National's new welfare policies only raise more questions

National has announced a five point welfare plan that applies almost entirely to Jobseeker/Work Ready beneficiaries.

The first is random testing for drugs. According to MSD Minister Louise Upston: 

“Under our policy, a first failed test will be recorded and a second failed test will trigger a clinical alcohol and drug assessment. Where someone then fails to meet their obligations, the normal sanctions regime will apply, which could include reductions to their benefit."

There are already thousands of people on benefits other than the Jobseeker/Work Ready benefit whose primary incapacity is substance abuse.   These people are medically certified and do not have work obligations. 

There isn't enough resource right now to address addiction. The wait time for drug and alcohol services is getting longer. So what happens after the newly proposed "clinical alcohol and drug assessment"? If a Jobseeker beneficiary is assessed with a substance abuse problem, won't he or she simply be moved onto a different benefit to await rehab?

But if drug-testing Jobseekers is a good idea, why not unemployed mothers on Sole Parent Support?  Children need protection from the growing meth scourge. According to ESR, between 2015 and 2022 there were 20 infant deaths where meth was found in their system. It is safe to assume at least some - if not most - of those children would have had a parent on welfare.

In any case, why should anyone with a drug habit receive a cash benefit? At the very least they should be on an electronic money management card. Why should the taxpayer fund drug habits?

National has also announced that if a Jobseeker has been dependent for two of the last three years, their benefit rate will be reduced.

Fair enough. To get people off welfare we need to increase the margin between benefit incomes and earned incomes. But it is households with children where the margin is virtually non-existent. There is already a substantial margin between welfare and work for young, single and childless beneficiaries. Again, the policy seems ill-targeted.

Another part of the new plan is that Jobseekers will have their stand-down period extended from 13 to 26 weeks if they repeatedly "leave employment without good and sufficient reason."

If people repeatedly leave jobs for no good reason there should be no entitlement. The jobseeker benefit is a safety net - not an enabler to drop-out as and when it suits.

The last item I want to comment on is extending the residency qualification for a main benefit from two to five years.

This seems fairly pointless because currently, non-residents who don't qualify for main benefits can qualify for emergency benefits, for example, refugees. The consequence of this change will simply be a sharp increase in the number of people on an Emergency Benefit, which pays the same rate as a main benefit.

In conclusion, while sounding good in theory, it's a not a sound plan. It ignores the problem of inter-generational, sole parent driven dependency, and it will move people around in the benefit system rather than out of it.

Welfare missing from 2026 election

Welfare is markedly missing from 2026 election campaign issues.

There's been far more debate about Super: its cost, means-testing and the age of eligibility. New Zealand is an outlier. Australia, the UK and the US have a qualifying age of 67. Whether NZ joins must be decided. Super isn't sustainable.

But what of working-age people? The percentage of 18-64 year-olds on a benefit is 12.8% - up from 9.9% ten years ago. That's around one in eight people unable or unwilling to support themselves.

In fairness, plenty only use a benefit short-term during a temporary period of unemployment or incapacity. That 'safety net' principle seems broadly accepted across the voting population. Others with severe disabilities or chronic illnesses require ongoing support. Again, seemingly accepted as part of the social pact.

But among physically capable people, long-term and inter-generational dependence is growing fast.

According to the Ministry of Social Development, average future years on benefit has grown from 10.8 in 2015 to 14.3 in 2025. For particular groups, the length of stay is much higher. For example, someone on either a Youth or Young Parent benefit will be dependent for an average of 25 further years.

Why? Is the shortage of paid work that severe? The post-covid period proved that even when employers were crying out for workers, many on benefits were unmoved. Migrants had to fill workforce shortages that New Zealanders were not prepared to.

Work-aversion is learned and handed down. Children in long-term dependent homes have no working role model. Nearly three quarters of all beneficiaries up to age 25 had a parent on welfare while they were a child.

At the end of 2025 over a quarter million children were dependent on benefits. Each year around one in five births is to a parent already on welfare or who will be by year-end. Many of these children will spend their entire childhood and teenage years in an unemployed household, mostly with a 'single' parent. This impacts strongly on their life chances in respect of not just health and education, but security and safety. Of all children who had a finding of maltreatment by the age of five, 83 percent were on a benefit before age two. There is significant overlap between the Work and Income cohort, Oranga Tamariki and Corrections.

So back to the election campaign.

While much-needed fiscal savings could be made by tightening Super eligibility, it cannot be claimed that reliance on a pension at the end of one's life is damaging in the way chronic welfare dependence is, growing up and thereafter. That is the massive social problem New Zealand needs to grapple with.

So why aren't political parties talking about this?

The Left won't acknowledge the harm welfare dependency does, insisting that poverty alone is the problem, this despite latest evidence showing children in poor working households have a material hardship rate of just 17 percent whereas children in poor beneficiary households have a hardship rate of 47 percent. On the very same low incomes, children of beneficiaries do it much tougher in respect of going without. Something isn't happening for those children. They aren't being prioritised.

There's a further possible reason why Labour, the Greens, and Te Pati Maori accept welfare as a lifestyle - 'honouring te tiriti' and what Bob Jones called 'Maori wonderfulness'. Forty percent of working age beneficiaries with recorded ethnicity are Maori. To criticise welfare as a lifestyle would be to criticise Maori. That's not in their playbook.

The Right has historically run with welfare reform policies and billboards carrying their message. For example, in 2005 :



But in the last three years under National, matters have only deteriorated. They can't make a talking point out of their own failure.

ACT, the champion of welfare reform, is also part of the government so could be accused of sharing the failure.

ACT nevertheless has a couple of useful policies, though they aren't easy to find. Their welfare policies don't appear at their website's main policy page, indicating a lack of priority. They do say they will "introduce electronic money management for Jobseeker Support Work Ready recipients who remain on a benefit for more than four months."

The problem is Jobseeker beneficiaries are not typically parents. Most of the children in benefit homes are attached to single parents. At the very least ACT's policy needs to include those on Sole Parent Support who, on average, stay there for an average of 17.5 years and often add more children during that time.

Cue Paul Henry.

Ask him what role he thought welfarism played in the death of Wairarapa toddler Lillybing? I clearly recall how affected he was, as a local, by that tragedy and his gutted acknowledgement on radio that we were all, as taxpayers, complicit.

We just keep funding the pathways to failure and worse.

Dragging eyes away from aimless, spirit-sapping, benefit-dependence towards resented superannuitants might play well politically, but it won't address the disaster that welfarism is.

Who is going to talk about it?

Maybe, once elected, Paul Henry will start? Holding that hope, I will vote accordingly. For the children who really don't deserve to grow up in such reduced and too often, risky circumstances.

References
https://www.msd.govt.nz/documents/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/statistics/benefit/2026/benefit-fact-sheet-snapshot-june-2026.pdf
https://www.msd.govt.nz/documents/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/research/benefit-system/benefit-system-report-2025.pdf
https://www.msd.govt.nz/documents/about-msd-and-our-work/newsroom/media-releases/2015/taylor-fry-key-findings.pdf
https://www.msd.govt.nz/documents/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/research/vulnerable-children/auckland-university-can-administrative-data-be-used-to-identify-children-at-risk-of-adverse-outcome.pdf
https://www.msd.govt.nz/documents/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/research/child-poverty-in-nz/msd-2026-child-poverty-report.pdf

Why RNZ can't be trusted

This reporting is amongst the worst I have seen. And it's funded by the tax-payer.

How much beneficiaries are left with after paying the rent

"Beneficiaries are living on an average of $251 a week once they've covered their housing costs, a government report shows.

A budgeting advisor says her clients are not getting by, and every day someone seeks help with KiwiSaver hardship withdrawals to cover the basics.

The Ministry of Social Development's total incomes report showed inflation-adjusted average incomes to April last year continued to drop, from $262 in 2024 and $263 in 2023."

Here is the source table from the report:

The RNZ reporter has described 'equivalised incomes' as "average incomes".

This is a significant error.

As the government report explains:

"Equivalisation means total incomes are adjusted by family size and composition to allow total incomes to be compared across families. Different scales were used for total incomes before and after housing costs."

To explain this process further, here is a table from the latest MSD Child Poverty Report:

This is a look-up chart to convert ordinary dollars (top row)  to equivalised dollars (lefthand column) for selected households.

The shaded cell shows that a 2 adult, 2 children household needs around $52,500 to have the same purchasing power as a 1 adult, 1 child household with an income of around $32,500. Each has an equivalised income of $25,000.

So one worker supporting a partner and two children and earning $52,500 would be said to have an equivalised income of just $25,000.

You can appreciate that equivalised incomes can differ greatly from actual incomes.

Then the RNZ reporter goes on to write:

"A full-time worker on minimum wage who made minimum KiwiSaver contributions would have earned $750.96 each week after tax, during the same period."

There is absolutely no point in this comparison because that income ($750.96) hasn't been equivalised, and no housing cost has been deducted. Except for the mortgage-free, everybody has housing costs - not just beneficiaries.

Why it was mentioned isn't clear. Unless to imply that beneficiary incomes are very low by comparison and that Paul Henry makes stuff up.

He didn't and I showed why his anecdote was entirely plausible yesterday.

Returning to the RNZ report opening statement, "Beneficiaries are living on an average of $251 a week once they've covered their housing costs, a government report shows." 

Most people will take this at face value but I have just explained why that is a mistake. And if the reporter understood the difference, it's an outright misrepresentation.

Did Paul Henry deserve to be called a liar?

Last Thursday Paul Henry was in Dunedin campaigning for ACT. There were planned protests at the speaking venue and one attendee was a left-wing podcaster who took issue with a claim Paul made about how much someone on welfare was receiving. The podcaster repeatedly called Henry a liar which resulted in him being ejected from the meeting.

The matter was discussed on NewstalkZB the following day framed as a free speech issue.

But I want to focus on the claim itself.

There is some confusion over what exactly Henry said but the gist of it was that a mechanic/engineer employed in a muffler business in Palmerston North told Paul he was working six days a week and earning less than the unemployed guy next door whose partner had just had a baby. The guy had never worked and showed no interest in doing so. 

The protesting podcaster took issue retorting that a beneficiary would never get more than an employed person. That Henry was just making stuff up.

Henry himself appeared on the NewstalkZB show and said, "I certainly didn't say this person was single. My assumption actually was that this was a couple that just had a child."

An earlier texter to the show wrote, "My sister's got four kids, mate. Under 12, mate. And she gets $1,500 a week. Plus sells weed."

The host was quick to add, "We can't verify that. It's just a text."

When pressed again by the show hosts on whether Paul had checked the mechanic's claim he replied, "...yes, we've done the numbers, and it's entirely possible it's true."

So let's run some numbers.

An entry-level/apprentice mechanic wage starts around $23 to $26 per hour (training wages for registered apprentices can start lower around $19.16/hour). A qualified/General Mechanic earns an average of $30 to $43 per hour.

So the mechanic's wage for a six day week would range from $763 - $1,541 take home pay.

What would an unemployed couple with just one child receive? No need to guess or speculate.

The latest MSD report on beneficiary incomes (April 2025) shows the couple would receive, on average, $976 net. If they had two or more children that figure would rise to $1,255. These figures would have increased on April 1, 2026.

So it is entirely likely that the mechanic wasn't lying and, by proxy, neither was Paul Henry.

And conceivably, neither was the texter with the dope-selling, mother-of-four, sister.

And this is why hard-working, knackered people are angry with 'the system'. They are forced to support people who refuse to support themselves.

They daren't express their resentment because people like the Dunedin protestor shout them down as liars or shame them as 'privileged'.

Rather than suppressed, these figures need to be spread far and wide so that working people can feel on very safe ground when they question or complain about this damaging and unsustainable situation.

References

https://www.msd.govt.nz/documents/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/research/benefit-system/total-incomes-report-2025.pdf

https://www.iheart.com/podcast/1049-matt-heath-tyler-adams-af-46787368/episode/full-show-podcast-11-september-2026-343655499?viewTranscription=true

Hipkins' play for the Maori seats

Yesterday Labour promised to reinstate the Maori Trades and Training Fund (MTTF) at a cost of $21 million annually. The fund was initially set up as part of the post COVID recovery spend. National later cut it to economise. 

It's part of the by Maori, for Maori kaupapa so is run by maraes and iwi for mostly Maori participants. Reinstated, it will be exclusively for Maori. An evaluation of the scheme was generally positive.

To get them into work or upskill them into better work, the spend on each participant was "from $19,116 (excluding wage subsidies) in 2020/21 to $10,510 in 2023/24"  

Based on the scheme's numbers to date I would estimate that Labour's budgeting to spend $21,000 on 1,000 participants annually.

How many Maori are unemployed right now? Just under 50,000 are on a Jobseeker-Work Ready benefit and a further 39,000 are on a sole parent benefit. Both of the numbers are the highest of any ethnicity including European.

So aren't these high numbers a good reason to 'invest' more in reducing them?

No. They are a good reason to stop spending billions on benefits which have led to a collapse of work ethic, an indifference (if not disdain) for education and inter-generational  dependence on hand-outs. 

That's what Labour has to get its head around. This policy is yet another go at putting out a bushfire with a watering can.

But no. Hipkins is openly using this hook to reel in the Maori electorates. Announcing the policy yesterday, he made his play:

    "Today we launched our Māori campaign..... And we're fighting to win all seven Māori electorates - with strong Māori voices in Parliament, grounded in their communities and fighting for the future their whānau deserve."

Then he blathered on about honouring te tiriti, tikanga Maori being "part of who we are" and wanting his kids to grow up bilingual.

What this signals is Labour's intention to resurrect and press on with a separatist agenda. Buying Maori votes with spending that doesn't make sense from any viewpoint. It doesn't make good economic sense. It puts the cart before the horse, and it is racially based.

Historically, it has been Labour's creation and constant expansion of welfare that has made Maori more prone to unemployment and family breakdown. Apirana Ngata predicted the problem when high family benefits started to flow into East Coast communities. Today thousands of Maori children grow up in workless, fatherless homes and we wonder why its hard to get them into the workforce?

Meanwhile, at every election, Labour promises to solve the problems of its own making. And sadly, many Maori keep believing the promise.

Bigger benefits won't help children

Why are incompetents routinely called 'experts' these days? The election campaign brings them out in their droves. Today's Herald headline:

Child poverty experts urge politicians to adopt recommendations before election

Eleven of them are demanding a range of actions "including lifting the minimum wage to the living wage, increasing benefits and indexing them to average wage growth or inflation, and replacing “Working for Families” with a tax credit that is not connected to parents’ work or benefits status."

For context, two salient facts:

• At April 1, 2025, a sole parent with two or more children received on average $1,110 weekly; a couple with two or more children, $1,255 net. 
• In the year to the June 2025 quarter, median weekly income from wages and salaries was $1,380 gross or $1,111 after tax.

How high do the 'experts' want benefits for caregivers to go?

There are already a quarter million children living in benefit-dependent homes.

Many of these homes are in low-income neighbourhoods where, the 'experts' tell us, it's a struggle to provide essentials like food and clothing.

Neighbourhoods where alcohol outlets cluster, along with vape shops and tattoo parlours. Where gangs deal meth. Let's pump some more cash their way, say the 'experts'.

More money is not the answer.

Yesterday I received a postcard from World Vision showing me where the money I send to them goes. 

That is a malnourished child receiving therapeutic life-saving food. That is a child whose mother cannot feed it.

It isn't a child whose mother receives over a thousand dollars cash from the government every week and still manages to have the 'experts' telling us is living in material hardship.

My non-expert list for the next government contains one urgent and do-able action. Stop paying cash and start providing assistance-in-kind.

A government that wants better for children whose parents can't or won't care for them properly would ensure that the substantial resource going into these homes was practical and effective. 

https://www.msd.govt.nz/documents/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/research/benefit-system/total-incomes-report-2025.pdf

https://www.stats.govt.nz/information-releases/labour-market-statistics-income-june-2025-quarter/

https://lindsaymitchell.blogspot.com/2026/06/quarter-of-million-children-are-now.html

The Anxiety Epidemic

Over the last twenty years the number of people depending on a benefit due to psychological or psychiatric reasons has increased by 140 percent. Meanwhile the working age population grew by just 26 percent.

In June 2006 the number dependent was 37,300. Fast forward to June 2026 and it's 89,385.

(Left click on image to enlarge)

89,385 is a very big number. It does not include people with an intellectual disability, those we might traditionally regard in genuine lifelong need of community support.

Ironically, paying people to be inactive and isolated is probably the worst approach to improving their mental state.

Part of the reason for the disproportionate growth in numbers is that people are becoming reliant younger and staying reliant longer.

2024 data showed that under 25-year-olds who go on Jobseeker with a Health Condition or Disability (JS-HCD) will spend a further 23.3 years reliant - in 2023 the expectancy was 20.6 years. The year-to-year 13.1 percent increase in future years is larger than for any other benefit.

NZ isn't alone with this problem.

UK Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch said last year:

"We should be aiming for everybody to support themselves as far as they are able, while providing support for those who cannot.

But to do this, we will have to win arguments. Arguments that too many in politics have forgotten how to make. Like a life of work being better than one dependent on the state.

Not just better for society, although we believe that too, but better for the soul. That it feels better to contribute and enjoy the freedom that comes with paying your own way.

Too many young people are growing up not knowing that. They think that a life on benefits is an alternative to working. They think isolating themselves at home is okay because starting a job feels daunting."

As a parent of two in the generation she speaks about, I have seen mental distress. Luckily mine are amongst those who have pushed themselves to work and be independent. At times. the jobs haven't been what they want but they've reckoned any work is better than no work, recognising that a lack of purpose, listlessness and loneliness lead to anxiety and depression.

In November, National will be restricting access to the Jobseeker benefit (including JS-HDA) for 18-19 year-olds. (ACT is also campaigning on tightening up the medical certification process.)

This causes outrage from the left.

The Greens constantly oppose efforts to stop young people getting into the dependency trap. Green spokesman Ricardo Menendez-March says the policy is cruel:

“The National Party has a long history of dehumanising people who struggle to get by on a day to day basis."

I am diametrically opposed, believing both the Green's Income Guarantee or TOP's Citizen's Income from age 18 would seriously damage young people's motivation. If both parties are in government together the likelihood of a universal income being implemented increases.

If someone under twenty cannot find a job, they should be training for one. The late teens is a crucial time. The last thing they need is to be derailed with 'free' money to stay in bed.

What the Left constantly ignores

Here is the political argument from the Left:

Poverty causes hardship for children. Whether the parent is working or on a benefit makes no difference. It's the lack of income that matters.

My argument is that the source of income matters. A lot.

Children in households with the same low income suffer hardship disproportionately if their parent is on a benefit.

I can speculate as to why. The beneficiary household may lack in budgeting ability. It may lack the discipline of the daily routine and obligations associated with working. It will probably stay at a low income persistently as opposed to temporarily. It may develop a sense of dependence versus self-reliance which transfers into a not-getting-around-to-it mentality; not maintaining a home, neglecting a child's needs, not paying bills on time and incurring debt. It may prioritise money on expenditure that is self-destructive such as substance abuse or gambling.

Of course, the Left will say all of the above is no more than an ignorant display of prejudice. Blaming the victim. Punching down. And given Maori and Pacific feature disproportionately among beneficiary households with children, it smacks of racism too. In fact, as one of the privileged I have no right to an opinion.

But the criticism has never stopped me expressing one. And more importantly it hasn't stopped me searching for the evidence that politicians prefer to ignore.

MSD publishes a Child Poverty Report by Bryan Perry and has done so for many years. Since 2022 it has been biannual. I mention Bryan by name because I rate him and his analysis should be  the gold standard for all government departments in its thoroughness and neutrality.

The latest edition features a section on Children in 'working' and 'beneficiary' households. Rather than interpret (or misinterpret) I will quote him directly:

(left click on image to enlarge)

"The right-hand panel in Table E.4 to a considerable degree removes the impact of the income factor by looking only at households in the lower AHC income quintile (Q1). These low-income ‘working’ and ‘beneficiary’ households have hardship profiles that are a little less different than when looking at the whole income spectrum, though the children in low-income ‘working’ households are still better off (fewer restrictions / deprivations). The respective material hardship rates are 8% and 44% across all incomes and 17% and 47% when only those in the low-income zone (Q1) are considered – a rough means of controlling for income."

For children in poor working households their material hardship rate was 17 percent; for children in poor beneficiary households, their hardship rate was 47 percent.

That is a significant difference.

The hardship rate is derived from a list of deprivations/ restrictions such as foodbank use; inadequate income for basics; inability to keep house warm; delayed replacement or repair of appliances; borrowing from friends and family; no computer or internet; worn out clothing or shoes; inadequate protein or fresh fruit and vegetables etc.

The mean equivalised (for household size) income for the family with market income is $15,400. The mean equivalised income for the family with govt income is $15,600 - slightly higher. (Table E.5)

Perry also looked at the liquid assets and consumer durables held by each group and unsurprisingly found consumer durables considerably higher in households with market income. In his words, "working households have a higher level of resources to draw on." He suggests that a longitudinal dataset would be needed to examine income trajectories further.

In the past longitudinal studies have shown households moving within income bands over time. This type of data shows up persistent versus temporary poverty. Given the high future years dependent expectation for children on, for example, the Sole Parent Support benefit, their poverty tends towards persistent. Hence it is harder to build assets and durables. 

Based on the data above a child in a poor benefit family is more than three times more likely to be in material hardship than a child in a poor market family.

Whatever the personal circumstances, it is impossible to build a broad-based case for children growing up on welfare rather than in a working household.

Repeatedly though leftwing administrations wilfully ignore the facts and implement policies that draw more children into long-term dependency. Jacinda Ardern was a prime example.

If the Left (Labour, the Greens, TOP and the Maori Party) was sincere about reducing child hardship they'd stop ignoring crucial evidence.

Why the vacuum around the new Children's Commissioner?

For those of us who take an interest in child welfare and listen to various media outlets, Jane Searle is a familiar voice. As head of the organisation Child Matters, she was often the go-to person when child abuse deaths occur. As an ex detective who worked in a child abuse team, Jane wasn't afraid to talk about contributing factors such as drug addiction. My first response to her appointment was that she would have to be better than the wet Claire Achmad.

So naturally I am keen to hear what she has to say in her new capacity as Children's Commissioner but can find very little. Here's why:

"Children's Commissioner Jane Searle will be available for media interviews from Monday 17 August."

So she has two weeks grace to get her feet under the table and familiarise herself. Is that unusual? Perhaps the news of her appointment (from August 1) was prematurely leaked? Perhaps because the outgoing Commissioner was going reluctantly?

The single media report I can find is at Waatea News:

"For Māori communities, the appointment comes amid continuing concerns about the disproportionate number of tamariki Māori involved in the state care system and ongoing calls for culturally responsive approaches that strengthen whānau, whakapapa and community connections."

Here we are presented with the Maori worldview (or te ao perspective) which I am not sure Searle is particularly onboard with due to previous comments about the politicisation of Oranga Tamariki and staff inability to just get on with the basics.

But before Searle is available for interviews she was available to the local marae.

Louise Upston wrote on Instagram yesterday:

"This week I joined in welcoming new Children’s Commissioner Jane Searle at Waiwhetū Marae. I know Jane will be a fierce and independent advocate for children. She stands in good stead for the role, with more than 15 years’ combined experience in different parts of the children’s sector, including child protection. Thanks to outgoing Children’s Commissioner Dr Claire Achmad for her passion and advocacy for young people. Go well."

Some people are getting to hear from the new Commissioner.

So in a vacuum I'll have to do my own research and draw my own conclusions.

In a media announcement about her appointment Searle said:

“There are approximately 1.2 million children in New Zealand. Of those, 170,000 live in material hardship. What’s more, tragically last year alone eight children were killed at the hands of someone else, while thousands more live with severe abuse and neglect.

“These are the children who deserve our priority attention. Too often, they are unknown, uncounted, and unseen by the system. They deserve to be supported, and they deserve a safe, successful future.”

My personal view is that the best advocate for the vast majority of children is their own parents. While I agree with her prioritisation of children living with severe abuse and neglect, straight away it is implied that material hardship and severe abuse are linked.

In 2024 Searle did an interview with Mike Hosking:

Child poverty continues to increase, coming as no surprise to frontline organisations

The latest Stats NZ figures show a two percent rise to 12.5% of all children are living in households that can't afford the basics.

Child Matters chief executive Jane Searle says the numbers of two-income families needing the help of community initiatives has risen substantially.

She told Mike Hosking that the "working poor" is now something they're seeing all the time."

Ironically this is the exact same line the outgoing Commissioner was pushing to Jack Tame at the weekend. It indicates an excessive focus on child poverty as a cause for child maltreatment.

Sean Plunket challenged Searle on this association in an interview in 2022 about the death of Ruthless Empire. He said he was not going to let people get away with killing a child because, " 'I couldn't pay the grocery bills and I was unemployed.' You cannot use the economic circumstance to justify barbarism." Searle agreed saying that New Zealand has high levels of methamphetamine use. Specifically, "Methamphetamine's had a huge impact on child abuse." She added that drug addiction, housing and untreated mental health issues all increased risk for children.

The following year she spoke with Michael Laws (who will probably be an MP later this year), again on the issue of child abuse after another high profile case. Laws asked, Why is it that it nearly always transpires that OT knew about the child concerned yet did nothing or not enough? Searle said Oranga Tamariki was not fit for purpose. That there are huge issues with the culture, workload, training, leadership and there has been for thirty years. Of course that criticism was laid while Labour was still the government.

But in April last year she told Ryan Bridge that OT was " ...a very big ship to turn around and it is going to take years. We always knew that. But this shows that the capacity is still not what it should be. If wait lists are still growing it's going to increase risk. There's no way around that."

She constantly calls for more resourcing to tackle child abuse. But what sector isn't calling for greater resource?

Early intervention is also one of her 'solutions'. Few would disagree but what does that mean in practical terms? Uplifting babies? We have seen the massive opposition from Maori over that particular state power. As Children's Commissioner she will have to take a stand on a number of contentious issues. Where will she land?

Her time and experience in police child abuse teams led to her promoting mandatory reporting - timely, given National MP Andrew Bayley's bill to criminalise non-reporting - though that position could change.

I am concerned that she will concentrate on child protection (the bottom of the cliff) rather than looking at what creates the circumstances which lead to maltreatment. Will she advocate for actually using the predictive risk modelling AUT pioneered but Anne Tolley rejected? Data behind the modelling showed:

“Of all children having a finding of maltreatment by age 5, 83% are seen on a benefit before age 2, translating into a very high “capture” rate.”

To this best of my knowledge I am unaware of Searle ever talking about the connection between welfare and child abuse.

I hope that she does remain a "fierce and independent" voice for children as promised by the Minister, and isn't captured by the Wellington wokery or Maori separatists. Advocacy is a waste of time if it doesn't translate into action.

Outgoing Children's Commissioner calls for bigger benefits as swansong

Outgoing Children's Commissioner calls for bigger benefits as swansong.

Today on Q&A outgoing Children's Commissioner Claire Achmad  told Jack Tame the idea that work alone will lift children out of poverty is a "fallacy". 

Yet the US evidence says the opposite.

NZ has a very high rate of sole parent benefit dependency. So did the US. The two countries share the family breakdown of African Americans and Maori. The Maori ex-nuptial birthrate is currently 81 percent and Maori make-up 51 percent of sole parent beneficiaries (with a recorded ethnicity).

Under a Democratic administration the US reformed its welfare benefit for families (not specifically but frequently headed by a single parent) in 1996. AFDC - Aid for Families with Dependent Children - became TANF - Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. Time limits and work requirements were introduced.

Here's what happened:

 

Source of graphs

Achmad wants both wages and benefits to increase. But what about the gap between them needed to  incentivise work? 

And has she chosen to ignore NZ research that shows children in poor families whose source of income comes from the market, fare much better than children in poor families whose income comes from the government?

To summarise, the findings show that poor children reliant on government transfers, when compared with poor children reliant on market incomes, have lower living standards and a number of compounding shortfalls that can be expected to place them at greater risk of negative outcomes. 

Claire Achmad has no understanding of behavioural economics. Or any other kind of economics.

She sat with Jack Tame on Q & A today talking like a clone of Jacinda Ardern. The similarity of ill-informed ideas, expression thereof and mannerisms was astounding.

Of course her appointment couldn't be extended. Her advocacy is thoroughly misguided and to that extent, would only ever worsen children's life chances in general.

Perhaps her recent vacuous virtue-signaling campaign should serve to illustrate just how badly she needed to go. Her petition Dear Children gathered, after seven months, the grand total of 4,385 signatures. Not even her fellow travelers were roused.

National are not promising you anything except other people's money

National are not promising you anything except other people's money. 

The latest example, having historically opposed Paid Parental Leave, they are now promising to extend it further. This is what they famously did with the Clark government's Working for Families which sealed the 2005 election for Labour. Remember John Key and his scathing comment about 'communism by stealth'? He had three terms to repeal but it is still with us. In this term National have increased payments.

This is what National does, over and over. They opposed most of the Ardern/Sepuloni welfare reforms like the Best Start payment, removing the requirement to name fathers and no longer using child support to offset the Sole Parent benefit. Come to power and they are silent.

They repeatedly cave in, which earns them a justifiable reputation as 'Labour lite'. 

That drags the political centre to the left. That forces the parties on the left to push the boat out even further, and what was radical becomes palatable and then acceptable.

That's the story of the last 35 years.

Returning to National's latest about-face it is embarrassingly obvious that National is hunting the female vote. Women vote left in larger numbers than men. So to keep their jobs National need to be woman-friendly.

But who are they doing a disservice to in the process?

By dragging us left each time they gets their hands on the reins (while all the time promising to save us from the left) they enable more redistribution of taxes. There are now new taxes being proposed at this campaign like capital gains, asset, inheritance and land tax.

National doesn't save us from 'communism by stealth'. It enables it.

Only  principled  opposition, with enough power to be effective, will lead us back towards personal responsibility and prosperity.

Probably it's too late as even ACT - ridiculously labelled 'far right' - seems to suffer from a milder form of the same syndrome. Yes, I understand there is a generational influence at play. Yes, politics is the art of the possible.

But while entitlement only ever seems to expand, its capacity to do so is limited.

Winston Churchill said it best:

"For a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle."

Christians electioneering

A report from the Chief Executive of the NZ Council of Christian Social Services has made some headlines this morning. It's called Kua Mahue/ Left Behind: Poverty in Aotearoa in 2026

None of the content particularly surprises. Lots of statistics (many quite dated) about who is in poverty, followed by the 'drivers and determinants' which include unemployment, inadequate benefits, debt, lack of social housing, the fuel crisis, climate change, poor mental health, discrimination and colonisation - specifically, "The failure of the Crown to protect the social and economic wellbeing of Maori [which] breaches the obligations of Te Tiriti." Then the 'cure'.

I wait with bated breath for someone purportedly representing Christians to mention other drivers such as, having children with no means to support them, separation, alcohol and substance abuse and addiction, not acquiring educational qualifications or skills, committing crime.  But that would involve blaming the individual instead of the 'system'. That would be judgmental and an anathema to those operating in this space.

What space is that?

The author of the report completed a postgraduate degree between 2014 and 2016 which "focused heavily on inequality and social policy in Aotearoa."  She went on to become a political advisor to the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern and a senior political advisor to Hon Carmel Sepuloni. No disclaimer is made with the report.

Yet the recommendations it makes are totally political:

Introduce a Poverty Reduction Act to commit to freeing New Zealanders from Poverty; increase benefits and reduce sanctions; index benefits back to CPI or wages - whichever is higher; restore a benefit akin to the old sickness benefit with a higher payment rate; allow beneficiaries to earn more from work without losing their benefit; build more social housing; introduce GST rebates on food for low income families and remove asset thresholds for those who need or already receive the accommodation supplement.

Right out of the Labour or Green Party playbooks.

I'd be happy to take a bet with anyone that we will eventually see the author running for parliament.

She typifies the career politician on the left. 

What frustrates though is, faced with the evidence of policy failure, she still demands more of the same.

The report states:

"In 2018, in response to the rising rate of child poverty in Aotearoa, the Government introduced the Child Poverty Reduction Act. Under the Act, the Government is required to set three- and ten-year targets, while how New Zealand is tracking against the measures is reported annually through data from the Household Income and Living Survey (HILS) (previously the Household Economic Survey). In 2026, 8 years after the Act’s introduction, these targets have not been achieved, with no significant reduction in child poverty rates, despite initial improvements following the 2021 Wellbeing budget."

Despite the failure of the Child Poverty Reduction Act the author calls for yet more legislation, namely the Poverty Reduction Act.

Welfare has not made New Zealand a stronger, more cohesive and productive society. Unemployment is 5.3 percent - not high by historical standards (though the author may not recall the 1990s and the GFC). The low-skilled say they can't find jobs yet migrants come here and work in arduous, often vital roles many New Zealanders have turned their backs on. Because they can. Interviewed about the report a Salvation Army spokesperson said, "Around 10 percent of those needing food support are in employment." Meaning ninety percent are on welfare.

Being 'in poverty' is predominantly about being on welfare long-term and the associated mind-set. The country needs less welfare dependence, not more, which is what bigger and better benefits inevitably lead to. If the current 12.8 percent of working-age people on welfare was significantly reduced, the genuinely needy could be better taken care of.

But here comes the next generation of socialists determined to build a nirvana through tax-and- redistribute policies that simply do not work and never will.

Residents must retain their right to participate

According to Treasury, "People present in New Zealand each year are increasingly non-NZ citizens":

"In 2024, there were 476,000 resident visa holders to spend at least one day in New Zealand, and 705,000 holders of permanent resident visas."

Residents who have lived in NZ for at least a year can vote. But Winston Peters wants to prevent several hundred thousand people who work and pay taxes in NZ from doing so.

Many of these people will have citizen applications in process.

For years I had tenants who were honest, employed, totally reliable, wanting to make NZ home but were in the long-winded queue for citizenship. I know because I signed related papers on their behalf and frequently queried their progress. They were English, Colombian, and Malaysian.

But NZ First is quite happy to tax and rate residents yet deny them the right to participate in the democratic process.

Stuff also reports:

"Speaking at a campaign meeting in Warkworth on Sunday, Peters said the party would end voting rights for permanent residents, arguing that deciding New Zealand’s future should be “the privilege of those who have sworn allegiance to New Zealand”."

One can't help but wonder which 'New Zealand' he refers to? Is that the one governed by the Crown or the growing dystopian parallel version envisaged by those who claim Maori never ceded sovereignty? Including the leader of the Labour Party.

The whole business of loyalty to NZ is fraught given the turmoil of the last decade. How many  politicians have been described in traitorous terms? How often are NZ leaders accused of being mere puppets whose strings are pulled by globalists?

