Chris Trotter goes too far

There have been a couple of on-line polls  this week showing most people support the welfare reforms. To my mind there are a number of reasons why and I'll post about that later. But the average person is comfortable with work expectations and social obligations of the kind they regularly meet themselves. And those beneficiaries who genuinely cannot support themselves will continue to receive the same assistance from the state.

So Chris Trotter's  diatribe this morning is a hysterical and offensive over-reaction. The targets of it should make an official complaint.

But think on this. The constant theme from the 'left' is the 'right' bashes beneficiaries. Listen, any beneficiary that read his column would feel wretched afterwards.

The National-led Government's dramatic reform of New Zealand's social welfare system marks an ominous turning point in the country's history. Never before has the state been willing to satisfy so completely the most punitive, the cruellest and nakedly sociopathic impulses of its wealthiest citizens.....
Before the rest of New Zealand could accept such callous brutalisation, however, the National-led Government had first to transform welfare beneficiaries into useless and undeserving sub-humans. Their poverty had to be presented as the consequence of their own lack of application and self-discipline.
They had to become idle ingrates: drug addicts and criminals, totally unworthy of decent people's respect or compassion.
And now, because it is not made up of monsters, and for the sake of their hapless children, the Government is insisting that these creatures somehow be "persuaded" to turn their lives around. This time, however, the persuasion is not going to involve the use of carrots. This time the ministry is going to use the stick.
And, just as they were in Germany 75 years ago, the doctors are being asked to help.
We must hope that Kiwi physicians turn out to be less enthusiastic social engineers.

Shonky birth statistics

An article appears in Stuff today:

 The number of children born outside wedlock is fast approaching the number born to married parents, and debate is raging over what it will mean for society.

Debate raging? I hadn't noticed. Examples of "raging debates" are  asset sales or same-sex marriage.

Anyway at the end of the article these statistics appear:

BIRTH STATISTICS
Births to married and unmarried couples
Fifty years ago, 8 per cent of births were ex-nuptial.
Last year, 48 per cent of births were ex-nuptial.
About 80 per cent of Maori women give birth ex-nuptially.
About 50 per cent of Pakeha women give birth ex-nuptially.
About 13 per cent of Asian women give birth ex-nuptially.
15 in every 1000 ex-nuptial births is to a woman aged between 40 and 44.
25 in every 1000 ex-nuptial births occur to women aged between 15 and 19.

The third, fourth and fifth are wrong. 80 percent of births to Maori women are ex-nuptial. That's not the same as "80 percent of Maori women give birth ex-nuptially." Not all women give birth.

The last two are really shonky. I'll use the last because I'm familiar with the data.

25 in every 1000 ex-nuptial births is 2.5 percent. Yet in 2012 15-19 year-olds had 6.2 percent of all births (nuptial and ex-nuptial). So a large majority of teenagers are giving birth inside marriage? No.

The current teenage birth rate is around 24.89 per 1000 15-19 females. 23.8 per 1000 unmarried 15-19 year-old females gave birth ex-nuptially.

There were 3,768 births to teenagers last year; that means 3,602 were ex-nuptial which represents 12.4 percent of the 29,159 ex-nuptial births.

Expressed as per above then:

124 in every 1000 ex-nuptial births occur to women aged between 15 and 19

Percentage of working age population on a benefit over the last decade

The four main benefits all came to an end yesterday. So the data is worth recording for posterity.

Below I've scanned MSD's graphs for each expressed as a percentage of the working age population (18-64) over the past decade. Beneath I've added some observations.

The invalid benefit axis has a different scale  so the improvement looks better than it is.

The overall dependency has dropped from around 12.8 percent to 10.7 percent. Still over one in ten people on welfare.

This represents a reduction in absolute numbers. But because the numbers have held up in the invalid and domestic purposes benefits - where people typically stay dependent for long periods - the degree of dependency in terms of longevity is still very high. To explain that better, look at the unemployment benefit. The numbers plummeted. But those year-end snapshot totals  represent people who will typically be on a benefit for 7-8 months. Whereas the DPB numbers represent people who will be on a benefit for 7-8 years.

To their credit, the government is now addressing this facet by focussing efforts on those who fit a long-termer profile (barring carer's of invalids, terminally ill, chronically disabled, etc).

The improving economy during Labour's stint resulted in a lot of people coming off the unemployment benefit - 4 percent dropped to 0.7 percent. And that was great.

But the DPB was far less amenable to the positive effect, with the percentage dropping from 4.5 to 3.7 percent. If 3.7 percent is the best a strong economy can achieve then it's clear other factors are at play.

Updating artist blog

Working at the gallery keeps me temporarily away from social commentary blogging so here's a new pastel just going up on my artist blog:

Good news that probably won't see the light of day

The latest Household Incomes Survey is now available. It is still one year out of date but indicates some trends nevertheless. This is the official source of 'child poverty' statistics.

I'm just going to highlight some good news and see if this gets reported elsewhere. Most of the people who read and report on this stuff look for bad news:

Hardship rates for children rose from 15% in the 2007 HES to 21% in HES 2011, then fell to 17% in HES 2012.  

On the latest [international] comparisons available (c 2010-2011), New Zealand is in the middle of the rankings for population and child poverty rates on both measures. For example, the rates for children (0-17 years) are 12% (OECD) and 19% (EU), both in the middle for the respective measures.

 From HES 2011 to HES 2012:

·         median household income rose 2.3% in real terms, following a 3% fall from HES 2010 to HES 2011

·         incomes rose a little for all the lower 9 deciles

 in the context of the GFC and its aftermath [the recovery] is better than many other countries who experienced net falls in the median in the period – for example, Australia, Ireland, the UK and the US

 From HES 2011 to 2012, inequality as measured by the Gini fell significantly

Public support welfare reforms

From the NZ Herald:

What do you think of the welfare reforms?

12400–12450 votes

Sensible and about time 58%

Not sure - need to see the effects 12%

A bit heavy-handed 16%

Totally unjustified 13%

I don't care 1%

Trevor Mallard: deluding himself or lying?

Talking to Tim Fookes on NewstalkZB about the welfare reforms this morning, local MP Trevor Mallard said,

"...the total number of beneficiaries dropped by about two thirds when we were in government."

He was stressing the total number to address Tim's suggestion that many people had simply moved off the dole and onto sickness or invalid's benefit (which has some truth to it).

Looking at the four main benefits, in 1999 there were 359,433. Thanks to plummeting numbers on the unemployment benefit, the total had dropped to 261,747 by 2008.

A drop of 27 percent.

So why would Trevor make such a gross exaggeration? Has he kidded himself into believing Labour really accomplished that or is he just a liar?

Listen here.


For the two commentors here's a relevant graph:

Children included in a benefit at birth or soon after

This post is for the benefit of a commentor on the Daily Blog who says I am talking "nonsense".

The following is a table supplied to be by MSD under the OIA.

 

See also MSD publication Children in Families Supported by Main Benefits:

The proportion included in a benefit at birth or very soon after fell from around 25% of children born in the 1990s to 20% of children born in 2005 and 2006 and 18% of children born in 2007. Although contact with the benefit system fell, as many as one in five children turning 15 in 2008 are estimated to have been supported by a main benefit for a total of seven or more of their first 14 years of life. An estimated one in ten spent a total of 11 or more of their first 14 years supported by a main benefit.

So in the year when NZ had the lowest unemployment rate in the OECD, 18 percent of children born that year were dependent on welfare by December 31.

And regarding increasing benefit levels being a disincentive to work:

 “…every 1 percentage point increase in the level of poverty reduction achieved by the welfare state is associated with an increase in the number of jobless families by 0.63 percentage points. Among the English-speaking countries, the correlation is even stronger (about 0.92), so that Australia and the United Kingdom reduce child poverty very significantly and have very high levels of joblessness among families; while Canada and the United States reduce poverty much less, but have much lower levels of joblessness.”

 Whiteford, P. and W.Adema (2007), “What Works Best in Reducing Child Poverty: A Benefit or Work Strategy?”, OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers, No.51, OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/233310267230

Update:

Table not enough. Here is the full OIA as requested.

 

Good news on physical child abuse statistics?

I was prompted to check the latest physical child abuse statistics when I heard Deborah Coddington (standing in for John Tamihere on Radio Live) say that the anti-smacking legislation is working. No disrespect to Deborah but I immediately wondered what she bases that on.

At best it could be claimed that the anti-smacking legislation has lowered the projection, but the trend it is still upward.

Pensions: What the UK and US save, NZ will pay for

The DomPost today reports on the Ministry of Social Development's push to get more retirees to claim pensions from their birth country to offset what New Zealand has to pay out. Fair enough. NZ has long held reciprocal pension arrangements with a number of countries.

But it raises another issue.

With many of those countries (particularly the United Kingdom, where so many NZ residents were born) lifting their retirement ages, what they save, NZ will have to pay out. Foreign-born new retirees will be eligible for NZ Super at 65 but there will be no immediate offsetting equivalent from their birth country.

Here's what is happening in the UK.

And this is what the US is doing.

It makes sense for NZ to broadly align itself with those countries is has social security arrangements with. This anomaly is yet another reason why John Key should have thought before pledging to hold the Super qualifying age down.

(Of course it would make more sense if people had their own individual pension plans but that's not the current debate. Raising the age of Super entitlement is.)

Welfare reduction target misreported

The NZ Herald reports on the release of progress on achieving the Better Public Service targets yesterday.

Welfare
1. Cut the number of people who have been on a working age benefit for more than 12 months by 30 per cent
In the past year, the number of long-term beneficiaries fell from 78,212 to 75,366 - a drop of 3.6 per cent.

The DomPost also reports on page 2, "The number of  people on a working age benefit for more than 12 months has dropped by 3,000, to 75,300."

They are both wrong.

The number of working age people on benefits for more than  12 months is far higher than 78, 212. The actual number is over 230,000.

The 78,212 refers to working age people who have employment obligations.These are the people who will be moved onto the new Job Seeker benefit next week (if the reforms are running to schedule). It ignores women with children younger than 14, most on the invalid benefit and some on the sickness benefit. They will move to either Sole Parent Support or Supported Living Payment.

The welfare target is better explained here.

As I've commented before, it's a very soft target.

(Progress on each of the 10 social targets is graphically depicted here.)

Get lost Grey Power

I have no regard for Grey Power. Do all of the grandparents who belong to this organisation agree that their grandsons (and grand daughters?) should be subject to compulsory military training because some scumbags commit crimes against the elderly and others? It's just one of those knee jerk responses that makes me groan. Why blame the vast majority of young people who live lawful and productive lives?

I suppose they'll be calling for Winston First to adopt this dictatorial, authoritarian measure as policy.  The worst of it is, if successful, Winston First will probably go up in the polls.

Oh, and don't demand my respect based on age. Your collectivist, statist, unthinking notions preclude it. I was going to say that young fools, middle-aged fools, old fools are all the same. But the old fool is actually worse. One might have expected some modicum of wisdom and tolerance to have developed by now.

The Owen Glenn Inquiry looks dead in the water

The Owen Glenn Inquiry is a mess. It appears to have been dogged firstly by internal conflict, which didn't surprise, and then by the revelations of a "physical abuse" charge against a woman (in another country, 11 years ago), which Glenn denies.

But it strikes me that regardless of whether the charge was based on a genuine incident or not, there have been numerous men involved in the White Ribbon campaign who admitted to violence in their past. And media have actually put these characters on a pedestal. They call them role models and agents of change. So if there were any truth to the charge it shouldn't exempt Glenn from proceeding. If there is no truth, he needs to provide a full explanation of what occurred. That's the downside of courting widespread public approval.

Calls for the name of the inquiry to be changed are little more than clutching at straws. If the media is as hostile to Glenn as he believes, whenever they write about the inquiry they will simply add,  "formerly known as the Owen Glenn inquiry".

In hindsight, though it should have been obvious from the outset, it would have been better if Mr Glenn hadn't launched his inquiry with such fanfare, but had set up a low key behind-the-scenes operation. Even then, my response to commissions of inquiry irrespective of who funds them is the same. They are superfluous. The causes of abuse, particularly against children, are already known.

I wasn't excited about the establishment of this inquiry and I'm not excited about the prospect of its demise. In a fascinating way this debacle appears to have been driven by some of the same aspects of human nature that feature in domestic abuse. Desire for control, ego, and revenge.

Radical feminists push for Labour Party quotas

Just posted at Breaking Views, Radical feminists push for Labour Party quotas.

(An expansion on my earlier post in light of Shearer's response.)

Fifty percent of F... all

I blogged about Labour's daft quota plans when they were first mooted. (A radio news clip featuring a male conference attendee mildly questioning the merits of electoral quotas being jeered by others in the crowd has fixed itself in my memory. Labour women aren't victims, they are bullies.)

From the NZ Herald:

It is part of a bid to lift the proportion of women in caucus to 45 per cent by next year and 50 per cent by 2017.

50 percent of f... all is what they'll end up with if they keep going down this track.

Just another cause for internal conflict, and another reason for non-PC voters to look elsewhere.

Unfortunately, one of the main benefactors will be Winston Peters.

Not a disappointed horse

Below is a stud horse recently imported from the US. He won a couple of races I believe and has already produced winning progeny. When I took photos of him (he belongs to a friend) I wanted to capture his powerful physique and the hot, bright, Manawatu day during the drought. It was a painting for no-one but me. If it worked I'd hang it above our fireplace because I've long wanted something there that'd exude light. (I tried a mirror once but it didn't work.)

So I indulged myself and bought an enormous canvas (which subsequently wouldn't fit into the car and had to be delivered). Initially the painting was in my usual style. Realist and quite thinly painted. But it was very dissatisfying. Lifeless and boring. I began thinking of it as only an under-painting. Just a sketch. It was problematic trying to work on it in my small studio because I couldn't get well back from it to gauge the effect.

Then we had a mini disaster. A rat's nest in the living area ceiling became apparent when the rats chewed through internal piping and water started to run down the wall behind the fireplace.The result is the wall and ceiling had to be hacked into and currently they still await re-plastering and re-painting. But this presented a perfect opportunity. I could proceed with my horse hanging on the living room wall. But it wasn't going to be with a brush and turps. Smelly business. If I used a palette knife I could just wipe it clean with a rag.

This is a big departure for me but I have been increasingly drawn to richer, more strongly contrasting colour and lots of it. So I set up the palette and stool and began. I'm a careful and tidy worker and there were no mishaps until ... Daisy walked through through palette and spread red and blue paw marks everywhere. What fun trying to catch her and clean her muzzle and paws up. Not.

It's still a work in progress but, I don't know, I think it's just the colours as much as anything else, it makes me happy. It hangs there and every so often I pick up the knife and move a bit of paint around. There are no fences yet and the tail and mane are discordant. But it's a very nice way to work. Just to contemplate day to day, and shape slowly.

(There's a very funny skit from Little Britain where a man goes into a antique shop and asks if they have "a painting of a disappointed horse. " For some reason the kids and I crack up over it every time we watch it. We still have no idea what a disappointed horse looks like, but this isn't it. What stud horse could ever be disappointed with his lot?)

(Left click on image to enlarge).

For fear of offending

Was it the intention of politicians to segregate us into groups that won't complain for fear of offending each other? Thus allowing them to buy, and continue to buy, our votes accordingly?

For example,  students have to pay to use public transport (in Wellington at least) and Superannuitants do not. But which group has an income? Students are reticent about complaining, though I note a new group has formed. Without researching them, I'm willing to bet they are calling for free or subsidised fares. Not for 65 plus to pay their way.

The pollies have got us right where they want us. It vexed me greatly when standing for ACT, that the idea of not dispensing privilege was so misunderstood and consequently, unpopular. The state has us pitted against one another in the never-ending scramble for a free lunch. And levering off this set of circumstances (which we call 'democracy') are armies of people researching and justifying those free lunches.

Compounding the reluctance of people to speak out is the fluidity between groups.  We will all be in one of the groups age-wise before we kick the bucket. Perhaps people in their 50s have less interest in stating that the age of Super needs to rise. But they bloody well should knowing, as it stands, the tax burden on their children will be greater than it was on them.

Youth have trouble speaking against privilege for the 'golden oldies' because they've got grandparents  affected. Do over 65s show concern or empathy for youth who are expected to incur debt to a degree that would have horrified them? I don't hear them.

Those same people though look at their grown-up children demanding Working For Families and Paid Parental Leave and wonder why they've become so self-righteously expectant of state largesse.

Unfortunately, to give voice to such sentiments isn't going to make for a conducive family get-together. Those are times for appreciating and enjoying each other.

So voters put up and shut up. Be it from self-interest or fear of offending.

We are divided and conquered. The systematic auction of goodies called 'elections' can persist unchallenged...

Will I need a booster seat to drive my car?

Isn't it always the way. As soon as public safety campaigners get their 'inch', they want a 'mile'.

The law is about to be changed to require 7 year-olds to be in car booster seats.

But now there are calls for the age to be raised to 11.

Gulp. Many, maybe even a majority, of 11 year-olds are bigger than me.

(And save me from kids riding backwards pulling faces and making gestures. They may be safer but the driver behind, the one they are irritating and distracting the hell out of, isn't.)

(Emotionally driven) Shearer goes up a notch...

Just saw a news brief during the ad break (watching X Factor) showing David Shearer hugging the Ikaroa Rawhiti winning candidate.

It was such a genuine, communicating, heartfelt hug. Can't ever remember anything like it from Helen, who even in victory seemed to have her emotions self-censored.

Shearer went up in my estimation. (It was like seeing the Queen unselfconsciously BEAM when she's watching her horses. Delightful.)

Cynics will say, no wonder - he's so grateful.

But there it was, fleetingly, a glimpse of who Shearer is. And perhaps it explains why he has been so undermined as leader.

Declining interest in by-elections

Why? You tell me.