9. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) Link to this
to the Minister of State Services
Is it Government policy to privatise the delivery of public services?
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of State Services) Link to this
We want to have a strong and efficient Public Service, and we will continue the long-time practice of contracting out in areas where that benefit taxpayers and consumers.
Will he rule out the privatisation of key public services, in particular, in the areas of education, health, and housing?
I think the member is trying to create a picture of a slash-and-burn approach to the Public Service. This is not the approach of this Government, but it does surprise me that the member would even broach the question, because he is from Labour, which while in Government cut the number of Public Service jobs by 33,000 between 1985 and 1990, a period when Annette King and Phil Goff were senior members of that Government.
Mr SPEAKERI ask members to please respect the Standing Orders. A point of order is being called by one of their colleagues.
If the member commences a point of order in that manner, it invites disorder, as he has just heard. He will not commence points of order in that manner. I will hear his point of order now.
I asked the Minister a very straight question. I asked whether he will rule out the privatisation of key public services in the areas of education, health, and housing. That question was not addressed.
The member cannot expect a yes or no answer, but in relation to a fairly straight question, the Minister did launch into a political tirade. I invite the Minister to answer the question.
Contracting out is used frequently in the Public Service already, and if that can improve public services, then this Government will consider it. Contracting out is already used throughout the education service, such as with school buses and the development of curriculum resources, and early childhood education, for example, is privately provided. In the health service, the care of the elderly is privately provided, as are home-care services and laboratory services. The previous Government had the biggest single privatisation in the health service during its term, when it sold off the Otago and Southland laboratory services.
Jacqui DeanWhat information has he received on Public Service redundancies during times of growing unemployment?
Newer members will be shocked to hear that the Public Service was cut by a massive 33,000 jobs during the first term of Mr Goff and Mrs King as Cabinet Ministers. Did they slash education jobs? Surely not! They cut 1,800 education jobs. In the Iwi Transition Agency, 716 jobs were cut. In the Department of Labour, did they cut the jobs of people dealing with the unemployed? Surely not! They cut 323 jobs. In transport, did they cut the jobs of the people working on roads? They cut 465 jobs. Finally, in the New Zealand Forest Service, did they cut the jobs of the people dealing with greenhouse gas? They cut 4,000 jobs! I repeat—
Hon Jim AndertonHas the Minister seen the Treasury working paper 99/10, produced while he was a Minister in the then National Government that privatised New Zealand Rail, which investigated higher productivity as a result of that privatisation? If so, does he agree with the Treasury report that privatising New Zealand Rail was a glittering example of how to raise productivity in the public sector by privatisation?
I have not had an opportunity to see that report, but I would suggest the member ask that of the people who privatised the Telecom Corporation of New Zealand, the New Zealand Post Office, the Post Office Savings Bank, the Shipping Corporation of New Zealand, the Government Printing Office, and Government Computing Services—people that he shared being in Government with for 9 years.
Does the Minister agree with Bill English, who was quoted today as saying: “we are talking about significant and lasting change to the Public Service”, or does he agree with the Prime Minister, who said last year: “I also want to reassure people … that a new National Government is not going to radically reorganise the structure of the public sector.”?
Of course I agree with both of them. I also agree with Phil Goff, when he said: “Thousands of jobs in the public sector have now gone because there was no need for them if those organisations were to operate effectively.” That is what Phil Goff said when he and his crowd got rid of 33,000 public servants, and there are many people in Wellington who do not forget that.
Does the Minister agree with the following statement in relation to public services: “Few problems are solved by significant reorganisations—in fact, many more tend to be created. It is easy to underestimate the amount of energy and inspiration soaked up by institutional change, as well as the loss of personal and institutional knowledge. … there will be no wholesale reorganisation or restructuring across the public sector.”? That was John Key in October last year.
Of course I agree with the Prime Minister. I think his comments are completely relevant, and would have been just as relevant when Phil Goff and Annette King got rid of 865 public servants at the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, 319 at the Department of Conservation, and only 35 at Treasury.
Hon Sir Roger Douglas Link to this
Would the Minister agree that the incentive structure within the public sector, which is often dominated by a monopoly, is such that it is vital that Government departments and enterprises face competition; if not, why not?
I think there is no doubt that there is a greater opportunity available for the use of the contracting out of services and for the smarter use of the private sector in many parts of the Public Service. I know that particularly in the health portfolio, we see the private sector as providing a supplementary support to improve the amount of elective surgery in New Zealand, because, despite a doubling of the health budget over 9 years, fewer New Zealanders were getting surgery under the previous Government.
Hon Sir Roger Douglas Link to this
Does the Minister agree that bringing internal or external competition to the public health care system could see improvements in productivity of at least 25 percent, thereby freeing up billions of dollars for other uses, including tax cuts or additional health care; if so, when will he turn his back on government by opinion poll?
I do not think I have ever been accused of that. I think there are greater opportunities for smarter use of the private sector. In fact, the previous Government agreed with that. It undertook the single-biggest privatisation in the history of the health service when it sold the Otago and Southland laboratory services to the private sector. That was a significant multi - tens of millions of dollars sale, and I think the members opposite are very happy that they made that sale.
To assist the Minister, I seek leave to table Treasury working paper 99/10. It says welfare has increased from the privatisation of New Zealand Rail Ltd, because of the remarkable improvement in its productivity.