Recent events, particularly the dismissal of Rob Campbell and
resignation of Steve Maharey, have exposed a long-standing requirement
that senior civil servants and those with leadership roles in Crown Enterprises (and probably SOEs) be politically neutral. The issue of
why this matters is what I am posting on. For convenience I
collectively refer to thee people as Senior Government Leaders (SGLs)
Political neutrality has been seen as the solution to widespread
disruption caused by changes of government - SGLs are not political appointees so with a change of Government they keep their jobs. To do
this, SGLs must not have a public political viewpoint. They most
certainly can (and most assuredly do) have a private viewpoint but
they must not publicly support any one political party over any other
and equally cannot participate in public political events.
I was once a lowly back-office IRD worker - but I could not stand the
public service culture of the early 2000's and left after 4 months.
Even I was made aware of the need for political neutrality and what
this meant before I accepted the job offer.
In this context a case could be made that neither Campbell nor Maharey
could ever display political neutrality because of their backgrounds. However I am inclined to accept that they could be appointed if they scrupulously change their ways when appointed to be neutral - that
they never make public comments about anything because this is what political neutrality requires.
The alternative is that the government of the day gets to replace
whomever they wish to (usually on a change of government) with people
they can trust to carry out the imperatives of party policy. This in
turn leads to appointment of people based on their political
commitment in preference to their suitability and experience.
There are a number of countries that do this to some degree or other - principally the USA and Germany.
However I firmly believe that we are better served by those who are
the best for the job, accept the need for political neutrality of and demonstrate their commitment to it. People who were politically
active in the past are not disqualified from an SGL appointment, but
they must accept that when they take up their job their past political activism is now a purely private matter and they are prohibited from
public discussion on political issues.
--
Crash McBash
On Mon, 6 Mar 2023 17:24:54 -0800 (PST), JohnO <john...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, 7 March 2023 at 13:35:16 UTC+13, Crash wrote:
Recent events, particularly the dismissal of Rob Campbell and
resignation of Steve Maharey, have exposed a long-standing requirement
that senior civil servants and those with leadership roles in Crown
Enterprises (and probably SOEs) be politically neutral. The issue of
why this matters is what I am posting on. For convenience I
collectively refer to thee people as Senior Government Leaders (SGLs)
Political neutrality has been seen as the solution to widespread
disruption caused by changes of government - SGLs are not political
appointees so with a change of Government they keep their jobs. To do
this, SGLs must not have a public political viewpoint. They most
certainly can (and most assuredly do) have a private viewpoint but
they must not publicly support any one political party over any other
and equally cannot participate in public political events.
I was once a lowly back-office IRD worker - but I could not stand the
public service culture of the early 2000's and left after 4 months.
Even I was made aware of the need for political neutrality and what
this meant before I accepted the job offer.
In this context a case could be made that neither Campbell nor Maharey
could ever display political neutrality because of their backgrounds.
However I am inclined to accept that they could be appointed if they
scrupulously change their ways when appointed to be neutral - that
they never make public comments about anything because this is what
political neutrality requires.
The alternative is that the government of the day gets to replace
whomever they wish to (usually on a change of government) with people
they can trust to carry out the imperatives of party policy. This in
turn leads to appointment of people based on their political
commitment in preference to their suitability and experience.
There are a number of countries that do this to some degree or other -
principally the USA and Germany.
However I firmly believe that we are better served by those who are
the best for the job, accept the need for political neutrality of and
demonstrate their commitment to it. People who were politically
active in the past are not disqualified from an SGL appointment, but
they must accept that when they take up their job their past political
activism is now a purely private matter and they are prohibited from
public discussion on political issues.
--
Crash McBash
I largely agree with this, but there are exceptions. If National/ACT are indeed voted into government, then they must remove Adrian Orr from the RBNZ immediately. That guy is a chief cause of the economic misery many New Zealanders currently suffer.Such a precipitous move would result in exactly the perception that
Crash identified - the then government wuld be seen as clearing out
public servants to appoint their own 'right-thinking' appointee, and
to do that for such a position could have international as well as
domestic repercussions. My recollection of the years that Brash was
Governor of the Reserve Bank is that he followed the neutral
presentation of advice well, as does Adrian Orr. It is far better to
follow the practice of making replacements when contractual terms have
ended - that is now well established.
