Red Alert

Posts Tagged ‘Beehive Staff’

National’s double standards

Posted by on August 20th, 2010

Since they took office, John Key’s National government have been putting our public services under the blowtorch. Most public servants have been refused pay increases and thousands have lost their jobs. But it seems not all spending of taxpayer money is subject to the same level of scrutiny and restraint.

Since National came to power the number of Beehive staff earning over $100,000 a year has more than doubled. Under Helen Clark’s leadership there was only one Beehive staffer who earned over $150,000 a year. John Key seems to think he needs at least 10 of them.

It seems different rules also apply when it comes to pay increases within the Beehive. Questions I asked of Key earlier this year revealed that a number of Beehive staff had been given pay rises, but he refused to release any further information on how big the pay rises were. I asked him again recently and here is his answer:

“I am advised that a small number of ministerial office staff received pay increases, primarily as the result of promotion to new roles in the period 9 February to 5 August 2010. I am not prepared to release specific details about the individual increases.”

Why not? I haven’t asked for any information that would identify individual staff members. All I’ve asked for is information on the scale of the increases and the number of staff who are getting them. National is telling hard-working Kiwis they aren’t allowed pay rises, why should their hired helpers get different treatment?

At a time when many New Zealanders are struggling to pay for the basics like electricity and food, they will find Key’s refusal to front up, justify and explain why he thinks his own staff should be subject to different standards pretty disappointing.


John Key on wages

Posted by on May 4th, 2010

In May last year John Key made these comments on wage growth:

“We will be looking at wage moderation across the state sector at all angles…Clearly the more pressures there are on wages the more difficult it will be for departmental managers to keep current staffing levels…restraint is going to be necessary right across the public sector.”

So is John Key living up to his own standards, or is this just a rule for everyone else? Consider these facts:

  • As of June 2009 the number of staff working in the Beehive earning over $100,000 a year had doubled since the same time in 2008 when Labour was in government
  • 16 ministerial staff received a pay rise in 2009, yet Key is refusing to release any information about them

Why does John Key think that those working in ministerial offices should be subject to different standards to those working in the rest of the public sector? Or does he just believe that there should be one rule for himself and another for everyone else?

Note: I haven’t asked Key to provide any information that would identify individual staff. I’ve simply asked what % increase the staff got and what salary bands they were in. Perhaps Key just thinks the answer is too embarrassing?


More on Purchase Advisors

Posted by on October 4th, 2009

As I noted yesterday, it’s now become very clear that the new National-led government is spending more on staffing the Beehive than the previous Labour administration, despite their rhetoric about everyone having to make sacrifices.

The revelation earlier this year that Bill English had hired an elite team of expensive purchase advisors to identify savings for the Budget made a few ripples at the time, partly because the government had tried to keep it secret and partly because of the unorthodox way they had tried to hide the way they were being funded.

At the time English promised to put in place more enduring arrangements for funding the purchase advisors but now it looks like they have ditched the idea completely. Good stuff. It’s hard to see how they added much value to the process at all. A quick scan of the numbers suggests that most of the savings they identified were ‘under spends’ that would have been returned to the govt anyway.

In fact Graham Scott, the ex-Treasury head advising English himself, questioned the value of his own work and decided not the charge the govt at all. A direct quote from him: “It wasn’t as if there was a whole lot of fat there I could advise them to get rid of.” So much for English’s claim that the Wellington ‘bureaucracy’ was bloated!


More “Simon Says” from National

Posted by on October 3rd, 2009

When I was a kid we used to play a game called Simon Says. The object of the game was to get people to do as you said, but not as you did. The National-led government seem to have taken the game of Simon Says to a whole new level. They’ve adopted it as a political ideology.

While Bill English has been spouting doom and gloom around the country and telling everyone to tighten their belts, he and his colleagues have been inventing new and creative ways to rort the system in order to feather their own nests.

Take for example the spending on Beehive staff. Earlier this year Labour revealed that National had more than doubled the number of Beehive staff earning over $100,000 a year. Key and English waved that away saying that while they were paying higher salaries, they were employing fewer staff.

