Capital spend to get boost in Budget
Capital expenditure - new money set aside in the Budget to maintain or upgrade assets - will be higher than originally forecast when the government delivers its Budget in two weeks' time.
In a speech to Business New Zealand on Thursday, the prime minister said the money, which would be split mostly across health, education, defence, and transport, would total $6.8 billion.
It means the net capital allowance, once savings identified in the Budget have been accounted for, will increase from the $3.6b previously signalled, to $4b.
Last week Finance Minister Nicola Willis cut the operating allowance by half to $1.3b.
Christopher Luxon told the business audience the smaller operating allowance was the "right call because keeping our word matters".
"I know there are some commentators calling for larger allowances and more spending.
"They need to be honest that those decisions will mean more debt, more deficits, and an indefinite delay to New Zealand's return to surplus," Luxon said.
Luxon said capital expenditure, including for frontline services like health and education, would be a priority in the May 22 Budget.
"In health, education, law and order, defence, and transport my government is prioritising significant new investments.
"Each of those areas are a priority for New Zealanders and they require more funding to deliver the quality services Kiwis expect.
"But that comes with trade-offs," he said.
"Spending more on everything, as some commentators have called for, would mean larger deficits, more debt, and ultimately fewer choices in future budgets as the cost of servicing our debt grows even larger and the prospect of returning to surplus evaporates."
Luxon said capital investment would be critical to the country's "growth journey", but he noted that would not happen if "we invest more but continue to lag behind the global technological frontier".
"In Budget 2025, we will be allocating the funding we need to give effect to the changes I announced earlier this year, including the establishment of three new Public Research Organisations.
"I also know that following a review of the Research and Development Tax Incentive that kicked off last year, the business community has been looking for some certainty on the future of the programme.
"That review was required in law, and the final report has not yet been tabled in Parliament," he said.
"However, I can confirm today that we are retaining the RDTI in this year's Budget so businesses have the certainty they need to keep investing and keep going for growth."
Luxon also announced funding would be provided in the Budget for the government's new Invest NZ agency, which was set up earlier this year to support foreigners wanting to invest here.
Luxon said this month's Budget comes alongside a "challenging international backdrop".
"Trade tensions overseas have seen growth forecasts revised down across the world, as exporters and consumers come under sustained pressure.
"The sharp deterioration of financial markets in early April have somewhat recovered in recent days and weeks, but markets remain volatile."
There were greenshoots too though, he said, with ANZ's initial estimate last week that "the smaller operating allowance would support interest rates being 5-10 basis points lower than otherwise."
"Meanwhile, Treasury has estimated that with a tighter budget package, interest rates would be up to 30 basis points lower by the end of the forecast period.
"For a family with a mortgage, or a farmer or entrepreneur taking on debt to grow their business, that means real financial relief and more opportunity to get ahead," Luxon said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsroom
an hour ago
- Newsroom
Anne Salmond: The ‘war' on NZ values
For some time now, various environmental non-governmental organisations have been talking about a 'war on nature' in New Zealand. Many initiatives highlight the gravity of what's at stake – the 'Fast Track' Act, the Regulatory Standards bill; proposed amendments to the Overseas Investment Act, the National Environmental Standards for Commercial Forestry, and National Directions under the Resource Management Act affecting forests, fresh water and soils; the radical rewriting of the Resource Management Act, the removal of regulatory powers from local councils and talk about the abolition of regional councils; and the defunding of environmental groups and initiatives. The way these measures work is often deliberately opaque. Most New Zealanders do not realise that under the Regulatory Standards Bill, for instance, the oft-touted appeal to freedom for 'persons' under this bill is as much (or even more) about freedom for corporations as it is for individuals, since under the law, corporations are treated as legal 'persons.' Under the tangled weave of amendments to the Overseas Investment Act, international corporations are given relatively unfettered access to exploit natural resources in New Zealand, whether in mining, forestry or building infrastructure, even in our most prized and/or vulnerable landscapes and seascapes. These amendments work together with the 'Fast-track Approvals' Act, the Regulatory Standards Bill, proposed amendments to national directions under the Resource Management Act, the radical rewriting of the Resource Management Act and many other measures to reduce restraints on harmful extractive activities. At the same time, many international corporations use the infrastructure paid for by taxpayers and ratepayers, pay little or no tax, expatriate their profits, exit when their activities cease to be profitable and too often leave behind costly and lasting damage (e.g. oil exploration, mining and industrial forestry) for ratepayers and taxpayers to pay for. How is that supposed to generate long-term prosperity for New Zealand, and New Zealanders? These and other new legislative and regulatory measures give local corporations similar, relatively unfettered rights, even if they inflict lasting damage on local communities and the environments they live in. How does that square with the PM's launch last month of a new '100% Pure New Zealand' tourism campaign? An insistence on economic calculation is a two-edged sword. If Fonterra, for instance, insists on charging international prices for butter and other produce to other New Zealanders, then by the same logic, other New Zealanders should have the right to charge Fonterra for the damage they cause to rivers, lakes and aquifers; the harm to citizens' health, safety and enjoyment; and their contributions to New Zealand's carbon and biodiversity global debts. That's not happening, though. So wealth flows out of the country, or into the pockets of relatively limited number of local shareholders, directors and chief executives, while waterways, landscapes and the climate are wrecked, and other citizens experience a reduced quality of life and an increased cost of living. In order to achieve these one-way flows of wealth, there's been a barrage of measures that diminish accountability to the electorate. Not surprisingly, some are now also talking about a 'war on democracy' in New Zealand. This is epitomised by the way the proportional principle that underpins MMP has been undermined during coalition negotiations, with large numbers of measures with little or no electoral support signed off without public scrutiny, followed by a blitzkrieg of legislation aimed at exhausting parliamentary and public opposition. This 'war on democracy' includes the overuse of urgency in Parliament to enact measures with as little debate as possible; the undue influence of lobby groups and party funders; the debasement of select committee processes; the silencing of public servants and attempts to harness them to ideological agendas instead of the public interest; the use of Parliamentary Service-employed political staff to attack individual critics; attacks on universities and the rule of law; the undermining of local government while centralising executive power; and to cap it all, unheralded and unwanted changes to electoral processes that are likely to disenfranchise large numbers of voters. Many MPs seem to have forgotten who pays their salaries, and the job they've been hired to do in Parliament – i.e, to serve the interests of all New Zealanders, faithfully and well. That applies to all MPs, whether in government or opposition. At times, the fight against a barrage of harmful legislation is left to voluntary organisations and individual citizens with limited resources, when that is the primary responsibility of opposition MPs. Democracy in New Zealand is staggering under these assaults. This begs the question, does this add up to a 'war on New Zealand' and New Zealanders? Whose interests are being served by the current legislative agenda? Unheralded amendments to the Pay Equity Act, passed under urgency and aimed at constraining the incomes of low paid (mostly) female workers; a host of measures that reduce incomes, increase precarity and worsen working conditions for many; the loss of access to affordable housing, reliable and affordable childcare and healthcare, and the ability to put food on the table; increases in unemployment, homelessness and child poverty; the failure to give citizens the assurance that if they are disabled, ill, out of work or hit by disaster through no fault of their own, they will be supported, and that they can afford a reasonable retirement – all raise questions about how New Zealand is being governed at present. No wonder so many New Zealanders are leaving the country to look for a brighter future. There can be no worse indictment against any government. These are heartland issues, I think, that cut across the political spectrum. A love of our country, its heritage and landscapes, a belief in democracy and a fair deal for all, and a desire for a good future for our children and grandchildren is not the preserve of any one political party in New Zealand. A widespread sense of frustration and helplessness is not helped by the fragmentation of the debate, with those who want a healthy environment, a vibrant local democracy, a more equitable society and a Parliament that's dedicated to the public interest heading in slightly different directions. The loss of journalistic depth and independence in public media, and the use of algorithms and bots in social media to alienate and divide people make matters worse. A 'war on reality,' truth and evidence uses misinformation, slurs and 'double speak' to confuse attempts at resistance that are already uncoordinated and siloed. Yet at the same time, huge, spontaneous surges of opposition to the Treaty Principles Bill and the Regulatory Standards Bill, both provoking unprecedented numbers of submissions, suggest that many New Zealanders are eager to reclaim democracy in this country. Very few are willing to see fringe political parties, lobby groups and think tanks decide their future. There are some brilliant younger leaders waiting in the wings, and some are already in Parliament. If some of them reached across the aisles and agreed to tackle these challenges together, that might make a difference. One thing's for sure – party politics is not working well for New Zealand at present. Outside Parliament, there are also impressive younger leaders. What's needed is a banner under which Kiwis can come together to restore the accountability of the executive to Parliament, and to the people of this country. Perhaps a non-partisan Civic Assembly would be useful, with leaders and attendees from the wider community coming together to address key challenges to democracy in New Zealand, and devise strategies to tackle them. These challenges might include democracy and Parliament; democracy and the media; democracy and Te Tiriti; democracy and the environment; and democracy and inequality, for instance. Or a series of such meetings, in different locations? Any other ideas? In any case, something must happen, and soon. Democracy in this country is at a turning point. New Zealanders who value their democratic freedoms need to come together across different spheres of influence to talk, think and plan; step away from the abyss; and act to make a positive difference.
Otago Daily Times
an hour ago
- Otago Daily Times
MP ‘ill-informed' on seesaw
A National MP has been accused of getting his facts wrong after slamming council spending on a central Dunedin seesaw. In a social media post published on Thursday, Tauranga MP Sam Uffindell criticised the Dunedin City Council for wasting ratepayer money on "stupid vanity projects". He claimed the council had spent $600,000 on a seesaw as part of an inner city playground built during upgrades to George St. "The message to local government is clear: get your costs under control — Kiwis are doing it tough." "I mean, how stupid do you have to be," he asked. Reaction from social media commenters was mixed — some were supportive while others pointed out the overall playground feature had cost less than $600,000 in total. The council said the play space cost $586,000 and also featured "talk tubes", benches and shading and soft-fall surfaces. Invoices showed the three seesaws in the playground — a 7m-long, 12m-long and inclusive seesaw — together cost $244,700. The council had received a $250,000 donation from lead contractor Isaac Construction to go towards the cost of the playground. Cr Christine Garey said Mr Uffindell was "ill-informed" — "but that's not a surprise". Children and families loved the playground feature of George St, she said. "This decision was made long before the cost of living crisis that was caused by his government. "Did he talk about the huge cost of government regulation imposed by central government on local government? I doubt it." Cr Andrew Whiley said he and Mr Uffindell attended the same event when the MP was in Dunedin earlier this month where the topic of the seesaws came up. "I quickly said, 'well, actually, councillors never signed off on the seesaws'," Cr Whiley said. "I made it quite clear to him that actually councillors had not seen or had the ability to review that prior to it being installed and being signed off by council staff." Councillors had seen and noted a plan for the play space at an extraordinary planning and environment committee in April 2022, but it did not include the seesaws, Cr Whiley said. "I never basically understood [how] the playground went from what was in our papers to being what it was finished." Council central city plan project director Glen Hazelton said councillors voted to note the report in 2022, "including the details on the play space". The council was "disappointed" by Mr Uffindell's comments. "The total cost of the entire play space on George St was $586,000," he said. "At less than 1% of the total budget for George St, we believe the investment in a more people-friendly space is good value for money." "A number of new retail tenants coming to George St have noted the improvements that make the area more people-friendly, including the play space, as the reason for relocating," Dr Hazelton said.
Newsroom
an hour ago
- Newsroom
Where to draw the line on terror
The Government is eyeing an overhaul of the country's terrorism legislation, which is necessary, it says, to keep New Zealanders safe in a rapidly evolving world and keep pace with modern threats. However, critics are warning the move could come at a steep price, specifically a loss of civil liberties. The proposed changes, still in the closed-door consultation phase with a handpicked selection of groups and experts, would give police and intelligence agencies broader powers to intervene earlier, redefine what constitutes a 'terrorist act' and expand preventative detention powers, all in the name of public safety. Today, The Detail speaks with Newsroom national affairs editor Sam Sachdeva and University of Waikato terrorism and firearms expert Alexander Gillespie about the potential changes to the Terrorism Suppression Act and how the Government will balance risk without resorting to overreach. 'What this is really about is are our current terror laws fit for purpose, and where do we draw the line between dealing with the very real threat that is posed by terrorist groups and terrorists, while still preserving the fundamental political freedoms and rights and liberties that all New Zealanders hold dear,' Sachdeva tells The Detail. He says critics, worried that those freedoms and rights are now at risk, are fired up. 'Look, they are. We have seen the Council for Civil Liberties, [and] the Free Speech Union has now come out as well, expressing some concern about this. 'So, it's early stages, but it seems like it's something that could quite easily animate or light a fire under a lot of these rights groups who are concerned.' The terror law, enacted in 2002 following the September 11 terror attacks, allows governments to formally designate people or groups as terrorist entities, freezing their assets and making it illegal to financially support, recruit for, or participate in a designated terrorist entity. Minor changes were made after the March 15 terror attack in 2019 and the New Lynn Countdown Supermarket attack in 2021. Sachdeva says among the new potential changes are making membership of a terrorist entity a criminal offence, creating new offences to capture public expressions of support for a terrorist act or designated entities – including showing insignia – and modernising definitions for terms like 'material support' to capture new online forms of support. Extending the renewal period for terrorist designations to five years, from three at present, is also being considered. The Government says there will be safeguards and judicial oversight. The proposed changes are expected to go before Parliament later this year. Professor of International Law Al Gillespie, speaking to The Detail from Vienna, where he is working on gun reforms, says the threat of a terror attack has long lingered in New Zealand, and while the likelihood of another attack will never be zero, the risk can be lowered. 'Part of reducing that risk is making sure the law is as good as it can be. That the balance between civil liberties and risk is correct. And that we have proportionate penalties for those who are willing to advocate the use of violence against civilians to change policy. 'I support looking at it … I think it's foreseeable that the tensions in our society are going to be around for the foreseeable future. And to make sure they are fit for purpose, because when I look back at recent times, our laws weren't fit for purpose, and now we need to be thinking, 'What more can we do?'' While the debate on security versus liberty and protection versus principle will undoubtedly continue, one thing is certain – in the fight against terror, New Zealand is searching for a line, but it will not be easy to draw. Check out how to listen to and follow The Detail here. You can also stay up-to-date by liking us on Facebook or following us on Twitter.
