Maori and child deaths

A comment on Rodney Hide's blog suggests that of all the children killed (through maltreatment) over the past decade only two were not Maori.

As this seems a not uncommon perception it's important to set the record straight.

While we are sorely lacking on rigorous analysis a review of the deaths of children due to maltreatment was released in July last year. It showed, in the five years to 2003, the death rate for Maori children was 1.5 per 100,000 whereas for NZ European it was 0.7 per 100,000.

That equates to, on average, under 3 (2.76) Maori children killed each year compared to over 3 (3.26) for NZ European.

Those rates may have changed since but child death is still a rare occurrence. Media coverage and the prolonged nature of investigations and trials contribute to making their incidence seem greater.

While I'm on the subject there is a lot positive to be said for Maori statistics, especially in comparison to other minority groups. For instance look at their infant mortality rate;



By 2005 it had fallen further to 6.63 per 1,000 live births - a huge improvement over the past fifty years. By way of comparison the non-hispanic black infant mortality rate is 13.6 per 1,000 live births.

It all starts with the children

A good friend has just sent me a small book called Handle with Care by Harriet Sergeant. It looks to be a damning appraisal of the UK Child-in-the-care-of-the-state system. As the author observes, the state makes a rotten parent. But to be fair the odds are stacked against the state succeeding from the outset. Here is an excerpt and I will probably post more as I read through it.

The hardest children to help are those who have been severely maltreated in their early years. How we are loved and cared for dictates the kind of people we become. Sue Gerhardt, in her book Why Love Matters, blames the hormone cortisol which floods the brain of a baby exposed too often or too long to stressful situations. From then on it will either over- or under-produce cortisol whenever the child is exposed to stress. Too much is linked to depression and fearfulness; too little to emotional detachment and aggression. Study after study emphasises the importance for these children of forming emotional bonds with adults.......

This year approximately 6,000 young people will emerge from the care of the state. What is their future? Of these 6,000, 4,500 of them will leave with no educational qualifications whatsoever. Within two years of leaving care 3,000 will be unemployed, 2,100 will be mothers or pregnant and 1,200 will be homeless. Out of the 6,000 just 60 will make it to university. Care is failing on a scale that is catastrophic.

Proportionately New Zealand has more children in state care than the United Kingdom. I can think of no reason why our system would be much better, or much worse, for that matter.

MSD defending 155 complaints

Just announced, the Ministry of Social Development is setting up a unit separate from CYF to deal with historic complaints of which there are 155 pertaining to the past 66 years. 66 years ago NZ was in the middle of WW11! 66 years ago CYF didn't exist so some of these cases must be against the Education Department through its Child Welfare Division.

“I give a personal commitment that the Ministry will own its mistakes. We will do our very best to act in the interests of these claimants and do whatever we can to put things right,” said Peter Hughes.

(How does it own mistakes that weren't its?)

“It is also important to recognise that the claims seek significant amounts of taxpayer money and the public expect that any compensation that is paid is done so on the basis of good evidence that supports the claim.

(Funny how he never reminds us it's taxpayer money when it comes to dishing out benefits.)

“Some of these allegations are against people with long careers in social work, who have made a positive difference for many children and young people. They vigorously deny the allegations. They have a right to respond to any allegations and defend their reputations. And the Ministry supports them to do so."

(Who would want to be a social worker these days?)

“The vast majority of the claims relate to former staff. For the thirteen staff still employed by the Ministry, thorough processes are in place to protect everyone’s interests."

Is this the result of the CYFSWATCH site? Does anybody know?

Update; Make that 156. NewstalkZB has just reported the 11 month old baby girl who drowned in a bucket of water today was in CYF care.

HLFS March 2007

Try and make sense out of the following;

March 2002

Unemployment rate 5.3 percent
Officially unemployed 104,000
Number Jobless 188,500
On the unemployment benefit 115,322

March 2007

Unemployment rate 3.8 percent
Officially unemployed 84,000
Number Jobless 173,500
On the unemployment benefit 28,845

The number of jobless people is only down by 8 percent, the officially unemployed, by 19 percent, but the number on the dole is down 75 percent.

