Why trust them now?

This National-led coalition came to power promising to slash bureaucrats and savage red tape. Since then, the numbers in the coercive sector have declined only slightly (around 2,000-3,000 trough dwellers), and are still well above 2017/2020 levels. The ACT Party, of whom the leader is now Deputy Prime-Minister, went to the election specifically promising massive regulatory reform, and had that written into their coalition agreement. 

On Wednesday, the ACT Party posted a pictorial illustrating how over-regulated we are.  To which the redoubtable Michael Reddell asked the obvious question: 

How many regulatory bodies have been closed down, or substantially hacked back, in the first 2.5 years of this government?

No answer. So he asked again:

How many of the 267+ regulators had been abolished or substantially hacked back under the current govt, 2.5yrs in?

He's still asking.

So here's a question for you: what value is a government who promises to do this term what they promised to do last term, but didn't.

Would that meet the definition of "trustworthy"?

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.

"Chris Bishop’s primary responsibility is reforming the RMA. ... The bureaucratic class has magnificently undermined his agenda."

"[Chris] Bishop’s primary responsibility, other than completing Steven Joyce’s highway from Warkworth to Whangarei, is reforming the RMA. ... [G]iven how central the reform of the Resource Management Act has been to this government, it defies comprehension that National didn't arrive with a draft ready to go. ...

"The excellent folk at the NZ Initiative have done an analysis of the two proposed [replacement] laws [which eventually emerged]: the Natural Environment and the Planning Bills. Nick Clark, the researcher, concluded, '...in the translation from principles to legislative text, something has gone wrong. Key elements have been weakened, complexity has crept back in, and an extraordinary amount of the systems' substance has been deferred to secondary instruments that do not yet exist.' ...

"The desire to place property rights at the heart of the legislation has been superseded by placing mana whenua into their customary central role in managing the land. ...

"[Also, i]f passed, these bills will not be the final word. That will be left to ‘secondary legislation’, or regulation; binding rules made by the minister of the day that determine how the law is to be applied. The proposal is for parliament to delegate its authority to the executive with minimal oversight. This time next year, Minister Swarbrick could use this secondary legislation to mandate her own vision into reality.

"Did we vote for that? ...

"[T]he bureaucratic class ... has magnificently undermined his agenda. This should have been self-evident thirty months ago ... "

~ Damien Grant from his post 'Chris Bishop has emerged as the main pretender to a shaky crown. How shall we assess his performance?'

Deregulation in Argentina: Milei Takes “Deep Chainsaw” to Bureaucracy and Red Tape

Argentine President Javier Milei has lowered inflation, drastically reduced government spending, and dismantled large parts of the federal bureaucracy. But as Ian Vásquez points out in his guest post, one of the most far-reaching efforts by his administration has been its deregulation push, with officials implementing about two deregulations per day on average since he took office, and using ingenious ways to discover where most needs deregulation. It's an Example for the World, if only New Zealand were not too sclerotic to learn from it ...

Deregulation in Argentina: Milei Takes “Deep Chainsaw” to Bureaucracy and Red Tape

by Ian Vásquez
At the heart of Argentina’s chronically crisis-prone economy is a political system that encourages unconstrained public spending and overregulation in the extreme. It is the system set up by Juan Domingo Perón in the 1940s that strengthened in subsequent decades, and that President Javier Milei promised to cut down with a chainsaw and replace with classical-liberal policies of the kind that made his country one of the most prosperous in the world a century ago.

Since assuming power in December 2023, Milei has been slashing government to that end. His priorities have been to get spending under control and to deregulate. Milei cut the budget by about 30 percent and balanced it one month into his term. That facilitated more disciplined monetary policy and the reduction of inflation from 25 percent per month when the president came to office to 2.2 percent in January 2025.

The success that Milei’s economic stabilisation has had so far is now widely acknowledged. The president took an economy from crisis to recovery much faster than most people expected: Growth returned in the second half of 2024, wages have increased, and the poverty rate, after having initially risen, has fallen below the 40 percent range that the previous government left as part of its legacy.

How much Milei has been deregulating, however, and the role that deregulation plays in Argentina’s success, is less widely appreciated—yet it is every bit as important as cutting spending. To understand why, it helps to know something about what makes Argentina’s politics different from that of most countries.

Argentina’s Peronist System

For more than seven decades, Argentina has had a corporatist system that Perón set up using Mussolini’s fascist Italy as a model. Under that system, the state organises society into groups—trade unions, business guilds, public employees, and so on—with which it negotiates to set national policies and balance interests. It’s a kind of collectivism that erases the individual, centralises power in the state, and incentivizes interest groups to compete for government favoritism through public spending and regulation.

This system gave rise to a proliferation of rules intended to protect and promote particular sectors through price controls, licensing schemes, differential exchange rates depending on type of economic activity, capital controls, preferential borrowing rates, compulsory membership in (and support of) guilds, and other interventions.

The system that the Peronist party set up discouraged free exchange, competition, and productivity but became deeply entrenched. Privileges accorded by regulation were politically difficult to lift. Legal scholar Jorge Bustamante, moreover, notes that regulation plays a more significant role in redistributing wealth in Argentina than fiscal policy does. He adds that “the waste of scarce resources caused by regulations is more serious than the direct activity of the state in the economy itself [fiscal policy], which is known to be in deficit.”

Unions in particular gained immense political power. Such was the case that Bustamante describes the Argentine system as one that “converts the unions into organs of the state when the party to which they belong [the Peronist party] is in power or converts the state into a prisoner of the unions when the party is in the opposition.”

Federico Sturzenegger, Argentina’s minister of deregulation and state transformation, made a similar point at the Cato conference we held in Buenos Aires in June 2024 with President Milei and other leading classical liberals. “The Peronist party,” Sturzenegger said, “is the manager of the status quo.… It is the manager of the vested interests; it is the conservative party of Argentina.”

The Peronists may want to conserve the system, but Milei is right in cutting it down. According to Cato's Human Freedom Index, the Argentina that the president inherited is one of the most regulated countries in the world, ranking 146 out of 165 countries in terms of the regulatory burden. As of last year, it ranked 81st.

Milei’s Cuts in One Year

Since coming to power, Milei has made wide-ranging cuts to Argentina’s bureaucracy. In his first year, he reduced the number of ministries from 18 to 8 (eliminating some and merging others), fired 37,000 public employees, and abolished about 100 secretariats and subsecretariats in addition to more than 200 lower-level bureaucratic departments.

The president has also aggressively pursued deregulation. Using a conservative methodology, my colleague Guillermina Sutter Schneider and I calculated that during Milei’s first year in office, he implemented about two deregulations per day. Roughly half of the measures eliminated regulations altogether, while the rest modified existing regulations in a generally market-oriented direction.

Milei has implemented these reforms legally and constitutionally, and they have resulted mainly from two broad measures. First, Milei began his administration by issuing an emergency “megadecree” that consisted of 366 articles. Emergency decrees are consistent with Argentine law if they meet certain conditions. They are also reviewable by Congress, which has the right to reject the orders within a specified period of time. Since the legislature did not object, most of the deregulations in the megadecree went into effect.

Second, Congress approved a massive bill (“Ley Bases”) last June that allows the government to issue further deregulatory decrees for one year. Most of Argentina’s deregulations are taking place under that authority and have been led by the new Ministry of Deregulation that began operating the following month.

The ministry is literally in a race against time, and its sense of urgency is palpable. When I visited Minister Sturzenegger and his team in November, they showed me a countdown sign outside his office that read “237 days left,” indicating the time remaining for the government to continue issuing deregulatory decrees. Sturzenegger’s team—made up of legal experts and accomplished economists—also has a clear sense of mission: to increase freedom rather than make the government more efficient. When reviewing a regulation, therefore, they first question whether the government should be involved in that area at all.

Following that approach, the government implemented deregulations in sectors of the economy ranging from agriculture and energy to transportation and housing. 

Looking at Prices

To help prioritise those reforms, the ministry looks at prices. If the cost of a good or service is significantly higher in Argentina than internationally, the regulatory burden often explains the price differential. Sturzenegger reports that deregulation in Argentina has tended to make prices fall by about 30 percent. The ministry has also set up a web portal called Report the Bureaucracy that takes recommendations from businesses and the public, resulting in numerous reforms.

Some of the reforms have been procedural. For example, government inspections are now sometimes conducted after a firm begins engaging in business (on the assumption that it is following the law and may be subject to inspection), rather than before any business is allowed to even go forward. This “ex-post” inspection of the labeling of imported textiles, for instance, led the price of textiles to fall by 29 percent. 

The government has also instituted a “positive administrative silence” rule affecting several activities by which requested permission is considered approved if the government bureaucracy does not respond within a fixed period of time. In yet another example, Milei prohibited legally sanctioned hereditary positions that had become normal practice at numerous government agencies.

Much of the impact of the deregulations has not yet been measured, but the hard or anecdotal evidence that does exist suggests that the reforms are making a significant difference. The following are some accomplishments from Milei’s first year:

• The end of Argentina’s extensive rent controls has resulted in a tripling of the supply of rental apartments in Buenos Aires and a 30 percent drop in price.
• The new open-skies policy and the permission for small airplane owners to provide transportation services within Argentina has led to an increase in the number of airline services and routes operating within (and to and from) the country.
• Permitting Starlink and other companies to provide satellite internet services has given connectivity to large swaths of Argentina that had no such connection previously. Anecdotal evidence from a town in the remote northwestern province of Jujuy implies a 90 percent drop in the price of connectivity.
• The government repealed the “Buy Argentina” law similar to “Buy American” laws, and it repealed laws that required stores to stock their shelves according to specific rules governing which products, by which companies and which nationalities, could be displayed in which order and in which proportions.
• Over-the-counter medicines can now be sold not just by pharmacies but by other businesses as well. This has resulted in online sales and price drops.
• The elimination of an import-licensing scheme has led to a 
• 20 percent drop in the price of clothing items and a 35 percent drop in the price of home appliances.
• The government ended the requirement that public employees purchase flights on the more expensive state airline and that other airlines cannot park their airplanes overnight at one of the main airports in Buenos Aires.

