“Student loan borrowers based overseas = 15% of borrowers, 60% of defaulters & 80% of default amount. Time to pay more”

he tweeted yesterday.

This official spin results in stories like this: “Budget 2013: Tardy student borrowers owe $427 million.”

The Government’s tough new student loan rules are an attempt to claw back more than $427 million of debt in default from overseas-based borrowers.

New figures from the Inland Revenue Department show that borrowers based overseas make up 15 per cent of those with student loans, but account for 60 per cent of 84,562 defaulting borrowers. The top 20 defaulters living in Australia collectively owe more than $1.6 million in default, with each borrower owing more than $47,000 in arrears.

Changes announced in the Budget will see passport information matched with information on student-loan debt, meaning that defaulters could be arrested as they try to leave the country.

Fixed repayment obligations and higher repayment thresholds will also be introduced from next year.

Minister of Tertiary Education Skills and Employment Steven Joyce said the crackdown was aimed at the worst offenders.

That’s all very well, but the changes aren’t only about cracking down at the border. They also include higher repayment requirements for borrowers living overseas, regardless of their income or circumstances.

One of my pet bug-bears about the annual “crackdown” on student loan repayments that we’ve been experiencing for the past five years since National has been in Government is the implication that it’s lazy students that are being targeted. Student loan borrowers who are eligible to repay their loans are graduates – grown ups! – with complex responsibilities and situations. Unilaterally raising their repayments, like Steven Joyce did for domestic borrowers last year, and overseas borrowers this year, has real, serious implications for their daily lives.

Take this example, emailed to our team yesterday, from a kiwi family living overseas who want to remain anonymous:

“Husband has a postdoctoral fellowship worth US $41,364. Wife is in the examination process for NZ PhD and is otherwise currently unemployed. We have one toddler, and a second baby on the way. Combined, our minimum compulsory repayment threshold has just been increased from NZ$6000 to NZ$9000 pa, with, as far as we can tell, no means testing or anything that takes into account our income or have dependents, only the fact that we’re now living overseas. At the current exchange rate this roughly calculates to 18.6% of our current household income. (On top of this we’re also paying the interest on our loans, and our normal outgoings which include expensive USA health insurance.) Husband chose to leave NZ to do a post-doctoral job because that is how he will establish international collaborations to further his research career, and also he had very little prospects of getting a similar job in NZ. We want to pay off our student loans and return to NZ, and fully intended, but not in a way that will stretch us so financially when we have children so young.”

It’s people like this who will be most affected by these unnecessarily punitive changes, not the archetypal lazy students deliberately evading their responsibilities imagined by Minister Joyce. It’s time some of the reporting about these changes reflected this.

It started when Labour MP Grant Robertson tweeted about the underwhelming funding for the arts in Budget 2013, including cuts to public broadcasting, regional museums, and the Ministry of Culture and Heritage. Minister Finalyson tweeted back, calling Robertson “tragic” and making the “golden age” claim. Grant has blogged about the exchange here.

Twitter’s creative community leapt into action, resulting in a very amusing hashtag #goldenage highlighting just how far from the truth that claim really is. Finalyson responded by tweeting a long list of funding decisions and projects he has provided over which he said demonstrated the truth of his claim. True, there are some positive measures in there, but the twitter audience wasn’t buying it.

So is there a silver lining to the golden age debate? It got me thinking – with an eye to reviewing our Arts, Culture, and Heritage Policy – what would it take to create a real golden age for the arts in New Zealand? I asked for some ideas from tweeters, who had some great suggestions:

• developer-proof Artists’ Reserves for inner city urban decay areas
• support for NZ screen production, incl. documentaries. Talent development e.g. NZ scale version of nfb.ca
• review of Creative New Zealand’s goals and objectives
• art works commissioned or bought as a percentage of build cost for all public buildings
• return of the Pathways to Arts and Cultural Employment scheme, with extra mentoring
• arts apprenticeships
• prime time arts documentaries; and
• return of TVNZ7!

What do you think? What policies do you want to see to create a real golden age for the arts?

This has been the Green Party’s modus operandi for transport for as long as I can remember, and it was encouraging to hear a visiting expert advocate for this sort of future forward planning specifically for Christchurch. We could be the best practice model for New Zealand and enjoy the many economic, health and community benefits that a multi-modal transport system would create.

As my colleague Julie Genter has pointed out, spending money on improved walking, cycling and public transport infrastructure is far more cost-effective than putting more money into highways.

Mr Litman gave the example of supporting local businesses. Suppose you could walk to your local shops, to more of the services and activities you wanted to access, instead of needing to drive a car – you wouldn’t need to spend as much on petrol (supporting foreign oil companies) and would instead have extra funds that could be spent on supporting local businesses (in Todd’s case, supporting micro-breweries).

A community where people walk and cycle more will be a healthier community. Todd  Litman asked the Christchurch audience an interesting question, “who here, as children, were chauffeured to school by your parents?”  I didn’t see any hands raised, though there could have been 1 or 2. He then asked, “and who here, is now driving their children to school?”,  a large section of the audience raised their hands.  Todd continued “but do children nowadays not have the same number of legs that their parents had?”. He made a very good point, especially given the National Government’s destructive proposals for Christchurch school closures and mergers.

Education Minister Hekia Parata’s agenda for Christchurch will result in fewer schools, and those left will be super-sized.  More students will have to go by car or bus rather than being close enough to walk, scooter or bike to.  We know we have a growing obesity problem in New Zealand. We need to allow the same healthy start for today’s students that many of us enjoyed by having local neighbourhood schools that kids (and parents) can walk to.

New Brighton mural by the Suffra-jests

Multi-modal transport design also promotes community cohesion.   Todd Litman said that in Victoria B.C, walkability is the city’s most valuable asset.  It is an easy city for tourists to explore, and for  locals greater foot traffic encourages more social interactions. People say hello when they walk which they can’t in a car. This promotes community cohesion, security, and ultimately more liveable communities.

We could have all this in Christchurch. We have the perfect conditions for it, a very flat city (easy for cycling and walking) that is in the process of being redesigned. A Green transport plan for Christchurch would focus on multi-modal transport design that is inclusive, safe and accessible.

So before that unseemly scramble and the inevitable focus on detail here are some big picture observations on what I expect to be in the budget and what I would do differently. By the time you read this you will be able to tell how accurate I was!

• There will indeed be more money spent on Health than ever before – in dollar terms. The reality though is that in each of its budgets so far, this Government has put significantly less into Health than is necessary to “tread water” or retain the system’s capacity to respond to need. Each year we have an older population with greater needs, where costs have risen at the rate of “medical inflation” (significantly higher than the CPI, the normal measure of inflation). Government budgets have not kept pace, meaning erosion of capacity. I believe services must at least maintain parity, and that Health should be a higher funding priority than, say, Roads of National Significance.
• There has been genuinely new money for only a very small number of services, most notably elective surgery, which Health Minister Tony Ryall uses as more or less the sole indicator of system performance, even though it comprises only about 5% of what the system does. In the context of a sinking lid on funding this means that these increases occur at the expense of everything else. If I were facing a sinking lid – or even just constrained resources – I would ensure that the prioritised services were those that reduced the need for other services in the long run. This is not what the Minister is doingat all.
• There has been a decades-long consensus that the best value for money and most important priority for Health spending has been in Public (preventive) health services and primary care. Over time these areas were being gradually increased at the relative cost of more highly specialised services. Minister Ryall has reversed this direction and I expect to see more of that today. The most important services are being cut to fund Minister Ryall’s pet projects. I would prioritise long-term and durable health gain over short-term political priorities.
• The National Government has shown some glimmering of understanding that collaboration between different sectors might be helpful in achieving health (and other) gains. Just maybe we might see some funding and impetus given to that ‘whole of Government’ work. I certainly hope so. This would be a high priority for me. People do not live their lives as isolated individuals or in sector-based compartments. Damp overcrowded houses for example have terrible and expensive health consequences.
• One of the consequences of the National Government getting its spending balance wrong in Health has been that inequalities have increased – both in the outcomes themselves, and the factors that drive the outcomes. Those with the worst health – Māori, Pasifika, people with disabilities, people with low incomes and other marginalised groups have had increasingly worse health. Despite the small gains the Māori party have succeeded in negotiating, I expect this adverse trend to continue today. A fundamental priority for me would be to ensure that those with the greatest need receive the most help. This is a human and citizenship right.
• The National Government’s real terms cut to funding primary health care has meant that people pay more to visit their practice nurse or doctor and to get prescriptions filled. I expect to see this increasing privatisation of health services to continue. I think access to primary care is fundamental and that Government should be working to ensure cost is NEVER a barrier to care. And it is cheaper and better for everyone to  deal with problems at the level rather than adding to burdens of  already stretched hospitals.

And of course now I’ve started a list I can’t stop. I expect more ineffective flailing in health workforce, more inaction in Health IT and continued inadequate response to our aging population and the urgent and unprecedented challenge to health services from obesity-related diseases. Mark my words.

The Green Party has a positive vision for supporting all children to get the public education they need. It is based on concepts of equity and quality and support for the cultures of all our communities. We utterly reject the concept of unregistered teachers, business models in schools and the lack of scrutiny that the Bill sets up. John Banks claims to be the champion of Māori students despite ACT’s inability to support collective benefits for any community, let alone tangata whenua.

Hekia Parata is also chanting the mantra of choice without answering the serious questions around accountability, quality and the lack of evidence that Charters can deliver even the narrow vision of the National/ACT Government. Their constant cry is that flexibility and innovation are impossible within the state system and they are silent as to why kura kaupapa Māori education is not being supported. Do they ever visit schools and kura and listen?

The Green Party will be promoting a positive vision between now and the election which focuses on quality public education and proven successes such as kura kaupapa and Te Kotahitanga that address inequity and bias. We won’t be supporting secret contracts and teaching staff with no registration. We think all children deserve access to the best we can offer not failed imported models.

And Aotearoa is responding. Opposition to this risky extreme form of oil extraction has been building steadily, and this weekend folks are coming out all over Aotearoa to draw a line in the sand and say no to deep sea oil, and yes to a more sustainable future.

Hands Across the Sand is a global day of action and there are events popping up all over the place. Check out the list below, and there may be more to come!

The movement against deep sea oil is growing stronger every day, and I’ll be getting along to the Wellington event this weekend to join with other kiwis drawing a line in the sand against deep sea oil.

Auckland North Shore: https://www.facebook.com/events/158426560993768/

Ohope: https://www.facebook.com/events/474087352660025/

Wellington: https://www.facebook.com/events/360254350743502/

Golden Bay : https://www.facebook.com/events/362837330494867

Motueka – https://www.facebook.com/events/564546143568206/

Nelson: https://www.facebook.com/events/453304271417629/

Kaikoura: https://www.facebook.com/events/459355244142855/

Christchurch: https://www.facebook.com/events/371511899631561/

and Dunedin: https://www.facebook.com/events/520755497982218/

I will also be holding a stall on Cuba street to let other Wellingtonians know about the threat to our very own coast and give out some information, I’d love for you to join me! I’ll be at the bucket fountains at 11am, or check out the Facebook event here:

https://www.facebook.com/events/600491843296018/?ref=25

Protection orders were created by the Domestic Violence Act and are one of the key tools in responding to Domestic Violence. They are issued by the Family Court.

The police have also recently been given the power to issue Public Safety Orders, which are loosely 5 day protection orders. These should not be issued if there is evidence of physical violence. Unfortunately a police review of Public Safety Orders showed evidence that they are more than occasionally being used when there is evidence of physical violence.

More than 10,000 people were charged with 21,049 incidents of breaching protection orders between 2006 and 2010.

Of the offenders, 6361 were convicted and 1725 given a custodial sentence. The rest, 4469, were found not guilty or had the charges withdrawn.

In the words of the police “Police do not routinely produce statistics on persons involved in police safety orders, details of the breaches, penalties imposed, number of repeat offenders, the number of complaints from protected people, the nature of the complaints and how they were dealt with … the information is not held by police,”

People in the sector have told me they are concerned about the high number of women reporting breaches only to find they are not considered a breach. For example a text may be made if the content of the text is not considered to be threatening. The nature of psychological abuse in cases of reported breaches does not seem to be understood or seen as an indicator of escalating level of risk to the victim.

They have also told me of protection orders being issued to protect women who have also effectively been given, by the same court, responsibility for ensuring their ex-partner’s access to their children. In this situation it is very hard for a woman to report a breach and very difficult to keep the lines

There are several areas of policy concern here; police use of and enforcement of protection orders and Public Safety Orders, the lack of monitoring and analysis of their use and effectiveness, the apparent lack of a victim’s perspective in the policy feedback process.

If we are serious about ending or even responding appropriately to Domestic Violence we need to ensure our systems are appropriate and working for the victims.

Last Monday the US Supreme Court found in favour of Monsanto over yet another small farmer. Indiana soybean farmer Vernon Hugh Bowman bought some seeds from a grain company, where other farmers drop off their seed. He only wanted to sow cheap seed so bought what he called ‘junk grain’. It was a mixture of whatever grain had been dropped off at the store but some was Monsanto Roundup Ready Soybean.

Bowman’s lawyer argued that Bowman acquired the Monsanto seeds innocently enough and that his small operation never would threaten the company’s monopoly. But Monsanto won, winning a settlement of $84,456 for infringing Monsanto’s patent rights.

This is yet another demonstration of Monsanto’s determination to squash any small farmer that doesn’t sign up to their way of doing things.

What got him into hot water was that he saved seed from this ‘junk grain’ to plant again next season. Monstanto want to hold rights to generations of seeds forever, and we think that’s wrong.

We can avoid this happening to New Zealand farmers

By not allowing the growing of GE crops here we can ensure that New Zealand farmers aren’t exposed to risk of legal action from Monsanto on these types of issues.

But we can do more. I am gathering support for my amendment to the Patents Bill currently moving through Parliament. This amendment clarifies that patents must not be held over life.

We can all take action against Monsanto

On the 25^th of May there is a global action to march against Monsanto.

There are already events organised around the New Zealand, join them or organise a march in your city.
Auckland 

Christchurch

Wellington

New Plymouth

Nelson

Rotorua

Goodness. I guess all the work of the Expert Advisory Group on Child Poverty, consisting of much esteemed doctors, and professors and community workers, was for nothing. The Minister of Finance does not believe their 72 recommendations amount to a general solution to poverty.

Poverty is created. It is not part of nature. We can see this very clearly when we contrast the wealth of old and young and see that only 3% of people 65 and over live in poverty compared to 25% of children. This difference is directly a result of Government policy and the universal provision of Superannuation.

Nationally and internationally we have seen multiple examples of poverty significantly increasing and decreasing, due to Government policy decisions. Poverty for working families in New Zealand significantly decreased after the introduction of working for families. The in-work tax credit lifted thousands of children out of poverty but has not helped the one in five children whose parents’ study or are on a benefit. The Children’s Commissioner’s expert group, has recommended a universal child payment, which reaches the poorest kids, as an effective way of helping many children in poverty.
Government is responsible for the social and employment environment in which we all survive or thrive.

Power Struggles
John Small, 9 May 2013

 Is the Labour/Green electricity reform proposal economic lunacy or a chance to finally get vengeance on a gang of bandits? Will the lights stay on? Will foreign investors desert us or punish us financially?

 These pressing questions are generating more heat than light. Maybe that’s because they’re difficult: the policy is after all silent on some crucial details, without which predictions are challenging. But we already know far more than you’d think from the angry reactions.

 Unlike what some are claiming, the concept is not inherently flawed. You don’t need to be an expert to see why.

 The main change is that there won’t be a single wholesale market price any more. Each power station will get paid what it actually needs to cover costs, instead of what the least efficient (most costly) station needs. That change alone will allow power bills to be slashed because about 60% of our power is from hydro stations and those generators get paid way more than they need. So there definitely are savings available: its not a mirage.

 If power stations are currently gaming the market (i.e. finding ways to jack up the price), that will also cease. This proposition has been argued and contested, but having money for price cuts doesn’t much rely on the outcome of that debate. Eliminating gaming is either an extra benefit or a sideshow, depending on whether you believe it happens or not.

 Retailers will still compete, but they’ll be buying their power from NZ Power. Depending on how NZPower operates (we’re going to need some details!), that could open the door to many new retailers which would intensify retail competition. Currently, electricity retailing is dominated by generators because that helps them avoid exposure to the spot market which is incredibly risky for a retailer. But retail competition is muted for the same reason: no retailer wants a market share out of whack with the market share of its affiliated generator.

 Those are the first round effects: lower prices and more retail competition. Both are good for consumers, but we also need to think a bit further ahead.

 The price cuts are targeted mostly at residential consumers, with commercial and industrial users in line for smaller cuts. Each of these groups will use more power when the price falls, so we’ll need to generate more, using extra resources. The amount of extra cost will depend on the details of retail pricing. For example, you could give everyone a block of cheap power with the rest priced normally: that would limit the extra generation cost and preserve incentives to invest in insulation etc. It’s a sensible idea from the Greens.

