Andrew Dickens: FamilyBoost and heated outbursts

It appears we're living in an age where it's okay for politicians to swear to the press. Donald Trump is leading the way, dropping the F bomb over Russia and using the word bullshit more often than anyone ever had. 

It's a sign of the times, and you could argue it makes politicians more relatable because heaven knows we're all a lot more potty mouth in private. But you could also say that leaders of countries should be held to higher standards, and it's not hard to not swear – ask broadcasters.  

So the PM almost dropped an F bomb yesterday because Chris Hipkins was calling the FamilyBoost programme a failure.  

Are you okay with politicians having a swear in public, or is it something they should have the maturity to control? 

Now what is the FamilyBoost programme that got Chris Luxon so fired up that he called the Leader of the Opposition “fricken” Chris Hipkins after he criticised it. 

The FamilyBoost programme is a New Zealand government initiative designed to help families with the cost of early childhood education by giving you a refund on what you've paid. 

Families can claim 25% of their weekly cost of childcare, up to a maximum of $75. There's a cap, if you earn over 180,000 dollars you can't claim it. 

The government initially estimated that up to 100,000 families could benefit from FamilyBoost, with 21,000 potentially eligible for the full payment. Chris Hipkins claims that rather than 21,000, the number claiming the full benefit was 153. 

60,000 families have received some form of payment – so it has kind of worked. 

The low uptake is likely due to a combination of factors, including a lack of awareness of the scheme and complex eligibility requirements. 

It's not the first time the policy has been criticised. Back in May it was revealed that nearly a quarter of the money spent on National's flagship FamilyBoost policy has gone towards running the scheme, instead of helping families – $14 million out of $62 million. 

Are you sick of these virtue signalling schemes where if you have the ability to run the scheme, you have the ability to run a multi-national corporation, because applying is so complex, but all you’re doing is applying for a benefit? 

The Government has since announced changes to the scheme to increase eligibility and encourage greater participation. These changes include expanding eligibility to more families and increasing the income threshold for the full rebate. It's also looking at ways to simplify the scheme and make it easier for families to access the benefits. Blah blah blah blah.   

We’re living full lives running a family here. Is this worth the time to interpret all the rules and fill out all the paperwork, because when you look at this whole thing, it seems to be written in something other than English? 

So the question is this: in an age of fast track this and too much bureaucracy that, is applying to get a benefit just too hard? Is the fear of being taken advantage of by a small minority of an already small minority too great? 

Or is the bureaucratic minefield that is the benefit application process a good thing? Because it limits the number of people taking taxpayers money to make ends meet so we can spend that revenue on more doctors and transport options? 

And can politicians fricken swear? 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:06):
You're listening to the Kerry Wood of Morning's podcast from
News Talks, he'd be.

Speaker 2 (00:12):
So it appears we live in an age where it's
okay for politicians to swear, to the press, to swear
and public. Donald Trump is leading the way. He's dropping
the F bomb all over the shop about Russia. He's
been using the BS word more often than I've ever
heard any American president do. Is a side of the times,
and you could argue it makes politicians more relatable, because
heaven knows, we're all potty mouth and private, aren't we.

(00:36):
But you could also say that leaders of countries should
be held accountable to higher values. And it's not hard
to not swear. As broadcasters. If we swear the way
the politicians swore, we'd give BSA complaints all over the
place we hold ourselves in and I can tell you
behind the scenes we swear. So anyway, it's a little question,

(01:02):
but I'm going to ask it. Should politicians be allowed
to swear? The Prime Minister Chris Luxen almost dropped an
F bomb yesterday because Chris Hipkins was calling the Family
Boost program of failure. Here's what he said.

Speaker 3 (01:15):
I'm not taking any any lectures from freaking Chris Hipkins
or the Labor Party.

Speaker 2 (01:19):
Now, if you heard that emparsi, you might think he
actually said the word not taking.

Speaker 3 (01:25):
Any lectures from freaking Chris Hipkins or the Labor Party.

Speaker 2 (01:29):
But he didn't. He said frickin. And I can say frickin'
frickin is allowed under BSA rules, But he said frickin,
And it just surprised me a little bit, to surprise
to other people. It surprised people enough to say, oh,
Christopher Luxon got so upset that he almost swore to
the press about Chris Hipkins. So here is a talk
back topic if you want. Are you okay with politicians

(01:50):
having a swear in public or is it something they
should have the maturity to control? Personally? I didn't mind it.
In fact, I thought it humanized Chris. He's angry, he
said frickin. So what so did the Simpsons? You know,
I don't mind it, But at the same time, shouldn't
our states people be held to a higher account and

(02:11):
be above the base and profane level of having a
good old swear. Someone's already text saying I've seen the
videos of my Hosking watching the Warriors. Don't worry it.
We know you guys swear and I know. So that's
one thing. But here is a more general, a more
general debate that we can have. What was he upset

(02:34):
with Chris Hipkins about. It was because Chris Hipkins called
the Family Boost program a failure. What is the Family
Boost Program. It's a government initiative designed to help families
with the cost of early childhood education by giving you
a refund on what you've paid. They put up seventy
odd million families can claim twenty five percent of their

(02:57):
weekly cost of childcare, up to a maximum of seventy
five dollars. There is a cap. If you earn over
one hundred and eighty thousand dollars, you can't claim it.
It's not one rule for all. The government initially estimated
that up to one hundred thousand families could benefit from
Family Boost, with twenty one thousand potentially eligible for a

(03:17):
full payment. So Labor and Chris Hipkins did some questions
and found out that rather than twenty one thousand getting
the full payment, the actual number was one hundred and
fifty three people one hundred and fifty three families, and
Hipkens said, well, that shows it failed. That the policy failed,
and then chrispher Luxon got so upset he.

Speaker 3 (03:40):
Said, I'm not taking any lectures from freaking Chris Hipkins
or the Labor Party.

Speaker 2 (03:45):
True enough, Okay, sixty thousand people have received some payment,
so it has kind of worked the low uptakers due
to a combination of factors, including the lack of awareness
of the scheme. Did you know about Family Boost beforehand? No,
So there's a lack of awareness, particularly if you're not
involved with kids who need early childhood education and there's

(04:06):
complex eligibility requirements. This policy, by the way, has been
in trouble before. Back in May, it was revealed that
nearly quarter of the money spent on this flagship Family
Boost policy went to bureaucrats instead of families, fourteen million
dollars out of sixty two million. That's creating more bureaucracy.
I thought this government was about creating less So was

(04:32):
this a virtue signaling scheme which didn't work? Are you
tired of these sort of schemes where if you have
the ability to actually apply for them and get the money,
you have in fact the ability to run a multinational
corporation because it's so complex and all you're doing is
trying to get a benefit that the government has promised you.
So the government has since announced changes to the scheme

(04:54):
to increase eligibility and encourage participation. And these changes include
expanding eligibility to more families and increasing the income threshold
for a full robate and also looking at ways to
simplify the scheme and make it easier for families to
access the benefits. Oh, blah blah blah blah, blah blah blah.
You know, we're all living full lives running a family. Here,

(05:19):
is it worth the time to interpret all the rules
and fill out all the paperwork to declare your income
because you know, when you look at the whole thing,
it seems to be written in something other than English.
So this is my real basic talk back question for
this hour. Is it too hard to get a benefit?
Or is that a good thing? Is the bureaucratic mindfield

(05:41):
of a benefit application, no matter what the benefit process,
a good thing because then it limits the number of
people taking taxpayers money to make ends meet, so we
can spend that money that we don't spend on the
benefits on more doctors, or more transport options, or more
other stuff. So Is that a good thing? That it's
really hard to get a benefit?

Speaker 3 (06:03):
A weight?

Speaker 2 (06:03):
One hundred and eighty ten eighty is a number phone?
Is it a bad thing? Because the government has determined
that there's a need and that there are families out
there who are struggling, and that inflation has hit everything,
including early childhood education. And we all know that education
is so important for our future going forward. So should
it be easier to access so it's easier for us

(06:26):
to educate our kids. Oh and then there's the other argument,
And of course this is a simplistic one. This is
an easy one. I'm going to say it out loud. Well, look,
if you had kids, you knew how much they're going
to cost you. If you can't afford the early childhood education,
maybe you shouldn't have had kids in the first place.
Or is that too simplistic? An argument? Eight hundred and
eighty ten eighty is the number to phone? Is it

(06:48):
too hard to get a benefit in this country? Or
should it be harder? And camp politicians Frick and Swear.

Speaker 1 (06:59):
For more from Kerry Wood and Mornings, listen live to
news talks. It'd be from nine am weekdays, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio,