The Government's newly announced 'to-do' list is full of apple pie targets that no-one could really disagree with. The question is, does National have the recipe and is that mock cream on top? Apparently the already slimmed down public sector is expected to actually come up with the plans and prove they are achieving them with regular updates on progress - see Audrey Young's Key sets tough 'to-do list' for public sector.
Most of the targets would be hard to criticise (which is the main political reason for having them) but there is, of course, a big difference between setting targets and having a realistic plan for achieving them. The most damning criticism comes from Russell Brown who looks at the laudable target to reduce rheumatic fever by two thirds and plots it against the reality today and comments: 'Did the poor civil servant who had to draw that graph believe it? Does anyone actually believe it?' - see: If wishing made it so .... Rheumatic fever in New Zealand is overwhelmingly a disease of Maori and Pacifica children and one that numerous health professionals have said is a direct result of poverty and poor housing. Getting the Ministry of Health to reduce those causes will definitely 'stretch their ability'. A similarly damning critique is put forward by Gordon Campbell: On the government's new social targets.
The Prime Minister's track record on meeting targets isn't that great according to Scott Yorke: 'Closing the income gap with Australia, creating more jobs, reducing the number of people fleeing to a better life in Australia. And now the promise to get back into budget surplus, which he's already backtracking on' - see: More Futile and Cynical Policy.
Some of the targets will be achieved in any case given current trends, while others can't be fudged, and like the rheumatic fever target, will be a challenge and require a dramatic reversal of trends. In light of debates over ACC and education, however, there will be suspicion that public service CEOs with a careful eye on their bonus may find ways to meet the targets that aren't in their clients or the public interest - see Andrea Vance's State boss bonus for hitting targets.
The reduction in long-term beneficiary numbers is the most obvious example. Government enthusiast David Farrar praises the government for setting hard time frames and hard numbers and uses a hypothetical example: 'such as "reduce the unemployment rate by 25% in three years"' - see: The Government targets. That would be a target few could argue with, but it is actually very different from what the Government has actually set itself to do, which is: 'Reduce those on Jobseeker Support for more than 12 months by 30%, from 78,000 to 55,000'. Bronwyn Pullar and the hundreds of other long term ACC claimants dumped from ACC's books may have a more cynical view of how those CEO bonuses may get approved. And their suspicions will be reinforced by figures showing that the proportion of ACC's decisions being overturned on appeal has increased form less than 30% to 45% in the past few years - see Adam Bennett's ACC's tougher line fails to satisfy independent reviewers.