I have no idea about the veracity of those claims but to hear Winston speak about 'allegiance to NZ' as if it is something all citizens share by virtue of their citizenry is laughable.

Loyalty to New Zealand is a subjective can of worms.

So reverting to an objective argument, people who live here, work here, pay taxes and contribute in many other ways must have a say in the laws that affect them.

On the weekend of the 250th birthday of American Independence its worth remembering the clarion cry of the American Founding Fathers - no taxation without representation.

TOP's Citizen's Income policy

 

Source: Opportunity Tax Reset policy

Let's look at the costings first.

Each Citizen's Income would be $19,400 annually. At December 2025 there were 4,161,400 aged 18 and over, so the "headline CI cost" would be $80.731 billion.

Because TOP's proposed income tax rate up to $50,000 is 28 percent, there is "Tax Clawback." Above they have calculated it at 33.57% which on the updated headline cost would be ($27.101 billion). The CI is not tax-free as Lisa Owen reported it on RNZ last week.

The current cost of the benefits being replaced is:

Jobseeker Support and Emergency Benefit $4.614 billion

Sole Parent Support $2.255 billion

Student Allowance $0.574 billion

Supported Living Payment $2.558 billion

Super $23.191 billion

Totaling: ($33.192 billion)

That leaves a Net cost of CI at $20.438 billion. (TOP's 2024 costing is $15.788 billion)

The next item is Net Supplementary Support cost. Now it starts to get complicated (especially for a system that is apparently simple to administer and will save $3.825 billion in MSD and IRD administrative costs.)

According to their document:

"For most people, the Citizens’ Income will not be enough to live on. Many New Zealanders need additional income to support themselves and their families, and can not necessarily be expected to obtain it from employment. The current system of benefits and tax credits is complex, punitive, and expensive to administer. We will replace the bulk of it with the following universal supplementary supports:

• All parents will receive the following tax free Child Support Incomes

• First year: First child $18,250 ; Each subsequent child $17,250

• Second year: First child $13,750 ; Each subsequent child $12,750

• Third year: First child $13,750 ; Each subsequent child $12,750

• Years 4-18: First child $7,750 ; Each subsequent child $6,750

• These Child Support Incomes replace: Working for families payments (family

tax credit and in work tax credit), Paid Parental Leave payments, and Best

Start payments. They will be available for all parents, are not reliant on parents

attending work, training, or study nor children attending a daycare service. This

saves extensive bureaucratic costs and gives parents more freedom of choice.

The 20 hours subsidy for children aged 3 and over to attend Early Childhood

Education is unchanged.

• Sole parents will receive an additional allowance of $9,500 per annum

• A disability allowance of $6,000

• Superannuitant top-ups of $5,250 in total for a couple or $10,000 for a single

person

• Housing Support Income payments based on regional housing costs but

averaging $10,500 for families and $6,500 for couples and singles.

Each type of support will gradually reduce by 10 cents for every extra dollar earnt,

starting from household income between $50,000 and $75,000. This efficiently

ensures that the most support goes to those who need it the most."

Let's look at each of those items.

Child Support

According to the IRD, in the 2023-24 tax year (the period 1 April 2023 to 31 March 2024), 328,400 eligible families representing 656,500 children received a total of $3.043 billion from Working for Families, or an average of $9,269 per family.

TOP's proposed Child Support Incomes appear well in excess of this averaging approximately $8,500 per child - not per family. The supplementary support abatement may reduce this but at face value their child support bill would be $5.58 billion.

Sole Parents
There are more than 100,000 sole parents. That's around $1 billion.

Superannuitants

There are 928,000 superannuitants, with around a third single. So $3 billion for singles and $3.2 billion for couples. Again the supplementary support abatement will claw back some.

Disability and Housing

Disability and housing support currently cost the government $4.55 billion so the replacement support is unlikely to be lower than that.

My running total for the supplementary support is $17.33

Can all of this be paid for out of the $15.614 billion listed? I can't answer this as I am not privvy to their workings but I am dubious.

And what does their abatement policy actually mean?

I asked an economist for their take writing:

TOP says "Each type of support will gradually reduce by 10 cents for every extra dollar earnt, starting from household income between $50,000 and $75,000. This efficiently ensures that the most support goes to those who need it the most."

So, for example, one type of support is a sole parent allowance of $9,500. Am I correct in calculating that the sole parent could earn a further $95,000 (over her nominated household income threshold) before losing her sole parent allowance?

How does that square with support going to "those that need it the most?"

Or am I misunderstanding the reduction?

The economist's response contained the following possible interpretation:

"Your reading seems to be the natural one but they could have higher abatement rates for incomes above $75k, just unstated."

More complexity?

On the information provided it is impossible to know whether TOP's supplementary costs are valid. If the government makes a change in tax settings affecting families they usually provide examples of how typical households will be affected. TOP doesn't do this. Quite possibly because it would highlight the complexity of their supplementary support regime.


Back to the costing table above, on the right side of their ledger (how to pay for it all) TOP proposes a Land Value Tax and administration savings:

Two points:

1/ Their costings are based on 2024 numbers. Already supplementary support costs have risen. Pensioners, for example, are growing rapidly in numbers. Land values, on the other hand, are static. What happens when TOP's tax pushes land values down?

2/ The assumption that this policy will save almost $4 billion in administrative savings is highly dubious. In fact, elsewhere in the tax reset document it is stated: "Simplified welfare with savings of at least $1.5 billion in administration costs."

In summary, the net CI cost is higher than depicted as is the revenue required to pay for it.

But there's another glaring problem.

TOP claims that, "The current benefit system punishes work through devastating effective marginal tax rates." Removing EMTR's is the big selling point.

Yet the new policy also abates away income. Again: "Each type of support will gradually reduce by 10 cents for every extra dollar earnt, starting from household income between $50,000 and $75,000. This efficiently ensures that the most support goes to those who need it the most."

Also known as targeting or means testing. How is this any different to how the current tax/benefit system works?

The problem TOP claim to be solving is very much a feature of their replacement.

Continuing on the same theme TOP say, "In all cases, eligibility is based on straightforward criteria and does not require complex administrative assessments, namely means testing or job search requirements. Applications will be made online through My IRD or MyMSD and automatically approved if criteria are met."

All recipients of the Citizen's Income will find any supplementary assistance they receive abated if their incomes rise. That IS means testing.

Means testing requires enormous bureaucracy. It also motivates dishonesty and reduces work effort. Yes, that occurs presently but don't pretend it won't under this system.

And "automatic approval" will not be as straightforward as is being made out. Where is the proof of disability? Where is the proof of sole parenthood? Where is the proof of rental amount on your home? Where is the proof the child you say is in your care full-time actually is? If you share care, who decides the split of Child Support? When is the supplemental support paid and when does it become debt if income rises? There are tens, if not hundred's of questions like these that arise from each individual's personal circumstances.

All of the expensive admin TOP says they will be doing away with is pie in the sky.

Traditionally, though the current execution is poor, because benefit money comes from the taxpayer, obligations can be imposed, and the type of assistance can be tailored to incentivise self reliance where that is a possibility (most cases.) That's the only effective traditional charity model I know of. Expectant giving. (Yes, the govt isn't a charity but that is the uncomfortable reality of where we are at).

