I don't often comment on DPFs blog but this is an exception:
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2023/12/labours_fiscal_trickery.html
Now I have no doubt that Willis' claims from the Newshub article are >excessive, but if the PREFU excludes items in the government budget
(such as items that are not permanently funded) then either Treasury
was at fault or legislation needs to be amended. Fiscal Updates of
all types need to include everything specified in relevant past
budgets, otherwise the Fiscal Update is not accurate.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 06 Dec 2023 07:39:11 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:Perhaps you could actually address the subject and the comments by Crash - your
I don't often comment on DPFs blog but this is an exception:
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2023/12/labours_fiscal_trickery.html
Now I have no doubt that Willis' claims from the Newshub article are >>>excessive, but if the PREFU excludes items in the government budget
(such as items that are not permanently funded) then either Treasury
was at fault or legislation needs to be amended. Fiscal Updates of
all types need to include everything specified in relevant past
budgets, otherwise the Fiscal Update is not accurate.
The PREFU is in effect an update on the Budget, using latest policy >>direction from the government prior to the election, but produced and >>presented by the public service - they will have decided on the >>presentation, but there is likely to be exactly the same disclosure of >>assumptions as for any budget. Certainly nothing has been hidden by
the Labour Government - it is not their report, but both Nicola Willis
and Shadow Ministers in the previous National Opposition should have
been aware of changes for their portfolios and drawn them to the
attention of Nicola Willis.
A priority for the incoming Finance Minister should have been to use
the data in the PREFU to prepare for the next budget update based on >>National's policy assumptions - and for that one of the biggest
problems may have been that National changed policy on the subsidies
to landlords by backdating tax deductibility of interest costs. I >>questioned at the time why Luxon did not appear to have get financial >>advice regarding that fairly significant policy change - it will cost >>between half and one billion dollars. More worrying however is that it >>appears that Nicola Willis was not getting financial advice from
National's budget advisers on the implication of the PREFU; if true
that indicates a serious problem for the new government.
wasted paragraphs did neither.
On Wed, 06 Dec 2023 07:39:11 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>Perhaps you could actually address the subject and the comments by Crash - your wasted paragraphs did neither.
wrote:
I don't often comment on DPFs blog but this is an exception:
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2023/12/labours_fiscal_trickery.html
Now I have no doubt that Willis' claims from the Newshub article are >>excessive, but if the PREFU excludes items in the government budget
(such as items that are not permanently funded) then either Treasury
was at fault or legislation needs to be amended. Fiscal Updates of
all types need to include everything specified in relevant past
budgets, otherwise the Fiscal Update is not accurate.
The PREFU is in effect an update on the Budget, using latest policy
direction from the government prior to the election, but produced and >presented by the public service - they will have decided on the
presentation, but there is likely to be exactly the same disclosure of >assumptions as for any budget. Certainly nothing has been hidden by
the Labour Government - it is not their report, but both Nicola Willis
and Shadow Ministers in the previous National Opposition should have
been aware of changes for their portfolios and drawn them to the
attention of Nicola Willis.
A priority for the incoming Finance Minister should have been to use
the data in the PREFU to prepare for the next budget update based on >National's policy assumptions - and for that one of the biggest
problems may have been that National changed policy on the subsidies
to landlords by backdating tax deductibility of interest costs. I
questioned at the time why Luxon did not appear to have get financial
advice regarding that fairly significant policy change - it will cost
between half and one billion dollars. More worrying however is that it >appears that Nicola Willis was not getting financial advice from
National's budget advisers on the implication of the PREFU; if true
that indicates a serious problem for the new government.
I don't often comment on DPFs blog but this is an exception:
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2023/12/labours_fiscal_trickery.html
Now I have no doubt that Willis' claims from the Newshub article are excessive, but if the PREFU excludes items in the government budget
(such as items that are not permanently funded) then either Treasury
was at fault or legislation needs to be amended. Fiscal Updates of
all types need to include everything specified in relevant past
budgets, otherwise the Fiscal Update is not accurate.
On 2023-12-05, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:A not entirely dissimilar thing happened when Muldoon lost after he called a snap election but in that case it was refusal to provide the information to the incoming government; the data, when available, showed huge discrepancies and poor decision making (that is the similar part to this bit of deception).
I don't often comment on DPFs blog but this is an exception:Well from reading the article and the comments it appears that the system is >dysfunctional. There is elements of the tribes being in charge, We are in >power and we will screw the incoming side with all our power. Never mind the >colateral damage for the country.
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2023/12/labours_fiscal_trickery.html
Now I have no doubt that Willis' claims from the Newshub article are
excessive, but if the PREFU excludes items in the government budget
(such as items that are not permanently funded) then either Treasury
was at fault or legislation needs to be amended. Fiscal Updates of
all types need to include everything specified in relevant past
budgets, otherwise the Fiscal Update is not accurate.
On 6 Dec 2023 03:25:15 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:You may think so, but honest people will have their doubts particularly as to whether whether ministers influenced the report. After all, politicians of all flavours have often done nefarious things and I doubt this is an exception coming from the last governmment that routinely misrepresented the truth to the public.
On 2023-12-05, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:In this case the "tribe" that is dysfunctional would be Kiwiblog and
I don't often comment on DPFs blog but this is an exception:Well from reading the article and the comments it appears that the system is >>dysfunctional. There is elements of the tribes being in charge, We are in >>power and we will screw the incoming side with all our power. Never mind the >>colateral damage for the country.
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2023/12/labours_fiscal_trickery.html
Now I have no doubt that Willis' claims from the Newshub article are
excessive, but if the PREFU excludes items in the government budget
(such as items that are not permanently funded) then either Treasury
was at fault or legislation needs to be amended. Fiscal Updates of
all types need to include everything specified in relevant past
budgets, otherwise the Fiscal Update is not accurate.
those that post or comment on posts. There is no evidence that the >assumptions Treasury used have not been included, as they were in the >previous Budget papers. To accuse Treasury of 'screwing the incoming
side" is grossly unfair to those public servants - the PREFU is their
report, not that of the previous government, although in the absence
of changes in policy, they will use future policies last advised; but
I believe it highly unlikely that Treasury has tried to mislead Nicola >Willis.
On 2023-12-05, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:In this case the "tribe" that is dysfunctional would be Kiwiblog and
I don't often comment on DPFs blog but this is an exception:Well from reading the article and the comments it appears that the system is >dysfunctional. There is elements of the tribes being in charge, We are in >power and we will screw the incoming side with all our power. Never mind the >colateral damage for the country.
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2023/12/labours_fiscal_trickery.html
Now I have no doubt that Willis' claims from the Newshub article are
excessive, but if the PREFU excludes items in the government budget
(such as items that are not permanently funded) then either Treasury
was at fault or legislation needs to be amended. Fiscal Updates of
all types need to include everything specified in relevant past
budgets, otherwise the Fiscal Update is not accurate.
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2023-12-05, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:A not entirely dissimilar thing happened when Muldoon lost after he called a >snap election but in that case it was refusal to provide the information to the
I don't often comment on DPFs blog but this is an exception:Well from reading the article and the comments it appears that the system is >>dysfunctional. There is elements of the tribes being in charge, We are in >>power and we will screw the incoming side with all our power. Never mind the >>colateral damage for the country.
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2023/12/labours_fiscal_trickery.html
Now I have no doubt that Willis' claims from the Newshub article are
excessive, but if the PREFU excludes items in the government budget
(such as items that are not permanently funded) then either Treasury
was at fault or legislation needs to be amended. Fiscal Updates of
all types need to include everything specified in relevant past
budgets, otherwise the Fiscal Update is not accurate.
incoming government; the data, when available, showed huge discrepancies and >poor decision making (that is the similar part to this bit of deception).
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 6 Dec 2023 03:25:15 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:You may think so, but honest people will have their doubts particularly as to >whether whether ministers influenced the report. After all, politicians of all >flavours have often done nefarious things and I doubt this is an exception >coming from the last governmment that routinely misrepresented the truth to >the public.
