Youth Homelessness Advocate Says Budget Fails Most Vulnerable
A youth homelessness advocate says this year's Budget delivered no support for young people, calling proposed changes to benefit access "cold" and "harsh".
Manaaki Rangatahi Pou Arahi (chief executive) Bianca Johanson told RNZ she was hopeful the Budget would offer targeted relief for Māori and unemployed rangatahi (young people) - but that hope quickly faded.
"We knew there wasn't going to be a lot for Māori," she said.
"But we were hopeful there'd be something for rangatahi, seeing that such a high rate of them are unemployed... but we didn't see any alleviation."
Johanson said, "Māori were ignored in this budget."
"That has been disheartening."
Manaaki Rangatahi is a national youth homelessness collective dedicated to ending youth homelessness in Aotearoa.
It was established in 2018 as a way of consolidating the mahi of different organisations who are also trying to tackle youth homelessness.
Johanson said the sector was seeing the impact of the cost of living crisis, particularly on youth facing housing insecurity - the majority of them Māori.
"For us at Manaaki Rangatahi, we see homelessness, we see a lot of the struggle. People are really hurting."
A call for Manaakitanga
Minister for Social Development Louise Upston announced in this year's Budget that from July 2027, 18 and 19-year-olds would now have their Jobseeker and emergency benefits tested against their parents' incomes.
The policy is forecast to save the government about $163 million over four years, but the income levels parents would be tested against have not yet been decided by Cabinet.
Johanson said the proposed changes were likely to make things harder for the already most vulnerable.
"If the rangatahi is the one that has to do all that advocacy for themselves, go and get their parents' details - this is a very complex situation.
"There are so many people who are the 'working poor' having to support an 18 or 19-year-old on top of all their other expenses. It could actually drive rangatahi out of home."
She fears the proposed changes could create more tension within households and push some youth into harm's way - such as crime and violence.
"I see a lot of these decisions as causing more harm and putting rangatahi and whānau into stressful situations which can create harm. There's no way that this is going to create any kind of unity in the whānau, or support whānau to be together."
"[Māori] are the head of really terrible statistics in Aotearoa - so this Budget and many of the policies that the government have brought forward, aren't exactly addressing them."
She believed kaupapa Māori principles, like manaakitanga, should be at the forefront of decisions made by the government.
"If we're looking at this government and the manaaki that they've shown to Māori, and to rangatahi, it's very absent," Johanson said.
"We see culture as a solution and as a tool of healing. It is what heals our rangatahi in a lot of our youth housing programmes."
'Rangatahi are our future'
Johanson said as it stood, New Zealand did not have a strategy dedicated to support those that were the most vulnerable - rangatahi impacted by homelessness.
"Rangatahi are our future and we're not investing in the future," she said.
"We are damning our children and our rangatahi, the most vital, important people for our future as a country to what? Living on the streets? To be without work? To have really high mental health and suicide stats? I don't understand the logic."
Upston previously said the purpose of the welfare system was to support those who needed it the most.
"With this announcement, we're clearly saying that 18- and 19-year-olds who don't study or work and can't support themselves financially, should be supported by their parents or guardians, not by the taxpayer."
Johanson believed this response was out of touch.
"It's harsh, it's cold, "she said.
"Most people in Aotearoa want to give others a fair go. But we've got kaumātua and kuia working into their 70s and 80s to survive. We've got rangatahi who've been born into homelessness, who don't know what it's like to have their own bedroom - and now we expect their parents to provide support too?"
In response, Upston said the government was "taking steps to make sure work, training or study is the focus for all young people".
"This government recognises that the welfare system should be available for those who most need it. However, we aren't willing to watch any young New Zealanders get stuck on the benefit," she said.
"Recent forecasts show that people under the age of 25 on Jobseeker Support will spend an average of 18 or more years on a benefit over their lifetimes - 49 percent longer than in 2017. That's why I prioritised Welfare that Works in Budget 2025."
Upston said the "Welfare that Works" package included secure funding for two years of Community Coaches and bonus payments - "giving Jobseekers under 25 years more coaching, an assessment of their needs, an individual plan and holding them accountable for achieving that plan."
In terms of the specific policy settings for the 18-19-year-old initiative, final decisions on the parental assistance test will be made later this year, including settings for access to hardship and supplementary assistance.
"The design of the test is likely to take into account a range of considerations including (but not limited to) parents' income level, nature of relationship with the 18- or 19-year-old and circumstances such as whether the parent or guardian are in hospital or in prison."
Minister for Māori Development and Associate Minister of Housing Tama Potaka said the government was investing in rangatahi Māori through education and housing initiatives.
"The government is investing in rangatahi Māori through the overall increase in education funding as well as the extra investment in Māori education specifically, which includes additional funding for kura, te reo Māori proficiency and training for kaiako [teachers].
"Our aspirations are the same as those shared by many parents across the motu: we want to see all rangatahi make the most of their talents. That's why we're saying 18 and 19-year-olds who aren't working or studying should be supported by their parents or guardians, not the taxpayer."
He said it was "wrong" to say the government did not care about housing for vulnerable young people.
"Our housing policy has lifted hundreds of Māori whānau and tamariki out of dire emergency housing and into better homes. That can mean a world of difference for young people in terms of better health, regular school attendance or maintaining employment."
'Talk to us'
Johanson was calling for the government to engage with those directly affected.
"We always ask the government to come talk to us before they make some of these quite strange sanctions and expectations on whānau," she said.
"We are the sector experts. Rangatahi are the experts. Come and talk to us."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsroom
2 hours ago
- Newsroom
New Zealand's invisible children
When Helen Clark's Labour government brought in a law that would create waves of undocumented children, even the immigration experts had no idea of the impact it would have on thousands of lives. The 2006 Citizenship Amendment Act ended automatic citizenship for children born here to overstayers or parents with temporary visas. It was also supported by the National Party. Immigration lawyer Alastair McClymont has been working in the sector for more than 25 years but only recently discovered the fallout from the law. 'It never really occurred to me that this would actually be a problem,' he says. 'It was only really when these children started coming forward that I thought 'This is really unusual, I wonder how many other children are in this sort of situation'. 'It is only recent because these children are now finishing high school and realising that their life has now come to an end, they don't have any options as to what to do.' They are called 'the invisible children', says RNZ immigration reporter Gill Bonnett. They are mainly children of overstayers or temporary visa holders from Pacific countries, India or China. She's known about them for many years but they have been hidden or protected by their parents and communities. 'These people don't want to come forward because they are scared about the consequences of doing so and they don't want to speak up either in the media or necessarily don't want to put their case in front of immigration officials in case it means that they or their parents get deported.' The case of Daman Kumar brought the issue to light, she says, when he bravely spoke to RNZ Asia reporter Blessen Tom two years ago. At the time, the teenager's voice was disguised and he went unnamed for fear he would be deported to India, along with his parents. This year he hit the headlines and his identity was revealed when he was on the verge of deportation. 'He'd been able to go to school okay but when it came to thinking about university or work he realised that he had nowhere to go,' says Bonnett. To further complicate the matter, Kumar's sister was unaffected because she was born before the 2006 law, meaning she is legally a New Zealand citizen. And it is not unique to the Kumar family, Bonnett says. She explains to The Detail what was happening in New Zealand when the law was brought in, including the sense of moral panic. At the time Helen Clark said she was concerned about incidents of people flying to New Zealand for a short time and having babies here to ensure they gained passports, known as 'birth tourism'. Clark said the government would be silly not to look at this, given what other countries were doing. 'They call it the 'anchor babies',' says Bonnett. 'The idea that if your child had citizenship that later on in life you might be able to get citizenship yourself or that you would just be bestowing good privileges on them for later on.' She says there were concerns on both sides of the ledger at the time: one side about birth tourism, where a child born on New Zealand soil would automatically get citizenship, and on the other side concerns about children who had lived here all their lives but didn't have citizenship. It is not clear how many children are undocumented, but McClymont says it could be thousands and the number will keep growing. 'Every year now more and more children are going to be coming out of high school and realising that they can't study, they can't go and get jobs because it would be a breach of the law for employers to employ someone who's here unlawfully. So they can't work, they can't study, they can't travel, they just simply cannot do anything.' McClymont says he has not had a satisfactory response from the Government to his suggestion that New Zealand follow Australia and Britain by giving children birthright citizenship after 10 years of habitual residence. 'Really, it's hard to see what the justification is for punishing these children. Nobody is making the argument that these children have done something wrong and that they deserve to be punished. 'The only potential argument is that these children are being punished as a deterrent for others against having children here in New Zealand,' he says. 'It's just unfathomable as a society that we can actually do this to children and use them for this purpose. There doesn't seem to be any moral justification whatsoever for treating them so badly.' Check out how to listen to and follow The Detail here. You can also stay up-to-date by liking us on Facebook or following us on Twitter.
RNZ News
2 hours ago
- RNZ News
New Zealand's invisible children
Photo: janfaukner/123RF When Helen Clark's Labour government brought in a law that would create waves of undocumented children, even the immigration experts had no idea of the impact it would have on thousands of lives. The 2006 Citizenship Amendment Act ended automatic citizenship for children born here to overstayers or parents with temporary visas. It was also supported by the National party. Immigration lawyer Alastair McClymont has been working in the sector for more than 25 years, but only recently discovered the fallout from the law. "It never really occurred to me that this would actually be a problem," he says. "It was only really when these children started coming forward that I thought 'this is really unusual, I wonder how many other children are in this sort of situation'. "It is only recent because these children are now finishing high school and realising that their life has now come to an end, they don't have any options as to what to do." They are called 'the invisible children', says RNZ immigration reporter Gill Bonnett. They are mainly children of overstayers or temporary visa holders from Pacific countries, India or China. She's known about them for many years, but they have been hidden or protected by their parents and communities. "These people don't want to come forward because they are scared about the consequences of doing so and they don't want to speak up either in the media or necessarily don't want to put their case in front of immigration officials in case it means that they or their parents get deported." The case of Daman Kumar brought the issue to light, she says, when he bravely spoke to RNZ Asia reporter Blessen Tom two years ago . At the time, the teenager's voice was disguised and he went unnamed for fear that he would be deported to India, along with his parents. This year he hit the headlines and his identity was revealed when he was on the verge of deportation. "He'd been able to go to school okay but when it came to thinking about university or work he realised that he had nowhere to go," says Bonnett. To further complicate the matter, Kumar's sister was unaffected because she was born before the 2006 law, meaning she is legally a New Zealand citizen. And it is not unique to the Kumar family, Bonnett says. She explains to The Detail what was happening in New Zealand when the law was brought in, including the sense of moral panic. At the time Helen Clark said she was concerned about incidents of people flying to New Zealand for a short time and having babies here to ensure they gained passports, known as "birth tourism". Clark said the government would be silly not to look at this, given what other countries were doing. "They call it the 'anchor babies'," says Bonnett. "The idea that if your child had citizenship that later on in life you might be able to get citizenship yourself or that you would just be bestowing good privileges on them for later on." She says there were concerns on both sides of the ledger at the time, concerns on one side about birth tourism, where a child born on New Zealand soil would automatically get citizenship, and on the other side concerns about children who had lived here all their lives but didn't have citizenship. It is not clear how many children are undocumented, but McClymont says it could be thousands and the number will keep growing. "Every year now more and more children are going to be coming out of high school and realising that they can't study, they can't go and get jobs because it would be a breach of the law for employers to employ someone who's here unlawfully. So they can't work, they can't study, they can't travel, they just simply cannot do anything." McClymont says he has not had a satisfactory response from the government to his suggestion that New Zealand follow Australia and Britain by giving children birthright citizenship after 10 years of habitual residence. "Really, it's hard to see what the justification is for punishing these children. Nobody is making the argument that these children have done something wrong and that they deserve to be punished. "The only potential argument is that these children are being punished as a deterrent for others against having children here in New Zealand," he says. "It's just unfathomable as a society that we can actually do this to children and use them for this purpose. There doesn't seem to be any moral justification whatsoever for treating them so badly." Check out how to listen to and fol low The Detail here . You can also stay up-to-date by liking us on Facebook or following us on Twitter .
Otago Daily Times
3 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
What is the future for the Waitangi Tribunal?
Now that the Treaty Principles Bill has been consigned to the bin some who want to keep up the conversation about sovereignty and rangatiratanga (Māori self-determination), are refocusing on the Waitangi Tribunal. On the one hand are those who believe the tribunal should be remade to have the power to make decisions which are binding on the government. This would make the tribunal the highest power in New Zealand, above Parliament. (Incidentally, King Charles may well have concerns if Parliament attempts to cede its authority). On the other hand there are those who say the tribunal has done its job and should be dismantled. One of the earliest documents in our history was the Treaty. This document was intended to provide for a peaceful society by, among other things, describing Queen Victoria as in charge, reserving to each tribe their lands, other possessions and their rangatiratanga. This was interpreted for many years as leaving each Māori tribe authority over their own affairs and assets and that Queen Victoria was generally in charge over all. The Waitangi Tribunal came into being in 1975. Its purpose was to make recommendations on claims relating to the application of the principles of the Treaty. For that purpose it is to determine what the Treaty means and whether certain matters are inconsistent with these principles. It costs around $21 million per annum to run. For most of us this tribunal was set up to right the wrongs perpetrated on Māori by the Crown confiscating lands and other possessions. For many years it has had widespread support from New Zealanders. The law establishing the tribunal specifically denies jurisdiction in regard to any Bill that has been introduced to Parliament, unless Parliament has resolved to refer it to the tribunal. As historical land claims are coming to an end, the publicised work of the tribunal has been taken up with making comment about a wide variety of issues, with a focus on the choices government might make. For example the tribunal has spent some years looking into health. The tribunal made a finding that "the health system has not addressed Māori health inequities in a Treaty-compliant way, and this is in part why Māori health inequities have persisted". When the government disestablished the recently established Māori Health Authority the tribunal found that the Crown prejudiced Māori by not engaging with them over the scrapping of the authority. The Waitangi Tribunal has also been conducting a long-standing inquiry into a variety of claims relating to freshwater. Giving evidence to this inquiry The New Zealand Māori Council in 2018 pushed for a water commission to be appointed (rather than elected) made up of 50% Māori to control all water in New Zealand. A lawyer representing over a dozen hapu and iwi said the way the Crown had managed freshwater and left Māori out of the process was similar to theft. This year the tribunal has found that the Treaty Principles Bill breached Treaty principles by failing to guarantee rangatiratanga. When it looked into the proposed Regulatory Standards Bill it found that, if it were enacted, this Bill would be of constitutional significance, as it seeks to influence the way Parliament makes law and therefore it is inherently relevant to Māori. A potted version of the history could be described as thus. In 1840 the Treaty of Waitangi was signed between the Crown and various Māori tribes in New Zealand. This gave Queen Victoria overall control of New Zealand. Each tribe was guaranteed to keep ownership of their own land and possessions and to have internal control of their own affairs. Every citizen in New Zealand had the protection of the Crown. In 1975 the Waitangi Tribunal was set up to deal with legitimate grievances over confiscation of land and other possessions. It was expanded in 1985 in relation to historical claims. The tribunal has now interpreted its role as making pronouncements over any proposed legislation. It seems to have decided that all legislation can and would affect Māori, and if Māori could become part of a group who become or remain disadvantaged the law proposed is a breach of Treaty obligations. In our society, which now has many more than just British and Māori subjects, how can we best move forward? Will we continue with the tribunal with a focus on Māori to the exclusion of other priorities for government support hoping this will remain viable? Will we elevate the Waitangi Tribunal to make it the supreme decision-maker in New Zealand over all things which could possibly touch on the lives of Māori? Or might it be better to decide once the tribunal finishes its historic claims it is time to close it down, possibly replacing its role of critiquing government policies as they may affect Māori with a cheaper option? The challenge we have is to try to weave the Treaty and whatever arrangements we have around it with the primary duty of a stable democratic country to look after its most vulnerable without fear or favour. One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, One ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them. Like Tolkien said. hcalvert@ • Hilary Calvert is a former Otago regional councillor, MP and Dunedin city councillor.
