Cam Slater: Ahem… We Don’t Care What Officials Think. They Work for Us

We are getting many news stories published where we are told that “officials” have advised the Government that they should keep this, or that, or simply not do something that voters elected the Government to deliver, because they don’t agree with the policy.

The latest is “officials” opposing any changes to the 90-day work trial provisions:

Officials suggest the Coalition Government should keep the current 90-day trial settings.

But they have recognised the different options considered are “finely balanced” and a lack of research means there is a limited understanding of the impacts.

The Government will this week move to expand the 90-day trial scheme to all businesses, beyond the current settings which only allow businesses with fewer than 20 employees to use the trial period.

The scheme allows employers who are wary of hiring new employees to employ them for a 90-day trial and dismiss them for any reason.

Importantly, the employee must agree to being subject to the trial period. The previous Labour Government in 2018 pulled back the policy to only apply to businesses with 19 or fewer employees.

Restoring the scheme for all businesses regardless of size is a key part of the new Government’s 100-day plan and is something Workplace Relations and Safety Minister Brooke van Velden said would provide confidence to businesses to hire new people.

But a Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) created for the extension of the scheme reveals officials at the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) prefer keeping the status quo.

They considered three options: the status quo, the Government’s preferred option to extend the trial period to all employers, and extending it to employers with fewer than 100 employees.

“We consider that the main impacts of the 90-day trial policy are perceived insecurity for employees who are on a trial period and reduced costs for employers that choose to dismiss an employee on a trial period,” officials said.

“We consider that smaller employers are more likely to benefit from trial periods because they are less able to absorb the costs of a poor match or dismissal. In comparison, larger employers can be more equipped to manage any dismissal processes and absorb the costs.”

They said there were “diminishing benefits” from increasing the availability from 89 per cent of employers under the status quo to all employers and “this would not outweigh the costs of insecurity to a greater number of employees”.

“We consider that the option to extend trial periods to employers with fewer than 100 employees may lead to greater uncertainty than the other options. Some employers may find it difficult to assess whether they are eligible to use trial periods, particularly if their employee numbers fluctuate around the employee threshold.”

Despite preferring the status quo, the ministry said it considered the three options “finely balanced”. 

 Newshub

Yeah, whatever. “Officials” work for us and they should do what they are told by the democratically elected Government.

If they don’t like that, then leave, or be sacked.

The Public Service are not some quaint hold-back from the past where they are supposed to be politically neutral. They are actually fifth columnist agitators white-anting a government they disagree with.

They are sympathetic to the left, and it shows.

The more I think about it the more I am becoming convinced that Steven Joyce should be appointed Public Services Commissioner…and given a nice sharp axe.

The first order of business is to affirm a new FIFO policy for working under a new Government. Fit in or eff off.

Cam Slater is a New Zealand-based blogger, best known for his role in Dirty Politics and publishing the Whale Oil Beef Hooked blog, which operated from 2005 until it closed in 2019. This article was first published HERE