Here's the overall road crash picture;
Allan Alach – Stanford Must Go!
5 hours ago
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
More perspective needed
I am just listening to a discussion on talkback about young drivers and lifting the legal age for driving. Here again there is a lot of hysteria about young drivers and fatalities but the statistics are getting better. The performance of 15-19 year-old drivers has improved significantly. Twenty years ago they accounted for 16.9 percent of accidents involving fatalities. Last year they made up 11.7 percent. An even bigger drop applies to 20-24 year-olds from 22.2 to 11.9% percent. Perhaps some attention should be paid to older age groups.
Here's the overall road crash picture;
Here's the overall road crash picture;
Another immigration debacle
This is a story which will bubble out beyond the provinces. There are times when rules defy all logic. The area of immigration sees more than its fair share of these occasions. A young South African mother whose marriage to a Kiwi broke down last year is being refused permission to stay in New Zealand. She and her South African-born 5 year-old daughter must return home leaving her younger son in New Zealand. The father will not give permission for him to leave. She has been working as a caregiver in residential care for the elderly and is strongly backed by her employees who say they have lost others to new immigration rules. Namely being a caregiver does not qualify one for a work permit. Can someone tell immigration that caregiving is a growth industry and the demand will skyrocket in the coming years.
Monday, September 10, 2007
John Key - dismally hopeless again
Here's why.
Dear Editor
Your report about opposition to Cindy Kiro's home-screening plan (September 10) re-iterates New Zealand's "shocking" child abuse statistics. The hyping of child abuse statistics and use of emotive adjectives look like persuading New Zealanders that universal monitoring of children is now fait accompli. But the facts are child deaths due to maltreatment are falling and only 10.2 per 1,000 children had a substantiated finding of abuse (most commonly emotional) or neglect against them in the year to June 2007. One percent of all children.
National Party leader John Key says mandatory investigation of all children should be a last resort. It shouldn't be any resort. It is a foolish waste of time and money. With both Labour and National welcoming the proposed database to track the development of all children, increasingly we are being offered no political opposition and no choice. Will there be any point in staging an election next year?
Lindsay Mitchell
Dear Editor
Your report about opposition to Cindy Kiro's home-screening plan (September 10) re-iterates New Zealand's "shocking" child abuse statistics. The hyping of child abuse statistics and use of emotive adjectives look like persuading New Zealanders that universal monitoring of children is now fait accompli. But the facts are child deaths due to maltreatment are falling and only 10.2 per 1,000 children had a substantiated finding of abuse (most commonly emotional) or neglect against them in the year to June 2007. One percent of all children.
National Party leader John Key says mandatory investigation of all children should be a last resort. It shouldn't be any resort. It is a foolish waste of time and money. With both Labour and National welcoming the proposed database to track the development of all children, increasingly we are being offered no political opposition and no choice. Will there be any point in staging an election next year?
Lindsay Mitchell
Childcare is about choice
Conservatives want children to be parented in the home and it should be paid for by the state. Bob McCroskie of Family First put the case in today's NZ Herald.
My response;
Childcare is about choice
Bob McCoskrie argues that full-time parenting is a child's right so no parent should be forced to work to survive financially. The same argument was probably put in the seventies when politicians were considering what to do about the growing number of unpartnered mothers. Then the argument won the day and delivered the domestic purposes benefit - the statutory right for any single parent to be paid a living wage out of the Consolidated Fund.
Now it would appear conservatives want to extend that payment to all parents based on the their belief that childcare is bad for children - childcare being any care other than that provided by the parent. McCoskrie has presented ample research to support his case from United States, Canadian and English institutions but ignored a New Zealand report - Influences of Maternal Employment and Early Childhood Education on Young Children's Cognitive and Behavioural Outcomes. It reviewed both domestic and international studies and concluded that maternal employment in itself had no negative or positive effects on children. Negative impacts for children arose from early, extensive and poor quality non-maternal care combined with poor quality home care. Further studies have shown, unsurprisingly, that children from poor homes can benefit from good quality daycare.
This doesn't concern the big state conservatives because it doesn't fit with their theory that all and any childcare is bad. In fact, to acknowledge that some parenting is poorer than childcare really queers their pitch because it is often the parenting already paid for by the state that falls short of desirable standards. We are not short of recent examples.
In truth it isn't possible to make blanket statements about the effects of childcare because the care - the type and amount of - is as varied as children and their responses. McCoskrie's "A child's place is in the home" is one such statement. It's a 'we know best' approach. Which is somewhat ironic coming from one of the staunchest opponents of nanny state's recent attempts to tell parents how to raise their children by outlawing smacking. Now Mr McCroskie wants to tell parents how best to raise their children by not using childcare.
And worse, he wants the state to furnish his ideology. The cost would run into the billions while simultaneously the workforce would shrink. Treasury hasn't been calling for higher participation in the workforce by women because it wants to damage children. It does so because New Zealand badly needs to lift its productivity. A strong economy has benefits for everybody.
Additionally, now would be a particularly bad time for New Zealand to deplete its workforce because of our ageing population and the demands that will incur. McCroskie would probably argue that the country needs to produce more children but we already produce more children than nearly every other developed country. Those that offer the kind of assistance he wants - Estonia, Germany and the Czech Republic - are struggling with fertility rates.
There are no good economic or sound social reasons to turn our backs on childcare. It's part of the modern economy and makes a positive contribution to people's ability to make choices that suit their individual circumstances. A childs place in not unequivocally in the home and neither is a mother's.
My response;
Childcare is about choice
Bob McCoskrie argues that full-time parenting is a child's right so no parent should be forced to work to survive financially. The same argument was probably put in the seventies when politicians were considering what to do about the growing number of unpartnered mothers. Then the argument won the day and delivered the domestic purposes benefit - the statutory right for any single parent to be paid a living wage out of the Consolidated Fund.
Now it would appear conservatives want to extend that payment to all parents based on the their belief that childcare is bad for children - childcare being any care other than that provided by the parent. McCoskrie has presented ample research to support his case from United States, Canadian and English institutions but ignored a New Zealand report - Influences of Maternal Employment and Early Childhood Education on Young Children's Cognitive and Behavioural Outcomes. It reviewed both domestic and international studies and concluded that maternal employment in itself had no negative or positive effects on children. Negative impacts for children arose from early, extensive and poor quality non-maternal care combined with poor quality home care. Further studies have shown, unsurprisingly, that children from poor homes can benefit from good quality daycare.
This doesn't concern the big state conservatives because it doesn't fit with their theory that all and any childcare is bad. In fact, to acknowledge that some parenting is poorer than childcare really queers their pitch because it is often the parenting already paid for by the state that falls short of desirable standards. We are not short of recent examples.
In truth it isn't possible to make blanket statements about the effects of childcare because the care - the type and amount of - is as varied as children and their responses. McCoskrie's "A child's place is in the home" is one such statement. It's a 'we know best' approach. Which is somewhat ironic coming from one of the staunchest opponents of nanny state's recent attempts to tell parents how to raise their children by outlawing smacking. Now Mr McCroskie wants to tell parents how best to raise their children by not using childcare.
And worse, he wants the state to furnish his ideology. The cost would run into the billions while simultaneously the workforce would shrink. Treasury hasn't been calling for higher participation in the workforce by women because it wants to damage children. It does so because New Zealand badly needs to lift its productivity. A strong economy has benefits for everybody.
Additionally, now would be a particularly bad time for New Zealand to deplete its workforce because of our ageing population and the demands that will incur. McCroskie would probably argue that the country needs to produce more children but we already produce more children than nearly every other developed country. Those that offer the kind of assistance he wants - Estonia, Germany and the Czech Republic - are struggling with fertility rates.
There are no good economic or sound social reasons to turn our backs on childcare. It's part of the modern economy and makes a positive contribution to people's ability to make choices that suit their individual circumstances. A childs place in not unequivocally in the home and neither is a mother's.
Sunday, September 09, 2007
Child abuse - keeping perspective
David Farrar has written about Kommissar Kiro's desire to inspect the homes of every New Zealand child. He describes "how desperately bad our child abuse story is," with its "barbaric toll."
I say every life lost (and the intolerable lead up to the loss) is a gut-wrenching waste BUT let's summarise the facts;
- the number of deaths due to intentional injury is decreasing
- the notifications for child abuse are increasing, as are substantiated findings
- however, those findings include in descending order emotional abuse, neglect, physical abuse, sexual abuse
- the majority of notifications do not result in a substantiated finding
- about 10 children (or 1 %) in 1,000 have a finding of some sort of abuse or neglect against them
- the rate of abuse for Maori children is around three times higher yet even their child deaths due to maltreatment are decreasing
- the high number of Maori children dying at the hands of their young mothers was documented in the 50s and 60s
Can we have some perspective here. Most mothers already willingly let Plunket into their homes. Forcing those who don't to accept state interference is enough to make them go underground. I am not kidding. Many are already transient and lawless.
And I won't even go into the problem of where these children will be put after removal. That can be literally out of the the frying pan and into the fire.
By Pakeha standards many Maori children would be categorised as neglected. This lack of supervision is however the norm in some whanau and even wider communities. It isn't necessarily life threatening. Good god. Some kids could do with a bit more time away from paranoid, over fussy mothers.
I'm not talking about kids in P houses. I'm talking, for instance, about children where mothers are working and sometimes the care falls to older siblings. I go back to my own childhood when my mother worked full-time and with four children; we looked out for each other. Yes, times are different but a lot of the hysteria now afoot is manufactured. It's quite sickening and DPF is a prime example of how reasonable and intelligent people can be (grudgingly) suckered into accepting the machinery of state to all-knowingly handle 'epidemics'. (Sorry David.)
Let's focus on where the known problems are.
I say every life lost (and the intolerable lead up to the loss) is a gut-wrenching waste BUT let's summarise the facts;
- the number of deaths due to intentional injury is decreasing
- the notifications for child abuse are increasing, as are substantiated findings
- however, those findings include in descending order emotional abuse, neglect, physical abuse, sexual abuse
- the majority of notifications do not result in a substantiated finding
- about 10 children (or 1 %) in 1,000 have a finding of some sort of abuse or neglect against them
- the rate of abuse for Maori children is around three times higher yet even their child deaths due to maltreatment are decreasing
- the high number of Maori children dying at the hands of their young mothers was documented in the 50s and 60s
Can we have some perspective here. Most mothers already willingly let Plunket into their homes. Forcing those who don't to accept state interference is enough to make them go underground. I am not kidding. Many are already transient and lawless.
And I won't even go into the problem of where these children will be put after removal. That can be literally out of the the frying pan and into the fire.
By Pakeha standards many Maori children would be categorised as neglected. This lack of supervision is however the norm in some whanau and even wider communities. It isn't necessarily life threatening. Good god. Some kids could do with a bit more time away from paranoid, over fussy mothers.
I'm not talking about kids in P houses. I'm talking, for instance, about children where mothers are working and sometimes the care falls to older siblings. I go back to my own childhood when my mother worked full-time and with four children; we looked out for each other. Yes, times are different but a lot of the hysteria now afoot is manufactured. It's quite sickening and DPF is a prime example of how reasonable and intelligent people can be (grudgingly) suckered into accepting the machinery of state to all-knowingly handle 'epidemics'. (Sorry David.)
Let's focus on where the known problems are.
Friday, September 07, 2007
Lowering the voting age to 16
Sue Bradford pulled her bill as it wasn't garnering support at this time. I still see some merit in the proposal but acknowledge I'm in a small minority. Interestingly they are considering the same question in the UK. In the UK however it would appear there is considerably more support for change.
The Populus parliamentary panel of MPs in July showed that, while Liberal Democrats were heavily in favour of reducing the voting age from 18 to 16, Labour MPs were narrowly (53 per cent) against, but Tory members were heavily (83 per cent) opposed.
The Populus parliamentary panel of MPs in July showed that, while Liberal Democrats were heavily in favour of reducing the voting age from 18 to 16, Labour MPs were narrowly (53 per cent) against, but Tory members were heavily (83 per cent) opposed.
Thursday, September 06, 2007
Stigmas
People who have difficulty reading and writing are to be issued with 'literacy cards' which they can present in dealings such as a bank transaction. Shouldn't these be called 'illiteracy' cards?
Well, no, because the aim is to remove the stigma. The trouble is when stigmas are removed problems grow. The obvious example I would use is the stigma of illegitimacy. We banned the term in the 60s. Fair enough. It is no fault of the child if its parents weren't married. But I don't need to tell you what the results of de-stigmatising unmarried or even unpartnered procreation have been. On balance, not that hot.
Stigmas can serve useful purposes. They steer people away from undesirable outcomes. They also help avoid clamours for government to legislate or ban every damned thing. Removing the stigma associated with not being able to read and write may seem like a caring and compassionate thing to aim for but will it really serve the individuals best interests?
It looks like an acceptance of the failure of the education system. People arrive at primary school without knowing the alphabet but we say that's ok. They'll catch up. Then secondary school unable to spell but they'll catch up. Then at WINZ, where we put them through catch up courses. Then...still can't read and write....that's ok...here, have a card. It's not your fault. You are just differently-abled.
