Sacked diplomat angry at High Court decision

Press, 31 May 1984, Page 4

Sacked diplomat angry at High Court decision

PA Wellington The former junior diplomat, Ms Atareta Poananga, says she is outraged at the failure of her bid in the High Court for a review of her dismissal from the Public Service two years ago. She said she was sacked for trying to introduce a Maori perspective into Foreign Affairs. The High Court decision put at risk all Maori public servants and all other public servants whose views were contrary to those of their employers, she said. Maori leaders who supported Ms Poananga during her appeal are angry at the decision and will raise it at next week’s meeting of the New Zealand Maori Council. Auckland and Waiariki district Maori councils have written to the Public Service Association asking it to take the case to the Court of Appeal on the ground that cultural and racial factors were not given due consideration. The chairman of the P.S.A., Mr Colin Hicks, said aspects of the case were similar to the recent alleged misuse of powers to transfer some Ministry of Works employees in Dunedin, and to the case of a police department employee whose transfer had been the subject of a judgment He said the Poananga

judgment seemed to be saying that if the employer did not like the employee then, without explanation on justification, that person could “willingly” be transferred.

The Public Service Association says the case has serious political implications for workers who may find themselves transferred and never be able to find out the real reasons why this has happened. It is considering further legal appeals or political action to get the law change.

Ms Poananga sought a judical review of the State Services Commission’s decision to transfer her from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the D.S.I.R. and the decision of the commission to dismiss her from the Public Service when she refused to comply. The Chief Justice, Sir Ronald Davison, found none of the grounds on which she sought the review to have been established and he declined the application. The grounds for the transfer, to take effect from May 5, 1982, were that Ms Poananga’s personal views had been in sharp conflict with the policy of the Ministry and the situation had been reached when the incompatibility of views made her continued employment there untenable. She did not comply with

the direction to transfer and on May 26 she was dismissed.

Her grounds for review were that the State Services Commission had exercised its power of transfer invalidly in that it was used as a disciplinary measure against her and/or as an attempt to get her to resign from the Public Service; that it exercised its power of transfer unfairly and therefore invalidly, and that, as a consequence of this, the decision to dismiss was also invalid.

Ms Poananga complained she had been punished without a hearing of charges against her and without beings found guilty of such charges. The commission argued that it had validly exercised its power of transfer and that its decision to dismiss her was also valid. The commission’s decision to transfer Ms Poananga came after a series of incidents: • In 1979, while she was a member of a New Zealand delegation to Tahiti, reports to the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Mr Merwyn Noirish, led him to conclude that she had pursued her own interests at the expense of the New Zealand Government to the point that her performance was harmful to New Zealand. • In 1980, the South Pacific Festival co-ordinating

committee’s chairman, Mr Hamish Keith, complained that she caused conflict and dissension in the committee by pursuing policies which were not those of the Ministry.

• As a spokesperson for the Mana Motuhake Party she criticised the Minister of Maori Affairs, Mr Couch, in a letter to a newspaper. • In 1982, she was spoken to about alleged leakage of material from the Ministry about the film “The Maori” to the news media. • In 1982, she and another officer wrote to two newspapers about the recruitment and placement of Maoris in the Public Service “in a manner which suggested disagreement with Government policies.” • In 1982, she circulated to a Ministry induction course a paper on the Ministry’s attitude to biculturalism which Mr Noirish considered' highly misleading and destructive. In his judgment, the Chief Justice said that if an officer held, and acted on, personal views which were in conflict with the views of the department, the smooth running of the department and its efficiency were likely to be impaired. He said in view of the attitude of Ms Poananga he was satisfied there were good grounds for the commission’s chairman, Dr Mervyn Probine, to decide that

the efficiency of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs would be improved if she were transferred to another department. He was satisfied that punishment or disciplinary reasons were not “a substantial purpose or motive for the transfer." The chairman of the Waiariki District Maori Council, Mr Manju Paul, said that Ms Poananga was dismissed for expressing her Maori identity. The case was parallel to the uproar over a Maori toll operator using “kia ora,” he said. “No person in New Zealand should be placed in the position where their job is in jeopardy because of their racial and cultural identity.” The head of Maori studies at Victoria University, Professor Sid Mead, said that because Ms Poananga attempted to express her different perspective she was regarded by the monocultural bureaucracy as a deviant The secretary of the Kotahitanga (Unity) movement,' Mis Titewhai Harawira, said the decision was saying, “We had better not try to be Maori in the State Services Commission.” She said that Maori groups would send telegrams to the Public Service Association calling for an appeal.