The reforms seem to promote a culture of compliance rather than one of courage.
The Government’s proposed Public Service Amendment Bill introduces welcome reforms to how misconduct—particularly serious misconduct—is investigated within the public sector. While the intent is commendable, the practical implications raise concerns that warrant closer scrutiny.
Key Changes.
Chief executives must notify the Public Service Commissioner before investigating senior staff.
Agencies must report annually on investigation outcomes.
The Commissioner will publish a summary report each year.
New standards for handling sexual harassment complaints are being introduced.
Pitfalls and Challenges
While annual reporting and public summaries aim to improve transparency, they risk compromising individual privacy—especially in small agencies or high-profile cases where anonymised data may still be identifiable. The legislation must carefully balance public accountability with the privacy rights of complainants and respondents.
The public sector is not a monolith; Each agency is a separate employer, with its own governance structures, employment agreements, and disciplinary procedures. Imposing a centralised reporting and oversight mechanism may create tensions between agency autonomy and central control. Agencies may struggle to align their internal processes with the Commissioner's expectations, especially where employment law obligations differleading to chaos and inconsistencies that affect the effectiveness of the changes.
Public sector employees are protected by the same employment laws as those in the private sector, including natural justice, privacy rights, and procedural fairness. Overlaying mandatory reporting and notification requirements must be approached cautiously to avoid breaching these legal protections—especially around confidentiality.
Requiring pre-investigation notification to the Commissioner could delay urgent inquiries, increase costs, and create procedural bottlenecks. Agencies may become overly cautious, fearing reputational damage or scrutiny, which could discourage timely and decisive action,or trigger reactionary decisions rather than critically robust ones.
Introducing new standards for sexual harassment complaints is a positive step, but success depends on agency culture, training, and legal clarity—areas where leadership has yet to show sufficient understanding. Without robust, independent support systems and clear legal frameworks, these standards risk remaining aspirational rather than effective.
Buckett Law previously welcomed the Bill’s intent to improve transparency and accountability. However, recent comments from Public Service Commissioner Sir Brian Roche—who described the public service as “not fit for purpose” due to risk aversion and bureaucratic paralysis—highlight a contradiction. The Bill he is tasked with implementing appears to reinforce the very centralisation and procedural layering he criticises.
Rather than streamlining processes, the Bill adds more oversight and reporting requirements, potentially slowing decision-making further. It risks fostering a culture of compliance over courage, where chief executives hesitate to act without clearance and reporting obligations overshadow the need for timely, lawful, and sensitive investigations.
As Kathryn Ryan asked on Nine to Noon: “Will this turn the dial?” The better question might be: “Who is holding the dial?” Without truly independent oversight, the system remains controlled by the same machinery that has failed complainants in the past. Bureaucracy, delays, and legal costs will persist unless oversight is removed from the structures it monitors.
To truly reform misconduct investigations involving senior public servants, New Zealand needs a statutorily independent body outside the state sector. Here's why:
Impartiality: Free from internal pressures or political influence.
Consistency: Uniform standards across agencies.
Privacy Protection: Better balance between transparency and legal obligations.
Public Trust: Confidence grows when oversight is neutral and independent.
We support reform that enhances integrity and fairness. We support reforms that enhance integrity and fairness. But as it stands, the Bill risks entrenching the inefficiencies it seeks to resolve. A more nuanced approach is needed—one that respects employment law, protects privacy, and empowers agencies to act confidently and lawfully.
If your organisation needs help preparing for these changes or making a submission to the select committee, BuckettLaw is here to assist.
