Hipkins labels Covid spending criticism 'Treasury spin'
Labour leader Chris Hipkins is dismissing what he calls "Treasury spin" after its analysts said the last government overspent during the Covid-19 pandemic against official advice.
Treasury's 2025 Long Term Insights Briefing, released this week, calculated the total cost of the pandemic at about $66 billion, or roughly 20.4 percent of GDP.
Previous govt spent too much during Covid: Treasury
The report said Treasury advocated for more targeted support in late 2020 into 2021 and explicitly warned "against any further stimulus" by Budget 2022.
But responding to questions from RNZ on Friday, Hipkins was unapologetic about his party's economic response to Covid-19.
"We prioritised keeping people alive and keeping people in jobs," he said.
"I'm never going to claim that we got everything perfect... but prioritising jobs and prioritising lives was the right thing to do."
Hipkins claimed other countries also spent up large with the same objectives, but Treasury said New Zealand was near the top of the chart when considering spending as a percentage of GDP.
"If you listen to the Treasury spin, then you're going to get one view," Hipkins told RNZ. "If you speak to other economists, you'll get a different view.
"Our job was to support New Zealanders through the global pandemic, making sure that we saved lives and kept people's jobs, and we were very successful in doing that: one of the lowest death rates in the world, one of the lowest rates of unemployment in the world, and one of the fastest rates of economic growth in the world."
About half of the total Covid-19 response cost was directly tied to the pandemic, such as the wage subsidy scheme, or health initiatives like vaccination, contact tracing and quarantine.
The remainder went to a wide range of initiatives like: "tax changes, training schemes, housing construction, shovel-ready infrastructure projects, increases to welfare benefits, the Small Business Cashflow Scheme, Jobs for Nature, additional public housing places and school lunches".
Treasury said that had "a lagged impact on the economy and proved difficult to unwind in later years".
But Hipkins said Treasury had mischaracterised some of that spending, such as the provision of distance-learning for school students.
"Making sure that kids could keep learning while they were at home during lockdown was an essential Covid-19 expense," Hipkins said.
The report comes during a prolonged economic downturn, with both the government and opposition parties trading blame over its cause.
Finance Minister Nicola Willis was quick on Thursday to wield Treasury's findings as evidence that Labour had been undisciplined in its spending, driving up inflation, and fuelling a cost-of-living crisis.
"Treasury's language is spare and polite, but its conclusions are damning," she said. "New Zealanders are still paying the price of the previous government extending a big-spending approach initially intended for a pandemic response.
"The lesson from Labour's mishandling of the Covid response is that while there are times when governments have to increase spending in response to major events the fiscal guardrails should be restored as soon as possible."
To that, Hipkins scoffed: "By comparison to this government's track record, I'll take our one any day".
Hipkins said Willis should stop blaming others and instead accept the consequences of her government's spending cuts.
"The wreckage that she is leaving in her wake at the moment is obvious for all New Zealanders to see. Unemployment is going up," he said.
"Economic growth has collapsed. Essential services that the public rely on a daily basis are falling into disarray, and this is all on Nicola Willis' watch."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
3 hours ago
- Scoop
Labour's Education Spokesperson Defiant After Ignoring Stanford's NCEA Meeting Requests
Labour's education spokesperson is defiant after rejecting offers to engage with the government about education reforms, saying she does not see it as a missed opportunity. Documents show Willow-Jean Prime rejected Education Minister Erica Stanford's offers to work with her on changes to NCEA and curriculums until after decisions had already been made. That's despite her, and Labour leader Chris Hipkins, criticising the government for not taking a more bipartisan approach with more consultation over proposals to scrap the NCEA secondary school qualifications system. Stanford announced the plan to scrap NCEA this week, saying she would consult the sector on the idea over the next six weeks. Minister's requests to work together went ignored for months The documents released under the Official Information Act show Stanford approached Prime via text message the first day she was named as Labour's education spokesperson in March, taking over from Jan Tinetti. "Congrats on your new role! Will need to get you up to speed with the NCEA change process. Jan and I had started working cross party on this given the importance of our national qualification. Would be good if we could meet first and I can run you through were we are at and what the process is." Stanford continued to try to contact Prime, but the emails show she could find no response - eventually emailing Hipkins instead on 1 July. "Dear Chris, I've sought on multiple occasions to get input from your Education spokesperson on NCEA curriculum reform, with no response. It is important to have cross-party collaboration regarding a national qualification, and the offer remains open to arrange a briefing from officials or from the Professional Advisory Group. I look forward to hearing from you," she said. A response came from Prime's office the following day, saying she considered the email and was declining the invitation to be involved. On 25 July, Prime sent a letter asking to meet and discuss curriculums and assessments on seven specific points. Stanford responded on 3 August saying she had reached out on multiple occasions, but "key decisions have now been taken to formulate proposals for consultation". "These decisions have been informed by months of evidence-based advice and professional input from the Professional Advisory Group. Having received no response to my emails and then a decline to my invitation in July, unfortunately the opportunity to influence the substantial direction of the proposal is no longer available. "Work has continued and we are now ready for broader sector consultation. I am committed to working constructively, and I would like to arrange for you to receive an official briefing on the NCEA proposal and our curriculum work programme, as has been previously offered." She offered to meet with Prime after that briefing and to discuss "the next phase of work". Prime defiant, calls for more consultation At Labour's caucus retreat in Christchurch, Prime told reporters she had been prioritising engaging with the sector rather than speaking to the minister - and did not see it as a missed opportunity. "It was really important to me to understand from the sector what the issues are with NCEA and other things, and what the potential solutions to that are before engaging with the minister. "I wanted to engage with experts. I wanted to talk widely in the sector, so not take something I had heard from one conversation in one group and run off to the minister's office and, you know, make some claims about something. So I have spent a lot of time engaging with the sector so that I am informed." Prime said she had done her engagements with the sector, and come away with the impression they did not know what the government was doing. "It was very secretive, and nobody knew what was going on. That concerned me," she said. "Nobody knew anything or could not speak to anything because they had to sign NDAs." Asked if she regretted not engaging with Stanford, she acknowledged she could have been more proactive. "Oh, look, I probably could have said 'this is why I need to take my time and please assure me that I can have the time that I need to do this'," she said. "But I was not given any timeframes from the minister that 'we have only this amount of time to engage, because I'm going to announce and there's only six weeks subsequent to that'." "The minister has a timeframe and is rushing this." She called for a longer consultation period with the sector, and to take the feedback on board. "Is this genuine consultation or not? Has the decision been made or is the minister open to the feedback from the sector, from myself and from others, or is it simply notifying that this is what is going to happen?" Labour leader backs his MP Labour leader Chris Hipkins said he first became aware Prime had ignored Stanford's engagement requests in July. He stood by his MP, though he said she could have replied to the Minister. "Willow-Jean Prime indicated that she wanted to meet with the stakeholder groups before meeting with the minister, I don't think that's unreasonable. "I did indicate to her I think it would have been better if she'd gone back to the minister and told her that that was what she was doing." Hipkins, who has talked up the importance of bipartisanship, denied Labour's position on the process of overhauling NCEA was hypocritical. He said the coalition had not engaged in good faith and he knew this from experience, having involved National in Labour's NCEA review when he was Education Minister. "Something as important as a big change to our national qualification system should follow significant consultation and deliberation and consensus building. "I think this has been a very closed process that Erica Stanford has operated, and I think that now we need to make sure that it's opened up, that people have meaningful and genuine consultation." 'I would sack her' - Deputy PM Seymour Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour said he would sack one of his MPs if they ignored a meeting request. "If I was in Chris Hipkins' position I would sack her but of course, I'm used to having quality ACT Party MPs who could fill a role. "Chris Hipkins may be in the invidious position that she's the best he's got," he said. Seymour said he didn't buy Prime's explanation that she wanted to engage with the sector before talking to the Minister. "If you're in opposition and you get such an invitation, you're generally very grateful. I received very few such invitations in opposition, but when I did, I jumped at them for the opportunity to have a briefing and have some input."
