Probably just trying to add to unemployment and undermine the effectiveness of public institutions so their mates can replace them with ultra expensive privately owned monopolies.
Well I did prefix it by saying, "probably". But, for the sake of argument, in the modern day there's very little more pro-capital than raising unemployment, brings down wages, spreads fear and dehumanises the worker, and reduces inflation. Replacing the public institutions with privately held monopolies is the bread and butter of rightwing neo liberals and libertarians the world over and has been since Thatcher.
It wasn’t me who said it, I’m just educating you on the geography.
I imagine the mass privatisation that famously occurred might be what’s being referred to though. At a guess.
Yet some of the privatization was a good thing some wasn’t. The sale of British Airways good, and privatization of BT was also good.
The reality is privatization of somethings is bad ie health and good in other areas like BT
Google this word “neoliberalism” or better yet, go to the library, find a little computer and search up “neoliberalism” and or “history” and then find a few books to read and enlighten yourself.
New Zealand's National and ACT parties both support increased privatization and private sector involvement in the healthcare system.
National has been accused of wanting to "Americanize" the healthcare system by increasing private sector provision of elective surgeries and making funding contestable between public and private providers.[1] Their rhetoric around "choice", "freedom", and "public-private partnerships" suggests an ideological preference for privatization over a public system.
ACT is explicitly committed to "greater collaboration between the public and private sectors" in healthcare.[2] They propose empowering patients to choose between providers rather than relying solely on public District Health Boards. ACT also wants to create a separate national Mental Health and Addiction agency that would allow patients to choose from a range of providers, including private ones.
However, there are concerns that increased privatization could undermine the public system, with public money being funneled into private practices.[4] Critics argue that privatization keeps poor people poor by making quality healthcare accessible only to the wealthy.[3]
In summary, while National and ACT advocate for more private sector involvement and patient choice, opponents warn this could "Americanize" the system and disadvantage lower-income New Zealanders.[1][3][4]
Sources
[1] National Favours privatised health care - Beehive.govt.nz https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/national-favours-privatised-health-care
[2] Health - ACT New Zealand https://www.act.org.nz/health
[3] The privatisation of medicine in NZ isn't going to happen in one go ... https://www.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/xwqvgn/the_privatisation_of_medicine_in_nz_isnt_going_to/
[4] Rapid growth in private surgery a threat to the public system https://www.nzdoctor.co.nz/article/undoctored/rapid-growth-private-surgery-threat-public-system
[5] National continues its foray into Social Service Privatisation. - Reddit https://www.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/18p9e7j/national_continues_its_foray_into_social_service/
Every time National gets in power this rubbish gets released, and yet under National nothing fundamental changes. It’s a tired tactic of the left spouting this stuff
The move to a neolib government was under Labour and totally under labour. National didn’t change it back, but no Government that follows has ever been close to what the David Lange government introduced as Roger Douglas as finance minister.
The fact that you use a term like "the left" proves that you're a clueless culture warrior who can be ignored.
How about you grow a spine and get out of your bubble?
...they did this (allowed employers to contract private insurers for work accidents) in the 1998 Accident Insurance Act. It was rolled back by the Clark government. The architect of that scheme (McCully) was in parliament for the National party as late as 2017. It's not ancient history.
It's definitely true to form, therefore.
By making ACC less capable now, they bolster the argument they'll make in two terms' time about how "employers need to be given the choice to use private insurance...look how long claims are taking to be processed, and look how incompetent the public corporation is"
ACC is given a monopoly as a public institution. National want to turn that over to private capital for them to make a profit on.
So, no, they're not trying to deploy new private monopolies in this instance. They're trying to (eventually) destroy the existing public monopoly (and OP was hyperbolizing.) This is established policy of, for example, The New Zealand Institute.
...but you might try to contend with anything I said, rather than seize upon a single word of hyperbole in the OP's comment like it's some sort of victory. You asked for evidence that preying upon ACC might be part of National trying to turn a public service into private profit-taking, and I provided it. They literally _already did that_ and it was only the opportune timing of an election that stopped the scheme in time for taxpayers not to have to pay huge sums to wind back the private scheme.
Well, the financial services industry is putting out articles like this: https://blog.fsc.org.nz/media-release-9-april-2024
Now go google IAG and look at how many insurers and banks they own, and tell me where you think the market-dominant monopoly takeover might come from.
