Critics of ACT’s proposed public service overhaul say removing what the party calls “race-based” employment requirements could have implications well beyond Māori, affecting ethnic and minority communities, women and people with disabilities.
ACT says the changes would restore a public service focused on merit and results. But Māori and disability rights advocate Dr Huhana Hickey says the proposal risks treating communities with different needs as though they are all the same.
“But it seems like he [David Seymour] just wants a generic, vanilla, one-size-fits-all, and you can’t do that to human beings,” Hickey says.
“We’re all culturally diverse. We’re all different people, and we all have different needs, and that has to be recognised.”
What ACT wants to change
ACT leader David Seymour announced five proposed changes on Sunday, saying they would restore “a public service based on merit, need, neutrality, and results”.
Among them is the proposed repeal of section 73 of the Public Service Act and section 118 of the Crown Entities Act.
Both provisions already require the impartial selection of suitably qualified people for appointment.
They also require employers to recognise the aims, aspirations and employment requirements of Māori, as well as Māori involvement in the public service and Crown entities.
The provisions extend further, requiring recognition of the employment needs of ethnic and minority groups, women and people with disabilities.
Seymour says those groups are protected from discrimination elsewhere in law.
ACT also wants “non-essential cultural criteria” removed from public service jobs and would prevent agencies from initiating or funding spiritual and cultural practices in the workplace.
Under the proposal, cultural requirements would remain in job descriptions only when directly relevant to a role. Employees could continue cultural or spiritual practices, such as karakia, but would be expected to do so in their own time.
The full details of how the changes would operate in practice remain unclear.
Seymour says roles that genuinely require specialist cultural competency would not be affected.
“Areas that genuinely require cultural competency will remain,” he says, citing roles in the Māori Land Court and work involving Treaty settlements with iwi.
He says repealing section 73 would remove cultural or spiritual requirements that were not essential to a role. Ceremonial elements could still be offered respectfully, he says, but would not be used as barriers during recruitment.
“They won’t be used as selection barriers when recruiting in the public service. It should never be a condition of employment.”
Asked whether applicants were being disadvantaged under the current settings, Seymour cited accounts he says ACT has received from people following job interviews.
He says one Chinese applicant was asked whether they spoke te reo at home, while another person applying for a financial controller role was questioned about their commitment to the Treaty of Waitangi.
Seymour says the overhaul would return the focus to professional capability, arguing that public servants should be hired on merit because taxpayers deserve “New Zealand’s best and brightest”.
Cultural capability in public service roles
A Māori public servant, identified only as Hine to protect her privacy, rejects the suggestion that cultural considerations come at the expense of merit.
“I don’t believe we just get employed just because we’re Māori; you’ve got to have some type of skill,” she says.
Hine has worked in social housing and, more recently, as a case manager at the Māori Land Court. She says cultural knowledge and experience were essential to navigating both roles.
She believes she was hired for her technical abilities, but also for her experience working predominantly with Māori, including whānau dealing with Māori land matters and people experiencing housing hardship.
“I was hired because I had a genuine empathy with our people, with Māori, and I was hired because I could listen beyond what our people may not directly say, and read between the lines.”
Hine says she also worked alongside non-Māori colleagues who were effective in their roles because they understood tikanga and could provide culturally appropriate care.
“Our tikanga and our culture is beautiful. It’s not threatening against Pākehā; it embraces everybody,” she says.
“It’s not about racism and being better than the Pākehā ... but it’s been turned into something else.”
Impact extends beyond Māori
Hickey says recognising cultural and other differences can be essential when public servants are working with the communities they serve.
“All of those things are valuable if you want the engagement of Māori as consumers. If you want the engagement of a lot of people now, you need to be able to meet that need,” she says.
Seymour says the other groups covered by the provisions would remain protected from discrimination under separate legislation.
Hickey argues that protection from discrimination does not, by itself, account for inequities in access to or experiences of public services.
“We are all different. We’ve all got our own cultures, we’ve all got our own ways. And that has to be recognised.”
She also rejects the suggestion that measures intended to improve representation result in less-qualified people being appointed.
“There are Māori, Pasifika, Asians, Indian, disabled, who are more qualified than some of the people that sit on boards now.”
Hickey believes removing measures intended to recognise under-represented groups risks reversing progress towards a more representative public sector.
“He says he doesn’t want race-based policies, but he’s creating it so that white people, Pākehā, can dominate those jobs again,” she says.
“He just wants stale, pale males back in the boards, whereas he goes on about it being for the best person for the job.”
Concern over stereotypes
Hine worries the debate around “race-based” hiring is reinforcing stereotypes that Māori receive public service jobs because of their ethnicity rather than their skills.
She says she has already seen attitudes towards Māori change and fears removing recognition of Māori from public service employment policies could make that worse.
“I think nowadays, because of the divide that this government has caused, it’s really created a narrative out there that Māori just want payouts,” she says.
“It’s all over social media. It’s not fair, and it’s created a divide, and there’s this judgment against Māori.”
For Hine, the issue is not whether Māori should be preferred over non-Māori. It is whether skills grounded in tikanga, te reo, and experience working with Māori will continue to be recognised as valuable within the public service.
“If they really understood what tikanga is, tikanga is aroha, it’s manaakitanga, it’s love, it’s embracing all cultures.”
