No list of businesses to back Willis’ work-from-home stance

Public Service Minister Nicola Willis cannot name any businesses that support the Government’s work-from-home directive, despite saying data is critical to understanding the subject. 
Last month, Willis and Prime Minister Christopher Luxon instructed public sector employers to re-evaluate their work-from-home arrangements. 
The pair repeatedly cited similar suggestions from a mixed group of everyday workers, office heads and overseas examples – but never mentioned specifics. 
Willis said remote work had contributed to a drop in foot traffic and general slowdown of Wellington’s CBD. At least “that’s what a lot of cafe owners say to me, that’s what a lot of small business owners say to me”, said Willis, “and I say to them, ‘Look, I can’t prove that’s the case right now’.”
Willis also said she had had more than one public servant privately raise their worry about “the damage widespread working-from-home arrangements has had on their workplace culture and the performance of their team”. 
Despite her anecdotal support, Willis still maintained that data collection was a key step to “see what’s really going on”. Without it, she said, “it’s hard to say how prevalent working-from-home arrangements really are in the public service”. 
But that data was not collected before the announcement. The Public Service Commission was tasked with supporting agencies to collect and analyse data on their workspaces for regular reporting during the same press conference.
Now, a response to an Official Information Act request reveals Willis did not hold any official meetings or receive correspondence with businesses calling for the work-from-home directive.
The OIA request asked Willis for a list of “businesses who have been ‘lobbying’ the Government” for such changes. Willis’ office was unable to respond to the request, because the information did not exist.
The response showed the directive was inspired by anecdotal evidence rather than official meetings or data. A spokesperson for the minister confirmed the decision “was informed by conversations with members of the public”, of which no records were kept.
The Government’s coalition agreement includes a commitment to making decisions based on data and evidence. However, communities have pushed back against a range of policy decisions not supported by evidence, such as decisions to raise speed limits, loosen smokefree legislation and revamp freshwater policy. 
This work-from-home directive has similarly drawn criticism from the union representing the public servants who’ve been told to get back to the office.
During the original announcement last month, Willis used phrases like “many public servants will say …” or “I have been told personally by …” nine times during the announcement to justify the Government’s directive. 
Despite the phrasing of the Official Information Act request, Willis never said she had been “lobbied” by any business – only that individuals had anecdotally complained about empty offices and a loss of interpersonal moments.
However, the response confirmed she had not received any official correspondence from businesses, nor followed up the public conversations with meetings with those businesses.
In addition, no data existed on how many public servants worked from home or from the office on any given day, making it difficult for the Government to know how much change was needed and where.
During the press conference, Willis set out a plan for the Public Service Commission to collect this data. But the minister was clear in her instructions: “If it’s possible for you to work in the office, you should.” 
Willis and the Prime Minister bemoaned the loss of social interactions in the workplace, something they saw as integral in training up the rising professional class. 
But they also supported work-from-home arrangements in some cases, so long as they were tailored to specific needs. Young parents or those in more flexible positions were mentioned, but the announcement specifically targeted managerial roles in its call for a return to the office.
Duane Leo, National Secretary of the Public Service Association, said “once again with work from home, we see the Government rushing decisions in the absence of the evidence to support them”.
Though there was no data held on the size and scope of working from home, Leo said the advice provided by the Public Service Commission – the same body Willis tasked with finding the data – “was strong on evidence on the many advantages of WFH, but silent on the disadvantages”. 
The Public Service Commission did not respond in time for publication of this article.
Leo’s association led a protest outside Parliament last week, attended by thousands of public sector employees. Many of the signs critiqued the cuts to public sector funding made by the Government. 
In the wake of the cuts, Leo said the work-from-home announcement showed the Government “again pursuing poor decisions which impact the public service and how it supports New Zealand”.
Meanwhile, Simon Arcus, chief executive of Wellington lobby group Business Central, said though the wider subject may be complex, his organisation’s stance was clear: “We have encouraged our public and private sector employees to be present in the city because we know that footfall is key to the survival of retail and hospitality venues.” 
He said working in the city would “save jobs and businesses”. 
Arcus provided some anecdotal evidence of his own, and said his team “come into the office by choice because they enjoy the culture and collegiality”. 
Arcus’s team, which he said was “heavily skewed towards a younger demographic”, were precisely the kind of person Willis and the Prime Minister said had much to lose by not working from the office: “That’s not good for their careers, ultimately,” said Luxon.