Kiwiblog

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.

Grant 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.

The Herald reports:

Jobs could “quite possibly” be lost as a result of a Government review of the cost of policy advice across its departments and agencies, State Services Minister Tony Ryall says.

A review was announced today, after total Government spending on policy advice was estimated to have jumped by more than 70 per cent between 2003 and 2009 – from about $510 million to $880 million.

It was important to consider how policy advice could deliver value for money for the taxpayers, Mr Ryall said.

If I was a policy analyst, I’d be somewhat nervous.

Now to make it clear, I think a core role of Government is to have competent policy analysis, and in fact in some areas we could possibly do with further resources.

In other areas I think we have too much analysis. Now this is not the fault of individual analysts, but more reflecting that the Government has set up so many performance indicators etc, that you need legions to monitor them etc.

What Ryall has done in Health is potentially a good model in some other areas – reduce the complexity of the reporting requirements, and the need for so many policy staff may be reduced.

I have not looked in depth at TEC lately, but I have been amazed at how around 20 staff in the Education Ministry used to look after the tertiary sector, and TEC for a while rew to almost 400 staff. I would be surprised if there was not further savings to be made there.

The Dominion Post reports:

The education and health ministries are among the worst-performing government departments, according to a report card ranking state agencies and bosses.

The snapshot report, to be issued on Friday, finds excessive red tape, bureaucratic systems and ineffective consultation are hampering government departments.

While health and education are lagging, the Social Development Ministry is leading the way, alongside Customs and the Reserve Bank.

The Trans Tasman Media report, which is in the final draft stages, used 16 independent commentators to assess 37 departments.

The independent board rated departments in five categories: chief executive performance, ease of doing business, budget performance and value for money, service delivery, and overall performance.

I was one of the 16 commentators (as was the Dominion Post Editor), and also helped Trans Tasman with the survey design. I found the data quite fascinating.

The board of advisors included Peter Conway from the CTU, Mai Chen, Dave Henderson from the Assn of NGOs, Tina Reid from the Federation of Voluntary Welfare Orgs, Phil O’Reilly from Business NZ etc.

Each state core agency was rated from 1 to 7, so four is the mid point. and the average agency overall rating was 4.2.

The top 10 agencies for overall performance were:

1. Customs 5.38
2. Reserve Bank 5.08
3. MSD 5.08
4. LINZ 5.00
5. Stats 5.00
6. MFAT 4.91
7. Treasury 4.77
8. IRD 4.73
9. DPMC 4.67
10. MED 4.64

Customs received high ratings across the board. They are obviously a quiet effective performer.

The three biggest departments in terms of vote administered are Education, Health and MSD.  What I found interesting is that one of them was rated right near the top, and the other two almost at the bottom.

When you consider the past scandals and crises at MSD (which includes CYF), they really have turned their performance around. They have shown that size is not a barrier to quality.

It of some concern that the ratings for Education and Health ministries are so low.

The other area of real concern is SSC, with a low 3,55 rating. SSC is one of the three co-ordinating or central agencies alongside DPMC and Treasury. They should be one of the top ten agencies, not one of the bottom ten.How can you be in charge of assessing the performance of other agencies, when your own performance is seen externally (and internally from what I hear) as lack lustre.

From time to time people suggest that we don’t really need three central co-ordinating agencies, and SSC could be abolished with some of its functions transferred to DPMC. Unless they make themselves more relevant, and of greater value, then that may be an idea whose time has come.

Later in the week Trans-Tasman will announce the pick of the panel for Agency of the Year and CEO of the Year. This is not based simply on the ratings, but is based on more qualitative judgements.

The full report is around 100 pages long, and includes detailed critiques of each agency. It is available for sale from Trans Tasman.

Another interesting aspect of the results was, as reported here, that CEOs tnded to get higher ratings than their agencies. This suggests that having a good CEO is a necessary pre-requisite to good performance, but by itself is not a guarantee of sucess.

Some agencies seem to be so challenged, they they defy even the best CEO to turn around. On the other hand MSD is a good example of what you can do.

