This is what *ending poverty* looks like in New Zealand

• weka
• 11 months ago
• Categories: election 2023, greens, james shaw, Metiria Turei, unemployment
• Tags: GMI, Guaranteed Minimum Income, ubi

James Shaw, co-leader of the Green Party of New Zealand, speaking at the launch of the Greens’ new Ending Poverty Together plan yesterday,

The Governments that we have been a part of since 2017 have lifted just shy of thirty thousand children out of poverty.

But here’s a question: why not everyone?

Why not the remaining 45,000?

For too long, governments have been tinkering at the edges instead of taking the bold decisions people need right now.

If you’re not willing to take those decisions on behalf of the people of the country you purport to lead, then why are you in politics at all?

What we do to prioritise the lives and livelihoods of those who need our support the most should be a measure of every political party.

In fact, I would argue that any party that stops short of promising to lift every family out of poverty, is actively choosing to make life harder for thousands of people.

They are essentially saying to thousands of people who cannot afford to put food on the table, that’s it. That’s your lot.

Poverty is a political choice, and the Green Party is choosing to end it.

…

What we are announcing today is a transformational new way of doing income support that will lift every single family out of poverty.

It is a plan to work together as a country to ensure everyone has what they need to thrive.

Here’s how it works.

The policy

The fully costed and phased Ending Poverty Together plan. The short explainer is here. This looks like a continuation of their welfare and tax policy development for the 2020 election. It’s socialist af. I wrote this at the time,

The Green Party’s first major election announcement is a beautifully conceived social security package based in the concepts of manaakitanga and compassion. It insists on giving people income security and treating them well. It’s fully costed, and financed by taxing some of the assets and income of wealthy people.

The gist of the 2023 policy,

Income support: a strong safety net

• everyone out of work or studying will receive a Guaranteed Minimum Income (GMI) of at least $385 in the hand per week
• additional support for solo parents, and those with disability or in hardship
• the first $10,000 of income is tax free
• remove stand downs for benefits: everyone who needs income assistance gets it immediately
• all payments are individualised, which means if you are part of the couple, you get the payment independent of any earnings your partner has.
• the abatement rate rises to $190/wk (the amount someone receiving the GMI can earn before the government starts taking back a % of benefit)
• all disabled and unwell people come under a new Agency for Comprehensive Care (replacing WINZ benefits and ACC income support)

Tax reform: how the GMI gets paid for

• a 2.5% wealth tax  on assets above $2,000,000 ($4m for couples)
• a trust tax to stop wealth tax avoidance
• a top tax rate of 45% over $180,000 (people earning under $125,000 will pay less tax)
• returning the corporate tax rate to the 2008 level of 33%

There’s a lot of detail here, including the complexities of support for families, so I’m focussing on income support for those who are unemployed or those who cannot work due to disability. There are lots of detail and examples in the full policy document for people to work out different scenarios.

A few key things stand out. The removal of the stand down period means that low income people newly unemployed, studying or disabled/unwell, don’t have to scramble around borrowing money or going through the onerous process of trying to get emergency grants from WINZ. This stops people dropping further into poverty.

It also means that people who have savings don’t have to use their savings for daily/weekly living expenses. Some will say this is unfair, why shouldn’t people use their savings, but so much of WINZ policy is designed to asset strip people at the worst possible time, and this is one of the least discussed long term drivers of poverty in New Zealand.

Likewise, individualising the GMI means that individuals have the money when they need it and don’t have to be dependent on their partner. It prevents families from having their income halved.

Here’s the bit that really speaks to me of the intention to end poverty. The plan is to replace the various benefits for disabled and unwell people with a new Agency for Comprehensive Care (this also replaces ACC).

• minimum payment of 80% of the full time minimum wage. Today that would be equivalent to $767/week, compared to the current Supported Living Payment of $385/week (both figures are in the hand). This cannot be overemphasised: current SLP rates force people who cannot work due to disability to live in poverty. SLP is the long term benefit for disabled people, and we keep them in poverty, forcing them to live off any savings and then sell their assets, and then subsist.
• income support is individualised, so people in a relationship don’t become dependent on their partner

Nothing has told me more about Labour’s ‘deserving poor but really you need to get a job’ approach to welfare than the fact that they have kept the SLP rate below what it is possible to live on. The bit they don’t say out loud is that people who are permanently so disabled they can’t work are consigned to permanent poverty. It’s mind boggling that this has never been addressed but the small amounts thrown the way of SLP doesn’t change the fact that if you cannot work you are fundamentally screwed. And there’s never been any good reason for it. It’s the major flaw in Labour’s welfare, as well as most UBI policies. Speaking of which,

Why it’s not a Universal/Unconditional Basic Income

It kind of is, but it has welfare bolted on, and it takes into account the different circumstances that people have, two major differences.

The GMI is for people that need financial support because they have lost their source of income. It doesn’t get paid to everyone. It is in fact unconditional, and universal, for those who don’t have income from work, in that unlike current welfare, everyone who is eligible gets it and there are no hoops to jump through. It sits between a UBI and neoliberal welfare in that it still allows for variation in circumstances. It’s a set rate, with built in extras for children, disabled, those in hardship. But it’s more simple and less punitive than the neoliberalised welfare we currently have.

The Greens policy is streets ahead of The Opportunity Party’s UBI policy, because the Greens understand welfare and don’t see it as an add on to economic levers around income insurance. Despite well intentioned policy adjustments in recent years by TOP, their UBI fails at the fundamental level of centering people instead of economics. The difference is centering people in need and developing policy out from there and then figuring out how to pay for it.  Wellbeing and manaakitanga are the point.

The politics

As always, thank-you Metiria Turei, who started the ball really rolling.

I love it when the Greens do smart and this seems like they’re back and ready to go hard on welfare reform again. It’s James Shaw announcing the plan this time, but he is introduced by Chloe Swarbrick then Marama Davidson. This is a strong team, and Shaw is up front because it’s not the leftie liberals that really need convincing, it’s the business, media and political classes and they will respond to the man in the suit. Anyone still thinking that Shaw is a neoliberal shill really isn’t paying attention. Read the speech. Listen to what all three have to say. Look at the Green MP’s social media from yesterday. This is left wing, progressive, green policy. I cannot wait to see what they do with their climate and ecology policies this year.

So, lefties, the ball is in our court. If we want left wing action on poverty instead of neoliberal centre left BAU, we have the choice to support and vote for the Greens at this year’s general election.