PRETTY BUDGET

It is pretty clear now why Dr Cullen had wanted to make the unbundling announcement during the budget, even though it is actually a policy decision rather than a fiscal one. It would have added a little flair to his budget as well as obscure the surplus, revenue, taxation issues that hounded him last budget and last election.

Without the unbundling distraction, Dr Cullen knows he will need to polish off his debating notes from last September. National will no doubt zero back in on Labour's "tax and spend" record and the argument that at least some of the past five years strong revenue growth should have been returned to tax payers. The additional dimension to this year's debate is the weakened state of the economy. Indeed, Dr Cullen's budget speech went to considerable lengths to pre-emptively rebut predictable accusations of economic mismanagement and growth-unfriendly fiscal policy - by characterising the economy's forecast "soft landing" as a natural adjustment to a high growth period and as part of the economic cycle.

"As we move through this electoral term, Network Politics senses the debate will evolve into a more sophisticated one focused on the value extracted from the significant public investments made in education, health and public infrastructure."

The 2005 election's central debate was a simplistic one about the merits of spending increases versus tax cuts. As we move through this electoral term, Network Politics senses the debate will evolve into a more sophisticated one focused on the value extracted from the significant public investments made in education, health and public infrastructure during the past six or seven years. The additional $4 billion per annum spent on our health system along with the likes of the no-interest student loans policy will be obvious targets for scrutiny. In short, the debate will move from one of principle to one of value.

"You can't be delivering something radically innovative every year - and it certainly doesn't make sense to waste your best ideas this early in the electoral cycle."

As for the budget itself, at a glance it looks very much like more of the same. Not even a flagship policy like KiwiSaver this time around. To be fair, this is a Government that has had its hands on the steering wheel for six years. Its basic economic footprint and fiscal framework was in place long ago. You can't be delivering something radically innovative every year - and it certainly doesn't make sense to waste your best ideas this early in the electoral cycle. The unbundling announcement would have provided this year's budget with an edge - whether strictly "budgetary" or not.

IF IT'S A BILLION DOLLAR PAPER, DELIVER IT YOURSELF!

Only in the village that is Wellington would you find billion dollar Cabinet papers casually passed between mountain biking buddies. It is actually quite surprising this kind of thing doesn't occur more regularly in a town like this. After all, if you're a Wellingtonian that doesn't work for the Government, there is a helluva good chance that you do work for Telecom. They are the city's two biggest employers by far. There must be plenty of Telecom executives and public servants baby-sitting each others kids, flatting together or sharing mountain bike trails throughout the capital every day.

The unbundling Cabinet paper leak has shone the spotlight on the integrity of our public service. As much as this may have been the act of a very naive individual, and as much as Helen Clark and Mark Prebble will deny that it reflects any systemic problem, Network Politics believes an incident such as this was always waiting to happen.

"New Zealand's public service is extremely well regarded when it comes to levels of integrity and corruption. There are very few stories of real corruption in our political history."

New Zealand's public service is extremely well regarded when it comes to levels of integrity and corruption. There are very few stories of real corruption in our political history. Our public servants are, on the whole, a very moral bunch. There will always be the very odd exception, but overall we can take pride in the integrity of our bureaucrats. Unfortunately, that level of morality is not always matched by a sense of awareness and vigilance. There is casualness with regard to the security of sensitive documents and information.

"Unfortunately, that level of morality is not always matched by a sense of awareness and vigilance."

Even within the economic policy agencies dealing with advice around the likes of transport, energy and telecommunications - where regulatory change can have significant consequences - there is a lack of emphasis on security. There is rarely any proper version control or any use of password protection for documents. Various iterations of policy documents, in hard copy and electronic form, are always floating about and across departments. Sensitive documents are often left lying about desks and only occasionally locked away at night. There is always the possibility of one such document being misplaced or left in the wrong hands - even if more by accident than intent.

There will be exceptions, of course. Some departments are better than others. Some staff are more diligent than others. DPMC probably has amongst the tightest security. Amongst senior public servants there is a keen awareness of the potential implications of regulatory policy documents in terms of sharemarkets and investors. But amongst junior policy and administrative staff there is often a limited sense of consequence. No doubt, particular measures had been introduced for managing such a sensitive policy issue as unbundling, but it is also very likely that a level of complacency existed.

None of this means Maarten Weavers should be sacked. He may well do a better job emphasising security than most departmental chiefs. None of this means the Labour Government is any worse at managing the public service than National. None of this means we should bury our poor old bureaucrats in layers and layers of unnecessary security precautions (they already have the most painful audit and sign-off procedures to shoulder). But neither should the leak be dismissed as the unpreventable act of an individual. If the culture of our public service was more security-minded, this probably wouldn't have happened. If it's a billion dollar paper, deliver it yourself.