New painting

Vested interests and statistics

I wonder what has prompted this belated outburst from Hone Harawira?

Domestic Violence is Going Up, Not Down

“Domestic violence is going up, not down” says MANA Leader Hone Harawira.

The Minister of Police, Anne Tolley, stated last week that “...we [New Zealand] have safer communities and far fewer victims of crime”.

Statistics from the NZ Police include:
• In 2009 police callouts to domestic violence were 78,693. In 2011 that figure has risen to 86,710 - an increase of 9.25%.
• Despite the increase of callouts, between 2009 and 2011 there have been 12,678 less arrests. That is a decrease of 31.71% arrests.

“The picture being painted is obvious. While there is an increase in the number of reported incidences of domestic violence, the cops are not arresting the offenders of the crime”.

“Women’s Refuge is now saying that the threshold for an arrest on the grounds of domestic violence needs to be higher for the cops to lay charges. So your husband will only be arrested if he tries to kill you, but a black eye is ok. It is a deliberate trick to manipulate the stats so the government can look good”.

“If you need proof, NZ Police no longer specifically record family violence offences in their official statistics. We will be on the only country in the OECD not to report these figures! That will mean in future years the government will declare that domestic violence is coming down. Yet organisations like Women’s Refuge know that such statements are bullshit – much like what Tolley has had to say last week”.

The business of 'up or down' has pre-occupied me recently. A couple of weeks back the Families Commissioner had a heated interview with Michael Laws. He claimed DV is going down which makes the White Ribbon campaign a success (Laws claims the campaign is biased and a waste of time).

But Women's Refuge are dubious about government presentation of statistics. Their primary interest is to obtain funding for their operations. Worsening statistics are more likely to achieve this - especially from government.

The Police want to look like they are doing a good job and the opposition want to make the government look bad. I guess that's where Hone fits in. (His example of a "husband" beating the wife is a bit rich though. Crime surveys show that women in marriages experience the least amount of domestic violence.)

A strong indicator of DV is represented in sexual assaults and police say that the recent surge in recorded sexual assaults - 3.1% 2009/10 - was almost entirely driven by assaults within intimate partner relationships. This may also apply to the 2010/11 larger increase of 14.9 percent.

Then there is the old 'reports versus actual crime' trick. When it suits, the government says that reports are up and that's good. 'People are coming forward due to all our efforts' they say. Reports may be up but that doesn't necessarily equate to the actual level being up, they say.

Yet Women's Refuge maintains need for their services is growing. Even then some of that may be driven by economic need (homeless women) as opposed to more violence.

Where Hone is on safe ground is criticism of the way statistics are recorded. It is impossible to make year- on- year comparisons when methods vary and police re-categorisation of crime has confused the picture significantly. (Re-categorisation is going to pose a huge problem when the government changes benefit types.)

The best rule on hearing a statistic is, even before you attempt to weigh up its veracity independently, look at whose mouth it is coming out of.

Most people already take 6 months to a year when having a baby?

Here's an interesting opinion from the head of the EMA:

Employers and Manufacturers Association employment services manager David Lowe said most people took six to 12 months off when they had a baby.

Those who did come back at 14 weeks usually did so because of financial constraints and were often "unsettled".

"If you have a look at the returning parent and the child, everyone is more settled if they take a little bit longer off."

A longer period of paid parental leave would be better for those parents and employers would generally not mind, he said. However he acknowledged the Government faced financial constraints.

If he is right then there is no case for extending PPL to 6 months because most people already take that amount of time. Most people can afford to pay for it themselves. End of story.

Good on National

NZ Herald Poll

1100–1150 votes

National's veto on extending paid parental leave - right or wrong?

1. Right (62%)
2. Wrong (33%)
3. I'm not sure (5%)

Update on poll: At almost 16,000 votes 60 percent say 'right'.

There are times when I get called by the media I am sure because I am the only commentator taking a dissenting view to social spending (apart from the government). The left would like to paint people like me as complete heels for not agreeing that mothers should have ample time to bond with their babies. In fact that's not what I am saying at all. Of course babies should get the best start but that is for their parents to provide for.

So it lifts my spirits when I see that a good number of joe public also agree, or at least believe now is not the time.

Next welfare reforms

For those interested in the next lot of reforms planned by the government have a read of the Bills Digest here written in non-legalistic language that is not difficult to comprehend. The biggest changes come for young people who will be micro-managed if requiring state support. I am not a fan of paternalism (which opposers of the bill will argue it is) but when you think about the very word, paternalism, it refers to the authority of a male parent. As the state is assuming the role of the parent and provider to 16,17 and 18 year-olds paternalism can be justified. Personally I think it will deter a good number from even applying. They want the money but not with this number of strings attached. But it makes me want to fall about laughing when I hear the left protesting about 'paternalistic legislation' when they are constantly lobbying for the state to assume responsibilities that should rightly fall to the individual.

Paid Parental Leave

Media Release
Tuesday, April 10, 2012

EXTENDING PAID PARENTAL LEAVE SHOULD BE REJECTED

At a time when the government is struggling to get the country's borrowing under control New Zealand cannot afford to spend more on extending Paid Parental Leave (PPL).

Welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell said today that Labour MP Sue Moroney's private member's bill to extend PPL from 14 weeks to 6 months should be rejected by National and its support parties.

"Since PPL was introduced in 2002 the uptake has exceeded predictions. Like any welfare benefit, once introduced, they become difficult to control. Spending on PPL increased 175 percent between 2003 and 2010 yet the number of babies born increased by only 14 percent. (In the past five years the figures have been respectively 60 percent and 7.9 percent.)"

"In economic defence of her bill, Moroney argues that it will create employment as 'employers engage staff to replace those on PPL.' On that basis it would be equally valid to claim the bill will reduce employment when employers shed staff as those on PPL return to the workforce. In reality PPL is a hiatus from the workforce paid for by the taxpayer. It is a cost to the economy."

"If this bill is passed it will cost a minimum of $300 million by 2014, double what it is now. However, it is likely to be significantly more based on experience to date."

Did a couple of interviews on the back of this with Larry Williams, NewstalkZB (crosses over these two links ) - and Andrew Urqhart at Radio Rhema. I don't know what the listenership is on Rhema but I always enjoy my interviews there, with more time to develop a thought, or talk more extensively around a point the interviewer is making.

Socialism illustrated

(Hat-tip Eternal Vigilance)

Housing and claustrophobia

I worked in Glasgow periodically in the 1980s so retain an interest. Headlines from The Scotsman arrive daily by e-mail. This story about a Russian refugee family that fell from a 15th floor is awful but it was the accompanying image that caught me.

Red Road flats are apparently notorious. A quick search describes them visually. Eight 31 storey blocks on the outskirts of Glasgow husing 4,000. The tallest social housing in Europe when built in 1971 according to one report. I was unaware of them.

When I lived in London I accompanied my not-well-to-do brother looking to buy a flat (which I would also inhabit). We looked at some awful life-sapping dives. Yes, even the private sector built revolting concrete blocks. Some that were comfortably habitable inside looked straight into the neighbour's windows and had virtually all natural light curbed as a consequence. The sense of claustrophia was crushing.


Not a 'complainer' by nature, shown into a miniscule hotel room in a Hong Kong (with a toddler in tow), with a window no less than 2 metres away from a neighbouring highrise block, but deep down the tens of levels, I discovered I could put my foot down with a result. We were moved to a room with an outlook. (Cactus will shake her head at my 'delicacy'.)






I suppose in their favour these Scottish blocks are at least well-spaced providing some daylight and view. My psyche craves physical space and light and a horizon. Personally I would rather be in flat with an unimpeded view than in a pokey terrace house with a garden the size of a postage stamp. But the flats are earmarked for demolition. What will replace them I wonder?

On reflection I don't know I am born (a colloquialism for Fred Dagg's "You don't know how lucky you are".)

Labour MP undermines Labour policy

Is this a classic case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing?

Labour's policy is to introduce one year's Paid Parental Leave (PPL). One of their MP's has just had a private member's bill drawn from the ballot to introduce 6 months PPL!

If Paid Parental Leave is such a great thing why not lobby for 2,3 ,4 or 5 years entitlement? Oh, of course, we already have that. It's the DPB. And a fine job its doing of reaping "social and economic" rewards.

In the final analysis PPL is just another scheme that forces one person to pay for another's choices. That's the principle we live with and its arbitrary application is what keeps far too many politicians, paid lobbyists, media and public relations people, unionists, etc non-productively employed.

Crime statistics

Recorded crime is down.

Here's a couple of sub-stats.

In absolute terms there were 20,289 fewer recorded crimes in 2011 than in 2010.

In Canterbury there were 11,579 fewer crimes - that's 57 percent of the total.

David Garrett says the drop in crime is down to better policing and three strikes. He may be right that these two factors are reducing crime. But Earthquakes would have to be right up there.

In Waitemata and Counties Manukau there were 1,614 fewer crimes but in Auckland there were 4,229 more.

So I fervently hope that a downward trend is being established but would be foolish to get overly excited.

Effect of the recession on the labour market

Statistics New Zealand released an article yesterday that looks at how the labour market fared during the rescession. It summarises:

The New Zealand labour market was affected in many ways:

• people worked fewer hours
• the number of jobs available fell
• unemployment rose
• more people went into study
• there were fewer, and smaller, wage rises
• labour market turnover slowed.

Each heading includes a graph. Here are a couple:

My comment: This shows the double whammy for the economy. The state has to find more money to support increased student numbers while receiving less tax revenue from the numbers employed. Latest data (first half of 2011) shows a further 3.5% increase on 2010.

The only good news is:

During the recession, New Zealand experienced a smaller rise in unemployment than a number of other OECD countries. It is possible to compare New Zealand’s unemployment rate with other countries using the seasonally adjusted harmonised unemployment rate published by the OECD. Over the recession, New Zealand’s unemployment rate rose 1.2 percentage points. During the same period, the unemployment rate rose 3.3 percentage points in the United States, 2.0 percentage points in the United Kingdom, and 1.2 percentage points in Australia.

And the conclusion:

The recession in 2008 and 2009 in New Zealand and the rest of the world continues to affect the New Zealand labour market. There have been falls in employment, falls in hours paid and worked, as well as rises in the number of people unemployed. People have responded by leaving the labour force. In some cases, they have decided to do more tertiary study.

These factors have affected companies to varying degrees, depending on firm size.

The impact of the recession on the New Zealand labour market will continue to be felt for a long time.

Welfare state meets Woman's day

I am only posting this out of mild amusement such has become the pervasiveness of the state in our lives. If you suspect you are in a dysfunctional relationship take one of Nanny's quizzes to either confirm or allay your fears. Welfare State meets Woman's Day.

Describing Maori to allay the fears of potential immigrants

I am off on a tangent again. Supposed to be researching another subject, I am distracted by matters Maori. This is from the 1990 New Zealand Yearbook:

The ‘native race’

The New Zealand Wars were hardly over when the Vogel period of immigration and public works began.

Many potential immigrants must still have remembered reading of the wars when they weighed up the possibilities of emigrating to New Zealand, and the 1875 Handbook was published largely to attract these immigrants to the new country. However, in allaying fears of warlike Maori, it took liberties which today may well be seen as patronising and based on ignorance. It informed readers that:

As a rule, Maoris are middle-sized and well-formed, the average height of the man being 5 ft. 6 in.; the bodies and arms being longer than those of the average Englishmen, but the leg bones being shorter, and the calves largely developed.^* The skin is of an olive-brown colour, and the hair generally black; the teeth are good, except among the tribes who live in the sulphurous regions about the Hot Lakes, near the centre of the North Island; but the eyes are bleared, possibly from the amount of smoke to which they are exposed in “whares,” or cabins, destitute of chimneys. The voice is pleasant, and, when warlike excitement has not roused him to frenzy, every gesture of the Maori is graceful. Nothing can be more dignified than the bearing of chiefs assembled at a “runanga,” or council, and this peculiar composure they preserve when they adopt European habits and custom, always appearing at ease, even in the midst of what would seem a most incongruous assembly. In bodily powers, the Englishman has the advantage. As a carrier of heavy burdens, the native is the superior; but in exercises of strength and endurance, the average Englishman surpasses the average Maori. As to the character of the natives, it must be remembered—if most opposite and contradictory qualities are ascribed to them—that they are in a transition state. Some of the chiefs are with the exception of colour and language, almost Europeans; others conform, when in towns, to the dress and the customs of white men, but resume native ways, and the blanket as the sole garment, as soon as they return to the “kainga,” or native village. The great majority have ideas partly European, partly Maori; while a small section, professing to adhere to old Maori ways, depart from them so far as to buy or to procure articles of European manufacture, whenever they can do so. They are excitable and superstitious, easily worked upon at times by any one who holds the key to their inclinations and who can influence them by appeals to their traditionary legends; while at other times they are obstinate and self willed, whether for good or for evil. As is usual with races that have not a written language, they possess wonderful memories; and when discussing any subject, they cite or refer to precedent after precedent. They are fond of such discussions; for many a Maori is a natural orator, with an easy flow of words, and a delight in allegories which are often highly poetical They are brave, yet are liable to groundless panics. They are by turns open-handed and most liberal, and shamelessly mean and stingy. They have no word or phrase equivalent to gratitude, yet they possess the quality. Grief is with them reduced to a ceremony, and tears are produced at will. In their persons they are slovenly or clean according to humour; and they are fond of finery, chiefly of the gaudiest kind. They are indolent or energetic by turns. During planting time, men women, and children labour energetically; but during the rest of the year they will work or idle as the mood takes them. When they do commence a piece of work, they go through with it well; and in roadmaking they exhibit a fair amount of engineering skill.

Strange question from an ex ACT MP

I know Deborah Coddington doesn't define herself as libertarian any more and this isn't a personal dig at her. But this morning she asks a question I have heard more than once from other sources, but wouldn't have expected from an ex ACT MP:

"...why is the taxpayer-funded ACC even expected to pay compensation to someone who, we now know, has already received a million-dollar payout from a private insurance company for her bicycle accident, the same accident for which she's seeking an ongoing benefit from ACC?"

ACC is partially tax-payer funded but anyone in employment or self-employed pays premiums, often very hefty ones. If Bronwyn Pullar paid premiums, and if her injury fit the bill, shouldn't she be entitled to an ACC pay-out?And if Bronwyn Pullar paid taxes shouldn't she be entitled to an ACC pay-out? The fact she took out private insurance as well shouldn't have any bearing (unless, of course, she was setting out to get injured which seems highly unlikely). But this is the lie that is ACC and social security in this country. You make compulsory contributions with no guarantee of cover. Our system is a sort of hybrid between insurance, social assistance and wealth redistribution to the poorest.

Either government schemes should make pay-outs linked directly to contributions or let people make their own provision (while maintaining a separate pool for non-contributors).

As it stands we get the morally repugnant but legally defensible situation of Ms Pullar getting two pay-outs and still wanting more.

Oswald Bastable bowing out

The birth of Oswald's blog preceded mine by a few months in 2005. And my acquaintance with 'Oswald' preceded that. Today he has announced he is stopping. Lost the energy for it he says.

Far be it from me to speculate, put two and two together and make five, but I will. Are libertarians losing heart? Or do we just reach a point where everything we think has been said, and then some.

Back in the early 2000s we were more energised, had two political hinge-points (ACT and Libz) the tension between which, of itself, kept the passions stirred.

What do we have now? I am mildly mollified by a National government making some welfare reforms but in general we have the Greens in ascendency, National and Labour big-government protagonists both, ACT down the toilet and Libertarianz, for all their efforts and genuine people, gaining no traction.

And age comes into it. Our mortality looms larger daily but the desire to make our lives matter does not diminish. Making something may be giving our growing children the time and environment that launches their own adventure. It may be no more than leaving behind children and grandchildren who remember us fondly. But I speak for myself. I am not trying to second guess Oswald in this respect.

Oswald won't have made his decision lightly. Blogs become an integral part of your existence. Sometimes a welcome outlet, sometimes a tedious obligation. Certainly a habit, even an addicton, though I am sure real addictions provide more excites than blogs. Perhaps when the obligation aspect starts to overwhelm the creative vent, it is time to pack up. Even then you think, will the cessation be followed by regret or relief?

Anyway dear Ossie Bastable I will miss you.

State house utopia - not

Reading a story about 11 Somalian refugees living in a 4 bedroom home in Christchurch one can have sympathy for their situation, past and present. And the racism displayed by potential private landlords is unfortunate but no laws can change it.

However, what caught my attention came only at the very end of the coverage:

Hayden said Warsame's family had turned down three houses in Christchurch because the family thought they were in the wrong suburb or too damp.

So they continue to live 11 in a 4 bedroom house by choice. I can understand the reasons why people would turn down certain houses or neighbourhoods. I can understand why people might choose to pool extra income by sharing one home. But what I don't get is why they then feel entitled to go the media (assuming that is how the story got out) about their 'plight'. Housing New Zealand has an obligation to find them accommodation and it would appear are doing their best.

If anything the story is an indictment on the state of Housing New Zealand stock and not uncommon deterioration of neighbourhoods they proliferate. And racists.

Hide vs Franks on Close Up tonight

Rodney Hide will be taking the affirmative for Sir Doug Graham losing his knighthood and Stephen Franks the negative.

One person a minute

Yesterday Paula Bennett told parliament:

"Last year 80,000 people went off benefits and into work. That is actually one person for every minute of every working day."

The number of working age people on benefits rose from 351,000 to 353,000 last year. Which means 82,000 must have gone onto benefits. That is actually one person for every minute of every working day.

"National's war on the poor"

Sue Bradford seems to pop up all over the show wearing different hats. The last one I saw her in was BAIS (Beneficiaries Advocacy and Information Service). Yesterday it was Auckland Action Against Poverty. Never short on hyperbole she describes the reforms that went to select committee yesterday as "shameful", "punitive", "paternalistic", "harassment" and "an important strand in National's war on the poor."

What is she describing?

- The expectation that beneficiary parents to be available for part-time work when their youngest turns five. Most mothers return to work before then.

- Paying young beneficiaries power and rent directly and limiting their benefit cash to an allowance.

- Providing enough childcare to allow young mothers to stay in education.

- Warning beneficiaries if they have another child while on welfare, and their existing child is at school, they will only get one year free from work expectations - the same as for non-beneficiary parents under parental leave.

Bringing beneficiaries into the real world, having the same expectations of them as everybody else, is a great thing. Sue Bradford could be reminded about the 'soft bigotry of low expectations'. That's where she seems to be at.

Welcome news

For a change, some welcome news from the world of politics.

Credit where it's due. Well done Labour MP Maryan Street.

This is a bill one I will be following and supporting, if it is drawn.