The saga so far

This tit for tat going on between John Key and Steve Maharey is starting to look quite silly.

Let's see if I can track it;


Sunday - National Party Leader John Key has announced the first initiative in what will be a National Food in Schools programme. "National is committed to providing practical solutions to the problems which Helen Clark says don’t exist," says Mr Key.

During his State of the Nation speech on Tuesday, Mr Key indicated National would seek to introduce a food in schools programme at our poorest schools in partnership with the business community.

Mr Key has since received an approach from Auckland-based company Tasti foods. "I approached Wesley Primary School yesterday, a decile 1 school near McGehan Close, a street that has had more than its fair share of problems in recent times. I am told Wesley Primary, like so many schools in New Zealand, has too many kids turning up hungry.




Yesterday am - The Government is denying it bullied an Auckland school principal into rejecting a National Party offer of free food for her pupils.

National's leader, John Key, announced on Saturday his party was launching a Food for Schools programme, with Wesley Primary School the first to receive a donation from the Tasti Foods company.

But Wesley principal Rae Parkin said all she had been expecting was some muesli bars for fund-raising.

"John Key hasn't even visited my school," she said.

"This is embarrassing. I don't want to end up with parents thinking I'm putting something in place because I don't think they can feed their children. They can feed them."

The decile one school is near McGechan Close, one of the "mean streets" Mr Key identified in his speech last week when he talked about an "underclass" in New Zealand.

Ms Parkin said she had been shocked when she read about Mr Key's announcement in a newspaper.

Mr Key said his offer had been clear, and he had told Ms Parkin there would be media interest.

He said she had changed her attitude during the last 48 hours.

"The only assumption I can make is that there was external influence.

"I think what you can assume is that there's been influence from the ministry, from the Labour Party."

Education Minister Steve Maharey said Mr Key's allegations were disgraceful.


Yesterday 2pm - Maharey says, Key out of touch

National leader John Key's offer to supply breakfast to Wesley School shows how out of touch he is, says Education Minister Steve Maharey.

Mr Maharey said today that John Key arranged for Te Atatu cereal maker Tasti Products to supply breakfast to students without properly consulting the school.

"The breakfast plan for Wesley School was not needed nor asked for. It is just another national party stunt; an insulting stunt for which John Key should apologise to the school and the community."



This morning - Mr Maharey said low-income parents were keen to look after their children as best they could and "don't need this kind of patronising attitude that comes from people like John Key who never go near them except for publicity stunts".

He said allegations by Mr Key that Labour pressured Wesley Primary School into rejecting free food were untrue and insulting, and the National leader should apologise for them.

"That school has an enormous amount of help and the parents are good parents," Mr Maharey said.

"It is a strong local community and the school was deeply insulted by the thought that its parents were going to get a national profile for not feeding their kids when they went to school."

Mr Key yesterday said he stood by his claim that that Wesley came under Labour Party pressure.


1pm today - Key says, Labour’s standover tactics on school food won’t work

National will not stand for bullying and will carry on with its Foods in Schools initiative by not identifying the schools involved, says National Party Leader John Key.

“Wesley Primary has been subject to standover tactics and bullying from this Labour Government, which cares more about making political points than making sure kids are well-fed.


2pm today - Maharey says key is seeking to cover his embarrassing mistake

Education Minister, Steve Maharey, says John Key has mounted a ridiculous cover up campaign to try to hide a political stunt that went wrong.

Mr Maharey restates that no government member or official had any contact with Wesley School regarding the National party's plan to offer the school breakfast supplies.

He says John Key is persisting with the silly notion that Wesley School was pressured by the Labour government, and that is simply not true

Not a good look on either part. Key should have stopped taking the bait.

Have you noticed that Maharey has been doing all the running on Key. Labour has pitted its youngest best-looking against National's.

Update; But wait....there's more....just in...will Key bite again?


Today 4.23pm - National should apologise for its legacy of poverty

The National Party leader should come up with some clear policies on eliminating poverty, rather than just handing out muesli bars, says the Education Minister, Steve Maharey.

"In fact John Key should apologise for the levels of poverty National subjected New Zealanders to through its policies of the 1990s", says Steve Maharey.

Mr Maharey says the National Party needs to admit its own actions, such as slashing benefits and market rates for state housing, created misery for many.

"He says National needs to demonstrate a real commitment to moving away from such damaging policies."

"Grandma glad boys life of 'hell' over"

That's a headline to grab your attention. And it's worth grabbing. Grandma is a smart lady.

Mrs Tahana did not blame police or "the system" for the end to her grandson's life, but said many young people today were displaying similar traits.

"They are just slipping through the cracks. They don't put value on life. I'm 67 and I treasure every second now."

I have said this many times. They don't put value on life. But I add, they don't value their own life and consequently they don't value anybody else's.

This boy was trouble/troubled from the word go. What might have made a difference?

Police were aware of the youth's criminal behaviour, but had been limited in what they could do because of his age.

In times gone by he would have been institutionalised. Today that word has unpleasant connotations. But thousands of children went through children's homes, often kept until they were ready to work. They were taught skills and eased into the outside world.

I know of a boy who is very much like this kid. He is so difficult nobody wants him. He's a danger to anybody who takes him in. He has already assaulted younger children in a particularly nasty fashion. I expect I will read about him in the papers one day in the not too distant future and he will end up in prison. He needs to be detained right now - for his own sake and everybody else's. But he is under 14.

More on child support liability

At my request, this is further information from the author of a piece I referred to from menz.org.nz

Child Support and Paternity

The whole area is full of vagueness and uncertainty but it basically goes like this.

If a supposed father is named by the mother, IRD will send a demand to the father. He has 28 days to file an objection to the demand. If he does not file an objection within 28 days he is assumed to be the father and then it becomes almost impossible to change anything after that.

If the father does get to file his objection within 28 days, and his name is not on the child’s birth certificate, he should be able to get off paying child support. If his name is not on the birth certificate and he misses the 28 day objection deadline, he will almost certainly never get off paying child support.

In odd cases men who are not the fathers, but have been trapped, have managed to prove they are not the father and get off paying child support, but we have seen that take years and many court appearances by the father.

Now the real rub. In a large number of cases, at the start, IRD don’t have the supposed father’s address, or they are given the wrong address (surprise, surprise). So the father never gets the IRD demand before the 28 day objection period expires. So regardless of whether or not his name is on the birth certificate, he has to pay. This works very much in IRD’s favour (they are tasked with collecting as much revenue as they can), so IRD don’t have any incentive to get the father’s address right. What’s more, IRD calculate the amount the Child Support the father (who has not responded) has to pay, and they tend to assess the father for the maximum amount. So he starts off with huge Child Support bills and quickly runs up huge penalties as he is unable to pay the huge amount of Child Support demanded.

Poke in the eye for prohibitionists

The Taranaki Daily News applauds the District Council carrying out the wishes of the majority of submitters opposing the restriction (and possible elimination) of pokie machines. My, it's good to read some commonsense.

Given the overall tenor of the submissions from the public, the committee had little choice but to recommend the status quo – and good on it for doing so. You don't not have an airport because planes may crash, and you don't not allow for the growth of facilities to cater for the increasing popularity of poker machines just because a very small minority of users abuse them.

Dubious statistics

Don't believe everything you read. For example, from Reason.com;

Last summer, in a press release that accompanied his report on secondhand smoke, Surgeon General Richard Carmona claimed "even brief exposure to secondhand smoke" adversely affects the cardiovascular system and increases the risk of heart disease. How brief? Supporters of smoking bans have been competing to answer that question, with each claim less plausible than the last.

Michael Siegel, a physician and a professor at the Boston University School of Public Health, has been tracking the claims on his blog (tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com). In November 2005, Siegel faulted the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids for asserting that "as little as 30 minutes of exposure to secondhand smoke can trigger harmful cardiovascular changes, such as increased blood clotting, that increase the risk of a heart attack." The following April, Siegel counted 65 anti-smoking groups that were attributing various adverse cardiovascular consequences, included hardening of the arteries and heart attacks, to a half-hour of second-hand smoke.

One of those groups, SmokeFree Ohio, was also claiming that merely 20 minutes of exposure causes a nonsmoker's platelets to become "as sticky as a smoker's," increasing the chance of a heart attack. Not to be outdone, SmokeFree Wisconsin began warning that after five minutes of exposure, "your body starts closing off arteries." In October the Minnesota Association for Nonsmokers declared that "just thirty seconds of exposure to secondhand smoke can make coronary artery function of non-smokers indistinguishable from [that of] smokers."

As Siegel notes, neither Carmona's report nor the "fact sheets" produced by anti-smoking groups offer evidence to support such claims. Since cardiovascular disease takes many years to develop in smokers, who absorb much larger amounts of the chemicals generated by tobacco combustion than bystanders do, the activists' accounts suggest that cigarette smoke defies the rules of toxicology, becoming more potent as the dose becomes smaller. Imagine what zero seconds of exposure could do.

I was reminded of this type of 'stretching the truth' when I read this yesterday in the Sunday Star Times;



Let's have a look at some other claims;

A New Zealand woman is killed by her (ex) partner every 2 ½ weeks. Stuff.

One woman is killed by her partner or ex-partner every five weeks. NZ Police.

Which should we go with?

Compassionate Conservatism is contagious

It's all very complicated, and I hope the National Party doesn't fall into the trap of expecting all single parents to get a job. When kids are under 5, isn't mothering or fathering a fulltime, rewarding, hugely important job? Instead of castigating DPB mums or dads with pre-school kids, we should set conditions on their being paid by the taxpayers and make sure those conditions are met: health checks, vaccinations, learn to count, read and reach all the milestones.

Now what political philosophy would one expect that view to come from? Compassionate conservatism. Deborah Coddington, the state-embracing conservative. Who would have thought it.

Of course parenting under-fives is a hugely important job. Which is exactly why we shouldn't be paying a benefit to people who don't see that or know how to do it. Those who do value parenting are those most likely to take full responsibility for it.

This 'policy' has a gaping hole in it. It doesn't stop young newcomers starting on the DPB and it doesn't stop them continuing to grow their families to maintain their DPB lifestyle. Don't forget that a majority on this benefit started there as teenagers.

And the state laying down requirements? Next she will be promoting Cindy Kiro's grand plan for all parents, on benefit or not, to submit their children for state-checkups.

I know Deborah is a sincere, caring person but it's increasingly difficult to rely on her to pursue any one idea or approach over time.

Immigration not fair on tangata whenua

Tariana Turia believes immigration is disenfranchising Maori.

The Maori Party has fielded many calls from constituents, who believe that the fact Maori did not achieve an eighth electoral seat is a direct consequence of high overall population growth that has arisen through the influx of migrants to Aotearoa.

"These callers have reminded me that tangata whenua are the only people in Aotearoa who cannot increase their numbers by immigration" said Mrs Turia. "As such, they believe it is a question of justice that present and future immigration is managed in such a way as to prevent Maori from becoming an even smaller minority in their own land".

I disagree with this statement. There are two ways Maori can increase their numbers through immigration. They can intermarry with immigrants which many have done over the years and produce children who identify primarily as Maori. (Tariana herself is a prime example apart from the marrying bit.)

And two, they could try to attract back some of the 100,000 Maori that live in Australia alone. Although I doubt those people are interested in separatism, tino rangatiratanga, etc.

Think outside the square Tariana.

Trotter twists again

From today's DomPost;




Chris Trotter has a dilemma. He fawningly approves of the Maori Party, loathes National and is disenchanted with Labour. When the Maori Party and National line up with the same policy, work-for-the-dole, he is faced with the task of praising the first and damning the second. If he gives Labour a biff at the same time that’s a bonus.

So he begins with a history lesson about the “hated relief schemes”, conveniently forgetting to mention they were a saviour to many during the depression of the 30s. These "slave camps" were the early equivalent of work-for-the-dole.

But then Pita Sharples said he wants a return to work-for-the-dole and that it should be compulsory! Which leaves Trotter no choice but to tell us, quite patronisingly, that Pita didn't really mean that at all.

“Allowing people to subsist without working turns the social welfare system into an intravenous drip, and converts confidant citizenship into demoralising dependency. That was all Pita Sharples was trying to say.”

Then comes the attack on Labour. “Mr Benson-Pope could have responded positively to the Maori Party co-leaders statements by reiterating the links between paid work, human dignity and healthy communities…...sadly, he (preferred) to interpret the Maori Party’s urgent plea to address the disproportionate number of Maori families dependent on the state for subsistence as a call for a return to the ‘Work For the Dole’ schemes formerly favoured by National.”

Hang on there. There was no interpretation needed. Sharples made a clear statement and Benson-Pope responded by slamming work-for-the-dole schemes, which is exactly the position Trotter takes.

Then Trotter says that the state is the only institution capable of solving social demoralisation, after only just blaming the state practice of putting a couple of hundred dollars in beneficiary bank accounts, with no work requirement, FOR the demoralisation.

To shed light on that seeming contradiction I will use Trotter's literary device of telling you what he really means.

What Trotter really wants is the state to use its might to heavily regulate profit and the private sector in an effort to produce higher wages and (superficial) full employment. The reason he doesn't spell it out is we all know that is a tried and failed solution.

Hone told to stay away

This augers well for a peaceful Waitangi Day. I wonder if David Rankin watched Hone Harawira on TV last night (link in post below) promising to keep his mouth closed for 8 days only. Why 8 days? Because the 9th day will be Waitangi Day. David Rankin, who describes himself as "senior to the Harawiras in Hapu" has told Hone and his mum to stay away from Waitangi.

If you wonder why I watch Maoridom and comment quite frequently it is because I am bound to point out that ALL Maori do not think the same way. And I believe their political interests would be best served by joining with non-Maori who are like-minded, not through separatism and the idea that ethnicity trumps all.

POP launches

At last!

My movie (well, I think I have about 1/100th share in it:-)) is having its New Zealand Premiere in Auckland on Waitangi Day. If you are up there get along and have a look. This movie is the product of the efforts of Aaron Keown, an amazing person who raised the funds by ringing talkback shows over and over, trying to inspire support from the audiences. And he raised what he needed for himself and his colleagues to complete a punishing schedule of filming throughout the US and Europe. It was made on a shoestring but has been phenomenally successful at the festivals, winning awards in LA and New York. Aaron has secured a US distribution deal and it will launch there on July 4. I wish I could make the premiere. If you can, please do, and tell me all about it.

Discipline a problem, says Turia

On Tuesday I made these comments about the Maori Party. I said they were making policy on the hoof and there was division amongst their MPs. Have a look at this clip from last night's TV One News and see if you can figure out who the co-leaders are.

How many Parliamentary workers are there???

The DomPost ran a poll on whether people thought John Key would be the next PM. Just over half of the votes come from Parliamentary workers and 80 percent or 13,683 of those are on Helen's team (or at least not on John's.) Even 100 workers would have to vote 136 times each. What do they do all day?

For the record I voted once. No.

Update; DPF has the inside story.

Paying no tax

Under Working for Families some families will receive back as much as they pay in tax (some more, some less) which is why it can't strictly be called either welfare or tax relief. But this is the first time I have seen a threshold specified.

Working for Families means families earning less than $35,000 will effectively pay no tax by 2008.

Is it fair for teenagers, and single low income workers to be paying tax while these families pay none? For all the blathering the Left do about slave wages and upping the minimum youth and adult rates you don't hear them protesting vigorously ( or even weakly) about this anomaly.

Scared of the truth

New research from the country which isn't afraid to ask the hard questions.

It finds, child maltreatment roughly doubles the probability that an individual engages in many types of crime.

Now, keeping to the topic of the day, that speech, did he say anything about the greater likelihood of children on the welfare being abused or neglected? No. He says business should be helping schools feed kids with empty stomachs. Sakes alive. While their hopeless parents are allowed to keep sucking on the WINZ tit?

I'm sorry but today I am very angry about the lack of political fortitude this country witnesses time and time again.

