New Zealand Election: The employment perspective

We take a look at what could change in employment law after the New Zealand 2026 election.

The 2026 election presents a good opportunity to look at what is being proposed for employment law. These changes matter because they affect almost every New Zealander, whether as an employer, an employee, or through family and friends.

Below is a snapshot of employment law areas that could be affected by the election result. This is our take on what we think could happen and what this could mean for employers and employees.

We cover trial periods, collective employment arrangements, leave, personal grievances, pay equity, contractor status, health and safety, parental leave and KiwiSaver, focusing on the practical implications for employers and employees.

Some changes are already in force; others start in 2027 or 2028. New proposals must pass through the legislative process, so current rules may differ from those being debated.

90-day trial periods

What are they?

Trial periods give an employer an opportunity to assess a new employee’s suitability for a role during an agreed period of up to 90 calendar days from the start of employment. If the trial period is valid and the employer complies with the requirements for ending employment under it, the employee cannot pursue a personal grievance for unjustified dismissal or unjustified disadvantage relating to that dismissal.

Strict requirements apply:

The employee must not have worked for that employer before;
the employment agreement must contain a compliant trial provision;
the contract must be signed by the employee before they start work; and
the employee must have reasonable opportunity to seek independent advice before signing and have their attention drawn to the inclusion of the trial period.

If the employer decides to end employment under the trial provision, it must give notice before the trial period expires and comply with the applicable notice requirements, although the final day of employment may fall after the trial period ends.

A trial period does not remove minimum employment entitlements or all rights to raise a grievance, including claims of discrimination. It is also different from a probationary period, during which the usual protections against unjustified dismissal continue to apply. Employers should check any relevant immigration requirements, as trial periods cannot be used for employees on an Accredited Employer Work Visa.

What could change?

The ability to use 90-day trial periods could be removed. If that happened, employers could no longer rely on a valid trial provision to prevent an employee from challenging a dismissal as unjustified during their first 90 days.

This would not prevent an employer from ending employment during that period. Subject to any other applicable exclusion, such as the high-income dismissal regime, the usual requirements for a justified dismissal, including a fair process, would apply.

For employers, the practical focus would be on careful recruitment, clear expectations and addressing concerns early. Where concerns arise, employers would need to follow the process appropriate to the circumstances rather than treating the first 90 days as an unrestricted opportunity to end employment.

Employees would have the usual protections against unjustified dismissal from the start of employment, subject to any other applicable exclusion. A successful claim would still depend on the circumstances.

Party snapshot

Here’s our snapshot of where each party is likely to stand.

Supports removing 90-day trial period	Does not support removing 90-day trial period	Unknown
Labour	National
Green	ACT
Te Pāti Māori	NZ First
Alliance
Opportunity

The 30-day rule

What is it?

The 30-day rule was removed with effect from 21 February 2026 under the Employment Relations Amendment Act 2026. Previously, where an employer was a party to a collective agreement covering a new employee’s work, a new employee who was not a union member generally had to be employed for their first 30 days on individual terms consistent with that collective agreement. Additional terms could be agreed, provided they were not inconsistent with the collective agreement. This did not automatically make the employee a union member: receiving terms based on a collective agreement and belonging to the union were separate matters.

If the employee joined the relevant union, the collective agreement would bind them where their employer was bound by it and their work fell within its coverage. If they did not join, the employer and employee could agree to different individual terms after the first 30 days. Following the rule’s removal, new employees can agree to individual terms from the outset or join the relevant union and become covered by an applicable collective agreement.

Employers must still provide the required information about union membership and collective coverage, comply with good faith obligations and ensure that agreed terms meet minimum employment standards. The practical change is therefore when different individual terms can be agreed, rather than the removal of an employee’s right to join a union.

What could change?

The previous 30-day rule could be reinstated. If it returned in the same form, new employees who were not union members, but whose work fell within an applicable collective agreement, would generally start on individual terms consistent with that agreement for their first 30 days.

Employers could not simply agree to less favourable individual terms from the outset, although additional terms could be agreed if they were consistent with the collective agreement. For employers, this would mean reviewing employment agreement templates, recruitment communications and onboarding procedures to identify which roles were affected and ensure the correct terms applied from day one. It would also be important to explain employees’ options clearly and record any changes agreed after the initial 30 days.

For employees, reinstatement of the 30-day rule would provide an initial period on terms based on the collective agreement while they considered whether to join the relevant union. It would not automatically enrol them in the union or require them to become members. The precise obligations, commencement date and treatment of existing employment arrangements would depend on the wording of any legislation introduced.

Party snapshot

Here’s our snapshot of where each party is likely to stand.

Supports the 30-day rule	Does not support the 30-day rule	Unknown
Labour	National	Opportunity
Green	ACT	Te Pāti Māori
		NZ First
		Alliance

Opt-out union membership

What is it?

Under current law, union membership is voluntary. An opt-out model would instead make membership automatic for employees within its scope unless they chose to opt out. Automatic membership would not necessarily mean automatic collective agreement coverage: the relationship between the two would depend on the legislation.

An opt-out model would be a significant shift from the current approach. Key details, such as how and when employees could opt out, how union fees would be handled and how the model would apply to existing employees, would depend on the wording of any legislation introduced.

What could change?

If an opt-out model were introduced, affected employees would decide whether to opt out rather than actively choosing to join. Any legislation would need to define who was covered, the deadlines and process for opting out, and the terms applying afterwards.

For employers, this could require changes to recruitment communications, employment agreement templates and onboarding procedures. New employees would need clear information about the applicable collective terms, any membership fees, how to opt out and what opting out would mean for their employment terms. Employers would also need reliable systems to record employees’ choices and apply the appropriate agreement and any authorised deductions.

Until those details were settled, employers and employees should not assume that opting out would automatically create or determine the terms of an individual employment agreement.

Party Snapshot

Here’s our snapshot of where each party is likely to stand.

Supports a union opt-out system	Does not support a union opt-out system	Unknown
Labour	National	Opportunity
Green	ACT
Te Pāti Māori	NZ First
Alliance

Employment Leave Act

What is it?

The Employment Leave Act 2026 is scheduled to replace the Holidays Act 2003 on 6 August 2028, with the new rules applying from the start of an employee’s first pay period beginning on or after that date. The Holidays Act continues to apply in the meantime. Employers cannot adopt the new statutory framework early, even if their systems are ready.

The Employment Leave Act 2026 changes how leave is earned, taken and paid, including a move to annual and sick leave accruing in hours from the first day of employment against an employee’s standard hours. Additional and casual hours are treated differently, attracting an upfront leave compensation payment of 12.5% rather than annual and sick leave accrual.

For sick leave, this represents a shift from the current entitlement of 10 days each year for eligible employees to an hours-based entitlement linked to standard hours. The effect will depend on an employee’s working arrangements: employees with fewer standard hours may accrue less paid sick leave than under the current system, while accrual from day one removes the current initial waiting period.

For employers, implementation will require more than a payroll update. Employment agreements, work patterns, leave records and policies will need to align with the new framework, and employees will need clear explanations of how their entitlements are calculated. The Employment Leave Act 2026 sets minimum entitlements, so employers and employees can still agree to more generous leave arrangements.

What could change?

The current entitlement of 10 days’ sick leave each year for eligible employees remains in force. A proposal to preserve that entitlement rather than introduce hours-based sick leave is distinct from a proposal to repeal the Employment Leave Act 2026 as a whole. Either would require legislation. A change before commencement could prevent the relevant new rules from applying; a later change could require a further transition.

For employers, retaining a fixed entitlement would mean sick leave was not proportionately linked to standard hours. Part-time and full-time employees would receive the same number of days, although the hours and pay associated with each day would depend on their working arrangements. Employers should prepare for the enacted 2028 framework, while keeping payroll projects, policies and agreement wording adaptable to any later amendments.

For employees, particularly those working part-time or with fewer standard hours, retaining a fixed entitlement would preserve a set number of paid sick leave days each year rather than hours-based accrual. Eligibility, carry-over limits and interaction with the rest of the leave framework would depend on the legislation. A change to sick leave alone should not be presented as reversing the entire Act.

Party Snapshot

Here’s our snapshot of where each party is likely to stand.

Supports reinstatement of the 10-day sick leave entitlement	Does not support reinstatement of the 10-day sick leave entitlement	Unknown
Labour	National
Green	ACT
Te Pāti Māori	NZ First

Personal Grievance rights: $200,000 threshold

What is it?

The Employment Relations Amendment Act 2026 came into force on 21 February 2026 and made significant changes to personal grievances. Employees whose annual remuneration meets or exceeds $200,000 cannot pursue a personal grievance for unjustified dismissal or unjustified disadvantage relating to their dismissal, unless transitional protection or an agreed written opt-back-in term applies. Annual adjustments to the threshold begin from 1 July 2027.

Where the exclusion applies, an employer does not need a good reason or a fair process for dismissal, does not have to provide information and an opportunity to comment under the relevant good faith provision, and does not have to provide written reasons on request. Employers must still act honestly and without misleading the employee, remain responsive and communicative, and comply with applicable contractual terms and other statutory obligations. Notice remains payable as required by the agreement, or reasonable notice if none is stated, unless lawful summary dismissal is available.

Annual remuneration is broader than base salary. The statutory calculation uses relevant PAYE income payments, such as salary, wages, bonuses and commissions, associated with the relevant position over a reference period of up to 364 days. It is annualised where the applicable period is shorter. The position held, relevant dates and statutory inclusions and exclusions must be checked rather than simply comparing base salary with $200,000.

Certain employees employed immediately before 21 February 2026 retain transitional dismissal protection until 21 February 2027. Whether protection applies depends on the statutory conditions concerning their employment and position, including relevant restructuring circumstances and any written agreement to bring the new regime into effect early. Signing a replacement or varied agreement does not, by itself, determine the result. Separately, an employer and employee can agree in writing, as a term of employment, that sections 67I and 113A do not apply, restoring the dismissal protections covered by those sections.

Employees above the threshold can still raise personal grievances on other grounds, such as discrimination, harassment, duress and unjustified disadvantage unrelated to dismissal. The threshold concerns remuneration, not seniority or job title. For affected employees and employers, notice periods, severance provisions and any written opt-back-in term are particularly important.

What could change?

The $200,000 threshold could be removed. Employees earning at or above it would then regain access to dismissal-related personal grievances, subject to any other applicable exclusion, such as a valid trial period, and the commencement and transitional provisions of the new legislation.

For employers, the usual justification requirements would again apply when dismissing affected employees, subject to other applicable exclusions. An employer would need to show that its actions, and how it acted, were what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances. This includes providing relevant information and an opportunity to comment before deciding, and written reasons for dismissal on request. Employers who had changed their approach to higher-income exits or drafted agreements with the threshold in mind would need to revisit those practices. Negotiated exits and settlement agreements could remain useful where both parties wanted certainty.

For affected employees, removing the threshold would restore access to remedies for unjustified dismissal, subject to other applicable exclusions. Potential remedies include reimbursement of lost remuneration and compensation. The rules on an employee’s contribution would still apply unless those rules were also changed.

Any legislation would need to establish commencement and transitional arrangements, including its application to particular dismissals. In the meantime, written opt-back-in terms, notice periods and severance provisions remain relevant. Employers and affected employees should check the final wording before assuming which rules apply.

Party Snapshot

Here’s our snapshot of where each party is likely to stand.

Supports removing the $200,00 personal grievance threshold	Does not support removing the $200,00 personal grievance threshold	Unknown
Labour	National
Green	ACT
Te Pāti Māori
Alliance
NZ First
Opportunity

Fair Pay Agreements

What are they?

Fair pay agreements were designed to establish minimum employment terms across an industry or occupation, rather than through negotiations confined to individual workplaces.

Under the Fair Pay Agreements Act 2022, unions and employer associations could bargain on behalf of employees and employers within a proposed agreement’s coverage. A finalised agreement would have applied throughout that coverage, regardless of union or employer-association membership. The regime distinguished between mandatory terms, including minimum base pay, overtime and penalty rates and standard hours, and matters that had to be discussed but not necessarily agreed, including leave and training and development.

These would have provided a minimum floor: employers and employees could still agree to more favourable terms. This differed from an ordinary collective agreement, which generally applies to union members whose work falls within its coverage and who work for an employer bound by it. The framework was intended to establish common minimum standards across covered work, while also requiring businesses within that coverage to meet those standards.

The legislation was repealed with effect from 20 December 2023, before any fair pay agreements were finalised. Its repeal removed that sector-wide bargaining framework, but did not remove existing minimum employment standards or the ability to negotiate individual and collective employment agreements.

What could change?

Fair pay agreements could be reinstated, creating a framework for bargaining over minimum pay and working conditions across particular industries or occupations.

If a similar model returned, an agreement could establish common minimum terms for covered work, rather than leaving those terms entirely to negotiations within individual workplaces.

For employers, the implications would depend on whether their business and employees fell within an agreement’s coverage and how the agreed minimum terms compared with existing arrangements. Businesses already offering more favourable terms might face fewer direct changes, while others could need to adjust pay rates, working arrangements, payroll systems and employment agreements. Any increase in employment costs could also affect budgets, pricing and service contracts.

For employees, a sector-wide agreement could improve baseline pay and conditions where existing terms fell below the new minimums, but it would not necessarily mean a pay increase for everyone.

Employers and employees could still negotiate more favourable terms if the reinstated framework allowed this, as the previous regime did.

Reinstating the legislation would not itself immediately set new rates for every workplace: coverage, bargaining, approval and implementation processes would also need to be completed. The scope of any new regime, its relationship with existing individual and collective agreements, and the time available to prepare would depend on the final legislation and the terms of any resulting agreements.

Party Snapshot

Here’s our snapshot of where each party is likely to stand.

Supports Fair Pay Agreements	Does not support Fair Pay Agreements	Unknown
Labour	National
Green	ACT
Te Pāti Māori	NZ First
Alliance	Opportunity

Pay Equity

What is it?

Pay equity concerns equal pay for different work of equal value, assessed through matters such as skills, responsibility, effort and working conditions. Equal pay concerns the same pay for the same work. Under the Equal Pay Act 1972, employees and unions can raise claims that work has been undervalued because of systemic sex-based discrimination, subject to statutory eligibility and merit requirements. Parties work through claims in good faith, with access to statutory dispute-resolution processes where agreement cannot be reached.

In May 2025, the government passed the Equal Pay Amendment Act 2025 under urgency, significantly changing the claims process. Eligibility now requires a workforce that has been at least 70% female for 10 consecutive years, compared with the previous 60% threshold, and reasonable grounds to believe the work has been historically undervalued and is currently subject to systemic sex-based discrimination. Statutory comparator-selection requirements apply, progressing from the same employer to similar employers and then the same industry or sector. The absence of an appropriate comparator can prevent a claim proceeding, subject to the statutory dispute process. Employers generally have 60 working days to make the required eligibility and merit decisions, subject to applicable extensions.

The amendments discontinued claims that were unsettled or undetermined as at 14 May 2025 and made specified review provisions in existing settlements unenforceable. New claims can still be raised if they meet the amended requirements. A new claim for the same work and employees generally cannot be raised within 10 years of settlement unless the Employment Relations Authority or Employment Court permits it. Pay equity remains part of New Zealand law, but the requirements for bringing and progressing claims have changed substantially.

What could change?

The 2025 changes to the pay equity framework could be reversed or amended, making it easier for employees and unions to bring claims that work has been undervalued because of sex-based discrimination.

This would involve changing an existing regime, rather than reintroducing pay equity, which remains part of New Zealand law. Depending on the legislation, changes could affect the requirements for raising a claim, the evidence needed to establish undervaluation and the selection of comparable work.

For employers, a broader claims process could mean reviewing remuneration structures, job descriptions and the information available to assess the value of different roles. Where a claim resulted in an agreed settlement or determination requiring higher pay, affected employers would need to consider the implications for payroll, budgets and existing employment arrangements.

For employees, changes could provide a more accessible route to having potentially undervalued work assessed. They would not automatically increase wages across all female-dominated occupations: any outcome would depend on the applicable legal requirements, the evidence and the resolution of the particular claim.

The treatment of claims discontinued under the 2025 amendments, existing settlements and future review rights would also depend on the wording of any new legislation. Employers and employees should therefore distinguish a proposal to change the claims framework from a confirmed entitlement to a pay increase.

Party Snapshot

Here’s our snapshot of where each party is likely to stand.

Supports removing changes under the Equal Pay Amendment Act 2025	Does not support removing changes under the Equal Pay Amendment Act 2025	Unknown
Labour	National
Green	ACT
Te Pāti Māori	NZ First
Alliance
Opportunity

Disciplinary process and Serious Misconduct provisions

What is this?

The Employment Relations Amendment Act 2026 changed both the remedies available for personal grievances and the test used to assess whether an employer’s actions were justified. These are separate questions: establishing that a dismissal was unjustified does not necessarily mean an employee will receive a remedy. Where the Employment Relations Authority or Employment Court determines that an employee’s conduct contributed to the situation giving rise to the grievance and amounted to serious misconduct, no remedies are available. An employer’s allegation or description of conduct as serious misconduct is not enough on its own; the conduct and its connection to the grievance must be established. This makes the evidence, the surrounding circumstances and the seriousness of the conduct important to the outcome.

