Do the maths on massive public service cuts

37 comments on “Do the maths on massive public service cuts ”

• Comments are now closed

1. King Kong 1

   15 November 2011 at 2:46 pm

   comment deleted
   [sprout: you’ll have to attempt something a bit more than just talentless insults]
   • King Kong 1.1

     15 November 2011 at 3:15 pm

     Its a point of view held by a lot of people. If you want to shield the precious flowers here from that then good on you. Its your show
     • M 1.1.1

       16 November 2011 at 12:05 am

       Don’t complain then when you can get prompt service at some government agency or a public hospital.
       • In Vino Veritas 1.1.1.1

         17 November 2011 at 2:41 pm

         I don’t think too many people are complaining. Ask those who have had elective surgery lately.
         • Colonial Viper 1.1.1.1.1

           17 November 2011 at 3:01 pm

           Ask the tens of thousands of elderly who have had their home help cut, more like.

           Can’t believe you can’t see that stealing budget from ‘unimportant’ areas (like looking after old people) in order to boost up ‘sexy’ elective surgery numbers, is at the end of the day, a total accounting farce.
2. Lanthanide 2

   15 November 2011 at 2:49 pm

   Frightening. If you thought doctors and nurses were under pressure now, you ain’t seen nothing yet.

   They’re hardly making the job easier for teachers by saddling them with NS malarky either.

   And if you work in the public services, you can look forwards to inflation eroding your salary for the next 3 years if National win.
   • prism 2.1

     15 November 2011 at 6:34 pm

     And as for teachers the special needs college Salisbury College in Nelson is having its roll regularly diminished as the government tries to mainstream these children, many of whom have diminished learning capability or challenging behaviours that would upset the learning of the rest of the class. So NACTS are trying to dumb down ordinary education by force feeding the basics for all under NS while cherry picking schools with good results so they can send their children to the high achieving schools.
3. tc 3

   15 November 2011 at 2:51 pm

   bet their cosy ‘consultants’ in such joints as treasury aren’t part of that clearfelling program.
4. Roy 4

   15 November 2011 at 2:53 pm

   I have siblings and in-laws in various branches of the NZ public service and one of the most frightening things I hear about is that there appears to be very little thought given to who should be kept and who should be let go. You’d think that priority should be given to retaining the good performers and those with hard-to-replace expertise, but that is not what is happening.
   • Lanthanide 4.1

     15 November 2011 at 4:14 pm

     Reminds me of what happened to my dad. With a company for 20+ years, and they get bought out by their competitors. They merged operations and had to make someone redundant. It was my dad vs a new guy who had been working there for 2 years. My dad was an industrial chemist working as a salesman for the product and had been working with the customers first as a technical contact and later as salesman, so he had good rapport with the customers and knew their requirements inside and out and could help diagnose technical issues.

     After doing some cursory interviews, they made my dad redundant. They apparently didn’t even consider his old-school contract that required a $95k redundancy payout for long service as to who they should get rid of.

     So now my dad (in early 60’s) has ended up working part time for a company running out of Auckland because no one in his or related industry was interested in hiring someone over 50, regardless of how experienced they are.
5. Bored 5

   15 November 2011 at 3:02 pm

   At the risk of being really contentious here can somebody disabuse me of the notion I get doing business in Wellington that the public service is over paid with far too many 6 figure salaries and fat cat packages…and that is before we come to the contracted “hired gun” conmsultants.

   Would I be correct in saying that from the outside the public service appear a cossetted plutocracy whose wage costs don’t reflect what they would be worth on the open market? If that is true (which I think it may be BUT I have no evidence of) would the public servants be better spreading the wage bill out over more workers in exchange for what they used to have: job security?

   Could somebody enlighten me on the real picture please.
   • joe90 5.1

     15 November 2011 at 3:12 pm

     From the provinces.

     Telling it like it is grumpy, people will not foster or adopt these kids, year after year budgets have been boned out, support services, facilities, resources and staff numbers have been cut, the numbers of children and families in trouble increases and the case loads of remaining staff hit ridiculous levels.
     .
     Anecdotally, social workers with new degrees usually only last a couple of year working for the state doing the hard shit, statutory social work, and when they’ve got enough experience they head off to the NGO of their choice where the money is better, the work is easier and all the hard shit (statutory social work) gets sent to the state.

