Kiwiblog

Audrey Young reports:

The number of public relations and communications staff in most government departments has dropped in the past four years – with some notable exceptions, including the Treasury – according to a Cabinet paper on public service staffing.

Overall, communications positions (full-time equivalents) have fallen by 14.34 per cent from December 2008 to last December, with some exceptions.

The number of Treasury communications positions increased from 2.9 to 4.9. The number of Statistics New Zealand staff increased heavily last year but that was in the build-up to the Census this year.

The Serious Fraud Office took on one position where it had none before, and the Department of Prime Minister and the Cabinet increased from one to two.

The Ministry of Women’s Affairs has had the biggest reduction in communications positions, from 5.2 to 0.9, a drop of 82.69 per cent.

Down

* Women’s affairs 5.2 to 0.9
* Transport 9.4 to 3.5
* State Services Comm 5.7 to 3
* Environment 9.3 to 5
* Health 11.7 to 6.3
* Land Information 9.9 to 6
* Education 19.4 to 12.6
* Conservation 16.4 to 11

Up

* Treasury 2.9 to 4.9
* Prime Minister and Cabinet 1 to 2
* Culture and Heritage 2.5 to 4

Overall a good trend. Government agencies of course have to have communications staff, but the growth in the 2000s was unsustainable.

Max Rashbrooke blogs:

New Zealand has too many Cabinet ministers and too many government agencies – but more departmental mergers is not the solution, Labour MP Trevor Mallard said at a joint lecture for the Institute for Governance and Policy Studies and the Institute of Public Administration New Zealand.

Mallard, a former Minister of Education and State Services Minister, said New Zealand’s government was too fragmented, with “Crown entities for Africa” and agencies like Work and Income New Zealand that were “a body with no brain”.

Too many ministerial positions had also been created to tie caucus into Cabinet, he said, and most of the “talent” in a Cabinet was in the top half. Under Helen Clark, the Cabinet committee of the 10 most senior ministers “worked extremely well … Those ministers were much more likely to have read – which is a good start – and understand – which is even better – the papers they were being asked to consider.”

The “ideal” Cabinet, Mallard said, would have 10 members and 5-6 positions outside Cabinet “with training wheels attached”. However, he admitted this was not a popular view among those ranked 8-20 in his own party.

I agree with Trevor Mallard in terms of size of Cabinet and the Executive. I’d have 12 Cabinet Ministers and say eight outside Cabinet. The 12 Ministers would each be in charge of a cluster of portfolios.

Ideally you would amalgamate as many entities as possible so there was one agency per cluster, with a top class Chief Executive.

I blogged in 2011, a possible structure for a future state sector. So a Cabinet would be:

1. Prime Minister (DPMC, SSC)
2. Minister of Finance (Treasury)
3. Minister of Economic Development (MAF, MOBIE, Fisheries, MORST, Transport)
4. Minister of Social Policy (Pacific Island Affairs, MSD, CYF, Youth Development, Community Sector, Senior Citizens, Families, Women’s Affairs, TPK_
5. Minister of Health (Health)
6. Minister of Education (Education, ERO, TEC)
7. Minister of Internal Security (Crown Law, Corrections, SIS, Justice, SFO, Police)
8. Minister for the Environment (Environment, EPA, Conservation, Biosecurity)
9. Minister of  External Relations & Security (GCSB, Defence, MFAT,  NZDF)
10. Minister of Incomes (IRD, WINZ)
11. Minister of Culture (Culture & Heritage, Broadcasting, Nat Lib, Archives, NZ on Air)
12. Minister of Administrative Affairs (DIA, LINZ, Building & Housing, Customs, Stats)

Also the Speaker would be the responsible Minister for a Department of Parliament which includes the Parliamentary Service, Ministerial Services, Office of the Clerk and Parliament Counsel Office.

Vernon Small writes:

Perhaps we should thank former Ministry of Education head Lesley Longstone for only stinging taxpayers $425,000 as a severance package.

Yes it is a lot of money, especially to onlookers on the minimum wage, the average wage or even anyone outside the top echelons of pay packets.

Given the circumstances of her departure – just over a year into a five-year term and as a result of a clash of personalities with her minister – she could have asked for more. …

So given that, and the public revulsion at such pay-outs, it is time to look again at how those contracts are written.

Setting aside for now the fact it would have been cheaper all round (and arguably fairer) to have shifted Parata, rather than Longstone, it’s time to dispense with the fiction that state sector chief executives are not on grace and favour contracts – essentially at the behest of their minister.

The Longstone example makes it as clear as day that a CEO cannot stay on if they fall out badly with their minister. But the fiction forces the SSC to dance on the head of a pin over the reason why they go, and the payouts that follow are eye-watering to most people.

It is true that if a Minister loses confidence in a CEO, then one of them has to go. And in a democracy it is the civil servant, not the Minister.

There are strong arguments that can be advanced about the quality of chief executives that might be recruited, and state sector purists will choke into their lattes at any move away from the notional independent public servant.

But there are precedents. Press secretaries and political advisers in politicians’ offices are on the public payroll but are on so-called “events-based contracts”. The “events” are essentially the continuation of the MP or minister in that office but they also include a clear parting of the ways between a minister and a press secretary. Payouts are modest. …

Acknowledging – and embracing – the reality that senior public servants are to all intents and purposes there at the will of their minister is an argument that has some resonance among some MPs too, but from a different perspective.

As they see it, politicians are elected and they should expect their decisions to be implemented. Something akin to an “events-based” chief executive could eliminate deliberate attempts to frustrate the will of their minister or the Cabinet.

I can see the attraction of an events based contract for CEOs, but there is a reason I think they would do more harm than good.

They would make it too easy for a Minister to dispense with a CEO. You only want the CEO to go if absolutely necessary. And as part of that, you actually want the departure of a CEO to cause political pain for a Government – which a payout causes.

If you had a clause that just allows a CEO to be sacked with three months notice, then I think you’d see a far higher turnover of CEOs – and I don’t think that is necessarily a good thing.

I don’t like paying $425,000 out for premature termination of a contract. But education is a $10 billion budget. If we have to pay out 0.05% of the budget to get a Ministerial-CEO relationship that works, then it is worth it. Of course some will argue the wrong person went – but Ministers are accountable through elections, and National will be judged in 2014 on how it has done overall.

So what is the happy compromise that would cut back on payouts by establishing events-based contracts; acknowledge the “political” nature of some public service roles – and the need to have someone driving hard to implement government policy; but maintain a flow of contestable advice?

One option would be to insist on a competence-based (not purely political) selection process where the nominee is examined by a select committee, much as the United States does with its Senate confirmation hearings.

That would allow the government to win the day, but in the process unearth incompetence and expose any skeletons to the public eye.

I’m not sure select committee hearings would un-earth any incompetence.

If we were to have select committee hearings for government CEOs then we should go the whole hog of the US model where the Government of the day appoints the entire senior management of the government departments. Of course that has some drawbacks also!

NZ First MP Andrew Williams did a release stating:

New Zealand First is accusing the Government of making changes to legislation to give the Prime Minister John Key complete dictatorship over the State Services commissioner.

Associate Finance spokesperson Andrew Williams says clause 6 (j) in the State Sector and Public Finance Reform Bill states that the commissioner must ‘exercise such other functions with respect to administration and management of the Public Service as the Prime Minister from time to time directs’. 

“This clause gives the Prime Minister complete power to dictate to the State Services Commissioner what he wants to see happen.

“It establishes a very dangerous precedent in a Westminster democracy, and is not unlike regimes of the Cold War era.

“With this Bill effectively providing for the unbridled whims of Dictator Key the National Government will continue to run the State Services sector into the ground,” says Mr Williams.

Note the hysterical language about dictatorships and the like. Even if Williams was correct in his assertion, the hysterical language is ridiculous.

The proposed new section 6(j) is:

For the purpose of carrying out the Commissioner’s role, the principal functions of the Commissioner are to … exercise such other functions with respect to the administration and management of the Public Service as the Prime Minister from time to time directs (not being functions conferred by this Act or any other Act on a chief executive other than the Commissioner).

Now let us look at the current State Sector Act 1988. It also has a section 6(j) which states:

The principal functions of the Commissioner are … to exercise such other functions with respect to the administration and management of the Public Service as the Prime Minister from time to time directs (not being functions conferred by this Act or any other Act on a chief executive other than the Commissioner).

That is a massive fail. Williams failed to even check the current law. And if you are going to accuse the Prime Minister of becoming a dictator, well an even bigger fail.

There’s really no excuse for such sloppiness.  Based on Williams press release, and the fact this clause has existed since 1988, I can only conclude that New Zealand has been a cold war dictatorship for the last 24 years, and we never noticed.

The left have complained bitterly about the reduction in staff numbers in the public service, and have claimed fewer staff mean inferior services. Putting aside the lack of fiscal reality of their stance, the latest SSC survey of public satisfaction with services shows that you can keep costs under control, and improve performance. Some extracts:

• Overall satisfaction up from 68 in 2007 to 74 in Sep 2012
• Passports & Citizenship 79 (+2)
• Border Services 78 (+7)
• Environment & recreation 76 (+4)
• Health 73 (+4)
• Social Assistance and Housing 73 (+5 from 2009)
• Local Govt 73 (+4)
• Education and Training 71 (+3)
• Taxation & Business 70 (+8)
• Justice & Security 68 (+5)

And some individual indicators:

• Public Hospital Outpatient Services 73 (+5)
• Stayed in public hospital 75 (+4)
• Family Services/Counselling 73 (+8)
• The Police 69 (+5)
• Emergency 111 Services 82 (+5)
• Getting a benefit 64 (+5)
• NZ Super 84 (+9)
• Tax Inquiries 66 (+7)
• Company reg/returns 77 (+6)

Overall some pretty good improvements.

Jonathan Coleman announced:

State Services Minister Dr Jonathan Coleman says a new Public Service property strategy is likely to reduce the office space foot print in Wellington by the equivalent of three Reserve Bank buildings.

Dr Coleman says Cabinet has approved the start of a centralised negotiation for future public service office space in the capital with accommodation leases due to expire for five large government agencies.

The leases due to expire include the Ministries of Social Development, Health, Education and Business Innovation and Employment, and the Crown Law Office.

The Property Management Centre of Expertise based within the Ministry of Social Development has been delegated to lead the negotiation for the accommodation needs. …

A business case presented to Cabinet indicated a reduction of the office footprint in Wellington of 30 per cent will save $338 million over 20 years, which is a 20 per cent reduction in cost compared with the status quo baseline.

Sounds good to me. If that achieve that, there are benefits beyond the direct savings. The ever increasing size of the public sector in the 2000s saw office rental costs in Wellington CBD skyrocket. This imposed significant costs on private businesses. Having reduced demand from the public sector should see smaller increases in rental prices for commercial tenants.

The Dom Post reports:

Several years of belt tightening does not appear to have affected satisfaction with the public service. The State Services Commission has measured satisfaction with 42 frequently used public services and found it had improved since the last survey three years ago.

The survey results recorded the overall service quality score for public services rising from 69 points in 2009 to 72 this year.

State Services Minister Jonathan Coleman said the only service to show a big drop in satisfaction was in applying for or receiving a student loan or student allowance.

Ha, wonder what the score is for having to pay back the loan

But seriously, good to see an increase in public satisfaction.

Just noticed this in a speech by John Key:

As Prime Minister, the most difficult, hard-to-tackle issues of public policy inevitably end up passing across my desk.

In working through those issues, I rely heavily on the advice and judgement of public servants.

It’s crucial that ministers know all the sides of a particular issue, have all the relevant information and fully understand the implications of different courses of action.

Since becoming Prime Minister in late 2008, I’ve been impressed by the professionalism and competence of public servants in my own departments and across the public sector as a whole.

The approach of my Government has been to respect people’s professional skills and to back public servants who want to get on and make New Zealand a better place.

As just one small example, we have reintroduced the practice of having officials regularly attend Cabinet committee meetings.

That’s for two reasons.

We want to get advice from the people who have the greatest knowledge of particular issues.

And we actually think it’s good for officials to see where ministers agree and disagree, what they feel comfortable with and what drives their consideration of a particular issue.

If I recall Labour kicked officials out a few years ago, as they didn’t want to have “political” discussions with them in the room. I think it is a good thing the Government trusts officials enough that Ministers can disagree in front of them.

The Daily Telegraph reports:

Under-performing civil servants will be identified and fired under plans to rank all government officials in order of ability, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.

Now that would be a fun league table to compile!

Sweeping plans to overhaul the civil service are expected to be published within the next month. They are bound to infuriate public sector unions who yesterday staged another day of industrial action.

According to the Cabinet Office, there are currently 434,000 civil servants, the lowest number since the Second World War, as a result of an efficiency drive by the Coalition.

At the time of the last general election, in May 2010, the civil service numbered more than 500,000.

NZ had around 39,000 public servants and it is now around 36,000. A fairly modest 7% reduction compared to the 12% or so in the UK.

However interesting to note the UK has one civil servant per 143 people, and NZ is one per 119 people.

A guest post from a commenter who has worked in the public service:

Frontline vs. back-office

The slogan “more frontline, less back-office” is, on the face of it, hard to argue with. Who wouldn’t want more services for the same (or less) money? Unfortunately, reality is a little bit more complicated than that, and the recent move by the government to sharpen service delivery through cutting “back-office functions” is short-sighted and likely to fail.

The term “frontline” comes from the military. We have a term: “tooth-to-tail ratio”. This means the number of “trigger pullers” versus the number of support personnel. In a military sense, there is a sweet spot – where the tail far outnumbers the teeth. For every frontline rifleman or tanker, you’re likely to have at least ten (and likely a lot more) support personnel. Every fighter pilot has thirty to fifty personnel supporting him. Incredibly inefficient? Not at all. History is full of examples where forces with a heavy tail-to-tooth ratio were incredibly successful: Germany 1939-1941, or the US Army 1944-1945 for example. And history also has some classic examples where the tooth got too big, and there was not enough tail – Germany 1944-1945, for example. In simple terms, there is a sweet spot of “frontline” and “rear area” staff. You can’t get more effective by changing the ratio; if you want to upsize or downsize, you still keep the ratio the same. You rescale from the corner.

So, if the government wants to use a military term, it needs to realise it’s using it incorrectly. And it needs to realise that ratios are what matters; if it wants to spend less, shave a little off everywhere. Because the concept of “frontline” is an amorphous one. We’d all agree the cop on I-car responding to calls for service is frontline, right? But what about the cops in the organised crime squads, who undertake proactive investigations (those without a public call for service)? What about the scene of crime officers (civilians) who attend the scenes? What about the fingerprint examiners back in the labs? What about the intelligence analysts who produce the “hotspot” maps showing where burglaries are skyrocketing, or disorder problems are emerging? What about the workforce co-ordinators who set the shifts for their squads? What about the analysts at Police HQ working out which boots are best, or when Tasers should be used, or the best way of keeping weapons safe? Which of those are “frontline”, and which of those are “back office”?

