Erin Kennedy is an NZNO leader in Wellington. Since 2006 she has represented members in the workplace, in the media and in the Council of Trade Unions. In her roles as Lead Delegate, Convenor and Co-convenor at my DHB, I worked closely with Erin for over a decade.
Last month, Erin submitted a letter to the editors of Kai Tiaki Nursing New Zealand. Although the July 2020 issue of Kai Tiaki carries an interview with Erin on the same topic, they declined to print her letter in full. I therefore publish Erin’s letter here.
Thanks to the honest reporting in these pages in recent months, most Kai Tiaki readers are aware of the serious problems affecting the NZNO board of directors.
There is less awareness about the breakdown in representative democracy and bicultural partnerships taking place elsewhere in the union. As demonstrated by developments in the Greater Wellington Regional Council (GWRC), however, these are just as serious.
GWRC represents approximately 5000 members living or working in the greater Wellington region. These are the people who are entitled to attend regional council meetings, although under our constitution only elected regional councillors are entitled to vote. Many of these 5000 members are probably unaware of who their councillors are, or even that the regional council exists. But GWRC makes important decisions on their behalf, including submitting remits for the one member one vote process and approving candidates wishing to stand for the board of directors.
I have been attending GWRC meetings for several years. The last meeting, on June 10, was unlike any I have experienced before. The council chairperson was not present. Nor was the vice-chair who sent apologies. The only member of the regional council’s five-member management committee who attended was the representative of Te Runanga.
At the start of the meeting, another member of Te Runanga, from outside the region (and therefore not entitled to vote) announced that NZNO chief executive Memo Musa had asked her to be present.
In our member-driven organisation, the role of NZNO staff and management is to operationalise the strategies and policies set by leaders elected by members. It is not their role to intervene in governance structures such as regional councils. This point was made at the meeting, but ignored.
In the absence of the chairperson and vice-chair, the Runanga member from outside the region said that she would oversee an election of a temporary chair for the meeting. A second member of Te Runanga, whose name has never appeared on the list of elected regional councillors either was nominated as chair. So was a long-serving GWRC member.
A vote was held. It was farcical. Members of Te Runanga who are not regional councillors were allowed to vote by the Runanga member who was also not a regional councillor.
As a result, and despite protests, a Runanga member who was not a regional councillor was elected to run the meeting our Greater Wellington Regional Council.
There appears to be little point in making a complaint about this to the NZNO chief executive, who, after all, instigated the whole process. And so our only recourse is here in the letters page of Kai Tiaki, to inform our fellow members that the current leadership of NZNO are making a mockery of democracy and partnership in our organisation.
For me, this was the last straw. After more than 30 years as a union delegate, 14 of those with NZNO, I have resigned my roles as workplace delegate and regional councillor. All I can say now is that fixing NZNO is going to take a radical overhaul of our governance structures and leadership.
Debate is swirling around statues and the veneration of colonial icons in the wake of #BlackLivesMatter protests. I re-post this article I wrote in April 2020 as a contribution to a re-evaluation of the figure known as “the founder of modern nursing“.
Many nurses find Nightingale’s statements on colonisation and the fate of indigenous people a dangerous legacy. For this reason, NZNO’s board of directors will celebrate other nurses and models of health on International Nurses Day 2020.
It’s surely testament to the huge significance of Florence Nightingale in the development of our profession that 200 years after her birth, she continues to stimulate debate.
On the one hand, her contributions to raising the status of nursing, establishing formal training and applying statistical methods in sanitary reform are celebrated to this day.
But the historical figures we choose to venerate say a lot about who we are. And the legacy Florence Nightingale left for us is a mixed one – especially here in the South Pacific. It’s right that her legacy should be open to scrutiny.
For decades, feminist nurses in New Zealand have been uneasy about Nightingale’s insistence that “to be a good Nurse one must be a good woman” (1). Her instructions to nurses (dutifully reprinted in Kai Tiaki, 63 years later) told us to always display the “higher or holier” womanly virtues of forbearance and endurance, and that we must “above all” obey the male doctors.
Nurse leaders in Aotearoa have long understood how Nightingale’s opposition to registration and higher education for nurses undermined our professional autonomy and fostered the eventual dominance of the medical model of health (2).
