jetpack domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /mnt/stor08-wc1-ord1/694335/916773/www.tvhe.co.nz/web/content/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6131updraftplus domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /mnt/stor08-wc1-ord1/694335/916773/www.tvhe.co.nz/web/content/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6131avia_framework domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /mnt/stor08-wc1-ord1/694335/916773/www.tvhe.co.nz/web/content/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6131New Zealand only just misses the cut of counties whose performance improved. The average annual increase in GDP per hour worked in these later years was 1.1% compared to 1.3% from 2000 to 2007. Further, while New Zealand had the 26th highest average annual growth in productivity in the years to 2007, since 2010 New Zealand has had the 10th highest average rate of growth in productivity in the OECD. When this performance is measured for 2008 to 2013 then we are only one of 5 countries whose average annual growth rate in productivity increased (along with Australia, Luxembourg, Poland and Spain).
But the story is not so good when levels, not just rates of productivity growth, are considered. OECD data on GDP per hour worked in constant 2005 prices show that of the 34 OECD countries New Zealand had the 24th highest level of productivity in 2013. Indeed, New Zealand’s GDP per hour worked would need to increase by 34% to reach the OECD average. This is a worse than in 2000 (where the OECD average was 31% higher in terms of New Zealand’s figure) and shows that while the last few years have been promising, New Zealand’s productivity problems are far from over.
GDP per hour worked
| Country | Average Annual Growth 2000 to 2007 | Average Annual Growth 2008 to 2009 | Average Annual Growth 2010 to 2013 | Average Annual Growth 2008 to 2013 | 2013 Level (US$, 2005 PPP) |
| New Zealand | 1.3% | 4.6% | 1.1% | 1.4% | 30.2 |
| Australia | 1.4% | 1.9% | 2.3% | 1.7% | 45.8 |
| Austria | 1.9% | -0.2% | 1.0% | 0.8% | 45.7 |
| Belgium | 1.3% | -1.3% | -0.1% | -0.1% | 52.5 |
| Canada | 0.9% | 0.7% | 0.6% | 0.9% | 42.7 |
| Chile | 3.1% | 0.6% | 3.6% | 2.8% | 19.9 |
| Czech Republic | 4.7% | -2.5% | 0.7% | 0.4% | 28.8 |
| Denmark | 1.2% | -2.0% | 0.1% | 0.6% | 46.9 |
| Estonia | 6.1% | 2.0% | 1.8% | 2.6% | 22.7 |
| Finland | 2.3% | -4.7% | 0.2% | -0.2% | 42.6 |
| France | 1.4% | -0.6% | 0.8% | 0.7% | 50.9 |
| Germany | 1.5% | -2.6% | 1.0% | 0.6% | 50.9 |
| Greece | 2.5% | -2.7% | -0.8% | -1.0% | 28.3 |
| Hungary | 4.1% | -3.1% | 1.7% | 0.4% | 22.8 |
| Iceland | 3.9% | 5.7% | 0.5% | 1.1% | 40.8 |
| Ireland | 2.0% | 3.3% | 0.6% | 1.9% | 50.6 |
| Israel | 1.4% | -0.3% | 1.0% | 1.1% | 33.2 |
| Italy | 0.1% | -2.3% | -0.1% | -0.1% | 38.4 |
| Japan | 1.6% | -0.9% | 0.7% | 1.0% | 36.1 |
| Korea | 4.6% | 1.6% | 3.0% | 3.6% | 29.9 |
| Luxembourg | 0.7% | 0.5% | 0.3% | 1.5% | 69.0 |
| Mexico | 1.0% | 0.0% | 0.9% | -0.4% | 15.1 |
| Netherlands | 1.3% | -1.9% | 0.1% | 0.0% | 52.3 |
| Norway | 1.3% | 0.3% | 0.1% | 1.4% | 62.6 |
| Poland | 3.4% | 3.1% | 2.8% | 0.2% | 22.9 |
| Portugal | 1.3% | 0.0% | 0.9% | 3.7% | 26.7 |
| Slovak Republic | 5.4% | -2.5% | 2.2% | 1.2% | 30.4 |
| Slovenia | 3.9% | -6.5% | 0.9% | 1.7% | 35.2 |
| Spain | 0.4% | 2.5% | 1.9% | -0.2% | 40.4 |
| Sweden | 2.5% | -2.4% | 0.5% | 2.1% | 46.3 |
| Switzerland | 1.5% | -2.1% | 0.7% | 0.5% | 44.5 |
| Turkey | 4.2% | -4.0% | 1.6% | 0.4% | 23.4 |
| United Kingdom | 2.2% | -2.4% | -0.1% | 0.8% | 44.5 |
| United States | 2.1% | 2.8% | 0.4% | -0.2% | 56.9 |
| Euro area (18 countries) | 1.2% | -1.2% | 0.9% | 1.4% | 43.7 |
| Euro area (15 countries) | 1.3% | -1.4% | 0.8% | 0.7% | 45.1 |
| European Union (28 countries) | 1.6% | -1.6% | 0.7% | 0.6% | 38.4 |
| G7 | 1.7% | 0.6% | 0.6% | 0.6% | 48.8 |
| OECD – Total | 1.8% | 0.3% | 0.8% | 1.0% | 40.5 |
| Russia | 5.3% | -4.7% | 2.2% | 0.9% | 15.6 |
Source: OECD.Stat
]]>The model also allows people to work out how the tax situation and family income assistance for people in their circumstances have changed this century.
The provision of tax relief in this year’s New Zealand budget has closed part of the tax gap with Australia. Yet while this relief kept pace with recent changes in Australia, the growth in the tax gap over the earlier part of this century largely remains unaddressed.
While incomes remain higher in Australia than in New Zealand, Australia will remain an attractive country for Kiwi workers to relocate to. Given the commitment in Australia to reviewing the tax system (including family income assistance) to attract and retain workers in competitive global labour markets, the competition for workers with Australia is only going to become more important for New Zealand.
]]>