Bob Edlin: Rainbow requirements and Treaty obligations......

......the HR issues that impede productivity but enhance diversity

PoO noted a Newsroom report headed Major export and construction firms warn against legal definition of women.

The report draws attention to objections raised to the Legislation (Definitions of Woman and Man) Amendment Bill, which aims to amend the Legislation Act to define “woman” as “an adult human biological female” and “man” as “an adult human biological male”.

We are all born one or the other – but the amendment would be problematic?

Apparently so.

NZ First MP Jenny Marcroft, who introduced the bill, and its supporters believe it provides much-needed clarity and certainty in New Zealand law.

But Newsroom reports:

Employers including Fletcher Building, Silver Fern Farms and Orion have warned Parliament that defining sex in law would create workplace uncertainty, compliance risks and recruitment challenges.

Fletcher Building, employing about 9000 people, submitted against the bill, saying it introduces ambiguity and operational risk from an employer perspective.

Whoa.

By making clear who is a woman and who is a man, the law would introduce ambiguity into the law?

Umm! That’s what we are being told.

Clarification would produce complication for the “human resources” teams – or their equivalent in businesses that have no HR team – which have worked out ways of meeting the requirements of diversity, inclusiveness, and what-have-you.

According to some submissions, the Bill threatens to undo those developments.

The Fletcher Building submission, written by chief health and safety officer Wendi Bains and operations manager Sean Park, says its policies were aligned with current legal frameworks and had been developed to support a diverse workforce.

These policies include an inclusion and diversity policy, human rights policy, gender affirmation leave, and transitioning at work guidelines.

The submission says:

“A rigid binary definition of ‘man’ and ‘woman’ risks creating a disconnect between how workplaces are required to operate and practice. This divergence creates compliance uncertainty for employers who must reconcile statutory definitions, human rights interpretation and internal policies aligned with best practices.

“For example, policies such as gender affirmation leave and transitioning guidelines rely on recognising gender identity in practice. A narrowed legal definition will create uncertainty in how such policies are applied, removing their effectiveness immediately and creating inconsistency across our organisations, and a disconnect to the lived reality of employees.”

Significantly, the submission says there is substantial evidence that employee wellbeing, engagement, and productivity are directly linked to inclusive and respectful workplace environments.

Is productivity improved, when employers must accommodate gender affirmation leave and “transitioning guidelines”?

Silver Fern Farms, New Zealand’s largest red meat processing and marketing outfit, also recommended the bill be thrown out.

A submission made by its rainbow community group, with the endorsement of the wider company, said there was no demonstrated need for the bill, which could hurt the country’s odds of attracting future talent.

Does that refer to the “talent” offered by people who can’t be legally defined as women or men? And if so, just who are those people?

The submission further says the company has made public commitments to diversity, equity and inclusion, and the legislation might directly undermine those commitments and the culture they reflect.

The submission from Orion New Zealand, a council-owned lines company based in Christchurch, similarly said the bill would detract from efforts to maintain safe, inclusive, and respectful workplaces where people are treated with dignity.

The word “efforts” is worth emphasising.

In New Zealand, employers are legally and socially required to recognise a slew of stuff nowadays.

Failures can result in penalties being imposed by the Employment Court.

Employment obligations include recognising a bicultural framework established by the Treaty of Waitangi. Increasingly, the Employment Court expects workplaces to integrate tikanga – or “customary values” – rather than treat them as token gestures.

This calls for recognition that Māori employees are frequently asked to take on extra, uncompensated cultural duties, such as performing welcomes, giving blessings, or translating.

Employers are advised to recognise and respect this workload to avoid employee burnout.

Under the Human Rights Act and the Health and Safety at Work Act, employers must maintain an environment free of racial harassment, exclusion, and “harmless” cultural jokes.

According to WorkSafe New Zealand, health and safety rules (like wearing PPE) take priority over cultural attire. But employers are legally obligated to engage with the worker to find creative alternatives—such as alternative safety gear or modified duties—before restricting them from work.

Then there are varied needs for bereavement or religious holidays.

Taking time off for a tangihanga – or any cultural funeral custom – is managed under bereavement leave, which is governed strictly by the Holidays Act 2003.

Employees qualify for paid bereavement leave after working for an employer for six months.

• Three days of paid leave is triggered by the death of an immediate family member (spouse/partner, parent, child, sibling, grandparent, grandchild, or partner’s parent). This also applies to miscarriages and stillbirths.
• One day of paid leave is triggered by any other death outside immediate family.

But for a tangihanga, an employee might want to attend the death of someone outside the Western definition of “immediate family” (an aunt, uncle, tribal elder, or close community member, for example).

Employers therefore might have to weigh up:

• Whether the employee has specific cultural or whānau obligations to help run the tangi, support the marae, or sit with the deceased.
• The significance of the relationship, regardless of biological distance.

When the bosses are having to invest so much time into these “human resource” matters, and their staff are making the most of what the law allows, we should not wonder for too long why our productivity statistics are so shabby.

Bob Edlin is a veteran journalist and editor for the Point of Order blog HERE.