Summary of Position
I oppose the Public Finance Amendment Bill (165–1) because it strips wellbeing obligations from the core fiscal framework, stretches disclosure windows, and selectively narrows transparency while consolidating fiscal control. Behind technical wording lies a policy shift: numbers first, people last. The bill risks turning the Public Finance Act 1989 from a balance‑of‑interests statute into a spreadsheet for ministers.
1. Erases Wellbeing from the Budget Process
- Repeals requirements to articulate wellbeing objectives in the Budget Policy Statement,
- Cancels the Treasury’s Wellbeing Report, a vital check on long‑term social outcomes,
- Signals a retreat to narrow GDP‑centric budgeting, ignoring equity, health, and environmental impacts.
Wellbeing frameworks were hard‑won advances after the GFC and pandemic. Their removal abandons intergenerational responsibility.
2. Dilutes Fiscal Transparency while Appearing to Expand It
The bill trumpets a tax expenditure statement yet simultaneously:
- Allows the Treasury to withhold fiscal‑risk estimates if disclosure is deemed unhelpful (section 26V),
- Extends the forecast horizon but permits broader non‑disclosure loopholes,
- Widens secrecy for intelligence departments’ performance data via new section 26DA.
Selective sunlight is not transparency — it’s narrative control.
3. Centralises Executive Power over Appropriations
- New wording in sections 7C & 8 lets other departments charge expenses against an appropriation at a minister’s direction,
- Redefines multi‑category appropriations, easing fund‑shifting with less parliamentary scrutiny,
- Alters debt‑issuance clause (section 62) without parallel public‑debt safeguards.
These shifts weaken Parliament’s power of the purse in favour of expedited ministerial manoeuvring.
4. Undermines Treaty and Equity Commitments
Wellbeing metrics were one of the few statutory levers reflecting te ao Māori values and distributional equity. Their repeal:
- Sidelines Māori perspectives in fiscal strategy,
- Reduces visible accountability for inequities exposed in Waitangi Tribunal findings,
- Risks entrenching status‑quo under‑investment in Māori health, housing, and education.
5. Fits a Broader Pattern of Data‑Driven De‑Democratisation
Like recent bills that downgrade plain language, strip ESG criteria, or narrow professional standards, this amendment:
- Frames dismantling of safeguards as “efficiency”,
- Expands ministerial discretion while tightening public participation,
- Uses technical amendments to reshape democratic accountability by stealth.
Conclusion and Recommendations
The Public Finance Amendment Bill redirects our fiscal compass away from wellbeing, equity, and transparent democracy. I therefore recommend that the Committee:
- Retain wellbeing objectives and reports in full,
- Narrow the section 26V secrecy carve‑outs, not widen them,
- Subject new appropriation flexibilities to explicit parliamentary approval,
- Mandate independent Treaty‑impact analysis for fiscal strategy reports.
An honest balance sheet counts people and planet — not just dollars and discretion.
Respectfully submitted,
Ukes Baha
Public Health Advocate | Counsellor | Policy Analyst
ukesbaha.com