Financial Review Debate — State Services Commission

What the financial review of the State Services Commission tells us is that the Government actually does not have a coherent plan for how to establish public services that are relevant and proper for the 21st century. It has made a series of moves that are nothing more than smoke and mirrors.

At the Government Administration Committee we looked into the question of what front-line staff are. One of the big centrepieces of the National Government’s public-sector policy is moving more people to the front line—out of the back room on to the front line—delivering services to New Zealand. We discovered in the financial review process that there was no definition of front-line staff. There is no definition whatsoever of what front-line staff in the public service are or what they do. In fact, as we look across the financial reviews, we can see that there are a variety of definitions of front-line staff.

Archives New Zealand is a Government agency that, I think, does an excellent job. It is a very, very good and efficient outfit. It told the select committee that it had 80 percent of its staff on the front line. Not even I, as a great supporter of Archives New Zealand, believe that it can really be saying that 80 percent of its staff is front-line. But the reality is that there is no definition of front-line, and it is the centrepiece of the National Government’s policy. We asked a number of other agencies; some of them told us that the State Services Commission was developing a definition and some told us that it had given them a definition. There was absolutely no clarity about one of the most central points in this Government’s policy, the idea that there will be more people on the front line.

Perhaps it is not too surprising that National wants to mask some of that. One thing became clear when the Ministry of Education told us that the percentage of people working as front-line staff in 2008 was 57 percent, and in 2009 it had gone down to 53 percent. So the number of front-line staff in the Ministry of Education actually declined in this National Government’s first year in office. So much for a policy to move staff to the front-line and give the New Zealand public the services it deserves! We can actually see in these financial reviews that the percentage of staff working in the Ministry of Education on the front line went down.

It is all smoke and mirrors when it comes to the public sector; there is no coherent plan. That became very evident on radio last week when the Minister of Education, Anne Tolley, was asked about the $25 million dollar cut to the Ministry of Education. She was asked what programmes and what activities would be cut. She told Radio New Zealand that she did not know. We know it will be $25 million, but we do not know what the programmes and the services are. That is completely the wrong approach to take towards State services. New Zealanders deserve a Government that looks to see what outcomes we want from the public sector and what kinds of services New Zealanders need and deserve, and then builds the ministries to deliver on those outcomes. But, instead, we hear from Anne Tolley that she does not know. It is $25 million; it is just a dollar figure. That is the problem with the National Government’s approach to the State sector. It is penny-pinching, and it is not prepared to invest. The Government is not prepared to ask questions about the outcomes. It just wants to cut into it.

There is a complete farce in this policy. The National started at the beginning of this term with a cap on the public sector—no cuts; just a cap. We know that is wrong; more than 1,500 jobs have gone out of the public sector. It is the front-line services that are going that matter, such as Child, Youth and Family staff, and, at the border, biosecurity staff. What could be more important as a public service provided to New Zealanders than protecting our borders? The National Government has made indiscriminate cuts. It is not about what the best services could be for New Zealanders; it is about putting in place ideological funding cuts right across the board. That will not deliver us the public sector that New Zealanders want.

When we look overall at the performance of the State Services Commission, there have to be questions asked about its future. The work of e-government is being done by the Department of Internal Affairs, the work on Government procurement is being done by the Ministry of Economic Development, and the work on productivity in the State sector is being done by Treasury. There is very little left for the State Services Commission to be doing. Its future must be in question. But once again what we are seeing coming out from the State Services Commission is seemingly random restructuring. It wants to bring Archives New Zealand back inside the Department of Internal Affairs. It went out in the 1990s because we realised that it was time to give Archives New Zealand its own mandate and the ability to get other Public Service departments to deposit their records. That is why it was done, yet it has now been put back in the Department of Internal Affairs.

There is no coherent plan. Why is the National Government not going back and looking at the State Sector Act, for instance, and asking how we can organise public services to be delivered in a coordinated manner? That is what New Zealanders want, and it is not coming from this Government.

The financial review of the State Services Commission was undertaken by the Government Administration Committee. One of the main aims of the National-led Government is to provide services to the public. In February 2009 the Government released its Expectations for Pay and Employment Conditions in the State Sector. These new expectations reflect the Government’s priority in economic and fiscal situations.

The key points were that any changes to pay must not lead to private sector movements and must take into account the total cost and value of employment conditions. State sector agencies that were required to consult the State Services Commission regarding changes to the conditions of employment are expected to demonstrate that the outcomes are fiscally sustainable within the baseline, responsible, and demonstrate value for money. This was not a wage freeze. It was about moderating wage expectations in the public sector, which has continued through the financial year.

The National-led Government is not about growing the Public Service, but about growing services to the public. This means more front-line service delivery and more efficient back-office services.

The National-led Government has halted the growth in Public Service bureaucracy. The human resource capability strategy of 2009 shows that the Public Service is heeding the Government’s call for wages restraint and small core Government administration. The summary reports a decline in the number of public servants since December 2008, and labour force index data show that growth in Public Service wages has slowed. It is not the numbers; it is the service that this Government has committed to the public, and we are providing that. Thank you.

Report noted.

Ministry for the Environment