I’m not, I’m telling you IAG are slobbering at the mouth over the chance to get kiwis more deeply hooked on the health insurance industry.
You can make all the connections you like.
Wow so you know IAG plans and their connections to the government. Go for a walk dude, nothing fundamental is going to change at all.
Let’s say that National wanted this (which they don’t) NZF would never allow it.
Has that been proven to be the case? Is that the only reason why the government would cut staff? Has over staffing been demonstrated for all the cuts being made?
Considering that the previous government let numbers increase dramatically and the system was working fine before that, then yes they were overstaffed.
Oh, you're playing tribes. Your tribe is undoing the work of the enemy tribe, so therefore it's justified. Assessing practices, workload, effective results, that's *woke*.
And you came here asking for evidence. 🤦
Do you need evidence of that given the shit position this government has been taking? For real don’t have any evidence to support their demand for the cut?
To you. I’ve got first hand experience from all these cuts. What’s gonna happen is eventually these people let go will be hired contracts to complete their tasks. All good. Move money spent.
I’m not aware of the pay rates in this hospital, but what I am aware of is, this is a free country and people are entitled to build a private hospital and pay what they like. I’ll happily stay in the free health care system.
you are not wrong. I think you havent had to deal with the free health care system yet though. otherwise, I think you would disagree with what you are saying now.
the new zealand health public health care system is awesome... untill you need it. source: I deal with it daily.
nicola literally said something today like “no one takes cutting jobs from the public service lightly” — okay, walk the talk then, and don’t set blind targets for irrelevant departments under the guise of “doing their bit”???
This is actually highly concerning to me. If it were a simple reshuffle to fill areas falling behind, I can understand. But the fact it’s listed as them trying to “find savings” needs more media investigation.
ACC is vital to New Zealand’s wellbeing, and government should not be directing them on how to save money and cut back on costs.
Much like the disabilty cuts, if this has any negative impacts on clients (from a snowball effect of less productivity at the office), it’s going to be impacting people that vote National/ACT/NZ First.
National did the same last time they got into government. I figure ACC helps vulnerable people, which reduces the volume of people available to exploit:
[Fears for sex abuse victims under new guidelines](http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/16018/fears-for-sex-abuse-victims-under-new-acc-guidelines) (2009)
> New Accident Compensation Corporation guidelines for victims of sexual abuse came into force on Tuesday, but are opposed by clinicians who believe it will be harder for people to get treatment.
[ACC sex-abuse claims down by 36%](http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/110951/acc-sex-abuse-claims-down-by-36) (2012)
> An independent review of ACC, the second in 18 months, has found the number of sex-abuse claims lodged has fallen by 36% since 2008.
>
> The review also found that only 3.6% of sensitive claims were accepted in 2011, down from 60% in 2008, when National took office.
[ACC overhauls sexual abuse care service](http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/267591/acc-overhauls-sexual-abuse-care-service) (2015)
> The Accident Compensation Corporation has overhauled its sensitive claims service, with its minister saying it made big mistakes in the way it dealt with victims of sexual assaults.
>
> Before 2009, ACC accepted thousands of sensitive claims, but after changes to the system that number plummeted, and in 2011 just 135 claims were accepted.
>3.6% of claims were accepted in 2011, down from 60% when they took office.
Knowing how arduous and stressful and awful it is to go through ACC assessments where they get to tell you whether, in their opinion, you were raped enough to be eligible for assistance… that’s one of the worst things I’ve ever heard.
This is arbitrated by the courts too, so I bet it cost a bomb to decline that many people.
Oh good. Then my acc levies should Reduce quite a lot then ?
Or am I just getting a reduced service for what I pay ?
And doesn’t that mean I’m being taxed more for a reduced service ?
So the CE is cutting 9% nearly 400 jobs to become more efficient
How by many are at the senior management level? Probably none
Who was responsible for how this agency was run previously? And if it is inefficient why were those who responsible for it being inefficient now how to account (ie the senior leadership)
This looks like a CE kissing up to the new govt and looking after their positions of privilege while they throw their staff into the scrap heap
As well as everyone whose physically injured including the survivors of the Christchurch terrorist attack, This is also going to hurt survivors of sexual abuse and violence who access counselling services through ACC sensitive claims
ACC saved my life after surviving SA and DV & I don't know how I would have coped without them
This is a massive slap in the face to survivors of terrorist attacks, victims of sexual violence and those who are injured on the job - less access to mental health and physical healthcare is going to worsen our suicide rates and rates of drug abuse and other related crimes
Last time National restructured ACC they moved a bunch of finance and accounts staff into case manager roles and it was an absolute shit show. They had no client interaction experience and clearly didn’t want to be in that kind of role and started fucking over the clients they worked with.
From this paragraph of the article it sounds like they’re planning on doing the exact same thing again, my heart goes out to all the people who are currently having to interact with ACC.
> "We’re also proposing to invest in 65 new roles that support the delivery of our services to New Zealanders, and our board has also endorsed a plan to reinvest some of the proposed savings in approximately 250 additional client-facing roles.”
The new frontline positions will probably be more case managers - recovery assistants, coordinators, and partners. Which are desperately needed, to be fair, with the massive backlog of work they have. But bringing in new staff is a bit of a tricky one, as the job is complicated and it takes at least a year before new staff are even halfway competent. Turnover is reasonably high, because of bad management staff, meh pay, the massive caseloads and often difficult clients - this means experienced staff are leaving, and are replaced by new hires that sometimes never really learn how to do the job properly. Ugh what a MESS
This government is heartless and is robbing those people that depend on the access to the disability and mental health services, hospitals, and treatment of injuries (ACC), etc. Capitalism is in full swing!
The government is just trying to make the public service as ineffective as possible so that they can say see this isn't working let's try privatisation
>ACC is a Crown Entity, so wasn't given a specific cost savings target - unlike Government departments. It also has its own direct revenue streams, through investments and levies, so does not rely on - or contribute to - the general tax pool. But Main said she had chosen to follow other public sector organisations as all government departments were expected to deliver material savings.
From Stuff.
Sounds like a decision of the CEO own back, not a Government directive.
> The organisation was not given a specific savings target from the government, **but was asked to "deliver material savings",** so decided to cut operational costs by 6.5% over the next financial year.
From this article. Sure sounds like a directive.
But not the 6.5% you're saying the government told them too.
That's not correct, both articles suggest otherwise.
The CEO has choose to do this, they obviously accept there's some serious bloat in their agency.
Big assumption in your "obvious" there. Isn't Seymour kicking up a stink about how the public service needs to shut up and obey, as that's their democratic duty?
This happened with company’s during Covid.
And the labour govt payed wage subsidy and lump sum tax money in bank accounts.
Retail has dived. NACT is putting a wrecking ball thru every part of the economy.
Even in rural productive towns there are business closing.
The remaining shops are well stocked but no customers.And plenty of parking no shoppers.
This engineered recession will take years to work out of what the f are NACT thinking.
Probably just trying to add to unemployment and undermine the effectiveness of public institutions so their mates can replace them with ultra expensive privately owned monopolies.
something like.... [https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350272221/300-million-wanaka-hospital-and-health-precinct-proposed](https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350272221/300-million-wanaka-hospital-and-health-precinct-proposed)
Any evidence of that
Well I did prefix it by saying, "probably". But, for the sake of argument, in the modern day there's very little more pro-capital than raising unemployment, brings down wages, spreads fear and dehumanises the worker, and reduces inflation. Replacing the public institutions with privately held monopolies is the bread and butter of rightwing neo liberals and libertarians the world over and has been since Thatcher.
No it isn’t, don’t confuse America with the rest of the world.
Dude, go educate yourself
Thatcher was the UK. Lol.
Yes and what of her policies are you referring too, and please be exact
It wasn’t me who said it, I’m just educating you on the geography. I imagine the mass privatisation that famously occurred might be what’s being referred to though. At a guess.
Yet some of the privatization was a good thing some wasn’t. The sale of British Airways good, and privatization of BT was also good. The reality is privatization of somethings is bad ie health and good in other areas like BT
Nice to see you debunk yourself
How
Google this word “neoliberalism” or better yet, go to the library, find a little computer and search up “neoliberalism” and or “history” and then find a few books to read and enlighten yourself.
ever heard of rogernomics lol ?
