Analysis: New Finance Minister Nicola Willis was keen to get back into the ring with her counterpart Grant Robertson today — but 1News political reporter Felix Desmarais asks if it was the gut punch she hoped it would be.
Ding ding.
Anyone would think new Finance Minister Nicola Willis is still on the opposition benches as she came out swinging on her old sparring partner Grant Robertson this afternoon.
While assured on the stage, you can tell both Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Willis are still getting a feel for the lecterns in the Beehive theatrette, where the now all-too-famous post-Cabinet press conference is held (see: countless Covid pressers).
For what power that lectern holds. What you say takes on a whole new level of prestige when you're at that lectern — when you are the Government.
Willis used today's opportunity to accuse the previous government of being "extremely disingenuous" with its numbers. Since her first briefing with the Treasury, Willis has hinted at there being nasty surprises in those briefings.
It had raised some eyebrows around the beltway since the Pre-Election Fiscal and Economic Update exists to prevent just that. The idea is it's the state of the government's books, laid bare, so everyone knows where the country is at — fiscally — before the election. Parties base their policy platforms and promises on it.
It's also supposed to be essentially apolitical, being a Treasury, not government, update.
But today Willis explained why she's been saying that.
"I have been surprised by the sheer number of government policy programmes for which funding is due to expire, as the government chose to fund those programmes on a short term basis only."
She said it was "extremely disingenuous" of the previous government. Why?
"It makes the books look better in future years even though it is highly unlikely ministers genuinely intended to stop funding those programmes.
"It is remarkable to me, for example, that the outgoing government left a massive fiscal cliff for Pharmac funding. Did they really intend to withdraw funding for listed medicines, and if not why didn't they account for that in their pre-election update?"
She said she was still waiting on advice about how many programmes this applied to, but also gave examples of free lunches and cyber-security measures for schools alongside Pharmac funding.
Willis said the Government wanted to change the Public Finance Act to prevent future governments from doing anything similar. She said she was accusing the former Labour government of following the letter of the law, but not the spirit of it.
If that's still all gobbledegook to you, here's the guts of it: Willis is saying the previous government deliberately only funded programmes for the short-term that would need long-term funding, all to take those liabilities off the books. Where a surplus might be, a surplus it is not, should you want to continue to fund medicines through Pharmac, or sandwiches through free lunches in schools.
Willis with the gloves on, no towel in sight — except that she already won the election anyway. Then came former finance minister Grant Robertson's rebuttal.
He said it's common for governments to short-fund some things, especially when they're new programmes on trial.
He said the Budget documents clearly laid out how long programmes would be funded for, and then took aim at Willis' ability to understand the role of the finance minister.
Ouch. But all's fair in love and fiscal warfare. He's correct — these facts are not "buried" as she said they are, but reported in documents. If it's scheming, it's scheming in plain sight, albeit in amongst a deluge of other information. Journalists come up against that challenge all the time. It's all there, but the problem is it's all there.
But both Willis and Robertson have reasonable arguments.
Our new Finance Minister may well be seeing ghosts, ill intent where there is none — or maybe not. But perhaps it is an area of law that could be tidied up.
Is it the gotcha the Government might hope it is? Probably not.
Could Willis have seen this long before those Treasury briefings? Probably yes.
She's also a Finance Minister who has promised big on tax cuts.
She maintains they will be delivered — and without borrowing. So she could well be laying the groundwork to manage some expectations down the line, flagging today that it would lead to some tough decisions about future funding for some programmes.
Opposition parties can swing all they like, hoping at some point one of those swings will connect as a blow. Sometimes barking at every passing car delivers a reasonable statistical hit rate.
But when you're the government, you've got to be sure your aim results in something more than a glancing blow.
Anything else is just politics.
SHARE ME