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.

What an effective welfare system might look like

For three decades following the 1938 introduction of most social security benefits (including Invalid, Sickness and Unemployment), dependence never exceeded more than 2 percent of the working-age population. Today the percentage is 12.7 and the average future time expected to stay on a benefit (which does not include time already spent) is 13.6 years. For those who start on a Young Parent Payment or Youth Payment the figure rises to a staggering 24 years and for Sole Parents, 18 years.*

This growth in recipients and duration of stay, plus the now well-established inter-generational dependence, indicate a strong element of choice operating. Benefit incomes for sole and two parent families with children, compete with the median annual wage. The welfare system has evolved from providing a safety net for those genuinely unable to provide for themselves, to offering an alternative lifestyle to paid employment.

Readers frequently ask me to propose a solution to the welfare problems I write about. Primarily, I write to expose the damage done by allowing long-term dependency to fester. I don't have a personal beef with beneficiaries, but I do with a demotivating system that hurts them and especially their children. And those advocating for ever more welfare really draw my ire.

But do I have any answers? With the proviso of political viability ...

In 2016 I presented to an ACT conference outlining what an effective welfare system might look like:

1/ Two benefits only 

Jobseeker with time limits (for example 36 months over a lifetime)

Supported Living Payment (formerly known as Invalid benefit) without time limits

2/ Two forms of assistance only 

Cash

Income Management (IM) 

Cash is self-explanatory and what most beneficiaries currently receive. 

The IM technology (which MSD calls 'Money management') is already being used but sparingly. Rent and utilities are paid direct. Food and other necessities are purchased via an electronic card. What IM doesn’t provide are the choices and freedoms that come with a cash benefit or income from work. It doesn’t incentivise work avoidance, irresponsible child-bearing or benefit fraud.  IM ensures beneficiary and children have a roof over their heads, power and adequate food. 

3/ IM should apply to those who

- have exceeded time limits on Jobseeker benefit

- add children to an existing benefit

- are aged under twenty five

- have received an imprisonable criminal conviction

- have a benefit fraud conviction

- have a primary incapacity cause of substance or alcohol abuse

4/ Gains

- time limits on Jobseeker would encourage wiser use of the safety net

- loss of autonomy through lack of cash incentivises employment. The attitude of "It's not worth working" would disappear

- children live in homes where power and food are guaranteed

- children are not treated as meal-tickets

- sole mothers aren't financially abused by deadbeats 

- household over-crowding is disincentivised as IM beneficiaries no longer able to pool resources

5/ Why people would vote for this policy

- there is justifiable and substantial concern about disadvantaged children

- people who work want it to be worth their while

- many view 'free money' as a fundamentally bad idea

- National's approach to welfare is seen as ineffective

- catering to genuine long-term incapacitation experienced by Supported Living Payment recipients remains unchanged 

6/ The proposal in summary

• A two-tier safety net comprising
• 2 benefits only 
• 2 forms of assistance only

It's simple. The benefits are easy to explain – in both senses.

That is where my presentation ended.

But in lieu of an ensuing discussion, I will address here some anticipated objections. (Reasonable objections - not extreme Left complaints like 'the government has no right to interfere with a woman's fertility choices.')

Sole parents should have their own benefit.  Most women return to work after becoming mothers. That's now a societal norm with Paid Parental Leave allowing for newborn care-giving. Expectations for sole parents shouldn't differ. In need of employment, Jobseeker is the appropriate benefit. 

These reforms will lead to more crime. As the welfare state has expanded, so has crime. Violent crime, homicides, child murders, sexual violence and theft have all increased markedly. Welfare does not prevent crime. If it did, we wouldn't have any.  Neither should a society be held hostage to providing ineffective and counterproductive assistance under the threat of violence.

Having their income managed robs people of dignity. Only those people capable of being self-supporting, but who have abused or over-used the system, are subject to IM. They have knowingly incurred that status. Those using some part of their welfare entitlement as a temporary backstop, or who are genuinely long-term incapacitated due to disability or illness, will continue to receive their full benefit in cash.

People will put pressure on GPs to certify them for a Supported Living Payment. That is apparently already the case because SLP is not work-tested and pays slightly more. So while it is a problem, it isn't the addition of a new problem. Perhaps the gate-keeping function should be removed from health professionals, some who have already refused to undertake this type of work due to harassment.

Won't IM make some people even more dependent? Possibly. But most people want some amount of money in their lives. What people want is often a more powerful motivator than what people need. Deprived of weekly cash, people will search out jobs.

More people will get into the black economy. Again this is also an existing problem, one that might be aggravated, but won't be new. I am not dismissing existing problems but they shouldn't stop us from trying a new approach.

'Details' people will raise many more issues, but the above plan serves the two major aims: to look after the genuinely needy while disincentivising unnecessary dependence.

(Note: The above was suggested in 2016, prior to Labour's reforms under the Ardern government. The introduction of Best Start, removal of the requirement to name fathers, child-support pass-on and softening work-testing for those who add children to an existing benefit should all be reversed.) 

_______________________________________________________

You can read more about MSD's existing money management regime here.

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

Stop press. MSD's just-released Annual Report shows that the average expected future reliance time has risen from 13.6 to 14.3 years. The report does not provide a breakdown across all benefits.

National's problem epitomised

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Unemployment - Digging beneath the headline rate

The unemployment rate rose in the June quarter to 5.2 percent. For those who are interested, here's some finer detail behind the headline statistic.

While the media has latched on to the idea that the elderly are discriminated against in the workforce the stats don't support it. The highest unemployment rates are amongst the young: 15-19 year-olds at 23% and 20-24 year-olds at 9.8% . Thereafter, as the age-bands increase, the unemployment rates fall significantly with most numbers starting with a 3 and the lowest - 2.9% - belonging to the 55-59 year-olds. It'd be fair to state that the older you are, the less likely you are to be unemployed. It is only after age 60 that an increase in those 'not in the labour force' is marked, indicating around 30,000 individuals choosing early retirement. Whether that is voluntary or involuntary is unknown. But the unemployment rate for 60-64 year-olds is just 3.2%. Past the age of sixty five, 217,500 individuals continued to work, an increase on June 2024 of 7,800. Because most people leave the labour force after 65, that age group's unemployment rate is the lowest at just 1.6 percent.

So it is the very young who are bearing the brunt of unemployment.

In terms of ethnicity, Pacific people have the highest unemployment rate at 12.1 percent followed by Maori (10%); Middle Eastern and Latin American and African (6.5%); Asian (5.2%) and European (3.8%). This pattern has held over decades. The lower skilled and educated feature more heavily among the unemployed.

The fact that Auckland's unemployment rate was high at last got some attention. I have written previously about Wellington doing a lot of whinging when their numbers aren't the worst. Auckland's unemployment rate is 6.1% - up from 4.6% a year ago. Wellington's rate is 4.1% - down from 4.3% a year ago. As usual, the further south the region is, the lower the unemployment rate. Otago has the lowest rate at 3%.

Which sectors are faring the best? With respect to numbers of people employed, the following sectors gained over the year: electricity,  gas, water and waste; wholesale trade; financial and insurance services; rental, hiring and real estate services; and education and training. Many of us won't be surprised to see electricity, gas, and insurance featuring among the 'healthier' sectors.

There's been a bit of media-murmuring over the NEET rate (Not in Employment, Education or Training) but it's actually fairly steady for 15–24-year-olds moving from 12 to 12.2% June on June. There was a very big jump in 15-19 year-olds in education between March and June this year rising by 23,400 (which helps explain why the education and training sector is adding jobs.) Hopefully this will play out as a good news story in time.

Internationally New Zealand now sits 18th out of 38 OECD countries - just above the average unemployment rate of 4.9%. The English-speaking countries we often compare ourselves to have the following rates: Australia and the United States (4.2%); the United Kingdom (4.5%) and Canada (6.9%).

Finally, females are slightly more likely to be unemployed with a rate of 5.5% versus males at 5%.

All in all, the usual patterns are evident with respect to age, ethnicity and gender. The numbers don't necessarily support the narratives pushed by the likes of RNZ and Stuff who appear intent on winding up anger against the current government.

All of the above data comes from the HLFS (Household Labour Force Survey) for June 2025.

In a diversion I will make a final comment about how closely related those numbers are to benefit stats. Not very.

The HLFS has 158,000 people unemployed whereas 216,000 are on the Jobseeker benefit. Some of the difference occurs because some on Jobseeker are partially employed. Some of the difference occurs because not all Jobseeker beneficiaries are necessarily in the labour force (available for work). They might be temporarily too ill to work.

The total number of working age people on benefits though is 406,128 or 12.5 percent of the 18-64 year-old population.  The balance is mainly on  Sole Parent Support, or on what's now called a Supported Living Payment due to permanent incapacitation.

If the usual trends occur, in time the unemployment rate will abate and those who have been on welfare short-term will return to the workforce. But the ongoing underlying dependency will persist as the headline numbers drop and politicians think the job is done.

Study results baffle researchers

Fascinating news out of the US this week. The prevailing ideology - mirrored in NZ - is that poverty in and of itself harms children's development. That's the thesis behind welfare for poor mothers and more specifically, Ardern's impetus for her Best Start payments.

The US is a far more sensible country than NZ. It actually tests theories. Try to do this kind of research in NZ and academic ethics committees would be all over it like a rash. It'd never happen.

The National Bureau of Economic Research published the combined efforts of private and public institutes which conducted the following study:

"Between May 2018 and June 2019, 1,000 mothers were recruited shortly after giving birth in 12 postpartum wards across 4 U.S. metropolitan areas: New York, the greater Omaha Metropolitan area, New Orleans, and Minneapolis/St. Paul."

400 of the mothers were given $333 monthly unconditional cash; the other 600, just $20. The mothers needed to be below the federal poverty line to qualify. The cash was initially promised for 40 months and has been extended to 76. 

" Forty-one percent of mothers self-identified as Hispanic, and 40% self-identified as non-Hispanic Black. Approximately 9% of the sample self-identified as White. On average, mothers were about 27 years old, had completed close to 12 years of schooling, and had between 1 and 2 older children at the time of the birth. Thirty-eight percent reported living with the biological father of the baby at the time of the birth."

The results reported are at 48 months - when the child turned four.

"The Baby’s First Years study tests whether monthly unconditional cash transfers to low income mothers beginning shortly after birth affect children’s development. This paper reports results after the first 4 years of the planned 6-year RCT [Randomized Controlled Trial], at a point when mothers in the high-cash gift group had received about $16,000 in cash gifts and mothers in the low-cash gift group had received less than $1,000. We found no evidence of group differences on preregistered primary (language, executive function, social-emotional development, composite of high-frequency brain activity) or secondary (visual processing/spatial perception, pre-literacy skills, diagnosis of developmental conditions) outcomes."

Holy heck.

Ensuing discussions in the paper include questions like: Was the payment high enough to affect child outcomes?  Is it too early to expect to see a positive result? Did the pandemic interfere with the results?

The authors add, "...the lack of impacts on age-4 child outcomes raises the possibility that income alone may not affect children’s early development."

The "possibility"??

A report about the study from the New York Times states:

"It has long been clear that children from affluent families exhibit stronger cognitive development and fewer behavioral problems, on average, than their low-income counterparts. The question is whether their advantage comes from money itself or from related forces like parental health and education, neighborhood influences or the likelihood of having two parents in the home." (my emphasis)

As someone who takes a particular interest in welfare, the paper frustrates in providing no data about the mother's dependency status (preventing any within-group analysis on my part). However, according to the aforementioned NY Times report:

"While opponents say income guarantees could erode the work ethic, mothers in the two groups showed no differences across four years in hours worked, wages earned or the likelihood of having jobs."

The NY Times writer must be privy to further undisclosed data because employment status does not feature in the primary paper. The test participants were not qualified by source of household income so it can only be assumed that they were a mix of employed and unemployed mothers.

Typically, proponents of welfare from the Left are raising objections to the results (aided by the paper's authors.) Even one of the lead researchers said, “I was very surprised — we were all very surprised [that] the money did not make a difference.”

Disappointed perhaps?

But this is science, and while scientific evidence inevitably develops and may change over time, right now the theory that unconditional cash improves child development amongst the poor has been dealt a significant blow.

Proof that National is Labour-lite

National governments are better economic managers BUT avoid the entrenched age-old problems that hold NZ back.

Welfare for sole mothers is one such problem.

In the six years between 2017 and 2023 there were five things Labour changed under PM Ardern and MSD Minister Sepuloni:

1/ Child support payments previously kept by Treasury to offset sole parent benefits were passed directly on to the custodial parent

2/ The penalty for not naming a liable parent (usually the father) was abolished

3/ The requirement to face work-testing one year after a subsequent child was added to an existing benefit was abolished

4/ Best Start - a substantial additional weekly payment for 0-2 year-olds - was introduced 

5/ After adjusting for inflation increased incomes for sole parents with two or more children by 48 percent

Not one of these policies has been reversed.

They all encourage single parenthood as a lifestyle. And National appears to be on board.

On the back of these changes the number of children dependent on a sole parent benefit has risen 37 percent from 117,471 to 160,653 (June 2017 and 2025 quarters). These numbers do not include those children older than 13 whose sole parent has been moved to a Jobseeker benefit.

The facts are that children of benefit-dependent sole mothers are far more likely to suffer abuse and neglect; educational under-achievement; ill health; poverty; transience and become known to Oranga Tamariki and Corrections. And perhaps most worryingly, to become state-dependent single parents themselves perpetuating the sorry cycle.

Armed with this knowledge, politicians should be designing policy that discourages females from becoming sole parents in the first place and, especially, from further adding to their families.

The last Labour government did the very opposite and National, it turns out, is no better.

PM's new line

The Prime Minister is back from his holiday and insists the economy has turned a corner.

But it's not showing in the unemployment data. June 2025 benefit data is just out (scroll down).

All benefits are up 6.6 percent on June 2024. Jobseeker is up 10 percent year on year.

Significantly, the rise in those people on a Jobseeker benefit due to a health or disability condition has increased by 15.4 percent. That points to a health system that is continuing to under-perform.

Talking to Heather du Plessis-Allan on NewstalkZB this morning Christopher Luxon said that his party is trying to pull NZ out of a recession worse than any since 1991 - he reiterated this minutes later saying the recession is the worst since the early 1990s and is worse than the GFC.

This is his new line. Watch out for it.

This is an adjustment - a new explanation - because the economy is not improving anywhere near as fast as he had hoped or it needs to.

At half-time National is struggling to make a real difference to voter's lives.

That's what the polls are saying.

New Zealand needs him to do better. Because another innings for Labour, with the Greens and Te Pati Maori, would be a disaster.

Source: https://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/statistics/monthly-reporting/

Is there a relationship between marriage rates and welfare dependence?

With new data available from the 2023 census, it is possible to answer questions that contemporary policy makers seem disinterested in.

Earlier I posed the question, Who relies most heavily on welfare?

The following graph replicates ethnic benefit data and adds marriage data. Is there a relationship between marriage rates and welfare dependence? It would appear so.

Generally speaking, the higher the married portion of an ethnic group is, the lower the likelihood of relying on welfare, be it unemployment, sole parent or sickness benefits.

In New Zealand it is very unfashionable to praise marriage as an institution. Perhaps because marriage is viewed as patriarchal and Christian? On the other hand, marriages provide the stable and safe child-rearing economic units upon which successful societies are built. Marriage also requires commitment, which filters through to other aspects of people's lives.

And yet, overall, marriage rates are declining - a trend that does not bode well for the future.

Who relies most heavily on welfare?

This short piece is a partial answer to the question posed. It addresses the ‘who’ but not the ‘why’.

The following chart uses Census data from Statistics NZ and benefit data from MSD. Both sets are from March 2023.

At that time there were 345,417 individuals reliant on a main benefit which primarily comprised Jobseeker (formerly Unemployment and Sickness benefits), Supported Living Payment (formerly Invalid benefit) and Sole Parent Support (formerly DPB). By April 2025 the total had risen to 399,792.

Chinese people had the lowest dependency rate at 2.4 percent. The highest rate is for Māori at 23 percent. Each of the Asian rates is very low, as is the Latin American. The Pacific rates are middling to high, headed by Cook Island Māori at 19.8 percent.

Another way to answer the question is that 1 in 40 Chinese receive a main benefit versus 1 in 5 Cook Island Māori.

Limitations

In deriving the dependency percentage, the chart uses the 15–64-year-old population as the denominator (18–64-year-old data was not readily available.) The benefit data however applies to 18–64-year-olds. The denominator is therefore larger than it should be meaning that the percentages are somewhat understated.

Because the Pacific and Māori populations are relatively young, the denominator distortion will be greater. For instance, the median age for Māori is 26.8 whereas the median age for Chinese is 36.2. Therefore, the derived percentages for younger populations are more understated than those for the older populations. The younger populations have proportionately higher numbers in the 15,16- and 17-year-old age-band.

With both sets of data “people can identify with more than one ethnic group, and are counted for each ethnic group they identify with.”

 

Sources 

https://tools.summaries.stats.govt.nz/

https://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/statistics/monthly-reporting/archive/2023-archives-index.html

The Death of Personal Responsibility

The following quote typifies the thinking that's rampant across New Zealand's health and education sectors:

    "The presentation of comparisons between different ethnic groups is not to provide commentary on the deficits of any particular ethnic group but rather to highlight the deficits of a society that creates, maintains and tolerates these differences."

It's never the fault of an individual that he or she is under-achieving or obese; absent from school or drug-addicted. It is society that has let them down. 

This collectivisation cop-out has developed over many decades.

A close cousin - non-judgementalism -  first started to grind my gears when, as a community volunteer, I was expected to embrace its inherent virtuosity. Yet we all make judgements constantly. From childhood we learn through the process of comparing and drawing conclusions. Perhaps if advised to 'not judge a book by its cover' I would accept that as a commonsense caution. But to suspend judgment totally is to deny one's intelligence and humanity. It negates our values. But non-judgementalism is rife in the social work sector.

James Payne, author of "Overcoming Welfare", wrote:

    "Today's social workers have genuinely internalized  a value-free approach. Instead of guiding clients away from foolish choices they set up systems that reinforce them."

Michael Bassett's recent piece highlighted a prime example of this in the DPB.

Another astute writer and observer of modern-day mangy thinking, Theodore Dalrymple, described how his prison hospital interns from third world countries would eventually come to the realisation that "a system of welfare that makes no moral judgements in allocating economic rewards promotes anti-social egotism. The spiritual impoverishment of the population seems to them worse than anything they have ever known in their own countries."

Denying the importance of morality is muddleheaded. The suspension of judgement prevents reasoning. (In any event to criticise someone for making a moral judgement is in and of itself a moral judgement.)

But if otherwise intelligent people are not allowed to look at a problem and at least consider personal responsibility as a factor then all they are left with is deterministic nonsense ie nobody has freewill or agency. They are mere victims of greater forces beyond their control.

Amongst the most evil of those 'greater forces' is the highly fashionable 'inequities'. On Monday a report was released about New Zealand's high rate of femicide. It contained the following statement:

    "We identified inequities in the rates of family violence homicide for wāhine and kōtiro Māori compared with non-Māori women and girls between 2018 and 2022 (see ‘The inequitable impact of femicide on Māori’). Had these inequities not existed, there would be approximately 25 more wāhine and kōtiro Māori alive today."

It would be just as true to claim that had these inequities not existed there would be many more non-Maori females dead today. It's just silly guilt-tripping. But again blame is laid with the intangible culprit 'societal inequities' rather than actual perpetrators.

What is it that academics and public servants are afraid of? That the consequences of enforced personal responsibility would drive worse outcomes? It's hard to imagine.

Or that their livelihoods would be threatened by a functioning country inhabited by mainly well-educated, healthy, independent, free-thinking and productive individuals?

https://www.hqsc.govt.nz/assets/Our-work/Mortality-review-committee/FVDRC/Publications-resources/Femicide-Deaths-resulting-from-gender-based-violence-in-Aotearoa-New-Zealand.pdf

https://www.hqsc.govt.nz/assets/Our-work/Mortality-review-committee/PMMRC/Publications-resources/16thPMMRCReport_FINAL.pdf

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.