The government’s austerity measures are exactly what they ruled out in 2009. And so is their defence of cutting taxes in a fiscal hole. This tells us more about backroom dealings in the Beehive than about a good plan to get New Zealand back on track.

The government has signaled that it plans severe austerity measures for this year’s Budget. Those measures will likely cover almost every aspect of the government’s work – even health and education, which will have nominal funding increases, will come up short once you account for inflation and population growth.

One policy that looks set to be unaffected, however, is the Budget 2010 tax cuts, which gave New Zealand the lowest top tax rate and the smallest overall tax wedge in the high-income OECD.

Does this sound like the action of the government New Zealand elected in 2008? Not to me, it doesn’t.

The government has faced a fiscal crisis already, but with vastly different results.

Growth was very sluggish in 2009, leading the government to cancel the remainder of its 2008 package of tax cuts. But it left government spending mainly untouched. After all, that is what National had promised everybody in the election campaign. And in 2009 they were determined to keep that promise.

But now that we have the much larger 2010 tax cuts in place, the government’s response to an even deeper fiscal problem is the exact opposite. Tax cuts, previously first on the chopping block, are now sacrosanct; while government spending, once the sacred cow, faces the axe.

What changed?

Two obvious things changed, but they don’t help us explain the government’s 180 degree turn. First, the income tax cuts they are defending today are much larger than the ones they campaigned on in 2008 and dumped in 2009. Instead of a top rate of 37%, now it is 33%. And instead of a $6 billion four year package, now it is $14 billion.

Second, the need to find money got even stronger. In addition to very low GDP growth, which we faced in both 2009 and 2011, now we also have the cost of rebuilding Christchurch to find.

With a larger need for money, more generous tax cuts in place, larger demands on the social safety net, and a history of canceling tax cuts to pay for fiscal crises, it should have been obvious what this government would do, right? And it would have been even more obvious when you consider that New Zealand is one of the lightest taxers of incomes in the OECD, but it is not one of the heaviest spenders on social services.

But this week the government reversed itself entirely. The inconsistency between their 2009 position and their 2011 position is breathtaking. 

The answer to this riddle cannot be personnel, as it is basically the same team around the Cabinet table now as in 2009. It can’t be due to the increased influence of ACT (take a bow, David Garrett and Rodney Hide). And it can’t be because of the argument that tax cuts cause growth, which generates government revenue – that argument works just the same way in both years.

I think instead that we are seeing National jump ideologically to the right. More specifically, it looks like John Key is  losing influence over hard-line Ministers who want to cut government spending regardless of circumstance (and election promises), and is listening less and less to his more fiscally moderate colleagues, such as Simon Power. Mr Power’s resignation is another sign of this move; recent announcements on asset sales are a third.

National’s strategists appear to believe that their lead in the polls is now insurmountable, leading them to move from electorally-focused moderate policies to more ideologically-pure prescriptions.

We now are ruled by a government that, in difficult economic times, has delivered more than they campaigned on in terms of income tax cuts; targeted those tax cuts towards the highest income earners more than they had promised; and broken their promises to protect the social safety net and manage the cost of living.

In the last election there was a lot of discussion of trust. I wonder how far soft National voters will allow their trust to be stretched before it breaks.

Comments (9)

by MikeM on March 22, 2011

In the last election there was a lot of discussion of trust. I wonder how far soft National voters will allow their trust to be stretched before it breaks.

True, but will they trust Phil Goff?

by Andrew R on March 22, 2011
Andrew R

Hell you wouldn't expect the pm and cabinet to volunteerily reverse tax cuts that they did so well out of would you?

Better to condemn this country to many more years of depression economy.  Eventually I suppose we will get a Keynes or an Irving Fisher (the post 1929 version) to point out the complete and utter folly of  cutting public spending in a depression.

by Nathaniel Wilson on March 22, 2011
Nathaniel Wilson

I think MikeM hits the nail on the head.  There is no viable alternative to National at the moment, and this is coming form someone who has always voted towards the left.  Labour looks pretty much like it was in 2008 minus the greatest talents (Clark, Cullen etc...), the Maori party's a mess, and the Greens sans Donald and Fitzsimons and, dare I say it Tanczos, has become just another fringe party.  It's bitterly frustrating, and I wonder if the turnout this year is going to be unusally low as a result.

The solution isn't a new radical left party either.  All I want, and I suspect more than a few others, is a genuine centre-left option.

by MikeM on March 22, 2011

I think it's politically savvy for anyone interested in Labour leadership to wait until at least after the election before putting themselves up, rather than risk losing and the uncertainty of what might follow. The stats on ever having a one term government are small no matter how much the current government might screw things up, so it'd be risky for anyone to try and lead Labour into this election. We'll probably see someone emerge to roll Phil Goff after this year, unless he somehow pulls off a miracle.

by stuart munro on March 23, 2011
stuart munro

I really don't think Phil Goff is desperately untenable as a Labour leader, for all that he has missed a number of opportunities to sheet home the monstrous failures of this government to those irresponsible.

But NZ is not awaiting a Keynes or a Galbraith - NZ inc and the Murdoch media wouldn't let us have one. We are waiting instead for a Zapata or a Bolivar. The kind of fellows who will not be denied. The further we follow these absurd policies to the right, the sooner the corrupt edifice by which a partisan Treasury determines economic policy will end up in the dustbin where it belongs.

Death to the plutocrats!

by mudfish on March 25, 2011

Timing. Reliance on very short memories. Election year.

Combined with itchy fingers and fiscal and natural crises as excuses. Can you remember how many Labour initiatves John Key said he wouldn't touch in his first term. Well there's a lot he will touch next term.

by Hesiod on April 19, 2011

this government is more cunning than we think.

their programme is one word, "inflation".

that will take care of all the debt before gdp starts to rise again and we earn our way out of the biggest infantile spending spree new zealand has ever witnessed.

by on September 26, 2011
88Amity2: asics shoes sale
by on March 06, 2012

Whilst buying for the athletes nike air rift shoes , the purchasers must protect for the full-length air sole plus the open heel design.An additional criterion of high importance to search for even though buying for the running shoes for the ladies is the lighter weight.

Post new comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.