How the Sallies have evolved to become part of the problem

The 2026 Salvation Army State of the Nation Report revealed their official conversion to wokeism by repeatedly finding excuses for Maori over-representation in poor social stats because of victimisation through colonisation. This caused a number of readers to ponder future contributions to the organisation.

But it isn't just this development that should concern donors.

The founder of the Salvation Army was William Booth. He formed the famous Cab Horse Charter saying, “When the cab horse is down he is helped up; while he lives he has food, shelter and work.” This was better treatment than many of London's human inhabitants at that time. By all accounts Booth recognised the importance of work to the human psyche.

In present-day New Zealand the mantra seems to have shifted to " ... food, shelter and support."

The manifestation of this seemingly innocuous amendment is that the Sallies now throw their weight behind the socialist view of welfare - that benefits should be generous, easy to access and there should be minimal restrictions placed on them.

As a result, they oppose nearly everything National is trying to do with welfare.

As background, the Salvation Army supports, "... over 135,000 families annually, most of whom are beneficiaries ...".

Early last year they submitted on the Social Security Amendment Bill 2024 opening with, "The Salvation Army strongly opposes the Social Security Amendment Bill 2024."

For instance, the government wanted stricter sanctions for beneficiaries who do not meet obligations like turning up for appointments or court appearances. These were opposed, "strongly" when it came to young parents and youth beneficiaries.

They opposed the move to prevent people from doing temporary work and claiming a benefit simultaneously.

They opposed non-financial sanctions whereby someone who hadn't met obligations would have their benefit spending managed as opposed to having free reign.

In the matter of increasing penalties for failing to meet drug-testing obligations they said, "While we understand the intent to encourage compliance, this approach risks exacerbating the challenges faced by beneficiaries struggling with addiction."

In the matter of re-application for an existing jobseeker benefit, they opposed moving to every 26 weeks instead of 52.

There's more but you will get the picture. Their submission would mirror the likes of one from the Auckland Action Against Poverty, or the Child Poverty Action Group, or the Greens. In that respect they are really part of the problem. While it's true that they provide much-needed emergency services, they also fight against reforms that try to place at least some responsibility back on the shoulders of people receiving benefits. That reversal lies at the heart of reducing chronic inter-generational dependence.

And last but not least, a somewhat cloth-eared self-interest is demonstrated in their summary: "These changes will ... further strain our sector that has already faced significant funding cuts from government."

Perhaps an alternative might be for the Sallies to stop spending their remaining government funding on a 'Social Policy and Parliamentary Unit' that bites the very hand that feeds them.

A litany of excuses

The latest Salvation Army State of the Nation Report 2026 presents a litany of excuses for the sorry state of New Zealand's social statistics, in particular, those relating to Maori.

The report is divided into sections covering children and youth, work and incomes, housing, crime and punishment and social hazards. Each section ends with a Te Ora o Te Whanau lens view.

After the section on children and youth comes the following:

    "The over representation of Māori tamariki and rangatahi in state care (p.9) reflects the enduring impacts of colonisation and breaches of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, where systems were founded without authentic, shared decision-making. These systems perpetuate structural barriers that drive poverty and material hardship for whānau, creating conditions that can result in tamariki and rangatahi entering state care."

After work and incomes we read:

    "Today, despite the Māori economy contributing billions to the New Zealand economy, systemic barriers in the labour market and welfare system mean some tangata whenua cannot access economic opportunities. These disproportionate inequities are due to current systems and the lasting impacts of colonisation that dismantled Māori economic autonomy through land alienation and resource loss, creating enduring disadvantage. This disadvantage includes inequitable access to, and institutional racism in, non-Māori-led education and training, discrimination in hiring, and policy settings that favour individuals over collective models. The result is a paradox: a thriving Māori economy alongside persistent unemployment and government welfare benefit support, limiting the ability of some Māori to exercise tino rangatiratanga."

Following housing:

    "Home anchors identity and belonging. Despite an increase in public housing, thousands remain on the Housing Register waiting for secure housing (p.52). For tangata whenua experiencing housing insecurity or homelessness, this disrupts connections to te ao Māori and limits the ability to exercise tino rangatiratanga. Being grounded in whānau, hapū and iwi is fundamental to Māori identity, yet without stable housing whakapapa connections fracture, leading to isolation with lasting impacts on knowing who you are and where you belong."

Subsequent to crime and punishment:

    "For tangata whenua, the ongoing impacts of colonisation and systematic failure to uphold Te Tiriti o Waitangi in terms of how our criminal justice system works cannot be separated from the disproportionate overrepresentation of Māori caught up in the system. Colonial policies, land alienation and the imposition of state justice systems that do not represent partnership have had long‑lasting effects that continue to shape Māori experiences in the criminal justice system today."

And finally in response to social hazards:

    "Tangata whenua and communities experiencing poverty and material hardship sometimes navigate these harms through constrained choices. Drinking to cope with stress, gambling for hope or relying on high-cost credit are not failures, they are survival strategies in systems that may offer few good options. These behaviours reflect attempts to mitigate chronic negative circumstances or desperate situations, rather than a lack of motivation or capability."

This is just a small taste. The Maori lens responses run to pages.

This type of apologism from the Salvation Army used to provoke anger in me. Now it only stirs a sense of despair. The fact they have added this new feature to their otherwise useful annual report, cements a rejection of their traditional philosophy which was apparently rooted in personal responsibility and mutual accountability.

But is the concept of personal responsibility foreign to Maori? I don't believe it is. Frequently we hear sports figures talking about "looking in the mirror" after a failure. They understand the criticality of taking responsibility because change primarily - though not necessarily wholly - comes from within.

The constant rejection of this reality by academics and other public policy pundits can do no good.

There have always been jobs for people who want to work. Who feel it is their duty to work. Why are our rest homes routinely staffed by young Philippine, Malaysian, Indian, Fijian women and not Maori? The same question could be asked of many sectors which provide work well-suited to young mothers. And I focus on Maori women (as opposed to men) because they are instrumental to raising Maori children.

In yet another over-representation, 48 percent of single mothers on welfare are Maori. Many of them do not want to work. It's easier to be ministered to by do-gooders who reassure that the system is against them, they are deprived of opportunity because Te Tiriti is not being honoured and their plight has nothing to do with their own decisions.

If I had someone telling me that, I would want to prove them wrong. But I am not Maori.

In the face of this report the best response the government could make is to defund the Salvation Army for being part of the problem.

Benefit Data Update for December 2025

This post begins with a message from the Ministry of Social Development:

"Unfortunately, because of further system issues we will not be able to publish the full December monthly and quarterly data and benefit factsheets on 5 February. We apologise for the delay.

However, we can provide the high-level numbers as at the end of December 2025, including number of people on working age benefits, Jobseeker Support, Jobseeker Support – Work Ready and Jobseeker Support – Health Condition or Disability. These high-level numbers have not been affected by the system issues we are currently experiencing.

The high-level data as at the end of December 2025 is:

• There were 427,236 people (or 13.2% of the working-age population) on a main benefit.
• There were 223,512 people (or 6.9% of the working-age population) on a Jobseeker Support (JS) benefit.
• This includes 124,875 people on Jobseeker – Work Ready and 98,637 people on Jobseeker – Health Condition or Disability.
• There were 7,104 people on a Jobseeker Support – Student Hardship benefit.
• There were 19,893 people who exited a main benefit into work in the quarter ending December 2025.
• There were 17,757 people who exited JS into work in the quarter ending December 2025.

We will provide an update on timing as soon as it is available. This will also delay data releases for the January and February monthly reports. We will provide updates once these release dates have been confirmed."

Blaming "system issues" MSD has provided only partial data and made no further effort to put any context around that data. Normally they would simultaneously report on monthly and annual change in terms of percentages.

So let me:

Compared to December 2024 the total number of people on a main benefit has risen by 4.3%

The percentage of the working-age population on a main benefit rose from 12.6 to 13.2% over the same period.

The number of people on a Jobseeker Support (JS) benefit rose by 4.8%, but the largest rise was amongst those on Jobseeker - Health Condition or Disability, which climbed by 6.2%.

The number of people on a Jobseeker Support – Student Hardship benefit is up 17% on December 2024.

On a positive note, the number of people who exited a main benefit into work in the December 2025 quarter is up 2.3% on the December 2024 quarter.

However, for net numbers to rise the number of benefit grants must exceed cancels. No data was provided about grants.

And while no information is provided by the two other main benefits - Sole Parent Support (formerly DPB) and Supported Living Payment (formerly Invalid benefit) - the following can be deduced.

The balance of main benefit recipients (those not on Jobseeker Support (JS) benefit or Jobseeker Support – Student Hardship benefit) is also up by 3.3 percent on December 2024.

The question that arises is, why couldn't/didn't MSD issue this information?

This is just another example of a slack public service agency doing a half-arsed job. They appear to want to paint themselves (and the Minister by implication) in a better light than is actually the case. That's not neutrality.

Hollow Gesture Replaces Real Action

Do you ever wonder what the Office of the Children's Commissioner - with an annual budget of $11.5 million and 36 full time staff (83 percent female with three quarters earning in excess of $100,000) - does? 

Well, wonder no more.

Two days ago they launched an advocacy campaign titled "Dear Children" which lays out New Zealand's internationally elevated rates of child neglect, abuse and murder, and asks adult members of the public to demonstrate their care and concern by signing a letter to all children affirming "you have the right to be safe."

Claire Achmad, Children's Commissioner says, 

“My request of all adults in our country is to sign this letter alongside me. Together, let’s send children a crystal clear message: they are precious to us and we will do better by them, so they are all growing up safe. Join me in creating a ripple effect of real change. Please visit dearchildren.co.nz to sign the letter alongside me, share it with your community and reflect on the things, small and large, that you can do to play your part in keeping our nation’s children safe, well and thriving. Let’s show New Zealand’s children we won’t accept any of them being harmed anymore.”

So feel free to visit the page and add your signature.

I won't. Because doing so is utterly meaningless. It is no more than virtue signalling.

Clearly I am not alone in being unmoved by this piece of theater. Two days in, after the media-hyped launch, there are only 1,300 signatures (at 4pm, December 10), mostly females going by the first names that scroll across the page.

It's kind of comical and it's kind of tragic.

Because there are real actions that governments could adopt if they were deadly serious about protection of children. A prime example was blocked by Minister Anne Tolley in 2015.

Auckland University of Technology had created a predictive risk model. They needed to conduct a study to test the data with an eventual aim of putting the model to practical use. But it all became politically fraught and ground to a halt. The pioneer of this work has gone on to the United States. According to Eric Crampton of the NZ Initiative, who recently interviewed Professor Rhema Vaithianathan:

"In the US, this approach worked to substantially reduce child hospitalisation. It could be done in New Zealand as well. In fact, the work started here. But New Zealand’s politics and public service has a very difficult time with new approaches. American localism means that one innovative county can try it out, and demonstrate the benefits to others."

I recently wrote about the work Treasury has also done in identifying children at risk by known factors. We mere mortals can picture the adult histories and households that bring newborns into precarious environments BUT officials have the confirming data. Is it acted on? No.

Here's an archaic idea. Back when children born to unmarried mothers were quite rare, child welfare officers would keep an eye on them. Specifically, "The Child Welfare Act 1925 requires that all ex-nuptial births be notified to a social worker so that inquiries can be made concerning the circumstances of each mother and child for the purposes of offering advice and assistance." This practice continued until the late 1960s. 

Today such intrusion would be snorted at. But the same people who snort will probably sign the silly letter.

Boosting birth rates with benefit payments is a very bad idea

Last week the UK government gave in to the growing pressure from activists to scrap their two child cap on welfare benefits - this despite polling showing majority support for the cap. Glancing through commentary in response to this move, there is an increasingly common theme appearing. That governments should not curb welfare payments for children when the fertility rates are heading south. Or, put another way, birth rates should be incentivised - not discouraged. Who cares where the money to raise children comes from?

In this day and age it is impossible to have a debate about what characteristics a population needs to have in the next generation.

But we can look at NZ Treasury work on the Characteristics of Children at Greater Risk of Poor Outcomes. Their study was based on a population of children aged 0-14 years,
"informed by a cohort analysis of individuals born in 1993, who can be observed through to age 21 in the dataset." 

Being "mostly supported by welfare benefits since birth" is considered one of four risk factors for poor outcomes later in life.

The data was split into two age groups. 

Children aged 0-5 who were "mostly supported by welfare benefits since birth" numbered 67,326 or 18.6% of the total 0-5 population. Their ethnic breakdown was Maori 58.6%; European 21.4%; Pacific 15%; Asian 3.2% and other 1.8%. Over three quarters of the benefit-raised children had a mother who was single at the time of birth.

Their outcomes were compared to those of the total population. There is enough data provided however to enable comparison with the population not mostly supported by welfare benefits.

Here are some findings:

35.2 percent of the benefit-raised children had a notification to CYF compared to 6.2 percent of the non-benefit group.

15.4 percent of the benefit-raised children had a police family violence referral to CYF compared to 2.1 percent in the non-benefit group.

48.6 percent of the benefit-raised children had a parent with a community or custodial sentence history compared to 9.8 percent in the non-benefit group.

24.8 percent of the benefit-raised children had a substantiated finding of abuse or neglect compared to 4.3 percent for the non-benefit group.

Treasury went on to project future outcomes (before age 21) for older children aged 6-14 who remained mostly supported by welfare benefits with data providing the following comparisons:

38.6 percent of the benefit-raised children did not achieve any school qualification compared to 14.6 percent of the non-benefit children

22.6 percent of the benefit-raised children received their own benefit for 2 or more years compared to 5.2 percent of the non-benefit group.

51.7 percent of the benefit-raised children had further contact with CYF compared to 13.4 percent in the non-benefit group

By age 35 Treasury calculated that those children who had been mostly raised on benefits between 0 and 14 years of age would cost, on average, $198,000 in Care and Protection, Youth Justice, Corrections and Benefit costs versus $48,621 for the non-benefit group.

There are further comparisons available. Suffice to say children raised on welfare generally become adults who are less educated, have poorer mental health, are more likely to become single parents, to rely on welfare and fall foul of the law.

If being born onto welfare and staying there long-term is a risky business for children, why would any government want to encourage this? In other walks of life we are bombarded with health and safety regulation. And in an environment where 'sustainability' is a constant clamour, how does growing costly dependency stack up?

Those who advocate limitless number and duration of child benefit payments  - the situation that currently exists in New Zealand and the UK is returning to - are ignoring the evidence. 

Those saying we need more welfare in order to produce more children are pushing a remedy fraught with risk, cost and irresponsibility.

Officials warn: "...some young people may be incentivised to have children to keep access to income support."

This morning NewstalkZB reported officials warning, in a Regulatory Impact Statement about the government's policy to block teenagers accessing Jobseeker benefits from next November, "...some young people may be incentivised to have children to keep access to income support." 

This is a distinct possibility given the existing habit of treating children as meal tickets.

A similar incentive operates when a parent is required to find a job when their youngest child reaches a prescribed age. Ensuring the youngest is always under that age relieves the parent of an unwanted responsibility. The last National government endeavoured to prevent this evasion with their 'subsequent child policy' but Labour duly repealed it on becoming government.

But what is the alternative bureaucrats want, given their warning? That 18 and 19 year-olds should continue to be given Jobseeker as some form of contraceptive??

The corollary to their warning is, "...some young people may be incentivised to have children to gain access to income support."

That would also be an entirely fair and accurate assessment.

Exploiting babies as meal tickets is horrible behaviour. But it isn't new behaviour. 

Unlike the United Kingdom, in NZ every new baby comes with a substantial increase in benefit payments of around $190 -217 weekly. There is no cap. 

Earlier this week it was reported internationally that the UK government is coming under immense pressure from activists to lift their two-child benefit cap, in place since 2017. The picture painted is of a cruel and callous government intentionally forcing children into poverty. 

The reality is this. It is cruel and callous to incentivise the birth of otherwise unwanted children. 

And it is a cruel and callous person who produces a child purely for their own monetary gain. 

Yes, some have become accidentally pregnant and require temporary assistance. Yes, some have been abandoned by or need to separate from a partner and require temporary assistance. 

But these original reasons for statutory aid have been overwhelmed by a behemoth of a system wherein becoming an unemployed parent entitles one to all manner of state largesse indefinitely and as of right.

That is the crux of the problem and leads to the current absurdity of state officials warning that babies might be used to secure income.

In a relatively wealthy country where one in five children is born onto a benefit, there is no 'might' about it.

Latest benefit data: Three observations

The latest monthly benefit data was released yesterday.

Here are three observations.

There are more Cook Islanders on benefits in New Zealand than the Cook Island's entire working-age population 

Cook Island's resident population doesn't fluctuate much.

According to the Cook Islands Statistics Office around 12,000 resident Cook Islanders were aged 15 and over.

Here in New Zealand, at October 2025, there are 14,469  Cook Islanders on a benefit.

I wonder how many Cook Islanders are on benefits in China?

Over the last thirty years benefit dependence due to ill health and disability has grown from one in five to one in two

In 1995 73,723 people received a sickness or invalid benefit - 21.8% of all beneficiaries. Today 49.4%  receive the equivalent benefits.

Even when - or if - unemployment reduces, most of these people will remain dependent with an ever-increasing portion suffering from mental illness.

At 411,012 in October 2025, New Zealand has its highest absolute number of beneficiaries ever

In 1992, when unemployment peaked at over 10 percent, there were 340,715 people receiving a main benefit.

Then, according to MSD: "The number of clients receiving an income tested benefit at 31 December increased from 399,071 to 401,415 between 1998 and 1999 but has declined for the last four years."

The next peak was the GFC when the number reached 352,707.

What about the Covid crisis? Numbers peaked at 389,601 in January 2021 and then abated.

Now, at 411,012 in October 2025, New Zealand has the highest absolute number of beneficiaries ever.

And by Christmas, the predictable seasonal high will take us to another new record.

Same-old, same-old

The Social Investment Agency is a creation of the National government. It kicked off in July 2024 and is headed by the former police commissioner Andrew Coster.

According to Nicola Willis, “Despite the Government currently investing more than $70 billion every year into social services, we are not seeing the outcomes we want for all New Zealanders... So we’re taking a different approach. We want to look beyond good intentions in our policy-making and use hard evidence to invest in what works. Our new approach builds on better social science evidence and advances in technology."

That sounds promising. A break with the old.

Except the SIA's first Annual Report is as cloyingly correct as the usual run-of-the-mill regurgitation issued by public agencies. 

Example 1:

"We are committed to creating a high-performing workplace where everyone feels valued, respected, and can bring their whole selves to work."

This is silly, but fashionable, psychobabble. Clearly the approach isn't working anyway. Because in an environment also , "... committed to building an inclusive, equitable workplace and a workforce that reflects the growing diversity of Aotearoa New Zealand" 70 percent of the staff are women and 80 percent are European.

That's not very diverse or inclusive. Others didn't even want to bring a bit of themselves, let alone their whole selves.

Example 2:

"Te Aho Kura is our bespoke Māori Cultural Capability Plan ...Te Aho Kura primarily focuses on building employee knowledge and capability in te reo Māori, New Zealand History/Treaty of Waitangi, Tikanga/Kawa, Engagement with Māori, and how we apply these to our work."

On one hand the aim is  "everyone feels valued, respected". On the other, the agency "focuses on building employee knowledge and capability in te reo Māori." Now call me picky but I sense some mixed messaging going on here. Bring your whole self by all means, just make sure it conforms to our values, which are by the way:

Example 3:

No translation available.

Example 4:

"We support our people to have a meaningful work/life balance, to proactively look after their physical and mental wellbeing ... As well as health and safety representatives, SIA has an active health and safety committee that meets every six weeks to consider a range of health, safety and wellbeing issues that matter to our people."

Our people? The concern of the Social Investment Agency should surely be 'other' people. The vulnerable they are tasked with helping.

There's the inevitable screeds about commitment to Treaty Settlements and identifying/reducing emissions (which they could have put a sizeable dent in by purging this report of claptrap.)

Yes, I know it is early days. The agency is in its infancy. But if you thought the public service was going to look or behave any differently under a National government, you will be disappointed.

Indications are that the propagandist public service is just marking time till a left wing administration is restored.