"Cultural sensitivity" overrules individual rights

Yesterday Andy Tookey took his daughter to Parliament with a 1600 signature petition. They appeared before the Health select committee to promote Jackie Blue's Human Tissue (Organ Donation) Amendment Bill which seeks to prevent family members overriding the wishes of those who have indicated they want to be donors.

Last night I caught a snippet of Tariana Turia addressing Mr Tookey, whose daughter will need a liver transplant by age 10. Her words went something like, you seem to have no regard for Maori cultural sensitivity...and spirituality. Mr Tookey more or less nodded his agreement.

Here is a man fighting for his daughter's life and Turia is banging on again about Maori cultural sensitivity.

This is what she previously said about the bill, which the Maori Party will not support;

Many Māori are uncomfortable with organ donation following death. The tüpāpaku is tapu. To interfere with it in any way is abhorrent to our
culture.

Many Maori are in need of organs. If a family member wishes to donate one is that taboo? Would they turn down a Pakeha organ? Does Tariana really speak for all Maori?

If an individual wants to donate their organs NOBODY has the right to override their wishes.

I apologise in advance if I have offended some readers for not showing regard for Maori cultural sensivity. My values are respect for the wishes of the individual and the preservation of life.

Results of vote on Sue Bradford's anti-smacking bill

Sue Bradford's bill will be read a second time after passing 70 votes to 51.

Labour 49 for
National 6 for 42 opposed
NZ First 3 for 4 opposed
Greens 6 for
UF 1 for 2 opposed
Progressive 1 for
Taito Field 1 opposed
ACT 2 opposed
Maori Party 4 for

If at the final stage the National, UF, and NZ First 'for' votes reverse the bill will be defeated. Those MPs are in for some pretty heavy lobbying.

Both vicitm and offender

Here's a tricky one to get your head around. A 13 year-old girl has consensual sex with her 12 year-old boyfriend and gets pregnant. She is charged under Utah law with both being a offender and a victim. If she was 14 or 15 their closeness of age would have been a mitigating factor and the charge a lesser misdemeanor - not sexual abuse of a child. For similar age 16 and 17 year-olds the act wouldn't have been a crime. But, For adolescents under 14, though, there are no exceptions or mitigation and they are never considered capable of consenting to sex.

Quite clearly they were.

Saving up for a light bulb

Eco bulbs are 7 times the price of budget-brand existing bulbs. For people on very tight budgets, this will be a burden. If eco bulbs become the only option, I predict we will see more people using candles, as is already the case when poor people can't pay the power bill. It's no good preaching long-term savings when people live from hand-to-mouth, benefit day to benefit day.

(The Lower Hutt fire station has just moved its base north to Avalon. This to be nearer to the poorest suburbs where most of the fires occur. I was told that by a fire officer.)

Idealistic priorities

Doctors etc would prioritise health spending on the young and prevention but this isn't reflected in actual spending. An international survey is summarised at NCPA;

The values expressed by the health professionals in the study transcended national and sectoral boundaries, say the authors. Yet this preference is at odds with the actual spending priorities in most countries throughout the world--most governments spend more on curative than on preventive health care services.

Well of course they do. Immediate health needs should take priority. And most health systems have little left for prevention. Having paid taxes all your life and desperately needing a hip replacement, how would you feel if the money was diverted into anti-smoking initiatives? In my limited experience many health professionals have divorced the funding from the patient. They see funding as govt spending rather than tax-payer spending.

Which is why as much of the health system as possible should be private. People should have private health savings accounts which would enable the doctor to clearly see it isn't his money to prioritise. It is his patients.

It wasn't me, M'Lord

One of life's 'victims'. I think I'd rather behold 'staunch' than listen to this little toadie.

Chance to vote

The NZ Herald is running a poll today,

Should parents have the right to smack their children for discipline?

So far the 'yes' vote is 90 percent.

The question, unlike many poll questions, is well-worded. Go and vote and then see how your representatives vote tonight.

There is none so blind....

Sue Bradford is of course defending her bill in the run up to tomorrow's vote. Defending it very badly I might add.

"Thirty years ago, it was common to regard domestic violence by husbands as a man's right within the sanctity of his own home to 'discipline' his wife. Few people now hold such antiquated views, which were based on the notion of women as property. In time, I believe we will come to see violence against children in the same intolerable light."

There is a glaring problem with this piece of reasoning. Violence towards women has escalated, despite 'few people (now holding) such antiquated views.' So by the time we 'come to see violence against children in the same intolerable light' child abuse will also have escalated further? It appears to me, based on reports from police, women's refuge, and crime statistics, that we have domestic violence levels above any we have ever previously experienced despite all the laws intended to protect women.

Apart from which I very much doubt that in 1977, when I was 17, domestic violence was regarded as a man's right. I left home at 18. Lived with my boyfriend and hung out with his rugby mates and their girlfriends. One young man, an Islander, was suspected of giving his de facto the biff though I never witnessed it. Nobody accepted it. Nobody thought it was his right.

Sue Bradford's life experience must be very different from mine.

How women vote

Isn't this a bleat? An American SAHM (stay-at-home-mum) explaining why women vote on their gut instincts.

The terrifying truth about too much telly !!

If you don't have enough to worry about read this. Too much TV is being linked to cancer, autism, early onset of puberty, diabetes, obesity, dementia and much more.

Economic violence

Last week's UNICEF child report caused a political storm. There were statements from nearly all political parties and child advocates. I missed this from the Maori Party. Here's a few words from Tariana Turia;

“It is obvious from the plethora of research linking economic violence to family crises, that the depths of extreme poverty and severe hardship amongst families are placing us in the lower ranks of developed countries”.

Economic violence. What does that mean? It's a term often used by feminists to describe violence practiced by men against women. In concrete terms this is what the Women's Refuge describes as economic violence;

Economic violence is about:

• Stealing your money and belongings
• Controlling the money so you don't have a say
• Giving you an “allowance” that doesn't cover the bills while they spend all the money on themselves
• Checking all your receipts and the mileage on the car
• Keeping your money card and bank book
• Refusing to pay child support, or be named as the father
• Using your name for loans, credit cards, WINZ grants so that you get the debt
• Forcing you to sign a ‘prenuptial agreement'
• Forcing you to work
• Forcing you to sell drugs, or steal
• Making you go on the benefit illegally
• Not letting you go out to work or study
• Not letting you have your name on the house and other property.

Some of the effects of economic violence for women and children are:
• Poverty
• Not having food, clothes, money for doctors, phone, transport, furniture etc.
• Debt
• Bad credit rating
• Can't rent a flat, get a loan, get the power or phone on because previous bills were unpaid
• Criminal record and fines
• No access to money to enable them to leave
• Not being able to have a career or study
• Unwanted involvement in illegal activities
• Plus all the effects of psychological violence.

But, based on the way Tariana's mind works, I don't think this is quite what she meant. At least not the same parties.

Here is an earlier explanation from her;

Economic violence is when people are impoverished by being deprived of access to power and resources, putting human dignity at danger.

My question is, who is Tariana Turia blaming now? Exactly who are the perpetrators of economic violence? Is it men, is it government or is it colonisers?

If there is a problem with children the place to start is with their parents or whanau.

We are all idiots

Family First ran full page ads in the Sunday papers which made some claims about Sue Bradford's removal of section 59 bill. Beth Wood, of EPOCH (End Physical Punishment of Children) has issued a release rebutting these claims. I am not impressed. Here is just one;

Claim: Kiwis know the difference between smacking and child abuse.

Comment:
There is no evidence to support this claim.

That sums up the high regard in which busybody, nanny-statist, do-gooders hold you.

Consensus? What Consensus?

The Environment Commissioner is calling for politics to be put the one side to achieve a consensus on climate change. Isn't this a little naive?

Whatever the issue, most people can agree on what the problem is. Where they disagree is how to resolve the problem or at least improve matters. And that's called politics.

In addition the Commissioner uses superannuation as one of the "gnarly" problems there is consensus on. I don't think there is. Certainly it seems many young people are quite convinced they won't be looked after under the current system so surely are somewhat resentful about paying taxes to support present super payments. The argument about compulsory savings for retirement is also brewing again while the Cullen fund continues to be controversial.

Another pen!

At the risk of seeming ungrateful isn't it a bit of an anachronism awarding pens for letter-writing? A new keyboard might be more useful.

Seriously, the recognition from the Sunday Star Times is very much appreciated;

Footnote; An Adelaide-based study, "the most comprehensive of its kind" published in the latest Medical Journal of Australia finds foster children suffer up to five times more mental health problems than children living with their own families. "Severe disruptive behaviour is of a particular concern....."
DomPost, February 19, 2007

How NZ is portrayed in the Danish media

The DomPost today ran the translation of a full page article printed in Denmark's leading newspaper (by circulation) in January this year. It's entitled Kiwi-miraklet, der falmede or The Kiwi miracle that faded, by Lars From

Here's the poster boy, Happy Eli;



According to the author, "His sign says it all: 'No money. No work.' "

Well that more or less sets the credibility level for the rest of the article. No, his sign does not say that. In fact if you can read it, his words suggest he may have been asked to write something and has duly obliged.

From there the report is based entirely on statements from Diane Robertson of the Auckland City Mission, who advises the Danish government not to adopt what New Zealand did - reforms that comprised lowering taxation, liberalisation, privatisation and lowering of help to the weaker.

And to give you a taste of how cruel the effects of those reforms have been , "In some classes, 25 to 30 percent of children do not know when their birthday is because their parents have never told them, simply because they can't afford to buy them a present."

Painting NZ children as incredibly hard done by, three out of ten live today in regular poverty, is one thing.

But this major article then goes on to quote Ms Robertson as saying, "New Zealand is no longer a safe place to be. Circumstances have changed dramatically in the past five years.....A Swedish couple in a campervan were recently attacked. The girl was raped and the couple were robbed of everything."

Such is the ruination of the Kiwi-dream welfare state.

Should I be cheering for this "candid missionary"? After all, I report on what I believe are the shortcomings of welfare - no holds barred.

No. Because A/ Diane Robertson blames a lack of collective responsibility whereas I blame a lack of individual responsibility B/ I want less state intervention and redistribution and she wants more and C/ to paint NZ as particularly mired in poverty and crime does it a disservice. Many developed nations are suffering from exactly the same problems.

But it is fascinating, and sobering, and irritating, to read what other countries are being told about New Zealand.

Teenage birth rate climbs again

Media Release
TEENAGE BIRTH RATE CLIMBS AGAIN
Friday, February 16, 2007

Figures released today indicate the teenage birth rate is up again from 27.4 in 2005 to 28.4 per 1,000 15-19 year-olds in 2006.

According to welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell, "This is the fourth consecutive annual rise in the teenage birthrate and it is not a trend we should welcome."

"With around 4,000 teenage parents on welfare benefits at any given time, a growing number of babies being raised on an Unsupported Child's benefit, increasing numbers of grandparents raising grandchildren pressing for welfare support, clearly teenage parenthood is a problem."

"Ministry of Social Development research shows that children most at risk typically first present with a teenage mother who is Maori. Only this week I was talking with a social worker who works with teenage girls and their babies. When I asked her why, with the abundance of contraceptive advice and availability, with family planning clinics in schools and now the morning-after pill, so many girls still get pregnant. She gave me two answers. The first is they want somebody who will love them and need them even after the father has shot through, and two, they think there is money there."

"Clearly the financial incentive is influencing decisions about pregnancy and birth. We do these girls no favours in encouraging them to shun education, jobs, financial independence, and even an abiding relationship - all things we want for our daughters."

"It is a heartless practice and one that must be reconsidered. I would urge all political parties to look long and hard at this issue for the sake of our daughters and sons, whose lives are being adversely affected by government encouragement to go down this difficult path."

Viciousness

Peter Boshier makes a habit of speaking out. I wish more ,with knowledge of what is really going on, would. He is saying that the justice system needs to find better ways of dealing with under 14 year-olds.