The Herald is on the new state sector rules:

One of the important principles of any liberal democracy is the political neutrality of the state service. For our system to function smoothly it is necessary for the public and political parties of all persuasions to have rock-solid confidence that the state service will behave professionally and impartially, no matter who happens to be the government of the day.

This is so basic that it almost goes without saying, and yet the State Services Commission has felt it necessary to take steps to clarify just what public servants’ obligations are under their code of conduct. Much of its 33 pages of guidelines for interpreting the code is good, common sense, but in one respect it seems to have broken new ground.

It now seems public servants need to be careful not just about their own political and pecuniary interests but also those of close family members as well. Not surprisingly, this has caused some raised eyebrows because, in political terms at least, it seems fundamentally unfair to judge a person by someone else’s allegiances.

I agree you should not be judged by a family member’s activities.

To apply such a standard generally would lead to endless and pointless complications, especially in a small country. What, for instance, would it make of a pair of brothers one of whom was the most senior public servant in the land and the other a leader of a political party?

In most cases a public servant will take a common sense approach and tell their boss that they have a family member politically engaged if it is relevant to their job. Not because there is anything wrong with it, but to protect themselves. However there is no need to codify it.

The Press looks at Tuhoe:

Speaking at a National Party conference on Sunday, Prime Minister John Key presented an optimistic scenario of improved race relations and he praised the contribution to his Government of the Maori Party.

Yet within one day Key had outraged the Maori Party and Tuhoe by scuppering a deal to give Te Urewera National Park back to that iwi, as part of its Treaty settlement. The real mystery here is why Key suddenly lost his nerve and intervened at the very last minute after months of negotiations.

This agreement was understood to have been due to go before Cabinet on Monday. It is believed it would have vested ownership of the park in Tuhoe’s ancestors to prevent its sale. …

The Tuhoe settlement would have come after New Zealand signed up to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, adopted the Whanau Ora policy of the Maori Party and agreed to replace the foreshore and seabed law.

And in my minds, that is probably what led to the Tuhoe deal having a limit placed on it publicly. It would have been too far too many “wins” within a very tight timeframe.

The question for Tuhoe now is whether they still try to make a settlement with this Government, or whether they hold off and hope they can get a better deal from a future Labour Government.

The Dom Post focuses on alcohol:

Neither an increase in the tax nor lifting the drinking age would have saved James. The vodka bottle from which he was seen drinking as if its contents were water had come from his grandmother’s drinks cabinet.

However, making alcohol more expensive and reducing its availability to teenagers might just prevent another youngster from making the same mistake.

Denying those old enough to vote, to marry and to go to war the right to buy a cold beer at the end of a hot summer’s day would be a draconian measure. So would putting up the price of everyone’s favourite tipple to make alcopops less attractive. But something has to be done. The evidence is incontrovertible that New Zealand’s unhealthy attitude to alcohol is spreading downwards to those least equipped to deal with it.

Again, I think a drinking age is the best option. It would be a clear message to both adults and youth that you should not be drinking when you are at an age (and brain development) unable to handle it.

Sixteen-year-olds are in no position to assess the dangers of binge-drinking. Fifteen, 14 and 13-year-olds even less so. If the industry cannot find a way to keep alcohol out of the hands of children, society must.

The industry did not supply the bottle of vodka. But I agree alcohol should be kept out of the hands of children. Make it an offence for a young person to possess or consume alcohol except in the company of their parents. And make it an offence for anyone but a parent to supply alcohol to young persons.

The Herald reports:

Civil servants will be encouraged to discuss their political activities with their managers and the political interests of close family members under new guidelines released yesterday.

The State Services Commission has toughened up its code of conduct for public servants with more prescriptive rules around political activities and potential conflicts of interest.

Not sure if this is needed, or not. But I was staggered to read this:

Mr Robertson, a former public servant, said it was reasonable for state servants to discuss their political activities with their managers “but dragging family members into it is taking it to another level”.

Has Grant heard of Madeleine Setchell? Really having a Labour MP talk about not dragging family members into it is just too much.

Both David Benson-Pope and Jim Anderton effectively blackballed Setchell from employment, because of who her boyfriend was.

The Herald reports:

State Services Minister Tony Ryall yesterday gave an update on the Government’s “cap of core government administration”.

The number of full-time jobs in core administrative roles fell by 1480 or 3.8 per cent last year to 37,379.

At the same time, said Mr Ryall, 540 full-time equivalent jobs had been added in “key frontline agencies outside the cap”, including Child, Youth and Family, Work and Income, and Community Probation.

“National campaigned to cap the size of the core bureaucracy and we’ve done that. This allows us to free up resources for improving frontline services,” Mr Ryall said.

After a 50% increase in the size of the public service under Labour, this is a great achievement.

It is so popular than even Phil Goff was trying to have it both ways. On TV last night he was claiming that Labour would also have capped public sector numbers – just not reduced them. Yeah, Right.

“We would have looked at the quality and the need for the staff, it would have been more about capping and not cutting,” says Labour leader Phil Goff.

I wonder what Grant Robertson thought of his leader’s endorsement of National’s policy of capping the number of staff. Maybe Grant could clarify what Labour’s policy now is? I am sure the PSA have been on the phone to him.

At the last election National campaigned on capping core public service jobs, a policy PSA national secretary Brenda Pilott said was “a farce”.

So is Brenda saying Phil Goff is supporting a farce?

“The Government has been cutting, not capping, jobs at a time when unemployment rose to a 10-year high.”

And the Government is borrowing $240 million a week. Private sector jobs create income for the Government, while public sector ones soak up that money. The fewer jobs we have in the private sector, the fewer we can afford in the public sector. This is why economic growth is rather important.

NBR has a “The good, the bad and the ugly – NBR 24/7′s plays of the week”, It is behind the firewall and always a good and often amusing read.

I am sure they don’t midn me sharing one small extract from it:

The good

Bureaucrats are getting fired (slowly)

If you want to know whether a government policy is a good idea or not you usually just need to listen to the reaction of the Public Service Association and take the opposite view.

This week the PSA, along with the union’s Labour allies, was bleating about comparatively minor ($25 million) restructuring at the Ministry of Education as part of a wider plan that includes possibly merging some ministries.

Voicing vociferous opposition to any pen-pushers being shown the door they said (as if it was some kind of tragedy) that about 2000 public sector workers had lost their jobs since National got elected.

This was quite possibly the best news of the week: National has seemingly managed to sack 2000 bureaucrats without anyone (except Labour and the PSA) noticing.

NBR goes on to explain the difference between jobs that create wealth and those that use it up.

The Herald approves of mooted KiwiSaver changes:

Commerce Minister Simon Power deserves praise for his decision to fast-track tougher reporting requirements for all KiwiSaver providers.

Not so David Ireland, the chairman of superannuation industry body Workplace Savings, who described the move as a “knee-jerk reaction”.

Like some other near-sighted individuals in the funds management industry, Mr Ireland seems to be struggling to come to terms with the idea that investors’ interests must come first.

When the subject is the integrity of KiwiSaver, which holds the investments of 1.3 million New Zealanders, there is every reason to move quickly to plug any gaps in regulation.

What scares me is the poll showing around half of KiwiSaver investors think their fund is government guaranteed.

The Dominion Post wants the public service reined in further:

The public service is a dollar-devouring behemoth that has thwarted many attempts to rein it in.

Prime Minister John Key will need to do better than he has so far, if he is going to succeed in slipping on the halter. It is vital that he does. …

Now the Government is treading so carefully it risks making no progress. Mr Key, through a spokeswoman, has denied there is any proposal that might be described as “radical reform”. Instead, all indications are of a process that smacks of the ad hoc, and of being driven by fear of public reaction as much as by any coherent strategy.

That is not good enough. Despite improvements in government finances, the Treasury is still forecasting deficits will continue to 2016. Finance Minister Bill English rightly wants the focus to remain on getting out of deficit as quickly as possible.

Once we are out of deficit, then we get far more palatable choices. We get to decide whether surpluses are spent on reducing debt, cutting taxes or increasing spending. But until we get back into surplus, it is all fairly unpalatable.

The Press looks at the progress in Iraq:

With so much attention focused on the violence in Afghanistan, there is a risk of downplaying significant events in Iraq, notably its recent election.

The result of this election, in terms of the shape of the coalition which will govern the nation, is likely to take weeks or even months of deal-making.

But the manner in which the election was conducted is one of the most positive developments in Iraq since the United States and its “coalition of the willing” allies toppled Saddam Hussein in 2003. US President Barack Obama could ultimately be proved correct when he declared that the election was an important milestone in Iraq’s history.

The most notable feature of the election was the turnout which defied many observers’ expectations by reaching 62 per cent. This figure might not seem high by New Zealand standards, but it is worth reflecting that it is comparable to the most recent US election.

In a decade or so, Iraq may be doing relatively well.

And the ODT commemorates International Women’s Day:

New Zealand has much to be proud of in its gender equality record, and with the marking on Monday this week of International Women’s Day, there is cause for celebration.

In the most recent Global Gender Gap Report of the Geneva-based non-profit World Economic Forum, New Zealand is ranked fifth out of 134 countries in an index that assesses countries on how well they are dividing their resources and opportunities among their male and female populations – regardless of the overall levels of these resources and opportunities. …

But not so good:

In New Zealand, one in five women will be subjected to violence in their lifetime, compared to one in 20 men.”

NZPA report:

Prime Minister John Key says New Zealand has more government agencies than a country its size needs and has signalled there could be several mergers to reduce their number.

The state sector consists of 41 departments and ministries, 84 statutory Crown entities, 11 Crown entity companies, 17 state-owned enterprises, 31 tertiary education institutions and numerous ”schedule four entities” like the Lottery Grants Board.

I don’t really count the 31 tertiary education institutions in the core state sector, but even excluding them that is 153 state entities, plus the Schedule 4 entities.

If Labour really thinks three small mergers is a radical restructuring, they need to get real.

Labour actually started the mergers off – they combined Courts and Justice back together. Does Grant Robertson think this was a radical restructuring?

What a shame to see Labour oppose something that they actually got right in the last Government.

Emily Watt and Colin Espiner report:

The Government is planning a shake-up of state services, with mergers expected in Internal Affairs, MAF and the science sector.

It is not clear how many jobs will be lost, but “back office” functions such as human resources, IT, payroll and communications are likely to be cut back to avoid duplication.

The Dominion Post has been told there will be three mergers, which are to be announced on Wednesday and will see departments, ministries and agencies folded into each other.

Sources say space has been booked at the National Library to announce the formation of what they are calling a Ministry of Information, which would roll National Library and National Archives into the Internal Affairs Department. It is understood Land Information New Zealand and Statistics had also been considered in that merger.

Oh I would so love to be Minister of Information. That would just be the best title, next to Minister of Propaganda. Imagine the first class treatment you would get in all the despotic regimes around the world, when your business card declares you are the New Zealand Minister of Information.

The Agriculture and Forestry Ministry is also due for a shake-up with the Food Safety Authority, with an annual budget of $99.6m, expected to be brought back under its roof.

The science sector will also come under the scalpel, with the Foundation of Research, Science & Technology and Research, Science & Technology Ministry being merged.

I’m delighted to see even this minor reform as it heads in the right direction. We do not need 200+ state sector CEOs, and 200+ IT systems, 200+ HR systems etc. In my ideal would you would have all agencies grouped within a dozen super-ministries.

Mr Robertson said it appeared Mr Key had broken his pre-election promise not to radically reorganise the public service.

Oh Grant. This is not radical. Three small mergers is a welcome but cautious step. It is such a shame to see Labour oppose every measure to reduce bureaucratic duplication and costs in the state sector. Their sole state sector policy seems to be to borrow and spend more money.

