ACT questions National policy

ACT leader Rodney Hide questions John Key's plan to invest $1.5 billion in broadband. In keeping with the thinking that drove the creation of the Regulatory Responsibility Bill Rodney wants better definition of the problem, clearer definition of the policy and identification of the unintended consequences.

Making no pretensions to knowledge about the telecommunications industry I cannot understand why private money isn't available for what is a apparently such a stupendous investment. It is not good enough for Key to argue that this is what other countries are doing and ergo it must be the most desirable solution.

Key is rather condescending towards ACT suggesting he might need to sit down with Rodney and explain how the telecommunications sector works. Perhaps Rodney can return the favour and explain how a free economy operates.

How income support affects employment rates

The following chart is a little misleading. While the employment rate of sole mothers has risen, clearly a good chunk are recorded as 'employed' while still dependent on a benefit. Around 74 percent of sole parents still rely on welfare.

But it strikes me that at the very least the two lines should be reversed ie sole mothers should have a higher employment rate than partnered mothers. And they would have if we didn't have such generous state support.


Sweden has no DPB equivalent and look at the results.

In Sweden 73% of women work – only 3 percentage points below male employment rates; 97% of households with children have someone in work; more than 70% of the mothers with children and 80% of sole mothers have jobs.

Sweden also has a much lower rate of teenage birth, which, as I have argued many times before, is a significant feeder into long-term DPB dependency.

There must be a considerable row occurring among the left between the feminists who want women in the workplace and the feminists who want women to have unfettered access to state support for their lifestyle choices.

If National form the next government the argument will be between conservatives who don't much care for the negative effects of the DPB and those who think a mother's place is in the home.

There is another position. What's wrong with letting and expecting people to make and pay for their own choices?

National encapsulated

If you were ever in any doubt that National stands for the status quo and mere management of the current set up read this.

Religion and voluntary euthanasia

Interesting Australian research on which specialists are more likely to favour euthanising terminally ill patients;

Associate Professor of Medical Ethics at the University of Queensland and author of the study, Malcolm Parker, said that while he could not explain the support for euthanasia and sedation among certain specialists, palliative care workers were generally more religious and therefore less likely to assist suicide.

"Their views are more likely to be based on religious views that it's immoral to help someone die and that bringing about someone's death is unacceptable."

Last week some atheists railed against Christians who expressed their faith in the aftermath of Mangatepoto tragedy. Other people's faith is their business in my book. If it helps them, all well and good. But when it adversely affects other people's lives then atheists are on stronger grounds to object. Deciding to force people to linger on in enormous pain in their last days is exactly the sort of religious judgement that makes my blood boil. These people are essentially saying the individual does not own his own life. It is God's to control to the bitter end.

The sooner we reopen the voluntary euthanasia debate the better. The Death With Dignity Bill is still in the ballot.

Unofficial fostering

Something I have been trying (with no success) to get to the bottom of is how widespread is the practice of unofficial fostering/adoption - or in Maoridom - whangai. Questions to MSD have been fruitless as they say information about the relationship between the caregiver and a dependent child is not necessarily recorded. Certainly an individual can claim a caregiver benefit if they have a child dependent on them, regardless of whether that child is their own. Again I believe this situation presents incentives which can lead to poor outcomes for the child or children involved. A variation on the theme of children as meal tickets if you like. The latest suspicious child death occurred in a fostering situation - one that was not a result of CYF intervention or a court order. Without legal standing.

While whangai/adoption or fostering usually occur because the child's best interests have been considered, if the practice is happening for other reasons - monetary gain for instance - then the child's best interests could be decidedly ill-served.

In this case we wait and see what unfolds.

It won't be just the dole that rises

Here is something to consider. Cameron Bagrie, ANZ National bank Chief Economist, predicts unemployment will jump from 3.4 to 5 percent (BTW some US states are already experiencing over 6 percent). That will push up dole numbers.

But it will also push up DPB numbers as families struggling to live on the unemployment benefit alone decide they would be better off financially, living apart (if not in actuality - on paper).

That is another reason why we badly need to turn the DPB back into temporary and discretionary emergency assistance only. A repeat of what happened during the eighties must be warded off.

DPB 'reform' results stalled

If I was Ruth Dyson I would be looking at the newly released March benefit fact sheets and worrying.

The invalid benefit numbers have reached a new high of 81,130 - a 6 percent increase in one year. I expected this due to no mention of this benefit during the Labour Congress welfare skite.

But in some ways, even more worrying is that the results of great DPB reforms - personal work and development plans and WFF - seemed to have stalled. Again many of those centres with high young Maori and Pacific populations have seen rises and the overall decrease is only 1.3 percent or an average of 9 people fewer per centre since March 2007.

Add to this Treasury are predicting no further decrease in DPB numbers over the next few years.

A government truly wanting to get DPB numbers down will have to be far more radical than Labour or National.

The politics of racism

This is an absorbing and insightful piece by libertarian Scott Wilson. I am humbled by his ability to grasp and describe the politics of the Maori Party so have reproduced it in full.

Tariana Turia’s comment that Wanganui’s proposed ban on gangpatches is akin to what the Jews went through in Nazi Germany should spark outrage and calls for resignation from all who have any sense of perspective and morality. This is not because I support such a ban. I don’t, and there are a range of useful arguments against it. However, it is the despicable equivalency granted to wearing gangpatches and being labelled as a group which was slaughtered en masse which demonstrates her philosophy. It was first displayed by an earlier comment by her that Maori went through a “holocaust”, so the point is plain and simple. Tariana Turia at worst is anti-semitic and a calculating liar, at best she is a thoughtless fool.

Since the Maori Party was formed it has enjoyed a significant media honeymoon. This is partly due to the self-policing of reporters who fear that criticism of the Maori Party will be seen as being racist. This, of course, is a well known technique of the likes of Robert Mugabe and Thabo Mbeki, both of whom have thrown the word “racist” at their opponents whenever either of them have been accused of poor performance, which as you well know, is being supremely generous to them both. The Maori Party itself refused to condemn Mugabe’s thuggery a few years ago, and despite criticism from many quarters, it still got a “get out of jail free” pass from the media.

One of the most crippling, almost Maoist phenomena in New Zealand political circles is the delicacy used regarding Maori politics. This is because of the “racist” moniker that is thrown about like Zimbabwe Dollars, as if the dominant discourse about Maori in New Zealand is racist. At one point it was, albeit in later years in a patronising way – but who dares be racist now? Those on the mainstream left, in Labour and the Greens accused Don Brash of racism when he openly advocated the precise opposite. Some, of course, clinging to the tribalist view of politics that sees the National Party as some repositary of white conservative heterosexual men who are racist, sexist, homophobic and intolerant, honestly believed Brash was being racist. I don’t doubt Helen Clark thinks that, as she has been in the hothouse of the feminist left of the Labour party for most of her life, and surrounded herself with people of that persuasion. Others on the left know the right is vulnerable on this, if only because those who fought against racism, sexism and homophobia predominantly came from the radical left in the 1960s and 70s. The liberal “right” if I dare call it that was very few in number then, but not invisible. National MP and former Transport Minister George Gair cast the deciding vote in favour of Homosexual Law Reform, at a time when Labour’s Maori MPs were voting as a bloc against it.

So the discourse about Maori in New Zealand is actually about avoiding ever being called “racist”. Plenty have written on the liberal “right” about how seeking a political and legal system that is colourblind is anything but racist, and it takes a curious contortion of post modernist cultural relativism to believe it is.

Nevertheless, the Maori Party is, in fact, racist. By this I don’t mean because it is a party of race – though it is. It would be better saying it is a party of identity, because being Maori is, for many who are, an important matter of identity. Being Caucasian, except for a rather pathetic handful of largely white male malcontents and low to modest achievers, is not. There is undoubtedly plenty of academic work that can be done on this – why do those who identify as Maori regard it as important, but Caucasian New Zealanders do not.

I don’t have to explain to anyone with a moderate knowledge of history, or the basic ability to undertake research, what the Holocaust was about. Also, before the claims of “it wasn’t the only one” are thrown about, the genocidal and mass murderous actions of other regimes are only distinguished by the target groups and the less efficiency by which they operated. The Nazis were coldly efficient and organised, almost all of the other mass murderous campaigns were a combination of hyped up, but relatively short term savagery, or slightly detached, as in the ludicrous policies that created enormous famines in China, Ethiopia, the USSR and North Korea. Whether it be Rwanda, Burundi, Equatorial Guinea, Croatia, Armenia, Cambodia, the Kurds, Darfur, Bosnia Hercegovina, Nazi Germany, Maoist China or the USSR, these cases were marked by the identification of a group to be killed indiscriminately.

To treat the rather stupid policy idea of eliminating the choice of criminal gang members to wear their patches as akin to these is an insult to the victims of those horrors, and a despicable attempt to shock and invite Maori to think of themselves as being subject to the same dehumanisation and hatred that characterised Nazi Germany. You would have to be insane or an evil manipulative racist to claim that this is what many New Zealanders think of Maori. It is despicable beyond words.

It is what characterises far too much of what the Maori Party is about – it is about inciting Maori to vote for it, on the basis that only the Maori Party can protect Maori from the racism of the “mainstream”. It is about painting Maori as victims, not simply a group that, on average, performs worse at school, has a higher proportion of criminals, and maintains lifestyles that shorten their lives, but a group that others think “should be eliminated” and have long thought that. This is why the word “racist” is thrown about, and also explains the empathy some in the Maori Party have for Robert Mugabe – who makes exactly the same claims, when he demonstrably is doing exactly what he claims the Opposition is about. Mugabe is murdering black Zimbabweans – except he doesn’t do it by race, he does it by political affiliation – much like his comrades in North Korea, who have trained many of his goons.

The Maori Party gets a relatively free ride from the media because some of its MPs, such as Hone Harawira, will spit the “racist” dummy when he can. It can demean the memory of those slaughtered in the Holocaust and get away with it, daring to grant moral equivalency to peaceful men, women and children who were dragged, transported like cattle, stripped, demeaned and murdered on mass, to the knuckle dragging violent criminal scum in New Zealand gangs. That in itself ought to deny Tariana Turia and the party any seats in Parliament, for such an abject void of morality.

However the Maori Party already has an electoral system that effectively grants it a significant advantage over any other party. The Maori Party is highly unlikely to ever cross the 5% party vote threshold, and has not come close. Whilst three parties get into Parliament because they have leaders with strong local constituency bases of support, the Maori party enters because it has race based seats it can campaign for. It can, and by and large does ignore voters on the general roll. It is a party based on race, campaigning in constituencies that are racially defined for voters who distinguish themselves politically by race. As such it has won more race based seats than it would be entitled to on a party vote basis, so it is disproportionately represented in Parliament compared to every other party which has representation broadly according to party vote.

So a party that thinks Jews in the Holocaust and Black Power and Mongrel Mob gang members face “similar oppression”, that thinks that having a liberal democracy where all constituencies are based upon geography and none by race are racist, and which has refused to judge the murderous tyranny of Robert Mugabe, which cheers the socialist Evo Morales, which excuses child abuse as being “families under pressure”, which doesn’t think Islamist terrorism is a problem, isn’t held accountable for that. It is about time the light was shone on the Maori Party, in election year, and its inevitable cries of “racism” were confronted for what they are – the bleetings of the morally contemptible, protecting their own racist privilege as they peddle the philosophy of perpetual victimhood.

Debate at The Standard

I wandered into a debate about falling DPB numbers over at the Labour blog - The Standard. Gee. They are very excitable. I shouldn't do this because it takes so much time to make all the necessary responses. Still, it's a pissing-down awful day, not enough light to paint and it is fascinating to see how people interpret statistics to fit their assumptions.

ACT up

I don't have a link yet but just heard on NewstalkZB that the latest UMR poll has ACT's best polling result for a long time at 2.4 percent. Slowly does it.

Update: Here's the link.

What does she hope to achieve?

Tariana Turia, creating waves as is her want, says banning gang patches is akin to treating gangs like Jews. I thought Jewish people were made to wear insignia. Her comments will no doubt cause a good deal of offence. I wonder what she hopes to achieve?

Loss

Yesterday was a terrible day. Fourteen parents lost beloved children. I'm not sure people who aren't parents can actually appreciate how precarious and vulnerable being one makes you. Most would lose their own lives before their child's.

Most.

Not this one.

Reported by the NZ Herald;

...Ms King told Kahui the twins were in critical danger and were they were unlikely to "make it through this one".

"I'm sure I got the point across. They're f***ed."

Yesterday I found Macsyna King's crying in the witness box repugnant. You think I am too hard. But picture this. What do the other three children she has abandoned feel as they watch their mother on the telly supposedly grieving over her lost babies. Do you think they might wonder what is wrong with them that she never shows any care for their mere existence?

What some would give to have their cherished child returned to them. She just tosses them aside. It is a cruel contrast to stomach.

You can lead a horse to water etc

Yesterday I blogged about why a national register of domestic violence offenders wouldn't achieve much. I am still of the same view. Consider the following passage from Theodore Dalrymple, a British psychiatrist who has worked with thousands of abused women.


Note the last sentence. So their blindness is wilful.

Sharples on fighting domestic violence

He said that when he grew up in the small Hawkes Bay community of Takapau, Maori Affairs officers knew who lived in every house.

"Now there are young people setting up a relationship and having children they're not ready for in a flat at the back of a flat that you don't even know about. We have got to get back to knowing our communities. We have got to get back to empowering our communities."

You can't empower communities while empowering the government to provide cash incentives to do exactly what Sharple's is railing against. When are he and Tariana Turia going to face facts? It's no good promising some sort of hard line work-for-the-dole policy, while leaving the DPB untouched.

From last year,

Dr Sharples said he was not promoting a crackdown on the domestic purpose benefit, for "we have a culture of accepting solo parents, [and] we have to take care of them".

The culture of 'solo' (they often aren't) parents is at the heart of the domestic violence problem. They are too often women with a secure income and home who attract self-centred trash.

A dangerous vanity

There are calls to set up a national register of the worst domestic violence offenders to protect potential new partners and victims.

The trouble is many women get involved with these characters knowing they have a history. They think he will never hit them because they are different. And in the first flush of 'romance' he probably won't. And she won't nag or criticise him either. But that changes.

Men who repeatedly assault women - either mentally or physically - have a personality problem. They also have a kind of split personality. When contrite they are sad, vulnerable, lonely little boys. Highly lovable to someone who is herself very insecure. Hence a mutual but sometimes deadly attraction is at work.

All the legalistic intervention in the world will not change human nature.

Not quite Churchill

I was searching The Welfare State We're In on the subject of tax when I came across this gem from the Daily Mail;

Gordon Brown has been comparing himself to Churchill (as well as Gandhi).

I look forward to his first prime ministerial broadcast. "We shall tax on the beaches, tax on the landing grounds, we shall tax in the fields and in the streets.

"Never in the field of human taxation, has so much been owed by so many.

"I have nothing to offer but tax, tax and more tax."

Chris Carter's 'choice'

I wonder where Chris Carter was educated. He doesn't appear to understand what the word 'choice' means. Let me just confirm that I do by referring to the Concise Oxford Dictionary. Yes. Choice is a decision made between possibilities.

On the current education system,

“....ordinary New Zealand families like the choices they have now and they don’t want to see money from their local school being siphoned off into private education.

“Families can send their children to a private school and that is their choice but real choice is about having a quality, world-leading education system that can be accessed by all New Zealand families.

What on earth is he on about. How can families like choices they don't even have. Real choice is about having more than one option for your child's education. If you can't go outside a prescribed zone, have no discretionary income left after tax, then you will likely have no school choice for your child, especially at secondary level.

ACT's policy would allow the funding for each individual's education to be available to the parent's school of choice be it state, integrated or independent.

When Labour cannot properly debate what choice is they just up and change the meaning of the word. Very handy. But a bad look for the Minister of Education.

Dependency about more than just the dole

Here's the headline, Unemployment benefit numbers at lowest since 1979

On the other hand there are over 100,000 more people on sickness and invalid's benefits than 30 years ago. And there are almost 60,000 more people on the DPB. Don't let Labour kid you that they have solved the dependency problem.

If, like the Swedes, we were to measure welfare dependence in time spent on benefits, instead of numbers at any given time, the picture would tell a different story. For instance in 1971 only 3 percent of people on a sickness benefit claimed it for more than a year. In 2007 that figure had climbed to 50 percent.

The economic conditions of the past few years have provided jobs for people who want to work. That does not solve the problem of people who do not want to work; who believe it is up to the rest of society to accommodate their lifestyle choices. As long as governments tolerate that we will continue to have high dependence and the social problems that ensue.

For a change, he's right

The Act party argument that the Key-led National Party is really just Labour-Lite is true. But National is so desperate to not alienate anybody that when a decision to pick a side is required, its dithering makes it look evasive.
Matt McCarten

A whiff of hypocrisy

The Herald on Sunday is being just as 'glib' and 'smug' as it accuses Parekura Horomia of being with this statement;

While it is true that among the nation's more affluent and well-parented teens, there will indeed be a few refusing the muesli box so they can fit their skinny jeans....

So the nation's poorer and less well-parented teens are not trying to fit into their skinny jeans?

According to this 2007 research more than 60 percent of girls and 29 percent of boys are trying to lose weight and in particular Pacific Island students feature. Pacific Islanders tend to predominate among the poorer families. Poor children and young people are not stupid. They react to the same societal pressures as their wealthier counterparts.

I have already commented that Horomia's comment may have been ill-advised given the context but brushing it aside because of irrelevancies like his own weight or Labour's out-of-touchness serves no useful purpose. Across the board many young people are misguidedly skipping breakfast in an effort to control their weight.

Protesting EFA

Spent the morning outside the Labour Party (almost typed pastry - but more on that) Congress held at Wellington Town Hall today protesting against the Electoral Finance Act. I have never seen as many corpulent people gathered in one place; so many people wearing red and a goodly number of smokers. A mostly (but not entirely) good-humoured bunch they gave John Boscawen a fair go and security let him interact freely with comers and goers. John didn't want a party-political protest although a couple of young Nats tried to turn it into one. For the main we were pretty quiet and polite and the non-conference goers passing by frequently made comments of support. We were there from 8.30 to noon. The PM still hadn't arrived. Then a line of police formed in front of us.

I said to the officer facing me, "Look, we've been here since 8.30 and we've been peaceful.

"It's not for you," he replied, "There's another bunch coming in."

Within about ten minutes we could hear them. Mana Motuhake O Tuhoe. It wasn't unexpected and we had been tossing up whether to up sticks at that point because we did not want the two issues confused or to be tarnished by any violence. That's why we were there early. So that is what we did but quite happily. Our protest ended at around 12.30. John had engaged a good number of MPs, argued with Mike Williams and completed a few media interviews. He is doing an admirable job of engaging and keeping the issue alive. Let's hope he gets the coverage he deserves on tonight's news. It may be swamped by subsequent proceedings.

Update; This is exactly the sort of report we wanted to avoid; About 50 people protesting a grab-bag of issues from climate change to last year's so-called terror raids, the electoral finance act, and climate change screamed obscenities at delegates including Labour MPs as they waited for the fire service.

In Horomia's defence

This question in parliament to the Minister of Education today, Does he have confidence in the Ministry of Education; if so, why? resulted in a supplementary from Tariana Turia about why there are 20,000 children going to school without breakfast.

Parekura Horomia, answering for Chris Carter, said that there are many reasons children go to school without breakfast one being that they are trying to stay trim (I thought he said thin but no matter.) This provoked uproar in the house. And this press release from Anne Tolley.

"It is appalling for Associate Education Minister Parekura Horomia to claim that children up and down the country are going to school hungry because they’re trying to keep their weight down.”

Mrs Tolley is referring to comments made in Parliament today by Mr Horomia, who said ‘there are a host of reasons why students and pupils don’t have breakfast. They are trying to stay trim…’

“These comments are nothing short of a disgrace. I challenge Mr Horomia to stand on the corner of every street where parents are struggling to feed their children and repeat these obscene comments.

There seems to be some confusion here. Mrs Turia was on the 'children in poverty' bandwagon. The minister was responding directly to the issue of children going without breakfast. While there might be a problem with context or appropriateness of the answer, in the minister's defence I believe he is absolutely right. Many young girls skip breakfast intentionally. Just google the words "children skip breakfast to stay thin" and you will find many references to this practice.

It makes me very uncomfortable when someone can't state facts without provoking derision.

If we want children and young people to eat breakfast a good place to start might be to stop nagging them about obesity. The next would be to find out what family support payments are being spent on, if not food for children.

The decline of marriage and family

Yesterday it was marriage in Australia and this morning I was reading about marriage in the UK;

The marriage rate in Britain has collapsed to its lowest point since its government began keeping statistics in 1862. Even when discounting population growth, the numbers are embarrassingly low. According to Britain's Office for National Statistics (BONS), in 2006, the United Kingdom recorded a little over 228,000 marriages -- its lowest number since 1895, when its population was barely half what it is today.

The BONS study notes, the institution of marriage has been steadily eroding since the early 1970s:

* For Brits who choose to marry, 45 percent of new marriages will end in divorce; added to that, the average age for women entering first-time marriages is nearly 30 -- for men, it's 32.

* Of the marriages that stay together, based on a recent column in the London Times, an incredible 59 percent of married women said they would leave their husbands tomorrow if they could be assured of economic stability; meanwhile, half of the husbands questioned defined their marriage as "loveless."

* Forty percent of British babies are now born out of wedlock; the teen pregnancy rate in England and Wales is six times higher than in Holland -- three times that of France.

* Violent crime among teenagers in the United Kingdom has increased 37 percent in just three years, according to the London Telegraph; total offenses climbed steadily from 184,474 in 2003 to 222,750 in 2006, the last year for which figures are available—a rise of 21 percent.

In response to the study, British researcher Patricia Morgan says that the government has succeeded in "eradicating" marriage. "This is what they have tried to achieve and they should be congratulating themselves," Morgan said. "But it is a disaster for children, families and society."

So what about marriage in New Zealand?



And more recently;



In terms of how related matters compare to the UK as per above;

- the average age (of all marriage not just first) was 32.6 years for men and 30.4 years for women in 2006. Same as UK.

- 47 percent of babies are now born out-of-wedlock. Considerably higher than UK.

- The UK teenage birth rate is just under ours but remarkably similar. Ours is currently 31 per 1,000 15-19 year-olds

- according to Simon Power, since 1999, violent youth crime has increased by an alarming 44%.

So there we are, holding our own quite nicely.

Franks vs Key

Stephen Franks makes a strong statement on his blog this morning;

I think H Clark will go down in our history with the same judgment as Muldoon - a political master who used her power only to hold it. She could have used her political genius on the left’s black hole welfare, education and crime policies. Instead she has bribed her supporters to protect the emergence of an illiterate, barely employable, and vicious under-class.

Those would be the same "black hole welfare, education and crime policies" that National will be supporting.

National will not be making any significant changes in these areas, especially welfare. Not if we are to believe what John Key said earlier this year;

(About 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."

Doesn't sound like they are talking about the same country does it?

I don't doubt for a minute Stephen's sincerity and desire for radical change - the only sort of change which will stop the rot. That is why he was an ACT MP. If he can persuade National away from the status quo - good. But I think he is going to be very frustrated in his efforts.

NZ First advertising

NZ First has a quarter page ad telling people that selling off our assets to foreigners was a dumb idea that began in 1984 and the country has never been the same since. I am not interested in the ad. But I am interested in the placement in the Dominion Post. It is opposite the editorial/letters page. I can't remember ever seeing advertising on this page before. Did Winston manage to persuade the editor to allow an ad instead of an op-ed? It would be far more effective than an op-ed for the target audience.

"Smarter women marry"

I find myself somewhat irritated by this report and in particular this statement;

"There's something new going on, particularly among women," said researcher Genevieve Heard of the university's Centre for Population and Urban Research.

The report is about how women with degrees are more likely to be married than those without - a reverse on 1996 data. One assumes they are marrying men. But nobody asks the question, what kind of men are they marrying? Are the men they are marrying also degree holders? There must be some trend occurring among males as well.

I understand the focus of the research is women. But if she is going claim something new is going on 'particular' to women, she should explain why (or the reporter should include it).

And the headline is misleading, "Smarter women marry". It could just as easily say "Smarter women don't marry," because fewer women with degrees were married in 2006 compared with 1996.

The Australian marriage rate has dropped off, but it has dropped off more rapidly among women without degrees. Therefore "Stupider women don't marry," would also describe the trend. But while it is perfectly OK to say 'smarter' it is not OK to say 'stupider'. How PC. Oh dear. I am feeling niggly today.

Too many obligations

A new survey out about peoples's attitudes to the public service appears to be a mixed bag. I say 'appears' because I can't find the actual survey - just government (good) reports about it and academic (bad) reports.

Here what Auckland University says about the response of beneficiaries;

"This finding supports my own research, where focus group participants believed many beneficiaries are treated like 'second-class' citizens and Work and Income officials and processes are the main culprit", said Dr Humpage, who is leading a new study on understandings of citizenship in New Zealand.

"Participants in focus groups gave example after example whereby Work & Income treated beneficiaries with disrespect - even while they displayed signs on the walls promoting client rights", says Dr. Humpage. Those on the Unemployment and Domestic Purposes benefits were treated the worst, while students and super annuitants did not feel as stigmatised.

"This is the result of the welfare policies we have seen since the 1990s which require many beneficiaries to run around meeting obligations that other New Zealand citizens don't have, just because they receive income support. This is having a negative impact on their sense of belonging and identity as New Zealanders".


What rubbish. DPB and dole recipients have always felt stigmatised. And it was a lot worse in the late 70s and eighties when home checks were carried out. Social welfare was given the tag of 'gestapo' at one stage.

The whole point of universalising benefits was to reduce the stigmatisation. The more people who received them the more 'normal' it would become. Unfortunately it didn't work that way. As numbers grew so did the resentment of those workers funding them.

Typically the left-wing academic rushes to blame the problem on the early 90s policies "which require many beneficiaries to run around meeting obligations that other New Zealand citizens don't have..."

Now isn't that rich. You lucky people out there running businesses, working 70 hour weeks, filing tax returns, complying with OSH regulations, paying rates, etc. You want to try having to put up with the kind of obligations beneficiaries have.

On income tax

A simple and straight forward piece by Jacob Hornberger of the Freedom Foundation. As in the US there was a time in NZ when there was no income tax, and then, for a period, very little. Government raised revenue through duties and import taxes. But that all changed and income tax has gradually grown.

Excerpt;

With the advent of income taxation in America, the relationship between citizen and government was inverted. Prior to the income tax, the citizen was sovereign by virtue of the fact that he was free to earn unlimited amounts of money and there was nothing the government could do about it. Like it or not, it was his money, to do with as he pleased.

With the adoption of income taxation, all that changed. In effect, the income tax nationalized income. While many people would undoubtedly prefer not to think about it in this way, under the federal income tax everyone’s income belongs to the government or, if you prefer, to “society.” The power to set the tax rate is essentially the power to decide how much of their income people are going to be permitted to keep.

Thus, the income tax has converted the relationship between government and citizen into one akin to parent and child. The portion of their income that the citizenry are permitted to retain has effectively become an allowance. Sometimes the government is good to the citizenry and lets them keep more of their income. Sometimes the government is not so nice and lets the citizenry keep less of their income. But what’s important here, in terms of freedom, is not the percentage that is being levied but rather the fact that it is the government making the determination. That’s obviously a far cry from a society in which there is no income taxation at all.

Strange priorities from Children's Commissioner

New ads against binge drinking feature quite graphic physical violence against a child. There have been "multiple" complaints because they are screening at prime time and may upset children who see them.

The Children's Commissioner, who has in the past criticised advertising of food to children, is defending the ads. It's OK for a youngster to watch a man hurl a child against a wardrobe but it is not OK to expose them to "online food marketing – including interactive games and activities, downloadable screensavers and 'fun recipes'." I know which of these I would prefer my child to be experiencing. And it is not the first.

The ads can screen at any time from 4.30

The TV Commercial Approval Bureau says, "This is a social message that is going out, so it's an example of violence or something like that which is quite acceptable when it's educational. If a child was looking at it with an adult, the adult should be explaining why this is happening, the problems caused by drinking."

And what about those who won't be watching with an adult? I would suggest between 4.30 and 6pm that would be a majority. I suppose now I am in the wrong. I should be watching over my children like a hawk at every moment. They might not get a decent meal but that doesn't matter. I should be standing by ready to take my part in the educational opportunity ALAC have so thoughtfully provided. I should be on my knees thanking nanny for using my money so wisely. Her beneficence knows no bounds.

New blog

My friend Caroline has started a blog. This "rant" is a good example of what to expect. Add her to your blogroll. Not that I buy into that collectivist stuff but there aren't enough libertarian females and they add a different perspective.

Pregnant teens continue to smoke

Another reason why teenage pregnancy should be discouraged instead of encouraged. The stats for NZ are probably higher as Maori teenage smoking rates and teenage pregnancy rates are both higher than average.

Unprecedented manipulation

A woman calls the police to take away her violent partner who is beating her up. He kills himself in the prison cell so she claims $600,000 damages from the state.

The guy, a gang member, was a complete loser with a long history of trouble and prison stays. The police however knew he was suicidal and failed to properly protect him from himself. They did though protect others from him which is their first priority.

His mother says he wasted his life but supports the case, "...in the hope it would help provide for her son's partner and her children."

I would put money on it that the state is already providing for the partner and her five children through the benefit system.

It could be argued that the plaintiff also knew he was suicidal yet had him arrested. Not only did she fail to prevent him from suiciding - she increased the probability of it happening.

It seems to me if she wins, a new level of moral distortion will have been reached.

Scrutinising internet

This piece from Maxim is thought-provoking;

This week, a report commissioned by the British Government was released, titled Safer Children in a Digital World. The report examined internet usage amongst children and adolescents, pinpointing both its risks and its possibilities. The overwhelming advice given is the need for children to use the internet within reasonable boundaries. There are new risks for children associated with the internet, but these also provide opportunities, as learning to manage risk is an important part of a child's development. The report points out the need to "Equip children to deal with exposure to harmful and inappropriate content and contact." Coinciding with this report is an editorial in the American Journal of Psychology that speaks of a more disturbing impact of the internet on society. Authored by psychiatrist, Jerald Block, the editorial describes internet addiction as a serious medical issue, characterised by markers such as withdrawal, fatigue and lying. The problem is so bad in some places that "After a series of 10 cardiopulmonary-related deaths in Internet cafes ... South Korea considers internet addiction one of its most serious public health issues." Both the report and the editorial tell us what we already know but struggle to negotiate—that the internet has rapidly changed the way we interact, for good and for bad. The temptation is to vilify the technology itself when issues such as internet addiction are raised, when in reality the problem lies with our willingness to let the technology rule our choices and with our lack of boundaries.

The reported incidents of internet addiction worldwide are small, yet they speak grave and important words to us, if we listen. They speak of people trapped in the cravings for instant sensation and connection. They speak of people losing an ability to function physically as the virtual world rules their head. And they speak of a society that builds internet cafes that are cheaper the longer you stay, and then watches as people sit for hours, interacting only with a computer. They are words that we need to hear, not to spark paranoia, but to recognise that responsibility is crucial in the way we interact with information technology. The problem does not lie with the internet. It lies with a boundless culture, instant communication and a glut of sensation. It lies with fickle beliefs and an inability to siphon information. Somehow we must slow down, turn off some switches and speak to each other again about how to be discerning.

This rings bells with me. People are looking for response and sensation. You only have to look at the blogosphere to confirm that, where so many people say things they wouldn't say in a face to face situation.

We have two computers side by side. I am frequently on one and the kids are on the other. So I am well aware of what they use them for. It's fairly varied. My daughter has got into some dubious chat situations which I have persuaded her to curtail considering some of the seedy and silly comments people make. What is the point I ask her? Mostly she uses it for music and sits singing along. This can go on for long periods of time but then at her age I was getting into radio, and taping music on my little cassette player and also singing my heart out. And the music she is getting into is exactly the same stuff. Motown for example. So our behaviours aren't very different.

