Every politician is guilty on this front. Which is why I’m right behind the idea being floated by economist Cameron Bagrie today. He’s saying that we need to set-up an independent outfit that would help us decide whether what politicians are promising stacks up financially.
But let me take you back to the last election. When National was promising tax cuts and saying they were going to be paid for by taxing rich foreigners buying houses here.
The party said it was going to get $740 million from the foreign house buyers and, because of that, we were going to pay less tax.
And, pretty much straight away, economists and tax experts were poo pooing the idea. Which had us all wanting National to say who gave it advice that this was going to work, when everyone else seemed to think it wouldn’t.
And what was National’s response? Not telling you.
I do remember Nicola Willis saying she’d resign if the tax cuts weren’t delivered. But she wouldn’t - and Christopher Luxon wouldn’t - give the type of detail she’s now accusing Labour of hiding from us.
Which economist Cameron Bagrie says could all be avoided if we had an independent fiscal watchdog, separate from Treasury.
He’s saying today: “We saw this in 2017, 2020, 2023. One side has a crack at the other in regards to making their numbers stack up. We’ve been here before. Not surprising.”
It was happening way before 2017. Remember in 2011, when there was a pre-election debate in Christchurch, and John Key trotted out the line, which some people think won him the election.
“Show me the money,” he said to Phil Goff, who was the Labour Party leader at the time.
Fifteen years on, the only thing we can still rely on are the numbers and costings trotted out by the politicians.
Labour’s public transport policy is an example.
They say $65 million and we’ll be in bus heaven. I’m not convinced. Maybe I would be if we had this independent outfit Cameron Bagrie is calling for today.
Just like we would have had numbers rather than the “just trust us” we got from National at the last election over the foreign buyers tax coviering the cost of you and I paying less PAYE.
But we didn’t. We thought it was smoke and mirrors. And that’s what it turned out to be.
Just like Labour’s promises and the $18 billion Nicola says isn’t accounted for.
If we had more transparency, we wouldn’t have to rely on politicians on one side telling us we can afford whatever they’re promising and politicians on the other side saying no, we can‘t.
To give Nicola Willis credit. She has been a fan previously of some sort of way to cost-out party policies.
In fact, she wanted to see a publicly-funded outfit that would have done the numbers and worked-out the actual cost of election policies. Or election promises.
It had the potential to work-out whether all the talk we get from political parties before an election stacks up. It didn’t happen, though. Because ACT and NZ First wouldn't let it happen.
But I think we deserve this kind of transparency. In think an agency separate from Treasury that would tell us exactly how things are on the fiscal front, would be brilliant.
John MacDonald is the Canterbury Mornings host on Newstalk ZB Christchurch. This article was first published HERE
The party said it was going to get $740 million from the foreign house buyers and, because of that, we were going to pay less tax.
And, pretty much straight away, economists and tax experts were poo pooing the idea. Which had us all wanting National to say who gave it advice that this was going to work, when everyone else seemed to think it wouldn’t.
And what was National’s response? Not telling you.
I do remember Nicola Willis saying she’d resign if the tax cuts weren’t delivered. But she wouldn’t - and Christopher Luxon wouldn’t - give the type of detail she’s now accusing Labour of hiding from us.
Which economist Cameron Bagrie says could all be avoided if we had an independent fiscal watchdog, separate from Treasury.
He’s saying today: “We saw this in 2017, 2020, 2023. One side has a crack at the other in regards to making their numbers stack up. We’ve been here before. Not surprising.”
It was happening way before 2017. Remember in 2011, when there was a pre-election debate in Christchurch, and John Key trotted out the line, which some people think won him the election.
“Show me the money,” he said to Phil Goff, who was the Labour Party leader at the time.
Fifteen years on, the only thing we can still rely on are the numbers and costings trotted out by the politicians.
Labour’s public transport policy is an example.
They say $65 million and we’ll be in bus heaven. I’m not convinced. Maybe I would be if we had this independent outfit Cameron Bagrie is calling for today.
Just like we would have had numbers rather than the “just trust us” we got from National at the last election over the foreign buyers tax coviering the cost of you and I paying less PAYE.
But we didn’t. We thought it was smoke and mirrors. And that’s what it turned out to be.
Just like Labour’s promises and the $18 billion Nicola says isn’t accounted for.
If we had more transparency, we wouldn’t have to rely on politicians on one side telling us we can afford whatever they’re promising and politicians on the other side saying no, we can‘t.
To give Nicola Willis credit. She has been a fan previously of some sort of way to cost-out party policies.
In fact, she wanted to see a publicly-funded outfit that would have done the numbers and worked-out the actual cost of election policies. Or election promises.
It had the potential to work-out whether all the talk we get from political parties before an election stacks up. It didn’t happen, though. Because ACT and NZ First wouldn't let it happen.
But I think we deserve this kind of transparency. In think an agency separate from Treasury that would tell us exactly how things are on the fiscal front, would be brilliant.
John MacDonald is the Canterbury Mornings host on Newstalk ZB Christchurch. This article was first published HERE
No comments:
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.