Richard Shaw, Chris Eichbaum: Who wrote the cabinet paper recommending NZ not recognise a Palestinian state?

In the controversy and debate following Foreign Minister Winston Peters’ announcement at the United Nations last week that New Zealand would not yet recognise Palestine as a state, it was easy to overlook a small but telling detail.

The relevant cabinet paper containing the policy background and options, and recommending no change in the country’s current position, was “drafted by the Office of the Minister of Foreign Affairs”.

It is unusual for a cabinet paper to be drafted in a minister’s office. Typically, they are worked up by public servants in departments that fall within the minister’s portfolio responsibilities.

While not a “one size fits all” process, this division of labour ensures the institutional knowledge of the public service is drawn on when formulating the analysis, advice and recommendations codified in a cabinet paper.

The “voice” of the minister may be paramount, but other voices – whether from the public service, other parties involved in government, or wider stakeholders – will generally be captured.

That the normal process was not followed in this instance raises important questions about who drafts policy advice and how ministers balance the views being put forward.
Get news from NZ's top academics in one weekly email.

Ministers and ministries

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) possesses the expertise to provide advice on the issues canvassed in the Palestine paper. And while it is clear ministry input was sought, the details of that contribution are not specified.

Policy positions in foreign affairs tend to have an enduring quality and often enjoy cross-party support. But it is also possible there was a material difference between the course of action recommended by the ministry and that preferred by the minister.

No one is suggesting a minister is a mere conduit for ministry positions. But surfacing any differences in the text of a paper is considered best practice.

To be fair, the paper in question was “proactively released” publicly by the minister. A spokesperson for the minister has confirmed that both employees of MFAT seconded to the Minister’s office, and Ministerial Services staff on events-based contracts, were involved in the drafting and preparation of this paper.

It is the contribution of the second of those categories of staff that is relevant here. Otherwise known as ministerial advisers, they operate differently to public servants employed in government ministries and departments.

It is not unusual for these advisers to contribute to the processes from which cabinet papers emerge: they are, these days, key actors in the sorts of consultations required by multi-party government.

Ministerial advisers are also influential members of a minister’s staff. They are appointed at a minister’s behest, and are formally employed by the Ministerial and Secretariat Services unit within the Department of Internal Affairs on events-based contracts tied to a minister’s tenure in office.

Crucially, they provide partisan or political advice and are not subject to the impartiality requirements that apply to public servants.

There is an important place for such advisers in ministerial offices. But there are also questions about the balance ministers strike between the advice provided by political appointees and that furnished by public servants.

Moreover, there are issues with how the role is regulated in New Zealand – and how difficult it can be to find out anything about these influential political players.

NZ is an outlier

Every other Westminster democracy has clear transparency requirements for political staff. In the United Kingdom, the government must report annually on the total number of political (or “special”) advisers, and the overall public cost of employing them.

Government departments must regularly publish the names of special advisers, the ministers they work for, their job titles and salary bands, and details of their meetings with senior media figures.

Furthermore, advisers themselves must make annual declarations of financial and non-financial interests that might conflict with their public duties.

Canadian government departments are required to disclose the names, roles and responsibilities of what are known as “exempt staff”, as well as salary ranges, benefits and entitlements. Exempt staff must disclose assets, liabilities and outside activities (which are reviewed by the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner).

While Australia is not as transparent as Canada or the UK, it requires each federal government minister to report, twice a year, the number of political staff they employ and their salary level. That information must be tabled in parliament by the Senate Finance and Public Administration Estimates Committee.

None of these requirements applies in New Zealand, which is an outlier on proactive release of information about political staff who work at the heart of government.

The retired British Labour politician Clare Short once described these special advisers as “the people who live in the dark”.

Ultimately, while it seems clear ministerial advisers were involved in drafting the cabinet paper on New Zealand’s options regarding Palestinian statehood, the real questions are about transparency and accountability in general.

Beyond the specifics of this case, it’s time New Zealand’s system of governance let in a little more light.

Richard Shaw, Professor of Politics, Massey University.

Chris Eichbaum, Reader in Government, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article