web analytics

The worst Finance Minister ever?

Written By: - Date published: 10:22 am, May 13th, 2025 - 70 comments
Categories: budget 2025, national, nicola willis, same old national - Tags:

During my life I have witnessed a number of Finance Ministers.

I have no recollection of who did what in the 1960s, essentially because I was a kid.

The 1970s were dominated by Rob Muldoon, a drunken dwarfish character whose insistence that markets do what he demanded led him to put into place Soviet type central controls over the economy. It ended in tears. We are still paying the price for his decisions now.

Then there was Roger Douglas whose Milton Friedman Chicago School of Economics adherence to free market policies took Aotearoa into a dark place and almost wrecked the Labour Party. David Lange’s request for a cup of tea and a rethink saved the party and the country.

Then we had the 4th National Government and Ruth Richardson’s mother of all budgets. This all but destroyed Aotearoa’s egalitarian nature.

Then we had Michael Cullen.

He ran a tight budget that also contained a desire to help everyone. Under his reign the country’s net financial asset position was in credit for the first time. He also oversaw the introduction of working for families, necessary to keep working families’ heads above water. And Kiwibank and Kiwisaver meant that eventually a fair bit of our sovereign wealth was controlled by us and not by Australian banks.

It is a testimony to the propaganda ability of the right that they persuaded enough of us that the economy was in bad shape. And that Michael Cullen was personally responsible for the greed and worst excesses of Wall Street Bankers when the Global Financial Crisis hit.

Then there was Bill English.

His Catholicism meant that his decisions were at least tempered by a desire not to cause too much harm.

After him was Grant Robertson. I would rank him second best behind Cullen. His heart was always in the right place and his decisions guided by his desire to achieve good. And he and Jacinda got us through Covid with a series of extraordinary decisions that meant that our health was preserved and pretty well all of our jobs were protected.

And now we have Nicola Willis.

Without the slightest sense of hyperbole I can confidently say that she is the worst Minister of Finance in my lifetime, even worse than Muldoon or Richardson or Douglas.

Just think of her record.

She has cost the country the thick end of a billion dollars because of her aversion to freight enabled Cook Strait ferries. As pointed out by Mountain Tui Willis has purported to cancel a contract where we could procure a next generation, size appropriate, and full functionality Mercedes for a Toyota price and is now trying to buy a basic, no-frills Toyota Corolla for the price of a Mercedes.

Her desire to gain political points and create a crisis is unparalleled.

She has laid waste to the public service, caused Wellington to plunge into crisis, underfunded health, and her Government has reneged on a promise that victims of abuse would have an independent redress entity to address claims for compensation.

And to top things off she has decided that the undermining of a complicated system to achieve pay parity for industries dominated by women is too expensive. David Seymour’s description that the change had saved the budget was criticised by her as not being the words that she would use, rather than words that were not true.

But the consequence is clear. Stopping these settlements from proceeding has given the Government head room to pay for tax cuts for landlords.

And Willis chooses to take time out from her busy job to respond to negative commentary by insisting on a right of response. Rather than continuing on with her rather important work of looking after the economy.

The commentary, from Andrea Vance in the Post, was biting. Vance said this about the Government’s actions:

Saving money by cancelling justice.

And then selling it by claiming they’re doing feminism a favour by lighting it on fire and calling it efficiency. 

Willis’s response reflected her uber confidence that what she is doing is completely right and should not be questioned.

She made some startling claims, and implied that Vance had said the right to equal pay had been affected. Dear reader Vance made no such claim.

She also said that “no woman has had her pay cut” and that “additional pay equity settlements for further workforces are expected under the Government’s improved pay equity regime”.

It is true that no woman has had her pay cut, yet. But it is clear that fewer will qualify for settlements and the settlements will not be as generous.

And there will still be pay equity settlements in the future, but not as many as there have been.

And most importantly National will save money because of what it has done. David Seymour gave it away when he said that the decision had saved the budget.

