Reducing the coercive sector of the economy

While too many pundits still labour under the misapprehension that the primary job of government is to continue subsidising Wellington's economy with make-work jobs, one insightful twitterer offers several good reasons why reducing the size of the public service is a good idea:

• Reduces complexity 
• Reduces waste 
• Reduces cost 
• Reduces an out-of-control deficit 
• Stops unnecessary government programmes 
• Reduces power and influence of the state 
• Frees up people who work in the coercive sector of the economy to work in the productive sector of the economy

Ideally, it reduces that coercion. As Walter Williams noted: 

Powerful government tends to draw into it people with bloated egos, people who think they know more than everyone else and have little hesitance in coercing their fellow man.

Fewer know-alls given power --> less coercion.

Ideally.

However ... Michael Reddell is exactly right: National's announcement looks more like last-minute electioneering that a genuine plan for improvement.

63657 core public service Full-Time Equivalent employees (FTEs) as at 31/12/25. Of those 24834 are in Corrections, MSD, & Ministry of Children. Seems unlikely there would be material cuts in any of those ... To cut 8000 FTEs off the rest by 2029 would mean a 21% cut.

No doubt it could be done, but over its first 2.5 yrs the govt has done very little to cut public service numbers, so people would reasonably be quite sceptical that the same senior ministers will suddenly sharply change their approach. ...

One might sympathise with the spirit of [Nicola Willis's announcement] (I do) but can't help noticing that there are no specifics (at all) beyond the baseline cuts for 26/27 for some agencies in the Budget. Beyond that is little more than handwaving. 

Talking up 20% real cuts (2+5+5 + 2% pa inflation) means almost nothing at this point (6 months from an election, with her party averaging say 28% or so in recent polls) without specifics. It has the feel of budget-accounting gimmickry: just enough to get Treasury to count the savings in the forward fiscal projections (& thus avoiding any more slippage in the date for getting back to surplus on the measure the govt likes (but Treasury doesn't). 

Had the speech been given in Dec 2023 it would have been one thing, but they've had 2.5 yrs to work out what they want to cut & still the answer seems to be "not much at all, but perhaps this latest rhetoric might get us beyond the election."

As for track record, recall that in the 2025 Budget, core Crown expenses for 25/26 were to be 32.0% of GDP, UP slightly on the 31.8% for the last full year under Lab.

And simply saying "Cut!" without specifying on which portion of the bureaucratic anatomy the knives should be sharpened leaves the Government, as before in this term, hostage to the decisions of the capital's Sir Humphreys.

[So] simply telling us that you'll cut some spending quite a lot in future (really I will...) brings to mind both the old economist's joke (let's assume a can opener) and St Augustine on continence and chastity ...  but not yet.

Bishop v Walker

I'm astonished to discover that we're starting the news week with folk still arguing about what Chris Bishop might have said about Stan Walker's alleged musical performance. 

Why is this even news?

Why is it still news?

And why should we care what either think of either?

I like simple principles. And on this question I follow a very simple principle. It's a principle that says "You don't look to a musician for their tips on politics any more than you'd look to a politician for their tips on music."

Which is very helpful advice, I think — especially if you enjoy the melodies of one Richard Wagner. 

If your favourite muso's slogans do resonate, mind you, that gives you a little extra. But you look to music for the emotion of it (or perhaps its danceable emotion) which lasts a lot longer than simple sloganeering.

So get on and enjoy The Clash and the Manics as much as you like without guilt.

Here's The Beat:

" 'The Government is taking immediate action to support New Zealand’s media and content production sector.' This is both an unprincipled and a stupid decision."

"'The Government is taking immediate action to support New Zealand’s media and content production sectors, while it develops a long-term reform programme, Media and Communications Minister Paul Goldsmith says.' ...
    "This is both an unprincipled and a stupid decision. I can handle principled stupid decisions and even unprincipled smart decisions but this is neither.
    "It is unprincipled because it is forcing successful companies in one industry (social networks and search engines) to fund failing companies in another industry (media). The only rationale for this is that Google and Meta have money and Stuff doesn’t. Will we see Netflix levied money to fund home video rental stores? Will we see Foodstuffs levied money to find Whitcoulls?
    "It is also a very stupid decision. ... The Government is going to pass a law to fund a media that will oppose almost everything that supporters of the Government believe in.
    "Even worse, it will set up a structural incentive for the media to become even more left leaning. ... [to] insist the levy be doubled ... [to] create an institutional bias in favour of the parties that will benefit media the most."

~ David Farrar from his post 'Stupid Government backing Willie’s bill'