That’s half the story. In human resources and finance, I have no qualms with calling them back office, but is cutting them efficient? The public sector reforms of the 1980s, instigated by Roger Douglas and co, had a beautiful theoretical simplicity at their core: managerial responsibility and contracting. Here’s the thing. The more you take away from managers in terms of human resources and financial control, the less responsible they are and the less accountable they can be held. Shared services would be anathema to Douglas and co in those heady days (as someone who would never vote Act, I at least respect the intellectual strength of those early positions). The micromanagement of the current National government would also be anathema to them, who believed in contracting for a service from a department and letting the department decide how to do it. Indeed, the micromanagement of the current government has also been replicated within individual government departments, which are becoming increasingly dictatorial and driven from the centre. Rather than flexible government departments that evolve and adapt to specific conditions, we are seeing the re-emergence of 19^th century style “mega bureaucracy”, with policies and procedures set by diktat at the top, with Chief Executives managing down a dozen levels on hiring decisions. Is this what we want?

I can only speak from my own expertise. The cuts in the NZDF, the flawed “refocusing of the back-office”, have hindered the military capability of that force across the entire spectrum. As Napoleon said, in war morale is to the physical as three is to one; and believe me when I say that morale in that force is absolutely shot to death. In the Police, all the current government seems to focus on is “more front-line cops.” I can only speak as someone with substantial research experience in the field: more front-line cops has little or no effect on crime rates. Full stop, end of story. More complex, more sophisticated reforms (whether community oriented policing, problem oriented policing, or intelligence-led policing) may have some effect, but they do not rely on stripping the back office to put more cops out there responding to calls for service, which is a discredited, 1960s model of policing. If back office functions are cut, we will have fewer people thinking about policing (or any government service) and more people doing. Again, it sounds good on the surface, but there is no point in a lot of activity if it has little or no effect on your goals. I don’t have specific knowledge, but I would guess adding more social workers and more doctors is also pointless unless there is careful direction as well.

I will leave with a quote from Major General Robert H. Scales, U.S. Army, (retd). Talking about the British army during the 19^th and early 20^th century, he said:

“The reckoning came at the battles of Mons and Le Cateau in 1914, when this army disappeared under the guns of a force that had spent the last half-century studying war rather than practicing it. The cultural bias toward action rather than reflection so permeated the British Army in World War I that the deaths of more than a million failed to erase it. Some scholars contend that this tragic obsession still left its dulling mark until well after World War II.”

Our current government’s own bias towards action rather than reflection will also have negative results.

As with most guest posts the views within are not necessarily my own.

Some extracts from John Key’s speech to the Auckland Chamber of Commerce:

The first change I’m announcing is that there will be a new results-driven focus for the public service.

So I have identified 10 challenging results that I want to see achieved over the next three to five years.

Achieving these results will be difficult and demanding. In fact for some of them it will be extremely difficult.

This is very welcome, but very risky. Voters will hold the Government to account if these are not achieved, and it is inevitable some of them probably won’t be as the Government doesn’t control all the variables. But it will focus all of Government on meeting these outcomes, rather than just focusing on outputs. The 10 outcomes sought are:

1. a reduction in long-term welfare dependency, in particular a significant drop in the number of people who have been on a benefit for more than 12 months
2. more young children, and particularly Maori and Pacific children, in early childhood education
3. immunisation rates for infants to increase, and a substantial reduction in rheumatic fever cases among children
4. a reduction in the number of assaults on children
5. an increase in the proportion of 18-year-olds with NCEA level 2 or an equivalent qualification
6. a more skilled workforce, with an increase in the number of people coming through with advanced trade qualifications, diplomas and degrees
7. a reduction in the crime rate, not just total crime, but also violent crime and youth crime
8. a reduction in the rate of re-offending
9. a one-stop online shop for all government advice and support that businesses need
10. see transactions with government completed easily in a digital environment

I am pleased to see the crime focus is not just on total crime, which is a fairly meaningless figure which counts a minor cannabis offence the same as a murder. Also pleased to see the focus on improving the government’s online presence.

I have appointed Ministers to lead each of these 10 results, along with a public service chief executive who is accountable for demonstrating real progress against his or her result.

Excellent, you need the accountability of a Minister to drive things.

Underneath each of the results will be a measurable and stretching target, like a certain percentage increase or decrease within a particular time.

We have already decided one of these concrete targets.

For example, the Minister of Education has told me that for result number five she has set a target of 85 per cent of 18-year-olds having NCEA level 2 or equivalent in five years.

The current figure is around 68 per cent, so achieving the target will be very tough.

But I don’t want easy targets. I want targets that are going to stretch the ability of the public sector to deliver them, and that are going to force change.

Because if they are easy targets they aren’t worth doing.

This is in fact the most significant part of the speech, rather than the ministry merger which most of the media seemed focused on.

This term, there will be no more than 36,475 full-time equivalent positions in core government administration.

We are under that number now and we will stay under it.

 The cap will count most people working in government departments and in some Crown entities, but doesn’t include frontline staff like teachers, police officers, hospital staff or prison officers.

When we came into Government in 2008, we immediately imposed a cap of just under 39,000 FTE positions in core government administration.

That cap was successful in turning around what had been a huge increase in public service numbers.

The definition of core government administration wasn’t around at the time, but we know that from 2002 to 2008 the number of people employed in government departments increased by around 12,000 FTEs. That’s an overall increase of 38 per cent in just six years.

Our cap changed that. The number of FTE positions in core government administration stopped growing, and then dropped by about 2,400 over three years.

So the cap of 36,475 is still massively higher than the 29,000 it was just a decade ago.

Our intention is to create a new Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment on 1 July this year.

This new department would integrate the functions of:

• The Ministry of Economic Development.
• The Department of Labour.
• The Ministry of Science and Innovation.
• The Department of Building and Housing.

I have long advocated that we should carry on doing what Labour did in their last term (reversing what National did in the 90s) and have fewer government departments, and fewer Ministers incidentally. You both reduce backend costs, but also make collaboration easier.

And I do want to say that this is the only departmental merger we are currently planning.

 I’m not ruling them out in the future, but there is no plan for wholesale reorganisation.

A pity, but that will at least give some certainty to public servants who are having a tough time of it.

Andrea Vance at Stuff reports:

Bureaucrats are biting back, with plans under way to march against any further state sector cuts.

Beleaguered public servants are anxiously awaiting Prime Minister John Key’s plans for the state sector, expected to be announced in a keynote address next week.

If the reform involves further privatisation and job cuts – more than 2500 jobs have been slashed in the past three years – it is likely protest marches and rallies will follow.

Public Service Association national secretary Brenda Pilott said the “mood has changed” among public servants, who were now talking about action and taking to social media.

A march would have echoes of mass protests in 1988 against the State Sector Act, which reshaped the public service, she said. “Public servants are starting to bite back – finally – after three years of cuts.

“People have been a bit resigned but now patience is wearing out. The mood has changed. People are now talking about opposing further cuts.

It is a tough time for the PSA. They are one of the more rational unions, in my experience. And having a shrinking state sector is hard for those impacted.

But I think it is worth stressing the fiscal environment we are in. The deficit has been running at around $10b a year. That is several times larger than the cost of the entire civil service. There is a path back to surplus over the next three years, but it is a fragile one.

One just has to look at the UK, Ireland, Greece etc to see what will happen to the public sector if there is not an end to deficits and growing debt.

Of course the Government could scrap high cost programmes such as Working for Families, subsidized childcare or interest free student loans, to reduce the deficit. But I suspect the PSA and its members would not be too keen on that either.

Some of course will advocate that we try and tax our way back to surplus. Apart from the fact that increased taxes will lessen economic growth, I’d point out that overall tax revenues are basically on the track announced by Labour in its 2008 budget. The tax changes since then have over a four year period been broadly fiscally neutral. National actually cancelled two stages of its planned tax cuts due to the deficit, so it has been quite balanced – both canceling tax cuts and reducing spending.

Also we have to allow for efficiency gains from technology. If a new computer system for IRD means it needs 1,500 fewer jobs, then that is something that will be good to do – even it is tough on those affected.

A very interesting article from Andrea Vance at Stuff:

While Mr Key will front the reforms, they are being driven by Finance Minister Bill English – who is deeply committed to remodelling the sector. And no wonder – he pays the bills and it accounts for one third of New Zealand’s economy.

Essentially, in a drive that would send Sir Humphrey Appleby into apoplexies, the public service is about to become more flexible.

It’s a remarkably simple idea but one that strikes at the very heart of the modern-day civil service. At present individual departments and agencies work on their “outputs” – what they deliver. The social development ministry pays out benefits, Corrections builds more prisons. Annual incentives are set, targets are ticked off and budgets are (usually) met. They work in – excuse the jargon – silos.

By and large “outcomes” – the big picture stuff – are not catered for. …

Politically, “outcomes” are a lot more risky than easily measured “outputs”; it takes just one rogue NGO, or one mis-timed question from the Opposition about a taxpayer funded hip-hop scheme or a misappropriation of funds.

Moving the state sector from being focused on outcomes outputs to outputs outcomes is a heroic endeavour, but worthwhile. As Andrea says, outputs are easily measured and easy to achieve. If one moves towards outcomes, then one has to accept there will be some failures. You can near guarantee outputs, but outcomes are far more complex.

In its purest form, we might see super-ministries, although National is shying away from this for the time being. Instead of merging Corrections, police and justice into one monster law and order department, they have established an umbrella board to oversee co-operation.

I tend to favour super-ministries, but sharing of back office functions and a joint board to over-see co-operation is a step in the right direction.

Which means we are also unlikely to see the logical conclusion of this shift: a much smaller executive.

A half-serious proposal for a seven minister Cabinet was recently floated – and hastily dismissed. National has instead opted for “cluster” ministers – Steven Joyce overseeing economic development, David Carter taking on primary industries.

