by Kennedy Graham
In an interesting move the Treasury seems to be foreshadowing the Government’s privatisation agenda by yesterday putting out a press release of their CE’s speech which calls for change in the public sector. Given how closely the speech aligns with the Government’s rhetoric around the public sector and their ideological commitment to the private sector, it seems safe to the assume that at the very least the Government were happy for this to happen.
So what did John Whitehead’s speech to public sector Chief Executives in Wellington yesterday promote?
It set out a series of goals that, on the face of it, most New Zealanders could agree with. Basically, that we need a focussed, efficient and productive public service. No one could disagree with that.
But what does it mean in practice? The strong implication in this speech is that more services need to be carried out by the private sector. This seems to be based on the tired old assumption that private sector is always more efficient.
He cleverly avoids using examples of where privatisation should be used, presumably to avoid arguments as to whether there is evidence that it works.
The one example given as an example is private prisons but the evidence from countries that have widespread use of private prisons such as the US and Australia shows that they do not save money.
The other issue with this speech is that it promotes the idea that in a recession you need to cut public spending. This ignores that a slash and burn approach will only make the recession deepen. What we need is Green New Deal investment from the Government that strengthens the economy and protects the environment.
Published in Environment & Resource Management by Kennedy Graham on Tue, July 21st, 2009
Tags: Private prisons, privatisation, public sector, state services
More posts by Kennedy Graham | more about Kennedy Graham
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Indeed, Ken, and the appointment of Brash to head the Productivity Commission (or should we call it the Privatisation Commission) reinforces that.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Or it could be exactly what John Whitehead has said it is with no hidden meanings or agenda’s. It comes across as a standard Treasury discussion that would not be out of place in the UK, USA, and of the EU countries and even parts of the UN suggest you have a look at the UK Treasury website, or the UK Prime Ministers office website as a start point – Try reading FABRIC the basis for most modern public sector performance management analysis and thinking.
You may want to note that John Whitehead was speaking at a conference on managing and measuring performance in the public sector, of which the keynote speaker was Bob Behn from Harvard university – you may want to look at his regular public management report http://www.hks.harvard.edu/thebehnreport/
So in answer to your conspiracy theory question – the logic test is: could this have been proposed under a different government? The international evidence is ‘yes’ government formed by left or right parties have said the same things about public sector performance – in fact many if not all have active programmes to continually improve public sector performance.
A more interesting question is whether this would be allowed under a toad party government?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Brrrrrrrrraaaaaaaaasssssssssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Was that a ghost (or a ghoul)?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Brian Easton puts it clearly enough, we have a problem with rushing through reviews that do more harm than good – that is, we would have achieved more progress without the resulting reforms.
I suspect the more this government does the less electable it will be.
This because they tend to go in with the agenda in mind of right wing ideologists rather than allow reform to come from within the institutions. This results in weak institutions unable to serve our country well (a problem we have had since the 1984 reforms – with the possible exception of FA which is now being made more like other victims). The problem now may be that the institutions themselves are now so weak they can be captured by outside appointments and rail roaded in their leaders image – their historic institutional culture permanently disabled.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Considering the economic ideology favoured by Brash actually created the wage gap between NZ and Australia in the 1984-1999 period, it’s going to be hilarious to hear how he intends to close that gap. Repudiate everything he believes in perhaps?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I don’t know if the press release is really advocating privatisation of public services. Some parts of the release do suggest this as an option, but whether this represents a hidden agenda is a different question.
It is worth considering that while a service is provided publicly, the government potentially has a lot more control over how much value it gets for its money (or doesn’t get as the case may be). Many government services are close to being monopolies; once privatised they may be run effificently, but the private owners can also make large profits, thus reducing the value for money to the tax payer. One just needs to look at water supply privatisations which have happened overseas to see this phenomenon in action.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
INCARCERATING PEOPLE “FOR PROFIT” IS IN A WORD….WRONG!
