Finance minister Nicola Willis says her budget is ‘responsible’ and ‘strikes the right balance’. But what do the experts think?
Read our report from parliament on today’s budget here. For all the up-to-date reaction, see our live updates.
Our Budget 2025 reporting is thanks to The Spinoff Members. The Spinoff is not backed by billion-dollar budgets or billionaires, we’re backed by you. To meet our current goal, we need 500 new members by the end of June. Please donate now.
Nicola Gaston: Nothing to compensate the science system for drastic funding cuts
A couple of years ago I told the Labour government, in an RNZ interview regarding university funding, that we couldn’t eat their ghost chips. I stand by that.
But it also means that, in the face of a government that is both “going for growth” and in charge of a once-in-a-lifetime science system reform process, I have no compunction saying in response to a budget that has NOTHING to compensate the science system for drastic cuts to funding both last year and this: Bro. Monique says you’re dumb.
Nicola Gaston is a professor in the department of physics at the University of Auckland and co-director of the MacDiarmid Institute
Belinda Himiona: ‘Nuggets’ won’t relieve the crisis children and whānau are in today
There are little nuggets scattered throughout the budget, but let’s be clear: they are small scale and will not relieve the crisis children and whānau are in today. Budget 2025 fails to deliver the bold investment required to build the foundation for a thriving future. The real challenge for the government is to match its investment rhetoric with being brave and investing comprehensively in services that we know improve lives.
There are clear indications that things are not OK. Lest we forget: recently Aotearoa scored towards the bottom in all child wellbeing rankings according to Unicef, there’s been a 35% increase in reports of concern for children in the last year, and there’s a worsening picture for children in rates of poverty, violence, education and mental health according to the Salvation Army’s State of the Nation Report.
We can’t keep waiting for investment, it is needed now in interventions for children and whānau at risk, poverty reduction, and fair pay that recognises the value the social sector workforce brings. Community must have a revitalised role with services devolved to community, iwi and hapū.
Governments choose where to invest. There are trade-offs. Once you improve the lives of whānau, you set the foundation for all our future.
Belinda Himiona is chief executive at Te Pai Ora SSPA (Social Service Providers Aotearoa)
Holly Bennett: Plenty of positive initiatives
Budget 2025 might have been light on “record levels of investment” but there is still plenty to explore. One of the flagship announcements – Investment Boost – will see businesses able to make an immediate 20% deduction of the cost of a new asset from taxable income. A welcome signal that government is actively considering how better policy, rather than more money, can make enduring change.
On the other side of the coin, the government has declared war on “tax cheats who deliberately evade their obligations”. With our national tax debt clocking in at $8.5bn, the government has allocated new funding of $35 million a year for IRD to undertake more tax compliance and collection activities. Equivalent to 0.4% of the debt balance, however, will it be enough?
One thing I didn’t see coming but fully support is the $28 million investment in overhauling how emergency services respond to mental distress. The intention is to move New Zealand’s mental distress 111 calls away from a police-led response to a “mental health response”. Of course the devil will be in the detail: how this vision will be operationalised will be the true marker of success.
Finally, I’m particularly enthused by the prime minister’s personal commitment to support start-up tech businesses. As a founder who is about to embark on my first capital raise for a SaaS (software as a service) platform, it’s a timely reminder that an ambitious, bold and properly funded idea executed in the private sector, rather than by state, is where we most often see the biggest drivers of change.
Holly Bennett (Te Arawa, Ngāti Whakaue, Ngāti Pikiao) is the managing director of lobbying firm Awhi and a former adviser to National ministers
Oliver Hartwich: Budget 2025 raises serious questions about New Zealand’s financial future
Budget 2025 raises serious questions about New Zealand’s financial future. Although the government says it plans to balance the budget, its approach makes this difficult to believe.
By leaving out the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) from the main budget figures, the government isn’t showing the full financial picture. Even with optimistic forecasts, the government is still expecting to spend more money than it receives right up to 2029. This kind of accounting makes it hard for taxpayers to see clearly how much money the country is really spending.
On KiwiSaver, it makes sense to stop government contributions for higher earners. However, increasing the default contribution rate from 3% to 4% means both employees and employers pay more. At a time when the economy is struggling, this extra cost could make it harder for businesses to employ people and reduces individuals’ choices on how to spend their money.
Another concern is the finance minister’s suggestion that more KiwiSaver funds should be invested in New Zealand. Although well-intentioned, it goes against good investment practices. To keep people’s savings safe and growing, investing in many different countries is far better than putting most of it into New Zealand’s small economy.
