Latest news with #GrantRobertson
Otago Daily Times
5 hours ago
- Politics
- Otago Daily Times
Anger over axing of scholarships
Top students will abandon the University of Otago after a shock decision to axe scholarships, the institution has been warned. Staff and students were informed of the cuts to doctoral scholarships in an email from vice-chancellor Grant Robertson this week. "We are now in a situation where, if we continue to award scholarships using our current approach, what is set to be a tight 2026 scholarship budget ... will likely be required entirely to fund students already studying with us now or who will have started based on 2025 offers," the email says. "A consequence of that situation would be that, to stay within budget, there would be no funding for new scholarship offers in 2026. This is a position I want to avoid. " Mr Robertson's email also referred to the difficult financial environment the university was facing: "Both at Otago and nationally we face tightening research funding and significant strategic shifts in the external landscape". Otago University Students' Association president Liam White said the announcement was "a huge shock, and frankly, disappointing". "It seems like all of this has happened rather quickly, without a ton of notice, and I am concerned for the students that potentially have planned the next three years of their life and now, for whatever reason, aren't able to get a scholarship." An Otago University spokeswoman said the decision was expected to mean a reduction of about 50 doctoral scholarships in the coming months. It still expected to award 140 of the scholarships this year. OUSA postgraduate representative Josh Stewart said he was absolutely livid at the university's "short-sighted decision making" and the lack of communication. "I really feel for all the students who consistently have to deal with the university system, where the ballpark keeps changing, and they don't get any say in the matter." Many students he had spoken to about the changes were now considering studying elsewhere, he said. "Otago is always having to compete with doctoral scholarships overseas ... If they, however, stay at Otago, one would think that a degree of loyalty will be rewarded, but now the rules have changed again." Green MP Francisco Hernandez had also seen the email. He said the announcement was the natural result of the government's Budget decision to cut overall tertiary funding by $162 million. "We are already experiencing a mass exodus of some of our best and brightest young people. These short-sighted cuts risk leaving communities like Dunedin as hollowed-out husks." MPols student Lindsay Roberts was among many students concerned about their academic future at Otago University. "I think for me and anyone considering doing a PhD in the future it kind of changes the incentive, to progress your career and progress your academic journey, you do want some kind of financial support as there is a big financial risk. "It pushes the incentive elsewhere — I've discussed going to Waikato University," Mr Roberts said. Former Otago University academic Prof Robin Gauld, now executive dean of Bond Business School at Bond University in Queensland, said he was aware of the concerns among the professoriate at his former university. "Good PhD students are incredible. They go on to be stellar academics, and they're incredibly productive. "So they build reputation and they build a research pipeline. They are a pretty important piece of the university's lifeblood, really." Mr Robertson's email said the September and November Graduate Research Committee doctoral scholarship panels and award rounds would be cancelled. Students who met the academic criteria for an automatic scholarship award would still be accepted and it would follow through with offers to those approved at the most recent (June) meeting of the Graduate Research Committee and the agreed Maori and Pacific Strategic awards. "Our budget for 2026 must continue the path to reducing our deficit and returning us to a financial surplus, as required by the Tertiary Education Commission." A university spokeswoman said it forecast spending about $19.77m on doctoral scholarships this year, slightly above last year's spend of $18.26m. It declined to give a projected spend for next year, other than to say it was "certainly no more " than this year. It did not expect the change to affect its reputation. "This is a temporary pause on new doctoral scholarship offers. We have hundreds of doctoral scholarship students studying at Otago, and we will be awarding more scholarships this year and next year."
Scoop
18-07-2025
- 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
17-07-2025
- 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.
