Is it just me or is it not more than a little odd that coverage of current events in New Caledonia/Kanaky is dominated by the inconvenience of tourists and rescue flights out of the Pacific paradise.

That the events are described as “disruption” or “riots” without any real reference to the cause of the actions causing inconvenience. The reason is the armed enforcement of “order” is flown into this Oceanic place from Europe.

I guess when you live in a place called “New Zealand” in preference to “Aotearoa” you see these things through fellow colonialist eyes. Especially if you are part of the dominant colonial class.

How different it looks if you are part of an indigenous people in Oceania — part of that “Indigenous Ocean” as Damon Salesa’s recent award-winning book describes it. The Kanaks are the indigenous Melanesian inhabitants of New Caledonia.

The indigenous movement in Kanaky is engaged in a fight against the political structures imposed on them by France.

Obviously there are those indigenous people who benefit from colonial rule, and those who feel powerless to change it. But increasingly there are those who choose to resist.

Are they disrupters or are they resisting the massive disruption which France has imposed on them?

People who have a lot of resources or power or freedom to express their culture and belonging tend not to “riot”. They don’t need to.

Not simply holiday destinations
The countries of Oceania are not simply holiday destinations, they are not just sources of people or resource exploitation until the natural resources or labour they have are exhausted or no longer needed.

They are not “empty” places to trial bombs. They are not “strategic” assets in a global military chess game.

Each place, and the ocean of which they are part have their own integrity, authenticity, and rights, tangata, whenua and moana. That is only hard to understand if you insist on retaining as your only lens that of the telescope of a 17th or 18th century European sea captain.

The natural alliance and concern we have from these islands, is hardly with the colonial power of France, notwithstanding the apparent keenness of successive recent governments to cuddle up to Nato.

A clue — we are not part of the “North Atlantic”.

We have our own colonial history, far from pristine or admirable in many respects. But we are at the same time fortunate to have a framework in Te Tiriti which provides a base for working together from that history towards a better future.

Those who would debunk that framework or seek to amend it to more clearly favour the colonial classes might think about where that option leads.

And when we see or are inconvenienced by independence or other indigenous rights activism in Oceania we might do well to neither sit on the fence nor join the side which likes to pretend such places are rightfully controlled by France (or the United States, or Australia or New Zealand).

Rob Campbell is chancellor of Auckland University of Technology (AUT), chair of Ara Ake, chair of NZ Rural Land and former chair of Te Whatu Ora. This article was first published by The New Zealand Herald and is republished with the author’s permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

COMMENTARY: By Rob Campbell

Just as we are making some progress on diversity and inclusion policies in business governance and management my perverse mind is starting to have doubts.

Initially around gender diversity I was an enthusiastic camp follower. It seemed a relevant part of progressive social change.

As Te Whatu Ora chair, I was an advocate and supporter of a much stronger role for Māori in health governance and management. I was a strong promoter of inclusion in all my roles such as at Summerset, Tourism Holdings and Sky City.

I was recognised for this when awarded Chair of the Year a few years back, and the Beacon Award from the Shareholders’ Association at about the same time.

I think that we have made progress at business board and senior management level — by no means complete but barriers have been reduced and seats filled more appropriately.

I confess that even while I and many others were advocating and implementing this, my doubts crept in as the narrative morphed from one primarily about rights into one more based on demonstrated benefits, for example, to profitability.

Then the prize-giving started, the “champions” preened, and one could not help but wonder what interests were really being served. It really was not all that difficult or radical in its impact as after all — the replacements were from the same class and education and non-cis gender characteristics as the old.

Long overdue
It is a good thing rather than bad of course, long overdue and still far from complete.

But the old hierarchies and principles of business control, practice and ownership have not been that much affected. We have more women in influential roles but the roles and expectations of those in the roles have not changed very much. Higher gender representation is a step on the way to gender equity in the workplace but not a final goal.

My perception is that ethnic diversity is facing an even harder road. There has been some progress but it seems that neither the will nor the availability of “suitable” candidates is as strong as it is on gender.

Of course this tells us something — our perception about what is “suitable” is limited and excludes all but a few from non-Pākehā communities. It is not that such communities do not have highly capable leaders but that the capability does not readily match the ways business expects its governance and management to be.

You could be kind and call this a cultural difference. Similar issues may hold back business governance diversity in terms of non-cis gender differences and neuro differences. Maybe what business wants is not real and far reaching diversity but “acceptable or non-disruptive” diversity.

Welcome to the boardroom and the executive floor on the terms that have always prevailed.

So this makes me think about “inclusion” too. There is an increasing range of inclusion programmes, training and schemes. My inclination is to welcome and support these and, as with gender, I have seen and celebrated individuals step up within such processes and succeed.

Cue more prizes, awards and media releases.

Common theme
But I see a common theme as we progress. Business is making pathways some for people from other cultures to become acceptable or suitable — on the terms of business. Colonialism has always done this politically and we can see this commercially as well.

These are adaptable social systems well capable of changing appearance without changing substance.

Companies co-opting or paying mere lip service to diversity and inclusion? It’s almost universal.

I admire the people who take these opportunities. They often have to change a lot, to take on more than their peers at work, to model and represent. But business inclusion is inclusion into the world of business not business changing to match another culture, other than quite superficially.

I wonder if these processes are not more akin to “assimilation” than genuine diversity and inclusion. That is, always on the terms of the boss. Welcome to our club, on our terms. This assumes superiority of culture.

Just like assimilation sought to obscure and diminish the outside, the minority, the different in order to seem to include. Ultimately assimilation was seen for the destructive force in social policy that it was — a steamroller to flatten diversity not to encourage it.

Like assimilation, I don’t think, now that my thoughts have run to this point, that our “D&I” policies, appointments and programmes, will really be much of a force for change.

That does not make them bad, but lets not pretend they are more than they are. The same people still mainly fill the same roles according to the same rules, doing the same things, as they did before.

I welcome anyone who can convince me otherwise. I don’t like being the grumpy, cynical old man.

Rob Campbell is chancellor of AUT University and chairs NZ Rural Land Co and renewable energy centre Ara Ake. He is a former chair of health agency Te Whatu Ora, the Environmental Protection Authority, SkyCity Casino, Tourism Holdings, WEL Networks and Summerset. He trained as an economist and originally worked as a unionist before eventually becoming a professional director. This article was first published by Newsroom and is republished with the author’s permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

It has been a difficult time for senior public servants recently — at least it has been for those willing to express their political views publicly.

One has been sacked, another offered his resignation, and yet another has been questioned by a parliamentary select committee.

In an election year perhaps we can expect heightened sensitivities around the principle of public sector neutrality. Especially so, given those in the spotlight are all ministerial appointees to crown entity boards, not career officials.

These appointments blur the supposedly clear boundary between elected office-holders and professional public servants.

The case of Rob Campbell, former chair of Te Whatu Ora/Health NZ and the Environmental Protection Authority, seems the most clear-cut. His LinkedIn post likening the National Party’s Three Waters policy to a “thin disguise for the dog whistle on co-governance” was one thing.

But his refusal to accept he had done anything wrong was a bridge too far for the powers that be.

Things have gone better for former Labour MP Steve Maharey, who offered his resignation as chair of Pharmac, ACC and Education New Zealand for publishing what could be read as politically partial views. The government has said he will not lose his jobs.

And another former Labour MP, Ruth Dyson, now deputy chair of the Earthquake Commission and Fire and Emergency New Zealand, is also under scrutiny for apparently partisan Twitter comments. It is safe to say the the nation’s newsrooms are now trawling the social media accounts of all senior civil servants and appointees.

Public Service Commissioner provides advice on Pharmac chair after political comments https://t.co/5nG96MadTe

— Newshub Politics (@NewshubPolitics) March 7, 2023

Faceless bureaucrats?
On the face of it, the standards of conduct for people employed in the state sector — especially at senior levels — are clear. They are expected to act with neutrality and impartiality, and not to take sides with political parties — even (or especially) if they have a past association with one.

They should be able to continue to serve after a change of government. New Zealand doesn’t follow the American model where an incoming president appoints about 4000 civil servants. Instead, we rely on non-partisan professionals whose tenure isn’t tied to elections.

But these tensions and sensitivities about what people can and can’t say also exist in private enterprise. Any director or chief executive would be unwise to publish private opinions about political or economic affairs that might harm the reputation of the company.

Even a bottom-rung employee can face the sack for commenting online about their employer. Free speech comes with conditions attached, especially so for the public service.

One counter argument is that public servants’ impartiality is only a pretence anyway. And, as one commentator put it recently, “we should expect them to speak the truth to us, as they see it”. Indeed, we should criticise those who fail to do so, and not care if it upsets politicians.

