I think I’m done with Labour.
Their response to our neoliberal public service is MORE neoliberalism???
State Sector Act to be replaced with new Public Service Act
The State Sector Act 1988 will be repealed and replaced with a new Public Service Act.
Minister Chris Hipkins said the current law has reached the limit of what it can achieve in modern day New Zealand, and can no longer support the way public services now need to be delivered.
The new Act will give the public service more flexibility to respond to specific priorities or events, allow public servants to move between agencies more easily, and clearly establish the principles of an apolitical public service, he said.
Chief executive boards, or joint ventures, could also be set up to tackle very difficult issues; they would be accountable to one minister and receive a direct budget appropriation.
WTF?
So instead of purging the public service of the neoliberal acolytes National appointed, Labour want to destroy what is left of institutional public service knowledge so that bureaucrats are simply inter-changeable butlers to serve whatever brainfart the Minister wants?
Newsroom have broken down the problems of the Public Service in a must read analysis that is deeply damning of the current system and helps explain that what Chippy here wants to implement will only make those neoliberal cultural anomalies even more severe.
Entrenching neoliberalism is certainly ‘transformative change’ but sweet Jesus it wasn’t what we were voting for.
I think I’m done with Labour.
The Labour Caucus barely have one or two with any glimmer of class understanding, the rest hopelessly ‘cuffed to historic dog eat dog Rogernomics-which they refuse to apologise for, let alone retire.
But, this Govt should be re-elected deserving or not, because the alternative is much worse. It is frustrating to see the political illiteracy of so many NZers on daily display. 50% don’t know the Earth orbits the sun and takes 365 days to do so!-well according to a msm survey…so what chance is there of mounting a major campaign against neo liberalism?
The good news are Climate Activists-a lot of political struggle is likely to proceed through that focus from now on.
@Tiger Mountain “But, this Govt should be re-elected deserving or not, because the alternative is much worse.” What you say is right, Tiger, but it is still not good enough.
Maybe we deserve National as punishment for being gullible enough to believe that Labour could or would be a transformational government – perhaps the govt deserves greater punishment than the electors do. Boots – for pusses in boots.
– Only about 400 years since Copernicus and Galileo produced the sun-centred universe – new ideas take a while to filter through – clearly we are very slow learners down here.
“Maybe we deserve National as punishment for being gullible enough to believe that Labour could or would be a transformational government…..”
The fear is that may well come to pass.
No. In a game of threats between underperforming business like Air anew Zealand and the government (Shane Jones. We’ve heard this story correct?) it’s the business that has to worry. Let’s suppose the government passes a tax on Air NZ and Air NZ proceeds to cut services even more…, does that mean that the government is impotent and there’s nothing the government can do to punish or regulate who evades a legally imposed tax? The answer is of course the government has the tools. It so patronising that Prime Minister after Prime Minister can go to the public and suggest that they not criticise business and behave in an A-social way.
I agree Sam. That’s if you believe as I do that the government needs to use the tools it has, AND where necessary, legislate where it doesn’t.
See also the reference I made below to the newsroom story, and comment. Dr Simon Chapple is correct in many ways – specially as regards institutional knowledge and politicsation.
That doesn’t just come from the Ministerial side of things though.
Anyone that’s ever worked with senior government ‘officials’ could tell you a number of things that go on.
– There’s the lack of diversity at senior level (I don’t just mean gender)
– Then there’s the nudge nudge wink winking that can occur – I’ve seen plenty of it
– Then there’s leaks that will occur from time to time to suit ‘officials’
– Then there’s the parachuting in from offshore of the generic, managerialists who often arrive without any understanding of NZ society and culture, but who come equipped with all the associated business and management speak (usually from one of the Empires).
– Then there’s the complete disdain for things like the OIA or BOR, or even a recognition of what should be in a name (i.e ‘PUBLIC servant’)
– Then there’s actually the structure of various Ministries and departments which cobble together a number of entities that have conflicting agendas – MBIE probably the worst – but then what would you expect from its designers (Joyce and Coleman).
It’s not a good situation – specially where the role has any sort of social welfare or societal component.
At times I think we really are an insecure little nayshun that continues to delude itself about all the things that feed our collective egos – telling ourselves we punch above our weight; we were the first to give the women the vote; that we don’t know how lucky we are; etc. etc. etc. Laurel resting et al. It’s EXACTLY what neo-liberals want.
But what’s a kind and transformational government to do?
Grow some cajones might be a good start. PS reform was probably one of the first things that needed to be done – and not in the way proposed.
Well I can agree on your definitions and still argue that a company that threatens the government when the government is doing its legally entitled taxing and regulating activity…, a company that threatens the stability of the economy can and should provoke in a government counter threats. This close incest with government and business is what Shane Jones is suggesting. It’s a mystery to me but not really, why New Zealand politicians can’t and won’t say things like Mr Jones when private interests threaten the economic stability of their constituents which would level the playing field and stop leading our politicians to be easy push overs for lame empty excuses to allow the 10% to get there favouritism.
Helen Clark ruined the Labour Party for me when she sided with the racists over Māori but I am still willing to leave these little pathways to redemption. The media have been reckless in its duty to properly argue for the rise, legitimacy and need for an ecosystem of wealthy entrepreneurs. Frankly how a government can allow this state of affairs is criminal. We can not escape the fact that when we debate the most important topics that we will be rude and nasty. When we leave it up to people who are bought and payed for then we are unfit to Devine a national pathway. We still have choices but we can not down play the importance of the largest economic shift in New Zealand history with all its intended economic implications.
Again, I don’t disagree with what you say.
Unfortunately, with the reforms of the 80s and beyond, a lot of things happened with the neo-liberal corporatisation of all.
Thou shalt not criticise PS CEO’s (especially those in local government), being one of them.
