If the need for such a high consultancy spend is genuine, one could be excused for thinking that the calibre of those employed is not so high.
The combined spend on consultants of the eleven departments featured came to $463.7 million. One, Kainga Ora, was unable to provide a figure. No surprise there. The departments represented in the article make up about one-third of all core government institutions. One can safely assume that the total amount for all government agencies tops the billion mark.
The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and the Ministry of Internal Affairs spent $104.4 million and $122.7 million respectively in the year to June 2023. These two departments spent nigh on half what the other eight did for consultants. Their combined spend was about $800 a day based on 260 annual working days. I would like to know what checks are in place before these consultants are engaged and the cheques have to be written. What type of procedures are followed?
All this is before we even get to the amounts spent for consultants on the likes of defunct bike bridges and light rail. The mind starts to boggle at the billions of dollars of our money involved in this public service largesse. One starts to realise that the 6.5% to 7.5% Nicola Willis is asking for is not unreasonable and should not be too difficult to find. When it comes to money, one of the easiest things to do is to spend what isn’t yours. This has been all too common under successive governments and it is hoped the current one will put a stop to it or at least cast a beady eye.
Looking at staff numbers, MBIE wins by a country mile at 6,396 followed by the Justice Department at 4,641 and Inland Revenue at 4,130. An obvious question is what do all these people do? It was pleasing to see the Ministry of Maori Development is a shining light with only 450 staff on its books. The Public Service has grown under Labour’s watch, as is always the case, by 14,000. The growth the country needs comes from increased productivity but they grow the number of government employees to introduce red tape to prevent that from happening.
The other observation to come from the article was the reaction from the CEOs to the cost savings demand. They at least appear to be ‘on board’ to the extent of communicating with staff what is coming and the likely effects. This is interesting on a number of fronts. First, it would appear that it takes a change of government, one that is fiscally responsible, before the Public Service behaves, by force, in a similar manner. To my mind, this reflects very badly on those in leadership positions in these organisations. Leadership surely encompasses fiscal responsibility.
Evidently, some departments were asked for minor savings by the previous government but no doubt that didn’t happen until shortly before the election. Had they been re-elected they would no doubt soon have been forgotten about. This slackness from the Labour Government and the departments themselves goes part way to explaining why there were six years of non-delivery. If government is to run efficiently it needs to be able to perform like a well-oiled machine and ensure the grease extends to those who are working on its behalf.
Unfortunately, for six years the oil wasn’t checked and there was precious little gas in the tank. The motor was idling most of the time and any traction made was backwards in its intent. Hence we are where we find ourselves now. The electorate was awake to it and so far this Government appears likewise. Never in the history of government and its bureaucracies has so little been given to so few by so many. Turning the Ship of State around is one step in the process of turning the country around. The people required on deck are those in the productive sector, not those ‘gliding on’ in offices.
JC is a right-wing crusader. Reached an age that embodies the dictum only the good die young. This article was first published HERE
The combined spend on consultants of the eleven departments featured came to $463.7 million. One, Kainga Ora, was unable to provide a figure. No surprise there. The departments represented in the article make up about one-third of all core government institutions. One can safely assume that the total amount for all government agencies tops the billion mark.
The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and the Ministry of Internal Affairs spent $104.4 million and $122.7 million respectively in the year to June 2023. These two departments spent nigh on half what the other eight did for consultants. Their combined spend was about $800 a day based on 260 annual working days. I would like to know what checks are in place before these consultants are engaged and the cheques have to be written. What type of procedures are followed?
All this is before we even get to the amounts spent for consultants on the likes of defunct bike bridges and light rail. The mind starts to boggle at the billions of dollars of our money involved in this public service largesse. One starts to realise that the 6.5% to 7.5% Nicola Willis is asking for is not unreasonable and should not be too difficult to find. When it comes to money, one of the easiest things to do is to spend what isn’t yours. This has been all too common under successive governments and it is hoped the current one will put a stop to it or at least cast a beady eye.
Looking at staff numbers, MBIE wins by a country mile at 6,396 followed by the Justice Department at 4,641 and Inland Revenue at 4,130. An obvious question is what do all these people do? It was pleasing to see the Ministry of Maori Development is a shining light with only 450 staff on its books. The Public Service has grown under Labour’s watch, as is always the case, by 14,000. The growth the country needs comes from increased productivity but they grow the number of government employees to introduce red tape to prevent that from happening.
The other observation to come from the article was the reaction from the CEOs to the cost savings demand. They at least appear to be ‘on board’ to the extent of communicating with staff what is coming and the likely effects. This is interesting on a number of fronts. First, it would appear that it takes a change of government, one that is fiscally responsible, before the Public Service behaves, by force, in a similar manner. To my mind, this reflects very badly on those in leadership positions in these organisations. Leadership surely encompasses fiscal responsibility.
Evidently, some departments were asked for minor savings by the previous government but no doubt that didn’t happen until shortly before the election. Had they been re-elected they would no doubt soon have been forgotten about. This slackness from the Labour Government and the departments themselves goes part way to explaining why there were six years of non-delivery. If government is to run efficiently it needs to be able to perform like a well-oiled machine and ensure the grease extends to those who are working on its behalf.
Unfortunately, for six years the oil wasn’t checked and there was precious little gas in the tank. The motor was idling most of the time and any traction made was backwards in its intent. Hence we are where we find ourselves now. The electorate was awake to it and so far this Government appears likewise. Never in the history of government and its bureaucracies has so little been given to so few by so many. Turning the Ship of State around is one step in the process of turning the country around. The people required on deck are those in the productive sector, not those ‘gliding on’ in offices.
JC is a right-wing crusader. Reached an age that embodies the dictum only the good die young. This article was first published HERE
3 comments:
I worked inside NZ local and national government as a Big Consulting peon back in the early years of the century. Most of the permies were remarkable only in their lack of ability - cardigan-wearers and diversity hires abounded, even back then. Sounds like not much has changed.
The government nabobs thought the only way they could be seen to get anything done was to hire temporary external resources. Hiring the big name firms would bring them success and kudos. "Nobody ever got fired for hiring IBM," as the saying goes.
The permies got involved in the work as 'stakeholders' or 'SMEs'. Projects got infected by their incompetence and delay (and usually failure) ensued. The consulting invoices still got paid (we had better lawyers). Were all the consultants brilliant performers? No, but they still stood head and shoulders above the client teams.
As for us consultants, could you look askance at us for making hay while the sun shone? Yes, you could. It was like taking candy from a baby. It felt icky and unethical. After a few such experiences I left Big Consulting and went freelance. I regrettably did one more government gig freelance and got 'removed' when I pointed out to the government 'sponsor' the risks due to lack of ability, poor quality and dishonest reporting. I heard subsequently that they agreed with me but didn't want the inconvenient truth to threaten their own position. I also heard the project 'succeeded' at twice the original time and budget, with half the scope delivered. That's our tax dollars at work.
I have refused to work with government since then. Mind you, they probably wouldn't have me back, so it's a win-win situation.
To get to the point (finally!), having consultants or getting rid of consultants will make no difference to the government's ability to deliver. Making a real change would require government to sort out its own talent problems, changing their own culture from one of mediocrity, safety and protection to one of accountability, risk and excellence. They're not going to do this because to do so would require them to shine a light on their own inadequacies. So history is doomed to repeat. We'll be reading the same news articles about consulting spend and government delivery failure forever, regardless of what the government du jour say they will do about it. They are all cut from the same cloth, and are the reason the problem exists.
Great, we now need cost cutting targets imposed on local government. 10% for Wellington would be a good start.
Public Servant/Public Service is an oxymoron!!
Post a Comment