This time Helen, you are wrong

"New Zealand has it on its conscience that our rate of child death and injury from violence, including in the home, is appalling," she said.

"It is a stain on our international reputation, and I cannot see how those who are demanding the right to be able to thrash and beat children can possibly then turn around and confess concern about what is happening to our children."

So says the Prime Minister in support of Bradford's Bill.

Why is is that Labour understand the idea of targetted tax relief or cash assistance but not targetted social policy?

New Zealanders are badly aggrieved because they feel everybody is being scrutinised and dictated to when the kind of maltreatment the Prime Minister describes happens to children in almost exclusively a very small minority of the population.

I have already cited New Zealand historical surveys. Here is an excerpt from very recent US research into child abuse. The authors were unhappy with relying on a number of studies based on data from Child Protective Services, which showed a relationship between poverty, unemployment, transience,female-headed families and a greater risk of maltreatment, because "poor parents may be both more likely to be accused of child maltreatment and less able to defend themselves against such charges".

So they looked for other data. The following findings are from a extensive health survey of more than 90,000 students, and from these, further randomly selected in-home interviews. A total of 20,745 adolescents were interviewed for Wave 1.

"We see, for example, that children who were maltreated were more likely to have a mother with less than a high school education, more likely to have a father in jail at Wave 1 , more likely to have been on welfare at Wave 1, and more likely to have had a mother who was a teenager at the time of her child's birth."

So I would suggest to the Prime Minister she takes off her ideological blinkers and starts thinking seriously about how to reduce the size of the group from which most of the problems hail. Until she and her fellow travellers do so, she has no right to claim a genuine concern for abused children.

Go out and protest today.

Maori Party ambiguous

I am puzzled by this press release from The Maori Party, specifically Hone Harawira. It came out in the last hour but doesn't acknowledge the decision not to debate Bradford's bill under urgency. Instead he says;

Last week I thought the Bill might take a while before it came up for the vote, and that the Maori Party was hoping to take the issue on tour to get a handle on how people felt about it. If the bill is tabled as a matter of urgency, that won’t happen which will be a pity.

So now there will be time to "take the issue on tour" and they may still change their vote?

Have I missed something?

The following are Steve Maharey's words from 2002;

There is no doubt that any changes to laws concerning the physical discipline of children will be controversial. That is good. It is time for New Zealanders to think long and hard about the amount of violence that is aimed at children. The horror stories we read about in the newspaper are just the tip of a very large iceberg which sees far too many children hurt by the very people who are supposed to be caring for them. Changing the way adults think about children and what is an appropriate way to discipline them is central to lowering the number of children who are scarred for life by violence.

In the many nations where this issue has already been considered, there has been a strong emphasis on education. The law cannot be changed without a very extensive programme aimed at ensuring parents and caregivers have positive alternatives to force. Children need to be provided with clear boundaries for their behaviour and where parents have relied on physical discipline they will need to know what to do.

All of this may sound like hard work. However, the smacking debate will not go away. The UN is not working in isolation. Its attempts to protect children from violence come from a worldwide concern about the issue. New Zealand is not at the cutting edge of the debate, it is following at least fifteen other nations (Sweden, Finland, Norway, Austria, Germany, Portugal, Italy, Israel, Cyprus, Denmark, Croatia, Latvia, Belgium, Bulgaria and the Republic of Ireland).

Of course, New Zealand started down this track back in 1990 when it removed the cane and the strap from schools. It was a tough choice. Teachers needed training so they could use alternatives to physical punishment. However, no one seems to be lobbying for a return to the old days. It is time to push out the frontier again.

Well, I am not on my own. Sue Bradford missed it too. Five years on;

Sue Bradford admits a public education campaign will be needed when her bill is passed into law.

Of interest from last week's UK Budget

The bombshell from Gordon Brown's 2007 Budget speech, delivered last week;

Indeed to reward work, to ensure working families are better off, and to make the tax system fairer, I will from next April cut the basic rate of income tax from 22p down to 20p.

UK 2006/2007 rate of tax 0 - £2,150 10%

£2,151 - £33,300 22%

Over £33,300 40%

But he also abolished the 10 percent rate.....and raised National Insurance.

Of interest to me, however, is the increasing drive to eradicate child poverty. Here Patricia Morgan points out that the government is failing to get significant numbers of single mothers into work by on one hand paying them more if they work but on the other upping payments to their children which effectively makes working less attractive. She maintains that the focus on poor single parent families is breaking up poor two parent families who have not received the same financial assistance.

A couple with two children need to work 74 hours a week at the minimum wage to clear the poverty line after housing costs; but because of the way the benefits and tax system operates, a lone parent with one child working only 16 hours at the minimum wage is above the threshold......

....Tax credits are running at about £20 billion a year. But is the money buying better kids? Extraordinarily, no investigation into the effect on child outcomes of all the extra expenditure seems to have been undertaken. When Unicef published its comparative assessment of the lives of children earlier this year, it put the UK last; brought down by its poor family relationships, bad behaviour and risky conduct (drug taking, drunkenness, early sex and pregnancy rates, bullying and violence). For the entire spending binge, there are no detectable improvements in social outcomes.

What is certain is that the erosion of family structure, with children more and more born to lone women, often of low ability, who may or may not be in transient relationships with various men, are creating such fragile, feral conditions that child-rearing cannot be adequately accomplished. And this escalating family disintegration is being incentivised by the tax and benefit structure.

NZ's rate of working single mothers is almost identical to the United Kingdom's.

But wait. There's more...

Many thanks to PC for this improvised table (Left click on image to enlarge).

Here is the problem. The downward trend for all benefits (the top red line) must be very close to arresting given the upward trend of sickness and invalid benefits. DPB is trending down but that is largely a smoke and mirrors story to date.

Unemployment is not going to go much lower. We had been the lowest but are currently fourth equal lowest in the OECD.

Historically unemployment numbers were lower when full employment was a policy practised by government as a welfare policy. It was based on a 1 wage earner per family scenario. Those days are gone.

So look again at the graph. In there is a huge block of people who are lifestyle beneficiaries - the product of the last thirty years. A good few are genuine but a good few (probably more) are living quite deliberately and unnecessarily on the public purse.

All main benefits nationally

Here's a good graph. It's from the Social Policy Journal Of New Zealand November 2006. The population change over the thirty years was 33%.

"A violence free society"

Here's an excerpt from a speech given by Lianne Dalziel, Minister of Women's Affairs, on Saturday (not that you would know it - I had to read through to the end to discover who was delivering it). A violence free society is a utopian idea. It will never be achieved but is used to justify all manner of a vain attempts. She should go back and take a look at the speeches given by moralists and prohibitionists a hundred and more years ago. Dream on Dalziel;

I have been saying for some time now that we need a zero tolerance towards violence if we are ever going to have a violence free society, but that is easier said than done. It means not just changing the perpetrators' attitudes, but also the attitudes of those who accept violence as inevitable, or who think victims are somehow to blame or who think it is a problem for someone else to solve.

I often refer to this quote:

"The public through the submissions made to this Committee, has expressed its concern at the increase in violence and has called on it to find solutions. It is not unfair to say that the public now has the community it deserves. For the last two or three decades permissiveness has gone unchecked; domestic violence is rampant; the 'macho' image has been encouraged by advertising for commercial interests to the detriment of women; aggressive behaviour and violence in 'sport' has become accepted; pornography has become accepted as the norm, as has violence in the visual media; racism has increased; economic inequality with its attendant stresses and frustrations has increased; illiteracy and lack of parenting skills are common and awareness of spiritual values is sadly lacking."

This is a powerful piece of text, and can be found in the Ministerial Committee of Inquiry into Violence (the Roper Report) under the heading 'the Unpalatable Truth'.

It is unpalatable, because it tells us that we are all responsible for the kind of society we have today, and I say today, because those words could have been written today, but they were written nearly two decades ago. This section of the report ends with the phrase :

No one can afford to be complacent about the problem. Violence occurs by acts of commission and omission and we are all responsible."

Half of the picture

Trev's skite sheet arrived in my letterbox today. Here's a graph from the front page;


That's one half of the picture. Here is the other;

On the matter of property confiscation

Stephen Franks' blog has leapt to life over the past few days. His latest is spot on;

Good to hear the Green and Maori Parties’ spirited defence of that ancient and vital principle. They oppose the bill to allow confiscation on suspicion of criminal connections. It would allow it without conviction, or even when a conviction is overturned.

Shame on the pusillanimous parties that supported it, especially NZ First and National. They should expose disgraceful smokescreen bills like these as Labour’s desperate attempt to look tough on crime.

In case you're a bit of a duffer like me, to save you looking it up 'pusillanimous' means cowardly.

The age of criminal responsibility

After listening to Ron Mark on Radio Live, debating with some chap from UNICEF, about his bill to lower the age of criminal responsibility, I sent this e-mail to Paul Henry (which he read in full);

UNICEF have been actively pushing the section 59 argument that children should be treated like adults, that is, there should be no defence of reasonable force. Now this guy comes along and says children should not be treated like adults. D minus for consistency.

Also he says lowering the age of criminal responsibility is not about protecting society. I beg to differ. It is. And, in particular, it is about protecting other children who are often the victims of their desperately dysfunctional peers. 12 and 13 year-old serious offenders need to be detained for their own safety and everybody else's. I hope Ron Mark's bill isn't going to get derailed by more of this softly, softly approach. It has been practised now for decades and matters only worsen.

How popular are Phillipine brides?

I was reading about how immigrants are to be taught Kiwi values;

Several initiatives were announced yesterday. They include increasing and improving pre-arrival information about living in New Zealand and the rights and responsibilities of residents and citizens.

Responsibilities. Ha. NZ modern day life is all about rights for Africa and no responsibilities.

But I read on to this;

Migration data released this week by Statistics New Zealand showed the Philippines has become the second-largest source of net long-term arrivals, increasing from an inflow of 500 in 2005 to 2600 in the year to February.

Technically this is correct but it tends to mislead.
The Phillipines is the eighth-largest source of long-term arrivals accounting for only 2.7 percent of all long-term arrivals. The Phillipines has the second highest percentage change between 2002 and 2006 and the second highest net migration because nobody is leaving NZ for that destination. I wonder how many Phillipine brides are influencing the growth?

Permanent and Long-term Migration
By region/country of last permanent residence

Region/country of last or next permanent residence December year Change 2002–2006
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Number Percent

Arrivals(1)

Region
Oceania 17,971 19,261 19,112 19,933 19,499 1,528 8.5
Asia 38,886 33,166 21,287 17,706 20,487 -18,399 -47.3
Europe 24,685 27,370 27,478 29,182 30,262 5,577 22.6
Americas 5,181 5,713 5,683 6,068 6,422 1,241 24.0
Other(2) 9,228 7,150 6,919 6,074 6,062 -3,166 -34.3

Top 10 countries
United Kingdom 18,835 21,317 20,981 22,013 22,695 3,860 20.5
Australia 13,018 14,344 14,216 13,389 13,306 288 2.2
China, PR 15,931 13,253 6,143 4,102 4,271 -11,660 -73.2
United States of America 3,244 3,573 3,451 3,674 3,636 392 12.1
Japan 4,099 4,096 3,802 3,471 3,192 -907 -22.1
India 6,860 5,269 3,052 2,569 2,743 -4,117 -60.0
Fiji 2,283 2,258 2,117 2,808 2,590 307 13.4
Philippines 1,162 893 597 844 2,533 1,371 118.0
Germany 1,034 1,171 1,562 2,080 2,283 1,249 120.8
Korea, Republic of 3,503 3,228 2,204 1,769 1,896 -1,607 -45.9

All countries 95,951 92,660 80,479 78,963 82,732 -13,219 -13.8

Homogeneity of welfare policy

Here is a brief excerpt from a speech Sue Bradford gave at Auckland University today, Where to for Welfare?

Labour and National seem to be drawing closer and closer together on welfare policy, with their seemingly mutual drive towards greater worktesting of invalids, sickness and sole parent beneficiaries, their unwillingness to address the problem that benefits simply aren’t enough for either individuals or families to live on, and their lack of recognition of the worth of parenting as a valid job in its own right.

She is right about the approach of the two main parties, which leaves so much to be desired, so much unaddressed. More opportunity for ACT if they are prepared to take it.

Children without birth certificates

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.

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.

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 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.

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."

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.

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?

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?

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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)

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.

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.

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 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."

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.)

Spotted in The Press

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.