All posts tagged Green Party

Addressing Marriage Equality Bill concerns

Concerns are continually being raised about the Marriage Equality Bill, mostly by Family First and some religious interests.

As soon as one concern is addressed another is found. These are now obscure possibilities, and it seems to be extremely improbable they would arise. Green MP Kevin Hagie addresses the latest issues, repeated here in full:

The Marriage Equality Bill and religion

Published: March 11, 2013

by Kevin Hague

One of the themes winding its way through the debate over marriage equality is the relationship between the church and the state. New Zealand has no official religion and great effort has been expended to keep the church out of law-making and the State out of religious matters.

So marriage presents an interesting set of issues, because it is both a religious institution (a sacrament in some denominations) and also a civil one. Two possible approaches to reconciling differences are to remove the church or the state entirely from marriage, but in New Zealand we have taken the view that both have legitimate roles.

While we speak of “the church”, that in fact conceals a considerable complexity. There is a multitude of faiths, denominations within faiths, and congregations within denominations.

During the course of the debate over marriage equality it has become abundantly clear that opinions and practices concerning marriage vary very considerably.

While the loudest church voice in the marriage equality debate has been from those Christian churches who wish not to marry same-sex couples, the select committee has also heard from many churches who wish to be able to marry same-sex couples and who are prevented from doing so by the current law.

When the Bill was introduced, its proponent, Louisa Wall, was absolutely clear that her intent was not to limit freedom of religious expression, and that has been the Select Committee’s driver also.

Some submitters, largely influenced by the lobby group Family First, which spread propaganda through conservative churches, believed religious freedom would be impacted in three ways. I respond to these concerns in this post:

1. Churches will not be forced to marry same-sex couples against their will

Section 29 of the Marriage Act authorises celebrants to marry couples, but explicitly does not oblige them to do so. One can easily imagine that there are many grounds upon which a particular church or a particular celebrant might object to marrying a particular couple, and since 1955 this provision has enabled them to decline to do so.

In all of this time I am not aware of any decision to decline being challenged through the Courts, and it’s easy to see why: couples who wish to marry are looking for a positive experience, not one carried out grudgingly, against the celebrant’s will.

Adding to the categories of couples who can marry does not alter, in any way, the law around celebrants declining to marry.

However, Family First found a barrister who thought there was a chance Courts would find that declining to marry a couple on the grounds of sexual orientation would be a breach of the Human Rights Act in relation to the provision of goods and services.

While the Human Rights Commission – who would be the body to investigate any complaint of discrimination – has been crystal clear that it would not uphold a complaint of discrimination against a celebrant who declined to solemnise a couple, and the majority of legal opinion supports the HRC position, some reputable legal sources have also said that it’s not possible to say that no court would interpret the existing law in the way that Family First (and many religious folk) fear.

Most of the submissions against Louisa’s Bill expressed the fear that churches would be forced to marry same-sex couples even if it offends their genuine religious belief.

While the real risk of this was assessed as being very small indeed, it was clearly nobody’s intention (sorry, not quite nobody – there was one submission arguing churches should be compelled to marry any couples who wished to marry and were legally entitled to do so) that the state should compel churches to act against their beliefs.

For that reason the select committee added a clause to put beyond all doubt that any celebrant acting on behalf of or appointed by a church can refuse to marry any couple.

The churches who were concerned and who have examined the revised Bill appear to now accept that there is no risk that they will be required to do anything differently. Unfortunately some have now shifted their ground and are now professing concern for independent celebrants who are not acting on the authority of the church.

The fact that some churches (and, of course, Bob McCoskrie and Colin Craig) have shifted ground in this way indicates that their actual position is a homophobic one, and that the ‘arguments’ being used are just window dressing to disguise that. For the sake of completeness though:

  • The body representing independent celebrants reported an overwhelming majority of its members support the Bill;
  • The committee received perhaps two submissions from independent celebrants who said they did not wish to solemnise marriages for same-sex couples, in both cases because of personal religious faith;
  • The Human Rights Commission has made it clear that it would not uphold a discrimination complaint against such celebrants;
  • If the HRC decision were appealed to a higher Court, most lawyers say the appeal would clearly fail, particularly if the refusal was because of religious or ethical reasons;
  • It’s hard to imagine a celebrant refusing to marry a same-sex couple because of sheer prejudice (“I hate gays”) without an ethical or religious basis, but I concede that if such a case ever arose it would be interesting to see what the Supreme Court made of the legal balance between the explicit statement not obliging celebrants in the Marriage Act against the more general requirement not to discriminate in the provision of goods and services in the Human Rights Act, and the Bill of Rights Act.
  • Why on earth would a couple go this rigmarole rather than just finding one of the vast majority of celebrants who wants to marry them?

and let’s not forget that the position of independent celebrants is very clearly not about the relationship of church and state, or religious freedom. Independent celebrants act as agents of the state, with no qualification.

2.  Churches will not be forced to say anything different

As submissions started to come in, we started to see an argument that we hadn’t seen before. Section 56 of the Marriage Act made it an offence to deny the validity of someone’s marriage.

This provision, which so far as we can tell has never been used, finds its origin in the belief of the Catholic Church back in the 1950s that only marriages carried out in the Catholic Church were valid.

Again, some churches and their adherents had been whipped up into a fear that this provision would be used once Louisa’s bill was passed to persecute and imprison those whose religious belief is that marriage should only be between a woman and a man.

While this seemed far-fetched, there was certainly no intent for this to occur, so the select committee has simply recommended the repeal of this section, which seems to serve no useful purpose whatsoever.

3.  No change is being made to the law around use of church buildings

Some churches and others could really do with a refresher on the human rights law that New Zealand has had since the 1970s, including the updated prohibited grounds for discrimination that were added 20 years ago.

If a church makes its church hall available to the public for hire, if someone sells professional photography services, or if someone sells flowers for a living it has been against the law for them to decline to provide their goods and services on the basis of the sexual orientation of their customer for the past 20 years, and on the basis of the customer’s gender for almost 40 years. Louisa’s bill does not change this in any way.

That doesn’t affect churches’ religious space, of course, and again who would want a wedding venue where they weren’t welcome, or a photographer or florist who was unsupportive? Once again these are not real arguments, but are red herrings designed to  divert the eye away from the real source of opposition – prejudice.
The select committee has ensured that the State does not encroach on the religious belief or practice of churches. They will not be required to do or say anything different. But, in allowing those churches, denominations and congregations that DO support marriage equality to be able to exercise their beliefs too, this Bill will in fact extend religious freedom.

It seems a shame that some in our churches see that as a bad thing.

by Pete George on March 11, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in General
Tagged , , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on March 11, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/03/11/addressing-marriage-equality-bill-concerns/

Green policy on income support/universal benefits

I posted yesterday about a blog comment - Universal social wage and choose to work? This promoted what in effect is a generous universal Government  ‘wage’ with no requirement to work.

How likely is this to ever happen? Quite possible if you look a Green Party policy (and some Labour MP statements). Key parts of Green policy:

  • Work includes paid work, but also the vital, unpaid work of caring for children and family members, and volunteering in our communities.
  • Everyone should have enough income to fully participate in their community, and to live safe, healthy lives
  • …a universal base rate that is enough to live on, with add-ons for specific circumstances…
  • A Universal Child Benefit

That makes it clear that Greeens want everyone to have ‘enough income’ regardless of whether they are in paid employment or not. Their policy also says:

We are committed to moving New Zealand back to a state of full employment – in which there is enough work for everyone who needs it. We support welfare policies that help to achieve this.

This is interesting when you think it through. Greens want ‘a state of full employment’ and have policies for creating 100,000  green jobs – it’s vague about how this would be achieved.

But the welfare policies they propose would achieve a state where it is likely that many people receiving more generous benefits would choose not to work.

That means ‘full employment’ may be close to being achieved because we would not have ‘unemployed’ any more, instead we would have a new class of people who choose Government benefits and make up their own minds how much voluntary work or housework or childcare they do.

And the result is likely to be a reduction in employment levels because it’s certain that given a choice, a significant number of people will choose Government paid voluntary work over employment.

This will mean there will be more people on more generous ‘universal incomes’ – meaning far greater costs to Government – and less people in paid employment or in business, so less people paying tax.

Greens need to explain how they can reconcile this – far greater social spending and less tax income.

Here is the short version of Green income support policy.

 Income Support Policy Summary

Everyone deserves decent work, a living wage, and to be treated with respect.

Work includes paid work, but also the vital, unpaid work of caring for children and family members, and volunteering in our communities.

Everyone should have enough income to fully participate in their community, and to live safe, healthy lives. We support welfare policies that are sufficient to ensure this, simple to understand and access, and universal in their application.

We are committed to moving New Zealand back to a state of full employment – in which there is enough work for everyone who needs it. We support welfare policies that help to achieve this.

Key Principles

  • Everyone has a standard of living that enables them to participate in their community.
  • People have sufficient income for their personal and whanau/family’s well-being.
  • People are actively involved in meeting their potential and creating a fulfilling life.
  • A commitment to full employment.
  • Greater emphasis on sufficiency, simplicity, universality.

Specific Policy Points

  • Set benefit amounts at a level sufficient for all basic needs of the individual/family.
  • Protect all benefit levels by linking rates to a fixed percentage of the average wage (like superannuation).
  • Replace the current Social Security Act 1964 with a simple two-tier benefit system consisting of a universal base rate that is enough to live on, with add-ons for specific circumstances, such as dependants, disability or chronic illness.
  • A Universal Child Benefit of $18.40 per week per child for the first child, $13.00 for subsequent children, with the ability to capitalise it towards a home deposit.
  • Abolish stand-down periods, treat people aged 18 and over as adults for benefit purposes; no forced work for the dole.
  • Support urgent Government action to address the problem of benefit abatement for those moving into employment, and the removal of the poverty trap created by high marginal tax rates that exist for people on low incomes.
  • Introduce a tax-free zone at the bottom end of the income scale.
  • DPB to be protected; no compulsory work-testing.
  • Appropriate training, vocational advice and support for sole parents.
  • Remove discrimination from tax credit regimes such as the In Work Payment component of Working for Families.
  • Support an allowance to beneficiaries who carry out a minimum number of hours of voluntary work per week.
  • Improve the culture of Work and Income so that people are treated with dignity and respect and are enable to access their full entitlements promptly.
by Pete George on February 3, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in General
Tagged , , ,

Posted by Pete George on February 3, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/02/03/green-policy-on-income-supportuniversal-benefits/

Greens’ narrow view on preferred speaker

The Green Party did not want David Carter as new speaker.

The Greens have confirmed they will not support Mr Carter’s nomination for Speaker, saying they do not not agree with his views on funding accessibility for MPs with a disability.

Co-leaders Metiria Turei and Russel Norman spoke to Mr Carter on key issues for the party and high on the list was his view on how he would approach funding to ensure Parliament is accessible to future MPs with a disability and the current funding arrangement for deaf Green MP Mojo Mathers.

That seems the be based on rather narrow objections. According to TVNZ this was also apparently the major factor in supporting Trevor Mallard’s bid to be speaker:

The Green Party said it had opposed Carter’s nomination because of previous comments about disability access to Parliament.

“We chose to support Trevor Mallard in today’s vote given his views on accessibility issues,” said co-leader Metiria Turei.

“Trevor Mallard demonstrated a clearer understanding of the issue, seeing it as an area for parliament to manage rather than a burden for an individual MP.”

This is remarkable, for two reasons.

First, that the Green Party would ignore many other factors – not the least of which are Mallard’s well known partisanship and involvement in dubious political activities.

For example, how would Mallard adjudicate if Judith Collins and Andrew Little had a confrontation in question time regarding ACC emails?

And second, that the Greens would support such a non-transparent atempt to introduce Mallard into the contest, although apparently the Green Party were better informed than the Labour caucus about the secrecy.

Greens must have known that it would be seen as a very poor play in the selection process for one of the most important positions in Parliament. And/or they will have known it was blatant grandstanding.

Perhaps Greens knew that Carter would win the election anyway and did a wee bit of grandstanding themselves, using it as an excuse to promote one of their pet issues.

Whatever it was the Greens were more intent on political opportunism than transparent democratic process.

by Pete George on February 1, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in General
Tagged , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on February 1, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/02/01/greens-narrow-view-on-preferred-speaker/

Asset petition – democratic farce

As reported at Stuff the asset sale petition looks like achieving it’s target:

New Zealanders will have their say on asset sales this year after a petition to force a referendum reached the 300,000 signatures needed, campaigners say.

Since April, a coalition including Grey Power, the Council of Trade Unions, the Green Party and Labour have been collecting signatures for the petition.

They need 10 per cent of all registered voters, or approximately 310,000 people, to sign to force a referendum.

Grey Power national president Roy Reid said the group had collected more than 340,000 signatures, allowing for a percentage of signatures that did not meet the requirements under the Citizen Initiated Referendum Act.

After checking the figures at the end of 2012, Mr Reid was confident they now had the numbers to push through the referendum.

The last CIR on smacking resulted in 85% opposition being ignored by politicians.  This referendum will be as easy to ignore. The first float or two may well have happened before the referendumk is held.

This will make the whole CIR option even more farcical than it has been.

It’s not democracy

The asset sale petition is an insult to people’s democracy. The CIR system has been hijacked off citizens by political parties and groups with politcal agendas (Grey Power and unions). The Green Party in particular have been using parliamentary resources and funding to run what is effectivekly a poitical campaign.

The Green Party prides itself on it’s internal democratic systems. On an internal level the Greens practice democracy well.

But external to their own party the Greens have become adept at misusing democracy to promote their own agendas, as is evident by their hijacking of CIR.

Greens use flaws in democracatic processes to try to impose their own minority views on the majority. But they are not alone, other parties do this too.

The biggest problem with democracy in New Zealand is not the systems we have, it’s how they are abused and manipulated by political parties.

CIR and MMP are designed by politicians and misused by politicians.

But there’s no easy solution to this. Most people and groups of people proposing “people’s democracy” initiatives don’t actually think in terms of making things more democratic, they are blinded by their own agendas and want to manipulate democracy to achieve their own goals.

I don’t think politicians will give up their power and their hold on the democratic processes easily.

So I think the only way of people taking ownership of democracy is to set up small scale democractic systems, prove them and then grow them, where the only agenda is finding the best balance of democracy and leadership/governance.

“Do you support the Government selling up to 49 per cent of Meridian Energy, Mighty River Power, Genesis Power, Solid Energy and Air New Zealand?”

by Pete George on January 4, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in Politics
Tagged , , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on January 4, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/01/04/asset-petition-democratic-farce/

The Green’s ICT discussion paper

Russel Norman has launched a package of ICT policies, including a suggestion that Government become a cornerstone investor in a new trans Pacific internet link.

The Green Party is proposing the Government take a $100 million cornerstone investment in a second fibre optic cable system to ensure its construction and that it stays in New Zealand control.

A commercial attempt to do this has failed so it’s worth looking at whether Government involvement is sensible and viable.

New government procurement guidelines were also announced in today’s package of proposed initiatives.

“Government agencies will need to consider the wider economic benefits to New Zealand of supporting the local ICT industry when making purchasing decisions,” Dr Norman said.

“We’ll require the use of open standards and give a strong preference for the use of open source software which can deliver cheaper, more secure systems, while empowering smaller New Zealand providers to bid for the work.

Procurement policies are more idealistic – the Greens are yet to discover how complicated and difficult it can get when trying to dictate procurement preferences.

The Green Party consulted widely with the ICT sector in the development of this discussion paper and is now seeking public feedback, which will be incorporated into final policy due before the 2014 election.

This is an excellent approach to policy development. I don’t think Greens would do it this way on core Green policy like social and environmental policies but good on them for appearing to consult widely on here.

This is in contrast to Labour’s last big policy announcement, Kiwibuild, which was a surprise to most, including to many in the party who are demanding they are listened to and have more say in party policy making.

See Greens launch plan to invest in second internet cable and:

 

by Pete George on December 18, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Politics
Tagged , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on December 18, 2012

http://yournz.org/2012/12/18/the-greens-ict-discussion-paper/

Greens: ‘All leaders are equal…’

Uniquely the Green Party has duel leadership.  Apart from addressing male/female and Maori/non-Maori equal opportunities sharing duties can have some advantages. In many ways Russel Norman and Metiria Turei complement each other, in particular with Norman focussing on things financial while Turei deals more with social issues.

But politics and human nature can clash with the ‘all leaders are equal’ ideal. Ambition and the natural inclination of many, especially in politics, to want to lead and dominate can challenge relationships, with tendencies towards ‘but some leaders are more equal than others’.

Russel Norman has certainly dominated news coverage this year to the extent he has been labeled as the leader of the opposition (overshadowing David Shearer and Winston Peters as well as Turei) and has been one of the standout politicians of the year.

Norman has also prominently been promoting himself for the top ministerial role in Finance should a Labour/Green government be formed. Turei’s potential role has hardly been mentioned.

The Green Party are getting excited about the prospects of finally getting to the pinacle of power in New Zealand. It would be natural for Norman to be considering his own potential opportunities.

Shared leadership has worked for the Greens up until now, but if they do become a partner party in government it would pose some interesting questions – if Shearer is Prime Minister would one of the Green leaders be deputy? They might prefer duel deputy roles, but Labour may not like a perceived imbalance like that. And if NZ First are included in the coalition it would be difficult to see Winston Peters accepting that arrangement.

But that’s just interesting possibilities in the future.

Yesterday was the final day of parliament for the year. The final debate gave all parties an opportunity for their leaders to speech. John Key spoke, followed by David Shearer. Greens only had one leader’s slot so they had to chose one or the other of their leaders to speak.

I don’t know how they decide, maybe they toss a coin, maybe Norman did it last year or had the parliamenatry opening slot so this year it was Turei’s turn.

Metiria gave a pretty good speech that was well received by the Greens at least, with party praise on Twitter:

Wonderful adjournment speech from @metiria. Our country has never been wealthier, but wealthy memories are far away for many of us.

This was retweeted by MPs Kevin Hague and Holly Walker. It also earned a pat on the back from Labour:

Thanks Metiria! Yours was very moving. Have a great break!

However Metiria’s co leader was only moved to comment on the Prime Minister’s speech.

Key spends his adjournment speech making jokes and telling ordinary NZers that they’ve never had it so good. #PMparody #nzqt

He was looking up at the top job. He did also look sideways sometimes at Metiria while she made her speech, but his expression and body language throughout her speech was curious.

Metiria speech

Throughout Turei’s speech Norman looked like a little boy who had just been told Santa wouldn’t be bringing him any presents.

InTheHouse video: Government Motion of Notice No 1 – Sitting programme for 2013 and adjournment – Part 3

Transcript: Draft transcript – Wednesday, 12 December 2012

by Pete George on December 13, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Politics
Tagged , , ,

Posted by Pete George on December 13, 2012

http://yournz.org/2012/12/13/greens-all-leaders-are-equal/

Rating the parties for 2012

This is my view of how the parties have performed over the first term, based on an outsider’s media and online impressions as an interested follower of politics, plus some interaction with some MPs via Twitter and emails.

National 5/10

National have attended to the key things steadily and competently – they have continued to manage the economy in an extended period of difficult worldwide conditions. So they get a pass mark overall. But balanced against that are a number of poorly managed issues, especially in education, and difficulties dealing with their MOM asset programme (although that was predictable) and the ongoing Dotcom dealings.

Online – their interaction is sparse. John Key’s ID is used for party PR (I don’t expect him to have time to spend online). Stephen Joyce uses Twitter for diary announcements. Tau Henare is active but it’s mostly trivial. There’s occasional bits and pieces from others. Judith Collins has dipped her toes in Twitter and has seemed to genuinely attempt to engage. Very little email response from National MPs, and they are not visible in the blogosphere.

Maori Party 7/10

The Maori Party keep achieving what they can as a reliable part of the coalition government, but maintaining their independence by voting against National and for their ideals and committed positions. They are not very visible online (Te Ururoa Flavell tweets a bit) nor much in media but that’s not where they need to be to engage with their constituency.

UnitedFuture 7/10

Peter Dunne has a very heavy workload in a one MP party, representing an electorate (in which he is active) and as a minister. As usual does what’s required reliably and industriously, and he is active online, engaging on Twitter and Facebook. He does his parliamentary and electorate jobs capably, but has a challenge reviving his party.

Act 3/10

John Banks had a very difficult reintroduction to MP duties due to excessive media coverage and hasn’t risen above this. He has also been dogged by his Dotcom dealings. Seen as little more than a proxy for National. I acknowledge that after a long absence it was a huge task returning to parliament and setting up office in a gutted party. Much to do for Banks and Act to survive.

