And unfortunately, those with in the best position to begin and drive any change are exactly the people whose livlihoods depend on nothing changing at all.

Leaving?

It's just that in NZ, there are only a few large organisations apart from the public servce so we think that the public service is odd.

I agree and would add that the public sector is also much more likely to get into the media

Sure – but perhaps the point is that given NZ's small scale our governance should be less encumbered*.

Again – does one rail against the system to try to change it, or work?

In particular, your interpretation of the OIA is deeply worrying, if its a common attitude within the public service. Having been both on?

Take OIA requests, which are so often time-wasting fishing expeditions by the Opposition party, to be leaked out-of-context to the media, or deployed as momentary gotchas in the House. They cost enormous amounts of time?

Fair enough, and I take the point. I was somewhat intemperate. Largely because Public Service Manager essentially blamed a large proportion of government problems on lawyers. I'm a lawyer who's worked both with and on the other side of a number of very professional, dedicated public service lawyers, and?

Admin needs an equivalent of the cost-benefit analysis system whereby you can say that 'yes, we could implement systems to ensure this never happens again, but the cost of this would be to ensure our effective delivery in other areas would be unacceptably degraded.

But unfortunately, you will get various?

But unfortunately, you will get various media titans demanding an assurance that this will never happen again...

I believe Paul Henry, word for word, asked for that on Close Up last week in relation to some public sector scandal du jour.

Several times in your blog post you make reference to media criticism and 'beat-ups', and they?

But unfortunately, you will get various media titans demanding an assurance that this will never happen again...

This discussion is turning towards things that I have been thinking a lot about recently for personal reasons.

If the public and the media is going to demand 100% from the public service,?

The fear of the discoverable really does chill honest advice in the public sector.

Yes... maybe. When I was working in the Public Service from time to time I would telephone someone to talk about an issue and agree what we would do, rather than commit it to e-mail, because?

It's worth remembering that civil servants can give all the good advice in the world, but ultimately the minister decides, and that decision is often made for political reasons.

Yes, agreed Deborah. And that's fine if the accountability mechansims, including the OIA work. Then we can see the advice provided?

But we're never going to do it while these beat-ups carry on.

For this we can partly blame the party of small government, Act. Hide's 'perk busting" type antics have had the counter intuitive affect of making government hugely risk averse. I agree with the comments about being accountable, but?

Dear PSM

Good news this is all about to be changed. Bad news is it is unlikely to get better.

Committee-ing to the nth degree is being targeted by the new government as they seek to eliminate backroom wastage. They will probably be cutting a lot?

Hide's 'perk busting" type antics have had the counter intuitive affect of making government hugely risk averse.

Why is that counter-intuitive Don? Isn't making government averse to initiatives that involve spending money Hide's aim? Wouldn't ACT prefer a sclerotic, unimaginative government doing the minimum it could 'get away with' to?

The transition about to occur one of form. No longer will ideas and initiatives of merit be lost in committee, soon they will be rejected out of hand by an expert consultant.

This has been a thread of near-poetic cynicism ...

I suppose those that have been around for a while would recognise the inimitable stylings of our very own Russell Brown History does, indeed repeat, speshly when after 9 years of sanity the same old faces creep back into power.

Damn! I was going to link to that tomorrow!

Wouldn't ACT prefer a sclerotic, unimaginative government doing the minimum it could 'get away with' to one which is activist, thinks creatively and unafraid to intervene where it could contribute something useful?

Rodney Hide's much-touted 'bonfire of regulations' is all well and good. But where there's fire there's smoke -?

It's called "accountability". Frequently its trivial and for the wrong things, but its certainly better than the alternative which our Public Service Manager so fervantly (sic) desires

I suspect I was being too opaque.

I am a fervent champion of accountability and transparancy. My fear is that the Public Sector?

Wrong. William Bell had almost a hundred convictions, it sure wasn't his "first offence".

Fair point – this was a cock-up on my part. I meant to say violent offence. I would refer you to the commentary in the recent ruling from the Court of Appeal.

I'm not disputing the?

I suspect I was being too opaque.

i don't think so.

Sorry if I gave the impression I was trying to dodge questions.

i didn't get that impression.

i find it interesting that your attempt to highlight the perverse outcomes of a system ostensibly designed to provide accountability and transparency?

Thanks for the information. Well written. It's particularly weird to have read you in such secrecy but supports what may be a systemic problem in the set up of both private and public organisational models.

Secrecy as a strategy puts a lot of test on workplace loyalty.?

