Ahead of the delivery of Budget 2026 in May, the government opened submissions on its funding approach and priorities for the coming year. Should Budget 2026 seek further reprioritisation of funding from initiatives that focus on socio-economic outcomes, we remain concerned about the significant and on-going harm that could be caused.

Budget 2025 has not delivered outcomes for those most in need, and removed funding from important interventions. These savings were achieved through cuts to initiatives that directly impact New Zealanders already facing disadvantage, particularly the changes to the pay equity scheme and tightening of Jobseeker benefits.

Austerity in times of economic stress might provide immediate debt relief but it comes at a cost both in the present and for future generations. 

Because the equal pay Bill was passed under urgency, there was no opportunity for public consultation. The People’s Select Committee has been established so the voices of the people of Aotearoa can be heard. 

We see the Equal Pay Amendment Act 2025 as a dismissal of the need for action on gender inequity. Equal pay for work of equal value is a fundamental human right and contributes strongly to overall and future financial wellbeing. Yet our gender pay gap is proof that there is an on-going social and financial impact of traditional gendered norms within the workforce. Certain occupations and industries continue to be female dominated, with poorer pay conditions and significant undervaluation. Many of these jobs require similar skills, education, or responsibilities as male-dominated jobs, yet receive lower pay.   

The pay equity claims process is a rare example of the Government directly intervening to address gender based financial inequity, rather than relying on the market to “right itself” or focusing on policies/changes that prioritise measuring the scale of inequity. There needs to be accessible pathways to rebalance occupational segregation, vertically and horizontally, and the associated differences in pay that come with this. 

We are strongly supportive of changes that expand the legal aid system and ensure more people can access justice. However, while we understand the need to focus on financial sustainability for the scheme to continue in its current form, we are concerned that given the current fiscal environment, cost-saving may be prioritised over access to justice.

In our services, we see people who struggle to access justice, particularly in our family violence economic harm service. Any changes to the system should be focused on reducing process inefficiencies and incentivising more lawyers to be part of the legal aid system, not adding additional financial burdens on users of legal aid.

Limiting the availability of legal aid will seriously impact those already at the margins, and women and children experiencing violence. 

We are supportive of policy changes that help families avoid overpayment debt, if done in a way that minimises the everyday financial impact on families.

Overpayment debt is often created through no fault or malicious intent and families shouldn’t be thrown into debt because a working parent accepts a promotion, for example. However, we believe it is short-sighted to focus a review on overpayment without giving equal importance to the issue of underpayment. Given New Zealand faces an acknowledged cost-of-living crisis, and is consistently failing to meet child poverty targets, more families than ever are depending on government assistance to feed and clothe their children.

We are strongly supportive of work being done to improve financial inclusion for underserved customers. Many people throughout New Zealand struggle to access banking, many of whom are already vulnerable or in hardship. Through our services we see people who are forced to use family members or friends bank accounts instead of having their own.

Bank accounts are often the gateway to other financial products and services. In an increasingly digital world, lacking access to a bank account can lock people out of housing, employment, and utilities – especially when cash is no longer accepted. Access to these services is particularly important for people trying to rebuild their lives after an abusive relationship.

We are concerned that the $600 threshold has only been considered from a commercial perspective, not a social or ethical one.

Most people who approach us for financial support have several BNPL accounts in use, and they are often used to purchase essential items in the short term. It creates longer-term issues when several payments become due at the same time, and the lack of affordability checks from some services leads to missed payments and subsequent penalties.

Excluding people borrowing less than $600 ensures the most vulnerable New Zealanders, who have very few alternatives to purchase essential items, have none of the protections provided to people who will be borrowing more than $600.

The convenience and value of BNPL for middle-income New Zealanders, who have alternative credit options such as mortgages, personal loans and credit cards, is based on a business model that is subsidised by people in hardship continuing to pay significant default fees. 

The harm that is caused by unmanageable debt was the reason affordability assessments were strengthened by the Government in recent years, and these regulations should be extended to BNPL and other new forms of credit where harm can be caused by financial penalties being imposed on consumers.

We had three main points:

• Economic harm needs particular emphasis in the strategy and action plans
• The private sector needs to be identified as a key participant in the eradication of family violence
• A gender lens needs to be legislated across all areas of policy.