Yay for Child Poverty Action Group Boo Labour

Great to see the Child Poverty Action Group win the right to mount a legal challenge to Labour's policy to exclude beneficiaries from the Working for Families package.

Such an exclusion is designed to widen the gap between beneficiaries and the working poor - the very same principle, among others, guided Ruth Richardson's infamous 'Mother of all Budgets' in 1991. It makes the Child Tax Credit (CTC) and the In Work Payment (IWP) nothing more than an indirect subsidy for employers, and lets them off the hook for consistently failing to pay their employees family friendly wages. The benefit cuts of 1991 are still with us, as benefit levels have never been increased in order to restore a similar comparative level with wages that existed prior to 1991.

To make matters worse, 'beneficiaries' is defined to include those receiving a student allowance, NZ superannuation or those on ACC for more than 3 months. So a single mum attending university will not benefit from the CTC or the IWP, and neither will grandparents acting as caregivers after the death of a parent.

Sue Bradford is calling on the Government not to appeal the Human Rights Review Tribunal decision. Sadly this is not an unreasonable fear given the petty litigious attitude of the Government on similar issues in the past (such as on defining a relationship like marriage).

If Working for Families was meant to be about reducing child poverty, it really needs to be asked why children of beneficiaries ought to be worse off, purely based on the source of their caregivers income. Its not something the kids can control after all.

The case is the first under 2001 amendments to the Human Rights Act that allowed Government policies to be challenged in the Human Rights Review Tribunal. It also sets another important precedent by establishing the right of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) to challenge discrimination in public policy, regardless of whether they themselves are directly affected. As an example, this decision could be of great assistance to NGOs working in mental health advocacy, as many people with past psychiatric/psychological issues regularly face systematic and unwarranted discrimination.

Young Jon Hunt retires from Parliament

As a way of marking the retirement of Jonathon Hunt from the house I thought I would share a speech Young Jon Hunt made as a first term MP in 1968. I came across this speech quite by accident, while researching some background for a submission on the Overseas Investment Bill.

On the 20^th of November 1968, Young Jon Hunt made a fiery contribution to parliamentary debate on the Land and Income Tax Bill (No. 3). With the passing of nearly 40 years, this speech now contains some lovely ironies!

“"I thought I that I might, as the youngest member [he is now the oldest], reflect for a couple of minutes on this system of social security tax which tonight is going out after 30 years of existence".” The Land and Income Tax Amendment Bill (No. 3) removed the social security tax implemented by the first Labour Government in 1938.

Hunt defended the need for an equitable tax system and criticised National for giving greater tax cuts to the wealthy.

“"Why did the Labour Government in 1938 initiate the legislation which this bill is removing? It was initiated to provide a more equitable basis for taxation in New Zealand…...more importantly it was to offer that great levelling point, that equity of opportunity which is the basis of the Labour party’s philosophy.”"

Hunt criticised the bill for imposing “"extra indirect taxation on the young people, who marry when they are 21 or 22, without giving them an equivalent reduction elsewhere is merely to discourage them, to force them overseas, and to force them into unfair debt.”"

Later in his career Hunt was a minister in a Government that bought in student fees and planned to bring in a student loans scheme.

In the same speech Hunt also warned about the dangers of Government by Executive, yet later in his career was a minister in the Forth Labour Government, which probably still remains as the most infamous recent example of a Government dominated by the agenda of the cabinet.

The speech also included this gem.
“

"Presumably the member for Waipara would not know how to speak to a young person if he met one. He would be jealous if he was twice my age."

I doubt Jon Hunt continues to claim others are jealous of his age, as anyone twice his current age would be dead :)

While our former speaker is now widely respected for his encyclopaedic knowledge of parliamentary protocols, during his fiery speech in 1968 the Young Jon Hunt was pulled up by the Speaker more than once for breaching standing orders -– once for making a reference to past debates, and secondly for suggesting that other members of the house were trying to mislead. For the later parliamentary ‘crime’ Jon Hunt was forced to withdraw. But even in his first term Jon Hunt was not adverse to ‘helping the speaker’ 'interpret standing orders', so perhaps this impertinence lead to the day Hunt sat in the Speakers chair.

The herald poll is a fruitcake

Today the Herald released the final results of its final poll. My phone rang last week, making me one of the 800 people they polled.

To my dismay, the Herald released early results of its poll, based on 302 of 800 respondents, despite this being highly likely to affect the results. This also surprised DPF and Left and Lefter.

Seems to me the Herald is more interested in creating polls to sell newspapers, than accurately reporting public opinion. If it was an attempt to drum up more column inches out of Brash's speech, or even tacitly support his proposals, the attempt appears to have failed, even though they asked some mightily leading questions.

When asked which party I would vote for if an election was held tomorrow I said "Alliance". In any case, as a political geek with an interest in polls, I knew that showing my support for a small party would show up more about the poll than supporting a major party (not that I would in any case).

I was then asked if I knew the subject of Don Brash's latest speech. I immediately clarified whether they were asking me whether I knew the subject of Brash's speech or whether I agreed with his proposals. They were asking me what his speech was about. Considering the questions that followed, I thought this question was more than a little leading.

I was then asked whether I thought welfare was the most important "problem" facing New Zealand, one of the important "problems"...or not an issue. Describing welfare as a "problem" is leading also. I said it was one of the important problems, but for entirely different reason to Brash - I think many benefits are too low. While the question is open to different interpretations I knew this was unlikely to be represented in any reporting of the poll. When I was asked what issue did I think was the most important I replied "Student loans" - surely it would have been better practice to ask this question BEFORE mentioning Brash?

I was then asked about whether I supported some specific ideas in the speech. I was disappointed not to be offered a scale. I replied 'strongly opposed' to these three questions just to make sure! Interestingly, the Herald did not appear to print the final results of these questions today, based on what I could find in the online version, even though the Herald reported the following on the 29th, based on meaningless partial results.

But some specific policy ideas found little favour, particularly his view that adopting out babies should be a more acceptable option than it is now. A majority of 74.5 per cent disagreed, while 15.7 per cent agreed.

The opposition to his policy of stopping women on the DPB getting any extra money if they became pregnant while on the benefit was 44.1 per cent. However, 46.9 per cent agreed with him.

Dr Brash said he would make it harder to get the sickness benefit - a view supported by 56.6 per cent and opposed by 33.6 per cent.

I wonder what the full results said? Given the final results of the poll showed greater support for the left, I would expect the percentages supporting Brash's policies to fall. One wonders what results would have ensured if they had asked relevant, but different questions. "Do you support refusing extra help to families with newborn babies on account of the family gaining its primary income from the DPB?"

I never regarded Brash's advocacy of encouraging adoption to be a serious proposal, as I believe this is far more likely to be a sop to anti-abortion National supporters who regard Brash's socially liberal instincts with suspicion. But they need not worry, as Brash is likely to flip flop further, based on this voting record on the Civil Union Bill.

I would be very keen to get my hands on the full statistical breakdown of this poll, as I would like to have a closer look at the questions and the order of questions. ATM I am relying on memory and a few notes I scribbed while I was on the phone. Does anyone know of a link of the web where I might be able to access this?

Left and Lefter suggests an alternative poll based on google results. I wonder why Labourities Just Left and NZ Political Comments fail to list the Alliance in their reports of the poll, but include the Progressives. The Alliance (0.6%) got three times as much support as the Progs!(0.2%) - grin! - :)

United Future trivialises mental health and drug addiction

"United Future deputy leader Judy Turner today welcomed the Government's belated move to a new 'second opinion' approach to assessing sickness beneficiaries, but said that those doctors should have some psychological expertise given the rapidly rising number of stress-related claims."
...
"A number of doctors have told me that they are increasingly being asked to sign-off on claims by potential beneficiaries that they suffer from fairly intangible or subjective disorders, such as stress, depression, back pain and even drug addiction,"

Judy Turner appears to be propagating the old stereotype that mental illnesses are not as serious as physical illnesses. None of these disorders should be trivialised as 'fairly intangible' or 'subjective' in such a sweeping statement, as doctors have well developed diagnostic criteria to identify these disorders, such as the DSM IV. Left untreated these disorders can lead to some very tangible effects indeed.

"Stress is linked to the six leading causes of death: heart disease, cancer, lung ailments, accidents, cirrhosis of the liver, and suicide. Depression often predicts the occurrence of disease, and epidemiological studies have found that people with serious mental illness have higher rates of grave medical illness and premature death than the general population.

Stress and depression often have a significant cognitive angle, in that the same event or environment can have a more significant impact on one person than another. But this does not make this any less real, or any less debilitating, to the person concerned.

In regards to the issue of people moving from unemployment to sickness benefits, it is entirely possible this followed the tightening up of work test requirements. To give them their due, perhaps some WINZ case managers recognised harsh work testing arrangements are not appropriate for some 'unemployed people', especially those dealing with divorce, family breakdown or grief.

As someone who has worked with people with drug addictions I find it very hard to believe that anyone could plausibly 'fake' an addiction to get a benefit, as the general 'sense' of chaos and desperation would not be there. Its likely to be just another unsubstantiated myth invented by the right in an attempt to justify benefit cuts.

While Maharey's proposal for 'second opinions' appears reasonable, its timing looks exceptionally political, given its release a few hours before a speech propagating more myths about welfare.

Its worth noting that G.P.s can only prescribe a limited set of drugs to treat mental health. Many medications, especially newer (and more expensive) medications can only be prescribed following a referral to a psychiatrist, and a referral can mean a long wait, as NZ has a significant shortage of psychiatrists (blame student loans, its a lower paid specialty). NZ also has a shortage of clinical psychologists. So, as well as being based on some extremely dated myths about mental health, United Future's ideas are likely to be unworkable as well.

Judy Turner should stop telling doctors how to do their job. Instead she should make an effort to learn more about mental illnesses and drug addiction before she makes ill informed public comments that only reinforce ignorant stereotypes.

Anderton shots himself in the foot with call for corporate tax cuts

Jim Anderton's recent advocacy of a lower corporate tax rate has all the hallmarks of a cheap political stunt. He has attempted similar things before.

In the run-up to the 1999 election Jim Anderton stunned the Alliance Council by advocating that the Alliance should campaign for a top personal tax rate of 39c in the dollar, to cut in at $80,000. This was $20,000 higher than Labour's proposal, which became the top tax rate. I believe it was the same council meeting that Jim also tried to take the knife to many key Alliance policies, such as $20 extra a week for beneficiaries. Not surprisingly, the Alliance Council completely rejected Jim's proposal that the Alliance become a lower tax party than Labour.

While Jim's advocacy of a 30 per cent corporate tax rate may have given the hapless Progressive party some short term profile, for a party that supposedly advocates for greater social and education spending it was a dumb move. Jim now needs new shoes, as he has shot himself in the foot.

In the same week the Progressives announced a policy of write offs of student loans for students that stay in New Zealand for three years after they graduate. They say it will cost $100 million. No Right Turn thinks its similar to a 1998 National party education policy, and from memory I think he is right.

Hmm, $100 million. What is going to happen when the Progressive* attempts to advocate this policy? Cullen will simply make a crocodile smile and say "now Jim didn't you advocate for lower corporate tax, how do you expect to pay for both?", and Cullen will have a good point. The end result will be that the so called progressives will be even more lame duck in this parliament than they have been in this one. They will be unable to credibly advocate for anything that involves extra cash. And for a party that advocates greater social spending, that’s terminal.

On the 9th of October 2001 Jim issued a press statement challenging then new National leader Bill English to say how he planned to fund corporate tax cuts. “National needs to spell out how it can pay $300 million to cut the company tax rate...". Well Jim, now you have to spell out.

Advocating for corporate tax cuts is also likely to drain the funding of Jim's pet project, economic and regional development. At the time Jim Anderton was setting up the Ministry of Economic Development and Industry New Zealand, National and Act were making scathing noises about 'picking winners'. They told Jim to lower the corporate tax rate instead of providing active Government support to business. To his credit, Jim successfully rejected these calls and instead advocated how active government assistance to help to businesses to grow. The estimated $500m tax cut could buy a lot of economic and regional development Jim. Corporate tax cuts are just a return to the flat, scorched earth business policies of Ruth and Roger.

