Blog stats for 2009

Thanks

Does NZ's future success rest on skin colour?

Rawiri Taonui, head of Maori and Indigenous studies at Canterbury University, has written a piece in today's NZ Herald about the flying of two flags, entitled Time for New Zealand to show all its colour.

Whether Pakeha see two flags as divisive or unifying is directly proportionate to the extent of hangups about race. Those who have difficulty relating to Maori, especially if they are dark skinned, physically large and/or overtly ethnic and tribal, and have not spent much time on a marae, will see the flag as separatist simply out of fear of difference and diversity. Fortunately, this lot are in rapid decline. New Zealand will be 50 per cent brown by 2030. Those who are at ease with themselves, respect Maori and like other cultures will see the flags as representative of an over-arching unity, of every colour, hue and creed. They are the New Zealanders of the future.

The flying of a Maori flag does not worry me IF it is a unifying move. Only time will tell.

What interested me here is the statement that by 2030 50 percent of New Zealanders will be brown. According to Statistics NZ data, by 2026 the population will be 5,517,600. European or other will make up 62.2 percent, Maori 14.8, Asian 14.3 and Pacific 8.7. Apart from the Asian number, not much change from today.

But what bothers me is the talk about skin colour in the first place. The title of the piece is not only a reference to flag colour but pigment. What is Rawiri Taonui getting at here? That a group exists that doesn't like Maori because they are brown, but that group, or "that lot", couldn't include people who are also brown? That Maori, Asian and Pacific people will live in a state of harmony and mutual respect because they are all brown?

He is saying that people who respect Maori and like other cultures will see flying both flags as unifying. Maybe. I would probably fit this group (with lots of provisos). And yet....

Why bring colour into it? Does he think that the more brown the country gets the more unity there will be? What, then, about the non-brown people progressively becoming a minority? Or should we hit the magic 50 percent and stop right there?

Then we can all live happily ever after?

Research into casual sex surprises

The Dominion Post reproduced this column today. Essentially new research, with a reasonably large sample, found that young people having casual sex are not suffering ill effects from it. The researchers were apparently taken aback.

I'm not. Morality, values, ethics, whatever label you want to put on it, is changing constantly. Any stigma attached to casual sex is diminishing (interestingly the researchers found a mismatch between the number of males versus females admitting to causal sex and theorised that men are more likely to label their encounter as casual whereas females label it as something more).

But I think there is another reason for the result. There are most certainly people for whom casual sex will cause emotional problems - guilt, self-recrimination, etc - so those people are avoiding it. Those for whom that would be a waste of mental energy just get on and enjoy it on their own terms. Most people, despite contemporary paternalistic wisdom telling us otherwise, are capable of making sensible choices. It would just be better if 'most' was a bigger percentage.

Creative accounting Douglas-style

54 percent of your and every one else’s personal tax goes towards healthcare. The growth is scary, when just two years ago the figure was 41 percent of your personal tax. Saying 54 percent can hide what this means. If you earn minimum wage, you will pay about $2500 every year for healthcare. If you earn the average wage, you will pay over $6000 for healthcare.

That's Roger Douglas on Health. It's from an e-mailed pamphlet that landed in my in-box a few days ago. It also features here.

My immediate reaction is BS. Roger is up to more creative accounting. And I didn't think much more about it.

I was reminded of it again this morning however when reading a well-written op-ed from Des Gorman, head of Auckland University's School of Medicine, and the chairman of Health Workforce New Zealand.

Health accounts for 20 per cent of Government expenditure and half of the new money in the 2009 Budget was allocated to health.

Correct. In which case 20 percent of the tax you pay goes towards healthcare. Unless the government apportions more income tax to health than it apportions to any other area of expenditure. Which it does not.

Whatever tax is paid - income, GST, corporate, excise - goes into the consolidated account and is then allocated accordingly. If we applied Roger's formula across the board government would be spending 170 percent more than it collects. For instance I could calculate that welfare spending is costing you $9,000 a year ($20 billion divided by 2.2 million individuals) or 81 percent of your "personal tax" if you earn the "average wage". See how quickly this is coming unstuck? 100 percent has already been exceeded.

