
Mediawatch: How A Budget Is Covered
Article – RNZ
The media make a drama out of Budget day every year, even though the big plot twists have been revealed in advance and bits of the backstory are no longer in the script.
, Mediawatch Presenter
The sudden scrapping of pay equity claims was hailed as 'saving the Budget' by ACT leader David Seymour, while Finance Minister Nicola Willis insisted it was not a book-balancing move.
When reporters and analysts went into the Budget day lock-up, the estimated saving was the first number many looked for – and it led the coverage once the embargo lapsed.
The sum certainly startled presenter Ryan Bridge.
'$12.8 billion. Almost half the savings over the entire Budget period,' he spluttered on the Herald website's live-streamed video coverage (which doubled as a practice for the Herald Now livestream launching this week).
But NZIER economist Christina Leung, who had been previewing the Budget for broadcasters since dawn, was not surprised – or energised.
'It was a boring Budget to be honest,' she told Bridge.
The Three Gals, One Beehive podcast labelled it 'a yeah, nah Budget.' At the Spinoff, Bernard Hickey declared it merely 'meh'. Other pundits labelled it a 'true blue' Budget National would expect to deliver in times that are tight.
But the tepid reaction was mainly because they already knew where $3b of fresh state spending would go, thanks to the pre-Budget announcements staggered in advance to maximise media coverage.
Big ticket items like defence, rail, acute healthcare and more were old news by Thursday. Substantial sums committed to costly medicines via Pharmac last year were also already baked in.
The finance minister was managing expectations for reporters by teasing it as a 'No BS' budget with no 'unicorns and rainbows'.
The same message was also driven home hard by the media, though The Herald 's business editor-at-large Liam Dann did not need imaginary animals. Instead he used the word the government was trying to avoid.
'Austerity is an ugly word – but that's what experts call it when there's no new money to spend,' said Dann in an explainer for the Herald.
'It is a Budget that promised little and therefore did not disappoint,' The Post 's editorial pointed out on Friday.
'There is now no question Willis' Budget was built on the backs of thousands of underpaid, hard-working New Zealand women' who had taken one for the team of 5 million, the paper said.
Big tech given a swerve again
'The government is leaving the hard work of growth and recovery to businesses,' The Post added – and pointed out it would be slow.
But some businesses were off the hook.
Just two days before the Budget, the government abandoned legislation to impose a 3 percent tax on the New Zealand revenues of online search and social media platforms. BusinessDesk reported the Digital Services Tax Bill was forecast raise around $320 million over four years – and almost $100m a year in additional tax revenue after that.
Revenue Minister Simon Watts told Newstalk ZB Donald Trump's threat to punish countries taxing US corporations was a factor in scrapping the law change.
A bill to oblige Facebook and Google to pay for locally-produced news is also languishing on the back-burner. Many pundits believe the Fair Digital News Bargaining bill may be scrapped soon too, in part for the same reason.
And while incremental financial tweaks revealed on Budget day inevitably became the focus of the rolling coverage, it obscured some of the structural stuff.
Last week The Listener 's political writer Danyl McLauchlan noted 'mostly trivial payments and cuts announced each year (are) presented as 'winners' and 'losers' in Budget media coverage, without considering the vast, submerged commitments frozen-in from decades of previous Budgets.'
The biggest of all was superannuation, he said, which was 'untouchable so long as Winston Peters glowers at Willis from across the Cabinet table.'
The Post noted that while KiwiSaver contributions were cut for high earners, 'it still remains politically impossible to make the same sorts of arguments about revising NZ Super.'
In The Post, pundit Ben Thomas said the most urgent question in the next decade is how to make paying for an ageing population sustainable.
Newsroom's Fox Meyer pointed out several spending programmes – including the controversial school lunches – were 'looming over fiscal cliffs.'
RNZ's budget cut
With just $1.3b in nominal spending left, few in the media were expecting any unicorns or rainbows.
Noting that RNZ got a substantial boost of $26m a year in 2023 – in the wake of the failed merger with TVNZ – the government pegged back RNZ's budget by about 7 percent for the next four years. That's $4.6m a year in dollar terms, leaving RNZ with about $62m a year as things stand.
