Immigrants pull their weight

Just-released March 2026 ethnic data shows Maori form the largest group of dependent unemployed people.

At the end of March 2026 48,261 Maori were receiving a Job Seeker-Work Ready benefit (Job Seeker-Health Condition/Disability is a separate category for those considered temporarily unemployed  due to illness.) NZ Europeans followed at 43,626. Pacific people occupy third place at 19,005. Asians trail back at 6,840 with Middle Eastern/ Latin American/ African  people numbering 2,178.

There is a prevalent school of thought that believes immigrants are heavily welfare-dependent. Apart from Pacific people, that's wrong.

Most immigrants have relatively high employment levels. 

Yes, refugees tend to require welfare initially and sometimes longer. But New Zealand's refugee quota is fairly small at 1,500 annually. 

When it comes to those who could be working, Maori are massively over-represented.

Whilst colonisation continues to be blamed for Maori 'disadvantage', every year thousands of immigrants come to New Zealand and make a contribution. Often the cards are stacked against them but they don't have any useful excuses for failing.

Immigrants pull their weight. And I am thankful for them.

'Brown Optimism'

I visited the new Wellington Library today unprepared for the towering inscription, rising through almost three stories, which has been installed on the west face.

This is the text of the poem depicted:

Brown Optimism

With dust of labour on a summer’s day

They slouched with careless stride of people come

From nowhere, going nowhere, smiling, tired,

And cursing with a laugh the pakeha

Veneer. For them life is a childish farce

To paint in white the brown which stains their lives.

Their ancient world is gone, and in the pa

The death of past traditions of a once

Proud race is mourned by age with mumbling gums

In soft tones of despised melodious tongue.

You seek your future in the white man’s joy;

You sing your songs to ape his foolish tune;

You change your rhythm to the jazz band’s beat;

And slave and sweat for coin so easily spent;

You play a losing game with loaded dice

And know no rules to help you win a chance;

While pakeha stands quietly waiting with

A smile, to move you at his will across

The draughtboard of his policy and faith.

A child went past; neglected, poorly clothed

In imitation of the white man’s dress.

Hard feet on hard road running in the heat

To spend the white man’s money in the white

Man’s store. And what is there for you, oh child

Of Maori pride? Will you be swallowed in

The rising tide, and mingle blood till all

Your heritage is gone?

This shall not be.

For brown must learn from white, the rules to make

Him equal partner in the game they play;

And white must cease to trample underfoot

These dark leaves of the Polynesian tree.

When this is done, and each the other’s worth

Has found, from union will spring a new

Race keen, with courage strong to face the world

And find at last its place and aim in life.

J.C. Sturm 1947

Born Te Kare Papuni 17 May, 1927

Taranaki & Te Whakatohea iwi

Returning home, I looked up the poem, read it through multiple times and learned about the author - "one of New Zealand’s first Māori woman graduates" - who was raised in a European family then later reunited with her paternal Maori relatives.

What is your reaction?

For me it insults Maori and Pakeha alike. When it was written, Maori and European had long worked, lived, prayed and played together. But it was written by a young person, kicking against perceived injustice and naively believing in happily-ever-after endings.

I don't think I am ever going to behold this 'monument' with any sense of sympathy or warmth. The history of European and Maori melding is far more nuanced and reciprocal than a casual reader of this poem would appreciate.

Hipkins under-performing and underwhelming

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Heaven help us if he does.

Full interview here

Understanding the $50 boost for working families

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So I get it.

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

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

Latest benefit numbers - beware the spin

Await some spin regarding falling beneficiary numbers. 

But be skeptical.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

National need to see blue, not red figures.

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

(Right click on image to enlarge.)

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

National window-dressing on welfare

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

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

At first glance this seems like an eminently sensible idea.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Introduce some time limits.

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

Not window-dressing.

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

RNZ catches up on news reported here over a month ago

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

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

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

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

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

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

Under National it has risen further from 11.8 to 13.2%

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

Minister Louise Upston stated her case in Parliament yesterday:

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

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

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

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

Get rid of the sole parent benefit

Here's a policy for National. Or ACT. 

Get rid of the sole parent benefit.

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

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

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

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

Fair?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Societal expectations matter. And benefits should reflect them.

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

How the Sallies have evolved to become part of the problem

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A litany of excuses

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

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

After the section on children and youth comes the following:

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

After work and incomes we read:

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

Following housing:

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

Subsequent to crime and punishment:

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

And finally in response to social hazards:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Benefit Data Update for December 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So let me:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hollow Gesture Replaces Real Action

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

Well, wonder no more.

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

Claire Achmad, Children's Commissioner says, 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Boosting birth rates with benefit payments is a very bad idea

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

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

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

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

The data was split into two age groups. 

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

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

Here are some findings:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That would also be an entirely fair and accurate assessment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Latest benefit data: Three observations

The latest monthly benefit data was released yesterday.

Here are three observations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Same-old, same-old

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

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

That sounds promising. A break with the old.

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

Example 1:

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

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

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

Example 2:

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

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

Example 3:

No translation available.

Example 4:

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

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

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

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

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

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.