Govt's Budget Balanced On The Backs Of Low-Income Families
'This is a stealth cut, pushed through with no acknowledgement of the harm it will cause,' says the Green Party's spokesperson for Housing, Ricardo Menéndez March.
'Housing is a human right. We can build an Aotearoa in which everyone has what they need, and nobody is left behind.
'Instead, the Government hoped we wouldn't notice that, hidden under headlines about KiwiSaver and Best Start changes, lies a major policy shift that will leave 13,200 families worse off by $100, even up to $200 per week*.
'Changes to how the Accommodation Supplement is calculated means that income from boarders–which previously were partially exempt because the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) understood these boarders were often family members–now fully counts against eligibility.
'MSD flagged early on that increased hardship was expected to be experienced by disabled people, young people, older New Zealanders and Māori and Pasifika peoples.
'People who receive the accommodation supplement, by definition, already have unaffordable rents. $100 or $200 a week may not feel much for a Prime Minister out of touch with reality, but for thousands of families it's a lifeline that allows them to keep a roof over their head, put food on the table and pay their bills.
'MSD also noted that any 'savings' were likely overstated**, as costs were simply going to be shifted to emergency housing and hardship grants.
'Poverty is a political choice this coalition is repeatedly choosing. Once again, we see the wellbeing of thousands sacrificed in the name of superficial savings and cowardly games of political hot potato,' says Ricardo Menéndez March.
Notes:
*An estimated 13,200 households will be affected (7,000 on accommodation supplement, 6,200 on public housing subsidies). On average, the 7,000 households with boarders receiving the Accommodation Supplement will be $100/week worse off, and people with 3 boarders would be $202/week worse off. Affected households receiving public housing subsidies would see an average increase of $132/week to the cost of their rent. (Page 21 of the report)
**The Government is saving $150m over four years by stripping support (Accommodation Supplement + Income Related Rent Subsidy) from around 13,200 households who have boarders. MSD has told the Government that the savings are likely to be overestimated (page 7 and bottom of page 15 of the report). This is due to people needing hardship assistance, emergency housing, etc as a result of these changes creating costs for other parts of the system.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
28 minutes ago
- NZ Herald
Erica Stanford faces greatest NCEA test
Arguably, Stanford's most important move was the simplest: her ban on smartphones in schools informed by New York University's Professor Jonathan Haidt. The damage smartphones do to developing minds is comparable to alcohol and cannabis, so that nothing else will much matter if they're not sensibly regulated. At least, they must be kept out of schools, which Stanford delivered three weeks after being sworn in. Likewise, no amount of money or other reforms would much matter if primary students remained in barn-like so-called modern learning environments (MLEs), pushed on schools by the Key Government for reasons never properly explained and retained by Jacinda Ardern's Education Minister, Chris Hipkins. Effectively compulsory until Stanford arrived, she quickly made MLEs voluntary and has now banned new ones from being built altogether. But these were quick-win prerequisites to ensure structured learning could begin again in primary classrooms. Stanford also began the much more difficult work of restoring content and rigour to the school curriculum. First were new maths and English curricula, spelling out clearly what teachers are meant to teach, and how. That departs from recent decades, when subject curricula would instead focus on 'outcomes', leaving teachers to work out what to do for their students to achieve them. Now, practical teaching resources are included in curriculum documents, with over 800,000 new maths resources already provided to primary schools. That the curriculum was not just launched but is already being implemented in 92% of primary schools suggests Stanford has a rare ability to force bureaucrats to do what she wants, rather than the reverse. It's too simplistic to call Stanford's new maths and English curricula 'back to basics', but they do focus more on teachers passing on knowledge to students than on facilitating 'learners' to discover or invent knowledge themselves. The latter can wait for primary students to start their post-graduate work in a decade or two. In the meantime, Stanford's curriculum assumes there's foundational stuff they need to learn first. Following maths and English, the next priorities are the natural sciences, the social sciences, health, and Te Reo Māori. Stanford's curriculum reforms will become harder politically as they move into more contested subjects. But the politics may be easier if her focus remains on foundational knowledge, delivered in a structured environment, in a logical sequence, rather than trying to introduce the latest and most advanced theories in primary classrooms. Kids need to learn addition before multiplication, how to read before how to interpret texts, about atoms before electrons, and that the Treaty of Waitangi was signed in 1840 between the British Crown and Māori chiefs before considering how well it has been honoured. As these students reach secondary school, Stanford's next big decision is how to extend her approach into the qualifications system and what to do about NCEA. Political blame for NCEA can be shared widely. Every party in Parliament has been part of a government that contributed to the fiasco, and all were warned by the country's best educators that it would dumb down secondary education and lead to a two-tier system, benefiting the rich and well connected at the expense of the middle class and poor. Everyone meant well. The NCEA's origins were David Lange and Phil Goff's Learning for Life report, which recommended establishing the New Zealand Qualifications Authority (NZQA) 'to provide an across-the-board approach to the validation of qualifications in schools and in vocational and advanced academic areas'. This was a response to everyone needing some form of higher education in a more advanced economy, and a desire to break down the distinction and allow cross-crediting between vocational training and academic study. National's Lockwood Smith saw the advantages in trying to clearly define what knowledge, understanding and skills students and people in the workforce were meant to achieve, and to worry less about where they might develop them and more about whether they had. He was backed by employers who argued they needed to know exactly what potential recruits knew and could do rather than that they had scored 59, 71 or 82 in an exam. The proposed system was at the centre of Smith's Education for the 21st Century, which I ghost-wrote. But politicians should always be wary of utopianism, and the idea that NZQA or anyone else could write or validate rigorous outcomes statements for the entirety of human knowledge and capabilities, and then operate a system giving each student a detailed certificate accurately recording what they knew and could do was preposterous. To National's credit, it was never confident to finally press go on the new system. That was left to Helen Clark's Labour Government. The Key and Ardern-Hipkins Governments then set up review panels and made tweaks, but basically left the system unchanged. Meanwhile, the universities never took the system seriously while increasing numbers of schools adopted foreign systems or tried to develop their own. The upshot is NCEA delivering the opposite of that intended. If students go to a school offering Cambridge or the International Baccalaureate or take a traditional university route, their qualification is taken seriously, domestically and internationally. If they don't, they're left with the NCEA which isn't. You don't need to be a Marxist to see who that has benefited, and it is surely not those Lange, Goff or anyone intended. Now, as revealed by the Weekend Herald, even the left-wing education bureaucracy accepts NCEA has failed. Stanford faces probably the most consequential decision she'll ever make. Will she follow the Key and Ardern-Hipkins Governments and try to save NCEA with another review? Or will she accept the whole concept was utopian from the outset, and has delivered the catastrophic unintended consequences utopian visions invariably bring? For better or worse, schools, parents and students have tended to favour Cambridge, an internationally recognised qualification originally developed for Third World countries without their own systems. Singapore used it for many years after independence while getting its house in order. The least-disruptive option would be Stanford following Singapore's approach, abolishing NCEA from Year 11 next year, and engaging with Cambridge to roll out its system nationwide. That would require demanding Cambridge work with New Zealand experts to develop rigorous assessments for subjects like New Zealand history and Te Reo Maori. For a long-term, nationwide contract, it would surely be prepared to do so. Like Singapore, we would then progressively evolve Cambridge's exams into a genuinely New Zealand system. Stanford moved swiftly and boldly on smartphones, MLEs and curriculum reform. The same is needed to quickly put the multi-decade, multi-party NCEA disaster behind us.
NZ Herald
28 minutes ago
- NZ Herald
Letters: Political interference in commodity prices is never a good look
Trump-like economic interventions such as tariffs will eventually end badly for domestic consumers. Bruce Eliott, St Heliers. NCEA concerns The recent Government briefing highlighting significant concerns about the credibility of NCEA is yet another damning indictment of our education system. However, just as disturbing is Erica Stanford's comment about the confusion among parents about how NCEA works and that 'parents struggle to guide their children on the right pathways'. Taking a quick look at some of the subjects' explanatory notes on the NCEA website, one is confronted with what amounts to a word salad that would confound a lawyer. No wonder parents are confused. This should not be the case. Students and parents should be able to understand what is going on with their children's education. This would ensure parents have consistent lines of communication with teachers and are aware of their child's progress, challenges and needs. Parents and teachers need to work together to achieve this. A strong partnership between both parties benefits everyone but this will not be achieved if parents don't know what is going on. Bernard Walker, Mt Maunganui. Auckland's troubles Your correspondent Gary Hollis (letters, July 24) sees a glimmer of hope from Chris Luxon and Simeon Brown as Auckland MPs, regarding the preservation of what's left of Auckland's once-pristine suburbs. Unfortunately, the destruction of these suburbs is being driven by their colleague Chris Bishop (from Lower Hutt), and Luxon and Brown, together with the Government's other Auckland MPs, have been noticeably silent about it. Perhaps it is time they stood up for Auckland and restrained him? John Burns, Mt Eden. Transgender sport How very sensible that the Government has told Sport NZ to abandon its transgender guidelines even for community sport. Where males identifying as females competed in female sports, this not only compromised fair competition, but was at times very dangerous. Fair and equal competition in New Zealand must always be the accepted benchmark. Dr Hylton Le Grice, Remuera.
NZ Herald
28 minutes ago
- NZ Herald
‘He really miscalculated the reaction' - new curbs on anti-corruption watchdogs have alarmed Ukrainians
The protesters arrived with their children and dogs, on prosthetic legs and in wheelchairs, carrying blue-and-yellow Ukrainian flags and shouting for the Government to revoke the law, which has stoked immense public outrage, alarmed former officials and raised consternation among Ukraine's European allies who are becoming the country's main lifeline for weapons and economic aid amid uncertain support from the United States. A woman stands wrapped in a Ukrainian flag during Wednesday's protests. Photo / Ed Ram, for the Washington Post 'This is how democracy should look,' said Anton Avrynskyi, 41, a tech entrepreneur who joined the crowds with his wife, Vitaliia, and their 9-year-old son, Ivan. During wartime, the country must stay united behind the president, he said - but should also not fear correcting his mistakes. 'We are here to help him not make wrong decisions,' Avrynskyi said. The law has put a spotlight on Ukraine's history of endemic corruption, which has long been used by the country's detractors to criticise it. It could also affect Ukraine's candidacy to join the European Union. As crowds gathered for a second night in a row, Zelenskyy showed signs of imminent backtracking. The President said he had 'heard what people are saying these days' and would propose 'a plan of concrete steps that could strengthen the rule of law in Ukraine'. He suggested a draft law that would ensure the independence of all of the country's anti-corruption institutions. The masses appeared unsatisfied with his response, and many said they were appalled by how quickly the Government rammed through the law without assessing public opinion, which some saw as a signal it was veering towards unchecked autocracy. Mariia Golota, 35, who is nearly nine months pregnant, carried a sign that read 'I want to give birth in a fair Ukraine'. 'We choose to live here and if you live here you have to fight for fair laws and transparency,' Golota said. The law seemed to be rushed through parliament so 'that maybe no one will notice', said her husband, Danylo Golota, who serves in Ukraine's Third Assault Brigade. 'Most people are ready to stand up and go protest and fight. We lost too much so we are not ready to just swallow something we don't like.' The demonstrators gathered in front of a theatre on Ivan Franko Square, near the presidential administration, in far greater numbers than the estimated 2000 people who protested on Wednesday, shouting, 'Shame!' The presidential headquarters now sit behind several checkpoints and are surrounded by small mountains of sandbags to protect against Russian airstrikes. The crowds sang the national anthem, chanted 'Glory to Ukraine's Armed Forces' and resurrected popular chants from revolutions past, including 'Together we are many - we cannot be defeated!' Some young people climbed onto the theatre's balconies, waving Ukrainian flags and leading the cheers. Others perched on fountains and statues or put out lawn chairs and picnic blankets. Oleh, 39, a Ukrainian soldier, lost his left leg in battle late last year. He said he joined the crowds because he fears the law will risk Ukraine's future in the European Union - the same future he fought for in the country's east until he stepped on a Russian antipersonnel mine near the city of Toretsk. 'It's just offensive even as a civilian,' Oleh said. 'From a military standpoint, it's also offensive that those boys are standing there fighting, and in-house this is what's happening.' Barbara Varvara, 18, walked with her dog, Manya, who was put up for adoption after she was wounded in the eastern Donetsk region several months ago. A sign around Manya's neck read: 'Soon, even dogs won't want to live here'. 'We have so much corruption in our country and we can't do anything,' Varvara said. 'I'm here to show we are against that.' The law, which was adopted by the parliament and signed by Zelenskyy, places Nabu and Sapo under the control of the general prosecutor's office, which critics say effectively abolishes their independence. The two institutions were the main anti-corruption bodies created as part of an aggressive campaign against public graft and other malfeasance since Ukraine's 2014 Maidan Revolution, when hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians took to the streets in part because they were fed up with rampant corruption under President Viktor Yanukovych. The two bodies functioned free of outside control. Yesterday, Zelenskyy, who had tried to frame the law as a way of strengthening the anti-corruption effort, met the heads of the country's law enforcement and anti-corruption bodies, including Nabu and Sapo. After the meeting, however, Nabu and Sapo issued a joint statement, saying that the 'legislative changes adopted yesterday significantly limit' their independence. 'To restore full and independent work, clear and unambiguous steps are needed at the legislative level to restore the guarantees that were abolished by parliament,' the statement said. Kyiv Mayor Vitali Klitschko, who attended the first protest on Wednesday, posted on social media that those responsible for the law were 'dragging Ukraine faster into authoritarianism'. Ukrainian lawmakers who voted against the bill said Zelenskyy severely underestimated both the domestic and international reaction to the move, which is seen as an effort to rein in officials tasked with independently investigating corruption cases - including those that may reach close to the President's inner circle. The move appeared to reflect Zelenskyy's growing distance from the generation that ushered in a new democratic era after the 2014 revolution - many of whom are now among those fighting on the front lines for the same democratic values they championed on the streets more than a decade ago. 'The scariest thing is that it will be used by our foes,' said Ivanna Klympush-Tsintsadze, a lawmaker from Ukraine's European Solidarity Party, who fears outsiders will use the debacle to try to paint Ukraine as a nation that remains mired in corruption. Klympush-Tsintsadze, who worked extensively on Ukraine's bid to join the EU, voted against the law. Protesters gather on a road leading to the Ukrainian president's office. Photo / Ed Ram, for the Washington Post Russia, which has long amplified the narrative of corruption in Ukraine, was quick to leap on the development, with Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov saying yesterday that American and European tax dollars have 'been plundered'. Russia has long been criticized by the West for having one of the world's worst records on corruption. Zelenskyy's signing of the law tested the unwritten agreement between Ukrainian society and government that there will not be a political uprising during wartime because of the shared understanding that Russia is the enemy, said Volodymyr Ariev, a lawmaker who belongs to the same party as Klympush-Tsintsadze. 'He really miscalculated the reaction of the society,' he said of Zelenskyy. 'We are fighting against Russia not only as a country but as a model.' European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen called Zelenskyy to convey 'her strong concerns about the consequences of the amendments' and 'requested the Ukrainian Government for explanations', a spokesperson for the European Commission said. 'The respect for the rule of law and the fight against corruption are core elements of the European Union,' the spokesperson said. 'As a candidate country, Ukraine is expected to uphold these standards fully. There cannot be a compromise.' On Tuesday, agents from Ukraine's security service, the SBU, the general prosecutor's office, and the State Bureau of Investigation raided Nabu offices, claiming the existence of a 'Russian 'mole' in one of the bureau's elite units,' SBU head Vasyl Maliuk said. Many Ukrainians flatly rejected the Government's justifications for the law, however. The move against the agencies also comes a month after Nabu opened a criminal case against Deputy Prime Minister Oleksiy Chernyshov on charges of 'abuse of office and receiving undue benefits in substantial amounts for himself and third parties'. It was one of the highest-level corruption cases since Zelenskyy became president six years ago, targeting one of the closest allies of his powerful chief of staff, Andriy Yermak. Chernyshov denied the charges, but he lost his position in last week's government reshuffle.
