Turn it up please

This is a good show. Not quite Coro but getting there....

Alternative to the alternative

Here is the one of the up shots of Monday's meeting of the Alternative Welfare Working Group. The one that wants more welfare. The Greens are sticking with their effective use of children (saccharin images) to promote policy. Policy that will unfortunately work against children's best interests.

This is a Green e-card designed to be sent to Paula Bennett. Below it I have used a different image and written some alternative (alternative to the alternative) text. Please feel free to e-mail this blog post to the Minister.



Dear Paula Bennett

Please reject the Welfare Working Group report.

The report's recommendations are extreme and will hurt vulnerable New Zealand families.

New Zealand kids deserve access to essentials and opportunities, especially in hard-times.

Cutting benefits, work-testing parents, and targeting the disabled will leave many people and their children out on the cold.

Please reject this report and give all our kids a chance.











Please accept the Welfare Working Group Report.

The report's recommendations are rational and will improve the lives of New Zealand families, especially in the long term.

New Zealand children deserve access to essentials and opportunities. Most importantly, they deserve parents who will do everything in their power to support and care for them through work, and who will instil similar expectations in them.

As benefits will not be cut where genuine attempts to find and accept work are made, and the small number unable to support themselves will not be targeted, children will not be out in the cold.

Please accept this report and give all our kids a chance.

What Thompson said is not a hanging offence...

...except maybe in this country.

Women Take Almost 50 Percent More Short-Term Sick Leave Than Men

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080204212846.htm

According to data from the U.S. Labor Department released last November, both married and unmarried women with children report a higher rate of absences from work than those without children.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=4241746&page=1

Women take more sick days than men

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/8534796/Women-take-more-sick-days-than-men.html


And:

In most Western countries illness-related absenteeism is higher among female workers than among male workers. Using the personnel dataset of a large Italian bank, we show that the probability of an absence due to illness increases for females, relative to males, approximately 28 days after a previous illness. This difference disappears for workers age 45 or older. We interpret this as evidence that the menstrual cycle raises female absenteeism. Absences with a 28-day cycle explain a significant fraction of the male-female absenteeism gap.

To investigate the effect of absenteeism on earnings, we use a simple signaling model in which employers cannot directly observe workers' productivity, and therefore use observable characteristics – including absenteeism – to set wages. Since men are absent from work because of health and shirking reasons, while women face an additional exogenous source of health shocks due to menstruation, the signal extraction based on absenteeism is more informative about shirking for males than for females. Consistent with the predictions of the model, we find that the relationship between earnings and absenteeism is more negative for males than for females. Furthermore, this difference declines with seniority, as employers learn more about their workers' true productivity. Finally, we calculate the earnings cost for women associated with menstruation. We find that higher absenteeism induced by the 28-day cycle explains 11.8 percent of the earnings gender differential.

http://neweconomist.blogs.com/new_economist/2006/07/menstruation2.html

Why won't New Zealanders grow up and engage in rational debate instead of indulging emotion?

What is the 'official' unemployment rate?

On the front page of Statistics NZ the unemployment is given as 6.6 percent for the March quarter.

That is the figure provided by the March quarter HLFS.

Yet when using Table Builder the rate appears as 7 percent.

That is a big difference.

And the sets of figures that produce the rate vary yet my understanding is the source for the data is the same.

Now this all may seem pedantic but when official unemployment rates are released a song and dance is made about them. They are taken as a significant indicator of how the economy is faring and add to or detract from business confidence.

NZ hasn't seen an unemployment rate of 7 percent or over this decade. Sorry, this century (according to TableBuilder). Was it there in March?

I will query Statistics NZ. There is probably an explanation but I want to know what it is.

Update: Very quick response from Statistics NZ. Inside two hours. Big tick.

Both figures are from the HLFS.

The 7.0% figure from Table Builder is the number of unemployed persons
expressed as a percentage of the labour force as of the quarter. These
statistics are averages for the three-month period.


The headline 6.6% figure is seasonally adjusted. Seasonal adjustment aims
to eliminate the impact of regular seasonal events on a time series. In the
labour market, cyclical events that affect labour supply and demand occur
around the same time each year. For example, in summertime a large pool of
student labour is both available for, and actively seeking, work. Demand
for labour in the retail sector and in many primary production industries
also increases.


Seasonal adjustment makes data for adjacent quarters more comparable by
smoothing out the effect on the times series of any regular seasonal
events. This ensures that the underlying movements in the time series are
more visible. Each quarter, the seasonal adjustment process is applied to
the latest and all previous quarters. This means that seasonally adjusted
estimates for any of the previously published quarters may change slightly.

What effect the earthquakes on beneficiary numbers?

With reports of increased domestic violence, stress, workplace bullying, and job losses I thought I would have a quick look at Canterbury beneficiary stats.

The national increase across all benefits was 2 percent. In Christchurch it was 3.8 percent. On the face of it, surprisingly small.

But intriguingly, DPB numbers, against the national trend, have dropped, but only very slightly. 15 to be exact. I suspect this is because single parent families have packed up and left. Beneficiaries have, in some respects, more economic mobility than others. Their registration would shift to whichever region they moved to. There have been some significant DPB rises in places like Invercargill and Timaru.

So if many leave (transfer registration) but quite a lot go on (newly register in Christchurch) we could see either a small net loss or gain. Consequently the earthquake may have contributed significantly to more people on benefits but it isn't immediately obvious by viewing the Canterbury statistics.

DPB - more going on than leaving

Just for the record, Paula Bennett told a Welfare and Social Sector Policy Reform conference in Wellington yesterday:

The number of those coming off the DPB since part-time work requirements were introduced had increased by 22 per cent over the past year - to more than 3,500 people.

Part-time worktesting when the youngest child is six was introduced in September 2010.

Here are the DPB totals for each quarter over the past year:

June 2010 111,689
Sept 2010 112,765
Dec 2010 112,865
March 2011 113,077

Ops normal.

More people going on the DPB than leaving.

(While that conference was taking place so was another meeting of the Alternative Welfare Justice group and supporters. The organiser was the Catholic Social Justice Agency, Caritas. Expect rumblings from that today. The NZ Herald Social Issues reporter did not report on the conference Bennett attended so he may have been at the other.)

Votes needed

I am a big fan of aspiring people seeking sponsorship through the private sector. Rather than via SPARC or Creative NZ or other taxpayer-funded bonanzas.

Here's an inspiring case.

It only takes a moment to register your vote.

A lot of special needs young adults have been stuffed about by poor government policy over recent times. Give this guy a break.

MSD spinning

The glossy Ministry of Social Development's Rise magazine (note to self - ask how much it costs to produce under the OIA) was released during the week, and contains an article about the Manurewa-based Taonga Trust, which works with teenage parents. For a change some statistics, but not good ones, are presented:

New Zealand has the second highest teenage birth rate among the world's developed countries. In 2009 there were 4,670 births to New Zealand teenagers.

In Manukau City around 630 teenagers give birth each year.

We are second only to the US where their rate is also boosted by very high minority teenage birth rates.

The piece continues:

Vulnerable and unsupported teen parents and their children can face a multitude of disadvantages. New Zealand studies show that compared with women who had not become mothers by age 21, teen mothers are:

nine times more likely to have no qualifications
twice as likely to suffer from major depression
twice as likely to be substance dependent
three times more likely to be suicidal at times
and three times more likely to be dependent on a benefit.

Well this is refreshing. An acknowledgement that having babies very young is neither good for the mother nor the children.

But what would I put this unusual frankness down to?

Pleading on behalf of the Trust? They will always need more funding.

But the pleading highlights the way government handles the problem. Pour in more and more corrective resources.

Instead of saying, hang on a minute. This is avoidable. Why are the statistics so high? What has the welfare incentive got to do with it?

Health analysts have no problem grasping the concept of prevention. It is cheaper (and better for the patient) than treating disease.

In the social arena however the attitude seems to prevail that the high teenage birth rate is fait accompli, a cultural tradition even.

And as I re-read the article it strikes me, looking at the cover and the smiling faces, that this is published by the MSD as a good news story. Look at us. Look how well we are doing.

But it isn't. It's a bad news story about a government-created social disaster which provides work for worthies. That's all.

(The number registered on the DPB in Manukau has risen 18.5 percent in the ten years to March 2011. There are 1,621 on the DPB with roughly 2,500 children. That would fill half a dozen good-sized schools. That's just Manukau. In Mangere there are 3,329 and Manurewa 2,929 - attached to which will be around another 10,000 or so children. I don't think 'disaster' is too strong a word.)

National right to put welfare at centre of election

Just posted at "Breaking Views".

Why is wowserism no longer the domain of women?

I usually don't catch up with NZ Herald columnists till the following day, given I read early and they are not published till later. Garth George yesterday called for the drinking age to be raised to 21. If you go back 100 years there are plenty of headlines about the demon drink and expunging it entirely from society. Yesterday I was reading from the Evening Post June 16, 1911 about the Women's Crusade for Prohibition in the Dominion and the eliciting of pledges from men not to drink. The campaign actually had a name. Catch my pal.

But the calls 100 years ago were largely from females. Now there are largely from men. I wonder why.

Oh and I see George is blaming alcohol for so many people being on the DPB. So if we legally withhold alcohol from them under-21s won't go on the DPB? Isn't it just better to withhold the DPB which indulges the consequences of drinking?

George blames alcohol for reliance on benefits and so reasons, take alcohol away from everyone under 21. Even those who drink responsibly.

Whereas I blame benefits for the abuse of alcohol. Nothing like a state income free of obligation to sooth a "shuddering hangover" Garth.

The psychology of the welfare debate

Unusually insightful article here from one Kevin E Schiemsing.

US religionists are in disagreement about proposed cuts to welfare programmes. The disagreement isn't just between various sects but between Catholics. This arises out of how different Catholics view the role of government. Without doubt the same variance of view exists in NZ.

The proponents of government welfare programmes came up with this declaration called The Circle of Protection. It appears that signatories insist that cuts will hurt the poor.

But this is what really struck me:

Defenders of government welfare programs not only cannot conceive of the possibility that government programs actually harm rather than help the people they target; they cannot conceive of the possibility that anyone else could conceive of the possibility. Those of us who sincerely believe that such programs are harmful are baffled at what we perceive to be stubborn resistance to the facts of the matter.

Totally.

This explains why people like me are characterised as selfish and uncaring. Pro welfare types don't actually believe that I believe welfare hurts individuals. In which case I must have another evil agenda. Racism, or eugenics, whatever.

Talking to Leighton Smith the other day, the matter of my paper Maori and Welfare came up. He asked an odd question I thought. Pretty much, do you believe the things you write? Or maybe it was, do you believe the things you write to be true or factual? That was what I took from the question anyway. Which actually made me burst into laughter. Of course I believe them I said. I wouldn't write them if I didn't.

But here's another thing. I don't reflect the other side's disbelief. That is, I do not characterise proponents of government welfare as evil or having secret agendas. I describe them as well-intentioned but misguided. Patronising at best. Dangerous at worst. But nevertheless sincere in their clinging to faith in government efforts to reduce poverty.

Back to the column:

What unemployed and impoverished people really need is not government handouts, but access to, and the capacity and inducement to engage, the market economy—as Pope John Paul II put it, to “enter the circle of exchange.” Government policy should be encouraging companies to hire and potential employees to be hired. Yet, to take but one example of recent counter productivity, economists have shown that extending unemployment benefits beyond a certain length of time correlates with higher unemployment rates. If a safety net becomes too comfortable, people are inclined to remain in it. Welfare program advocates deny this vehemently—everyone wants to work, they say; they just need the chance—but statistical evidence and a realistic understanding of human nature contradict them. It could be that the perfect job is not available; maybe finding work means picking up and moving, or taking a cut in pay, or training to acquire a new skill. People faced with these situations deserve our compassion and assistance. But if we minimize the incentive to do what is necessary to find employment, we do neither the out-of-work individual nor the overall economy any favors.

So, do you think this fellow really believes all that?

You bet. And so do I.

On Whaleoil's latest foray - hurray

When I thought Cameron Slater had hacked into the Labour site I was conflicted. Glad he had (intentionally or otherwise) avenged the Brash burglary, but two wrongs don't make a right.

Now it is clear he merely helped himself to what was on offer through another party's carelessness, the morality changes. And context is everything.

Although his outing of the on-line alias 'Micky Savage' (a person with views that would offend the original name-bearer) may have not been facilitated by his newly acquired database, if it has, I look forward to lots more.

Some of us have put our opinions and addresses and images out there for all to see, for some years. It gives me immense pleasure to see those who haven't, who have used the cloak of either an alias or anonymity to ridicule, malign, lie or bully, get their come-uppance.

More tripe about children in poverty

The DomPost reports that according to the school principal at Cannon's Creek School, "... about three quarters of parents are unemployed." Money is tighter than ever before apparently. It's the worst the principal has seen. In 30 years!

Slightly odd that as there are fewer people drawing an unemployment benefit in Porirua now than there was in 2006*. More on the DPB though.

Hasn't some well-meaning lefty pointed out to her that being on the DPB does not mean a parent is "unemployed"? Parenting is work afterall.

Seriously, when will 'child poverty' start being blamed on family structure instead of unemployment?

And Kidscan, who are supplying raincoats and breakfasts to the pupils only make it easier for their parents to get by on benefits.

*Porirua Unemployment Benefit March 2006 1,421 March 2011 1,261
Porirua Domestic purposes Benefit March 2006 2,108 March 2011 2,152

The Official Information Act for Officials?

Reading a NZ Herald report about households receiving high total benefits due to high total occupants had me thinking...

A report obtained under the Official Information Act shows 14 people, including three children, were listed at one household in Papatoetoe. Collectively it was getting over $4000 a week net in benefit payments - adding up to about $224,000 a year.

... how can the Herald get the sort of specific information I can't? The answer is, they can't. But the Minister can.

She [Paula Bennett]had asked for the breakdown of benefit payments per household as part of work a panel of ministers is doing on welfare reforms following the Welfare Working Group report.

I can provide many examples of refusal to release information by MSD.

Ah, but now I understand. The Official Information Act is so-called because it refers to Information accessible only to Officials.

Kill some local economies

I remember the first ACT 'do' I ever attended. Still a member of the Libz, I had been very active in campaigning against the DPB from the social, economic and philosophical viewpoints. It was 2002. The local candidate had persuaded me to attend this dinner and he would sit me next to Muriel Newman and we could exchanges ideas etc about welfare. It was at the Hutt Men's club, very plush and with many grey-haired, well-heeled in attendance. I was dumbstruck when this gentlemen, who had begun the conversation about welfare, said to me, smugly I thought, "If we took away the DPB it would kill some local economies. Can't be done." Because it was such an unexpected comment with validity, because I was amongst business people who may well share the same attitude, I let it go. If it was repeated to me today I would agree and explain why those particular economies need to be killed off. Economies that survive on the money pumped into them every day by Work and Income. Places like Ruatoria, Te Kaha, Waverley, Flaxmere, Reporoa and Kawerau. And certain suburbs near all of NZ's major towns and cities. Places of hopelessness. Places where inhabitants experience small superficial highs and desperate deep lows. Where life is about day-to-day survival with no capacity to aspire to anything else.

False economies do not work on a large scale, and they do not work on a small scale. The Labour government's official recognition of this manifested in the Jobs Jolt policy, which forbade unemployed people from moving to places where there were no jobs - not if they wanted to receive taxpayer support anyway. But because they never extended the policy to other beneficiaries, particularly those on the DPB who could support a none-work inclined partner, the jobless economies survived.

The remark from the ACT dinner attendee was probably well-intentioned in his view. It may have been self-interested. But it was shallow in its ignorance of 'that which cannot be seen' and a denial of the day of reckoning which must surely come.

The cute things children say - not

Another study from the previously mentioned June issue of the Social Policy Journal of New Zealand is into children's perceptions of violence - physical, sexual and emotional, which is how CYF also categorises abuse by the way. Over 2,000 children randomly selected from 28 schools of "various sizes, geographic areas and socio-economic neighbourhoods" filled out questionairres. Apart from telling us the overall incidence of experience ...

Sixty-three percent of children reported having directly experienced physical violence at some time in their lives. Two-thirds reported having witnessed physical violence directed at other children, and nearly 90% reported having seen violence in the media. Although less common, still more than a quarter of the children (27%) reported witnessing violence against adults.

...there is no breakdown of socio-economic status, gender, age or ethnicity. What I would have been interested in.

Instead, because of the nature of the type of research, the report features many direct quotes from children. If you only like the cute things kids say, stop here.

"I've been punched, grabbed by the throat and hung over a trellis and then thrown on the concrete"

"I get hidings all the time and some people hurt me"

"Kicked by somebody I don't know because my dog went on their land"

"I got into a fight with my Mum and I hit her. Then she hit me with the broom and kicked me out of the house"

"Some kids tease me and do wrestling moves on me and I'm getting scabs and bruises"

"I saw people having a fight. Blood on walls and carpet. Screaming and yelling."

"My Mum and her boyfriend always get in arguments and I've seen heaps of things get smashed"

"I watched my Aunty and my Dad fighting with knives inside at night"

"My Dad hurt Mum in town and made her mouth bleed".

"In the Christmas holidays my family went away with our friends, but Dad wasn't allowed to come because Mum had a something order out on him. But on the third day we were there Dad came because he needed to talk to Mum, and Dad and my Dad's friends got in a big fight with me, all my sisters and the rest of the camp watching."

"I woke up and heard fighting and banging the walls. I thought my Mum's boyfriend was beating her up."

"When my Mum and Step-Dad broke up they started hitting each other. I was in my room in bed."

"I've been hit with metal or any objects my parents pick up. My Dad abused my Mum when I was young"

"When I got beaten up and when I got chased by a man. When my sister got beaten up by my Dad and when my sister got raped"

"I have been followed by a man six times. I got taken off my Dad. Dad went to jail for beating my Step-Mum and assaulting her. I got punched by someone in my family. But I am not telling who. And my Mum is having a bad time at the moment at home."

"People get mean to me because my Mum goes out with heaps of men"

"Dad's girlfriend yells at me and swears at me when Dad isn't around for no reason"

"People said I would be traded for a dog"

"When my Mum and Dad had a fight and my Dad wouldn't stop beating my Mum up and I can't stop thinking about it, but they don't do that any more and when my Dad yells at my brother and the way he speaks."

"I've been scared when my Mum and Dad fight because I don't know who to go to."

"I have been sexually abused and just had it sorted out and I had to move away from all my friends and family. My brothers always hurt me by calling me names about my weight and size."

"My Dad went to jail for raping me."

"My friend got body slammed before my eyes and I was too weak to help him get up."

"Mum has been quite a witch, spelt with a B, and started screaming at me. I've tried suicide two times because of her"

Enough?

You will be interested in the conclusion from the researchers:

The level of children's exposure to violence in this country is relatively high, and New Zealand appears to be a more violent country for children than was previously realised. The perceptions of the children in this study were that their experiences had a notable impact on their wellbeing. Furthermore, observation of violent events was rated as having a more powerful impact on children than their own victimisation. For many children the conclusion can be drawn that bullying is part of their childhood. Reporting the effects of their violent experiences highlighted the special vulnerability of children. Adults must assume responsibility to reduce our children's exposure to violence because New Zealand cannot afford the devastating effects of failing to protect its children.

Servant? Give me a break

"Whatever I do, I would like to continue to serve our community and our country."

And get paid a hundred grand more than the average annual income of those I serve.

So "much to offer". So much magnanimity.

Brash was at the Knowledge Wave Conference too

Fran O'Sullivan was delving through old file boxes and came across one about the Knowledge Wave conference in 2001. Ten years ago already. She writes that is was a lost opportunity:

...Catching the Knowledge Wave project stands out as one of the key missed opportunities that also litter New Zealand's history...

Essentially she says we are all talk. But quotes Helen Clark, mentions ex University of Auckland vice-chancellor John Hood and "political, business and social leaders from countries like Australia, Canada, Ireland, Israel, Singapore, Korea, the US and Taiwan."

She makes no allusion to Don Brash, then Reserve Bank Governor. But I was impressed enough by what he said to also keep a clipping.



The headline reads, Let's get radical, challenges Brash. NZ could only climb back into the ranks of the wealthy with a change of attitude and behaviour but New Zealanders had " deeply ingrained cultural characteristics", a disdain for commercial success, no strong passion for education and a tendency for immediate gratification. The economy would not improve significantly while 350,000 working age people received tax-payer funded income support. He suggested lifetime limits on how long able-bodied people could claim state benefits.

But let me finish with Fran O'Sullivan's words:

In retrospect, Catching the Knowledge Wave was too much about conversation and too little about action. It would be too pat to put this down to the heavy infusion of public relations messaging. Although that is a factor.

The real issue is that New Zealand body politic is still far too slow and far too slack when it comes to implementing a big agenda.

The John Key Government's own growth strategy is a case in point. For example, the shambles over the mining strategy and the failure to put some ballast under the PM's financial services hub project. Until recently, NZTE has been a relative shambles ... the list goes on.

It's unfathomable that a private sector operator like Key doesn't put a few more skilled ministers alongside Steven Joyce and Tony Ryall to form a speed team to get major change bedded down.

After three years of economic crises, endlessly debating is no longer an option.

Brash obviously agrees with the final sentence. But the way Key and National reacted to his political re-emergence illustrates exactly why we are going nowhere fast. Perhaps there should be an age limit on becoming the leader of a country. Too young and there is little or less sense of urgency and certainly less context.

Ten years ago my son had barely started primary school. This week he recieved his electoral enrolment form. Ten years is a bloody long time.

As Brash said ten years ago, New Zealand needs to get radical.

New research into early Maori parenting skirts around the issue of incentives

The Social Policy Journal has just been released and contains a study into the early pregnancy/parenting rate of young Maori using the Christchurch Health and Development birth cohort. It agonisingly pores over the reasons for this and not once considers benefits as an incentive due to the potentially low incomes from work of Maori youth.

What is interesting is new information about the difference between those who identify as sole Maori and those who identify as Maori/other, and the results also include males who were asked if they got a partner pregnant or became a parent under 20.

The following is a quote from the ' discussion':

Two major findings emerged from these analyses. First, respondents having a sole Māori cultural identity had odds of early pregnancy and parenthood that were over seven times higher than those of non-Māori, while those of Māori/other cultural identity had odds of early pregnancy and parenthood that were over three times higher than non-Māori. These results were evident for both males and females. Also, those of sole Māori cultural identity had rates of pregnancy and parenthood that were significantly (p < .05) greater than those of Māori/other cultural identity. Similar findings were obtained using an alternative method of classifying Māori identity. These findings are consistent with the view that cultural identity plays an important role in ethnic differences, since rates of early pregnancy/parenthood increased steadily with increasing Māori cultural identity.

Further analysis suggested that, in part, the associations between cultural identity and early pregnancy/parenthood were due to socio-economic and family-related factors. After adjustment for these factors, those of sole Māori identity had rates of early pregnancy and parenthood that were more than three times higher than those of non-Māori and those of Māori/other identity. Again, similar results were found for males and females, and these findings were replicated in a supplementary analysis using an alternative measure of Māori identity.

Collectively these findings suggest that the higher rates of early pregnancy and parenthood among Māori are a consequence of a combination of socio-economic, family and cultural factors that combine to place young Māori at significantly increased risks of early pregnancy and parenthood. The implications of these conclusions are discussed below.

Although it has been argued that early parenting has been constructed as a problem by the health profession (e.g. Barker 1998), there is evidence that draws links between early age of pregnancy and greater likelihood of negative outcomes for offspring and parents (Coley and Chase-Lansdale 1998, Fergusson and Woodward 1999, Singh et al. 2001, Hobcraft and Kiernan 2001, Mantell et al. 2004, Ministry of Social Development 2008a, Robson and Berthoud 2006, Woodward et al. 2006, Boden et al. 2008). The results of the present study suggest that Māori, and in particular individuals of sole Māori cultural identity, are at increased risk of early pregnancy/parenthood. It could therefore be argued that at least some of the social disadvantage experienced by Māori in New Zealand may be due in part to increased rates of early pregnancy/parenthood among those of sole Māori cultural identity.

It "could therefore be argued?"

What are these people frightened of?

What timidity looks like

From Stuff:

The welfare group's February report said the cost of welfare would go from $47 billion to $34b by 2021 if its reforms proceeded - cutting the 360,000 on welfare by 100,000, by putting work obligations on them in exchange for support such as childcare.

Even if the goal is achieved, in simple terms of total number of beneficiaries, the reduction will be a worse performance than under Labour.