Month: March 2015

Food Security apparently optional for the Children of Aotearoa

Last night the government (National and ACT) voted down two bills that sought to provide food to children particularly in low decile schools. That is, children who live in the most economically deprived areas of the country. The bills essentially dealt with the issue of food security, or alternatively stated, food insecurity.[1]

Food security is considered as existing ‘when all people at all times have access to sufficient, safe, nutritious food to maintain a healthy and active life’.[2] It involves four essential elements: availability, access, stability and utilisation.[3] According to the Food and Agriculture Organisation, availability is measured in terms of the quantity, quality and diversity of food available to consumers, while access is measured by both physical and economic access to food.[4] Access and availability are largely guaranteed through national level policy although there is no requirement for a country to ‘achieve food production self-sufficiency’.[5] Importantly, measuring the extent of food security at the national level (that is, that a country has sufficient levels of food to distribute to meet domestic demand) does not necessarily reflect the extent of security at the household or individual levels. A nation can be food secure at the national level while still food insecure at the individual level due to ‘unequal distribution of food within the country’ which may result from food prices and the issue of affordability.[6] Stability is measured through exposure to food security risk, as well as incidences of shocks such as price spikes, fluctuations in domestic food supply and political instability,[7] while utilisation measures the ‘variables that determine the ability to utilise food’ together with ‘outcomes of poor food utilisation’.[8]

Food insecurity has often been considered an issue of  inadequate food supply at the national level. But this is not the case in New Zealand, nor in most developed countries. Instead, it is often the lack of purchasing power on behalf of households.[9] In his entitlements theory, Amartya Sen emphasised similar issues of consumption, demand and access to food by vulnerable people.[10] Sen argued that a person will starve if their entitlement set is absent ‘any commodity bundle with enough food’.[11] Also, that starvation was imminent if there were a change in their factor endowment, such as, loss of land or labour power, or their exchange entitlement mapping, such as food price spikes or loss of employment.[12] He maintained that these changes would restrict a persons ability to acquire any commodity bundle with enough food.[13]

A problem that arises in respect of the Feed the Kids bill, is that critics imply the problem of food insecurity in New Zealand is not one of a chronic nature (as is often found in developing or least developed regions). Therefore, studies that suggest marginal improvements (and perhaps arguments such as Sen’s) which were largely responding to food insecurity in developing countries should not be used to defend policies that attempt to address transitory food insecurity in children in New Zealand through school lunch or breakfast programmes. The reason being that there is little evidence to show that outcomes will provide any significant benefit for the cost of such policies.  For instance, Dr Eric Crampton writes:[15]

[I]t’s hard to make a case for that we’d get any great benefit from the [school breakfast] programmes. Rather, we often find that they don’t even increase the odds that kids eat breakfast at all.


To the extent that they improve outcomes in some studies, we really can’t tell:

whether the effect is from changing the timing of breakfast, in which case we should instead have a morning tea break;

whether the effect is any better than just giving those families an equivalent cash transfer.

However, the cash transfer option doesn’t ensure that children will become food secure. By that I mean it doesn’t ensure that there will be food available or that they will have access to food.  I appreciate that a cash transfer gives the parent more freedom to choose the kinds of food that the child has available to them. However, a cash transfer may also incentivise food producers to increase the price of their foods to exact a benefit for themselves through the increased purchasing power made available at the household level. This could in effect neutralise any benefit that might have otherwise accrued to food insecure households due to affordability issues. Arguably, this problem could be overcome by adjusting for any inflationary effects. But that pattern is hardly desirable and contributes to the cost of government administration. Additionally, a cash transfer may not increase what the parent spends on food at all. Parents who find themselves without work, paying rent and utilities, school costs, and servicing other debts incurred while employed or those parents that simply don’t have enough money to cover the basic bills each month may not be able to increase their food spend, it may mean they’re able to cover costs that they had been unable to cover – car licensing, dentist, school costs, sports fees etc.