On 2023-12-05, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:In this case the "tribe" that is dysfunctional would be Kiwiblog and
I don't often comment on DPFs blog but this is an exception:Well from reading the article and the comments it appears that the system is >>>dysfunctional. There is elements of the tribes being in charge, We are in >>>power and we will screw the incoming side with all our power. Never mind the >>>colateral damage for the country.
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2023/12/labours_fiscal_trickery.html
Now I have no doubt that Willis' claims from the Newshub article are
excessive, but if the PREFU excludes items in the government budget
(such as items that are not permanently funded) then either Treasury
was at fault or legislation needs to be amended. Fiscal Updates of
all types need to include everything specified in relevant past
budgets, otherwise the Fiscal Update is not accurate.
those that post or comment on posts. There is no evidence that the >>assumptions Treasury used have not been included, as they were in the >>previous Budget papers. To accuse Treasury of 'screwing the incoming
side" is grossly unfair to those public servants - the PREFU is their >>report, not that of the previous government, although in the absence
of changes in policy, they will use future policies last advised; but
I believe it highly unlikely that Treasury has tried to mislead Nicola >>Willis.
On Wed, 6 Dec 2023 02:20:38 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 06 Dec 2023 07:39:11 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:Perhaps you could actually address the subject and the comments by Crash - your
I don't often comment on DPFs blog but this is an exception:
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2023/12/labours_fiscal_trickery.html
Now I have no doubt that Willis' claims from the Newshub article are >>>>excessive, but if the PREFU excludes items in the government budget >>>>(such as items that are not permanently funded) then either Treasury >>>>was at fault or legislation needs to be amended. Fiscal Updates of
all types need to include everything specified in relevant past >>>>budgets, otherwise the Fiscal Update is not accurate.
The PREFU is in effect an update on the Budget, using latest policy >>>direction from the government prior to the election, but produced and >>>presented by the public service - they will have decided on the >>>presentation, but there is likely to be exactly the same disclosure of >>>assumptions as for any budget. Certainly nothing has been hidden by
the Labour Government - it is not their report, but both Nicola Willis >>>and Shadow Ministers in the previous National Opposition should have
been aware of changes for their portfolios and drawn them to the >>>attention of Nicola Willis.
A priority for the incoming Finance Minister should have been to use
the data in the PREFU to prepare for the next budget update based on >>>National's policy assumptions - and for that one of the biggest
problems may have been that National changed policy on the subsidies
to landlords by backdating tax deductibility of interest costs. I >>>questioned at the time why Luxon did not appear to have get financial >>>advice regarding that fairly significant policy change - it will cost >>>between half and one billion dollars. More worrying however is that it >>>appears that Nicola Willis was not getting financial advice from >>>National's budget advisers on the implication of the PREFU; if true
that indicates a serious problem for the new government.
wasted paragraphs did neither.
Correct Tony. Rich did not mention 'items that are not permanently
funded'. Yes it is a Treasury report, but if certain fiscal measures
are omitted because they are 'not permanently funded' then there is an >incentive to deliberately use this definition to ensure some budget
items are excluded from future Financial Updates (FUs).
On Wed, 06 Dec 2023 15:40:27 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>you are still skirting around the valid questions asked in the article and by Crash. Do you actually have the capacity to address content instead of going down the political rabbit hole?
wrote:
On Wed, 6 Dec 2023 02:20:38 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 06 Dec 2023 07:39:11 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:Perhaps you could actually address the subject and the comments by Crash - >>>your
I don't often comment on DPFs blog but this is an exception:
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2023/12/labours_fiscal_trickery.html
Now I have no doubt that Willis' claims from the Newshub article are >>>>>excessive, but if the PREFU excludes items in the government budget >>>>>(such as items that are not permanently funded) then either Treasury >>>>>was at fault or legislation needs to be amended. Fiscal Updates of >>>>>all types need to include everything specified in relevant past >>>>>budgets, otherwise the Fiscal Update is not accurate.
The PREFU is in effect an update on the Budget, using latest policy >>>>direction from the government prior to the election, but produced and >>>>presented by the public service - they will have decided on the >>>>presentation, but there is likely to be exactly the same disclosure of >>>>assumptions as for any budget. Certainly nothing has been hidden by
the Labour Government - it is not their report, but both Nicola Willis >>>>and Shadow Ministers in the previous National Opposition should have >>>>been aware of changes for their portfolios and drawn them to the >>>>attention of Nicola Willis.
A priority for the incoming Finance Minister should have been to use >>>>the data in the PREFU to prepare for the next budget update based on >>>>National's policy assumptions - and for that one of the biggest >>>>problems may have been that National changed policy on the subsidies
to landlords by backdating tax deductibility of interest costs. I >>>>questioned at the time why Luxon did not appear to have get financial >>>>advice regarding that fairly significant policy change - it will cost >>>>between half and one billion dollars. More worrying however is that it >>>>appears that Nicola Willis was not getting financial advice from >>>>National's budget advisers on the implication of the PREFU; if true >>>>that indicates a serious problem for the new government.
wasted paragraphs did neither.
Correct Tony. Rich did not mention 'items that are not permanently >>funded'. Yes it is a Treasury report, but if certain fiscal measures
are omitted because they are 'not permanently funded' then there is an >>incentive to deliberately use this definition to ensure some budget
items are excluded from future Financial Updates (FUs).
If that is the case I would agree with you, but I addressed that
concern when I said "The PREFU is in effect an update on the Budget,
using latest policy direction from the government prior to the
election, but produced and presented by the public service - they will
have decided on the presentation, but there is likely to be exactly
the same disclosure of assumptions as for any budget. "
Robertson pointed out that the assumptions regarding items that were
not permanently funded were included and outlined in the Budget; he
did not comment on the PREFU, which was not his responsibility, but do
you seriously imagine that the same level of explanation was not given
in that report? - Nobody has demonstrated that Treasury did not
include those explanations, but Willis is demonstrating again that she
does not read reports. Now having Willis accuse Treasury of being >deliberately misleading, with the implication that this may be a
deliberate political sabotage of National, is reprehensible without
evidence.
Willis is possibly frustrated in the negotiations having taken so long
- she will be looking forward to being able to give Treasury advise of >decisions of cabinet to include in the next fiscal update - her real
problem is that Cabinet have taken a long time to meet, but she
appears to not have done the relatively simple issue of adjustments
for the listed items that she believes Cabinet may well continue. At
this stage, Treasury are as much in the dark as to the Coalitions
decisions as we are - frustrating for everyone.
But let us not dwell on the manifest problems that the Coalition of
Chaos is experiencing through some of their new Ministers not yet
being on top of their jobs, and look to something that is much more >encouraging.
The Speech from the Throne included: "The Government will reduce Core
Crown expenditure as a proportion of the overall economy – with
savings in government agencies targeted to deliver tax relief for >hard-working, low-and-middle-income workers."
Previous statements from C Luxon have indicated that the targeting was
to be towards those on the top tax rate and landlords - the change in >emphasis towards low and middle-income workers will I am sure be
welcomed by a majority of New Zealanders - as most New Zealanders are
within the group that the Coalition is now targeting for relief. I
suspect this major change must have been the result of pressure from
NZ First, but it may also have come from polling on reactions to
coalition statements; whatever the reason this is a significant change
that will if carried through give the coalition significantly more
support than favouring only groups heavily represented as political
donors for ACT / Nat.
It is fair to criticise any government for their actions or policy >statements, but when they indicate they have listened and will do
better it is fair to give them credit for that improvement.
On Wed, 6 Dec 2023 03:42:23 -0000 (UTC), TonySadly you are a fool. Ministers of all government flavours have in the past ensured that officials provide only politically acceptable information.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 6 Dec 2023 03:25:15 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:You may think so, but honest people will have their doubts particularly as to >>whether whether ministers influenced the report. After all, politicians of >>all
On 2023-12-05, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:In this case the "tribe" that is dysfunctional would be Kiwiblog and >>>those that post or comment on posts. There is no evidence that the >>>assumptions Treasury used have not been included, as they were in the >>>previous Budget papers. To accuse Treasury of 'screwing the incoming >>>side" is grossly unfair to those public servants - the PREFU is their >>>report, not that of the previous government, although in the absence
I don't often comment on DPFs blog but this is an exception:Well from reading the article and the comments it appears that the system is
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2023/12/labours_fiscal_trickery.html
Now I have no doubt that Willis' claims from the Newshub article are >>>>> excessive, but if the PREFU excludes items in the government budget
(such as items that are not permanently funded) then either Treasury >>>>> was at fault or legislation needs to be amended. Fiscal Updates of
all types need to include everything specified in relevant past
budgets, otherwise the Fiscal Update is not accurate.
dysfunctional. There is elements of the tribes being in charge, We are in >>>>power and we will screw the incoming side with all our power. Never mind the
colateral damage for the country.
of changes in policy, they will use future policies last advised; but
I believe it highly unlikely that Treasury has tried to mislead Nicola >>>Willis.
flavours have often done nefarious things and I doubt this is an exception >>coming from the last governmment that routinely misrepresented the truth to >>the public.
