Rabbits, switch-ups and highway robbery: Politicians, economists react to Budget 25
Photo:
RNZ / REECE BAKER
Budget Day is a
bit of a whirlwind
.
Opposition politicians, journalists and economists have just three-and-a-half hours to pore over the books, before presenting reports and analysis on what's on offer, what it means to people and, of course, come up with a hot take or two.
The government found $2.7 billion a year through its changes to pay equity, cut its own contributions to KiwiSaver, told 18 and 19 year olds it would
no longer pay them to sit on the couch
and introduced a new Investment Boost tax incentive, which is tipped to increase New Zealand's GDP by 1 percent over the next 20 years.
It was
dubbed the 'Growth Budget' by the government
, although the finance minister was fond of calling it the 'No BS Budget'.
Economists and MPs had their own nicknames and thoughts to share.
Bagrie Economics managing director Cameron Bagrie called it the 'Rabbit Budget', as the pay equity changes allowed the government to pull the rabbit out of the hat and generate savings.
"Looking forward, we need a few more rabbits to pull out of a few more hats in the 2026 and 2027 Budgets, because we're still a long way away from returning to surplus."
The books are
not expected to return to surplus until 2029
and, even then, it will be a modest surplus of $200 million.
Bagrie said New Zealand still had not seen the hard yards.
"The savings are all backloaded into 2027, 2028 and 2029, and those savings to be delivered are going to require that we need tight expenditure control in the 2026, 2027 and 2028 Budgets. We know that spending pressures, including the funding of the defence force, are going to be pretty intense."
Council of Trade Unions economist Craig Renney, who is also on Labour's policy council, said it was a 'Highway Robbery Budget' with the changes to pay equity.
The Budget pledged to return to a surplus by 2029.
Photo:
RNZ / Samuel Rillstone
"It's not a Budget that's delivering for working people and it doesn't appear to be a Budget with working people in mind," he said. "We're taking money straight out of the pockets of low-income workers.
"We're taking benefits of 18-19 year olds, we're taking money from the education budget. We're taking money of Vote Māori Development, Vote Pacific Peoples and we're spending it on defence."
On the KiwiSaver changes, Renney wanted assurances that employers would not put pressure on low income workers to deliberately take the 3 percent level, so their own costs did not go up.
He praised the Investment Boost scheme, saying New Zealand was "way behind" in capital investment and the state had a big role to play.
Baucher Consulting tax expert Terry Baucher was also a fan of the scheme, saying it was more generous than many predicted. He was less impressed with what was in the Budget for low-income families.
"The government has increased the Working for Families threshhold to $44,900, but that's still below what someone on minimum wage would earn annually and it's $10,000 lower than it should be, if it had been increased in line with inflation since June 2018," he said.
"Arguably, you could say that the burden for that Investment Boost is being paid by low-income workers and I don't agree with that. It's a disappointment in that regard."
He said New Zealand faced a "demographic crunch", and there was not enough in the Budget to encourage families to work and raise their children in New Zealand.
"We're taking money from our younger working people to give to older, richer property-owning people and long-term, in my view, that's not a recipe for a growth economy."
Baucher said he understood why the government was means-testing KiwiSaver at higher levels, although did not support reducing the government contributions overall.
Inequality reseacher Max Rashbrooke said the
KiwiSaver changes were mean-spirited
.
"It is the state increasingly saying, 'If you're going to save, you're on your own. We're putting the burden on you to save out of your pay and we're putting the burden on your employer, rather than collectively, the state, trying to ensure that people are saving well for their retirement'."
Infometrics chief executive Brad Olsen said it was the 'Switch-up Budget' as the government tried to spend more, while cutting back.
"There are some big trade-offs that the government has had to make in Budget 2025 and I think, definitely for some groups, they'll be saying that's probably the wrong trade-off," he said.
Olsen was "fairly relaxed" on the KiwiSaver changes and did not believe the current government contribution rate stimulated a huge amount of further investment that otherwise would not happen.
"I don't think it'll shift the dial in terms of more or less investment from Kiwis by getting rid of that government contribution, but by increasing both the employer and employee contribution rates, that will stimulate more savings over time and I think that's positive."
He was also onboard with cutting the government contribution rate entirely for those earning more than $180,000, saying the government needed to get its books in order and it did not need to give those earning good money that much support.
New Zealand Initiative chief economist Eric Crampton said the government was making slow progress towards the smaller structural deficit in 2029 and needed sort it before the demographic changes really started to bite in the 2030s.
"At some point, we have to wonder about the fiscal responsibility provisions in the Public Finance Act matter, because those effectively say you should not be running structural deficits for a decade, and we will have been running structural deficits for a decade. The ones during Covid were excusable - now, not so much."
Crampton agreed that greater means-testing and targeted assistance to those in need made sense.
"[It] can help towards fiscal consolidation," he said. "I don't need to be getting a subsidy towards my KiwiSaver.
"It's better to target these sorts of things. Similarly, a bit tighter targeting in Working for Families can make a lot of sense.
"It's good that they are stopping the inflation indexing of repayment threshholds for student loans. It would be nice if they took a few other measures."
He pointed to re-instating interest on student loans as a measure that the government could take, while at the same time, increasing scholarships that are means-tested.
Labour leader Chris Hipkins committed to reversing pay equity changes.
Photo:
VNP/Louis Collins
Fresh from delivering their speeches to the House, a rolling maul of MPs from government and opposition came across Parliament's tiles to take questions.
First up was Labour leader Chris Hipkins, who continued to
denounce the pay equity changes
, particularly now there was a number put on them.
He committed to reversing the changes, should Labour return to the government benches, but couldn't be nailed down on the exact amount.
Primarily, that was because he was unsure how the government had arrived at its figures.
"They still haven't released their calculations on how they arrived at the savings they've delivered today, so I can't give you numbers," he said.
"I can give you the principle, which is the principle is very clear for us. We don't believe that women should be paid less than men."
He also said the Working for Families changes were "a measly amount, won't even pay for a block of butter" and the government cutting its KiwiSaver contributions "raided the future retirement savings" of New Zealanders.
"I think most Kiwi families will be feeling that any advantage they got from tax cuts last year has been well and truly absorbed by increased costs in other areas," Hipkins said. "Their power bills are still going up, their rents are still going up.
"Prices of food are still going up and they're finding other forms of government support are now being cut, like Working for Families, BestStart, KiwiSaver, and so on."
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said Hipkins "has flip-flopped all over the place" and
questioned how he would pay for reinstating pay equity
as it had been.
"Is he going to tax for it or is he going to borrow for it, if he wants to unroll all those changes?"
Luxon said it was a "balanced Budget", which was focused on growth, and supporting people with the cost of living and on frontline services.
Meanwhile, Winston Peters said he was proud with the SuperGold rates relief, and money for railways and
defence
.
"Everybody's going to make that statement, they're proud of this and proud of that," he said. "Most of them will say they're proud of their portfolio, but I suppose the fact is we could have made a big mistake and done what I've seen in the past.
"We have some revolutionary Budget we pay for for the next 15 years and I've seen a couple of those in my time."
He hinted, over the next few months, New Zealanders would see other changes that would assured "a better economic outcome", thanks to his party's influence, although stayed coy on what those were.
ACT leader David Seymour said "the numbers speak for themselves", as a result of Brooke van Velden's pay equity changes.
He also said the
increased funding for private school subsidies
would make things "vaguely fair" and that he agreed to the Incentive Boost scheme, once he saw evidence it would be effective.
"If you're going to give any kind of target a tax break, then acquiring capital equipment and goods is probably the most powerful thing you can do, if you just want to see increased capital intensity."
The Green Party came out swinging, with co-leader Marama Davidson nicknaming the Budget the "no-ambition Budget, it's the child-poverty Budget, it's the we-don't-care-about-women Budget, it's the 'we-don't-care-about-rangatahi Budget, it's the we-don't-care-about-disabled-people, we-don't-care-about-Māori, we-don't-care-about-Pasifika".
"Who do we care about? Wealthy and fossil fuel companies."
Chlöe Swarbrick contined the government investment in gasfields.
Photo:
RNZ
Davidson said the JobSeeker changes for 18-19 year olds was the government saying "with their full hearts, their full chests, they are really happy to be cruel and mean to people who are already having a hard time".
Chlöe Swarbrick said the $200m towards co-investment in new gasfields was
potentially a breach of the UK and EU free trade agreements
.
Finance Minister Nicola Willis said the KiwiSaver changes would ensure the scheme was sustainable into the future, insisting it struck the right balance.
"New Zealand faces rising costs from superannuation from an ageing population and we need to make sure that we have our house in order."
She said officials were unable to advise on how many people would opt down to the current 3 percent rate, as it involved making guesses on people's behaviour.
"That is something we'll have to see in due course. I expect there will be many New Zealanders who, until they are feeling more financially secure, may not increase their contributions.
"I think many New Zealanders will, because the default will be that you instantly go to that higher rate and people will have to think very carefully about whether they want to save less."
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter
curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
33 minutes ago
- RNZ News
Home build dream shattered after Waikato business hacked and woman launders couple's $150k
By Belinda Feek, Open Justice reporter of Sophie Winchester-Krishan outside the Hamilton District Court after being sentenced on three charges of money laundering. Photo: NZME / Open Justice / Belinda Feek A woman's bank account went from a balance of 5c to almost $150,000 overnight - but it was not her money. Instead, it was the money of a couple who were in the process of building their dream home and had fallen prey to hackers. Sophie Mareta Moerangi Winchester-Krishan was the middleman in the scam, where her bank account was used to deposit the funds and she then transferred them to offshore accounts. The 66-year-old, who was charged with three counts of money-laundering as a result, was paid $5000 for her role in the scam. She was recently sentenced in Hamilton District Court, where the couple spoke of their building dream being shattered and how they had been left with "a lifetime of loss and heartache". It wasn't made clear in court exactly how Winchester-Krishan and the scammers first connected. Her defence lawyer argued Winchester-Krishan had been so keen to get back into work that she ignored what might have been red flags. Those red flags included queries by Kiwibank about the suspicious transactions and her account being briefly frozen. Despite this, she assured the bank that the transactions were legitimate. Now, the case has earned caution from Netsafe, which warned it was difficult to recover money in these events and urged people to be sceptical when being told a company's invoice details had changed. The court heard that in August 2021, the email account of a Waikato-based building firm was hacked. The hackers were able to access the company's client database and then created an email with a similar domain name. They then sent the couple an email stating the company was having difficulty with its regular bank and asked them to direct their next payment into a Kiwibank account. The victims later discovered the account belonged to Winchester-Krishan and, before the transfer, it had a balance of 5c. The money was transferred over two days. One payment was $100,000 - the ASB Bank's daily transfer limit - followed by a second transfer of $54,263.01. By the morning of 16 August 2021, the full amount had made its way into Winchester-Krishan's account. She then sent some of the funds to an account in Australia, after receiving payment instructions from an "almost certainly fictitious overseas doctor", the court heard. Kiwibank then contacted her to alert her to a "suspicious transaction" and froze her bank account. Winchester-Krishan later told Kiwibank the transaction was genuine and the money was released. She then transferred almost $30,000 to an account in the US. Kiwibank contacted her about the suspicious account and, again, Winchester-Krishan confirmed it was genuine. Later that same day, she transferred $66,280.77 to a different US bank account. Over two days, Winchester-Krishan transferred just under $150,000 of the couple's money into offshore bank accounts. She kept $5000 as payment. In a statement to the court, the woman said she and her husband bought a piece of land to build their dream home in September 2020. Filled with excitement, they visited the section with their newborn baby in July 2021, after the concrete had been poured. A month later, she received the fake email from the "building company", asking for the $154,263.01 instalment. She duly paid it into what she was told was the company's Kiwibank account. Shortly afterwards, she was informed that the company's computer system had been hacked and their money was gone. "In a matter of seconds, our whole world changed," she told the court. She said their plan to build their dream home had been shattered. Their excitement turned to stress and worry, which was compounded by the fact that she had worked in IT for 17 years. She was left asking herself, "How could I let this happen to us?" The woman said she was so stressed that she was no longer able to produce milk to breastfeed her daughter. "The opportunity to bond [with her] was taken away from me," she said. The woman then developed a chronic illness that she would never fully recover from. She and her husband ended up having to walk away from the building project. "It's hard to believe all this happened for the offender to gain $5000, and it has left us with a lifetime of loss and heartache." Crown solicitor James Lewis characterised Winchester-Krishan's offending as "a sequence of reckless acts carried out by the defendant for financial gain". "The devastating impacts on the victim and their family include life-altering consequences," Lewis said. "The defendant should have heard and seen the alarm bells. "She was being asked to transfer large sums of money to offshore accounts by people she hardly knew. "She was being questioned by the bank about their concerns... but nevertheless, it still happened." He urged the judge not to issue any discount for Winchester-Krishan's previous good character, given her previous dishonesty convictions, and pushed for a jail term or at least home detention. Defence counsel Martin Dillon said his client's remorse was genuine. While she had defended the charge at trial, he said she had only wanted to challenge whether she was reckless in transferring the money overseas. Sophie Winchester-Krishan transferred the couple's money to a number of offshore accounts in August 2021. Photo: NZME / Open Justice / Belinda Feek "She accepts that she was essentially blinded by the opportunity of an online job being given to her," Dillon said. "She did close her mind or eyes to what might have been red flags... she was not motivated by financial gain... but instead of getting back into the workforce and working again, albeit remotely from home." He suggested Winchester-Krishan moved the money within 24 hours, but Judge Arthur Tompkins disagreed. "That's not quite right," the judge said. "The money arrived and then there were about three days' worth of interactions with the bank. "This is not money-laundering where money arrives and it's flicked on immediately. "Winchester-Krishan had to visit the bank in person and then field inquiries from the bank as to the suspicious transaction, which she confirmed was a genuine payment." The judge said the transaction was clearly suspicious, as it was for a "fictitious orphanage in Turkey" with a different "tale" about where the money was going. Dillon also submitted that Winchester-Krishan had co-operated with police in their investigation and was assessed as a low risk of re-offending. He suggested that an end sentence of community detention and supervision was appropriate. Judge Tompkins said, while Winchester-Krishan's offending was not premeditated, she made "minimal" inquiries about where the money had come from, when it landed in her account. "Particularly, when the bank alerted her to suspicious transactions, she took some trouble to satisfy the bank that the transactions she sought to make were not suspicious." After considering all of the submissions, Judge Tompkins found that home detention was the most appropriate sentence and imposed a term of 10 months. Winchester-Krishan has spent some of the $5000 she was paid, but police were about to claw back $1400 of it. However, the full amount the couple lost was not being sought through the court. NZME understood the victims were trying to recover it through other avenues. Netsafe chief online safety officer Sean Lyons said business email compromise (BEC) scams were "a quiet kind of attack". "That's part of what makes it effective. "The email might come from a familiar name. The invoice might match work that's genuinely been done - it lands in the inbox at just the right time. "All of that lowers the chances anyone will pause and question it." However, BEC scams can hit from both sides, he said. A business might unknowingly send a doctored invoice from a compromised account or a customer might receive what looks like a routine bill from a supplier they trust. "Either way, the money ends up in the hands of criminals and it's often very difficult to recover." Lyons said, for businesses, email security was key, while for customers it paid to be "sceptical". "If payment details suddenly change or something feels slightly off, don't reply to the email. "Instead, contact the business directly, using a phone number or address you already know." * This story originally appeared in the New Zealand Herald.
RNZ News
2 hours ago
- RNZ News
Formula E, FIA poised for long-term contract extension
New Zealand Formula E drivers Mitch Evans and Nick Cassidy. Photo: Paulo Maria / AFP Formula E is poised to extend an exclusive deal with motorsport's world governing body that will ensure it remains the only all-electric racing series sanctioned by the FIA for decades to come. Majority owned since last year by telecoms company Liberty Global, Formula E began in 2014 with a 25-year licence. FIA president Mohammed Ben Sulayem let slip to reporters during last weekend's British Formula One Grand Prix that an extension to the Formula E contract was done and "would come up soon". Before the season's penultimate round in Berlin, Formula E chief executive Jeff Dodds told Reuters on Friday there was nothing official, but to expect various announcements at the London season-ender this month. Formula One will start a new engine era next year, with a 50/50 split between combustion and electric, but Ben Sulayem has said the Liberty Media-owned sport could go back to noisy V8 engines by 2029. "If they [F1] choose to keep using it [the 2026 engine], we'll choose to keep talking about the fact that they like the [electric] technology so much, they integrate it into their race cars," Dodds said. "If they choose to go back to V8s, then we would absolutely leverage the fact that we would then be the only electric championship and everything that that means." Formula E will likely be reduced from 11 to 10 teams next season, after the withdrawal of Formula One champions McLaren to focus on endurance racing. McLaren had sought a new owner for the team, but Dodds said the timeframe was too tight for interested parties and it would revert to Formula E, barring a late twist. "As it stand, unless something changes - and I never say