Duncan Garner has a point

How long will it be before Duncan Garner enters politics? Because he has all the attributes of a budding Winston Peters rarking up public outrage with the worst statistics he can find.

In today's DomPost he writes that unemployed young kiwis should be forced to "work for the dole"
(the headline on-line is different) given the enormous need for labour in Christchurch.

The latest stats show 67,000 Kiwis aged 15-24 aren't in any form of education, training – or work. Some are no doubt getting really good at video games, funded by the taxpayer, but the reality is they're rotting away and learning nothing. We could fit them all into Westpac Stadium – twice over (the Hurricanes and the Phoenix could use that support).  

We need to get these young Kiwis off their backsides and into apprenticeships. I'm not suggesting that every beneficiary currently claiming the dole doesn't want to work – but we all know there are plenty who'll do anything to not get a job.

Only 26,887 - or 40 percent - are on the dole but that number is still unnecessarily high.

There are even 1,621 in the Canterbury region. The government has put some effort into getting the unemployed into work locally but that scheme only involved up to 100 unemployed, and not specifically 18-24 year-olds either.

I imagine the problem is skills are required now and apprenticeships actually divert qualified tradesmen away from the job at hand as they teach the apprentice.

But I agree with Garner. There is a golden opportunity going begging.

In a more general sense I have said the same about opportunities the ageing population will present in terms of the jobs their needs will create. More residential carers, in-home carers, various health workers, home maintenance providers, etc. While the government funds much of this, it makes total sense to be diverting dole money into training for these roles. How hard can it be?

The answer must be "very". It's easier to import able and willing workers and hope their productivity and taxes will support the unemployable.

Clear correlation between one parent families and deprivation

The reality that single parent families are responsible for much of the growth in relative child poverty is gaining traction. These two graphs highlight this dramatically. They are a bit dated but nothing has improved since.

They come from a Counties Manukau DHB report so use the health decile rating system whereby 1 is wealthiest and 10 is poorest

The first shows that in the wealthiest decile over 90 percent of children live in two parent families while in the poorest just over half live in two parent families:

 The next shows the same broken into ethnicities:

In the poorest decile around 22 percent of Asian children live in a one parent family compared to around 56 percent of Maori children. What a stark difference.

Quote of the Day

 From Future Freedom's daily newsletter, as relevant today as 164 years ago:

Once we start from this idea, accepted by all our political theorists [that] "The motive force of society is the government"; once men consider themselves as sentient, but passive, incapable of improving themselves morally or materially by their own intelligence and energy, and reduced to expecting everything from the law; in a word, when they admit that their relation to the state is that of a flock of sheep to the shepherd, it is clear that the responsibility of the government is immense. Good and evil, virtue and vice, equality and inequality, wealth and poverty, all proceed from it. It is entrusted with everything, it undertakes everything, it does everything; hence, it is responsible for everything.
 

– Frédéric Bastiat, The Law [1850]

 

 

Resist WOFs for private rental property

I don't sign many petitions but this one I have. Some rental properties are below par. Some landlords are negligent. But as Muriel Newman points out, there are already legal requirements on landlords and protections for tenants under the Residential Tenancies Act and via the Tenancy Tribunal. I'd urge you to read her column this week.

STATE CONTROL OF RENTAL HOUSING
By Dr Muriel Newman

Sir Bob Jones told property investors at a conference last year that he was sick of landlords being called evil persons and getting attacked by politicians. “You are providing a terrific service. You have to get politicised. Government’s declaring war on you. You have to kick back.”[1]
Sir Bob is correct – property investors provide a crucial service to society by supplying housing to almost half a million New Zealanders who do not own their own home. Yet politicians across the political divide treat property investors as a whipping boy, knowing they won’t get much of a fight and that landlords will not get much sympathy from the public at large.
They are under attack again – this time from groups who want state control of the rental property sector. But first, some facts.

More

"Fell into crime" because of childhood poverty?

Labour's candidate for Whangarei. Lawyer, Kelly Ellis, says:

"If one addresses poverty then everything else falls into place," she said, referring to the "so many files" on her legal shelves of people who fell into crime because of issues related to childhood poverty.

 Serious criminals end up in prison in which case prison statistics should match child poverty stats.

From the Household Income Survey table H5 I can construct a comparable pie chart (bar Asian) for ethnic percentages of poor children 2010-2012:

Similar.

But a pie chart which shows the ethnicity of parents/caregivers on a benefit (2009) is a closer fit:

And if I'd depicted children rather than parents the fit would get even closer due to Maori/Pacific families being larger (but the Child Health Monitor source is currently under revision.)

On the other hand, the prison population is around 8-9,000 whereas the number of children living 'in poverty' is between 205,000 and 285,000. More generally there were 194,000 apprehensions for crime in 2012 of which NZ European made up 43 percent, Maori 42 percent, and Pacific 10 percent.

So I suppose I come back to the same sticking point. Maori are over-represented in child poverty statistics, the benefit system and in crime. Pacific people are over-represented in child poverty statistics but not particularly in the benefit system or in crime.

(All not withstanding there are ethnic categorising issues.)

Update

Berend suggested a bar chart as a better method of making my point. He's right (though I still have a slight problem with depicting caregiver instead of children.) The first two colums relate to children, the last to caregivers.

And here's another way of looking at it. As before the first two columns relate to children, the second to caregivers and the final to the prison population:

Tupuranga Aotearoa

Statistics NZ has just released a new interactive tool called Tupuranga Aotearoa to show change over time.

Here I selected social > income inequality. Oh. Decreasing up until the recession.

What a surprise. Not.

Greens ignore child abuse realities

Not that it matters because the legislation doesn't need their vote, but the Greens are withdrawing their support from the Vulnerable Children Bill. From the report of the select committee their position is based on increased state powers to remove children at birth:

The single most critical factor in how children survive exposure to domestic violence is the presence of at least one loving and supportive adult in their life. For many children the loving and supportive adult is their mother

who repeatedly does her best to provide her children a normal life even where she is being abused

This seems a continuation of the article of faith amongst feminists who uphold the rights of women first and foremost - even over children's. Yet there is no rational reason to put mothers on an untouchable pedestal.

83 percent of child abuse takes place in the child's home. Most happens in benefit-dependent homes. And most welfare dependence in families with children is amongst female single parents.

But let's see what an unbiased expert says

University of Otago Professor David Fergusson, an expert on domestic violence, said the public perception that men were the perpetrators of most domestic violence was the result of biased publicity.
"The proper message is that both gender groups have a capacity for domestic violence [and] women probably perpetrate more assaults on children then men do," Mr Fergusson said.

Additionally the Greens are using the bill to once again politic about child poverty. They say that they can't support measures to reduce child abuse if the government won't address what they see as the major cause. Child poverty.

You have to wonder, as I frequently do, whose interests the Greens really serve.

(Labour, to their credit, are continuing to support the bill).

Colin James on David Cunliffe's chances of becoming PM

Colin James writes about Cunliffe's leadership so far and his prospects for becoming Prime Minister:

In his six months as leader Cunliffe, first, got only a short-lived bump in opinion polls and then in February-early March took Labour back to its David Shearer low. His biggest publicity recently has been for leadership stumbles.
First, Cunliffe chose to run Labour’s innovative children policy as a cash handout when its real value is a focus on children’s physical experience in the womb and nutritional, emotional and cognitive experiences in the early years of life. That is, he highlighted the palliative of a dole to parents over investment in children to give even the disadvantaged a close-to-equal opportunity to be full citizens as adults. And he did not say the palliative would be discounted for parental leave cash.

More

("Palliative"? )

Sons of preachers

The precedent for political success isn't good.

Don Brash was the son of a Presbyterian minister.

David Cunliffe is the son of an Anglican minister.

Ex government MP quick to get snout in trough

Funerals may be a touchy subject but comment on taxpayers being compelled to share responsibility for their funding shouldn't be taboo.