In the end, however, it was Nightingale’s troubling role in colonisation which led the NZNO Board of Directors to decide that on International Nurses Day 2020, we’ll be celebrating our indigenous and home-grown nurses instead.
It’s a little-known fact about Florence Nightingale that she was a close advisor to the Governor of New Zealand, Sir George Grey, during his second term in office from 1861-68. She also advised colonial authorities in Australia and elsewhere.
The collected letters and reports she sent to Grey and others, published in 2004, reveal a long-hidden side of her legacy.
It is now known that Nightingale supported the alienation of Māori land, in order to force migration to European settlements and to bring contact with what she termed, “the inestimable blessings of Christian civilisation”.
“The object should be to draw them gradually into better habits and gradually to civilise them”, she said, in her Note on the New Zealand Depopulation Question. (3)
To those who objected, and said that “provision of land should be made for the exclusive use of the existing tribes” in the colonies, she replied: “this by itself would be simply preserving their barbarism for the sake of preserving their lives” (4).
Perhaps her most disturbing advice, in the present circumstances, was her dismissal of reports about outbreaks of infectious diseases among indigenous communities following contact with Europeans.
“People assert that they always have influenza after a boat comes to them from the mainland”, she wrote, in a letter to the Colonial Office in London. “But, after all, is it a fact?
“Diseases and eclipses used to stand as effects to causes, in semi-scientific observations of the Middle Ages. It is the usual error of quarantine reasoning”, she concluded (5).
Nightingale advised that efforts to support the heath of indigenous people should focus elsewhere.
“Within or near the tropics the miasmatic class of diseases occasions most of the mortality at the earlier periods of life.”
In her Note on the New Zealand Depopulation Question, Nightingale attributed the prevalence of “chest diseases” among Māori to “the introduction of pigs, as an article of food.”
Running through all of her colonial writings is the idea that population decline was due to inherent defects of indigenous people themselves, when compared to superior Europeans.
Excessive consumption of pork was responsible for the “bad habits, filth, laziness, skin diseases and a tendency to worms and scrofula” which she believed were characteristic of the Māori people (and also of the Irish). (3)
“Incivilisation, with its inherent diseases, when brought into contact with civilisation, without adopting specific precautions for preserving health, will always carry with it a large increase in mortality”, she said.
“The decaying races are chiefly in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and perhaps in certain parts of South Africa. They appear to consist chiefly of tribes which have never been civilised enough or had force of character enough to form fixed settlements or to build towns.”
“These aboriginal populations… appear to be far more susceptible to the operations of causes of disease arising out of imperfect civilisation than are civilised men (meaning by “civilised” men who can live in a city or village without cutting each other’s throat).” (6)
“As for the Australians, in their present state, very few of the human race are lower in the scale of civilisation than these poor people.” (7)
Faced with such frank expressions of racism, Nightingale’s defenders argue that she was a product of her time and that whatever her faults, her priority was the health of indigenous people.
Yet other public figures of the time were able to see more clearly. A select committee report from the Legislative Council of Victoria in 1858-59 found that, “The great and almost unprecedented reduction in the number of the aborigines is to be attributed to the general occupation of the country by the white population.”
Nightingale rejected this conclusion, arguing that decline is “not a universal law when savages come into contact with civilisation.”
Her criticism of the report suggests where her priorities really lay: “I hope the time is not far off when such a stigma as it affixes to the empire might be wiped away.” (6)
Or as she put it elsewhere, “This question of the fate of aboriginal populations is one closely concerning our national honour.” (7)
Here in Aotearoa, Nightingale’s upper class paternalism and her White Supremacist views were inculcated in many (though not all) of our early nurses.
These attitudes were then carried across the South Pacific, as the New Zealand Department of Health assumed responsibility for nursing services firstly in the Cook Islands in 1903, then in Western Samoa and Niue in 1920 and later in Fiji and Tonga.
Nightingale’s colonial legacy in the region re-surfaced in 2018, in a debate at the South Pacific Nurses Forum (SPNF) in Rarotonga. Indigenous nurses expressed their pain that the global Nursing Now campaign planned to celebrate the bicentenary of her birth.
A resolution, moved by NZNO and seconded by the Fiji Nursing Association, was passed unanimously, “To recommend and request that two representatives from SPNF representing indigenous nurses be appointed on to the Board of Nursing Now Global Campaign.”
