Posts by A S
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I S. It doesn't rule out self-interest at all, you're right. But if public servants are brutally honest with themselves, there is an awful lot of wastage, duplication and inefficiency that NZers really shouldn't be supporting through their taxes.
By way of example. Take a large agency and count how many layers of management there were in 99, then count how many there are now. Ask yourself whether the job of the person at the front counter (often the same person in both cases) has changed so much that so many additional layers of management are required. Apply test to any agency you care to name. Repeat. Some will not have changed much, some will have trebled the layers of managment between bottom and top.
The memory of National's wholesale disembowelment of the state sector is still fresh, and there's no reason to think they won't try it on again.
I don't think national even get into the same ball park as labour's cuts to the public sector in the 80's. Both ends of the spectrum are guilty of shafting the public service, lets not forget that.
-
The matter of public-sector politicization is a complex one, in this context. A lot of public sector employees will be naturally leery of a National administration, for the very good reason that they think their jobs will be at stake.
Sadly, the days of total job security in the public sector vanished as a result of the reforms of the 80's and anyone in the public sector who thinks they are in a safe role is perhaps a little optimistic.
The point about Turkey's not voting for Xmas has been made, but if the public service is doing its job properly, then if there are a need for cuts, they should be the first to promote them. Maintaining jobs for the sake of maintaing jobs does not equate to administration in the best interests of the country.
All agencies should ask themselves regularly whether they are delivering services in the best interest of NZ (I'm pretty sure this sentiment is set out in the State Sector Act). For public servants self-interest doesn't (read shouldn't) come into the equation. Perhaps the public service ethos has eroded over time....
-
I'm far from convinced that the NZ public service is particularly political. I agree there's been a few stupid mistakes and interventions, however overall I see no evidence of public sector independence being structurally compromised.
Hence my suggestion of talking to a few longer term public servants. Ask them whether they feel there is an increasing sense of displeasure when advice on impact of political directives across a wide range of issues is given, or whether they think there has been a shift over time to an increasingly politicised public sector, which may not be in the best interests of the NZ public.
You talked about whether the NZ public service is particularly political. I'd suggest that is exactly the sort of thing I mean. The public sector shouldn't be seen as being political at all.
I agree with the earlier comments about National's clever avoidance of policy itself. Labour will campaign on WFF, Kiwibank/saver etc but I've still got no idea what National will do beyond cut taxes (in line with Labour too)!
Regardless of this, the point I have been trying to make is that no political party should be using information generated by a government department for electioneering. If parties produce their own info then fine, but using info produced by departments for electoral purposes only serves to undermine the independence we should be demanding from our public sector.
Or is it acceptable for the public sector to be used for political ends?
-
What gets me the most with this, and something that no-one else has mentioned, is the potential impact this sort of thing will have on the public sector.
The public service is supposed to be apolitical, so that it can fulfil its purpose of faithfully serving whatever government the public elects, without the need for doing wasteful and counterproductive things like sacking the top tier of the public service after every election and replacing them with a new batch of political appointees.
I completely fail to see how any political party (of any stripe) that purports to have the interests of NZ at heart can think it is a good idea to try and further its own ends and potentially undermine the concept of a neutral public service.
Talk to a few career public servants off the record about whether they think the public sector is still a-political and you might notice a sense of disquiet that we should probably be paying some attention to.
With the shoddily drafted mess that is the EFA, any attempt by any party in electioneering mode to try to use info (created by departments to inform the public of entitlements or key information) as replacements for election material, is short sighted, dodgy and does both the public, and the public service a massive dis-service.
-
Yes, AS, but can I insist once more on a fundamental rule of engagement (courtesy of Tom Stoppard): Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Nobody is entitled to their own facts.
I think that sounds more than fair. My only concern, however, is that having spent many years watching various government agencies in action, particulalrly in terms of their approach to purchasing research, there may be some fairly significant challenges in finding facts that haven't been tweaked, massaged, or just plain made up to suit the needs of the agency waving the cheque book. Even if the facts are accurate, the interpretation can be equally dodgy.
A politician facing electoral oblivion who has cynically decided that a good chunk of his party's potential supporters are -- hate Asian immigrants, think everything was Shangri-La before the dirty foreigners can in and brought all our assets.ext
Yep. On the NZfirst motivation, you are probably right. It is the type of wedge politics that sadly works extremely well here, and has been employed by lots of parties in recent memory. The saddest thing is, it works.
And from a slightly different angle, why the hell should I "debate" people who will continue telling flat out lies
Homophobia in this country is quite spectacular, and like rascism, it is deeply entrenched and unlikely to go away anytime soon. I have no idea what to do to fix it.
Legislating against discrimination hasn't had any effect on what people appear to really think, and while arguing with idiots is never a profitable exercise, we do seem to be lucky in that sometimes the general populace decides that something is simply not right and attitudes change...
