Anyone watching the charade by Parliament’s front door security, as featured on the TV3 News, would have been amazed by the lack of common sense on display. The decision to hide a couple of security staff in a windowless room so that nobody would think staff  were standing around doing nothing was a classic case of form over substance.

This innovation has made Parliament less safe, less secure and less convenient, not to mention its likely demoralising effect on the security staff themselves. Nobody wants to spend their working day skulking in a backroom.   And not a cent will be saved. No wonder nobody wanted to own up on camera as to who actually made this decision.

In itself it’s a relatively minor matter, but for many in the public service, this type of change is becoming only too familiar.  More often than not, the emphasis seems to be is on the appearance of greater efficiency when in reality no real improvement takes place.

In its crusade for maximum efficiency, the Government is intent on squeezing public services – and it wants it done yesterday. The result is that changes are rushed and ill-conceived, demoralising for the staff concerned  and having no positive lasting impact.  Security staff at Parliament were not asked for their opinion or input. Instead an unpopular and unworkable decision was imposed on them that they have to live with.

We should all take heed of the recent study by researchers at Waikato University, reported in the Dominion Post, that warned restructuring in the health sector can be bad for productivity because it is distracting for organisations and those who work in them.

Parliament’s security travesty could be a metaphor for much of the wider changes taking place in the state sector where appearances are more important than substance.

“Public sector professionalism is important to the National Government.  The professionalism we value is the public service telling the Government what it doesn’t want hear. Ministers may well disagree with the advice they receive, but open and respectful debate is the best way to make progress.”  Fine words from Bill English back in September 2009, speaking to a packed audience of public servants at the Institute of Public Administration.

The reality is turning out to be somewhat different.

Vernon Small’s story in the Dom Post says that the Ministry of Justice has been blocked from giving policy advice to the select committee considering the ‘three strikes’ law.

So much for “free and frank advice”.  Contrary to Bill English’s rhetoric, it appears we have got a government that doesn’t want to hear anything that doesn’t fit with its own ideas.  I presume  the Ministry of Justice has research and policy findings that cast doubt on the effectiveness of  a  three strikes law.  Important information to hear, you’d think, if you were planning to introduce a piece of legislation.

It’s a shameful decision on the part of National and Act to gag the public servants who have important information that should be listened to.  The Government, of course,  doesn’t have to follow that advice – they are the ones elected to make the law, not officials – but good law needs to be based on good information and a rational assessment of the implications.

It’s a weak government that can’t cope with contrary views.  And a bad move on Simon Power’s part to meekly stand aside and let the police lead the policy work on this law.  That’s not their job and he must know that.  If he doesn’t support this law, then he should show some leadership.

As the march and rally for ACC in Wellington showed today, there is widespread opposition to the Government’s plan to cut services and raise levies.

As often happens, it’s  the less well off, who are hurt the most. For example, home support workers, the lowest paid of all ACC funded workers, have had their travel allowance cut, reducing their daily income by 19%. Workers who are employed in potentially hazardous workplaces will have reduced entitlements for work-related diseases. The changes will make it harder for people who have hearing loss caused by work to get access to hearing aids. Part-time, casual and seasonal workers will get reduced income compensation.

The old argument “there is no alternative” is trotted out to justify these cuts to entitlement. The Government’s claim that ACC is in financial trouble has no substance. The accident compensation scheme had a $1.1 billion operating surplus in 2009 and over $10 billion in reserves! A “crisis” has been manufactured by the Government demand that ACC should be fully funded by 2019.  In other words, it’s required to have money in the coffers now to cover possible claims for the next decade.

As Tim Hazledine, Professor of Economics at the University of Auckland, pointed out last year in the NZ Herald, this is a bit like asking parents to pay upfront to meet the future obligations to their children. Since that sum would be several hundred thousand dollars, most parents could be deemed to be “broke; busted; bankrupt”.

The hidden agenda here is that fully funding ACC will put it on the same financial footing as insurance companies so they can cash in when accident compensation is opened up to competition.

Currently ACC provides cheaper and better accident compensation than just about anywhere in the world. In Australia, for example, workers pay an average of $1.96 in every $100 of their pay towards accident their worker compensation schemes. In New Zealand workers pay 94 cents per $100.

It’s no wonder so different groups in the community are opposed to the Government’s plan for ACC. The message was loud and clear today : “Hands Off!”.

Setting up Whanau Ora is testing the relationship between National and the Maori Party.  The Maori Party, and especially Tariana Turia, have been absolutely consistent in promoting this as an initiative for Maori from the outset, so John Key has been slow off the mark in suggesting it is actually for all.  Perhaps he should take a look at Strengthening Families, which has been working this very model for some years, albeit within government agencies, not via a separate funding arm.

There are some other big questions about Whanau Ora:

• Why establish a new organisation to allocate funding when that is already the role of the Ministry of Social Development?
• Why will the rules on accountability for funding be different for Whanau Ora contracts than for all other social service providers?
• Is finding going to be taken away from Child, Youth and family to fund Whanau Ora?
• What assessment has been made of the impact on government agencies which will still need to provide services for the most serious needs – child abuse, child and youth offending, serious mental health disorders, learning difficulties.  Will these services for serious needs be cut?

Given the likely cost of the programme, the challenges for funding accountability and the possibility of duplicating systems and services, it’s essential there is informed and open debate.  Releasing the taskforce report would be a start.

The Maryanne Thompson saga is finally drawing to a close with her guilty plea over falsifying qualifications.  The oddest thing about the court case yesterday was the State Services Commissioner presenting a Victim Impact Statement.  Who’s the victim here?  Apparently the State services as a whole and all State servants.  I don’t think  so.

I don’t see State servants being or acting as victims.  They haven’t and don’t need to take on board the responsibility for one individual’s wrong-doing.  In any walk of life, there will always be individuals who flout the rules, take advantage of trust, or are plain bad.  When someone in the business world breaks the law (not an infrequent occurrence), no one suggests the whole system of private enterprise has been victimised by this.

Iain Rennie was right to say that there is an impact on the general perception of trustworthiness of State services.  But Len Cook, the new head of the Institute of Public Administration, hit the nail right on the head when he said the real issue was how the system deals with individual cases of wrongdoing or corruption.

Trust and trustworthiness are vital ingredients of our system of government and public administration.  One falsified cv doesn’t undermine that, stupid (and unnecessary) as the action was.  But please, Iain Rennie, let’s not go down the path of claiming collective victimhood.