One of the reasons for the increasing ferocity of youth crime is the breakdown of the family and the dysfunction of relationships within what is left of the family. The most obvious changed aspect of today's families is the absent father. That alone does not produce delinquent youths but a lack of a strong male role model starts a child off in a position of disadvantage. Some children have fathers who they would probably be better off without, and the same can be said for mothers. But the sort of family that is best placed to raise a secure and self-respecting teenager has been steadily eroded by welfare benefits that accrue to broken or incomplete families.
During the 40s, 50s and 60s youth crime was much more infrequent and less violent than it is today. Although many teenagers then had lost a father to war or desertion, they were not raised on a diet of welfare or fed an entitlement mentality. Their mothers received some assistance but many worked and instilled the need to work in their children.
In the 70s this began to change. Babies began being born to women who had no intention of raising them with a partner. Women who, if they thought about it, believed they could do just as good a job as the two parent, working family so long as the government paid them to stay home and parent. Many did.
But a growing group did not. As the negative consequences for unmarried birth disappeared the casual approach to childbearing grew. As more focus fell on ex-nuptial births, surveys revealed these children were more at risk of being abused or neglected. Abused and neglected children have far greater potential for becoming criminals.
Unmarried births now account for 45 percent of all births. Some of these babies will be born into enduring de facto relationships but those circumstances are reasonably rare.
Today's youth workers say that the solution to youth crime is for children to have a quality relationship with an adult or adults. But which relationship is the most predominant in a child's life? The one he has with his mother and/or father, which begins at birth. The chances of that relationship being strong or even existing are reduced by casual childbearing. And casual childbearing is directly related to the elimination of negative consequences. In fact, receiving a steady and guaranteed income from the government is seen as a positive consequence.
Add to this that very young maternal age is shown to further increase a child's risk of becoming a criminal. Yet an income which surpasses the minimum wage is paid to girls as young as 16 who decide to continue with a pregnancy. Half of those young mothers aged 16 and 17 and receiving welfare are typically Maori. Half of our prison population is Maori. This is more than a coincidence but a blind eye is effectively turned by government who make no attempt to research an association.
Because the stream of teenage and un-partnered mothers going onto benefits long-term is steady, even growing slightly, New Zealand can expect the sort of youth violence we are seeing now to continue unabated. In that respect the new plans to fight youth crime are too little too late. Our leaders need to start talking about the prevention of casual childbearing and the removal of those incentives which cause it. Anything else is avoidance of the real issue and political expediency.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
It's the same old song.....
According to Jim Anderton,
Around 1.2 people out of every hundred thousand are homicide victims. That is a significant drop from around 1.5 per hundred thousand in the early eighties. In the late eighties, the rate of homicides soared to 2.0 out of every 100,000 population. So New Zealand is a lot less violent today than it was then.
Wouldn't it be better to measure how violent New Zealand is by convictions for violence? Even that measure is inadequate because first the violence has to be reported and then, successfully prosecuted. But below are the violent convictions from 1980 to 2006. On that basis New Zealand is more violent now than in the late eighties.
So why would Jim seek to persuade us that NZ was more violent in the 80s?
Violent death rates rose very steeply in the late eighties, stayed high in the nineties and have since begun to come down. What else was going on that could explain the crime wave?
The pattern of violence follows exactly a pattern of economic devastation. When unemployment rocketed and families were hammered by hard economic times, offending rose dramatically.
But Jim, the pattern of violence, when charted by convictions does not follow your "pattern of economic devastation". How do you explain that?
NZ has, according to you "neared full employment", yet violence is still widespread - and that's just the violence we know about.
You know what Jim? We haven't neared full employment at all. And that is why we still have intolerable crime. We have high unemployment hidden by reliance on benefits other than the dole. We have violent youths coming out of workless, dysfunctional homes which turn on the DPB. We have violent youths coming out of gang homes whose staple diet is welfare. The correlation between benefit dependence and crime is stronger than the one between unemployment and crime.
Give up on blaming the economic reforms and start looking at the individuals who will not help themselves or their children.
Around 1.2 people out of every hundred thousand are homicide victims. That is a significant drop from around 1.5 per hundred thousand in the early eighties. In the late eighties, the rate of homicides soared to 2.0 out of every 100,000 population. So New Zealand is a lot less violent today than it was then.
Wouldn't it be better to measure how violent New Zealand is by convictions for violence? Even that measure is inadequate because first the violence has to be reported and then, successfully prosecuted. But below are the violent convictions from 1980 to 2006. On that basis New Zealand is more violent now than in the late eighties.
So why would Jim seek to persuade us that NZ was more violent in the 80s?
Violent death rates rose very steeply in the late eighties, stayed high in the nineties and have since begun to come down. What else was going on that could explain the crime wave?
The pattern of violence follows exactly a pattern of economic devastation. When unemployment rocketed and families were hammered by hard economic times, offending rose dramatically.
But Jim, the pattern of violence, when charted by convictions does not follow your "pattern of economic devastation". How do you explain that?
NZ has, according to you "neared full employment", yet violence is still widespread - and that's just the violence we know about.
You know what Jim? We haven't neared full employment at all. And that is why we still have intolerable crime. We have high unemployment hidden by reliance on benefits other than the dole. We have violent youths coming out of workless, dysfunctional homes which turn on the DPB. We have violent youths coming out of gang homes whose staple diet is welfare. The correlation between benefit dependence and crime is stronger than the one between unemployment and crime.
Give up on blaming the economic reforms and start looking at the individuals who will not help themselves or their children.
Labour's big bribe for 2008?
I originally wrote this post in June last year but I never hit the publish button. Some conceited streak in me must have worried about giving Labour ideas.
It occurs to me that Labour has reintroduced the 1945 Family Benefit (abolished in 1990) with its Working For families tax credits.
The really popular aspect of the family benefit was its capitalisation potential, also the most popular campaign issue of 1957. Walter Nash hoped capitalisation would boost home ownership and the birthrate. All of a child's family benefit could be paid in a lump sum.
So what would be a really popular campaign promise from Labour next year? To allow parents to have family tax credits paid as a lump sum to be used to buy their first home. I wouldn't put it past them.
My caution was a waste of time. The following is from Jim Anderton's Orewa speech last night;
Mr Anderton also said families should be allowed to capitalise their family support on their first child - such as Working for Families and in-work payments - for a deposit on a house, saying he knew it could work "because that's how I bought my house".
It's a goer. And I predict National will say 'me too'.
It occurs to me that Labour has reintroduced the 1945 Family Benefit (abolished in 1990) with its Working For families tax credits.
The really popular aspect of the family benefit was its capitalisation potential, also the most popular campaign issue of 1957. Walter Nash hoped capitalisation would boost home ownership and the birthrate. All of a child's family benefit could be paid in a lump sum.
So what would be a really popular campaign promise from Labour next year? To allow parents to have family tax credits paid as a lump sum to be used to buy their first home. I wouldn't put it past them.
My caution was a waste of time. The following is from Jim Anderton's Orewa speech last night;
Mr Anderton also said families should be allowed to capitalise their family support on their first child - such as Working for Families and in-work payments - for a deposit on a house, saying he knew it could work "because that's how I bought my house".
It's a goer. And I predict National will say 'me too'.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
The war on youth crime
John Key's speech.
I am genuinely pleased Key focussed on young, problem people although I think Youth Court Judge Andrew Becroft's provided estimate of 1,000 hardened types is a self-deception.
This speech, however, hails the era of the big-state conservatives. Yes, it is full of references to private providers, but the funding comes from the taxpayer. It is replete with commitment to new funding. The Youth Guarantee (free education for 16-17 year-olds outside of state schools), specific catering for teenage parents (one assumes on top of the current provision for around 600), drug and alcohol rehab programmes, mentoring programmes, more youth residential facilities (necessary if sentences are to be lengthened - we only have 3 currently), supervision with activity, Fresh Start programmes to last up to one year using mentors, social workers (of which there is a shortage), the army and others.
Now it may be that the big-spending conservative is more effective than the big-spending left liberal. We shall see. But people wanting less government (more has never been shown to improve matters) will not receive this speech with joyful enthusiasm.
The move to allow the Youth Court to deal with 12 and 13 year-olds (instead of the Family Court) is an improvement. But the power to issue parenting orders - send parents to parenting courses - is worthless. Why? Because the penalty for not complying is community work or fines. Many of these parents will have already shown a finger to both for other misdemeanours. These troublesome kids are more often than not children of criminals. Note, just a few minutes later Key says he is sick of hearing about young offenders who receive community based sentences but fail to comply. That behaviour isn't confined to youth.
What Key is announcing here is the war on youth crime. Yet another campaign akin to the war on poverty and the war on drugs. Neither has seen a victory for the state.
And I think that Clark will pull him apart on 1/ so much extra spending along with tax cuts, 2/ the fact that under National (but not under Key) the numbers of teens sitting around "filling their days with nothing but Playstation and TV soaps" was far greater and 3/ on paper, Labour have monstered unemployment, including youth, while National failed. I don't necessarily agree with these arguments but they are some I predict she will use.
But, I am going to give Key a B for effort. He is clearly listening to people who work with these young people. And no political party, no advocacy group and no individual can supply a perfect or painless solution.
I am genuinely pleased Key focussed on young, problem people although I think Youth Court Judge Andrew Becroft's provided estimate of 1,000 hardened types is a self-deception.
This speech, however, hails the era of the big-state conservatives. Yes, it is full of references to private providers, but the funding comes from the taxpayer. It is replete with commitment to new funding. The Youth Guarantee (free education for 16-17 year-olds outside of state schools), specific catering for teenage parents (one assumes on top of the current provision for around 600), drug and alcohol rehab programmes, mentoring programmes, more youth residential facilities (necessary if sentences are to be lengthened - we only have 3 currently), supervision with activity, Fresh Start programmes to last up to one year using mentors, social workers (of which there is a shortage), the army and others.
Now it may be that the big-spending conservative is more effective than the big-spending left liberal. We shall see. But people wanting less government (more has never been shown to improve matters) will not receive this speech with joyful enthusiasm.
The move to allow the Youth Court to deal with 12 and 13 year-olds (instead of the Family Court) is an improvement. But the power to issue parenting orders - send parents to parenting courses - is worthless. Why? Because the penalty for not complying is community work or fines. Many of these parents will have already shown a finger to both for other misdemeanours. These troublesome kids are more often than not children of criminals. Note, just a few minutes later Key says he is sick of hearing about young offenders who receive community based sentences but fail to comply. That behaviour isn't confined to youth.
What Key is announcing here is the war on youth crime. Yet another campaign akin to the war on poverty and the war on drugs. Neither has seen a victory for the state.
And I think that Clark will pull him apart on 1/ so much extra spending along with tax cuts, 2/ the fact that under National (but not under Key) the numbers of teens sitting around "filling their days with nothing but Playstation and TV soaps" was far greater and 3/ on paper, Labour have monstered unemployment, including youth, while National failed. I don't necessarily agree with these arguments but they are some I predict she will use.
But, I am going to give Key a B for effort. He is clearly listening to people who work with these young people. And no political party, no advocacy group and no individual can supply a perfect or painless solution.
Monday, January 28, 2008
MPs don't make the most rational decisions
Here is an excerpt from a speech ACC Minister Maryan Street delivered on Saturday.
I believe there is a legitimate place for the use of law as a lever for achieving better health outcomes, but there also have to be boundaries - and the truth is that we usually decide where those boundaries lie on a case-by-case basis.
And when I say “we” I mean the Government. I believe Parliament is the most appropriate place for these types of decisions to be made. With all due respect to the lawyers, officials and academics in the room, who may well make more rational or scientific decisions than we politicians, it is appropriate that politicians, who are ultimately accountable to the people, decide the extent to which the state will limit individual decision-making.
I should also say that I do not believe these types of decisions can be appropriately made by “the market”. For example, the makers of “fast food”, tobacco or alcohol will say that people should have the right to buy their products wherever and whenever they choose. Sometimes the freedom to do so is escalated into “the democratic freedoms for which wars were fought”.
The problem is that right now we are seeing whole communities suffering unacceptable levels of obesity, diabetes, lung cancer and other preventable diseases. They were given the freedom to choose but not the information to make an informed choice. So I believe Government has a vital role in ensuring people have the information they need to make informed choices. How should this reality be balanced against the individual freedom argument?
The “individual freedom” argument does not address the issue of collective consequences. When a young person chooses to drink and drive and consequently injures or kills someone else, who pays? When someone chooses to smoke and develops lung cancer, who pays? The answer is invariably the rest of us. And I’m not just talking about the financial cost to organisations like my own ACC or the public health system but also the impact on the families, communities and employers of the people involved. So for generations now, governments have made decisions to use the law to limit individual freedoms and thus reduce the collective consequences.
I take issue with that last sentence. The law has indeed been used to limit individual freedoms but that hasn't reduced collective consequences. Collective consequences increase under collectivism. That is because there is no incentive to avoid risky behaviour when someone else will pay. For instance why do we have over 130,000 people on sickness and invalid benefits when just thirty years ago there were only around 18,000? And it isn't to do with the size of the population. It is partly to do an expectation that the state will support people regardless of the reason for their incapacity. It wasn't always that way and in the past people had to exercise a good deal more personal responsibility in their actions.
The other statement Street makes here is something of a worry;
With all due respect to the lawyers, officials and academics in the room, who may well make more rational or scientific decisions than we politicians, it is appropriate that politicians, who are ultimately accountable to the people, decide the extent to which the state will limit individual decision-making.
This is a worrying admission. According to Ms Street MPs do not make the most rational or scientific decisions. Nevertheless they are still the best people to do so because we voted for them. I didn't vote for you Maryan. And I am sure that you do not feel any need to be accountable to me. Ultimately you will be accountable to your own conscience and ideas. Not a prospect I relish.
I believe there is a legitimate place for the use of law as a lever for achieving better health outcomes, but there also have to be boundaries - and the truth is that we usually decide where those boundaries lie on a case-by-case basis.
And when I say “we” I mean the Government. I believe Parliament is the most appropriate place for these types of decisions to be made. With all due respect to the lawyers, officials and academics in the room, who may well make more rational or scientific decisions than we politicians, it is appropriate that politicians, who are ultimately accountable to the people, decide the extent to which the state will limit individual decision-making.
