Monday, May 25, 2015

Budget 2015, and ciao for now

Lots of people with a better understanding of these things than I have already sounded forth on the 2015 budget so I won't say much. But I do take issue with the breathless wonderment that has greeted the raising of benefits by the grand sum of $25 per week (less once deductions for Accommodation Supplement/Income-Related rents/Temporary Additional Support are factored in). Here's why.

With the budget's total benefit increases, increases to Working for Families and childcare subsidies costing about $790 million, this is not an insignificant package. However, the focus on the increase in benefits overlooks the fact that $25 per week will not undo the damage done to families by this government's ill-conceived (and appallingly implemented) welfare reforms, its lack of meaningful action on housing, and the cuts to social services that have whittled away the safety net for the most vulnerable. As Mike Williams put it, increasing benefits is scratching an itch, one that presumably needed scratching in order to mollify focus group participants who want to see something done about child poverty. This was not a radical budget; it did not hark back to the late 1970s; it was public relations. Oh, and they managed to poke Labour in the eye at the same time. Bonus!

A radical budget would be one that pledged to undo the enormous damage welfare reform has inflicted on children and communities, that revisited child support so all children were treated on the same basis, and rolled out a tangible plan for desperately needed affordable housing. It is clear to community workers that many families and children are in crisis, and $25 per week will barely make a dent to their budgets: they need decent jobs and housing. Neither of these was forthcoming in this budget.

And it is on that rather grumpy note that Spider and I will sign off. I don't have the time to keep a blog up and running. Spider's mental health problems are proving to be time-consuming and it is more important that he comes right than having me railing against whatever takes my fancy. This blog was started initially to help my brain recover and it mostly achieved that. Along the way my writing has improved, and perhaps I'll be back another day, in a different forum and maybe with a different style. It has entertained my faithful audience of three along the way, and I thank them for their kind words. There are plenty of other bloggers traversing the same ground, many of them much better writers and more astute observers than I. Plus they're more interactive, and have the comments open (I could never be bothered with moderation and removing the ads for cheap sports shoes).

It's good-bye from me, and good-bye from him. Ka kite anō (maybe). And please, remember to be kind.   

Friday, April 3, 2015

Good Friday, Mangere Bridge

In our wee slice of Auckland, when you don't go away for Easter to your bach in Mangawai, the place to be is Mangere Bridge, that most accidental of genuinely public spaces. Today's beautiful autumn sun provided the perfect backdrop for a gathering unlike that anywhere else in the region.

Already busy
























Bicycles: the most democratic form of transport ever invented. Cheap and reliable for the weekend fisherperson. 


















Contemplation.























Up the road - yarn bomb at Mangere Bridge shops.





















Saturday, March 28, 2015

Social housing reform: transforming the homeless into homeowners

National is proceeding - with no discernible public mandate - with the sale of state housing and the establishment of a "market" for social housing. In short, and as others have pointed out, this is little more than an ideological more-market crusade by 1980s throwback Bill English. However, much Treasury may wish otherwise, there is no market for social housing: if there was, it would already exist. The lack of housing available for low- (and increasingly middle-) income groups is an example of market failure. Market failure in housing was noted by Friedrich Engels 170 years ago, and little has changed.  Indeed, the reason we have state housing at all is because the market failed to provide 70 years ago.

There is no reason to celebrate the sale of state housing and the introduction of corporate landlords to the social housing sector: it's a bad deal for taxpayers, there are no incentives to increase the supply of affordable houses, and the most marginalised and difficult to house will find their already limited housing options further constrained.

The government wants to sell state houses at a "reasonable value" for taxpayers; it wants social housing providers (of which there are very few in New Zealand) to rehome tenants booted out of the sold state houses; and provide other social services for said tenants (see here). In the imagination of Wellington's policymakers it is perfectly feasible that a "market" for social housing will emerge as housing providers bid to house low-income and possibly problematic tenants. Given that the whole policy is being made up as they go along (as pointed out in this excellent critique by the Herald’s Dita de Boni), there's no reason to suppose that taxpayers or tenants will be better off even if this currently non-existent market emerges.

The Ministry of Social Development (MSD) has produced a presentation which they are using in the MSD/MBIE workshops currently touring the country. The workshops are, in part, an attempt to persuade organisations with no capital or relevant skills to become social housing providers (we'll come back to the risks involved with that). The presentation notes there are about 5,000 people on something called 'the register'. This is just the renamed former Housing New Zealand (HNZC) waiting list. In order to help meet the urgent needs of this group, MSD has been tasked with ensuring that the current 62,000 income-related rent subsidies (IRRS) paid to social housing tenants is increased by 3,000 to 65,000 by 2018 (pp. 4 and 13). At the risk of pointing out the obvious, those 5,000+ families need accommodation now. Then there's the people who need accommodation urgently but are not even eligible to get on the waiting list. The presentation, and its sister presentation from MBIE, make clear that the government has no intention of stepping in to help increase the supply of housing. No capital is on offer (when the UK established its social housing providers, they received 100% capital subsidy), there are no cheap, state-backed loans, and no tax breaks (only private landlords and politicians get those). In other words, when it comes to the critical issue of the supply of affordable housing, National is crossing its fingers behind its back and hoping for the best. The 3,000 additional IRRS are more about seeming to do something rather than substantive policy.


Selling state houses won't increase their number, it merely changes ownership. Providers including the Salvation Army have either stated the price of the houses would need to be zero - a proposition that is not "reasonable value", at least for taxpayers - or have done the math and concluded that they do not have the capacity to purchase and upgrade state housing, provide additional social services, and manage a large housing stock (see also here). In fact, it could reasonably be argued that in a country as small as New Zealand, only the state has the capacity to do those things.

With the wheels falling off its flagship housing policy, National has been forced to admit
it will cost about $1.5 billion to upgrade the state housing stock before sale. Social housing agencies have stressed the poor state of the stock is a powerful disincentive to purchase state houses, hence the reluctance to pay 'market' value for the houses. Meanwhile, initial promises that former state houses would have to remain as social housing stock are being wound back, with developers and large financial institutions now being touted as potential buyers. This doesn't sound like a scheme to "provide more New Zealanders in need with quality and affordable housing." Quite the reverse.

Overall, the economics of transferring the ownership of state housing to the private sector is uncertain, if not downright risky. At one workshop it was pointed out that getting into social housing with no government support except IRRS for tenants was a big financial risk for providers. But the same could also be said for taxpayers. The scheme, which will provide market rent top-ups to landlords for social housing tenants (who will, as they do now, pay 25% of their income in rent) just creates a huge trough for the private sector snout. Despite this potentially enormous cost, there is no guarantee that the most needy families will receive the accommodation they need. Taxpayers might get fair value for the assets their parents and grandparents paid for, and which provided stable shelter for many of them, but that's looking increasingly remote. The only way that can be guaranteed is if housing is turned over to the private sector unconditionally, and current tenants are forced to move...somewhere else.

 
Where have National’s social housing policies come from, one might ask. In truth, none of it should be a surprise. National's lack of commitment to state housing, and its desire to fob off responsibility for social services to the private sector has been clear for some time. In 2009 it set up a workgroup (including the Salvation Army and the Auckland City Mission) to find a more “effective and efficient delivery model for state housing.” The group's 2010 final report (Home and housed: A vision for social housing in New Zealand) specifically argued for curtailing the Crown's role as the sole provider of social housing.
 

Casting back even further - to prehistory, in fact - when the current Minister of Finance was cutting his teeth at Treasury, Treasury published its 1987 Briefing to the Incoming Government - an incoherent tome entitled Government Management. The housing section argued that (p. 163):


One argument...is that the private sector does not face adequate incentives to supply housing to low income and other disadvantaged groups. No evidence is given to support this view, other than the absence of competitors in this area. However it would be surprising to find any supplier able to contest this market without a subsidy in line with that given to the Corporation.

