No commensurate drop in welfare spending

This is a telling graph from Infometrics published in this morning's Dominion Post.

It's self-explanatory. Labour has managed to take the heat out of the welfare issue by constantly trumpeting low unemployment but we are still spending just as much on welfare. Part of the reason, but not enormously significant, is slightly higher Super expenditure. In terms of working age welfare we are spending more on supplementary benefits, family support (very significant) and In Work payments

The column is entitled When working becomes a casual choice. Quite.

"The current government likes to play the part of the all-powerful provider. If you take tax of the workers and hand it around, you might make more enemies than friends. You may bribe students, increase the number of people on welfare and, instead of simply cutting taxes for nine years, hand out billions in badly designed packages such as Working for Families."

Amen to that. I can never figure out why the promise not to take money off people is less persuasive than the promise to take it and throw it around. Whatever it is, the acceptance is deeply ingrained in the New Zealand psyche.

Nigel Pinkerton concludes;

"Returning New Zealand's living standards to the top half of the OECD is up to us. We can achieve this by working both harder and smarter. It's time we stopped looking to the government with outstretched hands and got on with the job ourselves."

And therein may lie the answer to my previous puzzlement. Perhaps too many New Zealanders are just too lazy and insecure to look after themselves.

Education captured by the left

Sounds vaguely familiar.

VICTORIA'S curriculum is left-wing and is pressuring students to conform to the politically correct views held in school texts and by teachers to enhance their chance of academic success, a Melbourne tutor has warned.

In a submission to a federal inquiry into academic freedom, Mark Lopez argues that — in year 12 English in particular — students with non-left views face "additional challenges" and are often disadvantaged if they "cross the teacher's bias".

Dr Lopez, a humanities tutor of 18 years, told the Senate inquiry that, in part, he set up his tutoring business to tackle issues of ideological bias, teacher quality and the "subjective" assessment of students' work.

"The problem of bias is much worse than many assume," he said in his submission.

His concerns are echoed by conservative education consultant Kevin Donnelly, who warns in his submission that some students left school "culturally illiterate and ethically challenged" because they were denied the opportunity to study history or literature "in any systematic or balanced way".

Dr Donnelly said education should be balanced, impartial and disinterested — but he said a lot of students were taught a politically correct view, rather than a balanced view.

"There are serious consequences for young people in terms of not getting a balanced education," Dr Donnelly told The Age. "One of them is that a lot of young people don't have a strong moral compass."

Aaah. But perhaps they have that much vaunted 'social conscience' the left promulgates. And a sense of 'social justice' too. Never mind that both centre on the government as the giver of all that is good.

Perhaps we need a commission of inquiry in this country too....

Or better. Education vouchers that would allow parents to choose a school that taught their children how to think - not what to think.

New Maori Party

A new Maori Party has been formed led by David Rankin who will challenge Hone Harawira in Te Tai Tokerau. The Hapu Party. Assuming they have met the electoral requirements their three major policies are;

§ To have Maori eligible for the pension at age 56, because of the lower life-expectancy of Maori

§ To introduce a flat rate 18% personal tax and GST rate. "This will incentivise everyone in the country to earn more" says Mr Rankin.

§ To immediately allocate all treaty settlement money directly to hapu and marae

This could put the cat amongst the kereru.

Can't wait for the debate about the Super age. Based on the usual collectivist, special interest, left-wing notions why shouldn't Maori qualify earlier?

Why do we have a Ministry of Women's Affairs?

Why do we have separate Maori seats?

Why do we have a widow's benefit but no widower's benefit?

Think I might listen in to JT on Radio Live this afternoon.

Feel-good assertions shouldn't trump facts

Auckland University post-graduate researcher, Christine Todd, argues in today's NZ Herald that single parent families are stigmatised, misrepresented and misunderstood in Social Stigma makes parenting alone that much harder. Stigmas exist however to reduce behaviours that are detrimental to the individual and society but in the modern world many stigmas have disappeared and we are both advantaged and disadvantaged by this.

Certainly to be a young and unmarried mother is now quite unremarkable. Some wear their pregnancy as a badge of honour often believing that impending fatherhood will bind her 'partner' to her. Clearly this is a misapprehension on her part.

But instead of dealing with subjective attitudes let's look at the facts.

Ms Todd says that only 3 percent of sole mothers are under 20 and almost 60 percent are Pakeha. One assumes she is referring to those sole mothers who rely on the DPB as there is very little known about those who do not. The statistics for the DPB that are readily available cover all recipients including other 'carers 'and 'women alone'. But the vast majority are female single parents.

While only 3.5 percent are aged 18 to 19 that is to be expected as DPB receipt occurs across a broad range of ages. What matters is that up to half of single parents currently on welfare began there as teenagers. In 2007 alone 2,252 teenagers received a sickness benefit for pregnancy or pregnancy-related reasons.

It is incorrect to claim that "almost 60 percent are Pakeha." In fact according to the Ministry of Social Development, at December 2007, only 38 percent of single parents on welfare were NZ European; 42 percent were Maori, 10 percent Pacific and a further 10 percent belonged to other ethnic groups.

Todd refers to "typical" single mothers on the DPB as being aged between 30 and 50 and separated or divorced. Very few women on the DPB are divorced. At April 2004 just under a quarter described their status at time of application as 'separated from de facto' ; 31 percent were 'separated' and 3 percent ' divorced'; the largest group, at 40 percent, were 'single' . (Of course the term 'separated' is also troublesome. It may describe a parting of ways shortly after conception or a parting of ways after many years.)

So as much as Ms Todd would like to dispel "stereotypes" there is a greater likelihood of a DPB mum being Maori and there is a greater likelihood of a DPB mum being single as opposed to separated. That is not to deny the existence of the group that she has been associated with during the course of her research. DPB recipients are a diverse group, some of whom end up on it through no fault of their own. But there is a large sub-group who have defaulted to it in preference to low paid work. They are not necessarily the conscientious parents Todd has dealt with and describes. 1990s research showed a child in a DPB home was four times more likely to be the subject of a notification to Child Youth and Family.

Here is the policy problem. Do we put more money and resources into single parent families - higher benefit levels and other forms of financial assistance - in an effort to alleviate their 'poverty' or do we look at ways to discourage the formation of such families in the first place? It seems that we cannot do both as the first course of action has been shown to draw more people into single parenthood and on to benefits.

Todd argues that policy makers have an obligation to meet the needs and values of single mothers. If that holds true policy makers also have an obligation to meet the needs and values of every other group in society, children for instance. Are their needs met by the state continuing to take the place of fathers? Few people would answer that question positively.

If women do not want to be faced with the "extremely difficult and exhausting" task of having to combine parenting and paid work they need to avoid putting themselves in that situation. There are an increasing number of people who feel disinclined to pay for problems that could have been avoided. They are struggling themselves to combine parenting and paid work but do not suggest it is somebody else's job to accommodate them.

One of the prime reasons for negative attitudes to DPB mothers is not that they are single and raising children but that they want other people to pay for their choices. But if we do not soon begin to reinforce personal responsibility as a value that should be embraced by all groups then as a society we will continue on down a pathway of increasing family disruption and dysfunction.

Welfare and domestic violence

NewstalkZB are reporting;

A new study claims almost ten percent of New Zealand women experience domestic violence while pregnant.

Auckland University reached the finding after interviewing almost 3,000 women about their experiences of abuse. It found three quarters of women who had beaten while pregnant were abused by the same person, usually the child's father, before they became pregnant.

What a shame they didn't include a question about the welfare status of these women. Other non-NZ studies have revealed increased likelihood of violence during pregnancy at younger ages, particularly where young girls have older partners. These studies also show welfare receipt is an associated factor. The following graph is from US research;



It seems to me that either the EMA or DPB (or sickness benefit for that matter - in 2007 2,252 16-19 year-olds received a sickness benefit for pregnancy related reasons) is a two-edged sword for young women. On the one hand, as the common argument goes, the assistance gives her a chance to remove herself and any other children from an abusive partner (although it is doubtful whether he would ever have been financially supporting her in the first place.) On the other, however, it gives him a strong motivation to control and pursue her.

The best protection for young women is education and increased work-related earnings. These have been shown to decrease the likelihood of experiencing domestic violence. But how often do you hear them being suggested?

Declaring Dependence

The Centre for Independent Studies has been floating this idea for a while. People should be able to opt out of the welfare state. Now they have taken it a step further suggesting people who are dependent and can't run their own lives should declare their position and then forfeit rights to do other things like vote and sit on juries. As the essay writer says, if they can't be trusted to run their own lives why would you trust them to run other people's by selecting governments?

I have immediate questions like why should a person genuinely disabled through no fault of their own or a superannuitant for instance, forfeit these rights? The paper probably answers it but I haven't read through the 43 pages yet.

My gut reaction is declaring independence is attractive but declaring dependence is fraught. Also the paper asserts that the individual has to earn the right to own his own life. Yikes. But it certainly makes for interesting reading. I have scanned a couple of extracts from the introduction below the precis.

Declaring Dependence, Declaring Independence: Three Essays on the Future of the Welfare State By Peter Saunders, John Humphreys, Eugene Dubossarsky and Stephen Samild

Peter Saunders edits this collection of essays which argue that in a time when governments are running up enormous welfare bills and intrusively regulating everyday life, many people do not need to rely on the government to survive. John Humphreys, in his essay ‘Declaring Independence’, says that people who can pay for their own lives should be able to ‘declare independence’ from the nanny state. On the other side of the coin, Eugene Dubossarsky and Stephen Samild, in their essay ‘Declaring Dependence’, suggest that those who need constant help should be able to declare themselves dependent on the government, but that this is conditional on forfeiting their right to vote.

Sharples changes his mind

Remember when you were all bowled over by the Maori Party slamming benefit dependency?

Tariana Turia was guest at an ACT conference talking about ending welfare dependency wasn't she? I don't know for sure because I didn't go. I have never bought it. Growing the Maori population is far more important to Tariana than being self-supporting or children having intact two parent families. That's probably a colonial Pakeha construct anyway.

Here is an interview (starts at 32.29) with Pita Sharples on the back of National's new welfare policy. Sharples doesn't at all like work-testing DPB mothers when their youngest turns six. He blames kids running amok on both parents working, rejects the philosophy that assumes people need to get out to work, rejects work-for-the-dole, "dumb jobs" that people "don't like" and wants WFF extended to beneficiaries. The only aspect of National's policy he likes is the lifted abatement rates!

The interviewer, Justin du Fresne, says afterwards he is "thunderstruck" at the change in Sharples's views but probably quite rightly suspects the transformation has something to do with the impending matter of a general election.

Bill doesn't get it

Bill Ralston blogs today;

Key claims: “It’s clear that some have got too used to being on a benefit and see it as a permanent entitlement.” Clark disputes that, saying: “The truth is most people on the DPB are not there for very long.”

Who is right?

Well, the statistics show just over 38,400 single parents with kids aged over six are on the DPB. Less than 4000 have been in receipt of the benefit for more than 10 years, Key’s idea of “permanent entitlement” I presume.

Frankly, less than 4000 adhering to the government breast on a more or less permanent basis is extremely few.

The statistics he refers to only describe the current period spent on the benefit. As people cycle on and off it, the cumulative time spent on welfare will be significantly longer. Professor Bob Gregory, Research School of Social Sciences, Australian National University, showed that Australian single mothers were spending on average 12 years welfare dependent. ON AVERAGE.

Here is the truth. Nobody knows how long single mothers are staying on welfare in New Zealand because the prevailing administrations haven't wanted to know. It's only taxpayers money after all. Same source as their wages. Don't rock the boat.

Debate on Larry Williams Show

Larry Williams talks to John Key about National's welfare plans. I follow explaining why they are tired and gutless.

(Key starts at 12:13)

NATIONAL'S DPB PLANS GUTLESS

Media Release
NATIONAL'S DPB PLANS GUTLESS
Monday, August 11, 2008

National's plan to deal with the huge DPB problem is tired and gutless, welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell said responding to John Key's speech today.

"If DPB recipients want to avoid work-testing when their youngest turns six there is an obvious solution. Make sure their youngest is always under 6. Children are already added to existing benefits at the rate of around 5,000 a year. This policy further encourages people to have children for no better reason than to allow the parent to avoid work. "

"Even worse, National's approach does nothing to stop very young women being enticed on to benefits. The teenage birthrate has been increasing since 2002 with most young mothers going on welfare. Up to half of current DPB recipients started on welfare as teenagers. A period of six years before having to think about a working future is a long time in the mind of a teenager. "

"At a time when the economy is heading south and unemployment is growing, the major priority must be to discourage people from becoming single parents in the first place. National's approach actually says you can be a single parent on a benefit as long as your youngest child is 6 or under. That's a message heavy on the wrong incentives."

