My wife is concerned about my mental health. Ever since I retired 5 years ago my brain has been undergoing a steady process of atrophy, in her view, and I need to find ways of engaging it other than the latest computer city-building game!
She urged me to apply for a job with the Electoral Commission for the upcoming elections. I’m rather limited in what I can do with regard to mobility (had twin knee replacements and now suffer from gout) but I can be pretty handy sitting at a desk doing some serious number-crunching or other administrative tasks. I was an Area Supervisor for the 1980 PNG National Population Census which involves admin skills similar to those required to run an election. So I went on-line and completed a form, stipulating that I was after a part-time position at the local elections HQ.
A few days later, I received an email inviting me to an interview. The message contained the following:
“At the interview, you will be asked:
- To declare if you have any political or other affiliations that could cause a conflict of interest for the Electoral Commission
- To agree to learn about our values and grow your knowledge of Te Tiriti o Waitangi in the workplace
- Holiday plans or other arrangements over the election period that could impact your ability to undertake the role”
I am not sure what “political or other affiliations” I may have that “could cause a conflict of interest” – I am not a member of any group that advocates abolishing or rigging elections. Shrug shoulders and continue………
“To agree to learn about our values”…… Um, are we on about professionalism and integrity here? I have those already, I don’t need to “learn” about them. In fact it’s just a wee bit offensive to suggest that I need ‘educating’ in those. But then the punchline: “ … grow your knowledge of ToW in the workplace.”
Now what the blazes could a mid-19thC treaty (using the term loosely, as it did not meet the requirements of international law) between the British Empire and some chiefs of neolithic tribes have to do with running a 21stC national election the likes of which didn’t even exist in 1840?
Answer: ZILCH. It’s just another opportunity for the ‘treaty’ zealots to have a crack at indoctrinating a captive audience.
My response to the message ran as follows:
“The second requirement puts the kibosh on my working for you.
Nota bene that forcing someone to promote a political agenda not of their choosing violates their human rights. Or so the UK and US Supreme Courts have held.”
The next day I received this message back:
“Thank you for your response to our email about your interview. Given that you have told us ‘this puts a kaibosh [sic] on my working for you’ we understand this to mean you are withdrawing your application and have therefore cancelled your interview and withdrawn you from our pool.”
Well, at least they got that right, even if they do seem to pretend that they weren’t acquainted with the word ‘kibosh’.
Let me briefly explain my reference to the Supreme Court cases. In Lee v Ashers Baking Company Ltd 2018, the UK Supreme Court held that the litigant’s human rights were violated by insisting that he adorn a cake with pro-same-sex-marriage slogans (this being a political cause). The case was an interesting one as the court drew on the European Convention on Human Rights rather than British law (although the Convention had of course been written into UK law). The US case (Masterpiece Cakeshop v Colorado Civil Rights Commission 2018) invoked the right of the litigant to abide by his religious beliefs and thereby refuse to design a customised cake for a homosexual couple.
But that’s the UK and US, I hear someone saying. What about NZ law?
I asked Google AI and got the following (emphasis added):
“The Bill of Rights directly applies to the Crown, government agencies, and anyone fulfilling a public function.
- Direct Application: Government employers or agencies cannot force you to promote a political cause.
- Neutrality Rules: Public servants must stay politically neutral under the Public Service Commission Guidance.
- Protected Right: Forcing a state worker to support a political cause violates both political neutrality and Section 14.”
The ToW campaign to which we have all been subjected for many years now (and continue to be) is a “political cause” pure and simple. So surely the Electoral Commission is not playing by its own rules when forcing an applicant for a temporary part-time (or any) position to “agree to learn about our values and grow your knowledge of Te Tiriti o Waitangi”.
So tell me where I’ve got it wrong. Please. Then we’ll both know. My wife is devastated at the thought of my cerebral atrophy inevitably worsening over the months to come!
Oh well, you can’t win ‘em all…………