And so in 2015 it came to pass that IRRS were made available to private social housing providers in order that they can 'compete' with Housing New Zealand. Unfortunately, in keeping with 30 year-old advice, this current policy is about income support, and provides "no incentives to supply housing to low income and other disadvantaged groups".


Another facet of the reforms is that social housing providers will be expected to be able to "link" with other social service providers to help tenants get the services they need. Reflecting Social Housing Minister Paula Bennett's inability to grasp the reality of many households' low incomes, the example used by MBIE shows someone unable to pay their rent being linked to a budgeting service. This example is very telling: it says these reforms are not about addressing deep and long-standing structural issues of poverty and inequality, but about managing and monetising poverty.


In MBIE-world linking housing and the provision of social services probably seems unproblematic. In the real world - the world where the government has been cutting funding for social services (including budgeting services) for many years now - this is a pipe dream. What will happen is that if social housing providers have to provide or sub-contract social service providers, the most difficult, disadvantaged tenants will simply will not get housing. Difficult mental health patients, and people with long-term disabilities and/or behavioural problems will find themselves with very few housing options indeed. If, as is likely, the government introduces social impact bonds to paper over the cracks of poverty and disability, then the truly needy will be further marginalised as corporates house easy-to-deal-with population subgroups.

The government is at pains to paint possible social housing providers as warm, caring entities who will house all-comers. It is highly improbable that this will be the reality. Social housing providers are already able to ‘filter’ the waiting list to get the tenants they prefer. Imagine this discrimination being exercised by faith-based groups or iwi groups focused on looking after their own. One of the reasons the state took over social assistance from private charities in the 19th and early 20th centuries was that provision by charities was arbitrary and discriminatory. Why will this folly be any different?


There will always be a need for the state to step in and house the most desperate and disadvantaged. Reflecting a typical inability to understand the impacts of her policies, Minister Bennett stated at a forum that the "tenant focus" of the reforms was transforming "the homeless into home owners." Rubbish. The homeless will remain homeless, and the lack of political commitment to providing quality affordable housing means their numbers will increase. Is this really the best we can do, New Zealand? 

Wednesday, March 25, 2015

Otahuhu schools' cultural festival

Some not-very-good photos from the local schools' cultural festival. I'm not a great photographer, and the camera has started to have hissy fits.

A Tongan cultural group performing


















An Indian group from Panama School 



















A little guy in traditional costume

























Pacific princesses in white feathers



















Costume inspired by Papua New Guinea ceremonial masks


















(Here's the original)













It is often taken as a truism by many (pakeha) New Zealanders that Pacific parents are hard to engage with their children's education. Maybe not as hard as we think?
 

















A grandma standing outside in full regalia. As Otahuhu rapidly gentrifies it is likely that sights like this will become less common, which is a shame.
























#otahuhuforlife

Friday, March 13, 2015

Green solution or middle-class welfare? Auckland Transport's electric cars

Last week Transport Minister Simon Bridges was reported as having urged officials to consider "ways to accelerate the uptake of electric vehicles...ruling out incentives or subsidies." The announcement implies the government (or Minister) is keen to show off its green credentials and at least pay lip service to reducing fossil fuel emissions ("New Zealand [has a] very high proportion of electricity generated from renewable resources.")

The article linked above goes on to note that:

"Promotion of faster EV uptake is being pushed by electricity companies, particularly Mighty River Power, has support from the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority, and the rebranded lobby group for electric vehicles, now known as Drive Electric."
There are two key issues with electric vehicles (EVs): the first is that the evidence they reduce greenhouse gas emissions is not persuasive (a good piece outlining the arguments for and against with useful links can be found here). To suggest, as Simon Bridges has, that the only variable is whether or not the electricity used to recharge the batteries comes from renewable sources is simplistic at best. The second issue - and the crucial one for Aucklanders stuck in commuter traffic - is that electric cars do not reduce congestion. They are cars, and, although they may be green, EVs take as much road space as a gas guzzler.

There is also a third issue, and that is that currently electric cars are relatively expensive. If the government wants to upgrade the national vehicle fleet to newer, more energy-efficient cars, including EVs, then it needs the general population to be richer. Poor people buy old Toyotas, not Teslas.

There is an upside to EVs, and that is that they help elites and risk-averse officials foster the illusion of business-as-usual: the focus is on the technological fix rather than behaviour change. Thus, the motoring public don't need to worry about being inconvenienced by ghastly stuff like climate change; congestion is not your fault; and government support for EVs sends a clear message to the roading lobby that their interests remain paramount.


By happy coincidence, just days after the Minister's public musings on EVs, (and in the absence of gossip, we assume it is coincidence) Auckland Transport announced its latest bright idea, namely a fleet of EVs to be shared by some lucky members of the public in the interests of reducing congestion and air pollution.

Reducing air pollution and congestion are worthy goals, and ordinarily one would support measures that made a contribution to these. Investment in Auckland's rapid transit network would be an example of such a measure. But a small fleet of electric cars?? Is AT serious?

Consider some numbers. According to the Herald the scheme would start with 250-300 vehicles, rising to 500 "in time". If each of the shared 500 EVs contains four people then this is the equivalent of about 50 buses worth of commuters. New Zealand Bus alone (there are numerous smaller operators) has a fleet of 650 buses in Auckland and moves over 35 million people per year. So EVs will offer an exclusive service. More important is the volume of cars already on the road: there were 220,557 new car and station wagon registrations in 2014 (figures here). If these new registrations are allocated between the regions on a population basis then about 72,000 of those vehicles were registered in Auckland. Vehicles also leave the fleet so the net gain would have been less. Bear in mind this is just the gain in one year. Similarly, the 2013 Census records about 435,000 Aucklanders commute in some form of private vehicle (see here).
Given these figures, it would seem that relying on 500 electric cars to solve congestion and reduce air pollution is magical thinking.

Unfortunately  none of the media releases let slip how much 500 EVs would cost. In the US the average EV costs about USD$32,000 (the rebate doesn't apply in New Zealand). That's about NZ$40,000. At that price, 500 EVS will suck $20,000,000 out of the already-stretched transport budget. This is at a time AT is already pruning back much-needed public transport upgrades in the South, including bus shelters. OK, so bus shelters aren't sexy but they're a lot more useful than electric cars for which there is no public mandate (the South Auckland public transport upgrades have been consulted on and signed off by the Local Boards).

So who will get to use these EVs? AT envisages they will be shared. Sharing vehicles is not popular in Auckland because it is difficult to coordinate work times and destinations among people who live sufficiently close to car share. It only really works for workers in the central city, which has the employment density and a greater likelihood that people work similar hours. It is unlikely, for example, that a group of office cleaners will be able to organise around their different hours and workplaces in order to enjoy an electric car and free parking on the ratepayers dime. For people working in differing locations (contract tradesmen), or who work zero-hours contracts, or have multiple part-time jobs, car sharing as envisaged by AT would be all but impossible.

So we are left with the uncomfortable fact that, like the light rail proposal, AT's electric car fleet is middle-class welfare for those already in good jobs, working regular hours. And it will be subsidised by those seeing their current public transport needs being deferred while AT scrambles around to save a few bucks here and there. 

The Council wants Aucklanders to support a motorway toll to support its expanded transport plan. At the moment, there is no reason anyone in South Auckland would have any incentive to support such a toll. Light rail and EVs are not regional transport priorities. They are a benefit for the already privileged. Sorry AT, but this merits an E for equity.

Wednesday, March 4, 2015

Dear Mr Woodhouse: working people deserve a living wage

Even in a Cabinet notable for its lack of intellectual depth, Workplace Relations and Safety Minister Michael Woodhouse is quickly establishing himself as a lightweight.

Asked on Campbell Live about the implications of zero-hours contracts (ie no or variable pay from week to week) his response was that workers should go to Work and Income for help.

Think about that for a moment. People who are in paid employment are being told to go cap in hand to the agency that reluctantly provides assistance to the destitute. Memo to Mr Woodhouse: it is not the function of Work and Income to provide income assistance for those in work. 

