So “throwing money” at poverty does work, according to National?




One of the most oft-used, parroted cliches in the right-wing lexicon…

Bill English said it;

The hard bit of that is reorganising Government – the way the Government works with our most complex families – because frankly, Government doesn’t do that good a job with people who have really serious needs.

So you shouldn’t expect waves of cash – that’s what everyone else is promising. We can tell you from years of looking at it hard, throwing money at intractable social problems won’t have an impact.”

And again he said it;

I suspect it will be a matter for public debate, because New Zealand First and Labour have a track record of throwing money at every problem and making no difference to those problems.

Paula Bennett said it;

Yeah well if throwing money was the answer to this problem then quite frankly we would see – you know the numbers are coming down significantly through those Labour years, because they put significantly more money into these organisations, but we haven’t seen fewer children being neglected.

And repeated it;

TDB Recommends

If I thought throwing an extra 30 or 40 dollars a week at beneficiaries would mean that those children were not abused and neglected, I’d be fighting with that with every inch that I’ve got. It is far more complex than that. Far more complex.”

Steven Joyce said it;

The Prime Minister set 10 challenging targets for public services in 2012. That is because we want results from spending, rather than just simply throwing money at problems.”

And again he said it;

Unfortunately, my dear friends at the TEU say we should keep throwing money at everything every time.”

Hekia Parata said it;

Unlike the Opposition, which is very keen to throw money at a problem…”

Gerry Brownlee kind of said it;

Labour’s first instinct is always to throw money at an advertising campaign, rather than fighting fire with fire.

And even National backbenchers like Melissa Lee added their ten cents worth and said it;

It is less about throwing money around on a problem and more about changing the way we work, so that the services we deliver are more effective.”

One of the most commonly parroted cliches from the rightwing of politics; “throwing money at the problem” – usually with the add-on; ” – doesn’t solve anything“.

Except, of course, when it comes to tax-cuts. Then it’s not so much “throwing money” at middle class and affluent voters – as labelling it a “reward” – as Joyce called it in May 2017;

The Budget 2017 Family Incomes Package will provide better rewards for hard work by adjusting the bottom two tax thresholds and lowering the marginal tax rates for low and middle income earners.”

Joyce’s proposed tax-cut wasn’t “throwing money” at families – it was described more like “… important that Kiwi families directly share in the benefits of New Zealand’s economic growth.

National ministers were adamant that “throwing money at problems… made no difference to those problems”. But – according to Joyce – throwing money at households through tax-cuts achieved a remarkable outcome;

The measures in this budget are expected to lift 20,000 households above the threshold for severe housing stress, and reduce the number of children living in families receiving less than half of the median income by around 50,000.

Perhaps there are two different forms of money being used; red money for the poor; blue money for the middle class? Perhaps National should have printed less of the red stuff, and more of the blue?

But what colour money was being thrown at invested in;

Obviously child poverty exists in this country. Despite former Social Welfare Minister, Paula Bennett, refusing to measure the size of the problem five years ago – by September this year, National’s (then-)new, Bill English was forced to concede that it was a serious crisis confronting our country. In the face of mounting pressure from a resurgent Labour, he finally admitted that at least 100,000 children were living in poverty;

The Package is designed to especially assist low and middle income earners, and will reduce the number of children living in families earning less than half of the median income by around 50,000. Labour showed their true colours by voting against it.

If we can get elected within two or three years we can have a crack at the next 50,000 children, getting them out of poverty.

Suddenly, it seems, National ‘discovered’ child poverty existed in this country. It’s amazing how focused a government can be at election time when opposition parties are nipping at their heels.

Perhaps we should have an election every year?

In 2015, National stole a policy page from the Left by announcing it would raise welfare benefits by $25 a week. (Actually, $23 per week after extra accomodation supplements were taken out. Can’t have “benes” wasting an extra $2 on milk, bread  or something equally silly.) Almost overnight, National went from “not throwing money at welfare” – to “throwing money at welfare”.

According to a Radio NZ report, an estimated  110,000 families, with  190,000 children, would benefit from the increase.

The result was a predictable (if slight) success: child poverty fell by 1%.

As reported by Teuila Fuatai for Newsroom;

According to the 2017 Child Poverty Monitor, released by the office of the Children’s Commissioner today, the number of children living in homes considered to be in income poverty has dropped one percent in the last year – from 295,000 (28 percent) in 2016 to 290,000 (27 percent) this year.

Other figures from the annual report, now in its fifth year, also show a dip in the number of children considered to be from New Zealand’s poorest homes – with 70,000 children (six percent) satisfying the threshold for experiencing severe material hardship, down two percent from 85,000 in 2016.


“In 1982, the percentage of children in families experiencing income poverty was 14 percent, compared to 27 percent now”, the report said.

Paula Bennett – who only five years ago stated categorically that “if throwing money was the answer to this problem then quite frankly we would see – you know the numbers are coming down significantly” – crowed about the success of a fall in poverty;

Judge Andrew Becroft has today confirmed that since the National Government increased benefits in 2015, there has been a drop in the number of children living in low income households.

This is great news and further consolidates National’s track record as a party that shows it cares, rather than just says it cares.

We were the Government that increased benefits for the first time in 40 years. Since 2010 we reduced the number of children living in material hardship by 135,000 and since 2011 we reduced the number of children in benefit-dependent households by 61,000.”

It’s “throwing money at the problem” only until it works. Then it’s a success story, according to a right-wing minister.

As if to allay any doubt, Children’s Commissioner Judge Andrew Becroft,  confirmed the obvious; that raising benefits helped those at the bottom, of the socio-economic ladder;

It’s the first time we can say that we’re sure that things aren’t getting worse; it’s the first time there’s been a small drop and it’s genuinely encouraging and cause for cautious optimism.

We’re probably seeing the first initial signs in terms of what the previous Government did, in terms of increasing benefit levels by $25 a week for families with children.”

Judge Becroft also attributed the fall in child poverty to dedicated hard work from community groups;

I think we have seen a real rise in the commitment by charities and NGOs and community groups. I think that is one of the untold stories; New Zealand, I think, understands the situation. There is much more of a humanitarian response. Communities are behind what is going on. Charities are doing good work. I think that is underestimated in all of this in terms of providing shoes, clothing, lunches, breakfast. I think the country as a whole is becoming much more involved, and I am encouraged by that.

When asked by The Nation’s Lisa Owen;

So that is charities. That is philanthropy. In terms of income poverty: barely a change. Charities can only give so much, though, can’t they?

Judge Becroft responded;

Yeah, that is true. I think the government has got the ultimate responsibility to put in a strong safety net.

Charities can apply band-aids like buying shoes for children or supplying school breakfasts. But it takes central government to lift incomes. Just as it took the previous National government to legislate to lift the wages (albeit over a five year period) of community support workers, home support, and aged-care staff.

Bennett was quick to claim credit  for  the fall in the number of children living in low income households by increasing welfare benefits.

It is time that National and other right-wing politicians abandoned their deceptive, emotionally-charged rhetoric that raising welfare benefits and other incomes is “throwing money at the problem”. Clearly it is not. Putting our taxes into unnecessary flag referenda, sheep deals for middle east businessmen, aluminium smelters, and cutting taxes for the rich – is “throwing money” away.

Constantly repeating the hoary “throwing money at the problem” cliche reminds us that the right is only too happy to use emotionally-charged rhetoric  to win public support. Even when it is a lie.

Putting money into alleviating  child poverty is not “throwing money at the problem”. The data has conclusively shown this to be a fact; additional money helps lift families out of poverty.

Ironically, by making such dishonest  utterances, they undermine their very real achievement in this area.

Shooting yourself in your own foot has never been so painful. Or stupid.





