OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT 1982- REQUEST TO THE NZ DEFENCE FORCE – WELLINGTON OIA 2023-4687 24th April 2023 Reference: Accreditation as a Rainbow Tick Employer. What are the costs involved in maintaining this certification. What are the upfront costs for becoming Rainbow Tick accredited

NEW ZEALAND MILITARY AND ITS RAINBOW LGBTQ1 ++++ AWARD OF EXCELLENCE. (DEI A VERY DANGEROUS CLIPPERY SLOPE)

New Zealand Defence Force is Rainbow tick certified.. For the 2018/19 financial year, the programme fee was $10, 000. Subsequently, the fee has been $12,000 per annum and has been paid to 30 June 2023. The contract was renewed for one year in 2022 for one year to 30 June 2023 under the same conditions . NZ Defence Force took out the Top Spot Award at the Rainbow Excellence Awards for continuous progress in relation to the inclusion of Rainbow Communities. The Defence Force was also reaccredited the Rainbow Tick, rolled out training workshops with Pride Pledge, and supported the Big Gay Out event. The Military steps up for the LBBTQ + Community  (Human Resources Director. Ref Diversity Inclusion) 7th July 2023.

A  Deloitte report stated in 2023 that the NZ Defence Force is prioritizing LGBTQ1+ Inclusiveness and Diversity. In 2013 the NZ Defence Force at the Hague Centre were reported to be the most ‘Inclusive’ military in the world. NZ Defence Force started working for the LGBTQ community in 2009. They established an LGBTQ1+ Group which quickly gained traction, this expanded to the Navy, Army and NZFF Civilian workforce. In 2012 the ‘Overwatch Network’ was formed establishing support for LGBTQ+ community within the NZDF.  Marching in Pride Marches since 2013. Gaining the Rainbow Tick in 2019 completing the Diversity and Inclusion Assessment process. Then they won the Rainbow Inclusion Awards in 2021. The NZ Defence Force published a comprehensive 33 Page Document referring to NZDF support of the Rainbow community.

NOTE: As a researcher I personally believe that Diversity Equity Inclusion DEI is a very dangerous slippery slope that is massively embedded in NZ Industries, Military, Local and Central Govts, NGO’s, Schools, Universities. This is where the ‘demon -cancel culture lives’

Rainbow Tick helps boost DEI efforts

NZDF gained the Rainbow Tick in 2019 — a certification mark for organization’s that complete a Diversity & Inclusion assessment process

NZDF then published a comprehensive 33-page document that touched on every level of the organization and outlined what each person could do to support rainbow inclusion – from leadership to the newest recruit walking through the gate – and the force’s work won them a gong at the Rainbow Inclusion Awards in 2021.

28TH APRIL 2023 -REQUEST: TAXPAYERS.. TO OIA

I refer to your email of 4 April 2023 requesting, under the Official Information Act 1982 (OIA), information about New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) accreditation as a Rainbow Tick employer.

This is a request for official information under the Official Information Act 1982 relating to accreditations that the force has received. We request information that answers the following questions: -How long has the force been affiliated with or accredited as a ‘Rainbow Tick’ employer? –

What are the costs that are involved with maintaining this certification? – What were the upfront costs for becoming accredited? – Please provide copy of any contracts signed any other applicable conditions or criteria your agency must abide by as part of accreditation. The NZDF has held Rainbow Tick accreditation since 2019. There were no ‘up-front’ costs to join the Rainbow Tick programme. For the 2018/19 financial year, the programme fee was $10, 000. Subsequently, the fee has been $12,000 per annum and has been paid to 30 June 2023. Enclosed is a copy of the agreement between Rainbow Tick and the NZDF that was signed in November 2020. Redactions have been made in accordance with section 9(2)(a) ofthe OIA to protect the privacy of individuals. The contract was renewed for one year in 2022 for one year to 30 June 2023 under the same conditions. You have the right, under section 28(3) of the OIA, to ask an Ombudsman to review this response to your request. Information about how to make a complaint is available at www.ombudsman.parliament.nz or freephone 0800 802 602. Responses to official information requests are proactively released where possible. This response to your request will be published shortly on the NZDF website, with your personal information removed . Yours sincerely AJ WOODS Air Commodore Chief of Staff HQNZDF Enclosure:-

