
$600 Billion In Assets, $200 Billion In Debt, $0 In Sense
Altogether the Budget was best summed up by Damien Grant as minding the welfare state. The last Government spent a fortune but most results got worse. Some like ACT would rather cut the spending back, but the Government is a coalition.
The Haps
It's event season with ACT holding three notable ones in the next two months. This Friday's Pink Ribbon Breakfast (raising money for the Breast Cancer Foundation) is nearly sold out. This Sunday June 1 the Party is holding a thank you to supporters who've helped its leader come from political outsider to Deputy Prime Minister (just over three-quarters sold), and the party's 2025 Rally will be held on July 13 and sales have just opened. If you enjoy Free Press, please step right up and show your support in person at these events.
Debate of the Decade
Altogether the Budget was best summed up by Damien Grant as 'minding the welfare state.' The last Government spent a fortune but most results got worse. Some like ACT would rather cut the spending back, but the Government is a coalition.
Instead the Government is holding its spending almost flat, and looking to manage population and inflation pressures by getting more efficiency. The Budget had $1.3 billion of extra spending, less than a one per cent increase. It managed $6.2 billion dollars of new capital spending by saving $4.9 billion elsewhere. In other words the Government has started doing what everyone else has to, saving somewhere else when it wants to pay for something new.
A lot of this spending has ACT's fingerprints on it. Far more on defence, we will reach 2 per cent of GDP about as fast as any military can grow. Far more on prison space, locking up the worst offenders is the best money taxpayers will ever spend. There is also more for health and education, which have been stretched.
So where's the debate of the decade in all this? Interest on debt is now a major expense in its own right, at $9 billion. Interest costs more than Police and Prisons combined, or about as much as Primary, Intermediate, and Secondary schooling.
That's because the debt is nearly $200 billion, and welfare is over $50 billion a year. Nearly half of that is pensions, which rise by a billion and a half each year as more people retire and live longer. Put it another way: $50 billion is nearly $10,000 per person. If you're in a family of four that is not getting $40,000 of taxpayer cash a year, you are below average.
Health is up $13 billion in seven years, but results seem worse. We could go on, but the point is the Government is currently borrowing $14.7 billion a year, and its plan to borrow only $3 billion in four years' time depends on nothing going wrong for four years. What we're doing is not sustainable.
The options are either:
Tax more, such as the Greens' and Labour's wealth or capital gains tax
Just keep borrowing and see what happens (some people genuinely think this is the answer)
Spend less.
This is going to be one helluva fight. If we do nothing, it is a matter of time before the left gets back in and defaults to option 1. More taxes that are really tall poppy syndrome in tax law. Your problems are caused by others' successes, the story goes, and your solution is to take their money. It will deaden our society from the inside out.
Option 2 is the road to some sort of banana republic status. The problem is some would default to it through inaction, and some others think using debt is actually an enlightened idea. The problem is the spiral that goes like this:
Investors lose faith in the New Zealand Government paying back its bonds, so they demand higher interest rates to buy its bonds. That makes it harder to pay. The spiral that so many South American and South East Asian countries have experienced.
If you're not keen on new taxes, or the Government going broke, you're with us. The next five years of New Zealand politics will be in large part about which of the three options to choose. The Greens have set out their stall. Labour can't decide, but we predict they'll campaign on more taxes. Te Pāti Māori wouldn't understand this newsletter.
The coalition hasn't seriously reduced spending. Even Grant Robertson was spending far less as a percentage of GDP (28%) than the current Government (33%). That five-point difference equates to about $23 billion more.
That leaves ACT as the only party unashamedly promoting the only option left. If the Government's going to balance its budget without more taxes, it'll need to be smaller and more efficient. There's three ways we can think of to do that.
One is to do the same stuff more efficiently. David Seymour halved the price of school lunches, and now they're getting 100 per cent on time delivery with better meals. The number of Ministers, portfolios and departments is too many, leaving everybody and nobody in charge of everything and nothing. It should be simplified. The number of public servants hasn't really budged, the head counts should be reduced. The Government has around 800 boards. No one person in the entire world knows what they all do. The Government could maintain its service levels with a smaller, simpler structure.
Another way is to transfer less cash. We can keep paying Superannuation at 65 but Australia, the U.S., U.K., Germany, Ireland, Italy, Spain are all increasing their ages. We will be left alongside France, Greece, and other places of questionable economic and fiscal management. We'll also be paying more for Superannuation than anything else except healthcare. Young people might decide they don't want to stick around and pay for it. Ditto the fact that one-in-six working-aged New Zealanders are on a benefit.
Then there's ownership. The Government has $600 billion, over half a trillion dollars, in assets. Most of them deliver negligible returns, but the taxpayer pays interest on $200 billion of debt. Is that sensible?
