https://nz.seek.com/job/94787886?type=standard&ref=search-standalone#sol=5dd0cb1365ceb02fd37ba1f0b885ce8dc67fed3c
Wellington. Permanent. $110,033 to $145,000.
The ad does not whisper. It shouts.
Lead strategic initiatives that strengthen Treaty partnerships. Embed Te Tiriti o Waitangi principles across DOC. Drive meaningful organisational change. Coach others to strengthen organisational capability. Provide expert Treaty guidance so Te Tiriti and settlement commitments are “appropriately considered” in every decision.
There is even a new “DOC Treaty Operating Model.”
Parliament has risen for the election. The government that promised to end co-governance has had nearly three years. ACT put Treaty principles on the ballot paper of politics and lost the vote in the House. National talked about ending race-based preference and vague partnership doctrine. NZ First thundered against co-governance.
And DOC is still advertising a senior officer whose job is to deepen the very project voters voted to end.
That is not a recruitment hiccup. That is a confession.
Either the bureaucracy is a law unto itself, hiring for a worldview ministers claim to have shut down, or the politicians are telling the public one story and the departments another.
You cannot have it both ways.
If the principles of the Treaty are so unclear that Parliament had to debate a bill to define them, how does a department “embed” them across the organisation? Embed what? Partnership? Co-governance with softer branding? The courts’ invention? The officials’ preferred reading?
The ad assumes the answer is settled. The election assumed it was not.
Settlements are law. They must be honoured. At least until they are undone.
But that is not what this job is selling. It is selling a permanent principal whose mission is to strengthen partnerships, embed principles, and change the culture of a Crown agency from the inside — while the government campaigns as if that agenda is on the way out.
Watch the language. “Treaty partners.” “Stewardship of strategically significant Treaty partner relationships.” “Organisational capability.” It is the vocabulary of a parallel constitution administered by people who never face the voters.
Ministers can repeal a clause here and soften a statute there. The job ads keep coming. The salary band fills. The operating model arrives. The next cohort of officials is hired to make yesterday’s politics tomorrow’s default.
Three years is long enough to change a department’s hiring brief. If you cannot change that, you have not changed the government. You have only changed the press release.
So which is it?
Are the bureaucrats freelancing, building Treaty partnership machinery the Cabinet dare not defend on the stump?
Or are the politicians playing us: talking tough about co-governance and principles while the departments are told, quietly, to push ahead?
One Seek listing will not decide an election.
It should decide whether you believe a word they say.
There is even a new “DOC Treaty Operating Model.”
Parliament has risen for the election. The government that promised to end co-governance has had nearly three years. ACT put Treaty principles on the ballot paper of politics and lost the vote in the House. National talked about ending race-based preference and vague partnership doctrine. NZ First thundered against co-governance.
And DOC is still advertising a senior officer whose job is to deepen the very project voters voted to end.
That is not a recruitment hiccup. That is a confession.
Either the bureaucracy is a law unto itself, hiring for a worldview ministers claim to have shut down, or the politicians are telling the public one story and the departments another.
You cannot have it both ways.
If the principles of the Treaty are so unclear that Parliament had to debate a bill to define them, how does a department “embed” them across the organisation? Embed what? Partnership? Co-governance with softer branding? The courts’ invention? The officials’ preferred reading?
The ad assumes the answer is settled. The election assumed it was not.
Settlements are law. They must be honoured. At least until they are undone.
But that is not what this job is selling. It is selling a permanent principal whose mission is to strengthen partnerships, embed principles, and change the culture of a Crown agency from the inside — while the government campaigns as if that agenda is on the way out.
Watch the language. “Treaty partners.” “Stewardship of strategically significant Treaty partner relationships.” “Organisational capability.” It is the vocabulary of a parallel constitution administered by people who never face the voters.
Ministers can repeal a clause here and soften a statute there. The job ads keep coming. The salary band fills. The operating model arrives. The next cohort of officials is hired to make yesterday’s politics tomorrow’s default.
Three years is long enough to change a department’s hiring brief. If you cannot change that, you have not changed the government. You have only changed the press release.
So which is it?
Are the bureaucrats freelancing, building Treaty partnership machinery the Cabinet dare not defend on the stump?
Or are the politicians playing us: talking tough about co-governance and principles while the departments are told, quietly, to push ahead?
One Seek listing will not decide an election.
It should decide whether you believe a word they say.
Rodney Hide is former ACT Party leader, and Minister in the National-ACT Government from 2008 to 2011. This article was first published HERE
8 comments:
Precisely. Luxon has had 3 years to fix this destructive mess. He hasn't, despite his party's promises to do so. That is well long enough to tell us not to believe in him or his party again. Watch on, New Zealand, between now and election day they will continue to distract us with more fluffy throwaways that they think will restore our confidence in them. In any business, even that of governing a country, non-performers get moved on. New Zealand has the opportunity now to do exactly that, to them. If we fail to do that in our apathy, things will get way worse, fast.
A salary of $145K tends to require formal qualifications to at least Bachelor's degree level plus, as appropriate, recognised professional quals (examples: financial controller, degree in accounting plus Chartered Accountant or Certified Practising Accountant; corporate lawyer, law degree plus practising certificate from NZ Law Society). I can't find any reference to formal quals in this advert. I wonder why not.......
Search for the " Options Development Group " and dive deep into this organization, find out what their remit is, note who is running it, and why it operates in secret ?
Why is there not a spotlight on this ?
Is this Luxon's idea of democracy to give all Crown land away to Maori who for centuries fought amongst themselves over it ?
Instigated by Ardern, and Luxon has failed us by not disbanding it.
Don't tell me that he was not aware of its existence.
Exactly Rodney and anon@8.59.
Barend, the pay is about half that of the recently established similar Maori fronting roles at the WCC and Auckland Transport and I don't believe they had too much by way of recognised prof quals requirements, but I do stand to be corrected? That said, there's now three recently created roles that essentially promote co-governance that this Govt indicated they weren't supporting. The word 'duplicitous' springs to mind. Of course, this latest, in a Dept overseen by Minister Potaka, is hardly surprising.
Bring on the elections!
Clearly the public service has been instructed to push ahead with the CG agenda.........no other logical explanation.
I doubt the job advert contains the one essential requirement for the position, ie the ability to keep a straight face while mouthing meaningless management-speak and ToW BS to DoC staffers.
A high boredom threshold would also be needed, because the meetings will go on for hours.
And that is why as a 40 year National voter I'm voting ACT this time.
What is the solution?
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.