SOCIETY BENEFITS

Now here’s an interesting article;

 

“Canterbury's mental health funding to be cut” [ASHLEIGH STEWART, stuff.co.nz, 16  February 2016]

And here’s another  . ..

“11,000 disabled children lose welfare benefit” [NZ Herald, 19 March 2015]

Aaaannnd another  . . .

“Benefits cut for 13,000 parents in new regime” [Simon Collins, NZ Herald], 23 October 2013]

Starting to see a pattern?

I had the misfortune to have to go to a Work and Income New Zealand (WINZ) office recently to secure a particular allowance for someone.  I have to add that this was only because I was thrown off the phone by WINZ’s automatic phone system that didn’t have enough capacity for its “customers”;

“I’m sorry, but our lines are all busy.  Please try again later …  [beep, beep, beep]”

So I’m at the WINZ reception desk, and I go to hand in a form that is signed by a doctor and another relevant health professional.

Receptionist; “Have you been with us before?"

Me; “Me? Yes, but not for many years.”

Receptionist; “Then you need to fill in this form and make an appointment.”

Me; “Why?”

Receptionist; “Because you’re applying for ‘Extra Help.’”

So I had brought in, what I thought was, a simple two-page form completed and signed by a GP and another health professional.  That wasn’t enough.  A 28-page form (yes, honest - 28 pages!) was thrust in my hand and I was told to go away and come back another day.  I’m not even going to start on why the quake-traumatised person's allowance I was advocating for should have been easy.  It wasn’t.  It's suffice to say that eight years of a right-wing, National government were in absolute clarity at that moment.

I felt sick, heavy and dizzy.  Everything slowed down . . .

I took a deep breath, held it for a moment, then breathed out slowly and looked around at the “customers” in that office.   I didn’t see any stereotypical scruffy dole dodgers with their tin cups out to beg.  No drug addicts, drunks or half-starved dogs. The people in there were all quite smart, respectable and the place was deathly quiet.  The one unifying factor that all the visitors had, was the same look.  In fact, a lot of people in Christchurch have that look now.  All the visitors in that WINZ office had the look; stressed, tired and “I don’t really want to be here.”

Eight years of a National government, and benefits – any benefit – are extremely difficult to secure.  Eight years of a National government, and you have jump through hoops to receive what you’re actually entitled to.  But of course, eight years of a National government has made “entitlement” a swear word, hasn’t it?  The greed of the National Party's sponsors and supporters have ensured that every drop of social service is squeezed to alleviate the government's screaming debt crisis.  I mean, God-forbid we raise income tax at the higher end to maintain a civilised society,  right?

You know, as I stood in the queue and looked around, I didn’t see any bludgers.  Next time you're passing a WINZ office, go in and have a look yourself. Spend some time in there and take in what you see.  

See what I saw.  

I saw a lot of vulnerable, desperate people, asking for help.  

But they weren’t getting it.

All because the rich don’t like paying tax.

THE CONVERSATION 2

Now here’s an interesting article from earlier this year (before the election);

"Cuts to EQC enable $372m surplus"

And here’s another interesting article more recently (AFTER the election);

"Government surplus in doubt"

Weeeellllllllll, who’d have thought THAT would happen!!? The finances return briefly to surplus before the election, but mysteriously drop when the right-wing hacks have bought and spun their way back into power? Gosh. Between elections, at the most serious, highest levels of government, I bet a conversation like this took place:

