Interesting article in today’s Herald (the same one referred to by Jacinda Ardern) reporting on a New Zealand Institute report which shows that New Zealand has a high disadvantage rate. Only six countries have a worse disadvantage rate (the gap between rich and poor) among the 30 developed countries that make up the OECD. It was correctly noted that our country became much less equal in the 1990s under the last National Government.
The policies of the current National Government will no doubt worsen this situation. One of the earliest acts of this Government was to give tax cuts favouring the rich (30% of the cuts went to the top 3% of salary earners). We are likely to see further unfair tax changes in the May budget with increases to the regressive GST and further cuts in personal tax for high income earners. Access to lifelong learning opportunities which can assist people in many ways including improving their job opportunities such as Adult and Community Education and the Training Incentive Allowance have been cut.
The Government has placed scant attention on economic stimulus to create jobs or invest in skills.
A recent Salvation Army report ‘Road to Recovery’ stated that: “…there is no denying that the recession is taking a social toll. Unemployment is at a five year high, gains made over the last five years in reducing child poverty have probably been lost, and there are signs of a widening income gap between the well paid and the poorly paid”
There is an increasing body of evidence that shows that inequality creates a huge range of social problems. These problems include worse health and education outcomes, higher crime rates with consequent imprisonment rates and victim impacts. The reality is that unfair societies are not sustainable. We cannot bear the costs, direct costs and opportunity costs, of these problems.
The report – nzahead, which I have only had a chance to glance at, is interesting as the authors set out to foster debate. In fact they are explicitly seeking robust debate and say “Strong opinion and disagreement is a sign of a democratic society’s strength and vitality, not weakness, so long as it is done respectfully”. I agree and would like to see more New Zealanders debating what sort of country we want to be.
For me it is clear, I want a fairer New Zealand where there is opportunity for all. I believe we should explicitly measure all our policies to assess what they do to deliver greater fairness and opportunity. Let’s deliberately seek to become a more equitable country and close the gap between rich and poor. In the words of US President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1937 “The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much, it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little”
Yes that sounds like a good idea
Time for FDR’s second bill of rights perhaps..?
I wonder how much of the gap is due to increased welfare dependency?
You mean the increase since National got in?
I wonder bob. How do you define welfare dependency? Is that the new catch phrase? How long do you have to be on welfare before you considered dependant or maybe you’re dependent straight away due to depending on it to pay rent or rates when you are made redundant? Is it long term? If so how long? Is it attitude?
Please can someone define this new phrase being kicked around so easily? Thanks.
Oh and has anyone who is using this phrase ever been on the benefit themselves? Do they actually know how hard it is to live on the amount given?
Should the poor get richer, or the rich get poorer?
Poor get richer!!!!
A process that was started by the 4th Labour government.
Or, to put it more simply, we cannot afford the rich. No, I’m not about to put a $$$ figure on that but I will say that 7 digit incomes are far beyond what our community can afford. There’s also the fact that we can’t afford to have the profits that we generate going offshore as that actively decreases the possibility of needed investment in the local economy.
Draco’s right about the 4th labour government starting the process.
Sometimes I feel like the labour party ceased to exist in the late 1980s. No wonder it was paralyzed by infighting for the years that followed, in those years labour brought about alot of policies that generated alot of poverty, which National only carried on.
Carol could you define “FAIR” for me please.I want a fairer New Zealand as well, but I doubt that we share the same vision.
To “seek to become a more equitable country and close the gap between rich and poor.”is an admirable goal but the Left’s default solution is to take from those that they perceive to be wealthy,not what I would call fair.
I would like to see anybody who works for a living, better off than any beneficiary, being able to sit at home and have a better financial outcome every week than someone who works is unfair.
@A Mother “Welfare Dependency” is hardly a new catchphrase.
I remember hearing it in 87 after the crash.
I have used the phrase my self and yes I have had cause to make use of the welfare system.
Defining welfare dependency is a little more difficult,and I suspect you are correct when you cite attitude.
Welfare dependency might be defined as,
A person who has been on unemployment for ten years or more continuously.
A woman on the DPB who has another child while receiving the benefit.
A teenage girl who receives the DPB.
A sickness beneficiary who was or is a drug addict.
“and have a better financial outcome every week than someone who works is unfair.” – You’re right, that’s why the minimum wage should be put up to help those workers!
Aw, but addiction is an illness.
Carol while the recession has clearly exacerbated the rich/poor gap, it was a gap that was nonetheless enormous anyway.
In the last 10 years we have seen a 300% increase in the number of rich people making it onto the rich list yet food parcels have dramatically increased even after initiatives to increase assistance and reduce child poverty.
I feel that many people have been able to slide to lower incomes due to the sheer increase in the cost of living where the wages and tax system have fallen beyond the enormous cost for basics.
So the question is, how is Labour going to make food, shelter, power and clothing more affordable?
@ Spud Minimum wage has little to do with welfare dependency.
I don’t believe addiction is a sickness,any five year old could tell you when you ask, that heroine, speed, meth etc is bad for you, all drug addicts made a choice to take illegal drugs.
@Rebecca – Policy announcement time hasn’t come yet!
@Sideoiler – Maybe they do make the choice to begin with, but then they do end up with an illness.
No minimum wage isn’t a cause of welfare dependency, but if it were raised then those people working for less than a benefit would be happier.
“It was correctly noted that our country became much less equal in the 1990s under the last National Government.”
Always sparse with the truth on left side is the political spectrum. the report went on to note that it got no better under labour, so why is this only the current governments fault? why do they have to do something about when nothing was done in nine years of a Labour “the Peoples” government
Wow I love how you chose one category of equality and made it about equity.
I also would love to read the increasing body of evidence about the link between equality and social problems.
It would be rather amusing considering that communism is based on equality and also seems to have poor health systems, poor education and high crime. But I’m sure this increasing body of evidence you cite but don’t reference has some compellng arguments against a century of of historical pratical evidence.
I also love how you forget to mention the reports scathing attack on youth unemployement. Maybe if youth wages hadn’t been cut our rankings woud have been higher then 29/30 for unemployment between 15-19, which is apparently 30% of NZ total unemployement. Of course that was all about appeasing the next generation of voters not commonsense.
The problem that I have most with this post is simply the complete useless focus on the wage gap. The reality is that we should not take from the rich to bring up the lower wages. That is ancient logic from before globalisation of which cashflow was limited between markets. The short sighted belief that the solution is to take from the rich will only harm the economy as a whole.
The reason being is that those rich though they have money they also invest that money. Which grows our economy, in taking that investment money we are depriving NZ businesses of capital an setting our market for further failure on the global stage. T
So if you insist on destroying the NZ economy and fail to see that there is an important difference between equity and equality (which often comes up in NCEA economics which being that labour introduced NCEA I thought you might know)please continue from the oppostion side of the house where we don’t need to be afraid of further damage.
Perhaps it would help if Lab MP’s did not blog and support the continuation of the likes ofthe current tax systems that allow for rorts to continue. e.g. the ability for advantages for those who own rental properties to profiter with the assistance of the tax payer. WFF to be axcessed by a large minority who do not really need it and it should never have been intended for them to be able to as 2 examples.
Instead of headline grabbing ditties as this. Perhaps a holistic set of policies THAT address NZ real issues and how individual policies dovetail into achieving a set of goals or objectives that HAVE been communictaed to the public (No hidden agendas as has been seen previously)
This must be counterbalanced on what is affordable for the country, what are the expected consequences who benefits and who pays and how this will be substainable on an ongoing basis.
Unfortunately the past 2 Lab govts did not address this issue and many may say have contributed to where we are now. All I see is regarding answers to some pertinent questions is wait, unfortunately from past experiences I doubt if anyone has an answer… why because I think no one wants to address the question only do whatever to undermine Nthe one in power and regain power for themselves. And what is the outcome NZ suffers. I am becomming increasing skeptical that no party really has the desire to offer solutions, yet even posses any ideas.
Todd good point. There has always been a rich/poor gap – history shows this whether in roman, medieval times or the industrial revolution and on.
Yet I don’t recall ever reading where youth went on the type of violent rampages like they do today (except in times of war!), where they are prepared to rape, beat or kill someone for merely being in the wrong place at the wrong time or because they have a better car or TV. I also don’t believe people tortured their children to the extent they do today. And in fact, in the ‘old days’ children were valued more because they were needed to help bring in the income and eventually take over the farm/look after the family etc.
Attitudes have changed. Young people are growing up with a sense of entitlement where they think the world owes them everything and that they don’t have to earn their way. They have no empathy and no respect.
ALL governments past and present have played a part in this in terms of their various policies, but it goes far deeper than this.
New Zealand is a society filled with a bunch of uncommitted complainers where we have become so political correct we no address anything head on. We are all so intolerant of each other yet have this enormous acceptance and tolerance of continuing to allow bad people to do bad things. We only ever want the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff and are never interested in investing in putting up a fence at the top of the cliff.
We need a government that has smart policies, political parties who forget their playground antics and treat it like the privilege that it is and we need to reconnect as a community where we show we care about our fellow man.
Equality is utopia, it only works in theory as human beings naturally compete with their fellow man -this has always happened and always will. The difference is that there it used to happen with mutual respect. Now it is every man for themselves, regardless of the consequences.
“Poor get richer!!!! ”
Spud your on to it…make sure you tell the poor to stop smoking, cancel their sky tv subscriptions, stop playing the pokies, buy foods that are on specials versus paying the premium, stop drinking, working to a budget, use public transport, put layers on during winter as opposed to leaving the heater running all day, exercise to keep fit and remain healthy…bugger I forgot that only poor people are unemployed.
Indiana – cheeky while having an element of truth.
Of course it depends on what you define as ‘poor’. I call it having to choose between your power bill or your groceries or your car repair or your rent. Public Transport is not always cheaper – I was mortified to find out how much it costs!
There are many families where both parents are working on the minimum wage or slightly above, who do use the budgeting advise etc and are still struggling – their wages and assistance from WINZ (if they qualify) struggles to keep up with the cost of power, food, petrol, public transport and rent. Then you would have to hope like God that you don’t need to go to the doctor or dentist!
The reality is, if you have children you need to have about $75/80k per year in order to meet basic costs & afford that occasional car repair or dentist bill in the main centres – especially Auckland and Wellington yet this same group are being taxed at a premium. This is not right.
@Indiana – Smoking is sometimes the only vice and person has and is extremely hard to quit. Sky tv?????? I’m not sure who those sky tv people are – speaking as someone who can’t even afford freeview.
The pokies aren’t ideal, but I can see how a poor person would want to get more money.
“buy foods that are on specials versus paying the premium” This depends on where a person lives – some places have no supermarkets. Ditto for the public transport. “put layers on during winter as opposed to leaving the heater running all day” – Good advice except for people with asthma and other problems where cold air would stuff them up.
Good on you Carol,
This is the sort of stuff I want to be hearing from our Labour MPs. This post allows me to leave the office for the long weekend with hope for the future.
Thanks.
Spud my husband was an ambulance officer for a few years and went very regularly into the homes of very poor families (had injuries from domestic violence, stabbings, assaults etc) and he each time could not get over how so many people were living in such cramped quarters with mattresses on the floor yet they had nice flat screen TVs, sky, and ciggys & beer bottles everywhere. Sometimes stereotyping as a lot of truth.
insumnation – oh what a selective memory you have when you write
“Always sparse with the truth on left side is the political spectrum”
Rebecca children were NOT valued more because they were relied upon for income. Children were routinely beaten and raped and tortured in past centuries. Like women they were regarded as propoerty and treated worse than many treated their horses. The FIRST son could take over the farm, if the family owned a farm. MOst were tenant farmers and never owned the land they worked.
You have heard of crusades, and other aspects of history when “youths” were absolutely going on rampages and killing people whose faces didnt fit… jews, catholics, protestants… women, children to gain land, possessions or for the hell of it.
We really do need to stop assuming everything is worse today simply because we are affected by it.
So in summary you would rather the poor were poorer so long as the rich were less rich?
If Labour wants to win the next election then they will have to inspire those beneficiaries who didnt bother to vote last election for a party who has forgotten who they represent.
How? The previous National ’slash and burn’ approach ground people into poverty of unprecedented levels….or so everyone thought as nothing has improved in the 9 years Labour was in government. I am not sure whether those lining up for their food parcels between 1999 and 2008 felt any better off than those lining up between 1990-1999.
I agree with In Sumnation – they are ALL to blame. We have had 18 years where the government has at varying times had huge surpluses (1994 then for much of the 1999-2008 period) yet we have made so little progress.
Our health system is gone to the dogs and more and more people are struggling to put food on their table, a roof over their heads, clothes on their own and their kid’s backs and pay for their ‘free’ schooling.
While our respected MPs get to debate the house over what is best for our country and go home feeling that they have done their part, they do so in their ministerial cars, high salaries and various tax-payer funded perks. This is a far cry from the reality facing most families and also many single people.
Something is drastically wrong when we see an increase in the need for food parcels in conjunction with a 300% increase in the number of people making it onto the rich list.
While I think equality is unrealistic in this sense, an equilibrium of sorts is not, or at least not is smart policy is implemented. We didn’t get this in the last government and I am not sure we will in this one.
Tracey re child abuse -yes I am aware of the history however, the sadistic torture and sheer scale of neglect we see to today is I believe most definitely different. Children have always suffered at the hands of those who are meant to care for them, but not on the same scale.
We’ll have to agree to disagree. One of the problems inherent in a comparison is that in the past children and women were property so torturing them was legal so no reporting was necessary. Today we have moire vigilant reporting exposing,or rather makingit hard to pretend the problem doesnt exist. Much like the stats ou today which showed an increase in violent crime, direct corrolation between an increase in reporting of domestic violence. Good to see the police success rate is now pushing, gulp, 50%
Zoe is a third person, the other 2 people being me and Draco, touching up on the fact that Labour is not what it used to be.
Will Labour ever hear this call?
Something I noticed in this post (did anybody else notice it?) is that Carol is talking about a problem with a lack of attention to solutions. Whats your solution to close the gap between the rich at the poor Carol? You say to review policies. What policies? Review them to do what to them? Labour has always held the same goals, but what about the most important part, the METHOD?
I got a couple of ideas. How about subsidising farmers again so food is cheaper?
And how about getting the money to do that from a mixture of tax and state assets like we used to, like Labour used to, instead of just taxing the living $h1t out of every New Zealander?
There is an Economic term called Shock Therapy. Shock Therapy means a sudden and extreme release of economic regulations and a rapid period of privitisation. Here is something interesting – look up the term in Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_therapy_(economics)
Let’s take a look at the three examples of Countries that have undergone Shock Therapy throughout history Theres the Soviet Union, Communist Poland, and New Zealand. Yep. The speed and heaviness of which our economy was deregulated and privitised is comparable with the USSR.
(of course we were not the same as the USSR, the USSR had very regulated economy and dictatorship and police state, we had moderately regulated economy democracy and freedom of speech so buzz off right wingers who can only argue against Labour by comparing their beliefs to their extreme which is ‘communism’ and will hold this comparison against me when using it in it’s simplistic entirety).
Now let’s take a look at what time period this occured.
http://www.treasury.govt.nz/government/assets/saleshistory
It looks like most of it began to occur in 1988. What happened just after that time period again, as Carol states?
‘It was correctly noted that our country became much less equal in the 1990s under the last National Government.’
Hmmm… now what could that mean…
Now, the problem after that time period was Not Just that the huge profit’s coming from the $19,000,000,000 worth of asset’s going to the Government and back to us, the people, through the welfare system and subsidies, were ultimately lost. We were also losing alot of them to Foreigners.
It was both Labour and National that participated in these massive losses of simultaneously state assets and overall kiwi assets. Both Labour and National had destoryed in a few years what our forefathers fought so hard to build with a dream of their grandchildren growing up in a more fair and brighter society than the cemented class system that was back in their british homeland.
