Latest news with #WorkingforFamilies
NZ Herald
2 days ago
- Business
- NZ Herald
Watch: Christopher Luxon mouths off at ‘frickin' Chris Hipkins over lack of policy
But that has not stopped inflation becoming a political problem, with Hipkins and Edmonds rounding on the Government for high prices this week. Luxon said the Government cared about people on low and middle incomes and helped those people through tax relief using fiscal policy to help the Reserve Bank fight inflation. Annual inflation in the past full quarter before the change of government was 5.6%. Luxon said Labour's outrage over high prices was 'crocodile tears'. 'This is the party that didn't support tax relief - moving tax thresholds. That's not deeply ideological, it helps low and middle income New Zealanders.' Luxon listed his Government's cost of living measures. 'They didn't support FamilyBoost, they didn't support Working for Families credits, they don't talk about helping construction workers by getting on board and u-turning on Fast Track [which Labour opposed, although not for supermarkets], they've got a gazillion positions on PPPs [Public-Private Partnerships], they're all over the place. 'They have no idea what to do - they put us in this mess, we are cleaning up the mess,' Luxon said. Labour leader Chris Hipkins hit back. Photo / Mark Mitchell While Labour opposed these changes in Parliament, it took to the election its own early childhood education policy, extending 20 hours free care to children under 2 years old. It also proposed a more generous Working for Families policy. National copied that policy on the campaign trial, but watered it down during coalition negotiations, costing some families $38 a week. Changes made in the 2025 Budget reduced some of this loss. Hipkins hit back at Luxon, noting that figures obtained by Labour and published on Tuesday showed the full $75 FamilyBoost tax credit was only claimed by a tiny number of households. This means few, if any, households are getting the $252 a fortnight National promised some would get from its tax plan. The Government subsequently changed settings of the policy, meaning more people will start getting more money from it. Willis said about 16,000 more families will get the tax credit. Hipkins defends lack of policy Hipkins defended Labour's light policy slate saying 'we're not even close to an election at the moment'. 'Unlike [Luxon], when we go into an election next year, I will make sure the policies that we have add up and we can actually deliver on them. They didn't actually do that and now they are suffering - and New Zealanders are suffering as a result,' Hipkins said. He said one of the reasons Labour was waiting to unveil policy is the Government has one more budget to deliver. That budget will detail how much money Labour would have to spend if it took over in 2026. 'Before we come out with significant policies that are going to cost money for example, we want to see what the shape of the Government's books are,' Hipkins said. 'I want to know we can afford what we promise,' he said. Hipkins would not say whether the party would have any policy before the Tāmaki Makaurau by-election in September. He has promised a tax policy before the end of the year. Willis also attacked Labour's 'crocodile tears' on the cost of living. Finance Minister Nicola Willis attacked Labour for its lack of policy. Photo / Mark Mitchell Willis took to social media on Monday to note Edmonds was unable to list any cost of living policies. 'I thought it was the most telling thing ever when Barbara Edmonds came down here to do a stand-up lashing us for a 2.7% inflation rate... when asked what specific policy she had to address the cost of living she said 'none' - none, none, none. 'Now that is to me, the boy crying wolf,' Willis said. In the stand-up, Edmonds gave no policy suggestions, she did not literally answer 'none'. Willis said Labour was gripped by 'shallow attack politics which doesn't put bread on anyone's table'. She alleged Labour was 'bereft of ideas' and 'internally divided on what the way forward for New Zealanders is. How much policy is normal In December 2022, the Leader of the Opposition was asked about his own lack of policy and gave a very similar answer to the one Hipkins gave on Tuesday. 'Look, we are one year out from an election ... rest assured, we will have policy,' the leader said. The leader of the opposition back then was Luxon himself. As political campaigning shifts to embrace 'small target' strategies, releasing lots of policy before an election campaign has become less and less common. Assuming the current Parliament runs a roughly full term and there is an election at the end of next year, we are about halfway through the term. At this point in the last Parliament, National had released a tax policy - however, it was careful not to promise that this would be the policy it would take to the election. That policy, published just prior to the 2022 Budget - the middle-Budget in Labour's second term - called on the Government to increase tax thresholds to deliver tax cuts to people to compensate for the higher taxes they were paying because of inflation. Later that year, National confirmed that this particular policy was only a suggestion for the 2022 Budget, but the party committed that its final tax policy would deliver at least the same level of tax cuts as the earlier plan. The final tax package was not announced until the end of August 2023 - less than two months before the October election. National had a handful of policy promises by this stage in the last cycle, including lifting the super age and reintroducing boot camps. Labour has also made some promises, including repealing the Three Strikes law, the future Regulatory Standards Act and reinstating the old Pay Equity Scheme in some form. That last commitment will come with a roughly $13 billion price tag, which will need to be paid for with some kind of tax increase, spending cut, or borrowing. National is keen to pin Labour down on just what combination of those three things Labour is planning. The Simon Bridges-led National Party took a different approach. In its middle year, it released several 'discussion documents' to members and the public testing potential policy ideas and giving a sense of where the party was headed. These discussion documents were meant to form the basis of National's 2020 election policy platform, however, that changed when the party imploded. Hipkins said the party was working on policy internally, but he would not say anything more. 'We haven't released discussion documents but that is the work we have been doing,' Hipkins said. 'We've got to make sure all the pieces of our policy fit together,' he said.
NZ Herald
3 days ago
- Business
- NZ Herald
Proposed Working for Families changes may leave some worse off, FinCap warns
There is almost $300 million owed in Working for Families debt. A discussion document, on which submissions were sought, said the Government's current thinking was that a quarterly assessment of Working for Families eligibility could strike the right balance between responsiveness, certainty and recipient effort. This would adjust what people were paid much more frequently. But Fleur Howard, chief executive of FinCap, said in a submission in response that she was worried that some families could be left without enough money. A shorter quarterly assessment period would be an improvement, Howard said, but it needed to be refined. 'Aspects of the proposed design appear to suit some whānau situations better than others. We are concerned that in its current state, this design would have a disproportionally negative impact on those who are already experiencing financial instability due to more fluctuations in payment amount.' Howard said FinCap's internal data showed most financial mentor clients had a weekly budget deficit even after they had received help. 'More often than not, this deficit is due to whānau trying to pay for essentials, and commonly going into debt to do so. 'This, among other markers, points to the fact that government support is not currently adequate to cover living expenses. We have concerns that some of the proposed changes would exacerbate income inadequacy in certain scenarios, particularly for whānau who need that money week to week.' Howard said an example used in the discussion document, outlining a situation where a woman on the sole parent benefit went into additional work for a short period of time, highlighted a potentially unacceptable outcome. In that case, the woman's Working for Families credits would be reduced by $130 a week for the quarter after her temporary work, even though she was no longer in work, because the calculation was based on the higher income from the previous quarter. 'We can see that the 'lagged income' mechanism makes sense from the perspective of achieving accuracy, however the potential for a decreased payment below what a whānau is entitled to poses real risk for wellbeing and social participation. 'There is also a real concern over the dynamic whereby a quarterly period of higher income followed by a quarterly period of low income would see increased hardship within the low-income period, due to those payments reflecting the past higher income. 'While this could be squared up during the end of year process, our data tells us that most whānau living week to week need that money as part of their weekly payments.' Howard said mentors were also concerned something similar could happen if someone lost a job and went on the benefit, because their reduced income would not show up in the Working for Families calculation for another quarter. 'Whānau need every cent they are entitled to in a timely manner when events such as job loss occur.' A solution could be for the quarterly assessment period to look forward, rather than backwards, she said. – RNZ
Otago Daily Times
3 days ago
- Business
- Otago Daily Times
Will changes to Working for Families leave people worse off?
By Susan Edmunds of RNZ An organisation representing financial mentors around the country is worried that proposed changes to the Working for Families scheme could leave some families worse off. As part of the Budget, the government said it would look at options to help avoid the issue of Working for Families debt. In the 2022 year, only 24 percent of households receiving weekly or fortnightly Working for Families payments and who were squared up by IRD at the end of the tax year had received the right amount of money. People who earned more than expected can end up with an overpayment debt that that they struggle to pay back. There is almost $300 million owed in Working for Families debt. A discussion document, on which submissions were sought, said the government's current thinking was that a quarterly assessment of Working for Families eligibility could strike the right balance between responsiveness, certainty and recipient effort. This would adjust what people were paid much more frequently. But Fleur Howard, chief executive of FinCap, said in a submission in response that she was worried that some families could be left without enough money. A shorter quarterly assessment period would be an improvement, she said, but it needed to be refined. "Aspects of the proposed design appear to suit some whānau situations better than others. We are concerned that in its current state, this design would have a disproportionally negative impact on those who are already experiencing financial instability due to more fluctuations in payment amount." She said FinCap's internal data showed most financial mentor clients had a weekly budget deficit even after they had received help. "More often than not, this deficit is due to whānau trying to pay for essentials, and commonly going into debt to do so. "This, among other markers, points to the fact that government support is not currently adequate to cover living expenses. We have concerns that some of the proposed changes would exacerbate income inadequacy in certain scenarios, particularly for whānau who need that money week to week." She said an example used in the discussion document, outlining a situation where a woman on the sole parent benefit went into additional work for a short period of time, highlighted a potentially unacceptable outcome. In that case, the woman's Working for Families credits would be reduced by $130 a week for the quarter after her temporary work, even though she was no longer in work, because the calculation was based on the higher income from the previous quarter. "We can see that the 'lagged income' mechanism makes sense from the perspective of achieving accuracy, however the potential for a decreased payment below what a whānau is entitled to poses real risk for wellbeing and social participation. "There is also a real concern over the dynamic whereby a quarterly period of higher income followed by a quarterly period of low income would see increased hardship within the low-income period, due to those payments reflecting the past higher income. "While this could be squared up during the end of year process, our data tells us that most whānau living week to week need that money as part of their weekly payments." Howard said mentors were also concerned something similar could happen if someone lost a job and went on the benefit, because their reduced income would not show up in the Working for Families calculation for another quarter. "Whānau need every cent they are entitled to in a timely manner when events such as job loss occur." A solution could be for the quarterly assessment period to look forward, rather than backwards, she said.
Otago Daily Times
3 days ago
- Business
- Otago Daily Times
Will Working for Families changes leave people worse off?
By Susan Edmunds of RNZ An organisation representing financial mentors around the country is worried that proposed changes to the Working for Families scheme could leave some families worse off. As part of the Budget, the government said it would look at options to help avoid the issue of Working for Families debt. In the 2022 year, only 24 percent of households receiving weekly or fortnightly Working for Families payments and who were squared up by IRD at the end of the tax year had received the right amount of money. People who earned more than expected can end up with an overpayment debt that that they struggle to pay back. There is almost $300 million owed in Working for Families debt. A discussion document, on which submissions were sought, said the government's current thinking was that a quarterly assessment of Working for Families eligibility could strike the right balance between responsiveness, certainty and recipient effort. This would adjust what people were paid much more frequently. But Fleur Howard, chief executive of FinCap, said in a submission in response that she was worried that some families could be left without enough money. A shorter quarterly assessment period would be an improvement, she said, but it needed to be refined. "Aspects of the proposed design appear to suit some whānau situations better than others. We are concerned that in its current state, this design would have a disproportionally negative impact on those who are already experiencing financial instability due to more fluctuations in payment amount." She said FinCap's internal data showed most financial mentor clients had a weekly budget deficit even after they had received help. "More often than not, this deficit is due to whānau trying to pay for essentials, and commonly going into debt to do so. "This, among other markers, points to the fact that government support is not currently adequate to cover living expenses. We have concerns that some of the proposed changes would exacerbate income inadequacy in certain scenarios, particularly for whānau who need that money week to week." She said an example used in the discussion document, outlining a situation where a woman on the sole parent benefit went into additional work for a short period of time, highlighted a potentially unacceptable outcome. In that case, the woman's Working for Families credits would be reduced by $130 a week for the quarter after her temporary work, even though she was no longer in work, because the calculation was based on the higher income from the previous quarter. "We can see that the 'lagged income' mechanism makes sense from the perspective of achieving accuracy, however the potential for a decreased payment below what a whānau is entitled to poses real risk for wellbeing and social participation. "There is also a real concern over the dynamic whereby a quarterly period of higher income followed by a quarterly period of low income would see increased hardship within the low-income period, due to those payments reflecting the past higher income. "While this could be squared up during the end of year process, our data tells us that most whānau living week to week need that money as part of their weekly payments." Howard said mentors were also concerned something similar could happen if someone lost a job and went on the benefit, because their reduced income would not show up in the Working for Families calculation for another quarter. "Whānau need every cent they are entitled to in a timely manner when events such as job loss occur." A solution could be for the quarterly assessment period to look forward, rather than backwards, she said.
Scoop
14-07-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
The Green Party's Universal Basic Illusion
The Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand, long considered the progressive conscience of Parliament, has proposed an Income Guarantee, a universal, unconditional payment that would replace or simplify several parts of the welfare system. Framed as a liberating policy to reduce poverty, support unpaid labour, and prepare for a future where work may be scarcer, it has garnered enthusiastic support among progressives. But this proposal is not the radical solution it pretends to be. Instead, it reflects a greenwashed attempt to stabilise capitalism by offering just enough relief to avoid revolt. Far from challenging the structural roots of inequality, private property, wage labour, and capitalist accumulation, the Green Party's UBI functions as a sedative, dulling the sharp edges of exploitation while entrenching the system that causes it. The Green Party's UBI is a reformist containment strategy, not a pathway to liberation. Its implementation would cushion the worst aspects of capitalist life, but in doing so, it would pacify resistance, entrench private ownership, and ultimately protect the interests of capital. What the Greens Propose In 2023, the Green Party unveiled a rebranded version of UBI called the Income Guarantee. This scheme offers: A weekly payment of at least NZD $385 to all adults not in paid work, including students and carers. Higher rates for single parents and families with children. A restructuring of existing welfare benefits, replacing Jobseeker, Sole Parent Support, and Working for Families with a unified baseline payment. A new agency (replacing ACC) to guarantee 80% of minimum wage for those unable to work due to illness or disability. No work obligations, sanctions, or means-testing for this baseline. The Greens frame this as a way to value unpaid work, decouple survival from employment, and support dignity in a time of rising precarity. They also claim that it simplifies bureaucracy and builds trust in people to use the payment in ways that work for their lives. But while these ideas may seem empowering on paper, they carry deep contradictions, particularly when implemented within a capitalist framework. Reforming the System That Creates Poverty The first and most glaring issue with the Greens' Income Guarantee is that it leaves intact the very system that causes poverty and precarity in the first place. People are not poor because there is no universal income; they are poor because the means of production, land, housing, food, energy, are privately owned and controlled by a small class of capitalists. By funnelling a state stipend into a market dominated by landlords, bosses, and corporate monopolies, the Greens' UBI model subsidises capital, not challenges it. The landlord still sets the rent. The supermarket still sets the price of bread. The corporation still determines wages and hours. A 'universal income' becomes a universal transfer of public money to private pockets. This is not wealth redistribution, it's redistribution of dependency. The Greens imagine that by putting cash in your pocket, they are empowering you. But as long as that cash has to pass through the hands of property owners and profiteers, it simply recirculates back into the capitalist machine. Flat Payments in an Unequal World The Green Party's rhetoric of 'universality' masks a dangerous flattening of difference. By giving the same baseline income to all regardless of need, the policy shifts away from needs-based welfare to a market-mediated minimalism. This sounds fair on the surface, but it has regressive implications. A wealthy investor and a single parent receive the same base rate. Meanwhile, tailored supports for disability, illness, or chronic hardship are pared back, replaced with a one-size-fits-all payment that ignores the complexity of human need. While the Greens claim that specialised supports would still exist, the logic of simplification, driven by administrative efficiency and cost, risks future erosion of more expensive targeted benefits. This is not an idle concern. Across the world, UBI experiments have been used to justify welfare cutbacks, particularly under conservative governments that follow. In the long run, a flat payment becomes an excuse to individualise poverty, treating everyone the same while leaving structural inequalities untouched. UBI as Austerity in Disguise UBI can become a tool of austerity, not generosity. By packaging welfare reform as 'universal empowerment,' the state absolves itself of responsibility for meeting complex needs. It shifts risk back onto the individual giving them a cash payment, but removing the broader safety net that once protected people from market volatility. In practice, this leads to privatised hardship - disabled people navigating inaccessible housing markets on a flat income; sole parents forced to stretch meagre funds across rent, food, transport, and children's needs; sick workers unable to afford care once the specialised benefits disappear. UBI may be universal, but its effects are not equal. It entrenches the neoliberal logic that you are responsible for surviving the system, even as the system remains rigged against you. The Work Fetish in Reverse A key selling point of the Green UBI is that it allows people to work less and to study, care for whanāu, volunteer, create art, or simply rest. This is undeniably attractive. For many, the dream of decoupling survival from employment is liberatory. However, UBI doesn't abolish work, it just reorganises who gets to do less of it. The means of production still belong to someone else. People may reduce hours or leave exploitative jobs but they still must buy back access to life from those who own it. Without seizing control of land, housing, food systems, and workplaces, UBI only offers a slower treadmill, not a way off. True liberation from work requires not just the absence of compulsion, but the presence of collective power to shape what, how, and why we produce. Under capitalism, UBI is not freedom from work it is still just freedom to consume what others profit from. Automation and the Myth of Post-Work Capitalism Another justification for UBI is the coming wave of automation. As jobs are replaced by AI and machines, we are told, we need a universal income to ensure people aren't left behind. This argument is both outdated and naïve. Automation is not new it has always accompanied capitalism. And rather than freeing us from labour, it has consistently resulted in: Job displacement for the many, Wealth concentration for the few, And a race to the bottom for those still working. Without changing the ownership of technology and the surplus it generates, automation becomes a weapon against workers, not a liberation. UBI does not challenge this, it merely proposes a bribe to stay quiet while the rich get richer from robotic productivity. If we want automation to free us, we must demand common ownership of its fruits, not a state-managed allowance. Depoliticising the Class Struggle UBI has a profoundly depoliticising function. By providing everyone a basic income, it suggests that class conflict can be solved through technocratic redistribution, rather than collective struggle. It individualises economic survival and replaces mutual aid with state-administered charity. The Greens often present this as 'trusting people.' But in truth, it is a move away from politics altogether, away from strikes, occupations, assemblies, and direct action. It encourages people to become passive consumers of state policy rather than active agents of transformation. This is no accident. UBI fits comfortably within the liberal logic of non-confrontational progressivism - small gains, managed well, with no need to question who owns what or why. But anarcho-communists know that liberation is not granted it is seized. The abolition of wage labour, rent, and bosses does not come from a Treasury paper. It comes from resistance, solidarity, and revolt. The Green Fetish for Policy Without Revolution Ultimately, the Green Party's UBI is a reflection of their broader political project - a capitalism with a conscience. Their aim is to regulate, reform, and humanise the existing system not to overturn it. This is the great tragedy of Green politics: it mobilises the language of justice to protect the architecture of oppression. They speak of liberation while fearing confrontation. They dream of balance sheets, not barricades. The Income Guarantee is not a step toward socialism. It is a safety valve for capitalism, designed to prevent breakdown by making survival just bearable enough to forestall uprising. As long as the Greens seek legitimacy in Parliament, they will remain managers of compromise, not agents of emancipation. Toward a Real Alternative Anarcho-communists do not oppose the idea of everyone having their needs met. But we reject the idea that this must come in the form of a wage or income. We do not want better access to markets we want a world without them. Imagine a society where housing is free because it is collectively owned. Where food is grown and shared in community gardens, not bought. Where care work is respected and supported through mutual aid, not commodified. Where education, transport, and health are decommodified. Where people work not for profit, but for one another. This is not utopia. It exists in fragments already in marae, solidarity kitchens, workers' co-ops, and mutual aid networks. These are the embryos of a post-capitalist future. We don't need a basic income. We need basic expropriation. We need the end of property, not its pacification. No Wages, No Compromise The Green Party's UBI plan, however well-intentioned, is not a solution to poverty. It is a reformist illusion, an elegant attempt to stabilise a decaying system without addressing the violence at its core. It replaces welfare with technocracy, struggle with dependence, and solidarity with state charity. We say: No wages. No landlords. No bosses. No income guarantees only freedom from all need for income at all. We do not ask for a universal basic income. We demand a universal reclaiming of life itself.