Many more examples could be given, but there’s no doubt that Argentines are beginning to feel the results of the reforms. Those results also help explain Milei’s approval rating of 50 to 55 percent, according to recent polls.

Year Two of Milei: The “Deep Chainsaw” Begins

In his address to the nation on his one-year anniversary as president, Milei explained that the cuts he’s made so far are only a beginning. “We will continue to eliminate agencies, secretariats, subsecretariats, public companies and any other State entity that should not exist,” he promised, and then went further: “Every attribution or task that does not correspond to what the federal state is supposed to do will be eliminated. Because as the state gets smaller, liberty grows larger.” Milei declared that he would now begin applying the “deep chainsaw.”

Minister Sturzenegger is leading the charge. A decree in February instructed all ministers to review all laws and regulations under their purview and recommend comprehensive deregulations within 30 days. In a country with nearly 300,000 laws, decrees, or resolutions, that is no small task. But according to Sturzenegger, the government has cut or modified 20 percent of the country’s laws; his goal is to reach 70 percent. He adds that the pace of firing public employees will increase.

Regulatory reforms have already picked up pace. In January, Sturzenegger announced a “revolutionary deregulation” of the export and import of food. All food that has been certified by countries with high sanitary standards can now be imported without further approval from, or registration with, the Argentine state. Food exports must now comply only with the regulations of the destination country and are unencumbered by domestic regulations.

That innovative reform, which outsources regulation, is intended to generate “cheaper food for Argentines and more Argentine food for the world.” But it is also an example of how the ministry takes input from Argentine citizens about the need to change nonsensical regulations. As Sturzenegger explained: “Countless companies have told us of the incredible hardships they had to go through to meet local requirements that were not required by the destination market. A producer who needed to certify a sample to see if he could enter the US market was asked to set up a factory first.”

In another case, Argentina required a watermelon exporter to package his product in a way that was different from what the recipient country required. So, in practice, the exporter would load the ship in compliance with Argentine law and, once the cargo left port, the watermelons would immediately be repacked.

Other examples abound. A decree in February facilitated farmers’ use of new seeds by eliminating the requirement to conduct extensive testing of those seeds. As Sturzenegger observed, in a country where agriculture plays a significant economic role, those restrictions were especially perverse: “Brazil has tripled its soybean production, largely with seeds made by Argentine researchers, working in Argentine companies but based in Brazil. The dramatic thing is that the increase in production in Brazil sinks the price of the grain while we are relatively stagnant because we cannot access our own technology!”

Another decree reduces the cost of warehousing imported containers awaiting customs inspections by an estimated 80 percent because it allows importers to keep their goods in competing locations during that time rather than solely in places run by the customs service. That cost reduction, like countless others that result from accelerated regulatory reforms, will be passed on to Argentine consumers. And to the extent that the chainsaw really does go deeper and faster in year two, the benefits will be even more pronounced.

An Example for the World

Milei’s task of turning Argentina once again into one of the freest and most prosperous countries in the world is herculean. But deregulation plays a key role in achieving that goal, and despite the reform agenda being far from complete, Milei has already exceeded most people’s expectations. 

His deregulations are cutting costs, increasing economic freedom, reducing opportunities for corruption, stimulating growth, and helping to overturn a failed and corrupt political system. Because of the scope, method, and extent of its deregulations, Argentina is setting an example for an overregulated world.

* * * * 

Ian Vásquez is Ian Vásquez is vice president for international studies at the Cato Institute, holds the David Boaz Chair, and is director of Cato’s Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity. He is a weekly columnist at El Comercio (Peru), and his articles have appeared in newspapers throughout the United States and Latin America.

His post first appeared at the Cato at Liberty blog.

How regulation works

Above a certain size, building new homes in France requires a registered architect.

Take a wild guess: what size do you reckon that is ...

In the same vein, at what number of employees do you reckon French firms are obliged to unionise ...

...and at what level of income do you reckon UK firms are legally obliged to register for VAT...

...and what happened in Georgian Britain when they taxed windows ...

Here are The Beatles ...

One step forwards, three steps back.

"Oops." Luxon-led policy-making takes a tumble

It's a rule in politics. The devils is not always in the details. It's often that the details reveal the real devilry.

If the large print ever giveth, then the small print will surely taketh away.

Let's look at a few examples in an area I know something about: Building.

*** Building Minister Chris Penk seems a jovial character but unfortunately he knows little about his subject area. His first move was to promise faster building consents. Exciting. Encouraging. Mighty work.

Here's hist first step: "requiring councils to submit data for building consent and code compliance certificates every quarter." There are no other steps.

He adds "hope" to the idea of anything being faster. Council inspectors "must" issue building consents in a timely fashion, he insisted.  And yet every council inspector ever employed knows how to legally delay a consent application. In fact, if you fine a council for being legally overtime, they'll just legally delay applications for even longer to give themselves some head room. Which is what they've done.

Score One for the Grey Ones.

*** Another move by Building Minister Penk was "remove barriers to overseas building products." At least, that's what it said in the headline. His idea, sensible enogh on its face, is that if enough similar jurisdictions to ours have passed a product (places like Canada, US, UK, Europe, Australia etc.) then that product would be deemed to pass here too.

Yay? No, not so fast.

First move by the Ministry who oversees these things was to rent several new floors in Wellington.  Because their idea of this (and it is they who are running it) is to set up a committee who will consider, one at a time, every morsel of regulation passed anywhere at any time to decide of we might be so lucky to have it here. 

So far, in the three months since introduction, they'e okayed some taps from Sydney. Next year, they might look at concrete codes in the US. Done properly, with due consideration, this will take most committee members through to retirement.

Score One More for the Grey Ones. 

** And then the Minister for Regulatory Reform (sic) stepped up to announce a new measure to "liberate" builders and designers. For years, some of us have suggested that instead of applying to councils for permission to build (which asks for more knowledge than council employees really have, and puts ratepayers on the hook for the risk should they fail) we instead use insurance companies to take the risk.

You know, like if you build a hot rod or street racer instead of a bog standard car, then you ask the insurance company to take the risk, and they use their acumen to discern the risk, and charge you accordingly.  

This allows for good design, with risk properly underwritten. 

But you see that word above: instead.

Rather than placing the risk and the onus on designers and builders and insurers instead of on councils and ratepayers, the Minister for Regulatory Reform is doing this as well as. So it's no more "liberation day" than were Trump's tariffs: we end up getting the worst of both worlds: councils assessing risk, and insurers granted a monopoly charging like wounded bulls. And the ratepayers? Still on the hook.

So it's Several More there for the Grey Ones.

** It's like education, where a "regulatory review" by the same Minister for Regulatory Reform intends to "clarify" and "simplify" Childhood Education's overwhelmed sector. One imagines a quick fix might be going back to say, 1996, when things were working tolerably well, and just before regulations began piling on and classrooms and centres became over-regulated, under-performing, and wholly unaffordable for parents.

Instead, the "reform" begins by (and I quote) "establishing a new statutory role, the Director of Regulation, with responsibilities for performing key regulatory functions in the Early Childhood Education system." Which means another red carpet rolled out in yet another floor of a new office building in Wellington.

Back of the Net with another great effort by the Grey Ones.

*** It's a bit like the "cap" on rate rises. 

Let's stop rate rises!! Yay!! Well, not so fast. 

We know that the "cap" will be supplemented for weepy boomers with top-ups for water use, for mayors who plead public transport debts, and councillors who claim infrastructure shortfalls. We also know that the minister "responsible" ( I use the world loosely) is happy with "soaring" council debt, just as long as the effects and the headlines are only felt after he's gone.

Not to mention that the "cap" includes a minimum rate rise as well!

Yes, a minimum. By law, councils must increase rates by at least 2% every year.

It a sop, not a cap.

Grey Ones score again.

** And not to mention that the new-fangled means by which councils can "fix" their bloody awful traffic problems—traffic jams being a clash of capitalism (in the form of car production) confronting socialism (in the form of too few roads). The "new" solution is a tax. A new tax to be called "congestion charging," which will of course not replace any other tax but just be added to all those under which we are already burdened.

And if history is any guide, may help finish off Auckland's CBD altogether.

I'm pretty sure that's a total victory for Grey.

 With this government, as with every other in recent times, it's always one step forwards, and three steps back. Too many ministers with too little nous giving too much help to the unproductive to whom too many of us must seek permission before we can do anything.

I look forward to this afternoon with trepidation.

"The result is not just boring playgrounds. It’s bored kids, with fewer chances to learn to solve problems."

"How did we get to the point where having an old-fashioned see-saw on the playground is something almost no park ... would consider? ...

"[I]t all began in the ‘60s. Not with the hippies – with the experts.

“'The idea we had back then was that we could prescribe the correctness of public choices with detailed rules,' say [Philip] Howard, author ... of Saving Can-Do: How to Revive the Spirit of America. 'But actually, that’s not correct. Practically every situation involves human judgment in the circumstances.'

"The post-war optimism about technocrats led America to start substituting regulations for what some of us call common sense. ... This combination, which was supposed to make our world safer and more fair, had the unintended consequence of making it stagnant and scary. Lots of rules meant lots of opportunities for punishment. ...

"The result is not just boring playgrounds. It’s bored kids, with fewer chances to learn to solve problems. “You no longer have the brain learning these social skills, because you have an adult overseeing them,” says Howard.

