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.

National Government Gaslights over Economic Downturn

New Zealand’s economy is languishing, and the National-led coalition, with Finance Minister Nicola Willis at the helm, has been quick to point fingers at Labour’s Covid-19 spending.

The problem for the coalition of chaos is their narrative is a masterclass in gaslighting, deflecting blame from their own disastrous economic policies while misrepresenting the past. Let’s unpack their mess, because the truth is far uglier than the coalition’s polished spin.
 

Earlier this month, Stuff reported:

The $66 billion Covid spend up: Treasury asks if the Government went too far

Finance Minister Nicola Willis was quick to draw attention to the Tresuary’s conclusions. She has long blamed current economic challenges on the previous Labour Government.

She said this report proved that, as she has said previously, the Labour Government was fuelling inflation.

“Unfortunately, the Labour government ignored [officials’] advice. The consequence was undisciplined spending that pushed up inflation, eroded New Zealand’s previously low public debt position, and fuelled a cost-of-living crisis,” she said.

“The lesson from Labour’s mishandling of the Covid response is that while there are times when governments have to increase spending in response to major events, the fiscal guardrails should be restored as soon as possible,” she added.

During the Covid-19 pandemic, Labour, under Jacinda Ardern and Chris Hipkins, rolled out a lifeline to keep businesses afloat and workers employed. The Wage Subsidy Scheme alone, costing $18.3 billion, ensured millions of Kiwis kept their jobs, while the $70.4 billion Covid-19 Response and Recovery Fund (CRRF) propped up health, aviation, and small businesses.

This was no reckless spending spree; it was a calculated response to a global crisis, with Treasury initially urging broad-based support like wage subsidies to stabilise the economy. The result? New Zealand’s unemployment rate dropped to a 40-year low of 3.2% by December 2021, and GDP rebounded faster than in any other OECD country. Labour’s spending wasn’t perfect, but it kept the nation afloat when the world was drowning.

 

In 2021, Stuff reported:

NZ dollar tipped to head higher as economy rebounds from Covid

The New Zealand dollar is heading higher as the economy recovers from the Covid-19 pandemic, which will make exports more expensive and imports cheaper.

Fitch Solutions on Wednesday lifted its forecast for the currency, and now expects it to average US74.34 cents over the remainder of this year, having averaged US71.84c over the first five months. The kiwi was at US72.52c around midday on Wednesday.

Economic growth would probably pick up by 3.6 per cent this year after a 1.2 per cent contraction last year, which would encourage investment flows into the country and tighter monetary policy, pushing the currency higher, Fitch said.

“We attribute the New Zealand dollar’s robust uptrend in recent months to the country’s strong economic recovery from the Covid-19 pandemic,” Fitch said.

Enter the National Party, clutching a Treasury report that claims Labour blew $66 billion. Sounds damning, right? Except it’s a sleight of hand. That figure includes general government expenditure, not just Covid-specific measures, inflating the narrative of Labour’s supposed recklessness while Willis has been borrowing even more than former Minister of Finance, Grant Robertson.

National’s comparison of New Zealand’s Covid spending to other countries while Labour was in power is equally dishonest, as those nations often exclude general expenditure from their Covid budgets. It’s a classic case of cherry-picking data to paint Labour as profligate while ignoring the global context. This isn’t analysis; it’s propaganda from a dishonest government that can only blame others for their own economic failures.

Meanwhile, the coalition of chaos has embarked on a slash-and-burn mission. Since taking office in 2023, they’ve axed 10,000 public sector jobs, including 2,000 in health, and imposed 7.5% cuts across ministries. Wellington, the public service hub, is reeling, with house prices down 6.8% and 19,500 jobs lost since January 2025. The downturn in the capital city is palpable.

 

In May, Reuters reported:

New Zealand's budget cuts punish public sector, business and workers

"We were told survive until 2025 and it will get better. Well, we're now in May 2025 and it doesn't feel better," said Thomson, who is currently doing paid freelance work.

New Zealand's conservative coalition government releases its annual budget on Thursday and is expected to continue to push fiscal discipline with many ministries not expected to see budget increases.

Spending cuts since December 2023 have been felt across the wider economy but perhaps most acutely in Wellington, a city of nearly 210,000 where the government has historically been a major employer.

House prices in Wellington have plunged 6.8% over the past year, far exceeding the national decline of 1.1%. Population growth stagnated in 2024, contrasting with a 1.7% increase nationwide. Consumer and economic sentiment in the city remains lower than in many other regions, with businesses and residents expressing concern over the city's prospects.

In Auckland, businesses are folding at twice the rate of last year, surpassing even the 2008 GFC failure rate. The coalition’s austerity obsession is sucking confidence out of the economy, leaving workers and businesses stranded and tens of thousands of young New Zealanders heading overseas to find a brighter future.

