Congratulations to Bryce and Jem for identifying these conflicts and the part-time nature of the appointment. If New Zealand is to avoid the chaos of the American system of thousands of political appointees, we need a full-time public service commisioner. In fact we need to learn from history and have a three person commission who can bring different strengths and perspectives and take a stewardship role which is much longer than the term of a single minister or coalition government. Professional public service was introduced to New Zealand by a predecessor of the National Party to counter political appointment problems in the early 20th century. A part time, short term Commissioner is not the right answer for the future of today's public service.
Thanks Bryce for a thought provoking commentary. It does seem to me that the role of Commissioner is or should be so intensive that there is no room for outside commitments. "Keeping in touch" is a lame excuse not to resign from appointments to significant company boards, when for information input, personal connections would still be available to tap.
On the other hand a career public servant in the role would be even worse news and its not clear once those are removed what the pool is of seriously able candidates willing to give up their directorship day jobs.
Bryce, his role is to select and manage the performance of Ministerial heads is it not? Not the policy advice and content of policy advised to ministers, nor the allocation of funds? We have seen a litany of public servants and quasi-public servants participate in the direct influencing of money being distributed to their own or family companies in the last few years and only heard muted complaints. That is a direct conflict and is arguably corrupt. Roche is simply not in a position to do that.
Ahh Bryce, such a worrywort. Isn’t a Man’s word that he’s as honest as the day is long not good enough for you? A Good Man accepts another GoodMan’s word on such matters. Any “public servant” earning $600 G + p.a. of tax payers lolly, largely supported by both Major Parties of Good Men (just saying) is Good Enough for me. “Optics”? Only a concern to little men who probably never made it into the Koru Club.
Hi Bryce. Thanks for upholding a higher standard for our public service, politicians and political appointments than is currently the norm. Jem's story highlights both the slippage in standards of what is now acceptable and the sheepish acknowledgement of this by the Commission through its attempts to limit publicity of it. And if the price Sir Brian required to take the job was backsliding on things that would be unacceptable for normal and past hirings, what does that say about his decision to take the job?
Sir Brian himself might be perfectly capable of managing conflicts that he is aware of but what about some obvious ones he isn't aware of? He is responsible for employing top public servants, including nurturing the careers of up-and-comers. It would be a bold action for an ambitious public servant to cause trouble for any of Sir Brian's interests. We might be more worried about what is not done than about what is done.
If Roche needs to keep in touch with his business interests, just so he is reminded of the significance of keeping in touch with the real world - maybe he shouldn't be in the role given his poor memory.
An interesting take on Sir Brian Roche and his potential conflicts of interest Bryce. I believe it over-dramatizes the position in seeing his declared interests as almost inevitably leading to acts of malfeasance or tainted decisions. Paul Crystall has detailed what the reality is: that Roache has no responsibility or control over departmental policy or funding decisions therefore conflicts with his interests won't arise. Potential (not actual) conflicts of interest can exist in many forms across the public service and with members of parliament. They don't have to be merely business/directorship-related (per Roache's declared interests) but can be anything from a bureaucrat exercising their personal political bias in providing advice to a minister or their favouring a family or friend in a procurement decision. We face these potential (not actual) conflicts across both government and business all the time. In very many cases they are not declared or recorded beforehand on any form of register, as Roache has quite properly been required to do. On the timing of his disclosure, to make an issue of this is to ignore that a one-minute search of the Companies Office register by anyone, even an 'investigative' journalist, would find all of these interests. IMHO we can take comfort with a Commissioner who, as you comment, is so experienced across the public and private sectors.
Congratulations to Bryce and Jem for identifying these conflicts and the part-time nature of the appointment. If New Zealand is to avoid the chaos of the American system of thousands of political appointees, we need a full-time public service commisioner. In fact we need to learn from history and have a three person commission who can bring different strengths and perspectives and take a stewardship role which is much longer than the term of a single minister or coalition government. Professional public service was introduced to New Zealand by a predecessor of the National Party to counter political appointment problems in the early 20th century. A part time, short term Commissioner is not the right answer for the future of today's public service.
Thanks Bryce for a thought provoking commentary. It does seem to me that the role of Commissioner is or should be so intensive that there is no room for outside commitments. "Keeping in touch" is a lame excuse not to resign from appointments to significant company boards, when for information input, personal connections would still be available to tap.
On the other hand a career public servant in the role would be even worse news and its not clear once those are removed what the pool is of seriously able candidates willing to give up their directorship day jobs.
Bryce, his role is to select and manage the performance of Ministerial heads is it not? Not the policy advice and content of policy advised to ministers, nor the allocation of funds? We have seen a litany of public servants and quasi-public servants participate in the direct influencing of money being distributed to their own or family companies in the last few years and only heard muted complaints. That is a direct conflict and is arguably corrupt. Roche is simply not in a position to do that.
Regards
PC
Ahh Bryce, such a worrywort. Isn’t a Man’s word that he’s as honest as the day is long not good enough for you? A Good Man accepts another GoodMan’s word on such matters. Any “public servant” earning $600 G + p.a. of tax payers lolly, largely supported by both Major Parties of Good Men (just saying) is Good Enough for me. “Optics”? Only a concern to little men who probably never made it into the Koru Club.
Hi Bryce. Thanks for upholding a higher standard for our public service, politicians and political appointments than is currently the norm. Jem's story highlights both the slippage in standards of what is now acceptable and the sheepish acknowledgement of this by the Commission through its attempts to limit publicity of it. And if the price Sir Brian required to take the job was backsliding on things that would be unacceptable for normal and past hirings, what does that say about his decision to take the job?
Sir Brian himself might be perfectly capable of managing conflicts that he is aware of but what about some obvious ones he isn't aware of? He is responsible for employing top public servants, including nurturing the careers of up-and-comers. It would be a bold action for an ambitious public servant to cause trouble for any of Sir Brian's interests. We might be more worried about what is not done than about what is done.
And a part-timer in the top job?
If Roche needs to keep in touch with his business interests, just so he is reminded of the significance of keeping in touch with the real world - maybe he shouldn't be in the role given his poor memory.
An interesting take on Sir Brian Roche and his potential conflicts of interest Bryce. I believe it over-dramatizes the position in seeing his declared interests as almost inevitably leading to acts of malfeasance or tainted decisions. Paul Crystall has detailed what the reality is: that Roache has no responsibility or control over departmental policy or funding decisions therefore conflicts with his interests won't arise. Potential (not actual) conflicts of interest can exist in many forms across the public service and with members of parliament. They don't have to be merely business/directorship-related (per Roache's declared interests) but can be anything from a bureaucrat exercising their personal political bias in providing advice to a minister or their favouring a family or friend in a procurement decision. We face these potential (not actual) conflicts across both government and business all the time. In very many cases they are not declared or recorded beforehand on any form of register, as Roache has quite properly been required to do. On the timing of his disclosure, to make an issue of this is to ignore that a one-minute search of the Companies Office register by anyone, even an 'investigative' journalist, would find all of these interests. IMHO we can take comfort with a Commissioner who, as you comment, is so experienced across the public and private sectors.