Reassessing the Links with Health and the Welfare State

The author provides a summary of an Accident Compensation conference. Two main ACC themes are provided: the distinction between disability from accident and disability from illness, and the boundary between work and non-work injuries. The author reminds the reader of the social contract found in the original Woodhouse Report. She argues that she does not see the welfare state withering away – rather, the need for it, and its social insurance aspects, become even more crucial in light of new complex risks

Reflections on the Woodhouse Legacy for the 21st Century

This lecture commemorates the life of one of our most distinguished judges and citizens, Sir Owen Woodhouse. His compassion, generosity of spirit and social conscience were reflected in his work as President of the Court of Appeal, President of the Law Commission and Chairman of the Royal Commission on Compensation for Injury that recommended a no-fault accident compensation scheme and laid the foundations for the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) scheme. He made an immense contribution to New Zealand's law and society

Summary

The Accident Compensation Scheme was introduced in New Zealand as a form of social insurance. The issue quickly became whether ACC should embody private insurance principles. This article explores this very issue and other future challenges in ACC going forward, including determining what types of injuries ACC should cover, the role of welfare economics, and the tension between the no-fault concept with ACC's emphasis on cost/price signals.&nbsp

Now we are six: lessons from New Zealand’s KiwiSaver

New Zealand’s KiwiSaver was introduced on 1 July 2007. New Zealand’s success with the ‘soft compulsion’ of automatic enrolment has been and is continuing to be an influence in the design of opt-out schemes in the UK and Ireland. While there have been numerous changes to KiwiSaver as outlined in this paper, six years on, the retirement saving scheme appears well accepted by the public and membership has exceeded most expectations. New Zealand’s experience suggests that auto-enrolment and large incentives to entice people to remain opted-in may ensure initial take-up is high. It also suggests the incentives may be reduced significantly ex post with little impact on membership. Core tax-funded KiwiSaver subsidies have been both substantially reduced and not indexed while membership has continued to grow strongly. Whether this auto-enrolment scheme, featuring generous provisions for withdrawals and contributions holidays, is sufficient to ensure that those who should be saving for their retirement are saving, and saving enough, is open to debate. If KiwiSaver is made compulsory, as some powerful lobbies propose, there are large complexities to resolve, including the future role of the universal state pension, New Zealand Superannuation. Lessons from KiwiSaver on what to avoid in the design of a national retirement saving scheme may include: opening it to children; offering housing subsidies; allowing too many providers and privileging some of these as ‘default providers’; ignoring the issue of decumulation; and obscure objectives. Advantages over previous work-based retirement saving schemes include the portability of KiwiSaver accounts facilitated by the IRD’s role as a clearing house. New Zealand has also limited regressivity in the design of its very modest tax incentives, but at a cost: many save just the minimum required to maximise the subsidies. The Working Paper surveys the first six years of KiwiSaver’s evolution to July 2013. In that time, the fundamental questions around its purpose and design have not been resolved. Is its purpose to enhance access to suitable wealth accumulation vehicles for those who have missed out on traditional work-based schemes? Or is it to reduce the pressures on the economy of an ageing population; or to solve the national saving problem? Will KiwiSavers in fact have more to spend during their retirement, or will they simply reduce other savings to compensate? In the long term, what are the implications for New Zealand’s overall pensions framework, and in particular the very successful universal state pension? As 2014 is an election year, political parties are positioning themselves on KiwiSaver policy. In the meantime there is strong international interest in New Zealand’s retirement saving scheme, with its unique features such as auto-enrolment. The Retirement Policy and Research Centre is pleased to publish KiwiSaver: Now we are six. It updates earlier working papers, including Working Paper 2010 KiwiSaver: lessons for Ireland. TheviewsinthisWorkingPaper’scommentaryarethoseoftheauthors

Does the Living Wage ensure an adequate standard of living for families?

New Zealand was once held up as a model of egalitarianism to other countries. Today New Zealand is far from being that leader, with high income and wealth inequality and an unacceptable level of family poverty and homelessness. Children are particularly affected, suffering the highest levels of material deprivation in New Zealand (Perry, 2016). Living Wage Movement Aotearoa New Zealand (LWMA) has argued that raising wages is the best way to address this problem

Cloning of terminal transferase cDNA by antibody screening

A cDNA library was prepared from a terminal deoxynucleotidyltransferase-containing thymoma in the phage vector λgt11. By screening plaques with anti-terminal transferase antibody, positive clones were identified of which some had β-galactosidase-cDNA fusion proteins identifiable after electrophoretic fractionation by immunoblotting with anti-terminal transferase antibody. The predominant class of cross-hybridizing clones was determined to represent cDNA for terminal transferase by showing that one representative clone hybridized to a 2200-nucleotide mRNA in close-matched enzyme-positive but not to enzyme-negative cells and that the cDNA selected a mRNA that translated to give a protein of the size and antigenic characteristics of terminal transferase. Only a small amount of genomic DNA hybridized to the longest available clone, indicating that the sequence is virtually unique in the mouse genome

How effective are 2018 policy settings for the worst-off children?

This report analyses the policy settings in mid-2018 for their potential to improve the position of the worst-off children in New Zealand. The Labour-led government, elected at the end of 2017, seeks to place child well-being at the heart of their policies. As a first step, legislation setting out four primary measures and six supplementary measures of child poverty has been introduced. The purpose of this bill is to …encourage a focus on child poverty reduction, facilitate political accountability against published targets, require transparent reporting on child poverty levels, and create a greater commitment by Government to address child well-being. (New Zealand Parliament, 2018) Over ten years ago, the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) identified “pockets of significant hardship” where some families were falling below the “very stringent 40% after housing costs poverty line where there is nothing in reserve”(Ministry of Social Development, 2007). For our purposes here, children in families which fall under the 40% poverty line – that is, 40% of median, equivalised, disposable household income, after housing costs, also known as the 40% AHC line – are taken as ‘the worst-off’ children. In 2016, ten years after the Ministry first voiced concern that any children fell below this line, there were at least 140,000 children in this group. Child advocacy groups have argued that the 40% AHC line needs to become one of the primary measures in the Child Poverty Reduction Bill and that no child should fall below it (Child Poverty Action Group, 2018b). This working paper provides a technical analysis to show how much is needed to address the poverty of these 140,000 children in a significant way. The finding is that current policy settings in the Families Package to be implemented from 1 July 2018 are seriously inadequate for the task. This report was written in mid-2018 as very low income families wait for relief from the Families Package, with a long winter to follow if there are no immediate and significant further policy changes. The figures in this report are indicative only, but suggest that while the Families Package should reduce measured child poverty overall, it will be insufficient to stem the rising tide of very low income family distress. A range of specific measures focused primarily on this group are recommended for immediate implementation

How effective are 2018 policy settings for the worst-off children?

This report analyses the policy settings in mid-2018 for their potential to improve the position of the worst-off children in New Zealand. The Labour-led government, elected at the end of 2017, seeks to place child well-being at the heart of their policies. As a first step, legislation setting out four primary measures and six supplementary measures of child poverty has been introduced. The purpose of this bill is to …encourage a focus on child poverty reduction, facilitate political accountability against published targets, require transparent reporting on child poverty levels, and create a greater commitment by Government to address child well-being. (New Zealand Parliament, 2018) Over ten years ago, the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) identified “pockets of significant hardship” where some families were falling below the “very stringent 40% after housing costs poverty line where there is nothing in reserve”(Ministry of Social Development, 2007). For our purposes here, children in families which fall under the 40% poverty line – that is, 40% of median, equivalised, disposable household income, after housing costs, also known as the 40% AHC line – are taken as ‘the worst-off’ children. In 2016, ten years after the Ministry first voiced concern that any children fell below this line, there were at least 140,000 children in this group. Child advocacy groups have argued that the 40% AHC line needs to become one of the primary measures in the Child Poverty Reduction Bill and that no child should fall below it (Child Poverty Action Group, 2018b). This working paper provides a technical analysis to show how much is needed to address the poverty of these 140,000 children in a significant way. The finding is that current policy settings in the Families Package to be implemented from 1 July 2018 are seriously inadequate for the task. This report was written in mid-2018 as very low income families wait for relief from the Families Package, with a long winter to follow if there are no immediate and significant further policy changes. The figures in this report are indicative only, but suggest that while the Families Package should reduce measured child poverty overall, it will be insufficient to stem the rising tide of very low income family distress. A range of specific measures focused primarily on this group are recommended for immediate implementation

Isometric exercise-induced hemodynamic load strongly predicts left ventricular mass in hypertension

C