Dear Treasury,

Thank you for your response to OIA request 20250861 dated 15 December 2025.

I note your statement that no documents exist within the scope of that request. Given Treasury's core functions in fiscal planning and policy analysis, I am making this refined request focusing on baseline statistical values and methodological documentation that Treasury must maintain to fulfill its statutory functions.

1. STATISTICAL LIFE VALUE (VSL) - CURRENT PARAMETERS

The Ministry of Transport (2021) states that the Value of Statistical Life is "estimated at $4.9 million per fatality in June 2021 dollars."[1] This value is incorporated into economic analyses including suicide cost studies.[2] The Treasury's CBAx tool contains a database of impact values for cost-benefit analysis.[3]

Please provide:

1.1 The current Value of Statistical Life (VSL) figure used by Treasury in cost-benefit analysis (as of December 2025), including:

The methodology used to calculate or update this figure
The year this figure was last updated
Any guidance documents on when/how agencies should apply this VSL

1.2 The age-adjusted VSL calculations, specifically:

VSL values used for deaths at ages 15-24
VSL values used for deaths at ages 25-34
The methodology for age adjustment

1.3 Annual mortality figures used in Treasury's fiscal baseline projections for:

Suicide deaths (by age cohort: 15-24, 25-34, 35-44, 45-54, 55-64)
Expected deaths from all causes for the same age cohorts
The time period these projections cover (e.g., 10-year forward estimates)

2. FISCAL BASELINE ASSUMPTIONS

2.1 Documentation showing what mortality and morbidity assumptions are incorporated into Treasury's long-term fiscal projections, specifically:

Whether suicide rates are assumed to remain constant, increase, or decrease in fiscal models
Whether disability and mental health service demand is modeled to change over time

2.2 The cost categories Treasury includes when calculating the fiscal impact of premature death, including whether the following are factored in:

Lost tax revenue (income tax, GST)
Welfare payments to surviving dependents
Healthcare costs prior to death
Coronial and justice system costs

This is not a request for complete analysis - simply confirmation of which cost categories Treasury considers when evaluating the fiscal impact of mortality.
3. METHODOLOGY DOCUMENTATION

3.1 Any Treasury guidance, frameworks, or standard operating procedures that outline:

How to conduct cost-benefit analysis for social policy interventions
When agencies should use the VSL in policy analysis
How to calculate the fiscal impact of policy changes affecting mortality or morbidity

3.2 Confirmation of whether Treasury uses the TAWA (Tax and Welfare Analysis) model mentioned in my previous request, and if so:

Basic documentation of what the model does
Whether the model can analyze distributional impacts across population cohorts

4. CLARIFICATION REQUEST

Given that Treasury's response stated that no documents exist for any part of my previous comprehensive request, please clarify:

4.1 Does Treasury conduct any economic efficiency analysis of social welfare policy?

4.2 Does Treasury conduct any cost-benefit analysis when advising Ministers on policy changes affecting welfare, mental health, or justice expenditure?

4.3 If the answer to either question is "yes," please provide:

Examples of such analyses completed in the last 3 years (titles and dates only)
The framework or methodology documents that guide such analyses

If the answer is "no," please confirm in writing that Treasury does not conduct economic efficiency analysis of social policy.

5. FISCAL POLICY AND SOCIAL HARM - IMPACT MODELING

5.1 Does Treasury model the health and social impacts of fiscal policy decisions, specifically:

When advising on interest rate impacts, benefit cuts, or fiscal tightening, does Treasury assess potential increases in:

Suicide and self-harm rates
Mental health service demand
Family violence and social disorder
Food insecurity and housing stress

5.2 When the Reserve Bank lifts interest rates (OCR increases), please provide:

Any Treasury analysis of observed correlations between OCR changes and:

Suicide rates
Mental health hospitalisations
Domestic violence reports
Financial hardship-related welfare applications

5.3 When Treasury advises Ministers on spending constraints or fiscal consolidation, please confirm:

Whether Treasury models the fiscal costs of increased social harm resulting from spending cuts
Whether cost-benefit analysis of spending reductions includes the value of statistical lives affected by reduced social services
Any guidance on how to account for second-order health and social impacts of fiscal policy

This is not requesting policy advice - simply confirmation of whether these impact pathways are modeled in Treasury's analytical frameworks.