As for H1, just like this government, she was faced with a hell of a lot to roll back after Ruthenasia et al. It’s just a bloody shame she chose to have a cup of tea and a lay down in her third term and concentrate on her future career at the UN (which she was bloody good at by the way). And yes, for sure and seabed – she fucked up.
As it happens, I’ve just been watching Sepuloni on Checkpoint (someone i have a lot of respect for).
But again, either she’s being willfully ignorant, or her ‘officials’ are being frugal with the truth (in relation to MSD ensuring beneficiaries are getting their full entitlements)
And ditto MBIE – who don’t appear to have passed on the memo re Visa changes to their frontline staff (it’s not as though they didn’t have enough warning of the impending changes)
And how many NZers don’t know when the Treaty of Waitangi was signed and how many don’t care.
It reminds me of Obama appointing the architects of the 2008 financial crash to key economic roles in the US government. Maybe Chippy is praying that the NZ social service will change their spots. Maybe the people in the public service are actually his people. Or maybe he just couldn’t give a damn, like the bludging sadists who are supposedly looking after this country.
Yes your right Snow White there is no alternative @ the moment and many of our Maori people are aware of this and that is why we are pushing Labour who have all of our Maori seats to do their job other wise bugger off. Labour need to fix Ihumatao otherwise we might have to jump ship and we will. I cant speak for all Maori but I know many of our people are pissed of including myself this needs to be resolved.
I agree, but the 9 terrible years of Natz are even worse than Labour!
For our Maori people no party can be worse than national. We only have to look at there track record every time they get in power the social and economic gaps between Maori and non Maori open up vastly. That is why Aunty Helen introduced ‘The closing the gaps policy’, later changed to ‘reducing inequalities’ due to racism and cries of favouritism. This unsavoury behaviour and sour attitudes of mostly pakeha despite all the facts and statistics showing Maori and PI were over represented in all facts of life including incarceration. So as people we cant afford to have national in power again ever.
By the way, interesting take on it all at Newsroom:
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2019/11/20/912864/a-largely-unnoticed-power-grab#
Especially as regards to the rise of managerialism and the generic manager – which is why the public service is the shambles it is at present.
That said, those managerialist, generic managers committed to the theory often come with their own political agendas.
Unfortunately this ‘transformational and kind’ government appears to have been too nice to point out various areas of non-performance with both the SSC and Chief Execs.
Glad to hear you are done with Labour. I walked away after the Lange government and have never taken them seriously since. Like National they are a haven for neo liberals and their capitalist philosophy. I could never vote for them and wont be this election or any party supporting them.
As I keep saying if that means staying home so be it. If enough of us do the same their credibility gradually declines and it becomes much harder for them to go on as they have. Its no as if they can’t change either if you look at whats happening in UK Labour.
You’d be pleased to know then that you’re not alone. My father-in-law walked away in the late 1980’s after a lifetime as a Labour suppota. He wasn’t alone either.
Unless something happens again soon, I might also be considering my voting future – but sure as shit it won’t be NZ1 – even though I have a huge respect for some of them (Shane ain’t one of them). And I’m left kind of wondering how much bullshit Trace, and even Ronnie are prepared to put up with. (Pita P was pre-empted by getting death)
I agree Sam. That’s if you believe as I do that the government needs to use the tools it has, AND where necessary, legislate where it doesn’t.
See also the reference I made below to the newsroom story, and comment. Dr Simon Chapple is correct in many ways – specially as regards institutional knowledge and politicsation.
That doesn’t just come from the Ministerial side of things though.
Anyone that’s ever worked with senior government ‘officials’ could tell you a number of things that go on.
– There’s the lack of diversity at senior level (I don’t just mean gender)
– Then there’s the nudge nudge wink winking that can occur – I’ve seen plenty of it
– Then there’s leaks that will occur from time to time to suit ‘officials’
– Then there’s the parachuting in from offshore of the generic, managerialists who often arrive without any understanding of NZ society and culture, but who come equipped with all the associated business and management speak (usually from one of the Empires).
– Then there’s the complete disdain for things like the OIA or BOR, or even a recognition of what should be in a name (i.e ‘PUBLIC servant’)
– Then there’s actually the structure of various Ministries and departments which cobble together a number of entities that have conflicting agendas – MBIE probably the worst – but then what would you expect from its designers (Joyce and Coleman).
It’s not a good situation – specially where the role has any sort of social welfare or societal component.
At times I think we really are an insecure little nayshun that continues to delude itself about all the things that feed our collective egos – telling ourselves we punch above our weight; we were the first to give the women the vote; that we don’t know how lucky we are; etc. etc. etc. Laurel resting et al. It’s EXACTLY what neo-liberals want.
But what’s a kind and transformational government to do?
Grow some cajones (gender neutral ones )might be a good start. PS reform was probably one of the first things that needed to be done – and not in the way proposed.
Have a look at Social Credit for an alternative to the mainstream.
Sure, they ain’t calling for full-on socialist revolution, but their policies would surely shake up the status quo a tad!!
We own it?
This is an important piece of legislation in preparation.
Appropriate public service policy could be an important milestone toward climate resilience through all administrative levels.
One can only hope that the wider civil society in NZAO, environmental, social and community organizations, trade unions, etc., have meaningful opportunities and the intellectual determination to influence and digest it.
If there is no sufficient government competency to draft such demanding regulatory framework, and the undertaking is primarily sub-contracted to external consultants from the privatization mainstream, the new act may probably become more of a) a sophisticated service fee-generating machine (“business model”), or b) a further bureaucratic obstacle for those at the receiving end of social services.
We should own it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iscGGTwnkt8
Labour stays loyal to the goals set in the mid to late 1980s.
Comments are closed.