Oranga Whenua, Oranga Tangata: Hāpai Te Hauora Responds To Budget 2025
Press Release – Hapai Te Hauora
Finance Minister Nicola Willis promised no lolly scramble; but somehow, the sweet stuff still landed in boardrooms and business accounts, while the pantry stayed locked for whnau.
Hāpai Te Hauora says Budget 2025 is not a Budget for whānau – it is a Budget for landlords, corporates, and cuts.
Finance Minister Nicola Willis promised no lolly scramble; but somehow, the sweet stuff still landed in boardrooms and business accounts, while the pantry stayed locked for whānau.
'This Budget is a choice – and that choice is clear,' says Jacqui Harema, CEO of Hāpai Te Hauora. 'A choice to gut pay equity. A choice to ask rangatahi to prove their poverty. A choice to back the boardroom while gutting community support.'
Businesses receive a 20% tax write-off on new assets. Meanwhile, whānau get 25-cent KiwiSaver contributions, tighter benefit rules, and income-tested child payments. 'A baby's best start now depends on a parent's payslip – that's not equity,' Harema says.
The wealthy retain their capital gains. Yet rangatahi on Jobseeker now face new restrictions based on their parents' income. 'We're means-testing the vulnerable while letting privilege off the hook.'
Health receives funding, but only just. Emergency departments remain overwhelmed. Nurses are still burning out. And while primary care sees a modest boost, there is no targeted investment in Māori health – and prevention is notably missing.
'If we want to reduce long-term costs and create better outcomes, we must fund prevention,' says Jason Alexander, COO of Hāpai. 'That means backing kaupapa Māori solutions before harm happens – not waiting until our people are in crisis.'
Education receives $2.5 billion, but $614 million of that comes from scrapped initiatives. Programmes like Kāhui Ako are axed, and school lunches (Ka Ora, Ka Ako) are set to expire in 2026. 'You do not build brighter futures by cutting kai from classrooms,' says Harema.
Tax cuts favour business, while low- to middle-income families receive just $14 more a fortnight under Working for Families tweaks – roughly the cost of a pack of nappies.
This Budget did not prioritise Māori health, wellbeing, or equity. It disestablished Te Aka Whai Ora, clawed back unspent Māori housing funds, and continued the short-term funding cycle.
Hāpai Te Hauora's Budget 2025 Wishlist included:
Investment in Māori-led housing
Protection of school lunch programmes
Long-term contracts for Māori health services
Increased income support and kaupapa Māori employment pathways
Serious investment in prevention
What we got instead were cuts, exclusions, and short-term gains.
'This is not the Budget for tamariki. Not for our mokopuna. Not for our taiao,' Harema says. 'Whānau deserve better.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Spinoff
an hour 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.
NZ Herald
3 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Privacy commissioner inquiry finds supermarket facial recognition tech's use is justified
'These issues become particularly critical when people need to access essential services such as supermarkets. FRT [facial recognition technology] will only be acceptable if the use is necessary and the privacy risks are successfully managed,' Webster said. The Foodstuffs trial ended last September and ran in 25 supermarkets. The commissioner found the live technology model used in the trial was compliant with the Privacy Act. About 226 million faces were scanned during the trial, including multiple scans of the same person, and 99.999% of those were deleted within one minute. The trial raised 1742 alerts, 1208 were confirmed matches to store watchlists – databases made from images of people of interest to a store. In December 2024, a woman took her case to the Human Rights Review Tribunal after she was wrongly kicked out of a Rotorua supermarket, claiming the technology was discriminatory. There were nine instances of someone being approached by staff, but misidentified as the wrong person during the trial. In two cases, the shopper was asked to leave. All nine instances were attributable to human error, and were outweighed by the benefits of using facial recognition, justifying its use. The inquiry found while the level of intrusion to customers' privacy was high because every visitor's face was collected, the safeguards used in the trial reduced the intrusion to an acceptable level. Webster said there was still work needed to improve the safety and efficiency of facial recognition software for New Zealand, as it had been developed overseas and not trained on a local population. He said the commission could not be completely confident the technology had addressed issues on technical bias, and that it had the potential to negatively impact Māori and Pacific people. 'This means the technology must only be used with the right processes in place, including human checks that an alert is accurate before acting on it. 'I also expect that Foodstuffs North Island will put in place monitoring and review to allow it to evaluate the impact of skin tone on identification accuracy and store response, and to provide confidence to the regulator and customers that key privacy safeguards remain in place,' Webster said. The safeguards included immediately deleting images that did not match with a store's watchlist, setting up the system to only identify those whose behaviour was seriously harmful, like violent offending, not allowing staff to add images of people under 18 or those thought to be vulnerable to the watchlist and not sharing watchlist information between stores. Match alerts were verified by two trained staff members to make sure a human decision was part of the process, the inquiry report said, and access to the facial recognition system and its information was restricted to authorised staff. Images collected were not permitted to be used for training data purposes, the report said. Foodstuffs responds General counsel for Foodstuffs North Island Julian Benefield said the goal behind the FRT trial was to understand whether it could reduce harm while respecting people's privacy, saying it had succeeded in doing so. 'Retail crime remains a serious and complex problem across New Zealand,' he said. 'Our people continue to be assaulted, threatened and verbally abused, and we're committed to doing all we can to create safer retail environments.' Benefield said privacy was at the heart of the trial. He said an independent evaluator found the trial prevented more than 100 cases of serious harm, including assaults. 'We have worked closely with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner and listened to their feedback. 'We welcome the OPC's feedback on areas for improvement and will carefully consider their recommendations, including the need to monitor accuracy, before we make any decisions about future permanent use.' Retail NZ chief executive Carolyn Young said the trial showed the technology had made a measurable impact in reducing harm and improving safety in stores. She said retailers across the country had been watching the trial with interest and a number were investigating FRT for their own operations in the near future. 'Retailers are crying out for proactive solutions that prevent crime and enhance the safety of their staff and customers. Our members continue to face high rates of violence and crime, putting both their employees and the public at risk, as well as threatening the financial sustainability of retail businesses.' - RNZ
Otago Daily Times
7 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Left bloc could turf coalition out of power: poll
By Russell Palmer of RNZ After the Budget and pay equity changes the left bloc would have the support to turf the coalition out of power, the latest RNZ-Reid Research poll shows. The preferred prime minister and leadership ratings are also bad news for the government, with the exception of Winston Peters who has seen his highest result since 2017 - and ratings of the government's general performance have also continued to slide. With Labour, the Greens and Te Pāti Māori all gaining compared to the previous poll taken in March, they would have a majority with 63 seats between them, compared to the coalition's 57 - again, New Zealand First was the only coalition party to see a boost. The poll was taken in the seven days following the release of the Budget and in the wake of the $12.8 billion pay equity changes - which RNZ's polling also shows attracting more opposition than support. National continued a downward trend from the March survey, dropping 2.2 percentage points to 30.7 percent of the party vote - and overtaken by Labour, which gained 0.9 percentage points to 33.2 percent. The Greens' 1.6 percent increase brings them back to their election-night result of 11.6 percent, while Te Pāti Māori's 0.5 percentage point boost lifts them clear of the 5 percent threshold and - presuming they held all Māori seats - nets them a list MP. ACT dropped 2.8 points to 6.6 percent - the largest shift in party polling - while New Zealand First gained 1.9 points to 9.1 percent, upending the trend facing their coalition partners. Undecided or non-voters made up 6.5 percent of those polled - up from 6.1 in the previous poll. For parties outside Parliament, TOP (The Opportunities Party) gained 0.4 points to 2.2 percent, New Conservatives fell 0.3 points to 0.8, and all others combined were at 0.3 points, a 0.1 point increase on the last survey. More New Zealanders polled say the country is going in the wrong direction (46.6 percent) than in the right direction (37.8 percent), giving a net negative result of -8.8, a substantial decrease on March's 2.9 result. Little surprise then to see National leader Christopher Luxon's net favourability ratings drop further into the negative, from -3.9 percent in March to -9.8 percent, with significantly more respondents (45.5 percent) saying he performed poorly or very poorly, than said he performed well or very well (35.7 percent). That compared to Labour's Chris Hipkins on net 5.1 percent rating (34 percent negative, 39.1 percent positive) - though Hipkins also saw a steeper fall of 7.1 percentage points. The survey shows New Zealanders' preferred prime minister as Hipkins (23.2 percent, up 2.3), taking the lead over Luxon (18.8 percent, down 3.1). NZ First leader Winston Peters at 8.9 percent (up 1 point) recorded his highest result since 2017. Chlöe Swarbrick in fourth was at 6.9 percent (up 0.8) - a personal best and just ahead of ACT's David Seymour on 6.4 percent (down 0.4). The next highest ratings were former PM Jacinda Ardern (3.7 percent, up 0.1), Te Pāti Māori MP Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke (1.7 percent, up 0.5), Finance Minister Nicola Willis (1.1, up 0.3) and Education/Immigration Minister Erica Stanford making her first appearance at 1 percent. 