My son is a little more of a problem as he is less physically-inclined but still very sociable. He spends a lot of time playing interactive Xbox games. But he also plays piano and uses the internet to search sheet music and u-tube for demonstrations. His music teacher told me the play station and x-box manipulation adds to his manual dexterity. He certainly handles and enjoys lightening fast pieces. If he hears jangles or ad music he likes he can instantly access other music by the artist. Thus he has recently discovered Frank Sinatra. He listens to John Key's journal entries because he likes to hear rather than read argument and has developed a strong interest in politics debating with the "socialists" at his school.

The important thing is to make sure they retain real and varied human contact (one of my reservations about home-schooling which I know will be refuted but I cannot put to rest). School provides a good deal of this. Sleep-overs, which we have lots of. Sport. Lots of.

I have never put limits on how much time they spend using computers or playing games. They go to school which I always tell them is the equivalent of going to work. When they work hard at school, attend to whatever other obligations they have (piano practice, sport practice, homework) they can then spend their time doing what they enjoy. I wouldn't accept being treated any differently myself.

The internet is a wonderful, marvellous thing. Yes, it has it's pitfalls (I should be mowing the lawn by now). But like most things, used but not abused, it gives great benefits.

The tale of two worlds

Children going to school unfed or without a packed lunch. Much hand-wringing. Rapidly growing need for charities to meet.

Nationwide, almost 20,000 children a week need feeding during their school day because of empty cupboards at home.

Next up kids are getting too much food to eat.

An Auckland primary school is banning birthday cake as it prepares for new national healthy eating guidelines.

Schools throughout the country are already purging high-fat and high-sugar items from tuckshops.

Oteha Valley principal Megan Bowden said some classes had four cakes turning up in a week, a rate many families would consider to be unhealthy.

This doesn't represent the material extremes in society. It represents the extremes in parental attitudes.

While some don't really give a rat's arse, spending every last cent on their own indulgences, others are busy catering to their children's every demanded indulgence.

This is modern life. Too much neglect and too much spoiling. And I have to admit that I am too often guilty of the latter.

The left would insist these contrasting stories confirm the widening gap between the haves and the have-nots. It is actually about the widening gap between attitudes. And that is why redistributing income doesn't make a difference. Perhaps we need to be redistributing values.

FACE OFF

On NewstalkZB tomorrow after 11am talking about Winston First's anti-immigration stance, banning texting-while-driving and what the crime stats mean. I don't think I will be wanting for an opinion. Don't know who else is on the panel at this stage.

Update - The other guests are playwright Dave Armstrong and journalist Karl "curmudgeon" du Fresne

The race card

The Peters Party is pushing their anti-immigration band wagon again stoking and stroking fears about the rapid growth of the Asian percentage of New Zealand's population. But two fifths of the projected increase will not come from immigration but natural growth (births minus deaths). I wonder if NZ First will be promoting some sort of compulsory birth control for Asians?

And why is it that Asians remain Asians even when they are born here whereas Poms one generation removed are unquestionably Kiwis? My kids certainly are.

A different type of efficiency

Yesterday I was driving away from Eastbourne around the bays. A van pulled out in front of me from the local garage. It was a bit tight but no big deal. And at least it didn't then dribble along at 50kmph (like so many) when the speed limit is 70kmph. Before entering Lowry Bay however, where the speed limit drops from 70 to 50 kmph, it pulled out with no indication, crossed double yellow lines to overtake not just the car in front of it but the small truck in front of that. Neither of those vehicles was going under the speed limit and there was a vehicle approaching from the north. It was sheer bloodymindedness.

I had noticed the business van's e-mail address and registration plate "we c8tr" so later googled it. Sure enough. Eastbourne-based. This is from their website.

We have been actively implementing sustainability strategies for some time, from utilizing cost efficient, low energy appliances, lighting & natural ventilation, to working towards more fuel efficient deliveries.

I suppose not using one's brake and accelerator or indicators could be considered, "Working towards more fuel efficient deliveries."

It's a common quirk of people who claim to care about the environment that they care little for those who share it.

"Bleeding hearts but tight fists"

US research shows that conservatives are more generous than liberals. Perhaps you might think that is because they have more income to be generous with. Well no. Have a look.

People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

I wouldn't be surprised to find they give more of their time to charitable efforts as well.

Philosophical question

Here's kind of a philosophical question: If a sniper fires a gun in the woods and nobody's around, does Hillary Clinton still hear it?

— Jay Leno, The Tonight Show

(Hat tip FFF)

National and choice

The NZ Herald editorial exposes yesterday's 'big' policy from John Key for what it is - essentially meaningless.

National has been in no hurry to spell out what it might do in power, and probably hopes to keep contentious commitments to a minimum from now to election day.

The writer finishes with this,

Sir Roger's return might wake up their ideas.

Mike Moore wrote about Sir Roger in yesterday's DomPost pretty much along the same lines, describing National as having "no core principles." He concluded,

"ACT may well save Labour. Every time they make a statement, it will put the heat on National who will melt under Labour's blow torch."

Poor National. It is not very happy about offering real political choice. In fact there is little evidence they like the concept of choice. And now they are faced with making one of their own.

Violent crime up - again

From the just-released Crime Statistics, violent crime is up 12.3% on the prior year.

That is one heck of a jump. Especially after the 5 percent increase the year before.

Apparently the rise is mainly driven by family violence. This will be reported as good news because it demonstrates a growing intolerance of family violence and more reporting.

My question is, at what point does it stop being good news? Has anyone figured that out? Has anyone put a time limit on how long all the lefty brow-beating about domestic violence can go on for before we see a reversal in trend? Two years? Ten years? Or do we have to put up with nanny nagging us permanently simply because it creates an impression that 'something is being done'?

The welfare cycle

I was aware of this research but hadn't seen it summarized before;

Child psychologists Betty Hart and Todd Risley tested the effect of class on the differences in how parents interact with their young children. They were able to document dramatic differences in the intensity and nature of the verbal stimulation the kids were getting:

* Professional parents directed an average of 487 "utterances" per hour toward their children, as compared to 301 for working class parents and only 176 for welfare parents.
* Among professional parents, the ratio of encouraging to discouraging utterances was six to one; for working-class parents, the ratio slipped to two to one; and welfare parents made two discouraging utterances for every encouraging one.
* By the time the children in the study were around three years old, the ones from professional families had average vocabularies of 1,116 words; the working-class ones averaged 749; the welfare kids, 525.

