Bring back the 1970s?

Yes to the universal cash supports, No to the racism and bigotry

Two of ACT’s candidates have now nostalgically referenced the 1970’s in media interviews. I’m guessing that a sense of nostalgia for this time is polling well for votes.

There’s some really interesting psychological research¹, which finds that people tend to become nostalgic for periods of life that preceded major increases in stress and responsibility. It’s not so much a longing for childhood, as it is a rose-coloured remembering of times associated with security, belonging, and emerging identity. Late childhood/early adolescence (age 10–12) tends to often occupy this role because people generally have vivid memories of this time, coupled with relatively few adult burdens. When people profess nostalgia for a certain time, it is worth considering if it is more of a wish to return to when they themselves were ignorant of social issues and the burdens of adulthood.

I was born in the 1970’s, so my nostalgic time period is the 80’s, something the TV series Stranger Things plays on extremely well. Watching the first season was like watching parts of my own childhood play out on a big screen. It was incredible but I digress.

Bring back the Universal Family Benefit

Back in the 1970’s, all mothers were paid a benefit for each child. From 1972 this was $6/week per child. No means testing, no WINZ, just cash straight into the mothers bank account.

The Universal Family Benefit was introduced in 1926 and paid to the mother (or primary caregiver) for every child, irrespective of the household income. It recognised mothers as the recipients of public support, and the need for mothers (who were often not in paid employment once they had children) to have independent means, separate from the fathers’ wage.

Unlike today’s Family Tax Credit or Best Start payments, the Universal Family Benefit:

• was paid to every family, regardless of income;

• was paid directly to mothers;

• recognised that raising children creates costs for society that should be shared collectively;

• involved no work requirements or means testing.

Until it was abolished in 1991 as part of Ruth Richardson’s “Mother of All Budgets”, the Universal Family Benefit was one of New Zealand’s longest-running universal social policies.

If we were to reinstate the Universal Family Benefit at its 1972 purchasing power, using the Consumer Price Index it would be roughly $75/week per child. If it were restored at its relative value compared with wages, it would be closer to $150–165/week per child.

Can you imagine the incredible difference that would make to families right now? A universal cash payment of $150 per week per child (with 18 years being the age of majority) to every household. Yes please!

The gender normative 1970s family unit. Photo by Sandy Millar on Unsplash

Bring back state housing and low rents

During the 1970s around 6% of all New Zealand households lived in state rental housing. Home ownership was also higher (approx. 70%), and private rental was cheaper. The government was the largest landlord, owning around 60,000 houses by the late 1970’s, which was about a quarter of the country's rental housing stock. To have a similar proportion of state housing today, we would need to build an additional 50,000 state houses.

State housing rentals were also linked to the households ability to pay, not market value. Rents were set at the lower of:

• the assessed fair rent of the property, or

• one-sixth (16.7%) of household income

There was no accommodation supplement, as it simply wasn’t needed - there was enough state housing for families in need, and rents were a smaller proportion of the family budget. Housing costs consumed far less of a household’s budget than it does today.

For comparison, Kāinga Ora manages just under 80,000 homes today, representing approx. 4% of all dwellings. This is amongst the lowest in the OECD. Comparable states maintain social housing at 10–20%+ of the housing stock. Rents are higher in New Zealand too, with state rentals set at around 25% of the household’s income. There are more private landlords today, with private rents hitting into 40-50% of a household’s income.

Imagine, enough state housing to house 6% of our population, and rents only being 16% of the household income. Imagine, housing and welfare policies being intentionally designed to allow families to participate in society without housing costs crowding out spending on food, clothing, education, and children’s wellbeing.

Wouldn’t that be fabulous? Let’s bring that 1970s philosophy to housing back.

Ah, the nostalgia. Photo by Junel Mujar on Unsplash

Bring back paid training, free tertiary education, and universal student allowances

There were no Student Loans, no high fees, subsidised accommodation options, and university students were paid a universal weekly allowance (called a bursary). This payment was around 20% of an average weekly wage. If we had maintained the same relationship between student support and wages, a universal student allowance would be in the vicinity of $250–350/week for all full-time students, with no parental income test.

However, proportionally fewer students went to University - this was only one of several pathways into adulthood. Teenagers would enter employment directly after school, through apprenticeships, workplace training, or technical institutes. Skilled trades such as building, engineering, mechanics, and electrical work provided structured training and recognised qualifications on the job (paid!). Professions such as nursing, teaching, public service, and the armed forces had their own (paid!) training pathways. Technical institutes and evening classes provided opportunities for people to gain formal qualifications and skills while working. A number of occupations offered stable employment, career progression, and reasonable wages without requiring a university degree.

The 1970s system combined free tertiary education and universal student support for those who studied, with apprenticeships, vocational education, workplace training, affordable housing, and a labour market that provided relatively secure employment for those who did not attend university. The broader social contract was basically that young people were supported to move from school into work, training, or study and could expect to begin adult life without significant debt or facing the same level of housing and cost-of-living pressures experienced by many young people today.

It’s not just that university was free. The whole transition from high school student into young adulthood was structured differently, with a social contract that recognised the value of providing a range of training and supports that led to economic independence. However, while the universal welfare policies of the era were beneficial, the benefits were not equally distributed - the next section briefly covers some of rights violations that were prevalent.

University Lecture Hall Photo by Dom Fou on Unsplash

Let’s not bring back the racism, sexism, ableism, or bigotry though

While the universal welfare policies of the era were beneficial, the benefits were not equally distributed.

I know ACT and NZ First are quite keen on bringing back structural inequalities and discrimination of the 1970s. Nicole McKee said as much in her interview. The 1970s was a time of anti-Māori and Pacifica sentiment, and this was reflected in a range of policies and practices at the time. There were systemic inequities in housing, education, health, and employment. There was overt racism, Treaty breaches, and the Dawn Raids. Women had lower workforce participation, significant pay disparities, limited representation in leadership, and social expectations of domesticity. Disabled people were horribly abused and segregated in institutions or special schools, with limited legal protections, poor accessibility, and few opportunities for independent living or participation in community life. Homosexuality between men remained a criminal offence until 1986, and LGBTQ+ people faced widespread stigma, discrimination, and exclusion.

It has taken decades of work to shift towards something a little more equitable when it comes to civil rights, disability rights, gender equality, Māori self-determination, and LGBT+ rights. It is rather demoralising that just as progress was starting to really occur, the populism of parties such as NZ First and ACT is seeking to strip back our hard won civil rights.

In conclusion

There’s a reason people reference the 1970’s as some idyllic period. It was a time a significant state support for families, a period where governments intentionally sought to ensure adequate and affordable housing, paid young people to train and study, and provided universal cash payments to parents. Much of this policy and state support was invisible to the generation who benefitted from it. Like Paul Henry, they gently sailed through life, reaping the rewards from the generation before them who paid for it. And who then, in turn, refused to pay it forward (via equivalent tax rates) for subsequent generations.

Part of the mess and poverty and inequality we are now faced with as a country is due to the inadequate taxation of wealth, and the sustained refusal of those with money and power to implement the very universal benefits that enabled a generation to gain wealth. It is easy to blame subsequent generations and individuals for not trying harder/doing better. It is harder to see the less visible components of social policy that create the conditions for health and wealth for all of society.

Lastly, people tend to skate over the racism, sexism, ableism and bigotry that was embedded into NZ social policy and practice in the 1970s. Let’s not bring any of that back hey?

---

Further Reading / References

Boston, J., Dalziel, P., & St John, S. (1999). Redesigning the welfare state in New Zealand: Problems, policies, prospects. Oxford University Press.

Department of Statistics. (1972). New Zealand official yearbook 1972. Government Printer. https://www3.stats.govt.nz/New_Zealand_Official_Yearbooks/1972/

Easton, B. (1980). Social policy and the welfare state in New Zealand. Allen & Unwin.

Kāinga Ora – Homes and Communities. (2025). Housing statistics. https://kaingaora.govt.nz

McKenzie, D. (1993). New Zealand education: An historical perspective. New Zealand Council for Educational Research.

Ministry for Culture and Heritage. (2025). Children and adolescents, 1930–1960. NZ History. https://nzhistory.govt.nz/page/children-and-adolescents-1930-1960

Ministry of Education. (2003). The development of education in New Zealand. Ministry of Education.

New Zealand Government. (1970). Social Security Amendment Act (No. 2) 1970. New Zealand Legislation. https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1970/149/en/latest/

New Zealand Government. (1971). Social Security Amendment Act 1971. New Zealand Legislation. https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1971/8/en/latest/

New Zealand Government. (1972). Social Security Amendment Act 1972. New Zealand Legislation. https://www.legislation.govt.nz/

New Zealand Welfare Expert Advisory Group. (2018). History of family support payments. In Background documents for the Welfare Expert Advisory Group. https://www.weag.govt.nz/assets/documents/WEAG-report/background-documents/133db2ad05/History-of-family-support-payments-010419.pdf

Olssen, E., & Hickey, M. (2005). Class and occupation: The New Zealand reality. University of Otago Press.

Royal Commission of Inquiry into Social Security. (1972). Social security in New Zealand: Report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry. Government Printer.

Schrader, B. (2005). We call it home: A history of state housing in New Zealand. Reed Publishing.

Stats NZ. (2025). New Zealand dwelling and household estimates. https://www.stats.govt.nz

Te Ara – The Encyclopedia of New Zealand. (2010). Family welfare. https://teara.govt.nz/en/family-welfare/page-1

Te Ara – The Encyclopedia of New Zealand. (2012). Housing and government. https://teara.govt.nz/en/housing-and-government

Te Waihanga – New Zealand Infrastructure Commission. (2025). National Infrastructure Plan: Social housing sector summary. https://tewaihanga.govt.nz

Waldegrave, C., & Stuart, S. (2010). Housing affordability and tenure in New Zealand. Family Centre Social Policy Research Unit.

1. Munawar, K., Kuhn, S., & Haque, S. (2018). Understanding the reminiscence bump: A systematic review. PLOS ONE, 13(12).

Rubin, D. C., Wetzler, S. E., & Nebes, R. D. (1986). Autobiographical memory across the lifespan. In D. C. Rubin (Ed.), Autobiographical Memory (Cambridge University Press). This paper introduces the idea of a reminiscence bump, which is that adults disproportionately recall memories from roughly ages 10–30.

Rubin, D. C., Rahhal, T. A., & Poon, L. W. (1998). Things learned in early adulthood are remembered best. Memory & Cognition, 26(1), 3–19. Paper noting that knowledge and experiences acquired during early adulthood are retained particularly well.

Sedikides, C., Wildschut, T., Arndt, J., & Routledge, C. (2008). Nostalgia: Past, Present, and Future. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17(5), 304–307. A concise review explaining that nostalgia is understood as an adaptive psychological resource that strengthens identity, meaning, optimism, and social connectedness.

Wildschut, T., Sedikides, C., Arndt, J., & Routledge, C. (2006). Nostalgia: Content, triggers, functions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(5), 975–993. Empirical paper on nostalgia, showing that nostalgic memories are typically social, emotionally positive overall, and often arise during periods of stress, loneliness, or uncertainty.