Monthly Archives: May 2016

The crisis the Government cannot hide (but is trying to)

Posted on by
Reply

Recently there have been some truly shocking stories coming out about people who are falling through the cracks of New Zealand’s social welfare safety net. Some of these stories are about people whose case has involved multiple social welfare agencies that have either because of the statutory law under which they function, or simple incompetence, passed the buck instead of trying to address the problems that brought these clients to their offices. The Government denies there is a crisis, but the number of people who say they are living in cars, garages, and other makeshift accommodation, suggests otherwise.

But it is more than just a problem with the type of accommodation that people are living in. Students going to school are being forced to drop out as their parents cannot pay the rent to enable them to live at a fixed address. This has flow on consequences because the students are getting left behind academically, and those that can still afford the rent might be struggling to put food on the table, meaning students turn up to school hungry and do not do their best work.

A particularly concerning announcement was made by Paula Bennett last week. She announced a policy of giving people trying to get on the state house waiting list in Auckland $5,000 to go and live in a rural town. Aside from demonstrating disinterest in finding a long term solution, it also smacks of a contempt for those it targets – basically saying “here is $5,000, now get lost”. Furthermore, thanks to successive Governments disinvestment in rural communities, the jobs that are supposed to be there for the people who do take up the offer, simply do not exist.

Another aspect was presented on Newshub tonight by Anita McNaught, talking to a working solo mother with four children. She had tried to get hold of Work and Income to arrange a house. Nothing was forth coming and W.I.N.Z. offered them a motel unit. Aside from being a motel unit not fit for human inhabitation – it had an ant infestation among other problems; none of the reviews of the motel were positive (16 of the 19 were actually one star reviews). Whilst there one of her boys became dangerously sick and had to be admitted to hospital. Then Work and Income New Zealand asked for the $8,159 it had spent on their motel accommodation back, which she could not afford to pay – and since Work and Income New Zealand had not provided her with anything else, should she have been obligated to? Finally Work and Income relented and found her a state house to move into. Unfortunately three days later, as a result of linger effects from his illness, the child who had gone to hospital died.

This is an election issue that all of the Opposition parties need to work on. If it is not considered an election issue now, should the current attitude of the Government exist in 12 months time, there is a very high probability it will contribute to any election defeat National suffers. This is about the basic health and social well being of New Zealand citizens – New Zealand tax paying and law abiding citizens. This is about putting the simple needs of New Zealand and New Zealanders first.

Still not enough movement on refugees

Posted on by
Reply

Over the weekend, I was in Auckland for the Amnesty International New Zealand section Annual Meeting. It was a chance to catch up with fellow activists and see what their teams are up to, and to hear from the Governance Team about the progress of the organization over the last 12 months. And as the migrant crisis continues to plague Europe and pressure is brought to bear on Australia over its treatment of asylum seekers, what is New Zealand doing?

In May 2015, the leader of New Zealand First Winston Peters made an unexpected but very welcome call to permit more genuine refugees into New Zealand. Mr Peters has in the past been a controversial figure regarding people coming to New Zealand. The media have not always helped either by generally lumping migrants, refugees and asylum seekers all under umbrella category, ignoring the legal status of three very distinct groups of people.

Since then Amnesty International New Zealand have ramped up the pressure on the Government by challenging Prime Minister John Key to double the quota. He refused. Mr Key also ignored the growing pressure caused by even his political allies, A.C.T., and United Future deciding to support the stance of Amnesty.

Mr Key is very interested in trade deals with Saudi Arabia and China and seems reluctant to upset either by bringing to the discussions a subject that is touchy to the heads of state in those nations. However, there is growing support in New Zealand for helping refugees. It is also a major part  of Amnesty International New Zealand’s focus in the next couple of years, trying to address the humanitarian crises caused by wars in Syria, Iraq and South Sudan.

It should be said that genuine refugees who come to a freer nation than what they fled are amongst the least likely to commit crimes. They know that they have just been accorded an amazing opportunity to resettle in another nation. They realize that the host nation is showing compassion and that they need to respect its customs and laws. And this has been well evidenced in New Zealand by the fact that Syrian and Afghan refugees who fled the Assad regime and the Taliban have gone on to study at New Zealand tertiary institutions. Some want to become doctors. Others want to become lawyers, teachers or set up their own businesses. If we show these people the compassion they will by and large become assets to the nation, contributing tax payers and law abiding citizens.

Surely that must be a good thing.

So, why are we not filling up our quota? We can afford more than the 750 people that the current quota allows. But before we do that we should immediately fill the existing quota. Quit mucking around and show the world that New Zealand really is a compassionate nation that cares about refugees.

The not very original budget of 2016-17

Posted on by
Reply

Prime Minister John Key said the Budget was better to be boring than to be “excitingly terrible”. He is half right. It was a terrible budget. I did not have terribly high hopes for it, but in many respects it seems like a Budget that was very deliberately written to inflict further fiscal grief on sections of Government that are already suffering dreadfully. But there was nothing terribly exciting.

The Opposition did their job today, closing ranks and launching a sustained attack on the 8th Fiscal Budget of the fifth National led Government. New Zealand First leader Winston Peters called it the “Get Stuffed Budget”. Labour leader Andrew Little  called it “pretty mediocre”. Even United Future leader Peter Dunne, who has been better remembered over the last few years for supporting Mr Key’s Government, called it boring.

Some of the priorities were right, but the most critical ones were not addressed and some that should not have even made the starting gun, were included, such as regional roading at a time when public transport and the merchant marine need assistance. The expenditure’s I had in mind were comparatively modest too.

My focus on the health system was intended to address two major problems:

  1.  The very long waiting list of people needing major surgery, such as knee, hip and organ replacements
  2. The mental health crisis that has exploded, and which may in part be responsible for some of the more violent crimes involving people who have committed offences that can be linked back to their state of mental well being

To fund that I was thinking $500 million to get as many people off the waiting lists as possible – $96 million is positive, but still leaves a large number of people behind. Due to the Christchurch earthquakes causing long term stress issues, putting $200 million over 3 years to initiatives dealing with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder would not have been out of place.

Setting aside $1 billion over a couple of years for improving and increasing Housing New Zealand’s stock should have been a priority. However the Government continues to believe no crisis exists, despite $200 million being allocated for social housing.

Perhaps though one good thing that came of the Budget was a further increase in the amount that smokers would have to pay for their tobacco products. However, for the sake of making sure it does not encourage an underground industry that promotes more powerful substances, involves the black market and is connected with criminal activity, smoking should not become illegal. And to that end, further increases to the price beyond what are proposed, should not occur.

All in all it was a not very original Budget. National is clearly saving for a 2017 spend up or a round of tax cuts.

 

An alternative budget to the 2016 Fiscal Budget

Posted on by
Reply

Today at 1400 hours in the House of Representatives, the Government will deliver its budget for the 2016-17 fiscal year. As a person who sees different spending priorities to those of National, I have prepared a little alternative budget of my own.

In simple terms I believe the major problems in New Zealand right now to be housing, crime and health. Roading, closing the loopholes in corporate tax and investing more in science are not far behind. Tackling these issues will increase the income available to individual New Zealanders, save the country hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer money for redistribution and enable some of the more pressing social issues to be addressed.

My stance on who can buy property in New Zealand is already well known. What is not well known is that I believe as a first measure, all of the existing state housing stock must be able to be used by New Zealanders in need before we spend money on building new ones – if that means $50 million worth of damage and repairs being fixed, then so be it.  The current problems with W.I.N.Z. emergency grants needs to be tackled by a legislative change, but whether or not any additional money is needed, can be sorted out once the law has changed.

Crime is a pretty simple case. I addressed it a few weeks ago, following one of the ram raids in south Auckland. The Police budget is simply not large enough to cover all that they are expected to do, which helps explain – but not necessarily justify – the emphasis on revenue.

The health budget has been the subject of substantial cuts over the last 7.5 years. Across the board there are significant problems that could be addressed – or start to be – in the budget. One that bothers me enough that I think a one off lump sum injection of money is necessary is the waiting list for major operations such as hip, knee and organ transplants. To some extent it is possible that some of people on the waiting list would pay the cost back from being able to join the work force once more, whilst retirees might be able to use more of their savings if they are in a position to do activities that require them to use those savings.

I have mentioned roading, closing loopholes in corporate tax and investment in science in previous posts. These I will be elaborating on more following the Fiscal Budget.

 

Backgrounding the 2016 Fiscal Budget

Posted on by
Reply

On Thursday 26 May 2016, the Treasurer Bill English will deliver the 8th Fiscal Budget of the Government of Prime Minister John Key.

Aside from showing New Zealand what its expenditure priorities are for the next fiscal year, the annual Fiscal Budget is also an opportunity for the Government to show the progress that it has made in the previous 12 months. Often in between election years unless there is a particularly large surplus or necessary expenditure needed, the Government plays cautiously least its war chest is depleted when it is needed most. Mr English has been around in Parliament to know well enough though that with history not favouring four term Governments in peace time, the 8th Budget is really about cementing any economic legacy that the Government might have been trying to create. The 9th is all about showing expenditure priorities fitting for a four term Government.

Initially National’s priorities were to get the Government back into surplus. The Government accepted with the Canterbury and Christchurch earthquakes that there might have to be substantial extra spending. And there was, but what National refused to accept was that social spending would not be affected. In the last year or so, perhaps because of the third term challenge that all Governments face, it has tried to reduce the debt by initiating further spending cuts.

But are these priorities fitting for a fourth term in office? It depends very much on who one talks to. For those who envisage an economy based on laissez faire capitalism, the views are probably largely favourable. The Government has actively pursued fair trade deals with whomever it could get the attention of. The social spending has been cut back and hints are being dropped of the income tax being lowered if the Government of Mr Key wins the 2017 General Election. They will also point to the very high expenditure caused by the bailing out of South Canterbury Finance, which collapsed in September 2010 – though I wonder if the Government had known a big earthquake causing N.Z$4 billion in damage was going to occur three days later, whether it would have done so (to say nothing of the 22 February 2011 quake).

And perhaps in terms of fiscal responsibility the centre-right might have had a point initially. However five years after the quakes, with debt ballooning, very little still left to shave from social services without causing long term lasting damage and crime being higher than the statistics suggest, the fiscal challenges facing National are beginning to mount.

The centre left, despite arguing that the Government has its priorities wrong, has actually been surprisingly reluctant to show its own priorities. Some might say this has to do with the polling showing the Government still comfortably leading midway through its third term. Some might say that the civil war in Labour has not yet ended and that making good policy is impossible until they do.

And so we await the 8th Budget of Mr English. Will he put more money into Police to help deal with the surge in ram raid violence at service stations; maybe an injection into mental health funding; maybe a one off splurge on getting people on hospital waiting lists sorted. On Thursday all shall be revealed.