Govt sets public service targets: Wants to cut long-term beneficiary numbers 30% by 2017; Wants more skilled youngsters

Govt sets public service targets: Wants to cut long-term beneficiary numbers 30% by 2017; Wants more skilled youngsters

The government has announced a number of targets for the public sector to hit over the next five years, including having a third fewer long-term beneficiaries and a more skilled youth workforce by 2017.

Fronting a suite of announcements on Monday afternoon, Prime Minister John Key and Finance Minister Bill English said the targets sat under 10 challenges Key set for the public service in March.

On top of beneficiary numbers and skill levels, targets were set for crime levels, online government services, education, and support for primary school children.

Fewer long-term beneficiaries

The government wanted to reduce the number of long-term beneficiaries by 30% from 78,000 to 55,000 by 2017, Social Development Minister Paula Bennett announced.

"Welfare reform will require more working age people to look for work, and the Government is targeting those who can work but have been on a benefit long term," Bennett said.

"In July 2013 about 130,000 people will move on to the new Jobseeker Support, of which 78,000 will have been on working-age benefits fore more than 12 months. The government is targeting a 30% reduction in the number of long-term beneficiaries on Jobseeker Support from 78,000 to 55,000 by 2017," she said.


Tertiary Education Minister Steven Joyce said 55% of 25-34 year olds should have a qualification at level four or above by 2017, up from 52% in 2011. A more highly skilled workforce would lead to greater economic growth, Joyce said.

"Achieving a Level 4 or above qualification provides, on average, a significant income premium for a person and a greater likelihood of sustained employment, over those that don't achieve that level," Joyce said.

"With demand for highly skilled or degree-qualified people expected to exceed supply by 2018, we need to ensure we have the right people with the right skills to fill these gaps," he said.

"To increase the number of people with advanced trade qualifications, diplomas and degrees, we need to identify further opportunities to increase enrolments within the tertiary sector, to improve quality and completion rates, and to increase performance.

"Given the shape of the demographic curve, this will require 56,250 people to achieve level four qualifications between now and 2017 - 11,250 more people than we are expecting under policy initiatives to date. This will be a big challenge for government agencies and providers of all types," Joyce said.

Education, crime, online, children

Justice Minister Judith Collins set a number of crime-related targets, which included the total crime rate falling 15% (45,000 fewer crimes) by 2017, and violent crime falling by 20% (7,500 fewer crimes).

Education Minister Hekia Parata set a target that by 2017, 85% of 18-year-olds would have NCEA Level 2 or an equivalent qualification - up from 67% in 2010.

Parata, Bennett and Health Minister Tony Ryall set a number of targets for supporting vulnerable children, including having 98% participation in early childhood education in 2016; Having 95% of eight-month olds fully immunised with the scheduled vaccinations by the end of 2014, and maintaining that, at least until 2017; and stopping growth in physical abuse, which is currently projected to rise from 3,000 cases now to 4,000 by 2017.

Internal Affairs Minister Chris Tremain set a number of targets for the government's online services, including:

  • Business costs from dealing with government to reduce by 25% by 2017, through a year-on-year reduction in effort required to work with agencies.
  • Government services to business will have similar key performance ratings as leading private sector firms by July 2017, and businesses will be able to contribute to this through an online feedback system from July 2013.
  • By 2017 an average of 70% of New Zealand's most common transactions with government will be completed in a digital environment - up from 24% currently.

We welcome your help to improve our coverage of this issue. Any examples or experiences to relate? Any links to other news, data or research to shed more light on this? Any insight or views on what might happen next or what should happen next? Any errors to correct?

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.


solo mother would go back to work in droves if the goverment stopped taxing them at hte highest rate possible.. Such a waste of time these schemes and plans when the tax rate tells them dont work or else. 20 years in manufacturing saw so many of them crying to allowed to work. Funny really if it wasnt so tragic

Will Ipredict be putting stocks on these..

Wanting more skilled youngsters is a very admirable goal, but how are we going to get that when Labour and the Teachers Union don’t want excellent schools (elitist) nor the best teachers and science and technology education for our kids? (sounds too much like hard work, and they can’t do maths).
And then of course the Greens don’t like, roads, dairying, mining, science, food technology, cars, power stations, dams, petrochemicals, industrial chemicals, agribusiness, forestry, making money, suburbs, nanotechnology, any technology, pylons, fishing, suits, fashion, GE, nuclear medicine, doctors, pharmaceuticals, nutriceuticals, banks, finance, smelters and soap.
So just what exactly do we need these skilled youngsters for? Australia? There’ll be nothing for them to do in NZ, except maybe filling out a WINZ form and peasant farming (aka organics). You get what you vote for New Zealand.

More skills, yes great and just what we need for a productive economy. So what exactly are the skills you possess there David?

Pretty lame ad hominum Scarfie. Play the game, not the player. I've observed that socialists often restort to attempted character assassinations, perhaps because it doesn't take long for reason and logic to give up the lie in their arugments.
“One of the consequences of such notions as "entitlements" is that people who have contributed nothing to society feel that society owes them something, apparently just for being nice enough to grace us with their presence.”
“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”
“Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.”
“Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it”
“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”
“Socialism: nothing more than the theory that the slave is always more virtuous than his master”
“Most people who read "The Communist Manifesto" probably have no idea that it was written by a couple of young men who had never worked a day in their lives, and who nevertheless spoke boldly in the name of "the workers".”
“Socialism values equality more than liberty.”
“A liberal is a person whose interests aren't at stake at the moment”

I can only assume from your comments that you are unfamiliar with my posts on politics so I won't comment on that further. Don't let my handle deceive you either, I have plenty of experience under my belt.
The point I was making is that there are people at both ends of the spectrum that don't make a productive contribution to society and life off the efforts of others. The ironic bit is that those who often call for better skills actually mean that 'others' get skilled in productive means so they can maintain their non productive lifestyle.

Reasonable point about your politics - fair cop. I'm not sure I agree regarding the call for more skills, though - Occam's razor would have me believe that the call for more skills is driven by the observation that many of the long-term unemployed are so because they lack marketable skills. Education has a very strong correlation with income.

PLR - there is a history which you may have missed re DavidB - an obvious spin-doctor short on fact.
Your comment has a shortcoming too - from what I've read from Scarfie, he isn't a 'socialist'. You're attempting to categorise by imposing a learned-mantra template.
If I get Scarfie right, he's about what is sustainable, and therefore what is appropriate to teach. There are a growing number of teacher who realise this, as there are a growing number in the community at large.
Future skills will include being able to recognise whether something is sustainable or not, and won't include being involved with/dealing in profit or interest. Why? Because they require exponential growth in the rate of extraction of finite resources from a finite planet.
Those skills will be held/needed, while the global population sinks to a sustainable level (think about it) at process the contemplation of which is anathema to socialists.

Again, a not un-reasonable point.

we can assume that a reduction of cheap (easily available) compact portable energy, per head and in real terms, will have future folk 'working' harder.
Whether they get 'paid' or whether it's a matter of 'living' is a moot point.

PDK - I think you should define your interpretation of sustainable and perhaps Scarfie should also.
Otherwise I'm left reading between the lines that the sustainability you both talk of is some kind of human levelling in all areas. No one gets to poke their nose above the parapet and seek success. No one falls to the bottom of the ladder and has to learn to climb back up.
Education is only a small part of solving the equation.  Attitude is what drives success and is the significant player in employment. Sometimes those degree waving chickens think they have done the hard work when they finished Uni, only to find out the real world kicks in.
Obtaining a degree is frequently about the legislation that applies to the degree qualification with a small amount of the actual important ingredients thrown in.  For example a Uni graduate in accounting will spend the first 3 to 4 years out of Uni learning how to be an accountant in practice.  I could fill this page with examples of similar qualifications.
The gap between theory and practical has widened disproportionately!
Practical people make the best employees as they will always find a way to get something done.  This country needs practical people like never before and I'm afraid many of those bright ones are the ones heading across the Tasman and Australian employers love them.
If you want to see practical on a large scale - be in Chch after a big earthquake. The theorists are scratching their bodily parts wondering what to do while the practical are taking massive action.  The practicals restore order while the theorists with all the qualifications cause nothing but mayhem.
People are developing their skills all the time. A little piece of fancy paper with ones name on it does not justify in any way that you know best. Yet that silly piece of paper with ones name on it is held up and esteemed like a bible to religious folk.
It is the end result that counts. Not the result on an exam paper.

