Go figure

Contrast the two following statements;

1/ In a poll of 1082 voters, people were asked whether the Government had more control over people's daily lives than they would like and 57 per cent answered yes. A further 37 per cent of voters rejected the proposition and 6 per cent did not know.

2/ The latest poll shows Labour back on the path to recovery, with 40 per cent support, just 5 points behind National.

Do people make any connection between "the Government" and how they vote? In this country there has been big government under Labour and National (except for the rogue administrations of the late eighties and early nineties) since the post war years. "Control over people's daily lives" is the price we pay for the welfare state.

Either they are masochists, fibbers, naives or political ineducates. Whatever it is, all of us have to put up with the results of this intellectual void.

We're ready for Wednesday!

This is news?

Fancy wanting to be a cutting-edge print-media journalist only to find yourself fossicking about in classroom rubbish bins for "shock-horror" stories.

And why is it always female researchers who bring us this absolute drivel?

I don't need "forcing" into seeing what my kids don't eat. They bring it home and it goes in MY bin. Perhaps I could sell the story of my rubbish bin to the Herald. No,no. What am I thinking. I'll go and tip it out myself, take a photo and blog it. My sitemeter will go through the roof!!

(I've got to go to cricket first though)

Running the show

My computer has developed a case of Cunliffitis - it's decided it's running the show.

Ever since it arrived at my house it's been churning away. Never shuts up. I don't know what it does all day but the drive is constantly chattering. To the point where it gets on my goat. There it goes again. Then this morning I'm in the middle of a post (OK it wasn't of earth shattering importance) and this thing tells me it's logging off. Hang on. I decide when I'm logging off. No you don't.

It wants to configure updates. But I'm busy right now. No your not. Configuring my updates is far more important.

Configuring. So I sit and stare at the screen as the hands move around the clock. Take your time. Don't mind me. I've got all the time in the world. You f-----. No you don't. Now it's shutting down. Hang on. Gone.

Then it whirs back into life. 'Welcome' it says. I'll f------ give you welcome. Where've you been? It wasn't me who left.

"Your last session crashed" it says. 'My session' didn't crash. How could it have been 'my session' when it's you who's running the show?

The cookie crumbles

Yesterday I heard some spokes-thingy on the radio saying the Griffin's factory closure in Lower Hutt, after 70 years manufacturing, was partly due to the obesity epidemic and warnings not to eat too much sugar.

Personally I'm not buying this - or Griffins products much. Griffins blame the closure on international competition. I'm not convinced about that either.

One thing I am sure of. It isn't because more people are home-baking!

When I buy biscuits I buy the ones that look home-made. Some come all the way from a bakery in Invercargill. I like plain wrapping so I can see what's inside. Trouble with Griffin's products is I know what's inside.

Lots of supermarkets have their own bakeries these days and turn out products that are more appetising than a vanilla wine biscuit.

Markets change. Griffins haven't kept up. It's that simple.

Garth George on the "gagging bill"

Garth George has written a great column today. Here are some excerpts...actually, no,I can't pick out the best bits so here is the whole thing;

If ever there were a reason to turf this Government out, it is the arrogance and hypocrisy of the Dear Leader in refusing point blank to scrap the despicable Electoral Finance Bill.

Here is a woman who has been blathering on about human rights ever since she became a public face, who rails against the military takeover in Fiji and demands a return to democracy there, and who gallivants round the world attending wartime anniversaries.

The irony seems to escape her that this bill, which has been written for no other reason than to give Labour an advantage during next year's election campaign, is the most serious attack on human rights in this country that has ever been mounted.

It is an assault on democracy every bit as dangerous as the antics of Frank Bainimarama, for it is the sort of legislation that prospective dictators force through to shut down public dissent.

And it is an insult to the thousands of New Zealanders who died in two world wars to turn back those who would have enslaved us and preserve our democracy and our human rights.

Helen Clark's visit to Gallipoli for the 90th anniversary of that campaign in 2005, and to the Somme for the similar commemoration of Passchendaele, look rather contemptible now, since the human right that those thousands died for is freedom of speech.

I have contempt, too, for the Labour running dogs who have indicated they will support this Government bill - the MPs of United Future, NZ First and the Greens.

I suppose it is expected of that master of self-interested compromise, Winston Peters, who is about to visit North Korea as our non-Cabinet Minister of Foreign Affairs.

If Kim Jong-il hears about the Electoral Finance Bill, he'll probably invite Winston to dinner.

Peter Dunne has never been anything but Labour lite and can be trusted only to lick the Government's boots.

But I must say I'm a bit surprised at the Greens. I would have thought blokes like Keith Locke and Nandor Tanczos, those champions of the underdog, would have cavilled at this piece of legislation. But no. Politics overrides principle yet again.

It is ironic, isn't it, that the excuse being used to put this bill forward is the activities of the leaders of an obscure religious cult during the last election campaign who wanted rid of Labour and the Greens and were prepared to put their money where their mouths were to the tune of $1.2 million.

Setting aside the fact that they were perfectly entitled to carry out this democratic activity, the irony is that it backfired on National and probably cost it that election.

The other thing, of course, that is pricking Clark and Co to go through with this bill - in spite of the opposition, some of it from Labour-friendly sources such as the Law and Human Rights Commissions - is simmering resentment over having to pay back $1.2 million for illegal taxpayer-funded election advertising last time.

So the Dear Leader and her minions are determined that next time advertising condemning or criticising the Government will be heavily restricted, while the Government will be able to spend what it likes promoting its own policies at no cost to the party.

If ever there was a misuse of political power, this is it. As this newspaper said in only its second front-page editorial in five years, "democracy is not a device to keep Labour in power".

But it is typically socialist and the longer this Government remains, the more its members see themselves as there to rule rather than simply to govern, persuaded that only they know what is best for the country.

But it is in reality only what is best for the rulers that matters; the exercise of power, through legislation and a powerful bureaucracy, becomes an addiction, and the thought of having to go without it becomes intolerable.

And, as with all addictions, the longer it is practised the worse it gets. Thus, the dumping of Labour a year from now would really be a humane act. Its members need saving from themselves.

I am intrigued that one of the Dear Leader's arguments in favour of the bill is that "the National Party benefits enormously from big money in New Zealand politics".

If that is true, how come National was almost wiped out in 2002 and failed to win Government in 2005?

Labour strategists seem to think that anger over this bill, if it becomes law in the next few weeks, will be forgotten come next year.

Not so. I, for one, certainly won't forget. But who knows?

Perhaps by then this column will be banned by law, too.

IMPORTANT public notice

Stop the Labour/NZ First/Greens Electoral Finance "Gagging Bill"
What you can do:

Protest March: Auckland this Saturday 17 November from the Auckland Town Hall at 10.30am (assemble from 10am) Protest: Wellington next Wednesday, 21 November, for a march on Parliament.

This is to invite you to stand up and be counted.

ACT member John Boscawen is organising marches in Auckland and Wellington to protest the Labour led Government's attack on democracy.

The Electoral Finance Bill is designed to curb political activity.

Labour and NZ First with help from the Greens and United Future are about to ram through a law to gag free speech.

This despite vociferous objection from the Human Rights Commission, the Law Society, Grey Power and concerned citizens from every sector of New Zealand society.

The plan is to give Labour freedom to say what it likes in election year and gag everyone else.

Once the Gagging Bill goes through - possibly as soon as next week - it will be against the law for me to send an email such as this.

