Retail crime: Does Sunny Kaushal really need to work so much?
Man on a mission: Kaushal's been in the thick of things in 2025. (Facebook/Sunny Kaushal)
Reframing the shock and awe around the government's retail crime advisory group and its chair.
Analysis: The hullaballoo over Sunny Kaushal’s payout as Chair of the government’s advisory group on victims of retail crime can be exhausting. But once you strip all the political noise away, the issue comes down to something simpler: does Kaushal really need to work so much as part of this role?
That question matters because he is being paid $920 for every day he bills the taxpayer. An official estimate indicates only about two in 100 salaried New Zealanders earn that much or more. Yes, Kaushal is more like a consultant and not on a full-time salary (hence the higher fee), but still.
That alone explains the public shock and awe. But it doesn’t really answer whether there's anything wrong with it. To get there, it helps to understand what this group is (and what it isn’t). It's an advisory group. It does not run an agency. It does not make decisions. It does not compel evidence or hold hearings. Its job is to advise ministers.
Groups like this are classified as ‘Group D’ in the official cabinet framework. They sit inside a long-standing government tradition that pays people by the day for advisory work. Kaushal's group falls into the same broad category as everything from expert panels to Royal Commissions. That sounds odd, but group nomenclature reflects how bodies are appointed, not how much power they wield.
Group D entities are further classified into different levels, based on the complexity of work and other parameters. Kaushal’s group is placed in Level 1, the top tier of that system. That classification affords the Chair a daily rate of between $770 and $1,645. Kaushal’s fee of $920 a day (approved by the justice minister) is towards the lower end of the permitted range.
So, the rate itself isn’t the problem. What the Labour Party has called into question (often without proper context) is the total payout Kaushal has actually received. The group was set up in 2024 for two years. As per this RNZ report, Kaushal billed about $230,000 for his first year of work. That means he worked 250 days, the maximum his government contract allows.
For an advisory group, that is a lot. Consolidated data on the operational details of similar Group D entities is generally not publicly available. But various online reports indicate most advisory groups meet periodically. Their chairs bill a handful of days each month. They read papers, attend meetings, write advice, then step back. They don’t usually operate week after week at near-continuous intensity.
That level of engagement is more typical of Royal Commissions and statutory inquiries – also Group D entities – but they hold hearings, manage evidence, and work almost full-time for long stretches. Those chairs routinely work well over 100 days a year because the job demands it.
Kaushal’s group isn't an inquiry. But the workload looks like one. That’s the tension at the heart of this story. Not a secret salary. Not rule-breaking. Not personal behaviour. Seen that way, the real question becomes straightforward: if this was an advisory group, did it need to operate at inquiry-level intensity?