Paula Bennett deserves recognition for breaking the mold

Yesterday MSD posted their Statement of Intent for 2012-2015 on-line. The following extract is from the Minister's forward. Now I don't expect readers of this blog to get over-excited. Some of you want no state welfare system at all. But that's not going to happen any time soon. The reason I am copying this is Bennett's willingness to put the facts on the table. This isn't typical Ministerial waffle that, at best, says we must do better. It says the system is a failure and it has to change. And amazingly even the taxpayer gets a mention:

New Zealanders want a welfare system we can be proud of. The system must support people who genuinely can’t support themselves, but those who can work should be available for work and actively looking. Better resources and support to help more people off welfare dependency and into work is a clear priority. The system has failed too many New Zealanders by creating dependence and the Ministry of Social Development is moving towards a more active approach that will see greater support in helping more people off welfare and into work.

Young people are a clear priority within welfare reform. We know that those who go on welfare young tend to stay longer than others and have poorer opportunities as a result. Of real concern are the 16 and 17 year olds who become disengaged from education, employment and training and who are on a collision course with the adult welfare system.

Teen parents also stay longer on benefits than those who become parents at an older age. On average, a teen mother will spend more than seven of the next 10 years on the Domestic Purposes Benefit.

The welfare system has allowed very young people and teen parents to gain access to a benefit, with very little support. We will not continue to fail these young people by handing them a welfare cheque and leaving them to their own devices.

The Ministry of Social Development is engaging with youth service providers who will work with these vulnerable young people in a very new way. Whether or not they receive a benefit, those 16 and 17 year olds and 16–18 year old teen parents at risk of going on or remaining on welfare long term will receive wrap-around support.

Sole parents will also receive much greater support to move into work, as previously this was a group that attracted little work expectation or assistance.

The integrity of the welfare system must be protected and the Ministry of Social Development will continue to improve systems to prevent fraud and abuse of the benefit system. This includes better, faster data matching and getting tougher on those who do abuse the welfare system which is there to support those in genuine need.

These changes are about greater expectations to ensure more New Zealanders participate fully in our economy and society. We are rebalancing the incentives and obligations and ensuring the welfare system is fair to those who use it and those who pay for it.

NZ's comparative risk rating

This morning Don Brash delivered a speech to the Institute of Chartered Accountants on the effects of yesterday's budget. This table appeared in the notes. NZ has the same risk rating as the US.

(I received the speech via e-mail so if anyone wants a copy let me know. It's not up at his website yet.)

Treasury's lack of faith in welfare reforms

Actual and forecast welfare spending:

"Public not fooled by media"

Here's an opinion piece that merits wider reading. From Michael Cox published in the Waikato Times;  

I think the correct word is dichotomy, but I had to look it up in the dictionary. It means when two parts are sharply opposed. So it would be fair to say that a dichotomy exists between what I read, hear and see in our media and the regularly published political polls. "Key has blown it" read one headline. "National self-destructing" said another. The guts of the comments made under these strident headlines go along the lines of, "since the November elections John Key and his National Party seem to have gone down a path of sheer political madness". "Their proposed partial asset sales, the deal-making with SkyCity, the ACC problems and the sale of the Crafar farms to a Chinese group, all spell political doom for this hapless Government." Not so, say the polls. In fact, they have shown an increase in support for Mr Key and his merry band of politicians. This hapless Government now has more support than on election night. Obviously, the public likes strong and positive leadership and doesn't believe the media's interpretation of events. So how can the press get it so wrong? Here I begin to tread carefully, for it is a writing sin to overgeneralise, but could it be that our reporters are hoping that Mr Key and his government have a serious pratfall? My many years of experience with the media have taught me that, in general, most of them lean to the Left in their personal political persuasions. The job attracts that type of thinking, with a strong emphasis on social justice and a dismissal of capitalist necessities of day-to-day economics. Those who are professional put these leanings aside and publish what they consider is true and correct and do a fair job. Some just let all their prejudices hang out. The relationship between politicians and journalists is a very delicate one. They both need each other to do their jobs properly. Both tread warily in each other's presence. I always felt journalists didn't like politicians and were envious of them. I am aware of only two journalists who have become MPs: Fred Doidge in 1936 and Brendon Burns, who lost his Labour seat in the last general election. Interestingly, in my time in that establishment, the members of the Press Gallery formed the strongest journalists' union in the country. So I think it would be fair to say that the re-election of Mr Key's Government was not greeted with overwhelming joy and elation at the bar in the Press Galleries lounge. The reporting since that time has been continuously against the Government. It's as if the professional reins have been loosened. There is a feeling that the proper Opposition has not fired under its new leadership, leaving a void that some journalists have felt they should fill. Our Fifth Estate is very powerful. While at present there is a dichotomy between what is reported and the polls, if the media are of a mind to attack Mr Key's Government over the next year or so, they will play a part in eroding its public support – they are that powerful. Someone like Kim Hill with her three hours of interviewing Left-wing international personnel every Saturday morning has an ongoing effect on people's political views. It's a bit like Chinese torture: drip, drip, drip. She is the only woman I know who can consistently get me out of bed at 8am on Saturday. Then on Sunday morning on National Radio we are gently badgered by former Labour MP Chris Laidlaw. He never pulls punches when the political Right gets in his way. Together, these two articulate and persuasive presenters are a concerted voice for the Left. I've said it is dangerous to generalise and I should acknowledge some of the editorials that have been positive about the actions taken by Mr Key particularly over events such as the SkyCity deal, which has so much of an upside for New Zealanders. Mr Key is a deal maker to the core and has been since I worked with him when he was a young foreign exchange dealer in a merchant bank in Wellington. That can only be a positive for this country and I suspect that the public appreciate that and reflect their views in the polls. 

(Sorry about the formatting. Blogger drives me nuts)

Budget 2012 - small mercies to anticipate

There may be more recent data but this will do:

Across the entire sample, 52 percent of offenders released from New Zealand prisons in 2002/03 were convicted of a new offence and were returned to prison at least once during the 60-months follow-up period. 

Yesterday in Parliament:

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Corrections): Yesterday the Associate Minister of Corrections and I announced that Budget 2012 will contribute to a 25 percent reduction in reoffending by 2017, and 18,500 fewer victims of crime every year from 2017.

In other terms, in five years time, instead of 5 in 10 prisoners re-offending, New Zealand can look forward to 4 in 10 re-offending. I can hardly wait.

Welfare state not living up to expectations

In the budget run-up Every Child Counts is warning the government they must invest in children.

“As we head into Budget 2012, it is time for the government to publicly acknowledge the significant return on effective investment in children and assure the public that their policies will improve life for our most vulnerable children,” says Jenny Prince, Every Child Counts Steering Group member and CE of Plunket.

At the same time, a new study from the US  casts doubt on whether the welfare state can make up for a lack of two parent families. The study compares US and UK cohorts.

“WASHINGTON, DC, May 16, 2012 — Children in the United States and Great Britain share a number of common risk factors that increase the likelihood that they will have behavioral problems—and Britain’s broader social welfare programs don’t appear to mitigate those risks, according to a new study in the June issue of the Journal of Health and Social Behavior (JHSB)....

"We wanted to see whether the role of parents was equally important in both societies because the argument has been made that more developed welfare states—such as Great Britain—can make the role of parents less important, by providing additional supports that can help compensate for situations where households have more limited resources. This study tells us that parents are important in households, regardless of the strength of the welfare state.”

The UK Daily Mail has coverage here. They headlined coverage of the study from the Journal of Health and social Behaviour with:

Research found children from broken homes did worse regardless of how much state support is given
(Hat-tip Bob McCoskrie)

Social security wasn't unaminously welcomed - 1938

Response to Savage's Social Security proposals publicised via a radio broadcast earlier the same week;

(Source - The Evening Post, April 4, 1938)

Truth Column May 18

The following is my column published in The Truth, Friday, May 18:

When the first Old Age Pension was introduced in 1898 - over one hundred years ago - the qualifying age was 65. Fast forward to 2012 and the qualifying age is still 65. Given male life expectancy has risen from around 62 to 79 this seems astonishing.

Like so many government assistant schemes, pensions for the aged began as a tightly controlled, rather stringent programme but gradually ballooned, becoming a political football in the process. That's exactly what Super is right now with John Key staking his Prime Ministership on retaining the status quo.

Personally, I have never understood this intransigence. I asked him directly via a talk show question and answer session - why? He responded, during the 2008 election it became apparent that Labour was going to embark on a whispering campaign about his party's intention to raise the age. Thus he decided to put the mockers on it quick smart.

But it wasn't smart. Super is a huge cost with the youngest recipients accounting for a disproportionate share. The yearly bill for 65 and 66 year-olds alone is around $1.3 billion Looking ahead, as the baby-boomers age, the size of the workforce is going to shrink relative to the size of the 65 plus group. As one of them, I am uncomfortably aware of this. My kids will be (increasingly?) taxed to keep me.

So what, you may say? Hasn't that always been the way? Yes, but we haven't faced this kind of demographic change in the past. As are many European countries and the US. That's why they are lifting their entitlement ages.

Uncharacteristically Key has read this one wrong. When Phil Goff made lifting the age Labour policy in 2011 many people sensibly approved. Politicians are renowned for flip-flopping and generally we denigrate them for it. But this is one instance when a change of mind might reap kudos rather than derision.

Link not up yet but the editor's column is here.

McCarten missing the point

More mangled logic from Matt McCarten today. About the extended free contraception to the teenagers of women on the DPB:

"If we really want to reduce teenage pregnancy and abortion it would be more principled, and just as cost-effective, to offer it to all young women."

Stupid. But I have heard this sentiment over and over. Who can believe it comes from the mouths of lefties who in the very next breath are demanding all sorts of targeted assistance for the poor.

But if we treat contraception as purely a health matter anyway, it is the poorest teenagers that become teenage mothers. DHB statistics illustrate this fact. So prevention is targeted at that group.

I wonder what McCarten thinks of the targeted funding for the reduction of rheumatic fever?

Tariana Turia:

"Today we announced that as part of Budget 2012 we are doubling the spending, from $12 million to $24 million, over the next 4 years to reduce rheumatic fever in vulnerable communities. We currently have 101 schools engaged in the rheumatic fever campaign, targeting 35,000 children in seven regions. This new funding will allow more schools and more children to be targeted in this preventive programme. Around 70 percent of children who get this Third World disease will suffer some heart damage, but with proper treatment that risk is dramatically reduced.

McCarten's idea of  "principled" policy would require the programmes to be run in all communities whether or not rheumatic fever is a problem.

ACT's biggest backer a bigot

It sickens me reading the views of one Louis Crimp, who I have never heard of before today, although his face looks vaguely familiar. He is a bigot and apparently ACT's biggest backer.

Unfortunately, because I stood for ACT twice, I still get associated with  stuff that goes on in and around the party. And so I am compelled to publicly disassociate myself from this guy.

According to The Herald Mr Crimp said in an interview:

"All the white New Zealanders I've spoken to don't like the Maoris, the way they are full of crime and welfare."

Asked if his political views could be labelled racist, he said: "I don't give a stuff what I'm called. You have to look at the facts and figures. This is the problem with New Zealanders. Most of them dislike the Maoris intensely - I won't say hate - but they don't like to say so."

But here's the kicker:

Act's president, Chris Simmons, said he disagreed with Mr Crimp on some areas but respected his right to have a view....Mr Simmons said the party would take Mr Crimp's money again.

ACT has utterly lost its way. It was the champion of individual rights and arch critic of collectivism, and should be the party speaking out most vehemently against racism - not tolerating and tacitly condoning it through allowing a bigot to buy influence. I am appalled.

Teenage birthrate hits new low

The March quarter teenage birthrate has dropped to 25.3 per 1,000 15-19 year-olds.

This is the lowest rate since  1972 when the number was 69 per 1,000.

This is good news because most babies born to teenage parents end up on welfare.


Currently there are 3,051 18-19 year olds on the DPB (some might not be parents but caregivers to someone sick).

In March 2009 when the teenage birth rate was 32.2, there were 3,570 on DPB, so the drop in the birthrate is reflected in numbers dependent.

It may be that the messages about the DPB no longer being a long-term option are getting through. But the number of babies being born is dropping across the spectrum from 64,159 (year ended March 2009) to 60,860 March 2012.

The depressed economy? More potential dads leaving the country? (The abortion rate is also trending down so fewer women are getting pregnant in the first place.) Motherhood less fashionable? The moral climate?

I think that people are beginning to appreciate that the road ahead might not be so easy and are starting to adjust their behaviour accordingly. Whatever their circumstances are.

What do you think is changing?

Tom Scott gets it

There are times when a cartoon really nails it.

PPL- time to take a step back

A column for the NZCPD, May 13:

Paid Parental Leave - time to take a step back The NZ Herald recently ran a poll asking whether National was right to use its veto to override Labour MP Sue Moroney's private member's bill to extend Paid Parental Leave (PPL) from 14 weeks to 6 months. After 16,000 votes were submitted, sixty percent of respondents had answered yes.

Frustratingly, this doesn't tell us whether people were against the extension in the context of the current economic climate, against an extension full-stop, or against the entire scheme. I fall in the last category.

More

Another redundant objection to extended free contraception

S Beast commented on an earlier post,

"I also find the idea of a government agency prying into the sex life of 16 year olds more than a little creepy."

You will no doubt also find the idea of the education and health departments doing the same "creepy"? 12 and 13 year-olds given the immunisation against cervical cancer are asked if there was any chance they could be pregnant. School counsellors get intimately involved in situations surrounding the sex lives of adolescents. CYF, another "government agency" would also be closely involved with the sex lives of young people, and unfortunately, even children.

More generally, because I have seen other objections about case managers being involved in the 'new' policy,WINZ staff already deal with special grants for:

Vasectomies and termination of pregnancies

Pregnancy terminations

Terminations for dependent children

They also have to deal with difficult areas such as rape and incest when enquiring  after the father of a dependent child, the naming of whom is a requirement for receipt of the DPB. They use their discretion over whether or not to impose a penalty for not complying if the aforementioned scenarios are involved.

I imagine then they are quite capable of exercising discretion over offering a referral to a family planning clinic or GP for the purposes of receiving free long-acting contraception.

"NZ has a problem"

Friday's Right On  column in The Truth:

New Zealand has a problem

Working-age welfare accounts for around 13% of government’s total expenditure – that’s up from 2% 40 years ago. Many people – by no means all – end up on a benefit due to the choices they make, especially around partnering and parenting.

By the end of 2010, 23% of babies born that year had a caregiver on welfare. The pattern is fairly well established, so a lack of jobs is only part of the problem.

New Zealand has the second highest rate of sole parent families in the OECD at 30%. Most people don’t want to be sole parents, and most children want mum and dad in their lives.
These are statements of fact, not finger-pointing, blame or vote-buying.

By financially replacing fathers, government policy inadvertently caused substantial child poverty. The left wants this poverty reduced with higher benefits but this approach is only more of what created the problem in the first place. At least a third of mothers on the DPB started on welfare as teenagers. Without qualifications or work-skills, a benefit income can match or even surpass any working wage they might expect.

Welfare reforms being passed by Parliament have two goals. The first is preventing these young people from coming into and remaining in the system for many years, through more intensive and practical management from outside organisations, and restricting how benefit money can be spent. The second is passing the financial responsibility for their children back to parents through greater work expectations. For example, a single parent must be available for part-time work when their youngest child starts school.

The reforms are hardly radical. But they reflect a change in the way politicians and voters view welfare. They want a safety net, not a trap that damages families and children. The current set-up is not representative of a society that cares.

 Bomber's and and other Truth editorials here

Nasty and offensive journalism

There's been some hysterical responses to National's plan to extend the type of free contraception available to beneficiaries. Some of them serious, some laughable. But the following is offensive:

"The really noxious component of the whole proposal is its extension to the teenage daughters of beneficiaries who are over the age of consent.

It would be comforting to believe that this plan was not meant to be a slur on women on the DPB. Yet the inference is unavoidable.

As is the implication that being a trollop is hereditary. There's a slut gene that gets transmitted from solo mothers to their daughters. If your mother was a slut, you'll probably be one, too. Maybe not, but let's not take any chances. These second-generation sluts can't help themselves. Only long-term invasive contraception can counter the effects of the gene."

Who is Paul Little? Someone who makes stuff up for a living?

It was Colin Craig who raised the idea of promiscuity, who implied that NZ women are sluts. Little has developed this further into the idea that women on the DPB are sluts because they are the ones being offered the  extended free contraception.

It wasn't Paula Bennett, who was herself a teenage parent on the DPB. I stopped short of being one due to a miscarriage. I was very glad of the contraceptive pill but it wasn't foolproof. And over time I probably had more partners than was wise. Plenty of willing men around. And go ahead Paul Little. Call me a slut. It doesn't bother me.

But don't go calling anyone on the DPB a slut simply by reason of being a beneficiary.

The reason that the teenage daughters of mothers on the DPB are being offered extra free contraception is because girls raised in single parent homes have a significantly greater likelihood of becoming teenage mothers. If they are already dependent on a mother who is reliant on a benefit they will almost certainly follow in her footsteps. The science shows that these girls will stay on a benefit a long time and their children, along with those who are added to a benefit, will experience the poorest educational and health outcomes. It is an EXCELLENT idea to do everything possible to delay parenthood in these circumstances.

I have written about this method before. Opposition (in any form) describe an idea in nasty and offensive terms and then attribute those nasty and offensive terms to the originator of the idea. Very shallow and inadequate thinking.


(And for the Herald to drop a photo of Paula Bennett with her daughter next to this crap is also nasty and offensive. )

Hard to get excited about more Mob misuse of money

As a 'welfare commentator' I suppose I should have something to say about the alleged Mongrel Mob's misuse of whanau ora funding. But it is hard to get even mildly warm under the collar about it, not least because it is Winston Peters poking the stick.

When you line it up against all the other tax money gangs absorb, the DPB that finances their women and children, the $100,000 annual upkeep when inside, the law and order funds for policing and processing them, etc. $20,000 is small beer. Within or without the rules, it's all the same to me.

Two snippets

Two snippets noticed today:

Stories of children scavenging through pig slops and downing entire bottles of antibiotics out of hunger are an "embarrassment to the country" says a Kaitaia GP.
Doctor Lance O'Sullivan said he had been doing what he could to fight the effects of child-poverty in his region but it sometimes felt like an uphill battle.

“It is a human right's violation to tell poor people they can't have children.”
- Susan Fraser (Crofton Downs)

Strange report

The latest report about a Russian aircraft 'test-flight' that ended in tragedy is odd:

Twenty-one minutes after takeoff, the crew asked for permission to decline from 3000 metres to 1800 metres, said Daryatmo.

Aviation expresses altitude in feet. And permission to 'descend' is requested; not 'decline'.

Probably just journalistic bumbling.

Sallies interfering again

The Salvation Army gets up my nose and they may as well stop sending me begging letters because they are off my list of worthy causes. I abhor their stance on welfare and now I can add their lobbying on alcohol reform to my reasons for disaffection:

The Salvation Army recommends the Government immediately increase excise on alcohol by 25 per cent. This would have little effect on moderate drinkers but would reduce alcohol consumption by teenagers and heavy drinkers – the most price-sensitive consumers – by as much as 10 per cent.

Stop promoting punishment of the responsible for the actions of the irresponsible, not to mention the economic damage threatened to the many industries associated with alcohol production and sale. I'm sick of it.

I would gladly fund their practical work but cannot separate it from their ignorant and annoying advocacy.