All main benefits on the rise

While conducting an interview with Radio Live, fortunately on tape, I realised a mistake I made yesterday. As L V says, it's the putting right that counts...less haste etc.

(Replacing earlier release which contained an error)

Media Release

ALL MAIN BENEFITS ON THE RISE
Friday, January 30, 2009

End-of-year benefit statistics just released by the Ministry of Social Development show annual increases in every category of benefit,according to welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell.

"The number of working age people on a main benefit rose by six percent during 2008. But less than half of the increase was attributable to the unemployment benefit."

"The numbers receiving the invalid's benefit rose 4.3 percent from 80,082 to 83,501. This comes after various initiatives and ministerial assurances that the numbers were levelling off."

"Numbers on the DPB rose by 2.2 percent and are now back over 100,000. But especially concerning is the continually increasing numbers of teenage recipients. In December 2007 3,239 18-19 year-olds were receiving the DPB. That number increased by 11 percent to 3,610 in December 2008. Those numbers do not include teenage parents under 18 who receive the EMA. Those figures are not routinely published by the ministry. Teenage recipients present a particular problem because they stay on welfare the longest and their children experience multiple disadvantages."

"So as well as focussing on minimising job losses the government needs to be looking at ways to discourage uptake of other benefits. While some people end up on a benefit because of factors genuinely beyond their control, many others are there because they made bad choices. The easy availability of assistance plays a role in influencing those choices. "

Distraught and dangerous

Straight from the horse's mouth;

Whangarei-Kaipara area commander Inspector Paul Dimery said that while teenage drinking, underage driving and underage pregnancy were common, the girl's combination of all three had come as a shock.

The girl's high breath-alcohol reading was also disturbing.

"That is exceptionally high for an adult. For a 14-year-old it's quite astounding. For a pregnant 14-year-old, it's almost disgusting," he said. "What's the expected outcome for that child? You've got children having children. They have no understanding of the harm that they're causing their unborn child."

The chances are very, very high that this 14 year-old was a child born in similar circumstances. To a young mother who drank and smoked through her pregnancy.

Somebody has failed absolutely abysmally to let this girl have a safe and secure childhood. Isn't that exactly what the DPB was meant for? To provide an unsupported mother with an income that enabled her to be a at-home parent and create a secure, stable environment for her children. And some did. This one's didn't.

Yes. I am making assumptions. But does it matter? Here's the typical picture. She'll be from a multi-generational welfare dependent family (using the word 'family' generously). She could be pregnant to a family member or her mother's current hanger-on. She is deeply, deeply distraught and dangerous. She is certainly a danger to herself and her unborn child. That's the reality.

The DPB is the financial backbone of the communities that produce "children having children". It is the enabler. The 'domestic purposes' benefit no longer evokes images of motherhood and apple pie. DPB and dysfunction have become almost synonymous.

But what's the unemployment rate?

Expect an announcement soon about the latest unemployment rate based on the HLFS - the official measure. A press release from Statistics NZ has appeared at Scoop but not on their own website. The usual information has not been released and the tables cannot yet be accessed as the release does not appear at the NZ statistics website. Unusual sequence of events. A botch up perhaps.

All main benefits rise

Media Release
ALL MAIN BENEFITS ON THE RISE
Thursday, January 29, 2009

End-of-year benefit statistics just released by the Ministry of Social Development show annual increases in every category of benefit,according to welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell.

"The largest rise is not in the unemployment benefit but in numbers receiving the invalid's benefit, which increased 4.3 percent from 80,082 to 83,501 over 2008. This comes after various of initiatives and ministerial assurances that the numbers were levelling off."

"Numbers on the DPB have risen by 2.2 percent and are now back over 100,000. But especially concerning is the continually increasing numbers of teenage recipients. In December 2007 3,239 18-19 year-olds were receiving the DPB. That number increased by 11 percent to 3,610 in December 2008. Those numbers do not include teenage parents under 18 who receive the EMA. Those figures are not routinely published by the ministry. Teenage recipients present a particular problem because they stay on welfare the longest and their children experience multiple disadvantages."

"Overall the total number of people receiving a main benefit rose six percent over the 2008 year. As well as focussing on minimising job losses the government needs to be looking at ways to discourage uptake of other benefits. While some people end up on a benefit because of factors genuinely beyond their control, many others are there because they made bad choices. The easy availability of assistance plays a role in influencing those choices. "

Cops on campus

Am I really surprised by this?

Police in Hamilton now based in schools

I guess not. But what a marker of how lawless and disaffected some parts of New Zealand society have become. Will the presence of police make a difference? It could merely escalate problems, as heightened authority and disapproval unintentionally provoke further and more overt displays of antagonism, anti-social feelings and/or bravado. But maybe school staff and parents of pupils feel reassured by the permanent presence of a police officer. Would you?

Maori 'inflation'?

New Minister for Maori Affairs, Pita Sharples, has just opened a Maori economic summit in Wellington. In his opening address he makes this statement:

This parliamentary term will be defined by how we negotiate the swirling economic waters ahead. We have faced these perils before, and for Mâori, the experience was disastrous. In the period known as te Pâheketanga Ohaoha, the days of the Great Depression, 75% of all Mâori men were unemployed by 1933. More recently the recession of 1987-1992 resulted in a shocking deterioration in outcomes for Mâori.

To the best of my knowledge Maori unemployment was never anywhere near that high. One would expect the Official New Zealand Yearbook to be a reliable source. Here is a passage from the 1995 version, page 34:

By 1933, 40 percent of the male Maori workforce was unemployed, compared with the Pakeha rate of 12 percent.

In 1933 most Maori lived rurally and were still making a living off the land and sea. Even if they were not being fully or partially recompensed for their work or produce they would still have been endeavouring to trade or feed themselves and their families. All I can assume is that Sharples is making a reference to Maori living in towns and cities who were unable to find jobs. But even then I don't know what the source for this claim is. I will write and ask him.

(Similarly there is controversy over whether or not Maori drew the 'dole'. Tipene O’Regan and Api Mahuika say Maori were denied yet there is evidence referred to by historian Michael King that Maori were paid the dole - unemployment benefits or relief work compensation - during the depression, but it was paid at a lower rate and more difficult to obtain. This is because policy-makers believed Maori were better equipped to make a living off the land.)

After-school care subsidy slashed

The Ministry of Social Development has rejected a funding application for $200,000 from Kidicorp to operate their after-school care programmes. This is a subsidy to private enterprise. Being against subsidies, at first glance I would agree with the decision.

But there is more that we don't yet know. MSD also subsidises parents for after school care costs. It appears that subsidy is contingent on the programme meeting safety and quality standards set by CYF (yes, there is some irony there.) Assuming the Kidicorp centres are approved (they have after all been receiving funding) then some parents are able to receive assistance towards costs. That assistance increased with the WFF programme and the government may now consider the provider subsidy is no longer warranted.

The owner of Kidicorp says he will

... have to put forward $400,000 to cover the cost of the service to keep it running.


He doesn't comment on whether that is feasible long term. It may be, in which case he didn't need the subsidy.

Doing the maths the shortfall amounts to an average of $20 per week per child. If Mr Wright can't fund it then either the parents will have to find the extra -possibly through a subsidy they haven't previously made use of - or they may consider moving their child elsewhere. (Or they could return to a benefit which would cost the government a great deal more.)

Other OSCAR programmes operate at schools although I believe places are generally tight. But the government is doubtless providing funding for these as well. So I am somewhat worried that this is another attack on the private sector at the benefit of the state sector, similar to what we saw with the 20 free hours of pre-school education. Which wouldn't have seemed odd under a Labour government but under the new National administration?

It is one of those stories which will develop and more will doubtless be revealed. At the moment the Ministry isn't commenting on the rationale.

Need I say it, leaving more money with the earner in the first instance would make more available to fully fund private programmes. Why we even need these programmes is another debate for another day.

What's the difference?

Another blog drew my attention to this course offered by the Lower Hutt Women's Centre. My only point of interest is the last sentence. What does it mean? What's the difference between "yourself" and "your self" (apart from a tab space)?

Assertiveness for Women

Assertiveness is the ability to express yourself and your rights without violating the rights of others. It is appropriately direct, open, and honest communication which is self-enhancing and expressive. Acting assertively will give you the opportunity to feel self-confident and will generally gain you the respect of yourself and your peers and friends. It can increase your chances for honest relationships, and help you to feel better about yourself and your self in everyday situations.

Culpability for crime

My e-mail contribution to a discussion on radio today (prompted by this report);

Regarding P rendering people not responsible for their criminal actions, I find the distorted logic of legal manipulators quite repugnant. But it is only an extension of similar ideas like, people who have had bad upbringings are not culpable. Or people whose ancestors had their land stolen are not culpable. I recently read Nigel Latta's very compelling book, Into The Darklands. He concludes that some criminals have had childhoods that make you weep for them BUT there is still a thing called free will. People make choices - good or bad - that only they are responsible for.

Law making and law enforcement need to recognise the existence of free will. Everybody knows right from wrong because nobody likes having their possessions taken off them, or being bashed about the head or sexually assaulted, actions that seem routine as a consequence of abusing P.

Domestic violence perpetrated by female partners isn't just psychological

The official MSD position on partner violence and gender symmetry/asymmetry can be summed up by the following;

Leaving basic prevalence levels aside, there is rather more consensus that more physically serious and psychologically threatening assaults are more likely to be perpetrated by male partners...The Scale and Nature of Family Violence in New Zealand: A Review and Evaluation of Knowledge, April 2007

Most of the statistical data about violence between partners comes from surveys and police data. But here is some new and interesting evidence that women do indeed perpetrate serious physical violence against men. The source is hospital emergency departments in the state of Victoria, Australia.

In almost 70 per cent of cases the victims were female, and most of the injuries occurred at home. Emergency departments dealt with 693 "human intent injuries" related to family violence in 2004-05 and 672 in 2005-06, according to the report.

So in over 30 percent of the cases the victim was a man. Interestingly the rest of the media report typically focusses on violence against women and the need for more intervention.

And in this country the following 'facts' as presented by Living Without Violence are your typical approach to the problem of family violence.

* One woman is killed by her partner or ex-partner every five weeks
* 10 children are killed every year in acts of domestic violence
* Half of all female homicides are the result of domestic violence
* Domestic violence is the fifth leading cause of death from injury for New Zealand women
* One in seven women has been assaulted by her partner
* Women's refuge assisted about 20,000 women and children last year
* 15 per cent of Women's refuge residents have a permanent disability as a result of battery and four per cent can no longer have children
* 21 per cent of New Zealand men admit they have physically abused their partners in the past year
* Battered women are five times more likely than other women to use psychiatric services

Not a mention of women hurting men. (Although, to their credit, they do run a programme for female perpetrators of domestic violence, detailed elsewhere at their site.)

Certainly some women need help and protection and I accept that men are physically, potentially more dangerous than women. But a more balanced and honest approach to the problem of family violence is overdue. Too many self-interested, ideologically driven parties are involved.

Five more years of cliched hang-wringing

It's all very well cancelling a few talkfests but National shows no sign of dis-establishing some of the talking heads and their bands of merry meddlers. Just listed at the Ministry of Social Development.

The fight for fathers goes on

A top letter in today's DomPost from Bruce Tichbon who has tirelessly championed fathers for probably the last 20 years. And probably will for the next twenty. I take my hat off to you, Bruce.

The tax burdens of our children

When men get in the habit of helping themselves to the property of others, they cannot easily be cured of it.

