3mo ago

State servant numbers: Why the Government wants to overhaul the public service (Opinion piece)

But it also created public sector boards (or “joint ventures”) where chief executives from various agencies meet and discuss issues and provide advice to a single Government minister.

If it sounds a bit wishy-washy that’s because it clearly is. Its stated goal was to tackle major underlying problems facing the country. How’s that working out for us?

I get that this is a right wing columnist and he’s paid to be anti, but come on. Companies always decry silos and that’s exactly what this was set up to overcome when dealing with “wicked” problems, of which NZ has many.

4 comments

Nobody seems to understand what the real goal of the right wing in this country is.
The entire purpose of this and similar ventures is to destroy unions. It's to fire unionised workers and replace them with non unionised workers.
Destroy unions, depress wages, increase profits, weaken the Labour party, line their own pockets, buy another ferrari for your house in Hawaii, get high paying do nothing job at a chinese bank.
The government always talks about how many public were hired unter the Labour government but they never get more specific. Is there a breakdown of where these public servants were added?
Is is police, teachers, and nurses or is it middle management?
- They also never talk about why the public services under Labour led governments tend to hire more.
  Because National governments get rid of so many the Ministries struggle to get the work they were asked to do done so hire consultants & contractors
  Because Labour led governments typically want the Ministries to do more things to fill the gaps in need that the private sector leaves
  Because Labour led governments typically see a need to have a public service overseeing compliance from the private sector, whereas National led governments typically think its fine for private sector to regulate & monitor itself.
  etc, etc, etc.
  Talking about a number of people is a useful tool for propagandists like Bridge, but it dumbs down the discussion when we lose all the context about why we might, or might not, need certain numbers of people working in the public sector.
  Also, his arguments (like most from the neo-liberal right) assume the magic of the private sector, as if there's not vast amounts of waste happening in corps all the fricking time as well.
- Doesn't matter. All that mattes is that they belong to a union and they must be replaced with non union employees.