This table outlines the New Zealand Government's planned spending for the 2023/24 budget year.
Actual spending for the previous four years is on the left.
The numbers are drawn together from data released by the Minister of Finance on May 19, 2023.
Links to the primary sources used, from Treasury's website, can be found at the bottom of the page.
Click on any underlined heading to drill down to what makes up these numbers. Figures for each allocation are in millions of NZ$.
| Actual 2018/19 | Actual 2019/20 | Actual 2020/21 | Actual 2021/22 | Estimate 2022/23 | Budget 2023/24 | % | |
| NZ$m | NZ$m | NZ$m | NZ$m | NZ$m | NZ$m | ||
| 722.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | Social Housing (Old) | 0.0 | 0.0% |
| 780.2 | 814.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | Official Development Assistance (old) | 0.0 | 0.0% |
| 16.1 | 17.7 | 10.6 | 3.3 | 0.0 | Pike River Re-entry (old) | 0.0 | 0.0% |
| 3.6 | 3.7 | 3.5 | 4.4 | 4.6 | Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment | 4.4 | 0.0% |
| 5.8 | 6.4 | 8.6 | 10.1 | 13.4 | Women | 15.2 | 0.0% |
| 10.4 | 9.8 | 12.3 | 14.7 | 17.1 | Serious Fraud | 17.1 | 0.0% |
| 21.8 | 21.2 | 22.0 | 23.4 | 28.9 | Office of the Clerk | 26.7 | 0.0% |
| 20.1 | 20.5 | 19.0 | 21.5 | 28.9 | Parliamentary Counsel | 31.9 | 0.0% |
| 18.2 | 23.5 | 27.1 | 32.5 | 50.8 | Ombudsmen | 56.9 | 0.0% |
| 60.6 | 60.9 | 62.2 | 65.4 | 70.1 | Public Service | 66.5 | 0.0% |
| 11.8 | 20.0 | 49.1 | 61.0 | 85.1 | Pacific Peoples | 83.0 | 0.1% |
| 74.2 | 90.0 | 95.2 | 91.4 | 99.8 | Security Intelligence | 107.3 | 0.1% |
| 68.8 | 73.3 | 79.3 | 82.2 | 123.3 | Attorney-General | 138.0 | 0.1% |
| 107.4 | 128.6 | 117.1 | 193.7 | 620.1 | Prime Minister and Cabinet | 147.3 | 0.1% |
| 94.5 | 101.4 | 113.8 | 118.0 | 148.6 | Audit | 157.3 | 0.1% |
| 89.3 | 97.5 | 212.9 | 146.6 | 153.7 | Sport and Recreation | 163.0 | 0.1% |
| 134.8 | 161.4 | 188.7 | 149.6 | 205.7 | Forestry | 193.3 | 0.1% |
| 150.0 | 167.1 | 177.5 | 168.5 | 237.3 | Parliamentary Service | 222.5 | 0.1% |
| 285.4 | 112.6 | 887.3 | 914.0 | 339.0 | Building and Construction | 251.5 | 0.2% |
| 160.0 | 158.2 | 189.0 | 248.1 | 411.4 | Statistics | 265.9 | 0.2% |
| 229.4 | 246.2 | 261.6 | 283.8 | 316.1 | Customs | 301.7 | 0.2% |
| 129.7 | 137.0 | 161.5 | 182.4 | 234.7 | Communications Security and Intelligence | 401.9 | 0.2% |
| 330.6 | 385.6 | 522.7 | 542.0 | 671.3 | Arts, Culture and Heritage | 448.2 | 0.3% |
| 99.7 | 62.8 | 406.2 | 288.7 | 467.8 | Te Arawhiti | 448.9 | 0.3% |
| 293.7 | 310.7 | 330.3 | 372.5 | 498.2 | Lands | 620.0 | 0.4% |
| 336.1 | 432.5 | 503.0 | 716.2 | 574.5 | Māori Development | 633.3 | 0.4% |
| 509.3 | 591.2 | 700.8 | 588.6 | 827.0 | Justice | 856.9 | 0.5% |
| 488.5 | 555.6 | 646.4 | 689.2 | 813.2 | Conservation | 880.3 | 0.5% |
| 744.3 | 791.3 | 857.8 | 878.9 | 988.6 | Courts | 1,046.0 | 0.6% |
| 965.9 | 913.4 | 896.0 | 889.2 | 1,407.0 | Agriculture, Biosecurity, Fisheries and Food Safety | 1,110.4 | 0.7% |
| 686.0 | 758.3 | 1,112.7 | 1,093.7 | 1,765.0 | Internal Affairs | 1,398.8 | 0.8% |
| 980.0 | 1,132.7 | 1,360.8 | 1,430.3 | 1,531.3 | Oranga Tamariki | 1,540.2 | 0.9% |
| 518.4 | 524.9 | 1,413.2 | 1,501.8 | 1,650.3 | Foreign Affairs | 2,210.0 | 1.3% |
| 2,176.9 | 2,106.8 | 2,328.3 | 2,180.8 | 2,409.8 | Corrections | 2,586.9 | 1.6% |
| 2,089.6 | 2,201.7 | 2,237.3 | 2,386.4 | 2,792.3 | Police | 2,628.4 | 1.6% |
| 2,000.7 | 2,086.8 | 2,429.2 | 2,651.8 | 2,930.0 | Labour Market | 3,020.6 | 1.8% |
| 707.9 | 853.3 | 1,215.8 | 1,891.0 | 2,240.2 | Environment | 3,493.2 | 2.1% |
| 2,620.8 | 3,342.0 | 4,626.2 | 3,392.4 | 4,280.7 | Business, Science and Innovation | 3,735.3 | 2.3% |
| 4,000.6 | 6,910.0 | 4,353.1 | 5,168.3 | 5,906.3 | Defence | 6,630.1 | 4.0% |
| 4,767.8 | 5,522.8 | 6,973.6 | 7,053.7 | 10,488.1 | Transport | 10,114.7 | 6.1% |
| 1,136.5 | 1,683.6 | 2,258.9 | 2,417.2 | 6,736.4 | Housing and Urban Development | 11,262.4 | 6.8% |
| 12,317.4 | 16,365.1 | 19,149.2 | 29,542.9 | 22,373.3 | Treasury & Finance | 17,577.1 | 10.6% |
| 15,465.3 | 17,593.9 | 17,397.5 | 19,681.9 | 20,705.1 | Education | 21,527.0 | 13.0% |
| 17,668.7 | 19,485.8 | 21,943.0 | 26,440.0 | 27,235.3 | Health | 26,509.9 | 16.0% |
| 25,769.3 | 40,865.3 | 33,625.9 | 39,501.8 | 39,656.4 | Social Development | 42,973.0 | 25.9% |
| 99,868 | 127,948 | 129,986 | 154,114 | 162,137 | Total Expenditure | 165,903 | 100% |
| 310,232 | 317,392 | 343,132 | 363,110 | 394,000 | GDP (nominal, per RBNZ) | 415,022 | |
| 32% | 40% | 38% | 42% | 41% | Govt spending as % of GDP | 40% | |
| and this compares with taxes collected as follows: | |||||||
| 99,596.7 | 96,617.4 | 107,289.0 | 116,755.6 | 126,129.4 | Total Revenue | 133,749.3 | |
The data in this table is net spending, after fee and charges revenues have been deducted from the gross expenditure planned.
Sources: You can download the data behind these tables from the NZ Government website here.
61 Comments
Can't wait for the drill down on the lines Conservation ($880m) and Environment ($3.5b).
When you think about this - Conservation is the operational (doing) arm - whereas Environment is the policy development (planning) arm.
The cynic in me would suggest, we spend a lot more money on talk about what needs to be done regarding biodiversity preservation and our environment, than action on getting things done. I'm guessing the massive increase over the years on Environment - from $707m in 2018/19 to $3.5b in 2023/24 - will have to do with climate change and RMA reform. And one must ask - what real, measurable on-the-ground improvements/benefits to society and the environment will this have?
And I'd consider myself an environmentalist big time.
It has been a long time since I've logged in. I usually read posts and laugh at the comments. This however is something that is driving me crazy. Government, council, other government organisations are spending more time on planning what to do than just doing.
I think just doing even if not researched quite as much would make far more sense in most cases. It's like we are all getting analysis paralysis at a huge cost to all New Zealanders.
I'm also a conservationist.
Social Development baseline was just under $23 billion in 2017 when Labour took over.
The budget has jumped a mind numbing 82% to $42 billion in 2023.
Government superannuation costs grew over the 6 years but slower than other welfare programmes, and is now a smaller proportion of the overall budget than it was in 2017.
Clearly, there is no intention for Labour-Greens to slow migration or index income tax rates, so they can continue funding these generous handouts.
The first two line items in that bucket were re-classified - thus I suspect adding to some of that increased budget. The break-down on that one will be interesting - I suspect it's the cost-of-living/middle-class welfare (e.g., WFF, AS, Winter Energy Payment, Emergency Accommodation, etc.) that largely make-up the increases.
Cost-of-living really, really needs to be addressed - in my opinion, starting with rent/housing costs. I see no way to avoid regulation and unless we regulate, I expect to see 30% of the population receiving some form of state/social welfare assistance regards accommodation costs.
It's disingenuous to have a big pie segment that says "social welfare" when most of that will be superannuation. More than education or health and growing...
https://figure.nz/chart/2eIStXKBWssxMIze
Superannuation is still social welfare
even when it is paid to people who dont need it
Personally I dont understand why superannuation needs to be universal - especially when we have devices such as community service cards to determine need -and it certainly should start at a higher age level and be indexed to the average age
Govt use to collect taxes to run the country - now they collect taxes to give back to people and the consistent media assessment/feedback is around who gets what from the budget rather than how the country benefits
Rubbish. You work and pay tax to the government who guarantees you a superannuation.
If they waste your taxes by not setting aside money to cover it, then how is that the retirees problem
The problem is the governments wasteful spending of money you gave them. ( Most of us work hard and give 45% ( 30% tax +15% gst ) of our money to the government. that's nearly half your lifes working income to these idiots!
you idealistic woke left leaning loonies need to get out of lala land and realize that most retirees well and truly paid for their retirement and it is not them but the millions paid ( a day,) to social welfare recipients that are a drain on the economy.
Sacre Bleu!
Shaft please look at the actual spending figures.
Jobseeker is an insignificant amount in comparison to super. And tax is not a rebate, tax was mostly used to pay for services and infrastructure that people used over their entire life.
Many people actually get more out of super than they ever put into tax, someone on super for 20 years would receive around $600k. Over a lifetime an average individual will pay around $750k in tax, or $1.48 million per household.
It’s a lot of money for the country to support, I’m not saying get rid of super but we need to either reduce it, means test it or start getting revenue from more sources other than workers incomes.
Feck off and moan to Hipkins or Ardern.
Read my other post . this is labours fault.
Super is affordable. The Cullen fund has heaps of reserves.
Super is not the drain on society you think it is.
Also, just think of the interest the government gets daily from it's tax grab. That more than covers any super fiscal drag .
The issue is the way the govt waste billions not superannuation
I once again plead you to look at the actual figures. I’m not saying super is a drain on society but how it is currently funded is ultimately not sustainable. The Cullen fund would pay for 3 years of super and we have barely paid into it.
I know this government has wasted a fortune with few results in return but can you actually be specific and point out what wasteful spending we are going to be cutting?
This tax receipt website was released yesterday, it’s gives a good breakdown of where your money is going. Wastage is likely insignificant compared to what core services cost, we could cut $10b in “wasted” spending from the budget and it would barely make a material difference for any of us and would have no barely any impact on the overall spend, not to mention our trade deficit would still be enormous and other core service costs would still be rising.
Myopic nonsense. Stop looking at the wrong " spun" numbers.
1.Govt takes 45% my money AND FOR 45+ YEARS USES IT AND DOESN'T PAY ME A CENT BACK!. times that by everybody in NZ!
2. Invests, Through many ways, it at a better rate of return than inflation for 45+ years
3. Super paid out is less than the return they made
# Explain why the 2001 cullen Super fund is flush if they are paying out more than they get in.
Lol shaft too much lead fumes for you back in the day. The numbers are just the numbers I am not sure what spin is being applied to them. It's literally government expenditure, you can see how it's broken down and where money is going, tell me where the spin is?
I very much doubt your tax wedge was 45% for your entire life. Some of the biggest costs rent and mortgage don't have GST applied so there is a little bit more nuance to it. Also, we have only had GST at 15% for the last 10 years or so, and it was only introduced in 1986.
And once again. tax is not a rebate, the majority of tax is spent on infrastructure and services, they don't just set it all aside so Shaft can have it back when he wants it back. The tax you have paid over your life has paid for roads, healthcare, welfare, etc. All are ongoing costs that required ongoing servicing from tax revenue.
And they stopped paying into the super fund for 9 years, and we didn't have it for a further 30+ years before that, the returns we get from it aren't enough to pay for rising superannuation costs.
Can you explain how this is the case? It is paid from general taxation, not from a pre -paid pot that previous generations built up to serve their needs. I don't believe there is any test of previous tax contributions before super is paid to an individual.
So, unless I'm missing something I'm not sure how you came to this conclusion. If anything, super is among the least fair benefit as there is not even any requirement to show a need for the money. I could be a 65 year old with generational wealth who never worked a day in his life, and still rock up for my super whether I need it or not.
The difference is superannuation is pre paid by the people getting it .
No it is not pre-paid by those receiving it. You are thinking of Social Security in the US.
The Cullen/New Zealand Superannuation Fund was only established in 2001 with the intent to pre-fund super in the future;
Presently super is funded out of taxes paid by the current taxpayers.
It there job to save the people's taxes for their super.
It literally isn't though.
That is indeed how it was originally conceived by Norman Kirk, but people voted to change that to a pay-as-you-go scheme, which gave them lower taxes during their lifetimes at the expense of future taxpayers who then have to foot the bill of rising superannuation costs that haven't been pre-funded through contributions to a super fund. The consequences of which we are now starting to feel.
We do now have the super fund but realistically that doesn't even begin to cover the costs as the returns aren't anywhere large enough to cover the superannuation bill, especially since National stopped funding it for 9 years.
That was the old age pension which was means-tested. Not the current universal superannuation scheme. Norman Kirk's scheme was the one you seem to assume we have which had people pre-funding and paying for their own superannuation. Linked an article below going over the history of super in NZ.
https://www.goodreturns.co.nz/article/976486047/super-history-nz-s-super-system-unique.html
:-). I admire your perseverance - but we can't let history and facts get in the way of a 'myth' still held by a great deal of the recipients who think they "earned the right" back in the day!
Funny how anyone and everyone under 65 understands it's not "pre-funded".
It literally has not been pre-funded though that's the issue.
I don't know how envy comes into it it's just the reality that we have an increasingly large cohort of retirees to workers and due to the funding structure, it will become increasingly difficult to sustain without some kind of change either in how its funded or how it is given out. We can't get rid of it as nobody wants pensioners with zero savings to starve to death, but something will have to change, and it's better to pre-empt that than leave it to fate.
It hasn't been paid with previous taxation though, not until recently with the superfund but funding was only put into that for about 9 years before National stopped contributions, and the superfund as is it would only pay for about 3-4 years of super before it ran out.
What people were doing was paying super for the previous generation of superannuants rather than themselves, which was fine as the demographics ratios were much better, but that is not the case now or into the future if things continue as they are. Australia is an example of a country that saw this coming and put a system in place which won't be impacted anywhere near as severely as ours.
Self-sufficient in the same way a pyramid scheme is self-sufficient.
It works fine as long as demographics keep growing. But that hasn't been the case naturally, our birth rate is 1.61 and the only thing that has been propping the system up has been immigration, but all that is really doing is delaying the problem into the future. The mother of all hospital passes.
It wouldn't be so bad if the tax system was more balanced and we were taxing workers and capital more equally, but as is our tax base is overly reliant on taxing labour over anything else, and as such is impacted far more by demographic shifts than other forms of taxation would be.
The boomer generation retiring is going to see us have an increasingly large amount of superannuants in comparison to workers which really isn't ideal to say the least. Plus people are living longer and requiring more expensive medical care compared to the past. And then to make it even worse the entire world seems to be having demographics shrinking, if that continues the economic model behind superannuation (and everything else for that matter) no longer works.
🫠
There is a real sense of entitlement amongst many retirees on this issue but the reality is there is a line where working people will not support more taxes in order to support them. Nor can we really afford to as we can't continually kick the can down the road on infrastructure investments, defence, and the myriad of other costs required to keep society running.
I've always thought it bizarre how many elderly are against immigration and yet don't realise that it is only through immigration we are able to pay the super or fill the care roles that they expect. Go to any nursing home and >75% of the staff are immigrants doing it for visa opportunities. As you say this only kicks the can down the road (and the staff virtually always abandon the jobs as soon as they get residency/citizenship) but our only other options are basically cuts to support for the elderly or some form of breakthrough in robotics.
The reality is that the idea of 20+ year long retirement is something that only really worked in a specific demographic structure that is now long gone. I suspect the adjustment to this reality is going to be a quite unpleasant political battle.
The only other idea that might work is something like a LVT or inheritance tax so wealthy superannuants are helping to pay for their own super. Relying entirely upon workers incomes to pay for everything is becoming increasingly difficult.
But even then that’s really a stop gap, the demographic crisis kind of roots the whole economic model in the absence of a miraculous new form of energy or advanced robotics.
Not to mention cheap energy becoming scarcer and climate change impacts that are likely to become worse in the future.
Yes, which is exactly why we need to shift the tax burden off of incomes. It's going to cripple the economy if we keep relying upon taxing workers and not getting revenue from a wider range of sources.
I am not arguing to increase tax, instead shift it and reduce income taxes so people get to keep more of what they earn.
Delaying a problem that doesn't exist.
Many a expert has called out super as a fiscal issue. Yet we have a 58 billion superfund surplus.
"I am talking with bloody idjits"
I give up! "Reap what you sow" I'm wealthy beyond my dreams and don't need super when it comes to me in 5 years but unlike you young idiots, I will not deprive an older maori worker, that has a lower life expectancy , of his right to expect his super,
You are all short term greedy " it's about my future" winkers who deserve nothing until you've earned it.
How dare you exonerate the government from thier fiscal responsibility and want to tax the masses more or make the hard workers die before they get it!
May you greedy asshats rot in hell,
,
Another misunderstanding. $58 billion is the total size of the fund, it is absolutely not a surplus. It is a stash of money we contribute to, so that future super needs are less onerous. Here is some light reading which may lead to less embarrassment in the future:
https://nzsuperfund.nz/assets/Uploads/Media-Fact-Sheet-May-2022.pdf
"Its specific legal purpose is to partially pre-fund the cost of national superannuation in order to reduce the burden on future taxpayers. It is not being drawn on to pay for current pension payments – these are funded out of current taxes."
"On current Treasury projections, capital withdrawals from the Fund will be meeting 11.6% of the net cost of Super in 2040, peaking at 20.7% in 2083, and averaging 16.1% for 50 years 2040-2190 (or 76% of the increasing costs of superannuation as a result of the aging population)."
You're getting pretty emotional here and kind of going beyond what anyone has actually been saying.
Nobody is saying we should get rid of super, but we do need to change something as the current setup simply isn't sustainable for much longer.
The superfund is a good start but having it defunded for 9 years really hasn't helped things, and if Act gets in they have said they want to get rid of it entirely. Another way could be means testing it which isn't popular as it does kind of punish people who are financially responsible but as you said, we should not "deprive an older Maori worker, that has a lower life expectancy, of his right to expect his super".
Lots of things can change, at some point, reality will hit and change will be forced upon us if we don't do anything to preempt it.
1. If you have a problem with super ( originally called pension) then ask Richard Seddon, ( PM 1898 liberal leftie) why he set it up
2. Then ask Cullen ( labour )2001 why he separated it off to NZ super fund but never asset tested it and never questioned it's supposed fiscal strain on the economy
# It currently has $58 billion in it and growing. So is no strain on the economy!!
3. The ask labour/ ardern / Robertson why they won't raise the age. Yet national will.
4. Then ask Hipkins why he won't change it.
5. Then ask yourself why you pay such high taxes to support wasteful spending on government advisors/ reports ( on dumb stuff ) while the big picture stuff like health, education and crime crumble around your sorry arses. And then think about how you will survive when your 65.
You guys are just too myopic to understand reality
Calling others myopic is a bit rich.
Most people don't have an issue with super itself, we need to support our elderly after they retire. The issue is how it is funded is ultimately unsustainable and puts a massive burden on current and future taxpayers who likely will not be able to receive anywhere near as generous of a retirement benefit.
I have shown you the actual figures above. I am not just assuming things I am getting the actual spending numbers.
Economists have been pointing out the financial strain for years but the political reality is that super is very popular and getting rid of it isn't politically possible, or even a good idea. Super is great but how we fund it is not. Something in the equation has to change at some point. A lot of what Cullen did was trying to make our tax system more sustainable, especially in regards to super.
The super fund is a good idea but it has been underfunded and hasn't been around long enough to make a difference. The superfund as is would only pay for around 3 years of super and the returns are nowhere near large enough to even begin to cover our enormous and growing superannuation bill.
In terms of tax, we aren't actually that highly taxed compared to other OECD countries. I'll put some sources for that below. Seems about average in comparison.
https://www.oecd.org/tax/revenue-statistics-new-zealand.pdf
Basically, New Zealanders are not particularly heavily taxed, but they are also not particularly lightly taxed either. Just average really.
And it's quite clear why politicians won't change it, it would be incredibly unpopular. Look at Macron in France for example. The only time we will get change in regard to this is when it is forced upon us by circumstances outside of our control. Which isn't ideal its probably better to deal with stuff before it's an even bigger problem but political reality gets in the way.
You need to go back to school.
Assumption is a poor basis for conversation
And obviously the economists are wrong because for as long as they have been " Calling it ( super) out" it has never fiscally strained the economy nor stopped Govts wasting billions on other crap ( like spin teams and comms managers for every dept.)
I agree assumption is a poor basis for conversation, but you are the one here who is making a bunch of baseless claims and assumptions.
You need to look into demographics, super doesn't work if we have more retirees than workers, do you understand that? Super has worked fine as long as demographics kept growing but that isn't guaranteed to be the case in the future. A pre-funded super fund would be ok in this situation but that is not what we have. We have a pay-as-you-go scheme that will fall flat on its face if demographics continue to invert. It works great right up until when it doesn't, and we are only now starting to see the implications of demographics shrinking.
And this isn't solely a New Zealand problem either, all across the world this is starting to become an issue. France, the USA, China, Japan, all of them are facing the same demographic crisis in the coming years, and immigration doesn't actually fix the issue but pushes the can down the road. Australia actually did see the coming storm and has a pretty good super setup that will really help them out in the coming years.
Again, amazed at your perseverance!
And yep, I agree the Aussies have done it better.
And another serious problem we have going forward is that the current level of super assumes one owns ones own home, mortgage free, by the time one retires.
Someone needs to welcome Shaft to the 'real world'.
Superannuation costs nearly $18 billion every year, and growing. You think a pot of $58 billion is sufficient to cover that? It'd be gone within 3-4 years. Previous generations have prepared woefully for covering their own super costs - to not even acknowledge the huge transfer of money from working age tax payers to those collecting super now is an extra kick in the teeth.
Are we talking about the same fund here? The NZ super fund will not pay out a penny towards superannuations until the 2030s. You need to do some reading before trying to comment on this topic as you are misunderstanding basic facts.
https://nzsuperfund.nz/about-the-guardians/nz-super-fund-story/our-stor…
"Withdrawals from the Fund will begin in the 2030s, however, substantial draw-downs will not begin until the 2050s."
It does matter if you end up having more people collecting super than working and paying taxes. Previously we had something like 6-9 workers for every one person on super, it's now trending more towards having 2-3 workers for every one person super.
It's not a left or right thing like you keep trying to make it, it's about what is actually financially possible with the finite resources we have. And workers aren't going to accept having an increasingly large portion of their incomes going towards paying for someone else's retirement, whilst having to fund their own retirement through Kiwisaver.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.