It is extremely simple logic. The govt has state assets, which means more revenue for the government to put on subsidies so goods/services are cheaper, and at the same time that means people are taxed less so they have more to spend. THAT is how you close the gap between the rich and the poor. Got any other ideas? I’d love to hear them.
There are some Economists who say the Shock Therapy was neccassery. I say No, it was not neccassery. National and Labour just wanted to take the easiest road out of the readjustments we had to make to Britain joining the EU and us losing around 40% of our export income and the economic troubles that resulted from it. Labour thought it was easy to just sell off than to fight. To just betray everything Labour had ever stood for, to betray the methods they had used to bring about our once fair society and bring us into the calamities the free market brings when trying to bring about equity.
And this is exactly why the Labour Party was paralyzed by infighting in the years that followed in the early 1990s.
What’s absolutely ridiculous is that Labour continues to have simular goals that they did before the 1980s while having completely done away with their Methods. Their only methods now is pure welfare without subsidy and pure tax without assistance of the Govt.s own revenue. And that brings up a massive list of other social problems that National and other right wingers love to point out all the time.
This is my method. We take back what we lost. We take back the assets we lost, and therefore the equity that we lost.
As Carol states it’s been going downhill since 1990, the same time the Shock Therapy occured.
What other way is there? National hasnt been able to bring the equity back. And neither has Labour. And I will tell you why Labour hasn’t been able to:
BECAUSE LABOUR IS DEAD. THEY ARE DEAD AND THEY HAVE BEEN DEAD FOR OVER TWO DECADES.
Wake up, all you kiwis who think the NZ dream of wealth and equity can be engineered with the cotton gloves that Labour wears today! The land of milk and honey is gone! It is gone and will not be taken back until either Labour stops forgetting the history that runs through their once honoured and respected party or until they are replaced!
If we have a larger wealth gap than other countries, then perhaps we should look at how those other countries manage to maintain greater equality – and I said greater equality, not absolute equality – after all, there seem to be a number of models to choose from, given that we are close to the bottom of the heap in this regard. Thinking about how to achieve stable reliable housing and living wages would be a start. Encouraging the types of investment that serve the whole economy, rather than just the rich, might help, whatever that would entail.
@Rebecca – I don’t believe that the majority are like that.
Yes spud. I must remember to buy booze, take up smoking, get sky and stop exercising (I don’t have a car due to the cost so walk with a double pram everywhere or single with my youngest sitting in a sling on my hip if its not raining) I must remember to swear, spit etc. I had a small tv until my brother upgraded his and he gave me his old one, but its not flat screen. I have a computer and dial up internet (Not giving this up need it for study and only 9.95pm anyway)
Its hard to get shopping home when you have a double pram. Its really heavy. This is resistance training. I tend to find a positive in everything or I’ll go crazy.
I grow vege’s and had homemade pumkin soup for tea, do I buy the cheapest food? No. I buy milk instead of lemonade, fruit instead of chippies, though I do get chippies sometimes. I do think that children need treats but this maybe once every two months. I do buy no name brands most of the time. Use cloth nappies for my youngest except at night.
Its the cost of rent that is a killer. Rent is more than the base of the DPB.
Benefits are designed to make sure you are living with a deficit to encourage you to work. The thing is the deficit is getting larger. You think you have it sorted then your child gets the chicken pox or conjunctivitis and you end up buying cream or eye drops at the chemist to help them and your budget is blown. Cannot always get to the doctors as they seem to get sick when doctors are closed and after hours doctors cost even for under 6’s. Any thing can throw it out. The thing is you live in a deficit.
I don’t know how people you descibed fund their livestyle Rebecca, except maybe dealing in drugs. Changes that are going ahead are not going to fix this problem.
LOL
Happy Easter A Mother.
Happy easter spud.
damn moderation delay…
We need to export A MOther’s attitudes to all beneficiaries. Getting on with making the best of your situation, looking to improve your lot (legally), and caring for others at the same time.
