A Crisis Response Designed to Exclude

There's something almost admirably brazen about the way this government operates. When a crisis arrives, one that affects every household in the country regardless of income, employment status, or circumstance, the National-led coalition reaches instinctively for a mechanism that excludes the poorest New Zealanders by design. Not by accident. By design.

The Strait of Hormuz crisis, caused by the United States and Israel launching an illegal war of aggression on Iran, has driven petrol prices to levels not seen in this country's recent memory. Every family that owns or depends upon a vehicle is being squeezed. 

The retired couple driving to their medical appointments. The solo parent on a Jobseeker benefit ferrying children to school across a city with inadequate public transport. The person on a supported living payment who has no realistic alternative to a car to get to their treatments or those on jobseeker support who are required to attend job interviews. All of them are being hit. All of them are suffering.

On 25 March 2026, RNZ reported:

Fuel crisis package: Nearly 150,000 families to receive $50 a week

Speaking to reporters, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said the package struck the right balance.

"It is a hard reality that we cannot alleviate the pressure of rising fuel costs for everyone. And as we have learned from the Covid response would do more damage to our economy, which has just started growing again."

The government's response, announced by Finance Minister Nicola Willis and Prime Minister Christopher Luxon, is to deliver up to fifty dollars a week to approximately 143,000 families through a temporary boost to the In-Work Tax Credit.

The measure will cost an estimated 373 million dollars over a year and has been fastened, with some precision, to an existing mechanism that carries within it an explicit exclusion clause: no person receiving a main benefit from Work and Income may receive it.

On 25 March 2026, RNZ reported:

Who Will Be Eligible to Get an Extra $50 a Week as Part of the Fuel Crisis Package?

It excluded beneficiaries, superannuitants and those without children.

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Willis said for beneficiaries, there would be usual increases on April 1 which "working families" did not automatically get.

"And I'd also note, working families face the obligation to get to and from work each day. Beneficiaries do not face that obligation," Willis said.

 

Read that again. The In-Work Tax Credit, by its very architecture, bars beneficiaries from receipt. This was not an oversight. It was a political choice made years ago, and it is a political choice being enthusiastically renewed today.

Willis, when pressed on why families on core benefits were excluded, offered the observation that welfare payments would increase from the first of April through the usual annual inflation adjustments. This is the kind of answer that requires a certain composure to deliver without embarrassment.

Half of NZ's most vulnerable children excluded from fuel relief packagehttps://t.co/zv6DR1CCQh

— Newstalk ZB (@NewstalkZB) March 26, 2026

Those inflation adjustments, modest by any measure, are entirely unrelated to a sudden and severe fuel price shock. They were calculated before the Strait of Hormuz became a flashpoint. They address a different problem.

To offer them as an equivalent response to a specific and acute crisis is not fiscal prudence. It is sophistry dressed as compassion.

On 25 March 2026, the NZ Herald reported:

Fuel Relief: How New Zealand's $50 Support Package Compares with Support Overseas

New Zealand’s newly announced fuel relief package will give about 143,000 “squeezed middle” families $50 a week through a boost to the In-Work Tax Credit.

However, unlike many overseas responses to the oil supply shock, it does not directly reduce the price of petrol at the pump nor offer support to businesses.

There’s also no targeted support for beneficiaries or superannuitants, with neither eligible to receive the boost, which begins on April 7 and will be paid weekly or fortnightly, depending on when people are paid.

What is revealing here is not merely what the policy does, but what it says. The language surrounding the announcement has been carefully chosen. Families in the "squeezed middle." Parents "working hard for a living." The implicit contrast, as always, is with those bottom feeders who are not working hard, who are not deserving, who have made, in the preferred framing of this coalition, poor choices.

The In-Work Tax Credit has always carried this ideological freight. It is a payment that rewards employment with an almost moral fervour, as though being in paid work is itself a virtue sufficient to entitle one to support during a crisis, while being unemployed, elderly, disabled, or otherwise reliant on the state is a condition that forfeits such entitlement.

On 25 March 2026, RNZ reported:

Is Fuel Support Package 'Generous' or Not Enough?

Isaac Gunson, spokesperson for the Child Poverty Action Group, said it would help working for families but there was nothing for people relying on benefits.

"Close to a quarter of a million children live in households receiving a core benefit and the idea that there's no additional support for them that will be made available is pretty outrageous."

While Finance Minister Nicola Willis said they were potentially less affected because they did not have to travel to work, Gunson said they would still need to travel for groceries or job interviews.

He said the 3.1 percent increase in benefits from April 1 would not be enough.

"The idea that benefit dependent households won't face as big a downturn in their finances because they don't have the same obligations to go to work… that just doesn't stand up."

The Child Poverty Action Group has noted the obvious and the New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services has called for the package to be extended to beneficiary families. The Green Party's co-leader Chloe Swarbrick has also pointed out, correctly, that the government has simultaneously pushed people out of work through its neoliberal economic settings and is now withholding crisis relief from those same people.

The current government has increased unemployment by 35% since coming to power, a very sobering figure that should guide peoples voting preferences come November 2026.

On 30 March 2026, the NZ Herald reported:

Fuel Crisis: About 140,000 Families to Receive $50 a Week to Help with High Fuel Prices

The Green Party’s reaction was far more critical, saying it left too many New Zealanders behind.

“The Government’s narrow tweaks to tax credits leaves behind the tens of thousands of people their economic plan has pushed out of work, only to then punish with new obligations and sanctions,” said Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick.

“So much for planning for the ‘worst-case scenario.’ There is no plan to support people on to public transport and reduce fuel demand, no plan to prevent corporations price-gouging while families cut back on groceries.”

It is worth pausing on the numbers. The income cut-off for the In-Work Tax Credit sits at around $89,000 for a family with one child, rising with each additional child. This is, in practical terms, a payment that can flow to families earning near six figures, while a solo parent surviving on a benefit well below the poverty line receives nothing. The government calls this targeted. One might call it something else.

The increased GST from the first 6 months of rising fuel costs will easily cover the estimate $373 million WFF in-work tax credit for the year. This financial relief should be expanded to all Kiwis on low incomes. Cheapskates, @NZNationalParty. #CostOfLivingCrisis #nzpol pic.twitter.com/oD6gCfnmvd

— Jackal (@Jackalblog) March 24, 2026

This isn't an aberration. It fits precisely into the pattern that has characterised this coalition since it took office: benefit cuts, sanctions, the scrapping of the New Zealand Income Insurance Scheme before it even began, and the steady withdrawal of support from those most deprived of state help while tax arrangements continue to favour those at the top.

The fuel support package is merely the latest expression of a governing philosophy that regards poverty as a personal failure and welfare as a reward to be withheld.

New Zealand has a Child Poverty Reduction Act. It has commitments, statutory ones, to the wellbeing of children regardless of what their parents do for work. Those commitments are being quietly set aside while the government congratulates itself on its fiscal discipline.

The squeezed middle, at least, appears to have the government's attention. Those below the middle can, it seems, be squeezed a little harder.

Ruth Richardson Is Wrong on NZ Super

As we all know, New Zealand Superannuation (NZ Super) faces a looming fiscal challenge, with costs projected to soar from $19 billion in 2025 (5% of GDP) to $45.3 billion by 2037 (~7% GDP) and 8% by 2060, driven by an ageing population (20% over 65 by 2036). As debates intensify over its affordability, former Finance Minister Ruth Richardson’s opposition to means-testing, voiced on Q+A today, has reignited scrutiny.

Her stance of favouring a higher eligibility age over means-testing, would disproportionately harm Māori and low-income labourers. This post explores how means-testing could cover NZ Super’s minimum costs, drawing on OECD examples and addressing structural inequalities, while questioning Richardson’s ignorant and evidence-free position.

I spoke to Ruth Richardson about NZ’s fiscal position, her role with the Taxpayers’ Union, and the impact of the ‘91 Budget. https://t.co/gEh6i9LgU9

— Jack Tame (@jacktame) June 15, 2025

The Case for Means-Testing

NZ Super’s universal model, paying ~900,000 pensioners (e.g., $1,076.84 fortnightly for singles in 2025), is a pay-as-you-go system with no dedicated fund, thanks to National, unlike Australia’s Future Fund or Denmark’s reserves. By 2037, costs will hit $45.3 billion for ~1.2 million pensioners, straining taxpayers’ ability to meet costs, particularly as consecutive government’s increase debt levels. Moderate levels of means-testing, used by 34 of 38 OECD countries, could save 11–15% ($5–$7 billion in 2037), maintaining costs at ~6% GDP. 

Australia’s Age Pension, for instance, means-tests 2.7 million pensioners, and costs only 2.5% of GDP, while Canada’s Guaranteed Income Supplement targets low-income seniors, keeping costs at 2.7% GDP. These systems prove means-testing is scalable, and would work by leveraging tax data like New Zealand’s Inland Revenue (IRD) does for Working for Families (300,000 families).

Estimating Income and Asset Thresholds

To cover NZ Super’s minimum costs, means-testing could exclude the wealthiest 10–15% of pensioners (120,000–180,000 by 2037) from receiving super, who hold ~70% of household wealth. Based on New Zealand’s wealth distribution, where the top 10–15% of households earn above ~$70,000/year and hold assets (excluding homes) above ~$750,000, thresholds could be fairly set as follows:

Income Threshold: ~$50,000/year for singles ($962/fortnight) and ~$70,000/year for couples ($1,346/fortnight), above which NZ Super is reduced (e.g., 50 cents per dollar, as in Australia). This targets pensioners with significant investment or private pension income, phasing out payments for the top 10–15%.

Asset Threshold: $400,000 for single homeowners, ~$600,000 for couple homeowners; ~$600,000 for single non-homeowners, ~$900,000 for couple non-homeowners (excluding primary residences, as in Australia). This captures high-wealth pensioners with substantial savings or trusts.

These thresholds align with Australia’s ($180/fortnight income, $301,750 assets for singles) but are higher to reflect NZ’s higher cost-of-living. Inland Revenue could administer this, as with Childcare Subsidy, though trusts and asset-hiding require transparency reforms. Administrative costs ($100 million/year) are minimal compared to savings.

Equity and Māori Disparities

Means-testing addresses structural inequalities, a key concern raised in debates over Richardson’s policies. Her 1991 budget doubled extreme poverty (4% to 8%), hitting Māori hardest due to lower incomes (78.9% of median), lower homeownership (48% vs. 58% non-Māori), and lower incomes.

Today’s universal NZ Super favours wealthier non-Māori with longer lifespans, who receive payments for more years. Means-testing at these thresholds targets high-income/asset pensioners, ensuring low-income Māori (40% of over-65s rely heavily on NZ Super) retain full benefits. Raising the eligibility age, as Richardson supports, would harm Māori, particularly labourers in physically demanding jobs (18% of Māori vs. 11% non-Māori), who face health barriers to working past the age of 65.

