Public Sector Numbers
October 26th, 2011 at 3:00 pm by David FarrarDanya Levy at Stuff reports:
The public sector is coping well with budget constraints and the Government’s plan to move resources “from the back office to the frontline,” Mr Ryall maintains. “While it is fair to say we have 2400, or 2700 fewer positions within the core public service, we have actually used that money to employ 1600 more teachers, 2000 more nurses, 800 more doctors and 600 more police.”
So 2,400 fewer people in administrative or backroom roles, and 5,000 more nurses, teachers, police and doctors.
Worth remembering that the parties of the left have spent the last three years denouncing this, resisting every single efficiency gain in in the public sector. They’ve battled as if every single policy analyst or communications advisor job is sacred, and without them, it will be a disaster.
Related posts:
- Dom Post on public service numbers
- Public Sector Pay Rates
- A smaller public sector
- 20% higher pay in the public sector
October 26th, 2011 at 3:31 pm
Worth remembering that a fair number of this so-called reduction was just disestablishment of vacant positions. The nats haven’t really seriously targetted the public sector bloat.
Vote:October 26th, 2011 at 4:15 pm
It’s a shame these idiot journalists don’t mention the number of ‘policy analysts’ that Labour added to the public purse. Or the hundreds that now comprise the likes of the Tertiary Education Commission. Pretty much anything with the word ‘commission’ in it needs some serious looking into.
Vote:October 26th, 2011 at 4:59 pm
Another gem from the Fairfax spokesperson for the labour party, surely Danya has done enough now for a job in the labour comms unit
Vote:October 26th, 2011 at 5:57 pm
Well done National, fantastic, 9 more years of the same please.
Bloody good
Vote:October 26th, 2011 at 6:35 pm
Of couse for a short time you can survive without public servants. You can survive without food to for a short time.
The problem with cutting services like cutting out food it is not the short term you worry about
Vote:October 26th, 2011 at 8:13 pm
Inky
Vote:No mention of cutting services here, just the realisation you don’t need 10 people to change a light bulb, simple really, so simple in fact even lefties should be able to understand .
October 26th, 2011 at 11:24 pm
The implication is ‘but for the 2400 job losses, the 5000 others wouldn’t have been hired’ – I don’t think that necessarily holds!
Vote:October 27th, 2011 at 5:53 am
This is great news. Labour believed just by throwing money and people at the PS that that would make things better. Of course it didn’t.
Hospital numbers ballooned up to 12,000 managers and administrators, one for every hospital bed. Easy to see where all the money went and why treatment numbers were down.
Vote:October 27th, 2011 at 8:20 am
Here in the south , there seems to be little enthousiasm for these policies. They say there are endless rules and regulations and no one to enforce them. For example containers sitting on wharves and no MAF officials available. There is spin and then there is reality; ordinary hard working people have to cope with reality. The MAF amalgamation is a bio security risk.
Vote:Mind you , we seem to be turning into a disaster a month country. Seldom are these disasters linked back to their original causes…The causes don’t fit the current spin.
October 27th, 2011 at 11:27 am
Joana, I agree. My local police station hasn’t had an officer on desk for a month. However the bosses think that catching speeders 2 blocks away is a sensible use of tax resources. I don’t!
Yes, we are turning into a disaster a month country… I blame the decline in journalism standards, blogging hasn’t been able to mitigate it much.
Bogus, yes the DHBs are still massively inefficient. Why do we need four different health boards in Auckland?
Vote:October 27th, 2011 at 1:50 pm
@john.bt There isn’t one single policy analyst at the Tertiary Education Commission
Vote: