
Budget 2025: Govt looks to make promises add up
"It feels like a kid robbing his mum to pay for his mates" says library assistant Alex Cass, as she prepares for the government to reveal Budget 2025.
New Zealanders will find out on Thursday just how much money will be cut from various services, as the government looks to make its promises add up.
Just how much is saved from the pay equity law changes - and where that money will be going instead - will also be revealed.
The Pay Equity Amendment Bill was passed on May 7 after being rushed through under urgency. The legislation means 33 equity claims involving hundreds of thousands of workers being negotiated will now have to restart the process under new criteria.
Cass was part of a pay equity claim scrapped due to the government's last-minute law change.
"It's unbelievably underhanded the way this process has been done. It was done lightning fast, with no chance for any of us to object. It's incredibly cruel, and it's a legacy of cruelty."
Cass felt the government was saying to those who are fighting for their work to be taken seriously, "you don't deserve better".
She would be on Parliament's lawn on Thursday afternoon to react to the Budget - money she said the government got from people who were "already massively underpaid".
But Finance Minister Nicola Willis said New Zealanders were "realistic" because the new scheme would still deliver a scheme protecting women against sex-based discrimination.
"Every single cent" reprioritised from money reallocated from those claims would go into "priorities for New Zealand", she claimed.
"I've had it with opposition politicians who keep promising they can 'do it all', that somehow they're gonna stick to the debt levels, they're not gonna have deficits but also they're not gonna make savings and they're gonna spend on everything - that doesn't add up.
"Our approach is different" she said.
"It's about prioritising your taxpayer money carefully and ensuring that we're actually nourishing the growth that ultimately delivers the jobs and living standards we all depend on."
For this Budget, the government's given itself only $1.3 billion of new money to use on day-to-day spending.
Already $2.5b is needed for yearly cost increases and more than $3b has been allocated in pre-budget announcements for health, defence, social investment, state abuse survivor redress and a screen production rebate.
"It's not a budget filled with rainbows and unicorns," Willis said, "It's a reality budget that will deliver genuine hope for the future."
She also called it a "no BS" budget - but would not specify what that stood for. Labour, Greens critical
Labour leader Chris Hipkins said "paying women properly" should not be described as "rainbows and unicorns".
"Making sure women who have been underpaid are paid what they're worth is something that a responsible government should prioritise - this government isn't."
Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick said it did look like a "BS" budget.
"The government has decided it is going to be cutting public services to the bone in order to pay for its landlord and tobacco tax cuts of the last budget."
Council of Trade Unions economist Craig Renney, who is also on the Labour Party's policy council, said the government did not have much to work with given it would not borrow more money.
"We're cutting government services at a time when we know there's increasing demand on those services. We have an increasingly elderly population. We have increasingly higher needs in terms of health and education."
Now is the time to invest in the economy and inject some confidence into the economy, he believed.
Despite the government saying it would not cut frontline services, Kiwis were finding it harder to access those frontline services, he said.
"It's not that there's a direct cut, but because these services aren't being properly funded for change, they're having to work harder and harder to deliver the same services with less real cash available to them."
In the Budget, he will be looking out for how the government has chosen to use the savings from stopping pay equity claims. He will also be looking at Treasury's estimates for what is happening to unemployment, wages and the cost of living.
"We've actually seen wages rising far less quickly than in the past, and we've seen two years of cuts to the minimum wage in real terms, and we've seen rising unemployment.
"If those trends continue, that will suggest that the medicine and the pain of economic change is really being borne by workers, in particular, low-paid workforces, rather than by others in the economy who might have broader shoulders."
He also will be looking to see if the government changes KiwiSaver settings, or begins means-testing for the winter energy payment or BestStart.
"If it tries to do all of those to balance the books, we'll be asking why is it that these workers are having to pay the price for the fact that the government hasn't been able to deliver its fiscal plan to date."
New Zealand Initiative chief economist Dr Eric Crampton said the government should focus on getting spending back down to pre-Covid levels.
He wanted to know where the government was planning on reducing expenditure to deal with its deficit.
"If it's simply tighter spending allowances over the next few years, you start wondering how credible it is as a path to get out of structural deficit.
"Pulling the government out of the provision of some services, or explicitly cutting the amount that's provided, would signal a more serious approach."
Crampton was interested to see Treasury's projections of future paths for government spending, and for productivity and GDP growth, as well as government spending priorities.
"I'm watching for the tweaks the government might make to align the budget with the economic growth agenda.
"There has been talk of changes in depreciation schedules to encourage private investment."
He also pointed to a coalition agreement promise between National and ACT to provide housing incentive payments to councils, asking if it would show up in the Budget "at least as a forecast for next year".
"The government would need to make fiscal room for it. But it is important if the government wants councils to welcome urban growth."
The Finance Minister has confirmed she will not be making any changes to superannuation.
Hashtags

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

RNZ News
12 minutes ago
- RNZ News
Marsden Fund says it was given only a day's notice of further funding cuts
Science, Innovation and Technology Minister Dr Shane Reti said public good science was still being supported, and the government would have more options to reinvest in the future. (File photo) Photo: RNZ / Marika Khabazi A decades-old fund dedicated to blue-skies research says it was given a day's notice of further funding cuts and told to keep quiet about it until the government made it public. The Marsden Fund, which backs fundamental research - science for the sake of knowledge - is among three contestable funds to lose millions to help set up the new Institute for Advanced Technology . Scientists said slashing funding for such research could have significant unintended consequences for innovation and warned the Prime Minister as such in a letter earlier this month. The cuts come amid a long-awaited review into the sector - final recommendations were delivered to the Science Minister three months ago, but are yet to be made public - and after the government announced the biggest overhaul of the science system in decades , to "ensure a system that generates maximum value for the economy". The reforms so far have seen the dissolution of science commercialisation arm, Callaghan Innovation, and merger of the six Crown Research Institutes into three mega science entities or Public Research Organisations (PROs) plus a fourth dedicated to advanced technology. Callaghan Innovation was dissolved in the government's overhaul of the science sector. (File photo) Photo: RNZ / Rebekah Parsons-King The Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment (MBIE) said of the $231 million earmarked for the Institute for Advanced Technology over the next four years, more than half - $150.4m - was to be reallocated from within the science, innovation, and technology portfolio. MBIE's general manager of technology and innovation Dean Ford said it represented a shift in priorities towards emerging technologies that could be commercialised. "The majority of this funding will continue to go into science - but into new areas of research that have significant potential, where New Zealand is developing greater capability." Science Minister Shane Reti said organisations affected by the reallocated funding for the Institute for Advanced Technology, were advised ahead of the public announcement on 18 July. From July 2028, the Endeavour Fund, which provided funding for university researchers, will have its funding cut by $13.5m, and the Health and Research Council will lose $11.5m. While the Marsden Fund will have its funding slashed by a one-off $15m. Just over $24m has been found in the disestablishment of Callaghan Innovation's operations across 2027-29, $18m from the New to R&D Grant for three years from 2025, and $3m is being reprioritised from 'contract management' over the next three years from July 2026. MBIE said $37.5m has also been found from within the Strategic Science Investment Fund from contracts which are coming to an end over the next three years, and $21.6m has been reprioritised from unallocated National Science Challenge funding. The remaining $80m will support the parts of Callaghan Innovation that are being retained. The changes are in addition to the $212m repurposed from research and innovation funds in Budget 2025 to support the overhaul of the science system. In a statement the Royal Society, which administered the Marsden Fund, said it learned of the $15m funding cut the day before the Institute for Advanced Technology was announced. "The Royal Society Te Apārangi received a letter from the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) on the afternoon of Friday 18 July 2025, confirming a phonecall the previous evening. "The letter advised that the Marsden Fund will be reduced by a further $15 million in the 2028/29 year, in addition to the reductions already announced in the Government's 2025 Budget in May. "Separately, MBIE requested that this information be treated in strict confidence until the government publicly released it." A briefing to the Science Minister regarding the funding for the Institute was made public on MBIE's website on 6 August . The society said the $15m reallocation "effectively doubles the reductions already announced in this year's budget, amounting to a cut of about 29 percent over the 3 years from 2026/27 to 2028/29". President of the Fund professor Jane Harding said the cuts to fundamental research were likely to have "significant unintended consequences" and "will undermine the long-term potential of the new Institute". "The Society is very concerned that cuts to funding for the fundamental research supported by the Marsden Fund will undermine the long-term potential of the new Institute and other parts of the sector that apply early stage research, by significantly reducing the pipeline of knowledge at the new-discovery end of the process. "This may have important unintended consequences for New Zealand in the long term." The cuts follow a government directive last year, that saw the Marsden Fund abandon support for social science and humanities research and direct at least half of its investments to research with economic potential. A spokesperson for the Health and Research Council said it's too early to know how the loss of $11.5m per year from July 2028 - a 10 percent reduction to its investment fund - and the almost $600,000 cut to its operational budget from next July, will impact the council's work. The Association of Scientists said it's "extremely concerned" by the reprioritisation of funds and says the cuts on top of Budget 2025 mean "our major research funds are in extremely bad shape". Co-president Lucy Stewart said the reduced contract management funding likely meant there would be jobs lost at funders such as the Royal Society and MBIE. Reti said "the government has made it clear on several occasions that we want publicly funded research to focus on solving real world problems that can be commercialised". He said public good science was continuing to be supported, and the government would have more options to reinvest in the future, "with the economic gains that can be made through commercialising research and advanced technologies". Meanwhile, the final report of Sir Peter Gluckman's review of the science system is yet to be made public following its delivery to the Science Minister at the end of April. The long-awaited report was the second part of the Science System Advisory Group's review of the sector, and would include recommendations on the system's funding. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.


The Spinoff
30 minutes ago
- The Spinoff
The prime minister we almost had: Grant Robertson's memoir, reviewed
Henry Cooke reviews Anything Could Happen by former deputy prime minister Grant Robertson. He was almost elected Labour leader in 2014. He almost became the prime minister when Jacinda Ardern resigned in 2023. And he almost got a wealth tax over the line that same year. But not quite. In his new memoir Anything Could Happen, we naturally learn much about what Grant Robertson did do, from his days designing election-winning policy for Helen Clark's Labour government (interest-free student loans) to the frantic opening of the fiscal taps during the pandemic. But the book is haunted by all the stuff that Robertson didn't quite achieve. We hear about the achingly close Labour leadership loss to Andrew Little in 2014, and the genuine agonising over whether he should step up when Ardern resigned in 2023. Robertson openly expresses frustration about missed chances and lost arguments, even as he generally gives the other side a fair hearing. By 'the other side', I am talking about fights within the Labour Party – not politics itself. If you've come to this book believing that Robertson spent far too much while finance minister, and hoping for some kind of lightbulb moment of regret, you will be disappointed. Robertson does not argue that he and Labour got all the calls right. But he does make it clear that he still believes that a huge dose of spending was needed to combat the pandemic, and that while some level of cuts was needed by the time he left office, the state of the books was far from as dire as his critics now constantly claim. (Unsurprisingly for a committed sports minister, he calls in the international referee for this issue – noting that New Zealand's credit rating survived the pandemic intact, leaving it as one of 12 national economies with the top triple-A rating from two of the big global credit rating agencies by Budget 2022.) His argument is somewhat undercut by Treasury's long-term insights briefings, released just weeks before this book was published but long after it was written, which shows officials believed the stimulatory spending was too high after Budget 2022 and was contributing to inflation. Robertson was never the kind of finance minister the median Treasury staffer would adore. He might run a university now, but he will be a politician forever, and it shows in the passing strays he has for the National Party – he notes that one of the first things new leader Christopher Luxon did was call for Labour to spend more money. So no, this is not an apologia for the country's debt track, and if you came looking for that you will not find it. But if instead you are trying to understand more about the decisions of the sixth Labour government, you will have a far better time. Unlike Ardern's recent memoir, this is a book squarely aimed at New Zealanders, meaning Robertson can actually get into the meat of some issues rather than just briefly explain them for foreigners. Tax, monetary policy and the difficulty of hosting international sporting competitions are all dealt with at some length. Robertson embeds into this policy and political history a lot of personal detail. We learn about his somewhat troubled upbringing as a gay teenager in 1980s Dunedin, how he met his partner Alf, his brief career as a diplomat, and a lot about a back problem in recent years that contributed both to mental health issues and his decision not to take over from Ardern. Yet Robertson the policy strategist is never that far away – he explains his father's imprisonment for stealing company money in part by noting that the fraud put his family above the student allowance income cap. As a book the memoir is extremely readable and often funny, much like a Robertson general debate speech. I ate it up in about 48 hours and I think anyone interested in New Zealand politics could do similar with no real boredom. Sections on Labour's time in opposition contain juicy tidbits from the Cunliffe debacle that leave you wanting more, as well as Robertson's play-by-play of Andrew Little's resignation as leader, including Robertson's exasperation with him. We get what I believe to be the fullest accounting yet of the NZ First and Labour negotiations in 2017, including Ardern staring down Winston Peters over his desire for a numbers-based immigration cap. This was a red line for Labour and one that Ardern worried had cost them government – and according to Robertson ended up making Peters so bitter he ruined much of the government's work programme in both immigration and workplace relations, given they shared a minister. Indeed, the enmity between Robertson and Peters emerges as one of the clearest throughlines in the book. The relationship between Labour and NZ First in government sounds like it was far worse offstage than on it. Where Robertson does admit fault with the Covid cash infusion is with the so-called 'shovel ready' programme of spending announced in Budget 2020, which deeply involved NZ First's Shane Jones and therefore became 'politicised', in Robertson's viewing. The base-level bitterness Robertson feels for a man and party who stymied so much of his programme has likely been increased by Peters' embrace of the Covid fringe. After all it is hard to imagine Ardern stepping down without that Covid backlash spilling onto parliament's lawn – and Robertson is clear that he thought Ardern stepping down would greatly harm the party's chance of re-election. If Ardern hadn't stepped down, Robertson might still be in the Beehive, or at least able to properly run on a wealth tax in 2023 as he had long planned. He might not have time to write a book, busy instead with the cut and thrust of politics he was addicted to for so long, trying to get the books back in order himself. In fairness, all political memoirs are tales of chances not taken and battles not won. They are almost always written once the protagonist has lost an election or somehow been turfed from office. Robertson just has a few more sliding doors moments than most. Anything Could Happen by Grant Robertson ($40, Allen & Unwin) is available from Unity Books.

RNZ News
an hour ago
- RNZ News
Councils, builders pleased with liability changes, but insurers warn of challenges
Building and construction minister Chris Penk (R) and prime minister Christopher Luxon. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone Councils, builders, and the opposition are largely in favour of Building Act changes that would signal a move towards proportionate liability. But insurers say there could be "challenges" in the approach, and want further discussions with the government as the policy is developed. Under the status-quo, the building framework operates under a 'joint and several' liability, meaning liability is shared between all parties, regardless of the cost or responsibility. It has meant councils, and therefore ratepayers, have been left with an often disproportionate level of risk for any defects or repairs, as they are seen as the party with the deepest pockets. The government plans to replace the model with a proportionate system, with each party only liable for the share of work they carry out. It is something Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) has long called for. "Councils have ultimately been holding the bag at the end of the process when things go wrong. If you were to have work done on your home or a house built, that hasn't really come top of mind for people because they know they can go to council," said LGNZ's vice president Campbell Barry. He said with lower risk exposure, councils could be more confident in their consenting processes. "It'll encourage not as much of the overly-cautious behaviour that maybe has developed over time, due to that liability falling on councils." LGNZ vice president and Lower Hutt mayor Campbell Barry. Photo: RNZ / Reece Baker Announcing the changes, building and construction minister Chris Penk said the "risk-averse" behaviour from councils had led to "frustrating" delays, and extra costs for builders and homeowners. "Once you reduce that delay, then you get better productivity, and costs will reduce." Penk said councils had paid out $330 million over 10 years for defects for which they were not responsible. Registered