Now he is promising NOT to cut any public service jobs. He is going to need to learn to communicate better than this;
Mr Key said the point of National's policy was to cap the number of public servants - whatever that was - at its current level.
"Whatever the starting point is, it's an apples for apples comparison," he told reporters.
"The point is it's not rising from the starting point."
Anyway (takes a deep breath) this whole business warrants further investigation given the additional remarks by the State Services Commissioner.
He said public sector growth between 2003 and 2008 was roughly in proportion to private sector growth.
So let's look at what yesterday's report actually tells us, because, like you, I was under the impression that the public service has blown out over the last few years.
Between 2003 and 2008, employment in the public sector as a whole increased by 36,452 to 335,012 (12.2%) compared with an increase of 232,000 to 2,163,800 (12.0%) in the employed labour force.
But wait...
The increase in public service headcount is 33 percent, with the largest increase among advisors and policy analysts.
So let's be clear about the difference between the public service and public sector.
The public service is made up of bureaucrats, pen pushers etc who manage the public sector.
If the rise in the public service is much higher than in the public sector as a whole then those vital frontline jobs (those which would have to be filled whether education, health, etc were private or public) must be proportionately diminishing. Which begs the question; why do we need more managers for fewer staff?
So get a grip John and start asking the same questions instead of playing pals with the PSA. Right now the last thing New Zealand needs is a nice, (self-described) 'smiley', Prime Minister.
2 comments:
History indicates that any changes a new political leader wants to make have to be done in the first few months. Clearly Key is promising the status quo with no changes especially changes that will rile up those who are net beneficiaries of government spending. That means the burden on those who pay for that spending will not be reduced -- at best he will change the mixture of taxes to pay for them.
What Key is quickly showing is that he doesn't want to change anything of substance -- but then neither did Helen Clark. So were the voters supporting the status quo or change? Of course, Key has clearly been unprincipled from the start caving in to Labour on issue after issue while promising unspecified change. Apparently the only change he meant was who gets the PM's salary.
"Right now the last thing New Zealand needs is a nice, (self-described) 'smiley', Prime Minister."
Exactly. So far I'm deeply unimpressed with what Mr. Key has to say.
Post a Comment