1. Signed agreement between Rainbow Tick and NZDF, November 2020 Released under the Official Information Act 1982 RAINBOW TICK TRAINING AND EVALUATION AGREEMENT 1. Main Terms of Agreement Our name and address: Your name and address: RAINBOW TICK j Kahui Tu Kaha Limited Level 1, 650 Great South Road, Greenlane, Auckland PO Box 74270, Greenlane 1051 New Zealand Defence Force Defence House 34 Bowen St Thorndon Wellington Rainbow Tick Programme: Two Year Prgoramme FTE Number —,. ……….. thla .. . .. I Commencement Date: I July 12019 I Completion Date: \ ) I Programme Fee: Our representative: Client Representative
2. Definitions I July 12021 I Per annum $ 12,000 (+GST) Julie Watson Programme Manager Rainbow Tick Mobile: s.9(2}{i}l Name: Dean Pascoe Email: Ph: Phone: [5.9(2)\i)-. —————–2.1 In this Agreement, except where stated otherwise, the following words shall have the following meanings: (a) Client Representative means the person appointed by you as your principal point of contact w ith authority to give us instructi 9. Intellectual Property Ownership ~–~——–~~———————

9.1 You: 9.1.1 Acknowledge that we are the owner of the Intellectual Property and nothing in this Agreement shall transfer ownership to you; 9.1.2 Shall not during this Agreement or at any future time register or use any of the Intellectual Property in your own name as proprietor; 9.1.

3 Recognize our title to the Intellectual Property and shall not claim any right, title or interest in the Intellectual Property or any part of it except where granted by this Agreement. 9.2 The Rainbow Resources are provided to you in order to assist you to create a workplace that is a safe and inclusive place for people of diverse gender identity and sexual orientation. You shall use the Rainbow Resources only for the purposes for which they were provided and not provide, directly or indirectly, the Rainbow Resources to any third party except with our prior written consent. 9.3 Upon being awarded Rainbow Tick Certification in accordance with clauses 5.2 and 5.

4 we will grant you a royalty free licence to use the Rainbow Tick in the following manner: 9.3.1 In conjunction with any job advertising carried out by you; 9.3.2 As part of any organizational or business promotion intended to promote your workplace as a safe and inclusive place for people of diverse gender identity and sexual orientation. 9.4 Your use of the Rainbow Tick is subject to the following conditions: 9.4.1 The Rainbow Tick shall not be adapted or modified except with our consent; 9.4.2 You agree to cease using the Rainbow Tick for any particular purpose where we consider in our so le discretion that the use of the Rainbow Tick is inappropriate or brings the Rainbow Tick into disrepute; 9.4.3 You shall not assign the benefit of Rainbow Tick Certification or grant any sub-licenses except with our express written consent; 9.4.4 You shall immediately cease using the Rainbow Tick upon the expiration of the licence granted under clause 5.2. 9.

5 Upon completion of a Rainbow Tick Evaluation Report and payment of the Programme Fee, we agree to transfer the copyright in that report to you subject to your agreement to permit us to use the data comprised in the Rainbow Tick Evaluation Report for research, analysis, and marketing purposes providing that we do not identify any individuals or you in such research, analysis, or marketing except with your express consent. Released under the Official Information Act 1982

10.1 This Agreement and any discussions leading to the execution of this Agreement shall remain confidential between us.

10.2 We acknowledge that you are a commercial concern. Except as required by law, we will treat as confidential all information which comes into our possession pursuant to or as a result of, or in the of this whether such information relates to your internal policies or otherwise, we will not, without your prior written permission, disclose any such information.

10.3 If we collect personal information about people employed by you, we will collect and hold that information in accordance with the Privacy Act 1993.

11.1 No amendment or waiver of any provision of this Agreement shall in any event be of any effect, unless it is in writing, signed by both of us or, in the case of a waiver, by the party giving it.

12.1 This Agreement comprises the entire agreement between us; it supersedes any previous agreements and negotiations relating to your provision of services to us, and no other terms and conditions, express or implied, shall form part of the Agreement. 1

3.1 You may not sell, transfer, assign or sub-contract all or any part of your interests or obligations under this Agreement.

