Act wants to remove 'good employer' requirements in public service 'reset'

The Act Party is proposing to remove “good employer” requirements from public service legislation, while also prohibiting agencies from resourcing any cultural or spiritual practices in the workplace.

The party is today announcing how it plans to “reset” the public service around what it calls the “basic principles of equal treatment, individual freedom, political and religious neutrality, and accountability for results”.

The election proposals go further than the reforms the coalition Government has already made to public service legislation, which included repealing provisions to promote diversity and inclusiveness.

“To unlock New Zealand’s potential we need one law for all, and one future together,” leader David Seymour said. “That starts with a public service that treats people as individuals, hires the best people for the job, and delivers services according to need.”

On the chopping block under Act is Section 73 of the Public Service Act, which requires the chief executives of Government departments to operate an employment policy that complies “with the principle of being a good employer”.

According to the legislation, to be a “good employer” is to have a policy “containing provisions generally accepted as necessary for the fair and proper treatment of employees in all aspects of their employment”.

These are listed as including “the impartial selection of suitably qualified people for appointment”, “good and safe working conditions”, and “an equal employment opportunities programme”.

It also mentions recognising the “employment requirements” of certain groups, like Māori, women, and people with disabilities. The need for “greater involvement of Māori in the public service” is also listed.

A similar section found in the Crown Entities Act would also be repealed if Act got its way after the November 7 election.

Act leader David Seymour says the focus should be on delivery for the public. Photo / Anna Heath

Seymour said these sections contained “race-based hiring requirements”.

“The public service should have the same employment rules as any other business,” Seymour said.

“Health and safety, non-discrimination, and disability rights are already covered elsewhere in the law. Public service jobs should go to the best person for the job, regardless of race. Hiring and promotion should be based on merit, skills, experience, and what the role actually requires.”

Seymour told the Herald that Section 73 of the Public Service Act was “about the public service having its own agenda of social engineering for its own sake within the workplace, rather than the main purpose of delivering for the public”.

He said he was “proud” of what the Government had achieved with its changes, but the continued existence of Section 73 meant “we’ve got a lot further to go”.

Act would also legally enforce that public services base their delivery of services on “need, not race”. That’s currently laid out in a Cabinet circular – essentially a formal notice – but Act would put it into law.

“Agencies will be required by law to follow the principle, and decisions that breach it could be challenged through judicial review,” said Seymour. “If two New Zealanders have the same need, they should be entitled to the same treatment from Government.”

The circular, issued in September 2024, said the Government was “concerned that in the absence of clear expectations, agencies may use ethnic identity or other forms of personal identity as a proxy for need, and therefore a justification in itself for targeted services”.

The next step in Act’s plan is to prohibit public service agencies from “initiating or resourcing cultural or spiritual practices as part of the workplace”.

“Public servants will remain free to practise their own religion, culture, or traditions in their own time, with reasonable accommodation where appropriate,” Seymour said.

The Act leader said workers should not “be expected to take part in a prayer, karakia, or other spiritual practice because they work for the Government”.

“Taxpayers should not be required to fund staff time or other resources for employer-initiated spiritual activity either.”

There has previously been controversy over cultural practices – like karakia – being resourced at some government agencies.

Act would also remove “irrelevant cultural requirements from public service jobs”.

“A person applying to work for the Government should be judged on whether they can do the job, not their knowledge of particular cultural concepts, values, or worldviews unless there is a genuine occupational reason for doing so.

“Act will direct public service agencies to remove those requirements from job advertisements and position descriptions where they are not relevant to the role, through a clear letter of expectations to the Public Service Commissioner and a Cabinet circular.”

The party says these changes are an “immediate start”, but the problems with the public service legislation “go deeper”.

It is suggesting there could be a “future rewrite” or a “wider reset of the Public Service Act to ensure neutrality”.

The Herald asked Seymour how that desire for a neutral public service squared with Act’s policy to allow ministers to appoint chief executives and remove them for specified reasons, like non-performance or policy misalignment.

He said that in terms of political neutrality, a minister could “abuse that”, but they would “face a consequence” for doing so.

It was in a minister’s interest to “appoint someone that will be effective, just like another employer”, Seymour said.

“If you’re a minister appointing a chief executive and you appoint someone that you like, but is not good at the job, then you are going to very quickly get in trouble as a minister.”

However, when it came to “cultural and spiritual neutrality, right now there is no safeguard for a worker who wants to just go and do their job and not be forced to affirm beliefs or participate in rituals that they don’t actually want anything to do with”.

Jamie Ensor is the NZ Herald’s chief political reporter, based in the press gallery at Parliament. He was previously a TV reporter and digital producer in the Newshub press gallery office. He was a finalist in 2025 for Political Journalist of the Year at the Voyager Media Awards.