Worse, National’s policies are hammering the most vulnerable. Workplace Relations Minister Brooke van Velden’s 1.5% minimum wage increase to $23.50, well below the 2.7% inflation rate, is in real-terms a pay cut. Welfare cuts and increases in the cost of living further erodes people's purchasing power, hitting the elderly and disabled hardest. Even for people with a little bit saved, nobody is spending because nobody feels confident in the current government's economic agenda.

With household costs up 5.4% in the year to June 2024, driven by a 9.0% rise in rent, an 8.7% increase in mortgage interest payments, and higher food and energy prices, Kiwis are struggling to keep up. These pressures, that even the RBNZ's tweaks are not addressing, compounded by a projected 5% rent increase and persistent inflation in 2025, are bleeding many households dry. This isn’t fiscal discipline; its economic sabotage, draining demand and ensuring an increase in business closures due to reduced cash flow.

 

Earlier this month, RNZ reported:

A boom in businesses going bust

New Zealand is riding its highest wave of company liquidations in more than a decade, with thousands of businesses folding and countless livelihoods caught in the crossfire.

Many more are holding on, but just.

In the first half of this year alone, 1270 businesses have shut their doors - a 12 percent increase on this time year.

It's now anticipated that the total number of liquidations for the year will surpass 2024's 10-year high, when 2500 companies folded. That was an increase of nearly 700 compared to 2023. 

Wellington economy shrinks as 177 businesses shut in a year – does Nicola Willis accept some blame?, via @nzherald https://t.co/TyMqKqrn3Y

— Jan Renwick (@nettieg3) August 26, 2025

Nicola Willis, the architect of this misery, has the gall to blame Labour while implementing austerity on the poor and pushing policies that fuel inflation. Treasury forecast inflation would be as low as 1.8% in 2025, but National’s policies have kept it at 2.7% and climbing.

National, and their coalition bedfellows, are becoming increasingly desperate, and are throwing everything they can to prop up their golden goose, the floundering housing market. Foreign buyers might make the numbers look good on paper for a while, but they'll do nothing to ensure New Zealanders quality of life improves through increased home ownership rates.

The coalitions much-touted Fast-Track Approvals Bill, now being spruiked as an economic saviour for families unable to afford basic food items, offers zero cost-of-living relief for everyday Kiwis. It’s a sop to developers, corporates and the existing supermarket duopoly, not families facing skyrocketing bills at the checkout.

Willis’ rhetoric about cleaning up Labour’s mess is pure gaslighting, obscuring the fact that her austerity is deepening the economic downturn.

The coalition of chaos is driving New Zealand into an economic abyss, while they attempt to cloak their failures in Labour-bashing and dodgy numbers. The Covid hangover is real, but it’s Willis’ heartless cuts and misguided priorities that are keeping the economy on its knees.

Kiwi Workers and Beneficiaries Left Further Behind

You may recall the current Prime Minister Chris Luxon promising that his government would have a laser focus on New Zealand’s cost-of-living crisis. But the 2025 minimum wage and benefit adjustments are yet another set of half-measures that fail to lift struggling Kiwi families out of financial hardship.

Far from delivering any financial relief for everyday New Zealanders, these tweaks leave workers and beneficiaries grappling with rising costs, while the government prioritises billions of dollars for landlord and corporate interests.


On Thursday, RNZ reported:

Budget Day: Government looks to make its promises add up

Council of Trade Unions economist Craig Renney, who is also on the Labour Party's policy council, said the government did not have much to work with given it would not borrow more money.

"We're cutting government services at a time when we know there's increasing demand on those services," he said.

"We have an increasingly elderly population. We have increasingly higher needs in terms of health and education."

Now is the time, he said, to invest in the economy and inject some confidence into the economy.

…

In the budget, he will be looking out for how the government has chosen to use the savings from stopping the pay equity claims. He will also be looking at Treasury's estimates for what is happening to unemployment, wages and the cost of living.

"We've actually seen wages rising far less quickly than in the past, and we've seen two years of cuts to the minimum wage in real terms, and we've seen rising unemployment.

"If those trends continue, that will suggest that the medicine and the pain of economic change is really being borne by workers, in particular, low-paid workforces, rather than by others in the economy who might have broader shoulders."

As of April 1, 2025, the minimum wage inched up by just $0.35 to $23.50/hour…a mere 1.5% increase. For a full-time worker, that’s an extra $14 per week before tax, barely a dent against soaring living costs. The 2025/26 Living Wage, calculated at $28.95/hour, reflects what a person needs for a dignified life, not mere survival. That’s a 23.2% gap (or $11,336/year) between the minimum wage and a living income. In Auckland, where rents consume 50-60% of a minimum-wage earner’s income and power bills rise by $10/month, this increase doesn’t come anywhere near inflation. It’s effectively a pay cut in real terms.

The government’s talk of “balancing business needs” is a thinly veiled excuse for favouring corporate profits over workers’ livelihoods, forcing many into poverty or relocation abroad to find better liveable incomes.

Benefits fare no better. The 2025 Annual General Adjustment lifts main benefits like Jobseeker Support and Sole Parent Support by a paltry 2%, while NZ Superannuation gets a slightly higher 3% increase. A single Jobseeker receives roughly $290-$300/week, totalling $15,600/year. Even with the maximum Accommodation Supplement ($145/week in some areas), that’s just $22,620/year...far below the $40,476/year needed for a modest but liveable income. Sole parents, with Family Tax Credit, reaches about $27,300/year, still falling well short.

Superannuitants living alone now get $28,037.84/year, leaving them well below a dignified standard, particularly if they don’t own their own home. These gaps force families, pensioners, and disabled Kiwis to choose between rent, power, or food, while food banks report surging demand, even from working households. The government's new Rates Rebate Scheme for pensioners, meant to ease local council rates, is a flawed bandage. With complex eligibility, capped rebates, and rising rates because of the cancelled Three Waters scheme outpacing inflation, it will fail to deliver any meaningful relief for our struggling elderly people.

Raising the minimum wage to $28.95/hour would cost employers $1.61B annually, while moderately increasing benefits to $40,476/year for 1.1M recipients would cost $16.09B. These figures are affordable within New Zealand’s $140B budget, especially when compared to the billions funnelled into landlord and business tax breaks.

While workers and beneficiaries scrape by, business owners and landlords benefit from generous policy handouts that haven’t boosted the economy at all, while increases to minimum wages and benefits have been shown to boost the economy substantially. It’s time to prioritise the people over corporate profits, not just to ensure higher living standards, but to also give the economy the boost it needs.

The government’s narrative of “fiscal restraint,” with $5.3B in Budget 2025 savings, rings hollow when essentials like housing and food outpace inflation. Tying benefit increases to CPI or wage growth ignores these realities, deliberately keeping the vulnerable trapped in hardship. What’s needed is bold action: a minimum wage of at least $28.95/hour and benefits modestly raised to $40,476/year for a single adult. In high-cost regions like Auckland, workers may need a boost to $30-$32/hour.

Targeted subsidies for housing (in combination with a rent freeze) could also help, but incremental tweaks won’t suffice. This government’s cautious approach betrays Kiwi values. It’s time to support the workers and families who keep New Zealand running, not just National’s corporate mates and fellow landlords.

Jordan Williams shoots and misses

Jordan Williams

It’s pretty obvious to all and sundry that the Taxpayers Union, run by Jordan Williams, isn’t really a union at all. Instead it’s a small lobby group for privileged white folk, namely the old fools behind the scenes of the corrupt and largely defunct Act Party.

With an incorrectly attributed name, it should come as no surprise that the Taxpayers Union espouse the inconsistent neoliberal beliefs of a dwindling and very small minority. But every once in a while the Taxpayers Union comes up with a real doozy!

That was the case when Williams recently argued that the Government wasn’t legally allowed to request any payment from Kiwis who were returning home because of the COVID-19 pandemic currently raging overseas.


Last Monday, the Taxpayers Union reported:

Government cannot charge New Zealand citizens to return to New Zealand 

Taxpayers’ Union spokesman Jordan Williams said, “Inherited from British constitutional law is what is called the ‘right of return’. Governments can’t put barriers up preventing their own citizens from coming home. Putting a tax or ‘co-payment’ on citizens, even to cover the costs of quarantine, is almost certainly unlawful.”

Don’t give up your day job Jordan. The law referenced here is one of only a few that remains from a year 1217 charter of rights called Magna Carta. But unfortunately for the deluded Williams, the right of return law is superseded here by the the Health Act 1956, which states:

118 Regulations as to quarantine 

Regulations made under this Act may provide for all or any of the following matters: 

(cc) the payment by any person who has been isolated pursuant to regulations made under this section of the reasonable cost of his treatment and maintenance while in isolation.

Now I realise that Williams might not be able to understand this, so let me break it down for him. The Government can legally impose payments on Kiwis returning from overseas who are required, also under law, to go into isolation.

Clearly the Taxpayers Union isn’t the sharpest tool in the shed, and as if to prove just how dull they are, Williams then starts incorrectly quoting from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

In addition, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), article 13:states that Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country. 

The problem with Jordan Williams' argument here is that we’re not talking about stopping Kiwis from returning home. Instead we’re talking about them making a contribution towards their costs incurred while in managed isolation.

Mr Williams says “The purpose of these rules are to prevent statelessness. While it’s painful for taxpayers, it’s a true public good, and the cost is right to be socialised.”