However that’s simply not true. Comparing the number of staff employed by Ministerial Services in June 2009 with the number employed at the same time last year we learn that the National government in fact employs only one less staff member. The salary bill is only marginally lower than it was under Labour.

But when we add in the cost of Bill English’s hand-picked purchase advisors (just under $300,000), and the fact that they have splashed out over $165,000 on ‘communications consultants’ it becomes clear that the National government are in fact spending considerably more staffing the Beehive.

It’s no wonder Bill English has a credibility problem.


Nats still splashing out on themselves

Posted by on July 16th, 2009

Earlier this year Labour revealed that the new National government had massively hiked up the salaries of Beehive staffers following the last election. Recent stats show there are 38 staff in the Beehive earning over $100,000 a year compared with just 16 in June last year. John Key claimed that while National was paying staff more, it was employing fewer of them. That’s not true. In June last year there were 162 Beehive staffers. In March this year there were 156, but that doesn’t include the six ‘purchase advisors’ Bill English instructed departments to hire and pay for.

A written parliamentary question I received today reveals that they have also spent over $220,000 on communications ‘consultants’ since the last election. So in addition to hiking up Beehive staff salaries, they’ve been raiding the public purse for consultants too. I don’t object to paying Beehive staff competitive salaries (I was a former Beehive staffer after all), but massive pay rises and splashing out on expensive consultants does look hypocritical at a time when they’re asking the rest of the public service to stomach cuts. It seems they think the burden of the recession should fall on everyone except themselves.


Nats don’t walk the walk

Posted by on June 28th, 2009

The new National government aren’t exactly walking the walk when it comes to belt tightening. In the first three months of this year, National Ministers spent $739,000 on travel, more than double the $336,000 Labour ministers spent in the same period in 2008. This follows news that they have also doubled the number of ministerial staffers earning over $100,000 a year and approved hiring of consultants on rates of up to $2000 a day. Not exactly leading by example are they?

While I’m on the topic of Beehive staff and consultants, Colin James has written a very thoughtful piece on the political neutrality of public servants. He makes a lot of good points, including that the time for clarifying whether ministerial advisors are public servants or not has well and truly come. As a former ministerial advisor myself, I never regarded myself as a public servant, my accountability was directly to the minister I worked for. It’s a grey area that definitely needs clarifying.

James also has concerns about the arrangements for the hiring of purchase advisors and the recent decision to place a minister-appointed ‘minder’ within the Department of Labour to look after the Immigration Service. The way both of these decisions have been made, in my view, contradicts the spirit, if not the letter, of the State Sector Act and the Public Finance Act. I’m disappointed the State Services Commissioner hasn’t seen fit to object.

[Correction: Treasury have apologised for getting the figures wrong on travel, so the first part of this post is incorrect. The stuff about Beehive staff and consultants is still accurate, so the general message is still valid. CH]


Purchase advisors

Posted by on May 7th, 2009

Last week I revealed that the National government had engaged a number of “purchase advisors” on instruction from Bill English. He specifyed the rate they are to be paid and provided a list of people he thinks suitable for the role. The cost is being met by the ministry or department, although the advisor is answerable only to the minister concerned.

This makes a mockery of National’s claims earlier in the year that they were cutting back on the number of Beehive staff. Mr English’s insistence that the advisors not be funded by Ministerial Services (who pay for other ministerial staff) makes it clear that this is a backdoor way of increasing the number of Beehive staff.

It also smacks of political interference. Section 33 of the State Sector Act makes it clear that departmental chief executives must act independently of ministers when making employment decisions. Clearly that hasn’t happened here.

National MPs trying to argue that the purchase advisors are contractors and not employees may like to recall the fuss they made about contracting arrangements for communications staff at the Ministry for the Environment in 2007.

Labour does not object to ministers receiving independent purchase advice. Ministers in the last Labour government seconded purchase advisors from Treasury and one or two had independent advisors funded by Ministerial Services.

These arrangements were completely transparent. The arrangements put in place by National are quite the opposite. If these purchase advisors are providing such sound advice and adding so much value, why didn’t the government just front up about engaging them in the first place?