Table of Contents
Robert MacCulloch
Robert MacCulloch is a native of New Zealand and worked at the Reserve Bank of NZ before he travelled to the UK to complete a PhD in Economics at Oxford University.
ACTs Treaty Principles debate has clarified a lot of things we never understood before in New Zealand. For example, Kiwi Blog reports:
Taxpayers are funding 20 Future Leader Fellowships. Each one is worth over $800,000 so [that's] $16 million from taxpayers. MBIE has delegated decisions on who gets them to the Royal Society of NZ. Their criteria are:
~ At least 20% must go to researchers who are Māori
~ At least 10% must identify as Pacific ethnicity
~ At least 50% must go to researchers who identify as female
David Farrar, pollster for the Nats and owner of Kiwi Blog, says this is “identity politics” so it’s “Time for the government to act!” But the Nats can’t act. The Royal Society is not playing identity politics. Its abiding by NZ’s constitutional framework, as newly outlined by our King’s Counsels in their letter to the PM. They state:
This [Treaty] principle recognizes the Crown’s obligation to treat Māori equitably with other groups and to achieve equitable outcomes.
They declare the principle to be part of NZ’s constitutional arrangements.
Consequently, the Royal Society is abiding by the most basic, fundamental legal imperatives of the nation, according to our law profession. “Equitable outcomes”, which form part of them, is an extremely strong requirement. The use of the word “outcomes” means it is an unambiguous necessity for the society to reserve at least 20 per cent of their fellowships to Māori, since Māori make up around 20 per cent of the population – and outcomes, such as who wins fellowships, must be in the same proportion.
However, our judiciary have no clue of the effect on jobs and livelihoods of their philosophizing. Most economists prefer the aim of “equal opportunities”, which would mean ensuring different people have similar opportunities to apply for fellowships. That aim may justify out-reach programs for the disadvantaged and provision of support to help them send an application. All applications would then be assessed on merit. But NZ’s law profession has ruled that our Royal Society – any organization in NZ for that matter – is heavily constrained as to the degree to which decisions can be made on meritocratic grounds – since merit leads to different outcomes for different people and groups.
Should the PM, on reading Kiwi Blog’s advice, tell the society to stop race-based funding, the society is obliged to refuse. Why? It’s following not only the law – but constitutional law. The PM, in declaring he will kill ACT’s Principles Bill, stated on national TV such matters must be decided “issue by issue”. That means should he ask the society to stop and it refuses, the only way to resolve things is to take this “issue” to court. Who’d win? The society. It would invoke our “constitutional arrangements” that include a requirement of “equitable outcomes”. NZ’s lawyers must love the PM for saying all decisions in the nation must now be decided issue by issue with regard to their implementation of the principles. That means endless court cases, litigation and NZ bankrupting as productivity goes to zero. The only winners are lawyers for whom every contentious “issue” means litigation, money and fees.
This article was originally published by Down to Earth Kiwi.
