Richard Wilkinson, a co-author of The Spirit Level, presents one of the Ted Talks on income inequality and how selfishness and greed hurt everyone, poor and rich alike.
We feel instinctively that societies with huge income gaps are somehow going wrong. Richard Wilkinson charts the hard data on economic inequality, and shows what gets worse when rich and poor are too far apart: real effects on health, lifespan, even such basic values as trust.
Watch it. (17 mins) it’s worth it.
$4.28 is less than I paid for the latte I just drank.
That is how much Craig and Carla Bradley can spend to feed each of their kids each day.
After rent, power, petrol and bugger all else.
Thank you to Simon Collins for his excellent reality check on inequality in Auckland in today’s Herald – see Trevor’s post below.
Equally sobering: a “comfortable” family – Anita and Nigel’s – on $150k (an MP’s salary) is close to the top 10% of NZ households.
Fact is, we live in a poor and divided country.
So our constituency is not just the so-called ‘underclass’; it is most New Zealanders.
No-one wants to be poor.
Every Kiwi kid deserves good fresh food, a few treats and trips to the beach.
Being poor is grinding and demoralising.
It takes all your time; and your gut turns when your kids go without.
Most parents strive to do their utmost.
There is unbelievable sacrifice and heroism all around us.
But most people don’t see the point in politics – they are too busy just living.
Despite this, a gap this big between the 1% and the rest cannot stand. It never has…
The change we want is that of Mickey Savage and the New Deal.
Not extremism, or racism; or God forbid, another ‘Great’ War.
So we must be relevant to New Zealanders’ daily struggles:
Feeding our kids; caring for our sick and old;
Making sure there are good schools and jobs for our young;
Looking after our living earth;
Seeking out those doing good stuff in our communities and working with them.
Humble enough to know we don’t have all the answers, because no-one does…
…and going on anyway.
There is an old joke about the politician who dies, and arrives in heaven to find that market forces have taken hold, and that heaven and hell are offering one day trials so that he can decide where to spend eternity. The politician takes up the offer and spends a delightful, restful day in heaven listening to harp music. He goes down to Hell and has a great time partying, eating, drinking and generally having fun. He goes back to heaven and tells St Peter his decision’s made, its Hell for him. When he gets back there he finds none of the fun, but just a brutal, cold, barren landscape. He seeks out Satan, and asks what’s happened to the Hell he saw the day before, and Satan says, ” you’re a politician you should understand, yesterday we were campaigning, today we’re in office.”
In the election campaign we have just had, the paying down of debt and the return to surplus were big issues. The “show me the money” moment was just one where John Key brandished his credentials to lead us to the promised land of surplus by 2014-15. It was a certainty, and it could happen even earlier. Yet, six weeks on, the dampners are on. Key now says its only a “reasonable probability”. Another $1 billion have been knocked off the forecast. Truth is little is different in the challenging global environment now from when the promises were made, except the PM is not campaigning any more, he is in office. Not for the first time he gave the public the message they wanted to hear about economic growth, but now its time to lower expectations.
The so-called State of the Nation speech from the PM yesterday was a dull and miserable affair. Gone is the brighter future we were all promised just a few weeks ago. What plan there is has at is centrepiece more cuts to the public service. Regardless of the wisdom of those, they will be a drop in the bucket of improving the government’s finances.
No one is underestimating the challenge in front of the government. But what’s happened to the sunny optimisim of our PM? Actually there is every reason to be optimistic about New Zealand’s future if the government is prepared to do things differently. The world has changed, will the government? There is opportunity to reset fiscal and economic policy, and make the investments that will support innovative growing companies, grow our skills base and ensure that everyone reaches their potential.
But there was none of that in the speech. Not just a lack of economic vision either. And as Pita Sharples (yes, he is a Minister in the government) points out nothing on dealing with poverty or inequality. Nothing on the issues that need to be dealt with to unlock the potential of thousands of New Zealanders.
It was a defeatist, sad and tired effort. A bit like an old joke.
Counting our blessings as we move into 2012.
It’s been a hard year for so many New Zealanders. But we are a plucky country.
There’s lots to be done this (next) year. Let’s take more care of each other. Life’s too short not to.
I’ve chosen three songs to mark the occasion. Happy New Year x
Labour’s Childrens policy is, in my humble and unbiased opinion, an example of the kind of policy proposal that parties should make at election time. Setting a clear goal, and outlining a path to get there. Improving the well-being of our children is a moral and ethical issue more than a policy one as Annette King has said, but we still need a clear pathway to get there. We have provided that. Its rolled out over a period of time because that is the responsible thing to do.
The predictable response from National is that it all costs too much. Well my question is, what is the cost of doing nothing? Earlier this year Every Child Counts estimated that child poverty costs New Zealand $6 billion annually. This includes costs for treating preventable diseases. Hospital admissions for these have grown by 5,000 over the last three years. It includes the costs of managing anti-social behaviour, increased crime, and the loss to the economy of individuals failing to reach their full potential. We can see all of this in our communities every day.
Labour’s plan is focused around a number of key commitments
- lifting the incomes of the most vulnerable families to give their kids a fair go
- making access to primary healthcare more affordable, with 24/7 free care for under sixes
- extending paid parental leave to give parents more time at home with their babies
- restoring funding to ECE to ensure quality and access
To me these are the building blocks of the best possible start in life for all children. Labour has been responsible. We will reduce debt and get back into surplus at the same time as National, keeping our assets, but with some greater borrowing early in the next electoral cycle. That is because we have to invest in our children.
My other question for National is, if it is to expensive to do this, which children are they prepared to see left behind? I am not prepared to see that. As Annette said yesterday quoting Nelson Mandela and Graca Machel
We cannot waste our precious children
Not another one
Not another day
Its long past time for us to act on their behalf
Not just another candidates’ debate – this is your chance to debate the real issues facing our communities.
Five union/community election forums will be MC’d around New Zealand by some of New Zealand’s favourite funny people, including Michele A’Court, Jeremy Elwood, Darren Ludlow and Ian Harcourt. The forums have been organised by a group of unions and community organisations joining together to bring you a fun, fast and furious evening of political debate.
There’s a serious side to this as well. Candidates will be asked the hard questions on welfare, public services, inequality and more.
Please come along by going to the Facebook event and inviting your friends in Auckland, Hamilton, Wellington and Invercargill to join in too.
The issues: Welfare, inequality and a living wage | public services, health and early childhood education | disabled people’s issues | caring work | ACC
The format: Party spokespeople will have 2 minutes each to answer questions on these topics.
The venues:
West Auckland – Tues 8 November, 7pm. Kelston Community Centre, cnr Great North & Awaroa Rds. MC’d by Jeremy Elwood. Labour candidate – Carmel Sepuloni
Wellington – Wed 9 November, 5.30pm. St John’s on Willis St. MC’d by Ian Harcourt. Labour candidate – Grant Robertson
Invercargill – Wed 9 November, 7pm. Lindisfarne Community Centre. MC’d by Darren Ludlow. Labour candidate – Lesley Soper
Auckland Central – Tues 15 November, 7pm. Trades Hall, 147 Great North Rd, Grey Lynn. MC’d by Michele A’Court. Labour candidate – Jacinda Ardern
Hamilton – Wed 16 November, 5pm. YWCA, 28 Pembroke St. MC’d by Jeremy Elwood. Labour Candidate – Sue Moroney
I have been intrigued by the swift spread of the ‘Occupy’ movement. It’s already a world-wide phenomenon. While its purpose has not clearly been articulated in the media, it’s got me thinking.
Campbell Jones offers as plausible an explanation and statement of purpose for the movement as any I’ve seen. His Dom Post article is worth a read. Here’s a taster:
The Occupy movement is, however, not only about economic and political forces, but equally about ideas. It objects not only to the remarkable inequalities between and within countries, but also challenges the ideas that have up until now sought to justify those inequalities.
The movement is fighting the idea that unregulated capitalism somehow benefits everyone, and argues instead that it is a system involving systematic inequality that principally serves the interests of a small elite.
Truth is, it is difficult to escape markets in the modern world. New Zealand sells dairy and other produce in the international market. Within New Zealand, buying and selling (a market) is our preferred method of distributing goods and services.
Markets have been working – more or less – since the caveman. (Routine profiteering in markets is relatively new, but that’s another story). Markets are created to efficiently solve distribution issues. But let’s not forget that they are a human construct, to solve human problems.
And markets are not the only solution.
Markets have no intrinsic sense of fairness. A simple market-economy would allocate the bulk of health and education resources to the highest bidder – likely those with the largest inherited wealth. And most people don’t think that’s fair.
If we accept that all people should have free access to decent healthcare and a reasonable level of education, it is because we think everyone should have the opportunities that this brings, and because we think our whole society benefits from it.
In the case of healthcare and education, we decide that a market cannot allocate these resources fairly, and so we find another method of allocating them – according to need.
Yes, the Occupy movement is drawing attention to the way in which resources are unevenly distributed, and the way in which they serve entrenched interests. But the movement is also reminding us that markets are not the only way in which resource allocation questions can be answered. (Think rapid redistribution of wealth during the French Revolution, for example.)
We should never think that markets are the only option. And if we think a market is the right option for any given question, we should always ask how it is set up, and whose interests it is designed to serve. These things can be changed.
In many if not most situations, markets make excellent servants – but terrible masters.
A good read from Ann Salmond, anthropologist and author weighing into the debate on inequality in the NZ Herald yesterday.
The international rating agencies have done all New Zealanders a favour. The double downgrade of the country’s credit rating makes it clear that the policies and philosophies promoted by successive governments are not working.
The “invisible hand” of the market, first conceived in the Enlightenment but coupled at that time with notions of justice, human dignity and “the rights of man”, has failed to deliver prosperity and happiness, in New Zealand as elsewhere.
The problem, it seems, is a loss of balance. In the pursuit of profit, everything in the world – the earth itself, other species, knowledge and indeed, other people – has been turned into a “resource” to be exploited, often without care or conscience.
In the process, ideas of justice, truth and the common good have been undermined. Without these bulwarks, democracy falters, capitalism fails to share wealth and the distribution of income shifts dangerously out of kilter.
Since the 1990s, income inequality in New Zealand has soared. In the midst of successive financial crises, the hand of the market still harvests wealth for the wealthy. While the richest avoid taxation, billions can be found to shore up the corporate sector, but not to deal with child poverty, third-world diseases, high rates of youth incarceration and suicide, and other indicators of suffering and failure.
The philosophies that persuaded many Kiwis to betray their own best values are bankrupt, and our future is at risk. A nation that does not care for its children has a death wish. A society that destroys the environment that sustains it will fail.
She questions why people support policies that are not in their own interests, or of future generations.
Some suggest this is because the middle 40 per cent of income earners aspires to join the top 10 per cent and does not want the bottom 50 per cent to displace them. This may help to explain the rise in consumerism and household debt, but it is only part of the story.
People also have to be persuaded that there is no alternative to the policies that beset them, or that external factors are to blame, or the likely impacts on their lives are misrepresented. Here, the freedom of the press is vital. If the independence of the media is compromised, the flow of information is in danger and independent voices are silenced. The press becomes a tool in the politics of diversion, with stories about celebrities and scandals displacing reporting on serious issues.
Even in economic life, when collective values collapse, failure is likely. In New Zealand, recent research indicates that arrogant, greedy and unilateral styles of management result in loss of productivity and profits, as good employees leave for other businesses or countries.
Salmond concludes by saying that more than a change of government is needed. What is needed in New Zealand is a change of heart.
Good stuff.
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?
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.
Lesley Soper is the Labour candidate for Invercargill
Read with fascination the Southland Times Report (Aug 15, p.2) on John Key’s great National Party Conference announcement of the start of welfare system overhaul. 16 & 17 year-olds first it seems. They won’t complain too much, and rednecks will think they deserve a bit of ‘nanny state’ overseeing. Food Stamps don’t equal opportunity or jobs BUT IT WILL LOOK AS IF WE ARE DOING SOMETHING, WHICH WILL HELP DISGUISE OUR UTTER FAILURE TO DO ANYTHING TO DEAL WITH THE WORSE NZ YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT SINCE THE GREAT DEPRESSION.
Food Stamps can also be the thin edge of the wedge, & extended to others when we ‘have a Mandate’.
Under this new Policy schools will have to tell authorities when 16 and 17 year-olds leave during the year, and the young people will be attached to a “responsible adult”.
Quotes from the PM included : “the first problem that has to be addressed is finding out who the disengaged young people are … we simply don’t know, because we lose track of them when they leave school. … that has to change … and for the first time we will be able to find out who they are, what their circumstances are, what problems they had …”.
But Wait! The photographic memory clicks in from my years as an MP. This has to be nonsense. Didn’t I make more than one visit to a great Youth Transition Service ‘Work’n it Out’ which operates a Call Centre and extended services from Invercargill [readers will know from my earlier blog on proposed IRD cuts in Invercargill that we run excellent ‘virtual’ operations down here]; and operates under an MSD Contract? Yes, I did, and it still exists. Been operating for more than 5 years. Reports performance and outcomes to MSD every month. You can look it up online at www.wio.co.nz. The Social Development Minister & PM could read the reports. They probably have, but perhaps have ‘forgotten’.
What does this service do? [and what has it been doing for more than 5 years?] Well, strangely enough it has been working with 50 Secondary Schools from Timaru South to track every school-leaver at any point through the year, from ages 16-20. There are also some self or family referrals, and referrals from other govt departments, but by & large this is a major project to track and assist school-leavers with the rest of their lives. And it has been working incredibly well!
We are not talking small numbers here. This is thousands of young people added to the database every year. They are systematically contacted by the callcentre; they are asked about their plans for further education, training or employment. They are offered support and assistance, often on a one-to-one customised support basis. They are tracked from that first call or contact on a regular basis till age 20. Few of them are non-contactable; very few reject the contact.
Report Data is comprehensive. We know who these young people are; where they have come from; where they have gone or are going; which industries they are working in; how many are in which other forms of education and training courses; how many return to school; how many head into apprenticeships, full-or-part-time work.
So if this is all already happening, on a large scale, covering quarter of the country geographically [& there are other Youth Transition Services too], and in areas where there are National MP’s [including English, Roy & Dean], and data exists; why the announcement of a ‘First Ever New Policy’; ‘Never Before Tried’ ; ‘Revolutionary First’ as a ‘Key Plank’ of the National Party Conference?
Could it be that some Political Spin was required to distract from the failure of the National Government to actually address Youth Unemployment and to create jobs? Could it be a ‘Key Con’ to pretend to be doing something to distract from actual cuts National has made to apprenticeships and skills training? Could it be a ‘Big Vision’ like ‘The Cycleway’ or the Budget ‘promise’ of 170,000 jobs - with absolutely no substance? Could it be sheer ignorance of what is already in place? Or could it be that no-one in Auckland pays any attention to successful initiatives in Invercargill unless they involve Shadbolt or snow? Take your pick.
Another ‘Key Con’ when what is really needed is a real economic plan that means young people get real jobs. Remember the statistic - when National came in there were roughly 200 under 24 year-olds who had been on UEB for more than a year. The number now?
Have come across some interesting pieces in the last couple of days on the issues arising from the UK riots.
The first was written by Peter Oborne, the Daily Telegraph’s chief political commentator.
He writes:
Something has gone horribly wrong in Britain. If we are ever to confront the problems which have been exposed in the past week, it is essential to bear in mind that they do not only exist in inner-city housing estates.
The culture of greed and impunity we are witnessing on our TV screens stretches right up into corporate boardrooms and the Cabinet. It embraces the police and large parts of our media. It is not just its damaged youth, but Britain itself that needs a moral reformation.
Read the rest here. He’s not very complimentary about politicians from both sides of the political spectrum.
Fair enough. We are all accountable. And politicians need to try to practice what they preach, while remembering that they too are human and subject to frailty.
But as Oborne writes, the double standards are extraordinary:
The Prime Minister showed no sign that he understood that something stank about yesterday’s Commons debate. He spoke of morality, but only as something which applies to the very poor: “We will restore a stronger sense of morality and responsibility – in every town, in every street and in every estate.” He appeared not to grasp that this should apply to the rich and powerful as well.
The tragic truth is that Mr Cameron is himself guilty of failing this test. It is scarcely six weeks since he jauntily turned up at the News International summer party, even though the media group was at the time subject to not one but two police investigations. Even more notoriously, he awarded a senior Downing Street job to the former News of the World editor Andy Coulson, even though he knew at the time that Coulson had resigned after criminal acts were committed under his editorship. The Prime Minister excused his wretched judgment by proclaiming that “everybody deserves a second chance”. It was very telling yesterday that he did not talk of second chances as he pledged exemplary punishment for the rioters and looters.
These double standards from Downing Street are symptomatic of widespread double standards at the very top of our society.
Someone tweeted this piece last night saying that what Peter Oborne has written is the moral compass for our time. I reckon there’s something in that.
Hat tip: LM
Last week I blogged about Sir Michael Marmot’s visit to New Zealand to highlight the importance of addressing the social determinants of health. In essence he, and many others, are arguing that if we are to improve health outcomes we need to ensure people have jobs, adequate income, good housing and education, particularly in terms of access to early childhood education.
Intellectually this makes sense, and it is the core of the message about Labour’s health policy that I have been talking about around New Zealand.
But the reality hit home to me yesterday when Carmel Sepuloni took me to visit West Fono in West Auckland. The fantastic team there (pictured above) provide a range of health services to a mainly Pacific population.
They are especially proud of their chronic disease management programme where they get out into the community to work with people suffering from, among other things diabetes. Yesterday they told me about the story of a patient they had not seen for some time who they visited. She is partially sighted. Her husband had lost his job and had taken off to Australia to try to find a job. She does not have a car, and has to rely on others to get her to see the nurse and doctor.
Their programme is reaching her but guess what, the funding for it has been cut. They are trying to keep it going themselves but can probably only do so for six months. That is tragic.
But the bigger picture is that the loss of jobs in the community is having an impact. The staff also talked about the lack of social housing and the poor quality of the housing. They know if they treat kids for strep throat, sending them back to the same cold, damper, over crowded house will not solve the problem.
I really admire the work being done by West Fono. To support them we need to ensure that we get the focus on jobs, ECE, growing incomes and having warm dry homes. To me these are the building blocks of a proper caring society.
It’s hard to believe that the election under five months away – but last week’s policy launch by Labour of a fairer tax and economic strategy has brought home the reality that polling day isn’t far off.
I was really pleased with the announcement, because it represents a further public step on the road that Labour has been travelling since our defeat in 2008: to reconsider the policy frameworks we had in place, and to get things ready for the next Labour led government.
Economic policy is at the core of that because the economy is so big a part of our lives. Most of you reading this will spend at least part of your time earning a crust. The decisions about how we organise our economy have massive implications for the quality of our way of life, and for how much damage we do – or do not do – to the land, the water and the air around us. They also affect in big part the distribution of the economic goods we have, and define who the ‘haves’ and the ‘have-nots’ are.
I joined the Labour Party out of a profound conviction that our society was being driven in a reactionary direction. Nobody could grow up where I did and when I did without seeing that. While the liberal agenda of civil rights was making slow progress (and has made some since), our economic policies were in the grip of a project that was designed to cause, and has delivered, one of the most unequal societies in the developed world.
We all pay a price for that. Our wages are lower than they could be. We are more stressed and work longer hours for less pay than we need. Our crime rates are higher, and our life expectancy lower than they should be. We abuse our environment but pretend we are clean and green. The price is high indeed. The high priests of this particular crazy approach should have been dethroned by their ultimate failure (the global financial crisis and its aftermath) — but their point of view still has too much sway.
The winners out of the past thirty years pour their scorn and their contempt at working people’s ambitions for a bit of economic and social security, and carefully manipulate public debate to obscure that fact. After such a long period where that project was running (ruining) our country, even some of those most hurt by the approach have come to support it.
Labour stands for something different and better than that.
I’d say my party these days stands for a few simple things. We want to start fixing the problems caused by the massive inequalities which we all suffer from, for the social and economic gains that are sitting there for the taking. We have got our heads around the need for New Zealand to turn “clean and green” from a slogan into a reality, hard as that is going to be and challenging as it will be to well organised, wealthy and powerful cliques in New Zealand.
Finally and most important, we stand for a hard headed understanding that both of these are tasks that rely on economic policy to make them happen. There is no easy way that the welfare state can fix our inequalities, and actually no way it should. In the same vein, there is no feasable way to regulate clean and green outcomes as a single approach: the market will have a great deal to offer here. Economic policy change is needed to deliver the jobs and incomes people want, but it’s also critical to environmental and egalitarian outcomes as well.
The trip to India wasn’t a total waste for the leader of the national party. He has had more positions than in the kama sutra on asset sales and taxation.
Was going to post on the fact that he has been missing in inaction since Tuesday. But The Standard beat me to it.
He now makes a habit of avoiding Parliament when in trouble. Combination of the house and journos on the bridge mean Captain panic pants locks him in his room. Wednesday was another example.
And it looks like he will have to share the front pages of major US newspapers and leads in the US electronic media. Pesky debt crisis. Wonder if he will offer Cullen’s services in getting country to nil net debt.
Meanwhile the #ownourfuture site is going gangbusters.
Today I am attending a symposium organised by the NZMA on health inequities to coincide with the visit of Sir Michael Marmot from the UK. I have blogged before about the influence of Sir Michael on the excellent NZMA statement on health equity.
Its occasions like this that highlight just how ridiculous are the assertions of Maori privilege made by Don Brash. Just a couple of examples have been highlighted by Tony Blakely from Otago University and Don Simmers and Norman Sharpe from the NZMA.
- despite improvements in the first decade of this century Maori life expectancy is 7-8 years short of non-Maori.
- mortaility rates for Maori in middle age are 2-3 tomes higher than non-Maori including all causes such as heart disease.
- Maori babies are 5 times more likely to die of sudden infant death syndrome than non-Maori
- diabetes rates, suicide rates and infectious disease rates and mortality are all higher for Maori than non-Maori
Health inequities are certainly relate to economic depravation,and it was a good achievement that income inequality in New Zealand did reduce slightly in the 2000s under Labour, but there is much more to do. It is also clear that there is an ethnic component above and beyond that. Addressing this is not privileging a group, it is in fact correcting a systemic disadvantage. Doing so, with early intervention, will benefit us all in promoting social inclusion and reducing the cost of expensive health interventions at a later stage.
Sir Paul Callaghan – StrategyNZ: Mapping our Future – March 2011 
This is a great presentation. Watch it all. Or just skip to 7.47 to look at why we go backwards if the focus of the leader of the national party is all on tourism.
Very interesting that the leader of the national party and Steven Joyce have left it to a Chinese website to announce that they have on our behalf purchased another 20 locomotives that should have been built at Hillside and Woburn. No tender. And the first 20 over a year late from the same Chinese source.
Maybe it was because Kiwirail were at the same time firing staff in Dunedin and the Hutt Valley.
Because it is Kiwirail not Chinarail it is time the economic benefits of these purchases (jobs created, skills developed, tax paid, benefits avoided) rather than just the accounting costs are taken into account.
KIWIRAIL Purchase Additional 20 sets of “MADE IN CHINA CNR” Diesel-electric Locomotives
Source?Author?Date?2011-06-17
On June 2, CNR Import & Export Corp. Ltd of CHINA CNR Corp. Ltd. Singed another contract for 20 diesel-electric locomotives with KIWIRAIL New Zealand. The partner PPD company in New Zealand of CNR Import & Export Corp. Ltd has been strongly supporting this contract. This is KIWIRAIL to the CNR purchase after first 20 locomotives in 2009.
Went to the gym this morning 30 min on bike with no pressure and 20 min walking or hopping in pool. Leg still hurts.
But that’s not what this blog is about.
The leader of the national party arrived at work as I did. Around 7am. He had five DPS police officers with him.
His car CR1 was left parked blocking the emergency entrance between the Beehive and Parliament while his driver ran along behind with his bag.
I suppose it makes him look important. But it is not necessary.
Came across this just now on Twitter. From the UK’s Financial Times. It seems relevant.
Two extracts below and you can read the whole piece here
Now the rich are always with us …
By Simon Kuper
Published: June 17 2011 22:14 |
Forty years ago, the typical person in the western world read the local newspaper. It told you which local butcher was retiring, who had celebrated their fiftieth wedding anniversary, and it covered the local politicians, athletes and business owners. Twenty years ago, the typical person read the national paper. It covered the national elite. Today that person gets news or Twitter feeds from websites that cover the global elite: everyone from Lady Gaga to Barack Obama.
This shift – from local news to global – is well-known. Less well-known is one of its consequences: news has become news about rich people. Today’s economic inequality is reflected and driven by inequality of news.
and this:
Second, we forget the poor. They may always be with us, but not in the media. The perhaps 2.5 billion people with less than $2 a day get ignored, due to the triple whammy of being poor, non-white and non-Anglophone.
For instance, there’s a new treatment that stops the spread of Aids, but rich countries are reluctant to fund it. This has generated a few worthy editorials in highbrow publications, but otherwise is considered too boring to tweet.
In this country we know there’s need and that the cost of living is way too high for vast numbers of us. Not just the people who are described as the traditional poor. But the new poor; the people who have lost incomes, houses and quality of life and are struggling for their very existence. They are growing in number.
Let’s not hide the increasing desperation and hardship many people are feeling. And when considered ideas and solutions get put up, let’s not brush them aside and hide them behind a slogan put up by the other side.