On behalf of the SPNF Steering Committee, we wrote to the Board of Nursing Now in early 2019. We explained that, “Florence Nightingale wrote about our Indigenous peoples in the South Pacific in a racist, paternalistic and patronising way.
“The continued veneration of Florence Nightingale in the Nursing Now campaign is therefore disrespectful and painful. It continues to highlight for our Indigenous nurses that their traditional knowledge and ways of being and doing are not being respected. Raising her as the beacon for nursing globally causes trauma and re-ignites the history and pain of colonisation.
“It was in order to address these issues of Eurocentrism that we had lobbied to gain two seats on the Nursing Now Board.”
Our request was declined – coincidentally, around the same time as the Waitangi Tribunal released its landmark report on the WAI 2575 claim.
“The severity and persistence of health inequity Māori continue to experience indicates the health system is institutionally racist,” said the Tribunal, “and that this, including the personal racism and stereotyping that occurs in the primary care sector, particularly impacts on Māori.” (8)
As nursing leaders in 2020, we see Aotearoa’s most pressing health issue to be health equity. The persistent and systemic health inequities have been two hundred years in the making. Our health inequities will continue if we insist on being wilfully blind to their existence, or fail to acknowledge their origins.
For these reasons, the decision for us and for the NZNO Board was obvious. Celebrating Florence doesn’t fit with our vision. Instead, in the Year of the Nurse and the Midwife, we are choosing to celebrate those who move us forward to a bicultural future of equity for all. •
3. McDonald, L. (Ed.). (2004). Florence Nightingale on Public Health Care – Collected Works of Florence Nightingale, Volume 6. Waterloo, Canada: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, pp 183-5.
4. Ibid., p 180.
5. Ibid., p 196.
6. Ibid., p 168-183.
7. Nightingale, F., & National Association for the Promotion of Social Science. (1865). Note on the aboriginal races of Australia: a paper read at the annual meeting of the National Association for the Promotion of Social Science, held at York, September, 1864. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/2027/uc2.ark:/13960/t07w6pn5d
A member petition calling for a motion of no confidence in the Board of the New Zealand Nurses Organisation was submitted to the union’s Chief Executive yesterday. It follows the resignation of the President, Vice-President and three other directors of the eleven-member Board in the space of seven weeks.
The petition calls for a Special General Meeting (SGM) to consider the motion:
“That the membership of NZNO expresses no confidence in the current Board of Directors, calls for the dissolution of the full Board and requests that an election be held for all eleven Director positions, according to the provisions of the NZNO Constitution.”
In order to hold an SGM, the NZNO Constitution requires a petition to be signed by more than 1% of financial members (around 510 people).
“By our count, well over 1,500 NZNO members have signed the petition”, said Marion Guy, QSO, NZNO Democracy Now! spokesperson and former NZNO President. “That’s more than the number who voted for some of the six remaining Board members.
“The NZNO Chief Executive has said that an SGM will be called within 30 days of the petition being lodged. It needs to happen quickly, because with five vacant seats on the Board it places extra pressure on the remaining six to be able to govern effectively. Passing this motion should clear the way for fresh elections to all eleven positions.”
Spokesperson and former NZNO President Diane Stuchbury said she was distraught at the divisions in NZNO, which opened up in 2018-19 and are now growing even deeper. “Amid personal attacks and racial animosity, the Special General meeting provides the hope of resolving the dysfunction in the Board”, she said.
“Supporters of the petition come from every part of NZNO – from the membership in the DHBs, Primary Health, Private Hospitals and Aged Care Sectors, from every NZNO Region, from Te Rūnanga o Aotearoa NZNO, from our professional Colleges and Sections and the National Student Unit.
“This real unity in action is what can salvage NZNO’s professionalism, focus our union back on the members and restore our battered bicultural partnerships.”
The petitioners are asking for the motion to be put in front of the whole membership, rather than just being decided by the 33 designated representatives of NZNO member groups who could, under the terms of the NZNO Constitution, choose to vote on it themselves without wider consultation.
“There is a massive groundswell behind our petition”, NZNO Democracy Now! spokesperson and former President Nano Tunnicliff. “For the sake of NZNO’s integrity, I urge the member representatives to allow this motion to be decided democratically by the wider membership through ‘one member, one vote’.”
