Reading through the digest of the recently introduced Births, Deaths , Marriages and Relationships Registration Bill I came across this;
Currently there are around 6,000 births that have not been registered within 1 year of the birth.
You may well ask, If they haven't been registered how can authorities know this?
The Bill enables the Register-General to obtain address information for a child's mother from the Ministry of Social Development.
Aha. One can only assume then that a mother can get a benefit without a birth certificate to even prove the baby is her's. The DPB application pamphlet says, You need to bring along a full birth certificate for each child but exceptions are clearly being made.
I can understand there are circumstances whereby the mother does not want to or can't register the father's name on a birth certificate but these babies aren't even having their mother's name registered.
How does one go through life without any proof of identity? Perhaps their mothers 'get around to it' but the whole business seems incredibly lax.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Relying on the growth of government
This is a good overview of the economy from Berl.Business investment had been the main driver of growth in the past three to four years, but that had faded. Real business investment fell almost 12 per cent in the September quarter last year, compared with the year before.
Public sector spending is expected to be more robust, adding to growth in the next few years.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Revisionists at large
I don't know what to make of this, from Conservapedia, A conservative encyclopedia you can trust.
New Zealand was first colonised in 1206 by the Japanese empire under the leadership of shogun Tokugawa Ieyasu. The Japanese first settled in the north Island, naming it Tsuchinomo, or "Island of the southern sea", named after its geographical location. The capital of Tokyoburi, or new Tokyo, was first built where Auckland currently stands. In 1456 the Russian empire claimed the southern Island of New Zealand and named it Kiervniev, or "Southernmost province". Their capital Vodkagrad, or Vodka City, is named after its abundance of wild potatoes, and is located where Christchurch now stands. In 1572 the Russians tried to take the northern Island of New Zealand, thus resulting in the Russo-Japanese war[1]. After six months of intense fighting the two sides decided to call a truce, with each empire retaining their respective province.
On the 13th of June 1796 Australia who were at the time extremely loyal to Britain, and Britain itself, launched two assaults simultaneously on the Russian and Japanese colonies. The assult was a massive millitary victory, with the Australians gaining control of the Tsuchimono and Britain gaining control of Kiervneiv. The two Islands were assimilated into the British empire as one province, New Zealand, with the Islands simply being named the North and South islands respectively. The British renaimed Tokyoburi Aukland and Vodkagrad was renamed Christchurch. The British then evicted the Japanese and Russian colonists and replaced them with British colonists.
Another taskforce
Just what we need. Another taskforce, this one leading the war on sexual offending;
The taskforce will provide a way for government, NGOs and the judiciary to work together to address the social, health and economic impacts of sexual violence and will build on the work of the Sexual Violence Project Team (SVPT), activity already undertaken through the Safer Communities Action Plan to Reduce Community Violence and Sexual Violence, and will complement the work of the Taskforce for Action on Violence within Families.
TFASV builds on the work of SVPT, part of SCAP to RSVSV and will complement TAVF. Brilliant.
And;
* In 2003-04, sexual offences are estimated to have cost New Zealand $1.2 billion. This includes the cost to public agencies of preventing and dealing with the consequences of sexual assault, and direct social and economic costs to the private sector and victims of sexual assault. This equates to approximately $72,130 for each sexual offence, making sexual offending by far the most costly crime.
Oh golly. Let's invest in prevention, fast. But hang on. The cost of preventing sexual offences has been included in the cost of the crime. So with this new initiative, the cost has just gone up again. It gets worse. Spend more. It gets worse. Spend more.....
What kind of micky mouse economics is that? Clearly there are more costly crimes. Murder for starters. Unless a life isn't worth $72,130.
The country is being run by monkeys making a living off of people's problems by politicising them. They are taking the piss, surely.
The taskforce will provide a way for government, NGOs and the judiciary to work together to address the social, health and economic impacts of sexual violence and will build on the work of the Sexual Violence Project Team (SVPT), activity already undertaken through the Safer Communities Action Plan to Reduce Community Violence and Sexual Violence, and will complement the work of the Taskforce for Action on Violence within Families.
TFASV builds on the work of SVPT, part of SCAP to RSVSV and will complement TAVF. Brilliant.
And;
* In 2003-04, sexual offences are estimated to have cost New Zealand $1.2 billion. This includes the cost to public agencies of preventing and dealing with the consequences of sexual assault, and direct social and economic costs to the private sector and victims of sexual assault. This equates to approximately $72,130 for each sexual offence, making sexual offending by far the most costly crime.
Oh golly. Let's invest in prevention, fast. But hang on. The cost of preventing sexual offences has been included in the cost of the crime. So with this new initiative, the cost has just gone up again. It gets worse. Spend more. It gets worse. Spend more.....
What kind of micky mouse economics is that? Clearly there are more costly crimes. Murder for starters. Unless a life isn't worth $72,130.
The country is being run by monkeys making a living off of people's problems by politicising them. They are taking the piss, surely.
The size of your buns is being watched
Flaming Nora these obsessive nannies drive me nuts. Today's broadcast, fellow citizens, is don't go eating your hot cross buns "dripping in butter" . Public Health nutritionist-nagger, Bronwen King says, eat them dry or with "just a thin scraping of margarine".
And Diabetes New Zealand butts in, "If possible chose a smaller bun or perhaps eat just half a bun."
Please. I implore you. Go away. YOU are very bad for my health.
Monday, March 19, 2007
UK Conservatives back NHS 'heart and soul'
Is this a pointer to where National will next go? David Cameron;
"Today's Conservative Party backs the NHS, head, heart and soul", he told party members at their spring conference in Nottingham, underlining the transformation of party policy on health since Cameron took charge at the end of 2005.
"It used to be said that Labor were the party of the NHS. Not any more. Labor are the party that is undermining the health service.
"It's because the NHS is unique that it's so precious to all of us. And we must do all we can to protect and improve it.
"The NHS is my passion. It is our priority. We'll back it, build it, improve it for everyone. That is our pledge today."
"Today's Conservative Party backs the NHS, head, heart and soul", he told party members at their spring conference in Nottingham, underlining the transformation of party policy on health since Cameron took charge at the end of 2005.
"It used to be said that Labor were the party of the NHS. Not any more. Labor are the party that is undermining the health service.
"It's because the NHS is unique that it's so precious to all of us. And we must do all we can to protect and improve it.
"The NHS is my passion. It is our priority. We'll back it, build it, improve it for everyone. That is our pledge today."
Polls aren't scientific but...
Stuff are running an interesting poll;
Were you smacked as a kid? If so, how did it leave you feeling?
Occasional smack: and no big deal (825 votes, 69.3%)
Occasional smack: I still really resent it. (50 votes, 4.2%)
Smacked hard: but I never think about it. (252 votes, 21.2%)
Smacked hard: and the trauma still there. (64 votes, 5.4%)
Accepting these on-line polls are not scientific the finding, that 5.4% were smacked hard enough to be traumatised and say so, roughly reflects the level of physical abuse found by the Christchurch Health and Development study - 4 percent of children reported they had experienced physical abuse by 18. Excerpt;
The general methodology used was similar to that used in the study of CSA. At the age of 18, young people were asked to describe the extent to which their parents used physical punishment. In addition, they were also asked to rate their parents' discipline practices on a four-point scale which ranged from those who reported that their parents never used physical punishment to those who reported that their parents treated them in a harsh or abusive way. In common with the analysis of CSA, this methodology suggested that there was a spectrum of child discipline/physical abuse patterns that ranged from none to severe, with 3.9% of the cohort reporting that their parents either used physical punishment too frequently or had treated them in a harsh or abusive way. Parents of this small group of children had a profile of childhood discipline strategies that involved the repeated use of violent methods of punishment. At the other extreme, 10.8% of the cohort reported that their parents never used physical punishment, with the majority (77.7%) reporting that their parents occasionally used physical punishment.
Evaluation of the relationships between reports of physical punishment or abuse during childhood and psychosocial outcomes in early adulthood clearly showed that young people reporting harsh or abusive treatment had increased rates of conduct problems, substantial abuse, depression, anxiety and violent crime. Those describing parental punishment practices as severe or harsh had rates of these problems that were 1.5 to four times (median = 2.2) higher than rates found amongst children whose parents did not use physical punishment. There were, however, no clear differences between the adjustment of young people who reported that their parents never used physical punishment and those who reported that their parents infrequently used physical punishment.
However, further examination revealed that patterns of physical punishment and abuse were also related to a wide range of social and family factors. In general, young people reporting high exposure to physical punishment tended to come from socially disadvantaged family backgrounds that were characterised by multiple sources of adversity that spanned parental divorce or separation, high levels of parental conflict, parental illicit drug usage, parental alcohol problems, parental criminality, depressed living standards and high levels of exposure to stressful life events.
Statistical control for social and contextual factors associated with child physical punishment or abuse suggested that to a large extent the elevated risks of adjustment problems found in children exposed to harsh or abusive treatment reflected the social context within which the child was reared, rather than the traumatic effects of abusive treatment on later personal adjustment. Nonetheless, there were suggestions that children exposed to harsh or abusive treatment were at slightly increased risk of making suicide attempts and had higher rates of violent crime. These findings may suggest that one of the consequences of physical abuse in childhood may be to increase the likelihood that individuals will react in violent ways to those around them or show increased tendencies to violent behaviour towards themselves. There was no evidence to suggest that those exposed to occasional physical punishment by their parents were at any greater or any lesser risk of adjustment problems than those whose parents did not use physical punishment methods.
I have highlighted two passages. The first shows the severe abuse comes from the type of parents who already ignore certain laws and the second shows that occasional physical punishment makes no difference to outcomes.
Were you smacked as a kid? If so, how did it leave you feeling?
Occasional smack: and no big deal (825 votes, 69.3%)
Occasional smack: I still really resent it. (50 votes, 4.2%)
Smacked hard: but I never think about it. (252 votes, 21.2%)
Smacked hard: and the trauma still there. (64 votes, 5.4%)
Accepting these on-line polls are not scientific the finding, that 5.4% were smacked hard enough to be traumatised and say so, roughly reflects the level of physical abuse found by the Christchurch Health and Development study - 4 percent of children reported they had experienced physical abuse by 18. Excerpt;
The general methodology used was similar to that used in the study of CSA. At the age of 18, young people were asked to describe the extent to which their parents used physical punishment. In addition, they were also asked to rate their parents' discipline practices on a four-point scale which ranged from those who reported that their parents never used physical punishment to those who reported that their parents treated them in a harsh or abusive way. In common with the analysis of CSA, this methodology suggested that there was a spectrum of child discipline/physical abuse patterns that ranged from none to severe, with 3.9% of the cohort reporting that their parents either used physical punishment too frequently or had treated them in a harsh or abusive way. Parents of this small group of children had a profile of childhood discipline strategies that involved the repeated use of violent methods of punishment. At the other extreme, 10.8% of the cohort reported that their parents never used physical punishment, with the majority (77.7%) reporting that their parents occasionally used physical punishment.
Evaluation of the relationships between reports of physical punishment or abuse during childhood and psychosocial outcomes in early adulthood clearly showed that young people reporting harsh or abusive treatment had increased rates of conduct problems, substantial abuse, depression, anxiety and violent crime. Those describing parental punishment practices as severe or harsh had rates of these problems that were 1.5 to four times (median = 2.2) higher than rates found amongst children whose parents did not use physical punishment. There were, however, no clear differences between the adjustment of young people who reported that their parents never used physical punishment and those who reported that their parents infrequently used physical punishment.
However, further examination revealed that patterns of physical punishment and abuse were also related to a wide range of social and family factors. In general, young people reporting high exposure to physical punishment tended to come from socially disadvantaged family backgrounds that were characterised by multiple sources of adversity that spanned parental divorce or separation, high levels of parental conflict, parental illicit drug usage, parental alcohol problems, parental criminality, depressed living standards and high levels of exposure to stressful life events.
Statistical control for social and contextual factors associated with child physical punishment or abuse suggested that to a large extent the elevated risks of adjustment problems found in children exposed to harsh or abusive treatment reflected the social context within which the child was reared, rather than the traumatic effects of abusive treatment on later personal adjustment. Nonetheless, there were suggestions that children exposed to harsh or abusive treatment were at slightly increased risk of making suicide attempts and had higher rates of violent crime. These findings may suggest that one of the consequences of physical abuse in childhood may be to increase the likelihood that individuals will react in violent ways to those around them or show increased tendencies to violent behaviour towards themselves. There was no evidence to suggest that those exposed to occasional physical punishment by their parents were at any greater or any lesser risk of adjustment problems than those whose parents did not use physical punishment methods.
I have highlighted two passages. The first shows the severe abuse comes from the type of parents who already ignore certain laws and the second shows that occasional physical punishment makes no difference to outcomes.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Technical problem
Can anybody shed any light on this. One of the sites I link to is The Welfare State We're In, the site associated with James Bartholomew's book of the same name.
For weeks I have been getting this message;
Forbidden
You don't have permission to access / on this server.
Additionally, a 403 Forbidden error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.
Apache/1.3.37 Server at www.thewelfarestatewerein.com Port 80
I wrote to James asking him what happened to his site and got this reply;
Dear Lindsay,
something technical happened which I fear I do not really understand. I lost
the ability to get to the website myself but then I was able to get it
again. I think it may have had to change server or something like that. I think most Internet Service Providers have found it on the new server but I guess there may be some which have not. But frankly I don't understand how it works so I might have got the wrong end of the stick. Anyway the site is still up and running.
best wishes, James
Any ideas?
For weeks I have been getting this message;
Forbidden
You don't have permission to access / on this server.
Additionally, a 403 Forbidden error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.
Apache/1.3.37 Server at www.thewelfarestatewerein.com Port 80
I wrote to James asking him what happened to his site and got this reply;
Dear Lindsay,
something technical happened which I fear I do not really understand. I lost
the ability to get to the website myself but then I was able to get it
again. I think it may have had to change server or something like that. I think most Internet Service Providers have found it on the new server but I guess there may be some which have not. But frankly I don't understand how it works so I might have got the wrong end of the stick. Anyway the site is still up and running.
best wishes, James
Any ideas?
Strange bedfellows
Deborah Coddington joins Cactus Kate in supporting Bradford's bill. I mention them together because this endorsement of paternalism surprises me, more so from Cactus.I'll just quote Deborah's final sentence;
I wish we'd changed the law, and thus our attitude to domestic violence, decades ago. Hopefully in May when MPs finally vote, we'll make a start.
I make the point again, it is illegal to hit your partner, there is no defence of reasonable force, and yet this form of domestic violence would appear to be worsening steadily. Indeed when children are genuinely abused it is often a spin-off from the partner abuse.
Paternalists limit the freedom of the subject by well-meant regulation.
In this case, freedom being not the freedom to hit a child with impunity. Freedom being the freedom to raise your child as best you can without the state prescribing some collective best practice which it becomes illegal to ignore and, when you think about, doesn't exist in reality.
But another aspect of Deborah's column raises a question which I cannot find a satisfactory answer to. Deborah says she was whipped into voting against the anti-smacking legislation the first time round. With a conscience vote should a list MP exercise his own conscience or the party conscience? And should a constituent MP exercise his own conscience, the conscience of his electorate or the party conscience?
Saturday, March 17, 2007
Maori tertiary enrolment down
According to Newsroom;
Maori Enrolement Down - University staff say figures showing a drop in the number of Maori enrolled in tertiary education are alarming and will get worse if nothing is done.
How about ending teenage dole and DPB for starters?
Maori Enrolement Down - University staff say figures showing a drop in the number of Maori enrolled in tertiary education are alarming and will get worse if nothing is done.
How about ending teenage dole and DPB for starters?
A basket-case state
Why is it so hard for some people to understand the detrimental effects of high taxation? The Governor of Michigan doesn't seem to.
If increasing government spending was all it took to create jobs, Michigan would have all the jobs it needs -- instead of the frightening 7.1 percent unemployment rate.
If increasing government spending was all it took to create jobs, Michigan would have all the jobs it needs -- instead of the frightening 7.1 percent unemployment rate.
Every portfolio's in trouble
When we pull ourselves away from the section 59 debate (a red herring in more than one way) and take a look at other areas under government control, it doesn't make for edifying reading. Education is troubled with more and more schools looking away from NCEA, out-of-control truancy and the 20 hours 'free' childcare debacle; health is really messy with so much extra spending for so little discernible difference, top health professionals either walking out or leaving under a cloud, wrangling between DHBs and pharmacists starting to come to a head; corrections scandals and court blowouts; the economy with its record low productivity and interest rate rises; law and order - no explanation needed. No wonder HC has buggered off.
Friday, March 16, 2007
A Very Funny Guy
For an antidote to the often dour tone of this blog go and have a read of Oh Crikey. I'm not linking to any specific post because they are all very funny...but I did particularly enjoy Why I'm Becoming a Lefty.
It's time for a good whinge. I've been of such great mood lately (so unlike me) and quite frankly, all this joy and rapture has started to depress me. I need a decent moan & a bout of unhappiness to cheer me up. I do, indeed, have sound reason to be upset. My awful bank has been sending me 'hate mail', bleating about defaulting on my credit card payments and threatening all manner of monetary penalties. Dammit!
So I've decided to become a lefty. That way, I won't need to take responsibility for my own fiscal recklessness. Instead I can blame 'the system' or 'capitalism' or America or president Bush, or someone for my unfortunate plight. Besides, I hate financial institutions anyway (a good lefty trait). Flipping tight-wads! They're a bank for goodness sake, with stacks of surplus dough to throw around. Yet they 'harass' and 'victimise' and 'persecute' a poor, needy person who's down on their luck. C'mon people! Where's the "social justice"? [see? I make a great lefty, I've got the lingo down pat]
It's partly the bank's fault anyway, I reckon. Had they declined my Visa application, neither of us would be in this invidious position. I mean, hello? I was broke! Why do they think I wanted a credit card in the first case? Shouldn't my parlous financial state have sent warning bells ringing? What were they thinking? Gee, I would've been straight-up honest with them in the first place. But did they bother to ask, "Are you wasteful and extravagant?" No, they did not! Well, excuse me, but I don't remember ticking the 'hopelessly profligate' box on the application form.
Now, I'm not the most economically literate guy (hence my current currency crisis), but why lend money to a pauper, huh? Isn't that what they call a "bad investment"? Idiots! Serves them right. Thus, I think it's only fair that they should be RESPONSIBLE for their own stuff-up and waive my debts accordingly. Surely there must be at least one sympathetic soul out there who agrees with me?
.......somebody? .......anybody?
Oh, hell. Maybe I should just take out a bank loan to help cover my C-card expenses? Yeah - good idea! Hmmm, maybe I have more financial nous than people give me credit for? Who said lefties were no good with money?
It's time for a good whinge. I've been of such great mood lately (so unlike me) and quite frankly, all this joy and rapture has started to depress me. I need a decent moan & a bout of unhappiness to cheer me up. I do, indeed, have sound reason to be upset. My awful bank has been sending me 'hate mail', bleating about defaulting on my credit card payments and threatening all manner of monetary penalties. Dammit!
So I've decided to become a lefty. That way, I won't need to take responsibility for my own fiscal recklessness. Instead I can blame 'the system' or 'capitalism' or America or president Bush, or someone for my unfortunate plight. Besides, I hate financial institutions anyway (a good lefty trait). Flipping tight-wads! They're a bank for goodness sake, with stacks of surplus dough to throw around. Yet they 'harass' and 'victimise' and 'persecute' a poor, needy person who's down on their luck. C'mon people! Where's the "social justice"? [see? I make a great lefty, I've got the lingo down pat]
It's partly the bank's fault anyway, I reckon. Had they declined my Visa application, neither of us would be in this invidious position. I mean, hello? I was broke! Why do they think I wanted a credit card in the first case? Shouldn't my parlous financial state have sent warning bells ringing? What were they thinking? Gee, I would've been straight-up honest with them in the first place. But did they bother to ask, "Are you wasteful and extravagant?" No, they did not! Well, excuse me, but I don't remember ticking the 'hopelessly profligate' box on the application form.
Now, I'm not the most economically literate guy (hence my current currency crisis), but why lend money to a pauper, huh? Isn't that what they call a "bad investment"? Idiots! Serves them right. Thus, I think it's only fair that they should be RESPONSIBLE for their own stuff-up and waive my debts accordingly. Surely there must be at least one sympathetic soul out there who agrees with me?
.......somebody? .......anybody?
Oh, hell. Maybe I should just take out a bank loan to help cover my C-card expenses? Yeah - good idea! Hmmm, maybe I have more financial nous than people give me credit for? Who said lefties were no good with money?
From DPB to sickness or invalid benefits - a record
Record numbers of DPB beneficiaries are transferring onto a sickness or invalid benefit.
Last year over two thousand people moved from the DPB and onto a sickness or invalid benefit. That is a 79 percent increase on the 1999 figure.
Also, indicating the length of time people are spending on this benefit, 500 people left the DPB to go onto New Zealand Superannuation.
DPB numbers may be dropping but it isn't all due to a strong labour market. A further 2,000 moved onto an unemployment benefit.
While thousands of people move off DPB each year, nearly as many return or come onto it for the first time. The nett difference in 2006 was a drop of 6,000. These new figures showing transfers to other benefits put that drop into perspective.
Last year over two thousand people moved from the DPB and onto a sickness or invalid benefit. That is a 79 percent increase on the 1999 figure.
Also, indicating the length of time people are spending on this benefit, 500 people left the DPB to go onto New Zealand Superannuation.
DPB numbers may be dropping but it isn't all due to a strong labour market. A further 2,000 moved onto an unemployment benefit.
While thousands of people move off DPB each year, nearly as many return or come onto it for the first time. The nett difference in 2006 was a drop of 6,000. These new figures showing transfers to other benefits put that drop into perspective.
Compulsory counselling??
Instead of compulsory counselling after a traumatic incident these guys reckon having a stiff drink might be just as, if not more, useful.
Chris Haslett, a psychiatric registrar at Hillmorton Hospital in Christchurch and a New Zealand Alpine Club member, said research suggested that an emotional debriefing could be counterproductive and reinforce traumatic memories.
His view is backed by the Christchurch police search and rescue team co-ordinator, Sergeant Tony Tully, who said the trend for compulsory counselling was too rigid and it should be up to individuals to find the best way to deal with what they had encountered.
Up to the individuals? How radical. How blasphemous. How sacrilegious. We could never have that.
Chris Haslett, a psychiatric registrar at Hillmorton Hospital in Christchurch and a New Zealand Alpine Club member, said research suggested that an emotional debriefing could be counterproductive and reinforce traumatic memories.
His view is backed by the Christchurch police search and rescue team co-ordinator, Sergeant Tony Tully, who said the trend for compulsory counselling was too rigid and it should be up to individuals to find the best way to deal with what they had encountered.
Up to the individuals? How radical. How blasphemous. How sacrilegious. We could never have that.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Paternalism and sandwiches
During the smacking debate I have heard more than one person say, next they will be telling us what we can and can't feed our kids. Quite. Well they've started in Scotland, a country which is as mired in nanny statism as NZ.
It may read like the latest healthy lunchtime range from an upmarket sandwich shop, but the menu is what the Scottish Executive believes parents should be putting in their children's lunchboxes before sending them off to school for the day.
Guidelines on what a healthy packed lunch should contain were yesterday issued to schools and placed on a special parents' website.
Of course the prescription isn't compulsory....yet.
It may read like the latest healthy lunchtime range from an upmarket sandwich shop, but the menu is what the Scottish Executive believes parents should be putting in their children's lunchboxes before sending them off to school for the day.
Guidelines on what a healthy packed lunch should contain were yesterday issued to schools and placed on a special parents' website.
Of course the prescription isn't compulsory....yet.
Govt tries to prevent beneficiary 'windfalls'
Beneficiary advocates were yesterday making submissions to the social services select committee on the matter of the government's responsibility to inform clients fully of their each and every entitlement, and should they fail to do so, backdate any monies missed out on. That is the situation as it stands but the Social Security Amendment Bill would override this 'responsibility'.
Here's how a spokesperson from the Wellington People's Centre puts it;
If passed, the Labour government's Social Security Amendment Bill will override case-law to stop anyone who misses out on their rightful entitlements from ever having the chance to get that money paid back.
In other words, the money was and is rightfully the beneficiaries and because the government, by omission, failed to provide it, the beneficiary had money taken from them.
If the govt failed to inform me of a certain tax rebate or allowance what do you think my chances are of fronting up and demanding they pay me back the money they had wrongfully taken from me?
And here's another thought. If people belatedly realise they were entitled to Working For Families assistance will they be able to get it backdated? I don't think so. Because that system is under the jurisdiction of the IRD.
So why should anybody whose income is provided by the Ministry of Social Development have special status under the law?
It is enough that they can go to people with specialist knowledge who will assist and advise them free of charge. But back-dating missed 'entitlements' is a rort.
Here's how a spokesperson from the Wellington People's Centre puts it;
If passed, the Labour government's Social Security Amendment Bill will override case-law to stop anyone who misses out on their rightful entitlements from ever having the chance to get that money paid back.
In other words, the money was and is rightfully the beneficiaries and because the government, by omission, failed to provide it, the beneficiary had money taken from them.
If the govt failed to inform me of a certain tax rebate or allowance what do you think my chances are of fronting up and demanding they pay me back the money they had wrongfully taken from me?
And here's another thought. If people belatedly realise they were entitled to Working For Families assistance will they be able to get it backdated? I don't think so. Because that system is under the jurisdiction of the IRD.
So why should anybody whose income is provided by the Ministry of Social Development have special status under the law?
It is enough that they can go to people with specialist knowledge who will assist and advise them free of charge. But back-dating missed 'entitlements' is a rort.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Regulatory rubbish
This is a bureaucratic nightmare. A New Plymouth Montessori centre has two licences because it has 100 students and a licence is needed for each 50. So the Ministry of Education has now decided it needs to operate as two centres.
Literally, this will mean the school having to build a fence right down the middle of its property and operate it as two centres. Parents will need to enrol their children in one centre or the other, despite the fact they will be centimetres apart.
Even worse, the children will have to play in separate playgrounds that, once again, will be immediately adjacent to each other on what legally remains the same school property.
Madness.
Literally, this will mean the school having to build a fence right down the middle of its property and operate it as two centres. Parents will need to enrol their children in one centre or the other, despite the fact they will be centimetres apart.
Even worse, the children will have to play in separate playgrounds that, once again, will be immediately adjacent to each other on what legally remains the same school property.
Madness.
Section 59 - A Red Herring
Today the torrid debate over repeal of section 59 will resume in Parliament. Mercifully, whichever way the vote goes, the wrangling is drawing to a close. It has been painful to witness the polarisation and hear irrelevant arguments stated ad nauseam. Between the self-righteous do-gooders using the power of the state versus the people and the hard Christian Right brandishing biblical texts, there is a third position which gets buried by earnest activists determined to "send a message".
The objection is simply that repeal of section 59 will not stop child abuse.
Just as micro-chipping dogs will not stop dog attacks. We all know that, yet had to listen to heated drawn-out debates over dog-chipping legislation which was nothing more that a weak government's attempt to demonstrate it can deal with problems. Nanaia Mahuta, Associate Minister for Local Government is still fighting a rearguard action publicising a recent feel-good story of a family and their dog reunited only because the dog was chipped. Very nice. But it wasn't the point of the legislation and it is hard to imagine any good news stories following the passage of the anti-smacking bill.
We won't be seeing headlines claiming the number of CYFS notifications has plummeted. Quite the reverse. CYFS, already struggling to keep up, could very well get less effective than they already are.
Removal of section 59 won't stop child abuse because it won't tackle the causes of child abuse. New Zealand histories of child welfare, and there are three or four under-read books on the subject, are littered with references to child abuse and the strong association with young, unmarried mothers and ethnic minorities.
The first survey into child abuse published in 1970 found that those born out of wedlock were three times more likely to be abused, Maori children 6 times more likely and Pacific children 9 times.( 25 years later a study showed children with a parent on the DPB were four times more likely to be the subject of a CYF notification.)
The thinking, then, was these mothers needed more financial support. And it came. Sadly, rather than mitigate the problem the money exacerbated it. More girls kept babies they were unable to emotionally care for while the money allowed them to live away from family or whanau. This development, compounded by rapid urbanisation, meant Maori traditional nurturing links were lost.
Most child abuse is perpetrated by mothers. Where children are hit by fathers or other males, drugs and alcohol are often involved. Drunk people do not heed messages sent from government. Last year there were around 23,000 convictions for drink-driving despite politicians constantly self-congratulating about how they dealt to that particular culture.
Compared to the sixties, when the wider public first became aware of child abuse (yes, there were stories then of babies with cigarette burns) today's statistics indicate much higher levels. It stands to reason. If policy encourages growth of the group from which abuse and neglect are most likely to hail, then the incidence will increase.
This is a group which doesn't heed laws or "messages". They have already ignored ideas about getting an education, skills, and family planning.
If Sue Bradford's bill is passed it won't personally bother me. I don't demand the right to smack. Non-violence is an ideal many of us do our best to practice.
The tragedy will be that once again Parliament has acted out a charade which allows them to avoid doing something, anything that would take real moral courage; that risks being unpopular with voting blocks like feminists and beneficiaries.
Actions like stopping payments to teenage parents, stopping CYFS from pressuring girls to keep their babies and go on the DPB, encouraging adoptions which have fallen from almost 4,000 in the early seventies to just 300 a year today.
If this bill is really about stopping child abuse, and not about making parents who smack their children criminals, then we should expect a raft of other measures such as those described. Ironically, the major effect of its passage will be to delay real reform while too many New Zealand children continue to live frightened, insecure and disconnected lives.
The objection is simply that repeal of section 59 will not stop child abuse.
Just as micro-chipping dogs will not stop dog attacks. We all know that, yet had to listen to heated drawn-out debates over dog-chipping legislation which was nothing more that a weak government's attempt to demonstrate it can deal with problems. Nanaia Mahuta, Associate Minister for Local Government is still fighting a rearguard action publicising a recent feel-good story of a family and their dog reunited only because the dog was chipped. Very nice. But it wasn't the point of the legislation and it is hard to imagine any good news stories following the passage of the anti-smacking bill.
We won't be seeing headlines claiming the number of CYFS notifications has plummeted. Quite the reverse. CYFS, already struggling to keep up, could very well get less effective than they already are.
Removal of section 59 won't stop child abuse because it won't tackle the causes of child abuse. New Zealand histories of child welfare, and there are three or four under-read books on the subject, are littered with references to child abuse and the strong association with young, unmarried mothers and ethnic minorities.
The first survey into child abuse published in 1970 found that those born out of wedlock were three times more likely to be abused, Maori children 6 times more likely and Pacific children 9 times.( 25 years later a study showed children with a parent on the DPB were four times more likely to be the subject of a CYF notification.)
The thinking, then, was these mothers needed more financial support. And it came. Sadly, rather than mitigate the problem the money exacerbated it. More girls kept babies they were unable to emotionally care for while the money allowed them to live away from family or whanau. This development, compounded by rapid urbanisation, meant Maori traditional nurturing links were lost.
Most child abuse is perpetrated by mothers. Where children are hit by fathers or other males, drugs and alcohol are often involved. Drunk people do not heed messages sent from government. Last year there were around 23,000 convictions for drink-driving despite politicians constantly self-congratulating about how they dealt to that particular culture.
Compared to the sixties, when the wider public first became aware of child abuse (yes, there were stories then of babies with cigarette burns) today's statistics indicate much higher levels. It stands to reason. If policy encourages growth of the group from which abuse and neglect are most likely to hail, then the incidence will increase.
This is a group which doesn't heed laws or "messages". They have already ignored ideas about getting an education, skills, and family planning.
If Sue Bradford's bill is passed it won't personally bother me. I don't demand the right to smack. Non-violence is an ideal many of us do our best to practice.
The tragedy will be that once again Parliament has acted out a charade which allows them to avoid doing something, anything that would take real moral courage; that risks being unpopular with voting blocks like feminists and beneficiaries.
Actions like stopping payments to teenage parents, stopping CYFS from pressuring girls to keep their babies and go on the DPB, encouraging adoptions which have fallen from almost 4,000 in the early seventies to just 300 a year today.
If this bill is really about stopping child abuse, and not about making parents who smack their children criminals, then we should expect a raft of other measures such as those described. Ironically, the major effect of its passage will be to delay real reform while too many New Zealand children continue to live frightened, insecure and disconnected lives.
Being tangata whenua
If you were ever in doubt about what being tangata whenua means from a Maori perspective this should clarify it for you. Te Kawerau a Maki, Ngati Te Ata and other hapu and iwi are angry that Ngati Whatua o Orakei are being offered greater rights by the Crown.
He (spokesman for Te Kawerau a Maki) also said it was likely that local councils and government departments would view the settlement as acknowledgment of Ngati Whatua o Orakei's tangata whenua status for the region, excluding other groups from consultation and involvement in cultural and protocol issues.
That's why it bothers me when John Key says;
The National Party will always believe in one standard of citizenship and I want to make this very clear to you today.........Maori are the tangata whenua of this country, and we have nothing to fear by acknowledging that.
The two statements are incompatible.
He (spokesman for Te Kawerau a Maki) also said it was likely that local councils and government departments would view the settlement as acknowledgment of Ngati Whatua o Orakei's tangata whenua status for the region, excluding other groups from consultation and involvement in cultural and protocol issues.
That's why it bothers me when John Key says;
The National Party will always believe in one standard of citizenship and I want to make this very clear to you today.........Maori are the tangata whenua of this country, and we have nothing to fear by acknowledging that.
The two statements are incompatible.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Why the PM is supporting removal (?) of s59
I had the opportunity to talk to the PM this morning on NewstalkZB and put a two-part question to her; Why do you believe removal of section 59 will stop child abuse and why are you not allowing your party to exercise a conscience vote on this matter?
This is her verbatim answer;
Firstly, I have never said it would stop child abuse. Secondly, It isn't removal. It is an amendment to section 59. The plain fact is that smacking or hitting or assaulting a child now is a crime under the Crimes Act. Some people are prosecuted. They are the people who have been seen to have seriously beaten a child. Because the law says that there is a defence of reasonable force people who thrash and hit children are escaping conviction and that's not right. Now, we are right down the bottom of western countries with a terrible record of threats to child safety, child death and injury and we have to do something about that and sending a signal that really, there are other forms of discipline available is very important. I no more think that the parent who lightly smacks a child will be dragged into court than I would fly to the moon. I just don't believe that. But what I believe is that section 59, with that legal defence which can be mounted needs to go because it is enabling people who viciously assault children to get off.
She omitted to answer the second part. Perhaps because she gave me an answer in two parts she thought she had.
This is her verbatim answer;
Firstly, I have never said it would stop child abuse. Secondly, It isn't removal. It is an amendment to section 59. The plain fact is that smacking or hitting or assaulting a child now is a crime under the Crimes Act. Some people are prosecuted. They are the people who have been seen to have seriously beaten a child. Because the law says that there is a defence of reasonable force people who thrash and hit children are escaping conviction and that's not right. Now, we are right down the bottom of western countries with a terrible record of threats to child safety, child death and injury and we have to do something about that and sending a signal that really, there are other forms of discipline available is very important. I no more think that the parent who lightly smacks a child will be dragged into court than I would fly to the moon. I just don't believe that. But what I believe is that section 59, with that legal defence which can be mounted needs to go because it is enabling people who viciously assault children to get off.
She omitted to answer the second part. Perhaps because she gave me an answer in two parts she thought she had.
Monday, March 12, 2007
Pass me another tissue
This press release just shows the level of self-deception members of government practise. Nanaia Mahuta uses a sob story about a rottie that went missing but, thanks to being microchipped, has now been reunited with its owners.
"Levi's return is great news for the Haurua family, and it also highlights the real benefits of microchipping for other dogs and their owners," Nanaia Mahuta said.
"Microchipping is a simple, lifelong way to identify dogs and link them to their owner, and as this case highlights, results in the speedier return of lost, stolen or injured animals.
"As time goes by and more dogs are progressively microchipped, I think we will start hearing more stories like this in which dogs are successfully reunited with their owners," Nanaia Mahuta said.
But the government didn't pass the legislation to ensure pets couldn't be irretrievably lost. They passed it to identify dangerous beasts AFTER an attack on either a person or other animal. Can Nanaia give us an example of that happening?
"Levi's return is great news for the Haurua family, and it also highlights the real benefits of microchipping for other dogs and their owners," Nanaia Mahuta said.
"Microchipping is a simple, lifelong way to identify dogs and link them to their owner, and as this case highlights, results in the speedier return of lost, stolen or injured animals.
"As time goes by and more dogs are progressively microchipped, I think we will start hearing more stories like this in which dogs are successfully reunited with their owners," Nanaia Mahuta said.
But the government didn't pass the legislation to ensure pets couldn't be irretrievably lost. They passed it to identify dangerous beasts AFTER an attack on either a person or other animal. Can Nanaia give us an example of that happening?
Bad news for Bradford
A poll run on the Young Labour website shows 80 percent are opposed to repealing section 59.
(Hat-tip Family First)
And yesterday the SST reported Tariana Turia wavering on her support for Bradford's bill:
"Turia, who has previously given strong speeches in favour of the bill, said she is concerned Maori and Pacific families would be "targeted and criminalised" if it is passed."
(Hat-tip Family First)
And yesterday the SST reported Tariana Turia wavering on her support for Bradford's bill:
"Turia, who has previously given strong speeches in favour of the bill, said she is concerned Maori and Pacific families would be "targeted and criminalised" if it is passed."
Build them and they will come
John Key says National will build more state houses and stick with Labour's policy of income-related rents. More of the state competing with the private sector, more incentivising low incomes with means-testing. Away from an ownership society and personal responsibility. More ghetto-isation. More state redistribution.As a man with considerable wealth why doesn't John Key build homes for the poor? That would be more in keeping with the civil society, private charity ideas he has been pushing of late. Policy-wise, I find Mr Key all over the place.
Sunday, March 11, 2007
Nanny state; the substitute
According to Ruth Hill, writing in the Sunday Star Times, having a stepmum or stepdad is the reality for 40% of Kiwi kids. Around 30% of kids live in single parent homes. So only 30% of children live with their biological mum and dad?
And apparently only 2 out of 5 step families stay together.
One of the defining aspects of my life has been the security and stability of having an intact family. In a way it is little wonder we have such a pervasive (and accepted) nanny state today. So many people look to the government to supply the security their families cannot.
Government is a bit like the dummy instead of the breast. As a substitute it soothes but it can't nourish.
And apparently only 2 out of 5 step families stay together.
One of the defining aspects of my life has been the security and stability of having an intact family. In a way it is little wonder we have such a pervasive (and accepted) nanny state today. So many people look to the government to supply the security their families cannot.
Government is a bit like the dummy instead of the breast. As a substitute it soothes but it can't nourish.
Saturday, March 10, 2007
We need lower taxes
Rodney Hide has predicted that ACT will be the only party promoting tax cuts in 2008.
Consider the following from Iceland which has become, according to the NCPA, the "nordic tiger";
In fact, the benefits of low taxes are already on full display in Iceland, which provides an almost perfect demonstration of the Laffer Curve, says the Journal:
* From 1991 to 2001, as the corporate-tax rate fell gradually to 18 percent from 45 percent, tax revenues tripled to 9.1 billion kronas (U.S. $135 million in today's exchange rate) from just above 3 billion kronas (U.S. $44.5. million).
* Since 2001, revenues more than tripled again to an estimated 33 billion kronas (U.S. $490 million) last year.
* Personal income-tax rates were cut gradually as well, to a flat rate of 22.75 percent this year from 33 percent in 1995; meanwhile, the economy averaged annual growth rates of about 4 percent over the past decade.
But Iceland's tax competition isn't sleeping, says the (Wall St) Journal:
* In addition to Eastern Europe's flat-tax movement, there is healthy rivalry from Switzerland, where individual cantons (territorial districts) can set their rates independently.
* Even Germany, once critical of tax-cutting, recently announced that it will cut its corporate-tax rate to just below 30 percent next year from the current rate of about 38 percent.
Consider the following from Iceland which has become, according to the NCPA, the "nordic tiger";
In fact, the benefits of low taxes are already on full display in Iceland, which provides an almost perfect demonstration of the Laffer Curve, says the Journal:
* From 1991 to 2001, as the corporate-tax rate fell gradually to 18 percent from 45 percent, tax revenues tripled to 9.1 billion kronas (U.S. $135 million in today's exchange rate) from just above 3 billion kronas (U.S. $44.5. million).
* Since 2001, revenues more than tripled again to an estimated 33 billion kronas (U.S. $490 million) last year.
* Personal income-tax rates were cut gradually as well, to a flat rate of 22.75 percent this year from 33 percent in 1995; meanwhile, the economy averaged annual growth rates of about 4 percent over the past decade.
But Iceland's tax competition isn't sleeping, says the (Wall St) Journal:
* In addition to Eastern Europe's flat-tax movement, there is healthy rivalry from Switzerland, where individual cantons (territorial districts) can set their rates independently.
* Even Germany, once critical of tax-cutting, recently announced that it will cut its corporate-tax rate to just below 30 percent next year from the current rate of about 38 percent.
Friday, March 09, 2007
Trotter inflames the situation
In today's DomPost column Trotter describes an ugly incident from the anti-Springbok tour protests which involves a young man using his physical and psychological power to wrest a placard from an intimidated young women. The description is heavily laced with emotive language and is analogous to rape.
"(The scene) managed to pack into a few intense seconds, a whole manifesto about the Kiwi male's contempt for; rage at; and fear of women."
So because Trotter is a man he knows this. As a woman I wouldn't. I've been a woman for three decades and hadn't noticed it. All I can say is you Kiwi men are very good at hiding your feelings.
"(The scene) managed to pack into a few intense seconds, a whole manifesto about the Kiwi male's contempt for; rage at; and fear of women."
So because Trotter is a man he knows this. As a woman I wouldn't. I've been a woman for three decades and hadn't noticed it. All I can say is you Kiwi men are very good at hiding your feelings.
Thursday, March 08, 2007
Rodney Hide's Speech: Forward Thinking
I like Rodney's speech. When you think about it, it is even more important that government delivers than private business. After all you can use your feet in the private sector. Not with government.
If they can't deliver on the quality and quantity of services they promise then we have a right to be told. I'm not big on 'rights' but this one is indisputable.
Feed the birds...
...tuppence a bag, tuppence, tuppence, tuppence a bag.
Not any more. Not in NY City anyway. 60 year-old Yvette Bavier copped a hefty fine for "littering" after some snitch complained about her feeding rice to the local pigeons.
New York must truly be crime free (except for bird-feeding) when cops have this much time on their hands.
(Hat-tip Reason)
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
Inconsiderate idiots
The stupidity of those who created the anti-police poster is worse than I thought. When I heard about the posters yesterday, with their 0800 BAD COPS phone number, I immediately wondered whether that number would be an allocated number. Whether someone had thought to try it before plastering it on the poster. Turns out it is. It belongs to a Rotorua motorcamp, the owner of which says he will sue the idiots (my word) if he can find them. He's had to disconnect the line and will have incurred losses.
UK Labour will give greenlight to NZ Labour
Don Brash set a goal of getting 100,000 people off welfare in the three years following the election of a National government. Assuming that policy is retained, compare it to what the UK Labour government is proposing; to move 1.3 million beneficiaries (including 300,000 single parents) into work. They have set themselves a target of 80% employment. The plan is supported by Blair and Brown.
This gives the NZ Labour government impetus to match National's goal. They know that there is far more support for policies produced and practiced in the UK. The US is too tough, too capitalist so they propagate, very successfully, anti-Americanism.
Watch out for National and Labour squabbling next year over who can do a better job of cutting beneficiary numbers.
The pathetic thing is, this new report makes NO mention of prevention. Shutting the gate. Deterring newcomers. That is central to the problem.
This gives the NZ Labour government impetus to match National's goal. They know that there is far more support for policies produced and practiced in the UK. The US is too tough, too capitalist so they propagate, very successfully, anti-Americanism.
Watch out for National and Labour squabbling next year over who can do a better job of cutting beneficiary numbers.
The pathetic thing is, this new report makes NO mention of prevention. Shutting the gate. Deterring newcomers. That is central to the problem.
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
Minister's blog
Get a load of this. UK Minister of State for Employment and Welfare Reform, Jim Murphy, has a blog. It's reasonably personal. Here's an example;
Had an early start this morning to get to Manchester for our seminar on faith-based groups and their role in the welfare state. This is something I feel really strongly about. There’s a whole network of people out there with strong links to their communities who could be helping people get the benefits or skills they need to find work. I believe Government can do more to bring them on board and utilise their expertise.
Don’t get me wrong; this isn’t about providing welfare on the cheap or Government handing off stuff it doesn’t want to do to outside organisations. It’s about recognising these groups are often the first port of call for those who often don’t know where to turn. These groups know their community instinctively. And they know what works best for certain people and areas. Why shouldn’t we seek to make the most of this?
In my constituency there’s a strong network of Jewish organisations in the South Side of Glasgow who provide a range of support for people to access skills programmes or help lone parents into work. More importantly, they want to do it. So why not bring them on board and see what more we can do?
Let’s face it, there are a lot of people who for a variety of reasons find the idea of coming to the Government difficult either because of embarrassment or lack of knowledge. That doesn’t mean we should ignore them. If these people are happy to engage their local faith-based group, let’s make the most of it. Do you agree? Let me know what you think…
Very few comments though. (Perhaps most are unpublishable). I've left one at his most recent post just so as he doesn't feel ignored.
Can you imagine a David Benson-Pope blog .....
NZ: HIGHEST RATE OF LONE PARENTS ON WELFARE
Media Release
NZ: HIGHEST RATE OF LONE PARENTS ON WELFARE
Tuesday, March 6, 2007
A report just released by the United Kingdom's Department for Work and Pensions, Welfare in the Future, reveals that New Zealand has the highest rate of working-age people relying on a single parent benefit.
Welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell says, "The report compares sixteen developed countries and shows New Zealand heads the table with 4.2 percent of its working-age population reliant on the Domestic Purposes Benefit. Second is Ireland with 3.4 percent, followed by Australia at 3.2 percent."
"With New Zealand almost doubling the average percentage of 2.2 it is clear that while we compare better in terms of unemployment and even incapacity benefits, we continue to have a problem with too many single parents and their children being dependent on welfare."
"The report shows that other countries have far more stringent conditions on receipt of a single parent benefit. For instance, the US has time-limits and work requirements, Germany requires lone parents to be available for work when the youngest child turns three and in Denmark, single parents go on the unemployment benefit."
"In contrast NZ single parents can stay on the DPB until their youngest is 19, they get extra assistance for additional children and there are no work requirements."
"The resulting statistics speak for themselves."
(Hat tip to Gavin for alerting me to report)
NZ: HIGHEST RATE OF LONE PARENTS ON WELFARE
Tuesday, March 6, 2007
A report just released by the United Kingdom's Department for Work and Pensions, Welfare in the Future, reveals that New Zealand has the highest rate of working-age people relying on a single parent benefit.
Welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell says, "The report compares sixteen developed countries and shows New Zealand heads the table with 4.2 percent of its working-age population reliant on the Domestic Purposes Benefit. Second is Ireland with 3.4 percent, followed by Australia at 3.2 percent."
"With New Zealand almost doubling the average percentage of 2.2 it is clear that while we compare better in terms of unemployment and even incapacity benefits, we continue to have a problem with too many single parents and their children being dependent on welfare."
"The report shows that other countries have far more stringent conditions on receipt of a single parent benefit. For instance, the US has time-limits and work requirements, Germany requires lone parents to be available for work when the youngest child turns three and in Denmark, single parents go on the unemployment benefit."
"In contrast NZ single parents can stay on the DPB until their youngest is 19, they get extra assistance for additional children and there are no work requirements."
"The resulting statistics speak for themselves."
(Hat tip to Gavin for alerting me to report)
Eight year-old allegedly indecently assaulted
There I was, reading this story, thinking, poor little girl, how awful, what a creep, what a b.....d, when an unbidden and not entirely welcome thought popped into my head; what if she made it up? She's obviously a child with some behavioural problems. If she did, what an utter nightmare for the man living next to the school. He is being regarded as guilty until proven otherwise.
In the past I would have taken this story at face value but now....well, such is the moral climate in which we live.
In the past I would have taken this story at face value but now....well, such is the moral climate in which we live.
Monday, March 05, 2007
Growth of the welfare state
The following chart is from a Newsweek article, The Stubborn Welfare State;
It might help if Americans called welfare programs—current benefits for select populations, paid for by current taxes—by their proper name, rather than by the soothing (and misleading) labels of "entitlements" and "social insurance." That way, we might ask ourselves who deserves welfare and why. We could consider all of federal spending and not just small bits of it. But most Americans don't want to admit that they're current or prospective welfare recipients. They prefer to think that they automatically deserve whatever they've been promised simply because they've been promised. They do not want to pose the basic questions, and their political leaders mirror that reluctance. This makes the welfare state immovable and the budget situation intractable.
Naturally I want to compare New Zealand. Forget Defence which has only been a miniscule item of government spending in the past forty years. And the closest figures I could get my hands on were from 1966-67;
Welfare state spending went from 58% to 76%. (Apologies for the basic piecharts which were only possible with the help of my eight year-old)
Almost a third more spending with what to show for it? Of course. We are all healthier, happier and wiser.
It might help if Americans called welfare programs—current benefits for select populations, paid for by current taxes—by their proper name, rather than by the soothing (and misleading) labels of "entitlements" and "social insurance." That way, we might ask ourselves who deserves welfare and why. We could consider all of federal spending and not just small bits of it. But most Americans don't want to admit that they're current or prospective welfare recipients. They prefer to think that they automatically deserve whatever they've been promised simply because they've been promised. They do not want to pose the basic questions, and their political leaders mirror that reluctance. This makes the welfare state immovable and the budget situation intractable.
Naturally I want to compare New Zealand. Forget Defence which has only been a miniscule item of government spending in the past forty years. And the closest figures I could get my hands on were from 1966-67;
Welfare state spending went from 58% to 76%. (Apologies for the basic piecharts which were only possible with the help of my eight year-old)
Almost a third more spending with what to show for it? Of course. We are all healthier, happier and wiser.
Reproductive rights
This business of fathering children from prison raises a number of questions;
In the absence of the father, is the taxpayer expected to support the child on welfare?
Can the father afford to pay child support out of his prison income?
If not, will he be granted an exemption despite having actively created a child knowing he couldn't contribute financially to its upbringing?
Does today's call from civil libertarians for conjugal rights for all prisoners extend to women in prison?
Do conjugal rights apply only to married people?
Does the granting of rights have a good track record of aiding rehabilitation?
Have we completely abandoned the notion that rights command responsibilities?
Would adhering to that principle sort out these ethical dilemmas?
Have we gone completely nuts?
In the absence of the father, is the taxpayer expected to support the child on welfare?
Can the father afford to pay child support out of his prison income?
If not, will he be granted an exemption despite having actively created a child knowing he couldn't contribute financially to its upbringing?
Does today's call from civil libertarians for conjugal rights for all prisoners extend to women in prison?
Do conjugal rights apply only to married people?
Does the granting of rights have a good track record of aiding rehabilitation?
Have we completely abandoned the notion that rights command responsibilities?
Would adhering to that principle sort out these ethical dilemmas?
Have we gone completely nuts?
Sunday, March 04, 2007
In praise of anger
Its seems to me that in NZ society there is pressure to be easy-going, chill-out, don't take things too seriously. All of these actions may be good for other's blood pressure, they aren't for mine.
Anger is good as long as you can channel it constructively. And here is what Thomas Aquinas had to say on the subject;
"He who is not angry when there is just cause for anger is immoral. Why? Because anger looks to the good of justice. And if you can live amid injustice without anger, you are immoral as well as unjust."
Anger is good as long as you can channel it constructively. And here is what Thomas Aquinas had to say on the subject;
"He who is not angry when there is just cause for anger is immoral. Why? Because anger looks to the good of justice. And if you can live amid injustice without anger, you are immoral as well as unjust."
Are you a "sinner"?
This piece, Sins ain't what they used to be, was reproduced in the Sunday Star Times today.
It lists a variety of modern day sins like eco-apathy (driving a SUV) and having a fat kid and then dated sins like infidelity and swearing. The first are an absolute no-no while the second...well, no-one cares anymore.
I'm guilty of (or have been at some time) quite a few of these "sins". 4 out of 8 in the absolute no-nos, and 6 out of 8 (now down to 2 in my defence) in the no-one cares anymore category.
I have one chubby child (whatever happened to 'puppy fat' which I had lots of at the same age?), am sometimes apathetic about the environment (I biffed a plastic bottle in the rubbish instead of the recycling yesterday) and haven't had botox injections; I swear too much ('any' is too much when other words would do) and drink too much fizzy wine (I'm counting on tippling being the secret to longevity).
A good Sunday question. A penny for your sins?
It lists a variety of modern day sins like eco-apathy (driving a SUV) and having a fat kid and then dated sins like infidelity and swearing. The first are an absolute no-no while the second...well, no-one cares anymore.
I'm guilty of (or have been at some time) quite a few of these "sins". 4 out of 8 in the absolute no-nos, and 6 out of 8 (now down to 2 in my defence) in the no-one cares anymore category.
I have one chubby child (whatever happened to 'puppy fat' which I had lots of at the same age?), am sometimes apathetic about the environment (I biffed a plastic bottle in the rubbish instead of the recycling yesterday) and haven't had botox injections; I swear too much ('any' is too much when other words would do) and drink too much fizzy wine (I'm counting on tippling being the secret to longevity).
A good Sunday question. A penny for your sins?
Saturday, March 03, 2007
Buy some biscuits
Go out and buy a packet or two of Girlguide biscuits. Ordinarily I wouldn't bother but as the sourpuss, Sue Kedgley is sticking her nose in, calling for a reduced sugar recipe after a Nelson college banned them, I couldn't resist. And I bought the chocolate coated ones. Get a life Sue.
Friday, March 02, 2007
Less than half-truths
While a less than half-truth isn't a lie it's evasive and dishonest. David Benson-Pope is getting very good at it. Yesterday you saw how he answered a question in the house by totally avoiding the subject of the question. Today he is giving selective information to the media to cover up the government's failure to control the sickness and invalid benefits. From the NZ Herald:
Numbers on the unemployment benefit were at an all-time low, but an ageing population had caused a rise in the number on sickness and invalids benefits, he said.
Here is the Ministry's own research into the problem published just 3 months ago:
This paper reports on research that uses the Ministry of Social Development’s benefit administration data to advance our understanding of the growth in the number of people receiving the Invalid’s Benefit over the decade to 2002. It investigates the growth in inflows of people to Invalid’s Benefit, as this was the main cause of growth in recipient numbers. Some of the growth in inflows can be explained by population growth, population ageing, and the effects of the rise in the age of eligibility for New Zealand Superannuation. However, more than half cannot be accounted for by these factors and is explained instead by an increase in the proportion of people aged 15–59 taking up Invalid’s Benefit. This increase was explained both by growth in transfers from other benefits, and by growth in entries from outside the benefit system, some of which was associated with growth in uptake by former benefit recipients returning after a period off benefit.
What really hacks me off is there isn't a political party holding him to account.
Numbers on the unemployment benefit were at an all-time low, but an ageing population had caused a rise in the number on sickness and invalids benefits, he said.
Here is the Ministry's own research into the problem published just 3 months ago:
This paper reports on research that uses the Ministry of Social Development’s benefit administration data to advance our understanding of the growth in the number of people receiving the Invalid’s Benefit over the decade to 2002. It investigates the growth in inflows of people to Invalid’s Benefit, as this was the main cause of growth in recipient numbers. Some of the growth in inflows can be explained by population growth, population ageing, and the effects of the rise in the age of eligibility for New Zealand Superannuation. However, more than half cannot be accounted for by these factors and is explained instead by an increase in the proportion of people aged 15–59 taking up Invalid’s Benefit. This increase was explained both by growth in transfers from other benefits, and by growth in entries from outside the benefit system, some of which was associated with growth in uptake by former benefit recipients returning after a period off benefit.
What really hacks me off is there isn't a political party holding him to account.
Thursday, March 01, 2007
On radio tomorrow
Tomorrow I am joining NewstalkZB's Face Off panel. Diversity of opinion about the issues of the week is sought - and the delivery of a brickbat and/or bouquet is invited. It should be fun and will make a nice change from talking about welfare. The Wellington frequency is 1035am and the programme follows the 11am news. The other guests are NZ First MP Ron Mark and Police Association boss, Greg O'Connor.
Oral PQ today
11. SUE BRADFORD to the Minister of Police: Is it police policy to arrest and prosecute people for every technical offence committed, for example, when parents keep their children out of school to take them on a family holiday?
What kind of a mickey mouse question is this?
She's looking for a negative answer in order to prove that when smacking becomes a 'technical offence' the police will not, as a matter of policy, arrest and prosecute people for it.
It seems to me that smoking dope is a technical offence that the police have long been turning a blind eye to. Yet the Greens would argue that as a reason for decriminalising dope. See the muddle-headed hypocrisy?
Oh, what the hell. Let's just have oodles of de facto laws that mean diddly squat.
What kind of a mickey mouse question is this?
She's looking for a negative answer in order to prove that when smacking becomes a 'technical offence' the police will not, as a matter of policy, arrest and prosecute people for it.
It seems to me that smoking dope is a technical offence that the police have long been turning a blind eye to. Yet the Greens would argue that as a reason for decriminalising dope. See the muddle-headed hypocrisy?
Oh, what the hell. Let's just have oodles of de facto laws that mean diddly squat.
Transparency and accountability? - bollocks
If you don't already think Parliament is a waste of time read this exchange;
Judith Collins: Why is it that despite all the so-called innovative employment programmes that have been funded over the past year to deal with the sickness benefit and invalids benefit numbers, sickness benefit numbers have risen by another 2,000 to yet another record high, at a time when the Minister of Health keeps telling us that we are a much healthier country these days?
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: Although I and members of this House will be understandably pleased that the rate of unemployment has dropped by 76 percent, I am equally pleased that the total benefit roll number has reduced by around 25 percent. The most instructive comment I could make for that member’s information is about the international comparison between ourselves, the UK, and Australia. [Interruption] Between 2000—
Madam SPEAKER: The member will please be seated. The level of interjections is getting to the point where speakers cannot be heard. Members ask questions, and they expect to be able to get those questions addressed. But if answers cannot be heard through the interjections, it makes a nonsense of the whole exercise. I ask members to please control themselves, and the Minister to continue.
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: To provide some perspective for the benefit of members opposite, who understandably do not want to hear these figures, I say that between 2000 and 2005 the United Kingdom had a net reduction of 6.4 percent in the number of people in receipt of an unemployment benefit or some form of incapacity benefit. Australia, comparatively, achieved a 0.8 percent reduction in those benefits, and in New Zealand over the same period our achievement was a 25.8 percent reduction.
Judith Collins: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I listened to every word the Minister said, but at no stage did I hear him address the issue of how it is that sickness benefit numbers keep going up to record high after record high.
Madam SPEAKER: I heard the member address the question—at length.
And they move onto the question 9.
Judith Collins: Why is it that despite all the so-called innovative employment programmes that have been funded over the past year to deal with the sickness benefit and invalids benefit numbers, sickness benefit numbers have risen by another 2,000 to yet another record high, at a time when the Minister of Health keeps telling us that we are a much healthier country these days?
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: Although I and members of this House will be understandably pleased that the rate of unemployment has dropped by 76 percent, I am equally pleased that the total benefit roll number has reduced by around 25 percent. The most instructive comment I could make for that member’s information is about the international comparison between ourselves, the UK, and Australia. [Interruption] Between 2000—
Madam SPEAKER: The member will please be seated. The level of interjections is getting to the point where speakers cannot be heard. Members ask questions, and they expect to be able to get those questions addressed. But if answers cannot be heard through the interjections, it makes a nonsense of the whole exercise. I ask members to please control themselves, and the Minister to continue.
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: To provide some perspective for the benefit of members opposite, who understandably do not want to hear these figures, I say that between 2000 and 2005 the United Kingdom had a net reduction of 6.4 percent in the number of people in receipt of an unemployment benefit or some form of incapacity benefit. Australia, comparatively, achieved a 0.8 percent reduction in those benefits, and in New Zealand over the same period our achievement was a 25.8 percent reduction.
Judith Collins: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I listened to every word the Minister said, but at no stage did I hear him address the issue of how it is that sickness benefit numbers keep going up to record high after record high.
Madam SPEAKER: I heard the member address the question—at length.
And they move onto the question 9.
What's good for the goose...
Ban McDonalds says Prince (is he getting like his father?) Charles;
The comment came as he attended the launch of a public-health awareness campaign in Abu Dhabi. Touring the city's Imperial College London Diabetes Centre with the Duchess of Cornwall, he asked nutritionist Nadine Tayara: "Have you got anywhere with McDonald's, have you tried getting it banned? That's the key."
He didn't much care for the ban on fox-hunting, swearing to leave Britain forever. But it's OK to stop his common royal subjects from enjoying a Big Mac.
Like so much legislation
This is so funny. National MP Chris Auchinvole on the newly passed anti-spamming legislation:
He said: "It's more virtual than real and in reality it does virtually nothing."
He said: "It's more virtual than real and in reality it does virtually nothing."
Maori Party moots benefit rises
Pita Sharples said yesterday in his Budget Policy Statement;
We want to see allocation made to address the income issues of the working poor; and to assist our most vulnerable citizens, benefit dependent families who are not accessing Working for Families. We would be interested in receiving a cost analysis of what benefits could be expected from removing tax on employment, DPB, sickness and invalids benefits.
Does anybody else see the incongruity of one moment slamming welfare dependency and the next suggesting rates could be higher?
Help me out on this if you can. I've been told tax on social security benefits was introduced in the eighties and was intended to ensure one standard of citizenship. Everybody was to pay tax. Is this correct?
(Calling the unemployment benefit the "employment" benefit was surely a slip of the tongue. Or maybe that's the dole you get when working under the table.)
We want to see allocation made to address the income issues of the working poor; and to assist our most vulnerable citizens, benefit dependent families who are not accessing Working for Families. We would be interested in receiving a cost analysis of what benefits could be expected from removing tax on employment, DPB, sickness and invalids benefits.
Does anybody else see the incongruity of one moment slamming welfare dependency and the next suggesting rates could be higher?
Help me out on this if you can. I've been told tax on social security benefits was introduced in the eighties and was intended to ensure one standard of citizenship. Everybody was to pay tax. Is this correct?
(Calling the unemployment benefit the "employment" benefit was surely a slip of the tongue. Or maybe that's the dole you get when working under the table.)
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Beveridge didn't bargain for the "entitlement mentality"
I suppose, in terms of welfare reform, NZ is somewhere between the US and the UK. Here is Frank Field, ex Labour Minister, telling the Blair (or Cameron) government what it should be doing (I'm sure he would like to go a lot further having read some of his work). He makes an interesting point;
Beveridge (architect of Britain's welfare state) never meant welfare to be free of conditions. Nor did he think it important to give incentives to claimants to leave welfare. He assumed people would do that automatically as jobs became available.
Why is it now the government's job to incentivise beneficiaries into work? At a recent meeting a woman asked what ACT would be doing about making it worth her while. Look at what she is really saying. There is work for her but because it only pays a bit more or the same as her benefit she doesn't want to do it or think she should. Mind you, she doesn't object to you working so she doesn't have to.
Grow up
Dr Cullen said yesterday that Mr Key could afford to donate to charity because "he's got a lot to give".
He was surprised Mr Key bothered claiming the $630 rebate.
So John Key claims the maximum rebate on his charitable donations. So what? It's $630 Cullen can't waste and Key can give to whom he pleases. Michael Cullen epitomises Labour's enviest ethos, their cringe-making mean-mindedness, their graceless, grudging attitude to material success. If the environmentalists didn't own the colour, green would better suit Labour.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
US welfare progress
This is a good overview of the effects of the US welfare reforms. They are mixed. Although millions fewer families rely on cash payments, other government aid - food stamps, medicaid and disability payments - continue to grow. Anti-reformers complain about ex welfare recipients being in low paid jobs and needing to supplement their income with non-cash forms of aid. They still want the government to provide education instead of jobs. My feeling about that is it is up to the individual to get things in the right order and ultimately, somebody has to do the unskilled jobs. I wish they paid more, but part of the reason they don't is the taxation going into government assistance programmes! But if you want to instill a work ethic in the next generation it has to start somewhere.
There is something out of this article which is good news for NZ. Because we don't have as much non-cash assistance and our low paying jobs are on par or better than benefits, the potential for people to become self-sufficient, one aim of welfare reform, is greater. Although with Working for Families we are going in the wrong direction for self-sufficiency.
There is something out of this article which is good news for NZ. Because we don't have as much non-cash assistance and our low paying jobs are on par or better than benefits, the potential for people to become self-sufficient, one aim of welfare reform, is greater. Although with Working for Families we are going in the wrong direction for self-sufficiency.
Opposing the welfare state 1930's-style
An article from today's NZ Herald describes footage that will be shown at the National Film Archive centre tonight. The event showcases the use of film for political propaganda during the term of the first Labour Government.
Other footage from the same era includes a 1936 speech from Savage when he first came to power, his popular funeral parades through Auckland and Wellington in 1940, and the torching of the social security building in 1939 by those opposing the welfare state.
"We have home movies of the fire and of the rebuilding, which was apparently done in record time, including various Cabinet ministers pitching in with wheelbarrows to get it rebuilt," Mr Stark said. "It was one of those great unsolved mysteries of politically violent acts."
I was aware when Social Security benefits were launched a temporary building was used but that is the first I have read about an act of arson by opposers of the welfare state. I'm certain it wasn't mentioned in Margaret McClure's history of the welfare state.
Not all New Zealanders enthusiastically embraced Michael Joseph Savage's welfare state. To be fair, coming from a Labour background, had I been around at the time, I probably would have welcomed it. Seventy years on I believe it's become a disaster. It's no longer in keeping with the times and rather than primarily responding to need, creates it.
But I will continue to peacefully oppose it. Besides, in 1939 there was only one building. Today the Ministry has over 200 sites.
Other footage from the same era includes a 1936 speech from Savage when he first came to power, his popular funeral parades through Auckland and Wellington in 1940, and the torching of the social security building in 1939 by those opposing the welfare state.
"We have home movies of the fire and of the rebuilding, which was apparently done in record time, including various Cabinet ministers pitching in with wheelbarrows to get it rebuilt," Mr Stark said. "It was one of those great unsolved mysteries of politically violent acts."
I was aware when Social Security benefits were launched a temporary building was used but that is the first I have read about an act of arson by opposers of the welfare state. I'm certain it wasn't mentioned in Margaret McClure's history of the welfare state.
Not all New Zealanders enthusiastically embraced Michael Joseph Savage's welfare state. To be fair, coming from a Labour background, had I been around at the time, I probably would have welcomed it. Seventy years on I believe it's become a disaster. It's no longer in keeping with the times and rather than primarily responding to need, creates it.
But I will continue to peacefully oppose it. Besides, in 1939 there was only one building. Today the Ministry has over 200 sites.
Monday, February 26, 2007
State set to remove fat child from mother
I saw Connor McCreaddie on TV3 News this evening. He was jumping on a trampoline. Looking half pleased with his world.Only two months ago I suggested it wouldn't be long before the UK authorities moved from fat dogs to fat kids.
Atrocious.
Thanks Sue
Sue Bradford is jumping up and down about a new internet gaming site, Race-O, backed by Sir Patrick Hogan and Dave O'Sullivan. She wants the government to shut it down immediately. I didn't know about it until Sue had a tanty.
Free publicity for the competition to the TAB. The investors will be pleased.
Free publicity for the competition to the TAB. The investors will be pleased.
Where to, for ACT?
DomPost journalist, Tracy Watkin has written a fair piece on where ACT is at. The transformation of Rodney's physical and psychological approach to MMP politics is covered and she points out the obvious, that with National's move to the centre, an opportunity reopens for ACT but says "voters need a reason to switch back."The problem with that is it paints ACT as usual, as right, of National. Economically, correct. Socially? I hope not. With a classical liberal position consistently presented and properly understood ACT could pull voters from the left as well.
Where I wholeheartedly agree with Watkins is in her closing sentences.
"He (Rodney Hide) has, in effect, given himself the licence to start with a blank canvas. But the longer he waits to fill in the canvas with some brush strokes , the longer it will take for voters to get the picture."
Bad law will not stop abuse
I wanted to make something clear. As someone who has very occasionally smacked her children, my motivation in opposing Bradford's bill is not to retain that right. It's just not that important to me. The protestations of the Christian right, who do appear primarily motivated in this way, don't sit easy with me.
My problem is twofold; making smacking illegal is bad law. Law conceived by someone saying, don't worry, it won't be routinely or consistently policed.
Secondly, and most importantly, I thoroughly object to the idea that child abuse will be reduced (thereby assuaging the conscience of the country). Bunkum. I've expanded on this in a letter sent to the Press responding to their editorial, featured in an earlier post;
You say, "The passing of the anti-smacking bill through its second reading at Parliament was a welcome step towards dealing with child abuse."
I disagree. This bill is covering up a gross failure to tackle the causes of child abuse.
Government agencies were acknowledging child abuse as early as 1967. Child Welfare conducted a survey of the 210 confirmed cases that year. They found was a strong association between illegitimacy and child abuse. Maori children were 6 times more likely to be victims.
Forty years on and policy makers are still refusing to face this reality, wringing their hands over unpartnered, teenage birth and claiming more support is the answer. The focus of that support has largely been financial thereby inadvertently exacerbating the problem. Pay girls to have and keep babies and they will, whether or not they are emotionally capable of parenting them and others that inevitably follow.
The teenage birth rate has risen for four consecutive years. The Maori rate is more than four times higher than NZ European.
Rather than fiddling with section 59 we should be stopping welfare to teenagers, blitzing contraception use and encouraging adoption. Do we have any politicians brave enough to act on these ideas?
My problem is twofold; making smacking illegal is bad law. Law conceived by someone saying, don't worry, it won't be routinely or consistently policed.
Secondly, and most importantly, I thoroughly object to the idea that child abuse will be reduced (thereby assuaging the conscience of the country). Bunkum. I've expanded on this in a letter sent to the Press responding to their editorial, featured in an earlier post;
You say, "The passing of the anti-smacking bill through its second reading at Parliament was a welcome step towards dealing with child abuse."
I disagree. This bill is covering up a gross failure to tackle the causes of child abuse.
Government agencies were acknowledging child abuse as early as 1967. Child Welfare conducted a survey of the 210 confirmed cases that year. They found was a strong association between illegitimacy and child abuse. Maori children were 6 times more likely to be victims.
Forty years on and policy makers are still refusing to face this reality, wringing their hands over unpartnered, teenage birth and claiming more support is the answer. The focus of that support has largely been financial thereby inadvertently exacerbating the problem. Pay girls to have and keep babies and they will, whether or not they are emotionally capable of parenting them and others that inevitably follow.
The teenage birth rate has risen for four consecutive years. The Maori rate is more than four times higher than NZ European.
Rather than fiddling with section 59 we should be stopping welfare to teenagers, blitzing contraception use and encouraging adoption. Do we have any politicians brave enough to act on these ideas?
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Children on benefits
I noticed a comment on Isolent Prick's blog from someone who occasionally comments here;
A small percentage (1%-3%) of people are born to be bludgers.
I'm not sure what this statement is based on.
But consider this. Half of the children born in 1994, approximately 30,000, had contact with the benefit system before age three. Having contact with the benefit system means being with an adult care-giver receiving an income-tested benefit. Children may not be born onto a benefit but find themselves on one within a couple of years. Relationships split, fathers become unemployed, they are adopted out to a beneficiary caregiver, a parent becomes sick, etc. For many it is only a transitory experience. But for others it lasts for years and leads to expectations or assumptions that they too avail themselves of lifestyle-welfare payments.
"Bivariate analysis of factors associated with long benefit durations highlights having first contact with the benefit system at birth; living with a sole caregiver at first contact; and first appearing with a primary beneficiary who was female, Maori or aged under 20."
If the same analysis had been conducted of children born in 2000 the proportion having contact with the benefit system by age 3 is likely to have dropped due to unemployment dropping. But the same underlying factors leading to long stays on welfare would be unchanged.
Right now there are 219,000 children on a main benefit - about 20 percent of all 0-18 year-olds. As the concentration is greater in younger ages the incidence rises to one in four. Move into the lowest decile areas and you are probably looking at schools where half of the children are on welfare.
Add to this a NZ (AUT) study estimated the true correlation coefficient between welfare participation and their parents is somewhere between one-third and two-thirds, but probably much closer to the lower limit in this range.
1 - 3 percent looks too low to me.
A small percentage (1%-3%) of people are born to be bludgers.
I'm not sure what this statement is based on.
But consider this. Half of the children born in 1994, approximately 30,000, had contact with the benefit system before age three. Having contact with the benefit system means being with an adult care-giver receiving an income-tested benefit. Children may not be born onto a benefit but find themselves on one within a couple of years. Relationships split, fathers become unemployed, they are adopted out to a beneficiary caregiver, a parent becomes sick, etc. For many it is only a transitory experience. But for others it lasts for years and leads to expectations or assumptions that they too avail themselves of lifestyle-welfare payments.
"Bivariate analysis of factors associated with long benefit durations highlights having first contact with the benefit system at birth; living with a sole caregiver at first contact; and first appearing with a primary beneficiary who was female, Maori or aged under 20."
If the same analysis had been conducted of children born in 2000 the proportion having contact with the benefit system by age 3 is likely to have dropped due to unemployment dropping. But the same underlying factors leading to long stays on welfare would be unchanged.
Right now there are 219,000 children on a main benefit - about 20 percent of all 0-18 year-olds. As the concentration is greater in younger ages the incidence rises to one in four. Move into the lowest decile areas and you are probably looking at schools where half of the children are on welfare.
Add to this a NZ (AUT) study estimated the true correlation coefficient between welfare participation and their parents is somewhere between one-third and two-thirds, but probably much closer to the lower limit in this range.
1 - 3 percent looks too low to me.
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Vain hope
There have been a couple of surprises in where support for Sue Bradford's bill has come from. For me, one was Paul Holmes, and today, The Press. Here's their editorial in its entirety. What do you think? You could let The Press know at editorial@press.co.nz
I will.
A ban on smacking is the right way forward for New Zealand
The Press | Saturday, 24 February 2007
The passing of the anti-smacking bill through its second reading at Parliament was a welcome step towards dealing with child abuse. It is to be hoped that the law change's tentative progress signals a new responsibility in the way New Zealand children are treated by their parents.
But the measure still faces major hurdles in its remaining parliamentary stages, notably from a proposed amendment in the name of National MP Chester Borrows, which would render Green MP Sue Bradford's bill almost meaningless.
Those MPs who had the courage to support the bill's second reading should not now allow its anti-smacking message to be diluted as it works its way through the crucial stages to becoming law.
Smacking children is an issue which can arouse strong emotions. The opposition to Bradford's bill is derived from a "spare the rod" mentality and the fear of the intrusion of State authorities into the rights of parents to discipline their children.
Just how far the most extreme and irrational opponents of the bill will go was shown by the CYFS Watch website death threat against Bradford this week.
But MPs have an obligation not to be cowered by the fear of a middle-class or religious backlash against them if they vote for the bill. In this respect, Labour adopted the smart tactic of block voting on the issue, making it more difficult for any of its individual MPs to be targeted for supporting the measure.
Other MPs who supported the bill's second reading but are now wavering should also stand firm.
They must regard the bill as an opportunity to demonstrate their own boldness and leadership by doing what is right for society, not what might seem politically expedient for themselves. That is part of the responsibility which should go with being a member of Parliament. They should not contemplate supporting the weak-kneed compromise being promoted by Borrows, which would still allow a parent to administer a trifling slap, defined as one which causes redness but only for a short time. In effect, it would create the logical absurdity of inserting a smacking provision into an anti-smacking bill and is simply an attempt to curry favour with those who want to retain the parental right to administer corporal punishment.
Trying to define what is trifling or transitory physical punishment has the potential to become a legal minefield. More importantly, it goes completely against the intent and the spirit of Bradford's bill. She quite correctly says that if Borrows' amendment is passed, then there is no point in her bill proceeding at all, and it should be withdrawn.
Those MPs contemplating supporting the Borrows amendment should be reminded of the recent Unicef report which found that New Zealanders ranked towards the bottom of developed nations in taking care of their children. The report was simply the latest in a seemingly endless stream of evidence of the extent of child abuse in this country.
By itself, the anti-smacking bill is not a complete answer to New Zealand's child-abuse problem, but it is one necessary measure in tackling this social ill. It sends a clear message about what is acceptable in the treatment of children – and that violence is unacceptable.
Those who raise the spectre of the police intruding into law-abiding families and asking trivial questions about the discipline of children are being far-fetched; they should reflect on another scenario, that perhaps the police will be able to use a law change to more effectively intervene earlier in families suffering domestic violence.
Smacking is a form of discipline which belongs to another age. Other forms of legalised violence have been outlawed, including the administering of corporal punishment in schools, which was banned almost two decades ago. The home should be at least as much a sanctuary to a child as the classroom.
Bradford's anti-smacking bill will not prevent the worst cases of child abuse, such as the death of the Kahui twins, for the origins of this sort of violence lie deep in our society. But the bill will play an important role in driving a change in attitude towards the treatment of children. It should be passed without amendment.
I will.
A ban on smacking is the right way forward for New Zealand
The Press | Saturday, 24 February 2007
The passing of the anti-smacking bill through its second reading at Parliament was a welcome step towards dealing with child abuse. It is to be hoped that the law change's tentative progress signals a new responsibility in the way New Zealand children are treated by their parents.
But the measure still faces major hurdles in its remaining parliamentary stages, notably from a proposed amendment in the name of National MP Chester Borrows, which would render Green MP Sue Bradford's bill almost meaningless.
Those MPs who had the courage to support the bill's second reading should not now allow its anti-smacking message to be diluted as it works its way through the crucial stages to becoming law.
Smacking children is an issue which can arouse strong emotions. The opposition to Bradford's bill is derived from a "spare the rod" mentality and the fear of the intrusion of State authorities into the rights of parents to discipline their children.
Just how far the most extreme and irrational opponents of the bill will go was shown by the CYFS Watch website death threat against Bradford this week.
But MPs have an obligation not to be cowered by the fear of a middle-class or religious backlash against them if they vote for the bill. In this respect, Labour adopted the smart tactic of block voting on the issue, making it more difficult for any of its individual MPs to be targeted for supporting the measure.
Other MPs who supported the bill's second reading but are now wavering should also stand firm.
They must regard the bill as an opportunity to demonstrate their own boldness and leadership by doing what is right for society, not what might seem politically expedient for themselves. That is part of the responsibility which should go with being a member of Parliament. They should not contemplate supporting the weak-kneed compromise being promoted by Borrows, which would still allow a parent to administer a trifling slap, defined as one which causes redness but only for a short time. In effect, it would create the logical absurdity of inserting a smacking provision into an anti-smacking bill and is simply an attempt to curry favour with those who want to retain the parental right to administer corporal punishment.
Trying to define what is trifling or transitory physical punishment has the potential to become a legal minefield. More importantly, it goes completely against the intent and the spirit of Bradford's bill. She quite correctly says that if Borrows' amendment is passed, then there is no point in her bill proceeding at all, and it should be withdrawn.
Those MPs contemplating supporting the Borrows amendment should be reminded of the recent Unicef report which found that New Zealanders ranked towards the bottom of developed nations in taking care of their children. The report was simply the latest in a seemingly endless stream of evidence of the extent of child abuse in this country.
By itself, the anti-smacking bill is not a complete answer to New Zealand's child-abuse problem, but it is one necessary measure in tackling this social ill. It sends a clear message about what is acceptable in the treatment of children – and that violence is unacceptable.
Those who raise the spectre of the police intruding into law-abiding families and asking trivial questions about the discipline of children are being far-fetched; they should reflect on another scenario, that perhaps the police will be able to use a law change to more effectively intervene earlier in families suffering domestic violence.
Smacking is a form of discipline which belongs to another age. Other forms of legalised violence have been outlawed, including the administering of corporal punishment in schools, which was banned almost two decades ago. The home should be at least as much a sanctuary to a child as the classroom.
Bradford's anti-smacking bill will not prevent the worst cases of child abuse, such as the death of the Kahui twins, for the origins of this sort of violence lie deep in our society. But the bill will play an important role in driving a change in attitude towards the treatment of children. It should be passed without amendment.
Other people paying for your choice is not freedom
During the week the DomPost featured a story about a couple with four children. The mother was complaining about the Working for Families package making it viable for her to cut her hours from 51 to zero and only be $58 worse off. She obviously enjoyed working and didn't like the idea of paying tax so other women could stay home.
This morning a handful of letters took her to task. They questioned why she had had four children if she didn't want to stay home, told her "money isn't everything", praised the new choice for mothers thanks to WFF, and reminded her parenting was working too. She got a telling off.
Moralists and busybodies. Good on Josephine Kent for being a hardworker and preferring the honest rewards of her efforts.
I have sent the following;
Dear Editor
I support Josephine Kent (Work less, earn more with subsidy scheme, Feb 20) who thinks it is crazy for the government to pay people not to work. Because, make no mistake, that is what they are doing with their Working For Families package. They are actively decreasing productivity as (mainly) women drop out of the workforce.
The pie isn't getting any bigger. The money being paid to those who stay home has to come from working people. That limits their choices. That is anti-freedom. Whether or not children should be in daycare or at home is a decision for their parents to make and their parents to pay for. Not for government to make and taxpayers to pay for.
This morning a handful of letters took her to task. They questioned why she had had four children if she didn't want to stay home, told her "money isn't everything", praised the new choice for mothers thanks to WFF, and reminded her parenting was working too. She got a telling off.
Moralists and busybodies. Good on Josephine Kent for being a hardworker and preferring the honest rewards of her efforts.
I have sent the following;
Dear Editor
I support Josephine Kent (Work less, earn more with subsidy scheme, Feb 20) who thinks it is crazy for the government to pay people not to work. Because, make no mistake, that is what they are doing with their Working For Families package. They are actively decreasing productivity as (mainly) women drop out of the workforce.
The pie isn't getting any bigger. The money being paid to those who stay home has to come from working people. That limits their choices. That is anti-freedom. Whether or not children should be in daycare or at home is a decision for their parents to make and their parents to pay for. Not for government to make and taxpayers to pay for.
Friday, February 23, 2007
Quitter
For pities sake. Mark Blumsky has been in Parliament 5 minutes and he's whingeing about not being able to make a difference. I can think of someone who stood against him in 2005 who really wanted to be back in Parliament, who knew why he wanted to be there, how to influence people and get attention. Backbench list MPs have to make their own luck. But if you don't know what you stand for, what it is you are trying to achieve, if you're there simply because you have made a career out of politics...well. Forget it.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
One in and one out
Heather Mills is going to be a guest on the US Dancing with the Stars and Georgina Beyer has just pulled out of an on-stage adaptation of Dancing with the Stars causing the plug to be pulled on the entire show.
It's enough to make you scream
If I read this claim one more time I will scream (while it's still legal).
Repeal of Section 59 will lead to a reduction in domestic violence in New Zealand, domestic violence experts say. "By making violence illegal we can help families to live free of violence and this has got to be good for the whole community."
This from the National manager of National Network of Stopping Violence Services.
Rape is illegal, burglary is illegal, bashing women is illegal, arson is illegal.
And they are all on the wane, right?
Repeal of Section 59 will lead to a reduction in domestic violence in New Zealand, domestic violence experts say. "By making violence illegal we can help families to live free of violence and this has got to be good for the whole community."
This from the National manager of National Network of Stopping Violence Services.
Rape is illegal, burglary is illegal, bashing women is illegal, arson is illegal.
And they are all on the wane, right?
"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.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
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.
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.
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.)
(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.
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.
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.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
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.
"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.
“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.
Monday, February 19, 2007
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.
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.
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
