Integrity Briefing: Public Service integrity under Brian Roche
The appointment of Sir Brian Roche as the new Public Service Commissioner was met last year with predictable endorsements from the political class. With a career spanning the private and public sectors, Roche has been a go-to “fix-it” man for governments of all stripes. His experience is undeniable. But his appointment raises a fundamental question: can a man so deeply embedded in corporate directorships and private sector interests genuinely act as an impartial watchdog over the public service?
The Jem Traylen Revelations: Conflicts of Interest or Business as Usual?
A BusinessDesk column by Jem Traylen yesterday highlighted Roche’s retained directorships, revealing what appears to be potential conflicts of interest and a failure in transparency. You can read her “Business of Government” column here: The ‘half-time’ state of play, and more... (paywalled)
Looking at Roche’s “Declaration of Interests Statement” in his new role, these are the concerning disclosures that Traylen has highlighted:
Chair of Hugh Green Group, a property development and investment company.
Director of Marist Holdings (Greenmeadows) Ltd, ie Mission Estate Winery.
Director of Wao Marino Ltd, which was used by Swiss interests to purchase forestry assets.
Director of Timberlands Ltd, a forestry management company.
All these four directorships are a problematic fit for the head of the public service. After all, each of these roles intersects with government priorities, particularly in areas such as land use, housing, and forestry.
The Perception problem
New Zealand’s public service has long prided itself on being one of the least corrupt in the world. However, that reputation, or myth, rests not just on preventing outright corruption but also on avoiding any perception of conflicts of interest. So, the main question and concern is: why was Roche permitted to retain these directorships at all?
Roche explained late last year, when he was appointed, that holding onto company directorships would help guide his role in overseeing the public service, reminding him of business practices and the productive economy. He explained: “I think there’s something great about sitting down and looking at profit and loss statements and cash flow to remind you of what the economic reality is.”
It’s unclear from his statements that Roche understands the potential or perceived conflict of interests involved. Even if Roche takes no improper action, his corporate roles create an unavoidable optics problem. How can the head of the Public Service Commission, responsible for ensuring impartial and ethical leadership, also serve on boards with direct financial interests in industries that interface with government?
The most problematic is Roche’s chairmanship of the Hugh Green Group. This is a large, active property developer in a country where housing and urban development are central to government policy. Even if Roche abstains from relevant discussions, the mere perception that the Commissioner has inside knowledge of government policy — especially when the state is one of the biggest players in property development — undermines public trust.
Additionally, Wao Marino Ltd, in which Roche is the sole director, has been linked to Swiss interests acquiring forestry assets. Given the Government’s ongoing policy work on forestry investment, carbon credits, and foreign ownership, how can Roche separate his responsibilities? In terms of Roche’s attempts at managing conflicts of interest, this is particularly fraught when Roche is the sole director of Wao Marino Ltd and, therefore can’t pass responsibilities onto another director.
Roche’s declaration that he will do no work that “might reasonably be seen to conflict with government policy” is woefully inadequate. The test should not be whether he directly influences policy but whether his private roles create an advantage — real or perceived — for entities with which he is associated.
The problem isn’t just about Roche avoiding direct government policy areas; his businesses could benefit from the access and knowledge he acquires as Commissioner. After all, he’s the top public servant in his role – paid over $630,000 – and has ongoing access and connections and concrete knowledge about what government agencies are doing. For example, he’s the convenor of the Public Sector Leadership Team of all the other chief executives in government. His knowledge and access to information is unparalleled.
Unfortunately, nothing in Roche’s declaration document even addresses perception issues, which is vital in conflict of interest policies.
Ministerial complicity?
Public Service Minister Judith Collins has brushed off concerns, telling Jem Traylen that Roche has been “open and transparent.” However, simply disclosing a conflict does not eliminate it. As with so many integrity matters in politics, the issue is not just legality — it’s about ethics and public confidence. Collins has indicated satisfaction with the “protocols” in place, but there has been no clear explanation of how these conflicts are being actively managed.
Moreover, why was Roche allowed to take the job on a part-time basis while retaining corporate interests? If the government is serious about reforming the public service, why is its chief enforcer not fully committed to the role? The National-led coalition, despite its rhetoric about improving government performance, appears comfortable with a Commissioner who is effectively straddling two worlds.
The recruitment process that occurred last year is at the core of the Government’s management of Roche’s conflict of interest issues. The Government was desperate to bring Roche on board the role – particularly because he was an acceptable candidate across the political spectrum, having proven himself in private and public sector roles. They needed a very safe pair of hands for this crucial job. Yet Roche, aged 69 and busy with his business roles, wasn’t that keen.
