The history of Basic Income (BI) advocacy in Aotearoa New Zealand has been a long and chequered one. I'll touch on that history briefly here, but my main focus in this article is on an analysis of the current threads of thinking on BI in the context of a fast-approaching general election alongside some analysis of where we're at in terms of advocacy for a Left BI overall.

Before I go any further, however, I should like to make my political position on Basic Income clear. I've been engaged with what we used to call UBI (Universal Basic Income) advocacy since the early 1990s when I was deeply involved with the unemployed workers' movement in New Zealand. At that time and ever since, I - and the groups I've worked with - have been clear that it is only an overtly Leftwing and redistributive basic income in which we're interested, and that the differentiation between this and other versions must always be made obvious.

The international network of activists and academics which promotes Basic Income and is associated with pilot projects across the world is called Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN). BIEN defines BI as "a periodic cash payment unconditionally delivered to all on an individual basis, without means-test or work requirement (a Basic Income is sometimes called a Universal Basic Income, a Citizen's Income, or a Citizen's Basic Income)".(1)

It has five characteristics:

1. Periodic: it is paid at regular intervals, not as a one-off grant.
2. Cash: It is paid in an appropriate medium of exchange, allowing those who receive it to decide what they spend it on. It is not, therefore, paid either in kind (such as food or services) or in vouchers dedicated to a specific use.
3. Individual: it is paid on an individual basis - and not, for example, to households.
4. Universal: It is paid to all.
5. Unconditional: It is paid without means testing and without a requirement to work or to demonstrate willingness to work.(2)

One of the main reasons many advocates call it "BI" rather than "UBI" these days is that we understand that to make a BI fair and sufficient in any system we can imagine, there would need to be supplementary add-ons for people with children, those with disabilities and other ongoing needs, and for accommodation costs in some cases. This means that the income is not "universal". It's also worth noting that Aotearoa already has a BI for one part of the population in the form of NZ Superannuation.

Brief Background: BI/UBI Advocacy In NZ

I am not aware of any comprehensive history of Basic Income advocacy in New Zealand from a Left and community-based perspective, but I attempted to start to fill this gap, albeit in a comparatively cursory fashion, in an article I wrote in 2018.(3) What I call the "first generation" of Basic Income activity took place between 1991 and 1999, starting with a conference organised by Waikato University anthropologist Michael Goldsmith, and picked up by a number of prominent 1990s' advocates including Keith Rankin, Ian Ritchie, Celia Briar, Anne Else, Lee Gilchrist, Prue Hyman, Lowell Manning, Perce Harpham and others.

My own group, the Auckland Unemployed Workers Rights Centre (AUWRC), took up the cause with enthusiasm and started to carry out our own research, writing and advocacy grounded in our daily work with those suffering some of the worst consequences of the drastic 80s and 90s' neoliberal reforms brought in by successive Labour and National governments.

In July 1999 our unemployed group closed down after 16 years of militantly promoting an agenda of "Jobs and a Living Wage for All" and developing a range of services to help meet the needs of those with whom we worked through the three Auckland Peoples Centres. Funding difficulties were the main reason for AUWRC's closure. It was in fact a testament to the many fine people involved that we managed to survive as long as we did.

In late 1999 I entered Parliament as one of a group of seven Green MPs, the first time the Green Party had representation in its own right. Along with others inside the Green Party I tried to push a strong Basic Income agenda into party policy but members were deeply divided, and a weak compromise position was reached in early 2000.

I was a member of Parliament for ten years from 1999 to 2009. During this period BI advocacy was barely detectable in New Zealand political discourse, whether inside or outside Parliamentary political party frameworks. It was only when economist and philanthropist Gareth Morgan came out publicly in 2009 in favour of a Basic Income of $10,000 a year for all New Zealanders that public discussion and interest started to open up again. He called his proposition "The Big Kahuna".(4)

Since 2009 a number of threads of political and academic debate on various forms of Basic Income have expanded again, some of which I'll talk about in a moment as part of a survey of the current context. This period from 2009 to the present is what I think of as the second generation of Basic Income advocacy in New Zealand.

The most significant organisational development during this time was the formation of the national network BINZ (Basic Income New Zealand) in May 2015. Labour economist and BI proponent Guy Standing from the UK also played a key role during this period, speaking at a number of conferences, and quietly supporting efforts to expand the reach of effective and rational Basic Income lobbying and action in New Zealand.

Basic Income - The Current Situation

Political Parties In Parliament

Between 2014-16 the Labour Party demonstrated interest in UBI as part of a Future of Work review lead by now-Finance Minister Grant Robertson, but ultimately BI/UBI did not become part of Labour's policy platform. Then Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern responded with a firm "no" when asked for her Party's position on Basic Income at a 2020 election campaign meeting.(6) There is no evidence that I can locate since then of Labour interest in Basic Income, and the Government continues to refuse to enact any serious changes to a fractured, punitive and inadequate welfare system.

In contrast, the Green Party has suddenly become something of a beacon of hope in this area. In early June 2023 the Greens launched their new Income Guarantee scheme "for every New Zealander". Key features include a promise that income will never fall below $385 pw for a single person, $770 for couples or at least $735 for a sole parent. The scheme would be funded through major redistributive reforms to the tax system, including taxes on assets and trusts, a new top income tax rate of 45% on income over $180,000 and a higher corporate tax rate of 33%.

There would be major reforms to Working for Families and ACC would be transformed so that anyone who had to stop working through illness or accident would receive a minimum payment of 80% of the full-time minimum wage.(7) This new policy can be seen as major stepping stone towards a meaningful and progressive Basic Income, especially as it doesn't hesitate to grapple with the tax side of the equation and is unabashedly recommending major steps towards higher taxes on those who have most.

At the other end of the Parliamentary party spectrum sits ACT. I am unable to locate any current policy position on BI/UBI from ACT, but there have been members in times gone by who have promoted a minimalist position. Former ACT Leader Don Brash, for example, has in the past promoted a low UBI alongside an income tax of 30%, with no further top-ups, leaving most welfare claimants in a far worse position. ACT's welfare policy is limited and far to the Right, with a focus on extending income management systems through which Government controls almost all of welfare claimants' income.

There is no sign of current interest in or support for Basic Income from the National Party that I have been able to identify, although one retiring and comparatively unknown National MP is noted as having made a valedictory speech in July 2020 in which he acknowledged several beneficial aspects of a basic income system.(9) BINZ reported that in the 2020 election campaign then National Leader Judith Collins was just as firm in her Party's lack of support for BI as was Labour Leader Jacinda Ardern.

National's current approach to welfare policy focuses on doing more to harass 18 to 24-year-olds into work through intensive "support" and increased use of sanctions, including income management. Leader Christopher Luxon talked in 2022 about welfare claimants as "bottom feeding", revealing a classic disdain for those who are at the mercy of the current system.(10)

On welfare matters the official policy of Te Pāti Māori does not appear to mention BI or UBI. However, it does have a very progressive Incomes policy, which could be seen through the same lens as the latest Greens policy, as a stepping stone towards a full BI. It seeks to double basic benefit levels; remove financial penalties, sanctions and work-test obligations from the welfare system; to individualise benefits; and to cancel income support-related debt.

It also seeks to implement a universal student allowance at double current rates.(11) While it appears the Party's tax policies have not been fully released yet, in a May 2023 statement Party President John Tamihere spoke of supporting a range of wealth taxes including a "comprehensive capital gains tax" and a "ghost house" tax of 2% on the capital value of houses left vacant for three months or longer in any one year.(12)

And Outside Parliament

In recent years it was a political party outside Parliament that was the loudest voice openly promoting Basic Income in New Zealand. TOP (The Opportunities Party) was founded in 2016 by Gareth Morgan, the same person who had stimulated renewed interest in Basic Income through his Big Kahuna scheme in 2009. Mr Morgan is no longer involved in TOP, but until 2022 the Party continued to promote a Universal Basic Income and associated tax reform as its headline policy. In September 2022 TOP promised to:

• Provide $16,500 tax-free annual income (around $317 pw) to everyone aged between 18 and 65, paid weekly. No change to superannuation.
• Provide $2,340 tax-free annual child UBI (paid to parents)
• Simplify income tax with a 35% tax on personal, company and trust income.(13)

The Teal card appears to have now replaced UBI as TOP's headline policy. The card offers people under 30 fully-funded healthcare, free public transport, and a "Universal Savings Boost" of $5,000, but the boost only happens if they complete a "National Civic Service Programme" before they turn 23.(14) These requirements and limitations mean that their proposals no longer fit within a BI framework.

Debate And Advocacy Outside Parliament And Political Parties

Keith Rankin has continued to debate issues around Basic Income since his first key intervention three decades ago. In one of his most recent articles in July 2020 he proposes what he calls a "public equity dividend" funded by a "universal income flat tax". He says "Leftwing versions are not politically viable because of the spectre of high taxes ... and, especially because they lack 'an incentive to work'". Of TOP's UBI policy he says: "It is a good policy, based on the core concepts, and very much pitched to the political centre". He goes on to outline three key points of difference between his and TOP's proposals.(15)

Māori commentator, academic and former Labour Party staffer Morgan Godfery wrote in October 2021 that Finance Minister Grant Robertson should consider implementing a Basic Income in Auckland, New Zealand's biggest city of 1.6 million people, in response to the covid emergency. Morgan notes that while the Government was happy to make substantial covid relief grants to business owners on a high-trust basis, the same wasn't happening for workers and their families.(16)

Max Harris is an influential Left academic, activist and commentator. In 2022 he was the campaign manager for Samoan/Tokelauan City Councillor Efeso Collins' bid for Auckland's Mayoralty, backed by Labour and the Greens. Max has been an advocate for UBI over a number of years, including through his seminal book "The New Zealand Project" in which he calls for a universal basic income pilot to be launched in Aotearoa NZ.(17)

Auckland University economist Susan St John continues to play a very active role in research, writing and public discourse around redistributive approaches to poverty, welfare, children's and retirement income issues. Susan understands the detail and implications of existing State systems like family income supplements, superannuation and other forms of income support better than most.

Her 2020 opinion piece "Universal Basic Income: Be Careful What You Wish For" is well worth reading as an introductory guide to the ways in which New Zealand already implements forms or partial forms of a UBI, and for its warnings about the dangers inherent in some BI options, including those from the Left. Writing in the first year of the covid pandemic, she finishes her paper by saying: "In the crisis, instead of simplistic slogans, let's ensure we look afresh at existing policies and adjust them appropriately and consistently with UBI principles: adequacy, individual treatment, non-discrimination, fiscal sustainability and simplicity".(18)

Another comparatively recent input on Basic Income comes in the form of an "Explainer" from the New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services, one and a half pages expounding on UBI in the context of the need for welfare reform. It characterises UBI politically as a "fringe concept, correspondingly bandied about by fringe parties". At the same time, it points out the positive impacts of BI pilot experiments, the potential feasibility of the Alaskan model in the New Zealand context, and focus on the need for action in the face of deepening inequality. No clear conclusions are reached, although there is evidently going to be a second part to the series which may tell us more.(19)

Green Party member Gavin Maclean contributed a paper "Guaranteed Income As An Enabler Of Economic Contraction" to a BIEN conference several years ago as well as speaking at a public meeting in Gisborne in August 2021, drawing attention to the potentially critical role of UBI as a component of the urgent response needed to the impacts of climate change.(20) He contends that UBI should be recognised as "the only economic tool that can bring about a sufficiently rapid end to climate and habitat destruction".

I am aware from my own involvement in workshops and discussions around climate justice policy in the last few years that a number of activists across environmental, social justice, trade union and other community networks share Gavin's awareness that BI/UBI has the potential to be a critical strand of the structural economic transformation needed in the face of the climate emergency.

Entering the discourse from another angle, Auckland University academic Anita Lacey contemplates issues around "Universal Basic Income As A Development Solution".(21) In her 2017 paper, Anita asks questions about whether UBI could be a useful means of poverty eradication in the global South in the postcolonial environment. She refers to Namibian, South African and other international experiments and notes the beneficial impacts of BI projects in improving gender equality.

She finishes by saying: "Any UBI needs to be deployed as part of a range of counter-poverty initiatives that take into account the wider social and economic context, including gender- and race-based divisions and wealth distribution". I thought Anita's paper worth noting as there has been very little discussion that I've been aware of in Aotearoa in recent times about Basic Income from a developmental perspective, given its potential application to our Pacific Island neighbours.

Financial Redistribution & Political Devolution

A 2020 paper from radical Left theorists and activists Simon Barber, Vanessa Cole, Jack Foster and Anna-Maria Murtola takes a comparatively broad look at opportunities for reform in the wake of the covid crisis and the major recession which at that time many expected would follow.(22) The authors make the case for financial redistribution and political devolution as a response to the State's obligations to Māori; higher tax rates for corporations and high-income earners, coupled with wealth, inheritance, financial transaction and capital gains taxes; and strongly promote the concept of "a system which provides broader social security in the form of free and unconditional essential services". The authors talk about UBS (Universal Basic Services) as an expansion of the UBI concept, and advocate strongly for universally accessible housing, food, health, power, transport and communications.

Finally, I come to the crucial space occupied by Basic Income New Zealand, now also known as Te Utu Tika Hei Oranga I Aotearoa.(23) Gaylene and Iain Middleton, Andrew Reitemeyer, Karl Matthys, Te Rangikaheke Kiripatea, Bella Moke and others have carried the flame for BINZ since its establishment in 2015. As someone who sits somewhat outside that network but who works with and supports it when and as I can, I can see that it has been a long, tough journey just to survive as an organisation in an externally difficult environment.

BINZ has steadily improved its' Website, social media presence and communications, and has an excellent FAQ sheet available to anyone with even the most casual interest in the topic. It puts out media releases and challenges politicians and other commentators. Iain Middleton continues to do interesting work around modelling the financing and implementation of potential BI schemes.

Gaylene Middleton pursues particularly useful educational work around bringing the English concept of the Commons to the fore in BI debates, an aspect of the English settler philosophical heritage which is not widely understood here, and which can be the subject of somewhat challenging but useful debate when placed in the context of Māori aspirations.

The most difficult and ground-breaking piece of work BINZ has initiated is its work to start to understand and locate Basic Income within the Māori world and worldviews. While this isn't the first time this has happened - for example, the Mana Movement in which I was involved for a time promoted UBI as one of its policies between 2011 and 2014 - but BINZ has taken this a step further, with the lodging of a claim around BI to the Waitangi Tribunal.

I have doubts about the efficacy of this as a tactic without a lot more work being done behind the scenes but all steps towards widening understanding of BI within the broader context of ongoing struggles for political, economic and constitutional transformation are to be welcomed. I also note that the largest Māori public health collective in Aotearoa, Hāpai Te Hauora, supports the BINZ position. It also included a UBI as part of its' wish list for the Government's 2021 Budget, saying it "would confer upon all New Zealanders the right to live and be well".(24)

There is some interest in BI in other communities and networks. Auckland Action Against Poverty has in the past openly and actively supported the introduction of a Basic Income although I am unsure of its' current position. There is an informal group of keen BI supporters in Dunedin. I know of other individuals who have an interest, and whose main involvement is in trying to make improvements to policy from within the Green Party. I am not aware of formal trade union support for BI/UBI. However, I know that some union people are interested in its potential, particularly as a component of moving towards a Just Transition to a degrowth economy in the face of climate change.

In the arts and creative world there is at present renewed and increasing activity around the precarious nature of work in this sector, the need for stronger collective organisation and representation, and interest in forms of artists' income. A recently formed advocacy group called Arts Makers Aotearoa,(25) which works at grassroots level to voice shared concerns, has told me that one of the key ideas coming forward from its' supporters is the concept of an artists' basic income, aimed at empowering a thriving creative community supported by legislative equity.

The organisation for whom I work, Kōtare Research and Education for Social Change in Aotearoa, is not a political or issue advocacy group in its own right, but over the 20+ years of its' existence it has from time to time run workshops that are focused in full or in part on Basic Income, often in conjunction with intersectoral analysis and strategic thinking around welfare, employment, poverty, Te Tiriti and climate justice issues.(26)

Analysis: Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats for BI Advocacy & Action

This paper does not attempt to cover all comment and advocacy around BI/UBI in New Zealand in the recent period, but I have tried for as full an overview as possible given time and geographical constraints. In considering who is saying what and where the debates lie, we may find clues as to future directions and strategies. But first I would like to take a quick look at the state of work for BI in New Zealand in the light of the existing situation, using a simple SWOT analysis that considers internal strengths and weaknesses of organised work for a progressive BI, and external opportunities and threats to that work.

Strengths (Internal) include:

• The fact that BINZ continues to exist and to steadily improve the quality of its contributions. It also provides an important link to international BI thinking and networks.
• The role BINZ has played in opening a path for exploration of BI/UBI from within the Māori world and the role it could play in addressing the legacies of colonisation is an important one and it is heartening to see a group like Hāpai Te Hauora openly advocating for a UBI.
• Interest in BI/UBI endures across geographical and sectoral areas, including among people and groups taking action on climate change, the arts and creative sector, anti-poverty, welfare and social justice organisations and in the academic sphere.

