Purchase Advisors
May 1st, 2009 at 10:21 am by David FarrarI had to laugh at this story in the Herald that has, of all people, Grant Robertson and Chris Hipkins complaining about Ministerial purchase advisors.
Grant and Chris were both highly partisan ministerial staffers for a number of Labour Ministers, including the PM. Now nothing wrong with that – I was once upon a time also. But not the people I would then choose to act outraged over Ministerial purchase advisors.
The purchase advisors are not even that political. And they are not new – I recall some in the 1990s. What they are about, is every year the Minister signs a huge purchase agreement with their Department. The Departments authors and writes it. It is a bloody good idea for the Minister to have an independent advisor who can look for feather bedding etc. These people probably save the taxpayer huge amounts of money. They are not generally full-time staffers (like Robertson and Hipkins were) but they are contracted to do a specific job. They don’t even have an office in the Beehive.
Bill explains well the good these people do:
Mr English said the purchase advisers were experienced in the public sector and been most helpful to new ministers in showing them how the system worked – “which levers to pull, what the tricks are, and what the bureaucratic jargon means”.
“We did need some objective advice because the public service had been used to getting whatever it wanted and big increases in spending every year,” he said. “The benefits would be shown through in the Budget where he had been able to make significant savings. We have had to make a pretty sudden change to respond to the economic conditions and the ministers and the purchase advisers have done a very good job.”
I suspect each advisor pays for his or her salary 20 times over. Of course Labour would hate that – they are finding and cutting the waste they left behind.
Related posts:
- More on purchase advisors
- 65 Iwi offered a chance to *purchase* shares
- Listening to the advisors
- Grant needs to work on his profile
May 1st, 2009 at 10:35 am
It is interesting to note the way young Hipkins is studying at the feet of his former Ministerial master, Trevor Mallard (whose ties he used to tie for his Minister, because despite being a grown up Trevor can’t tie his own).
Young Hipkins, don’t be fooled, Mr Mallard is not a Ben Kanobe.
Vote:May 1st, 2009 at 10:36 am
Someone needs to be advising some branches of central and local government on how to purchase technology products and services.
In my blog today I highlight just three fiascos that have appeared in the media this week.
It seems that those with access to the public purse don’t always “get it” when it comes to hi-tech.
Vote:May 1st, 2009 at 10:39 am
Don’t knw anything about Hipkins, but what has Wellington Central done to deserve such a string of no-hopers as MPs? First, the ineffectual Marion Hobbs, followed by the ultra-politically-correct Robertson, all Labour people of little relevance.
Shame on the electorate for electing these clowns. Democracy in action, I guess.
Vote:May 1st, 2009 at 10:47 am
The big difference between former ministerial staffers such as Chris, Grant and yourself (and me) and these new ‘purchase advisors’ is that we were all paid for via Vote: Ministerial Services. (I assume you were, too.)
My understanding – and perhaps you could confirm or clarify this – is that government agencies are being required to carry the cost of these Ministerial advisors within their own budgets but that they have no accountability back to the agency in the way that, say, seconded Treasury advisors do.
If Ministers feel the need to have ‘purchase advisors’ and they are unwilling to use Treasury secondees for the job, then surely the more transparent thing to have done would have been to increase the size of Vote: Ministerial Services and fund them that way?
Vote:May 1st, 2009 at 10:50 am
Also – if this new innovation of ‘purchase advisors’ is such a wonderful innovation by the new government, why haven’t they been telling us about them? In fact, it seems like the whole process has been kind of secretive . . .
Vote:May 1st, 2009 at 10:51 am
I thought that Treasury officials, and to a lesser extent the SCC and the PMs advisers, were meant to keep the nasty wastrels who spend our money, honest? Are they no longer up to the task? I know this has been done before by ministers of both colours, but on an ad hoc basis. This seems different as it looks like a permanent feature of Ministerial overview, and as such derseves a closer analysis.
Vote:May 1st, 2009 at 10:51 am
Has got the media excited although has all been worthwhile just to hear the PSA say “neutral public service” about a million times. Hypocracy can be amusing.
Tories believe in the private sector and paying good people well. That pretty much covers this story and the over $100k salaries.
I note the media never seem to have got excited about the number of “advisors to the PM” under the last government who were nothing more than Young Labour activists being paid to muck rack. Too boring?
Vote:May 1st, 2009 at 11:11 am
GRAHAM SCOTT
Treasury secretary from 1986 to 1993, serving under both Labour and National. Stood for ACT in 2005 and was fifth on its list . . .
Assigned to Finance Minister Bill English.
[DPF: I think you know being Secretary of the Treasury may just mean he got the job due to his professional background - not his political views.
And the current Treasury Secretary used to work in Labour Research Unit - are you suggesting that makes hi appointment politica]
Vote:May 1st, 2009 at 11:18 am
larryq, it’s not necessarily that the exisitng checks and balances in the system are “no longer up to the task.” The important qualifier in this is that the advisors have been appointed for a short period to give an extra pair of eyes to NEW ministers who find themselves in receipt of an overwhelming amount of information from their ministries in the early months of accepting their warrants. It’s good practice. Labour showed us what bad practice looks like.
Vote:May 1st, 2009 at 11:19 am
Danyl, Graham Scott is also well enough respected internationally that he advises as many as 10 governments all over the world on economic policy and best practice.
Vote:May 1st, 2009 at 11:26 am
And to be fair, the ACT party is the least political.
Vote:May 1st, 2009 at 11:27 am
As others have opined it must be a real bastard when a new government comes in and hires some independent people who then uncover the cronyisim and fraud that was perpertrated by you aided and abetted by officials who are now shown up to syncophants and imcompetents.
Vote:May 1st, 2009 at 11:28 am
In answer to DPF’s question about why Labour choose Grant and Chris to run this issue, perhaps it was because they are Labour’s spokespeople on the relevant portfolios (state services and internal affairs). Just a thought.
DPF: “And they are not new – I recall some in the 1990s.”
As we know, that was really a super great period for the effective delivery of quality public services in New Zealand. Loking forward to the OIAs of Graham Scott’s “new” “purchase advice” about healthcare…
And I agree with David C’s critique. That happens to me a lot. And big ups to Danyl for pointing out another obvious flaw here.
If this is the best DPF has on this topic, I predict it will continue to fester for a day or two more.
Vote:May 1st, 2009 at 11:30 am
larryq says “I know this has been done before by ministers of both colours, but on an ad hoc basis.”
Actually, if they are being paid for by government agencies, I think this is something quite new – and concerning.
Previously, people brought in from outside like this have either been paid for by Ministerial Services, or commissioned (thru the public service) to do some kind of report or review. This seems to mix the two, without the checks and balances of either.
Vote:May 1st, 2009 at 11:47 am
Also, over at The Standard, there is an accusation that English’s actions here breach s33 of the SSA. I had a look at the section, and it seems at least a plausible charge for them to make. DPF: Any comment?
If English did indeed breach the SSA, and if Key is to keep his promise to have stricter accountability for Ministers than Labour, then English would need to be fired from Cabinet. Cue: broken promise.
Vote:May 1st, 2009 at 11:56 am
I love the fact that Labour is spending parliamentary oxygen on this sort of stuff. They also spent a parliamentary question on electorate agents too. The sense of proportion the lack of focus on the voters concerns is remarkable.
Total total insiders stuff – of not one iota of concern to voters generally.
Labour appears to be a party struggling to deal with the fact that it has been disconnected from the taxpayer life support machine.
I guess when one is making little headway on other issues one focuses on the things one knows best; those things that are most comfortable: the trapping of political power.
Its also an insight into Labour’s mindset. How dear a new Government do things differently from Labour because when one gets right down to it, Labour belongs in Government.
Its this mindset that will make it difficult for Labour in 2011.
Vote:May 1st, 2009 at 12:03 pm
“Total total insiders stuff – of not one iota of concern to voters generally.”
That is the kind of argument we on the left ran about the Benson-Pope personnel issue, but we were wrong about that and he got fired within a month. You’ll recall that National spent a lot of parliamentary oxygen on that issue, and it worked for them. This is a very similar scenario, simply with the roles reversed.
Vote:May 1st, 2009 at 12:06 pm
State Sector Act 1988
33 Duty to act independently
Notwithstanding anything in section 32 of this Act, in matters relating to decisions on individual employees (whether matters relating to the appointment, promotion, demotion, transfer, disciplining, or the cessation of the employment of any employee, or other matters), the chief executive of a Department shall not be responsible to the appropriate Minister but shall act independently.
Note: the Purchase Advisors are not employees but contractors as I undertand it. Even if they were not I cannot see the problem – if the CEO thinks they are not qualitified to perform the task then they should not retain them as either employees or contractors. Simply really. And no illegality from Bill English.
Of course we should always assume a faulty understanding of the law from the standard.
Heavens I hope the students of Michigan get better attention to detail.
Vote:May 1st, 2009 at 12:13 pm
But we know Hon David Benson Pope was one of the weak links in Labour’s Ministry – the Labour Party itself finally agreed with that verdict by de-selecting him.
He contributed to aurora that the Govt was arrogant and out of touch and a bit bullying. One can understand the tactics behind targeting him.
Can’t see what Labour hopes to establish by going on about Parliamentary staffers and departmental contractors in Parliament and electorate agents.
Vote:May 1st, 2009 at 12:15 pm
Chris – If English attempted to influence a CEO decision here, whether on the initial hiring or the subsequent retention, then he is in breach of the Act. His answers certainly suggest he was involved in these decisions. Your interpretation of the Act is unreasonable, in that it allows Minister to do whatever the hell they like with the state sector simply by designating people as contractors. That seems to be a pretty new interpretation, certainly at odds with the intent of the Act, and I would be surprised if it held up in court.
Vote:May 1st, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Rob Salmond
What changed? I thought there were millions of ways to defend inappropriate and possibly illegal political apointments. I think they are wrong and heads should roll but I seem to remember Labour communications advisors running all sorts of cover when Labour were doing it.
Is it OK for Labour but not for National ?
Vote:May 1st, 2009 at 12:30 pm
What I find most stunning about this is to see Labour complaining about public service spending on consultants… Hello… what changed? It was fine last year and during the 8 years prior to that…
Labour need to take a good look in the mirror – this it’s OK when we do it but the sky is falling when you do it crap is disgusting.
Vote:May 1st, 2009 at 12:32 pm
I am sorry Rob but actually read the statutory provision.
Its doubtful that contractors are employees for the purposes of s33 of the State Sector Act 1988 by application of the plain understanding of the word employee.
Furthermore, the section does not deal with influence but rather charges the CEO to act independantly in employment matters which is all well and good.
Buts lets not be too virginal about this stuff. CEO’s will often sound out Ministers regarding Ministerial secondees from the Department – no question of illegality arises as the CEO in the end acts independently.
When it comes to contactors CEOs would I guess take the same approach; can the contactor do the job required. That assessment will be independent.
There is a good structural reason for departments to retain these contactors; it seriously incentivises them to do the job properly on the purchasing aggreement in the first place.
In this particular case there is good reason for this Govenment to get added assistance with purchasing aggreements given that its been a long time since government for some; and in other cases there is no previous Ministerial experience.
Actually its quite a good development very common sense.
Can’t see the tactical advantage for Labour in the beat up – the punters don’t care.
Vote:May 1st, 2009 at 12:47 pm
Just read s33. That is one hell of a stretch. The obligation is on the CEO to act independently so it is not immediately obvious how that obligation could be placed on the Minister. I guess it could be argued that a Minister should not assist or procure a CEO to act non-independently but you would need a partisan mind and a tail wind to make the fly.
Vote:May 1st, 2009 at 12:48 pm
No, he is the Jabber from the Hutt.
Vote:May 1st, 2009 at 12:54 pm
Rob Salmond
Ha ha… Looks like a classic case where retrospective validations are required. Hey remember the pathetic immature spin from the Labour party… It’s the way we have always done it… others were doing it too… we make the rules so we know how to interpret the rules better than some numpty on a blog. Parliament is the highest court in the land and they know what the law was supposed to say… It’s the status quo…
Oh but I forgot, It’s only OK when Labour do it.
Vote:May 1st, 2009 at 12:56 pm
Labour spin puppets must hate the fact that all the childish “They did it too” lines they have used for the last 9 years make them look like babies now.
Vote:May 1st, 2009 at 12:56 pm
burt – You and I both know that we can throw quotes at each other back and forth. I’ll see your “it is Labour hypocrisy because you guys were OK with it before” and raise you a “it is National hypocrisy because it was a hanging offense in 2007 but apparently not in 2009.” The big point is that when DPB did it he got fired – now what will happen to English?
Chris – Unless someone appointed you as official spokesperson for “the punters” I think you have no more idea what they care about than I do. I think the punters care about what the Espiners tell them about, and I think the Espiners like it when a Minister looks silly and may be breaking the law. And on you legal arguments, I think “getting influenced by a Minister” makes you somewhat less than “independent from a Minister.” Also, do you reckon all the CEOs simmutaneously had the independent idea to have, and pay for, these purchase advisers, and they just happened to be all in big spending Ministries with Ministers who need to “learn the ropes,” or maybe did the initial suggestion come from the Minister. Certainly Occum’s Razor points to the latter. And if that is the case, then a Minister setting the agenda for multiple CEOs over how they should spend their budgets on personnel is far from independent.
Vote:May 1st, 2009 at 1:02 pm
GPT1: I refer you to all the 2007 National party lines about a Ministerial staffer making a phone call to a CEO constituting a breach of the SSA.
burt – OK, fine. If National feels like legislating a retrospective amendment to the SSA, let them do it. And we’ll create the same fuss that National created with the electoral spending stuff. I think that will be advantage Labour.
Vote:May 1st, 2009 at 1:04 pm
Rob Salmond
This is the difference between you and I.
I will create a fuss irrespective of which party uses retrospective amendments to give themselves a get out of jail free card.
Vote:May 1st, 2009 at 1:07 pm
RS don’t be a total aRSe.
If you think you can equate Devid Benson-Pope situation with the employment of contractors to try and control Gummint spending and waste, youare one seriously sick puppy and will be seen as such. Telling the BIG LIE doesn’t work any more or hasn’t anyone told you that the wheel has turned?
Vote:May 1st, 2009 at 1:07 pm
Rob Salmond
Almost, it was his telling porkies about it that stuffed him. If he hadn’t denied any involvement he would have had Helen covering his ass for him. Some tootless inquiry with narrow terms would have exonerated him.
Vote:May 1st, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Well Rob if you look at the ACTUAL law the obligation is on the CEO.
Therefore, if contactors are employees and those employees were chosen at Ministrial direction of the CEO then its the CEO that is breaking the law.
Is Labour alledging that each CEO broke the law when retaining temporary contactor purchasing advisors for Ministers ?
What nonsense.
What seems to be the case is that the purchase advisors are temporary contactors retained by the departments to assist the Minister to meet their obligations as the other party to the purchasing aggreement.
As to the number and locales, heavens it would make little sense to have them in places other than where the big bucks are spent – that in itself would be wasteful.
I am not responsible for Epsiner getting the law wrong anymore than I am responsible for you getting it wrong.
What I know is that the punters dont care about this sort of stuff what they want to know is what services is the Govt providing and how much will they cost either via taxes or user pays.
Vote:May 1st, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Rob, the punters are pretty sick of the Espiners actually, and the daily papers would now actually have more value to us if they didn’t have ink on them. Once the aging baby boomers can’t read the font size any more it will be a negative proposition to distribute the papers. With TV news the value proposition is diminishing, why waste time watching the pap when we can find exactly what interests us on line? The free to air channels can’t survive on advertising revenue for long (as soon as the bulk of advertisers do a cost analysis on TV versus online advertising bang for buck then it’s all over for free to air) and pay TV already knows that news channels don’t cover costs of production, so we’ll continue to just get the overseas channels.
Vote:Back on topic, if these advisors are (as DPF suggests) worth much more their salary then why the beat-up? It’s money well spent, good for the tax payer. What will ultimately come out of this if the left (and the left sympathisers in the media) are so keen to make it an issue, will be that the left are complaining about something that the government has done which has a benefit to the tax payer. The MSM can’t steer the stories themselves any more (and they should know that by now) because the online media is bigger than them now. Similarly the left can’t try and frame it as you’d like, because it’s too easy for the facts to be found out. Two facts seem to be, it’s not illegal on English’s part, and it’s in the best interest of the tax payer.
Welcome to true democracy, where the media can’t be controlled, and where the voters get to see the real truth, not what the opposition tries to tell them it is.
May 1st, 2009 at 1:54 pm
News flash: John Key has ordered an inquiry into English’s conduct. Key has set the terms and the inquiry will be complete in 6 weeks. Expect an outcome 18 months from now.
Advisors have already talked to English warning him not to contemplate standing as an independent if he wants to avoid a police investigation.
Labour spin puppets were reported to be angry that their corrupt and partisan tactics were being used against them, one was reported to have said “’Others did it too’ only applies to Labour – this is simply not fair that the Labour standard of integrity is being used by National”
Vote:May 1st, 2009 at 1:57 pm
Are ministers (of both sides) that useless that they have to send the own auditors into government departments? Surely they and their staffers are knowledgable enough to ask the right questions. They also have the auditor general to help them. If they are not capable of running their departments (NZ is only a small country remember), why are they being paid their large salaries? Also remember the ministry is now 26? or is it 27? larger than ever, for only 4 million people.
Vote:Why do we have to support uselessness and all they hangers on that come with them?
May 1st, 2009 at 2:03 pm
burt – Yes, I have noticed how entirely above partisanship you are during your 2900 comment stint on this blog.
david – These two events are in the same category because they involve the same arguments for and against a charge of the same breach of the same Act.
Chris – You are very good. When a Minister tells a CEO to do something inappropriate and then the CEO does it, the Minister is blameless. It is all the CEO. Except when the Minister is DBP of course.
RightNow – You should send Chris a memo telling him that you are the true spokesperson for “the punters,” not him. Next, this story is important for at least reasons: (1) It is about hypocrisy from National, saying they would not politicize the public service then using vote: health and vote: education and such to bring in hired partisan guns; (2) it is about National hiding a broken promise, saying they were trimming the size of Ministerial staffs but fudging the figures by hiding extra Ministerial staff off the books. Last, are you claiming that Labour was guilty of contrlling the press. If so, I refer you to NZs press freedom rating (top 10 in world), and also Labour’s press around the EFA.
Vote:May 1st, 2009 at 2:22 pm
But who is the purchase advisor missing from the list?
Vote:May 1st, 2009 at 2:23 pm
burt, I don’t think Labour is complaining about the use of consultants, nor about the use of ‘political appointments’. It’s more about the blurring of the two!
For instance, political appointments usually refer to the appointment of supporters or former MPs to formal positions. This is generally done through the Appointments and Honours Committee and is often a statutory process. Appointees are generally paid a standard amount based on a schedule set by SSC or CCMAU.
This is clearly not the approach used with regard to Scott, Horn et al.
I think it is most unfortunate if people are being contracted in to provide private advice to Ministers outside of the appropriate channel for that, which is Ministerial Services.
I do note (from http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2376811/Secret-advisers-unmasked) that Mr English stated in his letter to colleagues, “”More enduring arrangements, possibly involving a centralised administration, will be put in place from July 1, 2009.”
Hopefully, careful consideration will be given to ensuring that these ongoing arrangements are appropriate, do not blur the lines between official and political advice, and have appropriate checks and balances.
Vote:May 1st, 2009 at 2:29 pm
I note that the Public Service Association has now asked the Auditor General to investigate “the government requiring government departments to hire and pay for political advisers”.
http://www.psa.org.nz/newsroom/mediareleases/09-05-01/PSA_asks_Auditor_General_to_investigate_govt_adviser_appointments.aspx
Good. That’s a sensible way to get some detailed consideration of the issues involved, outside of the political arena. Hopefully, the timeframes will allow this to inform Bill English’s “enduring arrangements” from 1 July.
Vote:May 1st, 2009 at 2:47 pm
The passion exhibited by Rob on this matter is more telling than his substance.
Having offered a poor reading of a statutory provision as evidence of illegality by Hon Bill English, he simply keeps digging. Even when its clear he is highly likely to be utterly wrong.
In plain reading the statutory obligation is on the CEO to be independent from Ministerial direction when it comes to employment matters with employees.
Its clear the purchasing advisors are unlikely to be employees but are instead temporary contractors.
But Rob keeps digging – a strong sense of entitlement drives this clearly.
Even if the temporary contractors are employees (which is doubtful), there is no evidence of any lack in independence in their retention. They seem qualified to do the job and must of course have the confidence of the minister.
So lets apply Salmond QC’s props:
Is Rob (Team LPG – full of Gas) seriously maintaining that Dr Graham Scott is incapable of giving the Minister of Finance technical advice on his purchasing agreement with his department?
Is Rob (Team LPG – full of Gas) seriously maintaining that the Secretary of Treasury broke the law in retaining Dr Scott on a temporary basis to assist the Minister of Finance to fulfill his obligations as the other party to the purchasing agreement?
Is Rob (Team LPG – full of Gas) seriously maintaining that certain individuals like Dr Scott are ineligible because of who he is to be a contractor (or employee) – does Labour have a persona non grata list that applies even when its not in Government (again look at the sense of entitlement)
Yes I think this is pretty close to what actually irks Dr Salmond – some New Zealanders have been declared non persons. Yet this government has the temerity to utilise them.
Of course it is open to Labour to seek a judicial review of the CEO’s decision to retain these contractors or even seek a declaration that these contractors are in fact employees for the purposes of s33 of the State Sector Act 1988. After all Labour has $5million in parliamentary funding available to it to retain the lawyers and the Courts are where illegality and procedural irregularity can be remedied.
Will they put their money (ours actually) where their mouths are: or will they too get purchasing agreement contractors when they are finally in Government – the latter I bet.
Vote:May 1st, 2009 at 2:58 pm
Responding to Chris’ increasingly hysterical points in order:
“Is Rob (Team LPG – full of Gas) seriously maintaining that Dr Graham Scott is incapable of giving the Minister of Finance technical advice on his purchasing agreement with his department?”
No.
“Is Rob (Team LPG – full of Gas) seriously maintaining that the Secretary of Treasury broke the law in retaining Dr Scott on a temporary basis to assist the Minister of Finance to fulfill his obligations as the other party to the purchasing agreement?”
No.
“Is Rob (Team LPG – full of Gas) seriously maintaining that certain individuals like Dr Scott are ineligible because of who he is to be a contractor (or employee) – does Labour have a persona non grata list that applies even when its not in Government (again look at the sense of entitlement)”
No and no..
“Yes I think this is pretty close to what actually irks Dr Salmond – some New Zealanders have been declared non persons. Yet this government has the temerity to utilise them.”
Again no.
“Of course it is open to Labour to seek a judicial review of the CEO’s decision to retain these contractors or even seek a declaration that these contractors are in fact employees for the purposes of s33 of the State Sector Act 1988.”
See David Choat’s comment above. It looks like there is another avenue – the Auditor-General. Good for the PSA for asking for this review, and I agree with David C’s comments about its timeliness and non-partisan nature.
“Will they put their money (ours actually) where their mouths are: or will they too get purchasing agreement contractors when they are finally in Government – the latter I bet.”
You’ll notice we did not have said advisers when last in government, despite (as DPF says) the fact this practice may have existed in the 1990s. Instead, political advice came from where it was supposed to come from – vote: Ministerial Services. That is the issue here. There is a way of procuring this kind of political advice that maintains transparency and proper lines of accountability. But National chose to ignore it and get the advice in a completely different, non-transparent way which blurs accountability lines.
Vote:May 1st, 2009 at 2:59 pm
Chris,
Leaving aside the specific issue of legality, is it appropriate and desirable for the government to require government agencies to hire Dr Scott and co out of departmental budgets, with what at least appear to be little or no checks and balances or accountability arrangements?
Wouldn’t it be better to be done through Vote: Ministerial Services instead? Or perhaps some arrangement through Treasury whereby the advisors were accountable via the Secretary to the Treasury?
And why all the secrecy??
Vote:May 1st, 2009 at 3:05 pm
I would add to the last para in Rob’s last comment that, alongside the political advice they received, Labour ministers were also very well served (as I’m sure their National predecessors were) by secondees from the Treasury.
Most Ministers in charge of the main spending portfolios had Treasury secondees in their offices to assist with Budget and Vote related issues.
Vote:May 1st, 2009 at 3:06 pm
But who is the purchase advisor missing from the list?
I’m pretty sure it’s either Starbuck or Adama, but don’t ruin it for me.
Vote:May 1st, 2009 at 3:08 pm
Comment of the week.
Vote:May 1st, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Well of course its David and Rob asserting that these contractors are political advisors and not providing technical advice on the basis of their particular experience and skill.
Conflation of two different sorts of beasts doesn’t make the underlying assertion correct.
If we take the case of Dr Graham Scott for example – I wonder what political advice he would offer Bill English. I also doubt that English wants more political advice. Scott is much more of a High Priest of public policy and of course a previous Secretary of Treasury. He is hugely experienced.
Whatever his many skills I doubt he himself would offer his services as a political advisor – it would be …. well….. sort of….. well beneath him.
Now of course Dr Salmond (who was a political advisor rather than a public policy expert) is free to disagree with Graham Scott’s approach to public policy. That’s fine that’s democracy.
But this buzzing about like an angry wasp doesn’t usually come from Labour’s concern about state sector laws generally or for matter of political illegality.
No. No. Its actually about the contractors as individuals. They are non citizens. Whatever views about public policy that can be assumed or inferred, their ideas are verboten “so 1990′s” consigned to the dustbin of history “we have all moved on” etc.
And that means they are not permitted to earn a living plying their trade here.
The leftwing often personalise their politics this is but one more example.
Vote:May 1st, 2009 at 3:37 pm
But of the real issue we punters want to know is whether the quality and the quantity of the spending is in the best interests of the citizens
Now I know that is a novel suggestion for the pollies the cardy wearers and their supporters but that folks is the guts of the issue.
Am I getting good value for my tax dollar And as I have had a few (cough) years of determining the value of spending in all sorts and sizes of organisations I would dearly love to get my hands on the files of these departments to find out for myself.
So far the perception is not good In fact it is very very bad. I would hope to be proved otherwise but I fear the low quality high cost model as outlined in Richard Prebbles books on the late 70s early 80s hasnt changed except the numbers are now a lot bigger.
Vote:May 1st, 2009 at 3:39 pm
Chris – I see that you aren’t actually interested in conversing on this issue. Rather you appear interested in plying a paranoid conspiracy theory that someone in Labour keeps an Orwellian list of unpersons which we might then try to foist on others by any means necessary. You also seem to believe that you know more than me about what goes on inside my own head. Enjoy your fantasies. – Rob
Vote:May 1st, 2009 at 3:51 pm
Chris,
I personally have no problem with Mr English making use of Dr Scott’s services if he chooses, or with the Treasury (or other agencies) doing so if they choose to. The issue is transparency and accountability.
The disagreement about ‘political advisor’ probably comes down to semantics. I’d distinguish between politically-neutral public servants who serve the government of the day, and those who serve the interests and goals of the particular government in office at the time. It’s possible that an individual might operate as both at different points of of their career (obviously, Dr Scott was a public servant when at Treasury). The second group might provide “political advice” in the sense that you mean Chris, and/or they might also provide more technical/policy-oriented advice, as you assume, Chris (no doubt correctly) that Dr Scott does. Either way, I’d tend to call them ‘political advisors’ to distinguish them from public servant advisors. You may prefer a different term – that’s fine.
Even so, I think we can agree that these purchase advisors are not operating as public servants, in the usual sense of the term?
Vote:May 1st, 2009 at 3:56 pm
National decide that having a few independent auditors to check up on the performance of departments would be a good thing. 99% of people instinctively think “that’s a great idea… somebody SHOULD be looking for waste and doing something about it”. So Labour decide to back the other 1%, on the basis that public servants must be free to spend money and no one who isn’t a public servant, especially the minister, has ANY right to check on what that spending is being used for. Then, when challenged, they start arguing that the issue is that the auditors and advisors should be paid out of our taxes via the ministerial services vote, rather than out of our taxes via departmental votes.