The three spokespeople hope that through this process, NZNO members can move on together, rebuild relationships and restore confidence in the organisation representing 51,000 of New Zealand’s nurses, midwives, students, kaimahi hauora, health care workers and allied health professionals.
First published on Change.org. Reposted with permission.
Three former Presidents of the New Zealand Nurses Organisation have united in a call for fresh elections for the full NZNO Board. The call is the subject of a petition launched today for a Special General Meeting (SGM) of the organisation.
“As the first NZNO President to embed the Memorandum of Understanding with Te Rūnanga o Aotearoa NZNO, which brought us together in bicultural partnership twenty years ago, I have been distraught to see the deep divisions now opening up along a number of fronts”, said Diane Stuchbury (2000-2001).
“The election of six new Board members last year did not heal the divisions, as they remained mired in unresolved conflicts. To end our internal divisions, we need to do more than elect another five people to fill the current vacancies. We need a clean slate. That’s why I’m supporting the call for fresh elections for all eleven positions.”
Marion Guy, QSO (2005-2009, 2012-2015) is concerned about the lack of governance experience now represented around the NZNO Board table.
“Four of the six remaining Board members have been in the role for less than 18 months”, she said. “It simply isn’t fair to expect them to govern our venerable organisation with its 50,000 members.
“To truly uphold the professionalism which our organisation stands for, there needs to be an opportunity to bring in a more experienced Board. I support the SGM petition to enable this.”
Nano Tunnicliff (2009-12) led the development and adoption of the current NZNO Constitution. “Confidence has been shaken in our democratic processes”, she said, “as practice has strayed far from the Constitution’s original intention.
“I support a motion for fresh elections for the full NZNO Board. But I urge any SGM held on this matter to use its Constitutional power to make the motion an all of membership decision, conducted via an all member ballot.
“That’s what we did in 2011 when the organisation faced a decision of similar magnitude, and the NZNO AGM put the question of adopting a new Constitution to a ballot of all members.”
All three former Presidents agree that NZNO requires sound governance to best uplift the health and wellbeing of New Zealanders.
“Health outcomes improve when fifty thousand voices unite to advocate for their patients and the profession”, they say. “It’s only when we are united and focused that we can secure safe staffing and terms and conditions to address the upcoming workforce shortages. These matters can’t wait.“
The SGM petition calling for fresh elections has been launched by NZNO Democracy Now!, a group of concerned members.
If the petition is signed by 1% of membership, around 500 financial members, then the matter is constitutionally required to go to a Special General Meeting.
The 30 questions below were submitted by administrators of the Facebook group, “New Zealand, please hear our voice”. Formed in 2018 by two anonymous nurses using the pseudonym “Nurse Florence”, it has grown to 39,000 members. It is the largest New Zealand-based Facebook group for nurses and our supporters.
1. What was the final straw which caused you to resign from NZNO so suddenly and in the middle of a pandemic?
The considerations which led me to resign are outlined in the public statement I made on 24 April 2020. The last straw was when I learnt, two weeks earlier on 8 April 2020, that a lawyer would be hired to advise on further actions which could be taken against me as a result of the Special General Meeting held in December.
My statement explains that I spent two weeks thinking about what to do, and about the thousands of NZNO members and supporters who stood up for me against the previous Board in 2019. As we were all struggling on the front lines as essential workers and at home in our bubbles, I said, I couldn’t ask for you to do that again. I couldn’t put my family through those public legal battles again, either. So I submitted my letter of resignation.
2. How has CEO Memo Musa been involved in this situation?
A statement posted on the official NZNO Facebook page at 7:09 PM on 24 April 2020 said: “Members will now have heard that NZNO President Grant Brookes has resigned, effective from today. This is strictly a matter between Grant Brookes and the Board. No staff were involved in the decision or events leading up to it and we are surprised and saddened by this news.”
I can vouch for the truth of that statement.
3. How has Kaiwhakahaere Kerri Nuku been involved in this situation?
Kerri Nuku, in her role as NZNO Co-leader, chaired all of the Board meetings in 2019 which made decisions about removing me from office. She represented the Board against me publicly and in the media, and continues to do so.
In her role as Kaiwhakahaere Kerri Nuku is also leader of Te Rūnanga o Aotearoa NZNO, the NZNO group for members identifying as Tangata Whenua. On 29 April 2020, Te Rūnanga released a public statement, containing many inaccuracies, which was disparaging of myself and the three other Board members who resigned after me. I do not intend to direct people to that shameful statement.
4. There has been significant discussion regarding racism and discrimination from NZNO management and the BOD. How did this develop and how has this been allowed to fester in such a way?
Racism is a feature of societies in New Zealand and around the world. It is usually most obvious in the attitudes and behaviours of individuals but it also exists in the structure of institutions, including NZNO. Racism towards Māori developed through the ongoing processes of colonisation. One of the most distressing things about the Special General Meetings in 2019, and the decision last month to reopen those matters, is the way that it has seriously undermined efforts to tackle this racism.
5. The change in the constitution allowing the Kaiwhakahaere to remain in office permanently – what is the rationale for this, what is your position, and how did this influence your decision to leave NZNO?
The change in the NZNO Constitution which allows the Kaiwhakahaere to remain in office permanently was made through a vote of member representatives at the NZNO AGM in 2017. The “constitutional remit” (or proposal for change) was submitted by Te Poari, the Committee of Te Rūnanga. The rationale given by Te Poari may be read in full at this link.
This change was not a factor in my decision to resign.
Reporting the AGM debate about this remit in their October 2017 issue, Kai Tiaki noted: “Some delegates questioned how the change would affect succession planning and whether the constitutional change would prevent new leaders from emerging”. I supported the remit in 2017, but my position now is that these questions were valid.
6. What specific issues do you feel you were unable to gain momentum on within NZNO which contributed to your resignation?
The public statement which I made when I resigned on 24 April 2020 talked about the issues which were important to me, and which of them failed to gain momentum.
My key priorities, I said, were heeding the voice of the membership, tackling health inequities through an unrelenting focus on their social determinants, and strengthening NZNO’s bicultural partnership. I do feel that by working with members, together we were able to make NZNO a more membership-driven organisation. And NZNO is more focused than ever on tackling health inequities and their social determinants.
But as I also wrote, “Having put my heart and soul into strengthening NZNO’s bicultural partnership for four and a half years, I am devastated that I can now see no way of achieving the type of genuine partnership that our Constitution envisages and our membership deserve.”
This issue did contribute to my decision to resign.
7. Who are the “shadowy forces” you refer to in your resignation letter, and how have they contributed to your resignation?
“Shadowy forces”, by definition, are individuals and groups who operate out of sight, behind a front. They are the ones, I said, who were behind the Board’s bid to remove me from office last year and to stem the tide of member-led change. They contributed to my resignation because they were continuing to pursue these goals, and I did not feel able to ask members and supporters struggling on the front lines as essential workers and at home in their bubbles to again put in huge efforts to support me.
As more senior figures resign, the front they can hide behind is getting smaller. And if people continue to push to make NZNO genuinely membership-driven and bicultural through a new Constitution, as I suggest in my latest blog, then the “shadowy forces” will become known through their resistance to this change.
8. You have been transparent and answered questions on social media, by email and by phone for NZNO members and other nurses who required clarification and context for the recent events surrounding NZNO. Why do you believe the remaining board members and NZNO management have not also been forthcoming to the satisfaction of the membership?
Connecting with members was my favourite part of my role as NZNO President. Knowledge is power, and if I could help to empower members by answering questions on social media, then I considered I was doing the job I was elected to do.
The previous Board viewed things very differently. As they stated in the document they provided to members on 22 August 2019, ahead of the first Special General Meeting, they believed that continuing to operate the “Grant Brookes, NZNO President” Facebook page constituted misconduct. It was one of the grounds they gave for why I should be removed from office at that SGM.
I can’t answer for the actions, or inactions of the remaining board members and NZNO management, but I do note that a majority of the people in these positions were also involved in last year’s SGM.
9. It appears from public social media posts that Te Rūnanga is encouraging their members to see this situation as a racial divide and to engage tauiwi NZNO members in an aggressive way. What are your thoughts?
I think it’s important to distinguish Te Rūnanga o Aotearoa NZNO, made up of almost 4,000 Māori members of NZNO, from the behaviour of a few prominent individuals who are tragically undermining our bicultural partnership.