6. PROJECTION VALIDITY AND FEEDBACK EFFECTS

This section addresses a fundamental methodological question about Treasury's fiscal projections:

6.1 Self-Invalidating Projections:

Treasury's fiscal advice influences government spending decisions. If Treasury's advice leads to policy changes that increase social harm (suicide, mental health crises, crime), this creates fiscal costs that were not included in the original projections.

Please provide:

Any Treasury analysis of whether fiscal consolidation advice has historically led to increased social costs that exceeded projected savings
Documentation of how Treasury accounts for "policy-induced harm" in long-term fiscal projections
Whether Treasury has assessed the accuracy of past fiscal projections where social spending was reduced

Example scenario: If Treasury advises reducing mental health spending by $100M, but this leads to increased suicide (each life = $4.969M VSL), increased ACC claims, increased justice costs, and lost tax revenue - does Treasury model whether the total fiscal cost exceeds the $100M saved?

6.2 Baseline Assumption Validity:

Treasury's long-term fiscal projections assume certain baseline rates of suicide, welfare dependency, mental health service demand, and crime. Please confirm:

Whether these baselines assume government policy settings remain constant
How Treasury adjusts projections when policy settings change (e.g., benefit cuts, service reductions)
Whether Treasury has identified cases where policy changes invalidated previous fiscal projections by changing the underlying social harm baseline

6.3 Cost-Shifting vs. Cost-Saving:

Please provide any Treasury analysis distinguishing between:

True cost savings (reducing expenditure with no negative social impact)
Cost-shifting
Cost-amplifying

Specific question: Has Treasury identified any historical cases where reducing preventive social spending led to increased remedial spending that exceeded the original savings?

7. METHODOLOGICAL TRANSPARENCY

7.1 Please provide Treasury's position on the following methodological question:

"If Treasury does not model the social harm impacts of fiscal policy advice, and if fiscal policy can influence suicide rates, mental health outcomes, and crime - does this mean Treasury's long-term fiscal projections are systematically underestimating future social costs?"

7.2 If Treasury does not currently model policy-induced social harm, please confirm:

Whether Treasury acknowledges this as a gap in current methodological frameworks
Whether there are plans to incorporate social harm modeling into fiscal analysis
What barriers exist to including these impact pathways in cost-benefit analysis

RATIONALE FOR THIS REQUEST:

This request addresses a fundamental question about the validity of Treasury's fiscal projections: Can fiscal projections be accurate if they don't model the social harm impacts of the fiscal policies they recommend?

The concern is this potential feedback loop:

Treasury provides fiscal advice based on projections that assume stable social harm baselines
Government implements fiscal consolidation (benefit cuts, service reductions) based on this advice
Social harm increases (suicide, mental health crises, family violence, crime)
This generates fiscal costs (VSL losses, healthcare, justice, welfare, lost productivity) not included in original projections
Treasury's projections become self-invalidating because the policy changes they recommended altered the baseline assumptions

If Treasury does not model these feedback effects, how can Parliament and Ministers rely on Treasury's fiscal advice?

This is not a request for speculative analysis - it is a request for:

Confirmation of whether current methodologies account for these pathways
Documentation of historical cases where this occurred
Transparency about methodological limitations

The previous OIA response claiming no relevant documents exist is particularly concerning given Treasury maintains the CBAx tool with Value of Statistical Life values specifically designed to monetize mortality impacts in cost-benefit analysis.
its possible the req was maliciously misunderstood to reduce work load....

This request focuses on basic statistical parameters, methodological guidance, and public fiscal data that Treasury must maintain to perform its core functions. I am happy to discuss this request if clarification would be helpful.

Yours faithfully,
Hayden

REFERENCES:

[1] Ministry of Transport (2021). Reports on Value of Life Calculation. Available at: https://www.transport.govt.nz/assets/Upl...

[2] Doran, C. M. (2024). The economic cost of suicide and non-fatal suicide behaviour. MATES in Construction. Available at: https://mates.net.nz/wp-content/uploads/...

[3] New Zealand Treasury. CBAx Tool (Cost-Benefit Analysis Tool). Available at: https://www.treasury.govt.nz/information...