30 August 2023

Nikitin Sallee
nikitin@salleecomms.co.nz

Dear Nikitin

Official Information Request

Our Ref: 2023-0189
I refer to your official information requests received on 28 August 2023 and 29 August 2023.
You have said with each published article that this series is about the Public Service Commissioner’s
legacy. The following are some achievements under the current Commissioner you might like to
consider, in the interests of balance and fairness:
• The strong Public Service response to COVID-19.
• Established the Commission’s Integrity, Ethics and Standards function, which has led a
number of inquiries and reviews that have publicly set expectations of the Public Service and
its workforce.
• Trust and confidence in New Zealand’s Public Service reached the highest it has ever been
since measuring started in 2013.
• Improved diversity and inclusion in leadership roles and across the Public Service – for
example:
o Achieved gender diversity for the Public Service leadership for the first time
o The number of Māori senior leaders has doubled since 2016.
• The gender pay gap in the Public Service has come down from 13.5 percent in 2016 to 7.7
percent in 2022 - the lowest it has ever been. The Commissioner has also introduced reporting
on ethnic pay gaps.
• Established the Public Service Fale as a Pacific-led Public Service centre of excellence.
• Produced the first State of the Public Service Report, providing a stewardship view on the
Public Service
• Publicly provided better and more regular reporting on the workforce of the Public Service
• Strengthening Crown entity monitoring capability, and supporting effective governance and
performance, backed by a new Crown entity resource centre providing resources,
programmes, and support.
• Strengthened the role of the Head of Policy Profession (held by the Secretary of the
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet), who now oversees Briefings for Incoming
Ministers and Long-term Insights Briefings.

Level 10, RBNZ Building | 2 The Terrace | PO Box 329

Wellington 6140 | New Zealand 1
Phone +64 4 495 6600
 • Issued guidance to agencies on ‘speaking up’, free and frank advice and policy stewardship,
government advertising guidance, general election guidance and improving workforce and
leadership representation.
• Established the Public Service Leadership Team, to provide for strong leadership of the Public
Service system as a whole.
• Achieved gender balance for the first time in the PSLT (now at 51 percent women) and
balanced on job size.
• Created the most diverse cohort of chief executives ever by appointing new talent, as
provided in earlier documentation.
• Advised on and implemented the Public Service Act 2020.
• Established a new system leadership approach, with system leaders now including digital,
data, property, procurement and regional public services.
• Conducted the first ever Public Service Census of 60,000 public servants.
• Introduced award and recognition programmes that reinforce the best examples of public
service delivery and achievement
• Significantly improved compliance with the Official Information Act across the Public Service
Our Response
I refer to your official information requests received on 28 and 29 August 2023. For ease of reference
we have listed your questions and provided our response directly under.
I acknowledge that much of what follows is pointed (in the interest of completeness and
transparency). We will fully and fairly report Peters’ comments and perspectives.
1. What is Peter’s view of the culture at MSD when he was CE, particularly in light of: this media
report (I have the relevant OIA release):
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/better-business/68494982/msd-spends-taxpayer-dollars-on-
workplace-change
2. Lyn Provost’s noting in 2013/14 that “Some staff see the Ministry [MSD] as being too concerned
with avoiding risks, highly prescriptive, and having a ‘command and control’ culture. The
‘building blue’ initiative is a culture change programme intended to move the Ministry towards
a more constructive culture and leadership style.” https://oag.parliament.nz/2014/msd-
complaints
[Note: The Commissioner left MSD in 2011].
There are publicly available independent assessments of the culture and performance of the Ministry
of Social Development (MSD). An independent 2011 PIF (Performance Improvement Framework)
report found MSD was a high-performing, well led organisation.
The report said MSD was well governed, and the then chief executive (Mr Hughes) was an exceptional
leader and engagement with staff by the chief executive and Leadership Team was excellent. The
report acknowledged the agency’s bottom-up innovation and willingness to trial new ways of
working. It rated as strong the organisation’s leadership direction and delivery, including culture and
values. It also said engagement with staff was strong.
The report found MSD had three core strengths:
1. Sensible decision-making in the frontline and supporting people to become more
independent.

