Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and the Government formally apologised to the survivors of abuse in care yesterday after the Royal Commission released its report into abuse in state care in July this year. The Commission said the “unimaginable” and widespread abuse in care during the review period — 1950 to 2019 — amounted to a “national disgrace”. It said an estimated 655,000 children, young people and adults were in care during that period with an estimated 200,000 being abused and even more neglected.

The Royal Commission recommended the establishment of a “holistic” redress system, the provision of financial compensation for victims and other redress such as changing the names of places linked to abuse and perpetrators. While the final report does not suggest how financial compensation should be structured, it recommends the Government look at the compensation made to survivors in other comparable countries like Australia. The report mentions Australian court cases where survivors were awarded multimillion-dollar payouts, with one survivor receiving compensation of AU$5.9 million.

Now that the long-awaited apology has been delivered, where to for the victims of abuse? 

New Zealand does not need to look far for a model to address the Royal Commission’s recommendations for a “holistic” redress system and the provision of financial compensation for victims. Māori have long complained about breaches by the Crown of the Treaty of Waitangi, leading to generations of loss. The Waitangi Tribunal was established in 1975 to hear contemporary Māori claims of breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi. Its jurisdiction was extended in 1985 to consider claims about any alleged breach of the Treaty since 1840. Those historical breaches raised more complex issues for settlement.

Those earlier settlements lead to the National Party developing the controversial “fiscal envelope” policy in 1994 with an arbitrary limit of $1 billion being put on the total of all settlements by the Government. Iwi were already resigned to the reality that any economic redress would only represent a fraction of the actual historic loss. “We wanted a sufficient settlement to enable our people to move into full participation in New Zealand society and culture” said Tā Tipene O’Regan, the lead negotiator of the Ngāi Tahu settlement. “On the other hand, we had no wish to bankrupt the society that we wished to become a part of.” The controversial “fiscal envelope” quietly disappeared and Treaty settlements continue.

Another model to look to might be our employment institutions – the Employment Relations Authority and the Employment Court. They are tasked to make determinations of fact, and if appropriate, make decisions on the damage done in employment relationships, particular in relation to claims for unjustified dismissal. Those institutions have a limited range of remedies. They have the power to stop damage being done, or preventing further damage being done (injunctions). Where damage has been done they have the power to award a limited number of remedies (usually being lost wages, compensation, and a contribution to legal costs). Those remedies are usually limited to up to 3 months’ wages and compensation on a scale that the courts have developed in recent years that seldom exceeds $50,000.

Without derogating from the impact of breaches of The Treaty on generations of Maori and the suffering and abuse of many victims in the Crown’s care, the impact on an unjustified action by an employer on a worker can have devastating impact on that worker, including his family. Workers health may be damaged at work; workers health may be damaged by the termination of their work; workers self-esteem and confidence can be damaged. Those impacts may go on for years. It may go further, families can struggle to survive on one income; families may have to relocate from their established support networks; children may have to be sent to school without lunch or breakfast.

When a worker is injured or dies at work, the Crown has agencies such as ACC that may be able to assist with covering lost income or providing some compensation for the loss. WorkSafe may prosecute the employer and reparation awards may be made to the worker or his family.

Maybe loss of freedom should be a model to look at? Alan Hall spent nearly two decades in prison after being convicted for murder. When he was finally acquitted by the Supreme Court in 2022 he was compensated for his loss of freedom by the Crown with a payment of nearly $5 million.

So how will the Crown address the issue of compensation that the Royal Commission has recommended, and will it ever be enough? Read more...

Employer’s are quite good at identifying issues in the workplace by instinct – does it meet the “sniff test”; does something smell “fishy”? Recent revelations suggest that some government policies and their implementation have something “off” about them -they smell.

Associate Health Minister Casey Costello, who is also the Customs Minister, has cut excise tax on Heated Tobacco Products (HTPs) by 50 percent from 1 July, claiming that it will be a more attractive alternative to smoking. The changes were silently implemented on the Customs website.

Treasury and Ministry of Health have both given the Minister advice contrary to her claim that HTPs "have a similar risk profile to vapes". In fact officials from both agencies have advised her that HTPs are more harmful than vaping, and that there is no evidence that they are significantly safer than cigarettes or that they work as a quit smoking tool. The Minister claims she received other "independent advice" to support the changes.

The Minister finally released her “independent advice”. The five papers are said to be an “opinion piece” and four scientific reports that are not applicable to the New Zealand context, being out of date, or relate to products other than heated tobacco products. On that basis former Health Minister Ayesha Verrall has made a complaint to the Auditor-General saying the “independent advice” fell well short of the "synthesis of scientific reports" that usually constitute public health advice.

Similarly, following the Uber Court of Appeal decision which upheld the Employment Court decision that Uber drivers are employees, the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, Brooke van Velden, outlined proposed changes to the laws on independent contractors. It is reported that the proposed changes are very similar to the position advocated by Uber when it met with the Minister in May this year.

The government is accused of copy and pasting Uber's “solution” on contractors - and adopting it as official policy. The Minister rejects any suggestion of preferential treatment and claims she has taken on a broad range of advice in developing the changes. In support of her contention, she claims that the proposal put forward by Uber was "very different" because it was not a "retrospective law or rule change which was in that original proposal".

Not surprisingly, the Council of Trade Unions disagreed strongly, it’s President Richard Wagstaff saying "You only have to read what they've put forward here and what the minister announced and they're virtually the same. Picking out the smallest changes really doesn't excuse the overall impression here that they've followed Uber's instructions."

RNZ analysed companies and shareholders associated with 12 fast-track projects under the government’s fast track legislation and linked them with more than $500,000 in political donations to National, Act and New Zealand First and their candidates. Those projects include a quarry extension into conservation land and a development whose owner was publicly supported by National MPs during a legal battle with Kāinga Ora. Two also donated to NZ First or Shane Jones, and two donated a total of $150,000 to Act within the same period.

Those donations at least raise the perception of potential conflicts of interests. The Minister, Chris Bishop, in a written statement explained the process for managing the conflicts. Ministers who declared an interest with a particular project “left the room for any discussion at Cabinet Committee or Cabinet relating to that project”. He said that “details regarding conflicts of interest are not generally disclosed in order to ensure the confidentiality of Cabinet proceedings, to maintain the effective conduct of public affairs and, in some cases, to protect personal privacy. This has been the approach of successive administrations”. With respect Minister, seldom has such draconian power been devolved to three government ministers to bypass laws that every other New Zealander (and overseas interests) need to work through.

Employers and employees are obliged to address the “smell test” through the obligation of good faith that is at the heart of employment relationships. Good faith provides that parties to an employment relationship must deal with each other in good faith; and must not, whether directly or indirectly, do anything to mislead or deceive each other (or do anything that is likely to mislead or deceive each other). It is wider in scope than the implied mutual obligations of trust and confidence.

If Ministers wish to be seen to be acting in good faith and to avoid the perception that they are misleading or deceiving the public, maybe they should be more forthcoming and front foot issues more often. They should also have meaningful protocols to deal with the perception of conflicts of interest. Like employment relationships, it does not look good when problematic documents are finally released through channels such as the Privacy Act or the Official Information Act. Read more.....

Interviews for employment are problematic. The employee wants to impress; often the employer wants to impress too. All too often the hard questions are not asked. There is a chance for the employer to recover through reference checking. All sorts of other checks are available; police checks, medical checks, psychometric testing. Some minor criminal convictions do not need to be disclosed if prospective employees meet the requirements of the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act.

But there is no general duty on job seekers to reveal potentially relevant material about themselves voluntarily. It is only if the employer has asked, and the potential employee has chosen to answer, that the answer must be honest and full. So for good measure, the employer will often throw in a clause about representations (and non-disclosure of relevant information) in the employment agreement.

A recent decision of the Employment Court shows that the ”representation and disclosure” clause in the employment agreement, may not offer the protection the employer thinks.

Brendan Ford was employed by a small, family owned construction company, Henry Brown and Company Limited. It’s sole director, Mr Brown, was scheduled to undergo surgery. Mr Brown and his wife, Ms Muir, advertised a project management role and Mr Ford was one of eight people who applied. Ms Muir took the lead in terms of the recruitment process. Her evidence was that during the interview process she twice rang Mr Ford and on both occasions Mr Ford advised that he had left his previous employment because of relationship issues with the area manager and health and safety concerns. Mr Ford disputed that and said the questions centred on his “fit” for a small, family owned company and that his conversations with Ms Muir, and later Mr Brown, were very informal and relaxed.

Mr Ford provided the names of some referees when asked. One of the referees contacted had been a colleague of Mr Ford’s but was not Mr Ford’s manager. The referee also told Mr Brown that Mr Ford left the company because of “issues with the general manager” and “health and safety”. Ms Muir also telephoned a referee and her notes record that Mr Ford had received a “glowing report”. The company was satisfied with the references and offered Mr Ford employment.

Their employment agreement contained a standard clause relating to representations:

In appointing you we have relied on your representations as to your qualifications and experience. You confirm that those representations are true and correct and that you have disclosed everything, which if disclosed, may have been material to our decision to employ you. You also acknowledge that we may take disciplinary action against you, including dismissal, if your representations were misleading or incorrect.

It was not long before issues began to arise, both from Mr Ford’s and the company’s perspective. Mr Ford emailed Mr Brown and Ms Muir advising that he was notifying a personal grievance in respect of the company’s approach to health and safety issues. A further grievance of bullying was raised later by him.