Get that! The Taxpayers Union, who has always argued that the welfare state should be gutted, is now saying that the cost for people’s food and lodgings should be socialised.

What Williams is essentially saying is that taxpayer money should only be spent on people who are wealthy enough to travel, while the poor still deserve an even smaller slice of the pie.

Maybe the Taxpayers Union should have spent some of that $60,000 on an actual lawyer.

But if this wasn’t enough to convince you that the ideology of the Taxpayers Union is terribly flawed, they followed up their previous examples of stupidity with a considerably dumber tweet the next day:

It's probably unconstitutional to charge Kiwis re-entering the country.

But most New Zealanders would make a distinction between Kiwis returning home and tourists or foreign workers. Those travellers ought to cover their quarantine costs.

— Taxpayers' Union (@TaxpayersUnion) June 22, 2020

Obviously the issue here is that New Zealand doesn't even have a constitution. If we want an actual constitution, New Zealand would likely need to become a republic first, which is something I'm sure the Taxpayers Onion would argue against as well.

So that would be three strikes and you're out Jordan. Better luck next time.

Citizen A with Selwyn Manning & Chris Trotter

Stupid welfare reforms

Today, the NZ Herald reported:

All sickness beneficiaries, and sole parents and widows with no children under 14, are now subject to the same requirement to look for fulltime work as other jobless people, although sickness may be accepted as a valid reason to postpone work temporarily.

There will also be a new medical assessment process for Invalid beneficiaries to see if they have any capacity for work. While General Practitioners will be required to provide further personal details on their clients, the new regime may also include an examination by a specialist appointed by WINZ. No figures have been provided to show the cost of implementing this aspect of the policy changes.

Other new obligations include drug-testing for jobseekers in relevant industries, which is expected to trigger benefit cuts for up to 5800 people, and a requirement for beneficiaries to clear outstanding arrest warrants.

Drug testing beneficiaries for relevant industries? These people aren't working in those industries yet FFS! Surely the drug test should occur "for relevant industries" when they apply for or get the job? Why are we subsidizing these industries to check if their applicants are suitable or not?

Cutting a person's benefit if they fail a taxpayer funded drug test is a foolish policy that will do nothing to reduce the amount of drug addiction in New Zealand. In fact it is likely to make it even worse. Without an income some people will be forced into dealing drugs or selling their bodies...is that what the right wing want?

About 8000 beneficiaries have arrest warrants outstanding for issues such as unpaid fines. Unless they clear them within 38 days, their benefits will be halved if they have children, or stopped completely if they don't, in what is likely to be the biggest single purge of the benefit rolls since the system was created.

Except a beneficiary who has fines usually pays them off at around $15 dollars per week. They have no choice in the matter, as WINZ automatically reduces their benefits until their fines are paid. If a person has an arrest warrant for fines, be assured that WINZ is already reducing that person’s benefit.

Most beneficiaries simply don't have the means to pay their fines within 38 days. Not having a WOF and registration costs $400, meaning this is clearly being used as an excuse to kick people who are already struggling off welfare. Such archaic and stupid policy will cause more beneficiaries to use loan sharks in an attempt to not lose their only incomes. In most cases these people don't have legal cars because they simply cannot afford them in the first place. Perhaps the right wing expects them to use a horse and cart instead?

Such repressive policy will undoubtedly create even more inequality in New Zealand... but I guess that's been National's agenda all along.

Family First wrong

Yesterday, Voxy reported:

Family First NZ says that six years since the anti-smacking law was passed in a supposed effort to lower our child abuse rates, it has been confirmed as a spectacular failure based on flawed ideology.

Actually, the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act 2007 (PDF) is likely to be the main reason children requiring the care of the Chief Executive reduced by 18 per cent (from 6136 cases to 5020) between 2008 and 2011. Likewise, children being placed in CYF's care reduced by 14 per cent (from 4522 placements to 3885) in the same time period.

The amendment came into effect in June 2007, and the only plausible explanation for such a dramatic reduction is that the law change has in fact worked.

On Monday, the Prime Minster was interviewed on Breakfast TV about the issue:

But there were about 6000 children who were in um Child Youth and Family care, so essentially looked after by a foster parent or more likely than not last year in which there were 23 cases of abuse. So we do have to say most foster parents do a fantastic job of looking after children, some are not.

If Key's figures are correct, it's astounding that there's been such a huge increase of children requiring the states assistance. From 5020 in 2011 to "about 6000" in 2012 is an astronomical jump in just one year. So what's the reason for this increase?

Family First is also rubbishing claims by Prime Minister John Key that the increased numbers of child abuse simply reflect an increase in reporting.

