Review of Public Service Commission's social media adverts could cost up to $67k

A review into the purchase of social media adverts, which related to public sector negotiations, could cost more than $60,000, the Public Service Commissioner says.

Meanwhile, the Public Service Minister is being accused of "bulls****ing on the fly" by the Greens because he can't specify exactly how much will be saved by using artificial intelligence in the government's public sector cuts.

The discussion about the cuts were part of a scrutiny week hearing at Parliament on Wednesday, lasting more than an hour and covering a range of issues affecting the public service.

Sir Brian Roche was asked about the review into the ads - themselves costing a few hundred dollars.

Labour had raised concerns about the Facebook ad campaign running in the lead up to the 23 October "mega-strike", questioning whether they were appropriate for a politically neutral department.

The independent review was announced at the end of last year.

Sir Brian said the review of the ads had "taken longer than we would have wanted".

He hoped to have it finalised in the next week, and said it was likely to cost more than the most recently reported cost of $37,000.

The main lesson learned so far he said was to "proceed with caution" which is "what we did", he said.

"We've never been cavalier on this point, irrespective of how people have interpreted it.

"I want an independent report to give me a clear objective based on their judgement and evidence of what we could have done better."

Roche was also asked whether releasing the ads had been a directive from the Public Service Minister, which he rejected.

"It had nothing to do with the Beehive, it was our decision," Roche said.

"I am ultimately responsible and accountable," he said, before clarifying that he himself hadn't made the decision, but added he was not "hunting my staff".

Speaking to reporters afterward, Roche said he wanted the results of the review out in time for Scrutiny Week, rejecting the notion it was convenient the report wasn't finished yet.

"I wanted it out now, because I don't like the ongoing questioning and the questions that it gives rise to."

He also said he didn't "go after" the unions, and was making public comment to "rectify an imbalance" he saw at the time.

Roche said the review would be completed very soon and made public, and "then we can discuss it further".

"I've got nothing to hide."

Currently the cost of the review was $37,000, but Roche acknowledged it "could get as high as $67,000."

Public sector cuts

The proposed public sector cuts - that would see nearly 9000 jobs gone - took up much of the session lasting a little more than an hour, including how much actual savings would be made by implementing AI.

Roche said he would work through the process in the "normal way", and that the cuts were similar to a househould under cost pressure.

Labour's Camilla Belich suggested the "stakes were higher" given he was in charge of the entire public service.

He said those comments were the same everyone mad when they're told "you've got less money".

"The first instinct is actually this is inconvenient, and it's hard."

He acknowledged the cuts wouldn't be easy, but had to be done "because we are living in an environment where what we're doing is unsustainable".

"It's very clear it's unsustainable, and I, and the other chief executives, want to take the opportunity to reinvent the way we do our work.

"It's great that we've now got that opportunity through the mandate the government's given us."

He clarified later to reporters he meant the fiscal situation in the country was demanding.

Roche said he would "do what I need to do" to keep the commission performing to the "highest standards possible".

"When and if I feel I can't do that, then I will have a grown-up conversation with my minister, and we'll reach an agreement on what gets traded. We are not at that point yet."

Public Services Minister Paul Goldsmith was questioned about the services and the number of jobs that would be cut as a result.

He wasn't able to specify, but said that was because the process was underway and hadn't been completed.

Roche added the government had been "really clear" on its targets, and decisions would be made by cabinet in the next three to four months.

Belich referenced budget documents that exclude Oranga Tamariki, Law and Order, Health, Education, Defence, and Intelligence Services from baseline reductions, then pointed to the footnote that stated those core public service departments will still be part of the reduction of full-time equivalents.

She asked Goldsmith what frontline roles were safe from the budget cuts, but he wouldn't specify, saying every government department had a mix of frontline services and back office.

"The distinction between the two is not always perfectly clear cut, and so they'll be working their way through it with a goal of reducing the overall head count, and I've got every confidence they'll be able to do that."

He added that he wouldn't "have an endless argument about this person here and that person there, and who's going to happen there".

The use of AI - "bulls****ing on the fly" - Green MP

The minister couldn't say exactly how much would be saved through increasing the use of artificial intelligence (AI) technology within the public service.

Overall, the government has said the plan to cut another 8700 public sector jobs in about 40 core agencies will save $2.4 billion over four years.

Goldsmith was asked by the Greens' Francisco Hernandez what percentage of the $2.4b in savings would come from the use of AI, or replacing workers with AI.

The minister pointed out the government hadn't said it would get "$750 from here, and $1000 from here".

"What was said is an overall expectation of savings through efficiency."

Hernandez pushed the minister on the issue, suggesting he didn't "actually have any evidence that the greater uptake of AI will then lead to the savings that you've forecast".

Goldsmith said the evidence was "all around us" in terms of what was happening around the world, and people making use of new technology.

Roche added the commission stood by the opportunity that by "reducing the number of agencies, by simplifying our processes, by getting rid of duplication, we have got good evidence that there are savings to be made with no reduction in quality or productivity".

"AI will actually help us, but it's not the only thing."

Hernandez clarified further, requesting specific evidence, asking "there's not currently a single dollar that's been forecast as a result of savings in AI, as part of the budget that's been mapped?"

Roche added it was part of a "number of things that we'll be doing in order to realise savings".

Asked later about the costs of implementing AI or the AI itself, and whether that would be the more expensive models the US government was using for example, Roche said "we are not at the expensive end yet".

"This is still early days for us, but I think it's inevitable that we will have to address those issues, and we will."

Asked how the savings would be achieved if the government had promised 8700 fewer jobs in two years and the process was still "early days", Goldsmith reiterated the government wasn't relying solely on technology.

Hernandez later told RNZ the minister was "bull***** on the fly" because the government couldn't quantify exaclty how much would be saved by AI, despite saying it would provide savings.

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.