"Perhaps Howard’s biggest bugaboo is the burgeoning books of standards that schools and other institutions, like day care centres and nursing homes, are required to follow. ...

"And when we are busy trying to make sure that we have done things exactly as outlined on page 78, sub-paragraph 5-H, we’re not getting smarter. 'The regulatory state is literally mind-numbing,” Howard says. Load it up with rules and it can’t see the slide as anything other than a piece of equipment that is noncompliant, should it angle more than 43 degrees in a vertical direction'."

~ Lenore Skenazy from her post 'One Reason Childhood Is So Boring Now'

The Seen & the Unseen — Dicey edition

 

"The beneficial effect of State intervention, especially in the form of legislation, is direct, immediate, and, so to speak, visible, whilst its evil effects are gradual and indirect, and lie out of sight. ... Hence the majority of mankind must almost of necessity look with undue favour upon governmental intervention. 

"This natural bias can be counteracted only by the existence, in a given society, ... of a presumption or prejudice in favour of individual liberty, that is, of laissez-faire. The mere decline, therefore, of faith in self-help — and that such a decline has taken place is certain —is of itself sufficient to account for the growth of legislation tending towards socialism."

~ AV Dicey from his lecture 'The Growth of Collectivism,' collected in his 1905 book 'Lectures on the Relation between Law and Public Opinion in England during the Nineteenth Century'

The oxymoron of 'smart active government'

"[L]ast month [MBIE and MFAT issued a draft report asking] ‘How can we accelerate the growth of high productivity activities in the New Zealand.’ …

"It was the ‘accelerate the growth of high productivity activities’ that prompted me to look a little further: the focus apparently was not economy-wide productivity and policy settings but the sort of ‘smart active government’ stuff MBIE has long championed, involving clever officials and politicians identifying specific sectors to focus on and specific interventions to help those sectors. …

"On a day when the dysfunctions of our public sector were on particularly gruesome display it seemed even less appealing and persuasive than usual. In a month when the government had been a) buying a rugby league game, b) increasing (again) film subsidies, and c) subsidising expensive New Zealand restaurants (via the Michelin corporate welfare), all in the name apparently of 'going for growth. …

"[T]he draft report is unlikely to be any use to anyone looking for illumination rather than support (the old two uses of a lamppost line). … [T]here is a list of types of interventions that have been or are being used in [other] countries but no effort at all to assess what role (positive or negative) these interventions have played in contributing to medium-term productivity growth. It certainly isn’t impossible that some might have been helpful, some will almost certainly have been harmful …, and perhaps many will have just been ornamental or redistributive …  

"N]ot once in the entire document is there any suggestion of the possibility of government failure, capture etc.

"Then the draft report moves on to four domestic case studies … None of it seems to display any scepticism, only a sense that we (governments) haven’t been sufficiently focused or willing to persist with particular sector supports. … And the whole document ends with a question that shouldn’t even be being asked by government departments: ‘How might we identify higher productivity and growth potential?’ …

"[T]heir mindset and fairly shallow analysis in documents like this helps provide cover for governments more ready to paper over symptoms, toss out some cash to favoured firms/sectors, and avoid insisting that the hard structural issues are identified and addressed).

"[Yet] this sort of stuff helps keep lots of officials busy and feeling useful."

~ Michael Reddell from his post 'Government departments championing…bigger roles for themselves'

"The pandemic pulled back the curtain for a moment. When everyone worked from home, it became obvious who was actually doing things and who was just... there."

"Last week, I had coffee with someone who works at a big consulting firm. She spent twenty minutes explaining her role to me. Not because it was complex, but because she was trying to convince herself it existed. 'I facilitate stakeholder alignment across cross-functional workstreams,' she said. Then laughed. 'I genuinely don’t know what that means anymore.'

"She’s not alone. I keep meeting people who describe their jobs using words they’d never use in normal conversation. They attend meetings about meetings. They create PowerPoints that no one reads, which get shared in emails no one opens, which generate tasks that don’t need doing.

"The strangest part: everyone knows. When you get people alone, after work, maybe after they’ve had time to decompress, they’ll admit it. Their job is basically elaborate performance art. They’re professional email forwards. They’re human middleware between systems that could probably talk directly to each other. ...

"The pandemic pulled back the curtain for a moment. When everyone worked from home, it became obvious who was actually doing things and who was just... there. Some people’s entire roles evaporated when they couldn’t physically attend meetings. Others discovered they could do their 'full-time' job in about three hours a day.

"Now we’re back in offices, and everyone’s pretending again. But something’s shifted. The pretense feels different. More conscious. More exhausting.

"The economist David Graeber called these 'bullshit jobs'—roles that even the people doing them suspect are pointless. But I think it’s evolved beyond that. We’ve built entire ecosystems of mutual nonsense. ...

"What’s emerging [however] isn’t the collapse of corporate work—it’s something more interesting. People are building parallel systems of actual value while maintaining their corporate personae. ...

