Budget Day 2025: What You Need To Know
Explainer - Spoiler warning: If you're not a numbers person, this might not be your week.
Thursday is Budget Day, the biggest day of the year for the government, economists and journalists as Finance Minister Nicola Willis announces how much the National-led coalition will spend, where it will go and how.
What is the Budget?
Simply put, it's when the government lays out how it plans to spend money in the coming financial year, and where that money will come from.
Every May, typically on a Thursday, the minister of finance delivers the Budget in a speech in the House. Parliament will then go on to debate the details.
The government is required to present its Budget to Parliament by 31 July each year.
Budget Day isn't a done-in-one - the process behind it all carries on throughout the year, in a never-ending cycle from one Budget to the next. Select committees will scrutinise the spending plans and eventually pass the Budget presented on Budget Day.
In the 2025 Budget Policy Statement released in December that kicked off this year's cycle, Willis said the government's goals were a stronger, more productive economy, more efficient and effective public services and to "get the government's books back in order and restore discipline to public spending".
So what actually happens on Budget Day?
There are a lot of elaborate rituals to Budget Day, which is equal parts practical and political spectacle.
Finance ministers often have their own quirks that turn into traditions - Sir Bill English was known to enjoy a pie at the start of Budget Day during the John Key years and Labour's Grant Robertson tucked into a cheese roll or two. Last year, Nicola Willis' children made cookies for their mum and the prime minister. This year's treats menu remains under lock and key.
On Budget Day
10.30am - Media and other interested parties will go into lockup at the Beehive - no phones, no internet - and get a first look at the Budget. A pile of documents will be released to them under a strict embargo. The finance minister will also give a presentation to journalists during lockup and journalists will dash to complete first takes on the highlights. If you break that embargo, you're in big trouble, as the Wall Street Journal found out in 2022.
2pm - The Budget embargo lifts, and here on RNZ and everywhere else you'll suddenly see a flood of Budget information. We'll be here to live blog coverage throughout the day.
This video produced by Parliament goes through what happens on Budget Day:
In Parliament, after Willis gives a presentation, the prime minister and other political parties will all weigh in as debate begins on the Budget.
Expect kudos and criticism in equal measures, followed by a lengthy period of hot takes and analysis that will continue for days to come.
Why is it such a big deal?
Roads? Hospitals? Schools? Resources we all use every day fall under the Budget.
Willis has called this year 'The Growth Budget', in line with the government's long-term goals to return to a surplus by 2029 at the latest.
We already know quite a lot about what the Budget will include.
"If you've been paying attention to the build-up to the Budget you probably won't learn anything new on Thursday," University of Auckland emeritus professor of economics Timothy Hazledine said.
"Perhaps wealthier citizens will be interested in whether the minister announces means-testing of KiwiSaver and best-start transfer payments. And wealthy foreigners may be hoping for relaxation of rules limiting their high-end property purchases in Aotearoa NZ."
So what are the key things to look for Thursday?
Less spending and a big focus on that "growth" word.
Willis said in April that the government is halving its operating allowance from $2.4 billion to $1.3b. That means less money for additional funding for government departments this year.
In a recent pre-Budget speech to BusinessNZ, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon also signalled restraint:
"The minister of finance was right last week to say Budget 2025 won't be a lolly scramble. It's not that we can't afford it, although frankly we can't."
Luxon has said the government needs to stay disciplined and focus on - there's that word again! - growth. And of course, there's also a lot of uncertainty in the global economy right now due to US President Donald Trump's trade wars and tariffs.
Luxon has already announced an increase to the capital expenditure - new money set aside in the Budget to maintain or upgrade assets. That money, which would be split mostly across health, education, defence, and transport, will total $6.8 billion.
One of the biggest pre-Budget controversies this year has been the government making changes to pay equity claims under urgency.
"The big bad news for many people (especially women) is the 'reprioritisation' of billions of dollars from pay equity spending," Hazledine said, noting that at the same time defence spending was going to get a big boost.
Another key thing to look out for are hinted changes to KiwiSaver, which may include means-testing the government's contribution to the retirement fund.
Hazledine said that despite challenging conditions, New Zealand is doing "quite well" in the global economy.
"Prices for our major commodity export (dairy products) are high (and so therefore we are paying more locally for milk and butter, alas), and our major service export, tourism, seems to be recovering from the Covid slump.
"The minister will be trying to keep a lid on borrowing whilst not threatening chances of a good economic recovery - a delicate balancing act."
Does the Budget really make a difference?
New Zealand Budgets have helped make or break a government.
The late Michael Cullen, finance minister from 1999 to 2008, famously liked to say that "budgets don't win elections, (but) they can lose them".
In 1938, Prime Minister Michael Joseph Savage's Labour government introduced the Social Security Act with policies that were intended to provide "from the cradle to the grave," and shaped New Zealand society for decades to come.
In 1958, the Labour government released what became known as the 'Black Budget', where Finance Minister Arnold Nordmeyer attempted to reduce demand for overseas goods through imposing additional taxes on cars, alcohol and tobacco. It didn't go down well and Labour lost the 1960 election after just a single term in office.
And in 1991, the National government's 'Mother of all Budgets' released by Ruth Richardson heralded sweeping welfare reforms and privatisation. The National government went on to barely win the 1993 election in one of our closest contests.
While in 2019, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern's 'Wellbeing Budget' introduced $1.9 billion in mental health funding - but as RNZ has reported, questions remain about the impact that funding had.
Willis aims to make the 'Growth Budget' of 2025 a key part of the government's legacy. On Thursday, we'll all start to find out how successful it will be.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
3 hours ago
- Scoop
New Ute Owners Warned Of Looming ‘Tax Grenade'
Farmers and tradies buying utes under the government's Investment Boost initiative may inadvertently end up owing thousands of dollars in fringe benefit taxes. Correction: This article has been updated to clarify the $21,060 figure was in taxable benefits, not necessarily the full amount of tax that would be owed; and that the IRD is still consulting on the proposal. Farmers and tradies buying utes under the government's Investment Boost initiative will be hit by a 'tax grenade' in the form of a fringe benefit tax (FBT), according to an expert. Findex tax advisory partner Craig Macalister said the repeal of a work-related vehicle FBT exemption for mixed private and business use committed to in the government's latest Budget will result in tax implications for people who use their utes for business. IRD was consulting on the proposed changes. Under the change, farmers with a mixed used farm ute costing $70,000 will be hit with an annual FBT bill of $6370, at the proposed 26 percent rate for petrol and diesel vehicles. 'Farmers are buying vehicles at Fieldays, looking forward to a reduced cost thanks to depreciation deductibility, but oblivious to the tax grenade coming their way in 12 months,' Macalister said. 'Worse still, any vehicle over $80,000 – such as a $75,000 ute with $6000 in extras – will be classified as 100 percent taxable, resulting in a staggering $21,060 in FBT per year in [taxable benefit].' A tax of about $10,000 or $13,000 could then apply. Macalister said consultation on the tax changes had not been given inadequate consideration, resulting in a policy that over-taxed essential business assets. 'In our view, the use of the current FBT exemption strikes the right balance for work-related vehicles. Scrapping it will hurt farmers and other industries reliant on utility vehicles,' he said. 'These utes are not perks or 'Remuera tractors' – they're essential tools for carrying equipment, personnel and of course dogs on and off the farm. 'Yet, the IRD seems locked in a paradigm that views any provided vehicle as a perk to be taxed, unless it's an emergency vehicle.'
Scoop
4 hours ago
- Scoop
Experts Warn Regulatory Standards Bill Threatens Future Public Health Laws
Article – RNZ One of the experts said it would have a 'chilling effect' on public health measures. , Reporter Public health experts are worried the government's proposed Regulatory Standards Bill will act as a disincentive for future law-makers to limit harmful industries. A group of scholars in health and policy have worked together on a briefing, titled 'Regulatory Standards Bill threatens the public interest, public health and Māori rights'. It's authors are Jonathan Boston, Michael Baker, Andrew Geddis, Carwyn Jones and Geoffrey Palmer. The Regulatory Standards Bill was introduced to Parliament in May, and is now being considered by the finance and expenditure committee. It would set up a Regulatory Standards Board to consider how legislation measures up to the principles. It was part of ACT's coalition agreement, and in putting the bill forward, party leader David Seymour said: 'In a high-cost economy, regulation isn't neutral – it's a tax on growth. This government is committed to clearing the path of needless regulations by improving how laws are made.' The bill wants politicians to show their workings, he said. 'This bill turns the explanation from politicians' 'because we said so' into 'because here is the justification according to a set of principles'.' But Baker said the bill had prompted a large number of concerns, not least from a public health perspective. He said it was problematic that the bill failed to mention public harm in its ethical framework, which was needed to balance out private benefits. Another issue was the 'takings or impairment principle'. The bill in its current form would allow commercial interests, such as the tobacco or alcohol industries, to seek compensation – paid with public money – if any future legislation caused them to lose money. Baker explained this would have a 'chilling effect' on public health measures. He said it would make it less appealing for governments to create any new legislation aimed at protecting public health which could negatively impact harmful industries, which might then seek compensation. This could include the denicotinisation of cigarettes, alcohol restrictions like sponsorship bans, controls on unhealthy food and drink such as limiting marketing to children, and clean air provisions such as mandating emissions reductions by industry. This bill would mean taxpayers paid to compensate these businesses for the money lost because of moves to protect public health. 'And that's going to make it very difficult for any groups – even governments – promoting new public health laws and regulations, that are intended to protect the public interest.' The briefing notes that, rather than this being a by-product of the legislation's overall goal, it 'appears to be the Bill's intention'. Seymour response Seymour accused Baker of 'alarmism'. 'What the bill actually says is that if a politician or government department wants to pass a regulation that infringes on your private property rights, they'll need to justify why. Inconsistency with the principles does not prevent any new legislation from being passed. All it requires is transparency to the taxpayer. That's not radical, it's democratic accountability. If a policy is justified, it will stand up to scrutiny.' 'The Regulatory Standards Bill will help New Zealand get its mojo back. It requires politicians and officials to ask and answer certain questions before they place restrictions on citizens' freedoms. What problem are we trying to solve?' Seymour asked. 'What are the costs and benefits? Who pays the costs and gets the benefits? What restrictions are being placed on the use and exchange of private property?' 'This Bill turns 'because we said so' into 'because here's the evidence'.'
Scoop
6 hours ago
- Scoop
Experts Warn Regulatory Standards Bill Threatens Future Public Health Laws
Public health experts are worried the government's proposed Regulatory Standards Bill will act as a disincentive for future law-makers to limit harmful industries. A group of scholars in health and policy have worked together on a briefing, titled "Regulatory Standards Bill threatens the public interest, public health and Māori rights". It's authors are Jonathan Boston, Michael Baker, Andrew Geddis, Carwyn Jones and Geoffrey Palmer. The Regulatory Standards Bill was introduced to Parliament in May, and is now being considered by the finance and expenditure committee. It would set up a Regulatory Standards Board to consider how legislation measures up to the principles. It was part of ACT's coalition agreement, and in putting the bill forward, party leader David Seymour said: "In a high-cost economy, regulation isn't neutral - it's a tax on growth. This government is committed to clearing the path of needless regulations by improving how laws are made." The bill wants politicians to show their workings, he said. "This bill turns the explanation from politicians' 'because we said so' into 'because here is the justification according to a set of principles'." But Baker said the bill had prompted a large number of concerns, not least from a public health perspective. He said it was problematic that the bill failed to mention public harm in its ethical framework, which was needed to balance out private benefits. Another issue was the "takings or impairment principle". The bill in its current form would allow commercial interests, such as the tobacco or alcohol industries, to seek compensation - paid with public money - if any future legislation caused them to lose money. Baker explained this would have a "chilling effect" on public health measures. He said it would make it less appealing for governments to create any new legislation aimed at protecting public health which could negatively impact harmful industries, which might then seek compensation. This could include the denicotinisation of cigarettes, alcohol restrictions like sponsorship bans, controls on unhealthy food and drink such as limiting marketing to children, and clean air provisions such as mandating emissions reductions by industry. This bill would mean taxpayers paid to compensate these businesses for the money lost because of moves to protect public health. "And that's going to make it very difficult for any groups - even governments - promoting new public health laws and regulations, that are intended to protect the public interest." The briefing notes that, rather than this being a by-product of the legislation's overall goal, it "appears to be the Bill's intention". Seymour response Seymour accused Baker of "alarmism". "What the bill actually says is that if a politician or government department wants to pass a regulation that infringes on your private property rights, they'll need to justify why. Inconsistency with the principles does not prevent any new legislation from being passed. All it requires is transparency to the taxpayer. That's not radical, it's democratic accountability. If a policy is justified, it will stand up to scrutiny." "The Regulatory Standards Bill will help New Zealand get its mojo back. It requires politicians and officials to ask and answer certain questions before they place restrictions on citizens' freedoms. What problem are we trying to solve?" Seymour asked. "What are the costs and benefits? Who pays the costs and gets the benefits? What restrictions are being placed on the use and exchange of private property?" "This Bill turns 'because we said so' into 'because here's the evidence'."
