Is it possible for the government to set out a list of targets for the public service that are both worthy and meaningless at the same time? That seems to have been the tone of debate around National’s latest Better Public Services announcement. There aren’t really any targets in there that anyone would disagree with, but it ain’t the ambitious ‘brighter future’ government John Key promised us 4 years ago. Where is the goal to close the wage gap with Australia? Where is the goal to reduce our overseas debt? Where is the goal to lift wages and create more highly paid jobs?
National’s latest set of targets also look pretty hollow and meaningless in the context of what they’ve actually been doing since they took office. So let’s look at the actual targets and how the rhetoric matches the reality.
1. Reduce the number of people who have been on a working age benefit for more than 12 months
Yet National cut the training incentive allowance to make it difficult for DPB mums to get higher education. 50,000 people have lost their jobs under National, and unemployment has been persistently high. Access to Student Loans has been restricted and they’re contemplating putting interest back on student loans. Lack of jobs is the key reason why people are on the benefit and the Government’s response is “it is what it is” with no sign of the 170,000 jobs they promised.
As my colleague Jacinda Ardern pointed out during question time, National’s goal to reduce the number of people on job-seeker benefits for more than 12 months by 30% means they’re still banking on there being 20,000 more people in that group than there were when they took office. Hardly an ambitious target…
2. Increase the number of young children in ECE
National’s cuts to ECE subsidies mean parents now have to pay higher fees for a lower quality service, hardly a plan to increase participation. In 2010 Key’s Government cut $400 million from the ECE budget which saw more than 2,000 ECE centres have their funding reduced. If parents are to believe Key’s commitment to ECE then he needs to immediately rule out the controversial recommendation from his ECE Taskforce to cut the universal subsidy for 20 hours ECE.
Increasing participation shouldn’t be the only goal for ECE. More bums on seats is good but we also need to ensure that ECE teachers are qualified and skilled enough to give children the best learning environment possible. Nationals ditching of the target of 100% qualified staff in teacher-led ECE services is will reduce the quality of ECE learning and the potentially transformational benefits children can get from it.
3. Increase infant immunisation rates and reduce the incidence of rheumatic fever.
Under National we’ve seen more children going to hospital with poverty related diseases, including rheumatic fever. Overall, hospital admissions are up by 4800 in the past 3-4 years. New Zealand’s rate of rheumatic fever is 14 times higher than the OECD average. Medical experts have blamed the rise on damp houses, poverty and a lack of primary healthcare. This is not a problem the healthcare sector alone can solve.
4. Reduce the number of assaults on children.
On 1 April 2011 Tariana Turia announced that funding from the following programmes had been ‘reallocated’:
- Te Rito Collaborative Community Family Violence Prevention Fund
- Advocates for Children and Young People Who Witness Family Violence programme
- Family Violence Education Services
5. Increase the proportion of 18 year olds with NCEA level 2 or equivalent qualification
This is a long-term goal and a good one, although I would question the assumptions made in the analysis of the current trend data, which seems to assume on current trends growth in the number of 18 year olds hitting the target will diminish. Why do I call it a long-term goal? Because to achieve it we need to look at things like early childhood education (see above), improving student engagement (technology teaching anyone?) and teacher professional development (funding cut under National).
6. Increase the proportion of 25-34 year olds with advanced trade qualifications, diplomas and degrees
Where to begin? National cut the successful Skill Enhancement programme in Budget 2010. The Skill Enhancement programme provided vocational training for young Māori and Pasifika, had run since 1993 and achieved 82% positive outcomes. The number of Modern Apprenticeships has declined 10% in the past two years without any attempt of intervention or support from National.
National has cut $145 million out of Industry Training, money which could be invested into up-skilling young people, but most of which has gone elsewhere. The $40 million Community Max scheme failed to get people into jobs and in many cases created little more than pumpkins. Access to Student Loans has been restricted as well.
7. Reduce the rates of total crime, violent crime and youth crime.
Well, I guess cutting funding for the police is one way of reducing the rates of reported crimes.
8. Reduce re-offending
Prioritised funding to build more prisons (Wiri) instead of rehabilitation programs. 1.1% increase in spending on prisoner employment, rehabilitation and reintegration last year is insufficient address the recidivism rates given the reconviction rate has gone up under this Government to over 62%.
9 & 10. New Zealanders can complete their transactions with the Government easily in a digital environment.
Hardly ground-breaking stuff is it? If anything this is just the government catching up with the private sector.
Why doesn’t Labour endorse these targets and pledge to continue working towards them should they lead they next government?
You could have different methods and different priorities, but in general common goals should be embraced where they make sense.
Is there a real need for ECE as it seems to cost a heck of a lot in a world where funds are increasingly constrained? Primary school still seems to have to start with the basics so it doesn’t seem to be providing any sort of jump start. Somehow, we even used to survive without it in the past. Is there any reason why all ECE teachers need to be tertiary qualified?
So is it they think we’re not going to notice the bs?
Or do they just have a total disregard for traditional Kiwi values?
Nice to see UFO supporting more dodgy governance.
Of course Chris Hipkins is right Nats targets are just the warm and fuzzies – Blancmange when you have no initiatives.
@ One Track.. I thought that once(ie Early Childhood teachers just require some ‘feminine commonsense’) but have been shown my error. Trained teachers recognise behavior problems early, and quick ‘Special Education’(It happens still!- & often – with good teachers!), then helps prevent major social problems later. Early childhood education is NOT to teach reading and arithmetic but to socialise kids so school can be much more effective. Solo parents, working Mums, minorities and particularly primary teachers get incredible benefit from ECE.
