According to today's NZ Herald;
Maori Party co-leader Tariana Turia says the arrival of Christianity in New Zealand and colonisation introduced the concept of smacking children to Maori.
"Our people did not hit their tamariki. That only came about through colonisation and through Christianity actually," she said on Marae on Saturday.
There is evidence this is right. It may (or may not) be that some school records have been taken as an indication that this was the case throughout the country.
But like the other 'new' behaviours colonists brought, drinking alcohol, smoking tobacco (not associated with Christianity) and trading, Maori caught on fast and often went to excess, particularly in the Far North and on the East Coast. Violent by necessity, the alcohol abuse exacerbated that tendency and probably widened the scope of potential victims.
As I've said before I can't argue smacking is a good thing but neither has it been proven to cause lasting damaging. But excessive smacking, which evolves into hitting, punching, using implements, burning etc is bad.
Some Maori have a particular problem with child abuse but it is usually linked to other behaviours which are already out of control, often despite being illegal. Banning smacking is a little like banning tobacco, another Maori Party policy with no merit. It simply won't work.
Some Maori need to grow up. It's no good saying they are perennial children who cannot control themselves so must be banned from every activity that is potentially damaging with excess.
Whatever the race, focus on the minority who have addiction and mental health problems. Focus on the perpetrators of real violence instead of casting the net so wide those in real need get lost.
Monday, April 30, 2007
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Colin James on Ruth Richardson
Now I have finished mowing the lawns backwards (going forwards results in the catcher falling off repeatedly and much swearing and cursing from myself) I've had a chance to do a little Sunday reading. There is sod-all in the papers to catch my attention but this paper from Colin James about Ruth Richardson is worth a read.You can't please all the people all the time. Ruth Richardson never bothered trying. Would we had a few more like her.
Ruth Richardson was an ideas politician. And she allowed too little intellectual doubt. She confounded one TINA ("there is no alternative"), the undoubted need to deregulate and rely more on the market, with another, that there is only one true set of policies, which is demonstrably untrue. She applied a lawyer's logic to abstract economic rules and then advocated them with the intensity of a courtroom lawyer who allows no doubt about his or her case. She knew best. Actually, the electorate knows best.
But Ruth Richardson did what she did for what she saw as a greater good. She applied principle when it was sure to cause pain, which took at the very least bone-headed determination but also considerable courage. There were threats to her person. There are not many politicians with spines and carapaces like hers and every now and one comes in handy, if for no other reason than to sharpen the debate. Jim Bolger fired Ruth Richardson after his sorry electoral experiences in 1993. But had he not hired her in the first place, the economic gains and the fiscal improvement which paid off after his sacking might well have been compromised. I think Jim Bolger instinctively felt that and that is why we got Ruth Richardson. The irony is that Helen Clark was the beneficiary.
Saturday, April 28, 2007
Wooing the female constituency
This is an excerpt from a column by Chris Trotter in the Financial Independent Review (The entire piece is at here at Kiwiblog);
Keys speech to the Salvation Army's "JustAction" conference on April 17 illustrated just how ambitious this re-branding exercise has become:
"There are those whose life stories would read very much like Louise Nicholas's but who will never have their day in court and whose experiences were not confined to the provinces, or to the 1980s, and the perpetrators were not policemen. There remains a dark side to the experiences of too many New Zealand women and children at the hands of too many New Zealand men."
There is truth in this. But it could also be said that there are too many New Zealand men and children suffering at the hands of New Zealand women. Of course that wouldn't play well with the female constituency Key is trying to woo and frankly, too many men just seem to put up broad condemnatory statements like Key's.
My own experience is that when it comes to domestic dysfunction the blame can be fairly evenly divided between the genders - acknowledging of course that men usually cause more physical harm.
Keys speech to the Salvation Army's "JustAction" conference on April 17 illustrated just how ambitious this re-branding exercise has become:
"There are those whose life stories would read very much like Louise Nicholas's but who will never have their day in court and whose experiences were not confined to the provinces, or to the 1980s, and the perpetrators were not policemen. There remains a dark side to the experiences of too many New Zealand women and children at the hands of too many New Zealand men."
There is truth in this. But it could also be said that there are too many New Zealand men and children suffering at the hands of New Zealand women. Of course that wouldn't play well with the female constituency Key is trying to woo and frankly, too many men just seem to put up broad condemnatory statements like Key's.
My own experience is that when it comes to domestic dysfunction the blame can be fairly evenly divided between the genders - acknowledging of course that men usually cause more physical harm.
Social liberals in National
Katherine Rich intimates she is backing Bradford's bill because she is a social liberal. Seems to me there are a truckload of people who would also define themselves as socially liberal who are opposing the legislation. Her statement also begs the question, if there has always been a "small pocket" of social liberals in National why is she the only one backing the bill?
Friday, April 27, 2007
Stop blaming the dollar and blame the govt
As NZ manufacturing takes another hit with F&P closing down one of its Auckland plants it's worth reflecting on not just the role of the high NZ dollar, but the role of government.
I pinched this from Murray McCully who pinched it from the NZ Institute;
Look at Ireland (where my handbag remains to this day having been filched from me at a pub near Lansdown Road)
Ireland is now one of the fastest growing countries in the developed world, posting a 6.0% real GDP growth in 2005 — outstripping its neighbor the U.K., as well as the U.S. and Japan.
And where has this dramatic growth come from? Not from within, but from without. Nearly a quarter of the country's GDP is from 1,000 overseas companies who now base their European operations there. This includes nine of the world's 10 largest pharmaceutical companies, and IT giants Intel, eBay, Google, and Microsoft. Over two-thirds of the economy is fuelled by the service sector.
The soft-spoken, easygoing charm of its people may attract outsiders, but what lures them more than anything is the pro-business climate, where corporate tax is set at only 12.5% — about a third of the amount levied by the U.S. and other European countries.
I could cry when I read this. NZ used to have around six or seven international pharmaceutical companies manufacturing here. But the government drove them out one by one, squeezing prices through their monopoly drugs buyer Pharmac. And what's our corporate tax rate? 33 percent. Today I heard Bill English praising Michael Cullen's plans to drop it to 30. Alisdair Thompson, CE Employers and Manufacturer's Association, who was also being interviewed, snorted. Rightly.
We are missing the boat in too many ways and will live to regret it. Have I mentioned it before that my children's most valuable possessions are their UK passports.
I pinched this from Murray McCully who pinched it from the NZ Institute;
Look at Ireland (where my handbag remains to this day having been filched from me at a pub near Lansdown Road)
Ireland is now one of the fastest growing countries in the developed world, posting a 6.0% real GDP growth in 2005 — outstripping its neighbor the U.K., as well as the U.S. and Japan.
And where has this dramatic growth come from? Not from within, but from without. Nearly a quarter of the country's GDP is from 1,000 overseas companies who now base their European operations there. This includes nine of the world's 10 largest pharmaceutical companies, and IT giants Intel, eBay, Google, and Microsoft. Over two-thirds of the economy is fuelled by the service sector.
The soft-spoken, easygoing charm of its people may attract outsiders, but what lures them more than anything is the pro-business climate, where corporate tax is set at only 12.5% — about a third of the amount levied by the U.S. and other European countries.
I could cry when I read this. NZ used to have around six or seven international pharmaceutical companies manufacturing here. But the government drove them out one by one, squeezing prices through their monopoly drugs buyer Pharmac. And what's our corporate tax rate? 33 percent. Today I heard Bill English praising Michael Cullen's plans to drop it to 30. Alisdair Thompson, CE Employers and Manufacturer's Association, who was also being interviewed, snorted. Rightly.
We are missing the boat in too many ways and will live to regret it. Have I mentioned it before that my children's most valuable possessions are their UK passports.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Keeping things in perspective
New Zealand's rate of child abuse isn't good but neither is it far worse than other comparable countries. The rate of notifications needs to be kept in perspective.
Consider the following;
John Key said today, about the Bradford Bill, We all agree that the purpose of this legislation is to reduce New Zealand’s terrible rate of harming children.........
Australian statistics show; Notifications to child protection systems more than doubled from 107,000 in 1999-2000 to 252,000 in 2004-05, while indigenous children were over-represented in allegations of abuse, children's court orders and out-of-home care.
New Zealand had 53,097 notifications over the same period,
New Zealand's under 15 population is 867,576 = 612 notifications per 10,000
Australia's was 3,978,200 in 2005 = 633 notifications per 10,000
So loose calculations show Australia's rate of notifications is actually higher than ours. Are a majority of Australian politicians clamouring for a law change to criminalise smacking under the guise of reducing child abuse?
As far as I can ascertain this is the current legal situation in Australia, state by state; Corporal punishment in the home is regulated at state rather than at federal level, and is lawful throughout Australia under the right of “reasonable chastisement” or similar (Australian Capital Territory Child Welfare Ordinance, 1957, section 124; Northern Territory Criminal Code Act section 27; Queensland Criminal Code Act, 1899, section 280; South Australia Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935, section 39 and subsequent amendments; Tasmania Criminal Code Act, 1995, amended 2005, section 50; Western Australia, Criminal Code Act, 1913, section 257; Victoria under common law rule).
In New South Wales, under the Crimes Amendment (Child Protection – Physical Maltreatment) Act (2001, in effect 2002), inserting section 61AA into the Crimes Act (1900), physical punishment by a parent or caregiver is considered unreasonable if the force is applied to a child’s head or neck, or the force is applied to any part of the body in such a way as to cause, or threaten to cause, harm to the child which lasts more than a short period, and in such cases the defence of “lawful correction” does not apply.
Legal reform is being considered in Tasmania, where in 2003 the Law Reform Institute recommended the abolition of the defence of reasonable correction from criminal and civil law. As at December 2005, no changes in the law had been made.
Consider the following;
John Key said today, about the Bradford Bill, We all agree that the purpose of this legislation is to reduce New Zealand’s terrible rate of harming children.........
Australian statistics show; Notifications to child protection systems more than doubled from 107,000 in 1999-2000 to 252,000 in 2004-05, while indigenous children were over-represented in allegations of abuse, children's court orders and out-of-home care.
New Zealand had 53,097 notifications over the same period,
New Zealand's under 15 population is 867,576 = 612 notifications per 10,000
Australia's was 3,978,200 in 2005 = 633 notifications per 10,000
So loose calculations show Australia's rate of notifications is actually higher than ours. Are a majority of Australian politicians clamouring for a law change to criminalise smacking under the guise of reducing child abuse?
As far as I can ascertain this is the current legal situation in Australia, state by state; Corporal punishment in the home is regulated at state rather than at federal level, and is lawful throughout Australia under the right of “reasonable chastisement” or similar (Australian Capital Territory Child Welfare Ordinance, 1957, section 124; Northern Territory Criminal Code Act section 27; Queensland Criminal Code Act, 1899, section 280; South Australia Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935, section 39 and subsequent amendments; Tasmania Criminal Code Act, 1995, amended 2005, section 50; Western Australia, Criminal Code Act, 1913, section 257; Victoria under common law rule).
In New South Wales, under the Crimes Amendment (Child Protection – Physical Maltreatment) Act (2001, in effect 2002), inserting section 61AA into the Crimes Act (1900), physical punishment by a parent or caregiver is considered unreasonable if the force is applied to a child’s head or neck, or the force is applied to any part of the body in such a way as to cause, or threaten to cause, harm to the child which lasts more than a short period, and in such cases the defence of “lawful correction” does not apply.
Legal reform is being considered in Tasmania, where in 2003 the Law Reform Institute recommended the abolition of the defence of reasonable correction from criminal and civil law. As at December 2005, no changes in the law had been made.
Good news for parents, bad news for lawyers
In Australia a new family court process is reportedly producing better results all around. Instead of talking through lawyers in an evidence-based, adversarial system the parents talk directly to the Judge.
"There was far more acceptance of the importance of both parents in the child's life and far more respectful communication going on between the parents, and fewer out-of-control moments."
"There was far more acceptance of the importance of both parents in the child's life and far more respectful communication going on between the parents, and fewer out-of-control moments."
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Holy heck, Batman
While Simon Power has been fussing about the cost of locking prisoners up, especially in police cells, the cost of keeping youth locked up in Youth Justice Residences has gone clean under the radar.
It costs $189 per day to keep a prisoner. So how much do you think it would cost to keep a young person? A little more, a little less?
Try $453.37 per night.
At the Manurewa lock-up it rises to $463.19
For just another $1.81 you could be luxuriating in a Millbrook Villa Suite with a fireplace, patio or balcony with spectacular views over the golf course, mountains or Millbrook grounds, with a mini-bar, satellite TV and video, CD-player, luxurious bathrobes, dial-up or broadband internet access, and full buffet breakfast.
It is no wonder authorities are so opposed to detaining more young people.
It costs $189 per day to keep a prisoner. So how much do you think it would cost to keep a young person? A little more, a little less?
Try $453.37 per night.
At the Manurewa lock-up it rises to $463.19
For just another $1.81 you could be luxuriating in a Millbrook Villa Suite with a fireplace, patio or balcony with spectacular views over the golf course, mountains or Millbrook grounds, with a mini-bar, satellite TV and video, CD-player, luxurious bathrobes, dial-up or broadband internet access, and full buffet breakfast. It is no wonder authorities are so opposed to detaining more young people.
Living standards and low incomes
Despite being unscientific and non-representative this Stuff Poll exactly reflects the 2004 NZ Living Standards Survey;
Do you think you have a good standard of living?
Yes (3230 votes, 79.0%)
No (857 votes, 21.0%)
The poll reminded me of this chart;
The chart comes from a paper I waded through last weekend called, The 2004 New Zealand Living Standards Survey: What Does It Signal About The Importance Of Multiple Disadvantage
The authors asked, what is it that causes some low-income economic family units to be in severe hardship while many others have comfortable and good living standards?
57 % of people living on income-tested benefits were living in hardship, of those living on market income 30% experienced hardship, and on Superannuation, only 13%.
To cut a very long story short the contributing factors identified are lack of non-income assets, high housing costs relative to income, having children, 17 different types of life-shocks eg relationship break-up, and ill-health of parent or child.
The authors then observe, Recognition of the importance of multiple disadvantage can serve as a caution against excessive optimism about the prospect of finding explanations of societal problems such as criminal offending, homelessness, educational failure, etc. in terms of very specific (single factor) causation.
Having summarised and diagramised all the factors contributing to living standards a conclusion is drawn that, "there may be an upper limit on how much can be achieved by policies that rely primarily on income measures to ensure minimum levels of material well-being..."
In other words, people's problems cannot be solved by throwing ever more money at them. Eureka!
Do you think you have a good standard of living?
Yes (3230 votes, 79.0%)
No (857 votes, 21.0%)
The poll reminded me of this chart;
The chart comes from a paper I waded through last weekend called, The 2004 New Zealand Living Standards Survey: What Does It Signal About The Importance Of Multiple Disadvantage
The authors asked, what is it that causes some low-income economic family units to be in severe hardship while many others have comfortable and good living standards?
57 % of people living on income-tested benefits were living in hardship, of those living on market income 30% experienced hardship, and on Superannuation, only 13%.
To cut a very long story short the contributing factors identified are lack of non-income assets, high housing costs relative to income, having children, 17 different types of life-shocks eg relationship break-up, and ill-health of parent or child.
The authors then observe, Recognition of the importance of multiple disadvantage can serve as a caution against excessive optimism about the prospect of finding explanations of societal problems such as criminal offending, homelessness, educational failure, etc. in terms of very specific (single factor) causation.
Having summarised and diagramised all the factors contributing to living standards a conclusion is drawn that, "there may be an upper limit on how much can be achieved by policies that rely primarily on income measures to ensure minimum levels of material well-being..."
In other words, people's problems cannot be solved by throwing ever more money at them. Eureka!
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
More migrants on DPB and Sickness benefits
Media release
MORE MIGRANTS ON DPB AND SICKNESS BENEFITS
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Department of Labour research shows that despite the percentage of migrants relying on benefits dropping, an increasing proportion are going on DPB or sickness benefits.
According to welfare commentator, Lindsay Mitchell, "Because the research is confined to those beneficiaries whose residence was approved on or after 1 July 1997 ( thereby excluding other beneficiaries who had immigrated earlier) it has some limitations. In order to make meaningful observations the researchers looked at the uptake in each year from 2001 to 2006 confining it further to those who had been approved for residence in the previous two years."
"These figures showed that the number receiving the DPB rose from 2% in 2001 to 10% in 2006. Receipt of the sickness benefit rose from 1% in 2001 to 8% in 2006. Unemployment was steady over the 6 year period."
"At the end of June 2006 there were 11,366 recent migrants receiving benefits. 1,591 were on the DPB and 2,160 were on a sickness benefit. 5,569 were on an Emergency Benefit . These numbers exclude beneficiary migrants whose residence was approved before 1 July 1997."
"The residence category of recent migrants shows, of those whose residence was approved in the past two years and are currently on benefit, 8 % were approved in the Skills/Business stream, 36 % in the Family Sponsored stream and 56 percent in the International/ Humanitarian stream.
MORE MIGRANTS ON DPB AND SICKNESS BENEFITS
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Department of Labour research shows that despite the percentage of migrants relying on benefits dropping, an increasing proportion are going on DPB or sickness benefits.
According to welfare commentator, Lindsay Mitchell, "Because the research is confined to those beneficiaries whose residence was approved on or after 1 July 1997 ( thereby excluding other beneficiaries who had immigrated earlier) it has some limitations. In order to make meaningful observations the researchers looked at the uptake in each year from 2001 to 2006 confining it further to those who had been approved for residence in the previous two years."
"These figures showed that the number receiving the DPB rose from 2% in 2001 to 10% in 2006. Receipt of the sickness benefit rose from 1% in 2001 to 8% in 2006. Unemployment was steady over the 6 year period."
"At the end of June 2006 there were 11,366 recent migrants receiving benefits. 1,591 were on the DPB and 2,160 were on a sickness benefit. 5,569 were on an Emergency Benefit . These numbers exclude beneficiary migrants whose residence was approved before 1 July 1997."
"The residence category of recent migrants shows, of those whose residence was approved in the past two years and are currently on benefit, 8 % were approved in the Skills/Business stream, 36 % in the Family Sponsored stream and 56 percent in the International/ Humanitarian stream.
Women do not work more than men
According to analysis of data from over 25 wealthy countries, women (counter to what they often claim) do not do more work than men. Interesting.
"I thought Milton Friedman was dead"
So said our Revenue Minister, Peter Dunne, in response to an OECD economic report advising NZ to lower tax and sell more SOEs.I take it from this flippant remark Mr Dunne is not an exponent of classical liberalism - at least not now he has a grip of the purse strings.
In 2002 he gave a speech in which he said, "Classical liberalism has always recognised the primacy of the individual - not as an isolated unit - but living in and being part of the wider community with all the rights and responsibilities that entails.
If you understand that, then you can understand why United Future, with its policies of the primacy of the family, emphasis on individual liberties and community responsibilities, and plain common sense, did so well at the last election."
"Little progress"
New Zealand's rankings according to the OECD 2005
So much for Labour's goal of getting NZ back into the top half of the OECD.
We were fifth in 1960, down to nineteenth by 1980 and 23rd in 2004. Look. We have moved up one place in 2005.
The economic survey of New Zealand, released yesterday, says, There has been little progress towards the goal of lifting living standards to the OECD median
Despite strong growth performance since the early 1990s and the adoption over the past 20 years of structural policies that are, for the most part, consistent with OECD best practices, living standards have remained some 16% below the OECD median for some years. Labour utilisation has increased substantially, but total economy hourly productivity growth has been lacklustre. Several reasons can be offered that might explain this outcome. First, common to many countries, productivity measurement issues are important. Productivity growth has been stronger in the “measured” sector (where independent measures of both inputs and outputs exist) than in the total economy and has been comparable to that of Australia. Second, the large increase in labour absorption that New Zealand has achieved over the past decade partly in response to relative prices of labour and capital – may have come at the cost of a temporary decline in productivity growth as less productive workers were absorbed into the labour force.
Monday, April 23, 2007
Truancy and being out of school
I can't agree with this statement from Katherine Rich;
Mrs Rich said it did not matter if children missed two weeks from school to hang out in a mall or to go on a skiing holiday, the upshot was the same – it was time away from education.
Kids 'hanging out in a mall' are often bored, looking for action (trouble) and their parents may have no idea they are there.
Being on a skiing trip the child is occupied, getting exercise and spending what many might describe as 'quality time' with mum and dad. If they have travelled overseas than there is an additional educational factor which might be classified under geography. Schools often run camps revolving around a week skiing or mountain activities. They don't run school camps where kids pitch out at the local mall learning how to eyeball passersby and lift the latest fashion accessories.
Surely this is between the school and the parents. It seems to me there is a world of difference between the kind of regular truancy that leads to offending and being out of school in the supervision of parents.
National is showing its authoritarian, statist hue again.
Mrs Rich said it did not matter if children missed two weeks from school to hang out in a mall or to go on a skiing holiday, the upshot was the same – it was time away from education.
Kids 'hanging out in a mall' are often bored, looking for action (trouble) and their parents may have no idea they are there.
Being on a skiing trip the child is occupied, getting exercise and spending what many might describe as 'quality time' with mum and dad. If they have travelled overseas than there is an additional educational factor which might be classified under geography. Schools often run camps revolving around a week skiing or mountain activities. They don't run school camps where kids pitch out at the local mall learning how to eyeball passersby and lift the latest fashion accessories.
Surely this is between the school and the parents. It seems to me there is a world of difference between the kind of regular truancy that leads to offending and being out of school in the supervision of parents.
National is showing its authoritarian, statist hue again.
Another unemployment conundrum
The NZ Herald's Simon Collins has uncovered another anomaly;
The household labour force survey shows that the total unemployed aged 15 to 19 actually rose from 23,900 in December 1999 to 26,100 last December. This represented only a slight drop in percentage terms from 15.9 per cent to 14.3 per cent of all those in the age group who were working or seeking work.
But.....Benefit figures released last week show that the number of 18- and 19-year-olds on the unemployment benefit plunged from 15,855 in December 1999 to just 1566 last month.
From the published data it is impossible to tell how many 15-19 year-olds are on other forms of welfare. The best I can offer is, in December 2006 46,722 18-24 year-olds were on a main benefit. An even distribution across the age-bands would provide 13,349 18-19 year-olds. The number is almost certainly lower than that with the distribution being weighted to higher age bands.
Still, that's where some of the unemployed can be accounted for - on benefits other than the dole.
The household labour force survey shows that the total unemployed aged 15 to 19 actually rose from 23,900 in December 1999 to 26,100 last December. This represented only a slight drop in percentage terms from 15.9 per cent to 14.3 per cent of all those in the age group who were working or seeking work.
But.....Benefit figures released last week show that the number of 18- and 19-year-olds on the unemployment benefit plunged from 15,855 in December 1999 to just 1566 last month.
From the published data it is impossible to tell how many 15-19 year-olds are on other forms of welfare. The best I can offer is, in December 2006 46,722 18-24 year-olds were on a main benefit. An even distribution across the age-bands would provide 13,349 18-19 year-olds. The number is almost certainly lower than that with the distribution being weighted to higher age bands.
Still, that's where some of the unemployed can be accounted for - on benefits other than the dole.
Sunday, April 22, 2007
Who gives a monkey's for the America's Cup?
According to this poll only 34% of us.
I couldn't resist having a look because human beings fascinate me. At the moment my attention to Valencia is at about -5% so I had to honestly say, I don't care one way or the other. But I can get very quickly interested in ANY kind of competition. Which is how I think most New Zealanders are.
Remember 1994 (I think). Robert was a baby and I had luxury of lighting the fire in the morning and being able to stay home and watch the racing off San Diego. The country was nationally obsessed with it.
But now? See how quickly our passion dwindles. How short our emotional memories are. We are made that way for a reason.
Friday, April 20, 2007
Just released - NZ research to support repeal of section 59
Wait for this to hit the news. Just published at the Ministry of Social Development website, What Do Children Tell Us About Physical Punishment As A Risk Factor For Child Abuse?
Abstract
This paper discusses children’s views of family discipline and possible implications for policymakers. In 2004, 80 New Zealand children, between five and 14 years of age, took part in research eliciting their views on family discipline.
It is a very small sample.
The children were introduced to fictional characters who asked the questions.
Splodge (a fictional alien from outer space) was introduced to the children (5–11 years) as being very curious about life on Earth. They were told that Splodge did not know much about life on Earth and wanted to know about lots of things. Splodge was especially interested to know about family discipline and thought that children would be the best people to ask. The children were asked if they could help Splodge by answering the questions in the Splodge storybook. Spike was introduced to the older children (12–14 years) as having just landed on earth from the planet Nostro to complete a homework assignment. The homework assignment was about what children on Earth think about family discipline. The older children were asked if they could assist Spike in completing the homework assignment by answering some questions. The questions Spike asked were the same as those asked by Splodge. Both presentations were adapted from the 1998 Willow and Hyder study. The focus group discussions were 60 minutes long on average. The discussions were audiotaped and later transcribed and analysed thematically.
Hence,We have to be cautious in our interpretation of these findings of children’s explanations of concepts and events to a fictional character.
These questions were asked about children in general, rather than their own individual experiences. On the other hand, the children’s verbatim responses indicate that they are generally talking about their own subjective experiences within their families.
For instance, they were all asked, What are some of the things that happen to children when they do things they shouldn't? From the responses 61% said parents use physical punishment. Presumably 39% did not. But spontaneously only 10% of the 5-7 year-olds and 14% of the 9-11 year-olds said they were not smacked. Each child was not asked whether or not they were smacked. But these findings were considered significant enough to include.
84% lived with both parents. That is not representative, despite the research claiming socio-econimc and ethnic diversity.
Further from the abstract, In response to questions on family discipline children spontaneously revealed concerning levels of the frequency and severity of physical punishment, some of which would be identified as child abuse using any threshold. Children’s reports of the context in which physical punishment was delivered by parents was also of concern. Many children reported high levels of confusion when trying to link their own views of physical punishment with the actions of their parents.
So this unscientific piece of research will now be wheeled out in support of repealing section 59 because, The findings from this study indicate that children who live in homes where physical punishment is used are more at risk of child abuse than those that do not.
Stunning.
It would have been most interesting to see the parental responses to this research. When David Fergusson researched partner violence he looked at each partner's individual reporting and then matched them for similarity of statements. That's what I would like to see happen here, though I'm not convinced wheeling out aliens to do the interviewing would be halpful .
Abstract
This paper discusses children’s views of family discipline and possible implications for policymakers. In 2004, 80 New Zealand children, between five and 14 years of age, took part in research eliciting their views on family discipline.
It is a very small sample.
The children were introduced to fictional characters who asked the questions.
Splodge (a fictional alien from outer space) was introduced to the children (5–11 years) as being very curious about life on Earth. They were told that Splodge did not know much about life on Earth and wanted to know about lots of things. Splodge was especially interested to know about family discipline and thought that children would be the best people to ask. The children were asked if they could help Splodge by answering the questions in the Splodge storybook. Spike was introduced to the older children (12–14 years) as having just landed on earth from the planet Nostro to complete a homework assignment. The homework assignment was about what children on Earth think about family discipline. The older children were asked if they could assist Spike in completing the homework assignment by answering some questions. The questions Spike asked were the same as those asked by Splodge. Both presentations were adapted from the 1998 Willow and Hyder study. The focus group discussions were 60 minutes long on average. The discussions were audiotaped and later transcribed and analysed thematically.
Hence,We have to be cautious in our interpretation of these findings of children’s explanations of concepts and events to a fictional character.
These questions were asked about children in general, rather than their own individual experiences. On the other hand, the children’s verbatim responses indicate that they are generally talking about their own subjective experiences within their families.
For instance, they were all asked, What are some of the things that happen to children when they do things they shouldn't? From the responses 61% said parents use physical punishment. Presumably 39% did not. But spontaneously only 10% of the 5-7 year-olds and 14% of the 9-11 year-olds said they were not smacked. Each child was not asked whether or not they were smacked. But these findings were considered significant enough to include.
84% lived with both parents. That is not representative, despite the research claiming socio-econimc and ethnic diversity.
Further from the abstract, In response to questions on family discipline children spontaneously revealed concerning levels of the frequency and severity of physical punishment, some of which would be identified as child abuse using any threshold. Children’s reports of the context in which physical punishment was delivered by parents was also of concern. Many children reported high levels of confusion when trying to link their own views of physical punishment with the actions of their parents.
So this unscientific piece of research will now be wheeled out in support of repealing section 59 because, The findings from this study indicate that children who live in homes where physical punishment is used are more at risk of child abuse than those that do not.
Stunning.
It would have been most interesting to see the parental responses to this research. When David Fergusson researched partner violence he looked at each partner's individual reporting and then matched them for similarity of statements. That's what I would like to see happen here, though I'm not convinced wheeling out aliens to do the interviewing would be halpful .
Are Christians the new lepers?
I used to think smokers were the new lepers. But I am fast beginning to believe it is Christians. Which bothers me deeply. Not least because a tolerance for people's religious belief is an essential principle the importance of which cannot be over-stated.
The front page of today's DomPost features Martin Keast, Principal of Wainuiomata and Silverstream Christian schools. I have met Martin on a couple of occasions. He attended an education meeting I organised prior to the last election, and gave Rodney Hide a pretty good run for his money over the matter of vouchers as I recall. I hope I don't do him a disservice but I'd describe him as a Christian Libertarian. Certainly I found him a quietly spoken and thoughtful man.
I can remember all of my headmasters, from Primary to Secondary. Respected figures each. Tyrants, no. One I still know today and put in the same vein as Martin, quiet and thoughtful. I was vaguely aware of corporal punishment but it didn't loom large because student's self-discipline was still of a degree that incidents were unusual.
By sixth form I did know boys who were caned. If I'd worn trousers then I would have been with them. Instead they got the cane and I got put on report and suspended. But it was part and parcel of pushing the boundaries and accepting the consequences. Corporal punishment may seem like a big deal to people who live in fear of physical punishment but to many kids it was a price they were willing to pay when taking a risk.
So here we have a Christian School grudgingly telling the government that they will comply with its no corporal punishment edict but look at the absolute thumper he gets in at the same time;
Well said, Martin. Well said.
The front page of today's DomPost features Martin Keast, Principal of Wainuiomata and Silverstream Christian schools. I have met Martin on a couple of occasions. He attended an education meeting I organised prior to the last election, and gave Rodney Hide a pretty good run for his money over the matter of vouchers as I recall. I hope I don't do him a disservice but I'd describe him as a Christian Libertarian. Certainly I found him a quietly spoken and thoughtful man.
I can remember all of my headmasters, from Primary to Secondary. Respected figures each. Tyrants, no. One I still know today and put in the same vein as Martin, quiet and thoughtful. I was vaguely aware of corporal punishment but it didn't loom large because student's self-discipline was still of a degree that incidents were unusual.
By sixth form I did know boys who were caned. If I'd worn trousers then I would have been with them. Instead they got the cane and I got put on report and suspended. But it was part and parcel of pushing the boundaries and accepting the consequences. Corporal punishment may seem like a big deal to people who live in fear of physical punishment but to many kids it was a price they were willing to pay when taking a risk.
So here we have a Christian School grudgingly telling the government that they will comply with its no corporal punishment edict but look at the absolute thumper he gets in at the same time;
Well said, Martin. Well said.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Tough talk (touch wood)
Yesterday Upper Hutt police embarked on a crime blitz.
"If you have committed a crime, we are coming to get you. If you are planning to commit a crime, you are going to get arrested," says Acting Upper Hutt Area Commander Inspector Mike Hill.
You talking to me? Are you talking to me ?
This morning a 21 year-old man was stabbed to death right in the centre of town. No mention of an arrest yet.
"If you have committed a crime, we are coming to get you. If you are planning to commit a crime, you are going to get arrested," says Acting Upper Hutt Area Commander Inspector Mike Hill.
You talking to me? Are you talking to me ?
This morning a 21 year-old man was stabbed to death right in the centre of town. No mention of an arrest yet.
Supreme Court line-up more conservative
The US Supreme Court has upheld a ban on a certain abortion procedure which was previously legal where needed to protect the health of the woman.The ruling marked the first time that the court has upheld a ban on a specific abortion procedure. It also marked a departure from the Supreme Court's past practice of requiring a "health exception" in laws governing abortion to allow the procedure when a woman's health would otherwise be at risk.
The ruling went 5-4. One of the opposing Judges, Ruth Bader Ginsberg wrote,
"Today's decision is alarming. It tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. . . . And, for the first time since Roe, the Court blesses a prohibition with no exception safeguarding a woman's health."
The turnaround is highly significant because, The ruling buoyed abortion opponents who have placed their hopes in Bush's conservative nominees to the Supreme Court....The dramatic decision delivered to abortion opponents the promise of a more conservative court as reconstituted by Bush, who praised the majority's rejection of what he called an "abhorrent procedure" and suggested that he would continue working for greater restrictions on abortion.
Some battles are never won.
Teetotallers only need apply
This is too awful. Testing whether people are fit to have custody of their children based on the amount they drink. Yuck. Wait a minute. Oh Dear Lord. The guilt. It's true. Yesterday I took the children to have lunch with Dad and had a glass of Framingham Sauvignon Blanc. Then...it's too shameful....I dozed off in the afternoon and was 5 minutes late getting Sam to soccer practice. See. Unfit. Useless parent.
A million $ or more for 'partnership recognition'?
CYFS staff members who belong to the PSA will be paid a bonus of $650.
Last year CYF employed 2,670 full-time equivalents. I have no idea what percentage would be union members. If it's half or more the total payment, "taxpayers money" says National MP, Anne Tolley, would be pushing $1,000,000.
What I can't get my head around is what the payment is for.
"As the CYF/PSA partnership enters a new era following the merger with MSD, it has been agreed to recognise the success of the previous and ongoing partnership between CYF and the PSA through a one-off 'partnership recognition' payment of $650 gross (pro-rated for part-time staff)."
As usual, if I can't find a satisfactory explanation for an action I start pondering what one could be. Anecdotally CYF staff have been told to get behind the Bradford Bill, and not sign petitions. Is this a sort of reward or compensation for those aggrieved by this instruction? Perhaps it's a sweetener for all the extra work CYF staff will be doing after the bill passes. Or are we simply seeing a cementing in of collectivism and Labour support?
Whatever it is, it's pretty rich, in more ways than one.
(Just an aside, thinking about the PSA reminded me how a WINZ worker contacted the local ACT candidate during the removal of work-testing on the DPB debate. That was back in 2002. He put her in touch with me. She was against the removal and later told me that their PSA rep used to circulate my press releases around the office. It may not have been the rep's intention, but the WINZ worker said my statistics etc were the only way staff could get a handle on the bigger picture. Unfortunately, neither are in those jobs today.)
Last year CYF employed 2,670 full-time equivalents. I have no idea what percentage would be union members. If it's half or more the total payment, "taxpayers money" says National MP, Anne Tolley, would be pushing $1,000,000.
What I can't get my head around is what the payment is for.
"As the CYF/PSA partnership enters a new era following the merger with MSD, it has been agreed to recognise the success of the previous and ongoing partnership between CYF and the PSA through a one-off 'partnership recognition' payment of $650 gross (pro-rated for part-time staff)."
As usual, if I can't find a satisfactory explanation for an action I start pondering what one could be. Anecdotally CYF staff have been told to get behind the Bradford Bill, and not sign petitions. Is this a sort of reward or compensation for those aggrieved by this instruction? Perhaps it's a sweetener for all the extra work CYF staff will be doing after the bill passes. Or are we simply seeing a cementing in of collectivism and Labour support?
Whatever it is, it's pretty rich, in more ways than one.
(Just an aside, thinking about the PSA reminded me how a WINZ worker contacted the local ACT candidate during the removal of work-testing on the DPB debate. That was back in 2002. He put her in touch with me. She was against the removal and later told me that their PSA rep used to circulate my press releases around the office. It may not have been the rep's intention, but the WINZ worker said my statistics etc were the only way staff could get a handle on the bigger picture. Unfortunately, neither are in those jobs today.)
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Butt out Clark
As an artist I always thought that, apart from complying with tax rules, I would escape the clutches of government regulation. Think again.
The front page of the DomPost today reports about plans by Helen Clark, Minister of Arts and Culture and Judith Tizard to impose a 5 percent royalty on paintings resold within seventy years.
I'm not going to argue the merits, or otherwise, of a royalty scheme. Some artists support it, some don't. Which is why some already write such a condition into a contract when they sell their work.
But the meddling, interfering, we-know-best, it's-for-your-own-good, we'll tell-you-what-to-do twins come along and say, you will all do it. We will pass a law.
And just quietly, when you think about it, if the govt can screw another 5 percent out of the purchaser that's another dollop of tax from the royalties earned.
And, as if somebody wants to intentionally wind me up first thing on another day of the interminable school holidays, National spokesman for the Arts, Chris Finlayson doesn't know what he thinks!! What does he call himself? A Blue Liberal, Liberal Blue. Christ Chris. Being Liberal means promoting choice over government compulsion. No?
The front page of the DomPost today reports about plans by Helen Clark, Minister of Arts and Culture and Judith Tizard to impose a 5 percent royalty on paintings resold within seventy years.
I'm not going to argue the merits, or otherwise, of a royalty scheme. Some artists support it, some don't. Which is why some already write such a condition into a contract when they sell their work.
But the meddling, interfering, we-know-best, it's-for-your-own-good, we'll tell-you-what-to-do twins come along and say, you will all do it. We will pass a law.
And just quietly, when you think about it, if the govt can screw another 5 percent out of the purchaser that's another dollop of tax from the royalties earned.
And, as if somebody wants to intentionally wind me up first thing on another day of the interminable school holidays, National spokesman for the Arts, Chris Finlayson doesn't know what he thinks!! What does he call himself? A Blue Liberal, Liberal Blue. Christ Chris. Being Liberal means promoting choice over government compulsion. No?
Monday, April 16, 2007
Ultimo chance de Rudy para salvar Nueva York
Just in from South America.....
Rudy's last chance to save New York
Rudy's last chance to save New York
Not so generous with our time
This looks pretty impressive. According to news just released from Statistics New Zealand, Non-profit institutions employed 105,340 paid employees, and enlisted the help of over 436,500 volunteers.
Pretty impressive until I made a comparison with Australia where, The estimated number of volunteers aged 18 years and over in 2000 was 4,395,600.
And the Aussies are about on par with the United States where, About 61.2 million people volunteered through or for an organization at least once between September 2005 and September 2006, the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor reported.
On the face of it Kiwis are not as generous with their time as first appears.
Pretty impressive until I made a comparison with Australia where, The estimated number of volunteers aged 18 years and over in 2000 was 4,395,600.
And the Aussies are about on par with the United States where, About 61.2 million people volunteered through or for an organization at least once between September 2005 and September 2006, the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor reported.
On the face of it Kiwis are not as generous with their time as first appears.
Hiding behind the "ageing population"
Benson-Pope is constantly using the impact of the ageing population (the older age-bands are widening) as a reason for rising sickness and invalid benefit numbers. This is only partly correct, as his own Ministry's research shows;
Figure 3 Invalid’s Benefit Inflow Rates by Age Group, 1993–2002
More than half of the growth in inflows cannot be explained by demographic change and the New Zealand Superannuation age rise. It reflects, instead, an increase in inflow rates for people aged between 15 and 59. Figure 3 shows that inflow rates were higher in 2002 than in 1993 for all age groups within this band.
So next time he uses this excuse know he is telling you less than half the story and when you hear him saying the growth rate is slowing know he is wrong.
Figure 3 Invalid’s Benefit Inflow Rates by Age Group, 1993–2002
More than half of the growth in inflows cannot be explained by demographic change and the New Zealand Superannuation age rise. It reflects, instead, an increase in inflow rates for people aged between 15 and 59. Figure 3 shows that inflow rates were higher in 2002 than in 1993 for all age groups within this band.
So next time he uses this excuse know he is telling you less than half the story and when you hear him saying the growth rate is slowing know he is wrong.
From benefit to prison
From the Australian Centre for Independent Studies, Peter Saunders was recently in Wellington promoting a plan for people to opt out of the welfare state. I didn't attend. I have heard the ideas before and while I think they have some merit they are also troublesome. That's OK. There are no perfect solutions. Goodness knows I have spent thousands of hours trying to find them:-)
But I do try to keep an open mind so made time to belatedly read his paper. Unfortunately I wasn't that far into it when I came across something of an exaggeration. I agree with the thesis that the welfare state has contributed to crime but let's keep things in perspective.
According to Peter Saunders (using information from Muriel Newman), Many of those who commit crimes are in receipt of welfare benefits — 4,600 of New Zealand’s 6,000 prison inmates in 2002 were on benefits before they got locked up.
According to the 2003 Census of Prison Inmates 29.4 percent of prisoners had been on a benefit before incarceration.
Perhaps 2002 was an aberration.
According to the 2001 Census the figure was 38.6 percent.
Both are a far cry from 76.6 percent. I think I know how the error has occurred. Probably the number going off benefits and into prison has been compared to the static prison population rather than all committals over the course of a year.
But before I am criticised for nit-picking, my broader problem with Saunder's proposal (in the same vein as Roger Douglas') is the compulsion element. Also, better minds than mine (eg Roger Kerr) have argued against a Taxfree Income Threshold. I accept those arguments.
Did anyone who attended the lecture have any thoughts?
But I do try to keep an open mind so made time to belatedly read his paper. Unfortunately I wasn't that far into it when I came across something of an exaggeration. I agree with the thesis that the welfare state has contributed to crime but let's keep things in perspective.
According to Peter Saunders (using information from Muriel Newman), Many of those who commit crimes are in receipt of welfare benefits — 4,600 of New Zealand’s 6,000 prison inmates in 2002 were on benefits before they got locked up.
According to the 2003 Census of Prison Inmates 29.4 percent of prisoners had been on a benefit before incarceration.
Perhaps 2002 was an aberration.
According to the 2001 Census the figure was 38.6 percent.
Both are a far cry from 76.6 percent. I think I know how the error has occurred. Probably the number going off benefits and into prison has been compared to the static prison population rather than all committals over the course of a year.
But before I am criticised for nit-picking, my broader problem with Saunder's proposal (in the same vein as Roger Douglas') is the compulsion element. Also, better minds than mine (eg Roger Kerr) have argued against a Taxfree Income Threshold. I accept those arguments.
Did anyone who attended the lecture have any thoughts?
That's convenient
We may be interested in tracking recipients of welfare but the government is not.
Working For Families assistance allowed a beneficiary working part-time to move onto an In Work payment as long as they were working, in the case of a single parent, at least 20 hours a week.
Here is the official advice from Ministry of Social Development CEO Peter Hughes;
"When clients exit benefit, Work and Income does not record whether a person went on to receive an In-Work payment. I am also advised that when a person applies for the In-Work Payment, Inland Revenue does not record whether the person has just left benefit."
How convenient.
Next time you hear Benson-Pope congratulating himself and Work and Income about the DPB numbers going down you will just have to picture a question-mark in your mind - like I do.
Working For Families assistance allowed a beneficiary working part-time to move onto an In Work payment as long as they were working, in the case of a single parent, at least 20 hours a week.
Here is the official advice from Ministry of Social Development CEO Peter Hughes;
"When clients exit benefit, Work and Income does not record whether a person went on to receive an In-Work payment. I am also advised that when a person applies for the In-Work Payment, Inland Revenue does not record whether the person has just left benefit."
How convenient.
Next time you hear Benson-Pope congratulating himself and Work and Income about the DPB numbers going down you will just have to picture a question-mark in your mind - like I do.
Too many chiefs?
Because women are waiting so long to see a specialist nobody noticed the Women's Health service had actually moved from Thames Hospital to Waikato Hospital! In a small mismanagement of communication nobody remembered to tell the GPs. What's that old saying about too many chiefs....
Sunday, April 15, 2007
Consensus?
There seems to be a viewpoint not represented here. I thought there were eight parties in Parliament.
The state-funded cycle of crime
Right now the state is paying people to produce the criminals of tomorrow. That is a fact.
The Princes Trust has just published a report about the high level of NEETS (young people not in education, employment or training) in the United Kingdom which compares unfavourably with other European countries where unemployment is apparently higher. One of the focuses of the report is crime. Think about these statistics and you can see clearly the cycle being created;
Compared with the general population, prisoners are;
* 13 times as likely to have been in care as a child
* 10 times as likely to be a regular truant
* 13 times as likely to be unemployed
* 2.5 times as likely to have had a family member convicted of a criminal offence
* 6 times as likely to have been a young father
England and Wales have the highest imprisonment rate out of 15 European countries. New Zealand's is higher still.
Until we deal with the first item on that list, people having children they cannot or will not care for, children who inevitably end up in fostercare or CYF homes, the whole problem of crime and over-stretched courts and prisons will continue to escalate.
The Princes Trust has just published a report about the high level of NEETS (young people not in education, employment or training) in the United Kingdom which compares unfavourably with other European countries where unemployment is apparently higher. One of the focuses of the report is crime. Think about these statistics and you can see clearly the cycle being created;
Compared with the general population, prisoners are;
* 13 times as likely to have been in care as a child
* 10 times as likely to be a regular truant
* 13 times as likely to be unemployed
* 2.5 times as likely to have had a family member convicted of a criminal offence
* 6 times as likely to have been a young father
England and Wales have the highest imprisonment rate out of 15 European countries. New Zealand's is higher still.
Until we deal with the first item on that list, people having children they cannot or will not care for, children who inevitably end up in fostercare or CYF homes, the whole problem of crime and over-stretched courts and prisons will continue to escalate.
Saturday, April 14, 2007
On Maori voices.....
Yesterday I took the kids with me to spend the morning with my friend and her 4-year old daughter. The little girl, who has developed a mutual fondness for my two, calls them her 'cousins' and 'you fellas'.
Late last night, as I was tucking Robert up for the night, he said to me, "Maori have big voices. She has a big Maori voice."
After further reflection he said, "White people have voices like bands with no bass or drums."
I was very taken with his observation.
Late last night, as I was tucking Robert up for the night, he said to me, "Maori have big voices. She has a big Maori voice."
After further reflection he said, "White people have voices like bands with no bass or drums."
I was very taken with his observation.
Friday, April 13, 2007
Minister Mistaken
Media Release
MINISTER MISTAKEN OVER GROWTH IN INCAPACITY BENEFITS
Friday, April 13, 2007
In defence of growing incapacity benefit numbers, Minister of Social Development, David Benson-Pope, is claiming the growth has slowed.
Welfare commentator, Lindsay Mitchell, says this is not so and either the Minister is badly advised or he has a very poor memory.
"Just over a year ago, in February 2006, the Minister said, '(T)he number of Sickness Benefit recipients increased by just 1,214, and the number of Invalid’s Benefit recipients increased by only 1,957 – a three percent rise for each respectively. We have seen a steep decline in the growth rate of Sickness and Invalid's Benefits.' "
"On April 11, 2007, he said, 'Despite an aging population, we are doing well in reducing the growth of numbers needing a Sickness or Invalids Benefit. In the past year Sickness and Invalids Benefit numbers have risen by just 4,000.' "
"So despite greater growth in the past year compared to the previous, David Benson-Pope is still making the same claim. It is bad enough that 'slowing growth' is the best the Minister can offer. It is worse still when that claim isn't even valid."
MINISTER MISTAKEN OVER GROWTH IN INCAPACITY BENEFITS
Friday, April 13, 2007
In defence of growing incapacity benefit numbers, Minister of Social Development, David Benson-Pope, is claiming the growth has slowed.
Welfare commentator, Lindsay Mitchell, says this is not so and either the Minister is badly advised or he has a very poor memory.
"Just over a year ago, in February 2006, the Minister said, '(T)he number of Sickness Benefit recipients increased by just 1,214, and the number of Invalid’s Benefit recipients increased by only 1,957 – a three percent rise for each respectively. We have seen a steep decline in the growth rate of Sickness and Invalid's Benefits.' "
"On April 11, 2007, he said, 'Despite an aging population, we are doing well in reducing the growth of numbers needing a Sickness or Invalids Benefit. In the past year Sickness and Invalids Benefit numbers have risen by just 4,000.' "
"So despite greater growth in the past year compared to the previous, David Benson-Pope is still making the same claim. It is bad enough that 'slowing growth' is the best the Minister can offer. It is worse still when that claim isn't even valid."
Thursday, April 12, 2007
God, bad and ugly
A new survey about public perception of government performance conducted by Massey University, based on 1,350 responses from 18+ year-olds, shows a mixed bag of attitudes.
Good; Perceptions of the role of government have changed relatively little over the past 10 years, except for a sharp decline in the expectation that the Government should provide a job for everyone who wants one.
Most people favour cuts in Government spending......
Bad;.....but there is strong support for more spending in health, education and
Good; .....and law enforcement. The belief that low and middle-income earners pay too much tax is widespread and has increased since 1997, most sharply amongst middle-income earners. New Zealanders have liberal views on actions designed to challenge the Government. Most believe organising public meetings, protest marches and demonstrations should be permitted. Even when people with extreme views want to overthrow the Government, most believe they should be allowed to publish books or hold public meetings to express these views.
Bad; There is strong support for removing GST on fresh fruit and vegetables and for more regulation of food advertising, particularly advertising to children.
And just plain ugly; Concerns about smoking, drinking and obesity show up in strong support for interventions designed to reduce the undesirable effects of cigarettes, alcohol and unhealthy food. Nearly half support extending the smoking ban to include all public places, and 75 per cent support returning the drinking age to 20.
Good; Perceptions of the role of government have changed relatively little over the past 10 years, except for a sharp decline in the expectation that the Government should provide a job for everyone who wants one.
Most people favour cuts in Government spending......
Bad;.....but there is strong support for more spending in health, education and
Good; .....and law enforcement. The belief that low and middle-income earners pay too much tax is widespread and has increased since 1997, most sharply amongst middle-income earners. New Zealanders have liberal views on actions designed to challenge the Government. Most believe organising public meetings, protest marches and demonstrations should be permitted. Even when people with extreme views want to overthrow the Government, most believe they should be allowed to publish books or hold public meetings to express these views.
Bad; There is strong support for removing GST on fresh fruit and vegetables and for more regulation of food advertising, particularly advertising to children.
And just plain ugly; Concerns about smoking, drinking and obesity show up in strong support for interventions designed to reduce the undesirable effects of cigarettes, alcohol and unhealthy food. Nearly half support extending the smoking ban to include all public places, and 75 per cent support returning the drinking age to 20.
Further costs
In addition to the table below you can add the following welfare expenses (millions);
social rehabilitation and compensation $145
departmental expenses $858
other departmental expenses $349
housing subsidies $23
housing departmental outputs $117
other departmental expenses $62
employment initiatives (includes training incentive allowance) $202
Total $15,800 million
And you could throw in the Cullen Fund as well at $1,671 giving....drum roll...
a grand total of $17,471 or 35% of government spending.
social rehabilitation and compensation $145
departmental expenses $858
other departmental expenses $349
housing subsidies $23
housing departmental outputs $117
other departmental expenses $62
employment initiatives (includes training incentive allowance) $202
Total $15,800 million
And you could throw in the Cullen Fund as well at $1,671 giving....drum roll...
a grand total of $17,471 or 35% of government spending.
In Work payments to cost half a billion
It has taken me a while to find any accounting of the In Work payment and I am very glad to see it is still being classed as a benefit by Treasury despite it being paid by the IRD. Here is the crucial point, if you can bear me repeating it one more time. No politicians, including Judith Collins, who should have been screaming about this on breakfast TV this morning instead of making false claims like the sickness benefit pays more than the unemployment benefit, have picked up on this jiggery pokery. The sudden drop in beneficiary numbers is (to some as-yet-unknown degree - challenge the Minister, Judith) a transfer onto a different benefit now called an In Work payment. Where a beneficiary has moved from, for example, the DPB onto an In Work payment, with no change in working hours, they cease being a beneficiary. From a monetary point of view it will cost the country even more. I am not however knocking those people who are prepared to work even part-time. It is just so incredibly frustrating to watch the Minister and the opposition spokesman both so incompetent in their portfolio.
Govt spending ^^^
While poking around in Treasury I came across this interesting graph. The top blue line shows core expenditure against gdp. That recent rise is mainly attributable to Working For Families. Given the upward trend in the first half of the decade do you really believe the prediction for the next?
What about welfare spending?
I asked someone, given all of the good news about dropping beneficiary numbers, what would you expect to be happening with spending?
They gave this some thought, allowed for yearly cost of living rises and said that they would expect some downward shift and, at the very least, expenditure to have stayed the same. The Treasury financial statements were released yesterday so let's have a look;
Using actual year to June figures (1st column) produces an overall rise of 8.9 percent in two years.
%
Super +8.9
ACC +21.4
DPB -4.8
Unemployment -34.3
Family Support +54.3
Student Allowances -6.8
Other Social Asst grants +11.7
Take ACC and Super from the equation and there is still a rise of 5.6%
When asked on Breakfast TV why spending hadn't dropped Benson Pope said because there was more case management going into those people who were on other benefits beyond unemployment. It's a small investment in the future.
Certainly staff numbers have not gone down. BUT personnel costs are not included in the above figures.
They gave this some thought, allowed for yearly cost of living rises and said that they would expect some downward shift and, at the very least, expenditure to have stayed the same. The Treasury financial statements were released yesterday so let's have a look;
Using actual year to June figures (1st column) produces an overall rise of 8.9 percent in two years.
%
Super +8.9
ACC +21.4
DPB -4.8
Unemployment -34.3
Family Support +54.3
Student Allowances -6.8
Other Social Asst grants +11.7
Take ACC and Super from the equation and there is still a rise of 5.6%
When asked on Breakfast TV why spending hadn't dropped Benson Pope said because there was more case management going into those people who were on other benefits beyond unemployment. It's a small investment in the future.
Certainly staff numbers have not gone down. BUT personnel costs are not included in the above figures.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
The whole truth.....
It beholds me once again to give you the full story. Minister of Maori Affairs, Mr Parekura Horomia is thrilled to bits that Maori unemployment has dropped below 10,000 - a 78 percent drop since December 1999. Now it isn't really good practice to compare different months of the year due to seasonal variation so I will compare December 1999 to December 2006;
Maori on;
Invalids benefit up 102%
Sickness benefit up 91%
DPB up 11%
The DPB increase is, by the way, against the trend.
Maori on;
Invalids benefit up 102%
Sickness benefit up 91%
DPB up 11%
The DPB increase is, by the way, against the trend.
Recidivism and all that crime
Published last month, this report summarises patterns of reconviction amongst almost 5000 offenders who were released from prison over a twelve-month period in 2002/03.
By the end of 3 years 44 percent had been re-imprisoned.
I asked the Corrections Department how many people were released from prison in 2006?
Answer; 12,623 people were released from a New Zealand prison in the 2006 calendar year.
Just assuming the recidivism rate remains steady, 5554 people were released last year to go out and commit more crime.
But that's not all.
Note, It is of course acknowledged that reconviction figures give only an indication of actual re-offending. Surveys of crime victims indicate that, on average, between 35 - 40% of all crimes are reported to Police. Further, even when reported, not all crimes are resolved. The latest Police crime statistics suggest that resolution rates can vary from around 80% for violent offences to as low as 20% for dishonesty offences. Finally, a proportion of crimes may be “resolved” but do not necessarily progress to the conviction and sentencing of an offender (e.g., Police Diversion cases).
Thus no attempt is made here to suggest that the figures in any way account for the full extent of actual re-offending behaviour of this cohort of released prisoners; these inevitably must be considerably higher.
Isn't it ironic that the reasoning used against predominantly innocent people, ie a very small number of you are a risk so all will be penalised, eg dog microchipping and criminalising smacking, is oddly missing here.
It can be predicted with certainty that at least half of released prisoners will go on to commit more crime against person or property, yet all are freed. All are given the benefit of the doubt.
It is a very, very warped world we live in.
By the end of 3 years 44 percent had been re-imprisoned.
I asked the Corrections Department how many people were released from prison in 2006?
Answer; 12,623 people were released from a New Zealand prison in the 2006 calendar year.
Just assuming the recidivism rate remains steady, 5554 people were released last year to go out and commit more crime.
But that's not all.
Note, It is of course acknowledged that reconviction figures give only an indication of actual re-offending. Surveys of crime victims indicate that, on average, between 35 - 40% of all crimes are reported to Police. Further, even when reported, not all crimes are resolved. The latest Police crime statistics suggest that resolution rates can vary from around 80% for violent offences to as low as 20% for dishonesty offences. Finally, a proportion of crimes may be “resolved” but do not necessarily progress to the conviction and sentencing of an offender (e.g., Police Diversion cases).
Thus no attempt is made here to suggest that the figures in any way account for the full extent of actual re-offending behaviour of this cohort of released prisoners; these inevitably must be considerably higher.
Isn't it ironic that the reasoning used against predominantly innocent people, ie a very small number of you are a risk so all will be penalised, eg dog microchipping and criminalising smacking, is oddly missing here.
It can be predicted with certainty that at least half of released prisoners will go on to commit more crime against person or property, yet all are freed. All are given the benefit of the doubt.
It is a very, very warped world we live in.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Section 59 a red herring
I had forgotten I sent this out last month. It was published in today's Hutt News under the by-line of Eastbourne-based welfare commentator and former ACT candidate. I've also been writing to the Maori Party. It's not over yet.
Discussing teenage parents
I'll be talking to Larry Williams on NewstalkZB at around 4.10pm this afternoon about teenage parenthood, welfare dependence, etc.
The upside to abortion
How this is greeted will be as interesting as the research findings themselves.
Just published;
Christchurch Health and Development Study, Christchurch, New Zealand.
CONTEXT: Young women frequently cite concerns about the effects of unplanned pregnancies on future life course outcomes, including education, employment and relationships, as reasons for seeking abortion. There is relatively little evidence as to whether abortion leads to improved life course outcomes for young women who choose this option. METHODS: Data from 492 women participating in a 25-year longitudinal study of a New Zealand birth cohort were used in regression models that examined the relationship between pregnancy and abortion history prior to age 21 and selected social and economic outcomes at ages 21-25. RESULTS: Compared with young women who became pregnant before age 21 but did not seek an abortion, young women who had an abortion had significantly better outcomes on six out of 10 measures spanning education, income, welfare dependence and domestic violence. Adjustment for confounding factors indicated that most of these differences were explained by family, social and educational characteristics that were present prior to pregnancy. Nonetheless, even after adjustment for confounding factors, young women who had abortions had higher levels of subsequent educational achievement than those who became pregnant but did not have abortions. CONCLUSIONS: Abortion may mitigate some effects of early unplanned pregnancy. However, further study of its potential risks and benefits is needed so that women can make fully informed decisions as to whether to terminate unintended pregnancies.
I have always been pro-choice. Particularly in respect of teenagers. Most women will become mothers at some point in their lives. Ideally it should happen when she is mature enough to parent, is in a stable relationship and is financially capable of raising the child. Having a child as a teenager very often means the mother never attains any of those prerequisites despite continuing to produce babies.
Just published;
Christchurch Health and Development Study, Christchurch, New Zealand.
CONTEXT: Young women frequently cite concerns about the effects of unplanned pregnancies on future life course outcomes, including education, employment and relationships, as reasons for seeking abortion. There is relatively little evidence as to whether abortion leads to improved life course outcomes for young women who choose this option. METHODS: Data from 492 women participating in a 25-year longitudinal study of a New Zealand birth cohort were used in regression models that examined the relationship between pregnancy and abortion history prior to age 21 and selected social and economic outcomes at ages 21-25. RESULTS: Compared with young women who became pregnant before age 21 but did not seek an abortion, young women who had an abortion had significantly better outcomes on six out of 10 measures spanning education, income, welfare dependence and domestic violence. Adjustment for confounding factors indicated that most of these differences were explained by family, social and educational characteristics that were present prior to pregnancy. Nonetheless, even after adjustment for confounding factors, young women who had abortions had higher levels of subsequent educational achievement than those who became pregnant but did not have abortions. CONCLUSIONS: Abortion may mitigate some effects of early unplanned pregnancy. However, further study of its potential risks and benefits is needed so that women can make fully informed decisions as to whether to terminate unintended pregnancies.
I have always been pro-choice. Particularly in respect of teenagers. Most women will become mothers at some point in their lives. Ideally it should happen when she is mature enough to parent, is in a stable relationship and is financially capable of raising the child. Having a child as a teenager very often means the mother never attains any of those prerequisites despite continuing to produce babies.
Monday, April 09, 2007
Bend it like......Best?
Here's Sam in her genuine, bought-at-Old-Trafford Man U shirt, getting ready for the soccer season.
Latter day slavery
Ah Sweden. That utopian paradise our wanna-be social democratic government hankers after. Last week a visiting Swedish professor, Joakim Palme, told a social policy conference in Wellington that New Zealand needs to get more woman, particularly sole mothers, into the workforce. This in order to pay for the continuance of the welfare state and, in particular, the ageing population.Of course he is right - if you want a continuance of the welfare state. Women should be slaves to it to the same degree men are. Mothers shouldn't stay home raising their children when they could be tax-paying units in the workforce. They should have no choice in the matter.
Then again, if you didn't want the welfare state, that is, the government prescribing how, for our own good, we should all live, you would want people to be able to make their own choices (with the important proviso that they can pay for those choices).
Being uncharitable
To Barnardos and Plunket, can I be uncharitable and say, it serves you right.
Murray Edridge says about the loss of support they are experiencing;"I'm saddened people choose to withdraw support because that's not a good outcome for us longer-term and it's not a good outcome for kids."
And Sue Bradford's legislation will be a good outcome for kids? As I have said in the past, I am not paying you to promote dubious political solutions to child welfare problems.
Murray Edridge says about the loss of support they are experiencing;"I'm saddened people choose to withdraw support because that's not a good outcome for us longer-term and it's not a good outcome for kids."
And Sue Bradford's legislation will be a good outcome for kids? As I have said in the past, I am not paying you to promote dubious political solutions to child welfare problems.
Sunday, April 08, 2007
Keeping up with the Joneses
My eight year-old recently inquired whether her daddy and I would be splitting up. Obviously concerned (had we been fighting in front of the children or was it simply that half of her friends have gone through the experience?) I quickly reassured her, Of course not. Why would you ask?
"Because then I could have two houses," she replied.
"Because then I could have two houses," she replied.
Blame culture thriving
A glance through the Sunday Star Times confirms a culture of blame is thriving in Aoteoroa New Zealand. The Police and the Motor Trade Association blame the rising cost of fuel for petrol drive-offs, "unscrupulous" creditors are blamed for ballooning debt and South Auckland violence is blamed on working parents. The words "criminals" and "fools" make no appearance.
Most readers understand individual culpability. Even in what we might describe as trivial aspects of our lives, matters beyond the law, we know when our actions are to blame for a situation. We have an in-built mechanism - a conscience, a relatively sophisticated level of reason and a fear of bad consequences.
But this pervasive practice of blaming anybody but the real culprit has led to a growing mass of people being unable to behave properly, in a way that doesn't hurt others or themselves, because they genuinely believe they are the victim, not the wrong-doer.
We do people no favours by making excuses for them. But it is has become such a deeply ingrained habit I think most don't even notice it happening anymore.
Most readers understand individual culpability. Even in what we might describe as trivial aspects of our lives, matters beyond the law, we know when our actions are to blame for a situation. We have an in-built mechanism - a conscience, a relatively sophisticated level of reason and a fear of bad consequences.
But this pervasive practice of blaming anybody but the real culprit has led to a growing mass of people being unable to behave properly, in a way that doesn't hurt others or themselves, because they genuinely believe they are the victim, not the wrong-doer.
We do people no favours by making excuses for them. But it is has become such a deeply ingrained habit I think most don't even notice it happening anymore.
Saturday, April 07, 2007
Gross idea
I get a feeling in my gut that this is a very sick idea. That's my emotional response to it. I asked my almost 13 year-old what he thought and without hesitation he said, kids should want to do well anyway.
Isn't paying up to $6,900 a year to dysfunctional families if they get their children to perform at school and look after their health needs, the ultimate in social experiments?
Remember an earlier social experiment when government decided that society should pay single mothers a decent income to stay home and look after their kids - properly. Now we have many more dysfunctional families as a result and we want to intervene on an even greater scale??
Dysfunctional families are already being paid enough to function if they choose to. They choose not to.
Where will it end?
Isn't paying up to $6,900 a year to dysfunctional families if they get their children to perform at school and look after their health needs, the ultimate in social experiments?
Remember an earlier social experiment when government decided that society should pay single mothers a decent income to stay home and look after their kids - properly. Now we have many more dysfunctional families as a result and we want to intervene on an even greater scale??
Dysfunctional families are already being paid enough to function if they choose to. They choose not to.
Where will it end?
Friday, April 06, 2007
Who will be most affected by Bradford's Bill?
There can be no doubt that the level of family violence reporting will increase after the Crimes Amendment Act comes into force.
I have been reading a CYF Evaluation Report from 2000. The following excerpts point to how the police might react and who will be most effected by the passage of Bradford's Bill. CYF piloted a Safety Assessment Form for Police use when attending family violence incidents, which was intended to assess the safety of any children at the address.
C H I L D , Y O U T H A N D F A M I L Y •
S A F E T Y A S S E S S M E N T F O R M P I L O T
3. There appears to be a tendency for Police to over-identify children in need of statutory intervention. Possible contributing factors are:
• lack of adequate Police training in risk assessment
• a perception by the Police that making such an assessment is a social work,
rather than a Police task
So Police tended to over-identify Maori and Pacific children. Of the 603 SAF notifications, 264 were assessed as needing further action from CYF. Substantiated findings of abuse were entered for 65 children. The percentage of substantiated findings for Maori children were lower than their percentage of SAF notifications.
Tariana Turia knows this and yet is still supporting the legislation. I wish the Maori Party would reconsider.
I have been reading a CYF Evaluation Report from 2000. The following excerpts point to how the police might react and who will be most effected by the passage of Bradford's Bill. CYF piloted a Safety Assessment Form for Police use when attending family violence incidents, which was intended to assess the safety of any children at the address.
C H I L D , Y O U T H A N D F A M I L Y •
S A F E T Y A S S E S S M E N T F O R M P I L O T
3. There appears to be a tendency for Police to over-identify children in need of statutory intervention. Possible contributing factors are:
• lack of adequate Police training in risk assessment
• a perception by the Police that making such an assessment is a social work,
rather than a Police task
So Police tended to over-identify Maori and Pacific children. Of the 603 SAF notifications, 264 were assessed as needing further action from CYF. Substantiated findings of abuse were entered for 65 children. The percentage of substantiated findings for Maori children were lower than their percentage of SAF notifications.
Tariana Turia knows this and yet is still supporting the legislation. I wish the Maori Party would reconsider.
Thursday, April 05, 2007
Alcohol the fall guy again
Police are blaming the violent Waikato (I always read the Waikato Times because stuff happens there) on drunken youth. Alcohol really is getting a bad rap at the moment. Ultimately it is still the person who uses it irresponsibly that should carry the can. But I am wondering if we won't ultimately see the re-emergence of a temperance movement?
Death penalty poll
Stuff is running a poll on whether the death penalty should be re-introduced. It's running very close. I voted 'no'. But in a way I would like to vote 'yes', with a proviso. That it is voluntary. If someone who is otherwise going to be locked up for life agrees that he or she does not want to remain alive under those conditions then assisted suicide should be an option. I've long thought this but never expressed it before. No doubt people will find holes in the idea.
Snail-mail too steep
In three years NZ Post has increased mailing charges by 25 percent. I run a small business. One of the main overheads is postage costs. Granted it is a very small concern but plenty of other larger organisations would be in a similar position. Charities leap to mind. I will be contacting my customers pointing out that I have not increased the price of my service in thirteen years. Neither do I want to. Can they please send me an e-mail address to which I can send the product as an attachment. (This will also cut down on my copying costs.)
To NZ Post - 25 percent of nothing is nothing. In fact it's worse than nothing because I won't need to buy the envelopes you sell through your Post Shops either.
(PS are you still subsidising Kiwibank?)
To NZ Post - 25 percent of nothing is nothing. In fact it's worse than nothing because I won't need to buy the envelopes you sell through your Post Shops either.
(PS are you still subsidising Kiwibank?)
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
I'm shocked!
Steve Maharey's unparliamentary f--- you faux pas is fascinating.
You see, I would never say it. I don't think it, let alone say it. I mean, I do think f--- off sometimes, in an impersonal way, especially regarding the tenth telephone canvasser of the day, local government bureaucrats, radical feminists, and tailgaters.
But f--- you is quite different from f--- off. And I am bound to wonder on what other occasions the Minister finds an opportunity to use it. During caucus maybe? Today's outburst could even be a case of resentment transfer. Perhaps he really wanted to direct his conspicuous bitterness toward the head honcho whipster, although unlike Dover Samuels, Clayton Cosgrove and Damien O'Connor, Maharey probably does want to vote for the anti-smacking bill.
In which case maybe it is all the dissenters in his electorate he has been muttering f--- you to in his mind.
If you aren't in the habit of thinking or saying them, these things don't just slip out. The really strange thing is I am not sure whether he has gone up or down in my estimation. Touchy-feely goes feral. Sounds like the next Lynley Dodd book.
You see, I would never say it. I don't think it, let alone say it. I mean, I do think f--- off sometimes, in an impersonal way, especially regarding the tenth telephone canvasser of the day, local government bureaucrats, radical feminists, and tailgaters.
But f--- you is quite different from f--- off. And I am bound to wonder on what other occasions the Minister finds an opportunity to use it. During caucus maybe? Today's outburst could even be a case of resentment transfer. Perhaps he really wanted to direct his conspicuous bitterness toward the head honcho whipster, although unlike Dover Samuels, Clayton Cosgrove and Damien O'Connor, Maharey probably does want to vote for the anti-smacking bill.
In which case maybe it is all the dissenters in his electorate he has been muttering f--- you to in his mind.
If you aren't in the habit of thinking or saying them, these things don't just slip out. The really strange thing is I am not sure whether he has gone up or down in my estimation. Touchy-feely goes feral. Sounds like the next Lynley Dodd book.
Astonishing Recommendation By Parliamentarians
Wednesday, 4 April 2007, 12:46 pm
Press Release: Lindsay Mitchell
Media Release
Astonishing Recommendation By Parliamentarians
Wednesday, April 4, 2007
A newly-released report on youth sexual health, prepared by the cross-party New Zealand Parliamentarian's Group on Population and Development (NZPPD) has highlighted New Zealand's high teenage fertility rate as a major concern and recommended increasing benefit levels and extending assistance to a younger age.
Welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell was astonished by the recommendation."The link between teenage birth and the availability of benefits is obvious to those people who live and work in the communities where rates of teenage birth are highest. Increasing benefit levels would have the opposite effect to what the Parliamentarians are trying to achieve."
"Teen parents frequently are, or become, single parents. European research released late last year, based on a sample of 6,580 single mothers, showed that the level and availability of benefits corresponds to the number of lone parents. Where benefits were increased the number of recipients went up."
"The Parliamentarian's report also claims that, 'poverty is a major issue for teenage parents as little or no benefits are available until they reach 18.' "
"This is simply untrue. Sixteen and 17 year-old teenage parents are eligible for the Emergency Maintenance Allowance which pays the same rate as the DPB. At June 2006, 612 single teenage parents received this benefit. A further 2,947 single teenage parents received the DPB."
"So the recommendation is not only flawed but based on misinformation. Increasing benefits to teen parents is not the way to reduce the teenage birthrate."
ENDS
Wednesday, 4 April 2007, 12:46 pm
Press Release: Lindsay Mitchell
Media Release
Astonishing Recommendation By Parliamentarians
Wednesday, April 4, 2007
A newly-released report on youth sexual health, prepared by the cross-party New Zealand Parliamentarian's Group on Population and Development (NZPPD) has highlighted New Zealand's high teenage fertility rate as a major concern and recommended increasing benefit levels and extending assistance to a younger age.
Welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell was astonished by the recommendation."The link between teenage birth and the availability of benefits is obvious to those people who live and work in the communities where rates of teenage birth are highest. Increasing benefit levels would have the opposite effect to what the Parliamentarians are trying to achieve."
"Teen parents frequently are, or become, single parents. European research released late last year, based on a sample of 6,580 single mothers, showed that the level and availability of benefits corresponds to the number of lone parents. Where benefits were increased the number of recipients went up."
"The Parliamentarian's report also claims that, 'poverty is a major issue for teenage parents as little or no benefits are available until they reach 18.' "
"This is simply untrue. Sixteen and 17 year-old teenage parents are eligible for the Emergency Maintenance Allowance which pays the same rate as the DPB. At June 2006, 612 single teenage parents received this benefit. A further 2,947 single teenage parents received the DPB."
"So the recommendation is not only flawed but based on misinformation. Increasing benefits to teen parents is not the way to reduce the teenage birthrate."
ENDS
Is Margaret Bazley mad?
Margaret Bazley wants more women to join the police force but wants a ban on sexual relations between serving officers. Hello???!!! How many people have relationships or meet future partners in the workplace? Police truly will have to be a special breed to defy human nature. I can't see this assisting their recruitment drive much.
Chasm in wealth distribution
Results from a Statistics NZ economic survey have just been released and they show;
As in 2001, the latest survey shows that Europeans have by far the highest median net worth ($86,900), followed by Asians ($21,000), others ($19,000), Maori ($18,000) and Pacific people ($6700).
These figures reflect, in part, the demographic of the various populations. The lower net worths belong to groups with very young populations. And Maori and Pacific people rent rather than buy properties. Also many European youngsters spend their early years out of NZ returning wealthier than they left. During the period when they have negative wealth they are not here to be counted. This will also skew the figures.
Still the differences are quite staggering. Wait till the Maori party get a hold of it. Expect a statement by lunchtime. Notice that Maori have almost three times the net worth of Pacific people. I wonder if Tariana will say anything about that?
As in 2001, the latest survey shows that Europeans have by far the highest median net worth ($86,900), followed by Asians ($21,000), others ($19,000), Maori ($18,000) and Pacific people ($6700).
These figures reflect, in part, the demographic of the various populations. The lower net worths belong to groups with very young populations. And Maori and Pacific people rent rather than buy properties. Also many European youngsters spend their early years out of NZ returning wealthier than they left. During the period when they have negative wealth they are not here to be counted. This will also skew the figures.
Still the differences are quite staggering. Wait till the Maori party get a hold of it. Expect a statement by lunchtime. Notice that Maori have almost three times the net worth of Pacific people. I wonder if Tariana will say anything about that?
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
Homicide
According to the Police there were 98 homicides last year.
According to Statistics New Zealand, (I)n New Zealand 'homicide' includes murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, infanticide, abortion, and aiding suicide/pact. Within this, 'murder' includes conspiracy to murder, and incite/counsel/attempt to procure murder.
They can't both be right. Any input?
According to Statistics New Zealand, (I)n New Zealand 'homicide' includes murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, infanticide, abortion, and aiding suicide/pact. Within this, 'murder' includes conspiracy to murder, and incite/counsel/attempt to procure murder.
They can't both be right. Any input?
Heading in the right direction
Not quite an adoption of flat tax but a move in the right direction.
Sweden finally scraps its 'wealth tax'
Sweden finally scraps its 'wealth tax'
Bad business
This is a bad business. Obviously hospital authorities have only NOW discovered the patient with CJD had a graft from an infected donor in 1984. If they had known, presumably they would not have used any instruments on her that would then be used on other patients. Then again, it is probably naive of me to imagine that there would be a flagged question mark over this particular patient given developments since 1984 for others who received tissue from the same company.
Doing God's or the government's work?
The following is from today's DomPost. (I wonder if there is anybody within the Barnardos organisation who is getting a little concerned about the negative effect Murray Edridge might have on their fundraising capacity);
Is it reasonable to smack a three-week old baby?
Can it ever be reasonable to hit a child in the head, the genitalia or any other sensitive part of the body?
According to the PM et al it is already a crime to smack. A report of any of the above actions should be investigated. It isn't reasonable to smack a three-week old baby. It is unhinged. It isn't reasonable to hit a child in the genitalia. It is sick. Mr Edridge is banking on us agreeing with that. I believe most would which is why we have a jury system and the legal mechanism to deal with this already.
Update; From the NZ Herald; The Government is relying on child welfare groups such as Plunket and Barnardos to convince the public of the merits of Green MP Sue Bradford's so-called "anti smacking" bill.
Yet another mistake.
Is it reasonable to smack a three-week old baby?
Can it ever be reasonable to hit a child in the head, the genitalia or any other sensitive part of the body?
According to the PM et al it is already a crime to smack. A report of any of the above actions should be investigated. It isn't reasonable to smack a three-week old baby. It is unhinged. It isn't reasonable to hit a child in the genitalia. It is sick. Mr Edridge is banking on us agreeing with that. I believe most would which is why we have a jury system and the legal mechanism to deal with this already.
Update; From the NZ Herald; The Government is relying on child welfare groups such as Plunket and Barnardos to convince the public of the merits of Green MP Sue Bradford's so-called "anti smacking" bill.
Yet another mistake.
Monday, April 02, 2007
:-)
I work with a group of 'mature' volunteers. We briefly meet once a month to receive some 'supervision'. I thought you might like today's joke.
What did one saggy boob say to the other?
If we don't get some support soon, people are going to think we're nuts.
What did one saggy boob say to the other?
If we don't get some support soon, people are going to think we're nuts.
Confusion and obfuscation
I try to keep up with what's going on in the benefit/tax system. Overnight Work and Income has renamed the Family Support payments to beneficiaries, Family Tax Credits. See here.
But when I check with IRD I find, as well, the Family Tax Credit has been renamed the Minimum Family Tax Credit. Confused?
Hone Harawira is and I don't blame him.
Mr Speaker, another important outcome of the confusion is that by using a name like family tax credit that meant one thing to now mean another, is that it becomes very difficult to get any coherent analysis of the changes for beneficiaries during that transition.
He's onto it. I sent OIA questions about such matters to the IRD in December. When I tried to follow up their failure to respond they claimed they had no record of them. With no other choice, I sent the questions again, this time asking for an immediate acknowledgment. That was 12 days ago and do you think I have had a response?
But when I check with IRD I find, as well, the Family Tax Credit has been renamed the Minimum Family Tax Credit. Confused?
Hone Harawira is and I don't blame him.
Mr Speaker, another important outcome of the confusion is that by using a name like family tax credit that meant one thing to now mean another, is that it becomes very difficult to get any coherent analysis of the changes for beneficiaries during that transition.
He's onto it. I sent OIA questions about such matters to the IRD in December. When I tried to follow up their failure to respond they claimed they had no record of them. With no other choice, I sent the questions again, this time asking for an immediate acknowledgment. That was 12 days ago and do you think I have had a response?
Breathtaking spin
Isn't this just the most breathtaking spin? Annette King responding to the release of 2006 crime statistics;
"It is interesting to reflect that in 1996-97 there were only 15, 242 family violence incidents reported compared with 37,112 in 2006. That shows that not only are efforts to encourage New Zealanders to report such offences actually working, but that New Zealanders feel safe in approaching the police, and that they trust the police to take appropriate action," she said.
In which case the higher reports go, the better things are!
The only way to tell if more people are reporting, as opposed to experiencing, crime is by comparing victimisation surveys to actual police statistics, over time.
1996 - In general, the survey found that there were an estimated 2 million offences (including attempts but excluding commercial and business offences) against households and against individuals aged 15 and over in New Zealand during the 1995 calendar year and that only a small proportion of the offences disclosed in the survey (less than 13%) were recorded by the Police.
2001 - The survey count of victimisations was 1,779,657; the number of offences recorded in the Police statistics, at 263,099, represent 15% of this.
As far as I can ascertain 2006 is not available yet. We will have to wait and see how right Annette King is.
"It is interesting to reflect that in 1996-97 there were only 15, 242 family violence incidents reported compared with 37,112 in 2006. That shows that not only are efforts to encourage New Zealanders to report such offences actually working, but that New Zealanders feel safe in approaching the police, and that they trust the police to take appropriate action," she said.
In which case the higher reports go, the better things are!
The only way to tell if more people are reporting, as opposed to experiencing, crime is by comparing victimisation surveys to actual police statistics, over time.
1996 - In general, the survey found that there were an estimated 2 million offences (including attempts but excluding commercial and business offences) against households and against individuals aged 15 and over in New Zealand during the 1995 calendar year and that only a small proportion of the offences disclosed in the survey (less than 13%) were recorded by the Police.
2001 - The survey count of victimisations was 1,779,657; the number of offences recorded in the Police statistics, at 263,099, represent 15% of this.
As far as I can ascertain 2006 is not available yet. We will have to wait and see how right Annette King is.
Maori more fearless
This doesn't surprise. From the 2006 Social Report, which measures wellbeing, come tables relating to victimisation and perceptions of safety. Ironically Maori are most likely to be victims of crime but report highest perception of safety.
I suppose that makes sense if more Maori are also perpetrators who are less likely to be afraid for their safety.
Pacific people, on the other hand, are least likely to be victims but most afraid they will be.
I suppose that makes sense if more Maori are also perpetrators who are less likely to be afraid for their safety.
Pacific people, on the other hand, are least likely to be victims but most afraid they will be.
Sunday, April 01, 2007
Over-selling it
Benefits, allowances, the minimum wage and super all go up today.
The cost of living rise is 2.63% but superannuitants are receiving more. Working for Families increases child tax credits by $10 per child. Beneficiaries do not receive the additional $10 per child which is why the Child Poverty Action Group is taking the government to court. 4 weeks leave kicks in and the minimum wage rises.
"Taken together, these initiatives and adjustments amount to a massive delivery on this government's commitment to families and to improving the living standards of all New Zealanders," David Benson-Pope said.
Not that I want the government to go anywhere near trying to influence my living standard but has any of the above enhanced your's? Someone will have to pay for the extra week's leave and minimum wage rise. The most likely candidate is the low wage worker when he loses his job.
And who foots the welfare bill?
Sorry, but there are no free lunches.
The cost of living rise is 2.63% but superannuitants are receiving more. Working for Families increases child tax credits by $10 per child. Beneficiaries do not receive the additional $10 per child which is why the Child Poverty Action Group is taking the government to court. 4 weeks leave kicks in and the minimum wage rises.
"Taken together, these initiatives and adjustments amount to a massive delivery on this government's commitment to families and to improving the living standards of all New Zealanders," David Benson-Pope said.
Not that I want the government to go anywhere near trying to influence my living standard but has any of the above enhanced your's? Someone will have to pay for the extra week's leave and minimum wage rise. The most likely candidate is the low wage worker when he loses his job.
And who foots the welfare bill?
Sorry, but there are no free lunches.
Don't rush him
Deborah Coddington will be expecting a reaction to her Herald on Sunday column, Is the party over for Rodney Hide?, so I'll not disappoint. Here it is. Don't rush him.
Saturday, March 31, 2007
And the award goes to......
Rodney Hide notices that while the entire ACT caucus walked the whole section 59 march from Civic Square to Parliament the Nats only joined in at the big house.
For her dramatic ability to dominate the stage in a non-speaking role, Judith Collins did however deserve the best late-arrival award .
Enviable eloquence
If you thought I couldn't possibly find anything new to say about the section 59 fiasco you are probably right. But Jim Hopkins can, and it's superb.
Friday, March 30, 2007
Please can I have my pie ,Sir
Great. It's hard enough getting my 8 year-old to eat anything at school, let alone fruit and yoghurt. She is a bundle of energy and has the sturdy strong lean body that goes with so much activity. But she does like a pie on Friday, the one day I let her buy lunch. Now the miserable Ministry of Health wants schools to declare pies and sausage rolls once-a-term treats! See. This is more of what I was talking about yesterday. Punish all kids because some have a problem. It's a dreadful message to deliver to young minds.
New twist
Chris Trotter has a new twist on why the Bradford Bill should go in his DomPost column, Withdraw your failed bill, Sue.
Despite being a supporter of the bill he writes;
Passing this legislation now, over the objections of four fifths of the electorate will not settle the matter. The people will punish the Left and themselves by voting the far Right into power.
And how will that help the children of New Zealand?
He can only mean voting National into power. I struggle to think of anything that would change for New Zealand children under a National government. Seriously, can you?
Despite being a supporter of the bill he writes;
Passing this legislation now, over the objections of four fifths of the electorate will not settle the matter. The people will punish the Left and themselves by voting the far Right into power.
And how will that help the children of New Zealand?
He can only mean voting National into power. I struggle to think of anything that would change for New Zealand children under a National government. Seriously, can you?
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Bradford way off target
If you have ever wondered how many cases of child abuse or neglect come out of beneficiary homes here is some indication. Researchers matched caregivers of children who were the subject of a care and protection notification (or youth justice referral) with Social Welfare's computer system (SWN = social welfare number);
It should be noted that when a child's name was not matched on the SWIFTT child index, this did not guarantee that the caregiver was not in receipt of a current benefit. A failure to match may have arisen where a child had alternative names or where there was a variation in spelling. As Table 1 shows, the young person's name and details were matched on SWIFTT in 82% of the care and protection (notifications).
In my experience it is not at all uncommon for children of beneficiaries to have different surnames from their caregiver. DPB children carry a departed father's name. So the match could easily go considerably higher than 82%.
Having said that, not all those caregivers were currently on a benefit and could conceivably have never been on a benefit but receiving supplementary assistance only. But key here is that 'clients' of CYFS are nearly always 'clients' of Work and Income.
Which brings me back to Bradford's bill. If she is really so hellbent on stopping child abuse why isn't she focusing on the known culprits? I think we all know the answer to that. Beneficiaries are her constituency. She can't say beneficiary parents are mainly to blame so she has to say all parents are to blame. (I should break here to wash my mouth out with soap for use of that blasphemous word 'blame').
If a teacher decides to punish an entire class for the misdemeanors of one culprit, should the innocent pupils feel angry at the teacher or the offender? Because that scenario is an analogy for what is going on in this country - time and time again. We are all persecuted for the sins of a small minority. And I am very bloody angry at both...not to mention the mottley band of masochists egging the teacher on.
It should be noted that when a child's name was not matched on the SWIFTT child index, this did not guarantee that the caregiver was not in receipt of a current benefit. A failure to match may have arisen where a child had alternative names or where there was a variation in spelling. As Table 1 shows, the young person's name and details were matched on SWIFTT in 82% of the care and protection (notifications).
In my experience it is not at all uncommon for children of beneficiaries to have different surnames from their caregiver. DPB children carry a departed father's name. So the match could easily go considerably higher than 82%.
Having said that, not all those caregivers were currently on a benefit and could conceivably have never been on a benefit but receiving supplementary assistance only. But key here is that 'clients' of CYFS are nearly always 'clients' of Work and Income.
Which brings me back to Bradford's bill. If she is really so hellbent on stopping child abuse why isn't she focusing on the known culprits? I think we all know the answer to that. Beneficiaries are her constituency. She can't say beneficiary parents are mainly to blame so she has to say all parents are to blame. (I should break here to wash my mouth out with soap for use of that blasphemous word 'blame').
If a teacher decides to punish an entire class for the misdemeanors of one culprit, should the innocent pupils feel angry at the teacher or the offender? Because that scenario is an analogy for what is going on in this country - time and time again. We are all persecuted for the sins of a small minority. And I am very bloody angry at both...not to mention the mottley band of masochists egging the teacher on.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
How rare the truth has become
It was worth going on the rally to Parliament for this moment alone;"You are not the child abusers," libertarian Lindsay Perigo exhorted the 5-600 strong crowd, "We all know who the child-abusers are. They are the people who have children they don't want because those people in there," spinning and pointing to the Beehive, "are paying them to do it. They are the child abusers."
The crowd was momentarily stunned. I clapped loudly. And so did a few others. That is cutting to the heart of the matter.
But there were a couple of other 'warm fuzzies'. I was signing a petition and another gruff geyser about my age was also asked. A young Bradford supporter tried to intervene. "You don't understand what you are signing, " she told the man. "Yes I do," he replied.
"But these people collecting signatures are christians," she protested.
"And you are a weird mole" he said, "Now go back to your sisterhood."
Then there was the imposing Maori lady all in black, with megabuckets of mana, standing her ground.
"Where are the Maori Party?" she cried. All cameras swing her way. "WHERE ARE THE MAORI PARTY?" she intoned again and again.... Of course we saw not hide nor hair of the Maori Party....although ACT's Hide and Roy joined the march.
All in all, it was a wonderful respite from the mealy-mouthed political correctness that has killed the cut and thrust of politics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
