Prime Minister Chris Hipkins appeared like a startled rabbit caught in the headlights when confronted on the AM show with questions on why Steve Maharey, chairman of Pharmac, had not been sacked like Rob Campbell from his role for being “political” and criticizing the National Party in a column.
When Hipkins got his breath back, he told viewers that the Maharey case was quite different: Maharey had said he was sorry and he would not offend again.
Campbell, of course, had no intention of saying sorry or of not appearing in print again, and we did not have to wait long for that to happen.
Here he was, this week, in another newspaper column telling us
“… in the ideal world that seems to be preferred in PyongPoneke, there seems no room for open debate, and each word means what the Public Service Commissioner says it means”.
He then rubbed salt into the wound:
“In the real world, what they like to call our public service is in fact a polititically subservient service, far removed from the public it is supposed to serve”.
For New Zealanders, there is a sad truth in these remarks. We like to think that public servants give their political masters free and frank advice but too often it is tailored to what those masters want.
Except in those cases where the individual political master doesn’t know what he wants.
Simon Wilson in the NZ Herald asks:
“Are we going to address the issues raised by Campbell and his sacking, or will they be sent to purgatory, along with the man himself, never to be spoken of again?”
Wilson then relates how Campbell had approached the Ardern government’s policy to merge the District Health Boards back into the Ministry of Health initially with enthusiasm, but then he had talked about the constraints placed on district health boards (or DHBs) by the ministry. He suggested that rather than blaming DHBs, a much greater problem was the leadership, monitoring and support from the ministry. Better funding would help as well.
As Wilson points out, Te Whatu Ora is the government’s flagship reform programme.
“Cabinet must have been horrified : its boss had gone rogue”.
No wonder, then, that Health Minister Ayesha Verrall fired Campbell with such alacrity.
Now in the aftermath of the brawl, Campbell himself points out how – alongside the big consultancy firms that share their buildings, their CVs and their views – senior advisers draw up plans for the rest of us on their whiteboards. These are parsed by the “tier one” people, who, over coffee, wine, or whisky, cosily massage these into an acceptable form for politicians.
Campbell adds:
“Just enough choices to create an illusion of political control, but not so much as to upset the system. Are these people impartial or neutral? No, they do not need to be. They have strong political views which reflect the caste they belong to. Some of them even refer jokingly to this as “Poneketanga’.
“They engage rafts of ‘communications’ people to sell the story—often poorly, as in Te Whatu Ora, where there are 200 such people, and where despite that overload PR firms are often called in to sell better”.
Campbell says this is not a way to create “an efficient, effective, excellent and equitable public service.
To anyone familiar with the public service in recent years. Campbell’s words have the ring of truth.
For Campbell, people should be allowed to speak their minds and debate difficult issues
“… without having to assume that future political winners are not so prejudiced and narrow-minded as to refuse to work with anyone with a different opinion to theirs”.
New Zealanders should be asking themselves:
“Is the decision-making process fit for purpose”.
On that, Campbell has said, the answer is a resounding “no”.
Point of Order is a blog focused on politics and the economy run by veteran newspaper reporters Bob Edlin and Ian Templeton
“… in the ideal world that seems to be preferred in PyongPoneke, there seems no room for open debate, and each word means what the Public Service Commissioner says it means”.
He then rubbed salt into the wound:
“In the real world, what they like to call our public service is in fact a polititically subservient service, far removed from the public it is supposed to serve”.
For New Zealanders, there is a sad truth in these remarks. We like to think that public servants give their political masters free and frank advice but too often it is tailored to what those masters want.
Except in those cases where the individual political master doesn’t know what he wants.
Simon Wilson in the NZ Herald asks:
“Are we going to address the issues raised by Campbell and his sacking, or will they be sent to purgatory, along with the man himself, never to be spoken of again?”
Wilson then relates how Campbell had approached the Ardern government’s policy to merge the District Health Boards back into the Ministry of Health initially with enthusiasm, but then he had talked about the constraints placed on district health boards (or DHBs) by the ministry. He suggested that rather than blaming DHBs, a much greater problem was the leadership, monitoring and support from the ministry. Better funding would help as well.
As Wilson points out, Te Whatu Ora is the government’s flagship reform programme.
“Cabinet must have been horrified : its boss had gone rogue”.
No wonder, then, that Health Minister Ayesha Verrall fired Campbell with such alacrity.
Now in the aftermath of the brawl, Campbell himself points out how – alongside the big consultancy firms that share their buildings, their CVs and their views – senior advisers draw up plans for the rest of us on their whiteboards. These are parsed by the “tier one” people, who, over coffee, wine, or whisky, cosily massage these into an acceptable form for politicians.
Campbell adds:
“Just enough choices to create an illusion of political control, but not so much as to upset the system. Are these people impartial or neutral? No, they do not need to be. They have strong political views which reflect the caste they belong to. Some of them even refer jokingly to this as “Poneketanga’.
“They engage rafts of ‘communications’ people to sell the story—often poorly, as in Te Whatu Ora, where there are 200 such people, and where despite that overload PR firms are often called in to sell better”.
Campbell says this is not a way to create “an efficient, effective, excellent and equitable public service.
To anyone familiar with the public service in recent years. Campbell’s words have the ring of truth.
For Campbell, people should be allowed to speak their minds and debate difficult issues
“… without having to assume that future political winners are not so prejudiced and narrow-minded as to refuse to work with anyone with a different opinion to theirs”.
New Zealanders should be asking themselves:
“Is the decision-making process fit for purpose”.
On that, Campbell has said, the answer is a resounding “no”.
Point of Order is a blog focused on politics and the economy run by veteran newspaper reporters Bob Edlin and Ian Templeton
2 comments:
As someone said in the HDPA thread:
"We have been policy governed not by our elected officials but by consultants and public servants that have both a reason to make it continue and an agenda to drive.
The elected government had no policy on the day they were annointed power and have basically abdicated governance to working groups since then."
I would go further and suggest that it is indeed the top tier public servants (plus some minions) that make policy, not cabinet. It is certainly not great to hear out loud that as stated ...
"Just enough choices to create an illusion of political control, but not so much as to upset the system. Are these people impartial or neutral? No, they do not need to be. They have strong political views which reflect the caste they belong to."
Basically when you have a cabal of like minded but very mixed ideologues making policy on the fly you end up with what we see in New Zealand today. Decisions by committee are not decisions
Third world status inbound......
Well said Anna.
More and more we see unelected 'officials' being given too much power outside their purview.
And now we have Ruth Dyson running for cover. Claiming she doesn't know the rules around political comment. How long has she been sitting her backside on the seat. I thought she was put out to pasture a long time ago. What a bunch
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.