Saturday, September 15, 2012
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Social obligations
To be honest I find it difficult to understand why anyone would want to mount an argument against children being enrolled with a doctor, completing WellChild healthcare checks (things like ante-natal weight monitoring and vaccinations), go to kindy and then onto school. This is what a large majority of parents expect to do as part of raising their children responsibly. It's also what what parents on benefits do. But some don't. Some do not even register the birth of their child. This results in those children described as "falling through the cracks". Paula Bennett has a way of trying to prevent this from happening. Using their benefit to motivate them to do all the right things by their children.
And I don't have a problem with it. Yes, it's state intervention and state compulsion but it is also the state protecting children whose parents are not up to the job.
And in the final analysis if you don't like these social obligations then don't go on a benefit. The rest of society has social obligations; to partners, to employers and to the government, like it or not.
Just did a pre-record on National Radio with Child Poverty Action Group's Janfrie Wakim. She wanted to make it a political fight. I think it's going to play after 8am if they use it.
Update: Interview here
Yes shock, horror I end by calling for the government to be allowed to do what it can to get the estimated 5 percent of children from highly stressed and dysfunctional families enrolled with a doctor, attending kindy and then school. Just remember, I am asking for this within the context of a benefit system which isn't going away any time soon.
And I don't have a problem with it. Yes, it's state intervention and state compulsion but it is also the state protecting children whose parents are not up to the job.
And in the final analysis if you don't like these social obligations then don't go on a benefit. The rest of society has social obligations; to partners, to employers and to the government, like it or not.
Just did a pre-record on National Radio with Child Poverty Action Group's Janfrie Wakim. She wanted to make it a political fight. I think it's going to play after 8am if they use it.
Update: Interview here
Yes shock, horror I end by calling for the government to be allowed to do what it can to get the estimated 5 percent of children from highly stressed and dysfunctional families enrolled with a doctor, attending kindy and then school. Just remember, I am asking for this within the context of a benefit system which isn't going away any time soon.
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
Quote of the day
The
federal government, in guiding the economic destiny of the country,
must be staffed largely with those who are unaware of how little they
know, who have no qualms about their ability to plan and regulate the
national economic growth, set wages, prescribe hours of work, write the
price tags for everything, decide how much of what shall be produced,
expand or contract the money supply arbitrarily, set interest rates and
rents, subsidize with other peoples' earnings whatever activity strikes
their fancy, lend billions not voluntarily entrusted to them, allocate
the fruits of the labor of all to foreign governments of their choice -
in short, decide what shall be taken from each Peter and how much of the
'take' shall be paid to each Paul.
— Leonard E. Read, Anything That's Peaceful [1964]
(Hat tip fff.org)
The good news is New Zealand no longer regulates to this degree. But there's no shortage of people who think we should....a return to the "golden age".
Greens launch campaign at a primary school
"At a campaign launch at Miramar South school today, Green Party Co-leader Metiria Turei and ‘Laughing Samoan’ Tofiga Fepulea’i joined with pupils to leave their colourful footprints on a banner promoting our campaign to recruit Champions to ‘take a step’ and help end child poverty.....Metiria Turei’s Income Tax (Universalisation of In-work Tax Credit) Amendment Bill is due for its first reading and would extend the tax credits to the children of beneficiary and student families.....'This isn’t about signing up to a political party. Children don’t care if your colours are green, red, blue or pink.' "
Of course this is a political campaign. It's about drumming up support for a Green bill that is highly controversial. I'm very surprised that Miramar School joined in this high profile support for Green policy.
In my experience schools won't even hire out their halls to political parties for campaign or fund-raising activities.
Justifying theft
I'm wondering how widespread Community Justice Panels (CJPs) are. Perhaps it's just a Christchurch development. I've never heard of such a thing before. It appears a CJP is a panel to which criminal offenders are referred to if there is an element of social injustice motivating their offending. But looking at an example the process looks open to manipulation.
Along similar lines - justifying theft because of social injustice -another child poverty article contains this:
I am troubled by this attitude. Telling offenders that their actions are understandable provides neither a reason why they are wrong, or why they should stop. When theft occurs, at any level, there is a victim.
