Tiger 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 public services. Part of this is the myth that the public sector grew out of proportion under Labour. This is rubbish as the public sector only marginally increased as percentage of the overall labour force, as did overall government expenditure as a percentage of GDP.
Of course real staff numbers in the public sector did increase, but that was for two reasons. First to implement a number of new initiatives such as Kiwisaver and Working For Families and to support big increases in funding for areas such as health and in the criminal justice sector.
The second reason is that there was a desperate need to rebuild after National systematically undermined public services through the 1990s. Tens of thousands of staff and other resources were cut which reduced capability and institutional memory, and saw the rise of consultants and contractors. To demonstrate here is a Treasury graph of the public service headcount from 1990 to 2007.
During this period it is also important to note that New Zealand’s population actually grew by around 700,000 people.
It was clear that whoever was in government during the recession that there would be limited new spending. Michael Cullen said as much before the election in 2008. However a restrained approach is a million miles away from the cuts to services we have seen from National. The long term damage of the 1990s seems set to be repeated.
Unfortunately Tony Ryall and Paul Henry had a ten minute Advertorial spot on Breakfast this morning, so the public are now sold and convinced that you guys wasted money and they are saving it. No question about the 3 ministries whose numbers grew. Another lost issue into the chasm of spin and manipulation.
I have to agree with Tracey, Tony Ryall is doing a better job at marketing than Tolley (he’d be hard pressed to do worse).
What is up with the media, why are they not calling the opposition for an alternative view at the moment?
Tracey yes to a degree there is a bit of spin going on with National’s push to get public support for these job losses however, cuts are well and truly needed. I have commented on this previously so won’t bother repeating myself here, but there is a lot of waste going on due to politics between regional and national offices and taking things like the security (between 1999-2008) of working in the public sector for granted. The reality is some of the projects (projects which employed IT & operations contractors who charged $95 per hour etc) that have gone on have really not been that necessary. Conversely the frontlines have generally always worked to budget and always struggled to get the resources that are seen to be given so freely to National Office.
THose public service numbers wouldnt include the jobs that are ‘outsourced’ during the 90,s.
Plus there were many senior positions that became ‘contractors’ doing the same job- at much higher costs
And remind me again Grant just how many entities that were defined as “Public Service” with staff included in the 1990 figures you show have since become either private corporations of COE’s, still employing staff but no longer showing in the “public service ” figure you quote for 2007.
“Lies”, “damn Lies” and the “misuse of statistics” in ascending order.
It would be useful to include the growth in the public service headcount during the 4th Labour Government so that the downsizing of the 1990s can be placed in context.
Just a point in passing – the growth in head count over the 4 years from 2003 to 2007 is 41% and that is completely out of proportion with the growth in the overall labour force during the same time.
“What is up with the media, why are they not calling the opposition for an alternative view at the moment?”
The public are entitled to hear both sides, it’s called journalism! 
!!!!
I’ve had a guts full of this
Winston, still under the number that were there in 1990.
Spud, there’s an argument to be made that by 1990 under the 4th Labour admin, the numbers were bloated to hell
Then slashed and burned to hell in the 90s.
@Winston. The statistics I am looking at from the Parliamentary Library show that as a percentage of the overall labour the core public sector grew from 1.9% in 2003 to 2.2% 2007. As I said in the post that is only a marginal increase.
@Grant. The 0.3 percentage point increase from 1.9% to 2.2% that you point to is actually a 15.8% increase. In other words your numbers assert that jobs in the core public sector (like the way you slipped in the qualifier “core” there G) grew by 15.8% faster than the overall labour force. That’s not a marginal increase.
@Spud: so if you’re bloated you should be protected from a good slash and burn programme???
@Grant: while you’re looking the the core public service head counts for the 1980’s perhaps you could also add in the head counts for non-core public service roles and the front-line agencies that are outside the cap.
You skate over the increase of 540 fulltime equivalents in CYFS, WINZ and probation services in the past year like Torvill and Dean.
When was the Cave Creek disaster , when 14 young people lost their lives due to cost cutting at a government department.
Look at the above chart , it was 1995, during the bottom of the staffing, and under a National government.
Deja Vue?
Winston, slash and burn bad
And I don’t buy that the public service is bloated at the moment. 
ghostwhowalksnz: as I have said before, don’t bring the tragedy of Cave Creek – the tragedy of MY friends into your sketchy arguments.
All public services have suffered due to lack of proper investment, something which all past governments bare responsibility for.
Won’t bother giving a history lesson so will generalise and merely state National slash & burn, Labour overspend, create a public service that is more about wasting of resources than it is about delivering the services and all without foresight = vicious cycle.
Hopefully someone at some point will have enough common sense to put aside ideology and actually find a balance and do what is right for this country.
National appear to want to do this, Labour – well, Labour has yet to figure out why it is now in Opposition.
oh the dream that there is some politically neutral “expert” solution to this! and a tooth fairy too…
I don’t think Labour overspent.
Rebecca seems to one of Tolleys ‘rent a mums’.
Cave Creek was directly a result of low funding/staffing at a government department. The enquiry found it so.
So Rebecca, you weren’t affected, so save us the pious lament.
While we are at it, the introduction of the release of prisoners after 1/3 time served was by national in the early 90’s too as a staff saving measure.
Plenty of burglars and drug dealers couldnt believe their luck. Perhaps Rebecca you were affected by that too?
Rebecca – I noticed that the one thing Ryall wouldn’t be drawn on was an admission that these people leaving was a sign of wasting money on them in the first place.
I suspect, but don’t know (does anyone?) that these drops are vacant positions not refilled which is different to slashing jobs per se. That is no one was asked to leave.
Interesting that the PM’s department needs more people as does Transport… Like or dislike Clark it’s hard to imagine a more hard working person, and Key needs more staff than she?
Rebecca – cuts in front-line staff at Biosecurity, Fisheries and Conservation can result (with looser RMA environment protections and the proposal to mine national parks) in a real decline in our nation’s standards. A decline in the protection of both our natural heritage and the environment estate which underpins our economic base.
So if you looking for a party with the common sense to put aside ideology and actually find a balance and do what is right for this country and you think that is National – one is going to have to question your judgment.
I notice some of the biggest increases in jobs were in prisons and probation. Not surprising given the complete Political (across the board) reluctance to do anything other than pander to the facile public idea that tougher sentences reduces crime. I’d rather see this kind of money going into successful prevention and rehabilitation programmes. Those who even entertain the thought that our prisons try to rehabilitation are labouring under an illusion.
100 people die each year in work related accidents… I dont hear a hue and cry to address this. About 60 die each year from murder.
Theres nothing realy new happening.
National hates the public sector.
Labour loves the public sector.
National has a very good PR team, or are very good at it individually (other that Anne T). But like all good PR and marketing spin it must be based upon the truth or it will come back and bite you very very hard.
50% of Kiwis voted for Naional and about 20% of these who are not die hard rightys at some stage will reveiw there descision to vote national and may decide they were duped. It will take them alot longer than 9 years next time.
@ ghostwhowalksnz: “So Rebecca, you weren’t affected, so save us the pious lament.” 3 of my friends were in Cave Creek. 2 died and one is permanently paralysed, but no, I wasn’t affected in the slightest and yes you clearly are the expert on why that tragedy happened…
As for your other comments – presumption and unsubstantiated comments just bring down the tone of the debate. Perhaps your time would be better spent away from the computer and out in the real world, maybe volunteering at Rape Crisis or Victim Support or working for the day in the WINZ office in Manukau or Porirua. It’s very easy to have opinions on everything when you live in cotton wool…
Tracey – well said on both posts and yes, I noticed that re Tony Ryall too.
@ Grant: “Of course real staff numbers in the public sector did increase, but that was for two reasons. First to implement a number of new initiatives such as Kiwisaver and Working For Families…”
As stated in a previous post, Working for Families was in my view, a view gained from personal experience, the catalyst for a huge increase in unnecessary spending, very little of which has yet to be pulled back. This policy in my personal view gained from my own personal experience having working on the team that drew up the policy pertaining to this package was one of the main contributing facts to the the public perception of a “bloated public service”. This is one of the many reasons why I am so personally opposed to this Robin Hood tax policy.
Of course there will always be an increase in staff and spending when new government policies are announced and of course you need back office staff to support these policies, but under Labour I believe the number of people employed was well and truly surplus to requirements and that this went largely unnoticed until the last term because we were on an economic roll/in an economic boom. If National manages to correct this without going as far as Muldoon or the likes of ’slash and burn Shipley’ then I’m all for it.
Labour did many good things but they also got MANY things wrong.
Grant if you want Labour to get back in government then get your party out and about away from the blinding support of these Red Alert faithfuls and go and ask any family on a high income paying a mortgage in today’s rates – that is, the group that is paying 70% or so of the total income tax collected or ask self-employed people, particularly those in the transport industry who faced MAMMOTH increases in their costs thanks to Labour and then faced massive numbers in redundancies. Ask these people why they voted against Labour and why they are unlikely to vote for Labour again.
You need to start recognizing where you went wrong otherwise any opposition you express just screams of hypocrisy.
“Grant if you want Labour to get back in government then get your party out and about” – Hello? Bus tour? Labour has been listening!
“Ask these people … why they are unlikely to vote for Labour again.” – The last question doesn’t sound very constructive.
IMHO.
Errr Spud fat lot of use that did – axe the tax hat they won’t axe if they manage to claw their way back into government? Seemed to have zero real impact.
And yes they are constructive questions; how can one getting feedback on why one failed NOT be constructive? That is the nature of being “constructive”.
Rebecca – I think the tour was successful and they have spent many months listening to what the public think.
I would like to think Labour IS spending time amongst the disenchanted who now form a chunk of National’s support. How else to find ways to support them?
I agree Labour made many mistakes, what Government doesn’t? Nationa, imo, isn’t all bad either BUT I feel strongly about the particular direction of National’s “mistakes”. It’s why I want Labour to get stronger and more relevane. However I dont know how it breaks htrough the media soft spot… Paul Henry is the cheapest PR tool National could have. IF he purports to speeak once more on behalf of “most new zealanders”. I’m not sure the last time Paul actually spent time with someone from “most NZers” group.
I like Paul Henry but yes, not a fan of how he blatantly shows his support for National. Pippa is Labour, would be great if she spoke out a little more. Mind you, Paul has been quite scathing of some of the things National, in particular, John Key have done – or rather, haven’t done in terms of answering questions properly etc. And yes, someone on a 6 figure salary who drives expensive cars etc is hardly in the same vicinity as most “ordinary New Zealanders”.
I want Labour to come back stronger and relevant too, but I feel that their current opposition strategy is going to keep them in the past. There are those of us who are still paying dearly for Labour’s policies and even though we are almost half way through National’s first term, the 9 year Labour tenure still feels like yesterday.
And yes, while I like the idea of someone addressing the anomalies in the tax system, ACC & public service, I also have grave concerns that these things will only amount to tinkering and token gestures and worse still, will affect the staff on the front line.
For example any cuts in say MSD’s budget is likely to be pass on to the regional office and then the frontline staff. Senior highly paid staff are very good at covering their rear end and the frontline, regardless of the intentions, always seems to take the hit first. Maybe not with redundancies but definitely in terms of funding additional staff and resources they need.
I personally feel like it’s a lose lose regardless of who is in government these days. No one inspires me and no one definitely makes me feel like they have our interests at heart.
Everything anything seems vulnerable in terms of being tossed aside for the sake of political expediency. Would be great to see people first (especially our children), strategy and politics second.
Bottom line, any dollar wasted in the public service via another meaningless project, training session, meeting, morning tea, seminar etc is money that is not going into things like tackling child abuse. There is more that political point scoring at stake here.
“I personally feel like it’s a lose lose regardless of who is in government these days. No one inspires me and no one definitely makes me feel like they have our interests at heart.”
Ditto that for me. My leaning is toward labour on a fundamental social principle basis. National’s agenda has scared me for a long time.
Rebecca – your base assumption about Labour and the public service paints Labour to one side of your imaginary divide. Labour seek to retain fair levels in the service, not to bloat it ‘just because’. Labour are in fact the middle ground.
I like Paul Henry and am also sick of his blatant political bias.
I’m very surprised to hear that Pippa is Labour.
I read a lot of comments about the opposition strategy – I happen to think ACC, tax and the public service are good things for the opposition to be bringing to people’s attention.
I’d be surprised if Pippa were Labour as well Spud.
Dominic no they are all tarred with the same brush as far as I am concerned, but National’s brush is tarred a little more to my liking in terms of their direction & Labour apparent lack of direction. Further, Labour has only been middle as parties like the greens have let them. We have no way of knowing where they stand these days in terms of a party in its own rights as they didn’t have a majority government the last 2 terms and have yet to express anything by way of substantive policies. Everything so far seems to be about opposing because they are now in opposition!
Spud yes Paul complained about it when Pippa returned to work – it would seem being a mother (albeit a very well-off mother who can afford to have ‘help’) changed her mind..I could be wrong but I am certain that she has expressed Labour orientated sentiments.
And yes, issues like ACC & the public service etc serve well as the bread & butter for the opposition; what a shame National wasn’t so vocal when Labour increased the transport industries ACC levies by 100% with only 10 weeks notice. That is one department I would gladly see back office staff made redundant.
What everyone needs to remember is less Public Servants means less Public Services. It is the same with tax cuts – more tax cuts less public spending. Up to everyone to decide what they want I guess. Me I’m the sharing and caring type.
Paul I agree to a point and believe it or not, I am the sharing and caring kind too – I believe we have a moral obligation to always look after those who struggle to look after themselves.
That said, after seeing first hand people constantly taking the mickey and sheer blatant waste of tax payers money in the public service (first National but primarily Labour) and then becoming self-employed where we pay $30k in taxes & $6k in ACC ( from 2007 – used to be $3k) on top of paying $2k per month for a house we saved our backsides to get into (a house that is by all means, functional but very average) I am no longer feeling quite so generous.
The loss of the odd project team, policy analyst, policy/communications advisor, IT or systems contractor etc etc at MOE, MOH, MAF, MFAT, IRD, MSD, Corrections or the Police (yes plenty of back office staff there too) will have NO baring on those in the front line. But for these wasteful jobs, our front lines in these sectors would, in my humble opinion have had bigger budgets to work with.
I am certain that had Labour reigned things in a little and did things like provide incentives for doctors & nurses to stay in the country and to go for permanent public placings than mere casuals or locums etc then we would not have seen the hospital crises we have seen in recent years.
The investment in these sectors has, in my view, been too top heavy for 9 years.
Labour did increase nurses pay a lot but then of course gets blamed for unproductive extra spending in the health sector by those who think they can retain staff with pay freezes.
The great untried option – is to allow TD write-offs for every year worked in New Zealand. Thus over 10 years they are not required to pay interest or pay back a cent and at end of 10 years they have no TD. This TD policy could be applied to doctors who work in hospitals and GP’s, but not hospital locums. And to nurses and locums of GP’s (we need to allow GP’s to have breaks and also to attract doctors into considering the GP option). This could attract back staff from OE or Oz.
SPC – brilliant idea. That’s the thing that leaves me so demoralised with our current political parties; they seem to be all or nothing in terms of for or against each other’s policies instead of looking for workable solutions.
I accept that as a tiny country that expects to have the same (if not better services) as those public services operating elsewhere in the world, that we need the money and staff to implement these services. I also expect that those on a higher incomes should be paying more tax proportionally than someone on half or less than our income as they can afford it primarily because they have so much more disposable income to work with.
What I don’t accept is that we have to have 2 major parties where one follows the rule of slash and burn and the other follows the rule of spend until it all runs out.
Times have changed so dramatically and I honestly do think that either party has moved with these times; why can’t the do a proper cost benefit & analysis of proposals like the TD write-offs? Why is it they are so unwilling to investigate such options – options that would not only benefit the front line, but would free up money at the bureaucratic level as they would be paying the wages of permanent doctors instead of that of the hugely exorbitant (hospital) locums. Yes agree with the locums for GPs. Things like this could mean that GP shortages also reduce. Imagine that! We had to wait for 15 months to be able to enrol in our local medical centre – 5mins down the road. Just crazy.
“Everything so far seems to be about opposing because they are now in opposition!” – That’s not how I remember it! And, gasp
, sometimes they even vote with the government in parliament! 
A simple ‘more is better’ and ‘less is worse’ approach or the vice-versa (which Ryall ludricrously argues) misses the point entirely. The question should be- how do we produce the best government services that we can with the resources available. Personally I don’t feel like arguing 33,200 is better than 33,100, but I would like ministers to put in place MEASURABLE AND DEFINABLE performance measures with which we can judge how their departments are delivering. If they fail to meet the outcome- well then we can ask what they are going to do about it?
No-where do you see any discussion of quality, it all seems mired in statistical statements that have no relevance to the actual outcomes they are charged with delivering. If they want to promote the private sector as the ideal model of governance, why can’t departments like Transport and Treasury be actually measured in the same way as their private sector counterparts. What is so hard with applying with measurable pre-agreed KPIs.
I have set up a Facebook group against the public service cuts – and they are cuts! http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=372669801401&ref=nf
@ Winston “You skate over the increase of 540 fulltime equivalents in CYFS, WINZ and probation services in the past year like Torvill and Dean.’ Ask your self why we need more people at WINZ – National have managed to bloat the unemployment figures; CYFS and probation have been under staffed since Moses was a boy.
I work in health; this year we have lost nine staff, none replaced – nearly 20% of our department.
What gets me is their definition of ‘front line services’; my team (was nine is now five) were responsible for health promotion in schools; of course preventing ill health isn’t front line, we don’t put on Band Aids, prescribe medications or do comsultations; but we do work in a holistic manner to provide communities solutions to complex problems and are able to demonstrate effectiveness.
Preventing health doesn’t win you brownie (or political) points in the same way that doing more bypasses or hip replacements does.
Key and Ryall are very shrewd; they know that suggesting they are employing more cops, nurses, social workers, etc and getting rid of fat cat managers (not that many are getting paid anywhere near what they would get in the commercial sector for less responsibility) wins votes.
Well said Fred. This has always been about saving money, that is the bottom line, save money. The bottom line is not ensure quality delivery and prevention.
Fred: well said. “CYFS and probation have been under staffed since Moses was a boy” – so true. And it is unlikely to ever change as being seen to do the right thing will never marry with actually doing the right thing.
As for the Nat’s skewed definition of what pertains to being “front line” – well both parties define according to their agenda and the losers will always be those actually on the front line, including yourself, who are trying to make a difference.
Tracey: I would probably say that the bottom line is more about political point scoring than it is about saving or spending money. Our MPs are the masters at side stepping – I’m surprised they have yet to get a call from Jock Hobbs….
I had a horrible feeling that would be the case Fred.