There is simply no more money for nurses.
That has been the line that the Government has been sticking to for weeks as nurses from across the country threatened, then went ahead, with strike action.
It was a line repeated by the Acting Prime Minister, the Health Minister and the Finance Minister.
Even after nurses went on strike on Thursday and threatened they would do so again if the Government didn’t put a better offer on the table, that phrase rang out again.
“The Government has been clear that there is no money on the table to increase the salary package for nurses,” Health Minister, and Associate Finance Minister, David Clark said on Friday.
He told media in the Beehive that the Government put an extra $250 million on the table on top of the $250 million it had previously offered.
“Our ability to do that has come to an end, we have to be careful as a government that we are prepared for economic shocks and natural disasters like M. Bovis.
“We want to manage the economy prudently.”
As nurses took to New Zealand’s streets with picket signs to strike for the first time in a generation, the Labour-led Government’s mind was occupied by its commitment to its Budget Responsibility Rules.
The Government has promised to keep core crown spending at 30% of GDP and to get net debt to below 20% by 2022.
It has also promised to keep running healthy surpluses.
But looking at those numbers, it is clear the Government has billions of extra dollars to play around with.
Looking at the books
Take core crown spending. This year, that is forecast to be 28.1% of GDP – 1.9% lower than the level at which the Government’s own rules require it to remain.
The size of New Zealand’s economy is $286 billion – so as a dollar amount, the Government is under its cap by $1.63 billion dollars.
Now, to debt.
According to the latest numbers from Treasury, net core crown debt is 20.1% of GDP.
That is just 0.1% – or $286 million – under its 20% target which is five whole years away.
And when it comes to debt, the Government does not even have to pay it off to get under its 20% target.
All it has to do is make sure the economy grows faster than the rate of debt accumulation.
In fact, as a dollar amount, the Government is taking on an extra $7 billion of debt between now and 2022.
That extra $7 billion will, according to Treasury’s Budget forecasts, bring debt down to 19.2% of GDP by 2022.
Again, there is plenty of fiscal room for the Government to be spending more money here.
And that is not even taking into account the Government’s surplus which this year is expected to be $3.1 billion.
That number balloons to $7.3 billion in 2022.
So, there is no money left for nurses? You tell me.
Is the Government being too prudent?
But let’s take a look at the Government’s argument as to why it’s being so fiscally prudent.
New Zealand is a small, isolated economy vulnerable to natural disasters.
When it experiences a shock – such as the Global Financial Crisis or the Christchurch Earthquakes – it needs to be able to take on debt to help get through.
How good the Government’s books look directly affect the Government’s ability to borrow money – ie, less debt and a higher surplus means a higher credit rating.
From that perspective, it makes sense to keep the books looking good.
At the moment, both S&P and Moody’s are very happy with the books, meaning if a shock were to occur the Government would have no problem borrowing money.
And why wouldn’t it be? New Zealand’s sovereign debt levels are some of the lowest in the world. The US’s debt levels are more than 100% of its GDP, the UK is at roughly 80% and Japan’s is an eye-watering 250%.
In fact, S&P says the Government’s debt levels could be 2% or 3% higher and it would still would not affect New Zealand’s overall A-1+ rating.
And when it comes to rating New Zealand, S&P says Government debt makes up just 10% of its overall credit assessment of the country.
The issue with nurses pay is far from over and it’s likely negotiations will continue.
We don’t know how much more nurses are asking for beyond the $500 million the Government has put on the table – Clark won’t say.
But taking a good long look at the Government’s books, it is clear the Government has options fiscally.
81 Comments
The nurses are nicely unionised, that links to the Labour Party and they will get their money after a few ritual dances. In my view they have it already, and nicely paid for the level of work. What about all the NGOs, on starvation incomes already who can't pay their nurses the same. Increases for them ain't going to happen.
What knowledge or experience do you have to make the claim they are nicely paid for the work they do? By any measure, an experienced nurse (often with higher level degrees) on the top pay rate is underpaid relative to other jobs with similar levels of responsibility, experience and required knowledge base.
Please provide more concrete numbers. I happen to know that after a 6 year degree junior doctors start on just over $20 an hour. After a 5 year conjoint Law and commerce degree graduates start on just over $20 an hour as well.