Judge Peter Boshier, who has been a judge since 1988, made the politically charged statement at a foster care conference in Hamilton yesterday, where he said he was shocked at what he saw happening in families now compared with what he saw 19 years ago.

I am frequently shocked when I hear about what some 'children' do. Ramming pencils up bottoms of youngsters they want to intimidate for example. When I listened to Alan Duff speak last weekend it surprised me not one bit when he said he has only written about some of what goes on.

The Judge makes another utterance which should pass without comment. It should be a given but I now doubt it is shared by people who are in a position to change things.

"What concerns me about the present situation is that for every 12-year-old criminal there is a victim. It's the victim I am more concerned about."

Amen to that. Let's start directing our compassion towards the right people. Start putting some of these vicious types under supervision - and I don't mean out in the community. It was coincidentally 18 years ago when New Zealand adopted the ground breaking Family Group conference system and started steering youth away from court. Ron Mark chimes in;

"Of course family involvement must be sought, but this has to come to an end when that family proves that they cannot care for the child or make the decisions that are required."

But Boshier can have the last word;

"Unless we get this right, when they are 14 they are going to be in the Youth Court, and when they are 19 they are going to be murderers, and a lot of our murderers these days are young."

Dubious UNICEF statistics

Simon Collins has reported overnight on the new Unicef Innocenti Research Centre's seventh set of international league tables.

First, some of the figures are hopelessly out of date, and second, some are quite dubious. Here's an example;

On average, 95 per cent of the children in developed countries live in homes where at least one parent is in paid work.

New Zealand fell slightly below the average when these figures were gathered in 2000, with only 93 per cent of children living with a parent in paid work. Only six countries, including Australia and Britain, scored lower.

Bearing in mind the number of children living in households dependent on benefits has dropped due to the lower number of people on the dole, the current percentage of children living in households with a parent in paid work couldn't be above 84 percent, and that's a generous estimate based on latest Census and MSD figures.

It was certainly lower than that seven years ago.

Update;


Only population estimates would have been available in 2000. So using Census 2001 figures and adjusting them slightly to reflect change since 1996, there were 1,150,400 0-19 year-olds. So the percentage of children in benefit dependent homes in 2000 was 25 percent. Even allowing for 1 in 6 of their parents doing some paid work the actual percentage of children living in a household with at least one working parent was 79 percent - not 93.

Then let's look at what happens if we observe a stricter definition of 'child' (14 and under). The percentage drops to 71 percent.

That's a significant difference in anybody's language.

New software system for Work and Income

Given the biggest group of beneficiary clients are now sickness and invalid beneficiaries the name of the new client management software system being phased in from July 2007 at a cost of $54 million seems entirely appropriate but somewhat optimistic.

I hope this doesn't mean another loss of data, as happened when systems changed in 1993.

Repeal of section 59 one step closer

Yesterday Clark gave a clear indication that she wants Sue Bradford's Crimes Amendment Bill passed.

The changes recommended by the Justice and Electoral Select Committee to Section 59 of the Crimes Act would also have a positive impact on violence in the home, and it is my hope that Parliament will support them this year to help make our children safer.

As far as I understood the matter, it still wasn't decided whether or not Labour would treat the repeal of section 59 as a conscience vote. With the latest developments regarding Taito Phillip Field, and the ensuing increase in Green influence, it wouldn't surprise if Labour now votes en masse for the passage of this bill.

If you want a change of government this will be a good thing. Don't underestimate how incensed the public are over the prospect of the state interfering ever more into their private lives on the pretext of doing good.

More taxes to pay

It's that time of the year again when state schools send home "donation" invoices. The actions of one Fielding school have triggered a talkback debate about school funding and many, many people are not at all happy with the way schools are putting pressure on parents to come up with what I think we can safely call an extra tax.

So is the government simply under-funding education and hoping to screw the balance out of medium to high decile school parents?

In 1967 education accounted for 11.9% of total govt spending with 30% of the population aged 5-19

In 2007 (forecast) education spending will soak up 14.7% of govt spending with only 22% of the population aged 5-19

Considerably more spending on proportionately fewer children with, it would seem, no improvement. Just like the health system. Of course this is the result of a political philosophy that says spending money is the answer to everything.

Minister Wrong About Sickness And Invalid Benefits

Media release

Minister Wrong About Sickness And Invalid Benefits

Tuesday, February 13, 2007

December 2006 figures show that the numbers of people on either a sickness or invalid's benefit continue to grow, welfare commentator, Lindsay Mitchell said today.

"Last year David Benson-Pope, the Minister for Social Development, was assuring us that the rate of growth had slowed. It has not."

"During 2005 the increase was 3,171. Last year the total caseload grew by 4,104 to reach an incredible 125,466."

"This despite the government's intensive and expensive efforts to get people off these benefits and into jobs. In many cases these benefits have become the de facto dole. The OECD estimates that across western countries only one third of people relying on incapacity benefits are suffering the sorts of 'severe disabilities' that make paid work difficult or impossible."

The more govt gives the more people want

In a comment on this blog Dave says people are better off on a benefit because of the cost of childcare and the government has to provide more free childcare.

Let's think about this.

We are paying thousands of people (around 50) a benefit to look after just one child. There is enormous capacity there for extra private child-caring which would free up many more people to work.

Instead of 50,000 mothers looking after 50,000 children on a benefit why not 10,000 looking after 50,000 children, and getting paid for it by the other 40,000 who are working?

Sharing care of children is an age-old practice and what people do when left to find their own solutions. Why is the government the solution to every problem?

Prolific progeniture

There is an interesting discrepancy in today's DomPost. The front page story tells of a 35 year-old Levin man who dies after, it is suspected, taking horse sedative at the pub.

I just happened across his death notice on the back page.

Culpability for under-age sex

I am still investigating paternity testing, liability etc and came across this is a booklet from the Auckland Women's Centre.

If you are under 16 & trying to get paternity established,
will criminal proceedings be started against the baby’s
father because you had sex before you were 16?

If the baby’s father is under 17, & you had sex willingly, it is
unlikely that Police Youth Aid would feel it was in the best
interests of either of you to charge him with an offence.

However, if he is over 17, he could be charged because it’s a
criminal offence to have sex with a female under 16 years of
age, even if you were willing. The Police are more likely to
prosecute if there is a larger age gap & they think you may have
been pressured into sex. If you didn’t have sex willingly or you
were forced into having sex, the man committed an extremely
serious crime (called rape) & you may want to talk to someone
you trust about this.

Am I right in assuming then that only the male is culpable for under-age sex?

About time too

When the government wants to legislate it can do so at the drop of a hat and make the legislation retrospective. The following has taken years and years to change.

On April 1 2007 Work and Income will begin treating same-sex couples the same way as heterosexual couples. This report, originally in the SST, describes how benefits will be cut to the couple rate instead of two single rates.

What it doesn't cover is what I am picking will affect far more same-sex couples. Currently a mother can be on the DPB and her female partner working. This because they are not recognised as a couple under the Social Security Act.

But from April 1 the lesbian female getting the DPB should not be getting anything just as a heterosexual female wouldn't qualify for the DPB if she had a working partner.

Now that could affect far more couples than those who are both on benefits. I wonder how many will front up about their relationships and how many will stay mum? Perhaps they could simply deny there is any degree of companionship demonstrating an emotional commitment and therefore their relationship does not fit the legal definition, 'in the nature of a marriage'. That's worked for thousands of heterosexual couples.

Better off on a benefit

A front page story from the DomPost is headlined, "Agency tells worker she is better off on benefit."

Her ex-employer has obviously gone to the press, appalled by this. Because she was a good worker he had increased her pay from $10-25 an hour to $11-50 giving her a maximum weekly income of $402-50 plus the accommodation benefit. She told the press she wanted to spend more time with her child and that WINZ told her she would be better off if she left the job. She was also having trouble getting babysitters.

"I want to enjoy being with my baby while she is so young - I won't be able to have that experience again."

Well neither will all those mothers who go back to work so she can stay home. That's the crux of the matter. Those who don't plan and don't mind taking welfare get subbed by others prepared to take responsibility for their choices.

Not to mention the employer loses a good worker. She plans to return to work eventually. Let's hope so. Not working is fairly habit-forming.

As for WINZ, I've heard this before. Most recently when the mother of a boy turning 18 was told he would be better off on the dole than working part-time at Burger King (while also attending a course). She was about to lose his family support payment and he didn't earn enough to give her the equivalent. Fortunately she rejected the idea and so did the boy, preferring to earn his own money.

Something whiffy

Yesterday I learned about a low-income family whose mother works caring for the elderly. Her partner runs her to work in the morning. They are stopped and he is breath-tested. He's over the limit and loses his licence for 6 months. She can't drive. She has to now scrounge around trying to get lifts to her workplace.

The law is the law and if someone is driving over-the-limit there is little to be said in their defense, but I do question where and when these road blocks are set up. For instance, there is a regular cohort at the bottom of the Wainui Hill Road on a Saturday morning. It is rather difficult to avoid them because there is only one way in and out of Wainuiomata. The police obviously figure that these are people the most likely to have been drinking the night before and off to work or sport on a Saturday morning. Low income people, some of whom stayed home drinking the night before to avoid drinking and driving, and who have jobs, unlike their benefit dependent bros still in bed.

I have never seen a roadblock checking high income people coming out of the Eastern Bays, another one-way-in, one-way-out area. Funny that. Aye.

Madness from the mother country

Here's a couple of senseless safety stories from the UK. First, a school bans football because people are getting hit by the ball and second, police refuse to chase motorcycle thieves because they aren't wearing helmets (the tea leaves that is).

(Spotted in the Adam Smith newsletter)

Unemployment drops....and so does penny

Back in November I wrote about a report in the DomPost describing the falling level of employment amongst women. It said women were bearing the brunt of unemployment as "10,000 lost their jobs".

I pointed out that as those women hadn't joined the ranks of the unemployed they had most probably decided to leave the workforce as they had two other sources of income - a partner and Working for families.

Today the coverage of the latest HLFS results says, Women especially moved out of jobs in the last six months of the year (note the change from "lost their jobs" to "moved out of"), possibly reflecting the introduction of Working for Families government assistance package in April.

Women were moving out of the workforce in big numbers, by 13,000 in the last three months of the year, driving down the overall "participation rate" - the number of people working as a percentage of the population.

So in a country that needs to lift its production the government has enticed women out of the workforce. That's no surprise. Means-tested benefits have always produced disincentives to work. The family benefit caused just this problem in the 40s.

And here's another thing. Where are all the women who moved off the DPB and supposedly into jobs? Perhaps they aren't showing up because most of them simply changed from being on a partial DPB to being on the In Work payment without changing the hours they work.

"Hand-outs are not the answer - schools"

Ah ha. So I am not alone on this. Schools don't want hand-outs. Politicians are trying to create a giant muffin out of a mini muffin I suspect.

Give us a break

All this angst over eating is unappetising. For the past few years hysteria over the obesity 'epidemic' has wound up and up. Our kids are too fat, especially Pacific Islanders and Maori. Now our kids are too hungry, especially Pacific Islanders and Maori. Give us a break.

The political spat over how many kids go to school on empty stomachs is something of a disappointment. Compared to the debates that came out of the Brash speeches it hardly rates.

My girl regularly goes to school on an empty stomach because she refuses to eat whatever I put in front of her. It is offered every morning. She can't wait to get to school. Last year she got straight As bar one. My son always eats breakfast and is still grabbing something from the cupboard on the way out. I have a nice cup of tea. We are all different.

At school, if asked, I imagine my daughter would say she has had breakfast because having breakfast is the 'right' thing to do. Other kids would say they hadn't in order to get some more. Kids aren't 100 percent reliable.

But we are nevertheless wringing our hands over a survey saying
80,000 kids are not eating breakfast and scrambling around for new ways to remedy the situation.

Key thinks because he is asking businesses to intervene it's OK. But it's still intervention that adds to the sum of dependence. Labour gives people the money for the breakfasts and National gives out the breakfasts. Figure that out.

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).