| National’s pitch to voters is both progressive and shrewd. Christopher Luxon declared a war on business consultants in his state of the nation speech yesterday, promising to crack down on the public service’s $1.7bn overuse of expensive business consultants and contractors, and use the savings to fund an expensive new $249m annual subsidy for childcare costs of those in work.
A Populist attack on business consultants in government
External contractors have become an increasingly large part of Labour’s public policy making process – especially those from the “Big Four” business consultancies of Deloitte, KPMG, Ernst and Young (EY) and PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC). They charge government departments huge amounts – such as the $9000 per week, per consultant, for the failed RNZ-TVNZ merger.
The overuse of “consultocrats” is now costing the taxpayer $1.7bn a year. Luxon announced that National was going to focus on reducing that figure by at least 25 per cent, or $400m, and repurpose the savings to low- and middle-income families.
When asked whether he was concerned for the jobs lost by the business consultants he replied: “I feel very good about that. Big-time, big partners at consulting firms up and down New Zealand, thank you very much, but your money is going away, and we’re giving it to hardworking families.”
Luxon is really hitting out hard at the consultants, describing them as being on a “gravy train” and declaring “Under National, this gravy train will stop at the station.” The Spinoff’s Toby Manhire thinks this will be very popular, saying today that “making consultants the whipping boys, is a winner”.
What’s more, the attack on the consultants is something that Labour will find difficult to disagree with, and they will not want to defend the ballooning costs in this area.
While in opposition, Prime Minister Chris Hipkins campaigned against the growing use of costly consultants and criticised National’s overuse of such contractors. However, Hipkins then became the Minister of Public Service, under Jacinda Ardern, and oversaw massive increases.
Conservative political commentator Liam Hehir points out the problem for Labour: “This puts the government in a difficult position, particularly since the explosion in private bureaucracy occurred under the watch of now prime minister Chris Hipkins, who promised the opposite. So now Labour must either accept the criticism or defend the consultants who have done so well at the expense of public finances in the recent years. It’s a hard position for Labour to be put in.”
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
National’s Family Boost is a leap to the left
The new childcare policy announced by Luxon is a rebate, which would give families with young children up to $75 a week, with a cap of $3,900 every year, depending on their income and use of early childhood education. Under the policy dubbed “Family Boost”, the full $75 a week will be available to families earning up to $140,000, and this will taper off for those earning up to the cut-off point of $180,000.
It is estimated that the policy will advantage 130,000 families. This policy is therefore a significant increase in the welfare state, and it is not a replacement for any other current childcare policy, but goes on top of current programmes.
Family Boost might therefore be seen as a big leap to the left by Luxon. Certainly, the policy has been well received by those who might normally be critical of National. As Newsroom political editor Jo Moir writes today, “Even left-leaning commentators and elected representatives couldn’t find fault, with several even endorsing the policy.”
So, if “Working For Families” was as John Key described, “Communism by stealth”, then this policy is something similar.
By focusing on the “squeezed middle”, and tilting the new policy towards low-income earners, National has made a raid into Labour’s own ideological territory, obviously with the hope of picking up traditional Labour and swinging voters.
Moir said the policy “sounds like something out of the Labour Party playbook”, while the Spinoff’s Toby Manhire pointed out that in listening to Luxon’s speech “you could be mistaken for thinking it was the other Chris, Hipkins of Labour, that was speaking.”
Political strategists refer to this as “triangulation”, in which a politician adopts the type of policy that is normally put forward by an opponent, which means that their opposition has trouble criticising it.
Stuff political editor Luke Malpass says today that the Labour Party will be deeply worried about this latest development: “this was one issue which Labour was quietly worried about: if the National Party went for a big, transformative (and expensive) childcare policy framed in terms of getting women into the workforce, easing the labour shortage while also coincidentally finding a way to dish out some middle-class welfare at a time when cash is tight, it could be quite bad for Labour.”
Similarly, the Herald’s Thomas Coughlan points out the problem for Labour: “Childcare costs are a deep foray into Labour territory – so much so that the words on the page of Luxon’s speech might have been lifted from Ardern herself (the delivery, of course, was quite different). That National should devise a policy that is more universal and costly than Ardern’s should be alarming to Labour.”
The policy can also be seen as politically progressive, in assisting women back into the workforce. Thomas Coughlan explains: “The cost of childcare has become an enormous political issue for both major parties. Childcare costs mean that parents, usually mothers, delay returning to the workforce after giving birth.” Coughlan himself suggests the policy could be described as “feminist”.
And yet, according to Coughlan, National can also pitch the policy as fulfilling National’s traditional philosophies too, as it “fits within the party’s philosophy of self-reliance and empowerment through work.”
The real shrewdness of the policy is that it is being conceptualised as a “switch” of spending – from rich consultants to struggling families. This means National can’t be criticised for fueling inflation with their new big spend – because they can claim to be repurposing money from elsewhere.
National-aligned commentator David Farrar points out how persuasive the policy will be politically: “I, for one, would much rather have my taxes go on helping low and middle income families with young children, than paying $250 an hour consultants to design a billion dollar cycle bridge or merge together two state media companies that have nothing in common.”
But will the policy really work?
There will be some questions about whether National really can make the $400m cutbacks in management consultants. To do so, they will be relying on the edict to government departments to do so. National will also put much more emphasis on the agencies to report their use of contractors.
The other big question is whether the childcare policy will result in higher prices and bigger profits for childcare providers. When the state increases subsidies for provision of social services from the private sector, those businesses will likely just charge much more.
