Unfortunately for the government, public debate on the Treaty Principles Bill will not end with the historic Hikoi that has galvanised opposition over the past two weeks. The six months select committee process, during which the public will be invited to make submissions, will provide plenty of opportunity for the further expression of views.
Already groups from across the spectrum, from Kings Counsel, to religious leaders, to people on the side of the road in Otaki, are having their say. Even Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has felt compelled to join the chorus, saying that the Bill is “simplistic”, and we cannot just rip up 184 years of law.
It would appear from what is being publicly reported that supporters of the Bill are either few and far between or are lying low. Meanwhile David Seymour is attempting valiantly to defend his piece of work but cuts a somewhat lonely figure.
The ongoing debate will continue to spill over into workplaces where people with strongly held views will inevitably want to share these with their colleagues. Fair enough, this is an issue of our time. However, there are some limits to what is acceptable within an employment context.
Whilst all New Zealanders are entitled to freedom of thought and speech in a private capacity, where the expression of such views at work becomes disruptive or upsetting to others, it may be reasonable for an employer to direct that this discussion stays outside the workplace.
The expression of personal views could also become a problem if it gives rise to a conflict of interest or has the potential to damage relationships with clients or suppliers who may not share the same opinions. This would require a genuine assessment of whether the employer’s business interests were in fact being harmed because directing employees to keep their personal views to themselves should not be taken lightly nor without reasonable cause.
An employer may also raise concerns with an employee if the performance and completion of their work, or that of their colleagues, suffers as a result of the time spent debating or discussing non work related matters
For employees working in the public sector there is an additional complication arising out of the requirement to remain impartial and politically neutral. This is one of the “Standards of Integrity and Conduct” that all public servants are bound to comply with. This requires them to “maintain the political neutrality required to enable us to work with current and future government”, to “carry out the functions of our organisation, unaffected by our personal beliefs”, and also to “respect the authority of the government of the day”.
These principles mean that public sector employees who provide advice to government which relates in any way to the Treaty Principles Bill and associated matters, would need to refrain from expressing personal views in a work context about this topic.
For other public sector employees who do not directly advise on te Tiriti issues, there is a legitimate question as to whether criticising the Bill is in fact a “political” action or whether it amounts to a failure to maintain political neutrality.
In this regard the debate about the Treaty Principles Bill goes well beyond politics and goes to the heart of who we are as a nation.
It is also clearly arguable that criticising the Bill does not amount to attacking the government given that the government itself (with the exception of one seemingly lone wolf) has roundly criticised the Bill and said that it will not survive the select committee process, despite also voting in favour of it. This, of course, is unusual, as is everything about this particular crusade.
There are also potentially complex issues arising for public sector employers who have incorporated tikanga values and a te ao Māori view into their workplace policies. In this situation employees may have a greater expectation of being able to actively engage and participate in the public discussion about the Bill, including in a workplace context.
This is reinforced by the references in the Public Service Act to the role of the public service as including to support “the Crown in its relationships with Māori under the Treaty of Waitangi (te Tiriti o Waitangi)” and to develop the capability of the public service to “engage with Māori and to understand the Māori perspective”.
These issues will no doubt play out in workplaces over the next several months. What is immediately clear, though, is that this a fundamentally important moment for all New Zealanders and the freedom to express personal views and to engage in public debate needs to be respected.
Originally published in The Post
