Robertson on Treasury
September 2nd, 2010 at 6:29 am by David FarrarThe Herald reports:
Three non-executive directors have been appointed to the Treasury’s board, but Labour is continuing to question the reason for the board’s existence.
Treasury Secretary John Whitehead, who announced the governance board last month, said it would include private and community representatives to provide advice.
Mr Whitehead would be able to veto the board’s advice.
He said he would continue to answer to the State Services Commission and Finance Minister.
I think this is a good initiative. It may stop Treasury getting too insular, and provide some external views on how Treasury are doing.
Labour’s state services spokesman Grant Robertson said the board challenged the neutrality of the public service and public service bosses’ responsibility to ministers.
With various working groups, purchase advisers, a review of public sector advice and now a board for the Treasury, the Government was fundamentally changing the nature of the public sector, he said.
“This board looks designed to lock in place the economic thinking of the current Government.
Oh what tosh. I should remind people that Mr Whitehead was appointed to his role in 2003 under a Labour Government, and incidentally one of his former jobs was Deputy Director of the Labour Parliamentary Research Unit.
September 2nd, 2010 at 6:44 am
Labour simply hate the thought of a ‘Real World’ Civil Service.
To them the insidious ‘grooming’ of the Government functionaries by their own placemen or by covert pressure/bribery is what they like most.
Any reference to reality or commerciality is to be avoided as it disrupts their goal of a ‘Common Purpose’.
They are the Borg, and assimilation is their only MO.
Vote:September 2nd, 2010 at 6:45 am
Well said DPF; John Whitehead is proof positive that public servants formerly aligned to Labour are capable of Road to Damascus-like conversions!
Vote:September 2nd, 2010 at 7:00 am
Labour criticising a sensible move by a Government department to consider wider views from the community.
And that’s why they got voted out.
Learning from mistakes – below the national standard, need to improve.
Vote:September 2nd, 2010 at 7:51 am
UMMM just who has been in charge of the Financial Guarantee scheme? Who wrote it and who usurped its provisions at the end of the day?
Still all looks like Labour Policy to me.
Will take more than a couple of advisors to change the attitudes. It requires a change in philosophy. Socialism to capitalism.
Not had much of that yet. Lots of socialism with a right face as opposed to socialism with a left face.
NZ still in the mire and no improvement in sight. Running out of money fast.Tax burden still increasing, GDP stalled, unemployment still rising, all financial institutions including the Govt. one sending our money off shore.
Just more of the same.
Vote:SAD,SAD, SAD.
September 2nd, 2010 at 7:53 am
The Labour Party’s idea of political neutrality is you must support the Labour Party. If not then you are a TORY.
Vote:September 2nd, 2010 at 7:58 am
“This board looks designed to lock in place the economic thinking of the current Government.”
And a damned fine idea that is, too!
Vote:September 2nd, 2010 at 7:59 am
This is a good idea – should be standard across all of government. Connection with the real world should result in more real world policies.
Politicians are not (or should not be) there to control, they are there to manage.
Vote:September 2nd, 2010 at 8:20 am
This is the same Treasury that according to a certain Dr Cullen produces an “ideological burp” every three years? Yet now a Labour spokesmuppet criticises steps to provide more external influence…it’s pretty low on the scale of post-2008 hypocrisy but they really are consistent only in their inconsistency.
Vote:September 2nd, 2010 at 8:35 am
Labour are struggling for oxygen – so they come up with typically stupid statements in a pathetic effort to be seen in the media.
Vote:September 2nd, 2010 at 8:35 am
I dunno Adolf. While we may be on the same page about not wanting Treasury being a Labour friendly dept (an oxymoron if ever I heard one) but I’d prefer it if Treasury were a little more harder on the Nats. They should come out and say they don’t want National to spend any more money and to cut taxes, privatise etc… THAT would be the direction our Treasury should be going in.
Alas, we have to look offshore to find a Government, its Treasury and economic policies that have balls and a spine.
Vote:September 2nd, 2010 at 9:05 am
They may do that, through appropriate channels, but it’s the politicians that have to make the policy decisions.
Treasury is not supposed to be an agent of one political minority point of view. If you want Treasury to work in a particular direction then get enough politicians elected to form a government.
Vote:September 2nd, 2010 at 9:15 am
The new Police Commissioner should do something similar with the police. There are all sorts of issues with policing ranging from deployment of speed cameras to criteria for laying charges (for example in ‘self defence’ cases) which could do with some input on community aspirations and not left merely to the vagragies of ‘cop culture’.
Vote:September 2nd, 2010 at 11:07 am
I think Mr Robertson has a very fair point.
Imagine for a moment the appointees that would result if Helen Clark or one of her clones were to be in power for another 9 years – as time goes on, the people making the appointments will have been appointed by the then-current government – how many ‘independent’ appointees besides Jim Bolger were made during the Clark years?
Vote: