miket12
🏛️
ASB, BNZ, Co-Operative, Heartland, KiwiBank and Westpac have now all announced they're joining ANZ and are dropping mostly their shorter-term mortgage interest rates.
Politics 🗳️ NZ Politics
- Thread starter wizard of Tauranga
- Start date
miket12
🏛️
Interesting, because the core costs of having a child at a state school is just over $9,000 per child but, once you add in the teacher's, principal's and support staff salaries it increased to almost $35,000 per child according to the report from 2015 which was the subject to the article below. Add on inflation and salary increases in the next ten years and $46,500 per charter child would probably be the same as in state schools. But NZIE wouldn't have an agenda against charter schools and not be comparing apples with apples by "forgetting" there's a difference between "core costs" and those adjusted after salaries have been included? Surely not!!!Stuff
www.stuff.co.nz
$10 million for 215 students in the charter school space
The real cost of 'free' education: $35k
The cost of a 'free' education in NZ is $35,000 - and that's raised concerns some children won't return to school next week because their families can't afford it.
Noitall
👤
Guess probably is the operative word as we’re talking about 10 years into the future what you’re coming to those figures on. Who knows if those factors you mentioned like inflation would cause the cost around a charter school to rise also. If these figures are to come to fruition, I could see many kids not getting the privilege of going to a good schoolInteresting, because the core costs of having a child at a state school is just over $9,000 per child but, once you add in the teacher's, principal's and support staff salaries it increased to almost $35,000 per child according to the report from 2015 which was the subject to the article below. Add on inflation and salary increases in the next ten years and $46,500 per charter child would probably be the same as in state schools. But NZIE wouldn't have an agenda against charter schools and not be comparing apples with apples by "forgetting" there's a difference between "core costs" and those adjusted after salaries have been included? Surely not!!!
The real cost of 'free' education: $35k
The cost of a 'free' education in NZ is $35,000 - and that's raised concerns some children won't return to school next week because their families can't afford it.www.nzherald.co.nz
very interesting as 215 x $45,000 puts us at $9m. Very close to the $10m stated.Interesting, because the core costs of having a child at a state school is just over $9,000 per child but, once you add in the teacher's, principal's and support staff salaries it increased to almost $35,000 per child according to the report from 2015 which was the subject to the article below. Add on inflation and salary increases in the next ten years and $46,500 per charter child would probably be the same as in state schools. But NZIE wouldn't have an agenda against charter schools and not be comparing apples with apples by "forgetting" there's a difference between "core costs" and those adjusted after salaries have been included? Surely not!!!
The real cost of 'free' education: $35k
The cost of a 'free' education in NZ is $35,000 - and that's raised concerns some children won't return to school next week because their families can't afford it.
I thought we already knew he was part of that group? My read on it was the new “article” was re-reporting (often done when journalists go on holiday…)A sitting MP posts absurd stuff and nothing to see here. We don’t engage if there’s nothing illegal…
Now this no name gets highlighted
miket12
🏛️
@John Nick, @wizard of Tauranga and any other forum members from down Tauranga/the Mount way.... you might like to check in your sock drawer or glovebox in case you left the ticket behind.
www.nzherald.co.nz
BTW.... if anyone from here does find it, I'll expect a 5% commission for reminding you.
Huge Lotto prize unclaimed four months on
Lotto NZ urges players to check tickets.
BTW.... if anyone from here does find it, I'll expect a 5% commission for reminding you.
Thanks Mike12 .Where do I send the comm??@John Nick, @wizard of Tauranga and any other forum members from down Tauranga/the Mount way.... you might like to check in your sock drawer or glovebox in case you left the ticket behind.
Huge Lotto prize unclaimed four months on
Lotto NZ urges players to check tickets.
BTW.... if anyone from here does find it, I'll expect a 5% commission for reminding you.
miket12
🏛️
Donate it to the Atlas Network.... their main actor here @MaybeTop8 will have their account details.Thanks Mike12 .Where do I send the comm??
Godammit no wonder Top8 knows all of Atlas's secrets, he's controlled opposition.
miket12
🏛️
You've got to wonder why he keeps "advertising" them.
Send it to W2D, Christchurch. I'll make sure it gets to the right place, TAB and Liquorland.Thanks Mike12 .Where do I send the comm??
miket12
🏛️
Got to say that I agree with Reddell and MacCulloch.... it does tend to look like political interference (in my eyes). Just no where near Trump's level.
The question of political interference at the Reserve Bank of New Zealand hangs in the air as it prepares to review the commercial bank capital rules, according to several long-time bank watchers and the Government’s Opposition.
At the end of March, the Reserve Bank (RBNZ) announced a plan to reconsider, and potentially loosen, its rules on the level of capital it requires the commercial banks to hold – while the RBNZ is best known for setting monetary policy, it also regulates the banking sector, an area known as prudential regulation.
Under former Governor Adrian Orr in 2019, the RBNZ undertook a fractious and much-criticised review of bank capital rules and lifted the requirements; the changes are still phasing in. The new rules make the commercial banks better able to withstand economic shocks, but the extra capital they are required to hold is expensive for the sector, a cost that flows through to bank customers.
Under the current Government, there has been rising pressure on the RBNZ to loosen the capital settings to boost economic growth. Finance Minister Nicola Willis mused on the subject in an interview with the Herald in August last year, and last month she confirmed that she was taking advice on how she might compel the bank to relax the rules.
Orr showed no willingness to reconsider whether the capital settings were too stringent. However, he abruptly left his post as governor on March 5, and it was under acting Governor Christian Hawkesby and RBNZ chairman Neil Quigley that the bank agreed to a U-turn.
The pair told Parliament’s Finance and Expenditure Committee on March 31, that, out of concern for “competition and innovation in the financial sector”, the RBNZ will hire outside experts to review the key aspects of its capital rules, including comparing the settings to those in other countries. Critics of the capital rules often argue that New Zealand’s settings are tougher and more risk-averse than elsewhere.
The Herald sought responses from Hawkesby and Quigley to the claims that each is conflicted in his ability to uphold RBNZ independence from Willis. Neither responded directly.
A spokesman for Willis said the Government respects the independence of the Reserve Bank and takes great care to ensure its actions support that independence: “The minister completely rejects any inference of political interference.”
“The Reserve Bank’s capital adequacy requirements have been the subject of ongoing questioning and criticism at the finance and expenditure select committee’s banking inquiry. The decision to respond to that questioning by reviewing the Reserve Bank’s capital requirements was made by the Reserve Bank, not the minister (although she has welcomed it),” he said.
The Minister of Finance has final say in the hiring of a new governor. In addition, Hawkesby’s salary as governor has likely jumped by roughly $200,000. The RBNZ’s annual report last year put Orr’s remuneration at just over $800,000, while the next-highest-paid employee at the bank was paid just over $600,000. Hawkesby was previously a deputy governor at the bank.
The bank has not yet responded to a request to confirm Hawkesby’s remuneration.
MacCulloch noted that Quigley has been working toward the establishment of a new medical school at the University of Waikato for years, included authorising spending of over $1m on the services of the consultancy firm of former National Party minister Stephen Joyce (the result of a procurement process criticised by the Auditor-General).
MacCulloch and Reddell both suggested that if Willis wants to direct how banking regulations are set, her Government should change the law.
Reddell also noted that it would be preferable for politicians (answerable to the public) to set important policy direction in prudential matters, leaving enforcement to the RBNZ.
The Reserve Bank Act states that the bank’s board “must have regard” for the Government’s fiscal policy, but it is not understood as a coercive power.
Reddell said the circumstances in calling the current review “probably don’t breach the Cabinet Manual [which guides ministers identifying and managing conflicts of interest] but they’re undesirable ... It looks like the minister prevailed in an area where the bank has statutory independence”, he said.
Responding to questions put to Hawkesby and Quigley, an RBNZ spokeswoman emphasised that the decision to review the capital rules was precipitated by questions raised at the ongoing finance and expenditure select committee’s inquiry into banking competition.
“Many of our key stakeholder organisations, including all the major banks and the Commerce Commission [have] questioned the RBNZ’s approach to capital levels ... the RBNZ is a listening and learning organisation,” she said.
Quigley told the banking inquiry last month that he thinks “at least some” of the critics’ claims that the bank capital regime is too conservative are incorrect.
Nevertheless, the RBNZ is now proposing to engage independent, international experts to review the capital settings, a measure it also took in 2019 before settling the current rules.
“Even the appearance of political interference can undermine public trust in the RBNZ’s decisions,” she said, noting that the bank’s independence is “crucial for sound monetary policy, especially during a period of economic uncertainty”.
Reddell said this language has long been understood as a requirement “to give serious consideration” to Government policy, but ultimately, he said, the decision maker should “employ their own best professional judgment”.
He said this was the legal advice provided to the bank’s Financial System Oversight Committee over the more than 15 years in which he was a member.
This tenure was before the current iteration of the Reserve Bank Act, but Reddell said he has compared the relevant language in both the current and previous acts, and he did not think there was a substantive difference.
Roger Partridge, chairman of the New Zealand Initiative and former head of Bell Gully, said he agreed that the act does not give the Government coercive powers over the RBNZ in prudential policy, but his view is that the bank may have something short of independence in the area.
“If the Minister of Finance says my Government is happy with the level of risk for our prudential regulatory settings, commensurate with international norms and does not want excessive risk aversion beyond international norms, put it this way, if that bank must have regard to that then I think it would be a bold move to ignore it and say we want something different,” he said.
www.nzherald.co.nz
RBNZ review of bank regulation smacks of political interference, critics say
The question of political interference at the Reserve Bank of New Zealand hangs in the air as it prepares to review the commercial bank capital rules, according to several long-time bank watchers and the Government’s Opposition.
At the end of March, the Reserve Bank (RBNZ) announced a plan to reconsider, and potentially loosen, its rules on the level of capital it requires the commercial banks to hold – while the RBNZ is best known for setting monetary policy, it also regulates the banking sector, an area known as prudential regulation.
Under former Governor Adrian Orr in 2019, the RBNZ undertook a fractious and much-criticised review of bank capital rules and lifted the requirements; the changes are still phasing in. The new rules make the commercial banks better able to withstand economic shocks, but the extra capital they are required to hold is expensive for the sector, a cost that flows through to bank customers.
Under the current Government, there has been rising pressure on the RBNZ to loosen the capital settings to boost economic growth. Finance Minister Nicola Willis mused on the subject in an interview with the Herald in August last year, and last month she confirmed that she was taking advice on how she might compel the bank to relax the rules.
Orr showed no willingness to reconsider whether the capital settings were too stringent. However, he abruptly left his post as governor on March 5, and it was under acting Governor Christian Hawkesby and RBNZ chairman Neil Quigley that the bank agreed to a U-turn.
The pair told Parliament’s Finance and Expenditure Committee on March 31, that, out of concern for “competition and innovation in the financial sector”, the RBNZ will hire outside experts to review the key aspects of its capital rules, including comparing the settings to those in other countries. Critics of the capital rules often argue that New Zealand’s settings are tougher and more risk-averse than elsewhere.
The Herald sought responses from Hawkesby and Quigley to the claims that each is conflicted in his ability to uphold RBNZ independence from Willis. Neither responded directly.
A spokesman for Willis said the Government respects the independence of the Reserve Bank and takes great care to ensure its actions support that independence: “The minister completely rejects any inference of political interference.”
“The Reserve Bank’s capital adequacy requirements have been the subject of ongoing questioning and criticism at the finance and expenditure select committee’s banking inquiry. The decision to respond to that questioning by reviewing the Reserve Bank’s capital requirements was made by the Reserve Bank, not the minister (although she has welcomed it),” he said.
The critics’ case
“Look, you’re the temporary guy and you want the permanent job. Remember the full position of governor would make Hawkesby a person on the world stage, that’s worth millions of dollars in a career. Is he going to stand up to Willis when she’s the one who’ll decide that appointment?” MacCulloch asked.The Minister of Finance has final say in the hiring of a new governor. In addition, Hawkesby’s salary as governor has likely jumped by roughly $200,000. The RBNZ’s annual report last year put Orr’s remuneration at just over $800,000, while the next-highest-paid employee at the bank was paid just over $600,000. Hawkesby was previously a deputy governor at the bank.
The bank has not yet responded to a request to confirm Hawkesby’s remuneration.
MacCulloch noted that Quigley has been working toward the establishment of a new medical school at the University of Waikato for years, included authorising spending of over $1m on the services of the consultancy firm of former National Party minister Stephen Joyce (the result of a procurement process criticised by the Auditor-General).
MacCulloch and Reddell both suggested that if Willis wants to direct how banking regulations are set, her Government should change the law.
Reddell also noted that it would be preferable for politicians (answerable to the public) to set important policy direction in prudential matters, leaving enforcement to the RBNZ.
The Reserve Bank Act states that the bank’s board “must have regard” for the Government’s fiscal policy, but it is not understood as a coercive power.
Reddell said the circumstances in calling the current review “probably don’t breach the Cabinet Manual [which guides ministers identifying and managing conflicts of interest] but they’re undesirable ... It looks like the minister prevailed in an area where the bank has statutory independence”, he said.
Responding to questions put to Hawkesby and Quigley, an RBNZ spokeswoman emphasised that the decision to review the capital rules was precipitated by questions raised at the ongoing finance and expenditure select committee’s inquiry into banking competition.
“Many of our key stakeholder organisations, including all the major banks and the Commerce Commission [have] questioned the RBNZ’s approach to capital levels ... the RBNZ is a listening and learning organisation,” she said.
Quigley told the banking inquiry last month that he thinks “at least some” of the critics’ claims that the bank capital regime is too conservative are incorrect.
Nevertheless, the RBNZ is now proposing to engage independent, international experts to review the capital settings, a measure it also took in 2019 before settling the current rules.
The Opposition
Barbara Edmonds, Labour’s finance spokeswoman, said she’s concerned about “the timing of the Reserve Bank’s change in position, which closely followed the Governor’s departure, particularly given it was clear he didn’t support loosening the capital rules”.“Even the appearance of political interference can undermine public trust in the RBNZ’s decisions,” she said, noting that the bank’s independence is “crucial for sound monetary policy, especially during a period of economic uncertainty”.
What power sits with Government?
The Reserve Bank Act 2021 states that, in prudential policy-making, the RBNZ board “must have regard to” the Government’s fiscal policy.Reddell said this language has long been understood as a requirement “to give serious consideration” to Government policy, but ultimately, he said, the decision maker should “employ their own best professional judgment”.
He said this was the legal advice provided to the bank’s Financial System Oversight Committee over the more than 15 years in which he was a member.
This tenure was before the current iteration of the Reserve Bank Act, but Reddell said he has compared the relevant language in both the current and previous acts, and he did not think there was a substantive difference.
Roger Partridge, chairman of the New Zealand Initiative and former head of Bell Gully, said he agreed that the act does not give the Government coercive powers over the RBNZ in prudential policy, but his view is that the bank may have something short of independence in the area.
“If the Minister of Finance says my Government is happy with the level of risk for our prudential regulatory settings, commensurate with international norms and does not want excessive risk aversion beyond international norms, put it this way, if that bank must have regard to that then I think it would be a bold move to ignore it and say we want something different,” he said.
