Just as the RBNZ's rate hike deepens the scars of youth joblessness, the Govt will remove benefits of 4,700 jobless teenagers, including 1,885 with mental health issues & some being treated for cancer
I think Minister Upston's comments make it pretty clear, saving money (in the short term) to help get the deficit down is simply icing on the cake. It's clearly ideological "we don't like welfare" end of story. Nothing else to be considered. Might as well just continue disestablishing all forms of support (excluding Super, of course!).
Minister Upston is obviously quite happy to put the hype into hypocrisy.
How else could she justify collecting $1000 a week as accommodation supplement from the state for her mortgage-free apartment, while struggling along on her $320K salary? Remember too that she voted against the second reading of the Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Act 2022 (she subsequently changed both her mind and her vote) and then described herself as a "proud supporter of the LGBTQI+ community."
This is no longer about what’s best for the economy… nope! It’s about something much darker & deeper. I think (if they retain power after the election) we’re about to find out in the next year 😢
And Upston's judgement is that any family earning a wee bit over the minimum wage can obviously afford to support any 18 or 19 year old in unemployment and/or sickness.
And Bennett. Let's not forget that she pulled the ladder up too.
As political figures, Bennett and Upston have held positions of considerable privilege and power after both they and their children benefited from a more generous, universal welfare system - one that included affordable housing, tertiary education allowances, and readily accessible solo parent benefits.
Many of those supports have since been tightened, reduced, or dismantled for today's young people through the policies they have helped implement.
Resilience is not forged through enforced hardship or toxic stress.
If anything, the rise of Bennett and Upston to positions of power is a testament to what is possible when the state invests in disadvantaged people and provides the stability they need to thrive.
Decades of developmental research show that stable environments, secure attachment, and reliable social safety nets enable people to take risks, build skills, and transition successfully into independent adulthood.
By contrast, chronic financial insecurity and social stress place the nervous system under sustained pressure, impairing executive functioning, learning, planning, and decision-making.
State enforced deprivation will not make young people stronger, nor will it foster genuine independence. It will leave very real and lasting damage that will extend well beyond the individual, weakening our communities and diminishing the potential of an entire generation.
Upston, like Bennett before her, appears to mistake trauma for character and hardship for resilience.
Wait a minute....as an 18-year-old, you are a legal adult. You can vote, serve on a jury, serve in the armed forces (in a combatant role), buy a beer, drive a car, fly a plane even. You can hold a job and be paid as an adult, you can sign contracts in your own name and be held to them, be tried and sentenced as an adult if you break the law. You sure as hell pay taxes like an adult.
Even if, just for a moment, you were to cast the flintiest of flinty eyes at this and forget all elements of empathy for the needs of the people impacted, this is just plain wrong on its own merits.
What if we said - oh hey, we are taking 5,000 super annuitants and cutting their benefits. They aren't producing anymore. Their kids now need to look after them? Uproar. And rightly so.
And if you object that older folks have paid their taxes all their lives, one might counter by saying, paying a benefit now may assist a young person to become a fully contributing member of society in the future.
That the withdrawal of access to benefits impacts the person directly and then throws it back on their parents to fix (with goodness knows what added stresses and strains on them) is almost gratuitously callous. It joins the long list of similar actions that this government has led with. An incompetent, pinched and narrow conservatism that punishes the poor, protects the wealthy and has royally tanked the economy.
💯. If I were truly mean I would say that a benefit for a young person is a hand up and a superannuation benefit for a 65+ is a hand out. But it should not be viewed that simply if we want a decent society. I have to believe that while this government could care less about a decent society the majority of NZers surely do care.
Like you I'm losing faith and if I didnt happen to be in my dream job then I would leave behind this "stupid milkloving piece of shit dumbass mean spirited sale at briscoes racist sexist 40% off deck furniture piss country" in a heartbeat.
They have clearly given absolutely no thought to the extra costs involved in a disability or medical treatment, apart from the wrongness of declining what should be a helping hand up to get young people through their first years trying to enter the job market in whatever capacity they can. It is heartbreaking already to see the hardship ordinary people are experiencing through (predominantly) no actions of theirs and not being able to assist.
Frontline staff will wear the anguish and anger of those and their families who are affected - but hey they treat staff for government agencies as totally replaceable and don't care about health and safety except for tick-box exercises.
Approaching 65 years old, and can’t remember a time when the general outlook was so dire as now. The cult of the individual has destroyed what we collectively had, and what we could have had in the future. Feels as if the hunger games are just around the corner.
I wouldn’t be a kiwi if I was comfortable “blowing my own trumpet” but I facilitate an online course at UC Online titled “Youth Realities”. Here’s the course description: “The course introduces students to area of youth studies, which is a critical area within Human Services and allied sectors. Students explore the dynamic concept of ‘youth’ and the cultural, historical, political and economic contexts within which young people navigate life. We critically consider the issues that place young people outside the margins of dominant society, and the responses, models and theoretical frameworks used in youth studies.” Perhaps it should be compulsory for Ministers and MP’s. The idea that young people sit outside the margins of dominant society seems to pass them by. Cruelty knows no bounds.
The RBNZ hiked rates to 2.75% with inflation at 4.1% and Hickey believes somehow this is kicking young people out of work. Where is the evidence of this? This has turned out to be partisan horseshit pre election. Both major parties can be arseholes! True story.
I tweaked it a bit, as the wording is closer to the points I want to make. But you may wish to edit it for flow, grammar and clarity:
The pattern emerging from this Coalition Government is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore.
The proposed Disability Support Services Bill would, in my view, make families, extending even to first cousins and potentially broader cultural interpretations of whānau, responsible in the first instance for supporting working age adult disabled people and adults with chronic progressive health conditions, even when they do not live together. At the same time, the Bill creates a framework that could allow future Ministers to reshape support through secondary legislation and support packages, with much less parliamentary scrutiny than primary legislation receives. We have, seen in yesterday's Question Time, a pattern of behaviour that was established in the early days of the current Coalition
That broader pattern helps explain why today's The Kaka article resonated so strongly with many in the disability community, and beyond. The social media comments on posts about this are overwhelming one's of condemnation, with a few supporters none the less suggesting the Coalitionis right to take it, and like the Act Party did a few weekends ago suggesting quite a few of our disabled and chronically ill are rorting the system, but I digress.
These concerns as raised by in Question Time, have been discussed within disability advocacy circles for some time, but it is encouraging to see them receiving wider public attention following Ricardo Menéndez March's Question Time yesterday.
The same pattern is also evident, in my opinion, in the Social Security (Modernisation) Amendment Act 2026. As I continue working through the legislation, my concern is growing that it will add further layers of bureaucracy and compliance for people receiving Jobseeker Support – Health Condition or Disability, Supported Living Payment, Child Disability Allowance, Disability Allowance, Temporary Additional Support and Residential Subsidies.
Even putting aside the significant debate about Automated Decision Making, I am concerned that the Act increases the risk that vulnerable people could have essential support reduced, suspended or withdrawn incorrectly, while simultaneously shifting even more responsibility onto unpaid family carers and supporters to navigate increasingly complex administrative requirements.
Taken together, these measures represent more than isolated policy decisions. They point towards a broader shift in which the state's responsibilities are progressively transferred onto disabled people, older people, families and communities. Whether one supports or opposes the Coalition politically, that trend deserves serious public debate.
For me, this has gone beyond ordinary political disagreement. Even accepting the self imposed constraints of the so called '30/30 rule', I struggle to see why many of these changes are necessary. They appear unnecessarily harsh, placing additional burdens on people who are already among the most vulnerable members of our society.
What troubles me most is not simply the legislation itself, but how little public outrage it has generated. I sometimes wonder why we are not seeing larger public demonstrations, greater civic engagement and more sustained scrutiny of these changes. Then I am reminded that some people actively support this direction.
That is, of course, their democratic right. But I find it deeply saddening that, during my lifetime, we have reached a point where policies that I see as increasingly callous towards disabled people, chronically ill people, older New Zealanders and their carers have become acceptable to many. I believe we can, and should, expect better from any government, regardless of its political persuasion.
This was my first draft,without going through my ChatGPT editing process. It shouldn't have appeared here. See my comment below for some extra bits I've added. I used AI to correct my spelling and grammar, as mine, despite being a product of NZ's late 60s to early 80s education system is atrocious.
I have a relative who has her adult son living with her. He had a job in a cheese factory for several years but the cheese factory has cut back its cheese production so he was made redundant. He has trouble sleeping but the cheese factory made allowances for him to sometimes arrive late as he was good at his job. (He wasn't put off in the first layoff of positions ) He also has an accent and not always easy to understand.So under this new regime would my relative who is a senior citizen be expected to support him until he gets employment?
Every person's circumstances are different, so please take what I've written with a grain of salt. It isn't legal or advocacy advice.
If your friend's son is 18 or 19 and receiving Jobseeker Support, then my understanding is that, at his next review, he would likely come under the new legislation. However, if his mother receives only New Zealand Superannuation and has no other income, my understanding is that she would be below the $65,000 parental income threshold. If that's correct, then I don't believe the new parental support provisions would affect them.
If her son is older than 19, the parental income rules would not apply. He would still have the usual obligations associated with Jobseeker Support. From what you've described, if he is assessed as capable of working more than 15 hours a week, he would not normally qualify for Supported Living Payment. However, he would still be affected by aspects of the new Social Security (Modernisation) Amendment Act, including any new review or medical evidence requirements that apply to his circumstances.
The best person to clarify how the new legislation applies in his particular situation is his MSD case manager. If there is any uncertainty after speaking with them, I would also encourage asking for the relevant policy in writing or seeking independent benefit advice.
I wonder if it’s possible, as expected for quite some time now, that the advancements in AI are beginning to erode the availability of entry level jobs across society. Wild idea I know…
In the 2nd episode of the RNZ podcast All in her Head an Australian doctor comments on the NZ Public Health system being mean. I think that's true and largely not the fault of many of the clinicians and staff at Te Whatu Ora.
I think mean is a good way of simply encapsulating what this government is. We can project malice, disdain, selfishness, racism, incompetence etc. onto them easily. But holistically they are a mean government and they make me feel ashamed to be a New Zealander.
I really mean that from the bottom of my heart. I know there is so much good in this country but this government has made me feel so damn ashamed.
as someone who has been decimated by this virus I’m well positioned to say this will be having a massive but unreported impact on employment, mental health and general societal cohesion.
Have a look at Fauci’s testimony today. 2020 will be viewed as a pivotal year.
Most comments I agree with. However how can any government class a person of 19 a dependent on parents. It is my understanding that the UN has 18 as an adult &that NZ has signed this understanding.
The pattern emerging from this Coalition Government is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore. The cruelty, which is what it is no matter how Minister Upston, Cabinet and the Coalition MPs spin it with their carefully honed talking points. The body language, and facial expressions of other Government MPs seemed to suggest many were swallowing dead rats as Upston spoke. Perhaps some were counting the number of days to the election, and if their constituents will remember this, and the other recent punching down on our vulnerable community members.
The proposed Disability Support Services Bill would, in my view, make families, extending even to first cousins and potentially broader cultural interpretations of whānau, responsible in the first instance for supporting working-age disabled adults, and working-age people and retirees with chronic progressive illnesses, even when they do not live together. At the same time, the Bill creates a framework that could allow future Ministers to reshape support through secondary legislation and support programmes or ‘packages’, with much less parliamentary scrutiny than primary legislation receives.
That broader pattern helps explain why today’s The Kaka article is likely to resonate strongly with many in the disability community. These concerns were raised within the disability community at the time, but it is heartening to see them receiving wider public attention following Ricardo Menéndez March’s Question Time yesterday.
The same pattern is also evident, in my opinion, in the Social Security (Modernisation) Amendment Act 2026. As I continue working through the legislation, my concern is growing that it will add further layers of bureaucracy and compliance for people receiving Jobseeker Support – Health Condition or Disability, Supported Living Payment, Child Disability Allowance, Disability Allowance, Temporary Additional Support and Residential Subsidies.
Even putting aside the significant debate about Automated Decision Making, I am concerned that the Social Security (Modernisation) Amendment Act increases the risk that vulnerable people could have essential support reduced, suspended or withdrawn incorrectly. It does so in a political environment in which disabled and chronically ill people are increasingly being discussed as people who may need to be checked, reassessed and tested for whether their need is sufficiently ‘genuine’.
At the same time, even more responsibility is being shifted onto unpaid family carers and supporters. They may be expected to obtain medical evidence, respond to notices, arrange reassessments, challenge incorrect decisions and navigate increasingly complex administrative requirements, often while already providing substantial practical, emotional and financial support.
That concern cannot be separated from the welfare policy ACT announced as an election position on 28 June 2026. ACT said that the public deserved confidence that the welfare system was not being ‘gamed’. It proposed that medical certification for all health- and disability-related benefits should be undertaken by doctors from an MSD-approved pool, rather than relying on a person’s usual GP or specialist, and that existing recipients of Jobseeker Support – Health Condition or Disability and Supported Living Payment should be reassessed against new criteria. ACT said reassessment would begin with people granted health-related support for psychological or psychiatric conditions after the COVID-19 pandemic.
ACT also said there would be long-term arrangements for people with what it called a ‘genuine, enduring disability or health condition’. But the language itself is revealing, and it seems yesterday's question time exchange was, while not said explicitly, part of Cabinet and Coalition thinking of vulnerable communitymembers, unless they can prove they are, in their opinions worthy of support.
Taken together, these measures, and now election policy, represent more than isolated policy decisions. They point towards a broader shift in which the state’s responsibilities are progressively transferred onto disabled people, people with chronic progressive illnesses, families and communities, while those seeking support are subjected to greater suspicion, scrutiny and conditionality. Whether one supports or opposes the Coalition politically, that trend deserves serious public debate.
For me, this has gone beyond ordinary political disagreement. Even accepting the self-imposed constraints of the so-called ‘30/30 rule’, I struggle to see why many of these changes are necessary. They appear unnecessarily harsh, placing additional burdens on people who are already among the most vulnerable members of our society.
What troubles me most is not simply the legislation itself, but how little public outrage it has generated. Although, since the Disability Support Services Bill and the Social Security Act in May 2026 is swiftlyseeming to change that, I sometimes wonder why we are not seeing larger public demonstrations, greater civic engagement and more sustained scrutiny of these changes. Then I am reminded that some people actively support this direction.
That is, of course, their democratic right. But I find it deeply saddening that, during my lifetime, we have reached a point where policies that I see as increasingly callous towards disabled people, people with chronic progressive illnesses, their families and unpaid carers have become acceptable to many. I believe we can, and should, expect better from any government, regardless of its political persuasion.
I think Minister Upston's comments make it pretty clear, saving money (in the short term) to help get the deficit down is simply icing on the cake. It's clearly ideological "we don't like welfare" end of story. Nothing else to be considered. Might as well just continue disestablishing all forms of support (excluding Super, of course!).
Minister Upston is obviously quite happy to put the hype into hypocrisy.
How else could she justify collecting $1000 a week as accommodation supplement from the state for her mortgage-free apartment, while struggling along on her $320K salary? Remember too that she voted against the second reading of the Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Act 2022 (she subsequently changed both her mind and her vote) and then described herself as a "proud supporter of the LGBTQI+ community."
Unfucking believable from Upston. So so callous. In the running for more evil than Ruth Richardson.
This is no longer about what’s best for the economy… nope! It’s about something much darker & deeper. I think (if they retain power after the election) we’re about to find out in the next year 😢
And Upston's judgement is that any family earning a wee bit over the minimum wage can obviously afford to support any 18 or 19 year old in unemployment and/or sickness.
And Bennett. Let's not forget that she pulled the ladder up too.
As political figures, Bennett and Upston have held positions of considerable privilege and power after both they and their children benefited from a more generous, universal welfare system - one that included affordable housing, tertiary education allowances, and readily accessible solo parent benefits.
Many of those supports have since been tightened, reduced, or dismantled for today's young people through the policies they have helped implement.
Resilience is not forged through enforced hardship or toxic stress.
If anything, the rise of Bennett and Upston to positions of power is a testament to what is possible when the state invests in disadvantaged people and provides the stability they need to thrive.
Decades of developmental research show that stable environments, secure attachment, and reliable social safety nets enable people to take risks, build skills, and transition successfully into independent adulthood.
By contrast, chronic financial insecurity and social stress place the nervous system under sustained pressure, impairing executive functioning, learning, planning, and decision-making.
State enforced deprivation will not make young people stronger, nor will it foster genuine independence. It will leave very real and lasting damage that will extend well beyond the individual, weakening our communities and diminishing the potential of an entire generation.
Upston, like Bennett before her, appears to mistake trauma for character and hardship for resilience.
The evidence very clearly suggests otherwise.
Wait a minute....as an 18-year-old, you are a legal adult. You can vote, serve on a jury, serve in the armed forces (in a combatant role), buy a beer, drive a car, fly a plane even. You can hold a job and be paid as an adult, you can sign contracts in your own name and be held to them, be tried and sentenced as an adult if you break the law. You sure as hell pay taxes like an adult.
Even if, just for a moment, you were to cast the flintiest of flinty eyes at this and forget all elements of empathy for the needs of the people impacted, this is just plain wrong on its own merits.
What if we said - oh hey, we are taking 5,000 super annuitants and cutting their benefits. They aren't producing anymore. Their kids now need to look after them? Uproar. And rightly so.
And if you object that older folks have paid their taxes all their lives, one might counter by saying, paying a benefit now may assist a young person to become a fully contributing member of society in the future.
That the withdrawal of access to benefits impacts the person directly and then throws it back on their parents to fix (with goodness knows what added stresses and strains on them) is almost gratuitously callous. It joins the long list of similar actions that this government has led with. An incompetent, pinched and narrow conservatism that punishes the poor, protects the wealthy and has royally tanked the economy.
Vote. Them. Out.
💯. If I were truly mean I would say that a benefit for a young person is a hand up and a superannuation benefit for a 65+ is a hand out. But it should not be viewed that simply if we want a decent society. I have to believe that while this government could care less about a decent society the majority of NZers surely do care.
I like to think so Kurt but with polls showing support for the coalition I now have little faith.
Like you I'm losing faith and if I didnt happen to be in my dream job then I would leave behind this "stupid milkloving piece of shit dumbass mean spirited sale at briscoes racist sexist 40% off deck furniture piss country" in a heartbeat.
If you know an 18 or 19 year old, the best website on the planet right now is https://vote.nz/
They have clearly given absolutely no thought to the extra costs involved in a disability or medical treatment, apart from the wrongness of declining what should be a helping hand up to get young people through their first years trying to enter the job market in whatever capacity they can. It is heartbreaking already to see the hardship ordinary people are experiencing through (predominantly) no actions of theirs and not being able to assist.
Frontline staff will wear the anguish and anger of those and their families who are affected - but hey they treat staff for government agencies as totally replaceable and don't care about health and safety except for tick-box exercises.
It's possible they will never get near frontline staff: a future welcome everyone to AI, "computer says no" hell....
Just how cruel and cynical can these evil ministers be?
Approaching 65 years old, and can’t remember a time when the general outlook was so dire as now. The cult of the individual has destroyed what we collectively had, and what we could have had in the future. Feels as if the hunger games are just around the corner.
I wouldn’t be a kiwi if I was comfortable “blowing my own trumpet” but I facilitate an online course at UC Online titled “Youth Realities”. Here’s the course description: “The course introduces students to area of youth studies, which is a critical area within Human Services and allied sectors. Students explore the dynamic concept of ‘youth’ and the cultural, historical, political and economic contexts within which young people navigate life. We critically consider the issues that place young people outside the margins of dominant society, and the responses, models and theoretical frameworks used in youth studies.” Perhaps it should be compulsory for Ministers and MP’s. The idea that young people sit outside the margins of dominant society seems to pass them by. Cruelty knows no bounds.
The RBNZ hiked rates to 2.75% with inflation at 4.1% and Hickey believes somehow this is kicking young people out of work. Where is the evidence of this? This has turned out to be partisan horseshit pre election. Both major parties can be arseholes! True story.
This is a brilliant, but extremely depressing column Bernard.
As a human being it leaves me bereft that we have people in power who are so callous, and that my fellow human beings put them there.
I tweaked it a bit, as the wording is closer to the points I want to make. But you may wish to edit it for flow, grammar and clarity:
The pattern emerging from this Coalition Government is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore.
The proposed Disability Support Services Bill would, in my view, make families, extending even to first cousins and potentially broader cultural interpretations of whānau, responsible in the first instance for supporting working age adult disabled people and adults with chronic progressive health conditions, even when they do not live together. At the same time, the Bill creates a framework that could allow future Ministers to reshape support through secondary legislation and support packages, with much less parliamentary scrutiny than primary legislation receives. We have, seen in yesterday's Question Time, a pattern of behaviour that was established in the early days of the current Coalition
That broader pattern helps explain why today's The Kaka article resonated so strongly with many in the disability community, and beyond. The social media comments on posts about this are overwhelming one's of condemnation, with a few supporters none the less suggesting the Coalitionis right to take it, and like the Act Party did a few weekends ago suggesting quite a few of our disabled and chronically ill are rorting the system, but I digress.
These concerns as raised by in Question Time, have been discussed within disability advocacy circles for some time, but it is encouraging to see them receiving wider public attention following Ricardo Menéndez March's Question Time yesterday.
