Max Rashbrooke

Yes, and makes the political system less likely to tackle poverty ... and so the cycle goes. Which is why it's important to break it (difficult though that is).

A good thread and article.

I gave evidence on the Parliament Bill last week.

The MPs on the committee seemed bemused when I said that the public should have been consulted during the four year long development of policy and legislation about *their* legislature.

1/12

In practical terms, I think that more bottom-up government involves things like citizens’ assemblies and community control over parts of local infrastructure budgets; but I’m always open to other ideas.

In other words, when people like me bang on about more collaborative, bottom-up government, it’s not just because we love procedural issues: these are things that actually matter and that can restore trust.

What would fix this? Tackling poverty, obviously, and a more competent state. But OECD modelling shows the changes most effective in restoring trust would be those that ensure people’s voices are heard.

Similarly, just 35% of the poorest NZers feel they have “a say” in how government decisions are made, and 37% think their voices will be listened to in consultations.

While trust in political institutions is a problem overall, it’s especially severe for the poor: while 60% of financially secure NZers trust Parliament, only 40% of “financially insecure” people do.

My column at the weekend argues that if you’re concerned about rising support for authoritarianism in NZ, you need to deal with one of the major drivers, which is low trust among poorer NZers.
www.thepost.co.nz/nz-news/3604...

The govt claims it can slash costs without harming the scheme, but schools say this actually risks destroying the things that make the scheme so successful. Full details in The Spinoff column.

It's a crucial question because evidence is piling up that the free lunches have transformative effects. When fed, kids concentrate better and have fewer behavioural problems. NZ evidence is starting to match the global evidence that this leads to better attendance and results.

Has David Seymour ‘saved’ school lunches – or enshittified them? The new, cheaper scheme shifts costs from central government to schools – and risks damaging the very thing that makes the programme work.

The government claims to have “saved” the free school lunches scheme, but they may just (to borrow from the vernacular) be “enshittifying” them: degrading them to the point where they no longer work properly. thespinoff.co.nz/politics/16-...

Of course the main issue is what has gone on, and goes on, inside ‘care’ institutions, and the redress owed to survivors of abuse. But we also need to close the pipeline of children entering such institutions, and tackling poverty is part of that. Full argument in column. 3/3

Equally, raising family incomes has a statistically significant effect in reducing neglect of children. One study estimates a $1 rise in the minimum wage (in the US) reduces reports of neglect by nearly 10%. 2/

This weekend’s column looks at the (strong) evidence that poverty heightens parental stress, makes child mistreatment more likely, and thus places more children at risk of the appalling abuse in ‘care’ revealed by the Royal Commission. www.thepost.co.nz/nz-news/3503...

This weekend’s column looks at John Key’s bipartisan moment in 2007, over the anti-smacking bill, and asks: does Chris Luxon have it in him to do the same? And if so, what should be the issue? Hint: agreeing a pipeline of infrastructure projects. www.thepost.co.nz/nz-news/3503...

To wit:

This week’s column: the intense focus on “17k extra public servants under Labour" is misguided b/c a) numbers have to be seen in context of wider workforce growth and b) most important q is not an abstract no. but what we need govt to do (and do better).
www.thepost.co.nz/nz-news/3502...

Does NZ really want a strongman leader who “breaks the rules”? This week’s column unpicks the latest surveys on whether populism is taking hold here. Also feat. Shane Jones, and the need for a politics of redistribution (and democratic renewal). www.thepost.co.nz/nz-news/3502...

The Living Wage Movement has grown from covering 0 workers in 2012 to 50,000 today. Each gets $27.80, equivalent to $10k pa more than the minimum wage of $23.15. Local success story in an era of little recognition of the lowest paid workers.

My latest column: a tribute to the success of the Living Wage, and why Luxon should guarantee that govt cleaners, caterers and security guards keep being moved onto it. www.thepost.co.nz/nz-news/3502...

What happens when you ask 20 NZ media CEOs two very pointed questions? The collapse of Newshub and job losses at TVNZ are just the public face of an evolving polycrisis in New Zealand media. Is there a way out?

Excellent article here from Duncan Grieve at The Spinoff. I'm of the view that there has to be some form of levy on the Tech Giants. Google NZ earns close to a billion dollars in advertising most of which is paid offshore as "service fees"

thespinoff.co.nz/business/08-...

My new column: National's crackdown on emergency housing could make things worse, unless we build more social housing. We need 43k more homes, just to restore 1990 levels of provision. And we could copy Vienna, where social homes make up 1/2 of housing, and are beautiful. twitter.com/MaxRashbrook...

More generally, National called for all kinds of things when in opposition (a mandatory code of conduct for lobbyists, a register of who is lobbying whom, and cooling off periods before ministers can become lobbyists) and so far none of these seem in prospect. V disappointing.

On the latter: the draft *voluntary* code of conduct for ppl lobbying govt has nice words, but no mechanisms that would ensure people breaking it faced consequences, not even ostracism or naming and shaming by their own profession. As it stands, will make no difference.

On the former: Gerry Brownlee (Speaker and National MP) has reinstated Parliamentary special swipe cards for a few lobbyists (not a huge deal, but still...) AND is keeping their names secret when previously they were published.

In opposition, National called for much tougher transparency around lobbying. In govt, it and its MPs are so far making things *less* transparent. And its draft code of conduct for lobbyists, inherited from Labour, appears toothless. www.rnz.co.nz/news/in-dept...

Can't recall exactly, but I think it covers most of the campaigning *in support of something* that you'd expect it to. From memory negative/attack ads might be something of a loophole. You'd need to check though.

Don't have to disclose anything about funding currently, just their spending during election campaigns.

I think the IER recc (which will probably be ignored) cd be gamed, eg an org takes $100k from donor for the election campaign but tells authorities the "campaign" itself was funded from other sources e.g. five wealthy people giving $20k each. But it'd be a start.

Interesting bc typically we think civil-society groups sd have privacy over their funding, and indeed they sd. But if they're basically being political actors, there's an argument they sd face some of the transparency requirements we place on political parties.