To 'anonymous'

Oh Dear. I made a blue. Here's an 'anonymous' comment from yesterday.

Lindsay, you've blatantly misrepresented Hyman's article, which is headed "A Universal Benefit Works for Women". She was writing about the benefits for women of a universal basic income. The article also points out that a UBI would not discriminate - by definition, everyone would get it. Now if you want to argue about UBI (which seems to be a dead issue, so not much point in that) go ahead, but don't depict it as 'wages for housework' only for women. It never was.

Quite right too. I was being flippant and hasty.

So let's be serious. A UBI of $8,000 for everybody would discriminate. Why? Because the lion's share of the tax paid to fund such a scheme would come from men. It would simply add to the forced redistribution of wealth which already moves broadly from male to female through the benefit system.

Also the children's UBI would go to the main caregiver which is usually the mother. That's $8,000 per child she has control of.

And finally, I depicted the UBI as being for caring and cleaning services. Prue Hyman most certainly did see the payment as recognition for the 'value of caring for children and dependent relatives'.

"Paying taxes gives sexy feeling"

That's what the DomPost headline says. Truly.

Now a group of neuroscientists and economists at the University of Oregon, Eugene, has teamed up to get inside the heads of charitable citizens. The researchers recruited 19 female students and placed them in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) machines to monitor the caudate nucleus and the nucleus accumbens, ancient regions of the brain, which produce feelings of pleasure and fulfillment. Each student participated in an economic game centered on charitable giving. They first received $100 in cold hard cash and were told any money left at the end of the study was theirs to keep. They then learned about a local food bank that would benefit from any donations from their account.

The volunteers then watched a screen as a computer program decided what to do with their money. Sometimes students could choose whether to give to the food bank. Other times, the computer "taxed" their account, donating money automatically to the food bank. And, once in a while, money would magically appear, either in their account or in the food bank's coffers.

Most subjects experienced the "warm glow" effect after voluntarily giving money, but some were also wired for pure altruism. In this latter group, the pleasure zones of volunteers' brains lit up when the food bank received money, even if the volunteers were being taxed. More surprisingly, when these subjects saw the computer randomly place money into the account of the food bank, they had a stronger positive reaction than when their own funds suddenly increased. And this big mental reward paid dividends to the food bank. Students exhibiting pure altruist behavior ponied up twice as much money as their "warm glow"-only counterparts, the team reports tomorrow in Science. The findings should surprise economists, says co-author Ulrich Mayr, as they indicate that some people care more about money going to the public good than to themselves.

Silly bints who know very little about why and how many people use foodbanks. When are they going to repeat the experiment on people (of both sexes) who live and work in the real world I wonder.

No Waka Allowed

Alinghi boss Ernesto Bertarelli has refused permission for the waka to accompany Team New Zealand to the starts of the America's Cup.

I blame it all on that Willie Jackson who has bitched and moaned ad nauseam about "rich boys toys" and the "filthy America's Cup". I have e-mailed him to ask if there is a Maori word for the concept of ill-wishes coming to fruition. If there isn't, one should be coined - just for him.

They're wasting their time and our money

Dope users ignore police to buy supplies. We are supposed to be incredulous that people who went to buy from a tinnie house have walked past police in high visibility jackets to make their purchases. Actually I am incredulous that the police bother. Another one will quickly sprout up when this one is shut down.

Many of the people charged with attempting to procure cannabis were employed and included a roofer, kitchen hand, mothers and students. They varied in age from a minor to a 63-year-old.

Employed now. By the time the cops are finished with them they might not be. Just what is the point?

I am also reminded about being told just recently that the Wellington City Council introduced a voluntary drug test for some of its workers. Only one put himself forward. And was tested positive. And got the sack. Was he Irish? I asked my friend. No. He was a Maori, she replied. At which we burst into raucous laughter. (My friend is Ngati Porou).

If drug tests were widespread and mandatory we wouldn't have a workforce. Nobody to do the hard yacker and unpleasant jobs many would wrinkle their noses at.

A man's work is never done

Radical feminists love to prattle about the value of unpaid work. Such martyrdom going on behind four walls and no financial appreciation. They churn out studies showing what their caring and cleaning services would be worth in the marketplace but don't want a husband, the only one with any interest in paying them to look after their own. So then they do the next best thing and use these specious surveys to demand the government pay them a wage (eg Prue Hyman's universal benefit for women).

Well, what do you know. It's official. Men do unpaid work too. British researchers have put the value of a father at NZ$17,000 a year. The services they provide include being a taxi-driver, a sports coach, a gardener, a home handyman and even housekeeper.

So a question for the feminists. Where should they send the bill?

A black hole

With a depressing sense of deja vu I read this headline yet again;

Local Authority Expenditure Rises

It never drops. Here are the figures for 2001 - 2006

Total revenue excluding non-operating and extraordinary items

3,838.9 million
4,140.1
4,251.8
4,626.0
4,996.1
5,367.4

A massive FORTY PERCENT increase, with most of the revenue coming from rates equating to $734 for each and every New Zealander.

Taking the Code of Conduct seriously

Saturday's DomPost editorial was a rather funny parody about missing clauses from the proposed minor party Code of Conduct;

We will behave in a manner that enhances the dignity and decorum of the House. (Members wishing to gesture at each other across the floor of the House will use only the middle finger of the right hand. Using two fingers causes disorder.)

And Deborah Coddington is also suitably impressed with said Code;

Last week, Parliament's minor parties signed a code of conduct so MPs behave nicely to each other. Isn't that what Standing Orders are for? This code looks suspiciously like a desperate attempt at headline grabbing. Act's Rodney Hide says he's now the "bad boy trying to be good". Does anyone fall for that? I've had more than my share of men behaving badly, and they never truly change.

Not having had "my share of men behaving badly" I couldn't possibly comment.

It's more than appalling , Don

Creative New Zealand shouldn't exist. It is not the role of government to pay for art. But that it should be paying for the production of a play based on stolen material, a play with content the ruling government want to promote as widely as possible, is much worse than "appalling". It is 'cancerous and corrosive'.

Pregnancy + plonk = pariah

An article in the SST alerted me to the new advice being given by the UK govt. If you want to verify something best go straight to the horse's mouth. Does the following make any sense or does it just smack of the we-know-best and you-lot-are-idiots nanny state?

New health guidance published today is advising pregnant women or those trying to conceive to avoid alcohol.

The revised Department of Health advice says:

- Pregnant women or women trying to conceive should avoid drinking alcohol.

Deputy Chief Medical Officer Dr Fiona Adshead said;

"We have strengthened our advice to women to help ensure that no-one underestimates the risk to the developing foetus of drinking above the recommended safe levels. Our advice is simple: avoid alcohol if pregnant or trying to conceive. This advice could also be included on alcohol packaging or labels.

"The advice now reflects the fact the many women give up drinking alcohol completely during pregnancy. It is now straightforward and stresses that it is better to avoid drinking alcohol altogether."

1. The previous advice in England was: pregnant women or women trying to conceive should not drink more than one to two units of alcohol once or twice a week and should avoid getting drunk.

2. The revised advice is not a result of new scientific evidence, but is consistent with the current evidence. We have revised the advice to make it easier to understand and to provide consistent advice across the UK.

3. Last year the Department of Health commissioned the National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit to undertake a review of existing national and international evidence on the effects of alcohol on the developing embryo, foetus and child. The principal findings were that there is no consistent evidence that low to moderate consumption of alcohol during pregnancy has any adverse effects although there is some evidence that binge drinking can affect neurodevelopment of the foetus.

4. While scientific basis for our advice has not changed, the evidence base is not extensive and we believe it is possible the previous advice could be misinterpreted by some that it is safe to drink 'a little' when pregnant, where 'a little' can differ from person to person. Most women do actually stop drinking or drink very little in pregnancy, so a slightly stronger message is aimed at those who do not reduce their consumption to appropriate levels.

So for no rational reason the UK government is now telling pregnant women not to drink at all. And that sort of edict shapes what society thinks.

So if you are up-the-duff, don't dare indulge in a drop of drink (despite the fact that a small amount of alcohol will be metabolized in the liver and never cross the placenta according to experts) because some disapproving dickhead will be delighted to lecture you in the danger of ignoring the great and good government gobbledegook - either literally or in spirit.

Plain speaking a rarity

Here is some refreshing disagreement between health board members talking about health solutions for the poor, Maori and the aged. When you read comments like these it hits home forcefully that very little plain speaking ever sees the light of day.

Board member Jack Havill said it wasn't enough for the groups to rely on the DHB to fix their health problems, which ranged from obesity and diabetes to heart disease and more.

"What about personal responsibilities?" Dr Havill asked.

David Gilgen said the issue could not simply be solved within the DHB's portfolio. "We're looking at microscopic solutions to a macroscopic problem."

Dr Gilgen defended Maori, saying a prejudice in New Zealand hindered them from making a success out of their lives. "I've got Maoris who go to Australia; they're hardworking, they're reliable, they operate, but when they come back to New Zealand they're `lazy Maoris' again."

He said in a recent trip to the dentist he was asked if he was there for a Winz quote.

Gordon Blake said lower socio-economic people were jeopardising services provided by the DHB by not turning up to appointments and not supporting services in their area.

Charles Bronson - my hero

All my careful studying of form and breeding and performance came to fruition this week when I picked six winners in a row at Forbury Park and secured a percentage of the $75,000 Pick Six. It's a lovely feeling when the TAB doesn't have enough cash to pay you out and has to write a cheque. Over a thousand percent return. Not bad. Back in my more-protestant-than-me husband's good books.

Why the picture of Charles Bronson? Because I can't find a picture of the real Charles Bronson, the striking grey son of Christian Cullen, who was the horse of the night, getting headed in the straight (my heart sank as my chances looked like evaporating) but then valiantly fighting back for a big win. Not something you see very often. Go you good thing.

Maori stereotype of Pakeha

I've just finished reading Nga Iwi o te Motu, 1000 years of Maori History, by Michael King. We hear plenty about the Pakeha stereotype of Maori. This is the first I've read about the Maori stereotype of Pakeha.

Yesterday I attended a funeral. I hate funerals. I struggle with emotion, can't keep down the tears while marvelling at (and resenting I guess) those all around me who keep their composure and even deliver calm and occasionally comical eulogies. I took Robert with me as the lady who had passed away (prematurely) had been very kind to him as a baby and toddler. I think he was her surrogate grandchild while she waited for some of her own. Anyway, unsuccessfully trying to momentarily distract myself from thinking about Mary, I was describing to him how Maori grieve and the tangi process and, drawing on the following passage, how Maori might see Pakeha funerals by contrast;

There is no comparable body of literature to mirror Maori views of Pakeha over the same period. But what has been published by way of reminiscence by writers such as Amiria Stirling and Reweti Kohere suggests that there was a Maori stereotype of the Pakeha as someone who was self-centred, materialist, acquisitive, unfeeling about their extended family and callous about their treatment of the dead.

Regarding the last, if it is true I think it's simply misinterpretation on the part of Maori. But it's a reminder that we should all be wary of misinterpretation of attitudes, behaviours and practices we don't understand. Within and without our own culture.

Abortions increase

There were 400 more abortions in 2006 than in 2005 - a 2.3% increase. All ethnicities experienced increases ACCEPT ASIANS. The largest increase in abortion rate (per 1,000) was for 15-19 year-olds. 105 11-14 year-olds had an abortion - the highest number on record. The highest percentage increase in number of abortions was for Maori. Of the countries given by Statistics NZ, in 2005 NZ was second only to Sweden.

Bits and pieces

When my mother went into labour with me my father dropped her off at the hospital on the way to rugby practice. Dean Barker's wife isn't expecting is she?

The Muliagas were entitled to (and reportedly getting) $279 a week in WFF tax credits. That's like having a job and getting a benefit. But still the PM wants more done for "vulnerable" people.

Australians apparently almost exclusively blame mothers, especially welfare mothers, for their children's obesity. Ms Malik said many articles implicitly pitched responsible mothers against "neglectful refrigerator mothers made soft by welfarism". But isn't the stuff that comes out of the fridge mostly good for you? Are they neglecting the fridge or their children?

In 2003 only 11.5 percent of prisoners were gang members. Now one quarter are. At this rate by around 2014 the prisons will be 100 percent filled with gang members. Still. Not to worry. Tariana Turia told us not all gang members are criminals.

Don't you miss Richard Prebble serving it up to the the government?

Death penalty prevents homicides

I am not a proponent of the death penalty. But how often do we here opponents of it say, look at the United States, it hasn't worked there. This report claims there would be even more homicides without the death penalty.

Responding to welfare apologists

This appeared in the NZ Herald on Monday. My response is below.

Louise Humpage and Susan St John: A bill the poor will pay for
Monday June 11, 2007

Work, work and more work: what ever happened to social security? Most people don't know it, but social security is undergoing significant changes.

These could affect any of us, if we were suddenly to become sick or disabled, a sole parent, or if the economy was to force employers to shed large numbers of employees.

The Social Security Amendment Bill 2006 has just passed its second reading and, if not stopped, will legislate fundamental changes to the Social Security Act 1964, which was intended to "consolidate and amend" the 1938 Social Security Act introduced by the first Labour Government.

The 1938 act became the foundation stone for the modern welfare state. "Welfare" has a bad name now but then it was about safeguarding New Zealanders from hardship arising from age, sickness, widowhood, orphanhood and unemployment to allow all to participate and belong in society.

The Royal Commission on Social Security in 1972 and the Royal Commission on Social Policy in 1988 demonstrated New Zealanders still endorsed these goals. In the 1990s many policy changes undermined the purpose of social security (user-pays in health and education, "work-for-the-dole" for the unemployed, "dob in" campaigns targeting sole mothers) but the principles were never formally challenged.

That is all about to change: the Social Security Amendment Bill wipes away any notion that our social security system is about ensuring everyone can participate as citizens. Instead, it makes getting people into a job, any job, the fundamental duty of citizenship. This principle is baldly stated "Work in paid employment offers the best opportunity for people to achieve social and economic well-being."

The bill fails to acknowledge that many undertake unpaid work looking after children, the sick and elderly or doing other community activities. This work is crucial to the running of our society but receives no value in the bill. Nor does the proposed legislation do anything to ensure that meaningful, adequately paid, secure employment is available.

Instead it punishes those who can't find work. It allows for a new pre-benefit activity to be completed before anyone is even allowed to apply for the unemployment benefit. Under a new government, this activity could include work-for-the-dole.

Being sick or disabled is no longer an excuse not to work. Sickness and invalid beneficiaries will be subject to new "planning and activity" requirements which means that if they don't start for planning for work, they could risk having their benefit suspended or reduced. Spouses are also expected to get paid work even though they may be caring for their sick spouse and/or have young children.

The rationale for these new requirements is that sickness and invalid benefit numbers are increasing at a time of low unemployment.

But rather than an epidemic of "dole-bludgers" shifting to these benefits, we are largely seeing the effects of an ageing population who, due to improvements in technology are living longer than ever but nonetheless may suffer from ill health that stops them working the last few years before retirement.

As if in hindsight, the bill does provide some social security "to help alleviate hardship". But this phrase is far more limiting than the goals of eliminating poverty and ensuring participation and belonging for all citizens that we have long embraced.

Furthermore, paid work, which is enshrined in the new act as the only source of well-being, is increasingly becoming the basis for state-provided welfare. Those outside the workforce are in grave danger of being regarded as second-class citizens. While we don't yet have health insurance tied to employment as in the US, access to a major part of Working for Families tax credits and KiwiSaver subsidies to ensure a secure old age are already conditional on being in paid work. Caregivers, who are predominantly women, should be alarmed at this trend.

That a Labour Government is undermining the original notion of "well-fare" would have Michael Joseph Savage turning in his grave.

* Dr Louise Humpage lectures in the Department of Sociology, and Dr Susan St John lectures in the Department of Economics, University of Auckland.

A Bill For the Times

Louise Humpage and Susan St John say Michael Joseph Savage would be turning over in his grave if he knew what today's Labour government is planning for social security. I very much doubt that.

What would shock Savage, were he alive today, are the effects of the then necessary and well-meaning Social Security Act of 1938.

It's all about context. The array of benefits created in 1938 - sickness, emergency, and family to name three - came on the back of very hard times, a depression and a war. But even then there wasn't a consensus for widespread social security measures. The first benefits office was apparently burnt down in a politically motivated act of arson. People have always worried about the state crowding out the private sector and costs to the public purse. Labour did have, however, majority support.

For many years the numbers of people relying on benefits remained low and steady. There was little misuse of the sytem. Changing social mores and rising unemployment saw an end to that during the sixties and seventies. The last major benefit, the domestic purposes benefit was added in 1973 and marked the beginning of a welfare explosion.

Twenty years after the introduction of social security there were 25,000 working age people on welfare (most were widows). Today there are 266,000. A ten-fold increase with less than a doubling of the population?

With 266,000 people on benefits after a long period of reasonable economic growth and sustained low unemployment, clearly welfare is longer just about genuine need - it's also about choice. Hence politicians want to restate the aims of social security, making work come first for those who can.

St John and Humpage argue that the blow out on sickness and invalid benefits is "largely" due to an "ageing" poulation but the Ministry of Development's own research showed that less than half of the dramatic rise (12,000 in 1960 to 125,000 today) is due to ageing. Much of the growth is down to huge increases in numbers experiencing psychiatric illness, transfers from other benefits, longer stays on welfare, less reliance on families (which have broken down as an effect of the father- replacing domestic purposes benefit) and changes to eligibility. Before the sixties people who had caused the incapacity which rendered them unable to work were not entitled to a benefit. This gatekeeping clause was effective. It no longer exists.

Before the DPB there was assistance for single parents, albeit limited. There had long been a deserted wives benefit and young unmarried women who became pregnant qualified for emergency assistance. Yes, adoption was far more common but in the period before the DPB, 1971/72, 60 percent of ex- nuptial babies stayed with their mothers or relatives.

Today Michael Joseph Savage would be aghast at the thousands of teenagers who pile onto welfare each year (including 3600 single parents) and, due to low or no skills, stay there, sometimes for decades. He would be especially dismayed at the damage welfare has proliferated among Maori and the intergenerational poverty of values now so entrenched.

Much is made of unpaid work that welfare provides for, especially caring for children. Most of that used to be paid for by a family's breadwinner - not the unrelated taxpayer.

But it is also surprising that St John and Humpage have become quite so upset about the bill soon to be passed. Wellington People's Centre beneficiary advocates say the "punitive" changes are largely superficial - just Labour trying to look "tough" for the benefit of voters. Many of the changes were welcomed.

What really needs to happen is a return to what the 1938 Labour government envisaged. Temporary assistance for temporary need and long term help for only those genuinely incapacitated through no fault of their own. That's all.

There is no place for lifestyle welfare at any time but especially not when we are a small country competing globally, struggling with low productivity and high taxation. Labour is absolutely right to state the principle,"Work in paid employment offers the best opportunity for people to achieve social and economic and wellbeing." Now they just need to mean it.

Uncalled for

Talk about sensationalism. The DomPost (slow off the mark as usual) has a small headline, "Teenagers die racing train".

Yet the NZ Herald, with more detailed coverage quotes an eye witness,

The 20-year-old, who did not want to be named, said he wondered if the driver had slowed to get over a hump at the crossing because the vehicle had lowered suspension.

"She slowed right down, went to go over the tracks, and didn't see the train at all," the contractor said.

There is no suggestion in the Herald piece that the driver had been racing.

When I read the DomPost this morning I thought that it was odd they had given the headline very little priority. Now I know why. It was just supposition. Tacky.

I was a fat kid

I saw an old schoolmate on TV. He sat next to me during Intermediate. I couldn't resist googling him and sending off an e-mail. An e-mail came back. He remembered me as a "solid, pommie, blonde tom-boy". He was being kind. I was fat. At least I was compared to all the other sylph-like skinny waifs surrounding me. By College I had a complex about it and nearly starved myself to death. I developed very unhealthy eating habits which I failed to correct until I became a parent - a catalyst for many things.

Now I have a chubby kid who is my mirror image at the same age. And with all of this hysteria over obesity I am really worried he is going to start fretting the way I did when, given his genes (David and I are both reasonably slim) he is quite likely to lean out as he gets older.

So my rage at the nagging government has a personal edge to it at the moment. Robert (my chubby kid) rages with me saying all these pathetic rules and prohibitions will fail. In fact I think he is already planning a black-market in illicit food. And when I think about it, better that than take all this repressive, rubbish on board and do what I did.

Land of the free....

There is no doubt in my mind that we are too lenient with youth in New Zealand. The justice system is set up to keep them out of court for as long as possible, often for crimes against person or property, crimes which in the past would have been dealt with more severely. We also ignore the role and responsibility of the parent to the point that they may as well not exist.

BUT when I read a story about a mother, Elisa Kelly, who served beer to 15 and 16 year-olds at her son's 16th birthday party so they wouldn't drink and drive, confiscated all car keys, supervised them, didn't drink herself, half of the boys didn't drink and none were intoxicated (which was established when the police raided her property), is going to jail for 2 years and 3 months (reduced from eight years on appeal), is now bankrupt from over $150,000 of legal fees and will be separated from her sons......

well, I am very glad to be living here and not in Virginia, USA.

Effects of daycare on children

Whether or not daycare is helpful or harmful is fairly controversial and complex. Various studies have contradicted each other. This report describes findings from two studies which find young children who spend significant periods of time in daycare are more prone to developing aggressive or anti-social behaviour. This is the comment however which caught my eye;

"Children from workless households were rated as less cooperative and sociable than children in centres with high levels of working parents. This indicates there is a complex mix of factors that influence a child's behaviour and that careful attention is needed to ensure children are supported appropriately."

Workless homes are often dysfunctional, to some degree or another. So it is no surprise children from them are less cooperative or sociable. These children will probably benefit from some time out of their homes, notwithstanding they can be difficult for other attendees and staff who have to deal with them.

Not waiting for the government

We have three overly large gum trees in our garden. They were in need of a severe pruning involving some major boughs, so I called in the team who have previously worked for us. They turned up yesterday, the whole family, plus some new Samoan immigrants. They must have come from church, worked very cheerfully most of the day and did a fabulous job. As we paid we were delighted to find out they were donating the proceeds to their church as a fund-raiser, which is building a drug and alcohol rehabilitation unit. They weren't waiting for "the government to do something". These are the very people New Zealand needs lots of.

Best let sleeping dogs lie

Deborah Coddington has today written about the Press Council decision upholding complaints against her North & South piece on Asians in NZ. I blogged very briefly on it at the time. I didn't read the N&S article - only Deborah's published defence of it, in which she used this statistic;

Here's a disturbing fact: in 2003 four of every five pregnant Asian women aborted their babies. Do we keep abortion as a last-resort method of birth control, or accept it's a casual approach to contraception?

I pointed out that in 2003 there were 5285 births to Asian mothers and 3502 Asian abortions. So 40 percent of pregnancies ended in abortion (ignoring miscarriages). In 2004 this dropped to 36 percent. Neither figure is anywhere near 80 percent or four in five.

In today's Herald on Sunday column she writes; But the council totally ignored the main complaint - that my statistics were wrong. From this omission, I can only conclude that I was correct all along, and the complainants - as I argued - wilfully used different statistics.

If Deborah used the same statistic in her original article, she made a mistake. She extrapolated the Asian teenage abortion rate to all women. Why not just admit it. I would. 'Fess up and move on. It'll do more for your credibility.

(2005 stats are now available and show a further drop in Asian abortions to 34 percent of pregnancies resulting in birth or abortion - approaching 1 in 3).

Hang your head in shame

I don't know why we Wellingtonians should be the sole sufferers of Chris Trotter's emissions. Anyone of you who ever let a logical thought override emotion, hang your head in shame. There is no place for both. Certainly not in the place Mr Trotter calls "The Left";

Ministry releases bad-news research

The Ministry of Social Development has just released research into youth justice - offending and custody trends. It says,

Good progress on Youth Justice following research

Ministry Deputy Chief Executive, Child Youth and Family Ray Smith said good progress has been achieved in the youth justice sector since the research was undertaken and since the establishment last year of the cross government Steering Group for Young People in Cells.

“We have already seen a reduction in the average length of remands in Police custody. For the month of September 2006 the average length of stay in police cells for a young person was 2.5 days. This compares with 4.4 days in 2005.

Now lets look at the report;



The trendline (the rather faint upward line) is what matters. The report says, If the current trends in offending and sentencing continue without the strengthening of community alternatives to custody and sentencing, as well as further development of CYF residential capacity, it is likely the length of remands and use of Police custody will only continue to increase.

Despite the Ministry's "good progress" spin (ambulance at the bottom of the cliff stuff) the report is actually full of bad news.

For instance;

While there was growth in the young person population, overall offending rates remained static over the same period. In fact, when considered on a per 10,000 of population basis, the ratio of apprehensions to population decreased by over 11%.

However, there were significant increases in violent offending. Apprehensions for violent offending rose by 36.4% over the previous 8 years and charges for violent offending increased by 57.6% between 2000 and 2005. This suggests it is the ferocity, not the frequency of offending which is changing. Therefore, it is predictable such increases in serious offending will amplify the number of custodial remands and sentences.

And the conclusion to this comprehensive 43 page report says;

This report establishes New Zealand has experienced a swell in the youth population and a disproportionate increase in violent offending among young people. Parallel to this, there have been significant changes in the sentencing patterns for young offenders with, a decrease in the use of Supervision with Activity and an increase in the use of Supervision with Residence. Combined, these factors have placed considerable strain on the limited custodial placements provided by CYF.

Although the increase in the youth population is at its peak in 2006, its effects will be palpable until around the year 2030.

There is no indication the increases in serious and violent youth crime will slow, anecdotal evidence suggests the 2006 statistics also show the same trend.

Unless a number of measures are developed it appears the pressure on CYF Residences will continue to increase which will result in ongoing and increasing use of Police cells for young offenders who need to be kept in custody.

Families Commission whoopsie 2

Here is what David Benson-Pope had to say about 'research' which the Families Commission has, according to Sue Bradford, "signed off" and "paid for".

The second issue I want to raise is in relation to the comments of Ms Collins about so-called research that, as such, was presented to the Social Services Committee by Mr Paul Blair from Rotorua. It is true that Mr Blair’s research—oh, sorry, Mr Blair’s work is probably a better description—was commissioned by the Families Commission. It is not true to suggest that the Families Commission had completed a full peer review of the work, or indeed had authorised its release. In fact, that work has not subsequently been released because the Families Commission found it—shall I say, charitably—“seriously wanting”. The fact of the matter is that that work covered a sample of, we believe, fewer than 15 people. Given that the cohort we are talking about, sole parents receiving a benefit, is around 90,000—it has reduced, but it is still too many, I know, but these are people who need that support—then 15 out of 90,000 is not what one, even in National Party circles, would describe as a very robust or credible basis for any research. I guess I am therefore not surprised to hear Ms Collins basing her specious arguments on that matter.

Not telling the truth about the DPB

The DomPost is doing a series called New Zealand By The Numbers drawing on the Census 2006 information. Today they show how people earn money. Care in interpreting this is needed. The question asked people to identify the ways in which they had earned income during the past 12 months. It is not a snapshot in time.

So although 92,172 people said they received money from an unemployment benefit during the previous year, at March 2006 only 44,549 were actually on an unemployment benefit. Likewise 70,551 people received money from a sickness benefit but at March 2006 there were only 46,072 people on a sickness benefit.

But this anomaly I don't understand. 93,090 people said they received money from the domestic purposes benefit yet at March 2006 there were 103,362 on that benefit.

That's nearly 10,000 people who either haven't filled in a form or aren't telling the truth. In fact, it's much higher than 10,000. Every year between 35,000 and 40,000 people move on and off the DPB so we should have seen a churning effect as with the unemployment and sickness benefits. The number should have been somewhere between 130,000 and 140,000.

Now why wouldn't you tell the government you were on the DPB?

The official Census 2006 net undercount, by the way, was 2 percent.

Families Commission whoopsie

Oh, this is funny. In January 2005 Paul Blair, Rotorua sole parent and beneficiaries advocate, forced a law change through an out-of-court settlement with the Ministry of Social Development.

He forced WINZ to allow sole parents who split (as opposed to shared) custody of their children to both effectively claim the DPB, and avoid work-testing. A far cry from what the DPB was intended for.

In the interim he applied for Families Commission research funding. It was granted and he went on to produce a report, 'Improving Work Life Balance for Domestic Purposes Beneficiaries Sole Parent Families'. Talk about adding insult to injury.

Anyway the report was signed off, peer-reviewed, ready for publication and PAID FOR when Mr Blair used an excerpt in a submission (no doubt opposing) the government's social security amendment bill.

David Benson Pope is understandably most unhappy and suddenly the report has been returned to the author as a 'final draft' for 'editing'.

This is worse for Benson-Pope than if I had applied for the Families Commission Blue Skies funding and used it to turn out the criticism I currently provide free of charge.

Lucky for the Minister I do not have Mr Blair's 'parasitic' tendencies.

Am I supposed to feel sympathy?

Reading the front page of the DomPost today I wonder how I am supposed to react to the news that the mother of slain Wanganui toddler was already expecting another baby. She is apparently full of rage against the Mob, hates them. Hates gangs. Not enough to say no to the dead child's Dad - who is presumably the father of the expected child - and still a Black Power member currently on remand for firearms charges. And here she is, clinging to a picture of her dead daughter, as well as him. Am I supposed to feel sympathy?

There is every likelihood I paid tax to fuel their shoddy lifestyle and now I've paid for them to parade it to the media.

Most boring live band

The Police drummer Stewart Copeland has branded the band's second comeback performance a complete "disaster.....It usually takes about four or five shows in a tour before you get to the disaster gig. But we're The Police so we are a little ahead of schedule."

I saw The Police on their original Synchronicity tour and they were a wash-out then. Boring and lifeless in 1984, it's hardly a surprise they are a "disaster" now.

All was not lost though. Bryan Adams opened for them at Mt Smart and completely upstaged the supposed stars. And unlike The Police, he has only gotten better with age.

On the subject of subsidies.....

Now the Greens want subsidised power for "families on tight budgets".

Questions;

How will the "basic block of power units at low cost" going to each household be decided? On occupants, number of rooms or house size?

If the allocation is uniform across households, those who will be most advantaged are the elderly, who already have the highest living standards amongst low income people while the least advantaged will be large and young families with low incomes and high outgoings. Is this the aim of such a scheme?

Won't high users of power like hospitals, schools and supermarkets etc end up paying more to subsidise "families on tight budgets", thereby pushing up other costs to consumers, including "families on tight budgets"?

Is this just another way for the Greens to punish business owners, those loathsome capitalists?

And, not that I agree with the scheme, but wasn't Working for Families about extra help for "families on tight budgets"?

When will the Greens learn that subsidy schemes create incentives, distortions and abuse,are a nightmare to administer and police, are inherently unfair and serve no useful purpose?

Stop the subdsidy, stupid

Two headlines which seem at odds;

Fathers responsible for fat children: Australia study

Single, obese mums breed chubby children

The key is probably father absence.

My comment is simply that without government subsidy there wouldn't be a single parent industry. The same is true of Australia. But it is implicit in the second article that more should be done for "under-resourced" single parent families. More redistributory social policy doubtless. It's seems obvious that reversing the subsidy policy would be far more effective than increasing it. Yet, as ideas go, it never even rates a mention.

‘Callous Corporate Criminals’

This is a superb post from Stephen Franks. Right on the money. (My own recidivism calculations are here);

What breathtaking hypocrisy from the politicians frothing to condemn Mercury and propose new criminal liabilities.

They were never at my side when I called for accountability from the politicians and officials who design and run the parole system.

The Mercury policy had to have extraordinary bad luck to hurt someone, no individual involved thought they were calculatingly allowing an innocent death, and this is the first known case of its kind.

Those responsible for parole know with certainty that the evil men they release will hurt and kill. They deliberately do not keep count, but simple extrapolation from remimprisonment figures suggests that as many as 10,000 victims of avoidable violent crimes per year pay the price of the callous theory and carelessness of the parole mandarins.

I hope the “corporate” bashers go ahead with their lawmaking plans. Then we’ll turn it on the public sector pharisees who cause the far worse mayhem.

Kyoto for beginners

Regular readers will know I don't post on environmental issues. That is because I know sod all about them. But as the election draws closer I am grudgingly giving in to spending a little more time reading about such matters. There can be no doubt green policies will be right up there. Personally I am in the camp that says let's focus on the problems we can do something tangible and constructive about now, but I seem to be in a minority.

This piece describes Kyoto as a scam. It's (surprise, surprise) readable, interesting, and a good beginner's guide to how the carbon credit trading operates.

US violent crime up

It is disappointing and frustrating to read that the US violent crime rate is up again for the second year running, after constant and significant drops from 1993.

Criminologists and law enforcement officials offer varying theories for the upswing, including an increase in the juvenile population, growing numbers of released prison inmates and the rise of serious gang problems in smaller jurisdictions.

Violent crime (recorded) in New Zealand is also climbing.

From 2004 to 2005 by 6.9% and to 2006 by 5%. Much higher than the US rises of respectively 1.3 and 2.3 percent.

Batten down the hatches

We are about to be bombarded with four years of anti-violence ads. Read this and you certainly get the impression it's all about men.

The four-year television advertising campaign, due to start next month, is aimed at making domestic violence as socially unacceptable as smoking or drink-driving.

Thanks to millions of dollars spent on advertising, drink-driving is now 'socially unacceptable'. That's why we get headlines like, Drink-drive women on increase

If the aim is to make violence as socially unacceptable as drink-driving then we can expect headlines telling us Women's Violence is Increasing.

Silly me. I forgot. We already have them.

Dole to DPB

A commenter asked, Do you know the percentage of woman who got pregnant on the unemployment benefit and then went onto the DPB? My feeling is that some woman are choosing to get pregnant as a means of financial security, the statistics may confirm this.



This is by no means the full extent as records only go back to 1993. Most single parents currently on welfare, who started on welfare under twenty, started on an unemployment benefit - not the DPB. If income support is required during pregnancy, the sickness benefit applies.

When I updated this figure in December 2006 it had climbed to 39,259. Back in 1999 the figure was 17,723. Get the picture?

That's not all they stole

This is speculative. If you have good reason to believe I am wrong tell me why.

6 women spend ten months roaming a carpark thieving handbags and purses by duping trusting old ladies, one of whom reacts rather badly and may have died prematurely as a result. It could be these women stole what was left of her life. They certainly stole some of the quality.

But that won't be all they stole. Over ten months it is quite probable they stole around $100,000 in benefits, supplements and allowances. That's a conservative estimate given that these kind of people are often also involved in benefit fraud.

Of course the law would argue with me. It would say these benefits are their legal entitlements.

What a joke. Does anybody seriously believe that the benefit system is a safety net of last resort?

It once was. And when you try to persuade people it needs to be returned to that state, that we critically need reform, the objections come thick and fast. One being, people will turn to crime if we don't give them an income.

These bitches already had.

"NZ ranked no 2 in world peace survey"

Apparently. The NZ Herald reports;

"New Zealand's lofty position in the Global Peace Index (GPI) partly reflects its lack of internal and external conflicts and its very good relations with neighbouring countries, namely Australia and fellow member states of the Pacific Island Forum," the GPI reports says.

It said the nation's political scene was stable and the index gave New Zealand very low scores on the likelihood of violent demonstrations and the number of homicides.

In this context "low" is a good. But here are the 2000 homicide rates (per 100,000 population);

50.14 South Africa
21.40 Russia (1999)
10.00 Lithuania
_9.94 Estonia
_6.22 Latvia
_5.64 U.S.A.
_2.94 Spain
_2.86 Finland
_2.84 Northern Ireland
_2.72 Czech Republic
_2.65 Slovakia
_2.58 New Zealand
_2.50 Romania
_2.31 Turkey (1999)
_2.23 Poland
_2.11 Scotland
_2.04 Hungary
_1.97 Sweden
_1.81 Australia
_1.79 France
_1.76 Canada
_1.61 England & Wales
_1.54 Belgium
_1.50 Greece
_1.48 Ireland (Eire)
_1.42 Netherlands
_1.42 Italy
_1.41 Slovenia
_1.24 Portugal
_1.17 Germany
_1.10 Japan
_1.09 Norway
_1.09 Denmark
_1.06 Malta
_1.01 Austria
_0.96 Switzerland
_0.60 Cyprus
_0.23 Luxembourg

NZ ranked 12th out of 38. The most recent figure available is 2.4 - only slightly better. Have the GPI mixed up 'high' and 'low'? One wonders.

"Our principled stance contributes to New Zealand's reputation as a world leader in peace and security" Miss Clark said.

Isn't it interesting that when UNICEF says NZ has a very high rate of child death from maltreatment at 1.2 per 100,000 there is a political storm and every man and his dog, including the PM, has a theory about a solution (most notably removing section 59) but now the PM is basking in this good news, happy to overlook that NZ's homicide rate is actually relatively high. In fact if you took the same countries as UNICEF used in the famous table that had NZ third highest for child deaths, our homicide rate would be 6th highest out of 25.

Today Ms Clark has us down as a world leader in peace and security yet for the past few weeks she has been hammering on about New Zealand's appalling record of violence towards children. Draw your own conclusions.

"International trading pariahs"

John Key spoke to the Hutt Valley Rotary last week. As reported by the Hutt News, one of the things he said was there was no way of getting out of our Kyoto commitments. To do so would make us "international trading pariahs".

I was under the impression our biggest trading partner is Australia followed by the US.

Neither have ratified Kyoto.

Useless information

I have a confession. I am a compulsive number cruncher. I can't stop myself. Put a bunch of data under my nose and the urge to analyse overcomes me.

Today the DomPost ran its usual drink-driving conviction stats but all at once. Lots of data! Fair sample size.

Here's some absolutely useless information for you. Three-quarters were male. The most common occupation was "unemployed" at 13.5%. Sharing second billing were Builders and Students at 11.5 percent each. Teenagers made up 29 percent and 20-25 year-olds 23 percent. So over half of all convictions were for people aged 25 and under.

Most of the occupations are manual and a couple of more interesting ones were Lifeguard and Soldier. There were no Mayoral Candidates.

"Colourful" candidate

Here's an interesting character running for Mayor in South Taranaki. Has spent time in prison for cultivation of cannabis (though he never used it himself), has three drink-driving charges and one charge of assaulting his wife (I only pushed her into a chair). Too many excuses for my liking. BUT why is he standing for Mayor? I don't know. And I'd like to.

The newspaper is under no obligation to tell us. He went to the media to lay his past out before someone else did. They were not seeking an interview with him. Do you think that whoever wrote the story up might have sought to give us something beyond all the reasons why people shouldn't vote for the guy?

Finger in the wind time

The shameless Peter Dunne. His toadiness is breathtaking. What kind of people vote for this man????

National's fortunes are on the rise and Dunne conveniently discovers his deep dissatisfaction with the way Labour have been treating him.

"What is the point of being the loyal and dutiful one when the other party is out there playing fast and loose with the field?

"To use the analogy of a marriage, there comes a time even in the most stable and productive of relationships when the wandering eye of one partner ceases to be just an annoyance and becomes a major problem."

Poor Peter. He should take a leaf from the Lionman's book and next time he finds H1 cavorting with Jeanette and Winston, slap her hard. That would do a lot more for his popularity ratings than playing it haughty and hard-done-by.

But just who is the two-timing tart here? There's Minister Dunne, still enjoying the fruits of his 'marriage' to Labour while making overt overtures to a younger, better looking, prospective partner. He has the morals of Henry the Eighth.

PM eats humble pie and digs the hole deeper

Audrey Young's column in today's NZ Herald has the PM sounding mawkishly sorry for herself. Treating the avalanche of schmooze for John Key as a D for effort she says;"I can't work harder. Perhaps I could work smarter."

Everybody knows how hard you work Helen. Give it up. Now.

But no. There's more.

"I know that the Government standing very firm on the spirit of the changes to section 59 undoubtedly hurt us," Helen Clark said, "but in all conscience there was no way that I could have led a party that didn't support that change."

She had been motivated by the appalling rate of death and injury to children "and when you have the opportunity to do something about it, you can either take that opportunity or curse yourself for the rest of your life that you didn't act.

So, she is spelling it out again IN CASE YOU MISSED IT. The majority of us, who failed to support the change, are indifferent to the cruel, intentional injury and death of children. We are without conscience.

Somebody needs to take that spade off her - quickly.

Saving Labour

Listen up Labour strategists. According to the NZ Herald the landslide of approval for John Key has little to do with the anti-smacking compromise which over half still dislike and everything to do with women liking Key.

No party is comfortable changing horses when it is in front; there is too much to lose. But Mr Key's ascension appears to be all gain for National. The party is polling much better with women and now heads Labour for the female vote in the poll published in the Weekend Herald. But the difference is less than four points, whereas National has a 25-point lead among men. A marked gender divide has developed in our politics.

There is now no discernible difference between National and Labour policy so what (most) women want is Labour's policies with a new leader - preferably younger, better looking and of the opposite gender to the current one. It's a no-brainer.

Put up Steve Maharey. On looks, obviously the most important consideration for voters, Maharey wins hands down. Consider;

















I know faces. Maharey will get better looking as he ages. Think Paul Newman. Same colouring and skin tone. He also has an air of tragedy about him - women love it - and has proven he can swear with the best of them. Plus, according to my husband who, many moons ago, worked on his campaign team in Palmerston North - "he's a helluva nice guy".

Key is lop-sided and unremarkable. Symmetry is everything. Nice enough smile but lets face it, his current competition is very weak.

Yes. We could certainly stand more of Steve on our screens every night. And as Minister of Broadcasting he could surely wangle his way onto Dancing with the Stars. What a dream. That would clinch it.

Goff could do the gravitas stuff to keep the men happy thereby dispensing with the dreadful Cullen. Meanwhile Steve will be out and about helping the ladies swoon their way the to ballot box. Perfect.

Goodbye Helen and Michael.

"Disability benefit costs double as fraud soars"

That's a headline from the UK Telegraph.

When Labour came to power in May 1997, 1.9 million people received DLA . By last November, the number of claimants had risen to 2.85 million.

On investigation I find DLA (Disability Living Allowance) claimants could be children or pensioners. So for a better comparison to NZ, I'll use working-age incapacity benefit recipients of which the UK has 2,673 million (many of whom will be claiming DLA).

In NZ in May 1997, 78,500 people received a sickness or invalid benefit. By last November that had risen to 124,600.

The UK has more incapacity beneficiaries per capita BUT their number has been steadyish since 1999. Ours has grown substantially.

Overall the UK has 8.8 percent (5,331 million) of its total population on some sort of working-age benefit. We have 6.5 percent. But we have many more single parents on a benefit per capita (2.2 compared to 1.3) which doesn't bode well for the intergenerational factor.

Parents at sportsgames

Adult behaviour at their children's sport's games is both fascinating and repelling. As I head off to soccer and then netball I will take this advice, with me (although it's not me who really needs it.)

Visiting American sports expert Bob Bigelow has a simple message for parents readying themselves to bark instructions from the sidelines this morning: "shut up".

I am one of the quieter parents confining my sporadic outbursts to to "Go, Go!" when a goal is imminent or "Get in there!" when my daughter seems to have momentarily forgotten she is on a field along with a ball and goalposts.

But there are plenty, a majority, of parents who do exactly what bothers Bob Bigelow. Sometimes when a child does register an instruction aimed at them, they stand stock still trying to process it. I notice that the "enthusiasm " of a parent can be inversely proportionate to the success of the child - although by no means always.

Then there is the PC dilemma (when isn't there one when it comes to being a parent today?) Should I be yelling encouragement for other children as much as my own? Post game, should I heap glowing praise on each and every member despite some clearly being better performers? You can end up monitoring your own performance as much as the players. So I've given up trying.

But maybe I should start screaming my lungs out. Because the $10 "reward" for scoring a goal isn't working. Or hasn't worked so far. In Sam's case, however, I suspect barracking would be as effective as bribery. Not at all.

She's having a great time though. The whole team are - nearly as good a time as their rowdy parents, warm and dry and full of running on the sidelines.

Thought for your Happy Hour

There is almost certainly an agenda developing to have a zero-alcohol driving law imposed. Drink-driving prosecutions are up, we are told. The figures are alarming, we are told.

"These people are endangering us all and it is a situation that neither the police nor the public should tolerate."

Of the 156 people killed on the roads so far this year, 43 deaths - or 27.6 per cent - have been alcohol-related.

In 2005, there were 100 alcohol-related deaths. Apart from 2002, this is the lowest toll in the last twenty years. They made up 29 percent of all deaths.

The following is an international comprison of road deaths per 100,000;



Of the above countries, 10 have higher road deaths than NZ. Three of them have zero alcohol breath limits, 6 have 50mg limits and 1, like NZ, has an 80mg limit.

The evidence is barely compelling.

How many more people will be processed, fined and lose their licences for the sake of a glass of wine with dinner? I thought we were trying to cultivate a mature attitude to drinking in this country. Observing the current limits, not getting legless and not being treated like children is going to serve us better than a ban - because it won't stop at just lowering the limit. The wowsers never give up.

Rick Ellis is just doing his job

For the life of me, I cannot see what's wrong with what Rick Ellis said about a commitment to showing Maori on TV including programmes about crime and prisons. Surely they fulfill a commitment to showing Pakeha too. This kind of nonsensical outrage is the result of state racism - no more, no less. Content quotas based on race, gender, or nationality are stupid. And the politics around them is inane.

Maori 8 times more likely to be teenage parents on welfare

Media Release

MAORI 8 TIMES MORE LIKELY TO BE TEENAGE PARENTS ON WELFARE

Thursday, May 24, 2007

Maori make up 19 percent of the 16-19 year-old population but 54 percent of 16-19 year-old parents on welfare.

According the Lindsay Mitchell, welfare commentator, "The rate of teenage parents on a benefit is 10 per 1,000 for non-Maori compared to 85 per 1,000 for Maori."

"This significant disparity will ensure Maori children continue to be disproportionately represented in the many negative social statistics that culminate in over-representation in courts and prisons."

"Because children of teenage parents are recognised as 'high-risk' the Ministry of Social Development is putting some resources into working with those in the most disadvantaged regions. But nothing is being done to stop the inflow of teenage parents onto benefits in the first place. Existing policy is allowing another generation of vulnerable children to develop into tomorrow's offenders."

The numbers at December 2006;

16-19 year-old parents and caregivers in receipt of a main benefit;

Maori 2,062
NZ European 1,110
Pacific Island 288
Other 131
Unspecified 194

Female 3,648
Male 137

IHC accountable to government

David and Rhonda Heather have a son who is deaf, almost blind, mentally retarded and cannot talk. He has congenital rubella syndrome. He was assessed by IHC as in the highest category of need ie 1:1 care. IHC receives $60,000 funding from government to pay for this service. The Heathers maintain he is not receiving it and were advocating for him at the social services select committee yesterday. IHC are very much at odds with the couple and "reserving the right to expel Richard from services". Here's the piece of the story that had me riled.

IHC has also refused to provide information about funding and services, saying they are accountable to the Ministry, not the client.

Were you ever under the impression that the IHC was a charitable organisation who might be answerable to its patrons? I collected for the IHC annually until I received a letter late last year saying they weren't running their usual house-to-house appeal. Perhaps they are now so much in the governments pocket they don't need to work at fundraising so hard.

But this is the price clients pay. According to Paul Hutchison, "There are so many parents who are too afraid to speak out for fear of what will happen to their children."

The dilemma is, is IHC another one to strike off the list of worthy causes? When the line between state-funded charity and privately-funded charity becomes blurred the problems begin.

Men lucky to be living shorter lives

Some people can always find something to moan about. Now it's a problem that women live longer than men;

Older and bolder? Pensioner paradise is not yet here

Older women may live longer than men, but they are more likely to have poor quality of life, says Professor Elizabeth Markson, Director of the Gerontology Centre at Boston University, who was visiting Auckland in March.

In the USA, one in three women over 65 is impaired in daily living activities compared to one in five men. Women are five times more likely to be widowed and marriage has been found to insulate elderly men against illness.

'The moral of this is to marry a man seven years your junior if you don't want to be widowed,' Professor Markson quipped.

Having had lower incomes through their lives, women are poorer in old age. They are twice as likely as men to have trouble accessing health services, prescription drugs and adequate housing, and even when women visit doctors they are treated differently. Women are given more examinations but receive fewer diagnostic procedures and are less likely to receive therapeutic treatments for the same conditions as men. Presumably for these reasons, women are more likely to die in hospital.

On the other side of the coin, caregiving falls heavily on women. Professor Markson reported that in the USA 29% of caregivers of older relatives are daughters, 23% are wives, 20% are other female relatives and only 23% are men. Wives are most likely to care for a disabled spouse as long as possible who are usually only admitted to long-term care as a last resort, incontinence usually being the trigger. Where wives leave off, daughters sometimes take over.

There are gender differences in caregiving, said Professor Markson. 'Women tackle the hands-on care such as bathing and dealing with incontinence, tasks that can be physically and emotionally taxing. Women caregivers tend to suffer more ill health than men caregivers and are likely to use their holidays and sick leave providing care. Men typically take over bill-paying and mowing the lawns.'

Conflicts for the caregivers are matched by dilemmas for the recipients. They can be treated as 'wrinkled toddlers'. Caregivers who take charge can induce dependency and helplessness, leading to a loss of skills and independence.

'Depression is not uncommon and can easily be mistaken for dementia,' said Professor Markson.

Wow. Happy days are here again.

What is Benson-Pope up to?

Remember this, Youth unemployment drops 92 percent under Labour, a week ago today?

The just-released Ministry of Social Development's Statement of Intent shows the Estimated percentage of 15-19 year-olds not in formal education, training, work or looking after children was 6.6% in 2006 - up from 6% in 2005.

Not a large increase but raises the question yet again, What is Benson-Pope up to? Have Work and Income been directed to specifically crackdown on youth either on or applying for the dole? Somewhere there are around 15,000 NEETS unaccounted for. Are they being supported by family, friends, the black market or crime?

Bored with Boy Racers

Gee I'm tired of this subject and Christchurch Mayor Gary Moore's opining about parenting and alcohol and fast cars (my Austin A40 wouldn't spin the gravel in the driveway) is pointless. We don't have a crisis; that is, a problem that's gotten far, far worse. Just take a snapshot.

In 1985 there were 274 road deaths with alcohol as a factor. 2005 - 115.

In 1985 23% of the drivers affected by alcohol were 15-19. 2005 - 20%.

In 1985 the population was 3.3 million. 2005 - 4 million.

In 1985 there were 8.3 road deaths with alcohol as a factor per 100,000 population. In 2005 there were 2.9 per 100,000.

Nail on the head

Why I won't vote National. Colin James writes;

Key is not Brash. He has implicitly bought into big-government conservatism - as John Howard has in Australia - so is seen as no great threat to social services.

"Women dominate at the chalkface"

Right assessment. Wrong solution.

New Zealand now has one of the largest gaps in the world between male and female achievers, with the men coming out as the losers, according to Massey University's pro vice-chancellor in education, James Chapman.

Professor Chapman's remarks followed a Massey University College of Education graduation in which only 15 of the 158 graduates were men.

"There has been a quite significant decline in the interest of males in primary school teaching and particularly in the early childhood field. It is not quite so evident in the secondary school area."

There were probably many factors involved, but one of the main ones was the gradual "feminisation" of education in New Zealand, in terms of policies as well as teacher gender.

He suggested that perhaps the drive to find equal opportunities for women had gone too far and there was a need to pull back a bit to restore that balance.

What could he mean by this? That we need reverse sexism? If women are dominating education it's because men have let them. Yes, feminisation has produced a huge social shift in the past 30 years, most markedly in the family. It has driven a wedge between men and women. But it is the home in which boys (and girls) first hear negativity towards males. I don't even know if women realise they do it half of the time.

I was out delivering flyers and two women were power walking and talking - as they do. A four wheel drive was reversing out of a driveway, very slowly. Never got near them. One swings around, "THAT was dangerous. Shouldn't he be coming out forwards? Did he have his engine on or was he just drifting?" The indignation. If the guy had been reversing into his driveway she would have found even more fault.

There was no problem but she had to make one. Probably because the object of her annoyance was a man.

Bossy, nosey, self-obsessed, know-it-all women are everywhere. And it isn't just men who give them a wide berth. So do other women. But we shouldn't. We should stand up to them.

That's how we can redress the balance. Not by making it a man/women issue. But by making it an issue for individuals. Don't buy into feminism, racism and ageism and all the shonky ideas these ideologies propagate. Think about what you want to do and single-mindedly pursue it and banshees be damned.

I have sympathy for men who shy off becoming teachers but they mustn't. If they want to teach we need them, just as we need good women. But the individualists just quietly go off and do something else. Children lose the benefit of their outlook and are overly exposed to collectivist, entitlement-embracing, rights-based, socialist thinking. Children are the losers.

Minister contradicted by own Ministry

Media Release
MINISTER CONTRADICTED BY OWN MINISTRY
Friday, May 18, 2007

"The Minister for Social Development, David Benson-Pope, has been contradicted yet again," Lindsay Mitchell, welfare commentator said today. "Unfortunately, this time, by his own Ministry."

"Earlier this week the Minister told the public, 'The government is well on its way to achieving the goal with the Mayors' Task Force for Jobs. That is, to have all 15-19 year-olds in work, education, training or other activities that will contribute to their economic independence and well-being by the end of this year.' "

"I questioned this statement because while the Minister was saying only 1,424 youth are now on the unemployment benefit, Statistics New Zealand claim 27,800 15-19 year-olds are unemployed."

"Today his Ministry has published its Statement of Intent 2007/2008, which shows that the estimated percentage of 15-19 year-olds not in formal education, training, work or looking after children is 6.6% - around 20,000 - and the trend is described as 'steady'."

"The Ministry did not describe the trend as 'decreasing' putting them at odds with their Minister. It would appear that the Ministry is dealing with facts but the Minister, fiction. Pretending 20,000 youths going nowhere don't exist helps nobody."

Update; I send my statements to all MPs. In response to this, one MP said he would ask some questions, another asked to be removed from my distribution list. That is the first time I've had that request. (Both MPs were both from the main parties).

Budget 2007 - Welfare spending

Social Security and welfare spending is projected to increase by 25% by 2011.

This is the biggest increase across the various spending areas. Closest is Health at 22%.

Super makes up 54 percent of the increase.



The people may be sick and ailing but the welfare state is alive and kicking.

What we can look forward to

I now have some official statistics from Sweden relating to children in state care. Unfortunately they only arrived this morning. Remember this is the country that has been held up as a child mecca since it banned corporal punishment in the home in 1979.

During 2005 around 20,300 children and young people were subjects of 24-hour measures. At November 1st 2005 around 15,200 children and young people were subjects of 24-hour measures

24-hour measures include care outside the home, immediate custody or a placement in the home of a designated caregiver, similar to a care and protection placement in NZ. Around 73 percent were in foster care.

Non-institutional measures - On November 1st 2005 around 28,500 children and young people were subjects of one or more of the reported non-institutional measures.

This group is similar to those in NZ who receive care and protection social work services but are not in placements.

How does NZ compare?

Compared to the first group CYF had 4,853 distinct clients in care and protection placements as at 30 June 2005. 80 percent were in foster care.

Compared to the second group CYF were providing care and protection social work services to 14,335 distinct clients.

Sweden has around 2.2 million 0-19 years-old. NZ has 1.17 million.

Sweden had 11,148 child and young people in foster care. NZ had 3,898.

In 2005 Sweden had 6.69 children and young people per 1,000 receiving 24-hour measures. NZ had 4.2 per 1,000 in care and protection placements.

Based on these figures we can expect more state intervention. And will the increased state intervention reduce child deaths from maltreatment?

Here is a 2005 excerpt from the British Journal of Social Work.

The available evidence suggests that Sweden has a low, though not uniquely low, incidence of child maltreatment deaths. Widely cited statistics suggesting that Sweden is in an entirely different league from other countries are, however, seriously misleading. Nor does the evidence really allow us to conclude that Sweden’s relative success in this area is attributable to the ban on corporal punishment. Other countries without a corporal punishment ban also have low or lower child maltreatment death rates; the figures that are commonly cited in any case pre-date Sweden’s corporal punishment ban and there are a number of other important variables, other than a ban on corporal punishment, that could account for international variations.

This is the last post I will do on the subject. The debate has been a glaring example of propaganda and misinformation and outright lies. And the majority of parliament bought it.

National's welfare policy?

National Deputy Leader, Bill English, makes this statement in the DomPost today;

Our prospects of climbing up the ladder (OECD) in the next few years aren't good. Recent economic growth has been fuelled by more employment, more debt, and working longer hours. There aren't more people to bring into work, so there's no more growth from that source.

That must be National's welfare policy. Ignore the 266,000 working-age people on benefits. How would you feel if you were a beneficiary who wants to work? Written off?

Perhaps if you were one that didn't want to work you might feel relieved. Over a third of the people on the DPB have children aged 5 and over yet have no connection to the workforce.

One in ten working age people has no job and no source of income other than a benefit and we are told there are "no more people to bring into work."

Treasury will be scratching their heads. They have explicitly recommended increasing the labour force participation of young women to increase GDP because there is potential in that group that better performing countries have realised.

Clark supported that idea. Labour is still pursuing a policy of work first. That is to discourage applicants from entering the benefit system in the first place. OK. They haven't done a very good job with some benefits but they at least claim to believe that work is the best way out of poverty.

Labour could not agree with his statement and neither can I.

I accept there are some people who aren't ever going to be self-supporting. As long as we are only carrying those genuine cases I can live with a state safety net. But that group is a small minority.

This is either a damning admission or careless error from English. Let's hope it's the second.

Message to National

Good on Audrey Young for properly describing ACT's opposition to the anti-smacking bill;

The Act MPs come from a libertarian tradition and believe that the bill not only criminalises parents who smack but that it is an example of state interference in people's lives.

Thanks to National's compromise (that's right, the party that purports to believe in 'personal freedom') today power will be transferred from judges and juries (the people) to the police and CYF (the state). This isn't the trifling matter some think. God knows we need to do something about a small group of people who are not fit to be parents but that doesn't mean we have to submit to the state a massive degree of control over good and functioning families. There is absolutely no need to go this far.

And another thing John Key. You have opened the door to much, much more. Having succeeded with this folly the likes of the Children's Commissioner, Barnardos, Bradford et al will move to pushing for compulsory school checks. Then they won't need to wait for a report on a child - they can make their own. They will run the same stunts they used this time. Distorting figures, whipping up hysteria over what is, again, a problem being generated by a very small percentage of families.

You say you have saved the people from being "hung out to dry". No you haven't. You have just rolled over in the first of many battles the state will wage against innocent families. The War on Poverty, the War on Drugs - now the War on Child Abuse. More harm than good will come of it. Considerably more.

Question-mark over youth unemployment

Media release
QUESTION-MARK OVER YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT
Tuesday, May 15, 2007

Minister of Social Development, David Benson-Pope, today claimed youth unemployment had dropped 92 percent under Labour with only 1,424 18 and 19 year-olds on an Unemployment Benefit at the end of April.

But something isn't stacking up, according to welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell. "Another government department, Statistics New Zealand, says that at the end of March 2007 there were 27,800 15-19 year-olds unemployed. That was a 15 percent increase from March 2006."

"While it is good news that far fewer people are receiving the unemployment benefit perhaps the Minister can explain how the 27,800 being reported by his colleagues at Statistics New Zealand are supporting themselves. How many 15-19 year-olds are on benefits other than the Unemployment Benefit?"

Families Day

Oh Golly. What fun. Families Day. Today. When government gifted us with the Families Commission I confess, I was a little skeptical about whether they would achieve anything. But I was wrong. Look. They are celebrating Families Day and just to prove how sincere they are they're letting their staff go home early to enjoy their families. Plus they give lots of helpful advice on how you too can better enjoy your family. Oh thank you. Government is good, is it not?

Oooh. Oooh. I've got an idea to share too. Tell your boss Nanny says you too should have half a day off, rush home, gather your family around you and switch on the wireless at 2 o'clock. You can all listen to Aunty Helen together. What joy.

Another vote against the Bradford Bill

United Future MP, Judy Turner, has decided not to support the bill despite the amendment. This is because she says the 'discretion' provision does not apply to CYF, yet they too have statutory powers relating to children.

Consider this. According to CYF research;

There appears to be a tendency for Police to over-identify children in need of statutory intervention. Possible contributing factors are:
- a perception by the Police that making such an assessment is a social work, rather than a Police task.

How often are the police simply going to 'pass the buck' to an organisation with no powers of discretion?

Pub night

One week tomorrow I've organised a get-together at the local pub. It would be great to put some faces to names and a chance for you to have a chat with Rodney and Heather.

Just ignore her

Things have come to a pretty pass when police are warning men against even talking to women but that's what is happening in Scotland.

The comments are contained in a Strathclyde Police leaflet entitled 'Staying Safe'. The section entitled 'How men can help women' states: "Men can sometimes frighten women without meaning to. A woman may be nervous when she is out on her own - especially after dark or in a lonely or enclosed place, or on buses or trains."

It adds: "Resist chatting to a woman who is waiting, for example, at an isolated bus stop. She won't know that you mean her no harm. Remember that a woman may also feel threatened by what you think are admiring looks."

The leaflet reiterates previous advice that men who find themselves walking in the same direction as a woman should cross the street to reassure her that she is not being followed.

They stop short of saying, if a man thinks a woman may be in trouble and needing help he should also give her a wide berth in case he becomes negatively implicated. Of course, that couldn't be included in a pamphlet about how to 'help' women. It is nevertheless the message men are getting.

A Mother's Day Thought

Chris Trotter asks in today's Sunday Star Times;

"Because how much difference is there really between an Iraqi mother carrying her baby through a Baghdad market place - just before a terrorist's car bomb goes off: and a Wanganui mum putting her toddler down to sleep on the couch - just before the gangsters guns go off?"

Trotter at his blinkers-on best.

There is a world of difference. The Wanganui mother has every chance to protect her child by not being involved in the gang lifestyle. She knew her boyfriend was already on remand facing firearms charges for the same type of crime that ended her child's life. Society bends over backwards to give just such a woman an opportunity to turn her back on a gang lifestyle. It is pointless to keep offering the pathway out because it just gets exploited.

An Iraqi woman, on the other hand, is irrevocably trapped.

I sent this to talkback last Monday. I haven't changed my mind.

Children and gangs do not mix. If children were not meal tickets, there would be considerably less mixing. Gang members like to live off women on welfare, absolving themselves of any need to financially contribute to the home or family. Reforming welfare, beginning by stopping the availability of DPB to teenage parents from a specified future date, would create change. Why teenagers? Because that is generally when long-term welfare dependents, particularly Maori women, become mothers.

Counter-intuitively, it's women who can make the long-term difference to the gang problem, by not having babies to criminals and potentially producing more. If society didn't pay them an income to do so, their own self-interest and survival instincts would change their behaviour.

Lowering the alcohol limit for driving

New calls to lower the alcohol limits for driving include this supporting claim;

Australia has had a 14 per cent drop in alcohol-related crashes since the 1980s, when it lowered the blood-alcohol limit to 50mg - the upper limit recommended by the World Health Organisation.

That's hardly "compelling evidence".

In New Zealand in 1985 there were 2731 crashes with driver alcohol as a factor. 238 were fatal.

By 2005 that had dropped to 1435 with 100 fatal. A 47 percent drop. Without lowering the limit to 50gm.

And the constant blaming of the lowered drinking age for drink-driving doesn't hold up under scrutiny. In 2005 the percentage of 15 -19 year-old alcohol affected drivers involved in fatal crashes was 20 - down from 33 in 2000, after a sharp rise when the drinking age was lowered. The average over the ten years to 1999 was 30. So that age group is improving its statistics.