But I suppose the moral relativists would tell us that by definition 'rich' kids or 'rich' business owners can't be victims.
"Police had referred some low-level shoplifters to the Community Justice Panel (CJP), made up of community members who deliver justice on behalf of society.
CJP co-ordinator Senior Sergeant Roy Appley said 17 of the 20 cases heard by the panel since July 1 were for shoplifting. About half of those were single mothers on a benefit with low self-esteem and a poor support network.
In two recent cases, the women were stealing items of clothing for children, while another young mother was stealing items to supplement what she had already bought for her son's birthday because she felt she was not able to give him enough.
In a similar manner Another young woman said she had stolen beauty products because of a low self-image problem. "She wanted to look and feel better," Appley said.
The panel had seen cases in which women were stealing for "hand-to-mouth" necessities, but they were in the minority, he said."
Along similar lines - justifying theft because of social injustice -another child poverty article contains this:
"Mangere Budgeting Services chief executive Darryl Evans said there were hungry children throughout New Zealand, particularly in South Auckland and parts of Christchurch.
His organisation ran a breakfast club at the Southern Cross Campus school in Mangere East. ''We estimated we would get about 30 kids a week turning up, we had 80 on one day.''
Teachers also reported children were having their lunches stolen by other children, he said. ''Not because they're naughty but because they're hungry.''
I am troubled by this attitude. Telling offenders that their actions are understandable provides neither a reason why they are wrong, or why they should stop. When theft occurs, at any level, there is a victim.
But I suppose the moral relativists would tell us that by definition 'rich' kids or 'rich' business owners can't be victims.
Monday, September 10, 2012
Chart/Table of the day
Sunday, September 09, 2012
Dane Moeke is back
But watching the first episode of NZ's Got Talent I was thrilled to see him auditioning. He sang The Greatest Love of All which isn't his strongest song (on those I've heard) BUT he got through with huge kudos from the judges. And this is smart. Starting with a lesser performance and saving his stronger for later. Again, his Dad was there in the wings supporting him.
He came on in bare feet and judge, Rachel Hunter asked him why. Slightly embarrassed he replied his jandals had gotten too sweaty. Downplaying expectations works for him. No-one anticipates the voice.
Can't wait for his next appearance.
Truth column August 30
Saturday, September 08, 2012
Why not uniforms for life?
"Once the preserve of secondary, private or religious schools, primary schools are increasingly using uniforms to mask the disparity between social classes at primary level."
The idea that schools are using uniforms to mask economic disparities is pretty damn awful. It recalls a recent conversation I had with a neighbour. My daughter attends a non-uniform wearing secondary school and the neighbour remarked upon it. "[Uniforms] are a great leveller though, " she said. Here's the thing. I don't send my children to school to be levelled. I send them to school to hopefully learn useful things and above all, to think.
But addressing the issue from a practical point of view, clothes have become cheaper and cheaper.
"....a core reason for many primary schools making the switch was to remove the distinction between rich kids and poor kids, which could be a distraction from children's learning. "It is distracting to see other kids with Nike shoes and changing clothes every day and all these lovely things they have, and you coming in wearing the same pants two or three days. Children can notice those things."
With the advent of recycled clothing nobody needs to wear the same pants two or three days (in any case, do you ever wear the same pair of jeans two or three days? I do). A parent with any nous can pick up good , even branded (if you care) clothes and shoes for next to nothing. Just like you can give your kids breakfast for next to nothing. What is lacking is some effort and imagination. Slapping them all in uniforms might just compound those particular short-comings.
I mean what is so appealing about all looking the same? Well, actually, they don't all look the same. Fat is still fat, short is still short and uniforms amplify physical differences.
Whereas allowed to dress how they want, kids will quickly learn what clothes mean to them. Do they dress for comfort, to conform, to stand apart, to suit their activities and environment, to maximise their best attributes? It gets them thinking. But no. Instead schools opt for this easy, literal dumbing-down of dress sense and, worse, individualism.
Hell. Why don't we pass a law to make uniform wearing compulsory for life if it's such a great thing?