Luxon’s answer to this is that childcare prices won’t go up because childcare is a “competitive market”.
However, this isn’t so clear. On Saturday, Stuff published a report on for-profit early childhood providers which suggested that state subsidies just end up in big profits for the owners of those businesses. Further debate and research is clearly required. More regulation might be required in this sector if it’s going to be the recipient of even more taxpayer funds. As Thomas Coughlan argues, “A regulatory eye on childcare providers’ margins would not go amiss.”
It’s hard to see how much of a change this big policy announcement will make on the election, but it shows just how much “bread and butter” concerns are now driving New Zealand politics.
It also shows that something of a “great realignment” might be occurring in New Zealand politics. Listener political columnist Danyl Mclauchlan has written about how a slow yet deep shift is occurring in democratic politics that is transforming the traditional left into parties dominated by educated urban elites, while the right reinvents themselves as coalitions of a multi-ethnic working class.
As a result, it’s not surprising if parties of the right begin focusing more on policies to deliver on the needs of that coalition. And it’s therefore perhaps no accident that Luxon also spoke so much yesterday about New Zealand becoming a multicultural nation instead of a bicultural nation. This signals that National might be coming after that traditional vote in ways that Labour could have trouble responding to.
The ball is in Labour’s court. It needs to show that it can better deliver policies to its own traditional base.
The problem for Labour is that they are increasingly associated with what political scientists call society’s “professional management class” – which is epitomised by the highly-paid business consultants in the bureaucracy. Given National’s new focus against these professionals in favour of working families, Chris Hipkins is going to have to speed up Labour’s shift in focus from the “woking class” to the working class. |
Of course we ended up using consultants so much in the first place because of Nationals cutting buerocrat numbers. Cutting consultants without putting that money back into ministries means cuttings those ministries – which would be a great arguement against, if the public actually saw those ministries doing anything useful.
I don’t know where all that lands. We already had ACT promising to axe several ministries entirely, and now Nats want to cut ministries in size – though it remains to be seen where those consultant cuts come from, for all I know axing ACTs list of ministries gets Nats all of their cuts without even touching the others, which would make it an empty policy.
National campaining, Labour explaining. And fwiw, Labours use of consultants is abuse of tax payers monies.
And Nationals isn’t? You really are blue rise brainwashed. It’s sad Whale Oil closed down, you are missed.
An absolute abuse of taxpayers money.
I see Chippie the biggest spender.
All done in…the best possible taste!
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/banker-who-earns-23m-from-hnz-wins-most-lucrative-contracts/7NIG2E6M2EXWJNAAK2LWBUYOOE/
Just a point of clarification, the Consultants in the RNZ/ TVNZ merger were being paid up to $9k PER DAY, rather than per week as noted in the article.
I wonder if Air NZ used any consultants whilst Luxon was CEO?
Rebuild the Public Service so they can do the research and advice.
Same as us used to work home ownership,wage afford child care,and a Kiwi, CARE WITHOUT CORPORATIONS,DICTATE.listen,morning Radio,tv, shows and, and not most members not in the debth of capitalisms, exploit their age will educate, the cancer of capitalism its exploit and profit manipulation,time they can!t see or understand our then N.Z. GOVERNMENT control cared and done,are we now to far gone with greeds profit uncaring, health educaction child care public transport,as a base concrete foundation, should be Nationalised for whoever the government,and never sold off to greed profit.
National have certainly hit the spot with this announcement. Headline every news on Sunday both TV AND radio, head line front page in the Chch Press with all page 2 taken with details .To add to this on page 6 a candidate selected for National in 2023 was a back room worker for Labour in 2017. She is a highly successful medical person and was left disappointed with Labour’s direction in this area.
One swallow does not make a summer but with this type of exposure it will be interesting how the next popularity poll pans out
That women will regret moving to a party who wants to restrict health care to only those that can afford it. Mind you, she represents GP’s, who bascially want to be able to charge as much as a dentist does for just about everything. The health system will not improve until they cut their greed.
Trevor what do you expect with the right wing media , this policy hasn’t been properly costed yet and when will it actually happen , the first year or second year? or as with the nats never. This means no work gets done by the government. Will it be Luxon, Willis and Brown Ltd consulting on roads and infrastructure. How much will the cyclone cost who will consult on that. Plus no one has pointed out that the nacts want to cut 14000 jobs. Will this be the brain drain they accused the government of wanting . Will all these experienced people go off shore to countries that still use consultants, will nothing happen in NZ. I can feel austerity coming on
This isn’t unique to the NZ government but a global trend brought about by public servants and politicians afraid to make economic decisions and outsourcing this responsibility to consultants.
The Big Con – a vital and timely investigation into how the consulting industry has made its way to the heart of our economies and governments – and what to do about it.
https://www.penguin.co.nz/books/the-big-con-9781802060270
PB, Looks like an interesting read.
Corporate management (Luxon’s continual self claim to fame) have been outsourcing to ‘consultants’ for decades.
The true cost of the continual decimating of th public service in the name of ‘savings’ coming to light.
$75 ,a week got three weins,almost $800, without a boss rise dare talent pay,or look,dont breed,or clean up the slash, workers farmers call it farmy army,no wages, for six to eight months,just select your skills for our help,week end sausage sizzle, no mutton or ram on the menu,just sausage sizzle and hope government accomidation, for our profit of your egit exploit of your humanity.Join the Farmy ARMY.
and that would be the ‘big 4’ whos fraudulant accounting caused the GFC would it? a post with any one of those should come with a lifetime ban from any govt position