Fiscal holes, unfunded promises - economist not sure any of it matters

New Zealand is too small for an independent policy costings unit which would serve little purpose, according to a right-leaning economist who previously criticised National's numbers.National's fiscal plan unveiled on Monday included $1.2 million in funding every three years for the unit which would independently evaluate the costs of policies proposed by political parties at the election.The party had tried to progress such a unit this term but was unable to get agreement from either New Zealand First or ACT - although National could theoretically have worked with Labour or the Greens, which have both long campaigned for similar but pricier approaches.Labour's fiscal plan unveiled just over a week earlier committed to an "independent pricing authority" costing $6m every year.The idea would aim in part to prevent the kind of recurring accusations that seem to plague each election of fiscal holes and uncosted.Right-leaning economist Michael Reddell worked with left-leaning economist Sam Warburton at the last election to run a ruler over National's costings and concluded they "aren't credible".Despite that, party leader Christopher Luxon at the time remained "extremely confident" of his figures, but refused to release the modelling to back it up, saying he was "absolutely rock solid" on the matter.Once in government with ACT and NZ First, of course, the plan had to be rewritten to accommodate the partners' various policies - including a shift away from the contentious plan to raise revenue with a 15 percent tax on house sales to foreigners.However, Reddell told RNZ he did not think such things had a major impact on election results."I mean, I'm an economist, and I'm not sure that I've ever changed my vote on the basis of an election costing," he said."It feels like it's like a job creation scheme for economists to start with... always good to see the profession employed, but is it going to add value?"He said he would be surprised if such a unit made much difference."In 2023 there was that controversy and National won anyway... did it matter? I don't think it did. Did it change the election? No. Should it have changed the election? Well, you know, for someone like me, it lowered my opinion of Luxon and [finance spokesperson] Willis, but mine are pretty minority tastes."Part of the challenge, if you're a political party, is actually persuading people," he said."If they're not willing to share them publicly, that's revealing in its own right. And public, and you know journalists and independent commentators like me, can raise questions about those sorts of things."Michael Reddell.SuppliedHe said people voted on policies, character and technical capability - and did not want to be deceived - but with journalists and economists and commentators available it was not obvious that money needed to be spent on the idea. He pointed to Australia, which had a costings unit political parties were required to submit policies to, and said it was not clear the fiscal debate there was much better.What's more, the role would likely be an independent officer of Parliament, so would be constrained in what they could say.Greens co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick still wanted a body to do costings, but took a dim view of National's plan."I would be happy to see this if I believed a word that Nicola Willis was saying," she said."The Greens wrote to the minister of finance (Willis) multiple times throughout this term, asking for us to work across the aisle. We offered our 15 green votes to establish a parliamentary budget office, and the minister of finance decided to pander to her coalition parties and shut it down.""It just frankly doesn't quite add up, and it's interesting to me that this is where she's decided to put her political chips, not holding line on anything the likes of reducing child poverty, reducing homelessness, or ensuring that New Zealanders have good, decent-paying jobs."However, she said a costings unit would be useful."I do think it's important that political parties are clear about how they intend to pay for their promises, and this is a standard which the Green Party has been holding ourselves to for well before I came along."She wished for more focus on the disparity between workers paying 22c per dollar earned in tax, while the wealthiest paid just 9c, "as opposed to this bizarre fixation on who can slash things the most and return us to the surplus - the kids in poverty can't eat that surplus".