The secret diary of . . . the Budget
Nicola Willis presenting the budget in Parliament on Thursday. PHOTO: GETTY IMAGES Nicola Willis
People think of the Budget as an economic response to the state of the nation. And traditionally that has been the case.
But this government is not bound by tradition. This government, Mr Speaker, is an exciting government. The Prime Minister is exciting. You only have to spend five seconds with him to know that. Six seconds might be pushing it. But I want to return to my original point which is to deny that the 2025 Budget is an economic response to the state of the nation. The 2025 Budget is in fact an economic response to the stain of the nation.
Because it is a stain on the nation when you have young people age at 18, 19 on the sofa playing PlayStation when we want to see them in training or in work. And that is why are making benefits means-tested for 18- and 19-year-olds. We need to address the stain. We need to wipe up the stain. We are going to soak the stain in means-testing, and then well be able to see what comes out in the wash.
I want to see them in training. They may not be able to get a job, but they can go to a polytech. They can get into an apprenticeship, and they wouldn't be tested for that. The parents wouldn't be. They will become eligible for student allowances and the full range of student support, and that's the whole point of the policy. And at the end they still may not be able to get a job, because unemployment is at record levels and looks set to get even worse.
Then, and only then, can they return to the sofa and play PlayStation. Grand Theft Auto VI is due in 2026 and it promises swamp chases and helicopter fights. It will provide hours of fun to fill in the vacant days.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Chris Hipkins
Mr Speaker, this is a scramble without the lollies. There are no super gummy snakes. There are no sour bananas. There are no milk bottles. There are no jersey caramels. There are no tangy fruit sticks. There are no sour cola bottles. There are no wine gums. There are no jetplanes. There are no spearmint leaves. Mr Speaker, and excuse me for shouting, BUT THERE ARE NO LICORICE ALLSORTS.
Who wants a world without lollies? What do we have to look forward to? With this Budget, Mr Speaker, Nicola Willis and the coalition government have taken away our right to enjoy a sweet treat. They have taken away our hope.
Night has fallen. We are lost and cold in the dark, children who have never been happy or good. I do not wish to exaggerate or play on our fears when I say this Budget is a crime against humanity.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Shane Jones
Mr Speaker, the leader of the New Zealand Party, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, has had to leave for elsewhere and given me very little notice to respond to the Budget but I shall try my best and what I want to say, Mr Speaker, is that we all have prosperity within us. It is sent down like a thunderbolt from Zeus and illuminates our path forward through the mighty forest and across the arid plans towards a better tomorrow. Each of us are lanterns of wealth. The Budget is but a wick. Night has fallen.
Woke-riddled snowflakes are afraid of the dark. Too bad. Winter is coming.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
The landlords of New Zealand
Thank you, Nicola Willis. We can see daylight.
— Steve Braunias
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
2 hours ago
- RNZ News
'Where was the care of thought?': Greens criticise ministers over pay equity advice
Teanau Tuiono. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone Government ministers did not get advice on what the changes to pay equity would mean for specific claims in their portfolios, ahead of the legislation that would discontinue the claims being introduced. The Green Party said it is another example of the lack of consultation over the changes, with thousands of workers blindsided by the government. But the government maintains it made the changes to deliver clarity and certainty to workers, and the changes will improve the design and overall process for raising and resolving claims. Thirty-three unsettled claims were halted by the changes passed through Parliament last month, and will need to start again under the new threshholds, due to the legislation applying retrospectively. Review clauses under existing settled claims have also become unenforceable. Affected workers and the wider public were not consulted on the changes ahead of their announcement, there was no Regulatory Impact Statement for the bill, and with the legislation going through under urgency there was no opportunity for a select committee process. Through written questions, the Greens' workplace relations and safety spokesperson Teanau Tuiono asked ministers what advice they received prior to the introduction of the legislation, about specific claims under their portfolio coverage. Tuiono sent the questions to: Brown, Collins, Doocey, and Upston told Tuiono that advice they receive is available on their relevant ministry's or agency's website, but they did not refer to pay equity at all in their responses. Seymour said in his capacity as an associate minister, he had not received advice, but as a Cabinet minister participated in Cabinet discussions on pay equity. Chhour, Mitchell, Potaka, Reti, Simmonds, Stanford, and Watts confirmed they had not received advice related to specific claims. Grigg told Tuiono the changes "do not halt claims," and claims can still be raised "in a manner that is more robust, more sustainable, and more workable to address sex-based discrimination in the workplace." She said she was involved in conversations about the legislation, including policy discussions, and consultation on the Cabinet paper where advice was provided by officials. Stanford's response said the advice she received was regarding policy changes to address historical sex-based discrimination for women overall, and was "not limited" to particular sectors or claims. "This government is committed to addressing sex-based discrimination in the workplace," she wrote. Tuiono said the ministers' responses showed the government had not shown any thought towards the impact the changes would have on the thousands of workers going through a claim. "I thought there would at least be some sort of analysis being done by each of those ministers to determine 'this impacts workers within my portfolio area, what does that actually mean?' But none of that has been done, they've just discarded people's roles and jobs and treated them with the utmost disrespect," he said. "Where was the thought? Where was the care of thought for the impact on these people as well? Why was there no analysis done on what the ongoing impacts would be?" The Public Service Association's national secretary Fleur Fitzsimons said it showed arrogance in developing the changes. "This government promised evidence-based policy, but is not even interested in seeking the views of their own agencies when coming after pay equity," she said. Fitzsimons said it was ironic, given the ACT Party's principles around regulatory standards. "It is hypocritical from the ACT Party to introduce a Regulatory Standards Bill which includes elements of consultation better than they've done when it comes to New Zealand women and pay equity." Since making the announcement last month, the government has defended the lack of consultation, and has been at pains to stress the changes do not get rid of equal pay or pay parity. On Sunday, the Prime Minister again defended the approach. "We moved very quickly, under urgency. We could have done it a different way... and put a lot of people and claimants into limbo for some time. We didn't think that was fair," Christopher Luxon said. "We think we need one system, not two systems... you can argue if you've got a different view on that, but we made a decision that we wanted clarity and we wanted certainty, and that's why we did it the way we did it." Van Velden, the minister who introduced the legislation, told RNZ the changes were not in response to any particular sector or claim that was underway. Brooke van Velden. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone "This is a policy that I said at the start of my term I was interested in pursuing. It became really clear this year that my Cabinet colleagues wanted me to work on this as quickly as I could. I am a team player and so I did my job," she said. "The ACT Party would love strong regulatory standards that is core to who we are as a party, but I was asked by my Cabinet colleagues to do this and I did it for the government." In her responses to Tuiono, van Velden gave him a list of the formal advice she had received on pay equity from February to April, including reports from Treasury, the Public Service Commission, and the Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment. They included papers on possible legislative approaches and key questions, as well as the Cabinet papers. She also confirmed neither she nor her office had communicated with any employer parties or their representatives regarding the changes, and no lobbyists or consultants were consulted. But she said officials did consult other officials in the public service in the development of the changes, including some in their capacity as employers, referring to a Reviewing Policy Settings Cabinet paper. The paper was developed by the Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment, the Treasury, and the Public Service Commission. The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and the Crown Law Office were consulted on the paper, while the Ministry of Education and Health New Zealand were consulted on the proposals. The paper also explained why van Velden did not make any announcements on the changes until the bill was introduced, saying she was "cognisant" of the risk announcing the changes before the bill could prompt pay equity claims being filed and potentially determined by the Employment Relations Authority under the then-existing Act. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
NZ Herald
2 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Law & Society: Retroactive laws, real-time consequences
David Harvey: "Citizens lose confidence in the fairness and integrity of the legal system when laws can be changed after the fact to alter rights and obligations." Photo / Getty Images The courts and judges have come in for criticism of late. Roger Partridge of the New Zealand Initiative was critical late last year of recent decisions of the Supreme Court in a lengthy paper entitled 'Who makes the law?' – the obvious answer being Parliament. New Zealand First MP Shane Jones, likewise was personally critical of a High Court judge last year and 'had words' with the Attorney-General Judith Collins about his comments. Last month at a Law Association lunch, Jones criticised what he called the 'Americanisation' of the judiciary and of judicial activism, arguing it is Parliament that is sovereign. But what happens when Parliament itself travels outside its lane? What remedies are there for legislative overreach when Parliament is sovereign? An amendment to the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act has been introduced. The act prescribes a number of circumstances where financiers have a duty of disclosure to customers. If disclosure rules are breached, the lender forfeits interest rates and fees on the transaction. Two banks, ANZ and ASB, failed to make proper disclosure and are subject to claims on behalf of 173,000 customers – a sizable cohort. Court proceedings are well under way. The amendment is retrospective in that it is designed to minimise the liability of the banks for actions that were unlawful at the time. So Parliament retrospectively cures their unlawful acts and the 173,000 potential claimants lose out. Parliament can do anything it likes, according to Jones. The only problem is there are rules about retrospective legislation. Section 12 of the Legislation Act 2019 states very simply: 'Legislation does not have retrospective effect.' The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 also makes it clear there should be no retroactive penalties, though that rule is more applicable to criminal cases. The issue of whether laws have provided retroactive penalties have troubled judges, academics and law students in examinations for some years. One of the core principles of the rule of law is that individuals must be able to know in advance what conduct is legal or illegal. Retrospective laws can punish people for actions that were legal when committed, which violates this predictability. In the case of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance's Act, the retrospective law deprives 173,000 people of a remedy they would have had. Similarly, the retrospective changes to the pay equity process have halted 33 pay equity claims affecting many thousands of workers. Citizens lose confidence in the fairness and integrity of the legal system when laws can be changed after the fact to alter rights and obligations. This can foster fear and uncertainty. Some argue retrospective laws violate fundamental human rights and democratic principles, as they remove the ability of individuals to make informed choices based on existing laws. Although retrospective laws are generally discouraged, there are rare cases where they are justified – such as when correcting legal loopholes or addressing past injustices. However, they remain controversial and should be used with extreme caution. Is there a remedy for this overreach? No, other than by way of the ballot box. We have no overriding constitution. We have no court that can say Parliament is in breach of the rules and challenging a fundamental premise of the rule of law and that changes such as those to the credit act and pay equity regime are 'unconstitutional'. But perhaps the problem is deeper. Perhaps we rely on Parliament too much to solve our problems. When a problem comes up it seems the government is the first port of call. Perhaps if there was less reliance on Parliament 'fixing' things, the risk of retrospective laws would be much smaller.
NZ Herald
3 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Nicola Willis considers allowing KiwiSaver withdrawals for farm purchases; critic says she's opening a can of worms
There are fears Finance Minister Nicola Willis is opening a can of worms by looking into allowing people to withdraw money from their KiwiSaver funds to buy farms. 'If you can withdraw your KiwiSaver funds to buy a house, you should be able to withdraw them to buy a farm,'
