Smoke And Mirrors.

Did anybody happen to lose $46b?

You're a fraud, and you know it
But it's too good to throw it all away
Anyone would do the same
You've got 'em going
And you're careful not to show it
Sometimes you even fool yourself a bit
It's like magic
But it's always been a smoke and mirrors game
Anyone would do the same

Forty six billion dollars.

So, that’s quite a lot really, isn’t it? It’s about half of what our government spends in a year providing services to us.

All of them. It’s an immense amount of money. Far too big to start with, so let’s come back to that and begin with something much smaller.

Yesterday I had to pop to the local chemist, not the Chelsea drugstore, to get my prescriptions filled. When they were ready I asked if there was a charge. The Chemist looked up and replied that “there was no charge until July when the government changes…”

She trailed off, perhaps distracted, and looked down.

I pounced saying “that would be good”, about the government soon changing, she looked back up and grinned, as if to say “yeah, it would, but I couldn’t possibly comment”.

As I wrote recently, it’s good to say the small things quietly. Focussing on the small, tangible changes that are occuring day to day is probably more effective than beating someone over the head with the enormity of Climate Change. Or preaching about equality.

Sometimes it’s those little things that people really notice, that actually hit them. More than the behemoths in the room that they don’t want to talk about.

I got an email after that article which said quietly, “my daughter will now have to subsidize the wealthy by paying more to get to school on the bus”.

That one really struck me. The idea that students should pay more to travel so people, many of whom don’t really need one, can get a tax cut. Or so that a landlord can write off their costs.

Picturing that, imagining the families who will have less to spend on other essentials as a result. Homes where there is simply no discretionary spending. That seems more real than the impacts down the line of cancelling programmes to reduce emissions. Although the cumulative consequences of that, and similar inaction in other countries, will be very real soon enough.

It feels like the this government is doing the equivalent of raiding all the piggy banks of all the children in Aotearoa, in order to pay for their tax cuts.

Small things do matter.

Like setting an example when you know you’ve had enough. Not going back for seconds as the faces of the victims of your actions look on hungrily.

But don't worry kids, mum's still getting those tax cuts. You’re still going out to the movies, not staying home to watch Netflix and eat Tip Top. She's only saying she feels uncomfortable taking more. Like a final After Dinner mint.

Happily accepting a pay rise when you’re telling every department to reduce costs is a pretty bad look. Especially when you’re doing things like this:

How mean spirited is that? Do people really want a tax cut at the cost of things like this? I’m sure there are some that couldn’t care less but this must bring back memories to others of the Aotearoa we saw under Key.

Funding support services to get people into better housing is a good thing. So what’s the plan now? Back to people living under bridges, in garages or cars?

The advice to ministers said "evaluations have found that the initiatives have been successful in providing holistic support and obtaining longer-term housing for households", and that the success of the programmes had been noted by many.

Money is tight of course, the government has to be prudent with it’s spending. Equally importantly they need to focus on the revenue coming into their coffers

So it might be time to talk about this $46b.

I’m sure some of you will have read the following article from Newsroom. Certainly a number of people contacted me about it.

In summary, although it’s well worth reading the full piece, Casey Costello was thoroughly briefed by health officials on the economic benefits of smokefree initiatives. But when she put forward her proposal, to curtail smoking reduction measures, she didn’t include that information.

The briefing, which was leaked to RNZ in late February, has now been publicly released by the Ministry of Health. Unusually, it contains strong pushback to Costello’s plans to repeal the three smokefree changes wholesale, with officials warning of reputational and financial risks to New Zealand and offering compromises instead.

However the paper that Costello presented simply ignored these proposed alternatives.

Generated with Hotpot AI.

“Repeatedly, Casey Costello took the most extreme repeal option and didn’t take any options that might have had some of the benefits of the smokefree legislation retained. It’s hugely disappointing but not surprising,” Labour health spokesperson Ayesha Verrall told Newsroom.

Recent independent analysis, published in November 2023, found a $17b loss to government out to 2050 from reduced excise revenue and increased superannuation costs from people living longer would be more than offset by a $46b economic benefit over the same period, the briefing said. “The new estimates find the smoked tobacco measures are likely to result in large economic benefits for the total population.”

If you were part of a cabinet, making a decision about something like cutting initiatives to discourage smoking, wouldn’t you want to know about the economic benefits of encouraging health?

Even if you felt that the benefits to people were insufficient to sway you?

It seems ghoulish to think of the variables being considered. The drop in excise revenue if too many people stop smoking, or worse the increase in super costs that will result from them not dying as early.

But despite those “downsides” there is an economic upside of $46b.

A number so large that it seems incredible to believe that a minister could omit to mention it. Are we to simply wave it away as an error, an oversight? Because whatever we want to call it it’s by some margin the largest whatever it is - that I can recall.

Let’s put it in context. $46b is roughly the same as:

Four of Steven Joyce’s gigantic mythical fiscal holes. Just one of which National proclaimed would be the end of the world - even though it didn’t exist. Don’t worry though, we’re now paying that guy $4,000 per day for the privilege of once again enjoying his acumen.

Or

One thousand one hundred and fifty years of support services to those in emergency housing. Yep, based on the current budget of $40m that’s an entire millennium of assisting people into better housing situations.

Or

Five hundred and eighty two years of free prescriptions for everyone. When National announced their policy of rolling back Labour’s free prescriptions they estimated it would reduce spending by $316 million over four years.

Is this all to maintain coalition support from dairy owners and tobacco companies?

We’re not only sacrificing additional people to die horrible deaths from smoking related diseases, but we’re also ignoring the $46b economic benefit of having a healthier society. Remember, that’s half of what the government spends in an entire year.

I had low expectation of Ms Costello given the senior roles she’s held in organisations as dire as the Taxpayer’s Union and Hobson’s Pledge. But $46b? That’s insane. If I’d made this all up about Casey Costello and the coalition, as satire, I’d be embarrassed at how far fetched and absurd it was. It’s simply ridiculous.

The only conclusion that seems possible is that Costello deliberately neglected to include the full information needed to make an informed decision for short term political gain. If Luxon doesn’t fire an Associate Health Minister for, oopsy daisy, ignoring $46b in economic benefit, to push this vile policy, then what on earth would it take?

A lot of things that this government are doing seem to step over a line, to go further than even those of us with exceedingly low expectations imagined. But this is of such a colossal magnitude of corruption and/or ineptitude that it’s scarcely possible to believe it happened.

And yet the PM smiles on and people say what a good job he’s doing. Isn’t it nice to have a man in a suit in charge - he must be good with the economy.

Right?