Budget 2025: The teenagers feeling ignored by government's decisions
Rangatahi from Save the Children and Kelson Boys' High School at the Child Poverty Action Group Budget analysis.
Photo:
Supplied
"Do not just invest in stats and numbers, invest in us."
That is the message from a group of teenagers grappling with some of the decisions made by the government in this year's Budget.
They came together along with child advocates, researchers and rangatahi to unpack the budget. with KiwiSaver, pay equity, employment and climate change all top of the discussion.
Save the Children Generation Hope Youth ambassadors opened the post-Budget chat hosted by the Child Poverty Action Group in Tāmaki Makaurau with these words.
"A budget is numbers, but numbers don't heal people, a budget is a promise but promises break without action, a budget is pointless without a plan.
"We've heard the speeches we've seen the headlines roll in; the words roll in like tides the tides that never quite reach the shore."
One of the youth ambassadors is 17-year-old Sonya.
She was concerned about what she feels are important parts of daily life that were missing from the budget.
"There was a lot about infrastructure and funding for big things, but not really the things that matter or the things that impact people on their daily lives.
"Kids that go to school, what are we going to do about buses? What are we going to do about traffic? What are we going to do about families and school lunches?"
One of the big changes affecting rangatahi is the tightening of the job seeker and emergency benefits.
18 and 19-year-olds on those will now have them means tested against their parents' incomes.
Year 12 students at Kelston Boys' High School Uelese and Nikolao are concerned about this.
"Do they know, especially in Polynesian households like our parents, have their own struggles, relying on them for the funding will put more stress and you know, more troubles on our parents," said Uelese.
"Yeah, I think it all goes back to the purpose of the government itself to provide positive outcomes for the general public, whether or not you have stable parents, I feel like everybody deserves what they're promised," Nikolao said.
The issue was of particular relevance for Uelese - whose mother has been impacted by the pay equity reform.
Year 12 Kelston Boys' High School student Uelese speaks at the event.
Photo:
Supplied
While its overhaul will save the government $2.7 billion a year.
The changes mean workers now face a higher threshold to prove they are underpaid due to sex discrimination.
Uelese is worried about how it will affect his mum and dedicated his opening speech to her.
"If my mom can't get ahead, how am I supposed to?
"This year's budget was meant to be about growth, but for so many families, especially those led by women, it feels more like being told to grow something from dry soil.
"You can't cut down the people who carry the load and expect the next generation to rise.
"This budget forgets the people who hold our communities and our children together, women, especially mothers."
Then there is KiwiSaver.
From July, 16 and 17-year-olds are eligible to get the government contribution and requirements for employers to match their deposits will kick in next year.
But the minimum contribution will go up from three percent of wages to four percent over the next three years.
The amount the government is contributing is being halved to a maximum of $261 a year.
The government said the increase in the default amount could leave KiwiSaver members with more than $100,000 in retirement.
But the Labour Party claims not everybody will benefit, especially younger people.
It claims the changes could mean an 18-year-old ends up with $66,000 less for their retirement.
Uelese and Nikolao are disappointed with the change.
"You know, finance is everything it would be good to, like, have that support that they've sort of halved.
"I mean, it's still there, but is half really enough to start something in, in this ever growing society," said Uelese.
The students also said there is one big thing missing in the budget, addressing climate change.
Instead, the government has set aside $200 million to invest in fossil fuel development at gas fields, reduce climate finance to the pacific and clawed back funds for government agencies working on ways to save energy.
Uelese said it was worrying.
"We're really educated on climate change and we know that it's like one of the biggest issues, if not the biggest issue that we're facing right now.
"We actually need to get our butts up and start moving."
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
RNZ News
an hour ago
- RNZ News
The David Seymour ‘bots' debate: Do online submission tools help or hurt democracy?
ACT Party leader David Seyour in studio for an interview on season 3 of 30 with Guyon Espiner. Photo: RNZ / Cole Eastham-Farrelly A discussion document on a Regulatory Standards Bill is not, on the face of it, the sort of thing that might have been expected to prompt 23,000 responses. But in an age of digital democracy, the Ministry for Regulation was probably expecting it. The bill , led by ACT Party leader David Seymour, is controversial. It sparked a response from activists, who used online tools to help people make their opposition known. Of the 23,000 submissions, 88 percent were opposed. Seymour this week told RNZ's 30 with Guyon Espiner , that figure reflected "bots" generating "fake" submissions. He did not provide evidence for the claim and later explained he wasn't referring to literal bots but to "online campaigns" that generate "non-representative samples" that don't reflect public opinion. Seymour has previous experience with this sort of thing. The Treaty Principles Bill got a record 300,000 submissions when it was considered by the Justice Committee earlier this year. Is Seymour right to have raised concerns about how these tools are affecting public debate? Or are they a boon for democracy? Submission tools are commonly used by advocacy groups to mobilise public input during the select committee process. The online tools often offer a template for users to fill out or suggested wording that can be edited or submitted as is. Each submission is usually still sent by the individual. Taxpayers' Union spokesperson Jordan Williams said submitting to Parliament used to be "pretty difficult". "You'd have to write a letter and things like that. What the tools do allow is for people to very easily and quickly make their voice heard." The tools being used now are part of sophisticated marketing campaigns, Williams said. "You do get pressure groups that take particular interest, and it blows out the numbers, but that doesn't mean that officials should be ruling them out or refusing to engage or read submissions." The Taxpayers' Union has created submission tools in the past, but Williams said he isn't in favour of tools that don't allow the submitter to alter the submission. He has encouraged supporters to change the contents of the submission to ensure it is original. "The ones that we are pretty suspicious of is when it doesn't allow the end user to actually change the submission, and in effect, it just operates like a petition, which I don't think quite has the same democratic value." Clerk of the House of Representatives David Wilson said campaigns that see thousands of similar submissions on proposed legislation are not new, they've just taken a different form. "It's happened for many, many years. It used to be photocopied forms. Now, often it's things online that you can fill out. And there's nothing wrong with doing that. It's a legitimate submission." However, Wilson pointed out that identical responses would likely be grouped by the select committee and treated as one submission. "The purpose of the select committee calling for public submissions is so that the members of the committee can better inform themselves about the issues. They're looking at the bill, thinking about whether it needs to be amended or whether it should pass. So if they receive the same view from hundreds of people, they will know that." But that isn't to say those submissions are discredited, Wilson said. "For example, the committee staff would say, you've received 10,000 submissions that all look exactly like this. So members will know how many there were and what they said. But I don't know if there's any point in all of the members individually reading the same thing that many times." Jordan Williams co-founded the Taxpayers' Union in 2013 with David Farrar. Photo: RNZ / Cole Eastham-Farrelly But Williams said there were risks in treating similar submissions created using 'tools' as one submission. "Treating those ones as if they are all identical is not just wrong, it's actually undemocratic," he said. "It's been really concerning that, under the current parliament, they are trying to carte blanche, reject people's submissions, because a lot of them are similar." AI should be used to analyse submissions and identify the unique points. "Because if people are going to take the time and make a submission to Parliament, at the very least, the officials should be reading them or having them summarised," Williams said. Labour MP Duncan Webb is a member of the Justice Committee and sat in on oral submissions for the Treaty Principles Bill. He said he attempted to read as many submissions as possible. "When you get a stock submission, which is a body of text that is identical and it's just been clicked and dragged, then you don't have to read them all, because you just know that there are 500 people who think exactly the same thing," he said. "But when you get 500 postcards, which each have three handwritten sentences on them, they may all have the same theme, they may all be from a particular organisation, but the individual thoughts that have been individually expressed. So you can't kind of categorise it as just one size fits all. You've got to take every single case on its merits." Webb said he takes the select committee process very seriously. "The thing that struck me was, sure, you read a lot [of submissions] which are repetitive, but then all of a sudden you come across one which actually changes the way you think about the problem in front of you. "To kind of dismiss that as just one of a pile from this organisation is actually denying someone who's got an important point to make, their voice in the democratic process." Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
RNZ News
an hour ago
- RNZ News
Science sector sounds alarm over funding shake-up
Photo: 123RF New Zealand's science sector, once hailed for its agility and ingenuity during the pandemic and natural disasters, is now grappling with what researchers say is a crisis of confidence, fuelled by shrinking budgets , unstable funding pathways and policy decisions that increasingly favour commercial returns over long-term public good. Last month, a total of $212 million was cut from the science sector in this Budget, which reprioritises existing research funding towards commercially focused science and innovation. A sizeable portion goes to Invest NZ and a new gene tech regulator. The government says it backs the sector and is prioritising industry partnerships, private-sector investment, and "innovation outcomes with measurable economic impact". While officials insist the move reflects "fiscal discipline and real-world alignment", many in the sector say it amounts to a dismantling of the research base. Newsroom political journalist Fox Meyer tells The Detail that "the scale of the cuts is not great for the sector, but it's also more about the lack of investment". "It's one thing to have cuts and reprioritisation, but people have been calling for more of just anything for some time now. Now, there is a lot of frustration. "Science funding has been stagnant or declining for years now, and a decision to reprioritise stuff is not necessarily going to put money in the government's pocket like they think." With a focus on the bottom line, is this the government pulling off a Sir John Key "show me the money" moment, with a scientific bent? "That actually goes both ways," says Meyer. "Scientists are looking at the government saying, 'show me the money if you want me to produce more money', and the government is looking back at the scientists and saying, 'well, you show me the money, what are you bringing in, how are you lifting your weight?'. "That is going to be a hard one to reconcile unless the government is willing to pony up and make the investment." He worries the fall-out will include a "brain drain" with our country's brightest and best scientists and researchers opting to take up positions overseas. "My connections in the science world - plenty of them - have moved. "The chief science advisor for the Department of Conservation has moved to Australia ... that's an expert in a cutting-edge field that we have lost to a company in Australia. "And it's not the only example of this sort of thing. We invest so much in training up these scientists, and they are very skilled scientists, and then to not give them what they are asking for and what they need, I feel it falls short of our own investment." In fairness, it is not all doom and gloom. "So, the positives, there is a new funding pool for Māori-related science, that's a good thing. There's the sector-wide report that has come out, which has given us a good look at the sector. We know more now, that's a good thing. And the chief science advisor has been appointed , and the panel around him has been appointed, that's a good thing there." Meyer says the sector is crucial to all parts of New Zealand. "The science sector is about answering questions. If you have questions, science is a method, and it is used to answer a lot of those questions ... the more money that we put into this sector, the more questions we can answer. And the more questions we can answer, the more answers we can sell. "If the government is worried about economic growth, and they want to champion this sector, then you've got to put your money where your mouth is. "I am going to be curious to see how they can steer the ship of science, when maybe what they are most suited for is selling the fruits of science." Check out how to listen to and fol low The Detail here . You can also stay up-to-date by liking us on Facebook or following us on Twitter .
