Budget 25: Millions for cyclone-hit roads, SuperGold cardholder rates relief
Bishop said a resilient transport network in the East Coast and Hawke's Bay regions would help deliver the infrastructure communities need to grow their businesses, get their kids to school, and ensure goods get from A to B efficiently'.
Hastings Mayor Sandra Hazlehurst called the decision a 'promising signal', but the council would need to look at the details.
'Any extra funding for our ongoing bridge and road rebuild programme will be extremely welcome,' she said.
In more good news for local councils, Minister of Local Government Simon Watts and Minister for Seniors announced Budget 25 will help up to 66,000 more SuperGold Cardholders with their rates payments by introducing a new income abatement threshold from July 1.
The income abatement threshold to be eligible for the maximum rebate for SuperGold Cardholders and their households will be lifted from $31,510 to $45,000 – about the rate for a couple receiving superannuation.
The maximum rebate for the scheme will also increase from $790 to $805.
Costello said if over-65s have questions about eligibility they can contact their council or retirement village operator.
'It will mean that every SuperGold Cardholder earning only NZ Superannuation, with rates higher than $2000, will be eligible for the full rebate,' she said.
'SuperGold Cardholders earning more than $45,000 may also be entitled to a smaller rebate.
'These changes, worth $154 million over four years, will come as a relief to those seniors who are on fixed incomes and are dealing with rates increases.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
2 days ago
- Otago Daily Times
The govt's capacity for opacity
The Beehive is urgently in need of some metaphorical window cleaning. The literal window cleaners have no doubt already been sacked by the government to save a few thousand dollars. But the cry for the metaphorical ones is stronger — every week another layer of political grime seems to affix itself to any surface which may once have let light through and allowed those outside to see what might be happening within. It is upsetting to see — or, perhaps not see — how much this government is doing behind closed doors. Far too much is being done secretively and, when details are finally liberated to the public, efforts are made to ensure that that is done in the most inconvenient way at the worst possible time — as happened with the release of documents around its approval of a third medical school at the University of Waikato. There is nothing new, of course, in ministers and officials playing these games and tinkering with the public and the media, but there appears to be a degree more cynicism in recent behaviour. Unfortunately, the previous government can hardly be held up to the current administration as a shining example of how to be transparent. Despite Labour making Chris Hipkins the minister responsible for open government, the amount of obfuscation and spin which it generated has not faded from memory. Anyone who voted for the current government in the hope of greater transparency and a breather from such tactics must be very disenchanted with the efforts of the coalition partners to date. Concerning details have now come to light of how the government deliberately hid what it was up to regarding the provocative changes to pay equity, which saved the coalition's bacon by freeing up billions of dollars to make this year's Budget figures appear more sanguine. Thirty-three active claims were immediately cancelled by the Bill, which was passed under urgency in May. RNZ and Newsroom have been delving into the government's management and manipulation of pay equity changes to ensure the public remained in the dark until it was too late for them to be able to make any difference. Documents released under the Official Information Act show the assiduous stage management included even Prime Minister Christopher Luxon, who attended one of the ministerial meetings at which instructions were issued to withhold the proactive release of their diaries. Photo: RNZ An email from Workplace Relations and Safety Minister Brooke van Velden said officials should remove digital access to Cabinet papers on the topic, with hard copies instead hand-delivered to ministers. The whole strategy was given a name, Project 10. There were recommendations that nothing be said publicly until the Bill had been introduced to the House — the reason being there could be a raft of new claims if the public knew beforehand. However, as Newsroom points out, that is fallacious, given the existing pending claims were cancelled anyway by the new legislation. Despite warnings that the furtive approach potentially breached people's human rights, the government carried on regardless. Sometimes there are valid reasons for keeping matters confidential. But more often, secrecy is a way of keeping knowledge and power close to the chests of one group to deliberately disadvantage others. Hiding matters can also suggest lack of confidence in one's decision-making abilities and the desire to avoid scrutiny of such. The documents reveal a government more concerned with meeting its mantra of economic prudence than it is with looking after the public. This is all very disappointing, from a government which continues to disappoint and blame others for its own lack of progress. At least we now know the kind of thinking which has gone on behind those murky Beehive windows and can keep on the government's case for greater transparency — transparency which New Zealanders have a right to. Use some judgement We support the vigilant policing of mobility parks to ensure people with disabilities can stop as close as possible to their destinations. However, the $750 fine a Dunedin City Council parking officer handed to injured 78-year-old Swava Pociecha for her husband's momentary stop to pick her up outside Moana Pool after a physiotherapy session seems unfair. The council clearly needs to hold some lessons on using discretion.
NZ Herald
2 days ago
- NZ Herald
Auckland housing: Three-storey designation to go from hundreds of thousands of homes
Auckland Council's proposed changes are a response to a new framework for urban development in Auckland being established by the RMA Reform Minister Chris Bishop. Bishop has already told councils in large cities they may 'opt out' of the medium density residential standards (MDRS) introduced by the last Government. The MDRS are regulations that allow three-storey developments on almost every residential property. But Bishop said the MDRS could be abandoned only if the council adopted new planning rules to allow for an equivalent number of homes. In Auckland, this means the council must provide for 2 million homes over the coming decades. This is more than the 900,000 homes allowed for under the Unitary Plan adopted in 2016. The council's general manager of planning, John Duguid, said on Monday the new plan change will not fully make up for the loss of MDRS capacity and tighter rules for flood-prone areas. But hundreds of thousands of suburban properties will no longer be liable for development, and in exchange there will be more higher buildings, with greater density, in designated parts of the city. The 44 'walkable catchments' will apply to town centres such as Botany, Henderson and Panmure, as well as to transit stations. In some cases, there will be overlap. In Albany, for example, the town centre catchment will overlap with the Northern Busway station, creating a single larger catchment area. Bishop declared earlier this year that 15-storey apartment buildings should be permitted within the walkable catchments of Maungawhau, Kingsland and Morningside railway stations on the Western Line. Developments in Kingsland have proceeded unevenly, but the new rules could change that. Photo / Melanie Earley The council's head of planning, Megan Tyler, said today the new proposal will enable this in Kingsland by 'removing 70-80% of the 'special character' designation' that preserves the cottages and villas of the suburb. The four 'avenues' will not be affected. No details for other stations or town centres have yet been revealed. The council will publish maps showing where the proposed changes will take effect, along with its full report, but the Herald has been advised technical issues have delayed the release of this information. Owners of land designated at risk of flooding and/or coastal erosion will find it harder to develop. They will have to produce a viable plan to mitigate the risks and in many cases even that will not be enough because development is designated as a 'non-complying' activity. That will allow consent officials to turn it down. A spokesperson for Mayor Wayne Brown said today that he is 'generally supportive' of the proposed plan change, but 'could not say more at this stage'. Chairman of the council's Policy and Planning Committee, councillor Richard Hills, said he has not yet seen the final proposal or the maps, but the plan change is 'largely in line' with what the minister has asked the council to do, and creates 'more capacity for housing close to transport, jobs and other amenities'. Auckland councillor Christine Fletcher says she is concerned everyone will be shortchanged if the planning is not done well. Photo / Nick Reed Councillor Christine Fletcher has been vocal in her opposition to the minister's density requirements. She said today she was 'not opposed' to council preparing the new plan and she had 'no implied criticism of council officials'. But the minister's timetable was 'very rushed'. 'I'm concerned we're going to shortchange everybody if the planning is not done well. It will give intensification a bad name.' The minister told the Herald: 'These changes are a matter for Auckland Council and I've so far only seen the press release. I will be receiving further advice on the proposed changes from officials in due course.' Simon Wilson is an award-winning senior writer covering politics, the climate crisis, transport, housing, urban design and social issues, with a focus on Auckland. He joined the Herald in 2018.
NZ Herald
5 days ago
- NZ Herald
Covid-19 pandemic handling returns to headlines, with Labour under scrutiny
What truly put the wind at the Government's back this week was the unexpected exhumation of half-buried relics from the Covid era – a period Labour may prefer was left entombed in the sediment of public amnesia. The first, was last Thursday's Treasury Long Term Insights Briefing (LTIB). The report was actually into how best to manage economic shocks: should the Government spend up, or leave it to the Reserve Bank? Treasury reckoned managing shocks was mostly best left to the Reserve Bank – a conclusion it published in a draft report some months ago. What was new were details of Treasury's advice to the former Government of its advice during the pandemic. Two short sections in particular noted that Treasury advised the last Government to ease up on the stimulus in 2022, and another section detailed the consequences of this: a large structural deficit and risks of inflation. With Finance Minister Nicola Willis off in London, exchanging knowing grimaces with Chancellor Rachel Reeves over their mutually dreadful fiscal headaches – left-right ideological niceties be damned – it was Bishop's opportunity to don the acting finance minister cap and have lobbed at him volley after volley of low patsy questions on the report, giving him ample opportunity to sermonise on Labour's alleged fiscal sins. Bishop first cleared his blocked throat during the very first question of the week on Tuesday, Labour leader Chris Hipkins, pointedly interjecting that this was clearly 'audition number one' for Luxon's job. Hipkins wasn't wrong about it being 'number one'. Come Wednesday, it was Nancy Lu's turn to take to her feet and ask Bishop what economic reports he'd been reading, to which he replied he was not yet done with Treasury's gripping LTIB. On Thursday, the lucky backbencher was Catherine Wedd, who asked the same question: what reports had the minister (officially Willis, but in practice, Bishop) been reading on the state of the economy. Bishop replied, 'Oh, I haven't been able to stop reading Treasury's long-term insights briefing.' Another MP, Tom