On Fri, 31 May 2024 08:27:04 +1200, Crash <
nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2024 21:47:39 +1200, David Goodwin
<david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <fdcg5jp72ig1hcd8b465g2c7n7b8kjbego@4ax.com>, >>nogood@dontbother.invalid says...
Nothing is being done about the bloated civil service and Government
debt levels.
Do we know that the civil service is *actually* bloated? I'm not sure
I've seen any explanation anywhere that *in general* these extra people
are doing nothing or that the work they're doing doesn't need to be
done. There just seems to have been an effort to blindly reduce head
count to meet some arbitrary figure without any analysis to confirm the >>cuts actually make sense or what impact they'll have.
Civil Service headcount and cost has risen at levels disproportionate
to population trends.
https://www.publicservice.govt.nz/research-and-data/workforce-data-public-sector-composition/workforce-data-workforce-size
Scroll down to the chart on the right under "Public Sector workforce
trend and distribution". The steepest increase started in 2017.
National has said that the headcount reduction is not at 'front line
staff' (meaning those that directly serve the public) but in
management roles. Weather this is the case or not depends on whether
Cabinet Ministers have asked for, got and scrutinised data on proposed >headcount reductions.
There is really no way of knowing what effect headcount reductions
will have. If any Civil Service CEO were to admit there will be no
impact on performance with planned reductions they are tacitly
admitting they employed people who were not needed - so that will
never happen. There is not likely to be any consultancy with the
expertise and unbiased staff to do this either so we can never really
know.
Headcount reduction is a blunt-force tool, but the only one available
to ensure cost reductions. It is worth noting that private sector >organisations use this tool extensively.
We have been assured that each Minister was doing a line by line
review of all cost savings, but also that they were leaving details to
the Departments. Categorisation of public sector staffing is not
always easy - a previous National-led Government made huge savings -
they re-classified a group of workers (I think nurses but I cannot be
sure) as not being public servants as they did not work directly for a government department.
Government debt levels were not really much of a concern previously -
the previous Government had kept Government debt lower than most other countries, but the Coalition is borrowing about $12 billion in the
next year to pay for the tax cuts. See:
https://thekaka.substack.com/p/willis-borrows-an-extra-12b-to-pay
From that article:
Meanwhile, costs of living and direct inflationary pressure will be
elevated by decisions in Budget 2024 to:
re-impose a $5 prescription charge on most adults;
nearly triple the visitor conservation and tourism levy to $100 per
visit;
increasing waste disposal levies by an average of $5 per household per
year and $45 per new house to raise an extra $175 million over four
years;
increase the interest rate for students loan recipients overseas and late-paying local students by one percentage point to 4.8%; and,
re-introducing tuition fees for first-year students and increasing
overall fees by 6%.
That comes on top of fee increases and Government decisions previously announced that increase the fees and charges portion of CPI inflation
directly or indirectly through;
removing subsidies for bus fares;
imposing road user chargers for electric car owners;
increasing car registration costs by 50% to $93.50 by 2026;
planned fuel excise increases totalling 22c per litre from 2027 to
2030; and,
widespread double-digit rates increases that councils have blamed on
Government funding shortfalls.
__________________________________
The most significant two things to come from the budget are first, the
extent to which this government is prepared to lie about the financial
impact of their decisions on ordinary New Zealanders.
Second, the extent to which the government is trying to most to a more
American system with lower income taxes (particularly for the wealthy)
and higher charges for services. This is a radical move for the
coalition, and a distinct change of tack for the National Party who
have had their people standing for local government (either as
independents of under some other banner) recite the mantra that better
local government leads to lower rates. That major and largely
uncommented on shift in political philosophy can be attributed to the
Atlas Network - working in New Zeland largely through the NZ
Initiative and the NZ Taxpayers union, with former staff and
supporters prominent in some Ministers offices and other advisers to Government. That Seymour has managed to stay strong on a campaign for
lower taxes while the government of which he is a part shifts towards
more user pays - taxes for most of us) while reducing reliance on
income tax is an impressive achievement for a small political party -
he has cleverly hidden behind a goofy smile and the distractions of
issues like Free Speech (enabling a lot of distractions) while pushing
for an agenda that also appeals to the National Party - encouraging
support from the very wealthy.
Of the three Leaders in the coalition, ACT has made the biggest
changes to New Zealand. The pay-offs to large landlords are matched by
making the poor less well off, distracting the middle class from the
reality that they are going to be worse off, and the poor
significantly worse off.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)