The government have released their latest update on the “capping’ of the public sector. Of course the cap is in fact a cut of around 1500 positions. This is the centrepiece of National’s state sector policy. The fact that cutting staff is their crowning achievement speaks volumes. They are taking the accountant’s approach to public services, knowing the price of everything but the value of nothing. Of course we want efficient and effective public services, but National is fixated on a piece of political spin that has nothing to do with the quality of services that we all use.
National is proudly trumpeting today’s annoouncement as proof that services are being moved to the frontline. Except there is no definition of frontline services. During the recent Financial Review process we asked agencies for their definition of frontline services. There were nearly as many definitions of frontline as their were agencies. Moreover frontline services are delivered by many of the agencies that are considered core government administration who have lost significant staff. Agencies like Biosecurity, Fisheries and Conservation.
It is all just spin. There is no plan for developing quality and efficient public sector from this government. In the meantime a couple of questions for you
1. Is it just coincidence that the agencies that grew were those under the control of John Key, Bill English and Steven Joyce
2. Will Mr Ryall tells us how much the departments who have shed positions have spent on consultants and contractors in the meantime?
I see where some agencies , such as the police , any cuts would be seen as affecting the front line, the take away the police cars instead.
The cuts to staffing in the health sector, some of which are because jobs are moving to centralised services ( most likely means privatising them), ask Telecom what its like to have virtually your entire IT /Mobile infrastructure in outsiders hands.
Oooh
you’ve just clarified something for me Ghost. 
And I shudder to think what’s going to be cut next
Expletives …..
She is getting a beating today – Liannes questions to her re Aorangi made it to tv3 news – she does not deserve her job – her handling of education – esp Aorangi, Nat Stds and being able to actually understand her portfolio is disgraceful. At least she has a profile and will prob go down in NZ history as one of the worst ever! That should give her comfort in her old age.
Labour needs to tackle some of the bs about on this, I quote Tony Ryall tonite on TV3 news, “public service staff numbers increased 50% under the nine years of the last government”
well, as I understand it a lot of this was just restoring previous cuts made by the 90s National administration.
The PSA could chime in here too, it is obviously not a runner to try and positively engage or attempt to arrange “partnerships” with such a hostile administration. Some claim anecdotally, that a number of PSA members voted National so it is all too hard. Well why not run it by the members for their response? National is going to keep sacking anyway what is there to lose?
“not one more job” has a nice ring.
Oh thanks John – Since your announced “shifting the spending to the frontline” I ended up in hospital. I had never seen so many doctors and Nurses to help me out. ( It did take the best part of 5 hours for the doctor to fill in the necessary paperwork but at least now I can say I had the doc all to myself today!!!
Enjoy it while you can Jeremy, it wont be like that next year. They will be rationing the thermometers.
Three agencies that tend to look for malpractice by businesses. Biosecurity picks up improperly prepared imports, fisheries are there to ensure we still have some fish and conservation picks up on the filthy habits of the farmers. Basically, NACT are giving businesses in these industries a green light to drop standards.
“Moreover frontline services are delivered by many of the agencies that are considered core government administration who have lost significant staff. Agencies like Biosecurity, Fisheries and Conservation.”
This is something that Labour should stress – and how these cuts are linked to looser RMA environment protections and the proposal to mine national parks.
The decline in our nation’s standards – the decline in protection of our natural heritage in all these areas could be a theme.
On the general policy.
It is standard for government to tighten access to new spending as a country comes out of recession (so the deficit which has occured is reduced). And it is typical for right wing party governments to come into power intending to make cuts in the existing public service cost – in our case the two events have nearly coincided (a one year delay to cuts because of the recession).
However they did say caps on numbers in the public service, not cuts. So they have broken another promise – apparently because they have been unable to make cuts in costs without cutting staff numbers or because they always intended to make their cuts in cost this way and their promise to only cap staffing numbers was always an empty one.
Back in the 70’s there was a sinking lid policy – the cutting costs by reducing staff numbers was declared policy and not hidden in a corner in a list of broken promises. But then there was little unemployment and it was part of the process where the government began to cost accountant the public sector (which allowed later reform in the 80’s). In some ways this government is operating on the same tack, to enable more radical change later.
At the time the Muldoon government was economising in the existing public services and borrowing to finance think big, this government is also borrowing – and financing a lot of new roads (despite peak oil). At that time the Irish government was borrowing and investing in improving the education of their people, a necessary pre-requisite to attracting investment in jobs in Ireland. One hopes we have not once again chosen the wrong option.
[...] Mountain in the comments on the post on public sector cuts notes that there is a lot of rubbish talked by National to justify cuts to [...]
SPC and Draco – Thanks for the thoughtful analysis.
Not wanting to quibble but have people lost jobs or not been replaced when they leave? I know that is one way some organisations try to drop numbers without actually making people redundant. Of course just because they have retired or left doesn’t mean the job they did isn’t needed.
@Tracey. These job loss figures do not include current vacancies. The way they do the statistics vacancies are counted as being part of the total number of current positions in each department.
At the moment what they call the core government administration is carrying 2309 vacancies. I know from contact with the public service that carrying this level of vacancies is putting heaps of pressure on those who are still there.
Thanks Grant. In my experience often the people that go are the ones you want to keep. Then those left behind do the work of 1.5 or 2 people and that is called saving. Hope the Govt has been reminded of the OSH provisions relating to stress.