I should also say that I do not believe these types of decisions can be appropriately made by “the market”. For example, the makers of “fast food”, tobacco or alcohol will say that people should have the right to buy their products wherever and whenever they choose. Sometimes the freedom to do so is escalated into “the democratic freedoms for which wars were fought”.
The problem is that right now we are seeing whole communities suffering unacceptable levels of obesity, diabetes, lung cancer and other preventable diseases. They were given the freedom to choose but not the information to make an informed choice. So I believe Government has a vital role in ensuring people have the information they need to make informed choices. How should this reality be balanced against the individual freedom argument?
The “individual freedom” argument does not address the issue of collective consequences. When a young person chooses to drink and drive and consequently injures or kills someone else, who pays? When someone chooses to smoke and develops lung cancer, who pays? The answer is invariably the rest of us. And I’m not just talking about the financial cost to organisations like my own ACC or the public health system but also the impact on the families, communities and employers of the people involved. So for generations now, governments have made decisions to use the law to limit individual freedoms and thus reduce the collective consequences.
I take issue with that last sentence. The law has indeed been used to limit individual freedoms but that hasn't reduced collective consequences. Collective consequences increase under collectivism. That is because there is no incentive to avoid risky behaviour when someone else will pay. For instance why do we have over 130,000 people on sickness and invalid benefits when just thirty years ago there were only around 18,000? And it isn't to do with the size of the population. It is partly to do an expectation that the state will support people regardless of the reason for their incapacity. It wasn't always that way and in the past people had to exercise a good deal more personal responsibility in their actions.
The other statement Street makes here is something of a worry;
With all due respect to the lawyers, officials and academics in the room, who may well make more rational or scientific decisions than we politicians, it is appropriate that politicians, who are ultimately accountable to the people, decide the extent to which the state will limit individual decision-making.
This is a worrying admission. According to Ms Street MPs do not make the most rational or scientific decisions. Nevertheless they are still the best people to do so because we voted for them. I didn't vote for you Maryan. And I am sure that you do not feel any need to be accountable to me. Ultimately you will be accountable to your own conscience and ideas. Not a prospect I relish.
Curious metamorphosis
Imagine waking up one day to find that you have become a cinema.
On Saturday I received a letter from the Wellington City Council addressed to Lindsey Mitchell Cinema. They are developing a database of all the community facilities within Wellington and have sent me a 4 double-sided page survey to assist in that endeavour.
What???
So I googled "Lindsey Mitchell Cinema nz"
Here is the page I found. I scrolled down to discover I am indeed a cinema and when clicked on the link was given a graphic illustration of how to find me and a phone number to find out what I am currently showing.
I have no idea how this has come about. I am listed as "Mitchell Lindsay" in the Yellow Pages as an artist. But that is a far cry from being a cinema - "Muritai Cinemas" at that.
Should I be pissed off about this? Who is making money from a site with bogus listings? Any thoughts?
On Saturday I received a letter from the Wellington City Council addressed to Lindsey Mitchell Cinema. They are developing a database of all the community facilities within Wellington and have sent me a 4 double-sided page survey to assist in that endeavour.
What???
So I googled "Lindsey Mitchell Cinema nz"
Here is the page I found. I scrolled down to discover I am indeed a cinema and when clicked on the link was given a graphic illustration of how to find me and a phone number to find out what I am currently showing.
I have no idea how this has come about. I am listed as "Mitchell Lindsay" in the Yellow Pages as an artist. But that is a far cry from being a cinema - "Muritai Cinemas" at that.
Should I be pissed off about this? Who is making money from a site with bogus listings? Any thoughts?
Sunday, January 27, 2008
ACT voters and libertarians are not decent people
So says the editor of the Sunday Star Times;
The Right has found a heavy club to beat the government with: a referendum on smacking at the next election. This is a brilliant ploy by the religious extremists of Family First. It will gather not only libertarians, Act voters and other motley fanatics of that kind, but many decent and ordinary people. It is as though the Brethren had found a cause that appealed to the mainstream. The political and social effects are likely to be large and wholly malign.
I voted ACT at the last election. I know I am not particularly ordinary (inasmuch as my ideas are not reflected by the majority) but I am decent.
It is this sort of labelling from the 'Left' (which is presumably where the editor's sympathies lie) that make debates turn nasty. And I have to say, in my relatively short time involved in politics, those on the Left are a lot better at it. That is because thinking people can defend their ideas without resorting to personally maligning detractors and there would appear to be fewer of them amongst the collectivists.
And look how little real tolerance there is among the liberal left. Freedom of belief has shut up shop. I am a non-believer but passionate about the right of others to have and hold and cherish their faith. Yet the secular Left increasingly characterise people with religious belief as evil fanaticists.
Finally, this beggars belief.
Family First was an active player at the last election, and it has found an ideal vehicle to drive through the next one. But do you really want to get in the passenger seat with them?
Over the page from this mean piece is a full page advert placed by none other than Family First. The paper will have an editorial policy and an advertising policy and no doubt, never the twain shall meet. Perhaps this column is the editor's lash back at prioritised commercial considerations. Whatever it is, I've had enough.
Unlike Family First I am not willing to pay people to insult me.
Dear Editor
Please cancel our subscription to your newspaper today. It is not without regret that I choose this course of action. News is important to me. Ideas are important to me. But today's editorial, which infers ACT voters, libertarians and people of faith are not "decent" people, is a more extreme view than those you profess to warn against.
Lindsay Mitchell
The Right has found a heavy club to beat the government with: a referendum on smacking at the next election. This is a brilliant ploy by the religious extremists of Family First. It will gather not only libertarians, Act voters and other motley fanatics of that kind, but many decent and ordinary people. It is as though the Brethren had found a cause that appealed to the mainstream. The political and social effects are likely to be large and wholly malign.
I voted ACT at the last election. I know I am not particularly ordinary (inasmuch as my ideas are not reflected by the majority) but I am decent.
It is this sort of labelling from the 'Left' (which is presumably where the editor's sympathies lie) that make debates turn nasty. And I have to say, in my relatively short time involved in politics, those on the Left are a lot better at it. That is because thinking people can defend their ideas without resorting to personally maligning detractors and there would appear to be fewer of them amongst the collectivists.
And look how little real tolerance there is among the liberal left. Freedom of belief has shut up shop. I am a non-believer but passionate about the right of others to have and hold and cherish their faith. Yet the secular Left increasingly characterise people with religious belief as evil fanaticists.
Finally, this beggars belief.
Family First was an active player at the last election, and it has found an ideal vehicle to drive through the next one. But do you really want to get in the passenger seat with them?
Over the page from this mean piece is a full page advert placed by none other than Family First. The paper will have an editorial policy and an advertising policy and no doubt, never the twain shall meet. Perhaps this column is the editor's lash back at prioritised commercial considerations. Whatever it is, I've had enough.
Unlike Family First I am not willing to pay people to insult me.
Dear Editor
Please cancel our subscription to your newspaper today. It is not without regret that I choose this course of action. News is important to me. Ideas are important to me. But today's editorial, which infers ACT voters, libertarians and people of faith are not "decent" people, is a more extreme view than those you profess to warn against.
Lindsay Mitchell
Friday, January 25, 2008
Trotter advises, dump the leader
The Prime Minister will not be happy with Chris Trotter. He has written a column in today's Dominion Post (a reasonably rational one) explaining why Phil Goff should replace her as leader, if Labour are to have any chance of winning this year's election.I disagree. Apart from voter's force of habit, Helen Clark is still the best thing Labour has going for them.
Update; Full column here
DPB Numbers rise in many centres
Media Release
DPB NUMBERS RISE IN MANY CENTRES
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Figures just released by the Ministry of Social Development show that DPB numbers have risen in many centres over the past year.
"Nearly half of the Auckland region Work and Income Centres experienced a rise in DPB numbers during 2007," Lindsay Mitchell, welfare commentator said today. "Typically centres are in the most deprived areas like Mangere, Clendon, Glen Innes and Manukau. Other rural towns and cities with high Maori populations have also experienced increases - Hamilton, Hastings, Kawerau and Ngaruwahia for instance."
"While the overall trend in DPB numbers is down, with a 2 percent drop last year, only the most motivated and skilled are taking advantage of the strong labour market."
"The young, poorly educated and unskilled continue to gravitate to the DPB. Not having experienced stability or security themselves, the parenting skills of these mothers are often inadequate or absent. Many will become long-term welfare dependants and so the cycle goes on."
"The overall drop in DPB numbers is masking a much bigger problem. There now exists an entire generation of people who have only ever known a welfare upbringing. They predominate in poor neighbourhoods where crime, violence, drug and alcohol abuse are common. "
"The reforms Labour implemented - requiring individual Personal Development and Employment Plans and abolishing work-testing - are having very little impact in the overall scheme of things. The Minister must now be very concerned about the resistance to reform many families are exhibiting."
DPB NUMBERS RISE IN MANY CENTRES
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Figures just released by the Ministry of Social Development show that DPB numbers have risen in many centres over the past year.
"Nearly half of the Auckland region Work and Income Centres experienced a rise in DPB numbers during 2007," Lindsay Mitchell, welfare commentator said today. "Typically centres are in the most deprived areas like Mangere, Clendon, Glen Innes and Manukau. Other rural towns and cities with high Maori populations have also experienced increases - Hamilton, Hastings, Kawerau and Ngaruwahia for instance."
"While the overall trend in DPB numbers is down, with a 2 percent drop last year, only the most motivated and skilled are taking advantage of the strong labour market."
"The young, poorly educated and unskilled continue to gravitate to the DPB. Not having experienced stability or security themselves, the parenting skills of these mothers are often inadequate or absent. Many will become long-term welfare dependants and so the cycle goes on."
"The overall drop in DPB numbers is masking a much bigger problem. There now exists an entire generation of people who have only ever known a welfare upbringing. They predominate in poor neighbourhoods where crime, violence, drug and alcohol abuse are common. "
"The reforms Labour implemented - requiring individual Personal Development and Employment Plans and abolishing work-testing - are having very little impact in the overall scheme of things. The Minister must now be very concerned about the resistance to reform many families are exhibiting."
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Depressing Christchurch
What's with Canterbury?
A quarter of the 16-24 year-olds drawing a sickness benefit for depression live in Canterbury. More than in any other region, including Auckland.
And looking at the invalid's benefit for the same incapacity, the percentage rises to 37 percent!
Canterbury is home to only 13 percent of the population and the demographic is slightly older than the NZ average as well.
(The same disproportionate dependence continues with the invalid's benefit in the older age groups though it is not quite as marked.)
A quarter of the 16-24 year-olds drawing a sickness benefit for depression live in Canterbury. More than in any other region, including Auckland.
And looking at the invalid's benefit for the same incapacity, the percentage rises to 37 percent!
Canterbury is home to only 13 percent of the population and the demographic is slightly older than the NZ average as well.
(The same disproportionate dependence continues with the invalid's benefit in the older age groups though it is not quite as marked.)
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Oh Crikey returns
I have just caught up. Oh Crikey is back blogging regularly. Most original, funny, earthy, crass, clever blog in New Zealand. I can't pick a particular post to link to. It's that good.
But here's an excerpt in case I haven't persuaded you to have a look;
There's another family reunion coming up and I'm petrified about turning up without an escort. Nothing says "failure" louder than arriving unaccompanied to social events. Family gatherings are always bizarre affairs since my relatives are such a schizoid bunch, split between saints & sinners. They're either hard-core Christians or hardened criminals: half of them will bash you with the Bible, the other half will just bash you.
I try to avoid the law-breaking bunch; the biggest pack of thieves you'll ever meet. They'll pinch anything not nailed down. Heck, they'd steal the skidmarks out of your undies! Instead, I mingle with my church-going rellies. Yet without fail, every single one of them - conscious of the obligation to "Go forth and multiply" - will ask about my romantic status. There's no point lying as they've x-ray eyes that bore into one's soul. And how can anyone, in good faith, be untruthful to such honest-to-God folk? I hate to disappoint my family, or feel shamed or inadequate, so you can see why I'm desperate to get hitched - even with someone in cyberspace.
So regarding my anonymous blog troll, I'm wondering, when my relatives enquire, "Is there anyone special?" I wouldn't be lying if I said I met someone on the internet, would I? When they ask, "who?" I can say, "Her name's Ana" (short for "Ananymous"). I mean, my stalker keeps trolling my blog, therefore is obviously obsessed with me, right? Which is similar to being 'infatuated,' correct? Which is practically the same thing as being in love, eh? So in that sense, I can truthfully say that Anonymous and I are 'in a relationship' - and I won't have to lie to my family.
Please say you agree! I'd hate people to think I was just another nameless loser living in a fantasy world on the internet.
But here's an excerpt in case I haven't persuaded you to have a look;
There's another family reunion coming up and I'm petrified about turning up without an escort. Nothing says "failure" louder than arriving unaccompanied to social events. Family gatherings are always bizarre affairs since my relatives are such a schizoid bunch, split between saints & sinners. They're either hard-core Christians or hardened criminals: half of them will bash you with the Bible, the other half will just bash you.
I try to avoid the law-breaking bunch; the biggest pack of thieves you'll ever meet. They'll pinch anything not nailed down. Heck, they'd steal the skidmarks out of your undies! Instead, I mingle with my church-going rellies. Yet without fail, every single one of them - conscious of the obligation to "Go forth and multiply" - will ask about my romantic status. There's no point lying as they've x-ray eyes that bore into one's soul. And how can anyone, in good faith, be untruthful to such honest-to-God folk? I hate to disappoint my family, or feel shamed or inadequate, so you can see why I'm desperate to get hitched - even with someone in cyberspace.
So regarding my anonymous blog troll, I'm wondering, when my relatives enquire, "Is there anyone special?" I wouldn't be lying if I said I met someone on the internet, would I? When they ask, "who?" I can say, "Her name's Ana" (short for "Ananymous"). I mean, my stalker keeps trolling my blog, therefore is obviously obsessed with me, right? Which is similar to being 'infatuated,' correct? Which is practically the same thing as being in love, eh? So in that sense, I can truthfully say that Anonymous and I are 'in a relationship' - and I won't have to lie to my family.
Please say you agree! I'd hate people to think I was just another nameless loser living in a fantasy world on the internet.
ACC Minister makes outlandish statement
Maryan Street, Minister for ACC, has a piece in today's Dominion Post explaining why NZ has an accident compensation scheme. There is no link but this is my response to a statement she makes;
Dear Editor
In principle I have no problem with ACC. People need to make provision for the possibility of an accident resulting in personal injury. Just as they need to make provision for an accident resulting in the loss of their home or their car. Yet the state provides the first and the private sector, the second.