On Tuesday, 7 March 2023 at 13:35:16 UTC+13, Crash wrote:
Recent events, particularly the dismissal of Rob Campbell and
resignation of Steve Maharey, have exposed a long-standing requirement
that senior civil servants and those with leadership roles in Crown
Enterprises (and probably SOEs) be politically neutral. The issue of
why this matters is what I am posting on. For convenience I
collectively refer to thee people as Senior Government Leaders (SGLs)
Political neutrality has been seen as the solution to widespread
disruption caused by changes of government - SGLs are not political
appointees so with a change of Government they keep their jobs. To do
this, SGLs must not have a public political viewpoint. They most
certainly can (and most assuredly do) have a private viewpoint but
they must not publicly support any one political party over any other
and equally cannot participate in public political events.
I was once a lowly back-office IRD worker - but I could not stand the
public service culture of the early 2000's and left after 4 months.
Even I was made aware of the need for political neutrality and what
this meant before I accepted the job offer.
In this context a case could be made that neither Campbell nor Maharey
could ever display political neutrality because of their backgrounds.
However I am inclined to accept that they could be appointed if they
scrupulously change their ways when appointed to be neutral - that
they never make public comments about anything because this is what
political neutrality requires.
The alternative is that the government of the day gets to replace
whomever they wish to (usually on a change of government) with people
they can trust to carry out the imperatives of party policy. This in
turn leads to appointment of people based on their political
commitment in preference to their suitability and experience.
There are a number of countries that do this to some degree or other -
principally the USA and Germany.
However I firmly believe that we are better served by those who are
the best for the job, accept the need for political neutrality of and
demonstrate their commitment to it. People who were politically
active in the past are not disqualified from an SGL appointment, but
they must accept that when they take up their job their past political
activism is now a purely private matter and they are prohibited from
public discussion on political issues.
--
Crash McBash
I largely agree with this, but there are exceptions. If National/ACT are indeed voted into government, then they must remove Adrian Orr from the RBNZ immediately. That guy is a chief cause of the economic misery many New Zealanders currently suffer.
Recent events, particularly the dismissal of Rob Campbell and
resignation of Steve Maharey, have exposed a long-standing requirement
that senior civil servants and those with leadership roles in Crown Enterprises (and probably SOEs) be politically neutral. The issue of
why this matters is what I am posting on. For convenience I
collectively refer to thee people as Senior Government Leaders (SGLs)
Political neutrality has been seen as the solution to widespread
disruption caused by changes of government - SGLs are not political appointees so with a change of Government they keep their jobs. To do
this, SGLs must not have a public political viewpoint. They most
certainly can (and most assuredly do) have a private viewpoint but
they must not publicly support any one political party over any other
and equally cannot participate in public political events.
I was once a lowly back-office IRD worker - but I could not stand the
public service culture of the early 2000's and left after 4 months.
Even I was made aware of the need for political neutrality and what
this meant before I accepted the job offer.
In this context a case could be made that neither Campbell nor Maharey
could ever display political neutrality because of their backgrounds.
However I am inclined to accept that they could be appointed if they scrupulously change their ways when appointed to be neutral - that
they never make public comments about anything because this is what
political neutrality requires.
The alternative is that the government of the day gets to replace
whomever they wish to (usually on a change of government) with people
they can trust to carry out the imperatives of party policy. This in
turn leads to appointment of people based on their political
commitment in preference to their suitability and experience.
There are a number of countries that do this to some degree or other - principally the USA and Germany.
However I firmly believe that we are better served by those who are
the best for the job, accept the need for political neutrality of and demonstrate their commitment to it. People who were politically
active in the past are not disqualified from an SGL appointment, but
they must accept that when they take up their job their past political activism is now a purely private matter and they are prohibited from
public discussion on political issues.
