Its time to talk about: Political neutrality
Serving the public
Here in Aotearoa New Zealand we still have a politically neutral public service. For those interested you can see how this commitment is spelt out in legislation in the Public Service Act 2020. In my experience it was never unclear that political neutrality was expected of me when I was working in the public service. What I felt was, and is lacking is a conversation about what politically neutral really means in practice. I can testify from experience that the lack of conversation about this leads to some very different understandings of this obligation- with some serious real world consequences. I think recent articles about official advice on the funding of Mike Kings ‘Gumboot Friday’ underscore our need as a society to have this conversation. What is the job of those advising government? What should the public expect? This short blog touches on these issue in the hopes that these conversations are being had in earnest to support all those working in and for the public service.
What is political neutrality?
To me political neutrality is as simple (and as complex) as being consistent. By this I mean that advice, information and analysis which informs ministerial decision making should always be fulsome, clear, factual, evidence based and outline cause and effect (you do this— these are the possible impacts/risks). This should not shift when the makeup of the government changes. You may know, for example, that a particular government has a particular thing they wish to do (or not do). However it is not your job to simply make that thing happen or retrofit the advice a government receives so it is palatable to them. Any government should still receive all advice, implications and evidence relating to any decision.
Political neutrality also has another component. Any key assumptions that underpin advice should also be made explicit for the reader. For example, if a Ministry or Department assumes in their advice that GDP growth = good (and therefore the inverse is true GDP decrease = bad) this needs to be spelt out as something their options analysis pivots around. This is important so that officials do not limit the thinking of ministers- what would/could options look like if we used a different measure other than GDP? (Don’t worry I am not entering this debate in this blog its simply an example of a central assumption that should be articulated as such).
Why is political neutrality important?
If clear, complete, evidence based advice is made available to ministers then the choices they make and the actions they take or do not take rest squarely on them. Once the decisions are made then the public service will (and do) implement those decisions, regardless of their political views. If ministers ignore evidence based advice, break laws or take actions that are otherwise unfit for purpose then then we the public should hold them accountable for those decisions. It is in all our interests for ministers to have all relevant information prior to making decisions as the impacts can affect the wellbeing of millions of people, our environment and generations to come.
The holding of power to account is another reason why political neutrality is important. The advice that governments receive is not only for them, it should ultimately be visible to the public. Seeing the basis on which decisions are being made is important to interrogating the application of power and who it serves. If there is good, on the record, analysis which outlines the risks and benefits of a particular course of action by a government this can help us ask the right questions. If that advice is tempered or altered to keep ministers content then the public is robbed of critical information.
Why is political neutrality hard?
Before I talk about the challenges here, let me be clear. The public service here in Aotearoa/New Zealand has a wealth of people with fabulous minds, integrity and even more courage. We really are lucky in so many ways. Discussing the challenges the public service faces does not negate this truth. But I think we need more conversations about what may not be working, or where challenges lie if we want to improve and make things better for those to come.
So onto the challenges.
The power juggle
The more senior that you become in the public service the more proximity you have to ministers. It can be an awkward dance as senior leaders will often be very focused on having a good relationship with their minister (and a good reputation). This in itself is not wrong- good relationships are important. However like any relationship, boundaries are also important, and a relationship can be toxic if you are wanting to please your minister at all costs. I lost count of how many times I heard how important it was to be in the minister’s good graces and for them to approve of and agree with your advice. This desire was packaged to me (and to all my colleagues) as how to be politically neutral. I think most public servants like me, if they are honest, will have heard from some leaders some version of:
the minister doesn’t want to hear that
don’t put that in writing
we can’t say that
that option would not be well received- leave it out
don’t highlight those risks
Having a good relationship is not the same thing as telling someone only what they want to hear. However, we live in a small country and people can become nervous about doing or saying something that someone more powerful may not like. It can be easier to meld to the views of the day and be seen as extremely useful and helpful rather than remain independent and sometimes be seen as a royal pain in the ass. This seems to me to be the likely scenario for those Ministry of Health officials who were caught up by the auditor generals criticism in the recent article. The auditor general rightly said:
“Ministry of Health officials were "put in a difficult position" by the coalition agreement to fund 'I Am Hope', but they should have provided better advice on the rules to the minister, he said.
"The analysis appeared designed to retrospectively justify an outcome that had already been decided."
A good leader in the public service should provide a shield for their staff against political pressure, not amplify it. They need to stand in support of staff who need to provide advice which the government of the day may not like or wish to hear. The trust and confidence of the public depends upon it. I hope that findings of the auditor general provide a platform for discussions across the public service that allow us to truly understand and agree on what political neutrality really looks like.
If you or your organisation are looking for a piece of policy work or analysis and would like some independent advice or technical support reach out to amy.ross@workethics.nz for a chat to see how I may be able to help. I also provide supervision services which can support public servants in their mahi.