Is 'by Maori for Maori' shifting the dial?

On June 18, 2025, Health New Zealand published extensive data (March 2025 quarter) in a two-page spread contained in The Post. I assume this was replicated in other New Zealand newspapers. Included were childhood immunisation rates. 

At the bottom of the table for full immunisation at 24 months are Northland and Tairawhiti districts (improving trend) followed by Bay of Plenty and Waikato (worsening trend). These regions all have high Maori populations.

Next, 38 Primary Healthcare Organisations are listed and their rates of full immunisation at 24 months provided. Again, here are the bottom four:

          Hauraki PHO (Waikato) 58%

Nga Mataapuna Oranga Ltd (Bay of Plenty) 55.6%

Eastern Bay Primary Health Alliance (Bay of Plenty) 52.5%

Ngati Porou Hauora Charitable Trust (Tairawhiti) 38.5%

Very young children have routinely been immunised against measles since the 1970s, more latterly as part of the MMR vaccination. But measles is on the rise again and there’s considerable concern about an outbreak in this country due to pockets of very low vaccination coverage. Right now, Texas is experiencing an outbreak and there are direct flights between Houston and Dallas, and Auckland (a gateway to anywhere in NZ).

Two years ago, describing the coverage then as “dangerously low,” a Maori collective was formed to specifically focus on improving tamariki immunisation rates. 

A press release from May 10, 2025, said:

The Collective states that,

‘By engaging whanau with a kaimanaaki-led service of, “by Māori for Māori”, the barriers can be overcome with:

- Consistent service and trusted relationships (genuine, familiar, relatable, culturally appropriate, and high quality)

- Mātauranga Māori, a mana-enhancing approach alongside Western knowledge systems

- Information without judgment or coercion

- Shared values and connections that support vaccination and engagement with healthcare.

The Maori partners forming the collective are "Ora Toa, Ngā Mataapuna Oranga, Hauraki PHO, and Ngāti Porou Hauora". With the exception of Ora Toa (Wellington) the others all fall in the bottom four PHOs for full immunisation by 24 months.

Despite best intentions, the "by Maori for Maori" Matauranga Maori approach is not shifting the dial. In Bay of Plenty and Waikato the coverage is worsening.

Maybe in time it will?

But with the threat of a measles outbreak imminent, time is probably a luxury Maori cannot afford. While the expected fatality rate in developed nations is only around 1 in 1,000 there is a serious risk of hospitalisation and long-lasting complications. It is also entirely possible that the fatality rate would be higher in low income, isolated communities.

Ardern: If she insists on being remembered, I will oblige

One thing children who get murdered never seem short of is names. The latest example is Catalya Remana Tangimetua Pepene, the four-year-old Kaikohe child who recently met a violent death.  Late 2023 it was Taita toddler, Ruthless-Empire Souljah Reign Rhind Shephard Wall. Or in 2016, 14 week-old Richard Royal Orif Takahi Winiata Uddin. Examples abound.

What they were definitely short of is love and care. That is what lies at the heart of New Zealand's high rate of child abuse and neglect. Not material poverty. Not a lack of money.

It's a fact ex Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern either willfully or naively chose to ignore. Her solution to the plight of too many suffering children was greater wealth redistribution. Inventing new payments for families with babies, lifting benefit rates and installing families in motels were three major policies designed to alleviate poverty. But the mayhem goes on. The Salvation Army Social Policy Unit recently summarised the trend:

    "Violence against children is increasing. The number of children admitted to hospital with injuries because of assault, abuse or neglect increased sharply in 2024 to the highest number in at least a decade. Violent offending against children also continued to increase and was at levels much higher than five years ago."

In her heart Ardern must surely understand that what every child needs, above anything else, is at least one dedicated parent or caregiver who puts their child first every time. Who puts the child's needs above their own. As a mother, it must be obvious to her.

No New Zealand child is at risk of death from war, widespread disease or starvation. With the kind of extensive social system provided by charities, non-govt agencies and the state, a child death should be rare.

So we come back to the question of why do these children - only the tip of the maltreatment iceberg - die?

Because nobody has been their determined stalwart. Their uncompromising champion and defender.

Throwing money at people who become parents willy-nilly, who lack any financial or emotional wherewithal, who can't look after themselves let alone a demanding, time-intensive baby, is  nothing more than a salve to the conscience of people who have misdiagnosed the problem. Led by the likes of Jacinda Ardern.

This is what Ardern's famous form of kindness and compassion actually looks like. Lecturing well-heeled members of society about how they need to walk a mile in the shoes of the poor and down-trodden, and graciously stump up tax for her to apply bigger and better band-aids on a suppurating sore. 

It's no coincidence that these children often come out of communities where addiction, and the associated violence, is rife. Only the addict thinks the solution to his or her problem is more money.

I would never question Ardern's deep love for her own child. What I would ask is why does she think she can persuade other parents to care in the same fashion and to the same degree simply by putting more money in their bank accounts every week?

Poor families throughout the country do a fine job by their children in spite of their low incomes. Unskilled immigrants, refugees, those who have seen real poverty make their children the very centre of all they do. They care for them and are ambitious for them.

They don't load them up with meaningless, social-media inspired monikers which do nothing but reflect the immature fantasy worlds their parents inhabit.

So while we endure the massive media-hype around Ardern's biography, and most detractors focus on her horribly hypocritical claim to a compassion-driven Covid response, remember, her main reason for entering politics was to help children.

Not only did she fail, but she may have made matters worse.

Means-testing Jobseeker Benefits for 18–19-year-olds: What does it amount to?

As part of today's budget the Minister for Social Development announced:

"Parents rather than the state will be responsible for unemployed 18- and 19-year-olds who cannot support themselves under planned benefit changes announced in today’s Budget... That’s why from July 2027, eligibility for Jobseeker Support and the Emergency Benefit will be tightened for single unemployed 18- and 19-year-olds by introducing a parental assistance test."

At March 2025 there were 46,383   18-24 year-olds on a Jobseeker benefit.

So on matchbox calculations (necessary because the government hasn't provided numbers) 13,000 might be aged 18-19, costing around $240 million annually.

According to MSD, projected savings from the budget announcement are "$163.7 million over 4 years."  Or just over $40 million annually or 17% of the total.

Safe to say, only one in six Jobseeker beneficiaries will meet the parental means test.

That's because ...

Most 18-19 year-olds who go on the dole came out of benefit-dependent households. Their parent(s) won't be able to support them.

Here is some inter-generational evidence from New Zealand's benefit system:

Taylor Fry Evaluation

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).

Additionally, on NewstalkZB this afternoon Heather du Plessis-Allan suggested that loopholes will be found. For instance, singles will shack up because the new rule doesn't apply to those in de facto relationships. I would add that an unemployed single female aged 18-19 might also decide to become a parent in order to qualify for welfare. Well-intentioned policies are frequently beaten by the introduction of bad incentives and their outcomes.

Back to the budget imperative.  On the whole, in terms of savings,  it's very small beer. 

When is the government going to look at time-limiting welfare assistance? Average expected future time on a main benefit right now for under 25 year-olds is 21.3 years

The savings from making welfare strictly temporary for those actually able to look after themselves would be massive. What is the government scared of?

What's up with ACT?

I won't even use the C word in Scrabble. It just represents a vulgar low standard never to be stooped to. But I have heard my grown-up kids use it so I guess I am just out-of-touch.

Nevertheless, to hear it used in parliament is in keeping with the tone the Maori Party has set. Except it came from ACT. Which disappoints me.

But it's another C word that ACT invoked that really depressed me. It leaves me shaking my head about where ACT's principles are at. My bogey C word is collectivism.

ACT is supposed to be the bastion of individual rights. They rail against the identity politics beloved of the Left, because identity politics always lead to illogical, inconsistent and contradictory positions. 

But now they have a member saying, "No woman in this Parliament or in this country should be subjected to sex-based discrimination ... us women need to stand together."

It doesn't work does it? That's the same as 'We Maori need to stand together' which is exactly the bullying tactic used against Maori ACT MPs who refuse to toe the separatist, race-based policy line.

Parliament exists to make laws that are as fair as possible. The basis for achieving that end can only be the individual. That's the whole gist of the Treaty Principles Bill - rights lie in the equal humanity of individuals regardless of race and gender.

If ACT is now the party of feminists whinging about misogyny, I don't know who is left to vote for.

Maori must take control

There were 17,028 Maori babies born in 2024.

According to an official information response from the Ministry of Social Development,  5,997 were dependent on welfare by the end of the year. That's 35.2 percent.

Most would have been born onto a benefit.

Of the 17,397 born in 2023, 7,737 were on a benefit by age two. That's 44.5 percent.

The equivalent percentages for non-Maori babies are respectively 11.4 and 14.8 percent

These extraordinarily high Maori numbers aren't due to unemployment - just one in ten of the Maori babies born last year became dependent on a Job Seeker benefit. Eighty percent have sole parents.

The future expected time on a benefit for sole parents is 17 years.

