The latest on housing unaffordability made worse by speculation. It seems our Canadian cuzzies are on the right track;
Which merited this response from me, addressed to National voters;
from: Frank Macskasy <firstname.lastname@example.org>
to: Dominion Post <email@example.com>
date: Mon, Sep 5, 2016
subject: Letter to the editor
Canada’s Vancouver has been suffering a mirror-image of Auckland’s runaway housing price boom. Like Auckland, average house prices were past the $900,000 mark. Canadians were being locked out of buying their own home by cashed-up foreign speculators.
Last month, the State government of British Columbia imposed a 15% sales tax on foreign house buyers (Chinese, Americans, etc) and the result has deterred foreign speculators.
Here in New Zealand, National is obsessed with it’s free-market doctrine and is willing to sacrifice our tradition of home-ownership. Foreign (and homegrown) speculators are inflating a housing bubble that is not only unfair to New Zealanders wanting to buy their own home, but is ultimately unsustainable.
Unless we literally want to become tenants in our own country, the sale of houses to non-New Zealanders must be banned immediatly. The free-market doctrine serves wealthy overseas investors, as well as local speculators, but not New Zealanders wanting their own homes.
I urge those who vote National to consider what sort of country they want to live in, and what sort of country they want to leave their children.
If National voters think that money is all that matters, then we truly will get the kind of society we deserve.
[address and phone number supplied]
Let’s hope the ‘light goes on‘ with National voters…
Previous related blogpost
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 6 September 2016
= fs =
Beware of so-called “Reforms”
In December last year, National announced plans to “overhaul its educational support for children with special needs“. Radio NZ reported;
From the middle of next year it said the system would be significantly redesigned to be simpler and provide more support for teachers and parents.
Today it published the results of 150 public meetings held this year to identify ways of improving education for children with special education needs, such as a physical or mental disability.
As a result of those meetings it is planning changes that would include giving families, teachers and specialists a single point of contact for arranging support for children.
Before that happened, the Education Ministry would begin 22 projects aimed at improving special education in groups of schools and early childhood centres around the country.
As with all reforms from National, there would be ‘fish hooks’. Promises to “provide more support for teachers and parents” would prove to be a sugar-coated pill at best – or most likely illusory in actuality.
Rumblings in the Education Sector
On 15 April this year, Radio NZ reported further criticisms of under-funding for children with special needs;
Special education desperately needs more funding, which should be included in the government’s overhaul of the sector, parents and educators say.
The Ministry of Education says it is simplifying the $590 million system for helping children with disabilities, but there won’t be any more money to accompany the changes which will be introduced in 2017.
Critics say that is not good enough, because too many children are not getting the help they need.
The Early Childhood sector criticised National for under-funding special needs children;
Early Childhood Council chief executive Peter Reynolds said more support was also desperately needed in the early childhood sector.
“The model isn’t working that’s there at the moment. It needs to be changed and it’s got to be done quickly.
“It’s okay to take your time over doing a review or whatever you want to call it, but at the end of the day we’ve got people falling through the gaps right now, and they shouldn’t have to.”
But Education Minister Hekia Parata said she was confident there would be tangible benefits from the special education changes, without more money.
“We want to get this right. We have a vision for a system that is inclusive, we’re recognised internationally as being so and we just want to continuously improve.”
Note the caveat from Parata; “without more money“.
Where would increased funding for under-fives with special needs come from if it was achieved “without more money“?
Answer: National resorted to one of it’s old tricks.
The answer came as a bombshell on 22 August.
Education Minister, Hekia Parata, revealed that primary and secondary schools’ funding for special needs students would be slashed, and the money re-directed to under-fives. As Radio NZ explained;
The [Cabinet] documents also indicated the government would reduce the amount of special education funding spent in the school sector, and dramatically increase the amount spent on those under the age of five.
“Analysis of the spend by the age range of the recipient indicates that a disproportionate amount of the funds are for school-age children. This is despite clear evidence in some areas that early support can have greater benefits in terms of educational outcomes.”
As implications of Parata’s scheme began to percolate through the education sector, reaction was scathing. A day later, the Secondary Principals’ Association responded;
A proposed cut to special education spending in schools would be a disaster, the head of the Secondary Principals’ Association says.
Documents show the government wants to greatly increase its spending on under-5s with special needs, at the expense of spending on school-aged children.
One of the areas it has singled out for urgent review is the Ongoing Resourcing Scheme for children with the most significant special needs, and in particular, the those aged 18 to 21 who use it.
Secondary Principals’ Association president Sandy Pasley said secondary schools would not cope well with a cut.
“We haven’t got enough as it is and to lose some funding from secondary sector would be quite dramatic for schools.
“We understand that it’s good to put it into the early years but not at the expense of students in secondary schools because often the special education needs don’t go away and sometimes they’re exacerbated by adolescence.”
Ms Pasley said the association would try and persuade the government not to go ahead with the proposal, which she said would be a disaster.
Kim Hall from Autism Action told Nine to Noon children under 5-years-old with autism needed more support – but funding for that should not be taken from school-aged children.
Hall made this critical point;
“Some children aren’t diagnosed until they start school or even later, so that means those children already miss out on that vital funding at the start.”
More on that issue in a moment.
Shamefully, the Early Childhood Council seemed willing to be an accomplice to National’s shuffling of scarce funding for vulnerable children. Early Childhood Council CEO, Peter Reynolds, did not hide his enthusiasm;
“On paper it looks good. It’s a shame we’ve got to wait another few months before we start seeing this thing roll out, but we’ll be wanting to work very closely with the ministry to ensure kids who are struggling right now get some sort of relief in the future and their parents get that relief as well.”
Parata justified the money-shuffle, with the usual spin;
“Evidence shows that providing learning support early in a child’s life will have much greater impact. We’re at a proposal stage of the process. Any changes wouldn’t come into effect until March 2017 at the earliest and will be managed incrementally and carefully to ensure ongoing support. What we are looking at, based on a year’s worth of consultation with the sector is, how do we redsign the service going forward, without compromising the service for those currently in it. So there will be a long transition.”
However, it is simply not correct that early detection and support for children – who will only gradually exhibit complex behavioural, intellectual, and other disabilities over time – is possible.
For children on the Autism Spectrum, recognising that a child is presenting may take up to five years, according to the on-line Ministry of Health document, “Does this person have ASD? New Zealand Autism Spectrum Disorder Guideline“;
There are three more common times when individuals are likely to present:
1. between the ages of 1 and 3 years, lack of development in the areas affected by ASD, such as language and play, becomes more obvious
2. between the ages of 5 and 8 years, when increased social and educational demands highlight difficulties
3. in adolescence or adulthood, when social isolation or relationship difficulties result in depression and other comorbid conditions.
The US group, Autism Speaks, points out;
In the United States, the average age of diagnosis with an autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is around 4 years of age.
All of which is confirmed by the very personal story of “Sally” and her son, “Zack”.
“Zack” – A Personal Story
From a blogpost published on 6 March 2012 (see: Once upon a time there was a solo-mum), on the problem of Minister Paula Bennett cutting the Training Incentive Allowance;
Sally* is 37 and a solo-mother with an 18 year-old (Wayne*) and 11 year (Zack*) old sons.
Sally had Wayne to her first partner, but the relationship did not last because of drug-taking and violent abuse on his part. (Some months after they separated, he committed suicide.) Sally went on to the DPB, raising her newborn son by herself.
Seven years later, Sally met someone else and formed a relationship with him. The relationship went well and she became pregnant (a son, Zack) to her new partner.
As her pregnancy progressed, Sally’s partner seemed to go off the rails, and he increasingly took up drink and drugs with his boozy mates. As Sally said, he “was more into his mates than his family” and she finally threw him out.
Sally was adamant she did not want someone like him as a role-model for her sons. She went back on the DPB and began to examine her options in life.
Eventually, Sally applied for a course at Victoria University for a bachelors degree in early childhood education. She applied for, and got, the Training Incentive Allowance (TIA).
Zack’s father saw his young son a couple of times during his first year as a newborn and infant, but thereafter showed little interest in maintaining contact. He eventually disappeared from Sally and her children’s life. She was on her own to raise her sons – a role she took seriously, and sought no new relationships with men.
Instead, she applied herself to her university course.
Sally says that the TIA helped her immensely, paying her transport, study-costs, fees, and childcare for her sons. She says,
“You could only get the TIA on the DPB, not on the dole, which I thought was unfair.”
After her graduation, Sally followed up with a Masters degree, which took another four years in part-time study. During the final two years of her uni studies, she took up a part-time job. This decreased the amount she received on the DPB, and her part-time job was taxed at the Secondary Tax Rate (her benefit was considered as a “primary job” by the IRD).
Sally took out a student loan for her M.Ed, as WINZ would not pay the Training Incentive Allowance for higher university education.
One could view the “claw back” of her DPB and higher tax-rate on her part-time job as a dis-incentive which penalised Sally, and others in her position, but she persevered. With end-of-year tax refunds, she says it “all squared out” – but she could have done with the extra money through the year.
Sally graduated and got her Masters degree in early childhood education. By this time, Wayne was 14 and Zack, 6. One month later, she found a full time job and replaced the DPB with a good salary. She says that the MA gives her an extra $11,000 per annum.
During her studies and part time job, Sally raised her two sons – one of whom was increasingly “challenging” with Aspergers and ADHD.
(This blogger can confirm that young Zack – whilst a bright, personable child – can also be “a handful”, and was effectively thrown out of his previous school for “disruptive behaviour”.)
Zack’s story was continued in another blogpost on 8 June 2013 (see: When the State fails our children), on the issue of Special Needs Education. I provided more detail on Zack’s circumstances;
Zack is an intelligent, charming, highly curious, young man (12) who requires one-on-one support during his entire school day. Not having that one-on-one support is untenable for both Zack or the school, as he can “flip out” at provocations which other children might not notice.
Zack was expelled from two previous schools for lack of one-on-one support from a teacher-aid.
He was enrolled at his current school with the specific agreement that Zack would be provided full-time, one-on-one support from a dedicated teacher-aid.
It soon become apparent that the Ministery had assigned this teacher-aid (who was doing the best she could under the circumstances) to two children; Zack, and another child at another school.
Not being able to violate given laws of physics by being in two places simultaneously, the school took action to cut down Zack’s hours in class. He was permitted to attend class only when the teacher aid was present (approx 4 hours per day). When she left to attend her second client, Zack’s grandmother collected him. (Zack’s mother, Sally, is a solo-mum who works at an early childhood facility.)
Implementation of promises of full support – the current fashionable term is “intensive wraparound support” – by the Ministry of Education have been erratic and never fully implemented. (At the beginning the Ministry was reluctant to offer any support for Zack. They relented only when schools refused to accept him unless there was funding for a teacher-aid.)
Zack’s teacher-aid was funded through the Ongoing Resourcing Scheme (ORS). According to the Education Ministry website, ORS is described as;
“Ongoing Resourcing Scheme (ORS) funding is used to provide specialist services and support for students with the very highest needs for special education.
ORS helps students join in and learn alongside other students at school. Any student who meets the ORS criteria is included in the scheme.”
For Zack, ORS provided;
“teacher aides to support teachers to include students in class programmes and activities”
Without a teacher’s aide present, Zack was easily distracted or could become stressed and angry at the usual background classroom noise, chatter, and other stimuli which other children mostly never notice. The consequence almost always resulted in an outburst from Zack and disruption of the class.
Without support from a teacher aide, funded by ORS, Zack’s education would have been limited and no school would have enrolled him. He would have had to be home-schooled by his mother who would have had to quit her job and return to the Domestic Purposes Benefit. Even that form of home-schooling would have had limited success, as Sally found it increasingly difficult to manage her son.
With minimal education and an Aspergers-personality, Zack’s future prospects would have been grim.
Zack’s fascination with fire resulted in coming to the attention of Police (though this aspect of his behaviour has improved considerably in the last few years). The local community police constable played an outstanding and sympathetic role in helping Zack move past this dangerous obsession.
Zack’s Aspergers condition was not identified until later in his childhood, as this interview with Sally revealed;
Frank: “Kia ora Sally.
You’ve heard of government proposals to shift funding for Special Needs programmes from schools to pre-schools. As someone who works in Early Childhood Education, and with a teenage son with Aspergers, you have a foot in both camps. What are your views on this?”
Sally: “Rather than a ‘shift’ I think there needs to be an increase across the board. There are big gaps in funding meaning many children miss out on funding and thus the extra help that could benefit their education greatly.”
Frank: “At what age was Zack diagnosed on the Autism Spectrum?”
Sally: “He was 4 when we first wondered. By 5 or 6 he was considered to have aspects. I think he was about 8 or 9 when he was officially classified as having Asperger Syndrome.”
Frank: “So funding for pre-school Special Needs children would not have met Zack’s needs?”
Sally: “It wouldn’t have been available because [his] ‘needs’ at that age wouldn’t have met the requirements for funding.”
Frank: “So in effect, that would have left him ‘stranded’, without any government-funded support?”
Frank: “Without funding for Zack’s teacher aide, would Zack have been able to cope at school? He was asked to leave one school at least, wasn’t he?”
Sally: “He didn’t and doesn’t cope without extra teacher aide support. The funding for anyone not considered ‘high needs’ is non-existant. He only ever received funding when, because he wasn’t coping, his behaviour was out of control. Then when the extra support helped and his behaviour went down, funding and thus support was taken away and then his behaviour became an issue. ‘Asked to leave’. That’s a nice way to put it. Yes he left two schools because without funding and support they couldn’t deal with him. Although in all fairness I need to point out that the first of those schools didn’t try to work with him in appropriate ways and didn’t have a positive attitude towards children with special needs.”
Frank: “So if Zack was unable to cope at schools, without funding for support through a teacher’s aide, what would have happened to his education opportunities?”
Sally: “Not ‘would have’ but ‘has’. He is years behind academically and is struggling to gain credits for NCEA Level One. This is partly due to the several years at primary school where he didn’t learn a lot due to no funding or support and being in a highly emotional and behavioural state. It is also because of what workload he can cope with though. He will do Level One NCEA over three years so he can cope.”
Frank: “Would you have been able to carry on working in your own career if Zack had been forced through circumstances beyond his control, to stay home and be home-schooled?”
Sally: “No. I would have ended up back on the DPB. Luckily he ended up in a wonderful Intermediate for his last year there and then a great college that, even without extra funding, has an amazing learning support system. He doesn’t have teacher aides though because he gets no funding and that would help immensely, especially with English.”
Frank: “Without funding for a teacher’s aide, what do you believe would have been the outcome for his development?”
Sally: “The only teacher aide funding he ever got was in primary when his behaviour was out of control. If that had not been available he wouldn’t have been able to be supported to cope in class. The outcome of him not getting funding for a teacher aide in terms of his learning for all these years is he has learnt things a lot slower than he could of and he is still struggling to understand a lot of the curriculum.”
Frank: “Without funding for support for other children with Special needs at schools and secondary schools, what do you foresee as the outcome?”
Sally: “Schools being under even more pressure to help children without the funding or resources they need. The already limited resources being stretched to breaking point. An increasing number of children who leave school without the education they deserve or need to be active members of society. An increasing burden on the welfare system to support these adults that weren’t supported as children.
Plus an increased burden on the criminal system because without a good job people are more likely to steal to survive.”
Frank: “What do you say to Education Minister Hekia Parata’s proposals to cut Special Needs funding for schools and shifting the money to pre-schools?”
Sally: “Hekia, heck no! Funding needs to be increased across the board. While it is true that in ECE there needs to be increased funding for children with special needs and that the early years are the most important in terms of development, children still need support throughout their school lives.”
Frank: “Finally, how is Zack these days?”
Sally: “Struggling academically but he is at a very supportive school who are tailoring their approach to his learning to suit him. He no longer has extreme behaviour at school, partly because he is older but also because of the positive school environment he is in.”
Frank: “Thank you, Sally. All the best to you and your sons.”
Sally: “All good.”
National has come up with many “reforms”, proposals, policies, and ideas that eventually fail, or create unforeseen (or often foreseen; pre-warned; and ignored) problems.
On this occasion, the proposal to increase spending for under-fives children with special needs, at the expense of older children, is short-sighted madness that beggars belief.
There is simply no sensible rationale for this ill-considered, incoherent policy. If there is scientific backing, Parata is yet to release it to the media and public.
Parata is playing god with the lives of vulnerable children – children who are often unable to cope in a classroom-environment without constant “wraparound” support.
Taking money from children who can barely cope is simply beyond any measure of comprehension.
Is Parata so badly advised by her officials that she cannot understand the consequences of cutting support for children with special needs?
Is Parata’s Ministry so cash-strapped that she even considers taking funding from those who need it the most?
Children with special needs are highly vulnerable, facing considerable difficulties, with many lacking simple coping mechanisms. They live stressed, difficult lives that most New Zealanders are unaware of. They have started life several steps behind their peers. They are running, just to barely keep up.
If Parata is willing to undermine what little support these children receive, then she is a damaged person lacking in any measure of human empathy. I hold her in utter contempt.
Parata must resign.
* Sally and her son’s names have been changed to protect their privacy.
Radio NZ: Govt to phase out ‘special needs’
Autism Speaks: Hunting for Autism’s Earliest Clues
Ministry of Education: Overview of Ongoing Resourcing Scheme (ORS)
Ministry of Health: Does this person have ASD? New Zealand Autism Spectrum Disorder Guideline
How Melulater Sees It: Special Education – Let’s Change the Name and Solve Everything!!
How Melulater Sees It: Where are those wrap around services, Hekia?
Public Address: Some aspects of New Zealand’s disability history – part one (Nov, 2014)
Public Address: Some aspects of New Zealand’s disability history – part two (Dec, 2014)
Public Address: Some aspects of New Zealand’s disability history ‒ part three (Feb, 2015)
Previous related blogposts
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 27 August 2016.
= fs =
Continued from: 2015 – Ongoing jobless tally
So by the numbers, for this year;
- Fairfax media: 70 redundancies
- Prime Range Meats: 130 redundancies
- Stonewood Homes: 85 redundancies
- Dick Smith Electronics: 430 redundancies
- Wellington Hospital: 40 redundancies
- Solid Energy: 41 redundancies
- Bathurst Mining: 25 redundancies
- NZ Post: 500 redundancies
- Ministry of Justice: 100 redundancies
- Fisher & Paykel: 180 redundancies
- Cavalier Carpets: 65 redundancies
- Countdown Waihi: 41 redundancies
- Bathurst Resources Ltd: 8 redundancies
- Westport Harbour: 8 redundancies
- Holcim Cement: 105 / 150 redundancies
December 2015 quarter – Employment & Unemployment
Labour market at a glance
- Unemployment rate falls to 5.3 percent.
- Labour force participation rate falls for third consecutive quarter.
- Employment growth rises to 0.9 percent for the quarter.
- Annual wage inflation lowest since March 2010.
However, there was also a fall in the number of people looking for work, which also contributed to the lower jobless rate.
The jobless rate fell to its lowest level since 2009, with strong growth in the construction, retail and hospitality sectors.
Job growth was strong in the Auckland region as well as Wellington and Manawatu.
But the data also showed 14,000 people had stopped looking for work for various reasons, even though the size of the workforce had increased, driven by record immigration.
This led to a fall in the participation rate – the number either in work or looking for work – which Statistics New Zealand said also reflected people who had left the labour force, such as the retired.
But an economist said the fall in participation did not tally with growth in jobs and raised doubts about the reliability of the jobs data.
“The HLFS (household labour force survey) has long had questions over its accuracy given that there have often been cases where large ‘surprises’ such as today’s outcome are thrown up. Those questions will linger today,” ANZ senior economist Philip Borkin said.
March 2016 quarter – Employment & Unemployment
Labour market at a glance
- New Zealand’s labour force grows 1.5 percent, the largest quarterly growth since December 2004.
- Employment growth exceeds population growth over the quarter.
- The unemployment rate increased to 5.7 percent, from a revised rate of 5.4 percent last quarter.
- Wage inflation remains subdued.
Unemployment – Decadal Comparison
The under-employment stats;
People who are underemployed are those who work part-time, would prefer to work more hours, and are available to do so. In unadjusted terms, the number of underemployed grew by 12 percent over the year. While the number of part-time workers increased over the year, the ratio of people underemployed to employed part-time also rose – from 17.1 percent in June 2013 to 18.7 percent this quarter.
Official under-employment: up
Jobless: people who are either officially unemployed, available but not seeking work, or actively seeking but not available for work. The ‘available but not seeking work’ category is made up of the ‘seeking through newspaper only’, ‘discouraged’, and ‘other’ categories.
Under-employment: employed people who work part time (ie usually work less than 30 hours in all jobs) and are willing and available to work more hours than they usually do.
Employed: people in the working-age population who, during the reference week, did one of the following:
worked for one hour or more for pay or profit in the context of an employee/employer relationship or self-employment
worked without pay for one hour or more in work which contributed directly to the operation of a farm, business, or professional practice owned or operated by a relative
had a job but were not at work due to: own illness or injury, personal or family responsibilities, bad weather or mechanical breakdown, direct involvement in an industrial dispute, or leave or holiday.
Addendum2: Other Sources
Statistics NZ: Household Labour Force Survey
“Labour force participation rate” – the total labour force expressed as a percentage of the working-age population. Labour force participation is closely linked to how the working-age population is defined.
To be periodically up-dated.
= fs =
On 1 August, Titahi Bay resident, Anne Perry had this letter published in the Dominion Post;
Ms Perry made pertinent points and raised the very real problem of funding cuts and terminated contracts for community organisations dealing with some of society’s most vulnerable and damaged people. Or helping people who were stressed from having to deal with life’s increasing pressures, complexities, and financial demands.
I added my thoughts to her call for greater funding for our community organisations;
from: Frank Macskasy <firstname.lastname@example.org>
to: Dominion Post <email@example.com>
date: Tue, Aug 2, 2016
subject: Letter to the editor
Anne Perry’s letter criticising under-funding for Plunket highlights an ongoing crisis faced by many community organisations. (letters, 1 August)
National has slashed funding or terminated contracts, forcing NGOs to cut front-line staff and services. Some have closed altogether.
Women’s Refuge, 198 Youth Health Centre, Auckland Sex Abuse Help, Rape Prevention Education, Parents As First Teachers programme, Community Law Centre, Smokefree Coalition, Lifeline, Relationship Services, early childhood education, is a litany of cut-backs and closures.
In other instances, contracts are terminated and re-awarded to other organisations, resulting in a loss of institutional knowledge and experience.
An example of near closure last year was the Problem Gambling Foundation.
This year, National has announced a “review” of Richmond’s Salisbury School, a facility that offers specialised education to girls with disabilities and high-needs.
Just as the sale of state housing has increased homelessness and over-crowding, the constant re-shuffling of services and funding cuts has predictable consequences.
National’s social policies are random and ad hoc.
There was money for a flag referendum; bailing out the Southland aluminium smelter; and a sheep farm in the middle of a Saudi desert to placate an irate Saudi businessman.
Meanwhile, Plunket goes begging with cap in hand.
What is wrong with this picture?
[address and phone number supplied]
Dominion Post: Women’s Refuge cuts may lead to waiting lists
Radio NZ: ‘Destabilising’ funding changes proposed
Radio NZ: Community groups ‘fear speaking out’
NZ Herald: Funding win for Problem Gambling Foundation
Fairfax media: Richmond’s Salisbury School may close in January
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 3 August 2016.
= fs =
2007: John Key says Housing is in crisis
On 20 August 2007, National’s new leader, John Key, made a stirring speech to the Auckland branch of the New Zealand Contractors Federation. In it, he lambasted the then-Clark-led Labour government;
“Over the past few years a consensus has developed in New Zealand. We are facing a severe home affordability and ownership crisis. The crisis has reached dangerous levels in recent years and looks set to get worse.
This is an issue that should concern all New Zealanders. It threatens a fundamental part of our culture, it threatens our communities and, ultimately, it threatens our economy.
The good news is that we can turn the situation around. We can deal with the fundamental issues driving the home affordability crisis. Not just with rinky-dink schemes, but with sound long-term solutions to an issue that has long-term implications for New Zealand’s economy and society.
National has a plan for doing this and we will be resolute in our commitment to the goal of ensuring more young Kiwis can aspire to buy their own home.”
In 2007, Key described “home affordability and ownership” as a “crisis”.
2016: John Key says Housing is a more like a “challenge”
Almost exactly five years, one of my first blogposts involved the looming housing crisis. On 3 August, 2011, I wrote;
The shortage of state housing is a serious matter, though. This critical problem of decent, affordable housing is not helped by the fact that the Fourth National government (1996-1999) sold around 13,000 State Houses in the 1990s. These properties were supposedly made available to tenants – but actually went mostly to property speculators (who later sold them for tax-free capital gains).
When Labour was elected to power in November 1999, they immediatly placed a moratorium on the sale of state housing. According to HNZ, they currently ” own or manage more than 66,000 properties throughout the country, including about 1,500 homes used by community groups”
This government has re-instated the sale of state houses. It does not take rocket science to work out that selling of state housing reduces the availability of housing stock. Housing Minister Phil Heatley said that,
“… about 40,000 of the 69,000 state house stock will be available for sale,” but then added, “that the vast majority of tenants do not earn enough to be required to pay market rent means relatively few will be in a position to buy“. (Source.)
There seems to be nothing stopping tenants from buying their state house and immediatly on-selling it to a Third Party.
Is it any wonder that the shortage of state housing is not being addressed in any meaningful way?
That was five years ago.
The housing crisis appears to have only recent dawned on National ministers. As Social Housing Minister, Paula Bennett said on 25 May this year;
“Certainly what we’ve seen is it has been more acute in the last two years.”
It is most certainly not a recent problem. It is only “new” if you are a well-paid National minister, living in a tax-payer-funded residence.
In my blogpost five years ago, I offered a solution to the housing crisis confronting this country;
Solution: build more houses.
This may seem like a ‘flippant’ answer to a desperate problem – but it is not.
The building of 10,000 new state houses may seem an outrageously expensive idea. But it would address at least three pressing problems in our economy and society;
1. Persistantly high unemployment.
2. Low growth.
3. Inadequate housing for the poorest of our fellow New Zealanders.
At an average housing cost of $257,085 (calculated at DBH website @ $1,773/m for a 145 square metre, small house), the cost (excluding land) is $2.57 billion dollars, including GST (approximate estimate).
By contrast, the October 2010 tax cuts gave $2.5 billion to the top 10% of income earners.
For roughly the cost of last year’s tax cuts, we could have embarked on a crash building-programme to construct ten thousand new dwellings in this country. …]
It would be a boom-time, as two and a half billion dollars was spent on products and services.
Would it actually end up costing taxpayers $2.57 billion dollars? The answer is ‘no’. Government would actually re-coup much of that initial outlay through;
- other taxes
- reduced spending on welfare for unemployed
- and investment re-couped by rent paid for new rentals
Would it work?
Yes, it would. An NZIER survey expects a strong pick-up in 2013 when the rebuilding phase hits full-flight, with 3.9% annual growth predicted from a previous forecast of 2.6%.
There is no reason why a determined government cannot adopt a bold programme for economic growth.
Instead of borrowing to pay for tax cuts we can ill afford, we should be investing in jobs. The rest will almost invariably take care of itself.
We have the resources. We have the money. We have the demand for new housing. What else is missing?
The will to do it.
National has been half-hearted in it’s will to address this crisis. It has implemented a few lukewarm, ad hoc measures, but they are five years too late and too little.
Some of National’s announcements have been panic-driven;
At other times, National has indulged in it’s favourite past-time of “blame-gaming”;
By 2016, under Key’s watch, homelessness has increased; housing affordability has worsened, and home ownership has plummeted. Our esteemed Dear Leader no longer calls it a “crisis“. It is now just a “challenge“;
“I don’t think it’s a crisis, but prices are going up too quickly.”
“There are plenty of challenges in housing, and there have been for quite some time.”
Make no mistake, this is a direct consequence of National’s laissez-faire approach and an opportunistic reliance on mass immigration to keep the economy afloat at a time when dairying is no longer the main driver of economic growth.
By any definition, National’s “hands off” approach to housing – whether social housing for the poor or affordable housing for the Middle Classes – has been an abject failure.
The mood for change has never been as palpable since the dying days of the Shipley-led National government in 1999.
The Labour Response
On 10 July, Labour leader Andrew Little congratulated Labour on it’s 100th year birthday. He also put the boot firmly and fairly up National’s backside for it’s hopeless track record on housing.
If the supply of food were in short-supply and expensive as is housing for poor and middle-class New Zealanders, there would be rioting in the streets by now. By morning there would be a revolutionary government sitting in the Ninth Floor of the Beehive and Key and his ministerial cronies would be in hiding, exile, or under arrest.
Little began with a brief, but accurate refresher course in New Zealand history;
“We’re here to celebrate Labour’s creation of the welfare state, the achievements of widespread home ownership and the creation of state housing, a free health system and a free education system.
In short, we celebrate the building of a nation.
We celebrate and we remember the image of Michael Joseph Savage carrying the very first furniture into the very first state house.
Offering hope to people that the years of depression were over and there were brighter days ahead.
We’re here to celebrate the beginning of the reconciliation between Maori and Pakeha and the restoration of the mana of the Treaty of Waitangi.
We’re celebrating the decision to make New Zealand nuclear free. We celebrate the courage shown by thousands of New Zealanders who marched against the Springbok Tour.
We’re celebrating KiwiBank. Kiwisaver. Working for Families. The Cullen Fund.
We celebrate Homosexual Law Reform and we remember the scene of the packed galleries in Parliament rising in song after we passed Marriage Equality.
These are Labour achievements.
This is the legacy of our party.”
Little omitted Labour’s de-railing in the 1980s at the hands of a small cadre of Neo-liberal fifth columnists. They who delivered our country into the hands of global finance. They who were the authors of a failed economic experiment that caused generations of misery, and rewarded the top 10% with unearned wealth. They whose names will pass into history and be quietly forgotten.
This was a moment where Little – like his predecessor David Cunliffe – turned his back on neo-liberalism and announced to the country that the experiment was over. Labour would take back the reigns of responsibility for ensuring housing for all;
“After eight years, this government’s lost touch.
And nowhere, nowhere, is this government more out of touch and out of ideas than on housing.
Housing is at the core of a good life.
It provides security and stability.
It helps families put down roots in their communities and save for retirement
It is one of the most common sources of capital for people setting up their own small business.
The ambition of widespread homeownership sits at the heart of our social contract. It is at the heart of the Kiwi Dream.
The promise that if you work hard and do the right thing, you can earn a place of your own.”
A few salient statistics drove home the worsening crisis to anyone who needed convincing;
“Since 2008, when this government came to office, the average house price in Auckland has nearly doubled.
But over the same period, incomes have increased by only 24%.
In the last year, house prices in Auckland have increased by $2600 a week.
Twenty six hundred dollars a week.
It’s crazy. How on earth do you save enough to keep up with that?
The proportion of Auckland houses being bought by investors has now reached 46% – around twice the level of first home buyers.”
Little went on to explain how the housing crisis went in tandem with other worsening social indicators;
“And then there is the hard edge of the crisis.
The rising poverty and homelessness that National turns a blind eye to.
We’ve all heard the stories of Kiwi kids admitted to hospitals with respiratory illnesses because the cold damp homes they have to live in are making them sick.
We’ve all seen the awful media reports in the last few weeks about what life is like for those who can’t find any home at all.
Of the 42,000 people living in overcrowded conditions or in garages or in cars.
Of children sleeping under bushes in South Auckland.
We’ve seen the story of the 11 year old girl, whose mother has a job, but whose family spent months living in a van before they were taken in by Te Puea Marae.
She said that the hardest part is actually not being able to read in the van, because you don’t have space. And there’s not much light because it would waste the battery.”
These are matters raised that Labour’s opponants on the Right cannot easily dismiss or explain away. These are real events from real New Zealanders living under the currently all-too-real neo-liberal system.
Increasing child poverty; income/wealth disparity; and a worsening housing crisis – all of which are the spawn of thirty years of neo-liberalism.
Those who maintain that poverty has deepened because the “market” has not been sufficiently de-regulated, nor government reduced, nor taxes sufficiently cut, need to ask themselves; “At what point does an experiment that is showing no signs of positive improvement have to be concluded as an abject failure”?
As Little demanded from the party-faithful;
“When did this become the New Zealand we lived in?”
Little then laid out what he called Labour’s comprehensive plan to take to the election next year. He said that a Labour government would;
- …urgently address the shortage of emergency housing – with $60 million to provide 1400 new beds in emergency accommodation – enough for 5100 extra people a year. With the existing support that will take the number of people helped each year to over 8,000.
- …reform housing New Zealand – so that instead of being run like a corporation making a profit off the most vulnerable, we can invest hundreds of millions of dollars in building thousands of new, modern, high quality state houses instead.
- …will build 100,000 new affordable homes to be on sold to first home buyers.
- …will set up an Affordable Housing Authority to deliver ambitious new urban development projects, at scale and at pace. We are going to change the face of our towns and cities, and fix this housing crisis. The Authority will have a target to meet: 50% across all of the homes in its developments will have to be affordable. The Authority will look after the Government’s urban land holdings, and will make sure there is a pipeline of land for future needs – for housing, business, schools, parks and hospitals.
- …ban offshore buyers from the market unless they are willing to build a new home and add to the stock..
- …will extend the bright line test so that if you sell an investment property within five years, you’ll pay the full tax on it. That means the short term speculators won’t be able to get away tax free anymore. It means ending the tax incentives to speculate in short term property gains at the expense of families trying to get into a home.
- …will begin consulting on how to end the loop hole of negative gearing.
Perhaps Labour’s most audacious plan is to set up a new “Affordable Housing Authority”.
If one reads his speech a certain way, he is planning on reviving a newer, 21st century version of the old Ministry of Works (which was privatised by National in late 1996.) If so, it could be the most direct way to build houses for people in desperate need.
Considering that most of this country’s infra-structure was built by the old Ministry of Works (or similar state bodies), including the telecommunications systems being used to upload this blogpost onto this website, it would not be a far-stretch of the imagination that it could be done again.
If so, this wasn’t just a speech – it was a Manifesto for the Last Rites of Neo-liberalism.
Property Investors throw their toys out of the cot
The reactionary response from the NZ Property Investors Federation was utterly predictable. They were miffed. All of a sudden, their tax-free pot of gold was about to be denied to them
The Federation’s executive officer, Andrew King, bleated like a spoiled brat who had just been told to share his toys;
“In one part of his speech, he said there were homeless people and people living in overcrowded conditions and they wanted to do something about that. How does making it harder to provide rental homes to these people achieve it? Unbelievable.”
It may have escaped King’s somewhat narrow-attention, but homelessness and over-crowding has worsened during the time that his members have enjoyed spectacular tax-free gains. What were they doing in the last eight years?
He also compared businesses, shares, and farms with housing;
“No other investment is like that. If you do the same with a farm, with shares, with a business, all of those wouldn’t be affected, just rental properties – it’s just wrong.”
Generally speaking, people do not live in “shares”, “businesses”, or farm paddocks (yet). People live in houses. That is the critical difference.
On top of which, astronomical rents are directly contributing to homelessness and over-crowding;
So to whine that, all of a sudden, Labour’s housing policies will “ make it harder to provide rental homes to these [homeless] people” is contemptible.
His members should be held to account for their part in our housing crisis. The sooner that a capital gains tax is introduced at the same rate as New Zealand’s company tax (28 cents in the dollar), the better.
Mr King’s absurd “pity me” comments have crossed the borderline into territory commonly known as;
National discovers Problem & Solution!
Last year, as stories of homelessness; over-crowding; fewer available Housing NZ homes; and worsening housing affordability began to make headlines around the country, National was grabbing money from a government department tasked with caring for the most vulnerable people in our society;
In all, National has raked in over half a billion dollars from Housing NZ;
Housing NZ dividends under National
HNZ Annual Report 2009-10 – $132 million (p86)
HNZ Annual Report 2010-11 – $71 million (p66)
HNZ Annual Report 2011-12 – $68 million (p57)
HNZ Annual Report 2012-13 – $77 million (p47)
HNZ Annual Report 2013-14 – $90 million – (p37)
HNZ Annual Report 2014-15 – $108 million – (p33)
HNZ Statement of Performance Expectations 2015/16 – $118 million – (p12)
Total: $664 million (over seven years)
Labour took dividends as well, around a third of National’s figure. The difference between the two is that Labour builds State housing, whilst National continually flogs them off.
This amounts to looting a critical government organisation that is akin to thieving from a charity.
This year’s 2016 Budget indicated that Housing NZ would pay a dividend of $38 million and $54 million next year, for 2017.
Twenty four hours after Andrew Little gave his speech to the country, Housing NZ suddenly announced no dividends would be paid for the next two years;
Labour’s Grant Robertson offered his rationale for National’s policy U-Turn;
“The first we hear from National that they suddenly believe Housing New Zealand needs to retain that money to invest in state houses is the morning after an announcement by the Labour Party that Housing New Zealand will never be required [by Labour] to provide a dividend to the government.
This is not a coincidence, this is a panicked, desperate response from the government.
What we know is that National has extracted dividends from Housing New Zealand over recent years and it’s quite clear that National has seen Housing New Zealand as a cash cow in the past.”
Bill English refuted allegations that National was panicking over Labour’s housing announcement only 24 hours previously;
“It’s nothing to do with Labour and the Greens. This is a $20 billion entity – you don’t come up with capital plans for the next five years because Labour puts out a press release.”
