Editorial: Public service appointments pose questions

Two Government appointments announced yesterday have put a cat among the pigeons of the public service. One, businessman John Allen's confirmation as the next Secretary for Foreign Affairs and Trade, will attract much less public interest than the other, the choice of Christine Rankin as a commissioner to the Families Commission. But there is no question which is the more important.

Mr Allen is the first head of Foreign Affairs to be appointed from outside the public service. His selection, ahead of two career diplomats with the requisite credentials, had to be made by the State Services Commission but it needed the Government's approval. It is said to have been a ministerial initiative and National's Ministers of Foreign Affairs, Murray McCully and Trade, Tim Groser, hardly bother to deny it.

Mr McCully and Mr Groser, a veteran of the ministry himself, are said to want a culture change in the foreign service. That Mr Allen certainly offers. As chief executive of New Zealand Post, he is an impressive, even inspiring, speaker to business audiences, and has developed some finesse for foreign relations through transtasman forums.

He seems to be a man in the mould of Prime Minister John Key who believes New Zealand can be geared up like a company to make much more of its assets, improve its productivity and generate a higher level of national wealth. It is an outlook that is much more comfortable than previous Governments with the idea that the resources of the state can be used for the advancement of selected industries.

Those with longer memories may shudder at echoes of the 1970s but that is not the main reason to raise an eyebrow at the Allen appointment. Even if a more hands-on economic development policy is accepted, should it be the primary mission of the diplomatic service?

It is often said that foreign affairs is first and foremost about trade, but it is not only about trade. A country's dealings with others can cover the gamut of government activities, including defence, security intelligence, international and maritime law, multi-national organisations, immigration, environmental co-operation and much else.

Diplomacy is an art that politicians are too quick to assume anyone can do, especially themselves. This Government has also appointed a former National leader, Jim McLay, its ambassador to the United Nations, a post that has not previously been used for political reward. It needs to be careful it does not remove too many career steps from our professional diplomats. Many of them are people with highly portable talents.

A business visionary, as Mr Allen is said to be, might master all the dimensions of foreign affairs and balance the country's interests as adroitly as someone who has come up through the ranks. But that invites the question, is this job the best for his talents. If the Government has found someone of rare inspirational quality, it seems a waste to saddle him with the diverse responsibilities of the Secretary of Foreign Affairs. Why not give him the Ministry of Economic Development, since we have one.

Christine Rankin's appointment is at the other end of the scale. The Families Commission is a token political creation that has had nothing interesting to say, mainly because it has defined families so broadly. Ms Rankin might narrow its focus to the traditional family.

As an opponent of the anti-smacking law, she certainly offers a culture change for the commission.

If the Government intends these appointments to signal a wider change of culture in the state service, it needs to say more about it. Institutional change is difficult and disruptive. People and skills once lost can be hard to replace. Change must be directed by something more substantial than political whim.