Budget 2025: The great Spinoff hot-take roundtable
Finance minister Nicola Willis says her budget is 'responsible' and 'strikes the right balance'. But what do the experts think?
Our Budget 2025 reporting is thanks to The Spinoff Members. The Spinoff is not backed by billion-dollar budgets or billionaires, we're backed by you. To meet our current goal, we need 500 new members by the end of June. Please donate now.
Nicola Gaston: Nothing to compensate the science system for drastic funding cuts
A couple of years ago I told the Labour government, in an RNZ interview regarding university funding, that we couldn't eat their ghost chips. I stand by that.
But it also means that, in the face of a government that is both 'going for growth' and in charge of a once-in-a-lifetime science system reform process, I have no compunction saying in response to a budget that has NOTHING to compensate the science system for drastic cuts to funding both last year and this: Bro. Monique says you're dumb.
Nicola Gaston is a professor in the department of physics at the University of Auckland and co-director of the MacDiarmid Institute
Belinda Himiona: 'Nuggets' won't relieve the crisis children and whānau are in today
There are little nuggets scattered throughout the budget, but let's be clear: they are small scale and will not relieve the crisis children and whānau are in today. Budget 2025 fails to deliver the bold investment required to build the foundation for a thriving future. The real challenge for the government is to match its investment rhetoric with being brave and investing comprehensively in services that we know improve lives.
There are clear indications that things are not OK. Lest we forget: recently Aotearoa scored towards the bottom in all child wellbeing rankings according to Unicef, there's been a 35% increase in reports of concern for children in the last year, and there's a worsening picture for children in rates of poverty, violence, education and mental health according to the Salvation Army's State of the Nation Report.
We can't keep waiting for investment, it is needed now in interventions for children and whānau at risk, poverty reduction, and fair pay that recognises the value the social sector workforce brings. Community must have a revitalised role with services devolved to community, iwi and hapū.
Governments choose where to invest. There are trade-offs. Once you improve the lives of whānau, you set the foundation for all our future.
Belinda Himiona is chief executive at Te Pai Ora SSPA (Social Service Providers Aotearoa)
Holly Bennett: Plenty of positive initiatives
Budget 2025 might have been light on 'record levels of investment' but there is still plenty to explore. One of the flagship announcements – Investment Boost – will see businesses able to make an immediate 20% deduction of the cost of a new asset from taxable income. A welcome signal that government is actively considering how better policy, rather than more money, can make enduring change.
On the other side of the coin, the government has declared war on 'tax cheats who deliberately evade their obligations'. With our national tax debt clocking in at $8.5bn, the government has allocated new funding of $35 million a year for IRD to undertake more tax compliance and collection activities. Equivalent to 0.4% of the debt balance, however, will it be enough?
One thing I didn't see coming but fully support is the $28 million investment in overhauling how emergency services respond to mental distress. The intention is to move New Zealand's mental distress 111 calls away from a police-led response to a 'mental health response'. Of course the devil will be in the detail: how this vision will be operationalised will be the true marker of success.
Finally, I'm particularly enthused by the prime minister's personal commitment to support start-up tech businesses. As a founder who is about to embark on my first capital raise for a SaaS (software as a service) platform, it's a timely reminder that an ambitious, bold and properly funded idea executed in the private sector, rather than by state, is where we most often see the biggest drivers of change.
Holly Bennett (Te Arawa, Ngāti Whakaue, Ngāti Pikiao) is the managing director of lobbying firm Awhi and a former adviser to National ministers.
Oliver Hartwich: Budget 2025 raises serious questions about New Zealand's financial future
Budget 2025 raises serious questions about New Zealand's financial future. Although the government says it plans to balance the budget, its approach makes this difficult to believe.
By leaving out the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) from the main budget figures, the government isn't showing the full financial picture. Even with optimistic forecasts, the government is still expecting to spend more money than it receives right up to 2029. This kind of accounting makes it hard for taxpayers to see clearly how much money the country is really spending.
On KiwiSaver, it makes sense to stop government contributions for higher earners. However, increasing the default contribution rate from 3% to 4% means both employees and employers pay more. At a time when the economy is struggling, this extra cost could make it harder for businesses to employ people and reduces individuals' choices on how to spend their money.
Another concern is the finance minister's suggestion that more KiwiSaver funds should be invested in New Zealand. Although well-intentioned, it goes against good investment practices. To keep people's savings safe and growing, investing in many different countries is far better than putting most of it into New Zealand's small economy.
Budget 2025 needs better financial management and smarter economic decisions to ensure New Zealand's future prosperity.
Oliver Hartwich is the executive director of The New Zealand Initiative
Jo Monks: Commercial gain prioritised over science motivated by environmental goals
The science system funding plan outlined by the government in Budget 2025 sends a clear signal about prioritising investment in science that is likely to result in commercial gain over science motivated by environmental goals.
Key initiatives announced include the establishment of a 'bioeconomy' organisation and promoting gene technology. The government's focus has been rapidly shifting away from ecological and social science rooted in environmental health, and towards science that will make more money, over recent months.
While all investment in science is positive, the New Zealand Ecological Society is concerned that the commercial focus of today's science funding announcement will result in further erosion of ecological science in Aotearoa. Meanwhile, strong investment in te taiao and applied ecological research has never been more important.
Dr Jo Monks is acting president of the New Zealand Ecological Society
Gabrielle Baker: Not much to benefit Māori
Feels like a great budget if you want to expand your business (Investment Boost), if you have too much money in your take-home pay cheque and need help to save it (KiwiSaver), or if you make your money building and planning hospitals.
I have a toxic relationship with budget days. I can't wait to get into the details but, when I attempt it, I'm usually left bewildered. Same again this year. I did note down a couple of things though:
• With Vote Health there are proposed savings under 'equity and evidence' and 'performance monitoring', which might give an indication of the perceived value of everyone getting good outcomes.
• Vote Disability Support Services requires time and patience to decipher because last year's funding was all included in Vote Social Sector and Community Sector, and not under this new Vote. And, for some unclear reason the government plans to spend about $10m less in community-based supports – though spending increases slightly in the other disability support service categories.
Unsurprisingly, given the current climate, there is not much in this budget that will benefit Māori, outside very small investments in Māori wardens. Still, I would have liked to have been pleasantly surprised.
Matthew Roskruge: A bland, arguably bleak, budget with little vision in the numbers
Budget 2025 was billed as a no-BS budget, and it delivered no-frills austerity. The government framed it as a 'growth' budget, but there's little vision in the numbers. The focus is on fiscal discipline, with new spending tightly contained and balanced by cuts and reprioritisations.
Headline winners include small businesses, with modest tax relief for capital investment, and the health sector, which receives a significant boost – especially for infrastructure and access. Defence also fared well, possibly reflecting US-aligned priorities and overdue investment.
But savings came at a cost. The cancellation of pay equity was a major loss, and emergency housing was scaled back. Māori were virtually invisible. Vote Māori was cut again, with funds pushed into general pools. There's little here that speaks to Māori priorities or the Māori economy.
Education saw multiple tweaks – some welcome, like learning support and literacy – but little new money. A clear trend emerged around 'tough on youth' policies: truancy services, youth justice, bootcamps, and cutting Jobseeker access for most 18 to 19-year-olds.
It's a bland, arguably bleak, budget. NZ First and Act were surprisingly muted. The bigger question is whether this signals a longer-term turn to austerity – or just a tactical reset ahead of election year 2026.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
an hour ago
- Scoop
Bougainville Independence Talks Underway At Military Camp Near Christchurch
Article – RNZ In 2019, 97.7 percent of Bougainvilleans voted for independence. RNZ Pacific Bougainville independence talks have started just outside of Christchurch, in New Zealand's South Island, between the governments of Papua New Guinea and Bougainville. In 2019, 97.7 percent of Bougainvilleans voted for independence. The referendum, though mandated by the 2001 Peace Agreement, was not binding. Both governments are now debating the rules by which the results of a referendum on independence are tabled in parliament. The discussions at Christchurch's Burnham Military Camp focus on finalising the process to bring the referendum results before PNG's Parliament. Papua New Guinea Prime Minister James Marape called Burnham the spiritual home of the Bougainville peace process. The military camp hosted pivotal talks in 1997 that helped end the Bougainville civil war. Marape said the Era Kone Convenant committed both governments to present the referendum before PNG's parliament in 2025. Bougainville has stated that it expects to be independent by 1 September 2027. It has established a Constitution Commission and included it within the region's autonomous parliament. The Christchurch meetings are closed to the media. New Zealand's Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade refused to share with RNZ Pacific a list of who will be attending the meeting.
Scoop
an hour ago
- Scoop
The Regulatory Standards Bill: What Is It, What Does It Propose And What's Next?
Explainer - A new bill would make big changes to how legislation is drafted in New Zealand, but has also drawn considerable criticism as it works its way through Parliament. The Regulatory Standards Bill presented by ACT Party leader David Seymour is complex, but the heart of the matter is about how the rules and regulations that we all live by are put together, and whether that can or should be done better. It's now out for public comment through submissions to the select committee, due by 23 June. The bill has been called everything from a libertarian power grab to a common-sense solution to cutting red tape. But what's it all about, really? RNZ is here to tell you what you need to know. What is the bill? The bill proposes a set of regulatory principles that lawmakers, agencies and ministries would have to consider in regulation design. Those principles cover the rule of law, personal liberties, taking of property, taxes, fees and levies and the role of courts. Makers of legislation would be required to assess proposed and existing legislation against those principles. The definitions in the legislation as drafted set out Seymour's ideal for what makes good law, but are contested. (See end of article for a complete summary of the principles.) Seymour called the principles "focused on the effect of legislation on existing interests and liberties," while Victoria University of Wellington law professor Dean Knight said they are "strongly libertarian in character". The bill would set up a Regulatory Standards Board to consider how legislation measures up to the principles. Members of the board would be appointed by the Minister for Regulation, currently Seymour. In putting the bill forward, 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'." The bill was part of the coalition agreements National, ACT and New Zealand First agreed to in 2023 which included a pledge to improve the quality of regulation and pass a "Regulatory Standards Act as soon as practicable" (page 4). The bill passed its first reading in Parliament on 23 May. It is now before the Finance and Expenditure Select Committee and open for public feedback. You can read the complete text of the bill right here: . The government's departmental disclosure statement also gives further information regarding the scrutiny of the bill. Okay, but what is regulation, anyway? The Ministry of Regulation, which was formed just last year with Seymour named as the minister in charge, says that"regulation is all around us in our daily lives". "It's in the workplace, the sports field, the home, the shopping mall - in our cities and the great outdoors. Regulation protects our rights and safety, our property and the environment." But what does that actually mean? "Fundamentally, it's a law, something that tells you you have to do something or something that tells you you can't do something," said constitutional law expert Graeme Edgeler. Aren't there already legislative guidelines for Parliament? Yes, such as the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee (LDAC), which produce legislative guidelines and advises on legislative design. "There already are a range of 'best practice' lawmaking guides and practices within government, such as the LDAC's 'Legislation Guidelines', Regulatory Impact Statements, and departmental disclosure statements under the Legislation Act," University of Otago law professor Andrew Geddis said. Seymour has said the bill is about adding transparency, not enforcement. In an FAQ on the bill, the Ministry for Regulation says the bill "does not require new legislation to be consistent with the principles". "It requires that legislation is assessed for any inconsistency with the principles, and that this assessment is made available to the public. Agencies and ministers are required to be transparent about any identified inconsistencies, but this would not stop new legislation from progressing." Geddis said while the bill was intended to operate in the executive branch of government only, it may have implications for the courts. "Once the particular standards of 'good lawmaking' included in the RSB are written into our law by Parliament, the courts cannot but take notice of that fact," he said. "And so, these standards may become relevant to how the courts interpret and apply legislation, or how they review the way the executive government makes regulatory decisions." Haven't ACT tried to pass something like this bill before? That's right - similar legislation has been introduced to the House three times, and failed to become law three times. Previous tries saw the 2006 Regulatory Responsibility Bill Member's Bill by former ACT leader Rodney Hide; the Regulatory Standards Bill in 2011 also introduced by Hyde and produced by the Regulatory Responsibility Taskforce; and a 2021 Member's Bill by Seymour. Unlike previous versions of the bill, the 2025 iteration adds a regulatory standards board to consider issues, removing courts from the equation "in relation to a recourse mechanism for legislation inconsistent with the principles". The bill has been somewhat softened in this incarnation, Edgeler said. "This is the weakest form of the regulatory standards proposal that there has been." He also noted that future governments could repeal or amend the bill as well. And as the Ministry for Regulation says, "any recommendations made by the Regulatory Standards Board would be non-binding". "It won't stop any future government doing something it actually wants to do," Edgeler said. So what are some of the concerns about the bill? The bill has drawn considerable feedback, with earlier public submissions strongly negative. After the discussion document was launched on the bill in November, the Ministry of Regulation received about 23,000 submissions. Of those, 88 percent opposed the bill, 0.33 percent - or 76 submissions - supported or partially supported it, and about 12 percent did not have a clear position, the ministry reported. Seymour has since dismissed the negative submissions and alleged some of them were made by 'bots'. Among the top concerns the ministry's analysis of the feedback found were that the bill would "attempt to solve a problem that doesn't exist"; "result in duplication and increase complexity in lawmaking" and "undermine future Parliaments and democracy". Bill opponent University of Auckland Emeritus Professor Jane Kelsey has said the bill is too in line with minority party ACT's ideology and will "bind governments forever to the neoliberal logic of economic freedom". Other government agencies have also weighed in. In a report on the bill after launching an urgent inquiry, the Waitangi Tribunal found that "if the Regulatory Standards Act were enacted without meaningful consultation with Māori, it would constitute a breach of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, specifically the principles of partnership and active protection". It called for an immediate halt to the bill's advancement to allow more engagement with Māori. In a submission received by Newsroom under the Official Information Act, the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee said it had "misgivings about the capacity of this bill to offer improvement" and it might have "significant unintended consequences". In terms of the financial impact, a regulatory impact statement by the Ministry for Regulation estimated the bill would cost a minimum of $18 million a year across the public service under the minister's preferred approach. Seymour said the cost of policy work across the government was $870m a year, and the bill was about 2 percent of that. And in an interim regulatory impact statement, the Ministry of Regulation itself expressed some ambivalence about the bill. The ministry said its preferred approach was to "build on the disclosure statement regime ... and create new legislative provisions". It said it supported the overall objectives of the bill but "that an enhanced disclosure statement regime with enhanced obligations, will achieve many of the same benefits" and also impose fewer costs. Does it remove the Treaty of Waitangi from governance? It does not say that, but the bill's silence on Māori representation in government has troubled opponents. "On the consultation point, Māori clearly weren't adequately engaged with before the RSB was created and introduced into the House," Geddis said. "The Waitangi Tribunal's report on the RSB is unequivocal on this issue." Geddis said in contrast, that LDAC guidelines contain an entire chapter of guidance on how Te Tiriti should be considered. "That very silence creates uncertainty as to how the principles in the RSB are meant to interact with these principles of the Treaty." Under principles of responsible legislation outlined at the start the bill, there is a statement that "every person is equal before the law," which some have said dismisses Māori concerns. Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer at the bill's first reading last month attacked the bill. "If you look through the whole 37 pages, which I encourage that you don't, the silence on the impact for Te Tiriti is on purpose. The bill promotes equal treatment before the law but it opens the door [for] government to attack every Māori equity initiative." Seymour has insisted Māori voices were heard through public consultation. "We had 144 Iwi-based groups who submitted... If that's not enough, then I don't know what is," he told RNZ's Guyon Espiner. What does the bill say about property rights? A section that has drawn attention says "legislation should not take or impair, or authorise the taking or impairment of, property without the consent of the owner unless there is a good justification for the taking or impairment; and fair compensation for the taking or impairment is provided to the owner; and the compensation is provided, to the extent practicable, by or on behalf of the persons who obtain the benefit of the taking or impairment". The question many opponents have raised is what "compensation" might mean and who might seek it. "Applied to the real world, this means that anything the government does that decreases corporate profits opens it up to possible legal action," bill opponent Ryan Ward wrote for E-Tangata. What do supporters say? Writing for the New Zealand Institute, Bryce Wilkinson said criticisms of the bill as "a 'dangerous ideological' drive towards limited government are arrant nonsense". "The bill itself is a mild transparency measure," Wilkinson has also written. "The Regulatory Standards Bill's modest aim is to make wilful lack of disclosure harder." "At the end of the day we are putting critical principles into lawmaking," Seymour told Newsroom. "We know bureaucrats don't like this law. For New Zealanders that's a good thing." So how can we have our say on it? Now is the time to do it. Public submissions to the Finance and Expenditure Committee will be accepted until 1pm Monday 23 June. Submissions are publicly released and will be published to the Parliament website. What happens after that? Does the bill look likely to pass? Here's what happens next. The select committee is due to report back on submissions by 22 November, although Seymour has asked that to be moved up to 23 September, Newsroom reported. After the select committee, the bill would proceed to a second reading, then a committee of the Whole House, and a final vote in the third reading, which would need support from more than half of Parliament to pass. If the bill passes, it would likely come into effect on 1 January 2026. While the Treaty Principles Bill, also championed by ACT, failed in Parliament in April and was voted down by every party but ACT, Edgeler said the path for this one was less shaky. "This one, of course, is more likely to pass because the promise in the coalition agreement is to pass it," Edgeler said. That agreement requires National to support the bill all the way through, which is different to the agreement's clause on the Treaty Principles Bill. By extension it also requires New Zealand First to support it all the way through because their agreement requires them to support the agreement with ACT. "Whether it passes in the exact form, who knows, whether New Zealand First continues its support or insists on changes which might drastically alter it, or even water it down further, is a different question." NZ First leader Winston Peters has described the bill as a "work in progress" and Geddis said: "It is possible that the changes NZ First want so alter the RSB's content that it ceases to deliver what ACT wants it to, creating a stand-off between the two coalition partners." Geddis agreed the coalition agreement makes it difficult for National to not support the bill. "Given that these agreements are treated as being something close to holy writ, and given how much political capital David Seymour is investing in this bill, it seems unlikely that National will feel able to withhold its support. That then leaves NZ First as being, in effect, the decider." One last question - what were those regulatory principles again? From the bill itself, in summary, the principles are: the importance of maintaining consistency with various aspects of the rule of law; and legislation should not unduly diminish a person's liberty, personal security, freedom of choice or action, or various property rights, except as is necessary to provide for, or protect, any such liberty, freedom, or right of another person; and legislation should not take or impair property without the owner's consent unless certain requirements are met. The requirements include that there is a good justification for the taking or impairment and fair compensation is provided to the owner; and the importance of maintaining consistency with section 22 of the Constitution Act 1986. Section 22 of that Act provides that it is not lawful for the Crown, except by or under an Act, to levy a tax, borrow money, or spend public money; and legislation should impose a fee for goods or services only if the amount of the fee bears a proper relation to the cost of providing the good or service; and legislation should impose a levy to fund an objective or a function only if the levy is reasonable in relation to: legislation should preserve the courts' constitutional role of ascertaining the meaning of legislation; and legislation should make rights and liberties, or obligations, dependent on administrative power only if the power is sufficiently defined and subject to appropriate review; and the importance of consulting, to the extent that is reasonably practicable, the persons that the responsible agency considers will be directly and materially affected by the legislation; and the importance of carefully evaluating various matters as part of a good law-making process. These include: who is likely to benefit and who is likely to suffer a detriment; and legislation should be expected to produce benefits that exceed the costs of the legislation to the public or persons; and legislation should be the most effective, efficient, and proportionate response to the issue concerned that is available.
Scoop
2 hours ago
- Scoop
Labour Keeps Door Open For Te Pāti Māori, But Urges Focus On 'Core Areas'
Tuesday, 10 June 2025, 7:13 pm Article: RNZ Morning Report Chris Hipkins says Te Pāti Māori needs to focus on important issues such as jobs, health and homes, like Labour is, keeping the door open to working with them despite three of their MPs being suspended from Parliament. Labour Māori development spokesperson Willie Jackson told Te Pāti Māori not every Māori supported them after three of its MPs disrupted a vote on the Treaty Principles Bill last year with a haka. The party could have responded differently after the three representatives - co-leaders Debbie Ngarewa-Packer and Rawiri Waititi, and first-term MP Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke - were referred to the Privileges Committee, and suspended, Jackson said last week. "They love you, I love you, but some of the stuff is not going down well," Jackson said. Labour Party said last month while it agreed the actions met the criteria of contempt, it was concerned that the penalties were "unduly severe". Labour's own Peeni Henare took part in the haka, but was not suspended after apologising. Hipkins told Morning Report on Monday the feedback he was getting from around the country was that Māori wanted to see Labour focused on the issues that bring New Zealanders together and lead the country forward. "That includes focusing on things like jobs, health, homes, the sorts of things that New Zealanders all want to see their government focused on." He said while his party worked in co-operation with Te Pāti Māori, they were also in competition for votes. "We have previously held all the Māori electorates, we'd like to do so again. We're gonna, you know, we're gonna go out there and contest those vigorously at the next election, but we can also work together on areas where we have common ground." The most recent RNZ-Reid Research poll found Labour could lead the next government, but it would need both the Greens and Te Pāti Māori. Hipkins said Labour would look to have a similar relationship with Te Pāti Māori as it had with the Green Party and "set out clear parameters for a working relationship". "I think that's one of the things that Christopher Luxon hasn't done with ACT and with New Zealand First to say, 'Look, these are the areas where we think we can work together. These are the areas where we're not willing to compromise.' "And, you know, I think that includes setting clear standards of expectation around ministerial behaviour - so anyone who's going to be a minister in any government that I lead will be expected to behave like a minister, and that doesn't vary by party. "So unlike Christopher Luxon who seems to think that Winston Peters and David Seymour are subject to different rules to everybody else; I think all ministers should be subjected to the same rules." Hipkins rejected a suggestion that Jackson was appeasing pākeha with his comments. "Ultimately, if you want to be part of the government, then you need to follow the rules of the government." Asked how Labour could work with a party whose MPs broke those rules, Hipkins said it was "ultimately" down to voters. "We're going to be going out there competing vigorously for every vote we can get for Labour. If people believe in the sorts of things that the Labour Party believes in, they want to see a government that's focused on core areas like jobs, health, and homes, then they need to vote for Labour in order to achieve that." Hipkins said he would prefer to have an "environment where the government of the day, whomever that was, always had a majority". "That would be great, but that's not the reality. That's not what New Zealand voters have chosen for our electoral system. They've chosen a system in which we have to work with other political parties. "I think unlike the current government though, I'll be clear that, you know, there are some areas where, we, we will have standards and everybody will have to follow them." © Scoop Media
