It might even have avoided the situation where 55% of all employees the Department of Sport & Recreation (SPARC) are paid more than $100,000.

It is petty.

It is vindictive.

Maybe he is trying to turn himself into Helen Clark.

Indeed, If Goff gets his way (Tui right there) Key’s going to love his pay rise when there is a crisis recruiting the next Governor after Bollard jumps for a cushy economist role with a bank.

concerning the NZ economy I suspect our problems are more than just poor politicians. It was no surprise that David F should mention this “but for the Governor of the Reserve Bank it may well mean more than the PM. The Governor’s competence has a huge impact on the economy” That an unelected person can constantly screw our manufacturing and productive base is something we must discuss.

That is a fair point, but few CEO’s get rewarded like Cullen did after his policies created a recession in NZ before the global crisis. NZ Post operating statements are heading in the same direction as the NZ economy under his stewardship, what is next for him – The UN ?

What risk is this, is it the risk that the golden handshake will bruise their delicate fingers? I can’t think of any CEO’s that have screwed up and paid the price (not the price of their super yacht) but actually gone down.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10603391&pnum=2

Labour has NO credibility on this issue after locking in MASSIVE state sector pay rises five years ago.

I’d say it is hard to justify salaries at 20 times the minimum let alone 20 time the average. This doesn’t restrict incomes, just salaries if a person can generate wealth then I’m happy for them to get a return on their capital (through ownership as long as the person invests their own money to get the ownership)

A similar rule could be used for executives.

I think it is myth that you have to pay ridiculous money to get a competent CEO. Surely once you get over $200K you are looking at a pool of pretty talented people aren’t you?

Isn’t that 3 year-old kindergarten talk?

Rather than capping salaries of a few top earners, thus saving a drop in the bucket, a more constructive policy would be to cap total state spending.

‘Greed’ in that he wants the money that the CEO’s deservedly earn (expertise DOES cost money),

‘Fear’ that he won’t be ‘top dog’ because he earns less than CEOs,

Or is it just plain old socialist-type ‘Envy’ of anybody that is perceived as being ‘better’ or ‘superior’ (whatever those terms may mean to to a socialist),

Sadly, I suspect the latter is the true motivator. As socialists lie through their teeth (DL taught them very well by example), Phil of course won’t tell us his real reason – should we be surprised at that – or just cynical about his ‘pronouncements’?

Somehow, I suspect the latter course of action will be the right one.

(I know, we could always ask Trevor. . . )

I suspect that if departments were headed by people interested in giving back to the community, then those citizens who interacted with them might not be treated with such contempt so often.

And even if we do need to pay suitcases full of cash to get the very best CEOs, we’re failing in many cases. Does the name “Christina Rankin” ring any bells? “Mary Anne Thompson”? Need I go on?