During the election campaign it might have been difficult to tell the difference between National and Labour, but it isn't now.

Throughout last year, National under John Key carefully removed from the agenda issues which Labour could use to its advantage.

Anti-nuclear policy was written in stone after years of uncertainty, the Superannuation Fund set up by Michael Cullen was not going to be interfered with and Kiwibank was safe.

National was so sensitive to Labour accusations that it would cut the rate of national super that Key vowed he would resign as prime minister, and from Parliament, if the level wasn't maintained.

The strategy worked, and Labour had no "litmus test" issues it could use against National.

The term "Labour-lite" came into use, showing National as some sort of diluted version of the government that was then in power.

This didn't particularly worry National at the time because it was well ahead in the polls and knew all it had to do was stay on the track it had chosen.

Denied any strong points to work with, Labour had to rely on warnings of National's "secret agenda". But it couldn't really prove anything.

Something else National knew was that its "nanny state" criticism of Labour was succeeding, and it hyped it up for all it was worth.

There were the light bulbs that Labour was going to phase out, and the low energy shower heads people were going to be told to install in showers which were actually just one option for saving electricity but didn't come across that way.

Now, having won the election and seen its popularity increase since then, National is confidently striking out in ways that definitely do show how different it is from Labour.

The light bulb phase out was withdrawn and so were the shower heads, small initial items that were easily dealt with.

Now the serious issues are coming up and National is dealing with them very much in its own way.

Laila Harre, who was once a minister in a coalition government with Labour, was almost certainly right when she said Labour wouldn't have risked holding the jobs summit that Key ordered.

Letting private enterprise into the formation of plans to deal with the recession wouldn't have been Labour's way. It was Key's way, and he gives the impression of being in contact with the business sector in a way Labour never was.

He is also facing circumstances Labour never did, and to an extent the recession is fitting in with the natural inclinations of a National-led government.

Red tape and bureaucracy, with the Resource Management Act in the forefront, were always a target.

As businesses struggle to survive, making it easier for them to breathe is now an essential strategy. The RMA is being amended through a bill in Parliament, and there are more changes in the pipeline.

Rodney Hide, who wanted and was given the portfolio of regulatory responsibility, is working hard on it and will soon cut a swathe through what he calls senseless obstructions to growth.

Key and Finance Minister Bill English won't guarantee that the tax cuts beyond April this year will go ahead. They can't, because they don't know how long or how bad the recession is going to be.

For the same reason, they won't guarantee that contributions to the Superannuation Fund will be maintained at the current level.

And now the big ticket item is on the agenda. Changes are going to be made to ACC and Labour, at last, has something to bite on.

Treasury's failure to include ACC's ballooning liabilities in the pre-election fiscal update proved to be a gift for the incoming government.

It blames former ministers for concealing the multi-billion shortfall in the years ahead, which they vigorously deny, and as it hasn't got any money anyway the Government can justify having to raise levies to crippling levels or do something about the cover ACC provides.

ACC Minister Nick Smith says raising levies to the level that would be needed meet the shortfall is unacceptable, and he wants a "dialogue" with New Zealanders over the sort of cover they think ACC should deliver.

Labour has accused Smith of setting out a worst-case scenario and saying "this is what is going to happen" without considering other ways to fund the scheme.

The debate has only just started. It will intensify as the Government's intentions become clear and the extent to which ACC is opened up to competition is known.

And, at the weekend, National reversed a policy dear to Labour's heart. The decision to bring back Knights and Dames marked a fundamental, ideological difference between the two parties.

There is no more Labour-lite, if there ever really was, and National is setting a course of its own.

In doing so, it will test the skills of Labour's new leadership. Phil Goff is being given the opportunity to raise his profile and that of his party. He is too experienced a politician to miss it.