External Publication

This Breaks My Heart

did:plc:iavc2gdqs4sixvnnu7wlfl3s June 7, 2026

TL;DR: A warning that the NZ government is stealthily shifting the nation's "DNA" from collectivism to right-libertarian individualism. Led by the ACT Party, the plan cuts ~9,000 public servants by 2029 to save $2.4 billion, gambling on AI to fill the void. This hollowing out makes the state strictly transactional. I plan to vote for change in five months.

New Zealand is still described as a lovely place to settle, bring up kids, and make a long lasting home. The people are extremely friendly, the outdoors is spectacular, the entertainment is cracking, the culture is inclusive, even the shopping is great once one stop comparing it to wherever it is you've come from. It's why, alongside Monmouth in Wales, I call Aotearoa New Zealand home and have lived there since 1996 (with a few sojourns to Australia, where I currently write this, more on that later).

When I/we visited in 1992 and returned permanently in 1996 it was to a place my heart fell in love with. New Zealand's social fabric palpably expresses several non-negotiable core values and cultural pillars including Māori concepts that deeply govern modern Kiwi ethics, corporate culture, and daily life: manaakitanga (kindness), kaitiakitanga (stewardship), and whanaungatanga (relationships). Kiwi's are rightly proud of their fierce egalitarianism & even of their "tall Poppy syndrome" leading to a classlessness. Of course the famed Kiwi ingenuity conveyed through the No. 8 Wire mentality and "She’ll be right" allows biculturalism to evolve into multiculturalism.

I experienced all of this on a daily basis at work, in the pub, and during conversations with newly formed mates - it was like a massive breath of fresh air and filled my soul.

Everything changes, nothing is permanent, and we live in a universe that has, at its fundamental core, an ever increasing state of entropy. In the decades living in New Zealand I have experienced tonnes of change, technology, expanding human rights, responsesw to emergencies, and ever changing approaches to government and budgets. All are fine and dandy as they have each firmly stood upon a solid core of what it means to "be New Zealand".

The current Government coalition, especially the neolibertarian ACT Party led solely by David Seymour, is actively attempting to change this very core with an attack, as I see it, on what it means to "be New Zealand".

The Impact on New Zealand's "DNA"

Perhaps the most profound change will be to the cultural identity and values of the nation.

From Collectivism to Individualism: New Zealand has historically leaned heavily on egalitarianism, the welfare state, and collective responsibility. This restructuring actively shifts the national DNA toward right-libertarian individualism. The state will view people strictly as individual taxpayers and consumers in a free market, rather than as members of interconnected communities.

Transactional Citizenship: The role of the government will shrink back to its most basic functions: maintaining infrastructure, providing core security, and managing the economy. The expectation that the government should act as an active social engineer or a safety net for all societal ills will be dismantled.

The Te Tiriti Friction: The ideological push for absolute universalism directly clashes with decades of legal and cultural interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi as a partnership requiring targeted co-governance and active protection of Māori interests. If this approach runs its course, it will trigger deep, enduring cultural friction and constitutional battles over what it actually means to be a New Zealander in the 21st century.

This breaks my heart.

There exist many countries in the world that already encapsulate a strict neolibertarian approach to themselves; we can all see how those experiments have failed all but the ever greedy mega-wealthy.

It breaks my heart how this change to "being New Zealand" is happening by stealth and certainly without any sort of mandate. This shift to society (if they even believe in the concept of "society", Mrs Thatcher infamously didn't) is one that many Kiwis seem oblivious to - all by careful design from David Seymour and his wealthy foreign supporters.

We're walking through a doorway, and we don't know it, however we feel it deep down in our bones and souls, something is going on. Systems are crumbling – but daily life continues. The dissonance is real, by Adrienne Matei (23 May 2025) is a good read if you too feel the change.

As I say, things change and the hardest to change is culture. It takes time (ACT have been bashing at this for decades), it takes constant communication in multiple ways over multiple times, and direct intervention to break the habits of the past. When this happens in a company / agency it is usually for obvious reasons and open to all to see (if not necessarily to agree with), however with a society it is rarely, if ever, done with such sunlight. It's interesting to reflect that it seems easier (if still long term and insidious) with Western style societies (see USA, UK, some European countries, Australia, NZ, Canada), perhaps we whiteys see the world differently:

"Alternatively, expressing this in reverse: Westerners tend not to see objects or individuals in context, attend to relationships and their effects, or automatically consider context. Most other peoples are good at this."

(well worth a read is Culture Is the Mass-Synchronization of Framings, by Marco Giancotti, Feb 12, 2026).

David Seymour, the poster boy for neoliberalism and importing US corporate ideals into New Zealand is being ably enabled, supported, and given free reign by the majority coalition party, National, as they let slip every now and again:

On Wednesday, I listened, breathless, as finance minister Nicola Willis, who had announced the public service cuts ahead of next week’s budget, talked to Ingrid Hipkiss on RNZ.

Willis: Public servants – they want to modernise too. They are smart cookies and they know it can be done better.

Hipkiss: So you’re expecting them to take this as a positive?

Willis: Absolutely! That’s why we’re saying to them, you lead the charge. We think we can streamline this. You tell us how it should come together in a way that makes more logical sense.

Hipkiss: You tell us how to lose some jobs of your colleagues, maybe do yourself out of a job, combine with someone else, save some more money, bring in AI, streamline the tasks, do a merger, report in quarterly, carry on doing the work you’re doing, do it really well for less money?

Willis: That’s right.

source: Thanks to Nicola Willis and Brian Roche, I now get that I’m just human capital, by Veronica Schmidt, May 21, 2026

My final personal note as I have also given "AI" a bash at what it "thinks" (see below), I will be voting in 5 months time for a very different approach to "being New Zealand", and I will be loud on line about Labour's promise to repeal the Regulatory Standards Act and immediate disbanding of the Regulation Commission - this will be a massive step forward in showing every Kiwi and the world that the DNA of New Zealand is NOT for sale.

The Impact on Wellington

Wellington’s identity and economy are inextricably linked to the public service. When the government slashes headcount, the capital bears the brunt of the economic shock.

Retail and Hospitality Contraction: The sudden removal of thousands of stable, salaried workers acts as a heavy anchor on the local economy. Cafes, restaurants, and retail stores in the CBD rely on the daily foot traffic and discretionary spending of public servants. Unions have already noted that the austerity measures are severely hammering the city's commercial life.
Housing Market Stagnation: A rapid influx of unemployed professionals can stall the housing market, driving down property values and softening rental demand as people either downsize or leave the city.
The Brain Drain: Highly skilled policy advisors, analysts, and project managers facing a shrinking local job market may be forced out of Wellington entirely. Many will look toward the private sector in Auckland or cross the ditch to Australia, effectively hollowing out Wellington's professional talent pool.

The Impact on "Ordinary Hard-Working Kiwis"

The government has explicitly exempted frontline staff — such as the military, teachers, and doctors — from the layoffs. The rationale is to target "make-work functions" and back-office bloat while pushing the public sector to adopt AI and modern digital tools. However, cutting 14% of the workforce inevitably creates ripple effects for everyday citizens.

Service Delivery Bottlenecks: Frontline workers do not operate in a vacuum; they rely heavily on administrative, logistical, and IT support. When the staff who process applications, manage hospital rosters, or handle data are removed, that administrative burden often falls back onto the "exempt" frontline workers. For the ordinary Kiwi, this translates to longer wait times for permits, slower responses to inquiries, and backlogs in social services.
Diminished Specialized Programs: The measures include reducing the number of government departments and agencies from the current 39 to an unspecified, smaller number. Consolidation often means that specialized community programs, regional outreach, and highly targeted support systems get lost in the shuffle or defunded entirely.
Economic Sluggishness: While the cuts are designed to balance the government's books, injecting nearly 9,000 unemployed workers into an economy that is already experiencing sluggish growth suppresses national consumer confidence.

The Core Debate

The tension surrounding these cuts boils down to two fundamentally different views of what the public service should be:

Government:

* **Fiscal Responsibility:** The public sector grew unsustainably from 48,000 to over 63,000 under the previous government. These cuts return the workforce to a sustainable 1% of the population.


* **Efficiency & Modernization:** Removing redundant agencies and demanding faster adoption of AI will allow the government to do more with less.

Critics:

* **Austerity at a Cost:** You cannot remove 14% of the workforce without fundamentally degrading the frontline services and support systems that taxpayers fund.


* **Economic Damage:** These measures are characterized by unions as "willful destruction" that will crater Wellington's economy and leave everyday Kiwis with a hollowed-out state apparatus.

prompt: How do these 2026 public sector job cuts compare historically to previous government downsizings in New Zealand?