Fair point – this was a cock-up on my part. I meant to say violent offence. I would refer you to the commentary in the recent ruling from the Court of Appeal.

It jumped out to me, but I just didn't have time today to query it. I'll annotate the?

I suspect I was being too opaque.

I am a fervent champion of accountability and transparancy. My fear is that the Public Sector gets manipulated by various interests to become less open despite legislation such as the OIA.

For the avoidance of doubt, I want to be able to publish?

Damn! I was going to link to that tomorrow!

You still should. I saw that quote on one of the blogs this morning too.

This has been a thread of near-poetic cynicism ...

In the end years of the Labour Government, I felt that no matter what argument I presented?

Damn! I was going to link to that tomorrow!

Well you can, just credit me ;-)
On a serious note I would llike to point out that I, and others, warned that this BOC was going to do just this sort of thing but democracy allows stupid, ignorant and mislead people?

This has been a thread of near-poetic cynicism ...

Strangely enough my original intent was to look on the bright side... despite the misfiring of some legislation (mainly due to operational interpretation) we still have a damn fine Public Service.

The blatant hyperbole about Corrections & ACC being excreted at the?

...Is that tongue in cheek, an exaggeration, or are you serious?

If you're serious. Um. Wow. That's an interesting statement.

then we can see the advice provided to the minister and the minister can publicly stand up and defend his or her reasons for departing from the advice

That's exactly what is meant to happen. The difficulty is that the advice often doesn't make it that far... hence my hypothetical?

Is that tongue in cheek, an exaggeration, or are you serious?

are you serious in asking if he is serious?

LOL

It occurs to me that some of the constraints public servants operate under aren't overtly political, they're the none-so-subtle dead-weight of less than talented managers. My problem with the NZ public service?

who's the poor fucker who has to fix it.

The fuckers that the people voted for. "Except they ain't poor and they still have that greed and hunger for anything that is still owned by the people. If it isn't owned by one of the few, it's up for grabs.
Pssst.?

The fuckers that the people voted for.

Ha! HA! Do you really think Judith Collins is going to get down and dirty and actually FIX anything at Corrections??? Bollocks to that. She'll issue edicts and refuse to be confident and all the rest, but it's Barry Matthews that has to?

The public service has failings, for sure, but are they more or more significant than the private sector – more than Bear Sterns, Bridgecorp or Fisher Pykel? Jus say'n.

Spot on, Paul! Spot bloody on! But they don't have trifling issues like the OIA and the rabid media I mentioned?

Abolition of the Death Penalty Act 1989

Fixed that, didn't they?

(OK, substitute the rlevant clause of the Crimes Act 1961 if you really want to be picky)

interesting how the best private sector firms don't stuff around with all that

Who are these "best private sector firms" of which you speak, earthling?

In my experience the private sector consists of:
– Established quoted companies, keen on following the latest fads, like outsourcing, mission statements, accountability, blah, blah?

Contra RB's justified comment about cynicism, I should say I am sympathetic to most of what you say, or what I think you are trying to say.

When you get it wrong though, you really get it wrong.
William Bell (you are still wrong on his background etc) and?

"The psychiatric reports before the Court suggest that he represents, in the words of one of them, a high and persistent risk of violent re-offending.Unless that risk can be convincingly dispelled, Bell ought to be kept in custody for the rest of his natural life."

And the next sentence:

For?

When you get it wrong though, you really get it wrong.

Guilty as charged – a monumental fuck up.

So, the stuff I was getting confused was this.

I wanted to refer to the Supreme Court decision surrounding Bell's despicable actions Couch vs. Attorney General [2008] NZSC 45.

To quote?

I'm not aware of any law that allows us to lock anyone away in jail for the rest of their natural life.

I think the closest we have is Preventative Detention..... which has no term, and is until the offender stops being a risk to society... which is periodically re-assessed,?

30 is the minimum. Just read [the whole Court of Appeal decision]. It takes time.

I did. The 33 year sentence was inappropriate based on relativities to other cases, reducing it to 30 years.

I'm not really sure what your point is. The appeal judges noted the nature of the?

Screw the media. It's no longer a matter of being solely reported by them, or swamping the public with?

I don't quite see how his being allowed to do?

but here's an anecdote. when i started at the inland revenue (i worked there for a little over a year before the culture drove me out), i was brought into a team with a joker who'd just left-off from 3 months?

apologies. a long day of seeing 100 of my fellow employees sacked.

apologies. a long day of seeing 100 of my fellow employees sacked.

crappy :(