What's left of the welfare state

Chris Trotter writes in today's DomPost that Mr Key and his right wing mates are showing signs that they are about to get rid of "what's left of the welfare state".

This implies most of what constitutes the welfare state has already been dismantled.

All that remains are the unemployment, sickness, invalid and domestic purposes benefits; the independent youth, emergency, and unsupported child benefits; super and veteran's pensions; accommodation supplement and state housing; the minimum wage; Working For Families; residential care subsidies; childcare subsidies; Paid Parental Leave; student allowances; interest free student loans; 'free' public hospitals and public schools; various family and child tax credits; universal no-fault accident compensation; widow's benefit; orphan's benefit; free dental care for the young; free healthcare for under sixes; the Super GoldCard; the Community Services card; the methadone programme; legal aid; Restart and Replace; 9 day working fortnight subsidies; subsidies to hundreds of 'charities'...

No. There's not much to remember. Did I miss anything? Oh yes, there is a case to include corporate welfare, and grants to the arts and sports as part of the broadest-sense welfare state.

I wonder what Trotter thinks has been dispensed with? The family benefit, which had deteriorated in value to almost nothing by the time National threw it out? Farming subsidies? I tell you what. It's a helluva sight harder trying to identify what went than what stayed.

Unemployment benefit - numbers almost double

Media Release

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT - NUMBERS ALMOST DOUBLE

Thursday, April 30, 2009

Data just released by the Ministry of Social Development show that numbers on the unemployment benefit have nearly doubled over the last year to 37,000.

"While this was largely expected the equally bad news is that every main benefit has seen an increase in numbers since the end of March 2008. Of particular concern is a 12 percent increase in the sickness benefit when earlier indications and assurances were the growth was easing off. There are now 135,000 working-age New Zealanders receiving either a sickness or invalid's benefit - around one in twenty people aged 18 - 64."

"As well, the numbers receiving the domestic purpose's benefit have increased by 6,000 or six percent with much of the growth in the 18-24 age group."

"Being in a recession is no reason to accept that all benefits will take on numbers. The government needs to be toughening and tightening up. If it fails to keep a lid on growth in the DPB, sickness and invalid benefits, we will see exaggerated numbers for years to come, similar to the legacy of the last severe employment slump of the early nineties."

NZ - third highest reported crime rate

The net is great in terms of information accessibility and currency BUT sometimes one stumbles across depictions that really can mislead;



I have sent the following feedback;

Your reported crime rate for New Zealand is inaccurate. There were 431,381 reported crimes (source NZ Police) in 2008. The population is currently around 4.3 million. That provides a rate per 100,000 of 10,032 - not 12,586.64

It is unfortunate that those countries with accessible and transparent statistics consequently appear to be the most 'dangerous' when there are certainly riskier places to visit. South Africa, for instance, is notorious for its high crime rates.

In fact, thinking on it further, that a country has a 'reported' crime rate is reassuring of itself. It means there is someone to report crime to and some point in reporting it.

NZ Institute calls for welfare spending cuts?

The NZ Institute (funded by business subscription) is saying scrap the tax cuts and think about property taxes to raise additional revenue. You have to wonder how representative of their funders that position is.

Also,

The institute said health and welfare spending should be cut, but KiwiSaver should be enhanced.

Always interested in welfare proposals I had a quick look at the actual report. In fact the only proposal that could be construed as calling for a cut in welfare spending is a suggested review of Working For Families. Otherwise other references to welfare spending imply boosting expenditure on youth unemployment and support for those affected by the recession.

Prebble on balancing the budget

Why we miss Richard Prebble.

In the OECD only two countries owe more money per person than we do; Iceland which is bankrupt and Spain where unemployment has just hit 17 percent. New Zealand’s external debt is now $167 billion. Politicians used to say “Most of the money is owed by Aussie banks, it is not our worry”. The banks owe most of the debt but just days before the election the Labour government extended a guarantee to cover all bank borrowing. Potentially you owe $41 thousand; that’s what $167 billion divided by 4 million works out at. As only a third of us pay income tax as a taxpayer you potentially owe around a $120 thousand.

Only a third? He is probably right. While the workforce is around 2.2 million, many low income workers effectively pay no income tax.