RNZ was not required to find savings last year when many other public agencies and ministries were directed to make cuts, so it was no surprise the axe was swung this time.
'Government-funded media must deliver the same efficiency and value-for-money as the rest of the public sector. I expect RNZ to improve audience reach, trust and transparency … in a period of tightened fiscal constraint,' media and communications minister Paul Goldsmith said in a stern statement.
That was echoed by the finance minister.
RNZ's top brass were also questioned about RNZ's rising salary costs during last year's annual review in Parliament.
Chief executive Paul Thompson told the select committee RNZ was investing in its digital transition 'and that all costs money'.
'The media system in New Zealand is incredibly fragile – it doesn't make sense for RNZ to also be weak when the government has given us a mandate to be that strong cornerstone,' he told the committee.
Māori media take a hit
Māori media funding is under the auspices of the Māori Development Ministry Te Puni Kokiri and Māori broadcasting funding agency Te Māngai Pāho (TMP).
TMP's funding is up marginally to $66m, but the Budget reduces Whakaata Māori's annual funding by about $6m to just over $42m next year.
Māori media were heavily backed by the previous government and its minister of broadcasting and Māori development Willie Jackson, who was also a former broadcaster and media boss himself.
Just over $90m was made available in two separate Budgets to cover the cost of programmes and content. Some of that would last until 2029, and one stream of funding would end in 2027.
Whakaata Māori restructured last year to take account of money running out. As part of that restructure 27 jobs were cut, along with programmes and services.
Māori media and journalism also benefited from the PIJF until 2023. Waatea – the urban Māori radio station and online news service – added seven roles to its news team which also service the iwi radio network.
Interestingly the funding peril has barely been mentioned in the news – or in any politicians' statements, save for a passing mention in one by Willie Jackson and one from the Greens.
New money for regional reporters
Goldsmith's statement was headed: 'Investing in Journalism'.
Two existing schemes covering the cost of reporters in the regions will see $6.4 million over four years : Local Democracy Reporting (LDR) and [https://www.nzherald.co.nz/topic/public-interest-open-justice/ Open Justice – both of which have had significant sums of public funding to date.
The LDR scheme – modelled on a UK programme of the same name – is managed by RNZ. It deploys 18 reporters in local newsrooms around the country, which would otherwise be unable to fully cover local affairs.
Previously funded by both RNZ and NZ on Air, all the content created was free online at RNZ.co.nz and available to other interested publishers.
Open Justice is administered by the New Zealand Herald's publisher NZME. This pays reporters to cover courts about a dozen locations and was prompted by diminished coverage of non-high-profile cases in recent years.
Matters before the District and High Courts, Family and Youth Courts and a variety of tribunals too are now much more likely to be reported. But not so much in the South Island. NZME's newsgathering and mastheads are concentrated in the north.
It is important to the judiciary and the government alike that justice is seen to be done – and the Open Justice reports appear on a wide range of news websites.
Open Justice was funded for two years initially in 2022 via NZ on Air at a cost of just less than $3m. Both schemes were previously paid for out of the Public Interest Journalism Fund (PIJF) set up by the former government in 2020 to run for three years.
The fund was persistently criticised by the parties then in opposition, who made claims about the government buying media compliance and also stifling debate about the Treaty.
Some critics did not like state funding of private sector journalism, or paying the wages of newspaper reporters in private media companies.
But now in government, National's ministers seem to accept regional newsrooms cannot employ dedicated justice and local politics reporters within their own finances. And they are comfortable paying more for journalism that does not encroach on national issues.
The media minister pointedly said in his statement 'reporting, rather than opinion' is being supported by the added funding.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

RNZ News
4 hours ago
- RNZ News
Broadcasting Standards Authority upholds RNZ broadcast
Photo: RNZ / Cole Eastham-Farrelly The Broadcasting Standards Authority (BSA) has agreed with RNZ that a 'fleeting' reference to overseas legislation in a broadcast interview - about the risks of young people developing problem gambling habits from playing video games - was not materially misleading. The BSA has not upheld Leon Xiao's complaint about the December 2024 Morning Report interview with the Problem Gambling Foundation's Director of Advocacy and Public Health. In March, the Media Council upheld a complaint by Mr Xiao about an online article based on the same interview. The BSA decision is available here . The earlier Media Council ruling is available here: Xiao and Radio New Zealand Ltd - 2025-014 (9 June 2025) .


