spinofflive
cat

PoliticsOctober 4, 2019

A short list of people who’d be fined under National’s school leaver policy

cat

Simon Bridges is considering a policy that would fine parents of high school dropouts who don’t go into further education or training. Here’s a few successful New Zealanders who would have been asked to cough up.

National has released the first taste of the social policy they’re toying with taking to the next election, and boy is it a spicy meatball.

In line with their typical approach of lifting the most vulnerable members of our society up with, um, penalties, the National Party is looking at slapping a $3000 fine on parents of children who leave school early and don’t go into further education or training. Under the current law students are only required to stay at school until age 16.

For the sake of caucus unity, let’s hope Simon Bridges isn’t planning on applying the fine retrospectively or he might end up knocking on his deputy leader’s door asking for her to pay up $3000. Paula Bennett left school at 16 and started work in a stationery shop. Under National’s plan her parents, Bob and Lee, would’ve been asked to stump up $3000. Do as I say, not as I do!

Paula Bennett isn’t the only MP who would’ve been hit by National’s School Leaver Tax. Kiri Allan, a Labour List MP, dropped out of school at 16 and went to work at KFC before eventually studying at Victoria University. Hopefully the wages from the Colonel would’ve covered the whopping $3000 fine.

If that’s not enough for National to reconsider, perhaps knowing about New Zealand’s pop princess Lorde would stop this policy from getting the Green Light. After hitting the big time Lorde decided not to return to Takapuna Grammar to finish year 13, so along with picking up two Grammys, Lorde would have collected a $3000 fine.

Lorde isn’t alone among New Zealand showbiz royalty who would’ve copped a fine. Parris Goebel, who today choreographs and performs with with Rihanna, Nicki Minaj and Justin Bieber, dropped out of Auckland Girls’ Grammar to be a dancer and won the World Hip Hop Dance Championships – twice. Hopefully there was prize money, because you guessed it…$3000 fine.

Sonny Bill Williams has represented New Zealand in both league and union, and been on the winning side in two Rugby World Cup tournaments (so far). Williams dropped out of school at 14 but recently returned to study and graduated with a Bachelor’s degree. $3000 fine.

Dr Miriam Cullen has just completed her PhD on international criminal justice at the University of Copenhagen, having dropped out of school at 17. Fellow lawyer, Dr Huhana Hickey was the first Māori woman and first disabled person to get a PhD in law from Waikato University, having dropped out of school in Taranaki. Both would have been handed a $3000 fine.

Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates aren’t the only dropouts who are making it in tech. New Zealand’s Ross Leitch dropped out of high school to set up a tech company, now based in Wellington, that employs multiple developers and makes podcasts and apps. He would’ve been hit by National’s planned $3000 fine for school leavers.

The Spinoff’s own Leonie Hayden dropped out of high school in Auckland aged 16. She went on to become editor of music magazine Rip it Up and Māori issues magazine Māna, where she won a best editor award in 2015, and is now the editor of The Spinoff’s Māori affairs vertical Ātea. She would have been landed with a $3000 fine.

National would deny that these talented New Zealanders who found success despite abandoning school early are the targets of their School Leaver Tax policy. Official government statistics reveal who the real targets are: a school leaver not pursuing further training or education is more likely to be Māori or Pasifika and more likely to come from communities with the highest degree of socio-economic disadvantage. In short, this policy wants to whack the families of poor brown kids with fines.

As Dr Rebecca Graham, a researcher in societal psychology, points out, one of the key drivers of homelessness and poverty is debt, and debt is often driven by fines. Introducing new penalties for those already disadvantaged under the guise of improving social outcomes is likely to do the exact opposite. You can’t penalise people into prosperity.

Reed Fleming is a former Labour Party staffer and Victoria University public policy graduate.

Keep going!
Electric bill

FlickOctober 3, 2019

Cheat sheet: the plan to drive down power prices

Electric bill

What effect will the government’s changes to the electricity market have on consumers? Here’s what you need to know.


What’s happening?

The government has just announced a series of changes designed to protect consumers in the electricity market. The changes are in response to recommendations made by the Electricity Price Review (aka a panel set up by the government to review the entire energy sector).

A review of the energy sector? What’s wrong with it?

Electricity prices, especially for residential consumers, have increased faster than inflation for many years. In fact, the review found that after adjusting for inflation, households were paying almost 80% more for power today than in 1990. As a result, it’s put a massive strain on many people’s budgets. Meanwhile, energy poverty has become an increasingly dire issue (the government has tried to stem this by introducing the Winter Energy Payment for seniors and families).

Other issues the review found was the formation of a two-tier market (ie those who actively seek out better deals paying less than those who don’t), “prompt-payment discounts” (which many have accused as late payment penalties in disguise) disadvantaging lower-income New Zealanders the most, and the cost caused by disruptive technologies (electric cars, solar panels, etc.) falling mostly “on those least able to afford them”. 

So what changes have been announced?

“Right now, our electricity system is dominated by a small number of big ‘gentailers’ – companies that generate and sell electricity,” said Minister of Energy and Resources Megan Woods.

“It can be too hard for small and independent retailers to compete and survive, meaning fewer choices for consumers and less innovation in the market.  We are changing the market to level the playing field and boost competition.”

These changes include: 

  • Requiring the big power companies to sell into the wholesale market at affordable rates.
  • Extending discount rates to all customers, including an end to prompt-payment discounts
  • Introducing a pilot scheme to help customers who haven’t switched power providers before to shop around for better deals, but also requiring power companies to put information about how to switch on the communications they send consumers.
  • Putting a moratorium on “win-backs” that companies use to stop customers switching between providers.

How far does this go to actually benefit consumers?

Consumer NZ welcomed the announcement, noting that consumer protections in the electricity market have long been overdue. It particularly welcomed the end to prompt payment discounts. “These discounts are effectively a late payment fee in disguise and penalise consumers who can least afford it,” said head of research Jessica Wilson. “If companies don’t remove the discounts, which are costing consumers an estimated $45 million, they now face legislation forcing them to do so.”

National, however, was far less effusive over the announcement. In a statement, Energy and Resources spokesperson Jonathan Young accused the government’s response to the Electricity Price Review as failing to deliver meaningful savings for New Zealanders struggling with the rising cost of living.

“It is not good enough that the Government has failed to identify how much, if anything, these changes will reduce New Zealanders’ electricity bills by every year,” he said. “Some changes seem perverse and poorly thought through, such as removing prompt payment discounts while retaining late payment fees.

“These discounts can reduce electricity bills by up to $600 a year for the average household.”

Young also criticised the decision to ban new oil and gas exploration which he argued would increase weekly power prices for New Zealanders, increase global carbon emissions and risk our energy security.

Meanwhile, BusinessNZ Energy Council (BEC) welcomed the government’s “measured response” but warned that it needs to be mindful of wider factors outside of the electricity market, like implications of a tight gas market, the likely increase in carbon prices, uncertainty around the consenting of renewable electricity generation projects and water reforms.

And the retailers? What do they make of all this?

So far, the response has been broadly supportive. Meridian’s chief executive Neal Barclay said he was pleased with the proposals to phase out the low user tariff regulations and encourage all retailers to stop clawing back prompt payment discounts (Meridian decided to scrap these discounts last year – Barclay said that if all retailers did the same, New Zealand consumers would save about $45 million a year).

Flick Electric called it a “win for consumers, finally”. CEO Steve O’Connor said, “I’m thrilled to see the government lay a path towards a fairer Aotearoa where consumer voices are heard, and energy poverty is addressed … We’ve been arguing for the industry to do better for consumers, remove inappropriate prompt payment discounts, win-back and saves since 2014, so it’s good to see we’re finally seeing action on these unethical practices.”

In a statement, the Electricity Retailers’ Association (ERANZ) welcomed the majority of the recommendations and said it looked forward to working with the government to develop further details.

“The review shows the electricity sector is delivering for Kiwis. Retail competition between 40 power companies is driving innovation and keeping prices down,” ERANZ Chief Executive Cameron Burrows said.

“The annual average power bill is down $120 since 2015, we have the 12th cheapest electricity in the OECD, and customer switching is at the highest level in eight years.”

Politics