Wellbeing plans less show-stopper, more e-scooter
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, wellbeing and life fulfilment.
It will be a key part of the first ‘‘wellbeing’’ Budget, next May. But will it 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 firsttime Lime scooter user than the next big thing from Tesla.
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 with other members of the rich countries club, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 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.
Our housing costs are ridiculous compared with everywhere, but we already knew that.
The overall realisation, however, is that the Living Standards Framework (LSF) 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 New Zealand’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 Statistics 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 statisticskeeping 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 Statistics NZ’s own process for the Indicators Aotearoa exercise seems to be a strange mix of typically rigorous international benchmarking and groupthink sessions run by a public-relations company to determine New Zealand-specific definitions of wellbeing.
In seeking 100 indicators of wellbeing, 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 Wellbeing 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