By Sam Sherwood of RNZ
A senior public servant was replaced as acting chief executive of a government organisation after revelations she used cocaine once “a number of years” before starting in the public service.
The Public Service Commission and the organisation are refusing to comment on whether it was the reason she missed out on the job.
The woman was announced as the acting chief executive of the organisation in an email by the former chief executive announcing his departure.
In the weeks that followed, RNZ was told that the staffer had been investigated over allegations she had used cocaine.
In response to questions from RNZ at the time the organisation confirmed that in June last year they received allegations from an anonymous Proton email account.
“This included an allegation of a historic photo allegedly circulating on social media.”
The organisation’s integrity team contacted the email account to seek further information, but no response was received.
The organisation investigated the allegations with the information available.
“This investigation found no evidence to substantiate the existence of this photo. The deputy chief executive did disclose that a number of years prior to starting in the public service, that on one occasion she did try drugs.”
Then, about two weeks after RNZ approached the organisation, the chief executive emailed staff to say that another woman had been appointed acting chief executive.
The email included no mention of the deputy chief executive who RNZ understands did not end up working in the interim role at any stage after the chief executive announced he was leaving.
Neither the Public Service Commission nor the organisation would say whether the cocaine use influenced the decision to not appoint her.
The new interim chief executive said any queries about the decision-making would need to be directed to the Public Service Commission (PSC) or the former chief executive.
“[She] is a dedicated and talented executive leader … and I have trust and confidence in her.”
A PSC spokesperson said they did not comment publicly on individual personal or employment matters.
RNZ asked Public Service Minister Paul Goldsmith for comment. A spokesperson said employment matters were operational matters, and it would be inappropriate for the minister to comment.
One of the country’s leading employment lawyers Barbara Buckett said while she was unable to comment on any individual appointment, the issue was “complex and multifaceted”.
“On the one hand it involves the intersection of the employment rights of the potential candidate not to fail an appointment due to a past indiscretion where they have already been employed in the service at a high level without issue, and the public law requirements designed to maintain public confidence in its public service and those who serve in it.”
In her view, there may be situations where a past drug user might be suitable for a chief executive appointment.
”... Every appointment will depend on the circumstances of the previous connection with drug use and whether it undermines suitability and that confidence to oversee the public entity concerned.
“This process typically must involve consideration of broad factors which must obviously involve leadership capacity, integrity risk management and the maintenance of department and public trust.”
She added that the job description for a chief executive in the public sector would require “a high bar expected of chief executive behaviour and standards of integrity and conduct”.
“It needs to give the public confidence that it scrutinised the appointment within those guidelines.
“However, the person concerned would also have employment rights. Those concerns would relate to relevancy of the issue to the role and a right to be fairly assessed against the risk any appointment might pose to carry out that role.”
Buckett referred to the Public Service’s report about disgraced former Deputy Police Commissioner Jevon McSkimming.
“In that situation both the Commission and the Minister made comments stressing the need for the highest levels of integrity, transparency and accountability and the maintenance of public trust in senior appointments.
“So while the system doesn’t require flawless pasts it requires public confidence, integrity and full disclosure which the candidate for potential appointment may not wish to be exposed.”