Growing up in homes where nobody works is bad for children. They are more exposed to transience, abuse and neglect, violence, poor educational outcomes, poor health outcomes and substance abuse.

This is an entrenched pattern of behaviour for too many Maori.

It lies at the heart of all of the downstream negative statistics which we are then told to believe are caused by colonisation and racism.

Come on. Non-Maori might feel aggrieved by this finger-pointing but they are not the ones who are hurt and damaged by it.

Maori children are.

They are the real victims in this decades-long mess. Yes, too many went on to suffer in state care but why were they there? Who failed them initially?

Probably my opinion will be labelled racist and beneficiary-bashing but name-calling won't solve anything. Not for the children.

Children need stability, routine, security, and a mother and a father they can rely on.

Welfare has robbed too many of these vital necessities.

It isn't the rest of New Zealand, the government, the public service, the Waitangi Tribunal, charities or academics who can fix this problem.

It is Maori themselves. And to not say so is a cop-out.

Sources

https://infoshare.stats.govt.nz/ViewTable.aspx?pxID=f038b7c1-b055-45f7-8056-ae4b3c56abe1

https://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/newsroom/media-releases/2024/future-years-on-benefit.html

RNZ showcases why nobody trusts mainstream media

A brief post to set the record straight.

Today RNZ is running an article entitled, Do you know what people on benefits actually get?

If you don't, you won't find out from the article, which is mostly a testimony to the evils of inequality and supporting quotes from the Helen Clark Foundation and economist Shamubeel Eaqub.

There is just one sentence that contains anything resembling an answer to the headline question:

"He said [Shamubeel Eaqub] the fact that the JobSeeker basic benefit is $361 a week for single people over 25 without children, compared to $538 a week for people on NZ Super might surprise some people."

He chose the lowest benefit.

The Ministry of Social Development now reports annually on what people on benefits receive. They call their report, Total Incomes Annual Report which reflects that the 'basic benefit' is just one part of the total income.

I am not going to pass comment on the adequacy, or otherwise, of the incomes. But I am going to provide what they are.

If you are unable to read the following graph, go to the report, page 9.

There was nothing to prevent the RNZ reporter, Susan Edmunds from reproducing the same chart in order to best answer the question she posed. Or Shamubeel Eaqub drawing from it.

Yet again RNZ shows its total lack of balance.

Self-induced poverty

On the back of a reported 96 percent increase in methamphetamine use, NewstalkZB host Mike Hosking asked Labour MP Ginny Andersen, "Who takes meth?"

She replied:

"Typically, it's, if you want to generalise, it's poorer areas, rural New Zealand where there's already poverty. And I know of people who work in some of those areas and one of the things they see, teachers see, is that when a family has been on a meth binge there's no food in the house because they are going for 3 or 4 days without eating and they're not going to sleep and so you get children turning up to school that are hungry, who haven't had any sleep. So it's already hit by poverty, and that entrenches and makes it even harder for kids growing up in a home with poverty."

There are two issues. A reasonable listener would immediately ask what intervention is being made to protect those children if schools know what is going on? According to Oranga Tamariki, "Drug and alcohol abuse are frequently factors in the decisions to place a child in care.  Methamphetamine is the dominant drug in these decisions."1

An increase in children going into care would be expected then. However, fewer children have been going into care with the Salvation Army reporting, "a 40 percent reduction in the rate at which tamariki Māori end up in state care, from 14.7 per thousand children in 2018 down to 8.7 per thousand in 2024."2 Maori children make up the majority of those taken into the care of the state.

Maori also have the highest meth use compared to every other ethnicity.3

Unsurprisingly then, in Northland, where the Maori population is high (40 percent), wastewater testing shows the highest methamphetamine consumption at nearly 2000 milligrams per day per 1000 people.4 The average across all sites is around 1,400 mg.5

My first concern, the safety and wellbeing of children with meth-using parents, is not ameliorated in the least based on available Oranga Tamariki data. One can only hope other agencies like the Salvation Army, DHB Child Protection Services or Maori social service providers are getting involved.

Northland not only boasts the highest meth consumption but also the highest unemployment rate, highest welfare dependency rate, and highest sole parent rate. This is no mere coincidence. They are exacerbating factors.

Which brings us to the next issue – poverty.

Poverty isn’t a term that finds favour with older readers, but it wields enormous political power and influence when it comes to policymaking.

Police say: "Locations with high methamphetamine use per capita were largely regional North Island towns also experiencing high rates of socioeconomic deprivation."6

They put New Zealand's annual meth consumption at 1,434 kg worth $538 million indicating the price is $375 per gm (which sounds about right given reporting says both supply and demand are up, and a parliamentary resource7 put the price at $500 in 2018/19). A gram would yield ten 'doses' or 'points'. Whichever way you cut it, meth is not a cheap habit.

If a household is bingeing during the week – as per Ginny Andersen’s comment - it isn’t employed. That means the taxpayer is footing the meth bill via benefits (possibly topped up by dealing.)

We are literally paying for people to put poison in their bodies to later piss down the toilet as evidence of how much they are spending – correction, we are spending.

The hand wringers say poverty drives people to meth use. That’s about face. The poverty is a result of meth use.

Then comes the inevitable need for more cash handouts (eg Jacinda Ardern’s Best Start payment) to support the blameless children.

But you never hand money to an addict. Surely. Unless you are MSD.

It is a crazy state of affairs. The state is using massive resources to stamp out the supply of P while simultaneously funding a large part of the demand.

And the poor meal-ticket kids who get caught up in the mess only ensure the next generation of users.

I clearly recall Richard Prebble talking to an ACT conference in 2003 about the growing meth problem. That is a generation ago.

Parts of this country are in a hopeless bind, have been for decades and there is no light on the horizon. A significant part of the poverty we hear about day in and day out is self-induced. But it will never be described that way by politicians like Ginny Andersen who could, by the way, be back running the country come 2026.

 

1/ https://www.orangatamariki.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/About-us/Research/Latest-research/Methamphetamine-and-care/Methamphetamine-and-Care.pdf

2/ https://www.salvationarmy.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/TSA_SOTN25_DownloadVersion.pdf?utm_source=web&utm_medium=button&utm_campaign=SOTNfullreport

3/ https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/library-research-papers/research-papers/methamphetamine-in-new-zealand-a-snapshot-of-recent-trends/

4/ https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/536617/northland-has-the-highest-amount-of-methamphetamine-consumption-in-the-country 

5/ https://www.police.govt.nz/sites/default/files/publications/wastewater-2024-annual-overview.pdf

6/ https://www.police.govt.nz/about-us/publication/national-drugs-wastewater-testing-programme-2024-annual-overview

7/ https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/library-research-papers/research-papers/methamphetamine-in-new-zealand-a-snapshot-of-recent-trends/

If Luxon stays, the country blunders on

Of late there have been countless headlines stating Prime Minister Christopher Luxon 'must go' followed by reasons why. These include - in no particular order - his poor party polling, his poor personal polling, inability to articulate clearly what he stands for, overuse of corporate speech, running the country like a business and more.

For a member of the public who stands outside the beltway, outside of the political skullduggery and shenanigans in Wellington, it looks suspiciously engineered. Get the jungle drums beating and the sound will only intensify, especially with the combined enabling might of the media, unions and activist-left.

I don't like or dislike the PM. He seems capable when he is wheeling and dealing internationally, he's a very successful person in his own right and looks like a loyal, dependable family man.

But there is one reason why I believe he absolutely will have to go and that's his position on the Treaty Principles Bill. Here he is in parliament in November last year:

"...it is Government policy to support this bill to first reading. It is also Government policy to give parties a free vote at the second reading. The National Party, which I lead, will not be supporting it. The only way this bill will become law is if the Opposition parties do support it." [My emphasis]

To his credit he has not wavered. And it's a mark of his leadership that his Ministers and MPs also toe the line (though often rather robotically.)

But his truculence is not matched by the people who voted for him or one of the other coalition parties.

Yes, we all understand that some Maori feel beleaguered by existing as a minority. They anguish and appeal about the 'tyranny of the majority'. But Maori are only one minority in New Zealand. It is impossible to satisfy every minority which is why we have a democracy that vests rights and responsibilities in the individual.

In practical terms then, the country cannot be co-governed by one race on one side and every other race on the other. That is patently unjust, illogical and a recipe for never-ending dispute. Luxon says he opposes co-governance but while the derived Treaty principle of 'partnership' remains, the courts and councils can interpret it as such.

We cannot solve past wrongs by committing future wrongs. We have to commit together to a robust democracy that will abide. We have to agree as best we can what role the Treaty plays going forward. That's what this bill gives ALL New Zealanders a chance to do.

BUT the Prime Minister is standing in the way. Even though surveys show most people support a referendum to decide what the Treaty means for everyone who lives here, Chris Luxon is prepared to deny their wishes.

It is untenable for him to change his mind after months of steadfastly defending his opposition, though even he must concede in the deep recesses that unresolved, the issue will only come back again and again.

So he must go. His party must put New Zealand's future and democratic foundations first.

If Luxon stays, the country blunders on.