Lindsay Mitchell
Welfare Commentator

More timidity from National

I will refrain from a lengthy comment on this seeming piece of timidity from National until I have read Key's imminent speech. There is one thing in particular I am looking for.

But I will point out the error made by the journalist in respect to DPB recipients;

Just under 20 per cent had been in paid work in the previous 12 months and one in three had a child under six. About 36 per cent of all DPB recipients had been on the benefit for between one and four years. Eleven per cent had been receiving it for 10 years or more.

The percentage of recipients caring for a child aged 6 or under is 60.8%. I make that closer to two in three.

Also she writes that 36 percent had been on the benefit for between one and four years. I would add "this time". Many cycle on and off benefit and those statistics refer only to the current spell. The number receiving the DPB for ten years or more would be much higher than 11 percent if cumulative time is measured.

Campaigning

My first look at Paul Quinn, National's Hutt South candidate, was afforded by a campaign meeting hosted by the Forest and Bird Society on Thursday night. I think he has a short fuse which Trevor Mallard is quite good at lighting. Should make the meetings interesting. Murray Smith, standing again for United Future, is no less self-important as a mere candidate rather than MP.

I admit to struggling slightly with matters environmental but don't, as a consequence, compose answers so loosely related to the questions that I could be mistaken for a Minister at question time. The audience is not that dense.

More comfortable yesterday addressing the Catholic Diocese in Palmerston North on the issue of poverty in Aoteoroa, I found the idea of ending lifestyle welfare met with some approval. I was the only candidate/MP to go near the subject. Massaging the audience really does seem to be the number one objective for some. As an exercise in studying human nature, campaign meetings provide wonderful fodder. So good I sometimes have to remind myself to concentrate on the matter at hand. But I am warming to the process.

Yesterday a lady specifically addressed her question to the National candidate. "Will National be abolishing the Ministry of Women's Affairs as Don Brash promised at the last election." She was clearly aggrieved by the thought. Getting impatient with the National candidate bumbling apologetically that they ...er.... wouldn't, I interjected "No. They won't. But we might".

The looks on both their faces were worth it.

Labour flyer

Found in my letterbox.



Is John Ansell working for Labour? :-)

Nah. It's clever but not that clever.

Socialism by stealth

This is the full list of recommendations from a report on child poverty commissioned by the Children's Commissioner and Barnardos. Take a deep breath before you read it;

Ensure that all children are enroled in Wellchild and a general practice service at birth.

Ensure children can get after-hours and weekend medical attention and prescriptions at all times, without cost.

Improve immunisation rates to match the best-performing OECD countries.

Progressively extend free medical visits to children of all ages in all areas.

Expand the stock of public, local authority and non-profit rental housing to ensure timely allocation to all families with children who meet the “severe” and “significant” housing-need criteria.

Further develop long term, collaborative commitments between central government, local government, communities and business, to programmes of infrastructure development and community renewal in low-income communities.

Substantially increase funding via the Discretionary Grants Scheme for establishment grants and running costs, to equalise access to and participation in early childhood care and education services across deciles.

Provide free early childhood care and education for at-risk children aged 18 months to three years from low-income households, taking account of the lessons from the forthcoming evaluation of the Family Start early childhood hubs pilot.

In the medium term, extend the age range and number of hours of free early childhood care and education entitlement.

Provide extra support and funding (in addition to decile funding) to lower-decile schools, linked to specific programmes and initiatives such as reading recovery
and professional development, with the objective of achieving equitable education outcomes.

Set targets for raising teenage parents’ school participation, qualifications and achievements to match average qualifications and achievements.

Raise the maximum payment rate for paid parental leave from its current level of under half of average adult full-time earnings to at least two-thirds of average full-time earnings, and extend the period of paid parental leave to six months (plus four weeks paternity leave) as a matter of priority, and subsequently to 12 months plus four weeks paternity leave.

Review the design and operation of the childcare subsidy with a view to making it easier and fairer to use, increasing take-up and ensuring adequacy.

Substantially increase funding to support the rapid development of affordable
out-of-school services and extended school services, giving priority to lower-income communities.

Fund out-of-school services through direct support to providers on the basis of hours of use, rather than through the Out of School Care and Recreation subsidy.

Restore the 30 percent part-time work abatement threshold for sole-parent beneficiaries to the real value it had when it was set in 1996.

Change the Housing New Zealand Corporation income-related rent formula to improve incentives for tenants to enter work or increase their hours of work.