Master Builders said the "unfair" liability system was one of the biggest challenges the industry faced, and was pleased it was being addressed. "I think you always want a fair system," said chief executive Ankit Sharma. "You don't want a system where one party ends up taking an unfair burden of risk. If they do, then they put protections in place which then creates red tape, and slows everything down. It takes longer, and costs us more, to build houses." Legislation to change the liability settings will not be introduced to Parliament until early 2026, with a view of passing it by the middle of that year. Between now and then, the government would explore "supporting mechanisms" for proportionate liability, to protect homeowners under the new system. Professional indemnity insurance and home warranties were both mooted, but Penk wanted more time to work it through. He indicated the government would talk to councils, insurers, and consumers about what consumer protection measures would work best, and whether they would be compulsory or voluntary. "We don't want the problem of the empty chair, where there is a gap in terms of what the homeowner might be left with," he said. "But we also know that if we have a proportionate liability system, where all the key players in the system are either required to have the protections in place themselves, and are also motivated not to make the errors in the first place, then we'll have a more productive and efficient and better system overall." Labour was "broadly supportive" of the changes but wanted to see more detail around the consumer protections to ensure there was no repeat of the 'leaky homes' saga. "We want to see the detail around the extra support, or the extra, I guess, reassurance that's going to be available to first-home buyers, that they're not going to be left with a liability with no-one else willing to pay if something goes wrong," said Labour leader Chris Hipkins. "But we broadly think that the changes are heading in the right direction." Hipkins said there had been several reviews of the Building Act, and all had found that consumer protection was the key issue. Labour leader Chris Hipkins. Photo: RNZ / Marika Khabazi Master Builders, which was singled out by Penk as already offering a 10-year guarantee cover policy, was in favour of mandating warranties and insurance. Sharma also called for other consumer protection measures, such as tougher entry requirements for builders, a stronger licensing system with real enforcement, and a register of liquidations and penalties so homeowners could make informed decisions when choosing a builder. "The combination of all of that with the right insurance scheme, I think lifts the standard enough for consumer protection so that we can move to a proportional system." The Insurance Council of New Zealand said it had held discussions with the government about the "preliminary thinking" on the move to proportionate liability. "These included some of the challenges for insurers around this approach," a spokesperson said, adding ICNZ looked forward to further discussions with the government as the policy developed. Penk said there had been some appetite from the insurance sector, but acknowledged it was a "chicken and egg" situation, as everyone needed the comfort and certainty before they were willing to step up. Streamlining the Building Consent Authority (BCA) model has been long-signalled by the government, with Penk first announcing he was taking a look nearly a year ago. He said 66 different interpretations of the same Building Code had led to frustration in the sector, and added cost and delays. Sharma was in favour of the consolidation, saying over half of Registered Master Builder members had experienced delays and "consenting inefficiencies" due to working with multiple BCAs. "It's common, when you have different BCAs, they have different systems. So that creates, from a business owner perspective, inconsistency in the way different systems are operating. And also, in some cases, how different inspectors can interpret rules differently." Registered Master Builders chief executive Ankit Sharma. Photo: Supplied The government had looked at other options like a single point of contact or establishing large regional BCAs to replace the existing ones. Ultimately, it has landed on a voluntary model, allowing councils to pool resources like their accreditation processes or staff if they chose to. Barry, who is also Lower Hutt mayor, said councils in the Wellington region had already discussed creating consenting efficiencies across the region. He said the voluntary approach was preferable, as councils were already grappling with reforms like Local Water Done Well and other pressures. "I would say the proof will be in the pudding over the next 12 to 18 months, and how many councils actually take that up, and what it looks like," he said. "I suspect it's something that will be revisited later in the future, but at the same time I think a voluntary approach and encouraging councils and providing the right settings for them to work together is a good thing." Penk would not put a number on how many BCAs he would like to see. "Any number smaller than 66 would be a win. But I suspect at a regional level, we'll see perhaps as many as half a dozen moves made quite promptly," Penk said. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.