2025 has been a year of sweeping reform, and as we close out the year, we know for sure that there will be more changes to come across workplace law in 2026. In 2025, minimum wage climbed, parental leave expanded, privacy obligations tightened, and pay transparency became law. Immigration rules shifted, KiwiSaver changes were locked in, and major proposals are queued for 2026. Our view is the changes so far are creating a lot of “noise” for employers, and compliance with these will be a focus for 2026 with a number of pretty major and all new concepts becoming law. However, not much has happened that really “moves the needle” for employers in terms of making managing workplace obligations easier, which is perhaps surprising given the current government make up. At high level, we recommend employers stay informed on the laws which will be enacted and take effect in 2026, because the signalled shifts really are in the need to know category, and employers will need advice about what this means for their workplace and to ensure they have a strategy to address the changes. Employment Top highlights for Employment are: The Contractor Gateway test – this will mean all contractor arrangements need review, to take advantage of the certainty that will be available and to avoid the currently very common contractor status challenges (like, the Uber case recently decided by the Supreme Court) Holidays Act Reform - a new Employment Leave Act is on the horizon, with draft legislation expected early 2026, likely allowing two-year implementation window. This will affect all employers PG exclusions for high earners – all employers with employees in the high earning category will need to decide strategically how they’ll handle this, including considering what it will mean for disputes with those who are excluded Compulsory KiwiSaver contribution increases – this is coming in April 2026, and impacts the 75% of employers who do not take a “total remuneration” approach Ending employment by agreement – Select Committee changes have added strict regulations to the concepts introduced in this private members bill, and if it passes, employers will need to carefully work through how they can take lawfully advantage of having direct discussions about ending employment with employees A number of changes to the Employment Relations Amendment Bill have now been made following Select Committee review, with progression to enactment expected in early 2026. Privacy From May 2026, new Privacy Principle IPP3A will require businesses to notify individuals when collecting personal information indirectly. This change strengthens transparency and accountability in data handling and applies to all agencies, including private employers, and we’re seeing more and more privacy complaints and claims, especially where employees are progressing PGs or challenging employment process. Employers need to understand privacy duties, have appropriate policies in place, and ensure staff are trained on what this all means for them. Immigration The Immigration Amendment Act introduced broader levy settings and compliance powers. Ministers now have authority to cancel residence visas for security threats and grant visas in exceptional cases. Deportation liability for residence visa holders convicted of crimes was clarified, and a new offence prohibits charging migrants premiums for employment. Beyond this, immigration policy is evolving. Skilled Migrant Category changes will shorten work periods and create new pathways for those without bachelor’s degrees (policy due early 2026). The Business Investor Visa offers residence for those investing at least NZD $1 million and meeting tax residency requirements. Active Investor Plus Visa applications reached 491 by December and are expected to grow. Accredited Employer Work Visa rules shifted to market rates, with redesigned Job Check forms, increased compliance checks, and new NOL roles for future ANZSCO transitions. Health and Safety Last but not least, Government has signalled broad policy changes to health and safety for 2026, but we are waiting for details on what this may mean and for any draft Bills. Watch this space! Message for Employers 2026 promises further reform with Government indicating it want to implement these changes pre-Election. We therefore recommend: · Auditing current policies and agreements. · Update payroll and compliance systems. · Auditing the immigration policies and clauses. · Seeking legal advice to inform strategy to deal with the changes · Providing training for staff on what these mean for them and their roles Looking to stay ahead of workplace law changes? Our upcoming webinar series will cover a range of workplace law topics. Don’t miss the chance to join these sessions and get practical insights from our experts. Learn more and see the full schedule in our article here . For advice or for more information regarding the above, please contact our team . Disclaimer: This article provides commentary on employment law topics and should not be used as a substitute for legal or professional advice for specific situations. Please seek legal advice for any questions specific to your workplace.
