Written By:
- Date published:
2:57 pm, March 25th, 2026 - 31 comments
Categories: election 2026, same old national -
Tags: family support, fuel crisis, pork barrel
Under great fanfare, the Government has unveiled its tiny ultra-targeted fuel relief package for those who need it, except for those who may need it too and quite possibly even more, such as beneficiaries (incl. people receiver Super) and students. The logic might be that the unneedy (and/or undeserving?) don’t drive cars at all. The real reason may be more straightforward: the package is pork-barrelling.
The relief counter will start on 1 April (no joke!) and is costed at $373 million if it runs for a whole year. With the big debt monster lurking in Nicola Willis’ nightmares and international credit agencies hawkishly watching its every move, Government felt that this was the best they could do in such timely manner.
The accompanying press release states its raison d’être and gives us an important clue:
“The policy is carefully targeted to families in the squeezed middle – parents who are working hard for a living, are not eligible for main benefits, and yet have modest household incomes with which to support their children. We know these families will be hit particularly hard by the global fuel-price shock. We are delivering them timely relief.
Thanks to the higher fuel prices the Government may rake in an extra $180 million in GST although this may be off-set by reduction of household spending on other things. In any case, it doesn’t seem to be a particularly generous amount of money for Government.
For the lucky recipients of the Government’s largesse, on the other hand, $50 per week does seem very generous when considering that they spent, on average, $65 a week on fuel before the recent price rises because of the war in Iran and fuel prices have risen only (!) up to about a third over the whole period although for diesel it’s almost doubled. It may be that Government is mitigating against further price rises and/or against secondary cost increases because of higher transport costs that flow on to higher prices for many goods.
This raises the question why the Government hasn’t been more inclusive and why it hasn’t decided on other parallel measures that would help other New Zealanders too who struggle with making ends meet and that would reduce overall consumption to help preserve precious fuel stocks for longer? For example, why did it not lower fares for public transport in an equally temporary, timely, and targeted manner?
The answer may be that the package is aimed at people who may or may not vote for National in the General Election on 7 November.
Thank you for reiterating that Super is a benefit, uncomfortable as that is for many.
Approximately 900,000 people receiving the Super benefit at an approx annual cost of $21 billion.
Super is Not a benefit!
But neither is unemployment, disability and other welfare.
They are social insurance which we paid into all our lives for.
I'm comfortable with those who due to health, lack of work and other issues receiving welfare, that couldn't pay in.
I'm not comfortable, with those who benefit from having a pool of unemployed suppressing wages, those who benefit from our infrastructure, especially house scalpers, without paying in proportion, and similar bludgers. Those are the real tax funded "beneficiaries". Who cost us more than all welfare, including super, combined.
The most obvious support for beneficiaries and those on super would be a temporary bump in the winter energy payment. Maybe in May?
The one not made is a $50 bump to the IETC, single people on low incomes who drive to work.
Super goes up on 1st April by about $25 a week, winter fuel payment of $32 a week, starts on 1st May.
Fortnightly. Not weekly.
Just received a note from our power company to expect an extra $45 a month on our average bill.
Inflation for lower income people was already more than $50 a week, before the Epstein smokescreen invasion.
The time to introduce any increase in the winter energy payment would be from May.
Benefits go up on 1 April. This reflects CPI movement. Job Seeker is going up from 361.32 to $372.55.
One could argue that all the government is doing is making an annual adjustment to the WFF tax credit, albeit in this case only a temporary one.
Winter Energy Payment
Rate for Couples/Families: $31.82 per week.
Rate for Singles: $20.46 per week.
Super change
$18–$32 more per week ($40–$60+ per fortnight)
The super variation is single and couples (tax rates and singles living arrangements).
It is rare that the CPI increase for benefits is higher than the increase for those in Super. But this is likely again next year and may become regular given rates, insurance and power charges are going to keep inflation higher than it has been the past 3 decades.
The increase in the minimum hourly wage is only 1.7%, which means that the Job Seeker benefit is increasing faster than MW. I doubt this sits well with the Coalition.
I do not. Given they chose this course, a lower rate of increase in MW than the CPI. It is what they (and employer/business sponsors) wanted.
You focussed only on one side of the coin (MW) when it’s the gap between employed (earning) and unemployed (non-earning beneficiaries) that matters more/most. Indexing main benefits (e.g., Job Seeker) to CPI is a big reason why the Coalition is hell-bent in getting inflation low ASAP – there must be an incentive for unemployed to seek & accept paid work and vice versa a disincentive (almost punitive) to stay unemployed and on a benefit. It’s called welfare addiction, welfare trap, or similar.
NZ Super:
Single, living alone goes up by net $16.73 per week.
Couples, both you and your partner qualify (each) goes up by net $12.87 per week each ($25.74 combined).
https://www.workandincome.govt.nz/products/benefit-rates/benefit-rates-april-2025.html
https://www.workandincome.govt.nz/products/benefit-rates/benefit-rates-april-2026.html
The figures in my post came from AI,
I never take AI at face value and always check for myself – I’ve learned a valuable lesson. Then I decide whether or not I should use it in a comment and usually I decide against it (i.e., I waste a lot of power on discarded Google AI Overviews thanks to Google).
Neither do I, and interesting that Work and Income lists the Superannuation link and rates in quite a long list entitled Benefits.
Benefits only go up for those who aren't reliant on the supplements, especially TAS, which is very, very few. Every alleged increase is counteracted by deductions to said supplements, which often leaves people with less than they started with.
But you'll never hear the politicians crowing about that particular aspect.
The reason being the same as, most workers do not get to experience W and I regimes, so that does not change.
Most beneficiaries are short term and do not get caught up with that circumstance.
If/when we get disability at a higher base rate (Super level) and sickness covered by ACC …
NZ Super is going up at the same rate as average wage growth (2.91%) as a proxy for the increase in cost of living. Main benefits are going up as per CPI (3.11%). The fuel support is extra but only for a selected few.
Apart from the small number that it may benefit, it's not a vote winner – it's totally irresponsible.
This will drive up taxpayer costs in justice, housing and health while driving more people deeper into poverty going forward IMO
Additionally, increasing the costs to turn that around moving further forward.
Adding to that will be more businesses collapsing (thus more unemployment) as less have money to spend – IMO. Reinforcing the downward spiral on the economy hence softening us up for the need to sell assets.
The responsible counter to this (and more) is taxing the top end a little more.
This will not only provide the Government with more funding to do more, it will also take money out of the economy. Largely diverting it into more productive (thus less inflationary) expenditure such as much needed infrastructure, taking pressure off the need to increase interest rates.
It can also be used to rebalance income/ expenditure ability between the haves and have nots . Giving households more money – thus businesses more customer demand. Instead of the rich using it to drive up asset prices.
Moreover, this funding will also help strengthen the Government's balance sheets, helping us keep our credit rating status thus low cost of borrowing.
Good, you seem to answer the question posed in the title of the OP in the affirmative. There may be even extra votes for National for actually doing something and looking decisive and Luxon may even see a poll bump in his preferred PM ratings.
This is bordering incoherent, nonsensical, and illogical, IMO. Additionally, it’s wrong.
https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/50-week-lower-income-working-families
Stop immediately watching dystopian apocalyptic movies! You sound even more unhinged than an Atlas addict or Nicola Willis after one too many ice screams.
Your “and more” is most intriguing. However, we’re not talking about tax policy or tax reforms here in this OP.
As for the rest of your comment, that belongs elsewhere, e.g., in OM.
Lol – incoherent, nonsensical, and illogical
Driving up taxpayer costs in justice, housing and health while driving more people deeper into poverty going forward IMO is the most logical outcome of a small relief package as such that overlooks the larger number struggling
Yes, you would say that and repeat with LOL and no other substance
Try reading slowly, thinking slowly and carefully, and responding slowly.
Indeed, many struggling New Zealanders have not received any assistance from the Government, not even a promise or a hint of it. Many good suggestions have been put forward, e.g., by the Green Party. So, where I agree with you is that doing nothing is a bad or worse outcome for NZ, but the teeny-weeny relief package per se is neither here nor there except for cheap low-ball pork-barrelling.
Funding the relief package may have already been factored into Treasury’s fiscal forecast against the Government’s operating allowance for the 2026 Budget but surely it's merely been diverted from spending elsewhere?
Funding is tight thus the package was small IMO.
Hence, one must look at new revenue streams such as taxes if one wants to do more without going further into debt
Do you work for Fitch or Nicola Willis? The package was tokenism, a mere rounding in the Budget and I can’t see it running for a whole year, notwithstanding the General Election on 7 Nov.
Again, new taxes, tax reforms, and new revenue streams are off-topic and irrelevant. They’d take way too long to implement; people need a bit of help right now. However, Government could rejig Budget; they still have a few weeks left until Budget Day but this is also for another Post or OM.
ALL these 'incentives 'are in fact BENEFITS TO CAPITAL– they enable employers to pay inadequate wages to all employees.
Well sure, but we are primarily an exporter of low value agricultural food and beverage commodities, and low value hospitality and tourism services, so that's the wages you get.
I see that you’re still SHOUTING.
What ‘incentives’ are you talking about?
This may not change votes, but it will be a meaningful subsidy to a fair number of families in my broader relatives.
Good for them
Good to see the Greens putting the heat on the Government on the fuel support payment.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/590705/more-than-half-of-families-in-material-hardship-will-not-get-50-fuel-support-package
This is all about being seen to do something that will add votes for the COC in the coming general election.
" Repeatedly this week, Willis has claimed that her scheme is targeted to families where the need is greatest. This is patently untrue. The scheme explicitly omits the families – and children – reliant on benefits as their main source of income. Before Trump started his war, these families were already under pressure, as inflation had surged up over the Reserve Bank’s 3% target band in the December quarter”
The deliberate with-holding of assistance from those in most need exposes the cynically transactional nature of this package. In election year, the fuel price support scheme is being targeted at low and middle income households in paid employment – the so called “squeezed middle” that decides elections – while ignoring everyone else.
https://werewolf.co.nz/2026/03/gordon-campbell-on-the-feeble-fuel-support-package-and-israels-violent-land-grabs/