Luxon vs Milei: Contrasting economic reforms in NZ and Argentina
New Zealand's inflation stood at 4.7%. The economy had contracted, debt was rising and Treasury projected years of deficits.
Neither leader holds a parliamentary majority. Luxon heads a three-party coalition. Milei's Libertarian party has no majority in Congress. Both face resistance from entrenched bureaucracies, militant unions, the political class and a mostly hostile media.
Once, New Zealand and Argentina shared similar roles – pastoral producers for Britain – and both were among the world's wealthiest nations after World War II. Since then, New Zealand has declined slowly. Argentina fell off a cliff.
Luxon favours incremental change through '90-day action plans'. Milei has pursued radical reform that makes Roger Douglas look like a moderate.
Despite National's rhetoric, government spending and borrowing are still increasing. In contrast, Argentina has balanced its primary budget before interest payment.
New Zealand has 81 portfolios, 28 ministers and 43 core public organisations. Nicola Willis has ruled out abolishing any ministries, saying it would be 'too expensive'. Instead, two new ministries have been created.
Milei has abolished 10 – including the ministries for Women, Youth and Culture – reducing Argentina to just eight ministries for 45 million people.
Argentina has lifted many foreign investment restrictions. We are still debating the OECD's most restrictive regime.
We've set up a Ministry for Regulation that cut red tape for barbers. Meanwhile, the modest Regulatory Standards Bill – limited to publishing non-binding reports – faces hysterical opposition.
In his first 100 days, Milei unleashed sweeping deregulation.
While our Reserve Bank Governor is on a short-term contract, Milei has declared central bank independence and announced plans to abolish it altogether in favour of the US dollar.
There are now 16,000 more civil servants than when National last held office. Image / Jacques Steenkamp, BusinessDesk
In New Zealand, there are more than 16,000 more civil servants than when National last held office.
In Argentina, the public sector has shed approximately 48,000 staff. Employment is increasing, with 245,000 jobs created in the informal economy, albeit with lesser conditions.
Our GDP growth is 0.3%. The IMF expects Argentina's economy to grow 7% this year – a rate New Zealand has never achieved.
Our inflation is 2.1%, though food prices have risen 4.6% in the past year. In Argentina, annual inflation has dropped to around 118%, and monthly inflation has fallen from 25% to 2.4%.
We run structural deficits. Argentina has a small primary fiscal surplus. Our debt-to-GDP ratio is rising. Argentina's is falling.
In New Zealand, the Ministry of Housing reports homelessness is increasing.
In Argentina, Milei has not denied the social cost has been high: rising poverty, wage erosion, pensioner protests. Milei says that curing a century of economic mismanagement requires short-term pain for long-term gain. It appears he is correct. Extreme poverty has dropped from 18% to around 8%.
Our Treasury projects unbroken deficits – an unsustainable path. The OECD says that if Argentina stays its course, it will achieve sustained growth above the Latin American average.
Politically, both leaders face protests. In New Zealand, the latest Taxpayers' Union–Curia poll has Luxon statistically tied with Hipkins at 19.7%. Sir John Key warns National faces a difficult re-election.
In Argentina, Milei is a polarising figure. No New Zealand politician has his approval rating, between 47% and 54% the highest of any politician. His party is forecast to gain seats in next year's midterms.
Commentators credit Milei's popularity to courage and clarity. He's a trained economist and a believer in markets. At Davos, Milei said: 'The state is not the solution; it is the problem … Don't be afraid of freedom. Trust in the superior morality of free markets.'
We have no idea what Luxon believes. Nicola Willis has said she's no Ruth Richardson, preferring Bill English as her model.
But English followed Michael Cullen, who delivered nine straight surpluses and created KiwiSaver and the Super Fund.
English enacted no major reform. He failed to lift productivity or tackle our structural problems. Tinkering won't fix the problems this Government inherited.
What Luxon and Willis have yet to grasp is that small change that solves nothing only prolongs controversy. High-quality reform ends the debate.
Milei is popular not just because his reforms are needed but for his stand against corruption and the political class.
Twenty years ago, I spoke in Buenos Aires about New Zealand's reforms. The Argentinians were incredulous. They said such reforms would never work in Argentina.
To those who now say Argentina's reforms would never work here, I say the same thing: 'Yes, they can.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsroom
an hour ago
- Newsroom
National makes economic pitch after Trump tariffs setback
Analysis: It's the economy, stupid. If the 10-minute cost of living sermon delivered by Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Finance Minister Nicola Willis on Monday left any doubts about where National sees its re-election hopes living (or dying), they were dispelled at the party's annual conference on Saturday. With just four hours open to the media, a full hour was set aside for a not-so-pithily titled session on 'growing the economy to reduce the cost of living for all New Zealanders' – the same time allocated to health, education, law and order, and rural issues combined. Two of Luxon's more reliable performers, Willis and Infrastructure Minister Chris Bishop, led the session alongside Tourism Minister Louise Upston in a further sign of the importance placed by the party on assuring members and the wider public they, rather than Labour, are best placed to look after the bottom line. It was a message hammered by Luxon during his own address to the party faithful in Christchurch, saying the fiscal conditions the coalition had inherited from the last Labour government were 'the worst in a generation'. 'The national debt had tripled, inflation hit a thirty-year high, homeowners were crushed by a surge in interest rates, and critical growth industries like agriculture and energy were under constant siege.' While the Government had made progress, many New Zealanders were still struggling to keep up with the cost of living, the Prime Minister conceded. The solution, at least in part? According to Luxon, 'we have to say yes to letting it happen'. 'We can't afford to leave any stone unturned, shut down whole sectors, or just sit around and hope that conditions will improve.' That was the argument behind the policy centrepiece of his speech – a loosening of the rules around granting permits (or concessions, as they are formally known) for commercial activities on Department of Conservation land, while also introducing a charge for foreign tourists at four locations where they made up more than 80 percent of all visitors: Cathedral Cove, Tongariro Crossing, Milford Sound, and Mount Cook. Exactly how the latter element will be put into practice remains somewhat uncertain: 'We have to organise and sort out how that's going to work, but there are ways and means to do that,' Conservation Minister Tama Potaka told journalists, with the four chosen sites functioning as a trial before any wider rollout. Senior ministers Nicola Willis and Chris Bishop led National's defence on its handling of the economy. Photo: Sam Sachdeva The changes to concessions on conservation land attracted criticism from Forest and Bird, which claimed they would 'make it easier to sell off or commercially exploit these areas'. That is an argument unlikely to win favour with the current coalition, as demonstrated by Bishop channelling his inner Shane Jones as he promised the Government's resource management reforms would make it easier to build new wind farms (among other projects). 'We've got the best wind in the world, and we spent years arguing about how we could build wind farms that don't result in the death of just one bird or one lizard, one snail.' It is clear he views the replacement of the much maligned Resource Management Act as a legacy-defining moment for himself and the coalition, emphasising the billions of dollars in compliance costs in the coming decades that could be eradicated with successful reforms. 'That's why I don't get a lot of sleep. That's what keeps me up at night, worrying about it, because we have got to get it right.' As David Parker found, however, such lofty ambitions can swiftly be undone by a political successor, and National will need to find a faster economic fix if it is to be in government long enough for any RMA reforms to bear fruit. One such 'quick win' – the decision to ban surcharges on in-store card payments – has not proved universally popular, with one delegate questioning National's claim to be the party of small business. 'Under [Sir John] Key, we got Mondayisation [of public holidays]. Under Cindy [Dame Jacinda Ardern], we got Matariki, more recently, an extra percent in KiwiSaver, sick days gone from five to 10 days, and now you're looking at getting rid of merchant fees. 'Now the interchange fee is only part of it, so I think we need to reassess that.' Another party member, who worked with small businesses run by migrants and refugees, said many were struggling to pay wages, rent and other costs in the current environment. In return, Willis offered sympathy – 'man oh man, it has been a tough time to be a small business in New Zealand' – but also indicated there was little room for new state support. 'We know where growth and prosperity comes from, and it doesn't actually come from the Government saying, 'I'll write you a cheque. It comes from the Government saying, 'I'll get out of the way and I'll make sure that business people can go and invest and do things and make things and hire people'.' An economic boost could be around the corner, she suggested, with more households due to move onto lower interest rates for their mortgages and free up money to pump back into the economy. That is certainly possible, but there is one rather large complicating factor: the impact of United States President Donald Trump's tariffs. While the Reserve Bank has indicated the tariffs are unlikely to have an inflationary impact on the New Zealand economy, it has also noted household spending and business investment are both significantly hampered by economic uncertainty such as that attached to the Trump tariffs. Friday's unpleasant surprise that New Zealand exports would face a 15 percent tariff into the US, rather than the 10 percent announced back in April, has led the Government to take a slightly more assertive approach to what Luxon labelled a 'rather late decision' from the Trump administration. Trade and Investment Minister Todd McClay told the audience he had spoken to US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer on Saturday morning, and was dispatching his 'top trade diplomat' – Vangelis Vitalis – to Washington DC next week for talks. It seems difficult to see Greer or Trump making an exception for New Zealand, however, given 15 percent is the new 'floor' for any country that does not buy more from the US than it sends in the other direction. As Luxon noted, every other country is dealing with the same challenging environment and must forge ahead regardless; any self-pity would risk being seen as hypocrisy, anyway, given he and his ministers have hardly offered Labour any credit for the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on its economic performance in government. 'We can navigate some pretty choppy seas to get to the destination we want to get to, but for that to happen, you've got to have the right people with the hands on the tiller, which is us,' the Prime Minister said. Luxon was at pains to emphasise the coalition was only halfway into its term, with 'a lot of work to do as a government' – but next year's election is creeping ever closer, and he will need some luck to come his way if the economy is to be a trump card rather than a Trump-addled drag on National's vote in 2026.
