That was the headline that greeted readers of the New Zealand Herald for much of 2008. The Electoral Finance Act was a less than perfect piece of legislation, but the hyperbole that surrounded the campaign against it was extraordinary. So where are those who ran this campaign now, in the face of this
The Government has cancelled an October regional council election, depriving 378,512 Kiwis of a vote for the next 3 1/2 years.
That is how the Dominion Post described the government’s decision to replace the elected Council with commissioners, and in a move that defies belief to not hold elections until 2013. That means that the people of the greater Canterbury region will not get a vote along with other local authorities later this year.
Why? Well Nick Smith gives us an insight in this morning’s Timaru Herald
Dr Smith said part of the reason he replaced the council with commissioners – rather than appointing a commissioner adviser to oversee water management issues, as ECan suggested – was he was wary of the outcome of the October elections.
That’s right, Nick Smith is wary of the outcome of an election. That’s right, in Nick Smith’s view you can’t trust democracy. An election can throw up results you don’t like , but that does not mean you get to cancel it!
This has been a really week for democracy (not to mention that last few months in terms of Auckland). Last week amid the understandable focus on mining and welfare changes there was not a lot of debate on the government’s decision to not have a spending cap for the MMP referendum. Despite there being a cap for citizens initiated referenda, there is not one for this one. I well remember the first referendum where Peter Shirtcliffe and his mates poured money into the anti-MMP campaign, and very nearly pulled off a result.
This is an issue of fairness. We have to balance participant equality and participant freedom, and that requires a spending limit.
Posted in Democracy. |
A very good column from Gay Keating from the Public Health Association in today’s Dominion Post commenting on the importance of so-called ‘backroom’ staff to the functioning of the health system.
We absolutely need the doctors and nurses, physios and psychotherapists, dialysis technicians and radiotherapists. But we also need the computer staff, the pay clerks and the hospital cleaners. Having adequate support staff allows clinical staff to get on with their jobs. Otherwise, it’s the doctors and nurses who end up having to order equipment and fill out paperwork.
This is the major concern expressed to me by people right across our public services. Those on the ‘frontline’ are only able to do their jobs properly if they have good support.
As Gay points out those considered backroom are in fact involved in the frontline of providing health services.
So called “backroom bureaucrats” play a vital role in keeping us safe and healthy. They set food-handling standards and inspect cafes so customers don’t get food poisoning. They check that people’s immunisations are up to date, that women are having their breast screening and cervical smears, that middle-aged men are getting their blood pressure checked, that people with diabetes are having their eyes checked, that older people are getting their flu shots. Every year we need bureaucrats and lab technicians to make sure the flu jab has the right mix of virus strains. And for every vaccine, it’s bureaucrats who make sure the products are transported and stored safely.
Exactly. Good, efficient, public services require a balance of staff who are seen and not seen by the public. making artificial distinctions for political reasons as National is doing will not lead to better public services.
Posted in Public Services. |
Yesterday’s announcements really are one of the most poorly thought out, and poorly consulted proposals we have seen from this government. Some interesting comments on Morning Report today (item at 8.21am). I thought the comment from former National MP Katherine Rich (actually talking about the Food Safety Authority) was perceptive
restructurings like this sound simple but often turn out to be complex and expensive.
Too true. In the UK they have been discovering just that. A report by the National Audit Office has concluded over the last five years that 780 million pounds has been spent on restructuring, and the value for money achieved has been “unsatisfactory”.
The report says: “The value for money of central government reorganisations cannot be demonstrated given the vague objectives of most such reorganisations, the lack of business cases, the failure to track costs and the absence of mechanisms to identify benefits and make sure they materialise.
A quick read of the Government’s Cabinet paper justifying the changes announced yesterday sadly fits in with pretty much all of the above. No clear plans, no real business case. Just a desire to be seen to change.
Posted in Public Services. |
The mergers that were leaked a couple of weeks ago have been confirmed. Archives and National Library (back) into Internal Affairs, the Food Safety Authority (back) into MAF and the merging of the Ministry and Foundation for Research Science and Technology. None of these mergers will provide better quality public services for New Zealanders, and in the case of the first two they have the potential to do damage.
I have rehearsed the arguments about this before. Labour actually seperated out Archives and the Food Safety Authority in the last term of government. There is very little to be gained in terms of financial savings in the grand scheme of government from these moves, and much to be lost. It seems it is a triumph of ideology over what will deliver good quality public services.
A seperate food safety agency gives us an independent and robust regime. This is important not just for our exporters, but for our international reputation. But it seems this week, that is not top of mind for the government.
The Archives and Library mergers are a tragedy for the transparency of government and our historical record. Anyone involved with Archives will tell you how appallingly they were looked after when they were in the DIA in the 1990s. The indpendence of the Chief Archivist and the National Librarian are vital parts of our governmental process. That is gone with today’s decision.
The Cabinet paper that goes with these announcements is shockingly light on detail, and shows there was no consultation at all on the mergers outside the core public service. So much for the public having a say in the delivery of public services.
Posted in Public Services. |
The thing that depresses me the most about National’s so-called welfare reforms is that they are fuelled by outdated Tory thinking. Here was me thinking that the ‘modern’ National Party was not bogged down in ideology, and was focused on “what works”. But no, it is a “kick in the pants” and time to stop “living the dream”. For National unemployment is the fault of the unemployed, and if only they pulled their socks up everything would be all right.
I have said before on this blog that I, along with most people, am appalled if people rip off the system. Where that happens we should crack down. But let’s also not accept the myth that the current system is all carrot and no stick. At the moment people on the unemployment benefit have to be seeking work. Work and Income monitor benefit recipients closely. It is true that there is no work test for DPB recipients. So much for family friendly National. I am anxiously awaiting to hear of the thousands of jobs conveniently timed for 9-3pm that have flexibility over sick days.
The experience of Trevor in the Dominion Post is much more like the reality of the people who I have seen in my office in recent months. They want to use their skills. They, and we as taxpayers, have invested in their skills, but the jobs are not there for them at the moment.
A kick in the pants might sound good, but in the end if we are to actually move people off benefits and into work it requires a constructive, active approach to go with clear rules. Most other countries we normally compare ourselves to had massive investments in job creation through the recession. We had a cycleway.
The reality is this policy does not have any vision for how we move more people into work, because it is not about helping to create jobs, or to find ways to work with long term unemployed. It is straight out dog whistle politics that seeks to re-inforce an image of ‘bludging no hopers who are a drain on resources’. No matter the evidence of the thousands of people who lined up for jobs at a supermarket in Auckland recently. If it plays well with some prejudices that might exist in the electorate then it seems National want to go there.
Posted in Unemployment, Jobs and Inequality. |