 Then there is the impact on the government’s accounts. Dividends from the SOE power companies will fall and if the budget is to be unaffected that means either more taxes or less spending elsewhere. This is a murky issue because asset sales are eroding the dividend stream anyway and also because we don’t know how the government will react. If taxes go up somewhere to compensate for lost revenue, that will affect people’s behaviour. On the other hand, the funds could be recouped from tax evaders. Or by cutting <insert your pet waste of public funds here>.

 What about the investors? The short story is that investors (including the government) will pay for the price cuts because they own the power stations whose revenues will be cut. In the longer run, there is a question over whether private investors will punish us by with-holding funds for new investment, either completely (cue horror stories) or by demanding higher rates of return. An investment strike is inconceivable: electricity is regulated everywhere and people are clearly willing to invest in extremely unstable countries. So capital will be available; the only question is the price and that depends on how risky the project is. For power station investors, the risk might well fall. A long-term contract with NZPower sounds a lot less risky than investing under the current industry configuration.

 Put all this together and we see that there are funds available for price cuts, retail competition could intensify and new generation will still be fundable. What could go possibly wrong?

 Two things: time and nerve. Assume that Labour/Greens form the next government and get cracking on their plan. First up will be enabling legislation to create NZ Power and define its mandate. Hopefully, they’d constitute NZ Power so that it was independent of politicians. But if they want this to be effective (i.e. to actually transfer significant cash to consumers) they will also need to say so very clearly in the legislation. In particular, that means spelling out how NZPower is to determine valuations of generation assets.

 The policy refers to paying generators on the basis of “historic cost” but what exactly does that mean? Intuitively we know that the public funds used to build most of our hydro stations have long ago been recouped through depreciation. In that case, the historic cost is zero. But modern accounting rules require them to be valued on the basis of their earning power, so achieving the stated policy goal means writing these book values down. To zero.

 Inevitably, there will be some messy cases, such as where old records have been lost or where someone bought the power station fairly recently for a large sum. If the policy architects have enough nerve they will tackle these problems upfront and make the legislation nice and clear. History suggests they’ll wimp out and punt the difficult issues to NZ Power along with a few vague principles. That approach would create lots of work for lawyers, add costs, and runs the risk of neutering the whole plan.

 Some other crucial details will also need to be spelled out, like how to run a competitive pool to get efficient dispatch while also regulating generators to cost. These are geek fodder.

 What if Tiwai Point closed? That works in the same direction as NZ Power: there would be less spare cash to redistribute, but the prevailing prices should also be a fair bit lower.

 The bottom line is that this policy is certainly bold, but its not crazy. It has the potential to stimulate competition and be a force for good, but it will be difficult to do and even harder to do well. 

 John Small is an economist and director of the consultancy firm Covec.

•  They’re a very local company. They started in Wellington 20 years ago and have been part of Wellington life for all that time including being active in the anti-motorway protests.
• Laurie Foon is a genuinely lovely woman with an eye for beauty that extends much wider than design.
• They were leading the discussion on sustainable fashion. They made the move to design clothing you keep for a long time, made in New Zealand, from fair trade and eco sources.
• They make pretty clothes.

I know they’re expensive clothes and when most people’s pay is so repressed, that people are struggling to feed themselves and their families, it may seem frivolous to mark the passing of a clothing company. But they have paid their staff decently and they’ve been committed to everyone throughout the supply chain being treated decently. If everyone operated like that, everyone would be paid more and maybe more of us could afford their beautiful clothing.

I wish the Government was doing more to support small and medium sized New Zealand business so we could all benefit.

This week is also Budget week, which has historically brought some pretty bad news for students.

Last year’s Budget gifts from the Government included: removing access to student allowances for postgraduate students, increasing the student loan repayment rate from 10% to 12%, restricting all allowances to 200 weeks and freezing the parental income threshold for student allowances until 2016.

These changes have had a big impact on a lot of people.

Some of those graduating in Auckland on Friday are planning a visual protest against the burden of student debt. Students will be placing a sticker on their graduation gown showing how much student debt they have, which they describe as “a visual reminder of the number that the Government reduces them to”.

While it’d be nice to think that this years’ Budget could have some better news for students and graduates, it’s not looking good. The Government have already indicated that they’ll be putting even more pressure on overseas borrowers, and I’m sure there’s more to come.

