Institutional neutrality compromised

Clerk of the House has disqualified himself

David Martin Wilson is the 14th Clerk of the New Zealand House of Representatives. He has held the position since 2015. It is about time he was shown the door.

I have just written

in Karakia and Judicial Neutrality about the demands for institutional neutrality in the judicial branch of government. Whilst the Clerk of the House appears not to be required to take an oath of office, the need for complete institutional neutrality is implicit in the very nature of the office.

In Racist policies in Parliamentary precinct High officials striking dagger through democracy’s heart, I wrote about the statement of strategy 2022-2025 from the Chief Executive of Parliamentary Services and the Clerk of the House. It outlines the programme for Te Ao Maori and tikanga within the work they and their officials do. I noted that:

Like a revivalist religious movement, it ends with [a] karakia ….

We acknowledge the celestial entities

We acknowledge our guiding stars

The coursing of the stars is invoked

Inspiring the path we follow through our world

In this endeavour, heaven and earth come together

Let it be

Mr Wilson’s latest excursion into the political arena is his unilateral decision that official parliamentary announcements will no longer be disseminated on X. The Free Speech Union has written to Speaker Brownlee about it:

Parliament’s Withdrawal from X “Abandons” Nearly One Million New Zealanders in an Election Year | Free Speech Union New Zealand

Bryce Edwards has opined:

He [Winston Peters] was right to be concerned. What we are witnessing is not a neutral administrative decision. It is a political gesture: an announcement of liberal principle dressed up as a child safety measure. And it is a mistake….

When the Clerk says he can no longer “support” X, he is not managing a communications channel, he is making a statement of values on behalf of an institution that is supposed to be scrupulously neutral.

The proper process would have been for the Clerk to prepare a formal neutral assessment, refer it to the Speaker, and then have it tested through a cross-party forum like the Business Committee. There is no indication any of this happened. Chris Bishop, the Leader of the House, clearly thought the same: “Wrong decision in my view. I am sure Business Committee will want to discuss it”….

Make no mistake: the shift of public authorities away from X is a political gesture, however much its proponents insist otherwise. Consider the partisan optics. The parties that have recently left X are Labour, the Greens, and Te Pāti Māori (the left-of-centre bloc). National, NZ First, and Act all remain. So, when Parliament’s own institutional account departs in this context, it doesn’t look neutral. It looks like the public service is choosing a side.

Edwards is right on all counts. Were it not for what I discussed in Racist policies in Parliamentary precinct, Wilson’s actions might be dismissed as personal hubris. That would be bad enough but, clearly, they are not just that. He has again betrayed himself as a political activist who has brought the institution of Clerk of the House into disrepute.

I said regarding the statement of strategy, that it would be naïve to think any Minister or MP, or the Speaker of the House can receive advice unaffected by the ideology contained within it. Here we have another example of actions disqualifying Wilson from the office he holds. Absolute neutrality, scrupulous impartiality and the appearance of both are demanded by the office but are palpably absent.