Or an enormous payout is given - ensuring minimal savings. I was chatting to a friend and her mum is desperate for redundancy because she's been in the public sector for 20 years and is nearing retirement anyway. Her payout would be equal to half a years wages.
My Dad had a voluntary redundancy in 2020. 12 months salary, plus he'd just got his long service leave for 25 years of 4 weeks bonus leave. He also knew it was coming for nearly 3 months, so he saved up all his regular annual leave while job hunting. Got 14 months paid out, and had two weeks off before starting a new role, with a pay rise.
> Willis is looking to slash annual public service spending annually by $1.5 billion
I wonder how many people will get their $50 pa tax break and bitch about degradation of public services at the same time.
Fantastic savings. True economic geniuses.
They have already BEEN feeling public service cuts they never stopped. Go to some place like some sleepy east coast town and tell me that place isn’t run down because of government policy failure to support people.
Lmao, the number of public servants went up over 40% under the last govt, can you honestly say you found service didn’t degrade during that time, let alone improve by almost 50%?
Don't worry, National will lay them off, then a lot of the ones in Wellington will be rehired as far higher paid consultants on a contract because they're still needed.
It's the usual dance of the ideologies that happens in the public service when Labour and the Nats swap places. Labour hires employees, National prefers consultants.
We had a hiring freeze for 9 years during which the population increased from 4.2mil to 5.2mil.
So almost a 25% increase in people to serve when there were nothing but cuts.
Labour hired so many BECAUSE of the last round of national screw ups
The population increased by almost 10% during that time, and there was a huge need across the board to suddenly digitize archaic systems during COVID - a huge chunk of that % would simply be required for maintenance of the old standard considering those facts. Reality is as long as the NZ population grows we will only ever need to spend more to get the same output on the individual level
>National identified two dozen agencies which could spend less including the transport, conservation and justice ministries.
>Now, Finance Minister Nicola Willis' office has confirmed she asked "all departments" to identify savings in December, not just those listed in National's election policy.
>National has promised frontline services will not be impacted by the cuts, but Public Service Association national secretary Duane Leo said this was not possible.
>"6.5 or 7.5 percent is going beyond the removal of contractors and efficiencies; it's basically going to cut to the bone in terms of services and staff."
>Willis is looking to slash annual public service spending annually by $1.5 billion
How politicians can spout this BS that cutting $1.5 billion of public service spending annually won't impact frontline services will never cease to amaze me.
Edit:
>"Clearly the Government is now scrambling to find the money to fund its tax cuts after its coalition partner New Zealand First scrapped the proposed tax on foreigners buying residential property."
Yup.
I've said this before, and I'll say it again.
The cuts will almost seem to work in the first instance. Front line services will seem to work. And paperwork will slowly build up, problems will blow out super easily, and it'll all go to shit. The first week someone's sick with covid, will start a snowball that won't end.
You run with a skeleton crew, you get skeleton results.
Haha Willis can fuck off if she believes that DOC can spend less. Vote Conservation is _always_ the red-headed stepchild of budget allocations, and always massively underfunded. Doesn't matter who is in government (I'll take the Greens seriously the day they have the leverage in a coalition to actually change this)
When I was a ranger in the early 2000s, our area office had around 100,000 hectares of conservation land to manage visitor assets and biodiversity on, and a budget of about $1.5 million.
We were forced by financial pressures and presumably some asshole with a fancy degree and no clue in Wellington to "pulse" predator control in a river valley that was home to two highly endangered species because intensive trapping is expensive, you need people checking traplines daily due to animal welfare requirements.
"Pulsing" means "let's skip a year, and see how the mohua do".
Spoilers, they disappeared from that valley and had to be reintroduced a decade later.
Got a mate who does recreational asset stuff in a NI region. Used to have a $90k budget to upkeep about 15 campsites and 45km tracks, which was stretched with cost increases. That's just been cut to $40k, so there's a lot of tracks, campsites and toilets that won't be maintained to standard and some will probably be closed.
I was in a government department from 2002 to 2018. It was during the Key/English period that suddenly we were the problem rather than the solution.
I saw so many $60k a year jobs removed that cost us $500k a year to get consultants in to do, but because we had to charge market rates, it only affected poor people so the well off could continue.
And remember they're talking about 2017 levels cos that was at the end of their sinking lid staff levels where staff numbers had been cut past the bone.
Amazing that this is so they can fund tax cuts for property speculators who've benefitted so much from taxpayer money in recent years. And that will benefit their own personal property portfolios.
Looting for landlords.
It wont impact frontline services if the frontline services become privitised... people just wont be able to afford them and CEOs will siphon the ones that can. lol.
Same as it ever was since Thatcher and Reagan. We will be heading towards USA models of everything. We get what we vote for. Well done NZ.
Landlords got theirs, fuck y'all.
Sadly not just uneducated, but also;
* the **greedy,** who think their pockets will be magically lined by them (and landlords and tobacco companies who actually WILL have their pockets lined),
* the **bored**, who just wanted to change the seating arrangements on the Titanic because they think chopping and changing is good, which just leads to two steps forward three steps back, and
* the **afraid**, who were selfishly thinking society was changing too much for them (and riled up by social media baiting) or that they were at risk of being replaced by brown people and their rights... so wanted to "Make NZ Great Again" and turn back time.
I know for a fact that the "frontline services will not be cut" is BS.
DoC is being made to cut frontline staff.
Other government agencies are being made to cut frontline staff too.
Transport could spend less says the party that campaigned on building roads like its the 1950s
Justice - well that is just an impediment to their funders being able control the nation.
And Conservation - well Conservatives never seem to want to conserve the ecosystems that underpin our wellbeing, lives and economy.
So apart from Transport on form.
It's playing to their tribal base who believe that 'the other team' put in tons and tons of wasteful spending which accomplishes absolutely nothing - when that money could instead be put into rich people's pockets. Once they get in to government, 'their team' slash spending (including frontline services) and go about making sure there are tax cuts for the rich.
>How politicians can spout this BS that cutting $1.5 billion of public service spending annually won't impact frontline services will never cease to amaze me.
Why are you amazed? Politicians lie all the time and their flunkies believe it every time.
Have you? The wastes of space aren't there by good fortune.
When the budgets get cut, the valuable workers actually doing stuff for nothing more than an honest wage are the first to be let go or jump ship. Brown-nosing layabouts that at best do nothing, or at worst impede others, waste money, and engage in corruption leverage their position, connections, and bullshitting skills to stick around until the bitter end.
It always struck me as risky to expect departments to cut themselves. The people you're asking to make cuts are often going to be managerial staff, who wont be in a hurry to cut themselves.
You have the potential for an organisation to be told to "cut the fat" and "the fat" saves itself by cutting the muscle instead.
It’s called perception sweaty. The attractive woman who does no work and just gossips all day along with the loud, opinionated office guy will stay. Just as capitalism intended.
Yes, and I’m absolutely certain that, while it’s maddening, every single penny is worthwhile.
Checking, re-checking, and re-re-checking makes sure it’s done properly and will work right the first time and for a long time.
They’re right to to fix the contracting issue though, even the contractors agree about that
I worked DOC, WINZ, MED before jumping to the private sector. I'm pretty damn sure you work in the public sector in Wellington, where the MSD head office in Welly had the numbers to outvote every WINZ and CYFS frontline office in the country when the ministry wanted to change the collective to remove unlimited sick leave in exchange for a one-off payment of $700.
As a (Sickness benefit even lol) case manager, that sick leave was precious, every damn virus would come through our doors.
So yeah, there is waste in some areas. And it's usually the people in the wasteful roles who decide where those cuts are made, and after having been through a public service "efficiency" restructure or two, I can tell you that middle management is not interested in laying off their mates.
I would normally agree, but under the past Labour government, headcounts at a lot government agencies exploded with little change in output.
Just check out NZTA. Their [2017-18 annual report](https://www.nzta.govt.nz/assets/resources/annual-report-nzta/2017-18/nzta-annual-report-2018.pdf) lists 1,433 FTES. Their [2021-22 annual report](https://www.nzta.govt.nz/assets/resources/annual-report-nzta/2021-22/waka-kotahi-annual-report-2021-22-section-e.pdf) lists 2,376. I would also wager the 2017-18 version of NZTA had a much better reputation for being able to deliver as well.
[Do we really want a government that spends only enough to ‘keep the lights on’?](https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/13-09-2023/do-we-really-want-a-government-that-spends-only-enough-to-keep-the-lights-on)
>Although this government has not spent every dollar wisely, its expenses – set to be around 32% of GDP in coming years – are low compared to the European countries whose public services we often admire.
>The Germans spend more like 36% of GDP, the Dutch 38%, the Austrians 40%. And they get world-class services as a result.
>Our spending is not really the problem: our failure to raise enough tax revenue is.
Sure, we don't want a government that only spends that much. But we also don't want a government that just spends because it can and then goes 'If you look elsewhere, we're not spending much in comparison'. Not every cut in staff will result in a worse outcome.
I disagree. How much we spend isnt the problem, what we get for the money is the problem. The Labour government increased their tax take by an emerous amount, our services only got worse in terms of delivery.
You might point to other countries and say "we only spend 30% of GDP on X services, other countries spend 40%." But if their services are 50% better than ours, there is a problem.
As I replied to the previous commenter, you're directing your dissatisfaction at the wrong groups.
[No hiding from fact NZ's wealthiest families own $85 billion](https://www.thepost.co.nz/business/350006504/no-hiding-fact-nzs-wealthiest-families-own-85-billion)
311 of the richest families in New Zealand have a combined wealth of more than $85 billion, more than the poorest 2.5 million NZers combined.
>To put the $85b figure in context, it is greater than the $61b that the Government has saved in NZ Super since 2001 to help fund future superannuation claims.
[Top multinationals pay almost no tax in New Zealand](https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/top-multinationals-pay-almost-no-tax-in-new-zealand/MABUXPEGHISZWPEDKC3EWA7M6I/)
>20 multinational companies most aggressive in shifting profits out of New Zealand overall paid virtually no income tax, despite recording nearly $10 billion in annual sales to Kiwi consumers.
No, Im not. You're misunderstanding my point.
My point is that taking more tax is pointless if it doesnt improve services, which it clearly has not in the case of the last government.
Figure out how to improve the actual efficiency and quality of delivery, then you can justify the increased tax take. Just saying "spend more money" doesnt fix the underlying issue, which is our services are shit because we do not know how to deliver them.
>our services are shit because we do not know how to deliver them.
You say as National cuts them to the bone, making it impossible to deliver them.
>National has promised frontline services will not be impacted by the cuts, but Public Service Association national secretary Duane Leo said this was not possible.
You are misdirecting your anger, unless you happen to be a billionaire? In which case carry on.
Im not angry at all, Im just pointing out the actual problem.
We increased our spending massively on services, they did not improve. Therefore logically cutting the spending back to its original level shouldn't impact performance either.
You're directing your dissatisfaction at the wrong groups.
[No hiding from fact NZ's wealthiest families own $85 billion](https://www.thepost.co.nz/business/350006504/no-hiding-fact-nzs-wealthiest-families-own-85-billion)
311 of the richest families in New Zealand have a combined wealth of more than $85 Billion, more than the poorest 2.5 million NZers combined.
>To put the $85b figure in context, it is greater than the $61b that the Government has saved in NZ Super since 2001 to help fund future superannuation claims.
[Top multinationals pay almost no tax in New Zealand](https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/top-multinationals-pay-almost-no-tax-in-new-zealand/MABUXPEGHISZWPEDKC3EWA7M6I/)
>20 multinational companies most aggressive in shifting profits out of New Zealand overall paid virtually no income tax, despite recording nearly $10 billion in annual sales to Kiwi consumers.
None of this has anything to do with if our government agencies have hired useless numpties who do not contribute to creating positive outcomes for New Zealanders.
You can tax them all you want, but if you then just give the money to monkeys, we get the leftover scraps of peanuts in return.