I have talked to older New Zealanders with a touching faith that we still have a 'social welfare' system that provides a safety net. Their naivity is understandable: the manistream press unquestioningly regurgitates any government press release congratulating themselves on their protection of the vulnerable. Mr Woodhouse, on the other hand, as the member of a government actively moving people off the welfare rolls as part of its Better Public Services targets, has no such excuse. In addition, it is a bad look for the government to gloat about the number of people moving off welfare into work on the one hand, then tell them they still need to deal with Work and Income on the other. Mr Woodhouse should have a discussion with his colleague Anne Tolley (if he can find her) about what exactly a visit to Work and Income might involve (hint: it's not very life-affirming).

Since Mr Woodhouse is obviously clueless about what going to Work and Income might entail, and the chances of one's application for assistance being processed on time and correctly, here is a photo taken at the Auckland Action Against Poverty impact at Mangere last year. At this impact, AAAP dealt with over 500 people who were not receiving their full and correct WINZ entitlements. AAAP have had a steady stream of people through the doors ever since who are also fighting to get their entitlements or have had their entitlements cut for no good reason. 

Zero-hours contracts are modern day serfdom, and their increasing use by employers is exacerbating to our already high income inequality. Worse, it makes it hard for families to have any certainty of income from week to week. In a country as wealthy as New Zealand, this is a travesty. Working people deserve a living wage.

Monday, January 26, 2015

Are dog bite convictions really related to ethnicity?

Spider and I have been pondering Auckland SPCA Executive Dirctor Bob Kerridge's reported comments about the link between dog bites and ethnicity. Spider and I have an interest in this: Spider has bitten me (it was my fault) and has been known to be aggressive to strange people when on his leash. Neither of us have been convicted for any of these incidents.

The raw data are that there have been 314 dog attack convictions in Manukau from 2009-2014, and 77 convictions in Auckland City in the sa
me period. Manukau has lots of, you know, ethnic persons, so according to Mr Kerridge it makes sense that "ethnicity does have a bearing factor in terms of dog attacks...those of immigrant [groups] and Pacific Island people...dog ownership is not natural to them." Putting to one side the mangled grammar, the  question arises: is Mr Kerridge right? Is the higher number of convictions for dog attacks in Manukau due to ethnicity?

As anyone who has a slight knowledge of statistics will tell you, what would be a more helpful figure is dog attack convictions per head of population, or per registered dog. If South Auckland has more people and more dogs than Auckland City, then we would expect more dog bite convictions regardless of the ethnicity of the residents. Unfortunately these figures are not supplied.

One thing we do know is that children are more vulnerable to dog attacks than adults, and that there are far more children in South Auckland than in Auckland City. How many of these convictions related to attacks on children? Again, this information is not supplied. We also know that Maori and Pacific people are more likely to be prosecuted and convicted of crime than Europeans. Are conviction rates for dog attacks across Auckland and Manukau comparable?
 
 
And lastly, is the number of convictions the appropriate data by which to judge the dog menace? What about the ACC dog-bite data? What about hospital admission data? Each of these would tell a different story: which is the 'right' story?

Until we know some of this, it is hard to support the claim that the number of dog attack convictions is directly related to the ethnicity of the residents of Manukau. And as for the claim that "dog ownership is not natural to them", that is just spurious nonsense. What's "natural", and how would we know? Surely the point of humans is their ability to learn and adapt.

Mr Kerridge has been a staunch advocate for animals over the years. But perhaps he should leave the statistical comparisons to others.

2015

Happy New Year, all. Spider and I have been thinking about what we might do this year, and come to no firm conclusions. We thought perhaps we'd try to put together some longer, more serious, pieces that probably won't be of interest to anyone but ourselves. We've got a couple of things lined up, it's just a matter of me getting my act together to write them. So don't hold your breath...

As a light starter, first up: some thoughts on Bob Kerridge's random outburst.

And in case you're wondering why Spider now looks like a middle-aged dog and not a puppy, it's because he is middle-aged. Time flies. Have a happy 2015, one and all.