"They’re not quitting. They’re using the corporate infrastructure—the steady salary, the laptop, the stability—as a platform for building something real. The corporate role hasn’t died; it’s become a funding mechanism for actual work.

"One person I spoke to called it 'corporate entrepreneurship'—not in the LinkedIn way where you’re an 'intrapreneur' innovating within your company, but in the sense that you’re using your corporate presence to subsidise your real work."

~ 'Alex' from his post 'The Pandemic of Fake Jobs'

Removing barriers to overseas building products, one subclause at a time [updated]

BUILDING MINISTER CHRIS PENK IS surely mistaken (or misled) if he thinks he is going to see a quick remedy to high
building costs from his announcement, already signalled, that building products from overseas may now be used in New Zealand.

The problem, you see, is that regulations here around our approvals process make it prohibitively expensive to obtain official approval for any materials, local or imported, so that most would-be inexpensive imports just don't happen. (Around 90% of products used in building or building components here already are imported, but they're generally not the primary ones requiring approval by the grey ones.Why pay upwards of $250,000 to have your primary Euro-component approved here, when it's already selling like hotcakes in your Euro markets.) 

So Penk's idea is that materials or systems already approved by the grey ones in similar jurisdictions and standards environments to ours (such as Australia, Canada, UK, US and Western Europe) can be cited in documentation to the grey ones here— and then, with some fingers crossed, be approved for use in buildings here without the otherwise burdensome cost of obtaining formal approval upfront.

Cheaper materials: cheaper houses.

Nice idea. Shame if a bureaucracy somewhere were to ruin it.

The programme will be run by MoBIE. 

I attended a webinar run by MoBIE dicks recently outlining how they intend to run it. They called it 'Removing Barriers to Overseas Building Products.' Try not to laugh as I relate their intentions.

First of all, they've started a committee. And several working groups. Large ones. Large enough, I imagine, to fill at least one floor. It will be these newly-appointed bureaucrats that will decide which standards/regulation of which similar jurisdictions will be considered for approval by these bureaucrats. And this will of course take some time. 

First of all, of course, they have to meet to define regulatory criteria. And to issue new acronyms (things like BPS, BPIR, etc.)

This is how bureaucracies work.

The committee/working groups will then make recommendations to the CEO of MoBie which standards/regulations he may recognise. May. Those deemed unobjectionable are then added to something called Building Product Specifications — a "new regulatory instrument." [UPDATE: The inaugural Building Product Specifications document has just dropped today, but dn't get excited, it's simply a compilation of standards/regulations already cited in the NZ Building Code. Enjoy.]

Following which, MoBIE's dicks will then publish a "Recognition Notice" detailing which new standard/regulations have been recognised. Once a standard/regulation has been so recognised, it will then be added to the Building Product Specifications document.

They hope ("always hoping, hope is vain") to issue their first "Recognition Notice" by year's end. That will be for one regulation/standard from one jurisdiction for one building material or system. For which the Notice will be once piece of "evidence of compliance with the New Zealand Building Code."

Still, once that Notice is published, building importers may then decide to bring in a building material or system; builders and building designers may offer the imported product in plans and specifications based on it being "Recognised" as evidence it complies

Did you follow all that?

Note the process here: it's MoBIE who decides to decide. Not builders, not building designers, not building materials scientists or building materials importers — all of whom have a large interest in the process — and nor is it the building minister. No. It's MoBIE's dicks who decide to initiate the process,  and it's they who will grind slowly through all the world's standards, regulations, codes, guidelines, approval systems, benchmarks and norms, deciding which of them they might like to spend time taking through their process and (eventually) recognise.

So we can see how this is good for bureaucrats employed within MoBIE. 

But how does all this help builders, building materials importers, would-be building owners, and me as a building designer? 

Well, nothing at all will help until at least the start of next year, when the first "Recognition Notice" might (might) have been issued for the Australian Watermark Scheme — so importers et al can start taking advantage of Australian plumbing and drainage products.

And after that, the committee/working group/bunch of overpaid bureaucrats will then begin to meet and consider whether or not  the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM International) and the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN) may be considered for recognition.

Don't wait up.

They may be some time.

UPDATE:

Email from MoBIE this afternoon: 

"The newly released Building Product Specifications document lists 130 [already-recognised] product standards, including US, European and other international standards alongside New Zealand equivalents for products like plasterboard, cladding and insulation. ...
    "Soon [sic] other pathways will be in place for the Minister of Building and Construction to endorse overseas standards, and for MBIE to formally recognise certain products certified overseas as complying with the Building Code. Updates about these pathways will be made soon [sic]."

"This is the intellect safeguarding [sic] our $22 billion grocery sector."

"The [Government and] Commerce Commission ha[ve] spent two years assembling [their] case [against supermarkets.] Supermarkets, we’re told, hold all the power. The evidence? Mostly grievances. The method? Identify the culprit, then look for supporting facts.

"So, when Foodstuffs released a price comparison of 20 everyday grocery items, suggesting Pak’nSave prices were cheaper than Australia’s (and the UK’s)—after removing GST—Grocery Commissioner Pierre van Heerden had a problem.

"It turns out Australia’s apparently cheaper prices are not so cheap when GST is accounted for. That’s because Australia doesn’t tax grocery food. New Zealand does. Removing GST to compare like with like should be uncontroversial. It’s what every duty-free shopper on earth does.

"But ... the Grocery Commissioner of New Zealand—the [bureaucrat] charged with understanding retail markets—thinks adjusting for tax differences is sneaky. ...

"According to figures published by Foodstuffs ... of every “grocery dollar” [spent] ... supermarkets are responsible for just 19 cents: four cents profit, fifteen for costs like wages, rent, and refrigeration. GST takes the remaining thirteen.

"[The Commissioner's] response? ... Clamp down on the supermarkets and their [four cents profit] for negotiating too hard.

"This is the intellect safeguarding [sic] our $22 billion grocery sector."

~ Roger Partridge from his post 'Grocery Regulation Gets the Lewis Carroll Treatment'

Less with more

 The OECD measured New Zealand's recent productivity growth against the OECD average.

We're not even average.

... aaaand here, by comparison, is New Zealand's growth in employment:

That's the measure of how many more folk it took to do that little bit more.

So we've had decent growth.

Just not in productivity.

Is this a measure of how much we're restrained here by regulation and the incessant whine of the grey ones in our ear?

A lack of capital?

Or is it something wrong with our nous?

What do you think ... ?

[Hat tip Eric Crampton]

* Yep, construction is an outlier. I'm not sure how productivity is measured here, but I imagine that's a reflection of how many more townhouses and apartments have been built in recent years, as opposed to stand-alone dwellings.

"Government immigration restrictions are how tyranny will come to modern America."

Two weeks ago Cato's Alex Nowrasteh debated comedian Dave Smith at NY's Soho Forum on the resolution “Government restrictions on the immigration of peaceful and healthy people make sense from a libertarian standpoint, especially in present-day America."

Alex was on the negative side.

He began by arguing that government immigration restrictions are how tyranny will come to America.

As he says below, "I didn't expect it to happen so quickly."

CLICK to watch (15 min.)

Adrian Orr. Worthless shit.

Money is no longer backed by gold. It's now backed only by debt, by public trust—and by the promises and integrity of its issuers.

In New Zealand, money is backed above all by the promises and integrity of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand.

So it's crucial that the public trust in the Bank is earned, and continues to be earned every day.

Not a trivial thing.

Which is why the spectacular departure of the Reserve Bank Governor in March in what looked like a fit of pique was so disquieting.

Even more disturbing was the abject silence and duplicitous announcements since from the Bank about the reasons for his departure.

Those reasons were revealed this week. Just days after lying, again, to the Parliament, he walked in a fit of pique because he wasn't given an extra few billion to continue expanding his empire.

Adrian Orr. In a field of shitty New Zealand bureaucrats, he has to be the most worthless shit of all.

"New Zealand’s low wages can be blamed on low productivity, and low productivity can be blamed on poor regulation."

"New Zealand’s low wages can be blamed on low productivity, and low productivity can be blamed on poor regulation. To raise productivity, we must allow people to spend more time on productive activities and less time on compliance. ...
    "In a nutshell: If red tape is holding us back, because politicians find regulating politically rewarding, then we need to make regulating less rewarding for politicians ... "

~ David Seymour from his press release ' Bill for transparent principled lawmaking to be read in the House'

"It's shades of Stalinist struggle sessions."

'Lanyard Man' (left) heckles politician (right)

"Whatever lanyard man said, whatever you think of Winston, positive or negatively, if you want to go back to the world where people didn't face pile-ons for their political views, then don't do it when someone has views you don't like. It's shades of Stalinist struggle sessions.
    "And yes, I know the hard-left absolutely thrives on doing this and you might have joy doing it back - but just don't. 

    "When I was a public servant [sic] it was perfectly okay to oppose the government you were serving, as long as it was not being critical of any of the work of your department or the Ministers you served. You could be critical of education policy, but be advising on local government and say nothing about the latter. The idea you could work for a private contractor and not be able to heckle (without being threatening) is absurd. 

    "Of course that contractor can have its own employment rules, and that's its choice, but let's not have a culture of digging into trenches and having the ends justify the means. That's not a thriving liberal democracy that makes it easy for people to change their minds, it's political tribalism." 

~ Liberty Scott on the social-media led pile-on to hunt down and have sacked a man heckling Winston Peters at Wellington Railway Station

DOGE is a dog [updated]

"We're less than 100 days into billionaire Elon Musk's grand experiment of trying to shave trillions of dollars from the United States government's budget, [a]nd judging by the absolute chaos that has unfurled, his Department of Government Efficiency experiment has been nothing short of a disaster.

"Besides finding little in terms of actual 'waste and fraud' and massively cutting his ambitions down from $2 trillion to a mere $150 billion earlier this month, Musk's actions have had little to show except endless drama and suffering. ...