14.1 We acknowledge our intention that all questions or differences which may arise between us concerning this Agreement, its subject matter or interpretation, will be resolved amicably by negotiation

. 14.2 Where any question or difference is not resolved, either of us may require the dispute to be referred to mediation by giving notice to the other party setting out the nature of the mediation. Released under the Official Information Act 1982

14.3 We shall agree on the appointment of a mediator, but in the absence of agreement a mediator shall be appointed by AMINZ.

14.4 The costs of the mediation other than the parties’ legal costs will be borne equally by the parties, who w ill be jointly and severally liable to the mediator in respect of the mediator’s fees. 1

5.Reputation

15.1 Neither party shall at any time take any steps to bring the reputation or good standing of the other party to this Agreement into disrepute. SIGNED BY: Barbara Browne {CEO) On behalf of Kahui Tli Kaha Limited s. )( ) Date: ( {1/ z.o SIGNED BY: Dean Pascoe On behalf of New Zealand Defence Force s.9(2)(a) Date: /7 V

https://www.nzdf.mil.nz/assets/Uploads/DocumentLibrary/OIA-2023-4687-Rainbow-Tick.pdfhttps://www.nzdf.mil.nz/media-centre/news/new-zealand-defence-force-takes-out-top-spot-at-rainbow-excellence-awards/https://www.hcamag.com/nz/specialisation/diversity-inclusion/military-steps-up-for-lgbtq-community/451834

This is abhorrent, how harshly these survivors of Mount Alice have been so unjustly treated. The evidence of these horrific events on the 1970’s at Lake Alice have clear evidence, where children and teens were severely punished, tortured. 24/6/ 2023 RNZ reported how survivors are  angered some of these survivors are that not one person whom committed these inhumane notorious  crimes against children has ever been convicted. The High Court ordered a halt to court proceedings against a former charge nurse of Lake Alice Hospital, the only staff member to face prosecution, 91 year old Dempsey Corkran.

THE HORRORS OF LAKE ALICE ‘ THE TORTURE OF CHILDEN IN NZ NO CRIMINIAL  CHARGES  WERE EVER LAID AGAINST THESE EVIL OFFENDERS

Survivors have needed professional services for rehabilitation, having unresolved mental health, emotional, physical and medical issues, health problems. Many struggling with personal and family relationships. They have been revictimized over the years through State agencies themselves. Some even living in cars and temporary accommodation. The Crown had worn down lawyers and only paid survivors a fraction. Even some ACC applications were refused

As Paul Zentveld stated “the government have an obligation to pay these survivors compensation for their sufferance under State care at Lake Alice Psych Unit for Children and Adolescents. Majority of these children had no mental health issue, but were reported have  behavioral issues. New Zealand signed the UN Torture Convention in 1947 therefore the survivors of Lake Alice must be given all the help they need.  The State have seriously, severely unjustly revictimized an retraumatized many of these survivors, have not judicially acknowledge that those that committed these crimes have been criminalized in a NZ Court of law

Please share this far and wide. What I heard and saw at the Lake Alice Exhibition was heart wrenching. As I followed up with much research I was even more appalled and horrified the way these children, adolescents were severely abused and tortured.

RESEARCHER: Carol Sakey

WakeUpNZ.

A new agreement with the World Economic Forum gives multinational corporations influence over matters of global governance.

Harris Gleckman

Anew corporate and government marriage quietly took place last week when the leadership of the World Economic Forum (WEF) and the United Nations (UN) signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to partner with each other. While this MOU is proudly displayed on the WEF website, it is nowhere to be found on the UN website. The only indication on the UN website of this important new development is a picture of the pen used to sign the agreement, and two pictures of the signing ceremony.

One reason for this difference is that the UN’s corporate-centered Global Compact has received a good deal of bad press. Now the new WEF-UN agreement creates a second special place for multinational corporations inside the UN. There is no similar institutional homes in the UN system for civil society, for academics, for religious leaders, or for youth. It is hard to imagine a national government signing a similar formal partnership with one of its business organizations.

