NZ Government allocates $25m for referendum on four-year parliamentary terms
In a statement, Goldsmith said he is satisfied the 'allocated funding of $25m would enable the Electoral Commission and the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) to appropriately implement any referendum and information programme'.
He said no decision has been made on whether the legislation required for a referendum on four-year terms – The Term of Parliament (Enabling four-year Term) Legislation Amendment Bill – will proceed beyond select committee stage.
Several parties close to the matter suggested to the Herald that both the limited budget and the limited capacity of the Electoral Commission, in light of significant electoral change the Government is also pursuing, mean a referendum is very unlikely to go ahead in 2026.
In addition, the amendment bill in its current form is complicated and too messy to underpin a clean referendum question.
The Act Party and the New Zealand First Party coalition agreements with the National Party agree that the legislation for four-year parliamentary terms should reach first reading and select committee stage respectively.
Neither specify that a referendum must be held in 2026, though the Act Party is particularly keen on this option.
The work and expense of any referendum would be divided across the Electoral Commission, the independent Crown entity responsible for running parliamentary elections and referendums, and the MoJ.
A spokeswoman for the commission told the Herald the agency is already building the possibility of a referendum into its general election planning and has started to incur costs.
She said that so far, these costs are low and can be absorbed through the business as usual budget; the funding 'pre-commitment' in the Budget has not yet been drawn down.
Act Party leader and Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour has championed four-year parliamentary terms, and argued they would provide New Zealand with greater stability. Photo / Michael Craig
The main costs
The $25m cost breaks down to $6.227m to develop and deliver a public information campaign (the job of the MoJ) and $18.773m for the Electoral Commission to conduct a binding referendum.
The budget was based, at least in part, on the $25.4m cost of delivering two referendums at the 2020 election – on euthanasia and cannabis legalisation.
MoJ civil and constitutional general manager Kathy Brightwell said that for the 2020 referendums, the Electoral Commission received $18.4m and the MoJ ran the public information campaign for $7m. She said some additional funding was also provided because of disruption related to the pandemic and the change of the election date.
The Herald requested the cost for each of the 2020 referendums, but Brightwell declined; she said the funding was combined because implementation was concurrent.
The budget documents recently released under the OIA also provide some detail about the 2020 costs.
A January 2025 letter to Willis from Goldsmith noted the Electoral Commission was able to use Covid-19 funds and existing paper stocks to keep the referendum costs low in 2020; Goldsmith also cited a 'different delivery model' and 'significant inflationary cost increase since 2020″.
'Revised service levels for the 2026 general election mean that there is no ability to absorb these additional costs again,' Goldsmith wrote, then plumping for a budget bid reduced from the original $33.057m figure to $26.217m, but which appears to have left Willis unmoved.
Public information
The public would need to be sufficiently well informed about any plan for four-year parliamentary terms and its implications for a referendum result to be credible. To undertake a public information campaign, the MoJ would likely deploy some existing staff and also hire in specialist expertise.
For the 2020 referendums, MoJ's annual review documents show the agency signed a one-year, $3m contract with advertising giant Saatchi & Saatchi to deliver 'public information across the referendums'.
That work ranged from producing a mass-media advertising and information campaign to surveying the population to gauge baseline awareness of the related issues and convening focus groups.
In addition, an official website provided explanatory material. Information, including through a mailout campaign, was also disseminated in a range of translations and formats aimed at accessibility.
The MoJ used the web addresses www.referendum.govt.nz and www.referendums.govt.nz, both under the purview of the Department of Internal Affairs. (In 2019, the MoJ also took out dozens of additional domain names, including: www.referendums.geek.nz, www.referenda.nz, www.referendum.kiwi; it continues to pay $817 annually to retain 21 of these.)
The MoJ documents released to the Herald redact important figures, but they suggest that over half of the $8.057m sliced from the original referendum budget came from reduced spending on advertising and public information for both the Electoral Commission and the MoJ (much of the balance appears to have been reduced contingency provisions).