Ex National MP Katrina Shanks is now Funeral Directors Association something- or- other and says that the grants available and accessed by about 5,000 annually (one in six deaths) are too low.

 “We have concerns that due to the costs of burials, those with few means will not have the choice to be buried and may have to be cremated against their wishes.” She says there needs to be a shared responsibility for ensuring funerals are accessible for all by promoting advance planning for funerals, the industry providing a range of services including basic services, and government assistance for those who can’t afford funeral services.

The funeral business does a great deal of advertising. Listen to Radio Live or NewstalkZB if you want a taste. It constantly encourages people to plan ahead and save so their families won't be lumbered with the cost. Perhaps they should come up with a new line in advertising encouraging individuals to save so the taxpayer won't be forced to fork out?

Oh, and what's the bet that if the grants start to escalate so will funeral costs, just like rents under the accommodation supplement.

Bob Jones' loathing of "Leadership"

Sir Bob Jones never holds back much, to the benefit of those who read him. Here he has given an interview to an e-mail website and newsletter, "Get Frank" on the subject of leadership:

The most important piece of advice I would give an aspiring leader is to do the decent thing and cut your throat.

And make sure you find out the answer to "Where are the Maori leaders?" Priceless.

Infant mortality rate praised

When NZ led the world (but ignored Maori). From ODT's 100 years ago file:

Dr Barrett, in an article in the Argus, describes ''a demonstration of social organisation alike unique and impressive'' to which his attention was directed in New Zealand, the demonstration being the fact that the infantile mortality rate in the dominion has been reduced to 51 per 1000. This rate Dr Barrett contrasts with the rate in Australia (where it is 68 per 1000), with that in the United Kingdom (107 per 1000), and with the greatly higher rates in other countries.
From this comparison he proceeds to show that the infant mortality rate in Dunedin is much below that in any of the other cities in New Zealand; still further below that in any of the larger centres in Australia; and only a fraction of that in the congested cities of Europe. He emphasises his argument, so far as it is directed to show that the favourable position occupied by Dunedin is due to the methods initiated in this city, by taking the average mortality for varying periods since 1900 and by demonstrating that the death rate among infants in this city has been steadily reduced. Further than this, Dr Barrett quotes official returns to show that the reduction in the infant mortality in New Zealand is practically accounted for in its entirety by the reduction in the mortality from gastro-enteritis, which is produced by improper feeding.
''The examination of the various tables,'' he says, ''shows not only that New Zealand and Dunedin hold the record of the world, but that the infantile mortality in Dunedin has fallen to a rate which no one ever hoped to reach.''
When he seeks for an explanation of this circumstance, Dr Barrett considers and rejects the suggestion that climate, the milk supply, and the maternity home system in the dominion may severally or in combination account for the exceptionally favourable death rate among children under 12 months of age in New Zealand, and concludes that the reduction of the waste of infant life in the dominion is due to the special and practical education that is being spread among the people through the organisation and activity of the Society for the Health of Women and Children, which was established in 1907. The conclusion is one that is probably not accepted by everyone living in the midst of the operations of the society.

Latest Roy Morgan Poll

From Scoop

Poll March 3-16: Nat 45.5% Lab 31.5% Grn 14%

Friday, 21 March 2014, 5:22 pm
Press Release: Roy Morgan Research National (45.5%) now neck and neck with Labour/ Greens (45.5%); John Key calls election for September 20 as scandal involving Justice Minister Judith Collins sends National support lower

Greens and the religion of non-judgmentalism

According to Green MP Jan Logie:

"... the government has continued to characterise people requiring income support as work shy, drug taking, criminals who don’t care for their children, and have been happy to misrepresent the financial situation of people who have publically challenged their decisions."

I disagree. Frequently Ministers say things like...

Chester Borrows:

 The overwhelming majority of people receiving welfare assistance do the right thing and follow the rules. Unfortunately, a tiny few see our welfare system as a target.

Paula Bennett:

  I know that most beneficiary parents are acting in the best interest of their children...