People can't live on fresh air.

There are a number of scenarios.

1/ People have moved to other benefits but still consider themselves unemployed
2/ People are sharing benefits eg boyfriend sharing the DPB
3/ The black market has significantly increased
4/ Young unemployed people are staying at home supported by their parents (the 15-19 year-old unemployment rate has risen)
5/ Older unemployed people are relying on their working partner's support
6/ With the tight labour market and conditions favouring employees more people are moving between jobs and temporarily jobless but able to support themselves

It just might be that Labour really has put the screws on people who shouldn't have been on a benefit because there were other forms of support available to them and I would endorse that. In which case the spin about low unemployment (see below) might be to reassure the public that people aren't being denied benefits they once had access to. That could be very unpopular among some Labour voters.

David Benson Pope says, "High unemployment is a thing of the past. Low unemployment and high labour force participation are now standard features of the employment scene."

173,500 jobless people is "low unemployment"?

Hollow argument from PM

Yesterday, the Prime Minister was talking up NZ's poor record of keeping its children safe.

She said, in respect of Bradford's Bill, The Government has taken a position because of its great concern about being bottom in the developed world in relation to the rate of death and injury of children in our homes. We are absolutely delighted that Parliament has been almost unanimous in taking a stand on these issues. We believe that that will be good for children and families of our country.

She refers, in part at least, to the Innocenti Report Card below which shows deaths due to maltreatment.



The New Zealand statistic was based on the average number of deaths from 1994 - 98. In the five years to 2003 it dropped to 0.9 but let's ignore that we managed that drop without banning smacking.

Look at the top four countries; Spain, Greece, Italy and Ireland. When the statistics were collected none had bans on physical punishment in the home. If the Prime Minister is going to use comparisons to other countries as the basis for her edicts she should familiarise herself with the facts.

Dictatorship of two

Winston Churchill said about democracy, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." (from a House of Commons speech on Nov. 11, 1947)

At the moment we can see one of those "other forms" in process. According to Rodney Hide, a "dictatorship of two".

We have gone from Clark telling us 'I know best' to Key and Clark telling us 'We know best'. If that's 'going forward' I hate to think what 'going backward' looks like.

One tough judge

Here's a judge who sentenced a woman to 212 years in jail, and, yes, a NZ jail.
See. Labour is right. We are getting tough on crime. Very tough. That'll teach her not to rob a bank or commit a bomb hoax again.

Shunning the UN

Hah. Good on Marian Hobbs.

Just a thought - a bit hackneyed - but what about teaching human responsibilities?

Sickness benefit falls

David Benson-Pope is cock-a-hoop about the sickness benefit falling by 848 since the end of March this year.

There is considerable seasonal variation across benefits. Mr Benson-Pope might be disappointed to know that in 7 of the last 9 years the sickness benefit dropped over the month of April. It's normal.

In his favour, it is a larger drop than usual but I wouldn't be getting over-excited at this stage.

Save your outrage

More propaganda from left-wing organisations. Save The Children are deploring New Zealand's ranking of 20th of 44 developed countries in child status.

The report shows New Zealand has a long way to go in protecting children under five. Out of 43 more developed countries, New Zealand ranks 20th in child wellbeing. In fact, New Zealand falls well behind Malta and Slovenia.

New Zealand's under-5 mortality for 2005, the major factor in this rating, was 6 per 1,000 live births. Sharing this exact same statistic were Australia, Canada, Ireland, Malta and the United Kingdom.

Of course then comes the predictable reference to section 59 removal and what a difference that will make.

“Not only will the Bill better protect children, but it will also enable New Zealand to meet its international and moral responsibility to protect children from abuse. As a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1993 we have agreed to protect children from all types of mistreatment including physical punishment,” says Save the Children New Zealand’s Executive Director, John Bowis.

