2011 March archive at Grant Robertson

Archive for March, 2011

The value of a plan….

March 30th, 2011

It seems the label of “chokers” is being applied to the Black Caps after their sixth semi final loss at World Cup. On the surface it does look like the big occasion gets to our lads, but for me last night and this tournament have been different. And while the players did the work on the field, a big chunk of that difference has been John Wright and Alan Donald.

The Black Caps had a plan (take note John Key/Bill English. ) Nathan Astle thinks that the plan was not flexible enough. I was just happy there was one. Batting, the plan was keeping wickets in hand, rotating the strike, hitting the bad ball and launching an assault in the last 10 overs. Last night, it almost, almost worked. If Styris and Williamson could have got two more overs the result might have been different.

With Alan Donald, Tim Southee and Jacob Oram looked like different bowlers, and reverse swing is now the norm. The spinners all contributed. Vettori rotated the bowlers expertly. He also rotated his facial hair with style. I would love to see him stay as Captain in all forms of the game.

We did lose, but Sri Lanka are a great team, playing at home. It took a while to get John Wright, but I really think he can be part of a great period for the Black Caps. Great effort guys.

Posted in Sports, Cricket and Black Caps. | 0 Comments

More twaddle from Tony

March 30th, 2011

Today saw the latest release of Tony Ryall’s statistics on the number of people employed in the public sector. Let’s recap on how these figures come about;

National says they will cap, but not cut the public service. (see John Key’s speech to PSA Congress 2008)
In order to “measure” this National creates something called “core government administration” and says that resources will go from there to the “frontline”.
Tony Ryall admits in Parliament that he has no definition of what “frontline” services are, and later that there are jobs in “core government administration” that might be considered frontline, and may have been cut. (think DOC rangers, Fisheries and Biosecurity officers)
After two years more than 1800 positions are gone, with the promise of more, and morale in the public service and public confidence in services sink further.

National Party supporters crow that this is just what is needed to reduce wasteful bureaucracy, and celebrate thousands of New Zealanders losing their jobs. Remember this is a government that supposedly has a “relentless” focus on jobs and keeping people in work. And as Bill English has told us this is just the beginning. These jobs don’t exist in a vacuum, they are linked to services we all need and use.

There is no doubt the Christchurch Earthquake showed the value of those who are “at the frontline” like the rescue workers crawling through rubble, and those who back them up, like the staff at the Ministry of Health who coordinated the moves of disabled Christchurch people and set up the emergency response network with DHBs. They are both important, and we need strong public services for all New Zealanders.

As with Tony Ryall in health this is all just slogans and manufactured targets. There is nothing here about the quality of public services New Zealanders are receiving, how they will be more responsive, innovative and linked to their communities. Just scratching a political itch. To make matters worse, he claims credit for more teachers and doctors, which a) may not actually exist and b) if they do began their training under Labour.

Lets have more efficient public services, by all means, but New Zealanders deserve better than Tony’s twaddle.

Posted in Public Sector, Health Cuts and Tony Ryall. | 0 Comments

The cost of everything and the value of nothing

March 22nd, 2011

Children’s Commissoner John Angus has produced an interesting report around the importance of getting our investment in the early years of children right. Its no surprise that Labour will greet this report positively, given that it mirrors many of the things that we have been saying about support for parents, early childhood education and families, starting with Annette King’s outstanding speech to conference last year.

I particularly liked Annette’s comment yesterday

“Tilting resources towards all children’s development in their early years is vital for New Zealand to ensure as many of our children remain free from harm and are able to live the best lives they can when they become adults.

The contrast is with Anne Tolley, who is quoted in one article saying

“I note that many of the recommendations will involve increasing costs for services, and ultimately for parents.”

Well, that is certainly how she has approached early childhood education up to now, so perhaps it is no surprise. It really is a case of seeing the cost of everything and the value of nothing. Of course parents will bear much of the cost of raising their children, but we all benefit if we get the early years investment right. I would much rather pay now than have the cost of lost potential, and worse in terms of social exculsion, ill-health and offending later in life. As Annette said yesterday

“Initiatives including well-resourced and affordable early education, valuing and supporting young families and wide access to social and parenting programmes improve education, health and employment over a lifetime, and as a policy will pay for itself many times over in the long term.

Posted in Children. | 0 Comments

When more means less

March 20th, 2011

Busy day today, so I only managed to catch up with John Key’s interview on Q and A just now. It seems the big story is that the (revised) new spending allowance in the Budget is gone.

GUYON Are you still going to spend $800 million more in the May Budget?

JOHN Well, I think the answer to that is no. What we are going to do is spend more on health and education. That may well be in the order of 600, 700, 800 million, but we are asking ministers and what they are working on is looking to reduce expenditure in other areas so that can be reprioritised to pay for the more in health and education we want and ultimately the Christchurch earthquake.

Leaving aside, for a moment, the thought of what is going to be cut in other areas (think housing, social development, Police etv) it could be easy to say, thank goodness that health and education will get more money. But with the sums of money John Key is talking about this will effectively be a massive cut for both sectors.

Let’s take Health. Before last year’s Budget , the CTU calculated just for spending to stand still it would take at least $555 million a year of new spending. The Budget fell at least short on that figure by more than $150 million a year, and that has delivered health cuts across the sector.

Add that investment deficit to what is required for this year just to stand still and John Key’s delightfully vague numbers above indicate that there is no chance of health getting anything like the money it needs. And remember that is not for any new services, wage increases etc. It is just to stand still.

We are going to hear a lot of spin in the next month or two about money going to health and education, but on the PMs words today it is cuts on the way. There will also be spin that anyone who proposes government spending is somehow committing economic heresy.

Of course we need to adjust to the new reality of the economy post-earthquake. It does require careful economic management, which might actually include sensible investments (spending) in our future. It needs to include support for innovation and job growth, and to give opportunities to future generations. What it does not need is a slash and burn mentality.

Posted in Economy, Health, Budget and Education. | 0 Comments

The cost of putting a healthy meal on the table

March 17th, 2011

It is a perversity of modern life that it is cheaper to eat badly than it is to eat healthily. We all know from the visits to the supermarket that the fizzy drinks are often cheaper than the milk. Processed foods are discounted as the price of fresh fruit and vegetables goes up. This is true for everyone, but especially hard work if you are on a modest or low income.

The Regional Public Health service here in Wellington has produced an interesting study on food costs for families, using data from the University of Otago food cost survey.

While the study notes that on average New Zealanders spend 16% of their income on food, the study shows that in order to put a healthy meal on the table, many New Zealanders would need to spend a far greater percentage of their income on food.

International studies indicate that if you are spending more than 30% of your disposable income on food, you are experiencing ‘food stress’. This study shows that to purchase a basic healthy diet, many low income New Zealanders will be spending a far greater percentage than that.

For example for a family living off the minimum wage would need to spend 34% of their income before rent and 50% of their income after rent to do this. For a beneficiary family the situation is even more difficult with a range of 43% (before rent) and 74% (after rent) required.

Obviously this will be next to impossible for many people. The social and economic consequences of an unhealthy diet are obvious, not only for the individuals concerned, but for the country as a whole. Obesity and poor nutrition will contribute to high health costs, poor quality of life and a cost to us all through the health system and the human cost of lost opportunity.

The rising cost of food, and the impact of the GST increase are all contributed to making this situation worse. John Key showed he was getting out of touch when he described going to foodbanks as a lifestyle choice. The unaffordabilty of the basics is the reality that many families are facing.

While some people like to disparage Labour’s policy of removing the GST from fresh fruit and vegetables that is a step in the direction of making healthy food more affordable. Making our tax system fairer, including through the tax free zone and lifting minimum wages are also part of our plans to give people the income they need to provide for their families. It is vital for all our futures.

Posted in Healthy Food and Cost of Living. | 0 Comments