As I have said before I am not totally averse to Roger's ideas - I support individual responsibility but do not like compulsion. However, creative accounting turns me off totally. Why would I trust the rest of the message when I can't trust the numbers?

Lifestyle welfare

Here is the Boxing Day Dominion Post editorial. I was pleased to see the writer using the term 'lifestyle' not only because it is factual, but because it labels the group needing attention as distinct from all beneficiaries.

My response was published this morning (apologies for the unintentional sizing inconsistency).

Another false allegation?

Remember the troublesome two who claimed they had been attacked in New Plymouth earlier this year?

Can't help wondering if this isn't a similar situation. What would two youths want with a Hannah Montana teeshirt?

The disconcerting thing is, I don't know whether to hope I am right or wrong. And I feel uncomfortable about my skepticism, but that's what happens when crying wolf isn't an unusual occurence.

Douglas and ACT

This post wouldn't have happened without prompting. As it stands ACT doesn't interest me but a comment today made me mentally reflect on why.

Chuck Bird has twice made reference to ACT's constitution on this blog. As I am no longer a member I am not sure why. The constitutional excerpt;

“...maintain social and economic support for those unable to help themselves and who are in genuine need of assistance”

defines out what Chuck thinks welfare should be, which includes retaining a welfare state. He was therefore unhappy with a repetitive commentor who harps on monotonously about how we should ZERO ALL BENEFITS.

Chuck thinks he will put off ACT voters. I am flattered Chuck thinks that many people read my blog.

However, getting rid of all benefits is closer to what Douglas proposes than what is in the ACT constitution. Douglas has always wanted all New Zealanders to fund their own social security needs through individualised accounts.

From the NZ Herald;

"Sir Roger's Budget would cut Government expenditure by more than a quarter within one year.

People would be expected to pay for their children's primary and secondary education directly; tax credits would be available for those whose tax cuts were insufficient to cover those costs directly.

They would also be expected to take out catastrophic health insurance and meet more minor health costs like GP visits, out of pocket. Accident, sickness and unemployment insurance would also be a matter of individual responsibility."

Now, I am not averse to Douglas' thinking BUT its not going to happen any time soon. He hasn't managed to build any movement for it here or in the UK in 20 years.

Which is why I have always channelled my efforts into realistic (most would call it radical) reform of the current system. There was a period when state social security did what it was supposed to do. Can we ever return to that? Quite possibly not. But the prospect is more palatable to voters than what Douglas wants.

My approach is also what Muriel Newman pushed for a long time. When Muriel was welfare spokesperson EVERYONE knew what ACT policy was. Since Roger assumed that portfolio nobody knows what ACT policy is because he promotes ideas with the rider that "the views expressed are Sir Roger's and do not necessarily reflect the views of Act, but it features prominently on the party's website."

The situation is just mickey mouse. And it was mickey mouse going into the election. If ACT had had concrete policy based on the US reforms it could have negotiated welfare reform as part of its agreement with National. Instead it chose a platform of getting tough on crime. Well, I hate to say this, but crime is only going to increase until welfare is reformed, because welfare is breeding tomorrow's criminals as I write.

National's fault that more people are needing foodbank parcels

That's what Ron Maynard of the Southland Food Bank Charitable Trust says;

Southland Food Bank Charitable Trust co-ordinator Ron Maynard said he had also noted an increase in the number of families needing handouts, which he attributed to a rise in the cost of living and the National Party coming into power.

"I think it is the times we are living in – since National (Party) come in it has got worse. That is one reason if you want to get political about it," Mr Maynard said.

Has National cut welfare benefits? Is National responsible for NZ experiencing a recession? Did National stop adjusting benefits for cost of living increases? Isn't it true that there are fewer people on benefits in Southland than there were 5 years ago, when Labour was mid-term?

Doesn't it just make you want to groan when people dealing with 'need' say such banal things? Instead of some serious analysis we get a political knee-jerk response.

Of course it is not the wont of food bank coordinators to question applicants. But perhaps they should be looking at the underlying reasons why the majority of low income people do not need their services, and a handful do.

Mums matter

A picture for Opinionated Mummy, who could use a lift - not a lecture.

The escalating immorality of the welfare state

I was speed-reading through F A Harper's essay on the immorality of the welfare state. There are too many theological concepts in it for my taste. However this quote is right on the money. It it preceded by a discussion about the moral justification of theft when it is undertaken to 'do good';

Under the welfare state, this process of theft has spread from its use in alleviating catastrophe, to anticipating catastrophe, to conjuring up catastrophe, to the “need” for luxuries for those who have them not.

Tyres on a late model car springs immediately to mind. There is no arguing with this observation.

Best Christmas song ever

Must be my Irish ancestry, with a great granddad officially described a "scavenger" who left Ireland to chance his arm not in the US, but Liverpool.

This song has everything I love; drinking, gambling, dreams, risk, failure, and utter poignancy....



And now I have a gingerbread house to decorate.....

Update;

Seriously "pissed off" with Obama

Obama is rapidly shedding votes across the spectrum. A professor of political science at Hofstra University in New York, is "really pissed off" with him. A very entertaining read. I like this question and Key should take note;

Why does he refuse to make anyone his enemy, thus making everyone his enemy?

Key is still in the upward popularity phase of such an approach. But as sure as winter follows summer....

The Remote Client Unit - the 'too hard basket'

The now infamous Harris family were accessing Work and Income services (dosh) via the department's remote client unit. According to MSD;

The Remote Client Unit has been established to provide an avenue for clients, who have been assessed as posing a high risk to the safety of Ministry staff in Service Centres nationwide, to continue to access Ministry services.

Isn't that a boon for those beneficiaries who do not want to attend planning meetings, who do not want to comply with work-testing, who do not want to co-operate with increased face-to-face intensive case management, which has and will continue to form attempts to reform welfare? That's the cushy number to get onto. Can't be particularly difficult for a manipulative person.

I feel a Xmas Eve OIA request coming on.

Update; Done. I'll drop it in the post when I walk the dog in a moment.

Reapplying for the dole hardly a "radical proposal"

According to the Dominion Post;

The Government is considering cancelling unemployment benefits after a year and forcing beneficiaries to reapply.

Social Development Minister Paula Bennett unveiled the radical proposal a day after revelations that 300 long-term beneficiaries are receiving more than $1000 a week from the taxpayer.

It was revealed yesterday that the Harris family in Christchurch had received unemployment and sickness benefits for 25 years and recently received special-needs grants from Work and Income to fence their swimming pool and put new tyres on their 2007 Chrysler saloon.

Of course somebody should have to reapply for the dole if they have been on it a year. But reviews of the recipient's situation should be ongoing. Motivated people, however, aren't the problem. Currently 88 percent of those receiving the dole have been on it less than a year, so only a small percentage would be subjected to a reapplication process.

Paula Bennett's latest suggestion is apparently a reaction to the Harris family. But he wasn't on the dole. He was on a sickness benefit. His case manager had refused an application on the basis of stress, diagnosed by his GP. But after Harris visited a Work and Income 'designated doctor' (paid $106 for each appraisal) he was assessed as addicted to cannabis and granted the benefit he wanted. Thus he would have successfully navigated his way through a reapplication process.

There are over 140,000 people on an invalid or sickness benefit but only 60,000 are on the dole. The numbers seriously suggest that the incapacity benefits are in many cases a de facto dole. It is the case manager who makes the final decision about eligibility. But the doctors provide the certificates, the tacit approval. Any doctor who might be inclined to take a tougher line would probably steer a mile clear of becoming a designated doctor, which is where 'complicated' applicants will end up.

Many case managers have come from the ranks of beneficiaries and are sympathetic; and quite a lot of doctors are inclined towards being socialistic. Those who would take a less compromising line are not motivated to get involved. In fact, we have seen instances of GPs refusing to deal with applicants for certificates required for the purposes of benefit eligibility.

Therein lies the problem.

Slave to state-dominated social welfare

Gordon Campbell is running his usual line about the privatisation of welfare services/benefits lining the pockets of National's ideological mates.