Thankfully Mandatory reporting for Police and DHB's was implemented in 2009, so we would expect to see an increase in children being placed in care in the following two years if there was previously widespread underreporting.

Personally I think Key and Family First are both wrong! For Key to be correct, underreporting would have to be extensive, which is clearly not the case. The conservative Christian group is simply wrong! There has been four years of steady decline in severe cases of abuse requiring the states intervention since the law was amended.

In my opinion, that initial decline in children being referred to CYF's care because of the law change has now been surpassed by the degradation the neoliberal agenda has caused society. With reduced wages, less services and a harsher welfare regime, more people are stressed, and this sometimes results in them taking it out on their children.

It would help the debate immensely if those concerned with the welfare of children got their facts straight. With approximately 15 per cent of children in New Zealand at risk of abuse, and over 80,000 children witnessing family violence each year, this is something we simply cannot get wrong.

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

Not just forgetfulness

It's pretty clear that there's a huge flaw in the way John Key goes about his business as the Prime Minister of New Zealand, namely his continued forgetfulness and/or dishonesty.

Today, the NZ Herald reported a partial list:

* Forgot how many Tranz Rail shares he owned.
* Unsure if and when he was briefed by GCSB on Kim Dotcom.
* Forgot how he voted on drinking age.
* Could not recall whether he was for or against the 1981 Springbok Tour.
* Couldn't remember who was aboard mystery CIA jet at Wellington airport.
* Forgot he phoned future director of GCSB urging him to apply for the job.

However there's also:

* The S&P ratings downgrade.
* Secret meetings with Lord Michael Ashcroft.
* His "blind" trusts investments.
* Dishonesty about the Hobbit dispute.
* Misinformation concerning Afghanistan.
* Broken promises about the Pike River recovery.
* Disinformation about the SkyCity report.
* Dishonesty concerning the safety of fracking.
* Dishonesty about the number of unemployed.
* Promising “no job cuts” to the Public Service Association.
* "Forgetting" he signed off on the new ministerial BMW's.

In fact the list of John Keys incompetence and/or corruption goes on and on.

Tax evasion is not OK

Today, the NZ Herald reported:

Recent research also confirms that the legal system treats beneficiaries more harshly than tax evaders.

In a pilot study comparing three years of tax evasion and welfare fraud, Victoria University lecturer Dr Lisa Marriott found welfare fraud was significantly more likely than tax crime to be prosecuted, even though the sums involved in tax offences were far larger. In 2010, it was calculated that tax evaders cheated New Zealand of up to $6 billion.

Benefit fraud involved an average of $70,000 and the offender had a 60 per cent chance of being jailed. Tax evaders, with an average fraud of $270,000, had only a 22 per cent chance of being imprisoned.

That's a huge difference that clearly shows our current political and judicial system is biased.

On February 20 this year, Associate Social Development Minister Chester Borrows announced new measures - not to crack down on the $2.6 billion owing in child support or the money lost through tax evasion, but to "prevent, detect and catch welfare fraud".

Chester Borrows is obviously playing to his constituency of beneficiary bashing tax evaders.

So it is not surprising that a UMR Research survey released last month found New Zealanders believed beneficiaries had now become the most discriminated-against group in the country.

Unfortunately having somebody to blame is a common human trait, and with the media and politicians invariably putting welfare instead of tax evasion at the top of their list, beneficiaries will continue to be unfairly persecuted.

That unfair discrimination has a detrimental effect on all people who are welfare dependent, which in turn costs the country in ways that most politicians don't often consider. Our high rate of youth suicide for instance can often be directly attributed to discrimination.

One way to help people out of poverty would be to ensure that tax evaders were pursued more vigorously, and that tax evasion became less acceptable within "polite" society.

In order to do that, we need to change the public focus away from beneficiary bashing and onto tax evasion, which is easier said than done when there's no political impetus to catch let alone prosecute more tax evaders.

Maybe that’s because many politicians also avoid paying their fair share of taxes as well.

More beneficiary bashing

Today, National reported:

“National promised to clamp down on welfare fraud, and I’m pleased to deliver on that promise today.”

The first initiative is to amend the law to create a new offence targeting partners or spouses of beneficiaries who are convicted of fraud.

Relationship offending last year cost over $20 million and makes up one third of welfare fraud prosecutions.

“Currently there are few options available to prosecute partners who know or benefit from such offending, leaving the entire debt with one partner,” says Mr Borrows.

How will they be able to tell what partners knew of the fraud and those that had no idea?

“Prosecuting partners who profit from welfare fraud will ensure that both parties who profit from the crime are punished, and will help the taxpayer recover the lost money faster.”

In some cases a partner won't know about the crime and wouldn't benefit from it, and yet National plan to prosecute and make them pay for a crime they didn't commit, which is entirely unfair.

In contrast to Nationals regular get tough on welfare dog whistling that often coincides with them slumping in the polls or being under fire, we see very little if anything concerning corporate corruption that costs the country far more than welfare fraud ever could.

Despite internal audits only picking up around 2% of fraud cases in New Zealand, the Serious Fraud Office pursued convictions against eight finance companies in 2012 for $2.2 billion worth of fraud.

That's a clear indication that National doesn't have its priorities right when it comes to saving the taxpayer money by reducing crime. Instead, they're picking on beneficiaries who aren't even criminals, and as usual it will be their children who will suffer.

Labour's answer to the housing crisis

Today, the Labour party leader, David Shearer, gave a speech:

Today I’m announcing that we will put 100,000 Kiwi families into their first home.

That’s the sort of big change we need to make a big difference to people’s lives.

We’ll oversee and invest in a large scale 10 year building programme of entry-level houses that Kiwis are crying out for.

Yes, it’s a big commitment and it’ll take a couple of years to ramp up, but we can do it.

I won’t stand by while the dream of home ownership slips away from future generations.

At the peak of last decade, about 30,000 new homes were built a year. Now it’s less than half that.

These are the missing rungs on the housing ladder. And it shows what an active and responsible government can do to help.

The start-up cost of the building programme will be financed through issuing government stock called Home Ownership Bonds.

The money we make from selling the houses will go back into the pot for building more.

The houses will be compact in size. Some will be stand-alone dwellings and others apartments. All of them will be good quality and energy efficient.

The homes will be sold to first home buyers who’ve saved their own deposit, like with KiwiSaver.

We estimate that the maximum needed to be raised for a kick-start will be $1.5 billion.

It will quickly become self-funding though. And because it’s a capital investment, it won’t affect our commitment to balance the books and return to surplus.

I can already hear our opponents complaining that this is too bold. That the problem’s too big and there’s nothing we can do.

I won’t accept that. I won’t give up on the Kiwi dream of an affordable home.

I have spoken to Auckland Mayor Len Brown to take up his offer of a partnership with Auckland council to make land available.

In addition, we will introduce a National Policy Statement under the RMA to ensure that planning rules and consenting decisions support affordable housing.

This is most excellent news and acknowledges the huge and growing need for more affordable housing in New Zealand. It also acknowledges the success of other state housing initiatives in New Zealand that ensured many Kiwis, including the current Prime Minister John Key, had security through affordable housing.

David Shearer might understate the effectiveness of such a policy, but like the state housing policy after WW2, there's a distinct possibility of a financial return on the governments initial investment.

The opportunities inherent in such a large scale plan to save costs by buying in bulk should ensure it's cost effectiveness. Being that the government can match the housing required with the people who require it through better technology should also ensure savings and efficiency. This policy will also boost the economy, which has been limping along under Nationals stupid neo-liberal agenda.

There is the political angle to consider, in that some property investments might not increase in value as fast as they are now once the state houses come on line. But I don't think there's any other choice and something must be done to address the overheated market in New Zealand and the fact that we're not building enough houses to meet demand.

Clearly one of the biggest positive to Labours housing policy (PDF) is that it will give those who've lost all hope of ever owning their own home a chance to get onto that all important property ladder. The social benefits to this are huge and shouldn't be underestimated.

So well done David Shearer... That's exactly the type of thing I would do if I were Prime Minister.

The truth about job creation

Yesterday, Voxy news reported:

"It's completely unclear to us where John Key's jobs are going to come from."

The government itself has been a major destroyer of jobs over the last 4 years, such as those lost at KiwiRail's Hillside workshops in Dunedin because of an unwillingness to use government procurement to protect local jobs, Robert Reid said.

National has also reduced the number of Full-Time Equivalent Public Service workers, with a resulting lack of service delivery being reported. They've also failed to reduce the amount of investment into non-productive sectors, which has a direct negative effect on the economy and job creation.

But the main thing that National has achieved is to increase the amount of people permanently leaving New Zealand to live and work overseas. It's worth noting that if National hadn't increased the mass exodus, there would be even more people looking for work here in Aotearoa.

I guess that might be Keys solution... to export some of the current 78,000 job seekers overseas. The problem is that National has failed to create enough jobs, which has a lot to do with the type of industries they're promoting.

Bennett's benefit balls up

On Tuesday, the National party reported:

The number of people on benefits has fallen to the lowest level since July 2009 says Social Development Minister Paula Bennett.

There are now 320,954 people on benefits, down by 2,000 in the last month, representing around 12 per cent of working age New Zealanders.

There are 58,000 people on Sickness Benefits and 99,000 sole parents on the Domestic Purposes Benefit.

“It is pleasing to see the number of people on Unemployment Benefits has fallen in the past month to 51,422,” says Mrs Bennett.

This is also the lowest figure recorded since June 2009.

However last week the Nelson Mail reported:

The unemployment rate in the top of the south is at its highest in 13 years.

Statistics New Zealand's latest Household Labour Force Survey is out, with a 5.9 per cent unemployment rate in the Tasman, Nelson, Marlborough, West Coast region for the March quarter.

This represents 6100 unemployed people and compares to a national unemployment rate of 6.7 per cent.

It has not been that high in the top of the south since the December quarter in 1999, when the unemployment rate reached 6.4 per cent.

The unemployment rate was 5.1 per cent at the same time last year.

Who to believe?

Statistics NZ doesn't really have any reason to misrepresent unemployment figures when it says the annual change is +3.1% and there are now 160,000 unemployed... unlike Paula Bennett who has a history of cherry picking what data she misrepresents.

The Nelson Mail article also has a comment by WINZ regional labour market manager Gary Gatward-Smith saying:

The Household Labour Force Survey used different measures to reach its unemployment rate figures and did not take into account seasonal adjustments.

So lets check... The latest Household Labour Force Survey (PDF) states:

We monitor our data to make sure that our seasonal adjustment is robust.

Clearly Paula Bennett and Gary Gatward-Smith are full of it!

Speak to the machine

National have announced that many Housing New Zealand personnel are going to be replaced by an answer machine. There’s one main reason for this, and that’s to lessen the amount of people applying for state houses. National are making the application process even harder, so that people are deterred and have to rent in the private sector.

On Monday, TV3 reported:

An 0800 number and call centre will replace face-to-face contact after Housing New Zealand closes 52 offices and cuts 70 front line jobs.

The change will affect how New Zealanders get in touch with the organisation.
Porirua’s Betty Tahitahi and Brian Grace are concerned about the change, as their Cannons Creek state house has cracks after an earthquake last year.

They say Housing New Zealand is always slow to respond, and are worried having a call centre will make it worse.

“Calling them is not really an option because I could be talking to a computer and they say the same thing again and again. If I go face them then I know things will get done,” Ms Tahitahi says.

There are 69,000 state houses in New Zealand, many of them rented by people who do not speak English.

The right-wingers hate the fact that there are state houses that to a degree keep rental prices down. Even though New Zealand has one of the most expensive rental markets in the world, they want more.

Landlords can only achieve better returns from rack-renting if the alternative is no longer available… hence the move to depersonalise the system to deter people from calling Housing New Zealand, which will result in less efficiency and therefore less state housing.

The other way in which National is trying to destroy the state-housing sector is to leave many houses empty until they are vandalized. They then use this as an excuse to demolish. Between 2008 and 2011, National increased the amount of vacant state houses by a whopping 471 and the overal state houses available declined by 171 in the same time period. 256 houses were demolished.

National is also evicting long-standing tenants and shifting them into less desirable areas to meet the demands of their property speculator buddies.

Housing demand is growing at around 20,000 per year, with building and maintenance not keeping pace. The cost of such mismanagement can be measured in more overcrowding in overpriced and unsuitable accommodation.

Increased hospitalisation, homelessness and decreased productivity are all results of New Zealand’s poor housing stock... the fault of which can be traced back to National's deregulation and policy bungling.

National's nanny state

Yesterday, the NZ Herald reported:

From July, up to 14,000 teenagers aged 16 and 17 who are not in education, work or training and teen parents aged 16 to 18 will be coupled with a private provider to help them with budgeting courses, parenting courses, training or job-hunting.

Their basic costs such as rent and power will be paid by the state, and they will have a payment card for living costs that can be monitored to ensure they do not buy alcohol or cigarettes.

They will receive an allowance of up to $50 a week, but this can increase by $10 a week for a good attendance record at school or for completing a budgeting or parenting course.

Likewise, providers will receive extra funding, but Ms Bennett said payments to them would be based on the results they achieved what she called "real outcomes''.

There are some major problems with this tinkering around the edges.

Firstly, the government will be deciding who the private providers will be. We have seen countless cases of National cronyism over the last few years, and this just opens up another avenue for those who are finding favour with National to line their own pockets.

Secondly, the government cannot hope to control direct payments to landlords so that there is no rorting going on. Having a mechanism whereby the government allocates money that goes directly to landlords is open to abuse.

Thirdly, and more importantly, young people need to learn to budget for themselves. National cannot hope to have people that can look after themselves if the state is controlling their money and perhaps where they live. But what is strange about this aspect of National’s proposed changes is that it goes against their personal responsibility motto.

The hypocritical Bennett needs to look at policy that will achieve real outcomes like creating jobs and providing proper incentives for training that actually meets market requirements. National’s beneficiary bashing will achieve nothing.

Biased Media Protecting Brand Key

It’s pretty disgusting that in the 3 News video below Rachel Smalley paraphrased what John Key said to try and protect his non-existent credibility.



