Browsing by Author "Rashbrooke, Max"

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4

Open Access
Bridges Both Ways. Transforming the Openness of New Zealand Government.
(Te Herenga Waka—Victoria University of Wellington, 2017) Rashbrooke, Max
One of New Zealand’s great strengths is its easy-going, ‘she’ll be right’ attitude; but every strength can become a weakness. That is increasingly the case with the country’s record on public transparency, political participation, and anti-corruption policies. A long-standing record of scoring well on international rankings for integrity and openness has lulled New Zealand into a complacent attitude. While there is much to be proud of, there are also serious problems, as repeatedly highlighted by international surveys. Political donations are badly regulated, official information laws are being circumvented, and opportunities for deep citizen engagement with politics are limited. New Zealand is also passing up the chance to get on board the latest global push for greater openness, which is being impelled both by advances in technology and citizens’ growing expectations of greater transparency in many parts of their lives. New Zealand therefore faces an opportunity – to regain its leadership on openness, and to address some of the weaker parts of its record. With the 2017 general election just months away, now is the perfect time for a discussion on what kind of government New Zealanders want. This report therefore surveys a wide range of pro-openness policies as an aid, and stimulus, to that debate.
Open Access
Money for something: A report on political party funding in Aotearoa New Zealand
(Te Herenga Waka—Victoria University of Wellington, 2022) Rashbrooke, Max; Marriott, Lisa
Democracy relies on equality between citizens. When some people have greater influence on key decisions, or greater access to people who have influence, democracy is undermined. However, in New Zealand, over several decades, political parties’ memberships have waned dramatically, and income and wealth have become more concentrated at the top. Meanwhile the cost of campaigning has risen. All this has made parties ever-more dependent on wealthy donors, leaving the door open for those donors to win favours in return. Our research highlights an accelerating pace of scandals caused by the movement of money between wealthy donors and decision-makers. The core recommendations from this research are: 1. Donors’ identities disclosed when they give over $1,500; 2. An annual cap on donations at $15,000; 3. Donations allowed only from eligible voters, not organisations; 4. Stronger powers for the Electoral Commission to pursue donations fraud; and 5. A system of state subsidies for small donations, democracy vouchers to allow voters to allocate state-provided campaign funds, and lump-sum payments to all parties.
Open Access
Wealth Disparities in New Zealand: Final Report
(Te Herenga Waka—Victoria University of Wellington, 2017) Rashbrooke, Geoff; Rashbrooke, Max; Molano, Wilma
Over the period 2002 to 2010, Statistics New Zealand carried out a longitudinal survey known as the Survey of Family, Income and Employment (SoFIE). Some eight waves of data were collected. In every second wave (2003/2004, 2005/2006, 2007/2008 and 2009/2010), respondents were asked questions about their wealth holdings. In 2007 Statistics New Zealand published a paper by Jit Cheung, ‘Wealth Disparities in New Zealand’, based on data from wave 2 (2003/2004). This paper provided an overview of net worth disparity, giving information by mean and by median, and other distribution information including the Gini coefficient and other percentile-based information. Results were also analysed by age, by major ethnic group, by family type, and also by gender, personal income decile, and region. In November 2015, we published a paper, ‘Wealth Disparities in New Zealand: Preliminary Report Providing Updated Data from SOFIE’ (IGPS working paper 15/02), which updated the Cheung 2007 paper to include data from waves 4, 6 and 8 of SoFIE. As promised in that paper, we have now extended our research on wealth disparities by using the SoFIE data to investigate two further areas: 1. In Part 1, a longitudinal analysis looking at the extent to which survey respondents in specified wealth sub-divisions moved between such sub-divisions over the course of the survey; and 2. In Part 2, an asset class analysis looking at how wealth holdings across the spectrum are divided among the different classes, for both assets and liabilities. Note that the results presented here for wave 2 differ a little from the original results owing to changes made to SoFIE population weightings after 2007.
Open Access
Wealth Disparities in New Zealand: Preliminary Report Providing Updated Data from SOFIE
(Te Herenga Waka—Victoria University of Wellington, 2015) Rashbrooke, Geoff; Rashbrooke, Max; Molano, Wilma
Over the period 2002 to 2010, Statistics New Zealand carried out a longitudinal survey known as the Survey of Family, Income and Employment (SoFIE). Some eight waves of data were collected. Every second wave (2003/2004, 2005/2006, 2007/2008, and 2009/2010), respondents were asked questions about their wealth holdings. In 2007 Statistics New Zealand published a paper by Jit Cheung, Wealth Disparities in New Zealand, based on data from wave 2. That paper provided an overview of net worth disparity, giving information by mean and by median, and other distribution information including the Gini coefficient and other percentile-based information. Results were also analysed by age, by major ethnic group, by family type, and also by gender, personal income decile, and region. This preliminary paper is the initial part of a project to use data from those waves. The project has two principal purposes: 1. To update the Cheung 2007 paper to include data from waves 4, 6 and 8 of SoFIE; and in addition to extend the format of the results reported by Cheung based on wave 2 of SoFIE to include information as to the extent to which survey respondents in specified wealth subdivisions moved between such sub-divisions over the course of the survey. 2. To demonstrate the richness of the information gathered by SoFIE and to encourage further exploration of the survey’s wealth data.