sign up log in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

National commits to ‘Budget Responsibility Rules’ including prioritising a return to surplus, reducing debt below 40% of GDP and keeping taxes low. Labour agrees 'fiscal responsibility is crucial, but this is much ado about nothing'

Public Policy / news
National commits to ‘Budget Responsibility Rules’ including prioritising a return to surplus, reducing debt below 40% of GDP and keeping taxes low. Labour agrees 'fiscal responsibility is crucial, but this is much ado about nothing'
[updated]
Nicola Willis and Christopher Luxon
National finance spokesperson Nicola Willis and National leader Christopher Luxon speak to reporters about its Budget Responsibility Rules. Image source: Mandy Te

National’s finance spokesperson Nicola Willis says her party will not introduce new taxes on working people, if re-elected in November's election, and has ruled out increasing taxes for small businesses and pensioners. 

However, when pressed further by reporters, she did not elaborate further on who may get taxed, saying National will have more to say about its tax bottom lines in the campaign.

“Listen to me very carefully. No new taxes on working people. No tax increases for working people … What New Zealanders can expect is no new taxes on their work and no increases to tax on … their savings, their investments or their capital," Willis told reporters on Sunday morning in Wellington.

Willis’ comments come as she, alongside National leader Christopher Luxon, said that if re-elected, the party will commit to fiscal rules called the 'Budget Responsibility Rules'.

National's 'Budget Responsibility Rules' are:

  • Prioritising a return to surplus in 2028/29, and staying in surplus over time, sufficient to see the debt curve bend down
  • Bending debt down below 40% of GDP, and maintaining debt below that level over time
  • Keeping taxes low by right-sizing government, with core Crown expenditure as a share of the economy declining towards 30% of GDP

'This is much ado about nothing'

Labour and the Greens were critical of National's announcement, with Labour finance spokesperson Barbara Edmonds saying: "We agree that fiscal responsibility is crucial, but this is much ado about nothing."

"Once again, they’ve wasted everyone’s time on a Sunday, re-announcing what’s already in their fiscal strategy."

Green Party Co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick said: “Luxon wants us arguing about fiscal metrics because he doesn’t want to talk about his record: the highest unemployment in 11 years, small businesses closing their doors every week, and young New Zealanders leaving in search of a better life in a different country under a different Government."

'The only way to be ready for the next crisis is to get our books in order now'

In Budget 2026, the OBEGALx, the Operating Balance Before Gains and Losses, excluding the revenue and expenses of the Accident Compensation Corporation, was expected to improve compared to the half-year economic update, returning to surplus in 2028/29, expected at $2.6 billion.

That was due to increased tax revenue of $3.1 billion, a smaller than previously forecast Budget package, and it was partly offset by an increase in benefit payments. 

When it came to debt, Willis told reporters on Sunday; “What we want to achieve is a balance between ensuring that we are keeping debt reducing over time, but not doing that in such a way that would involve either hiking taxes on people or ripping the carpet out from under them when it comes to public service delivery."

 “As a small, commodity-exporting country a long way from anywhere, without a deep pool of domestic savings to fall back on, New Zealand carries more risk than bigger countries when the next earthquake, pandemic or global shock hits," Willis said.

“That is why these rules are so important for any Government. The only way to be ready for the next crisis is to get our books in order now, while conditions allow it," she said.

Asked what the point was of the announcement as these rules had been alluded to in the party’s previous fiscal strategy, Willis said: “These set the parameters for this campaign and I think it is well past time for parties of the opposition to set out the fiscal guardrails they intend to uphold.”

She said other political parties should be "well able to say" whether they would “commit to these three basic things that have informed the fiscal strategies of successive governments and which represent what it is to be a responsible fiscal manager."

Willis said she was not even aware whether Labour believed a surplus target was appropriate, where they thought debt should be or whether or not they believed that core Crown spending needed to be reduced in order to keep taxes low.

Asked if their coalition partners, ACT and NZ First were on board with these rules, Willis said: “We have debates as three parties, but there has been a consistent approach of recognising that keeping the finances in good order, paying down debt are very important goals for us to hold ourselves accountable for reaching."

"So it's my belief that any future budgets that a National-led government would deliver would be consistent with these commitments.”

Willis said a very significant economic shock could necessitate a deviation from those goals in the short term.

“The key is, if New Zealand has shocks like that, we want to be able to face into them confidently, so we have to build up the rainy day buffer now.”

Asked by reporters if it was disingenuous to say the last government hadn’t built up a rainy day fund, give the Covid-19 pandemic and Russia's invasion of Ukraine, Willis said no one was arguing that some spending was necessary to respond to the pandemic. 

“But they took the excuse of the pandemic to put the money spending bazooka on overdrive and we are now as a country still having to clean that up.”

'Three years too late'

ACT Party leader David Seymour said: “Cutting the waste to grow the country is desperately needed, but National’s promise is three years too late. Saving money needs a strategy to achieve it, and a strategy takes courage to implement."

“ACT has killed three new taxes in this term of Government. Without ACT we would be seeing taxes on housing, tourism, and banks that are all ultimately paid by New Zealanders and their businesses. Controlling spending is only half the equation, controlling taxes is the other half," he said.

Labour's finance spokesperson Barbara Edmonds said National had only one way to achieve anything and that was through more cuts.

"You cannot cut your way to growth. Cuts push up costs, put families under pressure and leave everyone worse off. We’re announcing policies that will leave families with more and help with the cost of living."

On Sunday morning, Labour announced it would open up Government contracts to small businesses. At the time, Edmonds said the party will set a target of 15% of the Government's annual contracts to go to small businesses, break up big contracts where it made sense, and remove "unnecessary barriers" that shut small businesses out.

"This is how we grow the economy from the ground up," she said.

"National has had three years to achieve their own rules. They’ve had three years to show fiscal responsibility and put it into law. Instead we’ve had higher unemployment, record KiwiSaver withdrawals and business liquidations."

Edmonds said Labour will announce its fiscal strategy in due course.

Greens co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick said "headline figures are meaningless if people's lives are going backwards".

“Reducing the Government’s debt and expenditure through merciless cuts only increases New Zealanders’ debt and cost of living.”

“Luxon’s cuts so far have resulted in higher prescription fees, higher public transport costs, higher road user charges, higher rates bills and a higher cost of living. These things make the Government’s books look better, but life harder for working people," Swarbrick said.

No new taxes?

Taxpayers' Union executive director Jordan Williams said Willis had put "a massive asterisk next to the 'no new taxes' talking point, suggesting there could be new taxes, just not on ‘working people’".

“You can’t credibly claim to be the party of ‘lower taxes’ while going into an election offering no tax relief, allowing income taxes to rise through fiscal drag, and apparently foreshadowing higher taxes on someone other than ‘workers’," Williams said.

“At minimum, Nicola Willis needs to be transparent about what taxes she's planning to hike."

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.

23 Comments

No increases to fuel taxes make transport more subsidised and less user pays. Doesn't sound very right wing. 

Up
2

The way around that one is switching to universal RUC's. Bringing average per-km changes for petrol vehicles back in line with diesels will be a significant revenue increase. Not a new tax, no headline rate increases.

Up
1

And new RUCs should be adjusted for weight and therefore damage to roads. 

Up
4

They already are. The effect below 3.5T has been studied & is considered insignificant 

Up
2

They are. The Cost Allocation Model for RUC's is pretty sophisticated.

Like KKNZ2025 said, the thing is that any vehicles under 6 tons pretty much do zero damage. There is some, and some difference between a yaris and a ranger, but it's on the order of a cents per 1000km and isn't worth the admin of extra RUC bands.

The bulk of roading costs are not related to surface wear and are shared evenly per vehicle. The pavement wears out in the sun and rain, slips need clearing, bridges need replacing, ditches cleaned, curlvets enlarged, lights maintained ....

Up
0

I was thinking of the 30-50 tonne trucks 

Up
2

They are adjusted for weight, unless I am missing what you're saying. A four axle truck and four axle trailer pays well north of $600 / 1000 km, vs $76/1000 km for a light vehicle.

Up
0

A single pass from a fully loaded multi-axle heavy truck causes roughly the same structural pavement fatigue as 5,000 to 10,000 passes of a standard passenger car.

Currently we are all heavily subsidising them. 

Up
0

Except I envisage mass RUC avoidance, so expect a revenue decrease.

How will that happen you ask?

Well, either RUCs will be checked against odometers at WOF time (avoided by the large number of vehicles currently running around without WOFs plus the owners that tamper with their odometers (even vehicles with CAN Bus type systems can be circumvented with products bought off the net)). 

Or, there is the uninformed musings of Chris Bishop and Simoen Brown that think there is a magic box out there (like eRoad) that will be installed in every vehicle in the NZ fleet by the time that RUCs are supposed to be universal (2027 or now 2028) - and which all vehicle owners will be willing to have (allowing them to be tracked by government or a third party operator).

Up
0

I don't really think so, at least not materially different.

1) There is already leakage from FED, it's not some infallible system. I'd expect an audit on the rebate system to be enlightening.

2) All of this is already possible, you can already avoid paying RUC's. Buying a diesel car instead of a petrol one doesn't add any barrier to someone who is motivated.

3) Perhaps I am underestimating it, but it would not be hard to for a good team to develop a simple, non-tracking, open, e-ruc solution quickly. There is no reason that the government or operator needs to get any location data. The device can track the distance itself and just report that monthly or on whatever billing cycle you want. An eRoad equivalent product is entirely different from doing basic distance telemetry and billing.

Up
0

On 3) - do you think there is a team currently doing this?  I have the impression from watching Chirs Bishop and Simeon Brown that they think there is an off the shelf product ready to go the instant the government says so (and not a product that needs to be started from scratch).  IMHO, there is nothing happening.

Incidentally, an acquaintance of mine who fancies himself as a white hat hacker, showed me some documentation proposing RUCs on petrol cars back when Labour was still in power.  IIRC, it was not a National Party proposal but more a Ministry of Transport paper (buried in a govt website but not subject to any security provisions).  The acquaintance of course was adamant that the objective was tracking citizens more than altering the way that roading levies were collected!

Up
0

The further the government withdraws itself from public spending to meet their target the more one is going to (user) pay for it. Examples: Higher NHI levy; higher FENZ levy; more toll roads; no public investment in national grid means higher electricty bills; No sharing GST with councils means higher rates; and so on and so on. Add all those increments up and you will end up in a Scandinavian style of income tax. 

Up
3

To be fair it's probably better we avoid paying for; roads, bailouts for property owners, flood protection for property owners, electricity infrastructure.... etc, with income taxes.

Up
2

NZ needs more tax for core services especially pension. They must be cutting more govt drones, that they promised last time but didnt do, and plan on raising gst.

Up
1

"Listen to me very carefully. No new taxes on working people. No tax increases for working people"

 

Does this mean that Nicola Willis is commiting to income tax brackets being adjusted in line with income increases over the next parliamentary term if re elected?  

Up
2

It is more likely to signal no change to income tax, but an increase in GST to 20%

Up
4

Yawn, there is around 5% chance of govt hitting budget surplus in 2028/29. It's possible if oil prices fall a lot, interest rates come down, the housing ponzi kicks off, and there is a worldwide shortage of milk powder, beef and crap timber (that doesn't affect us).

In other words, Govt operating balance will blow in the wind of the global economy and the credit cycle, like it always does. 

Up
8

Tell that to a prime Minister and finance minister who believe they can save their way to prosperity. 

Up
3

The way is phrased keeps us on tenderhooks, are they going to put taxes up on the unemployed, the retired, or perhaps introduce inheritance tax?

Up
2

How a about a pre-schooler tax? 

Up
0

On current polling, National likely stay in government, but with no list seats - who will be the finance minister given Nicola looks unlikely to make it back into parliament?

Up
1

Does it matter?  Given her (and Grant Roberson's) lack of training in the area just any random politician will do.

Up
3