[file/photo]

The proposed Employment Relations Bill is facing growing scrutiny, with concerns raised over both its development process and its ability to address key enforcement issues.

Munro Leys Partner Jon Apted has questioned how the legislation was drafted, claiming it was developed through a restricted process with limited consultation.

He told the Standing Committee on Economic Affairs that those involved in drafting the bill were confined to the Employment Relations Advisory Board and were bound by non-disclosure agreements, preventing wider engagement with stakeholders.

“So what that meant was that the views and the ideas that eventuated in the first draft bill did not reflect the interests of the people who they were supposed to be representing. So the bill has since gone to Cabinet and AG’s office but a lot of what is in the version that is in the House doesn’t reflect what employers necessarily want or workers necessarily want.”

Apted says this resulted in an initial draft that did not adequately represent either employers or workers.

He adds that the version now before Parliament has shifted further after review by Cabinet and the Attorney General’s Office, and still does not reflect the interests of key stakeholders.

Apted also raised concerns about representation during the drafting process, saying worker input largely came from larger unions, while small businesses and smaller groups of workers were left out.

He argues that broader national considerations, including investment, job creation, and the capacity of the courts, were not sufficiently addressed.

According to Apted, the bill appears to focus on enforcement challenges faced by the Ministry of Labour, rather than addressing underlying systemic issues.

He says the proposed response, introducing heavier penalties, is misplaced.

Apted notes that many breaches under the current law, such as underpayment of wages and failure to keep proper records, are already clearly defined and relatively easy to prove.

However, he says these provisions have not been consistently enforced.

He argues that increasing fines and creating new offences will not resolve the problem, warning that weak enforcement will remain the core issue.

Apted also points to an imbalance in influence during the consultation process, saying unions pushed for stronger worker protections while employer concerns were limited.

He warns that without addressing enforcement gaps, the bill risks compounding existing problems rather than resolving them.