RNZ News
4 hours ago
- RNZ News
What happens if my partner dies without a will?
RNZ money correspondent Susan Edmunds answers your questions. Photo: RNZ Got questions? RNZ is launching a new podcast, No Stupid Questions with Susan Edmunds, next month. We'd love to hear more of your questions about money and the economy. You can send through written questions, like these ones, but - even better - you can drop us a voice memo to our email questions@ What is the situation with joint property and joint bank accounts, when someone dies without a will? I have been living with my partner since the late 1980s. Our house, main bank accounts and one car are in both names. Our latest car - bought last year from joint bank accounts - could only be registered in his name, due to changes in NZTA rules. I have a separate bank account in my name, which has a small amount of inherited money. He also has a separate bank account with some money from his family and a few shares in his name, which were acquired through his work. Many years ago, I was told that if either of us died, then any assets in joint names would go to the surviving partner. We have not made wills, have no children, my parents have both died and his father has died, but recently, I saw that if someone has a spouse or partner, and parents, but no children, the spouse received the personal effects, $155,000 and two-thirds of what is left. The deceased person's parents get the remaining third. That means, if I die first, all I have goes to him, which is what I want, but if my partner dies before me, does his remaining parent inherit a third of our house (meaning I will need to sell it, as I do not have funds to buy her out in my 60s), plus a third of our two cars, a third of our joint bank account money, and a third of his KiwiSaver, private superannuation, bank accounts, insurance payouts and shares in his name? His mother is in residential care with dementia and already has enough funds to cover her care for decades. I am worried I may become homeless. What is the situation with joint property and joint bank accounts, when someone dies? As a starting point, it might be re-assuring to note that assets that you hold in a joint name would pass to you, so if you own your house jointly, it would be yours, if your partner died. I went to Public Trust principal trustee Michelle Pope for more detail to answer the rest of your question. She said, when someone died, their estate would be distributed according to the Administration Act. "In the writer's case, if they die first without a will, their entire estate would pass to their partner, as they have no children or surviving parents," she said. "Assets held in joint names, listed by the writer as the house, main bank accounts and a car, will automatically pass to the surviving partner. However, it's important to confirm whether the property is legally owned jointly or in equal/unequal shares. "If it's jointly owned, it will pass by survivorship. If not, the deceased's share will need to be administered as part of their estate, which can add complexity. "If the writer's partner dies first without a will and has a surviving parent, Section 77(3) of the Administration Act 1969 applies. In this scenario, the writer would receive all personal chattels (including the car solely owned by the partner), a prescribed amount of $155,000 plus interest and two-thirds of the remaining estate. "The surviving parent would receive the remaining one-third of the estate. For clarity, the assets owned solely by the partner would appear to be a bank account, some shares, KiwiSaver, private superannuation and insurance. "Given the house is owned jointly, the writer can expect that the house will pass to them by what's called 'survivorship' in legal language and will not form part of their partner's estate. "It goes without saying that I'd encourage the writer and their partner to create wills. A will that clearly outlines their wishes can help remove any uncertainty when a person dies and can make the estate administration process a lot easier for loved ones." Having separated earlier this year, I chose to move out of the family home where my ex still resides. She is paying the mortgage, refuses to pay the house insurance or rates etc. the roof is leaking and she refuses to agree to making repairs, the ceiling is now ruined and mouldy. Though she has indicated she wishes to buy me out, she has not shared any form of offer or plan. She now refuses to engage in any form of correspondence at all. My questions - how do I go about necessary repairs to the house and how do I get her to move out, so that the house can be sold? Online research seems to point to tenancy/landlord situations which don't apply in this case. Is it actually just time for a lawyer to sort this out? Yes, I think the best - and really only - way to deal with this is to go to a lawyer as soon as possible. Can you please answer some questions about the way supermarkets operate. If I deliberately deceive customers, it's called deception. If I deliberately load, unload prices to make you think you are getting a better deal when you are not, this is manipulation to enhance your profit. Surely both of the above are profiteering and fraudulent. Supermarkets - and all retailers - have rules they have to comply with, when it comes to discounting, and it is illegal for businesses to mislead shoppers about prices. You can complain to the Commerce Commission, if you think someone has got it wrong. There is a lot of focus on supermarket pricing at the moment and Consumer NZ has been vocal about the current regime not being effective enough. It is calling for tougher penalties and infringement notice powers. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
