John Armstrong’s piece in the NZ Herald yesterday (and ODT) is thought-provoking and well written (as usual).
However, there’s a central premise to his argument which I take issue with. Serious issue.
National and Labour differ strongly on the importance of, and the role of public services. National is about cutting costs. Labour is essentially about the best possible services. Costs are important. But they’re not our starting point.
John I just don’t believe you are an apologist for the National Government’s drive for less government and less tax = a better society, because the private sector will better deliver better services for all of us. it simply wont. Not all of us.
In his piece, John describes something called “The Quiet Revolution” in the delivery of public services. Driven by the National Government. Essentially, a “Treasury-powered drive for the public service to lift its game and improve the quality of the public service”.
He also talks about a culture change within the public service. Sounds ok so far. A culture change is certainly needed. And I’m sure that many (if not most) within the public sector would agree. It’s the “what to” which really matters.
Then he describes a worldwide trend which sees political parties of varying hues examing how to deliver higher quality services at lower cost.
I get the lower cost bit, when it comes to the National Government. But higher quality services? Only if you pay. And not through your taxes. Because, remember, they’re being cut.
So. If you can afford to pay for better services, you’ll get them, maybe. If you can’t, then it’s your own fault for not earning more. There certainly wont be more services to go around.
John then goes on to say:
Driving this are changing public attitudes about the role of the state and the coming fiscal crunch from soaring health and other costs associated with the ageing of baby-boomers.
Politicians are now responding to rising public expectations that state entities justify their existence.
The result is a power shift from the state to its citizenry.
John. There’s no doubt that there’s a discussion happening about the importance of government and the public sector becoming more open and transparent.
Within National that could easily become a justification to eradicate what they describe as waste (jobs) and transfer many previously state-funded prgrammes to the voluntary sector (ie get the community to fund them if they’re so important).
Within Labour, it’s much more about what open and transparent government might mean. Allowing people (everywhere) to intelligently participate in policy formulation. Relinquishing some control within the public sector. Making important decisions about the role of technology in driving innovation and saving money in delivering higher quality services.
Ensuring a strong commitment to NZ creative content in maintaining and continuing to forge our country’s identity and sense of place.
And one last bit that simply does not gel.
John seems to think that Labour and National are on the same page in the need for a shift in thinking on the public sector. Well I’d say yes there needs to be a shift. But the direction is different. We don’t think the same. Not about public services.