2
 2. A culture that was responsive, agile, committed, innovative and a desire to succeed.
3. Management of risk.
A 2013 follow-up PIF report also noted that the context had changed under a new Government. It
noted the Ministry was well placed to respond to significant changes in government policies and
priorities, in particular the introduction of welfare reforms and the investment approach, which
required a significant shift in the operating model of the Ministry and new ways of working. This is
normal when priorities change under a new government, and the new Chief Executive of MSD was
responsible for leading that change.
“Command and control” and similar comments (“control freak,” for example) are also common
themes among those we’ve spoken to who worked for Peter.

As mentioned in our first interview request, there is a view among our sources that Peter sometimes
behaves in ways that are not consistent with the values he promotes publicly.
We’ve heard examples of Peter sharply criticising a staff member in front of others; separating a
person from their manager before delivering warnings about possible future actions; “berating” a
staff member over a disappointing outcome without asking for their side of the story.
A person who admires much about Peter and his achievements describes nonetheless having a
“Jekyll and Hyde” relationship with him. This person finds the perceived contradictions between
actions and words “tragic”.
We asked a source with similar perceptions whether there is a culture of fear around Peter. After a
long pause the source said that would not be correct, but that many find it hard to contradict him.
We also heard comments along the lines that Peter admires and sometimes thanks people who
challenge his thinking, and that some people in the workplace “need to harden up a bit”.
Peter’s occasional behaviour sometimes amounts to “hypocrisy.” Once source said. “He behaves in
a way that in a speech he will say is outrageous. People weren’t especially frightened of Peter, but
are deeply cynical because they didn’t believe his or their own rhetoric.”
We would welcome Peter’s reflections on these perceptions. As above, we will fully and fairly report
Peter’s comments.
It is not possible to respond to anonymous allegations that are not specific and have no context.
Statement, attributed to Public Service Commissioner Peter Hughes:

I’m in this to make a difference. I have high expectations of the Public Service and those who work for
me.
I build strong teams and I lead through them. I expect people to contribute their views and ideas and
I invite challenge.
I strongly believe in diversity and inclusion in the workplace, and I have championed this in every
organisation I have led.
I give lots of feedback, I can be direct, but I am careful not to personalise that. If some people’s
experience of me has been more than that, I will own that and reflect on it.
I’ve always believed leadership is not about occupying the chair, it’s about using your time in the chair
to make a difference. While I may not have got everything right, I have always tried to do the right
thing.
//ENDS

3
 Hi again, Grahame. I’m pushing this through to you, having just nailed down the following
quote from Simon Chapple.

One of Peter’s favourite mottos to his senior staff at MSD was ‘just do it’. Peter predominantly
valued managers who would deliver a timely policy product according to the current politician’s
brief, preferences and deadlines.

These factors, of course, are in many circumstances a perfectly legitimate part of a public
servant’s job.

Yet the job is always bigger than this. Other important parts of the job involve asking more
awkward questions of the politicians like “yes, but have you thought about...?” and more
broadly providing free and frank advice.

These latter roles, more confronting of political power, were never valued on the Hughes priority
list. And if to deliver to politicians you had to cut process corners with people who didn’t matter
– internal or external, engage in behaviours with more junior staff which some might consider
bullying and otherwise clip a few corners to meet the politician’s needs, well, blind eyes would
be turned to the successful.”

The allegation that the Commissioner when he was a chief executive turned a blind eye to
inappropriate behaviour by managers is wrong and offensive.
Dr Chapple’s assessment is at odds with that of a former Minister, someone who was in the room and
experienced first-hand the Commissioner’s approach. The former Minister for Social Development,
Hon Steve Maharey, was quoted in The Press on 29 June 2013:
“I have worked with some very good civil servants. Peter was the one who was the full package.”
In the same article, Mr Maharey said good Ministers always asked their officials for frank and honest
debate “and few of them ever get it, because no matter what public servants say to you, they won’t
give it to you.” Hughes, however, would tell him “things he didn’t want to hear.” See a PDF of the
article attached.
You’ll note that these themes align with Tony Burton’s column.
https://thespinoff.co.nz/business/20-06-2019/a-profound-collapse-in-treasury-advice-led-to-pre-
budget-leak-saga

One of [Hughes’] first acts was to command all staff to heed ‘Peter’s Principles’, of which there were
10. (Yes, he really did issue 10 commandments from on high, though I understand it didn’t take 40
days.) The status given to expertise in the organisation’s culture is best exemplified by the last
principle: “’Just do it!’ means … just do it”.

