Labour's 'employment goal' for RBNZ monetary policy to remain open without specific nominal jobs target; Set to follow US example of not telling central bank which of price stability and employment goals to prioritise

Labour’s stance that the Reserve Bank of New Zealand’s (RBNZ) price stability goal should be accompanied by a focus on employment will not see it propose a specific, nominal employment or unemployment figure for the central bank to target, finance spokesman Grant Robertson told interest.co.nz.

Meanwhile, Labour is set to follow the US example of not outlining which of price stability or employment the central bank should prioritise if the two goals were to clash at any point, he said.

Robertson is gearing up to provide further detail in coming months on his calls for the RBNZ’s targets to include employment. As reported, he has pointed to language used by the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) and the US Federal Reserve (Fed) as indicative of where Labour wants to head.

If Labour leads the government after the 23 September general election, it will immediately launch a review into its proposals. This will also include a look at a Labour preference of taking sole rate-setting responsibility from the RBNZ Governor in favour of a rate-setting board that includes the Governor, his deputies and potentially other voices within the bank.

The RBNZ’s governing legislation is the Reserve Bank Act 1989. The Act stipulates that “(t)he primary function of the Bank is to formulate and implement monetary policy directed to the economic objective of achieving and maintaining stability in the general level of prices.”

The legislation gives the RBNZ its independence from the government. However, there is some contact: each RBNZ Governor enters an agreement with the Minister of Finance detailing “…policy targets for the carrying out by the Bank of its primary function during that person’s term of office, or next term of office…”. These are referred to as Policy Targets Agreements (PTAs). Targets have to date been mostly measured by annual changes in CPI inflation.

Robertson has previously outlined a desire for the RBNZ’s stated objectives in the Act to be altered, which would feed through to different language in each PTA. He first raised his stance in 2015.

RBA and Fed language

Both the RBA and the Fed have specific price stability goals like the RBNZ, while also being tasked to take employment outcomes into consideration when setting policy. Neither have specific, nominal employment or unemployment targets.

The RBA has a duty to maintain price stability, full employment, and the economic prosperity and welfare of the Australian people. The Fed is tasked by Congress to target maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates.

The RBNZ does of course take employment settings into account as part of its policy making process. But, not expressly having a reference to it in its governing legislation can help in the event price stability and employment outcomes are in conflict.

Robertson accepts this is a fair point. He told interest.co.nz that Labour is not going to tell the RBNZ whether one is more important than the other. For the type of language we might see around this, we can possibly turn to the Fed:

under circumstances in which the Committee judges that the objectives are not complementary, it follows a balanced approach in promoting them, taking into account the magnitude of the deviations and the potentially different time horizons over which employment and inflation are projected to return to levels judged consistent with its mandate.

The Fed legislation accepts that factors affecting the maximum level of employment might not be directly measurable; this is why it does not have a fixed employment target. But, Fed members are asked to assess what they think is the normal rate of long-run unemployment, which the central bank does publish, for example, a range of 4.5% to 5%.

We’ve been there before

Having the Reserve Bank target employment outcomes as well as price stability is nothing unheard of in New Zealand. Previous versions of the Reserve Bank Act and recent PTAs have referenced employment outcomes. For readers keen on a quick-fire history of monetary policy in this country, see this 2012 paper from the RBNZ.

Employment language in the Act:

The 1949 election-winning National government amended the Reserve Bank Act 1933 to include references to both price stability and employment goals (along with trade and production considerations) in 1950:

[The Bank] shall do all such things within the limits of its powers as it deems necessary or desirable to promote and safeguard a stable internal price level and the highest degree of production, trade, and employment that can be achieved by monetary action (1950, s2)

The 2012 RBNZ discussion paper by James Graham and Christie Smith noted that reference to the goals other than price stability ‘were not absolute but were to be pursued only to “the highest degree…that can be achieved by monetary action”.’

Up until that point the Bank was tasked with regulating and controlling currency and credit in New Zealand, while keeping an eye on promoting and maintaining NZ’s economic and social welfare.

The 1950 alteration was changed again in 1969, with the Labour government of the time amending the Act:

The Minister of Finance may from time to time communicate to the Reserve Bank the monetary policy of the Government, which shall be directed to the maintenance and promotion of economic and social welfare in New Zealand having regard to the desirability of promoting the highest degree of production, trade, and employment and of maintaining a stable internal price level (1960, s2).

Graham and Smith note that internal price stability had been demoted to the bottom of the government’s monetary policy objectives with the 1960 change.

