在新西兰
官方数据揭示出财政部花在外聘顾问的经费已经猛涨至令人“大惊失色”的地步――5年下来涨幅达1014%。 这些数据是在针对附加问题时作回应被提出来的,它们显示出财政部在2007至2008年花了196.8万纽元聘请顾问,
这些数据是在针对附加问题时作回应被提出来的,它们显示出财政部在2007至2008年花了196.8万纽元聘请顾问,而预计在2012至2013年度为请顾问要花掉2192.7万纽元――即增加经费1995.9万纽元,足足涨了1014个百分点。
一方面,财政部声称其数字如此之巨是因为2012至2013年度为出售国有资产项目要花掉1700万纽元顾问费。另一方面,财政部却又承认2192.7万纽元可能还算是低估了。
事实是,钱正在哗哗地流走。即使不把那1700万算在内,自从国家党执政以来,财政部花的顾问费已经翻了一番都不止。
不幸的是这个事实却在人意料之中。当你有这么一个政府――它铁了心要砍削公共服务领域的预算、要裁员,那么各部门无可避免地会被逼到去外请顾问和外包合同的地步。
问题并不在于钱。我们知道一些前雇员又被以外聘顾问的方式重新雇回来,却因此让纳税人花掉多得多的钱。
工党一力促成我国公共服务的高效率并取得成果,然而我们目睹的是政府不留住现成的人才,却宁可花不必要的钱去买技术。(霍建强议员办公室供稿)
Chris HIPKINS State Services Spokesperson
5 December 2012 MEDIA STATEMENT
Consultant spend soars as cutbacks continue
Official figures reveal that Treasury’s spending on consultants has increased by a “gob-smacking’” 1014 per cent over five years, Labour’s State Service spokesperson Chris Hipkins says.
The figures, in responses to the supplementary estimates questions, show that Treasury spent $1.968 million on consultants in the 2007/200 year and is expected to spend an estimated $21.927m in 2012/13 – an increase of $19.959m, or 1014 per cent.
“On the one hand Treasury is saying the figure is so high because $17m is being spent in 2012/13 on consultants for the asset sale programme. On the other it admits the $21.927m estimate could be on the low side.
“The fact is, the money is being spent. Even excluding the $17m Treasury has more than doubled its spend on consultants since National took office.
“Unfortunately it’s not surprising. When you have a Government determined to slash budgets across the state sector and in the process lay off staff, it is inevitable departments will find themselves in the position of being forced to use consultants and contractors.
“This isn’t about value for money. We know that former staff are being re-hired as external consultants at a much greater cost to taxpayers.
“Labour is all for greater efficiency and achieving outcomes in the public service, but what we are seeing now is a Government that favours buying in skills rather than keeping them in-house.