It now appears Andrew Little of the EMPU now regrets rushing to Jim Anderton's aid following his defection from the Alliance in 2002. Giving the $20,000 to the Alliance and endorsing Laila Harre in Waitakere in 2002 would have been a safer bet, and now Laila could be providing Labour with an extra seat buffer, a seat that could save the Government majority in the event John Tamihere resigns from Parliament. Eventually, that decision was always going to bite Labour on the bum.

In another ironic twist, Cullen and Anderton were at odds on this issue in May 2000, but on opposite sides of the argument. On the 12th of April 2000, Cullen made a speech to the Asia Society in Hong Kong where he suggested reducing the company tax rate "when fiscal conditions permit", although he made it clear it was not a priority. In response Anderton said Cullen had not discussed corporate tax cuts with him, replying that "People might like to do without taxes altogether when fiscal conditions allow. Anything might happen when fiscal conditions allow. I'd like free education and free health when fiscal conditions allow" (Dominion, 13th April 2000).

To make matters worse, he is now making a direct comparision with the 30 per cent corporate tax rate in Australia, despite the fact that he previously argued (correctly) that his was not a good comparision because Austrialian companies pay additional taxes that NZ companies do not, such as captial gains taxes.

The large colour advertisements that appeared in this weeks papers were apparently paid for by "Progressive party supporters". There was no Parliamentary Crest so no public money could legally be used to pay for the ads. Is it just a chance thing that the same week Jim is advocating corporate tax cuts he suddenly finds the money for several 3 x 1/4 colour advertisements in major newspapers? Did some corporate come up with the cash so Jim could instigate a tacky little coup from inside the Government? If it was a donation over $10,000 we will know by April next year when the electoral commission releases the return of party donations....

*as it is likely there will only be Jim

NZ: Has Tamihere resigned? At least there will less of a 'backbone club'

Scoop is reporting that beseigned cabinet minister John Tamahere has resigned from cabinet. I am not surprised about the timing - the humongous focus on the American election means that it will be an opportune day to bury unfavourable political news. Of course this rule must remain unspoken. On September 11 2001 a white house staffer sent around an email suggesting 9-11 was a good day to bury bad news, and was sacked after a public outcry.

Governments controlled by spin merchants are not always this cynical, but nethertheless, today is a good day to keep an eye out for parliamentary and other reports the government would prefer not to release at all.

Clark has been distancing herself from Tamihere ever since she got back from India. Her comments to the media that she had spoken to Tamihere earlier in the year about speculation over tax related issues, strongly suggested he was already toast. Clark can say she asked Tamihere about any potential issues and he denied there was a problem, so she can claim to be off the hook.

I must say as a lefty I am not too sorry to see Tamihere go. He is a known member of the Backbone Club alongside Clayton Cosgrove, David Benson-Pope*, George Hawkins and Dover Samuels - the Labour right wing faction that once included Roger Douglas, Richard Prebble, David Lange and Michael Bassett among its members. Kind of an ironic name really - I didn't think worms and snakes had backbones.

One of Tamihere's first actions as Youth Affairs Minister was to dismiss a report commissioned by Laila Harre advocating the removal of Section 59 of the Crimes Act (the so called defence to allow smacking of kids). He also has advocated the privatisation of welfare - so I think there is a case that, if he did not hold a Maori seat, he would be in a different party.

That said, Tamihere always struck me as a friendly, affable sort of guy. When I worked in Parliament as a researcher he was one of the few MPs that would say 'Ki ora' to me as I walked past, even though we had never been introduced. Many MPs would not even acknowledge the existence of us 'worker bees' in the Beehive, Bowen House and Parliament house.

With Tamihere gone from cabinet, it is now more likely that George Hawkins will be reshuffed out of cabinet in Clark's Xmas reshuffle. Apparently his fellow members of the backbone club kicked up a stink when rumors started to speculate that Clark was about to drop him. I wish she would - he always reminded me of Mr Creasote from Monty Python's 'Meaning of Life'. I am sure if he ever 'blew up' it would be equally as disgusting.


*The Labour cabinet minister who told Zaoui to 'Get on a Plane'