Red Alert

Posts Tagged ‘treasury’

The state of our services

Posted by Grant Robertson on April 25th, 2011

A curious little article has appeared today quoting State Services Commissioner Iain Rennie. Curious for a couple of reasons. First, the whole thing sounds like a political statement rather than that from a public servant. I certainly accept that public services will change the way they deliver services over the next few years, and we all welcome efficiencies in the public service. But his certainty about “the next five years” (why five years?) is also curious. The part of the statement about a reduction in the number of agencies is the direction of the current government, but it looks at public services the wrong way round from my point of view. We should be looking at the kind of services we want and need, and then considering how they are best delivered, not having a fixed view about the number of agencies going into that.

The article notes that SSC itself is safe “at this stage”. There are many wondering if it does have a future, with the future shape of the public sector being driven elsewhere. The overall strategic direction is coming from Treasury. The IT services are now with the Department of Internal Affairs, and procurement initiatives are being driven by MED. SSC is limited to the employment of Chief Executives as its main function.

I actually think this is a bad thing for public services. Treasury’s role is important in terms of fiscal discipline, but the agenda of quality public services needs someone to balance the power of Treasury. We have seen in past decades that an over powerful Treasury can wreck havoc if there is not some balance in the system. In its current state SSC does not look much like that organisation, but some competition of ideas in terms of the future development of public services is vital to their future health.


A very different public service

Posted by Grant Robertson on November 11th, 2010

Yesterday, Iain Rennie the State Services Commissioner came to the Government Administration Select Committee. A bit of the discussion was about the very poor staff satisfaction and stakeholder surveys that SSC has had recently, which I covered here.

But what was also very interesting were Mr Rennie’s comments about the future shape of the public sector. Early on he said that he thought the public sector would look very different in ten years time to now. He is not talking so much about the impact of National’s on-going cuts as the long term structure of the public service.

The good news is that he talked about the importance of agencies working across boundaries more to deal with issues as they affect the public rather than through the lens of the agency. This is a good start. As previously discussed I think that breaking down the silos that operate in the public sector is a vital part of making sure we have quality 21st century services. There is a structural element to this, and it was good to see the Commissioner acknowledge that. The trick though is whether this will be tinkering at the edges or will it involve challenging some of the assumptions that underpinned the reforms of the state sector 21 years ago.

For those that follow all of this stuff perhaps the most interesting thing Iain Rennie discussed was the future shape of what are called the central agencies (DPMC, Treasury and SSC). There is already a project under way to look at shared services for those agencies in areas like IT and HR. There was also a strong hint yesterday that SSC will depart their current premises in Molesworth St when the lease runs out there, and the obvious conclusion would that they would co-locate with one or both of the other agencies.

When pressed on what the future look of the central agencies would be, Mr Rennie did not rule out mergers, though in fairness he also did not confirm them either.

While finding efficiencies in how the central agencies operate is a good thing, I would flag a concern that a merged central agency would almost certianly see a dominance of Treasury. While Treasury play an essential role in ensuring fiscal discipline, there needs to be balance in the way public services are managed. I am not suggesting SSC has done a brilliant job of that role, but I am sure that the situation would be worse if there was not a counter-weight to Treasury. The public sector system needs a champion for the quality and effectiveness of public services at the centre of decision making, not just the accountants looking at the bottom line.


The Treasury Board and the agenda for public services

Posted by Grant Robertson on September 2nd, 2010

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.


What’s going on inside MED?

Posted by Clare Curran on December 23rd, 2009

It’s interesting as a first term MP to watch what happens at the end of the year. A lot of decisions are dropped into the public arena in the week before Christmas when people have switched off and the regular media go on leave.

It’s a tactic, but it can backfire. I’ve always thought the best approach is to be upfront.

This week several things have happened in the broadband space which need commenting on and further scrutiny in early January. They indicate all is not well within the Ministry of Economic Development (MED) and with the Govt’s much touted ultrafast broadband scheme (UFB).

Firstly, Ralph Chivers, who was project managing the UFB  project within MED has upped sticks to become government relations adviser at Telecom. Go figure!

A straight up kind of bloke, Ralph is a guy who likes to get things done. Why he’s left means he wasn’t happy with the way things were going and why he went to Telecom is interesting, because Telecom feels very left out of broadband.

Meanwhile, Telecom has asked Communications Minister Steven Joyce to allow it to make a “small number of changes” to its undertakings on operational separation to allow it flexibility on ultrafast broadband.

Yeah right. This is third time this year Telecom has sought a variation. But more importantly, the variations, as I understand it are about Telecom’s positioning for whatever decision the government makes on who gets to roll out broadband. These are not small changes.

