Greenwashed Capitalism: The Limits Of The Green Party's 2025Budget
Press Release – Aotearoa Workers Solidarity Movement
For anarcho-communists, the Green Budget raises fundamental questions about the limitations of parliamentary politics, the persistence of capitalist logics under a green veneer, and the ongoing domestication of radical political potential by electoral parties.
The Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand recently released its alternative 2025 budget, a document that has been lauded by many on the liberal-left as bold, transformative, and progressive. With proposals including a wealth tax, inheritance tax, tax-free income brackets, and significant investments in healthcare, education, and climate infrastructure, the Greens have positioned themselves as the party of redistribution, sustainability, and social welfare.
But for anarcho-communists—who seek not the reform of capitalism but its abolition—the Green Budget raises fundamental questions about the limitations of parliamentary politics, the persistence of capitalist logics under a green veneer, and the ongoing domestication of radical political potential by electoral parties.
1. Taxing the Rich… to Save the System?
At the centre of the Green Budget is a new suite of taxes aimed at the wealthy: a 2.5% annual tax on net assets over $2 million (or $4 million for couples), a 33% inheritance and gift tax above a lifetime threshold of $1 million, and higher income and corporate tax rates. The goal? To raise $88.8 billion over four years to fund a sweeping expansion of the welfare state.
On the surface, these are popular policies. The idea that the ultra-wealthy should pay more in a country where inequality has surged is appealing, particularly in the face of deepening poverty, a housing crisis, and crumbling public services. But the deeper problem is that these taxes still operate within a system where private property is sacred, wage labour is the norm, and wealth remains the measure of human worth.
We must ask: what does it mean to tax wealth while leaving the class structure that generates it untouched? A 2.5% wealth tax may redistribute a small fraction of what has been expropriated from workers, but it does not question the legitimacy of wealth accumulation itself. Nor does it challenge the capitalist state's role in protecting the material interests of capital. At best, this is a policy of redistribution without expropriation—reform without rupture.
The Green Budget also avoids confronting the role of landlords, speculators, and banks in the everyday extraction of value from working people. These sectors—central to New Zealand's financialised economy—remain largely untouched. In fact, by depending on ongoing economic growth to fund welfare spending, the Greens reaffirm capitalism's central contradiction: the need for endless accumulation on a finite planet.
2. Free GP Visits and Childcare: Welfare or Pacification?
There is no doubt that the budget's investments in health, education, and social security would materially improve people's lives. Free GP visits, restored free prescriptions, 20 hours of early childhood education from six months of age, and an income guarantee of $395 per week for people not in work or study all represent real steps toward a more liveable and humane society.
But these reforms are not revolutionary—they are the minimum that a wealthy settler-colony like Aotearoa should provide. In fact, many of these proposals simply aim to restore the social-democratic protections dismantled over the past 40 years of neoliberalism. Their return is welcome, but their framing as 'bold' or 'transformative' risks reinforcing the extremely low bar of contemporary political expectations.
Anarchists must remain critical of how welfare states have historically functioned—not just to alleviate poverty, but to regulate it. Welfare has often served as a tool for disciplining the poor, pacifying dissent, and reproducing the labour force. Under capitalism, social services are not universal rights but contingent privileges tied to state surveillance, bureaucratic eligibility, and productivity metrics. Unless radically democratised and decommodified, the welfare expansions promised in the Green Budget risk becoming mechanisms of pacification rather than liberation.
3. Climate Capitalism and the Green Growth Illusion
The Greens' environmental agenda includes reinvesting in regional rail, light rail in major cities, restoring the 'Jobs for Nature' programme, and modifying the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) to exclude forestry and include agriculture. These policies reflect a sincere desire to address the climate crisis—but again, they remain tethered to the ideology of green capitalism.
