The Government set the public service a target of eliminating $400 million in operating expenditure on contractors and consultants by 2024/25.
In 2023/24 savings of $274 million were achieved. This year the public service is on track, after the first quarter, to achieve savings of about $500 million. These savings are forecast to continue over the next three quarters, which means savings over the two-year period could total more than $800 million, according to the update.
It shows operational expenditure by departments on contractors and consultants fell a further 46 per cent in the September quarter on an annualised basis, after a 31 per cent drop in the previous financial year to June.
Great news, except for consultants.
The Public Service Commission’s September Quarterly Workforce Data Update also shows the size of the public service has decreased 2.2 per cent from September 2023 to September 2024, and 1.1 per cent for the quarter.
In real terms, this is an annual drop of 1,402 full-time equivalents (FTEs).
“I feel for anyone who loses a job, but no government can live beyond its means indefinitely,” Nicola Willis says.
“The growth in the public service under the previous government was not sustainable if we also want to fund the health, education, welfare and other services New Zealanders depend on.
So for all the wailing and gnashing, the actual drop over 12 months has only been 1,402 FTE staff. This is partially because in a fit of of irresponsibility there was a huge increase in the last quarter of 2023, despite the election.
Here’s the change by quarter:
- Jul – Sep 23: +1,106
- Oct – Dec 23: +1,476
- Jan 24 – Mar 24: -416
- Apr 24 – Jun 24: -1,745
- Jul 24 – Sep 24: -717 (my calculation)
David Farrar runs Curia Market Research, a specialist opinion polling and research agency, and the popular Kiwiblog where this article was sourced. He previously worked in the Parliament for eight years, serving two National Party Prime Ministers and three Opposition Leaders.
4 comments:
An excess of consultants usually means:
1. permanent employees are not properly qualified for the job
or
2. they are lazy. (Consultants can provide very special expertise =input but the civil servant writes the report).
Anon - there is a third and more important reason. They provide cover if things don't turn out as hoped. Consultants are happy to take the rap as long as the exorbitant bills are paid. It just gets blamed on some junior making a mistake anyway.
Judging by the comments, some people have no sense of reality or a particularly warped view on why a consultant may be required. It's very easy too simply claim permanent employees are unqualified but often those claims are completely ignorant and oblivious to the fact that a major technical project may need highly specialized skills that are not part of the core business. Consultants will always be required in both private and public sectors. Get over it.
I've worked in corporate environments for many years, and seen consultants come in, engage with the staff to understand the issues, and often solutions, then pull from their corporate play book well branded answers and typically power point presentations.
Sometimes they are brought in for specific expertise.. But often they give execs someone to blame if it goes wrong.. Rather than requiring them to take accountability for the outcomes.
In our public sector, I strongly believe in outcome metrics, and holding senior people to account. They should be able to engage consultants.. But only if they are prepared to own the outcomes themselves.. And have them measured on this basis alone... And encourage a process to engage people in govt to drive improvements themselves as this in itself might work, perhaps better than consultants, as often people working in an organization already know the problems themselves.
Post a Comment