Keeping up with the many and varied changes in workplace law is a challenge for employers and employees alike. In 2026, our team of experts will be sharing their knowledge and answering your questions on a range of workplace law topics in a series of webinars – details below:
As we draw closer to the holidays, employers are faced with the challenge that is the Holidays Act 2003 and determining their employee’s entitlements during the festive season. While we await proposed changes to this tricky law, for now, we cover key need to know tips on the Holidays Act 2003 and the coming holiday period. Closedown If your business operates a closedown period, and your employment agreements includes a clause explaining this, employees can be required to use annual holidays or take unpaid leave during your closure. Closedown periods are available to employers provided they are “customarily” used, and employees are given at least 14 days’ notice of the dates of this. A business can only have one closedown period a year. Annual holidays: Employees who are entitled to annual holidays, can be required to take these with 14 days’ notice, if agreement as to the timing of holidays cannot be reached. Public holidays: Employees are entitled to be paid for any public holiday, even if they don’t work that day, if it falls on a day that would have ‘otherwise been a working day’ ( OWD ) for them. The following public holidays, which all fall on weekdays this year, will be observed during the festive season: Christmas Day Thursday 25 December 2025 Boxing Day Friday 26 December 2025 New Year’s Day Thursday 1 January 2026 Day after New Year’s Day Friday 2 January 2026 Where an employee works on a public holiday, they must be paid at the employee’s ordinary pay plus half that amount again for time worked, and if the public holiday is on an OWD, they will also be entitled to a full day alternative holiday. What is an OWD?: Not sure if your employee would have otherwise been working? The Holidays Act 2003 lists factors to consider including, what the employment agreement states, what the work patterns are, any rosters or systems in place, whether the employee works only when work is available, and the reasonable expectations of the parties. An OWD may vary between employees, therefore employers will need to review each employee’s situation practically. On call on public holidays: If an employee is on call on a public holiday, on an OWD and is called out, they will be entitled to a full day alternative holiday. If an employee is on call on a public holiday, on an OWD, and is not called out, they will be entitled to a full day alternative holiday if they have not practically had a holiday on that day because of the restrictions imposed by their being on call. Determining this will involve considering what the employee is practically required to do to remain available to attend call outs during the day. Alternative Holiday If an employee is required to work on a public holiday, they will be entitled to a whole day off ( alternative holiday ). The purpose of an alternative holiday is for an employee who has worked a public holiday to have a day off in lieu as compensation for working on a public holiday. An employee can take payment ( cashing up ) for an alternative holiday but only after 12 months of being entitled to it. Cashing up an alternative holiday before the 12 months of entitlement will not comply with the provisions of the Holidays Act 2003. Transfer of public holidays: Employers can agree in writing with employees to transfer any public holiday to another day. The new date cannot be another public holiday and must be an OWD. Message for Employers If you would like advice regarding public holidays, annual holiday entitlements or closedowns please contact our team . Disclaimer: We remind you that while this article provides commentary on employment law, health and safety and immigration topics, it should not be used as a substitute for legal or professional advice for specific situations. Please seek legal advice from your lawyer for any questions specific to your workplace.
