Latest news with #CouncilofTradeUnions
Scoop
5 days ago
- Business
- Scoop
Do People Earning $200,000 Need Help With Childcare?
Government "choices" mean some of the families now receiving Family Boost payments for their early childhood education are among the 10 percent wealthiest in the country, an economist says. A revamp to the Family Boost programme means those with household incomes up to $229,100 a year are now eligible for support with their childcare fees. The available rebate is also increasing to 40 percent of fees paid, or a maximum of $1560 a quarter. The change applies to fees paid in the September quarter, and from then on. But Craig Renney, policy director of the Council of Trade Unions and an economist who was previously a senior economic adviser to then-Finance Minister Grant Robertson, said there were "choices" being made. He said those on the highest incomes, in the top 10 percent according to the Stats NZ Household Expenditure Survey, were benefiting the most from the change. "If your household earns $60,000 a year, you can get up to an extra $2340 annually in new support. If your household earns three times that, $180,000 - you will get an extra $3440 annually. That's 47 percent more. For exactly the same thing - having children in early childhood education." The difference was because the higher earners were previously not eligible at all. Renney said data also showed higher-earning households tended to spend more on early childhood education anyway, which meant they would have larger fees to claim rebates on. Most were already spending the money without the government's assistance, he said. It could have been better used to help make early childhood education more affordable or accessible to low or middle-income earners, he said. "Instead of having a 40 percent cap across the piece that could be claimed, you could have said for very low income households we'll make it 50, 60 or 100 percent. "Because this is a rebate scheme, those on low incomes don't have the money to be able to afford it in the first place to then get the rebate. "I'm not saying these families don't need the money but I'm saying if you were making choices about where to spend, for a government that's focused on value for money - you may get better outcomes for your dollar if you were actually spending it on expanding ECE provision in low-income communities." Asked whether the adjustment would affect the number of families who could receive the full $250-a-fortnight relief that National campaigned on before the last election, as a combination of the Family Boost package and tax cuts, Finance Minister Nicola Willis said that data was not available. "The National Party campaigned on a tax relief plan that included multiple elements - shifting tax brackets to compensate for inflation, expanding tax credits to reach more modest income earners, increasing Working for Families tax credits and introducing the FamilyBoost childcare tax credit. "We delivered on these policies in our first Budget. We made clear that the impact of these policies would vary according to family circumstances and encouraged people to use our tax calculator so they could find out what it would mean for them." She said the $250 example was a family with a household income of $120,000 split across two earners spending at least $300 a week on childcare. "We did not model how many families would match that scenario. "Inland Revenue is not geared up to calculate how many people would have matched that scenario in the past 12 months or will match it in the coming years. This is because some elements of the tax plan are calculated on an individual basis while others, including FamilyBoost, are calculated according to household income. Inland Revenue does not routinely collect information on household incomes." She said about 60,000 families had received the full FamilyBoost payment they were entitled to. With the scheme expansion, she said, about 16,000 more families would probably benefit. "The amount of rebate they receive will vary according to the fees they pay and the income they earn each quarter. The maximum a family can now receive from FamilyBoost is $240, an increase on the $150 that National campaigned on. "To receive that amount, a family would have to be spending at least $300 a week on childcare and have a combined family income of less than $140,000 a year. Inland Revenue does not calculate how many families find themselves in that circumstance." Rebate most flawed part - advocate Child Poverty Action Group spokesperson Isaac Gunson said his organisation's position was that the rebate was the most flawed part of the Family Boost programme because it relied on families having the money in the first place to pay the fee then wait to claim it back. "The direct fee refund model, which IRD is looking into, is where we see the real solution being. Placing the responsibility on the profit-driven providers to claim the money back lifts the burden off low-income families who need the support the most. "While larger rebates would deepen the support available to low income families, it doesn't really address the accessibility of the support, whereas a direct fee refund model would solve the issue the rebate presents to many families: they don't have the money and can't wait that long to see any of that money come back in."
RNZ News
5 days ago
- Business
- RNZ News
Do people earning $200,000 need help with childcare?
High-earners were previously not eligible for Family Boost payments at all. (File photo) Photo: 123RF Government "choices" mean some of the families now receiving Family Boost payments for their early childhood education are among the 10 percent wealthiest in the country, an economist says. A revamp to the Family Boost programme means those with household incomes up to $229,100 a year are now eligible for support with their childcare fees. The available rebate is also increasing to 40 percent of fees paid, or a maximum of $1560 a quarter. The change applies to fees paid in the September quarter, and from then on. But Craig Renney, policy director of the Council of Trade Unions and an economist who was previously a senior economic adviser to then-Finance Minister Grant Robertson, said there were "choices" being made. He said those on the highest incomes, in the top 10 percent according to the Stats NZ Household Expenditure Survey, were benefiting the most from the change. "If your household earns $60,000 a year, you can get up to an extra $2340 annually in new support. If your household earns three times that, $180,000 - you will get an extra $3440 annually. That's 47 percent more. For exactly the same thing - having children in early childhood education." The difference was because the higher earners were previously not eligible at all. Renney said data also showed higher-earning households tended to spend more on early childhood education anyway, which meant they would have larger fees to claim rebates on. Most were already spending the money without the government's assistance, he said. It could have been better used to help make early childhood education more affordable or accessible to low or middle-income earners, he said. "Instead of having a 40 percent cap across the piece that could be claimed, you could have said for very low income households we'll make it 50, 60 or 100 percent. "Because this is a rebate scheme, those on low incomes don't have the money to be able to afford it in the first place to then get the rebate. "I'm not saying these families don't need the money but I'm saying if you were making choices about where to spend, for a government that's focused on value for money - you may get better outcomes for your dollar if you were actually spending it on expanding ECE provision in low-income communities." Asked whether the adjustment would affect the number of families who could receive the full $250-a-fortnight relief that National campaigned on before the last election, as a combination of the Family Boost package and tax cuts, Finance Minister Nicola Willis said that data was not available. Finance Minister Nicola Willis said about 60,000 families had received the full FamilyBoost payment they were entitled to. Photo: RNZ / Mark Papalii "The National Party campaigned on a tax relief plan that included multiple elements - shifting tax brackets to compensate for inflation, expanding tax credits to reach more modest income earners, increasing Working for Families tax credits and introducing the FamilyBoost childcare tax credit. "We delivered on these policies in our first Budget. We made clear that the impact of these policies would vary according to family circumstances and encouraged people to use our tax calculator so they could find out what it would mean for them." She said the $250 example was a family with a household income of $120,000 split across two earners spending at least $300 a week on childcare. "We did not model how many families would match that scenario. "Inland Revenue is not geared up to calculate how many people would have matched that scenario in the past 12 months or will match it in the coming years. This is because some elements of the tax plan are calculated on an individual basis while others, including FamilyBoost, are calculated according to household income. Inland Revenue does not routinely collect information on household incomes." She said about 60,000 families had received the full FamilyBoost payment they were entitled to. With the scheme expansion, she said, about 16,000 more families would probably benefit. "The amount of rebate they receive will vary according to the fees they pay and the income they earn each quarter. The maximum a family can now receive from FamilyBoost is $240, an increase on the $150 that National campaigned on. "To receive that amount, a family would have to be spending at least $300 a week on childcare and have a combined family income of less than $140,000 a year. Inland Revenue does not calculate how many families find themselves in that circumstance." Child Poverty Action Group spokesperson Isaac Gunson said his organisation's position was that the rebate was the most flawed part of the Family Boost programme because it relied on families having the money in the first place to pay the fee then wait to claim it back. "The direct fee refund model, which IRD is looking into, is where we see the real solution being. Placing the responsibility on the profit-driven providers to claim the money back lifts the burden off low-income families who need the support the most. "While larger rebates would deepen the support available to low income families, it doesn't really address the accessibility of the support, whereas a direct fee refund model would solve the issue the rebate presents to many families: they don't have the money and can't wait that long to see any of that money come back in." Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
RNZ News
11-06-2025
- Business
- RNZ News
Council of Trade Unions take NZ's pay equity fight to international conference
Pay equity protestors voice their opinions outside Parliament on Budget day 2025. Photo: RNZ/Marika Khabazi A representative from the Council of Trade Unions has taken New Zealand's pay equity fight to an international conference. The International Labour Organisation (ILO) is a United Nations agency, which brings together workers, employers and governments to discuss work-related issues, and whose mandate is to advance social and economic justice by setting international labour standards. Council of Trade Unions secretary Melissa Ansell-Bridges is at its annual conference in Geneva, Switzerland. The coalition government announced in early May it would use urgency in Parliament to raise the threshold for proving work has been historically undervalued when making a pay equity claim. Workplace Minister Brooke van Velden said at the time , claims had been able to progress without strong evidence of undervaluation, and some had been "very broad", where it was difficult to tell whether differences in pay were due to sex-based discrimination or something else. The move cancelled 33 in-progress pay equity claims, and saved the government billions of dollars . Ansell-Bridges told RNZ she spoke about the changes during her speech to the ILO plenary on Tuesday. "It was important to inform the 187 member states that despite not being signalled in the last election, reforms to severely undermine the legislation were passed under urgency without any consultation with workers or their unions." The issue had come too late to make it onto the agenda for the ILO's committee on the application of standards, which sat during the two-week conference. "But that's definitely something that we'll be considering in advance of the conference next year," she said. If a case ended up being heard by the committee - which operated on a triage system - it would then be able to make recommendations to governments on how to stay in alignment with agreed conventions. Ansell-Bridges said the response from those international representatives who heard her speech had been one of warmth, support and surprise. "Obviously we have this reputation of being quite a progressive and forward-thinking country that values equality, and so to hear that these kinds of changes are happening in New Zealand, people are very surprised." Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Scoop
24-05-2025
- Business
- Scoop
Rabbits, Switch-Ups And Highway Robbery: Politicians, Economists React To Budget 25
Article – RNZ Every politician, economist and their dog had their own nickname for the document dubbed the 'Growth Budget' by the government. , Political Reporter 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. '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 off 18-19 year olds, we're taking money from the education budget. We're taking money off 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 threshold 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 researcher 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 to 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 thresholds 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. No commitment from Labour on $12.8b pay equity return 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, Best Start, 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 of 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 assure them of '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.' 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.'
Scoop
24-05-2025
- Business
- Scoop
Rabbits, Switch-Ups And Highway Robbery: Politicians, Economists React To Budget 25
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. "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 off 18-19 year olds, we're taking money from the education budget. We're taking money off 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 threshold 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 researcher 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 to 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 thresholds 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. No commitment from Labour on $12.8b pay equity return 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, Best Start, 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 of 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 assure them of "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." 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."