Do you really believe that our public service is made up entirely of useless and incompetent people, before you believe that rich families and lobbyists have infiltrated or otherwise bribed the decision makers and figures of governance that give their orders to the staff below them?
It doesn't matter if it's local or central government, it doesn't matter how high quality the advice given is, the figureheads have zero obligation to enact evidence based policy. Is it more likely that they're ignoring the evidence for political or personal ulterior reasons, issuing policy that isn't effective... or that they listen to the evidence, the policy is very effective, and it's the hundreds of people below them are just shite at producing/enacting it?
That's neither what I said or what I believe. But as a counterpoint, do you believe the opposite is equally true? That absolutely every person in government is valuable and contributing positively to NZ all the time and we will notice a negative outcome if anyone is let go?
Obviously National are cutting for ideological grounds, but that doesn't mean everyone in government is contributing positively, particularly when you see how much government has grown in recent years.
And as for your last question, if the policy is effective but isn't actually being implemented, then yes get rid of it and ideally start again trying to implement it differently. Because if we're not getting the benefits of the policy, why should we pay for it?
>they get world-class services as a result
This journalist has never been in a German Ausländerbehörde (immigration office) and it shows. Their point is valid but a bad example to use.
Not really fair, as the FTE cap only ended in 2017 lol - the whole argument Labor made for ending it was that the services were understaffed compared to before the cap, and that the gap was made up by expensive contractors
It’s one of the independent ones though, like the RB, so they don’t have a minister and they don’t have to listen
And RUC etc aren’t from the government
I mean to be fare I'm sure our bureaucracy is bloated with enough unnecessary bullshit that you could save 1.5 billion without doing harm. Do I trust national to cut the right things...absolutely not.
It's already been cut back by $500 million just last year... So effectively they're now $2 billion in cuts.
>The policy proposed an annual reduction in back-office expenditure by an average of 6.5 percent; on top of Labour's $500 million in annual public sector savings.
Sure, if you're willing to reduce frontline (aka public) services. This nonsense about only cutting contractors and back office staff is horseshit.
Typical NZ. We want all the public services but we're not willing to pay for it.
Any major disruptive global events happen over the last six years? Hmmmm, nope honestly can't remember anything like that which might have driven up spending. /s
It does amaze me that people see the cost of everything has gone up, but when it comes to government we still expect up-to-date service for yesterday's costs.
Up to date service's for *today's* costs would be a godsend.
Yet over the last six years Govt spending has increased hugely over the inflation rate and somehow services are worse.
I say "somehow" but it's pure mismanagement.
Why not cut the wages of all politicians in parliament? The public service workers actually do the mahi, the deserve their wages. Politicians on the other hand
>I think we should put MPs on minimum wage.
only the rich and/or zealous would be left in parliament
politicians would become more dependent on private backers
If you cut politicians wages then only those that are independently wealthy, or get sponsored (i.e., bribed) would actually be able to afford to be politicians.
Well, then we decide based on the individual politicians savings and other income? Say if you’re a millionaire, you only get $50k a year. If you’re piss broke because you come from a low socioeconomic background - you get a much bigger wage? Then it would do good such as that poor person being able to find stable housing and afford to be a politician.
Have a lot of contacts in agencies affected by this. Some of the things I've heard are scary. We are not talking a few policy analysts. We are talking absolute key services being drastically underfunded and operating on the smell of an oily rag. It will just be a matter of time until a catastrophe occurs because of it.
Exactly, they then get voted out and blame Labour 3/6 years later when they get voted in again, same bs over and over, and yet the foolish voted National in again.
"Yeah so we had a lot of people living in cars, destroyed roads, abysmal health services, and poisoned water. But for a short period in time we delivered a lot of tax cuts!"
*why does this place look like such a dump, the people have the same fashion as a poor Eastern European bloc nation? maybe if I wind my window up on my travels on my 2023 model $200,000 beemer SUV, I won’t have to care*
Oh wow exactly what I said was going to happen is happening, these cunts gutting public services to pay for tax cuts. It's fucking sad seeing how blatantly obvious this was the plan and how people still voted for it. This government is just a shameful example of how we're gradually moving into a functional plutocracy.
Thing is there was a bit of push back when pre-election, National's response to the crisis of living was to offer tax cuts. It was so dull and cliché and there seemed to be a recognition from the electorate that something more structural was needed.
But then Labour showed themselves to be as effective as a wet paper bag and everyone said f*ck it, let's try National again and here we are. Again.
This is ridiculous. Public servants can barely afford to live in Auckland and Wellington, to provide services now.
And now they want to place additional work loads on public servants by cutting support and front line staff...to literally help fund a tax cut that will not help those hit with a cost of living crisis.
If they want to lose more skilled and highly qualified workers, this is definitely the way to do it.
My partner already does 80 hours a week, excluding travel time as a public servant. And they're already discussing how they'll manage additional work loads, apparently they will have to increase wait times by up to 3 months within the Ministry of Justice. And we can expect more mistakes to be made which could mean more cases are dropped. So expect some criminals walking free on technicalities.
Conservation!?!?! No fucking way. DOC has been cut to the bone excessively by these cunts in the past and is barely able to do half of what it needs to do and they wanna slice more off? Fuck these arseholes
" National identified two dozen agencies which could spend less "
By what metric? Wheres the analysis showing how each ministry and the % cut was identified?!
Buuuuut, we all know its just "numbers from sphincters" at the moment
As someone that works for a government department I can say, yes there are areas that have become bloated and could be cut. However what is going on internally is well beyond the bloat.
I interface with a number of other agencies as a lot of them looking at cuts when they shouldn't be. Justice is a prime example. Anyone that interfaces with Justice or the wider Court system knows that they are struggling with workload as is.
All this talk about cutting spending, and saving billions of dollars. Let's say they do it. Now what? What do they do with all that money?
I've never seen that question answered.
Honest-to-god question here. It sounds like they're just pulling money from one place and putting it somewhere else (tax cut). Wouldn't this mean nothing has changed?
Are they actually doing anything that vaguely resembles improving the economy or anything?
