The double standard

A lot of PSA members have been wondering about the information provided to the Minister of Social Development about individual beneficiaries. As one member put it, in an email today, “If an individual staff member working in the Ministry had released that information – or even looked at it without a reason – then we’d be facing possible disciplinary action under the code of conduct.”

They’ve got a good point. And it’s not just MSD that takes this stance. Inland Revenue has a zero tolerance policy about staff looking up tax information without cause. There’s a high standard of conduct expected of public servants and New Zealand has good reason to be proud of the record of integrity our public service displays.

Pity about the double standard that operates with one rule for public servants and another for ministers. Maybe it’s time ministers adopted the high standards of conduct and integrity that public servants have.

Wait and see on the super city plan

Now that the Auckland Governance Legislation select committee has finished hearing submissions on the all important second piece of ‘super city’ legislation, we await the report back to Parliament with much anticipation.

The select committee made a real effort to listen and understand the large number of submissions that supported the Royal Commission’s plans for a super city, but they also got a constant earful of opposition to Rodney Hide’s plans for Auckland. That’s because the Minister of Local Government cherry-picked the Royal Commission’s proposals, leaving crucial bits behind, resulting in a half baked plan that is the worst of all worlds.

Soon we will find out whether Hide is really on a tight leash, or whether he has the freedom to impose his radical reform agenda. The stakes are high because we will only get this one chance to transition from the existing council structure to the super city.

The critical issue for workers is the urgent need to establish a framework for staff to transfer into the new council structure as the Royal Commission recommended. This was one of the things Hide left out, which is no surprise because transitioning staff means transitioning services. And from what we’ve been hearing from Hide, local government service beyond a very narrow range of roads, rubbish and water are not part of his thinking.

The Auckland Transition Authority (ATA) will only do what it is told to do by the politicians. It’s important that the select committee findings result in a new set of instructions so that ATA can get on with the business of creating a real super city

It would be more productive to spell it out

John Whitehead’s speech has provoked some interesting commentary about public sector productivity. The public sector was put on notice in Budget 2009 to increase its productivity – or else. And John Whitehead delivered a more careful version of the same message last week.

So what is the government’s productivity target? By when? And how will productivity be measured? Fair questions if we want to rationally move forward with an evidence-based approach to good policy and government, which is exactly what Ministers demand of public officials.

What we do know is that by available measures the New Zealand public service represents good value for money. The most reliable survey, by the State Services Commission, shows that most New Zealanders value their public services and think they are delivering well.

We also know – because we’ve been there before – that disinvestment in public services is bad policy. It makes public services less productive and only saves money in the short term. We lose valuable capability then have to hire it back again later. We’ve seen that recently with MAF biosecurity staff. Even Federated Farmers think sacking them was a bad idea.

We do need to know that our public sector agencies are efficient and effective and delivering good value for money. The trouble is that there’s little ministerial direction on this issue. None of the central agencies has a work programme to drive productivity in the public sector, even Bill English’s own department, The Treasury. It’s all being left up to individual departments to work it out for themselves. Not the most productive way to tackle this issue. It’s time the government got its act together on public sector productivity. Otherwise we might be forgiven for believing this is all just another excuse for slashing public spending, and especially cutting state sector wages.

The P epidemic

Don’t be fooled. Privatisation is very much on the government’s agenda. They just don’t like using the ‘p’ word.

Instead the agenda is being masked. This week a private company announced it had set up a PIP Fund – Public Infrastructure Partnership Fund. The government is kicking off the fund. It’s putting in up to $100 million of public money from the super fund, set up to pay our pensions when we hit 65.

Private companies will use money from the PIP Fund to build public assets like schools, hospitals and prisons. The companies will own these assets and will rent them to the government for 25 to 35 years.

This is known as a public private partnership (PPP). It’s clearly a form of  privatisation because the companies own these schools, hospitals and prisons for up to 35 years.

It’s a great deal for the companies but overseas experience show they cost taxpayers a fortune.

Take the PPP-built school in Northern Ireland. Even though the school has closed British taxpayers will pay $1 million a year for the next 18 years, to the company that built the school. That’s because they’re locked into a 25 year rental deal.

Queen Elizabeth Hospital in London was hailed as a flagship for the PPP model when it was opened in 2001. Four years later it was insolvent because it’s locked into a 30 year contract it can’t afford.  It’s paying $49 million a year to a company that financed its construction, $22 million more than if it had borrowed the money from the government.

It’s estimated the British taxpayers could save $6 billion if the government bought out all the PPP contacts it signed to build new hospitals.

If there’s no benefits to be gained from this form of privatisation, why should we go there?  Even Treasury, usually a supporter of privatising public assets, warns of the risks and costs of PPP in a 2006 report which you can read here.

Get real, Mr English

Bill English clearly got out of the wrong side of bed today, if his intemperate and aggressive outbursts on Morning Report are anything to go by.  He fudged the scale of the job losses in the state sector, accused the PSA and its members of not living in the real world and foreshadowed a major restructure of the public sector.  The PSA has been keeping a tally of job losses in the state sector and we know of around 2000 jobs that have gone through redundancy or attrition.  That’s a fact.  Most public servants know of colleagues who have lost their job, or are aware of restructuring coming their way.  That’s the real world for public servants and frankly it’s a bit rich for a minister to be telling these people that they need to get real.

Bill English keeps repeating the figure of a 40% growth in the size of the public service since 2000.  That’s only part of the truth.  Go back a little further and we can see  that in 1990 there were 50,500 public servants – 1 for every 69 New Zealanders.  By 1999, there were 29,000 – 1 for every 125.  Today, there is one public servant for every 100 New Zealanders.  Hardly a burgeoning public service.

There are two parts to this story that won’t go away, no matter how much Bill English blusters.  First, his government’s commitment to keeping New Zealanders in jobs is hollow. As an employer, the government has made bigger cuts than most.  Secondly, these cuts will inevitably lead to cuts in public services and these will soon start to be apparent in communities throughout New Zealand.

The PSA has a fresh and realistic agenda and ideas for improving things in these tough times.  It’s time the Minister of Finance joined us in a rational debate.

Treasury’s retro reforms

John Whitehead, the Secretary to the Treasury, has kick-started a debate on the value of public services. Not before time – though I do wonder why it’s Treasury not the State Services Commission leading on this.  The Treasury recipe for the 21st century public service has a very retro feel.  Belt-tightening (though not at Treasury, where they are enjoying a 10% baseline increase), lots of privatisation, plenty of counting, measuring and monitoring, and a thorough restructuring of the state sector.  Very 80s and 90s.

The PSA agrees that we need innovative and responsive public services.  But we have a very different view of what will take us there.  So here’s our list of 7  Things That Need to Change:

• taking privatisation off the agenda
• a moratorium on restructurings
• giving citizens a voice
• listening to front line public sector workers
• getting the best from public sector workers
• respecting the professionalism of public sector workers
• having more effective and efficient  bargaining of pay and conditions for public sector workers.

The Treasury recipe failed in the past and there’s no reason why it should work now. We need to try something different. Engaging with public  sector workers and listening to our communities would be a good start.