Good reasons for insisting on NZ work experience

Would it be a good move to make illegal an employer's demand for New Zealand experience in job applicants? Dr MARIE WILSON is associate professor of management at the University of Auckland, research director of the ICEHOUSE business accelerator and a veteran of 20 years in corporate management and small business.

What do you think of the idea of making it illegal to use "New Zealand experience" as a criterion for excluding someone from a position?

In Australia, where I am, the question, "What Australian experience do you have?" seems never to be asked. The result is that Australia is winning the brain exchange race hands down, despite its stricter-than-New Zealand immigration policies.

In my case, despite being a New Zealand citizen, I lacked New Zealand experience, so eventually gave up looking for work and came to Australia, with my Australian employer paying my family's removal expenses.

My two daughters, who are soon to be university graduates, say, "Dad, the best thing that happened to us was you not getting work in New Zealand."

So they are lost to New Zealand, too. Peruse the secondary school vacancies advertisements of the New Zealand Education Gazette and you'll see many of them have a New Zealand experience or equivalent caveat.

Twice a month, year after year, such advertisements are published. By contrast, in my just over four years in Australia I have never seen a teaching position advertised with an Australian experience requirement appended.

I do not think New Zealanders are racist, but suffer from a cultural insularity whereby they just cannot be bothered relating to anyone whose culture is outside their common experience.

Making it illegal to ask would do little to address the employer (or consultant) assumption that only local experience prepares you for a job.

If you are going to screen on this factor, intentionally or subconsciously, then where someone has worked is all too obvious on their CV.

There are many reasons that employers may want New Zealand experience.

At one level, they are often trying to decode CVs and figure out what someone can really do, discounting for deception.

It may be harder to verify overseas qualifications and experience, or systems and titles may be different enough that the employer is unsure.

Many err on the side of caution and exclude anyone of whom they are unsure. This may be addressed, at least in part, by applicants who provide detailed information and proof of expertise.

Employers may also want New Zealand experience because the system (curriculum requirements) or laws (employment requirements) are key elements of the job, and a detailed knowledge must be present in advance of employment.

If the employer hires someone without the skills required to do the job, they may end up having to upgrade the knowledge base of the person, an additional expense they may be unwilling to commit.

In this case, short-course or or more formal preparation may be required to fill gaps in local knowledge.

Employers have an existing responsibility to determine what is required for job performance and to look for the best applicant without regard to their race, ethnic origin, gender or other discriminatory grounds.

Employees also have responsibilities to assess job requirements and present their abilities as fully as possible to document their fitness for the job.

This is not to underplay the difficulties that new immigrants have in finding work.

Both New Zealand and Australia have "brain drain" issues, and look to the "brain exchange" of talented new migrants to make up the talent gap for economic growth.

I work for an Auckland company that provides marketing consulting strategies to businesses. I have decided to go out on my own and provide similar services.

However, when I started here, I signed a two-year non-competition clause in my contract. I thought then that I would never go out on my own, so I didn't pay much attention to it.

How enforceable are these contracts? Have you heard of people being thumped for ignoring them?

In general terms, any reasonable contractual term can be enforced, but you should probably review the specifics of both your contract and what you intend with your legal adviser.

And, yes, I know of people being thumped for breach of them. These contractual terms are put there precisely to prevent the kind of activity that you outline.

It's perfectly understandable from the company point of view: why would they want to develop your skills, increase your profile, teach you their systems and introduce you to their clients, only to have you convert all of this to your own use?

Check with your adviser to see if what you intend is a breach of your agreement.

If so, you may be able to negotiate your way out of the clause, or change the nature of your business so that you are not a competitor.

New Zealand Education Gazette

* Email your questions for Dr Marie Wilson to answer.