Yet, barring the anecdotal evidence, it is statistically true that not all beneficiaries want to work (a small telephone survey conducted in 2005 by MSD  showed that 61 percent of DPB recipients were "very" or "fairly" interested in looking for work, 36 percent freely admitted they were not interested.)

The incidence of drug and alcohol abuse is higher amongst beneficiaries (Ministry of Health research)

And beneficiaries cycle in and out of prison at a much higher rate than non-beneficiaries.

But the Greens do not believe in freedom of speech when it contravenes their religion of non-judgmentalism. Nobody can talk about real problems and possible solutions  lest it offends some other group or individual.

China and the quid pro quo

Published in today's DomPost and worth reading. A highly readable look into what's happening in China and why NZ stands to profit. This resonated with me after our recent Asian trip and tour around Shenzhen which has grown into a massive city in just 30 years. Our guide, a young Chinese father of one (about to be two at a price) spoke glowingly about NZ. The following is a more formal expression of why:

 It must be easy for New Zealanders to take for granted the very many advantages your small country has. The beauty of the landscape, the clean air, the easy access to fresh water. If you have always lived here, these things might seem pretty ordinary. But they are not at all ordinary, and nor is the stability of your political system and the easy way you do business.

More

This isn't a chicken or egg scenario

As Conservative Perspective and Bob McCoskrie have already pointed out, Simon Collins has his theory the wrong way around. He says poverty is driving nuclear family break-up. I say it's vice versa.

My response by way of a letter to the editor:

Dear Editor

According to the NZ Herald, March 20, "Surprise Census figures suggest that poverty may be breaking up the nuclear family." Analyst Paul Callister is quoted saying, "...the welfare system meant many couples were better off by separating."

For a nuclear family to "break-up" it has to exist first. In 2012 the proportion of unmarried births was 48 percent. In the same year, 21 percent of babies born were dependent on welfare - usually the DPB - by Christmas. Around half of these children will spend 7 or more years in the benefit system.

It isn't poverty driving family disintegration. It's the availability and heavy use of welfare. This is particularly prevalent amongst Maori because welfare incomes are close to incomes from low paid, unskilled jobs.

As the article notes, "Education is also a powerful factor." Exactly. In time females with qualifications and aspirations may choose not to embark on a career of poverty-stricken single parenthood. Then again, as long as it's a seemingly 'easy' option the pattern of single mothering and subsequent hardship will continue.

"Free the poor"

No surprises here:

Economic Freedom Helps Poverty More Than Government Aid

March 19, 2014
Economic freedom does more to alleviate poverty than government aid, says Julian Adorney for the Foundation for Economic Education.
A study from Daniel L. Bennett and Richard K. Vedder analyzes economic freedom and income inequality in the United States, finding that economic freedom decreases inequality, benefiting the poor and middle class more than the wealthy.
Looking at the 50 states, and using limits on government to measure economic freedom (the authors looked at size of government, level of taxation and labor market regulation), the study found that most gains went to the wealthy during the initial stages of economic freedom. However, at a certain point (and 21 states had already hit this point by 2004), that result shifts, leading income inequality to decline as states grow more and more free.

More

Cunliffe promises to ease up on prosecuting benefit fraud

In a lengthy interview with Gordon Campbell, David Cunliffe gave the following answer:

Campbell: We’ve got ten minutes. I haven’t asked about your welfare policy, so I’ll make it specific. We all oppose fraud. Does Labour oppose the government’s new welfare fraud policy whereby the partners of welfare fraudsters will be criminally liable for the fraud, and for the repayment of the entire amount – and not simply for the amount from which they might have indirectly benefitted. If re-elected will Labour retain this provision or scrap it ?

Cunliffe: Scrap it.

Here's associate Social Development Minister Chester Borrows speaking about the proposals:

This bill deals with one particularly troubling aspect of welfare fraud, which we refer to as relationship fraud. Relationship fraud is when someone is receiving a benefit that is dependent on them being single, such as a sole parent support—the old DPB—yet they are in a marriage-type relationship. In this case, their relationship is not simply part of their private life; they are being given money by the taxpayer based on that fact. By failing in their obligations to tell the Ministry of Social Development or even lying to hide their relationship, they continue to receive money that they are not entitled to. The reality of this offending is that it can occur only when the partner is present, but it takes two to tango. The current law means that the beneficiary, usually the woman, is held accountable for her fraud, while the partner often gets off scot-free. We say this is wrong. This bill will create a new offence to hold those partners to account.

These changes strike a careful balance. They recognise that new relationships are never simple. When a partner is genuinely unaware of the fraud, they will not be liable. But if the partner knew about the fraud or turned a blind eye to it, they will be held to account for their part in the crime. I want to make it clear that these changes will not disadvantage women in a violent relationship. Ministry of Social Development investigators are extensively trained to deal sensitively with violent relationships, and the law on this point is clear that violence in a relationship will often mean it is not, for welfare purposes, a relationship in the nature of marriage. The last thing we want to do is to remove the financial lifeline that might help a battered woman extract herself from that situation. These changes will not remove this protection.

The reasons why liability for the "entire amount" is incurred are explained here.

You don't see me making a big fuss about welfare fraud. That's because so much 'legitimate' welfare receipt is 'illegitimate' in my mind anyway. Welfare abuse, welfare misuse.... it's all a rort. Welfare is claimed by thousands of people who would in the past have made their own way in life. Lawful entitlement does not confer moral entitlement.

But an intention to scrap this proposed  legislation shows which side Cunliffe is on. And it isn't the taxpayer's.

Asian incomes rise rapidly

Prompted by the NZ Herald sob-series on Closing the Gaps I thought I'd take a look at Asian incomes. They are rising rapidly. In only 5 years they have gone from having the lowest median income to second highest.

The chart below shows the median income for individuals aged 15 and older.

Back in 2009 the median Asian income was much further away from the average - 360 versus 512. In 2013 it's 500 versus 583. But for Maori and Pacific the opposite pattern applies - the gap between median and average is growing. The gap for NZ Europeans is steady. Equality is rising amongst Asians. Most have improving incomes.

The data is given according to source. Asian self-employment is much higher than Maori or Pacific.

In 2013 (June quarter) the respective figures for income for self-employment were

NZ European 97
Maori 28
Pacific 9
Asian 53

Income from self-employment has dropped away for all groups but particularly Pacific.

In 2013 the respective figures for income from government transfers was

NZ European 99
Maori 122
Pacific 106
Asian 53

No remarkable 5 year change for any group.

Income from investments

NZ European 43
Maori 6
Pacific 5
Asian 18

Again not much 5 year change.

All groups recorded increases in income from wages and salaries but for Pacific is was almost negligible at 1%. The Asian increase was greatest at 20%, followed by NZ European at 14% and Maori at 10%.

Working and investing is paying off for Asians. It's the age old story of how to get out of poverty. It's not having kids you can't afford and relying on the government to bail you out.

Update on Britain's "welfare state"

It is nine years since James Bartholomew published "The Welfare State We're In".

It has recently been re-published and  includes an introduction looking at what has changed in the interim. You can read it here.

"The good news keeps coming and the bad news gets worse. Much has changed and nearly everything stays the same. The disjunction is between, on the one hand, the words, intentions and actions of both politicians and the public, and, on the other hand, the reality on the ground....overall incentives [to work] are being modestly improved... there has been progress but it is not dramatic change [but] far more lone parents are now expected to work. It is a big and necessary change...the fact remains that mass unemployment is still a permanent feature of modern Britain...the coalition government has worked hard to make significant changes in welfare benefits ... but they do not go far enough to rid us of the misery of permanent mass unemployment...there are still 1.5 million unemployed. A little under 2.5 million are on an incapacity benefit. The proportion of births outside marriage has risen still further from 40 percent in 2001 to 47 percent in 2011. This compares to only 6 percent back in 1961. There are 3.2 million children being raised by sole parents...truancy from school remains high....illiteracy is widespread. It is true that crime appears to be falling which is welcome...there are some reasons for hope but for the time being the welfare state we're in remains pretty grim."