Unequally wealthy better than equally poor

Inequality has become  another of the left’s causes de jour.

The easiest way to close the gap between rich and poor is to make the rich poorer.

That wouldn’t help anyone because it’s not who has how much that matters, but whether everyone has enough.

Determining how much is enough, whose responsibility it is to ensure everyone has it, how they get it and who pays for it raise questions for which there are no simple answers.

But it would help if we ruled out those which have been proved not to work, among which are attempts to get economic equality which result in everyone getting poorer.

A society which is unequally wealthy might not be perfect but it’s still a long way better than one in which everyone is equally poor and miserable.

Hat tip for picture to Capitalism.

What are they for?

If only the Green Party put as much energy into developing policy that would help New Zealand as they do into publicity opportunities for themselves.

It is another example of their opposition to initiatives which could create jobs.

It’s easy to work out what they’re against. They’ve yet to provide convincing alternatives which show they’re for something that will make a positive difference to the country and it’s people.

Last Shepherd

Roger Buchanan begins Last Shepherd at the end with a brief summary of the wool industry’s recent history.

He then goes back, setting the scene for his live-long interest in wool from his childhood on the family farm, Aratika, 16 kilometres from Fielding. He traverses his school days and career and ends back where he began looking at the industry today and where it might go.

Buchanan began his working life with a wool merchant and tutored at Massey  before his career took him to various statutory organisations. He was the Wool Board’s final chief executive and oversaw its winding down.

The book combines history, analysis, marketing, trade, policy  and politics with  personal anecdotes to give a comprehensive story of the wool industry, the people  involved in it and the challenges they faced.

It will be of most interest to farmers and others who are, or have been, involved in the industry. The politics, marketing and trade tales might appeal to a wider readership.

 

Last Shepherd: Anecdotes and observations from five decades in the wool industry by Roger Buchanan.

Published by Mahico.

Paperback 312 pages, $45.

Links for ebooks at Last Shepherd.

Feds seek foreign land register

Federated Farmers wants a foreign land register to provide more information on farms and rural businesses in overseas ownership.

National president Bruce Wills told the Primary Industry Forum his organisation supports foreign investment because the country was built on it and can’t progress without it.

He says the Overseas Investment Act strikes the right balance and Federated Farmers wouldn’t support further controls on foreigners buying farmland.

But he says more information is needed about the amount of land in foreign hands. . .

I don’t think we need any more controls on foreign ownership but it would help the discussion if there was better information on the issue.

We know when foreigners buy land but we don’t always know what happens to it after that.

If a foreign buyer sells to another it will need Overseas Investment Office approval and become public but sales to New Zealanders aren’t always publicised.

Nor do we always know if the foreigners who buy land or businesses are residents about which most people have fewer reservations.

However, a report by the New Zealand Initiative does debunk several myths including:

Myth: Asians are increasing taking over New Zealand.
Fact: It is Australians who have largely been taking over New Zealand. In the year to March 2012, they own 55.8% of foreign investment – up from 31.5% in March 2001. In March 2012, Asian investors owned just 3.1%.

Myth: New Zealanders are becoming tenants in their own country.
Fact: Of the 28.7 million hectares in New Zealand, only one million is owned by foreigners, while the Department of Conservation alone owns eight million.

Myth: Foreign investment is a one-way street with New Zealand an easy target.
Fact: New Zealand has one of the most restrictive regimes in the world and there has been no obvious upward trend since 2000 relative to GDP. New Zealand investment abroad has dropped slightly from just above 13% relative to GDP in 2002-03 to 12% in 2012. This up markedly in dollar terms since the 1990s.

The report is here.

 

Social housing must do better

Finance Minister Bill English didn’t mince his words when giving his view on state houses:

. . . Governments had been “grossly irresponsible” over Housing Corporation not knowing much about its houses or the tenants.

He said the nationalised housing industry “is a disgrace”. . .

Housing Corp was a poor performer and about a third of its housing stock was the wrong size, in poor condition and in the wrong place. That stock was worth about $5 billion and it was $5 b being wasted.

“There are going to have to be changes so we can stop wasting it, and we are going to learn a lot from Christchurch.”

Christchurch had “a half-clean sheet” to restart social housing.

“It is actually pretty shocking the wastefulness and politicisation and the crappy conditions that we make vulnerable people live in. So yes, we are pretty motivated about it because of the benefits for the tenants and the economy and for the Government’s books.

“It’s been a revelation to me that we run this huge asset base with all these vulnerable people and Government hasn’t known about its own tenants, it hasn’t known much about its own housing stock, it’s just been grossly irresponsible.

“We want to get Presbyterian Support, Ngai Tahu, Salvation Army, Housing Foundation involved in supplying these houses and put pressure on our own organisation, which has a record of poor performance.” . . .

The usual suspects are labelling this privatisation.

It doesn’t matter what you call it and who owns the houses, they will still be publicly funded and it wouldn’t be difficult for charitable organisations to do better than Housing Corp.

Jackie Blue’s valedictory speech

Dr Jackie Blue delivered her valedictory speech on Wednesday.

Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) : When I completed my medical degree back in the early 1980s, neither I nor anyone around me could have predicted that I would end up in politics and then move on to be the Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner at the Human Rights Commission. But life is full of twists and turns and, most important, opportunities, though we may not recognise them as such at the time.

The opportunity to get involved with the National Party came in 2001. When advocating for breast physicians, a role that I had pioneered in New Zealand, I had a chance meeting with Bill and Mary English. I became actively involved in the party in 2002, after the general election. It was an exciting time to get involved. The party was regrouping and reviewing its constitution. After the encouragement of the National Party leader at the time, Dr Don Brash, I put my name forward as a candidate in the 2005 election. I was truly delighted when I was selected to stand in the Mt Roskill electorate.

With my health background, I joined National’s health team. Tony Ryall was the health spokesperson. Tony was, and is, a great mentor. I know many of our colleagues were very envious. Tony put the health team to work, giving us a range of health responsibilities. I had the access to medicines portfolio and, because of my background, breast cancer – related issues.

While I was a new MP in 2005, Herceptin became high-profile, with many countries funding a 12-month course for a particularly aggressive form of breast cancer. It was being used for treatment in metastatic breast cancer in New Zealand, but the trials were showing that it was reducing deaths in early stage, newly diagnosed breast cancer. I am grateful that Tony gave me the opportunity to advocate for 12-months’ Herceptin funding for women with breast cancer in New Zealand.

I was extraordinarily proud when John Key made this a National Party election promise in 2008. One of the most marvellous memories from my time in Parliament is of a meeting shortly after the November 2008 election, when I joined Tony, who was the new Minister of Health, and key officials from the Ministry of Health and Pharmac. The meeting was to work through the logistics of ensuring that the women who needed Herceptin had access to it by Christmas 2008. The timing was very tight, but it was a case of Yes, Minister at its very best. Everyone worked together to ensure that the policy rolled out smoothly. With the results of recent trials, time has proved that funding 12 months’ Herceptin was the right decision. Twelve months is considered to be the international gold standard. For Pharmac to continue to financially support a trial that offers a 9-week Herceptin course is, in my opinion, dubious and possibly unethical.

In my first term of Parliament Tony Ryall and I had the opportunity to advocate for enrolled nurses. This iconic nursing workforce had been increasingly marginalised. They had been forced out of acute hospital services, with their training limited to the very narrow scopes of long-term care and rehabilitation, as well as having undergone a name change to nurse assistant. The name change was detrimental. The nurses felt demeaned, undervalued, and demoted. A concerning consequence was that the numbers of students in training dropped significantly. There were reports that it had caused a loss of confidence and confusion with the public and prospective employers.

The New Zealand Nurses Organisation took the case to the Regulations Review Committee, which did support that the enrolled nurse name should be retained. In late September 2008 the Government moved a motion in Parliament that required the Nursing Council to change the name. Expanding the role and training of enrolled nurses became a 2008 election commitment for the National Party, and when Tony Ryall became the Minister of Health he set about implementing that policy.

I really connected with the enrolled nurses’ story. They had faced ignorance and prejudice. Their battles had been my battles when I was establishing breast physicians in New Zealand. Regrettably, the number of breast physicians in New Zealand has not grown as it should, and it is my sincere hope that this will change as professional colleges accept the huge contribution that breast physicians bring to the multidisciplinary breast cancer team.

Early in 2008 I met with a group of refugee and migrant doctors who were meeting regularly at the Auckland Regional Migrant Service, or ARMS, in Mount Roskill. The group had been struggling to get registration with the New Zealand Medical Council. They were frustrated that we did not have a bridging programme like Australia had. Over several years they had made successive approaches to health Ministers without getting any traction. They were meeting regularly at the Auckland Regional Migrant Service to study and to support each other, and I would like to acknowledge the amazing support that Dr Mary Dawson and Anna Fyfe-Rahal from the service have been providing to this group. Without their support and encouragement, I am quite sure that this group would have disbanded long ago.

My heart went out to these doctors. After the election I re-established contact with the group and began to meet with them each month. I went back to Tony Ryall and I said that we simply had to do something for them. Tony was very supportive and agreed that I could start investigating options, and I began discussions with the Ministry of Health and the Medical Council. However, when Professor Des Gorman, chair of Health Workforce New Zealand, got involved in the latter part of 2009, the project developed a momentum all of its own. The NZREX preparation placement programme began in 2011 and has been hugely successful, with 33 out of 38 migrant doctors passing the Medical Council registration exam. This programme has been truly life changing for those doctors and their families.

The public would be very interested to know that our Parliament exists in an alternative reality. This parallel Parliament is full of cross-party committees and friendship groups. It is a place I have inhabited since I have been an MP. It is a happy place. It is a place where MPs work collaboratively towards common objectives. I have found it immensely satisfying and stimulating. I recall a retired senior National Minister telling me that one of the most satisfying times of his career was when, as a result of a crisis, Government and Opposition MPs worked together to broker a solution. Of course, I knew exactly what he was talking about because this is my experience in the cross-party groups. The thing is, you do not need to wait for a crisis. The chance already exists.

The opportunity to chair three cross-party groups has been truly life changing for me. All three groups—the New Zealand Parliamentarians’ Group on Population and Development, or NZPPD, the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians, or CWP, and Parliamentarians for Global Action, or PGA—have a strong human rights focus. The New Zealand Parliamentarians’ Group on Population and Development, in particular, specifically focused on women’s sexual and reproductive health and rights, domestic violence, and our overseas aid in Pacific countries. The Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians group is focused on improving the number of women in Pacific Parliaments. I co-chaired with Louisa Wall. The Parliamentarians for Global Action group has a strong focus on human rights, the rule of law, the International Criminal Court, gender, and democracy.

It has been the work of these committees that has left me utterly convinced that society must back its women and girls. Women make up one-half of the world’s human capital. No society can achieve its full potential when half the population is denied the opportunity to achieve theirs. Empowering and educating women and girls are fundamental to succeeding and prospering in the ever more competitive world. This is particularly true in developing countries, but it is also absolutely relevant in developed countries like New Zealand. As women progress, everyone in society progresses, including men and boys. Tapping into the potential of women and girls is not only the right thing; it is the smart thing. Sexual reproductive health and rights and education go hand in hand. When women have the opportunity to control their fertility and have access to reproductive health services they are more likely to stay in education, get employment, and provide for their families. Education leads to more choices and opportunities.

The cross-party groups that I am involved with are very excited about the Pacific Leaders Gender Equality Declaration that our Government signed along with other Pacific Parliaments last year in Rarotonga at the Pacific Islands Forum. All leaders—and that includes Australia’s and New Zealand’s—have agreed to implement specific national policy actions to progress gender equality in the areas of Government programmes, decision making, economic empowerment, health, education, and ending violence against women. The leaders agreed that progress in these areas should be reported on at each forum leaders meeting by way of a performance-monitoring framework. We are all looking forward to having a robust measure by which we can track New Zealand’s progress in gender equality.

We are a House of Representatives, but, unfortunately, as it is, we do not truly represent all New Zealanders. If our Parliament perfectly represented our diverse society, we would have eight Pacific MPs; we have five. We would have three Indian MPs; we have two. We would have eight Asian MPs; we have three. We would have one Middle Eastern, Latin American, or African MP; we have none. We would have 18 Māori MPs. We are doing well in this area—we have 22. And, of course, 50 percent of our MPs would be women. The fact is that only 33 percent are women MPs. This is unacceptable in the 21st century. We can, and we must, do better.

I am very appreciative that Maggie Barry will be taking over my member’s bill, the Marriage (Court Consent to Marriage of Minors) Amendment Bill, which proposes to change the Marriage Act such that minors—16 and 17-year-olds—who wish to marry would need to get the consent of the Family Court. The current situation is that minors require only parental consent. This bill arose out of the concern that some minors, predominantly young girls, are being coerced into marriage. I was very grateful that Judith Collins came out in strong support of this bill. In December last year an inter-agency response for victims of forced marriage in New Zealand was agreed upon to enable agencies to work together to support these young, vulnerable victims.

On a personal note, I would like to thank Judith for the support she gave me when I made the decision to promote the Shine organisation helpline by going public with my own experience of domestic violence. Thank you, Judith. She was, and is, a tower of strength.

I have talked a lot about opportunity, and I am so grateful that I have had the most extraordinary opportunities as an MP. I am tremendously excited about my new role as Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner. I would like to acknowledge the former commissioner, Dr Judy McGregor. Her work in this area has been simply outstanding. Prime Minister, you will be pleased to know that the equal employment opportunities in the workplace policy fits perfectly with the Government’s Business Growth Agenda. There is strong, irrefutable evidence that it improves productivity and innovation. Our future workforce will be increasingly diverse, and the fact is that it is in our best interests to manage it well. Equal employment opportunities policy is mandated in the State sector, but it needs to become part of normal practice in the private sector. Indeed, many successful New Zealand businesses cite equal employment opportunities policy and practice as giving them the competitive edge.

There are many people to thank. My gratitude goes to my team in Mt Roskill, the northern region National Party, and all the volunteers. I would particularly like to make a special mention of Ram Rai and Jim Stephens. My sincere thanks go to my parliamentary staff, Denise Tustin and Kristin White, who have given me the most wonderful support. I would like to thank all the parliamentary staff who keep this place functioning, particularly the Parliamentary Library and the travel centre, which provide amazing service. I would like to thank my taxi drivers Stefan—also known as the “Silver Fox”—and Artur, who got me safely and on time to many engagements.

Thank you to the “class of 2005” MPs for the wonderful friendship and support you have given me. It is something I will always treasure. Thank you to my friends who have made the special journey here to Wellington—and, on a special note, thank you to Mark, Karen, Spencer, and Nicholas Withers. My heartfelt thanks go to my husband Dave Miller and my beautiful daughters Jess and Paddy, whom I am just so very proud of. I honestly could not have done any of this without you being solidly by my side.

My husband Dave has a building background, and each election year he was in charge of hoardings. Dave has become quite famous in the northern region. The hoardings structures he built were indestructible. No matter if an Opposition hoarding built our one out; Dave would just rebuild ours taller than before. They were creatively built, and absolutely straight, as Dave insisted on a spirit level. I am sure many should have had a resource consent. I have always said that if I could leave Parliament with my family, health, and reputation intact, I was doing all right. I like to think I have achieved that.

I would like to thank the Prime Minister for his leadership over the last 4 years, which have been extremely tough. The economic recovery has had to take centre stage. There has been no one better placed to lead this recovery than you, Prime Minister. I am very proud of the National Party. I am proud that the vision and values of this party were founded on a strong human rights framework. The right to be safe, to have equal opportunity, to be free, and have choice are all fundamental freedoms. They remain as true today as they did 75 years ago when the party was formed. I wish you all well. Thank you.

Parliament Today has the video.

 

 

 

More spending not better spending

Finance Minister Bill English started his Budget speech with the good news:

. . . The Government’s plan has not involved radical change. We’ve done what we said we would do, and we’ve taken people with us.

And that plan – using sound and proven economic policies – is working, as international bodies like the IMF have recognised.

New Zealanders can look to the future with well-earned confidence and optimism.

The New Zealand economy grew 3 per cent last year, which is almost the same as Australia, and higher than almost every other developed country.

Wages are growing, cost of living increases have been modest and interest rates are at 50-year lows.

There are 50,000 more jobs in the economy than two years ago, although unemployment does remain too high and attracting new investment that creates jobs is a particular focus for the Government.

The fiscal outlook has improved markedly as a result of the Government’s sound management and we are on track to post a surplus in 2014/15.

These are real achievements that are benefitting New Zealanders and their families.

Budget 2013 is about building momentum in this programme.

Then came the warning:

But there is a risk that all the gains we are now making could be lost in the future, by going back to policies that have failed in the past.

We know what these are – high and wasteful government spending, more costs and more taxes on households and businesses, and more state control of the economy that chills private sector investment and destroys jobs and growth.

New Zealanders were conditioned in the 2000s to believe that Budgets should be about the novelty of new, expensive spending programmes that held out promises of economic and social transformation, arranged by the Government.

Those promises were illusory. There was no sustainable revenue stream to pay for the increased spending, and there was nothing genuinely transformational to show for it.

In contrast, this Government believes that Budgets are about careful stewardship of public money, and investing wisely in programmes to improve people’s lives and help grow the economy.

In the end, it is the effective use of public money, not the amount of it, that makes a positive difference to the lives of New Zealanders and their families. . .

When it comes to spending, more isn’t necessarily better.

On the contrary, it can be wasteful, inefficient and ineffective.

Under Labour, government spending increased by 50% in the middle of the last decade and they were still forecasting a decade of deficits.

National has been a much more careful steward of public money, cutting costs while maintaining services and is still on track back to surplus.

With spending, size doesn’t matter, effectiveness does.

Spending well not up

Finance Minister Bill English’s fifth Budget is characterised by spending well rather than spending up.

Budget 2013 has freed up a further $1.5 billion by redirecting spending to where it delivers the best results, Finance Minister Bill English says.

This takes the total amount of reprioritised government spending since Budget 2009 to $14.9 billion.

“At a time when the Government’s finances are constrained, reprioritising spending allows significant additional funding for new or proven initiatives that get better results for New Zealanders,” Mr English says.

“It’s about spending well, not spending up.”

In total, Budget 2013 includes new spending initiatives worth $5.1 billion in the current year and over the next four years, paid for by a combination of new spending and $1.5 billion in reprioritisation and new revenue initiatives. Those savings and revenue initiatives include:

• Tax and revenue changes that net an extra $313 million over four years.
• Reprioritisation of $641 million to new spending initiatives within Budget votes.
• Reprioritisation of $252 million of savings from across budget votes into significant new spending initiatives in areas like health, education, welfare reform, and science and innovation.
• $303 million from existing contingencies.

“These savings are consistent with the Government’s approach across its five Budgets, which have together reprioritised almost $15 billion of spending,” Mr English says.

“New Zealanders were conditioned in the 2000s to believe that Budgets should be about the novelty of new, expensive spending programmes that held out promises of economic and social transformation. Those promises were illusory.

“There was no sustainable revenue stream to pay for the increased spending and there was nothing genuinely transformational to show for it.

“Governments should be judged on what they achieve rather than on what they spend. The value of our spending is a better measure than the amount of our spending. This Government is focused on results, and it’s paying off.   

The idea that a government should be judged on its achievements rather than its spending is a relatively new concept.

Budgets used to be focussed on spending and people waited with excitement to see what was in it for them.

The steep increases in spending from 2005 until 2008 show the cost of Labour’s pre-election lolly scramble.

National changed that, improving results rather than increasing expenditure, even going so far as to deliver a Budget with no increased spending in election year.

John Key, Bill English and their team changed that, making a virtue out of restraint and they’re getting results.

“For example, recorded crime is at a 24-year low, and we’re rolling out new technology for frontline police officers, but the baseline funding for Police is not being increased.  Instead, Police are finding more efficient and effective ways of doing their job which is generating savings they can reinvest.

“At a time when many governments overseas are undertaking radical cuts to get their books in order, we are enhancing high-quality frontline public services while maintaining support for our most vulnerable citizens. That is a real achievement.

“The Government will ensure future Budgets continue to focus on improving frontline public services to deliver better results for New Zealanders, at the same time as improving value for money from more than $70 billion of public spending every year,” Mr English says. . .

A friend who worked in Wellington in the late 80s and early 90s saw the results of spending cuts. She was back there during Labour’s last few years in government and was horrified to see the increases in spending, including steep growth in public service employees, without commensurate improvements in services and results.

National had to change that but its restraint has been restrained rather than radical – focussing on protecting people from the worst impacts of the recession, reducing expenditure, improving efficiency and maintaining services.

The LabourGreen reaction to the Budget shows that they still don’t understand the necessity for such measures, they would undo the good National has done just as the 1999-2008 Labour-led government undid the good done by those which preceded it.

They spent up, they didn’t spend well and LabourGreen would follow that bad example.

Building momentum, boosting optimism

We were at the ASB’s agribusiness conference earlier this week.

Chatham House rules applied so I can’t go into details of who spoke and what was said.

But the theme was leadership and one speaker mentioned the importance of optimism.

As an example he said how much he admired John Key’s ability to remain optimistic regardless of what was thrown at him.

Finance Minister Bill English doesn’t always appear as optimistic as the Prime Minister.

That isn’t because he’s a pessimist, he’s not. It’s more a reflection on the tough job he’s had and the knowledge that tough decisions on spending impact on people and it’s not always appropriate to put on a happy face.

However, yesterday he was able to smile as he talked about a more optimistic outlook:

Budget 2013 confirms New Zealand is on the right track, with forecasts of economic growth, more jobs, rising wages, and a return to surplus by 2014/15, Finance Minister Bill English says.

“New Zealanders can look to the future with well-earned confidence and optimism,” he says. “The New Zealand economy grew 3 per cent last year, which is almost the same as Australia, and higher than almost every other developed country.

“Wages have been increasing, cost of living increases have been modest, and interest rates are at 50-year lows.

“There are 50,000 more jobs in the economy than two years ago, although unemployment does remain too high and attracting new investment that creates jobs is a particular focus for the Government.

“The fiscal outlook has improved markedly as a result of the Government’s sound management and we are on track to surplus in 2014/15.

“These are real achievements that are benefitting New Zealanders and their families. Budget 2013 is about building momentum in this programme.”

These are achievements which most other countries will be envying.

The Government’s main priorities for this term are:

• Responsibly managing its finances.
• Building a more productive and competitive economy.
• Delivering better public services.
• Supporting the rebuilding of Christchurch.

This will carry on building momentum and boosting optimism.

I’ll vote for that.

For details on Budget initiatives see Budget at a glance.

Prescription is working

Opposition politicians and several commentators have criticised National’s economic prescription.

But the figures in Bill English’s fifth Budget showed the prescription is working.

The country has been on the right track and has a growth projection many other countries would envy.

$500 in the hand

Continuing improvements in ACC provide an opportunity for significant levy reductions to benefit businesses and households, ACC Minister Judith Collins says.

“The Government is confident that a decrease in ACC levies is sustainable and is allowing for a reduction of around $300 million for 2014/15, increasing to a reduction of around $1 billion in 2015/16,” Ms Collins says.

This follows a $630 million reduction in levies for households and businesses in 2012/13. . .

“The potential 2014/15 levy reductions would leave around another $300 million in the economy for businesses and families.

“The Government is currently working with the ACC board to review its funding policy, with the aim of improving the governance and transparency of the levy-setting process, while ensuring that it reflects the Government’s objectives for the ACC scheme.

“Already there is general consensus that the improved performance of the ACC scheme makes substantial levy reductions appropriate and sustainable. Therefore, I am signalling a likely further reduction from 2015/16.

“Final decisions on levies for 2014/15 will be made later this year, following public consultation.

“The future for ACC is bright and will be of significant benefit to households and businesses alike,” Ms Collins says.

I read somewhere, and can no longer find it, that the reduction in levies would leave around $500 a year in the average household.

That’s a certain $500 in the hand which is far better than the LabourGreen promise of a $300 saving on power bills about which there is no certainty except any gain would be cancelled out by an increase in ETS charges.

Greens can’t join dots

When I heard Russel Norman criticising the government’s achievement in staying on track back to surplus I thought I’d mis-heard him.

But no – here it is in black and white from the Green Party Facebook page:

 

They can’t join the dots between economic surplus and the ability to provide services and assistance to people in need.

They still haven’t grasped the dangers of too much debt.

They still think it’s okay to spend more than you earn.

To feed or not to feed . . .

An animation to raise awareness about the issue of child poverty in NZ, and the need for food in schools programmes, has  been released by an educational research project at The University of Auckland.

. . . “NZ is a first world country with a child poverty problem. Poor nutrition is a significant problem in NZ.” says project coordinator, Dr Airini, Head of School of Critical Studies in Education at The University of Auckland. “We have hungry children in our schools. Going to school hungry affects a child’s ability to learn. Healthy food helps children learn. With better education our children might escape the poverty cycle.”

Providing food in schools is likely to be a modest cost compared to the societal benefits of a giving all Kiwi children a healthy start to life. Estimates for implementing food in schools programmes range from $5-$10million a year. Programmes like these promote a healthy diet, and improve children’s school attendance, behaviour, and ability to learn. Breakfast clubs also provide a safe, early morning place to increase social skills and confidence, creating a better school environment.

“Learning is a physical activity. Children need healthy food every day to help them be learning-ready” says Dr Airini. “We wouldn’t expect our All Blacks or Silver Ferns to do their best if they’re hungry. Why would we think children could do their best as learners if they’re hungry? Good food feeds the mind.”

“Teachers, schools and community groups say we need to provide food in schools to help our hungry children”, she says. “In the end, it’s not just hungry kids that benefit, but all New Zealanders.” . . .

This and the animation are pushing the case for someone – community groups, businesses, the government – to provide food in schools.

But over at Offsetting Behaviour Dr Eric Crampton shows that providing food doesn’t necessarily do any good:

A few months ago, Social Service Providers Aotearoa asked me to review the literature on school breakfast programmes and provide an assessment of whether public funding of school breakfast programmes offered value for money.  . .

I was only looking at school breakfast programmes, and so I can’t here comment on school lunch programmes. I’m not sure why we’d expect results to vary greatly, but it’s worth having the caveat.

Anyway, on my best read of the literature, it’s hard to make a case for that we’d get any great benefit from the programmes. Rather, we often find that they don’t even increase the odds that kids eat breakfast at all. Many shift breakfast from at-home to at-school, but among those who hadn’t bothered with breakfast before the programme, not many wind up starting when schools provide it. You can then get kids reporting that they’re less hungry as consequence of the programmes, but it’s awfully hard to reject that the main thing going on is that kids are eating at 9 at school instead of at 7 at home and are consequently less hungry when asked at 11. . . .

So, some bottom lines:

• School breakfast programmes really don’t seem to increase the likelihood of that kids eat breakfast at all;
• To the extent that they improve outcomes in some studies, we really can’t tell:
  • whether the effect is from changing the timing of breakfast, in which case we should instead have a morning tea break;
  • whether the effect is any better than just giving those families an equivalent cash transfer. . .

Hungry children won’t be happy children, ready and able to learn as well as those who are properly fed.

Poor nutrition and sub-optimal learning in childhood will almost certainly lead to problems later in life.

But the research shows the solution to children who don’t have enough to eat isn’t as simple as providing food.

Not all schools have chosen to be part of Fonterra’s milk in schools programme which shows a blanket approach wouldn’t be welcome.

It’s a complex problem and the solution must be one which really makes a positive difference.

Labour u-turn on HB water storage

A big increase in irrigated land is supporting increased agricultural production

The irrigated land area has increased in the past five years by an area the size of lakes Taupo and Te Anau combined, Statistics New Zealand said today.

The total irrigated land in New Zealand increased by 102,000 hectares between June 2007 and 2012, new information from the 2012 Agricultural Production Census shows. “Canterbury had the biggest increase in irrigated area, with an extra 60,000 hectares since 2007 – this alone covers an area the size of Lake Taupo,” agriculture statistics manager Hamish Hill said. Other regions to gain more irrigated area were Southland and Manawatu-Wanganui. This increase in irrigated land has helped support increases in agricultural production.

Total dairy numbers also significantly increased, from 5.3 million in 2007 to 6.4 million in 2012. “The additional dairy cows will produce around four times the total amount of milk that New Zealanders consume each year,” Mr Hill said. Exports of milk powder, butter, and cheese increased by 27 percent in the last five years.

Regions that had significant shifts in dairy numbers between 2007 and 2012 included Canterbury, with an increase of 445,000 dairy cattle, Southland, with an increase of 238,000, and Otago, with an increase of 118,000. . .

That increase in production means a lot more jobs, more resilient and secure communities and more export income.

The experience in North Otago shows that the economic and social gains don’t have to come at the cost of the environment.

You’d think a party which says it supports economic growth and wants more employment opportunities would understand the benefits and support more development, but Labour doesn’t.

Minister for Primary Industries Nathan Guy says he is shocked at the Labour Party’s u-turn on supporting the Ruataniwha water storage scheme in Hawke’s Bay, despite previously indicating their support.

“The proposed Ruataniwha water storage scheme has the potential to irrigate an extra 25,000 hectares in Hawke’s Bay. This would be a major boost to exports, jobs and growth in the region.

“In October last year Labour MPs Shane Jones and Damien O’Connor visited the site and said it made a “very good case” and that “It is an obscure part of the country that [will cope] with such a large structure.”[i]

“Now they have been over-ruled by Stuart Nash, a rejected ex-MP who says “…Labour will not be funding water storage schemes if elected in 2014…”

“This is a slap in the face for farmers and Hawke’s Bay. I would have thought the severe drought this summer has made the need for this type of project even more obvious.

“The drought has highlighted that we don’t have a water shortage in New Zealand, but a shortage of storage options. We only capture two per cent of the rainfall that falls on New Zealand with the rest running out to sea.

“Water storage can have real environmental benefits. Increased river flows means more water for recreational users in summer, and improved habitats for fish and birdlife.

“This is why former Fish & Game regional manager and senior freshwater ecologist at the Cawthron Institute, Iain Maxwell, has come out publicly in support of the scheme.

“Labour are anti-progress and don’t care about jobs and investment in provincial areas. They are opposed to any new mining, energy and irrigation projects, and want to bring in a capital gains tax and an enlarged emissions trading scheme which would hammer rural communities,” says Mr Guy.

The Government is investing $80 million this year into a new Crown company to act as a bridging investor for irrigation projects. In total, up to $400 million will be invested in regional-scale schemes to encourage third-party capital investment.

The Government is also funding $35 million towards the Irrigation Acceleration Fund to help suitable projects reach the prospectus-ready stage. Last year the IAF and Hawke’s Bay Regional Council jointly funded a $3.3m feasibility study of the Ruataniwha Water Storage Project.

The drought has had a huge economic, social and environmental impact on the regions affected.

Canterbury and North Otago were insulated from the worst effects of the long hot, dry summer because of extensive irrigation.

The need for irrigation in Hawkes Bay should be obvious and it isn’t difficult to put a case for the government to help schemes get underway with for example a loan to cover the costs until the water is fully allocated.

This is just another example of labour saying it wants more growth and jobs but not supporting initiatives that will provide them/

 

The not so lucky country

Australian Treasurer Wayne Swan delivered a deficit budget and a plan that will take four years to return to surplus.

The Federal Government has taken a swipe at so-called middle-class welfare by abolishing the baby bonus in a deficit budget that delivers almost no traditional election-year sweeteners.

Instead Treasurer Wayne Swan says there will be “targeted, sustainable” cuts to bring the budget back into the black in four years’ time.

“We haven’t approached this budget in relation to opinion polls. We’re in this for the long run – the long-run reforms,” he said. . .

We were in Queensland last year. Closed shops and cafes with lots of empty tables pointed to a slowing economy.

Tomorrow’s Budget is expected to be much more optimistic though we should take no pleasure in signs that Australia is now the not so lucky country.

It’s still our major trading partner  and the source of most of our tourists. If people there aren’t feeling so well off they will be less willing to buy our produce and travel here.

No consensus, no change

One of the arguments used to urge people to vote for a change in the electoral system was that it was the only way we’d get a second vote.

They’ve been proved right.

Justice Minister Judith Collins says since there’s no consensus there will be no change.

In November last year, the Electoral Commission released its review of the Mixed Member Proportional system, estimated to have cost $1.6 million.

It recommended dropping the party vote threshold from 5% to 4% and scrapping the “coat-tails rule”, which would stop a party that won an electorate seat bringing in extra list MPs unless it reached the party vote threshold.

However Ms Collins says the changes would have been significant, and can not be done without widespread support.

On the coat-tails rule, Ms Collins told Radio New Zealand’s Morning Report that five parties want to keep the status quo and three want it abolished, so there are major differences of opinion.

“Law changes in this country require 61 votes to get through Parliament. I don’t have 61 votes to bring forward the law changes suggested by the Electoral Commission. It’s as simple as that.”

It’s not just that law changes require 61 votes, it’s that major constitutional changes should either have the support of at least 75% of parliament or be put to the people in a referendum.

Had a majority of people voted for change in  2011 there would have been a review of MMP and we’d have got to vote between the modified version of the current system and the most preferred alternative next year.

A majority voted for the status quo, there’s been a review but there’s no consensus and so there will be no change before next year’s election.

It would have been better for the review to have been carried out before the referendum then we’d have all known exactly what we were voting for.

As it was some people who supported MMP might have supported it as it is and others as they’d hoped it would be after the review.

LabourGreen might decided to campaign on the issue and promise to implement the recommendations of the Electoral Commission.

But even if they win the election they won’t be able to claim a mandate for change.

They’ve put so much energy into saying National campaigning on the partial sale of a few state assets and winning the election didn’t give them a mandate, they won’t be able to claim campaigning on the electoral system and winning would give them a mandate.

Going graciously

Dear Aaron,

Thank you for the gracious way in which you expressed yourself in your personal statement to parliament today.

The opposition and media who were hoping for fireworks would have been disappointed.

I am sure party members, both the volunteers and MPs, would have appreciated it.

You aren’t the only one who has learned from this experience and that is the silver lining to what has been a very cloudy couple of weeks.

I hope you find work that makes use of your undoubted skills and that the path you take from now leads to both happiness and success.

Yours sincerely

Ele

Capitalism vs Socialism

This could also be used as evidence that economic freedom is more important than oil which would confound red greens who want more regulation but less oil.

Hat tip: Capitalism

Local regulation improvements needed

A report into local government by the New Zealand Productivity Commission says regulations need improvements.

In releasing the inquiry report, Commission Chair Murray Sherwin said, “Local councils have a big influence on the success of communities and local economies. A large and diverse set of regulations is managed by councils. They cover things like urban development, building safety and standards for air quality, right through to dog control and food safety. It is critical to community wellbeing, and New Zealand’s overall performance, that these local regulatory systems perform well.

“Most of the regulation undertaken by councils has its origins in legislation passed by Government. Having central and local government jointly thinking about what regulation is necessary, to what purpose and how best it can be implemented, enforced and monitored is critical for getting good results. This inquiry shows that we are well short of that ideal.

“At the council level, there is a need for greater attention to quality management processes to lessen the inconsistency in regulatory decisions that we see between different councils and even within individual councils. That would reduce much of the frustration reported by businesses in their interaction with councils.

“Our work has resulted in 29 recommendations for improvements in how regulation is designed, implemented, evaluated and governed. Both councils and Government need to lift their game on regulation, and work together more effectively to produce better outcomes for the community.

“Amongst the Commission’s recommendations for improving regulation are:
•                    a tool for helping to decide what regulations, and which parts of implementing regulation, are best performed by Government or councils;
•                    use of standardised formats and increased transparency to better demonstrate how key council regulatory decisions have been made;
•                    more focus by government departments, when preparing new regulation intended to be implemented by councils, on the costs and benefits of the proposed regulation, where those costs and benefits will fall, whether or not councils have the capability and capacity required to effectively implement the new regulation, and the likely costs of building that capability and capacity where it does not exist;
•                    the development of a ‘Partners in Regulation’ protocol to better guide Government/council engagement;
•                    the development of new or enhanced joint Government/council forums for overseeing improvements; and
•                    greater use of risk-based approaches to monitoring and enforcement of regulation by councils, together with enabling greater use of infringement notices to support regulations in place of more costly formal prosecutions.

“The Productivity Commission has taken a ‘whole of system’ approach to its review of council regulation. What is clear is that improvements will require both central and local government to be well connected to achieve improvements.”

The public service is more efficient and productive than it was before National came to power.

Local government has in general done little to improve its efficiency and productivity.

A review of regulations and how they are managed is a good place to start.

 

Will we pay for this petition too?

The Green Party is launching a petition opposing the Sky City convention centre deal.

Will we be paying for it as we did for the one seeking a referendum on asset sales?