Cost hikes will not hit rates

Government-mandated KiwiSaver cost increases will not affect Invercargill City Council rates this year.
In the May Budget Finance Minister Nicola Willis announced the default rate for employee and employer contributions would rise to 3.5% on April 1, 2026, and 4% on April 1, 2028.
The scheme will also be extended to include 16 and 17-year-olds.
At an extraordinary meeting yesterday councillors considered a resolution to fund the increased KiwiSaver cost, an estimated $61,000, by raising the projected 2025-26 rates rise from 7.11% to 7.19% .
This would be included in the annual plan documents for adoption later this month.
During the discussion of the resolution Cr Tom Campbell said throughout the year there were many times when budgeted costs changed.
"There's going to be ups and downs — it's like a golf score where you get birdies and bogies."
It was a "relatively small" amount of money.
"My view would be, we should simply absorb this."
Cr Ian Pottinger said the council should rate according to its costs and the projected rates rise should be increased.
When the resolution was voted on, the vote was split and Mr Clark cast the deciding vote to defeat the motion.
A new resolution agreeing to take the extra KiwiSaver costs out of increasing chief executive Michael Day's efficiency target also resulted in a split vote and Mr Clark's vote gave the motion the majority.
sandy.eggleston@odt.co.nz

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Scoop

19 hours ago

• Scoop

Former New Zealand PM Helen Clark Blames Cook Islands For Creating A Crisis

Former New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark believes the Cook Islands, a realm of New Zealand, caused a crisis for itself by not consulting Wellington before signing a deal with China. The New Zealand government has paused more than $18 million in development assistance to the Cook Islands after the latter failed to provide satisfactory answers to Aotearoa's questions about its partnership agreement with Beijing. The Cook Islands is in free association with New Zealand and governs its own affairs. But New Zealand provides assistance with foreign affairs (upon request), disaster relief, and defence. The 2001 Joint Centenary Declaration signed between the two nations requires them to consult each other on defence and security, which Winston Peters said had not been honoured. Foreign Minister Winston Peters and Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown both have a difference of opinion on the level of consultation required between the two nations on such matters. "There is no way that the 2001 declaration envisaged that Cook Islands would enter into a strategic partnership with a great power behind New Zealand's back," Clark told RNZ Pacific on Thursday. Clark was a signatory of the 2001 agreement with the Cook Islands as New Zealand prime minister at the time. "It is the Cook Islands government's actions which have created this crisis," she said. "The urgent need now is for face-to-face dialogue at a high level to mend the NZ-CI relationship." Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has downplayed the pause in funding to the Cook Islands during his second day of his trip to China. Brown told parliament on Thursday (Wednesday, Cook Islands time) that his government knew the funding cut was coming. He also suggested a double standard, pointing out that New Zealand has entered also deals with China that the Cook Islands was not "privy to or being consulted on". A Pacific law expert says that, while New Zealand has every right to withhold its aid to the Cook Islands, the way it is going about it will not endear it to Pacific nations. Auckland University of Technology (AUT) senior law lecturer and a former Pacific Islands Forum advisor Sione Tekiteki told RNZ Pacific that for Aotearoa to keep highlighting that it is "a Pacific country and yet posture like the United States gives mixed messages". "Obviously, Pacific nations in true Pacific fashion will not say much, but they are indeed thinking it," Tekiteki said. Since day dot there has been a misunderstanding on what the 2001 agreement legally required New Zealand and Cook Islands to consult on, and the word consultation has become somewhat of a sticking point. The latest statement from the Cook Islands government confirms it is still a discrepancy both sides want to hash out. "There has been a breakdown and difference in the interpretation of the consultation requirements committed to by the two governments in the 2001 Joint Centenary Declaration," the Ministry for Foreign Affairs and Immigration (MFAI) said. "An issue that the Cook Islands is determined to address as a matter of urgency". Tekiteki said that, unlike a treaty, the 2001 declaration was not "legally binding" per se but serves more to express the intentions, principles and commitments of the parties to work together in "recognition of the close traditional, cultural and social ties that have existed between the two countries for many hundreds of years". He said the declaration made it explicitly clear that Cook Islands had full conduct of its foreign affairs, capacity to enter treaties and international agreements in its own right and full competence of its defence and security. However, he added that there was a commitment of the parties to "consult regularly". This, for Clark, the New Zealand leader who signed the all-important agreement more than two decades ago, this is where Brown misstepped. Clark previously labelled the Cook Islands-China deal "clandestine" which has "damaged" its relationship with New Zealand. RNZ Pacific contacted the Cook Islands Ministry of Foreign Affairs for comment but was advised by the MFAI secretary that they are not currently accommodating interviews.

RNZ News

a day ago

• RNZ News

Despite decades of cost cutting, governments spend more than ever. How can we make sense of this?

By Ian Lovering* of International relations academic Ian Lovering delves into some of the history and social structures at play behind decisions about the national budget. Photo: RNZ Analysis : Recent controversies over New Zealand's Ka Ora, Ka Ako school lunch programme have revolved around the apparent shortcomings of the food and its delivery. Stories of inedible meals , scalding packaging and general waste have dominated headlines. But the story is also a window into the wider debate about the politics of "fiscal responsibility" and austerity politics . As part of the mission to "cut waste" in government spending, ACT leader and Associate Education Minister David Seymour replaced the school-based scheme with a centralised programme run by a catering corporation. The result was said to have delivered "saving for taxpayers" of $130 million - in line with the government's overall drive for efficiency and cost cutting. While Finance Minister Nicola Willis dislikes the term "austerity", her May budget cut the government's operating allowance in half , to $1.3 billion. This came on top of Budget cuts last year of around $4 billion. Similar policy doctrines have been subscribed to by governments of all political persuasions for decades. As economic growth (and the tax revenue it brings) has been harder for OECD countries to achieve over the past 50 years, governments have looked to make savings. What is strange, though, is that despite decades of austerity policies reducing welfare and outsourcing public services to the most competitive corporate bidder, state spending has kept increasing. New Zealand's public expense as a percentage of GDP increased from 25.9 percent in 1972 to 35.9 percent in 2022. And this wasn't unusual. The OECD as a whole saw an increase from 18.9 percent in 1972 to 29.9 percent in 2022. How can we make sense of so-called austerity when, despite decades of cost cutting, governments spend more than ever? In a recent paper , I argued that the politics of austerity is not only about how much governments spend. It is also about who gets to decide how public money is used. Austerity sounds like it is about spending less, finding efficiencies or living within your means. But ever rising budgets mean it is about more than that. In particular, austerity is shaped by a centralising system that locks in corporate and bureaucratic control over public expenditure, while locking out people and communities affected by spending decisions. In other words, austerity is about democracy as much as economics. We typically turn to the ideology of neoliberalism - democracy as much as economics. We typically turn to the ideology of neoliberalism - "Rogernomics" being the New Zealand variant - to explain the history of this. The familiar story is of a revolutionary clique taking over a bloated postwar state, reorienting it towards the global market, and making it run more like a business. Depending on your political persuasion, the contradiction of austerity's growing cost reflects either the short-sightedness of market utopianism or the stubbornness of the public sector to reform. But while the 1980s neoliberal revolution was important, the roots of austerity's managerial dimension go back further. And it was shaped less by a concern that spending was too high, and more by a desire to centralise control over a growing budget. Godfather of 'rational' budgeting: US Secretary of Defence Robert McNamara (right), with US president Lyndon B Johnson (centre), in a Cabinet meeting, in 1968. Photo: Yoichi Okamoto - Public Domain Many of the managerial techniques that have arrived in the public sector over the austerity years - such as results-based pay, corporate contracting, performance management or evaluation culture - have their origins in a budgetary revolution that took place in the 1960s at the US Department of Defence. In the early 1960s, Defence Secretary Robert McNamara was frustrated with being nominally in charge of budgeting but having to mediate between the seemingly arbitrary demands of military leaders for more tanks, submarines or missiles. In response, he called on the RAND Corporation, a US think tank and consultancy, to remake the Defence Department's budgetary process to give the secretary greater capacity to plan. The outcome was called the Planning Programming Budgeting System . Its goal was to create a "rational" budget where policy objectives were clearly specified in quantified terms, the possible means to achieve them were fully costed, and performance indicators measuring progress were able to be reviewed. This approach might have made sense for strategic military purposes. But what happens when you apply the same logic to planning public spending in healthcare, education, housing - or school lunches? The past 50 years have largely been a process of finding out. What began as a set of techniques to help McNamara get control of military spending gradually diffused into social policy . These ideas travelled from the US and came to be known as the " New Public Management " framework that transformed state sectors all over the world. Dramatic moments of spending cuts - such as the 1991 " Mother of all Budgets " in New Zealand or Elon Musk's recent DOGE crusade in the US - stand out as major exercises in austerity. And fiscal responsibility is a firmly held conviction within mainstream political thinking. Nevertheless, government spending has become a major component of OECD economies. If we are to make sense of austerity in this world of permanent mass expenditure, we need a broader idea of what public spending is about. Budgets are classically thought to do three things. For economists, they are a tool of macroeconomic stabilisation: if growth goes down, "automatic stabilisers" inject public money into the economy to pick it back up. For social reformers, the budget is a means of progressively redistributing resources through tax and welfare systems. For accountants, the budget is a means of cost accountability: it holds a record of public spending and signals a society's future commitments. But budgeting as described here also fulfils a fourth function - managerial planning. Decades of reform have made a significant portion of the state budget a managerial instrument for the pursuit of policy objectives. From this perspective, underlying common austerity rhetoric about eliminating waste, or achieving value for money, is a deeper political struggle over who decides how that public money is used. To return to New Zealand's school lunch programme, any savings achieved should not distract from the more significant democratic question of who should plan school lunches - and public spending more broadly. Should it be the chief executives of corporatised public organisations and outsourced conglomerates managing to KPIs on nutritional values and price per meal, serving the directives of government ministers? Or should it be those cooking, serving and eating the lunches? * Ian Lovering is a lecturer in international relations, at Te Herenga Waka Victoria University of Wellington. This story was originally published on The Conversation .

Scoop

2 days ago

• Scoop

Economic Surprise Great News For Kiwis

Minister of Finance Today's surprise economic result is great news for workers, families and businesses, Finance Minister Nicola Willis said today. 'Stats NZ reported today that the economy grew 0.8 per cent in the first three months of the year, twice the rate forecast by the Treasury and the Reserve Bank a short time ago. 'This is the second consecutive quarter in which growth outstripped forecasters' assumptions and confirms the economy was gaining momentum late last year and at the start of this year. 'Since then, global conflict has increased and new tariffs have been introduced, but New Zealanders should take heart that the country is back on track after six years of economic mismanagement that fuelled inflation, discouraged investment and ratcheted up prices. 'I know many households and businesses are still doing it tough but the steps the Government has taken to stop wasteful spending, grow the economy and provide more support to households are paying dividends. So are the efforts of the private sector. 'It is also pleasing to see that Gross Domestic Product per person grew by 0.5 per in the quarter, the highest rate since September 2022 and the second consecutive quarter of growth after eight quarters of negative or no growth. 'Inflation is down, interest rates are down, and many families have a little more money in their pockets. 'That money is flowing through to business tills aided by the steps the Government has taken to reduce red tape, incentivise investment and boost tourism, and the export records being set by New Zealand farmers and growers,' Nicola Willis says.