Greens claim $700m 'uncosted hole' in Budget
The government could face an unbudgeted hole of hundreds of millions of dollars in increased KiwiSaver contributions for public sector workers, the Green Party says.
As part of the Budget last week, the government announced that the default KiwiSaver contribution for employees and employers would lift to 4 percent, in stages.
But the Green Party said the government had not accounted for that increase for its own employees in its books, and over the Budget forecast period it could add up to $714 million in costs.
Co-leader Chloe Swarbrick said last time the government increased the compulsory employer contribution, it set up a fund to help cover its costs.
The increased cost to government as an employer was highlighted in the Budget Economic and Fiscal Update and in the KiwiSaver reforms regulatory impact statement.
"What we've found is what we believe to be a hole in the government Budget, an uncosted hole of anywhere from $633m to $714m over the forecast period," Swarbrick said.
"The Crown is obviously an employer of thousands and thousands of people with billions and billions of dollars in wage bills. If we're to project from the base line of around 72 percent of the population... at the default rate which is increasing, the Crown will have an increased liability to meet those employer contributions."
She said the government either did not spend enough time working it out, or was "intentionally hiding or obscuring what I'm sure the minister will say are going to have to be new cuts that agencies and ministries will be forcing departments to make to account for the increased contributions".
Finance Minister Nicola Willis's office said the potential cost had been noted.
"Crown agencies as employers will assess the potential implications for agency budgets. If any additional funding is required, it would count against the Budget 2026 operating allowance."
But Swarbrick said it was not being sufficiently upfront.
She said it seemed the government did not want to be seen to be being "mean" by just halving the member tax credit, to $260 a year, and so had to increase contributions at the same time.
It should have happened as part of more consultation and a full review of retirement settings, she said.
"This will be an additional cost as soon as the changes come into effect."
Employers who offer total remuneration packages to employees will dodge some of the increase but Swarbrick said it was clear that the government would not be able to shift people on to that arrangement to avoid the increase in a way that reduced their take-home pay.
Craig Renney, policy director at the NZ Council of Trade Unions and a member of the Labour Party Policy Council, said it was an issue for the government as an employer.
"It would be good to know what calculations they have made themselves as to their additional remuneration costs. Is the Crown going to force workers to eat the increase themselves? It would set a very bad example for the rest of the market."
He said good employers should see the increase as an opportunity to improve employees' retirement outcomes.
"The risk is that for some employers they might view the 'total remuneration' of their employees as a single package. That would mean they would expect any increase in KiwiSaver to come from the same money. That would mean lower real pay increases for employees and less cash in hand.
"Given that we have very weak demand in the economy, there are probably limited opportunities for employees to get a different job - especially with unemployment forecast to keep rising. Ultimately, that would mean that the government has set up a system where employees end up paying for increased employers contributions to their own KiwiSaver.
"There are some industries where there might be a simple pass-on to the consumer for these costs, but again, in a subdued market these are probably fewer than you might expect. These are probably also higher income earners, so the likelihood is that lower income earners will be more likely to face that 'total remuneration' issue. That will simply compound existing income adequacy problems in New Zealand."
Employees will be able to opt to return their contribution to 3 percent, matched by an employer's 3 percent.
Renney said there was a risk some people could face pressure to do so.
"Again, it is likely to low paid/lower market power employee who face this challenge. Secondly, if we make it easier to become a contractor - where this is not an issue - this move will encourage employers to pretend that their employees are contractors. The current proposed changes by government in that regard might drive more of that behaviour, putting workers at a significant disadvantage."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
an hour ago
- Otago Daily Times
'Brought to its knees': Why NZ can't shake the recession
By Susan Edmunds of RNZ New Zealanders were told to "survive til '25" for the economy to pick up - but now one major bank economist says it's probably going to be 2026 before any real improvement happens. Kiwibank's latest Annual Regional Note shows small improvements across the country, but weak scores overall. The national average score has lifted from three out of 10 to four. Southland and Otago top the table at five. Otago was boosted by a recovery in international tourism and improvement in employment. Northland, Taranaki and Gisborne went backwards. Taranaki had the biggest fall in employment of anywhere in the country, at 8 percent. Northland reported a double-digit drop in building consents. Retail sales remain below their average levels over the past decade in most regions, as weak household confidence weighs on consumption. Kiwibank said Wellington recorded the steepest annual decline at a -3.3 percent, while regions like Waikato, Northland and the Bay of Plenty experienced a slight improvement on last year. 'Wellington is just more pessimistic' Wellington's score improved from a two out of 10 to a three out of 10 while Auckland lifted from a three to four. "Wellington is just more pessimistic," Kiwibank chief economist Jarrod Kerr said. "It's gone through a lot in recent years. You can see it in their activity, you can see it in the housing market. You can see it in the economy, the city has been brought to its knees and it's been struggling to shake the pessimistic vibe." He said both Auckland and Wellington were well below average. "If you look across the regions, some of them have gone backwards and others are improving but it's not good. "When you look at the South Island things are better, people are definitely more optimistic in the South Island but even then the top scoring regions get a five out of 10." He said the report helped solidify the view that rate cuts to date had not been enough to turn around the economy. "We're really crawling out of this recession rather than regaining our footing and looking to grow from here. We're still struggling across the entire country." He said Kiwibank customers last year had talked about needing to hold on until this year. "We are halfway through the year and, yes, things are better but only by a little bit." Worse off than Australia New Zealand was worse off than Australia, he said. "Their economy is much stronger than ours but in their terms it's soft… where everything washes out is the labour market and, you know, the unemployment rate tells you a lot. Our unemployment rate is over 5 percent and theirs is pretty close to 4 percent." Part of the reason was the more aggressive interest rate hikes from the Reserve Bank, he said. "We were much more aggressive in our rate hikes than in Australia. We were much more aggressive on inflation than across the Tasman. "I think both the RBA and RBNZ made mistakes as I think every central bank did through the Covid period, we overstimulated in hindsight but at the time it was the right thing to do. And then we had to deal with the inflation problem." He said the Reserve Bank had kept the official cash rate at 5.5 percent for too long as it worked to tackle inflation. "We had a really bad recession last year, which the Reserve Bank openly orchestrated, they said 'look, we need a recession to get inflation back down'. The Australians didn't orchestrate a recession, they didn't slam the economy into the floor." Kerr said recovery was still coming but he had hoped it would have started more obviously by now. "We're hoping it takes off in the second half of this year as more and more people refix on to lower rates. Then it's more of a 2026 story now."
Otago Daily Times
5 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Green shoots ahead for party: Swarbrick
After a turbulent beginning to this Parliament, Greens co-leader Chloe Swarbrick tells ODT political editor Mike Houlahan it is only up from here. "Forged in fire, mate," a chipper Chloe Swarbrick says as she summarises the first half of the parliamentary term from a Green Party perspective. And then some. For a start, she is sitting in the ODT offices speaking as her party's co-leader — a role she did not have at the start of the current Parliament, although many expected she would eventually rise to it. However, Ms Swarbrick replacing the now retired James Shaw was the least troublesome of the many travails which have beset the Greens. The sudden death of Fa'anānā Efeso Collins last February was followed soon after by the prolonged and messy expulsion of former MP Darleen Tana. Then her replacement, Benjamin Doyle, was placed under the blowtorch by New Zealand First leader Winston Peters. And last but not least, for much of this Ms Swarbrick was the solo leader of her party; Marama Davidson requiring time off for breast cancer treatment. "That, unfortunately, is part of being in such a snow globe of public pressure, with the spotlights on. It's not unusual to have circumstances in workplaces where things go awry, but you add to that the level of public scrutiny, which is absolutely due," Ms Swarbrick said. "I knew that, sitting around the caucus table, we had a group of people who were dedicated to a cause that was bigger than something that any one of us could create by ourselves, so