The model I favour is a 12 member Cabinet with 12 full Ministers (for 12 super-ministries) and 12 Associate Ministers outside Cabinet who will be delegated responsibilities for particular agencies within a super-ministry.

In my column at the NZ Herald I label the MFAT restructuring the first deep cut.

Andrea Vance at Stuff reports:

Technology will replace face-to-face contact as the Government continues its squeeze on the public service.

Prime Minister John Key has met executives from internet giant Google as plans to shake up the public sector gather steam.

Virtual jobs will replace staff as the sector moves away from frontline services to call centres and online interaction.

Mr Key said yesterday that people wanted to use their smartphones to apply for passports and other tasks, rather than wait in line in offices.

“It really doesn’t matter if there is a street frontage there … We are living in an age where kids have iPads and smartphones. That’s the modern generation … and they actually don’t want to walk in, for the most part, and be in a very long queue and be waiting for a long time.”

Bring it on. I find it very frustrating if I can’t access something over the Internet.

In April I blogged:

This means you could have a cabinet of 12. The Speaker looks after Parliament, and one Minister per major agency. One could have associate ministers outside cabinet who get delegated some of the specialist areas within an overall portfolio.

Yesterday Trevor Mallard blogged:

New Zealand has a ridiculous number of Ministers for a country our size.

It had got slightly worse under MMP but this government has taken it beyond absurd with 80% of the non National confidence and supply partner members bought off with a Ministerial post, and the final one on a promise of getting one during the term.

It would have been nice to have Trevor speak up when he had influence. I’ve long said we should have a smaller Ministry. It was in fact Helen Clark who increased the size of the Executive to 28. Key has just maintained it at that size.

I spent three years as a whip which included cabinet committee experience in the 1980s and the nine years as a Minister in the Clark government.

I saw lots of weak, and some frankly useless Ministers. Most, but not all, were in the second half of the rankings. They often caused more work than they added value. There was an enormous amount of time wasted explaining what was either obvious or buried in papers that if they had been read hadn’t been understood.

Trevor should name names!

I tend to divide Ministers up into three camps – leaders, administrators and bumblers.

The ideal Minister leads their portfolio and ministry. They impose the Government’s policy agenda on the ministry, listen to officials but do not always follow their advice. The number of “leader” Ministers in a Ministry does tend to be rarely more than a dozen.

Hence why I’d restructure the state sector into 12 super-ministries as advocated in my linked post. That way each super-ministry is likely to have a “leader” Minister who will apply strategic leadership to the portfolios within. Also there are probably only a dozen great CEOs in the state sector, so you get benefits at the CEO level also. Finally it reduces Cabinet from 20 to 12, which makes it a more effective decision making body.

The “administrator” Minister is probably the most common type of Minister. Unlike Trevor I would not call them useless. Their problem is more they just do what their officials tell them to. They do not apply external political judgement to issues, and hence as Trevor alludes to they need rescuing from time to time.

If there were just 12 Ministers in total, I think the paperwork would be too much. It is not that Ministers are not busy. Hence I’d have all full portfolios held by one of 12 Cabinet Ministers but maybe still have say eight Associate Ministers outside Cabinet who get delegated specific areas. This makes them a good training ground for becoming a full Minister, but still reduces the Ministry by eight or so.

I think we don’t need more than ten or a dozen Ministers. They should all be in Cabinet. And to trial talent we should use three or four Under Secretaries who report directly to the relevant Minister.

We broadly agree, but I’d call the Under-Secretaries Associate Ministers. Maybe could do it like the UK – Secretaries of State are full Ministers in Cabinet and Ministers of State are Ministers outside Cabinet.

It will be interesting if any of Trevor’s former Ministerial colleagues agree with his description of them as useless.  To spare the competent ones, he should name those he meant!

More importantly, he should lobby David Shearer to announce a policy to reduce the Ministry from 28 to 12 Ministers. That would be hugely popular.

Danya 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.

Claire Trevett in the NZ Herald reports:

More schools in poor areas will have social workers as part of the Government’s initiatives to protect at-risk children.

Social Development minister Paula Bennett and Prime Minister John Key announced the changes in Auckland today as part of attempts to address issues of child abuse and neglect.

As well as extra 149 social workers in schools, 96 more social workers will be taken on by Child, Youth and Family to respond to claims of child abuse. The measures are expected to cost $11.8 million extra for the schools and $10.3 million at CYF.

It would be funded from existing funding, rather than any new injection of money.

I believe this will mean every school that is decile 3 or below will now have a dedicated social worker. Hopefully this will lead to greater detection and eventually prevention of child abuse.

It is great that this is being done from existing funding also. It will be some years before we will be back in surplus, so the responsible way to improve front-line services is by reducing costs in other areas.

Danya Levy at Stuff reports:

Thousands of jobs have been slashed from the state sector during the past three years, yet more voters believe the standard of public services are better under the National-led Government, a new poll shows.

The Government says that it is evidence cutbacks have not impacted on core services, but the Public Service Association believes only the goodwill of civil servants working extra hours has maintained standards and cracks will start to show.

