Editorial: Disclosure of family politics a step too far

Labour MP Grant Robertson said that 'dragging family members into it is taking it to another level. Photo / Mark Mitchell

Opinion

One of the important principles of any liberal democracy is the political neutrality of the state service. For our system to function smoothly it is necessary for the public and political parties of all persuasions to have rock-solid confidence that the state service will behave professionally and impartially, no matter who happens to be the government of the day.

This is so basic that it almost goes without saying, and yet the State Services Commission has felt it necessary to take steps to clarify just what public servants' obligations are under their code of conduct. Much of its 33 pages of guidelines for interpreting the code is good, common sense, but in one respect it seems to have broken new ground.

It now seems public servants need to be careful not just about their own political and pecuniary interests but also those of close family members as well. Not surprisingly, this has caused some raised eyebrows because, in political terms at least, it seems fundamentally unfair to judge a person by someone else's allegiances.

Labour MP Grant Robertson, himself a former public servant, was quick to point this out when the guidelines were revealed. It was fair enough for public servants to discuss their own political activities with their supervisors, he said, "but dragging family members into it is taking it to another level".

Quite so. Indeed - as Mr Robertson no doubt recalls - under the Labour Government, public servant Madeleine Setchell lost her job with the Ministry for the Environment because her partner held a senior position with the National Party.

Nevertheless, if Labour was wrong then to force a public servant from her post, Mr Robertson is right now when he objects to this kind of politics-by-association.

To apply such a standard generally would lead to endless and pointless complications, especially in a small country. What, for instance, would it make of a pair of brothers one of whom was the most senior public servant in the land and the other a leader of a political party?

Of course, no one expects public servants to be political eunuchs, provided they keep their opinions out of their work. And even then, they are entitled to be assessed on what they think and do themselves, and not on the politics of their nearest and dearest.

But the position with pecuniary interests is different. There may well be real and relevant conflicts arising from the financial interests of close family or friends of a public servant which ought to be dealt with fairly and openly.

In Parliament, such potential conflicts have for some years been recognised by the need to have registers of pecuniary interests for MPs and ministers. Now the new guidelines require something similar for public servants who may be required to declare to an "accessible register" any significant financial interests they have in which their particular organisation has advisory, regulatory or administrative responsibilities.

Although in some senses this may seem like an intrusion, it is less than we expect of our politicians inasmuch as it is not a general disclosure but is limited to particular areas where there may be conflicts.

Of course, state servants, even senior ones, are not in public life to the same extent as politicians but it is not unreasonable to expect disclosure like this given that they are often in the position of making decisions with public consequences. Whatever their private feelings, transparency can only be good for maintaining public confidence in the service.

As much as the register demonstrates the case for establishing a link between the financial interests of officials and their relatives, it demolishes arguments for a similar link on political grounds. It is impossible to imagine an equivalent register of family political interests. Unless you are Big Brother.