Finny on MFAT
April 26th, 2011 at 3:00 pm by David FarrarCharles Finny, a former MFAT staffer, writes at Stuff on changes to MFAT:
I met a former MFAT colleague a few days after Foreign Affairs Minister Murray McCully had delivered his speech on planned changes to the way the Foreign Affairs and Trade Ministry does its business.
I was reminded that many of the proposed changes were actually suggested in the 1989-90 period and about how the MFAT system had been able to muster so much opposition to the proposals that few were implemented. It is therefore with little surprise that I read editorials and op-eds from former diplomats questioning some of what is being proposed.
MFAT has managed to fight off change for many decades.
MFAT has been extremely resistant to change. It has taken longer to embrace new technologies and management systems than pretty much every other organ of government. It is hierarchical and it has never quite come to grips with the tension that exists between specialists and generalists within the organisation. And until Mr Allen took over as CEO, it has never valued experience gained outside the ministry. Those seeking to come back to the ministry after years away were told that they would have to enter at the level they were at when they departed.
MFAT seems to have this strange rule that you can’t be a senior manager there, unless you are also a diplomat.
I agree fully with Mr McCully that competition should be introduced at head of mission level. There are plenty of current and past public servants from New Zealand Trade and Enterprise, Treasury, the Economic Development Ministry, Customs and Defence with the skill-set and experience necessary to do a head-of- mission job. Martyn Dunne, who is about to go off to Canberra as high commissioner, is an example of this type of person. And from time to time politicians will be the right person for an assignment. Mike Moore is doing a great job in Washington DC right now, as is Jim McLay in New York.
Diplomats deal with both diplomats and politicians. Sometimes the best person for the job will be a senior former politician such as Jim McLay. What should cease is the practice of sending politicians such as Graeme Kelly to a senior overseas post.
I am on record calling for even more radical reforms of the head- of-mission appointment process than Mr McCully. I believe those nominated for these important roles should be forced to appear before the foreign affairs and defence select committee and be the subject of questioning on their knowledge and experience relevant to the proposed assignment.
That’s not a bad idea.
April 26th, 2011 at 3:09 pm
When are MFAT going to organise ‘corruption-risk’ assessments of Free Trade Agreements?
Penny Bright
Vote:http://waterpressure.wordpress.com
April 26th, 2011 at 3:53 pm
So which ambassadorship are you angling for Mr Finny?
Vote:April 26th, 2011 at 4:42 pm
I had regular contact with MFAT staff for many years, including business visits to various overseas missions. As an outsider who was often temporarily on the inside I can attest to what Charles Finny wrote in his article.
MFAT staff are hard-working and conscientious. In our Embassy’s I would often see diplomatic staff working through to 9pm after already putting in a day’s work. They are a dedicated bunch.
But there is a dreadful dreadful pecking order that permeates the whole organisation. In overseas missions I often got to know the locally-engaged staff (the very bottom of the pecking order) and their morale was often very poor indeed, yet in non-English speaking Missions their local language facility and knowledge are relied upon greatly, more than what they are remunerated for. Some local staff have worked at NZ missions for decades but have never been brought over for a visit to see the country they have worked so tirelessly for.
Status overseas is so so important and this is none more evident when it comes to housing. The green-eyed monster is ever present if there is a hint that someone junior might have been allocated slightly better accommodation.
Once, in one of our European Missions, I was asked what I could do to get MFAT in Wellington to agree to the Counsellor breaking his lease (at taxpayer expense involving NZ$16,000) because his wife didn’t really like the apartment and had chosen it too soon before they had got to know the city well enough. Of course they didn’t want me telling MFAT why they wanted to move and came up with a phony excuse. I gave them no help. Incidentally, career MFAT staff who have had at least 15 years of overseas postings are quite often millionaires because they have been such paid such generous overseas allowances (depending on the country) as well as enjoying many tax free privileges (free accommodation, free power and utilities, tax-free cars, tax-free petrol, alcohol, free education for the children, etc). About the only thing a NZ diplomat pays for whilst overseas is his grocery bill. Plus whilst they are overseas they rent out their NZ home and that income pays off the mortgage).
Within NZ, it has always concerned me at meetings with MFAT that their first priority is ensuring NZ abides by UN / International “obligations”, and that NZ’s own interests come second in their thinking, ie: if it’s a question of NZ relegating its international treaties (which are non-binding anyway) or NZ putting its own interests ahead of any treaty it might have signed, then MFAT will only promote our international “obligations”. I guess its their job to do that, but they seem to have far more influence than they ought to have when it comes to NZ’s domestic affairs.
A shake-up from the top down will do them no harm.
Vote:April 26th, 2011 at 6:49 pm
When are MFAT going to organise ‘corruption-risk’ assessments of Free Trade Agreements?
Which ones do you think will cause a problem Penny? China?
I wouldn’t be surprised.
How do you think the Chinese would react, given the importance to them of Face, to such an announcement?
Is it worth that reaction )possible loss of the FTA) to find out what I think most people already know anyway?
Vote:April 26th, 2011 at 6:53 pm
Within NZ, it has always concerned me at meetings with MFAT that their first priority is ensuring NZ abides by UN / International “obligations”, and that NZ’s own interests come second in their thinking
Really?
That explains a lot.
Don’t they have any dictionaries? (Suggest they look up P for “patriot” and T for “traitor.”)
Vote: