Red Alert

Archive for the ‘housing’ Category

It’s not a problem, it’s a crisis

Posted by Annette King on February 22nd, 2012

Yesterday Phil Twyford and I spent the day meeting with key people involved in housing and urban development in Auckland. I recommend Phil Heatley the Minister of ‘no Housing ‘ does the same. He might learn something.

Auckland needs to house another million people over the next 30 years requiring an extra 400,000 dwellings.  That is an impossible task without a long term strategy and total commitment from government, local government and both the private and community sectors. 

The Auckland Council has drawn up a draft Auckland Plan looking forward 30 years. It emphasises a commitment to a quality compact Auckland region. Feedback from Aucklanders has made it clear they want a bold visionary strategy.  They also want the impact of development on the heritage and character of the region to be considered.  And they want the ‘housing crisis’ addressed!

Auckland Council with all the good will in the world won’t achieve their plan on their own.  Around 13,000 new houses a year need to be built every year for the next 30 years.  That is a quantum leap from where we are now.  In 1992 around 4,800 houses were being built a year. The number peaked at 12,000 between 2001 and 2005.  In the latest figures the number has plunged to just over 2,000. (more…)


National’s perverted idea of urban renewal

Posted by Phil Twyford on February 14th, 2012

We need good urban development in Auckland.  The city is crying out for urban renewal, more affordable healthy homes, public transport, you name it.

But in Glen Innes where Housing NZ is redeveloping 156 of their properties the Government is breaking every rule in the book, and giving urban renewal a bad name.

At a lively public meeting in GI last night, three hapless National backbenchers (the new member for Tamaki Simon O’Connor, list member Alfred Ngaro who was a community worker in the area, and neighbouring MP Sam Lotu-Iiga) got an old fashioned bollocking from a crowd of around 300 including many Housing NZ tenants facing eviction.

At least they turned up, which is more than can be said for Housing Minister Phil Heatley.

Under his watch, National has reneged on commitments made by the Labour Government when it started the project.  They have walked away from the pledge that residents would have the right to move back into the community after the redevelopment. They have broken the promise the number of Housing NZ properties would be increased. And they dropped the community development process that was part of the original design.

Housing NZ reports the current 156 properties will be redeveloped to generate 260 new properties. Only 78 will be owned by Housing NZ. Another 39 “affordable” properties will possibly be managed by community agencies although I understand all expressions of interest were recently rejected and it is uncertain what will happen to them now. The remainder will all be sold to the highest bidders.

No wonder the dozens of GI residents who have received eviction notices were enraged at last night’s meeting and howled down O’Connor, Ngaro and Lotu-Iiga down as sell outs.

It is a disgrace what is happening in GI. National’s perverted version of urban renewal is moving poor people out, and shipping the rich in, as if low income Kiwis should not be allowed a sea view. Just as John Key stripped the state housing out of the new development in Hobsonville in his electorate.

The people of Glen Innes deserve our support.


The passing of Ben Hana, aka Blanket Man

Posted by Grant Robertson on January 16th, 2012

BlanketMan3_sized

I felt a real sense of sadness hearing the news of the death of Ben Hana, known to most Wellingtonians, and others as Blanket Man. Like many Wellingtonians I had a few conversations with Ben over the years. Early on in Cuba Mall when he used to talk a lot more, and more latterly when he enjoyed the sunshine in Courtenay Place, with less to say, but still a nod of acknowledgement.

Ben was a polarising person. For many he was an iconic figure, part of the unique and quirky Wellington. A number of people had close relationships with him, and supported him with gifts and food. The gift of an IPod a few years ago saw him rocking out even more in his own universe. For others how he looked and acted was affronting and challenging and they felt threatened by him.

He was the face of homelessness in Wellington. It is true to say that he shunned the idea of moving off the streets in recent years, and indeed of taking on much in the way of formalised help. He was beyond that, and wanted none of it. But this is a misleading view of the experience of the homeless. For most of the homeless in Wellington it is not such a choice, and indeed for Ben earlier in his life as things went wrong, and he became unwell mentally, and his addictions developed I am sure he would have liked and benefited from some more support and somewhere to call home.

Homelessness is not necessarily about sleeping on the streets, its about not having a stable place to live, to be your base. It is often associated with mental illness and addiction, and there is far too much of it in our city. A number of organisations, especially the Downtown Community Ministry do a great job supporting those who are homeless, but we are falling short.

We have a real shortage of emergency accomodation, affordable accomodation and accomodation for those with mental illness. The different agencies involved are getting better at working together to find solutions, but still need to be more coordinated and flexible if we are to truly address these issues. Its not just government either, the community has a responsibility too. Many private landlords will not take on those who have a history of mental illness. I will be continuing to advocate and organise on these issues in Wellington. This is a nationwide issue though, and I believe it merits a select committee inquiry, as Labour has pushed for in recent years.

For me the best memorial for Ben would be that we as a city and community come together to say that we will look after and look out for all the residents of the city. We will make it a priority to deal with homelessness and the issues that lie behind it. We will respect those who are homeless for who they are, and work with them to give them real choices that will address the issues that cause their struggles and put them back in charge of their own lives. RIP Ben.


Housing letter

Posted by Trevor Mallard on November 22nd, 2011

Nats and their mouthpieces are upset. Hooton raving, whale lost direction and beached and even the penguin making an idiot of himself.

It is an absolute lie to say National is reviewing all state house tenancies. The policy clearly says only *new* tenancies will be placed on periodic review.


I’m going to accept Heatley’s word. He is the Minister after all. From Q + A.

  PHIL Well, yes, and the second step.  So the first step is for any new tenant from the 1st of July this year.  After the election if we’re re-elected, we’re going to be rolling this out for current tenants.  .


National’s approach to state housing

Posted by Chris Hipkins on July 4th, 2011

Pomare demolition

This photo was taken in Pomare over the weekend. Until recently, Pomare was a great little community in the southern part of my electorate. When National came to power they set about evicting people, leaving the houses there empty rather than finding new tenants for them. The places were allowed to be vandalised and some fell into an awful state of disrepair.

Now the wreckers have moved in, and this entire neighbourhood is being torn down (before some of the tenants have even moved out). Housing New Zealand don’t have any money to replace them. Their current plan is to sow grass in their place until they decide what to do. They call this process “neighbourhood renewal”.

Phil Heatley announced last week that a change in policy will see up to 148 Hutt Valley families purged from the Housing New Zealand waiting list. Those who do have houses already also now have a bit question mark hanging over their tenancy should National win this year’s election.

I guess we shouldn’t be surprised. When they were last in government National introduced market rents and sold off 13,000 houses. Their promise to keep income-related rents looks pretty hollow in the context of more evictions, waiting list purges, more house sales, and even state house demolitions. Frankly it’s a disgrace.


Tell the Government: Don’t Cut Our Future!

Posted by Trevor Mallard on April 27th, 2011

Flyer

t Cut Our Future


It is happening around the world

Posted by Trevor Mallard on April 22nd, 2011

The final decisions on the last Key/English budget were taken earlier this week. I’m told the cuts are massive, going right to the core of what we value as New Zealanders. But we are not alone. Manny Herrmann of the AFL-CIO writes :-

On April 15, nearly every House Republican voted to give massive new tax cuts to corporations and the rich while demolishing services for seniors, children and low- and middle-income Americans.

This isn’t a budget bill—it’s a political payback bill that raids Medicare, Social Security and education to reward corporate CEOs with massive tax cuts.


My night at the shelter

Posted by Grant Robertson on April 21st, 2011

Earlier in the year Mike Leon who runs the Wellington Mens Night Shelter asked if I would come and spend a night staying at the shelter. I have worked with Mike and his team over the last couple of years, and have great respect for what they do, so I said yes. On the condition that I was not taking a bed that someone else needed. That night was last night.

Mike, of course, had an ulterior motive. The Shelter has never been busier, and its resources are stretched beyond breaking point. They would love to do more for those that stay there, but they just dont have the resources to do it. An MP staying was bound to draw attention- and you can see the end result of that on Campbell Live here.

For those that dont know the Shelter caters for homeless men with around 20 dormitory style beds, and another 20 or so hostel rooms upstairs. For the dorm beds you pay $10 a night. There is no food (many of the residents eat at the soup kitchen). It is not luxury. A single bed, with a cabinet. There are partitions that provide some privacy, but certainly do not block out the noise! By all accounts last night was a pretty calm night. It was uncomfortable, noisey, and there was a fairly tense atmosphere. But its a bed and a roof over the head.

I had really good chats with a number of those there. They range in age from early 20s to early 70s. Everyone has a different story. There is Tom (name changed) who’s life took a turn for the worse when he got a brain injury in a car accident a few years back, has chronic alcohol problems and is desperate to get in a rehabilitation facility (more that another day). There is Ian (name changed) who got evicted from his last flat and just can’t get the money together to find another one as he does not have a job. He has a list of places he has applied to, from here to the Kapiti Coast, but nothing is coming his way. There’s Nathan (name changed) recently out of Rimutaka Prison, with nowhere to go. He has a set of health problems that make the mind boggle, and at least at the Shelter the wonderful doctors and nurses from the Te Aro Health Centre come in each week and he can see them.

Mike and his team are a magnificent ambulance at the bottom of the cliff that is homelessness. But we must build the fences at the top. What was clear from almost every conversation I had last night was that the people there have ambitions and dreams. They might be modest in some eyes, but they are about dignity. They want a job, a secure place to live that is theirs and many talked of wanting someone to share it with.

We need to take homelessness seriously. The government would not even have an inquiry when it was proposed by Moana Mackey. That would be just the first step for me. To really tackle homelessness we need to find stable accomodation for these guys, and put in place the support and the programmes that will allow them to live independent lives. That will be easier for some than others. Some will need extensive support to deal with their addictions (did someone say a Wet House), others will need support to get basic life skills and other work skills. But it is worth the investment. Not just for them, but for all of us. It is a social and economic scandal that in a relatively wealthy country people are caught in this cycle. The social cost is huge, the pure economic cost (and loss) is huge.

In the meantime what Mike and his people do is a great service to the community. If you want to support them they need money, blankets and sheets. If you want to donate food, and you live in Wellington the Downtown Community Ministry is desperate for more food for its foodbank. If you want to solve the underlying issues, well, that would politicise this story, but I think you get my drift.


Let them eat cake

Posted by David Parker on November 4th, 2010

The proposal to abandon gift duty is effectively another tax cut for some of NZs wealthiest families. It is yet another step to an unequal society where wealth is accumulating in fewer hands. Why does this offend me? Because a tax system should be fair, and neither aid in tax avoidance by those who can and should pay a fair share of taxes, nor aid in the undue concentration of wealth (and home ownership) based on accident of birth.

The government only collects $2m pa in gift duty and yet estimates NZers currently spend $70m pa on compliance costs. Ask yourself why they fork out that $70m pa? They don’t have to. They don’t think they are throwing that money away. So what benefits do they get by doing so?

There are a number. Some do it to protect assets. Politicians at risk of being sued for defamation often put their family house in a separate legal entity so that if they get sued their family does not end up on the street.  Entrepreneurs do similar in case they get cleaned out in their risky ventures. In both instances this is legal and proper, and can be done effectively under current rules, which allow a couple to gift 27k each = 54k pa free of any gift duty.

But how the wealthiest benefit is via no control on transfers of wealth between the different members of their family, and to other legal entities which they control which may have tax losses they can utilise. In such cases it is not about protecting assets but about avoiding taxation.

Instead of tax being paid at the rate of 33 cents, they transfer assets to spouses and children who pay tax on the income from those assets at the rate of 10.5 cents and 17 cents in the dollar.

So without a limit on gifts free of gift duty, you will see more income tax avoidance.

The justification that gift duty should be dropped because those using current rules, up to the current limit of 54k pa, incur compliance costs is ludicrous. It is not forced upon them, and they choose to do so because of the various advantages they perceive.

I find it stupid logic to reward those already using current rules to their advantage by dropping those rules completely so they can do it more.

Having rejected income splitting for tax purposes because it is unfair, National is effectively allowing an increase in income splitting for those who are wealthiest. You still can’t do it if you are a wage worker on the minimum wage, but you will be able to split your income by transferring valuable income producing assets if you are wealthy.

Once again, National show their true colours. The rich get richer and the rest struggle to make ends meet. We have a government who, having just increased the after tax income gap between high and low paid workers, is now aiding asset inequality to grow further.

No wonder younger voters are increasingly frustrated. They see that NZ is increasingly being run in the interests of the few. As the few achieve ever larger shares of income and wealth, home ownership rates continue to drop. Many people can no longer afford to own their own home, but those lucky to be born into already wealthy families get yet another lift up from this government.

Any pretence by National that they are aspirational for all New Zealanders should be seen as just that.

Tax policy should strive to achieve fair outcomes for all New Zealanders. Once again, National’s tax policy fails this test.


Ill Fares the Land – Why John Key should read Tony Judt

Posted by David Parker on July 21st, 2010

Ill fares the land, to hastening ills a prey, where wealth accumulates, and men decay. Oliver Goldsmith, The Deserted Village, 1779

This is the by-line to the 2010 book entitled “Ill Fares The Land” by Tony Judt on the growing inequalities of wealth and opportunity around the world.

I recommend the book, which David Cunliffe and Shane Jones each recommended to me. It examines the different outcomes for social cohesion and equality of social democratic cf conservative policies.

It describes well what is obvious to many in Labour. “We have entered an age of insecurity – economic insecurity, physical insecurity, political insecurity. ….. Insecurity breeds fear. And fear – fear of change, fear of decline, fear of strangers and an unfamiliar world is - corroding the trust and interdependence on which civil societies rest.”

There is much in this book which is worth reading. It has relevance to debates about total tax, our unjust tax mix, NZ’s appalling corrections policy, wealth inequality and the reality that our best assets now can only normally be afforded by NZers lucky enough to inherit wealth (and overseas investors from societies with concentrations of wealth).

We now see the differences between left and right playing out most weeks in parliament. This very week in parliament we are considering an Infrastructure Bill which has a rotten amendment by the government. It is another example of the sort of change in society caused by right leaning governments, which are described in the book.

The Bill as introduced by Labour included provisions relating to affordable housing. Now I concede there is a proper debate to be had between Labour and National whether all of those provisions are appropriate.  Labour says yes, National no.  But there should be no argument about the provisions in the Bill banning restrictive covenants in subdivisions against low cost housing

Make no mistake, in effect National are saying they see nothing wrong in the developer of land being able by private covenant to exclude those who can only afford less expensive housing from a new suburb.  These sorts of restrictive covenant are new in New Zealand and ought to be stamped out.   Allowing private planning to exclude those less fortunate from living near them is not right. National thinks that gated communities of wealthier New Zealanders are the way to go.  It is yet another practical example of National’s right-wing values. It is wrong makes New Zealand a worse country.

It shows what a flawed set of values guides their decisions.


Goodbye shared equity scheme

Posted by Moana Mackey on June 30th, 2010

As of tomorrow Labour’s Shared Equity pilot will end and the Government has made it clear they will not be providing any funding for it to continue.  This is despite Phil Heatley promising before the election that they would keep it at least until their Gateway scheme becomes available. The Gateway scheme has been missing in action since the election (and received no funding in the Budget) although we’re promised that some sections will be made available “soon”.

There is no doubt that the uptake of shared equity during the pilot was low. I’m not questioning that at all. But when Housing New Zealand was asked why this was, Senior Communications Adviser Michelle Williams revealed that Housing New Zealand was told to stop promoting the scheme after the 2008 election. Heatley confirmed this in the House today saying he didnt want to waste money on “advertising”.

The shared equity pilot started in July 2008. This means for twenty of the twenty-four months that the pilot was operating it wasn’t being promoted. Heatley says he just wanted to save money, but why waste money carrying out a pilot, at the end of which you have no idea whether the low uptake is due to it not working, the recession, or simply the fact that no one knows it exists.

Housing New Zealand are quite clear on why the uptake was so low saying that “Initial forecasting for this product suggested funding would be required for approximately 700 loans over the two-year pilot phase.  This has not been the case due to a change of government and subsequently change in focus. Coupled with no promotion and low awareness of product, demand has been very low.”

So not because it doesn’t work. Not because it has no potential in the future. Because people don’t know it exists. What a waste of time and money.


BUDGET 2010: Jigsaw Pieces Click

Posted by David Cunliffe on June 1st, 2010

The jigsaw pireces of the Budget are starting to click in the public mind if recent polls are any indication.  In the last week :

  • The IMF described NZ’s savings gap and net international indebtedness as “among the largest of any advanced nation”
  • Analysis shows a $9.2bn additional fiscal hole in the Budget by 2023 arising from the tax changes
  • Budget documents show expenditure as a % of GDP falling from 33% to 28%
  • Bill English floats Kiwibank sale as one example of a number of SOEs ripe for partial privatisation.

In other words: give away taxes up front (very largely to their mates); run an out year deficit (deliberately); compress spending (as ‘prudence ” then demands); and flog off what is left of the family silver to fill the remaining gap (dressed up as mum and dad savings products, of course).

What does all this mean for the average Kiwi?

  • despite the govt spin, they are worse off for the next four years at least due to the toxic cocktail of GST, inflation, other govt charges and taxes, and slow wage growth;
  • public services like Heatlh and Early Childhood Education will be slashed as new spending lags inflation ($300m short in Health) or deliberate policy changes bite;
  • the outlook for public services gets dramatically worse as the National Party tries to resize the state to 28% of GDP – although they won’t want to talk much about that before the election;
  • the underlying economic problems reamin unresolved and get more intractable over time.   There is no credible plan for growth and jobs.

Moral of story: do NOT let National get a second term   Stop the malign juggernaut before it does irrepairable damage.


ECE Budget cuts focus of Dunedin meeting today

Posted by Clare Curran on May 24th, 2010

Cuts to early childhood education could have one of the big impacts to our economy as thousands of parents weigh up whether they can afford to have have both parents working.

I’ve been told by Dunedin ECE centres that parents of children under three will be hard hit by the Government’s Budget and face an increase of $42.50 per child per week.

I was approached by ECE providers a few weeks ago concerned about the imminent budget cuts.  Today Labour will hold a community meeting to discuss the  cuts attended by Dunedin’s Labour MPs and our Early Childhood Education spokesperson Sue Moroney.

The Budget cuts will hit working families who rely on quality childcare. The impact will be enormous throughout the economy as parents weigh up whether they can afford to have their children in childcare.

These fee increases will more than eat up any tax cut received by parents. On top of that they will face increases in GST, ACC and increased inflation.

In Dunedin, there are more than 8000 children enrolled in ECE services. Parents with children aged three and four will also be hit as fees go up across the board and centres are forced to employ lesser qualified staff to remain viable.

We have estimated that when inflation and a rise in early childhood education (ECE) fees are taken into account, the average family, with 2 children will be at least $55 a week worse off.

And that’s just one issue. Currently ECE centres are encouraged to have 100 per cent registered teachers, but from early next year, the funding rate for registered teachers will be lowered and will be given only for up to 80 per cent of a provider’s registered teachers.

The result is there will be little incentive for providers to have more than 80 per cent registered teachers.

Just before the Budget was announced, both Anne Tolley and John Key attended the NEiTA teaching excellence awards in Parliament.

Both Sue Moroney and I attended that ceremony alongside St Clair ECE teacher Karen Brown (from my electorate) who won an excellence award.

It’s ironic that the PM and Minister of Education attended a ceremony that celebrated excellence in teaching, an hour before they announced cuts which would compromise excellent teaching.

Public meeting: 10am Mornington Presbyterian Church


BUDGET 2010: Pass the Berocca

Posted by David Cunliffe on May 21st, 2010

After the beehive-spin induced euphoia wears off and the hangover sets in, middle New Zealand will reach for the Berocca and try to work out what the Budget really means for them.

Not to add to the inevitable headache, but here are a few of the facts of life for the morning after.

  1. For at least 3/4, and maybe 90% of the country, by the time they eat a whopping 5.9% inflation next year (Treasury Budget forecasts, not NZLP numbers!) they will be worse off until at lesst 2012/13.   For a family with 2 kids on $72k for example, $55 a week worse off.
  2. That inflation will feed into mortgage costs and rent rises.  It will result, quite rightly, in pent up wage demands from workers who have gone without wage rises for the last two years. 
  3. While its ok that the middle income brackets got some income tax relief, and would have likely got more relief from us, the tax cuts are way too skewed to the top.  You just can’t get around the fact that someone earning a $million a year gets $1000 a week back.  That is going to make the haves/have nots gap wider.  And that gap will inevitably worsen over time, undermining the Kiwi dream and taking us further from the “fair go for all” kind of place we want to be.
  4. That is made worse by the underlying agenda of shrinking the state and the services it can provide.  We have already seen home help for the elderly branded “low quality” spend and cut.  Health’s new money in the Budget is, we reckon, about $270 m short of standing still given next year’s inflation forecast.  That means more cuts to the services and more pain for the vulnerable.
  5. My personal gripe is early childhood education.  What has the Govt got against quality preschool education?  Why is it swiping $100m pa from that?  Labour will lead in this area and every family with young kids will hear us. 
  6. Rebalancing the econmy is way undercooked.  Take away the smoke and mirrors of the tax switch, and we are still left with residual taxt incentives for property and LAQC avoidance mechanisms.   Proof:  LAQCs sheltered $2.3 billion of taxes in 2008.  The tinkering in the Budget trimmed only $70m p.a. of that.  
  7. There is STILL no credible plan for growth in this Budget.  The National Govt seems intent in relying on “passive” instruments. I have no problem with dropping the company rate – provided the fiscal balance can support decent public services (personal view – see “About” on the blog site) – but that cannot be enough to get the export sector going on its own.  What about the R and D tax credits?

The strucutral problem remains: we don’t export enough, we don’t save enough, and we don’t innovate enough.  As an economy we are short on capital, technology, skills and IP.  Budget 2010 does not fix that.  Time is short and the job is urgent.  When NZ wants positive action, Labour will be ready to lead.

As the bubbly wears off in the Beehive and the Berocca gets passed around the country; the poor, the forgotten middle class and the structural problems of the economy have not been moved forward by this Budget.

It remains a suger-coated tax swindle.

It remains a step back, not a step up, and certainly not a step change.


Finance Team Budget Discussion

Posted by David Cunliffe on May 18th, 2010

On Thursday evening at 8.30pm, I will be hosting a discussion with other members of the Labour Finance team about the Budget. This will be filmed and streamed live at: http://labour.org.nz/budget2010

There will be the ability for those watching to chat with others around New Zealand who are also tuned in. We will be monitoring the comments and will hopefully be able to answer some of your questions during the session.

If this works well, then we hope to turn it into a regular feature.

If you’d like to be automatically reminded prior to the event just fill in your email below.


Triple Diptoner

Posted by Trevor Mallard on May 9th, 2010

But I’m sure there wouldn’t be room at his primary place of residence.  Thanks Herald.


Beware English Bearing Greeks

Posted by David Cunliffe on May 5th, 2010

In terms of the daily cut and thrust of the House today, Bill English backfired (IMHO).  Comparing the New Zeland economy to that of Greece was wrong on every level.

First, there is no comparison.  Greece is far and away one of the most indebted countries in the OECD.  NZ is in the bottom third or quarter by various measures.  Greece has gross crown debt of 115% of GDP.  NZ had net crown debt of zero % under Labour in 2008, rising to 5% by election time due to the GFC.   NZ gross crown debt today is about 29% .    

Second, to the extent that NZ hit troubled waters in the GFC, most of that is on National’s watch.   That is not to blame them for the international crisis, but then theycannot blame Labour either – the whole argument is silly and circular, and patently so.

Third, NZ stacks up very well on the other aggregates too:  Greek unemployment nearly 11%.  NZ now 7.3%   NZ under Labour 3.4%.

Fourth, a Minister has no responsibiity for opposition policies anyway, and especially when he is simply making them up, as Mr Speaker confirmed.  That is simply outside Speakers Rulings. 

So what exactly was Bill English’s point?

Underneath this attempt at deflection is of course a deeper issue:  English is desperately trying to convince Kiwis they need to swallow savage service suts in health and education because the alternative is “Greece on steroids”… Really?  Or isn’t that just a teensy bit exagerated, Bill?

Of course prudent fiscal managment matters.  We have always said so.  Labour’s record on this is unimpeachable: Gross debt cut in half, net debt to zero; historic lows in unemployment; higher average growth over the decade than under National; the longest post war expansion on record etc etc etc.

Point is: fiscal prudence is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for a coherent economic strategy for good jobs and living standards and the other things that really matter to ordinary Kiwis.  That’s why labour is challenging National at the heart of the economic debate: on jobs and growth.   Why we are emphasising the need to close the other deficits in exports, savings, innovation and social issues.  On boosting valued added and clean technologies.

See the post below (Building to the Budget) for more detail.


It’s a demographic challenge

Posted by Chris Hipkins on May 2nd, 2010

A few weeks ago I did a post on the home ownership dream that promoted quite a lot of discussion and over 100 comments. It was prompted by some of the reading and research that I’ve been doing on intergenerational equity. I’m currently reading a book by David Willetts called The Pinch, subtitled “How the baby boomers took their children’s future – and why they should give it back”. The title is a bit provocative, but the book is well researched and presents a whole heap of data to back up Willetts’ arguments.

One possible explanation he puts forward for the rising cost of housing is simply demographic. Throughout our lives we accumulate wealth. In our older years we spend it, or we pass it down to the next generation. But an equitable transition of wealth between generations assumes an equitable distribution of the population amongst age groups, which clearly doesn’t exist. The baby boomers aren’t to blame for the fact that they’re currently controlling a disproportionate share of the world’s wealth, if you want to blame anyone; blame Hitler.

It’s not just housing either. A similar argument can be made about employment. For example, let’s assume than within an organisation there are a certain number of senior managers, a certain number of middle-managers, a certain number of entry-level jobs etc. We all start somewhere, usually at the entry-level, and then we progress throughout our careers. But a smaller generational cohort following a larger one is likely to find some congestion at the top. The boomers have reached the top and still have about a decade to go before retirement. And given we are living longer and many don’t want to retire at 65 anyway, it could be a lot longer.

Fast forward another decade and that’s when the baby boom pinch will really start to be felt. With half a million extra New Zealanders over the age of 65 while the workforce remains about the same size, it’s clear the govt of the day is going to face some real challenges. The cost of NZ Super will roughly double, not to mention the cost of healthcare and other social services such as aged care. If we’re to argue that each generation has a responsibility to care for those who came before and those who come after (elderly and children), where does that leave a generation disproportionately smaller?


The home ownership dream

Posted by Chris Hipkins on April 8th, 2010

The dream of home ownership has never been less obtainable, so media reports would lead us to believe. But is that a fair claim? I got the Parliamentary Library to compile some figures for me so that I could work out how much someone from each of the last four ‘generations’ could expect to pay for their first home and how that compared to what they were likely to be earning.

In the 1930s before the outbreak of the Second World War the average weekly wage was about ?5 and 2 shillings. It doesn’t sound like a lot, but when translated into today’s dollars it works out to about $460. The average price of houses was about ?870, the equivalent of about three and a half years worth of wages.

Veterans returning home from the war faced a bigger sacrifice to get themselves into their own homes in the 1950s. They would’ve received an average weekly income of about ?9 and 2 shillings. That’s about $560 a week in today’s dollars. They could pick up a house for about ?2400, the equivalent of just over five years worth of wages (although to offset the extra cost there were a lot of grants/loans etc available for returned servicemen).

Fast forward to the 1980s when most of their children were in the workforce and buying their first homes and things had returned back to their pre-war levels. The ‘Baby Boomers’ were earning on average about $200 a week, or $600 in today’s dollars. They were paying about $36,000 for their first home, equivalent to about three and a half years worth of wages.

Hit the fast forward button again and we arrive at the present day, where average weekly earnings amount to $809 a week and the average house price is about $416,000. Applying the same calculations, someone on an average income and buying a home at the average house price can expect to pay the equivalent of about 10 years worth of wages. So it’s true, owning your own home has never been more of a hurdle.


Food for Thought

Posted by Carol Beaumont on April 8th, 2010

Over Easter I had a chance to get into our vegetable garden.  Harvested the last of the tomatoes, some chillies and got things tidied up for planting more cauliflower, broccoli and broad beans.   Most of my life I have had a vegetable garden and have been able to grow some of the food I eat, an enormously satisfying experience I worry is increasingly less common.

Fruit and vegetables have come up quite often in recent conversations.  I hear about (and see) the good work happening in a number of our schools where vegetables are grown and compost bins tended.  A budget adviser told me that in England there is a requirement for schools to have fruit trees to give students access to fresh fruit.  I’m not sure how this works but it didn’t seem to be a bad idea.  Both of these approaches provide fresh healthy food to young people (for some, from families struggling to make ends meet and where food is scarce, this is a practical help)  and show young people that food is something you can grow (not just buy in the supermarket). 

In fact in a country like New Zealand with a natural advantage in producing food we should maximise opportunities to encourage people to grow food.  Even those with limited space can grow produce like tomatoes and salad greens in containers.

It is scandalous that fresh healthy food which we can grow easily is as expensive as it is.  It is not the producers who are making huge profits from fruit and vegetables but supermarkets are a different story.   I was interested in a feature in the Sunday Star Times particularly the comments about industrialised (processed) foods, the food industry, natural foods and about the importance of cooking (another skill that is not as widespread as it once was it seems).  

Food is one of our fundamental needs.  Despite this as a result of poverty too many people globally including some in New Zealand do not have  an adequate and regular supply of the food they need.   Food is something that is huge business.  If you look at the worlds largest companies food producers and retailers are right up there – huge, profitable global corporates with enormous purchasing and marketing power.

For all of these reasons (and for our health) lets ensure we hold on to the skills of growing and cooking  food.

On the local and immediate, one final request following a conversation with a local food bank – if you have surplus fruit or vegetables give it to the food bank.  They are generally unable to provide fresh food and some of the food that goes to waste (think ahead to the forthcoming feijoa season) can make a difference.