Controlling what benefits can be spent on

I was rung by NewstalkZB at short notice yesterday to talk about welfare; the links to child abuse, Australia's plans to quarantine welfare payments and whether we could expect more from National.

Although I was reported in the following news bulletin as saying controlling what benefit payments could be spent on was a good idea, here is what I actually said;

I can understand why superficially it looks like a good idea but there are two problems I see

1/ Any sort of card or voucher system is open to abuse or fraud. Someone who wants cash badly enough could sell their entitlement for less than it is actually worth , which could leave the children in a worse situation. Or parents could turn to other dodgy means of raising cash like prostitution, or drug pushing.

2/ What we really need is for people to grow up. This paternalistic approach is only going to keep them immature and dependent.

On the upside women without cash do not have the appeal to deadbeats and hangers-on they currently attract and in some cases having no cash may be enough to make them decide to get a job.

What we really need to be saying to prospective newcomers , those young women who are currently contemplating or risking pregnancy, is, don't even think about it. Welfare is no longer an alternative lifestyle.

I should have added that the only support I would give the scheme is as a temporary measure seeing existing children through to independence.

Asked if I thought we could expect more from National I said no. Why? Because their only welfare policy is to work-test the DPB when the youngest child turns 6. The major problem with that policy is a failure to cap the number of children. Meantime, while the biggest percentage increase in births is among the 15-19 year-olds, there are no plans to prevent newcomers into the system. We should be making it very clear that welfare is no longer a lifestyle and that benefits should be time limited, perhaps to even less than the US allowance.

(On reflection I think Tariana Turia would go with a benefit control scheme as long as it was administered by a Maori organisation. Which opens another can of worms...)

The extreme authoritarianism of the SST

There are times when the Sensible Sentencing Trust appals me. My husband calls them fascists and I balk at that. But today's proclamations about drug and alcohol abusers having their children removed is just too fantastic.

Substance abusers must NOT be allowed to have unsupervised care of children until they have been PROVED to be drug/alcohol-free

1/ Who defines 'substance abuser'?

2/ Just where are the thousands of children whose parents fit the definition going?

3/ Are we going to persecute parents for hurting themselves or for hurting their children? Where will the line be drawn?

This sort of extreme authoritarianism gives the SST a bad name. This is exactly why I get very uncomfortable about ACT associating with them. Still, I no longer have any responsibility for the direction ACT goes in. Thank goodness.

Nia Glassie - Why?

First her father;

"I've got no feelings. I can't explain - at the end of the day my baby's gone and nothing will bring her back."

Shedding some big crocodile tears. And talking about 'shedding' isn't this the guy who was found by Kuka having an 'affair' with her niece in the garden shed?

Isn't this the guy that buggered off to Australia and left his kids behind?

Talk about there being no moral compass in these groupings of people called whanau.

And aren't we all getting sick to death of being commanded to take responsibility? Whether it be for 'narking' (I'll write more about that) or as a taxpayer, who should fork out more to alleviate the poverty that apparently lies at the heart of this dysfunction?

I knew a couple of kids living in a not dissimilar home and agonised over what to do. So did others. You are dealing with people for whom retribution is everything; that retribution could extend to the kids themselves, or the neighbours and their children. Their extended whanau, the first place CYF will look to remove the children to, may be no better. These families aren't just one bad apple surrounded by good. The neglect is measured not by its existence but by degrees of. Neglect doesn't kill but abuse can. They tend to be two sides of the same coin but not always. A lot of lies and cover-ups are par for the course as people guilty only of victimless crimes like smoking dope, or ripping off the benefit system, lie low. 'Narking' is no simple matter whether considering the best interests of the at-risk child, your child or yourself.

It is not black and white and the many moralisers who call talkback today agreeing that we will stop child abuse by looking out for it and not tolerating it, are simply feeding their own emotional need to do something. Then they will put down the phone and carry on in their middle class world where what to have for dinner is the most pressing issue.

What we are seeing in the Glassie case, and every other that does or doesn't hit the headlines, is supposed adults who have not grown up. Old enough to breed babies, do drugs and drink, get a menial job if it suits or not, but incapable of rationalising and controlling their fleeting, feckless, roller-coaster emotions. A child is perceived as weak or 'ugly'. It is targeted. This is grown-up bullying that has gone too far. The minds of these boy-men are further deranged by drink and the normalisation of violence through their daily cerebral activities. But they are just a cog in the generational wheel.