Where an employee’s contributing conduct falls short of serious misconduct, section 123C prevents reinstatement and compensation under section 123(1)(c). That compensation covers both humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings, and loss of benefits the employee might reasonably have expected but for the grievance. Remaining remedies, including reimbursement of lost remuneration, may be reduced by up to 100% to reflect contribution. A mistake or workplace disagreement does not, by itself, establish contribution: the conduct must be blameworthy and have caused or contributed to the situation giving rise to the grievance. The timing of the underlying events and applicable commencement principles must also be considered before applying the new rules.

The Employment Relations Amendment Act 2026 also amended the justification test, which asks whether the employer’s actions, and how it acted, were what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances. The Authority or Court must consider whether the employee obstructed the employer from sufficiently investigating, raising its concerns, providing a reasonable opportunity to respond or genuinely considering the employee’s explanation. A dismissal or other action must not be found unjustified solely because of procedural defects if those defects did not result in unfair treatment; previously, this protection was limited to minor defects. Fair process is not optional. Employers should still investigate appropriately, explain their concerns, give a genuine opportunity to respond and consider the response before deciding, with clear records of the process and decision.

What could change?

The 2026 changes to disciplinary processes and personal grievance remedies could be reversed or amended.

If the restrictions on remedies were removed, an employee whose conduct contributed to the situation giving rise to a grievance, including conduct amounting to serious misconduct, could again be eligible for compensation or reinstatement where those remedies were otherwise justified. This would not mean that an allegation of serious misconduct automatically entitled an employee to a remedy, or that proven misconduct became irrelevant. The employee would still need to establish a personal grievance, and their contribution could still reduce any remedies available if the legislation retained that approach.

For employers, a reversal could increase the potential consequences of an unjustified dismissal, even where there were genuine concerns about the employee’s conduct. The quality of the investigation, the opportunity to respond and the reasons for the decision would therefore remain important.

For employees, removing the restrictions could restore a wider range of potential remedies, but success would still depend on the evidence and circumstances. Changes could also be made to the justification test, including the treatment of procedural defects and employee obstruction. The practical effect would depend on which provisions were amended: changing the remedies rules would not necessarily change the justification test, or vice versa.

Any new legislation would also need to address commencement and transitional arrangements, so employers and employees should check which rules apply before assessing a dismissal or potential claim.

Party Snapshot

Here’s our snapshot of where each party is likely to stand.

Support reverting disciplinary and misconduct provisions under the Employment Relations Amendment Act 2026	Does not support reverting disciplinary and misconduct provisions under the Employment Relations Amendment Act 2026	Unknown
Labour	National	Opportunity
Green	ACT	Te Pāti Māori
		NZ First
		Alliance

Contractor status

What is it?

The Employment Relations Amendment Act 2026 introduced a gateway test for determining whether a worker is a ‘specified contractor’, excluded from the definition of employee under the Employment Relations Act 2000.

The test has applied since 21 February 2026 and requires all its criteria to be met. There must be a written agreement identifying the worker as an independent contractor or not an employee; the worker must be free to work for others, subject to the statutory exception for times when they are performing the agreed work; and the arrangement must not require availability at specified times, on specified days or for a minimum period, unless the worker can subcontract the work within the permitted conditions. The arrangement must also protect the worker from termination for declining additional work, and the worker must have had a reasonable opportunity to seek independent advice before entering into it. Where every requirement is satisfied, the worker is treated as a contractor rather than an employee for the purposes of the Employment Relations Act 2000. If any requirement is not met, the worker does not automatically become an employee: the existing test examining the real nature of the relationship still applies. That assessment considers matters such as control, integration into the business and whether the worker is genuinely operating a business on their own account, rather than relying solely on the contract’s label.

The distinction matters because contractors generally do not receive statutory employee entitlements such as paid annual holidays, sick leave and minimum wage protection. Businesses and workers therefore need to consider both the written agreement and how the arrangement operates in practice, rather than assuming that describing someone as a contractor settles their status.

The gateway does not retrospectively determine status for work performed before 21 February 2026. Proceedings commenced before that date can also affect whether it applies. Its operation under the Employment Relations Act 2000 should not be assumed to determine status for every tax or other statutory purpose.

What could change?

If the gateway test were removed, businesses and workers could no longer rely on meeting its criteria to establish contractor status. Instead, the existing test examining the real nature of the relationship would become central to assessing arrangements currently covered by the gateway.

Removal would not automatically turn contractors into employees: each relationship would still need to be assessed on its facts, including the degree of control, integration into the business and whether the worker was genuinely operating a business on their own account. For businesses, this could mean reviewing both contractor agreements and everyday working practices, particularly where contractors work in a similar way to employees.

If a worker were found to be an employee, the business could face claims for unpaid employment entitlements, with the scope and period of any liability depending on the applicable law and circumstances. There could also be implications for how the relationship was managed or ended. For workers, removing the gateway could provide greater scope to challenge their classification and seek employee protections, but would not guarantee a successful claim.

Genuine contracting arrangements could continue, although a written contractor label alone would not determine the outcome. Any new legislation would need to clarify when the change applied and how existing arrangements and earlier periods of work would be treated. Businesses and workers should therefore distinguish a proposal to remove the gateway from a finding that any particular arrangement is employment.

Party Snapshot

Here’s our snapshot of where each party is likely to stand.

Supports changes to the definition a contractor	Does not support changes to the definition a contractor	Unknown
Labour	National	Opportunity
Green	ACT
Te Pāti Māori	NZ First
Alliance

Health and Safety at Work Amendment Act 2026

What is it?

The Health and Safety at Work Amendment Act 2026 comes into force on 1 April 2027. It changes, rather than replaces, the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015. A critical risk includes a risk associated with a hazard listed in Schedule 1A, or a hazard of any kind where occurrence of the risk is likely to result in death, a notifiable injury or illness, a notifiable incident or a specified occupational disease. The statutory definition also addresses harm to mental health.

The likelihood qualification concerns the specified outcome if the risk occurs, not simply the likelihood of an incident occurring. The amendments distinguish between small and large persons conducting a business or undertaking, or PCBUs. Small PCBUs generally have fewer than 20 workers, counting workers beyond employees, including relevant contractors. Where worker numbers fluctuate because of the nature of the business, the statutory rule concerns a reasonable expectation of fewer than 20 workers in at least nine months of the current financial year. Specified main duties of small PCBUs focus on critical risks; larger PCBUs must manage both critical and other risks, prioritising critical risks.

This is not a blanket exemption from health and safety obligations for small businesses. The reforms also address matters such as co-operation between businesses with overlapping duties, officers’ responsibilities and the role of approved codes of practice.

For employers, preparation should involve identifying the risks associated with their actual work, checking which duties apply and ensuring that controls, training and supervision address those risks effectively.

For workers, clear information and opportunities to raise safety concerns remain important. Until the amendments commence, businesses must continue to comply with the existing requirements and should not assume that obligations have already been reduced.

What could change?

The health and safety changes could be reversed or amended, including the distinction between the risk-management obligations of small and large businesses. If the narrower approach for small businesses were removed, affected businesses could again need to assess and manage a broader range of work-related risks, rather than focusing their risk-management duties on critical risks alone.

This would not necessarily mean identical controls for every business: appropriate measures would still depend on the work undertaken, the hazards involved and the applicable legal requirements.

For employers, the practical implications could include reviewing risk assessments, training, supervision and arrangements with contractors or other businesses sharing the workplace. Businesses that had changed their systems in reliance on the reforms might need to revisit those decisions.

For workers, a broader approach could bring renewed attention to risks that fall outside the critical-risk category, alongside the continuing need to address hazards capable of causing serious harm. The effect would depend on which provisions were changed; reversing the small-business distinction would not necessarily reverse every other part of the reforms.

Timing would also matter. A change before commencement could alter the framework businesses were preparing for, while a later change could require a further transition. Businesses should therefore distinguish proposals from requirements that are actually in force, continue managing workplace risks and check the final legislation before changing their systems.

Party Snapshot

Here’s our snapshot of where each party is likely to stand.

