-
-
Donate – Register for Newsletter
-
Weekly Poll
Loading ...-
-
Your Views
-
-
-
Social Media
-
-
-
NZCPR CAMPAIGNS
-
Dr. Don Brash
One of the most disturbing comments made by any politician in the election campaign so far was the comment by John Key when he said that, though abolition of separate Maori electorates is National Party policy, he had no plan to abolish them because such a move would provoke “hikois from hell”.
Judged in conventional terms, the National-led Government’s sixth Budget looks pretty good. As promised, the Minister of Finance can point to a small surplus in the Underlying Operating Balance (before gain and losses) in the financial year starting on 1 July and increasing surpluses in future financial years.
There’s been a bit of crowing over the last week or so about the fact that New Zealand has beaten Australia in the Global Competitive Index issued by the World Economic Forum. We were ranked 18th in the world in terms of competitiveness – out of the 148 countries ranked – whereas Australia ranked only 21st.
There has been an astonishing amount of alarmist comment – certainly in the “New Zealand Herald” and even on Radio New Zealand – about the possibility that the Reserve Bank of New Zealand could impose a “Cypriot-type” tax on bank deposits in the event of a bank failure. People have expressed outrage at the idea, and Russel Norman has suggested that a deposit insurance scheme would be a “much simpler, well-tested alternative” to what the RB is proposing, formally called Open Bank Resolution.
In 1999, the Labour Party, by then in Opposition, promised a comprehensive review of the Act if they won the election that year. After they formed a government late that year, they commissioned that comprehensive review by Lars Svensson, a highly respected monetary policy academic (and now Deputy Governor of the Swedish central bank). And the result? Following careful assessment of the Act and the way the Reserve Bank was implementing it, Professor Svensson concluded that it was world’s best practice.
Over the days since the Minister of Finance presented his fourth Budget, there has been extensive debate about the details of the Budget’s growth projections (will New Zealand achieve growth of 3.4% in the year to March 2014?), about whether the government’s accounts will be in surplus of 0.1% of GDP by 2014/15, and about whether more should have been done to help low-income people.
Opinion Piece by Dr Don Brash As most readers know, the 2025 Taskforce was set up as a result of the coalition deal between the National and ACT parties immediately after the 2008 election. That deal involved the Government committing to policies which would lift living standards in New Zealand to the Australian level by 2025, and setting up an advisory group both to advise how best to achieve that goal and to report on progress towards it on an annual basis. Those two latter roles are the responsibility of the 2025 Taskforce.
Late last November, the 2025 Taskforce issued its first report. As readers may recall, the Taskforce was set up by Government as a result of the coalition deal between the National and ACT Parties after the 2008 election. That deal involved the Government committing itself to adopt policies to raise living standards in New Zealand to equal those in Australia by 2025 and – perhaps more significantly given the tendency for many governments to make grandiose promises which they have little intention of delivering on – to establish an advisory group both to make recommendations about how best to achieve that goal and to report annually on progress towards it. I chair that Taskforce, with David Caygill (who needs no introduction), Jeremy Moon (CEO of Icebreaker), Judith Sloan (of the Australian Productivity Commission) and Bryce Wilkinson (a Wellington economist) making up the other members.
Speech at AUT University delivered soon after Don’s appointment to chair the 2025 Taskforce.
