Judith Collins says “no one should go to work thinking they got picked because of their ethnicity, their gender, their sexual orientation, or their age”. Photo / Mark Mitchell
Judith Collins says “no one should go to work thinking they got picked because of their ethnicity, their gender, their sexual orientation, or their age”. Photo / Mark Mitchell
Public Service Minister Judith Collins is expected to report to Cabinet this month to update ministers on her quest to scrap diversity requirements from the wide-reaching Public Service Act. But Newstalk ZB can reveal not every government agency is on board with the minister’s call.
A briefing sent to JudithCollins from the Public Service Commission outlined numerous comments from the agencies set to be affected by her proposed law change that are pushing back.
It included the Ministry for the Environment, which said that if diversity, equity, and inclusion provisions were removed, there was a “risk of negative perception”, while the Ministry for Pacific Peoples warned Collins that a “decentralised approach to diversity” would result in “fragmentation and inefficiency”.
Green Party public service spokesman Francisco Hernandez said Collins’ moves were “another effort to bring some of that imported culture war BS to New Zealand”.
When asked about the pushback, Collins said, “No one should go to work thinking they got picked because of their ethnicity, their gender, their sexual orientation, or their age.
“They should all know that they’re there for the right reasons, which is on merit, and nobody should have to apologise for who they are when they do their job.”
Other government agencies gave similar feedback.
The Department of Conservation added it “disagrees” with the proposed changes, because diversity and inclusion were “important for living standards, inclusion [and] trust”.
Numerous concerns were laid out by the Ministry for Pacific Peoples, which explained to Collins that diversity and inclusion had “levelled [the] entry point” for Pasifika people in the public sector.
The agency suggested moving diversity requirements out of the Public Service Act and to a Government Workforce Policy Statement (GWPS) risked a “legal challenge” under both the Human Rights Act and Employment Relations Act, which it said “require equal employment opportunities”.
The Ministry of Defence suggested that removing the aforementioned provisions might mean agencies would not “cast the net” as widely when appointing people to roles.
Hernandez pointed to a moment when Collins was before the governance and administration select committee for scrutiny week and was unable to give an example of a non-merit-based appointment. He called it “quite frankly, embarrassing”.
“The purpose of equity policies [is] actually to promote merit, or actually to promote groups that usually wouldn’t get a look in,” Hernandez said.
“The public service works best when it looks like the communities it’s designed to represent. I mean, we wouldn’t want, for example, a Parliament of just 123 people from Dunedin.”
Numerous Government departments gave feedback on proposals to change diversity and inclusion requirements.
A separate briefing to Collins noted the proposals were consistent with the coalition agreement between the National Party and Act.
The February briefing, also from the Public Service Commission to the minister, said it understood Collins was concerned there was “not sufficient focus on merit” when chief executives were being appointed.
The commission’s paper noted that at the time, the minister wanted advice on removing diversity and inclusion requirements in those instances.
The Public Service Commission told the minister that diversity policies are most suited to large groups of people, “like the public service”, where it said many societal groups can be reflected.
Collins was then told that some departments were known as “population agencies”, where they relate directly to one or more groups in society.
“In these cases, knowledge of that community, relationships within that community and respect and trust of that community may be critical to the successful performance of the role. These attributes would be included in the position description for the role and therefore assessed as part of ‘merit’ or being most suited to the role,” the briefing read.
The commission’s paper went on to state that it would be possible to remove diversity requirements for public sector bosses while still considering relationships with specified communities when looking at population agencies.
When asked for a statement on the matter, the Ministry for the Environment pointed to an email sent from Environment Secretary James Palmer to Public Service Commissioner Sir Brian Roche in March.
Palmer wrote that removing diversity and equity matters would not reduce much effort in terms of chief executive responsibilities.
He noted such matters could be picked up in a workforce policy statement, but highlighted risks with the proposal.
“I think their removal from the Public Service Act risks sending a signal that we don’t value diversity and pay equity, and the need for the public service to reflect the populations it serves. In other words, the downside of these proposals risk[s] outweighing the benefits in practical terms.”
Te Puni Kokiri, which recommended diversity and inclusion remain an expectation for chief executives, said the paper’s summary was an accurate representation of its feedback.
The Ministry for Pacific Peoples said that as decisions on the amendments were under active consideration, it was unable to comment further.
Azaria Howell is a multimedia reporter working from Parliament’s press gallery. She joined NZME in 2022 and became a Newstalk ZB political reporter in late 2024, with a keen interest in public service agency reform and government spending.
