and national awards, deregulating industrial relations and shifting power dramatically towards employers. This was complemented by the broader economic reforms of the Fourth Labour Government, which introduced market logic into almost every facet of public life, including education, health, and welfare. Since then, no government has meaningfully reversed this trend. The Clark government (1999–2008) offered some mild reversals, and the Sixth Labour Government (2017–2023) introduced the Fair Pay Agreements (since repealed). But the fundamental structure of employer dominance has remained untouched. In this light, ERAB is not a betrayal of some progressive consensus. It is a continuation of the neoliberal project with renewed aggression. Its goal is to further erode the legal terrain on which workers might mount a defence. The State as the Manager of Capital Anarcho-communists have long argued that the state does not function as a neutral arbiter in labour relations. It is the executive committee of the ruling class, managing the conditions under which capital can reproduce itself. It may, at times, offer workers concessions such as welfare payments, labour protections, or health and safety laws, but these are always tactical, not moral. They can be revoked as easily as they are granted, and they are most often granted in the wake of unrest or threat. ERAB illustrates this logic perfectly. Rather than responding to a crisis of productivity or economic necessity, it seeks to pre-emptively disarm the working class in anticipation of future struggle. Its goal is to ensure that capital can extract more surplus value with fewer obstacles. In this sense, the bill is not simply anti-worker—it is anti-democratic, in the truest sense. It aims to suppress the ability of people to determine the conditions of their own labour, and thus their own lives. Resistance: Beyond Legalism, Beyond the State Faced with these developments, many liberal commentators and union leaders have called for legal challenges, electoral change, and lobbying. But anarcho-communists recognise that such strategies are insufficient. The state has already shown its allegiances. No matter which party holds office, workers' rights will be contingent on the approval of capital and its political servants. Instead, we must build resistance from below. That means rejecting the logic of legalism and instead fostering the conditions for direct action and solidarity. This includes: -Rebuilding radical, rank-and-file led unions that are accountable to workers, not party officials. -Organising mutual aid networks to provide material support for striking or sacked workers. -Occupying and collectivising workplaces under threat, with or without legal recognition. Conclusion: No Authority but Ourselves The Employment Relations Amendment Bill is not a detour from democratic principles – it is a confirmation that parliamentary democracy in a capitalist state is a dead end for the working class. It consolidates employer power, undermines unionism, and exposes the state's role as an instrument of class domination. But in this dark moment, there is also clarity. The illusions of social partnership, of progressive government, of justice through legislation are burning away. What remains is the possibility of something else: the possibility of worker self-organisation, of mutual aid, of a society based not on hierarchy or profit, but on solidarity and shared need. We must turn away from begging for better laws and begin building our own power. The road ahead is not easy, but it is ours. And as always, it begins not in Parliament but on the shop floor, in the streets, and in the hearts of those who still believe that another world is possible.
Scoop
2 days ago
- Scoop
Biggest Threat To Financial Recovery Is Mad Opposition Parties
"New Zealand just posted the best quarter of economic growth in two years, and it's a tribute New Zealanders," says ACT Leader David Seymour. "Hard working people have knuckled down through a very challenging period and today's figure summarises that. The biggest threat to a recovery is now the destabilising threats of a mad opposition. "New Zealand firms, farms and families are beating the slump induced by Labour's six-year spending, inflation and interest rate nightmare. By contrast, the Coalition Government's approach of managing its own finances carefully mirrors what everyone else in New Zealand had to do while Labour went wild. "I hear every day that the Coalition Government's disciplined approach to its own finances is working. The government is taking a smaller slice of the pie each year, meaning there is more for everyone else to provide for their needs. Employers have more to pay wages, wage earners have more to feed their families, and businesses get the benefit of more spending. In other words, there's a virtuous circle when government gets out of the way. "I also hear real concern that the mad Opposition could upset the apple cart. The Green' so-called alternative Budget, and fiscal plan, are only the latest examples. The Greens suggest the government should take on half a trillion worth of debt. The interest on that debt would be more than we currently spend on education, but they smile on unhinged as if money doesn't matter. "The Greens are a paragon of sanity, though, when compared with Te Pāti Māori, who believe a new tax could raise $200 billion, or about half of all the money made in the New Zealand economy each year. Labour were pretty irresponsible, racking up $150 billion of extra debt in their time. Combined with the other fiscal terrorist outriders, though, they would be catastrophic. "ACT is committed to keeping this Government right where it is, and making it better by pushing harder for more savings every year. Our goal is that growth figures like today are only the beginning and the New Zealand economy gives financial room to breathe for all our futures in this beautiful land."