Sadly your gut feel is consistently wrong, and you appear unable to
follow suggestions for how you could actually find out the truth.
Labour Ministers were not responsible for the PREFU, the last budget
did include the information that Nicola Willis could not find; there
is no reason for Treasury to mislead those who received the report,
they who will have to work with the new Coalition regardless of who is >Minister of Finance. To suggest that public servants would act to
mislead a new government is reprehensible from you. Get it into your
head - PREFU was a report from Treasury, not from the previous
government!
On Wed, 6 Dec 2023 03:37:57 -0000 (UTC), TonyNope, see my response to your other silly post in this thread. Robertson has shown no such thing.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2023-12-05, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:A not entirely dissimilar thing happened when Muldoon lost after he called a >>snap election but in that case it was refusal to provide the information to >>the
I don't often comment on DPFs blog but this is an exception:Well from reading the article and the comments it appears that the system is >>>dysfunctional. There is elements of the tribes being in charge, We are in >>>power and we will screw the incoming side with all our power. Never mind the >>>colateral damage for the country.
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2023/12/labours_fiscal_trickery.html
Now I have no doubt that Willis' claims from the Newshub article are
excessive, but if the PREFU excludes items in the government budget
(such as items that are not permanently funded) then either Treasury
was at fault or legislation needs to be amended. Fiscal Updates of
all types need to include everything specified in relevant past
budgets, otherwise the Fiscal Update is not accurate.
incoming government; the data, when available, showed huge discrepancies and >>poor decision making (that is the similar part to this bit of deception).
No deception has been shown to have happened. Robertson showed that
the relevant assumptions were included in the budget, so the initial >criticism was wrong. He was not responsible for the later report, but
nobody has demonstrated that the Treasury did not include similar
assumptions in their later report. As for so many issues raised by the
likes of Kiwiblog, this is an accusation without substance, being
spread by followers who blindly follow without first finding out if
there is in fact substance to the criticism.
On Wed, 6 Dec 2023 03:34:58 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 06 Dec 2023 15:40:27 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:you are still skirting around the valid questions asked in the article and by >>Crash. Do you actually have the capacity to address content instead of going >>down the political rabbit hole?
On Wed, 6 Dec 2023 02:20:38 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 06 Dec 2023 07:39:11 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>wrote:Perhaps you could actually address the subject and the comments by Crash - >>>>>your
I don't often comment on DPFs blog but this is an exception:
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2023/12/labours_fiscal_trickery.html
Now I have no doubt that Willis' claims from the Newshub article are >>>>>>>excessive, but if the PREFU excludes items in the government budget >>>>>>>(such as items that are not permanently funded) then either Treasury >>>>>>>was at fault or legislation needs to be amended. Fiscal Updates of >>>>>>>all types need to include everything specified in relevant past >>>>>>>budgets, otherwise the Fiscal Update is not accurate.
The PREFU is in effect an update on the Budget, using latest policy >>>>>>direction from the government prior to the election, but produced and >>>>>>presented by the public service - they will have decided on the >>>>>>presentation, but there is likely to be exactly the same disclosure of >>>>>>assumptions as for any budget. Certainly nothing has been hidden by >>>>>>the Labour Government - it is not their report, but both Nicola Willis >>>>>>and Shadow Ministers in the previous National Opposition should have >>>>>>been aware of changes for their portfolios and drawn them to the >>>>>>attention of Nicola Willis.
A priority for the incoming Finance Minister should have been to use >>>>>>the data in the PREFU to prepare for the next budget update based on >>>>>>National's policy assumptions - and for that one of the biggest >>>>>>problems may have been that National changed policy on the subsidies >>>>>>to landlords by backdating tax deductibility of interest costs. I >>>>>>questioned at the time why Luxon did not appear to have get financial >>>>>>advice regarding that fairly significant policy change - it will cost >>>>>>between half and one billion dollars. More worrying however is that it >>>>>>appears that Nicola Willis was not getting financial advice from >>>>>>National's budget advisers on the implication of the PREFU; if true >>>>>>that indicates a serious problem for the new government.
wasted paragraphs did neither.
Correct Tony. Rich did not mention 'items that are not permanently >>>>funded'. Yes it is a Treasury report, but if certain fiscal measures >>>>are omitted because they are 'not permanently funded' then there is an >>>>incentive to deliberately use this definition to ensure some budget >>>>items are excluded from future Financial Updates (FUs).
If that is the case I would agree with you, but I addressed that
concern when I said "The PREFU is in effect an update on the Budget, >>>using latest policy direction from the government prior to the
election, but produced and presented by the public service - they will >>>have decided on the presentation, but there is likely to be exactly
the same disclosure of assumptions as for any budget. "
Robertson pointed out that the assumptions regarding items that were
not permanently funded were included and outlined in the Budget; he
did not comment on the PREFU, which was not his responsibility, but do >>>you seriously imagine that the same level of explanation was not given
in that report? - Nobody has demonstrated that Treasury did not
include those explanations, but Willis is demonstrating again that she >>>does not read reports. Now having Willis accuse Treasury of being >>>deliberately misleading, with the implication that this may be a >>>deliberate political sabotage of National, is reprehensible without >>>evidence.
Willis is possibly frustrated in the negotiations having taken so long
- she will be looking forward to being able to give Treasury advise of >>>decisions of cabinet to include in the next fiscal update - her real >>>problem is that Cabinet have taken a long time to meet, but she
appears to not have done the relatively simple issue of adjustments
for the listed items that she believes Cabinet may well continue. At
this stage, Treasury are as much in the dark as to the Coalitions >>>decisions as we are - frustrating for everyone.
But let us not dwell on the manifest problems that the Coalition of
Chaos is experiencing through some of their new Ministers not yet
being on top of their jobs, and look to something that is much more >>>encouraging.
The Speech from the Throne included: "The Government will reduce Core >>>Crown expenditure as a proportion of the overall economy – with
savings in government agencies targeted to deliver tax relief for >>>hard-working, low-and-middle-income workers."
Previous statements from C Luxon have indicated that the targeting was
to be towards those on the top tax rate and landlords - the change in >>>emphasis towards low and middle-income workers will I am sure be
welcomed by a majority of New Zealanders - as most New Zealanders are >>>within the group that the Coalition is now targeting for relief. I >>>suspect this major change must have been the result of pressure from
NZ First, but it may also have come from polling on reactions to >>>coalition statements; whatever the reason this is a significant change >>>that will if carried through give the coalition significantly more >>>support than favouring only groups heavily represented as political >>>donors for ACT / Nat.
It is fair to criticise any government for their actions or policy >>>statements, but when they indicate they have listened and will do
better it is fair to give them credit for that improvement.
Rich cannot and will not address the issues that the FUs do not
address Budget content that is 'not permanently funded'. Most of us
would expect that a PREFU addressed funding issues from the most
recent Budget. Willis has pointed out that it does not and Rich has
squirted the issue with pro-Labour political rhetoric. It is all Rich
(and in this case Grant Robertson) has. It is a weak political
riposte and I predict Robertson will tire of this in 2024 and resign
(though I entirely acknowledge this is off-topic in this thread).
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 06 Dec 2023 15:40:27 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:you are still skirting around the valid questions asked in the article and by >Crash. Do you actually have the capacity to address content instead of going >down the political rabbit hole?
On Wed, 6 Dec 2023 02:20:38 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 06 Dec 2023 07:39:11 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>wrote:Perhaps you could actually address the subject and the comments by Crash - >>>>your
I don't often comment on DPFs blog but this is an exception:
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2023/12/labours_fiscal_trickery.html
Now I have no doubt that Willis' claims from the Newshub article are >>>>>>excessive, but if the PREFU excludes items in the government budget >>>>>>(such as items that are not permanently funded) then either Treasury >>>>>>was at fault or legislation needs to be amended. Fiscal Updates of >>>>>>all types need to include everything specified in relevant past >>>>>>budgets, otherwise the Fiscal Update is not accurate.
The PREFU is in effect an update on the Budget, using latest policy >>>>>direction from the government prior to the election, but produced and >>>>>presented by the public service - they will have decided on the >>>>>presentation, but there is likely to be exactly the same disclosure of >>>>>assumptions as for any budget. Certainly nothing has been hidden by >>>>>the Labour Government - it is not their report, but both Nicola Willis >>>>>and Shadow Ministers in the previous National Opposition should have >>>>>been aware of changes for their portfolios and drawn them to the >>>>>attention of Nicola Willis.
A priority for the incoming Finance Minister should have been to use >>>>>the data in the PREFU to prepare for the next budget update based on >>>>>National's policy assumptions - and for that one of the biggest >>>>>problems may have been that National changed policy on the subsidies >>>>>to landlords by backdating tax deductibility of interest costs. I >>>>>questioned at the time why Luxon did not appear to have get financial >>>>>advice regarding that fairly significant policy change - it will cost >>>>>between half and one billion dollars. More worrying however is that it >>>>>appears that Nicola Willis was not getting financial advice from >>>>>National's budget advisers on the implication of the PREFU; if true >>>>>that indicates a serious problem for the new government.
wasted paragraphs did neither.
Correct Tony. Rich did not mention 'items that are not permanently >>>funded'. Yes it is a Treasury report, but if certain fiscal measures
are omitted because they are 'not permanently funded' then there is an >>>incentive to deliberately use this definition to ensure some budget
items are excluded from future Financial Updates (FUs).
If that is the case I would agree with you, but I addressed that
concern when I said "The PREFU is in effect an update on the Budget,
using latest policy direction from the government prior to the
election, but produced and presented by the public service - they will
have decided on the presentation, but there is likely to be exactly
the same disclosure of assumptions as for any budget. "
Robertson pointed out that the assumptions regarding items that were
not permanently funded were included and outlined in the Budget; he
did not comment on the PREFU, which was not his responsibility, but do
you seriously imagine that the same level of explanation was not given
in that report? - Nobody has demonstrated that Treasury did not
include those explanations, but Willis is demonstrating again that she
does not read reports. Now having Willis accuse Treasury of being >>deliberately misleading, with the implication that this may be a
deliberate political sabotage of National, is reprehensible without >>evidence.
Willis is possibly frustrated in the negotiations having taken so long
- she will be looking forward to being able to give Treasury advise of >>decisions of cabinet to include in the next fiscal update - her real >>problem is that Cabinet have taken a long time to meet, but she
appears to not have done the relatively simple issue of adjustments
for the listed items that she believes Cabinet may well continue. At
this stage, Treasury are as much in the dark as to the Coalitions
decisions as we are - frustrating for everyone.
But let us not dwell on the manifest problems that the Coalition of
Chaos is experiencing through some of their new Ministers not yet
being on top of their jobs, and look to something that is much more >>encouraging.
The Speech from the Throne included: "The Government will reduce Core
Crown expenditure as a proportion of the overall economy – with
savings in government agencies targeted to deliver tax relief for >>hard-working, low-and-middle-income workers."
Previous statements from C Luxon have indicated that the targeting was
to be towards those on the top tax rate and landlords - the change in >>emphasis towards low and middle-income workers will I am sure be
welcomed by a majority of New Zealanders - as most New Zealanders are >>within the group that the Coalition is now targeting for relief. I
suspect this major change must have been the result of pressure from
NZ First, but it may also have come from polling on reactions to
coalition statements; whatever the reason this is a significant change
that will if carried through give the coalition significantly more
support than favouring only groups heavily represented as political
donors for ACT / Nat.
It is fair to criticise any government for their actions or policy >>statements, but when they indicate they have listened and will do
better it is fair to give them credit for that improvement.
On Wed, 6 Dec 2023 03:34:58 -0000 (UTC), TonyThis issue was raised by Nicola Willis - Grant Robertson responded by
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 06 Dec 2023 15:40:27 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:you are still skirting around the valid questions asked in the article and by >>Crash. Do you actually have the capacity to address content instead of going >>down the political rabbit hole?
On Wed, 6 Dec 2023 02:20:38 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 06 Dec 2023 07:39:11 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>wrote:Perhaps you could actually address the subject and the comments by Crash - >>>>>your
I don't often comment on DPFs blog but this is an exception:
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2023/12/labours_fiscal_trickery.html
Now I have no doubt that Willis' claims from the Newshub article are >>>>>>>excessive, but if the PREFU excludes items in the government budget >>>>>>>(such as items that are not permanently funded) then either Treasury >>>>>>>was at fault or legislation needs to be amended. Fiscal Updates of >>>>>>>all types need to include everything specified in relevant past >>>>>>>budgets, otherwise the Fiscal Update is not accurate.
The PREFU is in effect an update on the Budget, using latest policy >>>>>>direction from the government prior to the election, but produced and >>>>>>presented by the public service - they will have decided on the >>>>>>presentation, but there is likely to be exactly the same disclosure of >>>>>>assumptions as for any budget. Certainly nothing has been hidden by >>>>>>the Labour Government - it is not their report, but both Nicola Willis >>>>>>and Shadow Ministers in the previous National Opposition should have >>>>>>been aware of changes for their portfolios and drawn them to the >>>>>>attention of Nicola Willis.
A priority for the incoming Finance Minister should have been to use >>>>>>the data in the PREFU to prepare for the next budget update based on >>>>>>National's policy assumptions - and for that one of the biggest >>>>>>problems may have been that National changed policy on the subsidies >>>>>>to landlords by backdating tax deductibility of interest costs. I >>>>>>questioned at the time why Luxon did not appear to have get financial >>>>>>advice regarding that fairly significant policy change - it will cost >>>>>>between half and one billion dollars. More worrying however is that it >>>>>>appears that Nicola Willis was not getting financial advice from >>>>>>National's budget advisers on the implication of the PREFU; if true >>>>>>that indicates a serious problem for the new government.
wasted paragraphs did neither.
Correct Tony. Rich did not mention 'items that are not permanently >>>>funded'. Yes it is a Treasury report, but if certain fiscal measures >>>>are omitted because they are 'not permanently funded' then there is an >>>>incentive to deliberately use this definition to ensure some budget >>>>items are excluded from future Financial Updates (FUs).
If that is the case I would agree with you, but I addressed that
concern when I said "The PREFU is in effect an update on the Budget, >>>using latest policy direction from the government prior to the
election, but produced and presented by the public service - they will >>>have decided on the presentation, but there is likely to be exactly
the same disclosure of assumptions as for any budget. "
Robertson pointed out that the assumptions regarding items that were
not permanently funded were included and outlined in the Budget; he
did not comment on the PREFU, which was not his responsibility, but do >>>you seriously imagine that the same level of explanation was not given
in that report? - Nobody has demonstrated that Treasury did not
include those explanations, but Willis is demonstrating again that she >>>does not read reports. Now having Willis accuse Treasury of being >>>deliberately misleading, with the implication that this may be a >>>deliberate political sabotage of National, is reprehensible without >>>evidence.
Willis is possibly frustrated in the negotiations having taken so long
- she will be looking forward to being able to give Treasury advise of >>>decisions of cabinet to include in the next fiscal update - her real >>>problem is that Cabinet have taken a long time to meet, but she
appears to not have done the relatively simple issue of adjustments
for the listed items that she believes Cabinet may well continue. At
this stage, Treasury are as much in the dark as to the Coalitions >>>decisions as we are - frustrating for everyone.
But let us not dwell on the manifest problems that the Coalition of
Chaos is experiencing through some of their new Ministers not yet
being on top of their jobs, and look to something that is much more >>>encouraging.
The Speech from the Throne included: "The Government will reduce Core >>>Crown expenditure as a proportion of the overall economy – with
savings in government agencies targeted to deliver tax relief for >>>hard-working, low-and-middle-income workers."
Previous statements from C Luxon have indicated that the targeting was
to be towards those on the top tax rate and landlords - the change in >>>emphasis towards low and middle-income workers will I am sure be
welcomed by a majority of New Zealanders - as most New Zealanders are >>>within the group that the Coalition is now targeting for relief. I >>>suspect this major change must have been the result of pressure from
NZ First, but it may also have come from polling on reactions to >>>coalition statements; whatever the reason this is a significant change >>>that will if carried through give the coalition significantly more >>>support than favouring only groups heavily represented as political >>>donors for ACT / Nat.
It is fair to criticise any government for their actions or policy >>>statements, but when they indicate they have listened and will do
better it is fair to give them credit for that improvement.
Rich cannot and will not address the issues that the FUs do not
address Budget content that is 'not permanently funded'.
Most of us
would expect that a PREFU addressed funding issues from the most
recent Budget. Willis has pointed out that it does not and Rich has
squirted the issue with pro-Labour political rhetoric.
It is all Rich
(and in this case Grant Robertson) has. It is a weak political
riposte and I predict Robertson will tire of this in 2024 and resign
(though I entirely acknowledge this is off-topic in this thread).
On Wed, 06 Dec 2023 20:34:26 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>You are an absolute disgrace. You have completely failed to address the subject and you have wasted your time writing rhetoric and in fact some lies.
wrote:
On Wed, 6 Dec 2023 03:34:58 -0000 (UTC), TonyThis issue was raised by Nicola Willis - Grant Robertson responded by
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 06 Dec 2023 15:40:27 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:you are still skirting around the valid questions asked in the article and >>>by
On Wed, 6 Dec 2023 02:20:38 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 06 Dec 2023 07:39:11 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>wrote:Perhaps you could actually address the subject and the comments by Crash >>>>>>-
I don't often comment on DPFs blog but this is an exception:
Now I have no doubt that Willis' claims from the Newshub article are >>>>>>>>excessive, but if the PREFU excludes items in the government budget >>>>>>>>(such as items that are not permanently funded) then either Treasury >>>>>>>>was at fault or legislation needs to be amended. Fiscal Updates of >>>>>>>>all types need to include everything specified in relevant past >>>>>>>>budgets, otherwise the Fiscal Update is not accurate.https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2023/12/labours_fiscal_trickery.html >>>>>>>>
The PREFU is in effect an update on the Budget, using latest policy >>>>>>>direction from the government prior to the election, but produced and >>>>>>>presented by the public service - they will have decided on the >>>>>>>presentation, but there is likely to be exactly the same disclosure of >>>>>>>assumptions as for any budget. Certainly nothing has been hidden by >>>>>>>the Labour Government - it is not their report, but both Nicola Willis >>>>>>>and Shadow Ministers in the previous National Opposition should have >>>>>>>been aware of changes for their portfolios and drawn them to the >>>>>>>attention of Nicola Willis.
A priority for the incoming Finance Minister should have been to use >>>>>>>the data in the PREFU to prepare for the next budget update based on >>>>>>>National's policy assumptions - and for that one of the biggest >>>>>>>problems may have been that National changed policy on the subsidies >>>>>>>to landlords by backdating tax deductibility of interest costs. I >>>>>>>questioned at the time why Luxon did not appear to have get financial >>>>>>>advice regarding that fairly significant policy change - it will cost >>>>>>>between half and one billion dollars. More worrying however is that it >>>>>>>appears that Nicola Willis was not getting financial advice from >>>>>>>National's budget advisers on the implication of the PREFU; if true >>>>>>>that indicates a serious problem for the new government.
your
wasted paragraphs did neither.
Correct Tony. Rich did not mention 'items that are not permanently >>>>>funded'. Yes it is a Treasury report, but if certain fiscal measures >>>>>are omitted because they are 'not permanently funded' then there is an >>>>>incentive to deliberately use this definition to ensure some budget >>>>>items are excluded from future Financial Updates (FUs).
If that is the case I would agree with you, but I addressed that >>>>concern when I said "The PREFU is in effect an update on the Budget, >>>>using latest policy direction from the government prior to the >>>>election, but produced and presented by the public service - they will >>>>have decided on the presentation, but there is likely to be exactly
the same disclosure of assumptions as for any budget. "
Robertson pointed out that the assumptions regarding items that were >>>>not permanently funded were included and outlined in the Budget; he
did not comment on the PREFU, which was not his responsibility, but do >>>>you seriously imagine that the same level of explanation was not given >>>>in that report? - Nobody has demonstrated that Treasury did not
include those explanations, but Willis is demonstrating again that she >>>>does not read reports. Now having Willis accuse Treasury of being >>>>deliberately misleading, with the implication that this may be a >>>>deliberate political sabotage of National, is reprehensible without >>>>evidence.
Willis is possibly frustrated in the negotiations having taken so long >>>>- she will be looking forward to being able to give Treasury advise of >>>>decisions of cabinet to include in the next fiscal update - her real >>>>problem is that Cabinet have taken a long time to meet, but she
appears to not have done the relatively simple issue of adjustments
for the listed items that she believes Cabinet may well continue. At >>>>this stage, Treasury are as much in the dark as to the Coalitions >>>>decisions as we are - frustrating for everyone.
But let us not dwell on the manifest problems that the Coalition of >>>>Chaos is experiencing through some of their new Ministers not yet
being on top of their jobs, and look to something that is much more >>>>encouraging.
The Speech from the Throne included: "The Government will reduce Core >>>>Crown expenditure as a proportion of the overall economy – with
savings in government agencies targeted to deliver tax relief for >>>>hard-working, low-and-middle-income workers."
Previous statements from C Luxon have indicated that the targeting was >>>>to be towards those on the top tax rate and landlords - the change in >>>>emphasis towards low and middle-income workers will I am sure be >>>>welcomed by a majority of New Zealanders - as most New Zealanders are >>>>within the group that the Coalition is now targeting for relief. I >>>>suspect this major change must have been the result of pressure from
NZ First, but it may also have come from polling on reactions to >>>>coalition statements; whatever the reason this is a significant change >>>>that will if carried through give the coalition significantly more >>>>support than favouring only groups heavily represented as political >>>>donors for ACT / Nat.
It is fair to criticise any government for their actions or policy >>>>statements, but when they indicate they have listened and will do >>>>better it is fair to give them credit for that improvement.
Crash. Do you actually have the capacity to address content instead of going >>>
down the political rabbit hole?
Rich cannot and will not address the issues that the FUs do not
address Budget content that is 'not permanently funded'.
letting us all know that various assumptions were made in the Budget,
and that they were set out in the notes to the budget - from memory
page on 89. These are items of spending that the government has
decided should not be assumed to be ongoing for budget purposes - for
some of them they were assumed to have funding cease at a particular
future date - I think some of them were assumed to have no funding
from either a date in 2023 to the start of 2024. When Treasury did
there projections of future financial position, they would take that
advice into account. So yes the ''not permanently funded'' items were >disclosed in the budget papers, not hidden away at all, but page 89 is
a fair way through; some may not have read that far . . .
Now Treasury update their projections from time to time, and for that
they use updated information from government; but for the Pre-Election
Fiscal Update, they will use information using the same assumed
political decisions, but possibly different economic assumptions
(interest rates, funding sources etc). So the PREFU assumptions will
have been set out in the documentation which went with those
forecasts, but apparently yet again Nicola Willis was not able to find
them - or just chose to lie about what treasury had done. Those
forecasts are not at the behest of the government; they are intended
to give all parties information about projected financial position of
the country, and in particular changes arising from updated economic >projections.
"Not permanently funded" projects will be in the Treasury paper that
Nicola Willis has - I have not seen that report, but I cannot imagine >Treasury being so unprofessional as to produce a report which does not
give a complete list of both political assumptions as well as their
view as to current economic assumptions. I have not seen the updated
numbers, but it does seem that Willis missed reading that part, or did
not realise the significance of the words. I am surprised that
National did not have the papers examined for them by consultants who
could have explained this to her.
If she then wanted to assess the economic impact of the ''not
permanently funded" projects that should have been able to be derived
by economic consultants, but it now seems that Nicola Willis just
wants to create an argument - Robertson did say that he had to deal
with just such issues when National left office.
I find that blaming Treasury for her lack of understanding to be a
scurrilous attack on public servants that will be working for her -
not a good way to start. She will have had access to Treasury staff
for briefings for some time now, and could have asked about the
projections, and indeed may now know that she was wrong.
Most of us
would expect that a PREFU addressed funding issues from the most
recent Budget. Willis has pointed out that it does not and Rich has >>squirted the issue with pro-Labour political rhetoric.
The PREFU will have taken account of changes since the budget - both
to reflect economic changes, to reflect actual cash and capital flows
since the budget forecasts, and also any changes to decisions such as
any changes to commitments for future funding. Those assumptions
regarding ''not permanently funded" will be based on actual decisions
by Cabinet - the Finance Minister cannot just dream up decisions to
create unrealistic forecasts.
Clearly at the time of working on the PREFU forecasts, they cannot
take into account possible other decisions by a new government, but
that can be done when information is available. For the new
government, they may have now provided at least some policy decisions;
I understand they have had a cabinet meeting., but it does take some
time for Treasury to process under new policy conditions, while also
updating for latest financial results and economic indicators.
Will was wrong that the budget did not allow for decisions by the
previous government - they were there, but she clearly missed them
Having delivered a lie, she does seem to have now retreated from
talking about it. Quite simply she was wrong, and neither you Crash
or Tony will convince me that Treasury has been anything other than
honest with her once the issue was publicised.
It is all Rich
(and in this case Grant Robertson) has. It is a weak political
riposte and I predict Robertson will tire of this in 2024 and resign >>(though I entirely acknowledge this is off-topic in this thread).
Robertson is no longer Finance Minister; he has nothing to be ashamed
of; he has given the page number of the budget where the information
was given. We have a new government; the budget from earlier this year >probably still gives some useful information, but it is rapidly
becoming less relevant than the new coalition will have already
received.
There has also been talk implying that Labour left a deliberate trap
for National. That is of course nonsense - they did not control the
PREFU; it was a report from Treasury to the political parties. What is
clear is that Willis is so short on knowledge of the responsibilities
and work of a Finance Minister that she did not seek adequate
financial advice when it was needed - such advice could have avoided
her making a false accusation, and also given he better knowledge of
the decisions needed from Cabinet under her direction. What Labour
people knew however from contact with Willis over the last few years
is that she had large knowledge gaps that would be difficult to
overcome; they did no have to do anything to complicate matters; she
confused herself. The challenge for National is to avoid too many
holes in National's numbers going forward - if she can maintain a
reasonable relationship with Treasury there is no reason why they
cannot help her overcome some of the areas where he currently has >insufficient knowledge. Labour probably identified Luxon and Willis as
being a very weak combination; whether they can get out of the holes
they have already dug for themselves remains to be seen.
If you are not convinced, Crash and Tony, find some evidence that
assumptions as to "not permanently funded" information was not
included with the Treasury report. If there is no evidence of
anything wrong, why are you saying there is?
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 06 Dec 2023 20:34:26 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:You are an absolute disgrace. You have completely failed to address the subject
On Wed, 6 Dec 2023 03:34:58 -0000 (UTC), TonyThis issue was raised by Nicola Willis - Grant Robertson responded by >>letting us all know that various assumptions were made in the Budget,
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 06 Dec 2023 15:40:27 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>wrote:you are still skirting around the valid questions asked in the article and >>>>by
On Wed, 6 Dec 2023 02:20:38 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 06 Dec 2023 07:39:11 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>>wrote:Perhaps you could actually address the subject and the comments by Crash >>>>>>>-
I don't often comment on DPFs blog but this is an exception:
Now I have no doubt that Willis' claims from the Newshub article are >>>>>>>>>excessive, but if the PREFU excludes items in the government budget >>>>>>>>>(such as items that are not permanently funded) then either Treasury >>>>>>>>>was at fault or legislation needs to be amended. Fiscal Updates of >>>>>>>>>all types need to include everything specified in relevant past >>>>>>>>>budgets, otherwise the Fiscal Update is not accurate.https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2023/12/labours_fiscal_trickery.html >>>>>>>>>
The PREFU is in effect an update on the Budget, using latest policy >>>>>>>>direction from the government prior to the election, but produced and >>>>>>>>presented by the public service - they will have decided on the >>>>>>>>presentation, but there is likely to be exactly the same disclosure of >>>>>>>>assumptions as for any budget. Certainly nothing has been hidden by >>>>>>>>the Labour Government - it is not their report, but both Nicola Willis >>>>>>>>and Shadow Ministers in the previous National Opposition should have >>>>>>>>been aware of changes for their portfolios and drawn them to the >>>>>>>>attention of Nicola Willis.
A priority for the incoming Finance Minister should have been to use >>>>>>>>the data in the PREFU to prepare for the next budget update based on >>>>>>>>National's policy assumptions - and for that one of the biggest >>>>>>>>problems may have been that National changed policy on the subsidies >>>>>>>>to landlords by backdating tax deductibility of interest costs. I >>>>>>>>questioned at the time why Luxon did not appear to have get financial >>>>>>>>advice regarding that fairly significant policy change - it will cost >>>>>>>>between half and one billion dollars. More worrying however is that it >>>>>>>>appears that Nicola Willis was not getting financial advice from >>>>>>>>National's budget advisers on the implication of the PREFU; if true >>>>>>>>that indicates a serious problem for the new government.
your
wasted paragraphs did neither.
Correct Tony. Rich did not mention 'items that are not permanently >>>>>>funded'. Yes it is a Treasury report, but if certain fiscal measures >>>>>>are omitted because they are 'not permanently funded' then there is an >>>>>>incentive to deliberately use this definition to ensure some budget >>>>>>items are excluded from future Financial Updates (FUs).
If that is the case I would agree with you, but I addressed that >>>>>concern when I said "The PREFU is in effect an update on the Budget, >>>>>using latest policy direction from the government prior to the >>>>>election, but produced and presented by the public service - they will >>>>>have decided on the presentation, but there is likely to be exactly >>>>>the same disclosure of assumptions as for any budget. "
Robertson pointed out that the assumptions regarding items that were >>>>>not permanently funded were included and outlined in the Budget; he >>>>>did not comment on the PREFU, which was not his responsibility, but do >>>>>you seriously imagine that the same level of explanation was not given >>>>>in that report? - Nobody has demonstrated that Treasury did not >>>>>include those explanations, but Willis is demonstrating again that she >>>>>does not read reports. Now having Willis accuse Treasury of being >>>>>deliberately misleading, with the implication that this may be a >>>>>deliberate political sabotage of National, is reprehensible without >>>>>evidence.
Willis is possibly frustrated in the negotiations having taken so long >>>>>- she will be looking forward to being able to give Treasury advise of >>>>>decisions of cabinet to include in the next fiscal update - her real >>>>>problem is that Cabinet have taken a long time to meet, but she >>>>>appears to not have done the relatively simple issue of adjustments >>>>>for the listed items that she believes Cabinet may well continue. At >>>>>this stage, Treasury are as much in the dark as to the Coalitions >>>>>decisions as we are - frustrating for everyone.
But let us not dwell on the manifest problems that the Coalition of >>>>>Chaos is experiencing through some of their new Ministers not yet >>>>>being on top of their jobs, and look to something that is much more >>>>>encouraging.
The Speech from the Throne included: "The Government will reduce Core >>>>>Crown expenditure as a proportion of the overall economy – with >>>>>savings in government agencies targeted to deliver tax relief for >>>>>hard-working, low-and-middle-income workers."
Previous statements from C Luxon have indicated that the targeting was >>>>>to be towards those on the top tax rate and landlords - the change in >>>>>emphasis towards low and middle-income workers will I am sure be >>>>>welcomed by a majority of New Zealanders - as most New Zealanders are >>>>>within the group that the Coalition is now targeting for relief. I >>>>>suspect this major change must have been the result of pressure from >>>>>NZ First, but it may also have come from polling on reactions to >>>>>coalition statements; whatever the reason this is a significant change >>>>>that will if carried through give the coalition significantly more >>>>>support than favouring only groups heavily represented as political >>>>>donors for ACT / Nat.
It is fair to criticise any government for their actions or policy >>>>>statements, but when they indicate they have listened and will do >>>>>better it is fair to give them credit for that improvement.
Crash. Do you actually have the capacity to address content instead of going
down the political rabbit hole?
Rich cannot and will not address the issues that the FUs do not
address Budget content that is 'not permanently funded'.
and that they were set out in the notes to the budget - from memory
page on 89. These are items of spending that the government has
decided should not be assumed to be ongoing for budget purposes - for
some of them they were assumed to have funding cease at a particular
future date - I think some of them were assumed to have no funding
from either a date in 2023 to the start of 2024. When Treasury did
there projections of future financial position, they would take that
advice into account. So yes the ''not permanently funded'' items were >>disclosed in the budget papers, not hidden away at all, but page 89 is
a fair way through; some may not have read that far . . .
Now Treasury update their projections from time to time, and for that
they use updated information from government; but for the Pre-Election >>Fiscal Update, they will use information using the same assumed
political decisions, but possibly different economic assumptions
(interest rates, funding sources etc). So the PREFU assumptions will
have been set out in the documentation which went with those
forecasts, but apparently yet again Nicola Willis was not able to find
them - or just chose to lie about what treasury had done. Those
forecasts are not at the behest of the government; they are intended
to give all parties information about projected financial position of
the country, and in particular changes arising from updated economic >>projections.
"Not permanently funded" projects will be in the Treasury paper that
Nicola Willis has - I have not seen that report, but I cannot imagine >>Treasury being so unprofessional as to produce a report which does not
give a complete list of both political assumptions as well as their
view as to current economic assumptions. I have not seen the updated >>numbers, but it does seem that Willis missed reading that part, or did
not realise the significance of the words. I am surprised that
National did not have the papers examined for them by consultants who
could have explained this to her.
If she then wanted to assess the economic impact of the ''not
permanently funded" projects that should have been able to be derived
by economic consultants, but it now seems that Nicola Willis just
wants to create an argument - Robertson did say that he had to deal
with just such issues when National left office.
I find that blaming Treasury for her lack of understanding to be a >>scurrilous attack on public servants that will be working for her -
not a good way to start. She will have had access to Treasury staff
for briefings for some time now, and could have asked about the >>projections, and indeed may now know that she was wrong.
Most of us
would expect that a PREFU addressed funding issues from the most
recent Budget. Willis has pointed out that it does not and Rich has >>>squirted the issue with pro-Labour political rhetoric.
The PREFU will have taken account of changes since the budget - both
to reflect economic changes, to reflect actual cash and capital flows
since the budget forecasts, and also any changes to decisions such as
any changes to commitments for future funding. Those assumptions
regarding ''not permanently funded" will be based on actual decisions
by Cabinet - the Finance Minister cannot just dream up decisions to
create unrealistic forecasts.
Clearly at the time of working on the PREFU forecasts, they cannot
take into account possible other decisions by a new government, but
that can be done when information is available. For the new
government, they may have now provided at least some policy decisions;
I understand they have had a cabinet meeting., but it does take some
time for Treasury to process under new policy conditions, while also >>updating for latest financial results and economic indicators.
Will was wrong that the budget did not allow for decisions by the
previous government - they were there, but she clearly missed them
Having delivered a lie, she does seem to have now retreated from
talking about it. Quite simply she was wrong, and neither you Crash
or Tony will convince me that Treasury has been anything other than
honest with her once the issue was publicised.
It is all Rich
(and in this case Grant Robertson) has. It is a weak political
riposte and I predict Robertson will tire of this in 2024 and resign >>>(though I entirely acknowledge this is off-topic in this thread).
Robertson is no longer Finance Minister; he has nothing to be ashamed
of; he has given the page number of the budget where the information
was given. We have a new government; the budget from earlier this year >>probably still gives some useful information, but it is rapidly
becoming less relevant than the new coalition will have already
received.
There has also been talk implying that Labour left a deliberate trap
for National. That is of course nonsense - they did not control the
PREFU; it was a report from Treasury to the political parties. What is >>clear is that Willis is so short on knowledge of the responsibilities
and work of a Finance Minister that she did not seek adequate
financial advice when it was needed - such advice could have avoided
her making a false accusation, and also given he better knowledge of
the decisions needed from Cabinet under her direction. What Labour
people knew however from contact with Willis over the last few years
is that she had large knowledge gaps that would be difficult to
overcome; they did no have to do anything to complicate matters; she >>confused herself. The challenge for National is to avoid too many
holes in National's numbers going forward - if she can maintain a >>reasonable relationship with Treasury there is no reason why they
cannot help her overcome some of the areas where he currently has >>insufficient knowledge. Labour probably identified Luxon and Willis as >>being a very weak combination; whether they can get out of the holes
they have already dug for themselves remains to be seen.
If you are not convinced, Crash and Tony, find some evidence that >>assumptions as to "not permanently funded" information was not
included with the Treasury report. If there is no evidence of
anything wrong, why are you saying there is?
and you have wasted your time writing rhetoric and in fact some lies.
Go away and take your shrunken brain with you.
On Wed, 6 Dec 2023 19:12:38 -0000 (UTC), TonySo you will not debate the subject - no surprise there.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 06 Dec 2023 20:34:26 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:You are an absolute disgrace. You have completely failed to address the >>subject
On Wed, 6 Dec 2023 03:34:58 -0000 (UTC), TonyThis issue was raised by Nicola Willis - Grant Robertson responded by >>>letting us all know that various assumptions were made in the Budget,
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 06 Dec 2023 15:40:27 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>wrote:you are still skirting around the valid questions asked in the article and >>>>>by
On Wed, 6 Dec 2023 02:20:38 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 06 Dec 2023 07:39:11 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>>>wrote:-
I don't often comment on DPFs blog but this is an exception: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2023/12/labours_fiscal_trickery.html >>>>>>>>>>
Now I have no doubt that Willis' claims from the Newshub article are >>>>>>>>>>excessive, but if the PREFU excludes items in the government budget >>>>>>>>>>(such as items that are not permanently funded) then either Treasury >>>>>>>>>>was at fault or legislation needs to be amended. Fiscal Updates of >>>>>>>>>>all types need to include everything specified in relevant past >>>>>>>>>>budgets, otherwise the Fiscal Update is not accurate.
The PREFU is in effect an update on the Budget, using latest policy >>>>>>>>>direction from the government prior to the election, but produced and >>>>>>>>>presented by the public service - they will have decided on the >>>>>>>>>presentation, but there is likely to be exactly the same disclosure of >>>>>>>>>assumptions as for any budget. Certainly nothing has been hidden by >>>>>>>>>the Labour Government - it is not their report, but both Nicola Willis >>>>>>>>>and Shadow Ministers in the previous National Opposition should have >>>>>>>>>been aware of changes for their portfolios and drawn them to the >>>>>>>>>attention of Nicola Willis.
A priority for the incoming Finance Minister should have been to use >>>>>>>>>the data in the PREFU to prepare for the next budget update based on >>>>>>>>>National's policy assumptions - and for that one of the biggest >>>>>>>>>problems may have been that National changed policy on the subsidies >>>>>>>>>to landlords by backdating tax deductibility of interest costs. I >>>>>>>>>questioned at the time why Luxon did not appear to have get financial >>>>>>>>>advice regarding that fairly significant policy change - it will cost >>>>>>>>>between half and one billion dollars. More worrying however is that it >>>>>>>>>appears that Nicola Willis was not getting financial advice from >>>>>>>>>National's budget advisers on the implication of the PREFU; if true >>>>>>>>>that indicates a serious problem for the new government. >>>>>>>>Perhaps you could actually address the subject and the comments by >>>>>>>>Crash
your
wasted paragraphs did neither.
