"Pansy Wong: Does the Minister believe that the active and healthy lifestyle of ACC staff is promoted by spending $250 for each person per year on animal care, including pet grooming?
Hon MARYAN STREET: I have no idea what that has to do with the health and safety of ACC staff, but I am happy to look into that for the member.
Pansy Wong: Can the Minister assure the House that ACC staff are not spending $750,000 worth of taxpayers’ money on Botox, facelifts, and other cosmetic treatments that are services provided for through the activa cards, or does she think that this is an acceptable use of ACC funds?
Hon MARYAN STREET: In respect of the first part of the question, I think I can assure the House of that. But I will check that with the chair of the board, given the member’s obvious concern about the expenditure of ACC money."
Maybe making ACC contestable isn't such a bad idea after all!
6 comments:
It always amuses me when the righties complain that public service agencies, in adopting a more private-sector approach, adopt private sector practices!
Making ACC contestible would mean huge executive salaries and the like, and more profit going off-shore. And who would pay for all of this?
But JP - surely even an enlightened leftie like you would admit the $250 per employee for animal care (including pet grooming) is a bit excessive. Benefits are fine if they have a direct relationship to the job, but what does pet grooming have to do with the core work of ACC?
Isn't Activa part of Southern Cross Healthcare - one of those evil private healthcare providers!!!
Good comment anon - and don't Southern Cross's hospitals do a whole heap of ACC work? Hmmm....
"But JP - surely even an enlightened leftie like you would admit the $250 per employee for animal care (including pet grooming) is a bit excessive."
I2, It's only a few years since it was reported that a large US multinational orperating in NZ gave its NZ staff paid leave to care for their pets when they were ill.
JP
You've always come across as reasonable but why defend an idiotic benefit provided with taxpayers funds ?
You also state that making ACC contestable would mean huge executive salaries and the like ... eh ACC executives I suspect already have such salaries paid for by the taxpayer.
As for Activa.... Sth Cross dumped over $12 million advertising this cak and haven't seen a profit ... buffoons.
Post a Comment