Restructure first - ask questions later

OPINION: In a speech to PSA delegates just months before the 2008 general election, John Key said a new National Government was not going to radically reorganise the structure of the public sector. He went further, to say: Our focus is squarely on delivering services, not on changing the wiring diagram of the state sector to get a tidier conceptual model.

Few problems are solved by significant reorganisations in fact, many more tend to be created. It is easy to underestimate the amount of energy and inspiration soaked up by institutional change, as well as the loss of personal and institutional knowledge.

Last week, Mr Key confirmed that restructuring of the public sector was going ahead despite not being able to say how many taxpayer dollars it would save , if any, how many jobs would be lost or how many agencies it would involve.

For public servants , already besieged by a pay freeze, funding cuts and creeping privatisation, it is another blow to morale.

It is not that public servants are against restructuring, but when their livelihoods and working lives are to be affected, they expect to be presented with a rationale for change. So far, restructure first and ask questions later seems to be the Government's approach.

It would be a worry if it was entirely driven by ideology, a blind belief in smaller and cheaper government and that the private sector always do things better.

Rather than acting on a sector-wide plan that had been developed after wide consultation, the restructuring has all of the signs of being ad hoc. The Archives' chief executive is finishing her term of employment, so let's merge Archives with the Internal Affairs Department and maybe throw in the National Library too.

Similarly, the potential move of the Food Safety Authority back into the Agriculture and Forestry Ministry appears to have been promoted by the imminent exit of its chief executive.

No doubt staff at the Health Ministry will be waiting anxiously to hear whether the departure of their chief executive will lead to a review and more changes.

A similar ad hoc approach seems to be taken with budget cuts. The Education Minister Anne Tolley has asked her ministry to make an arbitrary cut of $25 million from its operating budget by 2012-13. In an interview on Radio New Zealand National's Morning Report she admitted she had no idea where the cuts would be made.

A BURGEONING public service is often cited as justification for the Government's programme of restructuring and downsizing.

However it is a claim that is not supported by the facts. State Services Commission statistics show that over the past two decades the number of departments and ministries peaked at 41 in 1995 and declined to 35 by 2010. In 1970 the public service as a percentage of labour force was 4.6 per cent, in 2009 the percentage had reduced to 1.9 per cent.

As journalist Tim Watkin put it, the bloated state sector is borderline anorexic.

That is not to say that the public sector does not need reorganisation or cannot be made more productive. There is clearly a need to rethink state sector policy. We are still struggling with the legacy of the 1980s when corporatisation and competition was foisted on the public service. The result was fragmentation, lack of co-ordination, the growth of too many smaller agencies and increased cost for the delivery of services.

That legacy, however, is not going to be overturned by a restructuring here and a downsizing there. In Britain and elsewhere, politicians are rethinking the role and shape of the state sector.

The British Conservative leader David Cameron has called for big society to replace big state. The theory is that when services are co-produced between citizens and the state, better outcomes are achieved.

However, instead of imposing their ideas, they are engaging in debate on the issues with the public. Certainly, there are big questions worth asking. Is there a case for greater partnership between the state and and local communities and individuals. How would it work? Which services are better delivered locally or centrally? Would it cost more or less?

This Government seems to have no vision for the public sector beyond an agenda of arbitrary cost-cutting and restructuring.

The danger, as Mr Key himself pointed out, is that such an approach could create more problems than it solves. Surely its time to debate the role of the public sector in an environment that allows diverse perspectives and encourages constructive inquiry.

Brenda Pilott is the PSA national secretary.