Inequality archive at Grant Robertson

Archive for the 'Inequality' Category

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

There is more to health than a league table

August 29th, 2011

The conventional wisdom is that Tony Ryall is making a good fist of the Health portfolio. Now that I am up close in the area I can say that he keeps a tight rein on matters health, and is managing the portfolio effectively. But there is a big difference between managing the politics of health and actually doing what is right for the long term health outcomes of New Zealanders.

The best evidence of that is the release today of the Child Health Monitor Report. It shows, among other things, that in the last two years there have been an additional 5 000 avoidable hospital admissions for things like respiratory illness and skin infections. The authors of the report note that the cost of going to the doctor, especially after hours is a factor in whether children are getting the healthcare they need, along with a range factors associated with child poverty.

I am not saying all of this is down to the Health policy of the current government. But the focus on the narrow range of health targets set by the Minister means that child health is not the priority it should be. The Minister has narrowed the health targets in such a way as to scratch the itches of waiting lists and time spent in ED, but it is at the expense of early intervention and public health programmes. District Health Boards have responded by pursuing the Minister’s targets, spending on public health has been slashed ($124 million in the last Budget) and funding for primary care has failed to keep up with inflation.

Just managing the Health portfolio is not enough. I actually think it is irresponsible to avoid the long term investments that will lead to long term health benefits in favour of things that are designed to fit on a coloured chart and make the Minister look good.

Labour, through Annette King, has already outlined our Agenda for Children that will put children’s well being at the centre of our social policy. More details will be announced in the election, but from a health policy point of view public health and affordable and accessible primary care must be a priority.

Posted in Children's Health, Public Heath, Tony Ryall and Inequality. | 0 Comments

New Zealander of the Year

February 5th, 2011

Sometimes when I see contests like New Zealander of the Year I have my doubts about the ability to judge such diversity of achievement against one another. But the choice of Paul Callaghan is one that I am so delighted about.Paul is a remarkable person and remarkable New Zealander. Many people will have come to know him from his slot on Kim Hill’s show that demystified science and related it to important everyday issues. His work on nanotechnology and the establishment of the MacDiarmid Centre at Victoria University are enough alone to justify the praise that Paul is receiving.

But for me, more than that he is someone of vision. Paul was the guest speaker at the first Peter Fraser Memorial Dinner that we held in Wellington in 2009. His vision for a New Zealand where we use science, research and development to create new economic and social opportunities is exciting. (You can read about it in Wool to Weta.) More than that he links to the importance of reducing inequality, something I understand he talked about when receiving the award the other night.

And Paul is also a man of courage. His public battle with cancer over the last couple of years has shown all his characteristics- never giving up, always looking for a new angle or solution and doing it all with good humour and humility.

A highly deserving winner, congratulations Paul.

Posted in Paul Callaghan, Inequality and Innovation. | 0 Comments

Reciprocity and the Left.

August 3rd, 2010

Sometimes we on the left of politics are accused of being all about rights, and not enough about responsibilities. More often than not those who espouse this view are coming from a highly punitive stance, often about those in receipt of social assistance, and I have no truck with their arguments.But I do have a nagging feeling that there is something missing from our promotion of a socially just society. It is encapsulated in a quote I read recently from French philosopher Paul Ricouer.The unjust man is one who takes too much in terms of advantages or not enough in terms of burdensRicouer is really talking about the wealthy not paying their fair share, and that will always be of concern to those of us on the left. But equally anyone who rips off the system can be seen in the same light. Earlier this year Phil Goff in his state of the nation speech talked about his abhorrence of those who cheat their fellow citizens, be they the wealthy financiers or those who game the benefit system.Labour values have always been based on a fair days work for a fair days pay. We talk a lot, rightly, about the fair days pay, and the importance of fair wages and conditions. But we dont talk as much about the fair day’s work.My thinking about this was tweaked by an article by Anthony Painter as part of the Open Left project in the UK. He talks about the importance of linking social justice and social responsiblity.I agree, and I would take the principle of reciprocity a bit further, and to a more positive direction. Rather than just being about obligations to the state or employers, I think we on the left need to emphasise our obligations to each other, as neighbours, fellow community members and residents and citizens of this country.Driving home the idea that “we are all in this together” as the ad says is a core element of the philosophy of social democratic politics. To me this should be a positive sense of obligation driven by the desire to see everyone able to fulfil their potential.We also need to recognise the importance of a sense of shared community values, of creating a society that does not allow the lost opportunity, resentment and marginalisation of social exclusion and inequality to take hold.The left needs to take ownership again of the reciprocity agenda. It should not just be about carrots and sticks but based on developing a shared sense of our common good and the role we all play in creating it.

Posted in Anthony Painter, Community, Inequality and Social Justice. | 0 Comments

A kick in the pants or a kick in the guts?

March 24th, 2010

The thing that depresses me the most about National’s so-called welfare reforms is that they are fuelled by outdated Tory thinking. Here was me thinking that the ‘modern’ National Party was not bogged down in ideology, and was focused on “what works”. But no, it is a “kick in the pants” and time to stop “living the dream”. For National unemployment is the fault of the unemployed, and if only they pulled their socks up everything would be all right.

I have said before on this blog that I, along with most people, am appalled if people rip off the system. Where that happens we should crack down. But let’s also not accept the myth that the current system is all carrot and no stick. At the moment people on the unemployment benefit have to be seeking work. Work and Income monitor benefit recipients closely. It is true that there is no work test for DPB recipients. So much for family friendly National. I am anxiously awaiting to hear of the thousands of jobs conveniently timed for 9-3pm that have flexibility over sick days.

The experience of Trevor in the Dominion Post is much more like the reality of the people who I have seen in my office in recent months. They want to use their skills. They, and we as taxpayers, have invested in their skills, but the jobs are not there for them at the moment.

A kick in the pants might sound good, but in the end if we are to actually move people off benefits and into work it requires a constructive, active approach to go with clear rules. Most other countries we normally compare ourselves to had massive investments in job creation through the recession. We had a cycleway.

The reality is this policy does not have any vision for how we move more people into work, because it is not about helping to create jobs, or to find ways to work with long term unemployed. It is straight out dog whistle politics that seeks to re-inforce an image of ‘bludging no hopers who are a drain on resources’. No matter the evidence of the thousands of people who lined up for jobs at a supermarket in Auckland recently. If it plays well with some prejudices that might exist in the electorate then it seems National want to go there.

Posted in Unemployment, Jobs and Inequality. | 0 Comments