New Zealand’s public service wields enormous power, yet the perception is that those at the top are rarely held accountable. When things go wrong, the system protects itself—not the public.
Hi Nat, I’m right with you on the need for strong accountability mechanisms—not just in government but in all organizations. Looking at you, @James Downey! What matters is competence. Without it, accountability turns into bureaucratic box-ticking instead of something that actually ensures good decision-making and performance. The question is, how? (By the way, I wish I had the beginnings of a clue.)
On diversity, I’d push back gently on a fixation with demographic categories. Diversity of ideas—among competent people—is what really drives innovation and resilience. A team of varied ethnicities and genders that all think the same way isn’t actually diverse in any meaningful sense. For example, is an internally coherent elite minority that pushes for a unified framework of Treaty and DI issues actually ‘diverse’, in the face of, and despite the existence of, widely supported alternative views?
Then there’s unconscious bias training—an industry that took off before anyone checked whether its foundations were solid. The Implicit Association Test (IAT), which underpins much of it, has been called into question for its reliability and predictive power. It’s part of the broader “replication crisis” in psychology, where landmark studies—including those on ‘implicit bias’ and ‘priming’ and the like—turned out to be … not so replicable after all. By the time the failure was acknowledged unconscious bias was off to the races, embraced by critical theorists, and had morphed into a billion-dollar industry with a life of its own.
So yes—accountability matters, competence matters, and if we’re going to talk about bias, let’s make sure the frameworks we use hold up to scrutiny.
p.s. Do you have a copy of your Masters thesis online? I’d really like to read it. This is an important topic. Did you get a chance to include empirical research in it? Your own or as citations.
Hey John, I always appreciate your balanced and thoughtful take on my articles! You’re absolutely right—without competence, accountability just becomes another bureaucratic exercise. However, I’ve seen highly competent senior public servants completely overtaken by both formal and informal mechanisms that override their personal judgment and expertise. What I didn’t mention in my article—but should have—is the need for brave leadership that can push back against ineffective formal processes and recognize the informal ones that work against their goals. That said, I suppose that’s also part of competence, so you’re right there! We end up with performance reviews that don’t actually measure performance, waste everyones time, complaints processes designed to protect institutions rather than challenge them, and oversight mechanisms that are all form and no substance.
Your point on the diversity of ideas is well taken, and I think that’s where things get messy. I’m definitely not advocating for tokenism or a simplistic demographic fix. But we do have a legacy of historical discrimination against certain groups, and while organizing populations by ethnicity (whatever that even means—I hate that term) is deeply problematic, we’re still anchored to how the Census classifies us. The reality is that some groups do have it easier than others. Is that the full picture or the best way to frame the debate? No. But I also don’t think denying historical reality is helpful either. It’s complicated!
For example, I see how people’s faces and demeanor change when I say I’m Mexican. Because I speak English with an American/Canadian accent, my skin tone is ambiguously white/olive, and my name is easily pronounced in English, people assume I’m a white American unless I correct them. And once I do? The patronizing, condescending questions and tones kick in—it’s nauseating. So no one can tell me that passive, invisible perceptions of nationality don’t exist. That said, nationality, ethnicity, and race are fundamentally different things, and in New Zealand, we’ve completely muddled them. It’s frustrating!
From my research—and what I’ve seen firsthand—who gets into the room in the first place shapes what ideas even make it onto the table. When leadership is overwhelmingly drawn from one background (in this case, Pākehā, middle-class, and often from a handful of schools), blind spots are inevitable. It’s not about forcing people to think differently—it’s about ensuring a range of lived experiences and perspectives are present in the decision-making process from the outset.
On unconscious bias training—100% agree. It became a billion-dollar industry before anyone seriously questioned whether it worked. The fact that it’s now embedded in HR frameworks (even as its scientific foundations crumble) just shows how institutions favor performative solutions over real structural change. It’s a great way to appear proactive without actually addressing the issue.
And yes! My thesis includes empirical research—happy to send it your way. I’ll flick you a link later today. Would love to hear your thoughts on it.
P.S. Stoked you added a photo to your profile. I think everybody on Susbatck should have their real name and a photo ... Mountain Tui, talking to you!
I am greatly worried by your response. That echo chamber thing… I can feel the solid walls closing in! I just agree with you.
I am startled by your experience of people’s reactions when you declare your Mexican heritage. That is really crappy, and outside my experience. How rotten. (But what is wrong with having New Zealand run by the Auckland Grammar Old Boys Association may I ask? Not that I am a member, I didn’t like the place.)
Ha! I hear you—please keep disagreeing with me with your lovely jokes and balanced views! I don’t seek agreement; I seek constructive, respectful debate, and you always bring that to the table.
And yeah, it’s fine—I’m used to it. But I’m also hyper-aware of how women, especially those from non-English-speaking countries, are treated. There’s very little anyone could say to convince me that discrimination isn’t real—the patterns are just too obvious.
If you're interested in a really insightful take on this, I highly recommend Space Invaders: Race, Gender and Bodies Out of Place by Nirmal Puwar. Out of everything I’ve read on this topic, this book has easily been the best in over a decade of wading through the academic sandbox.
P.S. Go easy on my master’s thesis—I wasn’t exactly great at this whole writing and research thing back then. I’d like to think I’ve come a long way since! 😆
Hi Natalie, thanks again for another good commentary. When I read your article on political accountability I immediately thought that it could also be applied to the public service - and beyond. Local bodies and big business exhibits the same malaise. Having dealt with public servants at both levels it’s apparent that talking the talk has very little substance when it comes to any kind of walking.
It quickly becomes obvious that the “Peter Principle” is rampant with incompetence on display at all levels.
It also appears that big business is afflicted. The CEO of Spark remains in her job despite presiding over a billion dollars loss in share value.
I disagree that failure of DEI measures is the core issue. After 75 years in all sorts of situations I would say it comes down to the quality of people. I’ve worked with and for some brilliant people and some drongos. Among the brilliant there were quite a few with little formal education. You can try and cultivate and train good leaders but you can’t regulate for it.
It is also apparent to me that in larger organisations the people at the top promote people with similar personalities. That might support your DEI concern but personality crosses racial and gender boundaries.
I wonder if we are the victims of our culture and being a small community. We tend to avoid confrontation and we don’t like to rock the boat or get offside with those around us. Robert McCulloch rails against the appointment of “mates” to senior public positions and to boards. Perhaps we’re too attached to being nice?
Hi James, really appreciate your thoughtful comment!
You’re right—political accountability issues extend well beyond government and into the public service, local bodies, and big business. There’s a lot of “talking the talk” with very little “walking,” and the Peter Principle is alive and well at all levels. The Spark example is a great illustration of how incompetence can persist even in the private sector, where market forces are supposed to act as a check. That said, I’m definitely not an expert on private sector dynamics. The public and private sectors operate in entirely different markets—one trades in profit, the other in trust.
I see your point on DEI not being the core issue, and I understand that leadership quality ultimately comes down to people, not just policies. However, my main area of interest has always been how institutions function as entities. Do institutions shape ideas and outcomes, or do individual people and ideas shape institutional outcomes? Some of the most capable leaders I’ve encountered had little formal education, while plenty of highly credentialed individuals have been, well… less than impressive. Training can help, but there’s no substitute for genuine ability.
I also think you’re spot on about like promoting like. While that does overlap with DEI concerns, it’s often more about social and personality-based networks rather than purely race or gender. That’s part of why I emphasize the importance of who gets into the room in the first place—without diversity of background and perspective, decision-making can become insular and self-reinforcing.
And yes, New Zealand’s small size and cultural tendencies definitely play a role. The preference for avoiding confrontation, staying on good terms, and appointing “mates” to key positions can lead to stagnation and a reluctance to challenge the status quo. But that “it’s who you know, not what you know” mentality isn’t just a New Zealand thing. Having lived in five countries, I can confidently assert that this trend is prevalent in major urban centers across the developed world, and even in less developed countries. I think it’s just part of the human condition.
(Oh, and just a small note—my name’s Natalia, not Natalie! Easy mix-up, happens all the time. 😊)
There is another aspect of DEI which is ignored in your very full and interesting commentary and may have something to do with the view of our Deputy PM. It is fairly obvious that a considerable part of the population regards DEI as the capture of our public service by the transgender lobby. So for many ordinary people, DEI means pronouns added after names, and government departments with oftentimes fantastical Maori translations taking priority over a readily understood English language.