TOP just wants to redistribute more than ever before, with no strings and no obligations, all the while pretending they have a magic bullet to do away with complexity, EMTRs and to fire-up the economy.

I don't think they understand human nature.
___________________________________________________

Afterword: Having written that last sentence earlier in the week, I read Liam Hehir's blog today:

"I should nail my own colours to the mast here. I would never vote for TOP. Its technocratic, clever-person-at-a-whiteboard politics cuts contrary to everything I believe in. I do not want a politics run by people who think society is just waiting to be optimised by the right policy dashboard. The whole anthropology of the party is the antithesis of what I think politics is and should be about.

A UBI would be spiritually disastrous because work is not just a way of allocating money, but one of the ordinary disciplines that attaches people to duty, competence, service and reality. The idea that if necessity is softened people will naturally become creative, civic-minded and fulfilled, rather than often drifting into dependency and uselessness, cuts hard against human nature. And a land value tax offends me because it treats the most settled, intergenerational form of property as a convenient hostage, forcing families to keep paying tribute on property they may have spent several lifetimes building or preserving."

Well said Liam.

Current tax rates:

Up to $15,600: 10.5%

$15,601 to $53,500: 17.5%

$53,501 to $78,100: 30%

$78,101 to $180,000: 33%

Over $180,000: 39%

TOP proposes:

• 28% for income up to $50,000 p/a

• 34% for income between $50,001 and $200,000 p/a

• 39% for income at $200,001+ p/a

Quarter of a million children are now dependent on welfare

It's appalling that a quarter of a million children now need an income from the state to feed, clothe and house them.

Data released under the Official Information Act shows over a quarter of a million children were dependent on welfare at December 2025.

At 31 December 2025 there were 255,300 children aged 0-17 reliant on a caregiver on a main benefit (234,429); or on an Orphan/ Unsupported Child benefit (20,871). 

More than a third of all Maori children were dependent (36.5 percent) versus  16 percent of non-Maori.

Of the 57,705 births during 2025, one in five babies was welfare-dependent by year end. Dependence is established very early, often from birth. This pattern has persisted since the 1990s.

Over two thirds of the children rely on a single parent. Half of the children depending on Sole Parent Support are Maori.

For context, since December 2017 (when Jacinda Ardern made herself Minister for Child Poverty Reduction)  the total under 18-year-old population has risen by 4.6 percent, whereas the number of under 18-year-olds dependent on a main benefit has risen by 31.2 percent. 

Jacinda's prescription for solving child poverty was wrong.

New Zealand's 'child poverty' problem will not be solved while high numbers of children live in unemployed households. The ongoing response of raising benefit incomes and reducing the margin between work and welfare will only incentivise more people to opt for the latter. This normalises benefit dependency for children and the habit becomes inter-generational. Many of these children will spend their entire lives living on a benefit and develop an expectation of continuing this lifestyle as adults.

Chronic benefit dependency, lack of educational achievement, disproportionate use of health services, and contact with Oranga Tamariki and Corrections are all intertwined.

But perhaps the biggest tragedy is the thousands of children who are missing out on fathers. Personally, I lost my Dad last year and I miss that lifelong relationship. He was hugely influential in my life, I identified with him strongly and we understood each other. How many children are deprived of that inestimable value in their lives?

This country's approach has to change. I laid out a feasible policy here.

Let's hope at least one party will have the guts to make tackling this entrenched and worsening problem part of their election platform. 

It's appalling that a quarter of a million children need an income from the state to feed, clothe and house them. These kids, and those that will inevitably follow, deserve a better chance of realising their own potential. This is still a first world country with ample opportunity for those who want to grasp it.

Colonisation blamed for Maori meth use

Here is yet another example of a taxpayer-funded health professional teaching that self-destructive behaviour by Maori is the fault of colonisation: land dispossession, loss of language, attack on family structures, attack on belief systems etc.

(Left click on image to enlarge)

The above slide is part of a presentation from  Oranga Tamariki Team leader Psychology, Health and Clinical Services. It was published in April this year.

Given it's Maori gangs - Mongrel Mob and Black Power - predominantly selling the drug, it's to be assumed they too are doing so due to the ravages of colonisation.

There is no end to what can be explained and excused under this lazy, pathetic and repetitive 'modelling'.

But what about the vast majority of Maori who do not use meth? Wouldn't it be far more useful to examine what creates resilience and success, and strive to emulate the values and upbringings that contribute to the positive outcomes most Maori experience? 

The past cannot be undone. We only have the future.

This pervasive apologism practised by supposedly 'educated experts' serves society very poorly. It's the thrust of a western movement that pimps indigeneity for all its worth.

If people are told that it isn't their fault they are using methamphetamine, how do they take the ownership needed to stop? 

Is Whanau Ora lifting student attendance?

I was asked the following question via Family First: "How is the Whānau Ora network developing and what are its prospects. In particular, is it helping school attendance effectively for Maori and Pacific island pupils?"

Whānau Ora was introduced in 2010 resulting from the 2008 Confidence and Supply Agreement between the National Government and the Māori Party, the underlying principle being, it's not individuals who need access to services, but whānau. It is very much a 'by Maori, for Maori' approach.

Getting a handle on the Whanau Ora organisational structure is not easy. The funding provided annually was in the region of $150-180 million, with three commissioning agencies - one in the North Island, one in the South and one for Pacific people. 

The North Island agency was known as the Whanau Ora Commissioning Agency (WOCA) erroneously implying an umbrella status. The Chief Executive of WOCA was John Tamihere (who also heads one of WOCA's  'partner' organisations, the Waipareira Trust, also sometimes confusingly referred to as a commissioning agency.) 

That three-agency structure remained until mid 2025.

From an outsider's perspective, reporting on achievement, such as like school attendance, would be an implicit requirement. But specific data-based outcomes are thin on the ground.

An example of how WOCA reports outcomes follows. 

One of WOCA's programmes is Whanau Direct, which offers annual tailored investments of up to $1,000 in value per whānau. The most recent 'outcomes' infographic available is 2018/19. 

                                      (Left click on image to enlarge)

The reporting on 'outcomes' is no more than a description of where monies were allocated, geographically, demographically and by domain, combined with a tacit assumption (or self-reporting) that the expenditure of money improved or increased something.

Another WOCA report pertaining to the Incredible Years Parenting Programme for Maori (run by the Waipareira Trust for more than six years) used the Social Return On Investment (SRIO) methodology and found:

"This SROI analysis has demonstrated that the Incredible Years Parenting Programme at Waipareira has a positive impact on people’s lives. It exhibits significant social, environmental and economic value, for a wide range of stakeholders creating a value of $1,815,855.75 over 3 years. The value created exceeds the investment and, for each $1 invested, $3.75 of value is created."

To understand how value is measured you would need to read the full report. I confess to being unconvinced so asked AI about the shortcomings of SROI. The response made more sense than the concept:

"Social Return on Investment (SROI) is a framework used to measure and quantify social and environmental impact in monetary terms. Its primary shortcomings include a reliance on highly subjective financial proxies, vulnerability to false precision, and high implementation costs that disproportionately disadvantage smaller organizations."

So I searched further for proof of concrete results in WOCA Annual Report 2024/25. It contains the following remarks made by the Chair and the Chief Executive.

Chair Merepeke Rakawa-Tait writes:

As the Whānau Ora Commissioning Agency contract concludes in 2025, and with the tenure of most of our Board members also ending, we recognise this moment as the closing of an era. 

This report is written at a time of deep grief for our organisation. After more than a decade, Whānau Ora Commissioning funding has been withdrawn. It is a bitter blow – not because we lacked results, but because we succeeded too well. We proved that Māori could lead our own solutions, commission our own services, and design futures where whānau thrived.

Chief Executive John Tamihere writes:

Whānau Ora was never a government idea – it was born of our people, by our people, for our people. Over the last decade, we proved it works. Whānau Ora has lifted whānau from dependency to determination, from despair to dignity. And because of that success, it has now been taken from us.

Both are confident they were making a huge difference.

But what about specifics? Among the government's official targets are: reducing violent crime, reducing the number of people on a Jobseeker benefit, and increasing student attendance.

I searched the following terms in the report: 

violent crime

jobseeker

benefits

student

attendance

absenteeism

Each delivered '0 result'.

Outcomes are expressed in terms of number of engagements, the odd case study, alongside broad-based expressions of improved lives and expectations.

This type of ongoing reporting was obviously insufficient to satisfy the new government post 2023.

In December 2025 Te Puni Kōkiri chief executive Dave Samuels said that "Whānau Ora has been constrained not by a lack of evidence, but by the type of evidence successive governments have demanded."

According to Te Ao Maori News, "Samuels said the core difficulty has been meeting the Government’s strict attribution requirements, which rely on proving, through the Integrated Data Infrastructure, that a particular Whānau Ora investment directly caused a specific measurable outcome...Samuels, who retires next year, said integrating Whānau Ora data into the Government’s investment system gives the kaupapa its best chance in years to secure meaningful future funding."

The desire for social services to be designed and led 'by Maori, for Maori'  lives another day.

In the meantime, contrary to claims from the likes of Willie Jackson, who says, "All targeted Māori funding has disappeared and continues to disappear," Whanau Ora funding continues but under four new commissioning agencies (one, Pacific). This is Whanau Ora 2.0 .  

It follows the introduction of competitive tendering (which followed not only a lack of satisfactory results-reporting but exceedingly high expenditure on certain staff and conflicts of interests.) 

Whether the new agencies have a better grasp and ability to deliver on what the government is looking for by way of accountability and achievement remains to be seen.

In relation to the second part of the question posed, full attendance rates have recently improved for both Maori and Pacific students:

This improvement might have something to do with the Whanau Ora network (though Maori and Pacific attendance rates generally declined through 2015 to 2021) but it's impossible to know unless the commissioning agencies report specifically on this outcome for those families it has engaged with.

The Ministry of Education has been conducting an information campaign, including using social media, to prioritise attendance.

The Ministry of Education also funds school attendance services. Some contracted iwi say they are using the whanau ora philosophy - focusing on the whole family as opposed to just the student - and are achieving amazing results. 

Frustratingly, I cannot provide a conclusive answer to the question posed.

What I would say however is that spending money on remedial social services to correct problems largely caused by welfarism, is like fighting fire with a weak water hose in one hand while pouring from a petrol can with the other.

The deafening silence about welfarism and children

It took becoming a mother to awaken an interest in politics in me. Having then become increasingly aware of the detrimental role welfare was playing in weakening family structure and what it meant for children, I developed an unfavourable view of big govt and extensive redistribution. In that context libertarianism made sense to me. I listened and read in that sphere, gravitating first to Lindsay Perigo's minor party (slogan - "Its enough to make you vote Libertarianz") and then ACT. During the 2000s the one person constantly drawing welfare dependence to the attention of the public was Muriel Newman. Time after time Muriel would appear in the Dominion or Evening Post exposing some new data or penning an opinion piece. I think she single-handedly kept a concern about welfarism to the fore, championing time limits and work expectations for single parents. She also worked hard on representing the rights of fathers and shared-parenting. When I campaigned for ACT in 2005, Muriel's name was the one that would come up. Her recognition factor was very strong.

Who in parliament today is making the kind of noise Muriel used to make? Obviously ACT are part of the government but as the election draws nearer there is nothing stopping them from pointing out that the welfare problem is only worsening, across all the important metrics. More people - including children - are on welfare and are staying there longer. But I don't even know who their welfare spokesperson is. Richard Prebble criticised ACT in yesterday's NZ Herald for producing an immigration policy and narrative without mentioning the welfare aspect - that NZers won't do the jobs immigrants will. This morning he told Ryan Bridge, "We have a benefit system where you can basically retire when you leave school."

National talks about their 'welfare reset' as if it is a major reform. But it hasn't made a dent in the worsening numbers. Between 2023/24 and 2024/25 the future expected years on welfare climbed yet again from 13.4 to 14.3 - not including time already spent on benefit.

Labour has a half-hearted go at blaming the government for high unemployment and too many NEETS (young people not in education, employment or training) but they know their own record isn't flash and they don't seem to know if they want more people on benefits ('the system needs to be more generous') or fewer ('we want good jobs for people').

The Greens are distinctly pro-welfare, championing the rights of beneficiaries over the rights of taxpayers. Who knows what the Maori Party wants in this space but it certainly wont be anything that hurts their voter base, and given Maori are more reliant on welfare than any other ethnicity, rattling dependency cages is highly unlikely.

And Opportunity? They want welfare for everyone in the form of a universal basic income (branded as Citizen's Income.)

So it is hardly surprising that the welfare issue does not rate amongst voter concerns when surveyed. It can nevertheless be linked to other areas people are worried about. I've already explained the immigration link. With health, recently ranked most important concern, welfare is a two way street. Without health, people can become dependent, and being dependent and unemployed leads people to becoming less healthy. The incapacity of mental ill-health is the biggest driver of the growth in people on JobSeeker/HCD (Health Condition or Disability) and Supported Living Payment. All of this is straining an already over-burdened health system.

If someone surveyed my biggest concern I would have no hesitation in responding, it's welfarism, and specifically, that almost a quarter of a million children are growing up in non-working, often dysfunctional, homes. That their life chances are diminished; that their risk of turning into their unemployed parents is high and as a country, we seem incapable of breaking the cycle. Violence towards children is increasing, births of children impaired in the womb through their mothers substance ingestion are increasing and our child protection services seem to be in a state of permanent flux.

It is beyond my comprehension why so little is ever said by our politicians about this shocking state of affairs. Have they been silenced by the colonial guilt variety of liberalism? Has this disproportionately Maori problem been handed, with funding and a degree of relief, to Whanau Ora? Are they hoping like hell the new Social Investment Agency - now under the control of a former MSD CEO - can perform miracles?

Who knows. What I am certain of is that problems don't go away because you don't talk about them. Talking about them is an essential prerequisite to progress. The wisdom of the crowd might also provide a steer in election year.