The 2026 public sector downsizing represents the sharpest single reduction of core bureaucratic jobs in modern New Zealand history, but it differs fundamentally in scope and target from the massive state restructurings of the past.

While historical downsizings radically altered what the New Zealand government did as a provider of services, the 2026 cuts are primarily focused on altering how many people administer it. The mandate to eliminate 8,700 roles by mid-2029 is a targeted correction against a specific hiring surge under the previous Labour government — which saw core public service roles jump by approximately 46%. The current government's stated goal is to return the core bureaucracy from 1.2% of the population back to the historic norm of 1%.

Here is how the 2026 overhaul compares to the three major eras of state reduction in New Zealand:

Rogernomics & Corporatisation _1984–1988 _ Under Finance Minister Roger Douglas, the Fourth Labour Government completely restructured the New Zealand economy. Tens of thousands of jobs were eliminated as massive government departments (like the Post Office, Railways, and Ministry of Works) were transformed into State-Owned Enterprises or privatized outright. ** The contrast:** Rogernomics disproportionately impacted blue-collar, operational, and regional workers — Māori unemployment soared to 25% by 1992 as a direct result. The 2026 cuts do the opposite: they explicitly protect frontline and operational roles while aggressively targeting white-collar policy, HR, and administrative staff concentrated in Wellington.
The Mother of All Budgets 1991 Following a change in government, National Finance Minister Ruth Richardson slashed state spending to balance the books. This era, dubbed "Ruthanasia" radically reduced the state's financial footprint by cutting social welfare benefits and deregulating the labor market through the Employment Contracts Act. ** The contrast:** Richardson’s cuts targeted the social safety net itself, directly reducing what citizens received in benefit payments and housing subsidies. The 2026 Willis mandate is focused strictly on the machinery of government and operational overhead, rather than rolling back citizen entitlements.
**The Post-GFC Sinking Lid ** _2008–2017 _ Following the Global Financial Crisis, the John Key-led National government instituted a strict cap on core public sector numbers and demanded ongoing "efficiency dividends" from government ministries to rein in spending.

The contrast: The Key government relied primarily on a slow squeeze — utilizing hiring freezes, wage restraint, and natural attrition over a decade. The 2026 approach is a much more aggressive cliff-edge strategy, actively disestablishing nearly 14% of the workforce within a strict three-year window.

Ultimately, past restructurings were driven by a fundamental ideological shift toward free-market neoliberalism. The 2026 cuts are framed more as an operational efficiency drive — aiming to strip out back-office bloat and force government agencies to modernize without fundamentally altering the services the state provides.

prompt: How is the New Zealand government planning to use AI and digital technology to replace the functions of the 8,700 laid-off public servants?

For an analysis see: See AI Will Save The New Zealand Public Service (June 03, 2026)

_ _

prompt: How is David Seymour and Act reacting to this?

David Seymour and the ACT Party are treating the government's announcement as a victory, though their primary reaction is that the cuts should go deeper and happen faster. As the coalition partner who campaigned most aggressively on shrinking the state, Seymour has welcomed Finance Minister Nicola Willis's mandate while using it to validate ACT's long-standing political platform.

Here is how Seymour and ACT are responding to the specific measures:

1. "Right All Along" but Too Slow

ACT campaigned on immediately slashing up to 15,000 public sector jobs to return the bureaucracy to 2017 levels. Because Willis's plan targets 8,700 jobs by 2029, Seymour views the National-led approach as a watered-down version of his own policy.

www.interest.co.nz

In his official response to the announcement, Seymour stated: "Reducing core public service FTEs to below 55,000 by July 2029 is a slower reduction than ACT campaigned on, but it proves our long-held position was right."

2. Targeting Demographic Ministries

While Willis focused on "back-office" roles and AI efficiency, Seymour is aiming squarely at entire government departments that he believes should not exist. He is actively pushing for the government to aggressively consolidate demographic-focused agencies.

Specifically, ACT wants to fold the ministries of Ethnic Communities, Women, Pacific Peoples, Seniors, Youth, and Māori Development into a single, much smaller umbrella department (potentially absorbing them into the Ministry of Arts, Culture and Heritage).

3. Taking Aim at Regulators

Seymour has made it clear that reducing the headcount is only step one. In his capacity as Regulation Minister, he has pivoted the conversation toward cutting what he calls the "twisted spaghetti of regulators."

