Its nice to be able to say that I support a government policy, albeit with some caveats. I think there is considerable value in a Productivity Commission. One of the main reasons is that it will ensure there is some critical long-term thinking about government policy.
Productivity is a crucial indicator. In its simplest form it is assessing the rate of outputs produced to inputs used. However the key to whether the focus on productivity is the nature of the inputs that are measured. To give an example, using pretty narrow measures of productivity, the 1990s could look like a productive period for New Zealand. The reason for this- the cost of labour (represented by wages) dropped in the 1990s with the impact of the Employment Contracts Act. This is the period in which the wage gap with Australia accelerated, and from which we have never recovered.
As David Cunliffe has noted the principal concern about the commission announced here is the breadth of their mandate. From the early indications it looks as though the mandate will be somewhat narrower than the Australian one. I think that is a mistake. Using a broader measure of productivity is essential for the commission to have a positive influence. For example, the Australian commission has recently done a report on the role of the not for profit sector in terms of productivity. I am not sure that would fit in the terms of reference for NZ. It should, if it is to give us some clear long term benefits to our wealth and well-being.
There are a number of critical issues that I would like to see a Commission look into. One of the real drivers of productivity is to increase the skill level of the workforce. The current government has not shown much interest in this area, ditching the Skills Strategy, and cutting funding to Polytechnics. I think an early project of the Productivity Commission could be to look at workplace training. The ITOs have been doing great work, but it is patchy. Research and Development is another critical area to investigate and encourage.
We need a commission with an independent and broad focus. This can not be just about regulation and short term issues. I believe if we get the mandate right (and it has support across the political spectrum) it could play a vial role in our development as a country.
Agreed.
Let’s see who’s put on it first!
Independence is key. I doubt this government’s ability to appoint independent people, however.
It’s seems even independence is subjective
Its going to be yet another committee of priviliged businessmen who are going to tell us that we are not kicking the poor hard enough.
They will probably just copy and paste the ACT manifesto and spend its budget on hiring a graphic designer to make the fancy headings. Like the 2025 taskforce did.
Great idea. But you can absolutely bet the house on the fact that it’ll be stacked with has-been righties just like the 2025 taskforce (and the Tax Working Group to a lesser extent) and will be yet another body for the dissemination of discredited neoliberal ideology. So it’ll deleted language. Clare wasting money until Labour takes over and redefines it’s role to actually be useful a la the Aussie one.
Who knows, in the mean time it might offer some easy targets to attack the government over.
I miss Anne
A productivity commission? Lame.
Sort of like “how to use” instructions on a packet of tooth picks.
Firstly, let’s agree that we all want NZ to be a very rich country. Secondly, let’s agree that we want NZ to become very rich by using and abiding by the values and innovativeness which makes us proud to be New Zealanders. Thirdly, let’s agree that the purpose of making NZ a very rich country is not to benefit the elite few at the top of the pile (are you listening, National and Act supporters?), it is so that we can afford to give our communities and our citizens the benefits and advantages that they deserve. Why? So that everyone can participate fully in moving our society ahead. Then we all benefit.
Last but not least, NZ is never going to get rich unless we create, build and protect advanced industrial and service sectors that can sell their production across the world. We need farming and we tourism, they are strategic strengths, they are required but they are by no means sufficient.
Nokia started out pulping logs and making rubber gumboots, now just 10 of their mobile phones (total weight ~1kg) has the same net value as a palletised tonne of NZ milk powder.
That’s 1000x greater $ value per kilogram manufactured.
And that is what I call real productivity, the kind which will make this country rich – not squeezing extra blood out of poorly paid workers.