The battle for the public service
aka – towards an impotent state
Aotearoa needs to urgently realise that this is no ordinary austerity programme.
Do not be fooled, today’s programme is not an ordinary reprioritisation of spending that is to be expected when administrations change. Rather, we are witnessing a full-frontal assault on the public sector to drastically downsize and dismantle the role and function of the state.
The objective is to be left with a minimal public sector, relegated to guaranteeing law and order, defence, and other selected areas that protect the interests of those that can buy such protection.
The US model of business and finance – where the individual is sacrosanct and those with dollars are prioritised – is what underpins this administration. Previous administrations have been US-lite with varying degrees of niceties, but this administration is emboldened (given its assessment of the relative weakness of any organised opposition[1]) to be shorn of such niceties.
Case for austerity lacks justification or evidence
The magnitude of today’s austerity programme has no justification in economics, or fiscal management.
Public sector debt (using whichever definition you wish) is low relative to international comparisons. Similarly, public sector expenditure relative to GDP remains within historical averages, as are public sector (relative to economy-wide) employment numbers.
The niceties of informed evidence-based policies would suggest there would be overwhelming examples supporting assertions of a bloated public sector and wasteful spending. Yes, many previous administrations have repeatedly not achieved stated progress on desirable outcomes. And, yes, there is almost certainly some wasteful expenditure. But nowhere near the magnitudes implied by the job cuts being imposed.
And little evidence has been proffered that yet another austerity program will somehow magically improve outcomes. Indeed, there is little clarity as to the desired objective of the programme, outside of reducing public sector debt. The impact, from an economic perspective, of lower public sector financial debt remains ambiguous – dependent considerably on employment, export and investment responses. This is why some of us build economic models to test scenarios. Nevertheless, it is unsurprising there is no stated desired outcome, given the lack of evidence being presented.
So, in rides the divide-and-rule playbook
However, in the absence of such niceties (ie. evidence), today’s austerity programme is using the oldest playbook in its narrative – divide-and-rule.
The frontline v back-office division is a prime example of an artificial distinction – used for clickbait headline purposes in a manner to divert from the fundamental objective.
If the niceties of evidence-based policies were to be fostered, then dismembering back-office functions would be contradictory. For, where and how is the evidence required for informed evidence-based policy to be collected, collated, and assessed? Similarly, how can social investment efforts be appropriately targeted without this evidence? But, shorn of the need for such niceties, the need for evidence can be sidelined in the pursuit of ideology and dogma.
The frontline v back-office is an artificial division that ensures public service workers and managers are diverted into finding, and then justifying, redundancies – in the guise of implementing Ministers’ directives. This also reinforces the imperative for neutral public sector managers to maintain the confidence of the Ministers. And this effort bypasses and undermines the fundamental characteristic of the public service – that is, section 13 of Public Service Act 2020 of “spirit of service to community”.
It is even more worrying where public service leaders are protecting Ministers by arguing that the redundancies will not impact frontline services, with little supporting evidence. It would be more appropriate for public service leaders to protect the services they deliver and their staff by providing clear and transparent advice, alongside evidence, that the division between frontline and back-office is an artificial construct.
But, rather, we have the sight of public sector officials being diverted fighting amongst themselves to determine the more important (or cost-efficient or value for money) public services. Meanwhile the spirit of service to community ethic is left floundering on the wayside.
Another artificial division is the repeated allusion to hard-working taxpayers. The division into us and them also serves to divert away from the lack of evidence. In this case, the othering of beneficiary recipients is implied, but clear. Despite beneficiaries being taxpayers (it’s called GST, folks), the othering continues. Further – and I find this exceedingly disheartening – this division continues to be perpetuated by many in the opposition – as they also continue to parrot the term hard-working taxpayers. It is designed to allow some of us to feel that we have a higher status than others – straight out of the divide-and-rule playbook.
But, be clear, this austerity program is not about tax cuts for hard-working (or any other) taxpayers, nor for mom and pop landlords, nor for anybody else. It is about making the state impotent to ensure there is little capability and capacity for future administrations to implement proactive economic and social policies for communities and future generations.
While opposition remains shallow with similarly clickbait arguments
I doubt the country signed up to a drastically downsized minimal public sector at last year’s election. I equally doubt many will be aware of the fundamental objective (as it is well cloaked) of this programme of austerity and associated job cuts. Nor are they likely to be ready for what that means for the services that we'll be left with. And that is the argument that this administration wants to avoid.
Hence the diversion to the frontline/back-office justification, alongside public sector ‘wasteful’ spending, debt, and tax cuts. Similarly, arguments about unaffordable or unfunded tax cuts is playing their game, on their home ground.
Have no doubts, progress is occurring according to the plan. The opposition (and, again, not just the Parliamentary Opposition) remain unfocussed, headless (almost literally), and lacking cohesive or coherent responses outside of taking the divide-and-rule bait.
Spotlighting tax cuts for landlords and others is not going to win any new hearts, nor change a large number of (if any) votes. But, it certainly sounds good and reassuring in one’s own ideological echo chamber.
And that is precisely where this administration wants this battle to remain.
[1] Note, I use the term opposition broadly to include political parties, but also other organisations outside the Parliamentary Opposition.