The Government has been wheeling out the hard issues in a non-election year, with the latest changes to employment law likely to spark the greatest debate. Business editor Dene Mackenzie reviews the changes.
Back in 1990, when Sir William Birch was planning to introduce the Employment Contracts Act, New Zealand streets were full of unionised workers protesting about the loss of rights.
Compulsory unionism was set to disappear, along with national awards.
In 1991, as the legislation was being passed, protest numbers swelled.
In Dunedin, union representatives carried a coffin full of national awards along George St, stopping at the National Party's old office in Harvest Court to dump the awards at the door.
In Auckland last weekend, as protesters marched on the National Party conference, they revived some of those slogans from 1990-91: "What's the story, filthy Tory".
Looking at the protesters, it was not surprising some of those slogans got revived. Some of the same people were leading the march back when National held its conference in the Dunedin Town Hall - its last conference in the city - when then unemployed workers' representative Sue Bradford battled her way up the town hall steps to try to get into the conference.
None of the changes being introduced next year by Prime Minister John Key's Government are as extreme as those in 1990, but employment is a touchy subject in New Zealand, particularly when any hint of taking away the rights of a collective of workers is revealed.
There are clear parts of the planned legislation which will hurt unions and may even hasten a further decline of union membership.
The two most prominent anti-union measures are allowing employers to communicate directly with employees during collective negotiations to "reduce misunderstandings" and forcing union representatives to ask for access to a workplace.
The access must not be unreasonably withheld but similar legislation in the past has been used by employers to try to undermine union influence in a workplace.
Mr Key said when releasing the policy the "fair and balanced" employment law package was aimed squarely at jobs and economic growth.
Predictable comments followed the release of the changes. Council of Trade Unions president Helen Kelly said the package of changes tilted the balance in favour of employers and undermined fairness at work.
There was an accumulation of attacks on workers' rights, including ACC changes, reduced holiday entitlements, removal of rights to appeal against unfair dismissal, restrictions on worker access to union officials and meal break changes, she said.
On the other hand, Business New Zealand chief executive Phil O'Reilly said the planned changes were thoughtful, moderate and would be more likely to foster productivity.
The changes would relieve pressure points currently experienced by many of the parties involved in employment relations, including employers, employees, labour inspectors, union representatives and mediators.
"And far from being skewed in favour of employers, the changes will put stiffer requirements on employers in a number of areas and increase penalties for employer non-compliance in others," he said.
Gallaway Cook Allan employment solicitor Ella Tait took special interest in the proposal that allowed employees to "cash in" their fourth week of annual leave.
For employers, the change would mean up to one extra week per year of productivity from those employees who made the trade.
But it also meant the employer would pay those employees the equivalent of an extra week's pay each year.
An employee who took three weeks of annual leave but opted to cash in the fourth week would work for 49 weeks, giving a total of 53 weeks' pay per year.
"For employees happy to forfeit that extra week's holiday, and those who cannot afford not to, it will mean having a little extra money to spend."
Whether that was on Christmas spending, or simply money to cover an unexpected mechanic's or dentist's bill, that spending in itself might provide an additional boost for the economy, Ms Tait said.
The interesting point was that it was the individual employers who would decide whether the cash-in option would be available.
Some might put in place a blanket policy one way or another. Others would simply address requests on a case-by-case basis.
"An employee cannot insist on cashing in their fourth week of annual leave."
In terms of process, it was the employee who must initiate the discussion by making a written request to their employer, she said.
They might request the value of the whole week of annual leave in one sum, or might seek to trade in a day here and there so long as the total did not exceed one week in any given year.
The decision then rested with the employer as to whether to grant the request, if they did not already have a blanket policy on the issue, Ms Tait said.
If the request was declined, there was no obligation on the employer to give reasons for declining.
Employers who pressured staff into trading in leave did so at the risk of having that leave reinstated by the Employment Relations Authority or a Department of Labour inspector, she said.
Ms Kelly said workers short of money would be tempted to cash in such leave when what they really needed was a "decent" pay rise.
"We have only recently got four weeks' annual leave and it is a backward step toput one week up for sale," she said.
Law firm Chapman Tripp said in a briefing to clients this week the employment law changes announced by Mr Key were not radical but would bring some real improvements for employers.
"Some employee groups will argue that these reforms will shift the balance of power back towards employers in some key areas. But they do not represent a radical reversion. Instead, they are, as the Government says, targeted changes which will deliver some real improvements for employers."
Predictably, much of the media attention and public comment has been focused on the extension of the 90-day trial period to all employers.
Chapman Tripp said employees dismissed during the trial period could not dispute their dismissal, although they remained entitled to fair treatment during the trial.
"The reality, though, is that such employees will now have few, if any, rights if they are dismissed. Even a successful claim of unjustified treatment cannot secure either reinstatement or compensation for loss of employment."
Whether the trial period was open to abuse depended on what was understood by "trial", the law firm said.
Unless an employer was using the period for collateral purposes, in which case the Fair Trading Act presented a meaningful discipline, any suggestion of "abuse" would seem to assume a right to continued employment, which was the antithesis to a trial period.
The Government's proposed tweak to the personal grievance laws - which applied after the 90-day trial period had expired - should make a difference in borderline cases.
"This change will not affect the employer's obligation to follow a fair process, but employers will not be required to justify the dismissal by other than reliance on the existence of a written trial period," Chapman Tripp said.
• Countries with employment trial periods include. -
Australia; Austria; Belgium; Canada; Czech Republic; Denmark; Finland; France; Germany; Greece; Hungary; Ireland; Italy; Japan; Korea; Mexico; Netherlands; New Zealand; Norway; Poland; Portugal; Slovak Republic; Spain; Sweden; Switzerland; Turkey; United Kingdom; United States.