10. A large group of both board members and NZNO staff have left the organisation over the last two years, citing bullying as their reason. Who are the people responsible for this bullying, and how do they remain in these positions despite their behaviour?
I can’t comment on the circumstances surrounding the departure of other Board members or NZNO staff, sorry.
11. The NZNO has been paying the president and Kaiwhakahaere for their work, which is unusual in a union structure. What was the rationale for this, and how is it influencing the current issues with dysfunction?
The creation of paid roles for the President and Kaiwhakahaere one of the changes which came with the NZNO Constitution, adopted in 2012. However, the initial proposal to create paid positions goes back as far as 1996, when the NZNO Annual Conference passed a remit calling for a review of the support needs of the President and requested a paper outlining advantages and disadvantages of having a full-time paid President.
The idea resurfaced at conferences and in reports every couple of years thereafter. This is all well before my time, so I don’t know the rationale, sorry.
Personally, I was sceptical about the creation of paid roles as the Constitution was being developed in 2010-12, as it brings with it a risk that elected leaders start to see their goal as remaining in office rather than serving their members. But I am now satisfied that limiting the length of time leaders are able to stay in their position can help to mitigate against this risk.
By the way, the idea of a paid President is not unusual in union structures. Most similar unions in New Zealand have it – and also set term limits for their elected leadership. I don’t think paying the NZNO President and Kaiwhakahaere for their work is a major factor in the current issues with dysfunction.
12. How can NZNO members call for a review of the Constitution?
As reported in the February issue of Kai Tiaki, the Board agreed in December to my proposal for a review of the Constitution. The terms of reference for this review are supposed to be provided to members when the 2020 AGM documents come out, in July. If the Board reneges on its decision, then getting a proper review will probably the require replacement of the Board.
13. How can NZNO members make a vote of no confidence in the BOD and have them removed?
Watch this space.
14. How can NZNO members force a forensic review of processes and financial accountability of the board and NZNO as a whole?
I am not clear what this question is asking, sorry. NZNO’s financial statements are audited annually. Since 2016, this has been conducted by Deloitte New Zealand. The independent auditor’s report is contained in the NZNO Annual Report, which is posted on the NZNO website.
15. The three BOD members who resigned several days ago have still not received formal recognition of their resignations from NZNO, therefore members do not yet know if these have been accepted. How indicative of normal NZNO processes is this?
Nothing about NZNO governance is normal at the moment.
16. There have been several expensive overseas trips made by the Kaiwhakahaere recently, which NZNO members paid for. What did these trips achieve for each individual fee-paying member of NZNO?
With rare exceptions, NZNO achievements generally accrue through ongoing activity over time. So it can be hard to point to a single action or event which led to them. But I do believe for example that pay parity for nurses working in Māori Health Providers, who typically earn less than their DHB counterparts, has been brought closer through the Kaiwhakahaere’s advocacy at the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues in New York.
I should also disclose my own interest in this matter. On some of the overseas trips, I went with the Kaiwhakahaere.
I would like to highlight one achievement connected with our international engagement through Global Nurses United (where two of the three trips so far were heavily subsidised by the host nursing union, by the way). Partly because of the engagement with GNU members like the New South Wales Nurses and Midwives’ Association and National Nurses United in America, all fee-paying members will this year be able to vote on reviewing NZNO’s safe staffing strategies, including CCDM, and get a chance to support nurse:patient ratios.
17. The Kaiwhakahaere has engaged in public posts on Facebook with fellow members of Te Rūnanga, suggesting that tauiwi need to be “overthrown”, “taken out”, are “unable to lead”, “ineffective for Māori health”, “lacking in mana”, etc, all of which is insulting and unprofessional to both tauiwi and Māori. Bearing in mind that you were effectively fired for a single text message, why has the Kaiwhakahaere not even been formally censured by NZNO for such behaviour?
What? I have not seen these comments. I would need more information in order to respond.
18. The three BOD members who resigned state they were asked to sign confidentiality agreements. Why was this?
A new letter of appointment, to be signed by all NZNO Board members and containing a confidentiality clause, was introduced in October 2017. A motion was passed, “That the Board draft a letter of appointment for all Board members to sign as soon as practicable. This may need input from lawyers.”
