Australia: Less Bang For Your Buck – NSW Budget Is Missing Key Opportunities For Everyone
'Despite repeated calls from people with disability, the NSW Government has failed to deliver a clear and sustained investment in disabled lives in the 2025-26 Budget, the outcomes of which will be felt by all,' said Trinity Ford, President, People with Disability Australia (PWDA).
The key messages from PWDA's pre-budget submission are that making NSW more inclusive and accessible offers:
Wellbeing benefits for people with disability.
Wellbeing benefits for the wider community.
Opportunities to save over $12 billion.
These key benefits and opportunities have not been considered throughout the Budget.
A targeted investment in Foundational Supports was clearly missing—and that's deeply concerning.
"The complete omission of any specific funding for Foundational Supports is a serious missed opportunity—and one that Australia can't afford. We are increasingly concerned that this may signal a deliberate move to sideline foundational supports from the Government's agenda. We will be raising this urgently with Minister Washington and will be monitoring the Government's position closely', said Ms Ford.
A commitment to accessible housing is also lacking within announcements. Although the Government has committed to improve housing for the people of NSW, PWDA is disappointed the Budget does little to directly address the housing crisis facing people with disability.
Currently, 66,698 households are on the NSW social housing waiting list. The government's own data acknowledges that around one-third of these applicants are people with disability.
The Government is committing billions to fast-track 465,500 new homes over the next five years through private and mixed development initiatives. However, most of these are not social or accessible housing, and there are no clear guarantees of how people with disability—especially those on low incomes—will benefit.
"Making all new homes accessible by mandating the National Construction Code's minimum accessibility standards would not cost the government anything—and it would help more people with disability live independently, instead of relying on social housing', said Ms Ford.
Right now, homelessness is costing NSW about $6.5 billion every year. Over 10 years, that adds up to $65 billion. If the Government invested just one-third of that amount—$26 billion over 10 years—it could stop many people from becoming homeless and save almost $4 billion each year.
PWDA welcomes the NSW Government's investments toward improving access to support for victim-survivors of violence and trauma. However, there is no mention of how these funds will support people with disability—despite clear evidence people with disability are at significantly higher risk of experiencing violence and need different interventions.
'Funding responses to violence must be inclusive. Without specific measures to address the unique risks and access barriers faced by people with disability, we risk leaving behind the very communities most in need of protection,' said Ms Ford.
PWDA is calling on the NSW Government to commit to the inclusion and wellbeing of people with disability.
'Continued discrimination against people with disability, and doing nothing to address it, is expensive. There are clear gaps in the 2025-26 NSW Budget. People with disability are being left out, which will end up costing the Government and taxpayers more in the future,' said Trinity Ford, President of PWDA.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
24 minutes ago
- NZ Herald
Real countries need to keep learning about their history
Together, these savings will cover about 0.1% of the increased defence spending, while endangering the history 'real countries' need. Without history, we may as well join Australia. Public historians' first task, beginning in 1945, was to assemble the official histories of New Zealand in World War II, a massive project. Large public investments were also made in the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, from 1983, and Te Ara, the Encyclopaedia of New Zealand, from 2001. The public historians maintain and update these, as they do New Zealand History websites, including 'New Zealanders at War'. Ministry assurances that life support for these will continue ring hollow in the absence of people to do the job. These resources are richer, more human and more durable memorials than any cenotaph. They will be hard to revive once expertise is lost. Is this how we honour our war dead? The ministry's online resources have about seven million users a year, 70% of them New Zealanders, including many secondary school students. Our recent commitment to New Zealand history in schools is already in trouble. History posts in universities have also been cut, leaving few to teach the teachers. New Zealand history posts at the University of Auckland, for example, have at least halved (to less than three FTE) over the past decade or so. Behind this is the Government policy of funding arts students at less than half the rate of science students. History converts information into understanding, a key skill for anyone, and is essential to the social capital that glues our communities together and helps them understand each other. The big histories funded by Marsden, including two of my own books, could never have been attempted without it. They engaged with other histories as well as New Zealand's own. The logic was precisely that 'a real country', even a small one, should contribute its bit to the global knowledge on which it draws. The Government might have ditched these global aspirations, restricted Marsden history and other humanities and social sciences funding to New Zealand subjects and/or introduced other reforms – to filter out 'flakier' projects, for example. But it did not reform; it just killed the whole thing off. We still have much to learn about the history of New Zealand and its interactions with the world. Marsden projects contributed to filling these gaps, for example: 'Second World War Conscription and New Zealand Society'; 'Slavery in Māori society: myths and realities to c. 1860'; 'Researching ourselves: social surveys in New Zealand'. It will no longer do so. National Party governments, or National-led coalitions, have supported public historians from the first, since 1949. Decimating them goes against all 76 years of National Party practice. The Dictionary of NZ Biography project was initiated by a National Government. The Marsden Fund, with a brief always including history, humanities and social sciences, was set up by Simon Upton in 1994, as a minister in Jim Bolger's Government. Reasonable National Party MPs today need to recapture their Government and join the rest of us in repelling this attack on New Zealand history and identity.
