Sue Bradford.

Universal basic income (UBI) has been hailed as a silver bullet for economic woes by some advocates from the political left, right and centre, former Green Party MP Sue Bradford says.

But they were not always talking about the same thing, she said.

''There are very different forms of [UBI], and some of them are quite right-wing,'' she said.

''That's why it's quite dangerous to say, 'I'm in favour of UBI', because it could be anything.''

Ms Bradford is a community organiser with Auckland Action Against Poverty, where she has developed a project to implement UBI.

She was invited to speak about the project by the Labour Party's Andersons Bay-Peninsula branch last week.

UBI generally involves all citizens and sometimes non-citizens regularly receiving a lump sum of money from the Government, regardless of income, age or marital status.

But the amount of money given and how the UBI was funded could vary wildly between proposals, Ms Bradford said.

No political parties in New Zealand have taken up the idea as part of their official policy.

Ms Bradford said she understood why: ''It's politically dangerous''.

Certain politicians have taken up the issue, though, including Labour party leader Andrew Little, who spoke briefly late last year about looking into a New Zealand UBI.

But Ms Bradford was sceptical of Mr Little's statement.

''It's really cool that he's interested,'' she said.

''But I don't think he understands it.''

UBI also received attention in 2011 after businessman Gareth Morgan proposed his version of UBI, ''the Big Kahuna''.

Ms Bradford said she was summarily opposed to Mr Morgan's right-wing proposal, in part because it could decrease the amount of money some people on welfare received.

Under Ms Bradford's version of UBI, everyone over 18 (and some financially independent 16 and 17-year-olds) would receive $15,000 annually, with several thousand extra a month for parents and people over 65.

''[UBI] would replace the entire welfare apparatus,'' she said.

She suggested paying for it with a ''progressive tax''.

The aim was to enable people to pursue another full-time activity, such as study or care, without financial pressure.

UBI would allow those people to remove themselves from the workforce - temporarily or permanently- and ''free up paid work for people who need it right now'', she said.

''It's also about respecting work that's not paid right now, like taking care of your grandmother or your baby.''

Economist David Preston said he doubted the value of a UBI.

''Most payments would go to people who do not actually need the money and it would require very high taxes to fund this scheme,'' he said.

''There are much higher priorities for increased social spending in New Zealand based on real needs.''

carla.green@odt.co.nz