$600 Billion In Assets, $200 Billion In Debt, $0 In Sense

The Haps
It's event season with ACT holding three notable ones in the next two months. This Friday's Pink Ribbon Breakfast (raising money for the Breast Cancer Foundation) is nearly sold out. This Sunday June 1 the Party is holding a thank you to supporters who've helped its leader come from political outsider to Deputy Prime Minister (just over three-quarters sold), and the party's 2025 Rally will be held on July 13 and sales have just opened. If you enjoy Free Press, please step right up and show your support in person at these events.
Debate of the Decade
Altogether the Budget was best summed up by Damien Grant as 'minding the welfare state.' The last Government spent a fortune but most results got worse. Some like ACT would rather cut the spending back, but the Government is a coalition.
Instead the Government is holding its spending almost flat, and looking to manage population and inflation pressures by getting more efficiency. The Budget had $1.3 billion of extra spending, less than a one per cent increase. It managed $6.2 billion dollars of new capital spending by saving $4.9 billion elsewhere. In other words the Government has started doing what everyone else has to, saving somewhere else when it wants to pay for something new.
A lot of this spending has ACT's fingerprints on it. Far more on defence, we will reach 2 per cent of GDP about as fast as any military can grow. Far more on prison space, locking up the worst offenders is the best money taxpayers will ever spend. There is also more for health and education, which have been stretched.
So where's the debate of the decade in all this? Interest on debt is now a major expense in its own right, at $9 billion. Interest costs more than Police and Prisons combined, or about as much as Primary, Intermediate, and Secondary schooling.
That's because the debt is nearly $200 billion, and welfare is over $50 billion a year. Nearly half of that is pensions, which rise by a billion and a half each year as more people retire and live longer. Put it another way: $50 billion is nearly $10,000 per person. If you're in a family of four that is not getting $40,000 of taxpayer cash a year, you are below average.
Health is up $13 billion in seven years, but results seem worse. We could go on, but the point is the Government is currently borrowing $14.7 billion a year, and its plan to borrow only $3 billion in four years' time depends on nothing going wrong for four years. What we're doing is not sustainable.
The options are either:
Tax more, such as the Greens' and Labour's wealth or capital gains tax
Just keep borrowing and see what happens (some people genuinely think this is the answer)
Spend less.
This is going to be one helluva fight. If we do nothing, it is a matter of time before the left gets back in and defaults to option 1. More taxes that are really tall poppy syndrome in tax law. Your problems are caused by others' successes, the story goes, and your solution is to take their money. It will deaden our society from the inside out.
Option 2 is the road to some sort of banana republic status. The problem is some would default to it through inaction, and some others think using debt is actually an enlightened idea. The problem is the spiral that goes like this:
Investors lose faith in the New Zealand Government paying back its bonds, so they demand higher interest rates to buy its bonds. That makes it harder to pay. The spiral that so many South American and South East Asian countries have experienced.
If you're not keen on new taxes, or the Government going broke, you're with us. The next five years of New Zealand politics will be in large part about which of the three options to choose. The Greens have set out their stall. Labour can't decide, but we predict they'll campaign on more taxes. Te Pāti Māori wouldn't understand this newsletter.
The coalition hasn't seriously reduced spending. Even Grant Robertson was spending far less as a percentage of GDP (28%) than the current Government (33%). That five-point difference equates to about $23 billion more.
That leaves ACT as the only party unashamedly promoting the only option left. If the Government's going to balance its budget without more taxes, it'll need to be smaller and more efficient. There's three ways we can think of to do that.
One is to do the same stuff more efficiently. David Seymour halved the price of school lunches, and now they're getting 100 per cent on time delivery with better meals. The number of Ministers, portfolios and departments is too many, leaving everybody and nobody in charge of everything and nothing. It should be simplified. The number of public servants hasn't really budged, the head counts should be reduced. The Government has around 800 boards. No one person in the entire world knows what they all do. The Government could maintain its service levels with a smaller, simpler structure.
Another way is to transfer less cash. We can keep paying Superannuation at 65 but Australia, the U.S., U.K., Germany, Ireland, Italy, Spain are all increasing their ages. We will be left alongside France, Greece, and other places of questionable economic and fiscal management. We'll also be paying more for Superannuation than anything else except healthcare. Young people might decide they don't want to stick around and pay for it. Ditto the fact that one-in-six working-aged New Zealanders are on a benefit.
Then there's ownership. The Government has $600 billion, over half a trillion dollars, in assets. Most of them deliver negligible returns, but the taxpayer pays interest on $200 billion of debt. Is that sensible?
Those are the choices. More tax, more debt, or a smaller, more efficient Government that splashes less cash. How this debate resolves in the next two electoral cycles will probably decide if New Zealand is a big Singapore, or a big Samoa.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

NZ Herald

16 hours ago

• NZ Herald

Letters: Absence of economic evaluation of commercial GMO raises concerns

Photo / Food HQ Letter of the week Gene technology - at what cost? The Government is hypocritical in claiming it is over-riding local government powers for economic reasons when it is already doing so in the Gene Technology Bill without any economic risk-benefit analysis. The absence of an economic evaluation of the

NZ Herald

16 hours ago

• NZ Herald

The real cost of Government retreat on gender equity

Dellwyn Stuart is critical of the Government for halting pay equity claims and gutting the Equal Pay Amendment Act. Photo / Marty Melville There's a reason The Emperor's New Clothes is an enduring story. It's not just a children's tale – it's a sharp allegory for political vanity, wilful blindness and the cost of silence. In the story, the emperor is convinced to parade through town in invisible garments, woven only for

Newsroom

17 hours ago

• Newsroom

Seymour's ‘light up' message alarms tobacco researchers

Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour's comments to a London audience calling smokers 'fiscal heroes' – and declaring people should 'light up' to save their government's balance sheet – are reprehensible and make light of addiction, tobacco researchers say. Seymour largely stands by his remarks, arguing smokers are a net economic positive through tobacco tax and reduced superannuation from early deaths – but has conceded he was wrong to describe as 'quite evil' the Labour government's plan to create a smokefree generation. Early in its term, the coalition Government sparked controversy by repealing a law that would have banned the sale of tobacco to anyone born after January 1, 2009 and dramatically reduced both the number of outlets able to sell tobacco and the nicotine levels in cigarettes. Seymour spoke about the decision following a speech to the Adam Smith Institute, a neoliberal think tank based in London, during a visit to the UK this month. Asked about the smokefree generation concept, which has been taken up by the British government, Seymour said the New Zealand policy had been 'quite evil, in a way' and described smokers as 'fiscal heroes'. 'If you want to save your country's balance sheet, light up, because … lots of excise tax, no pension – I mean, you're a hero,' he said to laughter from the audience. Seymour told Newsroom his remarks were based on arguments he made before about the role of the Government when it came to smoking. 'I'm not seriously suggesting that we should encourage people to smoke to save the Government money. It's clearly an absurd statement, but you do have to have a bit of a sense of humour in this life, otherwise it would be too dull.' The state should make sure the public was aware of the dangers of smoking, while stopping smokers from doing harm to others (such as through second-hand smoke) and ensuring they did not impose financial costs on others. 'As far as I can tell, that condition is well and truly satisfied: I mean, the Government gets $2 billion of tax revenue from about, what is it now, 8 percent of the population?' (The Customs Service collected $1.5b in tobacco excise and equivalent duties in 2023/24, while that year's NZ Health Survey reported a daily smoking rate of 6.9 percent.) Seymour said it was 'just a sad fact' that smokers were also likely to die younger, reducing the amount of superannuation they collected, while he was unconvinced their healthcare costs would be markedly higher than those who died of other illnesses. 'If anything, smokers are probably saving other citizens money.' However, he backtracked on his suggestion the last Government's smokefree generation plans were 'quite evil', saying: 'I'm not sure that was the right word, on reflection. 'I certainly think the idea that, in 30 years' time, someone's going to have to prove that they're 49 rather than 47 does seem draconian – it seems almost a bit of an Orwellian situation.' While the Adam Smith Institute's event page billed Seymour as the Deputy Prime Minister, he said his speech was delivered in a private capacity rather than on behalf of the Government, while he had not used taxpayer money for his travel (he also confirmed the Institute did not cover any of his costs). Labour health spokesperson Ayesha Verrall says the last Labour government's smokefree policy was fundamentally based on humanitarian grounds. Photo: Marc Daalder Labour Party health spokesperson Ayesha Verrall told Newsroom the minister's remarks showed the Government had the wrong priorities when it came to its smokefree policy. 'They are prioritising balancing the books on the misery done to smokers due to the harms of tobacco.' Verrall said there was clear evidence of tobacco's cost to the health system, and the last government's smokefree generation policy had been 'fundamentally based on humanitarian grounds'. 'This is an addictive product: it is unique in that it kills half the people who use it. It's not like the more nuanced debates we have about … social media for kids.' University of Otago associate professor Andrew Waa told Newsroom Seymour's 'perverse' arguments were further evidence of the Government placing tobacco tax revenue over other concerns. 'It's literally blood money: it's money that the Government taxes on a deadly product, and yet they're still treating it as a profit margin for them.' Waa said the minister's comments ignored the social costs of tobacco, and would only help an industry 'intent on exploiting addiction at whatever cost'. 'I don't know if it's naive, or if it's [his] ideology that it's all personal choice – there's no choice when it comes to smoking some of these things. 'There's a reason why certain communities are more likely to smoke, because they get tobacco products shoved in their face all the time; by the time they decide to think that they don't wanna use the stuff, it's too late.' Janet Hoek, the co-director of tobacco control research partnership ASPIRE Aotearoa, told Newsroom that the comments were 'really ridiculous and reprehensible'. 'It just seems incredibly disappointing that Mr Seymour apparently thinks it's amusing to suggest that addiction, and early and often painful death, are a good way to generate government revenue.' Hoek said the environmental and productivity costs associated with smoking also needed to be taken into account, as did the social harm done to communities when their loved ones died prematurely. While some politicians dismissed public health experts as 'muppets … living in ivory towers', the suggestion that smokers were making an informed choice was itself out of touch with reality.