Weaknesses (Internal) include:

• Basic Income New Zealand works hard as the only single-issue organisation dedicated to promoting BI but is probably at its limits in terms of its current capacity given the comparatively low number of people involved and its inability to access substantial resources.
• Wider support for BI at grassroots level in any coordinated way doesn't exist. There is no sense of movement building taking place, for example through the use of coordinated public campaigns, meetings and actions aimed at building support. In the 1990s there were an array of different sectoral and local groups who were pushing for UBI, and a national network existed, however limited and fractious it may have been. There is nothing like this now.
• This is, I suspect, in part a reflection of the fact that there is no wide agreement yet among those on the Left around definitions and scope of BI within New Zealand. Debates continue around issues like what form a BI should take and how it's paid for; the proposition that Universal Basic Services is a preferable campaigning option; to what extent New Zealand has already implemented types of BI, obviating the need for a current campaign; and to what extent BI demands need to be coherently linked with other demands around work, incomes, tax, indigenous issues, climate justice and degrowth, and so on.
• Many people in the Left networks in which I'm involved, particularly women and people without tertiary education, including Māori and Pasifika, can feel alienated from BI discussions because the way it is presented can at times be off-putting and inaccessible.

Opportunities (External)

• Good thinkers on the progressive side of NZ politics are continuing to engage and debate with issues around BI, and the focus has moved increasingly beyond different individuals putting up and defending their own idiosyncratic versions of how exactly a BI/UBI should operate. This means that debates have become more meaningful, especially when those involved are able to engage with mutual respect in an attempt to bring together synergies and commonalities from differing perspectives.
• The fact that the Greens are making the push towards a minimum guaranteed income alongside major redistributive tax reform a key part of their election platform in 2023 is a significant step forward on the Parliamentary side of the equation. The progressive welfare and tax policies of both Te Pāti Māori and the Greens could be viewed and used as a stepping stone towards implementation in the longer term.
• I am aware that among community and union networks and individuals there is an ever-increasing sense that we have major organising gaps in our part of the political spectrum. There is a realisation that over the next year or two we really need to focus on rebuilding connections lost through the covid times, explore vision and strategies together, and look at developing the kind of groups and organisational bases we haven't had for some time. Basic Income policy and strategy could have a place within this wider analytical and strategic work.

Threats (External)

• The "neither Left nor Right" approach to BI advocacy in some quarters continues to act as a partial deterrent to progressive support, as people are increasingly aware that forms of BI/UBI systems can be promoted and enacted at anywhere on the Right/Left spectrum, depending on what is proposed and how it is paid for.
• Any move to strengthen BI advocacy from a redistributive perspective will be threatened if it is promoted too strongly as a stand-alone issue without integration to policies on work, welfare, taxation, Te Tiriti and responses to the climate crisis. Community and union activists are very aware of the intersectional nature of progressive politics these days, more so than in earlier decades. The links between struggles on different fronts and different sectors, whether social, economic, indigenous, ecological and others must be made transparent, and any particular programme or campaign made coherent within these. A failure to recognise this leaves BI advocacy exposed and likely to meet ongoing suspicion if not outright rejection.
• On the Māori side of BI activism, there is huge opportunity but also some dangers. Policies like this which emanate from beyond our shores can be seen as colonising, confusing or nonsensical, and quickly rejected unless carefully presented and worked through by Māori themselves - and by Māori and tauiwi proponents working together in careful and respectful ways.
• For reasons that are fairly obvious given the context outlined above, BI/UBI is still identified very much as a "fringe" concept and this in itself is an ongoing inhibiting factor towards wider support.

Some Thoughts On The Way Forward

This time of acute health, economic and ecological crises does present a comparatively benign set of circumstances in which to ramp up advocacy and action for BI. My caution always is "which form of BI are we talking about - conservative and regressive, or life-giving and progressive?" For those of us for whom BI must take on a redistributive form, this means we should always be cautious about inadvertently or openly offering support to BI propositions that will leave those who are already suffering worse off, or that don't meet tests around coherence and rationality. I have never been a fan of spending a lot of time on highly detailed one-off alternative models as, in the end, whether a progressive BI can be achieved comes down to who holds political power and can then implement the necessary legislative income and tax reforms.

The argument put up by some on the Left that we should basically forget about BI/UBI for now and focus on pushing for Universal Basic Services creates a false dichotomy. There is no rational argument for saying our movements can't support a BI alongside things like free public transport, free dental care, secure, affordable housing for all and free access to all levels of health and education.

There is a long list of organisational steps I think "we" could take to build a strong, clearly progressive movement for Basic Income in New Zealand. However, I hesitate to go into a lot of detail on this here as currently there is no "we". There is no broad-based group or group of groups currently willing and able to take on this task, although this is not intended to derogate from the vital role BINZ continues to play in holding a clearly non-party political line on the issue.

From the political space I occupy, the best chance I see at present for the development of such a "we" is as part of developing broader organisation(s) working for transformational, justice-based change on a beyond-colonisation and beyond-capitalist basis. I think that there is a better chance of BI succeeding on a national level in a comparatively small country like ours than in many others but this will only happen if political power shifts sufficiently to allow major reforms like this to occur in either partial or fully realised forms.

At the same time, focused efforts within such a framework will always be useful so that BI is integrated into wider policy and promoted in a way that is exciting, comprehensible, coherent and visibly achievable, even if it's going to take a while. This all takes commitment from a number of dedicated people, financial and other resources, and a lot of time, energy and hard work.

I'm with those who believe it is very unlikely the path to BI in Aotearoa New Zealand will happen quickly or in the short term unless there are some very sudden and drastic changes in external circumstances alongside a serious boost to organisational capacity on the beyond-capitalist, anti-capitalist Left. In the meanwhile, "Kia ora" to everyone who is keeping their eye on this particular ball amongst all the other strands of collective visioning and organising that are so necessary at this critical historical juncture.

1. Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN)
2. BIEN
3. Sue Bradford, "Here Be Dragons: Navigating A Left Approach To Basic Income In Aotearoa New Zealand" (2018) in Counterfutures Left Thought And Practice Aotearoa, 6.
4. Bernard Hickey, "Big Kahuna: Tax Overhaul Proposed", New Zealand Herald, 1/12/09
5. Basic Income NZ/Te Utu Tika Hei Oranga I Aotearoa
6. Gaylene Middleton, Acting Chair report for BINZ 2021 AGM.
7. "Green Party's New Income Guarantee For Every New Zealander", 11/6/23.
8. Keith Rankin, "Universal Basic Income: Left, Right, And Centre," Scoop, 16/7/20.
9. "National MP Promotes UBI Policy In Parliament", Facebook, 1/8/20.
10. "Are The Poor Merely 'Bottom Feeders?'", Stuff, 25/3/22.
11. Māori Party Website
12. John Tamihere: "'Tax The Rich' Will Be A Te Pāti Māori Election Kingmaker - Or Breaker", NZ Herald, 28/4/23.
13. TOP "Universal Basic Income," accessed at 28/6/23.
14. TOP "The Teal Card," accessed at 28/6/23.
15. Rankin, "Universal Basic Income: Left, Right, And Centre," Scoop, 16/7/20.
16. Godfery, Morgan, "Is It Time For An 'Auckland Basic Income'?" Stuff, 25/10/21.
17. Max Harris, "The New Zealand Project" (Wellington: Bridget Williams Books, 2017).
18. Susan St John, "Universal Basic Income: Be Careful What You Wish For," University of Auckland, 15/4/20.
19. NZCCSS Explainer, "Universal Basic Income Pt 1," New Zealand Christian Council of Soical Services, 25/8/22.
20. Avneesh Vincent, "Guaranteed Income: Green Party Co-Convenor Speaks At World Online Congress," Gisborne Herald, 28/8/21.
21. Lacey, Anita, "Universal Basic Income As Development Solution?" Global Social Policy, (2017).
22. Simon Barber, Vanessa Cole, Jack Foster and Anna-Maria Murtola, "Future-Proofing Aotearoa New Zealand For Life After Covid-19," ESRA, 15/5/20.
23. Basic Income New Zealand Te Utu Tika Hei Oranga I Aotearoa. Website accessed 22/9/22.
24. "Hāpai Te Hauora Budget Wishlist For 2021," Hāpai Te Hauora - Māori Public Health, 19/5/21.
25. Arts Makers Aotearoa. Website accessed 22/9/22.
26. Kōtare Research & Education for Social Change. Website accessed 22/9/22