Cabinet Ministers defend hiking board fees by 80%
Cabinet ministers are defending a move to hike board fees for Crown bodies by up to 80 percent, insisting those in the roles are overseeing billions of dollars - not just "beer and skittles."
Labour says the decision proves the government is out-of-touch with the cost-of-living crisis and has accused it of trying to sneak the news by the public.
A Cabinet document, quietly uploaded online on Monday, shows ministers agreed to lift the maximum annual fee for chairs of governance boards from $90,000 to about $162,000.
The "Cabinet Fees Framework" is not binding but provides guidance to ministers when deciding compensation for those on a range of bodies, such as royal commissions and ministerial inquiries.
Speaking on Tuesday, Luxon said public sector fees had become completely "out of whack" with private sector rates and needed a reset.
"We need to make that a little bit more competitive, so that we can actually attract good talent," he said.
Luxon said paying more to ensure "really good governance teams" could save billions in the long run.
Finance Minister Nicola Willis echoed the point, stressing that New Zealanders deserved value for money.
"This isn't beer and skittles. This is billions of dollars of public money. We need the very best people making governance decisions about it."
Public Service Minister Judith Collins told reporters that the updated fees still fell short of private sector rates - around 80 percent of the going rate.
"A lot of people who are experienced directors don't want to do these jobs in the public sector because they know they're going to lose money," she said.
Collins said she did not think the public would be worried by the news.
"One of the problems is that we've had an underperforming public service that's taken a hell of a lot of taxpayers' money, and so it is very important that we have the right people in charge of that." Hipkins accuses government of 'twisted priorities'
Labour leader Chris Hipkins said the decision revealed the government's "twisted priorities" at a time when households were doing it tough.
"They're saying that board members can get up to 80 percent increases in their pay, whilst nurses and teachers are being told to settle for 1 pecent or less," he said.
"They've said everyone needs to tighten their belts - apparently except for the people who they hand-picked to put on public sector boards."
Hipkins rejected the idea that higher fees were necessary to attract quality candidates, calling it "absolute nonsense."
He said many public appointees had altruistic motivations and were already sitting on "very well paid directorships" in the private sector as well.
"They're not doing it for the money," Hipkins said.
Hipkins accused the government of trying to "slip this [announcement] out quietly" without scrutiny.
But Luxon denied any secrecy: "It's normal practice... how it's been communicated."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
27 minutes ago
- Scoop
Balancing Risk With Overreach In Our Terror Laws
The government wants to tighten our terror laws, but critics fear it will mean a corresponding trampling of advocacy groups and free speech. The government is eyeing an overhaul of the country's terrorism legislation, which is necessary, it says, to keep New Zealanders safe in a rapidly evolving world and keep pace with modern threats. However, critics are warning that the move could come at a steep price, specifically a loss of civil liberties. The proposed changes, still in the closed-door consultation phase with a handpicked selection of groups and experts, would give police and intelligence agencies broader powers to intervene earlier, redefine what constitutes a "terrorist act" and expand preventative detention powers, all in the name of public safety. Today, The Detail spoke with Newsroom national affairs editor Sam Sachdeva and University of Waikato terrorism and firearms expert Alexander Gillespie about the potential changes to the Terrorism Suppression Act and how the government will balance risk without resorting to overreach. "What this is really about is are our current terror laws fit for purpose, and where do we draw the line between dealing with the very real threat that is posed by terrorist groups and terrorists, while still preserving the fundamental political freedoms and rights and liberties that all New Zealanders hold dear," Sachdeva told The Detail. He said critics, worried that those freedoms and rights are now at risk, are fired up. "Look, they are. We have seen the Council for Civil Liberties, [and] the Free Speech Union has now come out as well, expressing some concern about this. "So, it's early stages, but it seems like it's something that could quite easily animate or light a fire under a lot of these rights groups who are concerned." The terror law, enacted in 2002 following the 11 September terror attacks, allows governments to formally designate people or groups as terrorist entities, freezing their assets and making it illegal to financially support, recruit for, or participate in a designated terrorist entity. Minor changes were made after the 15 March terror attack in 2019 and the New Lynn Countdown Supermarket attack in 2021. Sachdeva said among the new potential changes are making membership of a terrorist entity a criminal offence, creating new offences to capture public expressions of support for a terrorist act or designated entities - including showing insignia - and modernising definitions for terms like "material support" to capture new online forms of support. Extending the renewal period for terrorist designations to five years, from three at present, is also being considered. The government said there will be safeguards and judicial oversight. The proposed changes are expected to go before Parliament later this year. Gillespie, speaking to The Detail from Vienna, where he is working on gun reforms, said the threat of a terror attack has long lingered in New Zealand, and while the likelihood of another attack will never be zero, the risk can be lowered. "Part of reducing that risk is making sure the law is as good as it can be. That the balance between civil liberties and risk is correct. And that we have proportionate penalties for those who are willing to advocate the use of violence against civilians to change policy. "I support looking at it... I think it's foreseeable that the tensions in our society are going to be around for the foreseeable future. And to make sure they are fit for purpose, because when I look back at recent times, our laws weren't fit for purpose, and now we need to be thinking, 'what more can we do?'." While the debate on security versus liberty and protection versus principle will undoubtedly continue, one thing is certain -in the fight against terror, New Zealand is searching for a line, but it will not be easy to draw. here.