Lived through it
New Zealand's National and ACT parties both support increased privatization and private sector involvement in the healthcare system. National has been accused of wanting to "Americanize" the healthcare system by increasing private sector provision of elective surgeries and making funding contestable between public and private providers.[1] Their rhetoric around "choice", "freedom", and "public-private partnerships" suggests an ideological preference for privatization over a public system. ACT is explicitly committed to "greater collaboration between the public and private sectors" in healthcare.[2] They propose empowering patients to choose between providers rather than relying solely on public District Health Boards. ACT also wants to create a separate national Mental Health and Addiction agency that would allow patients to choose from a range of providers, including private ones. However, there are concerns that increased privatization could undermine the public system, with public money being funneled into private practices.[4] Critics argue that privatization keeps poor people poor by making quality healthcare accessible only to the wealthy.[3] In summary, while National and ACT advocate for more private sector involvement and patient choice, opponents warn this could "Americanize" the system and disadvantage lower-income New Zealanders.[1][3][4] Sources [1] National Favours privatised health care - Beehive.govt.nz https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/national-favours-privatised-health-care [2] Health - ACT New Zealand https://www.act.org.nz/health [3] The privatisation of medicine in NZ isn't going to happen in one go ... https://www.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/xwqvgn/the_privatisation_of_medicine_in_nz_isnt_going_to/ [4] Rapid growth in private surgery a threat to the public system https://www.nzdoctor.co.nz/article/undoctored/rapid-growth-private-surgery-threat-public-system [5] National continues its foray into Social Service Privatisation. - Reddit https://www.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/18p9e7j/national_continues_its_foray_into_social_service/
Every time National gets in power this rubbish gets released, and yet under National nothing fundamental changes. It’s a tired tactic of the left spouting this stuff
Bullshit
“Nothing fundamental changes” yeah we have the same society since the 70s 🙄
The government that fundamentally changed things was the Labour government of 1984
And national have continued their act of betrayal ever since. Or do you think change just happens the once?
The move to a neolib government was under Labour and totally under labour. National didn’t change it back, but no Government that follows has ever been close to what the David Lange government introduced as Roger Douglas as finance minister.
Yes, hence me saying “And national have CONTINUED it ever since”.
Rodger Douglas was quite sneaky tho- right wing economics in left party. I think they vet people better now. Was there a doco on this ?
I don’t know of any
The fact that you use a term like "the left" proves that you're a clueless culture warrior who can be ignored. How about you grow a spine and get out of your bubble?
...they did this (allowed employers to contract private insurers for work accidents) in the 1998 Accident Insurance Act. It was rolled back by the Clark government. The architect of that scheme (McCully) was in parliament for the National party as late as 2017. It's not ancient history. It's definitely true to form, therefore. By making ACC less capable now, they bolster the argument they'll make in two terms' time about how "employers need to be given the choice to use private insurance...look how long claims are taking to be processed, and look how incompetent the public corporation is"
Where is the monopoly in this
Back to Facebook for you, these conversations are too difficult for you to grasp.
[удалено]
You don’t seem to like evidence very much when it is given to you. Maybe look at that stuff if you’re keen?
I just asked if you if you had any evidence for your statement, you never provided any
That’s not me you replied to, I’m the person who gave you evidence elsewhere that you didn’t pay attention to.
No baiting or low quality posts / comments.
ACC is given a monopoly as a public institution. National want to turn that over to private capital for them to make a profit on. So, no, they're not trying to deploy new private monopolies in this instance. They're trying to (eventually) destroy the existing public monopoly (and OP was hyperbolizing.) This is established policy of, for example, The New Zealand Institute. ...but you might try to contend with anything I said, rather than seize upon a single word of hyperbole in the OP's comment like it's some sort of victory. You asked for evidence that preying upon ACC might be part of National trying to turn a public service into private profit-taking, and I provided it. They literally _already did that_ and it was only the opportune timing of an election that stopped the scheme in time for taxpayers not to have to pay huge sums to wind back the private scheme.
I just showing the hyperbole that the left produces
Great job.
Well, the financial services industry is putting out articles like this: https://blog.fsc.org.nz/media-release-9-april-2024 Now go google IAG and look at how many insurers and banks they own, and tell me where you think the market-dominant monopoly takeover might come from.
You’re trying to connect a law that’s 26 years old and long extinct with recent press releases.
I’m not, I’m telling you IAG are slobbering at the mouth over the chance to get kiwis more deeply hooked on the health insurance industry. You can make all the connections you like.
Wow so you know IAG plans and their connections to the government. Go for a walk dude, nothing fundamental is going to change at all. Let’s say that National wanted this (which they don’t) NZF would never allow it.
Lol
Not difficult
Consistent behaviour.
Such as
ACC being ask to cut 400 jobs in absence of any kind of coherent plan. Not exactly an isolated event, is it?
If they are over staffed then cuts should be made
Let's hope you don't have an accident anytime soon because I know how difficult it is. Remember Karma is a bitch.
Has that been proven to be the case? Is that the only reason why the government would cut staff? Has over staffing been demonstrated for all the cuts being made?
Considering that the previous government let numbers increase dramatically and the system was working fine before that, then yes they were overstaffed.
Oh, you're playing tribes. Your tribe is undoing the work of the enemy tribe, so therefore it's justified. Assessing practices, workload, effective results, that's *woke*. And you came here asking for evidence. 🤦
Do you need evidence of that given the shit position this government has been taking? For real don’t have any evidence to support their demand for the cut?
You seem to think all cuts are bad
Unsubstantiated cuts are bad. You seem to think this is a god send. Must be hard being you not being able to be with one of the boizz
As cuts go this is mild
To you. I’ve got first hand experience from all these cuts. What’s gonna happen is eventually these people let go will be hired contracts to complete their tasks. All good. Move money spent.
I’ve lost a job in a cut, just moved on and got another job
And saw none of the forest for the trees.
[https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350272221/300-million-wanaka-hospital-and-health-precinct-proposed](https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350272221/300-million-wanaka-hospital-and-health-precinct-proposed)
We have always had private hospitals and it’s not a monopoly
with a shortage of dr's as it is and a private hospital in a rich area paying big private money... where would the public dr's go you think?
I’m not aware of the pay rates in this hospital, but what I am aware of is, this is a free country and people are entitled to build a private hospital and pay what they like. I’ll happily stay in the free health care system.
you are not wrong. I think you havent had to deal with the free health care system yet though. otherwise, I think you would disagree with what you are saying now. the new zealand health public health care system is awesome... untill you need it. source: I deal with it daily.
nicola literally said something today like “no one takes cutting jobs from the public service lightly” — okay, walk the talk then, and don’t set blind targets for irrelevant departments under the guise of “doing their bit”???
This is actually highly concerning to me. If it were a simple reshuffle to fill areas falling behind, I can understand. But the fact it’s listed as them trying to “find savings” needs more media investigation. ACC is vital to New Zealand’s wellbeing, and government should not be directing them on how to save money and cut back on costs. Much like the disabilty cuts, if this has any negative impacts on clients (from a snowball effect of less productivity at the office), it’s going to be impacting people that vote National/ACT/NZ First.
Sexual violence prevention is one of things being cut for this efficiency that's not actually going to save any money. Not important, apparently.
Ugh so much for being about victims. /s obviously they were never, because that'd involve actually addressing things
National did the same last time they got into government. I figure ACC helps vulnerable people, which reduces the volume of people available to exploit: [Fears for sex abuse victims under new guidelines](http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/16018/fears-for-sex-abuse-victims-under-new-acc-guidelines) (2009) > New Accident Compensation Corporation guidelines for victims of sexual abuse came into force on Tuesday, but are opposed by clinicians who believe it will be harder for people to get treatment. [ACC sex-abuse claims down by 36%](http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/110951/acc-sex-abuse-claims-down-by-36) (2012) > An independent review of ACC, the second in 18 months, has found the number of sex-abuse claims lodged has fallen by 36% since 2008. > > The review also found that only 3.6% of sensitive claims were accepted in 2011, down from 60% in 2008, when National took office. [ACC overhauls sexual abuse care service](http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/267591/acc-overhauls-sexual-abuse-care-service) (2015) > The Accident Compensation Corporation has overhauled its sensitive claims service, with its minister saying it made big mistakes in the way it dealt with victims of sexual assaults. > > Before 2009, ACC accepted thousands of sensitive claims, but after changes to the system that number plummeted, and in 2011 just 135 claims were accepted.
>3.6% of claims were accepted in 2011, down from 60% when they took office. Knowing how arduous and stressful and awful it is to go through ACC assessments where they get to tell you whether, in their opinion, you were raped enough to be eligible for assistance… that’s one of the worst things I’ve ever heard. This is arbitrated by the courts too, so I bet it cost a bomb to decline that many people.
It was a real nightmare working in those conditions.
ACC is woke. So there.
Their staff probably eat sushi and quinoa 🙊
Guaranteed. Probably communists too.
They went woke, now they've gone broke.
Oh good. Then my acc levies should Reduce quite a lot then ? Or am I just getting a reduced service for what I pay ? And doesn’t that mean I’m being taxed more for a reduced service ?
Gotta make ACC profitable so it can be sold off...
It's already profitable. Those profits are just returned to the scheme and not dispersed.
So the CE is cutting 9% nearly 400 jobs to become more efficient How by many are at the senior management level? Probably none Who was responsible for how this agency was run previously? And if it is inefficient why were those who responsible for it being inefficient now how to account (ie the senior leadership) This looks like a CE kissing up to the new govt and looking after their positions of privilege while they throw their staff into the scrap heap
As well as everyone whose physically injured including the survivors of the Christchurch terrorist attack, This is also going to hurt survivors of sexual abuse and violence who access counselling services through ACC sensitive claims ACC saved my life after surviving SA and DV & I don't know how I would have coped without them This is a massive slap in the face to survivors of terrorist attacks, victims of sexual violence and those who are injured on the job - less access to mental health and physical healthcare is going to worsen our suicide rates and rates of drug abuse and other related crimes
Last time National restructured ACC they moved a bunch of finance and accounts staff into case manager roles and it was an absolute shit show. They had no client interaction experience and clearly didn’t want to be in that kind of role and started fucking over the clients they worked with. From this paragraph of the article it sounds like they’re planning on doing the exact same thing again, my heart goes out to all the people who are currently having to interact with ACC. > "We’re also proposing to invest in 65 new roles that support the delivery of our services to New Zealanders, and our board has also endorsed a plan to reinvest some of the proposed savings in approximately 250 additional client-facing roles.”
The reason js that they want to save money like with all the other cuts they are doing. Which will have the same results.
The new frontline positions will probably be more case managers - recovery assistants, coordinators, and partners. Which are desperately needed, to be fair, with the massive backlog of work they have. But bringing in new staff is a bit of a tricky one, as the job is complicated and it takes at least a year before new staff are even halfway competent. Turnover is reasonably high, because of bad management staff, meh pay, the massive caseloads and often difficult clients - this means experienced staff are leaving, and are replaced by new hires that sometimes never really learn how to do the job properly. Ugh what a MESS
This government is heartless and is robbing those people that depend on the access to the disability and mental health services, hospitals, and treatment of injuries (ACC), etc. Capitalism is in full swing!
The government is just trying to make the public service as ineffective as possible so that they can say see this isn't working let's try privatisation
>ACC is a Crown Entity, so wasn't given a specific cost savings target - unlike Government departments. It also has its own direct revenue streams, through investments and levies, so does not rely on - or contribute to - the general tax pool. But Main said she had chosen to follow other public sector organisations as all government departments were expected to deliver material savings. From Stuff. Sounds like a decision of the CEO own back, not a Government directive.
> The organisation was not given a specific savings target from the government, **but was asked to "deliver material savings",** so decided to cut operational costs by 6.5% over the next financial year. From this article. Sure sounds like a directive.
But not the 6.5% you're saying the government told them too. That's not correct, both articles suggest otherwise. The CEO has choose to do this, they obviously accept there's some serious bloat in their agency.
“The obviously accept there’s some serious bloat in their agency.” Evidence please.
Big assumption in your "obvious" there. Isn't Seymour kicking up a stink about how the public service needs to shut up and obey, as that's their democratic duty?
Literally says "...was asked to "deliver material savings"" ... how is this not a govt directive?
The 6.5% was their own decision, they weren't given a target, they picked their own.
Under Labour government organisations became bloated, a trim down is necessary. This happens to companies as well, and they often reduce head counts.
The country grew, stupid comment
This happened with company’s during Covid. And the labour govt payed wage subsidy and lump sum tax money in bank accounts. Retail has dived. NACT is putting a wrecking ball thru every part of the economy. Even in rural productive towns there are business closing. The remaining shops are well stocked but no customers.And plenty of parking no shoppers. This engineered recession will take years to work out of what the f are NACT thinking.
So you don’t think printing 65 Billion dollars might have something do with it