Of the countries with a mortality rate of 4 per 1,000 Finland, Sweden, Norway and Italy have banned smacking. Czech Republic, Japan and Slovenia have not. It's the same mixed picture across the countries with a mortality rate of 5.

Mortality rates don't equal deaths due to maltreatment alone but they are treated as such by people with leftist agendas.

Going backwards

Following hard on the back of Tariana's apologism for gangs comes this from Pita Sharples. What a disappointment. He's been hanging around sad sacks too much. Here is part of a speech he delivered in Parliament today. He must be weary. Yes, Maori lost land unfairly. Yes, Maori should have been able to test customary rights to the seabed and foreshore in court. But rehashing is not what his people need right now;

Nowhere in this Bill does it do anything to look at the broader structural problems, the problems which for well over a century our Maori leaders have identified as undermining our tikanga, our thinking and endangering our life force.

And yes, I am referring to the colonial policies of land thefts and the appropriation of resources - for we can never forget this context in any debate on Maori welfare dependency; a context which the Foreshore and Seabed Act proved is also a 'this' century context.

There is little or no analysis of why it is that numbers of people on sickness and invalid benefits have increased in the first place.

We know that the numbers of New Zealanders in these two categories of benefits has risen, sharply, to 124,000.

The Minister confirmed in March this year, that there has been a transfer of 8.5% of people from the unemployment benefit to the sickness benefit.

The Child Poverty Action Group has explained the increase of numbers of people on sickness and invalids benefits as being part of a broader cycle throughout OECD Nations. They see it as:

The “cyclical feedback loop of poverty – the more people there are in poverty, the more people there are who get sick”.

We must talk real in this House. This Bill, does nothing to address the disproportionate and ongoing unemployment of Maori.

This Bill does nothing to put a halt to the spiralling storms of cynicism, apathy, anger, and despondency that beset too many of our communities.

This Bill does not address the trauma of the working poor, the tragedy of unrealised potential; the desperation of inadequate housing; the morbid consequences of escalating levels of crime.

This Bill continues to paint the proposition that the beneficiaries are victims of their own making.

It ignores the deep, underlying systemic causes of poverty; and of vast disparities. Issues such as institutional racism.

Tut, tut, Tariana

Tariana Turia is being characteristically outrageous with this statement about gangs.

"I'm not excusing any of the behaviour, it is totally unacceptable. But just like I'm not prepared to say that the police are all rapists, I am also not prepared to say that all gangs are criminals."

However, Prime Minister Helen Clark criticised Ms Turia's comments.

"I think Mrs Turia is really not facing reality when she says not all gang members are involved in criminal activity," she said. "I've yet to hear of one who wasn't."

What a looney, mercurial, romantic fruitloop Tariana Turia is.

She goes on;

"What I can say to you is that it's not Hori and Hemi who are bringing in the large quantities of methamphetamine into this country.

"We are talking about Asian gangs who are not patched and there's no focus whatsoever on that."

Utter balderdash. There is most definitely a focus on Asian gangs. And according to Black Power life member Denis O'Reilly;

The New Zealand Police contend that New Zealand gangs are currently responsible for 95% of the street supply of 'P' within Aotearoa.

How does she get away with it. And here's another thought. Just as the government is poised to hand over increased powers of discretion to the police in an area which disproportionately affects Maori, is it wise for the Maori Party, via Turia, to so blatantly insult and antagonise them?

Would you sign up?

There are calls for telemarketers to be banned from calling homes who have signed up on a no-call list. Apparently when legislation was introduced in Australia 500,000 people signed up almost immediately. But the ban on calling list signatories does not apply to political parties or charities much to the chagrin of telemarketing companies.

Most of the calls I receive are from charities who I nearly always reward (at the cost of those who send me letters). I have never been politically polled. (Perhaps I should ask DPF to remedy that just so I can have the satisfaction of saying "ACT".) And I volunteer my husband for market research as he's a great believer in it.

As much as I fume when the phone rings right on cue, dishing-up-the-tea-time, I wouldn't join the no-call list. Would you?

Hypocrite

After watching the Children's Commissioner performing on Campbell Live just days ago I am somewhat gobsmacked to learn she last year laid a complaint against the same show for unbalanced broadcasting over the matter of removal of section 59. She complained in four areas. 2 were not upheld, a third the board declined to determine and the fourth was upheld. CamWest has to broadcast a statement and pay costs of $1,500.

Last week's show featuring Kiro versus Robert Larzelere was most certainly unbalanced thanks to the Commissioner's domination and attacks on Larzelere's credentials. Ms Kiro is clearly of the 'do as I say, not as I do' school.

"Inconsequential" defined

Peteremcc has nicely defined "inconsequential". Have a look.

Youth offending - worse or not?

Is youth offending worsening or is it just a matter of perception?

For each of the three years 2002, 03 and 04 Principal Youth Court Judge Andrew Becroft published a paper called, "Youth Offending: Putting the Headlines in Context".

It asked, Is violent offending by under 17 year olds increasing?

Yes. And no.

Violent offending attributed to 14-16 year olds has increased since 1991 but much less so since 1995.

And, each edition concluded;

It has been rightly said that each generation unfavourably compares the young people of today with previous golden ages. However an analysis of the available statistics shows that the popular belief that youth offending is rapidly increasing and out of control is not actually accurate, and does not accord with the experience of those working with young people.

But today the Taranaki Daily News has the following report;

Urgent research is needed to find out why a small percentage of teen boys and girls are becoming increasingly violent, says New Zealand's chief Youth Court judge.....

Visiting New Plymouth last week, Judge Becroft said that as a member of the judiciary he was unable to comment on law changes because they were Parliament's responsibility.

But, as a member of the Government's Youth Justice Advisory Group, he was calling for urgent research into the reasons why top-end serious offending by a small number of 14 to 16-year-olds was becoming more serious.

It was a trend in Western countries.

So, sadly, the answer is yes - straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak.

Child murder and what will ensue

Do you have the feeling this, the drive-by murder of a two year girl in Wanganui, is just the start of another sickening circus? We are going to see wailing, wringing of hands, a huge tangi, gang members on bikes escorting a hearse, and finally court scenes where people hurl threats of utu or pledges to stand by thugs and murderers.

The prospect is sickening. I hope I am wrong.

Sound advice

Sound advice from Matthew Hooton writing in today's Sunday Star Times. Let's hope a fair few people take it;

What's going on in Flaxmere?

Rick Barker claims there is no-one on the dole in Flaxmere, but nobody believes him.

Officially there were 6 people on the dole at the end of March 2007. And according to Work and Income's general manager of national operations, Janine Dowding, Other benefit statistics for Flaxmere were also good, she said.

Oh really.

There are 1283 people registered on benefits at the Flaxmere office. Since 2002, Flaxmere has managed to reduce its total beneficiary caseload by a mere 156. It is by far the worst performing office in the region. In the past year DPB numbers have gone up, against the national trend. In the past five years, sickness benefits are up 39 percent and invalid's 8 percent.

Work and Income's general manager of national operations employs a very generous definition of "good".

"Human rights" - garbage

Just in case you ever wondered what a "human right" is, look no further. The Ministry of Social Development's Social Policy Journal spells it out;

What Is A “Human Right”?

In essence, a rights-based approach to policy is one that ensures that policy is formulated within the parameters set by New Zealand’s human rights obligations, as found in domestic and international law. Before examining that body of law, however, it is helpful to think more generally about what is meant by a “human right” and, in particular, how a focus on “rights” might differ conceptually from, for example, the focus on “needs” that is invited by the yardstick of “wellbeing”.

Needs-based and rights-based approaches inevitably have much in common. However, the language of “rights” emphasises particular dimensions of the interests, entitlements and duties that are at stake. Thus we say that “John needs food” if we believe that in the absence of food, John’s wellbeing will suffer in some way that we regard as fundamental. We are identifying the predicament (neediness) that John will face if deprived of food (Waldron 1996:105). A similar assessment of John’s neediness may well also underlie the statement “John has a right to food”. The idea of rights, however, complements the idea of neediness in a number of respects.

First, the language of “rights” is the language of demand or entitlement. To say that “John needs food” tells us nothing about the moral or legal obligations of others in relation to John’s need. In contrast, the statement “John has a right to food” means that someone else (in the case of international human rights law, the state) has a duty to ensure that John’s right is protected (White and Ladley 2005:6, Waldron 1996:94).

This also has implications for how we view the rights-bearer. To say that John “needs” food is to present John as a passive victim and potential recipient of charity. To say that John has a “right” to food is to conceptualise John as a holder of entitlements. The language of rights is thus the language of empowerment. John is cast as a self-sufficient and independent rights-bearer whose assertion of rights amounts to a vindication of his autonomy, personhood and dignity (Waldron 1996:96 and 104). Further, John the autonomous rights-bearer does not have to “earn” his right to food. As a “human right” it is owed to him by virtue of his humanity. The concept of “deserving” and “undeserving” poor is largely absent from human rights thinking.


If John was "self-sufficient and independent" he would be "earning" his own blasted food. He is not made "self-sufficient and independent" by law that says other people have an obligation to buy food for him. Or clothes or cars or Ipods.

Is it any wonder this country is replete with whingers and moaners who think they are owed a living when we fill their heads with this sort of garbage.

Incapacity Benefits

Incapacity benefits are sickness and invalid's combined. The de facto dole in many cases. But never fear. The good news is the rate of growth is slowing "significantly".

That positive trend leads to this;



Disappointed?

The percentage growth rate will drop by necessity if the absolute numbers climb at a steady rate, allowing a good news story to be spun from a bad news one.

Perhaps you should bear this in mind. In 1953, when the population of New Zealand was half of what it is now, there were only 13,000 people on these benefits and some were there as a consequence of WW11. The increase since has been nearly ten-fold. With improved medical technology and the advent of ACC, who would have predicted it?

(Postnote; If you follow my posts regularly you may wonder why I have argued previously that the Minister shouldn't continue to claim the growth rate was reducing. This is because tracking December to December there was an increase during 2006).

Good news

The Stuff Poll I referred to earlier has swung around. Now a clear majority are saying the amendment is bad law.

The Police are calling for 'inconsequential' to be defined (we just go around in circles) and Stephen Franks gives his estimable opinion.

It's not all about you!

What does it take for New Zealand to get a mention in an American newspaper?

It has to be about them and it has to be something they can skite about.

The LA Times reports that their population has passed the 4 million mark which means their population is now as big as the whole of New Zealand's!

Actually, hate to burst their bubble, but, this isn't news. Our populations have mirrored each other's since we began counting them although they started a bit sooner.

We'll never know

Harking back to yesterday's suggestion by Larry Baldock that Clark was facing a caucus revolt, here's where Harry Duynhoven was at;

Transport Safety Minister Harry Duynhoven last night revealed how close he came to crossing the floor over the Bradford bill.

Mr Duynhoven is one of Labour's more conservative MPs, and was frequently challenged by National MPs to vote with opponents of the bill.

"On this issue I have been more torn than any other issue we have debated in this House," he said.

"I have seriously considered whether I fitted still, whether my views and the basis of my value system were appropriate for the party I am in."

Personally I don't think he was on his own. But now we will never know.

With the amendment we will have the police defining what is acceptable. If they don't want to make that call they can refer the case to CYF. What is CYF's directive? As always they will be using their discretion based on evidence and testimony. So what happens before a case reaches court is pretty much the same.

Thereafter, the accused will have no defence of reasonable force and the court will have to decide what is and isn't 'inconsequential'. Things have just become a lot murkier. What was bad legislation has been turned into worse legislation and so it will be passed.

There will be more reports because the population, thanks to this extraordinary debate, is charged up about the moral rights and wrongs of smacking.

And given the result, it's a debate that has been a waste of time. Except for the CIR petition that asks govt to do something meaningful about child abuse.

What does the amendment mean?

Taking stock, what do we have now with the Key/Clark amendment?

I have no legal knowledge.

If a police officer can be persuaded that more than 'inconsequential' force has been used he or she will decide a prosecution is warranted.

What happens when the parent arrives in court? There is no longer a defence of reasonable force but can his lawyer then argue that the force used was in fact 'inconsequential' and his client wrongly prosecuted? Can the parent still request a jury trial? Are we back where we started from?

(I think I have just listened to Larry Baldock calling Newstalk ZB. He suggests Clark was facing a caucus revolt. Opposers of the bill were on the point of winning but thanks to John Key the legislation will now pass with the amendment.)

Update; From Stuff about the amendment, At the same time it did not define an acceptable level of violence against children, which would have pushed Ms Bradford to withdraw the bill completely.

Well, it does. The new acceptable level of violence will be whatever a cop decides is 'inconsequential'.

Sweden's ban on smacking a failure

Media Release

SWEDEN'S BAN ON SMACKING A FAILURE
Wednesday, 2 May, 2007

Sweden's ban on smacking, introduced in 1979, has been widely cited by supporters of Sue Bradford's bill as having successfully reduced child abuse.

Welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell is not persuaded. "Sweden's Ministry of Health and Social Affairs continues to express considerable concern about the levels of violence towards children and women. According to Sweden's Strategy Report For Social Protection And Social Inclusion 2006- 2008 the Committee against Child Abuse says around ten percent of all children have at some time experienced this type of violence. Additionally, reported violence against women had climbed 20 percent in recent years."

"It is notoriously difficult to gauge levels of child abuse with under-reporting, false reporting, under-diagnosing and under-coding in hospital admissions. In New Zealand CYF found 20,110 instances of abuse in 2006. In the same year 16,173 child clients were receiving CYF services. That number represents approximately 1.9 percent of 0-14 year-olds."

"The Christchurch Development Study found that 4 percent of participants had experienced physical abuse by the age of 16 and a study by the Office of the Children's Commissioner found that 10 % of intermediate-aged children had been punched, kicked or beaten by an adult in the previous 12 months."

"It would appear that Sweden and New Zealand have comparable rates of child abuse despite Sweden's ban on smacking for the past 28 years."

Creative Cubans

Apparently Cuba has been distorting its life expectancy and infant mortality statistics. Babies who die within 24 hours of birth are sometimes not counted in infant mortality rates and Cuba's abortion rate is 7 in 10 pregnancies.

Apparently, Cubans are often pressured into abortions if there is a chance a baby might require extra medical care.

Maori, marijuana and schizophrenia

An international conference on mental health has had new papers about marijuana presented to it. It is reported in today's Dompost;

Doctors at Yale University in the United States tested the impact of THC on 150 healthy volunteers and 13 people with stable schizophrenia. Nearly half of the healthy subjects experienced psychotic symptoms when given the drug. Though the doctors expected to see marijuana improve the conditions of their schizophrenic subjects - since their patients reported the drug calmed them - they found the reverse was true. The study stopped early because the impact was so pronounced that it would have been unethical to test it on more people with schizophrenia.

Late last year a paper investigating the growth of numbers on the invalids benefit was published. Here is an excerpt;

The rate of growth in inflows was most rapid for Māori and Pacific peoples (41% and 36% respectively, compared with 24% for the New Zealand and other European grouping). It is likely that significant changes in the recording and coding of ethnicity in benefit administration data partly account for this.26 Variations in the rate of population growth or in the rate of population ageing between ethnic groups may also be important.

Most of the growth in the number of Māori and Pacific entrants is explained by incapacities other than the five that generated most of the overall growth.

* For Māori, this reflects larger contributions from schizophrenia (accounting for 12% of the growth in Māori inflows at ages 15–59), cancer (7%), respiratory (6%), circulatory (5%) and nervous (5%) conditions.
* For Pacific peoples, it reflects larger contributions from circulatory conditions (accounting for 23% of the growth in Pacific inflows at ages 15–59), endocrine conditions (17%) and cancer (10%).


Interestingly there was no growth in inflows due to schizophrenia for NZ and other European yet it isn't just Maori using marijuana. There is something else predisposing Maori to schizophrenia. I'm not arguing that dope isn't a factor but there is something else as well.

There is a theory that suggests schizophrenia is caused by a virus which arose hundreds of years ago and swept across Europe. Because Europeans have had centuries of exposure some evolutionary defence has developed. Maori, however, have not had that same length of exposure. It's a possibility they are still more susceptible to schizophrenia for that reason.

Unbelievable

I cannot believe what I just heard. The Prime Minister is taking questions on NewstalkZB and was attempting to describe to a caller what happens to children after a parent is prosecuted for abuse and faces a prison sentence. (The caller was concerned about what would happen to children after the passage of the Bradford legislation and presumably more parents are prosecuted). She then said not to forget that Sue Bradford had another bill in the wings which would allow mothers to have their children in prison with them for longer which would ensure the bond isn't broken.

What?? So now we are going to send child abusers to prison but let them take their victims with them?? How far backwards are we prepared to bend to keep children with their biological mothers?? Is anybody thinking about the kids?? How bad is the situation in this country when the best we can offer a child is being incarcerated with her abusive mother??

The truth about beer

(PC's secret)

Yesterday, scientists suggested that men should take a look at their beer consumption, considering the results of a recent analysis that revealed the presence of female hormones in beer. The theory is that drinking beer makes men turn into women.

To test the finding, 100 men were fed 6 pints of beer each. It was then observed that 100% of the men gained weight, talked excessively without making sense, became overly emotional, couldn't drive, failed to think rationally, argued over nothing, and refused to apologize when wrong.

No further testing is planned.

Key on Working for Families

John Key said National would not touch Labour's original Working for Families programme, which was targeted at lower-income earners, but there was no reason why higher earners should receive a handout from the state.

"It's always been my view that it has never been a well-designed system. It was never the intention of Working for Families to reach so far up the income scale," he said.

Ironically it is the lower income workers who get the "hand-out from the state" because they receive more in tax credits than they pay. High income earners get tax credits but are still nett contributors. The language around Working for Families distorts and misleads. Another reason for a fair, unambiguous, transparent flat tax system.

Appalling performance

Cindy Kiro's performance on John Campbell's show was appalling. To use a hackneyed but useful expression, she played the man instead of the ball. After opening remarks by Dr Robert Larzelere, Kiro launched into an attack on his credentials and his christian beliefs, holding up a periodical in which one of his paper's had been published. She was thuggish and overbearing. If Sue Bradford was watching I don't think she would have been best pleased. Sue has better manners and sense of fairplay. And she has tried hard to persuade people to her viewpoint. If Sue took two steps forward Kiro took three steps back.

ACT and the "anti-smacking" legislation

ACT MP Heather Roy has done an excellent job of putting the Bradford legislation in perspective and stating ACT's position. I have reproduced it in full;

Criminalising Acts Of Parenting

I know my own children are too old for smacking, as soon I will be the shortest in our household. Even when they were small I seldom used physical chastisement. My husband was even more restrained than I was, but if the “Anti-smacking Bill” had been enacted 18 years ago we would both have been on the wrong side of the law. There would, however, have been little chance of prosecution, because we would have been in the same situation as hundreds of thousands of other parents. The police couldn’t possibly deal with them all and would only act when there was a complaint. The Bill to outlaw smacking currently before Parliament - which repeals Section 59 of the Crimes Act - fails at the most basic test. Laws must be enforceable and routinely enforced - otherwise they are meaningless.

I don’t doubt for a moment Sue Bradford’s good intentions in sponsoring the anti-smacking bill. Like many of us, she has long campaigned for initiatives to end the violence done to vulnerable youngsters. But good intentions are not enough. This debate - which has been going on for some time now - has relied on emotion rather than reason, and focused on rules rather than results.

There is not one MP in Parliament who condones abuse of children. Each of us wants every Kiwi child to grow up in a loving environment, safe from the abhorrent treatment meted out to the Kahui twins, Lillybing, James Whakaruru – and the list goes on. But there will be more cases, and our natural inclination is to take action. As legislators we are in a powerful situation - we can try to make a difference by changing laws to reflect the sort of society we want for our children. But the laws we make need to be enforceable and regularly enforced. This Bill fails on both these counts, and sadly, it will not save the life of even one child, or stop the abuse of children who are subject to such mistreatment that it’s difficult to even read their life stories, because they are just too distressing.

The easy option, taken by many MPs, was to vote in favour of this Bill to show that violence against children is being taken seriously – in the hope that it would change those who victimise our defenceless children, and to clear their consciences. But all we will achieve by repealing Section 59 is to turn loving parents into criminals. In the course of doing so, we will make no difference to the real problems.

Caring for those who cannot defend themselves is one of the finest things about our civilisation. But the unintended result of the smacking ban will be to criminalise thousands, hundreds of thousands, of good parents.

The original version of the Bill outlawed any form of physical punishment or restraint. It made even the lightest uninvited but deliberate touch punishable by law. Holding your child still while dressing them would have made parents into criminals. The current version, still before Parliament, does little better.

I don’t need to be persuaded that it is essential to reduce our level of family violence. Violence is a plague that haunts our New Zealand communities and I agree that violence begets violence. But this Bill is not the answer to stopping child abuse. Our existing law against child abuse is already strong. Section 194 of the Crimes Act - Assaulting a child under 14 - attracts a maximum sentence double that of common assault. Section 195 - Cruelty to a child - brings a 5 year maximum sentence, and abandoning a child under 6 means a 7-year prison term, under Section 154.

Enforcement of the law is the key. Enforcement involves doing three things properly – reporting the behaviour, trial, and conviction followed by sentencing. If any one of these three elements fails, criminals will go free.

The police are struggling to cope already. CYF are struggling to cope. Most abuse is not reported to authorities until severe damage has been done to young lives. Around 70 per cent of serious abuse occurs to children not already known to CYF.

Much of this debate rests on the difference between 'smacking' and violence. Proponents of the Bill believe these are the same, but as a parent, I believe they are not. Reasonable people know when discipline ends and abuse begins. The rest – an abusive minority – will not notice, or care, that a law change has been made. The threat that this Bill is intended to be will get ignored by the very people who should heed the warning. Those parents who care for their children already and take their responsibilities seriously will be the only ones who suffer.

The greatest good can be done by helping vulnerable families directly. There are already many successful initiatives operating around the country. Mentoring, going into homes and providing advice and assistance with parenting, health, education and welfare issues, will do much more to keep children safe. Plunket is perhaps the best example of mentoring already in action, but they are constrained by funding.

ACT will continue to oppose this Bill, but not because we don’t care for children. We simply want caring parents to be able to make the best decisions for their children – decisions that we as legislators cannot anticipate or control from our comfortable parliamentary chairs. Acts of abuse are already illegal - unfortunately enforcement of the law is frequently totally inadequate. This Bill will not change any of that, but it will succeed in criminalising acts of parenting.

ENDS

$10,000 for each citizen

The website of the book The Welfare State We're In has become available again. Here author, James Bartholomew, describes how he went to hear Charles Murray speak and what he thinks of the idea to replace the welfare state with a payment of $10,000 to each US citizen. A "compromise" idea. If it was this or the status quo, no other option, would you vote for it?

It's excess that hurts

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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."

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 .

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.

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.

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.)

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?

Ultimo chance de Rudy para salvar Nueva York

Just in from South America.....



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.

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.

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?

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.

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....

Consensus?

There seems to be a viewpoint not represented here. I thought there were eight parties in Parliament.

Get a grip

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.