The Scotsman: A "monstrous invasion of family life"

Extremism in Scotland.

Could it happen here?  Quite possibly. Never under-estimate the state's inclination to summon and impose seemingly easy solutions to difficult problems. Legislators have to justify their salaries.

OPPONENTS of controversial plans to introduce a “state guardian” for every child in Scotland will step up their campaign with a major conference next week.
MSPs, academics, social work experts and medics will gather in Edinburgh prior to a £30,000 court battle aimed at derailing the Scottish Government proposals.
Holyrood passed legislation this year which will mean every child in Scotland is given a designated “named person” – usually a health visitor or teacher – who will be a point of contact for families, but also monitor the child’s welfare and development.
The government insists that mothers and fathers are still, in most cases, the best people to raise their children and the new scheme will not change this when it is rolled out in August 2016.
However, many groups see the move as an intrusion into the traditional role of the family and say the Scottish Government has gone “too far”.
One described it as a “monstrous invasion of family life”.

The convenience of cannabis contradiction

While leader of the Mana Party is steadfastly opposed to tobacco and cannabis...

RACHEL Decriminalise marijuana you would oppose that.

HONE: That’s a personal position I've taken, it's not a position that Mana's taken, but it's a personal position I've taken. And I take it because I'm not one of those like liberals for whom that sort of thing is cool. I see how marijuana leads to dead eyes in some of the kids that we have to teach. I see how it leads to dead eyes in the families that I've gotta go and talk to because my wife who's a Principal makes me go and see some of these families. I see the problems, and so when people talk about decriminalisation at that level, I think to myself it's not actually one of the major priorities in my life.

...leader of the Internet Party, Laila Harre has announced that her preference is for decriminalisation.

That works well for them. They can individually promise to keep voters with a strong preference either way satisfied.  At least on intent. They can have their on-line policy debate and both sides win!

Upshot? No loss of votes for the Internet/Mana alliance. Quite probably some gain from previous NZALCP and Green voters.

Ah, the vagaries of political pragmatism.

The living wage effect and EMTRs

Two parking wardens who will receive $4 an hour extra under the Wellington City Council's adoption of a living wage each have a partner and a 4 month-old baby. Both say that they will be able to reduce their work hours due to the increase, and spend more time with their families. One from 75 hours down to 40 and the other from 50 down to 40.

That sounds nice. Though some might think, wouldn't you take the opportunity to earn the extra money with a young family to support?

Except there may not be any extra money. Both of these men will be receiving WFF and possibly an accommodation supplement. At the higher pay rate, if they work longer hours they may lose their other subsidies. In fact, they may be working for nothing. That doesn't make any sense.

What these two men may be is a prime example of is how high effective marginal tax rates reduce work effort.

But it also shows that their original wage (combined with state subsidies) was a livable =  living income.

Some of the support for the living wage was based on the assumption that government wouldn't have to subsidise workers to the extent they do now. In fact Bill English said:

The analysis shows that the “living wage” would least help low-income families whose welfare support would abate as their income rose. In those cases, the main beneficiary of the living wage would effectively be the Government because it would receive more in tax and pay out less through abated transfers.

Who picked that these struggling low wage families would simply reduce their hours?

On the upside, at least they are parking wardens.

Frank Macskasy responds

Frank Macskasy responds to my letter.

Couple of points Frank. I don't agree with corporate welfare but subsidies to the film industry and Rio Tinto don't reduce what is available for spending on the poor. They protect government revenue and jobs.

You complain about tax cuts, which "include Working for Families". WFF featured more than one increase to Family Support (now FTC) aimed at children of beneficiaries. In real terms FTC is now worth considerably more than in the early 1990s.

The fact that I disagree with your strategy for lifting the poor doesn't mean I disagree with the goal.

Support for the Greens carbon tax surprises

The Taxpayer's Union has come out in support of a carbon tax that is revenue neutral. On balance they find it preferable to the Emissions Trading Scheme.

I wonder why we need either.

The only answer (for believers in anthropogenic global warming) is that NZ can make a difference by once again leading the world; that we can and must save the planet; that the price we pay will be worth it when we write our country's name into the history books.  It's seductive for some.

And an unrealistic romantic notion for others.

NZ didn't lead the world when it introduced the Old Age Pension. And it barely led the world when giving women the vote (as a very young country NZ didn't face the inertia inherent in long-established parliamentary institutions but the suffragette activity was rife elsewhere). The 1938 Social Security Act happened around the same time as the Beveridge reforms in the UK and was pre-dated by the US Social Security Act of 1935. Recognition for Maori inclusion in mainstream legislative entitlements - and later, new benefits driven partially by Maori activism - occurred while awareness of civil rights grew in the US. Etc.

There is contagion between continents. Social, economic and now environmental issues beset and bother the developed world at pretty much the same time. They did a hundred years ago even without the immediacy of communication.

So kidding ourselves that Kiwis are going to once more set a precedent that cannot conscionably be ignored by countries emitting mega-multiplied emissions, is just pie in the sky.

More welfare changes on the way

The government has announced a rewrite of the Social Security 1964 Act, which is a massive maze of dated legislation.

I note that the cabinet minutes say:

- a rewrite of the Act would mean all aspects of the benefit system, including recent reforms, would be open for debate through the parliamentary process

- the rewrite [would] include consideration of policy change....[including] providing support for redirection of benefit payments and use of payment cards

An extension of 'income management' currently utilised for young beneficiaries was always on the cards. But there are other specific areas for reform including the way in which incomes are assessed against benefits.

There seems to be concern that the level of public interest will be high and that some of the proposals may contravene the Human Rights Act or the NZBOR. My reading of  this is a desire to provide more targeted assistance (or, indeed, method of support) over universal and that could raise issues of discrimination. But I am open to correction.

Proposals for policy changes are invited from the Minister to the Cabinet Social Policy Committee by the end of this year, with the new legislation introduced by December 2015.

Despite the press release claiming, "This work can’t be rushed," this is National pushing change along very quickly - par for the course over the first two terms.

Now all they need to do is get re-elected.

(After-thought. This presents ACT with a great opportunity to get some serious welfare reforms on the table.)

I only date boys...

Keeping Stock blogs about this example of Green merchandising:

Which got me imagining other party stickers:


Mana - I only date boys my Dad let's me

NZ First - I only date boys with hair like Winston Peters and their own Zimmer frame

Conservative - I only date boys sporting a chastity pledge

NZALCP - I only date boys with bongs

National - I only date boys with big bank accounts

ACT - I only date boys who know how may angels can dance on a pinhead

Labour - I only date boys


I'm sure you can do better.

Karl du Fresne on Big Government

 Writing in today's DomPost:

Big Government is now so all-pervasive that many people find it hard to imagine life without it.
That was evident from a recent minor party leaders' debate on TV3's The Nation, in which ACT leader Jamie Whyte was treated as some sort of freak or traitor for daring to suggest that New Zealanders don't need constant intervention from the state in every aspect of their lives. This is clearly a dangerous heresy.
Only days later, Whyte got a similar going-over from Guyon Espiner on Report. It seems we've all become so accustomed to the smothering influence of Big Government – even to the extent of deciding whether to have children – that we can't comprehend any alternative.
Whyte, of course, believes the state should get out of our lives, save for a few essential functions.
It's an idea worth exploring, but you get the impression that for a lot of people, it's just too scary.

Why Internet/Mana should be taken seriously

Internet/Mana's first big policy is free tertiary education.

The government already spends annually around $4 billion on tertiary education. But student loans to pay fees total just over a further $1 billion. It would be possible to fund 'free' tertiary education by pushing out the Super qualifying age.

What the Internet/Mana Party are going to do is set up an inter-generational fight. They will harness the feeling amongst the young that the baby-boomers had it good thanks to the state (plenty of truth in that) whereas they have to take on debt and then work to pay it off, as well as working to support the growing demands of the Super bill.

It's a clever but extremely divisive strategy. It isn't inspiration that will get young people out voting. It's anger.

And as much as I loathe the idea of Dotcom buying influence and manipulating politics the candidates can mount a strong case and campaign for the youth vote.

UPDATE

Just heard it direct from Harre. She was asked what their policy on raising the Super age is and she said that they would be looking very closely at the "trade off" between generational spending. Radio Live, just before 2pm.

Azalea

Here's one just finished. Oil on canvas. Zali is  Reona's granddaughter. She was playing in our garden late summer - at times throwing about a rugby ball with my 20 year-old son. One portrait alone couldn't capture her various expressions. So I painted four views on one canvas. She is life-size in each. Goes without saying but she's gorgeous.

Which principles does Sue Bradford have that Laila Harre doesn't?

Just wondering....

They are both hard left unionists; 'social justice' radicals; ex-MPs; former paid Green staffers and feminists.

But something significant clearly separates them.

Let's start using the word 'controversy'

Here's a great letter spotted in this morning's DomPost:

 

Compliments and gratitude to both Rex Benson and Bill Aitchison for caring enough to put some facts before the public.

Expect a real ratcheting up of the 'child poverty' CONTROVERSY - yes, let's start calling it that given so many "media and activists" misuse the data to further their own agendas - with a new book due for release in mid-June, and an election in September.

CYF staff stretched, seriously

MSD has just released a 135 page CYF Workload and 
Caseload review.  

The following pretty much sums it up:

When staff were asked what needed to change to make things better for social

workers, the number one answer was ‘more staff’

.

“....we are working with people and children and all of our decisions affect their lives forever.

It would be good to be able to have the time

and capacity to think, analyse and reflect rather than acting in the moment...”

There are currently 753 Care and Protection social workers. Without a reduction in the number of assessments it is recommended another 356 are required. 

CYF workers have my sympathy.

Taxing our way into prosperity?

A letter I wrote was published in the DomPost this morning -  but only half of it.

This is the entire letter:

Dear Editor

Silvio Famularo (May 24) wrote that benefits should be lifted because then poor people can spend more, increasing demand for goods and services, and creating more jobs.

To increase benefit expenditure the government would have to increase taxation. That means taking more money off people will in turn have less to spend on the same goods and services. Perhaps Silvio intended more tax on the wealthy or companies. But that will result in less support for high value commodities, less profit and less investment. Ultimately, fewer jobs.

Winston Churchill said, "We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle".

The ultimate call for compensation

Cut and paste in full from Samizdata. Only the exclamation mark led me to suspect it was....well read for yourself. Local substitutions could be made and the piece becomes entirely relevant to this country.

I demand reparations for the crimes committed against women by men!

Natalie Solent (Essex) · African affairs · North American affairs · Philosophical

My case to receive reparations is just as solid as the case for reparations to be paid to African-Americans by lesser-hyphenated-Americans.
Many members of a group to which I belong by accident of birth were enslaved by the group to which you belong by accident of birth (talking to you, heterogametic oppressors). Don’t waste my time with talk about how the law has given women equal legal status to men for generations now, because we are still poorer than you. Well some of us are poorer than some of you and some of us are richer than some of you, but let me tell you that even if I’m doing fine myself, the thought of people with bodies more like mine being on average poorer than people with bodies less like mine is a profound hurt that can only be assuaged by money.
No, the fact that you personally have never enslaved, beaten or otherwise oppressed a woman is not relevant. Can’t you see this thing is bigger than mere individual morality?
You can stop whingeing about how lots of men in history were oppressed quite as much as women were, or how people of both sexes were oppressed on many grounds other than gender, such as class, religion, nationality and race. I am quite aware of that already and join with all victim-groups in unbreakable solidarity, unless any of the oppressors included my ancestors such as to place me in a paying-out group, in which case the notion of paying reparations for the crimes of one’s ancestors is ridiculous. It is the present – a present in which many women are cruelly oppressed – not the past that matters! (Er, when it comes to us getting the money, that is. When it comes to deciding who pays the money, it’s the situation centuries ago that matters, obviously.)
Anyway, why should an artificial construct like “nationality” or “race” be the factor that determines who gets reparations? Gender, unlike race, can be determined objectively. Make gender the criterion and you will be troubled by very few of those pettifogging legalisms you get with race about how all the mixed ancestry people would have to pay reparations to themselves.
Cease your caterwauling about how your great-grandpa once put half a crown in a suffragette collection box. Obviously guilt can be inherited (by you) but the notion of heritable credit is contrary to reason.
None of your man-splainin’ nonsense about being partially descended from women, either. I’m certainly not going to let myself off from the solemn duty of identifying solely with my own gender just because some of my ancestors were men. See, if I can maintain decent standards of group segregation, so can you.
Do not presume to ask how many generations must go by before your group is to be permitted to cease its duty of unrequited toil (mediated via the tax collector and the Reparations Administration Agency) for the benefit of my group. Be assured that we will let you know when we no longer want your money. Until then, woe to that man by whom the offense cometh. That’s you, that is.

May 23rd, 2014 |

Metiria Turei: Govt "punishing" newborns

On Wednesday Green's co-leader Metiria Turei questioned John Key about the extra assistance for newborns in the budget. She wanted to know why the Parental Tax Credit wasn't being extended to children of beneficiary parents. In fact she asked for it to be immediately extended and the Prime Minister said, "No". Turei has now twisted this into:

"It’s bad enough to punish an adult for not having a job but to punish a newborn baby is a step too far," Mrs Turei said.

Adults are not punished for not having a job. They are supported by the benefit system. This country is amongst the most generous in the world in its means-tested but otherwise universal  social security coverage for the unemployed.

When a child is born to someone on a benefit they receive extra weekly financial assistance. That is the Family Tax Credit. It used to be called Family Support. Back in 19931 the maximum amount for the first child was $42 and additional children received $22 (with 16-18 year-olds receiving the higher of the two payments).

According to the Reserve Bank inflation calculator

A basket of goods and services
that cost $1.00
in quarter 4 of 1993
would have cost

$1.55

in quarter 1 of 2013

Total percentage change	54.8%
Number of years difference	19.25
Compound average annual rate	2.3%
Decline in purchasing power	35.4%
Index value for 1993 quarter 4 is	758.4
Index value for 2013 quarter 1 is	1174.0

OK. So if Family Support had been linked to inflation it would now be worth $64 for the first child, and $34 for additional children. In fact it is much higher.

Today it is $92 for the first, $157 for two, etc.


So newborns, regardless of their parent's source of income are well-supported by the government. They are not punished.

Metiria Turei's description of the situation of children of beneficiaries is deceitful. The Family Tax Credit was not increased in the budget because it would have been inconsistent with the philosophy of incentivising work.

1/ Social Developments, Tim Garlick, p146

Where is the National Candidate for Hutt South on cannabis decriminalisation today?

Chris Bishop has been selected as National's Hutt South candidate for the 2014 election. As it is my electorate and I would very much like to see it taken from Trevor Mallard I'm naturally interested in the prospects of this happening. As I was just corresponding with a friend about cannabis decriminalisation it occurred to me to see whether Mr Bishop has any stated views on the matter.

In 2003 (I am assuming this is the same Chris Bishop) he was Muriel Newman's representative in the Youth Parliament. A mock bill was drawn up regarding the partial decriminalisation of cannabis which the youth parliament debated and voted on. Chris Bishop is recorded as:

On the Right, Christopher Bishop, from Lower Hutt, saw the bill as increasing personal freedom.

And

Christopher Bishop, youth MP for Muriel Newman, argued "instant fines isn't the solution, we need a system that will control the cannabis market such as a regulation model."

Wonder where he stands 11 years on?

(National should be applauded for selecting some relatively young candidates this time around.)

"Poverty driving road deaths" - Dog and Lemon

The following thoughts are worthy of wider circulation. The fatalistic attitudes described don't just lead to road deaths. They lead to premature deaths from ill-health and other risk-taking behaviour:

“Poverty isn’t just a lack of money; it’s a lack of knowledge and a lack of understanding. Middle-class car drivers believe in cause and effect, so they buy safe cars and wear seatbelts. Many poor people see life as something that just happens to them, and that they can’t control. Therefore, to poor people, road accidents are simply bad luck, rather than bad management.”

“Worse, in many country areas, there’s no public transport, so the poor often drive illegal cars that won’t protect the occupants in a collision.”

“Among the poor, substance abuse is often considered normal, and if drink-driving causes an accident, it’s considered bad luck, not irresponsible, behaviour.”

“As far as the poorest of the poor are concerned, life is crap, but junk food, cigarettes and alcohol make it bearable. So when you tell these people not to smoke, drink and over-eat, what they hear is: ‘I want you stop enjoying life’. This is a crazy view, but that’s the way many poor people think.”

Sounds to me like he is describing  rural (and perhaps to a lesser degree urban) inter-generational welfare  dependency.

Smoking: relationship between smoking and deprivation

Hot off the press, the graph below shows the percentage of smokers in each deprivation area, 10 being the most deprived. The data is extracted from the Census 2013 and was released this month in the NZDep2013 Index of Deprivation

Figure3: Current smoking in 2013 by NZDep2013

The chicken and egg question poses itself. Do people smoke because they are deprived, or are they deprived because they smoke?

Stephen Berry standing for ACT

ACT has just announced Stephen Berry will be standing in the Upper Harbour electorate. That's good news. With Libertarianz no longer contesting electorally, I am delighted to see one of their past candidates joining up with ACT. Stephen is very committed to individual rights and small government. Hope he gets a decent list ranking.