Fast forward

Gang members facing fines for wearing patches in Wanganui's Victoria Avenue are taking legal action to stop Work and Income from making deductions from their benefits.

They have also lodged a complaint with the Human Rights Commission, claiming the ban on their patches and associated insignia unfairly punishes Wanganui members and their partners and children.

"No-one's paid a fine and no-one's going to," an affected member told The Wanganui Times yesterday. "The police can't do this. They can't take our patches when we haven't done anything wrong. These patches belong to us."

The members taking the action, who are understood to be on benefits and may qualify for legal aid, have hired a lawyer to gain an injunction and fight the ban.

Two weeks ago members filed their complaint with the Human Rights Commission.

Though the fines were due for payment this month none were willing to pay, the affected member said.

One partner claimed her nine-year-old son had watched in tears as his father was arrested on Victoria Avenue last week.

Three gang members arrested in the confrontation appeared in Wanganui District Court yesterday on joint display of insignia charges.

Wanganui Council's tough new national policy, designed to sidestep the Bill of Rights, follows a two-year legal battle to get gang insignia banned.

Gang members have been angry about losing their patches to police but say they are easy enough to replace.

"It's a waste of their time and our money, oops, sorry, that's your money, aye?" a laughing member told the Times.

They have us over a barrel 2

So we can't stop gangs and their women from bludging off us wholesale BUT we can take away their patches. Yes. Just confirmed in parliament, ACT (or at least ACT's leader who took the call) is going to vote for the Gang Insignia Bill because patches constitute intimidation; because David Garrett has gone to Wanganui and talked to the police and the gangs, and the police have promised to enforce the ban and the gangs have said they will stop wearing their patches.

No. This isn't a piss take.

Update;

Hide said in his speech that the passage of the bill relied on his vote. It didn't. Perhaps he miscalculated. Perhaps he saw an opportunity to buy the popular vote. It is the first time we have seen ACT's split vote facility in action. It won't be the last.

The split vote is a sop to members. It'll allow ACT to support National in the passage of authoritarian and conservative legislation, while continuing to claim their liberal principles to members. It is a cynical manipulation of supporters. I agree entirely with Blair Mulholland about what ACT's role should be.

Bernard Darnton also hits a different nail on the head with this observation;

Backers of the law claim that it’s necessary to crack down on gang members and that they need to be cracked down on because they’re always breaking stuff and hurting people. If that was true you wouldn’t need a law against leather jackets, you could just arrest all these gangsters under the Prohibition of Breaking Stuff (and Hurting People) Act.

They have us over a barrel

The women (attached to gang members) that Housing New Zealand are attempting to evict from a Taita street are taking legal action. We ain't going anywhere, they say.

They are apparently all on benefits so will qualify for legal aid. A certificate from Work and Income showing their gross income is less than $20,000 will take care of that. Although legal aid is supposed to be a loan it will likely be written off in this case. There is no owned property to make a charge against.

So the taxpayer is funding these women's benefits and their accommodation, both of which have been abused. They get away with the first abuse because of a legal ruling which defines their relationships as 'not in the nature of marriage'. Then, when they decide to fight the consequences of the secondary property abuse, the taxpayer has to foot their legal fees.

Just how far removed is all of this from a 'safety' net?

And in wades Parekura Horomia in his shadow Maori Minister role;

"I'm concerned about the effect on the women and children. Housing NZ have really really rushed this."

What a first-class apologist for manipulators this man is. These tenants and their partners have society over a barrel. They are not victims and they are not clueless. Children are hostages to and guarantors of their chosen lifestyles. It's a pig of a mess made worse by weak leaders like Horomia.

"Is that your Daddy?"

Some interesting divorce data has just been released from Statistics NZ;

Analysis of divorce statistics by year of marriage shows that about one-third of New Zealanders who married in 1983 had divorced before their silver wedding anniversary (25 years).

Gee, I thought it might have been higher than that. Maybe a good number just stay separated.

I may have recounted this before but it springs to mind right now.

My young daughter had a friend over. She was a talkative, curious child. On espying a wedding photograph of David and I she turned to my daughter and asked, "Is that your Daddy?", which Sam confirmed. It was the next question that floored me. "Where does he live?"

Auckland carrying a disproportionate share of benefit growth

I have been playing with some of the regional benefit data released for March 2009.

These figures show the total number of people on main benefits and the percentage change (they are all positive) over the year.



Obviously the highest growth is occurring in the cities, most noticeably, Auckland.

Then I have broken down each main benefit.

The following shows the Unemployment benefit numbers at 2008 and 2009 and the percentage change;


The highest percentage unemployment growth is Canterbury with Auckland second, but on a much larger base number.

Sickness benefits are next;



The percentage growth in sickness benefits is quite erratic across the regions ranging from zero in the East Coast to 21 in Canterbury. That may indicate that the growth is influenced by differing regional policy/procedures as much as individual incapacities. And some offsetting/contrasting figures can be seen in the next table which may indicate some reclassification/transfer - Invalid's benefit;




The next is the DPB numbers at 2008 and 2009 and the percentage change;



Again the highest growth is Auckland. More bad news because the highest percentage growth is also where the largest numbers reside.

In conclusion most of the benefit growth is happening in Auckland. And it's not simply because that's where most of the population lives. Almost half - 46 percent - of the extra numbers on welfare over the year to March 2009 live in Auckland.

Although, to be fair, it is still proportionately under-represented in terms of general welfare dependence.

Relishing our dependence

According to the Minister of Social Development,

"One in five New Zealanders has some form of disability, and that number is expected to grow by 60 per cent over the next 40 years."

That means one in five is going to become one in three.

Apart from the ageing population, why? What the hell is going on here?

Why does government talk up disability? It seems almost to relish the prospect of growing dependence. I blame the infiltration of mothers (or potential mothers) into wider society, especially via the public service. It is one thing to mollycoddle one's own. To some extent that is the very essence of a mother. I do it with my own kids but that's where it ends.

I really can't stand this disability-isation of people. So many invisible and invented maladies are now 'disabilities'. That means more funding, more planning, more nappy-changing. And it does a disservice to those with genuine and debilitating conditions. Proud people who struggle to maintain as much independence and self-reliance as they can.

They are demeaned by all the me-tooers; the snouters wearing their newly described 'disabilities' like badges of honour demanding that government fawn all over them. People fighting to be more disabled than the next. And those that would indulge them.

One in three people will have some form of disability? What a pathetic prediction and pathetic acquiescence.

Foolish head-banging?

No. Not of the 'musical' kind. Rather,the banging-it-against-a-brick-wall variety.

I think I am possibly not shouting loud enough or what is important to me is trivial and boring to others. Or a combination of both. But I will restate some news from earlier in the week.

6,000 more people are on the DPB than one year ago.

That's around 10,000 children - enough to fill twenty five substantial schools.

An annual six percent rise hasn't been seen since the early 90s.

There are 37,000 unemployed people but over 100,000 on the DPB, where they will remain, on average, far longer than those on the dole.

But the media thinks the demise of Wheel Of Fortune is more important.

What's happening here is politics. Labour won't make a noise about it because they squandered the best opportunity to do something about the DPB any government has had. And National won't make a noise about it because they aren't prepared to do anything about it.

Have we given up caring? Is the DPB just part of the wallpaper now? Is it so institutionalised there is no going back? Or rather, going forward?

Good news hyped into bad

Good news. A new MP, Kanwal Bakshi has a property that was being operated as a brothel. That's what we need. More property-owning MPs.

What's left of the welfare state

Chris Trotter writes in today's DomPost that Mr Key and his right wing mates are showing signs that they are about to get rid of "what's left of the welfare state".

This implies most of what constitutes the welfare state has already been dismantled.

All that remains are the unemployment, sickness, invalid and domestic purposes benefits; the independent youth, emergency, and unsupported child benefits; super and veteran's pensions; accommodation supplement and state housing; the minimum wage; Working For Families; residential care subsidies; childcare subsidies; Paid Parental Leave; student allowances; interest free student loans; 'free' public hospitals and public schools; various family and child tax credits; universal no-fault accident compensation; widow's benefit; orphan's benefit; free dental care for the young; free healthcare for under sixes; the Super GoldCard; the Community Services card; the methadone programme; legal aid; Restart and Replace; 9 day working fortnight subsidies; subsidies to hundreds of 'charities'...

No. There's not much to remember. Did I miss anything? Oh yes, there is a case to include corporate welfare, and grants to the arts and sports as part of the broadest-sense welfare state.

I wonder what Trotter thinks has been dispensed with? The family benefit, which had deteriorated in value to almost nothing by the time National threw it out? Farming subsidies? I tell you what. It's a helluva sight harder trying to identify what went than what stayed.