Hard News: Leaving the bunker
112 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 Newer→ Last
-
at the end of the day there are a lot more civil servants in Wellington now than 10 years ago and that worries a lot of people.
My concern is that even to a leftie like me a lot of these new civil servant jobs sound pretty damn superfluous. (Maybe its the circles I move in but most of them seem to be in comms.) And I've had more than a couple of conversations with friends who've just moved into (astonishingly well paid) government jobs, told me what they were doing (keeping the vacancies content on the ministries web site up to date, writing a diversity policy for their new department) and when I ask them if its a part time job or a temporary contract - which jobs like that MUST be, right? - my friend looks offended and tells me that they have a permanent full time position.
-
No, but does it make for efficient government if senior management is ideologically opposed to the policy direction that has been decided upon by the elected government.
There is a thing called professionalism, you know. And quite a lot of senior public servants have it in spades, even if some might cringe at the ideological direction of whoever is in power.
There have been cases of senior public servants with their own agendas which they run regardless of who is in power. Some are later lauded - by some - as heroes (William Sutch, Beeby; Rod Deane, Kara Puketapu, Graham Scott).
But they're rarities, and most can adapt to whoever is in power.
One other point: whenever a party has been out of power for a while they start to view the public service as having gone over to the governing party. Labour felt that way in 1999: as well as Rankin they specifically named some senior civil servants as being ideologically unacceptable.
[Question: how is that more OK than just being more generally critical of 'bureaucrats'?]Some of those named were gotten rid of- Rankin and Doone. Others - Paul Carpinter, Mark Prebble and Howard Fancy - weren't, and in fact came to be highly trusted by ministers.
Again, its about professionalism.
A final - practical - point. We just don't have enough talented people to have an ideological cleanout of the public sector every time the government changes.
-
No, but does it make for efficient government if senior management is ideologically opposed to the policy direction that has been decided upon by the elected government.
There is a thing called professionalism, you know. And quite a lot of senior public servants have it in spades, even if some might cringe at the ideological direction of whoever is in power.
There have been cases of senior public servants with their own agendas which they run regardless of who is in power. Some are later lauded - by some - as heroes (William Sutch, Beeby; Rod Deane, Kara Puketapu, Graham Scott).
But they're rarities, and most can adapt to whoever is in power.
One other point: whenever a party has been out of power for a while they start to view the public service as having gone over to the governing party. Labour felt that way in 1999: as well as Rankin they specifically named some senior civil servants as being ideologically unacceptable.
[Question: how is that more OK than just being more generally critical of 'bureaucrats'?]Some of those named were gotten rid of- Rankin and Doone. Others - Paul Carpinter, Mark Prebble and Howard Fancy - weren't, and in fact came to be highly trusted by ministers.
Again, its about professionalism.
A final - practical - point. We just don't have enough talented people to have an ideological cleanout of the public sector every time the government changes.
-
Sorry about the dual post.
Too much coffee this morning produced finger twitch.
-
Compared with the the Australian public sector, NZ's is very efficient. I'm astounded at the size of some state's public service, NSW being particularly large. And, to echo Rob's post above, the professionalism in the NZ public sector is also comparatively high. Perhaps I'll leave it at that however.
-
Compared with the the Australian public sector, NZ's is very efficient.
LOL, yeah, I got a mate who got a job recently working as a lawyer for the Govt over in Sydney. He said after 3 months he hadn't actually been asked to do any work whatsoever. When it came time for his review, his boss said she was really, really pleased with his work. And he's getting paid damn good money too.
-
NZ has a f*&ked up work ethic with the excesses of the 80s cut backs and the 90s screw downs Kiwis just work too hard.
Telecom & a few other companies got screwed in court for draining every drop of blood out of their employees and then firing them.
The phrase work life balance seems to be a euphemisim for drop-out or burn-out in some work places I've been in.
1991 I had to work a 1/2hr more a day for no more pay & then I got a hrly rate pay cut. This has not caught up & that industry is even more causual (which has its advantages sure) with reduced benefits, conditions & pay.
Headline yesterday of a 30% drop in house prices needed for the average family to buy misses the point entirely.
We need a 30% pay rise across NZ & a bit of restraint at the top end. Senior Management shud be paid no more than 3 times the average employees wage would be a good philosophy to start with. Raising the average wage rather than dropping the CEOs to achieve this.
-
Hoho, those aussies!
My wife had a job in the Australian civil service in the 80's, in the Ministry of Defence, addressing mail-outs to defence contractors.
She soon realised she was writing the same addresses out over and over again. She got someone to type up multiple sticky labels for all the main contractors, and could do her day's work in about half an hour, most days. The addresses were more legible and generally less error-prone, too.
No-one noticed.
After three months she was so bored, she quit, and her supervisor realised she wouldn't have to be replaced. He was apparently quite miffed- possibly because he'd lose status for having one less lackey. -
A close relative of mine was high-up in the State Services Commission during the '90s. Her politics were Thatcherite -- I remember there being lots of ACT Party literature around her house -- but by the end of the decade she had become thoroughly disillusioned and was reading John Ralston Saul.
As she saw it, the SSC's role had become purely destructive. Its sole purpose seemed to be administering an endless series of reviews and cutbacks for Government entities. It was a kind of vindictive game -- seeing how many staff you could get rid of and how much budget you could cut while the body remained alive. Outside the SSC and Treasury, the public sector was essentially on life-support by '99, and no wonder.
Anyone who wonders why there's been an increase in state-sector staffing under Labour has presumably forgotten those years. There were as few public servants in 1999 as there had been at any time since the end of the Second World War. Far too few, in fact, to do the work they were charged with.