To cut to the chase, it’s my understanding that MED is not a happy place. That the broadband scheme is overly complex and bureaucratic and that there are disagreements on key aspects of it. That Treasury (led by Bill English) which doesn’t support the use of $1.5 billion of taxpayers money on what it thinks to be a folly, is standing back and watching and waiting.

And that no-one knows what to do about Telecom. More on this later, as the elephant in the room could turn the whole broadband project into a big white elephant.

And now, the Crown Fibre Holdings Company, which will administer the rollout of  UFB, has appointed a former Telecom senior executive Graham Mitchell as its new CEO. Interesting.

Meanwhile, the inscrutable Steven Joyce continues to hold his cards close to his chest.


The future highway is more than we think

Posted by Clare Curran on October 12th, 2009

I’ve been thinking a lot about broadband. Don’t switch off, keep reading because it’s more important than you might think.

We all want faster and better internet connections, but broadband is so much more than that. It’s New Zealand’s future. For the delivery of voice services yes. But there’s so much more to it.

Health, education, energy and media services are all likely to come via that new highway sooner than we think. But only if the government takes charge of it and makes sure there is public investment in the sort of sort of services that will benefit the majority of New Zealanders, and in how they will be delivered equitably.

Because the industry cannot and will not deliver the services on its own.

The advent of convergence across broadcasting and all our media is taking telecommunications out of its comfort zone.

The reality is, delivering broadband to New Zealand homes, business, schools and hospitals is not just about voice and internet services.

It’s about infrastructure, core infrastructure, that will enable other services to converge via the fibre. Of course broadband is not just fibre. It’s also  wireless and satellite services. But fibre means energy services can be delivered to your home and your smart meter (if we get the right ones) will be able to regulate your appliances to save power and keep your house running.

And we can deliver a range of social services  via broadband that will benefit our country socially and economically and transform our society. But it’ll take vision, leadership and public investment. Not just at the base infrastructure level. Which is where we’re at right now.

There are also huge potential environmental benefits both through Teleworking and real-time environmental monitoring.

The benefits for agriculture are enormous too, think about every farm being directly connected to our RS&T system. The list goes on.

Respected telecommunications analyst Paul Budde puts it like this:

In order to make this work, the government – being the linchpin in most of these sectors – will now have to make a firm commitment to sectors such as healthcare, and applications such as smart grids, using this infrastructure… it’s not just about high-speed internet… industry leadership will be a crucial factor in moving telecoms beyond telephony and broadband access.

I think the Ministry of Economic Development gets that. It’s still a bit hard to tell because despite all the announcements in recent weeks, there’s still quite a few questions that are unanswered. And I’m not sure that they’ll be able to do a lot more than pay lip service to these aims in the short term. But I have some hopes.

But I’m yet to see any signals that the government really understands what’s at stake.

Worryingly, I don’t think Treasury gets it. Just as worryingly, Telecom doesn’t get it. And that’s a big pity. Telecom is our biggest telco, it’s got a national network providing land-line telephone services to all New Zealanders. It also provides internet and mobile services. It’s been rolling out broadband.

But it appears to see itself and its future (short term because I don’t think Telecom is really thinking long term) as trying to maintain its market share as a telco.

And I say, it’s time to think outside the square, Telecom.

I think there are a range of other companies, utilities, not traditionally part of the telecommunications industry who are able to see a bigger picture and a bigger future where broadband is a vehicle. It’s not the end game.

I hope the government is able to do that too.


New ‘Clip-Ons’ at Hutt Hospital

Posted by Chris Hipkins on September 30th, 2009

This morning I attended the official opening of the Hutt Hospital’s new ‘clip-on’ operating theatres. Funding for a major redevelopment of the Hutt Hospital’s operating theatres and Emergency Department was approved by the previous Minister of Health David Cunliffe and the temporary theatres, built in containers and bolted onto the side of the existing ED, are designed to keep things moving while the more major redevelopment progresses. The new clip-on theatres were completed on time and within budget.

As I sat through the opening formalities this morning I reflected on how far we’ve progressed in the past 18 months. In mid-2008 the Treasury were advocating for Hutt Hospital’s operating theatres to be relocated to Wellington Hospital. I recall the then Associate Minister of Finance summoning up all of his usual tact and diplomacy to stomp all over the idea.

Hutt people are rightly proud of our local health service. Back in the early 1990s the then National government tried to close Hutt Hospital completely. That prompted protests the likes of which the Hutt Valley had probably never seen before or since. Let’s hope the National Party learnt their lesson from that experience and don’t come back and try again this time around.


Some restructuring ok

Posted by Trevor Mallard on September 5th, 2009

The decision to pull CCMAU back into Treasury is a good one. CCMAU hasn’t had enough scale since losing health monitoring to be as effective as it used to be. There was also duplication with the work done in the main part of the Treasury. It follows discussions that Dr Cullen and I had with Treasury last year and a review that followed.