Recently Shane Jones, a senior minister in the coalition government, said in an online video he would never agree with a "butter chicken tsunami" coming to New Zealand as a result of the India Free Trade agreement. Another politician, Auckland mayor Wayne Brown, recently referred to an RNZ staff member of Indian descent as "a Muslim terrorist" and commented on his beard while being escorted into the building for an interview.

To his credit, Mayor Brown apologised soon after and explained that the comments were a "fumbled attempt at humour". Minister Jones says his parliamentary colleagues have told him to tone down his language but he doubled down saying that he gets "cut-through on debates by deploying hyperbole".

The Human Rights Act provides that it is unlaw to incite hostility against, or bring into contempt, any group of people on the grounds of colour, race, ethnic or national origins. There is a high threshold to meet, because of the importance of the right to freedom of speech. Sometimes it only meets the test of “awful but lawful”.

In the workplace, under the Human Rights Act and the Employment Relations Act, an employee is racially harassed if the employer uses language or visual material that directly or indirectly expresses hostility towards the employee, and that it is hurtful or offensive to the employee, and it negatively impacts their employment, job performance or job satisfaction.

According to a Broadcasting Standard Authority 2026 report on offensive language, the most unacceptable terms in New Zealand often relate to race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation, with high sensitivity towards derogatory language used in public or media contexts. “Nigger” continues to have the highest sensitivity. The other top seven most totally unacceptable words across all contexts (considered totally unacceptable by half the sample) are primarily racial and cultural insults. They include “cunt”, “chink”, “faggot”, “gook”, “curry muncher” and “cocksucker”.

Recently, Simplicity’s chief economist Shamubeel Eaqub, co-authored a report on Social Cohesion in New Zealand for the Helen Clark Foundation. It revealed New Zealanders are becoming less comfortable with immigration. When commenting on the report Mr Eaqub was quick to clarify that the focus was only on “some immigrants”, namely, Indians and Chinese; “So it’s a very particular type of opposition to immigration. I don’t think it’s immigration, per se. I think it’s much more of a rise of racism that sits underneath it.” He went further saying “I think we have to call it what it is. I think sometimes using words like ‘immigration’ softens the blow, and gives us permission to speak about it as if it’s not a human on the other side of it.” He described Jones’ “butter chicken tsunami” as “clearly racist”.

According to the 2023 Census, there were slightly over 250,000 people identifying as Indian in New Zealand, the third largest ethnic group in New Zealand.

It is not Mr Jones first time. After an immigration announcement at the NZ First party conference last year the minister said the most common baby names had become "Singh, Patel" but "no one campaigned on it".

Shanti Patel, newly elected president of the Auckland Indian Association, said she was deeply saddened by Jones' latest comments. New Zealand historian Harpreet Singh when asked how such remarks by politicians impacted the Indian community in New Zealand said "from a mental health perspective, you feel excluded", “it affects job prospects, it affects kids at school, it affects hate in the workplace”, “it creeps into society and it affects everybody.”

So how did our government react. The Prime Minister says comments Minister Jones comments are unhelpful, but he stopped short of saying whether he thought they were racist. Pushed on whether he thought the comments were racist, Mr Luxon said it "doesn't sound right," and it was "alarmist" and "unhelpful" language.

Finance Minister, Nicola Willis, was more forthright. “It offended me and let me tell you, it has offended New Zealanders”, “Shame on you, Shane Jones”, “that kind of race-based rhetoric has no place in New Zealand politics”. Good on you Ms Willis!

The Trade Minister Todd McClay says Indian media questioned him about Mr Jones' "butter chicken tsunami" comment when he was in India signing the Free Trade Agreement. He says he told them the New Zealand First MP was entitled to say what he wanted - but it was not a widely held view.

The Leader of the Labour Party, Chris Hipkins, called out Mr Jones comments saying if he were Prime Minister he would not put up with Shane Jones' "racist" comments. "There is no room for racist rhetoric in any government that I lead".

Unlike the Auckland mayor, Minister Jones appears unrepentant, and is clearly targeting a well-established ethnic community in New Zealand. Employers are expected to model behaviours that do not include racism or racial harassment, and to deal with any complaints of racism or racial harassment in the workplace. Do we really expect better standards of our employers and workers in New Zealand’s workplaces than we do from the leaders of our country? In “management speak” principles and values should be a “bottom-line” not a “nice to have”. As leader of our government, shame on you Mr Luxon for allowing this type of behaviour in our government. Read more...

The decision of the High Court in Tony Gibson’s appeal against his conviction and sentence in his personal capacity as an executive of Ports of Auckland Ltd (POAL) has important lessons for directors and senior managers who are in significant positions of influence in business.

In the past decade, New Zealand has had 18 deaths and 397 reported injuries in its ports. Stevedoring has the second highest rate of fatalities of any industry in New Zealand. Pala'amo Kalati tragically became one of those fatalities when a container fell and crushed him while he was working at POAL in 2020.

POAL was convicted and fined over $500,000 over Mr Kalati’s death. Tony Gibson was the Chief Executive of POAL at the time. He was also charged over Mr Kalati's death under the Health and Safety at Work Act (HSWA). After a seven week trial he was found guilty and was fined $130,000 and ordered to pay $60,000 in costs. This was the first conviction of a director or executive of a large New Zealand company under section 44 of the HSWA which imposes personal accountability on directors and executives for workplace safety.

Mr Gibson appealed his conviction and sentence.

By many measures POAL is large and complex organisation. It provides a range of services; marine (pilotage and tugs); cruise ships (berthage, exchange and security); multi-cargo (transmission shipment to the Pacific Islands of cargo, bulk commodities and vehicles); container terminal services (handling 700,000-900,000 containers each year); and engineering and trucking logistics support. In 2020 it had five primary business units and employed approximately 650 people and contracted various third parties.

Befitting its size and complexity, POAL had a developed management structure. The business was supported by a specialist health and safety team (of 10 full-time employees led by a senior manager who reported directly to POAL’s Deputy CEO/Chief Financial Officer). It had committees, document management and electronic data systems, external auditors and advisers and collaboration with other ports. While these had been developed over years it was also subject to continuous improvement.

The trial Judge made it clear in his decision that the fact that POAL had breached its primary duty of care under the HSWA (to ensure, so far as reasonably practicable, the health of safety of its workers) did not lead to a conclusion that Mr Gibson failed in his duty. They are separate duties. A business can breach its duties despite proper efforts by its officers/managers to do all that they can reasonably have been expected to do in the circumstances, having regard to what the officer/manager knew, what they ought to have known, and their ability to make or influence decisions in relation to the relevant matter.

Dealing with “systems leadership”, the trial Judge noted that in any large organisation effective systems are key to health and safety management. He said, as CEO, Mr Gibson was required to engage in effective systems leadership. He had a responsibility to ensure the resources and processes in place ensured compliance with POAL’s duties under the HSWA. That required him to ensure that the information he received reflected work as done or “what people are doing on the ground”.

Both the District Court and High Court judgments emphasised the remarkable leadership of Mr Gibson during his tenure. They are the stuff of a really good CV; by his actions and leadership a number of health and safety initiatives were introduced at POAL that “were positive and enhanced workplace health and safety”; he shouldered a “significant additional burden”, and went to “significant efforts” to look after his staff during the COVID-19 pandemic; the Board considered Mr Gibson’s response to those unprecedented times had been exceptional, showing leadership qualities of mental tenacity to keep calm, stay on track and ensure that everyone was informed and engaged, while demonstrating an outstanding level of commitment and dedication to staff.

The High Court accepted the evidence that frontline staff knew Mr Gibson. They volunteered that he was a “really good, good person”, who led positive change and made POAL less hierarchical. He was a respected boss. He also had the support of the Board and was “considered to be a good leader who was dedicated to the port and its staff”.

But the High Court decision emphasised points made in the District Court judgment. Although Mr Gibson did not have actual knowledge of stevedores engaging in unsafe practices or cutting corners on the night shift, he was on notice at least from late 2018 following an earlier fatality, that POAL had demonstrated ongoing difficulties in adequately monitoring “work as done”. As CEO, Mr Gibson should have been aware that appropriate systems and processes needed to be put in place to address POAL’s previous failures in that respect. This was confirmed by a report to the Board in 2019 which included a table setting out numbers of incidents, near misses and non-compliance, but also stated “it is likely this table is not reflective of actual events occurring within POAL operational areas due to lack of overall reporting indicating a lack of monitoring of “work as done”.

The High Court decided to uphold Mr Gibson’s conviction and sentence.

Mr Gibson resigned from POAL in June 2021. Tragically, a further stevedore at POAL, aged 26, died in April 2022 after being crushed by a container.

