2011 October archive at Grant Robertson

Archive for October, 2011

Foodbanks and the Underclass

October 18th, 2011

There have been lots of reasons to feel proud to be a New Zealander lately. We have hosted what looks to me like a brilliant major sporting tournament (the debacle around the opening notwithstanding) where we have fulfiled the “stadium of 4 million” ideal. And what’s more on the field the All Blacks are poised to break the 24 year drought and make us world champions again.

But today I read two stories in the New Zealand Herald that made me ashamed as a New Zealander. The first is the news that the government has slashed the number of food parcels it hands out by 20% in a year at a time when foodbanks are dealing with more and more individuals and families who need support for the very basics of food. Food parcels are not about anything other than people getting the necessities of life.

Last night in Wellington there was a public meeting on poverty issues where Stephanie McIntyre from Downtown Community Ministry talked about the more than 400 clients they dealt with in the three months to June. They do a great job at DCM, making real and substantive differences in people’s lives, but the current government is making their job much harder by changing policies to make it harder to access food grants.

The government’s approach in my view is privatising dealing with poverty, it is an abdication of responsibility and it is morally wrong.

The second story is an acknowledgement from John Key that the “underclass” he talked so much about in the 2008 election campaign has grown under his watch. He can’t deny the evidence, it is all around from the massive increase in foodbank use, the rise in unemployment to health indicators like the 5,000 extra avoidable hospital admissions among children for respiratory illness and skin infections.

So the PM acknowledges it, great. But he is not a spectator here, he is actually running the government. More can and should be done to directly attack the growth in poverty. It is simply not good enough.

Labour has policies that are directly aimed at addressing this, from the increase in the minimum wage to $15, a fairer tax system including making the first $5000 tax free for everyone, increasing the top tax rate and introducing the CGT. We also will have a comprehensive children’s policy, which as Annette King has already announced will include legislating targets for the elimination of child poverty. And for me that must be the goal. Nothing less is acceptable.

At the forum on poverty last night Brian Easton spoke and he said while it was possible to argue on a technical basis about the best policy response to poverty, the real question to be asked is what are the ethical and moral principles that lie behind the policies. It seems to me to be hard to find an ethical principle that lies behind cutting the number of food parcels or letting inequality and poverty grow.

I think Brian’s question is a legitimate one to ask. So here is my answer. The ethical basis for Labour’s policy at this election is fairness, inter-generational responsibility, inclusion and respect and a belief that if we reduce ineqaulity we will harness all our potential, which common sense tells us will benefit us all. So what’s the ethical basis for National’s policy?

Posted in Underclass, Foodbanks, John Key and Inequality. | Comments

Rena and leadership

October 16th, 2011

When I was doing Vote Chat with Bryce Edwards at Otago University on Friday he raised the good question of the political balancing act that surrounds how opposition political parties respond to a disaster, in this case the Rena. As an Opposition there is the risk that people will see criticism of the government as politicising the situation, being opportunistic etc. Equally part of the role of an Opposition is to hold the government to account, whatever the horrendous circumstances might be.

To get one thing out of the way straight up, no one is saying the Government is to blame for the Rena hitting the reef. I am also sure that John Key, Steven Joyce and Nick Smith are as disturbed as I am by the images of the oil on beaches and the death and injury of wildlife. Every New Zealander will want to see the damage from the accident mitigated and the environment cleaned up. What is a legitimate question though is whether faced with the incident the government showed the leadership that we should expect of them and acted as swiftly and effectively as they should have.

My take is that the government were flat footed and to keen to sheet blame and responsibility elsewhere rather than take the leadership role we want our government to take in times of crisis. Someone I worked with once said that people mostly want the government out of their way when things are going well, but they want them there yesterday when things go wrong. I think National got that wrong in the first few days of the Rena incident.

And criticism of this is not just coming from Labour, but also from people who might normally be described as friends of the government like John Roughan, Paul Holmes and even Matthew Hooten. Here is part of Hooten’s NBR column which is not on-line. (h/t Liberation)

Joyce failed totally to comprehend what the Rena grounding meant to the Bay of Plenty’, and ‘He did not see that, as transport minister and arguably the most powerful figure in the government after Mr Key, his role was to lead and improve the quality of the response, and ensure it was sufficiently empowered and resourced. When he spoke publicly, he demonstrated little empathy with locals, telling them there was no point going to the beach to clean up the oil, saying more was on its way and that it could take years to resolve anyway

Then there is the question of whether the government had done the work over the last three years to have us planned for a disaster like this. There are questions here too, with the freeze on funding for Maritime NZ and the failure to put in place the mechanism that would see more of the costs of dealing with the disaster fall on the ship company and less on you and me.

So, in the face of this disaster, we join with all New Zealanders in wanting to protect our beautiful coastline and all those, human and animal who inhabit it. But we also take our role seriously to raise the question- Where was the leadership?, and in this case it was sadly lacking.

Posted in Leadership, Rena and John Key. | 0 Comments

Restoring the Refugee Study Grant

October 15th, 2011

In Labour’s tertiary education policy announced by David Shearer earlier this week was a small, but very important commitment from Labour. If elected to government we will restore the Refugee Study Grant. This grant was canned by the National Government in the 2009 Budget with effect from this year. When I was Tertiary Education Spokesperson for a while I met several people who had greatly benefited from the grant, and I am so pleased that we have committed to restoring it.

What the grant has provided is support for refugees mainly for bridging courses or other courses to meet pre-requisites. While as permanent residents refugees can access student loans, many need support to get to the level to be able to undertake tertiary study. Not having the support can mean that opportunities are missed and refugees dont get the kick start that can allow them to achieve their potential.

Mohammed Amri is one example. He was one of the Tampa boat boys. A bright guy, but with little experience of English or learning in a New Zealand environment, who took language, reading and writing skill courses that got him his start on the way to a degree. Another example is a young woman I met, who’s story is included in the publication by Changemakers Refugee Forum as part of their campaign to see refugees recognised as an equity group. She was 19 and still at school here trying to catch up with her peers. She did well, but was not ready to do tertiary study. She was losing motivation for school, doing long hours working at a supermarket, acting as an interpreter for her family, and wanted to get on with her life. She accessed the refugee study grant, got the support to lift her literacy skills, understand the pecularities of New Zealand langauge, and gain entry to a degree at Victoria University. She’s doing really well.

All of this came from a fund that used about $1.3 million a year. In the grand scheme of the Budget, not that much. But it was a lower priority for National in that particular Budget than extra funding for private schools. I am really proud that Labour is saying we will give some extra support to people who have had to flee their homes, who have endured hardship, so that they may achieve their potential, have a fair go at owning their future, and fully contribute to our society. Its the right thing to do.

Posted in Refugee Study Grant, Tertiary and Education. | 0 Comments

Doing Things Differently

October 12th, 2011

In the wake of the double downgrade, the debt blowout, and further afield the Occupy Wall Street movement, one thing keeps coming through for me. If we want to improve our lot economically, if we want to address the growing inequality in our society, we have to do things differently.

An interesting contribution to that debate in New Zealand is coming from Gareth Morgan and Susan Guthrie. Their latest piece appeared in the NZ Herald on-line today.

Morgan and Guthrie highlight the obsession with property speculation, the reliance on commodity prices to keep us afloat, a narrowly based economy and monetary policy and a tax system that fuels the worst of speculative behaviour. These are not new messages from Gareth, but there is more reasonance as we look at a global and national economy defiantly not recovering and staggering (or is that muddling) through the year. He puts it this way

There is a naive single dimension to our economic policy – we either raise or reduce the budget deficit or we raise or reduce interest rates. That’s the sum total of the intellectual capital being applied to managing our economy. That it could be so bereft for so long has led to the persistence of our “structural imbalance”. There is a chronic need for policy enlightenment and a sweeping aside of a simplistic policy orthodoxy that has been rigidly paid homage to for 30 years now.

Now, of course I don’t agree with all of their prescription, but the idea that we have to change the way we think about our economy is the core message, and it is one that Labour has heard and taken on board. We are offering a different way of doing things both from where the current government is, and where we have been.

Monetary Policy. Labour has already announced that we need to change monetary policy to address the structural issues in the economy, including the volatility of the dollar that makes life difficult for exporters and high interest rates that discourage investment in productive parts of the economy. While curbing inflation remains important, having that as the single focus is not working for us. Our policy is to broaden the objectives of the Reserve Bank beyond just controlling inflation to look other issues, such as employment and to support more aggressive interventions to deal with currency speculation.

Fairer Tax System. As noted we are going to introduce a Capital Gains Tax to ensure we tax income in all its forms and start to move toward investment in our productive economy. We also are going to return the top tax rate to 39c over $150,000, the first $5000 tax free and taking the GST of fresh fruit and vegetables

Procurement/Overseas Investment. Labour is going to make important changes to focus to support our own economy. This means new rules on government procurement, that will be compliant with our international ageements, but will require a process that gives Kiwi firms a fair go and will look at a wider set of criteria for awarding contracts including the impact on the domestic economy. We want overseas investment but as announced in 2010 we will put stricter controls on purchases of farm land, monopoly infrastructure, so that we keep control of our assets (and of course there will be no asset sales!).

And there is more to come in terms of innovation and economic development, to build on the R and D Tax Credits, Youth Employment. And more to come in Savings, where we really can build a basis for creating the pool of resources to invest in our own companies, just as Kiwisaver funds have done with Scott Technology.

This post is too long already, so I will come back to some of the social policy issues Morgan and Guthrie raise, but for now I am confident that Labour has a different vision on offer this year. Some of it is policy we have done before, but a lot of it is thinking differently, because as they say a definition of madness is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

Posted in Taxation and Overseas Investment. | 0 Comments

Reflecting on yesterday

October 6th, 2011

In a lot of ways I would rather not write this post, but I have been reflecting on what happened yesterday in the Parliamentary debating chamber and there are some things I want to say. The incident itself is not a political matter It was an awful experience, and had potential tragedy written all over it. The man who tried to throw himself into the chamber just a couple of feet from where I was sitting, clearly is troubled. Like many people I see in my electorate office it sounds like he has major problems with government agencies, and he was agitated. He was heading over the balcony head first, to a four metre drop, onto a collection of desks, chairs and people. To me it was the act of someone with deep and difficult issues and problems. I hope he is now getting help to deal with those.

The actions of the security guards and members of the public who pulled him back and then had to struggle further with him were courageous and certainly saved him and others from serious injury. I know that all MPs are grateful for their actions. From our party, Phil managed to speak to the guard before he was taken to hospital and Annette visited him last night in A and E (where, I am told, he waited nearly 6 hours before getting medical attention), and I understand he is doing ok today.

But there is a political element, and it was introduced by the Prime Minister. I just can not fathom his reaction. I could not hear everything he said, and it is not picked up on video because his microphone was not on, but from talking to others, it is quite clear he was talking about the incident and saying “Labour should be ashamed”, and that is “down to you”. He then did a strange gesture moving his hand across his throat (you can see it at 2.06 on the video below). What follows from that is the angry reaction from Labour members, and what I think was a very measured and calm response from Phil Goff.

Emotions were running high for all of us, and I accept that the PM would have been as disturbed as anyone in the Chamber. But now that he has had time to reflect, would it hurt for him to acknowledge that somehow trying to link Labour to the incident was wrong, inappropriate and highly likely to cause extreme offense? He has said he was making some reference to DPS. I am not sure what the connection was actually, albeit a DPS officer assisted once the man had been hauled back over the balcony. In any case, that does not make it right to link Labour with the incident.

Parliament can be a high emotion, robust and stressful environment, and in the heat of the moment some terrible things get said. If Mr Key had come out and said yesterday that he was sorry for linking Labour to the incident but that it was a very stressful time, he might actually have gone up in my estimations. Unfortunately, he has gone down.

Posted in John Key, Security and Parliament. | 0 Comments