Monthly Inflation Reporting Can't Come Soon Enough
'Tomorrow's Official Cash Rate announcement, based on six-week-old inflation data, highlights why Budget 2025's funding for monthly inflation reporting is so important,' says ACT Finance spokesperson Todd Stephenson.
'Inflation has eased thanks to the Government's focus on reining in waste, and interest rates are following. But when the Reserve Bank doesn't have timely data, it risks holding rates higher than necessary for longer – costing households real money. A 0.25-point difference on a $500,000 mortgage is over $100 a month.
'When interest rates topped out during COVID, Kiwis were stuck paying higher costs thanks to pointless procrastination. When the time is right for rates relief, the change should just happen, like New Zealand is worth it. It's about getting our mojo back as a country and just doing things if they make sense.
'We need to keep the Reserve Bank on the front foot. Monthly inflation data is a great step. But we should also embrace innovation. Massey University's GDPLive Inflation Tracker, for example, uses real-time data to estimate what inflation is doing right now. The Government shouldn't assume its agencies have a monopoly on high-quality information.
'Budget 2025's modest investment in Stats NZ will lead to better, faster monetary policy – and better outcomes for Kiwis.'
Notes:
Budget 2025 allocated $16.532 million over four years to move from quarterly to monthly Consumers Price Index (CPI) reporting, delivered from the beginning of 2027. More information can be found on page 74 of the Budget 2025 Summary of Initiatives.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
an hour ago
- Otago Daily Times
Airport challenges govt regulations
Dunedin Airport has accused the government of double-dipping and questionable law-making in a submission calling on it to abandon a move which raises the cost of bringing back international flights. Under the new legislation, airports that intend to start or restart international services will be required to pay for the establishment costs for border services. The new regulations are expected to come into force shortly, but Dunedin Airport's chief executive Daniel De Bono argued it was tantamount to double-dipping from the government, as the costs of processing international travellers would be funded from the existing border processing levies. In the letter to Parliament's regulation review committee, Mr De Bono said: "We cannot comprehend why a government that is focused on economic growth would make new regulations that are targeted at regional airports and severely inhibit their ability to develop international connectivity." Dunedin Airport had international flights from 1995 until Covid-19 hit the industry in 2020. It resumes international flights this month, with a JetStar connection to the Gold Coast. "As with all international routes at smaller airports, the economics are finely balanced," Mr De Bono's letter said. "When negotiating and agreeing terms, Dunedin Airport and JetStar did not anticipate that the government would take steps to impose significant additional costs on the venue. "The wider effect of cost recovery ... is to create a real constraint on regional tourism and economic growth." Mr De Bono said he did not believe the original intention of the Act was to "unexpectedly be used to impose more levies". This would lead to "serious unfairness and unreasonableness" for airports attempting to re-establish international travel and would have immediate effect on Dunedin Airport, he said. Mr De Bono also provided a legal letter from law firm Russell McVeagh. The legal letter also cast doubts on the government's approach. "Our view is that the proposal to now recover costs under the Airports Act is legally unnecessary," it said. "In pursuing options for recovery under the Airports Act, Cabinet and officials appear to be relying on a mistaken view of the law, leaving their decisions open to legal challenge. "It cannot be correct that there is a presumption in favour of using the Airports Act for new international airports simply because it exists." In response, Biosecurity Minister Andrew Hoggard told the Otago Daily Times customs screening at airports had been cost-recovered for decades. "Cost recovery is for the actual and reasonable cost of providing biosecurity and customs services. "In relation to Dunedin International Airport, the Ministry for Primary Industries [MPI] has worked hard to ensure the establishment costs are fair and reasonable, including reusing existing equipment where possible. "Under the Airports Act, if an airport chooses to start or re-start international air services, the costs incurred by the MPI and New Zealand Customs to establish a traveller processing capacity (establishment costs) and the processing of travellers (operating costs) can be recovered from the airport." Mr Hoggard said cost recovery for establishing or re-establishing international flights was "reasonable" as "the benefits from these flights are received by the airport and those who use the airport".
Otago Daily Times
an hour ago
- Otago Daily Times
Slippery slope of butter prices
A more than 50% surge in the price of butter is a "frightening" sign the hospitality industry is doing it tough, a Dunedin business owner says. "Butter, cheese, milk — they're becoming luxuries," Speight's Ale House Dunedin owner Mark Scully said. According to figures released by Stats NZ yesterday, food prices in May increased 4.4% in the past year, on the back of a 3.7% annual rise in April. Higher prices for the grocery food group and meat, poultry and fish group contributed the most, rising 5.2% and 5.4% respectively. Butter, cheese and milk prices were cited as the cause. The average price of butter last month was $8.42 per 500g, a 51.2% annual increase. "The cost of a 500g block of butter is nearly twice as expensive as the lower prices seen in early 2024," prices and deflators spokeswoman Nicola Growden said. Cheese was $13.04 per 1kg block, up 30.1% year-on-year, while milk was $4.57 per 2 litres, up 15.1%. The average prices of beef steak and beef mince were up 18.6% and 13%, respectively. Mr Scully, who is also Hospitality New Zealand's Otago branch president, said he was surprised the average price of butter had become so high. "I knew it was going up, but that is a frightening stat, isn't it?" The price of butter had seen a "real hype" in the past 12 to 18 months, and protein and dairy costs had been particularly tough for businesses. Nobody wanted to have to close their business, but it did appear to be a reasonably regular occurrence around the country, Mr Scully said. "But it's like anything, you just have to be brave and ultimately pass it on to the consumer or else your margins just don't stack up." Ayrburn general manager Kieran Turnbull said the hospitality precinct had seen a steady rise in food prices across the board since the Covid-19 pandemic, but there had been a "real noticeable increase" in the price of butter this year. "Everyone needs butter ... butter goes into everything. "It goes into your scone, it goes into your pastries, it goes into your desserts, it goes into sauces — so it's a cost that flows right through." While prices were always changing in hospitality, Mr Turnbull believed the costs put on to consumers were being "more acutely felt" than at other times. "That's probably why it's so tough at the moment for a lot of operators." The precinct, located between Arrowtown and Lake Hayes, has nine distinct venues. Having a range of offerings allowed it to absorb costs in one outlet while letting them rise in another, but at the cost of providing so many offerings, Mr Turnbull said. Supermarkets were also continuing to "artificially set the expectations for the New Zealand consumer of what things cost". "And that directly affects hospitality."
Newsroom
9 hours ago
- Newsroom
How to make sick pay and holiday pay more equitable
Analysis: As the Government reviews the Holidays Act, we would urge them to consider how they could build more equity in their approach to sick pay and public holidays. Currently each employee in Aotearoa New Zealand receives 10 days of sick pay per year once they have been working for their organisation for six months, up to a maximum accrual of 20 days. Some organisations offer more days per year or longer accruals or both, as part of their enhanced benefits. The draft bill proposes shifting from an annual entitlement to an accruals system, using pro-rata pay, but this could go further. Positively, accruing paid sick leave on a pro-rata basis from the day we started our first job makes access to paid leave more immediate. If we add to this removal of a maximum accumulation and manage it in a centralised government system (a little like ACC but with individual accrual) transferrable between jobs, we could create more equity in the sick pay system for employees and employers. This could be managed in the IRD system. When an employee changes job, their accrued sick leave moves with them, and while the dollar value may not equate directly if they move to a higher earning job it is still better than beginning accrual again. Regardless of how many hours or days a week a person works, currently everybody receives 10 days annually from each job they work. A part-time employee may also be working more than one job and so could technically have double or triple the number of sick days a full-time worker has. Though this probably only occurs in a minority of cases, it does create inequity in the system. Accrual based on hours worked can negate this anomaly. By creating a system where sick leave is centralised, it puts employers on an even playing field. All employers pay the pro-rata amount in their pay runs per employee into the employee's centralised pot, rather than only paying when an employee is sick. Employees would earn their sick leave not at 10 days a year, but at a percentage of their pay equivalent to 10 days per year (about 4 percent). Imagine taking this a step further and enabling families to combine sick pay, so that employees can better balance the workload when there is a need to care for a child or an older person. Therefore, all employers contribute to sick pay, whether their employees are sick or not, which may decrease indirect discrimination. This potentially takes pressure off employers when people are sick for longer as their pay is already accrued. We know that sometimes employees see their sick leave as an extension of their annual leave, but unlimited accrual and the associated benefits of being able to have paid leave if you are sick for an extended period could discourage this thinking. Similarly, some employers may discourage their employees from taking sick leave, particularly if this results in a direct replacement cost. Accrual can resolve this issue as it is paid from the employees' pot, not the employer's pocket. The flipside is that employees may try to save their sick pay by not taking time off when they are sick, in case they are ever in a long-term sickness situation. This would have to be carefully managed. Although discrimination based on characteristics such as gender or disability is illegal in New Zealand, we do know that indirect discrimination often occurs. People are not chosen for a role because they may cost their employer more in sick leave. This may help to negate this. The current stand down of six months before being able to access sick pay means those more likely to change jobs, who are also often more vulnerable workers, have less access and a higher likelihood of it being reset. Some employees may experience multiple points in time where they do not have access to sick pay. Part-time workers are more likely to change jobs and have precarious employment. This means that although they might technically have access to more paid sick in the current model, they may not get the opportunity to use it. In terms of public holidays, these are currently given to an employee who works on the day on which they fall. Although in theory this makes sense when we look at a standard 8.30am to 5pm, Monday to Friday working week, it can also create unfairness. A classic example is a full-time hairdresser who traditionally works Tuesday to Saturday, missing out on five of our 12 public holidays in 2024, essentially getting five fewer paid days off work a year. 'Mondayisation' has privileged those who work traditional working weeks. So how can we address this in the Holidays Act reform? I propose that public holidays should also be pro-rated. Therefore, if you work five days a week you would receive 12 public holidays a year. Someone who works two days a week would receive two fifths of their public holidays per year, or four days. This would be added to annual leave, but they would still be expected to take each public holiday they work off, and use annual leave if needed. Although this might feel unfair to a person who works part-time on a Monday, it puts more fairness in the system.
