The first of National election promises

[Lilith7]

Or possibly, bribe. In principle a good idea but its only available per household rather than per child which may mean its of about the same use as a chocolate teapot for many people.


https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politic...han-180000

"If the public service stops hiring so many consultants, National Party leader Christopher Luxon says it could afford greater childcare subsidies.

During his State of the Nation speech on Sunday, Luxon promised he would order the public service to cut $400 million from its consultancy bill. That money, he said, would fund a new childcare policy, giving a 25% rebate to most families’ childcare bills.

The childcare rebates were expected to cost about $250m per year and would be available per household – not per child."

Surely the sensible option would be for govt to cover all childcare costs from our taxes, rather than allowing it to continue to be sometimes not much more than a money making exercise.

[Olive]

Luxon gave a comparison of the costs of consultants in 2018 and in 2022 without any acknowledgement that there has been a global pandemic for almost all of that period. I guess National wants to downplay the pandemic as much as possible in the hope that we'll all forget how incredibly well the Labour government handled it and how many lives were saved.

[Zurdo]

Consultants - I don't think it is a Labour only thing. I wish I grew up to be a Consultant, they get a shit load of money for consulting on something that never happens ! Like, how much did Spark pay for someone for the squiggle logo some 4 year old did. So, so much money spent on nothing...and I bet National will get a consultant in to see where they can cut these costs.

[yousnoozeyoulose]

Mr Luxon knows all this, but they're employed as consultants because National put a cap on public service numbers.

If you reduce the consultant count, you either remove the cap on public service numbers which is not the Blue way, or you ask more of the existing public servants (who aren't super well paid these days). They won't want to do the work for the current salary, so will want more money but that would exceed the wage cap that Labour put in place to get around the "all these people are earning 100k+" problem that the media loved to kick up a stink about.

But to have everything working efficiently, National will need to raise the wage cap which once lifted will be taken advantage of immediately by the government departments because that's how they all operate, and all the savings you've claimed in advance have all but been eroded.

End result, you're paying fewer people more, and funnelling a large chunk of cash through to private childcare providers... can't imagine there'll be any connection between MPs and the providers. No, that would be unseemly...

And also looking forward to hearing the Natfans complain that National are basically encouraging poor people to have kids... because that would be the ideologically consistent thing to do.

[Oh_hunnihunni]

Kissing babies. Useless bloody man...

[Lilith7]

I know I'm allegedly radical (among other labels some have used from time to time) but surely we could use common sense & if need be, raise taxation - particularly for those who have most, though not to a punitive level & do away with stuff such as private healthcare brought to us courtesy of Neo Liberalism & just pay for what's needed at least as far as possible, without leeches getting fat from providing childcare, health etc etc.

Some of the Nordic countries have high taxes which cover most stuff like that & they also have the world's happiest people. Not that we have the same resources they do but we could emulate them as far as is possible.
Large doses of common sense needed in all our political parties, particularly when in govt. Or opposition.

---

Kissing babies. Useless bloody man...

I think we need a law which prevents any politician going within 4 feet of any child not actually their own.....

You have to wonder about their parents too.

[SueDonim]

---

I think we need a law which prevents any politician going within 4 feet of any child not actually their own.....

You have to wonder about their parents too.

Agree with you on that one from MANY angles.

My reading of the promise is that it doesn't reflect numbers of kids at all. If the family is within the income range then the agreed proportion of their total childcare fees will be provided. So all families are being treated equally no matter how many kids they have. And it's only a proportion capped at 25% so still causes problems for those who can't afford the 75%. But at least it's a help.

Re the consultants, I remember when the council I worked for at the time moved from in-house staff to consultants for things like, engineering, maintenance, building consents, etc (at least 25 years ago - probably more). So all the in-house staff started up consulting companies so that the same people then cost twice as much to do the same work. Even if they only charged a fair rate for their overheads, it still cost the ratepayers heaps more. At least the use of consultants means that the government department concerned has some choice in who will supply the service, but many have ongoing contracts, etc so even that doesn't work. A move back to hiring experts and tradies as staff would be better, but would be very difficult to implement now that we are so far down the rabbit hole.

[harm_less]

A move back to hiring experts and tradies as staff would be better, but would be very difficult to implement now that we are so far down the rabbit hole.

There's also the age old saying that 'those than can do, and those that can't teach (or work for the council)' in terms of tradies moving away from their hands-on work. The tradies who take on such roles are often those that lack the skills to work in their respective trade, or are too old to still be on the tools.

[king1]

---

I think we need a law which prevents any politician going within 4 feet of any child not actually their own.....

You have to wonder about their parents too.

Agree with you on that one from MANY angles.

My reading of the promise is that it doesn't reflect numbers of kids at all. If the family is within the income range then the agreed proportion of their total childcare fees will be provided. So all families are being treated equally no matter how many kids they have. And it's only a proportion capped at 25% so still causes problems for those who can't afford the 75%. But at least it's a help.

Re the consultants, I remember when the council I worked for at the time moved from in-house staff to consultants for things like, engineering, maintenance, building consents, etc (at least 25 years ago - probably more). So all the in-house staff started up consulting companies so that the same people then cost twice as much to do the same work. Even if they only charged a fair rate for their overheads, it still cost the ratepayers heaps more. At least the use of consultants means that the government department concerned has some choice in who will supply the service, but many have ongoing contracts, etc so even that doesn't work. A move back to hiring experts and tradies as staff would be better, but would be very difficult to implement now that we are so far down the rabbit hole.

The argument for using consultants does have some merit as inhouse staff require annual leave and holiday pay, sick leave, kiwisaver contributions, and they're harder to get rid of etc  
For roles that are used infrequently or not so many hours per week it can be beneficial to outsource at higher cost, obviously at some point of billable hours worked it would be more beneficial to have them on the payroll

[Oh_hunnihunni]

Then there is the employee who has years with the organisation, rises through the ranks, gets very familiar with the business and heads off to be a consultant, or independent operation contracting to that organisation.

I have an acquaintance who has made a great deal of money as a funding raising consultant to an extremely well known charity. I cannot help thinking the money he has made from them would be better spent on feeding the needy. But, when charities become businesses I guess basic philosophies can change.

And then there's the other case I know of, where an ACC executive set himself up as an 'independent adjudicator' for ACC reviews. And did way better for himself and the organisation than those whose cases came before him.

But maybe that was the rationale.

[Lilith7]

Then there is the employee who has years with the organisation, rises through the ranks, gets very familiar with the business and heads off to be a consultant, or independent operation contracting to that organisation.

I have an acquaintance who has made a great deal of money as a funding raising consultant to an extremely well known charity. I cannot help thinking the money he has made from them would be better spent on feeding the needy. But, when charities become businesses I guess basic philosophies can change.

And then there's the other case I know of, where an ACC executive set himself up as an 'independent adjudicator' for ACC reviews. And did way better for himself and the organisation than those whose cases came before him.

But maybe that was the rationale.

The system stinks & needs a radical overhaul - the sooner, the better because if this continues its only likely to get far worse.