The controversy surrounding comments by Maori Language Commission chief executive Haami Piripi and the resignation of Maori Party activist Amokura Panoho from the Department of Labour have put public servants in the spotlight. This has revived deep-seated questions about the roles and responsibilities of people employed by the government of the day.

The New Zealand Business Roundtable has taken a keen interest in public sector performance. In 2001 it published Public Management in New Zealand: Lessons and Challenges by former secretary of the New Zealand Treasury Graham Scott.

Dr Scott traced the path toward the public sector reforms of the 1980s and 1990s. “Ministers and permanent secretaries, lined up in matching hierarchies, had long been engaged in a comfortable dialogue while waiting in turn to get the top jobs as their older colleagues retired. This was swept away.” Many public institutions, with resources indexed to inflation, had not really challenged their internal thinking for years. Women were no longer prepared to tolerate the lazy sexism that accompanied life in the public service. Graduates from the 1960s rose up the ranks and agitated for change in management systems dominated by middle-aged men who usually had lesser qualifications. Recognition of the Treaty of Waitangi became more important, and new policy tasks demanded skills in analysis that many in senior positions did not have.

The reforms were one of the ways the public sector responded to this sea change. Major building blocks were the State Sector and Public Finance Acts, the restructuring of organisations, and the formalisation of expectations of public servants. The result, according to Dr Scott, was a generally robust public management system. “Even the harshest critics of the public management reforms acknowledge the benefits that have flowed from having a consistent framework to work from.” Large-scale structural change is not on the agenda of the present government.

This is not to say that everything is right. Public servants should be servants of the public, and not just of the government. This is what is meant by the concept of an independent and apolitical public service. The job of policy ministries such as Treasury, the Ministry of Economic Development and the Ministry of Social Development is to give free and frank advice. (Of course, once the government has made its decisions, it is the job of public servants to implement them.)

Delivering unwelcome advice is crucial. Government ministers should not be surrounded by ‘yes' men and women. Yet public servants do not appear to be delivering forthright views. An illuminating example: No departmental chief executive offered advice to ministers on whether the government should ratify the Kyoto climate change accord. Ratification could have far-reaching and harmful implications for economic activity and for the living standards of New Zealanders. It could put the competitiveness of many major industries at risk. The government decided last year to ratify, without ever being offered candid analysis of the ramifications.

This is not unique. The biggest single new package in this year's budget was the “Working for Families” wealth redistribution package. There was no advice from the Treasury on the package put to cabinet, and its limited reporting during the development of the proposals lacked breadth, depth, rigour and, most importantly, firm advice. The group of public servants most qualified to analyse the expected policy outcomes didn't carry out their role. It appears that public servants with unwelcome advice have become marginalised.

Dr Scott warned in 2001: “It is a concern that [the] public service commitment is under pressure from ministers and, that some senior officials are giving in to it. The state services commissioner has stated firmly that he stands for free and frank advice, but he may have to intervene with ministers and some senior officials at times...” To date, there has been no major sign that key public servants or the government have moved to address the problem.

According to Dr Scott, the impulse for better policy and evaluation could be strengthened if ministers asked for and expected this advice from departments, and if the performance management system revealed weaknesses. At present, it seems many ministers do not want neutral, independent advice; instead they prefer to rely on politically appointed staff in their offices.

When the State Sector Act was passed, the idea was that public servants would be properly paid and held accountable for performance. There has been little sign of the latter. Few chief executives have been fired compared to the private sector. One wonders whether every top public sector manager can really be that good. The peak of policy capability in New Zealand can match international standards, but the peaks are too rare.

It is to be hoped that the recent controversies might spark a wider discussion about the relationship between public servants and incumbent governments. The vision of outcome-focused public management that was the inspiration for the 1980s and 1990s reforms needs to be reinvigorated.

For more information, contact:

Roger Kerr
Executive Director
Ph: 04 499 0790
Email: rkerr@nzbr.org.nz

David Young
Communications Manager
Ph: 04 499 0790
Email: dyoung@nzbr.org.nz

Web: www.nzbr.org.nz