The Spinoff
2 hours ago
- The Spinoff
What the latest jobs data is (and isn't) telling us
June's employment indicators suggest New Zealand's labour market is weakening – but topline numbers don't show the full extent of the struggle, writes Catherine McGregor in today's extract from The Bulletin. A disappointing curtain-raiser jobs report New figures from Stats NZ show New Zealand had 27,850 fewer filled jobs in June 2025 than a year earlier, with construction accounting for nearly half that drop. Yet on a monthly basis, jobs rose slightly – a 0.1% increase – though economists warn the figures, drawn from IRD payroll data, are often revised down. Known as the Monthly Employment Indicators (MEI), this dataset gives a useful early signal about labour market trends but is less comprehensive than the official unemployment rate, due out next week. That figure currently sits at 5.1%, up from 4.0% at the start of 2024. Despite the technicalities, the trend is clear: job growth is stalling, especially outside the booming primary sector. David Hargreaves at says the Reserve Bank's already-muted optimism for employment growth may have been misplaced. 'The RBNZ has forecast the unemployment number will rise to 5.2%. It's looking possible we may in fact see 5.3%.' Underemployment hides in plain sight If the stats are merely average, why does the job market feel so bleak? Writing in the Herald (Premium paywalled), Liam Dann points to types of jobseekers who often aren't captured in the figures: New Zealanders opting out of the labour force altogether by leaving for Australia, people giving up and returning to study, and those who are underemployed. While part-time roles are growing, that's often not by choice. As RNZ's Evie Richardson reports, an increasing number of people are cobbling together multiple part-time jobs, not out of preference but necessity. As CTU economist Craig Renney puts it: 'These are people who might well want to work full-time, can't find full-time work but will happily take any job just to keep an income coming into their household.' Writing on his own blog, Renney explains a phenomenon called wage scarring – 'where people take any job to pay the bills, but it traps them in lower paid work which affects their earnings for a significant period of time'. MBIE found that 'New Zealand workers tend to bear more significant income and employment 'scars' than workers in other OECD countries'. Writes Renney: 'The high-level data suggests that we are likely setting up another round of wage scarring right now.' Young, eager and locked out No group is feeling the downturn more than young people. Nationwide, 16% of 15 to 24-year-olds are now unemployed, and there has been a 41% increase in Jobseeker Support claims for 18-24 year olds over the past two years. 'If you're a young person out there who can't find a job: it's not you, it's them,' Infometrics economist Brad Olsen tells The Press's Elsie Williams (paywalled). He says the problem is structural: fewer roles, more competition, and employers demanding experience young workers don't yet have. Olsen says it's not just about short-term fixes – the government must help young people gain the skills that industries actually need. Without that, a generation risks being left behind. Fixing a system that fails both sides Writing in The Spinoff this morning, Max Rashbrooke argues it's not just the job market that's broken – the welfare-to-work system is too. Drawing from a new report for the Institute for Democratic and Economic Analysis (Idea), a thinktank he co-founded, Rashbrooke outlines how Work and Income fails to serve either jobseekers or employers. Because beneficiaries aren't screened for job suitability, businesses waste time interviewing unfit candidates while jobseekers end up in roles wildly misaligned with their skills. As Rashbrooke notes, up to half of the workforce may be in roles that don't match their capabilities, a drag on productivity and morale alike. His solutions include tailored job plans based on a deep understanding of each jobseeker's background and a major uplift in investment in vocational education and mid-career retraining. In a market where work is harder to find, he says, the system should be doing far more to help people make the most of their potential – not less.
Newsroom
4 hours ago
- Newsroom
What NZ's industrial policy can learn from the Aussies
Opinion: I recently spent a few days at the Institute of Australian Geographers' annual conference in Newcastle. In these straitened times, academics are increasingly (and quite rightly) asked to justify such travel, but I learned a lot from four days listening to Australian academics. Though thinking like an Australian is not something I have ever considered, save maybe as a curse endured by Aussies, it turns out there might be more to it than meets the eye. Edgy Aussie scholarship New Zealand's small contingent of academic and student geographers held their own in Newcastle, but in a shrinking number of fields and often with a less edgy scholarliness than their Australian counterparts. New Zealanders addressed some of the changes in our places and brought matters of care, concern, and Indigenous rights and perspectives to bear on local and national political debates. Many explored initiatives to strengthen participatory management and collaborative governance within and beyond the state. Australia's geographers introduced similar research to do with changing places and environments in Australia, and some also asked sharply critical questions about worlds near and far. There were papers, for example, on climate-driven economic and social collapse, detailed analyses of the geography of industrial and labour market change, the intergenerational trauma of warfare, and the border-bending effects of airborne policing of migrant boats in the Mediterranean. What all this told me is that I should harden my resolve to struggle against initiatives within and beyond my own university that I believe put universities' scholarly traditions at risk. These must be safeguarded as we pursue ways of weaving scholarship more effectively into public service. We owe this to the scholars, intellectuals, artists, discoverers, global diplomats, prophets of peace and so on – the products of our universities whose intellectual achievements we all celebrate as core to our nation. As they do in Australia. Economic powerhouse Just being in Australia was a reminder that we live 3.5 hours away from a global economic powerhouse. Our size, resource base, history, and distance from other places limits our capacity to be more like Australia. Nor can we model ourselves on Denmark, Singapore, Israel, Ireland, or Finland (the Government's comparator-du-jour). However, thinking more deeply as a geographer, making more of our proximity to Australia is a no-brainer. Despite celebrating and reaffirming our ties to Australia every 10 years on the anniversary of the Closer Economic Relations agreement, there is little evidence between those celebrations of us making any strategic leveraging of our closeness to Australia. It rarely surfaces in either mundane political debates or longer-term strategic policy. Being in Australia brought that home to me. Futures made in Australia I attended a session at the conference in which economic geographers debated the 'Future Made in Australia' policy, a 10-year, A$23 billion green transitions programme. The session celebrated a return to industrial policy in Australia after 35 years of neoliberalism, but it also asked some serious questions about contradictory objectives. For instance, panellists asked whether in its implementation the policy's transitions objectives were already being compromised by infrastructural investment to underpin a new round of resource industries. They asked how big infrastructural projects would boost an industrial ecosystem dominated by small to medium-sized firms. They asked how the policy would deal with the problems of transitioning regional workforces to the skills required of digital industries, and whether the policy would arrest the drift of regional populations to the cities, and even whether this was a desirable or appropriate goal. Australia's geographers plotted the research-led investigations necessary to address these questions – before the futures to be made turn into the mistakes of a past relived. These are precisely the questions that animated economic geography as a sub-discipline before economic policy was captured by the failed imaginaries of decades of neoliberal globalisation. Don't worry, people are mobile labour units, and their lives will be resolved and their potential maximised by competitive markets. Wrong and wrong – as geographers knew then and the Trumpian moment illustrates now, in so many ways. One long-term collaborator asked me what the debate was like across the Tasman. 'We don't have these debates,' I said with some embarrassment. 'The best we have in terms of industrial policy is 'Grow, baby, grow'.' In the interest of national pride, I omitted to add, 'as for a transitions agenda, regions, or labour-force skills, the current policy appears to be replacing regional government with a squadron of space police'. Universities as infrastructure In another session, urban geographer Kristian Ruming laid out a framework for assessing the crucial part played by universities in urban and national economy and society. He described universities as crucial resources of urban and national infrastructure – physical and cultural hubs that shape, provide, and deliver diverse social, cultural, economic, informational, educational, and knowledge foundations for cities and nations. As with other infrastructure, universities facilitate flows of, and access to, utilities, goods, people, and ideas. They are essential to sustaining contemporary social life, and they create opportunities to imagine, produce and enjoy better futures. Ruming also argued that universities were rarely understood in these terms. Instead, universities were being reinterpreted as solvers of state problems, as unnecessarily expensive government-funded industry training establishments, or centres for the cultivation of privileged discontent that must be squashed. Universities deliver so much more. Governments are right to demand public accountability from universities, but this demand should begin by recognising the full breadth of universities' infrastructural value. What I learned in Newcastle will enhance my teaching, research and institutional service. I'm confident it will yield more than the cost of a few hours' advice from a Big Four consultant on what to do with our universities or our country. The point is not that we must be like Australia, but that there is value in thinking like Australia, at least for a moment. We cannot be big, brash, and part of crucial global circuits of finance, resources, and geopolitical concern. But we can support our universities to debate and confront who we are and who we are not, how we should build our economy, and how we might imagine ourselves into creative and self-assured economic, cultural and political subjects. Our policy suite is more constrained than Australia's, but it ought to build on remembering who we have been and what we have done and celebrating what we have become, to imagine and invest in unfolding futures. This need not mean rejecting growth or embracing without question global tech entrepreneurs, but it should mean some thinking and must mean something more than 'growth' for its own sake, exporting resources, or scrambling for spittle from the slavering jaws of the tech bros. Matariki is the season for this kind of thinking. A time to task our universities with leading us on a journey of 'Future Made in Aotearoa'.