The idea that people are actually prepared to go back there just makes me sick. It's fuelled, as far as I can see, largely by anti-intellectual resentment. And, if it's carried through, it will kill Wellington as decent place to live. A lot of my friends -- hardworking, highly educated, extremely smart -- work in the State sector. They're the kind of people that, in the '90s, would have been forced into the more-or-less permanent exile of London or Edinburgh or Melbourne. (And perhaps will be again, come 2009 ...) These are the people who go to gigs and plays and support the galleries. Drive them out of central Wellington, and you'd be left with a very different -- and much less interesting -- place.
-
the professionalism in the NZ public sector is also comparatively high. Perhaps I'll leave it at that however.
yeah, you better had. Before you start encouraging the wingnuts to come back.
-
Paul Williams: Compared with the the Australian public sector, NZ's is very efficient. I'm astounded at the size of some state's public service, NSW being particularly large. And, to echo Rob's post above, the professionalism in the NZ public sector is also comparatively high. Perhaps I'll leave it at that however.
Mind you, Oz does have an 3rd layer of Govt (State, in addition to Federal and Local) compared with NZ's 2-layer system.
For all his bluster about 'bureaucrats', I doubt that Key would be prepared to risk a 1951 with the PSA. Rodney and Roger might, though.
-
I doubt that Key would be prepared to risk a 1951 with the PSA.
Not much of a risk, one would think Deep Red.
-
These are the people who go to gigs and plays and support the galleries. Drive them out of central Wellington, and you'd be left with a very different -- and much less interesting -- place.
Yes, but that doesn't mean that the size of the public service shouldn't be reviewed.
I think there are plenty of other good reasons to more-or-less support most of the current core public service structure, but this isn't one of them. It's just a side effect.
-
"Yes, but that doesn't mean that the size of the public service shouldn't be reviewed."
Deb - here you've focused on size but not function and so sets up an agenda to reduce it the size of govt.
-
These are the people who go to gigs and plays and support the galleries. Drive them out of central Wellington, and you'd be left with a very different -- and much less interesting -- place.
That is a concern, but honestly, if that's the only reason, then the "intellectual resentment" is totally justified.
-
These are the people who go to gigs and plays and support the galleries. Drive them out of central Wellington, and you'd be left with a very different -- and much less interesting -- place.
it does make us sound like we're overpaid party-goers. :)
that said though, the life is wellington is probably more the product of a high density of youngish people living and working in the same space. you'd get the same effect in any city with reasonable density.
and density is probably why auckland lacks it! (not that i'm wanting to restart that old argument).
but on topic! does anyone know what nzl's proportion of public servants to working age population is? i'm not sure that it's out of line with other oecd countries.
-
OK, so i've done some back-of-envelope-type-figures (hopefully someone has some accurate information). mostly because i'm intensely curious.
this pdf from the OECD has some interesting figures on numbers of public sector employees. p.52 has a graph.
in this case "public sector" employees seems to include *anyone* employed by government. in new zealand, according to the SSC, we had 324,086 public sector types in june 2007.
but, we only had 42,000 in the "core" public service (meaning all the ministries and departments). i.e. 'bureaucrats' and not "front-line" workers.
according to Dept of Stats in the december quarter there were 2,173,000 employed.
my shonky math and lightning fast research gives us about 15% of the workforce in the "public sector", meaning teachers, nurses, firemen etc. that number appears about average for the oecd
but only 2% of the workforce are "bureaucrats". that's less than the unemployment rate.
<disclaimer> keith ng could do a better job with these stats!</disclaimer>
-
<disclaimer> keith ng could do a better job with these stats!</disclaimer>
He did (no offence) but someone's not doing their job in putting Fact Check up on the Herald website. Keith should ask the HoS if he can just post the column a couple of days later.
-
While you're crunching stats and Roger Douglas is coming back into politics (Weekend at Bernies anyone?)
He had the 5Million Pop for NZ campaign a decade back.
Does anyone know the tipping point when our population can support itself rather than being totally reliant on exports as we are?
-
@rb. heh. i just enjoyed the exercise.
-
absolutely. bed after 10, out before 7. i can sleep when i'm old! it's also why i read right past something rb said...
rb, are you suggesting that the herald is not running a column of keith's that might shed light on one of key's statements?
that's a little far-fetched isn't it?
-
These are the people who go to gigs and plays and support the galleries. Drive them out of central Wellington, and you'd be left with a very different -- and much less interesting -- place.
Um, the fan-fucking-tastic Auckland Theatre Company's production of The Crucible I raved about last year seemed to be an artistic and commercial success (and the large cast made it a marginal proposition) despite the dearth of civil servants in Dorkland. And without wanting to buy into some drumb Wellywood/Dorkland pissing match, the ATC's season in looking a damn sight more interesting than Circa's.
Jus' saying folks...
-
And the longest running professional theatre is where?
Christchurch = Court Theatre
I'm pretty sure I was responsible for the end of Pro-Am Theatre Sports there in the early 90s. The Am that is.
-
and craig's right about circa.
"paua" was appalling... i was considering cheering for the poachers.
we're hoping the marilyn monroe one is at least interesting.
-
I think we can have an interesting conversation about why and in what contexts artistic and theatrical communities develop in particular cities. In Christchurch, you had the sheer force of will of Ngaio Marsh, and the work of the Canterbury University Theatre Dept. (which the the University now wants to close down). In Auckland, I guess, you have a different set of social and economic contexts at work.
But anyone arguing that National gutting the public sector (yet again!) won't have a detrimental effect on Wellington's cultural and economic well-being is being willfully obtuse. According to the Dom Post today, Key's talking about a wage 'saving' of $500,000,000 over three years. That's thousands of jobs, gone. People need to start actually thinking about what's going to happen next year.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.