From CAFCA’s perspective, one of the more interesting debates has been over the treatment of State assets. In the late 80s and early 90s, the aim was to sell off any asset to the highest bidder, almost inevitably an overseas buyer. In the ideology of the day, it did not particularly matter who purchased the assets, nor how much was paid for them. All that mattered was that the public sector was made a little smaller and the private sector a little bigger. Benefits would be seen to flow to the people from more efficient and effective services and financial dividends. Or so the story went. The failure of this model, the obscene profits made by monopoly organisations such as Telecom, the sucking of profits out of New Zealand, resulting in ballooning private international debt, and the disgusting asset-stripping behaviours of some of the purchasers have been documented in this journal and elsewhere.

So the return of asset sales to the political agenda in 2011 has been, in contrast with 20 years ago, a relatively pallid affair. The State will maintain majority ownership in the assets to be sold, and the aim will be to build an investment fund for future schools. There is no asset sales policy on the National Party Website. The policy is silent on whether the initial sale of shares will be restricted to New Zealanders. The asset sales policy you have when you’re not having one! This is not surprising. Research polls have consistently stated that most people are strongly opposed to selling off the assets of the State. The last time was a debacle, with no efficiency gains, outrageous profit-taking, lack of investment and the ignominious buy-back rescues of rail and Air New Zealand.

Rogernomics Never Died

But Rogernomics, albeit a slightly thin, depleted version of itself, still roams the corridors of power. While Labour beat it back in the 2011 campaign with billboard messages, in fact neither major party has entirely shed the neo-liberal economic model. In particular, the bringing of certain beliefs and practices into the public sector, and requiring that sector to conform to private values, continues to this day. Parts of the public sector have shouldered the main burden of this. One area of concern is the universities and polytechnics. Far from serving a need as public service institutions, these organisations, cast out from the Government sector into a devolved and fee-paying environment have become the epitome of competitive enterprises. “New Zealand’s leading university”, screams the Auckland Uni’s Website. “New Zealand’s defining university”, is Massey. And “the University of Otago is New Zealand's top-ranked university for research quality”. Bah, humbug, say I.

In the post-public world of the tertiary sector, perverse incentives swirl and clash into a kaleidoscope of competing interests. On the one hand, Government funding has been structured so that certain kinds of research products are valued, while others are not. It is essential to publish in high-readership international journals, even though your article may be primarily relevant to New Zealand. No points for being local! As well, reviewing books, attending local conferences and working across institutions is not rewarded activity, and collaboration may be actively frowned upon unless it brings in money.

While individuals are forced into the distorting world of the PBRF (Performance-Based Research Fund), they are also expected to engage in more, and more complex, teaching. Bums on seats, and especially international backsides, bring in the fees that now make up more than half of the income of most tertiary institutions. I am far from opposed to the international education industry, but the international students have different norms and expectations, and often huge barriers of culture and language, and need additional support and adjustment to teaching programmes.

And Then There Is Managerialism

“We did it to ourselves”, a group of academics lamented. And they did! From being self-motivated and self-led academics, lecturers are now constrained by hierarchies, line managers, frequent meetings and accountability mechanisms. While in the pre-managerial universe there were some academic staff who were lazy, it was a small minority. Now, everyone has to be accountable, and this takes up a large proportion of the academic day. No wonder my university friends are overworked! I could go on about the destruction of the polytechnics, the loss of trades courses, the apparent disarray of the Tertiary Education Commission that seems to have lost any ability it had to steer the sector. But I have said enough. And yet… and yet. There is a distinct, clumsy, often poorly or politically driven, move back towards national goals across the Government sector. The notion that our public institutions should meet our national needs appears to be on the increase. Devolution is taking a back seat as new programmes are promoted and even funded from the centre.

As educationist Joce Jesson pointed out recently, Anne Tolley’s National Standards policy is highly interventionist. Other policies in the school sector have also followed that path, including programmes to improve suspension figures and increase achievement among poor performers. It’s almost like the old Department of Education! In the justice sector, the Drivers of Crime project involves not only detailed policy work, but a range of programmes to target and prevent crime. And so on – rehabilitation in Corrections, community engagement in the Police, better and more personal health outcomes. Is there a new spring coming, where the value of all New Zealand’s public assets is once more promoted by Ministers wanting to make a difference and prepared to intervene? How may that play out in a 21st Century model which presumably will eschew paternalist approaches? Is the public sector, mauled and brutalised as it has been, up to the task? Will the ghost of Rogernomics be the ghost of Christmas past from now on?