Newsroom
an hour ago
- Newsroom
Unions launch legal action over pay equity changes
When Associate Attorney-General Paul Goldsmith wrote his advice on whether the Government's pre-Budget changes to the pay equity regime breached human rights, he – likely unwittingly – provided those affected with a roadmap. 'The changes made by the Bill can be expected to have the effect of tightening access to the pay equity process and pay equity settlements,' he wrote in the document, known jargonistically as a BORA vet. These changes may result in someone facing discrimination based on their gender, he said. 'I have considered whether the combined effect of these changes may discriminate on the basis of sex by making it more difficult for a person to access a non-discriminatory rate of pay or to take steps to maintain pay equity.' But if that's the case, they could file a legal claim. 'On balance, I have concluded that these provisions do not engage s 19 because a person in this situation could still take court proceedings in order to obtain an effective remedy through other means – for example, seeking a remedy in the High Court for a breach of s19 of the Bill of Rights Act.' Cue the court case. On August 29, a collection of five unions will file their legal case with the High Court, claiming the coalition Government's controversial changes to pay equity legislation breach three fundamental rights: freedom from gender-based pay discrimination, the right to natural justice, and the right to fair legal process. This comes hot on the heels of Māori health providers and the greyhound racing industry calling on the court to declare the coalition Government's changes have broken the law. The claim will see New Zealand Nurses Organisation (NZNO), Public Service Association (PSA), Post-Primary Teachers Association (PPTA), NZEI Te Riu Roa primary teachers' union, and the Tertiary Education Union (TEU) seek declarations from the court that the Government's changes to pay equity law are inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. They will be represented by Rodney Harrison KC and Peter Cranney – the lawyer who argued Kristine Bartlett's precedent-setting pay equity case. These unions represent 24 of the 33 claims that were wiped when the coalition introduced legislation without consultation, and passed under urgency, the Equal Pay Amendment Bill ahead of the May Budget. The 33 claims are estimated to have covered more than 150,000 workers. The Government says this change has saved them from paying $13 billion of taxpayers' money in future wages and salaries to those working in female-dominated workforces, whose work has been historically under-valued due to gender-based discrimination. The Government also tightened the framework, by lifting the threshold for the percentage of women workers in a sector from 60 percent to 70 percent and changed the way equitable pay is determined through the comparator system. So far, no claims have been filed and all-but the nurses say they see no way towards bringing a successful claim under the new regime. 'This is about more than pay' In a press release, TEU national secretary Sandra Grey said: 'If Brooke van Velden and Christopher Luxon thought avoiding a select committee process would allow them to dodge accountability for stealing $12.8 billion from low paid women workers, we've got news for them.' Other union heads called it a 'kick in the guts'. And now the Government is faced with striking secondary teachers and nurses. On Budget Day, when talking about her decision to overhaul the pay equity regime, in the context of delivering a 'responsible budget', Finance Minister Nicola Willis said: 'In addition to pay equity settlements, the Government will fund future pay rises for women-dominated public-sector workforces through the normal collective bargaining process.' Last month, Health NZ offered nurses a 2 percent pay increase this year, followed by 1 percent next year. They then moved to strike. High school teachers were offered 1 percent. They have voted to begin rolling strikes next month. And primary teachers are due to meet this week over collective negotiations. The Government has come out swinging at striking public sector employees – by holdings press conferences scolding the nurses' and teachers' unions. Meanwhile, Public Service Minister Judith Collins has also made comments suggesting the coalition could be considering limiting the options open to those wanting to take industrial action; if true the Government could be looking to dampen one more mechanism used by female-dominated workforces to secure pay increases. Pay equity changes and the recent strike action are no doubt linked. The new regime effectively locks out the 25,000 secondary teachers who would have been covered by the teachers' pay equity claim, as the workforce doesn't reach the new 70 percent women workers threshold. 'Our claim was built on years of rigorous, evidence-based work, carried out in good faith under a process agreed with previous governments. To have that work discarded by political decree is a betrayal—not just of teachers, but of every woman in Aotearoa New Zealand whose work has been historically undervalued,' PPTA president Chris Abercrombie said. 'This is about more than pay. It's about whether our country honours its commitments to fairness, equity, and the rule of law. We will not stand by while those principles are trampled. Our members deserve better. Our students deserve better. And our democracy deserves better.' Govt 'undermined the judiciary' PSA national secretary Fleur Fitzsimmons told Newsroom this litigation was about getting a fair hearing. 