ACTs Treaty Principles debate has clarified a lot of things we never understood before in New Zealand. For example, Kiwi Blog report, "Taxpayers are funding 20 Future Leader Fellowships. Each one is worth over $800,000 so [that's] $16 million from taxpayers. MBIE has delegated decisions on who gets them to the Royal Society of NZ. Their criteria are:
* At least 20% must go to researchers who are Māori
Professor Robert MacCulloch holds the Matthew S. Abel Chair of Macroeconomics at Auckland University. He has previously worked at the Reserve Bank, Oxford University, and the London School of Economics. He runs the blog Down to Earth Kiwi from where this article was sourced.
* At least 10% must identify as Pacific ethnicity
* At least 50% must go to researchers who identify as female"
David Farrar, pollster for the Nats & owner of Kiwi Blog, says this is "identity politics" so its "Time for the Government to act!" But the Nats can't act. The Royal Society is not playing identity politics. Its abiding by NZ's constitutional framework, as newly outlined by our Kings Counsels in their letter to the PM. They state, "This [Treaty] principle recognizes the Crown’s obligation to treat Māori equitably with other groups & to achieve equitable outcomes". They declare the principle to be part of NZ's "constitutional arrangements".
Consequently, the Royal Society is abiding by the most basic, fundamental legal imperatives of the nation, according to our law profession. "Equitable outcomes", which form part of them, is an extremely strong requirement. The use of the word "outcomes" means it is an unambiguous necessity for the Society to reserve at least 20% of their Fellowships to Māori since Māori make up around 20% of the population - and outcomes, such as who wins fellowships, must be in the same proportion.
However, our judiciary have no clue of the effect on jobs and livelihoods of their philosophizing. Most economists prefer the aim of "equal opportunities", which would mean ensuring different people have similar opportunities to apply for fellowships. That aim may justify out-reach programs for the disadvantaged & provision of support to help them send an application. All applications would then be assessed on merit. But NZ's law profession has ruled that our Royal Society - any organization in NZ for that matter - is heavily constrained as to the degree to which decisions can be made on meritocratic grounds - since merit leads to different outcomes for different people and groups.
Should the PM, on reading Kiwi Blog's advice, tell the Society to stop race-based funding, the Society is obliged to refuse. Why? Its following not only the law - but constitutional law. The PM, in declaring he will kill ACT's Principle's Bill, stated on national TV such matters must be decided "issue by issue". That means should he ask the Society to stop & it refuses, the only way to resolve things is to take this "issue" to Court. Who'd win? The Society. It would invoke our "constitutional arrangements" that include a requirement of "equitable outcomes". NZ's lawyers must love the PM for saying all decisions in the nation must now be decided issue by issue with regard to their implementation of The Principles. That means endless court cases, litigation & NZ bankrupting as productivity goes to zero. The only winners are lawyers for whom every contentious "issue" means litigation, money & fees.
Sources: https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2024/11/royal_society_tells_asian_and_european_male_researchers_to_stuff_off.html
https://www.royalsociety.org.nz/what-we-do/funds-and-opportunities/tawhia-te-mana/mana-tuapapa/information-for-applicants/
https://www.chrislynchmedia.com/news-items/kings-counsel-call-on-government-to-withdraw-proposed-treaty-principles-bill-citing-constitutional-concerns/
David Farrar, pollster for the Nats & owner of Kiwi Blog, says this is "identity politics" so its "Time for the Government to act!" But the Nats can't act. The Royal Society is not playing identity politics. Its abiding by NZ's constitutional framework, as newly outlined by our Kings Counsels in their letter to the PM. They state, "This [Treaty] principle recognizes the Crown’s obligation to treat Māori equitably with other groups & to achieve equitable outcomes". They declare the principle to be part of NZ's "constitutional arrangements".
Consequently, the Royal Society is abiding by the most basic, fundamental legal imperatives of the nation, according to our law profession. "Equitable outcomes", which form part of them, is an extremely strong requirement. The use of the word "outcomes" means it is an unambiguous necessity for the Society to reserve at least 20% of their Fellowships to Māori since Māori make up around 20% of the population - and outcomes, such as who wins fellowships, must be in the same proportion.
However, our judiciary have no clue of the effect on jobs and livelihoods of their philosophizing. Most economists prefer the aim of "equal opportunities", which would mean ensuring different people have similar opportunities to apply for fellowships. That aim may justify out-reach programs for the disadvantaged & provision of support to help them send an application. All applications would then be assessed on merit. But NZ's law profession has ruled that our Royal Society - any organization in NZ for that matter - is heavily constrained as to the degree to which decisions can be made on meritocratic grounds - since merit leads to different outcomes for different people and groups.
Should the PM, on reading Kiwi Blog's advice, tell the Society to stop race-based funding, the Society is obliged to refuse. Why? Its following not only the law - but constitutional law. The PM, in declaring he will kill ACT's Principle's Bill, stated on national TV such matters must be decided "issue by issue". That means should he ask the Society to stop & it refuses, the only way to resolve things is to take this "issue" to Court. Who'd win? The Society. It would invoke our "constitutional arrangements" that include a requirement of "equitable outcomes". NZ's lawyers must love the PM for saying all decisions in the nation must now be decided issue by issue with regard to their implementation of The Principles. That means endless court cases, litigation & NZ bankrupting as productivity goes to zero. The only winners are lawyers for whom every contentious "issue" means litigation, money & fees.
Sources: https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2024/11/royal_society_tells_asian_and_european_male_researchers_to_stuff_off.html
https://www.royalsociety.org.nz/what-we-do/funds-and-opportunities/tawhia-te-mana/mana-tuapapa/information-for-applicants/
https://www.chrislynchmedia.com/news-items/kings-counsel-call-on-government-to-withdraw-proposed-treaty-principles-bill-citing-constitutional-concerns/
Professor Robert MacCulloch holds the Matthew S. Abel Chair of Macroeconomics at Auckland University. He has previously worked at the Reserve Bank, Oxford University, and the London School of Economics. He runs the blog Down to Earth Kiwi from where this article was sourced.
6 comments:
* At least 20% must go to researchers who are Māori
* At least 10% must identify as Pacific ethnicity
* At least 50% must go to researchers who identify as female"
So, 'you' only have to 'identify' as pacific or female, but you must be a maori.
Is there a definition of what is a 'maori'?
What you're saying about the Royal Society also applies to Creative NZ, NZ on Air, The Film Commission as well as countless scholarships.
It's interesting how the judiciary, lawyers, public servants and the media all go on about the Bill of Rights and various UN charters when it comes to gangs, iwi and criminals in prison, but when it comes to that basic human right, against racial discrimination, then they're all strangely silent when ordinary law abiding New Zealanders are affected.
So it's official then, we live in an apartheid state.
Someone had better inform the UN.
This is exactly why the legislature rules over the judiciary. Change the law.
What a stupid and entirely avoidable pickle we've allowed to develop when woke DEI ideology is to the fore. One can only assume our judiciary has also practised what it preaches and that's why we've arrived at where we're at? Time to drain the swamp and appoint and allocate only on merit. As for our PM, I thought he was a businessman - clearly not one that's had to be too innovative with productivity and performance in mind. And, since when is 17%, 20%, and why don't our Asian and other ethnicities count? Apartheid - indeed.
Speaking of that august body, the United Nations, tell them to cease the war between Ukraine and Russia; Israel and the Hamas, etc. and other skirmishes around the planet, or keep out of our affairs. Surely the very name of that organization means just that, just the same as the Tea Party Maori, who are not in parliament to help better the whole country, but to aid a minor bunch of miscreants!
Kevan
Post a Comment