Labour should welcome these changes, as they continue a trend started under Labour to bring smaller agencies together. National went the other way in the 1990s and in hindsight got it wrong. Again it is a pity to see Labour oppose something they should support.

The Public Service Association has not been briefed on the plans, but said it was supportive of the Government “sticking things back together” after several decades of splitting departments up.

Indeed. On this one, I agree with the PSA.

The Herald reports:

A directive from the Ministry of Education telling an Opposition MP that information requests needed to be answered by the minister was a communications blunder, the ministry says.

Labour Party state services spokesman Grant Robertson said he would write to the State Services Commission and ask it to investigate after MP Ruth Dyson made an inquiry to the ministry regarding policy about funding for disabled students.

She said she was trying to support the parents of a student whose support funding had been cut and was told that operational issues raised at a local level by government MPs could be dealt with locally, but requests for information from non-government MPs needed to go to the relevant minister formally for a response. …

The ministry said yesterday the directive given to Ms Dyson appeared to be the result of a staff member misunderstanding the rules.

Senior ministry manager Jim Matheson said the error was “regrettable”.

“The ministry will take steps to ensure such an error will not be repeated.”

It is 99% likely to just be a stuff up, but it is an important principle that MPs dealing with constituents issues are treated equally.

I think it would be useful to have the SSC to investigate – not so much to find any improper behaviour, but to send out a signal to other agencies how important it is not to make mistakes like this.

Grant Robertson blogs:

The end of the State Services Commission?

That might not be a title that sets the heart racing for all but the policy wonks. But actually it is important for the health of all the public services that we rely on everyday that there is someone to balance the power of the Treasury in the direction of the public sector.

Sigh. I think there are good reasons for and against having the SSC< but really the old bogeyman of anti-Treasury is so 1990s. You don’t spend $35 million a year on a department, just to “balance the power of Treasury”. That’s simplistic and puerile.

First of all the so called power of Treasury is a myth. Cullen ignored most of what Treasury said for nine years. The current Government goes against Treasury advice pretty regularly also.

And right now the SSC is not doing it.  What’s more if we believe the talk, it might not be around much longer in any case. The rumour mill in Wellington is rife that SSC might be merged into the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet.

I think it is a legitimate question. We have three central co-ordinating agencies – Treasury, SSC and DPMC. For a small country, that may be overkill.

And as Grant himself acknowledges, SSC is not highly effective. The Commissioner is well regarded, but SSC as an institution is not thought of very well by many in the public sector. Some years ago it was seen as adding a lot of value, but in recent years I hear more and more complaints about it.

The place of the SSC in our public service has changed a lot. Until the state sector reforms of the 80s it played a very hands on role in terms of everything from setting pay to deciding how and when you could order stationery. There is widespread agreement that no one wants to go back there. But even post the 1980s the SSC had a position as the development and quality manager for the public service.  Now it seems all it does is employ the Chief Executives of other departments.

Umm Grant, under which Government did this all happen? It is a trend that started under Labour. And to some degree, it is because SSC got over extended and was trying to do too much. So they are focusing on doign fewer things well.

SSC has already had the responsibility for E-Government work taken away and given to the Department of Internal Affairs.

And when was this decision made? In 2007. And why was it made? Well the SSC record was somewhat patchy – think the huge loss making Government Shared Network.

SSC being absorbed into the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet would be a bad move from my perspective as it would decrease its independence from the Executive of the day. But given its diminished role it is little wonder that this kind of speculation is about.

Oh Grant. You have worked in the public service. So you know better than talking about the SSC being independent from the Executive of the day. The SSC has the same status as DPMC, and is not independent from the Executive – they are part of it.

I don’t know what point Grant is trying to make. Is he saying that Labour was wrong to diminish the role of the SSC? Or is he saying it should be retained, even though it no longer provides much of a role other than employing CEOs?

Why not propose your own preferred state sector structure, rather than just complain about the power of Treasury? Do we have too many, too few or the right number of agencies for example?

