How low can our politicians go? There was a time when politicians understood that holding public office carried responsibilities extending beyond simply winning votes. Robust political debate has always been part of New Zealand’s democracy, and politicians should be free to express unpopular opinions and challenge prevailing thinking. However, there is a considerable difference between robust political debate and using derogatory language about someone's race, ethnicity or gender – all prohibited grounds of discrimination under the Human Rights Act and Employment Relations Act.
Over the past three years, we have seen a disturbing number of examples of politicians crossing that line, with the response from their political leaders raising questions about where accountability now sits.
In January 2025 NZ First Deputy Leader and senior minister in the coalition government Shane Jones shouted "send the Mexicans home" during a parliamentary debate. NZ First leader Winston Peters (also having served as Deputy Prime Minister in the coalition government) subsequently told Green MPs Lawrence Xu-Nan and Francisco Hernandez to "show some gratitude" for being in New Zealand. The comments prompted accusations of racism and xenophobia and diplomatic concern from the Mexican Embassy. Mr Peters eventually acknowledged that the comments could have been expressed differently.
In July 2026, Mr Peters told Green Party MP Lawrence Xu-Nan to "go back to your own country" during a parliamentary exchange. Mr Xu-Nan was born in China but grew up in Auckland. The comments attracted criticism from the Chinese Ambassador and opposition politicians.
Earlier this year, recidivist offender Shane Jones, said in an online video he would never agree with a "butter chicken tsunami" coming to New Zealand as a result of the India Free Trade agreement. Last year, after an immigration announcement at the NZ First party conference, the minister said the most common baby names had become "Singh, Patel" but "no one campaigned on it".
NZ First hopeful, Stuart Nash, attracted criticism in September 2025 after describing a woman in particularly derogatory sexual terms during a radio interview. More recently, in July 2026, he described National MP Katie Nimon as the "laziest MP" he had encountered, apparently because of her maternity leave.
It is not only confined to national politics. A local government politician, Auckland mayor Wayne Brown, recently referred to an RNZ staff member of Indian descent as "a Muslim terrorist" and commented on his beard while being escorted into the building for an interview.
Most recently, NZ First candidate Michael Laws made sexually suggestive comments about female political candidates, including Opportunity's Kayla Kingdon-Bebb. The comments attracted widespread criticism. Mr Peters, prior to election night, described them as unacceptable and reprimanded Mr Laws, who subsequently apologised.
There is an uncomfortable pattern here. Political leaders are generally quick to condemn inappropriate comments made by opponents. However, when the comments come from within their own political ranks, the response can be less than meaningful.
In the private sector where leaders and other commentators have a larger audience, the consequences in the employment context are more meaningful. In 2003 broadcaster Paul Holmes repeatedly referred to the then United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan as a "cheeky darkie" during his breakfast radio show on Newstalk ZB. The comments triggered widespread public outrage, international condemnation, a bomb scare at TVNZ headquarters, and calls for his dismissal from politicians (including then Prime Minister Helen Clark) and listeners. A television producer on his show resigned over the remarks. However, Mr Holmes apologised, and his employer, The Radio Network (Newstalk ZB), disciplined him internally, issued public apologies, but kept him in his job rather than firing him.
Another broadcaster, Paul Henry, resigned from TVNZ's Breakfast show in 2010 following a similar controversy. Mr Henry was initially suspended by TVNZ, and he subsequently resigned after making two major on-air blunders in quick succession; he questioned whether the then Governor-General, Sir Anand Satyanand, was "even a New Zealander" and asked if the Prime Minister would choose someone who "looks and sounds like a New Zealander", and he deliberately mispronounced and ridiculed the surname of Indian politician Sheila Dikshit.
Party leaders, like employers, have a responsibility to establish the standards expected. That responsibility becomes particularly important when they are leaders and their words carry considerable influence.
This is becoming increasingly obvious for coalition governments. New Zealand's MMP system increasingly requires parties with quite different philosophies and political constituencies to work together. Those differences should be respected, but surely there should at least be some minimum Code of Conduct that all coalition partners are prepared to uphold.
This is not about restricting freedom of speech or preventing politicians from expressing controversial views. It is about distinguishing legitimate political debate from language that demeans others because of who they are - whether it is gender, race or ethnicity. Do we really expect better standards of our employers and workers in New Zealand’s workplaces than we do from the leaders of our country? For all leaders, in “management speak”, principles and values should be a “bottom-line” not a “nice to have”. Read more....
Even the government’s law changes to try and make it harder for workers to challenge their employment status as “independent contractors” is unlikely to have made any change to the outcome of the Employment Court decision which declared that five dancers at Calendar Girls were employees.
In 2023 it was reported that nineteen dancers working at Wellington's Calendar Girls were told not to come back to work by a Facebook post after requesting better work contracts. In response, about 35 dancers from the Club decided to bargain collectively. The dancers asked Calendar Girls management for two things; clear income records and a 60 percent cut of their earnings. The dancers sent an email asking for changes. They say that the next day over half of them were told by the owner of Calendar Girls in a Facebook group post to "clear out their lockers".
The dancers formed a group called the Fired Up Stilettos seeking improved industry standards and better independent contractor protection. They say that, nationwide, dancer contracts are predatory by nature and are riddled with fines, retainer bonds, clauses forbidding work at competing venues and media engagement.
The dancers have said that although they are treated as employees, as independent contractors they lack the employment protections of the Employment Relations Act. Five dancers from Calendar Girls took their case to the Employment Court to seek a declaration that they were in fact employees, not contractors.
The dispute arose because Calendar Girls proposed changes to the dancers working conditions, including increasing the prices charged for services while reducing the percentage paid to dancers, increasing certain fines, and requiring dancers to purchase branded tracksuits.
In the Employment Court, Judge King, declared that the dancers were employees.
The contractual arrangements indicated that the dancers understood they were engaged as independent contractors, but their written contracts imposed extensive obligations. Dancers were required to follow the Club's policies, comply with management instructions, work according to rosters, prioritise the Club's requirements over other business commitments, and obtain approval for absences. They were also restricted from working for competing businesses without permission. Dancers were not guaranteed earnings for their time at the Club and could be subjected to substantial deductions described as fines for breaches of its rules. Judge King found that the contractual label did not reflect the actual nature of the relationship. She then went on to analyse the usual common law tests to determine their status.
Using the “control test” the Judge considered that the Club exercised substantial control over virtually every aspect of the dancers' work. It controlled their shifts, breaks and departure times, appearance, clothing, stage performances, music, services offered and prices charged. Management also directed how dancers approached customers and performed lap dances, and could reprimand or penalise dancers who failed to comply.
Although the dancers had personal boundaries and were legally entitled to refuse commercial sexual services, the threat of fines, reduced work opportunities, lost income or termination significantly constrained their practical freedom to refuse particular services.
Using the “integration test” the Judge considered that the dancers were central to Club’s business. They provided the entertainment that attracted customers, featured in its advertising and generated revenue through performances and other services. The Club's reliance on dancers was demonstrated when it brought dancers from Auckland to Wellington after terminating the claimants’ engagements. The dancers were integrated into the Club’s business rather than operating as independent businesses supplying services to it.
The Judge also determined that the dancers had little genuine commercial independence. The Club controlled prices, restricted competition and retained the benefit of the business's goodwill. Although dancers supplied their own clothing and equipment and some managed their own tax and ACC arrangements, these factors did not outweigh the control exercised over their work by the Club.
The Judge then considered industry practice but found the evidence too limited to assist materially in determining employment status of the dancers.
