
As the Labour caucus met in Christchurch to plot its election strategy, Chris Hipkins took a detour to attack the Coalition’s economic management.
Speaking to the Queenstown Business Chamber, the opposition leader said New Zealand’s economy was in poor shape and the Government was failing to fix it.
"Despite a lot of talk about economic growth, actually the most recent indicators are pretty concerning for us. They're suggesting that New Zealand's economy isn't recovering and if anything we may be going in the other direction," he said, according to an RNZ report.
Back in the North Island, Hipkins’ argument drew support from an unlikely ally.
Simon Bridges, Auckland Chamber chief executive and former National Party leader, said some fiscal stimulus or other immediate policy action was needed to revive the city.
He was responding to “pretty grim” data showing Auckland’s unemployment rate had risen to 6.1%, reflecting weak consumer spending and business confidence in his view.
“I do think there is a real case for serious policy and/or fiscal stimulus … particularly in the big cities. We need to raise the animal spirits of the business community,” he told RNZ.
Bridges said the Coalition should cut corporate tax rates, saying the “worthy” long-term growth policies would not address the current lack of momentum.
Spending headed south
There’s some logic to this argument. Business cycles are self-reinforcing: growth spurs more growth, while contraction fuels further decline.
Mike Jones, the chief economist at BNZ, said household disposable income growth had turned negative again in the June quarter and was suppressing spending.
“We’re left nursing continued downside risk on the lift in household spending that we (and others like the Reserve Bank) are forecasting for the coming 12 months,” he said.
“Certainly, consumer confidence needs to lift a long way from here for these forecasts to have any hope of panning out. The analysis above suggests that might take some time.”
Jones’ proposed remedy was for the Reserve Bank to keep cutting the Official Cash Rate, not for the Government to lower corporate taxes or airdrop bundles of cash onto Auckland rooftops.
A well-timed Treasury briefing this week advised governments to leave the central bank to manage economic cycles and avoid fiscal stimulus unless essential.
Finance Minister Nicola Willis appears to have lost track of her position on this issue.
After Wednesday’s unemployment figures, she said she was “pumping cash into the economy” and pulling every lever to create jobs.
The next day, after Treasury released its long-term briefing, she said it showed the dangers of excessive fiscal stimulus during a downturn.
“The report makes clear significant errors were made in the fiscal response to Covid. Treasury is urging policymakers not to repeat those mistakes. Our Government will not,” she said.
Is the Coalition pumping cash into the economy, or stepping aside so the Reserve Bank can cut interest rates? It can’t really have it both ways.
Cash pump
Hipkins has not taken a firm position either, though he appears sympathetic to the cash-pump approach. He told the Queenstown Chamber governments should not be bound by a 30% of GDP spending limit or a 50% core Crown debt ceiling.
“Government spending as a percentage of GDP in a small economy like New Zealand needs to be able to fluctuate, so in a period of economic crisis or in a significant shock like a pandemic you need to be able to increase government spending to get through it.”
He said a future Labour government would focus on active “investments” to reduce the need for Crown spending on automatic stabilisers such as the Jobseeker benefit.
This is roughly the opposite of Treasury’s long-term briefing advice, which implied almost half of the $66 billion Covid response spend was ineffective.
Whatever the merits of Labour’s plan, it will need something big to fund and finance its cash pump as the Coalition is already running a $10 billion deficit without moving the dial.
Enter the capital gains tax. Former staffer Vernon Small recently reported Labour’s policy council had settled on a CGT instead of a wealth tax, subject to final caucus approval.
The 2019 Tax Working Group’s proposed capital gains tax was forecast to raise an average of 1.2% of GDP once fully phased in over about a decade.
At that point, it would be barely enough to fill today’s structural deficit, meaning it would not create much room to reverse National’s spending cuts while keeping the books in balance.
But maybe Labour doesn’t have to balance the books…
Future fiscals
In June, the Green Party released a discussion paper arguing governments do not need to run a surplus to stabilise debt. As long as the economy grows as fast as debt, the debt-to-GDP ratio stays the same.
This suggests it would be acceptable to run a small annual deficit, provided it supported growth and debt levels were not already too high.
Net core Crown debt was about 42% of GDP at the end of March and is forecast to peak near 46% before stabilising and easing slightly. Treasury has advised keeping debt below 50% in normal times, leaving a 40% buffer for crisis spending.
The Greens argued this limit was far too conservative, noting it was enough to fund the Covid response twice and still recover in unusually poor conditions.
More moderate estimates, they said, would allow a ceiling twice the current level without risking collapse in a crisis.
Hipkins refused to commit to the 50% ceiling when asked in May, saying that would only be decided when Labour formed its fiscal plan in 2026.
Labour could choose to run moderate deficits over the forecast period and still keep debt near 50%, while waiting for capital gains tax revenue to flow.
That could allow more capital investment and halt—though not fully reverse—the Coalition’s spending cuts without undermining stability.
None of these decisions have been made, this is just speculation. But the Coalition’s spending policies are already pushing up against the limits of current fiscal rules and tax settings.
If Labour wants to do more, it will have to do something different.
37 Comments
"The problem with socialists is that they eventually run out of other people's money" - & their grandchildrens debt financing
At the moment it seems everyone has run out of money..... economy is spluttering in Auckland.
NAct are running a 10billion def now... without pumping, time the RBNZ cut 50
The problem with Austrians is that eventually the economy withers and dies and there is no employment or infrastructure for anyone's grandchildren so they leave and go to a country with a unionized labor market, higher taxes and a redistributive government.
"The problem with socialists is that they eventually run out of other people's money"
It seems to me that East Asia - China, Japan, Singapore, Taiwan, Korea - does public spend far better than the Anglosphere. That's why they have superb infrastructure, particularly transportation.
Now the Anglosphere has some proud achievements, but I don't think you can really put us on the same level. Just look at the fiasco with the Auckland cycle bridge - truckloads of money spent on feasibility. A small group of people make out like bandits while the public ultimately gets nothing or something that is woefully over-budgeted, dreadfully executed, and under-spec'd. Once again, a small group make out like bandits (including the game of mates charade).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aaKGm9zZlU
Where will they find the 'cash'.....that they issue?
From the horses mouth last week John Key very much said our economy is about housing so unless we get rates back towards Covid era levels the “mark to market” wealth effect of this won’t be enough to drag us out of the spending recession we are in. This recession is exacerbated by the fact that the “CPI” measure is misrepresentative of the cost of living ( as I think Dan was writing about last week) so as we have to spend relatively more on necessities that are rising in price faster than non essentials our spend goes on inflation.
I also think that MMP has drawn us away from bi-partisan politics as both side’s coalition partners are always further from the centre than the 2 main parties and have an inordinate amount of power compared to their voter support so the likelihood of “meeting in the middle” for what our country needs more than anything right now in multiple policy areas is more and more unlikely.
So it comes down to populist bandage packaged PR b.s as we inexorably cycle down in the economy and consequently society.
At this stage all I can see as a circuit breaker is a crash in the currency to iron out our cash flows offshore and the export sector grows in relative size to be able to add even more that they are.
I see that in energy policy, the gas exploration ban and the Greens make many to scared to invest in the transition power we need.
I tend to agree re the export sector but fear a crash in demand for Milk product if China has a hard landing.
There is, imho, no recovery in housing when it has so much further to fall. In many cases the falls have already happened, but the owners do not realise it until sale time and no serious interest shows up. When an average house costs a mil in Auckland with average household income 150k less tax and rates and food and power... Sorry the numbers till do not add up.
Is this the way every MMP country ends up?
Where will they find the money...
Tax, tax and more tax. The Labour/socialist way.
Any more tax from a household will just depress household spending more and the economy will crater.
Average household income is currently falling now.
Tax is not necessary to increase spending. The government can run a bigger deficit up to the point where it's spending is inflationary - then it needs to raise taxes or reduce spending but not before that.
In a fiat currency monetary system tax revenue does not pay for government spending it is used to withdraw money from circulation to help fight inflation.
It is clear the author really struggles with Keynesian economics and in the final sentence utters the discussion killing 'fiscal rules' - as though it is a scientific universal law governing macroeconomics. Historic economic data suggests deficit spending is normal and standard - what's more it is essential in a fiat currency monetary system.
In truth. when the economy makes it easy for workers to find jobs and get pay rises - the business sector starts to panic and can't handle it. Get the unemployment rate back up over 5% please! Okay lets do that says the RBNZ and the government in unison.
I wonder what would have happened if we had pretty much followed the UK model of limited lockdowns after the first... The All Blacks playing in front of a full stadium in Wales effectively ended the NZ experiment and Auckland unlocked... I doubt the deaths would have been game changing? cost 66billion for what?
People forget we had far fewer lockdowns than the UK. Lockdowns were a good idea if you could follow them through to elimination, and a bad idea if you couldn't. So yes the final lockdown in Auckland went on far too long. Long enough that it seems to have caused a fair few people to forget how much freedom we had in the preceding year and a half, whilst most of the world was subject to continual rolling restrictions.
Historic economic data suggests deficit spending is normal and standard - what's more it is essential in a fiat currency monetary system
It might be standard and essential, but we can also see it's tendency to get overused to the point of having increasingly diminishing marginal returns - like the last 20-30 years. If you're just running a deficit to get by, or bridge economic contraction, it'll most likely run away on you eventually.
What marginal returns are diminishing? If the economy is providing close to full employment and young skilled and educated workers can find opportunities across a range of sectors - including the government - and businesses are thriving and GDP is at 4.8% and unemployment at 3% (as they were under the previous government thanks to all the 'wasteful spending') what exactly is the problem with that? Assuming inflation is managed and brought down carefully - all our peers have managed to do this without triggering 3 recessions in 2 years - but not NZ. Our governments management of the economy has been unique.
What are the missing marginal returns you are talking about? Does 2 years close to recession, rising unemployment, falling labor participation and record population outflow deliver the marginal returns you are seeking?
What marginal returns are diminishing?
The one where you receive some sort of net benefit.
If it's spending on a public good, like education or healthcare, you'd expect it to get the same or better.
If it's a longer term economic investment, you want the return to eventually exceed the investment.
If you're spending money just to keep people in jobs that don't produce some sort of net benefit, eventually you go bust. That's not unique to NZ, it's occuring almost simultaneously across many countries. Otherwise everyone would've cracked the code of infinite money printing.
Not infinite money printing but money printing in line with economic capacity. No other countries are going broke. Not the US, not China or Japan or NZ - all with widely varying levels of debt to GDP and deficit spending. None of them are going broke or anything close to it.
So say there was a spectrum, with "broke" at one end, and wealth or prosperity at the other.
If a country continues to deficit spend, without some sort of net tangible benefit above the expense, which end of that spectrum will they hit?
Which direction on that spectrum would you feel countries like Japan, the US and NZ have moved in the last few decades? The GDP figure suggests one way, but I'm not so sure.
'Money" (in this context) is a measure of activity....you are 'broke' when there is no activity.
The restriction on activity is real resources (expertise,materials and labour) not the measuring mechanism.
So
How can territories go broke? Or maybe a better term would be "fall into poverty"? Which we know can and does happen.
Why would we bother having a market if the government could just produce all the activity the public needs to exist?
Many societies did exactly that.
Our constraint is we desire (need?) products that we cannot produce ourselves and so we trade....that trading mechanism is controlled by the banks.
Many societies did exactly that
Smaller groups. Once you get to a certain population or level of civilization, you usually end up with some sort of market system. And lending. Hence religious texts thousands of years old mention usury and avarice.
Our constraint is we desire (need?) products that we cannot produce ourselves and so we trade....that trading mechanism is controlled by the banks.
The transaction and lending maybe. Ultimately you need goods or money to trade for other goods you may need.
"The transaction and lending maybe. Ultimately you need goods or money to trade for other goods you may need."
The international system....I guess we could always try using physical gold instead.
But seriously, the banks would be satisfied with government spending if they judged the proposal likely to succeed....just as they do with a business loan application. Government can spend AND remain unpenalised by the banking system if they spend wisely.
It is a quality measure not quantity.
Sure.
If if we look at how our government (of any persuasion) has spent money for the last few decades
Did they shoot for quality, or quantity?
The philosophy seems to be if we keep doing it long enough, eventually we'll get it right. Reality seems to dictate if something's not working, you need to do something different if you want a different result.
It is not just our government spending that is of concern....we have failed to invest in infrastructure both privately and publicly.
So yes we do need to do something different and the body best placed to do that is the state...especially after relying on the private sector for decades has shown that they wont (in the areas needed or to the required scale)
And that investment needs to be cognisant of future conditions and our ability to (physically) maintain it.
As for the Treasury report I think it is espousing a given view of economics and not reality. Treasury, like most of the NZ business community, believes that low levels of unemployment (3% under the previous government) achieved by so called 'wasteful spending' is a bad thing and must not be allowed to happen ever.
And I think as a result we can expect unemployment to keep rising and stay well over 5% for the remainder of this governments time in office. Its a feature not a bug.
Many exec teams are looking at Income to Expenses ratio's and staff will have to go this quarter. they no longer see a bounce back and believe that it will be easy to rehire if it occurs, most of the IT staff we let go last year went to Aussie. I am not sure it will be as easy to rehire as they think, perhaps just use Tata staff instead.
Agreed. I was surprised by the small rise in unemployment for the June quarter so it's likely that significant layoffs are still to come for NZ workers.
I asked ChatGPT about periods of government surplus in NZ for the past 40 years and then I asked for the levels of private sector debt growth for the same periods.
Period Government Surplus Period Private Sector Debt Trend
Mid-late 1980s Surplus (e.g., 1987–88) - Private debt rising from ~65 % of GDP
Mid-1990s to early 2000s Sustained surpluses - Private debt climbed toward 110–130 % GDP; household debt grew sharply, peaked at around 157 % of GDP in September 2009.
Mid-2010s Surpluses (e.g., 2014–2017) - Private debt continued increasing, led by household borrowings
2018–19 Surpluses (~NZ$3–7 billion) - Private sector debt still high (over 130 % GDP)
Yes—private sector debt rose significantly during nearly all those government surplus periods. In particular, household borrowing surged, consistent with an ongoing accumulation of private debt relative to GDP.
Economist Steve Keene (and Minsky before him) observe the significance of private sector debt cycles and how they are correlated with government deficit spending.
Rising private sector debt always reaches a peak at which point the private sector is maxed out - no-one can afford to take on the additional repayments of more debt. If we correlated levels of private sector savings then we would see these declining during periods of government surplus.
MMT expresses this as:
public sector deficit = private sector surplus
Where the public and private sectors are on different sides of the ledger and double entry accounting is applied at the macroeconomic level.
I asked Chat GPT about levels of private sector savings during periods of government surplus:
Summary: Savings During Surplus Periods
Surplus PeriodHousehold Savings Trend
Late 1980s Flow savings positive (~4%), but declining trend onward
1990s – Early 2000s Flow savings turned negative—households were dissaving
Mid-2010s Flow savings remained negative (~–1% to –2% of GDP)
2018–2019 Still negative flow savings despite government surpluses
2020–2021 (COVID shock) Major spike in savings (up to 7.6% in 2021)
Key Takeaways
-
Flow-based private sector savings did not increase during most surplus periods—typically, households were dis-saving.
-
Only COVID-related conditions reversed the trend temporarily, with large short-term savings spikes.
Interesting summary from ChatGPT that appears to support the MMT claim that:
government deficit = private sector surplus
Given that when the government does run a surplus the private sector has to drawn down savings and increase its debt exposure.
Taaaaaaaaaaaax
Just putting it on the credit card leads to poverty. Slowly then all of a sudden
And if you own the credit card company?
In June, the Green Party released a discussion paper arguing governments do not need to run a surplus to stabilise debt. As long as the economy grows as fast as debt, the debt-to-GDP ratio stays the same.
And just how would the Greens-who would raise the debt level straight away- propose to stimulate the economy to somehow grow quickly enough to keep pace? Given their intense distrust of business and their hardline views on how climate change should be tackled, it's really hard to see how they propose to square the circle.
Why anyone would look to Hipkins for answers is beyond me...
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to 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.