It proved anything but an upgrade, anything but capable.
The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) set out to create a new airport scanning system.
An inquiry is under way to examine allegations that ministers were ‘‘misled’’ and that ‘‘creative accounting’’ kept costs below the threshold for Cabinet approval.
If ministers cannot trust officials, democracy has serious issues.
Parliament’s Speaker has also referred a question of whether MBIE officials misled Parliament to the privileges committee.
If Parliament cannot trust officials, democracy is in further trouble.
Civis has a particular interest in another dimension: the difficulty of raising questions internally.
The project is an extreme example of a problem affecting all organisations and governments, one that New Zealand handles particularly badly.
An anonymous insider told The New Zealand Herald’s David Fisher: ‘‘there was poor governance and poor controls. If you were a staff member and you questioned it, then you’re gone. If you stand up and you whistle-blow, you’ll never work again.’’
It’s not an isolated case. Stats NZ staff also raised concerns about alleged misuse of census and Covid vaccination data, and were ignored.
Some staff are too negative, always seeing problems rather than solutions.
Some are stubborn and resist change.
Nevertheless, good leadership seeks constructive criticism, invites questions and challenges and does not want sycophantic employees.
Frontline and junior staff often see problems before management does.
Decisions that need scrutiny too rarely receive it.
When people feel unable to speak honestly, they disengage rather than confront.
On a grandiose scale, United States President Donald Trump has displayed the reverse of good leadership and his nation and the world bear the consequences.
Blind, stubborn, vindictive, arrogant, heartless; he is deaf to helpful advice.
Various pressures discourage questions. Most organisations are hierarchies and criticism can be read as a challenge to authority.
Outright punishment for speaking up may be rare in well-run organisations, but it is easy to be quietly labelled difficult or not a team player.
Groupthink adds further pressure; it is difficult to swim against the tide.
New Zealanders are culturally less likely to rock the boat or risk confrontation than, say, Germans or those from the United States.
We are wary of standing out by criticising. Even when ‘‘robust debate’’ is supposedly encouraged, or the boss’ door is open, is it really?
Are you not more likely to be promoted or receive a positive review if you are ‘‘with the programme’’?
The stakes are also higher in a small country like New Zealand, where professional and social networks are entangled.
A key weakness of a benevolent dictatorship is insulation from honest feedback. Free media and elections are supposed to provide that.
If leaders are told only what they want to hear, decisions rest on inaccurate or overly optimistic information. Organisations are susceptible to echo chambers.
Should leaders publicly thank those who raise hard issues, and occasionally change course as a result?
Is our strengthened whistleblower legislation effective, or still too weak?
Are there better ways to encourage genuine, robust debate, or at least create openings for suggested ‘‘improvements’’?
Perhaps the most valued staff member is not the most agreeable, but the one who thinks critically and raises difficult questions.
Reader Lindsay Bartlett, amused by the Passing Notes item a fortnight ago about a perceptive child, offers another example.
While helping with a local school reading-recovery programme years ago, he asked a child about the animals in their story, including where milk came from.
‘‘Pak’nSave,’’ the child replied.
‘‘Well, he wasn’t wrong, was he?’’ Lindsay wrote.