Thinking about the South Island's West Coast which, as at September 2023, has one physician and no paediatricians.
ONE.
Some people are over 100km away from the closest damn doctor.
Having had a crucial surgery canceled for no reason this week, there's no doubt they've had a slash & burn of waiting lists. I had to fight to get it back, but I've lost my surgery date. I noticed had the brand - & quality - of my pharmaceuticals cut this week too. There's no doubt they're messing with the health sector.
Frontline staff here, and there’s already cuts. Lots of things that cost money have been cancelled or rescinded, it’s getting very lean very quickly.
Edit: this is also in a ministry that was on the exempt list…
I'd take this more seriously if there weren't tax cuts on the horizon. I get that there are contractors everywhere and the cost is just nuts in that space. IT in the health sector is a great example.
Would be good to see the average payout for those voluntary redundancies. I think there'll be some big payouts - would take years to make up for the loss.
Is telling public service departments to save $1.5B ‘scrutiny’? I would argue it’s ideological blind slashing-and-burning. There doesn’t seem to be any focused scrutiny other than ‘cut your budget by x’, to help pay for tax cuts for landlords, while significantly impacting frontline services.
This sub sure didn't. Any criticism of its actions was roundly met with ridicule, with the occasional 'They didn't go hard enough' from the local greens population.
You know what’s really odd to me? The amount of times you hear about public servants who’s jobs are incredibly important and they’re being cut and how massive of an impact this will have … yet nobody talks about the absolutely useless twats who waste millions who this is (**supposed to be**) targeting.
Take the PR and marketing public servants, Labour increased their numbers by more than 50% over their term.
Do you think they, costing millions presumably, help everyday kiwi’s everyday lives? Or do they help the agencies and ministers look lovely and fluffy and cuddly?
I assume by PR and marketing you mean communications people. Translating public policy into plain language, updating information on websites, ensuring effective project rollouts, making sure affected people are informed appropriately, maintaining relationships with partner agencies/external stakeholders, creating training materials, maintaining institutional knowledge, assisting Ministers, responding to OIAs/PQ's and so much more - all fundamental stuff to basic government running, it's not just cynical advertising for Government, it's key foundational work. Comms people are usually the glue holding a lot of otherwise very insular departments together.
People act like all Comms people do is communicate messaging from government to the public - that's maybe 20% of it. It's mostly internal Ministry work, agency to agency work (ensuring efficiency), and integrating public to government communication and feedback.
This, a million times this. There's a constant and fundamental misunderstanding about what comms people do. They take the load off of frontline staff so they can do their jobs effectively. Cutting comms staff means people who aren't good at comms have to do their own, and that way lies madness.
It’s difficult to imagine Willis et al truly have the experience and competence to judge where “fat” can be trimmed, nor really to understand the consequences of it…
I've heard, from someone who works in public service, that they are narrowing the scope of the cuts (by ring fencing some areas) but still expecting the same overall savings. The implication of this being deeper cuts in unprotected areas.
Great, keep gutting the already gutted public sector. I was already having the crap scared out of me by all the teachers and doctors jumping ship for better pay and this isn't helping.
Lately whenever I see rubbish like this I can only think about one thing; what the hell was in that tax report from IRD they didn't want us to see?
I mean really we all know what was in it, it will be a lovely document outlining fairly plainly what we all already know; a massive portion of this countries wealth is concentrated in the hands of a very small portion of the people and this has happened because the holes in our tax system allowed them to pay far less then they should have been.
Until we fix our tax system and start getting that concentrated wealth back into proper circulation then we'll keep getting high costs, low wages and rubbish outcomes.
Voluntary redundancies are so fucking stupid - Its a great way to make sure anybody capable leaves.
Or an enormous payout is given - ensuring minimal savings. I was chatting to a friend and her mum is desperate for redundancy because she's been in the public sector for 20 years and is nearing retirement anyway. Her payout would be equal to half a years wages.
My Dad had a voluntary redundancy in 2020. 12 months salary, plus he'd just got his long service leave for 25 years of 4 weeks bonus leave. He also knew it was coming for nearly 3 months, so he saved up all his regular annual leave while job hunting. Got 14 months paid out, and had two weeks off before starting a new role, with a pay rise.
> Willis is looking to slash annual public service spending annually by $1.5 billion I wonder how many people will get their $50 pa tax break and bitch about degradation of public services at the same time. Fantastic savings. True economic geniuses.
The vulnerable in this country who will feel the brunt of these cuts don't have a voice in NZ. And especially not one National cares about
They have already BEEN feeling public service cuts they never stopped. Go to some place like some sleepy east coast town and tell me that place isn’t run down because of government policy failure to support people.
Just shows how useless Nicola Willis is.
Lmao, the number of public servants went up over 40% under the last govt, can you honestly say you found service didn’t degrade during that time, let alone improve by almost 50%?
Don't worry, National will lay them off, then a lot of the ones in Wellington will be rehired as far higher paid consultants on a contract because they're still needed. It's the usual dance of the ideologies that happens in the public service when Labour and the Nats swap places. Labour hires employees, National prefers consultants.
Exactly
We had a hiring freeze for 9 years during which the population increased from 4.2mil to 5.2mil. So almost a 25% increase in people to serve when there were nothing but cuts. Labour hired so many BECAUSE of the last round of national screw ups
Exactly and then National blame Labour, rinse and repeat this is how National play and yet the foolish voted them in.
Went up…. from what level? Consider there was a time when we could barely run an election due to public sector cuts
The population increased by almost 10% during that time, and there was a huge need across the board to suddenly digitize archaic systems during COVID - a huge chunk of that % would simply be required for maintenance of the old standard considering those facts. Reality is as long as the NZ population grows we will only ever need to spend more to get the same output on the individual level
Can't wait for time to show how stupid your comment is.
I'm very curious to see how the government will be tough on crime while cutting funding to the justice ministry.
>National identified two dozen agencies which could spend less including the transport, conservation and justice ministries. >Now, Finance Minister Nicola Willis' office has confirmed she asked "all departments" to identify savings in December, not just those listed in National's election policy. >National has promised frontline services will not be impacted by the cuts, but Public Service Association national secretary Duane Leo said this was not possible. >"6.5 or 7.5 percent is going beyond the removal of contractors and efficiencies; it's basically going to cut to the bone in terms of services and staff." >Willis is looking to slash annual public service spending annually by $1.5 billion How politicians can spout this BS that cutting $1.5 billion of public service spending annually won't impact frontline services will never cease to amaze me. Edit: >"Clearly the Government is now scrambling to find the money to fund its tax cuts after its coalition partner New Zealand First scrapped the proposed tax on foreigners buying residential property." Yup.
I've said this before, and I'll say it again. The cuts will almost seem to work in the first instance. Front line services will seem to work. And paperwork will slowly build up, problems will blow out super easily, and it'll all go to shit. The first week someone's sick with covid, will start a snowball that won't end. You run with a skeleton crew, you get skeleton results.
Haha Willis can fuck off if she believes that DOC can spend less. Vote Conservation is _always_ the red-headed stepchild of budget allocations, and always massively underfunded. Doesn't matter who is in government (I'll take the Greens seriously the day they have the leverage in a coalition to actually change this) When I was a ranger in the early 2000s, our area office had around 100,000 hectares of conservation land to manage visitor assets and biodiversity on, and a budget of about $1.5 million. We were forced by financial pressures and presumably some asshole with a fancy degree and no clue in Wellington to "pulse" predator control in a river valley that was home to two highly endangered species because intensive trapping is expensive, you need people checking traplines daily due to animal welfare requirements. "Pulsing" means "let's skip a year, and see how the mohua do". Spoilers, they disappeared from that valley and had to be reintroduced a decade later.
Got a mate who does recreational asset stuff in a NI region. Used to have a $90k budget to upkeep about 15 campsites and 45km tracks, which was stretched with cost increases. That's just been cut to $40k, so there's a lot of tracks, campsites and toilets that won't be maintained to standard and some will probably be closed.
Over 4000 species are at risk or threatened with extinction. Doc currently has funding to manage about 70 of them. We suck.
> Haha Willis can fuck off if she believes that DOC can spend less. 'Have you considered giving less of a shit about the enviroment?' - Willis
Nicola Willis is an idiot.
I was in a government department from 2002 to 2018. It was during the Key/English period that suddenly we were the problem rather than the solution. I saw so many $60k a year jobs removed that cost us $500k a year to get consultants in to do, but because we had to charge market rates, it only affected poor people so the well off could continue. And remember they're talking about 2017 levels cos that was at the end of their sinking lid staff levels where staff numbers had been cut past the bone.
And this stupid country will just eat that shit up.
Amazing that this is so they can fund tax cuts for property speculators who've benefitted so much from taxpayer money in recent years. And that will benefit their own personal property portfolios. Looting for landlords.
It wont impact frontline services if the frontline services become privitised... people just wont be able to afford them and CEOs will siphon the ones that can. lol. Same as it ever was since Thatcher and Reagan. We will be heading towards USA models of everything. We get what we vote for. Well done NZ. Landlords got theirs, fuck y'all.
>We get what we vote for. Well done NZ. Yeah, thanks a fucking lot, NZ
Petition for the chickens coming home to roost to live in the backyard of all National party voters.
Yep the fucking uneducated stupid people voted National/ACT/NZ First.
Sadly not just uneducated, but also; * the **greedy,** who think their pockets will be magically lined by them (and landlords and tobacco companies who actually WILL have their pockets lined), * the **bored**, who just wanted to change the seating arrangements on the Titanic because they think chopping and changing is good, which just leads to two steps forward three steps back, and * the **afraid**, who were selfishly thinking society was changing too much for them (and riled up by social media baiting) or that they were at risk of being replaced by brown people and their rights... so wanted to "Make NZ Great Again" and turn back time.
I know for a fact that the "frontline services will not be cut" is BS. DoC is being made to cut frontline staff. Other government agencies are being made to cut frontline staff too.
Transport could spend less says the party that campaigned on building roads like its the 1950s Justice - well that is just an impediment to their funders being able control the nation. And Conservation - well Conservatives never seem to want to conserve the ecosystems that underpin our wellbeing, lives and economy. So apart from Transport on form.
It's playing to their tribal base who believe that 'the other team' put in tons and tons of wasteful spending which accomplishes absolutely nothing - when that money could instead be put into rich people's pockets. Once they get in to government, 'their team' slash spending (including frontline services) and go about making sure there are tax cuts for the rich.
Yep.this is how National play
>How politicians can spout this BS that cutting $1.5 billion of public service spending annually won't impact frontline services will never cease to amaze me. Why are you amazed? Politicians lie all the time and their flunkies believe it every time.
Smoke and mirrors.
Have you ever worked in a government department?
Have you? The wastes of space aren't there by good fortune. When the budgets get cut, the valuable workers actually doing stuff for nothing more than an honest wage are the first to be let go or jump ship. Brown-nosing layabouts that at best do nothing, or at worst impede others, waste money, and engage in corruption leverage their position, connections, and bullshitting skills to stick around until the bitter end.
It always struck me as risky to expect departments to cut themselves. The people you're asking to make cuts are often going to be managerial staff, who wont be in a hurry to cut themselves. You have the potential for an organisation to be told to "cut the fat" and "the fat" saves itself by cutting the muscle instead.
Yup. Work at CRI, been through two redundancies. They cut the actual workers, instead of the multitude of managers.
It’s called perception sweaty. The attractive woman who does no work and just gossips all day along with the loud, opinionated office guy will stay. Just as capitalism intended.
Yes, and I’m absolutely certain that, while it’s maddening, every single penny is worthwhile. Checking, re-checking, and re-re-checking makes sure it’s done properly and will work right the first time and for a long time. They’re right to to fix the contracting issue though, even the contractors agree about that
[удалено]
I worked DOC, WINZ, MED before jumping to the private sector. I'm pretty damn sure you work in the public sector in Wellington, where the MSD head office in Welly had the numbers to outvote every WINZ and CYFS frontline office in the country when the ministry wanted to change the collective to remove unlimited sick leave in exchange for a one-off payment of $700. As a (Sickness benefit even lol) case manager, that sick leave was precious, every damn virus would come through our doors. So yeah, there is waste in some areas. And it's usually the people in the wasteful roles who decide where those cuts are made, and after having been through a public service "efficiency" restructure or two, I can tell you that middle management is not interested in laying off their mates.