Hi Peter, thanks for reading and engaging with my piece.
God, that’s a narrow and problematic view of DEI. I understand that there is resistance to aspects of gender politics—having spent over a decade researching and working in this specific space, I’ve seen these debates play out firsthand. I remember the backlash Stats NZ received in 2018 for not including a third gender option in the Census and then watching the immense amount of work that went into making sure it was included in 2023. Progress takes time, but it happens.
I also want to be absolutely clear: I stand unequivocally in support of trans communities. Any comments attacking them will be deleted, and accounts engaging in that kind of discourse will be blocked.
As for the use of Te Reo Māori in government—I 100% support it. It is one of New Zealand’s official languages, alongside NZ Sign Language and English. New Zealand is far from the only bilingual (or multilingual) country that prioritizes indigenous or co-official languages—Canada, Belgium, Switzerland, Spain, and many others do the same. Language is part of identity, culture, and history, and investing in it isn’t some radical imposition; it’s a basic recognition of who we are as a country.
I appreciate you taking the time to comment, even though I strongly disagree with your framing. DEI is about equity and inclusion in a meaningful way—not the caricature you describe. If we’re going to have these discussions, let’s at least ground them in reality. Nat
I've been enjoying your writing so far and this is another good article. Unaccountable bureaucracy is responsible for a great deal of social harm across New Zealand, some of the most trenchant examples I've seen were in Aaron Smale's Newsroom articles about the terrible public service response to child abuse perpetrated by employees of the state.
I think you're right about bullying and other forms of abuse across the public sector as well. The Francis report clearly outlined the bullying culture in the parliamentary service, and in 2022 I conducted a long interview with anti-bullying campaigner Allan Halse as part of a documentary that I never finished. In the interview, he pointed out he has spent a lot of time advocating for public servants who were bullied in healthcare and education.
Allan's view on this bullying was that those two sectors in particular attract empathetic people, and bullies enjoy those environments because empaths are more sensitive to emotional attacks. This makes it easier for a bully to dominate the space and secure power by attacking those who criticise their behaviour or actions. Allan's combative advocacy has caused him a lot of personal and reputational problems, but I feel like he was pointing in the right direction with those comments.
Personally, I've worked for DIA and IRD as a temp worker in the lowest rungs and never experienced anything other than a congenial work environment. However, when I worked at DIA in the mid 2010s, I did see a minor example of bureaucratic unaccountability as well as selecting for 'culture fit' - the 'culture fit' I experienced isn't quite the same as the type you describe in your modern discrimination footnote but it seems relevant so I'll share it.
I'd recently graduated from university and was hired with a bunch of other temp workers because DIA was about to change from a 5 year passport renewal to a 10 year passport renewal. They expected a big influx of people applying for passport renewals due to this change, so they hired temp workers to handle the overflow.
On the first day our manager described the situation to us, and I commented that people generally renew their passports when they travel - not because the DIA changes the renewal procedure.
My new manager was unhappy with this comment, but it turned out I was right. There was no influx of extra passport renewals and we literally got paid to sit around playing games because there was so little work to do. However, before our temp contracts expired, two workers from our cohort were shifted to a different part of DIA and offered longer term contracts.
While the rest of our cohort had loudly commented about the lack of work to do, those two had been positive about the situation - making them a better 'culture fit' for DIA than those of us who highlighted the structural problem of hiring people to do nothing. From my informal discussions with peers, it appears this strategy of hiring temp workers then screening for 'culture fit' before offering full-time positions is endemic across the lowest rungs of public service in Wellington.
In this case, it appears that accountability for hiring was non-existent. An efficient organisation wouldn't hire workers to deal with a temporary influx without a plan to redeploy them if the influx didn't arrive, and would conduct surveys or other means of research to determine if a temporary influx was likely to happen. It appears that the DIA did neither, instead they apportioned taxpayer funds towards workers playing games in the unlikely event that the New Zealand public wanted to jump through a new bureaucratic hoop to get a longer lasting passport.