'Political interference': Concerns over RBNZ's capital rules review
Conflict zone: NZ's independent central bank and the Finance Minister's agenda.
Paypal (iykyk)
100% political interference. It's a hit job from the right. Seymour is pushing the defunding line in the same manner we see from the current us government.Got to say that I agree with Reddell and MacCulloch.... it does tend to look like political interference (in my eyes). Just no where near Trump's level.
RBNZ review of bank regulation smacks of political interference, critics say
The question of political interference at the Reserve Bank of New Zealand hangs in the air as it prepares to review the commercial bank capital rules, according to several long-time bank watchers and the Government’s Opposition.
At the end of March, the Reserve Bank (RBNZ) announced a plan to reconsider, and potentially loosen, its rules on the level of capital it requires the commercial banks to hold – while the RBNZ is best known for setting monetary policy, it also regulates the banking sector, an area known as prudential regulation.
Under former Governor Adrian Orr in 2019, the RBNZ undertook a fractious and much-criticised review of bank capital rules and lifted the requirements; the changes are still phasing in. The new rules make the commercial banks better able to withstand economic shocks, but the extra capital they are required to hold is expensive for the sector, a cost that flows through to bank customers.
Under the current Government, there has been rising pressure on the RBNZ to loosen the capital settings to boost economic growth. Finance Minister Nicola Willis mused on the subject in an interview with the Herald in August last year, and last month she confirmed that she was taking advice on how she might compel the bank to relax the rules.
Orr showed no willingness to reconsider whether the capital settings were too stringent. However, he abruptly left his post as governor on March 5, and it was under acting Governor Christian Hawkesby and RBNZ chairman Neil Quigley that the bank agreed to a U-turn.
The pair told Parliament’s Finance and Expenditure Committee on March 31, that, out of concern for “competition and innovation in the financial sector”, the RBNZ will hire outside experts to review the key aspects of its capital rules, including comparing the settings to those in other countries. Critics of the capital rules often argue that New Zealand’s settings are tougher and more risk-averse than elsewhere.
The Herald sought responses from Hawkesby and Quigley to the claims that each is conflicted in his ability to uphold RBNZ independence from Willis. Neither responded directly.
A spokesman for Willis said the Government respects the independence of the Reserve Bank and takes great care to ensure its actions support that independence: “The minister completely rejects any inference of political interference.”
“The Reserve Bank’s capital adequacy requirements have been the subject of ongoing questioning and criticism at the finance and expenditure select committee’s banking inquiry. The decision to respond to that questioning by reviewing the Reserve Bank’s capital requirements was made by the Reserve Bank, not the minister (although she has welcomed it),” he said.
The critics’ case
“Look, you’re the temporary guy and you want the permanent job. Remember the full position of governor would make Hawkesby a person on the world stage, that’s worth millions of dollars in a career. Is he going to stand up to Willis when she’s the one who’ll decide that appointment?” MacCulloch asked.
The Minister of Finance has final say in the hiring of a new governor. In addition, Hawkesby’s salary as governor has likely jumped by roughly $200,000. The RBNZ’s annual report last year put Orr’s remuneration at just over $800,000, while the next-highest-paid employee at the bank was paid just over $600,000. Hawkesby was previously a deputy governor at the bank.
The bank has not yet responded to a request to confirm Hawkesby’s remuneration.
MacCulloch noted that Quigley has been working toward the establishment of a new medical school at the University of Waikato for years, included authorising spending of over $1m on the services of the consultancy firm of former National Party minister Stephen Joyce (the result of a procurement process criticised by the Auditor-General).
MacCulloch and Reddell both suggested that if Willis wants to direct how banking regulations are set, her Government should change the law.
Reddell also noted that it would be preferable for politicians (answerable to the public) to set important policy direction in prudential matters, leaving enforcement to the RBNZ.
The Reserve Bank Act states that the bank’s board “must have regard” for the Government’s fiscal policy, but it is not understood as a coercive power.
Reddell said the circumstances in calling the current review “probably don’t breach the Cabinet Manual [which guides ministers identifying and managing conflicts of interest] but they’re undesirable ... It looks like the minister prevailed in an area where the bank has statutory independence”, he said.
Responding to questions put to Hawkesby and Quigley, an RBNZ spokeswoman emphasised that the decision to review the capital rules was precipitated by questions raised at the ongoing finance and expenditure select committee’s inquiry into banking competition.
“Many of our key stakeholder organisations, including all the major banks and the Commerce Commission [have] questioned the RBNZ’s approach to capital levels ... the RBNZ is a listening and learning organisation,” she said.
Quigley told the banking inquiry last month that he thinks “at least some” of the critics’ claims that the bank capital regime is too conservative are incorrect.
Nevertheless, the RBNZ is now proposing to engage independent, international experts to review the capital settings, a measure it also took in 2019 before settling the current rules.
The Opposition
Barbara Edmonds, Labour’s finance spokeswoman, said she’s concerned about “the timing of the Reserve Bank’s change in position, which closely followed the Governor’s departure, particularly given it was clear he didn’t support loosening the capital rules”.
“Even the appearance of political interference can undermine public trust in the RBNZ’s decisions,” she said, noting that the bank’s independence is “crucial for sound monetary policy, especially during a period of economic uncertainty”.
What power sits with Government?
The Reserve Bank Act 2021 states that, in prudential policy-making, the RBNZ board “must have regard to” the Government’s fiscal policy.
Reddell said this language has long been understood as a requirement “to give serious consideration” to Government policy, but ultimately, he said, the decision maker should “employ their own best professional judgment”.
He said this was the legal advice provided to the bank’s Financial System Oversight Committee over the more than 15 years in which he was a member.
This tenure was before the current iteration of the Reserve Bank Act, but Reddell said he has compared the relevant language in both the current and previous acts, and he did not think there was a substantive difference.
Roger Partridge, chairman of the New Zealand Initiative and former head of Bell Gully, said he agreed that the act does not give the Government coercive powers over the RBNZ in prudential policy, but his view is that the bank may have something short of independence in the area.
“If the Minister of Finance says my Government is happy with the level of risk for our prudential regulatory settings, commensurate with international norms and does not want excessive risk aversion beyond international norms, put it this way, if that bank must have regard to that then I think it would be a bold move to ignore it and say we want something different,” he said.
'Political interference': Concerns over RBNZ's capital rules review
Conflict zone: NZ's independent central bank and the Finance Minister's agenda.
- Thread starter
- #16,095
I think the govt should have a say in how much ‘insurance’ (capital) the reserve bank requires banks to have, which affects our interests rate.Got to say that I agree with Reddell and MacCulloch.... it does tend to look like political interference (in my eyes). Just no where near Trump's level.
RBNZ review of bank regulation smacks of political interference, critics say
The question of political interference at the Reserve Bank of New Zealand hangs in the air as it prepares to review the commercial bank capital rules, according to several long-time bank watchers and the Government’s Opposition.
At the end of March, the Reserve Bank (RBNZ) announced a plan to reconsider, and potentially loosen, its rules on the level of capital it requires the commercial banks to hold – while the RBNZ is best known for setting monetary policy, it also regulates the banking sector, an area known as prudential regulation.
Under former Governor Adrian Orr in 2019, the RBNZ undertook a fractious and much-criticised review of bank capital rules and lifted the requirements; the changes are still phasing in. The new rules make the commercial banks better able to withstand economic shocks, but the extra capital they are required to hold is expensive for the sector, a cost that flows through to bank customers.
Under the current Government, there has been rising pressure on the RBNZ to loosen the capital settings to boost economic growth. Finance Minister Nicola Willis mused on the subject in an interview with the Herald in August last year, and last month she confirmed that she was taking advice on how she might compel the bank to relax the rules.
Orr showed no willingness to reconsider whether the capital settings were too stringent. However, he abruptly left his post as governor on March 5, and it was under acting Governor Christian Hawkesby and RBNZ chairman Neil Quigley that the bank agreed to a U-turn.
The pair told Parliament’s Finance and Expenditure Committee on March 31, that, out of concern for “competition and innovation in the financial sector”, the RBNZ will hire outside experts to review the key aspects of its capital rules, including comparing the settings to those in other countries. Critics of the capital rules often argue that New Zealand’s settings are tougher and more risk-averse than elsewhere.
The Herald sought responses from Hawkesby and Quigley to the claims that each is conflicted in his ability to uphold RBNZ independence from Willis. Neither responded directly.
A spokesman for Willis said the Government respects the independence of the Reserve Bank and takes great care to ensure its actions support that independence: “The minister completely rejects any inference of political interference.”
“The Reserve Bank’s capital adequacy requirements have been the subject of ongoing questioning and criticism at the finance and expenditure select committee’s banking inquiry. The decision to respond to that questioning by reviewing the Reserve Bank’s capital requirements was made by the Reserve Bank, not the minister (although she has welcomed it),” he said.
The critics’ case
“Look, you’re the temporary guy and you want the permanent job. Remember the full position of governor would make Hawkesby a person on the world stage, that’s worth millions of dollars in a career. Is he going to stand up to Willis when she’s the one who’ll decide that appointment?” MacCulloch asked.
The Minister of Finance has final say in the hiring of a new governor. In addition, Hawkesby’s salary as governor has likely jumped by roughly $200,000. The RBNZ’s annual report last year put Orr’s remuneration at just over $800,000, while the next-highest-paid employee at the bank was paid just over $600,000. Hawkesby was previously a deputy governor at the bank.
The bank has not yet responded to a request to confirm Hawkesby’s remuneration.
MacCulloch noted that Quigley has been working toward the establishment of a new medical school at the University of Waikato for years, included authorising spending of over $1m on the services of the consultancy firm of former National Party minister Stephen Joyce (the result of a procurement process criticised by the Auditor-General).
MacCulloch and Reddell both suggested that if Willis wants to direct how banking regulations are set, her Government should change the law.
Reddell also noted that it would be preferable for politicians (answerable to the public) to set important policy direction in prudential matters, leaving enforcement to the RBNZ.
The Reserve Bank Act states that the bank’s board “must have regard” for the Government’s fiscal policy, but it is not understood as a coercive power.
Reddell said the circumstances in calling the current review “probably don’t breach the Cabinet Manual [which guides ministers identifying and managing conflicts of interest] but they’re undesirable ... It looks like the minister prevailed in an area where the bank has statutory independence”, he said.
Responding to questions put to Hawkesby and Quigley, an RBNZ spokeswoman emphasised that the decision to review the capital rules was precipitated by questions raised at the ongoing finance and expenditure select committee’s inquiry into banking competition.
“Many of our key stakeholder organisations, including all the major banks and the Commerce Commission [have] questioned the RBNZ’s approach to capital levels ... the RBNZ is a listening and learning organisation,” she said.
Quigley told the banking inquiry last month that he thinks “at least some” of the critics’ claims that the bank capital regime is too conservative are incorrect.
Nevertheless, the RBNZ is now proposing to engage independent, international experts to review the capital settings, a measure it also took in 2019 before settling the current rules.
The Opposition
Barbara Edmonds, Labour’s finance spokeswoman, said she’s concerned about “the timing of the Reserve Bank’s change in position, which closely followed the Governor’s departure, particularly given it was clear he didn’t support loosening the capital rules”.
“Even the appearance of political interference can undermine public trust in the RBNZ’s decisions,” she said, noting that the bank’s independence is “crucial for sound monetary policy, especially during a period of economic uncertainty”.