Budget 2025 needs better financial management and smarter economic decisions to ensure New Zealand’s future prosperity.
Oliver Hartwich is the executive director of The New Zealand Initiative
Jo Monks: Commercial gain prioritised over science motivated by environmental goals
The science system funding plan outlined by the government in Budget 2025 sends a clear signal about prioritising investment in science that is likely to result in commercial gain over science motivated by environmental goals.
Key initiatives announced include the establishment of a “bioeconomy” organisation and promoting gene technology. The government’s focus has been rapidly shifting away from ecological and social science rooted in environmental health, and towards science that will make more money, over recent months.
While all investment in science is positive, the New Zealand Ecological Society is concerned that the commercial focus of today’s science funding announcement will result in further erosion of ecological science in Aotearoa. Meanwhile, strong investment in te taiao and applied ecological research has never been more important.
Dr Jo Monks is acting president of the New Zealand Ecological Society
Gabrielle Baker: Not much to benefit Māori
Feels like a great budget if you want to expand your business (Investment Boost), if you have too much money in your take-home pay cheque and need help to save it (KiwiSaver), or if you make your money building and planning hospitals.
I have a toxic relationship with budget days. I can’t wait to get into the details but, when I attempt it, I’m usually left bewildered. Same again this year. I did note down a couple of things though:
• With Vote Health there are proposed savings under “equity and evidence” and “performance monitoring”, which might give an indication of the perceived value of everyone getting good outcomes.
• Vote Disability Support Services requires time and patience to decipher because last year’s funding was all included in Vote Social Sector and Community Sector, and not under this new Vote. And, for some unclear reason the government plans to spend about $10m less in community-based supports – though spending increases slightly in the other disability support service categories.
Unsurprisingly, given the current climate, there is not much in this budget that will benefit Māori, outside very small investments in Māori wardens. Still, I would have liked to have been pleasantly surprised.
Gabrielle Baker (Ngāpuhi, Ngāti Kuri) is a consultant who has worked in Māori health policy for the past decade
Matthew Roskruge: A bland, arguably bleak, budget with little vision in the numbers
Budget 2025 was billed as a no-BS budget, and it delivered no-frills austerity. The government framed it as a “growth” budget, but there’s little vision in the numbers. The focus is on fiscal discipline, with new spending tightly contained and balanced by cuts and reprioritisations.
Headline winners include small businesses, with modest tax relief for capital investment, and the health sector, which receives a significant boost – especially for infrastructure and access. Defence also fared well, possibly reflecting US-aligned priorities and overdue investment.
But savings came at a cost. The cancellation of pay equity was a major loss, and emergency housing was scaled back. Māori were virtually invisible. Vote Māori was cut again, with funds pushed into general pools. There’s little here that speaks to Māori priorities or the Māori economy.
Education saw multiple tweaks – some welcome, like learning support and literacy – but little new money. A clear trend emerged around “tough on youth” policies: truancy services, youth justice, bootcamps, and cutting Jobseeker access for most 18 to 19-year-olds.
It’s a bland, arguably bleak, budget. NZ First and Act were surprisingly muted. The bigger question is whether this signals a longer-term turn to austerity – or just a tactical reset ahead of election year 2026.
Professor Matthew Roskruge (Te Atiawa, Ngāti Tama) is director of Te Au Rangahau, a Māori business research centre within Massey University’s business school
Terry Baucher: A bold tax move, but not much love for low-income families
All budgets are a mix of the “The Good, the Bad and the Ugly” and this year is no different. (Though the pay equity reprioritisation probably counts as very fugly.)
From a tax perspective, the Investment Boost tax incentive announced is one of the bolder tax initiatives in recent years. From today, businesses of any size can fully deduct 20% of the value of new assets (or secondhand assets purchased from overseas) in the year of purchase. For example, if a company invested $200,000 in a new plant, $40,000 would be immediately deductible. The remaining $160,000 would be depreciated as normal. There is no cap on this allowance which is also welcome (and a little surprising).
On the other hand, Investment Boost doesn’t come cheap, with an expected cost of $1.7bn per year over the next four years to June 30, 2029 – and, as many women found out last week, a substantial part of that cost will fall on their future pay prospects.
The ghost of Sir Bill English appears
When he was finance minister Sir Bill English made many quite significant changes to KiwiSaver. (See here for a potted history.) The reduction in the government’s contribution to a maximum of $260.72 annually and removal in full for those earning over $180,000 annually is therefore straight out of Sir Bill’s playbook. On the other hand, the proposal to extend KiwiSaver eligibility to 16-17-year-olds is a good move.
