Englishs rejection of SSC advice on purchase advisers totally cynical

Government rejection of official advice to pay $2000-a-day private purchase advisers like Graeme Scott out of ministerial funds shows how far National is down the track of politicising the public service, says Labour Internal Affairs spokesperson Chris Hipkins.

Finance Minister Bill English’s insistence that the Government’s private purchase advisers should instead be paid out of departmental funds is “totally cynical,” Chris Hipkins said. Traditionally political advisers are paid out of ministerial funds.

The Government’s position has been revealed in papers supplied by the State Services Commission to Radio New Zealand under the Official Information Act.

“Before the election, National was adamant it would resist politicisation of the public service. So what is one of the first things it does? It foists its own sort of people, such as ACT candidate Graeme Scott, on to the books of government departments at the same time as it is sacking legitimate public servants.

“Prime Minister John Key says the private advisers are providing tremendous value. If they undermine the neutrality of the public service, they are doing anything but provide tremendous value.”

Chris Hipkins said there were two obvious motives for Mr English’s rejection of official advice.

“The first is that National wants its own moles effectively in decision-making positions within key government departments like Treasury and Health. So much for political neutrality --- National is not even paying lip service to the concept.

“The second reason is that National wants to conceal the real cost of ministerial services. There has already been uncomfortable controversy for National over the blowout in salary levels in ministerial offices, and Bill English clearly wanted to keep the Scott salary out of the public spotlight,” Chris Hipkins said.

“The secrecy and duplicity has now come back to bite Bill English and John Key in a big way.

“This Government’s campaign rhetoric on the public service was nothing more than hypocrisy. It is clearly prepared to put the integrity of the public service at risk for its own purposes.”