Kiwiblog and the editorial in the Dominion Post today like what Whale Oil did a week or so ago in trying to auction off the Honorary Consulship in Monaco on Trademe. Poneke takes a more serious look at the Cook Islands and the exposure of yet another Winston Peters untruth - about the Cook Islands Maori proficiency of new High Commissioner Brian Donnelly.
Together these articles highlight the most politicised area of a far too politicised public service and SOE system.
Also relevant this week has been National's call for involvement in the selection of the next SSC boss.
Lets comment on these issues in turn starting with the SSC Commissioner.
This position is going to be key to re-establishing a non-political public service. It is essential that whoever is appointed to replace Prebble has the confidence of Labour, National and the general public. If Labour can't bring itself to consult, then an interim appointment should be made. Either someone in an acting capacity, or else someone on a short term contract.
The SSC job is not the only position where it is essential that the appointee has the confidence of the major parties and the public. Heads of Mission abroad fall into that category in our view. These people are the face of New Zealand. It is essential that we have the best people possible in these position. We don't think the current system delivers this, and we don't think that the ways in which these people are appointed are much better than that suggested by Whale Oil, Kiwiblog or the DomPost. You either have the MFAT CEO deciding, sometimes in consultation with his Senior Management Group, and sometimes the PM of Foreign Minister decide to put their own person in the job. Donnelly is the most recent example.
The Whale Oil concept is not really that new. Essentially it is the system that operates in the US. Rich people get rewarded for big donations to the winning Presidential candidate. We don't really want that here do we?
Likewise do we really want the choice of Heads of Mission to be left in the hands of the CEO of one institution? Are the best people always working in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs? And indeed are we confident that the best qualified people in that Ministry the people who are getting Head of Mission jobs?
We favour a new system. Start by identifying all possible talent, including, but not exclusive to MFAT. The end result would be a wide pool of possibilities similar to that available to CCMAU. A short list is put together, candidates interviewed, then a recommendation put to the Foreign Minister (or Trade Minister for posts like Brussels and Geneva). That Minister would then get agreement from the Opposition. And after a name is selected, the candidate would need to be confirmed by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee in Parliament. In a process open to the public and media, the candidate would have to demonstrate that they are well qualified for the job.
This system would be more cumbersome than our current system, but if we want to restore faith in some key institutions, such as overseas heads of mission, it is the way to go. It is also in keeping with the bi-partisan approach favoured by both labour and national when it comes to foreign and trade policy. The China free trade agreement is only possible because National is being responsible and is prepared to support a policy that would otherwise possibly be voted down, as Green and NZ First appear opposed (United also might be tempted to say no). WTO policy and policy towards the US seem areas of absolute symmetry between Labour and National.
Now we don't expect immediate change to our preferred system, but why not start simple. HOM jobs are going to be coming up soon in Beijing in Geneva. Why doesn't Goff consult Groser on who gets the job in Geneva? Likewise why doesn't Peters consult McCully on Beijing? And why not arrange for these appointees to appear before the select committee? Is this too much to ask?
