Welfare to work

Over on the Standard the UK is being used to cast doubt over the wisdom of contracting private service providers to get beneficiaries into work.

As I have pointed out to them, there are already over 150 private providers contracted to MSD for this very purpose. They often work with the hardest to place and, from what I have been told,  get good results. Of course, the best result would be if individuals got themselves to these agencies before they even needed a benefit. Then it would be the prospective employer and employee footing the bill.

Rodney Hide and Winston Peters together on Radio Live

Rodney Hide is co-hosting with Willie Jackson again today on Radio Live. From 2pm Winston Peters will join  them. Will be interesting. Rodney has no constraints on him now, apart of course, from  those imposed by the Broadcasting Standards Authority.

Update:  That was very hard to listen to. Winston is the worst and most wicked weasel ever. Rodney took him to task on his parliamentary insinuations about Nick Smith, and Peters barefacedly denied them, maintaining that his reference to 'sex' in the quote, "a shabby little case that involved blackmail, sex and a minister with a conflict of interest" was a reference to the sexual abuse victims whose details were wrongly sent to Bronwyn Puller. He is a revolting person.

Green MP - naive or smart?

New Green MP Holly Walker is either naive or smart. I can't figure out which. Yesterday, in response to the latest poverty inquiry, she was calling for a "co-ordinated child poverty strategy". (My immediate irreverent thought was, there is one. It's called the DPB. It creates plenty of child poverty.)

A lack of ability to find agreed solutions lies at the very heart of politics - what she signed up for.  The Greens prescription for solving child poverty is not acceptable to a majority. Until they are in government (or a compelling position of power) what they bring to the table will be rejected. They can talk and they can try to influence but they don't hold the aces. Calling for a co-ordinated approach is typical moral high-ground baloney to force their policies into the mix.

Welfare is the major factor driving child poverty but the Greens are pro-welfare. They would have more of it. Most people have either realised or are beginning to suspect that this would only increase child poverty.

And it's ironic that at the end of her post she gives Business New Zealand's Phil O'Reilly a serve. What's he doing on the panel? So she doesn't really want inclusiveness after all.

(I criticised the line up as well  but in the context of criticising the entire pointless project.)

The archetypal gang family

The fraud is less interesting than the profile of this couple. Gang family, 12 children, on-again off-again relationship, Maori, between them living on  benefits for 53 years, drug and alcohol abuse. And are you willing to bet against some of these 12 children already having their own beneficiary broods? This scourge isn't going away any time soon.

The Smith sidehow

The Nick Smith sideshow is the epitome of everything that is wrong with contemporary politics.

It further degrades politics and politicians in the public mind.

It detracts from vastly more important work in both abstract and practical senses.

It turns politics into scandal and proves that too many Kiwis have attention spans that can only support that which can be salivated over.

It turns politics into sport and proves that too many Kiwis have attention spans that can only support that which turns tribal.

Attitude to welfare changing

"The margins of difference between the main parties is shrinking all the time and their attitude to welfare is one of them."

After Labour leader David Shearer's intimations that the party he leads will take a tougher line on welfare than his predecessors, this quote could easily be about New Zealand.

It is actually from the general secretary of Public and Commercial Services union in the Britain.

At last, support for the sanctity of social security is abating, and the proof of this in political parties sniffing the change.

Another pointless probe into poverty

Another pointless exercise to find out what we already know and squabble over the 'solutions'. Waste of time and money. Just announced by the Children's Commissioner:

 
Children’s Commissioner Dr Russell Wills has today announced the formation of an experts group to find solutions to child poverty. 

“In New Zealand one in five children are growing up in poverty. The evidence overwhelmingly shows these children are doing badly and will continue to do badly
throughout their lives.

“Which is why I’ve pulled together 13 of the best minds in the country - experts in fields such as health, social policy, business, law and education - to find solutions.

“It’s not going to be easy. The answers to child poverty are likely to be complex, plus we’re constrained by the current economic climate. But I’m confident this group will
come up with recommendations that will make a difference. 

“I’ve asked to them to find realistic, pragmatic and effective ways to combat child poverty – both short-term answers and longer-term solutions. The group will examine the best available local and international evidence and experience, and make recommendations that will make a tangible difference in New Zealand. 

“I’m looking for advice that is broader than income because the issues of poverty are more complex than that. The group is likely to explore improving opportunities and outcomes for disadvantaged children through evidence-based interventions in health, social services, education and community development. 