The problem for Labour and the PSA is that of the boy who cried wolf.

I certainly believe there is a limit to how many jobs can be cut from the public service, without affecting performance. But Labour (and the PSA) in 2008 said even National’s policy of freezing numbers would be a disaster and would impact services. And then as the freeze became a reduction with a need to stop the deficit getting even worse, every single reduction was met with cries of doom and destruction.

And the reality is, that the reductions have in fact led to improved services (as the public acknowledge) because it has freed up resources for the front-line. The health sector especially has had some great improvements in performance in the last couple of years – many more operations, quicker times in ED, shorter waiting times for cancer treatment etc.

As I said, there is a limit to how far cost cutting should go. But an ideological opposition to any reduction in costs or staff numbers in the public service doesn’t help with the decision making.

Tom Pullar-Strecker at Stuff reports:

A planned “one-stop shop” to handle all public dealings with government departments could affect thousands of state servants.

The new ServiceLink organisation – a mega call-centre which could ultimately employ several thousand staff – is being set up in a plan for the one agency to handle everything from phone and internet inquiries to applications for benefits, tax returns, fines and other payments for state services.

In a way this would be catching up with local Government.

In the old days, there were dozens of phone numbers for say the Wellington City Council, depending on what service you wanted. Now there is just one phone number and the call centre deals with almost all inquiries.

1. The government could save $100 million a year from “efficiencies” that would include avoiding the duplication of information technology systems and merging call centres. But officials said the goal was also to make services more convenient for the public.

Saving money is not a bad thing though, even if not the main aim.

Ms Pilott said the union supported initiatives that helped “join up services” and made life easier for the public. “But that change shouldn’t be used as an excuse to cut jobs.

“If jobs become surplus because of new initiatives, those workers should be redeployed to provide more extended services to the public. Also, if ServiceLink is going to be a success, an enhanced working environment … is vital for improving service delivery.”

I’m not sure if Ms Pilott is saying that the call centrc should have more staff than necessary, or calling for any savings from it to be invested elsewhere. The latter is what has been happening over the last two years anyway – there are 3,000 fewer public servants but there are (off memory) 1,500 more teachers, 1,000 more nurses, 500 more doctors, 300 more Police etc.

Trans-tasman announces:

Departing Ministry of Social Development boss Peter Hughes has been named top Government Department CEO of the year by a panel of 22 high profile opinion shapers.* The accolade comes in Trans Tasman’s  2011 New Zealand Government Department’s Briefing Report released this week.

 Hughes, who has just been named as the new head of Victoria University’s School of Government, also picked up the top honour in the inaugural report last year. The panelists were again impressed with the work Hughes has done as head of the ministry and comment he will be sorely missed. …

One of his characteristics is like his political masters he hates bad news and surprises, and does everything possible in planning and management to avoid them. It’s this sort of attention to detail while keeping an eye on the big picture which has led Hughes to win the top CEO accolade.

 Alistair Morrison of the Department Of Conservation gets the second highest score, a result which surprised even the panelists, who worked independently of each other and who didn’t know the result until this week. Morrison came nowhere in last year’s rankings, but it is a measure of his abilities that he was able to make such an impression this year.

 This is perhaps a reflection Morrison’s attempts to find a meaningful role for the department, whittling out costs and better engagement with those outside the department has not always been matched with equal relish from within.

 In the scoring Hughes was well ahead of Morrison, with Maarten Wevers of the Department Of Prime Minister And Cabinet in third place, followed by John Whitehead of Treasury and Wayne McNee of The Ministry Of Agriculture And Forestry.

 There were 37 agencies rated, so just being in the top five is pretty good for a CEO.

The panelists voted The Ministry Of Social Development as the Government Department of The Year. The Treasury, which last year took the top accolade, came in second, with the Department Of Prime Minister And Cabinet third. The Inland Revenue Department was voted fourth best. …

All four top ranking departments will be getting new leadership over the next 12 months. The new CEOs will start with good platforms to work from, but are likely to face more pressure on budgets and policy work than their predecessors ever did.

That’s interesting that all four top agencies will have new CEOs over the next year. Will make next year’s results interesting to compare.

NB – I was one of the 22 panelists.

I hear from my spies that restructuring has even hit Parliament, and that the Parliamentary Service General Manager has dis-established all the second level Group Manager roles which report to him. This affects some very long-serving staff, and it will be interesting to see what the new second level roles are, and who gets them.

Meanwhile the Government looks set for other state sector reforms:

The Government is proposing changes that will reduce the number of government agencies as it seeks better value for money, less duplication and improved co-ordination across the state sector, Deputy Prime Minister Bill English and State Services Minister Tony Ryall announced today.

The proposals include disestablishing five crown entities and three tribunals, merging two government agencies, establishing shared corporate services across the government’s three central agencies and consolidating the services of a number of others.

