While conducting an interview with Radio Live, fortunately on tape, I realised a mistake I made yesterday. As L V says, it's the putting right that counts...less haste etc.
(Replacing earlier release which contained an error)
Media Release
ALL MAIN BENEFITS ON THE RISE
Friday, January 30, 2009
End-of-year benefit statistics just released by the Ministry of Social Development show annual increases in every category of benefit,according to welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell.
"The number of working age people on a main benefit rose by six percent during 2008. But less than half of the increase was attributable to the unemployment benefit."
"The numbers receiving the invalid's benefit rose 4.3 percent from 80,082 to 83,501. This comes after various initiatives and ministerial assurances that the numbers were levelling off."
"Numbers on the DPB rose by 2.2 percent and are now back over 100,000. But especially concerning is the continually increasing numbers of teenage recipients. In December 2007 3,239 18-19 year-olds were receiving the DPB. That number increased by 11 percent to 3,610 in December 2008. Those numbers do not include teenage parents under 18 who receive the EMA. Those figures are not routinely published by the ministry. Teenage recipients present a particular problem because they stay on welfare the longest and their children experience multiple disadvantages."
"So as well as focussing on minimising job losses the government needs to be looking at ways to discourage uptake of other benefits. While some people end up on a benefit because of factors genuinely beyond their control, many others are there because they made bad choices. The easy availability of assistance plays a role in influencing those choices. "
Friday, January 30, 2009
Distraught and dangerous
Straight from the horse's mouth;
Whangarei-Kaipara area commander Inspector Paul Dimery said that while teenage drinking, underage driving and underage pregnancy were common, the girl's combination of all three had come as a shock.
The girl's high breath-alcohol reading was also disturbing.
"That is exceptionally high for an adult. For a 14-year-old it's quite astounding. For a pregnant 14-year-old, it's almost disgusting," he said. "What's the expected outcome for that child? You've got children having children. They have no understanding of the harm that they're causing their unborn child."
The chances are very, very high that this 14 year-old was a child born in similar circumstances. To a young mother who drank and smoked through her pregnancy.
Somebody has failed absolutely abysmally to let this girl have a safe and secure childhood. Isn't that exactly what the DPB was meant for? To provide an unsupported mother with an income that enabled her to be a at-home parent and create a secure, stable environment for her children. And some did. This one's didn't.
Yes. I am making assumptions. But does it matter? Here's the typical picture. She'll be from a multi-generational welfare dependent family (using the word 'family' generously). She could be pregnant to a family member or her mother's current hanger-on. She is deeply, deeply distraught and dangerous. She is certainly a danger to herself and her unborn child. That's the reality.
The DPB is the financial backbone of the communities that produce "children having children". It is the enabler. The 'domestic purposes' benefit no longer evokes images of motherhood and apple pie. DPB and dysfunction have become almost synonymous.
Whangarei-Kaipara area commander Inspector Paul Dimery said that while teenage drinking, underage driving and underage pregnancy were common, the girl's combination of all three had come as a shock.
The girl's high breath-alcohol reading was also disturbing.
"That is exceptionally high for an adult. For a 14-year-old it's quite astounding. For a pregnant 14-year-old, it's almost disgusting," he said. "What's the expected outcome for that child? You've got children having children. They have no understanding of the harm that they're causing their unborn child."
The chances are very, very high that this 14 year-old was a child born in similar circumstances. To a young mother who drank and smoked through her pregnancy.
Somebody has failed absolutely abysmally to let this girl have a safe and secure childhood. Isn't that exactly what the DPB was meant for? To provide an unsupported mother with an income that enabled her to be a at-home parent and create a secure, stable environment for her children. And some did. This one's didn't.
Yes. I am making assumptions. But does it matter? Here's the typical picture. She'll be from a multi-generational welfare dependent family (using the word 'family' generously). She could be pregnant to a family member or her mother's current hanger-on. She is deeply, deeply distraught and dangerous. She is certainly a danger to herself and her unborn child. That's the reality.
