
Labour leader Chris Hipkins says he won’t pre-commit to keeping core net debt below Treasury’s recommended 50% threshold until Labour forms a fiscal plan for the 2026 election.
This comes after his finance spokesperson, Barbara Edmonds, told The Post that Labour would observe the cap, intended to maintain a fiscal buffer for a crisis, unless Treasury advised otherwise.
The previous Labour Government set a non-binding net debt ceiling at 30% of gross domestic product, equal to 50% of net core Crown debt, in 2022 based on Treasury advice.
Edmonds said she would continue with the cap and also aim to return the Crown accounts to surplus before the end of the forecast period. That target moves out by one year with each budget.
But Hipkins walked back her comments on Tuesday, telling reporters he wasn’t ready to commit to the target while the Coalition still had two budgets to deliver.
“I think us being asked to crystal-ball-gaze that far into the future, when we don't know what the government will decide between now and then, is a bit unreasonable,” he told reporters.
“We haven't formulated our fiscal plan for the next election. But insofar as the previous positions that we've had, I was perfectly comfortable [with them].”
In a rare National Party-branded press release, Finance Minister Nicola Willis said Labour’s position on fiscal policy was “becoming less clear by the day”.
The party had opposed all the savings measures and committed to reinstating locally made school lunches, half-price public transport, and pay equity laws, she said. It also promised to spend more on health and education but hasn’t said which taxes are on the table to fund it.
“Just last week in his pre-budget speech, Hipkins attacked those who argue for a more sensible approach to debt and said we need a ‘more mature conversation about debt.’
“He could start with a conversation with his own caucus about what on earth Labour’s position is,” Willis said.
New Zealand’s net core Crown debt is expected to reach $192.8 billion, or 45.1% of GDP, in the fiscal year ending June 2025 and remain at that level through to the end of the forecast period in 2029.
Government debt is dominated by bonds issued by New Zealand Debt Management (NZDM), a Treasury unit. Interest.co.nz spoke with NZDM Director Kim Martin in this episode of the Of Interest podcast about how NZDM operates.
Let the debate begin
Economist Cameron Bagrie told Stuff that high levels of debt were unavoidable, and net core Crown debt sitting at around 40% to 45% would become “the new normal” as the Government fills in the infrastructure deficit.
Dennis Wesselbaum, an associate professor of economics at the University of Otago, said New Zealand government debt had increased during the pandemic but remained lower than in many other countries.
“Lowering debt and creating fiscal space are legitimate goals. But they should be viewed as a means to an end, not an end in itself,” he wrote, in April.
Research shows that debt-to-GDP ratios above roughly 80% tend to be associated with lower growth, while below that level, higher debt can sometimes be linked to stronger growth.
“It is clear that deficits are neither always bad for economic growth, nor that they always lead to inflation, when combined with a credible fiscal strategy to return to surpluses in the future,” he wrote.
Treasury and other institutions argue that New Zealand needs room on the balance sheet to absorb economic shocks, such as the 2011 Christchurch earthquakes and the 2020 Covid-19 pandemic.
Fitch Ratings cited National and Labour’s “similar” and “prudent” fiscal plans as factors in its decision to confirm New Zealand’s AA+ credit rating ahead of the 2023 election.
“A commitment to return to fiscal surplus and putting the ratio of government debt/GDP on a downward trajectory was an important factor in our affirmation of the sovereign rating,” it said.
Miles Workman, a senior economist at ANZ, said the Government would need to keep delivering tight budgets if it wants to correct what he called Labour’s “debt-funded spending spree”.
“Structural deficits are likely to be forecast for years to come, with flip-a-coin odds that the debt to GDP ratio will be a decent clip above its pre-pandemic level when the next big global crisis or natural disaster comes along.”
Rising health and superannuation costs from an ageing population, the need to address historic underinvestment in infrastructure, and rising debt-servicing costs are all “major challenges” that will be hard to overcome without broadening the tax base, he said.
17 Comments
Tax and spend. Borrow and spend. Seems to be that the mentality of the Labour Party cannot shift from a priority to spend without much forethought to what might actually yield the requisite funds. As a point of interest, given the proximity of this year’s budget, cast back to Nash’s second Labour government which either by way of duty or excise tax increased those on vehicles 100%, petrol 76%, tobacco 95%, alcohol 100%. The infamous black budget by Nordmeyer not helped by the fact that neither he nor Nash, drank alcohol, smoked or owned a car and that the worker back bone of the party felt betrayed in that their extra costs were perceived as being transferred to the benefit of welfare, that is those that didn’t work. Some things change but just stay the same.
Labours answer to everything is more tax now (it wasn't always thus, thanks https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish_and_Chip_Brigade ). Nowadays they have no concept of how to create a bigger pie.
Can you imagine if a business measured 'fiscal responsibility' or 'fiscal space' by adding their credit card balance to their accounts payable and looking at this in proportion to their turnover, or gross income? How credible would this be? Would it tell you anything about their overall financial health? They could have the same numbers and be near bankruptcy or rich beyond their wildest dreams. It's stupid.
Yet, we all talk gravely about Govt 'net debt' - a highly selective slice of the Govt balance sheet seemingly conjured up to scare the public into thinking that the end is nigh. This misleading figure is particularly important for NZ because our Govt's balance sheet is unusual. Let's explore....
Here are the Govt's financial liabilities - about $270bn of bonds, accounts receivable, and commercial bank settlement account deposits (a Govt liability). As you can see this is a big scary (gross) number. A lot of the ingredients for our net debt figures are in here.
Now, here are Govt's financial assets (not including land, buildings, plant, machinery etc). The Govt's $355bn of financial assets includes shares and equity, loans owed, accounts receivable, and govt bank account balances. It doesn't take a genius to work out that the NZ Govt is not in net debt at all - they have a positive net financial worth of around $85bn.
Now, before you say 'yeah, but...', let's cover a few other quick points:
- NZ having a positive net financial worth is very unusual. Only a few of the OECD countries are in this position and most of the others are major net exporters.
- The idea that we need loads of fiscal headroom to deal with disasters is really, really, stupid. NZ Govt has a positive net financial worth, the Japanese Govt has a negative net financial worth of 160% of GDP! Also worth noting that when we do have sizeable disasters the global resinsurance payout is massive (a 12% of GDP capital injection after Chch for example).
- Even if you take Super and other funds away, Govt still has a positive financial worth.
- Govt collects almost as much interest as they pay out - and if you add net dividends to that, Govt more than breaks even
So, why do both parties self-flaggelate over debt? Most obviously because they don't get it and they are really, really badly advised. But, also, if they admitted that they had massive spending power to sort the country out, they would be on the hook for having a plan and delivering it. Far better to performatively play the frugal, sensible, 8-wire guy.
Financial assets? True and in old balance sheet parlance with fixed assets not included, that leaves current assets including those in the form of being the creditor. Again in the old days trading banks when assessing collateral such as share scrip would write it down to 33% of the listed values. Similarly other current assets, such as loans, are hardly immune to defaults. Appreciate it’s not a simple black and red comparison between assets and liabilities, to consider at any one point, but in reality when it comes to calling them all in, as any receiver or assignee will attest, the liabilities suddenly become a heck of a lot more tangible than the assets.
So consider the liquidity and risk on the assets / liabilities on the balance sheet and come back with a sensible comment
History explains that well enough. The many failures over the years for instance Feltex, Fortex on the productive side or RSL on the financial side alongside the swathe of finance companies that failed post 2008 were all found to have assets either highly over valued and/or not realisable. So to put it as sensibly as you might wish at the end of the day the relative concern had liabilities exceeding, in value, all its assets which introduces insolvency however you want to put it.. Nothing new here is there, Enron in the USA was a monolithic example, or Lehmans or even go all the wayback to the Van Sweringen Bros. What was entered as assets were simply not recoverable to the same value and that is the basic point. An asset seen to be shoring up a balance sheet can easily be more questionable than the reality of a liability on the other side.
Maybe I wasn't clear. If the share/equity govt financial assets were suddenly worth nothing, would that be a problem? A govt net financial worth of -50% of gdp? Piffling in the grand scheme.
Granted I’m being simplistic, basic here but in another context I recall the advice, at a banking seminar in Australia from a soon to be knighted chairman something like - remember liabilities never disappear but assets can and do. Appreciate a government’s business is not as a private concern and there has often been recourse to printing money, but Sri Lanka is a current example of being in debt to China to the brink of insolvency. Nations, Cyprus, Greece, like cities are not unknown to bankrupt themselves are they.
Our govt has a positive net financial worth of $85bn. Our nonfinancial business sector has a net negative financial worth of $1.5 trillion. Which is the problem?
My point is simply that in calculating or arriving at a figure of net debt it can be, and often is, understated as on the other side of the balance sheet, the actual value of the assets is found to be overstated.
I posted this the otherday, you may have missed it
https://croakingcassandra.com/2025/05/19/fiscal-starting-points/
Please.
So, why do both parties self-flaggelate over debt?
It is curious. Perhaps the ghost of Muldoon still haunts politicians - just think - without him his successors wouldn't have had all these assets to flog off to the private sector;
- methanol plant at Waitara
- ammonia/urea plant at Kapuni
- synthetic-petrol plant at Motunui
- expansion of the Marsden Point Oil Refinery
- expansion of the New Zealand Steel plant at Glenbrook
- electrification of the North Island Main Trunk Railway between Te Rapa and Palmerston North
- a third reduction line at the Tiwai Point aluminium smelter, near Bluff
- the Clyde Dam on the Clutha River.
The realisable value of fixed assets are always questionable. For instance lately the Alliance group has closed its old freezing works at Smithfield. The value at that point exits the balance sheet enormously reduced in value as an asset, from formerly being a going concern to little more than the worthwhile furniture, fittings and plant. Hence the balance sheet takes a very large unforetold hit. Similarly local councils have been enormously pressured by central government to borrow against their assets. So a council goes into debt with collateral such as water services infrastructure but in reality those assets are not physically realisable. In other words you can hardly dig up and dismantle the pipes and pumping stations and sell them off. Instead that council just finds its debt as being compounded and then might think to wonder why they needed to borrow, or what they spent the funds on, in the first place.
The realisable value of fixed assets are always questionable.
Not sure I get your point. Assets are depreciated while at the same time they generate income.
Alliance has owned Smithfield since 1989, it's not like it generated no income or profit since then. I understand the closure relates to land-use change in the area. And the plant itself is 139 years old! No wonder it might have no value aside from scrap and, of course the land it sits on;
The 139-year-old Smithfield plant is the company’s oldest site and requires major investment in repairs and maintenance to keep it operational. It is also facing encroachment from retail development.
And similarly, I don't get my reticulated water for free - if the council didn't own the pipe, they couldn't change me and I'd be self-collecting mine. And again, they depreciate those pipes - and they charge me for that in my rates too.
And take the example of the Tauranga to Mount Maunganui bridge: $27 million to build in 1988 - had returned $117 million in tolls by 2001 when the tolls came off.
Smithfield closed principally because of the ever declining stock numbers which made its capacity surplus. There has been upwards of twenty closures of similar works since around your date of 1988. A plant that is 120 years old obviously runs out of depreciation. Instead it is valued as a going concern. When it is no longer going, as said, it’s value is not more than furniture, fitting and plants and more often than not the underlying land is highly toxic and contaminated by stock effluence, old ammonia freezing rooms, fellmongery and more. The point is what is entered as an asset on a balance sheet, fixed or current, is not always realisable to the same value when it comes to be claimed by a creditor. In terms of the city council scenario, yes a council can borrow against let’s say its water infrastructure but if it should default on the. Loan , then yes the creditor could claim ownership of all those pipes and pumps and start charging for the use thereof which means that an asset once owned by the ratepayers would become an expense. Believe there are examples of such outcomes in the USA.
I get what you are saying - I'm just not sure the private sector examples are apples and apples.
But, agree, local governments, in particular, can stuff things up. As an aside...
During the whole debate on Three Waters - I pointed out that (generally) those council assets that central government wanted to buy from them were actually liabilities due to the level of deferred maintenance that had occurred throughout the LG sector. And, given it was CG forcing population growth on them anyway by way of immigration policies (and they are still doing that), it seemed sensible that CG found a way to pay for that growth.
But of course, (generally) they (local government) didn't want to lose those numbers on their balance sheets - as if you were to take those numbers away - we certainly wouldn't be paying the CEs and their second tier managers anywhere near the salaries they currently command despite the shockingly poor asset managers they generally are.
The Three Waters deal was to my mind the only thing that might 'save' local government in NZ. And the National Party's brilliant (/sarc) idea of 'Local Waters Done Well' is to transfer those assets to CCOs as a means to permit more borrowing.
Personally, I'd rather have seen these assets on central government's balance sheet as central government has so many more options (printing money being one), lower borrowing costs and a more progressive taxation system.
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.