More insidious was the principle “No problems without solutions”.

This may sound like a vacuous organisational exhortation, but in a ministry tasked with providing
expert analysis it is catastrophic…. What is to be done if there are “no problems without solutions”
and staff should “just do it”? … When there are “no problems without solutions”, it is easier to ignore
most problems.

This generally material aligns with what others have told us. We would like Peter’s reflections on
the above, and I hope this gives you and him more specifics to work with.

Dr Burton’s understanding of the principles and how they were applied is factually incorrect. There
were no such principles issued to all staff other than the MSD principles set out in public documents
(e.g. Annual Reports) at the time.

4
The organisation’s principles, issued to all staff, at the time the Commissioner was chief executive
were:
“Our people:
• Put people first
• Team up to make a bigger difference
• Act with courage and respect
• Empower others to act
• Create new solutions
• A ‘can do’ and deliver attitude
• Honour achievement.
Above all, we do the right thing for New Zealanders.”
These principles are specifically referenced in the 2011 PIF report.
The Commissioner, when he was the chief executive at MSD, had a set of principles only for staff
working within the chief executive’s office. They were not principles on general issue to the
organisation. The Commissioner stands by these principles today. They were:
• No problems without solutions (i.e. always try to bring a solution to the problem, even if that
is simply a process for finding a solution)
• No rescuing but never let it hit the ground (i.e. whenever there is time to do it, always
empower staff to improve through feedback, rather than redoing their work for them)
• Meet deadlines or renegotiate them well in advance
• Don’t play the Chief Executive card (as an advisor, don’t use the chief executive’s authority to
get action on something)
• We manage through the line – DCEs are accountable (the relevant Deputy Chief Executive is
accountable)
• We help people to succeed
• We make brilliant recoveries (i.e. you can’t change the fact that a mistake has been made, but
we do a great job of putting it right).

Policy Advice
1. We’ve been told of concerns of a hollowing-out of deep expertise in policy advice across the
public service. Mirroring the growing flexibility of managers to move among agencies, there is
said to be a generic approach to policy that undervalues subject-matter expertise. To be clear,
it is not suggested that this trend started under Peter, and there is caution about longing for an
imagined-cum-imaginary Golden Age of Policy Advice.
Peter seemed to give the concerns legs with this exchange at the the Governance and
Administration Select Committee last April:
Hughes: [W]hen I was a junior public servant, we used to do things called post election briefing
papers. And in those days you’d become the government. It was first past the post and you would
get from the Public Service very extensive briefings on your portfolio as a minister and what the
big issues were and what the thinking was the government should do to address those.
So you started from a really strong position. When the MMP system came along, those briefing
papers ceased to be as relevant and as important because coalition negotiations had resulted in
basically the government coming to office with a program already and so those sorts of briefings

5
 weren’t that helpful. The Public Service Act introduces long term Insights briefings, which is an
attempt to give the Public Service back that strategic thinking task. But at a better point in the
electoral cycle.
And my point is, when we stopped doing post election briefing papers, we kind of lost the need to
think strategically across time, and you need the public service to do that because in some ways,
we’re the institutional memory of government. So this is another task we’ve given the public
service to think strategically, if nothing else, will push us into having a bit of a plan for the public
service, because in order to report on it, I need to describe how it is and I need to talk about what
our plan is for the future. So both those things are giving the public service a task that requires us
to think strategically and that, I think, supports good government, and it’s forcing us to rebuild
back that muscle that we might have lost.
Question: So just seeing as you touched on long term insights briefing, so I suppose I’m a bit
surprised at the narrowness of them, I would have thought they would have been much broader.
Hughes: My view is, given it was the first time around, what I was looking for was for everyone to
do one. And to do a good one. Next time around, I’ll expect those subjects to be very strongly
relevant and less narrow, and I’ll expect agencies to club up around issues for New Zealand, not
their own lens into those issues. Third time around, I won’t be here, but third time around, I’d
expect something that looks more like a blueprint for New Zealand in terms of the issues, but it’s
a brand new thing. We're having to build the muscle memory to do it. And so, first time around, ’
was looking pretty much for quantity. Having said that, I think they’ve done a pretty good job
across the board of the issues that they’ve, I think, are increasing.
Questions:
• Does Peter consider strategic policy capability over time and across administrations to be an
essential and important element of public service stewardship? Haven’t agencies always had
“that strategic thinking task” – knowing what their first-best advice is?
• If so, would the perceptions above amount to something of an emergency? Is it satisfactory
that the situation will gradually improve over the next two election cycles (through to 2029)?
When the Public Service used to provide Post-Election Briefing Papers, they were extensive,
comprehensive, and forward-looking. With the advent of MMP, Post-Election Briefing Papers were
discontinued and replaced with Briefings to the Incoming Minister, which were much shorter-term
focused.
Post-Election Briefing Papers did not work in an MMP environment as coalition and confidence-and-
supply agreements had already been agreed when a new Government came into office. Key decisions
had already been taken. With the removal of Post-Election Briefing Papers, the Public Service lost a
requirement on it to, at least every three years, produce a product focused on those long-term issues.
Long-term Insights Briefings put this requirement back on the Public Service. They have a multi-year
focus. From the first set of briefings, the shortest timescale is 10 years’ out. These briefings give the
Public Service a specific task to provide that thinking to Ministers, Opposition parties and the public
at a time in the election cycle where it can be used to inform thinking.
This is clearly set out in the Commissioner’s transcript from select committee.
Agencies have done a good job on the first set of briefings. The expectation is that these will improve
further over time. That is the reality of building capability in a large system, which is what we are
doing.

