Nats attack public service neutrality

25 comments on “Nats attack public service neutrality ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Anne 1

   13 May 2010 at 6:50 am

   As a former public servant this is moving into totalitarian territory. It’s utterly appalling. Will the MSM do any investigative probing on this new code of conduct? Well, if the interview with Key on Close Up last night is any indication the answer is… no.
2. Brett 2

   13 May 2010 at 7:16 am

   Recreating a neutral public service is a good thing for NZ.
   A section of the public service has to realize they are there to serve NZ not the Labour party or the unions.
   If you struggle with that concept than maybe you would be better being employed somewhere else.
   • Tigger 2.1

     13 May 2010 at 9:14 am

     Brett – please provide evidence of public servants serving the Labour party and/or unions in their daily work.
     • Brett 2.1.1

       13 May 2010 at 9:33 am

       The leaks that have come out of the public service lately.
       • Maynard J 2.1.1.1

         13 May 2010 at 10:35 am

         The ones that have helped National, or the ones that have not? Goes both way, brett.
3. Dan 3

   13 May 2010 at 7:24 am

   How wide is “public service’? The Wellington office dwellers only, or does it include the wider catchment of police, customs, nurses, teachers, etc?
   • Marty G 3.1

     13 May 2010 at 8:24 am

     the civil service that is covered by the code of conduct is what you term the ‘office dwellers’, because they are the administrators who directly service the government of the day. Teachers, nurses etc aren’t required to behave with political neutrality.
     • ghostwhowalksnz 3.1.1

       13 May 2010 at 11:17 am

       I think you are wrong here. The ‘civil service’ it covers is listed at the bottom of the 3rd page, and the entities it doesnt cover are Tertiary organisations and Crown Research Institutes.
       The School Boards of Trustees ( employers of teachers) seem to be covered but not trustees themselves. The wording is a bit circular in the last one.
       Im reading it to cover all public servants, including those who are companies and teachers
       • Dan 3.1.1.1

         13 May 2010 at 11:47 am

         It is this lack of clarity that worries me. I guess if the definition “public service” is for the smaller group of office dwellers, then it would not be long before the requirement is spread to all paid by the public purse. Whichever way, it is a dangerous move for a functioning democracy.
         Didn’t the NACT party campaign on getting rid of the nanny state? I must have missed something.
4. John Dalley 4

   13 May 2010 at 7:54 am

   And what does the other section of the public service have to realize Brett? that they are not there to serve the National Party, Act or any other right wing cause.
   You really are an idiot if you think that everyone in the public service is aligned with Labour or the left wing.
   Any if you real;y have a clue, you would realize that rules like this are more akin to communist China or the soviet republic, not a right wing party lead by “smile and wave”
   • Brett 4.1

     13 May 2010 at 8:17 am

     I said “some” dumbass not everyone.
     If Labour were in power and there was a group of people within the public service that were aligned to National/ Act who went out of their way to undermine Labour than the same applies – they would be better being employed somewhere else.
     • Marty G 4.1.1

       13 May 2010 at 8:31 am

       Brett. If someone doesn’t act neutrally in their work or makes it impossible for the government and the minister to trust that their work is neutral, that is not allowed and has never been allowed.

       We’re not talking about behaviour with these extensions – we’re talking about beliefs. We shouldn’t get to discriminate on workers because of their personal beliefs, much less their families’ beliefs.

       You’re not the most informed person, brett, so you might have missed the reference to ‘not making windows into men’s souls’. That’s what Elizabeth I said when it was compulsory for people to attend the church services of the Church of England – she said as long as people carried out the required actions, what they actually believed didn’t matter to her.
       • Brett 4.1.1.1

         13 May 2010 at 8:51 am

         All depends if these personal beliefs start effecting their neutrality.
         The leaks that have come out of the public service lately eg mining Great Barrier make me believe that certain factions of the public service are letting their beliefs cloud their decision making.

         ” You’re not the most informed person, brett, so you might have missed the reference to ‘not making windows into men’s souls’. That’s what Elizabeth I said when ………….”
         Wow! “Check out the big brain on Marty G”.
         • Draco T Bastard 4.1.1.1.1

           13 May 2010 at 11:04 am

           The leaks on mining Great Barrier and the rest were a public service. The government may not have liked it but the public needed to know so that they cold make informed decisions.
5. Santi 5

   13 May 2010 at 8:27 am

   Pot calling the kettle black. Labour was as bad, if not worse. Do not cry wolf, because nobody will believe you.

   Remember Ms. Setchell?
   • Marty G 5.1

     13 May 2010 at 8:37 am

     And we agree that what happened in that case was wrong. Now, the problem is that National has made what happened to Setchell perfectly normal and acceptable.

     Easy to understand Santi.
   • Fisiani 5.2

     13 May 2010 at 11:48 am

     Labour NEVER accepted that what happened to Madeleine Setchell was wrong.
6. tc 6

   13 May 2010 at 8:42 am

   I’m afraid Brett’s echoing the thinking of alot of right wingnuts……we’re in power we can do what we like and justify it with some convenient rhetoric……sod the rights of individuals we own the public service now.
7. SteveR 7

   13 May 2010 at 8:49 am

   Is it possible to find out where these changes originated? I.e. who suggested them in the first place? It *sounds* like the SSC came up with them itself—but why would they?

   Monitoring and acting on the *beliefs* of people and their families is a step that even the “nanny state” didn’t take—and once this becomes enculturated in the civil service, it won’t be that big a step to extend for sensible, justifiable reasons, of course—so perhaps those teachers etc. are next!
   • Mac1 7.1

     13 May 2010 at 12:08 pm

     Considering that Exclusive Brethren schools seem now to be able to exclude teachers in ‘relationships’, or who are not believers, or who will tolerate only the expurgated and the officially sanctioned, it’s not such a big step to extend this allowance to BOTs in general or the Ministry or better still the Minister.

     Get rid of those pesky wage claims, too, and unionists, why not?

     This government is beyond ‘Nanny’ State to “Billy Goat” State or is that Bully State? Same rank smell, anyway.

     Reductio ad absurdum? I hope so, but fear not.
8. Alexandra 8

   13 May 2010 at 9:41 am

   The changes to the code are extremely intrusive. I dont think its any of the employers business what your or families political interests are, unless of course those interests cross the line and interfere with your work. If I recall information leaks happen regardless of political governance. Id be keen to know whether the code breaches of rights to privacy and the Bill of Rights????
9. Lew 9

   13 May 2010 at 10:40 am

   Trevor Loudon will be thrilled.

   L
   • Pascal's bookie 9.1

     13 May 2010 at 12:09 pm

     Heh.

     “Are you, or have you ever been…?”
10. Rharn 10

    13 May 2010 at 7:11 pm

    I wonder what transgression will be thought up for those that do not ‘confess’ their political leanings where ideology is different from their masters.

Links to post

1. Shed some sunlight on a limp response « The Standard: posted on 15 May 2010 at 7:33 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS