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

Both major political parties have made clear they would like to have a neutral body assessing the cost of party promises

Public Policy / news
Both major political parties have made clear they would like to have a neutral body assessing the cost of party promises

Both major political parties have made clear they would like to have political promises on the economy tested by a neutral, apolitical body in future.

National's campaign manager Chris Bishop says this has been National Party policy and he pledged to work for it if his party wins the coming election. 

The Labour leader Chris Hipkins has also made clear he supports this scheme and blames National for blocking the idea earlier, in the 2017-20 parliament.

The push for costing analysis by a neutral body has gained traction because both main parties are accusing the other of promoting economic programmes that don't add up financially. 

An organisation has been producing this sort of analysis in the United States since 1975. The Congressional Budget Office is non partisan and passes a slide rule over spending proposals so one party cannot kill off an idea by accusing another of not knowing Maths.   

Asked about the merits of doing this in New Zealand, the Labour leader Chris Hipkins said he supports it.

"It would be good for democracy and it would be good for good governance because it would make sure that policies that are put before an electorate are generally more robust than they perhaps have been in the past," he says.

Hipkins adds he was disappointed when the National Party vetoed the idea earlier, and he would support it if it comes up after the election.   

Bishop says his party is on the record as supporting independent costing, and it was only opposed in the past because of several intricacies had not been worked out.

"The last proposal ironically came from Grant Robertson in the last parliament before this one, and the National Party opposed it at the time.

"One of the reasons we did that was because there were intricacies about whether it would be an Office of Parliament, and how independent it would have to be from the Treasury. In addition, Trevor Mallard opposed it on constitutional grounds.   

"But leaving aside what the final intricacies would be, I think the idea is a good one."

Any progress on an independent cost office could have an effect on issues like affordability of NZ Super, where opinions often differ on partisan lines, not on Maths.  

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.

2 Comments

Neutral? Where everything is now politicised, how is that possible?

Up
1

Surely either treasury or RBNZ can fill that role. AFAICT, treasury seem best at the apolitical atm - RBNZ seem a little too captured by political interests currently.

Up
1