Al Gore had this to say about the milestone: “.… every single day we pour an additional 90 million tons of global warming pollution into the sky as if it were an open sewer. As the distinguished climate scientist Jim Hansen has calculated, the accumulated manmade global warming pollution in the atmosphere now traps enough extra heat energy each day to equal the energy that would be released by 400,000 Hiroshima-scale atomic bombs exploding every single day.”

Inaction is not feasible when you consider how many populations will have to move from their homelands, the devastation that will increasing be wrought by floods and the loss inflicted by more frequent, more intense droughts. Food, water and land are all at risk. It doesn’t get a lot more fundamental than this.

Global awareness is growing. Most countries are attempting to rein in their emissions and head towards more sustainable energy sources.

Meanwhile, downunder, the National Government has taken almost every retrograde step that could be done.

Labour implemented an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) which aimed at slowly including polluting industries so they paid for the damage they did and there would be an incentive to change. Under National the brakes went on. Subsidies to polluters have continued while sectors such as agriculture are still able to operate with no cost for the damage they cause.

Internationally New Zealand has recently become a climate change pariah. From being a ‘global leader’, we are now the country handed Fossil Fuel awards at UN meetings. National has decided New Zealand will take a different, easier, path from other developed countries by not signing up to future binding commitments under the Kyoto Protocol. New Zealand is the only developed country not to enter a formal pledge to reduce emissions by 2020. And our emissions are going up. New Zealand is not doing its fair share on climate change, it’s freeloading and hoping the rest of the world will do the heavy-lifting.

This laggard attitude actually means we are missing opportunities. Opportunities to take the lead on green tech, and do our ‘fair share’ to protect the vulnerable from climate change, especially in the Pacific.

This black milestone could have a silver lining for a Government willing to face up to the challenges.

Ralf Keeling of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography has continued the Keeling Curve his father pioneered, monitoring atmospheric carbon dioxide levels from Mauna Loa. He says 400 ppm was a done deal but there’s still hope: “What happens from here on still matters to climate, and it’s still under our control. It mainly comes down to how much we continue to rely on fossil fuels for energy.”

And Al Gore, much maligned yet still committed, says everyone needs to work to stop climate change: “Make no mistake, this crisis will demand no less than our very best. I am optimistic because we have risen to meet the greatest challenges of our past.”

He urges us all to mark this milestone with a commitment to change: “Rededicate yourself to the task of saving our future. Talk to your neighbours, call your legislator, let your voice be heard. We must take immediate action to solve this crisis. Not tomorrow, not next week, not next year. Now.”

The Green Party will continue to pressure the National Government to act on climate change. New Zealanders want to do their fair share. It’s time we started doing it.

As I have mentioned before, National has big plans to spend billions (perhaps as much as $5 billion, if we include the $2.4 billion interest on the private loan for Transmission Gully) on a grade separated four-lane highway from the airport to Otaki. It’s ridiculous to blame the Wellington City Council for holding this project up as the process is already moving as fast as it possibly could, thanks to the EPA rubber stamping process set up by National.

Steven Joyce, supposedly the economic development minister, has a particular obsession with the idea that duplicating or replacing an existing road link will have transformational economic benefits for Wellington.

This truly is, to use a term Joyce is fond of, voodoo economics.

Let’s consider why: how might building motorways create jobs?

There’s the direct impact of the people brought in to move earth, design and construct the roads. But by all accounts, building new highways is one of the worst job creators, at somewhere between $500,000 – $1,000,000 per job created. The reason for this is simple – building roads is capital intensive. Most of the money spent goes on land acquisition, big machines, and materials – not labour.

It would make a lot more sense to create jobs through home insulation, public transport services (which are much more labour intensive), even road maintenance creates more jobs per dollar spent.

But of course, the government couldn’t possibly be building the roads just to directly create jobs.  Oh no, Joyce has previously mocked the very idea of building anything just to create construction jobs… the government is building a “modern 21^st century road” because it will enable productivity benefits.

My question is – what productivity gains can we get from building a duplicate highway? The research shows that expanding an existing highway system has diminishing marginal returns, because there is already access.

The current philosophy of economic evaluation of transport infrastructure assumes that by reducing travel time, we increase access for businesses and freight, and we save precious minutes on journeys.

It is questionable whether adding up minutes of tens of thousands of commuter journeys would actually translate into economic benefit. There was never any empirical evidence to support the theory. In fact, despite people travelling at higher speeds in private vehicles, the past few decades hasn’t seen an overall reduction in travel times – people are simply travelling further than before.

The changes in land use that result from people travelling further are generally not productivity gains, they are a transfer. It’s a zero sum. Land towards the centre becomes less intensively used, while people take the benefit of cheaper land at the outskirts. Overall infrastructure costs associate with this sprawl are more expensive, as are overall transport costs to the economy (households and business need to spend more money importing vehicles and fuel.) Induced development is not a productivity gain and it costs us more for a given amount of economic activity.

If we wanted to save people time so they could be more productive, buying them labour saving devices, like dishwashers, may be more effective than building new motorways. (NB, I am not advocating this policy!)

If anything, Joyce’s treatment will be worse than the disease. Projects like the Kapiti Expressway and the Basin Reserve flyover will actually make Wellington’s situation worse, in several ways. Firstly, it will destroy some of the urban and coastal amenity that makes Wellington an attractive place to live. Secondly, it will undermine the investment in commuter rail, walking and cycling, by making it relatively cheaper and easier to drive. Of course, the total result will be higher car dependence, which means more money being spent on imported vehicles and fuel, and less on goods and services provided by Wellington businesses.

The smartest way to support Wellington’s economy is to make investments that substantially reduce the overall costs of transport to the economy – this means making walking, cycling, and public transport the priority. This would probably result in greater time savings for road trips than a new highway funneling more cars into choke-points. Investing in rail freight and coastal shipping will also reduce fuel costs and vulnerability.

Real economic development requires taking steps to support our manufacturers, investing in training and education, and thinking outside the box. I’m happy to report a lot of truly creative and productive activity is already happening in Wellington, at places like Enspiral and the Sustainability Trust. It may not be on the government’s radar, but it gives me great hope that Wellington has a smart, green future.

Let’s just hope National’s motorway madness can be stopped before it does irreparable damage to the coolest little capital.

This week the Auckland and Northland Council representatives of the PTA Joint Agency gave a multi-party briefing, following meeting Biosecurity (MPI) Minister Nathan Guy. It seems that National and MPI are effectively giving up on yet another biosecurity disaster. The bee mite varroa is well established, didymo is in too many rivers, psyllid is moving through potatoes and tomato crops, PSA in kiwifruit, Mediterranean fan worm is moving beyond Auckland and Lyttleton harbours, and now the Government appears to be throwing in the towel on kauri dieback.

More must be done to prevent entry of new pests and disease, better contain those already here, and find long term solutions for their impacts.

The Minister has been reported saying, “the best scientific evidence we have is that eradication is not possible because of its widespread nature, and there is no known cure. Our focus now is on slowing its spread and protecting our remaining disease-free forests while research continues.”

From my horticultural experience, I understand the problems with phytopthora contagions and have some sympathy for the Minister’s view. However, the small amount of research continuing is unlikely to make the breakthrough required to preserve even some of our kauri forests for later generations.

For this cultural taonga and icon of Northland tourism, the mainstay of forests where it is the dominant species, we must push much harder for a scientific breakthrough.

The research needs to be lifted by significant funding for the logical specialist provider, the government’s own forest research institute (Scion). Scion has expertise that should be focused on this issue, and the PTA Joint Agency of four regional councils, Department of Conservation, MPI and northern iwi need to be able to access that expertise and associated technology.

Kauri dieback is an example of continued biosecurity failures in New Zealand, but also a failure of how science is funded and directed. The commercial model for science and Crown Research Institutes (CRI) means that the Minister will not be directing Scion to get stuck into this problem of national significance. This leaves the PTA Joint Agency having to come to Wellington to beg for continued funding to pay Scion, so Scion can meet the Government’s expectation of a financial dividend from CRIs. The Minister will be hoping that the councils and iwi stump up the cash to feed it dividends, and seems prepared to let an icon die along the way.

It seems a contradiction, that today the Minister announced 30 new positions to help with biosecurity border protection, yet seems willing to throw his hands in the air as Tāne Mahuta and our iconic kauri forests die.

With affected trees as close as 60 metres from the famous Tāne Mahuta in the Waipoua Forest, and thousands of trees dying elsewhere, it is time for the Minister to have a change of heart and make a positive change to this year’s budget by funding the $5 million over 5 years needed to continue finding the breakthrough that we all want.

About 500 brightly coloured posters reassure it’s “all right” for people to experience a range of emotions in the post-quakes city and encourages people to reach out to support each other.

“All right” is an excellent and well-timed mental health and well-being project led by Healthy Christchurch, and backed by the Mental Health Foundation and Canterbury District Health Board.

This is the right campaign at the right time for Christchurch. It’s about normalising and acknowledging mental health. It acknowledges what Cantabrians have been through, and are still going through, and promotes the value of checking-in on our mental health and well-being.

Our Green policy on health care sets out the importance of providing support at the earliest stage possible, and this is so important with mental health too.

Our policy takes a holistic approach to understanding mental health and illness. There are a wide range of psychological, social, environmental, and physiological factors that can affect mental health. The degree of social support, financial security, reasonable working conditions, safe and healthy housing, supportive schools and access to appropriate health care can all affect our mental health and how we cope if we become mentally ill. (click here to read more on green health policy)

Research conducted to inform the “all right” campaign demonstrates the wide range of factors weighing on the minds of Cantabrians. Many are still struggling from the “double blow” of the earthquakes, but also the increased stress and anxiety of slow on-going insurance battles.  Many respondents mentioned grief for the ‘lost Christchurch’, a third are suffering financial problems as a result of the earthquakes, and fatigue was extremely common.

I know the rest of New Zealand hasn’t necessarily gone through the same experiences, but there are definite well-being tips to reflect on as we head into the winter months. Some of the positive findings include how humour, staying active, eating healthy foods, and appreciating the small things in life really help.  Also highlighted were people feeling proud of their family’s increased resilience, their communities feeling stronger, and their renewed appreciation of life.  What a great silver lining.

So this campaign has a really simple message, but it couldn’t be more pertinent, now is a really good time for everyone to check in with themselves, with friends and whānau, “are you all right?”

Some websites that might help

http://www.allright.org.nz/

http://addressthestress.co.nz/

http://depression.org.nz/

Tui has been at the top of a list of contaminated sites for many years, partially due to the real risk of the collapse of the waste dump onto the community below. Finally after many years of campaigning and lobbying, the clean-up process for this ‘orphan’ toxic site was initiated.

Over the last three years, the Green Party has worked with the Government to ensure funding to stabilise the site and at least partially neutralise the underground toxic leachate with lime.

Last week I attended an event marking the end of the clean-up. On the mountain I joined tangata whenua Ngāti Tumutumu and Ngāti Hako, people from the Hauraki iwi, local and regional authorities, the contractors, and local residents for this celebration of progress. The site has been hugely improved through the stabilisation and processing of the tailings waste into a solid mix and the work on the mine water quality. This cost central and local government $21 million.

On-going monitoring and re-application of lime to the contaminated water will continue to be important and the Greens will stay actively involved with the regional council as they carry out this work. The iwi are developing a cultural monitoring plan to continue the healing of the mountain, including work to restore the mauri (life force) of the affected waterways.

Overall, it was a very positive achievement and good to work with two Ministers for the Environment to get this progress. The lessons we can learn from Tui are simple.

• Don’t let foreign miners run away from their pollution.
• Don’t mine our mountains for metals that could otherwise be mined from scrap metal yards and used cell phones.
• Respect tangata whenua when they tell us not to damage their sacred places.
•  Above all else love and protect our maunga and our water!

As a part of Youth Week, Youth Affairs Minister Nikki Kaye has today made an announcement on this year’s Youth Parliament, including releasing the issues that the Youth MPs will be considering at their select committees, as well as the topic of the bill that will be debated in the House.

I’m particularly excited about the bill that they’ll be considering – the Electoral Reform bill, which seeks to modernise the electoral system through steps like lowering the voting age to 17, introducing electronic voting options, making voting compulsory, and extending the Term of Parliament from 3-4 years.

These are all really important and interesting issues, especially in light of the growing problem we have in New Zealand with declining voter turnout and political disengagement amongst young people.

The Youth MPs will get an opportunity to debate this bill in the House, and will each vote individually through a conscience vote.

From now until July the Youth MPs will have the chance to consult their communities on the Electoral Reform bill, and I’m sure there will be lots of thought-provoking discussion on the topic.

You can meet our wonderful bunch of Green Youth MPs here.