An Easter quiz

James Bartholomew's new book, The Welfare of Nations is now available.

As with the prior book, The Welfare State We're In, he opens with a quiz.

You can test your knowledge here.

17 out of 22.

I like his comments at the end. The chapter headings look tantalising. Can't wait to read it.

Inhumane and assinine decision

Because the incident happened just down the road from me, and proximity piques interest, the fate of the young  student, Boobesh Palani, had been occupying my mind on and off. Sadly (or maybe not from his perspective) he died.

But I was appalled at the hospital's attitude to the youngsters who saved him from drowning and performed CPR to keep him alive.

Kelly was told yesterday morning Mr Palani was still alive. But yesterday evening she received a call from Victim Support telling her the sad news.
"It's just been awful," she said.
She said the cousins were with Mr Palani when he was first hospitalised.
Kelly said she was told she couldn't see him when the cousins went back to visit him later in the week.

"So we stayed there for about three hours and then they said they can't give out any information because we don't know him or anything. Me and Payge really, really, really wanted to go and see him. But I guess we can't now....The hospital said it did not allow people to visit patients in intensive care or the maternity ward without family permission.

Not even an exception made for two exceptional young people. Whatever they are left thinking and feeling, the tragedy has been made worse.

Hospitals need rules. But they also need to exercise compassionate and rational application of them.

Raising children on a benefit is not an "unpaid activity"

From Census 2013:

Proportionally, more Māori and Pacific peoples spent time looking after children from their own households (42 percent and 41 percent, respectively), compared with other ethnic groups participating in this unpaid activity (around 30 percent each).

I dispute the term "unpaid activity". For many parents, time spent "looking after children from their own household" is time spent on a benefit, usually the Sole Parent Support (SPS). Each week they receive a payment from the government to look after their children.

"Unpaid activity" somehow suggests an altruistic motive. It is misleading to lump together people who are sacrificing earnings to raise children with those whose are raising children as a source of income.

Characteristics of working-age recipients of SPS at the end of December 2009, 2013 and 2014
	Dec-2009	Dec-2013	Dec-2014	Annual change
Male	8,391	6,823	6,093	−730	−11%
Female	78,676	71,020	66,441	−4,579	−6%
NZ European	32,378	26,976	24,329	−2,647	−10%
Mäori	37,275	35,662	33,940	−1,722	−5%
Pacific peoples	8,797	7,536	7,052	−484	−6%
All other ethnicities*	7,059	6,552	6,196	−356	−5%

"Beyond the Microphone" - a brief review

The process of reading is difficult because it sends me to sleep, quickly. And because bed-time is the only time I don't feel guilty about indulging in a book, getting through one is a challenge. Day-time reading makes me feel guilty. Surely there is always some other obligation requiring my attention.

So to get through Beyond the Microphone, Leighton Smith's 2013 auto-biography, in a matter of days, is extraordinary. So readable was it that I even broke my day-time rule reading upstairs whilst son practised Scriabin, Debussy and Rachmaninoff on the piano downstairs (most ably). This strangely and poignantly provided a soundtrack to much of the book. Quite suitably for the chapter on Leighton's visit to the Soviet Union - an eye-opener for someone who has not travelled to that part of the world. The grimness, yet refusal or inability of indoctrinated citizens to recognise their circumstances are stark, shocked me.

Almost immediately, on beginning to read, the question poses itself. Are there two Carolyn's? Who knew Leighton's producer, Carolyn, is also Leighton's wife, Carolyn? Obviously lots of people but not me. The discovery made me happy and somehow more kindly disposed to Smith. Romance that grows out of a lengthy working relationship has something of a fairytale yet solid quality about it. His deep regard and affection for Mrs Smith (if indeed that is what she calls herself) is terribly evident.

Beyond the Microphone is an engaging and easy read. By 'easy' no slight is intended. Easy is what good writing should be for the audience. Hard is for technical information. Easy is for when you want to be entertained.

