logo
ACT Attempts To Fix Broken Remuneration Disclosure Bill

ACT Attempts To Fix Broken Remuneration Disclosure Bill

Scoop2 days ago
'Last night ACT proposed a series of common-sense amendments to Labour MP Camilla Belich's broken Employment Relations (Employee Remuneration Disclosure) Amendment Bill, to make it more workable for businesses and employees entering into voluntary agreements with one another,' says ACT's Small Business spokesperson Laura McClure.
'The Bill, without clear rationale, inserts the Government into every employment agreement in the country – telling workers and employers that they are unable to freely come to mutually beneficial agreements that work for them.
'This raises serious privacy concerns, diminishes workplace flexibility, and poses a real risk to harmony in the workplace by encouraging resentment and comparison between colleagues. It also threatens commercially sensitive information and creates legal uncertainty for employers trying to do the right thing.
'ACT did not support the Bill, which undermines the freedom of consenting adults to form contracts, but my colleague Dr Parmjeet Parmar and I proposed practical amendments to minimise the harm it would cause.'
The changes ACT proposed included:
Restricting disclosure rights to within the same workplace – so employees could only disclose their own remuneration to colleagues who work for the same organisation, not to competitors, journalists, or the wider public.
Protecting employee privacy – by prohibiting an employee from disclosing another employee's pay without that person's express consent.
Preventing bad-faith disclosures – by ensuring only disclosures made in good faith are protected, so that attempts to weaponise pay information to harm employers or other staff aren't shielded by law.
Excluding performance-based pay – such as bonuses and commissions from the definition of 'remuneration', recognising that these are often highly individualised, sensitive, and commercially confidential.
Delaying the Bill's commencement by 12 months – to give businesses and industry bodies time to understand the law, adapt policies, and educate their members.
'These amendments would have preserved a worker's ability to disclose their own pay while protecting the privacy of others and the ability of businesses to operate fairly and competitively. Labour, National and the Greens refused to support any of them," says McClure.
'ACT believes in freedom of contract, the right to privacy, and the value of trusting people to make their own arrangements. This Bill tramples on all three. New Zealanders deserve better than another law that treats adults like children and businesses like villains.'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Tesla liable for $243m in fatal Key Largo crash, jury blames autopilot
Tesla liable for $243m in fatal Key Largo crash, jury blames autopilot

NZ Herald

time2 hours ago

  • NZ Herald

Tesla liable for $243m in fatal Key Largo crash, jury blames autopilot

In his closing argument Thursday, Joel Smith, an attorney representing Tesla, lay the blame for the crash solely on McGee. 'He said he was fishing for his phone,' Smith said. 'It's a fact. That happens in any car. That isolates the cause. The cause is, he dropped his cellphone.' On rebuttal, plaintiff's attorney Brett Schreiber told jurors that Tesla promoted the autopilot feature knowing it increased the likelihood of distracting drivers. Schreiber displayed a 2016 statement by Musk saying the emergency braking feature could detect anything, including an alien spaceship or a hunk of metal in the road. Tesla's driver assistance technology was blamed for enabling driver distraction, leading to the fatal crash. Photo / Getty Images 'In the showroom, it's the greatest car ever made,' Schreiber said. 'In the courtroom, they say it's a jalopy. 'Tesla knew for years that its product was defective,' he added. 'Despite that people were using autopilot irresponsibly. This was a case of systematic failure.' The outcome is a massive blow to Musk, who has staked the future of his company on fully autonomous driving. Tesla is facing several similar lawsuits across the country that allege the CEO and his company have overstated the capabilities of the technology. Friday's verdict could now open Tesla up to more liability in the future. The verdict comes at a particularly vulnerable moment for Tesla, which has been struggling since Musk's controversial foray into politics. The company's sales and profits tanked after Musk joined the Trump administration and led its controversial cost-cutting initiative, the US Doge Service. The billionaire left the administration after a fiery public fallout with the President over his spending Bill – but Tesla's finances have yet to recover. Tesla faced two California juries in 2023 for alleged defects and was found not liable in both cases. It has also settled at least four such cases out of court that alleged defects with its technology, including one regarding a separate autopilot-related case just days before the Miami trial was set to begin. In Oakland, California, state regulators are also fighting to remove Tesla's ability to sell vehicles in the state over allegations that it dangerously misled drivers to believe its cars could drive themselves without human oversight. That case is ongoing. In Miami, Tesla faced a highly technical and emotional three-week trial as the Benavides Leon family and Angulo attended nearly every day. The families sat through much of the testimony and attentively listened as attorneys dissected the crucial seconds leading up to the crash. The two sides sparred over whether the company's statements about autopilot were misleading, whether the company was forthcoming about critical evidence in the case – and if the crash could have been prevented at all. The case also tested public sentiment of Musk, a controversial figure known for pushing boundaries and evolving technology out to the public. Last month, Tesla launched its fully autonomous Robotaxi in Austin, despite a lack of federal regulation and clear safety guidelines. Beyond Tesla, Musk's AI chatbot, Grok, came under fire last month after launching into an antisemitic rant. The verdict could increase Tesla's future liability, amidst ongoing lawsuits and regulatory challenges. Photo / Getty Images Several days into the trial, a juror was dismissed for perceived bias against Musk. The defence said it uncovered a 'vitriolic and venomous' tirade against Musk on one of the juror's social media pages, according to a court transcript provided to the Post. In a TikTok post from earlier this year, according to the transcript, the juror states 'A good Nazi is a dead one. Do you agree? F-U Elon Musk.' The plaintiffs' attorney rested much of their defence on Musk's statements about autopilot, which they argue convinced his customers that his technology was more capable than reality. They highlighted statements from the CEO that claim autopilot has 'superhuman' sensors, that autonomous driving is a 'solved' problem and that his technology can see any object on the road including 'an alien spaceship'. They also argued that Tesla acted recklessly by allowing autopilot to function on roads it is not designed for. Tesla's decision not to limit the technology to operate only on roads that meet the criteria in its own user manuals was the subject of a 2023 recall by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Advertisement Still, the defence faced a tough legal battle, as Tesla has extensive warnings in its owner's manual and the law indicates that drivers are responsible for the trajectory of the vehicle despite the type of feature engaged. McGee, told police at the scene that he took his eyes off the road to pick up a dropped cellphone. McGee said on the witness stand that he wasn't sure if he had heard Musk's comments about the technology and didn't believe they influenced his decision to buy the vehicle. He testified that he knew his Tesla 'was not self-driving' and that it was his 'job to always be alert as a driver'. He also told the jury that he believed autopilot would lead him to have an overall 'safer drive' by helping him navigate on his long commute and avoid collisions. 'My concept was that it would assist me should I have a failure … or should I make a mistake,' he said. 'And in that case I feel like it failed me.' Tesla's defence attorneys grilled Angulo and Benavides Leon's sister, Neima, about their previous lawsuit against McGee in which they settled over allegations that he operated his vehicle recklessly. The defence also mentioned the boat and home that Angulo bought since the crash. Neima Benavides and Angulo told the jury that they didn't initially know McGee was using autopilot when they sued him. But as time passed, Neima Benavides said they learned there were 'two components' in the crash. 'We have the driver,' she said. 'And we have the car too.'

National Party president: Voters aren't seeing PM Christopher Luxon's ‘humanity'
National Party president: Voters aren't seeing PM Christopher Luxon's ‘humanity'

NZ Herald

time2 hours ago

  • NZ Herald

National Party president: Voters aren't seeing PM Christopher Luxon's ‘humanity'

National Party leader and Prime Minister Christopher Luxon claps alongside his party colleagues during last year's party conference. Photo / Claire Trevett Luxon will also be partnering Speaker of the House and long-time National MP Gerry Brownlee to give the members some entertainment. Speaking to the Herald from Christchurch, Luxon said his party was in 'very good heart' and believed its membership was feeling upbeat. 'We've been able to raise funds and we've got very good support, the members and supporters are very energised.' He said his central messages would be squarely focused on the Government's long-term economic plan. 'We're making progress. There's more to do, but we've got a very good economic plan that's doing the right things for the long-term.' Espousing National's economic management while in Government has been a common theme for Luxon and Finance Minister Nicola Willis in recent weeks as cost of living issues, such as the high price of butter, dominate public concern. In June, the Ipsos Issues Monitor found voters believed Labour was better equipped than National to manage the cost of living, which was ranked the issue of highest concern. National Party president Sylvia Wood spoke to the Herald ahead of the party's annual conference. Photo / Mark Mitchell Sitting down with the Herald ahead of the conference, Wood echoed her party leader by noting polls 'bounced around' but acknowledged the strain New Zealanders were under. 'We're good at economic management, but it's tough and you know, Liberation Day (US president Donald Trump's tariff announcement) didn't help,' she admitted. 'I'm very comfortable that we're working at the macro-level to get the fundamentals right that will really pay dividends downstream.' President since 2022, Wood would be putting herself forward to continue in the role as part of the party board selection process, which would include former president Peter Goodfellow stepping down as a board member. At last year's conference, Wood declared National should be polling in the mid-40s before the 2026 election after receiving 38% of the vote in 2023. Across several opinion pollsters, National hasn't registered above 40% since January last year and hasn't breached 35% since April. National Party president Sylvia Wood believed her party could achieve a mid-40s party vote percentage in the next election. Photo / Mark Mitchell Wood maintained a target in the 40s was feasible but said it relied heavily on the economy. 'When New Zealanders can see the cost of living easing and the economy thriving and the confidence that that will continue, I see party vote going up.' She believed the same would apply to Luxon's preferred PM ratings. Taxpayers' Union – Curia polling, which also conducted polling for National, found Luxon had dropped more than 15 percentage points in the last year to be neck-and-neck with Labour leader Chris Hipkins. Wood argued she saw a side to Luxon that often wasn't seen by the public. 'I think perhaps that the humanity of the man is perhaps not as visible,' Wood said. 'He's business-like and business isn't always seen as a hero in New Zealand. 'I would love the public to see the warmth and the humanity.' She recalled the popularity of Key and Ardern, and believed Luxon could match them, by leading economic recovery. 'We've had a couple of engaging leaders, Kiwis pretty much loved them in broad terms. 'But we've got someone who will thrive on that competency factor because he is really good at that.' Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has dropped in preferred PM ratings in some polls. Photo / Mark Mitchell Wood credited Luxon with managing what she described as a 'challenging' three-party coalition. 'We've got two [party] leaders who are clear about their particular positions, and our job is to address the cost of living and restore law and order … Erica [Stanford] is doing a wonderful job in education. 'The members are very, very comfortable with the progress we're making, but we appreciate it's difficult for people out there at the moment, the cost of living pressure is tough.' Adam Pearse is the Deputy Political Editor and part of the NZ Herald's Press Gallery team based at Parliament in Wellington. He has worked for NZME since 2018, reporting for the Northern Advocate in Whangārei and the Herald in Auckland.

How bad is the tariff news for NZ, really?
How bad is the tariff news for NZ, really?

1News

time6 hours ago

  • 1News

How bad is the tariff news for NZ, really?

New Zealand has been hit with a higher tariff rate than Australia on exports to the US – but economists say the situation could have been worse. It was revealed today that New Zealand exports would have a 15% tariff applied, up from 10% announced earlier. Australia remains at 10%. Brad Olsen, chief executive at Infometrics, said that was a clear challenge for New Zealand. "There is now a wedge between us and Australia." ADVERTISEMENT There were other parts of the world that previously had a higher tariff rate that were now on the same level as New Zealand, such as Europe. "Wine, for example, under the original tariffs, we might have had a slight advantage. Now we don't." But he said it was not necessarily true that the country would have been better off had it negotiated a deal. He said New Zealand did not have a lot to "give up" in those negotiations, and it could have ended up being costly. "I'm a little bit surprised by comments, including from the opposition's trade spokesperson, that the Government failed to achieve a lower tariff rate. "The comments seem to make the implication that New Zealand could have found a way to come up with a trade agreement that might have given us a lower tariff rate. "That might be true, but we have no idea what we would have had to give up to achieve that… some of what had to be given up by other countries to get a 15% tariffs rate is consequential – Japan and other countries had to give up to half a trillion dollars of further investment into the US." ADVERTISEMENT US President signs an executive order for new tariffs on a wide swath of US trading partners to go into effect in seven days. (Source: 1News) He said the impact on New Zealand's trading partners might not be as bad as had been expected, which should prove positive for the economy. "It will be slightly more challenging to export to the US from a New Zealand point of view, but our trading partner activity might not be hit as bad as was feared in April. That's probably a net benefit for us." Mike Jones, chief economist at BNZ, said the increase was not unexpected given indications of the past few weeks. "It's obviously unhelpful for NZ exports into the US, particularly how we line up with those coming from Australia and the UK, given the lower 10% baseline tariff rate for those countries. "Beef and wine exports could be affected. It's interesting in this context that we've seen the NZD/AUD exchange rate fall a little today in the wake of the announcements." 'Quite myopic' ADVERTISEMENT Cranes and shipping containers are seen at a port in Busan, South Korea, Thursday, July 31, 2025. (Source: Associated Press) Kelly Eckhold, chief economist at Westpac, said he thought New Zealand was in roughly the same position as in April. "On one hand, the tariff is higher, so there is a bigger direct cost, but it's a bit lower for a lot of our trading partners, so it's better for the economy than would otherwise be the case." He said how the lingering elements of uncertainty played out over the coming weeks would be important. "The legal basis of these tariffs, whether they're going to be able to continue or need to be replaced with a different type of tariff, is an issue. And the sectoral tariffs have not yet really been negotiated. "While I don't think these things affect the sort of goods New Zealand trades with the US, there may be some impact on our trading partners." He said it seemed strange that the US was calculating tariffs based on which countries exported more than they imported. ADVERTISEMENT "The concept that US authorities have had of countries ripping them off by selling more stuff to America than they're been buying is quite myopic. "We're only talking about goods trade here, we buy a lot of services from the US. "In large part, the trade imbalance is a cyclical rather than a structural story. "In the last few years, the economy has been relatively weak compared to the US. We're not sucking in as many imports, and the exchange rate has been lower than would normally be the case, which has encouraged export revenues. "I would have thought trade policy metrics like tariffs would be determined on the basis of structural, not cyclical factors. "All those things could easily be the other way around in a few years' time."

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store