At the same time, the UN is under pressure from Donald Trump who wants to deconstruct the whole multilateral system. For Trump, dismantling the international system built after World War II is a companion piece to his domestic effort at deconstructing the administrative state. For the Secretary-General of the UN, the pact with the WEF may well be his effort to find new power actors who can support the current system, which is now celebrating its 75th anniversary, in the face of Trump’s onslaught.

On the other side, the WEF recently received significant public criticism after giving Hungarian Prime Minister Orban and Brazilian President Bolsonaro a warm welcome at its 2019 Davos gathering. This marriage may be seen as a way for the WEF to re-establish itself as part of the global governance center.

The timing and managing of public perceptions are not the only interesting aspect of this arrangement. In 2009, the WEF published a 600 page report entitled the Global Redesign Initiative, which called for a new system of global governing, one in which the decisions of governments could be made secondary to multistakeholder led initiatives in which corporations would play a defining role. In a sense this WEF study recommended a sort of public-private United “Nations” – something that has now been formalized in this MOU. The agreement announces new multistakeholder partnerships to deliver public goods in the fields of education, women, financing, climate change, and health.

The rather detailed MOU includes forms of cross organizational engagement up and down the UN structure. The MOU contains commitments that the Secretary-General himself will be invited to deliver a keynote address at the WEF annual Davos gatherings. His senior staff and the heads of the UN programmes, funds, and agencies will also be invited to participate in regional level meetings hosted by the WEF. It also contains a promise that the UN’s individual country representatives will explore ways to work with WEF’s national Forum Hubs. Aware of the mutual importance of public legitimacy each institution can provide for the other, the MOU also contains an agreement to cross-publicize their joint activities.

Besides the institutional blessing of the United Nations, what does the WEF get from the MOU? The scope of each of the five fields for joint attention is narrowed down from the intergovernmentally negotiated and agreed set of goals to one with more in line with the business interests of WEF members. So under financing, the MOU calls only for ‘build[ing] a shared understanding of sustainable investing’ but not for reducing banking induced instabilities and tax avoidance.

Under climate change, it calls for ‘ …public commitments from the private sector to reach carbon neutrality by 2050’, not actions that result in carbon neutrality by 2030 . Under education, it re-defines the Sustainable Development education goal to ‘ensure inclusive and equitable quality education’ into one that focuses on education to meet the ‘rapidly changing world of work.’ The MOU explicitly restricts the WEF from making financial contributions to the UN, which might have ameliorated the economic impact of some of Trump’s threat to the budgets of the UN system. At the same time, it avoids any commitment to reduce global inequality, to make energy affordable, to hold multinational corporations accountable for human rights violations, or even to rein in the behavior of the WEF’s firms that act inconsistently to the re-defined goals set out in the agreement.

All this joint work might have some practical good if it were not for three crucial elements: firstly, the agreement circumvents the intergovernmental review process; secondly, the agreement elevates multistakeholderism as the solution to the problems with the current multilateral system; and thirdly the proposed multistakeholder partnerships are not governed by any formal democratic system. Were the Secretary-General convinced of the wisdom of a UN marriage with the WEF, he could have submitted the draft MOU for approval by the member states. Instead, the Secretary-General joined the WEF in declaring in effect that multistakeholder groups without any formal intergovernmental oversight are a better governance system than a one-country-one-vote system.

All multistakeholder governance groups are largely composed of a self-selected group of multinational corporations and those organizations and individuals that they want to work with. They work without any common internal rule book to protect the views of all who might be impacted by the group. Participation in multistakeholder group is a voluntary undertaking. The drop-in-drop-out arrangements are antithetical to the UN’s efforts for 75 years to build a stable secure global governance system with a clear understanding of obligations, responsibilities and liabilities.

What is surprising is that by accepting this marriage arrangement with the WEF, the Secretary-General of the UN is marginalizing the intergovernmental system in order to ‘save’ it.

Open Democracy 2^nd July 2019

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/oureconomy/how-united-nations-quietly-being-turned-public-private-partnership/?source=in-article-related-story

“Where did all this diversity talk come from? I mean… I have never seen so many big companies and their CEOs putting up rainbow logos and statements.” And we all know that changing logos is a capital crime in the eyes of the corporate brand and marketing departments.  The Germany vs. Hungary game earlier this week at the European Football Championship (June 2021)

While the petition to illuminate the Munich Stadium with rainbow colors for the aforementioned game drew a lot of attention to the controversial new Hungarian legislation restricting LGBTQ+ rights, it also helped white, middle-aged men to finally have a voice about #diversity and #inclusion: football!