The details are:

• Set up an arms-length health promotion agency to take over the relevant functions of the Alcohol Advisory Council of New Zealand (ALAC), the Health Sponsorship Council (HSC) and the Ministry of Health.
• Disestablish the Crown Health Financing Agency and transfer its district health board lending function to either the Ministry of Health or to the Debt Management Office
• bring forward the date the Mental Health Commission is due to cease functioning (currently 31 August 2015).
• Transfer the functions of the Charities Commission to the Department of Internal Affairs, while ensuring that registration decisions remain separate from Ministers.
• Disestablish three tribunals – the Health Act Boards of Appeal; the Maritime Appeal Authority; and the Land Valuation Tribunals – and transfer their functions to the District Court
• Consolidate audiovisual archiving. Encourage the New Zealand Film Archive, Radio New Zealand, and Television New Zealand to consolidate material into the Film Archive.
• Work with the Broadcasting Standards Authority, the Advertising Standards Authority, the Press Council and the Office of Film and Literature Classification to look at opportunities for greater collaboration.
• Merge the Education Review Office and the New Zealand Qualifications Authority into a single education quality assurance agency.
• In addition, as part of their leadership role, the three central agencies, the State Services Commission, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Treasury are consulting with staff on a proposal to establish a shared services centre to integrate their back office functions.

That all looks worthwhile. Of course personally I would be rather more radical. I blogged in April how you could amalgamate agencies into 13 super-departments, which also would mean you could have a Cabinet of 12

John Hartevelt in the Dom Post:

Government departments are about to start disappearing, the head of the public service says.

State Services commissioner Iain Rennie said the structure of the entire public service would be changed within five years.

Excellent. I believe the future is fewer ministries, but they will be sector-wide. In hindsight National got it wrong in the 1990s when they split ministries into smaller agencies, and Labour were on the right track with amalgamations. That way you avoid having duplicate IT systems, HR finance systems systems etc.

My future state sector would be:

1. Ministry of Internal Security – Crown Law, Corrections, SIS, Justice, SFO, Police
2. Ministry for Environment – Environment, EPA, Conservation, Biosecurity
3. Dept of Administrative Affairs – DIA, LINZ, Building & Housing, Customs, Stats
4. Ministry for Economic Development – Labour, MAF, MED, Fisheries, MORST, Transport
5. DPMC – DPMC, SSC
6. Education – Education, ERO, TEC
7. Ministry of External Relations & Security – GCSB, Defence, MFAT,  NZDF
8. Treasury – Treasury
9. Incomes – IRD, WINZ
10. Culture – Culture & Heritage, Nat Lib, Archives, NZ on Air
11. Health – Health
12. Social Policy – Pacific Island Affairs, MSD, CYF, Youth Development, Community Sector, Senior Citizens, Families, Women’s Affairs, TPK
13. Parliament – Parl Serv, Min Serv, Office of Clerk, PCO

This means you could have a cabinet of 12. The Speaker looks after Parliament, and one Minister per major agency. One could have associate ministers outside cabinet who get delegated some of the specialist areas within an overall portfolio.

Tracy Watkins in the Dom Post reports:

The figures, to be issued by State Services Minister Tony Ryall, largely relate to the core public service and will show numbers have dropped to about 35,900 from about 38,800 in 2008.

But some parts of the public service are excluded because they are considered frontline. There has been a rise in some occupations, including 1400 more teachers, 1000 more nurses, 500 doctors, and police.

If those numbers are correct, I can’t see Labour getting much traction with their campaign against the changes the Government has made.

Public Service Association national secretary Brenda Pilott said there was no way the Government could cut spending further without cutting services.

The PSA might be correct (obviously at some point, services would be impacted), but the problem for them is that they have made the same claim for the last two years.

He would not say what might fall into the “nice to have” category, but the Government had already chopped things such as community education classes

Oh I had forgotten about those. Remember all the fuss the Oppoosition made about the basket weaving courses no longer being free.

Andrea Vance in the Dom Post reports:

Up to 65 jobs will go in a merger of agriculture and fisheries ministries and the Government is hinting more departments could be pushed together.

Workers at the Fisheries Ministry and Agriculture and Forestry Ministry were told of the move yesterday.

The Public Service Association said staff were told 65 jobs would go. They are likely to be in Wellington headquarters and regions where there are both MAF and Fisheries offices.

State Services Minister Tony Ryall said the merger would reduce “back-office bureaucracy” and save up to $10 million.

Good. Each seperate agency means the cost of a seperate IT system, a seperate HR Department, a seperate payroll system, a seperate CEO.

Speculation is rife that Treasury, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and State Services Commission may merge some functions. There are suggestions Culture and Heritage may join with Internal Affairs, which swallowed up Archives NZ and the National Library last year with the loss of 55 jobs.

I’ve said this before, but I think time is up on SSC.  Its reputation amongst the rest of the public service is not at all good, and many hold the view that it no longer adds value to the state sector.

I think one could combine SSC and DPMC together, and not only have significant cost savings but also improved performance. DPMC generally has an excellent reputation, and is well respected.

The other change which would be beneficial would be to combine all the small social policy ministrues into one Ministry of Social Policy. An MSP would have far more influence on Government decisions than all the small ministries such as Women’s Affairs.