Recent events, particularly the dismissal of Rob Campbell and
resignation of Steve Maharey, have exposed a long-standing requirement
that senior civil servants and those with leadership roles in Crown Enterprises (and probably SOEs) be politically neutral. The issue of
why this matters is what I am posting on. For convenience I
collectively refer to thee people as Senior Government Leaders (SGLs)
Political neutrality has been seen as the solution to widespread
disruption caused by changes of government - SGLs are not political appointees so with a change of Government they keep their jobs. To do
this, SGLs must not have a public political viewpoint. They most
certainly can (and most assuredly do) have a private viewpoint but
they must not publicly support any one political party over any other
and equally cannot participate in public political events.
I was once a lowly back-office IRD worker - but I could not stand the
public service culture of the early 2000's and left after 4 months.
Even I was made aware of the need for political neutrality and what
this meant before I accepted the job offer.
In this context a case could be made that neither Campbell nor Maharey
could ever display political neutrality because of their backgrounds.
However I am inclined to accept that they could be appointed if they scrupulously change their ways when appointed to be neutral - that
they never make public comments about anything because this is what
political neutrality requires.
The alternative is that the government of the day gets to replace
whomever they wish to (usually on a change of government) with people
they can trust to carry out the imperatives of party policy. This in
turn leads to appointment of people based on their political
commitment in preference to their suitability and experience.
There are a number of countries that do this to some degree or other - principally the USA and Germany.
However I firmly believe that we are better served by those who are
the best for the job, accept the need for political neutrality of and demonstrate their commitment to it. People who were politically
active in the past are not disqualified from an SGL appointment, but
they must accept that when they take up their job their past political activism is now a purely private matter and they are prohibited from
public discussion on political issues.
--
Crash McBash
On 2023-03-07, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
Recent events, particularly the dismissal of Rob Campbell andGovernance vs management comes into this as well. Government's make the >policy, from the madate given by the people at the election. The Government >should not get itself tangled up with the how. For example needed 900 more >police officers in the next three years. The people vote this in and the >Government hands over some money and request the Police SGL to make it so. >And please report back on progress at x monthly intervals.
resignation of Steve Maharey, have exposed a long-standing requirement
that senior civil servants and those with leadership roles in Crown
Enterprises (and probably SOEs) be politically neutral. The issue of
why this matters is what I am posting on. For convenience I
collectively refer to thee people as Senior Government Leaders (SGLs)
Political neutrality has been seen as the solution to widespread
disruption caused by changes of government - SGLs are not political
appointees so with a change of Government they keep their jobs. To do
this, SGLs must not have a public political viewpoint. They most
certainly can (and most assuredly do) have a private viewpoint but
they must not publicly support any one political party over any other
and equally cannot participate in public political events.
I was once a lowly back-office IRD worker - but I could not stand the
public service culture of the early 2000's and left after 4 months.
Even I was made aware of the need for political neutrality and what
this meant before I accepted the job offer.
In this context a case could be made that neither Campbell nor Maharey
could ever display political neutrality because of their backgrounds.
However I am inclined to accept that they could be appointed if they
scrupulously change their ways when appointed to be neutral - that
they never make public comments about anything because this is what
political neutrality requires.
The alternative is that the government of the day gets to replace
whomever they wish to (usually on a change of government) with people
they can trust to carry out the imperatives of party policy. This in
turn leads to appointment of people based on their political
commitment in preference to their suitability and experience.
There are a number of countries that do this to some degree or other -
principally the USA and Germany.
However I firmly believe that we are better served by those who are
the best for the job, accept the need for political neutrality of and
demonstrate their commitment to it. People who were politically
active in the past are not disqualified from an SGL appointment, but
they must accept that when they take up their job their past political
activism is now a purely private matter and they are prohibited from
public discussion on political issues.
This allows the Police to continue the day to day work without political >interference.
The Government should be thinking through the issues of the country and >getting a bi-partisan agreement if possible.
Finally being netural is about treating each/every side the same. If asked
to carry out a task, one should do it with the same attiude as if your >favourite party had made the request.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 120:19:46 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Files: | 12,210 |
| Messages: | 5,334,422 |