Here's the difference though. Forty years ago they wouldn't have been allowed to form the kind of groups loosely call families. There would have been no financial mechanism to create them. Babies were adopted out, sometimes to extended whanau, sometimes to strangers. But to people who WANTED them. It wasn't a perfect answer by any means, but what ever is?

So 40 years ago we weren't seeing the kind of mayhem we see now. Child abuse and neglect most certainly happened. But from everything I have read it was on a much smaller scale.

Expecting the solution to this problem to come from watchful dobbers-in is just avoiding the true problem and shifting blame. Tomorrows victims are being born right now and being sent home by CYF people who hold fast to the ideology that the child must always remain with its biological mother; being written onto a benefit by WINZ people who are not tasked to ask any questions.

Welcome to the compassionate and caring society.

Running the Social Development show

I was going to take a wait-and-see approach to Paula Bennett. But then I read the following;

She [Paula Bennett] expects her associate minister, Maori Party co-leader Tariana Turia, to be instrumental.

"She and I share a belief that all children are our children. That means the good, the naughty, the broken and the cherished. We've talked about that many times, and I've got no doubt that's the understanding we will bring to the role. She will play a big role. She's got experience and some really firm views on what we need to do for Maori people."

How many times have you heard a collectivist say, it takes a village to raise a child?

I beg to differ.

It takes one committed individual. That commitment means wanting the child, being prepared to make sacrifices and lifestyle changes for that child, being able to support it financially, being able to provide stability and structure, and above all, being prepared to make it the centre of your world.

The very existence of the DPB diminishes the prospects all of these and I am deeply upset that we now have a Minister and Associate Minister of welfare who are going to defend it as a legitimate means to having and raising children, even if it is less than ideal.

National's work-testing policy for mothers whose youngest is 6 is a very weak policy, it's major pitfall being a failure to cap the number of children. But it wouldn't surprise me to see Turia oppose even that. She has a self-admitted conservative streak and would rather see mothers stay at home and she doesn't care who pays for it.

So I am very despondent about this development. Under this administration we are going to see greater entrenchment of the DPB. The numbers will go up. The number of teenagers taking it up will continue to increase. Having a Minister who was a teenager on the DPB but made good, romanticises and legitimises it.

Real life however repeatedly shows that the social problems running the gamut of inherited benefit dependence through to crime and tragedy are backgrounded by teenage birth (particularly adolescent) coupled with welfare upbringings. Maori are over-represented in the phenomenon.

And let's not forget what the new Associate Minister's attitude is to people who say the kinds of things I do.

"I am intolerant of the excessive focus on controlling our fertility."

What's wrong with individuals controlling their own fertility? Isn't that what personal responsibility is all about?

The CPAG will be delighted

Later today I will link to the media release the Child Poverty Action Group issues in reaction to Tariana Turia being made Associate Minister of Social Development. They will be delighted. Their first pick might have been Sue Bradford in a Labour-led government but given their major issue over the past few years has been opposing Labour's In Work payment going solely to working parents, a Labour government may not have been their choice.


The Maori Party and the Greens were the only parties to publicly back the CPAG's court action. Tariana's solution to the relative poverty that many Maori children experience is to increase benefits. John Key has given her a role in which she can promote that solution. (This is a perfect example of what Rodney Hide means when he says Key, on some issues, is to the left of Clark and there was no need for him to apologise).

The point of the In Work payment is in its name. It was introduced by Labour to encourage mainly sole mums to move into part-time work or increase their existing hours. That is because they believed that work was the best way out of poverty.

The Maori Party have fostered a strong impression that they agree with that. But when push comes to shove you will find they do not. Remember Tariana's words during the campaign. Working for welfare did not include Maori women.

Campbell: You’re saying welfare is bad for Maori, so we have to break the cycle by introducing a compulsory element -

Turia : We’re talking Maori unemployed. We’re not talking about Maori women on benefits.

Sharples has also insisted that single parents are to be supported.