That would be a major culture change for our Westminster-style system. But New Zealand has had prominent public servants who were admired as outspoken public intellectuals. The question is, where is the line and how do we define the terms?

Simon Wilson: Why they sacked Rob Campbell and why that has to stop #HeraldPremium https://t.co/p0SBB2U1l8 pic.twitter.com/wrX7aAMFXR

— nzherald (@nzherald) March 6, 2023

Public intellectuals
One historical figure who rose high within the public service but expressed political views was Edward Tregear (1846–1931). He was already a prominent intellectual when appointed the first Secretary of the Labour Department by the Liberal government in 1891.

He drove pioneering labour and social reforms, but was often outspoken and found himself at odds with the government following the death of the prime minister, Richard Seddon, in 1906. He retired in 1910.

Clarence Beeby (1902–98) was a prominent psychologist and researcher with a strong commitment to public education and human rights when he was appointed Director of Education by Peter Fraser in 1940.

Labour’s educational reforms came to be identified with Beeby as much as with Fraser, which would have annoyed the prime minister. Beeby continued under the subsequent National government, however. Overall, his scholarship had wide influence and was recognised internationally.

The economist Bill Sutch (1907–75) worked under ministers of finance in the 1930s while also actively engaging in public life. He published two important books on New Zealand in the early 1940s (Poverty and Progress, and The Search for Security).

This independence caused some friction with Fraser, but Sutch worked for New Zealand at the United Nations. In 1958, he became permanent Secretary for the Department of Industries and Commerce.

The new rules
Campbell’s online comments and Maharey’s op-ed columns probably are not at the same level of sustained achievement as those three exemplary civil servants’ publications. But they do raise important questions.

Are today’s ministers and the Public Services Commissioner too precious about political opinions? And are opposition MPs going to be hoist with their own petard once they’re in office?

Since the State Sector Act 1988, our system has tried to draw a clear line between ministers, who set high-level policy and have to justify it publicly, and public servants, who advise ministers and implement their decisions.

Public servants should provide ministers with free and frank advice, but publishing personal opinions is not on.

There is always a grey area, however. Campbell breached the code of conduct, but was sacking him in proportion with the offence? Those in a position to decide thought that it was.

Given the public controversy, Maharey did the right thing to pre-emptively offer his resignation. What distinguishes him from Campbell is that he recognised the awkward political problem.

But is it so big a problem that heads should roll? Is the country better or worse off for its intolerance of intellectual and political independence of thought in the state sector?

Whatever the answer, under present arrangements we we will not see public servants like Tregear, Beeby or Sutch again. But Campbell and Maharey can write what they like in retirement.

Dr Grant Duncan, associate professor, School of People, Environment and Planning, Massey University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

In Pyongyang there is a public service which would appeal to our own Public Service Commissioner in Aotearoa New Zealand. It never makes any dissenting or controversial view known.

Rather it readies itself for any potential change in the face of the Kim family leadership. Ever ready to resume the daily grind of boot-licking and box-ticking of a docile public service.

It is, as I like to say, neutered rather than neutral, but from above it can be very hard to tell the difference.

In the ideal world that seems to be preferred in “PyongPoneke”, there is no room for open debate and each word means what the Public Service Commissioner says it means.

It is rather like the world described by Lewis Carroll: “When I use a word”, Humpty said in a rather scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master — that’s all”. Thank you Commissioner Humpty for your work taking the word “impartiality” out of the dictionary and into the public service world.

Imperial and colonial past
I am not against the public service. I am strongly for an excellent, efficient, equitable and effective public service. But you do not get that in a modern and complex society from a model of public service derived from a monocultural, inequitable and dare I say it (yes I do) imperial and colonial past.

In the real world what they like to call our public service is in fact a politically subservient service, far removed from the public it is supposed to serve.

This comment is not directed at the many thousands of public servants working closely with those they serve.

These people, the real public service, are often underpaid and overworked. They spend much time battling with the rules and processes and prejudices imposed on them by those at the top of the tree. Many are scared to speak up, so they leave or stay quiet.

I understand why, they need the job too much to risk being branded difficult. Not a few of them write to me, call me, or stop me in the street. And it is not to say “get back in line”.

They and the mandarins themselves know what the problem is. There is a square mile or so around the Beehive in Wellington, which is like the Vatican in Italy. A different country within a country. The world looks totally different from there.

Those there are mainly there for the same reason, and they are faced inwards, mentally at least, towards what they see as power and away from the people, the public they are supposed to serve.

They cannot understand Ōtara, or Cannons Creek . . .
They cannot see, hear or understand those in Ōtara, in Te Tai Tokerau, in Tairāwhiti, in Cannons Creek, on the West Coast or rural Southland.

Alongside the big consultancy firms that share their buildings, their CVs and their views, senior advisers draw up plans for the rest of us on whiteboards.

These are parsed by the “tier one” people who over coffee, wine, or whisky cosily massage these into an acceptable form for politicians. Just enough choices to create an illusion of political control, but not so much as to upset the system.

Are these people impartial or neutral ? No, they do not need to be. They have strong views which reflect the caste they belong to. Some of them even jokingly refer to this as “Poneketanga”.

They engage rafts of “communications” people to sell the story — often poorly as in Te Whatu Ora, where there are more than 200 such people and where despite that overload PR firms are often called in to sell better.

Back to basics
This is not a way to create an efficient, effective, excellent and equitable public service. To do that we will have to go back to some basics about the purpose of public service today and in the future.

To my mind this would include:

• Opening up jobs to a much wider range of people with real world experience, be that commercial or social, in forms that are not all for a lifetime, but which enable free and ongoing interchange;
• Opening up policy-making to start from the “bottom up”, and which are not based on “top down”, carefully framed, bogus consultations;
• Allowing people to speak their minds and debate difficult issues without having to assume that future political winners are not so prejudiced and narrow-minded as to refuse to work with anyone with a different opinion to theirs; and
• Paying real attention, not playing pretend attention, to the professional bodies and unions which represent staff, who mostly will prefer rightly to get on with their jobs.

None of that seems hard or dangerous to me. After all, it is only changing a public service model which has produced or failed to prevent all of the many crises we can observe around us.

Rob Campbell is former chairperson of Te Whatu Ora (Health New Zealand) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This article was first published by Stuff and is republished by Asia Pacific Report with the author’s permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

“I thank Mr Campbell for his contribution since the establishment of Te Whatu Ora last year.”

In a statement, Campbell said the removal from his position was “an inappropriate reaction to statements made in my private capacity”.

“I have spoken to [opposition leader] Christopher Luxon who has accepted my apology for any personal offence my statements may have caused. He accepted my apology.

“I have also apologised to Minister Verrall for any difficulty which my statements may have caused for her and the government.”

Campbell defends actions
Speaking to RNZ Checkpoint, Campbell continued to defend his actions.

“I’ve received a letter from the minister which responded to a letter from my lawyers, indicating that she has removed me from that position as chair of Te Whatu Ora. I think that’s a mistake and an overreaction to the statements I made in a private capacity but nevertheless that’s what she’s done,” he said.

“I think I’m entitled to make comments as a private citizen, which I did in the LinkedIn post.

“And secondly, the suggestion is that I’ve somehow got offside with the opposition, which given that I spoke to Christopher Luxon earlier today, we discussed the issues. I made an apology to him for any personal offence he had taken, he accepted that apology. We had a very nice discussion about it.

“So I don’t believe there’s any issue there. I’ve seen Richard Prebble from the ACT Party saying that he believes I have the right to make statements of this kind.”

He said the comments that he made were on a public forum, but he made them in a private capacity.

“I didn’t make those statements as chair of Te Whatu Ora … I always have to have regard to the interests of Te Whatu Ora and I don’t see anything in the statements I’ve made which was in any way damaging to Te Whatu Ora.”

Strong commitment to kaupapa
“The comments showed my political position, but there is nothing in the code of conduct which suggests you should not do that,” he said.

Campbell said emphasised his strong commitment to the kaupapa of the Pae Ora legislation and the work which Te Whatu Ora and Te Aka Whai Ora were doing to implement that legislation.

“I have devoted huge energy and time and involvement to that end. I am disappointed that I will not be working directly with the thousands of health sector staff, patients and whānau with whom I have been actively engaged. My support for them is undiminished.

“The principle of working in Tiriti partnership to achieve equity in the lives of all New Zealanders is core to my beliefs and I make no apology for that.”

Campbell would not rule out taking legal action over the matter saying it was one possible line of action.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz