Truth Column April 25 - May 1

My Truth column published April 25 - May 1:

Apparently the electricity market isn’t operating correctly so consumers pay too much. Like petrol, it seems suppliers have formed unofficial price-fixing cartels. While each operator maintains an acceptable market share and profits are good, they don’t compete hard. The wide price variations seen in clothing or food (two other essentials) don’t occur.

With power the retailer buys from the wholesaler – or generator.
Norman Shearer (let’s call him Little Norm) says forcing down the generator’s price with state legislation – or price-fixing – will stop the problem of … price-fixing. Why?

More

Excusing thuggery

The Greens are promising to repeal the Three Strikes law because it's apparently rendering punishments too severe for the level of offending.

In this case a 20 year-old with 20 convictions was given his first strike for violent aggravated robbery in 2010. Now he has been given a second strike for two further charges of aggravated robbery. It would appear that some people think kicking and robbing people is small beer which didn't warrant a second strike (meaning any subsequent similar  conviction would receive the maximum sentence possible - 14 years.)

Greens justice spokesman David Clendon said: "Judges know the detail and context of each case, but they are hamstrung by this legislation that says no matter what the circumstances they must impose the highest possible sentence ...
"Fourteen years is a sentence for manslaughter, a sustained beating, an assault on a child or even attempted murder."
The Greens would "definitely" seek to repeal the law if they came to power, Mr Clendon said.

Just one name.

Philip Cottrell.

Violent aggravated robbery can easily result in significant physical or mental injury, even death.

And the judge who deals with this type of criminality daily says Whaanga's offending is escalating.

I'm relieved he has been sent to prison for two years with no parole and a very large incentive to stop being a dangerous thug when he comes out. I care more about his past and potential victims than his rights.

Paid Parental Leave : Just a drop in the ocean?

There are always people looking for a hand-out prepared to argue that the cost to the taxpayer is "just a drop in the ocean". What's $100 million in a budget of $70 billion?

Come on Bill. Stop being so tight. Think of the public good.

Actually, it isn't a drop in the ocean. It's a drop in a shot glass.

100 million: 70 billion represents 1:700

There are 12 drops per ml or 700 drops per 58 ml.

(Without much forethought I expected this exercise would reveal a large bucket or bottle. Just shows the power of idiom.)

What happened to Tapu Misa?

I've only just noticed that long-time NZ Herald columnist Tapu Misa hasn't produced anything since February 2013. Is she gone burger or just on leave?

Swedes reject Save the Children claim about child poverty in their country

In 2011 Save the Children put out a report claiming 250,000 Swedish children were living in poverty. But some Swedes didn't accept the claim. Early this year a TV research team investigated:

According to charity organizations, Save the Children, there are a quarter million poor children in Sweden. But when the Swedish television made an investigation into such claims, it turned out that child poverty in Sweden conducted by these organization, tend to be based on issues that are not considered a necessity for child welfare in a typical Swedish environment. Therefore, the picture presented by the Swedish television research give a different picture.

Another report says the ensuing TV programme has prompted the three largest child organisations to abandon their use of the term "child poverty".

The organization Bris, which also started using the term in 2011, has now decided to abandon the term “child poverty” for Swedish children and replace it with "social and economic vulnerability".

Also Save the Children, who first launched the term in 2011, has admitted that it gave a misleading portrayal of the situation and has since abandoned the campaign.

I wish NZ media would be a little less compliant when international and domestic advocacy groups make claims about child poverty in NZ.

Truth column April 18-24

My Truth column April 18-24:

I’m confused but I don’t think it’s an early onset of Alzheimer’s.
In the 1960s, during the sexual revolution, the liberal left threw off the shackles of marriage, slamming it as a patriarchal device to suppress women, or for the less conspiratorially inclined, a meaningless piece of paper.
Former PM Helen Clark is rumoured to have fought capitulation to the bitter end, ceding only for the sake of her political prospects.
People started shacking up in droves. I was one. But I always intended to marry if children came along. And before the event, to boot.

More

MSD goes on the defensive

This is unusual. MSD has put up a media release relating to the removal of a baby from its caregiver. I am guessing the family has gone to the media who are asking questions.

Now I google the name here's the story as published in Stuff. MSD's release is entitled "Baby Victoria safe in care".

Last week a seven week-old baby was taken into Child, Youth and Family care after she was admitted to Starship Hospital in Auckland with an injury that was suspected to be not accidental.
Medical authorities called Police, who in turn called in Child, Youth and Family.  The decision to remove Baby Victoria from her family’s care was made in cooperation with specialist medical staff and the Police.
Police are investigating how Baby Victoria became injured. Until that investigation is complete, the law requires that Child, Youth and Family ensure she is safe.
Child, Youth and Family has taken custody of this baby on a temporary basis until the full facts can be established, including whether Victoria can be safe with her family.
Child, Youth and Family is working closely with the family to ensure they know what is going on and to allow her parents to see her regularly.
I understand that this is hard for the whole family; however our legal responsibility is the safety and wellbeing of a vulnerable baby.
Every step in the process to date has followed New Zealand law, which requires doctors to report suspicious injuries to children. The law also specifies how Police and Child, Youth and Family should respond, and what happens to the child involved.
The nationality of the family is irrelevant; our focus is on the welfare and best interests of the child.
Baby Victoria was taken into our care under a “place of safety” warrant issued by a court judge.
A place of safety warrant lasts for five days and enables social workers to take emergency action to ensure the immediate safety of a child while an investigation takes place.  There must be serious concerns about the safety and care of a child before New Zealand courts will grant a warrant.
Since the Police investigation has not yet finished, Victoria will remain in the care of Child, Youth and Family for longer.
Social workers are working closely with the family to agree on a longer term care arrangement for Victoria. Family members have an important role to play in ensuring she is safe and well cared for in the future and our priority is to identify and approve a caregiver in her family.
This baby is not subject to an adoption process.
It was not possible to immediately place Victoria with a family member as the warrant under which she was taken into care required her to be placed with a caregiver previously approved by Child, Youth and Family.
The process we are following may take some time to be completed. However, the parents will be briefed every step of the way and will have access to Victoria.
We would welcome contact from Victoria’s grandmother in Russia so we can update her on what is happening with her granddaughter.
Baby Victoria is currently with a loving family who provide temporary care for babies while our investigations proceed and while suitable family members are identified to take over care.
This is about ensuring her safety and that her family has support through the process.
Child, Youth and Family’s aim is to keep families together.  Where there are problems, we support families to help them look after their children.
To summarise, three separate processes are now underway:

• Police are investigating Victoria’s injuries to see whether criminal prosecution is warranted.
• Child, Youth and Family is working with the family to assess and approve family members to take over care while the agency’s wider investigation is concluded.
• Child, Youth and Family is investigating to determine if and when the parents can resume normal care of Victoria and what support they may need.

ENDS

You just hope CYF get it right because if the various 'authorities' are wrong, this experience must be utterly harrowing for the parents.I remember when I thought I would be temporarily separated from my first-born because he may need re-hospitalising I was devastated. The need to be with, comfort, feed and protect your baby overwhelms all else.

Babies don't die violently in house-proud families

Nobody clicks on a headline about a baby dying from 'injuries' sustained in a home incident and expects to see a lovingly cared for home. No change this time.

National lose support in latest Roy Morgan poll

More

Who should be shoulder-tapped for this one?

Something for you to think about.

Who should Judith Collins select for the just-listed ministerially appointed job of Chief Families Commissioner?

Sid Going?

Academia, half-truths and political bias

Should New Zealand Universities be trusted disseminators of balanced information?

The following is a Facts Sheet produced by the University of Waikato. I assume it is intended for use by students and other interested parties. It is available on-line. 

 The first fact:

Sole Parents
   At the 2006 Census, the median age of New Zealand’s Sole Parents was 42.9
years.

According to MSD, also using 2006 Census data:

Sole mothers tend to be younger than partnered mothers, with a median age of 37 years in 2006, compared to 39 years for mothers in two-parent families. Conversely, sole fathers tend to be a little older than partnered fathers, with a median age of 42 years in 2006, compared to 41 years for fathers in two-parent families.

Why the discrepancy? The MSD report relates to sole parents with dependent children.

It is unclear what definition of sole parent the University has used but later in the sheet we see this claim:

 At the 2006 Census, two thirds of New Zealand’s Sole Parents had been
previously married or in a civil union ....   13 per cent were widowed (median age 63 years)

So not sole parents with dependent children.

Next though is a blatant omission of data resulting in a highly misleading picture:

 The majority of ex-nuptial births are to women aged 30-34 years, followed by
women aged 25-29 years. Rates are lower than they were in 1972 for every
age group except 35-39 and 40-44 years, for whom ex-nuptial births have
increased substantially. 

This leaves the average person with the impression that fewer children are born outside marriage today than was the case in 1972.

Following are the statistics  required to provide a comprehensive understanding:

In 1966 11.56 percent of all births were ex-nuptial
In 2012 47.66 percent of all births were ex-nuptial

So why two seemingly contradictory 'facts'?

Because in 1966 there were far fewer unmarried women.

Take one of the age groups whose rate of ex-nuptial child-bearing has decreased, 25-29 year-olds.

If, in 1966, the ex-nuptial birth-rate was 100 (meaning 100 births per 1,000 unmarried females aged 25-29), and  there were 9,746 unmarried (or never married) females, that would result in 974 births.

If the nuptial birth-rate was also 100 for married females, who numbered 70,726, that would result in 7,072 births.

So the rate of ex-nuptial and nuptial births were the same but ex-nuptial births represented only 12% of all births.

No effort has been made to explain this to a student via this fact sheet.

It's an appalling ommission.

The facts as they are presented on this sheet paint a picture of most sole parents having been married, and ex-nuptial child-bearing on the decline. It is designed to elicit sympathy and political support for sole parents.

(It did occur to me to look for a further sheet but none exists - or not on-line. But this presentation provides a clue to the professor's political leanings where she describes the 2011 budget as being an Oliver Twist budget and calls for more investment in children. Unsurprisingly it's hosted at the Child Poverty Action Group website which brings me full circle. It was a paper by their supervised young scholar that led me to the fact sheet in the first place.)

Under-employment in NZ and internationally

Statistics NZ yesterday announced a new measure of under-employment to be added to existng HLFS labour market measures. 

Underemployment in New Zealand

The underemployment measure identifies people with a job who face a partial lack of work. It is useful to look at the underemployment rate in combination with the unemployment rate; together these two measures provide a more comprehensive view of how much potential labour there is readily available in the labour force. Compared with other OECD countries, New Zealand has a high underemployment rate but a lower unemployment rate.

Women, youth and Maori, and workers in retail and accommodation are the most likely to be under-employed. Under-employment in NZ is comparatively high but look at Australia.

I wonder if the Australian statistic reflects a lack of welfare available for migrants?

Parallel universes

Auckland Action Against Poverty has three activists and Sue Bradford appearing in court tomorrow on trespass charges after protesting last September against the latest welfare reform legislation. Sarah Thompson says:

“These reforms will see ordinary New Zealanders sanctioned, work tested, drug tested and work ability assessed,” says Ms Thompson.

And?

Non-beneficiary "ordinary" New Zealanders also have to take available jobs, experience a cut in income if they don't, pass drug tests where required and negotiate with a medical person over their ability or otherwise to work. That's life. Why would they get outraged about beneficiaries having to live by the same rules?

These pro-welfare activists live in a parallel universe. Or using fashionable vernacular, live on planet-privilege. But that's unkind to the thousands of people on benefits who are not part and parcel of AAAP's particular culture. People who would just really love to have a job to go to tomorrow.

Some context and comment about falling benefit numbers

There's been quite a bit of media coverage about benefit numbers coming down. Of course, any genuine decline is good news. But some context is always useful. Here are the headline numbers for the past five years. The official statistics don't yet include March 2013 which the Minister released at the weekend as 310,146.

First, there is nearly always a drop from December to March for seasonal reasons. The fall from December 2012 (339,095) to March 2013 (310,145) is 8 percent - the same as the drop over the equivalent period 2012/11.

Fortuitously, the chart starts at December 2007. That just happened to be the month when NZ had record low unemployment of 3.3 percent. Is that as good as it gets? Still a quarter of a million people on benefits?

What worries me is that level of dependency has become an accepted feature of the economy. It's like having been in a lot of debt for a long time and feeling like you've achieved something when you wipe just a small amount out. That's how the government is behaving.

It's understandable. They need to make political mileage from the improvement however slight.

But they've finished with their reforms. The Minister says that all she is going to do now is tidy up the Social Security Act legislation which has become incredibly complex and voluminous.

So, no time limits. No decentralisation. No tax-payer opt-out. No attempt to privatise disability or unemployment insurance. Nothing radical.

All we can do now is wait and see what happens to the numbers as Work and Income adopt a more work-focussed approach with some extra legislation to assist them.

De javu. That's what we did when Maharey took charge and changed the DPB, Invalid's and sickness beneficiary approach. Waited and waited....

International:Growing intolerance of supporting single parents long-term

With the help of Linda I've been updating the Welfare Reform website.

Some news on what's happening in the UK and Australia.

Despite a decade of fiddling with reform the UK numbers are fairly stubborn. The recent rise in Job Seeker benefit reflects not only the recession but the fact lone parents with children 5 and older are being transferred onto that benefit:

In Australia single parents with children 8 or older are also being transferred onto their unemployment benefit known as Newstart. That's caused a recent upturn in the statistics:

(In NZ the age of youngest child before transfer remains at 14. Why, I don't know)

Transfers don't get people off welfare but they do indicate a growing intolerance of supporting single parents for long periods as of right. I expect these countries are aiming to get dedicated single parent support down to youngest child ages of 1-3 as in the US and Scandinavian countries.

NZ Initiative: Thatcher's watch

The NZ Initiative included the following graph in this weeks Insight:

Lord Monckton lays a complaint with Victoria University

Worth a look.

Heart-warming to see some academics being taken to task.

"Deep thoughts..."

Another e-mail in-box arrival. Those my age and older will identify with 17:

Deep thoughts for those who take life way too seriously

1. Save the whales. Collect the whole set.

2. A day without sunshine is like......night.

3. On the other hand, you have different fingers.

4. Remember, half the people you know are below average.

5. He who laughs last thinks slowest.

6. Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm.

7. Support bacteria. They're the only culture some people have.

8. A clear conscience is usually the sign of a bad memory.

9. How many of you believe in psycho kinesis?...Raise my hand.

10. OK...so what's the speed of dark?

11. When everything is coming your way, you're in the wrong lane.

12. Everyone has a photographic memory. Some just don't have film.

13. How much deeper would the ocean be without sponges?

14. What happens if you get scared half to death twice?

15. I couldn't repair your brakes, so I made your horn louder.

16. Why do psychics have to ask you for your name?

17. Inside every older person is a younger person wondering what  happened.

18. Just remember---if the world didn't suck, we would all fall off.

19. Light travels faster than sound. That is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.

20. Life isn't like a box of chocolates. It's more like a really hot curry. What you do today might burn your ass tomorrow.

Conservative Party defends beneficiary freedom

The Conservative Party is defending beneficiary freedom of choice:

“Another freedom has been lost this week,” says Conservative Party Leader Colin Craig, “as the National Government have voted to dictate to beneficiary parents how their pre-school children will be educated.”
“The Social Security Amendment Bill appears to have, as an underlying assumption, that beneficiary parents are somehow unable to make the best choices for their children. This simply isn’t true; many of these parents are doing a great job in sometimes very difficult circumstances. They don’t need a bossy government dictating their choices,” he says.

But tax-payers have to put up with beneficiaries dictating their choices. There are probably thousands of parents who would like to stay home with their children, maybe even home school them but have to go to work to pay the taxes that support single parent's freedom of choice.

Craig is putting the cart before the horse. He should be defending the freedoms of those who are forced to fund other people choices, limiting their own in the process. We need to shrink the dependent sector to increase choice across the board.

National is creating demand for the pre-school infrastructure necessary (at least temporarily) to get more women working and off welfare.  The numbers can't come down without it. A social spin-off is some, not necessarily all, children are going to benefit from pre-school education.

Like Craig I'm a fan of woman staying home if they want. But not if they have to force someone else to fund it. Likewise I can sympathise with those who want to home school but not if someone else has to pay for it. 'Freedom' can't properly describe choices paid for by somebody else.

Truth column April 4-10

My Truth column from April 4-10

A well-known journalist recently had a pop at Radio New Zealand for being too left-wing.
Not being a listener myself, I can’t say if he’s right or wrong.
But I was once a guest on Kathryn Ryan’s Nine to Noon show discussing the blow-out of numbers on the sickness and invalid benefits (more than 10-fold since 1970).
The environment was clinical and coldly inhospitable. Perhaps my views about too much incapacity being self-inflicted had something to do with the ‘ambience’.

More