Photo / 123rf
OPINION
As the chess game of who’s out, who’s in and where the players will be positioned continues, a question on the minds of many is who will be providing advice.
People now in government are new to the role. Some will be new to their portfolios. Who are they gonna call? Is it time to dial a friend? Or a myth buster? (Queue exciting music).
The triennial (or sexennial, in this case) challenge has been partially solved for science with the establishment of the position of Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor.
Professor Sir Peter Gluckman was the first to occupy the role.
He spawned the concept of departmental science advisers in the ministries.
Although Sir Peter has handed the baton to Dame Juliet Gerard, his legacy in the ministries lives on.
There, however, it is less easy to be independent than Sir Peter managed from his position.
Sir Peter’s report on meth-contaminated houses and health created some concern when it was released, particularly amongst people who had spent money in testing and cleaning.
Compensation was claimed, and bills were paid by the government.
Analysis of the issue published in New Zealand Science Review stated that “the input from the Chief Science Advisor was critical to the halting of wasteful and unfair policies, but not before much damage had been done. Had independent, rigorous, comprehensive science advice been sought earlier, leading to the right questions being asked and analysed from an unbiased, risk-based perspective before faulty standards were developed, the focus would have remained on meth labs, and the government would not be having to manage a lot of compensation for prior errors.”
Nothing similar has come from the departmental science advisers and chief scientists: they report to their chief executives who are government employees reporting to their ministers.
They work internally, as well as with each other and the PMCSA.
Although their role is important, it is in my view insufficient when governments change, and independent advice is sought. This year, when proposed cuts in public service have already been described (by the Public Service Association) as a chainsaw massacre, it could be quite challenging for anybody in public service to think independently.
Further, it is far more than science understanding that is required in Wellington at the moment: it is in-depth knowledge of the different sectors with an associated understanding of the likely ramifications of any proposed change. What is needed can be achieved only by immersion over the years – by living the reality.
In the primary sector, the levy bodies and Federated Farmers of New Zealand have already prepared their action lists and have their briefings for incoming ministers at the ready.
Groups in other sectors have prepared similarly. Some of the groups have people who could assist with independent advice – people with nothing to lose by giving an informed opinion about what could help New Zealand out of debt and into a vibrant future, while avoiding the unintended consequences of some actions of the past. The New Zealand Initiative comes to mind.
Although this suggestion is unlikely to be popular with the ministries, it could be an opportunity for them to rethink and align.
Listen to Jamie Mackay interview Dr Rowarth below:
Not doing so risks the ongoing scenario displayed satirically in the BBC’s Yes Minister. Permanent secretary to the Minister of Administrative Affairs, Sir Humphrey Appleby is outwardly deferential towards his new minister, but is prepared to defend the status quo at all costs: increased staff numbers and budgets are viewed as success.
In New Zealand the increased numbers of employees in the public service has been associated with increased work (at least in some cases).
The meth regulations in housing created a new industry in testing houses for meth. The audits that are proliferating in many sectors, including agriculture, are adding cost, but the value is questionable. And the carbon market has stimulated new careers: “carbon developers” who are paid by multinational firms to find carbon reduction projects to sell and carbon auditors who affirm the reductions are real.
Cutting back on bureaucracy (defined as excessively complicated administrative procedure, but in the context here, embracing paperwork that does not appear to add value…) would allow people to be employed in the productive sector and those in the productive sector to be working on their businesses rather than on paperwork.
National has proposed getting Wellington out of farming. The statements include ensuring that farming regulations are fit for purpose (which includes economic viability while protecting our environment). In addition, management of local issues will be returned to local councils.
That means independent advice will be needed locally as well as nationally.
Rather than spawning another career option, the point about knowledge gained through working in the sector for many years is that the independent, rigorous advice, which leads to the right questions being asked and analysed from an unbiased, risk-based perspective before poor decisions are made, can be given from “retirement”.
In chess this could be viewed as a “promotion”.
In real life it simply makes sense.
An eradication programme has won a $750,000 government grant to get it started.