That video certainly shows up Campbell for the lefty shill that he is. It also proves that he has not a single idea about the creation of wealth and that this very creation of wealth is what enables all of those bums on seats in Wellington.
You can certainly see that he comes from a privileged position that a $300k salary affords him, without ever having to put in the hard yards to earn that sort of dosh.
A professional interview by Campbell and an excellent, relaxed response by Key.
BUT I really worry about the super-ministry concept. Yes, ministries do suffer from silo mentality, but for the reverse reason to what the government has concluded. The silos commonly involve people in the same ministry, and the same section, and even at adjacent desks. They are caused not by having too many departments, but by constant political meddling and restructuring that leads to a culture where information is not shared because it is power. The core issue is MPs using the public sector for target practice – as a means to create headlines and the illusion of action.
Give these people some better security, stop bashing them for political gain, reduce the risk aversion, and focus on them working together effectively. THEN we will have the kind of committed, collegial public service we aspire to, and used to have before the service was politicised.
Campbell kept coming back to jobs and job security. In my view people who worry about their jobs and not really doing productive work. Deep down they fear their job is not wanted, so they worry. The PM held his ground and said that it is not about job cuts it is about delivery of outcomes. Well almost, there is still that staff ceiling so there must be pressure on the public service to cut jobs so Campbell does have a point but he made it badly.
I really can’t see the point of appearing on TV programs where the presenters are totally committed to the other side. One way to combat the left is to hasten the demise of the old media. It could be done over the term of an administration. Start doing exclusive live streamed interviews with Whale, DPF, and two or three other centre right blogs. Whale and David won’t ask patsy questions. They have integrity. Possibly do the same for Chris Trotter, and or Brian Edwards. Over time advertising would shift. So the blogs could hire reporters, and a news team. All these blogs are run by people with known views. They’re not socialists trying to be objective. When this process beds in, sell Radio New-Zealand, and TVNZ. Failing that, withdraw their ‘news, and current affairs’ teams. That way the people just get ‘entertainment’, not propaganda disguised as news. Sure an incoming Labour led government would reinstate the ‘news’ content. By then however, many would be in the habit of getting their news from the new media.
The results based approach with specific targets is how the real world works. Taxpayers fund these workers – its a breath of fresh air to have elected politicians who want to see OUR dollars spent where they will generate the very best outcomes.
Key did the right thing – he only goes on left leaning shows if his interviews are live (and thus cannot be edited) and sufficient time in the interview to make his case. He acquitted himself well and shut off Campbell’s belligerent whining on behalf of the PSA with humour.
Great interview, well done JK. About bloody time the Public Service was results focussed. As a former public servant myself I know that for too long the public service has been highly inefficient and focussed on activities, not outcomes. I clearly remember the resistance to the introduction of annual performance reviews for staff back in 1983/84. In spite of performance based, results orientated staff training, the leap to a similar orientation to work practices and outputs was not grasped at the time.
This is a well overdue reform and is in line with the quarterly publishing of performance of DHBs against the targets set by the government. We need to have an efficient and effective public service that can measure it’s performance against outcomes as the PM proposes. Nothing wrong with that at all.
Of course many of those losing jobs will claim there is no work out there. I would strongly dispute that but the jobs I speak of are those that involve dirt, sweet, hard work etc. Like it or not this country is top heavy with anti business, paper shoveling, bullshit artists that believe the world will stop rotating should their department no longer offer their demands and decrees. Shonkey has to start making the moves or we mos well adopt Greece as our sister country.
I shouldn’t worry too much about Bill Ryan’s views. He has been commissioned to cheerlead ‘the future state’ project and we should not really expect any critical examination from him. In any event, even he seems to see quite a few problems inherent in this approach.
@KIA, that interview appeared to have been recorded earlier. And Campbell front-ended the interview with a piece designed to make it sound like Key had no answers – but that was inserted after the interview. I think Key should have insisted on real live interview.
Interesting reading the above comments (both pros and cons from both sides etc) and then watched the video. All I will say is:
In these situations (public service reform) the PM will always be the better informed person, when being inteviewed by a TV Journalist (and in this instance it was John Key but even in general under previous PM’s the same is usually true).
1. Watching John Campbell continuing to stick to the point of job cut numbers despite the PM pointing out time and time again the primary drivers include better outcomes (for the Public Services’ clients, the public & Whole of Govt interactions) rather than cost cutting for the sake of it, showed up John Campbell’s either lack of understanding (of the bigger picture) or lack of objectivity (I’m not sure which).
2. The PM’s analogy by using TV3 & their current affairs shows need for prioritisation was both brilliant and effective – from that one could see John Campbell finally “got it” (i.e. TV3′s Current Affairs show are prioritised also in a (very) limited budget environment and their analysis of outcomes would include ensuring there a X amount of viewers which will deliver Y amount of advertising revenue etc. Less viewers = less advertising revenue = programmes being cancelled and others re-prioritised to take their places. Breakfast TV would be an obvious example.).
3. Like the NZ Govt, TV3 has to live within their means and when one finally “gets that” as John Campbell finally seemed to, then any prudent Govt or Organisation (be that TV3 or whatever) will periodically review Organisational structures to ensure money is going to the priority areas.
4. If only Labour, the Greens, Mana etc, would also take a similary educated viewpoint (in politics in general) and their public discourse reflected that then NZ would be a much better place and its citizens better informed instead of the “them versus us” mentality that is getting worse as time goes on, which is also causing ongoing division in our society.
It’s something I’ve argued for on this forum a number of times. It’s not a question of avoiding Campbell and company; they have to be dealt with, especially around election time or when they have stirred up a controversy.
But the right-wing have got to start using the new media environment. If there was a Q&A session or interview set up, streaming on Kiwiblog, that involved Key then people (including the MSM) would pay attention. It would build the alternative so that the conversations next day in workplaces and homes would increasingly be not What did you think of Key on Campbell Live last night, but What did you think of the interview on Kiwiblog? Sure, people and the technology are not quite there yet and there will always be a group that find it easier to press the TV remote than fiddling with a browser – but they’re slowly declining.
Here’s an example from the US – Uncommon Knowledge – which hosts a series of interviews of a length and quality that broadcast TV simply no longer offers. This show actually used to run on some PBS TV channels in the USA but has now moved entirely to the Web.
The one builds the other over time and both need each other. From the perspective of right-wing politicians, why feed your enemies? And I would again suggest that any right-wing politician, even in a situation like this, get aides to record the entire interview and be ready to pounce on any editing and editorial bullshit.