Greens claim $700m 'uncosted hole' in Budget
Photo:
RNZ / Samuel Rillstone
The government could face an unbudgeted hole of hundreds of millions of dollars in increased KiwiSaver contributions for public sector workers, the Green Party says.
As part of the Budget last week, the government announced that the default KiwiSaver contribution for employees and employers would lift to 4 percent, in stages.
But the Green Party said the government had not accounted for that increase for its own employees in its books, and over the Budget forecast period it could add up to $714 million in costs.
Co-leader Chloe Swarbrick said last time the government increased the compulsory employer contribution, it set up a fund to help cover its costs.
The increased cost to government as an employer was highlighted in the Budget Economic and Fiscal Update and in the KiwiSaver reforms regulatory impact statement.
"What we've found is what we believe to be a hole in the government Budget, an uncosted hole of anywhere from $633m to $714m over the forecast period," Swarbrick said.
"The Crown is obviously an employer of thousands and thousands of people with billions and billions of dollars in wage bills. If we're to project from the base line of around 72 percent of the population... at the default rate which is increasing, the Crown will have an increased liability to meet those employer contributions."
She said the government either did not spend enough time working it out, or was "intentionally hiding or obscuring what I'm sure the minister will say are going to have to be new cuts that agencies and ministries will be forcing departments to make to account for the increased contributions".
Finance Minister Nicola Willis's office said the potential cost had been noted.
"Crown agencies as employers will assess the potential implications for agency budgets. If any additional funding is required, it would count against the Budget 2026 operating allowance."
But Swarbrick said it was not being sufficiently upfront.
She said it seemed the government did not want to be seen to be being "mean" by just halving the member tax credit, to $260 a year, and so had to increase contributions at the same time.
It should have happened as part of more consultation and a full review of retirement settings, she said.
"This will be an additional cost as soon as the changes come into effect."
Employers who offer total remuneration packages to employees will dodge some of the increase but Swarbrick said it was clear that the government would not be able to shift people on to that arrangement to avoid the increase in a way that reduced their take-home pay.
Craig Renney, policy director at the NZ Council of Trade Unions, said it was an issue for the government as an employer.
"It would be good to know what calculations they have made themselves as to their additional remuneration costs. Is the Crown going to force workers to eat the increase themselves? It would set a very bad example for the rest of the market."
He said good employers should see the increase as an opportunity to improve employees' retirement outcomes.
"The risk is that for some employers they might view the 'total remuneration' of their employees as a single package. That would mean they would expect any increase in KiwiSaver to come from the same money. That would mean lower real pay increases for employees and less cash in hand.
"Given that we have very weak demand in the economy, there are probably limited opportunities for employees to get a different job - especially with unemployment forecast to keep rising. Ultimately, that would mean that the government has set up a system where employees end up paying for increased employers contributions to their own KiwiSaver.
"There are some industries where there might be a simple pass-on to the consumer for these costs, but again, in a subdued market these are probably fewer than you might expect. These are probably also higher income earners, so the likelihood is that lower income earners will be more likely to face that 'total remuneration' issue. That will simply compound existing income adequacy problems in New Zealand."
Employees will be able to opt to return their contribution to 3 percent, matched by an employer's 3 percent.
Renney said there was a risk some people could face pressure to do so.
"Again, it is likely to low paid/lower market power employee who face this challenge. Secondly, if we make it easier to become a contractor - where this is not an issue - this move will encourage employers to pretend that their employees are contractors. The current proposed changes by government in that regard might drive more of that behaviour, putting workers at a significant disadvantage."