Hi Nat, I’m right with you on the need for strong accountability mechanisms—not just in government but in all organizations. Looking at you, @James Downey! What matters is competence. Without it, accountability turns into bureaucratic box-ticking instead of something that actually ensures good decision-making and performance. The question is, how? (By the way, I wish I had the beginnings of a clue.)
On diversity, I’d push back gently on a fixation with demographic categories. Diversity of ideas—among competent people—is what really drives innovation and resilience. A team of varied ethnicities and genders that all think the same way isn’t actually diverse in any meaningful sense. For example, is an internally coherent elite minority that pushes for a unified framework of Treaty and DI issues actually ‘diverse’, in the face of, and despite the existence of, widely supported alternative views?
Then there’s unconscious bias training—an industry that took off before anyone checked whether its foundations were solid. The Implicit Association Test (IAT), which underpins much of it, has been called into question for its reliability and predictive power. It’s part of the broader “replication crisis” in psychology, where landmark studies—including those on ‘implicit bias’ and ‘priming’ and the like—turned out to be … not so replicable after all. By the time the failure was acknowledged unconscious bias was off to the races, embraced by critical theorists, and had morphed into a billion-dollar industry with a life of its own.
So yes—accountability matters, competence matters, and if we’re going to talk about bias, let’s make sure the frameworks we use hold up to scrutiny.
p.s. Do you have a copy of your Masters thesis online? I’d really like to read it. This is an important topic. Did you get a chance to include empirical research in it? Your own or as citations.
Hey John, I always appreciate your balanced and thoughtful take on my articles! You’re absolutely right—without competence, accountability just becomes another bureaucratic exercise. However, I’ve seen highly competent senior public servants completely overtaken by both formal and informal mechanisms that override their personal judgment and expertise. What I didn’t mention in my article—but should have—is the need for brave leadership that can push back against ineffective formal processes and recognize the informal ones that work against their goals. That said, I suppose that’s also part of competence, so you’re right there! We end up with performance reviews that don’t actually measure performance, waste everyones time, complaints processes designed to protect institutions rather than challenge them, and oversight mechanisms that are all form and no substance.
Your point on the diversity of ideas is well taken, and I think that’s where things get messy. I’m definitely not advocating for tokenism or a simplistic demographic fix. But we do have a legacy of historical discrimination against certain groups, and while organizing populations by ethnicity (whatever that even means—I hate that term) is deeply problematic, we’re still anchored to how the Census classifies us. The reality is that some groups do have it easier than others. Is that the full picture or the best way to frame the debate? No. But I also don’t think denying historical reality is helpful either. It’s complicated!
For example, I see how people’s faces and demeanor change when I say I’m Mexican. Because I speak English with an American/Canadian accent, my skin tone is ambiguously white/olive, and my name is easily pronounced in English, people assume I’m a white American unless I correct them. And once I do? The patronizing, condescending questions and tones kick in—it’s nauseating. So no one can tell me that passive, invisible perceptions of nationality don’t exist. That said, nationality, ethnicity, and race are fundamentally different things, and in New Zealand, we’ve completely muddled them. It’s frustrating!
From my research—and what I’ve seen firsthand—who gets into the room in the first place shapes what ideas even make it onto the table. When leadership is overwhelmingly drawn from one background (in this case, Pākehā, middle-class, and often from a handful of schools), blind spots are inevitable. It’s not about forcing people to think differently—it’s about ensuring a range of lived experiences and perspectives are present in the decision-making process from the outset.
On unconscious bias training—100% agree. It became a billion-dollar industry before anyone seriously questioned whether it worked. The fact that it’s now embedded in HR frameworks (even as its scientific foundations crumble) just shows how institutions favor performative solutions over real structural change. It’s a great way to appear proactive without actually addressing the issue.
And yes! My thesis includes empirical research—happy to send it your way. I’ll flick you a link later today. Would love to hear your thoughts on it.
P.S. Stoked you added a photo to your profile. I think everybody on Susbatck should have their real name and a photo ... Mountain Tui, talking to you!
I am greatly worried by your response. That echo chamber thing… I can feel the solid walls closing in! I just agree with you.
I am startled by your experience of people’s reactions when you declare your Mexican heritage. That is really crappy, and outside my experience. How rotten. (But what is wrong with having New Zealand run by the Auckland Grammar Old Boys Association may I ask? Not that I am a member, I didn’t like the place.)