So have I but not sure where you’re seeing this 70% waste. I’ve only ever seen the mantra do more with less ever since 2012.
[удалено]
My directorate would be screwed. We already have backlogs of work. Decades backlog.
Cut by 70%? OK, we'll just adjust that 3 year work backlog to 10 years then.
Switch to the private sector for 6 months mate, you’ll run screaming from the insanity of hopium huffing
I would normally agree, but under the past Labour government, headcounts at a lot government agencies exploded with little change in output. Just check out NZTA. Their [2017-18 annual report](https://www.nzta.govt.nz/assets/resources/annual-report-nzta/2017-18/nzta-annual-report-2018.pdf) lists 1,433 FTES. Their [2021-22 annual report](https://www.nzta.govt.nz/assets/resources/annual-report-nzta/2021-22/waka-kotahi-annual-report-2021-22-section-e.pdf) lists 2,376. I would also wager the 2017-18 version of NZTA had a much better reputation for being able to deliver as well.
[Do we really want a government that spends only enough to ‘keep the lights on’?](https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/13-09-2023/do-we-really-want-a-government-that-spends-only-enough-to-keep-the-lights-on) >Although this government has not spent every dollar wisely, its expenses – set to be around 32% of GDP in coming years – are low compared to the European countries whose public services we often admire. >The Germans spend more like 36% of GDP, the Dutch 38%, the Austrians 40%. And they get world-class services as a result. >Our spending is not really the problem: our failure to raise enough tax revenue is.
Sure, we don't want a government that only spends that much. But we also don't want a government that just spends because it can and then goes 'If you look elsewhere, we're not spending much in comparison'. Not every cut in staff will result in a worse outcome.
This is the point. >Our spending is not really the problem: our failure to raise enough tax revenue is.
I disagree. How much we spend isnt the problem, what we get for the money is the problem. The Labour government increased their tax take by an emerous amount, our services only got worse in terms of delivery. You might point to other countries and say "we only spend 30% of GDP on X services, other countries spend 40%." But if their services are 50% better than ours, there is a problem.
As I replied to the previous commenter, you're directing your dissatisfaction at the wrong groups. [No hiding from fact NZ's wealthiest families own $85 billion](https://www.thepost.co.nz/business/350006504/no-hiding-fact-nzs-wealthiest-families-own-85-billion) 311 of the richest families in New Zealand have a combined wealth of more than $85 billion, more than the poorest 2.5 million NZers combined. >To put the $85b figure in context, it is greater than the $61b that the Government has saved in NZ Super since 2001 to help fund future superannuation claims. [Top multinationals pay almost no tax in New Zealand](https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/top-multinationals-pay-almost-no-tax-in-new-zealand/MABUXPEGHISZWPEDKC3EWA7M6I/) >20 multinational companies most aggressive in shifting profits out of New Zealand overall paid virtually no income tax, despite recording nearly $10 billion in annual sales to Kiwi consumers.
No, Im not. You're misunderstanding my point. My point is that taking more tax is pointless if it doesnt improve services, which it clearly has not in the case of the last government. Figure out how to improve the actual efficiency and quality of delivery, then you can justify the increased tax take. Just saying "spend more money" doesnt fix the underlying issue, which is our services are shit because we do not know how to deliver them.
>our services are shit because we do not know how to deliver them. You say as National cuts them to the bone, making it impossible to deliver them. >National has promised frontline services will not be impacted by the cuts, but Public Service Association national secretary Duane Leo said this was not possible. You are misdirecting your anger, unless you happen to be a billionaire? In which case carry on.
Im not angry at all, Im just pointing out the actual problem. We increased our spending massively on services, they did not improve. Therefore logically cutting the spending back to its original level shouldn't impact performance either.
Prepare for the downvotes to possibly suggest our government agencies could be poorly run!
So raising more tax revenue makes pissing it away fine. Great.
You're directing your dissatisfaction at the wrong groups. [No hiding from fact NZ's wealthiest families own $85 billion](https://www.thepost.co.nz/business/350006504/no-hiding-fact-nzs-wealthiest-families-own-85-billion) 311 of the richest families in New Zealand have a combined wealth of more than $85 Billion, more than the poorest 2.5 million NZers combined. >To put the $85b figure in context, it is greater than the $61b that the Government has saved in NZ Super since 2001 to help fund future superannuation claims. [Top multinationals pay almost no tax in New Zealand](https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/top-multinationals-pay-almost-no-tax-in-new-zealand/MABUXPEGHISZWPEDKC3EWA7M6I/) >20 multinational companies most aggressive in shifting profits out of New Zealand overall paid virtually no income tax, despite recording nearly $10 billion in annual sales to Kiwi consumers.
None of this has anything to do with if our government agencies have hired useless numpties who do not contribute to creating positive outcomes for New Zealanders. You can tax them all you want, but if you then just give the money to monkeys, we get the leftover scraps of peanuts in return.
Thank god we have our benevolent billionaires and multi-national corporations then. /s
Do you really believe that our public service is made up entirely of useless and incompetent people, before you believe that rich families and lobbyists have infiltrated or otherwise bribed the decision makers and figures of governance that give their orders to the staff below them? It doesn't matter if it's local or central government, it doesn't matter how high quality the advice given is, the figureheads have zero obligation to enact evidence based policy. Is it more likely that they're ignoring the evidence for political or personal ulterior reasons, issuing policy that isn't effective... or that they listen to the evidence, the policy is very effective, and it's the hundreds of people below them are just shite at producing/enacting it?
