Treasury's advice to Bill English is nothing if not clear – it's time to cut. So does its briefing to the incoming minister make its case? Or rather miss the point entirely? What do you think...

Reading a Treasury briefing can be a morbid experience; they are the bureaucratic embodiment of cynicism, seeing the price of everything and the value of nothing. The latest offering to the incoming minister makes you wonder whether the word "invest" is simply too long for the Treasury analysts, so they fall back on a nice short one – "cut".

Treasury has presented its former staffer Bill English with a 27-page document that ticks all the typically gloomy boxes on the country's economic performance, the global economy, government spending and the like. Media reports have picked up on its recommendations to raise the retirement age and encourage you and me to save more, which should be top government priorities.

But the rest of the advice is lacking in vision or ideas on growth. There's no contest of ideas, no fresh thinking, nothing but a certainty that government is bad and the private sector is good.

The language is wonderfully euphemistic, but boils down to the same thing:

  • "Restoring fiscal buffers" means cut public spending
  • "Innovation" means cut public sector jobs
  • "Reform" means cut private sector taxes

If our public sector was a lawn, Treasury in all its wisdom only sees it through the lens of the lawnmower. It doesn't see the rain or sun, the nitrogen or insect life; just the need to cut and contain.

Let me give you a few examples, starting with public sector staff. Treasury says they're some of the most efficient, transparent and able in the world. Yet numbers have grown in recent years as a result of government policy changes, and therefore must be cut. Why? Because it claims the growth has not been commensurate with improved services.

Does it offer any evidence for this bold claim? No. Does it give any historical context, showing that the public sector is still small compared to a generation or two ago? No. Does it establish where the most substantial growth has been, such as in nursing? No. Does it, crucially, prove a link between the staff growth and what it claims is the poor performance of the sector? No. In other words, staff numbers could be necessary and any failings could be down to poor management, wrong targets, lack of resources etc. And does it recognise that the growth in the public sector could have other positive implications, such as nudging up the average wage? Well yes, it does acknowledge that the state sector has a large impact on incomes. But what the heck, let's cut it anyway.

Or let's consider welfare reform. Treasury's attitude there is a wonderful example of lawnmower cynicism. Check this out:

"In addition, it is important that wider labour market settings support welfare reform. For example, large increases in the minimum wage would limit employment opportunities for people transitioning from welfare to the labour market and for youth."

In other words, low wages are great because that will mean more jobs are created... No recognition that our lack of wage growth is driving people offshore; that our main competitor for labour, Australia, has a higher minimum wage; or that higher wages means higher tax revenue and more economic stimulus.

That view is so one-eyed and short-termist; what's more it seems to ignore Treasury's own advice from 2010 (released last year) "that a higher minimum wage does not generally lead to higher unemployment."

One last example, from the education field. Here's what Treasury reckons on early childhood spending:

"Overall, the evidence suggests that the highest returns to public education expenditure relate to investments in the earlier years, especially for lower socioeconomic groups. Despite large increases in government expenditure, early childhood education (ECE) participation rates for children in the lowest income brackets have not increased (figure 20), with the expenditure instead supporting a greater volume of hours and higher proportions of registered teachers. Given the gains that can be made, we recommend further targeting of existing ECE funding to children from lower socioeconomic backgrounds."

So Treasury's saying that ECE offers the best bang for your buck in terms of improving people's lot in life. Yet it immediately suggests cuts to funding because the increases increased participation rates of the poorest kids.

Now that's a failing that the government is rightly addressing. But why are participation rates its only consideration? Evidence also suggests that "quality" ECE has a significant impact on a child's development and successes, hence the funding for extra teachers and training. We also know that demand for ECE has grown with the population and trends towards mothers returning to work sooner after giving birth – something the government and Treasury support when it comes to welfare mums. Hence the increased hours.

So why is that spending dismissed as low value? That funding was never meant to increase participation (quantity), but to make ECE better (quality). It seems they're unhappy with the orange for being an apple.

It's all lawnmower logic that's built on a contestable premise – that cuts are not only good per se, they're good at this point in the economic cycle. A Treasury should worry about debt, but ours obsesses over it. Its core message to government is:

"Returning to fiscal surplus and rebuilding fiscal buffers by lowering government expenditure relative to GDP is the most direct and immediate contribution that the Government can make to reducing New Zealand’s macroeconomic imbalance."

I would have thought you could only come to such a conclusion after asking a couple of key questions. First, Is the domestic economy strong enough at the moment to pick up the slack and maintain economic and job growth if the government cuts so dramatically? Second, is the global economy robust enough – and is our export growth sufficient – to justify the government taking money out?

These are the core questions being debated around the world, especially in the US election race. Western governments have been stimulating their economies to varying degrees since 2007 while their markets and private sectors have floundered. The question is when is it time to pull back.

Given that the briefing repeatedly refers to risks in Europe and Asia, you'd think it might engage in this debate; it doesn't bother.

Its assumption is that we must save or else... Cut, cut, cut, goes the lawnmower, its blades too busy spinning to stop and think.

Thing is, it's exactly the advice this lawnmower government wants to hear, as it too has decided it's time for the stimulus to end and the cuts to begin. So the path is set. One of the most interesting things this year will be watching to see if it's right. Or not. It could be the making or breaking of the next election.

Comments (10)

by stuart munro on February 06, 2012
stuart munro

It's an odd thing, but as a conspicuous public service employer, Treasury itself has grown considerably without any commensurate upswing in the broader economy.

I have a few friends in the banking game, and they reckon there's been no real recovery from the 2008 subprime debacle. World markets remain tender, the next major financial disaster could bring in a 1930s style depression.

We should not therefore be surprised that Treasury is lipsyncing the same follies that preceded that event. The surprise is that we are paying them for this partisan cant. Extreme monetarists have a perfect right to their views, to form parties and vie for control of NZ politics. The fact that their ideas are, as Brash found, about as popular as necrotising fasciitis, and much less infectious, is neither here nor there. The surprise is that we have a paid partisan core dictating government policy without even the dubious sanction of democratic assent.

Off with their heads!

 

by Pete Sime on February 06, 2012
Pete Sime

I left the core public service last year in part because I could see which way the wind is blowing and some restructuring resulted in the inadequate resourcing of a formerly well-run organisation. Many of my former colleagues there either have or plan to leave.

Keep an eye on the State Services Commission's Human Resources Capability Survey. Take a look at the core unplanned turnover rate (i.e. the number of people quitting rather than being restructured). In 2008 it stood at 14.6%, dipping to 10.7% in 2009, bottoming out at 9.2% in 2010 when people were holding on to their jobs for dear life. In 2011 it had recovered somewhat to 10.9%. If that number spikes, that will tell you the most marketable public servants are choosing to leave. If their positions are left unfilled according to the de facto sinking lid policy, it will place further pressure on those left behind. This will result in a downward spiral as talent departs, leaving behind a demoralised and ineffective public service.

by donna on February 07, 2012
donna

This will result in a downward spiral as talent departs, leaving behind a demoralised and ineffective public service.


It's the 1990s all over again. No evidence, just what would be viewed as the ranting of dangerous cranks anywhere else except the Tea Party and David Cameron's government (which, it should be noted, is overseeing its own downward economic spiral). What is astonishing is that Treasury recently got a pat on the back from other public sector agencies, apparently for its intellectual horsepower, and then they come out with this dribble. Just goes to show, sometimes even clever people won't learn from previous mistakes.

by Tim Watkin on February 07, 2012
Tim Watkin

Thanks for the heads up Pete, I'll keep my eyes on that.

Donna, perhaps there's an argument for reductions, but it's not in that briefing and given that the sector is still at historically low-ish levels, I'm not sure what it is. It does seem to lack any evidence beyond a belief that 'small government is better' or 'the only way to reduce debt is to sack people'.

by Andrew R on February 07, 2012
Andrew R

You can't (and shouldn't) expect factual and reasoned argument from a department full of neo-classical ideologues.  

by DeepRed on February 07, 2012
DeepRed

Wouldn't it be a delicious irony if Treasury was opened up to private-sector competition. Better still, send the whole bunch to Cannons Creek or Mangere for a week and see what comes from that.

by DeepRed on February 08, 2012
DeepRed

Or failing that, what about bringing Cannons Creek or Mangere to Treasury's doorstep? Also, if the Occupy crowd need to regroup, I can't think of a more appropriate place.

by Andrew Chick on February 08, 2012
Andrew Chick

Treasury spent $33.5m providing policy advice in 10/11. Treeasury state they want to be an expert and exemplar as the Government’s lead advisor on economic, financial and regulatory policy. Advice like this is neither - it's intellectually limited. For $33m I think we can expect better.

by Tim Watkin on February 09, 2012
Tim Watkin

Or, Andrew, they should spend less. Cutback!

Assuming you are who I think you are, nice to see you here and hope you're well, mate.

by Philip Grimmett on February 16, 2012
Philip Grimmett
Cut cut. Ut. Bet the Treasury don't cut their salaries, child care subsidy support, or the number of shiny bottoms or cost of Treasury. Where do they find these tossers. I suggest they'd be more productive mowing lawns. Better still send to australia. Cheers

Post new comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.