There is this really awkward question that Nicola Willis still has not answered.

The Government knew about the implications of Fair Pay agreement settlements some time, ago, according to Willis just after the last election.

If so why did the Government not introduce its legislation much earlier. Specifically in changing the required female participation rate from 60% to 70%. This could have been highlighted earlier, and amending legislation could have been sent to a select committee.

That way the parties could have known that continuation of their negotiations would be problematic.

There could have been a select committee process and people could have had their say.

Instead doing nothing then ramming it through urgency and making it retrospective has created an extraordinarily adverse reaction.

My personal view is that it is an constitutional abomination to discontinue court proceedings and negotiations conducted in good faith and change the rules retrospectively under urgency with no chance of affected parties to raise their concerns.

And to do all of this so that tax cuts could be delivered to landlords and expensive killing toys delivered to the military makes a complete and utter mockery of parliamentary democracy.

To add to National’s problems recent news suggests that Ministers and Members of Parliament are due to receive healthy increases to their salaries. This is decided by an independent entity that looks at their roles and compares their salaries with comparable roles in other industries. Very similar to the process used to determine pay equity claims. This will not go unnoticed.

Willis is clearly the worst Finance Minister we have ever had.

She is deeply unsuited in running a country’s economy.

Vote her out.

70 comments on “The worst Finance Minister ever? ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Bearded Git 1
    13 May 2025 at 11:00 am

    She is atrocious Micky.

    But what really irritates me is that, among other things, no party campaigned at the 2022 election on massively undermining pay parity (in a secret process) or cancelling the ferries.

    If they had, the consequences of denying fair pay parity to many thousands of poor/semi-poor workers or the huge cost implications of cancelling the ferries would have become apparent in the ensuing public debate.

    The COC would not have been elected. They should be made to suffer at the next election for this behaviour.

    (Standardistas could add to the list of things the COC has done that they lied about during the election campaign.)

    • Belladonna 1.1
      13 May 2025 at 11:11 am

      While I agree about the pay parity issue – it's a little unfair to lump this in with the ferries. The revised estimate (further budget blowout) was only disclosed after the election, during coalition negotiations in October 2023. So no party could campaign on it.

      • Incognito 1.1.1
        13 May 2025 at 11:26 am

        Infrastructure projects, especially large and complex ones, tend to have (large) budget blowouts. Willis and colleagues were feigning shock & horror upon ‘finding out’ or she was indeed an inexperienced ignorant naïve rookie Finance Minister who had raised expectations and made promises that she could never keep aka they had been lying (and still are).

        • Belladonna 1.1.1.1
          13 May 2025 at 4:15 pm

          Robertson was anything but complimentary about KiwiRail's role in this. Certainly implying that it wasn't an expected large infrastructure budget blowout. And, in fact, the Labour government had not agreed to the sum that KiwiRail wanted, in advance of the election.

          Robertson, however, argued it was KiwiRail that was to blame for the blowouts, saying the previous government had rejected a bid for more funding this year and was advised of a much lower level of risk.

          He pointed to a timeline released by Willis the day before, which noted KiwiRail's assurance in October 2022 that "in a 'worst case scenario' the tagged contingency would need to increase by $280m".

          He noted the February 2023 bid for a further $2.6b – also highlighted in the timeline Willis released – had in fact been rejected by the government at the time.

          The government later made the smaller offer – cancelled by the new government – because "we did believe that it was important that New Zealanders did have confidence that there would be an ongoing sustainable Cook Strait ferry network".

          "To clarify, the minister's statement says that the project veered away from its core purpose when it hadn't, the minister's statement also says that the costs had blown out to $2.6b under the government's watch when that money had not in fact been agreed.

          https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/504745/national-labour-firing-broadsides-after-cook-strait-ferry-project-founders

      • Bearded Git 1.1.2
        13 May 2025 at 11:41 am

        Don't believe all you read in the MSM Bella. The $4 billion Willis and Peters are spouting now is a made-up number to justify the idiotic decision to cancel the ferries.

        And remember that they would have been working by 2027. Now we have to wait until 2029.

        Similarly the Dunedin (south of South Island) hospital has been delayed for 18 months for no good reason.

        Couldn’t run a xxxx-xx in a brewery.

        • Belladonna 1.1.2.1
          13 May 2025 at 3:57 pm

          Not commenting on the $4 billion (which I agree is anything but a firm number) but on the additional contribution that Kiwirail were seeking, which wasn't disclosed to the National Party/NZFirst or ACT before the election.

          https://transporttalk.co.nz/news/govt-axes-interislander-ferry-replacement-project

          If the incoming government didn't know about the additional request from Kiwirail – it's difficult to argue that it should have been part of their election platform.

          “Nicola Willis was informed of the new $2.6b cost for the mega ferries during coalition negotiations and before she was sworn in as Finance Minister.She received written briefings from KiwiRail regarding the iReX project on November 30 and met McLean and Reidy again later that evening.By then, the cost of the project had escalated to $3b”
          https://archive.ph/uztTk#selection-2107.0-2119.53

        • Belladonna 1.1.2.2
          13 May 2025 at 4:04 pm

          Just found where the 4 billion figure may have come from…. Treasury.

          On July 12 [2023], Treasury and Ministry of Transport officials warned ministers the mega ferry project was still relatively early in its life, with detailed design work yet to be finalised and without contractually agreed costs.

          They warned the final cost of the project could approach $4b.

          https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/kiwirail-mega-ferries-what-labour-finance-minister-grant-robertson-knew-about-financial-troubles/NHKEPQDVWBAYJF7IS7UCT2TDNM/

          Archived link:

          https://archive.ph/uztTk#selection-1927.0-1933.61

          • Andrew R 1.1.2.2.1
            13 May 2025 at 5:54 pm

            Yep, it was a speculative figure by Treasury, based on a review of infrastrucutre cost over-runs in overseas examples.

            • Muttonbird 1.1.2.2.1.1
              13 May 2025 at 6:01 pm

              Not sure how it works but does the opposition not meet with Treasury to go over such matters from time to time?

              I can't believe National were totally in the dark about the status as some claim.

              • Belladonna …
                13 May 2025 at 6:14 pm

                Yes, totally in the dark in this instance. Because the Labour government had not agreed to the KW figure, this was not an agreed budget item, and therefore not included in the PREFU – briefing to all parties before the election.

                No one (including the Labour party – who would be highly motivated to do so) – has challenged Willis' assertion that the first she knew about the increased figure was following the election.

                • Muttonbird …
                  13 May 2025 at 6:20 pm

                  A competent opposition finance spokesperson might be across these things instead of working on her stump speeches.

                  But we've seen Willis tank the economy so you couldn't describe her as competent.

                  Also, I thought it was accepted that governments didn't do major policy immediately before elections.

                  • Belladonna …
                    13 May 2025 at 6:45 pm

                    The most competent finance minister in the world isn't a mind reader. If the information is closely held (as it was) – then it wasn't available to her.

                    Perhaps you should save your ire for Robertson (who had the information and neither shared it, nor campaigned on it). Or for the KR chair who chose not to share it with a party with a strong potential to be the next government.

                    I agree that it's an established policy not to make major changes immediately before a change in government. It's also an established policy to share any significant (and I think we'd all agree this was significant) potential increase in costs with opposition parties. That is what PREFU is intended to do (and it was established because of Muldoon's actions in 1984)

                    I think this was a political decision by Robertson. He knew that this scale of cost escalation would be used to tar Labour – and refused to risk this in a tight election.

                    Willis has plenty of failings of her own. There is no need to task her with Robertson's or KiwiRail’s failure to communicate.

                    • Tony Veitch …
                      13 May 2025 at 7:21 pm

                      I think this was a political decision by Robertson.

                      Evidence for your thinks – or is this just a subtle version of trolling?

                    • Ignotum []
                      14 May 2025 at 8:13 am

                      Any decion by a Minister of Finance or by any politician in office ex officio is ipso facto "political "

                    • Muttonbird …
                      13 May 2025 at 7:41 pm

                      Is it incumbent of sitting finance ministers to make discussions with state agencies a formal "budget item" for the PREFU?

                      At least they didn't rush this $1.47B item through parliament in one day unlike the current government rushing through $10B stolen from working women's pockets on Thursday last week.

                    • Nic the NZer …
                      14 May 2025 at 8:51 am

                      This is a non-sense argument. Virtually every single figure dealt with by Treasury and the finance minister are an estimate. This includes the latest GDP figures which are only available looking back 3 months and are usually revised to final within 6 months of that. The government doesn't really know what its spending when it agrees to spend it anywhere in its budget because this almost always depends on program uptake, timing of hiring decisions, price changes in agreed purchases, etc…

                      A competent project manager, let alone the finance minister needs to be able to deal with uncertainty and not massively overreact by introducing a massive net loss to the country via text message.

                • Ignotum …
                  14 May 2025 at 7:58 am

                  So the $4 billion vital infrastructure cost for the Cook Strait Ferry was not only speculative – it was inflated

                  • Belladonna …
                    14 May 2025 at 11:19 am

                    Treasury estimate. All estimates are speculative. Whether or not it was inflated, we'll never know.

      • alwyn 1.1.3
        13 May 2025 at 11:51 am

        The Labour Party could have campaigned on the proposal. They could have told the public what the blown out costs were going to be and then campaigned on the proposal that the costs were worth it.

        Instead they hid the facts away and kept it all very quiet during the election period.

        It was to be expected though with the worst Finance Minister of recent times in the job. Arise Grant Robertson. Worst Finance Minister in my lifetime.

        https://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/news/how-kiwirails-mega-ferry-vision-unravelled/

        • mickysavage 1.1.3.1
          13 May 2025 at 11:57 am

          They did not hide the facts. They told NZ Rail to go away and cut the costs of the project.

          • alwyn 1.1.3.1.1
            13 May 2025 at 3:49 pm

            Actually they did hide the facts. The didn't make any decision to build or not build the facilities. If they had made a decision the costs would have been put into the Pre-Election Economic and Fiscal Update that Treasury prepare. By not making one the possible financial effects weren't known and the figures sere not able to be put into the Update and remained hidden until after the election.

        • Bearded Git 1.1.3.2
          13 May 2025 at 12:15 pm

          I see you have found a nice neutral source Alwyn-NewstalkZB (sarc)

      • I can't believe it 1.1.4
        13 May 2025 at 2:32 pm

        When the election came around the cost was pretty firm at $3.2bn. The revised design work had been completed and contract let on some of the work including material procurement. I think this was an increase from the budgeted at the time $2.6bn, which of course moved from the originals of $1.4bn and $725m courtesy of inflation and the infrastructure being more stuffed than originally anticipated and Wellington trying to make KiwiRail for a new harbourside facilities for BlueBridge as well

        [Can you please settle on one user handle here, please? Thank you – Incognito]

        • Incognito 1.1.4.1
          13 May 2025 at 2:51 pm

          Mod note

        • Belladonna 1.1.4.2
          13 May 2025 at 4:21 pm

          This increased cost wasn't in the budget. Nor had it been disclosed to National (or any other parties) in advance of the election. Nor had it been agreed to by the Labour government (which had, instead, pushed back very firmly on approving it).
          While the cost increase, itself, may have been justified by the issues you raise – it's not possible to argue that this was a cost that the incoming government had any reason to expect.

  2. Adrian 2
    13 May 2025 at 1:26 pm

    I back Andrea Vance, a single insulting word is minuscule compared to the vicious, denigrating, dark-hearted attack on all women that Willis has unleashed. She probably should start making her own coffee or more likely being as entitled as she is, employ a taster, minimum wage of course, you never know what might be in it.

  3. AB 3
    13 May 2025 at 1:41 pm

    These comparisons can be made only with a lot of hindsight and even then, economics is an ideologically contested space and we lack objective forms of judgment.

    Some people point at Willis's lack of academic training in economics, but I doubt that this is hugely relevant. Richard Murphy argues that university economics courses are teaching a corrupted form of neoclassical economics, which was itself a fantasy based on dubious assumptions made in order to mathematise and obscure the subject. However, Willis (like most of us) lacks a formal depth in economic ideas. That, along with her natural disposition, experience of managing a household and corporate life, will all have made her susceptible to capture by right-wing junk tanks with no internal apparatus for challenging that capture.

    • mikesh 3.1
      13 May 2025 at 3:08 pm

      It is difficult to evaluate finance ministers without taking into account the times in which they served. Muldoon and Douglas faced what was probably the worst inflation the country has seen: we probably needed another Paul Volker to deal with it.

      Muldoon in particular faced the collapse of Bretton Woods, two oil shocks and the formation of OPEC, and Britain's entry into the EEC, not to mention the possible fallout from a couple of devaluations of the pound which occurred in the sixties. And Douglas was only following what seemed to be the orthodox economic theories of his time, though the local stock market was beginning to look like something out of America's "roaring twenties", and led eventually to the '87 crash. It was also during Douglas' time that housing prices started to rise.

      Cullen and English, on the other hand, seemed to have served in times of relatively buoyant economic circumstance.

      Robertson unfortunately had the pandemic and the worst housing problems ever to deal with.

      • SPC 3.1.1
        13 May 2025 at 3:26 pm

        we probably needed another Paul Volker to deal with it.

        Muldoon was intent on one person central command. Labour (pre Douglas) opposed deliberate creation of unemployment as an economic policy. Some nations Oz and in Europe avoided Volcker and Douglas and did better than us.

        Douglas did not stop banks lending to paper asset stockmarket companies. His acolytes were prepared to sell out of banks (POSB, BNZ) for short term funding.

        • mikesh 3.1.1.1
          14 May 2025 at 9:08 am

          Muldoon was intent on one person central command.

          He probably wanted both the prime ministership and the finance portfolio, I guess because the latter was his "specialty". It would be difficult to imagine him in any other role.

          He coudn't do both unfortunately without it it looking like he was "intent on one person control".

          • SPC 3.1.1.1.1
            14 May 2025 at 9:33 am

            My point he could have still have set up RB independence, he chose not to and went with wage and price regulation.

            And some insight that a PM intent on re-election would game economic management accordingly and thus face the Quigley/Jones/standard Treasury dissent that this was neither market ideology nor social democracy. Instead some hybrid of central command and pro (favoured) business cronyism.

        • mikesh 3.1.1.2
          14 May 2025 at 9:25 am

          Labour (pre Douglas) opposed deliberate creation of unemployment as an economic policy.

          I don't think Labour went into the 1984 election with any policies, whatever their policy may have been previously. At that time the economy seemed to be shambolic and the first order of the day was probably to sort out that mess. I don't think Douglas delberately attacked labour, and some criticised him for that, saying that he should have dealt with the labour market before doing anything else.

          • SPC 3.1.1.2.1
            14 May 2025 at 9:40 am

            It is well known that most of the 1984-1987 policies were based on the book of Douglas in 1983 (Rowling rejected it and was rolled by Lange). Lange chose him as Finance Spokesman and then Minister.

            As someone who corresponded with him and Hercus (surtax) in 1983, I was unsurprised by their policy in 1984.

            The quick phase out of tariffs would cause job losses, inevitable. It also made their budget difficult (lost revenue and unemployment). So his acolytes later sold valuable assets (permanent consequences).

            He favoured an assets tax rather than a CGT, in his defence he would have seen there being an ultimate tax on CG via the estate tax (RR got rid of that in 1993).

          • mikesh 3.1.1.2.2
            14 May 2025 at 9:53 am

            From the point of view of the economy, I think it was a pity that National didn't win the 1972 election. With Britain joining the EEC it would have been obvious that some deregulation of the economy would be necessary but Marshall as PM would probably have moved more cautiously than Douglas and Lange many years later when problems had gotten much worse.

            • SPC 3.1.1.2.2.1
              14 May 2025 at 10:06 am

              Not so sure, they chose status quo and added think big (and synthetic petrol was a waste of gas) after 1975.

              Their best moves were the government sector accounting reform associated with sinking lid and then belatedly CER.

      • Incognito 3.1.2
        13 May 2025 at 3:46 pm

        The recency bias would favour judging Willis as the best or worst Finance Minister, depending on which side of the fence one sits. I’m eternally grateful to Willis for my tax cut.

  4. gsays 4
    13 May 2025 at 2:57 pm

    For all his many sins, at least Muldoon left a legacy that we are still reaping the benefits from- the hydro electric dams.

    Possibly helped by a state that had a massive capacity for major infrastructure builds.

      • alwyn 4.1.1
        13 May 2025 at 8:48 pm

        Recent dams?

        IIRC Manapouri was completed 54 years ago and the Clyde dam 33 years ago. I suppose that it is like saying that Jack Marshall was a "recent" PM.

        • SPC 4.1.1.1
          13 May 2025 at 10:02 pm

          I was wondering what legacy?

          The first (our largest) was completed by his era and the other one (our second largest) had been long planned and the issue of his time was over the water level.

          • alwyn 4.1.1.1.1
            14 May 2025 at 10:38 am

            Yes. The age of the hydro dams was over before Muldoon came along. I understand that a low dam had been planned for Clyde and that the Muldoon Government changed to having a high dam but it wasn't a completely new proposal to be credited to his Government.

            Is it really the second largest? I thought that was Benmore.

            • SPC 4.1.1.1.1.1
              14 May 2025 at 10:57 am

              Yes. I was looking at the two after it was completed in 1965, Muldoon was Minister of Finance from 1967. Manapouri 1971 and Clyde 1993.

  5. Muttonbird 5
    13 May 2025 at 3:33 pm

    She's now raiding the Super Fund 5 years ahead of forecast and that forecast was only last year. Of course, National Party aligned journalist and Nicola Willis' biggest fan, Thomas Coughlan, dresses this up as a "milestone" as if it's an achievement:

    New Zealand will pass an economic milestone in 2028, when the Government is forecast to make its first ever withdrawal from the NZ Super Fund.

    At the Budget in 2024, Treasury forecast making the first withdrawal in 2033. Economic changes mean this has been brought forward to 2028. It will be the first withdrawal since the Fund was set up in 2001 in order to fund the future cost of superannuation.

    She's also thieving this year's contribution to the NZSF to fund start-ups. But Labour did it too cries Willis and Coughlan*:

    Willis announced the Government would invest $100m into Elevate, a Government venture capital fund which is designed to grow New Zealand’s start-up scene.

    “This will be funded through a combination of the 2025 contribution to the NZ Super Fund of $61m, topped up with an additional $39m from the Budget 2025 capital allowance,” Willis said.

    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/government-to-make-first-ever-super-fund-withdrawal-in-2028/QGBTHWOWQRDKLAL2GVPJA4GBKY/

    And alarmingly:

    Willis also hinted at measures to grow Kiwisaver in the Budget, although she did not say what these would be.

    I wonder if this same theory that to grown women’s wages you make it harder for them to claim pay equity.

    *Article has been edited. It previously quoted Willis saying Labour used their Super Fund contribution to set up Elevate. That claim has now disappeared.

    • SPC 5.1
      13 May 2025 at 3:46 pm

      The date of the withdrawal is not at the Government’s discretion and is written into the Fund’s governing legislation.

      It's determined by economic circumstance and the amount that would be withdrawn is limited in the 2028-2030/33 period.