— The New York Times, in a 1909 editorial opposing the very first income tax


That is the quote of the day from the Freedom Foundation.

Then I began reading a piece from the National Centre for Policy Analysis which contained this warning;

* By 2020, the average EU country will need to raise the tax rate to 55 percent of national income to pay promised benefits.
* By 2035, a tax rate of 57 percent will be required.
* By 2050, the average EU country will need more than 60 percent of its GDP to fulfill its obligations.

Nice juxtaposition.

New Zealand is in only a slightly better position than most EU countries, having a higher fertility rate. But we will still be faced with the massively increased costs the ageing population brings.

Bob Jones makes a point in the DomPost this morning that talk of burdening the youth of today with the debt taken on to get us out of the current mess is a nonsense because they inherit the infrastructure and assets. But that doesn't take into account the imbalance of demographics and the varying burdens generations carry.

There can be no doubt that our children will be required to look after a much larger dependent population than we did. Therein lies the problem with socialism and collective funding. If individuals saved and insured themselves, this inequitable and iniquitous situation would largely vanish. Even Sweden has had the good sense to recently move to individualised social security accounts. (And no, I don't want to get into an argument about compulsion. As I have said before, I would rather be forced to save for myself than forced to save for somebody else. The element of force is not going away in my or my children's lifetime.)

Here's hoping that National will start listening to Roger Douglas some time soon.

NB. I am quite schizophrenic on this issue however. Tomorrow I could just as easily write a post arguing that the state has absolutety no right to dictate how I should use my own property. And I would be right. But then again... if there is a lesser evil than the current system, and is was on offer, should I turn it down?

Nannying New Zealand style

Here is the e-mail advice I have just received from the state (with a few comments interspersed) about preparing my children for returning to school;

Caring when you're not there

Tuck in a family photo into your child's backpack or write a special note to your child and put it in their lunchbox for a special reminder that they are loved. Being away from home can be tough, even for older kids, and a simple note (or just a heart with your name might work for a younger child) can provide some much-needed comfort. If the school or caregiver allows it, let your child pick a small toy or stuffed animal to put in their backpack.

Robert says, do any of that and I'm dead. I'll be labelled a mummy's boy and never live it down. He starts at a new school this year.

Stress alert

It’s normal to have worries about your child at school. So, keep an eye out for any signs that your child is experiencing back-to-school stress once the year begins. Look for complaints about headaches or tummy aches, tension at bedtime, emotional goodbyes, or reluctance to go to school in the morning.

If this happens, try lots of extra comfort and try to spend some quality one-on-one time with your child. Then, look for ways to re-adjust routines or ways of getting ready, and check whether your child is overloaded with too many activities or hasn't made friends.

You could also try the following ideas:

Notice out loud. Say something to your child if they seem unusually quiet or short-tempered (“Did you have a rough day? You seem a bit upset.”). It should be just a comment as if you are interested in hearing more about your child’s concern.

Listen. Ask your child to tell you what’s wrong. Listen closely, calmly and without comment – with interest, patience and caring. Do not judge, blame or comment – the idea is to let your child’s concerns and feelings be heard. You could get them to tell the full story by asking questions like “And then what happened?”. Let your child take their time.

Yuck. The religion of non-judgmentalism. Jehovah's Witnesses are starting to look moderate.

Help them find a label for it. Put your child’s feelings into words, for example, “disappointed”, “hurt”, “frustrated”. Many children do not yet have words for their feelings and putting them into words helps them develop emotional awareness. This will then make them cope better next time they feel the same way.

Help them understand the feeling. If your child talks about being angry help them understand what the feeling was that led to the anger. For example, “Sounds as if you were disappointed that your teacher didn’t notice how hard you had been trying and that made you mad and yell at her”. This shows your child you understand what they felt and that you care – which helps your child feel understood and connected to you. Another child might have got angry because they were frustrated they couldn’t do the work and the teacher wasn’t helpful. Knowing what made us angry makes it easier to identify a solution.


Help them think of things to do. Suggest things your child could do to feel better and to solve the problem. Get your child to think of several ideas too. Sometimes just identifying the problem will help solve it, so don’t give it more attention than it needs.

Just be there. Sometimes your child won’t feel like talking about what’s bothering them. If that’s the case, just give them space but make it clear that you are around when they do feel like talking. Suggest an activity you can do together – go for a walk, kick a ball, watch a movie or do some baking. One idea is to ask them to do something (not school-related) you know they can do very well without help, then praise them when it is done. It helps remind them they are able to control and manage their world.

Not so easy if you are out working to pay for school 'donations', stationery, activity fees, trips etc.

Be patient. As a parent, it can be painful to see your child unhappy or worried. But try to leave your child to solve their own problems as much as possible while you act as their support. This will help them become problem-solvers in the long term.

Get the irony in that last paragraph. Unbelievable. Nanny telling us to let our children figure things out for themselves!

Overbearing obsessives run amok

I am having trouble keeping food down, let alone using up left-overs, reading this;

DON'T THROW AWAY LEFTOVERS, WARN "FOOD POLICE"

British households will be visited by officials offering advice on cooking with leftovers, in a government initiative to reduce the amount of food that gets thrown away. Home cooks will also be told what size portions to prepare, taught to understand "best before" dates and urged to make more use of their freezers.

The door-to-door campaign, which started this month, is funded by the Waste and Resources Action Program (WRAP), a government agency charged with reducing household waste.

The officials will be called "food champions," however, they were dismissed as "food police" by critics who called the scheme an example of excessive government nannying:

* In an initial seven-week trial, eight officials will visit 24,500 homes, dishing out advice and recipes.
* The officials, each of whom has received a day's training, will be paid up to £8.49 (about US $11.87) an hour, with a bonus for working on Saturdays.
* The pilot scheme, will cost £30,000 (about U.S. $42,000), and could be extended nationwide if it is seen as a success.
* If all 25 million households in the United Kingdom were visited in the same way, 8,000 officials would be required at a cost of tens of millions of pounds.

Peter Ainsworth, the shadow environment secretary, said: "You might have thought, at a time of economic hardship, that spending public money on stating the obvious is hardly a priority. With household budgets under pressure, most people are looking to spend wisely and waste less anyway."

Matthew Elliott, chief executive of the TaxPayers' Alliance said: "This is a prime example of excessive government nannying, and a waste of public money and resources. In the grip of a recession, the last thing people need is someone bossing them about in their own kitchen.

"Worse still, the money for this scheme will come directly out of taxpayers' pockets, at a time when they need every penny to weather the financial storm."

Source: Jasper Copping, "Don't throw away leftovers, warn 'food police,' " Telegraph, January 10, 2009.

No sense of occasion

Justin du Fresne just opened his show referring to the solitary text NewstalkZB has received in response to their ongoing coverage of Obama's inauguration. It said, "I'm changing stations. I am sick of this American bullshit."

The texter is not alone. A Stuff poll:

How will you reflect on Barack Obama's inauguration as the 44th US president?

It's something I'll always remember (323 votes, 36.5%)

It's something I'd rather forget (324 votes, 36.6%)

Have no interest either way (238 votes, 26.9%)

What I will remember about today? My 14 year-old got up early to watch the ceremony and cooked streaky bacon, some of which he put on a plate and brought to me in bed. He's growing up.

New Blog

A couple of people who occasionally comment here have started a new blog. Looks interesting so have added it to my blogroll.

If you see Kay....

Which also reminds me, if you are out there Oh Crikey, could you please get back to the keyboard. Now. I miss your black (or brown?) humour desperately. Nearly a year off is long enough. Even for a lazy Maori.

What we don't know can't hurt us

Keeping Stock has a post entitled "Did we need to know?"

I immediately knew it referred to the headlines about the voice recorder on the Airbus that went down off Perpignan. I had exactly the same response.

As an obsessive truth seeker I still attempt to instil in my children the idea that sometimes, just occasionally, the truth is better left alone. There can be now earthly good in revealing or speaking it. What you don't know won't hurt you.

Once upon a time that sentiment got me into more trouble than I cared for.

One morning I discovered a dead but intact black cat on the grass verge outside our home. I knew it didn't belong to any of my immediate neighbours. Dilemma. Do I leave it there for the unfortunate owner or my own children to discover? Wouldn't it be preferable for the owner to be left thinking maybe the cat had just wandered off to a new home? Wouldn't that be a much kinder outcome? Yes, I decided. So I carried the corpse into my backyard, dug a hole and buried it. I know, I know. Who did I think I was interfering like that? And worse, what thought had I given to what might happen next....

My first mistake was to mention it to my neighbour, who wondered what I was having to dig such a deep hole for. I should have lied and said I was burying our cat. Then it would have gone no further. Except I would have had to kill our cat.

About three days later, early in the evening, the phone rang. It was my in-the-know neighbour saying she had been visited by a young woman looking for her cat. She had told her I might know something about it. Shit. Panic stations. It hit me. The owner will think I have run over the cat with my car and tried to hide the evidence.

There was a knock on the door. David answered it. Then I could hear him telling the distraught young woman he hadn't seen hide nor hair of said beast (following my original instructions to a tee, poor man). I could only take this subterfuge for seconds.

Actually, I saw it, I confessed, approaching the front door. Then I had to go further and admit to telling my husband to lie, given his red-faced presence in the hallway. I stutteringly told her I had found it on the grass verge and it had probably been hit by a car. But that it was in good condition so probably suffered a head injury and didn't suffer (??) And how I hadn't wanted her (how did I know the owner was a 'her'?) to find it. On and on digging a deeper and deeper hole. Do you want to see the hole ...grave, sorry? Oh my God. I had dragged our unused dog kennel over the top to stop him from digging up the carcass. I had HIDDEN it.

She was crying quite hard by now. I was feeling like the lowest of lowest, a complete heel, an utter crock. She left quite quickly, understandably.

Sometimes it's best to let nature take its course I think. Next time I discover a dead cat I will carry it around every home in the vicinity until I find the poor, unsuspecting soul, possibly a child, about to be confronted with its lifeless, no more, friend.

On looks and ageing

Rosemary McLeod writes a very bitchy column about ageing beauties and what they look like.

We're talking gargoyles like Madonna, 50, and Jerry Hall, 52; women who were beautiful in their youth, but who now have the starved horse look that goes with being older and scrawny.

She concludes;

To paraphrase Keats, beauty is youth, youth beauty. We love it. It's fleeting. You can't get it back. You just have to get over it.

I'll reach the half century mark this year. And I know it's absolutely physically evident because more than once I have been mistaken for my young daughter's grandma. How stupid can young women be? If in doubt wouldn't it be diplomatic to plum for mother? But I expect too much. They have yet to personally experience sensitivity about ageing and what it does to your looks.

Fortunately I never had many - looks that is. Being average looking when you are young can be a source of dismay but believe me, what you never had, you can't grieve over losing.

McLeod is right. Stop looking in the mirror if it bothers you that much. I certainly don't think it is bothering anybody else particularly. In fact if more women accepted ageing gracefully ... more women would. We could all be a little more content. We can all feel a little happier when comparing ourselves to Helen Clark rather than Cher.

Look at it this way. Allowing yourself to be miserable about it is only going to make you look even older anyway. And let's face it. If your physical appearance is all that defines you, and ever has, then you have a lot of catching up to do.

Airbus ditches in Hudson

In the last couple of hours an Airbus ditched in the Hudson after taking off from La Guardia and hitting birds. Miraculously it appears there is no loss of life or serious injuries. Stunning.