What should Productivity Commission do next?

Treasury asks for ideas on what topics the Productivity Commission should investigate next

11th Sep 12, 10:43am by Gareth Vaughan

Treasury is asking for suggestions on what the Productivity Commission ought to probe next year.

Treasury, says the Productivity Commission, which has a broad mandate to improve productivity in a way that supports the overall wellbeing of New Zealanders, needs new inquiry topic(s) for the period between early 2013 and early 2014 once it has finished its current work.

The Commission is currently working on a joint inquiry with the Australian Productivity Commission about strengthening economic relations between Australia and New Zealand, and an inquiry into local government regulation. These inquiries are due to be reported back to government ministers in December 2012 and April 2013, respectively. Treasury is responsible for the Productivity Commission and manages the process for deciding its inquiry topics.

Treasury says potential inquiry topics will be chosen based on the degree to which they:

· have the potential to improve productivity and support the overall well-being of New Zealanders;

· utilise the Commission’s unique position as an independent agency with high quality analytical ability and a focus on public engagement; and

· require a substantial degree of analysis to resolve a complex set of issues.

"Potential inquiry topics that meet these criteria should be submitted to inquirytopics@treasury.govt.nz together with any relevant supporting information by Friday 28 September 2012," Treasury says.

A Crown Entity that began operating on April 1 last year, the Commission's report into housing affordability, released in April, called for the immediate release of new land for residential development in areas such as Auckland and Christchurch.

The principal purpose of the Commission is to provide advice to the government on improving productivity in a way that is "directed to supporting the overall well-being of New Zealanders, having regard to a wide range of communities of interest and population groups in New Zealand society.” It's chaired by Murray Sherwin, a former chief executive and director general of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry; and ex-deputy governor of the Reserve Bank.

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.

10 Comments

by Boatman | 11th Sep 12, 11:15am 1347318952

They should investigate how the hell we are going to survive exporting primary commodities (food) when our currency is so strong and getting stronger .

by steven | 11th Sep 12, 11:18am 1347319125

We are not....everyone is doing a competitive devaluation so NZ it seems is expected to carry 155 other buggered countries. Its going to get worse IMHO...

regards

by Kunst | 11th Sep 12, 12:07pm 1347322060

Culture change !

Advice the government not to import infrastructure, which requires skill and knowledge from overseas countries/ companies. Activate incentives to investors, policymakers, politicians and the general public that NZproduction (not just agriculture) must be one of the leading industries in New Zealand – a culture change.

Introduction of a new currency, parallel to the NZ$, but based on gold in order to stabilise the NZcurrency rather low with many other advantages.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJuyL84cdWQ – go to 6:30min

by notaneconomist | 11th Sep 12, 12:34pm 1347323685

They should investigate the cost of Government (both local and central), Bureaucracy and Compliance costs on business. The loss of production to business in time and money in completing compliance tasks and the cost to business in being a free tax collection agency for Govt.

This should be a multi-faceted approach which explores all Government spending and how this spending subsidises certain sectors and inflates the costs of goods and services, e.g. health and education costs.

Part of this investigation should include the effects of taking private enterprise earnings for Government spending and what economic benefits would occur if private enterprise was able to re-invest these funds into other private enterprise income generating activity. I will remind the treasury that you already know the current Government spending component of this equation so only need to look at increases in productivity that private enterprise can create and there is starting point for you to begin this exercise as you already know what private enterprise can achieve.

A thorough investigation of the cost of Govt spending should include those organisations who have entered into Public Private Partnerships (PPP's) and the loss that occurs to all other private enterprise because of these type of arrangements. Be sure to include the Fletchers/Govt PPP model for Chch.

The investigation should include the cost of bailouts on public and private enterprise, the cost of ACC in investigating injuries and over-charging on an annual basis for future service, the minimum wage effect on wages and whether it has set a bench-mark for all wages in NZ rather than the normal supply and demand of the labour market.

The investigation should include the costs to business from inefficient, non-skilled bureaucrats telling private enterprise how to operate when the bureaucrats have never run a business, have a poor understanding of business and cause direct loss to business.

The investigation will of course look at the cost of having highly paid bureaucrats vs unemployment benefits.

by Philly | 11th Sep 12, 1:06pm 1347325603

It all depends on what is next on the Act Party agenda.

If we ran the country as well as they ran their Party, we would be......

On second thoughts, cancel that train of thought.

by John | 11th Sep 12, 1:26pm 1347326811

Given its cost and the fact that nothing comes of it in the end, why are we not selecting the do nothing option.

by economist | 11th Sep 12, 2:35pm 1347330912

Well why don't they take some brillant advice from former assistant secretary of housing Catherine Austin Fitts...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nU7wGe2A6k

by notaneconomist | 11th Sep 12, 4:10pm 1347336604

Economist - many thanks for the link. Catherine Austin does a great job in this clip.

Yep I will have to keep harping on about Govt keeping out of private enterprises life. It has always been small to medium sized business in NZ that has kept the economy going, looks like we are no different to the USA.

My guess is most NZ'ers wouldn't undertand or watch this type of video or they would be rather disbelieving. I love her analogy of the Tapeworm. I have always labelled them parasites but think I shall have to adopt this tapeworm economy slogan. Interesting what she said about GATT, I think she is on the money timing wise as that is when much of the change started to occur.

She is right about the huge amount of technologies sitting on the shelf and I have always said it would be these technologies that will pull everything through.

Lawyers in NZ can and do write up mortgage agreements so lending can be between parties rather than banks. This was fairly standard practice in the 1950's in farming in NZ. Older farmers would lend to younger ones to help get them started.

I laugh at the transparency - it is so what is needed. Funny thing I recall Helen Clark always going on about transparent Government, well the banks had a field day under her reign. A little bit of poodle appears to go a long way.

by scarfie | 11th Sep 12, 7:55pm 1347350123

How about the economies of guillotine construction, seemed to help France out pretty well once.

by By the Numbers | 12th Sep 12, 7:03am 1347390239

New task:

Over past 10 years:
Calculate (ratio of $govt failure:$market failure)
Calculate cost to taxpayers of:
1. Benefit fraud
2. Tax fraud
3. Tax avoidance
and recommend cost benefit ratio for govt policy correction