First there was the chief executive of Health New Zealand who announced her resignation four months before her contract was due to expire, and left her role almost immediately. Then there was the Director of Public Health who announced he was stepping down and would be leaving within a couple of weeks. He was followed by the Director-General of Health who announced her resignation and left a week later. This week there has been the resignation of Pharmac's chief executive, effective from the end of May, and the bombshell announcement of the Reserve Bank Governor's resignation and immediate departure.
Five public sector heavyweights resigning and walking out the door within the space of a month must be unprecedented. The resignations may all be unrelated and therefore simply coincidental, but the number of sudden resignations in such a short time suggests not and raises suspicions of some sort of behind the scenes agitation and orchestration by Ministers. Each of the departing officials had had their run-ins with members of the current government, both since the election and when they were in Opposition beforehand.
However, with the exception of the position of Governor of the Reserve Bank who is appointed by the Minister of Finance, Ministers are not supposed to have any overt role in the appointment and dismissal of senior public servants – that is the preserve of the Public Service Commissioner. Indeed, unrelated comments last week by the Prime Minister and other Ministers that they were considering amending the law to give Ministers a greater role in the appointment of senior officials aroused strong criticism that this amounted to political tampering with the independence of the traditionally neutral public service.
But that is not to say that there are not ways now in which Ministers influence senior public service appointments. The Public Service Commissioner's recommendation of a departmental chief executive’s appointment is signed off by Ministers. That is usually a formality, but it has not been unknown – although rare – for a recommendation to be sent back for "reconsideration".
Similarly, Ministers can – and do – raise concerns with the Public Service Commissioner about the performance of chief executives with whom they are unhappy, for whatever reason, in the expectation he will take the appropriate action. In a more direct way, Ministers can make their discomfort with certain senior officials well known, either in Opposition before they come to office or once in power, with the intention that the officials concerned will get the hint and decide to move on.
If this is the case in each of the current resignations, it raises wider questions about the future neutrality of the public service. While Ministers must have confidence in their senior public service officials, they cannot try to compromise their neutrality by expecting them to do the government’s political bidding. Officials must always be able to work closely and professionally with Ministers on the development and implementation of government policy, while keeping their political distance. That separation gives the public service its integrity and credibility and should not be interfered with for the short-term political advantage of the government of the day.
However, the spate of recent resignations, along with the unrelated comments about giving the government more direct power in the appointment of senior public servants suggest the traditional concept of public service neutrality is being blurred. Although we are thankfully a very long way from the American model where several top tiers of the public service are expected to tender their resignations whenever the Administration changes, we could be moving to a time where senior officials are expected by Ministers to be more openly politically aligned to the government’s objectives, and to step aside if they are not.
Indeed, this may already be the case, given that the appointments in question all happened under the previous Labour-led government, but it still has implications for those who will take on the now vacant senior roles. It is hard to imagine that they will not be people seen to more aligned to the current government’s agenda, which will both immediately raise questions about their own political neutrality and have a flow-on effect on the wider public service. And once the process of politicising senior public appointments becomes embedded, it will be very difficult to wind back.
The new Public Service Commissioner has already spoken about changes he wants to make to improve the delivery of public services to increase confidence in the public sector. In the light of recent events, he may now well need to add specifically reinforcing the political neutrality of chief executives to his list of proposed reforms.
Peter Dunne, a retired Member of Parliament and Cabinet Minister, who represented Labour and United Future for over 30 years, blogs here: honpfd.blogspot.com - Where this article was sourced.
However, with the exception of the position of Governor of the Reserve Bank who is appointed by the Minister of Finance, Ministers are not supposed to have any overt role in the appointment and dismissal of senior public servants – that is the preserve of the Public Service Commissioner. Indeed, unrelated comments last week by the Prime Minister and other Ministers that they were considering amending the law to give Ministers a greater role in the appointment of senior officials aroused strong criticism that this amounted to political tampering with the independence of the traditionally neutral public service.
But that is not to say that there are not ways now in which Ministers influence senior public service appointments. The Public Service Commissioner's recommendation of a departmental chief executive’s appointment is signed off by Ministers. That is usually a formality, but it has not been unknown – although rare – for a recommendation to be sent back for "reconsideration".
Similarly, Ministers can – and do – raise concerns with the Public Service Commissioner about the performance of chief executives with whom they are unhappy, for whatever reason, in the expectation he will take the appropriate action. In a more direct way, Ministers can make their discomfort with certain senior officials well known, either in Opposition before they come to office or once in power, with the intention that the officials concerned will get the hint and decide to move on.
If this is the case in each of the current resignations, it raises wider questions about the future neutrality of the public service. While Ministers must have confidence in their senior public service officials, they cannot try to compromise their neutrality by expecting them to do the government’s political bidding. Officials must always be able to work closely and professionally with Ministers on the development and implementation of government policy, while keeping their political distance. That separation gives the public service its integrity and credibility and should not be interfered with for the short-term political advantage of the government of the day.
However, the spate of recent resignations, along with the unrelated comments about giving the government more direct power in the appointment of senior public servants suggest the traditional concept of public service neutrality is being blurred. Although we are thankfully a very long way from the American model where several top tiers of the public service are expected to tender their resignations whenever the Administration changes, we could be moving to a time where senior officials are expected by Ministers to be more openly politically aligned to the government’s objectives, and to step aside if they are not.
Indeed, this may already be the case, given that the appointments in question all happened under the previous Labour-led government, but it still has implications for those who will take on the now vacant senior roles. It is hard to imagine that they will not be people seen to more aligned to the current government’s agenda, which will both immediately raise questions about their own political neutrality and have a flow-on effect on the wider public service. And once the process of politicising senior public appointments becomes embedded, it will be very difficult to wind back.
The new Public Service Commissioner has already spoken about changes he wants to make to improve the delivery of public services to increase confidence in the public sector. In the light of recent events, he may now well need to add specifically reinforcing the political neutrality of chief executives to his list of proposed reforms.
Peter Dunne, a retired Member of Parliament and Cabinet Minister, who represented Labour and United Future for over 30 years, blogs here: honpfd.blogspot.com - Where this article was sourced.
8 comments:
Political neutrality sounds nice, but has it ever existed in reality? More important - will the new lot actually be competent?
How do you change the advice to Government Ministers if the Public Service hierarchy remain the same when there is a change of Government? It seems the left leaning public Service refuses to carry out the Coalition’s directives re the naming of NZ and government departments in English first. And that’s just for starters.
"While Ministers must have confidence in their senior public service officials, they cannot try to compromise their neutrality by expecting them to do the government’s political bidding."
Except they are not neutral at the moment. How many ministries are doubling down on their Maorification? How many job advertisements for senior positions now require "Te Ao Maori" competency despite the current government giving clear instructions that is to stop? Hint: It is most of them.
Senior public officials are not helping themselves because they are not acting in a neutral fashion. They are not giving effect to the current government's objectives.
Perhaps this should be looked at another way: The official isn't neutral, and has recognised that they can't be and have honourably tendered their resignations. Probably unlikely, but another way to look at it.
All very well but how do you really leave political or ideological biases at the door when you go to work? I think it might be better to have a clean out with a change of government. Human nature varies so much and people are blinkered in their loyalties. And ruthless in their righteous sabotage.
I am not sorry that any of them have gone. Its what we need. Especially in light of the damning health report just released. Its no wonder she resigned! MC
‘Politically neutral’? Haha, best joke I’ve heard all year.
CRT aims to control 6 key institutions of a nation (parliament, public service, judiciary, universities, police,media) - and in NZ, this goal has been achieved. To swing the pendulum back, 3 things are needed: time, determined Ministers in a new right-leaning govt. and follow-through over a prolonged period.
In NZ, a new radical elite has risen via its CRT activism. It will not relinquish its power easily. And - worst scenario - another tilt Left will give it new life to transform the country into a Marxist fiefdom and ethno-state with Maori /tribal control.
NZ's future hangs in the balance. 2020 is D-Day.
When is the axe falling on the woke Education Ministry senior staff?
And what if the sudden resignations are all from the same sector? And what if they are followed by a damning report of incompetence and negligence in the sector? If the current system gives the public service the opportunity to sabotage the implementation of government policies - either through political bias or incompetence- and the minister cannot do anything about it the I would suggest that this system is wrong!
Post a Comment