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

Citing a critic on interest.co.nz, Treasury secretary Gabriel Makhlouf says Treasury's evolving to deal with a new world and will become 'an exciting and energetic hothouse of ideas'

Citing a critic on interest.co.nz, Treasury secretary Gabriel Makhlouf says Treasury's evolving to deal with a new world and will become 'an exciting and energetic hothouse of ideas'

The boss of the Treasury says the government's economic adviser is changing, and isn't a bunch of white men in grey suits with a beige mindset as he moves to counter views such as one expressed in a recent comment posted right here on interest.co.nz, which said “Treasury are a pack of pencil-heads living in an ivory tower”.

In a speech given to the Trans-Tasman Business Circle in Wellington today entitled The Changing Face of the Treasury, Secretary to the Treasury Gabriel Makhlouf noted the recent comment posted on interest.co.nz by commenter 2 Tooth Bora here as an example of criticism directed at the Treasury, which has had a reputation as an economically dry, peddler of neo-liberal ideas since the 1980s.

Makhlouf, the former Principal Private Secretary to UK Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown who succeeded John Whitehead as Treasury Secretary last year, said his ambition was for Treasury to be an exciting and energetic hothouse of ideas.

"I want us to be powered by intellectual curiosity and focused on work that has a real and positive impact. I want us to be one of the most influential and respected organisations in the country, renowned for credible analysis and well-researched evidence that presents a more complete picture of complex issues," Makhlouf said.

"I want our intellectual and analytical strength to be matched by a deep understanding of what’s happening in the real world, and have that combined knowledge translated into first-rate policy advice."

'Treasury doesn't have a monopoly on good ideas'

He said "absolutely central" to Treasury's transformation was a push to be more outwardly focused and collaborative.

"If we are to achieve higher living standards for New Zealanders, then working with others is critical. The Treasury does not have the monopoly on good ideas. Nor can we achieve our goals without taking others with us," Makhlouf said.

Contrary to some views, he said Treasury staff  "were not a bunch of white men in grey suits with a beige mindset." The organisation's gender balance had been about fifty-fifty male and female for many years, and seven of its last eight management vacancies were filled by women.

"We also have a number of staff hailing from different parts of the globe and employ people from a range of disciplines and experiences. Along with economists, we’ve got qualified biologists, psychologists, anthropologists, sociologists, musicologists, and others."

However, he said there was more to be done, including bringing greater Maori perspectives to Treasury's work.

Makhlouf said Treasury's work was focussed on delivering three outcomes, being: improved economic performance, a stable and sustainable macroeconomic environment, and a more efficient and effective State sector.

"Our vision is a world class Treasury that is working towards higher living standards for New Zealanders."

"A broad view and an enquiring mind are essential for us to be a world-class Treasury. The environment in which we work has rarely been more challenging, and we need to adjust to the reality that the ‘rules of the game’ are different to what we may have become used to," added Makhlouf.

'The rules of the game have changed'

With the world in the midst of a prolonged period of instability and risk, or an age of volatility, rapid changes in economic power were under way meaning the structure of the global economy would probably be very different in 10 years’ time.

"Existing global rules, standards and norms are under severe stress, and countries everywhere are trying to understand the new world and adapt to it. Economics is at the heart of this debate. You just have to look at the economics magazines or the business pages to see that people are re-examining a few economic assumptions that used to be taken for granted, or asking what the objective of economic policy should be, or even whether the economic growth that has occurred in the last 250 years was an historical anomaly that is now over," Makhlouf said.

"Some things have of course not changed. Without question it remains a fundamental truth that successful economies need, among other things, a stable and sustainable macroeconomic framework, sound monetary policy that delivers stable and predictable prices, a prudent fiscal policy and debt that’s under control. And it remains true that a well-regulated financial system matters, that properly functioning markets matter, that price signals matter and that incentives matter."

Nonetheless, what had changed, and was changing, was the environment Treasury worked in, with this becoming "much more complicated."

This was partly due to the ongoing impact of the global financial crisis, partly due to the sophistication, pace and amount of information flowing around the world, and partly about changes in the drivers of global economic growth, the impact of a growing Asia, and huge structural change in Europe.

"Factors such as these are putting new and significant pressure on policy analysts and on decision-makers."

"For my part, I’d argue that the objective of economic policy is to raise living standards, with growth being an essential dimension of this," said Makhlouf.

In terms of his ambition for Treasury to be "an exciting and energetic hothouse of ideas", Makhlouf said this ambition was reflected in work Treasury staff have produced over the past year including a "comprehensive" range of evidence and policy options to the incoming Government last year on improving New Zealand’s economic performance.

Treasury had also worked with other state sector agencies to create a shared view on economic strategy, with this work feeding into the development of the Government’s Business Growth Agenda.

"A second and no doubt more controversial example has been our work on education. The Treasury continues to see student achievement as being of critical importance to raising growth and productivity over the long-term, and directly connected to our vision of higher living standards," said Makhlouf.

"We engaged with schools, academics, and others in the education sector, and delivered solid analysis and evidence that supported development of the Government’s policy agenda for schools," he said.

"The work informed public debate about improving the quality of teaching. My aim is for the Treasury to continue to be respected for the standard of our analysis and advice, even if people do not always agree with our recommendations."

Treasury staff 'reaching out'

In terms of being more collaborative, Treasury staff had been changing the way they engaged with outsiders and "reaching out" to benefit from other public and private sector expertise. This was about working in partnership with other agencies and using complementary skills to deliver better services for New Zealanders.

"More broadly it is about engaging with New Zealanders to understand better how we can make a difference and ensure that a diverse range of perspectives are factored in to our policy advice."

"A very good case in point is the way we’re developing the next statement on the Crown’s long-term fiscal position, which we are required to produce at least every four years. These statements provide 40-year plus projections on the Crown's fiscal position, identify challenges that will face future governments, such as those arising from society's ageing population, and provide the government, members of the public and their representatives in Parliament with information on evidence-based options for meeting those challenges," said Makhlouf.

"We’ve taken a new approach to doing this by bringing together an independent panel of economists, academics and commentators to test our assumptions and analysis. We’re also opening our work to public scrutiny by publishing it on the Treasury website as we go."

'Committed to being bold and innovative'

He said he wanted Treasury staff to be more open to new ideas and to ask themselves whether they had the models and frameworks they needed.

"We have to understand different perspectives, constantly look for new insights and recalibrate our views in light of new evidence. So we’ve decided to take a very deliberate approach to help bring this about," said Makhlouf.

"Our Diversity Strategy launched in February this year focuses on three key areas: diversity of thinking, including new approaches to problem-solving and creativity, ethnic diversity to better reflect the views of the broader society we serve, and the proportion of women in senior leadership roles."

Makhlouf said he was conscious that if the Treasury wanted to build public understanding and turn perceptions around, "to gain a reputation that better matches the reality of the organisation," the importance of its work, and the talents of its staff, it had to earn it.

"I am absolutely determined that we will. We are an organisation that is committed to being bold and innovative, passionate and ambitious, collaborative and challenging, adaptable and focused. We’re operating in the midst of formidable domestic and global challenges, and I’m proud of how the Treasury is responding to those challenges," said Makhlouf.

"We’re thinking differently, working differently and engaging differently. Our journey of change isn’t over, but I know we’re travelling in the right direction."

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.

40 Comments

Methinks they protest too much.

Let some of these new ideas surface.

Beige with variations perhaps.

Up
0

beige checker maybe?  desert  cammo?

maybe just put a big red and white roundal on their backs?

Treasury evolving....LOL....

regards

Up
0

There are way too many romantics in there with soft social science degrees.

 

Economics is a social science - as is all of the Demographia work as the play on the disciplinary reference in the title of the organisation implies..

 

Do I see you aligning with pdk's thinking - perhaps a call to stock Treasury up with physicists in the future?

 

 

Up
0

I for one would love to see more people with scientific backgrounds involved in the political process. At least then I could have faith that there are at least some people with a basic understanding of actual physical reality!

 

 

 

 

Up
0

and Merkel is a success how?

;]

The problem with scientists is they are I think too logical and literal.....many punters dont like that, they like cotton soft words like "things will get better, trust me" rather than, "Peak oil means your ***ked!, trust me"

 

regards

Up
0

steven, not all scientist come up with good ideas. Think weapons of mass destruction. Oh, maybe that is what treasury have in mind for us.

Up
0

Plutocracy - Science first has to recognise a problem before it can solve it. And that is why getting any change is so slow.  There is an enormous time delay between everyday people who know there is a problem and the civil servants realising there is one, then the latter run around in circles causing more problems because they generally lack experience and education.

 

Four years ago National got in to power because the people knew there were problems and that things needed to change. However it has taken National quite some time to get through to the civil servants that changes have to be made that knew directions are imperative. Basically the civil servants have been asleep at the wheel.  Even Gabriel Makhlouf admits that they haven't had to make any changes for 70 years and now they do.  See Iconoclasts links below.

Up
0

Actually the opposite, science often finds a problem before many see it, aka climate change. So ordainary ppl dont want to know as doing something mildly negatively impacts their lives....Same applies to Peak oil, water and food....

The latter para is your opinion....the best one I heard was "because kiwi's wanted a change"  both are equally silly.  You know voting blindly for something else because what you have isnt doing as well as you think it could, is well potty.  Maybe the most interesting change in the last election was the Green's vote gain, the Q is is it because Labour are too right wing or is it because more and more ppl can see climate change...then again of course Wellington kicked out a right wing mayor for a Green one....

So so far it seems we may well agree that there are indeed problems, however I dont believe we have common ground on what the problems are or what the solution(s) are...

so that's a fat zero, meanwhile, yes nero fiddles.

regards

 

 

 

Up
0

:-) Thumbs up - you should take that as a supreme compliment.  Truman was my Mom's favourite - until the nation elected an Irish Catholic, that is!

Up
0

The leading people that went into finance and economics when i came through also doubled in physics and that was twenty years ago...and it made no difference.

Up
0

Hugh that last paragraph of yours sums up the problems nicely.  Too many people without real life experience and education making decisions. Education is all about what you put yourself through not what school or Uni you attended and the piece of cardboard that hangs in a frame on the wall or the type in the first line in persons CV.

 

 

 

 

Up
0

WoW - A Press Release produced by a Public Relations Spinmeister - last two paragraphs.

 

We are committed to being bold and innovative, passionate and ambitious, collaborative and challenging, adaptable and focused.
We’re thinking differently, working differently and engaging differently. Our journey of change isn’t over, but I know we’re travelling in the right direction.

 

Doesn't exactly connect with the man-in-the-street, the hoi-poloi, the peasants.

 

What exactly does a musicologist do at Treasury?

 

Musicologist
Job Description: Teach courses in drama, music, and the arts including fine and applied art, such as painting and sculpture, or design and crafts. Includes both teachers primarily engaged in teaching and those who do a combination of teaching and research.

 

• Evaluate and grade students' class work, performances, projects, assignments, and papers.
• Keep abreast of developments in the field by reading current literature

• talking with colleagues

• participating in professional conferences.
• Maintain student attendance records, grades, and other required records.
• Prepare course materials such as syllabi, homework assignments, and handouts.
• Explain and demonstrate artistic techniques.

 

What is the mission statement of Treasury

Up
0

The Treasury is the New Zealand government's lead advisor on economic, regulatory and financial issues. We help manage the financial affairs of the Crown. To find out more about the Treasury and this website, read the welcome from Secretary to the Treasury, Gabriel Makhlouf.

Up
0

Thank goodness they've employed musicologists, surely now they can get the economy humming...

Up
0

LOL, as opposed to property ponziologists?

regards

Up
0

"Makhlouf, the former Principal Private Secretary to UK Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown"

 

Did he have input into Gordon Brown's decision to sell half of the UK's gold, a total of 395 tonnes ( approx. 12.5 million ounces), between 1999 and 2002 at an average price of  US$275 per oz, whereas gold is now US$1720.  It is now famously known as Brown's Bottom 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sale_of_UK_gold_reserves,_1999-2002

Up
0

Gordon Browne, someone at whos feet the UK public can put a lot of the blame for this mess.

In terms of gold though its hard to determine its true worth v a speculative bubble...

regards

Up
0

Wow , I am impressed .... The guys in Treasury actually read what we post on this website , I had better remember my P's and Q's .

Some armchair critics on this site had better tone down their rhetoric

Up
0

Bo@#%cks.

Up
0

So I should stop suggesting there are nice lamposts outside No1 The Terrace?

regards

 

Up
0

It is not the job of Treasury to get involved with social policy.

They are Civil Servants. There to do a job.  Boring perhaps, but essential, yes.

If individuals in Treasury want to influence the way NZ works, then they can always throw thier hat into the electoral ring.

Just like everybody else.

 

Up
0

It's not that simple. A politician may propose a new policy, be it social or something else, and ask the relevant department(s) to profer their advice. So it is their job to be involved

 

The bureaucracy is there to both research and advise as well as implement policy. The politicians, especially Cabinet ministers take advice from their department and use this advice as part of their consideration when preparing legislation. Because Treasury oversea the budgets of all the other departments they have input on the fiscal implications of all policy.

 

The Select Committee process is democracy at its best because it allows interest groups and members of the public to contribute ideas and allows members of the committee to question the advice of the relevant department or Treasury.

 

Once a statute or law is passed then the bureaucracy is charged with implementing it.

 

Bureaucrats do sometimes become politicians eg Bill English(Treasury), when they want to be involved in making policy not just offering advice.

Up
0

Having said that, sometimes departments "capture" their Minister because they are inexperienced or just lack intellect. Certain people within Treasury drove Rogernomics, Roderick Deane in particular. Roger Douglas didn't come up with the ideas by himself. Its easy especially with economics to baffle with statistics and graphs. Even David Lange didn't fully understand most of Treasury's/Roger Douglas's ideas. Like some of the posts below - never unduly deferr to "experts"

Up
0

"Nor can we achieve our goals without taking others with us," Makhlouf said."

Try getting Sir JK to listen. He has his mind already made up on what he wants. Mind you, if you do tell him, then make sure you put it on a plaque on his wall otherwise he will forget.

 

"With the world in the midst of a prolonged period of instability and risk, or an age of volatility, rapid changes in economic power were under way meaning the structure of the global economy would probably be very different in 10 years’ time."

Yes, "rapid changes in economic power were under way" Havent i been telling everyone that?

 

When Rogernomics was being brought in during the eighties all the "stupid underclasses were warning it would not work. But all the inteligent classes, like the middle classes, would'nt listen, "COS THEY NEW BETTER than all those stupid underclasses. Now the educated ones are all admitting they got it wrong but wont apologise to the underclasses - WHY NOT, too arogant.

SO how about taking some of the stupid underclasses advice and you might learn something.

 

Dispite everything i hope it all works out for you but i wont be betting any money on it.

Up
0

Keep at it. Never assume you're an underclass. I also used to assume these guys would know an awful lot more than the rest of us; but the closer you get into the subjects, the less it seems to be true. 

I now always try and look at first principles, regardless of whose opinion that may challenge

Up
0

A big yes.

 

Regards Scarfie.

Up
0

If they knew so much, we would not be in the mess we are in.

Up
0

A more publicly engaged Treasury in the debate process,assuming that is part of the new world, is definitely welcome; that can help us see and understand their arguments for better or worse, and challenge them or not.

Being a little picky Makhlouf says the following:

"Some things have of course not changed. Without question it remains a fundamental truth that successful economies need, among other things, a stable and sustainable macroeconomic framework, sound monetary policy that delivers stable and predictable prices, a prudent fiscal policy and debt that’s under control. And it remains true that a well-regulated financial system matters, that properly functioning markets matter, that price signals matter and that incentives matter."

Seems to me that "stable and predictable prices" can be contradictory to "price signals matter", especially in relation to the current debate on the exchange rate, current account and steps to fix them. Whatever the methods used in the end; and whether proactively managed by us, or forced on us suddenly by markets, to fix the current account will need the relative prices of imported vs domestic goods and services to change materially. Price signals matter in other words. That he puts out stable and predictable prices as the first and probably only priority, really just reinforces that he is probably stuck in the same time warp as the government, and he may in fact be the cause of the problem. But if he's happy to have it debated, then all good.

A bouquet with the brickbat:

Found the following on the Treasury website- an excellent although now a little dated paper on the current account deficit and its causes. It at least ponders whether the problem is supply of money driven (my main contention) or demand for debt and consumption driven- and favours a little the demand option.

It then goesa little weak kneed and unimaginative on the best responses; but that certainly is being picky. 

http://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/research-policy/wp/2011/11-03/twp11-03.pdf

Up
0

Stephen L, good post, thanx.

You say

"Found the following on the Treasury website- an excellent although now a little dated paper on the current account deficit and its causes. It at least ponders whether the problem is supply of money driven (my main contention) or demand for debt and consumption driven- and favours a little the demand option."

If it is "driven" then it leads.

If you dont have money you cannot lend therefore money is the driver.

If there is no lending then there is no borrowing so lending is the driver.

If there is no borrowing then there is no debt consumption so borrowing is the driver

THEN

Money drives lending which drives borrowing which drives debt consumption.

AMAZING

Tresury can't work that out.

My God there realy is NO HOPE

Up
0

Thanks for the comment, and absolutely agreed. To be fair to the paper it suggests that New Zealanders are too willing to overconsume, and undersave, at any interest rate; and that does appear to be true. Having reached that view though, the paper doesn't really address fixing the supply issue at all- probably the writer's political masters didn't want to go there. Even if it is true, the government and Reserve Bank can either pressure, or legislate, for the banks not to bring in or create unlimited money; or use other of their "macro prudential tools" to discourage the supply. The government/ Reserve Bank sitting on their hands and watching us drive towards a higher and higher cliff is disappointing.

Up
0

I really like that, clarifies thoughts I have on the matter. You might like this quote from Tony Watkins that I have already posted a couple of times, relates to what you say.

 

 "The significant historical moment was when people began making money out of money. In architectural terms this was the moment when people began erecting buildings not because they needed them but to make a profit. Rather than satisfying a market you created a market. This was the moment when the egalitarian New Zealand society became an immense gulf between the rich and the poor. If money is not related to something you do or make then the world just goes berserk, which it has."

Up
0

I think they are being forced to revise their slavish following of neo liberal economics by the reality of the GFC. To their credit I think Steve Keen said he had a meeting with Treasury and the RB when he was last here. Like the economics departments at major universities though, it will take a long time for alternative economic theory to be mainstreamed and represented by graduates in these organisations.

Up
0

Well he's just gained another critic.

 

For my part, I’d argue that the objective of economic policy is to raise living standards, with growth being an essential dimension of this," said Makhlouf.

 

Man's setting himself up to closely resemble a fool. What is it about a finite planet doesn't he understand? I - and others - have been hammering it long enough hereabouts, and there's a CSA (another fool, in my opinion - lectured about scarce resources, turned the page and started in on economic growth, made me wonder about neurological defects) he could turn to.

Up
0

"Our vision is a world class Treasury that is working towards higher living standards for New Zealanders."

What...the same level as that which Treasury bosses seem to receive!

Up
0

Why on earth would you appoint somebody who has had a part in running a failing ecconomy?  Why wouldn't you get somebody from where they know what they are doing and have the results to prove it.  Pointy heads!  Wellington is populated with them.  Very few people there know what the real world looks like.

Up
0

Careful Chris-M, Bernard is moving there when he sell his house.

Up
0

Well, I thought that read rather well. Is it just spin? I am very suspicious of UK civil servants (I fled the UK north for sunny Nelson 20 years ago). Very suspicious. It took me years to begin to understand the subtle and fundamental differences in the way NZ works. A lot is familiar (the focus on fairness and every one talking to each other) and a lot is subtle (Aucklanders try to rank  people by income, Christchurchers by profession and family, Wellingtonians just say hello). 

 

I would like to make one recommendation - cut the word count. I tried to read the Productivity Commission report on Housing. I gave up after 20 pages of verbal diarhorea. There were about 3 lines of content. To be fair those first 20 pages should have been 3 paragraphs and an Appendix. The funny thing was that what they were saying was actually surprisingly good and well thought out. I guess I just expect a new point or concept in each paragraph.

 

 

Up
0

Roger,

Was amused by your story.

Have also lived in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch, as well as seven years in London. Was caught out in Britain at first before I came to understand that what they say, and what they do or expect, can be quite different. You had to learn to read between the lines. It's a bit more straightforward here.

When living in Christchurch someone pointed out to me that when you live in Auckland, people you first meet ask where you live ( a proxy for wealth and status in reality); in Wellington they ask where you work (less concern there for wealth perhaps, but still a status question); and in Christchurch, where you went to school, no doubt with its' own status implications. Quite a lot of truth in all, from experience.

Up
0

Yes, I was surprised how much ill feeling some North Islanders had towards Aucklanders - calling them Jaffas, which seemed a bit strong to me. It's a different culture and they can put on airs and graces in unfamiliar surroundings.

 

I have a friend whose ancestors were on the first five ships into Christchurch. I started to rib him about this until I suddenly realised it was a deadly serious thing to him.

 

I have another friend, a Yorkshireman, who announced that he was the only true kiwi in the room as he was here by choice, not as a result of a few minutes fun and games on the part of his parents.

 

Up
0

Treasury doesnt have a monopoly on good ideas....LOL...

Just one good idea would be a start...No actually a reversal from clueless to mediocre would be something.

regards

Up
0