      For mine there were two flaws to the scheme.

      1.Not being funded by employee and employer contribution (1% from each) – so it would have been funded 2009-2017 (when English put nothing in).

      2.There should have been no tax on its gains. They should have been retained.

      It could and would have been over $200B now, not a risible $80B.

      • Muttonbird 5.1.1
        13 May 2025 at 5:28 pm

        Sure, sure, just like getting rid of the governor of the Reserve Bank is not at the government's discretion. Didn't stop them.

        And what of the economic circumstance, what changed in 12 months that Treasury changed its forecast from 2033 last year to 2028 this year?

        Two words, Nicola Willis.

        • SPC 5.1.1.1
          13 May 2025 at 6:41 pm

          As front for the real culprits, those who formed the coalition agreement in the interests of a class and not the people and their nation state society.

          • Muttonbird 5.1.1.1.1
            14 May 2025 at 10:08 am

            That by definition makes her a weak finance minister.

            • SPC 5.1.1.1.1.1
              14 May 2025 at 10:21 am

              Sure, their facilitator rather than someone performing their ministerial function – unless one sees screwing over workers on behalf of those sectors (landlords et al) favoured by their voter base as her way of being effective.

              But she risks losing said workers to Oz. That added to the underfunding of research, primary health care and Health New Zealand will mean a poor legacy.

              • Muttonbird …
                14 May 2025 at 10:55 am

                Bloomberg OIA sheds more light on Orr's "resignation":

                New Zealand Finance Minister Nicola Willis sought a meeting with former Reserve Bank Governor Adrian Orr to discuss bank capital requirements in the weeks prior to his sudden resignation, documents released under the Official Information Act show.

                Willis also sought advice on her powers to direct the central bank on prudential policy, according to the documents released Wednesday in Wellington.

                Bloomberg requested all correspondence between Willis’s office, the RBNZ and the Treasury Department in the month before Orr’s departure on March 5. The emails and documents released add further fuel to suggestions that Orr resigned amid pressure from Willis for the bank to loosen bank capital requirements, which she has said are pushing up borrowing costs.

                https://archive.is/maP6b

                • SPC …
                  14 May 2025 at 11:05 am

                  A government wanting lower interest rates to boost the economy for electoral reasons is not a new development.

                  The ANZ bank seems grateful … in anticipation of higher profits.

                  A question in the House.

                  Is there going to be a RIS as to the risk to the government from the banking sector facing weaker capital requirements? And if so, what is the budgetary provision for that risk?

    • Bearded Git 5.2
      13 May 2025 at 4:01 pm

      Agree that Coughlan is completely in National's pocket.

      To his credit he is quite good at sounding reasonable while always supporting the Right.

      • Muttonbird 5.2.1
        13 May 2025 at 8:04 pm

        Here's another. ANZ and NZME in lockstep promoting pro-government messages.

        Almost like paid advertising from Coughlan? We’ll never know.

        But Nicola Willis is "pleased".

        https://archive.is/WqK2d

  6. Binders full of women 6
    13 May 2025 at 5:55 pm

    Cullen 2nd worst. Paid too much for silly trainset then said ha ha on the way out. Pompous pommie kant history professor.

    • joe90 6.1
      13 May 2025 at 6:09 pm

      Cullen had an expensive train set to show for his efforts. To date,Willis and Peters have nothing to show for the half billion dollars they've pissed up the wall.

    • SPC 6.2
      13 May 2025 at 6:35 pm

      Prebble sold rail for a pittance and then it was run down to extract profit.

      That could not continue.

      It is why a nation should not allow that to occur in the first place.

    • Corey 6.3
      14 May 2025 at 3:18 pm

      What was the alternative? Not having rail? Having transport trucks ruin our roads and bridges more than they already do?

      Not to mention the increased road death toll from overworked truckers.

      For a government routinely criticized for being a neoliberal govt, the 5th labour government brought two state assets, created a third with Kiwibank, and finally reversed one of the worst economic decisions in NZ (done by muldoon) by bringing in Super.

