Labour 's state-clad 'fabrications'

Not long ago the PM was out and about making good use of photo opportunities in the Hutt. Surprisingly I do not keep a scrapbook of the PMs press clippings. But the Mayor saw fit to mention her visit at his website;

Patrick Street

I recently joined the Prime Minister in Patrick Street, Petone, to commemorate the centenary of the first state houses built not just in New Zealand, but the world. Patrick Street and the houses on it are an important part of New Zealand’s social history.

Imagine my surprise when I saw Helen on telly last night again visiting the first state house in New Zealand. Twice in less than a year? Well, no. Not exactly. It's another 'first' state house. Just the same Prime Minister.



Today’s 70th anniversary of state housing in New Zealand highlights how an inspired policy from the First Labour Government in 1937 is still helping many New Zealand families, Prime Minster Helen Clark said today.

The Prime Minister, Housing Minister Chris Carter, and Cabinet Minister and MP for Rongotai Annette King today marked the milestone anniversary with a visit to New Zealand’s first state house at 12 Fife Lane, Miramar, Wellington. They were joined by relatives of the first tenants at the house, and the family currently living there.

Helen Clark said the anniversary marks an important turning point in New Zealand society when the First Labour Government, under Prime Minister Michael Savage, first began providing homes to New Zealanders.

Labour didn't build the first state houses. At least they didn't build the "very first state housing" which is how the PM described the Patrick Street houses in October. See the subtle difference?

"Don't mess with latecomers"

I have little of import to impart this morning. But if you feel like a good belly-laugh have a read of this from the merciless Cactus.

TheyWorkForYou.Co

For those who want to keep an eye on government is up to I recommend this site - it's more straightforward and better presented than the parliamentary website which is also a mine of information.

Some correspondence from the Dominion Post

Dear Editor

Jenny Chisholm, Letters September 17, questions the fact that 1 percent of children have a finding of abuse or neglect against them. She wonders how many more were not reported or investigated. Of all the cases reported last year just over half required further action. Of those investigated, only 37 percent resulted in an established finding of neglect or abuse. There is already a great deal of unnecessary reporting occurring.

Of course 1 percent is not good. Zero percent would be. But 1 percent does not justify mandatory screening of every New Zealand child as is the Children's Commissioner's wish.

Lindsay Mitchell

"Quitting" gives licence to criticise

Sunday media bombards us with opinion. Too much, which is an ironic thought from somebody who expends much time trying to get her opinion listened to.

I don't read much of what's on offer. But I always have a look at Deborah Coddington's because I think she is a fallible human being which, to me, makes her more interesting and unpredictable. This made me stop and consider;

I have seen enough of the usual suspects rounded up to comment every time some crisis hits the leafy suburbs, and I am sure viewers were tired of hearing my opinions. That's why I quit television and radio commentary.

There's rent-a-quote for every issue - Christine Rankin, Bob McCroskie, Garth McVicar, Mai Chen, Gary Gottlieb, David Farrar, Russell Brown, et cetera, ad nauseam. It's predictable, therefore unchallenging.

Is this a crisis of confidence? DC doesn't want to do TV and radio but still wants to write opinion. I am sympathetic. Any rational person is mindful of how holding a strong conviction can look like obsession. Actually to keep going requires a certain obsessiveness. You can be very bruised by the inference and therefore dismissal that you are a quack, a nutter, or extremist.

Take Garth McVicar and the hatchet job Steve Braunias did on him a couple of weeks back. What Grath did was decide to take his message to the public - not enough heed is paid to victims of crime. What could be wrong with that? Yet he is more often derided than supported.

Bob McCoskrie, who I certainly don't always agree with, has nevertheless been doing a great job turning his convictions into action.

Does DC really think people were bored with her views or has she just lost the zeal to put them in person? People deserve a break and she is entitled to 'retire' from public view but in the process it is somewhat churlish to criticise those who have not - or at least the process that airs their opinions.

A good advocate should experience a tension between self-consciousness and courage of conviction. That keeps them grounded and human. It also made DC a good listen and a good listener. Personally, as mercurial as I sometimes think she can be, I think her radio and TV withdrawal is a loss.

Australia - Adopt out children of drug addicts

An Australian parliamentary report has recommended adopting out children of drug addicts. The chair of the committee said, the children would benefit from being given "a real chance at life", instead of living with parents who only wanted them to claim welfare payments.

The report has created quite a stir. It also says that drug treatment programmes should be aiming to cure addictions and not funded if they aren't. Here and in Australia it would seem programmes tend to simply maintain people and reduce crime. Can a case be made for them even if they only do the second? I would have thought so but it doesn't follow the same people should be supported/encouraged to have families.

ACT polls 6% in Wellington

A new poll commissioned by the DomPost has regional breakdown of polling. While ACT's overall poll was still 1 percent the regional breakdown showed most of it was concentrated in Wellington with 1 percent in Auckland and 0 in Christchurch.

I find this result incredibly encouraging. This is the thinking vote. And if it is at the expense of any other party it is Labour. Those who understand politics understand where ACT fits into the spectrum as a liberal party. Well done to Heather and Rodney who are keeping it alive where they spend most of their time. If we can poll 6 percent in Wellington we can poll 6 percent in the other areas. No other minor party had a similar result (except perhaps the Greens getting 12 percent in Christchurch.)

Regulation of risk

Yesterday I delivered my submission on the Regulatory Responsibility Bill. I focussed on the regulation of risk. The written submission is a little lengthy but the notes I used for the oral submission (I only had ten minutes) are below.

But first, funnily enough this morning I spotted this little piece in the DomPost which confirms something I mentioned in my written submission; the endless tinkering with the DPB legislation (part of the Social Security Act) because it wasn't properly scrutinised at the outset. The original Social Security Act (1938) gave certain groups a statutory entitlement to other people's money and the ensuing wrangling over it has been interminable.



Oral Submission notes for select committee - the regulation of risk

Accidents happen. The expression seems to have dropped out of common usage.But it’s time we started using it again and MPs and Ministers could take the lead.

When it comes to regulation of risk there should be a ‘do nothing’ option.

I don’t believe there can be any doubt that we are now over-regulated but it isn’t just this country.

I have taken the liberty of getting copies for each of you of a report written by members of the British Better Regulation Commission – Risk, Responsibility and Regulation. This book is full of examples of over-reactions to risk. For example dangerous dog legislation and mandatory school lunch box inspections. Some, as you would expect, mirror this country. I understand how stretched your time is but if you can read just one page have a look at page 34 entitled “Naked streets – handing back responsibility.”

In a nutshell the naked streets policy, originated in the Netherlands but adopted in some parts of Britain, involves removing road-markings, street signs, traffic signals etc. Counter-intuitively this has reduced speeds and accidents. Why? Simply because people become more careful and cautious when they aren’t being told what to do.

The ‘naked streets’ policy is a great analogy for remedying over –regulation in all sorts of areas.

But as MPs and Ministers, you may find resisting calls for government – spurred on by the media - to ‘do something’, near impossible. As the BRC points out, you are criticised for both intervening and for failing to act. Damned if you do and damned if you don’t.

What you need are mechanisms to demonstrate that more regulation might not be the answer. Britain has established the BRC to act as a watchdog and advisor to the public and government. We could do even better than that by adopting the Regulatory Responsibility Bill.

And you are going to need it. Leaving aside business regulation there will continue to be calls to regulate all social aspects of our lives – what we eat and drink, how we raise our children, and what we do with our money. You are going to face calls to ban;

Pokie machines, access to birth and death certificates, cigarette smoking, gang patches, direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising, pies and sausage rolls in schools, the docking of dog’s tails, food advertising during children’s programmes, dangerous dogs, fireworks, artificial sweeteners etc, etc. A number of vocal lobbyists have an overwhelming faith that government should be involved in all of these areas.

But I don’t believe most MPs agree. You need some form of protection from those who want to misuse state power. For your own sake and that of future MPs I urge you to recommend this bill be passed.

Red/Green socialists stand in the Hutt

Out and about yesterday I noticed some new election signs with VAN on them. The only other things I took in were the featured candidate was quite young and he was promising free and frequent public transport and lower rates. That's right.

Of course my interest was slightly, just slightly tweaked.

Here is the rest of what VAN, Valley Action Network want;

"A Human City where people come before big business interests;

Action on climate change and zero tolerance for polluters;

Free Council services; Community Boards for all, with extra powers;

Free and frequent public transport;

Rates reductions for residents before greedy corporations."

This is mixed news. These people could be very handy. They will split the left vote. But they could also increase it.

It's a shame their obvious enthusiasm and energy - great name and website - are wasted on defunct ideas. People need business and business needs people. Period.

(I can agree with their policy of stopping rates remission to attract economic development which I have always opposed.)

There is still a glimmer of light

Thanks to Mike E for posting this. I have pinched it and savoured it. This is exactly what needs to be said in Parliament. Nothing could highlight better for me why I support ACT and why National does not get within a cat's whisker. Fantastic speech with an ironic interjection from Hone 'let's ban tobacco' Harawira and downright foolish interjections from Clayton Cosgrove.

MISUSE OF DRUGS (CLASSIFICATION OF BZP) AMENDMENT BILL
First Reading

RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT): It is very interesting to follow first of all Nandor Tanczos from the Green Party and then Judy Turner from the United Future party. It is interesting to compare the approaches, because within the two approaches I think we see the two extremes on this bill. I have to say that the *ACT party stands firmly beside the Green Party’s position. Let me just explain what Judy Turner’s position is. She and her party declared themselves here today to be prohibitionists, because she said that if we knew then what we know now, we would have banned alcohol and tobacco. What I like about Judy Turner and United Future’s position is that they are at least consistent. She says we should do is ban all new things that could hurt us, and once it is assumed by the *State that they are OK and Judy Turner says that they are OK, then people would be allowed to use them. So in Judy Turner’s conception, there would be no alcohol, there would be no tobacco, there would probably be no sugar, there would probably be no ice cream—
Hone Harawira: No rugby.
RODNEY HIDE: —certainly no rugby, and probably not a lot of fun, because we would have the “fun police” banning anything that might have some element of risk.
R Doug Woolerton: What a load of rubbish this is!
RODNEY HIDE: I could not agree with Doug Woolerton more that this bill is a load of rubbish.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Tell that to the mums and dads.
RODNEY HIDE: Well, Mr Clayton Cosgrove says I should tell that to the mums and dads. It is a very instructive thing that Mr Cosgrove came down to this House, as he was going to solve the problem of boy racers with legislation. So we got ourselves all into a fury, and I think it was the ACT party and the Green Party that voted against that, too.
We warned the Minister then that passing…
We warned the Minister then that passing legislation would not deal with the problem. Let me tell Mr Cosgrove, Mr Woolerton, and the mums and dads who are listening that we will not solve the drug problem in this Parliament. We will not solve the problem through prohibition. We will not solve the problem by passing laws. Mr Woolerton well knows, I think, that more harm is done by alcohol and tobacco than by party pills. More harm is done, and they are sitting there, banning something because of a perceived problem and because Judy Turner says that the horse has already bolted on alcohol and tobacco. But here is the real problem. Judy Turner went on to say that the Green Party goes on about people getting arrested and she asked whether that was the reason we should not have laws against violence. Actually, we have laws against violence because that is an infringement of other people’s rights. But for people who are taking benzylpiperazine or who are having a cigarette or drinking some alcohol, the damage they are doing is, in the main, to themselves and not to another human being, and there is a fundamental difference between the two.
Hon Member: Have a look at road deaths.
RODNEY HIDE: Well, road deaths are the same. That is why we have road rules, and that is why the ACT party supports road rules. Here is the next point. This Government—and, indeed, the previous National Government was worse—could not keep drugs out of our jails. We have people locked up, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, under heavy surveillance, and we cannot keep the drugs out. Yet we are sitting here in Parliament passing a law as though we can somehow keep drugs out of our streets, out of our pubs, and out of our communal places.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Live and let live.
RODNEY HIDE: I think that to live and let live is not a bad place to start, I say to Mr Cosgrove. It is better than having a policy of saying that we do not like it, so let us ban it and lock up anyone who disagrees with us. In fact, let us go further, I say to Mr Cosgrove, and say that if anyone even has a political disagreement with us, we should ban that person as well. We could say we will ban the party pills and we will ban political debate because they do not suit us. We could say that any people who disagree, who say that people might have some rights and responsibilities, and who say that they would rather live in a society where people had some choices apart from what the Government chooses, including the choice to make mistakes, should be banned. I am looking at Mr Woolerton. He has made a few.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Why have laws, then—why have any laws?
RODNEY HIDE: Is it not a surprising thing that I hear a Minister of the Crown calling across the House: “Why have rules?”.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Because many rules don’t stop people doing wrong, do they?
RODNEY HIDE: Let me explain to Mr Cosgrove why we have rules and why we do not legislate for everything. We have rules in order to protect people’s rights and to uphold the rights of citizens in a free State. That is why we have rules, that is why we have a State, that is why we have a court system, and that is why we have police. We do not have rules to stop people in expressing their political views, to stop people taking risks, or to stop people making terribly stupid mistakes, because that is part of being an adult and a responsible human being. We cannot sit here in this House and legislate away all harm, as this Government thinks it can. We cannot actually legislate for good behaviour, but we can legislate in a way that protects people’s basic rights. I have to say that when we go beyond that, then I think that this Parliament overreaches itself. It suggests, somehow, that the Government and this Parliament are the solution to problems that we cannot solve.
Are we to live in a society that says that this Parliament will decide all the risk
Are we going to live in a society that says that this Parliament will decide all risk, that this Parliament will decide what is right and wrong, and that if Parliament has not banned it, it is OK to use—which is exactly what Judy Turner’s position was. I abhor drugs, actually. I do not understand why anyone would want to take any, as I think that the most wonderful thing in the universe is the human mind because of what it can grasp, comprehend, and conceive. I do not know why anyone would want to be taking drugs and playing with it. But my mind also says to me that we are barking up the wrong tree in thinking somehow that we can pass a law and ban party pills, and that prohibition will somehow work. I find it astonishing that in the year 2007 we have, with Judy Turner, a serious political party that is saying: “Oh well, you know, if we had our time again we would ban alcohol and cigarettes, and we would ban a whole number of things; it is just that at the time we didn’t think of it.” I have to say that that is not the sort of society I think that New Zealanders want to live in. I think that New Zealanders want to live in a society where they do have some freedom, that coming along with that freedom is some responsibility, and that it is not Parliament or Government that decides how they should live, what they should take, and what risks are acceptable to them. I look around this House and, from what I know of members, I know that we all went through a stage of being young once, of experimenting with things, and of taking risks. It is actually called growing up. But do we in this House somehow think that we can pass a law that will stop young people from experimenting and trying different things? What I truly despise about this law is that it wraps up all drugs as being the same, and I think that that is the terrible message this law is sending our young people. But the message I have for the mums and dads of New Zealand, I tell Mr Cosgrove, is that all drugs are not the same, and I fear for young people. I am afraid that I know people who have had the experience where they have tried drugs this Parliament has banned, and have said: “Well, that wasn’t so bad. That didn’t kill me. What Parliament and the Government said about that drug isn’t true.”, and they have gone on to try other drugs. So I believe that we are doing a harm with this legislation—we are not doing good.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Doctors disagree with you.
RODNEY HIDE: Well, it is all right, I tell Mr Cosgrove. This is Parliament and he is allowed to disagree. It is also the case that we are also allowed to explain our view—to explain why the ACT party is opposing this bill and voting against it. Thank you.

BZP - banning more dangerous than using

National MP Jacqui Dean really does take the biscuit. She is fully aware of what banning BZP will do.

"We don't want to see this industry going underground, where backyard manufacturers operate without restrictions, and where the ingredients in pills are totally unregulated. New, untested, alternatives are reportedly already on the horizon. Potentially, that puts the public at even greater risk."

The existing and ongoing failure of drug law enforcement guarantees that the above is a sure fire development.

Thanks National.

The causes of "poverty" in the developed world

The following is an interview about "poverty" in the US. The same questions and answers would broadly apply to New Zealand or any other welfare state.

Robert Rector of The Heritage Foundation is a national authority on poverty and the U.S. welfare system. Specializing in welfare reform and family breakdown, Rector has done extensive research on the economic and social costs of welfare.

With presidential candidates of a certain hue decrying the suffering of the 37 million Americans who have been officially classified as poor by the U.S. Census Bureau, we thought we'd ask Rector if these poor people are really as poverty-stricken as we have been led to believe. I talked to the author of “America's Failed $5.4 Trillion War on Poverty” Thursday, Sept. 6, by telephone from his office in Washington:

Q: John Edwards and others lament that 37 million Americans struggle with incredible poverty every day. You say it is not so simple or accurate to think of them as truly poor. What do you mean?

A: Well, when John Edwards says that one in eight Americans do not have enough money for food, shelter or clothing, that’s generally what the average citizen is thinking about when they hear the word “poverty.” But if that’s what we mean by poverty, then virtually none of these 37 million people that are ostensibly poor are actually poor. In reality, the government runs multiple surveys that allow us to examine the physical living conditions of these individuals in great detail.

When you look at the people who John Edwards insists are poor, what you find is that the overwhelming majority of them have cable television, have air conditioning, have microwaves, have two color TVs; 45 percent of them own their own homes, which are typically three-bedroom homes with 1{1/2} baths in very good recondition. On average, poor people who live in either apartments or in houses are not crowded and actually have more living space than the average person living in European countries, such as France, Italy or England.

Also, a lot of people believe that poor people are malnourished. But in fact when you look at the average nutriment intake of poor children, it is virtually indistinguishable from upper-middle-class children. In fact, poor kids by the time they reach age 18 or 19 are taller and heavier than the average middle-class teenagers in the 1950s at the time of Elvis. And the boys, when they reach 18, are a full one inch taller and 10 pounds heavier than the GIs storming the beaches of Normandy. It’s pretty hard to accomplish that if you are facing chronic food shortages throughout your life.

More

Getting tougher?

In 1972 there were 15,500 on sickness and invalid benefits (pop 2.9 million). Today there are around 125,000. If there is one thing that is needed to curtail the constant growth in sickness and invalid benefits it is tightening eligibility.

Just announced, as of September 24th people will be able to qualify for either of these benefits with a certificate from their GP. Go figure.

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;

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.'

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.

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)

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Irony

If I was a satirist/cartoonist I would link these two stories.

In one field we have a band of Maori prisoners industriously planting kumara, kamokamo and Maori corn and in the next field there is a farmer scratching his head while his ready-to-pick asparagus begins to rot.