“And with Maori and Pacific children over-represented in the poverty statistics, I want to see the specific interests of these children addressed. 

“The group will provide a final report to me by the end of this year. A draft report will
be made publicly available prior to this – and we will be consulting with the community at this stage,” he said. 

Children and young people will also be included in this process.   The Commissioner will use the recommendations from the experts group to provide advice to the Government in time to inform the Ministerial Committee on Poverty. 

“The Ministerial Committee has the same goals – to find tangible gains in both the near future and longer-term. And they’re focussed on getting value for money in a tight economic climate. 

“The solutions I will be presenting will come from an independent and child-focussed perspective but also take into account the need to spend the tax dollar wisely,” he said. 

The Expert Advisory Group will be co-chaired by Professor Jonathan Boston from the
School of Government at Victoria University and Dr Tracey McIntosh from Auckland University. Their bios and those of the other members of the group are listed below. 

“We’ve selected each of these people because of their skill, knowledge and passion for what they do. I’m excited about what they will achieve as a group and confident their recommendations will contribute to better outcomes for children,” said the Commissioner. 

Ends. 

For more information or to request an interview with Dr Russell Wills, please contact
Anna Santos on 027 696 5101 or a.santos@occ.org.nz 
 

The "best" minds include overt leftists like,

Major Campbell Roberts who says the National government has "no moral authority" for its welfare reforms.

Phillipa Howden-Chapman, a public health campaigner who believes, "The most important issue yet to be accomplished in public health is showing that the ideas and policies we suggest can make a difference to reducing inequalities in the access to some of the good things of life – warm housing, adequate income, opportunities for on-going education and interesting, secure jobs."

Bob Stephens - "For a country that has a long history of legitimate pride in its welfare state, the position of New Zealand is disappointing and helps explain the paucity of recent child outcomes," he says. "Until there are  increases in the level of generosity to families with dependent children, adverse outcomes for children are like to bedevil the country for years to come."

Nikki Turner of the Child Poverty Action Group - say no more.

Salesman for the state

Although privacy is a right in a democratic society, it is certainly not an absolute right. Some might consider DNA profiling of the whole country as the first step towards a totalitarian state, but just perhaps, this concept, along with the Search and Surveillance Bill passing the final hurdle, could be the first steps towards a state that will not tolerate crime -a state that will do everything possible to protect the innocent.

So says Steve Baron writing in today's NZ Herald.

A "state that will not tolerate crime."

The same state that defines the crime.

Some people are just so ready to relinquish freedom.

The bastardisation of Nanny State

'Nanny State' describes the intervention of the state in people's private lives and property. But there is a growing tendency for Labour and the Greens to accuse National of  Nanny Statism. They did it over welfare reform, and here is another example from Annette King today complaining about central government attempting to rein in local government:

“This is Nanny state. It is central Government stepping very heavily on the toes of local communities..."

Balderdash. Local government increasingly embodies Nanny State with its suffocating property  rules and regulations, and now,  tasked with the power of general competence under Labour, sticking its nose into areas previously the domain of central government.

But we shouldn't be surprised that Labour conveniently misunderstands what Nanny State means. Sloppy definitions are vital to politicians and the pursuit or retention of power.

"Babysitting networks"?

Disparagingly, a Labour spokesperson says:

Just last week the Government suggested babysitting networks might be the solution to childcare for job-seeking solo parents.

I'd like to know who floated that idea and send them a bouquet.

I have long said that if people being paid by the state to look after just one child (the case with about half of those on the DPB) provided care for two more, then a whole lot more people who want to work could. In fact there would be no need for welfare as earned income was redistributed between working parents and carers.

This is how communities should operate through voluntary, constructive cooperation. When Labour pooh-poohs these sorts of common sense ideas they look like the usual state-is-best bunch of socialists they have always been.

 (The spokesperson was mixing two issues by the way. Care for babies and free ECE which kicks in at 3).

More privacy invasion on the way

Privacy concerns have been topical is the past week. There is another area where government are about to change legislation to allow more information sharing between departments. Purposeful sharing as opposed to inadvertent.

To implement their proposed Youth Pipeline (contract service providers to manage school leavers most likely to go on welfare) the Ministry of Social Development requires information about these youngsters from the Ministry of Education. You would think that schools are best positioned to identify those students fitting the profile. And it would be a simple exercise to ask for authorisation of the release of their personal details from their guardian or the student themselves. There may be some reluctance or outright refusal but if that is the case expecting compliance with a service provider is probably pie in the sky anyway. Explaining to a parent or guardian that in order for their child to get further help from the state - including a benefit - they need to register contact details, should provide the carrot.

 So it is dismaying to read what the Minister is recommending:

Again this propensity to treat everyone the same because of a minority problem rears its ugly head. I don't want the name and address and other personal details of my child to be given to MSD. Simple as that.


This is going along the same lines as other privacy invasions by the state relating to children that are completely unwarranted.

Also it means spending sorely needed revenue on unnecessary long-winded bureaucratic processes. 

FFS deal with the actual problem and leave the rest of us alone.

Porirua Mayor to eradicate child poverty

Good luck with that. No central government in the western world has achieved it. From today's Dominion Post:

"Porirua Mayor Nick Leggett has hit out at Government suggestions that councils should stick to core services such as sewage , roads and libraries. Porirua City Council's plan, which outlines spending for the next ten years includes a vision of a poverty-free city, and Mr Leggett insists it has a "moral obligation" to stamp out child poverty."

A "moral obligation" no less. You, the ratepayer, have a moral obligation to ensure that other people's children are free from poverty. It's not enough that central government imposes this fatuous claim on you, he wants to duplicate it. On the upside, when the imposition becomes so localised you find yourself having to share your wages with the large family next door the absurdity and outrageousness of the proposition becomes evident.


And what motivates Mr Leggett?

"The Inside Child Poverty: A Special Report documentary which screened on television last year, spurred Mr Leggett's vision for the council to step up."

Influenced by sensationalist propaganda which I wrote about here and here.

Porirua ratepayers will no doubt be delighted with this news.

More newly-named welfare benefits

16 and 17 year olds and 16 to 18 year old teen parents who are receiving government financial assistance.

From 30 July 2012, a new Youth Payment and a new Young Parent Payment will be introduced with youth-focused obligations.

To qualify young people will need to be in education or training and they will have to meet certain obligations such as undertaking budgeting courses and, if a parent, parenting courses. Some of their basic costs like rent and power will be paid directly to suppliers with a small in-hand allowance paid direct to the young person and any remainder of their payment placed on a payment card for groceries.

To enable this policy to work the Minister is asking for the private sector to help:  

Letter to providers about youth services 

Dear provider, 

Changes to the way we work with young people 

The Government has announced its intention to undertake major changes to the welfare system. One of the first areas of focus is how Work and Income will manage young people at risk of long term benefit dependency. Currently too many young people in New Zealand are not in school, training or work. In addition to this, we know more than half the young people who end up on a benefit before they’re 18 years old spend at least five of the next 10 years on welfare. These people require intensive support, attention and encouragement. We need to change the way we identify, support and manage these young people before they end up trapped in the cycle of welfare dependency – and we need your help to do it.

Well, I could point out what many libertarians have in the past, that government money corrupts the impetus and motivation of charitable endeavours. However, using tax to buy ' hand-up' assistance is still better than using it for 'hand-out' assistance.

Shearer hints at harder-line welfare policy

There's an ambiguity about the headline from the NZ Herald relating to David Shearer's breakfast speech.

Harder-line than previous or than National? And does this mean that Labour will be supporting the welfare reform legislation soon to pass through the House? Or will they call for tougher legislation? The Welfare Working Group had some recommendations rejected that Labour could pick up and promote.

Or is he simply indicating that Labour is dropping the ill-informed pre-election policy to extend the In Work Credit to beneficiary parents? Whatever this means, I'll tell you what I take from it.

Labour realises that the public are now behind welfare reform. They either have to support National and look for votes on another platform, or go further than National is currently prepared to.

Singapore's 'welfare state'

Recently I had the pleasure of spending the day with James Bartholomew when he visited NZ as part of a research tour in preparation for a follow up book to his The Welfare State We're In.
After NZ he was on his way back to Australia and then on to Singapore. This article from the Spectator describes what he found in Singapore.

Maxim makes no sense

A Maxim 'Real Issues' newsletter referring to welfare reform says:

Growth in welfare has become an increasingly critical issue in both countries over the last decade, particularly for the UK. While it's the largest area of spending for both countries, it takes up a third of New Zealand's GDP compared to almost half of the UK's. Since 2001, welfare spending has risen by four percent in New Zealand to $21.2 billion. It rose four times as fast in the UK, and now sits at 111 billion pounds (about NZ$213 billion).

If welfare in NZ was taking up a third of our GDP that would be about $56 billion. Goodness knows what half of the UK's GDP is.
Here is a graph from the London School of Economics.

It shows that not just welfare, but  education and health consume about 26 percent of GDP. In NZ the same areas of expenditure consume about 28 percent of GDP (I've used NZ$170 billion).

 Not sure what the Maxim writer is doing here. Perhaps intending to compare percentages of government spending but even then, the claim that in the UK welfare takes up half is quite wrong.

More on newborns added to a DPB

In 2010 4,800 newborns were added to a DPB

59 percent of the caregivers were Maori, 23 percent NZ European, 12 percent Pacific.

The highest rate of additions were in:

Whangarei
Rotorua
Whakatane
Kawerau
Wairoa
South Taranaki
Carteron

(Notice most of these are also areas associated with gang presence?)

The younger the mother appears in the system the higher the likelihood she will add further children. Those beginning aged 16-17 had a 45 percent possibility of adding further children.

Finally the following graph shows the rate of additional births between 1994 and 2010:

Shearer on National's DPB reforms

Gordon Campbell interviewing David Shearer. Interviewing? Actually, no it's more like cross-examining to drag out the desired response.  The following excerpt relates to the DPB reforms. Hopefully Shearer will at least revert to the Labour's position  pre-Goff/King's campaign promise. Perhaps other Labour MPs will line up behind candidate Josie Pagani who rejected the In Work Tax Credit extension to beneficiaries post election.

Well, lets take an example: welfare reform. Welfare reform is something that many of those middle class strugglers we’re talking about happen to support. Do you think that solo parents on the DPB should be made to work full time when their youngest child turns 14,- and part time when their youngest child is five?

I think you’ve really got to be careful about making things compulsory. There are many, many people out there by now who are – at the age that their children are now – who are saying ‘ I’ll go back to work again, for a lot of different reasons, and for a lot of economic reasons.” There are two issues here for me here – if you want someone to go back out to work again, there are at least three pre-conditions. One, they need to have the skills to be able to get work. Two, they need to have good childcare to be able to do it And three, there has to be the jobs. Now if you don’t talk about those three things, then there’s no point in talking about compulsory or optional or whatever. Those three things are essential pre-requisites. And what’s happening is that the government is talking about compulsion, of pushing people out while actually not providing the enabling part of it.

But the point is, the struggling middle class don’t want to wait for those pre-conditions to be met. They’re happy to have welfare reform now, and seem to have a striking lack of sympathy for people on the DPB. Do you oppose the DPB planks of the welfare reform process?

I don’t oppose the encouragement of getting people into work. I don’t think there’s a party in Parliament that doesn’t believe working isn’t better than being on some sort of welfare cheque, particularly for unemployed people. For DPBs its obviously slightly more difficult, in that child must come first. And for us, that’s the key issue. The other issue…is that the majority of women who are having children, who go back out to work,- and I know, because there are tons of them in my electorate here – who put their children into childcare, and are able to cope. But there is another group of people and or whatever reason – jobs, skills, adequate childcare – where they can’t do that. They don’t have that option, even if you wanted them to, or felt that was the best thing for them. So putting the child first means that – if you want to get women back into the work force – you do need those other things in place.

But in the real world in 2012, we’re going to have the government enacting a welfare policy whereby solo parents on the DPB will have to work full time once their youngest child is 14 – regardless of the state of the job market. There’s no quid pro quo I can see on the government’s reform agenda. So, will you oppose that measure?

If there are no jobs, if there is no training, if there’s no ability for somebody to get childcare then –

So that’s a yes, you will oppose it?

I would like to encourage to get people back to work whenever they…as soon as possible.

I’m trying to get past your preference, and get at what are you going to do when it hoves into view into Parliament. Are you going to vote against any measure of this sort, within that section of the welfare reform legislation?

We have to see what it looks like.

You know what it looks like. Bennett and Co. have made their intentions very clear.

I’ll say to you again : I believe people should be going back to work, or going to work – because some of them haven’t been to work – whenever that is possible for them to do that, and whenever it is in the best interests of their children. But I say again – if there is no ability to get good work, either through jobs, or through skills or through decent childcare then that’s not….

And finally, can I say that those things are of such a priority to you as a pre-condition that absent of them, you will vote against that part of the legislation ?

I want to look at the legislation before I tell you how I’m going to vote. I’m not going to be sitting here in the absence of a caucus discussion and telling you how I – or the Labour Party – are going to vote.

Fail for Campbell.

Child abuse - an ethnic or socio-economic problem?

David Farrar is criticising research claiming child abuse  isn't a cultural problem for Maori. He says,

High quality research would look at ethnic prevalence rates, while controlling other factors which might be an influence such as poverty, welfare status etc.  I’d be very interested to also see data on prevalence rates by welfare status, once income has been removed as a factor. In other words is there more child abuse in households where no adults work, than in households where at least one adult works – but has much the same level of income.

The data doesn't exist in NZ as far as I am aware. Children in poor families: does the source of family income change the picture? surveyed living standards but didn't touch on levels of abuse or neglect.

In 1996 researchers compared the CYF notification rate for the general population and welfare-reliant  homes and found a significantly higher rate for the latter. But the research didn't control for income.

The latest US National Incidence of Child Abuse and Neglect survey found:

The rate for children with no parent in the labor force (22.6 children per 1,000) is almost 3 times the rate for children an employed parent....

Children in families of low SES [socio-economic status] were at significantly greater risk of Harm Standard maltreatment overall. An estimated 22.5 children per 1,000 children in low–SES families experienced Harm Standard maltreatment, which is more than 5 times the rate of 4.4 per 1,000 children in families that were not of low SES.

Chances are there is considerable overlap.

But here's the kicker, and there is no reason why NZ should be any different,

... the incidence of Harm Standard physical abuse was significantly lower for children living with two married biological parents compared to children living in all other conditions. An estimated 1.9 per 1,000 children living with two married biological parents suffered Harm Standard physical abuse, compared to 5.9 or more per 1,000 children in other circumstances. In addition, children whose single parent had an unmarried, live–in partner were at significantly higher risk of Harm Standard physical abuse (19.5 children per 1,000)...

NZ statistics show that Maori are more likely to have  an unmarried, live–in partner. Which takes us back to the disproportion of child abuse and neglect amongst their children.


What does need pointing out perhaps is that the vast bulk of children - both Maori and Pakeha - are not abused or neglected.

Maharey back but no better

Ex Minister for Social Development, Steve Maharey, is back today in the DomPost claiming his welfare policies worked and there was no need for National to re-invent the wheel.
 

There is not the space here to list the policies developed to implement the framework, but it is worth noting that they were the result of a concerted effort to draw on the best of international and national thinking.

Did it work? Yes. Unemployment fell dramatically and the number of people on the domestic purposes benefit declined.

Unlike in all other OECD nations, the increase in the number of people claiming a benefit because of a disability or an illness began to slow.

Note the green band and below represent people who generally spend many more years on a benefit than those on the unemployment benefit. The vertical axis shows percentage of the working-age population. So under Labour inroads into dependence was not the big-tick  achieve Maharey claims.

Evaluation showed that the policies made a measurable difference. Treasury was so impressed when $300 million was returned to it in one year that it made the advances in social policy a feature in its annual report.

Despite this, when a change in government occurred, it was as if a new start had to be made. A welfare reform working party was established and it operated as if in a vacuum.

Years of experience were wasted. Now, we have a new policy framework which seems to be based on the idea that benefit numbers are rising because people do not want to work. History teaches us that this assumption is not well founded. There are those for whom work is anathema, but most people take work if they have the skills for the job, it pays a wage they can live on and details, such as having a safe place for their children to stay, are taken care of.
Sole parents are a good example. Although current policy portrays sole parents on a benefit as young and irresponsible, they are typically women in their early 30s who have left a relationship. They stay on the benefit for a few years at most and then get on with their lives.

How much better current policy would be if it had built on previous experience.

Maharey is still grinding the organ. We now have new research that presents rather a different picture. For example,
 

On average, sole parents receiving main benefits had more disadvantaged backgrounds than might have been expected:

·          just over half had spent at least 80% of the history period observed (the previous 10 years in most cases) supported by main benefits

·          a third appeared to have become parents in their teenage years.

This reflects the over-representation of sole parents with long stays on benefit among those in receipt at any point in time, and the longer than average stays on benefit for those who become parents as teenagers.

 

 "How much better current policy"  is now it is evidence-based.