But the question of my friend got me thinking deeper about the origins of this massive surge in corporate social responsibility. So yes, the pandemic played a part – the year we all remember as transformational in many ways and while we all had our unique experiences, I don’t think there is anybody who had not reflected on the big questions of life while enduring social distancing and toilette paper shortages.

Subsequently, it catalyzed deep-rooted social issues in the USA, where the early phase of the COVID19 crisis was particularly devastating and gave rise to the “Black Lives Matter” movement. That also did not come from out of the blue, there were many building blocks up to this moment as a result of the long history of mistreatment and discrimination of the African-American community in the country. Also from other angles, like the anti-sexual harassment and violence “Me Too” movement of 2016, the discourse about human rights started to take center stage in the privileged, wealthy, western societies – both in governmental and private sectors alike.

What do all these initiatives have in common?

They all originate from the USA.

Don’t get me wrong, obviously it’s not the only country that has unequal social structures and problems with discrimination. But it’s the biggest, most-influential, most economically and politically powerful country that has the culture and the willingness to address these issues openly and loudly. And thus, in our global, capitalized economies it has an impact on European, Asian and African countries to some extent

In my opinion, this is the question that leads us to the true reason why diversity is so big now and not before. And to answer it, we have to go on a little time travel back to the second industrial revolution. When the German-born philosopher and social revolutionist Karl Marx published his iconic works “The communist Manifesto” and “Das Kapital”, it started the labour rights version of the “Me Too” movement in the late 19th century. Marx became stateless due to his views, but factory workers and other blue-collar members of society benefited from them greatly as they started to unionize and form collectives to fight for better labour conditions and rights. This socialist wave swept across Europe in the 20th century, deeply embedding itself into the political and social structures of many countries. Minimum wage, paid vacation days, paid maternity leave, universal healthcare and paid sick days – just to name a few of the achievements of the human and workers rights activists. Subsequently, workers councils formed inside big corporations to continue representing employee interests and keep checks and balances with profit-oriented productivity maximization.

Back to our days, when workers councils in Germany, France, The Netherlands and many other European countries are well-established and part of the corporate governance structures, they are seen as a bit old-fashioned entities that stand in the way of progress. But in fact, they are the refined and organized successors of the thousands of activists demonstrating and fighting for workers’ rights on the streets a century ago, much like what their American counterparts are doing in recent years related to adequate Black, Latinx, LGBTQ, Female rights and representation in all facets of society.

Employee Resource Group (ERG) is the term in the US for a group of people sharing similar values and interests, meeting regularly for peer-support and to advocate their agendas towards the employer. However, since socialism and unionization are among the scariest words in the dictionary for many American big corporations, they have a vested interest in preemptively forming and closely managing ERGs, thus continuously balancing on the thin rope between support and control.

And doing all this in a very American, loud, patriotic and inspiring way.

That’s why recently many big corporations have ERGs, Chief Diversity Officers as member of their Senior Leadership Teams and most of their Board Members are outspoken about Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DE&I) topics in a form of emotional, often tear-jerking and personal stories.

It’s a country of Hollywood and the Land of Dreams, so no surprise that human and labour rights activism is not confined to the boring limits of court rooms and legislation bureaus. They say everything is bigger in America – so is the wave of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion that is sweeping across the corporate world, and leaving many European businessmen, like my friend from Friday dinner, puzzled on why this is happening right now.

DE&I is in many ways a conversation about privilege that some of us are born with and others are not, yet it profoundly defines everything in our lifetimes – our socio-economic status, educational and career opportunities, health and life expectancy and family prospects. I have been blessed with many privileges in my life and after this conversation I realized I have another one: being European and – even more so – living and working in Germany, where the workers’ council of my employer is advocating for my rights so I can go and help those who don’t have this privilege.

And facilitate conversations about rainbow-colored buildings and football so everybody can find their role in the DE&I fight, as it is universal, it takes all of us and it never stops.