Increase the minimum wage incrementally, as economic conditions allow.

Review the adequacy of core benefit rates, to ensure benefit assistance is sufficient to meet the needs of beneficiaries, especially those with dependent children.

As an immediate first step, increase benefit rates to match the effect of the Budget 2008 income tax reductions on earned income.

Review the mechanism for annual adjustments to benefit rates, and consider a mechanism, such as that used for New Zealand Superannuation, to ensure benefit rates maintain relativity with wages over time, as well as being adjusted for cost-of-living increases.

Restructure the family tax credit so as to reduce the number of rates and to provide relatively more assistance for young children.

Over time, phase out the in-work tax credit and raise the family tax credit, once the availability and affordability of childcare and out-of-school services in low-income areas and for low-income families have been expanded, making it easier for working parents to meet these work-related costs.

Progressively raise the threshold for family tax credit abatement to increase assistance to and reduce effective marginal tax rates for low- to middle-income working families.

Increase the maximum accommodation supplement payments so they reflect actual rental levels and establish a periodic review of maximum payments.

Develop better whole-of-government approaches to ensuring the repayment of government debt does not result in child poverty.

Pass on child support to custodial parents who are on benefits, and treat payments like any other earned income for the purposes of benefit abatement.

Remove the penalty on domestic purposes benefit beneficiaries who do not name liable parents.

Undertake a full review of the child support system, similar to the review in Australia, to ensure that it is fair, contributes appropriately to reducing child poverty and is responsive to the growth of shared parenting and blended families.

This is my list;

- Get rid of lifestyle welfare

- Cut taxes substantially

- Encourage adoption

- Financially incentivise use of long term contraceptives

- Teach children about actions, consequences and personal responsibility thus ending the victimhood and entitlement mentalities

The price tag on the first list would have to be in the billions of dollars.

My list would save us billions.

But more importantly my list is fair to all individuals; it does not rely on massively increased state-forced wealth redistribution which is driving away the productive and ambitious; and it gives children a much better chance of realising there own potential. The first list really is 'socialism by stealth' - stealth because it is attempted in the name of children and most people do not have the wits to realise what it is.

Using the F word in Parliament

Yesterday Sue Bradford used the full version of the F word in Parliament to emphasise and draw attention to the case she was highlighting.

I am less concerned about Sue Bradford's language in Parliament than the bias against Work and Income staff that triggered it. Bradford takes up the case of beneficiaries routinely but who speaks up for the Work and Income staff? In the year to July 2004 there were 864 reports of abusive behaviour by beneficiaries. Hundreds are banned from Work and Income offices at any given time. I am fairly sure many would also have been using the 'f' word but it doesn't prompt Bradford to go to bat for their case managers in Parliament. If listeners found the full word shocking and offensive they should give a thought to how staff feel when they are on the receiving end, which is more commonly the case.

Just who is responsible?

What is wrong with this country? Or at least some of the people trying to run it.

More than anybody else (except in rare cases) a child's safety is paramount to his mother or father. There is a bond between mother and child which triggers a physical feeling in a mother when she sees her child hurt. She is forever trying to keep one eye on the child and the other on the ball.

Yet there are legislators abroad who don't think this is enough. They know better that a child needs more than simply a safe environment for the short time his mother is exercising at the gym. They will make it incredibly difficult for gyms to continue to offer creches and parents with dependent young (often when a mother most feels the need) a chance to use them.

Something that has increasingly bugged me about reporting of this type - news about the passage of legislation - is that we don't get to find out who is responsible for such asinine lawmaking. Which committee is it? Who sits on it? What are their individual views? If we want people to be interested in and participate in the political process more should be made of which parties are involved in supporting and passing legislation that thwarts the wishes of business and parents.

Guest blogger

It is becoming increasingly difficult to find time to blog but my boy has responded to two matters that had also triggered a not dissimilar response in me. So I will let him speak.

