Lowering the voting age to 16

Sue Bradford pulled her bill as it wasn't garnering support at this time. I still see some merit in the proposal but acknowledge I'm in a small minority. Interestingly they are considering the same question in the UK. In the UK however it would appear there is considerably more support for change.

The Populus parliamentary panel of MPs in July showed that, while Liberal Democrats were heavily in favour of reducing the voting age from 18 to 16, Labour MPs were narrowly (53 per cent) against, but Tory members were heavily (83 per cent) opposed.

Stigmas

People who have difficulty reading and writing are to be issued with 'literacy cards' which they can present in dealings such as a bank transaction. Shouldn't these be called 'illiteracy' cards?

Well, no, because the aim is to remove the stigma. The trouble is when stigmas are removed problems grow. The obvious example I would use is the stigma of illegitimacy. We banned the term in the 60s. Fair enough. It is no fault of the child if its parents weren't married. But I don't need to tell you what the results of de-stigmatising unmarried or even unpartnered procreation have been. On balance, not that hot.

Stigmas can serve useful purposes. They steer people away from undesirable outcomes. They also help avoid clamours for government to legislate or ban every damned thing. Removing the stigma associated with not being able to read and write may seem like a caring and compassionate thing to aim for but will it really serve the individuals best interests?

It looks like an acceptance of the failure of the education system. People arrive at primary school without knowing the alphabet but we say that's ok. They'll catch up. Then secondary school unable to spell but they'll catch up. Then at WINZ, where we put them through catch up courses. Then...still can't read and write....that's ok...here, have a card. It's not your fault. You are just differently-abled.

Some people have particular difficulties eg dyslexia but I wouldn't mind betting that a good many have failed to learn because they come from families that put no value on education. They have multiple problems.

I can see the merits in practice for the person being presented with the card ie the bank teller but in the larger scheme of things, regretfully, I think this is more bottom of the cliff stuff. Managing problems rather than trying to resolve them.

Even voluntary socialism is difficult to sustain

Fascinating. From the Becker-Posner blog, a closer look at the kibbutz movement;

Utopian socialistic experiments like the kibbutz movement, and countries that tried to create large-scale efficient socialism, all failed for the same reasons. They did not realize that while the zeal of pioneers, and the result of revolutions, could sustain a collectivist and other-serving mentality for a short while, these could not be maintained as the pioneers died off or became disillusioned, and as circumstances became less revolutionary. Basically, they ignored the evidence of history that self interest and family orientation is not the product of capitalism, but is human nature due to selection from evolutionary pressure over billions of years.

And to follow on from that the Investor's Business Daily looks at why the combination of capitalism and socialism, the Third Way, isn't as successful as often touted; and how Europe lags badly behind the US economically.

Bi-Polar disorder

Mojo has an interesting post about the rate of bi-polar disorder in young Americans.

I had a look at how many people were on benefits due to a diagnoses of bi-polar disorder.

The figures for the invalid's benefit are;

1997 815
1998 922
1999 1003
2000 1243
2001 1500
2002 1733
2003 1953
2004 2170
2005 2306

Given all the hysteria over diabetes let's contrast those figures;

1997 618
1998 667
1999 710
2000 783
2001 886
2002 999
2003 1114
2004 1228
2005 1313

The increase from 1997 to 2005 for bipolar disorder is 183% compared to 112% for diabetes.

Some other percentage increases over the same period include;

Stress 265%
Drug abuse 211%
Depression 184%

I guess there are only so many things public health officials can get hysterical about.

Losing the war on family violence

As the Prime Minister yesterday launched yet another anti-family violence initiative, more babies were being born into non-working homes.

Every year thousands of babies are born on to new or existing benefits. Many of these babies will join the ranks of the most at-risk children in New Zealand.

Last year Work and Income acknowledged that New Zealand has a very high rate of family violence and that many victims are beneficiaries. Hence service centres are an "excellent" place to identify victims.

Instead of acting rationally and questioning to what extent easy access to benefits actually adds to violence by facilitating dysfunctional lifestyles, the best plan of action the government can offer is to develop ever more resources to fight the growing incidence.

An honest appraisal of what role welfare has played in breaking down committed and independent families would be a far more valuable exercise than anything else proposed to date.

There is a clear connection between welfare dependence and family violence. It is a vain hope that the second will diminish while the first is allowed to continue.

Judge says benefit fraud "very prevalent " in NZ

This story has the wrong headline. It should have read, "Judge says benefit fraud very prevalent in New Zealand." This is just another case. The story is the prevalence of fraud.

Prevalence but, I very much suspect, a growing indifference to it.

Take David Benson Pope answering a PQ; The number of allegations of benefit fraud has fallen by over 36 percent in the last 6 years. The number of allegations received from either staff or members of the public in each of the last five years is: 29,363 (2001/2002) 29,628 (2002/2003) 27,134 (2003/2004) 13,462 (2004/2005) 18,845 (2005/2006) The number of allegations received for December 2006, January 2007 and February 2007 were 1,457; 1,597 and 1,410 respectively.

The number of concluded prosecutions for the 2004/2005 and 2005/2006 financial years is 1,306 and 937 cases respectively.

Note the huge drop of 50 percent between 2003/04 and 2004/05.

In the year to April 1979 there were 209 prosecutions but the number of breaches was 9494. Some were "trivial or involved perhaps just a portion of a weekly payment". 6144 deliberate breaches were however referred to the police department who advised the Social Welfare Department it did not intend to take prosecutions in 3691 of them. (No. I do not know why there is such a large discrepancy between the remainder and the number of convictions.)

There were around 80,000 working age beneficiaries at that time therefore the rate of breaches per 1,000 beneficiaries was 118.7

There is no identical data to match but if I can compare breaches with allegations (substantiations would be even lower), in 2005/06 there were 18,845 allegations and 280,000 beneficiaries - a rate of 67.3 per 1,000.

That's to be expected. People on benefits today are far more honest.

Either that or the public and the department are far more tolerant.

If you thought "How to rip off WINZ" was bad.....

I can be a bit green sometimes but this somewhat surprised me. Having read a piece about the UK using lie detectors to uncover benefit fraud I thought I'd look a bit more closely at the story. In the process of searching lie detectors/ job seekers I came across this. I am dubious about even cutting and pasting from it.

Behavioural responses

From a passage in a speech Michael Bassett gave to the Institute of Economic Research last week;

"Then the grand daddy of them all in 1976, Robert Muldoon’s National Superannuation, payable initially to couples at 80% of the average ordinary wage at 60. Historian Sir Keith Sinclair called it “the biggest election bribe” in our history."

The DomPost has published private income figures from the Positive Ageing Report released on Friday.

The Social Development Ministry survey found the average private income of a single person aged over 65 had dropped 88 per cent from $2200 a year in 1989 to just $260 in 2004.

Private income is income that excludes public pensions or means-tested welfare benefits. Here is the graph;



Why bother saving when the government is doing it for you?

Peter Dunne slates the Press and Martin van Beynen

The following is from the UnitedFuture website. It refers to an editorial about extending Paid Parental Leave and the Families Commission.

I have just seen the most sneering editorial in the Christchurch Press about this and the Families Commission generally. The Press has long been critical of the Families Commission, mainly through the vitriolic pen of its senior writer Martin van Beynen - a man I have never heard of as contributing anything worthwhile to anything - and I suspect he is the writer of this editorial (although since newspaper editors are so brave they have to cloak their opinions in anonymity you would never know). Christchurch readers of the Press might like to write to the editor and let him know what they think of his newpaper's bigotry on family issues.

Posted by Peter Dunne 8.27AM, 30 Aug 2007

Martin van Beynen gave us (syndicated to the DomPost) a fabulous insight into New Zealand's 'poor' with a brilliant series penned as he toured NZ getting into places and homes Peter Dunne would shudder at. For that alone he earned my respect and admiration. He has most recently been up to the Northern Territories again covering almost unimaginable habitats and lifestyles of some Aboriginal people.

Peter Dunne often surprises me with his grumpy opinions made publicly and without justification. How can the Press be 'bigoted' for opposing (in this instance) the remorseless extension of socialism and loss of individual freedom? I can only conclude Dunne has burnt so many bridges one more won't matter.

(I did consider whether his posting is genuine but find it is too much in the Dunne style not to be.)

Unfortunately I cannot locate the editorial that has so riled Mr Dunne but here is another example (definitely from Martin van Beynen) which I am sure also sent his blood pressure soaring;

To tell the truth, I am sick of hearing about work-life balance and the glories of diversity which are no doubt just peachy for those workplaces that can afford them.