NZ Herald
9 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Facing prospect of election defeat, Government tries to change the rules
There's no good reason to remove election-day enrolment, which has been in place since 2020. And there's certainly no reason to remove the ability to enrol during the advance voting period. You've been able to enrol up to the day before election day since 1993. The idea that election-day enrolment was delaying the official results is also nonsense. Whether people update their enrolment details two weeks before the election or on election day, that form still has to be processed and their information updated. It's the same amount of workers' time, either way. The Government can just hire more people to do it after election day, rather than before, and the job will get done on time. Don't give me the 'well, they should sort out their enrolment details earlier' line. I thought National and Act were against bureaucracy? And now they're saying you should lose your right to vote unless you know about the bureaucracy of voter enrolment and tick the state's forms well ahead of time? We should be making it as easy as possible for people to exercise their right to vote. Aotearoa New Zealand has a good record in that regard. We were world leaders in votes for Māori, votes for women, removing the property-ownership test. We don't have people queuing for hours like in the United States. But now the Government wants to use bureaucracy to trip people up and stop them voting. Even Judith Collins has said it is wrong: 'The proposal for a 13-day registration deadline appears to constitute an unjustified limit on s12 of the NZBORA [the right to vote]. The accepted starting point is the fundamental importance of the right to vote within a liberal democracy. A compelling justification is required to limit that right.' The Deputy Prime Minister says you're a 'dropkick' if you don't get your registration sorted well before the election. But why shouldn't a person be able to come along on election day or in the early voting period, cast their vote, and, if their enrolment details need updating, do it at the same time? Why force us to use an inefficient, two-step process? Since when has the supposedly libertarian Act Party loved bureaucracy? Truth is, we know why the Government is doing this. It's a Government that's failing to deliver and fading in the polls. In most recent polls, Labour has been ahead of National. Forty-eight per cent of voters say it's time for a new Government. Only 38% want to give this Government a second chance. So they're trying to screw the scrum in their favour. David Seymour let it slip with his 'dropkicks' comment. Act MP Todd Stephenson put it even more bluntly: 'It's outrageous that someone completely disengaged and lazy can rock up to the voting booth, get registered there and then, and then vote to tax other people's money away.' Trying to make sure only the 'right' people are voting is dangerous, anti-democratic thinking. We all know this change is about setting up barriers for people who are young, Māori, disengaged or alienated from the structures of power and wealth in this country – because those people are unlikely to vote for a Government that works in the interests of the wealthy and powerful. The Government knows full well that these New Zealanders, who have the same right to vote as anyone else, are less likely to be familiar with the rules around registration. The Government also knows there will be many people, Kiwis not as politically engaged as you and me, dear reader, but no less worthy of the vote, who will turn up to a polling place on election day or during the advance voting period thinking that they can update their registration at the same time as they vote – because that's how it has been and they haven't heard about the change – and be turned away under this new law. Democracy is meant to be a contest of ideas. And it is fundamental to democracy that the voters choose the Government, not the other way around. If the Government wants to be re-elected, it should give people a reason to vote for it, not try to exclude voters it doesn't like.
