Treasury’s Austerity Advice Should Be Ignored

The National-led government, under Christopher Luxon’s watch, is steering New Zealand toward a grim horizon, guided by Treasury’s cold, austerity-obsessed hand. It’s a betrayal of ordinary Kiwis, workers, families, small businesses, who are being financially crushed to pad the pockets of the ultra-wealthy.

The 2025 NBR Rich List exposes the stark divide: 119 individuals, including 18 billionaires, hoard $102.1 billion, over 40% of our GDP, while Treasury’s advice slashes vital infrastructure, health, education, climate initiatives, and public services.

This isn’t fiscal discipline; it’s a rigged game funnelling taxpayer money to the elite, leaving Aotearoa’s future in tatters. Worse, these brutal cuts, totalling roughly $6.1 billion, coexist with rising government debt, raising the question: how can Luxon’s government gut services while borrowing even more?


On Monday, the NZ Herald reported:

 

Simeon Brown challenges Treasury over plans to cut health spending

Health Minister Simeon Brown has attacked Treasury officials over their analysis of his Health Delivery Plan, which said Health New Zealand Te Whatu Ora will need to double its spending-cut target in the coming year and limit health workforce pay increases to an “unprecedented” degree.

Health cuts, another Treasury-driven disaster, spell misery for the vulnerable. Treasury’s insistence that Health NZ scrape by within its 2025/26 baselines, with Budget 2025’s $1.3 billion operating allowance the leanest in a decade, will mean longer waitlists, burnt-out staff, and worse outcomes, hitting Māori, Pacific, and rural communities hardest.

The NZ Herald reports $5.3 billion in total savings, including $2.7 billion from pay equity cuts, reflecting Treasury’s fixation on a 2028/29 surplus. These cuts aren’t savings—they’re a death sentence for equity, forcing the poorest to suffer without access to private care while future costs pile up from untreated illnesses and emergency care. It’s cruel and economically shortsighted, betraying those who need the system most.

The cancellation of the iRex project, meant to replace ageing Interislander ferries with modern, rail-enabled vessels, a short-sighted decision driven by Treasury’s idiotic advice. Citing cost blowouts to $3 billion, Treasury pushed for its scrapping, leaving KiwiRail with a $500 million write-off and 60 jobs lost. Smaller likely non-rail enabled ferries will clog supply chains, spike freight costs, and hammer exporters, farmers, and consumers with higher prices. Treasury’s own documents admit this avoids immediate costs but risks billions in future fixes for the Cook Strait link, strangling regions like the South Island. It’s a gut-punch to the working Kiwis who keep our economy humming, sacrificing long-term stability for budget optics.

 

In May, RNZ reported:

Kiwirail reveals $500 million spent on axed Cook Strait ferry project

Labour Party transport spokesperson Tangi Utikere told RNZ additional costs associated with the cancellation of iReX would cost $1.16b when including the cancellation of the deal and ongoing maintenance of the current ferries.

Education has also been bled dry under the secretive Treasury’s fiscal knife. Budget 2025 saw $614 million reprioritised from “underperforming” initiatives, with total education spending set to drop from $19.85 billion in 2025/26 to $19 billion by 2026/27. The Kāhui Ako scheme, costing $118 million annually, faces disestablishment, a move Treasury championed to trim fat. These cuts, totalling $732 million, threaten teacher support, student outcomes, and equity in schools, particularly for disadvantaged communities. Starving education to meet fiscal targets undermines the next generation’s potential, leaving schools scrambling and kids short-changed.

Climate and conservation initiatives haven’t escaped the chopping block. Treasury’s push for baseline savings led to $3 million annually cut from the Department of Conservation, gutting funds like the Mātauranga Kura Taiao and Nature Heritage Fund. Budget 2024’s $35.5 million cut over four years from climate schemes, like the Climate Change Development Fund, persists into 2025, equating to roughly $8.9 million annually. Total climate and conservation cuts for 2025 hit $11.9 million, weakening our response to the climate crisis and biodiversity loss. Treasury’s penny-pinching here risks our environment and global commitments, leaving future generations to clean up the mess.

Public sector budgets have also been gutted, with Treasury’s 2024 advice to slash $1.5 billion carrying into Budget 2025’s broader $5.3 billion savings push. Beyond health’s $2.7 billion, I estimate $2 billion in additional public sector cuts, covering areas like social services and infrastructure, are tied to Treasury’s fiscal restraint. The Auckland Light Rail project, axed with $131 million cut (including $98 million in capital funding), exemplifies this approach. These cuts, totalling roughly $6.1 billion across sectors, reflect Treasury’s obsession with short-term savings, even as they erode the public services Kiwis rely on.

However, while Treasury’s advice drives these $6.1 billion in cuts, government debt is climbing. Treasury’s May 2025 Economic and Fiscal Update projects net core Crown debt at $180.8 billion (40.7% of GDP) for 2024/25, rising to $196.9 billion by 2028/29. Operating balance deficits, excluding gains and losses (OBEGAL), hit $8.7 billion in 2024/25, with surpluses not expected until 2028/29. 

Always worth posting this for me rnthe history too. Ruth and her fellow ghouls reduced the debt side of the Govt balance sheet by underinvesting in the country and liberating private credit so that we could furiously bid up the price of land and houses. pic.twitter.com/bEUtfpR0OO

— Musical Chairs (@MusicalChairs14) June 15, 2025

How can Luxon’s government justify slashing services while borrowing more? The answer lies in National’s $3.7 billion annual tax cuts that mainly benefited the wealthy and $2.9 billion landlord interest deductibility restoration, costing $13.3 billion over the forecast period. These handouts, backed by Treasury’s models, drain revenue, forcing borrowing to plug the gap. The Council of Trade Unions notes “mega-landlords” could pocket $1.3 million each, while workers face suppressed wages and higher costs. It’s a grotesque transfer of wealth to the elite, funded by debt that future Kiwis will repay.

The real scandal is the wealth hoarding. The top 10% hold over 51% of the nation’s wealth. Graeme Hart ($12.1 billion) and the Mowbray family ($20 billion) exemplify a system rigged for the few. This inequality tanks consumer spending, starves businesses, and fuels resentment, risking social unrest. Treasury’s failure to address the long-term costs, delayed infrastructure, sicker populations, underfunded schools, and a degraded environment, is negligence. Their forecasts admit tax cuts restrain revenue, delaying the surplus and strangling services. A fairer Aotearoa demands investment in public goods, not even more handouts to the Rich. Luxon must reject this elitist scam. The government must ignore Treasury's advice for even more austerity.

Chris Luxon's Numerous Comms Disasters

Christopher Luxon’s neoliberal government is lurching from one communications disaster to another, making a complete mockery of their promise to govern with transparency and competence. The PM’s incessant bleating about “turbocharging the economy” is laughably detached from reality, while Ministers such as Brooke van Velden and Tama Potaka trip over their own rhetoric, trying to ignore the damage done by their regressive policies. From Auckland to Invercargill, this government’s ineptitude is on full display.

Let’s start with Luxon, the self-anointed economic guru, banging on about his coalition’s supposed turbocharge of New Zealand’s economy. Whether he’s in Wellington or Waikato, the man’s spruiking growth like a used-car salesman flogging a lemon. Yet Business NZ’s latest stats, covering regions from Canterbury to Northland, paint a grim picture: business confidence is in the gutter, activity’s stagnating, and employers are again bracing for tougher times.

Last Friday, Business NZ reported: 

 

Back in the red

New Zealand’s manufacturing sector fell back into contraction during May, according to the latest BNZ – BusinessNZ Performance of Manufacturing Index (PMI).

The seasonally adjusted PMI for May was 47.5 (a PMI reading above 50.0 indicates that manufacturing is generally expanding; below 50.0 that it is declining). This was down from 53.3 in April and a return to contraction after four consecutive months of expansion. The survey was also well below the average of 52.5 since it began.

On Monday, Business NZ also reported:

Service with a slump

New Zealand’s services sector continued to show further decline in activity during May, according to the BNZ – BusinessNZ Performance of Services Index (PSI).

The PSI for May was 44.0 (A PSI reading above 50.0 indicates that the service sector is generally expanding; below 50.0 that it is declining). This was down 4.1 points from April and well below the average of 53.0 over the history of the survey.

…

BNZ’s Senior Economist Doug Steel said that “the fall in the PSI follows the sharp decline in the Performance of Manufacturing Index (PMI) from 53.3 to 47.5. Together, they are consistent with the economy returning to recession. We’re a long way from forecasting this, but the data are a reminder of just how vulnerable the economy currently is”.

Even babbling fools like right-wing propagandists Duncan Garner, Ryan Bridge and Mike Hosking have noticed and are starting to grumble. Luxon’s rhetoric isn’t anywhere near the reality of what people are seeing on the ground.

Luxon’s either willfully blind or genuinely out of his depth, and neither bodes well for a bloke who sold himself as New Zealand's corporate saviour. This isn’t just spin; it’s a delusion that insults every Kiwi who is currently struggling to pay the bills.

literally four days ago, he was saying the economy is booming https://t.co/xvPZIrciD2 pic.twitter.com/ZVPwSdJRuH

— Clint Smith (@ClintVSmith) June 16, 2025

Then there’s the sick leave debacle. Luxon, shooting himself in the foot, claimed that the government was looking at halving sick leave from 10 days to five, an optically terrible move given they'd just gutted Pay Equity Claims, which will disproportionately effect women's pay packets.

After some fallout, enter Workplace Relations Minister Brooke van Velden, stage left, frantically insisting there’s “no intention” to do any such thing. So, Brooke, is your boss making it up, or are you papering over a policy that’d impact low income women workers again?

Brooke van Velden's attempt to pivot to “pro-rated sick leave” for part-timers only muddies the waters further, leaving businesses equally baffled at the government’s mixed messages. This isn’t leadership; it’s a comedy sketch, and the punchline’s on us.

On Monday, 1 News reported:

No plan to halve sick leave, minister says after Luxon's comments

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon was asked during an interview with Morning Report whether his Government was looking at reducing the number of leave days from 10 to five.

"That's something that I know [Workplace Relations and Safety Minister] Brooke van Velden is looking into. She looks at a whole raft of workplace relations," Luxon replied.

"It's a bit premature for now."

But van Velden told RNZ it was not something she was looking into.

Over in housing, it's another comms mess, as Associate Housing Minister Tama Potaka peddles denialism so brazen it’d make an oil executive blush. Homelessness is surging, RNZ reporting a 58% spike in Auckland, with similar trends in Rotorua and Nelson. But the deluded Potaka claims his government’s policies aren’t to blame. Really? Slashing emergency housing access and tightening eligibility criteria for state houses have left frontline providers in Christchurch and Gisborne struggling to cope, with even domestic violence survivors being turned away from safe and secure emergency housing.

The increased number of homeless people in New Zealand isn’t easy for the public to ignore, and the government is desperate to blame anything other than their socially destructive policies.

Taking over from Chris Bishop, whose credibility is currently in the gutter after his drunken and racist outburst at the AMA, Tama Potaka is dodging responsibility by pointing to “market pressures” and lying about “rental shortages” as if National’s austerity obsession hasn’t caused the housing crises to considerably worsen. Potaka’s refusal to own this crisis is a gut-punch to the vulnerable, and will not be easily ignored by voters come election time.

 

Yesterday, RNZ reported:

Homelessness increase not necessarily due to government policy changes - minister

The minister in charge of emergency housing has been unable to say whether homelessness has increased under this government, saying frontline providers have made "a variety" of comments to him.

Providers and advocates have told RNZ they have been seeing a spike in homelessness, with some blaming changes the government has made to emergency housing access.

But Tama Potaka told a committee of MPs there were "a lot of other contributing factors," such as the state of the economy and the supply of rentals.

How is a Minister of the Crown even able to be completely ignorant of the fact that the number of rental listings is up 25% nationwide, largely due to overpricing and everybody moving to Australia?

The government has dismissed concerns that stricter emergency housing criteria has led to an increase in homelessness.

However, Auckland Council's Community Committee recorded a 53 percent rise in people sleeping rough, from 426 people last September to 653 people in January, while data from Wellington's Downtown Community Ministry showed an increase in the number of people rough sleeping from October to December 2024, by about a third in comparison to the year before.

…

As part of the gateway changes, MSD staff have been assessing whether an applicant has "unreasonably contributed" to their situation, or whether they had taken "reasonable efforts" to find other options.

Some advocates have told RNZ it has led to survivors of sexual or domestic violence being turned away from emergency housing because their decision to leave their situation was seen as "contributing" to their homelessness.

National’s emergency and state housing charade is a disgrace! Potaka crowing about new builds in Rotorua, Hamilton, and Porirua, conveniently forgetting these were funded by Labour’s budget, isn't just stupid, it's so opaque it's practically glass.

Potaka’s press releases might dupe the odd brainless punter, but anyone with a pulse knows this is Labour’s legacy, not National’s largesse, especially as homelessness climbs under their watch.

On Sunday, 1 News reported:

Nearly 200 new homes for Rotorua in affordable housing push

Nearly 200 new affordable homes will be developed in Rotorua by mid-2027 under a community-led housing initiative backed by the Government, Associate Housing Minister Tama Potaka announced.

Of the 189 homes, up to 150 would be social housing to be delivered by June 2027 by the Rotorua Lakes Council, the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, and community housing providers.

…

The 150 social homes would be funded through $140 million allocated in Budget 2024 for 1500 new homes across the country.

Please correct your propaganda, @1NewsNZ. It’s 1,500 new social housing PLACES (paid for by @nzlabour) nationwide over four years, not 1500 new state houses. National has cancelled 1019, demolished 700 and sold 800. Another 672 are under review. #nzpolhttps://t.co/PKZXJQzpy5

— Jackal (@Jackalblog) June 15, 2025

This government’s communications strategy, if you can call a trainwreck a strategy, is a complete disaster. Luxon, van Velden, and Potaka aren’t just failing to communicate; they’re failing to govern by any stretch of the imagination. Contradictions, lies, and denial are eroding trust. Kiwis, from Kaitaia to Bluff, deserve better than this shambolic circus. Chris Luxon’s government needs to shape up, or ship out.

Israel is Lying About Iran's Nuclear Weapons Capability

Israel’s unprovoked airstrikes on Iran, justified by baseless claims of Iran’s nuclear ambitions, expose a glaring double standard in global politics. While Israel, an undeclared nuclear power, operates beyond international scrutiny, Iran faces relentless pressure, even as a signatory to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), despite no evidence of weapons-grade plutonium enrichment.

This hypocrisy, compounded by Western silence and Donald Trump’s deceptive “peace” rhetoric, sets a dangerous precedent. The following post unravel the facts behind Iran’s nuclear program, Israel’s unchecked arsenal, and the West’s complicity in a skewed system that undermines global peace.


Yesterday, RNZ reported:

Benjamin Netanyahu says Israeli attacked Iran to prevent 'nuclear holocaust'

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told Fox News that he launched airstrikes against Iran to prevent "a nuclear holocaust," claiming his government had intelligence that Iran was months away from developing an initial nuclear weapon.

"We had to act," Netanyahu told Fox's Bret Baier on Sunday (local time). "It was the 12th hour, and we did act. To save ourselves but also … to protect the world from this incendiary regime."

"The intel we got and we shared with the United States was absolutely clear: That they were working in a secret plan to weaponize the uranium, they were marching very quickly, they would achieve a test device and possibly an initial device within months, and certainly less than a year," he said.

Israel’s claims that Iran was racing toward a nuke are pure fiction. The IAEA’s May 2025 report confirms Iran’s uranium enrichment was still only at 60% purity, a far cry from the 90% needed for weapons-grade material. The IAEA’s real-time sensors and rigorous sampling would catch any leap to 90%, a process requiring distinct, detectable technology. There’s zero evidence showing Iran’s crossed that line.

Meanwhile, Israel, sitting on an estimated 400 nuclear warheads (thanks to the Federation of American Scientists), operates with impunity, its Dimona reactor a black box beyond IAEA reach. Why? Because Israel’s snubbed the NPT, dodging the scrutiny Iran endures as a signatory. It’s a scandalous double standard that must end for there to be any hope of peace in the Middle East.

Iran gets hammered for every gram of uranium they have. The June 2025 IAEA censure, orchestrated by the U.S., U.K., France, and Germany, roasted Iran for “non-cooperation” over historical uranium traces and limited access. Fair call, Iran’s not playing straight, but this is no smoking gun showing Iran is working on nuclear weapons.

Compare that to Israel, whose nuclear arsenal faces no inspections, no questions, no censure. The West’s silence on this is deafening, especially after Israel’s unprovoked October 2024 airstrikes on Iran’s Taleghan 2 site, a supposed “nuclear threat” with no IAEA corroboration. Where’s the outrage? The U.S. and Europe muttered weak platitudes about “restraint,” letting Israel’s aggression slide while putting even more pressure on Iran. It’s cowardice dressed up as diplomacy.

Yesterday, RNZ also reported:

NZ 'surprised but not totally surprised' by Israeli attack on Iran, Winston Peters says

"We want peace and we want balance and calm, and the fact to be acknowledged that the problems in the Middle East don't come from one bad actor alone.

"We don't want New Zealanders in harm's way, we don't want a nuclear Iran, we don't want civilians starving or dying in military conflict and we don't want Hamas holding hostages and terrorising Palestinians, and we don't want Israel occupying Palestinian lands."

He said the current state of global affairs was probably the worst he remembered in his lifetime since the Cuban Missile Crisis.

You can only hope Winston Peters is including Donald Trump in his list of "bad actors". Trump might preach “peace” like a dodgy televangelist, but his “maximum pressure” on Iran, rebooted after the 2024 election, fuels conflict. He trashed the JCPOA in 2018, and then killed an Iranian major general, Qasem Soleimani, on 3 January 2020, by an American drone strike.

Trump then cheered Israel’s 2024 strikes while peddling his peacemaker fantasy. And now he's got his "weapons of mass destruction" moment. It’s a lie so blatant it’d make Pinocchio blush. Trump’s war-hungry posturing, pandering to MAGA and Israel’s hawks, risks dragging the Middle East and Europe into a firestorm, all while the West shrugs.

This is Donald Trump response to the Israel attack on Iran

Admitting in clear terms that Israel attacked with the full participation of America

So all those idiots who have thus far spent hours saying America was not involved need to admit they were wrong

And then STFU pic.twitter.com/CROYBFwbSB

— Stop The Bollocks with Mirabel (@MirabelTweets1) June 13, 2025

Like Donald Trump, Benjamin Netanyahu's credibility is in the gutter. Israel's Gaza campaign, with over 45,000 Palestinian deaths since October 2023, is a stain on humanity, with the International Court of Justice correctly ruling it a genocide. Yet Netanyahu, propped up by Trump’s deceit and Western apathy, dares to paint Iran as the villain? It’s obscene.

The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons is largely a farce when non-signatories like Israel can proliferate nuclear weapons without any restraint. The West’s limp response to Israel’s unprovoked attacks on Palestine and Iran and nuclear secrecy is complicity in a conflict that could escalate into WW3.

90% of NZ Lawyers Linked to Panama Papers Still Practicing

Back in 2016, the Panama Papers ripped the veil off New Zealand’s squeaky-clean image, exposing our foreign trust regime as a playground for tax dodgers and money launderers. The leak of 11.5 million documents from Mossack Fonseca, a Panamanian law firm, revealed how Kiwi lawyers facilitated secretive trusts for the global elite, some linked to fraud, corruption, and tax evasion.

Fast forward to 2025, and an estimated 45 of the 50 NZ lawyers implicated in the Panama Papers are still practicing, thumbing their noses at accountability. It’s a bloody disgrace, and these legal enablers should be struck off without further delay.

The Panama Papers showed NZ’s foreign trusts, numbering at the time around 11,500 before the leaks, were a magnet for shady characters. From Maltese ministers to Malaysian 1MDB crooks, trusts like the Rotorua Trust and Abbotsford Trust hid assets from tax authorities and accountability.

Lawyers from firms like Cone Marshall, Anchor Trustees, Asiaciti Trust, Bentleys New Zealand, and Staples Rodway were knee-deep in this muck. Named individuals such as Roger Thompson, Karen Marshall, John W. Hart, Michael Reynolds, Nicholas Shepherd, and Geoffrey Cone, played starring roles, setting up trusts or advising Mossack Fonseca on NZ’s lax rules.

Roger Thompson

In fact Named individuals like Roger Thompson, Karen Marshall, John W. Hart, Michael Reynolds, and Nicholas Shepherd, and those implicated like John Key's lawyer Geoffrey Cone, played starring roles, setting up trusts or advising Mossack Fonseca on NZ’s lax rules.

Thompson, Bentleys’ bigwig, appeared in over 4,500 documents, while Marshall’s Cone Marshall managed trusts for dodgy players like Brazilian politician Eduardo Cunha. Hart vouched for Reynolds and Shepherd, who ran Anchor Trustees’ dealings with Mossack Fonseca. These weren’t bit players; they were architects of the widespread laundering of dirty money.

Karen Marshall

The Shewan Inquiry in 2016 admitted some trusts likely enabled tax abuse, though it found no “direct evidence” of illicit funds. They obviously didn’t dig very deeply. The inquiry’s soft touch ignored cases like the 1MDB scandal, where NZ trusts held assets from a billion-dollar fraud, or the Maltese trusts shielding ministers’ wealth.

The problem; NZ’s pre-2017 rules let them hide "settlors and beneficiaries" cash, no questions asked. Staples Rodway even bragged to Mossack Fonseca about NZ’s loose “beneficial owner” definitions, making trust setups a breeze for tax evaders.

 

In 2016, RNZ reported:

Key responds to Panama Papers source

The anonymous leaker of the Panama Papers is confused about the New Zealand Prime Minister's responsibilities, John Key says.

Mr Key has responded to a claim by the leaker of the Panama Papers that he had been "curiously quiet" about New Zealand's role in enabling the "financial fraud Mecca" of the Cook Islands.

Watch John Key respond to claims made about him by the leaker of the Panama Papers.

The source of the leak, "John Doe", has made an 1800-word statement in which he was critical of official reactions to the leak, calling on Britain, the United States and the European Community to take "swift action" - though their leaders are not named.

Speaking in Auckland this afternoon, Mr Key said he had no responsibilities for tax jurisdiction in the Cook Islands.

"I have as much responsibility for tax in the Cook Islands as I do for Russia," said Mr Key.

Mr Key said New Zealand did try to support best tax practice by the Cook Islands government, and had sent officials to help, but the government there ultimately made its own decisions.

Mr Key said the leaker may be confused about the extent of New Zealand involvement because the Cook Islands use New Zealand dollars. But he said in the international media, New Zealand's involvement in the Panama Papers was barely a footnote.

John W. Hart

Post-Panama, John Key attempted and failed to downplay New Zealand’s roll in the extensive tax evasion outlined in the Panama Papers. It took a change of government before anything was done, with Labour mandating trust registration in 2017 and extending AML/CFT rules to lawyers in 2018.

Foreign trusts plummeted by 75–80% to under 3,000, proving many were extremely dodgy. Yet, no lawyers faced the chop.

The NZ Law Society (NZLS) and Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal (LCDT) sat on their hands, hoping the scandal would blow over and letting Thompson, Marshall, Hart, and others escape any fallout.

Ken Whitney

Their actions were supposedly “legal” under New Zealand’s old rules. But that’s a complete cop-out. The UN Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime prohibits the type of money laundering outlined in the Panama Papers. These lawyers clearly profited from a system slammed globally as a tax haven, which hid ill-gotten gains and undermined NZ’s integrity.

Today, an estimated 45 of these 50 lawyers are still practicing without any proper oversight. Firms like Cone Marshall and Staples Rodway hum along, while Thompson’s Bentleys remains Mossack Fonseca’s NZ office. No suspensions, no strike-offs, no accountability.

Geoffrey Cone

The NZLS’s continued silence is deafening, and the public’s left largely in the dark wondering why legal ethics seem optional for lawyers? These dishonest people enabled global fraudsters, from Cunha to 1MDB looters, and their continued practice mocks our political and justice systems.

It’s time to clean house. The NZLS must properly investigate Panama Papers-linked lawyers, starting with Thompson, Marshall, Hart, Reynolds, and Shepherd, whose ties to Mossack Fonseca are undeniable.

In my opinion, Parliament should further tighten the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act to bar enablers of financial crime. NZ’s reputation took a hit; but we shouldn’t let 45 lawyers waltz free after they have spit in the face of good practice and undermined the integrity of our great country.

Ruth Richardson Is Wrong on NZ Super

As we all know, New Zealand Superannuation (NZ Super) faces a looming fiscal challenge, with costs projected to soar from $19 billion in 2025 (5% of GDP) to $45.3 billion by 2037 (~7% GDP) and 8% by 2060, driven by an ageing population (20% over 65 by 2036). As debates intensify over its affordability, former Finance Minister Ruth Richardson’s opposition to means-testing, voiced on Q+A today, has reignited scrutiny.

Her stance of favouring a higher eligibility age over means-testing, would disproportionately harm Māori and low-income labourers. This post explores how means-testing could cover NZ Super’s minimum costs, drawing on OECD examples and addressing structural inequalities, while questioning Richardson’s ignorant and evidence-free position.

I spoke to Ruth Richardson about NZ’s fiscal position, her role with the Taxpayers’ Union, and the impact of the ‘91 Budget. https://t.co/gEh6i9LgU9

— Jack Tame (@jacktame) June 15, 2025

The Case for Means-Testing

NZ Super’s universal model, paying ~900,000 pensioners (e.g., $1,076.84 fortnightly for singles in 2025), is a pay-as-you-go system with no dedicated fund, thanks to National, unlike Australia’s Future Fund or Denmark’s reserves. By 2037, costs will hit $45.3 billion for ~1.2 million pensioners, straining taxpayers’ ability to meet costs, particularly as consecutive government’s increase debt levels. Moderate levels of means-testing, used by 34 of 38 OECD countries, could save 11–15% ($5–$7 billion in 2037), maintaining costs at ~6% GDP. 

Australia’s Age Pension, for instance, means-tests 2.7 million pensioners, and costs only 2.5% of GDP, while Canada’s Guaranteed Income Supplement targets low-income seniors, keeping costs at 2.7% GDP. These systems prove means-testing is scalable, and would work by leveraging tax data like New Zealand’s Inland Revenue (IRD) does for Working for Families (300,000 families).

Estimating Income and Asset Thresholds

To cover NZ Super’s minimum costs, means-testing could exclude the wealthiest 10–15% of pensioners (120,000–180,000 by 2037) from receiving super, who hold ~70% of household wealth. Based on New Zealand’s wealth distribution, where the top 10–15% of households earn above ~$70,000/year and hold assets (excluding homes) above ~$750,000, thresholds could be fairly set as follows:

Income Threshold: ~$50,000/year for singles ($962/fortnight) and ~$70,000/year for couples ($1,346/fortnight), above which NZ Super is reduced (e.g., 50 cents per dollar, as in Australia). This targets pensioners with significant investment or private pension income, phasing out payments for the top 10–15%.

Asset Threshold: $400,000 for single homeowners, ~$600,000 for couple homeowners; ~$600,000 for single non-homeowners, ~$900,000 for couple non-homeowners (excluding primary residences, as in Australia). This captures high-wealth pensioners with substantial savings or trusts.

These thresholds align with Australia’s ($180/fortnight income, $301,750 assets for singles) but are higher to reflect NZ’s higher cost-of-living. Inland Revenue could administer this, as with Childcare Subsidy, though trusts and asset-hiding require transparency reforms. Administrative costs ($100 million/year) are minimal compared to savings.

Equity and Māori Disparities

Means-testing addresses structural inequalities, a key concern raised in debates over Richardson’s policies. Her 1991 budget doubled extreme poverty (4% to 8%), hitting Māori hardest due to lower incomes (78.9% of median), lower homeownership (48% vs. 58% non-Māori), and lower incomes.

Today’s universal NZ Super favours wealthier non-Māori with longer lifespans, who receive payments for more years. Means-testing at these thresholds targets high-income/asset pensioners, ensuring low-income Māori (40% of over-65s rely heavily on NZ Super) retain full benefits. Raising the eligibility age, as Richardson supports, would harm Māori, particularly labourers in physically demanding jobs (18% of Māori vs. 11% non-Māori), who face health barriers to working past the age of 65.

OECD Lessons and Feasibility

Among 20 relevant OECD countries, 18 means-test pensions, with Denmark, Netherlands, Australia, and Sweden leading in fiscal sustainability due to funded systems and low costs (2.5–7% GDP). New Zealand and Greece, the only non-means-tested systems, rank weakest, with NZ Super’s $45.3 billion by 2037 threatening future budgets. Australia’s model of means-testing 2.7 million pensioners shows NZ’s IRD could easily handle ~900,000 pensioners, despite complexity concerns ($100 million admin costs). Canada’s hybrid (universal OAS with means-tested GIS) offers a balanced approach NZ could easily adopt.

Critiquing Richardson’s Stance

Richardson’s opposition to means-testing, favouring a higher eligibility age, ignores equity and fiscal realities. Her 1991 policies exacerbated Māori poverty, and her 2025 stance, advocating for even more neoliberal policies, perpetuates inequities by preserving a universal system that benefits only wealthier non-Māori New Zealanders.

Of course the deluded Ruth Richardson’s ideology prioritises simplicity over fairness. However there really is no good argument against means-testing superannuation, as proven by OECD peers and NZ’s parental means-testing programs, showing that such changes are feasible and could save billions while supporting vulnerable groups of people working in physically demanding jobs.

Conclusion

Means-testing NZ Super at ~$50,000–$70,000 income and $400,000–$900,000 assets could save $5–$7 billion by 2037, keeping costs at ~6% GDP. This aligns with OECD best practices, leverages IRD systems, and addresses Māori inequities, countering Richardson’s racist stance. As NZ’s population ages, means-testing offers a sustainable, equitable path forward and is the only real option to ensure super continues to be affordable for New Zealand.

Chantelle Baker Gets a $100,000 Reality Check

It’s a rare day when the New Zealand courts deliver a sharp reminder to the right-wing that actions have consequences, even for those who’ve built a career on peddling disinformation. 

Chantelle Baker, the self-styled “citizen journalist” and darling of New Zealand’s anti-vax, anti-government fringe, has been ordered to pay a whopping $100,000 bond ahead of her defamation proceedings against Stuff, likely because the Judge anticipates that she will lose the case.

This isn’t just a legal slap on the wrist, it’s a moment to reflect on the toxic ecosystem of misinformation Baker has cultivated, and what it means for accountability in New Zealand's fractured political landscape.

Unfortunately for the deluded grifter, there's a Reddit post doing exactly that. But it's not as embarrassing for her as what's being published on mainstream media websites at the moment.

Yesterday, Stuff reported:

Chantelle Baker ordered to pay $100k bond ahead of defamation case against Stuff

An independent journalist who claims she was defamed by Stuff’s Fire and Fury documentary has been ordered to pay a $100,000 bond to cover potential court costs before her case can proceed. The High Court decision on October 29 followed an application by Stuff’s parent company, Trans-Tasman Resources, which argued the bond was necessary due to the financial risks posed by the case.

Chantelle Baker, who describes herself as an independent journalist, filed the defamation lawsuit against Stuff, claiming the 2022 documentary falsely portrayed her as a far-right extremist. The documentary explored the rise of disinformation in New Zealand during the Covid-19 pandemic and the 2022 Parliament protest. Baker alleges the documentary’s portrayal caused significant harm to her reputation.

Justice Palmer, in his ruling, said Baker’s claim was not utterly hopeless but faced significant hurdles. He noted that proving defamation would require demonstrating that the statements in Fire and Fury were false and had caused serious reputational damage. The judge considered the complexity of the case and the potential for high legal costs in ordering the bond, which must be paid within 10 working days.

 

Let’s not mince words: Baker’s rise to prominence during the 2022 Wellington protests wasn’t about truth or journalism. It was about capitalising on fear, distrust, and a global pandemic to amass a large number of social media followers, that she can grift from.

Her live streams, filled with baseless claims about COVID-19 vaccines, police conspiracies, and even claims that the fires at Parliament were started by “agent provocateurs,” weren’t just reckless disinformation, they were intentionally dangerous.

The Disinformation Project rightly labelled her a “super spreader” of false narratives, with her posts often outpacing mainstream media in engagement during those chaotic weeks. This wasn’t reporting; it was performance art for the paranoid, designed to inflame and divide.

The Platforms Sean Plunket with Chantelle Baker this morning discussing the details of her recent out of court settlement with the NZ Herald along with her upcoming case against Stuff & second respondent The Disinformation Project’s Kate Hannah in which she alleges defamation… pic.twitter.com/MlGStDW69n

— Kelvin Morgan 🇳🇿 (@kelvin_morganNZ) September 26, 2024

 

Now, Baker’s defamation suit against Stuff, tied to their excellent documentary Fire and Fury, has hit a wall. The $100,000 bond, a court-ordered security to ensure she can cover costs if she loses, speaks volumes.

Defamation cases are costly, and courts don’t impose such bonds lightly. It’s a signal that Baker’s claims may be as flimsy as her “journalistic” credentials. Her previous win against the NZ Herald, where she secured an undisclosed settlement and an apology, seems to have emboldened her. But that case, centred on Kate Hannah’s comments about Baker’s role in the “NZ Disinformation Dozen,” was more about legal technicalities than vindicating for her incendiary narrative. The Herald’s retraction was a pragmatic move, not an admission of Baker’s innocence.

What’s galling is how Baker has monetised her disinformation crusade. From her Operation People fundraiser for Hawke’s Bay flood relief, where only a fraction of the $13,565 raised went to actually helping people in need, to her ongoing crowdfunding for legal battles, she’s mastered the art of the grift.

These aren’t the actions of a truth-seeker but of someone who’s turned distrust in institutions into a personal ATM. Her supporters, egged on by cries of “media bias” and “censorship,” keep the cash flowing, blind to the fact that their hero’s “alternative media” is less about accountability and more about self-enrichment.

The $100,000 bond order exposes the fragility of Chantelle Baker’s vexatious litigation, casting doubt on her self-styled image as a “citizen journalist.” This case raises questions about who’s really behind this politically driven circus? Could it be her daddy, Leighton Baker, the former New Conservative Party leader also known for his anti-mandate activism during the 2022 Wellington protests? Is Chantelle a principled crusader or a front for deeper-pocketed interests, perhaps tied to her father’s right-wing, conspiracist agenda? Either way, the courts aren’t buying her victim act, and that’s a win for those who value evidence over faux outrage.

This case matters because disinformation isn’t just words, it’s a weapon that was used against New Zealand to try and illegally oust the duly elected government. Baker’s narratives have eroded trust in public health, media, and democracy itself. As Aotearoa grapples with declining institutional confidence, her grift thrives on that chaos. The $100,000 bond isn’t the end of her story, but it’s a crack in the facade. If she loses, which is likely, the financial hit could curb her type of dishonest campaigning, which is something that can only be a good thing for our great country.