Living Standards Framework on it own isn't going to transform anything

Wednesday, 12 December 2018

OPINION: For some years, the Treasury has been plugging away at its Living Standards Framework, a new way to think about whether a government is succeeding, beyond simple economic growth figures.

Somewhat unloved by National, it has been elevated by the Government to totemic status in its desire to make 'transformative' public policy that demonstrably improves happiness, well-being and life fulfilment.

It will be a key part of the first Well-Being Budget, next May. It will no doubt be referenced in Thursday's Budget Policy Statement, to be released along with the half-year fiscal and economic update (Hyefu) from the Treasury.

The Hyefu, as it is inelegantly known, will again show Budget surpluses as far as the eye can see, low government debt, reasonable growth rates and a very tight labour market.

Pattrick Smellie says the Living Standards Framework has been elevated by the Government to totemic status in its desire to make 'transformative' public policy that demonstrably improves happiness, well-being and life fulfilment.

* Historic child poverty agreement a cause for hope

* Avoiding a wellbeing wafflefest**

In these circumstances, the Government has an unusually large capacity to execute policies that will fulfil its well-being focus, but will the Living Standards Framework (LSF) really help?

The draft framework was unveiled last week, attracting little attention outside the realms of policy nerds who have been having a play with the dashboard, to see what all the fuss is about.

The answer is: less than you'd think. It is more tottering first-time Lime scooter user than the next big thing from Tesla.

Finance Minister Grant Robertson has asked government departments for 1 per cent in savings across the board.

On my first toddle through the range of economic, environmental and social indicators, there was little new information, and some substantial gaps still to be filled.

Many indicators are presented as New Zealand's place on the spectrum compared to other members of the rich countries club, the OECD, which has the effect of making us look pretty darn good on many measures.

Among surprises were the tumbling rates of both suicide and homicide, despite very high youth suicide rates, New Zealand's epidemic of domestic and sexual violence and an absurdly large prison population.

Greens co-leader James Shaw's ambitions to lower the cost of electric vehicles are unlikely to find favour while there are teachers to pay.

Our housing costs are ridiculous compared to everywhere, but we already knew that.

The overall realisation, however, is that the Living Standards Framework on its own isn't going to transform anything. It's a set of measures, not an executable policy platform.

As a repository of a single version of the truth about key measures of New Zealand's living standards, the LSF should work well enough, once a few more measures are included and its status in relation to the Statistics NZ's Aotearoa Indicators project, which is meant to feed into the LSF, is clarified.

Environmental measures are particularly lacking so far. While there's an air quality measure, there is no freshwater quality data in the dashboard so far.

Presumably that will come as Stats NZ complies with the previous government's Environmental Reporting Act, which requires rigorous production of new national measures that did not previously exist.

The LSF and the processes that will feed into both its development and its expansion are a work in progress that will barely be useful by the time of next year's Budget.

It is also coming together at a time when official statistics-keeping is under pressure. This year's dodgy census, which appears to have missed a lot of people whose needs are greatest, is a big spanner in the works for evidence-based social policy development.

And Stats NZ's own process for the Indicators Aotearoa exercise seems to be a strange mix of typically rigorous international benchmarking and group-think sessions run by a PR company to determine New Zealand-specific definitions of well-being.

In seeking 100 indicators of well-being, there is a risk of data overwhelming actionable information.

At best, the LSF could help drive rational, democratically mediated policy choices. At worst, it is a branding tool for a Well-Being Budget that will look like a normal Budget.

So normal, in fact, that Finance Minister Grant Robertson has already asked departments for 1 per cent savings across the board and bidding ministers are muttering that 'things are very tight'.

Don't expect, for example, that generous leg-up that Greens co-leader James Shaw has talked about to lower the cost of electric vehicles. There are teachers to pay, for a start.

- BusinessDesk