Public Service Neutrality
Grant Robertson has blogged his concern about the Department of Labour advising staff they should not take part in a pay equity rally.
He has noted:
In recent election campaigns I have noticed that public servants seemed to be getting inconsistent and inaccurate advice about how involved they can be in campaigns, including whether they could have hoardings on fences, deliver pamphlets or even be seen with a candidate.
I believe that the rights of public servants to participate in the political process as private citizens need to be protected, and if necessary clarified. Of course their should be guidance as to how to ensure they can continue to serve the government of the day and avoid compromising their ability to provide quality advice and support, but the interpretation of that guidance should respect the professionalism of public servants and give them their hard won democratic rights.
So presumably he deplores as abhorent the sacking of Madeline Setchell from the Ministry for the Environment, because of her boyfriend’s job?
I mean Grant blogs about how he was able to work for MFAT and be a Labour Party campaign manager. Yet Madeline, who has never been politically active herself, got her career destroyed by Labour because of her boyfriend swapping jobs from journalist to working for John Key.
Hopefully Grant was also appalled by Erin Leigh’s treatment by Labour. Another public servant crucified.
And also I hope Grant was appalled that Setchell was also blacklisted from MAF, after they chekecd with Jim Anderton.
Really having Labour go on about public sector neutrality is like Charlie Sheen go on about monogamy.
July 1st, 2009 at 2:05 pm
Labour have special rules, and mores.
They are the Elite, and simply love power without accountability.
Why else would Duck Face scream about education statistics?
July 1st, 2009 at 2:07 pm
Why is it that whenever DPF takes an interest in a lefty or a labour MP saying [thing], it is rarely the [thing] that DPF is interested in, but usually the “total” and “obvious” hypocrisy of whoever said it?
What race are we winning here?
Are you trying to make NZ (or NZ politics) better than they are now? Or do you just like throwing mud pies?
[DPF: Wow you really don't like me exposing hypocrisy. Why is that?]
July 1st, 2009 at 2:16 pm
Of more concern are the Socialists entrenched in such cabals as the Law Commission, Human Rights Commission, Race Relations Commission and others who are continually making public announcements endorsing Socialist philosophy and nonsensical United Nations declarations.
July 1st, 2009 at 2:27 pm
More to the point, the DOL did not instruct staff to not attend. Much ado about nothing.
July 1st, 2009 at 2:35 pm
Fascinating the trackback from here to Red Alert has resulted in an automatic comment post and link. That is sexy link whoring.
July 1st, 2009 at 2:40 pm
David, what a BS false equivalence.
Grant’s focused on the fact that the Department’s given advice to its staff dissauding them from pretty minor political activity; I can’t recall when a Department last did this, can you?
[DPF: I would rather a Department openly cautioned its staff about political activity, than have a Department sack a staffer because of her boyfriend's job.]
July 1st, 2009 at 2:44 pm
Even more, more to the point, what about the Labour fifth columnists within the Immigration Department who secretly leaked to the media a confidential report into the activities of National Party MP Buckshee, hoping to damage the National Party but in which report all they could come up with was ‘no evidence of wrong doing.’?
Or the Labour lackies who populate MFAT and who passed to Phil Goff details of confidential conversations which the dishonorable member then used to denigrate Dr Brash.
Yes Mr Robertson, it’s time the professionalism of the Public Service was restored. By cleaning out all the little collaborators planted in it by you and your party.
I’d outsource the job to Commodore Bainimarama. Problem gone within two weeks and a couple of beatings.
July 1st, 2009 at 2:48 pm
This tosser Robertson should stop whining less and doing more for Wellington Central, his electorate.
After the useless Hobbs, it would be very difficult to do worse. But, after all, socialists are known for their incompetence.
July 1st, 2009 at 3:18 pm
I’d rather neither and think Grant’s right to be concerned by the Department’s actions. I wonder what’s caused them to take this action?
July 1st, 2009 at 3:19 pm
Grant, this is kettle, come in pot.
July 1st, 2009 at 3:23 pm
Public Service neutrality is defined in the Labour lexicon as doing everthing you can to preventing National gaining or retaining the Treasury benches and if you are figered in doing so we will protect you.
July 1st, 2009 at 3:28 pm
Ross, that’s not my experience. You got any evidence for that or are you just repeating what you heard at drinks with the Young Nats?
July 1st, 2009 at 4:02 pm
Oh come on Pleasssssssssssssse!! For those of us not on the inside of politics we find it disengenious in the extreme to pretend the civil service is neutral
It defies human nature. Its a nonsense A big pretence.
Better to have a transperant system than the lie we have at present.
The USA have a system that allows for opponents to be engaged so they get the best possible people into jobs.
We have a pretend system so outsiders like myself see hacks and flunkies instead of the best people in jobs.
Better to have all senior civil servants submit a resignation to the incoming administration and allow that administration to either reappoint our select another candidate.
And spare me the bullshit about the so called lack of talent. Thats just another lie put about to protect the encumbents.
Like the Directors of SOEs PLCs etc etc Trouble is CCMAU keeps fishing in the same small pond.
July 1st, 2009 at 4:16 pm
gd, I didn’t say individuals don’t have views, but my experience of the public sector, in NZ particularly, is that most senior public servants do as their Ministers lawfully require after first giving them free and frank advice. That’s what matters ultimately.
July 1st, 2009 at 4:33 pm
Paul W iIwasnt suggesting so. What I want to see is a united team approach. What we have at present is pollies who play naughty like the Socialists did over the Setchell and Leigh matters and on the other hand the Sir Humphires who play naughty over thwarting policy.
For me looking in from the outside this is the perception and therefore for them the reality that we dont have a clean game.
What I want is for the pollies and the civil servants to be batting for the same side ( unfortunate choice of words I know given former players but you get my drift)
I dont see that at present. So we need a fix and the fix is as I suggested.
It aint personal
Its all about good governance and raising the standards
July 1st, 2009 at 5:02 pm
I vividly remember that Grant Robertson was several times asked if he condoned the treatment of Madeleine Setchell at Wellington Central candidate meetings before the election 2008. He refused on each occasion to renounce her appalling treatment by Labour Ministers saying “it could have perhaps been handled better”
July 1st, 2009 at 5:08 pm
Not to mention Kit Richards.
July 1st, 2009 at 5:09 pm
gd, I’ve had experience in the NZ and Australian (state and federal) public sectors and my clear personal view is that the NZ system is extremely good (I don’t know nearly enough about the examples you note to comment). All the more reason why I was surprised by the Department’s advice, it’s very unusual and I think Grant’s right to ask what prompted it.
July 1st, 2009 at 5:17 pm
I have noticed that public servants seemed to be getting inconsistent and inaccurate advice
I call ‘bullshit’ on this line in particular. Prior to the election, State Services provided all government departments with an outline of what was considered to be reasonable behaviour of public-sector staff during the campaign. As far as I am aware, this has always been the case, and is not new.
July 1st, 2009 at 5:25 pm
Perhaps Phil, but then the DoLs advice is new and, so far as I can recall, unusual… which is where we came into this discussion.
July 1st, 2009 at 5:30 pm
the public sector is basically the labour party at rest. How many of their MPs have been public servants, teachers or lecturers? The better question is how many haven’t.
And of the ones who havent, its only because they took the local government route to the trough.
Everybody in the public sector saw the double standard.
What it boils down to is this: PS employees are perfectly able to stand for public office, as long as they represent labour. Any sniff of batting for the other team, and you will be vilified or hounded out of your job.
End of Story.
and now some hypocritical little shit wants to tell labour supporters to stand up for their rights to oppose the government.
hmmm. well yes they do have the right to private political opinions, and to undertake political activity.
