Yes, and makes the political system less likely to tackle poverty ... and so the cycle goes. Which is why it's important to break it (difficult though that is).

In practical terms, I think that more bottom-up government involves things like citizens’ assemblies and community control over parts of local infrastructure budgets; but I’m always open to other ideas.

In other words, when people like me bang on about more collaborative, bottom-up government, it’s not just because we love procedural issues: these are things that actually matter and that can restore trust.

What would fix this? Tackling poverty, obviously, and a more competent state. But OECD modelling shows the changes most effective in restoring trust would be those that ensure people’s voices are heard.

Similarly, just 35% of the poorest NZers feel they have “a say” in how government decisions are made, and 37% think their voices will be listened to in consultations.

While trust in political institutions is a problem overall, it’s especially severe for the poor: while 60% of financially secure NZers trust Parliament, only 40% of “financially insecure” people do.

The govt claims it can slash costs without harming the scheme, but schools say this actually risks destroying the things that make the scheme so successful. Full details in The Spinoff column.

It's a crucial question because evidence is piling up that the free lunches have transformative effects. When fed, kids concentrate better and have fewer behavioural problems. NZ evidence is starting to match the global evidence that this leads to better attendance and results.

Of course the main issue is what has gone on, and goes on, inside ‘care’ institutions, and the redress owed to survivors of abuse. But we also need to close the pipeline of children entering such institutions, and tackling poverty is part of that. Full argument in column. 3/3

Equally, raising family incomes has a statistically significant effect in reducing neglect of children. One study estimates a $1 rise in the minimum wage (in the US) reduces reports of neglect by nearly 10%. 2/

To wit:

The Living Wage Movement has grown from covering 0 workers in 2012 to 50,000 today. Each gets $27.80, equivalent to $10k pa more than the minimum wage of $23.15. Local success story in an era of little recognition of the lowest paid workers.

More generally, National called for all kinds of things when in opposition (a mandatory code of conduct for lobbyists, a register of who is lobbying whom, and cooling off periods before ministers can become lobbyists) and so far none of these seem in prospect. V disappointing.

On the latter: the draft *voluntary* code of conduct for ppl lobbying govt has nice words, but no mechanisms that would ensure people breaking it faced consequences, not even ostracism or naming and shaming by their own profession. As it stands, will make no difference.

On the former: Gerry Brownlee (Speaker and National MP) has reinstated Parliamentary special swipe cards for a few lobbyists (not a huge deal, but still...) AND is keeping their names secret when previously they were published.