Then she announced that according to John Key... Labours plan to introduce further tax cuts would create more unemployment while Nationals "leaked" policy will reduce unemployment by 46,000, but no mention of National increasing unemployment by a whopping 49,000.

This is blatant spin by a corrupted media.

Nationals last budget claimed they would create 170,000 more jobs... the same lie they used in their 2009 budget, which was a complete work of fiction.



I’m thoroughly sick and tired of John Keys lies and a biased media trying to protect him.

Prime Minister Material?

John Key made a dick of himself again in an interview yesterday. I'm not just talking about the Prime Minster's stupid joke about Australia gifting New Zealand a coalmine...

I'm talking about one of the biggest lies that has ever been foisted on the New Zealand public. John Key said that National had created employment and that unemployment had fallen. This is such a blatant lie that I'm almost lost for words. Here's what the moron said:

“We’ve grown eight out of nine quarters, we have low interest rates, unemployment is falling, we are on track to create 170,000 jobs,” he said.

One-hundred-and-seventy-thousand is the number of jobs the Government predicted would be created over the next four years. Mr Key says, despite the real possibility of a global double-dip recession, there is no need to doubt the Government forecasts about job growth.

“I believe we can,” he said. “We created 45,000 this year and we’re on track to create the 170,000 in the budget.”

John Key is clearly lying. There's currently 154,000 people unemployed in New Zealand and the last quarter showed no change to unemployment at 6.5%.

Since National gained power unemployment has more than doubled. In February 2008 it was reported that the December quarter unemployment rate was 3.4%, the lowest rate recorded since the Household Labour Force Survey started in 1986.

National has not created any employment and they're not on target to create 170,000 new jobs. John Key's failure as a Prime Minister to reside in facts is going to be disastrous for this country.

And what about that tasteless coalmine joke... Here's a veritable flaying of the disingenuous Prime Minster by Bomber Bradbury:

It's not the first time he's shown the vacant unawareness of a methadone patient. Remember when he made the International press headlines with his hilarious thigh-slapping-country-club-good-'ole-boy Maori cannibalism jokes? When it comes to race relations comedy, John Key is like a white Chris Rock minus the humor, intelligence, grace, appreciation of historical injustice and dress sense.

John Key is muddling through the current financial crisis with idiotic and inappropriate jokes. He is completely out of touch with reality. Why on earth anybody in their right mind would vote for a party with a lying fool like John Key as their leader is beyond me. John Key is clearly not Prime Minister material.

Paula Bennett - Asshole of the Week Award

Yesterday, the Minister for Social Development, Employment and Youth Affairs, Paula Bennett was asked by Trevor Mallard "How can she justify cutting the very benefit that allowed her to get her qualification, and how can that not be hypocritical?"

After the speaker requested that Trevor Mallard rephrase the question, Bennett couldn't or wouldn't answer it properly. Even the inept Chris Finlayson tried to defend the bumbling Bennett, to no avail.

Bennett then went off on a rant that is irrelevant to the question asked, closing with the statement "then that would be a ridiculous position to be in." Did you understand that people? Bennett is in a ridiculous position and would not qualify under the new criteria the National party has implemented. I've embedded the video below so you can review the reference if you like.



To be perfectly honest, Bennett said it would be ridiculous if an MP couldn't change policy so that someone else in the same position was then disadvantaged, but this is still a ridiculous statement and position all the same. It's also the same argument she used back when the changes were made.

You might say that these changes were made in 2009 and therefore irrelevant, but the negative impacts of the archaic policy change are still in effect and very relevant, particularly because those already receiving the allowance for university degrees when the changes were made, became ineligible in May 2011. This will mean that many half way through studying will now have to stop because of financial restrictions.

After Bennett became an MP, she then went about removing the very advantage that helped her gain qualifications while being a parent. No longer can sole parent beneficiaries access higher education (level 4 and above), which contradicts the governments promoted objective of lower unemployment.

The more heavily monitored access and a narrower criteria to gain the allowance meant that many people were disadvantaged and therefore unable to move back into paid employment.

The TIA is an important allowance for single parents studying, as it helps them address barriers to entering employment and provide financial help with the additional costs of studying and raising children.

The changes disproportionately impact females, as 87% of sole parents studying are Women. Although thousands have been effected, savings of only $2 million were projected.

National undertook no proper assessment of the potential impact of its negative policy decision on sole parents and their children before it was implemented. The archaic administration and changes to the TIA has undoubtedly added to the increased levels of unemployment we've seen under a National led government.

So for being a fashion disaster, being a complete hypocrite, being ridiculous, breaching peoples privacy and bribes to keep people silent amongst other transgressions, Paula Bennett is this weeks Asshole Award winner.