However, there are also issues for advocates of the Feed the Kids bill, such as, who supplies the food to the school? Can a government get value for money if entering into a supply agreement with a corporate (who would likely create terms more favourable to itself), or is contracting with a charity necessarily the best option since they may for example, source food products from corporations? There just seems to be a contradiction in fighting capitalism from the left – who are the main advocates of this bill, to partnering with corporations either directly or indirectly.

In principle, I support the Feed the Kids bill. But like many others have suggested, it needs some work. That would have been the benefit of getting it to the Select Committee where the public could make submissions and where robust research was carried out to attempt to construct an effective policy.

An area where I’d like to see research directed, is where food is targeted at the source. That is, where the government invest in local food production. It might be that there is room to incentivise food producers to produce surpluses that are supplied to their local schools. Sure, this is an un-worked idea but we shouldn’t just limit our imagination to cash transfers or supply by food corporations. There is a human right to food and in my mind that means it is a resource first. If the government can improve local food production by investing more in the sector to deal with issues of household and individual food insecurity then perhaps we can tackle a number of issues (such as employment, health, education) while also ensuring children are not subjected to food insecurity whether it be chronic or transitory.

The right to adequate food is recognised and protected in both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).[16] The UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food defines this right as:[17]

…the right to have regular, permanent and unrestricted access, either directly or by means of financial purchases, to quantitatively and qualitatively adequate and sufficient food corresponding to the cultural traditions of the people to which the consumer belongs, and which ensure a physical and mental, individual and collective, fulfilling and dignified life free of fear…

The government also has obligations to meet food security goals as set out in the Millennium Development Declaration[18] and the Rome Declaration on World Food Security. [19] I haven’t even touched on issues of undernourishment, nutrition, food sovereignty, the role of agribusiness, deforestation, land grabs, climate issues, infrastructure issues, armed conflict, GMO’s. The topic of food security is vast, and is a priority at the international level. Pity the New Zealand government see it as optional. Perhaps, the next development in the feed the kids campaign, then might be to focus on the wider issue of food security at the household and individual level and find ways to address it that aren’t merely palliative, but involve addressing the network of challenges that cause food insecurity.


[1]  Some of the content of this post comprises parts of a dissertation I wrote for my LLM.

[2]  Rome Declaration on World Food Security.

[3]  FAO State of Food Insecurity in the World (2014), at 13.

[4]  Ibid

[5]  Christopher Stevens, Romilly Greenhill, Jane Kennan and Stephen Devereux “The WTO Agreement on Agriculture and Food Security” (paper prepared for the Commonwealth Secretariat, Economic Series No. 42, London, 2000), at 3.

[6]  At 2-3.

[7]  Ibid.

[8]  Ibid.

[9]  World Bank Poverty and Hunger (1986)

[10]  FAO “Chapter 2. Food security: concepts and measurement” in Trade Reforms and Food Security: Conceptualising the Linkages (FAO, Rome, 2003), at 28.

[11]  Amartya Sen Food, Economics and Entitlements (World Institute for Developmental Economics Research, United Nations University, 1986) at 8-9. For Sen, an entitlement is ‘the set of different alternative commodity bundles that the person can acquire through the use of the various legal channels of acquirement open to someone in [their] position’.

[12]  Ibid.

[13]  Ibid.

[14]  Stevens et al, at 5.

[15]   Eric Crampton “Breakfast” Offsetting Behaviour (15 May 2013)

[16]  Universal Declaration of Human Rights GA Res 217 A, III (1948); International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights GA Res2200A XXI 993 UNTS 3 (1966).

[17]  “The Human Right to Food” UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights

[18] Millennium Development Declaration

[19]  Rome Declaration on World Food Security

Tactical Voting, Manaakitanga and the Northland By-Election

I’ve been sitting on this post for a while. Quite anxious about posting. Worried about the backlash. The thing is, I don’t consider tactical voting as inherently bad. I just think that some strategies appear inconsistent with tikanga Māori. In particular, the principle of manaakitanga. That principle might not be important to non-Māori electors, but it does, in my view, matter where the particular electorate involves a candidate and constituents committed to kaupapa Māori.

Note, I am not suggesting that I am an authority nor that I speak on behalf of all Māori electors. Rather, it is my personal analysis regarding my interpretation and how I have come to understand manaakitanga and the problems I see with tactical voting in this particular regard.

Before I get into the substance of my concern, its necessary for the purposes of transparency to outlay a couple of disclosures. Firstly, I am a Māori Party (MP) member, and secondly, as reported in the media the idea of strategic voting was discussed at the Strategy and Executive levels of the MP with regard to the Te Tai Tokerau seat during the 2014 Election. Of note, views on strategic voting within the MP groups with whom I have had close contact with anyway,  is not settled. Many, like myself, were and remain strongly opposed to the idea of pulling a candidate just because polling is unfavourable. The concern revolves around the stripping of the candidates mana as a result of such a process. (I’d go as far as saying this is similarly true with standing a candidate but not allowing or perhaps discouraging them from seeking a candidate vote).

In brief, manaakitanga is about behaving in a way that is uplifting and enhances the mana of others. It is about positive role modelling and preserving the integrity of individuals, whānau, hapū, iwi and the wider community. (I am mindful that the concept can and does change within and between whānau, hapū and iwi, however, these characteristics seem to be widely accepted).

So I’m not convinced that the disavowal of an elected candidate, in this case, Willow-Jean Prime who has expressed a strong desire and genuine commitment to seek the electorate vote is in anyway mana enhancing or positive role modeling. To add insult to injury, encouraging people to vote for her rival candidate Winston Peters who has known sexist, bigoted and racist traits (recalling his joke at the expense of the Chinese) and has expressed a clear aversion to Te Tiriti o Waitangi reflects a lack of respect for the integrity and mana of Prime. It is essentially a strategy of two facing Prime by claiming on the one hand that she is the best candidate but undermining that message by getting people to not vote for her and to vote for Peters which is inconsistent with what manaakitanga involves.

For clarity, electors who were already going to vote for Peters are not participating in this mana stripping exercise. Additionally, if a candidate voluntarily revokes their commitment to seek the electorate vote then the strategy can arguably be said to not breach the principle. Although, there would remain issues regarding whether whānau, hapū, iwi and wider community see this kind of strategy as an attack on their integrity and mana.

The prevailing narrative is that a vote for Prime is essentially a wasted vote or a vote for National. But it’s not. That story is moral blackmail. It attempts to alienate any person who exercises their democratic right to vote for the candidate that they believe will best represent their interests and the interests of their electorate. This particular kind of tactical voting insists that the personal preferences of electors and the mana of candidates be set aside for the ‘greater good’ of the left. For Māori electors, it asks or rather demands that Māori identify as left first and only thereafter as Māori.

There is indeed a place for tactical voting provided it isn’t coupled with coercion. Where people aren’t induced to vote in a particular way due to fear of exclusion or public condemnation. Where people aren’t morally blackmailed into taking a particular position. And where campaigns and candidates aren’t undermined in a way that is mana stripping.

Some argue that this strategy is not coercive but instead educational. I’m still unconvinced by this argument too. The presumption is that all the strategy does is propose an option for voters together with counter-scenarios to let them make a choice. Yet, this is most often coupled with the above narrative and has led to verbal assaults on the non-compliant, at least in online forums. Moreover, it delivers information in a way designed to persuade a voter to conform rather than to impart knowledge. Some may not see the problem with that. That’s their prerogative. But when a person refuses to conform and is then castigated by their supposed left wing allies for daring to have an alternative view, it cannot pretend to be educational.  And given the extent of manipulation we as individuals are already subjected to, I find it alarming that many of these people would criticise media manipulation while engaging in the same tactics.

The awful rhetoric (coming from some very active voices) that followed the left bloc loss at the 2014 election was that everyone who didn’t vote according to a particular strategy guide were whollly responsible for National’s win, must hate people, are selfish and greedy, and lack intelligence – some suggested even that some shouldn’t have bothered voting at all [the irony given the push was to attract the elusive missing million]. So instead of holding up the principle of democracy, it became a game of ‘democracy on our terms only’. Free choice erased. Manaakitanga not even a feature of the story. Camaraderie existing only in conformity, under a strategy of manipulation.