See no poverty, hear no poverty, speak no poverty and count no poverty

By   /   February 28, 2014  /   66 Comments

TDB recommends Voyager - Unlimited internet @home as fast as you can get

Figures from the Statistics New Zealand and Treasury show the impact of the global financial crisis and subsequent sluggish economic growth has been much more severe for poor children than previously believed. Child poverty figures for 2010, 2011 and 2012 have been significantly revised upwards.

Hear No Evil See No Evil Speak No Evil

So the Treasury and Statistics NZ made a mistake. No conspiracy theory holds water. We are so lucky to live in a country where these mistakes are owned up to and rectified.

But the error is worrying. Figures from the Statistics New Zealand and Treasury show the impact of the global financial crisis and subsequent sluggish economic growth has been much more severe for poor children than previously believed.   Child poverty figures for 2010, 2011 and 2012 have been significantly revised upwards.

Child Poverty Action Group was puzzled in 2010 that the numbers produced by the Ministry of Social Development did not fully reflect what was reported in the community and what social agencies were saying.  It seemed implausible that there was no explanation in lower incomes for the increased numbers of people seeking help from food-banks and budgeting agencies.

It’s bad enough that there are now in fact 285,000 not 265,000 children below the 60% (after housing costs) poverty line. Worse, the new figures show 25,000 more children living below the very low 50% income line. There are now 150,000 children below this line. We find that instead of 65% of children in benefit dependent families being below the 60% constant value line, there is, in fact, 75%.  This is a huge indictment of the failure of government policies to protect the poorest children in a recession.

Remember the Ministry of Social Development itself wrote in the 2013 report:

“From 2007 to 2012, [the poverty rates were] around six to seven times higher for children in workless households.  This to a large degree reflects the greater Working for Families assistance for working families than for beneficiary families.”

The figures are now even more stark. Of course job losses and low benefits are big factors but  government should pay more attention to its own policies that make child poverty worse.

The design of Working for Families is deeply flawed.  Children whose families lost work in the deep and painful recession are likely to have lost entitlement to the In Work Tax Credit worth $60 a week as part of their weekly income assistance paid to the caregiver. The revised poverty figures are now corroborating this effect.

In 2013 the Court of Appeal said that the In Work Tax Credit policy discriminated with harmful effect against 230,000 of New Zealand’s poorest children. While the Court failed to declare this discrimination illegal, government is now left with facing the unpalatable truth of its own unfortunate polices now made plain by these new ‘corrected’ figures.

It is time for the moral bankruptcy of a social security tax-funded payment for children that deliberately excludes the poorest children to be corrected as well.

 

***
Want to support this work? Donate today
***
Follow us on Twitter & Facebook
***

About the author

Co-director retirement policy and Research Centre, CPAG management committee

66 Comments

  1. Gosman says:

    Working for families is a Labour party policy. National just hasn’t repealed it.

    • Wow, really?

      Thank you for pointing that out, Gosman.

      *swoosh!* – the sound of an issue flying over your head.

      As usual, though, you’ve totally missed the point…

    • Kingi says:

      ….and your point is?

    • Akldnut says:

      RWNJ’s think “Working for families” is a subsidy to individuals.

      It’s a round about way for them to survive because wages are too low and prices are too high.

      Ergo it is a subsidy to employers and manufacturers.

      Govt –> Individual –> Employer & manufacturers

  2. Intrinsicvalue says:

    Susan:

    1. The only real poverty in NZ is poverty of parenting.
    2. WFF was a huge election bribe to the middle classes. The level of welfare to mid-income earners is a fiscal scandal.
    3. WFF should be reworked such that families genuinely in need are better targeted.
    4. NZ should introduce work for the dole, and replace art of the cash benefit with vouchers for essentials

    • YogiBare says:

      “4. NZ should introduce work for the dole, and replace art [sic] of the cash benefit with vouchers for essentials”
      IV,(4)
      Don’t you think we already have too many unemployed people without removing even more jobs by making beneficiaries “work for the dole”?
      This idea sounds as bad as those shrill cries, that all beneficiaries should be drug tested, by people who don’t contemplate the logistics and costs that would be entailed in such a massive undertaking.
      I would suggest that your idea of “vouchers for essentials” as also not been thought through; different people have differing needs and tastes so it would be difficult to find a one-size-fits-all definition of “essentials”. (A quick example that springs to mind is that a milk voucher would be of little use to someone who was lactose intolerant.)
      For a mad moment I really thought you planned to “replace art” for “work for the dole’! … not really, just someone who is slightly dyslexic themselves enjoying taking the “P” out of a “P” miss typo…so no hard feelings.

      • Intrinsicvalue says:

        “Don’t you think we already have too many unemployed people without removing even more jobs by making beneficiaries “work for the dole”?”
        The work performed for the dole could be work that no-one currently does. Like mowing the council berms. Cleaning the streets. Sitting at home doing nothing is not good for the soul!

        “I would suggest that your idea of “vouchers for essentials” as also not been thought through; different people have differing needs and tastes so it would be difficult to find a one-size-fits-all definition of “essentials”. ”

        No, it’s simple. Basic food groups can be defined and considered ‘essential’, Cigarettes and alcohol deemed non-essential. There would be no vouchers for gambling, but there would be for school fees and kids sporting activities. Vouchers could be used at double face value for seeds to plant vegetable gardens and fruit trees.

        • YogiBare says:

          IV,
          You seem to be unaware that many MSD case managers already use a voucher system for some of their clients, as well as requiring them to attend budget counselling meetings.
          “Sitting at home doing nothing is not good for the soul!”(IV) To obtain the benefit job seekers have an obligation to… guess what?… seek jobs. Their benefit payments can be stopped if they cannot provide written proof that they are actively seeking employment.
          Surely you’re not so naïve to think councils wouldn’t reduce their work force if they could force beneficiaries to clean streets etc. – they are already having rate payers cut their berms which will probably reduce council staff.
          Some beneficiaries may not have gardens, perhaps you can persuade the council to allow these people to grow the seeds you propose handing out on all those berms. Hopefully you’ll allow them to be fed while waiting for their seeds to grow.

          • Intrinsicvalue says:

            “You seem to be unaware that many MSD case managers already use a voucher system for some of their clients, as well as requiring them to attend budget counselling meetings.”

            Yep, I know that. The system should be extended as I have outlined.

            “Their benefit payments can be stopped if they cannot provide written proof that they are actively seeking employment.”

            Yep, and that’s exactly how it should be.

            “Surely you’re not so naïve to think councils wouldn’t reduce their work force if they could force beneficiaries to clean streets etc. ”

            Why would they cut staff if the unemployed are doing work the council aren’t currently doing?

            “Some beneficiaries may not have gardens,”

            But many do.

            • YogiBare says:

              “Why would they cut staff if the unemployed are doing work the council aren’t currently doing?”
              IV,
              I wasn’t aware the councils weren’t doing the other jobs you stated i.e. “clean streets etc”.
              Care to elaborate on that vague “etc” and tell me when council workers stopped street cleaning?
              Council workers seemed to be hard at work cleaning up Auckland’s Franklin Road for that street’s Xmas light show last year. Have they stopped now so the “bennies” can have a go at cleaning up for this year’s Xmas light show?

  3. Kingi says:

    “The only real poverty in NZ is poverty of parenting”

    Possibly your most ignorant, absolutely top shelf RWNJ utterance to date. Congratulations. Are you off your meds again?

    • Intrinsicvalue says:

      Coming from you, I take that as a compliment. But do you have an argument Kingi?

      • YogiBare says:

        King IV,
        It’s preposterous to suggest that poor parents can provide the many benefits that a rich child enjoys. While it may be true that many poor children can receive as much love and guidance as rich children, perhaps even more, there are many financial benefits that are simply beyond the reach of poor parents.

        • Intrinsicvalue says:

          Children don’t need the ‘many benefits’ you speak of. They need love, time, discipline and an education. Any decent parent can provide those.

          The ‘many benefits’ may in fact hinder a child. I’m very thankful for my lower middle class upbringing. It taught me self sufficiency, and it taught me that no-one owes me a living.

          • YogiBare says:

            Naughty, naughty, IV. You accuse FM of misquoting you but you have done the same to me. I said “many financial benefits that are simply beyond the reach of poor parents” while agreeing that these same parents could provide “many benefits” such as “love and guidance.”
            Having recently sold an Auckland house to one of my off-spring, at its rateable value and gifting the deposit as well, please don’t tell me there are no financial benefits to having richer parents. I suppose you now think I have hindered my child, while I think I have given a grateful child a leg up. I’m acutely aware that a poorer parent wouldn’t be able to help their child in this way, which is why I wish for a fairer social system.

            • Intrinsicvalue says:

              I didn’t misquote you. The precise quote I was responding to, taken directly from your post, was “It’s preposterous to suggest that poor parents can provide the many benefits that a rich child enjoys.”

              There is no ‘financial’ in there Yogi.

              • YogiBare says:

                So you don’t read my whole post in context, this sounds similar to cherry picking data for your climate change arguments.
                I think one of the “many benefits” is financial security as I state in my second sentence…”While it may be true that many poor children can receive as much love and guidance as rich children, perhaps even more, there are many financial benefits that are simply beyond the reach of poor parents”.

  4. Intrinsicvalue says:
    February 28, 2014 at 9:57 am

    1. The only real poverty in NZ is poverty of parenting.
    2. WFF was a huge election bribe to the middle classes. The level of welfare to mid-income earners is a fiscal scandal.
    3. WFF should be reworked such that families genuinely in need are better targeted.
    4. NZ should introduce work for the dole, and replace art of the cash benefit with vouchers for essentialst

    1. The only real problem to high rentals is selfish, greedy, nasty-minded landlords who would sell their daughters into prostitution to make a buck.

    There y’go, IV, how does it feel to be generalised about?

    2. You have a cheek whinging about subsidies, considering your (and Gosman’s) absured support for Charter Schools – which is nothing more than the State subsiding private education.

    And considering National’s penchant for giving taxpayer subsidies to Rio Tinto, Warner Bros, China Southern Airlines, Canterbury Finance, et al.

    3. Thankfully, that piece of ACT policy will never see the light of day.

    4. Ditto.

    Thanks for parroting ACT quasi-fascist garbage. In case anyone was in doubt, we know where you’re coming from.

    Thankfully, ACT will vanish into history’s rubbish bin.

    • Gosman says:

      It is only a subsidy in your warped view of the world. Others simply see it as the government purchasing a service from a private sector provider.

      • I’ll remember that when Labour implements it’s NZ Power policy. Not doubt you will support “the government purchasing a service from a private sector provider”?

        Yeah, right, of course you will.

        Your mental gymnastics at supporting subsidies for private businesses is laughable. It shows you’ll support anything that National comes up with – even when it flies in the face of your supposedly “Libertarian” principles.

        • Intrinsicvalue says:

          Frank do you really still believe that charter schools are a subsidy to the private sector? I really am curious, because I can’t help feeling that despite our differences you really aren’t that thick.

          • Of course Charter Schools are a subsidy, IV.

            What else would you call giving taxpayer’s money to a private commercial venture?

            What next? Subsidies for farmers? The corner dairy? Fonterra? Warner Bros? Rio Tinto?

            Oh, wait…

            Yeah, they’re a subsidy alright. If they’re so profitable and private education is better than the State (as you keep insisting) – why do they require taxpayer support?

            Private investors should be queuing up to put their money into these ventures.

            It sez a lot that they need taxpayer subsidies to operate. That indicates they are not sustainable as stand-alone operations.

            This is not about your bullshit excuse of “buying services” – we already have education services. There is no shortage of schools, this requiring additional services to be purchased from private providers.

            That is a fiction on your part.

            • Intrinsicvalue says:

              “What else would you call giving taxpayer’s money to a private commercial venture? ”

              It’s called the Govt purchasing services from the private sector. You know, like they do in healthcare, dentistry, ECE, the military, roading, the list is virtually endless.

              I’ve asked you many times whether you claim these are also subsidies. Why haven’t you answered?