That's why the Human Rights Commission talks about a "chilling" impact on democracy.

That's why this is a Gagging Bill by any other name and must be stopped. Join the marches

If you want to help contact John@boscawen.co.nz John@boscawen.co.nz

'Where in the world are NZ's Dole Bludgers?'

The title is supplied by a commenter who can't distinguish between serious conjecture and 'musing' even after I spelled it out for his benefit.

In 2004 there were 12,838 Kiwis on an unemployment benefit in Australia, 52 percent were classed as long-term 'customers'.

Also in 2004 there were 14,853 Kiwis on a Parenting Payment for single parents.

In 2005 there were 11,068 Kiwis on a Disability Support Pension.

By the time you throw in those scattered across other benefits the total would probably reach 40,000. What does that look like? The population of Wanganui.

I wonder how many Aussies are customers of Work and Income. What's a bet it isn't anywhere near 40,000. There's only 60,000 living here!

Update; Coming ahead of the Kiwis on the benefit numbers on each count were the Poms. Now I see that NZ has overtaken the UK as Australia's main source of permanent migrants for the first time.

Aussie unemployment

NZ had 23,158 people on the unemployment benefit at September 2007. The official unemployment rate is 3.5 percent.

Australia's unemployment rate is 4.3 percent. In August they had 505,927 people on the unemployment benefit.

Australia's population is 5 times NZ's yet it has nearly 22 x the number of people on the dole.

The difference cannot be accounted for in incapacity benefits as NZ's rate of reliance is similar (if a little less) than the Aussies.

In Australia, from July 2006 new welfare-applicant single parents whose youngest child was 8 or more were directed to the unemployment benefit. This may be part of the anomaly, but certainly not all.

I wonder how many Kiwis are over there on the dole? (Those who were there before the 2000/01 rule change or have been there the two years required since the rule change?)

Back then the Aussie government said it was paying over a billion dollars to Kiwis on welfare benefits. By my reckoning that would be anywhere from 50-75,000 people.

If they were on the dole in NZ that would make the ratio about right.

Just musing.

Tell us something we don't know

Confirmation of what we all knew.

...one in ten Pacific Island children and one in twenty Maori children aged 5 to 14 [is] likely to be extremely obese. But only one in 100 European or other ethnicity child is likely to fall into that category.

Which begs the question, why all the indiscriminate public health spending?

Do you know why the state operates this way? Why it doesn't properly name problems? Because it doesn't want to 'stigmatise' any one group.

It would rather spend bucket-loads of your money putting push-play balloons in suburban letterboxes where no Pacific Island people live than risk offence or bureaucratic job cuts. That's the financial cost of political correctness. And that's why the state should keep out of health. It is too tied up in its own human rights prescription to be effective or fair.

Meantime the bulk of people, who have eyes and brains, get more and more frustrated that they are hectored and hen-pecked at every turn about hyped-up problems which have nothing to do with their lives but everything to do with the rampant wastage of their money.

'Bah, humbug. There's no inclination to help the poor'

This article from the Sydney Morning Herald was reprinted in yesterday's SST. The headline is supplied by the SST.

My response;

Dear Editor

An article appeared in the SST November 11 headed, 'Bah, humbug. There's no inclination to help the poor.' It described decreasing support among Australian people for government redistribution of income from the better-off to the less well-off, which has fallen below 40 percent for the first time.

It does not follow that because people do not support welfare they do not want to help the poor. The decreasing support may very well demonstrate a growing understanding that welfare benefits do not necessarily help people. Often they demotivate and trap people.

At least 40 percent of those currently on the domestic purposes benefit started there as a teenager. Before they are old enough to finish their education or gain work skills young people are lured into what looks like an easy number. It isn't. Lives spent on the DPB are characterised by hardship and transience.

It may now be that there is more compassion inherent in opposing government income redistribution which can hardly be termed a raging success as a cure for 'poverty'.

Weird

Can anyone get their head around this experiment conducted by a Canterbury University student?

The conclusion is dogs can read people's minds. But I cannot follow the methodology at all. Surely a smart dog would show a preference for the choice of the person they saw hiding something. How does it follow that the dog can read someone's mind? I am totally bamboozled.

Silliness over pronunciation

It would have to be Waikato University putting up such a display of preciousness. They want 'Waikato' pronounced properly. Not Why Cat O. It has to be Why Car Tore or Why Cut Or.

What stupidity. People can and will pronounce words how they want to. We all know what we are talking about. The fact that Maori words have to be turned into recognisable English words so we can pronounce them 'properly' makes the exercise even sillier.

These demands for correctness just make people self-conscious about using Maori words and they are more likely to avoid them. More populous countries have dialects, England being a prime example. There is no pressure for a Yorkshireman to speak his vowels like a Cornishman. The difference is important and interesting.

Anyway, I thought we embraced 'multiculturalism' in this country. Doesn't that include accepting various pronunciations? It's OK for different tribes to have different pronunciations but not Pakeha. What bull.

Who is advising Ruth Dyson?

From question time today;

Judith Collins: Why is it that in the period of so-called record low unemployment, almost 130,000 people—5 percent of the *working-age population—are too sick to work, which is a 50 percent increase since 1999 and is yet another record high?

Hon RUTH DYSON: It would pay the member to be a little more robust with the accuracy of her figures. In fact, the number of people of working age on a *sickness benefit is 1.5 percent of the total population, and the number of people of working age on an *invalids benefit—

Madam SPEAKER: It is difficult to hear.

Hon RUTH DYSON: —is 2.5 percent, which is a total of only 3.9 percent.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. We could not hear any part of that answer whatsoever.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member. I will ask the Minister to repeat her answer.

Hon RUTH DYSON: My answer advised the member who asked the supplementary question to be a little more robust in the accuracy of the information she provides in those questions. The number of people of working age on a sickness benefit is 1.5 percent of the total working-age population, and on an invalids benefit it is 2.4 percent.

The September benefit factsheets clearly show that 3% of working age people are on an Invalid Benefit and (almost) 1.9% are on a Sickness Benefit. That adds up to 4.9%

If you think I am quibbling 1% of the working age population, using MSD definition of 18-64 years of age, is around 25,000 people.

Good start Ruth.

Rick is back

Rick Giles - Silent Running - is home.

From the Christchurch Star;

Canterbury man gets out of Detroit jail

07.11.2007
By JOELLE DALLY
After just over five weeks in a United States prison for having an expired tourist visa, Canterbury man Rick Giles has been deported home.

The 28-year-old arrived back on Sunday relieved to be free, but disappointed his overseas travel ended with him being put behind bars.

"I,ve been saving up for my OE for a long time. I was really enjoying myself and it has come to a premature end," he said.

Last Wednesday, The Star revealed Mr Giles had been detained near Detroit under strict US immigration laws after officials found his tourist visa had expired by six days.

He was returning to Canada when he was nabbed.


He said he had mistakenly believed his visa was still valid.
Speaking to The Star from his parents' home in Clarkville near Kaiapoi yesterday, he said conditions at the William Dickerson Detention Facility were not too oppressive. He was held from September 27 to November 4.

However, he said the prison officers were "really mean people."

"They would yell at you as a means to keep you in control," he said.

"There was a serious absence of privacy. There were about 60 guys in a great big room. Shaving and cutting your nails didn't happen.

"If you asked for nail clippers you didn't know what they (the guards) were going to do," he said.