What power sits with Government?
The Reserve Bank Act 2021 states that, in prudential policy-making, the RBNZ board “must have regard to” the Government’s fiscal policy.
Reddell said this language has long been understood as a requirement “to give serious consideration” to Government policy, but ultimately, he said, the decision maker should “employ their own best professional judgment”.
He said this was the legal advice provided to the bank’s Financial System Oversight Committee over the more than 15 years in which he was a member.
This tenure was before the current iteration of the Reserve Bank Act, but Reddell said he has compared the relevant language in both the current and previous acts, and he did not think there was a substantive difference.
Roger Partridge, chairman of the New Zealand Initiative and former head of Bell Gully, said he agreed that the act does not give the Government coercive powers over the RBNZ in prudential policy, but his view is that the bank may have something short of independence in the area.
“If the Minister of Finance says my Government is happy with the level of risk for our prudential regulatory settings, commensurate with international norms and does not want excessive risk aversion beyond international norms, put it this way, if that bank must have regard to that then I think it would be a bold move to ignore it and say we want something different,” he said.
'Political interference': Concerns over RBNZ's capital rules review
Conflict zone: NZ's independent central bank and the Finance Minister's agenda.
They are trying to allow for a 1:200 year event. However the govt can in exceptional events, pull other levers outside the reserve banks control to manage a response, in which case the govt should be a partner in how that looks. Example - govt bails out banks rather than at huge cost, making banks hold massive capital. This is a govt decision not reserve banks…
Long term structural controls is different to short term reactions to the economy, which should rightly be outside govt.
Growing questions in NZ about organisation called Atlas Network
In New Zealand, there is now a conversation about an organisation called Atlas Network and whether or not it has influenced the right-bloc government's agenda.
www.abc.net.au
There should only be 2 people in the RB.
The governor and his PA.
Everyone else is superfluous.
People will die as a direct result of these changes
newsroom.co.nz
www.nzherald.co.nz
Disregarding safety in raising speed limits is 'highly unusual' – transport agency
Higher speeds are being restored on 81 stretches of state highway, after ministers barred officials from considering safety and environmental concerns. Jonathan Milne reports.
newsroom.co.nz
'Terrified for our lives': Cyclists, locals, surfers oppose speed rise on scenic highway
The speed limit on SH35 will increase from 80 to 100km/h by July 1.
- Thread starter
- #16,099
Democracy mate, the locals polled overwhelmingly support reverting back to the higher speeds that were removed without their input.People will die as a direct result of these changes
Disregarding safety in raising speed limits is 'highly unusual' – transport agency
Higher speeds are being restored on 81 stretches of state highway, after ministers barred officials from considering safety and environmental concerns. Jonathan Milne reports.
'Terrified for our lives': Cyclists, locals, surfers oppose speed rise on scenic highway
The speed limit on SH35 will increase from 80 to 100km/h by July 1.
“The majority of feedback received from the community and road users was not in support of retaining the lower speed of 80km/h for this route, with 61% in favour of the speed reverting to 100km/h.”
Labour got voted out because of communist stuff like this. Shower head 2 moment when brand new motorways engineered for 110kmh are set to 100… just because.
If you can’t any handle risk, stick to public transport.
SunLive - Public feedback leads to SH2 speed limit increase - The Bay's News First
Public feedback leads to SH2 speed limit increase
www.sunlive.co.nz
Last edited:
What number of road deaths is acceptable to you?People will die as a direct result of these changes
Disregarding safety in raising speed limits is 'highly unusual' – transport agency
Higher speeds are being restored on 81 stretches of state highway, after ministers barred officials from considering safety and environmental concerns. Jonathan Milne reports.
'Terrified for our lives': Cyclists, locals, surfers oppose speed rise on scenic highway
The speed limit on SH35 will increase from 80 to 100km/h by July 1.
