A Christchurch business manager says Citycare’s supplier registration process raises serious questions about racial discrimination.

On the supplier registration section of Citycare’s website, businesses are asked: “Is your business fully or partially owned by a person or people who have Māori whakapapa or Pacific Peoples lineage?”

The form also asks whether the business is affiliated with Amotai, Supplier Diversity Aotearoa.

The manager, who asked not to be named, contacted Chris Lynch Media after trying to introduce her company’s office solutions to the council owned company.

She said she was stunned to see ethnicity specifically asked about in a supplier process for a company ultimately owned by Christchurch ratepayers.

“If two companies can provide the same service, why should the ancestry of the owner even be asked?” she said.

“If race has no bearing on who gets work, why is Citycare collecting that information in the first place?”

A Citycare spokesperson told chrislynchmedia.com the information was not used to determine which suppliers received work. “We are sorry that your contact felt discriminated against. That is not our intention. Collecting this information allows us to provide factual responses to questions that are frequently raised during tender processes.”

The spokesperson said Citycare was updating the information it collected from existing and prospective suppliers, largely in response to changes in government procurement requirements.

Citycare pointed specifically to the fifth edition of the Government Procurement Rules and Rule 8, which deals with economic benefit to New Zealand. “As a significant supplier to central and local government, Citycare Property increasingly needs to be able to provide more detailed information about its own supply chain.

“This can include information about local and New Zealand owned businesses, SMEs, Māori & Pasifika businesses, subcontracting arrangements and other supplier characteristics relevant to the economic and social outcomes sought by our clients.”

The spokesperson said government agencies also had reporting requirements relating to supplier diversity, including contracts awarded to Māori businesses. “That means major suppliers such as Citycare Property may in turn be asked to provide clearer information about where expenditure flows through their subcontractor and supplier networks.”

Citycare said the questions related to business ownership rather than the ethnicity of individual workers. “This is not about assessing individual suppliers on the ethnicity of their employees, nor is it a blanket requirement to collect personal ethnicity information.

“The information we are seeking relates primarily to business ownership and supplier characteristics, where these are relevant to government procurement and contract reporting requirements.

“We recognise that some of this information can be sensitive, so we are conscious of how it is collected, stored and used to ensure the process is appropriate, proportionate and consistent with our privacy obligations.

“As a Council Controlled Trading Organisation, Citycare Property operates within a unique environment where it is expected to balance commercial performance with broader public value outcomes.”

Citycare categorically denied the ethnicity of a business owner was considered when assessing suppliers.

“Our suppliers are assessed against a broad criterion that recognise all elements relevant to our operational priorities, ethnicity of the owner is not part of those criteria.”

Asked whether Citycare had specific targets or quotas relating to ethnicity, the spokesperson said: “No.”

Asked whether Citycare would choose a supplier of a particular ethnicity over another, the spokesperson again said: “No.”

Citycare also said neither Christchurch City Council nor Christchurch City Holdings Limited had instructed it to collect the information.

CCHL CEO Matthew Slater acknowledged the concerns raised by the Christchurch manager.

“CCHL understands that some businesses may feel uncomfortable being asked for information about ownership demographics, and we acknowledge the concern that has been raised.”

Slater said CCHL expected companies within its group to operate fair, transparent and legally compliant procurement processes.

“We do not support discrimination, segregation, or preferential treatment that excludes capable suppliers from competing for work.”

He said collecting ownership demographic information was increasingly occurring across public and private sector procurement for reporting, market analysis and understanding supplier networks.

“The purpose of collecting such information is distinct from procurement decision making itself.”

Slater said CCHL understood Citycare was collecting supplier diversity information “to support reporting and supplier engagement objectives, rather than to determine whether a supplier is eligible to compete for work.”

“CCHL does not consider a supplier’s ethnicity or ancestry, in itself, to be a determinant of whether that supplier should be awarded work. Procurement decisions should be based on merit and the requirements of the particular contract.”

He said CCHL did not direct its companies to award contracts on the basis of ethnicity or ancestry and had no shareholder level policies or targets requiring expenditure to be allocated according to the ethnicity or ancestry of business owners.

Slater said questions about Citycare’s membership of Amotai and operational decisions connected with that membership were matters for Citycare.

“Such matters fall within the company’s management and procurement responsibilities.

“We would expect Citycare to consider stakeholder feedback and to be able to clearly explain why information is being collected, whether responding is voluntary, and how the information is used.”

Amotai, Supplier Diversity Aotearoa did not respond to questions.