Even if one does not ask or pretends not to see the rope and the flashing red flag draped around the philosophical question standing solemnly at attention in the middle of the room, it remains apparent that the mere presence of a private “for profit” driven prison business in our country undermines the U.S Constitution and subsequently the credibility of the American criminal justice system. In fact, until all private prisons in America have been abolished and outlawed, “the promise” of fairness and justice at every level of this country’s judicial system will remain unattainable. We must restore the principles and the vacant promise of our judicial system. Our government cannot continue to “job-out” its obligation and neglect its duty to the individuals confined in the correctional and rehabilitation facilities throughout this nation, nor can it ignore the will of the people that it was designed to serve and protect. There is urgent need for the good people of this country to emerge from the shadows of indifference, apathy, cynicism, fear, and those other dark places that we migrate to when we are overwhelmed by frustration and the loss of hope.
My hope is that you will support the National Public Service Council to Abolish Private Prisons (NPSCTAPP) with a show of solidarity by signing “The Single Voice Petition”
http://www.petitiononline.com/gufree2/petition.html
Please visit our website for further information: http://www.npsctapp.blogspot.com
–Ahma Daeus
“Practicing Humanity Without A License”…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The first thing to do is to recognise that the partners income amount which disqualifies their partner from receiving the dole has been caught by the minimum wage – at $12.50 an hour this is 25,000 pa.
Obviously the $25,000 partner income (which means their partner cannot get the dole) has to rise.
There needs to be a fixed point of relativity to prevent this happening again. I would suggest an increase to c$40,000 – thus with the single rate dole $190 a week (close to 10,000) about 2 * the minimum wage of $25,000.
The next issue is the abatement regime (remember the dole amount is one that is tax paid) which applies if the partner has income over $40,000 – I would suggest at 50 cents (a regime applying from $40 to $60,000 of income) – thus at $50,000 a $100 a week amount – 1/2 dole.
The management problem is where there is interface with WFF. The related problem is that WFF is not work tested for both partners and the dole is.
So in the sense of a programme to propose now, that is where I would go.
In a philosophical sense – and in terms of developing a wider policy, I like the idea of paying a social wage to all full time students and to all mothers of children under 5. That is a social wage paid with no work test. I also support partners being independently eligible for the dole (even if limited to those with partner income under $60,000).
In practice this would mean – the social wage (at the rate of the adult individual rate dole) would be paid to all students and all non- working parents with partners (with a child under 5 no work test, if no child under 5 with a work test). This would cost money – but there would be savings in the WFF cost as any rise in income from the social wage would reduce WFF tax credit eligibility.
In fact some many one income couples would receive more than a social wage than they currently do from WFF – so they would rop out of that scheme and reduce its IRD cost.
The scheme would be afforded by dropping the billion dollars paid each year into Kiwi Saver and making that compulsory at 2% contribution by worker and employer. There would be savings in WFF costs and also in unemployment payments (as making it more affordable for those women who would not work if there was a social wage payable – their jobs would go to those who would otherwise be unemployed).
PS the other cost saving is in silencing Peter Dunne who wants to deliver income splitting to the high income partner couples of Ohariu – an old style expensive electorate roading project form of pork barrel politics.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Obviously I am suggesting that real government efficiency is related to what it actually delivers to those people contributing to its funding and who need support from its ultimate social insurance function.
In that sense what Goff mentioned is more important than the rearranging the deck chairs of the titanic of “administration style and form” (bureacrats w and being w) politics.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Or it could be exactly what John Whitehead has said it is with no hidden meanings or agenda’s.”
We’ve had some experience of these sort of pronouncements over the years – if there is no neo-liberal agenda behind it, it will be a world first.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Privatisation generally means a better service / product for less cost.
These government boofheads turn up to work to warm seats, not to work.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
How do you know that? I’ve seen loafers in both govt and private organisations, but as an occasional boofhead, my experience was that the large majority of people cared very much about the service they provided to the public. Further, it was more often the case that they worked harder than they should have to to meet a level of demand that outstripped what current funding could provide.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)