This partly explains why children from welfare homes are far more likely to themselves become beneficiaries. It's very sad.

National's $50 crime levy

Some questions about National's $50 crime levy

1/ How many levies will be paid for by a special grant from Work and Income? (Just as fines are paid to help beneficiaries avoid debt)

2/ If 100 percent of the 100,000 levies were collected - resulting in $5 million a year - what percentage of this sum will go on running the new structure tasked with collecting and administering them?

3/ While so many fines remain unpaid - $600 million at June 2006 - what chance the crime levy can be successfully collected?

4/ Why is the levy a flat fee when the victim of violence is likely to be more traumatised and in need of substantial reparation than a victim of property crime?

5/ If all crime attracts the same surcharge why not the same sentence?

6/ Isn't Labour justified in its derision of this idea?

7/ While National talks about compensating victims of crime is it leaving ACT to talk about reducing victims of crime?

More on the monopoly that is NZ Post

I sent the last blog entry to the CE of NZ Post in the form of an e-mail. I received a reply which contained the following;

I understand your reaction to the price increase. It is
never desireable or easy to be raising prices particularly in a
competitive market.... The fact is you have choices and we want you to continue to do business with us.

I am not happy with this response and have sent the following to newspapers;

Dear Editor

Once again the consumer is being held ransom by an effective monopoly. A couple of months ago it was ACC and their premium hikes . Now NZ Post has raised the cost of sending an A4 envelope by a breathtaking fifty percent. But I am assured by their CE , John Allen, that "the fact is you have choices" in a "competitive market".

The only fact is that NZ Post still dominates and accounts for 95 percent of the letters market. According to the Consumer Postal Council, "New Zealand Post profits remain respectable". It returns 43 percent of its surplus to the government. My choice is to pass on the increase to my customers, absorb it or shut up shop. The first would probably result in the last.

I am left with the second option - watching more of my income go into government coffers.

NZ Post - daylight robbers

This is a classic case of paying attention to what isn't being said.

However, thanks to recent increases in charges, and a five-year $85 million investment in new mail processing facilities, the domestic letters business remained profitable, unlike similar services overseas including Australia, Allen said.

A further rise in the standard domestic letter rate, which rose 5c to 50c last year, was unlikely for some time, he [NZ Post chief executive John Allen] said.

This is a statement from last Wednesday.

Sure enough. When I went to buy stamps for my business this morning the postage charge for a standard envelop had not gone up. Unfortunately I use more by way of A4 size envelopes so you can imagine my disbelief when I was told that instead of $1 stamps they would now require $1-50 stamps.

"Do you think I could get away with putting my prices up 50 percent?" I enquired of the somewhat apologetic assistant.

Of course I couldn't. While I am in the position of providing a monopoly service people do not have to use it.

It's an outrageous price hike which will cost certain businesses dearly.

New Zealanders worth much more than Australians

Road deaths in New Zealand numbered 442 at the end of February 2008. According to the DomPost,

The costs are huge - over $4 billion a year, equal to about a third of Government spending on health.

That's $9 million per death.

Let's double-check that. According to the Ministry of Transport in 2001,

The estimated social cost of a road death in New Zealand is
$2.485 million.

That's $5.3 million per death. Looks like the DomPost used the cost of all accidents - not just deaths.

But look at the most recent research I can find from Australia. This breakdown put the cost at $2.92 billion for 1700 deaths in 1996;

Cost of crashes by injury category were:
Fatal crashes:
$2.92 billion
Serious injury crashes:
$7.15 billion
Minor injury crashes:
$2.47 billion
Property damage only crashes:
$2.44 billion

A diagramatic analysis is shown here. Apparently,

Each fatal road crash costs the community more than $1.7 million.

Why the huge anomaly? I haven't the time to figure it out. It sure as hell isn't inflation. All I know is that the difference amounts to some $3.6 million a life. How we manage to be so much more valuable than the Aussies is something of a mystery when we earn considerably less. Perhaps our bureaucrats (propagandists) are simply more ambitious.

And we are so much more civilised

Trotter writes that the money you earn is not yours.

To concede that everything the citizenry receives by way of wages, revenues, interest, rents and dividends belongs to them and to them alone is to accept the Right's assertion that "all taxation is theft".

According to this argument, people only put up with paying tax because, by allowing the state to transform their hard-earned cash into publicly-provided health care, education and other essential services, their individual interests are better served than if they attempted to acquire all these things out of their own pockets.

But, even this refinement of the "taxation is theft" argument leaves the sovereign individual at the centre of the fiscal equation. The money taken in tax is still his money.

But is it his money?

The social-democrat would say "no, it isn't".

Money is simply the mechanism advanced societies have developed to enable their citizens to enjoy a more varied and expansive life. In this respect, money is no more individual property than the language we use to communicate with our neighbours. It is a crucial adjunct to our social existence, whose value just like language manifests itself in the processes of exchange.

While they remain unspent, the notes we carry in our wallets are no more than pieces of paper. We can't eat them.

If you doubt the truth of this argument, then I'd invite you read up on the history of the Weimar Republic. There you will discover what happens to people when the state pretends that money can be separated from its social function.

You will also understand exactly what the US Supreme Court Judge, Oliver Wendell Holmes, meant when he said: "Taxes are the price we pay for civilisation."

So as taxation has risen, we have become more civilised. What bull.

'Civil society' (a nebulous term I loathe) is the sum of individual VOLUNTARY effort and exchange. When compassion becomes something that government forces out of us through taxation it is no longer a virtue (thank you Michael Tanner). Civil society turns on virtues and constructive values. People act through mutual self-interest. People treat each other the way they want to be treated.

Does that sound like present day New Zealand?

People like Trotter have a very dark view of the world. They think so little of their fellow citizens that they cannot believe anything charitable or philanthropic will emanate from them by choice, so government must extract it through compulsion. And why do they think that way? It must be because they judge others by their own standards and impulses.

OK. The money the government takes off me is effectively not my own because to withhold it would be to break the law. But the social democrat is saying more than this. He is saying it belongs to the public as of right. The state can nationalise third of my effort and transfer it to someone making no effort. That is what it does. Is either party incentivised by the transaction? No.

Not only does Trotter ignore the damaging effects of redistributing effort, he would like to step up the pace. If taxation is the price we pay for civilisation, why not take two thirds of the fruits of people's effort? We could be even more socially advanced.

No wonder people are leaving in their droves.

The churches are wrong

Church leaders want benefit levels raised. Do they also want to see benefit numbers grow? Because that will be one result of lifting benefit payments.

