Nicola Willis says National’s fiscal plan will outline lower budgets and debt than Labour, while still increasing spending on health, education and long-term infrastructure.
In a speech to the KangaNews NZ Debt Capital Markets Summit on Wednesday, the party’s finance spokesperson said the amount of Government debt was “worrying”.
“New Zealand has long maintained the view that as a small, exposed trading nation we should stick to low levels of debt so that we are in a strong position to withstand an inevitable rainy day”.
“The blow-out matters because it means we will have less room to move should disaster befall us again. It also means we will be forking out a lot more as a country to pay the interest costs on our debt”.
On Tuesday, the NZ Treasury forecast that net debt would climb to 22.8% of gross domestic product in 2025 before declining to 21% two years later.
Even this elevated level of net debt would still be comfortably below Labour’s self-imposed ceiling of 30%, as broadly recommended by the Treasury in 2022.
Willis said the previous debt limit was that net core Crown debt should not exceed 20% of GDP. That measure will rise to 43.6% in 2025 and fall back below 40% in 2027.
Most of NZ's government debt is bonds denominated in the NZ dollar issued to local and overseas investors for fixed terms. NZ's domestic currency sovereign credit rating is the highest possible 'Aaa' from Moody's and 'AAA' from S&P Global Ratings, and the second highest 'AA+' from Fitch. All have stable outlooks. (See credit ratings explained here).
Treasury's Pre-election Economic and Fiscal update put 2022/23 annual core Crown finance costs at $6.6 billion, more than doubling due to increased borrowings and higher interest rates. That $6.6 billion is equivalent to about 1.7% of the March-year's $385 billion Gross Domestic Product. (For those wanting more detail on NZ government debt, there are two episodes of interest.co.nz's Of Interest podcast on it here and here).
Debt anchor
In 2019, Treasury said its reading of international evidence was that the upper limit for net core Crown debt in New Zealand should be about 50% to 60% of GDP.
Above that level, the marginal costs would outweigh the benefits, although an actual debt crisis would not be likely until a much higher level was reached.
This upper limit should be protected by a 20% buffer in normal times, so governments had room to respond to economic crises without breaching the ceiling.
New Zealand’s debt increased by 20% of GDP after the Global Financial Crisis and the Canterbury earthquakes and will have increased by roughly 25% after the pandemic.
The Treasury suggested, in 2019, that keeping net core Crown debt below 30% of GDP in normal times would be “prudent” although noted it was ultimately a government decision.
In her speech on Wednesday, Willis said the cost of servicing increased debt would hit $11 billion in 2027 and become the fourth biggest area of spending.
“It’s vital that we get debt under control, and the next National Government will ensure we do”.
She said it was not credible that Labour’s Grant Robertson would stick to the $3 billion future operating allowances he had told the Treasury to bake into its pre-election update.
Willis’ way
The likely-to-be future finance minister said National would take a “disciplined approach” to economic management, although didn’t provide any specifics about fiscal strategy.
She said the party’s economic plan could be summarised by five themes: more disciplined spending, lower taxes, fewer regulations, better education, and more infrastructure.
An alternative fiscal plan would be released ahead of the election and would include “more disciplined budgets in future years” that would “lead to lower debt over time”.
It was not immediately clear if Willis meant lower than was forecast in the pre-election update, or simply lower than what she believes Labour would deliver.
The plan would invest more in frontline services, including annual increases to health and education, and in the long term infrastructure assets needed for productive growth.
National would have an ongoing commitment to driving out waste and making sure public money was being directed towards its most effective purpose.
“Yes, this means we will trim back wasteful spending in the Government’s own back office and we will stop wasteful projects like Auckland Light Rail”.
Targets would be set for things like health waiting times or education results, and would be reported on every six months.
$25 a week
Despite the tight fiscal forecasts, Willis was confident that National could still deliver its tax cuts.
“This is essential, not only to compensate for the ravages of inflation, but also to send a clear signal to New Zealanders that under National hard work will be rewarded”.
The plan “did not require a single dollar of borrowing” as it was funded by new taxes and repurposed spending. This claim has been questioned by a range of economists.
It will deliver a median income worker an additional $25 a week, an average income couple $50, and a family with small children up to $125.
Willis said the party would also cut complex regulations such as centralised wage bargaining, the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act, farming regulations, and fast-track renewable energy consents.
Finally, National would deliver a “complete revamp” of how infrastructure was funded and built. This would include work more closely with local councils, fast-tracking consents, and bringing in “major investors” to finance projects.
43 Comments
We will spend more on health, education (2nd and 3rd biggest sectors by expenditure) along with infrastructure, and lower debt at the same time, while also lowering taxes. We will explain how we will do it later, you will see. We will just everything way better than the other guys.
Taking a real leaf from the old Donald Trump book there.
I wish some journalists would actually push them for to provide some evidence for their claims which seem to defy any form of fiscal reasoning, rather than just running a live blog of their photo ops.
Yeah, the same with the constant refrain about 'wasteful spending'. No one is pro wasteful spending. But people have different views about what 'wasteful' spending is, so you have to actually explain what you would cut and what you wouldn't. All the talk about 'wasteful spending' does is imply - without substantiation - that there is currently wasteful spending happening, and that there's some objective measure for what counts as 'wasteful', that it's always possible to know before the fact (rather than in hindsight) that some instance of spending is going to be 'wasteful', and that it's possible in a massive organization like the government/ public service to have no wasteful spending whatsoever. These things are either clearly false or at best are never substantiated.
Agreed. One man's wasteful spending is another's man's hard earned, God given right to a superannuation payment as a wealthy retiree landlord.
Wasteful spending is a great loaded term that they have manauvered into the conversation. There is wasteful spending in any organisation. And as the organisation gets bigger and more complex, and projects get bigger, the likelehood of something not going perfectly multiplies hugely. There are naturally plenty of stories of it. But seems to be no indication that there are multiple billions of dollars of future wasteful spending planned, that national can magically remove with no loss to services when they get into government.
It looks like this : https://www.railjournal.com/passenger/light-rail/japans-utsunomiya-ligh…
Utsunomiya population 500K and density half that of Auckland.
14.6km system for half a bill US$. We should get the Japanese in to repeat that here. Imagine if we spend the $45 billion labour have earmarked for Auckland Light Rail on a real tram network for our cities. NZ$45b should deliver about 750km of light rail at the cost of that system. Melbourne has about 350km...
They also have a railbus system (bus using railway) that serves rural areas, with towns served that only have a few thousand people.
NZ is the only country I can think of that has this attitude that Light rail is a expensive novelty. Even the USA has some quite large systems , many in cities the size and population of Auckland. Portland,OR, for e.g.
Light rail map in Hiroshima, metro population 1.4 million, density 1300/km^2 (compared to Auckland with an urban density of 2400/km^2).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiroshima_Electric_Railway#/media/File:Hi…
The public servants may be working very hard but is the aim of the work duplication or unnecessary. Could some of the portfolios be merged into equivalent larger ministries? As someone said it is not a matter of cutting the fat off the bone as much as removing the bone.
What we know from National’s plan is that they plan to cut 6% (or $0.6 billion) from the $9.1 billion from identified government agencies FY 2024.
We also know that FY 2018 $5.6 billion was spent on theses government agencies, so under Labour extra spending has increased by $3.5 billion (9.1-5.6) or 62% in these agencies alone.
NZ Stats department calculator says that General CPI inflation has increased 23% from Q2 2017 to Q2 2023 so compared to 62% increase there is excess government spending in these identified agencies of about $2.2 billion dollars per year (above inflation). (9.1 - 5.6x1.23) = 2.2
National has said it will cut $0.6 billion of this wasteful spending. ‘They could easily cut 50% or $1.1 billion off the extra spending above inflation on these agencies to help NZ recover economically.
Media’s focus has been on whether National can get $0.7b in extra revenue from the Foreign Buyer tax. Even if they only got $0.5b in revenue they would only be short by $0.2 billion but that would only be 10% of Labour excessive spending of $2.2 billion above inflation on these government agencies.
Getting new tax revenue off foreign buyers is far better than collecting it off New Zealanders.
Perhaps media need to look at the big picture of $2.2 billion excessive spending per year above inflation which NZ taxpayers are paying for rather than focus on new tax revenue of $0.7 billion with a potential shortfall of $0.2 billion.
It is spending above inflation, but you have failed to prove it is 'excessive' when looked at in terms of the starting point. From what I gather most of the ministries had been effectively starved of funding prior to labour coming back into power, with funding levels dropping compared to inflation for some time, leading to drops in the ability to do their jobs.
One mans 2.2 billion excessive spending is another's necessary re-funding of the public service so it can do its job.
Do we go back to 2017 plus inflation spending. When we have rundown hospitals, struggling infrastructure, and schools that need more money?
Your example 2.2 billion, or your .6 billion, is spent on something. I don't believe for a minute it is all just 'pointless back office bureaucrats and consultants'. Back office are very often the ones providing the support so front line staff can do their jobs efficiently.
It is 2.2 billion worth stuff and services for the public. So if it is being cut we should be told what stuff and services will be taken away. We can't just magically 'cut spending' without and effect. So I, and a lot of other people it seems, want to know exactly what stuff and services will be taken away to make these numbers add up. It is a fair question.
Also today's re-assessment of the Foreign buyer tax seems to be they will get 30/40% of what national are banking on at best. They can't make the numbers they have published add up why should we trust the ones they have not published yet.
In your question above regarding Health and Education. National has excluded these from any cuts. See the list of identified government agencies that will need to make cuts on p23 Appendix B;
https://www.national.org.nz/delivering_tax_relief?utm_campaign=20230830…
With regard to your comment of 30/40% of Foreign tax revenue at best, that is just the opinion of one report which the media have focussed on.
Others have said the target is possible.
Let’s take your worst case and it is also the worst case media can find 30%x715= $0.2 billion new tax revenue or a shortfall of $0.5 billion.
If the worst case scenario occurred rather than cutting $0.6 billion of the $9.1 billion budget (6%) for agencies identified for savings, National would then need to cut $1.1 billion of the $9.1 billion budget (12%).
Even if you had to cut $1.1 billion (50%) of the additional $2.2 billion these identified government agencies are now spending above inflation, it would be the tightening of the belt that is required to give tax relief to kiwis.
‘The worst case scenario is exactly that, which means in probability theory, highly unlikely to occur.
Thanks. Keep pushing. Tell them the voters want to know, sooner rather than later so there is actually some time to digest it.
They must have done some sums to come up with their costed 25pw per person and landlord tax cut. Voters have a right to know how they got there. Or are we to take it they pull a number out of the air for tax cuts, and then work out what they will cut to get there after that.
Tell them the voters want to know, sooner rather than later so there is actually some time to digest it.
Perhaps the 'media' should refuse to print unsubstantiated claims in the first place (all the benefits) until how it is going to be paid for is reasonably established.
Could report xyz party made an announcement today but as they haven't provided enough detail we're not going to report wishful thinking as fact. The media has a role to play in holding politicians to account but are letting them away with too much.
Have you not been listening to RNZ? TVNZ? Journos have been hammering National constantly to release their workings. Now with 2 other economists from both ends of the spectrum coming to the same conclusion, that Nationals maths is wrong, they are really looking bad.
But no surprise, PDK would say its all fake numbers anyway, so maybe it doesn't matter?
One things for sure, we are replacing an incompetent finance minister with someone who looks like they have an equal amount of competence. But that's what you get with revolving door politics and caretaker do nothing parties.
Fourth largest area of spending is debt. I guess the order to be;
- Superannuation
- Landlord subsidies
- Healthcare
- Debt
Lovely outlook indeed.
$25 as a reward for hard work is pretty sweet though, that's 2 or 3 kūmara! Maybe if we're lucky we'll have a kūmara famine whereby all of our produce ends up offshore to pay out debts to the crown and land hoarders, and we all get some sweet as potatoes for our hard work.
1. change qualification age, make migrants pay income tax for at least 25 years, reduce amount paid, give singles the same amount as married
2. the interest on loans will be only half claimable this year and quarter claimable next year. Make regional variations in accommodation allowance - this will move the unemployed to rural areas freeing up housing in the cities
3. Ought to be No1
4. Stop spending more than income
Plenty of 'wasteful spending' in health. And it's the fault of doctors.
Remember that old term ' demarcation disputes'. The docs have mastered it. But being clever sorts they make it look smooth. If pushed they can fall back on the old claim. 'clinical judgement'.
If we broke that unionist stranglehold, we would not only get cheaper care, we would get better care.
Hard to disagree with this. I have worked in health (front line) for 30 years. Doctors run the health system to protect their own prestige and income. There is plenty of good science suggesting things could be done better and cheaper, but most of it would require doctors to hand over some power.
I'm with Nicola Willis on this one.
New Zealand has long maintained the view that as a small, exposed trading nation we should stick to low levels of debt so that we are in a strong position to withstand an inevitable rainy day”.
“The blow-out matters because it means we will have less room to move should disaster befall us again. It also means we will be forking out a lot more as a country to pay the interest costs on our debt”.
Further, I think we should eliminate debt. We would be richer, with more money to spend..
Policies such as allowing overseas buyers (house prices up) and rentals to deduct interest again (investors can afford to pay more for a given house) serve to increase the amount of debt we take on due to higher house prices.
I'm with you on eliminating debt and the sentiments (yours and NW's), but the proposed actions from National on the property front seem to doing the opposite aren't they?
Food for thought, who are Luxon's foreign buys ?
https://www.asb.co.nz/documents/media-centre/media-releases/asb-appoint…
https://news.anz.com/new-zealand/posts/2023/08/ANZ-Investments-to-explo…
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.