Universities raise the bar

You will have heard murmurings that getting into University was going to get tougher. Good thing too. But I must admit I thought to myself, they will probably tinker with the entry requirements at the margins. I was vaguely interested because they affect my son this year. He isn't the most academically inclined and I am in no position to criticise him because he gets it (or in this case, doesn't get it) from me. We are both very focussed, to the point of obsession, in those matters that interest us. If they don't it's a struggle to concentrate. For him it is music. And we are all supporting in him his attempts to build a career around it.

Next year he continues his piano studies and music production. But he had planned to do two papers at the Victoria School of Music. Yesterday he found out that, despite having passed the music school's requirement - sat a theory test - he missed the overall entry requirement for Victoria University by 5 points and is now wait-listed for the papers if a place becomes available. The university raised the requirement from 120 points in 2011 (I am told) to 150 in 2012. Good for them.  Son will have to redo one of his NCEA papers and re-apply. Fortunately he is young for his year. Many other 17 year-olds are only starting year 13 next month.

Somewhat surprisingly he's more relieved than disappointed. I hadn't realised he was dreading a major fail - a miss by a mile. And that his parents would, in his words, "go ballistic". We didn't. We talked about it, the options and we move on. Both of my children are musical and their performances, when they are in the zone, move me immensely. Robert's practising of Bach, Rachmaninov and Chopin fills the house and I couldn't be happier. At 17 he is extremely self-aware. Is utterly determined to make his life count for something. To make it matter. How could I be disappointed with that?

NZ Herald's benefit fraud story incomplete

The NZ Herald reports today that "Benefit fraud cost taxpayers a record $22.6 million last year..." and that it is up from $15.9 million in 2009/10.

They got this information under The Official Information Act.

But anyone can access this page which shows that in 2009/10 the total fraud was $39,336,133

The Herald fails to define what sort of fraud it is referring to. Perhaps it is that fraud which is prosecuted.

Types of benefit fraud comprise working, living in the nature of marriage, child out of care, multiple benefits, accommodation, false documents and other.

Anyway, if they had wanted to be sensationalist, the current flavour, they could have almost doubled their headline figure.

Interestingly, according to MSD, 

In 2009/2010, marriage-type relationship cases accounted for 39% of overpayment cases but 57% of overpayment dollars.

 

Elaborate rip-offs make for lurid reading but most of the fraud is committed by parents pretending they live alone when in fact they do not.

What "filth and squalor" looks like

The Scotsman (or the Crown Office) has taken the unusual step  of publishing photos of the home environment in which a 15 month-old baby boy died. I am reproducing them because I recognise them (generically)  from my time volunteering. I once described a home I worked in as presenting an archaeological challenge. You start with the first layer of detritus and work your way down, meeting ever worsening degrees of rot. Fortunately I have a strong stomach, probably because my curiosity and urge to 'put right' overrides my constitution. If it is any comfort, the children who live in them know nothing else.

One of the appalling images of filth and decay, which were released by the Crown Office, shows the cot where Declan’s body was found. It is surrounded by so much rubbish – clothes, plastic bags and toys strewn across the floor – that the carpet is no longer visible. In another room, Declan’s playpen or travel cot – where Hainey had claimed she found his dead body – looks like a rubbish dump, filled with empty bottles of 3 Hammers, a strong white cider, Irn-Bru, old newspapers and crisp packets.

At the extremes, and not withstanding other complicating factors, this is what you get when you give people money every week and expect  nothing in return.

Speculation about sole parent families

Continuing with the theme the Taranaki Daily News has been pursuing about child poverty and hunger, the Waitara Central Primary School principal speculates

She says because families might receive a benefit of about $750 a week people assume poverty isn't real. "The problem is the mismanagement of those funds.
"We watch people try to cope on the benefit and it doesn't work," she says. It has to be a political socio-economic issue and maybe the high number of solo parent families at the school is another contributing factor.

At the 2006 Census one parent families with dependent children in Waitara numbered 29 percent. Below the national average of 30 percent.

