In an emergency, we can rely on our public broadcaster, Radio New Zealand, to keep us informed. Unlike other broadcasters, Radio New Zealand set aside its normal programming to make sure that we all had the information we needed to keep safe. That’s what the public sector ethos is about. If you rely on commercial broadcasters for your information, bad luck. Mustn’t get in the way of those advertising breaks.

Without fuss, public servants turned out over the weekend to staff the emergency services. There were some tough calls to make and no doubt there will now be voices raised saying the Ministry of Civil Defence over-reacted. That’s also what the public sector ethos is about – acting to preserve public safety and keeping the public interest always in mind. And soaking up the criticism of those who are wise in hindsight.

Some early comment on the devastation in Chile indicates that the quality of Chilean buildings and the rigour of the building code there have helped save many lives. We should take heed of that. When Rodney Hide, in the name of deregulation, tries to tinker with the standards of our buildings and building inspections, let’s not forget about public safety in our earthquake-prone country.

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.

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 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!”.

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.

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.

Free public libraries are a great public good in New Zealand and we have a proud tradition of excellent public library services. Far from being a “burden on the ratepayer”, they are probably one of the most valued local public services and the most widely-used.

And librarians are not afraid to stand up in defence of these bedrock values. The PSA – which represents most librarians – will be standing with them.

The PSA approached Bill English back in August and again in September 2009 with specific ideas to improve productivity.  No reply from Bill.  So we have deduced this is an ideological matter for the National government, not a genuine attempt to harness fresh thinking to make real gains.

An interesting post by Tim Watkin on Pundit has pointed out that, far from being bloated, the state sector is “borderline anorexic”.  Watkin’s article and the statistics in it are well worth a read, as are the comments that follow.  Watkin concludes:  “A strong public service remains the foundation stone of a decent society…Any chance we can value its work, rather than constantly maligning it?”

I hope someone puts these comments in front of Key and English.  If Key’s Government is serious about lifting public service productivity, it should focus on making public service employers more flexible and open to new ideas. Much has been said about importance of frontline staff, but little attempt has been made to engage them in day-to-day decision-making and use their valuable experiences and insights to build more responsive organisations.

Endless tinkering to shed jobs here and there will do nothing to build an efficient public sector for the 21st century.

It’s recommending  opening up state assets to the market. In other words partial privatisation. Or as the taskforce puts it: “broadening the range of high-quality equity offerings for retail investors by encouraging partial listings of central and local government-owned companies…”

Taskforce chair Rob Cameron says there needs to be large scale sales of state assets.  And Commerce Minister Simon Power says the government will look at this – though not in its first term.

But I think we can all see where this is heading.  Partial privatisation in the first term.  The full monty in term two.

The government is already actively pursuing its privatisation agenda. We’ve got private management of public prisons, possible private ownership and management of schools, possible sell-off of water from local councils. All the signs point to full-scale privatisations in a second term.

The question is why? If these state assets are such high quality, why would the current owners- the public who’ve paid for them through their taxes – want to sell them? Who benefits? ‘Free marketers’ hungry for productive assets to feed on after bringing the world’s financial markets to the brink of collapse.