Fancy working fewer hours without a reduction in pay? Then the Northland Regional Council may be for you.
In a
split 5–4 vote, councillors decided to make permanent a trial that saw most
full-time NRC employees move to a 72-hour fortnight, down from 75 hours,
without any reduction in pay. The hours of part-time employees were reduced
proportionately.
The estimated value of the reduction in staff time is $2.88 million a year—equivalent to around a 5% rates increase.
A
staff report says: “At best, Flexi Plus reflects a workplace built on trust,
clear accountability, and a shared commitment to both wellbeing and delivery...it
supports NRC’s broader goal of enabling people to work in sustainable,
high-performing ways while continuing to meet the needs of our communities.”
Readers may remember the 1980s TVNZ sitcom Gliding On, a satire of the public service workplace in which avoiding work was an occupation in itself.
Some
ratepayers aren't seeing the funny side of NRC's decision. They are questioning
why staff “wellbeing” needs to be enhanced at their expense when council
employees are already well paid. It's a fair question.
NRC's
average full-time remuneration is estimated at around $95,000–$100,000. By
comparison, the average salary advertised for jobs in Northland in 2025 was
around $74,000. On that measure, the average NRC employee earns 29–35% more
than the regional benchmark. NRC managers averaged $135,666—around 84% higher.
For
some ratepayers, the issue is about fairness: council employees receiving the
same pay for fewer hours, while those paying the rates may have to work longer
to meet ever-increasing council bills.
So
what's next at the NRC Gliding On office? Free Friday pizza—with an
extra topping of wellbeing?
Councillors voting for the same-pay-less-hours wellbeing arrangement were Pita Tipene (casting vote), Jack Craw, Colin Kitchen, Amy Macdonald and Arama Morunga.
Against
were John Blackwell, Joe Carr, Geoff Crawford and John Hunt.
CASTING VOTES
Another
concerning aspect of the NRC decision is the way Pita Tipene used his casting
vote. Convention has it that when a vote is tied, a casting vote is used to
preserve the status quo. Think of rugby's Ranfurly Shield: a challenger must
win - a draw isn't enough to take the Shield.
The
principle is straightforward. Significant change should require the support of
a majority, not half the elected members plus the chair voting twice. That
convention appears to have fallen by the wayside at the NRC. Similar use of
casting votes by local mayors raises a wider question: if a proposal cannot
command majority support around the council table, should one elected member
have two votes to push it through?
There
is now a good case for removing the casting-vote privilege and requiring a
genuine majority before significant changes can be made.
FURTHER INFORMATION
NZ Herald: HERE >>>