Some people have particular difficulties eg dyslexia but I wouldn't mind betting that a good many have failed to learn because they come from families that put no value on education. They have multiple problems.
I can see the merits in practice for the person being presented with the card ie the bank teller but in the larger scheme of things, regretfully, I think this is more bottom of the cliff stuff. Managing problems rather than trying to resolve them.
Well, no, because the aim is to remove the stigma. The trouble is when stigmas are removed problems grow. The obvious example I would use is the stigma of illegitimacy. We banned the term in the 60s. Fair enough. It is no fault of the child if its parents weren't married. But I don't need to tell you what the results of de-stigmatising unmarried or even unpartnered procreation have been. On balance, not that hot.
Stigmas can serve useful purposes. They steer people away from undesirable outcomes. They also help avoid clamours for government to legislate or ban every damned thing. Removing the stigma associated with not being able to read and write may seem like a caring and compassionate thing to aim for but will it really serve the individuals best interests?
It looks like an acceptance of the failure of the education system. People arrive at primary school without knowing the alphabet but we say that's ok. They'll catch up. Then secondary school unable to spell but they'll catch up. Then at WINZ, where we put them through catch up courses. Then...still can't read and write....that's ok...here, have a card. It's not your fault. You are just differently-abled.
Some people have particular difficulties eg dyslexia but I wouldn't mind betting that a good many have failed to learn because they come from families that put no value on education. They have multiple problems.
I can see the merits in practice for the person being presented with the card ie the bank teller but in the larger scheme of things, regretfully, I think this is more bottom of the cliff stuff. Managing problems rather than trying to resolve them.
Wednesday, September 05, 2007
Even voluntary socialism is difficult to sustain
Fascinating. From the Becker-Posner blog, a closer look at the kibbutz movement;
Utopian socialistic experiments like the kibbutz movement, and countries that tried to create large-scale efficient socialism, all failed for the same reasons. They did not realize that while the zeal of pioneers, and the result of revolutions, could sustain a collectivist and other-serving mentality for a short while, these could not be maintained as the pioneers died off or became disillusioned, and as circumstances became less revolutionary. Basically, they ignored the evidence of history that self interest and family orientation is not the product of capitalism, but is human nature due to selection from evolutionary pressure over billions of years.
And to follow on from that the Investor's Business Daily looks at why the combination of capitalism and socialism, the Third Way, isn't as successful as often touted; and how Europe lags badly behind the US economically.
Utopian socialistic experiments like the kibbutz movement, and countries that tried to create large-scale efficient socialism, all failed for the same reasons. They did not realize that while the zeal of pioneers, and the result of revolutions, could sustain a collectivist and other-serving mentality for a short while, these could not be maintained as the pioneers died off or became disillusioned, and as circumstances became less revolutionary. Basically, they ignored the evidence of history that self interest and family orientation is not the product of capitalism, but is human nature due to selection from evolutionary pressure over billions of years.
And to follow on from that the Investor's Business Daily looks at why the combination of capitalism and socialism, the Third Way, isn't as successful as often touted; and how Europe lags badly behind the US economically.
Bi-Polar disorder
Mojo has an interesting post about the rate of bi-polar disorder in young Americans.
I had a look at how many people were on benefits due to a diagnoses of bi-polar disorder.
The figures for the invalid's benefit are;
1997 815
1998 922
1999 1003
2000 1243
2001 1500
2002 1733
2003 1953
2004 2170
2005 2306
Given all the hysteria over diabetes let's contrast those figures;
1997 618
1998 667
1999 710
2000 783
2001 886
2002 999
2003 1114
2004 1228
2005 1313
The increase from 1997 to 2005 for bipolar disorder is 183% compared to 112% for diabetes.
Some other percentage increases over the same period include;
Stress 265%
Drug abuse 211%
Depression 184%
I guess there are only so many things public health officials can get hysterical about.
I had a look at how many people were on benefits due to a diagnoses of bi-polar disorder.
The figures for the invalid's benefit are;
1997 815
1998 922
1999 1003
2000 1243
2001 1500
2002 1733
2003 1953
2004 2170
2005 2306
Given all the hysteria over diabetes let's contrast those figures;
1997 618
1998 667
1999 710
2000 783
2001 886
2002 999
2003 1114
2004 1228
2005 1313
The increase from 1997 to 2005 for bipolar disorder is 183% compared to 112% for diabetes.
Some other percentage increases over the same period include;
Stress 265%
Drug abuse 211%
Depression 184%
I guess there are only so many things public health officials can get hysterical about.
Losing the war on family violence
As the Prime Minister yesterday launched yet another anti-family violence initiative, more babies were being born into non-working homes.Every year thousands of babies are born on to new or existing benefits. Many of these babies will join the ranks of the most at-risk children in New Zealand.
Last year Work and Income acknowledged that New Zealand has a very high rate of family violence and that many victims are beneficiaries. Hence service centres are an "excellent" place to identify victims.
Instead of acting rationally and questioning to what extent easy access to benefits actually adds to violence by facilitating dysfunctional lifestyles, the best plan of action the government can offer is to develop ever more resources to fight the growing incidence.
An honest appraisal of what role welfare has played in breaking down committed and independent families would be a far more valuable exercise than anything else proposed to date.
There is a clear connection between welfare dependence and family violence. It is a vain hope that the second will diminish while the first is allowed to continue.
Tuesday, September 04, 2007
Judge says benefit fraud "very prevalent " in NZ
This story has the wrong headline. It should have read, "Judge says benefit fraud very prevalent in New Zealand." This is just another case. The story is the prevalence of fraud.
Prevalence but, I very much suspect, a growing indifference to it.
Take David Benson Pope answering a PQ; The number of allegations of benefit fraud has fallen by over 36 percent in the last 6 years. The number of allegations received from either staff or members of the public in each of the last five years is: 29,363 (2001/2002) 29,628 (2002/2003) 27,134 (2003/2004) 13,462 (2004/2005) 18,845 (2005/2006) The number of allegations received for December 2006, January 2007 and February 2007 were 1,457; 1,597 and 1,410 respectively.
The number of concluded prosecutions for the 2004/2005 and 2005/2006 financial years is 1,306 and 937 cases respectively.
Note the huge drop of 50 percent between 2003/04 and 2004/05.
In the year to April 1979 there were 209 prosecutions but the number of breaches was 9494. Some were "trivial or involved perhaps just a portion of a weekly payment". 6144 deliberate breaches were however referred to the police department who advised the Social Welfare Department it did not intend to take prosecutions in 3691 of them. (No. I do not know why there is such a large discrepancy between the remainder and the number of convictions.)
There were around 80,000 working age beneficiaries at that time therefore the rate of breaches per 1,000 beneficiaries was 118.7
There is no identical data to match but if I can compare breaches with allegations (substantiations would be even lower), in 2005/06 there were 18,845 allegations and 280,000 beneficiaries - a rate of 67.3 per 1,000.
That's to be expected. People on benefits today are far more honest.
Either that or the public and the department are far more tolerant.
Prevalence but, I very much suspect, a growing indifference to it.
Take David Benson Pope answering a PQ; The number of allegations of benefit fraud has fallen by over 36 percent in the last 6 years. The number of allegations received from either staff or members of the public in each of the last five years is: 29,363 (2001/2002) 29,628 (2002/2003) 27,134 (2003/2004) 13,462 (2004/2005) 18,845 (2005/2006) The number of allegations received for December 2006, January 2007 and February 2007 were 1,457; 1,597 and 1,410 respectively.
The number of concluded prosecutions for the 2004/2005 and 2005/2006 financial years is 1,306 and 937 cases respectively.
Note the huge drop of 50 percent between 2003/04 and 2004/05.
In the year to April 1979 there were 209 prosecutions but the number of breaches was 9494. Some were "trivial or involved perhaps just a portion of a weekly payment". 6144 deliberate breaches were however referred to the police department who advised the Social Welfare Department it did not intend to take prosecutions in 3691 of them. (No. I do not know why there is such a large discrepancy between the remainder and the number of convictions.)
There were around 80,000 working age beneficiaries at that time therefore the rate of breaches per 1,000 beneficiaries was 118.7
There is no identical data to match but if I can compare breaches with allegations (substantiations would be even lower), in 2005/06 there were 18,845 allegations and 280,000 beneficiaries - a rate of 67.3 per 1,000.
That's to be expected. People on benefits today are far more honest.
Either that or the public and the department are far more tolerant.
Monday, September 03, 2007
If you thought "How to rip off WINZ" was bad.....
I can be a bit green sometimes but this somewhat surprised me. Having read a piece about the UK using lie detectors to uncover benefit fraud I thought I'd look a bit more closely at the story. In the process of searching lie detectors/ job seekers I came across this. I am dubious about even cutting and pasting from it.
Behavioural responses
From a passage in a speech Michael Bassett gave to the Institute of Economic Research last week;
"Then the grand daddy of them all in 1976, Robert Muldoon’s National Superannuation, payable initially to couples at 80% of the average ordinary wage at 60. Historian Sir Keith Sinclair called it “the biggest election bribe” in our history."
The DomPost has published private income figures from the Positive Ageing Report released on Friday.
The Social Development Ministry survey found the average private income of a single person aged over 65 had dropped 88 per cent from $2200 a year in 1989 to just $260 in 2004.
Private income is income that excludes public pensions or means-tested welfare benefits. Here is the graph;
Why bother saving when the government is doing it for you?
"Then the grand daddy of them all in 1976, Robert Muldoon’s National Superannuation, payable initially to couples at 80% of the average ordinary wage at 60. Historian Sir Keith Sinclair called it “the biggest election bribe” in our history."
The DomPost has published private income figures from the Positive Ageing Report released on Friday.
The Social Development Ministry survey found the average private income of a single person aged over 65 had dropped 88 per cent from $2200 a year in 1989 to just $260 in 2004.
Private income is income that excludes public pensions or means-tested welfare benefits. Here is the graph;
Why bother saving when the government is doing it for you?
Sunday, September 02, 2007
Peter Dunne slates the Press and Martin van Beynen
The following is from the UnitedFuture website. It refers to an editorial about extending Paid Parental Leave and the Families Commission.
I have just seen the most sneering editorial in the Christchurch Press about this and the Families Commission generally. The Press has long been critical of the Families Commission, mainly through the vitriolic pen of its senior writer Martin van Beynen - a man I have never heard of as contributing anything worthwhile to anything - and I suspect he is the writer of this editorial (although since newspaper editors are so brave they have to cloak their opinions in anonymity you would never know). Christchurch readers of the Press might like to write to the editor and let him know what they think of his newpaper's bigotry on family issues.
Posted by Peter Dunne 8.27AM, 30 Aug 2007
Martin van Beynen gave us (syndicated to the DomPost) a fabulous insight into New Zealand's 'poor' with a brilliant series penned as he toured NZ getting into places and homes Peter Dunne would shudder at. For that alone he earned my respect and admiration. He has most recently been up to the Northern Territories again covering almost unimaginable habitats and lifestyles of some Aboriginal people.
Peter Dunne often surprises me with his grumpy opinions made publicly and without justification. How can the Press be 'bigoted' for opposing (in this instance) the remorseless extension of socialism and loss of individual freedom? I can only conclude Dunne has burnt so many bridges one more won't matter.
(I did consider whether his posting is genuine but find it is too much in the Dunne style not to be.)
Unfortunately I cannot locate the editorial that has so riled Mr Dunne but here is another example (definitely from Martin van Beynen) which I am sure also sent his blood pressure soaring;
To tell the truth, I am sick of hearing about work-life balance and the glories of diversity which are no doubt just peachy for those workplaces that can afford them.
These workplaces, of course, tend to be in Wellington and usually entail spending our money on useless research, newsletters, conferences for the similarly minded and overseas trips.
Workplaces like the EEO (part of the State Services Commission), for instance, or the Families Commission, or the Human Slights Commission, or the Office for Ethnic Affairs and all those organisations of a similar ilk that infest Wellington.
The EEO's latest mind-blowing revelation contained in its latest newsletter is that good bosses tend to have more motivated employees. Or as the EEO puts it "discretionary effort and productivity can be increased by supporting work-life balance at all levels of the workplace".
And (just for a laugh) you can always rely on a revelation from the Families Commission. The latest bombshell from this bastion of redundancy says the biggest issue for families about after-school childcare is cost and quality. Amazing.
A man after my own heart. Well said.
I have just seen the most sneering editorial in the Christchurch Press about this and the Families Commission generally. The Press has long been critical of the Families Commission, mainly through the vitriolic pen of its senior writer Martin van Beynen - a man I have never heard of as contributing anything worthwhile to anything - and I suspect he is the writer of this editorial (although since newspaper editors are so brave they have to cloak their opinions in anonymity you would never know). Christchurch readers of the Press might like to write to the editor and let him know what they think of his newpaper's bigotry on family issues.
Posted by Peter Dunne 8.27AM, 30 Aug 2007
Martin van Beynen gave us (syndicated to the DomPost) a fabulous insight into New Zealand's 'poor' with a brilliant series penned as he toured NZ getting into places and homes Peter Dunne would shudder at. For that alone he earned my respect and admiration. He has most recently been up to the Northern Territories again covering almost unimaginable habitats and lifestyles of some Aboriginal people.