He also denied that National was looting Housing NZ;
“We don’t accept that taking the dividend is stealing from state housing, because the dividend is not the constraint on what gets built…
…If there was less dividend, we’d just put in more capital – it’s not driven by the availability of the cash.”
National takes money in the form of dividends and taxes from Housing NZ – whilst non-government charities are tax-free? And he earnestly claims it is not “stealing”?!
English then issued the most ridiculous explanation ever heard, that the figures in this year’s May 26 Budget “appear to be based on older HNZ numbers dating from almost a year ago“.
Yeah, right, Bill.
Is the Finance Minister really expecting New Zealanders to believe that the government’s May 2016 budget was full of inaccurate figures?
What is really galling is that Bill English, Steven Joyce, and other National Ministers expect us – the public – to believe this rubbish. It is revealing just how stupid they think we are.
Who is in charge anyway?!
Whenever National implements unpopular legislative changes, they often point to Labour having carried out similar policies.
In 2014, National “borrowed” Labour’s policy by implementing free health-care for children under 13.
Last year, National raised benefits by $25 (to take effect this year) for people on welfare.
This year, having their ‘hand forced’ by Labour’s housing policy, the Nats have cancelled dividends from Housing NZ for the next two years.
National seems to be highly influence by Labour.
Which raises the question; who is actually setting policy and governing the country? Because it appears we almost have a de facto Labour Government pulling the strings.
A Cautionary Note for Labour
On TVNZ’s Q+A on 10 July, Corin Dann quizzed Andrew Little on Labour’s policy toward Housing NZ tenants. Corin Dann specifically asked Little about whether or not tenants should have state houses for life;
Corin Dann: You talk about state houses – an extra thousand state houses. Does Labour believe that someone should have a state house for life?
Andrew Little: I think we think when people are in circumstances where they can’t afford to buy their own home, can’t afford to rent, they’ve got to have a home. They’ve got to have a home, get their life on track, underway.
Corin Dann: Do they have it for life?
Andrew Little: If they’re at a point in their life where their circumstances have changed, and actually, they can afford to buy, my view is I would rather work with them to get them to buy that house so we could then release some funds to build the next state house.
Corin Dann: So you keen National’s policy? They don’t keep them for life?
Andrew Little: Well, I don’t agree with the policy that says we’ll target elderly people on fixed incomes in a state house and see if we can toss them out. That’s not a solution to anything. But what I would say is people who have gone into a state house early, got their lives sorted out,…
Corin Dann: They should move on if they can.
Andrew Little: …the circumstances are right, if we can sell that house to them, why wouldn’t we? And use the funds then to build the next state house for the next vulnerable person.
Selling State houses to tenants is text-book privatisation policy for National, and was a prime plank for the Bolger and Shipley-led governments in the 1990s.
It is a dangerous road for a Labour government to go down.
Selling a state house to a tenant may seem a kindly gesture from a benevolent left-wing government.
But eventually a National-led government will be elected back into power. Their track record on selling State houses is evident and they would have no hesitation in taking a Labour policy of selling State housing to tenants and expanding on it.
This is thin-edge-of-the-wedge, slippery-slope stuff.
This is mis-guided to the extreme, and will provide a future right-wing government a ready-made policy to act upon. And not in a nice way.
If Labour is serious in returning to it’s social democratic roots, it would do well to think carefully before embarking on such a naive policy.
Instead, it should consider the following;
Transience is one of the greatest problems affecting low-income, poverty-stricken families. Moving from one house to another is debilitating to such families – especially for children.
A government report states that transience for children can have extreme, negative impact on their learning;
Nearly 3,700 students were recognised as transient during the 2014 year. Māori students were more likely to be transient than students in other ethnic groups.
Students need stability in their schooling in order to experience continuity, belonging and support so that they stay interested and engaged in learning.
All schools face the constant challenge of ensuring that students feel they belong and are encouraged to participate at school. When students arrive at a school part-way through a term or school year, having been at another school with different routines, this challenge may become greater.
Students have better outcomes if they do not move school regularly. There is good evidence that student transience has a negative impact on student outcomes, both in New Zealand and overseas. Research suggests that students who move home or school frequently are more likely to underachieve in formal education when compared with students that have a more stable school life. A recent study found that school movement had an even stronger effect on educational success than residential movement.
There is also evidence that transience can have negative effects on student behaviour, and on short term social and health experience
Encouraging families to stay long-term in State housing not only creates a sense of community amongst tenants; stability for fragile, vulnerable families, but assists in the long-term stability and education of children.
Not only is a state house “for-life” fair, it provides real, tangible, long-term benefits.
 Guaranteed Tenancy
Low-income, vulnerable families in State housing must be given guaranteed, protected security-of-tenure.
Currently, tenants are exposed to the winds-of-change whenever there is a change in government. Their tenure is at the pleasure of right-wing governments, and mass-evictions have been commonplace under John Key’s administration;
A progressive government must do all within it’s power to protect such vulnerable families. Otherwise what is the point of throwing out right-wing regimes when their ideologically-driven policies no longer palatable, and well past their Use-By date?
Tenancies must be secured. Either by the use of long-term contracts, enforceable in Courts of law, or by some other means such as entrenched legislation.
Labour-led governments come and go.
But tenancies for our most vulnerable must be protected from the whims of others.
 State Housing Protected
As well as protection for tenants of state housing, state houses themselves must be entrenched and protected from the rapaciousness of right-wing governments.
In modern, First World societies, the power of contract is supposedly sacrosanct.
It should not be beyond a progressive government to use some means of contract-law to safe-guard state housing. Once this is accomplished, it should make it near-impossible for a right-wing regime to wreak havoc with the lives of the poor.
Perhaps it is time to look at how we can make the concept of contract-law work in the favour of those who have least wealth to lose.
There is much more work to be done.