     And a year later things are worse.
   • framu 5.2

     15 November 2011 at 3:28 pm

     i tend to look at the PS as consisting of 2 maybe 3 parts

     the regular desk jockeys – who get below market rates
     the middle managers – who make about the same as market rates for the position
     the upper tier – who get the 6 figure salaries

     due to the nature of and culture of having to constantly insure your not open to accusations of bias, corruption and ineptitude there are a lot of middle managers, rules and levels of checking and reviewing of each other as you go up through the layers. (This of course can result in a self perpetuating spiral, where layers of checking are added simply as insurance against… anything)

     there is IMO definately a case for streamlining processes and cutting back round the middle and top layers – but that means that we have to trust our PS’s a bit more and treat them like adults

     Quite often it seems that the whole “they get paid too much” is used to justify trimming out the bottom layer and some middle management when it only applies to the boffins at the top
     • insider 5.2.1

       15 November 2011 at 4:10 pm

       I think your numbers are a bit low from a major policy ministry point of view. Senior advisers with no staff can easily get to six figures, middle managers with a team of five or eight will be more than that (say fourth tier), and third tier leading a group getting 130s-160s. Tier 2s will be getting what the ministry is rated at eg big important ministries like Treasury and MAF and NZTA and Health and education dep secs will be significantly more.

       Are they worth it? My view is top level are overpaid because a lot of the risk of their job is passed off to politicians and the statutory framework. But you have to be a pretty good player to maintain the confidence of a minister over time so it can’t be an easy job trying to second guess their thinking about every decision you make while keeping the ministers at arms length. So maybe they deserve the salary as dirt money.

       The Govt is going to have a problem at some stage because the civil service is there to support ministers. If they want to get things done and not be constantly embarassed then they need people to do the hard thinking work. Not only that, the expectation on govt to ask anyone who has an opinion what they think takes time and resource. The stupid thing is one of the biggest distractions for minstries IMO is the demands of the minister for ‘no surprises’ and ‘I need this speech for tomorrow’. You spend so much time worrying about what might happen and servicing those day to day needs that the private office should be doing that you get precious little time to make it happen.
       • framu 5.2.1.1

         15 November 2011 at 4:19 pm

         you could be right there as well

         my knowledge is really only what ive heard from the desk jockeys and other lower levels. ie: “the front line”

         but it kind of reinforces the point i was attempting to make (possibly not very well).

         and thats that we tend to view the PS as one big blob thats all the same – when what goes on at the coal face is quite a different situation to what goes on in the deeper recesses.

         “The Govt is going to have a problem at some stage because the civil service is there to support ministers”

         they are also there to do the grunt work of the functions of the state – police, immigration, the health service, various inspectors, customs etc etc
         • insider 5.2.1.1.1

           15 November 2011 at 4:59 pm

           yes but they can’t grunt if no-one tells them when and where to do it. It’s those poeple that are at risk and who may be missed.
     • Draco T Bastard 5.2.2

       15 November 2011 at 4:52 pm

       As I understand it (read it somewhere in the last couple of years but can’t remember where) , even the people at the top get less than what they would get in the private sphere.
       • insider 5.2.2.1

         15 November 2011 at 5:12 pm

         The very top ministry people get a lot less than say the head of Fletchers and Westpac and Telecom, but they don’t exist in a competitive market where making money is the aim.

         It’s the ones in the smaller agency/ministries that I suspect get paid way too much compared to the size of the organisation. >$300k for SPARC CEO? $250k for Womens Affairs? Not criticising the people Just not sure the job is worth it – some of the agencies will have expensive boards on top of that. I suspect a lot of reasonably successful small/medium business owners would be struggling to make that kind of money.

         or it could just be financial envy on my part…

         PS remuneration data is here http://www.ssc.govt.nz/sites/all/files/ar2010-remuneration-pages.pdf
         • Colonial Viper 5.2.2.1.1

           15 November 2011 at 5:28 pm

           Irrelevant.

           Slash unwarranted CEO and executive pay but put the savings back into the organisations. Not gut them and leave them to die.

           Also, no salary in this country should be higher than 20x the median wage i.e. ~$800K pa.

           A 79% tax rate on each dollar over that will sort it out nicely.
     • Hami Shearlie 5.2.3

       15 November 2011 at 5:53 pm

       Agreed Framu!
   • prism 5.3

     15 November 2011 at 6:37 pm

     It’s good for the mojo of the top people in the public service to get close to or sometimes more than in the private sector. That’s a given, and unarguable.
     • Mark Wilson 5.3.1

       15 November 2011 at 6:47 pm

       Its only inarguable to someone who cannot have spent much time in the real world – the reality is that very few top level civil servants could cut it at the same level in the private sector.
       Look at Helen Clark – never had a job in the real world and would struggle to get a mid level job outside of the public sector.
       • lprent 5.3.1.1

         15 November 2011 at 11:55 pm

         Bullshit. I have worked with Helen a lot though campaigns, and she’d do really well anywhere. Formidable ability to work through problems and with other people. Both are skills that are valued everywhere.

         And before you start dribbling on with the usual moronic stupidities. I have no idea how the public sector works. I have never worked anywhere except the private sector.

         I’ve have worked as a manager through several companies, helped start several companies, have a MBA from Otago, and come from a family of managers. These days I write code – mostly because it is more fun than being a servant for employees.