RNZ News
6 hours ago
- RNZ News
Warning to illegal rubbish dumpers: new rules could lead to crack-down
Clearing up the worst dumping spots costs Heretaunga-Hastings ratepayers more than $100,000 a year, councillor Wendy Schollum says, and she wants councils to have better enforcement options (file photo). Photo: Supplied/ Hastings District Council Fly-tippers illegally dumping rubbish could be in for a shock if new laws are passed making it easier for councils to prosecute them, and to crack down on them using clues such as old car registration plates or names on letters or mail. The government has proposed revisions to the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 (WMA) and the Litter Act 1979 (the Litter Act), including giving authorities more flexibility to help them crack down on illegal dumping. Hastings District Councillor Wendy Schollum told Checkpoint that illegal rubbish dumping was an ongoing issue in the community, but the council was currently limited in its ability to do much about the fly-tippers. Annually, picking up litter in Heretaunga-Hastings cost well over $100,000, council staff had told her - "and that was only in hot-spot areas, so that wasn't even across the whole district," she said. Wendy Schollum Photo: Supplied via LDR "We estimated that if we were to try and clear every space of litter, it would cost in excess of over $1 million." The types of rubbish being dumped in the area varied from everday litter, to households worth of rubbish, including whiteware and mattresses. "It's actually quite outrageous some of the stuff that gets left," Schollum said. Hastings District Council was not alone in the problem, but critics say it is difficult to hold offenders to account under laws written in the 70s, with offenders basically needing to be caught in the act. "When I first was elected onto council back in 2017, right from then until now, littering and dumping has been the number one issue with ratepayers in our area," Schollum said. But at the moment, even with overwhelming evidence, the council often could not do much in response, she said: "Unless someone was literally standing there watching the person do it at the time, under the current law, there is so little we can do." A consultation document on the law changes also noted the problem: The current Waste Minimisation Act "provides limited CME [compliance, monitoring and enforcement] powers. Prosecution is the main means to address non-compliance, with maximum fines of $100,00 for all main offences at a central government level, [and] $20,000 for a breach of bylaws." But in effect that meant: "For ... offences [other than non-payment of the levy] prosecution through the courts is the only enforcement option, which is limiting because prosecution can be a disproportionate regulatory response to non-compliance, [and] if non-compliance falls below the prosecution threshold, no consequences can arise from breach of the WMA." Schollum said the current loophole leaves ratepayers footing the bill for fly-tippers. "In an area like Heretaunga, where they've been hit by Cyclone Gabrielle and we're reeling from recovery costs, our ratepayers don't need to be paying for what is frankly laziness." She believes the problem was caused by bad attitudes, rather than issues affording dump fees. "Often people contact me and say, 'well, if you reduce the dump fees, people wouldn't litter'. The reality is that if that were the case, we would see in areas where it's cheaper or free to dispose of rubbish that there would be no illegal dumping at all and that's just not the case. "The evidence overwhelmingly points to the fact it's about attitudes." Under the proposed changes, evidence like addressed mail left in dumped rubbish could be used to identify dumpers and fine them. (file photo) Photo: Supplied/Gisborne District Council The consultation document also suggests a new tiered compliance system, with different penalties for different levels of offence. This could range from small infringements where a warning might be suitable, for example for "illegal plastic bag use" or minor littering, through to mid-range offences where the most severe consequences were not suitable, up to the most severe consequences, for behaviour like "high-harm illegal dumping". Schollum said tiered enforcement options would be helpful to the council: "If someone threw their takeaway container out their car window, they're not going to be met with the same sort of penalty as someone who dumps a whole house ... worth of rubbish [in] the community area. "This is about councils finally being able to pursue repeat offenders and stop communities having to pay for the cost of laziness, but only with reasonable evidence." The revisions could also distinguish between individuals and larger entities committing offences, and define offences and maximum fees, penalties and prosecution. Schollum said despite enthusiasm from the community to help in clearing the litter, other frustrating barriers have stood in the way. "Some of the worst hit areas are actually NZTA managed lands, and at the moment, because of health and safety rules with NZTA we can't even arrange community clean ups on their land." Even though these set backs have limited community clean ups, Schollum said it should not be the community's job in the first place. "We shouldn't be having to look at the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff solution, which is the community spending their money and time trying to clean up other people's mess. We need to stop the dumping and the littering in the first place." Other changes in the proposal include adjusting how local councils are allocated funds to dispose of waste, widening what councils can use the funds for and clarifying who is responsible for what. Consultation for the potential law changes closed on 1 June, the Ministry for the Environment website said. Next, the submissions will be considered, and from there Cabinet could decide to create an amendment bill, which could be introduced to Parliament to pursue changing the existing law. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