Who is advising the Opposition that backing the public service unions on this issue is a better strategy than backing every other man, woman, and child in NZ? Who is advising them that fighting the issue on the basis of a bookkeeping technicality is a winner? There is a level of ineptitude where you can enjoy laughing at Labour’s hopelessness, but Labour are well in to cringing-at-their-embarrassment territory.
Vote:May 1st, 2009 at 3:58 pm
gd,
Vote:I agree that effective public spending is important. Part of that is appropriate accountability and transparency for ministerial advice.
May 1st, 2009 at 4:29 pm
David
Look the politically neutral public service offers up the purchasing agreement to a new Minister (who may or may not have had previous ministerial experience )in a new Government. In that document the neutral public service put it’s best foot forward.
Then the issue is how to facilitate the Minister fulfilling their obligations as their OTHER party to the purchasing agreement.
Clearly one cannot get the department to do this – it cannot scrutinize the quality of its own work itself its own offer of services.
One could draw expertise from other departments assuming they have not already had input into the document and have sufficient capacity. However even if one did this the Minister would have to have a level of comfort that the person is experienced enough clearly understands the government’s programme. In essence we would be talking about very senior public servants.
The other alternative to is for the department to retain a sufficiently qualified and experienced short term contractor to assist the Minster. The department is then assured that the Minister is comfortable with the appointee, and the capacity of other senior employees in other Departments isn’t diverted away from their existing work progammes.
I regard political advisors as those primarily giving political advice. Ministers have an ongoing need for this, and that is provided for by Ministerial Services employees. Should Ministerial services provide an alternative stream of public policy advice via what you call political advisors – probably not. Political advisors do stray into public policy issues of but their primary focus is the politics.
Are the short term contractors political advisors then. No. Their primary focus is to assist with a short term project: the purchasing agreement. They will be older and far more experienced than the political advisors with significant public policy expertise and experience. Their focus isn’t on the day to day politics of the Minister but rather on the agreement itself and the options open to the Minister that are consistent with the Government’s stated programme.
I am not sure what accountability issues one has with this for if the Department CEO does not think they are skilled or experienced enough to assist the Minister as the other party to the purchasing agreement then they would not contract them.
Vote:May 1st, 2009 at 4:59 pm
In the end, it is up to the government to justify how it spends or does not spend its money, it is the media’s and opposition’s job to bring them to account.
Vote:National and ACT have railed for years about the money wasted on ministerial advisors and consultants for no public benefit. With the resources of the entire public service and their own ministerial staffs it is up to the ministers to justify to the public why they need to spend $1500 a day on more advisors. Advisors who should be paid on production, not who or what they were.
It will be interesting to see how they defend themselves.
May 1st, 2009 at 5:42 pm
Chris
I appreciate that thoughtful last comment, and appreciate the dilemma for MInisters you describe, but I still disagree with you about the probity of the particular arrangement for getting purchase advisors.
It would be entirely possible to address the concerns you raise through something much more like the approaches used by previous National and Labour governments, without getting into murky accountability and transparency arrangements.
An obvious way would be through the Treasury, which has overall responsibility to the government for ensuring quality spending decisions. As I’ve noted previously, Treasury can second people into Ministerial offices to help them manage Vote issues like the ones you describe.
Or probably something very like the current purchase advisor corps could be set up within Treasury, with far more traditional accountability arrangements.
Alternatively, they could be funded through Ministerial office budgets. No need to call them political advisors if you don’t want to, although I’d note that the range of age, experience and tasks of ministerial advisors varies more over time, govts and different ministers than you allow for.
There are a range of other options, I’m sure.
In short, the approach that seems to have been taken – funded through departments yet not bound to be ‘politically-neutral’ and not subject to usual accountabilities – was by no means the only way they could have dealt with the issues you raise. And – given the secrecy – I can’t help but feel that the reasons for choosing that particular approach may not have been primarily about getting ‘value for money’ spending.
All reasons why having the Auditor-General work through these issues and helping sort out an approach which meets the test of probity seems to me a very welcome development. And hopefully will lead to an approach that meets your aims while addressing my concerns as well! You never know . . .
Vote:May 1st, 2009 at 6:15 pm
Yeh but he’s an extremely astute politician and quite likeable. Of course, his politics really stink, but he’s OK.
Vote:May 1st, 2009 at 9:03 pm
Rob Salmond
One link, go on – find one single link where I’ve supported the same thing in one party that I have complained about in another. I challenge you to find one – if you can’t then perhaps you could apologise ?
Vote:May 1st, 2009 at 9:08 pm
You have 2900 to choose from…..
Vote:May 1st, 2009 at 9:37 pm
Right now some polar bear somewhere is in need of a hug
Vote:May 1st, 2009 at 9:37 pm
Trevor Mallard (53) Vote: 3 4 Says:
May 1st, 2009 at 2:22 pm
But who is the purchase advisor missing from the list?
Rob Salmond
“Yes I think this is pretty close to what actually irks Dr Salmond – some New Zealanders have been declared non persons. Yet this government has the temerity to utilise them.”
Again no.
Are you sure you Labour guys are singing from the same song sheet, or did Trevor just muff his lines.
Vote:May 1st, 2009 at 11:11 pm
This is not a serious story when it is beng run by a couple of backbenchers.
Vote:May 2nd, 2009 at 4:13 am
burt
My claim was that you are highly partisan, not that you are a proven hypocrite.
You may have noticed that National has not been in charge very long, meaning they have not had much of a chance to commit the same mistakes as Labour. That makes it hard to empirically test your claim at this stage. Nonetheless there is one case – this one. National stands accused of inappropriately politicizing the public service, something National accused Labour of in 2007. In 2007 you were critical of this alleged practice (google “Setchell” burt” site:kiwiblog.co.nz and see). Apparently not so in 2009.
Having shown some (albeit preliminary) evidence in favor of the charge I did not make, now here is evidence of the charge I did make. Here is you putting partisan considerations above even what you believed to be the good of the country:
“As a person who’s quite keen to see the end of Labour and their “Labour party first” policies I was actually sad that DB-P was forced to go, he would have been a great liability for Labour to carry into an election.”
(from http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/07/dbp_comments.html)
The problem, burt, with sitting on a high moral perch is that you can’t see when it starts eroding away.
Vote:May 2nd, 2009 at 7:56 am
“The problem, with sitting on a high moral perch is that you can’t see when it starts eroding away.”
speaking from lots of experience of course (but you just keep climbing right back up there)
Vote:May 2nd, 2009 at 8:41 am
Rob Salmond
Hello… Just earlier in this thread I said; “What changed? I thought there were millions of ways to defend inappropriate and possibly illegal political appointments. I think they are wrong and heads should roll but I seem to remember Labour communications advisors running all sorts of cover when Labour were doing it.
Heads should roll… Yep thats’ really supporting them eh Rob. I hope you stayed awake all night to fail like that. What a dweeb.
Vote:May 2nd, 2009 at 9:22 am
burt
1. I had read the “heads should roll” comment you reference above as a reference to he 2007 incidents. If you meant them to apply today as well, then I apologize for my error.
2. I wonder if you could substantiate your position here. Whose heads, specifically, do you think should roll in this case? English’s? The CEOs of Health, Education, Treasury, etc? Who? C’mon – have the courage of your moral convictions and spell out exactly what you mean by “heads should roll.” You will win further praise from me if you detail what you think should happen.
3. Does this mean that all this stuff about stupid lefties etc on this thread was actually your way of **agreeing** with us?
4. I note you did not respond to my evidence in favor of the claim I originally made.
5. “dweeb” – oh no, how ever will I cope?
Vote:May 2nd, 2009 at 12:59 pm
Rob
You seem to be confusing being partisan with having political opinions and preferences. I make no attempt to hide my disdain for Labour over the last two terms. The complete self serving nature of Labour was a disgrace. The pathetic school boy retorts that were used to justify some of the shit they got up to were also a disgrace. “We weren’t the only ones doing it… National did it as well… etc. I have for much of my life been a Labour voter and who knows I may be again one day – but this won’t happen till such time as they remember the voting public are they people who’s best interests should be first.
To address your points;
1. I was most certainly meaning that political appointments are wrong irrespective of which party makes them. My other comment of I will create a fuss irrespective of which party uses retrospective amendments … should have been a pretty big clue that I didn’t think National should be able to get away with this, if it is what they have been doing. Two wrongs don’t make a right so National stacking the public service full of “their people” is not the remedy to Labour having done that for 9 years.
2. I don’t want your praise, given you support Labour doing shit that you think makes the sky fall when National do it I would find your praise offensive. But to address the question… Who ever made the political appointments should be held to account – perhaps you could tell me who it was because I was talking about it on a principle level. If it’s English then it would be a shame to see him rolled as I respect him but if he’s done the crime he should do the time. Likewise if it’s the CEO’s – same applies.
3. Yes I agree with you that if theses are political appointments they are wrong. I thought they were wrong when Labour was doing it so I didn’t agree with you on political appointments in the past but in this case I do.
4. See my opening comment, DB-P was a disgrace, the way Labour protected him was a disgrace. Since it seemed that he was never going to be held accountable the best case scenario (from my perspective) was that his liability factor was also being retained by Labour.
5. Get over it.
Vote:May 3rd, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Rob Salmond
I see from the SST that Bradley is going to be looking into this. What a laugh eh, the same “ref” that made a “bad call” over the 2005 election spending and was told that parliament know more about the intent of the law than he does.
If Bradley alleges that laws have been broken then just like last time I’ll be calling for a court case to sort it all out – how about you?
Vote: