Need a laugh?

Did my dough on the All Blacks to be ahead at half time by a margin of 16-25.

It's depressing for the Japanese and I don't think it is going to get any brighter somehow.

But this made me laugh, just arrived in my inbox from a non-rugby-watching philistine friend:

How attempts to protect children might backfire

The NZ Herald reports:

Turning a blind eye to child abuse will now be classified as criminal after Parliament tonight passed a law to hold people accountable.

The Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) creates a new offence of failing to take reasonable steps to protect a child or vulnerable adult from the risk of death, grievous bodily harm or sexual assault, which comes with a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment.

Parents or people aged over 18 could be found liable if they had frequent contact with the victim, including if they were a member of the same household or if they were a staff member at an institution where the victim lived.

There is a distinct possibility this law will increase the danger for abused children. That is because children may become more isolated as people who merely suspect abuse remove themselves from the circle of liability.

This may appear to be an abdication of responsibility but even for the best intentioned people, those who give freely of their time to work in high risk communities, the potential risks to themselves may become too high.

What is Rodney Hide going to do?

Sorry if I have missed something significant on this subject, but what is Rodney Hide doing?

Twice it has been reported that he is not giving a valedictory speech because he is not leaving parliament.

He isn't on National's list. He isn't standing for National in Epsom.

He isn't on ACT's list (with number three yet to be confirmed) and he isn't standing for ACT in Epsom.

Don't think he will be standing for the Mana Party somehow.

Which leaves another distinct possibility. He will stand as an Independent in Epsom.

Traditionally independent candidates do diddly squat. BUT Hide is a Minister. If National does a deal for him to continue in ministerial capacity he can continue to be an effective electorate MP. Peter Dunne and Jim Anderton have essentially been doing the same thing at various times.

I imagine that Rodney has a fair bit of personal loyalty saved in the Epsom bank. If I lived there I would vote for him even as an Independent.

And even if he failed he would probably do for Banks in the process. John Banks, who has to win Epsom to keep ACT in parliament. Can't see that worrying Rodney somehow. And why should it?

Interview about child poverty

Did an interview with Geoff Robinson on Morning Report today. I was asked to comment on the latest child poverty report released yesterday by CPAG. For some reason I was introduced as a researcher from a conservative right-wing think-tank called the Institute For Liberal Values (a contradiction in terms.) I haven't been in that role for years.

Anyway a local business couple came into my shop this morning saying I should be hiding. That people would be "ripping shreds off me" for suggesting that parents need to take more responsibility for those choices and actions which resulted in their children living in 'poverty'. They were tongue-in-cheek. But what a strange world we live in. Only governments are to blame for every ill that befalls us and only governments can resolve every ill that befalls us. It seems to be a mindset that many people and many media players can't get beyond. Perhaps it's because there is no story if individuals are at fault.

Absurd response to income management

The following is an Australian editorial about income management. It largely argues against the practice of allocating 50-70 percent of a benefit to a payment card, on the basis it restricts freedom and impinges on dignity.

A PROPOSAL by the federal government to manage welfare recipients' income has some merit if it is aimed at protecting children.

But any intervention - that most inflammatory of words - into the lives of people and denial of their basic human rights must be treated with great circumspection.

Income management, which is on trial in the highly cosmopolitan Bankstown region of western Sydney, involves apportioning between 50 and 70 per cent of a person's welfare payment to their BasicsCard.


The percentage is determined by Centrelink public servants on a case-by-case basis and the card can be used only in approved outlets such as supermarkets, department stores and motoring retailers. The card cannot be used for alcohol, tobacco or gambling.

It may seem hard to argue against an initiative that diverts money from the pub or the betting shop to the weekly food, clothing and medical budget. But income management impinges on people's right to make their own choices. It also risks stigmatising sections of our society.

The Howard government no doubt had its heart in the right place when it introduced its intervention policy into Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory.

How can protecting women and children from the brutal legacy of drug and alcohol abuse be a bad thing? Well, nominally, it can't.

But the reality is that such interference has an Orwellian aspect that must be questioned. The government and its hired help - the public service - assume the right to tell people how to live their lives.

Eradication of dignity, independence and freedom belongs in a totalitarian state, and even the suggestion of a move in this direction must be subject to rigorous scrutiny and debate.

While some in the Northern Territory have praised the intervention policy - now being sustained by the Gillard government - others have been implacably opposed to what they see as a denial of liberty.

Supporters argue that lives have been saved or greatly improved by intervention.

But while governments must do everything possible to educate and even regulate so that vulnerable members of society are protected, they must not trample people's rights to shape their own destiny.

There are many examples in Australia of a nanny state and most, such as anti-smoking legislation, helmets for cyclists, compulsory seat belt wearing and blood alcohol limits enjoy the support of the sensible majority.

But if income management threatens our democratic foundations its implementation must be such that it in no way encroaches on Australian ideals.

Note that it begins by saying intervention is the most imflammatory word. Absolutely. State intervention is something to be limited as much as possible. But has the writer forgotten what pays for benefits? Massive intervention by way of taxation.

So how come it is OK to intervene in the lives of working people but not in the lives of the non-working people they support?

Then he or she invokes Nanny State. Well really. The welfare state is the nth degree expression of Nanny State. If the prospect of income managment puts off some of the not-so-needy that would represent a reduction in Nanny State. Not an extention.

"Eradication of dignity, independence and freedom belongs in a totalitarian state..."

The eradication of these things is the very result of a sprawling benefit system that sees one in seven or eight people living off the state; dosed up and addicted to hand-outs; caught in debt traps, and having to live cheek by jowl with people they are afraid of.

The editorial arguments are pompous and fickle.

It is morally defensible to income manage all beneficiaries.

But that still doesn't get to the crux of the problem of having ridiculous numbers of people treating benefits like a legitimate alternative to work or reliance on each other.

No evidence of Maori family violence?

A story about the "dark side" of NZ characterised by Maori gangs and violence, written by a Sydney-based journalist and running in UK's Independent contains the following:

Jim Anglem, of the Violence Research Centre, rejects this notion, saying women and children were revered in traditional Maori society. Moreover, between 1950 and 1970 there was little evidence of Maori family violence.

He hasn't been looking very hard for it.

Historian Bronwyn Labrum reviewed child welfare files from the 1950s and 60s.

"As with Pakeha however, domestic conflict contributed to a sizeable number of cases, and appears to have intensified, or become more visible, under pressures of urbanisation, relocation and living in a nuclear family style. Money troubles and commonly accepted rates of Maori drinking only made matters worse. In 1958 the Secretary of Maori Affairs informed the minister that welfare officers were constantly being called on upon to mediate in 'domestic disputes' and ' needed tact and diplomacy plus a fair share of good fortune' to solve such cases. The reports from the districts suggested excessive drinking, unequal distribution of family income, unfaithfulness, and bad living conditions, among other things as reasons."

Bronwyn Dalley, in Family Matters, described a 1967 investigation into child abuse that found the reported rate of abuse for Maori children was six times that for Pakeha.

And there are other first-hand testimonies from social workers of those decades detailing domestic violence in rural Maori communities.

A trip to the local library alone would provide the evidence he can't find.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10750847
(Can't embed the link)

Accurate headline

Good to see the MSM getting the headlines right for a change, instead of parrotting what the Minister chooses to highlight:

Dole numbers drop, welfare increases


Yesterday all I heard about in various news bulletins was how the number of people unemployed had dropped.

It is arguably worse when the other benefits rise because the people that go on those tend to stay on welfare much longer. So behind the 'good news story' was a 'worse news story'. Typically recessions cause a lagging rise in totals on benefits other than the dole. Totals which do not fall again.

Left-wing feminists are illogical

You have to laugh over the incongruity and inconsistencies of left-wing feminists.

Here is a diehard example, ex-Alliance MP, Liz Gordon, now "Annoyed campaigner for more women MPs" demanding more women in the ranks of National.

John Key was all over the radio this morning saying that he wanted more women MPs. He could not have wanted them enough, in my view. It has always appeared to me that what John wants, John gets. His wanting is therefore a cop-out – he should have demanded more women on the National list.

But surely a National politician is a National politician period. Why is a National woman preferable to a National man? When you hate the right, why go to bat for any of them?

Liz Gordon won't be shedding any tears over the fact that I am not standing. If she was a logical person she should be.

CPAG: back in court right on cue

In 2008 the Child Poverty Action Group took a case to the Human Rights Tribunal. They want the In Work Tax Credit paid to parents who are Not In Work. The Tribunal found against them.

Now they have taken that decision to the High Court. Anyone got any idea who would be funding that? Excuse my ignorance about legalistic matters but could the group be receiving legal aid to appeal?

The Crown is also appealing the Tribunal's finding so no question who is funding that. Is the taxpayer funding both parties to slug this thing out?

I have noted in the past that politically this case has an added dimension. National obviously support the right of the government to design a benefit system that encourages and incentivises people into work. In the past however the Maori Party has backed the CPAG. With 40 percent of Maori females aged 20-30 on a benefit (mainly the DPB) an extra $60 per child would represent a large increase in Maori income generally. At the same time it would intensify the problem of dependence.

And it is surely more than coincidence that both of the cases occurred near to elections. The Greens back the CPAG but will Labour be forced to take a new position? That'll be fascinating as the In Work Tax Credit was their 'baby' so to speak.

Case begins today.

Duplicate figures puzzling

Back in March 2009, under the OIA, MSD supplied the following information:

On a sickness or invalids benefit with a primary incapacity of substance abuse, at end December 2008:

Sickness 4,190
Invalid 1,648

I recently asked the same question to track any trend and received the following table:




Two and a half years later I find it remarkable that the total for those on the invalid's benefit is exactly the same and for those on the sickness benefit only 17 more. (No, MSD didn't just send me the same table twice).

Multiple factors would lead to an expectation of increased numbers. More work-place drug testing, more unemployment, apparently greater alcohol abuse among young people are three. I know there are at least two GPs who read this blog who might like to comment.

One would almost suspect a quota.

The word 'poverty'

At 57:46 a Samoan 35 year-old female called Kathryn talks to Danny Watson about the word 'poverty'. What it means to her living in Mangere Central; what it means to her mates and why the rest of us should stop using it.

Have a listen. You won't regret it.

"Rescue me"

From the Centre for Independent Studies, Australia:

Rescue me

Where once it was a mark of pride to take care of oneself in difficult situations, there is now an expectation that the government should save us, salve us, and secure us in all areas of our lives.

For example, travelers and expats are increasingly expecting the government to rescue them from volatile foreign hotspots.

A further example of our coddled citizenry comes from a couple who, according to Richardson, queried whether they could claim frequent flyer points from a government-arranged emergency flight out of Egypt during the recent upheavals – where the taxpayer was footing the bill.

Government is a mechanism to ensure a degree of order, national security, and representation in our lives. It is not a substitute parent whose role is to fund, soothe and cater to the demands of overindulged and heedless children, although with pandering to the polls and policy-on-the-run, you could be forgiven for thinking otherwise.

A recent commercial on television showed a fit, young man offering his dole cheque to win tickets to a rugby competition. What was most striking about this ad – its tongue-in-cheek nature notwithstanding – was the assumption that it’s normal for a healthy and able-bodied man to be on welfare.

Such attitudes are becoming commonplace in today’s dysfunctional welfare society, but this is certainly not desirable. Welfare statism effectively reduces elements of its citizenry to an enfeebled and dependent state, unable or unwilling to take responsibility for their own lives, actions and decisions. And it infuses the culture with a widespread belief that it’s up to the government to fix and manage just about everything, including help in claiming air miles.

The final word goes to acting Foreign Minister, Craig Emerson, who said recently: ‘There are limits to what the Australian government can do in a consular crisis.’ There are indeed limits to what the Australian government, or any government for that matter, can do – and should do – in our lives. Period.

Meegan Cornforth is Events Manager at the Centre for Independent Studies.

Too much irony ceases to be amusing

Every Child Counts, the left-wing conglomerate - blame-everybody-but-the-parents-for-child-poverty group - commissioned a report from Infometrics (yes, Gareth Morgan's outfit - now also part of the poverty industry). It was released mid-August but gained no traction. Initially I thought, on reading a piece in the NZ Herald this morning titled, Brown poverty a 'time bomb', they are having a second push by bringing race into it. Guaranteed to spark.

But then the Herald says the report is released "this morning". Not short of a bob or two are they? Ironically the 'poverty' industry appears quite rich.

Anyway, one of the Every Child Counts advocates, Hone Kaa, is lining up behind the coroner who wants all children monitored. But isn't the problem 'brown', to use his word?

"I really don't care for adults who say 'that's prying too much into my personal business'. As far as I'm concerned I want to save a child," Dr Kaa said.

The report argues that new ways of measuring well-being need to be developed which take into account Polynesian world views.

That is also rich in irony. Remember this quote from an earlier post:

.... the Status of Children Act 1969, [which] ended discrimination between children born within and outside registered marriage and removed the term "illegitimate" from the statute books. This legislation reflected a desire to reduce some of the stigma associated with ex-nuptial birth that New Zealand inherited from English family law and brought the judicial system into line with the much more liberal concepts of Māori (Cameron 1967, 1969, Quin and O'Neill 1984).

The liberal concepts of Maori. Polynesian world views.

They worked in past context perhaps. Within a large whanau or hapu. Children being raised by elders.

But they don't work within the modern NZ welfare state. Still the problem is misdiagnosed.

Labour's very old new policy

Kiwiblog has a post about Labour's old 'new' youth unemployment policy.

It details the recycling of the old policy at least four times.

But why stop at 2000?

Below is their 1980 policy as it appeared in the Evening Post, Thursday October 30, 1980.

Let's check the similarities.

2011 - Labour today announced its youth skills and employment package which gives all teenagers the opportunity to be earning or learning within three years.

1980 - Mr Rowling said a fourth Labour Government would go into office after the 1981 election with a total commitment to full employment as its priority.

2011 - “This is a ticking time-bomb and has to be fixed. These kids are our future but at the moment they are being left on the scrapheap. If we don’t do something now, we will all pay a far higher price. The New Zealand Institute estimates the cost of disengaged youth is $900 million a year.

1980 - "Experience shows that if young people are left out of work in the early period of their lives they never adapt to the work situation. The economic and social costs for a country of 3,000,000 people are devastating."

2011 - Converting dole payments into a $8700 subsidy to fund 9000 additional apprenticeship places


1980 - Abolition of the dole...and a vigorous apprenticeship drive....private employers hiring additional young people would qualify for a subsidy...

Somehow I don't think today's announcements are a game changer for Labour. They weren't in 1980 either.

A universal basic income is not the answer

Gareth Morgan's answer to the burgeoning welfare system, the Universal Basic Income (UBI) of $11,000 per year for every adult, leaves three acknowledged cohorts worse off - superannuitants, sole parents and the asset rich - probably a third of the adult population. Gareth addressed those but ignored a fourth group - 144,000 sickness and invalid beneficiaries many of whom are receiving more than $211.50 per week. Over half receive an accommodation supplement and many receive disability allowances. The targeted assistance Morgan wants to dispense with helps these people to a much greater extent than the UBI would.

Treasury modelled a Guaranteed Minimum Income for the Welfare Working Group (at the group's request after Gareth and Sue Bradford both proposed some form of universal basic income at its initial conference). It pointed out that some of the neediest welfare recipients would be worse off even at a level of $15,600 per annum. As well Treasury noted the negative effect these schemes would have on productivity, savings and investment, none of which can be over-emphasised in my opinion.

Similar experiments have been tried before, notably negative income tax in the US, and did not have beneficial outcomes. Which is hardly surprising. Paying all adults - Treasury modelled from 16 years up - with or without productive return, is surely more of what has unhinged the present system which provides a viable alternative to work but indulges family breakdown and self-destructive behaviour. Morgan is extolling more of the state-legislated wealth redistribution which has us in the mess he now wants to 'fix'.

Surely the point is that individuals used to rely far more heavily on each other. They formed stable and committed families that provided for raising children, caring for the elderly, and supporting each other in times of adversity. Incidentally, very much the Asian way of providing welfare. For three decades after the 1938 social security net was created people relied on it sparingly and treated the system and, by inference, each other with respect. That was the overriding value that has weakened and needs to be restored.

People are born to make their way in life through endeavour and forming positive partnerships. Not to wait till they reach 16 and have the state chuck a couple of hundred bucks their way unconditionally for the duration. Morgan fails to acknowledge the enormous personal disincentive effect such a practice would incur.

For instance, drug and alcohol abuse are increasing problems in society. Young people could pool resources and lead lives that require none of the discipline associated with working for a living. All of the social fall-out and intergenerational dysfunction would continue.

Rather than re-invent 'welfarism' - broadly speaking, any subsidy from the state - New Zealand needs to reduce it. That begins with the clear, unequivocal message that welfare is a strictly temporary hand-up for any person capable of working and supporting themselves. As well, the eligibility age for Super must be lifted to match lengthening life expectancies. That will enable lower taxation - not greater as required by the UBI - and will bring investment, entrepreneurship and jobs to a country that is now blessed with its geographic position in relation to the rapidly economically transforming world.

I was wrong about ACT

It was my prediction that the ACT party's polling would climb under Don Brashs' leadership. I was wrong. But I am so often in a such a small minority intellectually it is no wonder I cannot understand how other people think.

However, I made my prediction before knowing John Banks was going to stand in Epsom. That now makes my vote highly marginal and perhaps other past ACT voters are feeling the same. Catherine Isaac might neutralise the 'Banks effect' for me but the problem remains - that ACT has no clear political philosophy.

Apparently it is now the farmer's party. It also looks very euro centric at times. What is ACT 2? If there are members in there still holding out to give the party a clear classical liberal direction I admire their tenacity.

Perhaps past voters are just fed up with the in-party shannanegins, for want of a better word. Ongoing instability does not engender confidence. Or trust.

Perhaps polling will improve markedly on the day that counts. But because that has happened in the past is no guarantee it'll happen again. And do I even care?


(Yes I do sound like Eyeore today.)

Child ill-being: the recession isn't the problem

You will have read or heard about the updated Children's Social Health Monitor released today.

It examines the effect of the recession on things like unemployment, benefit dependence, deprivation, ill-health and hospital admissions.

But the following graphs highlight that dependence on the DPB isn't enormously effected by the unemployment rate. With or without a recession, far too many children rely on the DPB and subsequently are 'poor'.





The next graphs, also extracted from today's report, highlight that child hospital admission rates for assault, neglect or maltreatment are ten times higher in the poorest decile compared to the wealthiest (which coincides exactly with the teenage birth rate.)




Following that is the ethnic breakdown.



How many times have you heard PC, self-deceiving types saying that abuse happens across all of society? I suppose technically that is true but it is intended to detract attention from where most of it happens.

Meerkat

This year I have been giving pastel lessons which involve the student bringing a subject they want to capture. I provide the materials and we begin with the student following the steps I would take if the subject was a commission. At some point I abandon my demonstration piece and devote my full attention to their work. One talented lady turned up with a Meerkat (photo of at least) and was thrilled with her final painting.

Last week, with nothing else to work on I got out the sketch I had begun and finished it off.

Friday: First, food for thought and then just friggin' funny

From the Acton Institute:

In a society that does not value private property and fosters a spirit of envy and class warfare through wealth redistribution, why should we be surprised that young people don’t value someone else’s property?

Said about 'flash mobbing' in the US. Could have been about the UK riots. It's a selective quote on my part because I don't hold with other views expressed by the Acton people. Nevertheless, as it stands, it makes crystal clear sense.

Then (unrelated) Kiwiblog features some recent Bob Jones correspondence. I recall reading a book titled something like Bob Jones Letters which was full of this sort of highly articulate piss-taking. Love it.

(Tried linking to the Acton Institute repeatedly but kept getting total disarrangement of post.)

Message for Paula Bennett

I don't want to repeatedly beat up on Paula Bennett and the job she is doing but her response to Coroner Wallace Bain's call for spot checks on all children under five is incredibly ill-considered and should have been a firm 'no'.

"As a country, we have to decide what we are prepared to give up to stop other children experiencing the abuse baby Nia did."

So those of us who aren't prepared to put up with state authorities sticking their noses into our homes to examine our child-raising abilities (remember the sort of standards being set for what constitutes abuse these days), we are heels. We are now the problem.

Yesterday I had to take both of my children to the doctors. There was a couple with a sick baby, obviously anxious and obviously adoring of their child. This is how most parents are. They love their children desperately. The state has no business monitoring their care of their children. The idea is quite repulsive.

So no Ms Bennett. I will defend the right of good parents to be left alone. Harassing them will do nothing.

The state has a role to play in preventing real harm to children and it is eminently possible to identify where those children are.

Stop prevaricating and buck-passing. You are the Minister.