HOME   >   PORTFOLIOS   >   STATE SERVICES   >   SPEECHES

Russell McVeagh offices, Lambton Quay, Wellington

==

Thank you to IPANZ for the opportunity to speak here this evening, and thanks to all those who have come along.

I really do appreciate the role that IPANZ plays in organising events such as these, and other activities too such as the Public Sector Excellence Awards, about which I will say a little more later.

Thank you also to Russell McVeagh for their sponsorship and very practical support.

In addressing the theme of tonight's gathering - the Foundations of Professional Public Service - I want to reflect on Labour's nine years in office, on what we have learned and what we have achieved, and then look ahead to see what lies ahead for the public service.

Last week I had the pleasure of issuing a media release which saluted our public sector for its number-one ranking in a worldwide assessment of public sector honesty and transparency. For the third year in a row, the New Zealand public sector was found to be first equal for the lack of corruption in its public service.

It's a result to be proud of and, as I said in that release, I applaud our public servants for being among the most honest in the world.

A second relevant event last week, the last House sitting week of the year, was a parliamentary question from the opposition spokesperson on state services, Gerry Brownlee.

He asked whether I stood by an earlier statement that people would lose faith and trust in the state services if state servants don't deliver services efficiently and effectively.

I replied that I did stand by the statement. Mr Brownlee went on to ask how could I say services are being delivered efficiently and effectively, when in the last 5 years the amount of floor space leased to house "bureaucrats" in central Wellington has gone up, and how could that benefit the taxpayer?

I find it interesting that instead of using the term ‘public servant', he chose the more pejorative ‘bureaucrat'. He used the term constantly as he kept re-phrasing the original question. He hammered his theme that there are these wasteful bureaucrats lying about in spacious Wellington offices soaking up taxpayers' funds.

In our nine years, Labour has demanded excellence from the public service. We have pursued value for money. But what we have not done is bad mouth the public service. Recent criticisms and sniping about the numbers of public servants are setting a tone. They have already sparked quite a bit of muttering and complaining from people who are only too willing to believe the worst about public servants.

Memories have faded a bit, but if we are talking about a professional public service, let's remember the opposition when last in government. Labour inherited a public service that was threadbare and demoralised. The 1990s were extraordinarily destructive of professionalism in the public service.

During that decade, the private sector was held up as the only model of what was good. The public sector was presented as wasteful and second-rate. Before we were elected, some public servants had begun to mimic practices that were excessive even in the private sector.

One idea underpinning the opposition's recent attacks is that the public sector is currently a drain on the wealth-producing private sector. But that is not the case. I mentioned the world ranking of our public service for honesty. Another recent study, by the World Bank, found that New Zealand is ranked second in the world for ease of doing business. That's not only because of the simplicity of our regulatory environment, but also because we offer the reassurance of a public service with integrity.

The international experience is that a public service that is transparent, professional and trusted will deliver the conditions for business to operate and invest with certainty. A successful economy and a vibrant, healthy, and educated society support one another. New Zealand has become efficiently regulated and attractive to business. There is no need to make the public service a target.

One of the most destructive effects of undermining the public service is the impact on the morale of the people who work in it. Our public service managers and professionals are people committed to continuous improvement and who want to make a difference.

 

Many believe, rightly, that there is such a thing as the public good, and they enjoy contributing to it. People work for those reasons too, not just for the material rewards. Both matter. In the voluntary sector, surveys show that people don't expect financial rewards, but they do want someone to say ‘thank you'.

I think it's great that IPANZ organises the annual Excellence Awards. We celebrate excellence in sport, arts and culture, business, journalism and many other walks of life. We should not be shy about celebrating it in the public service. The IPANZ Gen-i Public Sector Excellence Awards are part of an ongoing effort to improve the performance of our public sector, and our commitment to that will continue.

Constant criticism of the public service also sets the scene for another feature of the 1990s that most New Zealanders do not want to see revisited.

If you believe the private sector always does it better, then it is logical to say the public sector should be doing less. So why should Kiwibank or KiwiRail or New Zealand Post or Television New Zealand or any other state asset be in public hands, if the private sector does it better?

You may think these are purely commercial matters, and that decisions to sell assets are always made on rational economic grounds. They are not. The decisions are made when the idea has been firmly established in people's minds that assets must be sold because the public sector is too incompetent to run them. It was that sort of ideology that saw the Bank of New Zealand and New Zealand Rail sold, as well as the forced sale of many well-run electricity businesses in the late 1990s.

Our opponents have said they would not sell state assets in their first term. Even taking them at their word, that is three years of bad mouthing the public service to soften up public opposition to privatisation beyond that time.

So, if you ask me what are the foundations of a professional public service, then I say one is that public servants be allowed carry out their work in a climate of respect and support, not one where they are constantly battling a perception that what they do is second rate.

 

Another theme is the independence of the public service, and the fine line that many public servants tread between politics and neutrality. I do not believe for one minute the opposition claim that they want to hear more from public servants, that they want to be challenged more by public servants, and that public servants should be free to take part in important public debates.

I can just imagine the reaction if a senior manager in Corrections publicly tells his new Minister that his case for the private sector running prisons doesn't stack up. I can guarantee you that the Minister's reaction would not begin with the words: "I want to thank that manager for his valuable contribution and I look forward to seeing him on television challenging my views more often."

The idea has been floated too that policy advisors should be able to take part in Cabinet discussions. But I think we've got the balance about right. Cabinet ministers generally get very good advice. By the time I take an issue to a Cabinet committee, it has been well analysed and discussed, a lot of thinking has gone on, and I have been well briefed. All sides of the debate are covered in the papers considered by Cabinet.

Often the issue may have been referred back to officials for further work. If a technical matter does arise during a Cabinet committee discussion, then officials can be, and often are, called in for advice. In the end though, it is Cabinet that is responsible to the electorate for the decision and they should take the decision for, ultimately, they will take responsibility.

Both these ideas - of public servants speaking out more publicly about issues, and taking part in Cabinet discussions - pose a real risk of politicising the public service. They would also risk undermining the responsibility of Ministers, who could all too easily blame others to avoid the political repercussions of their decisions.

 

Labour is perfectly happy to campaign on our record of investment as we have rebuilt the public service in the past decade. I would note that, despite the investment, public service numbers have grown at a rate slightly less than the overall growth in the labour market as a whole.

I would also note that we have already placed increased emphasis on value for money in recent years. It was added as one of the State Services Development Goals. As a result of that and, at my direction, the SSC is taking concrete measures to reduce public service costs in advertising, travel, and leasing.

It is one of six development goals providing a framework for developing a system of world class professional state services. The others relate to ensuring the state services is an employer of choice; the use of technology to provide services; coordinating government agencies; and having state services that are accessible and trusted.

One benefit of these goals is that we are now getting the information to tell us how the whole of the state services are performing. They have proved to be such an effective way of delivering on the business of government that the 2007 goals have been refreshed and extended out to 2015.

But our opponents would have you believe the public service has grown without restraint or direction. They have been quite shrewd in their attacks. They know everybody values nurses, police, and teachers, so they've drawn a line between frontline staff and the policy advisers here in Wellington. One of their billboards says "more doctors, more nurses, less bureaucrats", although I haven't seen that billboard around Wellington. I doubt they are brave enough to put it up here. What does that billboard tell you about how much they value the work of public servants? It says to me it's open season on policy makers, so let me just say a few words in their defence.

The Labour-led government has introduced a raft of major new policies such as the emphasis on primary healthcare, KiwiSaver, Working For Families, and Schools Plus. These are huge initiatives and every one has depended on the work of a strong and well-resourced public service. Ministers can't just jot down bright ideas on the back of a postage stamp and say go and do that. We are able to do things well because we've rebuilt core public service capability. I'll give another example from one of my other portfolios, Climate Change.

The Emissions Trading Scheme that passed into law several weeks ago was the result of some remarkable work from a very skilled and dedicated group of public servants. Eighteen months ago, an Emissions Trading Group was put together, drawn from Treasury, the Ministry for the Environment, the Ministry for Economic Development, the Ministry for Transport, and the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries.