Dr Sharples said he was not promoting a crackdown on the domestic purpose benefit, for "we have a culture of accepting solo parents, [and] we have to take care of them".

The Maori Party falls into the trap of putting the short term interests of children ahead of their long term. All the evidence points to raising benefits drawing more people onto them.

Will National do the same? Writing in The Press earlier this year John Minto commented;

Interestingly, the CPAG report launch was attended by the National Party's flinty social welfare spokeswoman, Judith Collins, who listened silently through the presentations. It could be that National, in its attempts to brand itself as compassionate and caring, will develop some policies to outflank Labour on the Left.

The 'flinty' Judith Collins isn't going to get welfare though because it seems Key considers her too 'hard line'. That in itself could signal a softening on this particular policy.

It will be a strange business when we have the Labour opposition calling for National not to make benefits more generous. But I think that is what we are in for.

The Agreement

What I like about it is the clarity and the language. ACT has done very well in covering all of its identified priority policies and getting a commitment to action on each. Great result in that respect.

But there are a few of things ACT has signed up for which I do not like. That's compromise for you I guess. That's the difference being being in government or not.

From the Key Commitments;

Maintain and build New Zealand’s asset base by increasing investment in infrastructure such as roads, broadband and public transport, and by not selling Kiwibank or any other state-owned company.

I oppose state ownership of banks and disagreed with Key's broadband roll-out to every home. Huge expenditure for questionable gain.

Give families financial certainty by continuing all Working for Families payments at current levels...

WFF is a bad policy. It breaches not only ACT's but National's stated values. It should be abolished.

Give seniors financial certainty by keeping the age of eligibility of NZ Superannuation at 65.

The qualification age for Super should rise given ever-extending life expectancies. If the qualifying age for Super was set to match the average periods spent on the aged pension in 1900, the eligibility would now be well into the seventies for men and pushing 80 for women. Not that I am advocating a rise to those sorts of levels.

And from the Post Election Action Plan;

Introduce legislation to require DNA testing for every person arrested for an imprisonable offence.

This is wrong. The state has no right to take DNA samples before a person has been tried and convicted.

Introduce legislation to give police the power to issue on-the-spot protection orders to help them protect victims of domestic violence.

This will be abused by women who want the law to intervene in troublesome situations that do not warrant it. It will be used to achieve personal vendettas.

Instruct that a full 12-month course of Herceptin be publicly available.

I have reservations about overriding Pharmac on Herceptin funding as it sets a dubious precedent. We now have control of expenditure by political noise. But that could work in a negative fashion eg undoing funding of things like the morning-after pill. Of course, I would rather Pharmac ceased to exist but as it is not going anywhere, caution must be exercised in opening it up to less-than-expert lobbyists.

There is one error which results in ambiguity. The word 'eliminating' should replace 'elimination'.

National agrees to work with ACT to achieve better value for money in the public sector by:
• Involving the ACT Leader Rodney Hide as a member of the Cabinet Expenditure Control Committee process. A focus of this work should be on elimination programmes that do not deliver value for money.

It will be now most interesting to compare this agreement to that between National and the Maori Party.

Acknowledging the politics that hinder welfare reform

David Cameron, UK leader of the Conservatives, gave this speech earlier in the year.

Today, there are almost five million people on benefits and out of work.... 2.6m people on incapacity benefit is not right.... the first reason reform hasn't happened before is that one vital step - reform of sickness benefits - could mean an increase in the unemployment figures and that's bad PR for any Government.

Just like here where the sickness and invalid benefits, now totalling in excess of 130,000 individuals, have been masking real unemployment. National's leadership needs to be as forthright as its UK counterpart and start by explaining the politics behind welfare reform resistance.

Try as I may, I just can't hear it in my head.

And that instinct is confirmed by this little tidbit regarding Key's new cabinet line up;

One likely surprise is that Judith Collins, the party's social welfare spokeswoman, is unlikely to get the social welfare portfolio - a sign, perhaps, that Key did not want a hardliner in that role.

No. Let's not go anywhere remotely near the truth. I do not always agree with Judith Collins but she would have a better handle on the problems than Paula Bennett. What a waste of 4 years getting to know the issues, only to be turfed out of playing any part in fixing them.

What about the ETS?

But what about the ETS?

Update;

Here is the relevant text from the agreement,

National agrees to a review by a special select committee of Parliament of the current Emissions Trading Scheme legislation and any amendments or alternatives to it, including carbon taxes, in the light of current economic circumstances and steps now being undertaken by similar nations.

National further agrees to pass forthwith an amendment to the ETS legislation delaying its implementation, repealing the thermal generation ban and making any other necessary interim adjustments until the select committee review is completed.

ACT is not opposed to New Zealand adopting responsible climate change policies. What it opposes is an ETS that was never adequately justified. If a rigorous select committee inquiry establishes a credible case that New Zealanders would benefit from action by New Zealand, in conjunction with other countries that are important to us, ACT would be prepared to support legislation giving effect to such action.

Good. Delaying its implementation is a good start.

The public sector versus the public service

Earlier in the week some bloggers were somewhat triumphant about John Key's stated intent to cut the number of public servants as reported by Radio New Zealand.

Now he is promising NOT to cut any public service jobs. He is going to need to learn to communicate better than this;

Mr Key said the point of National's policy was to cap the number of public servants - whatever that was - at its current level.

"Whatever the starting point is, it's an apples for apples comparison," he told reporters.

"The point is it's not rising from the starting point."

Anyway (takes a deep breath) this whole business warrants further investigation given the additional remarks by the State Services Commissioner.

He said public sector growth between 2003 and 2008 was roughly in proportion to private sector growth.

So let's look at what yesterday's report actually tells us, because, like you, I was under the impression that the public service has blown out over the last few years.

Between 2003 and 2008, employment in the public sector as a whole increased by 36,452 to 335,012 (12.2%) compared with an increase of 232,000 to 2,163,800 (12.0%) in the employed labour force.


But wait...


The increase in public service headcount is 33 percent, with the largest increase among advisors and policy analysts.

So let's be clear about the difference between the public service and public sector.

The public service is made up of bureaucrats, pen pushers etc who manage the public sector.

If the rise in the public service is much higher than in the public sector as a whole then those vital frontline jobs (those which would have to be filled whether education, health, etc were private or public) must be proportionately diminishing. Which begs the question; why do we need more managers for fewer staff?

So get a grip John and start asking the same questions instead of playing pals with the PSA. Right now the last thing New Zealand needs is a nice, (self-described) 'smiley', Prime Minister.

That depends, Obama

New Zeal has a Penn and Teller video about Obama and his tax plans. Obama is featured telling a detractor facing higher taxes that he believes, "When you spread the wealth around it's good for everybody."

And guess what? I agree.

But spread the wealth through jobs and supportive relationships. NOT through taxation and handouts.

Because wealth spread through jobs and mutually dependent relationships between individuals is wealth spread voluntarily and for mutual gain. The incentives stay right. People have to work at their jobs and their relationships and they are rewarded.

But when the state takes it upon itself to direct money to people who do neither, it distorts incentives. It rewards the very actions that would be fruitless in a society reliant on goodwill, trust and mutual gain.

So it is with a sinking sense of disbelief that I hear Barack Obama making this sentimentalised statement when he fully intends to try and achieve the 'sharing of wealth' the wrong way.

Where's Ronnie Reagan when we need him most?

Treasury forecasts bode ill for welfare bill

Media Release
TREASURY FORECASTS BODE ILL FOR WELFARE BILL
Thursday, November 13, 2008

A Treasury report released today forecasts unemployment rising to 5.7 percent by 2010.

Commenting on this prediction, welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell said, "To put that number into perspective, last time unemployment was at that level, in September 2000, 135,000 people were claiming the unemployment benefit - 112,000 more than today."

"Bear in mind too, that 5.7 percent of today's labour force represents more people than it did in 2000."

"Additionally, whenever unemployment rises so do numbers on other benefits, particularly the Domestic Purposes Benefit. During two previous periods of rapid unemployment growth - 1980 to 1983 and 1985 to 1988, DPB numbers climbed by 30 and 32 percent respectively."

"This is a time when it is crucial that government ensures that the numbers of people resorting to welfare for reasons other than unemployment are contained. For example, a stand-down period for the DPB would discourage families from splitting in order to claim two benefits instead of one."