The DPB is the financial backbone of the communities that produce "children having children". It is the enabler. The 'domestic purposes' benefit no longer evokes images of motherhood and apple pie. DPB and dysfunction have become almost synonymous.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
But what's the unemployment rate?
Expect an announcement soon about the latest unemployment rate based on the HLFS - the official measure. A press release from Statistics NZ has appeared at Scoop but not on their own website. The usual information has not been released and the tables cannot yet be accessed as the release does not appear at the NZ statistics website. Unusual sequence of events. A botch up perhaps.
All main benefits rise
Media Release
ALL MAIN BENEFITS ON THE RISE
Thursday, January 29, 2009
End-of-year benefit statistics just released by the Ministry of Social Development show annual increases in every category of benefit,according to welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell.
"The largest rise is not in the unemployment benefit but in numbers receiving the invalid's benefit, which increased 4.3 percent from 80,082 to 83,501 over 2008. This comes after various of initiatives and ministerial assurances that the numbers were levelling off."
"Numbers on the DPB have risen by 2.2 percent and are now back over 100,000. But especially concerning is the continually increasing numbers of teenage recipients. In December 2007 3,239 18-19 year-olds were receiving the DPB. That number increased by 11 percent to 3,610 in December 2008. Those numbers do not include teenage parents under 18 who receive the EMA. Those figures are not routinely published by the ministry. Teenage recipients present a particular problem because they stay on welfare the longest and their children experience multiple disadvantages."
"Overall the total number of people receiving a main benefit rose six percent over the 2008 year. As well as focussing on minimising job losses the government needs to be looking at ways to discourage uptake of other benefits. While some people end up on a benefit because of factors genuinely beyond their control, many others are there because they made bad choices. The easy availability of assistance plays a role in influencing those choices. "
ALL MAIN BENEFITS ON THE RISE
Thursday, January 29, 2009
End-of-year benefit statistics just released by the Ministry of Social Development show annual increases in every category of benefit,according to welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell.
"The largest rise is not in the unemployment benefit but in numbers receiving the invalid's benefit, which increased 4.3 percent from 80,082 to 83,501 over 2008. This comes after various of initiatives and ministerial assurances that the numbers were levelling off."
"Numbers on the DPB have risen by 2.2 percent and are now back over 100,000. But especially concerning is the continually increasing numbers of teenage recipients. In December 2007 3,239 18-19 year-olds were receiving the DPB. That number increased by 11 percent to 3,610 in December 2008. Those numbers do not include teenage parents under 18 who receive the EMA. Those figures are not routinely published by the ministry. Teenage recipients present a particular problem because they stay on welfare the longest and their children experience multiple disadvantages."
"Overall the total number of people receiving a main benefit rose six percent over the 2008 year. As well as focussing on minimising job losses the government needs to be looking at ways to discourage uptake of other benefits. While some people end up on a benefit because of factors genuinely beyond their control, many others are there because they made bad choices. The easy availability of assistance plays a role in influencing those choices. "
Cops on campus
Am I really surprised by this?
Police in Hamilton now based in schools
I guess not. But what a marker of how lawless and disaffected some parts of New Zealand society have become. Will the presence of police make a difference? It could merely escalate problems, as heightened authority and disapproval unintentionally provoke further and more overt displays of antagonism, anti-social feelings and/or bravado. But maybe school staff and parents of pupils feel reassured by the permanent presence of a police officer. Would you?
Police in Hamilton now based in schools
I guess not. But what a marker of how lawless and disaffected some parts of New Zealand society have become. Will the presence of police make a difference? It could merely escalate problems, as heightened authority and disapproval unintentionally provoke further and more overt displays of antagonism, anti-social feelings and/or bravado. But maybe school staff and parents of pupils feel reassured by the permanent presence of a police officer. Would you?
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Maori 'inflation'?
New Minister for Maori Affairs, Pita Sharples, has just opened a Maori economic summit in Wellington. In his opening address he makes this statement:
This parliamentary term will be defined by how we negotiate the swirling economic waters ahead. We have faced these perils before, and for Mâori, the experience was disastrous. In the period known as te Pâheketanga Ohaoha, the days of the Great Depression, 75% of all Mâori men were unemployed by 1933. More recently the recession of 1987-1992 resulted in a shocking deterioration in outcomes for Mâori.
To the best of my knowledge Maori unemployment was never anywhere near that high. One would expect the Official New Zealand Yearbook to be a reliable source. Here is a passage from the 1995 version, page 34:
By 1933, 40 percent of the male Maori workforce was unemployed, compared with the Pakeha rate of 12 percent.
In 1933 most Maori lived rurally and were still making a living off the land and sea. Even if they were not being fully or partially recompensed for their work or produce they would still have been endeavouring to trade or feed themselves and their families. All I can assume is that Sharples is making a reference to Maori living in towns and cities who were unable to find jobs. But even then I don't know what the source for this claim is. I will write and ask him.
(Similarly there is controversy over whether or not Maori drew the 'dole'. Tipene O’Regan and Api Mahuika say Maori were denied yet there is evidence referred to by historian Michael King that Maori were paid the dole - unemployment benefits or relief work compensation - during the depression, but it was paid at a lower rate and more difficult to obtain. This is because policy-makers believed Maori were better equipped to make a living off the land.)
This parliamentary term will be defined by how we negotiate the swirling economic waters ahead. We have faced these perils before, and for Mâori, the experience was disastrous. In the period known as te Pâheketanga Ohaoha, the days of the Great Depression, 75% of all Mâori men were unemployed by 1933. More recently the recession of 1987-1992 resulted in a shocking deterioration in outcomes for Mâori.
To the best of my knowledge Maori unemployment was never anywhere near that high. One would expect the Official New Zealand Yearbook to be a reliable source. Here is a passage from the 1995 version, page 34:
By 1933, 40 percent of the male Maori workforce was unemployed, compared with the Pakeha rate of 12 percent.
In 1933 most Maori lived rurally and were still making a living off the land and sea. Even if they were not being fully or partially recompensed for their work or produce they would still have been endeavouring to trade or feed themselves and their families. All I can assume is that Sharples is making a reference to Maori living in towns and cities who were unable to find jobs. But even then I don't know what the source for this claim is. I will write and ask him.
(Similarly there is controversy over whether or not Maori drew the 'dole'. Tipene O’Regan and Api Mahuika say Maori were denied yet there is evidence referred to by historian Michael King that Maori were paid the dole - unemployment benefits or relief work compensation - during the depression, but it was paid at a lower rate and more difficult to obtain. This is because policy-makers believed Maori were better equipped to make a living off the land.)
After-school care subsidy slashed
The Ministry of Social Development has rejected a funding application for $200,000 from Kidicorp to operate their after-school care programmes. This is a subsidy to private enterprise. Being against subsidies, at first glance I would agree with the decision.
But there is more that we don't yet know. MSD also subsidises parents for after school care costs. It appears that subsidy is contingent on the programme meeting safety and quality standards set by CYF (yes, there is some irony there.) Assuming the Kidicorp centres are approved (they have after all been receiving funding) then some parents are able to receive assistance towards costs. That assistance increased with the WFF programme and the government may now consider the provider subsidy is no longer warranted.
The owner of Kidicorp says he will
... have to put forward $400,000 to cover the cost of the service to keep it running.
He doesn't comment on whether that is feasible long term. It may be, in which case he didn't need the subsidy.
Doing the maths the shortfall amounts to an average of $20 per week per child. If Mr Wright can't fund it then either the parents will have to find the extra -possibly through a subsidy they haven't previously made use of - or they may consider moving their child elsewhere. (Or they could return to a benefit which would cost the government a great deal more.)
Other OSCAR programmes operate at schools although I believe places are generally tight. But the government is doubtless providing funding for these as well. So I am somewhat worried that this is another attack on the private sector at the benefit of the state sector, similar to what we saw with the 20 free hours of pre-school education. Which wouldn't have seemed odd under a Labour government but under the new National administration?
It is one of those stories which will develop and more will doubtless be revealed. At the moment the Ministry isn't commenting on the rationale.
Need I say it, leaving more money with the earner in the first instance would make more available to fully fund private programmes. Why we even need these programmes is another debate for another day.
But there is more that we don't yet know. MSD also subsidises parents for after school care costs. It appears that subsidy is contingent on the programme meeting safety and quality standards set by CYF (yes, there is some irony there.) Assuming the Kidicorp centres are approved (they have after all been receiving funding) then some parents are able to receive assistance towards costs. That assistance increased with the WFF programme and the government may now consider the provider subsidy is no longer warranted.
The owner of Kidicorp says he will
... have to put forward $400,000 to cover the cost of the service to keep it running.
He doesn't comment on whether that is feasible long term. It may be, in which case he didn't need the subsidy.
Doing the maths the shortfall amounts to an average of $20 per week per child. If Mr Wright can't fund it then either the parents will have to find the extra -possibly through a subsidy they haven't previously made use of - or they may consider moving their child elsewhere. (Or they could return to a benefit which would cost the government a great deal more.)
Other OSCAR programmes operate at schools although I believe places are generally tight. But the government is doubtless providing funding for these as well. So I am somewhat worried that this is another attack on the private sector at the benefit of the state sector, similar to what we saw with the 20 free hours of pre-school education. Which wouldn't have seemed odd under a Labour government but under the new National administration?
It is one of those stories which will develop and more will doubtless be revealed. At the moment the Ministry isn't commenting on the rationale.
Need I say it, leaving more money with the earner in the first instance would make more available to fully fund private programmes. Why we even need these programmes is another debate for another day.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
What's the difference?
Another blog drew my attention to this course offered by the Lower Hutt Women's Centre. My only point of interest is the last sentence. What does it mean? What's the difference between "yourself" and "your self" (apart from a tab space)?
Assertiveness for Women
Assertiveness is the ability to express yourself and your rights without violating the rights of others. It is appropriately direct, open, and honest communication which is self-enhancing and expressive. Acting assertively will give you the opportunity to feel self-confident and will generally gain you the respect of yourself and your peers and friends. It can increase your chances for honest relationships, and help you to feel better about yourself and your self in everyday situations.
Assertiveness for Women
Assertiveness is the ability to express yourself and your rights without violating the rights of others. It is appropriately direct, open, and honest communication which is self-enhancing and expressive. Acting assertively will give you the opportunity to feel self-confident and will generally gain you the respect of yourself and your peers and friends. It can increase your chances for honest relationships, and help you to feel better about yourself and your self in everyday situations.
Culpability for crime
My e-mail contribution to a discussion on radio today (prompted by this report);
Regarding P rendering people not responsible for their criminal actions, I find the distorted logic of legal manipulators quite repugnant. But it is only an extension of similar ideas like, people who have had bad upbringings are not culpable. Or people whose ancestors had their land stolen are not culpable. I recently read Nigel Latta's very compelling book, Into The Darklands. He concludes that some criminals have had childhoods that make you weep for them BUT there is still a thing called free will. People make choices - good or bad - that only they are responsible for.
Law making and law enforcement need to recognise the existence of free will. Everybody knows right from wrong because nobody likes having their possessions taken off them, or being bashed about the head or sexually assaulted, actions that seem routine as a consequence of abusing P.
Regarding P rendering people not responsible for their criminal actions, I find the distorted logic of legal manipulators quite repugnant. But it is only an extension of similar ideas like, people who have had bad upbringings are not culpable. Or people whose ancestors had their land stolen are not culpable. I recently read Nigel Latta's very compelling book, Into The Darklands. He concludes that some criminals have had childhoods that make you weep for them BUT there is still a thing called free will. People make choices - good or bad - that only they are responsible for.
Law making and law enforcement need to recognise the existence of free will. Everybody knows right from wrong because nobody likes having their possessions taken off them, or being bashed about the head or sexually assaulted, actions that seem routine as a consequence of abusing P.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Domestic violence perpetrated by female partners isn't just psychological
The official MSD position on partner violence and gender symmetry/asymmetry can be summed up by the following;
Leaving basic prevalence levels aside, there is rather more consensus that more physically serious and psychologically threatening assaults are more likely to be perpetrated by male partners...The Scale and Nature of Family Violence in New Zealand: A Review and Evaluation of Knowledge, April 2007
Most of the statistical data about violence between partners comes from surveys and police data. But here is some new and interesting evidence that women do indeed perpetrate serious physical violence against men. The source is hospital emergency departments in the state of Victoria, Australia.
In almost 70 per cent of cases the victims were female, and most of the injuries occurred at home. Emergency departments dealt with 693 "human intent injuries" related to family violence in 2004-05 and 672 in 2005-06, according to the report.
So in over 30 percent of the cases the victim was a man. Interestingly the rest of the media report typically focusses on violence against women and the need for more intervention.
And in this country the following 'facts' as presented by Living Without Violence are your typical approach to the problem of family violence.
* One woman is killed by her partner or ex-partner every five weeks
* 10 children are killed every year in acts of domestic violence
* Half of all female homicides are the result of domestic violence
* Domestic violence is the fifth leading cause of death from injury for New Zealand women
* One in seven women has been assaulted by her partner
* Women's refuge assisted about 20,000 women and children last year
* 15 per cent of Women's refuge residents have a permanent disability as a result of battery and four per cent can no longer have children
* 21 per cent of New Zealand men admit they have physically abused their partners in the past year
* Battered women are five times more likely than other women to use psychiatric services
Not a mention of women hurting men. (Although, to their credit, they do run a programme for female perpetrators of domestic violence, detailed elsewhere at their site.)
Certainly some women need help and protection and I accept that men are physically, potentially more dangerous than women. But a more balanced and honest approach to the problem of family violence is overdue. Too many self-interested, ideologically driven parties are involved.
Leaving basic prevalence levels aside, there is rather more consensus that more physically serious and psychologically threatening assaults are more likely to be perpetrated by male partners...The Scale and Nature of Family Violence in New Zealand: A Review and Evaluation of Knowledge, April 2007
Most of the statistical data about violence between partners comes from surveys and police data. But here is some new and interesting evidence that women do indeed perpetrate serious physical violence against men. The source is hospital emergency departments in the state of Victoria, Australia.
In almost 70 per cent of cases the victims were female, and most of the injuries occurred at home. Emergency departments dealt with 693 "human intent injuries" related to family violence in 2004-05 and 672 in 2005-06, according to the report.
So in over 30 percent of the cases the victim was a man. Interestingly the rest of the media report typically focusses on violence against women and the need for more intervention.
And in this country the following 'facts' as presented by Living Without Violence are your typical approach to the problem of family violence.
* One woman is killed by her partner or ex-partner every five weeks
* 10 children are killed every year in acts of domestic violence
* Half of all female homicides are the result of domestic violence
* Domestic violence is the fifth leading cause of death from injury for New Zealand women
* One in seven women has been assaulted by her partner
* Women's refuge assisted about 20,000 women and children last year
* 15 per cent of Women's refuge residents have a permanent disability as a result of battery and four per cent can no longer have children
* 21 per cent of New Zealand men admit they have physically abused their partners in the past year
* Battered women are five times more likely than other women to use psychiatric services
Not a mention of women hurting men. (Although, to their credit, they do run a programme for female perpetrators of domestic violence, detailed elsewhere at their site.)
Certainly some women need help and protection and I accept that men are physically, potentially more dangerous than women. But a more balanced and honest approach to the problem of family violence is overdue. Too many self-interested, ideologically driven parties are involved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
