No more fiscal cliffs
Nicola Willis announced:
The Government is amending the Public Finance Act to prevent future governments concealing the extent of fiscal risks in government accounts, Finance Minister Nicola Willis says.
The change is included in legislation introduced to Parliament on Saturday evening to enhance the transparency and accountability of the public finance system.
'The Public Finance Act requires that fiscal forecasts, which are prepared by the Treasury, include a statement of specific fiscal risks.
'But, when I became Finance Minister I was alerted to a number of risks that were not clear in the statements I had read previously.
'I found that the statement of fiscal risks could be somewhat opaque. That did not support public understanding of risks that have the potential to impact the government's books or the provision of public services.
'Since then, the Treasury has done a good job of categorising and transparently describing fiscal risks. This includes explicitly identifying time-limited funding and capital cost escalations.
'The Public Finance Amendment Bill makes such categorisation a requirement.'
This is a good move. The fiscal risks should be as explicit as possible, so that we know if a projected surplus is genuine or realistic.
The bill also dispenses with the requirement for governments to articulate the wellbeing objectives that guide Budget decisions and for the Treasury to produce a Wellbeing Report every four years.
'The previous government thought it was the first government ever to consider the wellbeing of its citizens. And that it was the first government to realise that people's wellbeing was the ultimate purpose of the Budget.
'That is not the case. The purpose of building a stronger economy and delivering better public services is to improve the long-term social, economic, environmental and cultural wellbeing of people
Labour's so called unique focus on wellbeing was a PR con. Every budget is about wellbeing. Every dollar spent on the health and education systems is about increasing people's wellbeing. This wasn't just invented in 2019.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
an hour ago
- RNZ News
Watch live: Nearly 200 people apply for 'golden visas' in 3 months
File photo: Nicola Willis and Erica Stanford. Photo: RNZ / Reece Baker Nearly 200 applications have been received for the so-called 'golden visa' since changes were made to liberalise access. The government made changes in April to make it easier for wealthy foreigners to gain New Zealand residency through investment. Since then, Immigration New Zealand has received 189 applications for the visa. Economic growth minister Nicola Willis said that was significantly more than the 116 appliciations received over more than two and a half years under the previous settings. "Investor migrants are clearly attracted to New Zealand's growing reputation as a safe, pro-business, high-potential economy. In a world where countries compete for dollars and talent, it's great to see New Zealand's growth prospects being recognised," she said. The changes introduced a two-pronged approach to the visa, and liberalised what could be invested in. The Growth category requires a minimum investment of $5m over three years, into higher-risk investments including managed funds and direct investments in New Zealand businesses. The Balanced category requires a minimum investment of $10m over five years, with investors being allowed to choose lower-risk investments. Under the previous settings, $15m was required for a visa, with bonds and property investments not allowed. As at June 23rd, 100 applications have been approved in principal. Of those, seven have transferred and invested their funds in New Zealand and had been granted a visa. Five of those were invested in the Growth category, and two in the Balanced. The government said that was a total minimum investment of $45m. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Scoop
an hour ago
- Scoop
Flood Of Interest To Invest In New Zealand
Minister for Economic Growth Hon Erica Stanford Minister of Immigration The Government is attracting new migrants to bring their capital, experience and skills to New Zealand with a flood of formal interest in the new 'golden' visa. Since only April – less than three months – Immigration New Zealand (INZ) has received 189 applications for the Active Investor Plus visa, significantly more than the 116 applications received over more than two-and-a-half years under previous settings, Economic Growth Minister Nicola Willis says. 'New applications under the scheme represent a potential $845 million of new investment in New Zealand business.' "Attracting investment to New Zealand is crucial to the country's economic growth. It means Kiwi businesses can expand, hire and grow – and that means more opportunities for New Zealanders. 'Investor migrants are clearly attracted to New Zealand's growing reputation as a safe, pro-business, high-potential economy. In a world where countries compete for dollars and talent, it's great to see New Zealand's growth prospects being recognised.' 'New investors don't just bring their dollars to our shores, they also bring skills, knowledge and experience that will drive future economic development. It's a win-win.' Immigration Minister Erica Stanford says the interest shows investors hear the call loud and clear: New Zealand is open for business. 'We welcome your capital, your knowledge, and your contribution to New Zealand's economic growth,' Ms Stanford says. 'We're seeing strong momentum from global investors, particularly across Asia and North America. This reflects our growing reputation as a stable, forward-looking destination for investment and innovation. 'These are smart, flexible and nuanced immigration solutions to help stimulate economic growth.' On April 1 the Government changed the Active Investor Plus visa to a simple two-pronged system: the Growth category and the Balanced category. Other changes included expanding the scope of acceptable investments and removing potential barriers to investment, such as the English language requirement. As at 23 June, 100 applications had been approved in principle, and of those, seven had transferred and invested their funds in New Zealand and had been granted a resident visa. Five of those were invested in the Growth category and two under the Balanced category, totalling a total minimum investment of $45 million. The Growth category for this Visa focuses on higher-risk investments, including managed funds and direct investments in New Zealand businesses. It will require a minimum investment of NZD $5 million for a minimum period of 3 years. The Balance category focuses on mixed investments, with the ability to choose ones that are lower risk. There will be a minimum investment of NZD $10 million over 5 years.
