The cover of MBIE’s new Workforce Diversity Action Plan shows nine staff holding signs reading “I belong” in several languages. Inside, it declares itself “People-centred | Performance-driven | Evidence-informed”.
Treasury’s plan appeared a few weeks after MBIE’s. Both are organised around the same three focus areas. Both culminate in the same heading “Apply the merit principle comprehensively”.
That emphasis is no accident. The coalition Government, unlike its predecessor, has removed diversity and inclusion requirements from the Public Service Act and entrenched merit-based appointments. The new vocabulary reflects that message, but the measures remain the same.
At least five strategies guide MBIE’s plan. They range from Kia Kotahi Mai on inclusion and belonging to Whāinga Amorangi on Māori-Crown relations. Staff complete modules on unconscious bias, bullying and the rainbow community. Progress feeds into quarterly dashboards.
Treasury’s catalogue runs from its He Ara Waiora tool kit and an Accentuated Programme for ethnically diverse women to guest speakers on menopause, a drop-in group for staff with neurodivergent family and its Rainbow Network’s annual Bake Sale.
Most planned actions merely extend existing work. The verbs give it away: embed, align, integrate, continue, refresh.
Treasury reports that its pay gaps for the same or similar roles are “negligible or nil” after concerted effort. That is a real achievement. Fairness demands equal pay for equal work, and Treasury has delivered it.
MBIE reaches a similar conclusion, attributing its remaining pay gaps to “workforce and progression patterns rather than unequal pay for the same roles”. On the agencies’ own analysis, the headline gaps measure differences in workforce composition, not discrimination.
And so, both plans leave me puzzled.
Are the agencies saying they still have a problem to fix? MBIE invokes “barriers to advancement” without naming one. Treasury cites “systemic factors” it admits it does not yet understand.
Are they doing anything differently from a few years ago? The refreshed headings suggest change, but the same old programmes suggest otherwise.
And how does any of it help the departments fulfil their missions? MBIE exists to support economic growth, and Treasury advises the Government on it. Treasury’s own performance review rates its economic advice “weak”, its other core functions merely “developing”.
After years of economic stagnation, neither department is short of core work. Yet their plans are documents about themselves: their strategies, networks, modules and dashboards.
On my reading, neither department has any remaining diversity deficiencies. Which is fantastic, of course.
But it should also eliminate any need to produce more of these action plans.