I’ve pushed the relatively new Policy Progress website before. Today they have published two posts on GST exemptions. Both worth reading.
Red Alert
Posts Tagged ‘Policy Progress’
The role of public health
Posted by Chris Hipkins on August 19th, 2010My good friend Dr Ayesha Verrall has written a really interesting post over at Policy Progress on the appropriate role for the public health system. Ayesha argues that the public health system exists not just to care for the sick, we should also view health as an investment and as a social determinant.
In terms of investment we need to see the value of a healthy population and workforce. Health is a public good and we should see the benefits of health care to our wider society that are far wider than simply ameliorating suffering. Health as a social determinant looks at the linkages between health and other factors such as socio-economc status, social isolation and so forth.
Ayesha advocates a greater focus on preventative health care, but also points out how this can challenge the agreed role of the state:
“…different approaches to health care may prioritise treatment on the basis of need (the most sick), or treatment based on ability to benefit (often less sick) through to prevention (not sick at all). In extending the scope of the health system to prevention, one intervenes in the lives of the healthy. Those the subject of preventive medicine aren’t sick, don’t feel sick and may not agree with authorities that it is worth their while participating. As progressives seek to do more through preventive medicine, we test the boundaries of the agreed role of the state. The benefits of intervention may take generations to materialise and – when they do they appear as statistical phenomena – represent decreasing rates of disease, rather than individuals who can point to concrete services creating improvement in their lives.”
The last Labour government increased the focus on preventative health care, but many of the steps we took have been reversed by the new National-led administration. I strongly believe that we’re far better off investing in programmes that keep us healthy rather than focusing on putting more ambulances at the bottom of the cliff. But as Ayesha points out, we have to carefully consider where the appropriate role of the state starts and ends.
Peter Harris on NZ Super
Posted by Chris Hipkins on May 13th, 2010Peter Harris has done an interesting guest post over at Policy Progress on New Zealand Superannuation. Peter puts forward a compelling argument that the Brash Taskforce was wrong to argue that NZ Super is overly generous. He draws on data that shows average post-tax pensions in OECD countries to be about 70% of earnings after tax. Here in NZ it is 42%, making us the 5th lowest in the OECD.
Peter argues that the universal nature of New Zealand Superannuation makes it more equitable than equivalent arrangements in Australia, where differentials in earnings during someone’s working life are replicated in their retirement.
In defending the universal nature of NZ Super, he quotes Michael Cullen, who argued that providing basic income security in retirement is both the least and the most citizens should expect from the state. In other words it is the state’s role to ensure pensioners don’t live in poverty, but it is not the state’s role to ensure that their earnings in retirement reflect their earnings during their working lives.
Peter’s final comment focuses the debate not on whether the scheme is generous or affordable, but how we should pay for it:
By any standard, New Zealand Superannuation is affordable and sustainable. A programme that costs at peak no more than 10% of GDP is both. The legitimate question is whether that is the priority that the citizens want. Debate that by all means, and debate how it is to be funded, but please, as a matter of analytical rigour, do not prejudice the path of that debate by making the assertion that our scheme is “generous”.
For me that last comment is the critical one. How are we going to pay for it? Over the next 10-20 years the number of people over the age of 65 will roughly double while the number in the workforce will stay about the same (although it goes without saying that as we live longer more and more people are likely to continue working, thus paying PAYE tax, beyond the age of 65).
National cut contributions to the NZ Super Fund last year and has yet to demonstrate how it will make up the shortfall. Both John Key and Bill English are playing the short game on NZ Super – they’re kicking it to touch for a future generation to deal with.
