On canning Kidscan funding

RNZ: KidsCan may lose govt funding: ‘Children will go hungry’

The charity, which has been in operation for 12 years, provides food, clothing and healthcare to 168,000 children across 700 New Zealand schools.

Executive Julie Chapman told Checkpoint with John Campbell she was told last week by Oranga Tamariki / Ministry for Children that it would lose its government funding – $350,000 worth – on 1 July next year.

39 Comments

  1. Missy

     /  December 13, 2017

    I don’t really know much about this, but from what you have posted here it seems a Government that campaigned on increased child poverty is cutting funding to a programme that helps children in poverty. Why would the Government want to punish poor children like this? Is it because the previous Government funded it and they don’t want to admit that was a good thing? Surely they aren’t that petty, but without an adequate explanation why they don’t want poor children to have raincoats, shoes, and breakfast that is all that can be concluded.

    • Kitty Catkin

       /  December 13, 2017

      We keep hearing about the raincoats, but as these can be bought for $2, it seems odd that people can claim not to be able to afford these-or a couple of generic Weetbix and a splash of milk on them.

      • Kitty Catkin

         /  December 13, 2017

        Pams’ Wheat Biscuits are about 7c each. Less at New World this week…whatever $4 divided by 72 is (why is there no divide symbol ?)

        • Kitty Catkin

           /  December 13, 2017

          And milk made from milk powder is not expensive, The cheap brands are the same as the expensive ones.

        • Maggy Wassilieff

           /  December 13, 2017

          Just type the following into the address bar
          400/72=
          and press enter
          you’ll get an answer of 5.5555 (cents)

          • Kitty Catkin

             /  December 13, 2017

            Thank you; actually, I have done that in the past as maths is not my thing ! Mental arithmetic be damned, if God meant me to do it, He wouldn’t have given people the brains to invent calculators. But I knew that it had to be less than 7c…so a brekkie of two and some milk made up from milk powder would be about 25c. Possibly 30c. Hardly excessive,

            • Blazer

               /  December 13, 2017

              so why did God give people..spellcheckers…then…just to put you..to bed!

  2. Tipene

     /  December 13, 2017

    “The charity, which has been in operation for 12 years, provides food, clothing and healthcare to 168,000 children across 700 New Zealand schools”

    I’m sorry, but this statement is an utter indictment regarding the legion of poor parents that are the genesis of Kidscan existence.

    Enabling rescuers like Kidscan simply exacerbate the problem, by acting as “in loco parentis” and disguising the size of the problem, once again removing appropriate responsibility from parents under the guise of “compassion”.

    I just don’t think we needs kids version of the City Mission, so I for one will be glad to see the back of them.

    • duperez

       /  December 13, 2017

      Before a top interprovincial rugby match this year a group involved with a charity walked and were presented on the field before the game. I think it was KidsCan. Good stuff, give acknowledgement for those trying to make a difference to kids’ lives and acknowledge them and the kids they help.

      My mate said the positive things then, “How shocking is that? We’re here parading the affects of poverty, the other side of a glorious wonderful society we’ve created and are feting doing well at something we shouldn’t have to do.” At least it was out there in the open being recognised.

      If there are more effective ways of using the money fair enough. Missy’s perception will be the one grasped and sprayed by haters of the Government, “Said they’d do something about poverty then cut funding.”

      Bennett and English no doubt will be into it boots and all. Funny how words like ‘poverty’ and ‘housing crisis’ which crossed their lips so reluctantly and selectively before so much more regularly and boldly travel the same path.

      • Missy

         /  December 13, 2017

        My perception is a logical one when faced with a charity that helps kids in poverty Having finding cut by a Government that spent its time in opposition banging in about kids in poverty. Agree with the charity or not, the hypocrisy of the Government and the possibility of the perception of them playing politics is pretty strong with this decision. Either way it isn’t a good look for them right before Christmas, especially when they have yet to put forward an alternative for helping these kids.

        If they have something better that they are going to spend the knee on then perhaps it would have been more prudent to have that in place before announcing the money to this charity was being cut. As it is they are just looking like mean spirited hypocrites who use poor children to win an election but don’t really care about them.

        • alloytoo

           /  December 13, 2017

          Labour is scratching around trying to fill a $11billion hole to fund free education for Australians…..this won’t be the first.

          • Gezza

             /  December 13, 2017

            I very much doubt there anywhere near enough Australians in NZ that it would cost $11 billion to fund their education. That sounds like complete bollocks. If, however, you can link us to some credible source of statistics that confirms there are that many, I would be happy to reconsider this opinion?

            • alloytoo

               /  December 13, 2017

              I am happily indulging in the same hyperbole that the left did during their time in opposition.

              The difference being that I know it’s hyperbole.

              The fact remains that in order to pay for their promises (Whether Australians take advantage or not) Labour are going to have to steal from other programs and people, probably vulnerable children are going to suffer.

              By addressing the obviously flippant “Australian” part of my post means you’re admitting that yourself.

            • Gezza

               /  December 13, 2017

              Well, hyperbole & false claims are sure not limited to last term’s opposition parties. National’s attempts all last week in The House to convince the viewers that Labour had increased the income tax currently being paid by income earners were laffable. National didn’t even cut income tax. They miscalculated that PROMISING to do it in April 2018 would make it a reality.

              This government should be a gift to a credible opposition. National’s not always being a credible opposition yet.

            • alloytoo

               /  December 13, 2017

              “The House to convince the viewers that Labour had increased the income tax currently being paid by income earners were laffable”

              Your statement is patently false, National has been quite clear, Labour is seeking to increase the tax I will pay next year and to do so they will need to introduce legislation (under urgency no doubt) which will increase my future tax bill.

              That, by any reasonable measure, is a tax increase.

            • Gezza

               /  December 13, 2017

              No they’re not increasing the amount of income tax you’ll pay next year. They’ll be repealing the tax reduction legislation National passed but forgot to make sure they’d be in Government to ensure it comes into effect. You’ll be paying the same rate of income tax as you have this year. Your last sentence is incorrect.

            • alloytoo

               /  December 13, 2017

              They’re changing the law to make me pay more tax= tax increase.

              No amount of spin will change that.

              Tax and spend, tax and spend.

              Time to change the government.

            • Gezza

               /  December 13, 2017

              It’s not yet time to change the government. That time will be if they suffer the loss of a confidence vote, or they call the next election.

              Also, they intend to repeal National’s legislation that would have reduced your income tax next year – unless it was repealed by another government with plans to utilise the current income tax it presently receives.

              The effect of this is that you won’t get an income tax REDUCTION. Not that your income tax will INCREASE. You seem to be having some comprehension & credibility issues today, so I’ll leave this matter at that I think. No offence.

            • High Flying Duck

               /  December 13, 2017

              Gezza, how you come up with Labour’s repealing of legislation passed by the house and costed in the budgets not being an increase in tax paid next year is probably the most contorted spin I’ve seen in a while.
              Robertson’s contortions on the issue were equally feeble, as he point blank refused to answer the question and instead said he would rather give the average earner’s money to someone else…
              When asked if he thought it fair that someone on the average wage should be paying the second top tax rate his answer was….

            • Gezza

               /  December 13, 2017

              HFD, I’m as surprised as anybody to see this lot in government. I thought they’d need at least a year in Opposition under Ardern’s leadership to have any show. Didn’t bank on Winston conning enuff votes out of suckers to be in a position to make the call.

              So, what I’m saying is not spin. It’s just facts and logic. You can’t be paying any MORE inome tax next year than you are now if you currently aren’t paying any less tax than previously. And if you won’t be paying any less income tax on 1 April 2018.

              No matter what the legislation says, it hasn’t come into effect by reducing your actual income tax, & now it won’t – so you can’t possibly be paying any more income tax on April Fools Day next year if you never actually paid any less.

              I appreciate National voters don’t LIKE this, but that doesn’t mean they’ve had an income tax increase. They simply haven’t.

              If Joyce & co want to loudly bang the drum that Labour is to repeal the tax REDUCTIONS they planned from 1 April, & they now won’t take place, that’s fine. That’s factually & logically correct. Go for it, I say.

          • alloytoo

             /  December 13, 2017

            “That’s factually & logically correct”

            Your logic is deficient, spinning does that.

            I lack confidence in this government, time to change it.

            • Gezza

               /  December 13, 2017

              I’ve covered these matters adequately already. The fact you disagree is neither here nor there.

              If it’s time to change the Government, why hasn’t it happened?

            • Gezza

               /  December 13, 2017

              You’re thinking & talking in slogans alloytoo. That just doesn’t work on me. Whether its done by supporters of any party.

        • High Flying Duck

           /  December 13, 2017

          The minister has been less than upfront about the cut too. She said it was an operational matter that had been decided by the ministry. The ministry has said no decisions had been made.

        • duperez

           /  December 13, 2017

          Your perception is a logical one. But then we don’t really have to know much about the situation.

          Maybe we’ve moved from a ‘trust’ environment to a low trust environment to the present – a no trust environment.
          We don’t trust there’s a back story, that any wisdom logic or practicality has applied, that knowledgable minds (and humanitarian hearts) have been at work, that there are sensible explanations. And even if there were, we wouldn’t believe them, be interested or be swayed.

          And as you say it’s all about looks. The house looks flash means it’s good. A house doesn’t look so good it’s the worst in the world. Leaky home anyone? The Kardashian, superficial factor at work.

        • Blazer

           /  December 13, 2017

          helping kids and helping themselves…
          http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11449523

          from the accounts-Administration Costs $1,290,059
          Operating Costs $2,140,927
          Programme Costs $ 4,609,456

          • PartisanZ

             /  December 13, 2017

            So $350,000 shouldn’t really affect them in the greater scheme of things? The government funding is more a kind of ‘legitimacy’ payment perhaps?

            Personally I agree with removing the govt funding, especially if it was “time-sensitive” all along.

            If the Charitocracy is going to take over state welfare functions – in this case very ‘ambulance at the bottom’, without addressing systemic causes – and indeed, in some ways SPARING govt from addressing causes – and also provide massive publicity (and probably tax deductibility) for big corporates – simultaneously allowing them to condition youngsters to a tiny range of arguably ‘wholesome’ food – eg Weetbix, UHT Milk, White Bread and Baked Beans – it should all be a private sector undertaking.

            The kids do get fruit too. Apples for one. I obtained and left one of these apples on my verandah for 1.5 months and it didn’t change at all in that time. It didn’t rot or blemish, the skin remained red and polished, the flesh was still crisp and white. It looked quite edible. I used it to bait a Timms Trap.

            Let Kidscan’s corporate sponsors take up this minimal ‘shortfall’, if it can even be called that. If necessary, some of the management might also consider a small reduction in pay and perks too, perhaps?

  3. Corky

     /  December 13, 2017

    Their charity boxes received many of my gold coins. Thanks Labour.

    • Gezza

       /  December 13, 2017

      How many is many, & what did they total in a tax year, & did you get receipts & claim rebates?

    • lurcher19483

       /  December 13, 2017

      we are a so-called first world country and under National so many got charity to survive ie “working for families”and kids can sad really that our work wage isn’t enough to survive on.

      • alloytoo

         /  December 13, 2017

        and yet wages and benefit increased at a greater rate than inflation during that period.

        • Blazer

           /  December 13, 2017

          you wouldn’t know what inflation was…if you were in the clouds in a ..hot air..balloon.

      • PartisanZ

         /  December 13, 2017

        @lurcher19483 (You’ve aged?) … “sad really that our work wage isn’t enough to survive on”.

        Wow … you’re the master of understatement Lurcher …

        Its an absolute indictment on ‘capitalism’ in its current guise and IMHO borders on a crime against humanity.

        • PartisanZ

           /  December 13, 2017

          Think about it eh Lurcher? One can theoretically WORK enough to survive on; hunting, fishing, gathering, cultivating, making, sharing and trading …?

          Yet many people can’t ‘DO PAID WORK’ enough to survive on …

          This seems to me like quite an unhealthy situation.

  4. Kitty Catkin

     /  December 13, 2017

    I find it odd that Jacinda Ardern is both condemning the price of petrol and planning to raise it with an extra tax on it.

  5. Kitty Catkin

     /  December 13, 2017

    It doesn’t seem to be going down too well that charities are disdaining things like tinned tomatoes and chickpeas…chickpeas don’t need to be made into hummus as the people who were interviewed seem to think. Just eat them as they are-or with the tinned tomatoes that are considered too difficult to cook.

    Tinned spaghetti, with virtually no nutritional value seems to be acceptable. So does tinned fruit, which is laden with sugar.

    • PartisanZ

       /  December 13, 2017

      Everyone’s trying to do their best eh? Trying to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick world …

  1. On canning Kidscan funding — Your NZ – NZ Conservative Coalition