OECD Lessons and Feasibility

Among 20 relevant OECD countries, 18 means-test pensions, with Denmark, Netherlands, Australia, and Sweden leading in fiscal sustainability due to funded systems and low costs (2.5–7% GDP). New Zealand and Greece, the only non-means-tested systems, rank weakest, with NZ Super’s $45.3 billion by 2037 threatening future budgets. Australia’s model of means-testing 2.7 million pensioners shows NZ’s IRD could easily handle ~900,000 pensioners, despite complexity concerns ($100 million admin costs). Canada’s hybrid (universal OAS with means-tested GIS) offers a balanced approach NZ could easily adopt.

Critiquing Richardson’s Stance

Richardson’s opposition to means-testing, favouring a higher eligibility age, ignores equity and fiscal realities. Her 1991 policies exacerbated Māori poverty, and her 2025 stance, advocating for even more neoliberal policies, perpetuates inequities by preserving a universal system that benefits only wealthier non-Māori New Zealanders.

Of course the deluded Ruth Richardson’s ideology prioritises simplicity over fairness. However there really is no good argument against means-testing superannuation, as proven by OECD peers and NZ’s parental means-testing programs, showing that such changes are feasible and could save billions while supporting vulnerable groups of people working in physically demanding jobs.

Conclusion

Means-testing NZ Super at ~$50,000–$70,000 income and $400,000–$900,000 assets could save $5–$7 billion by 2037, keeping costs at ~6% GDP. This aligns with OECD best practices, leverages IRD systems, and addresses Māori inequities, countering Richardson’s racist stance. As NZ’s population ages, means-testing offers a sustainable, equitable path forward and is the only real option to ensure super continues to be affordable for New Zealand.

Ruth Richardson Gets Damehood for Wrecking New Zealand

In a move that’s left many gobsmacked, Ruth Richardson, the architect of the infamous “Mother of All Budgets,” has been named a Dame Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit in the 2025 King’s Birthday Honours. The Honours Unit, Cabinet and the King must have rocks in their heads.

 

This accolade, meant to celebrate service to Aotearoa, feels like a slap in the face to the countless New Zealanders who bore the brunt of her ruthless economic reforms. Far from deserving a Damehood, Richardson’s legacy is one of deepened inequality, shredded social safety nets, and a callous disregard for the vulnerable.

As Finance Minister from 1990 to 1993, Richardson championed the neoliberal blitz known as “Ruthanasia.” Her 1991 budget slashed welfare benefits, privatised state assets, and deregulated markets with a zeal that made even some of her National Party colleagues wince. The fallout was immediate and brutal. Child poverty rates skyrocketed, with a 1996 study showing that the proportion of children living below the poverty line doubled from 14% in 1982 to 29% by 1994, as a direct consequence of her austerity.

 

Unemployment surged to 11.1% in 1992, the highest since the Great Depression, as her policies gutted public sector jobs and left thousands struggling. Income inequality widened dramatically, with Richardson helping to ensure that New Zealand is one of the most unequal nations in the world to this very day.


Today, RNZ reported:

Two former finance ministers receive King's Birthday Honours

Former National MP Ruth Richardson. Photo: Supplied

Two former finance ministers have been appointed Companions of the New Zealand Order of Merit at this year's King's Birthday Honours.

Ruth Richardson and Steven Joyce, both former National MPs, have been honoured for their services as Members of Parliament.

Three other former MPs - Ian McKelvie, Anae Arthur Anae, and Dover Samuels - have also received Honours.

'Early and decisive course correction was imperative' - Richardson

Richardson was well aware that an interview about her King's Birthday Honour would include questions on her time as finance minister.

The economic reforms she oversaw - and the 1991 'Mother of All Budgets' - made significant changes to social welfare and public services, the effects of which are still felt by many.

Richardson started by saying in 1991 New Zealand was at huge risk, and was drowning in a sea of debt and perpetual forecast deficits.

It’s true. When Ruth Richardson became Finance Minister in 1990, New Zealand faced a fiscal crisis, with public debt at 48% of GDP and deficits projected to persist. The National Party’s earlier policies under Robert Muldoon (1975–1984), particularly the debt-fueled “Think Big” projects, increased debt from 5% to 40% of GDP, exacerbating the crisis. Inefficient state enterprises and Minister's high spending further strained finances, setting the stage for Richardson's decision to make the poor pay for her parties financial failures.

Richardson’s defenders, including herself, claim her 1991 'Mother of All Budgets' and Fiscal Responsibility Act 1994 set a global standard for fiscal prudence. But at what cost? Her policies prioritised trying to balance budgets over human welfare, forcing austerity that crippled health and education services. Hospital waiting lists ballooned, and schools struggled as funding dried up.

 

New Zealand's social fabric tore apart, homelessness spiked, and food banks became a grim fixture in communities. Her reforms didn’t just trim fat; they cut into the bone of a society already reeling from Roger Douglas’ earlier experiments. But what makes this all the worse is that she’s never acknowledged the harm she caused.

Impact on Health Services and Hospital Waiting Lists

The 1991 budget introduced user-pays requirements in hospitals, shifting costs to patients for services previously funded by the government. This was part of a broader restructuring that reduced public spending on health.

A 2015 review noted that Richardson’s reforms caused “severe financial strains on hospitals,” leading to operational challenges. Hospital waiting lists grew significantly in the early 1990s, with a 1993 study reporting a 20% increase in elective surgery wait times from 1990 to 1992, attributed to reduced funding and increased demand on under-resourced facilities.

By 1994, some hospitals reported waitlists exceeding 12 months for non-urgent procedures, a stark contrast to pre-1991 levels. The introduction of user charges also deterred low-income patients from seeking care, exacerbating health inequities, as documented in a 1996 Health Services Research report. These outcomes align with claims that austerity “crippled health services” and caused hospital waiting lists to balloon.

Impact on Education and School Funding

Education funding faced similar cuts, with schools required to adopt user-pays models, such as increased parental contributions for basic services. The budget reduced per-pupil funding by approximately 5% in real terms between 1991 and 1993, according to Ministry of Education data. Schools in low-income areas struggled most, as they relied heavily on government grants.

A 1994 report from the New Zealand Educational Institute highlighted that many schools deferred maintenance, cut staff, or reduced programs, leading to larger class sizes and reduced educational quality. These struggles support the claim that schools faced significant challenges as funding “dried up” under austerity.

Social Impact, Increased Homelessness, and Food Banks

The budget’s deep welfare cuts, unemployment benefits reduced by $14 weekly, sickness benefits by $27.04, and family benefits by $25–$27, severely impacted low-income households. A 2015 Treasury report noted that welfare-reliant households saw their income drop from 72% to 58% of the national average between 1990 and 1993. Child poverty doubled from 15% in 1990 to 29% in 1994, and income inequality rose, with the Gini coefficient increasing from 0.30 to 0.33 by 1996. These economic pressures tore at the “social fabric,” as communities faced increased hardship.

Homelessness surged as housing support was cut amid rising costs. A 2017 European Journal of Public Health study noted that austerity policies in the early 1990s, including New Zealand’s, increased homelessness risks by reducing subsidies and social services. By 1993, estimates suggested a 30% rise in visible homelessness in urban centers like Auckland, with no comprehensive national data due to under-reporting. Food banks, virtually non-existent before the 1980s, became entrenched, with the Salvation Army reporting a 50% increase in food parcel distribution between 1991 and 1994.

I guess it's entirely appropriate that Ruth is being honoured today. After all, we are in the middle of another permanent scarring of the economy for stupid ideological reasons. Let's have a quick look [🧵1/n] pic.twitter.com/SyKff5JBxL

— Musical Chairs (@MusicalChairs14) June 1, 2025

Awarding Ruth Richardson a Damehood whitewashes her terrible legacy. It’s a tone-deaf endorsement of policies that prioritised corporate interests over people, leaving a generation, those who survived, scarred for life. The honours system is meant to uplift those who’ve served the nation, not those who’ve divided it and made it poorer. Richardson’s recent support for the controversial Treaty Principles Bill, which again undermines Te Tiriti, only underscores her disconnect from New Zealand's shared values.

This isn’t about rewriting history…it’s about accountability. Honouring Richardson glorifies a chapter of financial pain and increased inequity for New Zealand. If we’re to celebrate true service, let’s recognise those who’ve rebuilt what her policies broke, not the architect of the wrecking ball. Shame on the honours committee for this misjudgment, and shame on Ruth Richardson for believing that she deserves this Damehood. All she really deserves is our scorn.

David Seymour Wanted Civil War in New Zealand

David Seymour has built a career on stirring up resentments, but his latest antics are a step too far. The Mata Reports documentary, aired earlier this month, lays bare Seymour’s calculated brand of divisive politics, exposing a man who seems to relish the chaos his policies could unleash. Worse, it shows he’s fully aware that his divisive policies, particularly in regards to the Treaty Principles Bill, could push New Zealand toward civil war. Despite this, Seymour barrels forward anyway with his anti-Maori legislation. This isn’t just reckless; it’s a betrayal of the unity NZ was founded on that politicians should be promoting.

Seymour’s campaign against co-governance, a lightning rod in the 2023 election, was less about principle and more about political point-scoring. Mata’s investigation, through the eyes of a former ACT insider, reveals Seymour’s deep ties to the libertarian Atlas Network, a global outfit with a track record of sowing discord under the guise of “freedom.”

His Treaty Principles Bill, which sought to erase Māori partnership rights from legal frameworks, wasn’t just a policy, it was a racist dog whistle, designed to inflame tensions and rally an anti-Māori voter base. Former Prime Minister Jenny Shipley warned in 2023 that this bill was “inviting civil war,” a sentiment ignored by current National MP Chris Luxon, but echoed in Mihingarangi Forbes' chilling footage where Seymour appears to shrug off the prospect of violent unrest and his previous statements acknowledging that he wanted the Treaty Principles Bill to cause a civil war.


In November 2024, RNZ reported:

 

Treaty Principles Bill 'inviting civil war', Jenny Shipley says

Dame Jenny said past attempts to codify Treaty principles in law had failed.

"While there have been principles leaked into individual statutes, we have never attempted to - in a formal sense - put principles in or over top of the Treaty as a collective. And I caution New Zealand - the minute you put the Treaty into a political framework in its totality, you are inviting civil war.

"I would fight against it. Māori have every reason to fight against it.

"This is a relationship we committed to where we would try and find a way to govern forward. We would respect each other's land and interests rights, and we would try and be citizens together - and actually, we are making outstanding progress, and this sort of malicious,politically motivated, fundraising-motivated attempt to politicise the Treaty in a new way should raise people's voices, because it is not in New Zealand's immediate interest.

The hypocrisy is staggering. Seymour cloaks his agenda in calls for “equality,” preaching that all New Zealanders deserve the same rights. Yet, his actions, like scrapping the Māori Health Authority or joking about bombing the Ministry for Pacific Peoples, target marginalised communities with surgical precision.

Mata shows him lying on camera, dodging accountability when confronted with evidence of his inflammatory rhetoric. His dismissal of Canada’s residential school genocide as overblown further exposes a callous disregard for historical trauma, aligning him with Atlas Network’s playbook.

Here's a Canadian-accented David Seymour arguing against funding public transport on behalf of Atlas Network partner & climate change denialists, Frontier Centre for Public Policy. https://t.co/w7pzpwkzeD pic.twitter.com/o0bNDbVbO9

— Nick (@StrayDogNZ) February 26, 2024

This isn’t new for Seymour. Back in January 2023, his campaign launch was an excercise in negative campaigning, using Māori and beneficiaries as political punching bags. Some journalists called it “disruption and division,” and they weren’t wrong. Seymour denied he was race-baiting, but his rhetoric, painting co-governance as undemocratic, deepened mistrust.

The Mata documentary pulls no punches, exposing a “culture of fear” within ACT and allegations of sexism and whistleblower suppression. Seymour’s authoritarian streak, masked by his libertarian posturing, is a warning sign. He knows his policies could fracture New Zealand, potentially to the point of violence, yet he persists, gambling with our social fabric for his political gain. This isn’t leadership; it’s political opportunism that could destroy our country.

New Zealand deserves better. We need leaders who bridge divides, not widen them. Seymour’s gamble with civil unrest isn’t just a policy misstep, it’s an unacceptable moral failure. Voters should reject his divisive playbook and demand policies that unite us, not ones that risks tearing us apart.

Budget 2025: National Fails to Lift Children Out of Poverty

The National-led government’s Budget 2025 a glossy package of half-measures that does nothing to shift the dial on child poverty in Aotearoa. Despite their rhetoric about economic growth and "social investment," the reality is stark: this Budget fails to deliver for our most vulnerable children trapped in hardship. Worse, it doubles down on policies that have already deepened inequality, leaving thousands of kids to bear the brunt of National’s obsession with austerity and benefit sanctions.

Today, RNZ reported:

 

Budget 2025: None of year's child poverty targets met

Since 2018, the government has had to report on progress towards child poverty targets and whether the Budget will help to address child poverty rates.

The latest figures, for the year ending in June 2024, were released in February this year. The rates, which did not significantly change from the previous year, showed:

13.4 percent of children suffered from material hardship
12.7 percent lived in poor households before housing costs were taken into account
17.7 percent lived in poor households after housing costs were taken into account

None of the target rates for 2023/24 were met. This was "at least in part" because of the effect of inflation on the cost of living. the report said.

Treasury forecasts show the targets for 2026/27 and 2027/28 are also seriously in doubt, with poverty rates set to remain roughly at their current levels until at least 2029.

The Child Poverty Report 2025, mandated by the Public Finance Act, shows no significant progress toward the 2028 child poverty reduction targets. In fact the National-led coalition has largely undone all of Jacinda Ardern's work to reduce child poverty rates in New Zealand. Around 27% of kids still live in households where food runs out sometimes or often, and New Zealand ranks a shameful 32 out of 36 wealthy nations for child wellbeing. National’s response? Tinkering with Working for Families thresholds and Accommodation Supplement boundaries, woefully inadequate tweaks that won’t lift the 119,000 children still in material hardship out of poverty.

National’s track record tells a grim story. Their previous policies, like tax cuts skewed toward the wealthy and slashing public service funding, have squeezed low-income families, driving up food insecurity and housing stress. The reinstatement of punitive benefit sanctions in Budget 2025 is a cruel twist of the knife. These sanctions, targeting those on Jobseeker Support, punish parents for minor bureaucratic slip-ups, pulling income from households already struggling to afford basics like food and power.

The Salvation Army rightly notes that this approach undermines the government’s own Child and Youth Strategy, ignoring the evidence that sanctions do little to boost employment but plenty to deepen poverty. Kids don’t choose their parents’ circumstances, yet National’s policies ensure they pay the price.

Then there’s the neglect of our health system. Budget 2025 throws crumbs at health infrastructure but fails to address the crippling doctor shortage, particularly in general practice. Rural and low-income communities, where child poverty is most acute, are left scrambling for access to GPs. National’s also ignored calls to incentivise clinics to boost immunisation rates, despite a worrying drop to 77.3% for 8-month-olds in high-deprivation areas, down from 91.3%. This isn’t just a statistic, it’s a recipe for outbreaks of vaccine-preventable third-world diseases, condemning more kids to grow up unwell in a system that’s failing them.

National’s Budget 2025 is a betrayal of Aotearoa’s kids. Instead of bold investment to break the cycle of poverty, we get sanctions that entrench hardship and a health system left to limp along with barely enough to keep the lights on. Chief Children’s Commissioner Dr. Claire Achmad said it best: the government must make ending child poverty a national priority. Until National stops procrastinating and starts investing in families, health, and equity, our kids will continue to pay for their failures.