Mr Giles said he had a social insurance card, a bank account and some job prospects waiting for him in Canada, and never imagined he would be imprisoned in the US for that length of time.

"I started out in disbelief and amused to end up in a US jail. But after a week that went away," he said.

"I felt angry and closed in & that lasted the rest of my time there."

"I tried to get in touch with the (New Zealand) embassy, they couldn't do anything.

"It was very frustrating," he said.

He said he had been lucky not to have received a criminal record, as he had heard of others in similar situations that had.

"Canada was a stones throw away, about 400m. But instead, they shipped me around the world," he said.

He said it was nice to be back in his own clothes and be able to tie his shoes.

Hide vs Hobbs

Rodney Hide debates banning fireworks with Marion Hobbs.


Now why couldn't John Key bring himself to say this?

Of course Hide is right. This issue is about individual freedom and personal responsibility. That a few fools out there are misusing fireworks is no reason to prohibit everyone's access to them. As he says, on that basis why not ban matches, barbecues and camp fires?


Where is this compulsion to remove risk going to end?

(And speaking of fools, Hobbs is a fine example. Have a listen to her characterisation of the ACT party and their taxation policy. Completely misses the point.)

Get thee to thy GP now!

The nannying SST is running a 'men's survey'. Through it they have discovered that men are putting off health checks. Good Lord. Are they?? When you consider the list it's surprising that only a quarter said they hadn't had the checks recommended for their age. I don't believe the sample is very representative;

Recommended tests include:

* Obesity: Waist circumference and Body Mass Index (BMI) every two years.

* Blood pressure: two-yearly between 18 and 50, and every year for age 50 and over.

* Cholesterol: five-yearly from age 45.

* Fasting sugar for diabetes (blood glucose): every three years from age 55.

* Urine test for protein: to test for kidney failure, every 12 months from age 50.

* Skin checks for skin cancer: for high-risk skin every year.

* Bowel screen for bowel cancer (faecal test for blood): every two years over 50 years.

* Men should discuss prostate checks with their GP from age 50.

* Osteoporosis risk assessment and bone densitometry for men at risk.

PPL will boost IQ

Oh really. The push to extend Paid Parental Leave just got sillier. UnitedFuture say that as research shows breastfeeding increases IQ, mothers should be paid to stay home and do just that. I wonder if they are going to demand that breastfeeding become a requirement for receiving existing PPL? Or that receiving the DPB makes breastfeeding mandatory? And for how long?

Well, as you brought it up UF, what about the heretical idea that those most able (financially and emotionally) to raise children might be the ones with higher IQs and a mother's IQ is an important factor in determining the child's? It's not an implausible idea. Of course nobody dare say so. Except that mad professor who thought we should put contraceptives in the water supply so people who wanted to become parents would need to take a positive action instead of just drifting into it with no thought as to who would pick up the tab, resulting in a bias towards the uneducated.

The best family policies should be the same as the best policies for individuals - low flat tax, choice in education and tax rebates for health insurance.

John Key - "It's inevitable"

I have only caught snippets of the firework debate on talkback radio, but the strong impression I get is fireworks are polarising people. The PM's edict that they would be banned from sale to the public if people didn't behave (and her accompanying remarks about Khandahar) have got right up people's noses. You can't overstate the effect seemingly small matters can sometimes have. Banning fireworks is one of those camel's back issues which stirs up disproportionate resentment because it is just one more instance of being dictated to.

On Breafast Telly this morning Paul Henry asked National leader, John Key, whether fireworks would be banned. Key's response went some thing like,

Fireworks have given many families a lot of fun over many years. There are lots of good memories tied up with them. There's the odd rogue causing trouble but it seems in this country we are hell bent on banning everything that's fun when there is risk involved in lots of things....

(This is sounding promising I think)

"....but I'm afraid it's inevitable."

WHAT??? You want to be the Prime Minister of this country John. You tell us what you really think, tell us that banning fun has gone too far and that we are all punished for the sake of few bad eggs and then, that you are going to continue to let it happen.

Why not say it won't happen under any government I am leading? What's wrong with you?
Sitting on the frigging fence all the time.

Deaths etc

Have you noticed that the Death Notices section of the newspaper has decreasingly become a place to notify a death to the public and increasingly a place to send messages to the dead? A feature of the secular world no doubt. Similarly funerals seem to be an opportunity to make lavish displays of caring after the fact with names emblazoned on garments and probably newly on the skin under them. Whatever.

None of which has much to do with what I wanted to comment on.

A Lower Hutt man died on Saturday morning. There was a small piece in the DomPost and numerous death notices. According to the link he was assaulted by a woman with a blunt instrument.

Now one can only assume she was his partner. That being the case, where is the outcry about violence towards men? Why haven't the media dug up the statistics about how many women assault men each year? Where are the many stopping violence networks now?

Personally I am pleased that the case has remained low key. It's a tragedy for his family and should be left at that. But I can't help reflecting on the resounding absence of the anti-violence advocates when the boot is on the other foot.

Melbourne Cup picks

Last year I was certain Poprock would win and barely looked at the rest of the field. In any event it came second. This year I am less certain but going for Master O'Reilly. I backed him in the Cauldfield when he won so will stick with him.

But as my track record is coming second I will throw in a few more. In a half boxed trifecta I'll include Princess Coup (go Noel Harris at 52 years-old), Tungsten Strike who has been running well over distance at Goodwood carrying much higher weights and finally a NZ roughie, Dolphin Jo, with good dead track form, has placed over the two miles and is ridden by one of only 2 female jockeys, Clare Lindop.

Good luck if you are having a bet.

The Phelps family and the right to free speech

CLS has a very thought-provoking post about the odious Phelps family who are thanking god for dead soldiers at the funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq because it is god's punishment for the US not stoning homosexuals to death. The post is a discussion of the weakness of libertarian principals in allowing free speech carte blanche. One soldier's family sued this sick group and a jury have found for the family under the offence of causing emotional distress.

CLS says;

I don’t want emotional distress to be used easily to stifle the free speech of others. It is too easily abused. Anyone can claim distress and this would hold rights ransom to the emotionally weakest member of a community.

There is no hard and fast definition of what constitutes 'emotional distress'. But left to a jury, if you believe the jury system is the best justice process we have (like democracy as a governance process - not perfect but the best we have), then you may be grudgingly happy for the right to free speech to be tempered with the possibility of a group of your peers subsequently finding the content caused 'emotional distress' and fining the offenders.

The offenders ability to speak is not taken away but they risk paying a price. This may curtail the likes of this very ugly group.

Certainly this is not a risk-free answer (to either the individual or society) but again it may be the best available. We live in a dynamic and evolving world and what works today may not work tomorrow. That's life. And I don't mean that flippantly.

Punish the poor

Funnily enough I was going to blog something on this yesterday. When I was looking at the alcohol consumption figures I ntoiced these interesting graphs;


So I was not surprised to read in today's NZ herald,

Smokefree Coalition director Mark Peck said the survey showed the need to raise taxes on roll-your-owns.

Tax is based on the weight of tobacco. Roll-your-own cigarettes average only half the weight of tobacco in ready-made cigarettes.

Mr Peck said roll-your-owns' share of the tobacco market had risen as a result from 30 per cent to 48-49 per cent, while ready-made cigarettes had dropped to 43-44 per cent, with pipe smoking accounting for the balance.

In my experience, most low-income people smoke roll your owns. I don't mind that they do because being around rollies is far less unpleasant than being around tailor-mades. Puny things that emit little smoke when they are actually alight. Much of the time they are not. But they seem to satisfy the craving for tobacco.

But here we go again. An ex-Labour MP wants to punish the poor - for their own good you understand. "You can't have your pleasures, only the rich, the elite can." Shades of JIm Anderton's sherry debacle.

The result will be a burgeoning black market, more exposure to other drugs and more crime.

As Will De Clene pointed out yesterday and Bruce Robertson is echoing in the Herald, people won't be told what to do when it comes to personal habits. They will rebel. Governments should just get over it and start thinking about how a little less economic bullying and nagging might produce a better result.

Crisis? What Crisis?

Did you know that if you consume half a bottle of wine with dinner over a period of 8 years you could damage your brain?? Even social drinking puts you at risk of brain damage!

785,000 New Zealanders are at risk!! There is going to be a crisis in the health system!!!

Breakfast telly are reporting, "Shocking health findings"!!

"It's critical New Zealand wakes up to an issue that will become a major crisis in the next 20 years, with health services being swamped with people with alcohol-related brain damage."



In 1986 there was a 'crisis' too.

It was reported that, "380,000 people in New Zealand have had psychiatrically classifiable alcohol abuse and/or alcohol dependence at some time in their lives. An additional 17 percent (more than 340.000 New Zealanders) were problem drinkers at some time in their lives," and, " In New Zealand problem drinking is a major public health issue. "

No doubt health services would be swamped in the next twenty years!

Deborah defends Mallard

I confess to some conflict over the Mallard business. On one hand I can see where Deborah Coddington is coming from; on the other, the breathless hypocrisy of a government that constantly condemns the use of physical violence in any situation not condemning Mallard is too much to swallow. So I see where Rodney is coming from.

And he is getting support from another section. I have a couple friends who are not middle-class,not materially well-off or well-educated but usually on to what is happening in the news.

On Friday they took me to the pub to play pool and drink raspberry and lemonade. It was a treat because it was my birthday and I love to play pool. When I arrived at their home one said to me, that Rodney Hide guy is the only one making a fuss about Mallard. I wondered where the conversation would go next. Would he be a jerk or a good guy?

He's right, I was told. Why shouldn't Mallard be treated the same way as anybody else? Why should he get away with it just because he has friends in high places? Shouldn't the law be "one size fits all" it was put to me?

I couldn't argue. But it's par for the course for Labour. Sticking it to the people they purport to be the champions of. The strong steak of anti-authoritarianism that runs among the disaffected 'poor' is only fed by the blatant one-rule-for-you and one-rule-for-meism that is the hallmark of socialists.

ALP gaffe

I suppose this would be the equivalent of Tony Ryall saying about National's labour-lite policies, "...once we get in we'll change all that."

One last 'embellishment' of the truth

Pete Hodgson says, "Results show, again, that our health policies are working for the most good for the most people."

And the results are;



And politicians wonder why we hold them in such disdain.

Family First

Family First, the 'family values' lobby group, is now a well known name to New Zealanders. But did you know Family First is an Australian political party? I didn't. Here they are in trouble because one of their candidates demanded a Liberal candidate make their sexual preferences public.

I am also left speculating as to whether New Zealand's Family First will register a political party next year.

Protection orders

John Key wants to give police the ability to issue temporary protection orders on the spot. Everybody seems to think it is a good idea - the Women's Refuge, the Police Association and civil libertarians. And it's difficult to understand why anyone would deny protection to women and children (or even a man). But here's the sticking point:

In 2005, 4236 people were charged with breaching protection orders.

Is this another instance of doing more of what doesn't necessarily work? Or are breaches a measure of 'success' because they enable the police to then arrest the offender? In which case, why not go straight to an arrest? Instead of a temporary protection order being issued, why not the power to arrest for a temporary period of detention? Isn't waiting for people to breach protection orders a risky business?

And if you can't arrest someone on the word of another why can you issue a protection order? Can't protection orders be provocative and worsen the situation?

Then we have people who abuse the protection order facility already, making false complaints or exaggerated claims. I was told of one woman who routinely picked fights with her partner and then called the cops to 'punish' him. In reality the children were at risk from her - not him.

I am sure this area is a minefield - one which I do not properly understand. Help me out if you can.

Tim's off

Labour MP, Tim Barnett has had enough. To his credit, at least one could enter into a dialogue with the man.

From banning Halloween....

Those poor Russians just can't have any fun. Now state education authorities are banning Halloween celebrations from school.

....to NOT banning smacking

Reuters is reporting,

"British parents will not be banned from smacking their children, the government said on Thursday, despite pressure from campaigners who say it is ineffective and sends mixed messages.

Under current British law, parents are allowed to administer corporal punishment to their children as long as they do not leave bruises, grazes or swelling.

Ministers said the law in England and Wales will remain unchanged after a review found that most parents do not want a complete ban on corporal punishment."

It would appear that Britain is more democratic than NZ. Then again maybe the only difference is they don't have Sue Bradford. Perhaps they would like her?

My imminent arrest

Oswald and Gavin would like to see the letter I received warning of my imminent arrest. Here it is - all seven pages. If you can understand it you are doing better than me. (Left click on images to enlarge).

Stretching it

I am very skeptical about this. Researchers claim that violent crime is linked to consumption of lead.

Among the most startling findings:

* A pair of studies by economist Rick Nevin suggests the nation's violent-crime rate in the second half of the 20th century is closely tied to the widespread consumption of leaded gasoline.
* According to Nevin, the trend lines match almost perfectly -- Leaded-gas use climbed in the 1940s and fell in the early 1970s; 23 years later, rates for violent crime followed in near unison.
* Its gradual demise in the 1970s, he says, did more to stop violent crime among people who came of age in its wake than any social policy.

So why is violent crime more predominant amongst men? Why is it more predominant amongst lower socio-economic groups? And why is it once more on the rise in the US?

And what the heck happened HERE?

The researchers "stunning trendline" also matches the rise of welfare and fatherless families and the increasingly liberal justice approach, causes which have far more plausibility.

Marxist liars

Having looked into Ella Henry a little further and finding she claims Maori child abuse before 1987 was no worse than Pakeha, I did a bit more digging and came across this, from Class Struggle No 73, July/August 2007;

Look at the facts. Before 1987 Maori child abuse was no worse than Pakeha child abuse. Neither was in the news because it wasn’t newsworthy. Today after 20 years of social abuse, destruction of jobs, falling wages and rising cost of living, many families cannot cope. The violence that society inflicts on them is turned inwards onto their families. It comes out as a cocktail of wife beating, child abuse, car smashes and suicides.

This is a complete fabrication. Child abuse started making the headlines during the 60s. Even then it probably (almost certainly) wasn't new but the attention it was receiving was. The first survey I am aware of covered cases in 1967 and showed Maori children were 6 times more likely to suffer abuse. This survey is documented in Bronwyn Dalley's book, Family Matters.

What is it with Marxists that they have absolutely no compunction about making stuff up and labelling it "the facts" to boot.

"Dual evils"

Yesterday in Otara there was a hui held by a group newly-formed to fight Maori child abuse. Initially I felt some interest that Maori were picking up the challenge... but not for long. If this attitude is typical of the other participants then it's going nowhere fast.

Ella Henry said, "Together with the dual evils of colonization and urbanization in the 1950’s which has resulted in an intergenerational cycle of poverty, alcohol & drug use, hopelessness and frustration, these are all contributing factors. We say this not to excuse the actions of child-abusers but more as an analysis of what has happened to te iwi Maori over the last 150 years”

"National's radical flank"

This may be how Colin James sees ACT but is it how ACT sees itself?

Moreover ACT, the only party on National's radical flank, would, being tiny, be less of a coalition barrier to Peters than the Greens and Maori parties.

Just wondering....

Another to add to the toll of child deaths caused by intentional injury. Another beneficiary parent to stand trial.

Something I've noticed and wondered about. Where do these names come from?

Jyniah, Nia, Jhia, Cru? There seems to be a disconnect from reality. Are they names from games, fantasy cartoons?

Baby Bonus 'failure'

The Australian Baby Bonus has failed. Their national fertility rate has climbed from 1.79 to 1.81 (New Zealand's is 2.10)

I predicted it would fail because those younger women who could be 'incentivised' to have children were already taken care of through welfare - the Parenting Payment (single). In 2006 433,000 were in force.

Kia Kaha, Parekura Horomia

All credit to the Minister of Maori Affairs for this statement.

These words especially hit the spot;

"And as we enter a new era we need to acknowledge the bonds that have been forged, sometimes painstakingly, between Māori and non-Māori.

We also need to acknowledge that there is no one Māori voice, but a range of different voices. That no one individual and no one political party speaks for Māori. Despite claims to the contrary, there is no one “authentic” Māori voice.”

The run-around

Here Gordon Copeland is getting exactly the same run-around I get from the Ministry;

17347 (2007). Gordon Copeland to the Minister for Social Development and Employment (Acting)

Please advise how many DPB clients left benefits as a result of their employment related earnings, making them eligible for the In Work Payment over the past (a) six months (b)12 months.

Hon Steve Maharey (Minister for Social Development and Employment (Acting)) replied: People leave benefit for a variety of reasons, not all of which are advised to Work and Income. As such, I am advised that the Ministry does not record information in a way that allows a meaningful response to your question.

It is just not credible that a government introduces a scheme specifically aimed at getting beneficiaries into jobs and then makes no attempt to monitor the success of that scheme.

My advice to Gordon is to try your ex-boss, Minister of the Inland Revenue. The IRD is responsible for administering the In Work payment. You'll no doubt get a very similar answer, as I did. But you could use it to embarrass your ex-party who would be less keen to convey an impression that they are as 'careless' (or conniving) as Labour.

Accountable and transparent government. Bollocks.

Welfare statistics update

Latest September figures show a rise in working age beneficiaries when compared to June but a drop when compared to 1 year ago.

Sept 2006 282,147
June 2007 261,009
Sept 2007 263 234

These figures exclude those on benefits aged under 18.

The In Work tax credits and strong labour market continue to have a positive effect but the problem areas remain with the seemingly unstoppable growth of sickness and invalid benefit numbers and young people going on the DPB. There are still many regions and service centres seeing DPB growth reflecting the rise in young Maori uptake. Against the national trend over 5 years these are some Auckland centres which have seen increases;

Clendon
Glen Mall and Kelston
Mangere
Manurewa
Otara
Papakura
Manakau District

There are a few other predictable pockets in the Waikato and Northland.

So, yes, overall numbers are going down but the drop tends to mask the deeper problem of welfare dependency among the uneducated and unskilled, and disproportionately, female and Maori. There should be no expectation that the social problems associated with non-working lifestyles - drug and alcohol abuse, crime, mental unwellness, child neglect and abuse, (and growth in govt services) - will abate.

Collateral damage

Children killed through war on drugs. This is Detroit but it could have been Wanganui.

Child killings challenge the drug war

Take your pick of who to blame for the apparent drug-related execution of Alexus Eppinger, 9, and her five-year-old brother Terrance as they lay sleeping in a Detroit home last week. There are plenty of targets to choose from.

Maybe you blame their mother for not having the instincts God gives a goose to protect her children. That's cold, I know, since she was slain, too. I'm sure she loved her babies. But you have to do more than love children; you have to keep them from danger, and putting them to bed in a house known for drug activity is dangerous.

Or maybe you're angry with the city and its police department for their impotence in containing the wave of drug violence that continues to claim the lives of innocents. I'm with you. It doesn't matter how many new lofts Detroit builds or how many new clubs open downtown, if its children are fair game for shoot-em-up maniacs, Detroit isn't a fit place for decent people to live.

The drug dealers? Sure. Anyone so numbed by greed that he can pull the trigger on a gun pointed at a child doesn't qualify as human. He's a beast, and there's too damn many like him walking our streets.

But my pick is a drug war that's turned our cities into battle zones and provided irresistible incomes for the most sinister elements of our society.

You want to know why kids are being killed in Detroit? Because drug dealing is a $100 billion enterprise in the United States. All of that money moves through the criminal underground, where it is untaxed, unregulated and untraceable.

The only way to stop the drug trade from consuming our children and our communities is to take the profit out of selling dope.

For more than 30 years, we've tried to do that by kicking in doors, rounding up street corner dealers, cutting off international supply lines and filling our prisons. And it hasn't worked.

It will never work. Those determined to destroy themselves with drugs will find a way to do so, just as those who prefer to ruin their lives with alcohol or gambling, vices the government decided that, if we can't beat 'em, we might as well tax 'em.

So let's get the drugs off the street and into the pharmacies where they belong. Pick a variety of narcotics, from marijuana to heroin, and sell them in measured doses over-the-counter, like packaged liquor.

Move the drug money from the alleys to Wall Street. Let the pharmaceutical companies produce, sell and pay taxes on narcotics.

Perhaps we'll have more users when drugs are no longer illegal. But legalizing drugs will allow rehabilitation resources to be focused on those who truly have a problem, and create more funding for anti-drug education.

A drug-free America is an impossible dream. Our stubborn determination to press this lost cause is killing people.

If it were just the dope dealers who were dying, I'd say have at it. That's addition by subtraction.

But in Detroit we've seen the collateral damage of this misguided war.

When babies die in their beds, we have to start challenging the premises of the drug war, and asking whether the fight is worth the cost.

Nolan Finley is editorial page editor of The Detroit News.

What the?

In this strange world of divergent realities, threats that are then claimed to be jokes, rehearsals which are claimed to be mere role-playing, I received a letter yesterday telling me to renounce crimes of the Crown or await my arrest. It was sent to me because I am guilty of standing as a electoral candidate at the last election. It isn't easy to understand what the papers, which appear to have been filed in the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court, mean, but I gather they are from a Maori group who do not recognise the Crown. As an endorser of the Crown, by my action of seeking to become an MP, I now owe over $3 million or will spend 122 years in jail.

Anybody else received such a letter?

By a country mile....

Stuff Poll

Which politician would be the most formidable opponent in a fight?

Trevor Mallard (180 votes, 2.9%)

Tau Henare (934 votes, 15.1%)

Helen Clark (839 votes, 13.6%)

Rodney Hide (3657 votes, 59.2%)

Peter Dunne (30 votes, 0.5%)

Parekura Horomia (323 votes, 5.2%)

Jeanette Fitzsimons (212 votes, 3.4%)

Stuff polls are not scientific and reflect the opinions of only those internet users who have chosen to participate

Results of not paying attention to detail

This is quite startling. Rick Giles, who sometimes comments here, has been arrested in the US and is being held in jail awaiting deportation. He was apparently working in Canada but visiting the US and asked a cop for directions.

Some of you may have noticed the absence of Rick Giles from this forum for the last month or so. He is not on vacation; he has not given up, or left in a huff. He is in jail, and has been since the 26th or 27th of September. He has been in prison, without arrest, without trial, without legal recourse or appeal, for almost a month. And why? What heinous crime, you might ask, warrants being thrown into jail with no rights, no information, and no idea how long he’ll be incarcerated? Well, the combined crimes of not being a US citizen and misreading the date on his tourist visa.
Rick was asking directions to the bus station, as pedestrians aren’t allowed to cross the border into Canada, on the 26th of last month. Instead of helping, the policeman took his ID, checked his visa, and found that instead of expiring on the 27th, as Rick believed, it expired on the 20th. He was taken into custody, and has been there ever since.

On sexual abuse

I didn't really want to post about this but I can't get past it.

A new international survey has found one in four New Zealand girls is sexually abused before the age of 15, the highest rate of any country examined.

To be honest I am surprised that the figures are as low as they are. That 76.5 percent of girls did not experience any unwanted sexual touching before age 15.

That is not because I believe many men are sexual abusers. But one can spread himself around.

I have tried to estimate how many men or boys I came in contact with before the age of fifteen who had the opportunity to provide me with a positive answer to the question the survey asked. With three brothers, a father, uncles, great uncles and grandfathers, cousins, family friends, school mates and teachers I suppose the number must be over 100. I only ever encountered one. And I expect he messed with more very young girls than just me.

So what really worries me about the reaction to these sorts of 'horrific' findings is that suspicion is cast far and wide. 'Experts' are already telling parents and caregivers what signs to look for. People get hold of a statistics like, one in four females are sexually abused and mostly by their uncles and start looking sideways at completely innocent boys and men. Why, I expect many male readers of this blog are themselves uncles.

Let's not let 'uncle' become a dirty word. If there is a pervasive problem in young peoples lives today, girls and boys, it is a lack of warm and positive relationships with male figures.

Income equality does not equal happiness equality

National and Labour have produced two Ms Averages. National's is a single woman who is earning more but not getting ahead - Labour's is a partnered woman with two children who is better off.

Labour's redistributive philosophy is about achieving income equality - or trying to make incomes as 'average' as possible. Which reminded me of a passage I read last week. It comes from a US professor who says there are things beyond income that people care about - sometimes a great deal more. Love, faith and happiness for instance. As he puts it;

If greater income equality is our end goal, bringing the top down is as useful as bringing the bottom up, says Brooks. This is about as sensible as depressing the happy for the sake of the sad. There is no doubt the egalitarians among our politicians and pundits want the best for America. But to focus on inequality -- and then only inequality in income -- creates policies based on either rank materialism or raw envy. These motivations do little to inspire, and even less to lead.

Under income equality-driven policies many people become frustrated, resentful, demotivated and plain unhappy. The best approach is for government to leave people alone as much as possible. Tax them at a low flat rate and leave how they run their social and economic lives up to them. Decisions made unfettered by government policies will necessarily be better ones because their consequences are real - not subject to the whim of the next populist policy-maker who comes along.

"Panties for Peace"

Are they serious????

Document removed

I see MSD have realised their error and removed the Annual Report Word Document containing extensive editing notation from their site. A couple of govt.nz addresses were (typically) at my site this morning so I am not surprised. I thought it was rather charitable of me to let them know given their own ungenerous approach to information-sharing.

How useful is the HLFS?

The Household Labour Force Survey is the source for our official unemployment rate. Sixteen thousand households are surveyed quarterly.

Being 'employed' is defined by working 1 or more hours in a week.

Employed: All persons in the working-age population who during the reference week worked for one hour or more for pay or profit in the context of an employee/employer relationship or self-employment; or worked without pay for one hour or more in work which contributed directly to the operation of a farm, business or professional practice owned or operated by a relative; or had a job but were not at work due to: own illness or injury, personal or family responsibilities, bad weather or mechanical breakdown, direct involvement in an industrial dispute, or leave or holiday.

In September 2006 the HLFS data showed that 43 percent of one parent with dependent children only households had no-one employed.

Yet my OIA data shows 107,000 single parents with dependent children were on some form of benefit. According to the Census data from only six months earlier there were 145,000 such families.

Allowing for very slight variation due to information gathered in different months, this provides an unemployment rate of 74 percent. Of course some on benefits are also working part-time but typically only around 1 in 5. That would drop the rate to about 59 percent. Still well above 43 percent.

Which probably shows the nonsense of using one or more hours paid employment as the official definition for being 'employed'.

The HLFS is useful - for those who would paint a rosier picture than is really the case.

We should be very angry

This story from the front page of the Dominion Post really got to me. How many parents will look at the photo and think, there but for the grace of God... These frigging thugs need severely dealing with. They behave like they do because they know there are no substantial consequences, and what there are mean nothing. They have little to lose in their scummy lives. Then again, they might even get their photos in the papers as Uncle Pita and Aunty Tariana make excuses for them.

God help me if I had to attend a family group conference with any kids that had hurt one of mine like this. No doubt, if they find the attackers the authorities will want the victim to face them so they can 'appreciate' what they have done. So they can learn something. It'll still be about them and not the beaten young man, Oliver Mace, who, if he recovers his memory, will probably still be feeling frightened and sick to his back teeth over the violence. This 'humane' approach to justice has to stop. It's become inhumane.

When it's Labour Day every day

New Zealanders work too hard, whines Labour MP Darien Fenton. If Darien stopped to think about it Labour gave us the expansive welfare state. Fifty years Labour refused to entertain warnings that some New Zealanders would take advantage of universal taxpayer-funded benefits. Fifty years ago under 5,000 working age people relied on the state, mostly invalids and widows. Today the number is around 260,000 or ten percent of the working age population.

Does it occur to Darien that some New Zealanders are going to have to work harder to support those that chose not to?

Apart from which, people should be free to work as hard as they damn well like without sticky beak calling for the government to restrict their hours. What she should be calling for is people's ability to keep more of what they produce to use as they see fit. She might be pleasantly surprised at the results.

Labour then...Labour now

In 1945 Labour Minister of Works Bob Semple said of newly introduced benefits,

"There is a duty, too, on individuals to respond to a benevolent government that does that, and to pull their weight....Malingering on the job, stupid stop-work meetings, and all kinds of 'monkey tricks' played on industry will not help to make this measure a success...A country can only survive and prosper and retain humanitarian measures if every man, woman and child contributes his quota to the common weal. They must put their shoulders to the tasks allotted to them and pull their weight...If they regard this as something sacred which will give the rest of the world a lead, they will work as they have never worked before."


In 2007, Labour MP Darien Fenton says,

“As New Zealanders enjoy the Labour Day weekend, we need to take a moment to pause and reflect on the expectations of today’s Labour market. Long hours, shift and weekend work, unpaid overtime and in many cases, insecure hours have become entrenched in New Zealand working conditions and that’s not good enough”.

Ministry's ongoing incompetence

I am tired of the Ministry of Social Development. Tired of their excuses for not providing information and tired of their incompetence. I receive letters with my name on them but addressing someone else and their questions, they provide incorrect data to the media and MPs, they routinely make cock-ups at their website in respect of links. Today is no exception.

The 2006/07 Annual Report has been posted. However they have inadvertently linked to the Part One Word document that reveals material edited out of the final document. Hence we can see how they 'sanitise' their publications. Interesting statistics and statements have been carved out. In the section on CYFS for example the editor has removed this;

"Sputnik is 11 years old, but already an established car thief. He's one of nine other residents at Child, Youth and Family's Epuni Care and Protection centre locked up for their safety and the safety of others. He has Oppositional Defiance Disorder. "It means I don't listen to anything if I'm angry," he says.

Um. That won't do. Scrub it and go straight to the bit about how a lot of the time he's a smiling bubbly 11 year-old boy.

Then there is an entire section about a Work and Income whiteware pilot deleted.

"People can select their whiteware from a catalogue and obtain a quote on the spot getting immediate assistance right down to having their case manager organise delivery."

We don't really want to advertise this do we?? Delete.

While there is nothing particularly sensitive (or I wouldn't link to it) this error highlights their ongoing incompetence. And let's not forget the report is signed by a man earning nearly $500,000 a year.

Don't tell me what to think, Erin

I do not like being told what to think at the best of times.

Mental note to self - never buy another product from Noel Leeming or Bond and Bond. Ever.

GST bites

This hasn't reproduced very well but you can go here or right click for easier viewing.

It shows NZ's general consumption tax as a percentage of GDP is much higher than the OECD average. The OECD average is 6.9, ours is 9 and Australia's is 4.1. High consumption tax disadvantages the poorest people the most because they spend a larger proportion of their income. While consumption taxes are generally fair, set too high, they are not.

'But everyone does it'

One for Oswald who has a thing about swimming pools....understandably

A boy was at a public swimming pool.
The lifeguard blew his whistle at the boy and yelled, "Hey! Don't urinate in the pool!"
The boy replied, "But everyone does it!"
"Not from the diving board!" shouted the lifeguard.

"Zap! Kapow! Holy cow! We gotta new mayor!"

Whatever I think of his politics I do enjoy Hone's style;

Hone Harawira's Ae Marika

Zap! Kapow! Holy cow! We gotta new mayor!

Wayne Brown, slayer of bureaucracy, doyen of the slash and burn brigade, arch-enemy of the unions and upsetter of the blue-rinse brigade, has just hacked his way through the jungles of local government administration, and taken top prize in the top district, in the top country in the whole world!!!

So watch out folks, ‘cause the next few years are going to be wild (hopefully).

Brownie’s a surfing nut, and if there’s an analogy for how our next few years are gonna be, then it’s this - we’re about to take a ride on one of the wildest waves we’ve ever seen in local politics, with our new mayor cutting us back into the wave and squeezing out just before it all comes crashing down on us (possibly), then cutting back again (definitely), then out again (with a little bit of luck).

It’s going to be wild, and I’m kinda lookin’ forward to it actually. The bureaucracy in the Far North needs a good kick up the arse, and if anyone’s gonna do it, then it’s Brownie.

No offense to our outgoing mayor, Yvonne Sharp. She was always going out of her way to attend things, she was always positive (even when she was telling me off for something), helpful of the many communities in her fiefdom, and an excellent representative of our area. But for all her good intentions, it’s hard to have faith in an operation that takes your rates, then subcontracts most of its work out to somebody else, then denies any obligation to the ratepayer.

But now we got a new mayor, let me make a few predictions. (1) Brownie’s going to piss a lot of people off. (2) Some council staff will get the chop. (3) Other council staff will leave. (4) Some councillors will have already had meetings about how they’re going to put Brownie in his place. (5) Other councillors think they’re happy he’s got the job, but aren’t too sure about it. (6) I will certainly get upset with something Brownie does, although I’m not quite sure what that’s going to be just yet. (7) Brownie could care less about any or all of the above.

Hang on tight folks! I can see the wave coming!

Almost three quarters of single parents still rely on welfare

ALMOST THREE QUARTERS OF SINGLE PARENTS STILL RELY ON WELFARE
Thursday, 18 October, 2007

The number of one parent families with dependent children rose between 2001 and 2006 but made up a slightly smaller percentage of all families when compared to five years ago.

"According to the Social Report 2007, released today, last year there were 145,032 one parent families with dependent children, up from 140,178 in 2001." Welfare commentator, Lindsay Mitchell added, " The bad news is around 74 percent still relied on a welfare benefit of some sort."

"The report also states that New Zealand has a relatively high proportion of families with children under 18 headed by sole parents, second only to the United States at 33 percent in 2006 and higher than the United Kingdom (25% in 2004), Australia (21% in 2005) and Canada (21% in 2001)."

"While the government is patting itself on the back for a drop in DPB numbers the sad fact is single parents are still heavily reliant on the state for their livelihood."

Hard to believe

The story. A mother ran inside to get an umbrella, and left her car running. A thief stole the car and the baby in the back. The mother is being charged with a third degree felony, child neglect. I suppose the thief would be praised for quickly abandoning the car when he realised it contained a baby.

OK. She was slightly careless. But let's assume it had started to rain. The alternative was to unstrap the baby, sometimes a lengthy exercise with yourself half in and half out of the rain, lock the car and run with him in his carrier, through the rain. At the moment he is dry. After a trip to and from the house he will be damp at best. You know I could very well have made the same decision as the mother. To dash to the house and grab the umbrella. If it had been very cold I may even have left the car running to get some heat going. In her case it may have been very warm so the opposite applies re air conditioning.

What is going on in this topsy turvy world where decent people are prosecuted when the bad caused the problem?

(Hat tip Reason)

"Crime and rhetoric"

"Crime and rhetoric" is a brief piece by Thomas Sowell. Brief pieces make generalisations by necessity.

Having declined for decades on end, the murder rate suddenly doubled between 1961 and 1974. The rate at which citizens became victims of violent crimes in general tripled.


Such trends began at different times in different countries but the patterns remained very similar. As the rates of imprisonment declined, crime rates soared — whether in England, Australia, New Zealand or the United States.


After a whole generation of crime victims were sacrificed on the altar to the theories of the left, a political backlash produced higher rates of imprisonment — and lower rates of crime — in all these countries in the late 20th century.


In New Zealand overall recorded crime peaked in the early nineties. Violent crime has continued to increase however. Maybe this is partly an effect of our justice system still being dominated by the leftist ideology and rhetoric Sowell describes, that the root cause of crime is injustices and inequalities. Certainly the left-driven welfare mentality is playing a part.

Controversy courted

Embarking on a UK speaking tour here's a man not afraid to court controversy. He claims black people are less intelligent. But it was this repugnant view that caught my eye and I briefly wondered how the anti-abortion and anti-gay fundamentalists would square it.

Dr Watson is no stranger to controversy. He has been reported in the past saying that a woman should have the right to abort her unborn child if tests could determine it would be homosexual.

Of course they would reject the idea because they believe sexual orientation can be changed. Although if a gene exists who created it?

This sort of idea highlights what an ethical nightmare gene technology can present.

Anti-poverty Day

Today we are being encouraged to speak out about poverty, so I will.

There is no need for poverty in New Zealand. The main reason we have people who claim to be poor, or, more often, are claimed to be poor by others, is the welfare system. It doesn't alleviate need - it creates it. By a long margin single parents make up the poorest sector of society. Nobody forced them to become single parents though some are relatively blameless when compared to an abandoning or abusive partner. They made a bad choice somewhere along the line but it needn't consign them to a future of benefit dependence.

There is an interesting opinion piece in the Dominion Post today which highlights the difference between the approach of private international charities (the author represents Childfund) and the domestic social welfare approach. The first intends to make communities self sufficient whereas the second deals with individuals by giving them handouts on an ongoing basis.

This is demonstrated by the fact that 127,894 people - or 4.9 percent of the working age population - have been on welfare continuously for four or more years.

In this country there is an approach that guarantees avoidance of poverty. It's called individual responsibility. If successfully instilled in children there is no reason they can't look forward to a more prosperous and far more satisfying future than might otherwise be the case.

The politics of global warming explained

THE WARMING DEBATE'S GRAY AREA

Dr. William Gray, a top climate scientist and professor emeritus of the atmospheric department at Colorado State University calls the theory that won Al Gore an Oscar and a Nobel Peace Prize "ridiculous." Others, he says, would speak out if they didn't fear retribution from those who put ideology over science.

According to Gray:

* A natural cycle of ocean temperatures related to the amount of salt in ocean water was responsible for global warming, which he acknowledges has taken place.
* As part of this natural cycle, global temperatures will eventually cool again.
* Fluctuations in hurricane intensity and frequency, Exhibit A in Gore's inquisition, have nothing to do with carbon dioxide levels or human activity, but with changing ocean currents.
* There were 101 hurricanes from 1900 to 1949, in a period of cooler global temperatures, compared with 83 from 1957 to 2006, when the earth warmed.

"It bothers me that my fellow scientists are not speaking out against something they know is wrong. But they also know that they'd never get any grants if they spoke out. I don't care about grants. We'll look back at this in 10 or 15 years and realize how foolish it was," says Gray.

Source: Editorial, "The Warming Debate's Gray Area," Investor's Business Daily, October 15, 2007.

(From the National Center for Policy Analysis)

White collar crime 'rife' in NZ

Published in today's Dominion Post and written up by James Weir, the above is the result of an international survey by Price-WaterhouseCoopers and included 78 NZ medium to large firms,

"The average white collar criminal in New Zealand was likely to be a man in his thirties, with a high school education, in a job for less than two years and in a post below middle management....in many cases firms did not report crimes to police or even the executive team or board...in almost half of the cases people involved even kept their jobs."

I have two responses to that - better the devil you know and New Zealand's employment law. Many employers know that it will cost them more to rid themselves of an employee than to simply accept the loss or come to some private agreement.

One could go a step further and speculate that the protection of employees through employment law encourages crime.

Somebody is telling porkies

Dr Cullen said there was nothing in the Australian tax cut package for those earning under $30,000 a year and just $20 a week for those earning up to $74,000 a year, but $128 a week for those on $200,000 a year.

Costello said a major change to benefit low-paid workers was an increase of the tax-free threshold from 11,000 dollars to 14,000 dollars from July 1, 2008 and 16,000 dollars from 2010.

I don't think it is Costello telling blatant fibs.

Franks on Tame Iti

Stephen Franks describes his last meeting with Tame Iti. Slightly chilly might be an understatement.

Wrong focus

Ron Mark is upset that 8.4 percent of our prison population are non-New Zealanders.

That's pretty good considering 23 percent of people normally residing in New Zealand were born overseas.

Now if we could get Maori under-represented to the same degree, 7% instead of 50%, the prison population would drop to 3,779 rather than 6,630

Thought about the would-be 'terrorists'

Just thinking about this 'group' of so-called would-be terrorists, remember Upper Hutt lawyer, John Burrett, and his nephew, who went to jail for intent to kidnap.

Burrett and Payne claimed the kidnap plot was just a game of role playing and they never intended to abduct anyone.

Are these guys for real? We may never know.

"Legalise all drugs, top British police officer says"

Top British cop calls for the legalization of all drugs.

Seems to me that Britain is leading the gathering momentum although there is support from some in the US. Which restores some of my faith in the intellectual capacity of Britons.

Remember - making an activity legal does not sanction or approve it. It simply allows any resulting problem to be handled differently.

Stats show DPB a way of life

Media Release

STATS SHOW DPB A WAY OF LIFE
Monday, October 15, 2007

Forty five percent of people on the DPB have been on it at least once before, a fifth have been on it twice before, nearly 5,000 have been on it three times before and a further 4,000 had been on it four or more times.

According to Lindsay Mitchell, welfare commentator, "These recent figures show that a large minority of single parents are cycling on and off the benefit. At the other extreme are those who get onto the DPB and stay there long-term, especially those who start young. The Ministry of Social Development's computer system does not provide pre-1993 information but available figures show a minimum of 40 percent first started on welfare under the age of twenty."

"Additionally nearly forty five percent have been on this benefit or another continuously for 4 or more years, 17 percent for ten or more years."

Mitchell says that the official description of the DPB's original intention was, 'temporary financial support for deserted or battered wives and unmarried mothers without partners.'

"Clearly the usage of this benefit has far exceeded expectations often, sadly, to the disadvantage of children who lead impoverished, insecure and transient lives as a consequence."

Smoke and mirrors

The table below shows the movement off the DPB in terms of how many were already partially employed. This confirms what I have been saying about the drop in DPB numbers being, in part, a smoke and mirrors exercise. Fifty eight percent of those moving off DPB were already 'attached' to the workplace.

The reports states, "The fall in numbers was most rapid for those with other income in excess of $300 per week (with a 25% fall) or between $180 and $300 per week (with a 12% fall). These groups would have been the most readily able to shift off benefit and take up the In-Work Tax Credit. Some would have already have been working sufficient hours (20 hours a week) to qualify."

Now you could respond that 42% with 'no other income' also left the DPB. Yes. But a good number move to other benefits, change their marital status, go onto super, go to prison, etc. This group is less likely to have entered the workplace.




By the way, see if you can spot the error in this table.

"Beaten women more likely to talk in Nelson"

The Press has an answer.

"Family violence risk for those on benefits"

The Nelson Mail has covered the high incidence of violence disclosures in their region. My view wasn't included but, as they say, 'thems the breaks'. At least the link between welfare and domestic violence gets more exposure.

Are disclosures of violence genuine?

Having reflected on yesterday's release about the high number of family violence disclosures in Nelson I have another thought.

Briefly, in 1996 the Court of Appeal ruled that women in a relationship where violence was present were not in a relationship that met the criteria of being "in the nature of a marriage" and could therefore continue to receive a benefit as a sole parent.

It is possible that women may disclose violence to avoid losing her benefit or being prosecuted for fraud.

After the court made this ruling 2,865 women had their debts disestablished and thousands of dollars were refunded.

I believed that the judge who made the ruling was opening a can of worms. Essentially we went from paying women to escape violence to paying them to live with it, or say they are living with it.

So we might be looking at a two-pronged problem. Yes there is rising violence but there may also be women who are falsely disclosing violence. (With our very broad definition of domestic violence it would be difficult to establish any disclosure was 'false' however.) Nelson may have a particularly active benefit control unit. It is a well known destination for welfare/alternative life-stylers.

If this effect from the ruling is happening I would expect it to show in an area where there is strong advocacy for beneficiaries. I don't know about Nelson but the Bay of Plenty, second highest for violence disclosures, has one such Rotorua-based group which forced Work and Income to recognise split-custody DPB through court action.

In my experience there are genuine cases and there are people who routinely 'lie' to Work and Income. That's just the way it is.