Sometimes its hard to get across why some of the more seemingly mundane announcements made by government are important. The idea that the Treasury has decided to create a Board to help run it might sound good. Get a bit of outside help in to make sure it is doing the right thing. Nothing wrong with that?
But when the Treasury Secretary John Whitehead slipped into a speech ten days ago that he was going to establish a “governance” Board with representatives of the “private sector” alarm bells rang for me.
Firstly, in the context of purchase advisors, politically appointed working groups on everything from tax to regulation, welfare to housing, a review of policy advice led by Graham Scott, the role of Murray Horn leading the National Health Board, this Board, and Tony Ryall’s enthusiasm that it could be used by the rest of the public sector this is clearly part of an agenda to fundamentally change our public sector. That change amounts to a privatisation of advice.
Why does this matter? It matters because our system of government is based on the idea that the public service will provide free and frank advice to Ministers. They are in effect the taxpayers representatives in making and implementing policy and ensuring the governments get the best advice possible. Privatising advice undermines that assumption of neutrality. Those Ministers are then responsible to Parliament and the public. Handpicked policy and governance groups can lead to governments hearing what they want to hear and to reducing accountability. And that will be bad for all of us in the long run.
If people think I am over dramatising this- take a look at the media release from Treasury yesterday. The role of the Board is described as “setting the strategic direction” for Treasury. John Whitehead has said he will only veto the group in ‘extremely rare’ circumstances.
Chris Eichbaum has a great article in the Dom Post today on this issue (not on-line as far as I can tell). As he says
We need responsive and responsible public servants. Injecting a new third element into our existing governance arrangements may well be a step too far. It is most certainly the kind of proposal that should be the subject of public scruitiny and debate- not just announced.
As Chris is alluding to, the process for establishing the Board is not good. There are no terms of reference, and we only have the vaguest idea of how they will work. Again John Whitehead said after his speech ten days ago that the Board will have “community and private sector” expertise. No sign of the community sector in the Board members announced yesterday. No sign of a voice for the vulnerable people who are most effected by Treasury’s policies.
I am certainly not against government agencies getting advice from the community and stakeholders. In fact I strongly support a closer connection between agencies and the people who use services. But not when it undermines the neutrality of public services and not when it is used to reinforce the agenda of one political party.
All right, I will cut my usually silliness as Red under the Bed.
I think there is something seriously wrong here. This would only lead to corruption. The private sector is only interested in itself. Not what good for the country.
Treasury is already to influenced by self interested businessmen and now this. This will only “legitimize” the advice the private sector gives, and give them a big more closed influence on all governments.
I seriously think this is a run up to privatization.
Unlike the late 80/early 90 they know they can’t privatize so quickly and publicly. So they moving at a more slower and quiet pace hoping none of the public notices.
Soon enough Treasury will be complete run by private sector interest.
I believe this would of been supported by the national government or maybe the national government put pressure of Treasury to do this! It might be surprising to find out who actually is driving this!
Anyway…
Best of luck fight this Grant
Your gonna to need.
Sidenote: And where is our beloved media in all this…
As I said elsewhere – the whole of treasury needs to be fired for incompetence (still believing the neoliberal delusion is incompetent) and the simple fact that they’re not working for NZ (They seem to be working for the capitalists).
Not only undermines it but throws it right out the window.
But it’ll be great for the capitalists – until we have a violent revolution and employ the same solution that the French employed.
Actually, it’s the run up to pure corporatised dictatorship.
The public sector is getting hijacked!
Smiling John is the face but the masters are giving instructions.
US style institutionalising corporate control of the country.
Labour must make this news and later overturn it when in office. The Greens and NZ first all would have an opposing voice to this incipient grab of our purse.
Political appointment to the public service will flow on from Nacts devious move and they will remain there even in Labours term frustrating and diverting the will of any government choosing to move a social agenda or even help small business.
The press is silent. Who owns the press.
If Ross Wilson could be unseated from ACC without resistance, could a Labour Govt do the same with Secretary Whitehead and the other yes men? Or would they be more likely to do a Christine Rankin and be dragged out kicking and screaming?
Or for good measure, appointing say, Matt McCarten and John Minto to the same room as Whitehead. Now that would be fun.
Treasury has always been full of Hayekians, seems now they are just returning after they leave while on private sector wages..!
Public Service workers are under pressure with this government’s “do more with less” policy.
The workers who turn the wheels over are expected to work like mad with no pay rise. If money must be saved, then why don’t the top management in the Public Service take a pay cut. Stop getting at the workers on the shop floor who are underpaid.
I for one have had enough of the productivity drive this government is responsible for.