A clause quietly embedded in a collective agreement at Oranga Tamariki should alarm anyone who still believes the public service is meant to operate on neutral ground.
Revealed this week by Duncan Garner, the provision grants Māori staff discretionary paid cultural leave that is self-defined, open-ended, and explicitly protected from managerial scrutiny. Attendance at land court hearings, iwi or hapū meetings, cultural performances such as Te Matatini, and other obligations determined by the individual qualify. The list is deliberately non-exhaustive.
Non-Māori employees with community, religious, family, or cultural commitments must use annual leave, leave without pay, or whatever goodwill a manager is prepared to offer. One group receives an automatic, protected benefit. Everyone else manages as they always have.
That distinction matters. This is not flexible workplace policy applied evenly. It is a race-based entitlement written into a taxpayer-funded agency responsible for the care of vulnerable children.
The clause goes further than granting leave. It removes oversight. Managers are instructed not to define or limit what constitutes a cultural obligation. Decisions are to defer to lived experience. Declining leave is implicitly framed as breaching Treaty values. “Discretionary” exists in name only.
This structure creates pressure, not trust. It turns ordinary management decisions into moral tests and makes questioning the policy professionally dangerous. A current Oranga Tamariki staff member felt unable to raise concerns internally for fear it could cost promotions, opportunities, or their future in the organisation. That fear alone should have stopped this policy in its tracks.
Workplaces already accommodate competing obligations every day. Church leaders, volunteer responders, migrant families supporting overseas funerals, religious minorities observing non-public holidays, parents dealing with childcare emergencies. None of this is new. The difference has always been that these responsibilities were managed under the same leave framework for everyone.
This policy breaks that principle. It elevates one identity above all others inside the same organisation.
Supporters will call this equity. It is not. Equity does not mean granting permanent advantages based on ancestry while others absorb the cost. That is hierarchy, not fairness.
The setting makes the decision worse. Oranga Tamariki is not an academic institution or a cultural organisation. It is a frontline government agency funded by all New Zealanders. When it signals internally that some staff are more deserving of paid time off than others, resentment is inevitable. Silence follows. Good people keep their heads down. Institutional trust erodes further.
This did not happen by accident. The clause was negotiated, approved, and defended using language designed to shut down challenge. Someone at Oranga Tamariki signed off on it. Someone in government knew, or should have known.
The Minister’s initial reluctance to front on the issue raises further questions. Governments that campaign against race-based entitlements do not get to look away when one appears inside an agency they oversee. Responsibility does not stop at the edge of union negotiations.
Invoking the Treaty to justify this arrangement stretches its meaning beyond recognition. The Treaty does not require race-exclusive employment benefits. It does not mandate preferential treatment within the public service. Using it this way turns a foundational document into a shield against accountability.
When staff feel compelled to become whistleblowers simply to ask whether a policy is fair, something fundamental has broken. The outrage here is not about culture. It is about a state agency abandoning equal treatment and daring its own employees to object.
If the public service cannot apply the same rules to everyone inside its own walls, it has no credibility left to lecture the rest of the country about fairness.
Matua Kahurangi is just a bloke sharing thoughts on New Zealand and the world beyond. No fluff, just honest takes. He blogs on https://matuakahurangi.com/ where this article was sourced.
That distinction matters. This is not flexible workplace policy applied evenly. It is a race-based entitlement written into a taxpayer-funded agency responsible for the care of vulnerable children.
The clause goes further than granting leave. It removes oversight. Managers are instructed not to define or limit what constitutes a cultural obligation. Decisions are to defer to lived experience. Declining leave is implicitly framed as breaching Treaty values. “Discretionary” exists in name only.
This structure creates pressure, not trust. It turns ordinary management decisions into moral tests and makes questioning the policy professionally dangerous. A current Oranga Tamariki staff member felt unable to raise concerns internally for fear it could cost promotions, opportunities, or their future in the organisation. That fear alone should have stopped this policy in its tracks.
Workplaces already accommodate competing obligations every day. Church leaders, volunteer responders, migrant families supporting overseas funerals, religious minorities observing non-public holidays, parents dealing with childcare emergencies. None of this is new. The difference has always been that these responsibilities were managed under the same leave framework for everyone.
This policy breaks that principle. It elevates one identity above all others inside the same organisation.
Supporters will call this equity. It is not. Equity does not mean granting permanent advantages based on ancestry while others absorb the cost. That is hierarchy, not fairness.
The setting makes the decision worse. Oranga Tamariki is not an academic institution or a cultural organisation. It is a frontline government agency funded by all New Zealanders. When it signals internally that some staff are more deserving of paid time off than others, resentment is inevitable. Silence follows. Good people keep their heads down. Institutional trust erodes further.
