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.