Click to view
No problem with that – seems just fine. However, in the blurb about the role, I came across the following:
Click to view
The coalition Government’s policies state there is no formal ‘partnership’ between the Crown and Māori. Even if such a partnership were considered, defining it would fall solely within the Crown’s authority, which would provide direction to government departments through legislation. Departments should not independently interpret or redefine this relationship contrary to the elected government’s position.
Despite this, MBIE promotes an interpretation of Māori-Crown relations that aligns with its own initiatives. Through personal experience, this is evident in its grant application process. For instance, applicants may be asked to outline how their projects support Māori involvement or benefit Māori communities, with questions such as whether Māori employees are involved and how the project contributes to Māori economic growth. While this aligns with strategies like He Kai Kei Aku Ringa (a Māori economic development plan introduced by the MBIE), this plan sends a divisive message. It raises concerns about whether the MBIE’s actions align with the coalition Government’s broader goal of serving all New Zealanders and fostering national unity (Coalition Government Policy Agreement, 2024).(1)
Moreover, MBIE’s approach to defining a Māori ‘identity’ within its operations appears to be internally driven, rather than mandated by the Crown. Although He Kai Kei Aku Ringa outlines objectives for supporting Māori economic success, MBIE’s interpretation of Māori identity and its application remain unclear. By advancing these independent views, MBIE seems to be stepping outside the government’s prescribed role, potentially creating a disconnect between its initiatives and the government’s unified policy approach (Coalition Government Policy Statement, 2024).(1)
Additionally, how does MBIE’s version of Māori identity differ from other government authorities? Is it assumed to be inherently positive because it is not associated with ‘white’ or ‘colonial’ identities? What are the costs – both in time and resources – of establishing and maintaining this identity, seemingly to support an ideological direction that contradicts government policy?
Recently Vivek Ramaswamy, in discussing the US election process, made the following comment.
“If you can’t fire someone who works for you, then they don’t actually work for you…you work for them.”(2)
In New Zealand, most government departments are run by CEOs who are responsible for day-to-day operations. They report to the relevant minister and are part of the broader public service leadership. There are 44 such CEOs and their average salary is approximately $496,000 per year, including base salary, employer superannuation contributions and benefits. These positions are highly sought after and it is reasonable to assume the incumbents are qualified and should be accountable. However, as discussed in a prior article regarding the Reserve Bank of New Zealand, their performance in these roles is not always aligned with government priorities, and the MBIE provides another example.
The current CEO of MBIE, Carolyn Tremain, earns approximately $555,000 per year (NZ Taxpayers Union).(3) Yet, despite her significant salary and responsibilities, she appears unable to fully implement government policy within her department.
When reviewing the ‘rich list’ of the Taxpayers Union, it’s evident that there are ideologues in positions of power within government departments – often placed by individuals or structures that oppose the current coalition policy, such as the prior Labour administration. These managers tend to perpetuate similar ideological stances to their sponsors, as seen with the MBIE and the Reserve Bank of New Zealand.
* We need to see that the coalition Government is reviewing and acting regarding CEOs who are not implementing government policy.
Many of these contracts will likely be up for renewal during this government’s term.
* It is suggested that their Key Performance Indictors be specifically aligned with government policies.
This is an opportunity the Government must seize, or it risks finishing its term achieving only superficial and short-lived achievements.
It is possible that radical solutions may need to be implemented, e.g., new applicants, not influenced by the current ideological predispositions in the bureaucracy, can be found to bring fresh perspectives – ones that might better serve the public and support the government’s policies. Isn’t a ‘diversity’ of thought what the coalition promotes and what New Zealand’s public service needs?
* The coalition Government should clearly state a CEO hiring policy that involves both accountability and a commitment to working in alignment with Crown policies.
Doing so might not only improve results but could also contribute to the coalition’s re-election prospects.
References
1. Budget Policy Statement 2024 - 27 March 2024 (https://www.treasury.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2024-03/bps24.pdf?form=MG0AV3)
2. https://x.com/VivekGRamaswamy/status/1614365044573192193?form=MG0AV3
3. https://www.taxpayers.org.nz/ceo_rich_list
Dr Michael John Schmidt left NZ after completing postgraduate studies at Otago University (BSc, MSc) in molecular biology, virology, and immunology to work in research on human genetics in Australia. Returning to NZ has worked in business development for biotech and pharmacy retail companies and became a member of the NZ Institute of Directors. This article was first published HERE
6 comments:
Ramaswamy is correct in his statement but in New Zealand they we not only have people seemingly unable to be fired they also actively work against the Governments directives.
From that advertisement it is hard to see how in fact anyone who isn't of maori ancestry could even be considered for the role.....how does that fit in with the NZ human rights act in regard to job advertising?
With applicants having complied with this blatant racism it is little wonder govt departmants are totally permeated with the pro maori doctrine. There can be few examples elsewhere in the world where subversion has been so artful.
Well overdue for a complete clean out at MBIE. Sack 'em all and see how long it takes anyone to notice!
This is but one token example. Anyone who spends anytime on Seek will see many such Maori/ToW centric adverts from a host of Govt organisations. So much for the co-alitions's "letter(s) of expectation"? It's way past time this racist propaganda ceased and more affirmative action began, or is this just another example of our gutless and appeasing PM choosing to turn a blind eye?
In a long career in Quality Assurance I often made the point that there is little point in making rules, laws etc. if the the level of compliance monitoring and enforcement (CME) was not commensurate with making sure it was being properly implemented. New Zealand and government departments/entities are probably the worst I have ever witnessed. In the armed forces I recall there was concept of "fire and forget" appropriate to a missile guidance system which does not require further control after launch. This is fine when you know that it is working s intended but in NZ but a message to our politicians - your attention to ensuring adequate CME is utterly inadequate. Giving directives out without making sure they are complied with is utter stupidity.
The Army also had a rule of thumb: never make a rule you have no intention of rigidly enforcing.
Post a Comment