At no point does the Green Budget challenge the root cause of climate breakdown: capitalism's demand for infinite growth and profit maximisation. By framing climate solutions in terms of market mechanisms, investment incentives, and infrastructure expansion, the Greens reinforce a logic that treats the earth not as a commons to be stewarded collectively, but as a resource to be managed for long-term economic stability.
From an anarcho-communist standpoint, the ecological crisis is not a failure of policy but a structural inevitability of capitalist production. True climate justice requires not technocratic tweaks or eco-Keynesian investment, but the abolition of fossil capitalism, the end of private property, and the restoration of collective autonomy over land, water, and food systems.
4. Electoralism and the Politics of Containment
The 2025 Green Budget must be understood not only as a fiscal plan but as a political performance. It serves to position the Greens as the moral conscience of Parliament—more compassionate than Labour, more competent than Te Pāti Māori, and more visionary than the reactionary coalition of National, ACT, and NZ First. But this role is not a threat to the system; it is its left flank.
Anarchists have long critiqued the trap of electoralism: the idea that meaningful change can be achieved through participation in bourgeois parliamentary democracy. The history of social democracy across the world shows how radical energy is often captured, defanged, and institutionalised by parties that promise transformation but deliver only management.
The Green Budget is a textbook example. By presenting itself as a 'realistic' and 'fully costed' alternative, the Greens reassure capital that they are responsible stewards of the system. They propose tweaks, not rupture; fairness, not freedom. And while their policies are frequently attacked by the right as 'Marxist' or 'radical,' they are nothing of the sort. No factories will be collectivised. No land will be returned. No bosses will be expropriated. The social order remains intact.
5. What Could Real Transformation Look Like?
If the Green Budget reflects the ceiling of what parliamentary politics can offer, anarcho-communists must look to the horizon. What would a truly radical reorganisation of society look like in Aotearoa?
Abolish Capitalism: End the wage system, dismantle corporate control, and collectivise the means of production under workers' democratic control.
Decolonise Now: Return land to tangata whenua, honour tino rangatiratanga, and dismantle the structures of settler colonialism embedded in the state, legal system, and economy.
Destroy the State: Replace top-down bureaucracies with federated, decentralised, directly democratic assemblies rooted in communities, workplaces, and marae.
Care as Commons: Decommodify health, education, and housing—not as state services but as commons managed collectively by the people who use them.
Ecological Reparation: End fossil fuel extraction, industrial monoculture, and car dependence. Rewild land, support indigenous ecological knowledge, and build resilient, low-carbon communities based on care, reciprocity, and sufficiency.
These are not budget lines or policy planks. They are revolutionary transformations that can only be achieved through mass collective action, direct democracy, and the dismantling of both state and capital.
Conclusion: The Budget Is Not Enough
The Green Party's 2025 Budget is a mirror to the contradictions of our time. It offers real improvements for people suffering under the current regime, and it rightly identifies the obscene concentration of wealth in Aotearoa. But it cannot and does not challenge the foundations of that regime. It is a programme for managing inequality, not abolishing it; for greening capitalism, not ending it.
Anarcho-communists must resist the temptation to see the budget as a stepping stone toward revolution. History teaches us that reform is not a ladder to liberation but a cul-de-sac that saps energy and neutralises dissent. The task before us is not to vote smarter or lobby harder—it is to build dual power, organise in our workplaces and communities, and dismantle the systems of domination that no budget can fix.