Scoop
3 days ago
- Scoop
On Sacrificing Worker Rights On The Altar Of Commerce
In the interests of efficiency, maybe Brooke van Velden should just outsource her Workplace Relations and Safety Ministry to Business NZ and be done with it. Because (obviously) corporate wishes are her command. In the interests of efficiency, maybe Brooke van Velden should just outsource her Workplace Relations and Safety Ministry to Business NZ and be done with it. Because (obviously) corporate wishes are her command. Within a short time in the job, van Velden has trashed a decade of pay equity work, given the 90 day fire-at-will power back to employers, reduced worker rights to bargain collectively, and signalled her intention to reduce sick pay entitlements for part-time workers. Despite New Zealand's horrendous record of workplace deaths, injuries and illness, van Velden plans to reduce Worksafe's enforcement role and revert to the employer-written, voluntary codes of health and safety that New Zealand experimented with in the 1990s, and which directly contributed to the Pike River tragedy. In the process, she plans to reduce the safety requirements placed on employers and company directors – while at the same time, making workers more responsible for dealing with unsafe conditions in the workplace. It goes on. As promised, van Velden is also amending current employment law in ways that will make gig economy workers unable to argue in court that their actual working conditions entitle them to the same rights as employees. In the sane legislative package, she will also restrict access to personal grievance processes. In the light of all this, media reports that 'business leaders are backing [these]changes' will come as a surprise only to people unaware that the Pope is a Catholic. The certainties of injustice By virtually privatising her portfolio, van Velden is giving up any pretence of pursuing a fair and equal balance in the workplace, between the rights of employers and the rights of workers. As Dennis Maga of the Workers First Union says, these law changes (to do with contractor/employee status) are being pushed through Parliament in order to pre-empt the Supreme Court hearing next month of an appeal against a ruling by the Employment Court that four Uber drivers were employees, not contractors. According to Maga, the government 'has no regard for evidence, no time for judicial process.' Moreover: 'Instead of strengthening our protection against exploitation, Brooke van Velden is laying out the red carpet for employers like Uber to come into New Zealand and take advantage of cheap labour with next to no rights, and no ability to challenge their employment status.' Shrinking Sick Leave On the campaign trail back in August 2023, National had promised that it would not reduce the number of sick days employees receive. Luxon said he wouldn't get rid of the 10 days of sick leave which was increased from five by Labour in 2021. 'It is what it is now and it's passed and we won't be changing it now,' Luxon told reporters. What van Velden is working on – with National's support – is a reduction in sick leave entitlements, by shifting to a so called 'pro rata' system whereby an entitlement to sick leave accrues less readily over time. Currently, all workers – full-time, part-time or casual – are entitled to 10 days of sick leave if they have been with their employer continuously for six months, and have worked an average 10 hours a week, and at least one hour in every week, or 40 hours in every month. van Velden clearly intends to introduce a pro rate system in which sick leave entitlements in future will differ more sharply between full time and part time workers. As more and more work gets casualised, employers who rely on casual labour have an obvious interest in seeing a reduction in worker entitlements. How many workers stand to be affected? As of the first quarter of this year, there were 584,000 part time workers in this country and nearly 70% of them – 404,000 in all –were women. As with the coalition government's demolition of pay equity, any shift to a tougher pro rate system for part-time workers will disproportionately affect women. At this point, much will depend on how van Velden calculates her 'pro-rata' system – will sick leave accrue in proportion to how many hours are worked per week, or how many days of the week are worked? Incredibly, van Velden could not/would not comment to RNZ's Lisa Owen on which measure she has in mind, or even – on principle – which measure would be more fair to the employees affected. For many workers, the measure chosen could significantly affect how their sick leave accrues. A Owen pointed out, some people – e.g. in the health system – work 40 hours, but this can be compressed into four day shifts. Alternatively, other workers may work several short shifts, spread out over an entire week. So which pro rata measure is it to be – hours, or days per week ? van Velden isn't saying, at least not until Cabinet has signed off, and it has become a fait accompli. Even more incredibly, the RNZ interview revealed that van Velden is pursuing a 'solution' – ie. reduced access by part-time workers to sick leave – before gathering any evidence that a problem actually exists. After all, sick leave entitlements are only a cost burden to employers if and when that sick leave gets taken – and, Owen asked, has van Velden got any evidence that the part-time workers in this country are taking disproportionate amounts of sick leave? No, van Velden indicated. Finally, Owen asked again about the likely impact on women workers given their dual roles in the paid work force, and as the main child carers at home. Many are single parents, or have partners also working shifts in order to make ends meet. So when school kids get sick, and their mothers'sick leave entitlements have been reduced, Own asked, what will happen? van Velden's reply could hardly have been more utopian: She dismissed concerns that changing the sick leave entitlements would disproportionately affect women, saying 'if we truly care about gender equality, we shouldn't have this assumption that women are the ones in a relationship taking time off to look after their children when they're sick'. Yep, when the reality faced by low income women is in conflict with an ideological principle that serves the interests of commerce, you can always rely on the ACT Party to defend the principle, no matter how unjust its outcomes may be. Parlour music for moderns Some music critic once likened the effect of listening to a lot of Erin Durant's music to always eating off the fine china i.e. it feels classy, when you feel like doing classy. Durant herself once wryly described her music as 'spare, gospel-tinged and redolent of old parlours.' The parlour formalities aside…much like Joanna Newsom, Durant's soprano tends to flutter at the top end of her range, but she usually feels more grounded both in her delivery, and in her subject matter. Overall, the same critic concluded, Durant sounds like Nanci Griffith or Sandy Denny singing a Joanna Newsom song. High praise anyway, on all counts. Durant was born and raised in New Orleans, worked for a decade in New York City, and is now based in Topanga Canyon. The influences of geography aside, the lyrical concerns, bookish conceits and complex structures of these piano-based songs – many of which include a trademark change of rhythm, midstream – are entirely her own. 'Islands 'for instance, is about an escape – to an idealised paradise of 'palms ad driftwood, like Hemingway said' – that gets interrupted by a call from a partner at home who had encouraged her to go and have a good time, but who is now needily on the phone, killing whatever tentative buzz might have been in the offing. The song shifts between the justifications of starting afresh – 'You must have known/that your pleasure was gone/You let me go/you must have known' – and the responsibilities still being felt, even for a dying relationship. The song ends with the singer at the crossroads, still undecided: Any New Orleans native who call a song 'Rising Sun' and who begins each chorus with the line ' There is a house in New Orleans' is aware of the weight of tradition. A word here for producer Kyp Malone (from the group TV On The Radio) who has broadened the palette of Durant's songs with added instrumentation, but couched it in a deft, dry production that never overwhelms the main event. I love the humour and directness in the opening lines of this track: Hello wind, haven't seen you in years Have you been out on the plain with the others? I've been here, learning some rituals Like how to truly love another… To be alone feels like a life of crime But to fear the unknown is an uglier rhyme… Finally…here's a typically intricate single from Durant's new album, Firetrail :
