Treasury’s plan appeared a few weeks after MBIE’s. Both are organised around the same three focus areas. Both culminate in the same heading “Apply the merit principle comprehensively”.
That emphasis is no accident. The coalition Government, unlike its predecessor, has removed diversity and inclusion requirements from the Public Service Act and entrenched merit-based appointments. The new vocabulary reflects that message, but the measures remain the same.
At least five strategies guide MBIE’s plan. They range from Kia Kotahi Mai on inclusion and belonging to Whāinga Amorangi on Māori-Crown relations. Staff complete modules on unconscious bias, bullying and the rainbow community. Progress feeds into quarterly dashboards.
Treasury’s catalogue runs from its He Ara Waiora tool kit and an Accentuated Programme for ethnically diverse women to guest speakers on menopause, a drop-in group for staff with neurodivergent family and its Rainbow Network’s annual Bake Sale.
Most planned actions merely extend existing work. The verbs give it away: embed, align, integrate, continue, refresh.
Treasury reports that its pay gaps for the same or similar roles are “negligible or nil” after concerted effort. That is a real achievement. Fairness demands equal pay for equal work, and Treasury has delivered it.
MBIE reaches a similar conclusion, attributing its remaining pay gaps to “workforce and progression patterns rather than unequal pay for the same roles”. On the agencies’ own analysis, the headline gaps measure differences in workforce composition, not discrimination.
And so, both plans leave me puzzled.
Are the agencies saying they still have a problem to fix? MBIE invokes “barriers to advancement” without naming one. Treasury cites “systemic factors” it admits it does not yet understand.
Are they doing anything differently from a few years ago? The refreshed headings suggest change, but the same old programmes suggest otherwise.
And how does any of it help the departments fulfil their missions? MBIE exists to support economic growth, and Treasury advises the Government on it. Treasury’s own performance review rates its economic advice “weak”, its other core functions merely “developing”.
After years of economic stagnation, neither department is short of core work. Yet their plans are documents about themselves: their strategies, networks, modules and dashboards.
On my reading, neither department has any remaining diversity deficiencies. Which is fantastic, of course.
But it should also eliminate any need to produce more of these action plans.
Dr Oliver Hartwich is the Executive Director of The New Zealand Initiative think tank. This article was first published HERE.
At least five strategies guide MBIE’s plan. They range from Kia Kotahi Mai on inclusion and belonging to Whāinga Amorangi on Māori-Crown relations. Staff complete modules on unconscious bias, bullying and the rainbow community. Progress feeds into quarterly dashboards.
Treasury’s catalogue runs from its He Ara Waiora tool kit and an Accentuated Programme for ethnically diverse women to guest speakers on menopause, a drop-in group for staff with neurodivergent family and its Rainbow Network’s annual Bake Sale.
Most planned actions merely extend existing work. The verbs give it away: embed, align, integrate, continue, refresh.
Treasury reports that its pay gaps for the same or similar roles are “negligible or nil” after concerted effort. That is a real achievement. Fairness demands equal pay for equal work, and Treasury has delivered it.
MBIE reaches a similar conclusion, attributing its remaining pay gaps to “workforce and progression patterns rather than unequal pay for the same roles”. On the agencies’ own analysis, the headline gaps measure differences in workforce composition, not discrimination.
And so, both plans leave me puzzled.
Are the agencies saying they still have a problem to fix? MBIE invokes “barriers to advancement” without naming one. Treasury cites “systemic factors” it admits it does not yet understand.
Are they doing anything differently from a few years ago? The refreshed headings suggest change, but the same old programmes suggest otherwise.
And how does any of it help the departments fulfil their missions? MBIE exists to support economic growth, and Treasury advises the Government on it. Treasury’s own performance review rates its economic advice “weak”, its other core functions merely “developing”.
After years of economic stagnation, neither department is short of core work. Yet their plans are documents about themselves: their strategies, networks, modules and dashboards.
On my reading, neither department has any remaining diversity deficiencies. Which is fantastic, of course.
But it should also eliminate any need to produce more of these action plans.
Dr Oliver Hartwich is the Executive Director of The New Zealand Initiative think tank. This article was first published HERE.
6 comments:
No part of this indicates that the public service is working for the public!
It sounds like HR departments trying to justify their existence. grown up workplaces don’t need hr departments for anything other than navigating legislation that applies to the workplace. But these hr departments sound like problematic employees in their own right
The departments will not consider their work done until there are zero cis white males left. Today's straight men must be made to pay for the centuries of male dominance.
Meanwhile GDP per capita stagnates and we wonder why when we have these idiots spending hours contemplating their navels - in te reo, naturally.
The $millions, nay, $billions that are wasted. Heads need to roll - but saying such could, of course, put me in trouble with the HDCA. If you're looking for systemic issues - what a pathetic, virtue signaling, wet snowflake society we now live in.
Trust MBIE with anything ?
Hopelessly biased in everything they do.
Just the last 2 examples , that are in the public domain, is the $39M blown on the immigration software, and $500K payout to a convicted gang associate.
Will someone in MBIE have the guts to push back on this enforced indoctrination ?
Nope, too busy writing a new karakia to be sung every morning like the Third Reich national anthem "Horst Wessel Lied"
Do these MBIE people have no shame ?
Do they really want their grandchildren to grow up being controlled by a gay Maori Socialist ?
Crikey Anon@6.25, where is that person? They'll go straight to the top with those creds!
We should be glad to hear that MBIE staff are completing modules on bullying. Other Ministries and Departments should follow that example because bullying is as bad as ever in the public service.
Currently, there is a profound disconnect between the intent of the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015, alongside the Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill 2026, and the operational reality within public sector agencies. Psychosocial harm is a recognised statutory hazard but very little is done about it.
While Chief Executives are responsible for the daily management of these hazards, the Public Service Commission is strictly accountable for evaluating the performance of those Chief Executives and ensuring the integrity of the system as a whole.
However, relying entirely on internal agency processes creates a distinct moral hazard. When senior executives and management are the primary agents of hostile behaviour, internal human resources and mechanisms for internal protected disclosure are rendered functionally impotent. Staff are systematically denied safe, neutral avenues for escalation, effectively nullifying the Code of Conduct for the Public Sector and the Speaking Up Model Standards.
I have set up a group of people who are trying to stop the bullying. We are working hard but progress is very disappointing.
All of the other members are women and all have been smashed out of employment. It seems that Diversity, Equity and Inclusion is alive and well when it comes to bullying women and minorities in our public service. Of course, white males get abused too. Time for change!
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.