The perils of out-sourcing public services

18 comments on “The perils of out-sourcing public services ”

• Comments are now closed

1. ianmac 1

   8 December 2010 at 9:18 am

   I guess Tony Ryall can cause a squeeze which lead to the loss of small units as this will only affect a small number of people and get lost in the “greater efficiency” and “moving funding to frontline services”. Therefore not a biggie in the minds of the voting masses.
   Hang on the Taihape unit was very much frontline!
2. smhead 2

   8 December 2010 at 9:27 am

   PHOs aren’t owned by the government either. So what’s the difference between whanau ora and PHOs? Oh that’s right, whanau ora are Maori organisations, so Marty says they’re more likely to be corrupt and it’s okay to bash them.

   Disgraceful.

   [lprent: You’ve just stated that an author said something that they did not. I do not like people trying to put words in the mouths of authors. In fact I find it disgraceful. Two week ban. ]
   • Bright Red 2.1

     8 December 2010 at 10:13 am

     Show me where Marty says it has anything to do with race. You can’t.

     You’re just being a scumbag, smhead, and refusing to engage in the issue.
     • billy fish 2.1.1

       8 December 2010 at 2:31 pm

       You stated that smhead is being a scumbag, when obviously he is a smeghead.

       I think a retracition is needed
       • Bright Red 2.1.1.1

         8 December 2010 at 2:45 pm

         quite right. retracted and corrected.
   • Rosy 2.2

     8 December 2010 at 11:12 am

     hmm many community PHOs are operated by Maori providers as well. No-one is calling these corrupt. It’s not about race.
3. tsmithfield 3

   8 December 2010 at 12:15 pm

   OTOH, Rob has written a recent post about the crap job that WINZ ( a public body) is doing about administering payments. So going by this example, keeping things within the “public” house doesn’t make things better.
   • Bright Red 3.1

     8 December 2010 at 12:30 pm

     I don’t see WINZ making 1% of payments in error as a huge problem. I bet it’s far better than you get from small private outfits. I don’t think r0b’s saying WINZ is doing a crap job, he’s just pointing out that it’s a far bigger issue than fraud.

     You can understand why overpayments happen at WINZ. The typical case will be that a person gets a job and doesn’t tell WINZ like they’re meant to, so WINZ keeps paying the benefit until it gets notification from IRD. Then, WINZ has to get the money back from the former beneficiary. Happens all the time. Happened with me in my younger days.
     • tsmithfield 3.1.1

       8 December 2010 at 3:11 pm

       Two good things about outsourcing:

       1. There is a strong motivation for the private entity to perform or lose their funding.
       2. Its easy to terminate the program if its not viable. A lot harder to do that with government departments.
       • Rex Widerstrom 3.1.1.1

         8 December 2010 at 4:24 pm

         Which, in a perfect little nutshell, is why I argue for private prisons. Yank their financial chain and they’ll do what you want… including increase genuine rehabilitative programs. They can even be paid a “commission” based on the number of prisoners who go through their programs and don’t reoffend after X years.

         Try reforming any country’s state-run corrective services, however… there’s no incentive to change because there’s no reward (other than praise from a Minister whom no one respects anyway) for doing so. And if you happen to have a Minister who quite likes the idea of prisoners being released through a revolving door, you’re doubly screwed.

         And that reminds me of another benefit – contract law. If a progressive government were, say, to sign a 10 year contract with a progessive corrections provider setting rehabilitation etc as goals then even if they lost office after one term the contract – and the goals – stand; long enough for the benefits to become apparent.

         That doesn’t mean I’m in favour of it for everything, by any means. But prison is one area in which I’ve seen it work brilliantly (and also, if we look to the US, fail abysmally, I admit – which is why you’re careful in choosing your provider and drafting your contract).
         • ak 3.1.1.1.1

           8 December 2010 at 7:30 pm

           ….prison is one area in which I’ve seen it work brilliantly

           Aye, haven’t we all – the contracting into freezing works in the late 60’s doubled the pay of some – but now they do three times the work for less than originally. Ditto local govt contracting – lots now being taken back in house.

           Big prob is the market’s inherent race to the bottom: over time an overwhelming imperative to cut costs. i.e. staff and service. Which is what we find…..

           … if we look to the US, fail abysmally ….because they’ve been at it longer.
           • Rex Widerstrom 3.1.1.1.1.1

             8 December 2010 at 7:39 pm

             The model I’m thinking of doesn’t send prisoners out to work for private industry at all*. Nor should any prison, IMO.

             The benefits I’m talking about arise because the contractor is paid on things like number of assaults on prisoners and guards, number of released prisoners who reoffend and so on (with less = more money, obviously).

             In fact the payments are so generous as to have incentivised the prison operator to invest in post-release support for things like housing and finding work as these are known to decrease recidivism and thus increase their income.

             * The exception being prisoners who are on day release to work for not-for-profits like food banks and secondhand furniture and clothing stores. They’re paid by the prison system, however, not the “business”.
     • Vicky32 3.1.2

       8 December 2010 at 4:25 pm

       “The typical case will be that a person gets a job and doesn’t tell WINZ like they’re meant to, ”
       The problem lies, Bright Red, as you have probably experienced, that if while on UB, you get a job, and tell them “I will be starting work two weeks from now” then WINZ cut the benefit from the day you inform them! (Even if they’re not supposed to do that, and they’re not.)
       But you don’t start work for 2 weeks, and you’re not paid for another 2 weeks after that! So you do as I have done in the past, and tell WINZ only when you have the money in your hand, and they establish a debt even though every cent they paid you for those 4 weeks went in food, clothes and travel to the new job!
       Then the problems really start, when HCNZ accuse you a year later of not having informed them that you were working and want a year’s worth of income-related rent back! (That happened to me, but luckily I was able to prove that I had informed them, that my ‘tenancy manager’ was an incompetent who had lost my file etc.. )
       Starting work can be as big a nightmare as being on UB in the first place!
       • Lanthanide 3.1.2.1

         8 December 2010 at 5:19 pm

         I am SO glad I have never had to deal with any of that shit. Long may it continue. Nothing aggravates me more than other people failing to do their job and me taking the consequences.
         • TightyRighty 3.1.2.1.1

           8 December 2010 at 5:24 pm

           you got a typo in there,

           should read “Nothing aggravates me more than other people failing to do a job and me taking the consequences”
           • Colonial Viper 3.1.2.1.1.1

             8 December 2010 at 7:34 pm

             rather, should read

             “Nothing aggravates me more than National failing to do their job and 170,000 unemployed New Zealanders taking the consequences”

Links to post

1. The Standard: posted on 7 December 2010 at 5:00 pm
2. The Standard: posted on 7 December 2010 at 8:00 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS