The Reserve Bank of New Zealand is seeking a Principal DEI Advisor who understands that the Bank is like Tāne Mahuta, the God of the Forest. Should be a breeze in today’s climate.

I had no idea that the Reserve Bank of New Zealand was no longer a relatively august institution, which took its management of NZ’s financial systems seriously. I realised it wouldn’t be completely unpenetrated by ‘progressive correctness’, because any workplace which hires university graduates will get that brought in with them. However, I didn’t expect to find that the Bank now likened itself to Tāne Māhuta, the God of the Forest.

Tāne Māhuta is a magnificent giant kauri tree in the Waipoua Forest in Northland, near the top of the North Island, and is estimated to be between 1,250 and 2,500 years old. It’s named after Tāne, the Māori god of forests and of birds. Somehow, the Reserve Bank, with permission from a northern Māori hapu (subtribe), has decided that this revered centuries old natural marvel has a lot in common with the Bank, and has embraced it as a way of explaining NZ’s financial system.

Tāne Māhuta is apparently emblematic of the Reserve Bank, because the Bank now puts both a Te Ao Māori (Māori worldview) and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) lens across policies, processes, and systems. For this reason, it has advertised for a Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Advisor who can apply both these things at the same time across everything at the Bank. If I said this looks complicated, I think I’d be right. Māori don’t have a single worldview; they have many worldviews according to which iwi or hapu (tribe or subtribe) they’re from. The Bank doesn’t say which particular Māori worldview it’s favouring, but at a guess I’d say it’s the worldview of the newly made hapu called ‘Academic Māori’.

On the surface, DEI sounds like a nice concept to bring in a variety of employees, and treat everyone fairly. Perhaps it does do these things sometimes, but it’s also harsh and unforgiving, with parameters of ‘correct’ behaviour and speech which are ever narrowing. It gives managers free reign to formerly admonish or punish staff like Emma, an ex-Ministry of Transport employee, who dared to express a different belief to what was deemed the only acceptable one to have. DEI encourages staff to lay complaints against each other for minor offences they should be able to weather, and creates a gag effect on the expression and exchange of ideas, in the event an incorrect thing is said. There are many employees who don’t like the negativity that DEI can create in the workplace, but are too afraid of repercussions to speak up about it there.

The Inland Revenue Dept (IRD) has also chastised a woman employee for making an ironic comment in an online in-house group called IR Women’s Forum. In response to the news that period products would now be placed in all bathrooms, she wrote: "This is awesome but a shame it took so long coming. And interesting, that now that men can menstruate, free period products are available in all bathrooms." Her team leader was not amused, told her directly that her gender-critical position was inconsistent with IRD’s, and that she should self-censor. A ‘letter of expectation’ was issued as well, which contained the threat of a formal disciplinary process. The Free Speech Union NZ has taken on this case on behalf of the woman employee, and says: “This means that the workplace is not an agnostic, apolitical place where those of differing views can work together in public service”.

Now the Reserve Bank wants its new DEI Advisor to firmly “embed” a doctrine akin to an ideology within its entire systemic structure, which is only workable by applying a forceful policing approach to it, and pop the Māori worldview in there, too.

The Bank also wants the new DEI Advisor to: “Communicate with credibility the linkage between proposed initiatives, organisational strategies and the benefits to the organisation in a variety of fora”. It sounds for all the world that the Bank is asking for evidence to be manufactured to prove that DEI is working, after it has been embedded. Where was the evidence beforehand? To date, I’m not aware of any hard evidence which shows in a measurable way that DEI is an effective tool which enhances workplace wellbeing, unity, and productivity. I have seen a number of flowery narratives which offer assurances that it does all this, as well as offering (supposed) employee endorsements to back that up, but no solid before and after stats. If they’re out there, it would be interesting to know, especially as university students must get convinced of it somehow when they study DEI.

However, whether or not that evidence is available right now, I expect it soon will be, especially if it’s in the DEI Advisor’s job description to come up with it.

The job is also a “thought leadership role”, which is somewhat comical, as it’s increasingly noticeable that only correct and contained thoughts are allowed in public service workplaces. Still, I guess new ways of devising the suppression of thoughts and expression in others could be attributed as ‘leadership’.

So, this is the direction New Zealand’s Reserve Bank is going in. I don’t anticipate it will have a problem filling the DEI Advisor vacancy, unless some sensible person who is a position to do so puts the brakes on it. The salary for this role isn’t stated, but I don’t count on it being peanuts.

Nor do I expect that DEI, whether in the Reserve Bank or elsewhere, will ever be the Utopia it’s determinedly portrayed as, or anything close to it. From what I’m hearing, the chasm between that and how it plays out in real life is vast. But, our entire public service, including the Reserve Bank of New Zealand, continue to embed it. You’d think, of any organisation, our central bank would be able to spot an investment which wasn’t living up to its hype, wouldn’t you?