6
 Peter hopes that over the next two election cycles (2026 and 2029) agencies will be able to club
together to create “a blueprint for New Zealand”. Is that constitutionally appropriate? Some
would say that national blueprints are for politicians, not the public service.
You have not used the full quote, which is misleading. The Commissioner said he would “expect
something that looks more like a blueprint for New Zealand in terms of the issues [being addressed
by the Long-Term Insights Briefings]”. This was a response to questions on the narrowness of the
topics and issues addressed by the first round of briefings.
Background on Long-term Insights Briefings:
• LTIBs are designed to be ‘think pieces’ on the future, providing information about medium
and long-term trends, risks and opportunities that may affect New Zealand.
• They give effect to the Public Service’s stewardship responsibilities and are not government
policy.
• The briefings are prepared independently of Ministers and do not include commentary on
government policy or indicate preferences for any future policy options that may have been
included.
• This protects political neutrality of the public service and ensures it can offer the same
quality of advice to successive governments.

Presenting the briefings to Parliament and making them available for the public also enhances
public debate on long-term issues, including Opposition parties.
An allied concern is that Peter – and the style of leadership he preferred at MSD and subsequent
appointments as Commissioner – is operational and action-focused, with commensurately less
emphasis on the quality of underlying policy advice.
Will Peter comment on the version near the end of this piece from Tony Burton, who worked at MSD
in Peter’s time?:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/better-business/68494982/msd-spends-taxpayer-dollars-on-
workplace-change
One senior person who has worked with Peter on policy says along the lines that Peter is clear on the
policy outcome he wants and asks staff to write papers that justify his conclusions.
Another said that Peter works in the intersection between “what is politically possible” and “what is
do-able”, with less focus on “what works [i.e. the policy bit]”. This can led to situations, we are told,
where we figure out how to make more and better widgets without addressing whether widgets are
the best solution.
Any and all comments from Peter on that will be welcome.

Sometimes following the provision of free and frank advice Ministers take a decision to follow a
different path. Agencies then must prepare Cabinet papers to give effect to that. This has always been
the case. Nevertheless, free and frank advice must always be given.
The Public Service’s policy effort is not led out of the Public Service Commission. It is led out of the
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet by the Secretary to the Department of the Prime
Minister and Cabinet who is the Head of the Policy Profession and chief policy advisor to government.
Nevertheless, the Commissioner has taken a number of actions to strengthen the quality of policy
advice:

7
 • The Commissioner strengthened the Head of Policy Profession role, moving from a focus on
workforce and capability, to include having responsibility for oversight of policy delivery
across the system.
• As part of this, the Commissioner has delegated to the Head of Profession his
responsibilities under the Public Service Act the coordination and oversight of Briefings to
the Incoming Government and Long-Term Insights Briefings.
• The Head of Policy Profession has since worked with the Commissioner to issue guidance on
free and frank advice, and policy stewardship, extended the role of the Policy Profession
Board to include a Policy Career Board, established system-wide communities of practice,
and brought together policy leadership to steward the policy system.
• The Commissioner advised that the principle of free and frank advice, as a core duty of
public servants, be included in the Public Service Act, which it now is.
• He issued guidance under the Act to all agencies on free and frank advice. The guidance
strengthened requirements around giving free and frank advice including a requirement to
record advice given orally.
• The Commissioner recommended Long-term Insights Briefings were included in the Public
Service Act, prepared independently of Ministers, with the aim being to give effect to the
Public Service’s stewardship responsibilities.

