Budget 2025: The Teenagers Feeling Ignored By Government's Decisions
"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.
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."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
a day ago
- RNZ News
How can people get 'free money' out of their Kiwisaver?
money politics 24 minutes ago Time is running out for KiwiSaver members to get an extra $521 in their accounts from the Government. From next year it'll only be contributing about $260 or, in some cases, nothing at all. People will need to get in quick if they are to cash in on the final $500 payout. Money correspondent Susan Edmunds spoke to Lisa Owen about how to get this bit of "free money."
The Spinoff
3 days ago
- The Spinoff
Echo Chamber: The trouble with taking David Seymour at his word
If the Act Party leader misspoke in a forest and no one was around to hear it, would it still make a sound? Echo Chamber is The Spinoff's dispatch from the press gallery, recapping sessions in the House. Columns are written by politics reporter Lyric Waiwiri-Smith and Wellington editor Joel MacManus. A long weekend stumbled into a short week back in the House, where a Mad Hatter call of 'change places!' has seen NZ First and the Act Party swap sides at the tea party. Over the weekend, some 642km north, NZ First leader Winston Peters' reins of power as deputy prime minister were handed over to Act leader David Seymour, who celebrated the occasion in typical low-key style: with an Auckland brunch for fans of David Seymour to pay their respects to David Seymour. Peters, sat in the south end of the chamber, now rests in a no man's land two seats away from Te Pāti Māori, where co-leader Rawiri Waititi shot glances to his koro from up north throughout the session. Meanwhile Seymour, at the prime minister's side, whispered sweet nothings into Christopher Luxon's ear then flipped through documents throughout the circus, with three full glasses of water at his side. Before Tuesday's question time began, Te Pāti Māori's Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke called for the House to acknowledge the 30-year anniversary of Waikato Tainui's raupatu settlement, with which only one party leader took issue. If we celebrated every single successful Treaty settlement, Peters argued, we'd be losing valuable time almost every day of the week. Labour MP Peeni Henare's unimpressed voice floated through the chamber: 'Wooooow ….' Greens co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick was first up on oral questions, and once the prime minister agreed that yes, he did stand by all of his government's statements, she went in for her kill: the funding, or lack thereof, for the government's increased KiwiSaver contributions, an alleged hole in Budget 2025 that the party has been quite happy to claim responsibility for discovering. Luxon shot down Swarbrick's claims the government had failed to budget for its own employer contributions to KiwiSaver, saying the bill would be footed through baselines. And the prime minister also didn't accept claptrap from Labour leader Chris Hipkins, nosily asking how many families had received the $250 Family Boost rebate promised last March. 'I don't have the numbers in front of me,' Luxon said, before being cut off by Labour's Willow-Jean Prime: 'Do you have them at all?' The minister for resources, Shane Jones, had spent the first 30 minutes of question time spurting his favourite slogans – 'mining!', 'fossil fuels!', 'heavy metal!' – at random, even when no one was talking about mining, fossil fuels or heavy metals. Finally, his NZ First colleague Tanya Unkovich offered him some patsies, so he could relish in the noble art of drilling a well into gas fields like those in Taranaki, and having the Crown take a 10-15% stake from these projects. 'Gas is short,' Jones started – 'not from you!' an opposition voice called – then 'talk is cheap'. The country's natural gas resources have been in decline, he declared, thanks to a 'foolish and dangerous … fateful decision of 2018 ' to ban oil exploration (Jones was indeed a minister for that Labour-led government at the time). Labour MP Kieran McAnulty, a star student of the school of standing orders, raised a point of order: that was clearly a political statement, he told the speaker, and shouldn't have been allowed. Well, I disagree with you, Gerry Brownlee replied – how could a government campaign against something and not be able to talk about it? Proving his respect for Brownlee's rulings and never-ending wish for unity among the parties, Jones began his next answer: 'Decisions riddled with woke ideology from the past government …' and the House erupted in laughter, clearly tired of such performative acclaim. Labour MP Duncan Webb was allowed to pose a question to a member of parliament rather than a minister, asking National backbencher and chair of the finance and expenditure committee Cameron Brewer why the submission window for the Regulatory Standards Bill was only open for four weeks, when the bill had a six-month reporting deadline. Parliament's left bloc has gone hard on campaigning against said bill, an Act Party classic hit, with claims that it's more controversial and damaging to Treaty obligations than the recently deceased Treaty principles bill. Mr Speaker, Brewer explained, the minister for regulation (aka Seymour) has already written to me to explain that he had 'misspoken' when the bill had its first reading on May 23. You may remember Seymour moved for the bill to be reported to the House on December 23, 'when he in fact meant to say September 23!' He'd take the minister at his word, Brewer said, as groans rippled through the House. So, Webb continued, would the committee chair bend to Seymour's demands, or follow the usual parliamentary process which asks that select committees be given six months to report back to the House? Brewer quoted former clerk David McGee's Parliamentary Practice: 'it is not uncommon for bills referred to select committee for four months to have a submissions period of four weeks'. Seymour, clearly tired of having his name and work thrown around with such indifference, rose for a point of order. When he failed to argue that there was no decision of the House to even be disregarded in this case, Seymour continued to argue with the speaker from his seat, annoying a voice on the opposition side: 'Just because you're deputy now!' Eventually, Brownlee was happy with Brewer's assertion that Seymour 'clearly misspoke', and McGee's guidance was enough to 'end the matter'. The faces of the opposition looked like they would be doing anything but, and maybe that's the trouble with taking Seymour at his word: nothing he says will ever be good enough for at least half of the entire 54th New Zealand parliament. Once question time had wrapped up, Seymour headed to Brewer's bench, perhaps passing along some further notes and corrections to misquotes. A tiny question time blip, a long weekend to celebrate his ascension to 2IC and now in the UK to take part in an Oxford Union debate on stolen land, the Act Party leader's cup still runneth over, even as his three water glasses remained untouched.
