In June 2009, Minister of Immigration, Jonathan Coleman told the Transport & Industrial Relations Select Committee that he was going to employ an “external adviser” in the Immigration Service. Someone who was independent who would “operate in the same way that a management consultant would in a business situation, reporting to him”. If he felt like it, he would pass on any key messages to the Chief Executive, but would not guarantee that information would be shown to him. The report from the Select Committee to Parliament says :
“Some of us are concerned that the appointment of an external adviser, in a parallel reporting arrangement alongside the chief executive, may conflict with the requirements of the State Sector Act 1988, which makes departmental chief executives responsible for employees in their departments, and the Public Finance Act 1989, which makes them responsible for expenditure. The Minister, however, maintains that the State Services Commissioner is comfortable with the arrangement and would not have advised the Minister to proceed with the appointment if it breached the technical provisions of either piece of legislation.”
Not so, it seemed. On 1 July, there was an advertisment in the Dominion for a Deputy Chief Executive, reporting to the Chief Executive of the Department of Labour (as Labour said he should) and not Jonathan Coleman. We think he got biffed by the State Services Commission and had to back down.
An announcement of the appointment was made on the 12 November, not by Minister Coleman, but by the Chief Executive of the Department of Labour, Christopher Blake.
And then, at the recent financial review of the Department of Labour, we got the whole story. It cost more than $107,000 to recruit Jonathan’s minder, who after all, isn’t a minder. They searched around the world and came up with Nigel Bickle, currently Deputy Chief Executive, Sector Capability with the Department of Building and Housing, who will take up the new role early this year.
The costs of filling the position of Deputy Chief Executive (Immigration) as given in response to Labour’s questions at the recent financial review were :
| Advertising (in NZ and offshore) | $23,559.24 |
| Interview Costs | $4,314.50 |
| Testing Process (five candidates) | $31,000.00 |
| Executive Appointments Fee & Disbursements | $48,401.20 |
| Total | $107,274.94 |
These are only the recruitment costs – I have no idea what the salary is.
Minister Coleman isn’t the first in the National Act government to try to politicise the public service. But this one not only backfired, but has cost taxpayers a lot of money.
Didnt Coleman get a clip around the ear from Key over the RWC television rights fiasco?
Is it really necessary to bring him back from he obscurity he so richly deserves
In my opinion Minister Coleman doesn’t know what his agenda is.. he really needs to get his act together
Seems he needs a new Press Sec too…
http://www.seek.co.nz/job/b-press-b-b-secretary-b-to-cabinet-minister/wellington-central/16669859/57/1/
As an onlooker I’d suggest that ‘politicising the public service’ isn’t a battleground on which Labour should choose to fight at the moment. Memories are still fresh of the steps taken by the last administration in this regard, so any attempt to throw mud could backfire.
Once again, sadly, this seems like ‘any attempt to stir things up’ – let’s lob a grenade into the issue and see what happens. Outside the world of the politico, when parties (of whatever colour) do this it just makes them look like squabbling children. And even in the post SueB world when that happens the end result is often a well deserved slap across the backside.
It would be far more productive in terms of public support to focus on issues, and the nuances of issues, that are genuinely important to people rather than to keep on yah-hooing. And to even agreeing loudly and publicly with the government when it comes up with a good policy or initiative – they must have one or two, surely?
And then when you do attack, do it on something that has real substance and support in the wider world, and do it in a concerted and coordinated way. At the moment the party seems to be acting like a load of uncoordinated resistance fighters.
What’s the Labour line on bludgers, for example? If they don’t exist and any suggestion that they do is bashing beneficiaries, then why did Phil say that they annoy the sh1t out of working people and Labour would do something about them? If I’d made the comment ‘we need to crack down on people whose behaviour will be used as an excuse to cut back on social services’ on this blog a week ago I reckon I’d have been attacked by the party faithful.
@George – I’m puzzled that you think spending $107K on an extra position that a Minister tried to manipulate is an “attempt to stir things up”. It’s our job as opposition MPs to hold the government to account – otherwise how would the taxpayers ever know what goes on in Ministers offices and departments . That’s part of the job of Select Committees too. I’m letting Red Alert readers know what we found out.
I worked for many years in the public service in Britain, and it used to be the case that top managers were appointed because they had the ability to run departments and take decisions – to manage, in fact. Now it seems the higher up they go, the more they need to rely on consultants and outside advisors. It begs the question of what they actually do to merit their ever-larger salaries.
Darien, the thing that amazes me here is that you are so out of touch with the world so as not to know that recruitment costs are high.
Most people involved with recruiting staff know that the cost is between $35K and a one and a half years salary for the position to recruit. So what you’re telling us is that the Department of Labour managed to recruit a quality NZ candidate for a DCE position without spending a years salary for that position to do it.
It sounds like they got something right.
Darien – I’m sure that there are millions of things worthy of being brought to the attention of the public to show how badly the government are running things. I’m just cautioning against a scattergun approach, for that’s what we seem to be getting, especailly where the shots being fired aren’t that interesting to anyone outside the political game. And honestly, this isn’t.
I suggest that the party focuses on a small number of things that really matter to people (for we members of the public are simple people, remember).
I’d really commend ‘Things Can Only Get Better’ by John O’Farrell, which is about the wilderness years of the Labour Party in the UK, ’79 to ’97. The book documents many truths that took UK Labour the best part of 2 decades to get their heads around. It should be required reading for all members of today’s NZ Labour Party.
As a (UK) Labour supporter throughout that period who shared many of the attitudes chronicled I find it both acutely embarrassing and increadibly funny. (For example there’s a wonderful anecdote of the committed party activist who made his journeys across London longer and more tortuous than they needed to be because he refused to travel on the newly opened Jubilee Line on the grounds that he was against the monarchy!)
George I think that you’re right about Labour needing to focus in on the issues that actually matter, and to not get caught up in little-league sniping.
Darien’s post does not fit into that category however. Remember that National came into office on a vow of cutting wasteful government spending. Now in office it is willing to cut spending on things like ACE and modest pay increases for poorly paid hospital cleaners, but doesn’t blink about spending $100k on what ended up being an internal recruitment. That’s rank hypocrisy and it is right for the opposition to call them on it.
@George – will look out for that book
@Michael – thanks – you’re right, but it seems any cutbacks on CEO pay in the public service is “dumb”, at least according to John Key. The other point about this saga is that Coleman made a big deal out of getting an independent person reporting directly to him, and he obviously got rolled on that by the SCC – so we’ve ended up with an extra position in immigration.
@R Singer – I’ve recruited lawyers and accountants, as well as other staff and never spent the sort of money you’re talking about. I’m happy to be out of touch with that kind of extravagance, especially when minimum wage workers got a paltry 25 cents an hour increase this week.
Michael – I don’t think it matters whether in the end the appointment was internal or not. If the post was open to both outsiders and insiders then the costs, as itemised, don’t seem to be excessive for a senior position.
Inevitably when recruiting you incur a significant amount of costs associated with unsuccessful applicants.
I would take it seriously about taxpayers money being wasted if it didn’t come from Labour – who are in a league of their own when it comes to wasting taxpayers money