sustainable is uh doing things within the energy constraints we have which will get smaller. Its pretty clear english, there is no change to that, its not negoitiable in terms of energy available it simply is.
So in effect the energy cake is shrinking, so what you are saying is with "above the parapet and seek success"  I get a bigger share of the shrinking cake than someone else...we could only do to an extent that with a growing cake.
So whats success?  for some its money and only money, many others dont consider that the end...others would or probably will consider such behaviour as parasitic....
This for instance if its "success" is plain wrong,
I guess this is a choice society makes/will make.
In terms of practical ppl, we need both these and theorists....the practical ppl I am afriad cant see often see the bigger picture, or carry out actions that are outside their experience, Ive seen enough of this to know its a problem. On the other hand theorists cant sometime understand why their theory doesnt work in practice....
In terms of "massive action" if you mean rebuilding on an area that could see severe eq's for the next 4 or 5 years that makes no sense....the theorists might well know this but politics stops them saying so.......
I guess im sort of lucky, I have some of both areas....I can appreciate both sets of ppl have strengths and weaknesses.....the thing is not to end up with both sets of weaknesses....

Steven - a lesson on sustainable:

Comments made in the year 1955! 

I'll tell you one thing, if things keep going the way they are, it's going to be impossible to buy a week's groceries for $10.00.

Have you seen the new cars  
coming out next year?  It won't be long before $2,000.00 will only buy a used one.


If cigarettes keep going up in  
price, I'm going to quit; 20 cents a pack is ridiculous.

Did you hear the post office is  
thinking about charging 7 cents just to mail a letter.

If they raise the minimum wage  
to $1.00, nobody will be able to hire outside help at the store.

When I first started driving, who  
would have thought gas would someday cost 25 cents a gallon.  Guess we'd be better off leaving  
the car in the garage.

I'm afraid to send my kids to the  
movies any more.  Ever since they let Clark Gable get by with saying DAMN in GONE WITH THE WIND, it seems every new movie has either HELL or DAMN in it.

I read the other day where some  
scientist thinks it's possible to put a man on the moon by the end of the century. They even have some fellows they call astronauts preparing for it down in Texas .


Did you see where some baseball  
player just signed a contract for $50,000 a year just to play ball?  It wouldn't surprise me if someday they'll be making more than the President.


I never thought I'd see the day  
all our kitchen appliances would be electric.  They're even making electric typewriters now.

It's too bad things are so tough  
nowadays.  I see where a few married women are having to work to make ends meet.

It won't be long before young  
couples are going to have to hire someone to watch their kids so they can both work.


I'm afraid the Volkswagen car  
is going to open the door to a whole lot of foreign business.

Thank goodness I won't live to  
see the day when the Government takes half our income in taxes.  I sometimes wonder if we are  
electing the best people to government.


The fast food restaurant is  
convenient for a quick meal, but I seriously doubt they will ever catch on.

There is no sense going on short  
trips anymore for a weekend.  It costs nearly $2.00 a night to stay in a hotel.

No one can afford to be sick  
anymore.  At $15.00 a day in the hospital, it's too rich for my blood.

If they think I'll pay 30 cents for a haircut, forget it.



Sustainable doesn't just relate to energy. It is this attitude of "lack-of  something" that is a problem. Humans have replicated oil manufacturing in a laboritory. They did this by identifying the bacteria's that are involved in the natural process mother nature uses to produce oil.

The US military has since the 1960's used a form of energy from night-time to power things. 

There is new technology under wraps in several countries that will heat homes.  One such development is added to windows.  I believe there will be some public release of information soon.


There are the two back yard inventors in Cairns who have developed a product that can be installed in homes to generate your own electricity - this is an adaptation of Tesla's technology.


Your wording Sustainable Energy Constraints tells me a lot.  Constraints are nothing more than self-imposed limitations and a refusal to change.


Success is not all about money!  But if you don't care about money I suggest you go down to your local Pac n Save and fill your trolley up and walk through the check-out and tell them you don't care about money, tell them your not paying.  Money is a means of easy exchange and that is all that it is.  When people don't have enough money they think about it constantly. They become engulfed in thinking about their lack of money.  Wouldn't it be better if people put their energy into thinking about how to look after money and make more money then they would be free of the constraints that bind them.


Who said the money cake can't expand? Who said people can't get a bigger share if that is what they want?  Who said money doesn't grow on trees? Beliefs are something to challenge daily as they aren't all true.