The Coalition's Pay Equity Betrayal

The Coalition of Chaos' latest incredibly short-sighted move sees them throwing pay equity claims into the bin to fund a few new helicopters and in so doing has set employment law back decades. We all agree that modern search and rescue equipment is necessary, but at what cost? Pay equity laws, painstakingly initiated to address systemic wage gaps for teachers, nurses, and other underpaid mainly female-dominated sectors, have been shelved, even though these claims are about righting decades of injustice. It’s a typical move from a government that loves photo-ops but baulks at properly funding the people who keep society running.

Contrast this with Labour’s tenure. When they invested in new helicopters, like the eight NH90s for the Defence Force, they didn’t gut social progress to do it. Labour balanced defence upgrades with commitments to public services, including advancing pay equity. For example, they settled major claims for social workers and education support staff, lifting thousands of low-paid employees closer to a living wage. Budgets were tight, but Labour didn’t pit helicopters against fairness. They found a way to modernise without screwing over the workforce. Why can’t National?


Today, RNZ reported:

 

Overhaul of equal pay legislation is halting progress, Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner says

The Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner says she has serious concerns about the proposed overhaul of equal pay law.

The government is planning to limit the scope of pay equity claims and raise the threshold of proof, making it harder to prove a job has been historically undervalued.

It said settlements had cost the Crown $1.78 billion dollars a year.

 

The Coalition’s excuse? “Fiscal responsibility.” Spare me. This is the same bunch of idiots who are happy to pay more for less ferries to be delivered at a later date...the same morons who splash cash on tax cuts for the wealthy while crying poor when it comes to minimum wage rises. Scrapping pay equity to fund helicopters isn’t about balancing books; it’s about priorities. National’s vision is one where elite interests soar, while the rest of us are grounded. And let’s not ignore the optics: helicopters are great for getting in the news with favourable press releases. Pay equity? That’s just “woke” noise to them, despite the fact it directly impacts thousands of struggling Kiwi families.

What’s worse, this move is set to bypass normal due process and therefore undermines trust in the government. Workers who’ve campaigned for equity now see their efforts trashed for political expediency. Christopher Luxon gloating about how much the government will save is a slap in the face to unions, advocates, and every Kiwi who believes in a fair go. Labour’s approach, while not perfect, at least showed respect for the people who keep New Zealand ticking. They didn’t sacrifice one public good for another; they governed with a broader lens.

It’s not just about helicopters...it’s about a government that cannot balance the books. If they can’t fund both defence and fairness through equal pay, maybe the problem isn’t the budget. Maybe it’s their moral compass. Wake up, New Zealand. We deserve better than the coalition of chaos’ short-sighted vision for New Zealand.

PM runs away from equal pay

Since their election in 2008, the National led government has dragged its feet on the issue of equal pay. Even when they looked close to making some worthwhile legislative changes, after years of legal battles, the remedy proposed is clearly far too narrow in focus to make any real difference at all.

Like so many of the National led government’s proposals it's simply window dressing to make it appear that they give a damn about the low and discriminatory wages people are expected to survive on. It's pretty obvious that National wants people's incomes to remain disproportionately allocated based on their gender, and that's why Bill English was run out of Dunedin hospital this afternoon.

Today, 1 News reported:

Protesters demanding equal pay force PM to leave Dunedin Hospital after storming building

Protesters have flooded Dunedin Hospital, forcing Prime Minister Bill English to leave the building.

Bill English was ushered out of the hospital following his announcement that $1billion will be spent on the complete rebuild of Dunedin hospital.

1 NEWS political reporter Katie Bradford tweeted: "Protesters have marched into Dunedin hospital and chased the PM & health minister out of the building".

Thankfully a lot of people realise that the Employment (Pay Equity and Equal Pay) Bill will simply not work to address pay inequality in New Zealand… and here’s why.

On Thursday, Newsroom reported:

Equal pay advocate Bartlett ‘let down’ by Govt

Just four months ago, the Government described its $2 billion deal with Kristine Bartlett and her fellow aged care workers as an historic first step towards achieving pay equity. But Bartlett now says she feels betrayed by the Government. Andre Chumko reports.

…

The disillusion began to set in within two days. On April 20 the Government released its draft bill, which unions and the Opposition said erected a road block to settlements similar to Bartlett's by forcing pay equity claimants to compare themselves first with colleagues in their own businesses and sectors, rather than with similarly skilled workers in other sectors. They argued the Government had ignored the good work done over two years by employers and unions in a Joint Working Group led by Dame Patsy Reddy, who is now the Governor General.

The bill's presentation to Parliament last week for its first reading confirmed for many that the promise of April 18 had been dashed.

"I listened to the first reading and I was just absolutely gobsmacked to think that they could stand up there and say what they had to say about it. They didn’t care a damn. Not one of them. They totally changed their minds and they totally reneged on what was the exciting part about this case, and just stopped it basically for everyone else," Bartlett said.

In July, Newsroom also reported:

Equal pay tsunami surges forward

Eric Crampton, chief economist at the New Zealand Institute, said the pay equity framework would likely result in hundreds of millions of dollars in extra public spending leaving the Government “stuck with a bit of a mess”.

National’s attempt to trick people into thinking they were addressing the equal pay issue has left them running for cover. This is particularly concerning for Bill English because Labour’s new leader, Jacinda Ardern, has recently announced that she won’t rest until women have equal pay.

There’s a clear choice for voters at the upcoming election between a party that pretends and one that actually cares about equal pay. If like Jacinda you also want to see an end to workplace discrimination, make the right choice on your ballot paper. It’s time to change the government.

National keeps kids poor

We should all know by now that the current government doesn't give a rats arse about poor people. Not only has poverty and inequality increased dramatically since 2008, the numbers of children living below the poverty line is now at crisis levels.

Agencies like the Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) have fought long and hard to end discrimination against children from beneficiary families. They've even had some success with a recent hearing finding that the current system is creating material disadvantage. That ruling caused the government to reconsider their decision to withhold the parental tax credit and extra paid parental leave for beneficiaries.

Unfortunately the courts also said that such discrimination was allowed because it creates an incentive for people work. This seems like such a ridiculous ruling, being that most beneficiaries want to work but there's simply not enough jobs available.

There in lies the conundrum being that the government must first help to create enough well paid jobs for people to work themselves out of poverty. The government aren't doing that though, especially in rural areas and especially for ethnic minorities.

The judges ruling isn't very relevant to those who feel the greatest impact from poverty either, the children. If they're born into a poor family, the government is just saying; "oh well, too bad for you then". That's the impression one gets after reading this report from Stuff today:

The Government rejected plans to include beneficiaries in a package to help families with newborn babies, despite official advice they were the most vulnerable.

Budget papers show that last November, Treasury, Inland Revenue and Social Development jointly considered ways to give more help to families after the birth of a baby, in particular those on low to middle incomes, including beneficiaries.

Options considered included an increase in the parental tax credit (PTC) - part of Working for Families, but not available to beneficiaries - and extra paid parental leave (PPL).

Documents do not show when things changed, but by February ministers had rejected the inclusion of beneficiaries and had limited it to those in paid work.

That prompted officials to note: "Such a package would be targeted solely at families in paid employment. The children most at risk are those from beneficiary families and this package would not provide additional assistance to them."

In effect the government has chosen to leave most of the 260,000 children who are living in poverty exactly where they are. It seems that those on hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollar salaries simply don't care if poor families can meet the basic needs of their children.

In fact it appears that the government is determined to entrench poor people in poverty so that there's an underclass of New Zealanders that they and their rich mates can look down upon. That's not the type of policy direction we should accept in this great and prosperous country. It's certainly not the type of administration our forbears fought so hard for.

If you give a damn about the next generation having a fair go, might I suggest you vote to change the government at the September 2014 election. Because without a change in government we can pretty much count on poverty and inequality becoming a lot worse under this National led regime.

Kevin Hague vs Tony Ryall

Change in incomes since 2008

Inequality: Why are the rich getting richer?

Thanks for the two-minute noodles John

Today, the NZ Herald reported:

One budgeting expert blamed tough times for producing "a generation of two-minute noodle kids".

But principal economist at the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research Shamubeel Eaqub suggested perception was not always reality. He said average weekly earnings for all workers had increased more than the cost of living, meaning people were, on average, better off.

Which is absolutely wrong! Income for the top earners has increased, but low and middle-income earners now have less money in their pockets than they did a few years ago.

In fact incomes for males age 16 to 20 decreased between 2008 and 2011 in real terms before you even factor in the rising cost of living. In 2008 they were earning on average $10,678 each, in 2011 they received a meager $10,563 after tax income to survive on.

That's a decrease of 1%, which combined with CPI infation of 9.8% over the same time period means young males are a lot worse off...which is likely why they make up the largest age group of people leaving for a brighter future overseas or taking their own lives.

That had led to households becoming more confident about borrowing as house prices had risen - particularly in Auckland and Canterbury.

Shamubeel Eaqub is obviously a shill for the government. He's completely ignoring the fact that home ownership rates are continuing to decline in New Zealand, mainly because houses are now largely unaffordable for people on even moderate incomes.

Despite the statistics clearly showing that most New Zealander's aren't better off, National and their propagandists will claim until they're blue in the face that everything is just fine. Unfortunately for the majority of struggling Kiwis, it's not.

Lockwood leech

Yesterday, the NZ Herald reported:

Labour's foreign affairs spokesman Phil Goff said New Zealand taxpayers should not have to fork out $7500 a week to pay for alternative premises for the High Commissioner while the official residence remains empty.

"Foreign Affairs has just been savagely restructured, with staff being made redundant and allowances slashed to save money.

"There will need to be very good reasons why $390,000 a year is being spent on alternative High Commission accommodation. That sum would cover the annual salaries of more than five Ministry staff."

Imagine how many children could be fed at school for $390,000 per year.

Mr Goff has called on Foreign Affairs Minister Murray McCully to say why the money is being spent.

Perhaps I can answer that question; the exorbitant amount of money being spent on Lockwwod Smith's accomodation is because he's in the old boys club.

Meanwhile back in New Zealand government policy continues to cause poverty to increase. Clearly social responsibility is a foreign concept to National, with John Key claiming the government cannot afford to ensure poor kids have enough to eat at the same time $7500 taxpayers dollars are being spent each week on rent for one of his mates.

While many thousands of children don't have enough sustenance to reach their full potential and the elderly are freezing because they cannot afford to heat their homes properly, all Lockwood leech has to do is smooze with other elitists. The very high and mighty commissioner gets to drink the finest wine and eat the best foods public money can buy while New Zealand becomes even more unequal and impoverished.

Let's hope that the next government will ensure such gluttony by public officials doesn’t continue to deprive the poor of the basic necessities of life.

Dunne supports hunger

Today, Kiwibog published a letter by Peter Dunne:

I fully understand what is intended by this essentially laudable proposals, but I think it is fundamentally flawed for a number of reasons.