"Even whether DOGE [pron. Doggy] is saving the government any money at all remains dubious. Last month, the Treasury Department and IRS officials predicted a decrease of more than ten percent in tax receipts, which would amount to more than $500 billion in lost revenue, as the Washington Post reported at the time.

"'DOGE is not a serious exercise,' Manhattan Institute fellow Jessica Riedl told Reuters, estimating that DOGE had only saved $5 billion to date and predicting that Musk's efforts could ultimately cost the government more than it saves."

~ Victor Tangerman from his article  'Elon Musk's DOGE Has Been a Dismal Failure: "DOGE is not a serious exercise."'

 

Those slow-moving near-invisible market crashes ....

"Trump’s tariff mayhem has crashed stock markets across the globe. ... Doing nothing would have been far better than doing what he did. ... [When the stated policy risked a sovereign downgrade from Moody’s and probably kicked off a small recession, reversing course is indeed a win for all Americans, much in the same way that surviving a self-inflicted gunshot wound is a win.]

"[But consider.] Are there any pre-2025 policies that have already done damage on the scale that Trump is now inflicting on the global economy?

"While you might object, 'If any such policies existed, we would have noticed,' you shouldn’t. Imagine Trump imposed his current tariffs gradually over the course of the year, while constantly reassuring the world that he had no intention of raising overall tariffs. The total damage of this would ultimately be about the same as what we’ve seen. The visibility of the damage, however, would be far lower. ...

"Once you accept the possibility of pre-existing massive wealth-destroying policies, plausible candidates are easy to find. Here are [two]:

"1. The near-ban on international trade in labour. Raising tariffs from around 3% to around 30% crashed the market. But the effective tariff on foreign labor ranges from about 250% to 1500%. Indeed, that understates the damage, because arbitrary non-tariff barriers are a greater burden than precisely-defined tariffs.

"2. Draconian regulation of construction. Existing regulations roughly double the price of housing, imposing a massive burden on not only consumers, but any business requiring offices, factory space, and so on. ...

"We recently got to watch a horrific spectacle of policy dysfunction unfold before our eyes. Tariffs spiked; markets crashed. But after seeing this crash with your own eyes, you shouldn’t merely acknowledge that ... one mistake. You should open your mind to the possibility that ... for every major market crash heralded on the news, there could easily be a dozen invisible crashes — policies that wantonly but stealthily destroy trillions of dollars of value. Immigration, housing, and nuclear power are only my top candidates.

"A further deep lesson: ... We’re habituated to their harm ... to the point that few of us realise how much wealth we’ve lost, how much wealth we’re losing, and how much wealth we and our descendants will continue to lose for decades or centuries to come.

"[P]opulists [like Trump] do immense harm blatantly. Traditional politicians, in contrast, favour stealth. When they inflict immense harm, they do it gradually. And in the face of blatant opportunities to to make the world dramatically better, they yawn. ... But once you learn to see the invisible crashes, you won’t be able to unsee the ugly truth ... "

~ Bryan Caplan from his post 'The Invisible Crash'

"In November 2023 a new Govt was sworn in with a promise to 'get our country back on track.' In 15 months, their highlights have been few."

"In November 2023 our new Government was sworn in ... with a promise that they would 'get our country back on track'....
    "In 15 months, their highlights have been few. ...
    "To be fair, they inherited a hell of a mess. ...
    "But the big problems remain. The health system remains a mess which has already taken a minister’s scalp. As Mayor Wayne Brown pointed out this week, the road cones remain. Despite tinkering around the edges of staff numbers, the bureaucracy continues to grow. Government debt continues to escalate and interest is now one of our top five expenditure items. ...
    "The Prime Minister has put his stock in the pursuit of a growth agenda. And he’s right. ... [But] the pace of change is frustrating to watch. ...
    "Argentine economist Javier Milei became that country’s President around the same time as our current Government was sworn in. Since then he’s eliminated 28% of government spending and reduced the number of ministries by half. He’s achieved the first budget surplus in 16 years and reduced monthly, yes monthly, inflation from 25% to 2.4%.
    "And despite the tough decisions, he ... is maintaining and building his popularity. Because the people like seeing action. ... The best thing about Trump and Milei is they are showing a new approach to political behaviour that is giving permission to other countries to follow suit. In our current state, we should be grabbing that opportunity with both hands. ...
    "When compared to similar-sized countries, we have twice as many Government departments as we need. ... We can’t afford to spend $4 million playing sperm whale noises in forests to combat kauri dieback. We can’t afford for the Department of Internal Affairs to spend almost $1m teaching 'indigenous knowledge to become change agents.' MBIE has 30 people focused on grocery prices who haven’t made a 1c difference to the cost of groceries. They have similar teams working on banking and retailing. Why?"

~ Bruce Cotterrill from his op-ed 'Time for Decisive Govt Action to Get NZ Back on Track'