'I don't recognise the numbers' - Coalition plays down poll Luxon simply rejected the poll results. "Look, I mean, I don't recognise the numbers. There's lots of different polls and frankly I'm just not going to comment or focus on the polls. Frankly what we're focused on is we were elected in '23 and people get to decide again in 2026. "We've done a good job, and that's why we've got to focus on the economy, law and order, and health and education." He said New Zealanders had "responded really positively" to the government's Budget, and saw the economy turning a corner. "There's a sense of optimism that, you know, we actually have had to manage some very difficult things economically to get our books back in order. But we're doing that job, and it's all about growth, growth, growth." Seymour said the numbers would continue to "bounce around" but it was still a tough time for New Zealanders - and the numbers were not a reflection on the Budget. "Different voters will have different reasons for their choices ... so long as people are voting for the economy, it's going to be tough for parties that are tied closely to economic management," he said. It was possible the pay equity changes were changing some voters' minds, he said, "but I also think doing what is right is what is politically popular in the long term, and even if I'm wrong about that, good policy is worth it anyway". "The fact that ACT is close to where it was on election night 18 months into a government with 18 months to go is a good foundation. We have to prove ourselves on election night, and we've got lots of time to do that." Peters refused to comment on whether his coalition partners were suffering from the handling of the pay equity changes. The next 18 months leading up to the election would show the "critical need for stability", he said, and having ruled out working with Chris Hipkins he was "comfortable and confident in our prospects" because the Greens and Te Pāti Māori in government would be "a nightmare". The 80-year-old Peters said economies internationally were in trouble as a result of "unprecedented times for the last, say, 80 years", and the party was looking at New Zealand's fundamentals: asset values, and the need to increase wages and decrease business tax. "We're out there to ensure over the next few months that we can show enough improvement in the economy from what we're doing to make the prospects of an improved tomorrow possible." 'Nice to be popular' - Opposition Hipkins was also not counting his electoral chickens, but was happy to point out the effect of the Budget, saying New Zealanders were "disillusioned" with the government overall. "New Zealanders can increasingly see that this government is taking the country backwards," he said. "I don't think anyone expected the government to cancel pay equity as a way of balancing its books. Nicola Willis and Christopher Luxon told New Zealanders before the election that they knew their numbers, that everything all added up. It's clear that their numbers didn't add up." He said he did not pay much attention to small shifts from the minor parties or his personal ratings in the polls. "It's nice to be popular, but I'm really focused on making sure I win as many votes as possible for Labour at the next election." Swarbrick said New Zealanders wanted a sense of hope. "Things are feeling pretty bloody bleak. You know, we've got 191 New Zealanders leaving every single day, three quarters of them between the ages of 18 to 45, it's not a recipe for a flourishing country. "We had dozens and dozens of folks turn out to talk to us about our Green budget and the sense of hope that they feel that they need - the kind of building blocks that we can have for a fairer society." She said polls did not mean the writing was on the wall, but she was hearing from people that they were exhausted and fatigued - something she suggested was a deliberate strategy from the coalition. Te Pāti Māori's co-leader Rawiri Waititi said the poll numbers showed the party's policies and rhetoric around the government's actions were appealing to new supporters. "The kind of anti-Māori, anti-wāhine, anti-woman, anti-worker, anti-climate, anti-rainbow, anti-woke type agenda that this government is pushing at the moment also is not appealing to the people who are trying to find a place to put their political support and trying to support those who fiercely advocate for them." He said their internal polling showed even higher support for the party and its style of politics - but the decreased support for ACT and increase for NZ First was a zero-sum game. "You've got a hard-right type voter ... I think they think that National is a little bit weak, which I agree [with] because they're allowing ACT to kind of run the show ... they will use Te Pāti Māori as their political football to kick us in the guts the hardest to garner the support of their voters, but at the end of the day the enemy for ACT is New Zealand First, and the enemy for New Zealand First is ACT." Explore the full results with RNZ's interactive charts. This poll of 1008 people was conducted by Reid Research, using quota sampling and weighting to ensure a representative cross section by age, gender and geography. The poll was conducted through online interviews between 21-27 March 2025 and has a maximum margin of error of +/- 3.1 percent at a 95 percent confidence level. The report is available here.