Labour 3/10

Labour have continued their disappointing last term non-recovery. They are struggling with an impatient party that feels alientated from caucus, and David Shearer has failed to measure up as a great fresh hope – the measure is heading downwards. A dysfunctional caucus, maverick MPs, poorly prepared policies and botched hit jobs all make 3/10 seen generous.

A number of Labour MPs are active online, some doing well and engaging but with a few notable embarrassments. Their Red Alert blog is ineffective. Some will respond to emails.

They have to deal with major dissent and competing factions, plus some interesting changes to their selection rules. Much to do.

Greens 8/10

The Green Party grown it’s parliamentary footprint, they have grown in stature with Russel Norman’s leadership in particular significantly outshining all other opposition leaders. New MPs have added to their strengths. They have some challenges proving the viability of some of their policies and selling themselves to a wider (non-adoring) audience but have made excellent progress.

Their biggest problem is being seen as a party that wants to ban too much and wants to impose their social ideals on everyone. They should work on addressing these to maintian their gains.

Their MPs and party are the most active online through their blog, Twitter and social media and they will engage, and will respond to emails.

New Zealand First 4/10

Struggling to make a decent impression. Winston Peters tries hard in Parliament and challenges the Government at times but is not the dogged Winston of the past, he often seems dog-tired and battling with motivation.

The rest of the MPs seem to be minor shadows under the wily but wilting wizard.

Not much online, Richard Prosser tweets a bit but little of significance. Early email response have tailed off.

Mana Party 4/10

Harawira mostly works within his own realm and seems to be maintaining a following but only sometimes comes out into the open – sometimes controversially. Little impression in parliament (difficult for a one MP party). He may maintain a niche but could struggle to grow beyond that. Active on Facebook and one of several Twitter accounts is active.

If any parties or MPs want to respond please comment, or email – petedgeorge at gmail.com – and I’ll post it.

by Pete George on November 29, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Politics
Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on November 29, 2012

http://yournz.org/2012/11/29/party-review-2012/

Holly Walker on maximising MMP fairness

Holly Walker has posted on Frogblog: MMP changes belong to the people, not parties

Any electoral system should maximise fairness, and the one-seat rule has produced the unfair situation that voters in some electorates have a greater say over the make-up of Parliament than others.

Nevertheless, it’s important that removing the one-seat rule and lowering the party vote threshold are considered as a package. Although it was arbitrary and unfair, the one-seat rule did help to make Parliament more proportional, by allowing some smaller parties to be represented. Therefore, if we remove the one-seat rule, we need to lower the party vote threshold to ensure that smaller parties still have a realistic chance of gaining representation.

It is unclear but I presume Holly is supporting the Electoral Commission threshold recommendation of 4%.

There are four small parties currently in parliament who got less than 4% party vote, and the Conservative Party failed to make Parliament with less than 5% (and less than 4%).

A 4% threshold does not come close to maximising fairness. It does not ensure that smaller parties still have a realistic chance of gaining representation. It significantly favours larger parties, like the Green Party.

A threshold not only excludes parties who fail to reach the threshold from parliament, it reduces voting support for parties that don’t look like reaching the threshold. Some voters don’t want to waste their vote so may switch their vote to a party they think will get into Parliament.

I’ve asked Holly: “What threshold would maximise fairness to ensure voters of some parties don’t have a greater say in the makeup of Parliament than others?”

UPDATE: a response from Holly…

I support the Electoral Commission’s recommendation to lower the party vote threshold to 4 percent. I note that in its report, the Commission notes that a lower threshold of 3 percent might be even better, but that change in this area should be made incrementally, so the threshold should be lowered to 4 percent now and reviewed after three elections. I think that is a sensible course of action.

Sensible, from a large party point of view perhaps, but it doesn’t maximise fairness. It retains an electoral advantage for the Green Party.

by Pete George on November 7, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Politics
Tagged , , ,

Posted by Pete George on November 7, 2012

http://yournz.org/2012/11/07/holly-walker-on-maximising-mmp-fairness/

What is poverty in New Zealand?

Comments at Keeping Stock on what poverty is seen as in New Zealand.

Ross said…

KS – The Greens should be more than skewered for the gross dishonesty in this latest piece of rubbish that they are spouting.

In trying to align themselves with the NZ ‘Poverty Industry’ they are doing themselves, this country and the billions of people around the world in genuine poverty a huge disservice, and making a complete mockery of the word poverty. To then try and make money for their own political purposes is hypocrisy of the highest order.

The problem in NZ is the definition of ‘poverty’ – currently this seems to be if you live in a household with less than 50% or 60% of median disposable income. This is how all these ‘magical’ figures of 270,000 children ‘living in poverty’ in NZ suddenly appear.

Even those with a elementary understanding of Statistics and Mathematics must realize that by this definition we will always have 270,000 children ‘living in poverty’. We could be the richest nation in the world, with the highest living standards (oh thats right we nearly are) – and by these definitions we would still have the same number of children ‘living in poverty’.

If you are interested in these definitions have a look at http://www.nzchildren.co.nz/child_poverty.php

Lets have a look at a little of the detail of what ‘living in poverty’ is from this well meaning web site:

http://www.nzchildren.co.nz/userfiles/2011_child_poverty_table1b.gif

Deprivation in this table is:
went without music or dance
involvement in sport had to be limited
unable to pay for school trip
lack of friends at a birthday party
lack of one weeks holiday away from home last year
lack of computer
lack of internet access

You see – this is deprivation and poverty in New Zealand, for which the Greens want to fleece the gullible and stupid for money to run endless political campaigns on. A problem that by definition can never go away.

This is a gross insult to the real poor in the world – children that living in developing world slums, that are coerced into forced labour at age 5 or less, sold into prostitution before puberty, are lucky to eat twice a week….the list goes on.

In NZ – I am a child in deprivation if I don’t have a computer or internet access. It surely seems to be a huge problem.

bsprout said…

Ross, I think there must be some sort of conspiracy because the Children’s Commissioner, Health professionals, University academics, mainstream television, the New Zealand Institute (supported by the Business Round table), most political parties and schools are all saying that we have a huge problem with child poverty. Yet despite this you are suggesting that they are all “pretending”. Can you please share the institutions, organisations or research that are providing the information you are using to expose this conspiracy. I would be grateful if you could provide links like I have done below to prove that what your claim isn’t just something that you have just invented by yourself.
http://www.occ.org.nz/home/childpoverty
http://www.nzchildren.co.nz/child_poverty.php
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/7655339/Child-poverty-our-biggest-enemy
http://www.tv3.co.nz/Shows/InsideNZ/InsideChildPovertyASpecialReport.aspx
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/social-issues/news/article.cfm?c_id=87&objectid=10839028
http://www.nzinstitute.org/index.php/nzahead/measures/income_inequality/

And…

By the way, Ross, you were very selective with what you chose as some of the indicators for poverty and should have also included:
-Sharing a bed
-Continuing to wear worn out clothing and shoes
-Serious health problems
-Not being able to afford meat or fresh vegetables regularly
-having to live in a house that is difficult to keep warm and has major issues with dampness.

by Pete George on October 26, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Issues
Tagged , , ,

Posted by Pete George on October 26, 2012

http://yournz.org/2012/10/26/what-is-poverty-in-new-zealand/

Green Party politics of poverty

The Green Party have launched a ‘poverty’ fundraising campaign via email, calling it a(nother) crisis.

Here is your opportunity to help the Green Party create practical and effective solutions to New Zealand’s Child Poverty crisis.

Child poverty in New Zealand has 270,000 young faces.

That’s the official figure of those growing up in poverty. It’s a quarter of our nation’s children.

These are the kids with no school lunch, too hungry to learn. The kids struggling with asthma from living in cold, damp homes. The kids turning up at A&E suffering from Rheumatic Fever and other entirely preventable diseases.

It’s a national scandal, and it needn’t be so.

The Green Party has driven the so called ‘poverty’ debate, and have tried to redefine the word poverty in a modern New Zealand setting. Lifting 100,000 kids out of poverty was one of their three main election policies last year.

Since the election they have promoted the number of 270,000 being in poverty in New Zealand.

Every child deserves a good life and a fair future. That’s why the Green Party has launched the Take the Step Campaign with the aim of radically reducing child poverty in New Zealand, and we need your donation to help make it a success.

Click here to make a donation now.

Raising money for people in poverty may seem like a worthy cause. But further reading suggests none of the money raised will go to poor people.

We know that this is a Campaign where success will take a long period of concerted and committed effort.

It demands that the Government takes action now to effectively tackle child poverty. The first step is to win support for our Member’s Bill to create a child payment for all low income families, whether in work or not. In doing we will have begun the process of ensuring that New Zealand can become a great place to grow up for every child.

This is just the start. We need your support to run a strong campaign that will radically reduce child poverty in New Zealand.

Click here to make a donation now.

Money raised will fund Green party political campaigning. There is no indication that any money will go to poor people.

And this campaigning is likely to be unnecessary.

If the Green Party wants to win support for their Member’s Bill they don’t need to raise money and they don’t need to run a party promotion campaign. All they need to do is convince one of two MPs to vote for their bill. The vote of either Peter Dunne or John Banks is all the support they need. All it would cost would be some time and a convincing argument.

It’s expected to be futile anyway, as reported in the ODT last week:

Parliament last night began debating a Green Party bill that would allow beneficiary families receive the $60 a week in-work tax credit.

But the bill, sponsored by Green Party co-leader Metiria Turei, is expected to be defeated when it is voted on at its first reading, most likely on November 5.

So the first stage of the fundraising campaign is too late for that and won’t make any difference.

Help us get more people advocating for children in poverty among the decision-makers, and to print and post the facts, figures and solutions – so our childrens’ plight is understood more widely than ever before.

I hope I can count on your donation of $25, $50 or whatever you can afford.

We can’t turn away from New Zealand’s children in poverty, and we can’t simply write off those children as somebody else’s problem. And we won’t.

Let’s get stuck in and help them, together.

Please donate now.

Kia kaha

Metiria Turei

Green Party Co-leader

This sounds like the Green party is seeking party donations to promote their political agenda – that they are trying to raise party funds to recruit support.

I don’t have any doubt that Metiria Turei wants to make a difference for poor people. But the emphasis on this campaign seems to be party focussed. With little chance of immediate success.

Unless the Greens can convince Bill English and the National caucus to make major changes to to Working For Families by extending it to people on benefits this campaign has no chance of success this term. Turei must know this. So it’s hard to see this as anything but using ‘poverty’ to raise funds to promote the Green Party leading up to the next election.

The Greens have already raised eyebrows by using parliamentary funds to promote the anti-asset sales petition – another campaign with no chance of succeeding in stopping the SOE share floats, which has led some to suggest it’s a cynical diversion of funds that are supposed to enable parties to operate effectively in parliament. Instead the funds are effectively being used as longterm campaign funding.

Overusing ‘poverty’

The term poverty has been re-engineered as a political term. In modern New Zealand we have many people having insufficient income to live comfortably. This causes real problems with health, edication and crime.

But we don’t have children dying of starvation. We don’t have shanty towns. We don’t have children scouring rubbish tips in order to survive.

‘Poverty’ in New Zealand seems to have become synonomous with Green Party Politics (with the Labour Party tagging along).

Poverty or Political Campaigning?

What is the real aim of this fund raising campaign? None of the funds raised look like they will go to poor people. The purported aim is futile – money isn’t required to get the support needed for their bill.

So it appears that Greens want to promote themselves to enable them to get into Government so they can redistribute more taxpayers money.

Is the real aim Metiria Turei’s email to do something for poor people? Or to promote her party?

How much should it cost to succeed in this campaign?

Donate

Every child deserves a good life and a fair future. That’s why the Green Party has launched the Take a Step Campaign with the aim of radically reducing child poverty in New Zealand, and we need your donation to help make it a success.

Contribution Amount*
$ 25.00
$ 50.00
$ 100.00
$ 500.00
$ 1,000.00
Other Amount

What is the price of one vote in parliament?

Is this Green Party campaign real poverty? Or politics?

Or has ‘poverty’ simply become a political term?

by Pete George on October 25, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Politics
Tagged , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on October 25, 2012

http://yournz.org/2012/10/25/green-party-politics-of-poverty/

« Older Posts
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 74 other followers