The economy grew a quicker-than-expected 1% in the December quarter last year, and 3.1% in 2007, compared to 1.6% in 2006 (long-term trend is 2%-2.5%). That means the economy was in a stronger position than most analysts thought heading into the drought March quarter and is another reason to think a recession this year is unlikely (it is a pity the growth statistics are not available until they are nearly a quarter out of date but it is a massive job collecting them).
So, how does the record of the Labour-led government stack up against National in the 1990s, and against Australia?
National average: 2.6%. Labour average: 3.5% (Australia: 3.3 and 3.2%)
The economy continues to grow faster than it did under National, and while National let us fall behind Australia, Labour has closed the gap.
Tags: economy
March 28, 2008 at 12:51 pm
that’ll disappoint National that our growth is still good.
March 28, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Don’t worry Sprout, I’m sure they’ll find another reason to dis NZ.
March 28, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Isn’t the line graph still a downward trend since about 2000? Obviously depends where you go from, but considering Labour came in in 1999…?
March 28, 2008 at 2:32 pm
No - growth is certainly down since the peak in 1999/2000 but is on an upward trend. TYhere will always be troughs and peaks in any browth process.
Currently - upward trend.
March 28, 2008 at 2:36 pm
The spikes look to be getting lower though. I would never blame/credit government for all the bad things or good things happening in a mixed economy like ours, so…uh, go New Zealand?
March 28, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Yay Us!
March 28, 2008 at 4:42 pm
stephen - the spikes are lower, but the troughs are much shallower. Under Labour annualised growth has never dipped below 1.6%, it spent 14 quarters below that rate under National, and seven in recession
March 28, 2008 at 4:53 pm
when you’ve been in recession for nearly two years, there is a lot of spare capacity in an ecomoy, that will see a strong spike in growth once it returns.
remember, too, that growth is culmalative. it took a year of positive growth to regian the ground lsot under National’s first recession. Growth from National getting to power to leaving was 27% in 9 years, today, 8 years later the economy is 62% larger than it was in when National came to power.
March 28, 2008 at 4:56 pm
[...] folks over at Kiwiblogblog have done an excellent post on New Zealand’s economic growth since 1990. It notes that the New Zealand economy grew 3.1 [...]
March 29, 2008 at 11:27 am
Interesting…
March 29, 2008 at 11:34 am
“Closed the gap”….what a laugh.
Meanwhile the young smart Kiwi’s are heading for Aussie in their droves.
The gaps are NOT closing chaps, and neither Labour or Labour lite are going to make an ounce of difference, Kullen will keep stealing from those who have worked hard and give it to Labour voters, Key is nothing more than Labour with larger tax cuts and the country will continue to slide down the OECD rankings.
March 29, 2008 at 11:59 am
Meanwhile the young smart Kiwi’s are heading for Aussie in their droves.
And none of them ever went there in the 90’s BB? Or are just keeping the “NZ sucks” National Party campaign message warm?
The single biggest reason why Kiwi’s go to Aus is the same as ever, and the same as why kids have always moved from rural districts to cities, from small countries to larger one from time immemorial… more opportunities.
It’s mostly a function of size. The majority of NZ employers are small businesses with fewer than 10 people on board. No matter how good you are, how hard you work… there is pretty much a ceiling on how you can progress in such a limited environment. As a result if you want to move up the ladder in NZ you are often forced to change employers… and at that cusp of change… Australia with it’s bigger organisations, looks like an attractive option and many take it.
Actually the same argument plays out among the Australian states themselves, with the smaller ones like Tasmania and NT bemoaning the loss of their young talent to Melbourne and Sydney.
March 29, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Bruv, back up your assertions. KBB did research, why can’t you?
Secondly, these figures show that even if kiwis are leaving, our economy is still closing the gap on Australia’s very slightly under Labour, wheras National’s economic policy contributed to the gap. Even if you’re right about emigration being predominantly young and skilled people, we’re actually doing better under Labour despite that- which makes for a very strong argument that Labour’s economic policy is much better than National’s.
March 29, 2008 at 5:10 pm
Red & Ari
In MY opinion NZ does indeed suck, however that is not (as far as I am aware) the electioneering position of the Nat’s.
Not that you lot will ever let the truth get in the way of your lies, all you care about is keeping this corrupt govt in power.
NZ is losing ground week after week, as the following clearly shows……
“The Press reports on the figures put out by National showing the growing gap in after tax income between Australia and New Zealand.
In 1999 the average after tax income was $32,704 in Australia and $27,128 in New Zealand. That is a gap of $5,576 and has average NZ after tax income at 83% of Australia’s.
In 2007 Australia is $46,000 and NZ $34,000. That is a gap twice as large at $12,000 and means average NZ income is now only 74% of Australia.”
March 29, 2008 at 5:53 pm
In MY opinion NZ does indeed suck
Best leave then, before this corrupt Stalinist totalitarian gang of tax thieves revokes your freedom to do so.
Must be about to happen any day now I reckon.
March 31, 2008 at 3:36 pm
BBsaid “In MY opinion NZ does indeed suck, ” ……then……..please………fuck off somewhere else!!
March 31, 2008 at 5:32 pm
BB- Only growth is under a government’s control while they’re elected. They can’t control how the economy works out. Our growth has increased substantially under Labour.
Also, while after-tax income is important, it needs to be moderated for spending power. I have little doubt that once you take into account the relative cost of living in New Zealand and Australia, the gap is likely to be very, very small.
March 31, 2008 at 5:56 pm
Ari
It appears you are right. Presuming these are comparable stats, NZ and Australian median household income is about the same as NZ at PPP conversion, which is appropriate when comparing cost of living. Now the source is not authoritative (Wikipedia, citing ABS and NZ stats) and I haven’t checked that the statistics from the two countries mean the same things, and I believe these are pre-tax figures, but this is suggestive.
Source: here.
April 2, 2008 at 2:35 pm
[...] pay to National’s fiscal management Thanks to posts by us, The Standard and now Idiot/Savant, the differences between Labour and National’s economic [...]