New Poll: Labour Becomes Largest Party, Economy Top Concern
Press Release – New Zealand Taxpayers' Union
The Economy more generally is the most important issue to voters at 20.2 percent (+3.7 points), followed by the Cost of Living at 18.1 percent (-8.3 points), Health at 11.9 percent (-5.0 points) and Employment at 5.8 percent.
Bad news for National in the latest Taxpayers' Union-Curia Poll as Labour would now be the largest party in Parliament, gaining three seats to 44. The Coalition would still just about cling on to power on these numbers.
The poll, conducted between 07 and 09 June shows National drop 1.1 points on last month to 33.5 percent, while Labour are up 1.6 points to 34.8 percent.
ACT is down 0.4 points to 9.1 percent, whilst the Greens are down 0.9 points to 8.2 percent. New Zealand First also drops 1.3 points to 6.1 percent, while Te Pāti Māori is down 0.6 points to 3.3 percent.
Headline results and more information about the methodology can be found on the Taxpayers' Union's website at www.taxpayers.org.nz/2025ju_polldatanztu
For the minor parties, TOP is on 1.8 percent (+1.3 point), Outdoors and Freedom is on 1.1 percent (+0.7 points), New Conservatives are on 0.7 percent (+0.7 points) and Vision NZ on 0.6 percent (+0.2 points).
This month's results are compared to the last Taxpayers' Union-Curia Poll conducted in May 2025, available here at www.taxpayers.org.nz/polling_may07_2025tucur
The combined projected seats for the Centre-Right of 62 is down 1 seat from last month. The combined seats for the Centre-Left is up 2 seats to 60. On these numbers, the Centre-Right bloc could still form a Government.
National remains on 42 seats again this month, whilst Labour is up 3 seats to 44. ACT is unchanged on 12 seats, whilst the Greens are down 1 seat to 10. New Zealand First drops 1 seat to 8 seats, while Te Pāti Māori remains on 6.
For the first time since October 2024, Cost of Living has been replaced as voters' top issue.
The Economy more generally is the most important issue to voters at 20.2 percent (+3.7 points), followed by the Cost of Living at 18.1 percent (-8.3 points), Health at 11.9 percent (-5.0 points) and Employment at 5.8 percent.
Commenting on the results, Taxpayers' Union Spokesman James Ross said:
'Labour taking the lead and growing concern over the economy should be a worrying sign for the Government in the first Taxpayers' Union-Curia poll since the Budget. Voters are losing faith in the managed decline on offer.'
'With inflation finally under heel, cost of living has slipped off the top spot for the first time in over three years. But lower interest rates don't make a sound economy on their own.'
'The so-called Growth Budget's only pro-growth policy offered a 1 percent boost to GDP over 20 years, spiralling debt and no credible pathway back to surplus.'
'Growth wins votes, stagnation doesn't.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
38 minutes ago
- Otago Daily Times
Legal action over changes to resource teaching roles 'possible'
By Rachel Helyer Donaldson of RNZ The country's largest teaching union is considering legal action against the government's decision to cut resource teachers in primary schools, confirmed last month as part of the Budget. Ministry of Education documents from February show that 84 schools employed resource teachers for literacy support, 40 employed resource teachers for Māori and three schools employed both. Nationally, there are a maximum of 121 full-time positions for Resource Teachers of Literacy (RTL) and 53 for Resource Teachers of Māori (RTM). Minister for Education Erica Stanford said that was a small number of teachers for the country's 2000 primary schools, and, during a consultation process in March, schools had told her the current system was "not equitable". Stanford said funding was now in place for 349 structured literacy teachers, who would provide support within classrooms - rather than driving from school to school as was the case under the current system - and she encouraged literacy resource teachers "who are amazingly well-qualified and passionate people" to consider applying for those roles. NZEI national secretary Stephanie Mills said the union was waiting on more information from Stanford about how she came to the decision, and then it would decide next steps. "We've said from the beginning of the consultation process that we will explore all options to keep those resources intact. It's not about getting rid of a certain number of positions, it's a service that's been built up over time." 'Disrespected and gaslit' Mills said NZEI had requested details about how Stanford reached her decision via an official information request. The union had asked to see the consultation document prior to the announcement and was told that would be provided a fortnight in advance, but confirmation the roles would be defunded came as part of the Budget. Teachers felt "really disrespected and gaslit" as a result, she added. "These teachers are some of our most experienced and skilled, and they're not being treated in a good way." Mills said many of the current resource teachers were working in rural places and she feared those schools would no longer get the same support. "It will be quite a different role in the new system. The [same] service won't exist and the jobs won't exist." Mills said it was an "irony" the literacy resource roles were being cut, "when the government wants structured literacy". Meanwhile RTMs were, in many situations, the only frontline support for kaiako and tamariki Māori. "Māori RTs are like a taonga." Not a cut but 'a reinvestment' Stanford said she would not be commenting on what action the resource teachers might take. The move was about schools and students, not the teachers, she said. "It's about the way we deliver the service, and this advice was given to me by the sector itself, by schools saying 'the way the model is being delivered it's not equitable and many schools are missing out' ... The ones who are getting the service may not have the greatest need, so it's very inequitable. "What we are doing is shifting that model to an in-class delivery - small groups, intervention teachers, in school." Stanford said the NZ Resource Teachers Literary Association had had "clear information and met multiple times with ministry officials" and they had been "very clear about the reasons, about the opportunities for them in other roles, and they've met a number of times and they have been given that information". The move was not a cut but a "reinvestment", Stanford insisted. "We've already resourced 349 Tier 2 structured literacy intervention roles, over and above the 100 literacy positions that there currently are, so it is not a cut, it is a reinvestment into a better delivery model."
Newsroom
2 hours ago
- Newsroom
Anne Salmond: What's wrong with the Regulatory Standards Bill
Opinion: The Regulatory Standards Bill (RSB) is a dangerous piece of legislation, inspired by libertarian ideas that seek to free the flow of capital from democratic constraints. In a number of respects, it expresses a contempt for collective rights and responsibilities, public goals and values, and liberal democracy. First, it lacks a strong democratic mandate. At the last election, Act was the only party to put forward such a proposal, and it won only 8.6 percent of the vote; 91.4 percent of voters did not support that party. This bill cannot remotely be taken to express 'the will of the people.' Second, the majority party, National, agreed behind doors – despite its prior opposition for almost two decades – to support this proposal from a fringe party during coalition negotiations. Like the Treaty Principles Bill, this undermines the principles of proportionality and accountability to the electorate on which the MMP electoral system is based. That, in turn, corrodes trust in democratic arrangements in New Zealand. Third, the bill seeks to put in place a set of principles, largely inspired by libertarian ideals, that would serve as a benchmark against which most new and existing legislation must be tested. These principles focus on individual rights and private property while ignoring collective rights and responsibilities and values such as minimising harm to human beings and the wider environment. Fourth, this legislation is to be applied retrospectively, applying to all existing laws as well as most new laws and regulations. Rather than upholding sound law-making processes in New Zealand, it radically undermines them. Fifth, the structures and processes this bill seeks to put in place are profoundly undemocratic. It aims to establish a 'Regulatory Standards Board' selected by the Minister for Regulation, the Act leader, and accountable to him, with the legal right to initiate inquiries into all laws and regulations, past and present, that offend against Act's libertarian ideas. This attempt to gain ideological oversight over the legislative and regulatory activities of all other ministers and government agencies constitutes a naked power grab. Such an arrangement is repugnant to democracy, and must not be allowed to proceed. Sixth, as the minister's own officials and many others have pointed out, this bill is unnecessary. Structures and processes to monitor and enhance the quality of laws and regulations already exist. These are accountable to Parliament, not to a particular minister, as is right and proper. They may be strengthened, as required, and must remain rigorously independent from any particular political party. Seventh, there is little reason to trust the integrity of Act's professed intentions in relation to this bill. Although it is claimed the Regulatory Standards Bill is designed to promote robust debate, rigorous scrutiny and sound democratic processes in law making in New Zealand, in practice, Act ignores these at will. The retrospective changes to pay equity legislation it promoted is a recent case in point. Eighth, New Zealand already has too few checks and balances on executive power. The fact this bill, with its anti-democratic aspects and lack of an electoral mandate, is in front of a select committee demonstrates why constitutional reform to protect citizens from executive overreach is urgently needed. Ninth, and perhaps worst, the practical effect of this bill attempts to tie the hands of the state in regulating private activities or initiatives that create public harm, by requiring those who benefit from laws or regulations to compensate others for the losses of profit that may arise. As many experts have pointed out, under such an arrangement, taxpayers may be required to compensate tobacco companies for regulations that reduce their profits by seeking to minimise the negative health and economic impacts of smoking; mining, industrial forestry and other extractive industries for regulations that seek to minimise environmental harm and damage to communities; and many other activities in which capital seeks to profit at the expense of others. The accumulation of wealth and power by the few at the expense of the many is precisely what is undermining other democracies around the world. It is inimical to the very idea of democracy as government 'of the people, by the people, for the people,' in which governments are supposed to serve the interests of citizens, not of capital or corporations. As social cohesion is undermined by radical inequality and an over-emphasis on private property and individual rights, the danger is that it tips over into anarchy; and by removing limits on the right to accumulate wealth and power at the expense of others, into oligarchy. We are seeing something like this in the United States at present. Around the world, democracies that were once strong are collapsing. It is the responsibility of our Parliament to ensure that this does not happen here. Act's attempt to paint this bill as an innocuous attempt to promote good law-making in the interests of citizens is disingenuous, and should be recognised as such. Rather, this is a dangerous bill that attacks the fundamental rights of New Zealanders, and democratic principles. It must not be allowed to pass.
Kiwiblog
6 hours ago
- Kiwiblog
Guest Post: KiwiSaver, the employment contract and Budget 2025
A guest post by Michael Littlewood: KiwiSaver is about to change again. The Budget announced an increase in the minimum employee contribution (from 3% to 4%) over three years and in the matching minimum contributions paid by employers. The government is also cutting its own contribution from a 50% match to the first $1,042.86 of members' contributions to 25%. So, the maximum taxpayer subsidy drops from $521.43 a year to $260.72. It will also be income-tested so that the highest paid employees (receiving more than $180,000 will lose that. Whether or not these changes are a good idea, I want to address the lessons that employers might take from the latest changes. The first obvious lesson is that, whenever a government gets involved in the saving decisions of employees, change is a constant and that has direct consequences for employers. Since KiwiSaver was first announced in 2006, there have now been five[1] changes of significance. All will have resulted in significant administrative cost to employers. One possible lesson from this is that employers should aim to stay away from their employees' decisions about whether to save for retirement. The second lesson is that governments really shouldn't be telling employers how or how much they should be paying their employees. Aside from some minimum requirements, the employer should be setting the total cost and agreeing with employees how they want to receive that. In theory, the employer should be indifferent to employees' decisions, as long as the total of direct and indirect pay is unaffected. But that leads us into a contentious subject: the tussle between 'pay + benefits' and 'total remuneration'. Some definitions: 'Pay + benefits' says that employers set basic wages/salaries and then separately decide what other non-cash benefits are available (such as subsidised superannuation, medical insurance, death/disablement insurance). The employer leaves it for employees to decide which extra benefits they want. The total compensation each employee receives will depend on value of the benefits chosen by the employee. This can be thought of as the 'traditional' way that employees were paid. 'Total remuneration' says that the employer sets the total it is prepared to spend on a particular role but then lets each employee decide how to receive that total. A 'good' employer might offer help to the employees' making appropriate choices but the employer won't mind whether it's all paid in direct wages/salary or part direct/part indirect. We don't know how many employees are paid on the different bases. Some suggest that 40% of all employees are on 'total remuneration'. I think that should be 100% for reasons I discuss below. But, with respect to the latest KiwiSaver changes, the difference matters: Under pay + benefits , each KiwiSaver member paying the minimum 3% of pay will eventually pay 4%, as will the employer. So the member's total compensation will increase by the employer's 1%. Take-home pay will reduce by the additional member's contribution of 1%. , each KiwiSaver member paying the minimum 