BILL: Hey John, the old finances are a bit up shit-creek.
JOHN: WHAT? What do you mean?!! We promised the proles a surplus by 2014!! Our whole bloody re-election might depend on it!
BILL: Yeah, but what we promise and what we can deliver are two different things.
JOHN: Pfff. [Rolls his eyes] Ain't that the truth? Well tell me, farm boy; what are the figures?
BILL: Well, we have a surplus of $372m.
JOHN: Fantastic! So, what’s the problem, bumpkin?
BILL: Well, we had to cut $200m from EQC to do it - God forbid that Christchurch find out about it! As well as that, you said we’d bail out AMI’s earthquake liability.  You said on Campbell Live, “We will not walk through this alone, Christchurch.”  
JOHN: Big deal. So What?
BILL: Umm…. AMI didn’t re-insure itself enough. The directors didn’t buy enough overseas cover for a major event like his.
JOHN: ** sigh ** So what? Get to the point, sheep shagger.
BILL: AMI’s earthquake liability is $500m. They’re bust, remember?
JOHN: So what? It’s clearly the shit part of the business. Separate off the broken part and screw the policy holders.
BILL: Weeeeellllll ….. we can’t do that, I think. We have thousands of Christchurch householders who would have their assets nullified as AMI policy holders. And Campbell Live would eat that lunch before we had pancakes.
JOHN:  Shit.
BILL: And .. . they’d tell all their friends around the country. Our ratings would sink from sympathy, and we’d never be re-elected.

JOHN: Bugger. Ok, what do you recommend?
BILL: No idea, I’m just used to dealing with sheep miscarriages and fences. Gosh, John, this is your specialty . . .
JOHN: Hmmm. Ok, I’ve an idea. How’s this? We break up AMI. We set up a separate company from the broken bit of the AMI debacle.

BILL: Do we sack the incompetent directors from AMI?
JOHN: Hell no, they’re our friends and potential National donors. No, let our mates have the good bits of AMI still, and we’ll manage the shit part somehow.
BILL: So how are we going to spin the debt and the break-off, and the failed business without hurting our corporate buddies?
JOHN: Hmm. Well, first of all, we call the failed-bit of AMI something friendly, like “Southern Response.” That’ll keep the Christchurch proles suckered into thinking we actually care about them, rather than the truth -  which is our wafer-thin surplus promise to the rest of the country. Next, we’ll hire some Aussie pitbull as Southern Response's Chief Executive to fuck-over policy holders who dare to ask for their entire policy entitlement.
BILL: Duh, how will that help?
JOHN: Hmm .? .. . hang on . . just looking for something [flick, flick, flick] . . .  GOT HIM! Peter Rose. Characterless, cold, numbers-robot. Perfect. We’ll remind him his SOLE responsibility is to the National Party - AH – Ahem – I mean, eh . . . to the TAXPAYER. Then we’ll let him off the leash.
BILL: SO, HOW DOES THAT SOLVE THE SURPLUS PROBLEM?!!!!! Oh gosh, I’m only a simple farmer, John! I only understand fly strike and lusty rams. I just can’t keep up with your sophisticated manipulation of metro politics!

JOHN:  Hah! And that, my friend, is exactly why a convicted goat-fucker wearing a blue rosette would be still elected in some of your farm-country provinces! Hang in there, sheep-shagger, and I’ll summerise:

• We have $372m surplus, but $500m AMI debt. 
• We’ll drip feed $100 each year to Southern Response to get Christchurch houses fixed. It’ll take 5 years for quake-stressed Christchurch residents to have their houses fixed, but our election promises and business buddies’ interest are much more important. 
• We can STILL spin that we’re helping Christchurch [**snigger**]

BILL: Duh, so, I can say we have a $372m surplus going into election year – even though we don’t, really?
JOHN: Yup.
BILL:  What about the $80b we have in accumulated debt since we got into power, because of loss of revenue from tax cuts to our rich buddies!!?
JOHN: Sssshhhhhhhh
BILL: Ok, wait.  So you’re saying, we have $80b accumulated debt, including $500m from our shite executive mates at AMI? We can manipulate a surplus only if we cut EQC’s money and limit the liability to Southern Response to only 20% this year. That means $372m surplus, with only $100 mill this year to Southern Response?!!
JOHN: Yup.
BILL: Whoof. That’s a big ask of Christchurch!
JOHN: They a Labour city or National City?
BILL:   What? Um . . Christchurch? Ehhhh . . this election or next election?
JOHN:  Any election.
BILL:   Umm, pretty much Labour every time.
JOHN:  Huh. Then, fuck ‘em.


FURTHER READING: 
* Government surplus on a knife edge
* Government says surplus on track despite treasury predictions 
* Southern response investments
* Accountant claims surplus result of clever accounting

THE CONVERSATION

Parklands residents in Christchurch seem to be screaming out to “Go Red.” They want to take the government “offer” following the earthquakes and get out. I think there’s a lot of folk missing a fundamental point here. If we “Go Red,” those of us who are not insurance re-builds will have to find the $100,000 shortfall - or more - to pay for the same kind of home we had before the quakes, as a result of John’s “offer”. Yes, if we stay “Green TC3,” we may be subject to liquefaction. I know neither scenario is palatable, but if we “Go Red,” the government will deliver us into the waiting hands of the mortgage lenders, property developers and lawyers. Call me old fashioned, but that’s why I paid off my mortgage in the first place – to be rid of those parasites. Uh, oh - I can hear my critics now. I’m going to be accused of being harsh; “These are not parasites - these are professional people providing you a valued service!”

“parasite n. interested hanger-on; sycophant; animal or plant living in or on another.” [Oxford Dictionary]

Now, if I was a cynical man (and recent events are getting me there), this is the kind of conversation I bet took place last year:

JOHN: Hmm. This earthquake’s a bit of a bugger, Gezza. And we’ve got a recession. Our corporate friends are finding it pretty tough in Christchurch. What can we do?
GERRY: What about making those middle-class mortagage whores in Parklands homeless?
JOHN: How would that help the economy?
GERRY: Well, they would need to find and pay for new homes. There’ll be all kinds of spin-off revenues for our friends; land deals, new sections, lawyers’ fees, new mortgages, new house sales. Yummy.
JOHN: We can’t do that! We can’t just turf them out of their homes … Can we?
GERRY: Oh.... Yeah … Good point. Hmmm. Hang on! What about giving them a little “compensation”? Not enough to buy a new home as they had, but enough to give them some more vain hope.
JOHN: Sorry; what do you mean by “more vain hope”?
GERRY: Well, they’ll have to work even longer and harder to afford those new homes (the ones they already had before the quakes), in the vain hope of perhaps getting promotion at work, a pay rise, or even (snigger!) paying off the mortgage.
JOHN: Not sure about this. They’ll be mightily pissed off that we’re not fully compensating them for the loss of their home in the quakes. Let’s face it, we’ve had sixty years to prepare for this, and we’ve given it all away in tax cuts to our friends. Remember, you big bugger, you said publicly on Campbell Live, “It’s all about equity preservation.”
GERRY: Pfff! They’ll forget that. I’ll just deny it or put another spin on what I really said. They’ve been through quakes and liquefaction – they’ll want out at any price.
JOHN: But how the buggery would we afford that? Even SOME compensation is going to cost. Putting up income tax would hurt our friends – the ones who sponsor us.
GERRY: Pfff! We’ve bought off the mortgage whores before. We gave our establishment friends big tax cuts, and those pokey homeowners were happy with crumbs off the rich man’s table. No, we’ll just put up GST and other regressive taxes, instead. Tax the proles.
JOHN: But GST hurts our friends as well – it would mean luxury boats, designer suits and exclusive cars would cost more.
GERRY: That’s OK, they can afford it. They’ve got that back in spades from the huge income tax cuts we gave them three years ago.
JOHN: What about the proles – petrol, food and power will be much more expensive in relative terms.
GERRY: Fuck ‘em.
JOHN: I’m listening.
GERRY: And because jobs are so scarce in Christchurch right now, our friends wouldn’t have to put up with all those moaner mortgage whores asking for pay rises.
JOHN: So what you’re saying is, we make the quake-shocked homeowners homeless, give them some (not a lot) compensation for their house, so that they’ll work harder and longer to pay for the additional mortgage payments? We deliver traumatised, vulnerable people into the waiting hands of our mortgage lender, property developer and lawyer friends?
GERRY: Yup.
JOHN: Get it done.

THE PERILS OF GOING RED

This is our street; these are our friends and neighbours:

• “Quake-hit residents forget it's Christmas” [NZ Herald 27 Dec 2011]
• “Depressing deja vu for quake victims” [ODT 27 Dec 2011]
• “Flooded area can't be fixed – expert” [The Press 27 Dec 2011]

The 23 December quakes seem to have broken the resolve of Monterey Place, Parklands, Christchurch. The street is flooded from liquefaction for the third time in a year. It looks like the entire street wants to be “Red-Zoned.” I live in Monterey Place, I’ve done the research, and I don’t want to be Red-Zoned. This article explains why. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with what Vanessa says (apart from, perhaps, the confirmed number of re-builds); it's the Red Zone compensation plan I take issue with. Forgive me if I sound bitter or cynical at times as you read this – you’ll see why.

I write with a lot of sadness, but understanding, when I hear about my friends and neighbours in Monterey Place who have had enough. To be fair, my family and I haven’t been around for the third clean-up, the clean-up resulting from 23 December’s quakes. I’ve a feeling that has been the final straw for some. We’ve only been through two clean-ups, and my family still wants to live there long-term. So, in 10-15 years, we hope the quake effects would be behind us. However, we all have different agendas, different experiences, and different effects from the quake. As you might appreciate, this article is written from my family’s perspective.

In June 2011, the New Zealand government determined a system of coloured “zones” for quake-hit Christchurch residents, following the quakes of September 2010, February 2011, and June 2011:

• White Zone – the land still has to be assessed.
• Green Zone – the land has been tested and is determined fit for habitation.
• Orange Zone – the land has already been tested, but is awaiting further testing and a decision. Such land will subsequently be determined as Red or Green.
• Red Zone – the land is condemned, unfit to place a dwelling.

http://www.landcheck.org.nz/

In the event of land condemnation ("going Red"), the government will put together an “offer.” I put “offer” in inverted commas, because it isn’t an offer at all – we don’t have a choice. If we don’t accept, we’ll be forced off our land. Well, that offer in question is the GV (government valuation) of our land-plus-dwelling based on the 2007 rateable valuation. Sounds fair? Read on. The “offer” doesn’t come anywhere close to giving my family the house we have, elsewhere in Christchurch.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/christchurch-earthquake/5179959/Crown-to-buy-worst-hit-Christchurch-homes

In our case, we would secure $542,000 from the government “offer” if our house is placed in the Red Zone, and we are forced from our home. This might seem a lot to anyone outside Auckland, but it’s about comparing like-with-like. We found that our house will cost in excess of $600,000 just to rebuild – before we even find a section. Lord knows what the cost will be in a few months time. The key issues here are; house-affordability, and securing that like-for-like. We have neither with the government “offer”

There’s a lot of talk about re-building for quake-hit residents. In the aftermath of the February and June 2011 quakes, Mayor Bob Parker championed “10,000 sections” that will be available for evicted homeowners. Sections in Halswell are kicking around the $250,000 mark at the moment – up $50,000 since the government announcement in June 2011. It’s a prosperous household in these times that can afford to pay $250,000 for a section to build on, before even thinking about the kind of house they’d like. Frankly, that’s completely out for most of us. Remember, the earthquakes have destroyed thousands of jobs and livelihoods.

So, the obvious cost-conscious solution is to buy an existing house, elsewhere in Christchurch. Guess what’s happening to those houses that are habitable and are in areas which have avoided the liquefaction? Yup – prices are on the rise. What did Gerry Brownlee say on Campbell Live, when a Bexley resident predicted this in June 2011? “Oh, I don’t think that’s going to happen.” Thousands of displaced homeowners, and Free-Market Gerry didn’t think that such demand would increase house or section prices?!! And what did Gerry say to those that said the “offer” isn’t enough to buy another house? “This is when you need to talk to your bank.” In other words, folks, we’ve got to get deeper into hock. And what did Gerry say in the run up to the offer being announced? “It’s all about equity preservation.” If the “offer” is “all about equity preservation,” why is he saying people should be talking to the banks to arrange $100,000 more debt?!!

When I explain this financial wrangle to people, those who aren’t going through this, I’m asked, “Well, you have insurance, don’t you?” Yes, we do. In fact, we have Full Replacement House Insurance. However, this is where the insurance companies are behaving quite cynically (albeit, to be fair, probably to the letter of their policies!). You see, our house is not a technical write-off. So even though the government condemns our land, AMI will say, “But your house is reparable – here’s the repair money.” And wait; that repair money will be deducted from the government payout!! So we still will receive only $542,000 to find a new house.

And by the way, that $542,000 has to include lawyers’ fees, any additional mortgage application, planning applications, surveying costs, moving costs, and anything else associated with buying or building a house. Remember, we don’t want to move – the government would force us to move.

This is why we can't embrace being "Red-Zoned.” Yes our market value will take a hit - but we won’t lose any money if we don’t sell! We don’t want to move – we love our house! In a couple of years, the quakes will settle down, our house will be repaired, and we will achieve that “new normal” that everyone keeps talking about. Yes, our market value will take a hit, but it’s still better than the government’s derisory “offer.” I accept that many of my neighbours want out, and some don’t. What might be a good idea in marginal streets like ours (Green TC3, Blue) would be to give homeowners the choice; take the “offer” or stay in the street.

The financial truth is that for most, the government payout is woefully inadequate. I accept that the government had to come up with some solution, but is this truly the best they could do? It was certainly the cheapest and least imaginative. I hear Gerry and John talk about “winners and losers.” Well, those “winner” stories are keeping awful quiet. Or maybe those winners are few and far between. The truth for my family is that we will NOT be able to buy like-for-like. When you have insurance, isn’t there an expectation to be compensated like-for-like in the event of your house being condemned? You’d think so. We hear arguments about how this is a major event, and an act of God, so insurance doesn’t apply. In defence of the offer, we also hear arguments about how our house is worthless now anyway, because of its location and the earthquake. All these arguments try to tell us the government offer is fair.

Well, if we didn’t have the EQC then that might be true.

When the Earthquake Commission (EQC) was formed in the wake of the 1931 Napier-Hastings quake, there was an expectation that we would be “covered” in the event of the next big quake. There was an expectation that we would get “like-for-like.” As part of our insurance premiums, we also put into the EQC fund which has since been put into off-shore government bonds. In other words, successive New Zealand governments have had sixty years to prepare for the next big quake. Sixty years. The government has created an expectation within New Zealand, and now it’s baulking. Prime Minister John Key makes us feel that we’re fortunate to be getting this “offer,” because this is the biggest government land deal in history. Well, we don’t buy it. It’s insulting, it’s belittling, and it’s not enough for another house.

The next phrase we get from worried taxpayers is, “But who’s going to pay for it all?” Answer: The government. Yes, the taxpayer. Get over it. Raise the upper tax rate; tax those who can afford it. It’s an emergency event for crying out loud. Europe’s doing it, and even America’s considering it!

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/world/5653077/Obama-tax-rich-to-cut-deficit

In summary, here’s the reality if the government forces us out of our home:

• The government will give us $542,000 compensation for our section-plus-dwelling, if they condemn our land.
• We haven’t gone “Red” yet. So every day that goes by, in the event that we DO go Red, devalues that $542,000, as Christchurch house and section prices continue to rise.
• To rebuild our house on another section will cost in excess of $600,000 – before we even factor-in the cost of the land.
• Current equivalent houses, already built in Christchurch, are selling at around $600,000 to $650,000.
• Our house isn’t damaged enough to be an insurance rebuild. Even if the land is condemned, AMI insurance company will say, “We will repair your house, not re-build it.”
• Any repair money given to us by the insurance company will be deducted from the government “offer.”
• If we stay in our house, and resist the “offer,” we will be threatened with a “reduced offer.”
• We have Full Replacement House Insurance, yet we will have to find another $100,000 to buy the equivalent house for my family - because $100k is about the difference between what the government will give us and what the equivalent house in Christchurch ACTUALLY costs!

If we had a like-for-like offer, we might happily "Go Red". However, the recession-ridden, cold-hearted decision-makers of this government have delivered vulnerable, quake-shocked people into the hands of the banks, the property developers, and the lawyers. When such people are already down, they don’t have much fight left in them.