100 more diplomats
Winston Peters has had a $621 million increase for MFAT funding, over five years which will deliver 100 more diplomats.
Now this is a quirk of MMP. Ministers from parties not in Government can demand any amount of extra money from the Finance Minister, with the implicit threat of walking if they do not get it. This is no special skill.
We saw similiar last budget with a huge increase in funding for NZ Aid. But is an increase in quantity the same as an increase in quality? Well the Auditor-General reported that there were significant problems with how NZ Aid accounted in the field for its funding.
Now where does some of the funding go:
An increase in trade policy capacity, overseas and in Wellington, to push towards trade negotiations with key markets such as Korea, Japan, the United States, India and Mexico.
So Winston has managed to get more funding for trade policy staff, so he can then campaign against the trade agreements they negotiate. Is that not just a bit perverse?
Congratulations must go to MFAT though for taming their Minister so sucessfully. Ministries will forgive any manner of sins in a Minister so long as they bring home the bacon for them.
April 17th, 2008 at 8:20 am
Under Key 100 must lose their job elsewhere so this can go ahead
April 17th, 2008 at 8:33 am
Oh great… our taxes paying for bureaucrats to meaninglessly push paper around and then, just when it looks like they’ll never do ~anything~, they whip out a treaty with a communist dictatorship that forces us to accept unwanted population movements. Oh well done, Winston
April 17th, 2008 at 8:34 am
Under Labour 50,000 families must struggle to service their mortgage for this to go ahead.
April 17th, 2008 at 8:48 am
All this for six hundred and twenty one dollars?
Did we miss one magic letter there David?
April 17th, 2008 at 8:52 am
Ghostie3
Your point is?
Should every person employed by the government be guaranteed a job for life? Once a Ministry or Department assumes a function, it should never be allowed to reduce or end its involvement?
I think the new initiative is a good idea, as it is highly likely that NZ gets more return (on average) from its officials stationed in overseas postings than from those writing each other memos in Wellington. Given the tens of thousands of new public service jobs created in the past decade, are you seriously suggesting that departmental heads would be unable to identify 100 low-priority workers. You wouldn’t even need to fire anyone – natural attrition sees hindreds leave the public service every month, with hundreds more hired to replace them. If the public service is really unable to carry out its functions on current staffing levels with some re-prioritising, then we really must be as incompetent as some posters here suggest.
Now, back to my pile of memos…
April 17th, 2008 at 8:54 am
So you are saying, that as a trading nation we shouldn’t be chasing Free Trade deals. Further considering that the US is possibly the next cab off the ranks and they love his pants, this is the time we shouldn’t be focusing on trade.
The FTA with China is a big deal for this nation. Add to that any subsequent deals done with other nations who’s conditions may be better than ours, our terms are upgraded to meet these.
Already Western Nations whom are uncomfortable trading with China are looking at trading via NZ to get to the Massive Chinese market.
OK fair enough, not sure how large the internal economy is to service this nation under you guys.
You people are reactionary to the point that you will happily go against anything that is good for the economy just because it’s a Labour or Winston initiative. Funny come November that guy will be in the mix somewhere if you guys are looking for coalition partners.
Back to my original point, we shouldn’t be actively seeking FTA’s, considering all week long we have been told how foreign relations in NZ actually means Foreign Trade.
April 17th, 2008 at 8:55 am
ghostwhowalks3 8:20 am,
says “Under Key 100 must lose their job elsewhere so this can go ahead.”
gww3, I think you meant to say,
“Under Key 100 who leave, from their own choice over time will not be replaced, so this can go ahead.”
A pretty good outcome from my point of view.
April 17th, 2008 at 9:21 am
I have to admit this does look like a bit of ad hocery, although I am sure that MFAT did some sort of assessment of the “needs” in this area — after all, that’s what they’re supposed to be good at anyway.
But, do we need to spend this much money to increase our negotiating capacity for trade arrangements? Exactly how much of the $621m is going in this direction, actually?
Shouldn’t we be spending this sort of money on the salaries of the underpaid (in terms of the international labour market) doctors, other health professionals, academics, etc, rather than more well-paid bureaucrats?
Just what does MFAT do in the age of fax machines, the internet and cable TV, apart from said trade policy/negotiations and administration of a little aid? Couldn’t we do a deal with the Aussies and outsource a lot of the consular and other lesser work that embassies do to them? Is NZ so important in international affairs that we need to spend sooo much on policy advice in this area? Indeed, couldn’t a lot of that work be provided by the Aussies?
April 17th, 2008 at 9:37 am
“Shouldn’t we be spending this sort of money on the salaries of the underpaid (in terms of the international labour market) doctors, other health professionals, academics, etc”
possibly, but if we can increase the trade of this nation, then this nation gets wealthier and we are able to pay these people more. Further as trade markets are opened further opportunities such as agreements around research and universities also increase, giving these guys greater access to fundamental research facilities overseas to apply to NZ.
April 17th, 2008 at 9:38 am
I think they deserve a bit more than $621.
April 17th, 2008 at 10:19 am
Sorry, Paul, generally I agree with the tenor of what you say, but not this time.
Having looked at the news reports, it doesn’t look like more than a fraction of this huge increase will go to trade negotiations. Maybe some of the new diplomats will be trade specialists, but how many exactly?
We need a detailed analysis of the benefits of an enhanced “international presence” so that we can determine whether the money is well spent, and whether this spending should take priority over the alternatives. Do you have any evidence for the putative spin-offs that you mention? Too often the benefits in this area are assumed.
Bottom line: if it’s a toss-up between a new embassy in Stockholm, or saving more lives in NZ, I’m going with the health spending.
April 17th, 2008 at 10:47 am
Here’s another quote from Michael Bassett:
From “The 2008 Electon Prospects”:
“……Controlling the parameters of political debate is something that this government excels at. Helen Clark spends a prodigious amount of time managing public opinion. Her principal acolytes are young, mostly female journalists. Deep down, they regard her as a kindly aunt or big sister, and they happily cooperate, especially when any government critic can be dismissed as politically incorrect. Ministers get away with turning the discourse into playing the man, not the ball. A recent example: when Murray McCully embarked on a footling line against Kordia’s involvement with cell-phone towers in Myanmar, Helen Clark dismissed it by abusing McCully. Another issue: the emigration of skills that has reached serious proportions, is often dismissed as the exit of anti-Labour voters, and therefore a matter of no consequence, or even cause for celebration. Jim Anderton’s early promise to entice them all home has been long forgotten.
On a grand scale, nothing illustrates better this general tactic of playing the man, not the ball, than the brouhaha over the Exclusive Brethren. You will all recall their leaflets at the time of the 2005 election. I am more politically alert than most, but I missed them when delivered, and I had to painstakingly search through my waste-paper bin to find them. They would have had no impact on voters until Labour gave them legs. I analysed the one on the Greens, checking it against their manifesto. I concluded that all but one of the Brethren’s comments were fair. Did any newspaper, radio or TV journalist dissect any of those pamphlets? Not on your Nelly. To their eternal shame, journalists meekly took their lead from the Prime Minister who attacked the pamphlets’ authors, and their religion, never dealing with the issues they had raised. We now seem to inhabit a world where no one can debate things in a manner that Helen Clark doesn’t approve of. I know of three cases recently where bona-fide Labour Party members who have written or said something publicly that the Beehive didn’t like, have received phone calls or emails from ministers telling them to pull their heads in. When someone the government disapproves of appears on something as harmless as National Radio’s Jim Mora Show, Beehive apparatchiks send emails protesting. I’ve seen the messages. Newspaper articles by critics of the government activate a Beehive letter-writing tree. In Auckland Jenny Kirk, her husband Owen, her brother-in-law Jeff Saunders, and at least half a dozen others rush into print with letters to the Herald, the contents of which have a common origin, the Beehive. I possess a Ruth Dyson email urging her supporters to protest about me to the Christchurch Press.
This is a very oppressive government. Peter Fraser fought for freedom of the press, believing always that the interests of workers would be best served by full and free debate. Modern Labour operates in another space. It uses sycophants to confine debate to areas where Labour is more comfortable. Everything else gets ridiculed. Imprisoning ideas is Labour’s cardinal rule, and they have been extremely successful at it. The Electoral Finance Act is just the latest installment.
Nowhere is this oppressiveness more apparent than when someone tries to debate social policy. Sometimes I don’t know whether to laugh or to cry at the huge state resources poured into avoiding the expanding elephant in our room. The collapse of the two-parent household, and of self-reliance, has become a Kiwi tragedy. Radio and TV perpetually carry stories that any sensible person can see indicates that a sizeable chunk of Maori and Polynesian society is collapsing. Labour’s policies propel that collapse with a rocket in the tail. There are parts of Northland, South Auckland, Rotorua and Taupo that are now no-go areas at night. The Domestic Purposes Benefit didn’t cause the breakdown of two parent households, but it gave it a permanent adrenalin rush. However, Labour resists debating the DPB like the devil shuns incense. Journalists like Simon Collins of the Herald produce barmy explanations for family collapse that refuse to get to grips with readily available social statistics……..”
April 17th, 2008 at 10:50 am
SORRY, WRONG THREAD!
April 17th, 2008 at 11:05 am
Typo correction
For ‘hindred’ read ‘hundred’.
And there haven’t been tens of thousands of public service jobs created this decade. I was aiming for either ‘tens of thousands of public service jobs’ or ‘thousands of public service jobs created this decade’ and ended up with elements of both. Which is incorrect. I obviously need a cup of tea and a calming read of The Dominion.
I must put in a good word for The Hive (http://wellingtonhive.blogspot.com/). It is always worth looking at their take on matters concerning foreign affairs.
In this case, they are pleased with the increase, less so with the posturing of Winston, our Minister of some but not all foreign affairs.
http://wellingtonhive.blogspot.com/2008/04/winstons-speechh-highlights-absurdity.html
Jafapete
I assume you have compared the salary band of senior MFAT officials with pay rates in comparable agencies overseas, or with the large multilateral agencies that many NZ diplomats go to work for. I haven’t but I would be surprised if the gap was any smaller for diplomats that it was for doctors. And yes, MFAT does have significant retention problems as staff get more senior, and therefore more employable elsewhere.
You say to Paul (regarding increased spending on diplomats) “Do you have any evidence for the putative spin-offs you mention? Too often benefits in this area are assumed.”
The same is even more true of your suggested increase in health spending. Pouring another $621 million into health is, to be honest, not even going to be noticed. Spending increases of this size are practically an annual event, and it is remarkably hard to find any measurable benefits for the money.
The $621 million increase for international relations is a once-in-a-decade boost that is supposed to enable MFAT to significantly expand its international presence. While there is no hard evidence that this will bring substantial benefits, there IS very good evidence that a few hundred million more won’t fix our health system.
April 17th, 2008 at 11:32 am
bobux,
I don’t know why you assume that I would call for more detailed cost-benefit appraisals of spending in one area, and not support further work on monitoring spending and assessing priorities in another area.
Your comments on health spending seem to be overly informed by right-wing blogs and sensationalist reporting. With few exceptions, the health boards in NZ are doing a much better job than people are prepared to give them credit for. I have no doubt that they could actually spend the money to good effect. Have you noticed that the junior doctors are about to strike? Does “herceptin” ring any bells?
April 17th, 2008 at 11:35 am
Well said Phil ( I think ) ,not sure what it’s got to do with employing 100 more tit suckers.
Prehaps they can employ the 100 that have just lost their jobs at F&P but I doubt if any of these people would be suitable, they may actually do some work. And I’m sure they are not trained in the fine arts of black label and fine wine tasting or the ability to eat copious amounts of caviar.
I say quality not quantity, this sort of work should only go to those who have earned their right to speak for NZ not some PS tit sucker whoes only claim to fame is an enhanced ability to suck more tit then others ( i.e Winnie ).
April 17th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
jafapete Sigh A ‘needs’ analysis in the civil service goes like this.
HOD to Executive Committee “How much extra do we need next year?”
What do we have on the Minister? New girl/boy friend? Been visiting the “Clubs”?
April 17th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
Winston clearly need some more spin doctors attached to our foreign embassies, more extravagant cocktail parties, and larger Maori Haka Groups, and larger expense account for all. Its amazing how quickly six hundred million disappears when you are having fun.
April 17th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
This is why National has to get in on its own, so it won’t have anyone holding it to ransom with pork barrel extravagances.