If you compare nursing to other 3 year degrees such as social work, sports, creative arts, history or English literature how do nurse pay levels compare?
How do they compare relative to the median New Zealand wage? Can we not simply tie them to the median wage so everyone is happy?
Here's a good place for comparisons of start salary/rates for jobs requiring 3-4 years education/training;
https://www.careers.govt.nz/jobs-database/health-and-community/health/r…
https://www.careers.govt.nz/jobs-database/government-law-and-safety/gov…
https://www.careers.govt.nz/jobs-database/government-law-and-safety/gov…
https://www.careers.govt.nz/jobs-database/retail-and-personal-services/…
12.4.c does not refer to a graduate. It refers to a graduate who has completed 2 years as a house officer and 3 more as a registra so it is wage 5 years after graduating with a 6 year degree. In one of the most competitive and challenging fields of acedemia no less.
9 years ago at a regional DHB, brand spanking new Doctors fresh out of Uni were starting on just under $80K. That may have been total including allowances. I know this because at the time I was a member of the senior management staff. I also know that all Doctors got free meals at the DHB cafe, while nurses had to pay for theirs. So i do not believe your numbers.
If they work 49.9 hrs a week a house officer gets $62,000 approx per year or roughly $23.80 per hour. If they work 75 hrs per week they get $102,000 or $26.15 per hour. With no opportunity for overtime pay.
http://www.aucklanddoctors.co.nz/media/102680/dhb_rda_rmo_meca_13feb201…
They have a fixed meca so you can find their exact pay rates by googling it.
A house officer is a very junior doctor. My point was that after 20+ years of nursing, regardless of the level of qualification, you would still be on 67k. I dont believe nurses straight out of university are paid poorly, its those that have done everything to improve their skills and education along with experience who are very poorly paid, by any comparison.
$67k - isn't that like bang on average for someone between 40 and 50 (someone with 20+ years experience)?
"..its those that have done everything to improve their skills and education along with experience who are very poorly paid"
Well, no, that's not correct. Because they have obviously not focused on upskilling themselves in the correct areas.
If you 'upskill' in an area that doesn't represent some long term financial benefit, you derive utility from it for other reasons. Why should the tax payer subsidise that decision of individuals?
Apples and pears. The median population isn't representative of those with degrees and the responsibility of peoples lives in their hands.
Part of the problem is the general public views nursing like it was in the 1960's: Dr's handmaidens, single women with good morals etc. This does not reflect what the role entails in 2018. There is more and more responsibility and education expected without the commensurate financial reward nor the staffing to support the work required.
Very few nurses have the responsibility of peoples lives.
Perhaps nurse practitioners, but not run of the mill nurses that you sympathise with.
That responsibility predominantly falls on the consulting medical officer.
Sure, a nurse's job has changed drastically. But not into a high skilled, high responsibility realm.
Commensurate reward?
How much did they get paid in private aged care? That should be a good indication of their true market value...
This isn't really an informed comment.
Nurses are the end point in the responsibility chain and generally the buck stops with them should something go wrong. Any medication given is the responsibility of the Nurse to get right, get it wrong and well.... Nurses are the final check for Doctor decisions, so must be able to operate at that level to understand what the doctors are prescribing and the ramifications of.
What about Nurse training does not make them highly skilled?
You are just proving my comment above and it really isn't the case. As an example of a 'ward nurse', The Dr is the diagnostician and will base a plan around this but the nurses must be able to interpret the plan, advise as the plan is being formed and be aware of all the ramifications as well as potential short/long term complications of the disease process. As well as this the nurse must continually assess and monitor a patient to determine all the subtle signs of deterioration.
More senior nurses are carrying out basic surgical procedures (gastroenterology nurse specialists), managing complex diabetes (diabetes nurse specialists), and being first responders/carrying out treatments to advise ambulance crews in rural areas (rural/remote nurses specialists).
Nursing is evolving rapidly and this is a good thing for everyone. Its just a shame the misinformation runs so deep.
And you'd be right. One of the things I found the most stressful was the mask you often have to wear in front of your patients... meaning remaining cheerful, talkative and 'unbothered' while doing tasks that made me highly nauseous. I don't think it meant I was unsuited to the profession, I think everyone gets grossed out by certain things, but you have a job to do and you have to do it such that your patient doesn't feel upset or guilty about the care you are giving.
