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

Labour expresses confidence in capital commitments, says it will return the government books to surplus in 2028/2029 and will bring net debt down below 20% of GDP over time

Public Policy / news
Labour expresses confidence in capital commitments, says it will return the government books to surplus in 2028/2029 and will bring net debt down below 20% of GDP over time
Chris Hipkins & Barbara Edmonds
Labour leader Chris Hipkins and Labour finance and economy spokesperson Barbara Edmonds outline the party's fiscal plan. Image source: Mandy Te

The Labour Party is confident every election commitment it has made is fully costed and fully funded, and is promising to return the government books to surplus in 2028/2029.

“The numbers add up and we have left room to confidently respond to whatever comes next," Labour’s finance and economy spokesperson Barbara Edmonds says when sharing the party’s fiscal plan on Sunday afternoon.

She says Labour will keep operating allowances at the $2.4 billion set at Budget 2026.

The party’s fiscal plan document also shows Budget 2027 through to Budget 2030 will have operating allowances of $2.4 billion.

“Our announced capital commitments fit comfortably within the $12 billion of future capital allowances. We also have almost $10.5 billion of future operating allowances unallocated. We can deliver what we have promised without increasing those allowances,” Edmonds says.

 

 

For capital investment, the party’s fiscal plan says capital allowances for Budget 2027 and Budget 2028 are $3.5 billion each, and the allowance for Budget 2029 is $5 billion - which means a total of $12 billion in future capital allowances.

So far, Labour has announced these capital commitments:
$200 million capital injection for the New Zealand Future Fund
$420 million for the initial student loan write-off
$200 million for hospitals
$400 million for schools
$2.9 billion for Kāinga Ora housing spread over four years
$7 million for the Ratepayer Assistance Scheme solar expenditure

“These commitments are fully provided for within the future capital allowances. They leave almost $8 billion unallocated, preserving room to respond to changing need and invest in high-value projects as they are ready.

Surplus and debt

Labour is also committing to returning the government books to surplus in 2028/2029 - expecting to return it to $2 billion which is the same forecast in the pre-election economic and fiscal update - and bringing net debt down below 20% of gross domestic product (GDP) over time.

Labour will use the Operating Balance Before Gains and Losses (OBEGAL) rather than OBEGALx, which excludes the Accident Compensation Corporation, and was introduced by Finance Minister Nicola Willis.

 

“Returning to surplus matters. So does paying for every promise and being clear about the choices required to get there.

“We will not pursue short-term cuts that increase unemployment, weaken essential services or create greater costs in the future. We will return the books to surplus while strengthening the foundations for long-term economic growth.”

The party is projecting total net debt to be $106.49 billion in 2026/2027, $112.74 billion in 2027/2028, $106.42 billion in 2029/2030 and $96.17 billion in 2030/2031.

The fiscal plan says while debt must be managed responsibly, “borrowing for high-value capital investment can be the sensible choice when the asset will serve New Zealanders for decades and failing to invest would leave a larger bill later."

 

Core Crown expenditure and revenue

In Labour’s fiscal plan, the party’s objective is to keep core Crown expenditure and revenue down below 33% of GDP, “when our simple, targeted capital gains tax is fully implemented.”

 

Health

Labour says it will follow the health cost-pressure track which was set out in the pre-election economic and fiscal update (PREFU).

“That provides an additional $1.4 billion from 2027/2028, a further $1.44 billion from 2028/2029, and a further $1.55 billion from 2029/2030.

The party says with its announced health policies, “Labour’s plan puts $15.5 billion of additional funding for health over the forecast period.”

‘It’s all about choices’

Put to Edmonds at a media stand up that the party wasn’t looking at much more spending and having previously claimed the current coalition government was austere, she told reporters: “Giving more money for school lunches is not austere. Giving more money for primary healthcare is not austere. Ensuring that our women [in care and support work] get a $4 paid increase from 1 January 2027 is not austere.”

Asked what she would say to people who would like Labour to be more ambitious, Edmonds says it’s all about choices.

“You'll have seen with our policy that we release, we're providing real cost of relief pressure, cost of living relief pressure for our families. We are moving as much as we can to ensure that the money goes to the places it needs to,” she says.

Asked if most of Labour's "big ticket" policies had already been announced, Labour leader Chris Hipkins says yes.

Asked by reporters about the party’s fiscal plan and the impact of any future coalition negotiations, Hipkins says he was responsible for setting out Labour’s plan.

“It shows how we’re going to pay for all of our promises. Our promises are fully costed. Our numbers add up. I stand by it completely.”

Read the fiscal plan here.

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.

14 Comments

Well done Labour for openly showing the nation your costed plan.

Up
2

Does it pass the sniff test though? Free handouts to everyone and we still make surplus?

Up
6

Numbers don't have scent to me. There's a trust issue, but that is in play all the time between any 2 or more humans all the time.

Up
1

After Chippy's proven failure at performance last time he was given the chance (multiple portfolios then PM), I would personally put more faith a brick wall spontaneously converting into water, than of Labour 1./ following through on all electoral promises and 2./ returning to surplus in the predicted timeframe.

Up
4

I'm not ready to trust them with the purse strings yet. 

Up
6

What I don’t understand about the expected return from capital gains is that house prices are falling and will continue to do so for a bit.  They probably won’t rise a lot once they stop going down either. Then added to that pressure the tax will impact negatively to a certain degree. So in terms of capital gain you have to then provide a credit for capital loss as you can’t not do both sides to the ledger. So potentially the next 10 years could be a liability for the government. Certainly not 2.8bio or whatever a year. 

Up
1

We are going to keep prices down and tax those gains. 

Up
0

Everbody's numbers add up....IF they get the growth they project....the question is do you believe their projections?

Up
2

Let me be Frank,

Easily answered-NO. 

Up
1

Assuming that applies to all of them then it becomes a question of faith...which group do you trust to do the best for the country (or yourself, if thats your perspective)?

And if the answer to that is none of them, what next?

Up
0

The answer of course being to understand that growth will not happen for some time at the very least, so which group do you think will allocate the resources available to benefit the most of the people it is supposed to serve.

Up
0

Let me be Frank,

Good question. I can't not vote-at 81, I have voted at every local and general election since I was entitled to do so. I not optimistic that any of the main parties have  much to much to offer us. More time is spent denigrating each other than laying out a vision for the future. I have decided to vote OP purely in the hope that they can exercise a moderating influence on whichever bloc wins the election. 

None of this matters to me personally, but I have 4 grandchildren and I would like them to be able to have the choice to live and work here.  

Up
0

Lets try and get away from personal views and look at the big picture over the past 40 years according to Google Gemini ai-

'Comparing the economic track records of the Labour and National parties over the past four decades (roughly from the mid-1980s to the present) reveals distinct governing styles, priorities, and external economic shocks.

Public commentary—such as the comments on political and economic forums like interest.co.nz—often focuses heavily on government debt accumulation and spending, but looking at the actual historical context paints a nuanced picture for both major parties.

1. Economic Growth (GDP)

  • Structural Shifts & Context: The last 40 years started with the radical market-liberalisation reforms of the Fourth Labour Government (1984–1990), followed by the continuation of structural changes, privatisations, and labour market deregulation under the subsequent National Government (1990–1999).
  • The Growth Pattern: Neither party holds a monopoly on high growth; instead, GDP performance has typically been dictated by global economic cycles, commodity prices (dairy and meat), and migration.
    • National governments (such as John Key’s administration from 2008 to 2017) often emphasized pro-business settings, trade expansion, and infrastructure, navigating the aftermath of the Global Financial Crisis (GFC).
    • Labour governments (such as Helen Clark’s term from 1999 to 2008 and Jacinda Ardern/Chris Hipkins' terms from 2017 to 2023) tended to focus on social spending, working-for-families policies, and minimum wage increases, though they also faced unprecedented black-swan events.

2. Surpluses and Deficits

Both parties have experienced periods of surplus and deficit, heavily tied to the global environment they inherited:

  • The Clark Labour Era (1999–2008): Benefited from a strong global economy and ran consistent budget surpluses, paying down core crown debt to very low levels (under 20% of GDP).
  • The Key National Era (2008–2017): Inherited the GFC right as they took office, which immediately plunged the books into deep deficits. However, through steady fiscal consolidation and economic recovery, National successfully returned the government books to surplus by 2014–2015, leaving behind a strong fiscal position.
  • The Ardern/Hipkins Labour Era (2017–2023): Initially ran modest surpluses, but the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 required massive, broad-based government intervention (such as the wage subsidy). This caused deficits to balloon to historical records before beginning a path toward post-pandemic consolidation.

3. Government Debt

Critics frequently point to debt accumulation, and debt levels have structurally risen across successive administrations due to inflation, population growth, and major crises:

  • Shocks Drive Debt: The two largest spikes in New Zealand’s public debt over the past 40 years were not ideological choices by single parties, but rather responses to major systemic crises:
    1. The Global Financial Crisis (2008–2009): Handled primarily by the incoming National government, pushing debt up as tax revenues fell.
    2. The COVID-19 Pandemic (2020–2022): Handled by the Labour government, requiring tens of billions of dollars in emergency borrowing to keep businesses and workers afloat.
  • The Debate Over "Quality" Spending: Critics of Labour often argue that their borrowing went toward operational expenditure and public service expansions that fueled inflation. Conversely, Labour supporters argue that borrowing protected social foundations, healthcare, and infrastructure, and that New Zealand's net-debt-to-GDP ratio remained manageable compared to most other Western nations during similar shocks.

Summary

When voters or commentators express frustration on financial platforms, they are usually reacting to the immediate trade-offs of the political cycle: National is often critiqued by its opponents for austerity, underfunding public services, or favoring property/business tax structures, while Labour is frequently critiqued by its opponents for "blowouts" in spending, growing the public sector, and borrowing heavily. Historically, both parties have proven capable of running surpluses when global conditions are favorable, and both have accumulated debt when forced to manage severe national crises.

 

Up
0

The choices however determine which segments of society carry the burden.....and largely both parties have elected to place that burden in the same place, with marginal differences.

Up
2