This did not happen by accident. The clause was negotiated, approved, and defended using language designed to shut down challenge. Someone at Oranga Tamariki signed off on it. Someone in government knew, or should have known.
The Minister’s initial reluctance to front on the issue raises further questions. Governments that campaign against race-based entitlements do not get to look away when one appears inside an agency they oversee. Responsibility does not stop at the edge of union negotiations.
Invoking the Treaty to justify this arrangement stretches its meaning beyond recognition. The Treaty does not require race-exclusive employment benefits. It does not mandate preferential treatment within the public service. Using it this way turns a foundational document into a shield against accountability.
When staff feel compelled to become whistleblowers simply to ask whether a policy is fair, something fundamental has broken. The outrage here is not about culture. It is about a state agency abandoning equal treatment and daring its own employees to object.
If the public service cannot apply the same rules to everyone inside its own walls, it has no credibility left to lecture the rest of the country about fairness.
Matua Kahurangi is just a bloke sharing thoughts on New Zealand and the world beyond. No fluff, just honest takes. He blogs on https://matuakahurangi.com/ where this article was sourced.

8 comments:
When they're in the office all they do is attend endless hui, do Treaty of Waitangi courses, and write memos saying how racist the government or "the system" is. Whoever negotiated this collective agreement probably thought that if nobody does any work anyway, unless they feel like it, they might as well get as many Maori out of the office as they can.
That kind of time off for cultural obligations happens all the time across many sectors....
Another Luxon lie coming to light and another low iq ACT minister screwing Kiwis.
Admittedly, not as bad as the "promoted way above her ability" Van Velden's nonsense.covid fraud inquiry cover up.
Well done Messrs Luxon, Peters, and Seymour. Your bank accounts are obviously swelling at the expense of millions of Kiwis who trusted you.and voted for you..... me included, embarrassingly!
Mind you therr are currently no better options to vote for!
One way plane.ticket please.
Well, if Maori didn't cede sovereignty and Te Tiriti gives rights to Maori over water, the foreshore and the seabed (and everything else), I'm sure that 'protection' must also include paid leave to do all things 'culturally' appropriate. And, for a culture that once fully embraced slavery, having others work and carry for you is just reflecting the appropriate cultural order of things. Isn't it great that we have a Govt taxpayer-funded organisation leading the way?
Equality - pffft - that's a fool's errand, and just not the Maori way. So, get with the programme -embrace tikanga and te ao Maori, and like our msm news readers say, 'poor Maori, eh?'
I note revealed by Duncan Garner . However this is potentially serious racial discrimination and totally inappropriate . The article needs Political verification from the Minister.
My culture holds Wednesday afternoons as sacred for the purposes of playing golf and it is customary practice to adjourn to the pub at 4pm on Fridays. Can I have a clause in the agreement too please? Btw Ani has now released an excellent article on this. The clause was inserted in the collective agreement in 2023 under the Ardern govt. It is not supported by Act or Karen Chour, though she’ll no doubt have a helluva job to get rid of it. Removing preference is typically perceived as discrimination, even in cases as blatantly egregious as this one.
Dear Anon, @ 6:18 AM 12 Feb.
" (A) one way plane ticket, please.."?
My question - "in which direction do you wish to travel"?
- Australia has happening at this moment a political upheaval within a Coalition Party (National - Liberals) whose 'bottoms' reside on the opposition benches and have had a 'fall out' over Legislation (Hate Speech Act) that the 'nominal party' leader Susan Leahy (Liberals) apparently 'agreed' with Labour (policy sponsor) to vote it into reality.
She did this without 'speaking' to the minority leader of The National Party (David Littleproud) or the duly elected members of that party.
One Nation, like ACT a developing factor, which sadly not - not ever Aussie likes Pauline Hanson.
Sounds like NZ.
- America. Has major issues in how to enforce law & order, when a 'specific' group (females) believe that law & order is now irrelevant and for sometime have been behind the 'defund the Police' protests and go to great lengths to destabilize Federal Police Activity in a public place.
- Canada. Has serious issues, very much like the USofA
- Mexico. Now many young Americans are heading south of the border to re locate their lives into that Country. So this might be a safe bet for you.
Failing the above, there is Bali!
How much Maori blood do you have to claim to get these extraordinary privileges ?
Do they get to use OT vehicles while on paid leave ?
Truly absurd, and utterly racist !
Luxon - going to stop this ?
or just add it to the long list of things he has failed NZ on ?
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.