It contrasts sharply with Australia’s modest increase.
The value of this expansion is questionable given the increasingly troubling outcomes in such major areas as crime, health, education public infrastructure and welfare.
Yesterday the New Zealand Initiative released a policy note “Public Sector Bloat; The Evidence”.
It benchmarks New Zealand’s public service employment against the historical record back to 1913. It also uses contemporary international benchmarks, notably Australia, the UK, and some high-performing Southeast Asian countries.
The pay, scale and focus of top layers of management and what appear to be bloated comms teams serving those managers are also a concern.
Journalists report frustration about undue delay, obfuscation, and concealment of information.
The Controller and Auditor-General’s reports identify cases of ill-justified spending with poor accountability.
International estimates of New Zealand’s public sector efficiency, performance and effectiveness also indicate that, while we score very well in some important respects, we have a real problem. Australia outperforms us on many efficiency and scale measures.
The problem of sub-optimal performance is not new. Over 20 years ago, international comparative studies put New Zealand in the bottom quadrant of member countries of the OECD for public sector performance. Australia was in the top quadrant.
A 2019 international study assessed the public sector productivity of 36 OECD members. It estimated that the most productive could achieve much the same public sector-related outputs as New Zealand with between 28% and 49% fewer inputs.
The potential cost is huge. Central government employs one worker in six. Its (Total Crown) operating spending directs two dollars in five of GDP. Its capital spending directs some of the rest. Add to that a daunting amount of poor-quality directive regulation, for example the RMA.
In 2021, the World Bank ranked 23 of 209 countries ahead of New Zealand for government effectiveness. Singapore took top place with Switzerland second. Australia was 16th.
That is a lot of countries we should be able to learn from.
Those in charge of the public service, including ministers, need to step up. Inefficiency is harmful. Why is the Productivity Commission not flat out on the issue of government performance?
Dr Bryce Wilkinson is a Senior Fellow at The New Zealand Initiative, Director of Capital Economics, and former Director of the New Zealand Treasury. His articles can be seen HERE.
It benchmarks New Zealand’s public service employment against the historical record back to 1913. It also uses contemporary international benchmarks, notably Australia, the UK, and some high-performing Southeast Asian countries.
The pay, scale and focus of top layers of management and what appear to be bloated comms teams serving those managers are also a concern.
Journalists report frustration about undue delay, obfuscation, and concealment of information.
The Controller and Auditor-General’s reports identify cases of ill-justified spending with poor accountability.
International estimates of New Zealand’s public sector efficiency, performance and effectiveness also indicate that, while we score very well in some important respects, we have a real problem. Australia outperforms us on many efficiency and scale measures.
The problem of sub-optimal performance is not new. Over 20 years ago, international comparative studies put New Zealand in the bottom quadrant of member countries of the OECD for public sector performance. Australia was in the top quadrant.
A 2019 international study assessed the public sector productivity of 36 OECD members. It estimated that the most productive could achieve much the same public sector-related outputs as New Zealand with between 28% and 49% fewer inputs.
The potential cost is huge. Central government employs one worker in six. Its (Total Crown) operating spending directs two dollars in five of GDP. Its capital spending directs some of the rest. Add to that a daunting amount of poor-quality directive regulation, for example the RMA.
In 2021, the World Bank ranked 23 of 209 countries ahead of New Zealand for government effectiveness. Singapore took top place with Switzerland second. Australia was 16th.
That is a lot of countries we should be able to learn from.
Those in charge of the public service, including ministers, need to step up. Inefficiency is harmful. Why is the Productivity Commission not flat out on the issue of government performance?
Dr Bryce Wilkinson is a Senior Fellow at The New Zealand Initiative, Director of Capital Economics, and former Director of the New Zealand Treasury. His articles can be seen HERE.
3 comments:
I think that a quick Google search explains why we haven't heard from the Productivity Commission - a bunch of public service hacks who are part of the problem. Hopefully they will be in ACTs gunsights post the election.
The Productivity Commission has been captured by left-wingers - which is what socialists do. They take over institutions from within.
The 'Glide on Commission'.
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.