In a surprising turn of events, the head of the Productivity Commission, Ganesh Nana, has criticized what he deems a “cruel and thoughtless” manner in which the commission is being axed. The impending closure, scheduled for Thursday, paves the way for the establishment of the new Ministry for Regulation, resulting in over 20 staff members losing their jobs.
Chairman Ganesh Nana expressed dismay at the abrupt nature of the decision, highlighting that the commission’s staff only learned of its fate when the coalition agreement was revealed in mid-November. While acknowledging the incoming government’s right to close the commission, Nana found fault with the way the process unfolded.
“To hear via a public announcement to media that the organization you work for is to be closed, without even a courtesy heads-up beforehand, was incredibly thoughtless and unnecessarily cruel to the commission’s staff,” Nana stated, emphasizing the lack of consideration in the decision-making process. He further critiqued the absence of direct contact with the responsible minister, Nicola Willis, and the head of the public service, despite repeated requests.
According to Nana, a simple phone call could have mitigated the impact and demonstrated a more humane approach to organizational change. The closure of the Productivity Commission represents the end of an era for an institution established in 2011 with the aim of researching and advising on ways to enhance the country’s economic and business productivity.
Originally set up by a National-led government in response to the ACT Party’s call for improved productivity, the commission played a crucial role in analysing economic and social issues. Nana, appointed by former Labour finance minister Grant Robertson in 2020, expanded the commission’s mandate to encompass a broader perspective, delving into relevant social issues and well-being beyond traditional economic measures.
Despite Nana’s efforts to broaden the commission’s focus, it faced criticism from various quarters. Accusations of political bias and left-wing leanings were levelled against Nana, particularly by centre-right think tanks, some former commission staff, and ACT leader David Seymour. Nana, however, dismissed these accusations, emphasizing that previous commissioners had also been appointed by the government of the day.
The closure of the Productivity Commission has sparked debate about its relevance and impact. Michael Reddell, a former Reserve Bank official and centre-right commentator, expressed support for the commission’s work but suggested that even before Nana’s appointment, it was becoming irrelevant. Reddell questioned the commitment of political parties to productivity and raised doubts about the consistent value a small commission could offer in comparison to larger institutions.
In response to the closure, Nana expressed hope that some part of the government would continue the commission’s work, emphasizing the importance of regarding productivity as a measure for making the best use of economic, natural, and social resources in a sustainable manner. He urged the government to view productivity beyond a cost-cutting and profit-driven lens.
As the Productivity Commission concludes its operations, the controversy surrounding its closure raises broader questions about the intersection of politics, public institutions, and the pursuit of economic and social well-being. The way organizational changes are communicated and executed serves as a critical aspect of governance, influencing the perceptions of both employees and the public. -TIN Bureau