Families Commission - biased and barking up the wrong tree

The Families Commission is once again wearing its utopian fool's hat for all to see;

“Healthy, positive relationships within families do not involve people hitting each other and the Commission continues to believe that repeal was one step that, combined with other nationwide efforts to address violence, will help us become a violence-free society."

The specific function of the Families Commission is to encourage informed debate about families.

Not discourage (as would appear to be the case with respect to Family First).

So with their blessing I will continue to debate what they expect to achieve with their romantic visions. The role model for the legislation which still sits very awkwardly on the shoulders of many New Zealand parents is Sweden. You may remember that Sweden banned smacking in 1979. No doubt then-protagonists of a total ban on physically disciplining children also talked about a violence-free society.

Here is the reality;



In case you miss it, "Reported assaults on children up to six years of age increased by 13 percent to slightly more than 1,550 offences in 2007. The number of reported assault offences against children aged between seven and fourteen (almost 8,100 offences) increased by eight per cent by comparison with the figure for the previous year."

I have read excuses about the values and behaviour of new immigrants being to blame but recorded violence has been increasing steadily over the entire period (during which the population increased by about 13 percent.)

Based on this result I will go to my grave still waiting for the promised land.

Size of child abuse problem "horrific"

Australian Community Services Minister describes the size of Australia's child abuse problem as "horrific";

Ms Macklin said more than 55,000 substantiated cases of child abuse and neglect were recorded last year. "We have to confront the reality that these numbers tell us that we are letting down far, far too many children in this country," she said.

Professor Fiona Stanley, a child welfare specialist and chairwoman of the research alliance that commissioned the report, described the level of abuse and neglect in Australia as an "epidemic".

The latest comparable statistic I have for New Zealand is from 2006. (Later statistics are available about the number of reports and those requiring further action but that is not the same as 'substantiated'.)


If we crudely multiplied 15,248 by a factor of 5 we would get 76,240. Putting aside that I have compared different time periods and there may be slight demographic differences, it is clear that our rate of substantiated child abuse is significantly higher.

I wonder what superlative Paula Bennett would use to describe our figures?

A job for Mythbusters?

I was ruminating over how people, especially feminists, might respond to an equivalent type of ad appearing in a men's centre newsletter focussing on girlfriend violence. Or doesn't it exist?

A welcome diversion

In the midst of economic woe, piggy pandemics and leaky-house inducing weather, something to laugh about is needed. Anything to laugh about actually.

The police must be quietly seething over this criminal chap down in Canterbury that keeps giving them the big finger before donning his invisibility cloak. But their anger is probably more directed to the communities that are watching on with such obvious glee. One of the entertained has produced a "Where's Billy?" teeshirt and Robbie Robertson, who normally pens songs about legendary New Zealand race horses, has come up with a rather pithy little piss-taker, a copy of which he has thoughtfully handed over to the local constabulary.

If the subject of the song has half a brain, and his antics would indicate as much, he will spend the next prison spell writing up his adventures, selling the movie rights, etc. IF they ever catch him.

Poetic justice

By uncanny coincidence Labour is asking Mt Albert to return a 'red' candidate on the same day we mercifully stop working for the government.

June 13

Anyone living in Mt Albert has a great opportunity to loudly and effectively protest the lateness of this year's Tax Freedom day by giving Labour the big brush off.

Labour lines up behind Geoffrey Palmer

Labour is supporting Geoffry Palmer's attacks on alcohol consumption, in particular, a tax hike.

Increasing tax on alcohol was about making those who buy alcohol pay for the harm it does, Ms Dalziel said, and there needed to be debate about whether this was the right option.

As previously stated, the use of alcohol is not evil in and of itself. Ms Dalziel's reasoning may seem sound at first glance but why not apply it to food and cars.

Let's hike the tax on food to pay for the harm it does to over-eaters; let's hike the tax on cars to pay for the harm caused by bad drivers. In fact let's hike the tax on cars to pay for the damage drink drivers do. After all it was the car as much as the alcohol that 'caused' the crash.

The problem is people and how they behave. The alcohol, the car, the gun, the cigarette, the food, etc., etc., are all incidental. The more we spread the burden of bad behaviour consequences, the more people will indulge in it.

Here is something else to think about. The tax on cigarettes far exceeds the cost of treating smoking-related health problems. Smokers are a cash cow. More than 70 percent of the retail price of cigarettes is tax. A lot higher than the tax on alcohol. Under Labour's desired option, are users of alcohol going to be the next one?

A cure for cancer, I kid you not

I must be quick because I have a cake to bake, cool, fill and ice by lunchtime. It is Robert's 15th tomorrow so we have a family get together today. No. Not a prompt to blog about birth and its politicisation. But. My, doesn't time fly? My beautiful little baby is now legal to drive a car. And there are two conflicting thoughts I have about the passage of time. One adage tells that the more folk change the more they stay the same. Is human nature unchanging? Because our environment certainly isn't. I can't find a better way to highlight this than a clipping from the first Evening Post, dated 1865. Not an editorial piece but an advert. Often advertising tells us more about the times than opinion. But it is worth a read just to shake us up to the reality. The pace of change over the last 100 or so years has been phenomenal. Hope this amuses you as much as it did me, the language as much as the exhaustive indications.

(Left click on image to enlarge.)









WOW.

Alcohol crack-down - utilitarianism in reverse

Utilitarianism as a principle isn't perfect. It embodies the idea of achieving the greatest good for the greatest number, so can leave minorities in a position of disadvantage. Mostly, however, it is the best idea we can come up with - like democracy.

Raising tax on alcohol, restricting access, and lowering thresholds for drinking and driving will punish all drinkers (an estimated 90 percent of New Zealanders drink alcohol) in an attempt to control a few drinkers. It is utilitarianism in reverse.

Geoffrey Palmer, the purveyor of the finest alcoholic deterrent proposals;

"I do not understand why bars need to be open until 6am on a Sunday morning," he said.

No. Neither do I. I don't understand a lot of things that are none of my business. That is why I don't understand them, nor attempt to.

Alcohol use of itself is not evil. The poor health impacts and criminal behaviour which arise from alcohol abuse impose costs which should be borne by those doing the abusing. If we applied that blindingly obvious fundamental the deterrent affect would be significant. The 'no consequences' welfare state is again a major culprit in encouraging buck-passing behaviours.

The corruption of "volunteering"

When I read headlines like this I get momentarily confused,

Volunteers face funding cuts

My understanding of a volunteer as someone who provides a service without paid recompense is obviously incorrect.

Further, providing "volunteer" services becomes increasingly costly. It must, because "volunteers" who once relied on church donations now rely on taxation via government funding.

This particular group get funding from Work and Income. To provide work-training courses. In this respect they are merely an extension of state welfare. That's OK if they are as successful as they claim to be. But it remains a misnomer to label activities that are paid for as "volunteering". There may be an element of unpaid work involved although I doubt that people running a full-time course would be unpaid.

We even have a "Minister for the Community and Voluntry Sector" (not my spelling mistake). Why?

Because there are over 105,000 paid staff in the "voluntary" sector which receives a good part of its funding from government. We should probably rightly call many of these people 'public servants'. Hence one can better grasp why they are facing cuts.

Finlayson on Treaty settlements

Last year I attended a meeting at which National MP Chris Finlayson sat on the panel of contributors. He impressed me as a man able to grasp subtleties and intricacies that others could not. Clever people often find difficulty in expressing themselves simply but this column is not an example of such. In it Finlayson, now Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, concisely and cleanly explains why the treaty settlements have been important and were necessary. Well worth a read. Let's hope the settlement goal of 2014 can be met.

The drink-drive stats are not flash - again

Yesterday, over at The Standard, I got a lot of flak for my use of statistics, from people who had missed the point I was attempting to make. Which is that despite the past decade or so of anti-drinking and driving campaigns the stats are not flash (after considerable improvement during an earlier period.) Hence the title of my post, "The limitations of social engineering."

So here are some more "meaningful" statistics. They pertain to Auckland and come from the Traffic Alcohol Group (TAG);




(Yes. Greater Auckland is not NZ but it is subject to the same national media campaigns.)

Pathetic probing

From NewstalkZB;

Labour is broadening its attack on the Government over the use of helicopters by ministers...

Labour has now lodged questions in the House about the track record of Prime Minister John Key and has discovered he has had three trips since taking office. Two were last month, one courtesy of the Air Force at an open day, and the other via the Westpac Rescue Helicopter for a fundraiser at Waiheke Island.

The third was earlier this month at the Te Kuiti Shearing Championships where the flight was a gift from Heli Cam Aviation.

Mr Key has revealed the cost of the flight to Waiheke Island would have been $267. He made a personal donation of $5,000 to the Rescue Helicopter Trust.

In one way this is a 'nothing 'story. But in another it is about something. It is about Labour's pitiable attempts to create one. How limp and lacklustre does Labour look?

Just think, people are paid to come up with these 'innovative' angles of attack. Others are paid to process the questions. Others to provide and record answers. What a colossal and obscene waste of money. Ours.

The limitations of social-engineering

Over at The Standard they are applauding the "It's Not OK" campaign because it has "been hugely successful. In a survey, 99% of Maori, 90% of Pacific people, and 90% of all those asked remembered the campaign."

Probably the same the same can be said of the "If you drink and drive you're a bloody idiot," or the "Every cigarette is doing you damage," campaigns.

Yet the drinking and driving stats are not looking very flash. The percentage of fatal crashes with alcohol/drugs as a factor has been fairly steady over the ten years to 2007;

1997 27%
1998 27
1999 23
2000 26
2001 26
2002 26
2003 31
2004 31
2005 30
2006 28
2007 31

Self-reported use of tobacco statistics are unreliable but consumption of tobacco is not;

New research suggests the government may have been over optimistic when it said that smoking is decreasing.

Last year's New Zealand Health Survey showed for the first time that just under 20% of adults smoked.

But a study published in the New Zealand medical journal disputes those figures, saying the number of cigarettes released to the market actually increased by 7%.

It says smokers tend to under report their smoking and future health surveys should include biochemical tests of a smoker's status.

Now I know that drinking and driving/smoking has reduced from the 1980s and early nineties. If that was an effect of advertising, today, at best, the advertising may be said to be having a containing effect. The Standard will argue that the "It's Not OK" campaign can have the same early effect because it is something new.

But it isn't. There have been a number of police and Women's Refuge anti-domestic violence campaigns. There was the high profile anti-family violence campaign "Breaking the cycle" in the second half of the nineties. Don't try and tell us that we have only just been given 'the message' that domestic violence is not OK.

I wonder if all these hugely expensive tax-payer funded media campaigns are just glorified make-work schemes. I also wonder if they don't sometimes provoke an emotional backlash.

One thing is clear - getting the message is not the same thing as acting it on. Apart from an increase in reporting I do not expect the "It's not OK" campaign to effect a decrease in domestic violence. Not while we keep on turning out ever more culprits with welfare-created families.

Stud farmers vs fertility specialists

Stud farms exist so mares can go to them, get served and produce a foal. A number are now offering a 75 percent money back guarantee if the mare fails to conceive. So the mare's owner pays let's say $10,000 but will have $7,500 refunded if the serving is unsuccessful.

Listening to Breakfast telly this morning I see that human fertility specialists have jumped on the bandwagon BUT their deal is a little more, what shall we say, self-interested. They offer 3 'treatments' with a 70 percent refund if no conception takes place. That is, the punter pays for 3 up front regardless of whether or not they are all needed. If the first treatment is successful the punter loses a substantial sum of money. And I call them punters because it really is gambling. And we are not talking small beer either. The cost is $24-30,000.

Why not one treatment with a 75 percent refund if unsuccessful?

I guess the fertility specialists costs are significantly higher than a stud farmers. But one wouldn't be surprised to see an improvement in the first-treatment success rate.

A Gender and Disaster Conference

“The purpose of this conference will be to address and review progress and existing challenges in mainstreaming gender issues in disaster risk reduction. At present there is an unequal balance in how disasters affect men and women” said Ms Chadwick.

Stevie don't-dock-dogs Chadwick has found an even more burning issue to occupy her.

It stretches the imagination how these hand-wringers propose tackling this anomaly. But hang on a minute. How did they work out that males and females are unequally affected by natural disasters?

In NZ I would expect that built-up city areas would fare the worst. If anything the population balance would be tilted towards men at any given time of the day.

As men predominate in rescue operations many will experience additional exposure to risk.

Surely gender makes little difference to children who are probably the most vulnerable given their lesser physical strength and (depending on age) reasoning abilities. Oh yes. One might make the same observation about females leaving out the age dependent qualification.

Is that it? Women are disproportionately affected by natural disaster because they are weak and stupid? Anyone that dreams up this kind of BS certainly is.

Perhaps while Ms Chadwick is over in the host country she can have a word about the the cruelty of docking dog tails. To the Chinese. Yes. It'll be about as useful as anything else she does while there.