Laura Walters of Newsroom reported that the Government had to bend its standard procedures in hiring him. She explained: “The upshot of convincing Roche to take on the job means he got to name his terms… Though the new Commissioner will be resigning from several directorships, he has the sign-off from the Governor-General to retain a small number of private board sector appointments.”
A statement from Prime Minister Christopher Luxon at the time was that Roche would only spend a limited amount of time each week running his businesses. He also stated: “Protocols will be followed to ensure that any real or perceived conflicts of interest arising from these roles are managed appropriately.”
A Failure of transparency at the Public Service Commission
Another alarming problem with how the Public Service Commission has dealt with Roche’s potential conflicts of interest is how they appear to be trying to hide the information. According to Jem Traylen, Roche’s “Declaration of Interests Statement” been buried in an obscure section of the Public Service Commission’s website. Traylen had requested information from the Public Service Commission, but it wasn’t available. Yet once the disclosures were available, Traylen explains that “it wasn’t announced in the Public Service Commission’s (PSC) news section but quietly published on a page headed Public Service Commissioner’s Expense Disclosures.”
No journalists, including Traylen, were informed that the disclosure information was now available. In terms of this, Traylen explains: “The Ombudsman has said that, as a matter of good practice, journalists (or any requester) should be informed when information they’ve asked for is finally published.”
To make matters worse, the disclosure information was quietly published on Friday December 20, just as Parliament was adjourning for the summer break — a classic move to avoid scrutiny. If the Commission was genuinely committed to transparency, why not release the disclosure prominently and at a time when MPs and the Parliamentary Press Gallery hadn’t just left on their summer holidays?
Traylen has asked Judith Collins, the Minister responsible, for comment on this practice. Traylen reports: “Collins told BusinessDesk she was ‘satisfied’ that the Commissioner had been ‘open and transparent’, and the Commission had demonstrated good practice.”
Usually, Public Service Commissioners are expected to ensure the integrity of government agencies. Yet, this example suggests there’s a serious problem at the Public Service Commission with the concept and agenda of “open government”.
A Culture of accountability?
This is not just about Roche. It’s about what his appointment signals for the broader culture of integrity in New Zealand’s public service. Under previous commissioners, efforts were made to increase transparency, tighten ethical standards, and ensure rigorous accountability mechanisms. With Roche at the helm, we now have a leader whose own conflicts raise serious questions.
New Zealanders deserve a Public Service Commissioner whose only priority is safeguarding the integrity of government institutions. Roche’s appointment and the opaque handling of his business interests suggest a drift towards a culture where conflicts of interest are tolerated rather than eliminated.
The risk is clear: if Roche is allowed to operate in this conflicted manner, what message does it send to other public service leaders? That high-ranking officials can have a foot in both the public and private sectors without scrutiny? That the rules apply differently to those at the top?
Conclusion: A Test for New Zealand’s integrity systems
Brian Roche may well be an honourable man with no intention of using his position for private gain. But integrity in the public service is not just about intentions — it’s about systems, safeguards, and public trust. Right now, those safeguards appear weak. It’s an ironic and disappointing situation for the public service watchdog.
This is an early test for the new Public Service Commissioner. Will he tighten standards, ensuring that public sector leadership is held to a higher standard? Or will his tenure mark a loosening of the integrity expectations that have long underpinned New Zealand’s governance?
The public, the media, and opposition parties should be watching closely.
Dr Bryce Edwards
Director of The Integrity Institute
Disclosure: Jem Traylen currently works as a journalist for BusinessDesk, but from next week is employed by The Integrity Institute as a Senior Researcher.
Congratulations to Bryce and Jem for identifying these conflicts and the part-time nature of the appointment. If New Zealand is to avoid the chaos of the American system of thousands of political appointees, we need a full-time public service commisioner. In fact we need to learn from history and have a three person commission who can bring different strengths and perspectives and take a stewardship role which is much longer than the term of a single minister or coalition government. Professional public service was introduced to New Zealand by a predecessor of the National Party to counter political appointment problems in the early 20th century. A part time, short term Commissioner is not the right answer for the future of today's public service.
Thanks Bryce for a thought provoking commentary. It does seem to me that the role of Commissioner is or should be so intensive that there is no room for outside commitments. "Keeping in touch" is a lame excuse not to resign from appointments to significant company boards, when for information input, personal connections would still be available to tap.
On the other hand a career public servant in the role would be even worse news and its not clear once those are removed what the pool is of seriously able candidates willing to give up their directorship day jobs.