Peter Dunne often surprises me with his grumpy opinions made publicly and without justification. How can the Press be 'bigoted' for opposing (in this instance) the remorseless extension of socialism and loss of individual freedom? I can only conclude Dunne has burnt so many bridges one more won't matter.
(I did consider whether his posting is genuine but find it is too much in the Dunne style not to be.)
Unfortunately I cannot locate the editorial that has so riled Mr Dunne but here is another example (definitely from Martin van Beynen) which I am sure also sent his blood pressure soaring;
To tell the truth, I am sick of hearing about work-life balance and the glories of diversity which are no doubt just peachy for those workplaces that can afford them.
These workplaces, of course, tend to be in Wellington and usually entail spending our money on useless research, newsletters, conferences for the similarly minded and overseas trips.
Workplaces like the EEO (part of the State Services Commission), for instance, or the Families Commission, or the Human Slights Commission, or the Office for Ethnic Affairs and all those organisations of a similar ilk that infest Wellington.
The EEO's latest mind-blowing revelation contained in its latest newsletter is that good bosses tend to have more motivated employees. Or as the EEO puts it "discretionary effort and productivity can be increased by supporting work-life balance at all levels of the workplace".
And (just for a laugh) you can always rely on a revelation from the Families Commission. The latest bombshell from this bastion of redundancy says the biggest issue for families about after-school childcare is cost and quality. Amazing.
A man after my own heart. Well said.
Letter in the Sunday Star Times
What is this government lackey angling for? Because he sure isn't doing the organisation that pays him to be CEO any favours.
Remember this headline, Charities pay price of backing Bradford?
One could just as well substitute Kiro for Bradford. The Children's Commissioner role is highly politicised and Edridge's continuing support for her will come at a cost. Perhaps not to him though.
Remember this headline, Charities pay price of backing Bradford?
One could just as well substitute Kiro for Bradford. The Children's Commissioner role is highly politicised and Edridge's continuing support for her will come at a cost. Perhaps not to him though.
Saturday, September 01, 2007
"The money might be hard to give away"
The money might be hard to give away - give me a break.
Today's Editorial from the NZ Herald begins;
Few taxpayers will disagree with the proposal from the Families Commission that paid parental leave should be extended from the present 14 weeks to one year. If couples cannot afford for one of them to give up paid employment to care for a baby through its first year, the grant would seem one of the better uses of the social welfare budget.
How do they know that? Do you support it?
The commission estimates the extension of the benefit would increase its cost from the current $95 million a year to $450 million, a significant new financial commitment by any measure. To soften the fiscal shock the commission suggests the extension be phased in over eight years, first to six months, then nine, reaching the full year in 2015.
But these cautions will be based on an assumption the benefit will be fully subscribed. In all likelihood, the money might be hard to give away. Even with the offer of paid parental leave career-minded young mothers may be as anxious as fathers to return before their baby is a year old.
Hard to give away?? Let's test that. In 2002 Treasury predicted PPL would cost;
2002/03 $41 million
2003/04 $44 million
2005/06 $45 million
Here are the actual spending figures;
2003 $56 million
2004 $63 million
2005 $76 million
2006 $96 million
2006 spending more than doubled predictions. That blows that theory out of the water.
The full benefit would probably be taken up mainly by women in low-paid, non-career employment who would need it most. In this respect the scheme has a natural efficiency that enables it to be supported by taxpayers who might be concerned at the present Government's tendency to waste precious public funds on welfare for all.
Offer a universal benefit and towards universal uptake is what you will get. But worse. Many people who have no intention of returning to work will also take the year's payment so the potential for ripping the system off is also boosted.
Paid parental leave, though, carries a social signal more important than its financial terms. A decision to extend it to a year would tell young parents that society thinks it a good idea for one of them to care for their baby at home for that time. The present provision of just 14 weeks paid leave arguably gives quite the opposite message, though the right to unpaid leave with a preserved job already applies for a year.
Ah. That all-important 'sending a message'. For pity's sake. The DPB is permanent Paid Parental Leave and look at the message that sends. The taxpayer will keep you indefinitely as long as you can keep churning out babies. Whether or not you care for them properly is neither here nor there.
This country's 14 weeks payment is less than any other Western country except the United States and Australia, which do not provide parental leave. If we are going to provide it we ought to do it properly. Both main parties seem to agree with the Families Commission. Even if the cost is too much to extend the scheme more quickly, a decision to do so could be made soon. The decision would be a statement of value, affirming that nurturing for at least the first year should be a full-time job.
So rather than seriously considering what our two largest trading partners, both much stronger economies than NZ, do, the Herald wants to rush headlong in the opposite direction. This is a fine example of ill-thought-out advocacy. Unfortunately, they are not on their own.
Today's Editorial from the NZ Herald begins;
Few taxpayers will disagree with the proposal from the Families Commission that paid parental leave should be extended from the present 14 weeks to one year. If couples cannot afford for one of them to give up paid employment to care for a baby through its first year, the grant would seem one of the better uses of the social welfare budget.
How do they know that? Do you support it?
The commission estimates the extension of the benefit would increase its cost from the current $95 million a year to $450 million, a significant new financial commitment by any measure. To soften the fiscal shock the commission suggests the extension be phased in over eight years, first to six months, then nine, reaching the full year in 2015.
But these cautions will be based on an assumption the benefit will be fully subscribed. In all likelihood, the money might be hard to give away. Even with the offer of paid parental leave career-minded young mothers may be as anxious as fathers to return before their baby is a year old.
Hard to give away?? Let's test that. In 2002 Treasury predicted PPL would cost;
2002/03 $41 million
2003/04 $44 million
2005/06 $45 million
Here are the actual spending figures;
2003 $56 million
2004 $63 million
2005 $76 million
2006 $96 million
2006 spending more than doubled predictions. That blows that theory out of the water.
The full benefit would probably be taken up mainly by women in low-paid, non-career employment who would need it most. In this respect the scheme has a natural efficiency that enables it to be supported by taxpayers who might be concerned at the present Government's tendency to waste precious public funds on welfare for all.
Offer a universal benefit and towards universal uptake is what you will get. But worse. Many people who have no intention of returning to work will also take the year's payment so the potential for ripping the system off is also boosted.
Paid parental leave, though, carries a social signal more important than its financial terms. A decision to extend it to a year would tell young parents that society thinks it a good idea for one of them to care for their baby at home for that time. The present provision of just 14 weeks paid leave arguably gives quite the opposite message, though the right to unpaid leave with a preserved job already applies for a year.
Ah. That all-important 'sending a message'. For pity's sake. The DPB is permanent Paid Parental Leave and look at the message that sends. The taxpayer will keep you indefinitely as long as you can keep churning out babies. Whether or not you care for them properly is neither here nor there.
This country's 14 weeks payment is less than any other Western country except the United States and Australia, which do not provide parental leave. If we are going to provide it we ought to do it properly. Both main parties seem to agree with the Families Commission. Even if the cost is too much to extend the scheme more quickly, a decision to do so could be made soon. The decision would be a statement of value, affirming that nurturing for at least the first year should be a full-time job.
So rather than seriously considering what our two largest trading partners, both much stronger economies than NZ, do, the Herald wants to rush headlong in the opposite direction. This is a fine example of ill-thought-out advocacy. Unfortunately, they are not on their own.
Friday, August 31, 2007
That's what mums are for
A man has sex with his daughters for a decade to show them how to be good wives (conveniently forgetting they were daughters). What astonished me is the last line;
Judge Lovell gave full credit for the man's guilty pleas, saying he was genuinely remorseful and had a good chance of rehabilitation as his wife and the church remained supportive.
Some mother. That's a horrible story and a lamentable ending.
Judge Lovell gave full credit for the man's guilty pleas, saying he was genuinely remorseful and had a good chance of rehabilitation as his wife and the church remained supportive.
Some mother. That's a horrible story and a lamentable ending.
Only scratching the surface
Drugs and alcohol are the cause of child abuse. OK.
But why are people abusing drugs and alcohol? Because they can. Work and Income hand them the obligation-free time and obligation-free money. Even men that hold down jobs can piss all their money up the wall while the 'missus' brings in benefit money. The latter has been the case for decades and decades. That was what Sir Apirana Ngata used to fight. When he said welfare would destroy Maori he wasn't talking about the DPB. He was talking about the early family benefit which, for a large family accustomed to living off the land, amassed to quite a bit of money. The provision of this benefit to Maori during the forties was the most controversial aspect of the social security department's work.
People need to be given back their driver for living. Survival by their own efforts.
But why are people abusing drugs and alcohol? Because they can. Work and Income hand them the obligation-free time and obligation-free money. Even men that hold down jobs can piss all their money up the wall while the 'missus' brings in benefit money. The latter has been the case for decades and decades. That was what Sir Apirana Ngata used to fight. When he said welfare would destroy Maori he wasn't talking about the DPB. He was talking about the early family benefit which, for a large family accustomed to living off the land, amassed to quite a bit of money. The provision of this benefit to Maori during the forties was the most controversial aspect of the social security department's work.
People need to be given back their driver for living. Survival by their own efforts.
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Hide answers Moore
Rodney Hide answers Mike Moore's criticism and explains to Larry Williams why and how he is still the hardest working MP in parliament. If you haven't 'got it' yet have a listen.
Cloud Cuckooland
In Whitecloud (otherwise known as Cloud Cuckooland), Michigan, your yard must be green. If it isn't they send you to jail.
(Hat tip Reason.Com)
(Hat tip Reason.Com)
Garth George quotes Adam Smith
Garth George. I don't know a great deal about this man except he despises the free market and anybody who believes in it. He has called Don Brash's economics "inhuman" and Brash himself a "monetary ogre". And he believed Mrs Muliaga was killed by the profit motive.
Today he writes about finance companies, moneylenders (the first are OK but the second are evil?) and greed - though I doubt Mr George could distinguish between greed and self-interest. And then, lo and behold, quotes Adam Smith ;
As for me, I go along with the 18th-century economist and philosopher Adam Smith: "What can be added to the happiness of a man who is in health, out of debt, and has a clear conscience?"
Why not try some more Adam Smith quotes for size?
"The real tragedy of the poor is the poverty of their aspirations."
"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."
I can google too but at least I know what Adam Smith's main tenet was.
Today he writes about finance companies, moneylenders (the first are OK but the second are evil?) and greed - though I doubt Mr George could distinguish between greed and self-interest. And then, lo and behold, quotes Adam Smith ;
As for me, I go along with the 18th-century economist and philosopher Adam Smith: "What can be added to the happiness of a man who is in health, out of debt, and has a clear conscience?"
Why not try some more Adam Smith quotes for size?
"The real tragedy of the poor is the poverty of their aspirations."
"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."
I can google too but at least I know what Adam Smith's main tenet was.
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
National disgrace
Even David Farrar says of National, There are times when the term “Labour lite” is not 100% inaccurate.
So there are times when it IS 100% accurate and times when it is only 90 or 80 percent accurate.
Then he blogs his disappointment that National has welcomed the proposal to lavish another half a billion dollars on Paid Parental Leave.
Still I suppose all you National supporters aren't going to get too fretful while the prospects of regaining the seats of power are looking so promising (despite the attainment of power for power's sake being pointless).
You should be ashamed of your party which is now so far removed from its advertised principles -
• Individual freedom and choice
• Personal responsibility
• Competitive enterprise and rewards for achievement
• Limited government
- that it should be hauled before the Advertising Standards Authority.
So there are times when it IS 100% accurate and times when it is only 90 or 80 percent accurate.
Then he blogs his disappointment that National has welcomed the proposal to lavish another half a billion dollars on Paid Parental Leave.
Still I suppose all you National supporters aren't going to get too fretful while the prospects of regaining the seats of power are looking so promising (despite the attainment of power for power's sake being pointless).
You should be ashamed of your party which is now so far removed from its advertised principles -
• Individual freedom and choice
• Personal responsibility
• Competitive enterprise and rewards for achievement
• Limited government
- that it should be hauled before the Advertising Standards Authority.
On the button
Two quotes from today's NZ Herald;
Colin James; Labour's real problem with Key is that he is less an opponent than a successor: if you are tiring of Labour, you can have something not dangerously different.
Mike Moore; John Key just has to keep his head down, and is happy to campaign as "Labour with tax cuts", sort of like playing a vacuous political air guitar.
Colin James; Labour's real problem with Key is that he is less an opponent than a successor: if you are tiring of Labour, you can have something not dangerously different.
Mike Moore; John Key just has to keep his head down, and is happy to campaign as "Labour with tax cuts", sort of like playing a vacuous political air guitar.
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Dick Hubbard, you moron
The long-awaited Local Government Rates Inquiry came up with an idea Dick Hubbard likes;
He called for all the report's recommendations to be implemented and said the suggestion that rates be charged on government land including hospitals, schools and universities could mean an extra $25 million.
Translated; Let's find yet another way to screw the dough out of the productive.
