Proposal for Swiss Administration of the Israel-Palestine Region

1. Establish Neutral Governance: Provide an impartial governing body to manage the region's affairs.
2. Enhance Security and Stability: Reduce violence and create a secure environment for all residents.
3. Promote Economic Development: Improve living standards through targeted investments in infrastructure, education, and job creation.
4. Foster Interfaith Dialogue: Encourage mutual respect and cooperation between religious communities.
5. Prepare for Co-Control: Develop mechanisms for a smooth transition to co-control by Israelis and Palestinians.

• Impartial Administration: Switzerland will govern the region with a strict focus on fairness, avoiding actions that favor either side.
• Legal Framework: Implement a temporary legal system based on Swiss principles of neutrality and human rights, adapted to local contexts.

• Swiss Peacekeeping Forces: Deploy Swiss forces to secure borders and maintain order, ensuring a safe environment for both communities.
• Conflict Resolution Mechanisms: Establish robust systems for addressing disputes impartially.

• Infrastructure Investment: Develop critical infrastructure, including transportation, healthcare, and education facilities.
• Economic Initiatives: Foster economic growth through job creation programs, support for local businesses, and investment in sustainable development projects.

• Holy Sites Management: Ensure equitable access to and respectful management of religious sites.
• Dialogue Programs: Facilitate interfaith dialogue initiatives to build trust and understanding between communities.

• Roadmap Development: Collaborate with Israeli and Palestinian leaders to create a clear roadmap for transitioning to co-control.
• Joint Institutions: Establish joint governance institutions to promote collaboration and shared decision-making.
• Trust-Building Activities: Implement programs that encourage joint participation in governance, security, and economic activities.

• Acceptance and Legitimacy: Persuading both sides to relinquish control, even temporarily, will require extensive diplomacy and trust-building.
• Managing Religious Tensions: Sensitive management of holy sites and religious practices will be crucial to prevent new tensions.
• Political Transition: Clearly defined benchmarks and conditions for the transition to co-control are essential.
• International Support: Strong international backing and financial support will be necessary for success.

• Reduced Violence: A neutral administration could significantly reduce violence and create a more stable security environment.
• Economic Improvement: Swiss expertise in economic management could lead to substantial improvements in living standards and economic opportunities.
• Enhanced Cooperation: The focus on shared needs and interfaith dialogue could foster greater cooperation and understanding between Israelis and Palestinians.

1. Selection of HTML Elements: CSS employs various selectors to target specific HTML elements or groups of elements. Selectors can be based on element type (e.g., for paragraphs), class (e.g., .header), ID (e.g., #main-content), or other attributes like data attributes or pseudo-classes (e.g., :hover for styling when the mouse is over an element). This flexibility allows developers to precisely target elements for styling.
2. Application of Styling Rules: Once an element is selected, CSS applies styling rules to it. These rules define how the element should appear and behave. CSS properties cover a wide range of design aspects, including:Color: Specifies the foreground and background colors.Size: Controls the dimensions of the element, such as width, height, padding, and margins.Font: Determines the typeface, size, style (e.g., bold, italic), and other text properties.Spacing: Manages the spacing between elements, including margins, padding, and borders.Positioning: Controls the placement of elements on the webpage, including static, relative, absolute, and fixed positioning.
3. Separation of Content and Presentation: One of the core principles of CSS is separating content from presentation. HTML defines the structure and content of a webpage, while CSS handles the presentation and layout. This separation allows developers to make changes to the design without altering the underlying content, making it easier to maintain and update websites.
4. Creating Visually Appealing Designs: CSS enables developers to unleash their creativity and design visually stunning websites. With CSS, developers can customize every aspect of the webpage’s appearance, from colors and typography to layout and animations. This flexibility empowers developers to create unique and engaging user experiences tailored to their audience.
5. Consistency Across Multiple Pages: By applying CSS rules consistently across multiple web pages, developers can ensure a cohesive and unified design language throughout the website. CSS allows developers to define styles once and apply them universally, saving time and effort while maintaining consistency across the site.

1. Typography: This properties is used to control the various aspects of the text elements of HTML.font-family: Sets the font of the text.font-size: Sets the size of the text.font-weight: Specifies the thickness of the font.font-style: Defines the style of the font (e.g., italic).text-align: Aligns the text horizontally within its container.line-height: Sets the height of each line of text.
2. Color and Background: This properties is used to control the color of any HTML elements like < div >, < span >, < header > etc.color: Defines the color of the text.background-color: Sets the background color of an element.opacity: Specifies the transparency of an element.background-image: Sets an image as the background of an element.background-size: Defines the size of the background image.background-position: Specifies the starting position of the background image.
3. Layout: This properties is used to control the how the HTML elements will functions. For example, its display properties or height, or position etc.display: Defines how an element is displayed (e.g., block, inline, flex).width and height: Sets the width and height of an element.margin, padding, and border: Controls the spacing around and within an element.float: Positions an element to the left or right within its container.position: Specifies the positioning method of an element (e.g., static, relative, absolute, fixed).top, bottom, left, right: Sets the position of an element relative to its containing element.
4. Box Model: The box model is used to set the HTML elements in box like element by defining its height and width.box-sizing: Defines how the total width and height of an element are calculated.border-radius: Rounds the corners of an element’s border.box-shadow: Adds a shadow effect to an element.overflow: Specifies how content that overflows the element’s box is handled.
5. animation: Defines keyframe animations.transition: Specifies the transition effect for a CSS property.transform: Applies transformations (e.g., rotate, scale) to elements.

'In carer’s allowance we are progressing an enhanced notification strategy as part of our existing commitment to improve customer engagement, building on our existing communications with customers. As part of this notification strategy we are considering all forms of targeted contact to find the most effective and efficient solution, such as exploring the use of targeted text messages or emails to alert claimants and encourage them to contact the Department when the DWP is made aware of a potential overpayment.'

'The new strategy will help claimants understand when they may have received an earnings-related overpayment or are at risk of doing so, and will encourage claimants to contact the DWP to meet their obligation to inform the Department of changes in their income and other relevant circumstances. This will reduce the risk of those customers being overpaid.'

• the earnings threshold appeared to influence decisions about how many hours some people worked. Even though claimants often denied that the threshold influenced their choices, they acknowledged being mindful to stay below the threshold. One claimant felt he had to refuse shifts at work that would take him over the threshold;
• in another example, the earnings limit led a claimant to reduce her hours as her wages increased, and eventually she was working so few hours that her employer felt it was not worth employing her due to her limited availability; and
• some claimants in paid work felt they might work more hours if not for the earnings threshold, and even suggested tapering the carer’s allowance earnings rule to encourage claimants to work more.

• poor communication on the part of the DWP meant that not all of those that had been overpaid benefit were clear on the reason for the overpayment;
• some said that while they were initially notified or questioned about an overpayment there was then no follow-up from the Department; and
• when the overpayment was initially raised, several claimants felt that they were spoken to or treated by DWP as though they had intentionally committed fraud when the overpayment had been a misunderstanding.

'... there is room to improve claimant understanding and possibly reduce mistakes leading to overpayments by improving communications around eligibility criteria. Since claimants did not engage with the detail of their benefit regularly, possibly only considering it once a year when they received their annual letter, more frequent communications may improve clarity of knowledge around carer’s allowance.'

• most claimants cared for close relatives, with two in five caring for a child (39 per cent), a quarter caring for a spouse or partner (25 per cent), and one in five (22 per cent) caring for a parent;
• caring was a long-term and high-intensity commitment, with half of claimants (52 per cent) spending 65 or more hours caring per week and more than half (54 per cent) caring for between 5 and 20 years;
• only 16 per cent of carer's allowance claimants were currently in paid work, tending to work part- time in lower paid jobs that they were able to fit around their caring responsibilities, with most (81 per cent) working 20 hours or less a week;
• of those not currently in paid work, seven in ten (69 per cent) said this was due to their responsibilities as a carer, with other barriers including a lack of flexible working options, claimants’ own health and confidence issues; and
• there was a lag between starting caring and claiming carer's allowance, with seven in ten claimants (70 per cent) caring for 5+ years, but only 3 in 10 (34 per cent) having claimed carer's allowance for that length of time.

'As of 14 May 2024, the volume of people who have an outstanding carers allowance debt is 134,800 with a total value of £251 million. This figure represents the total stock and as such the total monetary amount may have been accrued over multiple years. Those who have an outstanding carers allowance debt may no longer be in receipt of the benefit.'

'Women make up the majority of carer’s allowance claims, and this is reflected in the proportion of those with an outstanding carer’s allowance debt. As of 14 May 2024, there were 42,800 (32 per cent) males, 91,900 (68 per cent) females and 100 (less than 1 per cent) not identified, with an outstanding carer's allowance debt.'

• for universal credit, expenditure increased to £51.9bn in 2024 with an overpayment rate of 12.4 per cent (£6.5bn) and underpayment rate of 0.3 per cent (£180m), compared to expenditure of £43.4 bn, overpayments at 12.7 per cent (£5.5bn) and underpayments at 0.6 per cent (£240m) in FYE 2023;
• for personal independence payment (PIP), the overpayment rate was at the lowest recorded level of 0.4 per cent (£90m), compared with 1.1 per cent (£200m) in FYE 2023. However, the underpayment rate went up to 0.4 per cent (£80m), from 0.3 per cent (£60m) the previous year;
• for pension credit, the overpayment rate was 9.7 per cent (£520m) in FYE 2024, compared with 6.8 per cent (£330m) in the previous year, with underpayments remaining unchanged at 0.3 per cent (£50m) for both years; and
• for housing benefit, almost £1bn (£980m) was overpaid in FYE 2024 (6.3 per cent of expenditure), compared with £860m (5.7 per cent) in 2023. Underpayments remained stable at 0.4 per cent of spending (£50m in FYE 2024 and £60m in FYE 2023).

• the unfulfilled eligibility rate for 2024 is 1.2 per cent of expenditure (£3.1bn), compared with 1.0 per cent (£2.3bn) in the previous year; and
• universal credit, PIP and disability living allowance (DLA) account for around three-quarters of the total value of unfulfilled eligibility (at £730m, £870m and £750m respectively in FYE 2024).

'PIP has the second highest unfulfilled eligibility rate [4 per cent] of all benefits and fairly high expenditure [£21.6bn], so due to this combination, PIP accounts for around one-quarter of total unfulfilled eligibility in FYE 2024. DLA has the highest unfulfilled eligibility rate [11.1 per cent] but relatively low expenditure [£6.8m], so even though its rate is higher than PIP, it accounts for a similar amount of total unfulfilled eligibility in FYE 2024. Universal credit has a lower unfulfilled eligibility rate than DLA and PIP [1.4 per cent] but its high expenditure means that it also accounts for a similar amount of total unfulfilled eligibility in FYE 2024.'

'In the continued fight against fraud, today the Government will publish a new paper setting out the progress we have made in tackling fraud and error in the welfare system - Fighting Fraud in the Welfare System: Going Further. The paper sets out the progress we have made in delivering the commitments in the Government's 2022 command paper Fighting Fraud in the Welfare System and it demonstrates where we are going further to protect taxpayers’ money from fraudsters.'

• bringing forward a new Fraud Bill in the next parliament to treat benefit fraud like tax fraud, by providing for the ability to make arrests and conduct searches and seizures by warrant;
• exploring a new civil penalty to punish fraudsters, potentially broadening the scope of cases that can receive a penalty when the courts are not prosecuting, and increasing the value of the civil penalty;
• tripling the size of the Targeted Case Review programme to reach almost 6,000 staff with the aim of saving £6.6 billion by 2027/2028; and
• making changes to universal credit including new partly automated checks on self-employed income, new online prompts for claimants to re-declare their circumstances (such as if they have moved in with a partner), and increasing checks on capital when people claim the benefit to ensure they are eligible.

'In the period covered by this bulletin, the vast majority of migration notices have been sent to tax credit households whose likelihood of claiming universal credit and receiving transitional protection may be different from DWP legacy benefit claimants, the majority of whom had not yet been sent a migration notice in the period covered in this bulletin.'

• a total of 824,050 individuals (in 540,070 households) were sent migration notices up to March 2024 - up by around 300,000 and 200,000 respectively compared to the totals for December 2023;
• a total of 400,940 individuals (49 per cent of those sent migration notices), living in 275,980 households, have made a claim for universal credit;
• of households that have claimed universal credit, 166,860 (60 per cent) have been awarded transitional protection;
• a total of 238,990 individuals who were sent migration notices are still going through the managed migration process; and
• a total of 184,120 individuals who were sent migration notices have had their legacy benefit claims closed.

'We continue to take a measured and carefully managed approach to migrating legacy benefit recipients to universal credit. We have already successfully completed issuing migration notices to tax credit only recipients and we will continue to take every step possible to ensure that everyone receives the help and support they need during this next phase of Move to UC.'

• people claiming income support;
• people claiming housing benefit only, and those claiming child tax credit with income-related employment and support allowance (ESA); and
• people claiming income-based jobseeker's allowance.

• in February 2024, 30.1 per cent of claimants were in conditionality regimes that were subject to sanctions and, of these, 6.52 per cent were sanctioned - down 0.64 percentage points from the previous quarter;
• over the last year, 94.9 per cent of adverse sanction decisions were for failure to attend or participate in a mandatory interview; and
• in February 2024, there were 20,000 completed sanctions in the 4 weeks to 13 weeks sanction duration band, 4,800 in the over 13 weeks to 26 weeks duration band, and 4,000 of over 26 weeks duration.

'Comparisons with universal credit prior to February 2024 ... should not be made. This is because the data sources, methodology and rules of the benefits differ from those used for universal credit currently.'

'Across all households the most common reason for referral was due to issues with income and debt levels. The vital role of the social security system in driving these trends is clear from the fact that the majority (78 per cent) of people referred to food banks were reported to solely have income from the social security system, with a further 8 per cent having earned income as well as income from social security.'

'It’s 2024 and we’re facing historically high levels of food bank need. As a society, we cannot allow this to continue. We must not let food banks become the new norm ... A supportive social security system is the bedrock on which we end hunger for good. Building on this, we need much more effective employment and financial support for parents, carers and disabled people, and action to ensure everyone can have the security we all need to access opportunities and have hope for the future, through more secure and flexible jobs and investment in social housing. Food banks are not the answer. They will be there to support people as long as they are needed, but our political leaders must take bold action to build a future where everyone has enough money to afford the life’s essentials. The time to act is now.'

'... similar, no doubt to the material that the Social Security Advisory Committee saw but correctly declined, if information is not available to the House and the public, then we feel unable to consider it either.'

'I have asked for [the RDD study] to be available as soon as it can be, and the date I was given was spring 2024 ... I would like it out the door as soon as possible, so you have more data ... RDD is the next piece, the next building block and then, the longitudinal study will come through in 2025.'

'... we're looking for an undertaking from you, not to further expand the cohort until the Department can publish robust evidence of its effects. Are you able to give us that undertaking?

'So are you alluding to us holding 15 hours or with this latest laying at 18? Because I could certainly say to you, I think with all confidence that at 18, we want to understand the iterations and make sure that we've got a sound evidence base from there.'

'... we accept your undertaking, except we are still as dissatisfied as we were because you haven't provided, in the view of the Committee, sufficient explanation yet. We are awaiting this robust evidence, which I think that we now expect in June 2024.'

'The evidence we received indicated support for a rules-based system. This would be a system where payments would be adjusted within a range (based on the PHSO’s severity of injustice scale) to reflect the extent of change in the individual’s State Pension age and the notice of the change which the individual received. This would mean that the less notice you had of the change and the bigger the change in your SPA, the higher the payment you would receive. While not perfect, the advantages of such a system are that it would be: quick to administer; applying known data to a formula to determine the amount due; and relatively inexpensive (compared to a more bespoke system).'

'... the need for urgent action, given that the Ombudsman started to look at this issue in 2018 and that every 13 minutes a woman born in the 1950s dies ... Implementing a remedy will need parliamentary time, financial resources, and the data and technical systems only available to your department. It cannot happen without government support. We would ask you to bring forward proposals for a remedy by the summer recess.'

• An income guarantee for everyone
• Lift every family out of poverty
• More support for students or people out of work
• Extra help if you're sick or disabled
• Payments for families so kids can thrive
• More resourcing for the public service
• Free dental care
• Cheaper power bills
• Solar panels and batteries for homes
• Climate pollution reduction

Mā te oranga o te taiao, ka ora ai te iwi. Mō te takitini, kāore mo te torutoru anake. Ki te mana whenua o tēnei rohe, tū mai rā Ngāti Whātua, tēnā koutou. Ki a tātou e huihui mai nei, ko ngā moemoeā o te Pāti Kākāriki te take, nau mai, haere mai, whakatau mai.
Tenā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.
Sixteen million dollars.
That’s how much the coalition parties raised to win last year’s election.
Ten million for National.
Four million for Act.
Just under two million for New Zealand First.
Sixteen million dollars.
From property developers and business tycoons who have built their wealth by exploiting our natural environment.
To companies who profit from digging up our whenua and overfishing our oceans - activities that cause significant harm to our precious ecosystems.
Sixteen million dollars helped to put this government into power.
And in a little less than two weeks, the coalition government will unveil its first budget.
It has clearly been difficult for them to put it together.
To the right, Act is trying to fire all the people who make our public services work, while in their own cooker corner New Zealand First hoards 1.2 billion dollars for hand-chosen pet projects.
The Coalition has found half a billion dollars for new defence spending, but cancelled projects to improve buses and trains in Auckland and Wellington.
They’re borrowing billions to cover the cost of cutting taxes for wealthy property investors, because they’ve realised that the promises they made during the election campaign were slapdash and expensive.
Meanwhile, people with the least face ever higher costs.
Bus fares have already gone up.
Rents continue to rise, while the government is giving tax breaks to landlords instead of investing in more public housing.
So on Budget Day, when we see what the coalition has been able to cobble together, I want you to remember: sixteen million dollars.
What’s in the Budget for the people who paid for National’s election campaign?
And what could have been in the budget instead if Aotearoa had a Government that prioritised people and planet?
Because I am not here for the relative few who donated those sixteen million dollars.
I am here for the many, including the 330,000 people who trusted the Green Party with their votes last year.
And I want to thank you all once again.
Your voices will continue to be heard.
You told us you wanted us to fight for an Aotearoa where everyone can get by, where our native wildlife and oceans thrive, where we take bold climate action, and where we honour Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
That is what we are doing. And we will be loud. And we will be staunch as always.
I am here for those who cannot sit by while the government tries to take the country backwards on the issues that matter most.
While the goal of a smoke-free generation goes up in smoke.
While new coal mines are dug into our precious conservation land, even as the Prime Minister claims to want to achieve climate change targets.
While the few with extraordinary wealth get what they want, at the expense of everyone else.
The Greens have always been, and will always be, the voice for a different kind of politics.
A politics centred in justice through honouring te Tiriti o Waitangi, not using it to drive a wedge in our communities.
A politics that celebrates the potential our country could live up to if it was grounded in manaakitanga and equity.
That acknowledges the richness of generations of tangata whenua and tangata tiriti working together to care for our whenua and collectively enjoying the fruits of mahitahi.
Where we protect Papatūānuku out of aroha for her, and respect that her wellbeing is also what keeps us alive.
Where we share what we have so everyone in Aotearoa can live a good life.
Everything the Greens won over the last two terms in government with Labour was hard fought. Governments must make tradeoffs. But Governments are defined by their choices.
And right now, the coalition is making theirs clear.
If the Greens were delivering this year’s budget, I’ll tell you what would be in it.
An income guarantee, so no matter what, everyone has what they need to live a decent life.
We could lift every family in Aotearoa out of poverty, and give people the peace of mind that they’ll be supported if they fall on tough times.
More support for students and people out of work, extra help if you’re sick or disabled, and simple payments for families so all kids can thrive.
Free dental care.
Successive governments have let basic dental healthcare get so expensive, that forty percent - forty percent! - of people avoid going to the dentist.
It’s just too expensive.
In Aotearoa, we could choose to resource our public health services - funded by taxes on wealth, so that everyone can be looked after when they need it.
And if the Greens were putting together the Budget, it would fund our plan to make your homes warmer while cutting down your power bills AND climate pollution.
Solar panels and batteries for homes to store the sun’s free energy, taking pressure off the power grid.
But this year, with the help of sixteen million dollars from some of the wealthiest people in Aotearoa, National, Act, and New Zealand First have the privilege of making those decisions.
And I say to them, what are you going to do with it?
You have the choice to end poverty.
Or to give tax breaks to landlords.
To give back more to people who earn their living, instead of tax breaks for people who own more houses than they need, and who already get untaxed capital gains.
You have the choice to invest in solar power, or open up new coal mines.
The choices people make when they have power show us what they are motivated by. These choices define the world they want to create.
So today I want to talk with you about what motivates the Green Party.
Ko te mana o Te Tiriti.
Ko te oranga o te Taiao.
Ko ngā tūmanako mō ngā tamariki.
We are motivated by generations of movements and leaders who have pushed for the sovereignty of tangata whenua guaranteed by te Tiriti o Waitangi.
A partnership on which this country was built, despite the continuous breaches by the Crown partner.
The Green Party is a Tiriti party.
Our leadership is a partnership between tangata whenua and tangata tiriti.
Our work seeks to honour the commitments made generations ago, to prosper together.
Our commitment to Tiriti justice is absolutely integral to everything the Greens do - just as it is integral to the future of Aotearoa.
Tino rangatiratanga is at the heart of healing relationships across communities and reconnecting all of us with our seas, our rivers, our bush, our mountains, and our whenua.
And central to our vision for a Tiriti-based future, is our commitment to restoring and protecting nature.
Because nature is in crisis.
Just out these doors, and below our feet, in the Hauraki Gulf, the impacts of commercial overfishing and the pollution washing into the water from the land, has brought the ecosystem to the brink.
North and west of here, great kauri are critically threatened.
To the south, unique animals found in no other country, are at risk from the bulldozers of mining companies, unless we protect them.
Four thousand different native species are at risk of extinction in Aotearoa.
Four thousand.
We can turn that around, but it takes commitment. It takes effort. It takes mahitahi. And it takes choices. Choices that put people and planet first, instead of a cynical politics that serves the short-term interests of wealthy donors.
If the government chooses not to prioritise restoring the health of the natural world in its first budget, that shows what they are motivated by, and it shows what kind of world they are prepared to leave to our tamariki.
It is our tamariki and mokopuna that motivate the Greens.
Not just the ones born tomorrow, but those after that, for seven generations down the line.
Sustainability doesn’t just mean sustainability for nature, but for people too. This planet is our home. We need it to thrive.
The Greens have always been deeply motivated by care for other people, for communities, for those with us today and for those who will come after us.
We are motivated by every single child who goes to bed hungry tonight.
We are motivated by every single adult who isn’t sure how they’ll pay the rent or mortgage next week.
As winter hits, we are motivated by every person who sits in the cold, staring at the heater, knowing they can’t afford to turn it on.
Our challenge to the coalition government is to prove that you are motivated by this too.
Choose to do something about it.
The solutions to many of the problems we face in Aotearoa are clear. This week I had the privilege of meeting with rangatahi, and hearing about the solutions they want to see in their communities. They are THE experts in their own experience - and they know they need to be empowered and given better opportunities; not marginalised, patronised, ignored, and punished.
But the coalition government doesn’t like those solutions, because they don’t fit its agenda. They prefer catch phrases like “social investment”, to real data and lived experience.
A Government which says it is motivated by evidence-based solutions has cut funding to the world class Growing up in New Zealand study, and continues to ignore the evidence it provides. Like the evidence that 40% of children live in the most deprived areas.
If this government was truly invested in improving social outcomes, it would affirm and resource the experts who know best and have proven the most.
And that includes empowering the people with the lived experience of the systems failing them and their whānau. It requires removing all the barriers to wellbeing such as poverty and homelessness. We need to support whole whānau, instead of focusing on ‘fixing’ an individual after they’ve already been broken by poverty and neglect, and expecting them to rise above circumstances of deprivation that we should have all worked together to prevent in the first place. We need the solutions to be grounded in community knowledge and care. I hope this government is open to sitting with kai rangahau Māori and families to learn more about what really needs to change.
When the Crown has repeatedly failed to be accountable for the harm it has caused to whānau Māori, it is clear that we need an authentic transfer of power and resources - with a partnership of a strong public and social services sector working together, with communities, hapū and iwi, and whānau.
I have seen what works to support people off a destructive path in life. To instead become the best of themselves. There is a mountain of evidence about approaches that work where all other attempts have failed - particularly where there is deep trauma.
These approaches, like Kaupapa Māori interventions, build the strength of whānau and community.
Now for far too long, successive governments have been stuck on catch phrase politics, devoid of evidence or genuine care.
Policies like bootcamps for the young, benefit sanctions for the already struggling, higher criminal penalties - a punitive, petty politics that makes life harder for those already
excluded, and does nothing to keep communities safe and well. This is divisive, stale, cruel and ineffective.
When I have met and listened to the very people at the forefront of this cruelty, the impact has been clear.
Such punitive and dehumanising measures have instead caused even further disconnection and hopelessness. The Greens know that meeting trauma with punishment isn’t going to work. I want rangatahi to hear us loud and clear. You matter. Your whānau matters. You deserve dignity, a community and a country that sees your strength.
At a basic level, I think we all agree that identifying the causes of persistent hardship, and supporting people to get out of those situations, is a good idea.
And we all agree that the measure of a government’s success is whether it achieves outcomes, not how much money it spends on trying.
But the Government isn’t actually doing this.
Two weeks ago the Minister of Finance said her government will “use hard evidence to invest in what works.”
On that same day, the Minister of Social Development announced that people on a benefit will face financial sanctions if they don’t attend work seminars.
Let me be clear, work seminars don’t help people find jobs they’re suited for - let alone create meaningful work with decent pay and conditions. The Ministry of Social Development has told the Minister there is no evidence for the government’s cruel approach. Sanctions do not make a difference for the number of people moving into paid work.
And the evidence against sanctions is extremely clear.
Financial sanctions for beneficiaries, who already don’t have enough income to pay for life’s essentials, simply push people into further hardship.
That affects their children, their whānau, and their whole communities.
Instead, people need tailored support into work that matches their skills and interests, with a guaranteed income while retraining.
At the same time, the Government needs to invest in creating sustainable jobs that transition our economy away from fossil fuels.
Jobs with decent pay, secure hours and support for people to balance caregiving responsibilities. Jobs that support wellbeing for whānau, instead of seeing workers as just a cog in a labour machine.
When the Government rolls out policies like benefit sanctions, they are making a choice to ignore the evidence about the effect of their actions.
And it is our job to expose that.
I cannot say it enough: we have everything we need in Aotearoa for everyone to live a decent life.
We know what people need to rise up out of persistent hardship.
A warm, dry, affordable, and accessible home.
Healthy kai on the table.
The freedom to go to the doctor or the dentist when they need to, without having to worry about the cost.
And next week, the Government has a choice whether to put people at the heart of the budget - or not. If they don’t, they are holding back the potential of our people and our communities to thrive.
And we will ask, exactly who are they governing for?
The Greens are here for the many, not just the few.
We carry decades of political leadership with us, starting from the late Jeanette Fitzsimons and Rod Donald, through to our newest co-leader Chloe Swarbrick.
We are here thanks to the thousands upon thousands of volunteers over the last three decades.
The many grassroots-led movements who we are honoured to have worked with for the kaupapa.
We draw our strength from knowing we are powered by the many. This gives us the strength to oppose a government whose sixteen million dollars of political donations got them where they are today.
Thanks to our people-powered campaign, we have our largest Caucus ever.
And it represents Aotearoa more than it ever has before.
Green politics is the alternative to this cynical, cruel coalition government.
And we are only just getting started.