I look forward to the link.
Ha! I hear you—please keep disagreeing with me with your lovely jokes and balanced views! I don’t seek agreement; I seek constructive, respectful debate, and you always bring that to the table.
And yeah, it’s fine—I’m used to it. But I’m also hyper-aware of how women, especially those from non-English-speaking countries, are treated. There’s very little anyone could say to convince me that discrimination isn’t real—the patterns are just too obvious.
If you're interested in a really insightful take on this, I highly recommend Space Invaders: Race, Gender and Bodies Out of Place by Nirmal Puwar. Out of everything I’ve read on this topic, this book has easily been the best in over a decade of wading through the academic sandbox.
P.S. Go easy on my master’s thesis—I wasn’t exactly great at this whole writing and research thing back then. I’d like to think I’ve come a long way since! 😆
Oh what an invitation! I look forward to reading it with cruel eyes! And thanks for the suggestion of Puwar’s book.
https://openaccess.wgtn.ac.nz/articles/thesis/Diversifying_Leadership_within_the_New_Zealand_Public_Service_How_institutional_will_becomes_an_institutional_wall/23938233?file=41982969
Hi Natalie, thanks again for another good commentary. When I read your article on political accountability I immediately thought that it could also be applied to the public service - and beyond. Local bodies and big business exhibits the same malaise. Having dealt with public servants at both levels it’s apparent that talking the talk has very little substance when it comes to any kind of walking.
It quickly becomes obvious that the “Peter Principle” is rampant with incompetence on display at all levels.
It also appears that big business is afflicted. The CEO of Spark remains in her job despite presiding over a billion dollars loss in share value.
I disagree that failure of DEI measures is the core issue. After 75 years in all sorts of situations I would say it comes down to the quality of people. I’ve worked with and for some brilliant people and some drongos. Among the brilliant there were quite a few with little formal education. You can try and cultivate and train good leaders but you can’t regulate for it.
It is also apparent to me that in larger organisations the people at the top promote people with similar personalities. That might support your DEI concern but personality crosses racial and gender boundaries.
I wonder if we are the victims of our culture and being a small community. We tend to avoid confrontation and we don’t like to rock the boat or get offside with those around us. Robert McCulloch rails against the appointment of “mates” to senior public positions and to boards. Perhaps we’re too attached to being nice?
Hi James, really appreciate your thoughtful comment!
You’re right—political accountability issues extend well beyond government and into the public service, local bodies, and big business. There’s a lot of “talking the talk” with very little “walking,” and the Peter Principle is alive and well at all levels. The Spark example is a great illustration of how incompetence can persist even in the private sector, where market forces are supposed to act as a check. That said, I’m definitely not an expert on private sector dynamics. The public and private sectors operate in entirely different markets—one trades in profit, the other in trust.
I see your point on DEI not being the core issue, and I understand that leadership quality ultimately comes down to people, not just policies. However, my main area of interest has always been how institutions function as entities. Do institutions shape ideas and outcomes, or do individual people and ideas shape institutional outcomes? Some of the most capable leaders I’ve encountered had little formal education, while plenty of highly credentialed individuals have been, well… less than impressive. Training can help, but there’s no substitute for genuine ability.
I also think you’re spot on about like promoting like. While that does overlap with DEI concerns, it’s often more about social and personality-based networks rather than purely race or gender. That’s part of why I emphasize the importance of who gets into the room in the first place—without diversity of background and perspective, decision-making can become insular and self-reinforcing.
And yes, New Zealand’s small size and cultural tendencies definitely play a role. The preference for avoiding confrontation, staying on good terms, and appointing “mates” to key positions can lead to stagnation and a reluctance to challenge the status quo. But that “it’s who you know, not what you know” mentality isn’t just a New Zealand thing. Having lived in five countries, I can confidently assert that this trend is prevalent in major urban centers across the developed world, and even in less developed countries. I think it’s just part of the human condition.