While it probably doesn't help, the views you talk about sound like the views of total munters. There is no known way to win an argument with munters. Even if they know they are wrong, or even if they don't believe what they are saying, they will continue the same argument they had before.
-
But the fact is that Peter Brown is a Member of Parliament. He serves on a select committee, and could have a real influence over the running of this country. And he is the Associate-Spokesman for Immigration for his party, for crying out loud.
It is inexcusable that he -- allegedly -- isn't aware of rudimentary facts like the English language requirements for immigrants. It is inexcusable that he describes the prospect of an increased Asian population (many of them New Zealand born) as "horrible".
I expect my elected representatives to be a bit better than that... and I sure as hell refuse to feel sorry for this idiot.
Were you being deliberately sarcastic about your expectation of our elected representatives, or are some of them redeemable in your view? I'd always been more of the view that MP's not having a clue about their subject is more the norm than the exception, particularly as the 3 yearly insanity is almost upon us once more.
When I think about all of the thoughtful comments already made here it is with some sadness that I think one of the posts on the first page of comments hit the nail on the head with the reference to middle class echo chambers and the disconnect with the angst and concerns of a large chunk of the working class.
At the end of the day, whether you call it xenophobia or racism, a large, large number of New Zealanders have a great deal of trouble accepting difference. The worst part is that very often, those who have been the subject of this sort of treatment are tragically adept at denigrating those who are different from themselves. When people who have been subject to the indignity and humiliation of discrimination do the same to others, why should we be surprised that this seems to also happen amongst the majority of the population who probably haven't been on the receiving end?
I would venture that the ease with which almost all groups can be made to feel superior to others is the very reason that statements which play on fears and distrust get made by vote seeking politicians.
Yellow Hordes, Maori owning the beaches, waves of whinging poms or arrogant yanks buying all our high country are all fairly commonly heard complaints in many and varied locations. The truth of such statements don't matter a damn to most, it is as a lot of others have suggested simply the symptom of a (probably extremely large) number of people who are feeling lost, threatened, uncertain, and probably to an extent unwelcome in this place we call New Zealand.
Perhaps it is something that needs to be discussed openly, and without calls of rascim or bigotry being thrown around, lest we simply end up with an echo chamber, where we can all agree with each other, and where potentially a large proportion of our fellow countrymen regardless of colour/ethnicity/preference for marmite or vegemite stay silent and don't engage in a debate that really is quite important.
I worry that people lecturing others about what they should or should not think doesn't help, and in most cases only drives people to keep their thoughts to themselves and to feel anger because they cannot express their thoughts or fears, and where these fester and becomes potentially much more unpleasant.
-
I suspect most people would whole heartedly support moves against global warming if it wasn't for the unpleasant, evangelical zeal with which so many thrust their views down the throats of others.
I guess what I'm saying is, I suspect most people don't like the messengers on climate change/global warming, and do they react to the message in a negative way. Perhaps if the zealous fervour was wound back a few notches, the message might stand a better chance of getting through and being accepted.
Even though I do think there is an issue around climate change, I personally am quite capable of making my own mind up, and don't need a chorus telling me that I'm an idiot unless I agree with them. In fact, that is almost certainly the best way to get me to support the other argument, even if I know it is the wrong one.
I guess that on the whole I'm a bit uncomfortable with the style of so much of the commentary in so many forums that implies anyone who disagrees with a particular view point (whichever part of the spectrum that might be) is somehow a denialator/tree-hugging beardie/luddite/redneck etc. and I don't think it actually aids the vast majority of people out there who may well feel like they can't talk about it or ask the questions they have because they don't want to be labelled as one thing or another.
-
Did you expect any different froma party which is threatening public servants to discourage them from applying for the position of State Services Commissioner?
Unfortunately, having lain down with the kiwiblog right, they seem to be institutionalising thuggery as a political tactic.
National should pull their heads in on this particular issue if they are serious about an apolitical public sector.
TBH though, political thuggery is a sadly all too common place tactic at all ends of the political spectrum. No party is blameless in this regard.
Having said that though, talk to a few Maori public servants about the way in which the foreshore and seabed protests (and the in-effect ban on Maori public servants having a voice on that issue) were handled if you want an example from the other end of the spectrum (this was especially interesting when the public service was quite openly encouraged to voice their opinions on the civil unions issue).
-
Are you meaning IT people? Or anyone who works at Parliament?
Is this a trick question? :-)
-
Isn't this all a bit of a storm in a tea cup? Can we really say that any of us would really rely on the wiki page for any NZ politician to be neutral and balanced? I quite enjoy looking at the talk pages associated with many entries, and the passive-aggressive antics that often go on between edit-warring contributors, but it definitely makes me question the validity of some info on there...
Having said that, and given the fuitloops and wingnuts that populate the extremes of the innahweb in NZ, if I was in politics, I'd be quite keen for the names of my wife and kids not to plastered about the place, particularly coming into the usual election madness. Meh. Maybe I'm just weird like that.....