THE PRESS WEDNESDAY, MARCH 9. 1988. State Sector Bill changes

Press, 9 March 1988, Page 20

THE PRESS WEDNESDAY, MARCH 9. 1988. State Sector Bill changes

It is now abundantly- clear that the Government plans to make some substantial changes to the State Sector Bill. It also seems possible that members of the Labour caucus will have the opportunity to suggest other changes and these proposals might eventually make their way into the final wording. The bill was always desperately in need of changes and the fact that the-- Government has at last come to acknowledge this means that the country should avoid at least some of the more bizarre effects the bill would have produced.

The main changes needed in the bill concern appointments to senior positions in departments and conditions of service for the bulk of the staff. The bill as it stands would alter the system of appointments and would barely provide for any checks and balances. The Prime Minister would be able to choose a chief executive, who would head a department. That might not happen often but the power would be there and a determined Prime Minister would exercise the legal power as often as he or she liked. By itself that might not be too serious a threat, but the chief executive would in turn be able to appoint people from outside the Public Service to senior positions. That would enable a department to be stacked with people of similar political leanings.

Much of the debate about this constitutional point has concentrated on the possibility of political appointments and corruption. It would be too narrow a view of politics, however, to confine its meaning to the main political parties. For instance, ideologues of the New Right prepared to work with any party which puts their ideas into effect are making their presence felt in many sections of New Zealand society. Many are well qualified in business terms and might be candidates to run large departments. Profound political commitment is not invariably accompanied by political party membership and an ideologue could stack a department with people of similar persuasion. The Government needs to introduce some safeguards against that possibility. It should not be too difficult. Appointments from outside the Public Service could be made by the State Services Commission or a departmental committee or, as in Canada, a parliamentary committee could examine appointees. One rumoured change to the bill isfor chief executives to be approved by the Cabinet. That would not address the problem of adequate safeguards.

The other serious problem (though not the only one) concerns the conditions of employment for public servants. The Government bungled its whole approach to this question and succeeded in appalling and alarming many public servants. It certainly handed the Combined State Unions a reasonable cause with which to arouse their members. If, as the Government advertisement published in “The Press” today says, many of the conditions of appointment will continue. then the Government frightened a lot of people harshly and unnecessarily. The bill does not specify these guarantees of employment conditions and repeals legislation embodying many of the conditions. The only assurances, given have been by the

Minister for State Services. Mr Rodger, to Parliament and to the select committee examining the bill. No fewer than 25 acts of Parliament would be repealed when the new legislation came into force and neither the Public Service Manual nor various agreements worked out in departments would be valid any longer.' The State Services Commission is at present codifying all the conditions iof employment, but in the standoff between the P.S.A. and the Government, the P.S.A.i will not examine the rewritten conditions!of employment.

In other circumstances Mr Rodger’s assurances could have been expected to be enough. There is a strong sense of betrayal, however, jamong many public servants, not only those in the Public Service Association, about the way in which the bill was Introduced without consultation after consultation had been promised. But the problem goes deeper than that. Even if Mr Rodger’s assurances are to be taken at face value, the, 1 question is whether he is powerful enough in' the Cabinet to make sure that what he says on this bill will be accepted. That isame doubt can be applied to the assurances of the State Services Commission. Is that body going to , have a final say over conditions?

There must be some explanation for the bill being the hotch-potch that it is, sometimes addressing one question, sometimes addressing another, and, most obviously; missing out whole sections, on matters that need to be addressed. If the Government’s intentions were clear the bill would have been better drafted. As it is the bill looks; like a portmanteau into which each i of the relevant Ministers can pour his hopes and intentions. The battle over what it would : mean would be left to be fought after it had passed, rather than in the drafting stage. That would seem, to public servants and other I citizens alike, good reason to accept only legislation, not expressions of intention from Ministers or departments that might not j carry the day in the end. It would also, I incidentally, seem to reveal a deep malaise in the Government.

The reform of the State sector became a catch-cry and changes in the core Public Service seemed inevitable once the trading activities of certain departments had been made into corporations. But momentum is not I its own justification and the Government, has I never really justified the sweeping reforms i that it is making. There is a view of some public servants, popularised entertainingly by Roger Hall, of wasted time and inefficiency, but Roger Hall himself believes that he was caricaturing the bureaucracies of large organisations, not making fun only off a particular Government department. The Government itself has not said that it believes public servants fail to work hard nor has it given any other reason for such radical changes. For all that, the Government has chosen to have, its integrity tested on the passing of the State Sector Bill. The Government would be grossly irresponsible not to make very substantial changes and to do some serious thinking, even at this late stage, about what it wants to achieve in the bill. That would help with the wording.