Scoop
9 hours ago
- Scoop
What Officials Said About Pay Equity Changes
The minister who ushered through the pay equity changes said any limitations on workers' rights were justified in order to reduce the risks to employers. A document dump from the Treasury and the Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment (MBIE) showed the processes the government went through to change the pay equity framework, and then return contingency funding to the Budget allowances. Workplace Relations and Safety Minister Brooke van Velden, who introduced the legislation, acknowledged the changes would likely be contentious, but were necessary to meet the government's policy objectives of keeping a pay equity system, while changing the framework for assessing whether there is sex-based undervaluation. The government worked on the changes in secret, before announcing the amendment bill in May and passing it under urgency. At the Budget, Finance Minister Nicola Willis revealed the changes had saved $12.8 billion over the forecast period. 'This is justified' - Brooke van Velden The short timeframe to get the bill passed before the Budget meant there had been "limited testing and analysis" of the policy proposals, and the retrospective provisions in the bill were "inconsistent" with general principles. MBIE acknowledged the transitional provisions would likely be "contentious" but without them it was unlikely the amendments would "meet the policy objective of ensuring the regime achieves pay equity, whilst better managing claims, and ensuring costs are related to sex-based differences in remuneration." The legal risks remained redacted, and the bill had no Regulatory Impact Statement. The process was also kept secret to prevent a surge of claims being lodged and potentially determined under the existing Employment Relations Act. The acting Attorney-General, Paul Goldsmith's consideration of the bill concluded that while it imposed limits on the right to freedom from discrimination, the right to justice, and freedom of expression, it was still consistent with the Bill of Rights Act. The paper van Velden took to Cabinet for approval, included in MBIE's document dump, shows she considered any limitations on the rights to be justified. "I consider that this is justified to meet the policy intent of allowing employers to better manage their operations, reducing potential risks to an employer's financial viability, which may lead to a reduction in employment or the quality or quantity of services provided," van Velden wrote. Finding the contingencies In December 2023, shortly after assuming the government benches, the finance minister requested more information on how the pay equity forecasts worked and whether there were any upcoming large claims. In February 2024, the Treasury reported back, saying the approach brought in by the previous government had contributed to higher cost outcomes, as it disincentivised agencies and funded sector employers from taking a lower-cost bargaining approach. "While the current Pay Equity process does require agencies to seek a bargaining contingency prior to the bargaining phase, this occurs late in the process, and many of the potential parameters for settlement are already largely agreed between the parties," officials said. "The absence of financial incentives during the pre-bargaining phase may have contributed to agencies adopting approaches which exceed the minimum requirements of the Equal Pay Act, for example, agreeing to higher paid comparators when lower paid ones would be appropriate." It also meant the Cabinet had "poor visibility" of the costs, until parties were at or near settlement. Treasury said pay equity costs were managed outside of Budget allowances, and there was merit in exploring an approach that brought some or all of the costs back within Budget allowances. By April 2024, Cabinet had agreed to a reset, bringing pay equity funding into two centralised tagged contingencies: one for the funded sector, the other for the public sector. This still allowed the government to meet its legal obligations as an employer, but was deemed to support the coalition's fiscal strategy. However, by the end of 2024, the government was looking to disestablish the funded sector contingency, identifying it as a significant spending commitment. It expected service providers to manage their own claims, with any cost pressures they created managed like any other cost pressure: through the Budget process. How the money was found Nicola Willis chose to close the funded sector contingency and return the funding to the Budget 2025 allowance and capital allowance. This saved $9.6b over the forecast period. For the public sector contingency, Treasury recommended it be retained, but at a reduced level. "On balance, we consider retaining the contingency at [redacted] for residual costs to protect future allowances to be preferable given the legal obligations on the Crown as an employer under the new Act and Treasury's judgment that we can quantify the impacts with more than 50 percent confidence," Treasury wrote. The government adopted this approach, with the tagged public sector contingency reduced by $3.2b over the forecast period. In total, the changes returned around $12.8b to the Budget 2025 operating and capital allowances. Closing or reducing the contingencies without some certainty from Cabinet on policy change, however, was seen to potentially "strain the credibility" of future Budget allowances. And so, the future approach to pay equity was developed. Van Velden's legislation discontinued 33 claims and increased the threshold for what qualified as work that was "predominantly performed by female employees." All review clauses under settled claims became unenforceable.