NZ Herald
7 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Erica Stanford resets story but Govt faces challenging decisions ahead
Education Minister Erica Stanford rescued the Government's fortunes this week with a nearly flawless unveiling of plans to replace NCEA. Stanford built a case for reform and presented it this week. For such a major change, it hasn't been all that terribly received. There has been criticism from some teachers and Labour about the scale and direction of reform, but not much about the need for change of some kind. The cherry on top for Stanford will have been critics of the reforms, including Labour, focusing on the short consultation time (it is probably too short), only for emails to show that Labour's education spokeswoman Willow-Jean Prime ignored and then rebuffed efforts from Stanford to consult her on the changes. Act leader David Seymour said he'd have sacked Prime over the cock-up. That's taking it a bit far but the stuff-up embarrasses her and Labour. Not least because it has echoes of the Michael Wood scandal, which also involved a slew of ignored correspondence. Stanford's week was only undone by revelations a new maths textbook is full of errors. Embarrassing – although it's not uncommon for first editions to be sent out with a sheet of errata. The right likes to think the politics of education are very fluid. During Jacinda Ardern's first term, when asked whether there were any big political trends the media were missing, a senior politician then in Opposition answered that the right's increasing popularity on education was commonly overlooked. They slotted this into the fairly classic right-wing thinking, which pits the left as champions of equality against the right as champions of aspiration. This politician reckoned Labour's proximity to teachers' unions and attachment to equal outcomes were frustrating parents who wanted more aspiration. These parents were becoming particularly concerned as the sluggish post-GFC recovery and soaring house prices meant education was the last great hope for their children's social mobility. Rising private school fees mean fewer families can opt out of the state system, making them increasingly invested in its ability to get their children ahead. Simon Bridges, first as National leader and later as finance spokesman, was fond of needling Labour over former Prime Minister Norman Kirk's famous (and misquoted) dictum that everyone needed 'somewhere to live, someone to love, somewhere to work and something to hope for'. He reckoned that in the 21st century, voters wanted more: an education that could get their kids a spot at a foreign university, for example. Like most political theories, the empirical evidence for this one is patchy. The Ipsos Issues monitor, which polls on which party is trusted most on certain issues, shows Labour leading month after month on the issue of education under the last Government, with National only supplanting Labour in late 2023, about the time Ipsos found voters had lost faith in Labour over just about anything. They held that lead in early 2024 but lost it by the end of the year. If the Government is feeling good about education, it is feeling anxious about energy. The Government is sitting on a report from Frontier Economics into energy market reform, which was delivered to ministers earlier this year. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Education Minister Erica Stanford visit Botany Downs Secondary College. Photo / Dean Purcell There's some disquiet about the report itself. It was commissioned last year by Energy Minister at the time, Simeon Brown, and seems to have been set up to investigate something along the lines of the structural separation of the gentailers, which has long been held up as the silver-bullet reform to boost generation and reduce prices. Question one of the reforms' terms of reference was pretty obvious: 'How does business ownership, structure or design of markets affect incentives or opportunities to invest in generation, storage, transmission and distribution?' Strangely for the Government, at least part of what is included in the report seems to hark back to an old Contact Energy idea to place all the gentailers' thermal (fossil fuel) generation assets into a single entity, which would be heavily regulated by the Government in terms of the prices it could charge to turn that generation on. As fossil-fuel generation costs are one of the most important inputs into overall power prices – if not the most important – the reform would ideally bring prices down while encouraging investment in renewable generation. The problem is the Government