Wednesday, September 05, 2012
Cut and paste press statement
Here's a good example of an almost immediate and almost verbatim cut and paste media statement appearing in the NZ Herald.
Hon Paula Bennett
Minister for Social Development
Minister of Youth Affairs
5 September 2012
Benefits stopped for those with arrest warrants
People with outstanding arrest warrants will no longer receive a benefit while evading Police says Social Development Minister Paula Bennett.
“Of the approximately 15,000 people with a current arrest warrant, around 8,200 are on benefits,” says Mrs Bennett.
“If someone has an unresolved arrest warrant we will stop their benefit until they do the right thing and come forward to the authorities.”
“In exceptional circumstances where someone poses a danger to the public, their benefit can be stopped immediately at the request of the Police Commissioner,” says Mrs Bennett.
Around 58 per cent of people clear their arrest warrants within 28 days. Those who don’t will be given 10 days to clear or challenge the warrant before their benefit is stopped, or reduced by fifty per cent if they have dependent children.
People will
still be able to apply for hardship assistance for
themselves and their children.
“Most people clear their warrants within a month, so 38 days is a reasonable amount of time to step forward and straighten things out,” says Mrs Bennett.
“Once someone has come forward their benefit can be reinstated but there will be clear consequences for people who continually refuse to acknowledge or resolve arrest warrants.”
ENDS
Minister of Social Development Paula Bennett has announced
people with outstanding arrest warrants will no longer receive a benefit
while evading police.
"Of the approximately 15,000 people with a current arrest warrant, around 8,200 are on benefits,'' said Mrs Bennett.
"If someone has an unresolved arrest warrant we will stop their benefit until they do the right thing and come forward to the authorities.''
Around 58 per cent of people clear their arrest warrants within 28 days - those who don't are given 10 days to clear or challenge the warrant before their benefit is stopped, or reduced by fifty per cent if they have dependent children.
In exceptional circumstances where someone poses a danger to the public, their benefit can be stopped immediately at the request of the police Commissioner,'' said Mrs Bennett.
"People will still be able to apply for hardship assistance for themselves and their children.
"Most people clear their warrants within a month, so 38 days is a reasonable amount of time to step forward and straighten things out.
"Once someone has come forward their benefit can be reinstated but there
will be clear consequences for people who continually refuse to
acknowledge or resolve arrest warrants.''
Hon Paula Bennett
Minister for Social Development
Minister of Youth Affairs
5 September 2012
Benefits stopped for those with arrest warrants
People with outstanding arrest warrants will no longer receive a benefit while evading Police says Social Development Minister Paula Bennett.
“Of the approximately 15,000 people with a current arrest warrant, around 8,200 are on benefits,” says Mrs Bennett.
“If someone has an unresolved arrest warrant we will stop their benefit until they do the right thing and come forward to the authorities.”
“In exceptional circumstances where someone poses a danger to the public, their benefit can be stopped immediately at the request of the Police Commissioner,” says Mrs Bennett.
Around 58 per cent of people clear their arrest warrants within 28 days. Those who don’t will be given 10 days to clear or challenge the warrant before their benefit is stopped, or reduced by fifty per cent if they have dependent children.
“Most people clear their warrants within a month, so 38 days is a reasonable amount of time to step forward and straighten things out,” says Mrs Bennett.
“Once someone has come forward their benefit can be reinstated but there will be clear consequences for people who continually refuse to acknowledge or resolve arrest warrants.”
ENDS
No benefit for people on the run
By Kate Shuttleworth
Social Development Minister Paula Bennett. Photo / Janna Dixon
"Of the approximately 15,000 people with a current arrest warrant, around 8,200 are on benefits,'' said Mrs Bennett.
"If someone has an unresolved arrest warrant we will stop their benefit until they do the right thing and come forward to the authorities.''
Around 58 per cent of people clear their arrest warrants within 28 days - those who don't are given 10 days to clear or challenge the warrant before their benefit is stopped, or reduced by fifty per cent if they have dependent children.
In exceptional circumstances where someone poses a danger to the public, their benefit can be stopped immediately at the request of the police Commissioner,'' said Mrs Bennett.