My thoughts on current events

If you were watching 3 news last night you may have seen the story of the girl who’s bebo page got hacked and deleted. So at first I thought why is this in the news it actually happens all the time, in fact it’s happened to me. So I watched more on it and the story was amazing. The girls bebo page had been hacked and instead of shrugging it off (get this) she called the POLICE. Now you may think oh the police probably couldn’t care less, well they actually did care so now a woman is facing up to seven years in jail for hacking and deleting a social networking page. The thing that astonishes me about this is how it has been thrown out of proportion. This kind of thing probably happens at least once a day I would say, yet one 16 year old girl decides no I cant just make a new page (which I’m sure is what most people do and it isn’t very hard) I have to go to the police and use up their time and resources for a insignificant crime of hacking. Now after just reading the article on 3 news site I have picked something else up, the statement “for a teenager who’s LIFE REVOLVES AROUND A COMPUTER”. Really? Does your life revolve around a computer? It’s a pretty big thing to say and if it does maybe you need to get out more! (I know I’m not a prime example but really). Also this quote straight from the teenager "I felt angry and unhappy because there was a lot of personal things on there," WHY WOULD YOU PUT PERSONEL THINGS ON A SOCIAL NETWORKING SITE, everyone knows they can be very easily accessed by the public all you need is an account and If the page has no privacy settings well… and you would think there is enough coverage on the issue of social networking sites gone bad that people would get the point but obviously some tech savvy teenagers do not learn.
Now I’m going to move onto the point about how it wastes the polices time and resources. How much time have the police spent on tracking the perpetrator down? They have to go to the ISP then find the person who hacked the page then get an arrest warrant or something like that then go through court proceedings and all that crap. Now in that time they could have caught killers, but instead some girl decides no I cant just take one hour to make a new page (adding friends and such) I have to go to the police.
To be honest I don’t really think the girl realises how insignificant the crime is, and also how common it is. Stopping one 19 year old girl from hacking will hardly make the world a better place so I ask you, what is the point.


Now to a different topic, many of you may have heard of an after school TV show called sticky TV. Now they have a section called what would you do? It’s a run-of-the-mill “I have a problem and I’m too stupid to solve it myself please help me!” show, and its very politically correct as well. They have two people that tell their problems to them via vlog and I can’t stand either of them. Yesterday the girl was going on about how she went to her schools canteen/ tuck shop whatever you want to call it and “I was shocked, there was absolutely no healthy food at all there was only junk food and the drinks were full of sugar! Sticky TV please help me”, that is the exact words, and this really made me mad.
WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? Obviously you are too stupid to realise that food isn’t being shoved down your throat by the SS and that in fact you have choice in the matter. Why are people so blind? It isn’t the 1940s and the SS and definitely not coming to your house and shoving pies and chips and coke down your throat, “guten tag, we are here to supervise the eating of the chips”, ha-ha that’s a funny thought. But really if you are so worried about there only being junk food then maybe you should just bring your own bloody lunch. It isn’t hard to make a sandwich or are you too blind to do that as well? Or wait… you’re afraid the SS are going to take you away if you try? No. plus wouldn’t it be cheaper too make your own sandwich? The canteen would charge ridiculously high prices because healthy food is always more expensive and also if the world was the way you wanted it the shop wouldn’t be in business. There is a perfect example at Wellington high school, the cafeteria started serving healthy food and because of that the students wouldn’t buy from there anymore which resulted in it closing down. The fact is people aren’t interested in paying **** loads for healthy food because they can buy something they prefer which is also cheaper. I cant understand these people, are they too stupid too realise how business’s work? These are the kind of people that will one day govern us and make the world a terrible place because of their upbringing which told them “children, healthy food is good and pies eat your spleen”.
IMO this girl needs to wake up and realise that you can say no and you can make a sandwich and take it too school and if you don’t like junk food there is no law forcing you to eat it. Maybe in her dreams Hitler is grand chancellor of New Zealand, the SS man the tuck shops and that gives her a reason for outcry but sorry to burst your bubble… the world is not like that.

Update; The young blogger has set up his own site

Sue the state?

Another case with unremarkable hallmarks. For as long as governments have been keeping records, child abuse has been shown to be linked with children who are ex-nuptial, and born to very young mothers who are more likely to be Maori or Pacific. Over fifty years they have thrown more and more resources at the problem only to incentivise and aggravate it.

When someone on welfare (and they almost always are) is convicted by the courts for child abuse is there a case for state to be held accountable for aiding and abetting the crime?

We need education vouchers here - now

ACT wants education vouchers made available in New Zealand. It will push this policy hard if it holds the balance of power after the election. And before the purists out there start attacking the policy again, I know it's not perfect, but it is a big step in the right direction and there are thousands of NZ parents right now breaking their backs (or hearts) over the state monopolising secondary education.

Here is an update on how the voucher system has changed education in Sweden;

Big Change for Welfarist Sweden: School Choice

By MALIN RISING
The Associated Press
Saturday, July 26, 2008; 11:31 AM

STOCKHOLM, Sweden -- Schools run by private enterprise? Free iPods and laptop computers to attract students?

It may sound out of place in Sweden, that paragon of taxpayer-funded cradle-to-grave welfare. But a sweeping reform of the school system has survived the critics and 16 years later is spreading and attracting interest abroad.

"I think most people, parents and children, appreciate the choice," said Bertil Ostberg, from the Ministry of Education. "You can decide what school you want to attend and that appeals to people."

Since the change was introduced in 1992 by a center-right government that briefly replaced the long-governing Social Democrats, the numbers have shot up. In 1992, 1.7 percent of high schoolers and 1 percent of elementary schoolchildren were privately educated. Now the figures are 17 percent and 9 percent.

In some ways the trend mirrors the rise of the voucher system in the U.S., with all its pros and cons. But while the percentage of children in U.S. private schools has dropped slightly in recent years, signs are that the trend in Sweden is growing.

Before the reform, most families depended on state-run schools following a uniform national curriculum. Now they can turn to the "friskolor," or "independent schools," which choose their own teaching methods and staff, and manage their own buildings.

They remain completely government-financed and are not allowed to charge tuition fees. The difference is that their government funding goes to private companies which then try to run the schools more cost-effectively and keep whatever taxpayer money they save.

Bure Equity, listed on the Stockholm Stock Exchange, is the largest private school operator in Sweden and is expanding rapidly. In the first quarter of this year, net profit for its education portfolio rose 33 percent to $3 million.

Such profit-making troubles Swedes who don't think taxpayers should be enriching corporations.

The Social Democrats strongly opposed the change as anti-egalitarian, but when they were re-elected to power in 1994, they found it was so popular that they left it in place, though they imposed a lid on fees.

Barbro Lillkaas, a 40-year-old accountant, is considering putting her child in a private school, and has no problem with the profit motive.

"If you run a good operation then you make a profit. But you won't get any students if you are bad," she said. "You have to do a good job to get money; that is even more important for a private school."

"Why I do not vote National"

"...ACT is a classical liberal party. Liberals believe that it is the citizen who has the rights and obligations, not the collective....there is a public perception that ACT is sort of a more right-wing version of National; that National and ACT are in coalition, that we share a common approach. Not so, ACT has never been in coalition with National. ACT declined to join the Shipley National Government because we had significant differences with National's big spending, high-tax programme and failure to promote freedom...[in government] National voted against important bills ACT introduced...ACT's bills were opposing privilege and limiting the power of the state. National was preserving the status quo and avoiding alienating privileged groups, or was just rolled by officials against whom, having no basic principles, National's ministers are helpless to argue against....But public confusion about ACT and National is understandable. Both National and ACT oppose Labour's radical collectivist programme. ACT and National fought the re-nationalisation of ACC, the empowering of unions by the Employment Relations Act, the envy rate that the new rate of income tax represents....so voters and commentators assume ACT and National are similar parties. Not so. ACT is as I explained a classic liberal party. National is a conservative party. National so far as it has a programme supports the status quo, things as they are, and opposes change. So in opposition we find ourselves together resisting Labours proposals for change. ACT because they are bad policy, but National just because they are proposals for change...It was Hayek in his famous article 'Why I am not a Conservative'who pointed out the inadequacy of the conservative approach. Conservatism 'by its very nature, cannot offer an alternative to the direction in which we are moving'. ...There is a lot of criticism of Bill English and the current National MPs for failing to stand for anything. A great deal of criticism is unfair. When has the National Party ever stood for an alternative programme? National's record is to oppose whatever Labour proposes and then move leftward to adopt Labour's programme. National governments have got elected by promising to manage better whatever Labour has put in place...the history of the National Party is that it is just as willing to use the coercive powers of the state to impose its views on fellow citizens as any Labour government...the National party does not object to Labour's use of government power but that it is Helen Clark doing it...the liberal says there are clear limits to government power. We do not believe the state should do for citizens what citizens can and should do for themselves...while we in ACT oppose Labour's social engineering we do not agree with the social conservatives in Parliament who also want to impose their view on society...the liberal does not fear new ideas. We liberals have great faith in the power of ideas..."

Well he said it better than I could. Who was he?