A Superfluous Leader: Is Luxon actually an ersatz Key?
Public sector targets take us back to the future
The notion that prime minister Christopher Luxon imitates Sir John Key, but without Key’s popularity, has been a theme for some time, but was backed up with survey data by Tova O’Brien.
Second-rate leadership seems to be a trend these days. For example, even though the UK Labour Party looks set to win a thumping victory later this year, its leader, Sir Keir Starmer, has been polling net negative in favourability. It’s just that the incumbent PM, Rishi Sunak, is looking even worse.
Similarly in the United States, disapproval of President Joe Biden runs at around 55%, while his presumptive rival in November’s election, the inimitable Donald Trump, is rated “unfavourably” by most Americans.
According to a recent Taxpayers’ Union–Curia poll, all party leaders in NZ have net negative favourability. Luxon is getting only around 25% in preferred PM polls, while more people are saying the country’s heading in the wrong direction than in the right direction.
Luxon has often been accused of inauthenticity, and this is reinforced by his tendency to copy and paste his lines (prefaced with “what I say to you is”) and to imitate others. He’s said that NZ should imitate Estonia, for instance. (No disrespect to Estonians, who are far more worried about Vladimir Putin than Christopher Luxon.) As for the imitation of Key’s target-setting…
On Monday, the government released nine targets, designed to focus the public sector on getting results in health, education, law & order, welfare, emergency housing and greenhouse gas emissions (copied in full below). This expectation of improved focus and performance comes in the midst of downsizing, which is causing demoralisation and loss of capability in the public sector. It all brought back memories of Key’s Better Public Services.
National had returned to office in November 2008 following the global financial crisis which caused a shallow recession lasting five quarters. The Key government ran budget deficits, delayed promised tax cuts and raised public debt, returning to surplus by 2015.
During the 2008 campaign, John Key hinted there’d be no radical market-led reforms akin to those of the 1990s – the days of “the new public management”. The aim of Key’s incoming government was to shift resources from “back office” to “front line” activities. (Sound familiar?) As the fiscal consequences of the recession became apparent after the election, they took a tougher line with real cuts to departmental budgets and staffing. From 2008 to 2011, a 6.2 per cent reduction was imposed on the number of full-time equivalent positions.
Around the same time, there were significant organisational amalgamations, creating the Ministry of Primary Industries and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Enterprise, as well as completing the Auckland Council “super city” unification.
In 2010, the Minister of Finance Bill English commented that the previous Labour-led government had grown the staff contingent of the public service without having produced much by way of results to show for it – though he cited no supporting evidence. (Sound familiar?) A refocus was called for, and in 2011 a report – Better Public Services – recommended: “align state services with a results focus so that, where achieving a result will require cross-agency collaboration, the system both demands and facilitates this to happen. And use the results focus and information on results to more effectively manage the performance of public-sector leaders.” It was a product of its time, responding to fragmentation across organisations.
In 2012, ten “challenging results for the public sector” were set down. These were to be achieved over the subsequent three to five years and were grouped into five broad areas:
Reducing long-term welfare dependency
Supporting vulnerable children
Boosting skills and employment
Reducing crime
Improving interaction with government.
Again, there’s some similarity with the present targets. But there’s also a significant difference: the Key–English administration introduced the targets in their second term, after downsizing and restructuring had been absorbed by the public service. Luxon & Co are setting targets at the same time as purging bureaucrats. What’s the hurry?
You can still find some of the Key government’s progress reports online. There were some problems with this approach. For example, boosting the percentage of 18-year-olds who pass NCEA Level 2 could have been achieved by lowering standards, and/or by neglecting other important activities in schools, such as sports and arts.
Some new targets were added in May 2017. Six months later, National were removed from office, having failed to seal the deal with Winston Peters.
Now that Luxon & Co have resurrected “social investment” alongside “government targets”, we see a pattern of “back to the future”. If you want to predict what the present government will do, then perhaps just revisit the Key years and you’ll find an answer. Next they’ll be proposing to partially privatise a state asset or two, as Key did in the run-up to the 2011 election.
Overall, Key’s managerial style was cautious and centrist. After a few reforms in their first term, and asset sales in their second, they sat on their hands. By 2017, there was a mood for change, as people were fed up with “nine years of neglect”. Key had assiduously taken a “crisis? what crisis?” line when questioned about real crises such as polluted rivers, climate change, housing and child poverty. There were rich pickings for Jacinda Ardern when she took over the leadership of Labour.
Luxon’s cover act may resemble a second-rate Elvis impersonation, but trying for originality could end up looking even worse. And maybe we can foresee how it ends: having done little about the real problems, he resigns suddenly, in mid-term, lamenting that he’s run out of gas.
The image was lifted from the National Party’s “meet Christopher” web-page.
The Government Targets are:
Shorter stays in emergency departments: 95% of patients to be admitted, discharged, or transferred from an emergency department within six hours.
Shorter wait times for treatment: 95% of people wait less than four months for elective treatment.
Reduced child and youth offending: 15% reduction in the total number of children and young people with serious and persistent offending behaviour.
Reduced violent crime: 20,000 fewer people who are victims of an assault, robbery, assault, or sexual assault.
Fewer people on the Jobseeker Support Benefit: 50,000 fewer people on Jobseeker Support Benefit.
Increased student attendance: 80% of students are present for more than 90% of the term.
More students at expected curriculum levels: 80% of Year 8 students at or above the expected curriculum level for their age in reading, writing and maths by December 2030.
Fewer people in emergency housing: 75% reduction of households in emergency housing.
Reduced net greenhouse gas emissions: On track to meet New Zealand’s 2050 net zero climate change targets, with total net emissions of no more than 290 megatonnes from 2022 to 2025 and 305 megatonnes from 2026 to 2030.
The ideological commitment to both cut public service spending and impose targets may well have unintended consequences that get in the way of actual progress/improvement and yes, the current target model is familiar. The Key/English policy of raising the percentage of 18-year-olds who pass NCEA Level 2 not only narrowed the educational experience for our young people but it incentivised/pressurised schools to lower standards in NCEA. This has created a massive problem in the university sector are they faced with students who are qualified for university but poorly prepared for tertiary level studies. We now have most highly qualified generation in our history but arguably they are qualified but not educated. This is not the fault of the students or teachers (who will always do the best for their students) but rather policies that set out to solve complex problems with narrow and reductionist approaches. Ever the optomist I am hopeful we will see the government start to slow the pace and consider the consequences of their policies (but I am not holding my breath).
It’s kind of worrying when I see things like “reduce emergency room stays”, with no acknowledgement of why longer time may be necessary, or how it will be achieved. Is the delay due to lack of resources and staff? And if so, how will placing pressure impact the quality of care?
The theme is reduce, people in government housing, reduce truancy, reduce welfare dependence.
If this pressure is applied how do the ministries respond?
I would wager that the majority of serially truant students experience rough home lives, or experience poverty. I’ve seen quite a few mentions of kids leaving school to work so they can support their families, but there’s no acknowledgement of this.
If kids are increasingly skipping school, they should probably investigate why, rather than simply forcing them to attend (likely through targeting families with fines).
How do you simultaneously cut public sector support, and expect a reduction in welfare dependence and emergency housing, without acknowledging the cause of both.
They appear to be going ahead with “build to rent” further cementing the divide between landlords and renters.
I don’t think they realise that most people don’t think of a house as an investment, but rather a secure and consistent necessity.
Reducing welfare dependence is taking the form of making it harder to receive or maintain a benefit and opting to reduce staff which doesn't seem to improve the support that is available.