sign up log in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

Labour pledges debt reduction, return to surplus and an independent Parliamentary Budget Office to analyse government finances and election commitments

Economy / news
Labour pledges debt reduction, return to surplus and an independent Parliamentary Budget Office to analyse government finances and election commitments
[updated]
Barbara Edmonds and Chris Hipkins
Barbara Edmonds and Chris Hipkins

Labour has confirmed that, if reelected to government, it will restore the Reserve Bank's monetary policy dual mandate targeting both inflation and maximum sustainable employment.

“Growth means nothing if Kiwis don't feel it in their pay packet, their household budget, or in their future. Our fiscal strategy is about making sure they do,” Labour leader Chris Hipkins announced on Sunday.

Labour is also pledging to;  Balance the books and return to surplus. Return to original measure of OBEGAL, achieve surplus by 2029/30 and maintain a sustainable fiscal position over the forecast period. 

Operating Balance Before Gains and Losses (OBEGAL) is a key fiscal indicator used by the Government. Finance Minister Nicola Willis introduced OBEGALx, which excludes the Accident Compensation Corporation.

Finance spokesperson Barbara Edmonds is promising to establish an independent Parliamentary Budget office to analyse government finances and election commitments.

"First, we'll return the books to surplus by 2029/30. We'll use the conventional OBEGAL measure, not a convenient alternative for creative accounting. Second, we'll bring net [government] debt down over time, our long-term objective is 20% of GDP. And third, we will keep spending and revenue sustainable" she said. 

"Both will sit at around 33% of GDP once our capital gains tax is fully implemented. But we won't balance the books by shrinking the economy. National has tried it, and it hasn't worked."

Currently, the Reserve Bank has a single monetary policy mandate to maintain inflation between 1% and 3% - it specifically targets 2%.

The Labour-NZ First government implemented a dual mandate in 2018, when then-Finance Minister Grant Robertson added supporting maximum sustainable employment. The current Coalition Government removed the employment mandate in 2023.    

NZ First leader Winston Peters also favours returning employment to the Reserve Bank's monetary policy mandate. 

"Under National unemployment is at an 11-year high, business liquidations are up 71%, homelessness and KiwiSaver hardship withdrawals are at record levels, and public services are under pressure. That isn’t economic success," said Edmonds.

"Strong public services are an investment in New Zealand’s future. Labour will make every dollar count, invest where it matters and back the people and businesses that can grow our economy."

National finance spokesperson Nicola Willis said Labour's proposal "amounts to nothing more than spending more, borrowing more and taxing more – the same approach that led New Zealand into the sky-high inflation, exploding debt and economic vandalism Labour imposed on Kiwis last time".

"Targeting revenue at 33% of GDP means that by 2031, Labour would need to be collecting an additional $10.3 billion in revenue every year - far more than the $1.35 billion they say their capital gains tax will raise in that same year," Willis said.

"The proposal to water down the Reserve Bank’s inflation target risks faster rising prices for every Kiwi."

Here are Labour's key pledges;

Balance the books and return to surplus. Return to original measure of OBEGAL, achieve surplus by 2029/30 and maintain a sustainable fiscal position over the forecast period.  

Bring down debt. We will aim to reduce net debt down to 20% of GDP over time and prioritise investments which support a strong growing economy.   

Keep government spending and revenue sustainable. Core Crown Expenditure and revenue will be maintained at around 33% of GDP when the Capital Gains Tax is fully implemented. 

 Strengthen scrutiny of Government spending by establishing an independent Parliamentary Budget Office to analyse Government finances and election commitments.  

Restore the Reserve Bank dual mandate to consider price stability and maximum sustainable employment. 

Restore wellbeing reporting to ensure our decisions take into account the impact on New Zealanders. 

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.

26 Comments

Why not add another weeks leave and triple employers kiwisaver contributions as well. Another inflation s#$storm just lIke their last time in control.

Up
9

How??

Any details?

Up
0

The only study I know of which has looked at the evidence for and against single mandates found, having studied data from 176 countries over the period from 1985 to 2023, that a dual mandate raises inflation by some eight percentage points relative to inflation-only mandates. The study also found no systematic long-term employment benefits.

What the study did not address is why major economies such as the US, China, Canada and Australia have dual, or in China's case, multiple mandates.

https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/125925/

Up
4

"What the study did not address is why major economies such as the US, China, Canada and Australia have dual, or in China's case, multiple mandates."

Political acceptance - virtue signaling compromises that extend the pain instead of ripping the bandaid off. Also to enable convenient excuses in the event of failure to achieve a particular target    

Up
1

We have a dual mandate, it's just an unofficial one. If the RBNZ was oonly wworried about iinflation, our OCR wpuld be mmuch hhigher. 

By the wmay ive given up trying to fix the mistskes this new eeditor iintroduces constantly. Need to test this on a samsung phone interest team. Nice to ser the old editor go tgoigh as it was a dog. 

Up
0

Nice to hear im not the oonly one jhaving iissues. Ffrustrating 

My kdying of spelling was correc unti I hit the space bar 

Up
1

Pretty ggood sstudy going on right now. Our central bank has been more conservativ than others due to the single mandate, and our unemploymen rate is high and economy is knackered.

 

Up
1

Govt could return to an operating balance surplus in 2030 if they start a significant capital investment programme in 2027. Borrowing for capital investment is not included in the operating balance but the investment would drive a decent increase in tax revenue (thus bringing revenue up to expenditure). Are Labour brave enough to go big on capital and really set about repairing our broken infrastructure?   

Net debt at 20% of GDP is a full 1.8 percentage points below the current levels! A chunky capital investment programme would take net debt up closer to 30% before coming back down again. I suspect (hope) that this is what Labour are aiming to do. Worth remembering that even Labour's preferred net debt measure ignores a load of other financial assets. Add those in and the Govt has a net positive financial worth.

The wellbeing and RBNZ mandate proposals are performative. 

Up
6

Invest in what would be my question. All the big high BCR land transport projects are done for the time being, now it's just dregs. Energy investment is being (successfully) funded privately. 3 waters infra is mature, if run down. It doesn't really unlock anything new at this point like it did historically.

Health? I guess if you targeted it towards electives and healthcare for workers and the young it would pencil.

There is plenty of unpopular stuff which would pencil of course. But the barrier isn't money anyway.

Up
1

Public ttransport. Japan is no fLuke. 

Let's see what the CRL does for AAuckland's economy. 

This new eeditor has given me tourettes 

Up
2

Public transport where we speed up the buses, yes. ie with congestion charging or green paint. Very cheap, potentially big improvement in trip times. But I don't think there are many other opportunities really.

CRL is cool, and think its ok to spend a lot of money on nice stuff if a society chooses to. Ie chch stadium. But we should be honest about the economic benefits. Realistically it's in the same bucket as Warkworth to Te Hana at the moment. Needed a LOT of massaging to just scrape over the BCR requirement back when it was approved, and Auckland rail ridership is about half what they assumed it would be at this point (still only 60% of pre-covid). If they build 50,000 apartments in the next 10 years around the stations, yeah that'd turn it around. Council are not super keen on that though.

Up
2

Is it ever rregretted in rretrospect tGough? Would Japan rip out its train llines if ssomeone ooffered them the ppurchase price plus interest? 

No good city ever regrets the spending that got them there. But bad cities regret the cost cutting that got them there.  

Up
1

This is just confirmation bias, or post-purchase rationalisation though right? The people who argued a project was bad already lost, no point in re-litigating it. And now that its built there are actually people that use said project and love it, so you get a vocal support base.

It has to be an astoundingly bad public works project to get the public to think it wasn't worth it after the fact. Especially if you do the cherry on top stuff ie asphalt on the motorways, and nice art in the stations, and wait until it is perfectly complete to open.

Up
0

The barrier is a lack of public investment and the availability of real resources - skills, materials, plant, etc. But the resources can be developed out, we just need a long enough pipeline of guaranteed work. In terms of unlocking new things - public transport infra, cities that don't look stuck in the 1980s, more pace on the energy investment, schools, hospitals, universities, climate resilience etc. There is so much to do. The BCR methodology is more of a hindrance than a help imho.           

Up
3

Unless the plan is do a step change in immigration rates and a goal settle a couple million more, people in the short - medium term (which to be clear I am on board with) then I don't know that any of this really "unlocks" anything which would produce a larger economy which produces more resources, with more productive workers.

We have mature transport systems that largely get people to where they need to go, the obvious upgrade projects are done. We have schools, the total roll is beginning to decline. The universities are pretty much property portfolios with bits tacked on at this point. Energy investment is at a record due to replacing gas generation. Hospitals yes, but only if the additional expenditure goes on getting workers back working.

My point is, none of this (resource) expenditure actually enables the economy to produce more resources in the future. Except for unpopular stuff, there are no real productivity gains to be had in public infrastructure. The vast vast majority of expenditure is in very boring, small scale renewals of existing infrastructure. The water still works, the toilet still flushes, the road is still passable, the house isn't underwater. Which is fine and necessary, but the average worker isn't going to get anything extra done because of it. Quality of life isn't going to be improved.

Re-bcr else do you measure the expected; expenditure of resources vs expected benefits? There is always infinite calls for more infra from people who would directly benefit, simply because someone else is paying. Without a system to prioritise then we're just gonna end up building whatever the loudest person in the room says we should. Very likely another couple k's of expressway.

Up
0

Except for unpopular stuff, there are no real productivity gains to be had in public infrastructure.

Would it not be best to have those unemployed currently able to upskill and move into employment in infra areas, thus having less watering down of productivity stats from unemployment being high, while also adding ot the tax base to balance the govt budget? Thus building out further infra would technically imperove quality of life. We do need to be mindful that we will never have trains like Europe or Japan, we have too smaller economy to justify the cost and we have a horrific record of getting any value fopr money in infra projects. As such, how much more can we improve our quality of life? Some may argue that life was better with less technology, congestion, people, all vying for the same camping spots, Doc trails, roads etc.

Up
1

There’s a lot I can agree with.  You could also have used the lack of maintenance of the existing stuff, before building new.  But my concern is that we have a vision vacuum.   What are we good for, what’s the next 30 years looking like, what kind of society do we want?   We don’t all need to agree on everything, but if we don’t begin the conversation then we will wind up with those unanticipated benefits such as slash on Gisborne beaches.  We have an aging population, health care probably we can reach agreement on?  Say queue times for GP care?  Or access to hospital beds?  Then we can have a contest of ideas about how to deliver.   That’s what really grinds my gears about the big 2 political parties.  Platitudes, no vision, no ideas.  

Up
2

To echo a couple of comments above: is there any detail on how? 

When did not releasing policy details and mechanisms become an acceptable thing?

And wellbeing: what measure won't become a political instrument?

Up
0

The best question....how? Whatever they promise they need to show how they will deliver...and that is not just funding...indeed funding could be considered the least difficult constraint.

Up
0

The legacy of covid relief measures has a long barbed tail.

No political party is going be able to turn the economy on a dime to be in surplus without a mix of increasing tax take, and exercising spending restraint.

Privately held debt in NZ stands at $117,000 per capita - for every man woman and child. Crown debt stands at $40,000 per capita.

By international standards, crown debt is relatively low, and private/commercial debt quite high. And we run a balance of payments deficit - living beyond our means.

All the talk of cost of living crisis is misleading in my opinion. Fed by expectations of a certain standard of living that fails to account for the means to support it. I am not suggesting it does not exist. But lacking is the capacity to cut one's coat to suit the cloth. That was a painful lesson to learn in the 1930s depression. And it looks to me we will have to relearn it in the 21st ccentury.

Up
5

Do you know what proportion of private debt is held by overseas institutions?

That one scares me a little.

Up
0

Basic private debt (mortgages, business loans etc) is held in our bank accounts. Outstanding loans and bank balances are about the same - because the former created the latter.

Up
2

A big pproblem is that the people that are ffeeling the cost of living the most can't afford to travel and see that NZ has actuall done quite well. We used to go overseas and think it's cheap, definitely not the case now (depending where you go i guess)  

Not that it helps, but its certainly not a NZ problem. I guess the differenc is that other countries may have got pay rises the last few years where we opted to jam the brakes on.  

 

 

Up
0

Income £1, expenditure 19 shillings 11 p and a halfpenny, happiness.   Income £1, expenditure £1 and a halfpenny, disaster.  Dickens had a way with words.  

Up
3

Is this Labour heavy or National light? It seems so but then you get all the other BS from Labour.

Up
2

So if they want the govt to be in surplus then the money creation needs to come from the private sector. When they hand employment responsibility to RBNZ, are they not implicitly saying they want to go back to juicing the housing market as a way to get the economy going again? The housing market is really the main proxy for money supply into the economy and that falls in the realm of what the RBNZ can at least partially control via the interest rate mechanism, no?

Up
1