Measurement & evaluation

How does Peter respond to Wilkinson’s various criticisms here?
https://www.nzinitiative.org.nz/reports-and-media/reports/public-service-bloat-the-evidence/ Is
there better data on the productivity of NZ’s public service than Wilkinson quotes here, and if so
please point us to it. Is there a role for comprehensive productivity data on our public service? Who
should conduct it?
We would welcome Peter’s comments on these, too:
• The suggestions of Simon Chapple that adherence to the five statutory principles ought to
be measured. (https://www.newsroom.co.nz/ideasroom/keeping-the-reformed-public-
service-on-the-straight-and-narrow) Will future Public Service Censuses attempt this?
Would Peter support Chapple’s idea that this be done externally, e.g, by Stats NZ?
• The 2022 State of the Service report contains many of Peter’s “expectations” but for the
most part few measurable objectives. Is there a programme for this that we are missing, or
that is under development?
• The new Agency Capability Reviews, replacing PIFs replacements.
More generally, is enough being done to set measurable goals for the public service and to evaluate
its performance objectively? If there are things that could be done better, what work is under way?
In relation to Dr Wilkinson’s concerns, the Commission regularly monitors external performance,
efficiency, and effectiveness benchmarks of the Public Service against international comparators.
The facts are:
• New Zealand is among the best performing public services in the world, according to a
number of measures of government effectiveness (e.g. Oxford University’s InCiSE Index,
OECD Government at a Glance)
• The countries that perform comparably, like Norway and Denmark, spend nearly double as
much on their public service per capita compared to New Zealand.

8
 • In the 2021 OECD Government at a Glance report, New Zealand’s “general government
expenditure” is around US$18,000 per capita, compared with around US$30,000 for
Denmark, and US$35,000 for Norway.
• New Zealand’s spending per capita is also below the OECD average of around US$20,000
and Australian spending of around US$22,000 (P85, Table 2.23 Government at a Glance)
Regardless, more can always be done.
Earlier in the year, the Commissioner issued new expectations to Public Service chief executives to
support the government’s Fiscal Sustainability and Effectiveness programme. These cover efficiency
and productivity, Crown spend reprioritisation, and financial management capability.
In relation to Dr Chapple’s concerns, the Commissioner agrees that compliance with the principles in
the Act should be measured, where this is possible. He has already asked Commission officials to look
at where and how this might be done. The Public Service Census is one vehicle for doing this.
More than that, the Commissioner believes that adherence to the values should also be measured,
and work is well underway on this as well. The values underpin integrity and trust and confidence in
the Public Service. This is being collected using the quarterly Kiwis Count Surveys.
In relation to your questions about setting measurable goals, it’s the Commissioner’s role to assess
the performance of chief executives. All chief executives each year sign up to a set of results and
expectations, including Government and Ministerial expectations. Ministerial priorities are the basis
for “Results and services to deliver Government priorities”. Ministers provide us with the expectations
they have of their chief executives. The Commission seeks feedback annually from Ministers to inform
the assessment of chief executive’s performance against Ministerial priorities.
Expectations relating to system and collective leadership, agency performance and culture, and
managing context are negotiated directly with the Commission. Chief executives were also expected
to meet their obligations under relevant legislation and Whole-of-Government Directions, and to
manage their organisations responsibly and effectively with respect to funding, other resources and
their people.
As a collective, chief executives in 2022 met in full 91 percent of their performance expectations in
four categories: results and services to deliver government priorities, system and collective
leadership, agency performance and culture and managing context. Eight percent of performance
expectations were met in part and 1 percent were reprioritised. The table below shows an overview
of performance against public service chief executives’ 2022 performance expectations.