Up until last week, they had produced 243 briefing papers. It's a blessed relief the papers were of very high quality because, along with Cabinet colleagues, I had to read and respond to them all. They drew on an extraordinary depth and range of legal, economic, environmental, and industry expertise.

Our Emissions Trading Scheme is world leading in many respects. Ground-breaking work, by public servants, led to its establishment. Many nations are now moving to set up similar schemes, and we have had many international inquiries about ours. I believe the quality of the analysis and research that went into our scheme has set a benchmark for schemes overseas. If you want an example of world class work from our public service, look at the Emissions Trading Scheme.

 

One of the pledges our political opponents have made is the need for continuity. Memories about the endless restructurings of the 1990s are still pretty raw, and I think people have been reassured by statements that an incoming government is not planning any radical upheavals.

But is that really the case? Even if you just go through their policy announcements to date, I would question it. Take the area of climate change and the environment. Our opponents have been very critical of the work of the Ministry for the Environment. They say it hasn't been independent enough and they are planning a major restructuring. They would transfer its monitoring functions to a greatly expanded Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, and expand the Environmental Risk Management Authority into an Environmental Protection Agency.

I also read today that they will transfer the Office of Treaty Settlements from the Ministry of Justice to the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. Reshuffling state agencies in this way solves little. Institutional memory is lost, the productivity of entire departments can plummet, and for what?

The other reason I doubt our opponents can deliver on this is that they are making promises that simply do not stack up. Our $10-billion dollar programme of tax cuts that begins the day after tomorrow has been carefully designed so that it does not mean cuts in public services nor imprudent levels of borrowing. But our opponents are promising tax cuts that will cost much more.

They have also promised they will not slash and burn the public service. They have also promised they will not borrow to fund tax cuts. So where will the money come from?

Something has to give. We are in a time of great international turmoil, some say the worst financial crisis since the 1930s. We have seen financial crises used to justify policy u-turns before.

Continuity is another foundation of a professional public service. Our track record is that the public service has enjoyed certainty over nine years. Changes have been measured, and justified. That is a record we will maintain.

 

Another theme I want to say something about is innovation. Is that something we need from the public service? Yes. Do I see opportunities for it? Certainly.

Take energy and climate change. While climate change poses an enormous global threat, it also offers great opportunities for a small sustainable nation. New Zealand's research and development into sustainable agriculture, and our expertise in renewable energy such as geothermal, hydro and wind, presents us with commercial opportunities in a world seeking sustainable solutions.

We are already a world leader in geothermal, wind, and hydro technologies, and we can further develop our expertise in marine generation and deep geothermal and use that to help other countries build their renewables.

There's a great depth of knowledge about all these issues within the public service. There are real opportunities to stitch together expertise from various agencies, and to work with the private sector, to make a practical difference to benefit the environment and our economy.

 

The Prime Minister has defined this election as being about trust. About who we Kiwis trust for the future of our families, our communities, our economy, and of course our public service.  Labour stands on its record, which includes prudent investment in public services. 

I contrast that with an opposition which has flip flopped on every major issue. Working for Families was ‘communism by stealth', but they'll keep it. Interest free student loans - the most reckless and irresponsible policy ever devised by a government - they'll keep it. They have opposed every major initiative, but will stand up in their campaign and say we won't change this and we won't change that.  Frankly, that lacks sincerity and conviction.

We will continue investing in the public service. We will continue to push for value for money. We will not bad mouth the public service to score political points. We will respect the neutrality and independence of public servants. We most definitely see space for innovation and fresh thinking in the public sector. We will continue to value excellence.

You can trust us to do all those things.

So thank you again for the invitation to speak with you today. I'm happy to respond now to any questions that you might have.

 

• OUR MPs | 
• FEATURES | 
• LATEST NEWS | 
• SPEECHES | 
• PORTFOLIOS | 
• POLICY | 
• MULTIMEDIA | 
• SEARCH | 
• CONTACT US