Various modifications to the Act after this generally focussed on the relationship between the Bank, the Minister of Finance and Parliament. That was until the 1984 Labour government embarked on a wholesale review of the Act. One paragraph from Graham and Smith’s paper highlights the drivers for this (emphasis added):

New Zealand’s terms of trade fell sharply after 1973, and macroeconomic policy faced major adjustment challenges through the following years. Large fiscal deficits, gradually rising unemployment, low productivity growth and the adjustment costs of various microeconomic reforms, all made it more difficult to secure support for the necessary measures to keep inflation low. Headline inflation would remain above 10 percent for most of 1974- 87 (with a brief interruption associated with the wage and price freeze in 1982-84), and for much of the 1970s and early 1980s the policy emphasis on stemming the rise in unemployment limited the extent to which interest rates were allowed to rise. The government and much of the private sector borrowed at very low or negative real interest rates, complicating efforts to keep inflation in check.

The 1989 Act focussed the Bank’s primary responsibility on price stability. It also introduced the Policy Targets Agreements as we know them today for the carrying out of that primary function.

Employment references in PTAs

The removal of an employment goal from the Bank’s objectives in the 1989 Act, and the stated primary focus of the Bank being price stability, did not stop employment being referred to in PTAs between the Governor and Minister of Finance.

However, a quick look through the various agreements signed since 1990 shows the emphasis on employment outcomes has been in relation to the government’s economic policy. The stance taken by successive governments since 1990 has been that the Bank can best aid the government in its employment and other goals by maintaining price stability.

The very first PTA between Labour’s David Caygill and Don Brash in March 1990 was firmly focussed on inflation, requiring the RBNZ to achieve price stability – an annual rate of 0-2% - by December 1992. The change in government in 1990 saw National’s Ruth Richardson negotiate a similar agreement with Brash later that year and again in 1992.

When Bill Birch became Finance Minister, his 1996 PTA with Brash was the first to refer to employment:

Consistent with section 8 of the Act and with the provisions of this agreement, the Reserve Bank shall formulate and implement monetary policy with the intention of maintaining a stable general level of prices, so that monetary policy can make its maximum contribution to sustainable economic growth, employment and development opportunities within the New Zealand economy.

Treasurer Winston Peters’ 1997 PTA, and Labour’s Michael Cullen’s first with Brash in 1999 were the same.

Cullen’s 2002 and 2007 PTAs with Alan Bollard introduced a slight change. They were much more specific that the RBNZ’s goal was price stability. They included a second clause outlining that the objectives of the government’s economic policy:

a) Under Section 8 of the Act the Reserve Bank is required to conduct monetary policy with the goal of maintaining a stable general level of prices

b) The objective of the Government's economic policy is to promote sustainable and balanced economic development in order to create full employment, higher real incomes and a more equitable distribution of incomes. Price stability plays an important part in supporting the achievement of wider economic and social objectives.

Finally, Bill English’s PTA with Bollard in 2008 and then Graeme Wheeler in 2012 removed the reference:

a) Under Section 8 of the Act the Reserve Bank is required to conduct monetary policy with the goal of maintaining a stable general level of prices.

b) The Government's economic objective is to promote a growing, open and competitive economy as the best means of delivering permanently higher incomes and living standards for New Zealanders. Price stability plays an important part in supporting this objective.

*This article was first published in our email for paying subscribers. See here for more details and how to subscribe.

We welcome your help to improve our coverage of this issue. Any examples or experiences to relate? Any links to other news, data or research to shed more light on this? Any insight or views on what might happen next or what should happen next? Any errors to correct?

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment or click on the "Register" link below a comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current Comment policy is here.

21 Comments

The changes to the last two sections say it all. It's not about equitable distribution of incomes it's about higher incomes. What that ends up translating to is higher incomes for investors while everyone else has a flat income.

The bit about stable prices begs the question of why there were OCR cuts when inflation was around 0.4%. That's pretty stable why change anything, except to increase house prices.

Labour trying to abdicate responsibility to a civil service function. What about a real monetary target for monetary policy, rather than woosy economic ones? So target a balanced current and capital account over the medium term. It can be accurately defined and measured in dollars, unlike abstract statistical concepts like inflation.

Where is the detailed Housing Policy Document ?

Its ridiculous , Labour are messing about with all manner of things they simply dont understand, instead of focussing on issues that really matter

Employment levels are high ( we have not seen them at this level before in my memory ), and the number of jobs on Seek and TM show huge demand for workers .

Labour are going nowhere with this one

The only real serious issue is housing , so where is the Housing Policy Document ?

Thanks for the info Joneses.;
But it will make little difference to those insisting that Labour have no housing policy, National voters don't want to hear it.
Despite the all the faux concern - they prefer the status quo .

There is also this speech given last year by Andrew Little explaining Labour's housing policies.
http://www.labour.org.nz/andrew_little_speech_to_the_property_council_s_...

And there is an independent Australian economist comparing Labour and National's housing policies. He came to the conclusion that Labour had thrown the gauntlet down and National needed to respond. This doesn't seem to indicate he thought Labour was going nowhere on housing like Boatman has repeatedly complained. Also when Boatman is asked what gaps does he see in Labour's housing policies he never responds.
http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2017/02/nz-labour-throws-gauntlet-housing/

I think Labour are part of the way there.
But they also need to introduce a meaningful CGT.
Note - a meaningful one, not a lame duck one like Australia's post Howard's 1999 changes

You are probably right about NZ needing some form of CGT -so that is a policy deficit for Labour. Housing is a multi-faceted problem and I think overall Labour has the broadest policy responses. They are also committed to doing a complete taxation review once in government...... which is a bit weaselly -but it is what it is.

Here's the GAP , how are Labour going to build houses in Auckland for sale for under $500,000 when serviced vacant land already costs more than this ?

set the inflation target to zero and include house prices in inflation calculations and the house prices will come down.

Agree.
National's stupendous flaw on housing has been that it has not dedicated anywhere near enough energy to addressing demand side factors.
I'd give them a B on addressing supply side, and an E on demand side.
I'm not quite sure whether they are not addressing demand due to ideological blinkers, or because it is convenient politically for them to ignore. I suspect a bit of both.
I suspect Labour may be playing cautious with a CGT because of concern of political fallout. Not really sure why though, if the family home was exempt I don't think it would hit their constituency very hard.

You're generous. National deserves to get an 'F' on their management of the demand side as they don't even acknowledge it.

F for fair enough

The government doesn't even get a pass mark on housing supply. Look at the options they haven't used.
1. Government backed build programme -no.
2. Restricted HNZ from building state housing -yes -took out $1/2 billion in dividends.
3. Reformed infrastructure financing -no
4. Housing National Policy Statement in RMA -yes in 2015 on Urban development capacity -but it is hopelessly bureaucratic -so having no effect.
5. Made it crystal clear that zoning reform will allow a super abundance of developable opportunities to build our urban environments up and out -no
6. Created Urban Development Authorities with the power of compulsory purchases for site assembly, to bypass land bankers and build at scale -talked about it, but not done it.
7. Intervened in the building material market to break up duopoly -no

And look at what they have tried.
1. Special housing areas -started 2013 -land banked and useless
2. CERA and CDU -Christchurch anchor projects still not built and Fletchers East Frame -900 dwelling residential development still not started -possibly get 20 townhouses in 2018
3. $1 infrastructure fund 2015-wrong instrument -growth areas need revenue tools to pay off debt -not an alternative debt instrument
4. Pushed hard to allow more building from Auckland's Unitary Plan -this was little bit helpful -but not enough land was rezoned so properties with favourable zoning are still highly rationed -so have monopoly pricing power. HNZ is the biggest single beneficiary of this re-zoning and the government is in a process of selling off this 'asset' to fund its economic programme -tax cuts etc.

The National Government will spin and BS to anyone who will listen about what great economic managers they are. An objective review of the facts shows this is not true.

Good points.
B is too kind.
They did push Auckland Council like mad on the unitary plan, and SHAs have had some success, even if limited.
Maybe a D+

Agreed National's housing report card should read.

E or F for failing to try any demand side reforms. We should also add that KiwiStart grants are known by anyone with any economic understanding to increase demand and cause house price rises in a supply constrained market. So they benefit house/land sellers more than home buyers/builders.

D+ for at least trying some supply side reforms -even though they all have been hopelessly ineffective.

Fritz I added a comment in about the Unitary Plan in my above post on National's D+ housing supply side effort.

Not to mention blind ideology driving them to try to sell off housing stock during the country's worst housing crisis - easy when you insist there's no housing crisis, I guess.

Set to follow the US example.... because its worked just so well over there! Sheeeeesh.

Why discuss. First thing first. Vote national party out this election for any solution to start.

Happy to vote for Labour on this specific issue , but their so called housing "plan" is nothing of the sort , its a wishlist devoid of any explanation as to how its going to work , or more importantly , how we are going to fund it .

My two eldest need to buy and own their own homes fairly soon , or migrate to a higher wage economy like Australia.