'We know that the High Court will give us a fair hearing, and we will be advocating similar arguments in the High Court that we would have advocated had the government run a proper select committee process.' This legal action stood alongside the country's first ever people's select committee, which was hearing from communities affected by the pay equity changes. The committee, which kicked off last week, received more than 1500 submissions. The unions' claim would asks the court to rule the changes breached section 19 of the human rights law that says everyone has the right to freedom from discrimination – in this case, gender-based discrimination. But Fitzsimmons said the Government had also breached women workers' right to a fair legal process and the executive had 'undermined the judiciary'. The executive's decision to cancel claims that were about to be heard by the Employment Relations Authority was inconsistent with the country's constitutional foundations, which clearly stipulated a separation of the different arms of government. A Treasury paper from December, released last month, laid out the Government's options for closing the funded sector contingency – the money set aside for covering pay equity settlements for those working in privately owned businesses, but in sectors that provided a public good and were largely funded by the Government, such as the aged care sector. The paper revealed that of the $12.8b estimated total pay equity costs over the forecast period, the funded sector contingency accounted for $9.6b of that (75 percent of estimated pay equity costs). Care and support workers (and one other redacted workforce) were described as the 'key claims with significant estimated costs' in the funded sector. The care and support workers claim had already been deemed to have merit under the previous pay equity framework, and Treasury officials pointed out the Employment Relations Authority had indicated it would hear the claim during the first week of May. Workplace Relations and Safety Minister Brooke van Velden announced the changes on May 6, without prior warning or consultation – as care and support workers were preparing briefs of evidence for the authority. The legislation passed through all stages under urgency, with no select committee process. 'We have separation of powers in New Zealand,' Fitzsimmons said. 'And what we saw from the Government, under the cover of darkness and through urgency, was the cancelling of claims that the judicial arm was about to hear through the Employment Relations Authority.' Now many of these care and support workers were back on the minimum wage, she said. While the Government released pay equity documents at the end of last month, many of them included heavy redactions – especially when it came to legal advice. Fitzsimmons said this court process would uncover elements of those documents that had been withheld. 'We will see the full horror of the betrayal of New Zealand women by this government, and we will be taken seriously, and women will be given a voice.' What a win in court could mean While the High Court could rule that the Government's pay equity changes had breached human rights law, that doesn't mean the Government has to change the law. And the court has no power to tell the Government what it can and can't do when it comes to legislating. But Fitzsimmons tells Newsroom a win would still be a big deal. It would also add an immense amount of scrutiny to the law and the legislative process. If the court was to declare the pay equity changes are inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act then Attorney-General Judith Collins would have to notify Parliament within six sitting days. From there, the matter would be referred to a select committee for scrutiny, where they would have four months to report back to Parliament. The Government would then have a further six months to present its response to the declaration and the committee's report, and from there a parliamentary debate would be held within the next six sitting days. 'The consequences for the Government and for Parliament are significant.' Legal challenges piling up The unions' legal challenge comes as the Government faces off in court against other aggrieved communities. The pay equity case will come after a High Court hearing of an unprecedented claim from a group of Māori health providers over the disestablishment of Te Aka Whai Ora. The providers, led by Lady Tureiti Moxon, are also calling on the court to declare the shutting of the Māori Health Authority breaches the Bill of Rights Act. And, in the first case of its kind, the group is also asking the court to declare the move inconsistent with te Tiriti o Waitangi. Last week, Greyhound Racing NZ had its case for interim relief heard, ahead of a more substantive judicial review of Cabinet's decision to ban greyhound racing in New Zealand. The decision, which was announced without consultation with the industry, didn't follow the proper process, making it unlawful, former Attorney-General Chris Finlayson KC told the High Court last Thursday. But those acting on behalf of the Crown – and ultimately Racing Minister Winston Peters – said the Government was within its rights to make a decision to ban greyhound racing on