These are the so very subtle stresses and highly skilled skill-sets that all health professionals are familiar with.
Nursing is not like any other job.
Nurse Practicioners are paid about $120,000 per year (up to $150,000 per yer excl bonuses). https://www.salaryexpert.com/salary/job/nurse-practitioner/new-zealand
They are not part of the strike which includes only the “basic” nurses who do not upskill to Nurse Practicioner.
Rubbish. Nurse practitioners will be included in the strike if they are part of the NZNO. Nurse Practitioners are but one part of the senior nursing population, the rest of the senior nurses are not "basic nurses". Really, you need to be more informed on this topic before commenting.
A police officer used to start on 40K way back when
They PERFED out senior officers with a golden handshake
NZs nurses have never received the sort of paychecks the police were getting ever
NZs nurses are some of the best on the planet period
I know I’m in medicine
You’d be a very silly little country to mess up your nursing community
They work shifts all their work lives and still run households
As for comments about lawyers it’s irrelevant
Plenty of lawyers in NZ but not enough nurses hence NZ imports them
I think the reason the Government is saying that there is no more money is that we all know there are a few other public sector unions lining up for negotiations. If the nurses were an isolated case then maybe what you indicate is very true, however, what happens when the teachers come and expect just as generous offer? Who will line up after that? IRD and MBIE staff? Firefighters?
Or prioritise nurses over handouts of unneeded benefit income to wealthy over 65s.
This weird assumption that young Kiwis should incur a large debt just to be eligible for the employment market, while over 65s receive income regardless of need...well, that's particularly strange indeed.
Rick
You know why the over 65s receive income regardless of need
It’s because they’re the boomer generation A large voter block
Pity that the students weren’t an equally large voter block but eventually demographics will balance out
I don’t expect all those student loans will ever be repaid anyway
Rick, I can understand your argument that the elderly get too big a slice of the pie. Where I think you are wrong is thinking making it means tested would be beneficial. It would just be so easy to rort. If your policy was put in tomorrow then I would lose out immediately however my working wife would have 10 year to transfer wealth to famiy or just have bigger holidays and a new car so that when she turns 65 she will have the poverty needed to get the full super.
Meanwhile even today if she officially threw me out of the house I would instantly have another $100 on my super and then also be able to apply for accommodation benefit.
It's because (particulary left wing) politicians want to increase their power by taking in tax and then giving it out to people who vote for them. Clientalism is their life-blood, but is ultimately destructive for democracy (if welfare recipients become a dominant voting block) and depresses growth due to it's inefficiency.
You don't think that if they had the money the CoL would spend it? They don't want to be the bad guys, but they have to manage public servant salary expectations and plan for the next 2 years of rising costs and contingencies not just the immediate crisis. So no, I disagree, there is not plenty of money, regardless of what the books might look like now. Business Confidence is at long term low, growth and revenue will fall below current predictions, inflation will rise above current predictions and welfare costs will rise, recession is highly likely. There is also a high chance of another GFC given current geopolitical crises.
The CoL are being (thankfully) prudent.
Heard a Nurse comment on Labour party Radio last night that if Peters is correct then the Junior Doctors might as well stop negotiating their settlement as there is no more money. There is and Stephen Joyce's $11 Billion or more hole will be appearing later this year.
Nurses now. Turned down (IIRC) 15% over 2 years, most likely to settle for (SWAG) 17.55%.
Then the Gubmint faces the Queue:
- Teachers (after 16% and certainly won't settle for anything less than the NO) so maybe 17.5% over 18 months (upping the ante)
- Police - very quiet, too quiet, something is brewing
- Defence
- MPI (after all, they have M Bovis to cope with and are not covering themselves with glory so will Need Mo' Munny)
- MBIE and IRD have struck (and no-one noticed) but clearly the Peasants are Revolting
- Then there is the long tail of Gubmint Departments most of us never encounter, and probably did not realise we were paying for...
It's gonna be fun to watch - from a safe distance....go long Popcorn....
Some of the nurses I know who worked yesterday thought it was like going to work as work should be. Patient numbers were down so they had manageable workloads, time to take a proper lunch break and not run off their feet from start to end of shift. We have expected the nurses to subsidies increased patient throughput - by making them work harder and longer.
I have first hand knowledge of nursing, policing and fire. These other two services do nothing like the work load of our nurses, pay for no training of their own and have fraction of the their skill level. Compare the salaries, work and and academics across all three and you can see why the nurses are angry.
And that only half of it..compare allowances, higher duties allowances, training time off and paid traing and it gets even worse.
And we haven't even got to the issue of how any of these people can afford Auckland.
Paying a nurse more does not reduce their workload, make up for inadequate facilities, or stop the stupid drunks coming in every Friday night etc...
The nurses don't need more money, but the country does need more nurses.
Will paying more get more nurses - unlikely. Thankfully (for us the patients) it has never been a job focused on money.
It's not the alcohol that is the problem, it's the people drinking it.
A whole bunch of people will leave work today and have a Friday night drink (or 2, or 3, or ....)
Only a relative handful will end up
a) in ED
b) drive drunk, and
c) committing another crime
Why tax all of them? Might as well just up tax in general.
Personally, I would say if you blow over legal limit in ED, it becomes user pays.
Why tax all of them?
Because those of us that have 1 or 2 a week can afford to pay the additional associated tax and still enjoy our lives.
The only folks who would be seriously hit in the pocket by a consumption tax are those who over-consume.
In other words, it's one of the best examples of a targeted tax that you can get.
I've seen the carnage first hand. Pay or suffer. Don't even send an ambulance.
They will find away (Phone banking, EFTPOS, Cash, Internet banking), or they can lie on the street in their own vomit for all I care.
PS: Many of the ambulance services in the country do bill for call-outs, so clearly it is something that can be done.
How many would turn to industrial solvents & cleaning chemicals before the cost & work of home brewing, answer: a lot and ain't that depressing. My home brew has always been ok, had a couple of bad batches but we often would use some for cooking with as well. In researched terms alcohol and drugs and more prevalent in the poor for a reason, they usually supplement poor medical treatment access and financial & environmental stresses.
combination will. the exodus is on.
There just aren't the highly trained nurses out there - and don't count the truckloads form overseas with questionable training. Nursing these days requires highly trained, quick thinking top players. It's not like shortland street.
Both of my family often come home maxed out due to patients who have come within a whisker of dying - only living because a well trained experienced nurse picked up on a what some of these new overseas semi trained 'nurses' are missing.
Living with people who are stressed out from the worry of overseeing a death makes my work stress seem a walk in the park. For those that think nurses have a job like any other are so off the mark it's pathetic.
A mistake kills people and dumping too many patients on one nurse is irresponsible and dangerous - which is a big part of what this is about.
If we do it only means that the world has incredibly poor standards for nursing registration. I work with nurses on a daily basis and I can tell you that some of the overseas trained nurses I've worked with are utterly incompetent. We have to encourage those industrious, motivated nurses with sought after degrees to remain in the profession and make sure those that are already there from leaving.
Nurses are not just asking for more money, but more staff which equates to better nurse/patient ratio and overall better working conditions. Paying them more will also attract more to the profession, which helps the ratio and that might reduce churn in departments which costs the health system a lot of cash in training new nurses up, only for them to burn out early, leave and then the cycle starts anew.
Nurses I know, work a damn sight harder than me for far less money. Nurses completely deserve the extra cash and better conditions. They often doesn't get a break, cant finish documentation, stay very late for handover, cant give patients care/time they need etc.
A good amount of it is for the increase in nurse numbers, really should not be part of the total wage increase, as headlined.
Really their pay, like teachers is so low and I do know a number of nurses who are now just working here part time every six week while their main money is six weeks block in Oz becoming more common. Double the money and more free time....there are clearly supply issues of experienced nurses.
Typical Auckland centric view, there is actually a shortage of nurses in Invercargill and 67k is not a high flyer income anywhere in this country. Lets not be silly about the debate huh?
As someone who owns a couple of properties in Auckland yet does not want to live there perhaps "us" that have made the capital gains since 2011 should be paying for your lack of teachers as we are the ones who have gained and as a result crowded out an average income being useful in the super city even for rent :-)
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.