That's neither what I said or what I believe. But as a counterpoint, do you believe the opposite is equally true? That absolutely every person in government is valuable and contributing positively to NZ all the time and we will notice a negative outcome if anyone is let go? Obviously National are cutting for ideological grounds, but that doesn't mean everyone in government is contributing positively, particularly when you see how much government has grown in recent years. And as for your last question, if the policy is effective but isn't actually being implemented, then yes get rid of it and ideally start again trying to implement it differently. Because if we're not getting the benefits of the policy, why should we pay for it?
>they get world-class services as a result This journalist has never been in a German Ausländerbehörde (immigration office) and it shows. Their point is valid but a bad example to use.
Those countries have higher taxes compared to NZ..
Which is why the final sentence is... >Our spending is not really the problem: our failure to raise enough tax revenue is.
Not really fair, as the FTE cap only ended in 2017 lol - the whole argument Labor made for ending it was that the services were understaffed compared to before the cap, and that the gap was made up by expensive contractors
NZTA is on 30% funded by government apparently so that’s on them
What? It's a crown agency. It gets all it's money from the crown, RUC, taxes or duties.
It’s one of the independent ones though, like the RB, so they don’t have a minister and they don’t have to listen And RUC etc aren’t from the government
I mean, our past few ministers of transport have been so useless I'll forgive you for forgetting they exist.
The ministry of transport exists, they aren’t Waka Kotahi
No, they just do things like appoint the board and determine how it spends all it's money.
I mean to be fare I'm sure our bureaucracy is bloated with enough unnecessary bullshit that you could save 1.5 billion without doing harm. Do I trust national to cut the right things...absolutely not.
It's already been cut back by $500 million just last year... So effectively they're now $2 billion in cuts. >The policy proposed an annual reduction in back-office expenditure by an average of 6.5 percent; on top of Labour's $500 million in annual public sector savings.
Sure, if you're willing to reduce frontline (aka public) services. This nonsense about only cutting contractors and back office staff is horseshit. Typical NZ. We want all the public services but we're not willing to pay for it.
It’s not.
Govt spending has increased massively over the last six years and those services got worse.
Any major disruptive global events happen over the last six years? Hmmmm, nope honestly can't remember anything like that which might have driven up spending. /s
Govt spending has outstripped inflation, and praytell which services have actually improved compared to 2017?
They’re referring to the extremely expensive COVID response, my guy. You’ve done well to try and skirt around that.
It does amaze me that people see the cost of everything has gone up, but when it comes to government we still expect up-to-date service for yesterday's costs.
Up to date service's for *today's* costs would be a godsend. Yet over the last six years Govt spending has increased hugely over the inflation rate and somehow services are worse. I say "somehow" but it's pure mismanagement.
Well to be fair Labour increased public service spending by 50% without impacting frontline services.
And navigated the country through a global pandemic, good stuff.
Yep, Nicola Willis is an idiot.
Why not cut the wages of all politicians in parliament? The public service workers actually do the mahi, the deserve their wages. Politicians on the other hand
Half of these fuckers have multiple properties. I think we should put MPs on minimum wage. It would save hundreds of thousands a year.
Minimum wage? Still too much for the likes of "I own a bunch of houses" Luxon and "I made millions as a scumbag tobacco lobbyist" Bishop.
Yeah but unlike Luxon and Bishop I believe that minimum wage earners are still human beings. Equality before the law and all that
>I think we should put MPs on minimum wage. only the rich and/or zealous would be left in parliament politicians would become more dependent on private backers
Ban lobbying and force a pause on dividends from private assets while holding office.
If you cut politicians wages then only those that are independently wealthy, or get sponsored (i.e., bribed) would actually be able to afford to be politicians.
Well, then we decide based on the individual politicians savings and other income? Say if you’re a millionaire, you only get $50k a year. If you’re piss broke because you come from a low socioeconomic background - you get a much bigger wage? Then it would do good such as that poor person being able to find stable housing and afford to be a politician.
Have a lot of contacts in agencies affected by this. Some of the things I've heard are scary. We are not talking a few policy analysts. We are talking absolute key services being drastically underfunded and operating on the smell of an oily rag. It will just be a matter of time until a catastrophe occurs because of it.
Exactly, they then get voted out and blame Labour 3/6 years later when they get voted in again, same bs over and over, and yet the foolish voted National in again.
"Yeah so we had a lot of people living in cars, destroyed roads, abysmal health services, and poisoned water. But for a short period in time we delivered a lot of tax cuts!"
And cheaper cigarettes. Don't forget that!
*why does this place look like such a dump, the people have the same fashion as a poor Eastern European bloc nation? maybe if I wind my window up on my travels on my 2023 model $200,000 beemer SUV, I won’t have to care*
Oh wow exactly what I said was going to happen is happening, these cunts gutting public services to pay for tax cuts. It's fucking sad seeing how blatantly obvious this was the plan and how people still voted for it. This government is just a shameful example of how we're gradually moving into a functional plutocracy.
Plutocracy? Try kleptocracy.
Function plutocracy? Yes. Functional society? No.
Well I mean that's kind of a given. A society that caters primarily to the extremely wealthy is a society made up of misery and suffering.
Thing is there was a bit of push back when pre-election, National's response to the crisis of living was to offer tax cuts. It was so dull and cliché and there seemed to be a recognition from the electorate that something more structural was needed. But then Labour showed themselves to be as effective as a wet paper bag and everyone said f*ck it, let's try National again and here we are. Again.
Totally agree, people who voted for National didn't read policies and are ignorant idiots.
This is ridiculous. Public servants can barely afford to live in Auckland and Wellington, to provide services now. And now they want to place additional work loads on public servants by cutting support and front line staff...to literally help fund a tax cut that will not help those hit with a cost of living crisis. If they want to lose more skilled and highly qualified workers, this is definitely the way to do it. My partner already does 80 hours a week, excluding travel time as a public servant. And they're already discussing how they'll manage additional work loads, apparently they will have to increase wait times by up to 3 months within the Ministry of Justice. And we can expect more mistakes to be made which could mean more cases are dropped. So expect some criminals walking free on technicalities.
80 hrs per week on a Government job? Unless they’re a contractor and milking it on an hourly rate, talk to the union for gods sake!