From the company’s perspective, they were concerned about Mr Ford’s behaviour and the manner in which he was interacting with staff, themselves, subcontractors and clients. They tried again to contact Mr Ford’s referee. They were told that the referee no longer worked at Mr Ford’s previous employer and the previous employer said that Mr Ford had been fired and that the company would be better off without him.

The company dismissed Mr Ford saying he had misrepresented himself when applying for the role and was in breach of the “representation” clause in his employment agreement.

The Employment Relations Authority determined that Mr Ford was justifiably dismissed. It said that the clause required Mr Ford to disclose how his employment ended with his previous employer.

The Chief Judge in the Employment Court disagreed and considered that Mr Ford had been unjustifiably dismissed. The Chief Judge commented on the clause saying “How would a prospective employee know what “may” be regarded as relevant to the employer and accordingly what they had to disclose? What of information that an employer is not lawfully permitted to ask about or rely on when making hiring decisions, but which the employer might regard as relevant? Would family commitments, health issues, an historic criminal conviction be relevant?”

All too often employees try to fudge why they have left a previous role. They do not have a duty to say why they are no longer in that role. It is the potential employer that must drill down and ask the hard questions. The onus now sits more firmly on the employer to do its due diligence properly before employing a new employee. Read more...

The usual line taken by government Ministers is that they do not get involved in operational matters. But the latest meddling in operational issues is playing out around the pros and cons of working from home. Public Service Minister Nicola Willis has directed the public service to tighten up on working-from-home arrangements.

The directive does not appear to be evidence based and seems more motivated towards assisting small hospitality and retail businesses in Wellington’s CBD. Understandably, the move has been welcomed by some Wellington businesses, who have complained that the work-from-home culture has made it difficult for businesses in the city.

However, the opportunity to work from home has become more of a necessity for workers in Wellington and other larger centres with many workers struggling to make ends meet. High inflation has significantly pushed up the cost of servicing mortgages or paying rent. The cost of living crisis has significantly pushed up everyday costs such as food and petrol. The government has removed half price fares on public transport, the cost of parking is exorbitant, road user charges have been introduced for electric vehicles and there is even serious discussion about introducing congestion charges in the larger centres. Even a day or two working from home can make a difference to a family’s finances.

Not only are many workers struggling, there appears to be little confidence in the job market. The latest Westpac-McDermott Miller Employment Confidence Index fell by 2.2 points from 91.4 to 89.2 in the September quarter. That is the lowest reading since New Zealand emerged from the first Covid-19 lockdown in 2020. Pessimism is even lower in Wellington where the impact of government directed job cuts in the public service continues to take its toll.

In support of the Public Services directive the Prime Minister said he wanted a “highly productive and collaborative” public service. “I do not want to see working from home, undermining that ambition that we have” he said, adding he was worried young graduates did not have the opportunity to learn from senior public servants because they were working from home. In reality, those young graduates that have survived the job cuts are probably more worried about retaining their jobs than concentrating on their career development in a public service where public service is not valued and they are witnessing careers being cut short by government directive.

By way of contrast, the new UK government is pushing back against their previous government’s attempts to get workers back in the office, having directed officials to spend at least 60 per cent of their time, or three days in a week, in the office. The new Business Secretary, Jonathan Reynolds, has backed remote working, saying it is good for the economy because people are more productive when they are 'happy at home'. Other Ministers such as the Transport Secretary Louise Haigh and Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner have told staff they support 'flexible working'. Their comments have been interpreted by civil servants as a 'relaxation' of the drive to force them back to the office.

Anecdotal research, particularly by recruitment firms, show that flexible working arrangements, including being able to work from home, are an important benefit for employees. Research earlier this year by Robert Walters showed that flexible working is a significant drawcard for employees. Forty percent of those surveyed would look for a new job if their employer made them return to the office five days a week, while a further 33 percent would if their work-from-home days were reduced. 

For the significant number of businesses that have provided working from home opportunities since the Covid-19 lockdowns, the issue may not be easy to resolve. For many businesses the way work may be undertaken has changed, and employees have increased expectations around a work/life balance.

The starting point is that the ability to work from home is not usually a contractual right that can be enforced. Employment agreements are required to provide a location where the work will be performed, which will usually be the business premise. However, many businesses will have implemented working from home type policies. Even more businesses will have negotiated directly with employees regarding their working arrangements. Employees are likely to have been recruited on the basis of the promise of providing the opportunity to work from home.

Employees also have the right under the Employment Relations Act to request flexible working arrangements, and employers are required to deal with such requests in good faith. It makes it harder to refuse such a request in good faith if there is clear evidence that a working from home arrangement has worked well and there have been no concerns over the employee’s performance.

The government’s directive to significantly cut the public service has had a huge impact on the moral of public servants. The directive to work from the office will further deepen that impact and make the retention and recruitment of those valued staff that the Prime Minister wants to mentor the public services new recruits that much harder. Read more...