The potential for dehumanizing, intrusive action by private sector agencies in the lives of vulnerable families is quite high. Unemployment, after all, is still rising, and the economy is barely in recovery mode. For many families at risk, the jobs are simply not there – and to use the jargon – ‘the labour market continues to be de-leveraged.’ Cracking down on welfare families at such a time would be punitive, and unjust. Yet, as indicated, this policy is probably less about saving taxpayer money or helping the vulnerable, than it is about creating opportunities to make money from their plight.

Get it? Only the state is genuinely interested in the plight of the needy. Any other party is looking to exploit them.

I have commented ;

Many families were ‘at risk’ when the jobs WERE there. It is entirely obvious that thousands of families have defaulted to welfare before acquiring qualifications or work skills and getting a job pays less than growing the family.

The prospect of separatism does not excite me but it would be interesting to see what the likes of John Tamihere can do given control of benefit payments.

Paula Bennett and transparency

Minister for Social Development, Paula Bennett, is obviously attempting to stir up anger about the welfare system to make National's fiddling reforms more palatable to the voters. Lead stories in The Press, DomPost and The NZ Herald are designed to do exactly that.

The Press describes a couple who have been on benefits since 1984 and have claimed hundreds of thousands of dollars.

OK. So why aren't we told how many others have been on benefits since 1984 or earlier? My repeated attempts to source such information are refused because readily accessible information is only available for the period post-1996 and to provide you with this information officials would have to generate new reports based on raw data. Bugger off.

The NZ Herald describes how recipients of very large sums are looking after other people's children.

Are people going to be surprised that beneficiaries are being paid to look after other people's children? I am only surprised that some information has been released. Because whenever I have tried to put parameters on the number, again, my OIA requests are refused. Specifically;

The information you have requested is not held by the Ministry. In order to add a dependent child to a main benefit, the Ministry needs to know that the child is dependent on the caregiver, not the specific nature of the relationship between the child and their caregiver.... to provide you with this information officials would have to generate new reports based on raw data... Bugger off.

Ms Bennett has access to individual records and the staff to interrogate them. And while these stories of individual circumstances are very titillating they give bureaucrats and political defenders of the system an out. These cases are not representative, they will say. They form a tiny minority. They are the price we pay for having a caring and decent welfare state.

However;

"....the welfare system should be open and transparent," she [Paula Bennett] said.


In which case, why are OIA requests constantly refused?

Here is a prime example from this week.

Earlier this year a reader shared with me a letter she received from Ms Bennett which said;

You might be interested to know that the vast majority of DPB recipients are in fact sole parents who have been married or in a relationship and who have lost the support of their husbands or partners for a variety of reasons.

So I asked the Ministry:

Of those single parents currently receiving the DPB, what was their relationship status at the time they applied for their current payment?

I was told they would have been single at the time of the application. My question was misinterpreted. In the past Social Reports have included 'relationship status' as divorced, separated, separated from a de facto, etc so I challenged their answer. Here is their further response;

With regards to your other question on the reporting of the relationship status of single parents currently receiving the DPB, up until 2000 the Ministry included data on the relationship status of clients at the time they were granted Domestic Purposes Benefit in the Statistical Report. However since 2000 this information has not formed part of the Ministry's formal reporting and has not been reported on since 2003. As you are aware the Ministry is not required under the Official Information Act 1982 to create information in order to meet the specific requirements of an individual request. For this reason your request for this information was declined under section 18(e) of the Act.

Do you see the significance of this? There is no tracking of the relationship trends that lead women to the DPB. So there is no monitoring of the effect of this particular social policy on relationship formation and breakdown.

And tell me this. How does Paula Bennett know "the vast majority of DPB recipients are in fact sole parents who have been married or in a relationship..." if her Ministry isn't reporting on it?

Policy will not be reformed on the behavioural response of a few selected cases. Policy is changed based on long term negative or positive trends in behavioural response. In New Zealand the transparency of data has degenerated. Information available in other jurisdictions has no equivalent in this country. Probably the main reason the US led with welfare reform was their willingness to track and study what the data was telling them. Big picture data may not be as sexy as gang associates buying wheels for their late model cars with taxpayer money, but it will create the impetus for wider and abiding change.


(Afterthought; It may be, and I hope it is, that Paula Bennett is being as frustrated in her attempts to achieve transparency as I am. An end of year report card in yesterday's Dominion Post said that she was turning over a lot of staff. Maybe the old iron triangle is at play.)

Now that's what I call "consequences"

Another liar rips off Work and Income. This one gets $124,000 over 8 years pretending to be a solo mum. You got to laugh at the response from the Ministry of Social Development.

Social Development Ministry deputy chief executive Hilary Reynolds said benefit fraud exceeding $100,000 accounted for less than 1 per cent of cases. "Eight years is a long time to practise such deception. Georgina Nelson is now facing the consequences of her actions."

Oooooh. Which are?

"..... repaying the debt at $20 a week from her continuing benefit."

For starters why was she allowed to move to Inglewood where there is no work?? What should happen is a job, and a hefty weekly repayment. At the moment we are paying her to repay us. Madness. And no. I don't favour a jail sentence which will just cost us even more. Anyone who defrauds WINZ should immediately be cut off and left to fend for themselves. That would be consequences.

What is it with this country? We tax the bejesus out of honest, hard working people to pay liars and cheats and call it "facing the consequences". It isn't the liar facing consequences. It is NZ, for having such a soft-touch of a welfare system.

Two birthdays

Yesterday my blog was 4 years old. Every month this year has been better than the previous so a big thanks for dropping by each day.

And today this contented wee baby is 2 weeks old.



And here's their nanny. A dog trained to worry sheep into going where they do not want to go, she is very solicitous of Daisy's kittens. This is Girl with a sleeping Palangi, from the first litter.

High stakes gambling with NZ's future

At the closure of the Copenhagen talks, the Melbourne Age reports;

Liberal Leader Tony Abbott said the result vindicated his party's decision not to support the Federal Government's emissions trading scheme legislation, while Greens deputy leader Christine Milne said Prime Minister Kevin Rudd should be held responsible for ''trying to bully those who wanted a real deal into accepting his greenwash''.

During the passage of New Zealand's ETS legislation I sent the following letter to the Dominion Post. Don't think it was published. Maybe it is too simplistic or ill-informed but at the completion of the Copenhagen talks it seems apt to post it here;

Like many others I simply cannot understand the rush to pass the amended ETS legislation.

Apparently we signed up to Kyoto and have an obligation. Did nobody ever say till death do us part, and then get divorced?

The argument that the global community will punish inaction by not buying our exports is surely a matter of speculation. Wouldn't it be wiser to take the risk of being economically punished rather than embark on the certainty of punishing ourselves?

So that doesn't stack up for me. Then, even if the theory of man-made global warming is sound, New Zealand's cuts will make not a blind bit of difference in the larger scheme of things. So what is the point of our martyrdom?

Oh, because Green religion dictates that 'somebody has to lead the way'. Again there is no certainty that the rest of the world will follow, especially if evidence for anthropogenic warming diminishes or falls over completely. The only certainty is that we and our children will experience lower living standards.

So this whole business is no more than a high stakes gamble. I like a flutter but I wouldn't put my house on a horse.

Neologisms

A friend sent me latest Washington Post neologisms which prompted me to have search for others. These are some I like;


Flabbergasted (adj.), appalled over how much weight you have gained.

Willy-nilly (adj.), impotent

Lymph (v.), to walk with a lisp.

Flatulence (n.) the emergency vehicle that picks you up after you are run over by a steamroller.

Balderdash (n.), a rapidly receding hairline.

Rectitude (n.), the formal, dignified demeanor assumed by a proctologist immediately before he examines you.

Pokemon (n), A Jamaican proctologist.

Bustard (n.), a rude bus driver.

Pimple: n., pimp's apprentice.

Discussion: n., a Frisbee-related head injury.

Cabbage Patch: A patch for those trying to stop eating cabbage.

Bustard (n.), a rude bus driver.