Rates should remain the major source of local government revenue and there was no need for a new tax or a rates cap, it said.
The enquiry seems to have found there is a problem alright. The problem is the ratepayer hasn't got a bottomless pocket so let's have a crack at the taxpayers.
What a fiasco. What a joke.
He called for all the report's recommendations to be implemented and said the suggestion that rates be charged on government land including hospitals, schools and universities could mean an extra $25 million.
Translated; Let's find yet another way to screw the dough out of the productive.
Rates should remain the major source of local government revenue and there was no need for a new tax or a rates cap, it said.
The enquiry seems to have found there is a problem alright. The problem is the ratepayer hasn't got a bottomless pocket so let's have a crack at the taxpayers.
What a fiasco. What a joke.
"Selfish lifestyles of the childless"
Dear Editor
Chris Goldsbury (Letters, DomPost, August 28) says childless people are selfish. Childless people should, he says, "cover shifts and take the awful holiday slots" for their work colleagues who are parents.
That's OK if people are willing to do so. But why does Goldsbury demand it as of right? It could only be that he does not believe people own their own lives and are therefore free to choose how they use them. This lack of belief is at the heart of many political problems.
If people decide not to become parents, or are unable to become parents, that is their business. It is not their job, in lieu, to subsidise with their time or money, those who do.
I don't know what has happened to New Zealander's legendary 'rugged individualism'. It seems to have been drowned in a constant clamour (satiated by government) for certain people to subjugate their freedom and choice to others.
The net result is not a gain to society. It is division and resentment.
Monday, August 27, 2007
Worth remembering
Thanks to this report just released from Waikato University, we are about to be bombarded by the bleeding-heart believers in violence; a men's monopoly. The victimhood vanguards will be out in force.
The report lists 217 women and children who have died from domestic-related homicide since the [Domestic Violence] Act was implemented and says some judges seem to be enforcing the law as they think it should be written, not how it actually is.
Just remember when you watch the News tonight that in the 5 years to 2003 24% of the children killed in New Zealand died at the hands of their mothers.
The report lists 217 women and children who have died from domestic-related homicide since the [Domestic Violence] Act was implemented and says some judges seem to be enforcing the law as they think it should be written, not how it actually is.
Just remember when you watch the News tonight that in the 5 years to 2003 24% of the children killed in New Zealand died at the hands of their mothers.
What's 'good' for women isn't always good for children
Feminism and what is best for children are not necessarily synonymous. This is shown by New Zealand's ranking in the Save the Children Mothers' Index Rankings for 2007.
In ranking Children the report takes into account mortality rate for under fives, percentage of under-fives who are moderately or severely underweight, education enrollment and access to water.
In ranking Women they look at maternal mortality, attendance at births by skilled personnel, use of contraception, female life expectancy, female schooling, participation in government and ratio of female earnings to male.
New Zealand rates 4th of the "more developed" countries for mothers, 3rd for women but only 19th for children.
Take a country like Italy, where women rank only 19th (presumably because of more traditionalism, the edicts of catholicism, less govt assistance for single mothers etc) their children rank 1st.
In ranking Children the report takes into account mortality rate for under fives, percentage of under-fives who are moderately or severely underweight, education enrollment and access to water.
In ranking Women they look at maternal mortality, attendance at births by skilled personnel, use of contraception, female life expectancy, female schooling, participation in government and ratio of female earnings to male.
New Zealand rates 4th of the "more developed" countries for mothers, 3rd for women but only 19th for children.
Take a country like Italy, where women rank only 19th (presumably because of more traditionalism, the edicts of catholicism, less govt assistance for single mothers etc) their children rank 1st.
And it's called a 'justice' system?
The NZ Herald has a piece about the falling number of protection orders being issued by the courts. It says;
Protection orders
* A court order is aimed at preventing physical, psychological or sexual abuse.
* A temporary "without notice" order can be obtained within 24 hours and comes into force without the abuser being told. They then have 30 days to file a defence. Orders can also be sought "on notice" and are made after a hearing before a judge.
* Police will generally arrest anyone who breaches a protection order, unless there are exceptional circumstances.
Assuming the above is accurate, does anybody see the immediate problem here?
Protection orders
* A court order is aimed at preventing physical, psychological or sexual abuse.
* A temporary "without notice" order can be obtained within 24 hours and comes into force without the abuser being told. They then have 30 days to file a defence. Orders can also be sought "on notice" and are made after a hearing before a judge.
* Police will generally arrest anyone who breaches a protection order, unless there are exceptional circumstances.
Assuming the above is accurate, does anybody see the immediate problem here?
Friday, August 24, 2007
Stephen Franks running for National?
The DomPost reports this morning about the likely contenders for Wellington Central.
Hekia Parata, who stood for National in the seat in 2002, and former ACT MP Stephen Franks are also believed to be in the running to represent National in the high profile electorate.
Hekia Parata, who stood for National in the seat in 2002, and former ACT MP Stephen Franks are also believed to be in the running to represent National in the high profile electorate.
Crime and incompetence
I had to make an unscheduled trip up the coast yesterday. We have property in Te Horo and a local farmer runs stock on it. He had rung to say the power had been cut, the electric fences were inoperative and his cows were were becoming difficult to control. After two days of tedious to-ing and fro-ing with the power company (they wouldn't deal with me as David's name is on the account) we were finally able to establish that power lines had been vandalised all along a stretch of road. Thieves steal the earth wire from those power poles which hold transformers. Why? For the copper. In the process of risking their lives they make around $10-12 per pole but cause apparently $10,000 worth of damage. An insight into the criminal mind.
Our power had not been reconnected because to do so risks a power surge which could have damaged appliances in the house also on the property but unoccupied. Somebody had to be present before the reconnection could take place. Fair enough but wouldn't you think the power company would have contacted us as the account holders. No. They just disconnected the power and left a note on the gate (despite many properties having absentee landlords). Not a thought for what they might have been cutting power to or the repercussions. Sounds vaguely familiar.
Our power had not been reconnected because to do so risks a power surge which could have damaged appliances in the house also on the property but unoccupied. Somebody had to be present before the reconnection could take place. Fair enough but wouldn't you think the power company would have contacted us as the account holders. No. They just disconnected the power and left a note on the gate (despite many properties having absentee landlords). Not a thought for what they might have been cutting power to or the repercussions. Sounds vaguely familiar.
Thursday, August 23, 2007
A perfect Kiwi ATM
I was initially nonplussed by this story because the only ATMs I have ever used don't supply $10 notes. But this was a different species. It was a Kiwibank ATM.
Yesterday the $10 slot was loaded with $20 notes and the $20 slot with $10 notes. People queued all day to get double the pay-out.
Of course some attempting to make larger withdrawals were penalised by receiving smaller amounts.
The perfect symbol for NZ society. A redistributionist ATM.
Just another handy feature from your very own 100% kiwi-owned bank.
Yesterday the $10 slot was loaded with $20 notes and the $20 slot with $10 notes. People queued all day to get double the pay-out.
Of course some attempting to make larger withdrawals were penalised by receiving smaller amounts.
The perfect symbol for NZ society. A redistributionist ATM.Just another handy feature from your very own 100% kiwi-owned bank.
Laying on a guilt trip
This has got to be one of the stupider things Pete Hodgson has ever said;
"In particular, all New Zealanders should be ashamed that Maori life expectancy is still lower than European New Zealanders."
Memo to myself when I look in the mirror tomorrow morning. Having donned sack cloth and ashes berate yourself over too many Maori dying prematurely. And while you are at it hang your head about too many men shuffling off the mortal coil before their partners.
But perhaps Pete should be particularly pointing the finger at Asians. I mean, they should be really, really ashamed because they are getting more than their fair share of life. Yeah. Let's blame the Asians. That might win you a few votes too Pete.
How I hate this collectivist claptrap that we are all somehow responsible for other people's outcomes. It's enough to drive you to an early grave.
Memo to Pete. Piss off. Please.
"In particular, all New Zealanders should be ashamed that Maori life expectancy is still lower than European New Zealanders."
Memo to myself when I look in the mirror tomorrow morning. Having donned sack cloth and ashes berate yourself over too many Maori dying prematurely. And while you are at it hang your head about too many men shuffling off the mortal coil before their partners.
But perhaps Pete should be particularly pointing the finger at Asians. I mean, they should be really, really ashamed because they are getting more than their fair share of life. Yeah. Let's blame the Asians. That might win you a few votes too Pete.
How I hate this collectivist claptrap that we are all somehow responsible for other people's outcomes. It's enough to drive you to an early grave.
Memo to Pete. Piss off. Please.
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Finished it - bugger
I loved Rodney's book. Have you ever read a book where you don't want the writer to move on? I didn't get enough about the long days spent working with his father on the trucks in and around the Canterbury Plains or backwards and forwards to the West Coast. It was another time. For anyone of my generation or older a deep sense of nostalgia develops for a New Zealand we won't see again. (Of course there are plenty of aspects we should be glad to see the back of but not in this book). Remember how you felt after watching the Fastest Indian and that's what the early stories evoke. I didn't want Rodney to leave New Zealand to go travelling because I couldn't possibly be as interested in life on an oil rig or in India or in Parliament in the same way. I needn't have worried. I kept turning the pages fascinated, repelled, frustrated, entertained, enlightened. It's a read that just keeps a hold of you.An admission. When I'd initially read the extract in the Sunday Star Times I said to myself, "Oh my good Lord. What has he written". It almost felt Mills and Boonish. The struggles in the arms of the beautiful Krystal culminating in a bittersweet ending, turned triumphal. Yikes!
The problem is simply the chapter needs to be read as part of the entirety.
One day I will learn to trust Rodney. He knows what he is doing and where he is going. There's a fine line underfoot when someone decides to expose their life to the public. Auto-biographies risk a level of self-indulgence that can turn the reader off. Whether by intention or accident Rodney stayed firmly on that fine line. As I said, this is a book you get to the end of wanting more.
A film maybe?
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Looking good - still time to make a submission
Regulatory Responsibility Bill—Submissions and Timetable
1. RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) to the Chairperson of the Commerce Committee: How many submissions have been received to date on the Regulatory Responsibility Bill, and what is the timetable for the hearing of submissions?
GERRY BROWNLEE (Chairperson of the Commerce Committee): I am informed that the Commerce Committee has received some 180 submissions, and that the overwhelming majority of those submissions are in favour of the bill, as was the case at the House vote when the bill was read for the first time. The select committee will set down a hearing programme that allows all those who want to be heard to be heard, and expects to report the bill sometime in mid-November.
Rodney Hide: Is it too late for members of the public to make a submission to the Commerce Committee—would it be possible for the committee to receive those submissions?
GERRY BROWNLEE: The select committee’s deadline for submissions was 10 August, so the official period has closed. However, I am certain that should people wish to make a submission on this particular bill, the committee would be prepared to at least receive those in the interim. One of the things that is striking about this bill is the overwhelming number of submissions in favour of it.
The on-line submission page is closed but if you go to www.parliament.govt.nz you can find out how to make a submission to the Commerce Committee by snail mail.
1. RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) to the Chairperson of the Commerce Committee: How many submissions have been received to date on the Regulatory Responsibility Bill, and what is the timetable for the hearing of submissions?
GERRY BROWNLEE (Chairperson of the Commerce Committee): I am informed that the Commerce Committee has received some 180 submissions, and that the overwhelming majority of those submissions are in favour of the bill, as was the case at the House vote when the bill was read for the first time. The select committee will set down a hearing programme that allows all those who want to be heard to be heard, and expects to report the bill sometime in mid-November.
Rodney Hide: Is it too late for members of the public to make a submission to the Commerce Committee—would it be possible for the committee to receive those submissions?
GERRY BROWNLEE: The select committee’s deadline for submissions was 10 August, so the official period has closed. However, I am certain that should people wish to make a submission on this particular bill, the committee would be prepared to at least receive those in the interim. One of the things that is striking about this bill is the overwhelming number of submissions in favour of it.
The on-line submission page is closed but if you go to www.parliament.govt.nz you can find out how to make a submission to the Commerce Committee by snail mail.
Confession time
John Key says me too. I've been to a strip club.
So I better confess now - I went to a live sex show. In my defence I didn't have much choice. I had ferried three male workmates from Southend to Amsterdam for the weekend. They were determined to do everything there was to do. Tagging along I found myself in a seedy club trying not to watch two washed-out, disinterested people going through the motions. I kept falling asleep.
The great hilarity was the male performer was manually directing newcomers to their seats without a break in the performance. We wondered if he'd be selling ice-creams at half time.
So I better confess now - I went to a live sex show. In my defence I didn't have much choice. I had ferried three male workmates from Southend to Amsterdam for the weekend. They were determined to do everything there was to do. Tagging along I found myself in a seedy club trying not to watch two washed-out, disinterested people going through the motions. I kept falling asleep.
The great hilarity was the male performer was manually directing newcomers to their seats without a break in the performance. We wondered if he'd be selling ice-creams at half time.
What scheme???
This is news to me. Looks like the Children's Commissioner is getting her way. A scheme to check all four year-olds for health or behavioural problems will be piloted in Manukau and Wanganui and then rolled out nationally from February. But who is responsible for this huge undertaking? A search of the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Social Development and Children's Commissioner websites drew a blank.
