The government keeps telling us how much it has increased spending in various areas. And that if government reduces taxes this will inevitably lead to a decrease in services.
But there is no direct connection between what the government spends and the desired services provided.
For example, spending on health. We were prevented from privately importing Rats. The government then spent a billion dollars on the tests, $500 million dollars worth of which are unused and many of these about to expire. According to the Minister of Health, some may be repurposed — the mind boggles as to how.
If the result wanted here was to protect lives from Covid, someone might have looked to see if this was a good way of achieving the goal.
This spending will look in the government books as though the government has increased spending on health; as if the spending is what we want, not services.
Meanwhile health waiting times, A&E, general practices and leaving people undiagnosed until an unnecessary death all increase. Mental health support and children’s health are not being provided at an acceptable level. That $500 million would have been very useful in addressing some of these pressing health concerns. Dunedin Hospital is desperate for an increased budget.
The new water authority is also not focused on outcomes. The government already had a national policy statement with requirements about water. Everyone involved with water provision must follow these requirements. Now we have a new water authority which is spending many millions of dollars producing new, confusing and crazy rules which are impractical to carry out and unenforceable.
There appears to be no outcome for the spending, and no better water quality likely to come from it. Meanwhile we are still as concerned about water quality as before the spending.
Every department and every area of government seems to have been given more money. And yet everywhere there are more problems.
The reasons for the spending not achieving anything are varied.
In schools, we are told social deprivation, lack of fathers in homes, more diversity of race and sexual orientation and more people in more spectra of various types make teaching children difficult. Children don’t feel engaged in the curriculum and therefore don’t want to go to school. Absenteeism is higher.
In health, breaches of Treaty obligations loom large. In housing, costs are too high for incomes to manage. In our prisons, we are keeping people in solitary confinement in breach of international conventions.
There are more issues than usual to face by those who are providing the services we need. However, throwing more money about should be connected to solutions, not connected to the existence of the problems.
There are many challenges for a government to manage. Money is short. It is unlikely that more will be available from the business sector. Lack of profitability of companies meant that the corporate tax take was $2 billion less than forecast last year.
It is vital to have a strong connection between government spending and outcomes. It is not a matter of over-staffing. Or perhaps it is. We actually have no idea.
It is a matter of connecting the spending, whether on staff or on stockpiling tests, with the outcomes we expect. When policies are costed, the benefits of the outcomes expected should be quantified as well.
Some outcomes may just be that people want fewer of a bad thing, such as potholes.
Some outcomes may be that we want to look good internationally, such as some of the climate measures may be. Taking our responsibility internationally can be an outcome.
If, however, outcomes are about actually saving the planet, we need to know how this will be achieved by New Zealand.
Some outcomes may be about reducing the preventable deaths from, say, cancer. We could then expect the government to tell us how the spending is having the right effect.
The next step would then be to be up front with us and tell us when something isn’t working. Then we can try something else.
It is not as if the government does not receive advice from the Treasury as to the effects any proposed policy and spending is likely to have.
It must be receiving advice right now on the likely useful effect of spending on removing the GST on fruit and vegetables, and whether putting more money into better-off hands is a good use of the cost of this policy.
The government described itself early on as aiming high in the transparency and accountability areas.
Being accountable to us for achieving clear intended outcomes would be a bold, innovative way of achieving these lofty goals.
- Hilary Calvert is a former Otago regional councillor, MP and DCC councillor.
