-
Watch Video
-
Related
Labour leader Phil Goff wants a cap on the salaries of public service chief executives.
In his first major speech of the year, Goff has said CEOs should never be paid more than the Prime Minister, adding that just under $400,000 a year should be enough to attract good people to the public service.
The Prime Minister is paid $393,000 a year, but Labour claims 16 public servants currently earn more.
"If $400,000 or nearly $400,000 isn't enough for you to be the head of a public service department then maybe you've got to examine what the word public service actually means," Goff says.
Top earners in the public sector include Foreign Affairs head John Allen, who is paid $610,000.
Salaries of up to $560,000 are also paid to Ministry of Health chief executive Stephen McKernan, Ministry of Social Development head Peter Hughes and the head of Treasury, John Whitehead.
Goff, who was re-elected as Labour's leader at the party's caucus on Tuesday, called on the National government to "deliver for the many, and not the few".
He says Labour believes the entire workforce is deserving, not just the CEOs.
Goff also talked about the proposed changes to the tax system and ACC, as well as the state of the country's social services.
Goff's stance "fairly pathetic"
Prime Minister John Key has slated Goff's speech.
Key says the opposition leader has had too much time on the beach reflecting on the government's performance.
"(It's a) fairly pathetic speech actually," he says.
"The question you have to say, is that it? He has had nine years in government as a minister, he's had all summer to think about what's going on and his answer is to cap the salaries of 16 people."
Key says the government spends $62 billion a year and needs the best CEOs possible.
Do you think public service CEOs should be paid more than the prime minister? Will we get the right people for the job if there is a salary cap? Have your say on the messageboard below
Add a Comment:
Post new commentSez_27 said on 2010-01-30 @ 15:20 NZDT: Report abusive post
Phil Goff has a relevant point here. If a ridiculous amount of money to fund an unnecessarily extravagant lifestyle is the only possible incentive to get these people working hard, we need to review why they are "running" our country. The true nature of the characters in such vital roles affect each & every person living here. To some, it may seem like one very "pathetic" point to broadcast, but it is only a solid example of how we as a collective believe our money should be used.
tra said on 2010-01-29 @ 22:16 NZDT: Report abusive post
@zapster; totally agree,perhaps paying them minimal wage,and see how /if they go after those positions.gotta ask why Goff wasn't jumping up n down about this when they were n power,bunch of clowns the lot of them
zapster said on 2010-01-28 @ 16:44 NZDT: Report abusive post
some of the richest people on this planet are trying to run the world...look at the job they're doing
MysticCradle said on 2010-01-28 @ 15:58 NZDT: Report abusive post
Who cares? This is eralevant to the majority of nz. If they have been in the position for a long time, they are entitled to a pay increase. Is it any of our business how much 16 odd people get paid? It doesn't effect us so it shouldn't even be up for discussion.
benrebo said on 2010-01-28 @ 14:48 NZDT: Report abusive post
Frankly, I don't see a relationship between the two but I do think that in the public AND private sector this argument about paying enough to get good people is well over done. I don't see any great correlation between high pay and performance, most of the worlds best performing companies are not the highest payers. High pay is usually just a function of history