Scoop media: Key – Speech to New Zealand Contractors Federation
theyworkforyou.co.nz: State Houses—Sale and Disposal
NZ History: Construction and sale of state houses, 1938-2002
Housing NZ Corporation: Rent, Buy or Own – overview (archived page)
Department of Building & Housing: Estimated building costs (archived page)
Dominion Post: Inequality report ignores tax cuts for rich – Goff
TVNZ News: NZ economic outlook grim until 2013 – NZIER (archived page)
Parliament Today: Housing NZ’s Woes Blamed on Labour
Otago Daily Times: Homelessness increasing in NZ
Fairfax media: NZ home ownership at lowest level in more than 60 years
Labour Party: Andrew Little’s Centenary policy speech
IRD: Company Tax Rate
Radio NZ: Housing NZ to pay Crown $118m dividend
National Business Review: Govt blames outdated Budget figures for Housing NZ dividend U-turn
NZDoctor.co.nz: Free care for the under-13s features in growth Budget
Radio NZ: Welfare increases – what $25 buys you
TVNZ: Q+A – Corin Dann and Andrew Little (video)
TVNZ: Q+A – Corin Dann and Andrew Little (transcript)
Te Ara NZ Encyclopedia: Housing and government – Total Housing Stock
Education Counts: Transient students
Dominion Post: Housing policy will destabilise life for children
Fairfax media: State tenants face ‘high need’ review
NZ Herald: State tenants to make way for workers
Previous related blogposts
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 12 July 2016.
= fs =
A few days ago, this blogger reported how Statistic NZ had implemented a revision which would materially affect how unemployment stats were counted;
On 29 June 2016, Statistic NZ announced that it would be changing the manner in which it defined a jobseeker;
Change: Looking at job advertisements on the internet is correctly classified as not actively seeking work. This change brings the classification in line with international standards and will make international comparability possible.
Improvement: Fewer people will be classified as actively seeking work, therefore the counts of people unemployed will be more accurate.
The statement went on to explain;
Change in key labour market estimates:
Decreases in the number of people unemployed and the unemployment rate
Changes to the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate range from 0.1 to 0.6 percentage points. In the most recent published quarter (March 2016), the unemployment rate is revised down from 5.7 percent to 5.2 percent
Increases in the number of people not in the labour force
Decreases in the size of the labour force and the labour force participation rate
The result of this change? At the stroke of a pen, unemployment fell from 5.7% to 5.2%.
Simply because if a person was job-searching using the internet they were “not actively seeking work“.
Which beggars belief as the majority of jobseekers will be using the internet. It is the 21st century – what else would they be using?
Four days later, our esteemed Dear Leader, John Key, was interviewed on TV1’s Q+A by Corin Dann;
“The unemployment rate in New Zealand is now falling pretty dramatically.”
Well, it would, wouldn’t it?
Of course unemployment would fall “pretty dramatically” if government statisticians are cooking the numbers.
It did not take Key very long to use the “revised stats” to his advantage.
Expect more BS from National ministers congratulating themselves about how well their “job creation” policies are working.
Scoop media: On The Nation – Patrick Gower interviews John Key
Previous related blogpost
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 6 July 2016.
= fs =
from: Frank Macskasy <firstname.lastname@example.org>
to: Sunday Star Times <email@example.com>
date: Sun, Jul 3, 2016
subject: Letters to the editor
Sunday Star Times
On 29 June 2016, Statistics NZ announced that it would be changing the definition of what constituted an unemployment person being called a jobseeker;
“Looking at job advertisements on the internet is correctly classified as not actively seeking work. “
So an unemployed person, using the internet to look for work, is no longer considered a jobseeker?
Stats NZ then promptly “reviewed” the current employment rate of 5.7%, revising it down to 5.2%.
Four days later, on TV3’s “The Nation”, our esteemed Prime Minister patted himself on the back for “falling unemployment” saying;
“The unemployment rate in New Zealand is now falling pretty dramatically. “
Well, of course it’s “fallen”! Statistics NZ has ‘cooked’ the numbers! By arbitrarily deciding that any unemployed person using the internet to look for work is no longer considered officially a “jobseeker” – unemployment has “miraculously” dropped!
Now we now how Key’s government plans to reduce unemployment, and it’s not by job-creation.
Lies, damned lies, and statics indeed!
George Orwell would be mightily impressed!
[address and phone number supplied]
Scoop media: On The Nation – Patrick Gower interviews John Key
Previous related blogpost
= fs =
For a better New Zealand…
~ Cleaner rivers
~ No deep-sea oil drilling
~ Less on Roads - more on Rail
~ A Living wage at $19.25/hr
~ Marriage equality - Yay! Got that one!
~ Strong, effective Unions
~ No secret free-trade deals
~ Breakfast/lunches in our schools
~ Introducing Civics into our school curriculum
~ Cut back on the liquor industry
~ A fairer, progressive tax system
~ Fully funded, free healthcare
~ Ditto for education, including Tertiary
~ Fund Pharmac for Pompe's Disease medication & other 'orphan' drugs
~ No state asset sales!
~ Rebuild public TV broadcasting!
~ Keeping farms in local ownership
~ Reduce poverty, like we reduced the toll for road-fatalities
~ Jobs, Jobs, Jobs!
~ Being nice to each other
- Expose: Winston Peters; the 1997 speeches; and neo-liberal tendencies
- Letter to the editor – Do National voters want us to be tenants in our own country?
- Congratulations Dr Smith!!
- Special Education Funding – Robbing Peter, Paul, and Mary to pay Tom, Dick, and Harriet
- New Zealand – we’re in the sh*t
- We don’t want to send the wrong message – John Key
- National exploits fudged Statistics NZ unemployment figures
- Is Karl du Fresne happy now?
- “Spinning” in a post-truth era
- 2016 – Ongoing jobless tally
- Letter to the editor – Plunket and the slow strangulation of community organisations
- National’s Wellington Mayoral candidate, Jo Coughlan – four lanes to nowhere
- Trump – the cultivation of demagoguery
- Letter to the editor – more silliness from former Nat President, Michelle Boag
- Matthew Hooton on “secret” UMR poll?
- Rebuilding the Country we grew up in – Little’s Big Task ahead
- National and the Reserve Bank – at War!
- The Mendacities of Mr Key # 18: “No question – NZ is better off!”
- Lies, Damned lies and Statistical Lies – ** UPDATE **
- Foot in mouth award – Bill English, for his recent “Flat Earth” comment in Parliament
- Letter to the editor – Key discovers how to reduce unemployment in NZ
- Lies, Damned lies and Statistical Lies
- Letter to the editor – National’s “pennies from heaven”
- Park-up in Wellington – People speaking against the scourge of homelessness
- John Key – we will not be held to ransom!
- CYF – The Hollowing Out of a State Agency
- Letter to the editor – give us a chance to vote, Mr Key!
- Letter to the editor – “Throwing money at the problem” of homelessness
- Flying the Red-Green Banner of Resistance
- Why is Paula Bennett media-shy all of a sudden?
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- 431,606 hits