      Cullen was no Paul Keating (I wish we had someone that good in our history) but he had 9 surpluses in a row while growing the economy and workers share in it.

    • Stephen D 6.4
      14 May 2025 at 4:15 pm

      Didn’t he buy back the track for$ 1.00?

      Stop showing your prejudice.

    • bwaghorn 6.5
      14 May 2025 at 5:56 pm

      Saint Cullens kiwisaver helped me rise from the ashes like a Phoenix, I'll not tolerate a bad word about him,

  7. Muttonbird 7
    14 May 2025 at 10:10 am

    I believe Willis was also responsible for this car crash policy?

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/560892/familyboost-policy-14m-of-62m-spent-on-administration-costs

    Shows her level of competency.

  8. Alex Stone 8
    14 May 2025 at 11:32 am

    If we were for a moment to entertain the thought that a country could be run as a large, efficient company – then would that same huge corporation hire as its chief financial officer someone sho doesn't even have an undergraduate degree in any of the financial or economic disciplines? Or with zero experience in being on the board of that company (the cabinet in a government)? So on that basis alone, Willis is clearly the least experienced, the least qualified, and the worst Finance Minister we could have.

    Similarly, would that same corporation have as its chief legal officer (Attorney General) someone (Judith Collins) who previously lost their position on the same board because of credible allegations of corruption?

    Or retain as its director of human resources, some with the qualities of Brooke van Velden?

    Or have as its CEO, someone with absolutely no experience being at a senior management level (a first- term parliamentarian) or on the board (the Cabinet), as Luxon is?

    So yes, to answer the question: the National-led coalition givernment is the worst ever. And even in their own terms.

    • Patricia Bremner 8.1
      14 May 2025 at 12:08 pm

      Alex Stone 100%

      Plus their strange idea that austerity will lead to "growth growth growth", and that borrowing to give tax cuts is a good idea, and providing 20% less for infrastructure in depressed times will fix our ills.

      Doing the same old thing and expecting a different result.. madness.

      Willis gaslights, Van Velden calculates, Collins manipulates and as for Luxon he is Macavity, seldom at the scene. They are the most racist misogynistic entitled group we have had the misfortune to have in Parliament. They Govern for the top 5%. and follow the Atlas play book. imo

      The next prefu ???

    • bwaghorn 8.2
      14 May 2025 at 5:59 pm

      This national government is like the last, if ypu asked them to manage your farm they'd immediately cut fertilizer inputs , stop spending on repairs and maintenance, build a shiny new track and front gate , and bullshit the owner in to believing that they where turning a profit

  9. Chris 9
    14 May 2025 at 2:02 pm

    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/finance-minister-nicola-willis-signals-kiwisaver-changes-amidst-superfund-withdrawal-news/AIMNFXLUONDHJH7ME35CA3TK3I/

    Willis says she wants to see people's Kiwisaver accounts to grow, but not for people receiving a benefit.

    For people under 65 receiving an asset-tested benefit Kiwisaver is disregarded as an asset. As soon as the person turns 65 most Kiwisaver balances would likely mean they lose that asset-tested benefit. The logic, I suppose, is that people over 65 can access the funds and this what they're for. I'm sure there are mixed views on this. However, if the person under 65 receives an inheritance, and puts that into Kiwisaver, or any lump sum for that matter, MSD says that's a deprivation of an asset therefore they can refuse to grant the asset-tested benefit.

    So for people on benefits the government's got it all sewn up when it comes to Kiwisaver.

  10. Georgecom 10
    15 May 2025 at 9:08 pm

    Douglas is worst in my book. Ideological and a reckless zeal tbat ripped society to shreds. Richardson next as a narrow little mind stuck in concrete who completed the demolition startes by Douglas. Both had nasty odious political leanings and ideologies, selfish and self serving those who power and privilege. Willis I think is simply out of her depth. Not as competent as douglas or richardson, not as zealous.