How can the public service be politically neutral when this happens?

How can open dialogue and viewpoint diversity be fostered when public servants have singular narratives forced upon them?  

This is the question my team asked when a supporter alerted us to a booklet the National Library gives to new public servants. 📖 It presents a singular view on the Treaty of Waitangi, and Prof. Paul Moon, one of the prolific scholars on this topic, has big concerns. 

If we want to protect our democracy and the ability to hold opinions and challenge those we disagree with, it's going to take a collective effort. Free speech is what allows every other cause to make its case, and that's exactly what we defend. But it's not without you.

Non-partisanship in our public service is essential to our democracy. You’ve probably heard us wave this flag before. 🚩

The booklet from the National Library came to light after we recently shared a couple of stories with you about government departments hosting seminars and running professional development on the Treaty where employees felt unable to voice disagreement or alternate perspectives. 

One told us, “There is no room for different views, they don't even recognise that the views they are teaching are just that - political views. Or at least it is basically assumed that 'we're all left wing here'.”

We've consistently pushed back when the public service has focused on singular ideologies rather than non-partisanship, and today's example will be no exception. 

 

Usually our problem is not with the views themselves, it’s that the public service is not being even handed, and their impartiality is threatening open dialogue in this country. In the situation of this booklet from the National Library, our concerns are the same, but this time it has a whole other layer.
 
An analysis written by Professor Paul Moon has drawn out many elements in the content that are proven to be untrue.
 
The concerns are deep and wide-ranging. As Prof. Moon describes, “categories of error are not within the parameters of ordinary historiographical disagreements, and neither are they minor or immaterial.” 

If the National Library of New Zealand is dishing out factually incorrect content that, if our experience shows us anything, public servants feel unable to challenge, this should sound alarm bells. 🚨

Paul adds: “There are numerous examples of error in fact, and in other instances, there are also misrepresentations, deficient appreciation of the scholarship on a topic, ideological biases, subjective claims presented as objective assertions, and examples of presentism.”

Some examples, you ask?
 
The booklet states, “[The Treaty/te Tiriti] is a sacred covenant between Māori signatories and the Crown’.” But Prof. Moon points out that there are differing perspectives on this. They’ve made an entirely subjective claim, but made it sound like a fact.

Another example is the line: “Around 1830 it is estimated there were no more than 300 tangata Tiriti throughout Aotearoa.” 
 
But, Prof. Moon says, “This is an obvious category error. By adhering to the ideological position that European New Zealanders are ‘tangata Tiriti’, the authors... have overlooked the obvious problem that no such category could have existed prior to 1840. Thus, describing Europeans living in the country a decade earlier as ‘tangata Tiriti’ simply does not make sense.” 

Read more of the material for yourself here. 

 
You don’t have to disagree with the perspective of professional development seminars the public service hosts, or even this document by the National Library. But what we need to advocate for is open dialogue and a culture that values viewpoint diversity rather than rejects it.

When views and details are wrong, especially in a country’s history, the best way to expose and reach a shared understanding is through open dialogue! 📢 But how can we do this if the culture is to toe the line?  

 
👉 When contestable ideas about our country’s heritage are presented as fixed statements of reality, we have a problem. 
 
👉 When those statements contain swathes of inaccuracies and historical distortions, we have a big problem. 
 
👉 When those statements of error are packaged by our own National Library, in collaboration with the Department of Internal Affairs, and presented in a workbook to our public servants for their professional development, we have a really big problem.

This is not to even mention that the booklet tells the reader to, “Spend some time reflecting on these ongoing actions in your life outside of work”, with suggestions on what to listen to and attitudes and actions to be wary of. 
 
So, the public service is now dictating how public servants live their personal lives, too? 

How many people with differing perspectives are either keeping their mouths shut (who can blame them when their livelihood is on the line?) or leaving the public service because they are sick of being told what to think (inside and outside of work!)?  
 
Consider how this must affect our democracy! The topics we’re ‘allowed’ to discuss are narrowing and more and more perspectives are being seen as inappropriate. 
 
We wrote to the Department of Internal Affairs who hosted the one-sided training. While we’ve received acknowledgement of the letter, we have not received a substantial reply.  
 
We also wrote to Public Service Commissioner Sir Brian Roche, inviting him into a conversation with us on political neutrality in the public service, but he has declined. 
 
Our leaders appear unwilling to engage. If we don’t call out the biases in the public service, who will? 

Your partnership ensures we can support our members in the public service, research training and material being presented to them, and call out our leaders when they turn a blind eye to one-sided political activism in an important environment that is meant to be politically neutral.

The more we share these stories from our supporters and Public Service Membership, the more they emerge. We must keep up this fight to ensure a diversity of views is not just respected in our public service, but in our nation at large.  

Jonathan Ayling | Chief Executive