Rutherford piped up, 'What did it say?' Bishop replied, testing the limits of MPs' obligation to be truthful in the House, 'it's a great read'. It's not a bad parliamentary tactic: Grant Robertson often used it to highlight his successes and the Opposition's shortcomings. Bishop's effort this week worked wonders in cheering an otherwise gloomy backbench. In Question Time this week Chris Bishop revealed a passion for reading Treasury documents. Photo / Mark Mitchell Willis and Bishop have done a clever job in giving the impression Treasury's LTIB was mostly about slamming Labour for the Covid response – it's true, that's what's new in the final version vis-a-vis the earlier draft, but overall, the backward-looking part of the report is a small part of the whole. Labour's responses are as interesting as the report itself. Leader Chris Hipkins dismissed it as 'spin', former Robertson staffers Craig Renney and Toby Moore had more detailed critiques. Renney, posting to his Substack, quoted Michael Cullen to describe report as an 'ideological burp' and decided to skewer the conclusion that managing economic cycles was primarily the job of the Reserve Bank. In Renney's view, the whole government is responsible for managing the economic cycle. If this is left to just the Reserve Bank, its focus on inflation would mean that other, distributional impacts become neglected. Hammering inflation somewhere means hammering the economy everywhere. To be fair to Treasury, its report does briefly touch on fiscal policy's ability and obligation to smooth the bluntness of monetary policy. That's worth pursuing in more detail, particularly given the experience New Zealand had during the pandemic, in which the Reserve Bank's money-printing played arsonist to the housing market, before the bank guiltily and belatedly doused the inferno in a series of rate rises so blunt in their asphyxiating cruelty they cast thousands on to the dole queue, and shunted thousands more into the airport departure lounge. Moore's piece, published in the Herald, was more of a right of reply to Treasury. He resurfaced papers he first received as a staffer in Robertson's office and which were subsequently published in the Herald to note that as late as Budget 2023, Treasury was still advising Robertson to spend yet more money – not on Covid stimulus, but via his operating allowance, the pot of money to fund ongoing cost increases in departments and to pay for new things, like removing the $5 prescription charge in that Budget. In that Budget, Robertson actually spent slightly less than Treasury told him, not more. In that Budget, as for all of Robertson's Covid Budgets, the advice to spend more was consistent with the economic forecasts continually being revised in the right direction. This meant more money flowing in, allowing the Government to spend more money while returning to surplus in a creditable timeframe. The trouble with these forecasts is that they were wrong – and badly wrong. The economy did not grow nearly as much as hoped, tax revenue fell – and the effect was compounded, tax revenue as a share of the smaller economy was smaller than forecast too. The spending still happened, but we're still waiting on the money to pay for it. There were, then, two obvious flaws, given just passing detail in Treasury's report: the first is that Treasury's forecasts were badly wrong, the second was that Robertson did not show enough caution when he relied upon Treasury to put his Budgets together. That telling of the story is no less interesting to either side, but it has a different moral lesson: the solution to the fiscal problem really is, as Willis says, growth. If the economy had grown to where Treasury earlier forecast it would grow to, we'd be in surplus and reducing the debt ratio by now. A Treasury graph plotting which fiscal years have run counter- and pro-cyclically. Graph / Treasury Treasury quietly dropped another paper this week – this time by one of its economists, with the usual disclaimer that it does not necessarily represent the views of Treasury as an organisation. It pondered whether governments were running pro-cyclical or counter-cyclical fiscal policies, with the latter generally preferred because it allows the Government to moderate the economic cycle. Cullen gets the biscuit for running the most counter-cyclical budgets, Bill English and Steven Joyce get good marks too. Robertson's first term gets a pass, but not the second. The report only goes up to the fiscal year 2024, which was the year of a Labour Budget and National mini-Budget, but some back-of-the-envelope maths from the Budget Economic and Fiscal Update would suggest the Budgets for the last and the current fiscal years will be counter-cyclical – the first since 2019, a cautious vote of confidence in approval to Willis' economic management. The week ended on another blast from the past. The Covid-19 Royal Commission announced Labour ministers would not be appearing before the inquiry in person. Labour itself only found out the commission was going to announce this change a few minutes before it did so – the coalition seemed to have more warning, with each of the three parties putting out damning press releases shortly afterwards. Polling shows the public is clearly on the coalition's side and wants the ministers to appear, but they won't. The refusal led the news for 24 hours and is a good reminder to Labour the public haven't put the pandemic to bed quite as much as the party would like. Labour is proud of its Covid record but the fact the ministers won't appear in public allows the Opposition to argue, with some conviction, that perhaps Labour actually isn't – and its Covid record, particularly on economic matters, is really as embarrassing as the Opposition would like the public to believe. It's a dilemma for the Labour ministers, some of whom probably wouldn't mind appearing and defending themselves. One of the ex-ministers probably will be appearing in public in the near future – and, unlike Jacinda Ardern, will probably spend a lot of that time talking about Covid and money: Robertson's memoir Anything Could Happen is out later this month. There's a good chance some of these questions will get an airing in any promotional tour, and the book itself.