$621 MILLION?!
April 17th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
jafapete
“I don’t know why you assume that I would call for more detailed cost-benefit appraisals of spending in one area, and not support further work on monitoring spending and assessing priorities in another area.”
Well, that is because you DID call for all those things in relation to the increased foreign affairs spending. You DIDN’T make the same call in relation to health spending, but simply suggested that more spending means more lives saved.
I am pleased to learn that you think all increased spending bids should be subject to detailed cost-benefit appraisals and monitoring. I’m right with you on that. In the absence of this information, my guess is that increased spending on foreign affairs will be better for New Zealand than increased spending on health. You think the opposite – both are defensible positions.
It isn’t just right-wing blogs and sensationalist media questioning the impact of increased health spending. Lok the the last Treasury report on health (early 07, from memory). It made precisely this point in considerable detail.
And yes, I have heard of the junior doctors strike. And the cleaners strike before that. And the nurses stop-work before that. And the difficult negotiations with the Salaried Medical Professionals (or whatever they call themselves) before that. This is largely my point. The health sector is so large and so expensive already, another $120 million a year is scarcely going to be noticed.
April 17th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
gd
“Sigh A ‘needs’ analysis in the civil service goes like this.”
“HOD to Executive Committee “How much extra do we need next year?”
“What do we have on the Minister? New girl/boy friend? Been visiting the “Clubs”?
Care to fill us in on how many years you spent in the upper ranks of the public sector to see this behavior? Or in Minister’s offices?
Got any evidence of this kind of behavior? If you don’t, any reason why we should believe you?
April 17th, 2008 at 10:54 pm
Assuming that there is some serious parliamentary scrutiny of the expenditures, this does not sound like a bad idea in spite of the election year politics involved. With the US inevitably destined to emphasise more “soft”power approaches after the November elections (which NZ is good at) and the UN seemingly more rudderless than usual (where NZ has considerable cachet), directed expenditure on focused foreign policy areas of core interest to NZ seems appropriate given the surpluses of the moment. Although not as sexy as domestic policy in terms of voter appeal, good foreign policy allows NZ to punch above its weight internationally, and at a minimum, keeps it out of international conflicts without cause. Given that NZ diplomats are also this country’s eyes and ears (as in early warning system) abroad, and because they tend to be well-trained as well as considered to be non-aligned in terms of their representation of NZ’s national interests as well as sincere in their reporting back to Wellington, augmenting the diplomatic corps abroad along with Wellington based MFAT staff for NZ$621 million over five years (NZ$160.25 million per year) does not seem excessive to me because it is an investment in the country’s long-term international position. Put anther way: there is much to be mined in the field of foreign relations, and although I have my doubts about the utility of the PRC FTA over the long-term (at least in terms of its impact on NZ economic sovereignty), I fully understand the need for NZ to capitalise on the window of opportunity presented by this post 9-11, post neoliberal “pause” in international affairs. If elected, National should refine but not reverse this decision, which of course is true for Labour regardless of what the current Foreign Minister decides to do in pursuit of his political fortune. I think that even the Greens and ACT could agree on this one, pet projects notwithstanding.
Having read the MFAT document outlining the policy areas to which the projected budgetary injection will be directed, I have some specific quibbles about emphasis and direction. I would think that better political-military analysis in general, and better political-military analysis in specific priority areas like the SW Pacific, should be funded by this initiative given the intelligence failures of recent years (think recent crises in Fiji, Tonga and the Solomons, which apparently caught the SIS unawares and forced military contingency planning–and deployments–that might have been averted had better diplomatic traffic been available). The trade aspects of the budgetary boost also need further consideration for a host of reasons. I shall not belabor them here.
In sum, contrary to the expressed opinions of the blog administrator and some of the commentators above, I would vote for the budget increase for MFAT regardless of the Minister in charge because it serves the national interest in more ways than one.
April 17th, 2008 at 11:05 pm
gidday paul..
‘break a leg’ with your appeal..!
eh..?
aside from ‘natural justice’..
there’s lots of us want to see you back here..
chrs/rgds..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
April 18th, 2008 at 3:52 am
Paul Buchanan:
An off-topic bouquet for you: you always bring an intellectual (and balanced) perspective to Kiwiblog, which I particularly appreciate.