RNZ News
4 days ago
- RNZ News
Call to rethink tax on KiwiSaver
Photo: RNZ KiwiSaver members could be significantly better off if New Zealand adopted a taxation model similar to Australia's, an economist says. Simplicity chief economist Shamubeel Eaqub ran some numbers modelling a system similar to Australia's, where contributions and returns are taxed at 15 percent. In New Zealand, full tax is paid on income contributed to KiwiSaver, and returns in PIE schemes taxed at an investor's prescribed investor rate up to 28 percent. Eaqub said an "average" KiwiSaver investor starting now could end up $60,000 better off in nominal terms at retirement on a model similar to Australia's. If tax was not paid on contributions or returns, they could be about $1 million better off - and if only taxes on returns were removed the gain would be about $300,000. "In Australia, the context is there's some conversation about whether the tax breaks are too generous for richer people. It's not that it's perfect but the point is in other countries it's heavily incentivised for people to save in their private pension." But it was not in New Zealand. Kirk Hope, chief executive of the Financial Services Council, which represents KiwiSaver providers, said the Australian model was different because that country has a means-tested pension. "The tax break that occurs in New Zealand occurs when you retire, when you get national super.. that is the equivalent of about $500,000. So I think it's hard to do a comparative analysis without acknowledging that there are significant differences between the schemes and what they are trying to achieve." But he said if the tax on savings for New Zealanders was reduced it would give future governments more "fiscal options" in relation to superannuation. He said New Zealand previously had a system that was EET - or exempt, exempt, taxed, where contributions were tax-exempt, exempt from tax within the scheme and then fully taxed when withdrawn. The Tax Working Group in 2018 acknowledged that the change from that system had potentially created incentives for New Zealanders to direct savings into investments like houses instead. Hope said it would be expensive to adjust back to EET but there could be other changes that would be more affordable. The tax working group estimated that ignoring behavioural changes, it would cost $200m to $300m a year to move to a system where returns and withdrawals were not taxed, and $2.5b a year to move to an EET system. "The higher initial cost for an EET regime arises from the fact that there will be a substantial deferral period before significant amounts are withdrawn from the scheme, and thus taxed under the third 't'. Although these are very different initial costs, the costs will be the same in the long run on a net present value basis." Hope said providing different forms of tax incentives would be beneficial for savers. He said removing or reducing the employer contribution tax would be particularly useful for low-income people. Kernel Wealth founder Dean Anderson said New Zealand was one of the few countries operating a TTE - taxed contributions, taxed returns and exempt withdrawal - model. "Our future savings would be much better off under an EET approach, where we don't pay tax on the way in but on the way out. "With low savings rates in NZ, the government should be exploring everything in its powers to grow savings rates, which benefits NZ and Kiwis over the long term. "But it's not a surprise. The recent meek KiwiSaver policy announcement did all the hard work to announce a positive gradual increase to KiwiSaver contributions, yet they fell short by announcing a three-year policy rather than outlining a decade plus long policy of incremental KiwiSaver increases." Ana-Marie Lockyer, chief executive at Pie Funds, said KiwiSaver members were at a disadvantage compared to Australians because there was no upfront tax incentive or concession as in Australia to encourage them to contribute more. "Maybe consideration of a mid-tier flat tax rate on savings up to a certain amount would encourage savings." She said employer contributions were also taxed so investors lost the benefits of compounding, and investors paid tax on bonds and deemed dividends on global equities so they were effectively paying a capital gains tax. "So contrary to the government's stated goal of helping New Zealanders' grow their KiwiSaver balances, these factors mean New Zealanders have less incentives to make voluntary contributions and pay more tax on investment earnings, resulting in smaller balances at retirement relative to our Australian friends." Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