Newsroom
an hour ago
- Newsroom
Anne Salmond: Victim of the Day
Over the past week, something remarkable has happened. The Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand has fronted an online campaign of harassment of scholars who have shared their views about his Regulatory Standards Bill, naming each of them as a 'Victim of the Day.' Each scholar has been accused of 'Regulatory Standards Derangement Syndrome,' a description borrowed from Donald Trump's followers, who accuse his critics of 'Trump Derangement Syndrome.' The portraits of each scholar are placed on David Seymour's Facebook page under this banner, and labelled 'Victim of the Day,' with online responses invited. The use of the term 'Victim of the Day' is, at best, careless. In the United States at present, political violence is escalating, with senators and their families being physically assaulted, even shot and killed. This has been associated with online incitements against individuals. No one in New Zealand, least of all the Deputy Prime Minister, can be unaware of these developments. In the United States, too, direct attacks by the Trump administration on universities, university scholars and their students have escalated from attacks on individual academics to attempts to take direct political control of what is taught on university campuses, by whom, and to whom, backed by the deployment of armed force including police and ICE agents. When universities such as Harvard have resisted these attempts, they have been punished by defunding their research and threats by the Trump administration to their right to admit international students. These and other attacks are happening to universities and other scientific institutions across the United States. At a time like this, it is extraordinary that a Deputy Prime Minister here should initiate an online campaign of intimidation against university scholars, using Trumpian rhetoric and tactics to harass them for exercising their academic freedom. In the United States, as in New Zealand, the independence of universities and academic freedom are designed as checks and balances on executive power, with the rule of law and the freedom of the press. All of these freedoms are being assailed in the United States at present. In New Zealand, the concept of academic freedom is specifically enshrined in legislation. Section 161 of the Education Amendment Act 1990 states: '161 Academic Freedom 1. It is declared to be the intention of Parliament in enacting the provisions of this Act relating to institutions that academic freedom and the autonomy of institutions are to be preserved and enhanced.' This requires that academics are free to offer commentaries within their fields of expertise without direct intimidation and harassment by politicians. The Act goes on to state: '2. For the purposes of this section, academic freedom, in relation to an institution, means – a. the freedom of academic staff and students, within the law, to question and test received wisdom, to put forward new ideas and to state controversial or unpopular opinions.' Without this kind of freedom, new ideas and discoveries are unlikely to emerge. In academic inquiry, they must be rigorously tested against the evidence, including robust exchanges and peer review. For this to work well, the debate has to be reasoned and civil. Academic freedom is a very old doctrine, designed to protect universities from those who seek to control research and teaching to advance particular political agendas, as in the United States at present. Such ambitions are typical of totalitarian, autocratic regimes, with the USSR and South Africa under apartheid as previous examples. This can come from any political direction. In New Zealand, for instance, the Education Act 1989 was drafted in response to an attempt by the Fourth Labour Government to take control over 'what was taught, by whom and to whom' in New Zealand universities. That effort was vigorously resisted, and as a result the Education Act was passed and enshrined academic freedom in our legislation, along with a section that requires universities to 'act as critic and conscience of society.' That, I think, is exactly what the 'Victims of the Day' were doing when they were attacked by the Deputy Prime Minister. From an array of different disciplinary perspectives, they were analysing and discussing the Regulatory Standards Bill as contributions to public debate. In many ways, the campaign launched and fronted by the Deputy Prime Minister is lame, even laughable. At the same time, it is an abuse of high office. For the Deputy Prime Minister of this country to deploy Trumpian rhetoric to single out individual scholars as 'Victims of the Day' is deplorable, given the requirements of the Education Act. It is also troubling, given its direct links with the political assault on universities that is happening in the United States. Worse still, this is a senior politician who has vigorously argued for freedom of speech in universities. Above all, every New Zealand citizen has the right to speak their minds about matters such as the Regulatory Standards Bill without being personally intimidated by politicians. If scholars whose academic freedom is legally protected under the Education Act can be singled out in this way, the freedom of speech of all New Zealanders is at risk. In New Zealand, the Cabinet manual requires ministers to 'behave in a way that upholds, and is seen to uphold, the highest ethical and behavioural standards. This includes exercising a professional approach and good judgement in their interactions with the public, staff, and officials, and in all their communications, personal and professional.' This 'Victim of the Day' campaign does not match this description. It is unethical, unprofessional and potentially dangerous to those targeted. Debate is fine, online incitements are not. Ultimately, all ministers are accountable to the Prime Minister for their behaviour. As one of David Seymour's 'Victims of the Day,' I ask that Christopher Luxon upholds the Cabinet manual, and requires the Deputy Prime Minister to withdraw and apologise to those he has targeted and harmed in this despicable campaign. I am formally lodging a complaint with the Cabinet Office, and look forward to its response.