Otago Daily Times
22-06-2025
- Business
- Otago Daily Times
Uni back in top 200 in worldranking
The University of Otago is back in the top 200 of world-ranked institutions in a major rankings table — and the vice-chancellor credits the work of staff and students. The QS World University Rankings, released yesterday, showed Otago had jumped from 214th to 197th-equal, making it the second-highest ranked university in the country, although it is still some way behind the University of Auckland which was steady at 65th. Otago University vice-chancellor Grant Robertson said this reiterated Otago's reputation as a world-class university. "I want to acknowledge the hard work of our staff that sits behind this result, who day in, day out are producing world class research and providing world class teaching." Otago leaped 17 places from last year, marking its best performance since it was ranked 194th in 2022. Part of this improvement was due to an increase in its academic reputation and citations-per-faculty scores, Mr Robertson said. "These gains are hard won through the efforts of our kaimahi [staff] and tauira [students]. We will look to build on these results into the future as we strive for excellence in all that we do." The rankings come at a time when universities in New Zealand are looking to rebuild rolls after Covid-19, largely through attracting more international students. QS vice-president Ben Sowter said New Zealand was one of the few places worldwide where all universities featured among the global top 500 in the 2026 QS World University Rankings. "The breadth of excellence shown across the country's eight universities is testament to the work of students, outstanding staff and brilliant research carried out across New Zealand. With the University of Otago returning to the top 200 for the first time since 2022, the country once again has two institutions ranked among the very top tier of universities worldwide." Mr Sowter said among key English-speaking study destinations, New Zealand ranked lowest among global employers for its reputation but was highest in terms of employment outcomes. "This suggests a need for New Zealand universities to build closer relationships with employers worldwide to ensure a match between the skills and knowledge their graduates are entering the workforce with and those that are sought, and that the providers of those graduates are recognised." The ranking placed Massachusetts Institute of Technology first for the 14th consecutive year followed by Imperial College London and Stanford University.
The Spinoff
18-06-2025
- Business
- The Spinoff
The Greens have broken dramatically with the James Shaw era
The party's new fiscal strategy hones in on a 'fundamental asymmetry' in how we think about public investment – and envisages government borrowing at roughly three times the level backed by the former co-leader. Back in the mists of time, in the dim and distant past – in the year 2017, in other words – Grant Robertson proudly announced something he called the Budget Responsibility Rules. If elected, he proclaimed, a Labour-led government would largely maintain National's financial settings, capping day-to-day spending at about 30% of GDP and infrastructure-related borrowing at 20% of GDP. The rules would have kept state expenditures well below those of comparable European countries. Rather than being economically justified, they were pure politics: an attempt to reassure swing voters that Labour was a financially prudent party. The rules – which Labour adopted in government but then rapidly relaxed – were hotly debated at the time. The Green leadership team, however, willingly signed up. (Well-placed sources even argued they had originated the rules.) The party's leaders were, for their troubles, castigated by former MPs like Sue Bradford, who accused them of conforming to a neoliberal orthodoxy. But Bradford would, I suspect, have been delighted with the scenes that unfolded at the Wellington Museum on Tuesday, as Chlöe Swarbrick launched a new Green fiscal strategy under the heading of 'Real economic responsibility'. The Greens had already signalled a fresh radicalism with May's 'alternative budget', which envisaged an extra $25bn in taxes, most of it supplied by the wealthiest 1%. This would have lifted New Zealand state spending to western European levels: at last the social-democratic nirvana was beginning to take shape, in Green policy papers at least. Those taxes were designed to fund government spending on day-to-day services: teachers' salaries, payments to the long-term ill, GP consultations. But, in orthodox economics, governments also borrow money to build long-term infrastructure that will be around for generations: schools, hospitals, wind farms. In return for borrowing this money from the private sector, the government pays interest over many years. This deal allows it to build things now that it otherwise could not, if limited by its current reserves of cash; it also ensures that future generations, who will benefit from that infrastructure, pick up part of the tab. New Zealand commentators and policymakers, however, have long taken a peculiarly constrained approach to such borrowing. Partly this reflects a vague memory of the 1980s, when successive administrations played a little fast and loose with the public finances; partly it reflects the enduring influence of small-state thinking. Either way it has constrained state borrowing to levels well below those seen in other nations now or New Zealand in the past. This fear-laden atmosphere surrounding public debt also shaped the choices made by people like Robertson and his Greens economic counterpart James Shaw. Nor has that atmosphere really dissipated: dire warnings about the government 'going broke' are everywhere, and even some progressives fret about state borrowing. Times, though, have changed: the sense of a country crumbling at the edges has strengthened, likewise the urgency of the climate crisis. Institutions like the National Party and the Treasury seem caught between two worlds, tolerating higher debt levels than seemed possible in 2017 – 40% and 50% of GDP, respectively – but constantly portraying it as a negative force, one liable to ruin the country at any given moment. There were no such qualms apparent on Tuesday, however, as the Greens made it clear they were willing to challenge the conservative narrative – and challenge it not with empty rhetoric, not with mere assertions, but with a fairly forensic dismantling of what Swarbrick called the 'straitjacket' currently placed on public investment. Packed with graphs and citations, her new fiscal strategy envisages government borrowing – to fix our failing infrastructure and tackle climate change – at around 55-60% of GDP, roughly three times the level backed by Robertson and Shaw. Borrowing could, the strategy argues, go far higher still. It justifies this by finding multiple flaws in the current orthodoxy. The first target is the Treasury's belief that we need to keep borrowing low because we might at any time be hit by an economic shock so huge that it costs the government 40% of GDP – around $160bn currently – to fix. This, as Swarbrick pointed out scornfully on Tuesday, assumes we need to be ready for 'two Covid-19-size shocks occurring simultaneously, or more than 23 simultaneous Cyclone Gabrielles' – a wholly unnecessary level of insurance. Second, the Treasury's analysis – by its own admission 'very conservative' – assumes that the interest rates our governments pay on their borrowing will significantly outpace economic growth, weakening the state's ability to 'grow' its way out of debt. Yet interest rates have, over the last 30 years, been only marginally higher than growth rates. Equally importantly, the Greens' new analysis hones in on a 'fundamental asymmetry' in how we think about public investment (which is what state debt really is). The Treasury's models meticulously count the interest paid on state borrowing, while failing to properly capture two things that strengthen the case for investment: the damage done by not spending money, and the benefits that occur when it is spent. Decisions, in other words, are systematically weighted against extra investment. As Craig Renney of the NZ Council of Trade Unions often points out, the Treasury can tell you exactly how much it will cost to build a new hospital, almost down to the brick – but not how much it would cost the relevant region, in lives degraded and shortened, to not rebuild it for decade after decade. Nor does the Treasury properly quantify the benefits – in improved health, lives and productivity – once said hospital is completed. As the Greens' new strategy argues, official forecasting covers – at best – the short-term economic benefits from government investment, missing things like 'productivity gains from investments in health, education, infrastructure, and R&D, which emerge and diffuse over time'. While, in short, we have over-emphasised the supposed dangers of borrowing too much, we have been consistently inattentive to the dangers of borrowing too little. Right now, given the desperate need for state investment in our crumbling infrastructure, it is under-borrowing – not over-borrowing – that is economically irresponsible. That, at least, is the message the Greens want to send. Their radicalism is not one that seeks to overturn every last principle of orthodox economics: there is no suggestion, for instance, that printing more money is the solution to all our woes. What the Green Party displayed this week is a carefully calibrated radicalism, one that delights in demonstrating that others – principally, the Treasury and the National Party – have been doing orthodoxy wrong, and that even the current financial rules leave far more room for manoeuvre than they have realised. 'The things the Green Party are putting on the table are entirely credible,' Swarbrick carefully noted at the launch, 'and will be recognised as such by international debt markets.' The latter is an interesting point. The fiscal strategy argues that international lenders care far less about the percentage of state debt than they do about the economic fundamentals, and that no one is going to downgrade the credit rating of a country that is effectively strengthening its infrastructure, lifting skills and making itself more climate-resilient. Even if that is so, the argument does rely on extra state investment being well spent. Our infrastructure woes stem not just from under-spending but also from our extraordinarily inefficient approach to building things. A lack of tradies, not state funds, is arguably the biggest constraint on new construction. And plenty of extra cash has been pumped into the education system in the last two decades without noticeable results. How to get the machinery of the state working better is, in short, an entirely separate question, one which the Greens – and, in their defence, most people – have not yet fully confronted. It was evident on Tuesday, though, that Swarbrick had her sights set on a different problem. 'No area is treated with more mysticism than economics,' she declared. 'That's where the real power lies.' And that's where the Green agenda for change is now clearest.
