on home ownership

i've finally managed to get some time to write about stuff - here's a post over at my website about the hectic weekend i've had.

i was listening to morning report on my way to work & heard this item on home ownership.  it's basically a couple of economists trying to convince us that nz'ers should no longer dream of home ownership.  instead we should be content with renting, although they do tell us that the rental market needs to change so that people can rent for the long-term.  nice of them.

until the rental market changes, what are people supposed to do?  and who exactly are they to be renting from?  in the world these economists are telling us to aspire to, we would have one class of people who get to own property to rent out, and another class of people who would always be renting.  The perpetual tenants are apparently able to build up just as much wealth as the property owners, simply by saving & investing the difference between what they pay in rent & what they would have paid towards a mortgage.

if that's the case, then they would build up enough wealth to buy a house, surely?  so they may as well just own the house they live in.  this is assuming, also, that there are in a position to make savings.  the problem at the moment, the reason why the home-ownership dream is becoming impossible for an increasing number of people, is precisely because they don't have enough left over to save.

but more than that, if you listen to the clip, don't you just love (ie really hate) how they dismiss "emotional" reasons for owning a home.  as if emotions have no value, no basis in logic and reason.  as if emotion is a thing that is divorced from and inferior to rationality.  which is nonsense.  if owning a home has some benefits that are based on emotional reasons, then those reasons will impact on your general feeling of well-being, and therefore your mental health.

a paper by charles waldegrave, robert stevens & peter king (which i can't seem to link to, but you can find a pdf via google), makes the following point:

Home ownership often provides an accruing asset which changes people’s perceptions about themselves in positive and independent ways. It also has the extra advantage of providing freehold ownership in later years when most senior citizens are not part of the work force.

home ownership also has the benefits of providing stability, better educational outcomes for children & better health outcomes.

so what would be the purpose of trying to convince people that they should give up the dream of owning their own home?  it could be to distract from the fact that one of the main barriers to home ownership is income inequality.  it could be to try to get us to accept that nothing can be done to make homes more affordable.  there's always that pressure to make more land available to developers, which you will also hear mentioned in the interview, as if big sprawling cities will solve the home ownership problem.  if you can't afford the transport to get to your job or to decent schools; if there aren't decent amenities & council services, and the cost of these are added to your house, then more land isn't the answer either.

the whole tenor of this piece, and of the advice given by the economists interviewed, was so defeatist.  i found it alarming.  it's when we give up hope & stop agitating for change, when believe things can never get better, that's when the already powerful & wealthy become even more so, and when the lives of those in poverty get worse.  we can do better than this.  it's just a matter of public will, which will then translate to political will.

i've been thinking of bob marley for some reason today, and so i'll leave you with this as inspiration:

immigration maths

i've been shifting some of my blogging over to my website, so feel free to check it out.  today i've just done a post on the proposed changes to liquor licensing laws in hamilton.

also, i got this from someone on facebook.  it's an excellent takedown of some the anti-immigrant rhetoric that's going around:

how it should be done

i've been trying to take a bit of a break this weekend - not always successfully! - mostly because it's the last long weekend in a long while.  and also because i'm going to be incredibly busy next weekend, so am trying to build up reserves.  i'll be at a leadership seminar on saturday, and on sunday will the be MC'ing at the regional interfaith forum.  if you're able to get along to the latter, please do register by wednesday.  it'll be an interesting event, and we will have the race relations commissioner in attendance.  i'm looking forward to meeting up with her.

i was watching the political debate on native affairs, maori television this evening.  although i can't vote in the by-election, i know one of the candidates reasonably well so i'm quite interested in seeing how the election plays out.  the one thing i can definitely say is that i was very impressed with the way the debate was conducted.

not only was the interviewer/moderator well informed, but she asked really challenging questions of all the candidates. mihingarangi forbes has a quiet but very effective interviewing style.  unlike the interviewers on political shows that air on tv1 & tv3, she doesn't badger the person she's interviewing, she allows them to finish their answer but she doesn't really allow them to get away with not answering.  and when they do evade the question, as the maori party candidate did on the issue of male leadership of the party's political wing, it looked quite bad.

but more than that, i was impressed with the respect the candidates showed each other.  they didn't feel the need to talk over each other, they all listened respectfully when it wasn't their turn to speak.  they all spoke to the issues and the policies, and didn't feel any need to personally attack or denigrate each other.

this is the way political debating should be, and i can only express my utmost respect for the candidates, the interviewer and for maori television who have once again shown us how it can & should be done.  they have also reminded me why i can't bear to watch the nation or Q&A, even though i'm a person who is politically engaged and enjoys watching political issues being debated.  i think the only person who approaches this level on the other channels is john campell, who i have been watching more of in recent weeks.

so well done maori tv, and i'm now looking forward to the one-hour debate on june 24.

same old story

if you're wondering why i haven't managed to write anything here in the last few days, check out my website & you'll see what's been keeping me busy.

today i've been feeling pretty depressed by the whole cartoon episode.  that would be the two cartoons by al nisbett in the malborough express & the christchurch press.  the ones that uphold every stereotype of poor people as could fit into one drawing, and that put the central focus on brown people.

it's the same old story.  a tried and true formula.  casually used by a wide spectrum of media and particularly the advertising industry.  say something outrageous, sit back & desperately hope for the storm of complaints.  if they do arrive, trot out the usual lines about freedom of speech & how xyz group in society just need to get a sense of humour.  throw in a bit of "PC gone mad", & if really pushed, apologise if anyone took offence (the non-apology that puts the blame squarely on every person but you).  bonus points if you can fit in the words "panty-waisted", "thought police", "pinko-facist", or hey, even "namby-pamby".

if you don't get any takers the first time around, say something more outrageous the next time.  and just keep pushing that boundary until finally the complaints flow.  you know you're guaranteed a large segment of the population who will leap in to defend your right to be obnoxious, without the slightest bit of care towards the already marginalised group you have chosen as your target.  you also know that said marginalised group doesn't have the numbers or the power to seriously challenge you in any way.  and caring about people's feelings has already been accepted by our current cultural norms as a terrible thing to do.

it's a safe strategy for anyone in the media, as long as you know where to toe the line.  where paul henry went wrong was with his timing.  had he made his comments regarding ms dikshit in a week when the commonwealth games weren't about to start, & when another nz'er was already under investigation in india, & when the government was concerned about securing a free-trade deal, then he would easily have got away with it, as he had so many times before.  his producers, you will notice, suffered no negative consequences.

but paul holmes, michael laws, hell pizzas, alcohol advertising companies & so many others carry merrily on, using the strategy to their advantage.  they just can't lose.  neither will the malborough express or the christchurch press.  and mr nisbett won't be out of a job any time soon.

and in the meantime, racist & bigotted stereotypes get more deeply embedded and entrenched in our culture.  lack of basic empathy and humanity get tossed down the gurgler.  and society becomes just that little bit more nasty, more fractured.

if there's an answer to any of this, i haven't found it.  all we can do is to keep challenging the stereotypes, and using our own freedom of speech to try to push back against this wall of hate.  fully knowing that we're playing into the hands of the media that choose to put out this kind of thing as we do so.

a nice day

i was expecting to have a bit of a quieter weekend, but things don't generally turn out as you expect!

one thing i did this morning was to visit a friend, who i wrote about last month.  well, i have to say that she is doing so much better, and it was lovely to see her happy and improving.  she's out of hospital & in a rest home, and has an aim of getting well enough to go back to her own home.

i would hardly have believed it when i saw her a month ago in hospital, but she told me that she was determined not to accept what the doctors said & to fight for her health.  i expected nothing less of her, which is why she is so dear to me.  it really made my day to see her chatting & laughing.

on a related note, i went to see the film "song for marion" on friday night.  it was such a lovely movie, though really quite heavy with emotion. i felt like the film was sort of played out in my life today as i watched this friend & her husband interacting, and the loving warmth they shared.  people can show their love in such intimate & unexpected ways, even when they don't realise they're doing any such thing.

the "song for marion" theme carried on later in the afternoon when i went to see the GLOW Singers perform.  they did a lovely selection of songs, including in maori, chinese & spanish.  it really tied together the two parts of my day nicely.

this is unhealthy

i'm not particularly impressed with this suggestion by the waikato district health board (wdhb), to reduce the waiting times at the hospital's emergency department:

Visitors to Waikato Hospital's emergency department could soon be handed leaflets after their consultation, telling them exactly why the reason they were there did not rate as an emergency....

An ongoing struggle to improve the times is being further hindered by the high number of people who could easily have avoided going to the ED, the board was told. 

the reason why the wdhb is concerned about emergency times is this:

Under the Government's health targets programme, each of the country's 20 health boards are set a goal of having 95 per cent of admissions being seen within the six-hour time frame. Waikato DHB sits in joint-last place in the rankings on 86.9 per cent. 

the board knows the reasons why it can't meet its target: overloading.  in fact, one of the board members even goes further and gives an accurate assessment of why this is happening:

Board member Ewan Wilson said he suspected many people would be deterred by the fear of exorbitant weekend surcharges at medical centres, so they headed straight to the hospital.

you would think then, that this board member would have something to say about the provision of affordable after-hours health care.  perhaps he would reinforce the notion that people shouldn't be denied medical attention because they can't afford the basic cost of seeing a GP.  he might have called on the government to rethink the way our health system is catering for those people inconsiderate enough to feel unwell and need a doctors outside of normal GP working hours.

but there is none of that.  instead, he thinks the wdhb "just need to get harder".  in other words, they should discourage people from using the hospital's emergency department, without any concern about where they might go.  many of those turned away would just not be able to afford the weekend rates at accident & emergency clinics, even with a community services card. there will be those who don't qualify for a card but are unable to afford the added up charges of a consultation and medicines.

and if these people don't see a doctor within a reasonable timeframe, they could end up back in emergency & might need hospitalisation because their condition has deteriorated.  so really, not much will have changed.

there are also issues here about excessive profits being made by private providers of accident & emergency care.  yes, they are providing a vital service, but i have a reasonable idea of the level of profits that are being made here, and i object to vulnerable people who really have very few options being forced to fork out on high fees just so these centres can make massive profits.  again, it's not like they had a choice in being unwell - if they had any choice in the matter, i'm sure they would have chosen a much more convenient time.

i believe in universal, affordable public health care.  i believe that access to health care is the right of every person in the country.  and while i agree that doctors have the right to earn a decent living, i can't support excessive profits.  especially because that is money that could be put back into the health system to provide better services for people who need it.

we already know that the most impoverished people suffer from the worst health problems.  if anything, the wdhb should be thinking of ways to get these people into the health system at the earliest possible stage of their illness.  i appreciate they are constrained by government targets and government funding, but at the very least, they should be lobbying the government to change the system instead of trying to shame the sick people who turn up on their doorstep.

hamilton city adopts a living wage policy

i've been making some steady progress on my campaign over the last couple of days.  i have now set up a facebook page for my campaign, and you can find a policy document there which sets out the my position on various issues.  that document was developed by a group of people who have a similar vision for our city.

a couple of weeks ago, i recorded this video giving a bit of background about myself & talking about why i'm standing for council:



it's a bit longer than i intended, but then i always have so much to say - hence the blogging!

as a reminder of why political activity and activism is so important, the hamilton city council has made a decision today to adopt the living wage policy.  it means that 80 council staff (about 10% of the total) will be remunerated adequately for their labour.  this move will make hamilton the first city in nz to adopt the policy, and i'm really glad that our council has pushed ahead with it.

the policy will be phased in over two years.  at this stage it only applies to direct employees, and the next step is to have the policy applied to those employed by contractors hired by council.  this kind of policy really makes a difference to people's lives - not just those 80 who will be affected, but also to the businesses where they will spend their money, thereby circulating more money through the economy.

not only that but it will hopefully have the effect of increasing wages in other sectors of the economy as well.  with private companies like the warehouse adopting the policy for permanent staff, we might yet have work valued in the way that it should be.

i'm heartened by the fact that 8 councillors supported the policy, with only 5 voting against.  that makes it a strong statement by council, and it's a pity that the mayor was so much against it.  i really hope this indicative of the feeling around the country regarding this policy.

the budget & democracy

so, the budget.  there's a lot to say, but i really like selwyn manning's summary at the daily blog.  and keith ng's work is, as usual, exceptionally good.  it's not a budget that is going to solve any underlying problems in the economy.  it's not a budget that will reduce income inequality, produce more jobs, or relieve poverty.  while it was really good to see funding go towards home insulation & rheumatic fever, these are only dealing with symptoms & not causes.

if you want to really solve those things, make sure people get decent wages, so that they can afford decent housing & they no longer suffer from the diseases related to poverty.  i attended a human rights workshop today, and as part of the workshop, we talked about issues that needed to be resolved in nz society & the rights that were most important to us.

the most important rights to this group were:
 - the right to life & to physical safety
 - freedom from discrimination
 - the right to democratic participation

the next most important was the right to work.  for me, this is a crucial one, because the issues around housing, education, health & social cohesion tend to be resolved when people have a job that pays enough for them to live comfortably.  crime is reduced, many health issues (including mental health) are reduced.

and for me, democratic participation is one of the most crucial ways that citizens of a country can ensure that their right to work is protected.  not only the right to have a job that pays decent wages, but also to working reasonable hours with sufficient breaks, and decent health & safety practices.  the right to democratic participation allows communities the power to determine how their communities develop.

there has been a significant attack on democratic rights over the 5 years.  the most obvious is the use of urgency by parliament or the shortening of submission periods for bills that manage to get to select committee stage.  this means that legislation is constantly being rushed through parliament, without sufficient consultation, so that the effects aren't well understood, and so that people don't have much of a chance to protest or to lobby for changes.

but more than that, there have been significant attacks on the powers of local government, with a restriction on what local bodies can or can't do.  the amalgamations of local government, starting with auckland and intended to roll across the country, means that local communities are losing power.  then there is the fact that environment canterbury hasn't been allowed to have elections since this government came into power, and the rebuild of christchurch has also been suffering because of the removal of democratic processes.

today's budget had yet another attack on democracy.  there is a budget provision which will allow central government to over-ride local government should the latter not free up enough land for housing.  so local communities will no longer be allowed to decide if they want to reduce urban sprawl and manage their housing needs in a way that doesn't require long commutes, expensive roading, and all the other additional costs of maintaining a larger space.

i find this appalling and incredibly depressing that the government can take away our powers of self-determination, the right to be consulted and to make decisions about our local environment.  we deserve much better than this.

disney: being brave is not enough anymore

i've put my blogging energy towards a post at the hand mirror tonight, about the proposed changes to a disney character that turns a strong, independent young woman into a more sexualised trophy figure.  hope you'll take a few mintues to sign the petition.

hillcrest park guardians

i went to a council hearing today to support the "hillcrest park guardians" group, who are seeking increased council funding for a playground.  on the surface, it seemed to be a pretty small and localised issue, but it ended up being quite interesting.

the guardians are a group that got together initially because of the way the park was being used.  local high school students would often gather there and have fights.  it wasn't particularly welcoming. so they started organising events there, and getting the community more involved with the park.

they've been pretty successful with that - i was there yesterday for the "hillcrest park youth festival", largely organised by young people.  there was music, food, nail polish, and with the beautiful weather, plenty of people having a good time.  another example of young people contributing to their community, and being positive role-models for all of us really.  there are plenty of older people who could learn a thing or 2 from these teenagers.

a good park becomes a place of community - a place where neighbours meet & get to know each other.  a sense of community that seems to be so much lacking these days, with the push for individual responsibility.  not that i'm against the latter, more against the idea that the latter is the only thing that matters, and that we're losing that sense of also being responsible for and caring for each other.

this particular group has also helped to create that sense of community through their activism.  they gathered 500 signatures on a petition, and presented to council today, well backed up with facts and figures.  they didn't just ask for more funding, they showed where that money could come from within existing budgets.  essentially, there's another park very close to this one which has received almost 3 times the funding of hillcrest park, and the guardians are asking that proposed funding for that park be diverted to this one, given that the other park has had extensive development and maintenance in recent years.

what was particularly inspiring to me today was the participation of young  children in the presentation to council.  they looked to be over 5 years old, and the presentation began with a child of around 10 years old giving a speech about what the park meant to him.  the other kids were holding signs with pictures showing the current state of the playground & the park.  i thought it was wonderful for these children to have practical experience of how their democratic system works, and i hope it inspires them in the future.

i was appalled to hear that earlier that day, the property council had submitted that parks should be sold & privatised, and more of the lands used for parks be opened up for housing development.  aside from the health implications for the city, it showed such a callousness towards community and community spaces.

and funnily enough, even though one speaker had clearly and simply explained where the funding would come from, councillor roger hennebry still felt the need to say there wasn't money available for the extension and upgrade of the playground.  he would have been better off addressing the equity issues around one park getting much more funding than the other.

i'll await with interest the outcome on this.  i think the group made some extremely good points and presented their case well.