Unbidden thoughts

Isn't it interesting that ACT was essentially formed out of Labour yet nobody ever entertains the idea that the party would do anything other than support National. Yes, ACT campaigned on changing the government. And a Labour government with a new Prime Minister, Deputy and Party President would be a changed government. A government that included the Maori Party (with Helen the Impediment gone) would be a changed government. A government that isn't beholden to the worst weasel, Winston Peters or that populist pretender, Peter Dunne, would be a changed government.

Holy hell. Get thee away such outlandish thoughts.

Why Labour lost

This is a load of old bollocks. I wonder if the author actually lives here. Apparently the electorate threw out Labour because they weren't socialist enough.

Far from being a popular endorsement of Key and the National Party, the vote represents a clear repudiation of Labour and its pro-business orientation by significant layers of the working class.

ACT, New Zealand First and even the Maori party are all "right-wing";

The Maori Party split from Labour over its Seabed and Foreshore legislation, which was designed to cut off Maori claims to indigenous rights over the inter-tidal zone. It then contested the 2005 election, winning four of the special Maori seats by posturing as the champion of the Maori population, which is one of the most impoverished sections of the working class. The Maori Party, however, is a right-wing formation that speaks for a thin layer of the Maori petty bourgeoisie who reaped the benefits of multi-million dollar land settlements and built businesses and careers on the basis of Maori identity politics.

Not once is the anti-smacking legislation mentioned, a significant factor in Labour's downfall, nor the Electoral Finance Act, another. The entire election outcome is explained in terms of Marxism and the evil that is big business. Very funny.

"Show some sensitivity Rodney"

Jane Clifton is channelling the arrogance of National in these comments;

A political analyst is warning Act leader Rodney Hide not to overplay his hand as National's coalition partner.

It is understood Mr Hide is pushing for a role in finance, law and order or local government.

The Listener's political commentator Jane Clifton says he needs to be careful to show some sensitivity and remember he does not exactly have a towering mandate.

"He's been extremely ill-mannered to John Key making public remarks like 'John Key is to the left of Helen Clark' and harping on about still wanting Roger Douglas in Cabinet. It's just bad manners."

Ms Clifton says Mr Hide would do well to remember he is only in his seat because he got the nod from the last couple of National leaders.

How frigging hoyty toyty, matronly is that? "Mr Hide would do well to remember..."

Those people who invested hours and hours of their time helping get Rodney elected in Epsom should bow down before the superior knowledge of Ms Clifton. And Rodney should eat a substantial slice of humble pie. There but for the grace of National...

Get away.

Earlier this year Clifton wrote, Bloggers and activists make it hard to tell the accurate from the biased and the malicious.

Of course Clifton is herself untainted by bias. Her description of Rodney as 'bad-mannered' for telling the truth (Key is demonstrably to the left of Clark on certain issues) demonstrates just how deadly objective she is.

Consulting members

The Maori Party have drafted an agreement with National and are now heading off to consult with members.

No word on ACT's consultation schedule as yet.

Minister of Social Development

Is Key about to put a one-term MP, who has not even held the portfolio, associate or otherwise, in charge of the single biggest government department and spending ticket?

The Maori Party and Nanny State

How does a party that believes in the power of nanny state to the extent that she can increase life expectancy, work constructively alongside parties that purport to be the parliamentary opposers of her? (notwithstanding that National doesn't properly comprehend what nanny state is and throws the term around expediently.)

Tariana Turia is at it again.

The gap in life expectancy between Maori and non-Maori is like an epidemic wiping out 10% of the Maori population, according to the Maori Party.

“If bird ‘flu killed one in ten of New Zealand’s population, a national emergency would be declared. There would be crisis plans put in place, trained personnel and resources redeployed and public spending redirected until the emergency was over,” said Health spokesperson Tariana Turia.

“There is an equivalent disaster taking place in Aotearoa right now. The latest life expectancy figures show Maori people have 10% shorter lifetimes than non-Maori...

...It is utterly appalling, and a national disgrace that this country does not expect that tangata whenua should live as long, or as well, as others, but we have come to regard this situation as normal and it barely rates a mention in the news.

“These terrible discrepancies in Maori health do not get the priority they deserve. Successive governments have drawn up Maori health strategies and action plans, but they have not been given sufficient urgency and importance.

Her approach to life is vaguely similar to the approach socialists take to money. There is only so much of it to go around and those getting more do so at the cost of those getting less. It's a nonsense. Just as Maori as a whole could earn more, invest and save more, so they could increase their life expectancy.

I could probably increase my own life expectancy if I ate better, drank less, exercised a bit more and went to bed earlier. But the truth is I want to enjoy my life on my terms. So do those individuals who just happen to have Maori ancestry. If anybody is robbing us of extended lives it is ourselves.

But Tariana wants more taxpayer money spent on denying that reality. That people actually make their own choices - good or bad. In fact she patronises 'her people' by suggesting that it is somehow the lack of government action - and by implication, spending - that is robbing them of life itself; that without government telling them, they can't draw constructive conclusions themselves. I wonder when she is going to grow up and in doing so, allow her adherents to.

"Successful lives"

The Ministry of Social Development recently revamped its website. I have been looking for a picture to accompany their service descriptor.

The Ministry of Social Development helps people to be successful in their lives.

Every day our people invest energy and passion into making a difference in the lives of children and young people, families, individuals and communities. In helping New Zealanders gain a job, an education, a responsibility or an opportunity, we build their security and welfare. We support people to form strong families, build vibrant communities and a dynamic nation.



(Photograph: Kirk Hargreaves)

Risky arrangements

It was Clark who began the practice of having Ministers outside of cabinet. Here she explains how that operates;

HELEN New Zealand First is not in coalition with Labour, a minister is in the executive government, there's two distinctions here.

GARTH Well what does that distinction mean though?

HELEN It means they're not in coalition, it's a confidence and supply agreement. Because they have accepted a position in the executive ministerial responsibility will apply to that position and the same for United Future, but they're not in coalition.

GARTH But that must be confusing to anyone looking on surely.

HELEN well it's not a question of whether it's confusing it's a question of what are the practical arrangements you need to make to set up a government in present circumstances, and that’s the practical arrangement we've made.

GARTH The deal that you’ve done with New Zealand First says that it will fully represent the government's position and be bound by the cabinet manual provisions in areas within the responsibilities that you’ve given Winston Peters, so what exactly does that mean?

HELEN It means that collective responsibility applies to the portfolios which he holds and the same for Peter Dunne but neither he nor Mr Dunne or their parties are expected to speak for the government or in line with the government on issues outside those portfolios.

GARTH So what happens is Ron Mark gets up in the House for example and wants to criticise Annette King as Police Minister in the way that he went after George Hawkins and really hounded him?

HELEN Nothing to stop him. I guess New Zealand First is going to have to work through how they position in this parliament but the agreement does not take away their right as a party to express their views on issues outside those portfolios.

GARTH And you can't see that posing any problem at all for a stable coalition?

HELEN Not particularly, I think if people have got used to the idea that with MMP governments the support arrangements can be quite complex and parties are entitled to keep their brand identity.

So ACT are going to be the meat in the sandwich this time. Haranguing National over the many policy matters with which it disagrees while simultaneously being loudly berated by the opposition for propping up the government. That's a very principled position.

The public has limited capacity or care to familiarise itself with complex arrangements. There are real risks (for the minor party) in this sort of set up. I don't need to spell them out.

Not that ACT has a better alternative....

Changing fortunes

Thought that'd give the lefties a brief fright.

Time for a ramble back.

25 years ago Roger Douglas, "Labour's Manurewa maverick", was assigned finance in the newly-led Lange Labour government.

Helen Clark was given disarmament and overseas aid. Today (or thereabouts) she relinquishes her Prime Ministership and leadership of Labour. Today Douglas returns to parliament.

But what role will he play?

How much influence can a back-bench minor party MP (inside or outside the government) have?

Quite a bit. How much will be entirely up to Roger. But I do think he has to abandon the grand schemes and start pushing for radical change within the existing system. Particularly the welfare system. He has to accept that New Zealand is not going to move to an individual compulsory savings/insurance scheme, which will cover all manner of incapacities to earn, any time soon, and focus on what can be changed.

Ending lifestyle welfare by ending the entitlement mentality. If he expresses reform in those terms he can build public support.