spinofflive
Image: Tina Tiller
Image: Tina Tiller

OPINIONMoneyJuly 26, 2022

What’s the bigger outrage – $20,000 for a documentary or $1 trillion in windfall gains?

Image: Tina Tiller
Image: Tina Tiller

Amid calls for Covid ‘cash handouts’ to end, Bernard Hickey suggests a more useful debate: how can we get the beneficiaries of billions in unearned pandemic-era gains to hand some of it back to taxpayers?

This is an edited version of an article first published on Bernard Hickey’s newsletter The Kākā.

There was a flurry of pointless clickbaitery on Friday that seemed to capture the zeitgeist of how many on both sides of the political divide feel about this next phase of the post-Covid lockdown period. One side believes the Covid “cash handouts” should stop, but doesn’t believe the ones they received counted or should be returned. The other side is increasingly calling for the beneficiaries of unearned Covid-era gains to hand back at least some of their windfall gains to taxpayers at large, to help those hurt most during Covid.

Here’s the latest skirmish. The NZ Herald and Newstalk ZB removed an article on Friday by Newstalk ZB deputy political editor Jason Walls that challenged what he described as $20,000 of NZ Film Commission funding for a short documentary made during the first Covid lockdowns about public scientist Dr Siouxsie Wiles:

“I’m just so sick of everything getting taxpayer money for these projects. Why can’t people just pay out of their own pocket? I just keep seeing these things crop up time and time again, when we have hospitals overwhelmed. Twenty thousand dollars is not tons of money in the grand scheme of things, (but) that sort of stuff keeps adding up.” – Newstalk ZB deputy political editor Jason Walls on air last week, as RNZ’s Colin Peacock reported yesterday

An article summarising Walls’ views was published online afterwards, although removed on Friday after Wiles publicised her unhappiness with it.

“Would you pay $20,000 for a documentary about ‘science superhero’ Dr Siouxsie Wiles? Because you already did,”  the Herald’s story began. 

The implication was that $20,000 of taxpayers’ money was “wasted” on publicity for a scientist. As it turned out, the $20,000 referred to was for another unfinished project and the project had actually cost the documentary maker $8,000, with a further $7,685 in funds raised via a Kickstarter campaign from the public.

Aside from the factual issues with the piece, it struck a nerve with Wiles’s supporters. It also struck a particular nerve of mine, regarding NZME’s use of publicly provided funds during and since Covid, and the apparent hypocrisy of some of its commentators about private use of public funds.

I tweeted this on Friday night in response to Wiles’s tweet.

NZME got $12.9m of public cash and will pay $15m in cash to investors

The owner of NZ Herald and Newstalk ZB, NZME, received $8.6m of wage subsidies, which it has refused to repay (detail here via RNZ). That is on top of $4.3m of public funds from the Public Interest Journalism Fund and other public funds to pay for journalists working for NZME and specific projects over the last two years. The $12.9m in public funding helped stabilise NZME during Covid, but the company has now returned to growing its operating profits and has reduced debt substantially.

In fact, NZME is now in the process of returning $15m in cash to shareholders through share buy-backs and special dividends. It is not the only one. Fletcher Building received $68m in wage subsidy cash during 2020 and has refused to repay it, despite an increasingly robust profit and balance sheet. It paid $140m of cash dividends to shareholders in April this year after reporting solid profit growth and a strong outlook because of a boom in house building and building materials sales. NZME and Fletcher Building are just two among many large and small New Zealand companies that have refused to repay the cash, despite reporting profit growth and higher cash reserves.

‘Like a thousand-piece jigsaw puzzle, each member is vital to the whole picture. Join today.’
Calum Henderson
— Production editor

Overall, the government gave $20bn in cash to companies during 2020 and 2021 as wage subsidies, but less than $1bn has been returned, which companies were supposed to do if they found they did not need it. Meanwhile, company profits have surged over the last two years, despite a sharp rise in costs and wages because of inflation. Those higher profits are due at least partly to the cash windfalls from Covid, and partly to profit margin expansion during the surge in inflation.

Stats NZ’s most recent annual enterprise survey for the year to June 30, 2021 found company profits rose by almost $25bn to $103bn from the previous (also) Covid-affected 2019/20 year, and were up from the last non-Covid year’s profit of $97bn. That came after government grants of $17.2bn in 2020/21 and $9.4bn in 2019/20, which followed $7.1bn in 2018/19. That is also before the second round of wage subsidies in the second half of calendar 2021 in response to the delta lockdowns from August onwards.

Profits up $25bn after $20bn of cash payments from government

More than 60% of the increase in profit in 2020/21 came from just three sectors: banking and insurance (up $10.6bn), rental and real estate (up $3.7bn), and construction (up $1.7bn).

The auditor general has criticised the government’s failure to properly chase up those who incorrectly kept the wage subsidy money. Prime minister Jacinda Ardern and finance minister Grant Robertson have repeatedly refused to call directly on companies to return the cash. The Ministry of Social Development  (MSD), the original distributor of the funds, has made a few prosecutions, but is spending more chasing and prosecuting beneficiaries to repay their $1bn in debt to MSD.

Then there are the unearned gains on assets

The other major interventions of the government during Covid were through the Reserve Bank, which removed loan-to-value ratio (LVR) restrictions, printed $55bn to buy government bonds to lower mortgage rates, and lent $12.7bn cheaply for banks to lend on to home buyers. Those moves were all approved by Robertson. The central bank’s deliberate aim was to make asset owners feel wealthier so they would spend, lend, invest and employ to soften the economic shock of Covid.

It worked, but it also delivered asset-owning households $621bn in increases in net worth to a total of $2.4 trillion between the end of December 2019 and the end of the March quarter of 2022, according to Stats NZ’s National Accounts data.

These accounts also show financial enterprises, which include banks and insurers, reported $6.6bn in gross disposable income (equivalent to pre-tax profit) in the two years to the end of March 2022, up from $5.5bn in the previous two years. Banks did not take the wage subsidies, but did benefit from cheap Reserve Bank loans and the removal of LVR restriction in 2020. This same data shows non-financial businesses made gross disposable income of $114.1bn in that two-year period, up from $74.4bn in the previous two years. This data also shows the equity held by non-financial businesses rose by $203bn to $1.275tn in the two years to the end of March.

So Covid policies helped increase the net worth and equity of households and businesses by $824bn in 2020 and 2021 ($621bn for households and $203bn for businesses), including $378bn from the rise in residential land and house values to $1.31tn, caused largely by lower interest rates.

How to refund the Covid windfalls

There are various ways the Covid support could be refunded to taxpayers at large by business and homeowners, including simply repaying the bulk of the $20bn in cash support for businesses. It would require direct requests for repayment from the government, which we have yet to see. CTU economist Craig Renney has also suggested a windfall tax on bank profits, which are currently running at an annual rate of $6.8bn per year, and reflect the big surge in mortgage lending done through the last two years of Covid and cheap funding from the taxpayer-owned Reserve Bank.

The refunds of unearned Covid gains could also be done through a one-off 0.2% tax on the value of all residential-zoned land, which would raise around $20bn.

That combined $40bn of windfall refunds to the government could be used to both increase incomes for the lowest paid and reduce government debt, or alternatively, to invest in infrastructure to allow much greater supply of affordable housing.

I think a debate about the wealthiest returning their near-$1tn in windfall gains from Covid policies is more useful than debating whether $20,000 of public funding for a documentary on a public scientist can be justified, especially when the debater’s employer received $12.9m of taxpayer cash and is paying it all back in cash dividends to its fund-manager owners.


Follow Bernard Hickey’s When the Facts Change on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or your favourite podcast provider.


Bernard Hickey’s writing here is supported by thousands of individual subscribers to The Kākā, his subscription email newsletter and podcast. You can support his writing by subscribing, for free or as a paid subscriber. 

Keep going!
Image: Tina Tiller
Image: Tina Tiller

MoneyJuly 18, 2022

Should Auckland public transport be free? 

Image: Tina Tiller
Image: Tina Tiller

Half-price public transport has been extended nationwide until January, but Auckland mayoral candidate Efeso Collins wants it to be free in the city by 2024. Is this just an expensive folly, or could it be the solution Tāmaki Makaurau needs?

It’s no secret our existing approach to transport has some issues. Nationally, transport emissions doubled between 1990 and 2018, and in Tāmaki Makaurau they account for 43.6% of the city’s emissions. Air pollution from private vehicles is estimated to cause the premature deaths of 400 people aged over 30 in New Zealand each year. Gridlock jams the city daily. Fuel is only getting more expensive, the burden of which falls disproportionately on the poor: transport poverty causes many families to spend less on food, not pay their rent or drive unregistered or not warranted vehicles.

So what happens if public transport becomes free? Fortunately various cities overseas have implemented fare-free public transport and their experiences point the way to what might happen in Tāmaki Makaurau. 

Well, first off bus trips become faster. Buses don’t stay still for so long taking payment or waiting for passengers to tag on at the front of the bus before finding their seats. A Boston trial found free fares reduced this “dwell time” by 20%. 

As you would expect, patronage rises. A five-week trial in Tasmania resulted in 15% more passengers. In Boston patronage increased 23%. Estonia’s capital Tallinn introduced city-wide free public transport for its residents in 2013, leading to a 7.5% increase in passenger numbers. 

How much patronage grows depends on a variety of factors, including pre-existing levels of public transport use, pre-existing free fares for certain groups, and whether measures to discourage car use are also in place. 

Photo: Getty Images

Considering those factors in the context of Tāmaki Makaurau suggests that free public transport would result in a significant increase in passenger numbers. Only 14.6% of Aucklanders use public transport to get to work or education each day. Free fares exist only for the elderly and the young. A regional fuel tax is already in place and congestion charging appears to be slowly creeping towards political acceptance. 

An increase of 10% in public transport use in Tāmaki Makaurau – a conservative estimate given the circumstances – would result in 27,000 more trips each day. No doubt some of those extra passengers would be walkers or cyclists who just can’t be bothered that day, or people who wouldn’t have travelled at all but for the free fares. But given the very high levels of car use in Auckland, it’s reasonable to predict that plenty of commuters would switch their fuel-hungry cars for free buses or trains. 

The benefits of ditching those cars are not hard to predict. Transport emissions would drop. Air pollution would improve. Gridlock would lessen, smoothing the way for buses and the remaining cars on the road. Should Auckland introduce a congestion charge, the impact of these benefits would grow further. 

Those who suffer from transport poverty, often pushed to the city’s margins by high rents and gentrification, would find the city and all its jobs are open to them. And the money not spent on fares or petrol? Instead of going to the state or oil companies, it could support other areas of the economy. 

While that all sounds pretty good, there are a couple of quite large caveats. 

There are concerns about the network’s capacity to handle a sudden spike in demand. Collins clearly thinks it could, stating that he wants a fully free public transport network by July 2024. But if parts of the network are already reaching peak capacity, it could become overwhelmed, potentially turning nascent passengers away from public transport for good. Such a scenario would be particularly hard on bus drivers, who are already subject to high levels of abuse from disgruntled passengers. 

Then there’s the million-dollar question: how much will cost? Obviously that depends on many factors, not least of which is how many people switch to public transport. The government set aside $27.1 million in the May budget to extend half-price fares, initially planned for three months, for a further two. They’ve now been extended to January 2023, at a cost of $63.1m. Using the initial budget figure, a crude estimate is $325 million for a year of free public transport nationally, although that doesn’t take into account the capital investment required to improve public transport networks or the likelihood of more passengers. The Herald reported an Auckland Transport estimate that an extra $500 million would be needed annually by 2030 to deliver free public transport across its network. 

Whatever the final figure, it’s going to be a lot of money. But of course, as National leader Christopher Luxon learnt earlier this year, we already subsidise public transport. Revenue from fares contributed just 29.5% of Auckland Transport’s operating costs, with much of the remainder coming from a mix of local and central government funding. We wouldn’t just be funding this thing from scratch. 

‘Become a member and help us keep local, independent journalism thriving.’
Alice Neville
— Deputy editor

Funding for public transport – both operational and infrastructure – from the National Land Transport Fund was just under $2 billion in the 2020/21 financial year, which doesn’t include specific budget initiatives such as support for the City Rail Link. In that context, funding for free public transport would not necessarily be a huge increase, proportionally, to existing central government support. 

Free public transport advocates argue that safe, climate-friendly transport is a right for everyone, not just a service for those who can afford it. If public transport is a public good, so goes the argument, then it ought to be funded like other public goods, such as education or health. 

Should Aucklanders vote in Collins in October, the government will have some tricky decisions to make. Recent polling in Auckland indicated widespread support for free public transport. With a tight national election expected next year, keeping on good terms with the many voters in our largest city will be near the top of the government’s priority list. On the other hand, it will be reluctant to give more ammunition to those who accuse it of being fast and loose with public money. 

Of course, it’s not all about the money. When you consider the potential benefits – fewer emissions, healthier people, reduced transport poverty and a more functional city – free public transport could be one of the most sensible radical ideas yet. If Efeso Collins becomes the next mayor of Tāmaki Makaurau we might just find out. 

The author wishes to acknowledge the work of Dr Jenny McArthur, whose excellent report Fare Free public transport – The case for going fare-free in Tāmaki Makaurau and lessons from international case studies informed much of the content of this article. 

But wait there's more!