“No party campaigned on amending the Equal Pay Act, and bypassing the usual legislative process has meant that there has been no Regulatory Impact Statement, no select committee process, no public consultation, no input from experts, and no opportunity for refinement of the amendments – let alone a debate about whether they were required in the first place.”
‘There’s a special place in hell for … ’
In hindsight, the repeal of the Fair Pay Agreements Act 2022 (FPAA) in 2023 and the disestablishment of the pay equity taskforce last year were telling.
At the time, Public Service Minister Nicola Willis framed the taskforce’s removal as a sign of “efficiency”. The system was so robust that central government support was no longer needed, she said. Instead, I’d argue the move was part of a broader strategy to pave the way for this month’s brutally regressive stance on gender discrimination.
Likewise, the FPAA sought to set minimum standards across low-paid industries (often women-dominated). This could have transformed working conditions for workers around pay, breaks, training, holidays, hours, health and safety, overtime, and bullying and sexual harassment protocols. Again, this marked the start of a scary trend to cut any “red tape” that limits abuses of power in the workplace.
And it’s about to get worse. Under Workplace Relations and Safety Minister Brooke van Velden, working conditions are set to further deteriorate.
No blood, no problem
This year, van Velden announced she’d secured the go-ahead to reform the Health and Safety at Work Act. Small businesses won’t be required to adhere to health and safety obligations, and notification requirements to the regulator (WorkSafe) will be limited to “only significant workplace events (deaths, serious injury, illness and accidents)”.
Van Velden elaborated: “For example, a small clothing shop would still need to provide first aid, emergency plans, and basic facilities, such as suitable lighting, but wouldn’t need to have a psychosocial harm policy in place.”
The devil is in the details, and what’s missing is literally dangerous. We’re talking about toxic workplaces, bullying, harassment, ergonomically-lacking gear that results in injuries (ahoy, carpal tunnel syndrome). Framing these issues using “only significant” is nothing short of offensive.
Even ACC reportedly advised the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment against the proposed changes, warning of higher long-term costs. Small businesses already make up three-quarters of work-injury costs, and psychosocial factors are a key contributor to musculoskeletal injuries. More injuries equals higher levies. Whether it’s ideology or ignorance, the public will foot the bill.
What’s the problem?
WorkSafe defines psychosocial hazards as how work is designed, managed and socially structured and how that can harm workers. Hazards can be categorised into three areas: work design (roles and expectations, autonomy, job security, workload), relationships (work/life balance, interpersonal relationships, leadership, support, recognition) and work environment (equipment, physical work environment, hazardous tasks, traumatic events).
We’ve all had the “I’ve looked at your calendar and I can’t see why you’re not available for a sixth redundant meeting I’ve made to flex my management muscles” to the “here’s an unmanageable workload but be sure to meditate” boss. Where do you draw the line?
WorkSafe defines bullying as “repeated and unreasonable” behaviour. But WorkSafe prosecutions appear to be nonexistent. In 2018, it was reported that only nine of the 100 bullying complaints were investigated, and no complaint resulted in prosecution.
The issue could be threefold: WorkSafe has been under-resourced, people don’t know their rights and alternative avenues, such as the Employment Relations Act, exist. All roads lead to the fact the proposed changes are moot.
For the anti-woke aficionados: a 2022 Human Rights Commission survey found that 20% of workers experienced bullying the previous year. WorkSafe says one in five and one in three workers report bullying and harassment annually. It’s a thing.
Please, not the Employment Relations Act
Enter the personal grievance regime, designed to protect those with less bargaining power from exploitation.
In last year’s case of Parker v Magnum Hire Ltd, the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) awarded $105,000 to an employee who had been subjected to bullying, harassment, an unjustified suspension and a constructive dismissal.
While psychosocial hazards and gender discrimination have been traditionally hard to prove, the deliberation (and level of compensation) was a triumph for the underdog.
Yet, like a kick to the gonads, van Velden also plans to change the Employment Relations Act this year. If the changes happen, workers making more than $180,000 won’t have any redress if they’re unfairly treated.
We may also see new compensation limits for employees who are found to have contributed to their dismissal or were at fault. The thing is, the ERA and Employment Court already consider contributory conduct when assessing remedies. Again, the issue is moot.
Ultimately, it’s a case of our parliamentarian bosses wanting their redundant sixth meeting to assert their power. We get it. But given the uneven playing field and barriers to natural justice, where’s the Government HR manager when you need them?
