More jiggery-pokery from Minister

Here are Ruth Dyson's answers to Russell Fairbrother's questions in Parliament yesterday. I will intersperse my own comments;

1. RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What reports has she received regarding the number of New Zealanders receiving an unemployment benefit?

Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I am delighted to report to the House that the number of New Zealanders receiving an unemployment benefit is at its lowest since 1979. Our Government has invested in New Zealanders. We have rebuilt the tax credit system to make work pay and we are providing active support to help people find jobs. More than 141,000 people have come off an unemployment benefit since 1999, which is a decrease of 88 percent.

This is not right. Her answer implies there is a static pool of people on the unemployment benefit. In reality there will have been over 1 million cancellations over that period with slightly fewer grants hence the total at any given time trends down. (For the critics, you might find an instance of my own sloppy description of the situation but I am not the Minister.)

Russell Fairbrother: What progress has been made in reducing the number of young people receiving the unemployment benefit for long periods of time?

Hon RUTH DYSON: Great progress. Five years ago our Government made a commitment with the Mayors Task Force for Jobs to ensure that all young New Zealanders are on a clear pathway to economic independence and well-being. That collaborative effort has resulted in a tremendous achievement. This week, fewer than 250 18 and 19-year-olds have been on an unemployment benefit for longer than 13 weeks. That is a drop of 97 percent since December 1999. This afternoon my colleagues and I will meet with the Mayors Task Force for Jobs to look at our next challenge.

No mention is made of the 2,000 18-19 year-olds who receive emergency benefit, independent youth benefit,unemployment benefit training and unemployment benefit training hardship and unemployment benefit student hardship.

Russell Fairbrother: Are people leaving the unemployment benefit only by simply transferring to sickness or invalids benefits?

Hon RUTH DYSON: The answer is no. The reason that most people leave the unemployment benefit is to enter paid employment.

Madam SPEAKER: It is impossible to hear the Minister’s reply. I ask the Hon Ruth Dyson to please start again.

Hon RUTH DYSON: The answer is no. Most people leave the unemployment benefit to enter paid work. Only 8.5 percent of all unemployment benefit cancellations between September 1999 and September of this year have been as a result of transfers to sickness benefit. Over the same period, 60,000 people went the other way. That makes a net transfer of 31,000. One-third of 1 percent of unemployment benefit cancellations over the same period were as a result of a transfer to an invalids benefit; and over the same period 450 went the other way. That makes a net transfer of just 2,850. The combination of those two factors is nothing like the 141,000 people who are no longer dependent on the unemployment benefit.

This is interesting. Now Dyson correctly utilises the inflow/outflow process (while continuing to wrongly describe what has happened to the unemployment benefit). That's because it suits her argument to talk about net transfer. However there is no proof that those people who went onto sickness from unemployment benefits are the same people who transferred the other way. In fact some will have progressed onto the invalid's benefit. Therefore the gain from a benefit may be much larger than the net transfer. Here is what MSD research has to say. It doesn't matter that they looked at an earlier period because under Labour the net transfers have increased.

We estimate that growth in transfers explains 60% of the growth in Invalid’s Benefit inflow rates at ages 15–59 between 1993 and 2002. This translates to a 31% contribution to the overall growth in inflows to that benefit (Table 2)19, a share of growth that is bigger than the independent contributions of either the demographic changes or the increase in inflow rates at ages 60–64 shown in Table 1.

In summary a great many people now on an invalid's benefit came from an unemployment benefit via the sickness benefit. Ruth Dyson had managed to make it look as though only 2,850 of the 78,000 came from the dole during Labour's administration.

Update - And this is how it turns it translates in a news item;

Benefit switching labelled a myth

12/12/2007 6:12:03

The Social Development Minister is debunking accusations beneficiaries are moving from the dole to sickness and invalid benefits.

Ruth Dyson says only 8.5 percent of all unemployment benefit cancellations between September 1999 and September of this year have been as a result of recipients going on the sickness benefit. She says over the same period less than one percent went from the dole to an invalid benefit.

Ms Dyson says the reason most people leave the unemployment benefit is to go into paid work.

Unemployment is at a record low of around 20,000 people,but more than 100,000 people are collecting sickness and invalid payments.

Labour only scratching surface of welfare problem

Although I would have liked to tackle the unemployment spin it was too complicated for a media statement so I settled on the following. Something had to be said. National didn't even put up a single supplementary to this question yesterday.

RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What reports has she received regarding the number of New Zealanders receiving an unemployment benefit?

Media Release
LABOUR ONLY SCRATCHING SURFACE OF WELFARE PROBLEM
Tuesday, December 11, 2007

Minister for Social Development Ruth Dyson has announced that the number of people on an unemployment benefit is at a 28 year low. She did not release a companion press statement announcing that the number of people on a sickness or invalid benefit is at an all-time high.

Welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell notes; "In fact twenty eight years ago there were 23,000 people on these benefits. Today there are over 127,000 and the numbers continue to rise unabated.

While people on unemployment benefits tend to respond favourably to a strong job market, those on other benefits do not. People on the sickness, invalid and domestic purposes benefits therefore pose a far greater challenge for government.

While Ms Dyson, who has only recently assumed responsibility for the Ministry of Social Development, boasts in Parliament about 'low' unemployment figures, thousands of people are continuing to enter the benefit system destined to become long term sickness, invalid and domestic purposes beneficiaries."

This level of spin is disgusting

Let's go back to what Ruth Dyson said yesterday;

The number of New Zealanders receiving an unemployment benefit is at a 28 year low, Social Development and Employment Minister Ruth Dyson said today.

“In December 1999, when the Labour-led government came into office, 161,000 people were receiving an unemployment benefit. Over 141,000 have come off this benefit since then, with just over 20,000 people receiving it now. These numbers haven’t been this low since 1979. In addition, this government has radically reduced youth unemployment numbers,” said Ruth Dyson.

Now consider the following;



Those on the 'Unemployment Benefit related' numbered 1,214 whereas the number on 'other main benefits' numbered 3,214. Yet the definition of 'other main benefits' includes Unemployment Benefit Training and Unemployment Benefit Hardship, etc. Surely these would be considered Unemployment related. Not if you don't want to count them.

Here's another thing.

Between 1999 and 2006 the numbers dropped from 161,000 to 40,000 or 75 percent.

This chart relates to ALL unemployment related benefits and shows expenditure has only dropped 54 percent.



Obviously some gains have been made under Labour. Or perhaps in spite of Labour. But why do they have to spin so much?? And calling it 'spin' is being very polite. The practice really does disgust me.

Update; Even allowing for cost of living adjustment, which a critic on another blog has pointed out I have neglected, the expenditure of $819 million is too high for the publicised 40,000 unemployment beneficiaries. The basic rate per year ranges from $6,000 to $13,000. Whereas the figures made sense in 1999 they don't in 2006. The figures above are taken from the MSD Statistical Report which is not the official measure for expenditure but they serve the purpose of showing that the numbers touted are by no means the full story.

The DPB problem remains

The following is a graph contained in a report released yesterday into the 2002 DPB reforms. The 'reforms' constituted removal of work-testing and implementation of Personal Development Plans. At a glance the results look promising.



Account should however be taken of the following;

1/ Between September 99 and September 06 there has been a drop of about 10,000. Over the same period there has been an increase in the number of single parents with dependent children on either the Sickness or Invalid's Benefits of over 4,000.

2/ An unknown number have moved onto the In Work payment which means they are still receiving the same or greater level of assistance with, in some cases, no change to their hours of work.

3/ The demographic from which the DPB draws is shrinking

4/ In the year 2006 alone 500 recipients moved on to Super.

Overall the employment rate of single mothers is however rising. It has climbed from around 40% in 1999 to just over 50% in 2006. That's the good news (although given overall unemployment dropped from 7.4 to 3.6 percent between 1999 and 2006 one might have expected a larger rise).

The bad news is the exit rates fell for those with children over 14 and those with;

- no qualifications
- who were teenagers when their oldest child was born
- who had already spent a large proportion of their time in the benefit system
- Maori and Pacific recipients

So my argument remains that we are not reforming the DPB in any way that will prevent more people with these characteristics (or who will develop them) from entering the system in the first place. Therein lies the problem. One neither Labour nor National seem prepared to face.

What's with the Unemployment Benefit?

New Social Development Minister Ruth Dyson says that only 20,000 are now on the unemployment benefit. The September Household Labour Force survey says there are 79,000 unemployed. Now I know they are different measures but in Australia the two roughly tally.

In September 2005 the HLFS had exactly the same number unemployed - 79,000 - as September 2007, but then there were 50,000 on the unemployment benefit. Now there are 20,000.

"We're Here To Help"

The casting of Rodney Hide in We're Here To Help was just awful. Having read elsewhere that Michael Hurst's characterisation was very good, I was disappointed. Expecting Michael Hurst to play Rodney Hide was a bit like expecting Maggie Smith to play Dawn French. It was just so not Rodney. I couldn't help but imagine how much better it would have been if Rodney had played himself.

Otherwise the movie held my attention. Some of the complete dorks at the IRD provided quirky entertainment. For me the classic line was when they discovered Henderson's development finance links to the BNZ Lower Hutt. The BNZ Lower Hutt?? Whoop,whoop, pull-up, pull-up. It was so nerdy. One of the jerks was styled physically on the manager from the brilliant series The Office, David Brent; another was played by an actor who has effortlessly played the same slimeball in other productions. He must be good because I am now convinced he is also a slimeball off screen.

Naturally, simply by default Dave Henderson's charisma is pushed up a notch or three.

A good Kiwi movie but I would have drawn out the time-line and cut down on some of the detail. They could have added a closing scene some years down the line - like in The Way We Were for instance - which rapped the movie more satisfactorily than just a few sentences on the screen. Both David and I had the same reaction. Is that it?

So three stars from me.

