Written By:
notices and features - Date published:
6:05 am, May 22nd, 2025 - 98 comments
Categories: budget 2025 -
Tags: BHN, Craig Renney, CTU
BHN are hosting Craig Renney, Director of Policy and Economist at the CTU and BHN journalist, as he comes out of budget lock up. Livestream discussion from 2pm.
BHN are also doing a wrap up and deep dive Budget Day Special with Renney and Labour MP Barbara Edmonds at 9pm.
RNZ’s Budget Day 2025: What you need to know
RNZ’s live coverage.
Apparently the amount saved by the pay equity changes will be in the budget, a figure assessed by Treasury.
https://www.tickaroo.com/e/FVPZw6iys3bSJIiq
A question to the Minister, presumably the saving based on the change in pay equity claim legislation is assessed based on the total for each pay equity claim. If so, what is the saving on each claim? If not, how did Treasury assess the figure?
What we know now is what they reveal about the use of the pay equity legislative change savings
So this raises the question, if the extra amounts in education and health are no more than normal provisions, is the real transfer to the defence budget?
And otherwise note the hole in the bucket, one can allocate money to health, but not have the staff because of better pay and conditions across the Tasman.
So a question would be when is the pay parity promised to primary care and other nurses outside the hospital system going to occur?
So what are the details, as per each pay equity claim?
https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360698559/budget-2025-winners-and-losers
Put the gas pedal to the metal for growth!
Can you smell the hot air on Nicky No Boat's breath?
The Minister of "structural deficit removal and fiscal consolidation" says that her government will meet government worker pay equity claims, via normal collective agreements, whatever that means.
More generally, pay equity will involve a “sex based discrimination only” test
(constraints known, 70% women worker, where the government is funder no guarantee of fully funding any settlement and employers able to argue they cannot afford pay equity so as to reduce and or delay meeting any settlement).
Kiwisaver govt contribution (money we have paid in tax, returned) slashed in half.
That's an effective tax increase of $5.00/week for everyone doing the right thing and saving for their retirement. That’s 0.4% of the average wage.
Then the default contribution is raised 1% to 4% so that’s an effective tax hike of 1.4% for those earning the average wage.
Employers have to lift the contribution too but will inevitably pay workers less by that amount. Net benefit to workers by raising employer contributions = zero.
Classy.
National has done to Kiwi Saver (halved contributions once again) what it did to the NZSF, no money placed in it 2009-2017.
That decision cost the nation – conservative estimate – $10B of CG in the Fund.
Bill English believed it was better to keep debt down.
A costly decision. The Fund had returns far above the cost of sovereign debt.
https://nzsuperfund.nz/news-and-media/guardians-releases-2024-annual-report/
I disagree..firstly 1 million people (incl the wealthy)getting a free 500 = 500million. So I applaud the cut I'm getting there. The employee contribution going up 1% then a further 1% is a tax hike in NO universe. It's called saving. It goes into your account- no one else's. 4+4% is good for workers and the state as the pension will eventually get squeezed. I just wish maybe the govt contribution or 1%of the employer's went into an infrastructure specific savings pot. Aussie do something similar.
Sure saving is not a tax, but it is an extra cost – the import of that will be the affordability of rent or mortgage.
But the KS amount will be larger for it, as the employer pays an extra 1%, far more than the government is reducing its own contribution.
The next move is to include sickness in employer funded ACC.
But that will be taken from employees as well as Treasury has forecast:
https://www.1news.co.nz/2025/05/22/what-will-the-govts-big-kiwisaver-changes-mean-for-you/
Sure, but it is still money in the KS account – the problem remains the ability of the worker to pay rent/mortgage.
Which reduces the government obligation to super, by taking (taxing) more from the employee.
So, is your contention that KiwiSaver (or any other superannuation scheme) is a bad idea – and should be scrapped?
Nope, I'm saying it should be manageable and incentivised. These clowns have made it less manageable to save and reduced the incentive to save in order to hand a further 20% depreciation on tens of thousands of new Ford Rangers.
Absolute madness.
A 1% increase is manageable (for most people) – and those who can't manage it have an opt out provision.
It's matched by an incentive – an 1% increase in employer contribution.
The government has also removed the government contribution to those earning over 180K (IMO, a good thing – someone on that salary doesn't need a top up).
The decrease in the government contribution for those under 180K is more than covered by the 2% increase.
Philosophically, I believe that private super contributions – which KS is (my contributions remain mine – or at least go to close family members) – should be paid for by employers and employees. Government super (which is a state super scheme – everyone's taxes pay for over 65s) is where those who can't afford KS payments should be funded.
Just what KS policy would you support?
https://thestandard.org.nz/bhn-and-ctus-craig-renney-on-the-budget/#comment-2034493
If people opted out from making employee contributions, the employer should still contribute to the KS fund.
I would support that.
However, there would need to be a corresponding change being that “employer only” contributions cannot be counted when applying for a first home withdrawal. Only employee+employer contributions should be included in first home withdrawal amounts.
Your link to an irrelevant comment above, implies that there is no KS policy that you would support.
I was pointing to the fallacy which you have swallowed that employers will increase their contribution.
Treasury states the 1% lift will be eroded by employers paying lower wages.
Also see ‘total remuneration’ approach.
https://thestandard.org.nz/bhn-and-ctus-craig-renney-on-the-budget/#comment-2034524
The saving is a cost, but not a tax.
As per below, it's a pseudo tax.
No, money in someone's account is their money (first home, or at retirement).
The problem might be the period when they cannot afford the 4% contribution, thus do not get the extra employer contribution.
Kiwisaver originally for retirement, first home buying use is mission creep.
Super is also effectively "in my account" and is "my money" because the government is obliged to pay it.
KS money is held by scheme providers.
It's not a free 500, it's revenue from taxes. So rich pricks won't miss the cut they are getting? That's not the point because this is a flat cut so extremely regressive.
Kiwisaver is a pseudo tax because it's supplementing superannuation which the government is obliged to pay (even if it is a pay it forward scheme), so yes it is a tax hike, you admit it yourself.
It won't be 4+4%, it'll be 4+3% because employers will deduct whatever increases they are forced to paid from workers wages. Treasury admits it:
https://www.1news.co.nz/2025/05/22/what-will-the-govts-big-kiwisaver-changes-mean-for-you/
They claim cutting the govt contribution won't affect KiwiSaver balances but that shows how bad their financial literacy is. Labour says it will cost an 18 year old $66,000.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/budget-2025-government-saves-128b-in-pay-equity-funnels-money-at-66b-tax-change-to-stimulate-economy/45YV2CJEVNAA7ACVHNLA7WSLSM/
That on top of taking away Fees Free in the first year of study and raising student loan borrowing costs by 6%, and axing the jobseeker benefit of 18-19 year olds. This truely is a government which hates young people with a passion.
The Australian Super scheme (which is compulsory, not optional, for workers) – has hugely higher levels of required contributions (increasing to 12% from 1 July 2025)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superannuation_in_Australia
This has been lauded as a good thing in the past on TS.
Why is the increased KS minimum contribution (matched by the employer) a bad thing in NZ; while the much greater mandatory contribution in Australia is considered beneficial to workers.
Average wage in Australia is 54% higher than NZ.
Average rent in Australia is only 12% higher than NZ.
Food prices in NZ are 25% higher than Australia (no GST on most food items).
A lot more left over in Australian wage packets with which to contribute to compulsory saving.
So, we should only save when the economy recovers? Just when do you think that is going to happen?
The Oz economy (heavily supported by the extractive industries) has been doing better than the NZ one for decades. And I can see no reason for that to change.
Australia didn't start with 12% contribution, they've got there in incremental amounts. And every time, I'm quite sure, there were naysayers saying that people couldn't afford it.
Belladonna, you forgot to mention $18000 income before charges and taxes.
Because the soon to be 12% contribution is made by employers only.
employees can salary sacrifice and get the benefit of reduced PAYE if they want to.
In the 18 months I have been in Australia, my employer has contributed 30k alone.
my KiwiSaver was only 25k after having been in it for 10 years on a 3+3 model.
please fix your username on next comment.
Sorry – my phone keeps autocorrecting James to Jane and I only notice after posting but I can’t edit the name once posted.
no worries, it just holds your comment back because the system thinks you are a new commenter.
Which probably the second best security system we have. The moderators use that feature to check the junk comments that leak through the primary barrier (wordfence). It weeds out those who start their first session with a handle here without having a clear statement of their own opinions and the reasons for having that opinion.
'New users' have to have a comment approved by a moderators before they can post comments freely. It allows us to clear out those who can't write anything coherent, ones who clearly haven't socialised to what is accessible in a public forum, and the residual junk comments by bots.
But wordfence does the heavy lifting at excluding the real junk. These days I get emails reporting progress every 10-15 minutes, which I scan at various times in the day for changes in the flow.
Last two – summarised and sanitised
Or
Looking at the summary, today wordfence firewall has fended off a total of 18,791. of which 2245 were complex, 246 brute force attacks, and 16300 from block listed sites that are known to the wordfence network.
Kiwisaver is nearly 20 years old and is for individual benefit.
At some point the subsidy for doing what we should do anyway needs to decrease.
Extending it to the young is good, and taking it off $180,000 is good.
I agree.
Also, Kiwisaver should also have been compulsory for all earners from day one.
That way we wouldn't have yet another separation in our society that can be capitalised on by those politicians who look to divide.
I disagree with the right to withdraw for first home buyers – that just masked another problem that Labour weren't willing to take on, being unfettered property price increases.
Hopefully after some years of financial education in schools, we will have a populace coming through who can see further than the end of their nose, and who understand that nothing is 'free' even if people wanting votes like to pretend it is.
Spoken like a true Nat.
Or maybe NZ should grow up and make the employer contribution compulsory?
i always had a philosophical objection to the fact that if an employee needed to take a break to cover any unexpected costs, that the employer also became exempt.
if employers were mandated to pay their contribution, no matter what, more people might get into KiwiSaver.
I don't mind the 12 month subscriptions, and the rates rebate increase (albeit homeowners only) remains income tested.
The increase, like Labour’s increase in the amount earned without abatement by those on a main benefit, was overdue.
The transfer of new building from a compromised Kainga Ora to social housing (partners who own land), reminds one that some governments can do 2 things at the same time and some cannot.
2006:The maximum rebate amount was $630.
2019: The maximum rebate increased from $630 to $640.
So unlike the previous National government they are increasing it, must be a NZF policy.
From $790 to $825.
is that per year? $35? Christ.
Yeah rates are going up 10%+. They do it like they do MW increases
The big change is the amount at which one remains eligible – up to $45,000.
$630 2006 rates rebate would today be c$1030 today (inflation adjusted).
And rates have gone up more than the CPI.
https://www.1news.co.nz/2025/05/22/budget-2025-kiwisaver-changes-pay-equity-savings-revealed/
Sorry, that was an exaggeration, the increase is only to $805pa.
To focus on savings and building local capital for New Zealanders to invest in New Zealand:
Firstly to the NZSuperFund withdrawals. In her pre-Budget speech she brought forward the first withdrawal to 2028 when it was previously 2033. It will be followed by some “bouncing around between withdrawals and contributions”.
Obviously this is the only large public SuperFund we have or will ever likely have. I don't believe her claim that the fund will continue growing for some time as withdrawals will be smaller than the overall growth in the fund. I want to see this fund go into perpetuity for our common and very long term good. This early withdrawal small though it is simply should not happen.
The second part of enabling New Zealanders to invest in New Zealand is the Kiwisaver changes. It is a big extra take of the pay from 3% to 4% over the next 3 years.
The amount the government adds to KiwiSaver accounts is being halved to 25c for every dollar that savers deposit, to a maximum $261 a year. So if you want to see it grow at a same rate, you have to put in more.
Taking away the $500 a year from those over $180,000 a year I think well fair enough so long as you're on 180,000k a year for at least two decades.
Good idea that 17 and 17 year olds get the government and employer contributions. A more advanced form of an old-fashioned piggybank.
I should be greteful they didn't just liquefy NZSuperFund and sell off Kiwibank and throw KiwiSaver to the market wolves. But a future govenrment needs to give more and more incentives to save hard in New Zealand.
The Kiwisaver changes mean the average wage earner's pay packet will be worse off by $17.50/week. Low wage earners have to jump through hoops to get a stay of execution on the rise to 4%.
That is incredibly cruel at any time let alone a time of low job security, poor growth and high unemployment.
You can request to opt out of 4% so not cruel
It's a temporary opt out and you have to apply to the IRD and it's only for 12 months at which point you have to apply again.
Cruel.
So, same rules as for the current savings suspension. Fail to see why it's 'cruel' to require a repeated application after one year.
Surely contribution to KiwiSaver is a good thing….
https://www.1news.co.nz/2025/05/22/what-will-the-govts-big-kiwisaver-changes-mean-for-you/
It's not worse off: it's deferred income and setting you up for later.
Worse off now in very difficult times because of government mismanagement.
Not that some people notice…
Compulsion!!
it's the only way.
No more hardship removal,
Use to buy houses yes.
Go back to $1000 kick start,
$500 a year top up for $70k and under workers, $250 for $$70 -$120 .
None after that, .
But I'm actually OK with willis tinkering on this.
And up to $70,000 allow a 3% option.
The Minister of "structural deficit removal and fiscal consolidation" claimed that tax increases proposed by those not in the coalition would be a burden on workers.
Except for the fact check – CGT and estate and or wealth taxes are not a burden on workers incomes.
Nor are stamp duties on houses over $2M, a 1% mortgage surcharge on landlord mortgages (not on new builds), or a 33% tax rate on large banks (and supermarkets, to pay for support to food banks) based on the concept of progressive taxation on companies.
Tertiary education inflation is 6%, which is the increase of fees for domestic students. This will make it much harder for students to afford tertiary education and unaffordable for prospective students from poorer backgrounds.
Apart from the Kiwi Saver change, the big one was Investment Boost
Treasury expects a $1.7B tax revenue loss.
https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/investment-boost-tax-incentive-lift-growth
https://www.treasury.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2025-05/b25-at-a-glance.pdf
It accelerates fleet renewal which we need desperately.
More tech on farms is good. Faster business system upgrades will definitely come to my workplace.
I think this is policy few would argue against.
Wondering about the exclusion on used assets already in NZ, but allowing deductions on used assets imported after budget.
Well that’s tanked the market for the plant that’s here, so takes a bit of the shine off the ‘new’ gear, but on other hand creates opportunities for those looking for cheap. Concerned the we’ll end up importing worn out shit rather than new as well.
But 20% deduction on top of normal depreciation, shit, the numbers for plant replacement must be dire (they’ve never been good) to need that sort of stimulus
Might be time to look at replacing computers and like that have 30% depreciation. Bet there’s a bit of research into depreciation rates going on right now….
And NZ doesn't have a strong manufacturing base so that money will largely be sent offshore rather than recirculating in the country.
The genius is exporting our tax revenue.
Shane Jones carbon clown boast breathing into parliament, will no one open parliament's windows to the 21st Century?
It got worse as he went on.
He adopted the role of the ACT MP towards other women seeking pay equity.
And so he adopted the "manor" of the Tory landed gentry looking down on the Maori working class.
He talked about the haka of grievance, as another Minister did the grievance industry in pay equity claims. Something borrowed, something has gone yet more blue blooded.
He talked of those with their cultural/lifestyle deficit – not getting up and making their kids lunches (talk about blue and gold, so ACT friendly) and forecast their losing welfare and thus there would be another prison for them.
He cynically talked about people getting ahead through labour, their own sweat – yet sans pay equity or Fair Pay Awards in industry sectors. With risible increases in MW. Meaning they are empty words.
Much like his claim that without oil gas and coal government would not be affordable – has he no idea of how little in royalties this has provided to past governments?
As for cheaper energy being the result of proceeding on his chosen path … if he does not realise it, will he just go and leave the House to grown ups?
Biggest winner from the “all BS” Budget:
Ford Ranger dealers.
Govt just handed them a $15K-$20K subsidy through a further 20% depreciation on capital purchases.
Excellent crush the rustbuckets.
The naive believe this is primarily going to result in productivity increasing technical plant and equipment. Reality suggests accountants will implore tradies and corporate to immediately upgrade their 2022 Road Ranger fleet to a the 2026 Ford Ranger fleet. Willis is now offering 20% on top of the existing 40% depreciation on a Ford Ranger Raptor in the first year.
That's $60,000 off your tax bill in 2026…
and
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/budget-2025/561826/budget-2025-what-will-kiwisaver-changes-mean-for-your-balance
Well you'd have to be a pretty hopless money manager if you didn't add kiwisaver as part of your employment costs!!
Funny sort of lefties on this thread; defending unscrupulous employer behaviour and cheering on Ranger drivers.
I can't believe people would think the employer contribution isn't part of you one's wage packet, money's got to come from some where
Therefore, the increased cost to the employee is 2%. 1% rise for the employee and 1% lower wage because the employer contribution is part of the package.
The employer contribution is in fact another employee contribution.
These would be those not eligible for student allowances, so they can get tertiary loans they have to pay back. Cynical as.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360698559/budget-2025-winners-and-losers
Yep, and $9500 to over $10000 fees upfront (6% increase) in your first year of study.
Those that are able, interested, eligible for tertiary institutions are now hit with a $20,000 loan before they even attend one class. Otherwise if you can't find a job you will receive nothing on which to live on.
Another hammer blow to the families of the working poor.
The key factor is what the means test is.
Student allowance is assessed on parental income.
If it is low the 18-19 year old gets student allowance. If so, then they might also get JSB, thus they do not need to get into tertiary debt. There is a but.
W and I is not able to cope with the numbers on JSB, with 6 month re-application and intensive
stalkingoversight week to week, this is a way to reduce their workload.With the middle class income family ones directed into study and tertiary loan debt, this allows Luxon's planned approach.
Luxon wants to fob off the working class ones on JSB under 20 to outside parties to manage and with power over determining if they can continue to get JSB. These parties get rewarded for results. Not all will be in it for the profit, some will be in it to brainwash.
Those who can skill up people – forklift/driving etc will do well.
Dreadful invasion of privacy and achieves nothing.
RNZ 7% funding cut for the next four years so in real terms probably around a 10% cut.
Both ACT and NZF wanted that.
and they undermined capacity to deliver on any of them.
Words.
A lesser service to come.
https://archive.li/tiat5#selection-3937.104-3941.136
Stuff's Budget Bot is simply a government mouthpiece. They should be ashamed.
I asked it: "Isn't this budget funded by low-paid working women through cuts to pay equity claims?"
And it didn't respond. Ha.
First they came for public servants, but I did not speak out, because I was not a public servant;
Then they came for Maoris, but I did not speak out, because I was not a Maori;
They came for health workers, but I did not speak out because I was not a health worker;
Next they came for women, but I did not speak out, because I was not a woman;
And, when they came for me, there was no-one left to speak, except landlords and business owners, and they were too busy counting their profits…
Who's not speaking out?
Martin Niemöller is dead, others of faith in social justice and regard for equal protection, have to speak out now.
Oh, sorry, I forgot about the right wing correspondents who don't havent learned from history. I should have explained.
It's a famous poem by the late Pastor Niemoeller.
My point was to list all the groups this government has marginalized to raise the funds for tax cuts for it's mates.
I'm glad you queried it though, because I was kicking myself for leaving out the homeless and food banks, so thanks for that.
The Salvation Army commenter on RNZ said poverty remains at same levels.
For me that's the measure of this budget.
Yes, I agree it's terrible that nothing's been done to lift poverty.
Someone said on RNZ news it was robbing Peter to pay Paul, but I think this past week more about robbing Paula to pay Peter.
But you have my respect for drawing attention to the lack of support for the impoverished.
He might have been praising Willis for not making it worse.
I think so too, but that would be faint praise.
You could do the same for Trump or Ghengis Khan
We at nactnz coc don't do woke well being budgets .pennies to be pinched is what we do.
I had a meeting with a major publisher yesterday. They told us they appreciated NZ's situation, and for any deals negotiated outside our Australasian consortium from now on, they'll seek to offer separate NZ pricing. Basically, they're recognising how far NZ is falling behind Australia and starting to think of us as more like their third-world customers than a developed country. It was humiliating, but I couldn't argue with it – it's just true that these days, we can't afford to pay what Australians can. But another hefty dose of the last quarter century's economic policy that got us here will be sure to turn things around, right?
Nope. The basic problem is that we’re still basically a commodity selling economy when it comes to overseas exchange, and the internal economy is far too small to generate real internal economic growth. Which means we make money occasionally when commodity prices in a particular market are high. But most of the time they are bare survival for commodity growers. That is the treadmill we have to get off. It has been going on since well before the last 25 years. The last 50 years is a better measure.
We have massively diversified and gotten some good exports outside of agricultural and forestry products. Problem is that our costs and population keep rising as well.
The best bet we have at present to get off the treadmill is to reduce some of our imported consumables – mostly fuel. Consistently the same thing that has been breaking our balance of trade for the last 50 years.
Further evidence this is a dreadful attack on New Zealand's young people. Family life under Nicola Willis is hard enough but if she continues to take away hope for young minds we're going to have a diminished generation coming through.
and
The nut jobs on this thread are trying to gaslight real people saying savage 50% Kiwisaver cuts will help them. It's bullshit. Seize this opportunity, Labour.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/budget-2025-young-kiwis-families-react-to-kiwisaver-best-start-changes/CZ5DK4CVSNGEPAFRV46ZM2MDCI/
Surely it's worth noting that a 50% cut in returning tax monies directly into a very successful savings scheme, one which reduces hardship for the elderly and reduces the social and health burden of future governments is a highly damaging policy. A policy which serves only a small, dubious section of the economy; property flippers, tech disruptors, Ranger drivers.
I plugged $260/year into a compound interest calculator and the result was that cutting the government contribution alone will cost an 18 year old $33,000 nominally, and likely double with inflation. That’s how much Willis is stealing from our youngest people.
Not bad.
Excellent from Davidson. Keep highlighting this and Willis' dangerous policy will never see the light of day…because by 2027 she'll either be in opposition or working as lobbyist in the private sector.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360698890/womens-pay-and-retirement-funds-paying-budget-2025-labour-says
what's the point of giving money to google etc?
Google etc, and all other multinationals with their HQs domiciled overseas should be subject to a progressive revenue tax.
tax their revenue rather than their profit (but leave profit tax for nz domiciled businesses)
eg
first $50m at 5%
up to $200m at 10%
etc
tax their revenue
“but then MNCs would leave NZ!”
no, they wouldnt
it’s still a market with 5 million consumers and they won’t want a usurper business coming in and being able to take over silicon valley from NZ
More punching down from this outfit.
Means testing parents of 18-19yr olds. How nasty and vindictive.
As for cashed up retirees or those with a 'property portfolio', you can keep getting yr unneeded super. It must be easier for IR to means test that, what with trusts able to be seen through nowadays.
You could equally say. "cashed up" parents of 18/19 year olds should support their own kids. We did!
Unemployment should not be means tested. But neither should super.
Means testing 18- 19 year olds parents, just like means testing super, is likely to cause even more unfairness and cost more than it collects. More of the Coalition of Cockups, fiscal incompetence.
Wealth, /CGT and inheritance taxes along with top marginal income tax rates could claw back those who have more. See the Green budget.
You could also argue that wealthy parents don't need state support for their 18/19 year olds. Or indeed any of their children. However making payments such as family benefit and student allowances universal, removes the issues with high effective marginal tax rates on lower incomes, administrative costs and unfairness. (We all know children of farmers and businesspeople, who get the full student allowance and other assistance, because their parents make so little money they can only go to Europe twice a year).
Be careful what you wish for, advocating means testing super. Neo-liberals, and ACT fascists, don't need even more encouragement to reduce the social wage. And they won't, as this petty meanness shows, stop with super.
We should be making more payments universal, not less.
Well observed,
My example of retirees was just to show the nastiness of this mob.
I agree with more universality, not targeting the poorest.
The government regards 18 year olds as old enough to die for their country, but not old enough to be untied from their parents apron strings when it comes to being financially independent.