Hipkins under-performing and underwhelming

Opposition leader Chris Hipkins does a regular slot with host Nick Mills on the Wellington NewstalkZB morning show.

On Wednesday, much of the half hour was consumed by the host trying to extract from Hipkins what Labour would be doing about the fuel 'crisis' if in government. This was fastidiously avoided with various excuses, one being that, as opposition, they weren't privy to the kind of information the government has. Yet later in the show, when pressed on how long he thought the Iran conflict would go on, Hipkins said, "The official advice we got yesterday, when we met with the government and thankfully they did give us the opportunity to get a bit of a briefing, was even if the conflict ended quickly there will be months of disruption to fuel supplies so as a result, we are going to experience higher fuel prices for longer." So that excuse didn't wash. Luxon's crystal ball is no clearer than Hipkin's.

When the host continued to push Hipkins, narrowing the question down to: "Would Labour have done more?" Hipkins replied, "Certainly". But he still couldn't say what - just insisted repeatedly that he will not make promises that he can't keep. The situation is changing too rapidly. He'll reveal more as we get nearer to the election. The flannel went on and on like a cracked record.

Apparently the cost of fuel isn't the only thing stopping kids from getting to school. "The governments made an absolute dog's breakfast of rural school buses. The school lunches programme we put in place was working, going well. Now it's not. Kids don't like it." Seriously? If the children don't like the 'free' food perhaps their parents should spend some of the average $130 weekly they receive for each child on something better. Using an aversion to the free lunches as an excuse for non-attendance is pathetic.

But that's not all the government has failed at; the economy hasn't grown, the cost of living has worsened and unemployment is up. Unsurprisingly, no acknowledgement of Labour's contribution to current circumstances.

So how would Hipkins grow the economy? Build more state houses, he said, and get on with billions of dollars worth of infrastructure projects. It's all about Jobs, Homes ... and Health. Free doctor visits funded by the targeted Capital Gains Tax (despite GP availability being a bigger problem than cost for many New Zealanders) and the NZ Future Fund to make better use of government assets (which just allows Labour to use SOE profits for their priorities).

Despite Nick Mills telling Hipkins at the outset that he (like many in the audience) was trying to make a voting decision this year, Hipkins offered nothing new or remotely interesting. Perhaps that's why he decided to go into attack mode, which resulted in some quite extraordinary claims. When the host suggested a Labour coalition formed with the Greens and the Maori Party might not be very stable, Hipkins replied:

"Not much could be less stable than this government! If you look at the coalition of chaos that we've been enduring for the last two and a half years, where you have a Deputy Prime Minister, a former Deputy Prime Minister and a Prime Minister who all regularly contradict each other and seem to be fighting their battles with each other in public, it's been one of the most unstable governments NZ has ever seen."

For mine, a lot of criticisms can be leveled at the coalition but instability isn't one of them.

Then, warming to the task, on the matter of Brooke van Velden resigning at the next election and how does that affect ACT?

"Well, beyond David Seymour, there isn't really an ACT Party. It's basically a whole bunch of people who do whatever David Seymour tells them to do. I mean, it's almost a cult."

That's just childish and churlish. But that's the calibre of the man who wants to resume the Prime Ministership come November.

Heaven help us if he does.

Full interview here

Understanding the $50 boost for working families

I am not a supporter of government hand-outs. That's because I am not a supporter of the government taking people's money by force and deciding who to redistribute it to. That ability confers enormous power on the state.  Taxing to redistribute only ever spirals upward. Wherever possible, earnings should be left largely with the earner - not expensively churned by dead weight bureaucracy.

However, this latest 'rescue' package raising the In Work Tax Credit (IWTC) by $50 a week makes sense.

It was Helen Clark's Labour government that introduced the IWTC as part of Working For Families. Its major objective was to get single parents - male and female - into work. Clark and Cullen, the last of Labour's relatively sensible leaders, stated that the best way out of poverty was work.

At that time, the very really objection to coming off a benefit for a job was that work didn't pay any better. So the boost from the new IWTC aimed to turn that claim on its head.

Subsequently the employment rate for single mothers has improved significantly (although is still low by OECD standards.).

But the gap between income from a benefit and income from work closed again under Jacinda Ardern's war on child poverty. The margin is now pretty tight.

For those parents in work, but on low wages or salaries, if the cost of working (eg filling the car) gets too high, they will be at risk of returning to a benefit. I believe that is the major concern driving this highly targeted policy.

So I get it.

But it also proves the point that state wealth redistribution only ever leads to more state wealth redistribution. Where does it end?

NZ, like all expansive welfare states, is now stuck in a 'Damned if you do and damned if you don't' bind.

Latest benefit numbers - beware the spin

Await some spin regarding falling beneficiary numbers. 

But be skeptical.

After two months of data problems, MSD has managed to produce monthly statistics for February 2026.

The total percentage of working-age people on a benefit has dropped  from 13.1% in December 2025 to 12.8 percent in February 2026.

However, benefit numbers are consistently subject to seasonal changes. For example, students pile onto the Jobseeker Support Student Hardship over summer.

What really matters is the year-on-year comparison.

In February 2025 the percentage of working-age people on a benefit was 12.4 percent. Now it's 12.8 percent. Up.

And if you hear about higher cancellations of benefits, that's largely due to people cancelling their Jobseeker Support Student Hardship.

And by the way, those cancellations mainly constitute a transfer back to Student Allowance. Another 'benefit' but one that comes out of the Ministry of Education's budget.

In the chart below, what matters is the final right-hand column. All the big number benefits are up.

National need to see blue, not red figures.

For all their well-intentioned work-activation policies, the bulk of people forming the statistics below will stay put without some radical re-think.

(Right click on image to enlarge.)

NB: Because data was lost for December and January, the "monthly" change  actually covers three months.

National window-dressing on welfare

Last week Simon Bridges, CEO of the Auckland Business Chamber, could be heard waxing lyrical to Mike Hosking about the new partnering initiative, ChamberWorks, between his organisation and MSD (WINZ) to get recently unemployed people into jobs. These are people who have not long been on a benefit but have skills, and recent experience and attachment to the workforce.

MSD Minister Louise Upston says, "It makes sense for these two key groups to work together because MSD has the largest talent pipeline of workers in the country. They’re also able to support the recruitment process with access to training and online learning."

At first glance this seems like an eminently sensible idea.

But I am ever the skeptic. For starters, these short-term unemployed skilled types are quite capable of finding their own way back into the workforce. They will not be wanting to stay on a benefit any longer than absolutely necessary. According to AI there are 1,227 private employment services operating in NZ including the likes of Randstad, Adecco, Hays, Robert Walters, and the Accordant Group. Then there is SEEK. Right now, there are over 8,500 Auckland jobs listed on SEEK.

Obviously, after it eventually emerged mid-week that the number of people on a benefit is at a 12 year high, National is keen to be seen to be actively and innovatively working on the problem. They set a goal of reducing Jobseeker numbers to 140,000 by 2030 and the quickest way to do this is be all over the low-hanging fruit. Meanwhile ...

Imagine, if you will, a plugged bathtub filling from both taps while someone ladles with a teacup. That's what National is doing. Ladling with the cup. Scooping out the most employable jobseekers while the tap hoses in illiterate, unskilled, youths and young parents, as well as people who can't work due to a health problem (mental or physical) that our utterly inadequate health system has wait-listed.

My last post showed how the time people spend on welfare is getting longer and longer, with future estimated years up 35 percent from 10.6 in 2016/17 to 14.3 years in 2024/25.

If those numbers were shockingly high, consider how much worse they are for young people coming into the system. Those who begin on a Youth or Young Parent Payment will remain dependent for 25 years on average. For sole parents, the average future estimated time on benefit (which doesn't include existing time spent) is 17.5 years:

MSD's resources need to be directed at turning down the tap pressure. Maybe instead of partnering with the Chamber of Commerce it should be partnering more actively with the local health districts. Or with Family Planning. Or with Plunket.* Or high schools. And legislation needs to support these collaborations.

For instance, make becoming a single parent no longer an automatic entry into the benefit system, and signal and support this widely through the aforementioned organisations.

Lift the eligibility age for welfare to 25 (and shove out super entitlement age while you are at it.)

Introduce some time limits.

Maybe these are radical ideas (I've laid out an achievable plan previously) but something has to give. At least give us some concrete policies we can vote for in November.

Not window-dressing.

* Yes I realise all of these organisations now have Maori names but using them will not aid comprehension.)

RNZ catches up on news reported here over a month ago

Today RNZ catches up on news reported here over a month ago.

Why has it taken RNZ so long to catch up with the latest benefit numbers? Given the numbers are well up, it's right in their wheelhouse for pushing their anti-government agenda.

But for that matter, why has it taken the opposition so long to ask Parliamentary questions and begin attacking the government on this failure to reach one of their stated targets?

Perhaps because they know full well  that their own record on welfare is not at all flash.

For convenience, let's use RNZ's chart:

Under Labour, the percentage of the working-age population on a benefit rose from 9.8 to 11.8%

Under National it has risen further from 11.8 to 13.2%

But when the borders were closed, and employers were crying out for workers, Labour couldn't capitalise on the need. Labour made benefits easier to get on and easier to stay on. They linked them to wage inflation - a very bad idea revoked by National. Ardern's "kindness" brand only pulled more people into a system that is hard to escape for a great many.

Minister Louise Upston stated her case in Parliament yesterday:

"We inherited an economic downturn where close to 190,000 people were on the jobseeker benefit, and jobseeker numbers have been rising steadily since 2022, before we took office. Just yesterday, the COVID-19 royal commission inquiry found Labour’s increased spending drove up Government debt and inflation, which leads to higher unemployment. That’s why the forecast has always been due to get worse before it gets better. That’s why we’re fixing the basics and building a welfare system focused on getting more people into work...What we have done to fix the basics is create a far more active welfare system, including what we launched last week: an industry partnership with chambers of commerce up and down New Zealand, to support more New Zealanders into work."

National generally does better with welfare and reducing dependency but they never do enough. They focus mainly on those who are short-term unemployed  and don't change the settings that allow inter-generational, long-term dependence to continue.

That's why the average future expected time on a benefit keeps going up:

Let's hope if the coalition survives the 2026 election,  ACT gets to exercise far more influence in this area. Two forgotten words desperately in need of rehabilitation - Personal Responsibility.

Get rid of the sole parent benefit

Here's a policy for National. Or ACT. 

Get rid of the sole parent benefit.

Known for decades as the DPB, the Sole Parent Support (SPS) benefit, in today's world, is an anachronism. It has lost context in modern society. Why?

Because most mothers work. They take paid parental leave, which has a maximum entitlement of 6 months, and return to their jobs.   Whether they want to would vary, but most would say they have to. Mortgages or rent need to be paid, power, groceries, childcare, etc. In a study population of 74,293 registered births between 1 July 2018 and September 2019, over half (54%) of the mothers received paid parental leave.

22 percent of the mothers were supported by a benefit. For the vast majority, that would be SPS. Many will stay dependent for years, with the Ministry of Social Development acknowledging the average estimated future years on a SPS benefit has now risen to 17 years.

So the mothers returning to work - like it or not - will be paying taxes to enable other mothers to stay reliant for most of their newborn's childhood.

Fair?

As a first time Mum, I opted for unpaid (as it was prior to 2002) maternity leave of up to one year, intending to return to work. But I fell in love with motherhood and didn't want to miss out on being with my son - and later, daughter - at all. So I worked out ways to bring in income combined with being a mum. And my husband was able to financially support that choice.

So I feel for new mothers who have to return to work reluctantly. But not to the degree that I think society should be paying them not to work, indefinitely.

Paula Bennett, Minister for Social Development in 2013, shouldn't have reformed the DPB by transforming it into SPS. She should have abolished it.

She should have clearly articulated that parents - single or otherwise - are financially responsible for their children. If employment is genuinely unavailable, the appropriate benefit should be the Jobseeker benefit.

Currently 234,000 children rely on welfare, with over two thirds on SPS. 

If those children had a parent on a Jobseeker benefit, the expectation and effort to get their parent into employment would be far greater.

That's not just hot air. The reason Bennett got rid of the Sickness Benefit in favour of Jobseeker/Health or Disability Condition, was to make sure 'expectation and effort' also went into getting temporarily unemployed unwell people back to work. 

Societal expectations matter. And benefits should reflect them.

Get rid of the sole parent benefit. Lift aspirations for those mothers, and better outcomes for their children will follow.

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.