12. PAULA BENNETT (National) Link to this
to the Minister of Labour
Does she have confidence in the Department of Labour; if so, why?
Hon RUTH DYSONHow does she justify her department last year spending nearly $19 million on consultants, including $16 million worth of contracts that were not put out for tender?
I will make two points on that. I do support consultants being used where there is a specific and clear service required for which a permanent staff member should not be employed. That is appropriate. The non-tendering provisions used by the Department of Labour do comply with Cabinet guidelines in terms of what amounts should be tendered for or must be tendered for. The second point I make is that this was during a period of the baseline review and restructuring of the Department of Labour in the 2005-06 to 2006-07 years, with extrapolations for 2007, obviously, to the end of the financial year. There has actually been a decrease in the use of consultants of 30 percent. That is good.
In light of the Minister’s answer, particularly her second point, why did her department last year deliberately breach Cabinet’s mandatory rules for procurement, which were endorsed by Cabinet on 18 April 2006, by awarding 11 contracts in excess of $100,000 without holding a tender?
How does she explain the fact that last year 67 staff in the Department of Labour were paid salaries in excess of $120,000, and does that not look like a department that is out of control?
How does she justify her department’s increasing permanent staff by 303 people last year, and then spending $4.2 million hiring temporary staff, as well?
Throughout the entire 1990s the Department of Labour had very little to do other than to assist in dismantling Government services. Now it is involved in things like the workplace productivity agenda, the introduction and expansion of paid parental leave, implementing pay and employment equity, and facilitating good employer-employee relationships through the partnership resource centre. None of that work was being done under the previous National Government and, actually, the department needs staff to do it well.
Is she willing to admit that the real reason the chief executive, James Buwalda, resigned a year before his contract was up is that her department has become so dysfunctional that if he did not resign, he would have been sacked anyway?
No, and could I suggest that the member spends less time looking at Murray McCully’s view on the world and more time listening to the real world.
Peter BrownWill the Minister confirm that the Department of Labour has, upon her instructions, organised two New Zealand First initiatives—firstly, a review of physiotherapist funding under the accident compensation scheme, and, secondly, an investigation into casualised employment in this country—and does she not believe that although there have been glitches, thus far it has gone very, very well, and that the department should be congratulated on that?
I can confirm the points raised in the member’s question. Both the review of the funding of physiotherapy and the review of casualisation and its effects on New Zealand workers and their families have been instigated by New Zealand First. In my view, the outcomes of those reviews will be of benefit to our whole society.