Supports removing changes made by the Health and Safety Amendment Act 2026	Does not support removing changes made by the Health and Safety Amendment Act 2026	Unknown
Labour	National	NZ First
Green	ACT
Te Pāti Māori
Alliance
Opportunity

Parental Leave

National proposes extending government-funded parental leave payments from the current maximum of 26 weeks to 27 weeks from 1 July 2027, 28 weeks from 1 July 2028 and 30 weeks from 1 July 2029. Its proposal also allows parents to share the payment entitlement through simultaneous or overlapping periods, subject to the final legislative rules.

For eligible employees, this could provide additional financial support while caring for a new child and make it more affordable to remain away from work for longer. It would not necessarily replace their full salary, because payments remain subject to eligibility requirements and a weekly cap. For employers, the main implications would be workforce planning, temporary cover and return-to-work arrangements, rather than automatically having to fund four additional weeks of pay: statutory parental leave payments are government-funded and administered by Inland Revenue.

Employers offering contractual top-ups would need to check whether their policies linked those payments to the statutory payment period or provided a separate, fixed benefit. Parental leave payments and the right to take leave from employment are separate entitlements, so extending the payment period would not, by itself, establish how much job-protected leave an employee could take. Any legislation would need to clarify eligibility, commencement and arrangements for employees already on leave.

Until changes took effect, employers and employees would need to continue applying the existing rules.

KiwiSaver

Parties propose changes to KiwiSaver rates, participation and employer contributions. National proposes compulsory contributions from 1 July 2028, with employer and employee contributions reaching 6% each by 2032, subject to proposed exceptions. Labour proposes compulsory employer contributions from 1 July 2028, rising to 6% by 2032, including when employees reduce or pause their own contributions; its employee default would be 4%, without a minimum contribution requirement. NZ First proposes compulsory workforce enrolment and increases in employee and employer contributions, referring to rates of 8% initially and 10% eventually. Its current policy page does not expressly state whether those percentages are combined or apply separately to employees and employers, or provide an implementation timetable. Opportunity proposes a separate compulsory scheme reaching 6% each for employers and employees. ACT proposes removing tax on qualifying KiwiSaver investment earnings, partly funded by ending the annual government contribution for members receiving employer contributions.

For employees, higher compulsory contributions could increase retirement savings while reducing take-home pay. The effect would depend on contribution rates, tax treatment and suspension or reduction rules. For employers, higher required contributions would affect payroll costs and remuneration arrangements. Both National and Labour propose extending employer contributions to people working beyond 65. Labour proposes continuing contributions during paid parental leave, while National proposes a government-funded contribution even where the parent is not contributing.

Under current rules, KiwiSaver deductions from government parental leave payments are optional. Where a recipient elects those deductions, Inland Revenue also makes a 3.5% employer contribution. The proposals would therefore change existing support rather than introduce parental-leave contributions for the first time.

Employers offering total remuneration packages would need to check how any changes affected new pay arrangements. Labour proposes banning new contracts that include employer contributions within the agreed salary, rather than automatically changing existing packages. Some proposals would also introduce compulsory saving for self-employed contractors or payments for newborns. Any legislation would need to clarify eligibility, commencement and transitional arrangements, with several proposals phased in over a number of years.

Existing rules continue to apply unless and until legislation changes them. The current default employee and minimum employer contribution rates are generally 3.5%, with a scheduled increase to 4% from 1 April 2028, subject to eligibility requirements and applicable exceptions, including temporary rate reductions.

Closing comments

Employment law has changed significantly over the past three years, and this election could bring further change. Some reforms may remain, while others could be reversed or reshaped. Legislative changes often involve select committee consultation, but legislation can proceed under urgency, consultation may be shortened or omitted, and commencement may be immediate. Employers and employees should not assume there will be a substantial preparation period; final commencement and transitional provisions must be checked.

For employers, the key is to plan with flexibility in mind. Before investing heavily in new systems or policies, consider how they would adapt if the law changed again. Once the new government’s priorities are clear, review your employment agreements, onboarding processes, leave and payroll settings, and any contractor arrangements. For employees, it is worth staying informed about how any changes may affect your rights and entitlements, particularly in relation to leave, pay and job security.

Whatever the result, our team will keep you updated as the new government’s employment agenda takes shape. If you would like advice on how any of these proposals may affect your business or your employment, please get in touch.

This article provides general information, not legal advice. Legal settings and published proposals are described as at 30 October 2026 and may change. Unattributed scenarios illustrate possible changes rather than confirmed party policies. This article is not an exhaustive policy comparison and does not endorse any political party. Obtain advice on your circumstances before acting.