
The government's consistent, principled approach to economic data
When data came out showing inflation at a 12-month high on Monday morning, the government quickly started channelling the enduringly popular and intergenerationally relevant reggae fusion artist Shaggy. ' It wasn't me,' said prime minister Christopher Luxon, in an interview with Newstalk ZB's Mike Hosking. 'All I can do is the bit that I can do, which is the fiscal side of things. The Reserve Bank controls the monetary policy,' he said. 'It wasn't me,' said finance minister Nicola Willis, in a press release noting inflation remains within the 1 to 3% target band. 'The effect of council rates on inflation is a concern,' she said. 'That's why this government has also been clear in its call to councils to focus on the basics and keep rates under control.'
Both politicians have a point. Inflation is the mercy of an array of local and international factors. The economy could be humming along, only for one of Donald Trump's brain worms to writhe the wrong way and prompt him to bomb the Middle East or raise tariffs to 150% on Gondwanaland. International dairy prices could spiral, sending the price of 400g of Westgold to roughly the equivalent of 400g of actual gold. Local councils might suddenly realise they've forgotten to properly maintain or upgrade their pipes for 50 straight years, forcing them to raise rates to stop town centres being drowned beneath spontaneously formed lakes of raw sewage.
All these events are, to varying degrees, outside the control of the current government. Inflation is to a large extent the result of decisions the Reserve Bank made a year ago while weighing up an array of factors. But if Luxon and Willis aren't responsible for inflation, several of their past statements seem perplexing, starting with all the times they've directly taken credit for inflation.
Similarly, Luxon has regularly taken credit for the Reserve Bank's decisions to cut the official cash rate, which are interlinked with inflation and similarly subject to the international economy.
Some would see double, or at least inconsistent, standards in these statements. On the face of it, that's fair. But on a deeper level, they're in line with a consistent and principled approach from the government when it comes to interpreting economic data. It's routinely applied the same standard, whether it's to a wellbeing indicator or a GDP update. The method boils down to a single precept: if it's good, then the government did it, and if it's bad, it's someone else's fault.
Take young people moving to Australia. Prime minister Chris Luxon has shrugged off the government's potential role in the return of the brain drain. Though some could point to the cancellation of dozens of public infrastructure projects and the subsequent slowdown in the construction sector as a factor in rising migration across the Tasman, he has eschewed that for other explanations, telling Ryan Bridge that stemming the outward tide comes down to delivering better education, more efficient access to healthcare, and improved public safety.
In 2023, Luxon's deputy David Seymour said ' Kiwis [were] voting with their feet ' when roughly 24,000 New Zealanders left for Australia. When 30,000 people departed last year, he blamed the economic wreckage left by Labour, telling reporters it was down to a 'hangover from Covid'.
When GDP goes up, it's the government's plan working. When it goes down, it's six years of economic vandalism under the last one. When food prices rise under Labour, it's Labour's cost of living crisis. When they rise under National, it's still Labour's lingering cost of living crisis.
If something goes wrong, like the government failing to fund 13 new cancer drugs it promised to sick patients during the election campaign, it's Labour's fault. If something goes right, like 7,000 new state houses getting built, it's thanks to National even when they were funded by Labour.
It's a bipartisan trend. For several long years after it was elected in 2017, Labour screamed the words 'nine long years' in response to any criticism from National. It's been critical over the latest inflation data, pinning the blame entirely on the government's economic management. When inflation went up while it was in power, it was a victim of the global inflation pandemic.
Some of their criticisms have merit. Some of their self-aggrandisement is fair. But the overarching message from our politicians is that if something makes you sad, then it's the other guy's fault, and if something makes you happy, it's theirs. Maybe a more honest, responsible approach would be to admit that some things are beyond the control of politicians on a small island at the bottom of the south Pacific; that the weird conniptions of great and terrible global powers could make and break our economy at any moment; that the cost of living in New Zealand is far more reliant on the whims of Chinese parents than bike lane-loving councils; that we have only a small amount of control over our own affairs and chaos beckons at every corner.
You may think that's impossible. 'You may think it's a ridiculous hope, borne of political naivety. But if you do, then I have a response you'll have to accept: this is all my editor's fault.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Scoop
3 hours ago
- Scoop
NZ First Signals Change To Foreign Buyers Ban Could Be Announced This Year
, Acting Political Editor NZ First leader Winston Peters says he expects an announcement "soon" clearing the way for wealthy foreign investors to buy high-value houses in New Zealand. But he insists the foreign buyers ban - which prevents most foreigners from purchasing existing houses - will remain in place, unchanged. "We're talking about investment. We're changing those rules and what goes with them. You have to be patient - and we'll tell you what the details are," Peters told reporters on Wednesday. "But the Foreign Buyers Act is not changing." During coalition negotiations, NZ First blocked National's proposal to allow foreigners to buy houses worth more than $2 million, contingent on a 15 percent tax. But Peters - who helped introduce the ban in 2018 as part of the Labour NZ First coalition - later said he was open to revisiting the rules "for the right investor". A spokesperson on Wednesday said discussions were ongoing about the appropriate investment threshold but suggested it would be "substantial". "New Zealand First is pursuing consultation on the matter and is looking at the government being able to make an announcement by the end of the year." Any proposed changes would need to create jobs and benefit the wider economy without disrupting the housing market, the spokesperson said. Speaking later at Parliament, Peters told reporters they would not have to wait very long for an announcement. "I'm not the one totally in control of the answer, but I would imagine by the end of 2025," he said. Peters repeatedly stated that "the foreign buyers ban will remain" but said investment rules could be changed to allow those investing "millions of dollars" to buy a house at a certain cost - "and that cost is not $2 million". "We're talking about investors. They're bringing billions to this economy," he said. "They're not buyers." Back in October, Peters told NewstalkZB he would consider changes for the "right person with the right investment" - but it would need to be far more than "a lousy $20 million". Addressing reporters on Wednesday, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon confirmed the timeline outlined by Peters but declined to shed any light on the "ongoing coalition negotiations". "When we're ready to talk about it, we will," Luxon said. "You've heard what Winston said... and that's a fair reflection of where things are at." Luxon has previously conceded National set its $2m threshold "too low" and suggested $5m or $6m would be more reasonable. ACT leader and associate finance minister David Seymour - who's responsible for the Overseas Investment Act - told reporters he would support any progress on the issue. "I'd be there with bells on, because I think allowing our friends around the world to come to our country, bring their money and live here is generally - there's exceptions - but generally a win-win for New Zealand." In April, the government made changes to the Active Investor Plus Visa - the so-called 'golden visa' - easing the path for wealthy foreigners to gain residency through investment. Immigration New Zealand last month confirmed it had received nearly 200 applications since the changes were introduced.


NZ Herald
4 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon tight-lipped amid speculation of foreign buyers ban change
The Herald understands no proposal has yet been put before Associate Finance Minister David Seymour, who has responsibility for the Overseas Investment Act . But it's unlikely changes to loosen the current ban would face resistance from Seymour, who has been critical of the measure . Luxon on Wednesday said there were 'ongoing conversations' and confirmed to the Herald that he was also working to make an announcement this year. He would not detail what threshold he would like set, but has previously suggested about $5 million, which would be an increase from National's 2023 policy of allowing foreigners to buy houses worth $2m and more and taxing that sale at 15%. 'We've got ongoing conversations as we work together in our coalition in the way that we do, and when we're ready to talk about it, we will,' Luxon said. 'When we come out with an answer, you will hear about it and we'll be very clear about it all. But for right here, right now, we've got ongoing conversations.' He said Peters' comments were a 'fair reflection of where things are at'. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon was tight-lipped on Wednesday about policy to allow foreign investors to purchase residential property here. Photo / Mark Mitchell Peters on Wednesday afternoon said the 'Foreign Buyers Act is not changing'. The legislation amended in 2018 to classify residential houses as sensitive, and therefore not open to purchase from overseas people, is the Overseas Investment Act. NZ First said the rules would change for investors bringing millions to New Zealand's economy. 'They're investors, they're not buyers. You're not going to get a house key just by walking into the country in the way that other parties believed,' Peters said. 'If you're investing millions of dollars, seriously, we look at you having the right to back it up with the buying of a house in New Zealand at a certain cost. That cost is not $2m.' NZ First kiboshed National's foreign buyer's tax during the 2023 coalition negotiations and Peters repeated on Wednesday that it was 'fiscally never going to work'. The National-NZ First coalition agreement makes reference to the ban when it says: 'Tax relief will be progressed as set out in National's Tax Plan, but will not include a repeal of the foreign buyer's residential property ban, with income tax reductions coming into force from July 1, 2024.' NZ First leader Winston Peters says the rules will change for investors bringing millions to New Zealand's economy. Photo / Mark Mitchell Seymour told the Herald that if NZ First changed its historical position, 'there wouldn't be any complaints from me'. 'I'd be there with bells on, because I think allowing our friends around the world to come to our country, bring their money, and live here is generally – and there are exceptions – but generally, a win-win for New Zealand.' In an interview with the Herald this week, Peters denied his party was 'softening' its approach. 'The idea that for $2m you could come into this country and get a key and that's your investment was a nonsense,' Peters told the Herald. 'We said so before the election. We also debunked the costings for it, and were joined not long after that by economists who said that New Zealand First was right. 'We're saying if you're coming here with millions of dollars to invest in this country, then yes, you could buy a house, and we're setting the terms for that.' Jamie Ensor is a political reporter in the NZ Herald press gallery team based at Parliament. He was previously a TV reporter and digital producer in the Newshub press gallery office. In 2025, he was a finalist for Political Journalist of the Year at the Voyager Media Awards.


NZ Herald
5 hours ago
- NZ Herald
John Key is right that New Zealand needs to cut interest rates but we need more than that too
Key warns the coalition risks losing the next election. He says the Reserve Bank got interest rates wrong again – first too low, now too high – and it's crushing the economy. The data backs him. Massey University's GDPLive shows GDP growth at just 0.261% for the quarter and down 0.53% annually. It puts inflation at 2.18%. With dairy booming, most of the economy must be in recession. The Reserve Bank's Nowcast GDP tracker is down 0.288% for the quarter. Key says that with no sign of wage inflation, the Reserve Bank should cut the Official Cash Rate by 100 basis points – from 3.25% to 2.25%. The Taylor Rule that central banks use to guide interest rates indicates the OCR is 50 basis points too high. Key is also right that the central bank's money printing fuelled the inflation that destroyed the last Government. Now, with rates too high, it's strangling growth and may destroy this one. It seems the Government had no plan for replacing former Reserve Bank Governor Adrian Orr. I nominate Key. He's qualified and has the judgment the job demands. If appointed and interest rates are cut, the economy would be growing in election year. If Key is unavailable, appoint the economist who warned that $100 billion in quantitative easing would cause inflation: Auckland University's professor Robert MacCulloch. Internationally recognised for his work on central banking. If the coalition aspires to more than winning elections, it must do what Key never did: tackle why New Zealand is sliding down the OECD rankings. It's not that the world doesn't want what we sell. Dairy prices are excellent, meat sales are solid, and tourism is recovering. We're just badly managed. To lift our standard of living, we must raise our productivity which has been static for a decade. The Treasury's recent analysis highlights that 'New Zealand has much lower levels of capital per worker than OECD peers'. We lag Australia because its compulsory superannuation pumps billions into productive investment. We should have shifted to savings-based super 50 years ago. That's no reason not to do it now. Last week's abandonment of open-plan classrooms was a good start to lifting education standards. Abandoning pupil-led learning would be even better. Health is another failure. We have a Soviet-style monopoly with low productivity. Waiting lists grow despite record spending. More money is not the answer. Singapore achieves better outcomes for less – based on compulsory savings, price transparency, and private providers. We should copy it. One thing Key did achieve was restraining the growth of the civil service. According to the International Monetary Fund, Government expenditure was an estimated 41.39% of GDP in 2023. The 59% of the economy in private hands just isn't big enough to generate the investment, wealth and exports we need. We are over-regulated. The OECD's 2023 Government at a Glance ranked New Zealand last in the OECD for barriers to permits, licences and foreign investment. The Regulatory Standards Bill isn't a nice-to-have. It's essential. Key is also right about the ban on foreign home buyers. Foreigners won't bring their capital or expertise if they're told they can only rent. There are about 200,000 able-bodied adults on Jobseeker Support. That number has barely moved since Key's time, despite job vacancies and social investment strategies. Australia has had a Work for the Dole scheme since 1997. Employment Minister Peter McCardle introduced Work for the Dole scheme in 1998. Labour scrapped it. We should try again. Last year, in an international comparison, New Zealand's economy ranked 33rd out of 37. That makes it a mystery why Luxon waited so long to visit China, our biggest trading partner. And why did the Prime Minister go to a Nato summit in Europe? Every other Pacific PM stayed away knowing the summit would pledge to spend 5% of GDP on defence and criticise China. As New Zealand is not going to do either a PM focused on growth would have stayed at home. We have a bloated bureaucracy focused on political correctness rather than the hard work of delivery. An opposition that thinks New Zealand can tax its way to prosperity. An economy that's 41% government, starved of capital, and bound in red tape. Without reform, we will never climb the OECD ladder. Key's rate cut might win the next election. Only real reform will return New Zealand to the top tier of the OECD.