Newsroom
4 hours ago
- Newsroom
What's good for kids who need learning support is good for all kids
Analysis: The announcement of $646 million for learning support was reported as Budget 2025's good news story, but it would be more accurate to describe it as a mixed bag. There could be a lot less smoke and mirrors about what is being provided and what has been discontinued to pay for the 'new and improved' learning support. It was helpful the Government acknowledged long-standing under-funding, real gaps in the provision of learning support that have led to despair and disruption. They had to. Several reviews over recent years have made it clear the learning support needed a radical overhaul. There were two items of genuinely hopeful news announced in the Budget in relation to learning support: increased funding for the Ongoing Resourcing Scheme and continuation of early intervention services through to the end of Year 1. The Ongoing Resourcing Scheme is a strand of 'targeted funding' that came out of Special Education 2000, New Zealand's first systematic approach to inclusive education, aimed at children in primary and secondary schools assessed as high or very high needs. The problem has been that eligibility was applied for through a process called 'verification' for a contestable fund that was capped at one percent of children at any one time, regardless of the number of children who met the criteria. The result has been that some children who met the criteria were not 'verified' as eligible, and their school wouldn't get the funding. Which meant the schools were unable to meet the needs of the neurodivergent children and children with disabilities in their community, and consequently, their families. Urban legend and actual practice led to an understanding that the most effective way to secure any funding was to paint the worst picture possible of each child at the centre of the application; teachers and families find this process of 'deficit framing' traumatic and painful. The 'structural change to the ORS funding model' announced in Budget 2025 means every student who is verified as having extra learning needs will now be funded. Education Minister Erica Stanford estimated that another 1700 students would benefit from this change over the next four years. And the provision of early intervention services to the end of Year 1 should mean more services and give parents, families, teachers and schools greater confidence at the start of a child's primary education. Intervention services are crucial. They can include speech and language therapy, supporting families to better understand their child's behaviour, or visits from an education support worker to the child at school. Until now these services were only provided in early childhood education. The Government extending it to Year 1 is a much-needed step in the right direction. Hopefully the result of both changes in policy will mean more schools will be able to accept a neurodivergent or disabled child at the start of primary school. Less certain is what the Budget is actually promising in terms of increased funding for teacher aides in schools. It says: 'Key investments include substantial annual increases to teacher aide hours, building up to over two million additional teacher aide hours per year, from 2028.' But what does two million extra hours mean in the real world? Currently teacher aide funding is part of the Ongoing Resourcing Scheme. If a child meets the criteria for 'high needs' or 'very high needs', the school gets some additional support in the form of itinerant teachers, as well as teacher aide hours. The greatest amount of support is for those considered to have 'very high needs', funding for up to 20 hours from a teacher aide. If schools need teacher aide time in the classroom or other parts of the school, the school must fund those hours. Currently, teacher aides are usually part time. If they work full time, they might work up to 30 hours per week in a primary or secondary school, for up to 40 weeks a year. The maths suggests the Budget is promising an additional 1667 teacher aides. But New Zealand has 2,500 primary, intermediate and secondary schools. That means the Budget allows for fewer than one additional aide per school. This is far short of the primary teacher union's call for a teacher aide in every classroom. This is a profession dominated by women, and their average hourly pay is $28. It is more than ironic that the funding used for this meagre increase in the Budget likely comes from the changes to the Equal Pay Act announced immediately before the Budget's release. There have been a number of reviews of learning support particularly in high needs, which have come to similar conclusions. Research conducted by the New Zealand Council of Education Research found that the process of accessing funding was difficult, poor information was provided, and funding was often made available too late and was too little. Work carried out by the NZ Educational Institute primary teacher union found that for every seven children who had some support, another three had unmet needs. We still don't have any idea of what the promised 'overview' of the system will look like, but we would reasonably expect that it will draw on previous work that had already been done on it. The minister and Ministry of Education still claim to be in support of developing an inclusive education system. We've yet to see how this year's Budget supports this aspiration. Another example of reprioritisation is $30m to be spent on enlarging specialist day schools. On June 5 the minister announced: 'We know many parents of children with high needs want the option of a specialist education setting … This investment is about giving families more choice and confidence their children can learn in the environment that best supports them.' At least some of this funding will come from the disestablishment of the teachers who support literacy development, which is estimated to save $39m. Our research, and research from the Education Review Office, has repeatedly shown that families with disabled children have not been given genuine access to the same schools available to children who don't have disabilities. There has been a constant undermining of an inclusive education system. Concerns have long been expressed the safety of students in segregated settings such as that reported in the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in State Care which, as reported in Newsroom, includes case studies and comments relating to abuse suffered by people at specialist residential schools. Numerous evaluations of the three residential specialist schools in New Zealand have noted the schools were funded as if they were fully enrolled (84 students) not on the actual number of students (in the 30s). Every other school in New Zealand is funded on the actual enrolment figures. Our research has clearly demonstrated the value of inclusive education, for neurodiverse children and children with disabilities, and also in building an inclusive society. Inclusive education gives everyone the chance to get to know and be comfortable with the variety of members of our communities. What is good for those who need learning support is good for everyone going through our school system.