'This may result in lower reach for the information programme. The target aim for the programme is to reach 85% of eligible voters. Any significant reduction in reach may mean lower awareness, lower participation and lower confidence in the referendum,' officials warned.
They also cited concern for 'reduced knowledge of the referendum topic, and how to vote in the referendum', which could increase polling wait times, they said.
Two referendums held in conjunction with the 2020 general election cost $25.4 million. Photo / Bevan Conley
Funding for the Electoral Commission
The Electoral Commission's job is tied to the nuts and bolts of holding an election, and it would also be responsible for letting voters know a referendum was being held for communicating and how to enrol and vote.
The Government is also pursuing a series of Electoral Act changes, including scrapping same-day enrolment to vote on election day, and the commission will already have a big job in 2026 accommodating and communicating this.
The spokeswoman said that in preparing for a referendum the commission must consider and plan for: 'printing referendum voting papers, employing more people to issue votes, training for staff, bigger voting places to accommodate more issuing points, and headquarters large enough to securely hold referendum as well as voting papers'.
A $25m dollar question
As it's currently anticipated, the wording of the referendum question that arises from the amendment bill is unwieldy: 'Yes, I support the Term of Parliament (Enabling four-year Term) Legislation Amendment Bill coming into force' and 'No, I do not support the [Term of Parliament (Enabling four-year Term) Legislation Amendment Bill] coming into force'.
However, many observers think the bill, if it survives, is likely to change; this could allow for a cleaner question.
Professor Andrew Geddis is a specialist in election law and constitutional matters at the University of Otago's Faculty of Law.
He estimated general cross-party support for four-year parliamentary terms, notwithstanding differences of opinion on the details, mean the matter is likely to go to a referendum.
However, he also thought the select committee will likely recommend that the bill is simplified considerably, such that it provides for four-year parliamentary terms, possibly in much the same way current legislation provides for three-year terms.
The bill currently contains provisions aimed at offsetting the additional power a four-year term would hand to governments. Chiefly, it provides for greater power to accrue to Opposition parties through select committees.
Geddis said the committee may recommend that these power-balancing provisions be removed from the legislation altogether and provided for through convention rather than statute in Parliament's Standing Orders.
If the Government agreed, this could pave the way for a much cleaner referendum question, along the lines of: I do/I do not support four-year parliamentary terms.
Kate MacNamara is a South Island-based journalist with a focus on policy, public spending and investigations. She spent a decade at the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation before moving to New Zealand. She joined theHeraldin 2020.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
8 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Government overcooked spending during pandemic, against official advice, harming economy
This year's is on how fiscal policy – taxing and spending – should be used to respond to economic shocks. Treasury's calculation of the size of the Covid response. Graph / Treasury Its main finding, learning from the Covid-19 pandemic, was that fiscal policy should be used sparingly, with the Reserve Bank taking the lead on managing the economic cycle using its monetary policy tools like the Official Cash Rate. 'Polite, but its conclusions are damning' – Willis The report lands in the midst of a protracted economic downturn, with both the Government and the Opposition pointing the finger at each other over who is responsible. The Government blames Labour for excessive, inflationary and unsustainable spending that prompted the Reserve Bank to plunge the economy into recession with high interest rates. Labour blames the Government for cutting spending and axing infrastructure projects. Finance Minister Nicola Willis said the report validated the Government's concerns about Labour's spending. 'Treasury's language is spare and polite, but its conclusions are damning,' Willis said. 'The report makes clear significant errors were made in the fiscal response to Covid.' Finance Minister Nicola Willis said the report validated her concerns. Photo / Mark Mitchell Willis pointed in particular to Treasury's criticism of the last Government for spending the Covid-19 fund on things that were only tangentially related to the Covid response, such as the school lunch programme. The report said the fund was established in May 2020 to 'support a timely economic response and public confidence'. However, it added that 'as the economy recovered, the then Government was advised against further stimulating, in favour of more targeted support'. Willis said the Government 'ignored' that advice, favouring 'undisciplined spending that pushed up inflation, eroded New Zealand's previously low public debt position, and fuelled a cost-of-living crisis that many families are still suffering from'. Labour has been approached for comment. Just ahead of Budget 2022, the then Finance Minister Grant Robertson said the Government struck the right 'balance'. 'There were and are no costless decisions. Doing less would have seen unemployment grow, or put people's health at risk,' Robertson said. Treasury told Govt to ease up on spending Treasury outlined a history of its advice during the pandemic. It said that initially, it had encouraged the Government to spend money to support the economy through things like the wage subsidy. However in late '2020 and into 2021 ... Treasury started to move away from recommending broad-based fiscal stimulus to support the economy towards more targeted and moderate fiscal support'. After the 2020 election, Treasury said it informed Robertson that there was 'adequate' fiscal space to support the economic recovery and space for 'further temporary support if the economic or public health situation deteriorated'. However, officials also 'highlighted the importance of controlling ongoing spending and ensuring it was high value to meet the medium-term fiscal challenge'. By August 2021, the beginning of Auckland's long lockdown, Treasury warned that any support to businesses should 'take account of macroeconomic trade-offs'. By Budget 2022, Treasury said it was recommending 'against any further stimulus'. The briefing noted that five years on from the beginning of the pandemic, spending is still close to its pandemic-era peak and has only been partly offset by higher revenue. Higher debt-servicing costs are weighing on the Government's balance sheet and lower GDP has 'contributed to the deficit both directly, by leading to a smaller tax base and lower revenue than anticipated, and indirectly, as spending plans were based on revenue expectations that did not eventuate'. The Covid fund was closed in 2022, ending that era of stimulus and Budget 2023 ended up being more stimulatory than planned thanks to the Auckland Floods and Cyclone Gabrielle. Unlikely comparison between Labour Govt and Ruth Richardson The briefing made an unlikely comparison between the Labour Government of Dame Jacinda Ardern and Chris Hipkins and the fiscal policy of National Finance Minister Ruth Richardson. Treasury noted that fiscal policy can be counter-cyclical, which means it tries to counter and blunt the business cycle by, for example, spending money during a downturn to stimulate an economy, or saving during an upswing to cool an overheating one; or fiscal policy can be pro-cyclical – this means exacerbating a business cycle by spending money when an economy is hot or cutting back when an economy is shrinking. Treasury noted that the responses to the Asian Financial Crisis and the GFC had been accidentally counter-cyclical thanks to pre-promised tax cuts, however, fiscal policy was 'pro-cyclical in the early 1990s and during 2021-2023″. It said in the 1990s, 'pressures on fiscal sustainability motivated fiscal consolidation even as the economy was in recession'. In the case of the Covid response, the Government thought it was engaged in a counter-cyclical response to a 'severe economic downturn', however 'from late 2020, the economy turned out to be much stronger than expected (perhaps, in part, caused by the strength of fiscal stimulus itself)'. 'Combined with expenditure that was enduring rather than temporary, this resulted in large fiscal deficits while the economy was overheating.' The current Government is facing similar criticism for being pro-cyclical. Much like the Governments of the 1990s, it is trying to pull back spending to rebuild the balance sheet at a time of economic weakness. The Government was criticised for spending Covid money on school lunches. Photo / Liam Clayton How much was spent? Of the 20% of GDP spent on the pandemic, about half was spent on direct pandemic economic and health initiatives. Thirty-five per cent was spent on wage subsidies 'and similar schemes during lockdowns' and a further 18% 'arose from health-system costs such as vaccination and contact tracing, along with managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) costs'. The parties that now form the Government broadly agreed with this spending at the time – National, at some points, called for spending on wage subsidies to be even greater. The remainder of the response was 'made up of a wide range of initiatives with varied objectives', Treasury said. Some initiatives were 'aimed at more directly responding to the impacts of Covid-19 and others aimed at providing fiscal stimulus or achieving social or environmental objectives'. These included tax changes, training schemes, housing construction, shovel-ready infrastructure projects, increases to welfare benefits, the Small Business Cashflow Scheme, Jobs for Nature, additional public housing places and school lunches. The then Opposition disagreed with much of this spending. Lessons for next time In a foreword to the report, Treasury Secretary Iain Rennie noted that increased use of fiscal support during shocks had 'contributed to public debt ratcheting up over time'. Rennie warned that if nothing changes, 'this leaves future generations with less financial capacity to respond to shocks'. The recommendations from the report note the Government needs to get better at saving money when the economy is booming to ensure there is fiscal space to support the economy when times are grim. When times are grim, the Government should allow the 'automatic stabilisers' to kick in, spending money on increased benefit payments. Managing the ups and downs of the economy should mostly be left to the Reserve Bank – a conclusion reached in Treasury's draft report, published earlier. 'Monetary policy changes can be reversed more readily and can often be implemented faster. The Government's spending and taxation decisions should generally seek to optimise long-run value for money rather than moderating economic cycles,' Treasury said. This does not mean there is no role for the Government. If monetary policy is constrained or at extremes – as it was at points during the pandemic – Government spending can kick in. Or, if interest rates can fall further, the Government could restrain spending to 'help moderate booms that would otherwise result in interest rates or the exchange rate becoming extremely high'. Treasury also said fiscal policy could be used to ease some of the distributional impacts of monetary policy, which can be blunt. Monetary policy during the pandemic was largely responsible for the housing boom and bust.
The Spinoff
16 hours ago
- The Spinoff
Cheaper petrol on its way under new system – but will drivers end up paying more?
While Chris Bishop calls it the biggest change to road funding in 50 years, details on how the new system will work remain scarce for now, writes Catherine McGregor in today's extract from The Bulletin. Major shift from fuel tax to pay-per-km The government has announced it will scrap fuel excise duty and move all vehicles to a system of road user charges (RUCs), in what transport minister Chris Bishop called 'the biggest change to how we fund our roading network in 50 years'. He said the surge in fuel-efficient, hybrid and full electric vehicles had eroded the longstanding connection between petrol consumption and kilometres driven. Under the new system, charges would be based on distance travelled, vehicle type, time and location. The timeline is still vague: Bishop expects legislation to pass in 2026, with the system 'open for business' by 2027. But a full transition date for light vehicles remains deliberately unannounced, with Bishop explaining the government is 'focused on getting the system right rather than rushing its rollout', reports the Herald's Jamie Ensor. Privatised and digitised Alongside the policy shift comes a sweeping modernisation of the road charging system. Gone will be the paper labels stuck to windscreens, replaced by a fully digital e-RUC system. The NZTA's dual role as both regulator and RUC retailer will be split, with private firms taking over the collection and administration of charges. The idea is that this will drive innovation and reduce compliance costs by allowing the market to offer high-tech solutions, such as integrations with in-car computers. 'Instead of expanding a clunky government system, we will reform the rules to allow the market to deliver innovative, user-friendly services for drivers,' Bishop said. Flexible payment options like monthly billing and post-pay models are being considered, and RUCs could be bundled with tolls and congestion charges in a single bill. As Luke Malpass writes this morning in The Post (paywalled), the new system is being designed with one eye firmly on a future where our most expensive roads are funded with tolls, and ease of payment will be key to getting people to use them. 'Roads have to be paid for somehow,' he notes. A pattern of reform The transport minister's announcement came as a surprise to many, but the move had been clearly signalled for years. National ran on eliminating fuel taxes and the policy was part of the National-Act coalition agreement. Last year the government scrapped the Auckland regional fuel tax and oversaw the imposition of RUCs on electric vehicles, ending a long-standing exemption. These earlier moves laid the groundwork for yesterday's grand shift. As the number of petrol hybrids on the roads climbs – from 12,000 in 2015 to 350,000 today – there's a growing mismatch between fuel tax contributions and actual road usage, Bishop said, adding that lower-income drivers of older cars are effectively subsidising wealthier owners of hybrids and EVs. The missing details While the move has been widely framed as a step toward fairness and future-proofing, many of the key details remain unresolved, writes Stuff's Michael Daly. One key question: how much drivers will pay. Bishop gave no indication as to how much the government is planning to charge different vehicle types under the new system. Currently, light diesel vehicles pay $76 per 1000km, but that figure may not translate directly to petrol vehicles. Owners of small, fuel-efficient cars could be forgiven for worrying they'll end up paying more under a RUC system, regardless of the weight class tiers. There are also concerns about the cost of privatising tax collection. 'The only people who will see any benefit from this scheme are the corporates who take their cut to gather the tax,' said Fleur Fitzsimons of the Public Service Association, whose members include NZTA employees. As the legislation progresses and the 2027 rollout approaches, the government will need to spell out what motorists are actually signing up for – and how much they'll be paying.
Otago Daily Times
19 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
A 15% headache for government
US tariffs give New Zealand plenty to think about, Geoffrey Miller writes. It could have been worse — but it could have been better. That was the message from New Zealand's trade and finance ministers in their initial response to Donald Trump's new, higher "reciprocal tariff". New Zealand exporters of most goods to the United States now face a 15% import duty, a significant increase on the 10% "baseline" figure in place since April. Finance Minister Nicola Willis called Trump's move a "disappointing development", arguing New Zealand had suffered from the application of a "very blunt formula which does not take account of the low tariffs we impose on US products". The argument from Willis — echoed by Trade Minister Todd McClay — was that the tariff resulted from New Zealand's trade surplus with the US. Essentially, New Zealand had been a victim of its own success. Both Willis and McClay pledged to protest the decision to their US counterparts. In a statement, McClay said he was seeking an urgent call with the US trade representative, adding the New Zealand government would "advocate strongly for a resolution that supports our exporters". Willis played down the extent of the trade surplus, saying New Zealand exported only slightly more to the US than it imported in return. This is true for merchandise trade. New Zealand had a surplus of around 10%, or roughly $NZ900 million, on $NZ9.3 billion of goods exports for the year ending in March 2025. However, when services are included, New Zealand enjoys a much larger trade surplus of over $NZ4b on a total of nearly $NZ17b of exports. The distinctions — tariffs apply only to goods, not services — are unlikely to matter overly to Trump. New Zealand's exports to the US have prospered in recent years, boosted particularly by strong demand for red meat exports. The US leapfrogged Australia to become New Zealand's second-biggest export market in 2024. In Trump's geopolitical and deal-making terms, New Zealand probably got off lightly with the 15% tariff figure. The duty puts it level pegging with Japan and South Korea, both long-standing US allies, as well as the European Union. In Asia, most members of Asean — with which New Zealand maintains close trade ties — now face tariffs of 19% or 20%, although Laos and Myanmar were both hit by 40% import duties. However, Willis and McClay probably realised that claiming New Zealand had received the best deal it could have reasonably expected from Washington would not go down well with voters. Australia, which succeeded in convincing the United States to keep it at the 10% baseline figure, would have been firmly on their minds — and on the minds of New Zealanders who compare their economic fortunes most closely with their richer neighbour. The timing of the tariff news was unfortunate for Prime Minister Christopher Luxon, McClay and Willis, whose National Party was holding its annual conference in Christchurch that weekend, where they intended to trumpet the party's economic management record. Now more than half-way through the parliamentary term — elections must be held by December 2026 — Luxon is keen to demonstrate progress on economic growth and cost-of-living measures. In her comments on Friday, the finance minister tried to provide some context and comfort, noting New Zealand's exports had surged in value by 11.4% in the year to June. The increase has been driven by high food commodity prices. The success helped to generate GDP growth of 0.8% in the first quarter of 2025, a much stronger performance than economists had dared to hope for. The irony is that the export-led recovery has also led to higher prices for food at home, particularly for household staples such as butter. Annual inflation edged up to 2.7% in June, the highest figure in a year. Inflation and the cost of living remained the top priority for 55% of voters in a June survey by polling company Ipsos, an increase of 5% from the previous poll in February 2025. On the wider geopolitical front, the tariff decision will raise questions over New Zealand's strategy for handling Trump's