Budget Day 2025: What You Need To Know
Article – RNZ
Explainer – Budget Day is coming on Thursday, but what does it all mean? RNZ is here to tell you what you need to know. Nik Dirga, Digital Explainer Editor
Explainer – Spoiler warning: If you're not a numbers person, this might not be your week.
Thursday is Budget Day, the biggest day of the year for the government, economists and journalists as Finance Minister Nicola Willis announces how much the National-led coalition will spend, where it will go and how.
What is the Budget?
Simply put, it's when the government lays out how it plans to spend money in the coming financial year, and where that money will come from.
Every May, typically on a Thursday, the minister of finance delivers the Budget in a speech in the House. Parliament will then go on to debate the details.
The government is required to present its Budget to Parliament by 31 July each year.
Budget Day isn't a done-in-one – the process behind it all carries on throughout the year, in a never-ending cycle from one Budget to the next. Select committees will scrutinise the spending plans and eventually pass the Budget presented on Budget Day.
In the 2025 Budget Policy Statement released in December that kicked off this year's cycle, Willis said the government's goals were a stronger, more productive economy, more efficient and effective public services and to 'get the government's books back in order and restore discipline to public spending'.
Read more:
So what actually happens on Budget Day?
There are a lot of elaborate rituals to Budget Day, which is equal parts practical and political spectacle.
Finance ministers often have their own quirks that turn into traditions – Sir Bill English was known to enjoy a pie at the start of Budget Day during the John Key years and Labour's Grant Robertson tucked into a cheese roll or two. Last year, Nicola Willis' children made cookies for their mum and the prime minister. This year's treats menu remains under lock and key.
On Budget Day
10.30am – Media and other interested parties will go into lockup at the Beehive – no phones, no internet – and get a first look at the Budget. A pile of documents will be released to them under a strict embargo. The finance minister will also give a presentation to journalists during lockup and journalists will dash to complete first takes on the highlights. If you break that embargo, you're in big trouble, as the Wall Street Journal found out in 2022.
2pm – The Budget embargo lifts, and here on RNZ and everywhere else you'll suddenly see a flood of Budget information. We'll be here to live blog coverage throughout the day.
This video produced by Parliament goes through what happens on Budget Day:
In Parliament, after Willis gives a presentation, the prime minister and other political parties will all weigh in as debate begins on the Budget.
Expect kudos and criticism in equal measures, followed by a lengthy period of hot takes and analysis that will continue for days to come.
Why is it such a big deal?
Roads? Hospitals? Schools? Resources we all use every day fall under the Budget.
Willis has called this year 'The Growth Budget', in line with the government's long-term goals to return to a surplus by 2029 at the latest.
We already know quite a lot about what the Budget will include.
'If you've been paying attention to the build-up to the Budget you probably won't learn anything new on Thursday,' University of Auckland emeritus professor of economics Timothy Hazledine said.
'Perhaps wealthier citizens will be interested in whether the minister announces means-testing of KiwiSaver and best-start transfer payments. And wealthy foreigners may be hoping for relaxation of rules limiting their high-end property purchases in Aotearoa NZ.'
So what are the key things to look for Thursday?
Less spending and a big focus on that 'growth' word.
Willis said in April that the government is halving its operating allowance from $2.4 billion to $1.3b. That means less money for additional funding for government departments this year.
In a recent pre-Budget speech to BusinessNZ, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon also signalled restraint:
'The minister of finance was right last week to say Budget 2025 won't be a lolly scramble. It's not that we can't afford it, although frankly we can't.'
Luxon has said the government needs to stay disciplined and focus on – there's that word again! – growth. And of course, there's also a lot of uncertainty in the global economy right now due to US President Donald Trump's trade wars and tariffs.
Luxon has already announced an increase to the capital expenditure – new money set aside in the Budget to maintain or upgrade assets. That money, which would be split mostly across health, education, defence, and transport, will total $6.8 billion.
One of the biggest pre-Budget controversies this year has been the government making changes to pay equity claims under urgency.
'The big bad news for many people (especially women) is the 'reprioritisation' of billions of dollars from pay equity spending,' Hazledine said, noting that at the same time defence spending was going to get a big boost.
Another key thing to look out for are hinted changes to KiwiSaver, which may include means-testing the government's contribution to the retirement fund.
Hazledine said that despite challenging conditions, New Zealand is doing 'quite well' in the global economy.
'Prices for our major commodity export (dairy products) are high (and so therefore we are paying more locally for milk and butter, alas), and our major service export, tourism, seems to be recovering from the Covid slump.
'The minister will be trying to keep a lid on borrowing whilst not threatening chances of a good economic recovery – a delicate balancing act.'
Does the Budget really make a difference?
New Zealand Budgets have helped make or break a government.
The late Michael Cullen, finance minister from 1999 to 2008, famously liked to say that 'budgets don't win elections, (but) they can lose them'.
In 1938, Prime Minister Michael Joseph Savage's Labour government introduced the Social Security Act with policies that were intended to provide 'from the cradle to the grave,' and shaped New Zealand society for decades to come.
In 1958, the Labour government released what became known as the 'Black Budget', where Finance Minister Arnold Nordmeyer attempted to reduce demand for overseas goods through imposing additional taxes on cars, alcohol and tobacco. It didn't go down well and Labour lost the 1960 election after just a single term in office.
And in 1991, the National government's 'Mother of all Budgets' released by Ruth Richardson heralded sweeping welfare reforms and privatisation. The National government went on to barely win the 1993 election in one of our closest contests.
While in 2019, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern's 'Wellbeing Budget' introduced $1.9 billion in mental health funding – but as RNZ has reported, questions remain about the impact that funding had.
Willis aims to make the 'Growth Budget' of 2025 a key part of the government's legacy. On Thursday, we'll all start to find out how successful it will be.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
2 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Nearly 200 apply for 'golden visa' in three months
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. The new applications represented a potential $845m of new investment. Immigration minister Erica Stanford said she would have been happy with 200 applications in the first year. "As of this week we're almost at 190 after 10 weeks, and I think that shows you the level of interest from overseas, in lots of different markets we haven't seen before," she said. The strongest interest in the visa had come from the United States, China, Hong Kong, and Germany. Investors have six months to transfer their funds and start investing in New Zealand. Willis said the visa complemented the Investment Boost policy announced at the Budget, which allows businesses to deduct 20 percent of the cost of a new asset, on top of depreciation. "The Active Investor Plus delivers the capital. Investment Boost delivers the confidence to put that capital to work, and to ensure that people are making investments that will pay off in the long run."
Newsroom
6 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.
Newsroom
6 hours ago
- Newsroom
Middle East military action ‘extremely worrying', but no call yet on bombing
This story first appeared on RNZ and is republished with permission The foreign affairs minister says the Government will gather facts before taking a position on the United States' airstrikes on Iran. The US attacked three Iranian nuclear sites over the weekend, with President Donald Trump saying the country's key nuclear enrichment facilities have been 'completely and totally obliterated.' Trump said Iran 'must now make peace' or there would be further attacks. In response, Iran has accused the US of launching 'a dangerous war,' and of violating the United Nations Charter and international law. But on Sunday afternoon, shortly after the attack was launched, Foreign Affairs Ministers Winston Peters said the New Zealand government was waiting for the facts. 'Look, this has just happened. These are circumstances in which we will first of all gather the facts, and the circumstances, before we give our opinion.' Peters said the crisis was 'extremely worrying' and New Zealand would continue to call for diplomacy and dialogue. 'Ongoing military action in the Middle East is extremely worrying, and it's critical further escalation is avoided. We strongly support efforts towards diplomacy and urge all parties to return to talks,' he said. 'Iran's nuclear activities have long worried New Zealand. We want Iran to comply with its international obligations. Our concern is that further military action is not going to deliver a sustainable solution to this problem. 'We're a long way from the region, but New Zealand will continue to convey these measures in favour of diplomacy and dialogue directly to Iran, Israel, and the other parties involved in possible talks.' Labour's defence spokesperson Peeni Henare backed Peters' calls for a return to talks, but said the government should acknowledge the US breached international law and be 'perhaps a bit stronger' in the first instance. Henare said Trump's statements had made it 'quite clear' what had happened. 'Countries can't call for peace and de-escalation, only to take the action that's been taken.' Waikato University law professor Alexander Gillespie said the airstrikes were 'clearly' illegal in terms of international law. 'There's nowhere in the UN charter that says you can bomb someone who won't negotiate with you. But whether you get to a point where that is actually condemned is going to be very different,' he said. 'There's the theory of international law, with the UN Charter, and then there's the reality of international politics at the moment, which means that America will not be condemned internationally by the Security Council or even through the International Court of Justice.' The Prime Minister is heading to NATO this week. New Zealand is not a member, but in recent years has been invited as a partner along with fellow Indo-Pacific Four nations Australia, Japan and South Korea. While Christopher Luxon would be 'on the margins,' Gillespie expected he would be watching closely to see what like-minded partners were saying. 'This is an act which is not self-defence, and even if you argued it was pre-emptive self-defence, it wasn't necessary because there were other options of diplomacy still open. It will create difficulties if we speak out and say that, I don't think we're in a position to do that right now, for fear of the reaction that you get from America.' Australia's government has already issued a statement on the airstrikes. 'We have been clear that Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile program has been a threat to international peace and security,' the statement said. 'We note the US president's statement that now is the time for peace. The security situation in the region is highly volatile. We continue to call for de-escalation, dialogue, and diplomacy.' Defence Force plane leaves today The Government is sending a C-130J Hercules plane to the Middle East, with Defence Force and Foreign Affairs personnel, to assist New Zealanders stranded in Iran and Israel. Defence minister Judith Collins said the plane was a contingency, and would not be able to aid in evacuation flights until airspace restrictions in the region eased. In the meantime, those who were able to leave via a safe route were urged to do so. Peters said the flights would get people to a safe place. 'We're not bringing them home. We're getting them to where they can make arrangements to get home.' The Government has been warning New Zealanders in the region to leave for a long time, Peters said. The number of New Zealanders registered as being in Iran or Israel had increased in recent days. The decision to send the Hercules was made even before knowledge of the airstrikes had come through. 'Our anxiety was enunciated and formulated into policy, warnings, and collections of views months ago. We've been saying it, and it's a sad circumstance here, but we said 'look this is very dangerous, get out,'' Peters said. Citing security reasons, Collins would not say where the plane and personnel would be based. Both Henare and Gillespie supported the move. 'I think if we're ready and on standby, at the very least, to make sure we can respond to our citizens and their needs, and also those of our diplomatic staff, I think that's a really smart move,' Henare said. Gillespie said sending a plane was prudent in case the situation worsened quickly, and the damage became more indiscriminate.
