Why we need value from the public service
Was it something I said? I guess it was, judging by the response to my last blog suggesting Treasury boss John Whitehead had a point when he said the public service needs to put itself on a budgetary diet.
The fact that many of the most outraged comments appeared to come from public servants blogging their responses during working hours I would suggest proves my point that there are too many people doing too little of any real value to taxpayers.
Can I reiterate some facts recently made by a number of analysts and commentators?
Public sector spending is growing by around 9 per cent a year.
That is more than three times the rate of inflation.
We could afford it if our personal incomes were increasing by 9 per cent or more per annum but, certainly in my case, sadly income is not keep pace with the blowout in government spending.
In fact, the productive side of our economy, in case those angry public servants didn't notice, is contracting by more than 9 per cent.
That means our debt continues to grow.
This is not good.
To quote John Key, "There aren't little pixies at the bottom of the garden printing cash."
We need to ensure that every tax dollar that goes into the public sector is well spent and produces a maximum dividend for the hard-pressed taxpayer.
Over the last decade the public service grew by 44%. I do not believe this growth came in the delivery of frontline services. The growth came largely in occupations such as policy analysts, human resources, bean-counters, administration, marketing and communications.
Actually, what happened, I suspect, is that the last Labour government, while crowing about low unemployment, had resorted to the tactics of its forebears and buried in an expanded public service many who would have otherwise been jobless.
I notice the argument in the last blog quickly turned to privatisation. In fact, no one is talking about privatisation of government entities, at least not this term for National.
But if our debt grows so great, thanks partly to a bureaucracy that has a such a sense of self-entitlement it cannot rein in its spending, then maybe we should start selling SOEs again.
Why lumber our children and grandchildren with the debt left by our own indulgence in the first decade of the 2000s?
Hang on, why burden our kids with wealth, what really worries me is what do we do when we get too old to work? Retirement commissioner Diana Crossan warns that the number of over-65s will double to 1.1 million old codgers by 2032.
If we don't restrict government spending and waste in the public sector, few of us will have any disposable cash left to save for our retirement and future governments will have nothing in the kitty for superannuation.
These points seems elude Labour. Don't touch the public service, says Labour, knowing there are voters to be got there. Hand out the dole to people who are married to the wealthy.
Sponsored links
Newest First
Oldest First
Maynard, you do no credit to your namesake. If we chopped out your wretched WWF and replaced it with across the board tax cuts, we could get rid of at least three, maybe five battalions of public service pen pushers. You see? That's productivity.
I have returned to Wellington after 10 years. I used to work in the public service, and am amazed at how inward some Wellingtonians have become. There is little private sector business, and I suspect some are crowded out by burgeoning government departments increasing rents in the CBD. Is this what we really want? The productivity figures say it all, these resources need to move to the private sector to improve that area.
Geez, you're not even subtle Bill. I was as blue as you once; even moreso, but after surchargegate and the systematic rundown of state housing, scuttling of apprenticeships, slashing of benefits, super and other essential services in the 1990's that was enough. Our public services over that time were run down to abysmal levels and had to be built up again under a Labour-Progressive leadership, so percentages mean nothing. And, no I'm not a public servant and not a member of any party. I am in fact totally objective. Not many of us left!
Hey Maynard the shiny website that SPARC did cost them 4 million which is probably about 10 times what it should cost. The Christchurch city council has 140 people in its IT department, treasury think 40 billion of public money is poorly spent. Meridians returns are just over 1% of assets a tenth of what Contact manage. We need to grow up a bit here and join the rest of the western world and stop harking back to 20 years ago. If ever there was better evidence it was during the election campaign when Barry Soper asked John Key about his position on the Springbok Tour !! If we scale back the government sector the private sector would have room to expand and then my incredibly bright son would not have to go to the UK to do something exciting.
Maynard #1
Thanks for reminding me of the multi $million public websites created in recent years.
That's but one example of the appalling waste of our hard earned $.
"Actually, what happened, I suspect, is that the last Labour government, while crowing about low unemployment, had resorted to the tactics of its forebears and buried in an expanded public service many who would have otherwise been jobless."
This is EXACTLY what Labour did Bill! Let’s go back a little to the days when Labour would continually "harp on" about "3%" unemployment. "Lowest in the OECD". Yeah right! I know for a fact how many got jobs at Work & Income, how many went on the Sickness Benefit instead as this makes the "out of work" figures look great, AND lets not forget ALL those NZder's who were working only 30 hours a week yet counted as "fulltime employed" by Government Spin doctors. Combine all those factors and you have your BS 3% unemployment figure
Maynard
Government spending on health increased by 50% from 1999 to 2008 and doctor/nurse productivity dropped by 15%.
Labour measured its success by how much tax money it spent. ACT measure success by the results that it delivers people on waiting lists, that is the difference.
The government will never deliver a positive outcome in healthcare or anything else the requires efficiency and innovation. Why do you think we have not succeeded with welfare over 80 years?
The Government should raise the pension age to 69, and thereafter index it to life expectancy. I believe this would turn around our fiscal situation dramatically. I doubt Key, English, Hyde and Douglas have the balls to do it.
Jamie (9)
Speak for yourself Jamie. No way do I want to work until that age. I have paid taxes for 47 years . I have had two children and believe that I have earned my new future, when I reach the age of 65 . I have voted National all my life and if Messrs Key, English extended the age to 69 I would never vote again.(I can't believe I said that)
What would benefit the fiscal situation is to review the eligibility for the DPB especially for mothers who already have one child and refuse to name the father.
Bill, do you remember doctors, nurses and police getting pay rises in the last nine years? If so, do you believe that came from pixies printing money, or so you believe that would contribute to public expenditure? is it valuable to pay staff so they stay here, or would you prefer your doctors and nurses to be replaced by pixies?
Just one example among many, Bill. What about all those shiny new and very useful websites, and the massive online availability of public information and resources - do you think that was by communications staff, or was it pixies?
You want value, Bill - do you get that from "bean-counters", or do pixies make it happen by magic?
What about encouraging the best use of resources, Bill. Does that come from having good policy (perhaps...policy analysts), or should we get policy from pixies?
Let me put it this way: we are always going to have a public service. We can have an underpaid, underperforming one that everyone complains about (but probably has awesome productivity, such are the flaws of that measure) circa late 90s, or we can have one that is well paid and resourced, attracts good staff and provides best-practice based services.
In short, should we waste a good chunk of money, or spend a bit more and get something from it?
P.S. what part of that 9% growth came from WFF and Kiwisaver? Like them or not, that expenditure goes straight back to people and is different to spending on services.