Key's speech "Ho-hum"

NZ Herald political columnist, John Armstrong described reaction to John Key's speech as "ho hum". Nicely put. I would describe the speech as a big yawn. But more from Armstrong;

The other factor against using a welfare theme is that the number of beneficiaries has dropped substantially under Labour, especially those on the unemployment register. Welfare reform is not a "hot button" issue.

Fair enough. Forget there are still almost 300,000 working age beneficiaries - double the number we had 20 years ago.

So what is a "hot button" issue? Crime. And welfare and crime are inextricably linked. Key could have given a red hot speech if he had focused on that.

The underclass isn't everybody on a benefit. It's a group of people who refuse to live in society in a peaceable, co-operative and constructive way. Their thoughts are only for today and themselves. If they aren't already criminals of some kind they are on the fringes. And it isn't an "emerging" class of people. But, judging by what we read in the newspapers and what we see on TV, or what we experience firsthand as victims, it is growing. Bugger reported crime levels. Look at victims of crime surveys.

Then if you looked at WINZ records most of these people are there. They abuse welfare, they abuse or neglect their children, they abuse each other. But most of all, they abuse opportunity.

This country, with its passion for egalitarianism, has bent over backwards to give each and every person opportunity and many have simply hurled the opportunity back in the faces of well-meaning people.

All Key's speech said to me was more of the same. Compassion. At some point somebody is going to have to say, enough compassion now. It ain't working. Not for the underclass.

Questions for the Maori Party

This really is silly season. Usually about once a year all the political parties start clamouring about welfare. It's been Orewa in the past, or some mad scheme of Maharey's, or an idea of John Tamihere. Whatever.

This time it is the Maori Party call for compulsory work-for-the -dole and Key's looming speech about the "underclass" that have talkback lines buzzing and the media in a flap. A lot of it is seat of the pants stuff. Policy on the hoof.

While I appreciate that The Maori Party are at least making some of the right noises, they haven't thought things out.

Why work-for-the-dole when employers are crying out for labour?

Why not work-and-no-dole?

Why did the Maori Party vote against the 3 month probationary employment period if they want their unemployed working?

Why, when only 17 percent of Maori beneficiaries are on the dole are they ignoring the other 83 percent?

Having made the dole much harder to get, without tightening or abolishing other benefits have they considered the migration to those?

Why do they think the state should allow children to grow up in workless DPB homes and then take on the added task of trying to teach these kids a work ethic at 17 or 18?

Why do they think their teenagers will respond any better to second chance education when they blew the first?

Why is Tariana now calling for benefits to be raised to the level of the minimum wage when that will lead to other allowances being abated?

Why is Pita Sharples saying sole parenting is accepted as part of their culture when young male Maori are searching out male role models like heat-seeking missiles?

Doesn't Sharples realise that gangs are surrogate families for fatherless kids?


The Maori Party are going to have to be much more radical than simply calling for work-for-the-dole. Somehow I suspect that Sharples knows this but Turia won't budge on the DPB. She supports teenage childbearing. When past suggestions have been made that it is problematic, and only encouraged by welfare, she has made it quite clear she will not have Maori fertility controlled by non-Maori. That is a sad and short-sighted attitude.

(It has been reported that The Maori Party is reconsidering their policy of split-voting in order to make them a more viable coalition party. Sharples however says he likes the option of being able to split their vote when they can't agree. A pointer to the division that exists.)

Incompetence (?) and centrist kite flying

Update; The NZ Herald has used these statistics to lead in today's editorial.

The level of unpaid child support in New Zealand is nothing short of a national disgrace. The latest figures show the total is $1.1 billion. To get an idea of the magnitude you need only compare it to the equivalent figure for Australia, which is $1 billion, $100 million less despite having five times our population.

As a rule, if you observe a glaring difference between Australia and NZ's welfare and related statistics, suspect it.

The original claim was made here by National MP Judith Collins.

(Judith Collins) said New Zealand's child support debts had been allowed to spiral out of control to $1.1 billion as at last June. At the same date, Australia's child support debt was only A$899.5 million ($1 billion) for a country with five times New Zealand's population.

An Australian paper published last year showed that, in 2002/03, Australia and New Zealand had comparable levels of debt per case. Australia A$1,231; New Zealand A$1,370. And check this. In 2003-04 Australia's debt was $847.60 million; New Zealand's was $339.52 million.

So how could our debt suddenly be so much higher?

David Cunliffe; "Much of the increase in child support debt is the result of penalties compounding rather than core debt itself increasing dramatically. The latest figures put core debt of liable parents who default at about $416 million, with unpaid penalties mounting to another $558 million."

Most of the $1.1 billion Collins refers to is penalties and interest. She is not comparing apples with apples. Furthermore, the Australians have been "writing-off" debt in order to get liable parents back into the system - the idea being, it is better to get some money than none. The Child Support Amendment Bill proposes doing the same but has been slammed by Collins.

So now she is using Australia's debt (with write-off) to make our debt (without write-off) look really bad, yet she opposes what would make it look better!

In the same article Judith flys a very unusual kite for a National MP.

Ms Collins said New Zealand should consider passing full child support payments on to custodial parents on the domestic purposes benefit (DPB). At present, only $151 million of the $341.3 million collected is paid to custodial parents, while the Government takes the remaining $190.4 million to offset the cost of the DPB.

"That's not party policy," Ms Collins said.

"It's something I would look at in terms of whether or not it's feasible and whether or not taxpayers can afford that."

So, as a taxpayer, can you afford to pay the share of the DPB bill liable parents currently pay?

And, remind me again, which party is this MP from? The one espousing personal responsibility?

Key obfuscating

If you have read today's SST article on John Key you'll know he is sort of...kind of... backtracking....on what he said about the DPB before he became leader.

Before; There had been "enormous growth in the number of people on the DPB, and where people have been breeding for a business."

After: There is a small number of New Zealanders who have had multiple numbers of children on the DPB. However, he stresses, it is only a small number.

Hm. So what is a small number? A 100 maybe? A 1,000 maybe. A few thousand? Try 23,000 and throw in another 3,300 on other benefits.



So would he be looking at disincentives? Well, we'd have to work through that.

And only yesterday the person largely responsible (one would imagine) for National welfare policy was suggesting increasing the amount of money taxpayers put into the DPB.

(Stats from 2005 and include children who may not have been born to the primary beneficiary but adopted, or whangai, by the beneficiary but they really are a small number.)

And before I go, I see Chris Trotter, in an amazing feat of logic, is trying to persuade readers that the resounding lack of criticism from the "far right" of John Key's centrist move just goes to show that really, he isn't a "traitor to the far-right cause" at all - he's a wolf in sheep's clothing. Chilling, absolutely.

Maori Party say DPB part of their culture

MAORI PARTY SAY DPB PART OF THEIR CULTURE

Saturday, January 27, 2007

"It is astonishing to hear the Maori Party calling for work-for-the-dole to be made compulsory but refusing to confront what is, in fact, a much bigger problem for Maori. The DPB."

Welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell said today, "Co-leaders told the New Zealand Herald that action is needed to attack entrenched attitudes to state dependency but supporting sole parenting is part of their culture."

Mitchell responded,"Yet of the 90,000 Maori working-age beneficiaries only 17 percent are on the dole. The largest proportion, 45 percent, are on the DPB. "

"While being on a benefit is described as an 'unhealthy' experience by the Maori Party, being on the dole only directly affects the recipient. Being on the DPB affects the children, the next generation, and Maori tend to stay on it longest. Add to that, children raised on the DPB are more likely to be abused or neglected, suffer health problems and struggle educationally."

"In particular, overseas research has shown that mothers aged 17 and younger are twice as likely to have a child placed in fostercare, to be reported for child abuse or neglect, and to have a son sent to prison. The largest ethnic group of 16 and 17 year-olds on the DPB (EMA) are Maori."

"Paying babies to have babies, Maori and non-Maori, is the most pernicious aspect of our benefit system and must change. As the practice disproportionately involves their people, it isn't good enough for the Maori Party to say, it's OK because it's part of our culture."

"It also appears some traditional Maori sexism is being expressed. It is alright for Maori females to be dependent on the state but not Maori males. That attitude will only further encourage sole parenting and fatherless families."

"Maori, like non-Maori, should be aiming to be self-supporting and contributing New Zealanders."

Ageing

Most of the friends I grew up with have grown up kids. The advantage is their kids have usually learnt some tact. Mine haven't. "I don't like it when the hairdresser puts that cap thing on you. It makes you look old."

"Did you know your elbows are wrinkled?"

Yesterday I booked a horse trek for them. And me. Hoping wildly I can mount the horse. Last time I tried I encountered serious difficulty. But then that was Bob, the enormous Clydesdale at Staglands. Here's hoping they give me a skinny one. Seriously, my husband was intrigued when I asked him if he knew of any studies that showed ageing sexually active women have more hip replacements.

Last week I dropped my 8 year-old off at a cartoon drawing course run by Aussies. The girl on reception urged my daughter to "say bye bye to mummy...or Grandma". I know the Aussies are not PC but hell's bells. If in doubt wouldn't you stick with mummy?

Then we went fishing. Much admonishment from me about hanging on tightly to the rod and makeshift sticks and twine. Especially since I'd bought new sinkers. You guessed . The one with the arthritic hand dropped her hook, link and sinker off the wharf into non-retrievable seas.

Early afternoon often means a swim down at the beach. NOT ME SILLY. The kids. I keep an eagle eye on them...until I nod off in the sun that is.

So I am trying to think of some advantages to being an 'older' parent. I'm not neurotic about their diet and health? My youngest had to be weaned at a disgraceful age by the only means possible. Coca cola. What an admission. What a robust, never-a-day-off-school kid she is.

I don't "stress-out" over what they watch. Yesterday I had the 8 year-old doing Vicky Pollard imitations at the library. Last night I actually sat and watched Little Britain with them. Good God. It's rough. What the heck will the librarians think of me?

I'm not obsessed with finding alternative methods of discipline. An infrequent slap works.

You might think being of an older generation I would be blessed with great domestic skills but my daughter will tell you, as she did me, "You're not much of a home-maker are you?"

So would I swap myself for a younger version? Absolutely.

Still, my own mother insists I look much younger than I am. Yet another way in which she is quite unique. Thanks Mum.

Healthy eating hogwash

A new study shows that it isn't much more costly to eat healthy food than unhealthy. We needed a study to tell us that? The guinea pig shoppers were confined to certain products and one outlet. What about markets, discount stores and growing or picking your own produce? Or are low income people too stupid to shop around? Of course they aren't.

But this is what caught my eye.

The study appears in the latest New Zealand Medical Journal. An accompanying editorial by public health researchers at Otago University urges for action to reduce the price of healthy foods.

It suggests the Government consider schemes such as providing vouchers for fruits and vegetable discounts for low-income families and a mandatory traffic light system for foods as a simple way of indicating a food's health benefit or detriment.

Next month, Dr Ni Mhurchu will start recruiting 1200 supermarket shoppers for a Wellington trial looking to see if a discount of 12.5 per cent (the rate of GST) on healthier foods will spur people to buy more healthy foods.

First, voucher schemes can and will get ripped off. The voucher has a value to A but not to B. This alone shows it is B who really needs to use it. But B sells it to A for a smaller amount of cash than the voucher's redeemable value. Both parties are happy. And the desired result has not been achieved.

Second, GST off healthy food? What a bun fight that would be. For instance only last year Food Standards Australia New Zealand questioned whether fruit with over a certain amount of sugar was in fact healthy.

Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) has released draft guidelines governing nutrition and health claims made about food.

Under the draft, foods with more than 16 grams of sugar per serve can not be advertised as healthy, ruling out fruits like mangoes, grapes and apples.

Again I shake my head at what we get served up from (some) academics. The 'solutions' are generally to be driven by government action, involve costly redistribution and administration and inevitably cannot be demonstrated to improve matters.

"Dead people given benefits"

That's the headline in a DomPost story today.

The DomPost got figures under the OIA showing 600 people had continued to receive social security payments four weeks after their death.

National Welfare spokesperson, Judith Collins picks up on it and puts out a release saying, New figures show that 600 deceased beneficiaries wrongly received $380,000 from the taxpayer in the first 10 months of last year.

What Collins doesn't mention is that 90 percent of them were superannuitants, who, to my mind, are not beneficiaries - they receive Super, not a benefit. Others included veterans who are also not beneficiaries but pensioners.

That aside, data matching has improved the problem and as welfare problems go, it doesn't keep me awake at night.

Some meaningful welfare criticism (and policy) from National wouldn't go amiss. Problem is, with their current centrist approach there is nothing to offer beyond management quibbles.

Come to think of it, with their be-nice-to-everybody philosophy, this could be the best policy we get. No more Super for dead guys. Would you vote for that?

Privatising health the wrong way

Health funding is a huge yawn. But it's one of the biggest political problems the world over. Now Germany has come up with a novel way for the state to get out of the difficult dilemma of facing greater health needs than available funds. Pass it on to the private sector and legislate their mandatory acceptance. That's what the latest plan entails. The insurance company cannot refuse people and cannot control the premiums they charge. Result - the insurer will have to subsidise policies for some by charging others more and some insurers will simply bite the dust (very good for competition).

And when you think about what our government did to Telecom, well it's not inconceivable they might find this idea very attractive.

Paternity testing

I have never blogged about the Jayden Headley case because it saddens me to see the child dragged through the court and splashed all over the media. This morning's revelation about a false DNA sample did trigger some thoughts however.

DNA testing for paternity is a bit of a minefield. I know at least one father's group want mandatory testing at birth. Given so many partnerships do not last and child support can cost men thousands of dollars, sometimes with no corresponding 'rights' to father, I would support voluntary DNA testing. It could be offered as routine at birth (as part of the heel prick sample?) if the mother and father request it. If the mother refuses then so be it. BUT that will certainly leave a large question mark over his paternity, at which point he may want to do what others have done and send a sample to an overseas lab. It sounds awful. I know. But a male has the right to know he is the father of a child.

Think of it like a pre-nuptial agreement. Nobody has to have, or agree to sign one, but it protects one or possibly both parties. At the same time however, asking a partner to sign a pre-nup could have the same negative effect as asking for a DNA test to be run on a newborn. What about trust? A lack of trust is not a sound basis for a relationship.

In the end it is up to the individuals involved. DNA testing for paternity should be more accessible.

Key tells Maori they have "special status"

According to Radio Live, John Key is at Ratana telling Maori they have "special status" in this country.

When government accords one group special status they are by necessity taking from another. There can be no privilege without some corresponding disadvantage. If one individual or group is "special" then others are not. Unless of course we are all special (the sort of gobbledy gook you hear these days) in which case there is no point in pointing it out.

This is not the way forward. Integration and intermarriage are good. Assimilation or separatism are not. Certainly people should be able to preserve their culture and beliefs but that is not for the government to control.

Brash was hugely misunderstood by many Maori and many non-Maori. He simply espoused equal and individual rights. No more and no less. Until we understand and embrace this concept we will continue to have strife and division.

Aussie men not at work

Australia's Productivity Commission has found that half of the 900,000 men outside the workforce and not trying to get in, are on disability benefits. It claims, however, that most are not severely disabled and could find work if they had the motivation and the opportunity.


The Commission, in the first government inquiry into the huge increase in male joblessness, found that 9 percent of men aged 25 to 44 are not even looking for work - up from 2 percent in the seventies.

How does New Zealand compare?

Comparative figures at June 2005;

NZ Sickness and Invalid benefits 118,362
Male 55%
Female 45%

Australia Disability pension 706,800
Male 59%
Female 41%

NZ Unemployment benefit 50,714
Male 65%
Female 35%

Australia Newstart 453,700
Male 66%
Female 34%

New Zealand has a slightly lower percentage of people aged 15-64 at 66.1 percent compared to Australia's 67.3 percent but, for the purpose of comparison, roughly speaking the Australian caseloads should be 5 times more than NZ's. In fact their incapacity benefits are 6 times greater and unemployment, 9 times greater.

I suppose we should be celebrating our better performance. Does it make up for the cricket?

Ministry will shut down critical website

Apparently Ministry Of Social Development CEO Peter Hughes has instructed lawyers to work 24/7 doing whatever they have to, to shut down the CYFS Watch blogsite. This should be interesting.

Update; Police called in over CYF blog (damn e-link function broken again. The report is at www.newstalkzb.co.nz)

Update 2; Just listened to Larry Williams talking to MSD CEO Peter Hughes about the CYFS Watch blog and the threat it apparently poses to the safety of his staff.

The people most likely to pose any threat to a social worker would be those immediately involved and who could get the information , eg car registration number, directly - not from a blog site.

I have some sympathy for My Hughes' view that CYFS are "damned if they do and damned if they don't", but I think pushing the angle that this site poses a threat to the safety of his staff is a red herring. His actions are about containing a potential (and very public) avalanche of angry and bitter disgruntlement with his agency.

Secret to longevity?

You could joke about people feeling like they live longer in prison ...... but surprisingly, in the US, they actually do, at least blacks do and they skew the average.

State prison inmates, particularly blacks, are living longer on average than people on the outside, the government said Sunday.

* Inmates in state prisons are dying at an average yearly rate of 250 per 100,000, according to the latest figures reported to the Justice Department by state prison officials.
* By comparison, the overall population of people between age 15 and 64 is dying at a yearly rate of 308 per 100,000.
* For black inmates, the rate was 57 percent lower than among the overall black population -- 206 versus 484.
* But white and Hispanic prisoners both had death rates slightly above their counterparts in the overall population.

"You must help yourself"

Recalcitrant drink-driving is now the fault of the courts because of a lack of addiction treatment resources. That's pretty much the message inherent in the lead story in today's DomPost. This will come as great news to the 'it's not my fault, I'm a victim too' brigade.

The e-link doesn't show you the character below the main story, a 46 year-old recovering alcoholic who says, "you must help yourself", which appears as a sub-heading. Now I am not clear whether this is a complaint or sage advice but as headlines go it makes a welcome change.

What does National mean?

Reading an interview with Jackie Blue, newly appointed National spokesperson for Women's Affairs, this caught my eye;

Does the party need to be more centrist and if so why?

I think it does need to be more centrist. I think John has already taken away all ambiguity that there was with the previous leadership and I think that's a good thing. I know we will be staying true to our National values and core beliefs.

So what are they?


• Loyalty to our country, its democratic principles and our Sovereign
as Head of State
• National and personal security
• Equal citizenship and equal opportunity
• Individual freedom and choice
• Personal responsibility
• Competitive enterprise and rewards for achievement
• Limited government
• Strong families and caring communities
• Sustainable development of our environment

Reinstating a spokesperson role pushing for more resources for a particular group is the antithesis of limiting government. That is exactly how governments get so big. So already National is not "staying true" to their values, unless of course they mean limited to the status quo, in which case I am being uncharitable.

What exactly does National mean by 'limited government'?

Anti-CYF internet action

A group has set up an anti-CYF website which is the subject of this news report.

The report obviously doesn't advertise the name of the website and the only one I am aware of is PANIC

Does anybody know of a new website? Again we see the synergistic power of the internet at work. To what end I am unsure.

They can't be swept under the carpet

One of the reasons youth offenders are not detained in custody is there is nowhere to detain them. As recently as 2003 (and I am sure the rate will not have dropped) there were 215 apprehensions per 10,000 14-16 year-olds for violent offences. There are roughly 180,000 14-16 year-olds so almost 4,000 apprehensions in total.

Add to this violent offending of 10-13 year-olds (40 per 10,000 so roughly 1,000 in total).

5,000 violent offences.

CYF has a grand total of 102 beds available in its three Youth Justice residences. Hence young people spent 1,766 nights in police cells during 2006. Locked up with god knows who else. The approach to youth justice seems underpinned by a philosophy of denial. And it has been for at least 30 years. Or since the passage of the Children and Young Persons Act 1974, the broad objective of which was to deal with young people out of Court.

Giving the offender the benefit of the doubt appears to take precedence over any concerns for public safety. It also sits comfortably alongside the practical constraints.

The massive growth of income tax

In 1900 the government had a revenue of £6.195 million

Income tax provided only 2 percent of the revenue, slightly more than beer duty at 1.3 percent. The big ticket items were;

Customs duties 34%
Railways 26%
Stamps 14%

In 2005 Government revenue was $50.858 billion

Income tax provided 63 percent.

In 1900 the government played a constructive and very limited role. Today ...(add your own conclusion).

Public vs private charity

There is a debate going on at Cactus Kate's site about private vs public charity, charity being the giving of resources to the poor or needy. Some people want the government right out of it. Others want the government to continue on being the main provider through the welfare state.

There is risk in every life. Risk of sickness, disability, death of a partner, unemployment, etc. And so individuals feel they must make provision for these possibilities, even though the risks have lessened over time rather than increased.

In the early part of last century the debate was about whether the government should be the insurer. The 1938 Social Security Act developed a plethora of benefits which were all funded from one social security tax (absorbed into general taxation in the 60s). People were delighted with it. A great deal of suffering was alleviated. As there existed a commonality of values the scheme was appreciated, not abused. (Although there were problems with the then quite separate rural Maori society with benefits supposed to be for the indivual or children, being abused by the wider whanau).

But, as long as the numbers stayed low and the recipients were genuine, society was reasonably pleased with the set up. And government was just as suited to fill the role as any private charity or friendly society.

Unfortunately, as values changed, the permissive society evolved, sexual liberation proliferated, feminisim raged, non-judgementalism became the new religion, people demanded more rights, more welfare and the government had to loosen eligibility. For instance, before the sixties a person who had themselves caused the condition that prevented them from working eg an alcoholic, wasn't eligible for a sickness benefit. Before the sixties single mothers were helped by the state but didn't automatically qualify for a benefit.

So what we now have (as in all welfare states) is a group of people who have retained values like honesty, a work ethic, those sometimes called judeo-christian and they are clashing with others' values or lack of. The first no longer want to pay for the welfare of the second although they would still be happy to help the genuine.

So the question arises, is government the best agency to provide charity, given what has developed?

The answer as it stands is no. Not only because of the fact it takes money for welfare off people who no longer want to 'buy-in' but also because of the diversity of opinion about just who is deserving and who isn't.

Here's the thing though. As long as the government continues to insist on being the major player using taxpayer money, people are not inclined to further support private charities - and even some of those have become socialist enclaves constantly advocating for more government redistribution from 'rich' to 'poor' instead of doing the work of getting people back on their feet.

Ultimately the answer will have to come from government. It'll take a very brave one (and they aren't unheard of) prepared to do a number of things.

A/ Close down working-age welfare to newcomers except in a tightly specified cases eg people whose disabilies or illnesses genuinely prevent them from working and have no other source of income eg immediate family
B/ Allow people to opt-out of the existing welfare system. No tax - no benefits
C/ Make donations to private charities fully tax deductible
D/ Make insurance premiums for loss of earnings or loss of partner (including separation) policies tax deductible
E/ Put considerably more money into Law and Order
F/ Encourage adoption ahead of fostering

Unlike absolutist libertarians I am not overly concerned with banishing government from any charitable role or constantly focusing on it as the sole source of our social problems. Let those who can (most), make their own provisions and make it easier for them to support private organisations that will work with those the government no longer supports.

There is no utopia. Things will get worse before they get better. Society is constantly changing and policy causes those changes as well as responds to them. We are dynamic beings individually and collectively. And in states older than ours, historically, the provision of welfare has swung between public and private. We are merely repeating that pattern. The pendulum is possibly at the extreme point in its trajectory but will by necessity and nature soon change direction.

Not an isolated case

Through volunteer work I occasionally come across a woman like this. They are perfectly nice, well-meaning, sociable and reasonable beings until they start drinking and they they turn into nasty, brawling bingers who can stay drunk for days. And the trick with the beer bottle is pretty typical.