Otago Daily Times
7 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Prime Minister's 'worthies' insult concerns scientists
By Eloise Gibson of RNZ A British scientist says it's concerning Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has dismissed him and other climate scientists as "worthies" for raising concerns about plans to lower New Zealand's methane emissions target. Paul Behrens, the global professor of environmental change at Oxford University, said the government appeared to be trying to deflect attention from questions about the country's agricultural greenhouse gases. "I think the characterisation of climate scientists as 'worthies' reflects a really concerning dismissal of evidence-based policy making," he said. "While the Prime Minister's remarks may aim to deflect criticism of New Zealand's agricultural emissions profile they overlook the clear global consensus that methane reductions are critical to limiting near term warming." Luxon denied he was dismissing science or deflecting attention from this country's farming emissions. "What a load of rubbish. My point was very clear - those scientists can write to leaders of 194 countries before they send it to me," he said. Though a decision is yet to be revealed, farming groups appear have swayed the government to reduce the current target, which is shrinking emissions somewhere between 24% and 47% by 2050. Several climate experts say the country will set a dangerous precedent for Ireland and other big methane emitters if it aims too low. When 26 international climate change scientists wrote to Luxon accusing him of "ignoring scientific evidence" showing global heating caused by methane has to reduce, the Prime Minister said it was lovely if "worthies" wanted to write him letters but New Zealand was already managing methane emissions better than "every other country on the planet". The scientists were worried that the government might be about to adopt a target that lets heating caused by methane emissions stay the same, rather than turning down the thermostat on the country's cows and sheep. That is because the government asked a scientific panel to tell it how much methane emissions would need to drop to just level off global heating from methane, not reduce it. The answer was 14% to 24% by 2050, about half the current target. The debate is whether that is enough. Federated Farmers and Beef + Lamb say yes, because methane is much shorter lived than the other main heating gases, carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide. One of the members of the government's panel, climate scientist Dave Frame, said New Zealand should lower its target unless other countries commit to bigger cuts to methane from farming than they have currently. He said the planet was not on track to limit heating inside 1.5°C hotter than pre-industrial times, despite countries' promises. "If the world really did cut emissions in line with what those kind of guys are talking about, then I think we should absolutely be part of it. In the absence of that action, I think a 'no additional warming target' is a reasonable fall back position." Dr Frame said unlike more profitable dairy farming, sheep and beef farms could not absorb the cost of methane-cutting technologies. Another member of the government's panel, atmospheric scientist Laura Revell, said it was a tricky call for the government. "Everyone is in agreement - those on the panel, those who wrote the letter - that methane is a greenhouse gas which global action is needed to address. "We know that the consequences of climate change are severe, we are seeing it already and every bit of warming we can avoid helps. "On the other hand, farming is a big part of the New Zealand economy and these emissions are associated with feeding people." The Climate Change Commission said the country should aim for a cut of at least 35% because the costs and impacts of global heating are turning out worse than expected. It said there is no reasonable excuse to do less on methane, under New Zealand's climate commitments.