         I just read through all of your comments on site and there is literally nothing of any substance in there. It is meaningless drivel. I’d be surprised if anyone considers that you have any substantive value. Perhaps you should rectify that deficiency?
   • Ianupnorth 5.4

     15 November 2011 at 8:49 pm

     I hold two degrees including a Masters; I have 25 years experience in my professional field, I work in the private sector; if I went to Australia I would earn nearly double within the government sector. The job security of working within the public health sector was once a trade off for the crap salary, the dog eat dog work environment and the constant restructures.
      
     In the past five years i have been through two restructures, acquired more work, lost colleagues, have seen inexperienced staff replace skilled staff, and, most worryingly, have seen corners cut, services dropped and quality diminish.
      
     The next big thing will be the merger of DHB’s, where you will witness wide ranging carnage!
     • Mark Wilson 5.4.1

       15 November 2011 at 9:50 pm

       Ah I hate to point out (not really but I am dealing with lefties so you have to mock them gently) but all your comment proves is that public servants (now there is an oxymoron) are incompetent at running anything larger than a bake sale and the fewer we have the better.
       • M 5.4.1.1

         16 November 2011 at 12:15 am

         Are you trying to be offensive?

         One of my kids had a nasty accident earlier this year and received sterling service and surgery at a public hospital.

         If you ever need to avail yourself of such assistance I hope you aren’t using your real name – it may come back to haunt you especially if a doctor or nurse has a gin-trap memory.

         Arsehole.
       • Galeandra 5.4.1.2

         16 November 2011 at 8:31 am

         Tiresome and immature commentary. Try Kiwiblog.
       • Ianupnorth 5.4.1.3

         16 November 2011 at 9:18 am

         mark, I could run rings around those within the private sector, but I actually value people, actually value the possibilities and contributions people make to society; yes I do like $’s, but there are merely a means to an end, not a reason for living.
          
6. infused 6

   15 November 2011 at 3:22 pm

   “quarter of the way through the processes of reshaping it”

   1/4 of reshaping it != 1/4 through redundancies.

   Although I’ve come to expect this from you.
   • Lanthanide 6.1

     15 November 2011 at 4:46 pm

     Yeah, it could very easily mean they’re only 1/8th or 1/10th of the way through the redundancies.

     Remember the big hooplah they made about ‘capping’ the public service before the last election. They’ve not made any such promise this time, that I’m aware of.
     • Zorr 6.1.1

       15 November 2011 at 7:58 pm

       They could be taking a page from the Rethuglican playbook in the States and are actually meaning they are only 1/4 of the way through Ministry closures and mergers… come the 2nd term they want to see MAF, Ministry of Ed and Ministry of Health done away with and EQC reintegrated with State…
7. James N 7

   15 November 2011 at 3:31 pm

   It would be interesting to know just how many more mine inspectors they propose to cut…
   • Jim Nald 7.1

     15 November 2011 at 3:34 pm

     National will move them to the front line … for those flying overseas … brighter future in Australia.
8. Ms X 8

   15 November 2011 at 5:43 pm

   never mind the top paid public servants – we at the front line are exhausted and overstretched. They may SAY that they’re not reducing front line staff, but they don’t replace those who jump ship easily either and those left behind are doing so much more than they were, say five years ago. Plus the reports and figures that have to be done (by us) to justify jobs further up the food chain. Not a pretty picture.
   • In Vino Veritas 8.1

     17 November 2011 at 2:45 pm

     “those left behind are doing so much more than they were, say five years ago”

     So you are saying that these people actually have to work a full day now? Heaven forbid.
9. anne 9

   15 November 2011 at 6:30 pm

   Key did say “There will be much,much deeper and bigger cuts for everyone if they win the election” His plans for NZ are not honorable at all,in fact their welfare policy is attacking
   the very people they are putting out of work.
   When Key and Bennett get on their soap box they should remember that while they are
   attacking like rabid dogs on people they are also guilty of useing tax payers money as their
   own cheque books as well,what other worker has an open cheque book courtesy of
   his boss,if key and bennett are going to charge beneficiaries for fraud,then they need
   to take a deep look inside their own cabinet,English for one is notorious for double
   dipping,yes the term is fraud.No doubt key himself is guility of far far worse practices
   involving tax payers money.
   If he is also slighting the elderly in this country,as the comments are being alluded to
   he should resign,but that wont happen,the money lollies are inside parliament and in govt,
   something he is protecting with vigour and he will take the biggest rorter of them all
   with him for the ride.
10. Ianupnorth 10

    16 November 2011 at 9:20 am

    The latest “if you are on drugs we’ll cut your benefit” will be such a winner, we’ll need three times as many prisons to deal with the exponential increase in petty crime.
     
    Oh, but wait, that won’t be public jobs, they be with Serco in the private prisons.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS