Self-induced poverty

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

She replied:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which brings us to the next issue – poverty.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If Luxon stays, the country blunders on

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If Luxon stays, the country blunders on.