This article shows yet another area of dysfuntion, one in which the >Government has not kept the pressure on to allow Pharmac to act as expected by >the people who pay them, the tax payer.Yes we do. And 6 years of allowing the public service to wag the tail is long enough. Time for a change.
We need better than this.
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/300985032/calls-to-sack-pharmac-boss-after-sick-sneering-remarks
Yes we do. And 6 years of allowing the public service to wag the tail is long >enough. Time for a change.
This article shows yet another area of dysfuntion, one in which the >>Government has not kept the pressure on to allow Pharmac to act as expected by
the people who pay them, the tax payer.
We need better than this.
On Sun, 8 Oct 2023 04:46:02 -0000 (UTC), TonyAbsolute nonsense. If the head of a government department cannot be polite in all of their dealings then they are unsuitable. That is all. Everthing else is game playing.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/300985032/calls-to-sack-pharmac-boss-after-sick-sneering-remarks
Yes we do. And 6 years of allowing the public service to wag the tail is long >>enough. Time for a change.
This article shows yet another area of dysfuntion, one in which the >>>Government has not kept the pressure on to allow Pharmac to act as expected >>>by
the people who pay them, the tax payer.
We need better than this.
The comments were in very poor taste, but are no reflection on her job
to work within the budget approved by government to get the most
effective pharmaceuticals we can within that budget. The article
confuses the two. The process used by Pharmac must remain confidential
(to keep costs down through negotiations with sellers) but is well
known in principal; lobbyists can I am sure be very difficult to deal
with at times. National do over-ride the system at times when they
are in government; in at least one case it was to announce a decision >slightly early to imply that they had instructed Pharmac to do what
they had already told the government they were going to do -
politicians can be difficult to deal with as well.
I am sure the issue of inappropriate comments will be dealt with - theOff topic.
Pubic sector must now be well aware that correspondence that cannot be
kept confidential under the ACT may become public - when National next
come into government the strictness of those rules may come as a
surprise to them . . .
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:Government departments reflect the mores of the government of the day. Considering the bullying behaviour prevalent in Labour it's not surprising heads of departments are as useless as their ministers!
On Sun, 8 Oct 2023 04:46:02 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/300985032/calls-to-sack-pharmac-boss-after-sick-sneering-remarks
Yes we do. And 6 years of allowing the public service to wag the tail is long
This article shows yet another area of dysfuntion, one in which the >>>Government has not kept the pressure on to allow Pharmac to act as expected
by
the people who pay them, the tax payer.
We need better than this.
enough. Time for a change.
The comments were in very poor taste, but are no reflection on her jobAbsolute nonsense. If the head of a government department cannot be polite in
to work within the budget approved by government to get the most
effective pharmaceuticals we can within that budget. The article
confuses the two. The process used by Pharmac must remain confidential
(to keep costs down through negotiations with sellers) but is well
known in principal; lobbyists can I am sure be very difficult to deal
with at times. National do over-ride the system at times when they
are in government; in at least one case it was to announce a decision >slightly early to imply that they had instructed Pharmac to do what
they had already told the government they were going to do -
politicians can be difficult to deal with as well.
all of their dealings then they are unsuitable. That is all. Everthing else is
game playing.
I am sure the issue of inappropriate comments will be dealt with - the >Pubic sector must now be well aware that correspondence that cannot be >kept confidential under the ACT may become public - when National next >come into government the strictness of those rules may come as aOff topic.
surprise to them . . .
On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 8:57:08?AM UTC+13, Tony wrote:Off topic
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:Government departments reflect the mores of the government of the day. Considering the bullying behaviour prevalent in Labour it's not surprising heads of departments are as useless as their ministers!
On Sun, 8 Oct 2023 04:46:02 -0000 (UTC), TonyAbsolute nonsense. If the head of a government department cannot be polite in
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/300985032/calls-to-sack-pharmac-boss-after-sick-sneering-remarksYes we do. And 6 years of allowing the public service to wag the tail is long
This article shows yet another area of dysfuntion, one in which the
Government has not kept the pressure on to allow Pharmac to act as expected
by
the people who pay them, the tax payer.
We need better than this.
enough. Time for a change.