Of course, there is a significant number of children who go to school to hungry, because they have not been properly fed at home, and of course poor nutrition has an adverse effect on learning and the subsequent development of the child. That is not the issue – rather, the question is what is the best way of addressing this problem. 

At one level, the idea of meals in schools is superficially attractive, but it is essentially palliative, and does little to deal with the circumstances of these children on a long term basis. 

I really don't see how feeding hungry kids can be viewed as superficial? Its children's short-term hunger leading onto long-term problems that Peter Dunne should be concerned with, which is clearly anything but a superficial problem.

Unless Dunne plans to increase benefits and wages to a degree that parents can afford to pay bills and buy enough food each week, which simply won't happen under this National government, then a "palliative" solution is all that is currently available.

I'm left wondering if Dunne would perhaps argue against soup kitchens during the great depression because it wasn't going to permanently cure the problem of widespread unemployment and impoverishment?

Then there is the question of which group of children should we be focusing on. After all, not all children in schools will come from the same socio-economic backgrounds. So, should such a programme be applied universally, which would be as expensive as it would be impractical, or should it be more tightly targeted?

How about feeding the kids who arrive at school without having any breakfast? How about feeding the thousands of kids who arrive at school without any food to eat and don't have any money to purchase lunch? Asking kids if they want breakfast or lunch seems like a pretty simple solution to me.

And if so, how? Should, for example, it just apply in low decile schools, even though there will [be] children in those schools from a higher socio-economic status who would not need such a programme?

So the children from low-income households (270,000 children are now considered to be living in poverty) should go hungry because there are some children who's families can afford to feed them? What an entirely pathetic argument based on elitism!

In that event, what about low-income household children in higher decile schools? Or, to get around income definition problems, should the children of beneficiaries be the only ones eligible?

Of course not! There are many New Zealanders who are considered to be working poor because of our low waged economy and the high cost of living. Having a job these days doesn't necessarily mean people can pay the bills and buy enough food each week.

The real silly thing about Peter Dunne's argument is that even a cursory glance at the actual Education (Food in Schools) Amendment Bill (PDF) would enable somebody to understand that the policy proposes a targeted approach. Here's the explanatory note to the bill:

This Bill amends the Education Act 1989 to provide for the introduction of fully State funded breakfast and lunch programmes into all decile 1 and 2 schools and other designated schools in New Zealand.

The meals will be available to all enrolled students in these schools free of charge, and will be required to meet Ministry of Health nutritional guidelines.

Despite that well-defined policy initiative, The idiot Minister of Revenue bleats:

Whatever way one looks at the issue, the definitional problems are massive, and strongly suggest that such a programme would not only be unsustainable, but also impractical, and in a number of cases potentially inequitable.

Except Dunne's definition above is clearly wrong! It's what they call a straw man argument to make the problem appear disproportionately large so that any solution seems unattainable. Not only is Dunne being dishonest in his argument, he's ignoring the fact that food in schools programs are being effectively run all around the world.

With New Zealand being a huge producer and exporter of food, surely we can find enough to feed some hungry children in schools? Besides, the long-term cost to the nation and to children's ability to learn from not doing anything far outweighs any short-term cost of providing children with enough food.

The heartless Peter Dunne also appears to be arguing that some well off children will abuse the system by getting breakfast or lunch for free when their parents could otherwise afford to provide it. That might be the case, but it shouldn't preclude poor kids from getting enough sustenance.

That is why I take the view that a much more realistic and workable approach is to target directly, through early identification by community agencies, at risk families and to work with them to help them get the support they need to properly feed their children.

That might be a laudable idea, but would be just as costly as providing food in schools and take far longer to ensure children are getting enough food, which is an immediate problem.

That support could take any number of forms, depending on individual circumstances, including direct assistance with the provision of food, at one end of the scale, through to such things as life skills advice on cooking, for example, and proper budget advice at the other end of the scale.

The ever-deluded Peter Dunne appears to be saying that poor families should attain more food parcels from charitable organisations, many of which are already swamped. Likewise budgeting agencies are struggling to keep up with demand, especially since National cut funding for many of these agencies. That clearly shows the government has no intention to implement any of Dunne's already failing proposals.

Such a targeted approach is far more likely to succeed in the long term, and benefit directly at-risk children, and would have my full support.

Then why is he propping up a government that's doing the exact opposite? Since 2008, National has ensured the amount of children living in poverty has increased by more than 50,000 by cutting funding for budgeting services, kicking thousands off the welfare they're entitled to and generally increasing unemployment. They have been actively working to make the problem of inequality a lot worse.

I used to think Dunne had a heart, but now I see it's been corrupted by National's selfishness.

Here's a list of organisations supporting the campaign to feed children in schools:

Anglican Church
Auckland Action Against Poverty
Barnardos
Caritas Aotearoa NZ
Child Poverty Action Group
CTU Rūnanga
Every Child Counts
IHC
Methodist Church
NZ Educational Institute
NZ Nurses’ Organisation
NZ Principals’ Federation
Plunket
Poverty Action Waikato
PPTA
Salvation Army
Save the Children
Te ORA (Te Ohu Rata o Aotearoa): Māori Medical Practitioners’ Association
Te Rōpū Wāhine Māori Toko i te Ora (Māori Women’s Welfare League)
Te Waka Huia
The Royal New Zealand College for General Practitioners
Unicef NZ
Unite Union
Women’s Refuge

Global Wealth Inequality