The future we need cannot be budgeted for. It must be seized.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
a day ago
- Scoop
Defence Heads Face Scrutiny Week Hearing, Promise To Be Fiscally Responsible
Defence heads have assured politicians their huge new budget takes into account soldiers actually having to fire their weapons. They fronted up to an even-tempered scrutiny week hearing with MPs at Parliament on Thursday afternoon. Greens MP Lawrence Xu-Nan asked whether the budget boost of $9 billion new spending over four years allowed for buying the likes of replacement Javelin missiles, which cost $400,000 each. Defence secretary Brook Barrington responded that the increased budget meant troops could now move past the approach from the last 50 years of being only partly equipped. "The defence force is actually being provided with funding to ensure that, if we upgrade the capabilty, we are also able to shoot things with it," he said. Along with defence force Chief Air Marshal Tony Davies, Barrington laid out a raft of measures they said would enable them to buy weapons and other systems faster and smarter. "The demand queue is growing," Barrington said. "The longer it takes us to lodge an order, someone else has got their place in the queue before us and some of this stuff takes three years. "You know, you lose your place in the queue... and you're losing time." They felt a sense of urgency, but also had to ensure quality thresholds were set, so that in 3-4 years he was not up before MPs again being told, "We knew we couldn't trust you folk to bloody get your way out of a paper bag", he said. "We've got to find a sweet spot between rigour, confidence and pace." He added defence had already met with 280 people from 174 companies, both last month and this month, and that an industry strategy would be put out soon. They would be fiscally responsible with the billions of taxpayer money, Davies said. To accelerate, they would drop the old approach of trying to get 30 years of life from gear and retreading it, and instead, look at getting a "minimum viable product" quickly out to the field, he said. "Simple... quick... lean." On the personnel front, they had to rebuild forces, he said. The budget and plan had "buoyed" personnel, but their thinned-back ranks still constrained how much notice they needed to deploy, how long they could deploy for and whether they could mount multiple operations. Personnel turnover had fallen to less than seven percent, but vacancy rates in February were about 30 percent, an Official Information Act request (OIA) showed. The army was short 1500 people, Air Force 660 and navy 630. Defence was "over-training" people to hit 100 percent, when it did not need to, so was reviewing how to speed training up, Davies said. The 15-year plan was to add 20 percent to combat forces - or 2500 people - and the only way to do that currently was to cut civilian jobs down, he said. "At the moment, we've got ships tied up that can't go to sea, because we haven't got the sailors. We've got people that are going on their fifth deployment overseas, because we don't have the number of soldiers. "We've got Joint Force headquarters out at Trentham with watchfloors that can't be filled, because we haven't got the uniformed people with those skills. "We need those. The money is tight, still, even with uplifts." An OIA response showed that, in March, a hefty 313 positions were vacant at Joint Defence Services, far more than in other sections. Defence Minister Judith Collins said the point was to be able to defend against anybody who "threatened our people, or our assets". "Our people are not going to have to wave a white flag anymore. They are going to be able to get out there and protect themselves." She said she had told "prime" multinational defence contractors their best bet for getting a share of the business was to involve New Zealand firms. The small firms would not be written "out of the equation", Barrington said. He added the business cases for two very large projects - replacing the 757s and the maritime helicopters - were well advanced. Other business cases would be made short and sharp. The fleet renewal planning was by far the biggest job, but the budget gave the ministry a couple of million dollars extra for teams to do that. "What happens in two years, if the world situation's got worse and we need to step it up again?" Davies said. "How are we going to accelerate our capability acquisition process. It might be that we need to double our efforts there, so we are constantly looking at ways to fine tune it." The budget set aside $155m over four years for new military allowances for deployments and hundreds of millions for more operations.