"The US military has since the 1960's used a form of energy from night-time to power things."
Hehe, like the quotes relating to inflation, but what are you smoking? :-)
"Who said the money cake can't expand? Who said people can't get a bigger share if that is what they want?  Who said money doesn't grow on trees? Beliefs are something to challenge daily as they aren't all true."
Of course the "money cake" can expand, it's our resource base that's contracting.  The only hope of changing that is space exploration, otherwise we are stuck with what the planet can provide, which is limited.  Given the fact we haven't even been back to the moon recently, a future in space is looking pretty unlikely.  Unless we can harness some of that night-time energy you speak of...

Martinv - some links you might want to view.
I think it is also interesting to follow who owns a lot of the technology and patents around the world.  There is an enormous amount of technology kept under wraps.
When Governments require growth, productivity etc to measure a countries performance anything that is free has a nuisance value to those measures.  It's the Govt's who like to receive things for free.  One doesn't need to smoke anything to understand this.

Not an E - take the time to watch the Albert Bartlett clip (Alan Henderson put it up yesterday top 10, but it's available via Albert I suspect.
You have to understand that - conspiracy theories about 'under wraps' or not - exponential growth is not possible. As Bartlett states - that's fact. Not opinion.
Work it backwards from there.

PDK - I'm not into conspiracy theories. I like to be informed about start up companies, who's funding the initial project etc.  Fundamental and technical analysis plays a huge role for me along with watching the psychology of others and myself.

Just watch the Bartlett clip.

Without bothering to read and reply to the crap in this post, as its not even about sustainablity its about inflation and ppls strange outlooks, I'll comment on the subject of the thread. 
Sustainable is living premanently within the production envelope and that is defined as having a time component.  We are not doing so....or rather have not done so for about 200 years which is unique in human existance.
Simple, if for 2 million years we make 1 gallon of petrol per day but dont use it then we appear to have a huge buffer....the problem is when we use 2million years of production in 100 years and expotentially grow the use per day at the same time....its known as overshoot. 
The rest looks like you are on your knees and praying that someone else will solve your problems for you, thats just another form of welfare.

I note your are getting cranky again - repitition hmmm. And yes what I posted is about inflation but also displays the underlying psychology of the thoughts back in 1955. You completely missed the point.
While your obviously passionate about what you see as sustainable - you have little faith in man-kind to solve the problems.  As for that last statement, well buddy you are completely over-steeping.  If you put your foot on the clutch - you won't graunch the gears.

Why should we have faith when man has been failing to solve the problem for 50 years? Every year that the rate of growth in population declines is a failure for the "have faith in man to solve the problems" brigade.

Not an E - no, you haven't looked at the Bartlett clip. I can tell by your reply.
He explains exponential growth - particularly for you linear thinkers. Why do I know you're a linear thinker? You compare the '50's with today. Solving problems isn't the answer to exponential growth on a finite planet. Stopping before the last possible doubling-time is the problem.
Go on, learn. Watch it.

I would only adjust what Steven has said by changing energy constraints to resource constraints and I am sure he would agree. They are interelated, and perhaps interdependent, though. I guess you have to define an outcome to really give the phrase meaning. Renewable should be considered has part of the interpretation and if not renewable then replaceable.
Do your activities cause any harm is a question to accompany an analysis.
I think you can probably answer this yourself by taking a look at the declining rate of population growth world wide and consider if the horse has already bolted. If the resources were still easily available then the population would still be accelerating. The time of act responsibly is long overdue but I suspect catastrophe will happen before change, humans have a track record of that.
My chosen field of study is Architecture which, like engineering, actually teaches you to think rather than regurgitate. While I agree with some of your comments on academics I don't regret any of my study so far, some of it is a real eye opener. I am fortunate I had 20+ years in the work force to act as a filter and barometer of what I was learning. Steven and PDK are engineers, and I have some quals in the area also. While you talk about practical people then I think PDK is one of the best around. PDK and myself have both designed and built low cost sustainable housing. I can't speak for Steven's achievements but with his degree I would back his ability. We are not alone on these forums as practically minded problem solvers. 
To allege that I wish to drag us back to the dark ages or in some way hold back progress shows up deficiencies in the person alleging. DavidB runs of half cocked all the time and you could say he hasn't engaged his brain before speaking, except it has become apparent he doesn't really have one. I would say we are about doing more with less, although accepting that the more might be a shrinking parameter as resources deplete. It seems to me that the quality of life has been declining consistently over my lifetime and my knowledge now tells me that what most people think of growth and progress is actually what is doing the degrading. A closer examination would find that our lives have become quantitave rather than qualititave. There is a style of architecture known as humanist, and this arose from the scandinavian countries. Quite contrary to the current growth mindset, which is inevitable self centered.