ACT argues that the sheer number of regulatory bodies in New Zealand not only costs the taxpayer money to fund, but acts as a massive drain on the private sector by forcing businesses to comply with redundant and overly complex rules.

Ultimately, Seymour is using the government's 8,700 headcount reduction as a baseline, maintaining political pressure on his coalition partners to ensure the cuts actually materialize while pushing to extend the axe to regulations and entire ministries.

prompt: What is the likely outcome to kiwis, businesses, the government, and the DNA of NZ if this approach if it is allowed to run it's course

If the coalition government’s approach — combining aggressive headcount reductions, the automation of state functions, and a right-libertarian push for deregulation — is allowed to run its full course through to 2029, it will fundamentally reshape New Zealand’s economy and its social contract.

Here is the projected outcome across those four domains:

1. Outcomes for Kiwis

For the everyday citizen, the relationship with the state will become highly streamlined but significantly colder.

The "Digital Wall": For routine interactions like renewing passports, paying taxes, or applying for standard permits, services will likely become faster and fully self-serve via AI and cloud platforms. However, citizens with complex, edge-case problems (such as nuanced welfare needs or intricate disputes) will face a "digital wall." With thousands of caseworkers and administrators gone, finding a human being to exercise discretion or empathy will become incredibly difficult.
Loss of Tailored Support: If ACT’s drive to eliminate demographic-specific ministries is successful, government policy will become strictly "color-blind" and universal. While this appeals to those who favor absolute equality of opportunity, vulnerable groups who historically rely on targeted equity programs will likely find the state less responsive to their specific socioeconomic or cultural realities.
Wellington's Transformation: The capital will undergo a painful, sustained economic contraction. As the bureaucratic middle class shrinks, Wellington will be forced to transition away from being a one-industry government town, resulting in closed hospitality venues and a cooler housing market as talent relocates to Auckland or Australia.

2. Outcomes for Businesses

The private sector will experience a sharp divide between those who rely on government spending and those who are currently constrained by government rules.

The Deregulatory Dividend: Sectors like agriculture, construction, resource extraction, and manufacturing will likely thrive. David Seymour’s push to cut the "twisted spaghetti" of 267 regulators will lower compliance costs, speed up project approvals, and make it easier to hire, fire, and build.
The Rise of GovTech and Consultancies: As the public sector hollows out its internal expertise, it will still need specialized skills and systems to function. This will trigger a boom for private IT firms, AI developers, and management consultancies who will step in to sell automated solutions and strategic advice back to the state.
Regional Rebalancing: While Wellington businesses suffer, businesses in the regions may benefit if the $2.4 billion saved from administrative overhead is genuinely redirected into the promised infrastructure, roading, and frontline regional developments.

3. Outcomes for the Government

The New Zealand government will fundamentally shift from being a massive employer of administrative labor to acting as a digital platform manager.

The Resilience Deficit: A leaner state is cheaper during periods of stability, but it is often brittle during a crisis. Stripping out mid-level policy analysts, scientists, and crisis managers causes a massive loss of institutional memory. When the next pandemic, natural disaster, or economic shock hits, the government may lack the internal capability and human capital required to respond rapidly.
The AI Gamble: The entire model hinges on the untested premise that artificial intelligence can instantly absorb the workload of 8,700 humans. If the technology fails to deliver the promised 14% productivity gain, the government will be left with a broken operational backend, forcing future administrations into frantic, expensive recruitment drives to fix failing services.

4. The Impact on New Zealand's "DNA"

Perhaps the most profound change will be to the cultural identity and values of the nation.

From Collectivism to Individualism: New Zealand has historically leaned heavily on egalitarianism, the welfare state, and collective responsibility. This restructuring actively shifts the national DNA toward right-libertarian individualism. The state will view people strictly as individual taxpayers and consumers in a free market, rather than as members of interconnected communities.

Transactional Citizenship: The role of the government will shrink back to its most basic functions: maintaining infrastructure, providing core security, and managing the economy. The expectation that the government should act as an active social engineer or a safety net for all societal ills will be dismantled.

The Te Tiriti Friction: The ideological push for absolute universalism directly clashes with decades of legal and cultural interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi as a partnership requiring targeted co-governance and active protection of Māori interests. If this approach runs its course, it will trigger deep, enduring cultural friction and constitutional battles over what it actually means to be a New Zealander in the 21st century.

(subscribe/RSS)

The Impact on New Zealand's "DNA"