3% of pay will eventually pay 4%, as will the employer. So the member's total compensation will increase by the employer's 1%. Take-home pay will reduce by the additional member's contribution of 1%. Under total remuneration, the extra 1% from the employer will come out of the employee's 'total remuneration' so that take-home pay will fall by about a combined 2%. It's a bit more complicated as KiwiSaver's contributions are based on the direct taxable pay so, if 4% of the total remuneration is deducted (the employer's eventual mandatory contribution), before-tax pay is now 96.15% of the starting 100% and both the employer and employee will pay 4% of that (4% of 96.15% + 96.15% = 100%). Also, the employer's contribution is taxed under slightly different rules to direct pay. Regardless, the employer doesn't pay any more in total to get that job done. To some (the Retirement Commissioner included) this looks as though employees have been chiselled out of money they should be getting on top of their regular pay. The Retirement Commissioner wants the practice outlawed – she wants the employer's contribution to be a genuine addition to direct pay, as a 'reward' for making the commitment to KiwiSaver. That is the wrong way of looking at things. Consider two employees, both doing exactly the same kind of work and offering the same value to their employer. In one case (pay + benefits), the employer doesn't know what 'total compensation' is until the employee decides whether to contribute to KiwiSaver. We don't know what proportion of all employees who work for pay + benefits employers, are not contributing to KiwiSaver but, for every such non-contributor, the employer saves, soon-to-be, 4% of their pay. The position is different in a total remuneration environment. There, both parties know what the employee will receive in total. Whether the employee contributes to KiwiSaver doesn't affect the total. The employer pays the same. Given that both employers are paying market rates for that particular role, the total employment costs must be higher for the total remuneration employer. The pay + benefits employer is better off in total by the number of non-contributors. Pay + benefits seems impossible to justify as an HR strategy. How can the employer explain that the total compensation is greater for contributing members over non-contributors, both doing the same job? Employees might have good reasons not to save through KiwiSaver. Here are some possibilities: they can't afford to join; they don't want their savings locked up until age 65; they don't trust such a long-term programme; they have other saving priorities (such as paying off debt) or they may not need to save any more for retirement. Also, some employees are not allowed to join KiwiSaver, or the employer does not have to contribute to KiwiSaver. Those over 65 are one group; also, those who do not have permanent residency but are able to work. It seems unfair that non-permanent residents cannot qualify for the employer KiwiSaver contribution and gives a perverse incentive to employ foreigners. Under pay + benefits, both those groups are penalised. With total remuneration, both can be treated fairly. But, most important of all, whether an employee contributes to KiwiSaver should have no bearing on the total amount the employee receives for the job done. And it's wrong that the government has any kind of role in deciding that total or how it should be paid. Employers who haven't thought about all this before now might be encouraged to do that by the government's 2025 decision to change the KiwiSaver rules again. If they want protection against further regulatory intrusions into their pay policies, shifting to total remuneration should insulate them. Much more importantly, it will treat all employees on a common basis, regardless of their private saving needs. For an employee on total remuneration, the only material advantage of saving through KiwiSaver will now be the government's annual subsidy of just $260.72 ($0 for pay of more than $180,000). For that, the employee must give up access to those savings until age 65. Employees could reasonably decide that any subsidy doesn't compensate for that loss of flexibility. Most KiwiSaver providers offer parallel, accessible saving options at a similar cost so there is no particular advantage, from an investment perspective, in saving through KiwiSaver. The KiwiSaver changes announced in the 2025 Budget might have some unintended long-term consequences. [1] The original model (2006) was a modest member-only, voluntary contribution model with the $1,000 'kickstart' as the only government incentive. That changed (#1) with the introduction of compulsory member and increasing employer contributions in the final version coupled with significant tax breaks (May 2007). The annual fee subsidy and employer tax credit were removed and contributions capped in 2008 (#2) but resumed increases in 2013 (#3). The 'member tax credit' was halved in 2012 and the kickstart was removed in 2015 (#4) Now the 'government contribution' is halved and will be income-tested (#5).