April 18th, 2008 at 8:00 am
POC
I’ll second that.
While still reserving the right to quibble with Dr Buchanan, of course.
April 18th, 2008 at 9:01 am
Paul,
Not a quibble, just seeking clarification. Which budget do NZ’s external intelligence gathering activites come under? We used to have a separate agency that did that, although after their performance on Iraq that may have changed.
A little quibble. What does “punch above its weight internationally” really mean? Why should we particularly want to? A moral imperative? An economic one? That opens up some interesting lines of discussion.
Lastly, congratulations on the win the aother week, even if you did not achieve your real goal first off. It might make some people at UA think before behaving that way again. (You can’t reply to that comment for legal reasons, I know.) I thought that the weakest part of the ERA’s decision was justifying the decision not to reinstate, so wish you every success in the EC.
April 18th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Cheers guys for the good wishes. I enjoy this blog in spite of some of the weirdness because it addresses important issues and provides a forum for some of the more reasoned debate on them (the fore-mentioned weirdness notwithstanding). As for the employment case, I cannot say much except I expect to win and look forward to the full facts of the matter being aired in open court. The sooner I can get back to NZ and resume teaching and research, the happier I will be.
As for the specific questions. NZ punches above its weight because it has an independent, autonomous foreign policy grounded in notions of multilateralism and and mediated conflict resolution that allows it some degree of flexibility when confronting vexing international issues. Besides the high quality of the diplomatic corps in general, NZ puts bodies and money behind its diplomatic rhetoric and generally adheres to principle rather than expediency when engaging the global community (except, perhaps, trade in recent years, and that is worth a separate discussion). All of this makes for the most important reason NZ gets more international respect than its geo-strategic position and size would otherwise deserve (although our smallness factors into the equation because NZ poses no threat to anyone): it is considered an honest broker by most if not all of the major international players on the full gamut of policy issues. That gives NZ input it otherwise would not have, which I think is a good thing both for the national interest as well as for the international community.
Think of it this way: what country with the population size of NZ has anything close to the same amount of international diplomatic respect? Uruguay and Singapore have similar population sizes yet do not carry the same amount of diplomatic weight in spite of their respective national attributes. Perhaps the Swiss have a similar standing in the international community, but when I think of the size-to-diplomatic influence ratio, it seems to me that NZ is near or at the top. This makes me wonder why NZ is not lobbying for one of the rotating Security Council seats, because if anything NZ would be a non-controversial choice that would garner majority support from the General Assembly. I think a Kiwi strategic-diplomatic perspective might do some good within that forum.
Although I am not entirely certain, my understanding is that intelligence operations are separated out as a budget category that is overseen by the PM’s office (since the PM is Minister of Intelligence and Security). A fair bit of that budget appears to be “black” or at least “grey.” That is, allocations are unspecified or obliquely alluded to, presumably because of the sensitive nature of the activities being funded. It should be of interest that the NZSIS budget has increased almost 50 percent since 2002 while its personnel has increased 30 percent (to a little over 200). Likewise, the GCSB has enjoyed significant budgetary increases, although most likely is destined for technological upgrades rather than personnel recruitment. We can always speculate as to the reasons why these increases have been authorised given the threat environment in which NZ is located, but I will merely note that the number of human intelligence collectors is still quite small, which makes NZ rely on its diplomats and intelligence liaison partners for both futures forecasting and real-time information streams not obtainable through open sources.
Quibbles welcome, of course.
April 19th, 2008 at 10:14 am
Thanks Paul for your lengthy response. I’ll just say here that I don’t disagree with your analysis of the sources of NZ’s international position. But if our ability to punch above our weight is because we have “an independent, autonomous foreign policy grounded in notions of multilateralism and and mediated conflict resolution that allows [us] some degree of flexibility when confronting vexing international issues”, I am left wondering all the more whether spending another $621m will make much difference. I can see how we might be better able to explain our independent positions at the margins, but can’t see how the money will enhance the independent nature of our positions, or any other aspect of the underpinning moral authority. Some might even argue that we got into this position by ignoring certain advice.
But that’s something I look forward to discussing with you at greater length on your return to Auckland.