Why did National pick two former welfare-dependent sole mothers to be
Ministers of Social Development?
Because National is woke. They buy into the leftist public service
fetish for 'lived experience'.
New Zealand's unique welfare problem isn't disability or unemployment.
Other developed nations can match us.
It is the high rate of sole parenthood that sets us apart. Majorly
driven by Maori. The worst child abuse, neglect, deprivation,
transience, non-preparedness for school, and later, absenteeism comes
from fatherless families. These children spill through to
non-achievement, gang membership, criminality and lives lost to prison
and non-rehabilitation.
Yes, I paint the worst scenario and plenty of children survive. But
compared to children from working, two parent families, their odds of
success are heavily reduced.
Minister for Social Development from 2008, Paula Bennett drove through
some reforms. She actually got rid of the DPB. But then replaced it with
the Sole Parent Payment. The numbers since appear to have reduced but
that's largely because mothers whose youngest turns 14 are moved onto
the Jobseeker benefit. 2023 census data told us 70 percent of sole
parents with dependent children receive welfare. By September 2024, the
last time I asked under the OIA for a total across all benefits, there were 102,693. The
number will have risen since.
Bennett was a champion for sole parents. She had a go at me once when I
highlighted that although many left welfare, they also returned. From
memory she wrote me an email saying, 'At least they are trying.' And
fair enough. She took their corner.
She was, herself, an exemplary story of how a sole parent, Maori to
boot, could succeed wildly. She was a John Key-type story. Pull yourself
up from your difficult beginnings and be a trail-blazing role model.
Trouble is, only a few people respond to inspiration. Most respond to
necessity - as in 'necessity is the mother of invention'. If the state
wasn't doling out cash, other ways to survive would need to be found.
Having learned nothing from putting up Bennett to fend off the
beneficiary bashing accusations, after their 2023 election win, National
found another ex sole parent beneficiary in Louise Upston.
Upston's performance has been underwhelming. Her focus has been on the
Jobseeker benefit and the young. It plays well for those who think
superficially. Yes, we want to keep young people off the benefit (but
her means-testing of 18 and 19 year-olds' parents ensures the most
at-risk for long-term dependency are excluded). Yes, the traffic light
system keeps adding new requirements to record job-seeking efforts but
by and large, it will punish the low-hanging fruit.
What is Upston going to do about the ever-increasing number of children
being born onto benefits, mainly to sole parents? How is she going to
turn around the trend of ever-increasing children dependent on a
benefit? The number in September 2025 reached 234,000. With seasonal
fluctuations the total could reach a quarter million by December.
This country's propensity to put a soft-focus on hard problems is not
working.
The level of toughness and objectivity required means that political
appointees made on the basis of identity is a luxury no longer affordable.
Reform can't wait for who looks the part and how 'kind' it will be. It's
urgent. Now.
Monday, October 20, 2025
National's problem epitomised
Sunday, October 12, 2025
Who Moves from Welfare to Super?
The National government is presiding over significant growth in benefit dependency, in both numbers and the length of duration people remain dependent. When they took office in late November 2023 there were 369,000 work-age people on benefits. By the end of September 2025, that number had grown to 410,328 - or by just over eleven percent.
Given New Zealand's rapidly ageing population, I wondered how much the apparent growth is being suppressed by people moving off a benefit and onto Super. So I asked for data from MSD under the Official Information Act.
Through 2024 and during the first half of 2025 (constituting a good chunk of the current government's tenure) 14,952 people transferred from a working-age benefit to Super.
Over the same period, total working-age beneficiaries rose from to 378,711 to 406,128 or 7.2%
Without the departure of 65 year-old transferees, the increase would have been 11.2%
The answer then to my question is percentage-wise, the growth is being suppressed quite substantially. Of course, this has always been the case. But it is important to grasp that a minus from the working-age ledger doesn't necessarily equate to someone becoming employed and self-sufficient.
I also asked for a breakdown of which benefits the transferees were coming off.
Unsurprisingly a large number have come from the Supported Living Payment (formerly Invalid Benefit). In 2024, 49 percent of people who transferred onto super came from this benefit; 43 percent moved from a Jobseeker benefit; 7 percent had been on an Emergency Benefit and 36 people had been on Sole Parent Support.
Working backwards, given that a sole parent can only qualify while their youngest child is under fourteen, the sole parents are likely to be custodial fathers. But an older female sole parent might have a whangai youngster.
The Emergency benefit is for those people who do not qualify for a main benefit often because they do not have residency or citizenship. Non-quota refugees and asylum seekers for instance. So how would they qualify for Super? Well, it may be that by the time they eventually achieve either status, they are older than 64.
The 43 percent on Jobseeker is elevated compared to eight years ago reflecting a higher unemployment rate. There are elevated numbers on Jobseeker at all ages.
As for the Supported Living Payment, incapacitating illnesses and injuries obviously grow more common with age. Consider too that ACC's recent performance has been less than stellar, and the health system leaves much to be desired.
But there is a further factor in play. Being unemployed long term can lead to becoming unemployable. More than a third of Supported Living Payment recipients have a psychiatric or psychological condition (including substance abuse). There is research evidence that people migrate from the dole to sickness to invalidity ... and then naturally to Super. We are probably still seeing people coming through who haven't worked since the 1990s deep recession.
The raw stats don't tell us to what degree but being on welfare at the age of 64 often indicates significant long-term reliance.
Welfare is like an iceberg. The visible tip gets all the attention - the young and unemployed.
But below the surface is a very large group of people for whom welfare is a way of life - whether they chose it or not.
It is endemic but it's also just part of the Kiwi wallpaper. It will remain so without major reforms.
Right now, sadly, the stats are all heading in the wrong direction and it is hard to see what will shrink the iceberg.
Sunday, October 05, 2025
National trying but nowhere near hard enough
RNZ's headline reads:
"Jobseeker: Parents earning more than $65k must support 18-19yo children"
Inter-generational welfare dependence is a thing. A big thing.
2014 actuarial findings revealed:
For Youth benefit clients as at 30 June 2014:
§ 88% (9 in 10) were from beneficiary families, the majority of whom received a main benefit for most of their teen years.
§ 51% were in beneficiary families for 80% or more of their teen years.
The correlation is striking enough to believe that early entry may be a proxy for intergenerational benefit receipt (with the notable exception of teen-aged SLP [Supported Living Payment/Invalid] entrants).
A more recent Taylor Fry report for MSD found that in 2022, 69.5% of those aged under 20 on a Youth Payment or Jobseeker/Work Ready benefit had an intergenerational benefit history.
The government wants to stop this.
Kids raised on welfare, go onto welfare - often egged on by their parents wanting to grow household income.
So the government is saying, parents should continue to support 18 and 19 year-olds rather than they go on a benefit.
But the test threshold for parents deemed able to continue to maintain their young person is $65,529. It's set at the income of parents receiving the Supported Living Payment (previously Invalid Benefit) - the highest benefit income. The average benefit income for a couple or single parent with two or more children falls below that.
So what is this policy? Another go at saving a bit of money by chasing after low-hanging fruit? A pragmatic response to their middleclass voters struggling to get unmotivated kids off the couch?
As policies go, it's a plus, but barely positive and would rate a 1 out of 10 in the overall need for real welfare reform. An 8 out of 10 would be removing Ardern's Best Start cash for babies payment which has only resulted in more children being born onto a benefit, where many will remain until they are young adults.
Chris Luxon says:
"Look, we are saying we care about you, we love you, but we really want you to realise all that potential that you've got," he said. "We're here to help and support as much as we can, but you also have to take responsibility for that and actually just consigning you to a life of welfare for 18 years is unacceptable.
"We're not doing our job, if we're letting that happen."
By setting the threshold too high he is doing exactly that. Giving high risk 18-19 year-olds the green light to go on a benefit.
Saturday, October 04, 2025
A Confused Country
New Zealand is a hopelessly confused country where people talk past each other, use the same words to mean different things, and can't distinguish between sentimentality and sanity. It would be laughable if it wasn't so sad and dangerous.
TV and social media imagery is overloaded with couples of mixed ethnicity. We cling to that old desire to see-ourselves-on-the-screen, a hangover from the days when our TV content was all imported. Who remembers New Zealand's early efforts like Pukemanu, described as portraying "the lives of rural, bi-cultural townsfolk, earning praise for its authentic depiction of boozy, blokey characters in swannie attire"?
The bi-cultural images aren't a problem. They reflect statistics ie fact, that more Maori partner with non-Maori than with Maori. There is something quite appealing and endearing about them. New Zealand is a country where the first settlers welcomed and joined together, literally, with the later settlers.
But change screens and consider the next image:
Decide together, Thrive together.
Decide together to be Separate? It's like deciding together to a divorce.
Separate rolls for Maori. Separate wards and separate electorates. By any stretch of the imagination, that is not togetherness.
The inevitability of mixed couples is mixed children ... and more mixed children. Generation after generation, of which there are already very many. Will they have to pick one identity over the other in perpetuity? For as long as there are different civic frameworks for Maori and non-Maori, that is what these children and unborn children are being condemned to.
It has to stop.
Today many New Zealanders embrace different cultural heritages featuring their own languages, faith, and social networks. But only Maori can choose to have advantageous separate representation based on race. Only Maori have their very own courts, jail wings, health providers, educational quotas, schools, and more, provided by the state. None of these 'privileges' are improving matters incidentally.
Yet there are people who continue to insist that separatism is somehow "thriving together."
To thrive together requires individuals to put their humanity before their ethnicity. That is what thousands have done by partnering and raising families together. There cannot be a stronger expression of togetherness.
But if ethnicity trumps humanity, all we face is a future filled with conflict. New Zealand will continue to be a country of hopeless confusion rather than clarity of common purpose.
Monday, September 22, 2025
The Future of Welfare in an Ethnically Changing Population
Asians will make-up a third of New Zealand's population by 2048.
(View interactive image here)
For those worried about one in eight working-age New Zealanders currently relying on a benefit, this is good news.
That's because Asians are heavily under-represented amongst beneficiaries.
While making up around 20 percent of the population they only account for 5 percent of people dependent on benefits.
The news gets even better. Of that 5 percent, two thirds are receiving an unemployment benefit. This is the benefit people rely on for the shortest period and current numbers will abate quickly when (if) unemployment falls. There are only 2,817 Asian single parents (June 2025) compared to 38,556 Maori.
Of course, 2048 is a generation away and Asian behaviours will undoubtedly change over the next couple of decades. How much is anyone's guess. I am not sufficiently familiar with various Asian cultures to make predictions.
But Asians - Indians in particular - are going to immerse themselves in the political life of New Zealand. In Lower Hutt we have an Indian female running for mayor and the evidence of Indian cultural and commercial activity is everywhere. I like the cut of her jib and she has my vote.
Can we expect that as Asian values become more prevalent we will see less tolerance for people who make benefit dependency a lifelong habit?
I hope so.
Data sources:
https://www.stats.govt.nz/news/asian-ethnic-population-projected-to-increase/
https://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/statistics/benefit/index.html
Saturday, September 13, 2025
The other side of the story
The Latu family first appeared at RNZ pleading poverty. Their household consists of mum, dad, eight children and two relatives.
They have now reappeared in the NZ Herald. You can read the details at those two links.
What frustrates is that the two reporters who have written up the Latu family's plight have seemingly asked no questions about how much income the family actually receives and how they budget it.
Mr Latu cannot work due to a knee injury and neither does his wife.
A couple on welfare with two or more children receives on average $1,244 net per week. Here is a chart from the 2024 Total Incomes Report issued by MSD:
The green portion - tax credits - refers to what is paid for the children. In the chart above, the average for two or more children is $397. But because there are eight Latu children that sum would rise to $967 weekly. According to MSD the first child receives $144.30 weekly and each subsequent child $117.56. You can do the maths.
So the Latu family's weekly income is now in the territory of $1814. The children each receive a further $50 monthly from the charity Variety through sponsorship, effectively adding another $100 onto the family's weekly income.
The chart above does not include the Winter Energy Payment which is $31.82 a week.
If you are following the calculation, the sum has reached $1,946 weekly during the winter months. Or $101,192 annually. After tax.
Additionally there are two relatives living with the family who will also bring in income but one can only speculate about what that is.
What can be safely stated is this. In New Zealand in 2025 the 'poverty' threshold is very high.
Now obviously I do not know what the family's outgoings are; whether they live in a state house and pay income-related rent, in a subsidised private rental or pay a subsidised mortgage. They may have high-interest debts; they might tithe to their church.
