Job cuts undermine gains in public service
NEW PLANS for more joined-up and responsive public services could spark a welcome revolution – but it will be undermined if job cuts and constant restructuring leave public sector workers unable to implement it.
The Government’s Better Public Services Advisory Group report, released yesterday, is a clear and welcome break with the past. It acknowledges that our 1980s reforms, which split government up into a mass of individual agencies, have often stood in the way of good services. Public-sector workers have been trying to make a real difference to New Zealanders’ lives, but the fragmentation and barriers between agencies have too often got in the way.
We’re pleased to see the report’s ideas to get agencies working together – like shared budgets and joint ventures – and to make them focus on improving Kiwis’ lives on a few key issues that matter, such as tackling child abuse and improving job training. We also welcome plans to give the public more control over services, its ideas for creating a publicsector culture of innovation and constant improvement, and its recognition of PSA programmes that use staff’s own expertise to create better services.
But the report has several major problems that, unless remedied, will undermine its vision.
Its biggest flaw is the failure to realise that a new, innovative form of government can be delivered only if workers feel trusted and secure in their jobs. The international research is unambiguous: at the most productive and innovative workplaces, staff have control over their work and a strong, trusting relationship with their managers.
Instead, we have a process of constant and dispiriting restructuring. The results can be seen at Defence, where morale is at an eight-year low, and the Foreign Affairs and Trade Ministry, where the Government is backpedalling on a potentially damaging restructure. In Britain, research shows staff are 20 per cent less productive after major restructurings because it is so disruptive and demoralising.
The report threatens to make matters worse by suggesting that ‘‘all’’ the government’s functions could be outsourced. This would be disastrous, first, because there is no evidence that private companies deliver public services better or cheaper (except by cutting wages) and second, because it will make publicsector workers even more uncertain about their future – and even less likely to come up with new ideas.
After all, if you had been restructured five times in seven years, worked with the constant threat of your job disappearing, and with no evidence that your opinions were valued, would you be a dynamo of efficiency and innovation?
What’s more, the public sector is already losing staff who make a real difference. Dozens of scientists, whose research helps develop innovative products for export and shape betterinformed services, are being made redundant. And health boards are about to start shedding staff as budget cuts bite.
These cuts are being driven by false claims about the need to curb spending. Our Government borrowing is far below the OECD average. It makes up just onetenth of our international debt – the rest is household mortgage and credit-card debt. Our public sector is smaller and, according to the OECD, far more effective than most other governments. So no need for slash and burn.
Of course, we should always look to improve services – and the PSA is lead- ing the way. For instance, as the report acknowledges, by working with hospital managers and staff, we’ve recently cut the time taken to book patient appointments from five hours to 11⁄ hours.
So what do we need for a genuine public-service revolution? First, an end to the job cuts that damage morale, send talented workers overseas, increase caseloads, and overstretch services. We need to invest to build our future, not cut it back – and we need to stop privatising.
Second, we should be looking to do more with the same amount of money, re-investing the savings in better services, not cutting back vital things such as home help for the elderly and top-quality early childhood teaching. After all, as the report says, focusing on better services will have an impact ‘‘much greater than any efficiencies achieved through better organising state services’’. Investing in public services is money well spent.
Third, we need to give power to citizens and public-sector workers. The report puts too much weight on chief executives imposing change. Real change happens when the system listens to citizens, and staff are fully involved. It will be further helped by anything that fosters efficiency and co-operation across departments, like a whole-of-government collective employment agreement.
Nobody wants better public services more than the PSA. But if public servants are to aim higher, they need a stable base on which to stand. Over the coming months, PSA members will be contributing fresh ideas for reform. Our challenge to the Government is to listen to their voices – and aim for better.
After all, you can either have a workforce disoriented and demoralised by restructuring and other threats – or you can have a dynamic, creative and joinedup public service. Which do you want? Richard Wagstaff is the national secretary of the PSA.