"I can't speak for Steven's achievements but with his degree I would back his ability. We are not alone on these forums as practically minded problem solvers."
Sadly when I came out here all anyone wanted was split air con units. The passive designs I tried to get through got altered to the point they wouldnt work by engineers with no training in the area and architects who frankly didnt deserve the title all because of "first cost". The battles I had just to get 50~75mm wall insulation was plain silly.  So after 5 years it became apparant that with endemic nepotism in the enginering field in NZ it was time to move on.....great thing about IT is I earn a lot more (well I could if I wanted to work full time)  and my skills are appreciated so I have job security........
Ive never stopped being a nuts and bolts engineer mind....thats genetic by the look of it....
"To allege that I wish to drag us back to the dark ages"  its not want or wish its where we are going...the want or wish is to avoid it......but the dark ages, the aftermath of the fall of the roman empire is a good analogy/lesson for us.

notanE - ok.
Sustainability to me, is handing on the physical planet in as-inherited condition, from generation to generation.
I actually don't care what folk do, within that limitation.
The problem is that almost everything we do, doesn't qualify.
I don't have a degree (left school ennd of 6th form, apprentice etc). But for the last few years, I've been attending physics lectures, andthe personal learning never ends. We do indeed need practical folk, practical skills, and a cohort trained in lateral thinking (because what they face will be a fast-moving, never-before-visited, triage-requiring regime.

Pot calling the kettle black in your case....."Play the game, not the player" you should check out DavidB's posts....and funny but here you are doing the same thing claiming its "socialists" strange but I never considered DavidB a socialist...."perhaps because it doesn't take long for reason and logic to give up the lie in their arugments."  which sums up DavidB well, I rest my case.

Not many targets seem to have a use by date of 2014, when the next election is due. The Nats seem to use hockey stick planning in many areas. (that being where things magically get better and turn up like a hockey stick, at the end of a period) and conveniently at a point when there's a good chance they will have been out of power for three years.  Still, I'm sure we all agree with the targets, even if they are somewhat fuzzy on how they might get there, and how that is materially different to their own and Labour's efforts in the past.

Ah!...but do the youngsters want more skills....or more jiggery pokery.
And do the Poll-lies really tell the truth, especially the Property Portfolio Brigade.
Follow is all connected and is a consequence of unindended events.
Hell-en and Mike..the cur....must be so proud..and Poll-lies must be so goddam stupid in general....and the taxpaying public....a little short of brains.
read on....
Quite a number of my unfortunate aquaintance, (Not from choice I hastily add)....have been taught wrongly and do not desire to get out of bed early, expect a handout, not just a hand-up and the ladies breed like rabbid rabbits, cos their sums tell em multiplying is the way to go....especially as a Housing Supplement is a free willy...bonus.
And Willy can come over anytime he please  and share the benefits, while others work.
The perks outweigh being taxed....cos Willy is shagged out.
Apparently...and this is hear say...not heresy.......but heresy if true, WINNZZZZ, will shout em just about anything their hearts desire, if taken a little short.
When you can work the system instead of working and a polly can own the rental that has the Housing Suplement added to their property portfolio, how the hell are the TAXPAYERS gonna keep paying, when places like Billabonk, go bust, so dividends not forthcoming, but the fouth coming with different Fathers, brings on more bleeding, breeding  layabouts in the entitle-meant brigade, so eating some of us out of our House and Home..................themselves.
And the Beneficiaries are at both ends of the scale and the Middle incomes keep on paying...but not much longer.......they is running out of steam and dividends and JOBS, especially if da biller, goes BUNG..
So they might as well join in the merry go round and go on the Dole and DPB....themselves.
A round tuit is still a round tuit and breaking the cycle, to build a cycle away, would only be sensible......if it paid dividends...and the touristas have something to buy...if they too can afford to keep coming those on the DPB...depend on.
See there is Two ends to a Billabong and when the current stops flowing, it will all dry up............and blow away, leaving everyone ......FLOUNDERING, with nuffin to wear in the future.
Paying dividends to no all...
So we will all be a little.....SHORT, mostly because of a biller-bonk..
Sorry burnhard, I just could not resist....and I owe it all to a little GBH......and not much capital in-sight.

Video in there now too.

"want more skilled youngsters"  
Might want to give a reason for hope first eh Billy Bob & Keystone Cop?
Instead of giving via borrowing 4.5 billion to bailout the Europeans for a  thankless corrupt group called the IMF How about we invest it in upskilling our youth? Only one catch, they don't know how to create jobs either or encourage living wages!
There's clearly a real problem in NZ, hence one of the highest suicide rates but apparently the pretty scenery we seem so urgent to destroy is all we need to feel like this is "god own". In CHCH it's 'godzone'  
We need designers, scientists, engineers, and a f**king reason for them to stay! Forget about more tradesman to feed another pointless ponzi scheme fuel via debt! 

The government wants to set soviet era five year plans.
The governed want many less idiots at the top (setting incompetent 5 year plans).

Any word on how they actually plan to reduce beneficiary numbers?

exactly, good question benwave
It's their usual load of bull
Where and how are they going to create jobs to employ the people they think will get off benefits? That's the first question that they need to answer
Cue Bill English blah blah blah about their economic reform setting conditions for growth blah blah blah

Benwave the plan will be similar to the one they gave to ACC staff to reduce long term claimants.  It's ended up a bit of a merry-go-round. Many long term injured claimants transferred to the sickness benefit so the ACC staff got their bonus and the office of the auditor general gave his approval that it was fine and dandy for the ACC staff to get injured claimants off ACC and accepted that having this measure was acceptable in ACC staff KPI's. 
So the WINZ staff will get bonuses for getting people off their books so that means they will probably find the unemployed a job.  It seems no one in a Government department wants to work for ordinary wages and so the Govt has to pay them all an incentive bonus to get them to work.
I think the PM has quite clearly articulated that the Chch rebuild will need lots of workers so I expect Canterbury will be the place for the unemployed to get work. Maybe WINZ will relocate these people to Chch and if the unemployed don't take the work the benefit will get cut.   
If the system can cut an injured person off their injury insurance plan the system will not look twice at cutting the unemployment benefit. Unemployed will have to take any work offerred and that is not a bad thing.

Gonna set up a Commission.
Gonna talk for the next 5 years.
Gonna take a commission for talking....for the next 5 years.
That is Poll-lies in a nutshell.
They do not do......they talk incessantly...argue the toss with each other....and we pay em.
Come the next election, change seats and start all over again.
If they fail to get back in...go to the UN, talk a lot, take a commssion ....and...wrinse and repeat.

or if they fail to get back in get put on the above commissions or get CEO jobs in SOE's......

how does having more people with qaulifications create jobs.
One thing i know won't happen is that the cost of using these peoples skills will not decrease.

I think they mean it fills vacancies.....
Im not sure I follow the second sentence?

how many vacancies are there
where i work every man and his dog has a diploma or degree in something but cannot get work in there chosen field.
second sentence i meant that having more lawyers builders ,plumbers etc won't bring the cost of their services down.
sometimes competition doen't result in cheaper costs.

second sentence, it should.....excessive price can only be justified be scarcity....though it maybe artifical.

This from Stuff today --
"Directors of state-owned energy companies to be partially privatised could have their fees doubled to $2400 a day after the Government gave permission to increase their payments, documents obtained by the Greens show.
Greens co-leader Russel Norman says consumers will pay for the fee hikes because the companies will raise power prices to fund them.
Treasury papers show current directors get $1200 a day but are seeking a pay rise because they are doing extra work to prepare the state-owned enterprises for partial sale, he said.
The papers were written after a meeting with Mighty River Power but Norman said Treasury had also been talking with the other three companies the Government plans to sell up to 49 per cent of: Genesis, Solid Energy and Meridian.
"On top of that they are saying once it is privatised, the base fees will move closer to market rates and Treasury says market rates at a comparable listed company would get double the amount they are currently getting."
Mighty River Power chair Joan Withers is currently paid $100,000 a year. There are eight other board members.
The papers also showed the board wanted the change made now because it would be a bad look after it was partially privatised, Norman said.
Treasury said: "The board of Mighty River Power, we understand, is likely to be more interested in the process to move their base fee level closer to market rates in the lead up to the Initial Public Offering and it not faced with a 'need' to dramatically increase fees at the first AGM after listing."
Norman said doubling the fees of all four state-owned energy companies would cost an extra $1.8 million a year, based on directors' fees in recent years."
One wonders how our  elected government members able to face the public with any kind of credibility regarding the need to embrace even a mild dose of austerity when the snouts are in the trough as deeply as they obviously are ...?
Time to start the revolution???