Clarification

'Of course, a positive correlation by itself is not enough to deduce a causal relationship, but certainly one would be very foolish to conclude from the evidence that "the link between maltreatment and heart disease is NOT CAUSED by growing up in poorer families..."

This is a comment from Rose in response to a post yesterday. She admits not reading the newspaper report and then questions whether I have. Rose, I wouldn't write a post without checking my facts.

Are you saying the researchers are "very foolish"? Quote;

The study also showed that the link between maltreatment and inflammation was not caused by growing up in poorer families or with a less healthy lifestyle.

Do you know what that means? They controlled for those factors. They must have found the link existed even where families were more affluent and had healthier lifestyles.To me that is the most interesting aspect of this particular paper.

And it is notable that the Public Health Association chose to ignore this aspect and instead talk about child maltreatment and smacking (as if they are one and the same thing) in order to further promote Sue Bradford's bill.

Just for good measure here is what the actual paper says (with my emphasis).

Abstract;
Stress in early life has been associated with insufficient glucocorticoid signaling in adulthood, possibly affecting inflammation processes. Childhood maltreatment has been linked to increased risk of adult disease with potential inflammatory origin. However, the impact of early life stress on adult inflammation is not known in humans. We tested the life-course association between childhood maltreatment and adult inflammation in a birth cohort followed to age 32 years as part of the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study. Regression models were used to estimate the effect of maltreatment on inflammation, adjusting for co-occurring risk factors and potential mediating variables. Maltreated children showed a significant and graded increase in the risk for clinically relevant C-reactive protein levels 20 years later, in adulthood [risk ratio (RR) = 1.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.26-2.58]. The effect of childhood maltreatment on adult inflammation was independent of the influence of co-occurring early life risks (RR = 1.58, 95% CI = 1.08-2.31), stress in adulthood (RR = 1.64, 95% CI = 1.12-2.39), and adult health and health behavior (RR = 1.76, 95% CI = 1.23-2.51). More than 10% of cases of low-grade inflammation in the population, as indexed by high C-reactive protein, may be attributable to childhood maltreatment. The association between maltreatment and adult inflammation also generalizes to fibrinogen and white blood cell count. Childhood maltreatment is a previously undescribed, independent, and preventable risk factor for inflammation in adulthood. Inflammation may be an important developmental mediator linking adverse experiences in early life to poor adult health.

Dunne in high dudgeon

If there is a politician that can elicit a laugh completely devoid of humour it is Peter Dunne. Here he is today sanctimoniously upbraiding the Greens;

"In my opinion it is extremely short-sighted of the Greens to criticise others and take the moral high ground when the fact of the matter is that the only way they will be able to significantly contribute to future solutions will be to work alongside other parties......scorecards are not the way to foster cooperation"

Hilarious. From the man who keeps a scorecard on the behaviour of his fellow MPs like, as the Waikato Times once pointed out, a "school boy snitch."

This is also the man who vowed not to be part of any coalition Government if a Green MP held a cabinet post.

Personally I would take the Greens over United Future any day of the week.

"Kia kaha, stay strong"

According to a NewstalkZB reporter those were the words called out to the 15 year-old accused killer of 77-year-old Doreen Reed. The family stood for the duration of his appearance and while there was much expression of sorrow from both parties there was seemingly none of shame.

Perhaps they do not believe their kid did it. Maybe he didn't. But is this how you would behave in their position?

Last night I heard he was out on bail and under curfew when he allegedly committed the crime. I see no reports confirming this. But if it is true, and he is the killer, then I can only go back to my post of just two days ago. Build the facilities. Lock them up. Stop the leniency. The first duty of a government is to protect its citizens. They are failing miserably. And it isn't just the direct victims and their families who suffer. There will be elderly people living alone unable to sleep at night. We can't keep on accepting the further erosion of our quality of life.

Spin by ommission

Yesterday newspapers reported the release of another paper from the ongoing Dunedin Multi-disciplinary Health and Development Study. It found that child maltreatment was linked to heart disaese in later life due to the body's inflammatory reaction to stress. Here is one response from the Public Health Association, who spin it as another reason to ban smacking;

"Gay Keating of the Public Health Association says the report is a wake-up call for families, politicians, health services and society in general. She says it highlights the impact hitting children as a form of discipline can have. Ms Keating says the law regarding smacking needs to be changed and parents must learn how to exercise discipline without causing damage."

Of course one couldn't expect Gay Keating to put out the following;

"A new report shows that the link between maltreatment and heart disease is not caused by growing up in poorer families or with less healthy lifestyles therefore the policies we have been promoting, increasing benefit levels for example, are not the answer after all."

Fewer husbands in situ

OVER HALF OF WOMEN ARE NOW LIVING WITHOUT SPOUSE

For what experts say is probably the first time, more American women are living without a husband than with one, according to a New York Times analysis of census results.

* In 2005, 51 percent of women said they were living without a spouse, up from 35 percent in 1950 and 49 percent in 2000.
* In 2005 married couples became a minority of all American households for the first time.

The above is from the US National Center for Policy Analysis (sorry, links down again). In NZ the single person household is the fastest growing type. In 2006 51.5 people (15 years+) were never married or separated.

Of course there is more behind this than women simply rejecting men (or vice versa) although I seem to know truckloads who have. Now that females are no longer necessarily economically dependent on males it would appear many are staying out or getting out of marriages. The article cites women marrying later and living longer as factors. Low marriage rates amongst Blacks and Hispanics (and here, Maori) are also adding to the trend.

Perhaps this trend is merely a reflection of less permanence in our lives. In partnerships, jobs and homes. As one who values security I don't think it is a positive trend. But then I am probably just an old fuddy-duddy (a word I heard Richard Branson using the other day but have forgotten in what context.)

Good on Rodney Hide

"And I'm buggered if I know what the Nats stand for other than doing whatever Labour does but promising to do it better."

Good to see the gloves off.

Apparently Bill English thinks ACT are now irrelevant. There was discussion of this on Radio Live yesterday after an interview with English appeared in Investigate.

Under Don Brash and pushing ACT policies National did manage to make ACT irrelevant.

Under English ACT was relevant.

He can't now swan back onto the stage with the same centrist agenda and hope that ACT will stay irrelvant. Saying it will not make it so.

The rapist

After some further thought, the rapist already referred to said he "just wanted to have sex". Pretty much like he just wanted pizza except he didn't steal that.

People like this are emotionally stunted. They have the thought processes of very young children but the needs and drives of adults, which makes them unpredictable and dangerous.

Beyond the remand facilities being full, I cannot understand why he was granted bail. Add to that, he has now seen himself portrayed in the media being 'staunch' (making foul gestures) and with his severely limited moral capacities is probably feeling quite pleased with himself. Soon he will be wanting more attention.

It seems to me that justice officials are constantly taking unacceptable risks with public safety. The unavoidable conclusion is we must build more lock- up facilities, especially for young offenders. Whatever follows that is a secondary consideration.

Work-testing "draconian"

The following are excerpts from an article about Australian welfare reform posted at the World Socialist Web Site;

The new, far more draconian, system also affects single parents and the disabled, many of whom have been placed on Newstart Allowances (unemployment benefits), rather than Parenting Payments or Disability Support Pensions, for the first time from July 1. Those now being subjected to the “work test” include single parents whose youngest child has turned eight, partnered parents when their youngest child turns six, and disabled people deemed able to work between 15 and 29 hours per week.

...In addition to these measures, Family Services Minister Mal Brough recently unveiled a planned voucher scheme to restrict welfare benefits where the government alleges that children are being neglected.

Up to 40 percent of payments will be denied to drug and alcohol addicted parents, parents who allegedly gamble and parents whose children regularly skip school. Instead they will receive vouchers that can be used only on food, rent, clothing and essential bills. Brough said discussions with retailers and software companies had come up with a plan to issue a debit card that could not be used to buy certain items such as junk food or cigarettes.

This system will lead to discrimination and public humiliation, with those on vouchers assumed to be neglectful or drug-addicted.

By now I should be used to socialist views but ...I'm not. They don't accept any obligation on the behalf of people on benefits, they reject any kind of alternative work as demeaning, they express no concern about children having drug and alcohol-addicted parents but worse, all the usual suspects come out supporting them. Many of today's charities have lost their way. Traditionally charity theorists understood the principles of helping people help themselves and the value of reciprocity. Now they just indulge and manage and demand the government funds them to do it. And I could say something platitudinous about being part of the problem...

Updated blog

Just updated my artist blog. I was going to post my gorgeous niece here but didn't want to put her on the same page as below scumbag.

It was dashed off as a last minute Xmas present for my brother. The other painting is of my friends daughter, the enigmatic Katie, also a present.

Senator's small-mindedness

The suggestion that Condoleezza Rice is incapable of understanding the anguish caused by American losses in Iraq because she has never had children has triggered a feminist firestorm.

Having to put up with this sort of waspishness at least means Condoleezza Rice and our PM have something in common.

I wonder what box Senator Barbara Boxer would put Helen Clark in?

This is rape

This is rape.

So many murders

Does anyone know how many murders there have been in 2007? If the Christchurch child is included, 6.

A woman was heard on the TV saying when she was a child one could recite the names of all the people murdered in a year. Some skepticism was expressed about this but I countered, she is right. In the sixties you could count the murders on one hand. As it stands we have already equalled the total for 1968 and 69 combined.

To vaccinate or not?

A US debate we will soon be having here - http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID
=42093

Should the vaccine against cervical cancer be compulsory for adolescent girls? It's a relative question for our family. One I haven't given much thought to as yet. I would oppose compulsion naturally but that still leaves a decision which is beyond a 11 or 12 year-old to make. This is tricky stuff.

'Rape' education

Oh Crikey has drawn my attention to the type of programme Rape Crisis is running for students. It seems to me they are redefining what constitutes rape. Not legally of course, but by suggestion. Sorry if you find the following a bit off but this is an important subject. This is copied from the PDF file they use;

Is this rape?

Jo is a Year 13 Student at XX High School. She is at a party on a Saturday night. Jared is going to be there and she’s been trying to hook up with him for awhile. She’s wearing a short skirt, boots, and a low cut top –she’s sure to catch his attention –She looks great. Jo and her friends drink a few bottles of wine before
they get to the party and she feels pretty drunk by the time they arrive. At the party she starts talking with Jared, he asks if she wants to go up to one of the bedrooms –they walk up the stairs followed by comments from Jared’s mates as they close the door.

In the room they start kissing, and Jared is putting his hands up her top and down her pants, she likes it and starts touching Jared. Jared then takes off his pants and hers. Jo starts to feel uncomfortable and pulls back a bit, and pulls her underwear back up. She doesn’t want to have sex with Jared but doesn’t know how to stop it. Everyone at the party thinks they’re having sex, and she doesn’t want Jared to think she’s tight. Jared pulls her knickers back down and they have sex.

Apparently under students responses one says, "...I didn’t know the things I do are rape.”

What is your answer? I say no it isn't. Neither is it sexual abuse.

(Links still not working)

When self-esteem is more important than the truth

Sometimes we tell little white lies to spare people's feelings. I have found myself trying to explain why this is OK to my children. Maybe it isn't. This sort of censorship certainly isn't.

(Hat tip Reason.com)

Madame Secretary

What a stunning photo this is from The Times UK. It contrasts strongly with the images we usually get of Condoleezza Rice. There is a rawness about it I find utterly compelling. What a god-awful job.

Rewriting history

The NZ Herald is running a series of extracts from a book, New Zealand as it might have been. This one is from Jon Johansson. The words are those of Jim Bolger in a speech where he rejects Ruth Richardson's budget and we all live happily ever after.

"I utterly reject having my Government driven by ideologues who know the value of nothing other than the purity of their imported theories. I completely reject these obsessed purists who put the balancing of the country's books ahead of balancing the nation's needs."

That caught my eye because it's pretty much what Richard Randerson was saying earlier in the week. As a commenter pointed out, without resources nobody's needs will be catered to.

Luxury offices

The new Ministry of Health offices are extremely nice, better than any recently visited in the private sector and there are wall-to-wall people. Quote from my nearest and dearest.

The Cancer Society chief describes them as "amazing" and "at the premium end of the accommodation scale". (See Stuff - links still not working).

They cost $6 million.

The cost of settling the radiologists strike?

$150,000

(The MOH bureaucrats probably held a meeting and made the decision thus; if we give the DHBs enough to settle the radiologists pay claim that'll open the floodgates to all manner of health professionals and we will be up for millions. So we may as well spend what we've got on ourselves.)

Health system 'morally deficient'

The Anglican Church is having a go at the government over the radiologists strike.

Bishop Richard Randerson says, "A system that fails to discern the priority of the importance of human wellbeing ahead of finance is morally deficient."

Isn't this a bit naive? Human wellbeing and economic wellbeing are intrinsically tied to each other, albeit not always exclusively.

The public health system is immoral because it takes money off people under the pretext of providing 'free health' and then it fails to deliver.

But as it monopolises the NZ health sector the government must meet the radiologists claims. We are stuck with it long term and if we fail to pay health professionals competitively then we won't keep or attract them.

(The release is a www.scoop.co.nz but now blogger links are not working. One thing after another.)

Growth in invalid's benefit under spotlight

Media Release
GROWTH IN INVALID'S BENEFIT UNDER THE SPOTLIGHT
Tuesday, January 9, 2007

In the 1970s around 1% of working age people were receiving a Sickness benefit, an Invalid's benefit or ACC. The percentage climbed to 5% by June 2002. So finds a new report which analyses reasons for the rapid growth of invalid benefit receipt.

Welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell says, "The report confirms my own observation, that the large increase in numbers on the invalid's benefit cannot be fully explained by growth or ageing of the population, even though those are the reasons most commonly cited by the Minister of Social Development."

"The report finds that more than half of the growth is explained by an increase in the proportion of people aged 15-59 taking up the invalid's benefit. The inflow in all age groups was higher in 2002 than in 1993. Within the 15-59 age group around 60 percent came from other benefits, mainly the sickness benefit. (How many of these had originally been transfers from the unemployment benefit is not examined)."

"The numbers grew, in part, due to the long duration of stay associated with the invalid's benefit, transfers from other benefits and the gap between grants and cessations widening."

"When examining the types of incapacities experienced by people moving onto an invalid's benefit, the report finds that around two-thirds of the growth in inflow rates at ages 15-59 between 1996 and 2002 was associated with mental disorders. Of the total mental disorders, depression accounted for 29 percent. (Doctor's assessment forms have included tick boxes for 'stress' and 'depression' since 1995.) Substance abuse was the highest-ranked incapacity for almost 8 percent. (An individual can have up to four incapacities listed). Musculo-skeletal incapacities, which may be associated with obesity, account for most of the remainder. Cancer and circulatory and nervous system conditions did not contribute to the overall growth of inflow rates."

"The report also finds the rate of growth in inflows was most rapid for Maori and Pacific people - 41% and 36% respectively, compared to 24% of NZ European and other European grouping, although changes in recording and coding may partly account for this. "

"For Maori and Pacific people the growth has been associated with a wider range of incapacities, with schizophrenia being the largest additional contributor for Maori and for Pacific people, circulatory conditions. These ethnicities are also experiencing a greater share of the growth due to chronic disease."

"There is also speculation that the high unemployment of the early nineties contributed as people with ill health and disabilities remained 'at the back of the queue' for new jobs and gradually migrated from an unemployment benefit to an incapacity benefit. My own research has shown this is consistent with other countries which experienced high unemployment during the early nineties, including the UK and Australia."

"Quoting other work, the report suggests that over time joblessness would be measured less as unemployment and more as 'incapacity-related non- participation'."

Mitchell notes, "This, in part, explains our record low 'unemployment' rate while around 11 percent of the working aged population remain on benefits."

Additional information; There are currently around 78,000 people receiving an invalid's benefit. 21 percent are Maori, 4 percent are Pacific people, 53 percent are male. 67 percent are aged 54 or younger.

Sentencing

A poll in the NZ Herald asks what sentence a convicted killer should receive and gives four options;

1/ 10-20 years
2/ 20-30 years
3/ Life - without the possibility of parole
4/ The death sentence

The major problem is of course there are killings and there are killings. Someone who kills in defence or under extreme provocation is not the same kettle of fish as the character who has prompted this poll.

But even in his case should the first sentence he received be exactly the same as the next one?

That said, I am assuming the respondents have his case in mind - at least I hope they do. The results so far are respectively 5, 20, 48 and 27 percent.

Based on this poll, the current sentencing laws are well out of step with what the public wants. (This is not an endorsement of what they want - merely an observation).

My irksome irrationality

Having grown up a risk-taker I find my increasing and irrational caution very irksome. The latest murder attributed to Graeme Burton reinforces a decision I made after Kate Alchemer was murdered by the Hutt River. I decided not to take the kids (then quite young) walking in isolated places anymore. The eastern hills firebreaks for instance, which we'ed been up previously.

I know, I know. What are the chances?? Probably safer there then in the car or at home. But I just don't feel at ease walking the reserves and hills now so the pleasure has gone.

Earlier in the year my son and I cycled out to Pencarrow on a week day. It is very remote. A motorboat appeared just offshore and I made a game of hiding us behind some rocks. My boy thought I was being funny. I was...and I wasn't. Neurotic? Probably.

Not long ago I had to haul some mongrel off my dog. It was deadly serious and it took repeated thumps on its muzzle, with me straddling it, to get the animal to release her. All the while the stupified owner gaped on. I'm over that episode and back to regarding other dogs as innocuous beasts once more. Griffy can have a decent walk, off the leash and free to roam the beach.

It's just a struggle sometimes finding the right balance between being carefree and over-careful.

Anyway, off to the garden centre. Should be out of harms way there I reckon.

Laws on the 'underclass'

In his Sunday Star Times column today, Michael Laws predicts more violence for 2007. I would agree if for no other reason than there is nothing happening to reverse the trend.

Reviewing the much-proffered causes, he lists media violence, a decline in moral standards and even consumption of KFC.

"But the truth is a little more prosaic. Simply, we have bred an underclass in New Zealand. They are disproportionately brown, uneducated, and habitues of Income Support. And we have no idea what to do with them.

They were nascent in 1987, entrenched in 1997. And they are now legion in 2007. And they are almost wholly responsible for the sharp increases in murder and violent crime statistics and child abuse reports, the spike in truancy and incarceration rates.

Indeed remove the underclass from this country's social statistics and we would be a paradise on earth. Admittedly a cold and pluvial paradise but at least your television news would feature outrages from overseas rather than some devilish deeds done domestically."

Couple of points. Any first world country would be 'a paradise on earth' if they removed their underclass statistics. We are not unique.

Law's also claims that the underclass was 'nascent' in 1987 which links its birth to the economic reforms. That is a myth.

The underclass has always been there but we didn't pay it much heed until government and academia - like modern day missionaries - decided it was a problem, something to be corrected.

It started to expand rapidly from the 60s. Maori urbanisation and Pacific migration (the second to a much lesser extent), the rise in single parent births leading to loss of family links (particularly corrosive for Maori), increasing availability and consumption of drugs and alcohol, and, of course, welfare as a 'right', all contributed to its significant growth.

Finally, "We have no idea what to do with them". He's right. But we are going to have to figure it out soon.

We could do little better than looking to the past and admitting that some practices and philosophies worked better - they weren't perfect - just better.

'Free' counselling

Advice for everybody (except Oswald who never stops) returning to work next week. Read it. After all, you are, in part, paying the salaries of these agony aunts.

Societal self-delusion

Apologies for the quality of this scan but enlarging the image will render it readable. It is an excerpt from a book published in 1977, Social Welfare and New Zealand Society. A series of contributions, this is from Family and Community, and written by A Webster, a (then) Senior Lecturer in Education, Massey and L Williams, a researcher/honorary probation worker.

It is, in a way, quite shocking, especially given the kind of policy they are criticising has developed substantially in the subsequent thirty years, as have the consequences;




And later in the same chapter;




And finally on what type of philosophy should inform policy;

Stupid statist 'solution'

Here's the problem;

A survey in November 2005 found that three out of four British companies actively discriminated against women of child-bearing age who applied for jobs. The report found a growing trend of rejecting women applicants because they might leave to have babies. Recent research suggests that more than a third of employers believe pregnancy is "an undue cost burden" and many pregnant women face pay cuts or hostile treatment on their return to work.

And here's the solution;

Every pregnant woman in Scotland will receive an employment "bill of rights" at her 12-week scan as part of a campaign to stamp out sex discrimination at work, The Scotsman has learned.

The scheme, to be introduced by the Equal Opportunities Commission Scotland early this year, is designed to bolster the rights of pregnant women across the country.

The document will provide a comprehensive guide to an employer's responsibilities, and includes a tear-off section for women to give to their bosses.

It explains how employers must conduct a risk assessment to protect the woman and her unborn baby while at work. She is also guarded against unfair treatment, including dismissal, connected with the pregnancy.

What's a bet the solution compounds the problem. Asinine stuff.

"Beyond the spin-doctoring democracy is at work"

That's the title of this column by Nicky Hager in today's DomPost;


Refusing to financially support Hager I haven't purchased and read his book but have a couple of responses to this.

First, it further serves to highlight the urgent need to find out exactly how Hager got the information on which his book is based. His story continues to strongly contradict National's.

Second, the people who write best about any subject are those passionate about it. I can only think of one writer I can't place politically, whose work I read with interest, Colin James. And even he is now under attack from the left.

'Independence' is actually a construct of Hager's as I pointed out in this letter published earlier in the DomPost ;

That Michael Bassett is such a frank, no-holds-barred writer means we know exactly what he thinks and where he stands. He has long championed the same causes as Don Brash; welfare reform, one law for all, a resolution to the treaty settlement process and free market economics. The man can hardly, then, be accused of some sort of deception because, as Nicky Hager puts it, he presents himself as "an independent writer and commentator". That is a construct of Mr Hager's invented to suit his purposes.

Finally, if Hager's claims about the source of his material are true, and if securing democracy is a goal worthy of theft and deceit, having achieved the end by now justifiable means, why don't those "decent" and "concerned" people reveal themselves?

Let's have gender before merit

If there is one thing I can't stand it's gender politics. National has a new champion of the cause, Jackie Blue. Here she is demanding an answer:

While my heartfelt congratulations goes to all those New Zealanders who received a New Year Honour, I’m personally disappointed that women were under represented says, National's Women's Affairs spokeswoman, Dr Jackie Blue.

"While women make up just over half of the population, a little over one third of the awards went to them. We need to know why this is the case."

Because, whoever compiles the list didn't sit down with a quota saying, give her an award over him for no other reason than we need to dish them out 50/50.

Perhaps this is how National plans to attract women voters from the left.

New Year activities

A Stuff Poll;

How did you spend your New Years?

A few quiet drinks with the family and friends (1152 votes, 40.2%)

Partying up large (319 votes, 11.1%)

In bed (1398 votes, 48.7%)

I started off doing the first early, to accommodate my parents who were off to do the second till late, and I ended up doing the third. No resolutions either. I enjoy my vices.

Digging 'dirt' on dancer

If I say I have sympathy for the subject of this witch hunt I suppose it will be misconstrued as supporting the Far Right. I DO NOT. I do however support people's right to freedom of belief and privacy. This high profile (probably naive) British ballerina has been 'outed' as a member of the British political party, the BNP. What if she was a member of the equally objectionable British Socialist Party? Who would have bothered to uncover that?

"As far as I'm concerned my conscience is clear. As for the journalist who spent months snooping around, he'd find more dirt under his fingernails than he'd ever find on me."

Which brings to mind Hager's book and how it was produced. Another case of immoral 'snooping' sanctioned by people who should know better.

(Note the membership fee to join the BNP - wow)