Found it. Announced yesterday by Pete Hodgson. B4 School Checks. That's cute. Perhaps they can link it up with B1 and B2 from Bananas in Pyjamas. Bananas. Yep. That's it. They have budgeted for the checks but not ensuing action.
Only in a nanny state is it necessary to check every single 4 year-old. And it is one more step towards this which has been introduced and vigorously opposed in the UK. Here is reaction from September 2006;
Civil liberties and children's campaigners are to hold a conference at the London School of Economics on Tuesday to highlight their concerns.
Terri Dowty, director of children's rights group Arch, said: 'Who is bringing children up? Are parents effectively nannies for the state's children or are children born to families and the state just helps families when they ask for it?'
Dr Eileen Munro, an expert in child protection at the LSE, said: 'The authority of parents is being eroded because the children's services, health education and social care are being asked to intervene.
'On the whole parents are the greatest source of safety and welfare that any child has.'
Jonathan Bamford, the Assistant Information Commissioner which polices access to information, said there was no justification for keeping check on 12 million children when only a small proportion were at risk.
He said: 'When you are looking for a needle in a haystack, is it necessary to keep building bigger haystacks?
'The cause for concern indicator against a child's record is expressed in very broad language. For example, it could be cause for concern that a child is not progressing well towards his or her French GCSE.'
Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, said: 'We are heading towards a situation in which an entire generation of kids won't know what privacy is, as though we are preparing them for prison rather than life in a free society. It is time to ask ourselves why we sacrifice the privacy of our children first.'
Found it. Announced yesterday by Pete Hodgson. B4 School Checks. That's cute. Perhaps they can link it up with B1 and B2 from Bananas in Pyjamas. Bananas. Yep. That's it. They have budgeted for the checks but not ensuing action.Only in a nanny state is it necessary to check every single 4 year-old. And it is one more step towards this which has been introduced and vigorously opposed in the UK. Here is reaction from September 2006;
Civil liberties and children's campaigners are to hold a conference at the London School of Economics on Tuesday to highlight their concerns.
Terri Dowty, director of children's rights group Arch, said: 'Who is bringing children up? Are parents effectively nannies for the state's children or are children born to families and the state just helps families when they ask for it?'
Dr Eileen Munro, an expert in child protection at the LSE, said: 'The authority of parents is being eroded because the children's services, health education and social care are being asked to intervene.
'On the whole parents are the greatest source of safety and welfare that any child has.'
Jonathan Bamford, the Assistant Information Commissioner which polices access to information, said there was no justification for keeping check on 12 million children when only a small proportion were at risk.
He said: 'When you are looking for a needle in a haystack, is it necessary to keep building bigger haystacks?
'The cause for concern indicator against a child's record is expressed in very broad language. For example, it could be cause for concern that a child is not progressing well towards his or her French GCSE.'
Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, said: 'We are heading towards a situation in which an entire generation of kids won't know what privacy is, as though we are preparing them for prison rather than life in a free society. It is time to ask ourselves why we sacrifice the privacy of our children first.'
Monday, August 20, 2007
Welfare Trivia
There are 17 beneficiaries on the Chatham Islands. 8 on the DPB and 9 on an invalid's benefit. I didn't know that till today. I wonder how often they have to check in with their case manager?
This represents about 3-4 percent of the working age population - much lower than on the mainland.
This represents about 3-4 percent of the working age population - much lower than on the mainland.
Going down in a blaze of glory
Would it be possible to singlehandedly rack up a $30,000 bill in any New Zealand restaurant?
(Showing my ill-breeding)
(Showing my ill-breeding)
Manifestly iniquitous
Beneficiaries get priority healthcare
Beneficiaries will be fast-tracked for operations and depression counselling under a $10 million-a-year Government scheme.
From September 24, sickness and invalid beneficiaries will be assessed by GPs and case managers to get priority treatment, such as counselling for depression and operations for hernias and varicose veins.
The Ministry of Social Development says fast-tracking procedures for beneficiaries should not push others off hospital waiting lists because funding is separate.
Firstly, this scheme isn't new despite having a new name, Working New Zealand. PATHS has been operating since early 2004 when it was piloted in South Auckland. At that time there were around 112,000 people on sickness or invalid benefits. Now there are 125,000 and they are still rolling it out around the country. As an exercise in curbing growth on these benefits it has been a complete failure. BUT there are individuals that have positively benefited from it.
If I were an MP I would be asking these questions;
Why is the government prepared to spend millions of dollars on private surgery and treatment for sickness and invalid beneficiaries but not on the thousands of other New Zealanders currently on waiting lists?
Shouldn't it be as least as important to fix people before they get so bad they are unable to work, and if not, why not?
Notwithstanding helping people back to work is a good idea, why do those on benefits have a greater entitlement to private surgery than those who are not?
Why are millions of dollars available in the Ministry of Social Development budget to alleviate pain and suffering through private surgery, but not in the Ministry of Health's budget?
From 2003, when these ideas were first mooted,
• ACT Party leader Richard Prebble agrees that it makes no financial sense to pay a welfare benefit to people who could return to work if they had an operation. But why stop there? Prebble: "If it makes sense for accident victims and sickness beneficiaries to have operations done more quickly and cheaply in private hospitals, they why not have the same service available to the rest of us?"
Isn't that what we are made to pay tax for?
Beneficiaries will be fast-tracked for operations and depression counselling under a $10 million-a-year Government scheme.
From September 24, sickness and invalid beneficiaries will be assessed by GPs and case managers to get priority treatment, such as counselling for depression and operations for hernias and varicose veins.
The Ministry of Social Development says fast-tracking procedures for beneficiaries should not push others off hospital waiting lists because funding is separate.
Firstly, this scheme isn't new despite having a new name, Working New Zealand. PATHS has been operating since early 2004 when it was piloted in South Auckland. At that time there were around 112,000 people on sickness or invalid benefits. Now there are 125,000 and they are still rolling it out around the country. As an exercise in curbing growth on these benefits it has been a complete failure. BUT there are individuals that have positively benefited from it.
If I were an MP I would be asking these questions;
Why is the government prepared to spend millions of dollars on private surgery and treatment for sickness and invalid beneficiaries but not on the thousands of other New Zealanders currently on waiting lists?
Shouldn't it be as least as important to fix people before they get so bad they are unable to work, and if not, why not?
Notwithstanding helping people back to work is a good idea, why do those on benefits have a greater entitlement to private surgery than those who are not?
Why are millions of dollars available in the Ministry of Social Development budget to alleviate pain and suffering through private surgery, but not in the Ministry of Health's budget?
From 2003, when these ideas were first mooted,
• ACT Party leader Richard Prebble agrees that it makes no financial sense to pay a welfare benefit to people who could return to work if they had an operation. But why stop there? Prebble: "If it makes sense for accident victims and sickness beneficiaries to have operations done more quickly and cheaply in private hospitals, they why not have the same service available to the rest of us?"
Isn't that what we are made to pay tax for?
Saturday, August 18, 2007
Teenage birth rate rises again
The teenage birth rate (15-19) for the year ending June 2007 is up to 29.9 from 27.6 the previous year. The highest rate in ten years. There was an established downward trend but that has firmly reversed now.
As you would expect the number of 18-19 year-olds on the DPB is also up from 2.9 percent in June 2006 to 3.2 percent in June 2007. That also represents an absolute rise in numbers. Then there are 16-17 year-olds on the Emergency Maintenance Allowance but the MSD does not routinely publish that figure. I wonder why.
What does this mean? More work for the teenage parent counsellors and service coordinators, more dedicated educational facilities, more work for CYF, more carers needed for those babies who will be removed from their mother not long after their birth, more housing needed, more long-term careers on welfare launched, more taxpayer funding needed, all in all, more social problems down the line.
As you would expect the number of 18-19 year-olds on the DPB is also up from 2.9 percent in June 2006 to 3.2 percent in June 2007. That also represents an absolute rise in numbers. Then there are 16-17 year-olds on the Emergency Maintenance Allowance but the MSD does not routinely publish that figure. I wonder why.
What does this mean? More work for the teenage parent counsellors and service coordinators, more dedicated educational facilities, more work for CYF, more carers needed for those babies who will be removed from their mother not long after their birth, more housing needed, more long-term careers on welfare launched, more taxpayer funding needed, all in all, more social problems down the line.
Friday, August 17, 2007
When statements of fact become "racist"
Is this statement racist? According to Hone Harawira it is.
"Maori and Pacific people have a greater propensity to commit violent crimes."
That's what Superintendent John Rivers told the Maori Party.
Of the 10,345 convictions for violent offences in 2004 47% were to Maori, 13% Pacific people and 38% NZ European.
One might argue (and no doubt Hone Harawira would) that these statistics merely show that Maori and Pacific people are more likely to be convicted.
In 1998 the apprehension rate for violent crime by Maori 27.5 (per 1,000) and 7.4 for non-Maori.
Hone might argue that Maori are merely more likely to be caught.
The 2001 Crime Victimisation Survey asked has any partner ever actually used force or violence on you, such as deliberately hit, kicked, pushed, grabbed or shoved you, or deliberately hit you with something, in a way that could have hurt you?
41.9 percent of Maori females said yes and 19.6 percent of Maori males said yes. The respective figures for Pacific people were 17.2 and 6.7 and NZ European, 19.5 and 14.8.
Hone could argue that the partners ethnicity might not match the respondents.
Hone can argue till the cows come home. The fact remains. Maori have a greater propensity to violence. That is not to say all Maori are violent or they should be treated as if they will be. Perhaps the statement should have been prefixed with "some" to ensure cultural and political safety.
Annette King's response is a cop-out (excuse the pun); Ms King said she believed that Mr Rivers' bosses would probably be very disappointed if anyone believed that was the view of the police.
The problem for police is steering clear of assumption-based behaviour. Treating people differently because of their skin colour is racist.
"Maori and Pacific people have a greater propensity to commit violent crimes."
That's what Superintendent John Rivers told the Maori Party.
Of the 10,345 convictions for violent offences in 2004 47% were to Maori, 13% Pacific people and 38% NZ European.
One might argue (and no doubt Hone Harawira would) that these statistics merely show that Maori and Pacific people are more likely to be convicted.
In 1998 the apprehension rate for violent crime by Maori 27.5 (per 1,000) and 7.4 for non-Maori.
Hone might argue that Maori are merely more likely to be caught.
The 2001 Crime Victimisation Survey asked has any partner ever actually used force or violence on you, such as deliberately hit, kicked, pushed, grabbed or shoved you, or deliberately hit you with something, in a way that could have hurt you?
41.9 percent of Maori females said yes and 19.6 percent of Maori males said yes. The respective figures for Pacific people were 17.2 and 6.7 and NZ European, 19.5 and 14.8.
Hone could argue that the partners ethnicity might not match the respondents.
Hone can argue till the cows come home. The fact remains. Maori have a greater propensity to violence. That is not to say all Maori are violent or they should be treated as if they will be. Perhaps the statement should have been prefixed with "some" to ensure cultural and political safety.
Annette King's response is a cop-out (excuse the pun); Ms King said she believed that Mr Rivers' bosses would probably be very disappointed if anyone believed that was the view of the police.
The problem for police is steering clear of assumption-based behaviour. Treating people differently because of their skin colour is racist.
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Moral hazard
This is very well written and easy to grasp (not that I think readers need simplicity but I do and there isn't enough of it).
The Nanny State’s Road to Serfdom
by Jeffrey A. Singer, Posted August 15, 2007
A reader wrote me about my article “The Slippery Slope of Nanny-State Politics,” which appeared in the last issue of Freedom Daily. The article derided the rise of the “nanny state” and its threat to our way of life as a free people. I had written that New York City’s new ban on transfatty foods amounts to yet another usurpation of the right of adults to make their own choices regarding the risks they are willing to take when engaging in any particular behavior.
He wrote, “One thing I always struggle with when reading opinions like yours are the choices that have a societal cost. For example, there are those who say that motorcycle riders have the right to choose not to wear a helmet. Yet ... brain injuries have a significant cost to everyone in society ... at least, to every taxpayer. I’m curious; how is your philosophy of living with risks affected by this factor?”
His inquiry raised a very important public-policy issue: the issue of social cost.
Nothing is without cost. “Price” refers to what one pays for something. “Cost” is what is given up in order to have something. For example, my decision to go to the movies may mean I can’t afford to eat at a restaurant. However, I decide that seeing the film is worth that cost.
In a free society, the cost of other people’s making bad decisions falls mostly on themselves. The cost to us is minimal. The reverse is the case in a welfare state, where the costs of such decisions fall on the taxpayers.
The cost of bad choices
In a market, goods and services are exchanged through a myriad complex of voluntary transactions, each made to the mutual benefit of those engaging in the transaction. The costs of bad choices are borne by those who make them.
Government, on the other hand, does not create wealth. Any expense that it incurs is financed by wealth extracted from taxpayers. Alas, once you start a welfare state — once the government gets into areas that would otherwise be dealt with in the private sector — then politics and special-interest pressures replace voluntary, dispassionate markets. The costs of bad choices are borne by the taxpayers. Thus develops a situation where, in effect, everyone in society becomes taxpayer property. It is what Nobel laureate Friedrich Hayek called “the road to serfdom.”
One way people try to reduce risk is by pooling risk in the form of insurance. In a free market, risky behavior increases the cost to the people in the pool. People who engage in unsafe behavior pay a penalty for their choices — in the form of higher prices for their insurance coverage. That’s why, for instance, life insurance is less expensive for nonsmokers than for smokers.
Unfortunately, when we live in a welfare state, as we do today, many of the decisions that would arise from voluntary transactions between consenting adults (such as insurance premiums) become relegated to the political sphere.
Thus, the taxpayer picks up the tab for many people who make bad choices, by paying for their insurance through Medicaid, Medicare, flood insurance, et cetera. This creates what economists call “moral hazard” — there is no disincentive for risky behavior; in fact, the one certain consequence of taxpayer-funded “safety nets” is an increase in bad decision-making, which becomes, in effect, subsidized.
But if we are to proscribe risky behavior in the name of saving taxpayer dollars, then we descend a slippery slope. Where do we stop? Virtually every activity can be regulated on the basis of the argument that it is a potential cost to the taxpayer. Today the state is banning transfatty foods. Tomorrow it may dictate the size and content of meal portions. Next it may ban certain risky sports, such as scuba diving, skiing, or even dodgeball. China’s welfare state dictates how many children a family may have.
Taking other people’s stuff
If any behavior needs to be reined in, it should be the propensity of people to use the political system to take other people’s money. In other words, we need to end the welfare state. Unfortunately, however, I don’t see that happening any time soon.
As Tocqueville warned us, the problem with democracy is that eventually the majority learns that it can use the vote to get other people’s stuff. And, as Jefferson said, “The natural tendency of things is for liberty to yield and for government to gain ground.”
So, to answer my reader’s question, in a welfare state, freedom costs taxpayers money. If taxpayers can’t muster the will to dismantle the welfare state, they will continue traveling the road to serfdom.
Dr. Jeffrey Singer is a Phoenix-area surgeon who writes and lectures on regional and national public policy. He serves on the board of directors of the Goldwater Institute and is a contributor to Arizona Medicine, the journal of the Arizona Medical Association.
The Nanny State’s Road to Serfdom
by Jeffrey A. Singer, Posted August 15, 2007
A reader wrote me about my article “The Slippery Slope of Nanny-State Politics,” which appeared in the last issue of Freedom Daily. The article derided the rise of the “nanny state” and its threat to our way of life as a free people. I had written that New York City’s new ban on transfatty foods amounts to yet another usurpation of the right of adults to make their own choices regarding the risks they are willing to take when engaging in any particular behavior.
He wrote, “One thing I always struggle with when reading opinions like yours are the choices that have a societal cost. For example, there are those who say that motorcycle riders have the right to choose not to wear a helmet. Yet ... brain injuries have a significant cost to everyone in society ... at least, to every taxpayer. I’m curious; how is your philosophy of living with risks affected by this factor?”
His inquiry raised a very important public-policy issue: the issue of social cost.
Nothing is without cost. “Price” refers to what one pays for something. “Cost” is what is given up in order to have something. For example, my decision to go to the movies may mean I can’t afford to eat at a restaurant. However, I decide that seeing the film is worth that cost.
In a free society, the cost of other people’s making bad decisions falls mostly on themselves. The cost to us is minimal. The reverse is the case in a welfare state, where the costs of such decisions fall on the taxpayers.
The cost of bad choices
In a market, goods and services are exchanged through a myriad complex of voluntary transactions, each made to the mutual benefit of those engaging in the transaction. The costs of bad choices are borne by those who make them.
Government, on the other hand, does not create wealth. Any expense that it incurs is financed by wealth extracted from taxpayers. Alas, once you start a welfare state — once the government gets into areas that would otherwise be dealt with in the private sector — then politics and special-interest pressures replace voluntary, dispassionate markets. The costs of bad choices are borne by the taxpayers. Thus develops a situation where, in effect, everyone in society becomes taxpayer property. It is what Nobel laureate Friedrich Hayek called “the road to serfdom.”
One way people try to reduce risk is by pooling risk in the form of insurance. In a free market, risky behavior increases the cost to the people in the pool. People who engage in unsafe behavior pay a penalty for their choices — in the form of higher prices for their insurance coverage. That’s why, for instance, life insurance is less expensive for nonsmokers than for smokers.
Unfortunately, when we live in a welfare state, as we do today, many of the decisions that would arise from voluntary transactions between consenting adults (such as insurance premiums) become relegated to the political sphere.
Thus, the taxpayer picks up the tab for many people who make bad choices, by paying for their insurance through Medicaid, Medicare, flood insurance, et cetera. This creates what economists call “moral hazard” — there is no disincentive for risky behavior; in fact, the one certain consequence of taxpayer-funded “safety nets” is an increase in bad decision-making, which becomes, in effect, subsidized.
But if we are to proscribe risky behavior in the name of saving taxpayer dollars, then we descend a slippery slope. Where do we stop? Virtually every activity can be regulated on the basis of the argument that it is a potential cost to the taxpayer. Today the state is banning transfatty foods. Tomorrow it may dictate the size and content of meal portions. Next it may ban certain risky sports, such as scuba diving, skiing, or even dodgeball. China’s welfare state dictates how many children a family may have.
Taking other people’s stuff
If any behavior needs to be reined in, it should be the propensity of people to use the political system to take other people’s money. In other words, we need to end the welfare state. Unfortunately, however, I don’t see that happening any time soon.
As Tocqueville warned us, the problem with democracy is that eventually the majority learns that it can use the vote to get other people’s stuff. And, as Jefferson said, “The natural tendency of things is for liberty to yield and for government to gain ground.”
So, to answer my reader’s question, in a welfare state, freedom costs taxpayers money. If taxpayers can’t muster the will to dismantle the welfare state, they will continue traveling the road to serfdom.
Dr. Jeffrey Singer is a Phoenix-area surgeon who writes and lectures on regional and national public policy. He serves on the board of directors of the Goldwater Institute and is a contributor to Arizona Medicine, the journal of the Arizona Medical Association.
What should be done with false rape complainants?
Read this story first. Actually I'll cut and paste it before it disappears. I considered blogging it at the time because the alleged rapists had a somewhat unusual profile.
Police investigate pack-rape of girl, 16
11:37AM Monday August 06, 2007
Morrinsville police are investigating the pack rape of a 16-year-old local girl. The girl has told police she was walking home at around 5am on Saturday, in the Page St area of Morrinsville, after parting company with two people she had been drinking with. She says she was approached by three men in a dark coloured station wagon.
She was then forced into the vehicle and raped by all three men. The men are all described as being in their mid-20s, Caucasian and fat. One man had a beard and moustache.
Police say the girl is deeply traumatised.
Today the Waikato Times reports;
Teen rape claim a lie
A Morrinsville teenager who claimed she was raped by three fat men has admitted the complaint was false.
The 16-year-old girl had told police she was pulled into a vehicle in the early hours of August 4 and raped by the men. Police spent 60 hours investigating the complaint, spokesman Andrew McAlley said. "Such false complaints and the resulting drawing away of resources from genuine inquiries are considered an unfortunate waste of police time."
The girl, who was described at the time of the alleged rape as deeply traumatised, will be dealt with by Police Youth Aid. Her complaint came just days after Hamilton police revealed a serial rapist was on the loose in the city. They are also looking into unsolved historic sex attacks to see if there are links to the serial rapist.
I wonder how these sorts of crimes are recorded. Under "Dishonesty/ Miscellaneous"? That category appears to have been introduced by police in 2003 when there were 133 crimes. Last year there were 579.
Of course I am only speculating but from media reports the incidence of false rape allegations does seem to be on an upward trend.
I am always surprised at the level of sympathy there is for the liars. Did anyone give a thought to all the bearded fat men driving dark coloured station wagons living in Morrinsville who were suddenly the recipients of sideways looks from people?
The worst thing that can happen to a 16 year-old is a Family Group Conference possibly followed by an appearance in the youth court. The whole point of the FGC is to allow the offender, their family/whanau and the victim and their family/whanau to decide together what the outcome for the offender should be. Of course it would be rather hard to find a room big enough to house all the fat 'Caucasian' men in Morrinsville and their families. But it is interesting to speculate what they might want to see happen to the 16 year-old.
Police investigate pack-rape of girl, 16
11:37AM Monday August 06, 2007
Morrinsville police are investigating the pack rape of a 16-year-old local girl. The girl has told police she was walking home at around 5am on Saturday, in the Page St area of Morrinsville, after parting company with two people she had been drinking with. She says she was approached by three men in a dark coloured station wagon.
She was then forced into the vehicle and raped by all three men. The men are all described as being in their mid-20s, Caucasian and fat. One man had a beard and moustache.
Police say the girl is deeply traumatised.
Today the Waikato Times reports;
Teen rape claim a lie
A Morrinsville teenager who claimed she was raped by three fat men has admitted the complaint was false.
The 16-year-old girl had told police she was pulled into a vehicle in the early hours of August 4 and raped by the men. Police spent 60 hours investigating the complaint, spokesman Andrew McAlley said. "Such false complaints and the resulting drawing away of resources from genuine inquiries are considered an unfortunate waste of police time."
The girl, who was described at the time of the alleged rape as deeply traumatised, will be dealt with by Police Youth Aid. Her complaint came just days after Hamilton police revealed a serial rapist was on the loose in the city. They are also looking into unsolved historic sex attacks to see if there are links to the serial rapist.
I wonder how these sorts of crimes are recorded. Under "Dishonesty/ Miscellaneous"? That category appears to have been introduced by police in 2003 when there were 133 crimes. Last year there were 579.
Of course I am only speculating but from media reports the incidence of false rape allegations does seem to be on an upward trend.
I am always surprised at the level of sympathy there is for the liars. Did anyone give a thought to all the bearded fat men driving dark coloured station wagons living in Morrinsville who were suddenly the recipients of sideways looks from people?
The worst thing that can happen to a 16 year-old is a Family Group Conference possibly followed by an appearance in the youth court. The whole point of the FGC is to allow the offender, their family/whanau and the victim and their family/whanau to decide together what the outcome for the offender should be. Of course it would be rather hard to find a room big enough to house all the fat 'Caucasian' men in Morrinsville and their families. But it is interesting to speculate what they might want to see happen to the 16 year-old.
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Marriage is no guarantee of protection
This is a blog post from NZ Conservative;
If you subscribe to the idea that women should be sexually available outside of a married relationship and act in such a way to take advantage of such women, then child abuse is your problem and your fault. Because you help perpetuate the type of society in which it becomes common for children to be in situations where they are around men (who are not their fathers) living with their mothers.
Until society looks squarely in the eye at the problem of men and women shacking up temporarily and oops, there's a baby, child abuse will remain everyone's problem.
More often than not child abuse happens in homes where partner abuse is also occurring. Below shows the relationship between people perpetrating violence in the presence of children. It is from research undertaken in Hamilton and each of these cases involved the police attending.
If you subscribe to the idea that women should be sexually available outside of a married relationship and act in such a way to take advantage of such women, then child abuse is your problem and your fault. Because you help perpetuate the type of society in which it becomes common for children to be in situations where they are around men (who are not their fathers) living with their mothers.
Until society looks squarely in the eye at the problem of men and women shacking up temporarily and oops, there's a baby, child abuse will remain everyone's problem.
More often than not child abuse happens in homes where partner abuse is also occurring. Below shows the relationship between people perpetrating violence in the presence of children. It is from research undertaken in Hamilton and each of these cases involved the police attending.
Spot the difference
From the Manawatu Evening Standard
Child abuse and intervention figures supplied by Child Youth and Family put Manawatu at the top of an unenviable heap for the North Island central region.
Assessment findings in the 2006/07 financial year show 710 cases of abuse and neglect found in the Manawatu, compared to 630 cases in the 2005/06 year.
The Hutt was the next closest in the region on 486.
Yet;
I am really beginning to wonder about the accuracy of information coming out of the Ministry.
Child abuse and intervention figures supplied by Child Youth and Family put Manawatu at the top of an unenviable heap for the North Island central region.
Assessment findings in the 2006/07 financial year show 710 cases of abuse and neglect found in the Manawatu, compared to 630 cases in the 2005/06 year.
The Hutt was the next closest in the region on 486.
Yet;
I am really beginning to wonder about the accuracy of information coming out of the Ministry.
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Jail mums
Yesterday I was reading a paper in the newly released NZ Social Policy Journal called Jail Mums: The Status of Adult Female Prisoners Among Young Female Prisoners in Christchurch Women's Prison. With a self-admitted "feminist and anti-colonial" agenda ('walk a mile in their shoes' is a dead give away) the researcher talked to a handful of young female prisoners about their experience of older female prisoners. Unlike young males, young females are not separated from the older prisoners because there is anecdotal evidence that mothering relationships are good for the younger females. Of course there are also 'contaminatory' role models but that seems an accepted risk. But I have to wonder why nobody ever suggests that jail dads might be a good thing.
I believe it is important to be aware of the environment from which these women have come to prison while interpreting their talk – to try to imagine walking a mile in their shoes. Participants discussed the lack of support they received from the non-criminal community when they were not in prison:
"And like you know a lot of people ask other people who keep coming to jail all the time ‘why do you keep coming to jail, you know, why can't you stay out of jail?' … You know, a lot of women come to jail because they feel nice … jail, I know that's upsetting to say but – [Interviewer: Why would it be upsetting?] – Because they should have that thing … that family on the outside as well as the inside … they should have that support, regardless of what they've done, where they've been … I mean we all make mistakes aye … but we can only learn from our mistakes."
Um...when?
Further, a number of young women discussed the lack of support they received from their family of origin, which they believed had contributed to their offending:
"Only 'cause of the crimes that I've committed and the people I harmed out there, like I put that back on my family really, I wouldn't be in the position I'm in if they'd just give me a little bit of support … Oh well, I'm here now, I'll just have to make do with what I've got."
One could analyse this extract as an attempt to shift responsibility for criminal behaviour. Another interpretation, however, is that it is a cry for help: a young person expressing a need for effective parenting – guidance, protection, and financial and emotional support.
I'll go with the first interpretation thanks. And expecting 'jail mums' to fill the space of nurturer and teacher is a bit desperate in my book. Still, it's convenient for the state to buy it.
If the success of these relationships was measured by the number of young females not coming back then the following isn't looking good.
One gets the impression from the interviews the relationships are more likely to make prison a more attractive place to be.
I believe it is important to be aware of the environment from which these women have come to prison while interpreting their talk – to try to imagine walking a mile in their shoes. Participants discussed the lack of support they received from the non-criminal community when they were not in prison:
"And like you know a lot of people ask other people who keep coming to jail all the time ‘why do you keep coming to jail, you know, why can't you stay out of jail?' … You know, a lot of women come to jail because they feel nice … jail, I know that's upsetting to say but – [Interviewer: Why would it be upsetting?] – Because they should have that thing … that family on the outside as well as the inside … they should have that support, regardless of what they've done, where they've been … I mean we all make mistakes aye … but we can only learn from our mistakes."
Um...when?
Further, a number of young women discussed the lack of support they received from their family of origin, which they believed had contributed to their offending:
"Only 'cause of the crimes that I've committed and the people I harmed out there, like I put that back on my family really, I wouldn't be in the position I'm in if they'd just give me a little bit of support … Oh well, I'm here now, I'll just have to make do with what I've got."
One could analyse this extract as an attempt to shift responsibility for criminal behaviour. Another interpretation, however, is that it is a cry for help: a young person expressing a need for effective parenting – guidance, protection, and financial and emotional support.
I'll go with the first interpretation thanks. And expecting 'jail mums' to fill the space of nurturer and teacher is a bit desperate in my book. Still, it's convenient for the state to buy it.
If the success of these relationships was measured by the number of young females not coming back then the following isn't looking good.
One gets the impression from the interviews the relationships are more likely to make prison a more attractive place to be.
Getting what she asked for
This could literally happen to anyone who has kids. A Herald Business reporter had three police "banging" on her door after a report from a neighbour there was a child screaming in the house and it wasn't the first time.
Children and screaming are synonymous. I have one who screams when frustrated. Hasn't happened recently so she is hopefully growing out of it. I don't know if I take the right approach by choosing to ignore it. I've tried sympathising or offering help but it's like saying "Where did you last have it?" to someone who has lost something they desperately need. It inflames the situation.
Fortunately I know all my neighbours well and I doubt, if they hear her, they would feel concerned. I can't imagine how angry I would be if three cops turned up, especially if they were as rude as the writer describes. I couldn't have written about the incident as calmly as she has.
This sort of thing is a result of the climate of hysteria that has developed and is getting out of control. I am not of the "if I have done nothing wrong I have nothing to fear" persuasion - the type to roll over and pant at the first hint of ID cards.
I suspect neither is this mother but having championed the anti-smacking bill, a welcome mat to the expansion of the surveillance society, she can hardly make a fuss now. I also suspect the complaining neighbour may well have known about the journalist's advocacy of the bill and is obligingly giving her a dose of what she wanted.
Children and screaming are synonymous. I have one who screams when frustrated. Hasn't happened recently so she is hopefully growing out of it. I don't know if I take the right approach by choosing to ignore it. I've tried sympathising or offering help but it's like saying "Where did you last have it?" to someone who has lost something they desperately need. It inflames the situation.
Fortunately I know all my neighbours well and I doubt, if they hear her, they would feel concerned. I can't imagine how angry I would be if three cops turned up, especially if they were as rude as the writer describes. I couldn't have written about the incident as calmly as she has.
This sort of thing is a result of the climate of hysteria that has developed and is getting out of control. I am not of the "if I have done nothing wrong I have nothing to fear" persuasion - the type to roll over and pant at the first hint of ID cards.
I suspect neither is this mother but having championed the anti-smacking bill, a welcome mat to the expansion of the surveillance society, she can hardly make a fuss now. I also suspect the complaining neighbour may well have known about the journalist's advocacy of the bill and is obligingly giving her a dose of what she wanted.
Monday, August 13, 2007
Stop the seesaw - I wanna get off
National get another good poll result.
Because I don't really care whether National or Labour win the next election - they are both as bad as each other - I think I can be reasonably dispassionate about who I think will win.
National. But not because of any policy or vision they are promoting. Typically they will win because people are sick of Labour. Then we will go through the whole drawn out charade again - two or three terms of National, failed policies, scandals, growing disenchantment and dissension, etc and we'll go back to an appealingly fresh-looking Labour.
This is as predictable as the next case of child abuse. And almost as depressing. Why would anything change when the vast majority of people still believe governments are the answer to most perceived problems?
If you don't believe me put aside a morning to read newspapers from 20, 30, 40 years ago. In those areas that most affect most people - health, welfare, education - the same problems recur ad nauseam. Waiting lists and doctor shortages, illiteracy, truancy and teacher dissatisfaction, 
wrangling over super - how to fund it, who should get it and how much? - working-age welfare - why are there so many beneficiaries in a developed country replete with opportunity? - relative poverty, race issues, drug crime, gangs, obesity - yes, obesity was a public health fixation even in the sixties and seventies (Headlines from 1973).
Still, I suppose it is healthy to keep on imagining that a new government will deliver a shiny new world. Otherwise everyone would be gloomy as Eyeore. Or me :-))
Because I don't really care whether National or Labour win the next election - they are both as bad as each other - I think I can be reasonably dispassionate about who I think will win.
National. But not because of any policy or vision they are promoting. Typically they will win because people are sick of Labour. Then we will go through the whole drawn out charade again - two or three terms of National, failed policies, scandals, growing disenchantment and dissension, etc and we'll go back to an appealingly fresh-looking Labour.
This is as predictable as the next case of child abuse. And almost as depressing. Why would anything change when the vast majority of people still believe governments are the answer to most perceived problems?
If you don't believe me put aside a morning to read newspapers from 20, 30, 40 years ago. In those areas that most affect most people - health, welfare, education - the same problems recur ad nauseam. Waiting lists and doctor shortages, illiteracy, truancy and teacher dissatisfaction, 
wrangling over super - how to fund it, who should get it and how much? - working-age welfare - why are there so many beneficiaries in a developed country replete with opportunity? - relative poverty, race issues, drug crime, gangs, obesity - yes, obesity was a public health fixation even in the sixties and seventies (Headlines from 1973).Still, I suppose it is healthy to keep on imagining that a new government will deliver a shiny new world. Otherwise everyone would be gloomy as Eyeore. Or me :-))
Sunday, August 12, 2007
Hysteria and hype just got worse
At least psychologist Nigel Latta has his head on the right way around.
Another inane idea about protesting child abuse. This time from the TEAR Fund.
Wearing the Pledge Peg ( we don’t sell them, just get one from your laundry )
provokes people to ask why are you wearing a clothes peg. That’s your opportunity to talk openly about our crisis of child abuse in New Zealand and explain that we are all advocates and need to accept responsibility for protecting our nation’s children.
Almost every conversation with the Pledge Peg will end with the other person asking for a peg and joining the movement. The Pledge Peg can be a chain reaction. Carry some spares in your pocket.
But;
Clinical psychologist Nigel Latta says the concept is crass and he does not know whether to laugh or be offended. He says awareness will not solve the problems as those responsible for the attacks just do not care. He says campaigning about child abuse is a waste of time. Nigel Latta suggests it is the equivalent of everyone walking around with tomato sauce on their clothes every time there is a murder.
Another inane idea about protesting child abuse. This time from the TEAR Fund.
Wearing the Pledge Peg ( we don’t sell them, just get one from your laundry )
provokes people to ask why are you wearing a clothes peg. That’s your opportunity to talk openly about our crisis of child abuse in New Zealand and explain that we are all advocates and need to accept responsibility for protecting our nation’s children.Almost every conversation with the Pledge Peg will end with the other person asking for a peg and joining the movement. The Pledge Peg can be a chain reaction. Carry some spares in your pocket.
But;
Clinical psychologist Nigel Latta says the concept is crass and he does not know whether to laugh or be offended. He says awareness will not solve the problems as those responsible for the attacks just do not care. He says campaigning about child abuse is a waste of time. Nigel Latta suggests it is the equivalent of everyone walking around with tomato sauce on their clothes every time there is a murder.
Friday, August 10, 2007
The dangers of living
This is cheerful. Health authorities want people to lead such prescriptive lives. They simply don't understand that people might want to enjoy themselves.
Record numbers of people are developing "avoidable cancers" because of their lifestyle, despite warnings.....Figures released yesterday show soaring levels of cancers caused by excessive sunbathing, obesity, alcohol and smoking.....The latest figures show almost 9,000 cases of malignant melanoma were diagnosed in 2004 - up from fewer than 6,000 in 1995.....Experts blame the rise in cheap flights to the sun for increased melanoma rates.
So stay home in the dreary English weather. Don't drink to drown your sorrows or over-eat to compensate for being cold. Don't dare have a fag to relieve the stress of it all. Exercise by walking through the endless, sameness of suburbia. And make sure you have these holiday breaks so as not to overwork.
The thing is there are no guarantees. They could still drop dead tomorrow. What is certain is they are alive right now and they are damn well going to make the most of it while it lasts.
Record numbers of people are developing "avoidable cancers" because of their lifestyle, despite warnings.....Figures released yesterday show soaring levels of cancers caused by excessive sunbathing, obesity, alcohol and smoking.....The latest figures show almost 9,000 cases of malignant melanoma were diagnosed in 2004 - up from fewer than 6,000 in 1995.....Experts blame the rise in cheap flights to the sun for increased melanoma rates.
So stay home in the dreary English weather. Don't drink to drown your sorrows or over-eat to compensate for being cold. Don't dare have a fag to relieve the stress of it all. Exercise by walking through the endless, sameness of suburbia. And make sure you have these holiday breaks so as not to overwork.
The thing is there are no guarantees. They could still drop dead tomorrow. What is certain is they are alive right now and they are damn well going to make the most of it while it lasts.
Thursday, August 09, 2007
Job growth - WFF
2006 June 1,668,000 457,000
2007 June 1,672,000 486,000
These figures are the number of full-time and part-time jobs in June 2006 and June 2007. Only 4,000 more full-time jobs compared to 29,000 more part-time jobs.
This is bound to have something to do with WFF and the In Work Payment. In March this year 118,000 people were receiving an In Work Payment. Many of these people would have previously been on some sort of partial-benefit (dole, DPB) so still counted as beneficiaries. Now they don't. This has got a lot to do with dropping beneficiary numbers. How much I don't know as IRD won't tell me (they don't record the info apparently) how many were previously on a benefit.
2007 June 1,672,000 486,000
These figures are the number of full-time and part-time jobs in June 2006 and June 2007. Only 4,000 more full-time jobs compared to 29,000 more part-time jobs.
This is bound to have something to do with WFF and the In Work Payment. In March this year 118,000 people were receiving an In Work Payment. Many of these people would have previously been on some sort of partial-benefit (dole, DPB) so still counted as beneficiaries. Now they don't. This has got a lot to do with dropping beneficiary numbers. How much I don't know as IRD won't tell me (they don't record the info apparently) how many were previously on a benefit.
Child deaths linked to unemployment
From today's NZ Herald;
Mr Doolan said the data suggested that child killings increased in line with unemployment in the late 1980s and early 90s, but were now trending downwards as the economy improved.
I am less sure about this link. Look at the figures;
We had full employment through the 60s and most of the 70s. Add the 60s and 70s together and there were 179 deaths. Add the 80s and 90s together, when we had soaring and peak unemployment, and there were 169 deaths.
In 1971 there were 909,000 children (0-14). In 1994 there were 828,000. Today there are 867,000. Because of the ageing population although the overall population has grown the numbers of children have been relatively steady.
No. I'm not buying it.
The number of children abused increased by 15.4 per cent to a new record of 10,159 in the financial year to the end of June.
The number might be a rise on the financial year to June 2006 but it's a drop on the calendar year 2006 from 10,873 (again not including 'neglect').
Mr Doolan said the data suggested that child killings increased in line with unemployment in the late 1980s and early 90s, but were now trending downwards as the economy improved.
I am less sure about this link. Look at the figures;
We had full employment through the 60s and most of the 70s. Add the 60s and 70s together and there were 179 deaths. Add the 80s and 90s together, when we had soaring and peak unemployment, and there were 169 deaths.
In 1971 there were 909,000 children (0-14). In 1994 there were 828,000. Today there are 867,000. Because of the ageing population although the overall population has grown the numbers of children have been relatively steady.
No. I'm not buying it.
The number of children abused increased by 15.4 per cent to a new record of 10,159 in the financial year to the end of June.
The number might be a rise on the financial year to June 2006 but it's a drop on the calendar year 2006 from 10,873 (again not including 'neglect').
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
Politician with too much time on his hands
Yesterday it was the insane suggestion we indiscriminately slaughter certain dog breeds. Today.....Uh oh. Somebody needs to take Gordon Copeland to one side and quietly tell him we already have a Children's Day.
Independent MP Gordon Copeland stated today that he has received a suggestion that New Zealand should have an annual Children’s Day with a strong emphasis on child protection.
“I feel this idea should be progressed,” said Mr Copeland.
“After all we have a Mother’s Day and a Father’s Day each year, so why not a Children’s Day?”
“The suggestion I have received is that it would not be a national holiday, just a focus day and perhaps on the 1st Sunday in August each year so that it becomes linked to the death of dear little Nia Glassie.”
“I recommend that the Children’s Commissioner, the Families Commission and the Government grab hold of this idea and progress it so that we direct our thoughts on this special day, at least once a year, to the ongoing need to protect our precious children.”
Independent MP Gordon Copeland stated today that he has received a suggestion that New Zealand should have an annual Children’s Day with a strong emphasis on child protection.
“I feel this idea should be progressed,” said Mr Copeland.
“After all we have a Mother’s Day and a Father’s Day each year, so why not a Children’s Day?”
“The suggestion I have received is that it would not be a national holiday, just a focus day and perhaps on the 1st Sunday in August each year so that it becomes linked to the death of dear little Nia Glassie.”
“I recommend that the Children’s Commissioner, the Families Commission and the Government grab hold of this idea and progress it so that we direct our thoughts on this special day, at least once a year, to the ongoing need to protect our precious children.”
We are over-regulated!
This represents the number of pages of new primary legislation by decade BUT excludes secondary and tertiary legislation (regulations).
ACT's Regulatory Responsibility Bill is a rare opportunity to do something about controlling the regulators. This editorial explains rather well just what the bill proposes.
Also check out the Cut Red Tape website. If you have a story to tell about the outrageous cost in money and time of complying with pointless regulations then please tell it to the select committee considering this bill. As Rodney Hide says, if the committee doesn't hear from you they will assume there is no problem.
Unfortunately submissions close Friday BUT your written submission needn't be lengthy. Make sure you indicate you want to speak directly to the committee and save the bulk of your story for that occasion. The members will all say they have read your submission and expect to hear something different or additional anyway (my experience) plus it is a chance for them to ask you questions.
Again, I cannot stress what a rare opportunity to do something about unwelcome and unwieldy government intervention this is. Don't waste it. A little bit of time spent now could save you bucketloads in the future.
Rodney's book
Attended Rodney's book launch at Parliament last night. His brief speech was one of the best I have heard in which he spoke about the values we get from our parents and how important that is. When I began reading the first pages his thoughts echoed those I have long held - that my parents gave me absolute security. With it you can take risks and face challenges. Those of us who experience the deep-seated security only parents can provide sometimes take it for granted. I used to. I don't now because when I look around me or read through the pages of the newspaper I know that thousands of children will never experience anything remotely close to it.But I am too serious. We stopped off at a restaurant on the way home and I couldn't resist a quick dip into the pages. This is the first passage I read and it had me laughing out loud;
"My father didn't believe in stopping to eat. We would drive along chomping on sandwiches lovingly prepared by Mum but tasting of diesel, rock phosphate or whatever it was we were carting. We would also enjoy the best drink - black tea from a thermos. I thought it was the nicest meal in the world. I always considered myself lucky because before I was born my father also carted stock. He'd told me that wasn't so much fun because you had to wipe your hands on the sweat under your armpits to get the sheep shit off before eating your sandwiches. I thought the diesel and rock phosphate tasted pretty good after hearing that."
I don't usually read for pleasure. Just can't find the time except for bedtime. Typically I drop off to sleep after 4 or 5 pages of history or facts and figures. Last night I got to page 29 before pegging out. That is quite an achievement for me. And the book is quite an achievement for Rodney. Can't wait to read more.
Tuesday, August 07, 2007
Mass destruction mooted
I only read this because I was amused that Copeland and Dunne are both trying to grab the headlines over the latest dog attack. Methinks Copeland might be trying a tad too hard though with his latest suggestion;
“However any ban needs to go beyond just eliminating these dogs from our society in the future and, although I know it is a tough call, I think we need to look at the destruction of these breeds in their entirety starting from now. Our children must come first."
Say what?? How will that work? Put out a call to all dangerous dog owners (I know that's ambiguous but some owners are more dangerous than their dogs) to bring them into the pound to be destroyed? Rounding up every family pet Staffie? Gordon Bennett, Gordon. Get a grip.
“However any ban needs to go beyond just eliminating these dogs from our society in the future and, although I know it is a tough call, I think we need to look at the destruction of these breeds in their entirety starting from now. Our children must come first."
Say what?? How will that work? Put out a call to all dangerous dog owners (I know that's ambiguous but some owners are more dangerous than their dogs) to bring them into the pound to be destroyed? Rounding up every family pet Staffie? Gordon Bennett, Gordon. Get a grip.
How times change
Today Nanny vilifies and persecutes smokers, fat people, child-smackers, christians, and dog-owners but never a word is said about evil expectorators who seem to be everywhere.
"Food that travels well"
The following Lincoln University research is being quoted in the New York Times. Interesting.
* Most notably, they found that lamb raised on New Zealand's clover-choked pastures and shipped 11,000 miles by boat to Britain produced 1,520 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions per ton while British lamb produced 6,280 pounds of carbon dioxide per ton, in part because poorer British pastures force farmers to use feed.
* In other words, it is four times more energy-efficient for Londoners to buy lamb imported from the other side of the world than to buy it from a producer in their backyard. Similar figures were found for dairy products and fruit.
The only thing is English lamb is nicer than NZ lamb. I buy for flavour and tenderness.
* Most notably, they found that lamb raised on New Zealand's clover-choked pastures and shipped 11,000 miles by boat to Britain produced 1,520 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions per ton while British lamb produced 6,280 pounds of carbon dioxide per ton, in part because poorer British pastures force farmers to use feed.
* In other words, it is four times more energy-efficient for Londoners to buy lamb imported from the other side of the world than to buy it from a producer in their backyard. Similar figures were found for dairy products and fruit.
The only thing is English lamb is nicer than NZ lamb. I buy for flavour and tenderness.
Under-reporting, over-reporting
Figures released by CYF to the Herald on Sunday last week show in the year to June 30, a total of 4672 cases of child abuse - 46 per cent of the overall total - came from Maori households, compared with 27.8 per cent (2828 cases) from Pakeha families. That number for Maori is up from 45.1 per cent the previous year. The figure for Pakeha is down from 30.7 per cent. Only 2.8 per cent of abused children are Asian and 16.4 per cent are Pacific Island.
These figures struck me as too low. The reason why is CYF have left out the 'neglect' category - usually included under the general heading of 'abuse' - which adds about fifty percent more. (Unless of course the reporter left them out.)
So we have people like the Children's Commissioner over-stating the problem (because she is pushing her grand plan to monitor all children and the bigger the problem the more public buy-in she can get.) Barnardos overstating the problem (because they want more public and government funding). And you get other organisations (government) understating it probably for performance - both organisational and political - reasons.
What is noticeable however is the similarity between the year to December 2006 and the year to June 2007. 10,873 to 10,156. The number says more to me about CYF capacity than anything else. This is the number they can deal with so cases are prioritised accordingly.
These figures struck me as too low. The reason why is CYF have left out the 'neglect' category - usually included under the general heading of 'abuse' - which adds about fifty percent more. (Unless of course the reporter left them out.)
So we have people like the Children's Commissioner over-stating the problem (because she is pushing her grand plan to monitor all children and the bigger the problem the more public buy-in she can get.) Barnardos overstating the problem (because they want more public and government funding). And you get other organisations (government) understating it probably for performance - both organisational and political - reasons.
What is noticeable however is the similarity between the year to December 2006 and the year to June 2007. 10,873 to 10,156. The number says more to me about CYF capacity than anything else. This is the number they can deal with so cases are prioritised accordingly.
Monday, August 06, 2007
Blocking information
A discussion between Judith Collin's researcher and myself precipitated this release questioning the rise in the number of 16 and 17 year-olds on an invalid's benefit. What concerns me deeply is her office's inability to get questions answered by the Ministry equals my own. There isn't much point in having MPs if their access to information is blocked. Like me they are left trying to put together pieces of a puzzle and making stabs in the dark as to the true situation. It's not good enough and it's not what Labour promised. Perhaps the clamp down was a directive from David Benson-Pope. To his credit under Maharey the Ministry was more forthcoming. That may have been merely coincidental.
I made a second complaint to the Office of the Ombudsmen in February and still have not received a response. It is ironic that under the Official Information Act ministries have 20 working days to respond. Yet the office that oversees the proper implementation of the Act has no such obligation. Who scrutinises the scrutinisers?
Update; After phoning the Ombudsman's Office to chase up my complaint I was initially told the letter couldn't be located. The following day I was rung and informed it had been found but has not even been looked at yet. Great.
I made a second complaint to the Office of the Ombudsmen in February and still have not received a response. It is ironic that under the Official Information Act ministries have 20 working days to respond. Yet the office that oversees the proper implementation of the Act has no such obligation. Who scrutinises the scrutinisers?
Update; After phoning the Ombudsman's Office to chase up my complaint I was initially told the letter couldn't be located. The following day I was rung and informed it had been found but has not even been looked at yet. Great.
Sunday, August 05, 2007
Some 'noise'
Deborah Coddington's Herald on Sunday column today is also about the child abuse problem. Her angle is, politically nothing is going to change.
Act, the only party ever to have a half-decent welfare policy, has confused libertarian with libertine and reinvented itself as the "fun party", fiddling while Rome burns.
I understand that Rodney is the target of Deborah's anti-ACT barbs. But "fiddling while Rome burns" is rather unfair to Heather (who has never had a bad word for Deborah). This is Heather's area. Not Rodney's. Last week she had this and this to say. She is working as hard as any other social services spokesperson to present ACT's ideas about what would make a difference. And the quality of that presentation is better than most.
Act, the only party ever to have a half-decent welfare policy, has confused libertarian with libertine and reinvented itself as the "fun party", fiddling while Rome burns.
I understand that Rodney is the target of Deborah's anti-ACT barbs. But "fiddling while Rome burns" is rather unfair to Heather (who has never had a bad word for Deborah). This is Heather's area. Not Rodney's. Last week she had this and this to say. She is working as hard as any other social services spokesperson to present ACT's ideas about what would make a difference. And the quality of that presentation is better than most.
Cindy Kiro's claims
From the Sunday Star Times Cindy Kiro claims, in an interview with Steve Braunias;
"(But) of the 88 children killed between 2002 and 2006, 48 were Pakeha. Maori were 28. The remainder were Pacific Island and a few Asian."
In the context of the interview which was, as you would expect, about child abuse, thus deaths from maltreatment, you would expect her to quote relevant figures.
In the five years to 2003 38 children died as a result of maltreatment. From 93-98 fifty. Here are the facts;
Children killed per 100,000 aged 0-14
1991-2000
Non-Maori - 0.67
Maori - 2.40
Total - 1.07
2001-2005
Non-Maori - 0.60
Maori - 1.34
Total - 0.79
Source: Mike Doolan, Canterbury University.
The rates are falling. The 0-14 population has been steady since around 1994. Unless 2006 was an aberration her figures cannot be right. Now why would she produce such inflated figures?
"(But) of the 88 children killed between 2002 and 2006, 48 were Pakeha. Maori were 28. The remainder were Pacific Island and a few Asian."
In the context of the interview which was, as you would expect, about child abuse, thus deaths from maltreatment, you would expect her to quote relevant figures.
In the five years to 2003 38 children died as a result of maltreatment. From 93-98 fifty. Here are the facts;
Children killed per 100,000 aged 0-14
1991-2000
Non-Maori - 0.67
Maori - 2.40
Total - 1.07
2001-2005
Non-Maori - 0.60
Maori - 1.34
Total - 0.79
Source: Mike Doolan, Canterbury University.
The rates are falling. The 0-14 population has been steady since around 1994. Unless 2006 was an aberration her figures cannot be right. Now why would she produce such inflated figures?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