The same pattern is also evident, in my opinion, in the Social Security (Modernisation) Amendment Act 2026. As I continue working through the legislation, my concern is growing that it will add further layers of bureaucracy and compliance for people receiving Jobseeker Support – Health Condition or Disability, Supported Living Payment, Child Disability Allowance, Disability Allowance, Temporary Additional Support and Residential Subsidies.
Even putting aside the significant debate about Automated Decision Making, I am concerned that the Act increases the risk that vulnerable people could have essential support reduced, suspended or withdrawn incorrectly, while simultaneously shifting even more responsibility onto unpaid family carers and supporters to navigate increasingly complex administrative requirements.
Taken together, these measures represent more than isolated policy decisions. They point towards a broader shift in which the state's responsibilities are progressively transferred onto disabled people, older people, families and communities. Whether one supports or opposes the Coalition politically, that trend deserves serious public debate.
For me, this has gone beyond ordinary political disagreement. Even accepting the self imposed constraints of the so called '30/30 rule', I struggle to see why many of these changes are necessary. They appear unnecessarily harsh, placing additional burdens on people who are already among the most vulnerable members of our society.
What troubles me most is not simply the legislation itself, but how little public outrage it has generated. I sometimes wonder why we are not seeing larger public demonstrations, greater civic engagement and more sustained scrutiny of these changes. Then I am reminded that some people actively support this direction.
That is, of course, their democratic right. But I find it deeply saddening that, during my lifetime, we have reached a point where policies that I see as increasingly callous towards disabled people, chronically ill people, older New Zealanders and their carers have become acceptable to many. I believe we can, and should, expect better from any government, regardless of its political persuasion.
This was my first draft,without going through my ChatGPT editing process. It shouldn't have appeared here. See my comment below for some extra bits I've added. I used AI to correct my spelling and grammar, as mine, despite being a product of NZ's late 60s to early 80s education system is atrocious.
I have a relative who has her adult son living with her. He had a job in a cheese factory for several years but the cheese factory has cut back its cheese production so he was made redundant. He has trouble sleeping but the cheese factory made allowances for him to sometimes arrive late as he was good at his job. (He wasn't put off in the first layoff of positions ) He also has an accent and not always easy to understand.So under this new regime would my relative who is a senior citizen be expected to support him until he gets employment?
That is a heartbreaking story Tui.
Every person's circumstances are different, so please take what I've written with a grain of salt. It isn't legal or advocacy advice.
If your friend's son is 18 or 19 and receiving Jobseeker Support, then my understanding is that, at his next review, he would likely come under the new legislation. However, if his mother receives only New Zealand Superannuation and has no other income, my understanding is that she would be below the $65,000 parental income threshold. If that's correct, then I don't believe the new parental support provisions would affect them.
If her son is older than 19, the parental income rules would not apply. He would still have the usual obligations associated with Jobseeker Support. From what you've described, if he is assessed as capable of working more than 15 hours a week, he would not normally qualify for Supported Living Payment. However, he would still be affected by aspects of the new Social Security (Modernisation) Amendment Act, including any new review or medical evidence requirements that apply to his circumstances.
The best person to clarify how the new legislation applies in his particular situation is his MSD case manager. If there is any uncertainty after speaking with them, I would also encourage asking for the relevant policy in writing or seeking independent benefit advice.
Thank you Paul. I'll pass that on to his Mum.
I wonder if it’s possible, as expected for quite some time now, that the advancements in AI are beginning to erode the availability of entry level jobs across society. Wild idea I know…
In the 2nd episode of the RNZ podcast All in her Head an Australian doctor comments on the NZ Public Health system being mean. I think that's true and largely not the fault of many of the clinicians and staff at Te Whatu Ora.
I think mean is a good way of simply encapsulating what this government is. We can project malice, disdain, selfishness, racism, incompetence etc. onto them easily. But holistically they are a mean government and they make me feel ashamed to be a New Zealander.
I really mean that from the bottom of my heart. I know there is so much good in this country but this government has made me feel so damn ashamed.
https://www.phcc.org.nz/briefing/long-covid-has-high-prevalence-and-impact-where-government-response
as someone who has been decimated by this virus I’m well positioned to say this will be having a massive but unreported impact on employment, mental health and general societal cohesion.
Have a look at Fauci’s testimony today. 2020 will be viewed as a pivotal year.
Most comments I agree with. However how can any government class a person of 19 a dependent on parents. It is my understanding that the UN has 18 as an adult &that NZ has signed this understanding.
The pattern emerging from this Coalition Government is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore. The cruelty, which is what it is no matter how Minister Upston, Cabinet and the Coalition MPs spin it with their carefully honed talking points. The body language, and facial expressions of other Government MPs seemed to suggest many were swallowing dead rats as Upston spoke. Perhaps some were counting the number of days to the election, and if their constituents will remember this, and the other recent punching down on our vulnerable community members.
The proposed Disability Support Services Bill would, in my view, make families, extending even to first cousins and potentially broader cultural interpretations of whānau, responsible in the first instance for supporting working-age disabled adults, and working-age people and retirees with chronic progressive illnesses, even when they do not live together. At the same time, the Bill creates a framework that could allow future Ministers to reshape support through secondary legislation and support programmes or ‘packages’, with much less parliamentary scrutiny than primary legislation receives.
That broader pattern helps explain why today’s The Kaka article is likely to resonate strongly with many in the disability community. These concerns were raised within the disability community at the time, but it is heartening to see them receiving wider public attention following Ricardo Menéndez March’s Question Time yesterday.
The same pattern is also evident, in my opinion, in the Social Security (Modernisation) Amendment Act 2026. As I continue working through the legislation, my concern is growing that it will add further layers of bureaucracy and compliance for people receiving Jobseeker Support – Health Condition or Disability, Supported Living Payment, Child Disability Allowance, Disability Allowance, Temporary Additional Support and Residential Subsidies.
Even putting aside the significant debate about Automated Decision Making, I am concerned that the Social Security (Modernisation) Amendment Act increases the risk that vulnerable people could have essential support reduced, suspended or withdrawn incorrectly. It does so in a political environment in which disabled and chronically ill people are increasingly being discussed as people who may need to be checked, reassessed and tested for whether their need is sufficiently ‘genuine’.
At the same time, even more responsibility is being shifted onto unpaid family carers and supporters. They may be expected to obtain medical evidence, respond to notices, arrange reassessments, challenge incorrect decisions and navigate increasingly complex administrative requirements, often while already providing substantial practical, emotional and financial support.
That concern cannot be separated from the welfare policy ACT announced as an election position on 28 June 2026. ACT said that the public deserved confidence that the welfare system was not being ‘gamed’. It proposed that medical certification for all health- and disability-related benefits should be undertaken by doctors from an MSD-approved pool, rather than relying on a person’s usual GP or specialist, and that existing recipients of Jobseeker Support – Health Condition or Disability and Supported Living Payment should be reassessed against new criteria. ACT said reassessment would begin with people granted health-related support for psychological or psychiatric conditions after the COVID-19 pandemic.
ACT also said there would be long-term arrangements for people with what it called a ‘genuine, enduring disability or health condition’. But the language itself is revealing, and it seems yesterday's question time exchange was, while not said explicitly, part of Cabinet and Coalition thinking of vulnerable communitymembers, unless they can prove they are, in their opinions worthy of support.
Taken together, these measures, and now election policy, represent more than isolated policy decisions. They point towards a broader shift in which the state’s responsibilities are progressively transferred onto disabled people, people with chronic progressive illnesses, families and communities, while those seeking support are subjected to greater suspicion, scrutiny and conditionality. Whether one supports or opposes the Coalition politically, that trend deserves serious public debate.
For me, this has gone beyond ordinary political disagreement. Even accepting the self-imposed constraints of the so-called ‘30/30 rule’, I struggle to see why many of these changes are necessary. They appear unnecessarily harsh, placing additional burdens on people who are already among the most vulnerable members of our society.
What troubles me most is not simply the legislation itself, but how little public outrage it has generated. Although, since the Disability Support Services Bill and the Social Security Act in May 2026 is swiftlyseeming to change that, I sometimes wonder why we are not seeing larger public demonstrations, greater civic engagement and more sustained scrutiny of these changes. Then I am reminded that some people actively support this direction.
That is, of course, their democratic right. But I find it deeply saddening that, during my lifetime, we have reached a point where policies that I see as increasingly callous towards disabled people, people with chronic progressive illnesses, their families and unpaid carers have become acceptable to many. I believe we can, and should, expect better from any government, regardless of its political persuasion.