Not much love for low-income families
Earlier this year a Treasury paper noted that 30% of all single-parent families faced an effective marginal tax rate of 50% or more. The budget contains changes to the Working for Families which (very) partially addresses this with a lift in the family income threshold from $42,700 to $44,900. However, this has been paid for by means testing the first year of the Best Start tax credit and lifting the Working for Families abatement rate from 27% to 27.5%. (Another very Sir Bill English-type move.)
To put that in context, if the Working for Families threshold had been adjusted for inflation since it was last set in June 2018, it would now be $54,650 or nearly $10,000 more. (Also worth noting that an additional $154m over four years was found to increase the abatement income threshold for SuperGold cardholders from $31,510 to $45,000. That’s welcome, but it’s interesting to compare this with the assistance given to younger families and workers whose taxes pay for NZ Super.)
Overall, a growth budget perhaps but one that relies on several sleight-of-hand moves and does next to nothing to address the problem of low-income families facing high effective marginal tax rates.
Terry Baucher is a tax specialist
Lara Greaves: Won’t somebody please think of the swing voters?
We have an election next year. As someone who studies public opinion, my thoughts focus on the swing voters.
The New Zealand Attitudes and Values Study has shown around 10% of major party voters swap between Labour and National across elections. The Election Study has shown these voters are more likely to be women, and under 40. Sadly, studies like this are few and far between, given cuts to research funding.
How might this budget land with swing voters? On the face of it, it is easy to see how cuts to pay equity settlements, Best Start and government Kiwisaver contributions could put these voters off. We have already seen Labour frame the budget as an attack on women.
To counter, I suspect National would point to spending in education and health. However, to cancel out the pay equity issue, is this and the growth focus enough? Will their favourite, the right track/wrong track indicator, turn around before Election 2026? And will voters feel a difference in their lives? I’ll be eagerly awaiting the post-budget polls and what next year brings.
Lara Greaves is an associate professor in politics at Victoria University of Wellington
Duncan Greive: Not much for the media sector to get excited about
After a week dominated by a c-bomb in a column, media minister Paul Goldsmith appeared at last Friday’s Voyager Media Awards with a joke about the kind of language he and prime minister Chris Luxon use when confronted with a problem: “flip. Or, if it’s really bad, flipping heck”. For our embattled media on an absolute basis, this year’s budget probably warrants a flipping heck, but when measured against expectations – and reality – it barely rates a flip.
To put $1.6m a year in perspective, it is around 1% of the scale of the $577m over four years previously announced as topping up the screen production rebate. Some proportion of this will inevitably be taken up by streaming giants, who also will have been pleased to discover that the threat of a 3% digital services tax quietly vanished this week. While understandable given the continued belligerence on trade from the White House, it does tend to make local businesses feel like chumps for playing the last game, where you pay tax and employ people.
Goldsmith’s release ended with the faintest ray of hope, in noting that “New Zealand media, like media around the world, continue to face significant challenges. We need modern legislation, so the media sector is financially sustainable in the years to come. I am considering submissions from the recent consultation on media reform. I will have more information on next steps for media modernisation in the coming months.”
A statement that could have been written at any time in the past decade, and that local media might be forgiven for imagining will be appended to all future media minister releases until the heat death of the universe and/or the robots take over, whichever comes sooner.
Duncan Greive is founder of The Spinoff and hosts The Fold podcast, covering media in Aotearoa
Geof Nightingale: A tax bet on economic growth
Despite enormous pressure to steer a faster path to a budget surplus, Nicola Willis’s Budget 2025 contains a surprise tax bet on economic growth. Dubbed “Investment Boost”, the policy will allow accelerated tax depreciation for businesses that buy new assets from today, May 22, 2025. In the first year that a new asset is acquired, the depreciation deduction allowed will be increased by 20% of the cost of that new asset.
The government hopes that this will stimulate business investment, leading to productivity increases and faster economic growth. But it comes at a cost of forgone tax revenue of $1.7bn a year, and that contributes to a further delay in a return to budget surplus, pushing it out another year to 2029.
Other tax measures announced are modest but sensible changes that also contribute to growth. One removes the tax barriers to the use of offshore financing and investment in new infrastructure projects, and the other tweaks the taxation of employee share plans for start-up companies to support the use of equity as compensation for these cash-hungry companies.
The bet on economic growth is the right bet. Economic growth drives tax revenues. Due to the design of our tax system, tax revenues in a growing economy will grow faster than the rate of economic growth. And more tax revenues gives the government of the day choices: debt reduction, infrastructure, and better public services.
Whether these tax and other measures in Budget 2025 will improve our economic growth remains to be seen, but the objective is commendable.
Geof Nightingale is an independent tax adviser
Pam MacNeill: Disability funding in the wrong direction
Framed as “improving care for disabled New Zealanders”,the government will increase funding for residential care of disabled people by $60m each year over the next four years, as part of Budget 2025. But are disabled Kiwis being supported by this measure, or are those who would commodify us the ones in receipt of government generosity?
While politicians may believe that modern day institutions are a cost-effective means by which to keep disability funding to a minimum, their proliferation ignores the long-term social and financial costs and consequences of isolation and exclusion. Just look at the staggering expenses associated with the penal system. Also consider the findings of abuse and neglect in institutional care made by the ombudsman and others, and those of the Royal Commission into Abuse in Care.
Disabled people must exert political pressure, through the media and by lobbying politicians, demanding the full rollout of Enabling Good Lives (EGL), which delivers a fairer system grounded in choice and control by disabled people, and the services we say we require. We’ve been waiting for this system of disability funding for many years now. Let’s hold politicians to account for delivering this at the next election.
Dr Pam MacNeill is the managing director of Disability Responsiveness New Zealand
Brigitte Morten: A boring but important budget
Running responsible budgets aren’t sexy but they are needed. Budget 2025 delivered what it said it would – reprioritisation to areas where it could be spent more effectively, investment in infrastructure and changes to support business growth. It’s boring. But important.
High-income earners will no longer benefit from the government contribution to their KiwiSaver. But they will get increased contributions from their employer – so we can hardly feel sorry for them. Our youngest earners – those 16 and 17-year-olds – will benefit from increased contributions and be incentivised at a younger age to put away for their first home or retirement. When we are facing down a rapidly ageing population that we can’t afford, these changes will make a difference.
Changes to depreciation for businesses buying productive assets will not be celebrated as a win by many households. But for businesses, which are the ones who create the jobs, this is a game changer as new assets can mean higher productivity, stronger growth and higher wages.
The minister of finance promised no unicorns, no rainbows and no lolly scrambles. Instead we got sensible, prudent changes that are more likely to deliver gold in future years than any rainbow would.
Brigitte Morten is a lawyer and political commentator, and a former adviser to National ministers
Russel Norman: The Handmaid’s Tale meets Don’t Look Up
Your insurance premiums are rising, because of climate change. Your council rates are rising, because the council is being sued by insurance companies for how councils dealt with the last climate-charged flooding events.
It’s an expensive climate-enhanced shambles, which the budget plans to make worse. The last Emission Trading Scheme auction received no bids for carbon credits, so no income for the government. And relatedly, the government doubled the ETS subsidies to RioTinto to $75m per year while agribusiness is not even required to buy carbon credits.
And then there is the multibillion-dollar liability for all those offshore carbon credits we are supposed to buy because the government is not cutting emissions. And your power bills are going up, while two wind power companies recently withdrew from New Zealand because the government fast-tracked seabed mining right where they wanted to build offshore wind farms, farms that would employ thousands of people generating cheap baseload renewable power? And Luxon is taking money from working women to give to fossil fuel companies.
From War on Nature, to War on Māori, to War on Women, and round again. A kind of recycling I suppose.
Russel Norman is executive director of Greenpeace Aotearoa
Vanessa Cole: There is no going for growth while we dismantle the state housing programme
Before this budget was announced, we already saw decisions from the coalition government that were deepening the housing crisis – the pausing and cancellation of hundreds of Kāinga Ora projects around the country, a decision to sell off state housing, and a plan for no net increase in state housing from 2026.
This budget has seen no new funding for state housing, cuts to Māori housing and the end to emergency housing being celebrated as “savings” at the expense of more people in our communities sleeping in cars, on couches and in parks.
This budget affirmed the government’s deep ideological opposition to state housing. They plan to fund 550 new “social” houses in Tāmaki Makaurau to be built by Community Housing Providers (CHPs), which will barely scratch the surface of the 6549 household long waitlist in the city. They have also given vague details on a “Flexible Fund Scheme” which signals more funding diverted to private market solutions and away from income related rents and publicly owned housing – keeping the tap of capital flowing to the rentier class.
The government has made an economic decision to dismantle Kāinga Ora and to offset the responsibility to house people to the community sector, knowing full well this means we will not see the scale of decent and suitable housing built to meet those experiencing housing stress.
Instead we’ve seen a propping up of developers and investors, through making it easier for multinational investors to invest in private rentals, underwriting developers and giving tax handouts to landlords while our neighbours struggle to pay rent and meet housing costs.
Vanessa Cole is a housing researcher with Public Housing Futures
Georgina Stylianou: A budget that attempts to straddle the middle ground
Well, it’s certainly no lolly scramble but Budget 2025 still managed to deliver some surprises. The problem is the so-called Growth Budget won’t satisfy the fiscal conservatives nor nudge the dial for our most vulnerable. By attempting to straddle the middle ground, the government – particularly National – will be hoping they’ve managed to deliver a non-offensive, mid-term budget.
The Investment Boost tax incentive will go down well among businesses but the changes to employer contributions to KiwiSaver could end up slowing wage growth at a time when the cost of living is still biting for many.
Seeing the enormous savings attributed to the pay equity changes (pushed through without warning and under urgency) was a kick in the teeth. Women in low-income jobs are undoubtedly the biggest loser of Budget 2025.
Given the whopping amount of cuts and savings across the public sector, the funding envelope for the finance minister’s flagship social investment programme should have been much higher. It’s hard not to feel like Kiwi kids living in poverty, and those with entrenched disadvantages, have all but been forgotten.
Winners: defence, education and capital-investing businesses
Losers: women, middle-income parents, Māori
Georgina Stylianou is the managing director of government relations and public affairs firm BRG, and a former adviser to National and NZ First ministers
Alan Johnson: Not an austerity budget, but one based on borrow and hope
By Minister Willis’s own admission, this is not an austerity budget and by most measures, the Budget 2025 numbers support her claim. In these times of economic uncertainty, this is welcomed news.
However, despite her claims that her government is the fiscally responsible one, much of the approach taken in Budget 2025 appears to be based on borrow and hope.
Crown debt is forecast to rise 24% or by $45 billion between 2025 and 2029. The hopefulness is in the optimistic forecasts of 3% GDP growth over each of the next three years. If growth is lower than this then tax revenues will be lower than expected too and the promised operating surplus by 2028 will most likely be a dream.
Unsurprisingly, the child poverty targets will not be met. For example the AHC(50) target of 10% by 2028 is forecast to reach 18.4% by 2029. Little wonder when nothing but token efforts to address such poverty are offered in Budget 2025.Spending on Working for Families and housing support will slowly lose value over the next four years with no increases in budgets in the face of inflation.
Alan Johnson is a member of the Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) and a South Auckland-based housing activist
Eric Crampton: If this be the best of all fiscal policy frameworks
Catching up with old-hands at this year’s budget had me remembering a line from Voltaire’s Candide. After witnessing a series of terrible misfortunes, Candide exclaims, “If this is the best of all possible worlds, what then are all the others?”
New Zealand is often lauded for the transparency of its government accounts. But budget processes appear to work as follows.
When ACC is accumulating surpluses, those surpluses count toward measures of the government’s prudence. When it is not, ACC’s deficits are excluded. And this year, you must turn to online appendices to see that there is no return to surplus, on the normal measures, even by 2029.
The Public Finance Act forbids running ongoing deficits during normal times: governments must raise enough in tax to cover costs. But if you redefine the headline measure and promise implausible restraint in future, Treasury will deem all to be well – even if those deficits run for a decade.
And where a Labour government was lauded for its beneficence for core Crown spending of 28% of GDP in 2019, a National one will be damned for austerity while spending more than 32%.
I wonder what other countries’ public accounts must be like.
Dr Eric Crampton is chief economist with the New Zealand Initiative. This budget will encourage him to contribute about $10 toward the government’s alcohol excise revenues
Shamubeel Eaqub: A budget of switcheroos
The budget had lots of announcements, but they were paid for by a sinking lid on a broad swathe of public services. Over two-thirds of votes will not keep up with population and inflation growth. It was a budget of switcheroos – so interested people need to look at where the money came from.
KiwiSaver got tinkered with again. Gradually increasing the contribution rate over time and including 16 and 17-year-olds: good. But halving the subsidy means less incentive to contribute at the margin: not so good. Means testing, by excluding people earning more than $180k, makes sense. But it’s also a bit incoherent. Incentives to save for retirement is fine to means test, which costs $1bn, but apparently we cannot countenance the same for another welfare payment: NZ Super, which costs $23b.
The budget was austerity again. For many, the effects of recent tax cuts are being whittled away by taking away other things.
Shamubeel Eaqub is chief economist and head of policy at Simplicity
Brian Roper: A BS austerity budget
Anticipating criticism, Nicola Willis claims that her 2025 budget is a non-BS, no-austerity budget. How does this claim stack up against the government’s own figures in the generally neglected core Crown expense tables which appear towards the end of Treasury’s Economic and Fiscal Update? Go there and you will discover that in most areas of social spending the government is planning on cutting spending in real terms, that is once inflation is factored in, during the forecast period which runs through to 2029. It is also cutting spending relative to GDP and population (per capita). Therefore, there can be little doubt that Budget 2025 is an austerity budget. The claim by Willis that it isn’t an austerity budget is actually a clear example of political BS.
This budget is also unlikely to boost popular support for the governing coalition parties. At the time of the fifth National government’s second budget in 2010, National was polling around 50% and John Key was polling over 45% as preferred PM. In May 2025, National remains below 35% in most polls, and Luxon is polling below 25% as preferred PM. An austerity budget that has created “fiscal headroom of $12.8 billion over the forecast period” by greatly restricting the grounds for pay equity claims and that allows for a $10 billion increase in military spending while chronically underfunding health, housing, education and welfare will do little to aid National’s prospects for re-election in 2026.
Brian Roper is an associate professor of politics at the University of Otago
Colleen Brown: A glimmer of hope for the disability sector
The disability sector has endured a grim couple of years with the freezing of critical Disability Support Services (DSS) funding for disabled people and their families. This budget needed to demonstrate that government has listened to us – the sector has been vociferously opposing the imposed cuts.
A big win is the $1 billion new money over four years for the DSS budget residing in MSD. There is a glimmer of hope that finally disabled people will be able to access supported living options in their communities of choice.
Anyone who has tried to navigate disability systems knows it is complicated. One expectation would be that the needs assessment agencies get a funding boost out of the new money to cater for the increase in numbers of disabled people needing support along with streamlining the complex systems.
It’s a challenging budget to unpick. Possible funding is woven into myriad budget lines. There is some hope – the minister’s announcement of two million more teacher aide hours by 2028, followed by bewilderment at the apparent loss of crucial funding for early intervention.
And why do we have another postcode pilot programme just for 50 families when Minister Upston has constantly objected to them. Hope – yes – but just a mere glimmer.
Colleen Brown (Kai Tahu) is chair of Disability Connect and a former local body politician
Kassie Hartendorp: Another budget for billionaires
This year’s budget continues the same trend of the coalition government cutting costs down to the bone for struggling families, marginalised communities, public services and anyone who doesn’t own seven houses. When most people are feeling the pain of an endless cost of living crisis, this budget makes it harder for families with new babies, and 18-19-year-olds to access essential income support. Trading off $12.8bn of wages for our lowest-paid women is extra salt in the festering wound of this government’s decisions.
While we are told there is “no money”, the lollies were definitely scrambling for defence, prisons and tax breaks for multinational corporations. Meanwhile, the government quietly cancelled a law calling on international tech giants to pay tax to the tune of $100m a year. And of course, we are all the captive audience to David Seymour’s anti-te Tiriti vanity projects, with the Regulatory Standards Bill said to stack up to $20m a year, on top of last year’s failed Treaty principles bill costing at least $6m. This budget makes it harder for the government to disguise the overt transfer of wealth from the majority of us into the hands of the “sorted”.
Kassie Hartendorp (Ngāti Raukawa, Ngāti Pareraukawa) is director of ActionStation
Amanda Evans: Unconscionable gap in our health system not addressed
We are incredibly disappointed that the needs of dying children weren’t considered in the budget. With one child dying of a serious illness every day in New Zealand, and only one publicly funded paediatric palliative care specialist in the country, now was the moment to act to ensure no Kiwi child dies in pain.
This is an unconscionable gap in our health system, which could be resolved with only $8 million a year to establish a four-hub, nationwide 24/7 specialist service, while saving millions in hospitalisation costs, which would free up beds and improve access to hospitals for all New Zealanders.
$8 million of $32.7 billion allocated to health in this budget is an infinitesimal sum that would have had lifelong impacts on hundreds of families around New Zealand every year.
Until this is provided, children will die in pain and distress that could have been avoided. It is a matter of urgency to act.
Dr Amanda Evans is a paediatric palliative care specialist and co-founder of Rei Kōtuku