ECE is probably the best ‘Bang for Buck’ we can do to achieve an harmonious society, particularly where families are under stress. Shouldn`t we want the best teacher training?
Remember the smart Jesuit Trueism “Give me the boy till he is 7 and I will give you the man”… Silly comments not sought – and I am sure girls were included! – thanks
If Labour agrees with these targets it should endorse them and work to achieve these results, as well.
National have a very clever PR Team and manage to hoodwink the public they have got it all under control.
Getting the best results for the economy and the people of New Zealand is the end goal.
So John key’s latest brainwave to rid New Zealand of some really worrying and serious burdens like assaults on children and rheumatic fever is to basically say to the already cut-by-2500 Public Service,
“izzy wizzy let’s get bizzy…I want(fill in problem here) solved in five years” to the Public Service genie.
With the rather cynical proviso that they will get bonuses if they succeed but pay cuts if they don’t. Well who can the Public Service ‘izzy wizzy’?
Talk about fairy land, Key seems to think he has done his job to bypass himself and his cabinet of ministers, who we are paying to sort suitable answers and policies out to solve the country’s problems so I thought, and leave it up to the cut public service to be held accountable. Coward.
Perhaps Public Services should call Rumpelstiltskin to spin their golden answers.
Furthermore Key rather illogically said
“A hightly efficient Public Service one that is performing well for New Zealanders is not a question of head count it’s about results.”
Don’t we need the thinking minds in heads to bring about results?
I also think that performance pay to incentivise for outcomes in these really serious areas is really low. I always said that an ex money trader did not have the right life experience or qualities to be a Prime Minister. In trader world money incentives are their bread and butter, as are off the top of the head quick solutions and selling/getting people to trust your less than well thought out ideas with spin. John Key has had many years of developing these skills and has put them to really ‘bad for us’ use over the last five or six years
Finally ,why do we need a government when we have public services who will sort everything out?
As Bill English said.
“We’re making the public sector leaders accountable for achieving things that make a real difference to the lives of New Zealanders, not just managing a department or agency,” he said.
Read more: http://www.3news.co.nz/Public-service-to-be-tested-with-targets/tabid/1607/articleID/259045/Default.aspx#ixzz1zMSI1G4k
So what John Key is saying is the Public Service Management and Employees have been having us on all these years and not doing their jobs properly, now they are going to be made accountable with bonuses etc.
I hear through the grapevine there are heaps of jobs going in Wellington for Consultants at $200.00 per hour, hopefully all these changes and the Asset Sales will bear fruit shortly for those struggling at the bottom end of the food chain.
Great initiative from the Governement. Labor now have to match it, better it or exit stage left! When oh when are we going to hear Labor say what they can do for this country, With all there negativity they are sounding like a bunch of moaning no-hope minnies.
Allyson
Agreed – when are Labour going to put forward something positive, rather than harping historically to the negative.
The Greens are doing it already – let’s have some future policy in principle. The details came come before the 2014 election.
@ Allyson and Fortran
Labour has plenty of policy out there
It is the function of government to keep us properly informed continuously as it legislates and regulates.. It is amazing that you lament input from others when your side(?) abolished channel 7 which was an ideal means of discussion and debate SO, why did the Nats kill channel 7 ? No?.. yeah right!
Labour cannot introduce successful legislation – it can try to influence it, and does, but the likes of Peter Dunne will sadly thwart it regardless of merit.
The main function of opposition is to scrutinise the government.
Labour need only produce comprehensive policy come the election.
It is difficult not to suspect, Allyson and Fortran, that as government policy becomes more unpopular, that you are just desperately casting about for something , anything, to divert attention?
Hi Chris, please remind me. How did your government do with closing the gaps, the knowledge wave, and getting NZ into the top half of the OECD by 2008?
@whodunnit. Ah closing the gaps the policy which lasted an entire lunchtime! I remember watching with annoyance in 1999 as that one was promptly abandoned within 6 weeks of Labour taking the treasury benches as they couldn’t handle the question of ‘what does closing the gaps exactly entail?’ All that Labour will be remembered for will be leaving the country with a mountain of debt borrowed during a decade of easy credit. As for their benefits policy the question they will never answer is this, ‘exactly how does a benefit bring a family out of poverty?’ The simple truth is the system inherited from Labour is state sponsored poverty that encourages children to be born into destitution; a state we may all end up in as a nation thanks to Labours decade of spend on credit policies ( for an example of what happens when countries live beyond their means & end up in debt look at bbc panorama. ‘life & debt; a greek tragedy”)
I just hope we achieve these targets whether it is Labour or National it would be nice to get some positive growth, improved education, health and affordable housing for all walks of life not just the wealthy and priviledged in this country.
“5. Increase the proportion of 18 year olds with NCEA level 2 or equivalent qualification”
“6. Increase the proportion of 25-34 year olds with advanced trade qualifications, diplomas and degrees”
Recipes for yet more grade inflation and credential creep funded by crippling loans and savage taxation.
Why do politicians pretend to be unaware of the fallacy of composition?
@ Sica
“I always said that an ex money trader did not have the right life experience or qualities to be a Prime Minister”
As opposed to a recent PM who never had a job, or children?
As opposed to a recent Finance Minister who was briefly a schoolteacher?
The arrogance of the left never fails to amaze me, it does however give me confidence that NZ is on the Right track