All we get with these types of mainstream media reports is emoting over unfair hardship and helplessness. One might wonder how much of the story was written by the charity and how much the journalist contributed.
In fact the redistribution of wealth into these families is substantial, by some people's standards, possibly eye-watering.
After nearly ninety years of social security it would be reasonable to conclude that the state cannot solve 'poverty'. Indeed, the more the state does, the more the state is expected to do.
Thursday, August 28, 2025
Judge undermines government intent
The National coalition government banned the wearing of gang patches in public places in November 2024.
The legislation states:
If a person pleads guilty to, or is convicted of, an offence against subsection (1), the gang insignia concerned—
(a) is forfeited to the Crown; and
(b) may be destroyed or otherwise disposed of as the court, either at the time of the conviction for the offence or on a subsequent application, directs.
In what appears to be a first, District court judge Lance Rowe has decided to return a patch to its convicted wearer.
He came to the decision using the concept of tikanga or kinship. The court reporter detailing this decision says it "may yet be appealed by the police."
I don't want to argue either way for the ban on gang patches in public places. But yet again, we are seeing a court thwart the government's position.
Police Minister Mark Mitchell is emphatic: “Our message to the gangs is clear - the days of behaving like you are above the law are over.”
Are they?
About submissions from the gang member in question, the judge wrote they "could be recognisable in tikanga terms as consistent with expressions of mana and whanaungatanga."
As we know, these concepts can be quite elastic. Whatever they mean - or are purported to mean - in this case they put the rights of the offender first. In this case they have been used as devices to allow an offender to thumb his nose and avoid the consequences. His patch is very precious to him apparently but on at least two occasions (another caught on CCTV camera) he transgressed the legal ban and risked losing it. He thought he'd get away with it. And he has.
In this judge's application of the law, the very clear message the ban is meant to send, has been muddied and weakened.
The gang patch ban aside, there are two big issues here: the increasing admittance of Maori concepts in New Zealand's system of law, and secondly, their utilisation to counter government intent.
The message that sends is to expect more ambiguity and confusion, and less transparency and certainty for anyone involved in the justice system. And if you don't like it, don't expect your vote to make any difference.
Wednesday, August 20, 2025
Why I disagree with Helen Clark
According to the NZ Herald this morning:
"Former Prime Minister Helen Clark has described the departure of former Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern from politics as “devastating for women around the world”."
Not this one.
But then very little devastates me beyond the loss of a loved person or pet. Or dwelling on the suffering of some New Zealand babies born into dysfunctional dumps.
Clark's comments relate to the abuse that women politicians have to endure and how they must stick together and build networks to protect themselves.
When I had a brief fling with political advocacy, and later campaigning for ACT in 2005 and 2008, not many women wanted to stick together with me. In fact I was labelled as a misogynist for attacking the DPB. I'd get interrupted by hostile female audience members and derided over factual research. Marilyn Waring heckled me for citing the work of Australian professor Bob Gregory showing how long single mothers would spend reliant on welfare over the course of their lives. "You're including women on Super!" she yelled out causing much laughter and snickering. She was wrong.
When I asked to be included as a speaker at a feminist-organised meeting to counter my activity, I was barred.
My mail box would constantly fill up with letters using language intended to shut me up. Not all, but most, were from women.
Now I am not complaining about this. You take it on the chin. But don't tell me that woman can't be just as threatening as men. They just use different methods.
The problem is feminine tribalism precludes dispassionate discourse. I believe that on balance the DPB has been - and continues to be - bad for children. Feminists believe the DPB is a non-negotiable right for women. Period.
I took a petition out to gather signatures calling for reform, and women would say that they actually agreed with me BUT felt guilty signing my petition because they had a friend or female relative dependent on the DPB. That's what tribalism does. Induces emotional guilt in anyone with a non-tribal impulse. Emotional guilt overrides a rational response.
By saying, "women in politics need to develop strong networks to withstand abusive sexism," and not including male politicians in her concerns, Clark strongly implies men are the problem.
I'm sure some of them are. Just as I am sure some women can also be highly effective bullies.
Whether tribalism is along gender or ethnic lines it discourages, if not extinguishes, freedom of thought and speech.
Threats and coercion are what we actually need to combat. Together. As like-minded individuals.