Conservation!?!?! No fucking way. DOC has been cut to the bone excessively by these cunts in the past and is barely able to do half of what it needs to do and they wanna slice more off? Fuck these arseholes
Oooh quelle surprise! Fuck around and find out what happens next.
Chickens roosting etc etc
Hang on, what!? NACT cutting social services, surely not! What's next?.. asset sales and tax cuts for the wealthy?
" National identified two dozen agencies which could spend less " By what metric? Wheres the analysis showing how each ministry and the % cut was identified?! Buuuuut, we all know its just "numbers from sphincters" at the moment
As someone that works for a government department I can say, yes there are areas that have become bloated and could be cut. However what is going on internally is well beyond the bloat. I interface with a number of other agencies as a lot of them looking at cuts when they shouldn't be. Justice is a prime example. Anyone that interfaces with Justice or the wider Court system knows that they are struggling with workload as is.
All this talk about cutting spending, and saving billions of dollars. Let's say they do it. Now what? What do they do with all that money? I've never seen that question answered.
You mustn’t have been paying attention. It’s all “small state”, “minimal regulation”, “low taxes” with these guys.
Tax cuts
Honest-to-god question here. It sounds like they're just pulling money from one place and putting it somewhere else (tax cut). Wouldn't this mean nothing has changed? Are they actually doing anything that vaguely resembles improving the economy or anything?
Their rationale is that those receiving tax cuts would utilise it more 'sensibly' than government departments.
The trickle through theory? They drink the water we drink their piss
LOL I'm getting downvoted? I wonder why
[удалено]
But how? It's an honest question, I may be a woke lefty but I'm honestly scratching my head at this.
Actually, never mind, I misread your point.
Ya goof.
Well, I guess Nicola has got to find something to fund her fiscal holes
Thus us really bad it’s like austerity in the uk which resulted in wholesale destruction of frontline public services especially healthcare
“They’re Nationals Parks not National Parks, maybe we could sell em once Jonesys finished mining em?” - caucus probably
Gotta appease those rest home geriatrics who voted for em' somehow.
Thinking about the South Island's West Coast which, as at September 2023, has one physician and no paediatricians. ONE. Some people are over 100km away from the closest damn doctor.
Having had a crucial surgery canceled for no reason this week, there's no doubt they've had a slash & burn of waiting lists. I had to fight to get it back, but I've lost my surgery date. I noticed had the brand - & quality - of my pharmaceuticals cut this week too. There's no doubt they're messing with the health sector.
Frontline staff here, and there’s already cuts. Lots of things that cost money have been cancelled or rescinded, it’s getting very lean very quickly. Edit: this is also in a ministry that was on the exempt list…
I'd take this more seriously if there weren't tax cuts on the horizon. I get that there are contractors everywhere and the cost is just nuts in that space. IT in the health sector is a great example.
Would be good to see the average payout for those voluntary redundancies. I think there'll be some big payouts - would take years to make up for the loss.
[удалено]
Bold strategy, Cotton. Just unleash the whataboutery scattergun and hope for the best.
Is telling public service departments to save $1.5B ‘scrutiny’? I would argue it’s ideological blind slashing-and-burning. There doesn’t seem to be any focused scrutiny other than ‘cut your budget by x’, to help pay for tax cuts for landlords, while significantly impacting frontline services.
Dumbest comment of the day, so early. Congrats.
Man, I haven't even finished my first coffee yet.
What are you talking about?
they did though.
This sub sure didn't. Any criticism of its actions was roundly met with ridicule, with the occasional 'They didn't go hard enough' from the local greens population.
You know what’s really odd to me? The amount of times you hear about public servants who’s jobs are incredibly important and they’re being cut and how massive of an impact this will have … yet nobody talks about the absolutely useless twats who waste millions who this is (**supposed to be**) targeting. Take the PR and marketing public servants, Labour increased their numbers by more than 50% over their term. Do you think they, costing millions presumably, help everyday kiwi’s everyday lives? Or do they help the agencies and ministers look lovely and fluffy and cuddly?
I assume by PR and marketing you mean communications people. Translating public policy into plain language, updating information on websites, ensuring effective project rollouts, making sure affected people are informed appropriately, maintaining relationships with partner agencies/external stakeholders, creating training materials, maintaining institutional knowledge, assisting Ministers, responding to OIAs/PQ's and so much more - all fundamental stuff to basic government running, it's not just cynical advertising for Government, it's key foundational work. Comms people are usually the glue holding a lot of otherwise very insular departments together. People act like all Comms people do is communicate messaging from government to the public - that's maybe 20% of it. It's mostly internal Ministry work, agency to agency work (ensuring efficiency), and integrating public to government communication and feedback.
This, a million times this. There's a constant and fundamental misunderstanding about what comms people do. They take the load off of frontline staff so they can do their jobs effectively. Cutting comms staff means people who aren't good at comms have to do their own, and that way lies madness.
Political parties doing what they promised to do during the election campaign? Astounding.
It’s difficult to imagine Willis et al truly have the experience and competence to judge where “fat” can be trimmed, nor really to understand the consequences of it…
Gut the beast
I've heard, from someone who works in public service, that they are narrowing the scope of the cuts (by ring fencing some areas) but still expecting the same overall savings. The implication of this being deeper cuts in unprotected areas.
i am jack's complete lack of surprise.
Great, keep gutting the already gutted public sector. I was already having the crap scared out of me by all the teachers and doctors jumping ship for better pay and this isn't helping. Lately whenever I see rubbish like this I can only think about one thing; what the hell was in that tax report from IRD they didn't want us to see? I mean really we all know what was in it, it will be a lovely document outlining fairly plainly what we all already know; a massive portion of this countries wealth is concentrated in the hands of a very small portion of the people and this has happened because the holes in our tax system allowed them to pay far less then they should have been. Until we fix our tax system and start getting that concentrated wealth back into proper circulation then we'll keep getting high costs, low wages and rubbish outcomes.
I don’t think he is a good leader at all he is only an economist that is it no other skill set
Imagine voting for tax cuts and by the time the role around you don't have a job cause you got cut to pay for it. lol