These workplaces, of course, tend to be in Wellington and usually entail spending our money on useless research, newsletters, conferences for the similarly minded and overseas trips.

Workplaces like the EEO (part of the State Services Commission), for instance, or the Families Commission, or the Human Slights Commission, or the Office for Ethnic Affairs and all those organisations of a similar ilk that infest Wellington.

The EEO's latest mind-blowing revelation contained in its latest newsletter is that good bosses tend to have more motivated employees. Or as the EEO puts it "discretionary effort and productivity can be increased by supporting work-life balance at all levels of the workplace".

And (just for a laugh) you can always rely on a revelation from the Families Commission. The latest bombshell from this bastion of redundancy says the biggest issue for families about after-school childcare is cost and quality. Amazing.

A man after my own heart. Well said.

Letter in the Sunday Star Times

What is this government lackey angling for? Because he sure isn't doing the organisation that pays him to be CEO any favours.



Remember this headline, Charities pay price of backing Bradford?

One could just as well substitute Kiro for Bradford. The Children's Commissioner role is highly politicised and Edridge's continuing support for her will come at a cost. Perhaps not to him though.

"The money might be hard to give away"

The money might be hard to give away - give me a break.

Today's Editorial from the NZ Herald begins;

Few taxpayers will disagree with the proposal from the Families Commission that paid parental leave should be extended from the present 14 weeks to one year. If couples cannot afford for one of them to give up paid employment to care for a baby through its first year, the grant would seem one of the better uses of the social welfare budget.

How do they know that? Do you support it?

The commission estimates the extension of the benefit would increase its cost from the current $95 million a year to $450 million, a significant new financial commitment by any measure. To soften the fiscal shock the commission suggests the extension be phased in over eight years, first to six months, then nine, reaching the full year in 2015.

But these cautions will be based on an assumption the benefit will be fully subscribed. In all likelihood, the money might be hard to give away. Even with the offer of paid parental leave career-minded young mothers may be as anxious as fathers to return before their baby is a year old.

Hard to give away?? Let's test that. In 2002 Treasury predicted PPL would cost;

2002/03 $41 million
2003/04 $44 million
2005/06 $45 million

Here are the actual spending figures;

2003 $56 million
2004 $63 million
2005 $76 million
2006 $96 million

2006 spending more than doubled predictions. That blows that theory out of the water.

The full benefit would probably be taken up mainly by women in low-paid, non-career employment who would need it most. In this respect the scheme has a natural efficiency that enables it to be supported by taxpayers who might be concerned at the present Government's tendency to waste precious public funds on welfare for all.

Offer a universal benefit and towards universal uptake is what you will get. But worse. Many people who have no intention of returning to work will also take the year's payment so the potential for ripping the system off is also boosted.

Paid parental leave, though, carries a social signal more important than its financial terms. A decision to extend it to a year would tell young parents that society thinks it a good idea for one of them to care for their baby at home for that time. The present provision of just 14 weeks paid leave arguably gives quite the opposite message, though the right to unpaid leave with a preserved job already applies for a year.

Ah. That all-important 'sending a message'. For pity's sake. The DPB is permanent Paid Parental Leave and look at the message that sends. The taxpayer will keep you indefinitely as long as you can keep churning out babies. Whether or not you care for them properly is neither here nor there.

This country's 14 weeks payment is less than any other Western country except the United States and Australia, which do not provide parental leave. If we are going to provide it we ought to do it properly. Both main parties seem to agree with the Families Commission. Even if the cost is too much to extend the scheme more quickly, a decision to do so could be made soon. The decision would be a statement of value, affirming that nurturing for at least the first year should be a full-time job.

So rather than seriously considering what our two largest trading partners, both much stronger economies than NZ, do, the Herald wants to rush headlong in the opposite direction. This is a fine example of ill-thought-out advocacy. Unfortunately, they are not on their own.

That's what mums are for

A man has sex with his daughters for a decade to show them how to be good wives (conveniently forgetting they were daughters). What astonished me is the last line;

Judge Lovell gave full credit for the man's guilty pleas, saying he was genuinely remorseful and had a good chance of rehabilitation as his wife and the church remained supportive.

Some mother. That's a horrible story and a lamentable ending.

Only scratching the surface

Drugs and alcohol are the cause of child abuse. OK.

But why are people abusing drugs and alcohol? Because they can. Work and Income hand them the obligation-free time and obligation-free money. Even men that hold down jobs can piss all their money up the wall while the 'missus' brings in benefit money. The latter has been the case for decades and decades. That was what Sir Apirana Ngata used to fight. When he said welfare would destroy Maori he wasn't talking about the DPB. He was talking about the early family benefit which, for a large family accustomed to living off the land, amassed to quite a bit of money. The provision of this benefit to Maori during the forties was the most controversial aspect of the social security department's work.

People need to be given back their driver for living. Survival by their own efforts.

Hide answers Moore

Rodney Hide answers Mike Moore's criticism and explains to Larry Williams why and how he is still the hardest working MP in parliament. If you haven't 'got it' yet have a listen.

Cloud Cuckooland

In Whitecloud (otherwise known as Cloud Cuckooland), Michigan, your yard must be green. If it isn't they send you to jail.

(Hat tip Reason.Com)

Garth George quotes Adam Smith

Garth George. I don't know a great deal about this man except he despises the free market and anybody who believes in it. He has called Don Brash's economics "inhuman" and Brash himself a "monetary ogre". And he believed Mrs Muliaga was killed by the profit motive.

Today he writes about finance companies, moneylenders (the first are OK but the second are evil?) and greed - though I doubt Mr George could distinguish between greed and self-interest. And then, lo and behold, quotes Adam Smith ;

As for me, I go along with the 18th-century economist and philosopher Adam Smith: "What can be added to the happiness of a man who is in health, out of debt, and has a clear conscience?"

Why not try some more Adam Smith quotes for size?

"The real tragedy of the poor is the poverty of their aspirations."

"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."

I can google too but at least I know what Adam Smith's main tenet was.

National disgrace

Even David Farrar says of National, There are times when the term “Labour lite” is not 100% inaccurate.

So there are times when it IS 100% accurate and times when it is only 90 or 80 percent accurate.

Then he blogs his disappointment that National has welcomed the proposal to lavish another half a billion dollars on Paid Parental Leave.

Still I suppose all you National supporters aren't going to get too fretful while the prospects of regaining the seats of power are looking so promising (despite the attainment of power for power's sake being pointless).

You should be ashamed of your party which is now so far removed from its advertised principles -

• Individual freedom and choice
• Personal responsibility
• Competitive enterprise and rewards for achievement
• Limited government

- that it should be hauled before the Advertising Standards Authority.

On the button

Two quotes from today's NZ Herald;

Colin James; Labour's real problem with Key is that he is less an opponent than a successor: if you are tiring of Labour, you can have something not dangerously different.

Mike Moore; John Key just has to keep his head down, and is happy to campaign as "Labour with tax cuts", sort of like playing a vacuous political air guitar.

Dick Hubbard, you moron

The long-awaited Local Government Rates Inquiry came up with an idea Dick Hubbard likes;

He called for all the report's recommendations to be implemented and said the suggestion that rates be charged on government land including hospitals, schools and universities could mean an extra $25 million.

Translated; Let's find yet another way to screw the dough out of the productive.

Rates should remain the major source of local government revenue and there was no need for a new tax or a rates cap, it said.

The enquiry seems to have found there is a problem alright. The problem is the ratepayer hasn't got a bottomless pocket so let's have a crack at the taxpayers.
What a fiasco. What a joke.

"Selfish lifestyles of the childless"

Dear Editor

Chris Goldsbury (Letters, DomPost, August 28) says childless people are selfish. Childless people should, he says, "cover shifts and take the awful holiday slots" for their work colleagues who are parents.

That's OK if people are willing to do so. But why does Goldsbury demand it as of right? It could only be that he does not believe people own their own lives and are therefore free to choose how they use them. This lack of belief is at the heart of many political problems.

If people decide not to become parents, or are unable to become parents, that is their business. It is not their job, in lieu, to subsidise with their time or money, those who do.

I don't know what has happened to New Zealander's legendary 'rugged individualism'. It seems to have been drowned in a constant clamour (satiated by government) for certain people to subjugate their freedom and choice to others.

The net result is not a gain to society. It is division and resentment.