The rationale, as recorded in the Board meeting minutes, is that this was “best practice on the basis of information from the IoD [Institute of Directors]”. I am sorry to say that I didn’t know any better at that time, and went along with it.
19. What was their reasoning for leaving so soon after you?
I cannot speak for the three BOD members who resigned after me.
20. How will the board now get new members and a new President and Vice-President?
The normal process for electing Board members, including the President and Vice-President, is contained in Schedule Three of the NZNO Constitution. Other processes are under discussion, but there is no information available on those at the moment.
21. How has all of this impacted on the wider issues of MECA negotiations and COVID-19 support?
One NZNO staff member told me last week that the turmoil in the Board is “impacting on everything we do”. Despite this, NZNO delegates and staff are continuing to support members on the front line in the COVID-19 pandemic and in preparations for successful DHB MECA bargaining.
22. What improvements had been made by NZNO to employment policies following membership dissatisfaction with the undertaking of legal action against you?
No changes have been made.
23. Members have been leaving NZNO to sign with other unions. What is needed for nurses who have opted to remain, despite their dissatisfaction, to regain control of NZNO?
I’ve talked in broad terms in my latest blog about what’s needed for us, as members, to take back NZNO. Our fight to make NZNO genuinely membership-driven and bicultural, through a new Constitution, will also be a battle to dislodge entrenched interests. I am aware of groups developing more concrete plans for action. Please see the answer above, for question 13.
24. A bullying culture seems to have developed and blossomed unchecked in the NZNO ranks. How can this be stopped?
The culture of an organisation is set from the top. In my opinion, the best way to rectify NZNO’s culture is to change the Board.
25. The dysfunction within NZNO has been played out in the media. How can nurses salvage their reputations after this?
I know how hard it is to maintain ethical conduct in an unethical environment. But ultimately, this is what we have to do.
26. How can nurses organise themselves to maintain a strong cohesive stance against future unacceptable DHB wage and conditions packages – given the current state of the union?
I have stated publicly my belief that NZNO is a much more membership-driven organisation today. One of the ways this is true is in the approach to the 2020 DHB MECA bargaining. The current state of the union will sadly affect our cohesion, but there is a lot we can do to maintain our collective strength. I don’t follow gurus, because we have to make our future ourselves. But there are some good tips about how we can organise in these short videos from US author Jane McAlevey.
27. What advice do you have for nurses who are hurt and angry at the actions of NZNO?
I have a written a blog, addressing directly the many NZNO members who feel let down by NZNO and asked for my thoughts on their options. I hope the advice is helpful to some people.
28. How feasible is it to remove the Kaiwhakahaere from the NZNO board, and for Te Rūnanga to be run within NZNO as a self-contained entity (like a Maori Health Provider under DHB or PHO purview)? Maori can then have their own president, kaupapa and be responsible for their own financial decisions. Then all members of all sections could decide which section they wish to be signed with, and there need not be further powerplays.
A union is based on the belief that we’re stronger together. Achieving genuine bicultural partnership will enrich us all.
29. How has all this impacted on you and your family?
My situation is not unique. Other people survive years of bullying at work. Some also go through long, drawn-out legal battles. Those people will understand the kind of impact this had on me and my family over the last two years.
There is one memory though which springs to mind. In 2018 the Board repeatedly refused to attend mediation to try and resolve the escalating tensions, until finally they were ordered to attend by the Employment Relations Authority.
On 17 December 2018, just before Christmas, we met together with a mediator. As well as my lawyer, my partner and our nine year-old and twelve year-old came with me for support. I opened with a karakia, then a kōrero in Te Reo Māori and English, about the need to whai utu/restore balance in our relationship through this mediation.
At the end of this opening, my partner and children stood up to support me with a waiata tautoko. It was “E tū, kahikatea”. As the Board’s bicultural representatives sat expressionless across the table, like they were made of stone, my family made it to the end of the song and dissolved into tears.
It is a very hard thing to bear, when cruelty makes your children cry.
30. Do you have any plans to return to unionism in the future? If so what?
My heart has always been with members at the coal face – the place where real nursing happens and where camaraderie and common purpose exist. I am happy and proud that now I can follow my heart and return.
I start my new job on the ward in a week, where I will join the PSA as well and remain an active member in both unions. I have no plans at the moment to return to a formal union role (paid or unpaid). But I never say never.