Labour’s neutral public service
September 14th, 2010 at 2:57 pm by David FarrarGrant Robertson often goes on and on about the need for a neutral public service. He gets all pious at minor issues such as funding of purchase advisors. So it is interesting to see him make such a partisan attack on the new Director-General of Health:
Tony’s new man says fewer doctors and nurses ok
Grant knows the Minister does not appoint the Director-General – the SSC does. But he is already trying to undermine Dr Kevin Woods.
After reportedly failing to convince 19 people who were shoulder tapped for the job
Then we have what can only be called a blatant lie. This makes Dr Woods appointment sounds like a desperate appointment of someone unqualified. In fact Dr Woods currently runs a health system 25% bigger than New Zealand’s.
I dont know much about Dr Woods yet, but first impressions are not great. According to the Dom Post he oversaw the axing of 1500 nursing positions during his tenure in Scotland.
The Director-General of Health doesn’t decide funding levels – Governments and Health Boards do.
In NZ 600 new Police have been or are being recruited. This is not due to a decision by the Police Commissioner – it was the decision of the Govt to provide funding for additional officers.
Grant then quotes the Dom Post:
At the time, he was asked by a Government committee whether it was possible to still provide quality health services with “significantly fewer” doctors and nurses. “Yes, we believe we can,” Dr Woods said.
and Grant comments:
Oh dear. A transfer of Dr Woods idea to New Zealand would have disastrous consequences.
Now it is Dr Woods’ idea, as if Dr Woods is actively this for New Zealand.
His answer to a Government committee was in relation to a specific health service and a specific set of facts. There are most certainly scenerios where one can say “Yes we can provide quality health services” with fewer doctors or nurses. This may be due to investment in technology or a reduction in bureaucracy which allows medical professionals to spend more time with patients, and less time on paperwork.
Now don’t get me wrong, I’d be nervous if the Government was saying we want fewer doctors and nurses – as I believe the current health system is stretched when it comes to medical professionals. In fact the Government has been reducing the number of bureaucrats, so that more money can go on doctors and nurses – a move which incidentally Grant and Labour has strongly opposed.
It is a shame Grant is taking cheap shots at the new Director-General before he has even started the job.
The word in Wellington is that the previous CE, Stephen McKernan left because he could not work with Tony Ryall and Murray Horn at the National Health Board as they shut him out while pursuing their agenda of cuts
When Grant says the word in Wellington, it means this is the line he pushes in Wellington. Stephen McKernan has denied this allegation incidentially.
It seems possible that they may have now found a willing accomplice.
And another undermining of Dr Woods, before he even starts.
Now Grant is not the only opposition politician to do this. Helen Clark (ironically) attacked Mark Prebble’s appointment to DPMC in the 1990s, and I am sure some Nats have done so.
But Grant does go on very earnestly about public sector neutrality. His blogged comments suggest he is a case of do as I say, not do as I do.
Related posts:
- Public Sector Numbers
- Public Service Neutrality
- Hooton on neutral public service
- Ralston on public service
September 14th, 2010 at 3:15 pm
A proper analysis of the new DG’s past performance, trawling through statistics on patient outcomes and placing these alongside funding (over which, as you rightly point out, the DG has no control) would be extremely useful. Perhaps Dr Woods is skilled at doing more with less, hence his quoted reassurances.
But that isn’t an analysis, it’s a cahracter assassnation using cherry-picked quotations bereft of any context. The Opposition is in fact well-funded to undertake this sort of research and could perform an invaluable service – and maybe score some real points – if it did so.
But first it will need to extract its head from its posterior and start appointing people to the Leader’s office who know the difference between schoolboy “nyah nyah nyahs” like this nonsense and a properly researched (and potentially highly effective) critique.
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 3:36 pm
DPF said
“Do as I say, not do as I do” is a default setting for Labour, surely …
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 3:37 pm
POOR Grant .. taking a lead from Trevor is never a good ide
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 4:03 pm
Were his qualifications for the job checked by Momentum?
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 4:07 pm
“His blogged comments suggest he is a case of do as I say, not do as I do.”
Vote:Is that a surprise. I don’t recall him shouting loudly when Madelinne Setchell (sorry if I mispelt the name) was dismissed.
September 14th, 2010 at 4:13 pm
Most Labour politicians, some far moreso than others, eventually manifest the braying symptoms of specious stupidity – a state whereby fatuous forays into flights of wishful imagination become self-perceived as factual, and thus renderable as fact.
Reality can be thus ignored, and circumvented truth can become whatever it’s required to be, because by and large in the wishful forms of tragicomedy political thought so representative of Labour beliefs and so philosophically fundamental in Labour circles, virtually anything derogatory or critical of their political opposition can be said and therefore believed.
It must be something to do with the times in which we live – credibility used to be the mainstay of an MP’s continued enjoyment of his office and no MP would willingly utter anything that could be rubbished – in particular, so easily rubbished.
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 4:30 pm
Frankly when a Labour MP says anything these days I ignore them by default. They’ve got nothing to say that interests me, they’re consigned to 2nd place for the foreseeable future (and frankly I wouldn’t be surprised to see them drop to 3rd place in this decade).
However – the appointment of Dr Woods is certainly not going to ease concerns about our public health service. I think some responsibility for this lies with the media headlining
e.g. http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/4126261/New-health-boss-Hospitals-can-cope-with-fewer-staff
The comments are overwhelmingly fearful / critical.
I think it would be fair to say Dr Woods is unlikely to be welcomed with open arms by hospital staff.
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 4:47 pm
I’m with Rightnow on Robertson.
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 5:02 pm
The left regard the public service as a band of hand-chosen, loyal activists in suits. So the minute anyone is (a) appointed by any party to the right, or (b) appointed and fails to sing loudly from the socialist hymn book then idiots like Robertson pop up and start complaining about lack of neutrality. It’s as tiresome as it is predictable.
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 8:51 pm
SSC searched for 5 months and couldnt find anyone willing to work with this lizard of a minister. My bet is that the Scot will find out very quickly why the search proved fruitless for so long. The Scot is his own man, this minister of health wont like that.
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 10:23 pm
Is anybody really that surprised about Grant Robertson? Really?
Vote:September 15th, 2010 at 12:11 am
C’mon David, the new DG’s appears to be on the record saying he’d be ok with fewer health professionals. That’s a remarkable observation. Is it a view the Minister shares or not? Does the new DG have a target to reduce numbers or is it just an idle observation. If the latter, it’s incredibly impolitic. Grant’s asking the most obvious and necessary questions. Perhaps there’s damn good answers so let’s hear them.
Vote:September 15th, 2010 at 12:30 am
The Labour Party’s idea of political neutrality is to have all chief executives as card carrying members of the Labour Party and if you are not then you are the enemy
Vote:September 15th, 2010 at 1:24 pm
With stupid puerile comments like this no wonder Labour are even a poor opposition.
Vote: