Farrar illustrates WfF folly

Written By: - Date published: 9:02 am, March 4th, 2011 - 46 comments
Categories: dpf, families, same old national - Tags:

John Key has tidied up the confusion he caused yesterday and says that the quakes will cost the government $5 billion in rebuilding and $5 billion in lost revenue over the next 4 years. Big bikkies but easily covered by an emergency levy and canning the white elephant motorways. So, why are the Nats obsessed with tinkering with Working for Families?

As Zet pointed out yesterday, National has long made a song and dance about high income families getting WfF but before the 2008 election, they gave up on the policy because they learned that only 1,000 families with incomes above $100,000 get WfF and they only get $1,000 a year each on average. Such a small problem, if one concedes it’s a problem, is not worth the government and Parliament’s effort and the side-effects of trying to fix.

Apparently, thanks to inflation, there are now more families on more than $100,000 getting WfF but the total bill is still a meager $6 million. The Government spends more than that on BMWs without battering an eyelid, so why are the Nats rabbiting on about reforming WfF again?

David Farrar gives us an insight.

First, he concedes that taking WfF away from high income families without also taking it off low and middle income families is not easy. Then, he writes:

At present, familes (in work) receive WFF up to the following income bands:

  • 1 child – $75,317
  • 2 children – $91,227
  • 3 children – $107,137
  • 4 children – $126,947
  • 5 children – $146,757
  • 6 children – $166,567

It’s important to note that, at these incomes, families get no WfF, and they get only $4 a week for every $1,000 their income is below these marks.  – eg. a 3 child family on $100,000 (2 adults in full time work on the average wage) gets only $28 a week.

“What I would consider is increasing the abatement rate from 20% to 25% just for those earning over $70,000 a year. You see National dropped the top tax rate from 39% to 33% (something Labour vows to reverse)for those earning over $70k year so the EMTR would still be slightly lower than it was under the last Government if they are a sole income family.

Now one could say is there any point in reducing the top tax rate by 6% and increasing the WFF abatement rate by 5%. Well yes there is. It is better to have a lower tax rate and not pay a relatively wealthy family welfare, then have higher tax rates and higher welfare payments. Tax churn is inefficent and wasteful.

So what would an extra 5% abatement do for WFF maximum incomes? They would be:

  • 1 child – $75,317 to $74K
  • 2 children – $91,227 to $87K
  • 3 children – $107,137 to $99K
  • 4 children – $126,947 to $115K
  • 5 children – $146,757 to $131K
  • 6 children – $166,567 to $147K”

First thing – these aren’t exactly dramatic reductions eh? I mean, if you’re fretting that a 5 child family on $125K a year can get $8 a week in WfF, are you going to stop fretting when only a 5 child family on $113K can get it?

Now, Farrar’s increased abatement rate kicks in at $70,000. What’s the median income for families with dependent kids? $70,000. So this isn’t ‘rich’ when you’re talking about a household – it’s 1 parent on the average wage, the other in the minimum wage. And it puts these parents’ effective marginal tax rates up above what they were when National was elected (from 41% to 42.5%). Farrar tries to confuse the issue by conflating individual and household incomes.

But let’s follow through the logic of Farrar’s numbers. How much money would actually be saved?

As a rough estimate, fuck all. A 3 kid family on $99,000 was getting $32 a week and is now getting nothing – annual saving, $1,500. A 1 child family on $74,000 goes from getting $4 a week to getting nothing, $200 a year. Those are the maximum savings for those family sizes, if the family earns either more or less, the savings from changing the abatement rate would be smaller.

We don’t have exact numbers on how many families would be affected but you can see it’s pretty small beer – how many 1 child families earn between $70,000 and $75,000 and would get, at most, $200 a year shaved off their WfF? How many 3 child families earn between $70,000 and $107,000 and would lose up to $1,500? How many larger families are there anyway, and how many of those fall in the necessary income bands?

This is no great money saver and it comes at the cost of putting up effective tax on middle income Kiwis who have already seen their wages stagnate while GST and petrol prices eat up their meager tax cuts and more.

The solution to filling the hole in the government’s books isn’t fiddling around with WfF, generating a lot of small but hurtful income cuts for middle income families. The solution is to ask high income earners to give back the massive tax cuts they have received from National cutting the top tax rate from 39% to 33% and to stop wasting money on motorways that were already uneconomical even before this latest oil shock.

What can we conclude by National’s obsession with shaving WfF and their refusal to look at an emergency levy other than that they want to keep the massive tax cuts they have given themselves while playing scrooge on working families?

46 comments on “Farrar illustrates WfF folly ”

  1. ianmac 1

    I seem to remember Michael Cullen saying back then that it was not worth the money to cut off higher income WFF? The bureaucracy would exceed the return.
    We might suspect that the suggestions about WFF from Mr Key might be a feint. Like throwing a few scraps to the chooks to fight over while the nests are robbed.

  2. Tigger 2

    Would love to know what generating all these scenarios and projections is costing in labour for those wasteful back office layabouts. Further proof the public sector needs to be gutted!

  3. Any benefit of WfF is that it targets families for receiving tax credits. People without families do not qualify. So the tax paid by non-families remains at the usual levels. Reducing entitlement for WfF is – effectively – a tax INCREASE…and it’s a tax increase that specifically targets families who earn the least.

    Better to cancel motorways and improve public transport….but the National Party is clearly incapable of seeing that (or at least….following that path). Trying to talk to Tau Henare, for example, about Peak Oil is equivalent in his view to discussing alien invasion. Those were his words, not mine.

    Evidence be damned. IEA Report 2010 – irrelevant. Can’t be bothered.

    So we need a different government in the short term…and the National Party needs to free itself from the increasingly bizarre American ‘conservative’ ideology that has corrupted National’s thinking and blinded it to the staringly obvious.

  4. tsmithfield 4

    “The solution is to ask high income earners to give back the massive tax cuts they have received from National cutting the top tax rate from 39% to 33% and to stop wasting money on motorways that were already uneconomical even before this latest oil shock.”

    Firstly, the 39% top tax rate was a stupid idea in the first place. Many in that bracket are company owners who would simply ensure any income that put them over the threshold was taxed at the lower company rate. Very hard to legislate against this, because companies could have lots of arguable reasons to put up for retaining profits in the company. If fiddling with WFF is stupid because it gains very little, then the same argument applies to reinstating stupidity with the 39% tax rate.

    Secondly, agree that infrastructure spending such as roads could be looked at.

    • RedLogix 4.1

      Many in that bracket are company owners who would simply ensure any income that put them over the threshold was taxed at the lower company rate.

      Again I ask you the same question as I did yesterday. I can understand why arguing that aligning the top tax rate and the company rate makes sense to you… I still think it amounts to rewarding cheats… but lets go with your position for a moment.

      What then is your justification for the govt then planning to lower the company tax rate to 28% in 2012… restoring almost exactly the same incentive to cheat as before?

      • Bright Red 4.1.1

        lolz

      • Colonial Viper 4.1.2

        My 2c worth…its a race to the bottom of the barrel…next step will be to argue that the top income tax rate needs to be realigned to prevent tax avoidance…this time down to 28% of course.

      • tsmithfield 4.1.3

        “I can understand why arguing that aligning the top tax rate and the company rate makes sense to you… I still think it amounts to rewarding cheats… but lets go with your position for a moment.”

        I don’t see it as cheating. Just paying the minimum amount that is legally required.

        “What then is your justification for the govt then planning to lower the company tax rate to 28% in 2012… restoring almost exactly the same incentive to cheat as before?”

        Yes. I agree with you. The flatter the tax system the better, so National moving away from this ideal by going for a 28% tax rate.

        • RedLogix 4.1.3.1

          I don’t see it as cheating. Just paying the minimum amount that is legally required.

          Think about it. What possible reason would a company owner have to ‘leave profit in the business’ rather than take it out as personal income? Apart from ‘minimising tax’ that is? If that cash is being used to develop the company, well and good.

          But if the cash was simply being spent on items that really amount to a personal benefit to the owner (like a flash company boat for example), and FBT was not being properly applied…. then how is that not ‘cheating’?

          so National moving away from this ideal by going for a 28% tax rate.

          Well fair enough… but surely the 28% company tax rate pretty much demolishes English’s spin on this. Really it had nothing to do with eliminating the incentive to mimimise tax…. it was just a naked tax cut for the rich.

          He just couldn’t say that.

          • tsmithfield 4.1.3.1.1

            “What possible reason would a company owner have to ‘leave profit in the business’ rather than take it out as personal income?”

            Lots of reasons. For instance:

            Money kept in the company to fund future growth.
            Money kept in the company to meet bank equity requirements.

            “Well fair enough… but surely the 28% company tax rate pretty much demolishes English’s spin on this. Really it had nothing to do with eliminating the incentive to mimimise tax…. it was just a naked tax cut for the rich.”

            I remember English saying that he wasn’t concerned about the incentive to keep money in companies because that is good for business growth etc. Also, I understand the adjustment to the tax rates is part of a long-term strategy to move towards a flatter tax system, so it doesn’t mean that tax rates won’t eventually be aligned.

            As I said, I agree with you though. I would actually prefer a tax system that is totally consumption based (e.g. totally GST). This would be impossible to avoid, very efficient, and save a lot of money that is otherwise wasted in churn.

            That would be a tax system that is as flat and efficient as possible.

            • RedLogix 4.1.3.1.1.1

              Interesting.. once we define our terms properly it turns out we aren’t so far apart. I’m inclined to agree that a fully consumption based tax would make a lot of sense technically, but it would be awfully regressive.

              But at that point you’d want to have a think about the fact that currently all financial transactions are zero-rated for GST. That might skew things quite a bit.

              Just an interesting curve ball for you. How about this? If one could ensure that all FBT was properly applied… why have a company tax at all?

              • tsmithfield

                Actually, I quite like the idea of some sort of transaction tax as that would spread the burden more fairly and simplify the system even further.

                I can’t remember, was it you who was arguing for a guaranteed minimum income? Because I think that idea combined with a completely consumption based tax system would be the ultimate of simplicity and efficiency. The size of IRD and WINZ would probably shrink by 90% as would the number of people employed as accountants!

                Don’t like the FBT idea because that provides just another layer requiring enforcement. I prefer the KISS principle.

            • Lanthanide 4.1.3.1.1.2

              “Lots of reasons. For instance:

              Money kept in the company to fund future growth.
              Money kept in the company to meet bank equity requirements. ”

              Yes, but essentially what you’re suggesting here is that because the company rate has dropped to 30% from 33%, and will soon be dropping to 28%, people are saying “well, instead of paying myself this money as a dividend, instead I’m going to keep it in the company to grow it or for bank requirements”. As if somehow being taxed less suddenly makes someone do something else with the money they now had?

              If you were going to give $67 company money to yourself, but now instead the figure has increased to $70 you decide instead to leave it in the company? Similarly if you were already going to leave $67 in the company, then surely you’d be more likely to skim that extra $3 off for yourself because ‘your company wouldn’t miss it anyway’?

              • tsmithfield

                I agree that people might have motivations for making these decisions than what they state in their company minutes. But from an enforcement and legislative perspective it becomes very murky trying to prove the decisions were made specifically for avoidance.

            • Draco T Bastard 4.1.3.1.1.3

              This would be impossible to avoid,

              Except that it’s possible for some to avoid it. As I said the other day, if you have an office at home a home air conditioning unit (well, heat pump anyway) is 100% tax deductible so no GST on that.

              • tsmithfield

                True. But this would generally apply to one-person businesses operating from home who probably need a few advantages anyway. 🙂

                • Draco T Bastard

                  It’s still a tax dodge.

                  • Lanthanide

                    Yeah, I would suggest a big incentive for going into a home business like that, which don’t tend to be amazingly profitable (eg, never profitable enough to hire an employee) is simply to get tax deductions on things you’d be buying anyway, like your electricity bill, your rates and your insurance.

                    This would especially be the case if you weren’t relying on the home business as the sole family income – husband goes to work and gets a salary, wife stays home and potters around in her ‘business’ that is more of a hobby for 15/hours a week, makes $15k in profit per year but gets $5k in tax writeoffs while doing it. This is essentially what my parents did for most of my childhood – although for my mother it really was a very hard-work business that took more time than 15hrs on average, and I don’t believe she abused the tax deductions at all (like buying a heatpump for example).

                    • Armchair Critic

                      I would suggest a big incentive for going into a home business like that…is simply to get tax deductions on things you’d be buying anyway…
                      I would suggest you are wrong.
                      I would say its to:
                      avoid commuting, and the office environment,
                      to get every dollar you earn, rather than have it going to some faceless shareholder,
                      to have flexibility around the work you do and when you do it
                      or, at least, that’s why I did it.
                      If your main reason for starting a home business is to do with tax then you aren’t really focussing on what your business is about. Or you’re setting yourself up to fail.

                    • Draco T Bastard

                      My biggest problem isn’t that a heat pump (and other stuff) can be written off if you happen to be a business working from home but that employees, who really are operating a business, don’t have those same write-offs available to them.

                      Now a number of people are going to say that they can all go on contract, which they can and something that I’ve said before, but doing so has a number of disadvantages and barriers:
                      1.) Loss of statutory rights/protections
                      2.) Expense. Although cheap and easy to register a business in NZ the costs (re software/accountants) involved are beyond what most people can afford
                      3.) Knowledge. Most people just haven’t got a clue as to how to set up a business and don’t know where to go to get that knowledge
                      4.) Accountant – the present system, if everyone became a business, would turn us into a nation of accountants 😛

    • Bright Red 4.2

      “Firstly, the 39% top tax rate was a stupid idea in the first place. Many in that bracket are company owners who would simply ensure any income that put them over the threshold was taxed at the lower company rate. Very hard to legislate against this, because companies could have lots of arguable reasons to put up for retaining profits in the company. If fiddling with WFF is stupid because it gains very little, then the same argument applies to reinstating stupidity with the 39% tax rate.”

      Are you denying that the 39% rate brought in significantly more revenue than the 33% rate does?

      Funny, because Treasury disagrees. http://treasury.govt.nz/government/revenue/estimatesrevenueeffects/estimates/index.htm

      Each cent off that top rate meant $140 million less revenue. So a 6 cent reduction has cost nearly a billion.

      All the Left is saying is ‘temporarily restore the top tax rate to where it was just two years ago’. The world didn’t end when we had a 39% rate for 9 years, nor did it end when the top tax rate was over 60% for all but 6 years between 1960 and 1986. The rich will still be rich with the old top tax rate back.

      • Colonial Viper 4.2.1

        Land tax and CGT please. (Beating up on PAYE earners is overrated, although the system should be made more progressive taking into account those who are on 5x and 20x the median income.)

        Or simply increase GST as applied to rates, as an interim measure.

      • tsmithfield 4.2.2

        “Funny, because Treasury disagrees. http://treasury.govt.nz/government/revenue/estimatesrevenueeffects/estimates/index.htm

        Each cent off that top rate meant $140 million less revenue. So a 6 cent reduction has cost nearly a billion.”

        Fair point.

        A couple of things in response.

        Firstly, those who benefited from the removal of the 39% rate will be paying a numerically a lot more in GST due to the fact they have a lot more to spend than other groups. So, this would have offset the income lost from the tax change.

        Secondly, I don’t think there would be a straight line loss from 33 to 39. This is because the incentive to avoid the tax would increase for each cent the tax rate exceeds the company rate. Thus I would expect a decreasing marginal return for rate increases.

        • Bill Browne 4.2.2.1

          I carefully calculated the difference between the tax I was paying before and the additional GST I would be paying and carefully squirrel that amount away in the bank every month.

          I plan to spend it on an overseas trip later this year.

          • tsmithfield 4.2.2.1.1

            Fair enough. I guess you will be paying increased GST on the air fares though.

            • Lanthanide 4.2.2.1.1.1

              On an overseas trip where you need to stay in accommodation for longer than a week or so, generally the airfares will start to become a minor part of the cost.

            • Bill Browne 4.2.2.1.1.2

              No GST on international airfares 🙂

              It’s all win!

              I’m going to spend what I saved on hookers and blow while I’m overseas.

              • Colonial Viper

                lolz, now just frame it as a business trip and those hookers as “personal business consultants” and the rest of us will happily pick up the tab.

        • Draco T Bastard 4.2.2.2

          Firstly, those who benefited from the removal of the 39% rate will be paying a numerically a lot more in GST due to the fact they have a lot more to spend than other groups. So, this would have offset the income lost from the tax change.

          Just because they have more to spend doesn’t mean that they will spend it. In fact, people who have discretionary income tend not to spend it but to save it and so, no, the loss won’t be offset by GST and that’s even after the GST increase.

    • Rosy 4.3

      Some people in the top tax brackets would aviod paying whether the tax rates are aligned or not. In some ways it’s not about the money, it’s about the notion of paying tax.

    • Lanthanide 4.4

      “Very hard to legislate against this, because companies could have lots of arguable reasons to put up for retaining profits in the company”

      I guess you missed the court case last year about two doctors, I believe from Christchurch, that were paying themselves salaries of under $60k and getting the rest of their income via their company, effectively using the loophole you’re talking about here. IRD pursued them in court and won on the basis of evading tax because they should have been receiving salaries of approx $230k and paying 39% tax on that, and won at appeal I believe too. I think there are more appeals being tried, and the “tax advisory” industry is up and arms about the outcomes from the case.

      So yes, while it might be hard to legislate against it, we thankfully have these things called “courts” that can use common sense to see when the law is being twisted for personal gain.

      • tsmithfield 4.4.1

        Yeah. I know about that. Not what I was getting at though.

        I am thinking more about arguments such as retaining profits to grow the company, keeping money in the company for bank equity requirements etc etc. There are so many variables such as this that could be used as justification for keeping the money in the company to be taxed at a lower rate that would be very difficult to argue against.

        • Lanthanide 4.4.1.1

          And, if the money is actually kept in the company and not later given to the owners of the company as an under-the-table salary, then I don’t think anyone has a problem with that.

    • Ari 4.5

      TS: People putting income back into their companies and spending it is exactly what we want- this is why the top tax rates should be higher than the corporate tax rate- to encourage people investing that extra money rather than spending it all on luxury items produced abroad or saving it.

      • tsmithfield 4.5.1

        I see your point. In fact, I think that was a reason English raised as to why he was not concerned about the company rate going down to 28%.

        The counter to that is that it is unfair on the high earning PAYE workers who don’t have the capacity to structure their affairs to avoid the higher rate.

        • Draco T Bastard 4.5.1.1

          Now that’s something I agree with – people on PAYE are really badly screwed by the present tax system. They get double taxed on their work expenses and they can’t do anything about it. This is another reason why I want a UI and to shift everybody onto the same set of rules. The multiple rule sets that we have now is, IMO, the major source of tax loopholes that allow some people to avoid paying taxes.

      • Lanthanide 4.5.2

        The point is that they keep the money in the company as ‘retained earnings’ and then take it as a dividend or other disbursement from the company. In other words they get money in their back pocket out of the company, but it was taxed at the company rate of 30% instead of 39%.

        It’s a salary in everything but name and tax liability.

        • Colonial Viper 4.5.2.1

          Dividends received need to be accounted for as personal income unless there are attached imputation credits from the company.

          • Lanthanide 4.5.2.1.1

            Yeah, I’m hazy on the specifics as I’ve never done it myself. But I know the principal behind it and that it is possible in a fairly straightforward manner.

  5. randal 5

    the thing about national is they cant stand anyone getting money that they consider to be theirs.

  6. Draco T Bastard 6

    You see National dropped the top tax rate from 39% to 33% (something Labour vows to reverse)for those earning over $70k…

    And that would be DPF lying outright as he knows full well that Labour promised no such thing. What Labour have proposed is another tax bracket in the 6 figure income range.

    A second source of funds to allow us to create a tax free zone will be to claim back some of the windfall tax cuts from the very top income earners.

    We haven’t yet set a new top tax rate.

    Nor have we determined the level of income that it will apply to. But it will only affect incomes comfortably into six figures, the top few per cent of earners.

  7. I suspect that some of the liable parents are swindling child support payments like they are swindling IRD in paying business tax.

    • Vicky32 7.1

      Oh that’s almost certain… (I had a rich ex, and no question he was doing that.) Because I was on DPB it was all irrelevant to me, I never saw a cent of it., but he paid the minimum. If he’d paid what he was supposed to, I’d actually have got some of it!
      Deb

Links to post

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • EV road user charges bill passes
    Transport Minister Simeon Brown has welcomed the passing of legislation to move light electric vehicles (EVs) and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) into the road user charges system from 1 April.  “It was always intended that EVs and PHEVs would be exempt from road user charges until they reached two ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    14 hours ago
  • Bill targets illegal, unregulated fishing in international waters
    New Zealand is strengthening its ability to combat illegal fishing outside its domestic waters and beef up regulation for its own commercial fishers in international waters through a Bill which had its first reading in Parliament today. The Fisheries (International Fishing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill 2023 sets out stronger ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    15 hours ago
  • Reserve Bank appointments
    Economists Carl Hansen and Professor Prasanna Gai have been appointed to the Reserve Bank Monetary Policy Committee, Finance Minister Nicola Willis announced today. The Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) is the independent decision-making body that sets the Official Cash Rate which determines interest rates.  Carl Hansen, the executive director of Capital ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    16 hours ago
  • Stronger protections for apartment owners
    Apartment owners and buyers will soon have greater protections as further changes to the law on unit titles come into effect, Housing Minister Chris Bishop says. “The Unit Titles (Strengthening Body Corporate Governance and Other Matters) Amendment Act had already introduced some changes in December 2022 and May 2023, and ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    18 hours ago
  • Travel focused on traditional partners and Middle East
    Foreign Minister Winston Peters will travel to Egypt and Europe from this weekend.    “This travel will focus on a range of New Zealand’s traditional diplomatic and security partnerships while enabling broad engagement on the urgent situation in Gaza,” Mr Peters says.   Mr Peters will attend the NATO Foreign ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    19 hours ago
  • Keep safe on our roads this Easter
    Transport Minister Simeon Brown is encouraging all road users to stay safe, plan their journeys ahead of time, and be patient with other drivers while travelling around this Easter long weekend. “Road safety is a responsibility we all share, and with increased traffic on our roads expected this Easter we ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    21 hours ago
  • Cost of living support for over 1.4 million Kiwis
    About 1.4 million New Zealanders will receive cost of living relief through increased government assistance from April 1 909,000 pensioners get a boost to Superannuation, including 5000 veterans 371,000 working-age beneficiaries will get higher payments 45,000 students will see an increase in their allowance Over a quarter of New Zealanders ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    22 hours ago
  • Tenancy reviews for social housing restart
    Ensuring social housing is being provided to those with the greatest needs is front of mind as the Government restarts social housing tenancy reviews, Associate Housing Minister Tama Potaka says. “Our relentless focus on building a strong economy is to ensure we can deliver better public services such as social ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    22 hours ago
  • Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary plan halted
    The Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary will not go ahead, with Cabinet deciding to stop work on the proposed reserve and remove the Bill that would have established it from Parliament’s order paper. “The Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill would have created a 620,000 sq km economic no-go zone,” Oceans and Fisheries Minister ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    22 hours ago
  • Cutting all that dam red tape
    Dam safety regulations are being amended so that smaller dams won’t be subject to excessive compliance costs, Minister for Building and Construction Chris Penk says. “The coalition Government is focused on reducing costs and removing unnecessary red tape so we can get the economy back on track.  “Dam safety regulations ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    23 hours ago
  • Drought support extended to parts of North Island
    The coalition Government is expanding the medium-scale adverse event classification to parts of the North Island as dry weather conditions persist, Agriculture Minister Todd McClay announced today. “I have made the decision to expand the medium-scale adverse event classification already in place for parts of the South Island to also cover the ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    24 hours ago
  • Passage of major tax bill welcomed
    The passing of legislation giving effect to coalition Government tax commitments has been welcomed by Finance Minister Nicola Willis.  “The Taxation (Annual Rates for 2023–24, Multinational Tax, and Remedial Matters) Bill will help place New Zealand on a more secure economic footing, improve outcomes for New Zealanders, and make our tax system ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • Lifting economy through science, tertiary sectors
    Science, Innovation and Technology Minister Judith Collins and Tertiary Education and Skills Minister Penny Simmonds today announced plans to transform our science and university sectors to boost the economy. Two advisory groups, chaired by Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, will advise the Government on how these sectors can play a greater ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • Government announces Budget priorities
    The Budget will deliver urgently-needed tax relief to hard-working New Zealanders while putting the government’s finances back on a sustainable track, Finance Minister Nicola Willis says.  The Finance Minister made the comments at the release of the Budget Policy Statement setting out the Government’s Budget objectives. “The coalition Government intends ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • Government to consider accommodation solution
    The coalition Government will look at options to address a zoning issue that limits how much financial support Queenstown residents can get for accommodation. Cabinet has agreed on a response to the Petitions Committee, which had recommended the geographic information MSD uses to determine how much accommodation supplement can be ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • Government approves extension to Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care
    Cabinet has agreed to a short extension to the final reporting timeframe for the Royal Commission into Abuse in Care from 28 March 2024 to 26 June 2024, Internal Affairs Minister Brooke van Velden says.                                         “The Royal Commission wrote to me on 16 February 2024, requesting that I consider an ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • $18m boost for Kiwis travelling to health treatment
    The coalition Government is delivering an $18 million boost to New Zealanders needing to travel for specialist health treatment, Health Minister Dr Shane Reti says.   “These changes are long overdue – the National Travel Assistance (NTA) scheme saw its last increase to mileage and accommodation rates way back in 2009.  ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • PM’s Prizes for Space to showcase sector’s talent
    The Government is recognising the innovative and rising talent in New Zealand’s growing space sector, with the Prime Minister and Space Minister Judith Collins announcing the new Prime Minister’s Prizes for Space today. “New Zealand has a growing reputation as a high-value partner for space missions and research. I am ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • Concerns conveyed to China over cyber activity
    Foreign Minister Winston Peters has confirmed New Zealand’s concerns about cyber activity have been conveyed directly to the Chinese Government.     “The Prime Minister and Minister Collins have expressed concerns today about malicious cyber activity, attributed to groups sponsored by the Chinese Government, targeting democratic institutions in both New ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • Independent Reviewers appointed for School Property Inquiry
    Independent Reviewers appointed for School Property Inquiry Education Minister Erica Stanford today announced the appointment of three independent reviewers to lead the Ministerial Inquiry into the Ministry of Education’s School Property Function.  The Inquiry will be led by former Minister of Foreign Affairs Murray McCully. “There is a clear need ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • Brynderwyns open for Easter
    State Highway 1 across the Brynderwyns will be open for Easter weekend, with work currently underway to ensure the resilience of this critical route being paused for Easter Weekend to allow holiday makers to travel north, Transport Minister Simeon Brown says. “Today I visited the Brynderwyn Hills construction site, where ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • Speech to the Infrastructure Funding & Financing Conference
    Introduction Good morning to you all, and thanks for having me bright and early today. I am absolutely delighted to be the Minister for Infrastructure alongside the Minister of Housing and Resource Management Reform. I know the Prime Minister sees the three roles as closely connected and he wants me ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • Parliamentary network breached by the PRC
    New Zealand stands with the United Kingdom in its condemnation of People’s Republic of China (PRC) state-backed malicious cyber activity impacting its Electoral Commission and targeting Members of the UK Parliament. “The use of cyber-enabled espionage operations to interfere with democratic institutions and processes anywhere is unacceptable,” Minister Responsible for ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • NZ to provide support for Solomon Islands election
    Foreign Minister Winston Peters and Defence Minister Judith Collins today announced New Zealand will provide logistics support for the upcoming Solomon Islands election. “We’re sending a team of New Zealand Defence Force personnel and two NH90 helicopters to provide logistics support for the election on 17 April, at the request ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • NZ-EU FTA gains Royal Assent for 1 May entry to force
    The European Union Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill received Royal Assent today, completing the process for New Zealand’s ratification of its free trade agreement with the European Union.    “I am pleased to announce that today, in a small ceremony at the Beehive, New Zealand notified the European Union ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • COVID-19 inquiry attracts 11,000 submissions
    Public consultation on the terms of reference for the Royal Commission into COVID-19 Lessons has concluded, Internal Affairs Minister Hon Brooke van Velden says.  “I have been advised that there were over 11,000 submissions made through the Royal Commission’s online consultation portal.” Expanding the scope of the Royal Commission of ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • Families to receive up to $75 a week help with ECE fees
    Hardworking families are set to benefit from a new credit to help them meet their early childcare education (ECE) costs, Finance Minister Nicola Willis says. From 1 July, parents and caregivers of young children will be supported to manage the rising cost of living with a partial reimbursement of their ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • Unlocking a sustainable, low-emissions future
    A specialised Independent Technical Advisory Group (ITAG) tasked with preparing and publishing independent non-binding advice on the design of a "green" (sustainable finance) taxonomy rulebook is being established, Climate Change Minister Simon Watts says.  “Comprising experts and market participants, the ITAG's primary goal is to deliver comprehensive recommendations to the ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • Chief of Army thanked for his service
    Defence Minister Judith Collins has thanked the Chief of Army, Major General John Boswell, DSD, for his service as he leaves the Army after 40 years. “I would like to thank Major General Boswell for his contribution to the Army and the wider New Zealand Defence Force, undertaking many different ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • Minister to meet Australian counterparts and Manufacturing Industry Leaders
    25 March 2024 Minister to meet Australian counterparts and Manufacturing Industry Leaders Small Business, Manufacturing, Commerce and Consumer Affairs Minister Andrew Bayly will travel to Australia for a series of bi-lateral meetings and manufacturing visits. During the visit, Minister Bayly will meet with his Australian counterparts, Senator Tim Ayres, Ed ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • Government commits nearly $3 million for period products in schools
    Government commits almost $3 million for period products in schools The Coalition Government has committed $2.9 million to ensure intermediate and secondary schools continue providing period products to those who need them, Minister of Education Erica Stanford announced today. “This is an issue of dignity and ensuring young women don’t ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    5 days ago
  • Speech – Making it easier to build.
    Good morning, it’s great to be here.   First, I would like to acknowledge the New Zealand Institute of Building Surveyors and thank you for the opportunity to be here this morning.  I would like to use this opportunity to outline the Government’s ambitious plan and what we hope to ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago
  • Pacific youth to shine from boost to Polyfest
    Minister for Pacific Peoples Dr Shane Reti has announced the Government’s commitment to the Auckland Secondary Schools Māori and Pacific Islands Cultural Festival, more commonly known as Polyfest. “The Ministry for Pacific Peoples is a longtime supporter of Polyfest and, as it celebrates 49 years in 2024, I’m proud to ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    7 days ago
  • 2024 Ngarimu VC and 28th (Māori) Battalion Memorial Scholarships announced
    ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    7 days ago
  • Speech to Breast Cancer Foundation – Insights Conference
    Before moving onto the substance of today’s address, I want to recognise the very significant and ongoing contribution the Breast Cancer Foundation makes to support the lives of New Zealand women and their families living with breast cancer. I very much enjoy working with you. I also want to recognise ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    7 days ago
  • Kiwi research soars to International Space Station
    New Zealand has notched up a first with the launch of University of Canterbury research to the International Space Station, Science, Innovation and Technology and Space Minister Judith Collins says. The hardware, developed by Dr Sarah Kessans, is designed to operate autonomously in orbit, allowing scientists on Earth to study ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    7 days ago
  • Speech to the New Zealand Planning Institute
    Introduction Thank you for inviting me to speak with you today and I’m sorry I can’t be there in person. Yesterday I started in Wellington for Breakfast TV, spoke to a property conference in Auckland, and finished the day speaking to local government in Christchurch, so it would have been ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    7 days ago
  • Support for Northland emergency response centre
    The Coalition Government is contributing more than $1 million to support the establishment of an emergency multi-agency coordination centre in Northland. Emergency Management and Recovery Minister Mark Mitchell announced the contribution today during a visit of the Whangārei site where the facility will be constructed.  “Northland has faced a number ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    7 days ago
  • Celebrating 20 years of Whakaata Māori
    New Zealanders have enjoyed a broader range of voices telling the story of Aotearoa thanks to the creation of Whakaata Māori 20 years ago, says Māori Development Minister Tama Potaka. The minister spoke at a celebration marking the national indigenous media organisation’s 20th anniversary at their studio in Auckland on ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    7 days ago
  • Some commercial fishery catch limits increased
    Commercial catch limits for some fisheries have been increased following a review showing stocks are healthy and abundant, Ocean and Fisheries Minister Shane Jones says. The changes, along with some other catch limit changes and management settings, begin coming into effect from 1 April 2024. "Regular biannual reviews of fish ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    7 days ago

Page generated in The Standard by Wordpress at 2024-03-28T18:47:24+00:00