In my hunt for a document on the Beehive website I threw in a search term only to have the site query is it POVERTY you want to search, or did you really mean PROPERTY?

Couldn’t help but share…

The benefit stats for both November and December were finally released yesterday. Usually we would have had them before now, but the Minister has held onto them over the summer period.

December was pretty grim. Students coming out of uni tend to contribute to a rise at this time of year, but even taking that into account, the overall picture from 2008 till now is poor. Here are the numbers:

For December:
• Main Benefits are up 4.15% from November 2011 (up 14,011 people)
• Unemployment benefits up 10.6% (up 5,481 people)

Compared with this time in 2008, there are 29,456 more people receiving an Unemployment benefit – an increase of 96.5%

The Government’s focus continues to be on welfare reform generally, but this is not just about the quality of ‘work ready’ programmes and changes to case management (where there is certainly much to be said about the government reforms) but the availability of work. I’ll be interested to see whether the Minister or indeed the government will take a second look this term at the role it can play alongside the private sector in the area of job creation, or continue to tinker around the edges.

Haven’t posted for a while…but felt compelled after ready this piece on the Herald website

I was amongst the thousands who headed down to Coyle Park for the annual Big Gay Out. It’s a fantastic celebration of Auckland’s diversity- a chance for LGBT and straight members of the community to come together. It’s also a chance for politicians to do a bit of a review, assess where they stand on LGBT issues, and be challenged.

Both Phil Goff and John Key attended the Big Gay Out. Phil spoke about how far we have come in terms of rights for the LGBT community, such as Homosexuality Law Reform and Civil Unions, but that none of that should be taken for granted. There’s still more to be done.

To say that John Key was less effusive would be an understatement. In fact, Key tried to claim that under his leadership, his Government had a strong record on gay rights. And what would that record be? According to Key, standing up for rights means “not rolling back” any gains made under Labour. And if that wasn’t bad enough, he then refused to say how he would vote on Civil Unions if theoretically it came up again tomorrow. Probably a statement we shouldn’t be surprised by given Key voted against the Civil Union Bill in the first place.

If you’re going to hold a view, fine. But don’t pretend it’s something it’s not. Apathy doesn’t equal progress Mr Key, especially when we’re talking progress and rights you didn’t support in the first place.

Just to keep the theme going, Scroll finalist for today is Running Through The Fire (Storm) by Anika Moa, but performed by The Datsuns.

I made a wee remark on Facebook about The Datsuns “making Hamilton cool for a while”, only to be corrected that they were in fact from Cambridge.  Sorry Hamilton, robbed again.

I posted a clip of one of the Silver Scrolls finalists last night- thought it would be unfair to leave the others out!

Tonight, Say Goodbye by The Mint Chicks, performed by a human beat box no less (who took a while to get plugged in on the night- watch and you’ll see why!)

I was lucky enough to get along to the Silver Scrolls last week- what’s described as “New Zealand’s premier song writing award”.  There were five finalists, each performed by a band or collection of folks who had no part in the writing of the song.  Brilliant. Thought I would post them here so you could judge for yourself.

First up, A New Dialogue by Julia Deans, but performed by The Unfaithful Ways.

There’s a lot of chat at the moment about the drinking age and simple straw polls on the position of various MPs.

I want to throw some thoughts into the mix- the kind that get missed in a yes or no answer.

I believe we have a problem with the way we drink in New Zealand. I have never thought politicians alone can solve this issue, but we certainly have a role to play.

But the “we” element in all of this is important. For far too long we have focused on one particular set of people as both the catalyst of our problems and the source of all of our solutions –  the young.

It’s easy to see how this happens. Many of us drink to varying degrees, but don’t wish to assume that we are part of the problem (and many will not be).  The default option can  become to apportion blame to other groups, and that often includes young people. And it’s easily done. We can all fall back on personal or anecdotal evidence of some young people, well under the age of 18, drinking in public and in private spaces, sometimes to excess.

But much of this is already happening outside of the laws we currently have. And I’m also sure a good chunk of people who support an age change are not doing so because its only 18 and 19 years olds (the group effected by a change in the minimum age of purchase) they see as the problem. So lets start being honest.  

This is not about young people, this is about all of us.

Every time I have asked young people about alcohol in their lives, they talk about what they see around them; not just of the behaviour of their peers, but of adults, parents, caregivers. The ones who we know through research are supplying young people with alcohol a majority of the time, the ones who have been part of setting and maintaining New Zealand’s approach to drinking, and who are statistically almost as equally likely to drink to get drunk as a young person is.

That is why my position on alcohol reform is this: I support the age staying at 18 because I don’t believe shifting the age addresses our fundamental issues.

If a split age is the compromise that will at least stop a blanket increase, then I’ll consider that. But I’d much rather consider a comprehensive package of reforms that finally acknowledges that this is our collective problem, not just the problem of our ‘youff’.

Cabinet will finally decide today whether it will go ahead with its proposal to open up the Coromandel, Great Barrier Island and Paparoa National Park to mining.

John Key was interviewed on RNZ on this issue.  His continual references to wealth creation, and batting away of the more than 40,000 submissions by stating that there were thousands of people who didn’t bother to submit, suggests which way the decision will go.

Stay tuned.

Youth Parliament started yesterday. Held once every three years, it’s a chance for young people (one for every current MP) to do just about everything we do in Parliament from debating in the debating chamber, sitting on select committee, asking Ministers questions, and attending a caucus meeting.

This year the youth MPs are discussing a bill (specially drafted for youth parliament) on the age of majority. A timely discussion given the range of contradictions we have in law as to when young people are granted the rights and responsibilities of an adult.

We spend a lot of time talking about young people in this place, but not a lot of time talking with them. Looking forward to hearing what the youth MPs have to say this afternoon on a pretty big issue.

Looks like the Government is testing another element of its response to the Law Commission alcohol report in the Herald this morning. This time the focus is on using parental consent to tighten up on the supply of alcohol to drinkers under the purchase age (so under the age of 18).

Views?

Today Te Hurihanga closed its doors.  Some of you will remember me talking about this programme- it was a youth justice facility based in Hamilton and run by the Youth Horizons Trust. It focused on young offenders who had pretty long lists of offences to their names, working solidly with them and their families for 18 months.

Te Hurihanga was good. It worked. We know that because it was one of the few youth justice programmes operating in New Zealand that was evidence based, and evaluated.

Earlier this year Simon Power announced he would close Te Hurihanga, and today it did. And why?  He said it cost too much. A battle raged for a while over the figures- but whichever set of numbers you choose to believe the fact remains, it was still cheaper than the long term cost of imprisoning some of these young people for even just a few years- which is where most of them were heading.

But what happens now?  Back in February Simon Power claimed there would be an “open tender process”  to replace Te Hurihanga, but 5 months on we were told via select committee questions that “Child, Youth and family will manage the Te Hurihanga facility. This will not be contracted.”

This all leaves me with two questions.  How can the Minister claim Te Hurihanga was “too expensive” when he refuses to estimate, despite repeated questions, how much a repeat youth offender costs our criminal justice system, let alone our communities?  And if he can’t tell me this, what measure is he using to determine the value of a programme, and whether it is indeed “too expensive.”  And secondly, will the new service that CYFs establishes to replace Te Hurihanga be evidence based and evaluated in the same way that Te Hurihanga was? 

Until those questions are answered, I will continue to believe this was a short sighted call by the Government- and a really sad day for Te Hurihanga.

Anyone who has ever taken an interest in Auckland’s many development and heritage issues, or just bothered to look up from time to time, will know and have experienced that sinking feeling of regret.  And that’s exactly how I will feel in a few weeks time as I watch the old sheds on Queens Wharf come down.

If some of you sigh at the mention of this issue again, I can hardly blame you. We’ve all heard the competing demands for the wharf; the need for a decent ferry terminal for the increasing number of cruise ships visiting our city and, of course, John Key’s urgent call for ‘Party Central’ to be set up in time for the Rugby World Cup next year.

The Auckland Regional Council has had a tough job and I don’t envy them. The timelines have been short and the expectations high. The decision to not decide on a long-term solution, therefore, is probably understandable. But therein lies the problem. Despite claims by the Government that the people will decide on the furture of the waterfront under the Super City,  a decision in many ways has already been made and an irreversible one at that. The sheds will go and will be replaced by a $9 million temporary structure (what we lay-people might call a ‘tent’) to act as party central- the source of all the urgency.

Generations of Aucklanders have seen the consequences of decisions made in haste; decisions made without a long-term plan in mind. Rather than lamenting what we have lost though, we keep hoping we’ll get it right next time. Perhaps that’s why, when a survey was taken of Aucklanders recently on the issue, the outcome was clear: let’s not make big decisions on the wharf until we have a master plan; until we really know where were going and what we want as a city.

Of course, I hold a personal view on this. A few years back, I lived in Brooklyn and saw how they developed their waterfront, incorporating old buildings and sheds with historical value with great success. Sydney and Wellington are great examples of how old working buildings that are part of maritime history can be transformed into iconic public spaces for everyone to use. They are places where locals are proud of their surroundings.

But that is my view. I would rather see a collection of people: architects; planners; the New Zealand Historic Places Trust and, most importantly, the folks who will use the space come together and build a plan. And then, whether that plan did or didn’t include the sheds, it might be a little easier to accept- and perhaps we could a all avoid that dreaded emotion: regret.

On Tuesday John Key announced that he’d asked the Government’s Chief Science Advisor to complete a piece of work  to better understand “what makes adolescence a ‘powder keg’ of bad decisions and risky behaviour.” 

I should get one thought out of the way- not every young person is indulging in bad decision making and risky behaviour. But that’s probably not the main point Peter Gluckman at least wants to leave us with.

My real question then is this-  will this piece of work lead to a marked difference in the Government’s policy decisions? And secondly, why now? 

This piece of work would have been much more useful before, for instance, the Government decided to start making fundamental changes to our youth justice system. It would have been useful before it decided to effectively shelve the Youth Development Strategy, before it pulled the fund which helped train youth line advisors, before it pulled support for the National Youth Workers Network, before it allowed 198, one of our best youth health centres, to collapse and before it closed one of the few evidence based Youth Justice residences in the country- Te Hurihanga.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m all for evidence based policy, but very little the Government has done in the youth sector to date makes me think that they are too.

This week  Phil Goff talked about the direction of Labour’s economic policy. On Wednesday night though it was the university student’s turn with ‘Alt B’

A few months back the Productive Economy Council launched a competition for students to create an alternative budget. The four teams who made the finals were impressive, and they needed to be- the judging panel included Brain Gaynor, Bernard Hickey, Selwyn Pellet (Spokesperson for PEC), John Walley, Lachlan McKenzie (President of Federated Farmers) and Divya Dhar (Young New Zealander of the Year). Each team presented for 10 minutes, with 15 minutes of questions from the panel.

There were some themes- keeping kiwis in New Zealand, preparing for the baby boomers, boosting exports, and tax reform. The methods proposed were varied. Some (if I’m honest) hurt my leftist sensibilities- trickle down with some add ons.  But the winners were bold, challenging and knew exactly what they were trying to achieve. You can check out their presentation here.