Review into use of Whānau Ora Commissioning funding set to conclude this week
Photo:
RNZ / Mihingarangi Forbes
Te Puni Kōkiri has confirmed the review into the use of Whānau Ora Commissioning funding is being concluded this week, and the findings will be released next month.
The
review
, led by Doug Craig, was
set up after reports
agencies with soon-to-expire contracts had
paid for an ad campaign
urging people to switch to the Māori roll, and
to the Moana Pasifika rugby team
.
Concerns were also raised about contracting decisions and conflicts of interest by a Pasifika Futures senior executive.
The agencies maintained the ad campaign was part of the mission to advance Māori wellbeing, and
denied they had put any public money towards the rugby team
.
Te Puni Kōkiri launched the review and
released terms of reference
in late June, but
would not set a firm timeframe
despite earlier assurances from the prime minister it would be completed in July.
In a statement to RNZ, Te Puni Kōkiri confirmed it "will be completed this week".
"As part of the review process, it is appropriate that those covered in the report are given the opportunity to comment on its findings before any public release. Te Puni Kōkiri expects to release the findings of the report in mid-August," the statement said.
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero
,
a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
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
How NZ's tax system compares with other countries
By Susan Edmunds of RNZ In recent months, Treasury, Inland Revenue and an organisation representing accountants have suggested New Zealand needs a rethink of its tax settings. Inland Revenue said taxes would have to increase to cope with an ageing population and CPA Australia said a capital gains tax should be considered. But do you know how much the average person in New Zealand pays, and how that compares to other countries? Infometrics calculated the average tax bill of a household with two median income earners, earning $72,900 per person before tax, not including any Working for Families credits. Chief executive Brad Olsen calculated that they would pay $39,800 to the government, made up about $14,100 in income tax each, and $11,600 in GST. They might pay another $3800 a year in local government rates. "Central government still collects the vast majority of money from households - at still over 90 percent of total funds collected by central or local government going to the Beehive coffers. The proportions have shifted slightly, in 2023 when we ran this same exercise, around 93 percent of tax or rates collected went to central government, and 7 percent to local government. "In dollar terms, we estimate that our median household scenario would be paying around $985 more a year in rates than in 2023, but $3182 more in income tax and GST." Rates rises were more noticeable because households received a direct notice in the mail telling them what they had to pay, Olsen said. "In contrast, most households don't track - or get a demand for - their taxes from central government. For income taxes, PAYE workers never see their income tax as their employer withholds the tax and pays it to IRD. For GST, you don't directly tally up your GST and pay it to the government - it's all part of your daily spending. The difference in how you pay - and how noticeable that payment demand is or not - does behaviourally contribute to how we talk about these various increases. "We spend a lot of time, fairly, on rates increases. That's reasonable scrutiny. But we spend a lot less time on tax payments than rates payments, even though tax payments are 10 times larger than rates payments. "That's also true, in my mind, around current discussions on rates capping. Presumably if it's good enough for central government to impose on local government, it would be good enough for central government to tax-cap itself? For every dollar of additional rates paid in the last three years, tax paid by a household has increased by $3.23." As people earn more through the PAYE system, their income tax bill increases. A report by consultancy OliverShaw in 2023 said those in the top two tax brackets at the time made up 21.2 percent of taxpayers and paid 68.5 percent of income tax in the 2021 tax year. Those earning $180,000 to $300,000 constituted less than 2 percent of taxpayers, but paid 9.3 percent of income tax. But while the dollar value of GST paid is higher for wealthier people, it may make up a smaller proportion of their income because they may save more, or put money into financial assets that do not incur GST. Some wealthier people may also be able to earn income in ways that does not attract as much tax. Simplicity chief economist Shamubeel Eaqub said people might be surprised to see that New Zealand is among the lower-taxed countries in the OECD. On a measure of tax-to-GDP, in 2023, New Zealand had a ratio of 34 percent compared to the OECD average of 33.9 percent. He said the country was only on the higher side of average because many countries had some significantly lower taxes on specific things, such as Ireland's low corporate tax rate. On an income tax wedge basis, New Zealand was third-lowest in 2024, behind Chile and Colombia on a comparison of total tax as a percentage of labour costs. This reflects the impact of Working for Families credits. "There is no right or wrong number when it comes to taxes," Eaqub said. "If we want less public service, we pay less tax, if we want more public services, we pay more." He said many countries had much higher tax bills - France has tax at almost 44 percent of GDP, Denmark at 43.4 percent and Italy at 42.8 percent. "Italy has to but that's why younger people are leaving. There's a cost - if you tax a lot and make younger people poor they might go somewhere else. You can't arbitrarily increase taxes if you're not giving the value people are looking for. You need to maintain the legitimacy of the tax system." New Zealand workers tend to shoulder more of the tax bill than those in other countries, because income tax on individuals makes up such a large proportion of the total tax take. "We have big areas where we don't have any tax," said Council of Trade Unions policy director and economist Craig Renney. "There are no capital taxes, no social security taxes. It means New Zealand's taxation structure looks very different to the majority of developed economies around the Western world. We tend to over-emphasise GST and PAYE. Labour is a smaller share of tax in other jurisdictions." Any conversation about tax changes needed to get away from winners and losers and instead encourage people to consider what outcomes could be gained from higher revenue, he said. "The way we historically structure tax conversations does not help." New Zealand's corporate tax rate is now one of the highest in the OECD, at 28 percent. NZ Initiative chief economist Eric Crampton said reducing the government's structural deficit would require a mix of reducing spending, boosting economic growth and increasing taxes. "I would focus on spending before looking at taxes. Increasing revenue to cover the cost of current spending should depend on decent evidence that current spending delivers substantial value. "If the government demonstrated that higher tax revenue was needed, increasing GST while shifting income tax rates and thresholds to compensate could make sense. Inland Revenue has been looking at different options for ensuring lower-income households would not be made worse off if GST increased. GST captures spending that comes from income that is harder to tax when it is earned, including income from capital gains, as well as spending by tourists. "But first priority ought to be ensuring value-for-money in spending, especially where an ageing population increases fiscal pressure."
Scoop
5 hours ago
- Scoop
US Tariffs: Some Pacific Nations Get Relief, Others Face Increase
Pacific Islands still face tariffs from the United States, but some rates are lower than originally announced in April. The White House announced last week that the "universal" tariff for goods coming into the US will remain at 10 percent, the same level that was implemented on 2 April before the pause. But that 10 percent rate will apply only to countries with which the US has a trade surplus - countries to which the US exports more than it imports. That applies to most countries, a senior administration official said. A 15 percent rate will serve as the new tariff floor for countries with which the America has a trade deficit. About 40 countries will pay that new 15 per cent tariff. The tariff in Fiji has more than halved - from 32 percent to 15 percent. Fiji's trade ministry welcomed the drop from 32 per cent to 15 per cent. Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade Manoa Kamikamica said the reduction offers welcome relief to Fiji's exporters and helps preserve their competitiveness in the US market - but it's not the end of the road yet. "The 15 percent tariff is not the end of the journey. As referred to in the [US] executive order of 1 August 2025, Fiji is designated as a country in ongoing negotiations with the United States," he said in a statement. The reduced tariff rate will take effect from 8 August, applying to all goods of Fijian origin unless excluded under specific provisions. "We remain committed to advancing these discussions in good faith. Our ultimate goal is to significantly reduce the 15 per cent tariff," Kamikamica said. The Fijian government said the country accounts for less than 0.0001 per cent of total US imports, "posing no discernible threat to US industry." Vanuatu's tariffs have been dropped from 22 per cent to 15, and Nauru's from 30 per cent also to 15. However, Papua New Guinea has seen an increase from 10 to 15 percent, while New Zealand has also been given the 15 percent tariff. Speaking to RNZ's Morning Report, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said the tariff, which had been expected to be at 10 percent, being at a higher percentage was "not what New Zealand wanted". Top diplomat Vangelis Vitalis was flying to Washington in the wake of the announcement, with Trade Minister Todd McClay intending to visit in coming days too. Despite the higher tariff, Luxon said the government had "played it well". "We continue to register our disappointment about the decision; we've also done it since April." He believed New Zealand exporters were "nimble and agile" and there was still huge demand for New Zealand products and services globally. The opposition said the 15 percent tariff was a "slap in the face" for exporters.