The team at Ashcroft Mitchell McGregor wish you a very Merry Christmas and Happy New Year and would like to thank you for your support during 2025. This year has been particularly exciting for us as we celebrated the opening of our new business venture. It’s a milestone that reflects not only our growth but also the strength of the relationships we’ve built. We’re thrilled about the opportunities this brings and look forward to continuing to work with you in the year ahead. Thank you for being part of our journey—we can’t wait to see what we’ll accomplish in 2026! Closedown Our offices will be closed from 1pm, 23 December 2025. We will re-open again on Monday 12 January 2026. If you require urgent assistance over this time, please contact the following people on the specified dates below: 23 December, 29 December ‑ 31 December 2025 : Kate Ashcroft: 021 548 856 5 January ‑ 9 January 2026: Christie McGregor: 021 0841 4220
Harassment, sexual harassment, and bullying are all workplace risks that must be managed under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 and are obligations and potential claims under the Employment Relations Act 2000 and the Human Rights Act 1993. Exposure to mental health risks (bullying, harassment, and work-related stress) made up 29% of all notifications to Worksafe in the 2022-2023 period, causing it to be the second biggest reason for notification. The issue of mental health is increasingly arising in personal grievance claims too. In several recent Employment Relations Authority/Court cases, employers have been found to have unjustifiably disadvantaged and/or unjustifiably dismissed employees where they failed to respond to bullying complaints, properly investigate, consider the impact of mental health concerns or prevent employees from being mentally harmed by the workplace. Message for Employers The best way to ensure you support a mentally healthy workplace is to have comprehensive health and safety managements systems alongside robust Anti-Bullying, Harassment and Discrimination and Wellbeing Policies. If you require assistance to improve your businesses approach to mental wellbeing, our Mental Health and Wellbeing Toolkit is a great place to start as it provides employers with guidance on dealing with psychosocial hazards in the workplace (i.e., bullying, harassment, work-related stress). The toolkit is available for a fixed price of $2,500 + GST, and includes: Risk Assessment Template and Guidance for Psychosocial Hazards; Mental Health and Wellbeing policy, covering stress management, fatigue and steps that can be taken to identify and manage mental health risks in the workplace; and Anti-Bullying, Harassment and Discrimination Policy, setting out definitions for each of these terms, examples of unacceptable behaviours and a process to follow where an incident arises. Feel like you might need some training in this area? Our team can also offer a one-hour training session , either in person or virtually at a cost of $1,500 plus GST, covering: An overview of your mental health and wellbeing obligations, including documentation and reporting; How to identify psychosocial risks; Awareness of what constitutes bullying and harassment; What practical steps should be taken; How to manage employees and what support can be offered; and Practical tips on how to manage conflict in the workplace. Disclaimer: We remind you that while this article provides commentary on employment law, health and safety and immigration topics, it should not be used as a substitute for legal or professional advice for specific situations. Please seek legal advice from your lawyer for any questions specific to your workplace.
The Supreme Court has upheld earlier rulings that Uber drivers in New Zealand are employees under the Employment Relations Act 2000 ( ERA ), dismissing Uber’s appeal and affirming the Employment Court and Court of Appeal decisions. The case centred on whether four Uber drivers were employees under the ERA. The Employment Court and Court of Appeal had previously ruled that the drivers were employees when logged into the Uber Driver app. Uber appealed, arguing it merely provided a technology platform and that drivers were independent contractors. Key Points of the Judgment Real Nature of Relationship: Uber’s contractual terms describing drivers as independent contractors were “window-dressing” and did not reflect reality. Uber exercises significant control over drivers through pricing, performance standards, ratings, and disciplinary processes. Integration: Drivers are integral to Uber’s business of providing passenger transport services. Despite owning their vehicles and choosing when to work, they lack meaningful autonomy over fares, customer relationships, and service terms. Common Law Tests Applied: Using the tests of control, integration, and the fundamental test, the Court concluded drivers are not in business on their own account. Inequality of Bargaining Power: Statutory protections exist because workers often cannot negotiate terms, making contractual labels non-determinative. Outcome: Uber must pay costs of $50,000 plus disbursements. Similar rulings have emerged globally, including the UK Supreme Court’s decision in Uber BV v Aslam and recent Australian High Court cases. While legislative frameworks differ, courts consistently emphasise practical realities over contractual labels. Key Takeaways Contractual Labels Are Not Determinative: Courts will look at the real nature of the relationship, not just what the contract says. Control and Integration Are Key: If your business sets pricing, monitors performance, or restricts autonomy, workers may be employees . Minimum Entitlements Apply: Employees are entitled to minimum wage, holiday pay, and leave, even in flexible or gig arrangements . Audit Contractor Agreements: Regularly review gig and contractor arrangements for compliance with the Employment Relations Act. Prepare for Change: Expect possible legislative reforms introducing clearer definitions or intermediate worker categories, and watch this space for progression of the Contractor Gateway law currently working through the legislative process. Read our article on this here Disclaimer: We remind you that while this article provides commentary on employment law topics, it should not be used as a substitute for legal or professional advice for specific situations. Please seek guidance from your employment lawyer for any questions specific to your workplace .
The Human Rights Review Tribunal has issued a significant decision in Cummings v KAM Transport Limited [2025] NZHRRT 8, reinforcing the critical importance of maintaining privacy on a “need to know” basis for workplace matters. Background Darren Cummings, a senior truck driver, refused a random drug test in August 2020, triggering a disciplinary process under KAM Transport’s drug and alcohol policy. Although Mr Cummings later passed a subsequent drug test, rumours began circulating within the workplace that he was a drug dealer and had been dismissed. These rumours extended beyond the company and reached a client site, causing Mr Cummings considerable distress and reputational harm. This case illustrates how even a single disclosure can escalate into widespread misinformation, damaging both employee wellbeing and employer reputation. Tribunal Findings The Tribunal found that KAM Transport disclosed Mr Cummings’ refusal to take the drug test to a non-management employee who had no legitimate need to know. This disclosure breached Information Privacy Principle 11 under the Privacy Act 2020, which restricts the disclosure of personal information unless specific exceptions apply. The Tribunal concluded that the breach caused significant humiliation, loss of dignity, and injury to feelings, meeting the harm threshold under s 66(1)(b)(iii) of the Act. Importantly, the decision emphasises that emotional harm alone—without financial loss—can justify substantial compensation. Remedies Declaration: The Tribunal formally declared that KAM Transport interfered with Mr Cummings’ privacy rights. Damages: $30,000 was awarded for emotional harm, reflecting the seriousness of the breach and its impact on Mr Cummings’ dignity. Other Claims: Claims for lost earnings and benefits were dismissed due to insufficient evidence of a causal link between the privacy breach and financial loss. This outcome signals that employers cannot assume minimal liability simply because no monetary loss occurred. Key Takeaways for Employers Limit Internal Disclosures : Sensitive information should only be shared with those who have a genuine need to know. Emotional Harm Matters: Breaches of privacy can result in significant awards for emotional harm. Policy Review: Employers should review disciplinary and drug-testing policies to ensure compliance with the Privacy Act and reinforce confidentiality obligations. Training: Consider implementing staff training on privacy principles to reduce the risk of inadvertent disclosures. How can we help? Need advice on managing privacy in employment processes? Need an updated privacy policy or manager training on privacy? We can help! Contact our team for more information. Disclaimer: We remind you that while this article provides commentary on employment law, health and safety and immigration topics, it should not be used as a substitute for legal or professional advice for specific situations. Please seek legal advice from your lawyer for any questions specific to your workplace.
New Zealand has attracted (as at 31 October 2025) 401 applications under its revised Active Investor Plus Category ( AIP ) since the category opened on 1 April 2025. The high number of high-net-worth families that have already applied indicates that these families are attracted to applying for New Zealand resident and permanent resident visas. The New Zealand new Business Investor Visa ( BIC ) launch on 24 November 2025, provides another quasi migration by investment pathway. We have set out below a summary of information on the AIP and BIC categories and subcategories. All categories have the following requirements Requirement to demonstrate the ability to earn the quantum of nominated investment funds. Requirement to demonstrate the ownership of nominated funds or assets. Requirements for investment funds to be transferred through the international banking system to New Zealand in a manner that is complaint with requirements. Health, fit and proper person, and character requirements. Both AIP Growth and Balanced Categories have the following benefits There is no age requirement/age cut off. There is no English requirement. There is no requirement to remain in New Zealand for 184 days in each 12 month period (to trigger New Zealand tax residence). Proposed exemption to buy one non sensitive residential property that is valued at NZD$5million or more. The AIP Growth Category Focuses on higher-risk investments (Growth Category) investments including managed funds and direct investments in New Zealand businesses that are assessed by New Zealand Trade and Enterprise. Requires a minimum investment of NZD $5 million for a minimum period of 3 years into these investments. While Invest New Zealand determines whether direct investments or managed funds are acceptable for this visa category, they do not endorse or guarantee the success of any investments Only required to spend 21 days in New Zealand over the 3-year investment term. The AIP Balanced Category Allows for more types of investments including: Direct investments Managed funds Listed equities Philanthropy Bonds Property developments (new residential, commercial or industrial