Show Notes
Last week a group of economists wrote to Prime Minister Luxon and Minister of Finance Willis to express their concern at the Government’s approach to fiscal policy, and their alarm at the consequences for the people and communities of New Zealand. In this episode of Head2Head I talk with the group’s lead spokesperson Dr Ganesh Nana. Here is the letter in full. Tēnā koe e Pirimia, re: Your Government’s fiscal policy We write to express our heightening concern at your Government’s approach to fiscal policy, and our alarm at the consequences for the people and communities of New Zealand. We would welcome the opportunity to discuss in more detail, more directly with you as soon as possible, the immediate and long-lasting harm that your Government’s approach to fiscal policy is creating. We summarise our concerns below under four headings. * Reduced current and projected spending is needlessly exacerbating the current recession * A focus on government debt is far too narrow, as it ignores the impacts on private sector debt and external debt * The accumulating harm risks a long-lasting hollowing-out of business capacity and capability * Fiscal policy is in direct conflict with the Government’s stated export target Fiscal policy is needlessly exacerbating the current recession Current and projected reductions in government spending appear to be central to the Government’s fiscal policy. The economic rationale for this approach is unclear. Rather, there appear to be few considerations outside the short-term impacts. For example, your Government’s cancellation of key infrastructure projects and sinking-lid cuts to the public service are powerful contributors to the current severe and prolonged recession. This is substantially worsening the contractionary effects on the economy of the Reserve Bank’s use of the Official Cash Rate to contain inflation. It is important to recognise that even prior to cutting back expenditure, government consumption spending was close to 20% of GDP. This covered spending on health, education, defence, administration, justice, transport, and culture. In addition, deferrals and reductions in projected infrastructure spending has further reduced employment and intensified the economic recession. There is ample evidence that government spending, including the necessary infrastructure and allied networks, has for many years fallen well short of that required for population growth and demographic changes. The Infrastructure Commission has stated that New Zealand has a $104 billion infrastructure gap at present – and that this picture will significantly worsen given current spending projections. These accumulating shortfalls put the nation in a poor position to improve its long-run economic resilience and to prepare for future challenges. If nothing is changed now, this under-funding simply passes the burden of adjustments, and investment spending, to future generations. Failure to correct this course will lead to higher economic scarring, with the costs borne by those with the least ability to pay, as has been demonstrated repeatedly in New Zealand’s history. It will also undermine the resilience of the private sector – particularly exporters – and will continue to constrain the capability of firms to scale up. A focus on government debt ignores impacts on private sector debt and external debt Similarly, the fiscal policy focus on reducing government debt lacks a clear economic rationale. Irrespective of the debt measure adopted, international comparisons of government debt in comparison to GDP remain in New Zealand’s favour. Credit rating agencies continue to view the government’s debt situation without concern. Bluntly, there is no government (or public) debt crisis in New Zealand. The New Zealand economy’s ongoing problem is private sector debt. Importantly, private sector debt is being driven upwards by your Government’s fiscal policy in pursuit of surpluses for itself and its aim of rapidly reducing public d
More from Head2Head
Northland Specialist Emergency Doctor and outspoken public health advocate Gary Payinda has just become The Labour Party Candidate for Whangarei for the upcoming General Election. Why has he entered politics? Why Labour? What does he believe ? And what does he want to do to improve the lives of the people of Northland? Head 2 Head is made possible by the generosity of my paid subscribers (thank you!) For $10 a month including GST ( less than a cup of coffee a week) you can gain full access to all my paywalled fourth estate articles,documentaries and podcasts, plus you will get to comment in a chatroom of thoughtful Kiwis who care about our country and where it is going, in a troll- free social media environment. To my paid subscribers, thank you for your ongoing support. Please repost and share posts you find useful as it helps to build readership.
About a month ago I posed the Big Question - Should We Buy Back Our Electricity Network? and one of my readers, who took part in that poll, put me in touch with Sam Kivi. Sam is on the board of the Lyttleton Energy Transition Society (or LETS for short ) who are fostering sustainable independent electricity production in the South Island port town where he lives. When it comes to controlling the essentials of life I am a great believer of supporting local initiatives, because if outside interests own our land, or our food supply, or in this case the power we need to run our lights, heating and appliances, then in a very real sense they own us and freedom becomes an illusion. So it was a privilege to talk with Sam and hear about LETS. If you would like to learn more about who they are and what they do please go to www.lets.org.nz This public journalism interview has been made free to listen to thanks to the support of my paid subscribers. For $10 a month including GST ( less than a cup of coffee a week) you can not only gain full access to all my paywalled fourth estate articles,dpcumentaries and podcasts, you will get to comment in a chatroom of thoughtful Kiwis who care about our country and where it is going, in a troll- free social media environment. Please join us.
Yesterday I featured a documentary I made twenty-six years ago about how the State promised that people with mental disabilities would not be sent indefinitely to institutions but would be cared for in the community. Today, at least 65 mentally disabled New Zealanders are currently denied that right. Instead, they are detained in institutions and, as a recent Supreme Court case revealed, some of them are effectively doing life sentences. Why? Because they committed a crime which carried a jail sentence, but instead of being sent to prison the presiding Judge decided that because of their mental disability, the defendant would go into a care facility before being released back into society. The problem is that some of these people are not being released for reasons that are not allowed to be made public. In short there are people In our country who are being detained indefinitely for reasons that are kept secret from the public which, it seems to me, flies in the face of the principle of open justice. The Problem Let me be clear. These are difficult cases involving difficult defendants who, because of their mental disability (not mental illness), are deemed by the Judge at their trial to be a danger to themselves or to others, and who need specialised professional help before they can return to the community. The legislation that allows all this to happen is The Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003, and a section of which (S85) allows the usual 3 year maximum term for a Compulsory Care Order to be rolled over. The application of Section 85 was recently successfully challenged in case of “J, “ Compulsory Care Recipient v Attorney‑General “J” is a man with an intellectual disability (and autism) who has been detained under the IDCCR Act since 2006, on a secure compulsory-care order. His order has been repeatedly extended because his behaviour has not been deemed to have improved and so, at the time of the Supreme Court hearing this year, he had been in detention for almost 20 years The Supreme Court was asked to review whether the legal test being applied to extend his compulsory care orders under s 85 of the IDCCR Act was been correctly administered — and whether J’s long detention breached his rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (e.g. right to liberty, freedom from arbitrary detention and non-discrimination). Last August the Court allowed the appeal in part, finding that the legal test lower courts had been using to decide whether to extend a compulsory care order was wrong. The Court of Appeal for example had previously found that extending a compulsory care order only required evidence of some risk. Instead the Supreme Court ruled that the right to liberty should be the starting point for a Judge’s decision to release a person under a Compulsory Care Order or not, and that the time such a person is detained should not be disproportionate to the offence they originally committed. In J’s case he had carried an axe onto a neighbour’s property and used it to break windows — including a garage and van.The offence was Wilful Damage, and if J had been deemed fit to plead he would have faced a maximum sentence of 3 months in prison. But J has been detained in secure care for nearly 20 years which raised serious proportionality and rights concerns around arbitrary detention. Frankly, I know of convicted murderers and rapists who have been freed before 20 years. The Secrecy Issue It is in the Family Court, presided over by a Judge, that the decision to release or roll over a person’s detention is made, and the problem I have ( or any journalist has) in reporting on such a case is that it is a closed court. Unlike a Parole Board hearing, for example, where journalists can apply to observe proceedings, Family Court hearings are secret – and that very fact is, in my view, contrary to the principle of open justice. The reason I have been looking into this issue is that I recently interviewe
The Wellbeing Economic Alliance Aotearoa (WEAll Aotearoa) isn’t a political party. It’s an independent “think and do” tank driven by the belief our economy should exist for the wellbeing of our people and the planet, and is working to make that happen. They take an evidence approach towards solving the economic issues that face us in order develop practical, long-term solutions for the public good. WEAll Aotearoa is a registered charity, funded through philanthropic grants and donations and Sally is their Knowledge and Engagement lead. If you find yourself feeling a bit down about the self- centred neoliberal track we’ve been headed down - have a listen to Sally. We can have a more caring economy ….if we want to. You can find out more about The Wellbeing Economic Alliance Aotearoa here: https://www.weall.org.nz This public journalism interview has been made free to listen to thanks to the support of my paid subscribers. For $10 a month including GST ( less than a cup of coffee a week) you can not only gain full access to all my paywalled fourth estate articles,dpcumentaries and podcasts, but you will get to comment in a chatroom of thoughtful Kiwis who care about our country and where it is going, in a troll- free social media environment.
November is Diabetes Awareness Action Month in which Diabetes New Zealand is calling attention to the rise in Diabetes amongst young people. You can find out more here: https://www.diabetesactionmonth.org.nz