Budget 2025: Govt looks to make promises add up
By Lilian Hanley of RNZ
"It feels like a kid robbing his mum to pay for his mates" says library assistant Alex Cass, as she prepares for the government to reveal Budget 2025.
New Zealanders will find out on Thursday just how much money will be cut from various services, as the government looks to make its promises add up.
Just how much is saved from the pay equity law changes - and where that money will be going instead - will also be revealed.
The Pay Equity Amendment Bill was passed on May 7 after being rushed through under urgency. The legislation means 33 equity claims involving hundreds of thousands of workers being negotiated will now have to restart the process under new criteria.
Cass was part of a pay equity claim scrapped due to the government's last-minute law change.
"It's unbelievably underhanded the way this process has been done. It was done lightning fast, with no chance for any of us to object. It's incredibly cruel, and it's a legacy of cruelty."
Cass felt the government was saying to those who are fighting for their work to be taken seriously, "you don't deserve better".
She would be on Parliament's lawn on Thursday afternoon to react to the Budget - money she said the government got from people who were "already massively underpaid".
But Finance Minister Nicola Willis said New Zealanders were "realistic" because the new scheme would still deliver a scheme protecting women against sex-based discrimination.
"Every single cent" reprioritised from money reallocated from those claims would go into "priorities for New Zealand", she claimed.
"I've had it with opposition politicians who keep promising they can 'do it all', that somehow they're gonna stick to the debt levels, they're not gonna have deficits but also they're not gonna make savings and they're gonna spend on everything - that doesn't add up.
"Our approach is different" she said.
"It's about prioritising your taxpayer money carefully and ensuring that we're actually nourishing the growth that ultimately delivers the jobs and living standards we all depend on."
For this Budget, the government's given itself only $1.3 billion of new money to use on day-to-day spending.
Already $2.5b is needed for yearly cost increases and more than $3b has been allocated in pre-budget announcements for health, defence, social investment, state abuse survivor redress and a screen production rebate.
"It's not a budget filled with rainbows and unicorns," Willis said, "It's a reality budget that will deliver genuine hope for the future."
She also called it a "no BS" budget - but would not specify what that stood for. Labour, Greens critical
Labour leader Chris Hipkins said "paying women properly" should not be described as "rainbows and unicorns".
"Making sure women who have been underpaid are paid what they're worth is something that a responsible government should prioritise - this government isn't."
Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick said it did look like a "BS" budget.
"The government has decided it is going to be cutting public services to the bone in order to pay for its landlord and tobacco tax cuts of the last budget."
Council of Trade Unions economist Craig Renney, who is also on the Labour Party's policy council, said the government did not have much to work with given it would not borrow more money.
"We're cutting government services at a time when we know there's increasing demand on those services. We have an increasingly elderly population. We have increasingly higher needs in terms of health and education."
Now is the time to invest in the economy and inject some confidence into the economy, he believed.
Despite the government saying it would not cut frontline services, Kiwis were finding it harder to access those frontline services, he said.
"It's not that there's a direct cut, but because these services aren't being properly funded for change, they're having to work harder and harder to deliver the same services with less real cash available to them."
In the Budget, he will be looking out for how the government has chosen to use the savings from stopping pay equity claims. He will also be looking at Treasury's estimates for what is happening to unemployment, wages and the cost of living.
"We've actually seen wages rising far less quickly than in the past, and we've seen two years of cuts to the minimum wage in real terms, and we've seen rising unemployment.
"If those trends continue, that will suggest that the medicine and the pain of economic change is really being borne by workers, in particular, low-paid workforces, rather than by others in the economy who might have broader shoulders."
He also will be looking to see if the government changes KiwiSaver settings, or begins means-testing for the winter energy payment or BestStart.
"If it tries to do all of those to balance the books, we'll be asking why is it that these workers are having to pay the price for the fact that the government hasn't been able to deliver its fiscal plan to date."
New Zealand Initiative chief economist Dr Eric Crampton said the government should focus on getting spending back down to pre-Covid levels.
He wanted to know where the government was planning on reducing expenditure to deal with its deficit.
"If it's simply tighter spending allowances over the next few years, you start wondering how credible it is as a path to get out of structural deficit.
"Pulling the government out of the provision of some services, or explicitly cutting the amount that's provided, would signal a more serious approach."
Crampton was interested to see Treasury's projections of future paths for government spending, and for productivity and GDP growth, as well as government spending priorities.
"I'm watching for the tweaks the government might make to align the budget with the economic growth agenda.
"There has been talk of changes in depreciation schedules to encourage private investment."
He also pointed to a coalition agreement promise between National and ACT to provide housing incentive payments to councils, asking if it would show up in the Budget "at least as a forecast for next year".
"The government would need to make fiscal room for it. But it is important if the government wants councils to welcome urban growth."
The Finance Minister has confirmed she will not be making any changes to superannuation.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
36 minutes ago
- Scoop
Labour Will Repeal Regulatory Standards Bill
Labour will repeal the Regulatory Standards Bill in its first 100 days in Government. 'The Regulatory Standards Bill has no place in a fair and democratic New Zealand and Labour is committed to repealing it in our first 100 days if elected next year,' Labour justice spokesperson Duncan Webb said. 'This Bill is another concession by Christopher Luxon to ACT that puts corporate interests ahead of the public good, making it harder to pass laws that protect people and the environment. 'Under the Regulatory Standards Bill, laws that would keep people healthy and safe, like requiring landlords to heat homes, limiting the sale of vapes, or keeping our air and water clean would be at risk. 'It allows David Seymour to create his own hand-picked 'appeals body of regulatory economists' to criticise laws that are out of line with his minority views. 'Put another way, it takes power away from communities and hands it to corporate friends of the ACT Party. 'Christopher Luxon was too weak to stand up against it, but Labour will repeal it,' Duncan Webb said.
Scoop
3 hours 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
3 hours 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.
