-
@nzzp said in NZ Politics:
@canefan said in NZ Politics:
Treating a problem that needs a knife by using a sledgehammer
... swung by bureaucrats and paid for by taxpayers. It's well meaning, but (like many government initiatives) 'is this the most effective use of our communal effort (aka money)'?
And more importantly "is the outcome going to be any better?"
-
Or are we now dragging kids that were been fed a well balanced and monitored diet by the very same people who do have the kids best interests at heart down to a "school sized lunch"
Does this mean the skinny kids get more because they need to put on weight or less because they obviously don't need as much - in the eyes of the teachers who are most likely looking over 20-30 kids at lunch time
And vice versa for the PC brigade - are the Fat kids fed more because they obviously eat it or less because you know Health Nutrition Balance? -
@blackeyeagain we still send our kids lunch.
TR Jnr eats both, Miss 12, well, who knows what she eats, 12 year old girls are odd little creatures.
-
Providing school lunches is one of the best points about Japan. In every state elementary and junior high school, nutritious lunches are given to all kids. From every source, my own kids, friends, students at uni from less-than-fortunate homes, I have yet to hear someone say anything negative about it. It is the greatest leveler in this society. Every kid gets one nutritious meal a day regardless of background in a society where child poverty is increasing.
Whatever unique spin you put on it in opposition, social engineering, socialism, kids don't like the food (just f%#k off!), done right it is the best use of tax-payer's money I can think of. Just feed the friggen kids and shut up! -
@old-samurai-jack What has happened to cause increasing child poverty in one of the most prosperous nations on earth?
-
Edit: Since the government started taking it seriously, things are improving.
Data/Source below:
Child poverty is a serious social problem in many developed nations, including Japan. Contrary to common perception, Japan’s child poverty rate is not low. It is 13.9% (2015 value, OECD Stat), indicating that one out of seven children in Japan lives in poor households. This rate is higher than the U.K.(11.2%), Germany (11.2%), France (11.3%) and most European countries, even though it is lower than Korea (16%), Canada (17.1%) and the U.S. (20.2%). However, for a long time since 1960s, the Japanese government and the society in general was not aware of this problem and it is only after 2009 that “child poverty” became a recognized social issue. In 2013, the Law to Promote Measures against Child Poverty, the first law in Japan which has directly addressed child poverty.
The reason that Japanese society and the government was not aware of this social issue for decades was not that there was no child poverty in Japan. In 1985, the child poverty rate was already higher than 10%. The problem was that, unlike in many countries, Japanese child poverty did not manifest visibly, such as in rising adolescent crime rates and undesirable behaviors. For this reason, Japan’s poverty is sometimes called “invisible poverty”.
Recently, the effects of this “invisible poverty” on children have increasingly become apparent with the use of social surveys. The talk will illustrate just how bad the child poverty problem is in Japan and how it is affecting children, using recently conducted social surveys on children in Tokyo.
One staggering statistic leading to child poverty is the proportion of children living in single-parent households. Currently, 16 percent of children live in poverty; among this number, approximately 55% of these children are raised by one parent that is most likely the mother.
-
@crucial While the intended recipient is the ARC, the tax is collected and administered by the NZTA. The regulatory impact statement makes for interesting reading.
New Zealand Transport Agency (NZ Transport Agency) who will collect and administer the tax
Further:
In its proposal, Auckland Council has committed to usual business case practices, where a value for money review will apply as part of project approval. For the purposes of this RIS we have assumed that the projects will have a business case that will be able to be accepted and approved by NZ Transport Agency, enabling Auckland Council will be able to access funds from the NTLF at the necessary level required to enable the projects to be fully funded.
The governing approach seems to have been determined through the Auckland Transport Alignment Project between central and regional government:
Over the past three years Auckland Council and the Government have developed an aligned strategic approach on transport in Auckland through the Auckland Transport Alignment Project (ATAP). The ATAP package takes a significant step towards achieving a safe, reliable and accessible transport system that supports andshapes Auckland’s development. Through the Auckland Transport Alignment Project (ATAP), agreement has been reached between Auckland Council and government on the key outcomes, focus areas and a package of projects and programmes to achieve those outcomes
The ATAP package has been developed by assessing project-specific information, transport modelling,and considering possible land use responses to investment in rapid transit corridors. We have assumed that the projects included in ATAP and the Auckland Council Proposal have been evaluated and prioritised to provide the best outcomes to benefit and improve Auckland’s transport network.
ATAP Revenue Assumptions. The ATAP package contains around $28 billion worth of investment in Auckland’s transport network over the next decade. This is based on planned and assumed funding including an expected increase of $4.6 billion on previous funding plans. The sources of this additional revenue are:
a further $2.8 billion contribution from the National Land Transport Fund, reflecting an assumed share of the funding signalled in the GPS that may be allocated to Auckland
$1.5 billion from the proposed regional fuel tax
$364 million from Crown Infrastructure Partners. The assumed NLTF revenue is a reasonable assumption based on the draft Government Policy Statement on land Transport Funding (GPS). It is, however, subject to the “on merit” allocation process of the National Land Transport Programme(NLTP).Additional rail funding from central government:
The only Crown rail funding we have assumed is the Government's 50 percent contribution to the City Rail Link (CRL). The Government has signalled an interest in developing a sustainable funding pathway for other rail network upgrades, which will affect how these investments are funded into the future. A Ministry of Transport-led review of rail and an update to the GPSover the next year will provide more clarity on rail funding.ATAP 2018 has assumed rail network upgrades (aside from CRL) will be fully funded from the NLTF.
So, the Auckland regional tax is part of a significantly central government funded program (ATAP), and is administered by central government. Therefore the completion of the goals it is levied for are heavily dependent on central government infrastructure budget allocation, and use of the funds cannot proceed without going through these processes. Today's infrastructure budget announcements are hence of significant interest for how or when the money collected will be used. Especially with NZTA having taken control of Auckland rail projects since then.
Finally, I found this section interesting, I hope there has been a more thorough analysis since then (06/2018):
The costs and benefits of the projects to be funded by the revenue generated by a regional fuel tax for the Auckland region have been provided by Auckland Council. The Ministry of Transport has not carried out an assessment of the analysis provided by Auckland Council. The Ministry of Transport has not reviewed the underlying calculations provided by Auckland Council in its regional fuel tax proposal.
-
@tim ... and yet $700M for a cycle/ped crossing of the harbour.
I am a cycle commuter, and I think that's insane. The money would be far better spent actually building cycle lanes around Auckland, and providing a sensible network for people to use.
This could well be a smouldering issue for the government - $700M for a cycle/ped bridge appears to be a crazy use of funds.
-
@nzzp heard a cycling advocate on the radio this morning and she was saying connecting via bridge is the missing link for the existing cycle network. So from that perspective it is the key focus but holy shit that is a lot of money.
-
Cindy's a big fan of the harbour cycle crossing. I have had a fair bit of exposure to this Project in its various iterations as my brothers house is one of the properties that is being compulsorily purchased and as he lives overseas I have attended countless meetings.
My take out from it all. The cycling lobby are one of the most selfish self-entitled bunch of piston wristed gibbons you would ever have to meet. They come up with all the justifications in the world but the reality is they don't give a shit about pedestrians or even leisure cyclist. They have decried any compromise that would mean they would have to slow down or horrors dismount for 30 seconds. They hide behind a revolving circus of justifications; climate change, tourism, saving the dolphins, relieving traffic congestion but the reality is they just want to be able to speed across the bridge and feel smug.
Mind you compared to Waka Kotahi they are paragons of virtue. WK are untrustworthy duplicitous shitheads.
I, of course, am a saint.
I'm also with @nzzp despite all the above I would like a cycling and walking route into the
barsCBD, but not at that price. When so much of Akl's cycling infrastructure is just a white line that motorists can ignore we would get a far better return spending the money elsewhere -
so this comes out of Waka Kotahi not Auckland's coffers?
That is a kick in the nuts for other areas whos roads are in dire need of work for cars/trucks to drive on them as part of necessity, and yet they spend that much on a section of a cycle way for a bunch of fluffybunnies in lycra?
-
Make it a toll bridge.
-
@antipodean said in NZ Politics:
Make it a toll bridge.
I like that. It costs $2.30 to get out of AKL by road, make it the same by cycle. Double if wearing lycra.
NZ Politics