Smith is one of those characters that gets obsessed with something to a degree most couldn't find the energy or means to. An interest in wine culminates in establishing a successful vineyard. (Don't believe him about Minchinbury. By coincidence it was on special when I did my weekly shop. To my palate - cheap - it isn't great fizz. Too sweet for Brut. Though he would probably be embarrassed that he thought it once was, having moved on to more sophisticated wines and varieties.)

An interest in greyhounds culminates in ownership of a hugely successful racehorse trained by none other than the larger- than - life Gai Waterhouse. An interest in Italy culminates in building a replica villa in Clevedon.

From a childhood influenced by strict religious values, to teen rebellion amidst 1960s music and culture, to a shot-gun wedding, to sporadic university education, to meaningful drifting (though he may disagree with that description) to numerous radio jobs, to eventually putting down roots in a country seemingly better suited to his persona and values, he must never have experienced boredom. Would that we could all lay claim to the same.

Leighton's personal life is not delved into deeply. Good. A respect for the privacy of other players doesn't detract. It adds. This auto-biography proves that an otherwise intensely private character can create a story that holds the interest from go to whoa.

Highly recommended for Easter reading.

30:30:30:10

A caller to Leighton Smith earlier this week talked about the 30:30:30:10 principle.

It's new to me but sounds entirely plausible.I am assuming he is talking about the population aged 15+


-30 percent  relies on government benefits.

-30 percent  relies on tax credits and effectively pay no tax.

-30 percent  pays the tax that supports the first 30 percent.

-10 percent pays for the other big ticket items like  health, education etc.


As the caller observed, the ratios might differ slightly over time and at various times.

Has anyone come across this before?

The caller was concerned about how far down the 10 percent could be whittled....

Why people commit benefit fraud

1/ Because they can

2/ Because it's easy

3/ Because the consequences are trivial


Anne Sepuloni is a case in point, and typical.

She has effectively been given a 14-year, $20 weekly penalty on her benefit (or Super.)


The NZ Herald reports:

For defrauding the Ministry of nearly $34,000, he gave her a sentence of four and a half months' home detention.
He said other mitigating circumstance - including her clean record, early guilty plea and show of remorse - cut the starting-point sentence further to nine months' jail.
The judge then accepted the pre-sentencing report recommendation that the jail sentence be converted to home detention. Sepuloni must also do 250 hours of community work and repay $15,000 at the rate of $20 a week.

It's pathetic.

But it happens in thousands of cases. The offender remains on a benefit, supported by the taxpayer albeit it at a slightly reduced rate.

It's pathetic.

If NZ was serious about benefit crime it would bar fraudsters from eligibility. That might be the deterrence factor required.

7,239 Northlanders stayed home

7,239 fewer Northlanders voted yesterday than voted last September. That's a lot of people who really didn't care one way or the other. Or who didn't want the incumbent party, or anyone else.

Additionally,  if people came out yesterday that hadn't voted in September (conceivable when you have a phenomenon like Winston rolling through the province) that makes the  newly disinterested or disenchanted non-vote even bigger. Who did most of them vote for last time?

I'm not familiar with by-election research. The turn-out is always lower but I don't know who this generally favours. In any case, new precedents are set.

So Winston won the seat. But the other big winner looks like 1. Apathy - voting wouldn't change the government and/or  2. Disaffection. And not just with National.

The result doesn't particularly bother me. I'm not a cheer leader for National ( though I prefer them to a Left block). But it astounds and dismays me that so many people would put their hand up for a charlatan like Winston Peters.

"Ageing population doesn't matter: Bill English"

That's a headline from the NBR, March 27. The NZ Initiative has helpfully circulated the article in its weekly newsletter.


His comments explain why he backs the PM's promise not to raise the age of Super qualification.

Not very well.

There are costs and associated behaviour that can be changed. He uses the example of inter-generational welfare dependence. National is making those costs its focus.

Ageing, on the other hand is a fact.It's an unavoidable demographic change. So the PM made his promise and ensured National could avoid, "wasting any time in retirement commissions ...or arguing retirement policy".

That's a cop-out. All National need do, to save billions that could be spent on the increasing costs of aged healthcare (thus avoiding raising tax on the general population) is make raising the age of entitlement an election policy. There are policies being implemented in the US, the UK and Australia which provide a policy framework basis.

Then they get a mandate by winning the election.

Justifying benefit fraud

It's a typical and tired response from the Left, when the subject of benefit fraud arises, to try and move the focus away from beneficiaries and onto tax evaders. The strategy is pathetic. And problematic because it sends a message to people ripping off the welfare system that, in the scheme of things, their crime is somehow justifiable.

Labour tried it again yesterday and here's what happened.

Benefits—Savings 6. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura) to the Associate Minister for Social Development: How much has the Government saved as a result of its benefit fraud initiative?
Hon JO GOODHEW (Associate Minister for Social Development): Since benefit fraud reform initiatives began 2 years ago we have saved the taxpayer over $60 million in future benefit payments. Only a small minority of beneficiaries take money they are not entitled to, but those who do cost tens of millions of dollars each year. These changes make it difficult to defraud the welfare system and hold people accountable for their actions.
Hon Judith Collins: How is the Government encouraging beneficiaries to comply with the welfare system?
Hon JO GOODHEW: Over the past 2½ years around 9,500 benefits have been cancelled after fraud was discovered. We expect to see fewer cases of benefit fraud as our case officers continue working closely with clients to ensure they declare their income and any changes to their relationship status. We have also identified 3,000 clients who have previously committed fraud. By managing these clients more closely, we can help to ensure that they do not reoffend.
Poto Williams: Will she be advocating on behalf of taxpayers that her Government place more of a proportionate focus on recovering the $1.2 billion per annum of money lost through tax evasion, compared with the slightly lesser amount of $20 million to $40 million per annum of benefit overpayments connected with prosecuted benefit fraud, or is white-collar crime just more acceptable to her Government?
Mr SPEAKER: The Hon Jo Goodhew, in as far as there is ministerial responsibility.
Hon JO GOODHEW: I thank the member for her question and the opportunity to correct her misassumptions. Last Budget this Government actually provided an extra $132 million to Inland Revenue to bolster its tax compliance activities, and, boy, has that been good value for money. Targeting the hidden economy, tax avoidance initiatives returned nearly $50 million—$5.51 for every dollar spent. Targeting property speculators returned $52 million, a return of $7.88 for every $1 invested. I thank the member for the opportunity to show her how wrong she is.

It is disappointing though that the debate never progresses to which party is more immoral. The one taking too much money from the pot or the one trying to minimise what he puts in?

(Note Poto Williams stepping in for Carmel Sepuloni who is effectively shut out of the benefit fraud debate. Will Poto pick up the portfolio permanently? On second thoughts, to be fair, John Banks rose to the office of Police Minister).

"Craving" for single parenthood

An interesting piece from the Acton Institute recommends the wealth gap be referred to, in future, as the 'marriage gap'. No surprises in the statistics that show children born into the lowest income quintile have little chance of moving out of it  except when their parents are married and stay married.

But what caught my interest was quoted writing from a single mother whose ambition had always been to raise children alone.

Being a single mom is an experience I have craved for as long as I can remember. Women who become single mothers against their desires have a different story than mine. As a young teen, I romanticized even the mundane experiences: balancing my night classes with kids’ homework and tucking them in bed (leaving on a soft light). I imagined walking, with socked feet, into our tiny living room, picking up a car or a doll from the floor and wiping oatmeal from the arm of a chair, before spreading my homework or a book I was writing on our table. Raising children alone didn’t seem like a struggle to avoid, but rather an exciting opportunity to come up with creative and clever solutions for daily living.
I want to devote myself to motherhood, something I fear I can’t do with the additional demands of a partnership. Romantic relationships can occupy a lot of mental and emotional energy. I’m not sure I could balance being both a solid partner and mother right now.

Oh well, it's a free world.

Hang on. It's not a free world. By and large those people who are married and stay married (and the childless) end up paying for those who make the opposite choice. Even if the mother is financially independent (note this one expects to struggle) there is the small matter of children learning how a partnership works, learning about compromise, and commitment. The small matter of the child potentially relating better to the other biological parent. The small matter of what happens to the children if she isn't around to care for them? She has presumably already cut out the paternal grandparent side of their heritage. And where did the sperm come from anyway? A dispenser in a convenience store?

Bill English - badly advised?

Earlier this month I did a brief analysis of state housing stock based on MSD data publicly available (released Feb 2015).

Of 63,988 households, 18,539 are described as "one-person". 29 percent.

Talking about the Housing NZ stock not matching the need in parliament yesterday, Bill English said:

Hon BILL ENGLISH : Around one-third of Housing New Zealand houses—$18.7 billion worth of them—are the wrong size and in the wrong place. Just, for instance, 45 percent of current tenancies are for one single person—45 percent of our houses are occupied by one person—but only 9 percent of the housing stock has one bedroom.

I immediately thought the first figure was too high so went back and double-checked my figures.

The data is split initially into five main regions, then broken down further. The following is the largest region in terms of tenancies, East and South Auckland:

 

	Total	%
Couple only	794	4.7%
Couple only and other person(s)	70	0.4%
Couple with child(ren)	3,873	22.8%
Couple with child(ren) and other person(s)	533	3.1%
Household of related and unrelated people	223	1.3%
Household of related people	1,746	10.3%
Household of unrelated people	111	0.7%
One parent with child(ren)	5,878	34.7%
One parent with child(ren) and other person(s)	1,183	7.0%
One-person household	2,501	14.7%
Other multi-person household nfd	51	0.3%
Total	16,963

The next one is Northland, Western and Central Auckland (though the percentages do not add up and neither do they in the remaining areas.)


 

	Total	%
Couple only	979	5.8%
Couple only and other person(s)	50	0.3%
Couple with child(ren)	2,623	15.5%
Couple with child(ren) and other person(s)	332	2.0%
Household of related and unrelated people	139	0.8%
Household of related people	1,019	6.0%
Household of unrelated people	214	1.3%
One parent with child(ren)	4,290	25.3%
One parent with child(ren) and other person(s)	717	4.2%
One-person household	4,618	27.2%
Other multi-person household nfd	41	0.2%
Total	15,022

You can check the rest of the data yourself if interested. Time constraints at this end. Perhaps the error lies with me but I can't see it.

Parents should feed their kids - not schools

Jim Rose points out that the Mana News editor, whilst railing against the cruel dispensing of the Feed The Kids Bill by National, inadvertently revealed that breakfast is actually exceedingly cheap to provide. Not that we don't know that. In fact if he is paying $5.55 for 2 litres of milk, he isn't shopping around.

Mana News editor writes,

Just to get breakfast for the kids is $12.55 that’s not including sugar or fruit so kids aren’t eating tasteless soggy Weetbixs.

Reminder.  Government assistance for each low-middle income child averages around $78 per week. Sure there are many other expenses children incur. But if families can't provide the essentials then maybe they need to go under income management. The facility now exists, and even Labour recommended families that neglect their children should be subject to it in their 2014 welfare manifesto.

Time for some honesty and objectivity about 'feeding the children'. National are to be commended, not condemned, for standing their ground.

Sallies say NO

Not long ago I wrote, in personal correspondence (I thought it was on the blog, but no):

I am confused by the social housing policy. Or more correctly, confused about whether I approve. There is sense in a  family mentor also being the landlord eg Salvation Army and addiction services, and to a degree they already operate thus. But do they want to expand their landlord role significantly? The bigger their clientèle becomes, the more difficult it is to control. As evidenced by the problem English is trying to solve.

So it was unsurprising to read in the NZ Herald this morning that the Sallies will not be progressing the idea of buying state houses from the government.

...  Major Campbell Roberts, of the Salvation Army, says the church organisation does not believe "the lives of tenants would be sufficiently improved by such a transfer".
Nor did it have the "expertise, infrastructure and resources to successfully manage any social housing transfer of size", he said.

"It's just that to take on a significant number of houses is a very complex operation ... the numbers require huge inputs of capital." Housing NZ was in an appalling state, he said.

And he will know that at least some degree of that "appalling state" is due to tenant damage or neglect. The benefits of repairs and maintenance are short-lived.

What can the government do?  Those tenants that abuse property tend to be anti-social and lower the quality of life of their neighbours, also state house tenants. No doubt they can or have been identified.

Perhaps as MSD re-adjusts tenancies to meet need, it could also put 'undeserving' tenants together in the same location where they could collectively absorb each other's disruptive dysfunctionality thereby relieving  other innocent parties. The opposite of pepper-potting. What a heretical thought.

I enjoyed this short post from Jacob Hornberger of the Future of Freedom Foundation...well, I was enjoying it until I reminded myself that the war on obesity is picking up momentum here:

Another Nanny State Failure

by Jacob G. Hornberger March 19, 2015

Advocates of the nanny state are undoubtedly suffering a bout of depression over their latest failure. According to the Los Angeles Times, a legal ban on fast-food restaurants in south Los Angeles has failed to reduce obesity.In fact, it’s worse than that. While obesity has increased in all parts of Los Angeles, the increase was largest in the section where the fast-food ban was in effect.

More

Can CPAG show some appreciation for a change?

It occurred to me today (as I argued with Andrei at Home Paddock about the veracity of the reported drop in teen mothers reliant on welfare) that the Child Poverty Action Group never reports on positive relevant news.

Teen mothers who start out on welfare stay there a long time. According to new MSD Minister Anne Tolley, 19 years.

Home Paddock reports Tolley's latest offering, titling the post Fewer teen parents, less poverty. And that is exactly right.

So can we have some appreciation from CPAG for a change? Or does their political bias preclude it?

CPAG makes redundant request

The Child Poverty Action Group has just released a report about the poverty of disabled children. The release says,

CPAG is particularly concerned about the impact of a significant decline in the number of Child Disability Allowances (CDA) granted annually by Work and Income. The CDA is a non-income-tested allowance available to parents to help compensate for the time and expense of caring for a disabled child.The number of new CDAs granted has almost halved since 2008 while the number of disabled children has increased, from 92,000 in 2001 to 95,000 in 2013.  Over the same period spending on the Disability Allowance also dropped 14% in real terms.  CPAG Co-Convenor Alan Johnson says, "We have not seen the Government championing cuts in support to families with disabled children, but that is in effect what has happened."

And requests,

 That the Ministry of Social Development:

• Investigates why there has been a sharp reduction in the number of Child Disability Allowance (CDAs) granted

The following is from the MSD Statistical report. 2012 is latest available.The decline in numbers is noted and explained:

Since mid-2008, case manager decisions on eligibility for the Child Disability Allowance have been improved by:

• a requirement for fuller medical information
• case managers being able to consult with Regional Health Advisors when making decisions about eligibility.

Numbers of children assisted by a Child Disability AllowanceTop

The number of children assisted by a Child Disability Allowance decreased between 2009 and 2012

This decrease (see table CD.1) largely reflected the reduced use of the Child Disability Allowance by working families. This in turn reflected a combination of changes in economic conditions and the administrative reforms outlined above. These administrative reforms affected the number assisted by the allowance through:

• an increased number of clients not retaining their allowance, due to parents not confirming their children still met the eligibility criteria for the allowance
• reductions from mid-2008 in the proportion of applications for the allowance being granted, following the administrative reforms noted above.

table CD.1: Numbers of children assisted by a Child Disability Allowance

	Children assisted by a Child Disability Allowance1
	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012
Total children assisted	43,185	45,767	43,883	39,253	36,894

 In 2013 the number had dropped to 34,968.

The government has already explained why the number has declined. Futhermore, the revised medical certificates were instituted in September 2007, before National became government, and their use for determining eligibility for a CDA occurred from mid 2008, again, before National became government.

Raincoats for kids who already have them

Key came under sustained attack from Metiria Turei yesterday.

The two haggled over how many kids come to school without lunch.

I found it trivial in the scheme of things.

But here is the PM's last respone:

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I have been to numerous schools where KidsCan has been in operation. I have been to those schools with Julie on numerous occasions. This is actually the Government that gave KidsCan $500,000 more for raincoats, and $900,000 more to deal with headlice. We are providing extensive support. But I will say this. I went to one of the schools where every child was given a raincoat, and, yes, we fully supported that. The argument around that is that children do not have raincoats. So I actually asked about 20 of the kids: “Do you own a raincoat?” Every single child told me: “Yes.” So it is great they have got another one, and we support KidsCan and we are giving them money, and we think they are a great charity, and they are doing good work, but just because you give kids a raincoat does not mean they did not own one beforehand.

What is the message here?

Need cannot be accurately measured by acceptance of aid.

And the government wasted money, albeit $500,000 is small beer.

Really though. A PM trailing around with KidsCan, and then haggling with the Greens over who can waste more money???

Update. It was too late to go searching for this quote last night but it also illustrates the principle above. What researchers found when they analysed breakfast in schools programmes,

 "Rather than increasing breakfast consumption overall many children who previously ate breakfast at home appeared to swap location (substitution effect)"

James Bartholomew: The Welfare of Nations

If you read The Welfare State We're In, by James Bartholomew, and knew he was writing a sequel, you will be very pleased to hear the publication date of The Welfare of Nations is March 31st. He will officially launch the book in London on April 9.

You can view a short launch video here.

He hasn't let up on his stinging criticism of welfare statism blaming it for unemployment (it is unemployment, not inequality, that makes people unhappy), lone parenting (the over-representation of single parent children amongst failing youth) and the warehousing of the elderly in old people's homes where many wish they were dead.

The following is the jacket blurb:

The twentieth century experienced an
epochal war between capitalism and
communism but the real winner of the conflict,
James Bartholomew argues, was welfare statism.
The defining form of government of our age,
welfare states have spread across the advanced
world and are changing the very nature of
modern civilisation.
In his bestselling book The Welfare State We’re
In, Bartholomew controversially argued that
the British welfare state has done more harm
than good. Many people – including Lady
Thatcher – responded by saying, ‘If that is the
case, what should we do about it?’ Now, in this
hard-hitting and provocative new contribution,
Bartholomew sets out to answer that question.
Travelling across the globe, from Australia
in the east to San Francisco in the west, he
investigates what happens elsewhere in the
world and considers which welfare models
Britain could potentially follow. His search
for the best education, healthcare and support
services takes him to eleven vastly different
countries as he teases out the advantages and
weaknesses of other nations’ welfare states
and delves into crucial issues such as literacy,
poverty and inequality.
What damage is being done by failing welfare
states? What lessons can be learned from the
best welfare states? And is it too late to stop
welfare states permanently diminishing the
lives and liberties of people around the world?

Maori trust police more than the media

Statistics NZ surveyed Maori adults and asked them to rate their level of trust in various institutions, '0' being 'not at all' and '10' being 'completely'.






What would have been really interesting is how these ratings compare with other ethnicities but that wasn't part of the exercise.

Anyway it is reassuring that Maori do have relatively high trust in the police. Many will deal with the police as victims.

As for trust in the media, I expect that would be representative across all adult New Zealanders.

Here's a thought. How would you rate those two institutions? We can run our own mini survey. I'll kick it off.

Media. Depends on which media and in what respect eg delivery of information or personal dealings. Generally I'd be around 4 but there are exceptions.

Police. My personal dealings with police have been good and bad. Brushes with authoritarian heavy-handedness and possible racism takes my rating down, but generally, compared to other countries I think we've got a fairly non-corrupt and responsive police force. So a 7.