I always felt like the team was working together and prioritising that bigger picture. "But in terms of the personal reflections on it all, I mean, like, I didn't really intend to be a politician, I protested so hard, I raged against the machine so hard, but I got inside the machine somehow, right? "What I take from that is, yeah, the way that we tend to conceptualise of leadership is, you know, putting somebody at the top of the pecking order and going, 'That person's going to make all the decisions and have all the glory and all the other things', and the responsibility, obviously, is on the flip side of that coin. "But I've always felt really grounded in a team that I know has my back." It is not unusual for the Green Party to feel out of step with its parliamentary colleagues — an accusation the governing parties are happy to widen out to include the entire country. It has felt more stark than usual this term though, as its MPs have been assailed as being luddite opponents of progress for questioning the need for economic growth and the requirement for natural resources to be dug up to fuel it. While many of those attacks have come from National, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon's gentle urging that the Greens back the fast-track legislation are nowhere near as stinging as Mr Peters adorning the Greens' recently released alternative budget with a Soviet-era hammer and sickle or his NZ First colleague Shane Jones' exhortations to the Greens to not worry about moths or Freddy the Frog and push ahead with mining. If there is such a thing as a philosophic debate in the New Zealand Parliament, these two parties are having it. It can even be intellectual listening once the sloganeering is stripped away from it. "What they are saying is pretty boring, and it misses the mark in terms of the real debate that New Zealanders expect of the people who occupy positions of power to be having," Ms Swarbrick said. "That's part of the reason that we are currently all across the country touring the Green budget and talking to people directly about the things that matter to them, as opposed to waiting for it to be mediated, whether that be through the headlines that we manage to grab or otherwise. "Honestly, the experience of sitting in our chamber of Parliament, particularly under the tenor of toxicity that this government is ushered in, is so far removed from the reality that you experience and you talk to with New Zealanders up and down this country when you're actually on the ground and outside of those walls." The building blocks at the foundation of what will be the Green policy platform for the 2026 election are contained within that alternative budget. It is a beguiling document, opening with pledges of free community healthcare and dental treatment, full funding a new Dunedin hospital, publicly funded early childhood education, free school lunches, a guaranteed income for all, climate action, healthy oceans, a resurgent Jobs for Nature scheme, and a green jobs industrial strategy. But then comes the method of paying for it all — essentially making corporations, and those individuals at the apex of the existing progressive tax system, pay more through introducing a wealth tax (a long-standing Greens policy), an extra tax band at the top end, and hiking business tax. Despite Ms Swarbrick's immediate assertion that 91% of New Zealanders would pay less income tax under her party's plan, it is these revenue-gathering methods that stand her party accused of promoting communism. "Yes, the top 3%, the wealthiest 3% in this country, will pay the wealth tax," she said. "But in doing so, that unlocks the resources which are currently being bound up in unproductive uses, i.e., the likes of property speculation. It also addresses some of the unfairness in our tax system, which the 2023 IRD High Wealth Individuals Report showcased, where the wealthiest 311 households pay an effective tax rate less than half of the average New Zealander. "We currently have a situation where half a million New Zealanders are using food banks every single month; 191 New Zealanders, the majority of them of working age, are leaving the country every single day. "We do not arrest that issue with half measures." The next election is about a year away and, unlike some previous electoral cycles, the Greens have cause to be optimistic. The Greens' polling has held relatively steady — from a record election result high of 11.6%, its current average rating across all public polls is 10.4% — and its caucus now has a more settled look about it. Its southern rookie MPs, Scott Willis and Francisco Hernandez, have performed well and are helping to give the Greens a wider geographic representation than in recent years. It is also doing well in the House, thanks in no small part to the work of the impressively forensic Lawrence Xu-Nan. With three electorate seats and 15 MPs, Ms Swarbrick is adamant the Greens have great potential to grow that vote still further. "I think you're seeing the rise of meaningful progressive platforms like, for example, Zohran Mamdani in New York, who has unified people on the basis of material needs being met," she said. "That stuff is winning. That is a winning formula. And that is the formula that we are going to consistently keep rolling out. "We are talking to people about what really matters, not just poking holes and critiquing, but putting forward those productive solutions, but also mobilising people. "We do things a little bit differently and we are a little bit different, and we try and reflect what modern Aotearoa New Zealand looks like. "Hopefully that means that more people can see themselves in that so-called House of Representatives by virtue of us being there."
RNZ News
5 hours ago
- RNZ News
Is there any way to make a pre-nup 100 percent certain?
RNZ's money correspondent Susan Edmunds answers your questions. Photo: RNZ Send your questions to I've heard various people and sources say that there is no sure way to protect your assets from a partner after three years as a partner can claim unfairness or something similar. Is this true? Some people say a trust can sometimes be broken and pre-nups sometimes don't hold up. Is there any 100 percent certain way to protect your assets before going into a relationship over three years? Sorry, it's probably true that there's no 100 percent way to protect your assets. People often sign a contracting out agreement if they want their relationship property to be treated differently to the way that the law directs. But you're right that this is open to challenge, particularly if it can be argued that the arrangement is unfair. Bill Atkin, emeritus professor in Victoria University's faculty of law, said this was true of any contract and would depend on the circumstances. "The test for the court to set aside an agreement is where 'giving effect to the agreement would cause serious injustice'. There are other factors taken into account including the desire for certainty. It is not common for a contract to be set aside unless, for example, there has been some improper dealings in getting a party to sign. On the other hand, a contract entered into many years ago may turn out to be unreasonable in the light of what has happened in the meantime. To allow no leeway for setting contracts aside would be unfair." A contract must follow the formalities set out in the Property (Relationships) Act. Atkin said the main one that must be remembered was that both parties must have independent legal advice. "Failure to do this will of course meant that the contract is on the face of it invalid." Nicola Peart, University of Otago law professor, said a contracting out agreement was still a good way of protecting your assets, even if it was not ironclad. "Assuming the agreement was made with full information and independent legal advice, it can still be challenged if it was seriously unjust at the time or has become seriously unjust at a later point in time." And this is me talking - this is probably a good thing, overall. If you're living together as a couple and your circumstances change, it's reasonable that what was fair at the outset might no longer be. It's a good idea to get your own legal advice about your individual circumstances. We are currently settling an estate. The deceased had a credit card to a third-party lender, a Q Card, not a Q MasterCard. I cannot find any mention of estate obligations should the holder die, which I have seen with other credit cards. Does this mean the estate is not obligated to pay the bill? Michelle Pope, a principal trustee at Public Trust said generally, if a credit card account was held only in the name of the person who died, it would become a debt of the estate, to be paid from their assets. "However, if the account was in joint names, the responsibility for the debt usually passes to the surviving account holder. We're assuming the lender has already been contacted and the terms and conditions have been reviewed. If those terms don't specify what happens when someone dies, then the debt would usually be treated as one that needs to be settled." In 2007, I separated from my ex-husband and started a relationship with my new partner. He said to me that he had put his property and business into a trust so no other partners could get any of his property. I was OK with that because I felt going forward he would look after me if I became his wife and the mother of his children. Fast forward to 2016 I received $135,000 from my mum's inheritance and 2018/2019 $130,000 from dad. We had been renovating this beautiful 100-year-old house and property in which we used my inheritance to renovate it. I was happy as this was our family home and it was lovely, until 2020 when he started an affair and we separated. Do you have any suggestions on how I can get my inheritances recognized in our financial settlement case? Peart says there is a pathway ruling on general equitable principles, in particular the "constructive trust", which has been used to compensate former partners who have made substantial contributions to assets held in a trust where the court is satisfied that she had a reasonable expectation that she would share in the value of her contributions and it is reasonable for the trustees to yield an interest. She said, if you were married, section 182 of the Family Proceedings Act could be a way to get a settlement. This covers the court making orders relating to property. But she said the opportunity for a court to intervene in nuptial settlements and do something for a spouse who was not getting anything was not available to people who were de facto. "She may well be able to rely on general equitable principles, in particular the constructive trust, for an order that the trustees of the trust hold a share of the home on trust for her on the basis of contributions made to the property and a reasonable expectation that those contributions would result in some share of the property. "Aside from that, I wonder whether she was advised by whoever was handling her parents' estates about the risks of losing her entitlements if she used it to renovate the family home. In this case, the risk was even greater, because the family home was in trust. "This highlights the risks involved with commingling an inheritance with relationship property . As discussed last week, to be kept separate, an inheritance needs to be held apart from other property. "An inheritance is separate property under the PRA, but once it is intermingled with relationship property or invested in the family home, it becomes relationship property and is subject to the equal sharing regime," Peart said. "Lawyers advising on distribution of estates commonly give advice about that to the beneficiaries of the estate to make sure they realise the risks of not keeping the inheritance separate." Atkin said any property owned by a trust would not be divided under the act. "There are some exceptions, where the trust ownership may be factored in, for example where the trust is a sham or where one of the parties has so much control under the Act that they are treated as having an interest that can be divided. "Also, in some situations there may be compensation where relationship property, such as the home, has been transferred to a trust during the relationship. There are other points here but, in short, the relevant law where there is a trust is complex and not consistent. The Law Commission has accepted that the law needs to be reformed but the government has shown no signs so far of implementing the Law Commission's recommendations. "Now, what about the inheritance? There is no direct way under the Act of recognising the inheritance. Any claim would be against the trust. If the inheritance money had been packaged as a loan to the trust, then the trust would be in debt to the person who lent the money. However, most people in relationships are unlikely to think about doing this. Another possibility is that the heir can make a claim under laws that apply generally, not just to relationships. A genuine possibility is to claim what the law calls a constructive trust in relation to the formal trust. The latter would have to account for the contribution made by way of the inheritance but success here is by no means guaranteed and what the value of a constructive trust would be is subject to all the factors in the case. Legal advice would be needed and one would hope that a satisfactory negotiated settlement can be reached with the trustees. Trouble is that the ex may well be one of the trustees and may play hard to get."
