Warning on loyalty to public servants

Press, 3 July 1985, Page 2

Warning on loyalty to public servants

PA Wellington Public servants have been warned about public comments since the open controversy over the proposed Heritage New Zealand department. In a memorandum to Government departments, the State Services Commission has reminded public servants they have a loyalty to the Government “and the policies it is seeking to achieve” especially in relation to proposals where public feeling is running high. The memo notes that personal comments by officals could be construed as an official viewpoint. Any public comments, it said, should be made by a Minister or through Ministerial clearance. The memo was sent to the Trade and Industry Department, the Ministry of Transport, the Commission for the Environment, the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, the D.5.1.R., Internal Affairs, the Forest Ser-

vice, and Maori Affairs. Each permanent head of department was responsible to see staff abided by the terms of the Memo, said the S.S.C.’s management support officer, Mr Darryl Dunn. He acknowledged that the commission had received a letter from the Native Forests Action Council complaining about the activities of departmental staff. N.F.A.C. alleges that public servants — the Forest Service in particular — and some private sector groups are stirring up opposition to Heritage New Zealand. Mr Dunn said the S.S.C. had taken account of public comments over the issue and that was the real impetus for the memo. The Native Forests’ Action Council, he said, was not the only private organisation concerned about comments made publicly. Referring to the case where the Assistant Conservator of Forests for Otago, Mr Dennis Guild, was alleged to have ignored the memo and publicly attacked

the idea of taking native forests away from Forest Service control, Mr Dunn said any action in this case would rest with the Forest Service’s director-general, Mr Andy Kirkland. Asked what, if any, action would be taken against Mr Guild, Mr Kirkland said he could “safely say” Mr Guild did not ignore the memorandum “but details of his paper before the Otago Catchment Board are still being awaited.” He said he was waiting for a “fuller report — a formal report.” Mr Kirkland said the matter was under discussion within the department but there was “no evidence” that Mr Guild ignored the memorandum. “I believe there will be evidence he did not ignore it,” said Mr Kirkland. He said the substance of the memo was conveyed to Forest Service staff the day the memo was received and he expected all officials to abide by it.