Those are the choices. More tax, more debt, or a smaller, more efficient Government that splashes less cash. How this debate resolves in the next two electoral cycles will probably decide if New Zealand is a big Singapore, or a big Samoa.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Otago Daily Times
20 minutes ago
- Otago Daily Times
Controversial West Coast mine has fast track-bid declined
By Kate Green of RNZ Te Kuha Mine on the West Coast has had its application for fast-track approval declined, after failing to meet seven of the application criteria. The project has raised concerns over its impact on the environment and had already been rejected multiple times by the courts. Now, a letter sent to the company behind the plan, Stevenson Mining, in March but only recently published, showed the application never got as far as the minister for final approval, with the Ministry for the Environment finding it did not comply with seven requirements in the Act. Notably, it lacked an explanation of why the fast-track approvals process would enable it to be processed in a more timely and cost-effective way than under normal processes. It did not consult with local authorities like Buller District Council, the Ministry for the Environment, Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment and the Department of Conservation. It did not address other approvals which would be needed for the project to go ahead, like access to land owned or administered by other parties, including KiwiRail, which runs the Stillwater to Ngākawau line near the proposed mine site. Stevenson Mining has been approached for comment. Te Kuha Coal Project would have created an opencut mine, with a footprint of 144 hectares, near Westport. It would have extracted some 4 million tonnes of coking coal - the kind used for making steel - over 16 years. It would have necessitated a land swap with the Department of Conservation, as it overlapped with stewardship land. The project had already been rejected by the Supreme Court in 2020 and the Environment Court in 2023. Adam Currie, campaigner for 350 Aotearoa, said it was welcome news. "MfE declining it for now is a win for the environment," he said. "It's the process in this instance working as it's supposed to." He said it showed the lack of regard for detail and process which mining companies often demonstrated. "It's pretty incredible that companies are making these massive applications that have ginormous impacts on all these things, and they're just not thinking through these basic things." But Patrick Phelps, manager of Minerals West Coast, said it was a new piece of legislation, and companies were "getting to grips with how it actually works". "It's a novel process - any applicant, they don't fully know what the expectations are. They'll get the best advice, hydrology experts, and they'll put forward the best information that they can. "While I'm disappointed that they haven't got over the line, I would simply say that that should be an indication to people that the fast-track process is not just a rubber stamp." A spokesperson from the Ministry for the Environment said it generally did not comment on individual fast-track referral applications, but explained that it checked referral applications against the requirements of the Acts. "Incomplete or non-compliant applications are returned to applicants, along with reasons for them being returned." Applications which met the requirements would then be sent on to the Infrastructure Minister (currently Chris Bishop), who gathered advice and reports on the project's impact and, if they saw fit, would refer it on to the final step, the expert panel. The ministry said applicants were allowed to reapply if their initial application was found to be incomplete, but it would be treated as a new application, with a fresh application fee - which, according to the MfE website, would cost $12,000.

RNZ News
an hour ago
- RNZ News
'It's a matter of when not if' New Zealand recognises a Palestinian state, David Seymour says
David Seymour says there would be some hope of a discussion about recognising Palestine as state if Hamas released the Israeli hostages and demilitarised. Photo: RNZ / Mark Papalii Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour says recognising Palestine as a state is a complex decision that should not be rushed, but "it's a matter of when not if" New Zealand does so. Seymour said there would be some hope of starting a discussion about recognising a Palestinian state if Hamas released the Israeli hostages and demilitarised. "New Zealand's government position remains the same as it always has been, it's a matter of when not if we recognise a two state solution and we will be having discussions over the next fortnight or so over whether there should be any change on that position." France, the United Kingdom, Canada and now Australia , have all declared an intention to recognise a Palestinian state at a United Nations summit next month. Asked why New Zealand was delaying this decision, Seymour said "we shouldn't assume that other countries are right". It was a very complex situation and it was important to take time to come to a sound decision, he said. "It's not just a question of what are you actually recognising, what conditions do you place around that, it's also a question of okay so after you've done this what happens next?" It was easy to by horrified by the violence in the Palestinian territories shown on television and social media and to be driven to want to take action, he said. "It doesn't mean that any old solution is the correct one." Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.


Scoop
2 hours ago
- Scoop
Govt's Empty Words Do Nothing To Stop Genocide In Gaza
The Government's announcement that it will 'formally consider' Palestinian statehood in September simply continues to delay any meaningful action. 'If the Government believes what it says about a two-state solution, it can and must recognise Palestine statehood, immediately,' says Green Party co-leader, Chlöe Swarbrick. 'Palestinians cannot eat empty statements. 'Aotearoa has a proud history of standing up for human rights and justice, even when powerful allies disagree. Most UN member states already recognise Palestine. 'The Greens put forward a motion in Parliament to do this in 2021. National and ACT voted it down. Four years later, those same parties are tying their own hands to do the most basic things. 'The bare minimum New Zealanders should expect from their representatives is to put substance behind words. Last September, Aotearoa stood with 123 UN Member States to support a resolution calling for sanctions against those responsible for 'unlawful presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in relation to settler violence.' 'The Greens have drafted a Bill to sanction Israel. The only thing in the way of this law passing, right now, is identifying just six out of 68 Government members willing to stand on the right side of history. 'Palestine needs our action. The people of this country have been mobilising every week for two years demanding it. Luxon's Government can and must act - they are the only thing standing in their own way,' says Chlöe Swarbrick.