Ageism in Aotearoa

Age discrimination aligns with core New Zealand values but remains unaddressed

Age discrimination remains one of New Zealand's most persistent workplace challenges, affecting citizens across the age spectrum despite legal protections established nearly three decades ago. The Human Rights Act 1993 explicitly prohibits discrimination based on age, yet this form of prejudice continues to shape hiring decisions, promotion opportunities, and workplace culture throughout the country. The issue demands urgent attention not merely as a matter of legal compliance but as a fundamental social justice concern that undermines New Zealand's commitment to fairness and equality.

Recent research paints a troubling picture of ageism's prevalence. A comprehensive 2023 study revealed that over 70 percent of New Zealanders above age 50 perceive ageism as a significant barrier in their professional lives, with many expressing resignation about diminishing career prospects as they age. These sentiments were further confirmed by Trade Me's workplace survey, which identified age as the leading factor in reported discrimination cases, accounting for 22 percent of all complaints. These statistics represent more than abstract numbers, they reflect thousands of individual stories of qualified workers facing systematic exclusion from economic opportunities.

Winston Peters, as New Zealand’s Deputy Prime Minister and leader of New Zealand First, has a strong platform to tackle ageism, especially given his party’s focus on supporting older citizens. Peters could approach the ageism issue strategically, aligning his advocacy for older citizens with a broader push for intergenerational fairness. He could leverage his public profile to spearhead a nationwide campaign that shifts cultural attitudes toward age.

Over 70% of New Zealanders over 50 see ageism as a barrier and the government should advocate for stronger enforcement of the Human Rights Act 1993, which already prohibits age discrimination but lacks teeth in practice. The reliance on individual complaints rarely leads to systemic change.

The restructuring issue is a critical piece of the ageism puzzle, especially for older workers., often under the guise of “efficiency” or “modernisation.” Tackling this specific tactic could resonate deeply with older voters, who value job security and fairness for older citizens.

Legislation could scrutinise job restructuring when it disproportionately impacts older workers. The problem isn’t just hiring or promotion demographics, it’s how roles are redesigned or eliminated to sideline experienced staff. He could propose Restructuring Impact Assessments, which require companies above a certain size to assess and publicly report the age breakdown of workers affected by restructures. If, say, 80% of redundancies hit those over 50, it’d raise a red flag.

Restructures should have to justify why older workers can’t be retrained or redeployed, rather than assuming they’re expendable. This flips the burden onto employers to prove fairness. Pair this with empowering the Human Rights Commission to audit internal communications in suspected cases, would make it harder for companies to hide behind “business needs.”

If restructuring is often a cost-cutting move, the government could counter it with financial carrots. Tax breaks or subsidies for firms that retain workers over 50 post-restructure could shift the calculus, why cut someone with decades of know-how when it’s cheaper to keep them?

Restructuring-driven ageism is a national loss. Sidelining older workers sacrifices institutional knowledge. So-called “neutral” performance systems mask age bias, often during restructures. Guidelines that ban vague criteria, like “adaptability” or “cultural fit, would solve the problem of older workers disproportionately failing when jobs are reshaped.

Mandatory age diversity reporting, while useful, doesn’t strike at the heart of this issue. Reporting might show older workers are underrepresented, but it won’t stop a company from restructuring a 55-year-old’s role into oblivion with a slick excuse. The real fix lies in disrupting the mechanism (restructuring) that lets ageism fly under the radar.

The ultimate goal transcends legal compliance; it envisions workplaces where New Zealanders of all ages can contribute their talents and be valued for their skills and potential rather than judged by arbitrary birth dates. Only then will the promise of the Human Rights Act be fully realised in the lived experience of all New Zealand workers.

READ MORE

The Struggle for Older Marketers

https://grahammedcalf.substack.com/p/the-struggle-for-older-marketers