The Commission identified 217 Ministerial priorities from chief executive expectations in 2022. Our
analysis indicates 182 (85%) of the 217 expectations to deliver Government priorities were met in full,
while a further 32 (14%) were met in part. Of the expectations that were met in part, 25 (78%) relate

9
to work programmes that span more than twelve months. These multi-year programmes often relate
to the delivery of changes to system settings and strategy, service delivery improvements, and major
investment programmes. If these 25 multi-year programmes are delivered on time, that would bring
the ‘met in full’ statistic up to 207 (95%).
All of this is supported by a broader reporting system on performance and outcomes:
• Ministerial expectations
• Annual reviews
• Select Committees.
• The Office of the Auditor-General measures financial performance.
• Capability Reviews (Previously PIFs)

Post Election Negotiations

The Act (section 17) gives Peter a role in the post-election negotiations. This puts the non-political
Commissioner into a political environment with constitutional implications.
This role existed prior to the Public Service Act 2020. It has long been convention, at least since the
introduction of MMP in 1996, for the Prime Minister to oversee requests from political parties seeking
information from public sector agencies during negotiations to form government.
To avoid conflicts of interest, because the Prime Minister is also a party leader and involved in
negotiating coalition or confidence-and-supply agreements, the role has always been delegated to
the Public Service Commissioner.
In short, the Act formalised the long-standing practice, following a full Parliamentary process
including scrutiny at select committee.
The Commissioner is required to perform a coordination role in relation to requests from political
parties that are seeking information from public sector agencies. The role extends to the oversight of
agencies providing responses to requests for information and costings from political parties.
The process to be followed is set out in Standards that were published under clause 20, Schedule 3 of
the Act: Standards: Providing information to political parties during negotiations to form a
government - Te Kawa Mataaho Public Service Commission
The Commissioner is supported by a cross-agency committee of officials from Treasury, Cabinet
Office and DPMC. The Chair of the committee is the statutory Deputy Public Service Commissioner. It
ensures that policy advice is not provided, and responses are limited to data, information, and
costings only.
This type of role is not unusual. The Commissioner’s role already includes a number of functions
where the Commissioner takes actions independently of the Government of the day, for example
inquiries under the Act, and conducting reviews into issues regarding Public Service integrity and
conduct, including issues raised directly with him by members of the Opposition.
The Commissioner is rigorous in ensuring that these responsibilities are exercised independently and
in a fair and impartial manner.
In that context:
- Have Peter or the wider Commission staff done scenario planning, rehearsals, etc. to prepare
for the variants of what might be required? Are there overseas models you can draw on, or is
the NZ situation unique?

10
 - Is Peter concerned about the possible perception that it will be difficult for him to be
objective/even-handed given that he has worked closely with PM Hipkins for most of the past
six years? Will he be doing anything specific to compensate for that?
- How well does Peter or others in the Commission know the leadership of National (Luxon &
Willis)? Has there been any contact in the context of preparing for coalition negotiations? If so,
what? If not, was consideration given to such?
- At the time of the 2017 election, Rt Hon Peters was suing Peter. If NZ First is involved in coalition
negotiations, does Peter expect that to be problematic?
As set out above, the Public Service Commission is well prepared for requests. This is based on
experiences in the previous two elections, where requests needed to be responded to promptly, in
strict confidence, and involve only the necessary officials. The Commission has developed internal
processes and terms of reference for the committee. These were reviewed and updated for the 2023
election.
The Commissioner has written to the Leaders of all political parties to advise of the post-election
process. The same letter (attached) and information were provided to each Leader and was very
similar to the letters sent prior to the 2020 election.
All requests for information from political parties that may be involved in post-election negotiations
will be responded to in accordance with the Act and Standards. Following the formation of a
government, the Commission will pro-actively publish all information requests and information
provided. All the party leaders have been advised of this.
If you wish to discuss this decision with us, please feel free to contact
Ministerial.Services@publicservice.govt.nz.
You have the right to seek an investigation and review by the Ombudsman of this decision.
Information about how to make a complaint is available at www.ombudsman.parliament.nz or
freephone 0800 802 602.
Please note that we intend to publish this letter (with your personal details removed) and enclosed
documents on the Te Kawa Mataaho Public Service Commission’s website.

Yours sincerely,

Nicky Dirks
Manager – Ministerial and Executive Services
Te Kawa Mataaho Public Service Commission

11