never in Formula E or motorsport - their last race would be London," he added. "The team slot would vacate, which means the licence would revert to us, and then we have a lot of other interest in joining the championship. "The chance of somebody joining for one year of Gen3 is unlikely, but the chance of somebody coming in and starting to develop with a future coming in for Gen4 is much more likely." Formula E will be in the last year of its Gen3 era next season, with the more powerful and faster Gen4 car then coming in for 2026/27. Nissan's British driver Oliver Rowland can clinch the 2024/25 championship in the Berlin doubleheader this weekend and would be the series' 10th different champion in 11 seasons. New Zealand's Nick Cassidy is currently eighth in the championship standings, while fellow Kiwi Mitch Evans is 18th. Both drivers are in the Jaguar TCS Racing Team. - Reuters
RNZ News
4 hours ago
- RNZ News
No need for bill protecting campus free speech, unis and legal experts say
Paul Rishworth KC says academic freedom is already protected in the Education Act, and the Bill of Rights protects free speech. Photo: RNZ / Alexander Robertson Universities and legal experts say there is no need for a bill protecting free speech on campus . But the legislation's supporters say universities can't be trusted to uphold freedom of expression. Parliament's Education and Workforce Select Committee has been hearing submissions on the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No. 2). If passed, it would require universities to develop a freedom of expression statement and complaints procedure, and report annually on it. The Law Society told the committee the bill created "needless complexity" because freedom of expression was already protected by law. Paul Rishworth KC said freedom of expression was of the utmost importance, but the bill was not necessary. He said academic freedom was already protected in the Education Act and the Bill of Rights protected free speech. "So, to add in to the Education Act a requirement that there be a statement on freedom of expression, introduces a needless complexity," he said. University staff warned the bill would force universities to host speakers spreading misinformation and hate speech. Tertiary Education Union co-president Julie Douglas told the committee there was a lack of evidence that universities were limiting free speech. "What we have now is a functioning model which does not need this level of monitoring," she said. Douglas said universities were special places but were being undermined "with a disregard for science, with a disregard for evidence , with a disregard for expert opinion". "I fear that this sort of move by the government with this sort of clause is meddling in a place where it's just not required," she said. University of Otago vice-chancellor Grant Robertson and Universities New Zealand chief executive Chris Whelan appeared before the committee together. They said the law was unnecessary, but if it was to go ahead universities wanted to reduce the associated compliance requirements. "We don't think it's either necessary nor a proportionate response to the issues that are there," Robertson said. Whelan said a similar complaints system in the UK had been "weaponised". New Zealand Initiative senior fellow Dr James Kierstead said staff and student surveys and 21 separate cases proved that universities were not protecting freedom of expression. Kierstead said the problem included staff fearful of losing their jobs if they voiced unpopular opinions and speakers refused the right to appear on campus. "It suggests that university senior management cannot be relied upon to uphold their obligations to academic freedom. If we have plentiful evidence that ordinary academics and students feel stifled and no evidence that senior management is going to solve the problem, then legislation is the only solution." Free Speech Union chief executive Jonathan Ayling said the organisation was sad the legislation was needed. Free Speech Union chief executive Jonathan Ayling. Photo: VNP / Phil Smith He said students could cope with hearing challenging ideas and opinions. "We should not let a small group of students use their vulnerability... and work with university managers to stop other students hearing views that they think are dangerous," he said. "Free debate, free and open to ideas is part of being an academic, it is part of being a student and universities need to allow that." Canterbury University biological sciences professor Tammy Steeves told the committee should not be required to host any event or speaker . She said academics could judge whether ideas were robust and evidence-based. Otago University law professor Andrew Geddis said the legislation was likely to backfire. "It will actually make it worse for free speech on campus, it will politicise it, it will mean that opposing speech on campus will become a political act because it will be seen as opposing the government and I think it will be bad." Geddis said he was on a committee that drew up the university's free speech statement and statement of institutional neutrality. He said translating those statements into legal requirements would be a mistake. "I don't think actually it's the role of government to be trying to impose views on how universities as institutions ought to work. I think that's a dangerous imposition into the autonomy of them as institutions." Geddis said maintaining a culture of free speech would be more effective than making laws. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