"People will still be able to apply for hardship assistance for themselves and their children.
"Most people clear their warrants within a month, so 38 days is a reasonable amount of time to step forward and straighten things out.
Responding to Green assertions about child poverty
I've used my computer time up today responding to a Green candidate brought to my attention by Shane. So it's also today's posting:
bsprout says: "What Key's government is currently doing has actually worsened child poverty and he clearly suggested that there wasn't much more he is prepared to do."
The latest HES finds that using the AHC ‘fixed line’ 60% measure of child poverty the rates were:
2009 22
2010 22
2011 21
And they are down or the same on every other measure depicted.
Table s.2, pg 13
http://www.msd.govt.nz/documents/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/monitoring/household-income-1982-2007/2012-hir-full-summary.doc
bsprout says:"...there appears to be a pervasive view that the 270,000 children living in poverty are suffering because their parents made poor choices and by restricting support will encourage them to get jobs and budget better. The fact is that the majority of these parents are in work or part-time employment."
The Children's Social Health Monitor says:
"In New Zealand, children who are reliant on benefit recipients are a particularly vulnerable group. During 2009, 75% of all households (including those with and without children) relying on income-tested benefits as their main source of income were living below the poverty line (housing adjusted equivalent disposable income <60 2007="2007" br="br" median="median" of="of">
In 2011 there were 234,572 benefit-dependent children. Assuming that non-child households are as poor as dependent-child households (unlikely) the number of beneficiary children living below the poverty line would be 175,929 or 75 percent.
http://www.nzchildren.co.nz/children_reliant.php
That represents a majority of 270,000. There is some overlap between benefit and part-time work but not enough to justify your statement. In fact, those children with parent on a benefit and working part-time are more likely to be above the threshold.
bsprout says: "Only a very small percentage of families abuse the system and to keep tightening the availability of benefits is just punishing many families who through redundancy and lack of jobs are suffering."
Your idea of abuse is probably fraud. My idea of abuse is to add children to an existing benefit at the rate of 18 percent of all children born each year. It is hardly surprising we have a child poverty problem.
http://www.occ.org.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/9866/No_3_-_Causes_and_consequences.pdf
Final point. Even when NZ had the lowest unemployment rate in the OECD (2007 or thereabouts) the number of children on benefits did not fall below 200,000.
bsprout says: "What Key's government is currently doing has actually worsened child poverty and he clearly suggested that there wasn't much more he is prepared to do."
The latest HES finds that using the AHC ‘fixed line’ 60% measure of child poverty the rates were:
2009 22
2010 22
2011 21
And they are down or the same on every other measure depicted.
Table s.2, pg 13
http://www.msd.govt.nz/documents/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/monitoring/household-income-1982-2007/2012-hir-full-summary.doc
bsprout says:"...there appears to be a pervasive view that the 270,000 children living in poverty are suffering because their parents made poor choices and by restricting support will encourage them to get jobs and budget better. The fact is that the majority of these parents are in work or part-time employment."
The Children's Social Health Monitor says:
"In New Zealand, children who are reliant on benefit recipients are a particularly vulnerable group. During 2009, 75% of all households (including those with and without children) relying on income-tested benefits as their main source of income were living below the poverty line (housing adjusted equivalent disposable income <60 2007="2007" br="br" median="median" of="of">
In 2011 there were 234,572 benefit-dependent children. Assuming that non-child households are as poor as dependent-child households (unlikely) the number of beneficiary children living below the poverty line would be 175,929 or 75 percent.
http://www.nzchildren.co.nz/children_reliant.php
That represents a majority of 270,000. There is some overlap between benefit and part-time work but not enough to justify your statement. In fact, those children with parent on a benefit and working part-time are more likely to be above the threshold.
bsprout says: "Only a very small percentage of families abuse the system and to keep tightening the availability of benefits is just punishing many families who through redundancy and lack of jobs are suffering."
Your idea of abuse is probably fraud. My idea of abuse is to add children to an existing benefit at the rate of 18 percent of all children born each year. It is hardly surprising we have a child poverty problem.
http://www.occ.org.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/9866/No_3_-_Causes_and_consequences.pdf
Final point. Even when NZ had the lowest unemployment rate in the OECD (2007 or thereabouts) the number of children on benefits did not fall below 200,000.
Monday, September 03, 2012
Crucial statistic omitted
Concerning the Children's Commissioner report released last week about child poverty and proposed solutions, there is a very short section headed The Causes of Child Poverty. This is supported by an additional paper: Working Paper no.3 What causes child poverty? What are the causes? An economic perspective.
The supporting paper contains this fact:
Here's my question for you. If you were responsible for the final report, the one for public consumption, would you have considered that statistic important and would you have included it?
(BTW the reason the percentage is down from the 1990s is far fewer people on are an unemployment benefit.)
The supporting paper contains this fact:
"Wilson and Soughtton (2009) report that about 18 percent of New Zealand children are born to a parent on a main benefit (about 13 percent are born to a parent on the DPB), down from 25 percent in the 1990s."
Here's my question for you. If you were responsible for the final report, the one for public consumption, would you have considered that statistic important and would you have included it?
(BTW the reason the percentage is down from the 1990s is far fewer people on are an unemployment benefit.)
Truth column August 23
My August 23 Truth column is now on-line.
Surprise, surprise – not. The Greens want higher welfare payments.
Last week, they had a private member’s bill to extend the In Work Tax Credit (IWTC) to beneficiary parents pulled out of the ballot. That means it will probably be debated and has a chance of becoming law.
More
Other truth columns here
Surprise, surprise – not. The Greens want higher welfare payments.
Last week, they had a private member’s bill to extend the In Work Tax Credit (IWTC) to beneficiary parents pulled out of the ballot. That means it will probably be debated and has a chance of becoming law.
More
Other truth columns here
Sunday, September 02, 2012
Quote of the day
“Every jobs market needs a ladder and, at present, the bottom rungs of that ladder have been sawn off by a welfare state that has trapped the people it was designed to help. The waste of taxpayers’ money is as nothing compared to the waste of human potential.”
Fraser Nelson, Spectator
(Hat-tip Karl du Fresne by way of Neville Gibson)
Sign of tough times in the public service
Things must be tough at Statistics NZ. They didn't produce their usual Father's Day facts this year. Nor, quite correctly, Mother's Day. Never mind, it was always a bit of a feel-good puff piece. It never told us for instance how many Fathers would spend the day in prison, or otherwise estranged from their children, or visiting under supervision - such is the lot of thousands of Dads.
On a cheerier note, soon children will be able to celebrate double-dad days! Father's Day will become Fathers' Day.
Strange times in which we live.
On a cheerier note, soon children will be able to celebrate double-dad days! Father's Day will become Fathers' Day.
Strange times in which we live.
Saturday, September 01, 2012
Australia: Taxpayer funding versus medals won
I came across this graph via the New Zealand Initiative newsletter. It wasn't the subject of their article but appeared at the same linked page.
On the other hand NZ taxpayer funding will have undoubtedly risen along with the medal tally over the same period. Perhaps we can only safely conclude that taxpayer funding does not guarantee medals.
On the other hand NZ taxpayer funding will have undoubtedly risen along with the medal tally over the same period. Perhaps we can only safely conclude that taxpayer funding does not guarantee medals.
Russell Norman - ticket clipper
Yesterday Green co-leader Russell Norman had a conversation with Larry Williams about, amongst other things, child poverty. Norman was in favour of the universal child payment recommended by the Children's Commissioner report released earlier this week. When Larry protested that it would result in money going to families that don't need it Norman was unperturbed. His defence was that it was a simpler system to administer (so is flat tax) and would prevent those who needed it from falling through the cracks. He maintained it should be free like healthcare for all under sixes. He personally thinks its great he can take his children to the doctor free of charge. Williams again protested that Norman doesn't need to take his kids to the GP free of charge. He can afford to pay. It went on in this fashion. When Larry suggested to the co-leader that perhaps people shouldn't be having children that they can't afford to raise Norman replied, "But that's not the real world. That's an ideological position."
So common sense is now ideological. "But that's not the real world...." It's never going to be the real world either with politicians like Russell Norman blithely accepting that people do have children utterly irresponsibly - resulting in 22 percent on a benefit within the year - and demanding that the rest of society pick up the tab for their upkeep, education and health. Oh, and he's happy to clip the ticket along the way.
So common sense is now ideological. "But that's not the real world...." It's never going to be the real world either with politicians like Russell Norman blithely accepting that people do have children utterly irresponsibly - resulting in 22 percent on a benefit within the year - and demanding that the rest of society pick up the tab for their upkeep, education and health. Oh, and he's happy to clip the ticket along the way.
Friday, August 31, 2012
For the love of a dog
I received this story via e-mail and it touched me.
A Wisconsin man has been thrust into the spotlight after a picture
of him and his 19-year-old dog went viral on the Internet, according to a
story from Granite Broadcasting sister station Northland's
NewsCenter.
According to the Northland's NewsCenter report:
The image of John Unger and his dog Schoep has been viewed millions of times on Facebook, reaching people across the world.
They say a picture is worth a thousand words but, it's safe to say one of Hannah Stonehouse Hudson's newest snapshot is worth millions.
"It's been viewed almost three million times; it's been shared I think 150,000 times. It's been like an incredible amount of times," said Hudson on an overcast day in Bayfield, Wis. "My mother has a saying, "For the comfort and convenience of the dog," and he is the epitome of this saying. He loves this dog, he takes care of this dog, his life is about this dog."
John Unger and Schoep have spent almost twenty years together; he was rescued as a puppy.
"We both wanted to work with a dog that had been abused and we knew this. We talked about it and that's what we wanted to do. We wanted to help out an animal and bring out his full potential," said Unger.
It's hard for Unger to talk about their time together because 19-year-old Shoep is nearing the end of his long, happy life.
"What he means to me? I can't put into words."
He suffers from arthritis and has trouble sleeping, so to ease his pain, Unger takes him swimming and Schoep will fall asleep in his arms.
"Not too many more times are we going to be able to do this. So every time now it's a pretty special feeling....the buoyancy it gives him in the water relieves the pain, or at least some of it to the point where he's relaxed," said Unger with Schoep by his side.
And there is more here about how people reacted to this story.
According to the Northland's NewsCenter report:
The image of John Unger and his dog Schoep has been viewed millions of times on Facebook, reaching people across the world.
They say a picture is worth a thousand words but, it's safe to say one of Hannah Stonehouse Hudson's newest snapshot is worth millions.
"It's been viewed almost three million times; it's been shared I think 150,000 times. It's been like an incredible amount of times," said Hudson on an overcast day in Bayfield, Wis. "My mother has a saying, "For the comfort and convenience of the dog," and he is the epitome of this saying. He loves this dog, he takes care of this dog, his life is about this dog."
John Unger and Schoep have spent almost twenty years together; he was rescued as a puppy.
"We both wanted to work with a dog that had been abused and we knew this. We talked about it and that's what we wanted to do. We wanted to help out an animal and bring out his full potential," said Unger.
It's hard for Unger to talk about their time together because 19-year-old Shoep is nearing the end of his long, happy life.
"What he means to me? I can't put into words."
He suffers from arthritis and has trouble sleeping, so to ease his pain, Unger takes him swimming and Schoep will fall asleep in his arms.
"Not too many more times are we going to be able to do this. So every time now it's a pretty special feeling....the buoyancy it gives him in the water relieves the pain, or at least some of it to the point where he's relaxed," said Unger with Schoep by his side.
And there is more here about how people reacted to this story.
Thursday, August 30, 2012
Two wins for responsible people...
Three OIA tables that explain child poverty
Little commentary needed from me. The tables are self-explanatory. If you pick up slight discrepancies that is because the questions asked were slightly different; some variations in how the database is queried, and the first table doesn't include 16 and 17 year-olds. Suffice to say the numbers are shockingly high.
13,634 caregivers (and some will have added two babies) account for 22 percent of all babies born in 2011.
The single most influential impact on reducing child poverty would be the reduction in these numbers
The single most influential impact on reducing child poverty would be the reduction in these numbers
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