Mediaworks:  No Budget ‘waves of cash’ to fix NZ’s social problems – English

Parliament: Hansards –  Oral Questions – Questions to Ministers

Scoop media:  Paula Bennett – offensive to say poverty causes child abuse

Parliament: Hansards –  Oral Questions – Questions to Ministers

Otago Daily Times:  Call for funding ‘unrealistic’ – Joyce

Parliament: Hansards –  Oral Questions – Questions to Ministers

Scoop media:  Anderton’s party should pay back $72,585

Parliament: Hansards –  General Debate

IRD:  Budget 2017

NZ Herald:  PM defends $30m payout to Rio Tinto

Fairfax media:  Flag referendum – Where does the $26 million go?

NZ Herald:  Saudi sheep deal – No evidence of legal threat from Saudi businessman

NZ Herald:  Filling the Cup – cost $500m and climbing

NZ Herald:  Bennett slammed over child poverty claim

TVNZ: Bill English says National’s families policy will lift ‘50,000 children above that poverty line’

Mediaworks:  Newshub Leaders Debate – Bill English commits to poverty target

Radio NZ:  Welfare increases – what $25 buys you

Newsroom:  Dip in NZ’s child poverty rate a start  Confirmation National’s changes halt child poverty

Fairfax media:  Why we shouldn’t celebrate child poverty falling for first time in years just yet

The World News:  On The Nation – Lisa Owen interviews Judge Andrew Becroft

NZ Herald:  Government announces historic pay equity deal for care workers


Office of the Children’s Commissioner:  Child Poverty Monitor 2017 – Sustainable improvements needed

Fairfax media:  Why are you so afraid of tax?

Other Blogs

Boots Theory: No shit – money alleviates poverty

The Standard:  After nine long years National discovers there is child poverty in New Zealand

Previous related blogposts

Can we afford to have “a chat on food in schools”?

National dragged kicking and screaming to the breakfast table

Are we being milked? asks Minister

High milk prices? Well, now we know why

Poor people – let them eat cake; grow veges; not breed; and other parroted right wing cliches

Poor people – let them eat cake; grow veges; not breed; and other parroted right wing cliches… (part rua)

Once were warm hearted

An unfortunate advertising placement, child poverty, and breathing air

Budget 2013: Child poverty, food in schools, and National’s response

National on Child Poverty?!

On child poverty, to the Sunday Star Times

The Negotiated Pay Equity Settlement for Care Workers – beware the fish-hooks amidst the hyperbole

National’s Food In Schools programme reveals depth of child poverty in New Zealand

Tracey Martin – The Children’s Champion







= fs =


  1. Seems to me the argument they try and make is that “throwing money” at problems that have no monetary solution is a waste of money(?). I guess your argument is that until you’ve at least tried solving a problem with moar money, you can’t be 100% sure moar money won’t work? I dunno, this seems like you’re complaining about nothing imo, given that the new Government is committed to prove National wrong (or right) going forward (e.g. if Jacinda does or doesn’t manage to lower our woeful kids on poverty stats with moar money). In any case National fortunately have no tangible say over anything now with Labour/NZ1/Greens in power.

    • ” I dunno, this seems like you’re complaining about nothing”

      Showing up the Right as hypocritical assholes is never “complaining about nothing”. It’s the proper thing to do.

      Remember that English and his mates could be back in government in 3 or 6 or 9 years time!!!

  2. Good work Frank. One of the clichés I detest most of all.
    Funny thing is that businesses (National loves business and thinks it s the pinnacle of human endeavour) throw money at problems quite frequently. Mostly they do it as a temporary measure until longer-term more structural changes can be developed and matured. So sometimes throwing money at a problem is the right thing to do.
    National putting homeless people up in motels is throwing money at the problem, the right thing to do in the short-term, but a bit dim-witted if a.) you didn’t see it coming and b.) don’t have the longer-term plan to make it unnecessary.

    And when you have people who don’t have enough money to live on decently, then throwing money at the problem is completely the right thing to do. And the longer term plan to back that up is to redesign the economy so it sustains everyone.

  3. I was having a coffee at home with a friend yesterday.

    She is a single mum with a ratbag ex-husband who contributes nothing. She has four kids of primary school age.

    Her weekly income is $600 per week. Her rent is $330 per week for a house that really should be demolished. She has $270 to buy groceries to provide for 5 people, pay power, petrol, gas, insurance and basic cell phone plan.

    She has no internet. No luxuries. The kids’ uniforms are pretty ragged.

    She wanted to study to be a nurse but it meant going down to $450 per week and she couldn’t feed the kids. She tried for 9 weeks but had to give it up.

    She can’t easily find part-time low wage work because paying after school childcare for 4 kids makes it uneconomic as are the harsh abatement rates. Work restricted to school hours is hard to find. She has no family childcare to rely on to allow her to work weekends or evenings.

    4 kids is enough work in an of itself anyway.

    She planted a vege garden but the landlord won’t repair the outdoor tap so she can’t water it. It has gone to seed.

    I don’t know how she copes. She is a saint in my eyes. Her kids are great. She is in constant overdraft and debt but still smiles.

    A lack of purchasing power in the form of MONEY is the key problem for her. If she could have studied and maintained her income for example, she would be in a very different space. If childcare were provided free she’d have more options.

    She is pissed though. Meteria is one of her favourite people. And guess what? She doesn’t vote National.

    • That’s a tragic story, CS, and illustrates everything wrong with our current system.

      The irony is that your friend could have made use of the Training Incentive Allowance (TIA). The same TIA Paula Bennett used to put herself through university and gain a degree – free to her. The same TIA she then canned in 2009.

      The tragedy is that the system – aided and abetted by the likes of right-wing politicians – has trapped not just your friend, but her children as well, in poverty.

      In one generation we could abolish poverty. It’s not hard. It requires money not “thrown”, but invested.

  4. Of course it doesn’t help.

    NZ has been throwing money at poverty in ever increasing amounts from the 1930’s onwards and all we’ve achieved is increased helplessness and reliance on the state.

    Worse – the least capable parents have been encouraged to breed evermore of their kind.

    • “to breed evermore of their kind.”

      What is that ANDREWO? Some sort of original sin thing you’ve got going on?

  5. I’ve always thought reducing tax is a very foolish thing as govt reduces its income base and has less money for running the Ministries and ‘throwing money around’ to where it’s needed in tough times. It makes more sense to find the optimum level of tax which makes us all feel we’re paying enough, and at the same time gives govt a bit of wriggle room for the things they need to do. Scandinavian countries seem to have this right.
    The neoliberal approach to reducing tax has never made sense to me, and I would like to see a reversal of the last round of tax cuts which appear to have created chaos everywhere. I’m on a low income (Super) but would willingly pay another $5-10 a week so our health, education etc can function again (not for Defense though).

  6. Who knows but perhaps in the near future in one of his numerous justifications for his actions(and additional lack of action when it didn’t suit the NZ National Party)we will be hearing that Bill English will claim that he was so poor(despite being a multi-millionaire and a self-serving one at that)that he deemed it his right to Double Dip whilst at the same time he was telling low income NZers that ‘you are living beyond your means and MUST experience financial belt tightening….”
    We can be well assured of one thing when it comes to National MPs of the now failed previous National government and that is they are obviously more obsessed for money into THEIR OWN POCKETS than any caring about NZers.
    I mean even recently David Carter tried to show to NZers how much money he would be making for himself rather than how much he would donate to say the NZ Salvation Army. That shows a tremendous selfishness that exists through-out the NZ National Party. If David Carter made an extra $35,000 then what is stopping him from donating that money to a NZ charity with no links to the NZ National Party that is in the best interest of NZers living in poverty? Instead he(Carter)tries to make out that the current Coalition government is making life better for him financially. But where are his scruples and caring for the country and it’s citizens that are paying HIS(and his colleagues)pay packets and perks of the job??!!!!! We now know where David Carters’ priorities lie(and sleep with)and it’s not for NZ and NZers but FOR HIS OWN POCKET.
    But then it’s only natural for the NZ National Party to have an unhealthy obsession with money for self-purpose.

Comments are closed.