remains quite divided on the report. There's frustration at the fact Frontier recently did economics work on behalf of the merger of Contact Energy and Manawa. There's also a feeling the report itself is based on flawed assumptions. NZ First is clearly keen on a ThermalCo idea; National's position is less sure, but probably favours something closer to the status quo. Unusually for a Prime Minister fond of delegating, Christopher Luxon seems unafraid of getting his hands dirty in the policy area of energy. It's also an area where his office is stacked with expertise: policy adviser Matt Burgess has written about energy economics at the NZ Initiative; policy director Joe Ascroft has a PhD in energy economics; and chief of staff Cameron Burrows came to Luxon's office after heading up the Electricity Retailers Association. This means that of all policy areas, this is one in which the ninth floor is not afraid to intervene. There is a sense, however, that the balance of thinking in the PM's office is that the problems in the energy sector can be mainly blamed on the uncertainty unleashed by the oil and gas exploration ban, indecision over the Tiwai smelter's future, Labour's 100% renewable target and Lake Onslow. That's all true - all of those problems contributed to the dearth of net new generation built in recent times, but not all the sector's problems began under Labour, and undoing them will not axiomatically mean a return to cheap energy. The current thinking is that there's probably not a lot of gas out there to be found - there certainly wasn't the last time a National Government went looking. The messiness inside the Government was matched by the Opposition this week with Labour Leader Chris Hipkins seeming to forget or misspeak his party's position on the oil and gas exploration ban on Tuesday morning. The position is, and has been for more than a year, that Labour would re-ban exploration, but for some reason, Hipkins was unable to articulate that when pressed on Tuesday morning. He was far clearer on Wednesday and again on Friday: the ban is back under Labour. In the backdrop to all of this is a far more significant problem: where New Zealand stands on the recognition of a Palestinian state. The Government continues to take a watching brief on the issue but the cascade of nations – most recently France, Britain and Canada – saying they will recognise a Palestinian state when the UN General Assembly meets in September, has put pressure on the Government to move. Foreign Minister Winston Peters. Photo / Mark Mitchell The Government's position has been that New Zealand's long-standing support for a two-state solution means recognition of a Palestinian state is a matter of 'when'. In their view, New Zealand will recognise a Palestinian state … just not now. It's a convenient position, because it tries to capture the diplomatic upside of recognition without grappling with the downside, which Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney got a taste of last month when US President Donald Trump posted to social media that Canada's upcoming recognition of Palestinian statehood would 'make it very hard for us to make a Trade Deal with them'. New Zealand's fudge was never going to be tenable forever – if it ever was at all. As Australia's Foreign Minister Penny Wong recently warned, there is now a risk 'there will be no Palestine left to recognise'. The position is deeply challenging for the Government. Act is probably the most pro-Israel party in Government, its position best summed up by Simon Court's contribution to a parliamentary debate last month saying that recognising a Palestinian state would be viewed as 'a reward for acts of terrorism' committed by Hamas against Israel. National has powerful MPs who tend to be more pro-Israel than not, including Chris Bishop and Nicola Wills, but the party is also full of new backbenchers, who are feeling the full force of the public campaign in support of recognition from grassroots campaigns in their electorates. It probably helps that the campaign comes as National's polling dip puts those MPs' futures in doubt. NZ First's position is less clear. Foreign Minister Winston Peters has been a staunch supporter of Israel in the past. He too has become more critical as Israel's devastating and deadly campaign in Gaza has taken hold. New Zealand doesn't want to be among the very last to recognise a Palestinian state – and it very well may be if, as expected, Australia moves towards recognition in the next few weeks. There's precious little upside for the Government. All the Government's genuflection, even offering an FBI outpost to the Trump administration, couldn't save it from a 15% tariff – and that coming the very same week China lashed out at New Zealand for providing a platform for FBI Director Kash Patel to allege one of the key reasons for the new outpost was countering China. Since Donald Trump's first election, economists and trade watchers have warned that a deterioration in the boring but stable rules-based order was a world in which New Zealand could not succeed. Our messy winter, betrayed by one trading partner while annoying another, is proof that hypothesis was sadly correct.