Couple With Child(ren)	447,894
One Parent With Child(ren)	193,635

You want high, look at places like Porirua East with 41 percent, Tokomaru Bay with 40 percent and Otara 38 percent.

I don't know what is happening with the population of Waitara though. It was static between 2001 and 2006 and the 2011 census didn't go ahead. But between 2006 and now the number of people on the DPB has risen by 39 percent to 429.

"Nanny state in danger of being replaced by the bully state"

I have touched earlier this week on the series that the Taranki Daily News has been running on child poverty. Someone (thank you) sent me this link to today's paper. The article describes how beneficiary parents are turning up at budgeting advice simply to get the tick they need to stay eligible for their benefit. You can take a horse to water etc. But while I was looking at that I also noticed this editorial by Gordon Brown (ironic name) which really hits the nail on the head.

Worth reproducing in full:

What a chord Saturday's stories about Waitara Central school principal Sharren Read struck. It was all about the "poverty" that exists among those who go to her school and how she and other committed staff members deal with it. She told it pretty much as it is, which was refreshing in itself, but what a desperately sad story it was as she drew a picture of what was going on.

"Kids come to school simply to be fed. With help from Fonterra and Sanitarium for two days a week, which means the school fundraises to pay for the rest, children are given a free breakfast every morning. Lunch is also available to the neediest ones. "Some probably slept for a few hours amid the noise of partying, boozing and drugs. "They fight for a space to curl up on the mattress they are sharing with four siblings, sharing one urine-soiled blanket. They might get to school on a Monday because a teacher picked them up. Mum was still drunk from the Sunday night binge session."

There was more, much more sordid detail, but that's enough to go on with. You get the picture. Ms Read and other like-minded colleagues do their best to make a difference and they should be congratulated for what they do. Some of Ms Read's quotes are worth further examination. "We have one child that often won't be at school on a Monday and we're now aware it's because mum is coming down from the weekend and needs the kid to be home to help out," she said. It was revealed, which will be startling to many, that some families receive a benefit of about $750 a week. "The problem is the mismanagement of those funds." Let's start with that first quote.

Mum (no mention of a dad, of course) is presumably coming down from partying during the weekend. Booze, drugs and who knows what else is cited as part of the lifestyle. Therefore, the child has to stay home from school to "help out". That is a form of child abuse, nothing less. I wonder when mum was last prosecuted under the truancy laws. Anyone disagree with the answer: never? On to the second, and perhaps most revealing, quote in the article.

Ms Read courageously points the finger exactly where it belongs, at those self-indulgent, greedy parents who shamelessly squander money on themselves, rather than their children. It amounts to theft. Taxpayers gave that money to them to look after the children. As always, it is important to point out that not every recipient of government benefits does that. Some do a fine job under difficult circumstances and work hard to better themselves. The accurate, but unpalatable, message from Ms Read that some parents not only contribute to the "poverty" the children exist in, but are also the main reason for it, will have the apologists and do- gooders scrambling to attack the very notion that the noble oppressed classes could actually be the problem.

But Ms Read and deputy principal Emma Burleigh are the heroes in this debate, so rather than attack them and risk the wrath of right-minded people, no doubt those who know best will abuse columnists such as myself for merely having the temerity to agree with the sentiments expressed. As usual there will be personal observations, insults and much claiming of some self-created moral high ground from which their missives will be fired. The only thing missing will be facts and a willingness to debate the specific issues. Often the outraged letter writers will have a vested interest in prolonging the "poverty" state, but invariably that is never mentioned.

The nanny state is in danger of being replaced by the bully state, where those who don't toe the party line that everything is the state's fault and beneficiaries are victims, quickly become targeted with just one aim - to shut the dissenting voice down. One thing Ms Read said does require a rebuttal is "that shops that allow families with little to take on debt through hire- purchase are making the problem worse". It is not the shops' fault, it is the people who buy the big television sets when they can't afford them that are the problem. It is the same as the shoplifters and their apologists blaming retailers for displaying their goods in such an attractive manner that theft was inevitable. Wrong. For every action, there is a consequence and every one of us makes our decisions and are accountable for them. Simple as that.