Minister for ACC, Maryan Street says that the people have a contract with the government and that, "Insurance companies have no interest in maintaining that contract."
So why, before Labour re-nationalised ACC, were a number of companies happy to get involved? Far from having "no interest" the private sector is keen to provide accident insurance because that is what they do. And, because they have to compete with each other, they do it well or fail.
The government doesn't have to compete, which is why we are all paying $50 more to ACC this year when we register our vehicles. The Minister also provided some questionable excuse for that hike, claiming the cost of injuries from car crashes is rising despite the increasing number of injuries being commensurate with the increasing size of the vehicle fleet.
There is no rational reason for the state to monopolise insurance for personal injury.
Dear Editor
In principle I have no problem with ACC. People need to make provision for the possibility of an accident resulting in personal injury. Just as they need to make provision for an accident resulting in the loss of their home or their car. Yet the state provides the first and the private sector, the second.
Minister for ACC, Maryan Street says that the people have a contract with the government and that, "Insurance companies have no interest in maintaining that contract."
So why, before Labour re-nationalised ACC, were a number of companies happy to get involved? Far from having "no interest" the private sector is keen to provide accident insurance because that is what they do. And, because they have to compete with each other, they do it well or fail.
The government doesn't have to compete, which is why we are all paying $50 more to ACC this year when we register our vehicles. The Minister also provided some questionable excuse for that hike, claiming the cost of injuries from car crashes is rising despite the increasing number of injuries being commensurate with the increasing size of the vehicle fleet.
There is no rational reason for the state to monopolise insurance for personal injury.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Why so many young rely on a sickness benefit
Last week the high number of young people on sickness benefits was making the news. But the reasons for this were unclear. I had forgotten a report from the Paediatric Society published late last year which I printed out but can no longer find a link to. It shows the causes for dependency as follows;
Looking at the group aged 18-64 at March 2007, the percentage on a sickness benefit for psychological/psychiatric reasons was 36 percent. This confirms that younger people are disproportionately reliant on a benefit for these particular incapacities.
Looking at the group aged 18-64 at March 2007, the percentage on a sickness benefit for psychological/psychiatric reasons was 36 percent. This confirms that younger people are disproportionately reliant on a benefit for these particular incapacities.
PM says housing study lacks "real meaning"
The Prime Minister is complaining about research that shows housing affordability in NZ is amongst the worse because it is too selective;
She said the survey's sample of countries was too small and lacked enough European nations to have any real meaning.
The survey found New Zealand the least affordable place compared with Australia, the United States, Ireland, Canada and Britain.
Permanent and long term departures by country of arrival shows that main countries are the Australia (33,792), United Kingdom (11,940), USA (2,709) and China (2,695).
It seems sensible and relevant to compare NZ to those countries NZers are most likely to move to.
Helen Clark told TVNZ that the survey cited only six countries, and omitted other countries such as France, Sweden, Austria, Germany and Spain.
But none of these countries rates a mention in the destination list of long-term departures. So OK, Demographia may have been wrong to claim NZ was the worst in the world, but it is probably worst in the 'world' that is relevant to Kiwis. In that sense the survey does have "real meaning."
She said the survey's sample of countries was too small and lacked enough European nations to have any real meaning.
The survey found New Zealand the least affordable place compared with Australia, the United States, Ireland, Canada and Britain.
Permanent and long term departures by country of arrival shows that main countries are the Australia (33,792), United Kingdom (11,940), USA (2,709) and China (2,695).
It seems sensible and relevant to compare NZ to those countries NZers are most likely to move to.
Helen Clark told TVNZ that the survey cited only six countries, and omitted other countries such as France, Sweden, Austria, Germany and Spain.
But none of these countries rates a mention in the destination list of long-term departures. So OK, Demographia may have been wrong to claim NZ was the worst in the world, but it is probably worst in the 'world' that is relevant to Kiwis. In that sense the survey does have "real meaning."
Sunday, January 20, 2008
Information sought
A question for bloggers using blogspot.com?
Should I wish to, I know how to delete my blog.
How can it be saved before deletion?
Should I wish to, I know how to delete my blog.
How can it be saved before deletion?
Friday, January 18, 2008
Hutt Valley High and 'rights'
Cindy Kiro says the offenders at Hutt Valley High are entitled to an education and is supporting the Principal's position.
That has upset some talkback callers. I contributed the following;
As long as we blindly cling to the prevalent culture of 'rights' that has developed over the past 40 years, more disruption and dysfunction will develop.
The system of legally enshrined rights to things like social welfare benefits, electricity, education etc is ultimately troublesome because there is nowhere to draw a line. The only genuine rights that should be upheld are the rights to be free from things like violence, theft and the imposition of force.
The Hutt Valley High situation highlights this very well. The offender's right to an education is trumping the victim's right to be free from violence. That is wrong. There is no 'right' to an education. It is a privilege. And privileges can be withdrawn.
That has upset some talkback callers. I contributed the following;
As long as we blindly cling to the prevalent culture of 'rights' that has developed over the past 40 years, more disruption and dysfunction will develop.
The system of legally enshrined rights to things like social welfare benefits, electricity, education etc is ultimately troublesome because there is nowhere to draw a line. The only genuine rights that should be upheld are the rights to be free from things like violence, theft and the imposition of force.
The Hutt Valley High situation highlights this very well. The offender's right to an education is trumping the victim's right to be free from violence. That is wrong. There is no 'right' to an education. It is a privilege. And privileges can be withdrawn.
Tax cuts versus tax rebates
Here is a nice, simple commentary from the Washington Times about why tax cuts are preferable to tax rebates. That's an issue which will be integral to this year's election as National offers its alternative to Working For Families.
Remember too that whatever is economically preferable is also, in the long run, socially preferable. The Left seem to think that the goal of 'social justice' through redistribution, can be wrung out of the economy by force and the process isn't damaging.
The current government has two major aims. One is to lift economic growth. They don't like tax cuts so they need to increase the size of the workforce.
But the second aim is to put more money into young families with children with no commensurate work effort on the parent's part. Hence they naturally work less.
These two goals are antithetical through the present method of redistribution. The obvious way to achieve both is to let people keep more of their money in the first place.
Remember too that whatever is economically preferable is also, in the long run, socially preferable. The Left seem to think that the goal of 'social justice' through redistribution, can be wrung out of the economy by force and the process isn't damaging.
The current government has two major aims. One is to lift economic growth. They don't like tax cuts so they need to increase the size of the workforce.
But the second aim is to put more money into young families with children with no commensurate work effort on the parent's part. Hence they naturally work less.
These two goals are antithetical through the present method of redistribution. The obvious way to achieve both is to let people keep more of their money in the first place.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
A 'game'
This is part of a post from Stephen Frank's blog. I tried to make a comment but the anti-spam thingy told me I had the wrong word and the comment disappeared.
Politicians can not assume an interest in their messages. They must work at the emotional level, even on complex issues that should not be simplified, but must.
Sure it feels like ‘insincerity’. I hated dumbing down my speeches and letters. But if without it you will not be heard at all, where’s the choice? There are boundaries of course. The key thing for me was to ensure the communication did not become false.
People who can’t stand the fact that the floating voters in a democracy may be ignorant and uninterested should play another game. Sadly those voters may be the major important audience in an MMP election.
If Stephen hated dumbing down his speeches and letters campaigning for ACT, I would suggest worse is to come campaigning for National.
But he seems to justify this self-censorship as a "game" worth playing to attract the all-important floating voter.
I wonder if he calculated the risk of losing previously loyal followers who want more than mush? I guess no one has more than one vote and the quality of that vote is irrelevant.
Politicians can not assume an interest in their messages. They must work at the emotional level, even on complex issues that should not be simplified, but must.
Sure it feels like ‘insincerity’. I hated dumbing down my speeches and letters. But if without it you will not be heard at all, where’s the choice? There are boundaries of course. The key thing for me was to ensure the communication did not become false.
People who can’t stand the fact that the floating voters in a democracy may be ignorant and uninterested should play another game. Sadly those voters may be the major important audience in an MMP election.
If Stephen hated dumbing down his speeches and letters campaigning for ACT, I would suggest worse is to come campaigning for National.
But he seems to justify this self-censorship as a "game" worth playing to attract the all-important floating voter.
I wonder if he calculated the risk of losing previously loyal followers who want more than mush? I guess no one has more than one vote and the quality of that vote is irrelevant.
Myths about 'pioneering traditions'
This is today's Dominion Post editorial. My response follows;
Editorial: Labour's lesson in innovation
The Dominion Post | Thursday, 17 January 2008
When Christchurch musician Jimmy Mason "flicked" his three-year-old son on the ear he thought he was giving him a lesson about road safety. Don't ride your bike near the road when you're told not to. What he was actually getting was a firsthand look at the Government's anti-smacking legislation in operation.
A nearby teacher took umbrage at his actions, an off-duty policewoman rang the office and, minutes later, Mr Mason found himself surrounded by six police officers.
"They were going to arrest me and were trying to ascertain whether it was safe for the kids to go home with me," he said. "It was pretty bizarre."
In time Mr Mason may discover, like many parents before him, that there are other, more effective ways to discipline his children and keep them safe.
If the anti-smacking legislation, championed by Green MP Sue Bradford, hastens that process it will have served a useful purpose.
But just as there is no such thing as a perfect child, there is no such thing as a perfect parent. Like children, parents get tired and irritable. Like children, parents occasionally do things they later regret.
But nothing that Mr Mason did appears to warrant the attention of six police officers, at least five more than the ordinary citizen can expect to show an interest when reporting a theft, burglary or assault.
Nor do his actions appear to warrant the warning that has now been placed on his record, though that could change as a result of a police review of discrepancies between Mr Mason's story and those of witnesses.
When the anti-smacking legislation was steered through Parliament last year, Ms Bradford and her Labour allies assured the public that the law change would not criminalise parents who administered a light smack to their children.
Technically they are correct in Mr Mason's case. He has not been charged. But he has been stigmatised, something that is likely to be of almost as much concern to the Government as it is to Mr Mason.
Labour believes the initial furore over the anti-smacking legislation has died down now that it has been in place for more than six months.
But publicity about such cases revives the damaging spectre of a nanny state interfering in the private affairs of citizens.
When voters go to the polls later this year they will not recall that National voted for the legislation alongside Labour, the Greens and the Maori Party as a result of a last-minute deal with its leader John Key, but that it was Labour and its allies who pushed the bill through, just as it was Labour that took the lead in legalising prostitution, establishing civil unions, banning unhealthy food from school tuckshops and outlawing smoking in bars and restaurants.
All are initiatives that fit with New Zealand's tradition of pioneering social legislation, a tradition that began when New Zealand became the first country to give women the vote.
But politicians with long careers in mind know there is only so much innovation the public is prepared to put up with.
Labour could yet pay a price for going too far too fast.
Sir
Your editorial about the effect of Sue Bradford's anti-smacking legislation claimed the law change was one of many, "initiatives that fit with New Zealand's tradition of pioneering social legislation..."
New Zealand was by no means first to ban corporal punishment in the home. Just as it wasn't first to introduce civil unions, ban smoking in bars or legalise prostitution. Neither were we first with an old-age or widow's pension and other social security benefits that followed.
This mixed bag you describe as "innovation" is happening throughout the developed world, much of it at the behest of the United Nations and other champions of 'the state knows best.'
If New Zealanders wanted to legitimately lay claim to being pioneering front-runners, they would start by rejecting governments that regard their major role as controlling the social and financial lives of citizens. That really would be revolutionary.
Editorial: Labour's lesson in innovation
The Dominion Post | Thursday, 17 January 2008
When Christchurch musician Jimmy Mason "flicked" his three-year-old son on the ear he thought he was giving him a lesson about road safety. Don't ride your bike near the road when you're told not to. What he was actually getting was a firsthand look at the Government's anti-smacking legislation in operation.
A nearby teacher took umbrage at his actions, an off-duty policewoman rang the office and, minutes later, Mr Mason found himself surrounded by six police officers.
"They were going to arrest me and were trying to ascertain whether it was safe for the kids to go home with me," he said. "It was pretty bizarre."
In time Mr Mason may discover, like many parents before him, that there are other, more effective ways to discipline his children and keep them safe.
If the anti-smacking legislation, championed by Green MP Sue Bradford, hastens that process it will have served a useful purpose.
But just as there is no such thing as a perfect child, there is no such thing as a perfect parent. Like children, parents get tired and irritable. Like children, parents occasionally do things they later regret.
But nothing that Mr Mason did appears to warrant the attention of six police officers, at least five more than the ordinary citizen can expect to show an interest when reporting a theft, burglary or assault.
Nor do his actions appear to warrant the warning that has now been placed on his record, though that could change as a result of a police review of discrepancies between Mr Mason's story and those of witnesses.
When the anti-smacking legislation was steered through Parliament last year, Ms Bradford and her Labour allies assured the public that the law change would not criminalise parents who administered a light smack to their children.
Technically they are correct in Mr Mason's case. He has not been charged. But he has been stigmatised, something that is likely to be of almost as much concern to the Government as it is to Mr Mason.
Labour believes the initial furore over the anti-smacking legislation has died down now that it has been in place for more than six months.
But publicity about such cases revives the damaging spectre of a nanny state interfering in the private affairs of citizens.
When voters go to the polls later this year they will not recall that National voted for the legislation alongside Labour, the Greens and the Maori Party as a result of a last-minute deal with its leader John Key, but that it was Labour and its allies who pushed the bill through, just as it was Labour that took the lead in legalising prostitution, establishing civil unions, banning unhealthy food from school tuckshops and outlawing smoking in bars and restaurants.
All are initiatives that fit with New Zealand's tradition of pioneering social legislation, a tradition that began when New Zealand became the first country to give women the vote.
But politicians with long careers in mind know there is only so much innovation the public is prepared to put up with.
Labour could yet pay a price for going too far too fast.
Sir
Your editorial about the effect of Sue Bradford's anti-smacking legislation claimed the law change was one of many, "initiatives that fit with New Zealand's tradition of pioneering social legislation..."
New Zealand was by no means first to ban corporal punishment in the home. Just as it wasn't first to introduce civil unions, ban smoking in bars or legalise prostitution. Neither were we first with an old-age or widow's pension and other social security benefits that followed.
This mixed bag you describe as "innovation" is happening throughout the developed world, much of it at the behest of the United Nations and other champions of 'the state knows best.'
If New Zealanders wanted to legitimately lay claim to being pioneering front-runners, they would start by rejecting governments that regard their major role as controlling the social and financial lives of citizens. That really would be revolutionary.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
"Ending unconditional entitlement"
Chris Grayling is a Conservative MP in the UK. Here is his plan for their incapacity benefit ( which has proportionately more recipients than our sickness and invalid benefits);
120,000 more people claim incapacity benefit than 10 years ago and 52 per cent more under-24s are claiming than in 1997. Half a million people under 35 are now claiming the benefit. More than half of the people now claiming incapacity benefit have been receiving it for more than five years.
The majority of people signed on to this benefit by filling in a form and sending in a note from their doctor. Most claimants are then simply left to their own devices. We will change that. We will contact every single one of those 2.6 million people as quickly as possible. We will carry out face-to-face interviews with all of them, to assess what they can do, and how we can help them back into work. It's a big task, and it won't be done overnight, but it has to be done, and as rapidly as possible.
Our initial aim will be to offer most people a place on a structured programme of support to find them a job. We know that as many as a million people claiming incapacity benefit say that they hope to get back into the workplace. We will offer them the help they need to achieve that.
Those who don't want to accept that offer will be expected to undergo a full medical check to confirm what they can and can't do now, and what they might, with the right support, be able to do in the future. It will be done by someone independent, so the relationship with a family doctor doesn't affect the outcome.
Those found to be perfectly capable of working will lose their entitlement to incapacity benefit immediately. Many have been abusing the system. They will be transferred into the normal process for Jobseekers and will be expected to start looking for work straight away. Based on the experience of other countries, we expect at least 200,000 people to be affected.
Those who have the potential to get back into work - even if it's a different kind of job - but still have mental or physical hurdles to overcome will be required to join a return-to-work programme. Only those whose incapacity makes it impossible or unrealistic for them to work will be able to continue to claim the benefit without conditions.
For Britain such an approach marks a revolution in our welfare state. It marks an end to a situation where the receipt of incapacity benefit is an unconditional entitlement. In the future it will carry with it the responsibility to do everything that you can to get back into work and help lift yourself out of the poverty trap that incapacity benefit represents for so many people. It's already happening in places like New York. It's something we should aspire to in Britain.
A country where a young man and his family regard it as an achievement to get onto the "sick" is one that desperately needs reform. A country that brings in millions of workers but can't help people out of the trap that incapacity benefit has become, is one that desperately needs change.
Ending unconditional entitlement is the most important phrase here. The principle of discretionary granting must replace universality with some sort of appeals authority backing up the system. That's a start but I think that the Tories may have to change laws first. Ultimately incapacity benefits should be part of health funding and, as such, covered by insurance and even operated by competing private sector companies to prevent abuse.
Only a small group would have no means to contribute. Treat them separately. I have said it before. We (and the Uk and Australia) have our entire social security system designed around the worst case scenario with everyone lumped in together. Hence it is out of control.
Until the individual is responsible for insuring himself for adverse outcomes (with a commensurate tax cut) the distortionary and corrupting incentives will continue to make systems more damaging than useful.
120,000 more people claim incapacity benefit than 10 years ago and 52 per cent more under-24s are claiming than in 1997. Half a million people under 35 are now claiming the benefit. More than half of the people now claiming incapacity benefit have been receiving it for more than five years.
The majority of people signed on to this benefit by filling in a form and sending in a note from their doctor. Most claimants are then simply left to their own devices. We will change that. We will contact every single one of those 2.6 million people as quickly as possible. We will carry out face-to-face interviews with all of them, to assess what they can do, and how we can help them back into work. It's a big task, and it won't be done overnight, but it has to be done, and as rapidly as possible.
Our initial aim will be to offer most people a place on a structured programme of support to find them a job. We know that as many as a million people claiming incapacity benefit say that they hope to get back into the workplace. We will offer them the help they need to achieve that.
Those who don't want to accept that offer will be expected to undergo a full medical check to confirm what they can and can't do now, and what they might, with the right support, be able to do in the future. It will be done by someone independent, so the relationship with a family doctor doesn't affect the outcome.
Those found to be perfectly capable of working will lose their entitlement to incapacity benefit immediately. Many have been abusing the system. They will be transferred into the normal process for Jobseekers and will be expected to start looking for work straight away. Based on the experience of other countries, we expect at least 200,000 people to be affected.
Those who have the potential to get back into work - even if it's a different kind of job - but still have mental or physical hurdles to overcome will be required to join a return-to-work programme. Only those whose incapacity makes it impossible or unrealistic for them to work will be able to continue to claim the benefit without conditions.
For Britain such an approach marks a revolution in our welfare state. It marks an end to a situation where the receipt of incapacity benefit is an unconditional entitlement. In the future it will carry with it the responsibility to do everything that you can to get back into work and help lift yourself out of the poverty trap that incapacity benefit represents for so many people. It's already happening in places like New York. It's something we should aspire to in Britain.
A country where a young man and his family regard it as an achievement to get onto the "sick" is one that desperately needs reform. A country that brings in millions of workers but can't help people out of the trap that incapacity benefit has become, is one that desperately needs change.
Ending unconditional entitlement is the most important phrase here. The principle of discretionary granting must replace universality with some sort of appeals authority backing up the system. That's a start but I think that the Tories may have to change laws first. Ultimately incapacity benefits should be part of health funding and, as such, covered by insurance and even operated by competing private sector companies to prevent abuse.
Only a small group would have no means to contribute. Treat them separately. I have said it before. We (and the Uk and Australia) have our entire social security system designed around the worst case scenario with everyone lumped in together. Hence it is out of control.
Until the individual is responsible for insuring himself for adverse outcomes (with a commensurate tax cut) the distortionary and corrupting incentives will continue to make systems more damaging than useful.
Fake legs faster
What a peculiar story this is. An athlete has been banned from competing at the Olympics because his prosthetic limbs give him an unfair advantage.
He can hardly compete at the disabled Olympics.
He can hardly compete at the disabled Olympics.
'Presumed consent'
'Presumed consent' means, in the event of your death, you would be assumed to be an organ donor unless you have opted out. UK PM Gordon Brown is in favour and the subject received some coverage on TV3 yesterday. Andy Tookey, who petitioned parliament for the establishment of an organ donor register, is also for the idea. Apparently it operates in Spain and France.
But look at Brown's actual position;
Mr Brown voiced his sympathy for the plan and is urging a national debate on the change, although he believes that the families of dead relatives should have the right to block the use of organs.
But that is the crux of the existing problem. People expressly put 'donor' on their driver's licences and then their families override their wishes.
So even under 'presumed consent' Brown says the family can still block the donation.
Personally I think presumed consent would improve the situation for those on waiting lists for organs and I would enjoy watching people having to get off their backsides and do something about their beliefs. Nobody would be forced to donate - just forced to opt out.
Ultimately, however, if I had to vote on it, I would vote against. With my head and not my heart. I couldn't accord the state that much power, even over dead bodies.
What needs to be dealt with in law is what putting donor on your licence (or a specific donor card) means. My family are under strict instructions not to disregard my wishes - that if I died and anything is of use to someone else, they are most welcome to it.
I think we can increase New Zealand's donation rate without presumed consent. I see the US rate is more than double ours. A register would have been a good start.
But look at Brown's actual position;
Mr Brown voiced his sympathy for the plan and is urging a national debate on the change, although he believes that the families of dead relatives should have the right to block the use of organs.
But that is the crux of the existing problem. People expressly put 'donor' on their driver's licences and then their families override their wishes.
So even under 'presumed consent' Brown says the family can still block the donation.
Personally I think presumed consent would improve the situation for those on waiting lists for organs and I would enjoy watching people having to get off their backsides and do something about their beliefs. Nobody would be forced to donate - just forced to opt out.
Ultimately, however, if I had to vote on it, I would vote against. With my head and not my heart. I couldn't accord the state that much power, even over dead bodies.
What needs to be dealt with in law is what putting donor on your licence (or a specific donor card) means. My family are under strict instructions not to disregard my wishes - that if I died and anything is of use to someone else, they are most welcome to it.
I think we can increase New Zealand's donation rate without presumed consent. I see the US rate is more than double ours. A register would have been a good start.
Monday, January 14, 2008
"Are you a workaholic?"
An Auckland telephone technician is taking a stand against workaholism - with his own life as his prime exhibit.
This guy is behaving just like a reformed smoker. He is the Mark Peck of workaholism. Having 'saved' himself he's coming to save you.
Have a look through these questions. Apparently if you answer 'yes' to three or more you might be .....shush..... a workaholic.
1. Do you get more excited about your work than about family or anything else? SOMETIMES
2. Are there times when you can charge through your work and other times when you can't get anything done? YES
3. Do you take work with you to bed? On weekends? On holidays? YES
4. Is work the activity you like to do best and talk about most? SOMETIMES
5. Do you work more than 40 hours a week? SOMETIMES
6. Do you turn your hobbies into moneymaking ventures? YES
7. Do you take complete responsibility for the outcome of your work efforts? YES
8. Have your family or friends given up expecting you on time? NO
9. Do you take on extra work because you are concerned that it won't otherwise get done? YES
10. Do you underestimate how long a project will take and then rush to complete it? NO
11. Do you believe it's okay to work long hours if you love what you're doing? YES
12. Do you get impatient with people who have other priorities besides work? NO
13. Are you afraid that if you don't work hard you will lose your job or be a failure? NO
14. Is the future a constant worry for you even when things are going very well? NO
15. Do you do things energetically and competitively, including play? SOMETIMES
16. Do you get irritated when people ask you to stop doing your work in order to do something else? YES
17. Have your long hours hurt your family or other relationships? NO
18. Do you think about your work while driving, falling asleep or when others are talking? YES
19. Do you work or read during meals? YES
20. Do you believe more money will solve the other problems in your life? NO
9! I'm definitely in the running.
But look. For a change an academic is making more sense.
... psychologist Dr Lynley McMillan, who surveyed 421 employees and their partners for her doctoral thesis at Waikato University, found that those with "workaholic" symptoms, such as finding it hard to stop work and thinking about work outside work hours, did not meet key tests for an addiction.
Unlike alcoholics or drug addicts, the workers' ratings of themselves on measures of workaholism closely matched their partners' assessments of them, and both they and their partners reported relationships that were just as good as those of workers without any "workaholic" symptoms.
Dr McMillan concluded relationships could thrive as long as both partners had "matching working styles".
So what we need is more 'workaholics' producing lots of potential partners. If I needed one I'd be looking for a 9. But more importantly I'd be looking for one that knew how to mind their own business, understood the meaning of freedom and choice and didn't lecture me about how to run my life. Rare as hen's teeth. Fortunately I've already got one.
Please Mr Price leave us alone. It's bad enough with nanny incessantly hectoring us about work life balance. Enough.
This guy is behaving just like a reformed smoker. He is the Mark Peck of workaholism. Having 'saved' himself he's coming to save you.
Have a look through these questions. Apparently if you answer 'yes' to three or more you might be .....shush..... a workaholic.
1. Do you get more excited about your work than about family or anything else? SOMETIMES
2. Are there times when you can charge through your work and other times when you can't get anything done? YES
3. Do you take work with you to bed? On weekends? On holidays? YES
4. Is work the activity you like to do best and talk about most? SOMETIMES
5. Do you work more than 40 hours a week? SOMETIMES
6. Do you turn your hobbies into moneymaking ventures? YES
7. Do you take complete responsibility for the outcome of your work efforts? YES
8. Have your family or friends given up expecting you on time? NO
9. Do you take on extra work because you are concerned that it won't otherwise get done? YES
10. Do you underestimate how long a project will take and then rush to complete it? NO
11. Do you believe it's okay to work long hours if you love what you're doing? YES
12. Do you get impatient with people who have other priorities besides work? NO
13. Are you afraid that if you don't work hard you will lose your job or be a failure? NO
14. Is the future a constant worry for you even when things are going very well? NO
15. Do you do things energetically and competitively, including play? SOMETIMES
16. Do you get irritated when people ask you to stop doing your work in order to do something else? YES
17. Have your long hours hurt your family or other relationships? NO
18. Do you think about your work while driving, falling asleep or when others are talking? YES
19. Do you work or read during meals? YES
20. Do you believe more money will solve the other problems in your life? NO
9! I'm definitely in the running.
But look. For a change an academic is making more sense.
... psychologist Dr Lynley McMillan, who surveyed 421 employees and their partners for her doctoral thesis at Waikato University, found that those with "workaholic" symptoms, such as finding it hard to stop work and thinking about work outside work hours, did not meet key tests for an addiction.
Unlike alcoholics or drug addicts, the workers' ratings of themselves on measures of workaholism closely matched their partners' assessments of them, and both they and their partners reported relationships that were just as good as those of workers without any "workaholic" symptoms.
Dr McMillan concluded relationships could thrive as long as both partners had "matching working styles".
So what we need is more 'workaholics' producing lots of potential partners. If I needed one I'd be looking for a 9. But more importantly I'd be looking for one that knew how to mind their own business, understood the meaning of freedom and choice and didn't lecture me about how to run my life. Rare as hen's teeth. Fortunately I've already got one.
Please Mr Price leave us alone. It's bad enough with nanny incessantly hectoring us about work life balance. Enough.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Holiday job
I've decided to try my hand at growing veges. A small patch was required. Where to put it? Out of the way. Vege gardens aren't the most aesthetic things. Putting in a few more steps is no big deal. Here it is.
You wouldn't want to suffer from vertigo but the view is fantastic. Hope my carrots and broccoli appreciate it (if they survive the possums.)
On the way up to the skyline vege patch is this resting spot. The cabbage trees are from the 2005 ACT conference. My contribution to the stage decoration. They have grown rather well, unlike our parliamentary representation. But 2008 is another year. And I am ever the optimist.
You wouldn't want to suffer from vertigo but the view is fantastic. Hope my carrots and broccoli appreciate it (if they survive the possums.)
On the way up to the skyline vege patch is this resting spot. The cabbage trees are from the 2005 ACT conference. My contribution to the stage decoration. They have grown rather well, unlike our parliamentary representation. But 2008 is another year. And I am ever the optimist.
Friday, January 11, 2008
Putting the statistics in context
Earlier this week the Minister for Social Development, Ruth Dyson, was reported as being "unconcerned" about the large increase in young people on sickness and invalid benefits, saying the overall increase was "hardly a change at all".
Welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell today offered to help the Minister put the statistics for young people in context.
"At the end of October there were 1,250 16-17 year-olds receiving an invalid or sickness benefit. In the United Kingdom, also experiencing a huge problem with dependency on incapacity benefits, there were 6,600 16-17 year-olds on the equivalent benefits."
"The population of the United Kingdom is 15 times greater than New Zealand's yet they have only 5 times as many 16-17 year-olds receiving an incapacity benefit. This difference should alert the Minister to a problem urgently warranting concern - not indifference or complacency."
Welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell today offered to help the Minister put the statistics for young people in context.
"At the end of October there were 1,250 16-17 year-olds receiving an invalid or sickness benefit. In the United Kingdom, also experiencing a huge problem with dependency on incapacity benefits, there were 6,600 16-17 year-olds on the equivalent benefits."
"The population of the United Kingdom is 15 times greater than New Zealand's yet they have only 5 times as many 16-17 year-olds receiving an incapacity benefit. This difference should alert the Minister to a problem urgently warranting concern - not indifference or complacency."
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Minto and "myths about poverty"
From John Minto's column in today's New Zealand Herald;
The US has the highest levels of poverty in the Western world (more than 30 million) despite one of the highest per capita incomes in the world. Why would this be?
Poverty in the US is relative poverty. The US has a very high number because it has a very large population. 30 million is around 1 in 10.
One way to measure relative poverty is to base it on average median income, draw the line at half and count those falling beneath it. This report tells us that using that method 1 in 10 Australians is also living in poverty.
Another way of measuring relative poverty is based on calculating average household income (usually equivalised for size of family), drawing a line at 50 or 60 percent and counting every household that falls beneath that line.
According to MSD, the proportion of New Zealanders living in families with incomes less than 60% of the median income, adjusted for family size, housing costs and inflation since 1998, has fallen from 22% in 2001 to 19% in 2004.
At 50 percent the number falls to around one in ten also.
Now let's look at Minto's answer to his own question;
Last year in the US the increase in income of the top 1 per cent of income earners was greater than the entire income of the bottom 20 per cent of the population. What this staggering statistic means is that the bottom 20 per cent of US citizens, all of whom live in poverty, could have had their incomes doubled if the wealthiest 1 per cent had simply forgone an increase in income last year.
That's not an answer. It's a tired clapped out leftist assertion. The poor are poor because the rich are rich and if money was taken off the rich and given to the poor, then the poor wouldn't be poor any more. Ah yes. We've seen how successfully that theory works in practice.
As Minto acknowledges, the US has the highest incomes per capita in the world. Their relative poor are the relative rich by third world standards. Their relative poor are richer than New Zealand's relative poor. The US is a much richer country than New Zealand. That's because too many New Zealanders have spent too much time listening to and believing fallacies promoted by the likes of Minto.
And he has the audacity to end by saying,
"(Mike) Moore has no excuse for peddling more myths about poverty."
What's yours John?
The US has the highest levels of poverty in the Western world (more than 30 million) despite one of the highest per capita incomes in the world. Why would this be?
Poverty in the US is relative poverty. The US has a very high number because it has a very large population. 30 million is around 1 in 10.
One way to measure relative poverty is to base it on average median income, draw the line at half and count those falling beneath it. This report tells us that using that method 1 in 10 Australians is also living in poverty.
Another way of measuring relative poverty is based on calculating average household income (usually equivalised for size of family), drawing a line at 50 or 60 percent and counting every household that falls beneath that line.
According to MSD, the proportion of New Zealanders living in families with incomes less than 60% of the median income, adjusted for family size, housing costs and inflation since 1998, has fallen from 22% in 2001 to 19% in 2004.
At 50 percent the number falls to around one in ten also.
Now let's look at Minto's answer to his own question;
Last year in the US the increase in income of the top 1 per cent of income earners was greater than the entire income of the bottom 20 per cent of the population. What this staggering statistic means is that the bottom 20 per cent of US citizens, all of whom live in poverty, could have had their incomes doubled if the wealthiest 1 per cent had simply forgone an increase in income last year.
That's not an answer. It's a tired clapped out leftist assertion. The poor are poor because the rich are rich and if money was taken off the rich and given to the poor, then the poor wouldn't be poor any more. Ah yes. We've seen how successfully that theory works in practice.
As Minto acknowledges, the US has the highest incomes per capita in the world. Their relative poor are the relative rich by third world standards. Their relative poor are richer than New Zealand's relative poor. The US is a much richer country than New Zealand. That's because too many New Zealanders have spent too much time listening to and believing fallacies promoted by the likes of Minto.
And he has the audacity to end by saying,
"(Mike) Moore has no excuse for peddling more myths about poverty."
What's yours John?
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
Pathetic
I shook my head as I watched and listened to Jhia Te Tua's father on TV3 tonight;
The mother of murdered Wanganui toddler Jhia Te Tua says she plans to leave the country to start a new life with her new baby boy.
Ria Gardiner will leave behind her Black Power partner Josh Te Tua, who says he sees no other option but return to Wanganui and avenge his daughter, who was killed during a drive-by gang shooting last year.
Te Tua has been undergoing counselling in the wake of his daughter’s death, but his anger at the 12 men charged over Jhia’s murder remains deeply entrenched.
The 22-year-old says revenge is inevitable and no plans to return to Wanganui and the Black Power.
While the 12 charged over Jhia’s death face a depositions hearing in Wellington next month, Te Tua himself will also be before the courts in Wanganui for an unrelated incident.
He, along with three associates, is charged with using a firearm against police and could face jail.
Jia Gardiner says she is awaiting her baby boy’s birth certificate and then plans a new life in Australia with family, away from the conflict.
During the interview he said, struggling, It's the anger thing......
More like it's the excitement thing. Exacting utu is more exciting than being a dad caring for his son. Pathetic and very sad.
The mother of murdered Wanganui toddler Jhia Te Tua says she plans to leave the country to start a new life with her new baby boy.
Ria Gardiner will leave behind her Black Power partner Josh Te Tua, who says he sees no other option but return to Wanganui and avenge his daughter, who was killed during a drive-by gang shooting last year.
Te Tua has been undergoing counselling in the wake of his daughter’s death, but his anger at the 12 men charged over Jhia’s murder remains deeply entrenched.
The 22-year-old says revenge is inevitable and no plans to return to Wanganui and the Black Power.
While the 12 charged over Jhia’s death face a depositions hearing in Wellington next month, Te Tua himself will also be before the courts in Wanganui for an unrelated incident.
He, along with three associates, is charged with using a firearm against police and could face jail.
Jia Gardiner says she is awaiting her baby boy’s birth certificate and then plans a new life in Australia with family, away from the conflict.
During the interview he said, struggling, It's the anger thing......
More like it's the excitement thing. Exacting utu is more exciting than being a dad caring for his son. Pathetic and very sad.
Serious question
Here are two comments from Maori Party co-leader Pita Sharples.
Less than a year ago;
“I’ve got extended family on the benefit and they’re just dead, living dead. The whole dependency takes away their mana in the first place and then it takes away their drive and then they expect it – that’s when it’s hard to break them out of the ‘life owes me a living’ mentality. I bash the benefit system not the beneficiaries. We need to give them back hope.”
Today;
“Labour must be held to account for successive Ministers, and their own Families Commission, lacking the political courage to face up to the findings of their own research – research which proves what we in the Maori Party have been consistently saying, that beneficiary children and families are getting a rough deal due to lack of support and inadequate income”.
Can you tell me, from these two comments, does the Maori Party want more or less welfare?
Less than a year ago;
“I’ve got extended family on the benefit and they’re just dead, living dead. The whole dependency takes away their mana in the first place and then it takes away their drive and then they expect it – that’s when it’s hard to break them out of the ‘life owes me a living’ mentality. I bash the benefit system not the beneficiaries. We need to give them back hope.”
Today;
“Labour must be held to account for successive Ministers, and their own Families Commission, lacking the political courage to face up to the findings of their own research – research which proves what we in the Maori Party have been consistently saying, that beneficiary children and families are getting a rough deal due to lack of support and inadequate income”.
Can you tell me, from these two comments, does the Maori Party want more or less welfare?
Not much to boast about
Since the gang killing of a 2 year-old in Wanganui, the city's reported crime has dropped 4 percent.
Is that all?
"...Police were boosted by the arrests. There were more than 60 arrests [of gang members and associates] during the inquiry, which has had a big impact on gangs' local offending. But crime not associated with gangs goes on."
"...And despite international media attention stirring images of Wanganui being a troubled city on the brink of a gang war, reported crime in the city dropped by 4 per cent from the shooting until November last year."
The shooting happened in May so in the following 6 months, when the police activity was at its most intense, reported crime dropped only 4 percent.
Mr MacLeod [area commander inspector] said reported crime always dropped when there were extra police in a city for a major inquiry.
"It goes against the argument that extra numbers don't make a difference - well, it does."
Not much though. Hard to make an economic argument for extra numbers based on that result. Either the gangs weren't responsible for a large chunk of the crime in the first place, or when the police were otherwise occupied, other crime increased.
And of course if I fail to mention it someone else will. This is only 'reported' crime. The vast majority of violent victimisation goes unreported.
Is that all?
"...Police were boosted by the arrests. There were more than 60 arrests [of gang members and associates] during the inquiry, which has had a big impact on gangs' local offending. But crime not associated with gangs goes on."
"...And despite international media attention stirring images of Wanganui being a troubled city on the brink of a gang war, reported crime in the city dropped by 4 per cent from the shooting until November last year."
The shooting happened in May so in the following 6 months, when the police activity was at its most intense, reported crime dropped only 4 percent.
Mr MacLeod [area commander inspector] said reported crime always dropped when there were extra police in a city for a major inquiry.
"It goes against the argument that extra numbers don't make a difference - well, it does."
Not much though. Hard to make an economic argument for extra numbers based on that result. Either the gangs weren't responsible for a large chunk of the crime in the first place, or when the police were otherwise occupied, other crime increased.
And of course if I fail to mention it someone else will. This is only 'reported' crime. The vast majority of violent victimisation goes unreported.
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
Never enough
Paul Blair, beneficiary advocate, who forced the Ministry of Social Development to change the rules so parents with split custody of children could both claim the DPB, (a complete corruption of the original intent of this benefit) wrote a report. It was based on a sample of 15 DPB recipients who he was already providing advocacy work for. He got the Families Commission to pay for the research but then they wouldn't publish it. It appears he has now paid for the publication himself. The findings?
"It was felt that Work and Income was not forthcoming enough with extra assistance that might alleviate poverty and facilitate genuine personal and family development," the report said.
"On the whole, sole-parent DPB recipients felt that an emphasis on paid employment as the ultimate outcome ignored and devalued the work they were currently engaged in (as parents)."
What a bunch of whingers.
I am reminded of a passage from Margaret McClure's work about the history of social security in New Zealand;
Charitable aid administrators were extraordinarily cautious; they aimed to relieve absolute destitution only. Grace Neill, an early official, felt that if they attempted to do more, and alleviate poverty, ‘we may as well try to fill a sieve with water.’
How right she was.
"It was felt that Work and Income was not forthcoming enough with extra assistance that might alleviate poverty and facilitate genuine personal and family development," the report said.
"On the whole, sole-parent DPB recipients felt that an emphasis on paid employment as the ultimate outcome ignored and devalued the work they were currently engaged in (as parents)."
What a bunch of whingers.
I am reminded of a passage from Margaret McClure's work about the history of social security in New Zealand;
Charitable aid administrators were extraordinarily cautious; they aimed to relieve absolute destitution only. Grace Neill, an early official, felt that if they attempted to do more, and alleviate poverty, ‘we may as well try to fill a sieve with water.’
How right she was.
Monday, January 07, 2008
Incapacity benefit growth and refusing to answer questions
There is some discussion at Kiwiblog regarding the reasons why the number of people on incapacity benefits is growing.
One commentor says Judith Collins should know what the breakdown of incapacity according to age etc is, due to the written questions she has asked. How glib. Questions are NOT ANSWERED.
For example;
11954 (2007). Judith Collins to the Minister for Social Development and Employment (06 Jul 2007): Further to the answer to question for written answer 8800 (2007) what is the age breakdown, by year, of all recipients of the Sickness Benefit who have received that benefit for more than 12 months, listed by incapacity?
Hon David Benson-Pope (Minister for Social Development and Employment) replied: I refer the Member to the quarterly benefit factsheets, which are publicly available on the Ministry’s website, www.msd.govt.nz.
The factsheets DO NOT provide this information.
I am unaware of any age specific breakdown but the tables below (left click to enlarge) clearly show where the growth areas are overall.
For both benefits the largest increases are for psychological or psychiatric conditions.
One commentor says Judith Collins should know what the breakdown of incapacity according to age etc is, due to the written questions she has asked. How glib. Questions are NOT ANSWERED.
For example;
11954 (2007). Judith Collins to the Minister for Social Development and Employment (06 Jul 2007): Further to the answer to question for written answer 8800 (2007) what is the age breakdown, by year, of all recipients of the Sickness Benefit who have received that benefit for more than 12 months, listed by incapacity?
Hon David Benson-Pope (Minister for Social Development and Employment) replied: I refer the Member to the quarterly benefit factsheets, which are publicly available on the Ministry’s website, www.msd.govt.nz.
The factsheets DO NOT provide this information.
I am unaware of any age specific breakdown but the tables below (left click to enlarge) clearly show where the growth areas are overall.
For both benefits the largest increases are for psychological or psychiatric conditions.
Separatism has no future
Why do some people persist with separatism as a principle for policy formation?
Why do we have a party based on race?
Isn't the above the best news about race relations in New Zealand?
Indefensible response
Good on National MP Judith Collins for pointing out that the number of young people on sickness and invalid's benefits has substantially increased under Labour.
To add weight to her argument, that this is a new trend under Labour, the number of Invalid Benefits paid to 15-19 year-olds in 1990 was 1,923 - just 11 fewer than in 2000.
In 1990 there were 1,889 15-19 year-olds receiving a sickness benefit. The number had dropped to 1,077 by 2000.
Conclusion: National has a better record than Labour in respect to the number of young people on incapacity benefits.
I am appalled by Ruth Dyson's reaction;
Social Development and Employment Minister Ruth Dyson was not concerned about the figures, saying the overall increase was "hardly a change at all".
