An impressive 44,737 out of just over 65,000 public servants completed the Public Service Census earlier this year. The results show both positive features of the New Zealand public service, and some worrying concerns. Here we focus on the measures of integrity.
Positive understanding of core integrity matters.
Political neutrality, openness and transparency, and serving the long-term public good were understood and supported, and people believe their organisations are acting as stewards of the long-term public good. This sits at the heart of public service integrity.
Free and frank advice
71% of the people who are directly involved in preparing advice for ministers agreed or strongly agreed that their organisation is free and frank in their advice to ministers.
Agreement or otherwise with this vital aspect of democracy varied considerably depending on the agency that people worked for. Agencies with the lowest levels of confidence in free and frank advice being given by their staff were Ministry for Women, Ministry of Transport, Ministry of Māori Development-Te Puni Kōkiri, Oranga Tamariki, and Ministry for the Environment. Whereas those having most confidence in free and frank advice provision were LINZ, NZSIS, the Office of Treaty Settlements, Ministry for Ethnic Communities, Serious Fraud Office and Crown Law.
There is clearly much to learned by Ministers and by agencies about the barriers to receiving or providing free and frank advice. Where unequivocal positions are taken by Ministers, or Ministers don’t want to hear bad news, agency staff may feel they can’t give free and frank advice.
Merit Appointments
Appointment on merit is fundamental to bureaucratic capability and a corruption free public service. Merit does not just refer to qualifications, publications or expertise, context is also highly relevant. The public want to see the person most suited for the job, who has been fairly and transparently appointed. Political patronage and nepotism, as well as discrimination undermine merit-based appointments.
Recognition of this value including the nuance of context is exactly stated in the Public Service Act section 72.
When making an appointment under this Act, a chief executive or board must give preference to the person who is best suited to the position.
The results in the survey show that many public servants are doubtful that this is occurring. Overall only 44% of public servants felt confident that people in their organisation get jobs based on merit, 30% disagreed or strongly disagreed, and a further 26% neither agreed nor disagreed. Again there is a lot of variation between agencies.
Integrity Culture
There is good affirmation in the results that in general public servants know what to do if they witness wrongdoing or inappropriate behaviour. In general, also, managers and work colleagues are recognising and leading and acting in ethical ways.
However again there is considerable agency variation in relation to organisational culture, or feeling safe to speak up about wrongdoing. Clearly, there are a few agencies where most staff are doubtful of their safety in speaking up, or feel undermined by the organisational culture. The negative outcomes of this belief on morale include the risk of unethical behaviour and reduced productivity.
Other Findings
The census unsurprisingly reveals some entrenched bullying - 12.1% of public servants said they experienced some form of bullying in the last 12 months - with half of them not reporting it because they don’t think action will be taken.
Harassment and discrimination are also experienced, more so by people from Middle Eastern Countries, Fiji, India, Africa, Pacific Islands, Chinese and Māori; and also by disabled people. Again, there is poor reporting of this behaviour.
The Public Service Commission has reported fully, and all tables are available, including agency reports.
