In the not-so-distant past I worked for an engineering consultancy and on occasion felt uncomfortable at the hourly rate we charged our people out at - me included. However, the liability for engineers designing massive structures is substantial and relies on special technical skills (not that I'm under-valuing the importance of getting Child, Youth and Family working well - I just think $1000 a day to oversee a review is payment enough).
As taxpayers we have a say on how governments spend funds but this controversy pales into insignificance when compared with our top private CEOs' pay - Fonterra's Theo Spierings is sneaking up on our top-paid CEO, ANZ's David Hisco, both breaking the $4million mark annually, while 700 Fonterra employees lose their jobs this year.
When 70 per cent of New Zealanders are paid under $50,000 - that's equivalent to 25 days of Paula Rebstock's rate or 25 hours of Theo Spierings' time - I expect a bit more disgust with the idea that people can be worth such hugely different hourly rates.
A salary of $50,000 is about $25 per hour, while Rebstock is 10 times that at $250 per hour, and Spierings is almost another 10 times again at $2000 per hour. Now are Rebstock and Spierings doing eight-hour days as per my rough calculations? Almost certainly not, but people on lower hourly rates are not necessarily knocking off after eight hours either. Am I saying we should all be paid the same amount, regardless of responsibilities, stress, training and personal abilities? No, but I am interested in the concept of a universal basic income - and it's not so extreme if you are comfy with the idea that every retiree gets a guaranteed income, regardless of his or her savings, assets or whether he or she is still paid a salary.
But what really got me this week were two news items relating to beneficiaries' incomes. The first was a Radio New Zealand report that nearly 2000 children were living in households that had lost up to half their incomes due to new sanctions on beneficiaries missing appointments.
Child Poverty Action Group's Susan St John, an associate professor at Auckland University, said she thought more than 40,000 children a year could be impacted. She said: "But we don't how they are affected. There's no accountability. We don't know how these children get fed when their parents lose 50 per cent of their benefit, and there's no evaluation."
And to top it off, another news report that some cancer patients who can no longer work are apparently placed on jobseeker benefits and required to show evidence every month they are not ready for work, regardless of their doctors' written opinions.
It makes me wonder if we've lost the plot with our worship of overpaid bigwigs and our disdain for beneficiaries, cutting already-tight incomes for those raising children or adding stress to those facing cancer. We need to get our priorities back on track with a more caring approach - not tax cuts for the rich.
-Nicola Young has worked in the government and private sectors in Australia and NZ and now works from home in Taranaki for a national charitable foundation.