United States. Wellington has sought to forge closer ties with Washington in recent years. The approach has been accelerated by Foreign Minister Winston Peters. In April, Peters advocated softly-softly tactics when dealing with Washington, publicly rebuking his own prime minister and telling him to "call me next time" after Luxon conducted a series of calls with other leaders and advocated a solidarity-based approach by countries impacted by the tariffs. A week after Trump's "Liberation Day" bombshell, Luxon gave a prepared speech to a business audience that suggested "one possibility is that members of the CPTPP and the European Union work together to champion rules-based trade". The CPTPP, or the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, is a free trade agreement co-founded by New Zealand that now involves 12 countries from around the Pacific Rim and the United Kingdom. The US very nearly became a member, but Trump withdrew the US from the deal at the start of his first term in January 2017. Behind the scenes, Peters met Secretary of State Marco Rubio in a low-profile encounter at an Asean meeting in Malaysia in July, which built on an earlier discussion between the pair in Washington in March. For his part, McClay reported on Friday he had held two in-person meetings and one virtual discussion with his counterpart since April to try to convince the US to tread lightly when imposing tariffs on New Zealand. New Zealand has also made tactical decisions on other matters involving the US to try to avoid giving Washington any cause for retaliation. Last week, for example, New Zealand Police and defence ministers enthusiastically welcomed a visit by US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) director Kash Patel to Wellington to open a new "standalone" office at the US embassy. While the FBI director's New Zealand counterparts highlighted benefits for co-operation in combating international criminal groups and drug smuggling, Patel released a video that cited "countering the CCP [Chinese Communist Party] in the Indopacom [Indo-Pacific Command] theatre" as a primary motivation for the new office. The line prompted an angry response from the Chinese embassy in Wellington stating "we strongly oppose any attempt to make groundless assertions or vilification against China". China is New Zealand's biggest market, buying over $NZ21.5b of goods and services (more than 20% of New Zealand's total exports) in the year to March 2025. Meanwhile, New Zealand has stopped short of joining France, Canada, Malta and the United Kingdom in pledging to recognise a Palestinian state at the UN General Assembly in September. This does not mean Peters is not sympathetic to the idea: to the contrary, he has said "it's not a matter of if, but when". Indeed, the foreign minister has clearly been genuinely appalled by the war in Gaza. Peters has been remarkably outspoken on the issue, despite his affinity with the US and Israel. For instance, in a ministerial statement to Parliament on July 22, Peters said: "The international community is united in its revulsion to what is happening in Gaza. This horror must end". The words followed a joint statement by Peters and 27 other foreign ministers released the previous day that said the "suffering of civilians in Gaza has reached new depths" and reiterated calls for a ceasefire. And Peters subsequently signed a further joint statement with 14 other foreign ministers on July 29 that included a line noting the "positive consideration of our countries to recognise the state of Palestine". Last week, Peters also held a virtual meeting with the influential United Arab Emirates foreign minister, Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nahyan, in which "developments in the Middle East, including Gaza, Iran and Syria" featured as a topic of discussion. New Zealand is clearly inching closer to recognising a Palestinian state — a decision that will be deeply unpopular with both Israel and the US. But the US tariff decision has been made. New Zealand may no longer attempt to pull its punches. — The Democracy Project • Otago PhD candidate Geoffrey Miller is the Democracy Project's geopolitical analyst.