A Mother its families like yours that I was referring to – irrespective of the fact that you are on the benefit, you are doing all you can to try and make ends meet but are always left chasing your tail. NOTHING has kept up with the huge increase in the cost of living over the past 10 years: not the government/policies, not the wages and most certainly not the benefits.
This to me means Labour failed and failed badly. So this is where we will agree to disagree as I think A Mother that the National policies are a step in the right direction. This expectancy of a welfare state is crippling this country and is not sustainable. There should always be a safety net but it should not be a way of life. You have families planning to have children based on how much WFF they can get. This is WRONG.
Dylan: yes I noticed the lack of solutions too – that is something I am increasingly frustrated with despite Spud’s reassurances that “it’s not Labour’s time to issue policy”. Sorry, but when you have had 9 years in government and then get booted out, surely solutions in terms of how you failed (provided you recognise you failed) should be first on the agenda?
I think you also made some good points in terms of Labour being stuck in the dark ages. But I wouldn’t go as far to say they have read the end of their life in politics, even if I do find them largely uninspiring.
@Rebecca – Don’t expect the opposition to release its policy early. I love the way you sympathise with the commentators and then point the finger at Labour when National is half way through their term…
Well Carol and other passive Lab members. Dyan has expressed what has been an theme in this site and The Standard for quite some time. You have no solutions and many posts are pointing the finger that BOTH Nats & Lab have contributed to. If you are not part of the solution then you are part of the problem. There are to my knowledge NO SOLUTIONS being proposed just finger pointing and this wait we are “keeping our powder dry” (Old gun powder losses its effectiveness and may not ignite after time). Key got in because many of us thought he had something bold not the stale old formular (cf Obama) he was not part of a tired establishment (That long standing MP’s are). There was a mood for change that is fast dissipating and with it NZ opportunity to progress.
Sometime in the future again (NZ1 and United Future) the voter will look elsewhere and there maybe some party that is worthy of support and action, unlike the unworthy recipients mentioned previously NZ1 and UF.
Spud- Where is ther a difference in Lab 99-08 and this group. They helped in aggravating this and many other problems. Whwer has the peopard changed its spots or even stated that they got it wrong. Phils spreach a few months ago to me was more that what Lab got wrong was the way the policies were “marketed”(My take) not in that the policies were wrong. That is why there is frustration with ALb and this desire to see alternatives, because quite frankly I doubt they have anything to offer outsdide tinkering. I would like to be wrong but I am going from the past as a guide, and I think so are others
Herodotus – It’s Easter man! I don’t think it’s finger pointing to point our what a party has done in the past nor what a party is doing now. It would be a little hard to talk about politics without mentioning these things.
I’m about to do what you are complaining about, but only because it has just occurred to me that National held many things close to their chests for a long time before the actual election campaign began, if I’m remembering right.
Labour will release its policies when the time is right and then you will know.
As for the rest of your comments, I respect that this is your view.
Spud – The danger I think on the trime when policies are released is that there will be a large expectation for something different and workable if this expectation is not met then I think Lab will suffer greatly, just a continuation of the tired past. We do need solutions and they are and have not been delivered.
Perhaps for a boost a choch egg will lift me up or finshing my book happy easter Spud
I don’t share your concerns.
Happy Easter Herodotus –
Happy Easter Carol, Jeremy M Harris, bob, Oliver, Dylan, Sideoiler, in sumnation, Todd, indiana, James Caygill, Ben, zoe, and Olwyn
Herodotus well said. What a shame others can not see the forest for the trees…
You seem to be upset at commenters who view Labour in a positive light. You don’t like Labour and I’m fine with that, but consider being fine with commenters who do think Labour did a good job last decade
Or not, you have free will 
Demonstrably false. Tax cuts, minimum wage, WFF anyone? Then we have to consider the role business has played in shipping profits by the container load off shore and failing to invest in capital here . . . Telecom anyone?
Blame the victim . . . dox or GTFO.
Might as well get my cloth cap, stop trying and return to the 19th century in that case.