Labour leader Chris Hipkins has doubled down on his criticism that the Treasury engaged in guesswork in calculating the savings produced as a result of the Government’s controversial pay equity changes.
Last week, he said the pay equity figures appeared to be “made up” – a charge that led to an accusation by Act that he was in “fiscal denialism” – and today he told the Herald the Treasury was “putting a figure in the air and trying to find a number”.
The Treasury is holding firm, telling the Herald it stood by the $12.8b savings figure (over four years) which first appeared in last year’s Budget.
It added that it also stood by “the professional judgement from which it is derived”.
Who do you trust more? The professional neutral economists at Treasury or the guy whose party said they would build 100,000 homes and fell short by 98%?
Hipkins has a huge problem. He relentlessly vowed to reverse the changes to the pay equity regime that made it more affordable (and fairer), but now knows that he simply can’t produce a balanced alternative budget if he has to account for the $12.8 project cost of reversing the changes. So rather than accept fiscal reality, he is trying to simply bullsh*t it.
David Farrar runs Curia Market Research, a specialist opinion polling and research agency, and the popular Kiwiblog where this article was sourced. He previously worked in the Parliament for eight years, serving two National Party Prime Ministers and three Opposition Leaders
6 comments:
The problem is that most voters, particularly those who vote left wing, don't have any fiscal reality either. That is why Jacinda was so popular. Generally the public, and the media, praise expenditure regardless of how it's spent.
Whenever I hear complaints about the so called "cost of living crisis" from any trade union, church, housing trust or some other body who thinks money falls from the sky, I just think "ha ha, own goal."
Interesting take from a guy that supports a government who gave away $2.9 billion of taxpayer money to landlords
And has it made rents more affordable anon@8.26? Well - the stats would suggest it has. And was it in principle an unjustified policy and not a legitimate expense?
Now, if you are talking the $47m for Kapahaka, then you'd have some justification, otherwise it's just sour grapes. And, am a landlord? No.
Hipkins said after his Government gave a billion dollars of borrowed money to every taxpayer, that $15 million which went into wrong accounts wasn't worth chasing and retrieving.
Thats just a small example of how financially inept, irresponsible Hipkins is.
Anon 906 it suggests nothing of the sort. Statistics 101 gives you the basics about correlation vs causation and commerce 101 gives you the basics about how a market-driven economy works. That’s a whole lotta learnin’ but I’m up for it if you are.
$22 billion committed to the Warkworth to Te Hama road. $22 billion! 4 times the cost of the CRL!
And taxes to be applied nationwide on petrol, going up and up from 2027 onwards. Starting at 12c per litre and compounding from there!
For a road that doesn’t provide economic benefit (best case!) until 2040.
Yeah ok David, Labour has no idea. They need to take a leaf out of the $22b National fiscal guidebook.
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.