Correct Tony. Rich did not mention 'items that are not permanently >>>>>>>funded'. Yes it is a Treasury report, but if certain fiscal measures >>>>>>>are omitted because they are 'not permanently funded' then there is an >>>>>>>incentive to deliberately use this definition to ensure some budget >>>>>>>items are excluded from future Financial Updates (FUs).
If that is the case I would agree with you, but I addressed that >>>>>>concern when I said "The PREFU is in effect an update on the Budget, >>>>>>using latest policy direction from the government prior to the >>>>>>election, but produced and presented by the public service - they will >>>>>>have decided on the presentation, but there is likely to be exactly >>>>>>the same disclosure of assumptions as for any budget. "
Robertson pointed out that the assumptions regarding items that were >>>>>>not permanently funded were included and outlined in the Budget; he >>>>>>did not comment on the PREFU, which was not his responsibility, but do >>>>>>you seriously imagine that the same level of explanation was not given >>>>>>in that report? - Nobody has demonstrated that Treasury did not >>>>>>include those explanations, but Willis is demonstrating again that she >>>>>>does not read reports. Now having Willis accuse Treasury of being >>>>>>deliberately misleading, with the implication that this may be a >>>>>>deliberate political sabotage of National, is reprehensible without >>>>>>evidence.
Willis is possibly frustrated in the negotiations having taken so long >>>>>>- she will be looking forward to being able to give Treasury advise of >>>>>>decisions of cabinet to include in the next fiscal update - her real >>>>>>problem is that Cabinet have taken a long time to meet, but she >>>>>>appears to not have done the relatively simple issue of adjustments >>>>>>for the listed items that she believes Cabinet may well continue. At >>>>>>this stage, Treasury are as much in the dark as to the Coalitions >>>>>>decisions as we are - frustrating for everyone.
But let us not dwell on the manifest problems that the Coalition of >>>>>>Chaos is experiencing through some of their new Ministers not yet >>>>>>being on top of their jobs, and look to something that is much more >>>>>>encouraging.
The Speech from the Throne included: "The Government will reduce Core >>>>>>Crown expenditure as a proportion of the overall economy – with >>>>>>savings in government agencies targeted to deliver tax relief for >>>>>>hard-working, low-and-middle-income workers."
Previous statements from C Luxon have indicated that the targeting was >>>>>>to be towards those on the top tax rate and landlords - the change in >>>>>>emphasis towards low and middle-income workers will I am sure be >>>>>>welcomed by a majority of New Zealanders - as most New Zealanders are >>>>>>within the group that the Coalition is now targeting for relief. I >>>>>>suspect this major change must have been the result of pressure from >>>>>>NZ First, but it may also have come from polling on reactions to >>>>>>coalition statements; whatever the reason this is a significant change >>>>>>that will if carried through give the coalition significantly more >>>>>>support than favouring only groups heavily represented as political >>>>>>donors for ACT / Nat.
It is fair to criticise any government for their actions or policy >>>>>>statements, but when they indicate they have listened and will do >>>>>>better it is fair to give them credit for that improvement.
Crash. Do you actually have the capacity to address content instead of >>>>>going
down the political rabbit hole?
Rich cannot and will not address the issues that the FUs do not
address Budget content that is 'not permanently funded'.
and that they were set out in the notes to the budget - from memory
page on 89. These are items of spending that the government has
decided should not be assumed to be ongoing for budget purposes - for >>>some of them they were assumed to have funding cease at a particular >>>future date - I think some of them were assumed to have no funding
from either a date in 2023 to the start of 2024. When Treasury did
there projections of future financial position, they would take that >>>advice into account. So yes the ''not permanently funded'' items were >>>disclosed in the budget papers, not hidden away at all, but page 89 is
a fair way through; some may not have read that far . . .
Now Treasury update their projections from time to time, and for that >>>they use updated information from government; but for the Pre-Election >>>Fiscal Update, they will use information using the same assumed >>>political decisions, but possibly different economic assumptions >>>(interest rates, funding sources etc). So the PREFU assumptions will
have been set out in the documentation which went with those
forecasts, but apparently yet again Nicola Willis was not able to find >>>them - or just chose to lie about what treasury had done. Those
forecasts are not at the behest of the government; they are intended
to give all parties information about projected financial position of
the country, and in particular changes arising from updated economic >>>projections.
"Not permanently funded" projects will be in the Treasury paper that >>>Nicola Willis has - I have not seen that report, but I cannot imagine >>>Treasury being so unprofessional as to produce a report which does not >>>give a complete list of both political assumptions as well as their
view as to current economic assumptions. I have not seen the updated >>>numbers, but it does seem that Willis missed reading that part, or did >>>not realise the significance of the words. I am surprised that
National did not have the papers examined for them by consultants who >>>could have explained this to her.
If she then wanted to assess the economic impact of the ''not
permanently funded" projects that should have been able to be derived
by economic consultants, but it now seems that Nicola Willis just
wants to create an argument - Robertson did say that he had to deal
with just such issues when National left office.
I find that blaming Treasury for her lack of understanding to be a >>>scurrilous attack on public servants that will be working for her -
not a good way to start. She will have had access to Treasury staff
for briefings for some time now, and could have asked about the >>>projections, and indeed may now know that she was wrong.
Most of us
would expect that a PREFU addressed funding issues from the most
recent Budget. Willis has pointed out that it does not and Rich has >>>>squirted the issue with pro-Labour political rhetoric.
The PREFU will have taken account of changes since the budget - both
to reflect economic changes, to reflect actual cash and capital flows >>>since the budget forecasts, and also any changes to decisions such as
any changes to commitments for future funding. Those assumptions >>>regarding ''not permanently funded" will be based on actual decisions
by Cabinet - the Finance Minister cannot just dream up decisions to >>>create unrealistic forecasts.
Clearly at the time of working on the PREFU forecasts, they cannot
take into account possible other decisions by a new government, but
that can be done when information is available. For the new
government, they may have now provided at least some policy decisions;
I understand they have had a cabinet meeting., but it does take some
time for Treasury to process under new policy conditions, while also >>>updating for latest financial results and economic indicators.
Will was wrong that the budget did not allow for decisions by the >>>previous government - they were there, but she clearly missed them
Having delivered a lie, she does seem to have now retreated from
talking about it. Quite simply she was wrong, and neither you Crash
or Tony will convince me that Treasury has been anything other than >>>honest with her once the issue was publicised.
It is all Rich
(and in this case Grant Robertson) has. It is a weak political
riposte and I predict Robertson will tire of this in 2024 and resign >>>>(though I entirely acknowledge this is off-topic in this thread).
Robertson is no longer Finance Minister; he has nothing to be ashamed
of; he has given the page number of the budget where the information
was given. We have a new government; the budget from earlier this year >>>probably still gives some useful information, but it is rapidly
becoming less relevant than the new coalition will have already
received.
There has also been talk implying that Labour left a deliberate trap
for National. That is of course nonsense - they did not control the >>>PREFU; it was a report from Treasury to the political parties. What is >>>clear is that Willis is so short on knowledge of the responsibilities
and work of a Finance Minister that she did not seek adequate
financial advice when it was needed - such advice could have avoided
her making a false accusation, and also given he better knowledge of
the decisions needed from Cabinet under her direction. What Labour
people knew however from contact with Willis over the last few years
is that she had large knowledge gaps that would be difficult to
overcome; they did no have to do anything to complicate matters; she >>>confused herself. The challenge for National is to avoid too many
holes in National's numbers going forward - if she can maintain a >>>reasonable relationship with Treasury there is no reason why they
cannot help her overcome some of the areas where he currently has >>>insufficient knowledge. Labour probably identified Luxon and Willis as >>>being a very weak combination; whether they can get out of the holes
they have already dug for themselves remains to be seen.
If you are not convinced, Crash and Tony, find some evidence that >>>assumptions as to "not permanently funded" information was not
included with the Treasury report. If there is no evidence of
anything wrong, why are you saying there is?
and you have wasted your time writing rhetoric and in fact some lies.
Go away and take your shrunken brain with you.
Unlike you, Tony, I do not make false accusations. I challenge you to
try to make one post in the rest of this year that does not contain a
lie. Sadly you may well fail in that as you have in this thread.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 102:46:01 |
| Calls: | 6,660 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 12,209 |
| Messages: | 5,335,063 |