Nelson top region for violence disclosure

Media Release
NELSON TOP REGION FOR VIOLENCE DISCLOSURE
Thursday, October 11, 2007

In the financial year to June 2007 3,817 Work and Income clients disclosed family violence to their case managers.

"The average number of family violence disclosures was 1.5 per 100 beneficiaries," according to welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell.

"Surprisingly this number almost triples to 4.4 in the Nelson region. The number is also significantly larger than the next highest region, Bay of Plenty, at 2.9 disclosures."

"Put another way while the Nelson region is home to less than 4 percent of working age beneficiaries it accounts for over 11 percent of family violence disclosures. "

"Earlier this week the Christchurch Press reported that the Nelson Women's Refuge was turning people away. Their manager, Cindy Kawana claimed the violence is getting worse and said, 'There would currently be six women who we wonder if they will die next time.' "

"There is every likelihood these women are also known to Work and Income who have admitted that there is a significant overlap between their clientèle and that of CYFs. "

"The DPB was historically about enabling women to escape violence yet we appear to have more family violence then ever before. The reality is a steady and secure benefit often makes a single mother attractive to potentially dangerous males; those who would rather spend their own income on drugs and alcohol."

ACC to benefit

A reader expressed an interest in how many people moved from ACC to a benefit. Here is a breakdown. In the year to August 2005 956 people moved from ACC to a benefit. Although the figures below only go to 2005 I have seen figures for the invalid's benefit up to 2007 which confirm the overall downward trend.

National MP - a foolish woman

Jacqui Dean's bid to have party pills banned looks more and more ridiculous. You know something has to be off the scale when Sue Kedgeley can recognise 'inconsistency'.

Now we have the danger of toddlers taking party pills introduced into the argument. Anybody with an ounce of nous knows some toddlers will put anything resembling a sweet or a sweet drink in their mouths. And they do. What is particularly unique about party pills?

There have been no deaths of children (or adults for that matter) due to ingestion of BZP.

There have been deaths of children who have taken their parent's take-home methadone - not here but in Scotland. Ban methadone. That's the answer.

Oh look. Better ban vitamin tablets while we are at it; The amount of iron contained in children's and adult vitamins can be enough to kill a child when taken in excessive amounts. In 1997, the FDA implemented rules that require unit-dose packaging for iron-containing products with 30 milligrams or more of iron per dosage unit. For a small child, as little as 600 milligrams of iron can be fatal.

Then we should move on to anti-depressants and anti-hypertensive medications; Tofranil [imipramine], an antidepressant drug also used for childhood bedwetting, and Catapres [clonidine], a high blood pressure medicine, can be very hazardous because it takes very little to produce life-threatening problems in children. One tablet may do it.

Next ban turps, lighter fluid, bleach....Children have died after swallowing such everyday substances as charcoal, lighter fluid, paint thinner and remover, antifreeze, turpentine and pesticides.

I need not go on.

The only ban that would really make a difference is a ban on stupidity.

Sticking it to the poor

Classically Liberal blogs on which party is sticking it to the poor.

The surplus

...released today $8,663,000,000

or $3,079 per working-age New Zealander.



(Left click on image to enlarge)

Out of interest does anybody know exactly what Core Government Services covers? Huge increase there.

Welfare spending - up again

The cost of transfer payments according to the just released Government Financial Statements. The first column is 2007 actual and the second column is 2006. The numbers speak for themselves. All up another 8.6 percent increase in spending.

New Milestone Reached

Media Release

NEW MILESTONE IN INCAPACITY BENEFITS REACHED
Wednesday, 10 October, 2007

According to figures released by National MP, Judith Collins, August 2007 has seen the number of people on Invalid and Sickness benefits reach a new milestone.

Welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell says that the total number of Invalid and Sickness beneficiaries has grown 56 percent in the last ten years. "To put this into perspective the working-age population (15-64) has grown by only 14 percent over the same period."

"Despite programmes to address the problems that are preventing beneficiaries from returning to work the government seems incapable of curbing the growth, much of which is coming from increases in psychological and psychiatric conditions, migration from other benefits, longer stays and easy eligibility."

"While the public is happy to support genuine cases it is far less clear whether they are happy to support people whose incapacity to work is self-induced or who are simply refusing to face up to their problems due to the availability of welfare."

"Instead of applying some rigorous gate-keeping the government has now changed the rules to allow family GPs to certify or re-certify people eligible for these benefits. Nothing they are currently doing would indicate we can expect a drop in the numbers. In fact Treasury predicts a 21 percent increase in expenditure on these benefits over the next 4 years. "

Interview

Larry Williams is talking to me about the press release below at 4.10 pm at NewstalkZB.

Dubious claims do cause no favours

A woman has established an outfit she calls Candor Trust and is running a campaign against drugged driving and in particular, driving by methadone patients. Obviously I have no problem with this. But I wish she would substantiate her claims. A press release from yesterday is quite typical;

A woman has appeared in Court on drug driving charges today in relation to incidents of dangerous driving in the Bay of Plenty. The methadone patient drove dangerously after sleeping in the car at a service station, with children aboard and other motorists had to evade.

Candor Trust says this scenario is quite common as shown by the ESR drug driving study results which show about a dozen dead methadone drivers over the last 2 years.

Using the formula applied to alcohol harm it can be safely assumed methadone drivers were also implicated in a similar number of innocents deaths (on the road).

This is a grossly disproportionate level of road trauma in relation to the actual numbers of methadone patients. It constitutes involvement in 10% of the road toll by under 1% of the population, and double the involvement of untreated heroin addicts.

OK. That's 6 dead methadone drivers a year and an assumption of 6 associated deaths of 'innocent' people. The yearly road toll to October 9, 2007 is 399. How do 12 deaths become 10 percent?

Go the website and read such claims as;

About 1 in 50 Kiwis now die due to a crash - and over 1/2 the deaths are due to intoxicated drivers.

According to the LTSA, in 2005 29 percent of fatal crashes had driver alcohol as a factor. Again a significant difference between 29 percent and over 50 percent.

I reiterate I have no problem with people campaigning against problems but this sort of dubious information does her cause, and in a broader sense the internet, no favours.

Mike Moore's prediction

Undeterred, and why should he be, Mike Moore is off again making predictions and handing out advice. In the Features page of today's Dominion Post he calls next year's election result. It will be a, "red, green, brown and grey coalition, grey being UnitedFuture's decisive colour. Labour's secret weapon as always is the National Party's arrogance and sense of entitlement."

(Which prompted me to speculate that National want to give close consideration to what happened to the All Blacks on Sunday.)

Then he goes off on a tangent about last week's Te Puni Kokiri report, Maori in Australia, (over 100,000 of them) which I briefly blogged about. After a tirade against Willie Jackson, that Marxist media magnate from Mangere he concludes;

"A serious opposition party preparing for government would get this report to a select committee and do the hard policy yards."

Actually a serious incumbent government would be having a decent look at the report's findings and asking themselves what they are doing wrong. Most of the 'desertion' has happened under Labour. When asked, which year did you arrive in Australia to live, 2000 was the highest year ever, followed by 2004 and then 1999.

If Moore is right about his fourth Labour government we can expect to continue to lose what he calls the ambitious people.

Thousands exempted from penalties for not naming fathers

Media Release

THOUSANDS EXEMPTED FROM PENALTIES FOR NOT NAMING FATHERS
Monday, October 8, 2007

The government has been claiming a substantial drop in the number of single parents incurring a section 70A deduction from their benefit for refusing to name the father of their child and/or failing to apply for child support.

"In fact, over 3,000 single parents have now been exempted from any penalty but have still failed to name the father or other parent," Lindsay Mitchell, welfare commentator, said today.

"In 2005 I argued at select committee that raising the section 70A penalty from $22 to $28 per week was a waste of time. In truth, having any penalty is a mere token gesture to satisfy the moral sensitivities of taxpayers."

"That over 3,000 beneficiaries have been excused from penalty demonstrates the Ministry's lack of commitment to its own policy."

"Think about," says Mitchell. "You can be sure that if the DPB wasn't available many more women would be naming the fathers of their children as they sought his financial support through the courts. Then again, if the DPB wasn't available, far fewer women would choose to have a child unsupported by a partner."

"As it stands we have a system that acts to both replace fathers and pursue them. That results in many mothers being quite happy to survive on just the DPB. And tens of thousands of fathers paying the bare minimum of $14 per week in child support."

"The system is a travesty. It produces thousands more fatherless children, on paper or otherwise, than would have been the case without well-meaning interference."

A few words before moving on

Worse than losing the World Cup is reading and listening to all the drivel about it.

For instance, if you are utterly wrapped up in sport it's pretty dumb to go using rock lyrics to make a point;

This was the year, the optimists decreed, that New Zealand would win four major titles - the cricket World Cup, America's Cup, Rugby World Cup and netball world championship.

Well the first three went west, with only the yachties making the final.

The pressure is now on the Silver Ferns' shoulders.

To paraphrase the hamburger-hoovering Meatloaf: "one out o' four, ain't bad".

And psychologists?? Like where is the psychologist who will save me from psychologists;

Psychologist Marc Wilson said shattered fans could ease their anguish by sticking to the World Cup till the bitter end. (I thought we'd already reached that?)

"If I was giving a prescription I would say, convince yourself we would have won if it wasn't for the referee cheating, and at least a southern hemisphere team is going to win," the Victoria University school deputy head said.

An academic. No wonder. Irrational advice.

We should want the French to win as they are the team that beat us. At least then we will be second best...

But this is not a time for rationality it would seem.

In, thanks for reminding us, Mental Health Week this twit from Victoria is telling people to do what is the very thing that gets us deep in the shite every time - blame someone or something else. Disgusting

And on a serious note. If you thought you had a bad day yesterday spare a thought for Trevor Mallard whose father passed away. I never say anything good about Trevor but that's politics. It saddens me deeply when I read about the loss of a parent. My sincere sympathies to Trevor and his family.

The rest of you. Get over it.

Another half-arsed policy

Here's a quote from a column in the NZ Herald by Paula Oliver;

Key refers to some core principles of the party that won't change - tax cuts, smaller government, a tougher stance on law and order, mutual obligation on welfare, and a fundamentally greater trust of the private sector to play a role.

I only want to focus on one aspect - mutual obligation on welfare.

The problem with mutual obligation is it cements in welfare. It legitimises benefit use far beyond what Michael Joseph Savage ever intended. Welfare dependence was supposed to be a temporary condition - not a way of life.

By mutual obligation National means, for instance, making single parents on the DPB get their children to school with breakfast on board. Do that and it is quite OK to have children and expect the taxpayer to support them.

This of course does nothing to reverse the effect that the DPB has had on self-sufficient, two parent families.

Work-for-the-dole is another mutual obligation policy with pitfalls, being expensive to run and competing with the private sector.

Mutual obligation means looking for a job or training for one. How come one individual has to pay for their tertiary education while another gets it courtesy of the taxpayer?

No. Mutual obligation is just an attempt to damage control the current failed system. It does nothing to address the core problem of intergenerational dependency and the inherent injustice of one significant sector of society making lifestyle choices at the expense of another. It is also firmly at odds with National's "smaller government" principle.

Good taste

I think I'm safe. I may be blonde but I have no tattoos.

Useful website

Rod Deane has a website, Independent Economics. I have linked to the page featuring his presentation, The State of the Nation - An Economic Overview of New Zealand, which is full of interesting graphs like the ones below.







I was just musing about the middle one. It may be the lefthand axis will have to be extended downwards in coming years or the bar will disappear!

Oh and picture this. While Dear Leader delivered her glorious skite card to the Southampton University earlier in the week unbeknownst to her these graphs (and there are many more) are projected behind her - one after the other.

What a comic but tragic juxtaposition. There's a romanticism about being poor but happy. Trouble is I'm not sure we got the second half of the deal.

Smoking ban extends to homes

It was always apparent to me that the anti-smoking brigade would never stop at banning smoking in public places. This is the first attempt I have seen to pass legislation to prevent smoking in homes. It's in the Californian city of Calabasas. In the country that locks up more people for drug offences than any other, could we (well, perhaps not me) one day see tobacco added to the list of illegal substances?

"Blogging Back"

A comment from this week's Molesworth and Featherston

Blogging back

We’re fascinated to watch Labour’s fightback in the blogosphere, with the launch of a partyaligned blog, The Standard. Labour has trailed among bloggers, leaving commentary on the left to the likes of more left No Right Turn and the Greens' Frog Blog. Commentator Russell Brown’s Public Address is the granddaddy of New Zealand blogs, and sympathetic to Labour, but National has been reaping the gains of an enormous readership for David Farrar’s Kiwiblog - its daily readership rivals a modest daily newspaper. Just as important as their enormous readership, though, the blogs are influencing editorial content. Where they once drew their cues from mainly from talkback, reporters are now also daily watching the main blogs as straws in the wind. It helps give editorial weighting to the salience of issues. Labour scored a hit with a brutal (and unfairly edited) video of John Key at the Porirua weekend market. National have owned this space for a while. Blogs aren’t new any more, but their political sophistication, reach and influence is growing.

I am sure you can find Labour's blog if you want to. I had a look and my only reaction is I am tired of blogs run by people who won't put their name to them.

It is interesting also that Labour belatedly gets a blog going as their Electoral Finance Bill clamps down on free speech but exempts non-commercial blogs from the status of "election advertisements".

Very funny Mr Locke

Really. His comment here is very funny. He is responding to John Key, who justified the omission of Iraq from National's defence saying the war in Iraq is over.

Doesn't make sense

Helen Clark addresses the Southampton University with Social Democracy Under the Southern Cross. In effect it is a glorious and lengthy skite card.

Read what you can and then mentally finish it off with...

"And this is why polls are showing only a third of New Zealanders want my party and me to continue in government."

Doesn't make sense does it?

DPB - how we compare to the UK, Australia and US

In the United Kingdom single parents qualify for a Lone Parent benefit. Its availability pretty much matches ours. The government is proposing reforms as follows;

Work and Pensions Secretary Peter Hain revealed that from October next year, the Government intends to require that single parents seek work when their youngest child reaches 12 - rather than the current 16.

The age limit will fall to seven in October 2010, by which time it will affect 40 per cent of the 776,000 single parents in the UK.

Very timid. I explained why here when criticising National's proposals.

But look at the number of sole parents on that particular benefit - 776,000

Without going into detailed demographic analysis, based purely on the total population, divide that number by 15 and you get 51,733.

Using the same formula Australia (now work-testing their Parenting Payment when youngest is six) has around 86,000.

The US has just under 1,000,000 adults receiving their DPB replacement (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) which would equate to only 13,000 after adjusting for population size.

New Zealand currently has 96,000 on the DPB. Most are single parents and many single parents are dependent on other benefits.

I reiterate these are not highly specific calculations but I think you'll get the picture.

I believe I can safely say we lead the world in single parent state dependency. I guess that coincides with being a leading feminist state.

NZ smokers are a cash cow

In the US Democrats have proposed hiking tax on cigarettes to pay for increased coverage of child health insurance. As the article points out this is a regressive tax because more low income people smoke than high income. As per NZ.

Apart from the gems of irrationality contained (increasing cigarette tax will stop people smoking therefore reducing the revenue stream required??) what caught my eye was the amount of federal and state taxes collected from cigarette sales - $21 billion.

Without going into elaborate calculations about demographics and the very latest revenue figures, it is immediately obvious that New Zealanders are paying a s..tload more tax on cigarettes than Americans.

In 2004 NZ smokers paid $819 million (which by the way is estimated at around 3-4 times more than their associated health costs).

Multiply that by a factor of 75 and you get $61.425 billion - nearly three times what the Americans pay.

Instead of treating smokers with disdain we should be making a point of, each time we brush past one shivering outside, thanking them for subsidising government services.

And it's a joke that we pride ourselves on caring about the poor in this country. We make them pay through the nose for what is often their only 'luxury'.

An impossible ask

The Christchurch Press features a pretty damning editorial about National and its recent performance ending with..... it should act like a party which says what it means and means what it says.

That, I feel, is asking the impossible. National doesn't know what it stands for. It is now so philosophically compromised it doesn't know "what it means". It is starting to resemble the Green Party with lots of members with their own agendas. I also suspect that despite their morale-boosting run with the polls they are not particularly cohesive. You only have to ask yourself the question; how could an MP who had been happy under Don Brash's leadership be equally happy under John Key's?

Duh

Continuing with the crime stats this statement from TVNZ is ....braindead;

According to new crime statistics, there was more violent crime and more sexual offending this year but on the posiitve side more criminals were put behind bars.

It would be more understandable if crime was increasing because fewer criminals were being locked up. The two together would make sense.

That more criminals are being removed from society and violent crime continues to climb (most people in prison are there for violent convictions) is actually cause for concern. It is not a "positive".

(And that's their spelling mistake too.)

Good news post

That crime statistics are steady is good news.

Recorded offences for the fiscal year increased by only 115 (0.03%) and recorded crime per 10,000 of population decreased by just over 1% during the year. Police resolved 2,194 more offences than in the previous twelve months taking the resolution rate from 44.2% to 44.7%.

These are very pleasing results from a policing perspective said Assistant Commissioner Grant Nicholls.

An increase in violent crime is also good news because it indicates a successful focus on domestic violence.

An increase of 4.4% in violence in part reflects the continuing focus on domestic violence and the continuing community intolerance to acts of family violence. Reporting of such crimes is going up.

50 murders is good news because it isn't 59

It is pleasing that murders were down to 50 for the year from 59.

The increase in sexual crime is also good news because it indicates police are working with other agencies

Sexual offences, which make up only 0.8% of recorded crime and known to be significantly under-reported, increased by 4.6% which also reflects Police working with other agencies and an increase in the trend to report such crimes as a result of increasing public awareness and reduced tolerance by society.

An increase in property damage offences is good news because it reflects a focus on graffiti

The increase of 8.4% in property damage offences reflects Police and local communities focusing on alcohol abuse and graffiti.

And finally, the decrease in crime in northern districts is very good news

"The very encouraging reductions in crime in the three Auckland Districts is a result of the tremendous work by staff in those Districts combined with the increase in the numbers of staff over the past two years."

Phew. So much good news. It's hard to take it all in.

Thought for the day

This quote from Herbert Spencer rather sums up the run-away welfare state;

"The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools."

Lovely jubbly - more MPs

Let's have an electorate seat based in the United Kingdom seen as over 100,000 Kiwis live there. We could call it Earl's Court. And then let's have 5 electorate seats based in Australia seen as around 500,000 New Zealanders live there. Oh, OK. One of them can be a Maori electorate seat as 1 in 5 Kiwis living in Australia is Maori. Pita Sharples already has a name for it.

This is a great idea. More MPs.

Seriously, Pita has probably read this from the new Te Puni Kokiri report, Maori in Australia - "...it may well be that Maori in Australia make up a surprisingly large proportion of those voting in New Zealand elections in Australia, and that Maori in Australia greatly prefer the General roll over the Maori roll."

I wonder why? Perhaps it's because, as the report describes, they go to Australia to escape the separateness, where there is a multicultural environment they can fit in with happily. Also from the report,

"Many say leaving NZ has made them feel free - of daily negative news stories about Maori, of whanau obligations and of limited expectations either they or others had of themselves that stopped them striving for success. In Australia, they are aggregated with Pakeha New Zealanders as 'Kiwis' which is a positive rather than a negative, by and large. Research shows that many Maori consider that their relations with Pakeha are better in Australia than in New Zealand."

It doesn't sound to me like these people will be rushing to embrace the backwards looking, victimhood propagating Maori Party.

Myopic minions

This story is bad enough on its own - a barman questioning a woman who was drinking a low-alcohol beer - but the poll that accompanies it showing three quarters of people thought he was right is just sickening to the nth degree.

I cannot believe how many people think they have the right to stick their noses into other people's business. Is it any wonder we have such a meddling, snooping nanny state. It's a mirror of its myopic minions.

Less freedom to operate

Katherine Rich is smarter than many in National BUT she went wet on welfare and got dropped for it and now she is going wet on education.

Key said education spokeswoman Katherine Rich was not in favour of bulk funding and the party was considering her position. No formal decision had been made and the matter had yet to go before caucus.

Well done WINZ

According to the Herald on Sunday sacked Auckland University professor Paul Buchanan thought he needed to visit WINZ.

He said he had visited Work and Income New Zealand to apply for the dole, but gave up on it because the $178 a week was "not worth my while" and he thought the questioning too intrusive.

So he didn't need to visit after all. If $178 isn't worth his while then he isn't on his arse. Which is what a safety net is about. I am very pleased he was sent to a course along with "some other men who looked like they had been on the drink for many years"

This is exactly the sort of process Work and Income should be using because it helps those who desperately need advise and job-seeking skills and it deters those who really don't need the dole. Well done WINZ.

Where your money goes

How do reporters get their facts so wrong? In this story the girl was two and the boy four although during the period of abuse and neglect the girl was only 1, barely walking. It was the boy who was burnt, not the girl.

And if you are wondering, yes, you were paying for her lifestyle.

Get a job

More common sense we needed research to confirm.

All working women reported greater "life satisfaction" than housewives with no paid job. The findings held true both for mothers and childless women. Men were happier working full time.

Timing

Is this very good or very bad timing? I suppose it depends on whether you are the witness who says Wednesday's shooting victim was calm and stepping towards the police or the witness who said he was aggressively running at the police. Perception is everything.

What can you say

First they u-turned on old policies and now they are u-turning on new ones.

"Libertarian paternalism"

What an interesting essay this is. It wonderfully describes the conflict between Libertarian purists and those with libertarian leanings. I am in the second group. And according to this piece I really should be ashamed of myself.

But I'm not. I fully understand the writer's point. And I am glad I read his piece because it reminds me never to describe anything I propose to reform welfare as "libertarian." Fair enough. I haven't got enough time to try and convince people that the state should have no role in education, health or welfare. I figure I've got twenty-odd years to try and achieve change and improvement.

I see three options. Status quo, better or best. Best is riskiest. It's possibly utopian. Because it's riskiest very few people are buying it. I'm opting for better.

So if I ever get my reform ideas for welfare into print don't expect purist libertarian solutions.

Having said that I fully sympathise with the purists viewpoint. I admire and respect it. But I made my choice. And I guess that was symbolised by choosing ACT over Libertarianz which I still feel a sense of guilt about. Libz would say, that's because you know we are right. Theoretically you may be. But I choose to operate in what I see as the arena of what's possible and achievable. And even then most people think my ideas are too extreme.

Media release

Media Release
NATIONAL RETURN TO WORK-TESTING - A DUD

Wednesday 26th September 2007

National MP Judith Collins has signalled a return to DPB work-testing under a National government. DPB work-testing was removed by Labour in 2002.

Welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell says there are several weaknesses with this policy.

"When last in government National introduced a policy of work-testing DPB recipients. Single parents on the DPB were expected to be in part-time work or training when their youngest child turned six. But there are a number of problems with this policy."

"Firstly, many work-shy women pressured to get a job will simply look to add a new baby to their benefit. Statistics show around 5,000 babies are born onto an exisiting domestic purpose's benefit each year."

"Secondly, teenagers going onto the DPB usually miss out on finishing their education or gaining skills. By the time they face work-testing (never if they continue to grow their families) they have little to offer an employer."

"Thirdly, some women get on a training treadmill doing endless courses but never entering paid employment."

"Finally, the policy reinforces that it is completely legitimate to expect the taxpayer to fund childbearing and rearing indefinitely. Even a cap on funding for additional children will not solve the problem. Growing welfare-dependent families will simply get poorer."

In effect there is little between National's proposal and Labour's current approach, which is to require parents to re-enter the workforce as and when their family responsibilities allow. If National is serious about breaking the destructive cycle of intergenerational dependency it will have to do better than this.

"Command and control" status quo

And more from the UK. The Adam Smith blog reports on Gordon Brown's first major speech;

Gordon Brown made his first conference speech as Prime Minister yesterday. It lasted one hour and three minutes, and contained virtually nothing new. In fact, it was a masterclass in using lots of words to say very little. Early in the speech Brown said New Labour was "not just occupying, but expanding and shaping the centre ground" of British politics. Can anyone explain what that means?

Perhaps I'm being a little harsh. He did promise to give 300,000 children one-to-one help in English and maths (not personally, of course), and he said 300,000 university students would get full grants. Children will play five hours of sport per week and £670m will be stolen from dormant bank accounts to pay for youth centres. Paid maternity leave will be extended. 240,000 new houses will be built every year, and ten new Eco-towns will be constructed. And on, and on, and on...

What's clear from the speech is that Brown is interested only in top-down micromanagement and an ever-expanding central government. Structural reform didn't even get a look in. How will Brown deliver the 'personalised' NHS he promises? By setting new government targets, of course.

In short, it looks like command and control politics is here to stay. More money and more regulation will, it seems, continue to be the answer to every problem.

No real choice

This from the Times could have been written about Labour and National;

At the party conferences, we’ll see the customary but bizarre spectacle: Tory and Labourite proclaiming themselves poles apart – dancing together on a pinhead. In this mad tango, they will say there are serious choices ahead, without offering any. They will declare great diverging principles, while stepping cheek-to-cheek in the same direction.

Thank goodness we in New Zealand at least have MMP

Media Release

Media Release

DPB FOR A DECADE OR MORE
Tuesday, September 25, 2007

National MP Judith Collins today released figures showing the Ministry of Social Development expects almost three quarters of today's teenage DPB beneficiaries to still be on a benefit in ten years time.

Welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell says this is no surprise. "In 2001 when acting Social Development Minister, Steve Maharey was reassuring the public that the average stay on the DPB was only three and a half years, and so it made sense to remove the work-testing, my own research showed the total average time recipients were spending on the DPB was closer to seven years. This anomaly came about because the Ministry only counted each continuous stay despite many recipients having multiple stints on this benefit."

"Additionally, at least half of the current recipients started on welfare as a teenager. It is a trap for uneducated and unskilled teenagers many of whom can achieve a higher income on the DPB than in paid work. Maternal youth however is an indicator for subsequent social problems including child abuse and neglect. Additionally, having a guaranteed source of income also makes young mothers vulnerable to exploitive and abusive males who do not want the inconvenience of having to financially support a family or household."

"If we are to improve the future outlook for low socio-economic women and their children two things must happen. Any domestic purposes income support must be made strictly temporary and it should not be available to teenagers. The DPB 'industry' needs dismantling."

A different sort of cover-up story

Told to cover up big boobs - it could only happen in Christchurch.

Fighting a losing battle

There are times when I silently scream. Just how long will it be before the penny drops in this country. Today the Herald reports on the amount of violence in decile 1 schools, about teachers being demoralised and physically hurt by out of control pupils. This is nothing new but if you believe the anecdotal evidence the situation is deteriorating.

Now I am surprised the media has not cottoned on to a report/plan published at the MSD website a couple of weeks back. I have been meaning to write about it but haven't had time.

It is the Inter-Agency Plan for Conduct Disorder/Severe Anti-social Behaviour 2007-12

Here are some excerpts;

Conduct problems are the single most important predictor of later chronic antisocial behaviour problems including poor mental health, academic underachievement, early school leaving, teenage parenthood, delinquency, unemployment and substance abuse. The pathway for many affected young people typically leads on to youth offending, family violence and, ultimately,
through to serious adult crime. It is estimated that up to 5% of primary and intermediate school-age children have conduct disorder/severe antisocial behaviour.

The prevalence of conduct disorder/severe antisocial behaviour appears to increase during adolescence. It is estimated as many as 1% of 0–17 year-olds receive a specialist behavioural service each year. It is difficult to assess the effectiveness of these services because very little data is collected across agencies on the impact of behavioural interventions on problem behaviours in the short and longer terms.

The long-term costs associated with severe antisocial behaviour are significant. A New Zealand study estimated that the lifetime cost to society of a chronic adolescent antisocial male is $3 million. The prevalence of conduct disorder/severe antisocial behaviour is much higher in children from lower socio-economic groups. In one New Zealand study, the percentage of antisocial children enrolled in Decile 1 and 2 schools was six times greater than the percentage to be found in Decile 9 and 10 schools. New Zealand research suggests that Maori and Pacific males are more likely to have behavioural difficulties than non-Maori, though to a large extent this is likely to be a function of economic disadvantage.

There is considerable debate about the relative roles of factors such as genetic influences, social learning, parenting practice and social conditions as determinants of conduct disorder/severe antisocial behaviour. Most of the research concerned with addressing conduct disorder/severe antisocial behaviour focuses on the risk factors associated with its development, rather than seeking single causative relationships, and there is considerable agreement on the nature of those factors. Among them are:

• parental antisocial behaviour
• parental substance abuse
• parental mental illness
• limited or lax parental supervision
• harsh and coercive discipline and abuse
• neurological deficits
• genetic factors
• child temperament type
• lower verbal IQ
• low socioeconomic status
• younger maternal age (at first birth)
• maternal smoking during pregnancy
• antisocial peer influences.

Nevertheless, children show considerable resilience. In the Christchurch Health and Development Study, for example, 13% of children raised in the highest 5% of high-risk family situations reached adolescence with no obvious disorders of behaviour, learning or psyche. There has been less research attention to these “resilience factors” but those identified include:

• a secure attachment relationship with a parent, and in particular firm and responsive parenting
• a secure attachment relationship with a significant adult outside the immediate family
• higher intelligence


Only 13 percent?? Good grief. That's what we are pinning our hopes and strategy on? Continuing to encourage high-risk families to have kids because they can turn out OK?

Look. The vast majority of these children are the product of the welfare system. All we do is carry on trying to devise more and more plans to reform them when we should be reforming the system. Governments are fighting a losing battle because they will not identify the single biggest problem. I give up.

(Just for a couple of hours while I go out and enjoy the school holidays with my children.)

Hobson's Choice

These were sent to me with the question....

Life boils down to 2 choices.....

Should I get a dog.....or have children?

Meaningless measures

You learn something everyday - or will, if you are curious.

Yesterday I learned that 'hits' on a website is a rather meaningless expression in terms of readership measurement. David Farrar kindly explained this to me.

A hit is not a page view or a unique visit. A hit is when a file on a page is loaded or hit. Now a page may have three files on it so by viewing one page you get three hits. And an average visit may consist of looking at four pages, so that is 12 hits for that one visit.

What prompted me to ask him was Muriel Newman's statement from her latest column that the NZCPR was receiving nearly 1 million hits per month. Wow, thought I. Then, thinking about Kiwiblog stats of 100,000 visits a month, really?

David enlightened me further, Now the NZCPD front page has a huge number of files on it - over 50 I would say, so 1 million hits might be 20,000 page views which might be 8,000 visits.

He suggested I checkout Alexa traffic rankings which I did. These are for the world mind you because I am not prepared to buy NZ's;

Kiwiblog 67,741
NZCPR 1,299,144

Now it may be the NZCPR does much better in terms of a NZ ranking. I don't know. Maybe Muriel doesn't understand the difference between hits and visits given the column condemns "glib political spin".

I am happy to disclose this site receives an average of 4,168 visits per month.

Lengthy exposure to single parenthood increases risk of welfare dependence

New research from the Christchurch Health and Development Study shows that the longer a child is exposed to single parenthood, the higher his or her chances are of experiencing welfare dependency later in life.

This is no surprise. The intergenerational effect of welfare dependence is well documented. Now we have confirmation through New Zealand research.

29.6 percent of under sixteen year-olds who had never been exposed to single parenthood experienced welfare dependence between the ages of 21 and 25. This percentage rises steadily with the period of exposure. Of those exposed to single parenthood for 8 or more years 53.5 percent experienced welfare dependence between the ages of 21 and 25.

The sample, 971, is not large and further analysis into the type and length of the welfare dependence would be useful. I am speculating the significant increase would partly reflect that girls raised in single parent homes are more likely to go on to become single parents themselves, many relying on the DPB.

Stupid police 'sending a message'

This is gob-smacking.

The Press and Canterbury Police conduct an experiment that shows you can drink heaps and not be over the limit . Then they tell the world about it. On the front page.

Ten people each had between six and nine drinks over the course of 90 minutes. None felt they could drive safely – but only two blew over the 400mcg breath-alcohol limit.

Jacob Atkins, a 42-year-old Christchurch builder, who drank seven vodkas, said he was surprised at how much he could drink and still be under the limit.

"I wasn't even over 300 and can drive and be tiddly," he said.

Carla Amos, 37, editor of The Mail community newspaper, who drank eight wines, said she thought she would have been over the limit early in the test, but was not.

"It's scary that it says you can still drive," she said.

One man found he "couldn't drink fast enough" to get over the limit.

The point of this experiment is to build the case for lowering the blood/breath alcohol level from 0.8mg/ml to 0.5mg/ml. Look, they say. People are already drunk and driving legally.

Now I don't know much about absorption and metabolism but I am certain tested later all of these people would have been over the limit. 8 glasses of wine?

So what have they proved? That people can guzzle a huge amount and as long as they drive within 90 minutes they'll get away with it? In which case they may as well have told people to do just that. Don't worry about the happy hour after work. Fill up and then get home as quick as you can.

Of course if we lower the level to 0.5mg then the same applies, but only drink 5 glasses of wine.

I am extremely sceptical about these results and astounded the Police would think that publishing them was a good idea.

Those inconsistent Greens

Sue Bradford must be seriously 'conflicted' over Jeanette Fitzsimons position regarding topping up low income people for extra power/petrol costs created by Labour's carbon trading scheme. Fitzsimons is opposed because the incentive to save power would then be removed.

Compare this to Sue Bradford's demands that the In Work payment also be paid to beneficiaries with children. Notice that then there would be no incentive for those beneficiaries to get a job.

[Fitzsimons] believes that subsidising low income earners to help them pay for higher power bills which will be a consequence of the scheme, destroys the whole purpose of placing a price on carbon.

Can you imagine Bradford saying, "I believe that subsidising beneficiaries to help them pay for child costs destroys the whole purpose of paying working parents more."

When hell freezes over......

Single Parenthood: Problem or Not?

Media Release
Single Parenthood: Problem or Not?

Friday, September 21, 2007

New research released from the long-term Christchurch Health and Development study has found, "significant associations" for 21-25 year-olds, "between exposure to single parenthood and anxiety disorder, achievement of educational qualifications, welfare dependence and personal income, arrest or conviction and self-reported violent and property offenses."

However the authors conclude that single parenthood itself is not the problem. The problems arise from "social and contextual factors" associated with exposure to single parenthood.

In response to the findings welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell said, "These factors would include low parental education, low family income, and family violence. "

"Unfortunately you can only separate out factors on paper. In reality single parents, low income and various forms of dysfunctionality often go hand-in-hand. I agree with Dr Fergusson that exposure to single parenthood does not guarantee later problems for children. But there is increased likelihood of them, as this research has confirmed."

"In which case it is still a bad policy that encourages people to become single parents. The DPB has been instrumental in significantly increasing the number of single parent families and urgently requires an overhaul."

Another sick joke from nanny

This sort of nonsense has just gone too far. Gyms that have creches caring for children for an hour or an hour and a half tops need to have a trained early education teacher.

Under Government regulations, all creches that provide education or care to three or more children under six years of age require a licence. They are required to employ a registered early-childcare teacher, develop education plans and programmes and provide suitable sleeping quarters for babies.

This is exactly why we need a Regulatory Responsibility ACT.

More on 'charity'

I wonder how many calls at a dollar a pop are logged in to Dancing With The Stars? Probably more than a million? From the last series $275,000 went to charity. Doesn't seem enough to me.

And despite the contest appearing very tight throughout Suzanne Paul had it hands down. Of course if the public knew this they wouldn't keep voting. Her charity won more than half of the total raised.

Interestingly the last series did not raise as much as the two previous. And I think I know why. I wasn't voting.

No tax paid

Half a million customers and they don't pay tax.

Hands up. I know next to nothing about tax law but it seems to me that Ngai Tahu Tourism is a business or a conglomeration of businesses. The profits are returned no doubt to the tribe but how is that any different from a group of shareholders?

According to Te Puni Kokiri, Charitable trusts are normally formed to undertake charitable activities and are less suitable for commercial activities.

Ngai Tahu Tourism doesn't pay tax because it is a charitable trust. Please enlighten me if I am missing something significant here. Is this some sort of affirmative action programme?

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.