Rift over reform

I see Trevor Mallard is now getting it in the neck from The Standard over his allusion to UK Labour taking up the welfare reform cause.

The welfare system isn’t broken – unless you count the 40% of 65 and 66 year olds who are getting a pension while being employed.  The point of the welfare system is to do what any civilised society ought to do: provide some basic support to those who are unable to work due to sickness or injury and to those who want to work but find none is available. It does that at a cost of $5 per day each.
The system works because when there are jobs to be had people go off the dole and into work. Employment growth under Labour dramatically reduced the number on the dole to just 17,000. Long-term unemployment recipients numbered a couple of thousand. The numbers on other benefits only rose in line with population and demographics. Overall, Labour got 100,000 people off benefits. Now, its gone up 60,000 under National. Why? Not because anything’s changed about benefits. Because there’s no fucken jobs.

The problem with these observations is the assumption that the high number of people on other benefits when Labour took over was OK.  It wasn't. The phenomenal rise in dependency - DPB and SB and IB - occurred during the 1980s and 1990s. That has to be reversed.

Decisions, decisions

A new year. Back to work today. I have three commissions to complete. Did a stock-take on business done since opening last November. Have completed 57 commissions and sold 7 paintings off the wall. Portraits of people unknown to the viewer are not easy to sell but I have proved there is a good market for commissions of pets and grandchildren. Problem. I am not charging enough to make a profit. Because I have overheads to meet I am very reluctant to raise my prices. If I price my work at a level where it will return a viable profit I honestly don't think I will get the same number of commissions. So I have options. Return to working from home with only marketing overheads but no shop window. Go into an arrangement with a nearby gallery to preserve my presence and work from there part-time. Or stay put and charge more. I am pretty certain what I will do. But at the same time prevaricating.....I'll pay another months rent and then make my mind up....

Here's a painting from earlier last year. It is a composite. That is, made up from three different photographs.

Tackling disability dependence is one of the most difficult tasks facing govts

News out of Britain is Boris Johnson has attacked Conservative plans to reform disability payments. This blog links to media coverage about how the Mayor of London made a critical submission on a forthcoming reform bill which was only uncovered under the Freedom of Information Act. Naturally some very vulnerable people are afraid of what 'cuts' may mean for them and they have my sympathy. But what can governments do about the disproportionate rise of the numbers of people on incapacity benefits? Simply let the dependency rate continue to rise? It's a phenomenon that has occurred across many developed countries.

The following graphs depict NZ's growth in Invalid and Sickness benefits from 1973 to the present. Unfortunately the first is absolute numbers whereas the second two are as a percentage of the working age population.

The growth prompted commissioned research published in 2005 by MSD. Here are the concluding remarks:

Our findings answer many important questions about the growth in IB and SB and the people who receive these benefits.

We find no simple, single explanation for the growth that occurred over the decade to 2002 in numbers receiving IB and SB. The dynamics of growth were different for the two benefits, and varied over time and between subgroups.

Growth in inflows has been an important driver of growth for both benefits. While much of the growth in inflows was inevitable given changes in the size and structure of the population and the increase in the age of eligibility for NZS, more than half cannot be explained by these factors and reflects an increase in the proportion of the population aged 15–59 coming on to the benefits. For SB, most of this growth was due to an increase in entries from outside the benefit system (but when we examine the recent growth between 1999 and 2002, increased transfers from within the benefit system account for 28% of the increase). For IB, entries from outside the benefit system and transfers from inside the benefit system both contributed to the growth. Growth in transfers accounted for 60% of the 1993–2002 increase in the proportion of the population aged 15–59 coming on to that benefit.

The long stays of IB entrants converted sustained growth in inflows into rapid growth in numbers in receipt.  Even though the duration of stays on IB did not increase between the beginning and the end of the decade, duration played a key role in generating the growth that occurred. 

1.1        Possible causal processes

Why did SB and IB inflows grow in the context of a general improvement in economic conditions?

Some of the possible explanations relate to changes in policy and administration, which appear to have shifted people with incapacities on to IB and SB from other parts of the benefit system.

Other possible explanations relate to changes in the structure and intensity of employment which may have caused employment opportunities for people with ill-health and disabilities to worsen in spite of the improvement in overall employment conditions. Analysis of the New Zealand Disability Survey suggests that the presence of a disability reduces an individual’s probability of full-time employment to less than half that for a non-disabled individual with similar demographic characteristics, and that employment disadvantage is particularly notable for those experiencing psychological or psychiatric disabilities (Jensen et al 2005).   

Yet another set of possible explanations relate to changes in the way that qualifying incapacities were interpreted or administered. Determining whether an individual is sufficiently incapacitated to qualify for IB or SB is not straightforward (Lennan 2000). The eligibility criteria are subject to interpretation and a range of factors other than medical eligibility may influence the decisions of assessing doctors (White 2000). Given this, changes in the way in which doctors interpreted the medical criteria for entry could have increased the proportion of the population viewed as having qualifying incapacities.

A final set of possible explanations relate to changes in the prevalence of incapacity.

Growing numbers of people were coming on to SB and IB with a mental illness. The increase is consistent with trends in other developed countries. Comparisons of the prevalence of mental illnesses over time are difficult to make but rates may have been rising.  Possible contributors include an increasing prevalence of stressors such as financial hardship and social isolation. New Zealand drug surveys also indicate a significant increase in the use of amphetamine and methamphetamine between 1998 and 2001. This can lead to a range of psychological disorders, including deep depression and symptoms that may be indistinguishable from schizophrenia, as well as physical disorders such as stroke and respiratory problems (EACD 2002).

We observe patterns of growth that are consistent with the likely effects of the current rise in the prevalence of diabetes. The associated growth in obesity may also be contributing to the growth in numbers of people coming on to SB and IB with musculoskeletal conditions.

Some of the growth in IB and SB might be due to the effects on health of long-term unemployment.

Growth in IB inflow rates was more rapid for those aged 30–39 and 40–49 than for those aged 15–19 and 20–29. There is something different about the cohorts that experienced the economic restructuring of the 1980s and early 1990s in their early to middle years compared to those that entered the labour market either during or after the restructuring.

Our findings show disparities in mortality across ethnic subgroups that are consistent with those found in the New Zealand Census Mortality Study (Ajwani et al 2003). This study found that while life expectancy improved dramatically for Europeans over the two decades to 1999 it was static for Māori and Pacific peoples, the ethnic groups most affected by economic restructuring. The main driver of the divergent trends was higher chronic disease mortality in middle and older ages for Māori and Pacific peoples.

The 1998 National Heath Committee report on the determinants of health in New Zealand suggested that, despite an overall improvement in population health status, socio-economic inequalities in health had not decreased over the preceding two decades and may even have been increasing (National Advisory Committee on Health and Disability 1998). SB and IB trends over the decade to 2002 may partly reflect worsening health status for some groups in New Zealand society.

Principals on hungry children

For some time it has seemed to me that the general public has stopped buying into the idea that poor, hungry children simply need more money given to them by the government. The parties promoting this during the election did not find favour. OK, it could be argued that the Green vote increased but I don't think it was due to their policy to increase benefits. I recently talked to the previous local Green candidate - the one I campaigned alongside in 2005 and 2008 - and even she felt it was a weak policy. Coincidently she was a teacher.

The Taranaki Daily News has spoken to a few principals at low decile schools and heard the following:

Waitara Central principal Sharren Read says mismanagement of income and unaffordable debt mean basic needs like housing suffer. 

Devon Intermediate principal Fiona Parkinson says her students come from all walks of life and there are families attending the school bordering on poverty.
"It comes back to the Government and their priorities for spending. The issue is a societal one – not just a school one – and it needs to be addressed at a high level. It's to do with the support given to families and isn't just a case of throwing money at them," she says.

Good. Some sense at least.

High incomes funded through forcible removal of OPI

This guy Marryatt has little judgement or empathy. I don't usually find myself amongst those dragging down people who earn high incomes, but when it comes to incomes funded through forcible removal of other people's incomes, I get very toey. I sent this to the DomPost:

Christchurch Council's chief executive, Tony Marryatt, says his salary is based on market rates. This defence ignores that local and central government jobs are funded from compulsory taxes or rates. Christchurch citizens have no recourse should they object to Mr Marryatt's salary or increase. To be fair, in monopolistic circumstances the customer may also lack a voice but generally, in the market, an aggrieved customer or shareholder  expresses it through withdrawal of purchases or investment.

Marryatt says after February he didn't have a  weekend off in 9 weeks. At least he had paid employment. Some would be eternally grateful for a job paying the total of the chief executive's  $68,000 increase alone.

He insists he is not refusing the 14.4 percent pay increase or giving it to charity. I think he has lost sight of who his real employer is. For a so-called public servant Tony Marryatt shows little public-spiritedness.

What Americans think about open-ended unemployment benefits

US unemployment has dropped to 8.6 percent. Most US States provide 6 months unemployment benefits but the rules can change according to unemployment levels. The benefits are funded through payroll taxes and are not means-tested. In NZ on the other hand unemployment benefits are means-tested but open-ended. Many Americans however believe that lengthening the availability of unemployment benefits encourages unemployment. Studies have supported this idea. A Reason Poll asked 1,200 people how long they thought benefits should be available for when someone loses their job?

60 percent think a year or less is enough.

What did Michael Joseph Savage expect?

Just reflecting on what Michael Joseph Savage expected from social security bearing in mind the new benefits were created only 30 years after the first old age pension which was strictly administrated to exclude people who were not 'of good moral character'.

Do you think he expected  benefits to support around a quarter of all children because their fathers couldn't or wouldn't?

That benefits would support criminals caught in the revolving door between prison and the community?

That benefits would support people who believe paid work and consumerism are capitalist concepts to be avoided?

That benefits would supports thousands of people who had caused their own incapacity to work through drug and alcohol abuse?

I can answer the last definitively. No. There were rules to prevent people in this category from qualifying.

So when Labour's shadow minister for Work and Pensions says that a new vision is needed over the one William Beveridge  (UK equivalent to MJS) had how can anyone, including Labour supporters, disagree?

Which will be the party of reform?

At Red Alert Trevor Mallard links to a report about UK Labour re-thinking welfare. But he makes no comment of his own. Mine is still in moderation (while the considerably more caustic Cactus has carte blanche. Can never figure this particular censorship rule. Must be Trev's titillation thermometer.)

It has always been my view that based on history, Labour would be the party to make meaningful welfare reforms in this country. And I haven't abandoned it entirely. National is doing stuff but mainly mimicking what has already occurred in the UK and  Australia.

But hell. Time marches on. National evolves, Labour evolves. There is no ACT to speak of. The Greens remained wedded to 'social justice' - code for communistic compulsory wealth 'sharing'. And Maori politics continues to be schizophrenic. Independence and identity is idealised but impossible without economic input from non-Maori. Their craved population boom presently relies heavily on the continuance of the DPB. (Ironically Maori politicians could boost their population  more by enticing whanau back from Australia but that won't happen until they wean themselves off the victimhood politics and pleading that alienates the ex-pats).

So which party in the next 30 years (my average life expectancy remainder) will make the difference? Remember 30 years ago was only 1982 which saw the beginnings of major economic reform under Labour.

Stupidity

You would think that blaming 'stupidity' for the high holiday road toll was somehow sensational. The reporter who sought a comment from the new Police Minister, Anne Tolley has used it for his headline. That or the editor has.

Tolley is on the button. I hope to see more headlines blaming social calamities on 'stupidity'. Let's stop pussy-footing around the issue of blame and start stigmatising stupidity. Too many people make stupid decisions and stupid choices. I did it myself in younger days. I survived through the ability to learn from them. Some people seem incapable. At an enormous cost to everyone else.

Instead of agonising analysis (eg government commissions) over why NZ figures so prominently in too many negative social indicators, let's start saying it's because NZ has more than its fair share of stupid people.

Second chances are a good thing. A degree of tolerance for the young is a good thing. But it doesn't mean we can't call a spade a spade and say stupid is as stupid does. Grow up for gods sakes. Because if you refuse to mentally, you might never get the chance to in reality.

The Iron Lady

There were moments in this movie when I felt like cheering out loud. Not necessarily political moments but there is one scene, for instance, when Thatcher is being gently grilled by her doctor. "How are you feeling Margaret?". "Feeling?" she replies. "Feeling? That's the trouble these days. Everybody talks about feelings. Nobody talks about thinking. Never thoughts. Or ideas. That's what I'm interested in. What people are thinking." Or to that effect.

There is a moment where the ageing Thatcher is bailed up by a young woman who heard her speak at a conference. She thanks Thatcher for paving the way for other women "to be something." Thatcher ponders, "In my day it was about doing something. Today it's all about being something."

It's a very intense picture necessarily so through the depiction of Thatcher's intensity. By the time it ended I was ready to get out of there. I had been led to believe it showed a lighter side of Thatcher. I couldn't find it.

You saw a woman who appeared to establish her principles very young and never waver. No compromise, no conciliation. Her husband is painted in a kind light. If there was any confusion about Thatcher at all it is whether she depended on him heavily, or drew all her strength inwardly. The ending doesn't resolve that.

The earlier times when a sharper division was drawn between socialism and conservatism described Thatcher's values simply. Heavily influenced by her father who claims in a speech, "Everybody isn't equal. That's a nonsense. Never have been and never will be. But they all need to chance to achieve..." (Again to that effect). His ideas are echoed in Margaret later fiercely arguing for the poll tax with her cabinet. "Everybody must pay some tax. Everybody must have some stake in their community. Even the poorest must have some ownership or do they live in graffiti covered, litter strewn landscapes?"

It is a movie I highly recommend (especially to John Key). Will you enjoy it? That is the wrong adjective to describe the experience. I didn't shed a tear. Strangely enough it will made me think rather than feel.

Biggest drop in 'road deaths' among pedestrians

The NZ Herald has a piece about this year's road toll being the lowest since 1951.

 The toll peaked at 843 deaths in 1973, leading to the first drink-drive blitzes followed by anti-speeding and pro-seatbelt campaigns.

In 1973 the toll comprised 273 driver deaths, 250 passenger deaths, 130 motorcyclist and pillion passenger deaths, 30 pedal cyclist deaths and 157 pedestrian deaths (other = 3).

In 2010 the respective figures were; driver - 180, passenger - 98, motorcyclist/passenger - 50, pedal cyclist -10, pedestrian - 35

The largest drop percentage-wise was among pedestrians.

In 2010 40 percent of pedestrian deaths were amongst people aged 19 or younger.

The share of the population that is young today is far lower than in 1973. So demographics are making a contribution to the lower number.

But I wonder how much children not walking to school has helped lower the toll?

Funding Social Security

While I am on the subject of economies struggling to meet welfare needs yesterday I received this release from the US Social Security administration:

Tax Rates (percent)
Social Security (Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance)
Employers	6.20
Employees a,b (through February 29, 2012)	4.20
(beginning March 1, 2012)	6.20

The employee share of payroll taxes to fund social security is to rise from 4.2 (cents in the dollar) to 6.2 in March next year. Apparently the lower employee rate was a temporary measure which cannot be sustained. From Forbes earlier this year:

 Meanwhile, if you’re a worker, start tightening your belt: The Social Security taxes taken out of your paycheck could rise to $6,826.82 next year, from $4485.60 this year—a significant $2341.22 hike. The increase is due to two factors. First, as the SSA announced today, the maximum salary subject to Social Security tax is rising from $106,800 in 2011 to $110,100 in 2012 as part of the just announced inflation adjustments. That increase affects about 10 million wage earners. Second, a temporary 2011 rate cut in the employee’s part of the Social Security tax—from 6.2% to 4.2% of pay–is scheduled to expire.  As  part of his proposed jobs package, President Barack Obama wants to cut the employees’ Social Security tax to just 3.1% for 2012. But Republicans have so far shown no inclination to pass the provision, which would cost $175 billion and seem ready to let the 2011 rate cut lapse, leading to a tax hike on all workers.

(Unemployment insurance is additional to these rates.)

Children abandoned

Large families no longer able to feed their children, dwindling welfare and unemployment.

Actually I am talking about Greece. But it doesn't require a great stretch of the imagination to picture New Zealand in 5 or 10 years time if people continue to depend heavily on the state to support children they can't afford to raise and this country is forced into severe cutbacks.

The mindset that welfare (including Working For Families) is a permanent and legitimate alternative to self-sufficiency must be changed.

Dare I say it, for the sake of the children.

Using the term 'Maori child abuse'

Joris de Bres has entered the argument began by Paul Moon who objects to the term 'Maori child abuse'  because it stigmatises all Maori parents.

Professor Moon said the phrase was often used with good intentions, but he asked media and government agencies to stop employing it.

I would be surprised if government agencies were employing it. I did a search of the Ministry of Social Development website and couldn't find one example. Then I tried CYF but turned up nothing. Police? No. I am assuming if the term was employed it would appear at the top of a search list of course.


If I do a general search the initial results are dominated by Mr Moon's coverage. It's the classic case of bringing attention to something you are complaining too much attention is already brought to. And picking a low news time almost guarantees that attention.

There are media examples such as this which use the term in the headline which describes the following content:

Maori make up more than half of the 21,000 children harmed in the last year, and the number abused over the last five years has also more than doubled to 11,000 in 2010.

I have some sympathy for Paul Moon's point. A male Maori friend of mine once told me that when he had his nieces or nephews in his care people would look sideways at him if they played up. He felt very constrained in any action he could take because of what he felt about people's expectations.

I suppose there is a legitimate case to use the descriptor if Maori child abuse was particularly different from other child abuse in nature. And it may be. In my limited experience I observe more 'neglect' by Maori parents but I refer to neglect as measured against over-protective middle-class standards. Maori child abuse may also have its aetiology in adolescent and teenage childbirth setting it apart from child abuse by other ethnicities.

In the final analysis Maori children suffer disproportionately from abuse and neglect and if that stigmatises all Maori parents it is unfortunate. Only a dimwit would assume every Maori parent ill-treated their children when statistics show a very large majority do not.

Sound summations on welfare today

During the holidays I find time to review some of the best books I have read about welfare. An extra incentive came from an outfit in the US that wants a contribution from me for an upcoming anthology. After a year of mostly fulfilling painting commissions I am a bit rusty.

My favourite book is Overcoming Welfare by James L. Payne, an American.

This post comprises some passages as I re-read the introduction. He is economical and highly effective in his writing.

"As government established a massive presence in the welfare business, especially with the advent of the New Deal, it began to create constituencies and vested interests that reinforced the hand-out orientation. Making up one of these groups is social workers. As volunteers or employees of local, private charities, nineteenth century social workers had a position of independence from which they could observe, and comment on, the danger of handouts. The country thus gained a bastion of poverty experts who firmly and eloquently denounced sympathetic [something-for-nothing] giving. As government took over welfare activities, social workers became predominantly employees of government giveaway programs, and they had to align their thinking with these programs or leave the field."

Bill Lock, a Black church leader says about the war on poverty;

"In fighting this war we have created an industry that feeds on itself like a mad general who has lost thousands of soldiers but continues to say, ' I can still win if you send me more troops'. This is what our government's effort to fight poverty is like today. It is an endless cycle of programs, projects, and personnel, often supported by people with strong motives, but without a clear and sensible vision of what needs to be done.

My community has not been untouched in this war. I live in central Milwaukee and my zip code has a large population of the shell-shocked. This is the result of being bombarded by programs that have reduced survival skills and the spirit of individual initiative."

And lastly, because you won't want to be overburdened too much over the break:

"Ideology also pushes welfare programs into the handout mode. For generations, many philosophers and reformers have embraced the doctrine of income redistribution, believing that government should take from the rich and give to the poor. A handout policy follows almost automatically from this approach. If the poor are mortally 'entitled' to government payments, it is wrong to demand that they do anything in return for them. Thus the policy of income redistribution has seriously harmed the cause of sound assistance policy."