Health and safety is not just about policies and systems, it is about ensuring that work is monitored “as done”, not just as set out in policies and systems.

It is all to easy to “pooh pooh” health and safety, but in New Zealand both workers and employers must do better.  Read more....

Mr Luxon, our Prime Minister, is keen on numbers. The National Party came into power by capturing approximately 38% of the votes. According to the Electoral Commission, in 2023 there were 3.6 million registered voters (out of a population of over 5 million). National secured just under 1.1 million votes to get into power.

Mr Luxon is also great on KPIs (key performance indicators – great for reviewing performance, or more particularly, poor performance). A quick overview; Education (or should that be education with a small “e” – it’s hard to know with all the changes to the curriculum); Health (ohhh dear, but at least National knows that its voter base is more likely to be able to afford private health insurance); Law and Order (ICE worked out well in the US didn’t it, how about "move-on" orders to assist our poorest and most in need people by preventing them from engaging in “disruptive behaviour” such as begging and sleeping rough in town centres); Race Relations (Trump was keen on a wall, maybe National thought it could sit on top of a wall before deciding which side to jump down on; Beneficiaries (National’s plan was to slash benefits to make them get back into work – unemployment was roughly 4% in December 2023, it now sits at 5.4% in December 2025 and is tipped to rise even higher).

Maybe Mr Luxon’s legacy will be the changes to employment law that National has supported. Another quick overview.

The availability of trial periods of up to 90 days has been extended to all employers, and not confined to employers with less than 20 employees. Great in theory for employers who want to try out employees, but unfortunately the risks of dismissing an employee during a trial period remain.

Following the Uber decisions on whether Uber drivers are employees or contractors, the law was amended to introduce a “gateway test” which was said to provide more certainty in contracting arrangements. Of course there was little uncertainty for our courts - our Employment Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court all found that the Uber drivers were employees. Remarkably, the changes to the law look very similar to the changes that Uber had suggested to the Minister as a solution to the adverse decisions against it.

To be fair, not all changes are targeted at the working poor. Employees earning more than $200,000 or more per year have been stripped of the right to bring a personal grievance claim if they are unjustifiably dismissed.

For those employees that are able to bring a personal grievance claim if they are unjustifiably dismissed, they have been stripped of two important remedies if they contributed to their dismissal. The employee cannot be reinstated, and the employee will not be able to receive any compensation for any hurt or humiliation they have suffered. They can still claim lost wages, but that is usually capped at three months lost wages.

Perhaps the most damning of the employment law changes were those to pay equity laws. Effectively overnight the government made changes to the legislation that mean that 33 existing pay equity claims were cancelled, and the bar for future claims was significantly raised. Female-dominated workforces which are generally considered to be underpaid in comparison to those dominated by men will continue to be undervalued. Those claims were in some of our most valued occupations - Plunket nurses, community midwives, hospice nurses and health care assistants, primary care nurses, nurses in residential care. 

The Finance Minister said the changes meant savings of about $12.8 billion over four years. Mr Luxon has admitted that the changes to pay equity laws will save the government “billions of dollars” but he now says that this was not the motivation for changing the legislation. It is hard to see what other motivation the government may have had.

As of 1 April 2026, the government increased the adult minimum wage by 45 cents to $23.95 per hour. More realistically, the independently set living wage rises by 95 cents to $29.90 per hour. Even more realistically, a recent report by ASB economists says that households face a $55 a week rise in living costs this year, partly because of the Middle East conflict.

National came to power on a platform of Blame, Blame, Blame and tiny tax cuts that are costing $14.6 billion over four years. “Our plan is carefully targeted to ensure that those who will benefit the most are working New Zealanders. It’s about time they got some relief from Labour’s cost-of-living crisis and National will deliver that to them”, Mr Luxon said. The irony is that we are still waiting Mr Luxon.

If Mr Luxon was an ordinary working New Zealand employee no doubt he would be on a PIP (Performance Improvement Plan) by now. Actually no, if Mr Luxon was an employee he would earn more than $200,000 so he couldn’t challenge his dismissal if he was fired. But politics are even more brutal than our new employment laws. Mr Luxon’s final performance review will be in November this year. Current polling indicates that it is ranging between “unsatisfactory” and “needs improvement”. Read more...