How can she justify that?
In 2001 there were 265,281 15-19 year-olds - by 2006 300,198 15-19 year-olds (Census counts).
That's a 13 percent rise over roughly the same period. Yet the growth in 15-19 year-olds on either a sickness or invalid benefit is 65 percent.
Can anybody else have a shot at explaining her response?
To add weight to her argument, that this is a new trend under Labour, the number of Invalid Benefits paid to 15-19 year-olds in 1990 was 1,923 - just 11 fewer than in 2000.
In 1990 there were 1,889 15-19 year-olds receiving a sickness benefit. The number had dropped to 1,077 by 2000.
Conclusion: National has a better record than Labour in respect to the number of young people on incapacity benefits.
I am appalled by Ruth Dyson's reaction;
Social Development and Employment Minister Ruth Dyson was not concerned about the figures, saying the overall increase was "hardly a change at all".
How can she justify that?
In 2001 there were 265,281 15-19 year-olds - by 2006 300,198 15-19 year-olds (Census counts).
That's a 13 percent rise over roughly the same period. Yet the growth in 15-19 year-olds on either a sickness or invalid benefit is 65 percent.
Can anybody else have a shot at explaining her response?
Sunday, January 06, 2008
Bill Ralston on benefit debt
I read Bill Ralston's column today with a sense of bemusement. He chose the two things I had used to highlight how National are fiddling, to highlight where money could be saved for taxcuts. The $45,000 on TVs for prisoners and the $761 million of beneficiary debt.
This is the same Bill Ralston that used to host radio talkback. I well remember one day trying to start a conversation about how a welfare culture leads to crime. He made a sarcastic rejoinder that perhaps beneficiaries were committing crime because they weren't paid enough, and cut me off.
In today's column he writes;
Another fact that should make Helen Clark think twice about her handout strategy is the debt mountain in the Ministry of Social Development. More than 500 people are now employed by the MSD to try to control the $761 million of beneficiary debt. While it must be hard, at times, to get blood out of a stone, you do have to wonder about the competence of the MSD in failing so abysmally to manage its own affairs.
Here's a thought - that $761 million, if recovered, would make a nice start in tax cuts for people who work for a living.
Now there's a change in tune.
Apart from which, I am unsure how the $761 million, which is mostly being repaid through further benefit reductions, can be used for tax cuts. But then I am not an economist.
This is the same Bill Ralston that used to host radio talkback. I well remember one day trying to start a conversation about how a welfare culture leads to crime. He made a sarcastic rejoinder that perhaps beneficiaries were committing crime because they weren't paid enough, and cut me off.
In today's column he writes;
Another fact that should make Helen Clark think twice about her handout strategy is the debt mountain in the Ministry of Social Development. More than 500 people are now employed by the MSD to try to control the $761 million of beneficiary debt. While it must be hard, at times, to get blood out of a stone, you do have to wonder about the competence of the MSD in failing so abysmally to manage its own affairs.
Here's a thought - that $761 million, if recovered, would make a nice start in tax cuts for people who work for a living.
Now there's a change in tune.
Apart from which, I am unsure how the $761 million, which is mostly being repaid through further benefit reductions, can be used for tax cuts. But then I am not an economist.
Saturday, January 05, 2008
Attacking symptoms
National welfare spokesperson Judith Collins is worried about the amount of debt beneficiaries are getting into and the rising number of staff tasked to manage the problem.
Under National the problem wouldn't improve, it would get worse. Why do I say that?
One of the biggest contributors to debt accrual is sanctions. Under National policies more sanctions were imposed. For example benefit payments were reduced for non-compliance with work tests. Under Labour sanctions still apply but with full backdated reinstatement on compliance. This was done specifically to reduce indebtedness.
Work and Income operates like a bank. When clients need something extraordinary they apply for a grant or benefit advance. When their benefit won't cover costs they apply for extra hardship assistance. Some grants have to be repaid, others do not. Some debts arise out of overpayment. Some from fraud. The system drives the debt.
The debt problem has become this large because SO many people rely on Work and Income. But again, like spending $45,000 for TVs for prisoners, this is just a peripheral issue. It's a symptom of the problem. Again this is National attacking symptoms, not the condition.
Under National the problem wouldn't improve, it would get worse. Why do I say that?
One of the biggest contributors to debt accrual is sanctions. Under National policies more sanctions were imposed. For example benefit payments were reduced for non-compliance with work tests. Under Labour sanctions still apply but with full backdated reinstatement on compliance. This was done specifically to reduce indebtedness.
Work and Income operates like a bank. When clients need something extraordinary they apply for a grant or benefit advance. When their benefit won't cover costs they apply for extra hardship assistance. Some grants have to be repaid, others do not. Some debts arise out of overpayment. Some from fraud. The system drives the debt.
The debt problem has become this large because SO many people rely on Work and Income. But again, like spending $45,000 for TVs for prisoners, this is just a peripheral issue. It's a symptom of the problem. Again this is National attacking symptoms, not the condition.
Friday, January 04, 2008
Media Release
THIRD OF DPB PARENTS "NOT INTERESTED IN LOOKING FOR WORK"
Thursday, January 3, 2008
According to a recently published Ministry of Social Development report, one third of surveyed sole parents receiving the DPB expressed no interest in looking for work. The report, The 2002 Domestic Purposes and Widow's Benefit Reform: Evaluation Report also found that since the controversial removal of work testing in 2003, the 'exit rate' for recipients whose youngest child is 14 or older has dropped.
"There is no surprise that other factors associated with the fall in this group's exit rate (the rate at which people leave the benefit) included being a teenager when the oldest child was born, having already spent a large proportion of their time in the benefit system and being Maori or Pacific. What should worry the Ministry, " said welfare commentator, Lindsay Mitchell, "is the number of very young newcomers has not decreased. In September 1999 there were 2,687 18-19 year-olds on the DPB. By September 2007 the number had increased by 15 percent to 3,093. Additionally there are typically six or seven hundred 16 and 17 year-old teenage parents receiving the Emergency Maintenance Allowance at any given time."
"Most of the Work and Income's resources have been focussed on getting more amenable cases into work or training, Meanwhile nothing has been done to discourage the inflow of those mothers who will stay the longest in the system."
"Some case managers reported that the Personal Employment and Development Plans, which replaced work-testing, have made little impression on women who have been on the benefit for six to twelve years who use the new system 'to their advantage'. Others said that their clients showed no interest in keeping a copy of their plan or binned it on the way out. The report states, 'There was a general feeling among case managers that for many people, having a copy of their PDEP was not something they valued highly.' "
"While the number of sole parents on the DPB has dropped, the reasons are complex and may have little to do with the reforms. This is acknowledged by the authors of the report. The drop may be an effect of low unemployment, the Working for Families incentives and the ageing population. Certainly the removal of full-time work-testing for those with children aged fourteen or older has had a negative impact."
THIRD OF DPB PARENTS "NOT INTERESTED IN LOOKING FOR WORK"
Thursday, January 3, 2008
According to a recently published Ministry of Social Development report, one third of surveyed sole parents receiving the DPB expressed no interest in looking for work. The report, The 2002 Domestic Purposes and Widow's Benefit Reform: Evaluation Report also found that since the controversial removal of work testing in 2003, the 'exit rate' for recipients whose youngest child is 14 or older has dropped.
"There is no surprise that other factors associated with the fall in this group's exit rate (the rate at which people leave the benefit) included being a teenager when the oldest child was born, having already spent a large proportion of their time in the benefit system and being Maori or Pacific. What should worry the Ministry, " said welfare commentator, Lindsay Mitchell, "is the number of very young newcomers has not decreased. In September 1999 there were 2,687 18-19 year-olds on the DPB. By September 2007 the number had increased by 15 percent to 3,093. Additionally there are typically six or seven hundred 16 and 17 year-old teenage parents receiving the Emergency Maintenance Allowance at any given time."
"Most of the Work and Income's resources have been focussed on getting more amenable cases into work or training, Meanwhile nothing has been done to discourage the inflow of those mothers who will stay the longest in the system."
"Some case managers reported that the Personal Employment and Development Plans, which replaced work-testing, have made little impression on women who have been on the benefit for six to twelve years who use the new system 'to their advantage'. Others said that their clients showed no interest in keeping a copy of their plan or binned it on the way out. The report states, 'There was a general feeling among case managers that for many people, having a copy of their PDEP was not something they valued highly.' "
"While the number of sole parents on the DPB has dropped, the reasons are complex and may have little to do with the reforms. This is acknowledged by the authors of the report. The drop may be an effect of low unemployment, the Working for Families incentives and the ageing population. Certainly the removal of full-time work-testing for those with children aged fourteen or older has had a negative impact."
What next?
It just gets worse, this cacophonic clamouring for an accident-free utopia. Now we need courses in using ladders.
"What do you do for a living? I teach people how to climb ladders. Really. Does it take long? Oh you'd be surprised how long it can take when I am paid by the hour."
Accident Compensation is accident insurance. We pay our premiums, we have no choice. Pay out and spare us the lectures.
"What do you do for a living? I teach people how to climb ladders. Really. Does it take long? Oh you'd be surprised how long it can take when I am paid by the hour."
Accident Compensation is accident insurance. We pay our premiums, we have no choice. Pay out and spare us the lectures.
Thursday, January 03, 2008
Petty politicking
Wouldn't it be refreshing if we got some serious analysis from National about the reasons why the prison toll continues to climb, our imprisonment rate is well above the average for the developed world and Maori are grossly over-represented.
It is hard to get excited about $45,000 being spent on TVs and Play Stations. This is just typical petty politicking.
If you study overseas research of the kind New Zealand has never undertaken, it is quite clear there are risk factors for becoming delinquent and ending up in prison. Once acknowledged, efforts to reduce them can begin. If similar research was conducted here I have no doubts the results would be similar.
I wonder about why NZ hasn't emulated international studies and can only conclude that those capable of conducting such research, those who could gain access to the information required, namely academics, are not inclined to. The conclusions would inevitably result in a focus on Maori and that would never do.
What we are sorely lacking is some Maori leadership brave enough to take it on themselves to try and understand the causes of crime beyond 'dislocation' and 'poverty'. Where is it?
It is hard to get excited about $45,000 being spent on TVs and Play Stations. This is just typical petty politicking.
If you study overseas research of the kind New Zealand has never undertaken, it is quite clear there are risk factors for becoming delinquent and ending up in prison. Once acknowledged, efforts to reduce them can begin. If similar research was conducted here I have no doubts the results would be similar.
I wonder about why NZ hasn't emulated international studies and can only conclude that those capable of conducting such research, those who could gain access to the information required, namely academics, are not inclined to. The conclusions would inevitably result in a focus on Maori and that would never do.
What we are sorely lacking is some Maori leadership brave enough to take it on themselves to try and understand the causes of crime beyond 'dislocation' and 'poverty'. Where is it?
Tuesday, January 01, 2008
Mr Status Quo
Well I may as well start the new year the way I intend to continue. I began the morning with a groan reading the DomPost. I even used the 'g' word which I always reprimand my children for. Say golly or gosh or goodness. But I had an excuse. The subject being John Key and his proclamations for New Zealand. How bad a prime minister is he going to be?
On maintaining the welfare state;
"It's not only the provision of welfare for people in need, it is a statement about who we are. That we don't have overt signs of poverty. That for all the frustrations we may have about the odd individual who might rip the system off we are prepared to back it because we look at New Zealand as a better country than those who don't have it."
"The vast bulk of core services will be delivered by the state and while we do want to introduce choice it is equally important that we deliver really well. So rather than a view that we say there is no role for the public health sector or we want to diminish that in some way, our view is to say we are frustrated by the fact that it is not delivering performance for what's being spent - so how do we fix it?"
It's all more of the same political claptrap we have heard from both Labour and National for donkeys. The problem isn't the state, it's just the way the state's doing things. A position not unlike that taken by those who maintain communism wasn't a problem, it was just the way it was implemented.
If National doesn't want to diminish the role of the public health sector then it doesn't want to boost the role of the private health sector. Status quo.
If National is prepared to tolerate the welfare state being ripped off and still back it then they are not interested in reform. Status quo.
There will be no fundamental change under National. The intergenerational welfare comatose, the crime it creates, the gap between poor Maori and the rest of society, the wretchedness of having to build more prisons to accommodate our high levels of violent crime, extraordinarily high rates of depression, addiction, and teenage pregnancy - do they matter?
I guess they don't because there are, according to Mr Key, no "overt signs of poverty". Perhaps he really does believe this is as good as it gets. I think that is the most charitable interpretation I can put on his words. In which case he really is Mr Status Quo.
On maintaining the welfare state;
"It's not only the provision of welfare for people in need, it is a statement about who we are. That we don't have overt signs of poverty. That for all the frustrations we may have about the odd individual who might rip the system off we are prepared to back it because we look at New Zealand as a better country than those who don't have it."
"The vast bulk of core services will be delivered by the state and while we do want to introduce choice it is equally important that we deliver really well. So rather than a view that we say there is no role for the public health sector or we want to diminish that in some way, our view is to say we are frustrated by the fact that it is not delivering performance for what's being spent - so how do we fix it?"
It's all more of the same political claptrap we have heard from both Labour and National for donkeys. The problem isn't the state, it's just the way the state's doing things. A position not unlike that taken by those who maintain communism wasn't a problem, it was just the way it was implemented.
If National doesn't want to diminish the role of the public health sector then it doesn't want to boost the role of the private health sector. Status quo.
If National is prepared to tolerate the welfare state being ripped off and still back it then they are not interested in reform. Status quo.
There will be no fundamental change under National. The intergenerational welfare comatose, the crime it creates, the gap between poor Maori and the rest of society, the wretchedness of having to build more prisons to accommodate our high levels of violent crime, extraordinarily high rates of depression, addiction, and teenage pregnancy - do they matter?
I guess they don't because there are, according to Mr Key, no "overt signs of poverty". Perhaps he really does believe this is as good as it gets. I think that is the most charitable interpretation I can put on his words. In which case he really is Mr Status Quo.
Monday, December 31, 2007
The power of the state is ugly
Occasionally something will drive me to blink back tears of sadness and frustration.
The story of the malformed baby from Samoa is one such case.
The community raised $100,000 to get her to NZ after a plastic surgeon said it was worth having a look at what might be done for her. The Immigration Department, after taking their own advice, refused her entry to New Zealand.
Nobody is asking the government for money. A young baby has zero chance of becoming an over-stayer. All her parents want is a definitive assessment which they cannot get in Samoa. But Immigration says the child cannot enter the country.
Witness the power of the state at its worst.
Today's Taranaki Herald has written on the subject. Well said;
Miracle baby deserves our help
Taranaki | Monday, 31 December 2007
Rules, rules, rules.
Some people and organisations live by them and follow them to the very letter. And not even Christmas or compassion can sway them from adherence to that tight, strict path, says the Taranaki Daily News
Our immigration department is one such organisation.
Even though it has been revealed to be extraordinarily incompetent in its application of those rules, with largesse and officiousness thrown around in equal abandon when it considers cases involving Pacific Islanders, there's still no room for leniency for a little girl named Miracletina.
She's a four-month-old baby born in Samoa with incredible, pitiful deformities: no top to her brain, no eyeballs, a double cleft palate, no fingers, deformed feet and spina bifida.
It's a miracle that she has survived, and family have fed the baby girl against doctors' advice. But not only has she survived, she is healthy, can raise her head and responds to family members.
Now she needs our help.
And we have slammed the door. Thanks, but no thanks. Sorry, says our immigration department, we've looked at your case and it doesn't meet our criteria. Nothing we can provide will do any good.
Fair enough, you say. Our hospitals and medical specialists are over-burdened enough, without taking on the cases of other nations' citizens, no matter how touching and needful.
But these are not people coming to us for a handout. This is not a family and a community who have simply tossed their hands into the air and said they've done all they can do and now it's up to someone else to sort out the mess.
The family have raised the not insignificant sum of $103,000 in the Baby Miracle Appeal in Samoa and New Zealand. That's people in this country who have pledged to help this child, this family to deal with what is an awful misfortune; helped towards a campaign to send this unfortunate child and her family to New Zealand, if even just for an examination.
But still our officials say no.
We believe that's not on, and the immigration officials need to take a cold, hard look at themselves.
This family doesn't want charity, although they definitely deserve it.
They have made a huge effort to help themselves, which already puts them above the many others in this country happy to get something for nothing.
This family is saying to New Zealand that there is something you can provide that will be of some good.
And that's hope.
Given what we have in this country compared to what's available in many Pacific Islands, surely that's not too much to ask, is it?
The story of the malformed baby from Samoa is one such case.
The community raised $100,000 to get her to NZ after a plastic surgeon said it was worth having a look at what might be done for her. The Immigration Department, after taking their own advice, refused her entry to New Zealand.
Nobody is asking the government for money. A young baby has zero chance of becoming an over-stayer. All her parents want is a definitive assessment which they cannot get in Samoa. But Immigration says the child cannot enter the country.
Witness the power of the state at its worst.
Today's Taranaki Herald has written on the subject. Well said;
Miracle baby deserves our help
Taranaki | Monday, 31 December 2007
Rules, rules, rules.
Some people and organisations live by them and follow them to the very letter. And not even Christmas or compassion can sway them from adherence to that tight, strict path, says the Taranaki Daily News
Our immigration department is one such organisation.
Even though it has been revealed to be extraordinarily incompetent in its application of those rules, with largesse and officiousness thrown around in equal abandon when it considers cases involving Pacific Islanders, there's still no room for leniency for a little girl named Miracletina.
She's a four-month-old baby born in Samoa with incredible, pitiful deformities: no top to her brain, no eyeballs, a double cleft palate, no fingers, deformed feet and spina bifida.
It's a miracle that she has survived, and family have fed the baby girl against doctors' advice. But not only has she survived, she is healthy, can raise her head and responds to family members.
Now she needs our help.
And we have slammed the door. Thanks, but no thanks. Sorry, says our immigration department, we've looked at your case and it doesn't meet our criteria. Nothing we can provide will do any good.
Fair enough, you say. Our hospitals and medical specialists are over-burdened enough, without taking on the cases of other nations' citizens, no matter how touching and needful.
But these are not people coming to us for a handout. This is not a family and a community who have simply tossed their hands into the air and said they've done all they can do and now it's up to someone else to sort out the mess.
The family have raised the not insignificant sum of $103,000 in the Baby Miracle Appeal in Samoa and New Zealand. That's people in this country who have pledged to help this child, this family to deal with what is an awful misfortune; helped towards a campaign to send this unfortunate child and her family to New Zealand, if even just for an examination.
But still our officials say no.
We believe that's not on, and the immigration officials need to take a cold, hard look at themselves.
This family doesn't want charity, although they definitely deserve it.
They have made a huge effort to help themselves, which already puts them above the many others in this country happy to get something for nothing.
This family is saying to New Zealand that there is something you can provide that will be of some good.
And that's hope.
Given what we have in this country compared to what's available in many Pacific Islands, surely that's not too much to ask, is it?
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Recruiting gang members easier than recruiting fruit-pickers
What a joke. Yesterday I blogged about the so-called labour shortage in Southland. It would however appear gangs can recruit people to sell 'P'.
The Central Otago district mayor said a growing number of Mongrel Mob members and affiliates who were recruiting teenagers in Cromwell could be driven out of town by locals.
Police yesterday confirmed a group of gang affiliates had moved into the area in recent weeks, and had established themselves at three properties in the town...
Earlier this month, Canterbury police expressed concern both the Mongrel Mob and Black Power were recruiting in smaller South Island centres to reach profitable new drug markets. At the time Inspector Dave Gaskin said the gangs were trying to spread their drug business.
"The Mongrel Mob are the catalyst, they are driving it. They pick on the easy targets, the low socio-economic, low-intelligence kids and as a result they are getting a foothold in the area."
And where do the low socio-economic kids come from? Frequently, welfare-dependent, single parent, workless homes.
The Central Otago district mayor said a growing number of Mongrel Mob members and affiliates who were recruiting teenagers in Cromwell could be driven out of town by locals.
Police yesterday confirmed a group of gang affiliates had moved into the area in recent weeks, and had established themselves at three properties in the town...
Earlier this month, Canterbury police expressed concern both the Mongrel Mob and Black Power were recruiting in smaller South Island centres to reach profitable new drug markets. At the time Inspector Dave Gaskin said the gangs were trying to spread their drug business.
"The Mongrel Mob are the catalyst, they are driving it. They pick on the easy targets, the low socio-economic, low-intelligence kids and as a result they are getting a foothold in the area."
And where do the low socio-economic kids come from? Frequently, welfare-dependent, single parent, workless homes.
Friday, December 28, 2007
A government too willing
It's that time of the year when we hear the same old story about fruit grower's desperation to hire harvesting staff.
More than 11,000 foreigners in New Zealand have been individually urged to immediately take up seasonal work in Central Otago, as desperate cherry growers in the district teeter on the brink of losing their crucial export harvests because of a labour shortage.
From Boxing Day, every visitor thought to be in New Zealand with a Holiday Working Scheme permit was sent text messages and emails urging them to head to Central Otago, in a last-ditch effort by Horticulture New Zealand and the Department of Labour to boost workers in the district.
Central Otago has been recognised as having an absolute labour shortage by Work and Income New Zealand for the past three years.
There are 19,000 people aged 18-64 picking up a benefit in Southland alone. I understand some would not be able to do the physical work required and some would need to make arrangements for young children. That aside I cannot accept there isn't labour available in that pool. Whether it is willing is another matter. Perhaps the government should be less willing to provide them with an alternative.
More than 11,000 foreigners in New Zealand have been individually urged to immediately take up seasonal work in Central Otago, as desperate cherry growers in the district teeter on the brink of losing their crucial export harvests because of a labour shortage.
From Boxing Day, every visitor thought to be in New Zealand with a Holiday Working Scheme permit was sent text messages and emails urging them to head to Central Otago, in a last-ditch effort by Horticulture New Zealand and the Department of Labour to boost workers in the district.
Central Otago has been recognised as having an absolute labour shortage by Work and Income New Zealand for the past three years.
There are 19,000 people aged 18-64 picking up a benefit in Southland alone. I understand some would not be able to do the physical work required and some would need to make arrangements for young children. That aside I cannot accept there isn't labour available in that pool. Whether it is willing is another matter. Perhaps the government should be less willing to provide them with an alternative.
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
The 'J ' word
A 5 year-old punches his mother in the face and she gets the headline for punching him back. Then she prostrates herself before the public and judiciary. Get this line, about the new anti-smacking laws;
It also meant people who saw such things would be forced to make judgments on other people's parenting and to weigh up whether they thought it was necessary to call police to intervene, she said.
Now there's an idea I hadn't thus far appreciated. I am sure Sue Bradford wouldn't be very happy about the thought she has forced society back towards judgmentalism. Most liberal lefties worship at the altar of non-judgmentalism and moral relativism. How often do you hear one say, walk a mile in my shoes before you judge me?
The left produces a curious mix of permissiveness and authoritarianism, does it not.
It also meant people who saw such things would be forced to make judgments on other people's parenting and to weigh up whether they thought it was necessary to call police to intervene, she said.
Now there's an idea I hadn't thus far appreciated. I am sure Sue Bradford wouldn't be very happy about the thought she has forced society back towards judgmentalism. Most liberal lefties worship at the altar of non-judgmentalism and moral relativism. How often do you hear one say, walk a mile in my shoes before you judge me?
The left produces a curious mix of permissiveness and authoritarianism, does it not.
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
A word about Xmas bingeing
At last. Some good advice received via e-mail...
I just read an article on the dangers of heavy drinking....
Scared the hell out of me.
So that's it!
After today, no more reading.
Although I think I can guarantee 'safe' reading here. Thanks so much for all the comments made over the past two years. Have a great day. I'm off to ice gingerbread men and marinate the steak for the barbie... and wouldn't you know it....it's persisting down....
Merry Xmas!
I just read an article on the dangers of heavy drinking....
Scared the hell out of me.
So that's it!
After today, no more reading.
Although I think I can guarantee 'safe' reading here. Thanks so much for all the comments made over the past two years. Have a great day. I'm off to ice gingerbread men and marinate the steak for the barbie... and wouldn't you know it....it's persisting down....
Merry Xmas!
Monday, December 24, 2007
Upstairs, Downstairs
Did you see this story on TV3 news last night?
An elderly couple have only seen each other about 12 times in a year because she lives upstairs and he lives downstairs. Apparently the health department promised them a lift over a year ago and it hasn't materialised. We, the audience, are supposed to gnash our teeth and wring our hankies, I gather, as the National MP Paul Hutchison rails at the useless, heartless government.
Sorry but I find this scenario ridiculous. Why haven't they moved to a one storey home? Where are the friends and family who could help them do this? The husband has terminal cancer but the wife could live for years yet with MS and if she hasn't seen her partner more than 12 times in a year that means she hasn't been out of the house more than 12 times. The house is completely unsuitable. Paul Hutchison should be giving this couple better advice. Telling them Labour has made their lives miserable isn't helping.
An elderly couple have only seen each other about 12 times in a year because she lives upstairs and he lives downstairs. Apparently the health department promised them a lift over a year ago and it hasn't materialised. We, the audience, are supposed to gnash our teeth and wring our hankies, I gather, as the National MP Paul Hutchison rails at the useless, heartless government.
Sorry but I find this scenario ridiculous. Why haven't they moved to a one storey home? Where are the friends and family who could help them do this? The husband has terminal cancer but the wife could live for years yet with MS and if she hasn't seen her partner more than 12 times in a year that means she hasn't been out of the house more than 12 times. The house is completely unsuitable. Paul Hutchison should be giving this couple better advice. Telling them Labour has made their lives miserable isn't helping.
Sunday, December 23, 2007
Doing it tuff
Alas, there are no christmas presents under our tree this year.
No, we have not fallen on hard times and nope, I haven't fashionably adopted the greenie, meanie mantra, muttering about the filthy commercialism of Xmas, the vile exploitation and extravagance of giving.
No. The reason we have no gifts under our tree is a christmas tree terrorist is at large. No bright bauble, no twinkling tinsel and no lovingly wrapped parcel is safe.
We sent in the riot police...to no avail.
The only relief from this onslaught is when the terrorist sleeps.
No, we have not fallen on hard times and nope, I haven't fashionably adopted the greenie, meanie mantra, muttering about the filthy commercialism of Xmas, the vile exploitation and extravagance of giving.
No. The reason we have no gifts under our tree is a christmas tree terrorist is at large. No bright bauble, no twinkling tinsel and no lovingly wrapped parcel is safe.
We sent in the riot police...to no avail.
The only relief from this onslaught is when the terrorist sleeps.
Friday, December 21, 2007
Tacky, tacky
This really is the most tacky little story but I can't let it go (neither could he obviously) without comment. I swear I had to look up 'onanism'. It isn't a word I have ever come across. Oh sorry. This just gets worse.
A student masturbates in a Palmerston North K-mart changing room due to exam stress he says but the judge isn't buying it because of "a report that suggested the 24-year-old was sexually aroused by trying on new trousers."
What??? People can get sexually excited from trying on new trousers and he says he's stressed??? Spare a thought for me. I will never be able to look at changing rooms in the same light again. I think from now on I'll be coming home with clothes that don't fit.
It happened in the middle of the day on December 5, Sergeant Chris Whitmore told the hushed court.
The student went into the changing rooms with two pairs of trousers, pulled down his own trousers, sat on the floor of one of the rooms, and began his venture into onanism.
But there was a metre gap between door and floor and two people saw what he was doing.
Judge Ross said the defendant's offending was at the lower end of the scale.
People could see him, but he couldn't see them.
And so if he could see them but they couldn't see him it would have been at the worse end of the scale? How does that work?
And he didn't notice the metre gap??? Either the guys an exhibitionist or he got confused and thought he was at the sperm bank and people would approve.
Judge Ross said ... a conviction would be "out of all proportion" to the seriousness of the offence, especially with the defendant seeking a job at a district health board, he said.
Sakes alive. A job at the DHB? They need more w.....s?
Please pick me up off the floor. Oh shit. I mean pick him up off the floor. I'm down here for different reasons.
A student masturbates in a Palmerston North K-mart changing room due to exam stress he says but the judge isn't buying it because of "a report that suggested the 24-year-old was sexually aroused by trying on new trousers."
What??? People can get sexually excited from trying on new trousers and he says he's stressed??? Spare a thought for me. I will never be able to look at changing rooms in the same light again. I think from now on I'll be coming home with clothes that don't fit.
It happened in the middle of the day on December 5, Sergeant Chris Whitmore told the hushed court.
The student went into the changing rooms with two pairs of trousers, pulled down his own trousers, sat on the floor of one of the rooms, and began his venture into onanism.
But there was a metre gap between door and floor and two people saw what he was doing.
Judge Ross said the defendant's offending was at the lower end of the scale.
People could see him, but he couldn't see them.
And so if he could see them but they couldn't see him it would have been at the worse end of the scale? How does that work?
And he didn't notice the metre gap??? Either the guys an exhibitionist or he got confused and thought he was at the sperm bank and people would approve.
Judge Ross said ... a conviction would be "out of all proportion" to the seriousness of the offence, especially with the defendant seeking a job at a district health board, he said.
Sakes alive. A job at the DHB? They need more w.....s?
Please pick me up off the floor. Oh shit. I mean pick him up off the floor. I'm down here for different reasons.
When you thought it couldn't get any worse....
There is no shortage of bad news about the British NHS. This piece provides a practical insight into how "administration, targets and regulations have made NHS care 'worse than five years ago'." It is written by James Bartholemew after discussions with a consultant. It really is an eye-opener. Does anybody know if their systems have parallels with NZ?
Privatise ACC
When you next go to register your car you will pay $50 more. Some people will call it a tax increase. It isn't. It's an insurance premium increase - a wopping 24 percent increase.
The ACC Minister says the increase is necessary because of the rising costs associated with car crashes. But looking at the number of vehicles and the number of injuries, they are tracking fairly closely. Costs are increasing but so is revenue from vehicles. Hard to see justification for a 24 percent rise there. But when you are a monopoly insurer it doesn't matter whether the customer buys the excuse or not.
If you were faced with an increase in your household contents insurance of 24 percent you might decide to shop around for a better deal. That's as it should be. But when the state monopolises insurance you are at their mercy.
The funny thing is the people who will moan most about this and be hardest hit are the same people who think that the state should run everything so that terrible thing called PROFIT can be avoided.
It's a simple connection many seem incapable of making. If you want choice and competition and lower prices you have to accept the profit motive.
The ACC Minister says the increase is necessary because of the rising costs associated with car crashes. But looking at the number of vehicles and the number of injuries, they are tracking fairly closely. Costs are increasing but so is revenue from vehicles. Hard to see justification for a 24 percent rise there. But when you are a monopoly insurer it doesn't matter whether the customer buys the excuse or not.
If you were faced with an increase in your household contents insurance of 24 percent you might decide to shop around for a better deal. That's as it should be. But when the state monopolises insurance you are at their mercy.
The funny thing is the people who will moan most about this and be hardest hit are the same people who think that the state should run everything so that terrible thing called PROFIT can be avoided.
It's a simple connection many seem incapable of making. If you want choice and competition and lower prices you have to accept the profit motive.
Thursday, December 20, 2007
"Minor increase" in reports involving child assaults
Police record a 17 percent increase in reports for smacking or abuse when comparing the three months prior to and following the implementation of the 'anti-smacking' law.
Now we need a release from CYFS detailing the number of reports made to that organisation to complete the picture. I wonder if we will get one. Seems the police are far more forthcoming than CYFS.
Now we need a release from CYFS detailing the number of reports made to that organisation to complete the picture. I wonder if we will get one. Seems the police are far more forthcoming than CYFS.
More time awake
I forgot to mention yesterday that my blog was two years old. When I began blogging I knew I had to find the time for it. The only way that was going to happen was to get up earlier in the morning. So I resolved to get up at 5.15 am each day instead of 6.30. By my calculations I have added 75 minutes of waking time to 505 weekdays for two years. That's 631 extra hours or 26 days. That's not much. But if I blog out my natural life expectancy I would have been awake for 468 days longer. Almost one and a third years. Hell that's still not much. No wonder I have never been a saver. So much effort for so little gain. I mean what else could I have done with that time. Slept. Oh yes. There is a lot to be said for sleeping. I recently read that those people who regularly had eight hours sleep live longer. Live longer?? But they have been asleep for more of it.
But it's about quality of life you say? Shushhhh. Any more talk like that and the government will be passing minimum sleep laws.
Anyway, happy birthday to me for yesterday. Here's to sleep deprivation and more of it.
But it's about quality of life you say? Shushhhh. Any more talk like that and the government will be passing minimum sleep laws.
Anyway, happy birthday to me for yesterday. Here's to sleep deprivation and more of it.
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
A double blow
There is an awful irony about the passing of the EFB.
The backlash against Labour is driving the high National poll results. Average Kiwis are now heartily sick of Labour's arrogance and defiance of public opinion. The EFB is only one more instance of this. National's popularity is a vote against Labour.
In the latest poll not one minor party was above 5 percent. I understand that the likelihood of this carrying through to election day, based on past trends, is low. But it is nevertheless a possibility.
Most New Zealanders voted for MMP. They wanted minority viewpoints represented and more consultative government. If they flock to National, desperate to get rid of Clark, they risk delivering an even less accountable government. And they risk losing an MMP parliament.
In which case democracy will be dealt a double blow as all those who support neither National nor Labour lose representation in the house and in the select committees.
Labour and the Greens and NZ First have scuppered freedom of expression with the EFB. People need to take care now not to let their reaction further undermine the ability of all New Zealanders to participate in some way in the law-making processes of their country.
The backlash against Labour is driving the high National poll results. Average Kiwis are now heartily sick of Labour's arrogance and defiance of public opinion. The EFB is only one more instance of this. National's popularity is a vote against Labour.
In the latest poll not one minor party was above 5 percent. I understand that the likelihood of this carrying through to election day, based on past trends, is low. But it is nevertheless a possibility.
Most New Zealanders voted for MMP. They wanted minority viewpoints represented and more consultative government. If they flock to National, desperate to get rid of Clark, they risk delivering an even less accountable government. And they risk losing an MMP parliament.
In which case democracy will be dealt a double blow as all those who support neither National nor Labour lose representation in the house and in the select committees.
Labour and the Greens and NZ First have scuppered freedom of expression with the EFB. People need to take care now not to let their reaction further undermine the ability of all New Zealanders to participate in some way in the law-making processes of their country.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
"Raise the retirement age"
The Retirement Commissioner has suggested lifting the retirement age. As if the government sets one. People can retire whenever they like. But they can't claim a pension until they are 65.
That government mandates a retirement age is a mindset that needs lifting. Along with the age at which people can start drawing from the general taxation fund. If the qualifying age for Super was set to match the average periods spent on the aged pension in 1900, the eligibility would now be well into the seventies for men and pushing 80 for women.
Super is just another distortion of an originally means-tested benefit for the neediest people. There is nothing wrong with retirement funding schemes but I have never quite understood why New Zealand went against international trends and opted to fund it from the Consolidated Fund instead of dedicated contributions. Actually, for the original aged pension, tracts of land were set aside to produce income for funding but it quickly became apparent the income would fall well short of what was required.
Super is one enormous political football that refuses to stop bouncing. Introducing universal Super in 1938 was a mistake which has never been corrected. As the population is now ageing so rapidly Super is going to become an enormous strain on the economy, not to mention the publicly-funded health and care needs of the elderly.
The above shows population projections from Statistics New Zealand. The only good news is other countries, from memory, mainly European, are in a worse boat than NZ. Their projected retired to working population ratios are worse than ours.
Pity our kids who will have to deal with the mess successive governments, Labour and National, have bequeathed them.
That government mandates a retirement age is a mindset that needs lifting. Along with the age at which people can start drawing from the general taxation fund. If the qualifying age for Super was set to match the average periods spent on the aged pension in 1900, the eligibility would now be well into the seventies for men and pushing 80 for women.
Super is just another distortion of an originally means-tested benefit for the neediest people. There is nothing wrong with retirement funding schemes but I have never quite understood why New Zealand went against international trends and opted to fund it from the Consolidated Fund instead of dedicated contributions. Actually, for the original aged pension, tracts of land were set aside to produce income for funding but it quickly became apparent the income would fall well short of what was required.
Super is one enormous political football that refuses to stop bouncing. Introducing universal Super in 1938 was a mistake which has never been corrected. As the population is now ageing so rapidly Super is going to become an enormous strain on the economy, not to mention the publicly-funded health and care needs of the elderly.
The above shows population projections from Statistics New Zealand. The only good news is other countries, from memory, mainly European, are in a worse boat than NZ. Their projected retired to working population ratios are worse than ours.
Pity our kids who will have to deal with the mess successive governments, Labour and National, have bequeathed them.
Monday, December 17, 2007
Homeless by choice
It is always refreshing to read a report which touches on the truth. For instance;
Like all those the Waikato Times spoke to who work with the homeless, Mr White said many people who live on the streets were there by choice.
I imagine the response to that by some is, they don't know any better, they aren't making an 'informed choice'. Nobody could want to live like that.
That is a matter for conjecture. Meanwhile don't people have a right to live on the streets if they choose? If the streets belong to the public by proxy then these people have every right to live on them. It may offend, it may distress, it may anger others. But as long as street dwellers live within the law perhaps we ought to stop wringing our hands and accept them.
Like all those the Waikato Times spoke to who work with the homeless, Mr White said many people who live on the streets were there by choice.
I imagine the response to that by some is, they don't know any better, they aren't making an 'informed choice'. Nobody could want to live like that.
That is a matter for conjecture. Meanwhile don't people have a right to live on the streets if they choose? If the streets belong to the public by proxy then these people have every right to live on them. It may offend, it may distress, it may anger others. But as long as street dwellers live within the law perhaps we ought to stop wringing our hands and accept them.
Sunday, December 16, 2007
Don't traumatise those worms
The inventor of a worm-driven composting toilet had to prove the worms were not traumatised or stressed by their task before council bureaucrats would approve the system.
Coll Bell, who invented the "wormorator" as an alternative to septic tanks, was told by an Auckland Regional Council staff member to get an expert's report on the psychological impact on the worms after she became concerned during a site visit.
"She felt that the worms were being unfairly treated, being expected to deal with human faeces, and that it could affect them in a psychological way," says Bell. "I said, `Well, what do I do about that?' and she said `you have to have someone with the necessary qualifications to say the worms are happy'."
Ever curious I googled 'happy worms' in an attempt to discover how one could assess such a being, and their mental condition. There could be a job there for me. At this time of year I always have too much time on my hands.
I have now ascertained that worms are quite happy with donkey or dog poop but not the human equivalent. Look. Somebody has even drawn a little picture of unhappy worms.
Of course it is absolutely valid to attribute human emotions to worms in this manner. Can you definitively discount the existence of trauma in a worm? I think not. We know some worms are very happy because they glow. So it follows that others are very unhappy because they do not glow.
This Auckland Regional Council employee deserves an award for wormitarian services to wormkind. And the man who invented the 'wormorator' must be reported to the SPCW for even thinking about inflicting psychological abuse on such vulnerable and defenceless creatures.
Coll Bell, who invented the "wormorator" as an alternative to septic tanks, was told by an Auckland Regional Council staff member to get an expert's report on the psychological impact on the worms after she became concerned during a site visit.
"She felt that the worms were being unfairly treated, being expected to deal with human faeces, and that it could affect them in a psychological way," says Bell. "I said, `Well, what do I do about that?' and she said `you have to have someone with the necessary qualifications to say the worms are happy'."
Ever curious I googled 'happy worms' in an attempt to discover how one could assess such a being, and their mental condition. There could be a job there for me. At this time of year I always have too much time on my hands.
I have now ascertained that worms are quite happy with donkey or dog poop but not the human equivalent. Look. Somebody has even drawn a little picture of unhappy worms.
Of course it is absolutely valid to attribute human emotions to worms in this manner. Can you definitively discount the existence of trauma in a worm? I think not. We know some worms are very happy because they glow. So it follows that others are very unhappy because they do not glow.
This Auckland Regional Council employee deserves an award for wormitarian services to wormkind. And the man who invented the 'wormorator' must be reported to the SPCW for even thinking about inflicting psychological abuse on such vulnerable and defenceless creatures.
Friday, December 14, 2007
Inconsistency
Here is a married couple charged with 'P' offences. Not convicted. The judge says that it will be a long time before the trial takes place. They are remanded in custody and CYFS take their four children aged 4 weeks to 13 years.
The thought occurred to me that Sue Bradford has a bill which would allow mothers to keep their very young children in prison. Some already do but this bill wants to extend the period and expand the practice.
Here is a mother of a month-old baby being separated from it when she hasn't even been convicted of an offence.
The thought occurred to me that Sue Bradford has a bill which would allow mothers to keep their very young children in prison. Some already do but this bill wants to extend the period and expand the practice.
Here is a mother of a month-old baby being separated from it when she hasn't even been convicted of an offence.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
The wrong motivation
I came across this on another blog. It's a Left blog that appears to have attacking David Farrar and others as its reason for being. It is even styled after the very popular Kiwiblog. Naturally its contributors are anonymous.
Linking whoring to Lindsay Mitchell is not going to help you, Ms Mitchell’s barely numerate.....I’ve read Mitchell’s commentary before and she struggles to make out coherent argument and doesn’t deal with stats well. Her problem of course may not be numeracy, it may be that her arguments don’t stack up with you look for data…
Wouldn't it be better if the poster had simply questioned my arguments here? If I get things wrong - and I do - I'm not going to get it right without somebody pointing out the error. But what this comment really brings home is the propensity of some (many?) on the Left to malign people rather than their ideas. Trevor Mallard leaps to mind.
And I question the motivation of these types. Their interest in politics seems to stem largely from the pleasure they take in fighting and hating. That's a shame because they give politics a bad name and ward off others who might have a worthy contribution to make. We mustn't let that happen.
Linking whoring to Lindsay Mitchell is not going to help you, Ms Mitchell’s barely numerate.....I’ve read Mitchell’s commentary before and she struggles to make out coherent argument and doesn’t deal with stats well. Her problem of course may not be numeracy, it may be that her arguments don’t stack up with you look for data…
Wouldn't it be better if the poster had simply questioned my arguments here? If I get things wrong - and I do - I'm not going to get it right without somebody pointing out the error. But what this comment really brings home is the propensity of some (many?) on the Left to malign people rather than their ideas. Trevor Mallard leaps to mind.
And I question the motivation of these types. Their interest in politics seems to stem largely from the pleasure they take in fighting and hating. That's a shame because they give politics a bad name and ward off others who might have a worthy contribution to make. We mustn't let that happen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