(Oh, and just a small note—my name’s Natalia, not Natalie! Easy mix-up, happens all the time. 😊)
There is another aspect of DEI which is ignored in your very full and interesting commentary and may have something to do with the view of our Deputy PM. It is fairly obvious that a considerable part of the population regards DEI as the capture of our public service by the transgender lobby. So for many ordinary people, DEI means pronouns added after names, and government departments with oftentimes fantastical Maori translations taking priority over a readily understood English language.
Hi Peter, thanks for reading and engaging with my piece.
God, that’s a narrow and problematic view of DEI. I understand that there is resistance to aspects of gender politics—having spent over a decade researching and working in this specific space, I’ve seen these debates play out firsthand. I remember the backlash Stats NZ received in 2018 for not including a third gender option in the Census and then watching the immense amount of work that went into making sure it was included in 2023. Progress takes time, but it happens.
I also want to be absolutely clear: I stand unequivocally in support of trans communities. Any comments attacking them will be deleted, and accounts engaging in that kind of discourse will be blocked.
As for the use of Te Reo Māori in government—I 100% support it. It is one of New Zealand’s official languages, alongside NZ Sign Language and English. New Zealand is far from the only bilingual (or multilingual) country that prioritizes indigenous or co-official languages—Canada, Belgium, Switzerland, Spain, and many others do the same. Language is part of identity, culture, and history, and investing in it isn’t some radical imposition; it’s a basic recognition of who we are as a country.
I appreciate you taking the time to comment, even though I strongly disagree with your framing. DEI is about equity and inclusion in a meaningful way—not the caricature you describe. If we’re going to have these discussions, let’s at least ground them in reality. Nat
I've been enjoying your writing so far and this is another good article. Unaccountable bureaucracy is responsible for a great deal of social harm across New Zealand, some of the most trenchant examples I've seen were in Aaron Smale's Newsroom articles about the terrible public service response to child abuse perpetrated by employees of the state.
I think you're right about bullying and other forms of abuse across the public sector as well. The Francis report clearly outlined the bullying culture in the parliamentary service, and in 2022 I conducted a long interview with anti-bullying campaigner Allan Halse as part of a documentary that I never finished. In the interview, he pointed out he has spent a lot of time advocating for public servants who were bullied in healthcare and education.
Allan's view on this bullying was that those two sectors in particular attract empathetic people, and bullies enjoy those environments because empaths are more sensitive to emotional attacks. This makes it easier for a bully to dominate the space and secure power by attacking those who criticise their behaviour or actions. Allan's combative advocacy has caused him a lot of personal and reputational problems, but I feel like he was pointing in the right direction with those comments.
Personally, I've worked for DIA and IRD as a temp worker in the lowest rungs and never experienced anything other than a congenial work environment. However, when I worked at DIA in the mid 2010s, I did see a minor example of bureaucratic unaccountability as well as selecting for 'culture fit' - the 'culture fit' I experienced isn't quite the same as the type you describe in your modern discrimination footnote but it seems relevant so I'll share it.
I'd recently graduated from university and was hired with a bunch of other temp workers because DIA was about to change from a 5 year passport renewal to a 10 year passport renewal. They expected a big influx of people applying for passport renewals due to this change, so they hired temp workers to handle the overflow.
On the first day our manager described the situation to us, and I commented that people generally renew their passports when they travel - not because the DIA changes the renewal procedure.
My new manager was unhappy with this comment, but it turned out I was right. There was no influx of extra passport renewals and we literally got paid to sit around playing games because there was so little work to do. However, before our temp contracts expired, two workers from our cohort were shifted to a different part of DIA and offered longer term contracts.
While the rest of our cohort had loudly commented about the lack of work to do, those two had been positive about the situation - making them a better 'culture fit' for DIA than those of us who highlighted the structural problem of hiring people to do nothing. From my informal discussions with peers, it appears this strategy of hiring temp workers then screening for 'culture fit' before offering full-time positions is endemic across the lowest rungs of public service in Wellington.
In this case, it appears that accountability for hiring was non-existent. An efficient organisation wouldn't hire workers to deal with a temporary influx without a plan to redeploy them if the influx didn't arrive, and would conduct surveys or other means of research to determine if a temporary influx was likely to happen. It appears that the DIA did neither, instead they apportioned taxpayer funds towards workers playing games in the unlikely event that the New Zealand public wanted to jump through a new bureaucratic hoop to get a longer lasting passport.