Repeal the 90 day bill

A touchstone for the left: repealing National's "90 day bill". There should be no problem finding an MP willing to front this measure.

Relevant legislation

The Employment Relations Amendment Bill amended section 67 of the Employment Relations Act, repealed sections 103(1)(h) and 110A, and inserted new sections 67A and 67B. It also made consequental amendments to the KiwiSaver Act 2006.

Potential changes

Reversing the changes means substituing the old s67, reinserting 103(1)(h) and 110A, repealing 67A and 67B, and undoing the relevant changes to the KiwiSaver Act.

An application clause can ensure that the changes apply only to new employment contracts (so that old probationary periods wrap up gracefully, rather than employers finding they suddenly have additional, unexpected commitments)

I am not sure that Section 101B(5)(b) of the KiwiSaver Act 2006, given that it was only for the avoidance of doubt and the key provisions it was referring to will be reimplemented.

Problems

• There is no majority for this. The bill would be symbolic only, aimed at positioning the relevant party and forcing the government to vote it down.

Employment Relations (Probationary Period Repeal) Amendment Bill - pitched at Darien Fenton and Carol Beaumont
Employment Relations (Restoration of Kiwisaver Fairness) Amendment Bill

IdiotSavant 12 Feb 2009 11:14

The original 90 day bill repealed a provision of the KiwiSaver Act 2006. The provision can be found here:

(b) sections 103(1)(h) and 110A of the Employment Relations Act 2000 apply in relation to the contractual terms and conditions of the parties to an employment relationship, subject to section 5 of the Employment Relations (Breaks, Infant Feeding, and Other Matters) Amendment Act 2008.

(repealed subsection in italics; section 5 applied s103(1)(h) and 110A of the ERA only to contracts entered into or varied or events that occured after the law entered into force. )

What would happen if we didn't re-implement this? Section 7 of the Interpretation Act ("enactments do not have retrospective effect") would rule out s103(1)(h) and 110A as having always been in effect, with Section 8 instead requiring that they apply from when the Act creating them came into force. So, do we really need an "avoidance of doubt" clause?

Re:

IdiotSavant 12 Feb 2009 23:15

Thinking about this some more, in the name of "thinking small", its probably better if I split off the KiwiSaver provisions into a seperate bill.

IdiotSavant 09 Feb 2010 22:33

Carmel Sepuloni is now advancing 90-day repeal.