RNZ News
3 days ago
- RNZ News
Opposition slams Kāinga Ora decision to scrap public housing builds
Labour's Kieran McAnulty said cancelling the builds made no sense, with homelessness rising. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone Labour housing spokesperson Kieran McAnulty has condemned the government's decision to halt thousands of planned state-housing builds. State housing provider Kāinga Ora has scrapped hundreds of developments that would have delivered nearly 3500 homes and will sell a fifth of its vacant land. The agency says the move will save up to $220 million. McAnulty said it made no sense to cancel these builds, while homelessness was rising. He said the housing crisis in New Zealand continued to worsen and this was a time the government should build more Kāinga Ora homes. "Homelessness is increasing at unprecedented levels and 15,000 construction worker have lost their jobs since this government came in," said McAnulty. "People will see this for exactly what it is - the National Party willing to promise all sorts to get elected, with no intention of following up. "Nicola Willis pledged a 1000 per year net increase in social housing in Auckland, but they're not going to do that. The only way they do that is if they count the houses the previous government funded. "Chris Bishop and Tama Potaka said they would build more houses than the previous Labour government - that would have been a decades-long record. Now they're selling houses and going backwards in some regions." Green Party housing spokesperson Tabitha Paul claimed the cost of not housing people was far higher than providing the housing they needed. "We know the wait list for public housing across the country is really high and homelessness is increase, because we're seeing it more on our streets," she said. "Kāinga Ora taking the narrow view that this might save them a few dollars will cost them more in their health fees, their justice fees and all the other ways the housing crisis manifests, when people are not properly housed." Housing Minister Chris Bishop ordered Kāinga Ora to deliver a turnaround plan that would ensure financial sustainability. The agency's plan will see it refocus as a landlord, rather than a developer, and the number of houses it owned would stabilise from 2026. Chief executive Matt Crockett said Kāinga Ora reviewed more than 460 social housing projects to ensure it was getting the best value for money and supplying houses in the areas of greatest need. "These reviews were essential to ensuring we only progress new housing projects that make commercial sense and that we sell land which is surplus to our requirements, so we can get on a more financially sustainable footing,'' he said. "Our reviews have highlighted an abnormally high number of projects and land holdings that no longer make sense for Kāinga Ora, if we want to get ourselves in a better financial position." The agency decided 212 projects that would have delivered 3479 homes would not proceed, because they did not stack up financially or were in the wrong locations. Another 254 projects would continue, building more than 1800 new homes. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Scoop
3 days ago
- Scoop
Labour Moves Ahead Of National On Controlling Cost Of Living, Ipsos Poll Finds
Labour has overtaken National as the party New Zealanders consider most able to handle the cost of living, according to the latest Ipsos Issues Monitor survey. The topic has remained the top concern for New Zealanders since February 2022, and has now gone up five points since the last survey in February 2024 - bucking a steady downward trend. Labour overtaking National on ability to handle the issue for the first time since October 2021 - climbing 4 percentage points to 32 percent, compared to National's 1-point drop to 31 - will be a worry for Prime Minister Christopher Luxon who made it a key election issue in 2023. Labour also remains New Zealanders' top pick on the number 2 issue healthcare - rising 4 points to 40 percent to National's 24, up 1 point - with the issue also increasingly a concern, hitting another new record at 43 percent. National is still on top when it comes to the economy at 35 percent but that's a 1-point drop from February, Labour closing the gap by the same amount, rising to 30 percent. Concern about the economy lifted 2 points to 32 percent. Housing and law and order are the fourth-equal concern at 25 percent, with worry about housing dropping 2 points and law and order holding steady. Labour gained three points to 32 percent on housing while National stayed steady at 27 percent, and Labour gained 4 points to 26 percent on law and order with National still in the lead but dropping two points to 34 percent. Labour has also overtaken National on petrol prices and taxation, meaning it's now considered the party most able to handle all the 6th to 20th-ranked issues other than climate change (Greens), pollution and water (Greens), Issues facing Māori (Te Pāti Māori) and Defence/Foreign Affairs (National). Ratings of the coalition's performance rose slightly from the last survey's record low of 4.2 out of 10, to 4.3. The Ipsos New Zealand survey was carried out between 23 to 30 May and asked 1002 New Zealanders what they thought were the top three most important issues facing the country today. The poll is conducted through online panels, and has a margin of error of +/- 3.5 percentage points. It had no external sponsors or partners, is initiated and run by Ipsos "because we think it is important for businesses and organisations to understand the challenges that New Zealanders face in the context of their everyday lives". Results were weighted by age, gender and region to reflect the wider New Zealand population. Some results may sum to 100 percent and others may show a difference higher or lower than the actual due to rounding, multiple responses, or the exclusion of "don't know" or "not stated" responses.