They also have the responsibility to faithfully undertake the lawful instructions of the government of the day. Having DoL staff protesting a particular government policy decision outside parliament, while legal, certainly is a bad look given their role in implementing that decision.
It would be wrong to mention that if the labour party actually gave a toss about the issue, they might have done something about it in the last decade, so I won’t.
July 1st, 2009 at 5:32 pm
The “inconsistent and inaccurate advice” is that while the SSC has always provided neutral guidance, the labour party and PSA were actively distributing party political material in public service workplaces all over the country.
July 1st, 2009 at 5:38 pm
You mean like Gerry Brownlee, Tim Groser, Bill English, Don Brash, Alan Peachy, Paul Quinn, Hekia Parata and co?
July 1st, 2009 at 5:41 pm
Madaleine Setchell was not well treated. Both the Minister and the Chief Executive resigned.
The idea that public servants who are not working on the particular issue are not allowed to go to a demonstration is repugnant. I remind people of the thousands who have demonstrated against Labour government changes in the past.
[DPF: Thanks for that statement re Madeleine]
July 1st, 2009 at 5:46 pm
If a Public Servant attends a rally, they do it in their own time right? It is unpaid leave because they are not working right?
I do hope they all notify the pay clerk of this time off work. Sure they can go and demonstrate all they like, but not while the Taxpayer payes the wages. They should be working if paid to do so.
July 1st, 2009 at 5:51 pm
yeah lets talk about Tim Groser shall we. He’s the only one in the last decade who dared to stand for the “wrong” team.
Wasnt it Jim Sutton who said that the New Zealand government had lost confidence in him and wanted him withdrawn from Geneva?
Was that the Tim Groser Chairing the agriculture committee and doing a fine job, but who the labour government deliberately sought to undermine their own representative simply out of partisan spite.
Was this the Tim Groser who kept the job because other countries interceded on his behalf and got the labour government to shut up because the negotiations kinda mattered to us all?
Yeah good call Paul, excellent example. Proves my point.
July 1st, 2009 at 6:03 pm
Paul – good of you to mention Groser. As soon as it emerged that he was going to be a National candidate, he came under huge pressure from Labour, who said he couldn’t be trusted. Yes, a very good example.
Remember this? The headline reads “Government wants diplomat out of job” – then it reads:
The Government will tell the World Trade Organisation it has no confidence in former trade ambassador Tim Groser and does not want him to keep his job as chairman of the agriculture negotiations committee after he quit his diplomat’s post to seek election as a National Party MP.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10127148
July 1st, 2009 at 6:04 pm
oh thats right, Sutton didnt mention he’d lost confidence
He accused Groser of betraying his country
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10126966
even idiot saw this as hypocrisy at the time:
http://norightturn.blogspot.com/2005/05/betrayal.html
July 1st, 2009 at 6:07 pm
Trevor rewriting history again. Benson-Pope did not resign for interfering in an employment decision, he resigned for having been caught lying about it
note the difference?
nah didnt think you would.
July 1st, 2009 at 6:13 pm
Trevor made the point upthread that the issue is about whether the officials are working in the area about which they might have questions asked of their motives. I think you’re being more than a little naive. Moreover, standing for parliament is also somewhat different from attending a rally. How’d Groser of responded to questions about what he’d do differently if her was part of the alternative government rather than an official for he current one?
That said, perhaps Labour could have responded differently on Groser, Trevor’s conceded the Setchell matter wasn’t well handled. My point however, remains that the NZ public sector is very professional, that the DoL’s actions are unusual and require some explanation.
Your point is that the public sector are the Labour-borg; it’s kind of a simplistic argument bereft of insight and, I’m guessing, experience.
July 1st, 2009 at 6:23 pm
Paul Williams said “You mean like Gerry Brownlee, Tim Groser, Bill English, Don Brash, Alan Peachy, Paul Quinn, Hekia Parata and co?”
Given that you’ve taken the time to list all the National MP’s who have had some sort of public service background (including teaching), how about you balance the ledger with a list of Labour, Green and Progressive MP’s who meet the same criteria. After all, you wouldn’t want people to think thatyou were taking a pro-Labour stance would you?
I can give you three to start with – Grant Robertson, Chris Hipkins and Darren Hughes …
July 1st, 2009 at 6:28 pm
I unashamedly pro-Labour inventory, I never pretended otherwise. My point was just that there’s a number in the National Caucus who’ve got public service backgrounds which makes it a little hard to argue, as deity did, that all public servants are simply unactivated Labour hacks.
The point of this discussion however, was whether it was unusual to DoL to issue blanket advice dissauding officials from attending a minor political event. It is and I think it’s worth asking them why?
July 1st, 2009 at 6:59 pm
“# Steve (332) Vote: Add rating 1 Subtract rating 0 Says:
July 1st, 2009 at 5:46 pm
If a Public Servant attends a rally, they do it in their own time right? It is unpaid leave because they are not working right?
I do hope they all notify the pay clerk of this time off work. Sure they can go and demonstrate all they like, but not while the Taxpayer payes the wages. They should be working if paid to do so.
”
It was half an hour, during lunch time, so it was on their own time. Good try at silencing dissent though.
July 1st, 2009 at 6:59 pm
[DPF: Wow you really don't like me exposing hypocrisy. Why is that?]
Why not talk about ten good things that Key and the Govt have done this week? And ways they could be improved. Use your readership and the influence it amounts to to do something positive for the country. Instead of just being a nasty partizan little critic.
Ad-hominem slagging off of the left opposition just makes it seem like you have nothing much good to say about what your own side are doing.
[DPF: Oh God become an unabashed cheerleader for the Government - would rather not. I intend to carry on praising stuff I do like, and criticising stuff (from all sides) I don't like]
July 1st, 2009 at 7:17 pm
racer1 says:
Well good on ‘em then, and I wholeheartedly support their right to do it. I also wholeheartedly support my right as a taxpayer to expect my employees to pursue their private interests on their own time. That’s not silencing dissent (I keep a set of electrodes and a water board for when I want to indulge in that) it’s accountability.
Silencing dissent is… let’s see if I can think of a hypothetical example… more like, say, belting someone in the face with your megaphone.
July 1st, 2009 at 7:28 pm
“I unashamedly pro-Labour ”
You are a brave man to say that in public given the mess Labour have left the country in.
July 1st, 2009 at 10:33 pm
Well apparently, Trevor Mallard from the Liarbore party which Grant apparently vigorously supports has no problem whatsoever with destroying civil servants and then never ever apologising.
I gave Trevor the perfect opportunity.
Sadly, he declined – see the remainder of that thread.
Go Grant. Honourable comrades? You decide.
July 1st, 2009 at 10:44 pm
As the Government applies the blowtorch of fiscal responsibility to the Public Sector I’m sure the Neutrality or otherwise of this “Service” will become less of an important issue.
Time to starve these traitors out.
July 2nd, 2009 at 6:23 am
Obviously the education statistics are pretty damning.
July 2nd, 2009 at 7:23 am
I live almost next door to Naenae College. I see and hear it every day.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:07 am
PaulW … I have never been to a Young Nats drinks session. I have however worked for both Labour and National Ministers.
My opinions are based on my life experiences. If you think there is no a substantial rump of public servants with an inherent Labour bias prepared to pay lip service to the concept of an apolitical public service then you delude yourself.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:38 am
Apolitical public service has long been an oxymoron.
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:56 pm
The public service is a bit like asking the National Party to work with the Labour Party research unit. The political motivation of public servants particularly at more junior levels can make things quite frustrating for a centre-right Government. The National Government basically ignores the centre-left political motivations of junior staff providing Departmental Heads keep them in line.