            • Intrinsicvalue says:

              “This is not about your bullshit excuse of “buying services” – we already have education services. There is no shortage of schools, this requiring additional services to be purchased from private providers. ”

              False. There are children whose needs are not met by mainstream education. The Govt has a choice to target more money at those children, either through the traditional school system or via Charter schools. It has chosen the latter. Just like in health care. In dentistry. In ECE.

              Getting the picture?

    • Intrinsicvalue says:

      “There y’go, IV, how does it feel to be generalised about? ”

      Doesn’t particularly worry me. There are bad landlords, just as there are bad tenants. This doesn’t change the act that NZ provides for low income earners, and the only reason any child would be living in inadequate circumstances is poor parenting.

      “You have a cheek whinging about subsidies, considering your (and Gosman’s) absured support for Charter Schools – which is nothing more than the State subsiding private education.”

      Who mentioned subsidies? And if Charter schools are subsidies, then so is the Government contracting health services from the private sector. And dental care. And printing. And roads.

      “Thankfully, that piece of ACT policy will never see the light of day.”

      So you disagree with targeting welfare to those in most need?

      “Ditto.”

      Oh you’d be surprised. Not the same, but similar, are changes coming in July re WINZ. From then on, when scumbag tenants like I’ve just had abandon one of my properties do a runner owing thousands in back rent, landlords will be able to attach a tenancy tribunal order to the ex-tenants benefits so they have to pay back what they owe. This is a small start, but we’re heading in the right direction.

      • Then perhaps you need to be a bit more sensible and not lump all parents in together, irrespective of their situation.

        • Intrinsicvalue says:

          I didn’t. I said that the only poverty in NZ is poverty of parenting. NZ has low income families, but they are massively supplemented by our very generous welfare system. If children live in poverty is because of poor parenting.

          • jane says:

            Intrinsically valueless, maybe you weren’t breastfed or something like. 🙂

          • “Massively generous welfare system”?!

            You’ve never even had to survive on welfare, so you’re talking through a hole in your head.

            You wouldn’t have a clue about welfare. You probably don’t even know what the unemployment dole pays for a single adult.

            You bitch about welfare, without knowing the first thing about it. Yet, it’s the welfare system that means you live in a country where the streets aren’t lined with beggars and desperate people waiting to slit your throat to rob you for money for food.

            Honestly, IV, you’re one sick, selfish individual. Your prejudice and ignorance is sickening.

            And the irony? It’s the welfare system that provided you with free education, healthcare, and will give you your superannuation when you retire.
            Count yourself lucky.

            • Intrinsicvalue says:

              “Massively generous welfare system”?!

              This isn;t the first time you’ve misquoted me Frank.

              What I actually said was “but they are massively supplemented by our very generous welfare system.”

              “It’s the welfare system that provided you with free education, healthcare, and will give you your superannuation when you retire.”

              Really? I seem to well remember forking out for fees and books for my tertiary studies. But it matter now. Now we have WFF, keeping all of those poor in their cigarettes and pokies.

      • The Other Mike says:

        “the only reason any child would be living in inadequate circumstances is poor parenting”

        I really wonder what planet you are on IV. Can you spell E M P A T H Y? No, of course not – you have to have it to know what it is. Have you ever been jobless… made redundant… underemployed?

        You posting on TDB is a lost cause, just the same as you, obviously, are.

        • Andy K says:

          Knowing how things are today, perhaps we’ll see some bastardised consumerist version of empathy on the market, those deficient of the real thing can happily delude themselves with a purchase of it.

        • Intrinsicvalue says:

          “Have you ever been jobless… made redundant… underemployed? ”

          Yep, yep and no.

          As for empathy, I have it in spades. But not for people who sit on their bums willingly living off tax payers benevolence and doing nothing to help their kids to a better life.

          • ” But not for people who sit on their bums willingly living off tax payers benevolence and doing nothing to help their kids to a better life. ”

            But you’ve admitted that you don’t know how many people are like that. You’re simply being a bigot – absolutely clueless.

            • Intrinsicvalue says:

              I don’t have to know how many are like that, just that I know some who are.

              Your argument could easily be translated like this: “I don’t know how many bad employers there are, so there are no bad employers”.

              • Intrinsicvalue says:
                March 2, 2014 at 9:17 pm

                I don’t have to know how many are like that, just that I know some who are.

                Your argument could easily be translated like this: “I don’t know how many bad employers there are, so there are no bad employers”.

                Except I don’t make blanket, bigoted, generalisations about employers.

                Your irrational prejudice regarding those on welfare is on record. You are a bigot and you’re being called on it.

                • Intrinsicvalue says:

                  And I’m calling you on this.

                  You claim that because I can’t name the precise number of beneficiaries who are bludgers therefore none are. That’s illogical nonsense.

                  • YogiBare says:

                    Could you please provide us with the FM quote IV, may be I’m just thick, but I can’t see the claim you claim anywhere in his posts and it’s driving me nuts looking for it.
                    Yeah, I know, I should get a life.

          • Molly says:

            “.. for people who sit on their bums willingly living off tax payers benevolence and doing nothing to help their kids to a better life..”

            ….immediately springing to mind….
            Paula Bennett, Bill English and our PM, John Key.

      • YogiBare says:

        IV says, “And if Charter schools are subsidies, then so is the Government contracting health services from the private sector. And dental care. And printing. And roads”.
        In my opinion these other services you mention are additional services that benefit many taxpayers. Charter schools are not required as we already have an excellent education system. Any private party that wishes to have an alternative education system is free to fund it themselves. In the same way that I’m free to pay for my own health care, pay my dentist extra for gold fillings, pay to have my novel printed, and build my own road on my own property.

        • Intrinsicvalue says:

          “Charter schools are not required as we already have an excellent education system.”

          Therein lies your error. The education system in NZ is currently failing many children with special needs. The Govt. wants to remedy that, and has chosen to do so via partnership schools. This is EXACTLY the same as when it chooses to address facility shortages by contracting operations form the private medical sector.

          “In the same way that I’m free to pay for my own health care, pay my dentist extra for gold fillings, pay to have my novel printed, and build my own road on my own property.”

          Absolutely!!! You are free to make those choices, or to avail yourself of the public health system, for example. And now parents will also be free to choose, the choice being a viable alternative if their children have particularly needs not being met in the public system.

          • Are you still justifying National/ACT’s subsidies for Charter Schools?!

            The education system in NZ is currently failing many children with special needs. The Govt. wants to remedy that, and has chosen to do so via partnership schools

            Here’s a point to consider, IV – Charter Schools are an American phenomenon. The Americans are even lower than us on the OECD PISA rankings. (Around 15 or so.)

            Finland is near the top. They don’t have Charter Schools.

            So logically, we should be looking to Finland – not the USA, right?

            Or is the rightwing ideology – a precursor to Education Vouchers – too tempting for you?

            This is EXACTLY the same as when it chooses to address facility shortages by contracting operations form the private medical sector.

            Rubbish. This is your twisted logic trying to justify the use of taxpayers money to subsidise private enterprise.

            When will the Nats start subsidising dairy products from Fonterra to low income families? (That would be a good option, eh?)

            And will National start subsidising farmers again, like the State used to in the 1970s?

            What about manufacturers, to create jobs?

            Do you support those? Or will you ignore these questions as you’ve done so in the past?

            There is no need to subsidise Charter Schools as there is no shortage of Education capacity. (Unlike the health sector, where chronic under-funding has justified National to subsidise private health providers.)

            Your rationale is therefore false. You are creating a problem that either does not exist, or where the “solution” is extreme and nonsensical.

            You can try to wriggle out of it, but there’s no escaping the reality that National is subsidising private education companies with taxpayers money.

            If you want Charter Schools, pay for it yourself. Don’t expect others to pay for your life-style decision.

            • YogiBare says:

              Well say FM,
              Although I also expected you to take IV to task over this magnanimous sentence… “The Govt. wants to remedy that, and has chosen to do so via partnership schools.”
              As I remember it the gNatz weren’t at all keen on charter schools. Many of us suspect their agreement to trial these schools in poor areas was a concession to kept John Banks on-side.

            • Intrinsicvalue says:

              “Charter Schools are an American phenomenon.”

              So what? There are some remarkably successful Charter schools in the US, just as there will be here.

              “This is your twisted logic trying to justify the use of taxpayers money to subsidise private enterprise.”

              Well it’s a logic you have abjectly failed to rebutt.

              “When will the Nats start subsidising dairy products from Fonterra to low income families? ”

              You are really struggling Frank, aren’t you?

              It isn’t the Govt’s role to feed people Frank. But education is considered part of the Govt’s essential roles. In some cases they do this by contracting services from the private sector. Like ECE.

              “Do you support those? Or will you ignore these questions as you’ve done so in the past?”

              I don’t recall you veer asking me that question, Frank. The answer is I don’t support subsidies to businesses. They simply distort the market, which does a very good job at determining whether an industry is viable or not.

              “There is no need to subsidise Charter Schools as there is no shortage of Education capacity. (Unlike the health sector, where chronic under-funding has justified National to subsidise private health providers.)”

              Again, your logic is flawed. Charter schools are the result in a shortfall of services, not a shortfall of capacity. And the health sector is not chronically underfunded. Part of the provision of healthcare is sourced from the private sector, just as is dental care, ECE, roading, etc, etc.

              Next?

              • The Daily Blog martyn bradbury says:

                Your simplistic bullshit defence of charter schools is tiresome, even for a far right troll like yourself. Charter schools do not produce better education results, they create a false model of competition designed to lower teacher wages. Your constant harping and and right wing hubris is boring.

            • Intrinsicvalue says:

              “If you want Charter Schools, pay for it yourself. Don’t expect others to pay for your life-style decision.”

              Having charter schools as a choice is exactly the same as having the choice between competing schools in an area. No difference. The children will be educated somewhere at the taxpayers expense, why not at a Charter School?

              What are you afraid of? What is it about choice that you so dislike? Is it the loss of union control? The loss of the ability to state indoctrinate our children? What is it exactly?

              • The Daily Blog Martyn Bradbury says:

                Because it isn’t choice you right wing clown. It is designed to lower teacher wages.

                You really need to get better at trolling than this.

    • ANDYS says:

      Let’s imagine a scenario where the various companies weren’t bailed out.

      You’d be presumably be cheering from the rooftops and ma and pa investors were screwed?

      I am still waiting for that moment.

      Incidentally, I think Iceland took the right path and the investors took a haircut, but I think very few governments of any stripe would dare to take that move

      It’s much easier to whine about it in opposition but much harder to deliver as a government

      • YogiBare says:

        Andys,
        I believe the Cyprus Government gave all their banks’ depositors a buzz haircut for a EU and IMF bailout last year. I haven’t heard much news from the island latterly, perhaps they are now all too poor to afford communication with the rest of the world.

        http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/4a1bb1d6-9926-11e2-af84-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2ufOQdcgf

      • The question is, AndyS, why didn’t the Nats also bail out these companies to save jobs;

        2012:

        ANZ; 1,000 redundancies
        Air New Zealand: 441 redundancies
        Yellow Pages; 125 redundancies
        Wire by Design, 55 redundancies
        Hakes Marine; 15 redundancies
        Telecom; 400 redundancies
        Brightwater Engineering; 40 redundancies
        Pernod Ricard New Zealand; 13 redundancies
        Depart of Corrections; 130 redundancies
        Summit Wool Spinners; 80 redundancies
        Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade; 80 redundancies
        Cavalier/Norman Ellison Carpets; 70 redundancies
        IRD; 51 redundancies
        Flotech; 70 redundancies
        NZ Police; 125 redundancies
        CRI Plant and Food; 25 redundancies
        Te Papa; 16 redundancies (?) 30 redundancies (?)
        PrimePort Timaru; 30 redundancies
        Kiwirail; 158 redundancies
        Fisher & Paykel; 29 redundancies
        Goulds Fine Foods; 60 redundancies
        Canterbury University; 150 redundancies (over three years)
        Solid Energy; 363 redundancies 460 redundancies
        Tiwai Pt aluminium smelter; 100 redundancies
        Axiam Metals; 44 redundancies
        Norske Skog; 120 redundancies
        Goodman Fielder; redundancy numbers t.b.a.
        Dunedin City Council/Delta: 30 redundancies
        Blue Sky Meats; 100 redundancies
        Kaipara Ltd/Stockton Alliance; 63 redundancies
        Wainuiomata New World; 44 redundancies
        Nuplex; 64 redundancies
        Newmont Waihi Gold; 20 redundancies
        Ministry of Justice; 70-200 redundancies
        Salisbury School in Nelson and McKenzie Residential School in Christchurch; 90 redundancies
        Rakon; 60 redundancies
        Dynamic Solutions; 40-60 redundancies
        Thorn Lighting; 8 redundancies
        Eastern Institute of Technology; 12 redundancies (?)
        UCOL; 30 – 50 redundancies
        Kiwirail Hillside Workshops; 90 redundancies
        SCA Hygiene Australasia; 140 redundancies
        Dunedin City Council: 10 redundancies
        Carter Holt Harvey; 70 redundancies
        NZ Herald: 8 redundancies
        Apata Fruit Packhouse: 25 redundancies

        January 2013

        Summit Wool Spinners: 192 redundancies
        Event Cinemas Highland Park theatre: 12 (or more?) redundancies
        Kiwi Pallets: 5 redundancies

        February

        NZ Post/Datamail: 100 redundancies
        Mainzeal: 200 redundancies (+ flow-on effects)
        Contact Energy: 100+ redundancies
        Christchurch school closures: 50+ redundancies
        ANZ: 23 redundancies
        Transpacific: up to 200 redundancies in NZ and Australia
        Suzanne Grae: 100 redundancies
        Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment: 135 redundancies
        Gen-i: unknown number redundancies
        Solid Energy: 450 redundancies (1,200 more under review)
        Wairarapa and Hutt Valley DHBs: 41 redundancies

        March

        Southern Institute of Technology: 6/7 redundancies
        Geon Group: 185 redundancies
        Ellerslie TAB: 54 redundancies (net, 30 redundancies?)
        Department of Conservation: 140 redundancies
        Telecom: 1,230 redundancies
        Park Road Post: 12 redundancies

        April

        Starplus Homes: 10 redundancies
        Fonterra: 300 redundancies
        Fisher Funds: 13 redundancies
        Ministry of Justice: 38 redundancies
        Presbyterian Support Otago: 460 redundancies

        May

        Solid Energy: 105 redundancies
        Tait Communications: 70 redundancies
        Starfish Clothing retailer: 9 redundancies
        Wellington libraries: 8+ redundancies

        June

        Safe Air/Air New Zealand: 80 redundancies
        Delta Utility Services: 40 redundancies
        Yellow Pages: 35 redundancies
        Cavalier Carpets: 17 redundancies (est)
        NZ Post: 80-100 redundancies
        NZ Post: 120 redundancies

        July

        Delta Utility Services: 77 redundancies
        Fonterra: 250 redundancies
        Canterbury Spinners: 50 redundancies
        WINZ: 35 redundancies
        Solid Energy Stockton Mine: 15 redundancies

        August

        Holcim Cement: 120 redundancies
        Oringi Freezing Works: 50 redundancies
        Tiwai Aluminium Smelter: 30 redundancies
        Solid Energy Huntly Mine: 93 redundancies
        Sitel Call Centre: 100 redundancies
        Air New Zealand: 180 redundancies
        Ballance Agri-Nutrients: 25 redundancies
        Wickliffe Printing: 19 redundancies

        September

        Learning Media: 100 redundancies
        “Night’n Day” Convenience Chain: 9 redundancies
        BIC Oceania: 21 redundancies
        Fletcher Challenge: 62 redundancies

        October

        Independent Fisheries: 200 redundancies
        Various DHBs: 13 redundancies
        Tachikawa Forest Products: 130 redundancies
        Silver Fern Farms: 90 redundancies
        NZ Post: 1,000 (est.) redundancies

        November

        Unitec: 50 (33 net) redundancies

        December

        Unilever: 58 redundancies
        Bauer media (30 redundancies)

        January 2014

        OceanaGold/Macraes Mine: 146 redundancies
        Fitzroy Yachts: 100 redundancies
        OceanaGold: 76 redundancies
        Tenix: 15 redundancies

        February

        Goodman Fielder: 125 redundancies
        Pacific Steel Group: 70-90 redundancies
        Bathurst Resorces: 29 redundancies
        NZ Post: 44 redundancies
        NZ Post: 70 redundancies

        Why no bail-out for them?

        • ANDYS says:

          I have no idea why no bail out and I am not in favour of bailouts.

          I say let them go to the wall, even if thousands of jobs are lost

          My point is that the left will be wailing anytime jobs are lost and the “heartless” National government fails to bail anyone out.

          That is my bottom line – no bailouts, no help for redundant workers.

          Nothing

          Let them eat cake

  5. Psycho Milt says:

    From 2007 to 2012, [the poverty rates were] around six to seven times higher for children in workless households.

    A piece of information that everyone in the country with an IQ above the bottom 10% of the bell curve would file under “Well, duh.” And yet we continue to have at least a quarter of babies being raised on a benefit within the year of their birth (over 40% in the case of Maori). So, if we’ve got shitloads more kids living in poverty than we had earlier, no fucking wonder – try putting a bag on it, you wasters.

    • Intrinsicvalue says:

      There’s a very simple solution to that. If you don’t have a job, don’t have children until you get one.

      • Really, IV?

        It’s as simple as that, eh? No thought required – just “no job, no kids”?

        So…

        What happens to the children of 95,000 workers who lost their jobs post 2008?

        Shoot them?

        What about the children of women who are forced to escape abusive partners, or whose husbands run of with another woman (or man!)??

        Try and push the kids back into the women’s wombs??

        As always, right wing crazies like you show up the irrationality of your inane, juvenile bigotry.

        The thing you forget is that once upon a time, we had low unemployment in New Zealand. Then we got Rogernomics/ruthenasia.

        Here’s a simple solution: arrest and charge Roger Douglas, Ruth Richardson, Richard Prebble, et al, for economic sabotage. If found guilty, strip them of all assets and put them to work on community service for the rest of their lives.

        You right wing psychopaths are truly sickening. You implement bizarre, unproven, dangerous policies and then blame the victims when those same mad policies don’t work and create social/economic mayhem.

        The sooner this country is returned to some semblance of sane, common sense policies which create jobs instead of exporting them to low-wage societes, the better for us all.

        And right wing fanatics like you and Gosman can piss off to Somalia, where there is bugger all government, taxes, and no social welfare.

        You’ll love living there.

        • YogiBare says:

          They will have to take jobs as Somalia “pirates”, not fishermen, because the EU fisheries have cleared out all the fish stocks from around the Somalia coast.

          • Intrinsicvalue says:

            Or, they could go around the neighbourhood door knocking for gardening work, like a group of Pacific Island families I know do. Or they could plant a vege garden. When was the last time you saw a vege garden in a state house property. There are lots of ways to make life better, if you get off your butt.

            • The Daily Blog Martyn Bradbury says:

              Blaming the victim is a favourite tactic of the selfish right.

              Tedious, but a favourite.

        • Intrinsicvalue says:

          All very emotive Frank, but I prefer a more reasoned response. There are many people who have children before they can afford to and before ‘disaster’ strikes. If not, then the state generously takes care of them.

          Your left wing rhetoric is not only irrational, it actually serves to harm those who you claim to care about the most.

          • The Daily Blog Martyn Bradbury says:

            Where as your right wing rhetoric is selfish and self serving.

            It’s also dull. Selfish people do tend to be dull.

        • Intrinsicvalue says:

          “The thing you forget is that once upon a time, we had low unemployment in New Zealand.”

          And of course there was no unemployment in the soviet union, was there Frank?

  6. […] has had no major effect, the government has been pretending that 20,000 children do not exist. As Susan St. John points out, the Nats have been trying to pretend that poverty isn’t a problem, that they are […]



Authorised by Martyn Bradbury, The Editor, TheDailyBlog, 5 Victoria St East/Queen St, CBD, Auckland, New Zealand.