For years, tikanga Māori has increasingly been recognised by our courts and legislation. The most recent significant case was the Supreme Court decision on whether Peter Ellis, under tikanga, would have a right to clear his name or re-establish his mana, even if dead. In Māoridom, mana and reputation carries on in whakapapa, rather than an individual's life.

It now seems that other cultural values may have to be considered in employment relationships. This month the Employment Court found that Pasifika values had been breached when it found that two employees, Mr John Faitala and Mrs Vohanoa Vea, were unjustifiably dismissed for redundancy reasons in June 2023.

The Pacific Island Business Development Trust is a long-standing not-for-profit organisation. Its objectives are to support Pasifika people to thrive in business and employment. It considers itself a trusted partner of Pasifika communities.

The position descriptions for Mr Faitala and Ms Vea both referred to Pasifika culture and values in its workplace. It wanted successful applicants to be fluent in one Pacific language and/or have cultural capability and understanding. For values, it focussed on Respect, Community and Reciprocity as cornerstones.

In evidence the Trust accepted that these values were pillars of the Pasifika community and that they are intrinsically embedded in Pasifika individuals. Mr Faitala and Ms Vea also confirmed that Pasifika values and principles are deeply ingrained into who they are, and that it shapes the way they conduct themselves and interact with others. Mrs Vea spoke of the importance of treating others with respect and dignity, and that respect is reciprocated. Mr Faitala also testified to the shared and universal Pasifika values of treating others how you would want to be treated and how this shaped how he conducted himself in all his interactions with others.

In early 2023 Ms Los’e was appointed as the Trust’s new chief executive to lead changes within the organisation. To meet identified challenges the Trust proposed that five roles would be disestablished, including Mr Faitala and Mrs Vea’s roles. It also proposed that nine new roles be established – with the potential for affected staff to be redeployed into the new roles should the proposal go ahead.

When the Trust decided to go ahead with the restructure Mr Faitala and Mrs Vea claimed that there were numerous instances of unjustified disadvantage in the consultation process by the Trust, including the failure to observe Pasifika values. The Trust acknowledged that it fell short in regard to observing cultural values but aspects of the process exhibited cultural understanding and empathy. The Court agreed with Mr Faitala and Mrs Vea that the Trust failed to comply with its obligation to adhere to Pasifika values when conducting its restructuring process and that the values had been expressly incorporated into the parties’ employment agreement.

Mr Faitala spoke to the importance of his culture to him. He was raised in Niue and his Niuean culture is central to his identity. He is part of the Pasifika community in Aotearoa, he lives his life consistent with Niuean values and refers to carrying with him core values of “integrity, honesty, kindness, fairness, courage and strong work ethics”. Mrs Vea gave evidence that being born and raised in Tonga that Tongan culture and Pasifika values are woven into her life. She gave evidence of how proud she was of her senior position at the Trust and the respect she received in the community because of this role.

Tikanga has already been increasingly recognised in the employment jurisdiction. For example, in Pact Group v Robinson the employee said that as a Māori her mana was being impacted by the disciplinary process the employer was undertaking. The Judge agreed and referred to Utu “the action undertaken in reciprocity”, and its link to mana. To show and reciprocate generosity enhances mana and strengthens relationships, whereas the failure to give or receive utu diminishes the mana of both parties to the relationship. The Court said the company failed to reciprocate the care, empathy and consideration she was expected to bring to her own role as a community support worker for the company.

In GF v Comptroller of the New Zealand Customs Service the Employment Court found that because Customs had incorporated tikanga and tikanga values into its policies and employment relationships, they were relevant. The Court said “the tikanga/tikanga values identified in this case seem to me to sit entirely comfortably with an area of law which is relationship-centric, based on mutual obligations of good faith, and focused (where possible) on maintaining and restoring productive employment relationships.”

Substantial awards were made by the Court to Mr Faitala and Ms Vea. Mr Faitala was awarded six months lost remuneration and $30,000 compensation. Mrs Vea was awarded one years lost remuneration and $45,000 compensation.

Diversity is often promoted and supported in the modern workplace. It is often said to focus on recognising, respecting, and valuing differences in background, gender, age, disability, and ethnicity to foster innovation and belonging. By positively promoting it in the businesses policies and recruitment processes employers should be aware that celebrating that difference may be used as a sword by the employee down the track. Conversely, not having a diversity policy may limit the pool of potential best talent for the employer to choose from. Read more....