Mā te wā ka kitea te tika o te mahi

31/3/2025

The 2023 election delivered a message, but not the one some in Wellington appear to be hearing.

Voters were not asking for austerity; they were asking for a course correction. It was, in my humble opinion, a vote to hold the previous government accountable, particularly for its handling of the pandemic and the years that followed.

While Aotearoa New Zealand’s initial response was internationally praised, the prolonged lockdowns, shifting alert levels, and centralised decisions around employment and vaccination eventually tested public patience.

Frustration grew over the procedural complexity of vaccine access and the sense that public health considerations were being prioritised at the expense of economic wellbeing, education, and mental health.

Voters used the election to express dissatisfaction: not necessarily with the scale of government, but with its responsiveness and delivery. They were not calling for less government, but for a right-sized and better government: a public service that is transparent, outcomes-focused and accountable.

Many felt that longstanding promises of effective, efficient administration had not been met. The frustrations surrounding reforms of the previous Government such as Three Waters and Pae Ora – reflected an ideological opposition as well as concerns about process, in particular the speed and limited consultation involved.

Add to this the cost-of-living crisis, steep grocery prices, and a housing market that remains out of reach for many, and the broader picture emerges.

The public was not pushing back against the idea of public investment.

It was pushing for a better return on it.

The outcome was a National-led coalition with ACT and New Zealand First, entrusted with a clear, if complex, task: deliver a more practical, efficient government; restore confidence in public institutions; and provide relief from everyday economic pressures.

There was a strong expectation that this government would reset the machinery of government without dismantling it.

The public expectation was a right-sized, affordable public sector, one able to work short and long term – not a weakened one.

That is why the expense forecasts in the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update 2024 (HYEFU24) warrant closer scrutiny.

The outyear projections (2025–2028) suggest a sharp shift in fiscal strategy.

While total government expenditure is still projected to grow—by 13.4% over four years: the pace slows considerably relative to historical spending patterns, and the distribution of that growth raises important questions.

Some of the sharpest slowdowns are in areas that directly affect public wellbeing.

Housing and community development, which grew 34.8% in the previous four years, is projected to decline slightly.

Transport and communications moves from strong historical growth to projected contraction.

Core government services, environmental protection, and heritage, culture and recreation all see substantial reductions.

These forecasts reflect real decreases in spending, not simply improved efficiency: a distinction that will become important in the public discourse when communities start to see services disappearing.

By contrast, social security and welfare is the only major area where growth is expected to accelerate, projected to rise by 4.6% in the outyears after a slight decline in the previous period.

As the largest category of government expenditure, this shift will carry weight. It also raises questions about sustainability ,particularly given the relative tightening projected for health and education, both of which face cost pressures from inflation, demographics, and persistent demand.

The volatility in some categories adds further uncertainty.

Forecasts for “other” categories vary wildly, with changes ranging from a 59% reduction in one year to a 240% increase the next. These fluctuations may reflect time-limited policy initiatives, one-off costs, or forecasting challenges: but they also complicate public understanding of the government’s overall fiscal strategy.

This pattern is consistent with my earlier observation that the coalition agreements may not fully align with what the electorate signalled.

The public voted for a reset, not a retreat.

The expectations were for better delivery, not less services.

Voters endorsed a practical and responsive state: not the removal of investment in core areas that support daily life.

To be clear, balancing fiscal responsibility with service expectations is never straightforward: particularly in a coalition setting with competing priorities.

But the risk is that, if the current trajectory continues, some voters may feel the government’s choices are diverging from what they intended at the ballot box.

And while voters may not have articulated their expectations in precise policy terms, their judgment will be made in the long run—mā te wā ka kitea te tika o te mahi.

The upcoming Budget will be a crucial opportunity to reorient.

There is still time to reflect the intent of the 2023 mandate: provide economic relief, ensure the public sector is fit for purpose, and safeguard access to essential services like health, housing, and education.

This may require difficult choices, but they must be grounded in both fiscal realism and public legitimacy.

The electorate did not express a desire for a reduction in service levels. It asked for one that works.

It also did not sign up to endless imported culture wars.

It signed up for some economic relief: i.e., and affordable weekly shop and power bills that could be paid. I am not saying it is an easy task: costs do need to be managed without undermining trust. But the government needs to focus on the things that matter. If it does, it will honour the mandate it was given in 2023: not the one it has now assumed.