New Zealand has lined up alongside the United States to vote against the first binding global agreement on the rights of gig economy workers, a stance the Opposition says has left the country isolated and out of step with most of the democratic world.
The vote came at the International Labour Organisation’s annual conference in Geneva, where delegates from governments, employers and unions adopted a new Convention on Decent Work in the Platform Economy on 12 June. It is the first treaty of its kind anywhere, written specifically for the millions of people who earn a living through apps that dispatch food deliveries, rides, cleaning jobs and freelance digital work. The convention passed overwhelmingly, with 406 votes in favour, eight against and 36 abstentions. New Zealand and the United States were among the handful of countries that opposed it.
The new standard sets out minimum expectations for platform workers around the world. It pushes governments to stop companies wrongly classifying workers as independent contractors when they function as employees, and it calls for fair pay, protection from unsafe conditions, access to social security, and rules around the way algorithms hire, manage and dismiss people. The ILO cannot force any country to act, but ratifying nations are expected to write the standard into their own law, and member states can be hauled before complaints procedures if they fall short.
For a country that helped build the ILO and has long prided itself on its labour record, the decision to oppose the treaty has drawn sharp criticism. Green Party workplace relations spokesperson Teanau Tuiono said the government had embarrassed New Zealand internationally by lining up with the United States and big global tech companies, and that the vote showed the government was out of step with the rest of the world. He pointed out that New Zealand had voted against protections supported by Australia, Japan and France, countries this government usually counts as close partners.
The vote does not sit in isolation. It follows a major rewrite of New Zealand’s own employment law earlier this year that moved in the opposite direction to the new global standard. The Employment Relations Amendment Act 2026 took effect in February and created a new four-part gateway test for deciding whether a worker is an employee or a contractor. In practice the change made it far harder for gig workers to argue they are employees, and it was widely read as a direct response to a landmark court case the platforms had just lost.
Only months earlier, in November 2025, the Supreme Court had thrown out Uber’s appeal and upheld a ruling that four of its drivers were employees rather than contractors, a decision that opened the door to sick leave, minimum wage and holiday pay for thousands of drivers. The new law effectively reset that fight. Officials had advised Workplace Relations Minister Brooke van Velden against restricting workers’ ability to challenge their employment status in court, but the reporting found she pressed ahead with changes that closely mirrored reforms the platform companies themselves had drafted.
Tuiono argued that the international vote and the domestic law change tell the same story, saying the earlier reform had stripped Uber drivers and gig workers of the right to challenge their status as contractors. Unions made similar warnings when the bill went through Parliament. As the legislation was debated for the final time, the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions called it a dark day for working New Zealanders, warning that the most vulnerable workers would carry the cost.
The government’s position reflects a genuine philosophical divide rather than simple indifference. Ministers and employer groups have argued that the flexibility of contracting is part of why platform work appeals to so many people, including students, parents and those wanting to top up other income, and that a rigid international rulebook risks locking in obligations that do not suit a fast-moving part of the economy. The United States made much the same case in Geneva, objecting to a prescriptive binding convention in a sector that is still changing shape. Supporters of that view say New Zealand is free to design its own settings without being bound by Geneva.
The counter-argument from unions and the Opposition is that flexibility and basic protection are not opposites, and that the convention was deliberately written to allow both. They say a delivery rider can keep the freedom to choose their hours while still being guaranteed a floor under their pay and some cover when they are hurt on the job. The question for voters is which of those readings they find more convincing.
That question is no longer abstract. With the general election set for 7 November, the rules governing work, contracting and the gig economy are shaping up as one of the clearer dividing lines between the major parties. Labour and the Greens have signalled they would restore stronger protections for platform workers, while the National-led coalition is defending the deregulatory direction it has taken. Readers who want to see where each party stands on workplace rights and other issues can compare them using Newswire’s voting tool.
For now, New Zealand has chosen not to sign up to a standard most of the world has embraced. Whether that turns out to be principled caution or a misstep that ages badly will depend a great deal on what voters decide in November, and on whether the next government feels bound to revisit the call.
What do you make of New Zealand voting against the global gig worker treaty? Have you worked through a delivery or ride app and felt the gap in protections yourself? Share your view in the comments below.
This article was written by AI, briefed to report the facts, hopefully without some of the bias people bring to the job 🙂
Leave a Reply