When the Supreme Court found that Uber drivers were employees and not contractors, Workplace Relations and Safety Minister Brooke van Velden said at the time that she respected the court ruling but she said it highlighted a “grey area in employment and contract law” and that her law changes would address this. It does no such thing. All the courts that Uber has litigated this issue in have conclusively found that the Uber drivers are employees using the current and well established common law tests. The same outcome has been easily determined in the Calendar Girls case. Read more
It seems that small business owners are being promised another dose of employment law reform if the National Party are re-elected in November 2026, and the National Party does not trade away its policies in negotiating a coalition government.
National's recently announced 47-point Small Business Plan (yes count them, in a plan proposing to reduce complexity and compliance costs) is aimed at reducing compliance costs and promising to make it easier for small businesses to invest, grow and employ people. That is an attractive proposition, particularly for the thousands of small businesses where the owner is also the manager, accountant, IT person, HR department, and compliance manager.
After several years of substantial changes to New Zealand's employment laws, do small businesses really need more changes to deal with? And why create even more confusion over employment rights and processes for businesses?
Trial periods have been a political football for many years now, switching between all businesses and small businesses (less than 20 employees, which in effect meant that those small businesses needed to check their head count – how many full-timers, part-timers/casuals on the books).
The National Party says small businesses make up around 97 per cent of New Zealand enterprises and employ approximately 680,000 people. So what are some of those plans?
Point 7 - Develop a fast-track for suitable employment disputes, through a simplified Employment Relations Authority pathway, with clear eligibility, proportionate procedures, firm decision timeframes and fair-hearing standards.
Those working in this space know that both employers and employees would love to have a speedy, simplified system for most cases. When the current system was implemented 26 years ago it offered the promise of a “quick and dirty” resolution process. Unfortunately, it has never lived up to this promise - it is neither quick and it certainly is bogged down in procedure. Like all justice processes in New Zealand, it simply needs resourcing and funding to enable this to happen.
Point 8 – Make better use of mediation to resolve minor disputes early, including requiring mediator recommendations and available binding options to be clearly explained and offered in suitable cases.
Those working in this space know that both employers and employees would love for this to be promoted. Two key objectives are already set out in the Employment Relations Act and clearly provide that:
· mediation is the primary problem-solving mechanism; and that
· the objective is to reduce the need for judicial intervention.
Again, the mediation process simply requires more funding and resourcing. Every communication with the Employment Relations Authority or Mediation Services (which is run by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment) comes with a warning of prolonged delays.
The big question is why limit it to “small business operators” and create a further complication in the system?
One of the strongest messages coming from the business community in recent years has been the need for stability and certainty in employment law. In July, the Employers and Manufacturers Association head of advocacy Alan McDonald made the point particularly clearly. In setting out the EMA's election priorities, he said reforms in areas including employment law needed time to “settle and stick”.
Retail NZ has previously made an even more explicit connection between frequent employment-law changes and the problems faced by employers. It has said retailers need “stable, predictable employment laws” that are easy for business owners to navigate and comply with. It has also warned that the complexity of, and frequent changes to, employment legislation create uncertainty and costs for recruitment.
BusinessNZ has made a similar argument. Its recent survey work found that 47.1 per cent of businesses surveyed said regulatory changes over the previous three years had increased their cost of doing business. BusinessNZ chief executive Katherine Rich has also repeatedly argued for greater policy certainty for businesses.
The Employment Relations Act was amended substantially in 2026 creating so many legal questions that will take years to work through the system to provide employers with some certainty. The Holidays Act has also been replaced by the new Employment Leave Act after years of debate and uncertainty. No doubt this new system will be litigated for years before questions are resolved.
Every change has a cost. Employment agreements have to be reviewed. Payroll systems need to be changed. Managers need to understand new obligations. Staff need to be informed. Policies and procedures have to be rewritten. Sometimes lawyers and consultants need to be engaged.
Is it not in New Zealand’s best interests to have settled, well understood employment laws that employers and employees can navigate swiftly and without unnecessary complication? Providing adequate resourcing funding to a well-established and understood dispute resolution system will provide the productivity gains that political parties love talking about, but unfortunately provide very few answers to. Read more.....