The comments were in very poor taste, but are no reflection on her job
to work within the budget approved by government to get the most
effective pharmaceuticals we can within that budget. The article
confuses the two. The process used by Pharmac must remain confidential
(to keep costs down through negotiations with sellers) but is well
known in principal; lobbyists can I am sure be very difficult to deal
with at times. National do over-ride the system at times when they
are in government; in at least one case it was to announce a decision
slightly early to imply that they had instructed Pharmac to do what
they had already told the government they were going to do -
politicians can be difficult to deal with as well.
all of their dealings then they are unsuitable. That is all. Everthing else is
game playing.
Fair comment - the likelihood of an ACT/Nat/Winston coalition isOff topic.
I am sure the issue of inappropriate comments will be dealt with - the
Pubic sector must now be well aware that correspondence that cannot be
kept confidential under the ACT may become public - when National next
come into government the strictness of those rules may come as a
surprise to them . . .
On Sun, 8 Oct 2023 13:55:21 -0700 (PDT), John BowesNot really, I don't agree that all heads of departmment are like this woman but it is certainly true that culture starts at the top and if the culture of the government ministers is poor then HOD's may well be poorly influenced. This government is one such.
<bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 8:57:08?AM UTC+13, Tony wrote:Off topic
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:Government departments reflect the mores of the government of the day. >>Considering the bullying behaviour prevalent in Labour it's not surprising >>heads of departments are as useless as their ministers!
On Sun, 8 Oct 2023 04:46:02 -0000 (UTC), TonyAbsolute nonsense. If the head of a government department cannot be polite >>>in
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
Yes we do. And 6 years of allowing the public service to wag the tail is >>> >>longhttps://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/300985032/calls-to-sack-pharmac-boss-after-sick-sneering-remarks
This article shows yet another area of dysfuntion, one in which the
Government has not kept the pressure on to allow Pharmac to act as
expected
by
the people who pay them, the tax payer.
We need better than this.
enough. Time for a change.
The comments were in very poor taste, but are no reflection on her job
to work within the budget approved by government to get the most
effective pharmaceuticals we can within that budget. The article
confuses the two. The process used by Pharmac must remain confidential
(to keep costs down through negotiations with sellers) but is well
known in principal; lobbyists can I am sure be very difficult to deal
with at times. National do over-ride the system at times when they
are in government; in at least one case it was to announce a decision
slightly early to imply that they had instructed Pharmac to do what
they had already told the government they were going to do -
politicians can be difficult to deal with as well.
all of their dealings then they are unsuitable. That is all. Everthing else >>>is
game playing.
Fair comment - the likelihood of an ACT/Nat/Winston coalition isOff topic.
I am sure the issue of inappropriate comments will be dealt with - the
Pubic sector must now be well aware that correspondence that cannot be
kept confidential under the ACT may become public - when National next
come into government the strictness of those rules may come as a
surprise to them . . .
reducing by the day . . .
On Sun, 8 Oct 2023 13:55:21 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 8:57:08?AM UTC+13, Tony wrote:Off topic
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:Government departments reflect the mores of the government of the day. Considering the bullying behaviour prevalent in Labour it's not surprising heads of departments are as useless as their ministers!
On Sun, 8 Oct 2023 04:46:02 -0000 (UTC), TonyAbsolute nonsense. If the head of a government department cannot be polite in
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/300985032/calls-to-sack-pharmac-boss-after-sick-sneering-remarksYes we do. And 6 years of allowing the public service to wag the tail is long
This article shows yet another area of dysfuntion, one in which the
Government has not kept the pressure on to allow Pharmac to act as expected
by
the people who pay them, the tax payer.
We need better than this.
enough. Time for a change.
The comments were in very poor taste, but are no reflection on her job >> >to work within the budget approved by government to get the most
effective pharmaceuticals we can within that budget. The article
confuses the two. The process used by Pharmac must remain confidential >> >(to keep costs down through negotiations with sellers) but is well
known in principal; lobbyists can I am sure be very difficult to deal
with at times. National do over-ride the system at times when they
are in government; in at least one case it was to announce a decision
slightly early to imply that they had instructed Pharmac to do what
they had already told the government they were going to do -
politicians can be difficult to deal with as well.
all of their dealings then they are unsuitable. That is all. Everthing else is
game playing.
Fair comment - the likelihood of an ACT/Nat/Winston coalition isOff topic.
I am sure the issue of inappropriate comments will be dealt with - the >> >Pubic sector must now be well aware that correspondence that cannot be >> >kept confidential under the ACT may become public - when National next >> >come into government the strictness of those rules may come as a
surprise to them . . .
reducing by the day . . .
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 119:14:43 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Files: | 12,210 |
| Messages: | 5,334,367 |