DPMC: The “Key” to increasing the PM’s power

Written By: - Date published: 9:28 am, February 3rd, 2010 - 14 comments
Categories: john key, national/act government, public services - Tags:

Last October I posted on National’s plan to fold the State Services Commission into the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet.

Yesterday, Labour’s Grant Robertson revived the rumour. And since then Government pollster David Farrar has spent much of his energy reserves vigorously defending any transfer of power that may occur.

But we should watch closely to see what kind of powers and functions will be transferred to the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet.

Why?

Because DPMC is under direct executive control of John Key (or was that Steven Joyce?). It increases the power of the Prime Minister at the expense of the rest of the executive. This is a significant shift in power within NZ’s democracy, and should not be decided without giving all Kiwis the opportunity to have their say.

(PS. I allow myself one pun title a year. No more, I promise.)

14 comments on “DPMC: The “Key” to increasing the PM’s power ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. BLiP 1
    3 February 2010 at 9:41 am

    How long before the entire HR functions of the state are contracted out to some foreign-owned multinational?

  2. PT 2
    3 February 2010 at 9:42 am

    the state services commission is under the direct executive contrl of the minister of state services idiot

    Before engaging in personal abuse you should probably take time to understand the difference between the State Services Minister and the PM. Re-read the post and try again. – MF

    • snoozer 2.1
      3 February 2010 at 10:15 am

      PT. No it’s not.

      DPMC is very different from other government orgs. For starters, it is located in the beehive. The CEO and his people sit on the 8th floor with Key’s political staff.

    • mickysavage 2.2
      3 February 2010 at 10:22 am

      Geez PT you really need to lay off with the invective. Try debating without the abuse and you will find the threads get more interesting. I must admit that I have responded in the same way to some of your stuff and I intend from now not to.

      But you run the risk of getting banned as a troll.

      [lprent: Yes he does. ]

  3. Scribe 3
    3 February 2010 at 9:44 am

    Might not be a bad idea, BLiP. Does the name Mary Anne Thompson mean anything to you?

    • gitmo 3.1
      3 February 2010 at 9:48 am

      I’ll raise you a Barry Matthews.

      That being said there’s about an equal proportion of buffoons in the private and public sectors……… people who rise to the top via who they know and being able to interview competently/bend the truth…….. but when in the job prove themselves to be complete fuckwits or bent or borderline psychos.

      • PT 3.1.1
        3 February 2010 at 9:54 am

        how about benson pope and how he ran over public service protocols to hound out setchell? labour have no credibility on public service neutrality thats the problem with you lefties you always want to interfere

        • Craig Glen Eden 3.1.1.1
          3 February 2010 at 10:04 am

          It would seem that its the right that are hell bent on interfering especially when theirs a dollar to be made of the public tit PT.

          The next trick is to swing it to a mate via a so called Independent Corporate who could then choose to make a donation with their hard earned money to some trust like say the Waitamata Trust maybe!

          Wake and smell the coffee PT cos we can all smell the shit you are trying to spin.

        • killinginthenameof 3.1.1.2
          3 February 2010 at 10:09 am

          How about how National has ignored just about every second rule relating to seperation of powers, departmental interferance, proper procedure in parliament, and a whole host of other things?

          Thats the problem with the right, you all hate freedom, and sunshine and kittens and stuff and stuff.

          Anyway, imagine the boot was on the other foot and Helen Clark was doing this, you lot would be screaming to high heaven, Farrar would probably be organising ramshackle PR fiasco Mk2, and you lot would be back to claiming you know someone who knows someone whos going to riot in the streets.

          FWIW, I think its a silly idea to merge SSC into DPMC. I dont see any real problems in how it currently works, but it would be nowhere near as bad as when Helen Clark got rid of the privy council.

  4. The Baron 4
    3 February 2010 at 10:42 am

    Who cares?! What the f*ck does the SSC actually do?

    Grant seems to think that it is a bit like the PSA – some kind of check and balance on the excesses of the oh-so-evil Treasury. We really need a whole agency to do that?

    The only things I can really think of that they have actually done is:

    1. Get asked NOT to do E-Govt work because they were crap at it
    2. Get involved in the likes of the Setchell affair.

    Again – we need this? Take the blinkers off team – if we are running an agency that has no real purpose anymore, then that is soaking up Govt expenditure that could be better spent elsewhere. Not everything (anything?) is some labyrinthine plot for power.

    • snoozer 4.1
      3 February 2010 at 11:05 am

      Baron. What the SSC does will not disappear, it will just be taken over by DPMC.

      The SSC seperates the politically neutral public service from the politicians. It employs the CEOs, who then employ the public servants.

      That’s just one of its functions. It coordinates government orgs too.

      And it’s basically the opposite of DPMC. In that DPMC is highly politically controlled, whereas SSC acts to stop politicisation.

      The PSA is a union.

      • The Baron 4.1.1
        3 February 2010 at 4:00 pm

        Thanks for the banal clarification that tells me absolutely SFA yet again, Snoozer. PSA is a union – woooooooow, revelations abound.

        And I nearly wet my pants at the idea that the entire public service was about to be politicised by this move. Holy crap, did you miss what happened over the previous 9 years?! I even mentioned the Setchell affair as a clue.

        Sharpen the pencil there fella. And again, lay of the wakky tobakky, cos it’s making you hella paranoid about a pretty nothing, and sensible idea.

        • George.com 4.1.1.1
          3 February 2010 at 9:42 pm

          Hmmmm, didn’t a certain recently new government promise on the campaign trail to ‘depoliticise’ the public service. Yes, moving the SSC to be under the direct influence of the PM will certainly help depoliticise things. This isn’t about what occurred under the previous government, its what the present one is doing. When will you nat supporters understand that.

  5. tc 5
    3 February 2010 at 10:42 am

    Does it really matter ? These clowns find a way to stamp on due process and democracy anyway….they’ve elevated it to an art form with Urgency.

    Focus on stuff people understand like what crap Tolley/Smith/Gerry/Bennett etc get up to……aside from the beehive watchers the average person cares diddly about the games Pollys play with the public service and mosty assume NACT will tinker with it.

    It’d make a nice piece in election 2011 campaign under the heading ‘Democarcy under attack’ with supercity issues