There is a need for change and adaptation in the public sector, and SSC should be  big part of that.  I have given some of my thoughts on how this could happen before. We need the Treasury to be carefully analysing all the spending done by the government, that is their job.  But we have seen before the impact when they are too dominant.  In the case of the public service there needs to be someone looking at the health of the overall system in terms of the quality of services New Zealanders receive, not just from a fiscal perspective.   This should, and could, be the SSC in my view.  But right about now they are on the margins, and in the end it is the public services that all New Zealanders use that will suffer as a result.

but Grant doesn’t say why this so called essential role, can’t be done by DPMC (who are highly regarded and respected by those who deal with them)? They are not the Prime Minister’s Office – they are a Department of State.

Anyway I will float an idea of my own, that who knows Grant may even agree with, in terms of “balancing the power” of Treasury. It is to have a Ministry of Social Policy that is so highly regarded, that the top social policy people in New Zealand want to work there, and just as Treasury comments on basically every Cabinet paper from an economic perspective, an MSP would comment on every paper from a social policy perspective.

Not so much a rival to Treasury, as a peer organisation.

This MSP, should replace the multitude of existing small agencies – specifically Pacific Island Affairs, TPK (their policy arm), MSD policy arm, Ministry of Youth Affairs, Ethnic Affairs Unit,  Ministry of Women’s Affairs, Disability Issues Unit etc etc.

I know some people like the identity of having separate ministries such as Women’s Affairs, but with no offence to the staff, they hold almost no weight with Government. The objections of MWA to a policy probably cause a Minister to pause for five seconds at most as they read that section of a Cabinet paper – and no I am not just talking about National. The small ministries and units are not well regarded.

But if you had an MSP, that attracted the very top social policy analysts in NZ, that was the place where almost all social policy graduates want to work at for at least a few years (as Treasury and MFAT is for many people), then that would carry weight with Government. The “gender equity” team of an MSP, would have far more influence withing Government that the MWA has. Because when their analysis goes out, it goes out with the authority and credibility of the entire MSP and its Chief Executive.

So my model for the public service would be:

1. Merge existing small social policy ministries and units into one top class Ministry of Social Policy, that is resourced to be able to contribute to Cabinet papers to the same degree Treasury is. Treasury’s job will be to report on the economic effects of a polcy, and MSP on the social policy effects.
2. Merge SSC into DPMC.
3. Admit National was wrong in breaking up large Departments like Justice into stand alone agencies (Courts, Corrections, Justice etc) in the 90s and continue the trend started by Labour to merge agencies in a sector together with an eventual goal of a larger number of super-ministries such as the existing MED, DIA, and a smaller number of stand alone agencies. Eventually one might have a dozen super ministries – economic, law& order, health, education, business, social policy, service delivery etc. This should reduce backend costs, but also lead to better leadership and co-ordination.
4. Reduce the number of Ministers in Cabinet so there is one per super ministry.
5. Increase the number of Ministers outside Cabinet who may have delegated responsibility for units or branches within super-ministries, but be accountable to the Minister within Cabinet for them. This is a bit like the UK system where you have two tiers of Ministers – a small Cabinet with Secretaries of State, and a larger external Ministry with Ministers of State.

I’m not wedded to the exact model above, but I would love to see a party or Government give it a serious examination, look at pros and cons, costs and savings etc.

Tony Ryall announced:

“Between December and June this year, the number of fulltime equivalent (FTE) staff positions within the core government administration cap reduced by 1402, while numbers in frontline services outside of the cap have increased.”

Excellent. Considering the Government is having to borrow almost $10 billion a year, it is imperative expenditure be restrained so that we do not have massive tax hikes in the future to pay for the interest on all the debt.

The reduction of 1,402 positions comprised 757 vacancies disestablished and 645 FTE employee positions.  Approximately 60 percent of the decrease was through managed attrition, 21 percent through seasonal variation and 18 percent through redundancies.

It is also good only 18% are redundancies. Regardless of the overall fiscal need, it is never pleasant to have your job made redundant and managed attrition is preferable.

However, the frontline of the Public Service, which was not included in the cap, saw an increase of 173 FTE positions, driven by improvements to service delivery at Community Probation & Psychological Services and Work & Income.

There are also increases planned or occurring in frontline services in Police, Corrections and the Ministry of Social Development.

As I said, a good start. The challenge is to keep it up for the entire term.

There’s also been a 10% reduction in the number of communications staff in the public sector.

Bill Ralston makes easy work of the PSA and Labour:

Erect a stake, pile wood around it as a pyre, tie Treasury Head John Whitehead to it and throw in a match.

The man has committed heresy. He said the public service needed to rethink its approach, trim its fat, move out of its comfort zone and generally get its act together or someone else will come and do it.

Shocking. Dreadful. Appalling.

Next he’ll be advocating that the world is not flat and that the Earth revolves around the sun.

The reactions to that sensible speech were so predictably knee-jerk mid-numbingly stupid.

Of course.

“The groundwork is being laid here for privatisation and further deeper job cuts”, says Labour’s State Services spokesman Grant Robertson.

No it isn’t. Whitehead talked of contracting out some services if it made sense. If a department could get say cheaper legal or accounting services from the private sector, why wouldn’t it look at that option rather than retain or expand its in-house services?

Heresy.

The PSA’s Brenda Pilott chimes in, “We’re amazed Mr Whitehead says we should be privatising public services when bad management in the private sector has created the worst global recession since the Great Depression.”

If this is the PSA’s grasp of economics and world finance then God help its members.

Ms Pilott might be interested to know the recession arose out of the credit crunch brought on by the failure of the US subprime mortgage market. Basically a relatively small group of bankers went greedily mad in a largely unregulated market.

To condemn the entire private sector for the failure of one small part of the capitalist system is nuts.

So primary producers, manufacturers, the services sector and any other part of the private sector nationally and internationally must all beat the blame for the recession?

Would we condemn the entire public service because of the single failure of, say, the Corrections Department? Tempting but unfair.

A good example of the stupidity of those who rant against the private sector and think this means all of capitalism has failed.

A horrified Grant Robertson claimed it signalled the resurgence of Treasury’s influence over the public sector.

Hang on. “Resurgence of Treasury’s influence?” Hadn’t his previous Labour government somehow banished Treasury to a corner where it could not exercise any influence over the financial performance of the public service?

Yes.

The NZ Herald reports sound words from the Treasury Secretary:

In a speech to government department chief executives in Wellington yesterday, Treasury Secretary Mr Whitehead said the public service needed to move out of its traditional comfort zone and take some risks to ensure it delivered services as cost-effectively as possible.

“There is a stark alternative to mobilising ourselves as public servants. If we don’t rise to the challenge and make real progress, change will occur – but it will be done to us rather than by us.”

Absolutely. To be fair some CEs have risen to teh challenge.

The Government’s edict was for better services without spending increases – and Mr Whitehead said nothing should be off the table to try to lift the productivity of the state sector.

Options included contracting out more services to the private sector, merging administrative services with other departments to lower costs and cutting projects despite the possibility of staff cuts.

I am interested in the merging of admin services.

If you add quangos to core departments, we now have 250 or so public sector CEOs. It also means we have 250 IT systems, 250 payroll systems, 250 HR systems etc etc.

I would advocate creating around a dozen sector super-ministries. One for the justice sector, one for the social services sector, one for health sector etc. You might still have different agencies within that super ministry, but they would all use the same IT, HR, payroll systems etc. And there would be just one CEO over them all who is in charge of strategy and ensuring the whole sector works together.

You see this in the UK where the Home Office is in charge of all law & order – corrections, police, courts etc etc.

In the speech, Mr Whitehead says “tough decisions” are needed. Staff numbers working in the core bureaucracy had grown by 44 per cent since 1999 – a far greater number than those affected by recent redundancies.

Mr Whitehead told the government departments more savings would be sought through the “line-by-line” reviews of spending that have become a regular part of the Budget process.

So trying to reduce costs won’t be a one off exercise, but an annual event. Excellent.