NZ Herald
5 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Aaron Smale: Why politicians don't take the Māori vote seriously
Listening to articles is free for open-access content—explore other articles or learn more about text-to-speech. Christopher Luxon's indifference reflects the larger issue of the major parties ignoring Māori as a voting bloc. Photo / Getty Images Whoever the press secretary is for Christopher Luxon these days, they might want to have a weekend bootcamp teaching him how to keep his foot out of his mouth. Apart from when he uses corporate gibberish to masquarade as an answer, on the rare occasion Luxon says something pithy, it often turns out to be an absolute clanger. Luxon tossed off one such clanger when he questioned whether the September 6 by-election for the Māori electorate seat of Tāmaki Makaurau would be a real fight or 'a pillow fight'. (Kind of ironic given the real pillow fight is in the Epsom seat, which National hands to Act every three years.) A by-election will be held in Tāmaki Makaurau because the person who held the seat, Takutai Tarsh Kemp, recently died. And she held the seat because the voters of that electorate put her there, unlike some party list mediocrity like, well, take your pick. Luxon's comment was flippant at best and disrespectful to both the late MP and her constituents. So, no, it's not a pillow fight, it's a vote in the largest Polynesian city in the world. But Luxon's indifference to Māori voters in the coming by-election reflects the larger issue of the major parties mostly ignoring Māori as a voting bloc. One of the underlying reasons for this was first pointed out to me by my sixth form history teacher at Edgecumbe College, Gerry Rowlands, an American originally from Florida, a southern state with all the history that entails. Mr Rowlands posed a hypothetical idea that Māori would be better off all going on the general roll and getting rid of the Māori seats altogether. His rationale was that the electorate we were in was often held by National because of the high number of Pākehā farmers. But if Māori all went on the general roll, then National – and Labour, for that matter – would actually have to compete for the Māori vote to win. The then-named Eastern Māori seat went from the Bay of Plenty all the way around the East Coast and down to Wairarapa and Wellington. This area has one of the highest Māori populations in the country and the election campaigns in the general electorate seats would look completely different if all Māori went on the general roll. Mr Rowlands didn't say this but I don't think he'd disagree – the Māori seats are acting as a passive version of what Americans call gerrymandering. That is, Māori are being electorally contained – or at least split – and thereby robbed of their actual voting power by the Māori seats. The Māori vote has been ghettoised; every Māori who goes on the Māori roll is a Māori the candidates and the elected MPs in the general seats can ignore. And they do. Back to Auckland and the present day. One of Luxon's long catalogue of gaffes since taking up National's leadership was encouraging women to have babies to boost the flagging population. He quickly backtracked. Women have fought long and hard to have control over their fertility and some male politician telling them to start banging out babies for the national cause wasn't landing well. But what Luxon dimly recognised was that Pākehā numbers are in the early stages of decline, and this decline will only accelerate as the 34% of the Pākehā population that is over the age of 55 falls off the perch at an increasing rate. Luxon doesn't seem to recognise, even dimly, that Māori and Polynesian populations are rising steadily. Listen to Luxon's political messaging and it's as if Māori don't exist in his calculations. Labour's Chris Hipkins isn't any better, and in some respects he's worse. When Māori became a political target, he, like Helen Clark before him, dropped them like a hot hāngī rock so he could appear non-threatening to old, white people. The coalition government has had a free run in its attack on Māori because Hipkins does little to stand up for them, or articulate in any coherent way why what's good for Māori is good for everyone. He'd rather let Te Pāti Māori take the flak. Te Pāti Māori has become a convenient – and, it must be said, easy – political target. But those who bear the brunt of the political attack are actually their voters. Their interests get drowned out in all the posturing from across the political spectrum. The merits of the Tāmaki Makaurau candidates – Peeni Henare for Labour, Oriini Kaipara for Te Pāti Māori and Hannah Tamaki for Vision New Zealand – are open to serious question. But National, NZ First, Act, and even the Greens, have disqualified themselves from any part in the conversation, because they haven't bothered to put up candidates. Māori are at the pointy end of issues that concern everyone, particularly those of a younger generation: the cost of housing, the cost of living, the environment and the future of employment. The economic and social direction of South Auckland and other regions of the country with high Māori populations is the direction of the country as a whole. It's a bare-knuckle fight for the future of the nation. Mr Luxon is just too scared to even get in the ring.