political ground, then legislate to do so. Crown lawyer Katherine Anderson KC raised the example where the Government had made a political decision to legislate, without consulting the affected communities, saying it was the executive's right to do so. This coalition has also faced a series of challenges at the Waitangi Tribunal, and it's unlikely these legal cases will be the last to come. Earlier this year, Newsroom revealed the Government would be reinstating a full prisoner voting ban. And last month the coalition announced it was overhauling voter registration, meaning voters would not be able to enrol or update their details in the 12 days ahead of election day. This move is expected to impact more than 100,000 people and disproportionately affect young people, Māori and Pasifika. Jailhouse lawyer Arthur Taylor, alongside the Human Rights Commission, successfully sought a declaration of inconsistency with the Bill of Rights Act last time a Government removed prisoners' right to vote. This led to a process that ultimately resulted in the previous Labour-led Government giving the vote to everyone who was serving a sentence of less than three years. It would be unsurprising to see someone take essentially the same case back to court when this new prisoner voting ban comes into effect, given the court's already ruled it breaches human rights law once before. Meanwhile, Attorney-General Judith Collins told her colleagues, including the minister responsible and her associate attorney-general Paul Goldsmith, that the proposed changes to voter enrolment breach the Bill of Rights Act, saying Māori, Pasifika and Asian communities will pay the 'heaviest price' by being disenfranchised. Once the law has passed, someone could call on the court to declare inconsistencies with section 19 of the Bill of Rights Act. A win in any of these cases doesn't necessitate a law change, but they will put the spotlight on the coalition's process and the weight it puts on human rights. The union's case will be filed at the High Court on August 29, alongside a protest rally held by women whose claims were cancelled.
NZ Herald
an hour ago
- NZ Herald
NZ debt nears $1 trillion as growth moderates, savings fall
At the current rate of growth, we'll hit that landmark inside the next three years. The rate of growth has moderated in the past two years as the Government has sought to curb borrowing, and the housing market, which accounts for the largest chunk of our debt, has been flat. Businesses have also been hunkering down, afraid to invest and expand, and farmers are getting good returns but using them to address high debt levels. But while the rate at which we're borrowing has eased, so too has the rate at which we are saving and growing wealth. The easiest path out of debt is wealth creation, shrinking our net debt and our debt-to-GDP ratio. So going backwards on that front is a cause for concern. The big, ugly numbers In the year to May 31, we hit a total of $872.6 billion in gross debt. That figure is up from $827.3b last year, a rise of 5.4%. It represents an average of $163,717 in raw debt for every Kiwi in the country. The rate of growth is relatively subdued by the standards of previous years. In the first New Zealand Herald Nation of Debt feature, in 2016, the total gross debt figure was $492.5b. We have seen total debt rise 77% since then. That represents an average annual increase of 6.65%. Given we are still coming down from a period of high interest rates, it was not surprising that borrowing growth was subdued, said Reserve Bank adviser for financial stability assessment and strategy, Charles Lilly. 'We're still in a relatively contractionary phase,' he said. 'We want to see stability. We don't want credit debt off the scale and people taking too much risk.' On the downside, a lack of borrowing growth was more of an issue with the financial system if the banks were not willing to lend, he said. 'I think banks are still willing to lend; it's mainly from the demand side, they just don't have customers coming through the door.' Crown debt also continues to rise, despite the Government's efforts to curb spending. Core Crown borrowing (the baseline we've used since 2016) was $238.8b in the year to May 31, 2025. That's up from $215b in the year to May 30, 2024 – an increase of 11%. It follows an increase of 11% for the previous year. While the coalition Government hasn't been able to stop Crown debt rising in double digits, it has at least reduced the annual rate of increase. It was 27% and 17% respectively in the years to May 2022 and May 2023. Crown debt is always a hot political topic. Wellington business editor Jenée Tibshraeny will take a deep dive into the state of the Government books tomorrow in part two of this series. The other side of the ledger Of course, the nominal figures still look scary. So does your mortgage if you don't weigh it against the value of your house. It is important to compare the gross debt figure to our saving rates and assets to add more context. Unfortunately, the latest Stats NZ figures (for the year to March) showed New Zealanders' household net wealth has fallen. Household net worth, the value of all assets owned by households less the value of their liabilities, fell $25.4b to $2.42 trillion in the March 2025 quarter. That is still almost three times the total gross debt figure. But in the year ended March 2025, household net worth fell $23.1b (0.9%), after a rise of $61.2b (2.5%) in the year ended March 2024. We're currently headed in the wrong direction. Most of that fall will be related to house prices, although some of it can be attributed to lower savings rates. Stats NZ's household saving data shows how much households are saving out of their current income (ie current income less current consumption). The data shows savings fell $392 million to minus $1.6b in the March 2025 quarter. Sector by sector Housing It should come as no surprise that the nation's mortgage debt accounts for the bulk of what we owe. Housing debt shot up during the big housing booms in the middle of the last decade and again during the first blush of Covid as stimulus money and low interest rates bolstered property prices. In the year to May 2016, the annual rate of increase for total housing debt was 9.2%, in 2021 it was 11.5%. If we look back further, it topped 16% in 2004. So this year's increase of 4.7% looks modest in comparison. It represents a slight increase on the even more modest 3.3% rise in the year to May 2024. That lift in mortgage debt may reflect the slight uptick in prices late last year and early this year (albeit something of a false start for those waiting on a full-blown housing market recovery). But the level of borrowing has also been lifted by record numbers of first-home buyers coming into the market, and fewer investors, said the RBNZ's Lilly. The former typically need to borrow more from the bank than the latter. If the housing market picks up later this year, as many pundits expect, then we'll likely see the rate of increase in mortgage borrowing follow, he says. Mortgage debt, most of which we owe to Australian banks, is a feature of the New Zealand economy that tends to worry international credit agencies more than our Crown debt. It has been a concern for the Reserve Bank in the past. 'In the current environment, subdued is definitely the theme,' Lilly said. Business Business borrowing barely lifted in the past year – and that is not good news for the economy. At $136.5b in the year to May 31, it was up just 0.6%. Businesses typically borrow to invest in new equipment that will improve productivity or to expand, taking on staff, to grab more market share. None of that stuff has been a feature of the past year. In fact, the opposite has been the case. Many businesses are struggling to survive. Those that desperately need cash to stay in business aren't going to get it from a bank. The struggle for many retail businesses is also highlighted in the relatively anaemic growth in personal consumer lending. At $14.5b, it is up 1.1% in the year to May 31. NZ Herald retail reporter Tom Raynel will take a closer look at the consumer borrowing trends later this week as part of the Nation of Debt series. For larger businesses, issues such as global uncertainty and tariffs would be limiting the appetite to borrow and take risks, Lilly said. It was also the case that the commercial property sector remained very weak, he said. Agriculture Unlike the struggling urban business sector, farmers have been benefiting from strong international export prices in the past year. Numerous commentators have suggested increased spending in the agricultural sector should buoy the regional economies and eventually flow through to the cities. The borrowing data for the past year offers some clues as to why that may take longer than many expect. Total agricultural debt is down 1% for the year to May 31, to $62.8b. Farmers appeared to be using their increased earnings to pay down debt in the first instance, Lilly said. This wasn't a bad thing; it is only a few years ago that the Reserve Bank was highlighting dairy debt as a significant risk to New Zealand's financial stability, he said. By the numbers That big, ugly number in our graphic is New Zealand's total gross debt. It combines the latest Reserve Bank figures for private debt with Treasury numbers for Crown debt and Local Government Funding Agency data on council debt, and IRD's data on student loans. The Reserve Bank figures include housing debt, consumer debt, business debt and agricultural debt to June 30. These are updated monthly by the central bank as part of its brief to monitor and maintain financial stability. The Crown debt figure is taken from the Treasury's Interim Financial Statements (11 months to May 31) and is the figure for core Crown borrowings. This is different from the net core Crown debt figure often used by politicians when discussing debt-to-GDP ratios. We use this (on Treasury's advice) as it is a gross debt figure but excludes debt held by state-owned enterprises, which would have been covered in the Reserve Bank statistics. The debt figure supplied by the Local Government Funding Agency is gross debt for the year to June 30, 2024. It captures all core council activities (Watercare, Auckland Transport, etc) but excludes some commercial activities (eg Christchurch City Council's Orion lines company, Port of Lyttelton, Christchurch Airport) as these would also be included in RBNZ data. Student loan debt is from the IRD statistics to March 2025. COMING UP IN THIS SERIES Tomorrow: Gov't debt: Are higher taxes inevitable? Wednesday: Consumer debt: What are Kiwis borrowing for? Thursday: Student debt: How big? How bad? Liam Dann is Business Editor at Large for the New Zealand Herald. He is a senior writer and columnist, as well as presenting and producing videos and podcasts. He joined the Herald in 2003.
