Prime Minister Bill English today told us that our housing affordability crisis “is fundamentally a product of poorly-directed…views about the environment”. He is simply wrong, utterly unconvincing and has his head firmly in the sand.
Aucklanders know what has driven house prices in their city to ludicrous levels. Uncontrolled immigration, unmitigated speculation and a government unwilling to face reality and do anything about it. Instead they have opined lack of supply and used the situation as an opportunity to constantly attack the RMA and local councils – all the while doing nothing about the underlying driver of the problem. Of course supply is an issue, but it is only so because of the excess demand. Demand fueled by both foreign speculators and plenty of local ones as well.
There are plenty of things they could have done do to address demand (refer “Eight steps to stabilising the Auckland housing market“) but instead any action they have taken in that space has always been too little too late. So now we have the problem spreading across New Zealand whilst Auckland sways on the edge of a a major market correction.
In the face of his government’s inaction for the last six years English’s concern about the impact of housing costs on low income families rings hollow. He argues that we can’t expect those households “to carry the burden of arbitrary preferences exercised by people having a view about amenity value that can include everything from furniture layouts in houses that haven’t been built, through to positioning of plants on a section.”
Does he really think this is the problem? If he had visited some auction rooms in Auckland over the last few years he may have got a proper grip on reality.
The euthanasia lobby trumpeted the huge number of submissions to Health Select Committee on their petition seeking to legalise “assisted dying” in New Zealand. They said this showed we needed change. However at the Committee hearing this afternoon some of the 20,000 submissions were heard – and it gave lie to the lobbyists. The traffic was one way. And it was a resounding “NO”.
In the hour I was there waiting to comment on my own submission, the presenters heard by the MPs were literally 10 to 1 against normalising suicide in our country.
There was the young woman who had struggled through depression and was glad no “choice” was ever offered to her of ending her life. She would probably have taken it. But now she knows life gets better.
There was the palliative care nurse who saw death as not an individual right, but rather a communal event where everyone needed to be supported and protected.
There was the school guidance counsellor who described how she was legally, ethically and professionally obligated to do everything in her power to stop young people committing suicide. She asked how could she do that if suicide was validated by the State.
There was the young man opposing normalising suicide because death was final with no opportunity to change your mind. He spoke of a friend who hanged himself – but had scratch marks on his neck where he had desperately but unsuccessfully tried to reverse his tragic decision.
It was raw. It was intense. I was proud of the brave New Zealanders who turned up and put their stake in the ground to protect their vulnerable fellow citizens. Their voices were quiet, but compelling. May they be heard.
I spoke with the Maori Affairs Select Committee recently about the proposed Land Wars Day. Some of those thoughts were published in Stuff today.
Will commemorating the New Zealand Land wars build national unity?
Easter is a marker pointing to ultimate meaning in a cultural and spiritual landscape increasingly devoid of any signposts to hope. Last week our MPs made that marker even harder to see. They voted to open the way for unfettered commerce to further subsume the social significance of Easter Sunday. In their minds the god of shopping must take precedence over the God who defeated death for all of us.
What is most disappointing is that all the Christian MPs in the National Party voted along party lines. Not one of them found the courage to cross the floor and vote against the proposal. Perhaps they convinced themselves that by voting to allow Councils to make the decision on Easter trading they were not actually supporting it. That is hair-splitting. We all know where this is heading.
Perhaps they lectured themselves about pluralism and the need to respect the will of those who don’t share their beliefs. Nonsense again. You can respect others views without abdicating your own. The very logic of pluralism is that all have the right to express their view of what is the common good. If Christians won’t vote to protect the significance of Easter – who will?
This is not about tourism, workers rights or even family time. It is about meaning. Easter Sunday is one of the three and a half days remaining in our national calendar when the all-consuming buzz of business and commerce is stilled. One of those days when the transcendent very briefly touches our national consciousness. Such days are a precious breath of fresh air in a society drowning in shallowness and gasping for meaning.
What will we say to our young people increasingly alienated in a kardashian culture and wondering what life is ultimately about. We thought tourism and shopping were really, really important ?
This was a vote about ultimate meaning in our society. It was not a time to go with the flow. It was time to fight. Michael Jones and David Tua knew that. Sadly our MPs did not.
Economics and ethics are inseparable. For any economy to flourish and prosper, the market transactions propelling it forward must be encapsulated within a supporting framework of ethics and non-market institutions. Jewish sociologist Amitai Etzioni called that framework the “moral dimension”. Without it any economy will falter. The same is true of the global economy.
So this week’s allegations that Chinese officials have threatened New Zealand companies over an investigation into possible Chinese steel dumping, raises doubts about the long term prognosis for our Free Trade Agreement with China. Historically New Zealand and its western trading partners have shared a similar cultural heritage. The same Judeao-Christian values have infused our economic, political and cultural landscapes. Respect for honesty and integrity in business dealings, transparency and accountability, and playing by the rules are part of our common cultural heritage. That doesn’t mean we always live up our values, but at least there is a deeply rooted recognition of their importance.
However we are now increasingly reliant on trade with nations that do not have the same cultural background. Indeed some of them like China have spent decades trying to eradicate any ethic other than the progress of the State. In such cultures where the will to power prevails in politics, it should not surprise us that the will to establish and exert market power also prevails. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t foster positive relationships with such countries. It does mean that we should do so with caution and wisdom.
We should also be careful not to allow our national prosperity to become hostage to a few very large trade relationships. Especially relationships that may not be built on as firm a foundation as we would like to think. With Britain looking for new trading partners after leaving the EU, it is an opportune time for New Zealand to renew old family ties. A free trade agreement with the UK would not only help diversify our trade – we are also on the same page when it comes to the values that sustain democratic cultures and help to grow flourishing economies.
This week Iraqi military forces liberated the city of Fallujah. 90,000 civilians had been held there under ISIS rule. They are now free of that barbaric regime. New Zealand troops helped train the Iraqi forces who have done the job. There are more cities to take back. There are more Iraqi soldiers to train. It is good that our deployment has been extended.
The Prime Minister and his cabinet colleagues who have made the decision to extend are to be applauded. It would have been easier to exit and avoid the cheap shots from their opponents about “u-turns” and the usual media drivel about pressure from the USA. This is none of that. It is about doing the right thing.
It is about the 4,000 Iraqi troops who have been through New Zealand training at Camp Taji and come out ready to fight ISIS. It is about the 90,000 people who will shortly be able to return to their own city in peace, rather than becoming another wave of refugees. It is about recognising that our efforts are worth it and now is not the time to walk away.
Those in the opposition parties who want us to exit and retreat to our little corner of the world need to show some political and moral courage. They should read the Cabinet paper reviewing the deployment which notes how it is working well and how many other countries are currently stepping up their military efforts against ISIS. Perhaps they may yet “get some guts” as the Prime Minister urged them two years ago in Parliament.
That is probably a vain hope. It seems they prefer to criticise the Government for not taking enough refugees rather than join the fight to stop people becoming refugees in the first place.
Major Geoffrey Faraday
The New Zealand media hardly noticed it. But last week a true hero was recognised by the Prince of Wales at Buckingham Palace. The New Zealand Gallantry Star was awarded to Major Geoffrey Faraday of the Royal New Zealand Army Corps.
Major Faraday was working with the United Nations mission in South Sudan in 2014. At one point whilst protecting a UN refugee camp of 5,000 he personally intervened (unarmed) to try and hold back a machete wielding mob of hundreds that went on to kill 53 people. He then called in reinforcements who arrived quickly to stop further bloodshed.
On the same mission whilst accompanying a convoy of barges delivering aid up the White Nile his team came under attack from an ambush on the riverbank. In the ensuing four hour battle Faraday led his colleagues in a fight back that saw the situation brought under control without loss. You can read more detail here.
Major Faraday showed initiative, leadership, and outstanding courage in extreme danger. He put his life on the line in the cause of protecting the vulnerable. He is a true New Zealand hero who has done our country proud. He deserves much more recognition than the coverage he has received so far.
If the bath is overflowing the first thing you do is turn off the tap. You don’t waste time trying to make the bath bigger. Yet when it comes to housing, our government has spent all its efforts trying to do just that. It needs to wake up and urgently turn off the migration tap.
For some years now, demand has continually outstripped the capacity of the New Zealand market to construct extra housing. Yet the government has focused almost solely on trying to increase supply. They have steadfastly refused to meaningfully address the reality of excess demand. Instead they have allowed it to grow. In the year to June 2016 there has been record migration of 70,700. Even Treasury has been raising questions about the consequences of such high levels.
Now the bath has overflowed and done serious damage to the structure of our economy. We have a huge debt-equity problem. The debt problem is as reported by the NZ Herald today – national indebtedness approaching half a trillion dollars. Most of this is private mortgage debt. We also have a huge social equity problem. When large numbers of Aucklanders can’t even afford to be tenants in their own city – let alone homeowners – there are real questions about social justice that need to be asked. Is this the country we want?
It is certainly not the country envisaged by previous National Party administrations. As noted in a previous blog – a Holland or Holyoake government would never have sat on its hands and let such a situation develop. So why has this one ?
Surely it is not because, as some have suggested, many MPs own investment properties and hence are happily making untaxed wealth from the boom. There is still basic personal intergrity in New Zealand politics. Only last week we heard how National Party President Peter Goodfellow absents himself from caucus discussions on fisheries due to his own interests in this sector.
No the issue is probably not integrity. It is fear. The fear of being labelled xenophobic. In the eyes of the liberal media anything that hints of xenophobia is a serious crime. The inevitable criticism that would come from cutting back migration is probably what is paralysing our current political leaders into doing nothing. This is what holds them back. But for all our sakes they need to find some courage. Be brave – turn off the tap.
Public policy should be evidence based. The evidence backs marriage. As an institution it produces significantly better outcomes than other relationship forms. This is so across the board including lower rates of child abuse and neglect, less domestic violence, and increased family stability and financial progress. In spite of this our policymakers and political leaders continue to ignore it.
This week Family First released another report with further evidence of how the decline in marriage rates has been a major contributor to child poverty in New Zealand (Child Poverty and Family Structure). Not a single political leader has bothered to address it. Instead the Prime Minister today was supporting making the grounds of Parliament smoke-free along with the rest of Wellington. This is where leadership and direction for the nation comes from he said.
The media to their credit have noted the report, even if with ridiculously caricatured headlines such as – “Poor – its your fault for being unmarried”. It is little wonder their stories have engendered equally shallow responses in their opinion pages. There are the inevitable pieces from individuals in non-married households denying there is any problem. They report happy and prosperous family life. This is great news for them. However it is akin to someone living in a 1990s monolithic plaster home reporting that their house is fine so therefore the leaky homes problem doesn’t exist.
The point is that public policy needs to be evidence based. And it is not what happens in the lives of any particular individuals that counts as evidence – it is what happens across the whole population that matters. It is the outcomes achieved in the aggregate that should draw the attention of our policymakers.
Family First have once again put the evidence out there for those who have ears to hear and eyes to see. It is not new. The evidence has been around a long time. I recall publishing an article nearly twenty years ago in the NZ Herald on exactly the same topic – Poverty – it’s not a lack of jobs, it’s a lack of fathers.
One day as a nation we will come to our senses and honestly face the evidence. For the sake of our children I hope and pray it is soon. Twenty years is another generation gone.
The court has reached its verdict. The marchers have gone home. The politicians and media have done their usual hypocritical hand-wringing. But the question remains – where was Moko’s dad?
A father is supposed to be there to protect his children. A father is supposed to be there to help their mother look after the family. A father is supposed to provide for and love his family.
So where was Moko’s dad? We have no idea. We have no idea because the question was never asked. It never is. In all the national breast-beating that happens whenever such a tragedy occurs, the real issue is never addressed. Why are so many New Zealand children left without the care of a natural father? Why have we allowed a relationship culture to become embedded which accepts as normal the regular dropping in and out of relationships and frequent changing of partners? How is this supposed to build strong and loving families?
These are the questions which should be asked. But instead the focus is always on the failure of social agencies, the need for more education or awareness campaigns, tougher sentences or more money to be spent coordinating ever more welfare programmes. No-one ever wants to face the real issue.
The politicians don’t because they know it will be an uncomfortable conversation with the electorate. It may lose them votes. Many would also have to revisit their ideological commitment to socially liberal policies that have undermined marriage and family life. They would have to admit that their rejection of traditional Christian morality around family life has not led to a celebration of diversity. It has led to dead children.
The media don’t want to face the real issue because as soon as their current affairs journalists finish shedding tears about the latest tragedy, it is back to business as usual. And business as usual means more trash programming that normalises and promotes the very values that are rotting our family life. If it is not some reality show with contestants hopping in and out of bed with each other, it is a soap fueled by a focus on continual relationship churn or a “comedy” pushing the lie that the new liberal morality is all fun and laughter.
Sadly the reality for our children is very different. Until we are willing to face that, all the national soul searching will produce nothing but more hypocrisy.