developments or existing commercial and industrial developments Requires a minimum investment of NZD $10million for a minimum period of 5 years into these investments. Principal applicant only required to spend 105 days in New Zealand over the 5 year investment term. This can be shortened by investment into Growth investments: Nominated amount NZD $11 million (the extra NZD $1 million must be invested in acceptable Growth category investments) Time required in New Zealand by principal applicant: 91 days NZD $12 million (the extra NZD $2 million must be invested in acceptable Growth category investments) Time required in New Zealand by principal applicant: 77 days NZD $13 million (the extra NZD $3 million must be invested in acceptable Growth category investments) Time required in New Zealand by principal applicant: 63 days Requirements under the BIV includes: The Principal applicant must meet the following requirements: Age requirements that require the principal applicant to be aged 55 or younger at the time the BIV work visa is approved. English requirements. An exclusion for bankruptcy or business failure within the last five years. A due diligence requirement requiring the principal applicant understands the legal and financial position of the nominated business that will be purchased and any associated risks. A requirement to demonstrate ownership of reserve funds/assets with a quantum value of at least NZ$500,000. A requirement to have at least 3 years of paid self-employment or paid senior management experience that meets requirements. A requirement to spend 184 days in New Zealand for each 12 month period from the date the business started operation. Requirements for the business that is nominated for purchase including requirements to: Employ five people in full time equivalent positions excluding the owners of the business. Have operated in New Zealand for at least the last 5 years. Comply with New Zealand’s laws and not be on a list of excluded businesses. Requirements that allow for the grant of residence after holding a Business Investor work visa and operation of the nominated business with valuation (excluding GST and real estate value) of at least: $1 million for at least 36 months; or $2 million for at least 12 months. Under this requirement, the BIV applicants do not get a resident visa straight away and have to hold temporary visas and meet requirements before submitting their residence application. A requirement for the business that is invested into, to remain solvent, compliant with New Zealand’s laws and to create one full time role. Moving Forward Our team have previously helped clients with obtaining residence under the current investor categories and prior Entrepreneur Category. We are ready to help with bespoke and practical advice and solutions on navigating the tricky and constantly changing immigration landscape. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you need help. Disclaimer: We remind you that while this article provides commentary on employment law, health and safety and immigration topics, it should not be used as a substitute for legal or professional advice for specific situations. Please seek legal advice from your lawyer for any questions specific to your workplace.
The Employment Relations (Termination of Employment by Agreement) Amendment Bill ( Bill ) has undergone a major rewrite following Select Committee scrutiny. Originally pitched as a simple mechanism for employers and employees to agree on ending employment, the Bill now introduces a structured, highly regulated process which adds a significant amount of complexity. What does the Bill mean? The original Bill proposed adding two sections to the Employment Relations Act 2000, allowing employers to offer compensation for a mutual termination and making those negotiations inadmissible in legal proceedings. The new version includes the following changes: Formal Request Process Employers would have to make a written request to start negotiations and employees would need to consent before discussions began. Frequency Limits Requests could only be made once every six months unless there were “genuine reasons”. Termination Agreements Would have to be in writing, signed, and include specific legal statements. Agreements would be binding and could not be cancelled under contract law. Safeguards Against Unfairness There is a proposed prohibition on unfair negotiations (e.g., undue influence, diminished capacity). Breaches could lead to cancellation and penalties. Evidence Rules There are proposed rules on pre-termination negotiations remaining confidential, but exceptions would apply for unfairness or procedural defects. Key Takeaways for Employers This Bill has not yet passed, and further changes may occur before it completes the legislative process. As such, the key takeaway is “watch this space” – we’ll keep you posted. Disclaimer: We remind you that while this article provides commentary on employment law topics, it should not be used as a substitute for legal or professional advice for specific situations. Please seek guidance from your employment lawyer for any questions specific to your workplace.