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter
curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
3 hours ago
- Scoop
Have Your Say On The Education And Training (Early Childhood Education Reform) Amendment Bill
The Acting Chairperson of the Education and Workforce Committee is calling for public submissions on the Education and Training (Early Childhood Education Reform) Amendment Bill. The bill aims to improve the effectiveness of the early childhood education (ECE) regulatory system for children and parents, and to reduce the regulatory burden for service providers. The bill seeks to amend the Education and Training Act 2020 to: clarify the purpose, objectives, and guiding principles of regulating ECE services establish a new statutory role, the Director of Regulation, with responsibilities for performing key regulatory functions in the ECE system clarify responsibilities relating to the prescribing of licensing criteria. The bill would partly implement the Government's decisions resulting from the Regulatory Review of Early Childhood Education. Tell the Education and Workforce Committee what you think Make a submission on the bill by 2.00pm on Monday, 1 September 2025. For more details about the bill:
RNZ News
4 hours ago
- RNZ News
Nobby Clark not impressed by brother's surprise mayoral bid
Invercargill Mayor Nobby Clark is not supporting his younger brother's bid for the job. Photo: RNZ / REECE BAKER Invercargill mayor Nobby Clark is not backing his brother's attempt to take over his job when he finishes up this election. Nelson-based Andrew Clark is running for mayor in the southern city while simultaneously standing for Tasman district mayor. Up there, he is running as Maxwell Clark. The move has irked big brother Nobby, who is finishing up as mayor after just one term at the helm. "I do not support my brother's nomination," mayor Clark told Local Democracy Reporting. "Why is he using Andrew and not using his known name (Maxwell) - while he is also standing for the Tasman mayoralty for the fifth time?" Andrew Clark said he told Nobby he was running for mayor on Thursday after his nomination went in. He hadn't said anything earlier because he didn't want to rely on "connections". It could be difficult to get hold of Nobby, he said, and he didn't want to overload him in light of recent health issues. Andrew Clark, who also goes by middle name Maxwell, is standing for mayor at opposite ends of the South Island. Photo: Supplied The Invercargill mayor was hospitalised in late June following a minor stroke. Andrew wasn't sure why his brother hadn't taken the news well, but said the two were conversing. "I think there's a lot of stresses and strains in his life," he said. As for Invercargill, Andrew said he had been there "a few times" and would move down if successful. "I have a belief that ratepayers should come front and centre, and as a mayor I would treat the public's money in the same way I treat my own - carefully, intentionally and with accountability." The mayoral hopeful is not completely unfamiliar to council. At a June 2024 meeting, he surprised elected members by making his way to the table mid-meeting to introduce himself and thank them for being supportive in a time of need. Mayor Clark was under fire at the time for a code of conduct matter relating to comments he'd made at a private event a few months earlier. LDR is local body journalism co-funded by RNZ and NZ On Air.
RNZ News
4 hours ago
- RNZ News
How bad is the tariff news for NZ, really?
Photo: ARNE DEDERT / AFP New Zealand has been hit with a higher tariff rate than Australia on exports to the US - but economists say the situation could have been worse. It was revealed on Friday that New Zealand exports would have a 15 percent tariff applied, up from 10 percent announced earlier. Australia remains at 10 percent. Brad Olsen, chief executive at Infometrics, said that was a clear challenge for New Zealand. "There is now a wedge between us and Australia." There were other parts of the world that previously had a higher tariff rate that were now on the same level as New Zealand, such as Europe. "Wine, for example, under the original tariffs, we might have had a slight advantage. Now we don't." But he said it was not necessarily true that the country would have been better off had it negotiated a deal. He said New Zealand did not have a lot to "give up" in those negotiations, and it could have ended up being costly . "I'm a little bit surprised by comments, including from the opposition's trade spokesperson, that the government failed to achieve a lower tariff rate. "The comments seem to make the implication that New Zealand could have found a way to come up with a trade agreement that might have given us a lower tariff rate. "That might be true, but we have no idea what we would have had to give up to achieve that… some of what had to be given up by other countries to get a 15 percent tariffs rate is consequential - Japan and other countries had to give up to half a trillion dollars of further investment into the US." He said the impact on New Zealand's trading partners might not be as bad as had been expected, which should prove positive for the economy. "It will be slightly more challenging to export to the US from a New Zealand point of view, but our trading partner activity might not be hit as bad as was feared in April. That's probably a net benefit for us." Mike Jones, chief economist at BNZ, said the increase was not unexpected given indications of the past few weeks. "It's obviously unhelpful for NZ exports into the US, particularly how we line up with those coming from Australia and the UK, given the lower 10 percent baseline tariff rate for those countries. "Beef and wine exports could be affected. It's interesting in this context that we've seen the NZD/AUD exchange rate fall a little today in the wake of the announcements." Kelly Eckhold, chief economist at Westpac, said he thought New Zealand was in roughly the same position as in April. "On one hand, the tariff is higher, so there is a bigger direct cost, but it's a bit lower for a lot of our trading partners, so it's better for the economy than would otherwise be the case." He said how the lingering elements of uncertainty played out over the coming weeks would be important. "The legal basis of these tariffs, whether they're going to be able to continue or need to be replaced with a different type of tariff, is an issue. And the sectoral tariffs have not yet really been negotiated. "While I don't think these things affect the sort of goods New Zealand trades with the US, there may be some impact on our trading partners." He said it seemed strange that the US was calculating tariffs based on which countries exported more than they imported. "The concept that US authorities have had of countries ripping them off by selling more stuff to America than they're been buying is quite myopic. "We're only talking about goods trade here, we buy a lot of services from the US. "In large part, the trade imbalance is a cyclical rather than a structural story. "In the last few years, the economy has been relatively weak compared to the US. We're not sucking in as many imports, and the exchange rate has been lower than would normally be the case, which has encouraged export revenues. "I would have thought trade policy metrics like tariffs would be determined on the basis of structural, not cyclical factors. "All those things could easily be the other way around in a few years' time." Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
