State servant numbers: Why the Government wants to overhaul the public service - Ryan Bridge

Public Service Minister Judith Collins believes the Public Service Act has given rise to endless reporting on 'wellbeing stuff' that’s causing inefficiency.

THREE KEY FACTS

• Labour has warned that Prime Minister Christopher Luxon’s refusal to rule out giving himself or Cabinet the ability to directly appoint public service chief executives risks politicising the public service.
• National and Act have committed to reforming the Public Service Act as part of their coalition agreement.
• Currently the Public Service Commissioner recruits and appoints chief executives, who ultimately report to the commissioner.

Cabinet ministers are currently digesting proposals that will overhaul the way our public service operates.

There were 62,968 bureaucrats in December last year, down from 65,699 employed when National took office.

That’s a reduction of just 4.2% - and still well above the about 49,000 working pre-Covid and before Labour took office.

Their wage bill grew by 4.2% in the year to June, some of which obviously included a portion of the previous government. Despite the coalition Government’s reduction in the number of staff, the total wage bill is still expected to be larger than any year prior.

National aggressively attacked Labour for overseeing a bloated bureaucracy during the Covid years and for failing to reduce its size after the pandemic ended. On these numbers the current Government is now guilty of the same crime.

They’ve made headway with consultant spending, as announced this week, but clearly there’s a growing gulf between what was promised and what’s been delivered.

I asked Public Service Minister Judith Collins this week if she was happy with the 62,968 number. She said it was ridiculous and should be more like the original 49,000.

Despite the rhetoric the Government seems more intent on reshaping rather than drastically downsizing the public service, for now.

Public sector bosses have been asked how best to streamline the public service workload. They’ve identified the Public Service Act 2020, which replaced the State Sector Act 1988, as a problem. The then State Services Minister Chris Hipkins’ changes have apparently added layers of complexity and an unnecessary requirement to report on everything.

Yes, this is the same “woke” that New Zealand First voted for and is now trying to amend via a Member’s Bill to delete DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) requirements.

But it also created public sector boards (or “joint ventures”) where chief executives from various agencies meet and discuss issues and provide advice to a single Government minister.

If it sounds a bit wishy-washy that’s because it clearly is. Its stated goal was to tackle major underlying problems facing the country. How’s that working out for us?

Collins reckons the Public Service Act has also given rise to endless reporting on “wellbeing stuff” that’s causing inefficiency.

Another of the Act’s goals was to increase the public service’s role in “supporting partnership between Māori and the Crown”.

The Government is going to announce reforms to the Act shortly with papers before Cabinet at present. Papers Winston Peters will surely have seen and perhaps wanted to get ahead of with a Member’s Bill, lest he be accused of supporting reforms to an act he helped pass. This is proof the nearly 80-year-old veteran’s political instincts only ripen with age.

Public sector neutrality is a cornerstone of our Westminster-based system for good reason. The public, and ministers, must be able to trust the impartial and objective advice of public servants. It’s clear the Government doesn’t think this principle is being upheld.

Whether it’s public servants attending protests on work time, wearing branded political clothing into the office, providing politicised advice or just ‘vibes’, the Government wants a return to neutrality.

But quite how you achieve that when the Hipkins-era act already clearly states it as a goal remains to be seen.

The extent to which the public service responds to the looming changes may well decide its future size.