Stop trusting your intuition, Kerre

This is a quote from Kerre Woodham's column in today's Herald on Sunday;

...I'm becoming a political agnostic. Intuitively, I believe well- meaning left-leaning policies and state intervention are the answers to helping the disaffected, but in the absence of any proof after nine years in that direction, I'm suspending my belief. Instead of expending so much energy on politics, I'd love to see this Government spend some time on policies.

Try sixty nine years 'in that direction'. If well-meaning state intervention to help the disaffected can be pinpointed to a key date I would choose 1938. That was when Labour introduced a social security tax and a raft of benefits hitherto unknown.

If Kerre could accept that instead of nine years of failure we've really had 69, perhaps she might start calling for fewer government policies instead of more.

"Women want 'no-strings sex' "

Two young women researchers are calling for a new form of sexual ethics that would allow women to have casual sex without feeling that they're "sluts".

I do not understand this or the extrapolations made. A new set of ethics can't just be 'called for'. They evolve. My morality is my understanding of what is right and what is wrong. I can't just expect others to adopt my morality wholesale (although I can try to persuade them why I hold it).

Does this mean they want parents and teachers to tell children casual sex is OK? How can they do that when feelings about sex are so personal?

If people want to have casual sex that's their business. Hopefully they can find a willing partner and it doesn't get messy emotionally. But I won't be imparting this set of 'new ethics' to my kids. I will be imparting what I have learnt through my own experience and hoping I can help them avoid some pitfalls and pain.

It seems to me these ladies are denying the human condition.

I have a request off-blog for an eyes-open shot of Daisy.

Really...I'm not a cat person but we have all joined the dog's camp and are head over heels.....

The Family Party...

...has launched its website. They aim to take Mangere off Labour. I was interested to see what they had to say about welfare and especially sole parents as the Destiny Party was typically woolly. This is slightly more encouraging;

Sole Parents

THE FAMILY PARTY acknowledges the immense challenge of sole parenting when it comes to raising a family alone. In saying this, THE FAMILY PARTY is extremely concerned at a prevailing attitude amongst young girls who view the Domestic Purposes Benefit as a valid career choice; not understanding the detrimental affects such a lifestyle has on their children.

Don't try telling me they are wrong. I know and they know that this is fact. And it has to stop.

Abstinence opponents jump to conclusions

The US has experienced a rise in teenage births - the first in a long time. Some are saying it is a blip - others a reversal of a tend.

NZ figures are just the same. 2006 showed a marked increase over 2005. And the year-to-date Sept 2007 data showed a further increase.(Interesting that the Herald has printed the US story but ignored our own).

Without knowing more details - which ethnicity and socio-economic class are more affected, the teenage pregnancy and abortion rates for the same period - it is difficult to say what is causing this rise. But it is, for both countries, part of an overall increase in fertility.

Abstinence opponents are grasping on the idea that the rise in the US is a reaction to not being taught about contraception. Maybe. But we haven't had the abstinence drive here.

What role is welfare playing? Again difficult to say when each US state does it's own thing and can exempt up to 20 percent of welfare recipients from time-limits.

Then again, is there any point in trying to compare two countries with different ethnic make-ups?

Parentline

Hamilton's Parentline looks like it's a bit of a dog really and should probably be wound up. They have now had three years of staffing and governance problems. I had a look at their Annual Report and was disappointed in how captured by fashionable verbosity it has become. For instance;

In April 2007, the Trust Deed was updated by the Parentline Board when it was found the previous deed had not been registered following its adoption in November 2005. Independent legal advice recommended against continuing with the 2005 edition, and so the original 2003 constitution was reviewed and amended. This provided a further opportunity to review our ‘purpose’.

‘We wish to see an end to violence and neglect of children, and provide child advocacy. The aim is to enhance the lives of children and their families….’

- Parentline Charitable Trust Deed 2007, Clause D (iii)

The focus now is intervention, educating families and healing children.

‘We will explore means of empowering our communities to unify in the mission of promoting the well-being of all children & preventing child abuse and neglect, to ensure our children (irrespective of religion, race or gender) will live with dignity, in a safe and caring environment.

- Parentline Charitable Trust Deed 2007, Clause 3.1 Purposes

Mission statements are a waste of time when in practice the staff - what's left of them - are (allegedly) operating in an environment described as including;

An air of lethargy;

Low energy levels;

Spirit and soul gone;

Trying to keep the peace;

Not feeling safe.

Some of this will be to do with the kind of clients these social workers are dealing with. But I wouldn't mind betting that a great deal of their problems stem from being captured by government. 80 percent of their funding comes from the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Social Development. In my experience this leads to organisations becoming obsessed with process and systems instead of results.

With all the bad publicity the organisation has had it is surprising they can raise any private money. It seems to me that volunteer organisations (which is what Parentline probably began as) should stay small and channel any ambition towards those they are trying to help.

We are going to hear a lot from National about welfare services being provided by the private sector as if it is some sort of magic bullet. Just remember many NGOs are but a tiny step removed from their major funders in character and effectiveness.

Standing for National

Stephen Franks explains why he is standing for National. I couldn't resist commenting.

Newcomer

If you think I've been a bit light on blogging here's why;




Our latest addition, she hasn't put a paw wrong since arriving on Monday. The dog is besotted and follows her everywhere with its nose just about up the kittens bottom. The kids are making just the most wonderful but restrained fuss over her showing me they are actually far more responsible than I might otherwise give them credit for.
She is 8 weeks old and come from a rather chaotic home where she has lived in the clay floor basement with her 3 brothers for the past two weeks. Her mother was hand reared after being discovered in an abandoned derelict car less than a year ago. She is gorgeous. Daisy. Named for my friend who wanted her to "grow up in luxury". She's making a good go of it.

Barriers to work

I was thinking about a conversation I had earlier this week. It was with a friend who is on the DPB. Her youngest has recently started school. So she told Work and Income, I want to get back into the workforce. Her daughter has an improving and intermittent health problem which may mean she is more prone to need time off school. Work and Income tells my friend she needs to get the Doctor to sign a form stating the daughter is well enough for her mother to work. My friend says, but her father can take care of her if needed. He is willing and available. Work and Income say, but he is not allowed to be in your home because he isn't allowed to live in your home. So that answer is not satisfactory. As the Doctor had only recently signed a form confirming the daughter still suffers from this health condition and needs continuing medication he can't 'un-sign' until May next year. The upshot is while my friend wants to work, WORK and Income are telling her she can't. I said, if you weren't on a benefit they couldn't tell you what to do and what not to do. In reality there is nothing to stop her finding a job herself, which she intends doing. But she is effectively barred from using Work and Income employment services. And I am guessing if she finds work she could be faced with relinquishing her daughter's disability allowance, as she has more or less asserted her daughter is no longer sick by getting a job. Assuming I am getting the full story, how dumb is all of this?

Another stupid ban

This time in Devon, England where angel wings have been banned from nativity plays;

Linda Mitchell, headmistress at Sacred Heart Roman Catholic primary school in Paignton, Devon, told parents they would have to get rid of the wings on their little girls' angel outfits or they would be banned from taking part in the Christmas play.

Mrs Mitchell said that, because the wings, which are all made by the parents, had been of all shape and sizes, some of the children had been scratched during last year's nativity play.

She added: "We hold our services in a church where there are candles and if children turn around, there is a risk they could catch fire.

"For the safety of the children, staff decided that this year the angels would not have wings."


What next? Trees without Xmas lights, puddings without coins, crackers without bangers....what about a ban on fat Father Christmas' 'sending the wrong message to society' about healthy eating?

Stupid ban. Stupid people. There's no shortage of them.

Looking forward to this

Let me know if you'd like a ticket.

Next weekend, Heather Roy will host a special private screening of 'We're Here to Help' - the true story of Dave Henderson's battle, with a little help from ACT Leader Rodney Hide, against the IRD.

Date: Sunday, December 9 2007
Time: 7.30pm for 8pm screening
Venue: The Light House Cinema, Pauatahanui
Cost : $20 per ticket (no door sales)
RSVP: Lindsay Mitchell - dandl.mitchell@clear.net.nz or (04) 562 7944

All welcome. Only 60 tickets available, so RSVP today.

New Minister Rejects Call For Work-testing

Media Release
NEW MINISTER REJECTS CALL FOR WORK-TESTING
Monday, December 3, 2007

In an updated report, Babies and Bosses, the OECD has once again recommended New Zealand work-test sole parents on welfare. The new Minister for Social Development Ruth Dyson has continued in the tradition of past Labour Ministers and rejected this advice.

Welfare Commentator Lindsay Mitchell was surprised that Ms Dyson , a committed social-democrat, would dismiss what is the norm in Scandinavian countries. "This government is usually quick to praise countries like Sweden and Denmark when it comes to social policy yet refuses to consider their approach to single parents. Neither country has a DPB equivalent. Scandinavian countries treat sole parents the same way as any other parent. Once paid parental leave expires they are work-tested for any further benefit receipt. "

"In Sweden sole parents only qualify for temporary social assistance as a very last resort, which results in their average duration of stay on welfare being just 5.9 months. In Denmark there is also no lone parent benefit. Out-of-work single parents are only entitled to a sickness or unemployment benefit. Both of these countries have employment rates for sole parents of between 70 and 80 percent."

"Even the United Kingdom and Australia have recently moved to more stringent testing, with the UK testing after the youngest child turns 12 and Australia, after the youngest child turns 6, with no eligibility for a Parenting Payment for new applicants with children 6 or older. They will be treated the same as the unemployed."

"While work-testing alone isn't enough to be highly effective, it would be an improvement on the status quo. Meanwhile, Ms Dyson claims NOT work-testing has been an effective approach yet there are still over 100,000 single parents reliant on welfare."

Equal pay does not lead to prosperity

Look at this harping headline, Women still paid 'significantly' less than men and then take a look at a OECD graph released yesterday here, which shows, amongst other things, New Zealand has the smallest gender pay gap of the OECD countries.

Not that it has helped us economically. It seems feminists are obsessed with two things; achieving equality and eradicating poverty. When are they going to make the connection?

DNA sampling disarray

Remember this recent announcement?

A National-led government would require DNA samples to be taken from anyone arrested for imprisonable crimes, allow police to issue immediate protection orders and would toughen up bail laws.

Here's a report from the UK which already takes DNA samples from anyone arrested for an imprisonable crime:

Civil liberties campaigners and MPs have raised doubts about the national DNA database after the Home Office confirmed it contained more than 500,000 false or wrongly recorded names.

Suspects arrested over any imprisonable offence, including rape and murder, can have their DNA held even if they are not charged or are acquitted.

The database, the biggest in the world, contains about four million names.

But it has been dogged by problems. Statistics released by the Home Office show it contains around 550,000 files with wrong or misspelt names.

It always gives me the shivers when I hear people say, if you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to hide, and then go on to advocate taking DNA samples at birth. Their trust in the administration and use of these databases is touching. I do not share it.

What a difference a day makes

Sue Bradford is hollering about the fate of babies whose mothers go home shortly (about one day sooner than is already the case) after the birth of their child.

"One of the major contributors to the battering and killing of babies and young children is a lack of successful bonding between mother and baby. The situations where this is most likely to happen are in households where people do not have enough money to survive with any degree of comfort.

"These are also the households where the mother is most likely to take a $100 bribe to vacate the hospital immediately.

"In some cases she will be going home to poverty, chaos, and an expectation that she will meet the demands of other children as well as those of her new baby.

"Such mothers risk not being able to establish breastfeeding properly; not bonding well with their new child; post-natal depression and despair, as well as sinking into the addiction and crime subculture to which such households are vulnerable.

Over-egging it I think.

You have to wonder, if they are going home to such a household, why they had another child. Perhaps because, (Sue says they are the most likely to take the $100 bribe), they are also interested in the extra money and on-going benefit the new baby guarantees.

The $100 'bribe'

Wellington mothers are being "bribed" with $100 grocery vouchers to leave hospital within six hours of giving birth.

But I thought people couldn't be incentivised with money?? I mean, nobody gets pregnant for the DPB.

I was part of the 'nappy-bribe' generation. Not that I needed them in either sense. I didn't need an incentive to get out of the place asap and I gave the nappies to somebody who might materially appreciate them. The place was dirty. I watched a 'cleaner' enter the room with a mop and create a wet snail-trail in and around the beds and depart. Doing the recommended walking during labour resulted in feet dirtier than if I had gone outside and walked up and down the footpath (No I don't possess a pair of slippers). The vending machines offered more appetising choices than the hospital kitchens. And lying awake listening to screaming babies all night is hardly restful. If I had been of the era when they made you stay in hospital for days to 'recuperate' I would have been tearing my hair out. I can't understand why anyone wouldn't want to go home at the first possible opportunity.

But I had to shake my head at the last line in the news item.

Hospitals used to offer free nappies to encourage mothers to leave early, but this policy had largely been abandoned.

In 2005, Hutt Valley District Health Board said it stopped the practice as it "had concerns this may be an inappropriate incentive for unwell women to go home".

How archetypically illustrative of bureaucratic bungling. Chopping and changing policies with neither reason nor rhyme. Propelled by pragmatism. In all its wisdom, Capital and Coast has decided incentives are appropriate with a qualifier - cash is and nappies are not.

Who to believe

Principal Youth Court Judge Andrew Becroft makes a habit of being outspoken. That's good. At least we get a view even if we choose to disbelieve it. Fewer youths are being given diversion and he blames it on a lack of police resources. The police however blame it on the more serious nature of youth offending. Not shown in this link but in the hard copy is the judge claiming that violent offending is rising in all cohorts, particularly 51-99. That's a twist. Violent youth offending is rising, but as every other group's is, we should discount it?

Despite the successful use of diversion since reforms in 1989, its use had fallen markedly in the past two years, Judge Becroft said.

What constitutes "successful"? That some potential criminal careers have been nipped in the bud by keeping the individual out of court? I am sure that is true. But how many other individuals have gotten deeper into the poo because they weren't punished? Their misdemeanours were pandered to by a justice system that teaches them they are the 'victims'.

Because if the present situation constitutes "success" we don't even want to begin to imagine failure.

"This is a great provision," he said. "There's no other youth justice system in the world that has a provision like that ... that instructs authorities: don't charge."

It fascinates me what people say when they are addressing the like-minded. Maybe my reaction is heightened because this statement is taken out of context. But really. For all those do-gooders who constantly chatter about 'sending messages' this is very much an own goal.

Try rephrasing it. New Zealand bends over backwards to avoid holding young thugs and thieves to account.

Where most babies are born

Part of this effect is people have babies at a time in their lives when they haven't accumulated much wealth but the graph still seems heavily skewed toward the Decile Ten areas.

Teenage birthrate almost ten-fold in poorest areas

Media Release
TEENAGE BIRTHRATE ALMOST TEN-FOLD IN POOREST AREAS
Tuesday, November 27, 2007

Released today by the Paediatric Society of New Zealand, "Monitoring the Health of New Zealand Children and Young People " reveals teenage birth rates that vary enormously across geographic and economic regions.

"These statistics confirm a strong correlation between low income and teenage births, "said Lindsay Mitchell, welfare commentator . "The birth rate in the most deprived areas (decile 10) is 60.49 per 1,000 15-19 year-olds. This drops to 6.56 in decile 1 areas. This confirms that it is those girls who are least able to financially afford to raise children who are having them. Hence so many end up on welfare."

"The teenage birthrate also varies geographically from a low of 13.5 in Otago to a high of 59.4 in Gisborne, which is also home to the highest number of children living in one parent homes."

"Maori have the highest teenage birthrate at 77.64 compared to 16.43 for Europeans. Earlier Ministry of Social Development data shows that Maori are 8 times more likely to be a teenage parent on welfare."

"As the report notes, 'High teenage pregnancy rates are a cause for concern as young maternal age has been associated with a number of adverse birth outcomes ... and impact on the educational attainment, not only of the young women themselves but also the aspirations and opportunities available to their children.' "

"The government must now face facts and examine how paying girls to have babies is influencing this unacceptable situation. Employing eight people to work with teenage parents, when over 4,000 give birth each year, is not an answer."

Helping children from poor homes

The children who form the group covered by a damning Paediatric Society report are overwhelmingly those on welfare and those living in one parent homes - the poorest homes by a long margin. The automatic response from child health advocates therefore is to call on government to give more money to their parents - they cannot give it directly to the children - and to spend more money on their housing.

The second recommendation may have some substance. If the government is going to keep a stock of state homes it would be wise to maintain them. However that maintenance doesn't fall solely to the landlord. Tenants would benefit from looking after properties too. That means not breaking windows and leaving them unrepaired during winter months. Removing condensation in bathrooms so paint and wood do not deteriorate. Spending money on heating homes instead of using the money on alcohol, tobacco and drugs - the last of which can gobble up a benefit payment within a couple of days. Unfortunately when people do not own their property they have far less interest in looking after it.

The first recommendation is however made without thought and is without merit. In fact I would go so far as to say pumping more cash into the homes of these children may even worsen the overall picture.

That is because raising benefit levels has been demonstrated to attract more people onto benefits. It is interesting that the government accepts that raising the pay levels of teachers, nurses and policeman will attract more of them but doesn't use the same argument to resist calls to increase benefit levels - the current campaign being run by the Child Poverty Action Group and supported by the Greens and the Maori Party.

New Zealand's social assistance levels are already generous by international standards. So generous that many parents prefer living on a benefit to working. Not all, by any means, but a good percentage. They will justify this preference by pointing out that taking a job will mean they 'earn less' than they do on a benefit. This may have been the case in previous years but with the lowered abatement rates and In Work tax credits nobody should be disadvantaged when moving into work. And yet we still see thousands of parents move onto the DPB every year, especially teenagers who have little idea about child rearing or home maintenance yet are given that responsibility.

So in our employment-rich environment many parents would be better off - which is what the advocates want - if they got a job. Maybe not much better off immediately but there is more chance of income from employment rising than income from a benefit rising. As well many have only school age children. If the parent were also absent from the home more frequently less electricity would be used, power bills being one of their main expenses. And if some pre-school children's home environments are so very unhealthy then it would benefit them to also be elsewhere for at least some of the day.

At some point the role of a parent, the adult in the equation, must be questioned. It cannot continue to be the financial obligation of society to solve problems knowingly caused by individuals. Those caused by people producing children they cannot afford to raise being a major example. Socialising problems exacerbates rather than alleviates them.

So yes, the government may need to put some more money into existing state home stock but even more importantly, tenants need to take responsibility for keeping their homes in a sound and hygienic state.

Meantime what would make a huge difference for those parents who are struggling, be it their own fault or not, is more personal attention. More mentoring and practical help from private citizens. The faceless bureaucratic services cannot sort out the current mess by simply pouring more money into the homes of these children. Over thirty years of doing that already has shown it will not work.

The many child advocates promoting this solution mean well. I have no doubt. But they must look at the bigger and historical picture if they want the lives of New Zealand children to be better in the future.

In 1904 a Wellington trustee of the Charitable Aid Board said that the more the Government tried to assist the destitute the greater became the demands. This is as true today. Yet it seems many are destined to promote soft but unsuccessful solutions.

'Buying elections'

There is an obvious point about Labour's justification for the Electoral Finance Bill which needs fleshing out somewhat. Chris Carter's assistant highlights it here when defending Carter's response to an e-mailer;

A spokeswoman for Mr Carter said the question was the minister's standard response to messages against the Electoral Finance Bill.

"He was making a point about people trying to buy elections. He's trying to make the point that the Exclusive Brethren tried to influence the 2005 election secretly."

For Labour 'buying the election' means people spending their own money to influence how other people vote.

It doesn't mean spending taxpayer's money, half of whom do not support them, furnishing bribes to would-be voters. This type of politicking has gone on so long in New Zealand that most people are inured to it. Perhaps we should start pointing out that if those of us opposing the EFB are 'buying elections' then Labour and its lapdogs are 'stealing' them.

Let's just remind ourselves of the many ways this is so;

The whopper 'steal' was of course Working For Families which promised substantial pay-outs to earners and beneficiaries with dependent children. This is costing over $1 billion a year. There are at least 360,000 families benefiting. A very quick guess is non-recipients are paying on average around $6-700 each to fund these fairly secure votes for Labour.

To keep the more secure working-age beneficiary vote (beyond the WFF recipients) costs taxpayers around $4-5,000 each.

Then there are all those people who pay for private health insurance and private schools for their children who fund the votes of those staunch believers in the 'free' public health and education systems.

We have the ongoing and expanding system of health and education funding according to residential decile rating leading to large subsidies for Labour voters.

Other 2005 election bribes included interest free student loans, free 20 hours childcare, increased Super and issuing the Goldcard, Kiwisaver, and Welcome Home loans.

I am guessing next years bribes will include a full years paid parental leave, and some way of capitalising WFF for first home buyers (in the way family benefit used to be able to paid up front for a home deposit).

So the gall of these harping hypocrites who tell us those who oppose them are trying to 'buy elections' is staggering. It shows just how out of touch and removed from reality these redistributive robots are.

And the very worst aspect of it all? Their ideology is steadily diminishing New Zealand's prospects - economically and socially.

"Working the System"

From the Times;

Frank Field, a former Social Security Minister, said last night that too many people were working the incapacity benefit system to avoid work. “It is a racket, which governments have allowed to exist for far too long. I do not blame people for working the system, it is the job of politicians to stop them doing it.”

Mr Field added that because job seeker’s allowance is lower than incapacity benefit, there was an incentive for people to try to be classified for the higher benefit.

The number on incapacity benefit has more than trebled since 1979 but in recent years it has been broadly stable at about 2.7 million. In the past 12 years, however, there has been a dramatic shift in the illnesses for which people are being given the benefit: 40 per cent now claim for mental health problems compared with just 20 per cent in 1995.

Mr Field said: “The big change over the last decade has been into illnesses which largely defy a clear medical classification: depression, dizziness and such. It is a move from the tangible illness to the intangible.”

NZ politicians take comfort from the fact that other countries have the same problem as ours. But there are differences. The number on a sickness or invalid benefit has more than just trebled since 1979. The increase is nearer six-fold. Whereas in the UK the numbers have stabilized, here they have not. But in terms of classification we are seeing the same trends;

Incapacity group Proportion of working aged Invalid’s Benefit recipients

Psychological or psychiatric conditions 27.8

Intellectual disability 14.1

Musculo-skeletal system disorders 12.7

Nervous system disorders 8.1

Cardio-vascular disorders 7.0

Accidents 6.8

Cancer and congenital conditions 6.8

Other disorders and conditions 16.7

Total 100.0


Incapacity group Proportion of working aged Sickness Benefit recipients

Psychological or psychiatric conditions 37.0

Musculo-skeletal system disorders 16.2

Accidents 9.4

Cardio-vascular disorders 5.8

Pregnancy-related conditions 2.8

Other disorders and conditions 28.8


Total 100.0

Underneath the Times article is this comment. Pathetic. Pathetic because the writer can only see a government-based solution.

Mental illnesses are a genuine reason not to be able to work. As a sufferer of clinical depression and Anorexia Nervosa, I can safely say there have been times when I would have been totally unable to do any job satisfactorily because of my illnesses.

Depression and anxiety disorders can be crippling. And eating disorders are life-threatening illnesses which can leave people unable to work long-term. I know people who have suffered from eating disorders for decades.

I was flatly told by the doctors that I was unfit to take up my place at university or have even a part-time job. I'm not even allowed to do a lot of walking because I have to keep my weight up, so why shouldn't I be allowed incapacity benefit? And yet I had to get private treatment because I'm not ill enough for the NHS.

At the end of the day if the government put more money into PREVENTING obesity and TREATING mental illness, they wouldn't HAVE to pay those people benefits.

Teeth trivia

According to an Australian report (hence the highlighted bar);



New Zealanders have the worst teeth in the OECD! Crikey.

Move on Trotter

Chris Trotter is blind. Or blinded by his love affair with Marxism.

Many New Zealanders hail in the first, second or third generation from people who left Europe to get away from class-based societies. They may not have consciously articulated this, instead talking about greater opportunity. One of my grandfathers was a miner and the other, an odd-jobs man who apparently worked his butt off at every opportunity. The sort of people Trotter puts on a pedestal.

They were oppressed by a class system where upward mobility was rare. New money was dirty money. No premium was put on education. My father and mother broke out. My father by educating himself at the library and my mother by going to teacher's training college. And finally by immigrating to NZ.

They are now part of the "owning class". Surely. As are the vast majority of New Zealanders. In one sense every New Zealander, even the poorest, because they have money in their pockets at some point every week. Money which allows them choices and opportunities.

Hasn't Trotter cottoned that the ruling class he loathes so vehemently has been replaced by the state? With this legislation the government plans to take money off every New Zealander to fund its re-election - both openly and covertly. That is money you have no choice about parting with. That process is coercive. And it's wrong.

But those who would ask you to part with your money willingly because you share a common cause - one of which may be trying to persuade people that the state is not benign - can now be effectively shut down for all of the year preceding the only chance you have to remove or elect representatives of your choice.

Trotter cannot grasp the essential prerequisites for freedom. Not only does he distort the concept of property rights but he ignores that force is perpetrated against people over and over by the state. He needs to move on. For all our sakes.

Bias?

I noted the judge who sentenced the father who smacked his child said, "While you may have gotten away with this in the past, it is a case of not now."

"Gotten away with..." suggests the action was wrong, even before the law change. Does that give you the impression the judge has a personal bias?

Priorities

What do we have on the front page of the Dominion Post today? A report about Sigourney Weaver filming in Wellington wondering why so many men have moustaches. Her photo takes up nearly a quarter of the page. Do I care? Should I care? I guess coverage of yesterday's march must be on page 2 or 3. Well no. Not there. Not anywhere in fact.

The NZ Herald covers it, TV3 covered it, NewstalkZB and Scoop. It's national news but not Wellington news.

And here's another question I am pondering. If the flipping of a 4-seater plane on the runway can close Wellington airport for 2 hours what will happen if a 180-seater comes to grief?

Please Protest Today

The DomPost editorial says it all;

The purpose of the electoral finance and parliamentary funding bills is not to improve the law, but to gerrymander the system.

Unable to win public support for state funding of political parties, Labour and its allies have decided to introduce it by stealth. At the same time, they are denying others the opportunity to spend their own money arguing contrary positions.

If voters remember that when they go to the polls next year, Labour and its friends will get no more than they deserve.

Please get out today and protest. Midday at Civic Square. Show this corrupt bunch that we hold them in even greater contempt than they hold us.

White Ribbon Day

I wonder if this guy will be wearing a white ribbon tomorrow?

"Adoption urged"

Adoption push urged for teen mothers

20/11/2007 4:32:02

Changes to the benefit system are being advocated as a way to lower the rate of teenage pregnancies.

Statistics released yesterday show teenage birth rates are on the rise again, with 30.2 births for every 1,000 15 to 19 year-olds.

Welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell says births to young mothers have become the state's problem, and it is wrong for mothers to be able to sit on the benefit until their child is 18 years-old. She says the benefit should have a limit of five years, as it does in the US.

She is also keen to see more young mothers encouraged to offer their baby up for adoption, as this is a better option for the child than raising it in a negative environment. She says if there is gang involvement, drug addiction or abuse it is not going to be healthy for a child.

Ms Mitchell says CYFS should be promoting adoption as an option for young mothers-to-be.

I was interviewed for this piece and said we could do what the US does and time limit the benefit to two years at any one time and five years over a lifetime. Personally I would go further by limiting any assistance to one year. Pre-DPB expectant and new mothers were helped through social security assistance. The major difference was it was discretionary and short-term. And it didn't provide an incentive.

Getting tough on illicit drugs

Media Release
STOPPING WELFARE TO CONVICTED DRUG-USERS A DROP IN THE BUCKET
November 19, 2007

Australian Prime Minister, John Howard is promising to get much tougher on drugs by "quarantining" benefits of people who have a conviction involving heroin, cocaine or amphetamines. According to today's Sydney Morning Herald this would stop beneficiaries spending tax-payer money on drugs, alcohol or tobacco and would affect around 6,000 people a year convicted of offences but not sent to jail. Case managers would control their benefits, which could still be used to buy food and other essentials. Howard claims the proposal is primarily about sending a message that the government will not tolerate the use of illicit drugs.

Welfare commentator, Lindsay Mitchell expressed reservations about Howard's proposal.

"When benefits first became available people who had caused the incapacity which rendered them unable to work were excluded. In a similar way today, if you were to cause a car crash under the influence of alcohol your insurance would be invalidated. If governments want to get on top of the welfare abuse problem this type of distinction must be reintroduced. But having decided to make it, where does the line get drawn?"

"Prime Minister Howard is singling out people convicted of drug offences of a certain class. That means for the time being cannabis users are exempt. That means that people who have convictions for assault, rape or even murder will not have their benefits controlled. They can freely spend their payments on drugs, alcohol and tobacco while somebody who has no record of violence cannot."

"Nobody with a serious heroin, amphetamine or cocaine habit buys very much with their benefit money anyway. They fund their habit through other means eg prostitution and dealing. Having other income, they shouldn't even qualify for a means tested benefit. Cracking down on fraud would be a far more effective approach. "

"In any event 6,000 beneficiaries out of around 1.6 million is a drop in the bucket. What Howard is essentially saying is he won't tolerate illicit drug use but he will tolerate violence, child abuse, fraud and burglary because there will tens of thousands of beneficiaries with these types of convictions left untouched by this policy."

"If Howard wants a benefit system that does not send mixed messages by supporting all manner of undeserving cases with tax payer's money, he will need to go much further. The same can be said of New Zealand's system."

Sydney Herald link; http://www.smh.com.au/news/federal-election-2007-news/welfare-curb-
on-drugs/2007/11/18/1195321609253.html

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.