Various US studies have shown a percentage rise in welfare payments equates to an equal or greater percentage rise in beneficiary numbers. It stands to reason. People on benefits weigh up the costs of working compared to being on welfare. The smaller the gap between working and welfare, the more likely they are to choose the second.

Treasury addressed this in its 1996 Briefing to the Incoming Government; “If there were to be an increase in benefits, it would narrow what is already, for some families, a rather small margin between the income a household receives when it is on a benefit and what it might receive at the point of entry into full-time employment, particularly when the additional costs of employment are taken into account. This could discourage a movement off benefit into employment.”

Another important consideration is the effect of welfare on children. American Robert Rector summed it up well when he said, "Higher welfare payments do not assist children; they increase dependence and illegitimacy, which have a devastatingly negative effect on children's development."

In New Zealand it is estimated around 5 percent of families with children are in trouble. That is, they are affected by domestic violence, alcohol and drug abuse and addiction, and excessive gambling. These problems lead to enormous economic stresses. Many are reliant on welfare (although there is often male with income from work on the scene but not pulling his weight.) Raising benefit levels for these families will not improve their situation.

On the other hand, it is also clear that a good percentage of people on benefits are managing. In 2007 55 percent of people on the DPB were in debt to Work and Income. Forty five percent were not. On other benefits the level of indebtedness drops.

Because the church social workers are dealing with the grinding everyday slog of beneficiaries scraping by (for whatever reason) their reaction is to solve the problem the quickest and easiest way. Get government to pay them more.

But we all know that easy solutions are not usually effective or lasting. It is deeply troubling that these church leaders now seem to be out of step with what government has being trying to do - albeit with limited success. The best income- earning potential must come from working. That is why the In Work payment was introduced.

New Zealand's big economic problem is low productivity. That is why we are in a poor comparative position internationally and why so many are leaving the country. Higher wages and better skilled people will not come from making benefits more attractive. The churches need to look at the bigger picture and longer term. New Zealand enjoyed its greatest prosperity when very few people were dependent on welfare. Before the decline of the two-parent family and widespread resort to welfare as a long term option.

Increasing welfare payments would ironically have the opposite effect from that the churches expect. They would find even more people lining up for their services. That is surely not what they want.

No normal human being wants to see people suffering. Neither do they want to increase suffering inadvertently. The church is virtually bribing politicians emotionally by inferring increasing benefit levels is the only "just and compassionate policy." They are wrong. Perhaps this is a good example of when politics and religion shouldn't mix.

Perigo prediction

Just putting this comment from Lindsay Perigo on record here.

One great thing about Sir Roger, as I argued recently, is that he's a conviction politician. But his convictions are not libertarian. If anything, Roger's return opens things up even more for Libz. Rodney's born-again soft-cockery and Roger's compulsionism mean the chasm between Libz and ACT is greater than ever. We are unique.

And no way will ACT get 130,000 votes. They'll be lucky to get 30,000.

130,000 votes based on 2005 results is about 5.7 percent - 30,000 around 1.4 percent.

I won't be making any predictions about whether the Libertarianz can get any more than the 946 votes they received in 2005.

We shall see.

Happy memories

And now for something completely different. I'm a big fan of the UK version of The Apprentice with the acerbic Sir Alan Sugar. For some reason he has always seemed vaguely familiar to me but having spent a lot of time around East-enders I brushed it off as a generic thing. Then I was reading this very entertaining interview and discovered he flys planes. Flys planes and he comes from Hackney?

In the late eighties and early nineties I was learning to fly at a North East London airfield called Stapleford. To pay for my lessons I would work in the bar/restaurant during the weekends. It was pretty much my life for a number of years. So I searched Alan Sugar Stapleford and sure enough, he has a plane based there. I probably served him the odd pint or two.

But I never got to fly his plane. Unlike other nouveau riche East-end lads who were always happy to let a young barmaid with her pilot's licence at the controls. They were good times.

The past can hold solutions

The health and welfare of aboriginal children in the Northern Territories continues to come under the spotlight. Here's a man with a new (old) idea about what is needed.

Remote indigenous communities in the Northern Territory need missionary-style dormitories to make sure children are fed, clothed and clean, according to the territory's most powerful Aboriginal leader.

Galarrwuy Yunupingu says a return to mission-style days is needed because thousands of children are still going without breakfast nine months after the $1.5 billion federal indigenous intervention began in the territory.

Community-run dormitories with cooking, showering and sleeping facilities should be built near schools, he told The Age.

Here's the telling statement;

"The missionary days were good. The missionaries looked after the kids much better than the Government does today."



Perhaps a similar idea could work in some of our most isolated and dysfunctional communities?

Health Douglas-style

Another full house for ACT at the Museum Hotel last night. It was SRO shortly after I arrived to take what looked like the last available seat in the front row. Being in the front made it difficult to assess the crowd size but I think easily over 100 people came to hear Roger Douglas. There were many faces unfamiliar to me and some I did know who hadn't been near ACT in years. Roger and John Ansell expanded on what they had delivered at the conference and it is clear they are very much enjoying their work and growing in both confidence and expectation. It is infectious.

Roger again brushed aside the label of 'hard right' reminding us that his old electorate was Otara. When people died on waiting lists it wasn't the 'rich'. It was his constituents. He is determined to make access to operations for all people a reality. His plan (although not official ACT policy) includes a tax-free threshold of $30,000 with the saving going into an individual health insurance policy. Yes, it's a big idea. But the state of the public health service is a big problem. No, it still doesn't remove the government completely because they are controlling the funding through taxation. But that's where the control stops and the market steps in.

Yes, the bogie of compulsion rears its head again. I am not going to ignore that. But some time ago I conceded this; I would rather be compelled to pay for myself and my family than compelled to pay for someone else. It's not a matter of being selfish. It's about getting the incentives right. We have seen the results of 70 years of socialised welfare and health and it is not a pretty sight.

Singing from the same song sheet - again

More synchronicity from National and Labour. This time in the form of Richard Long, prominent Key supporter and Michael Cullen.

In today's Dominion Post Long writes,

"The return of Roger Douglas. You have to admit to a touch of nostalgia. The architect of the 80s reforms suddenly looms. Dracula-like from what everyone assumed was a retirement grave...."

Contrast this to Michael Cullen,

"Just when everybody thought it might be safe to vote National out of the box, like something out of an old horror film, comes Roger Douglas."

Arguably the most important thing Roger's return has achieved is to show up the National Party for what it is. Labour with a different leader. At best a variation on the 'muddle-way' theme.

Dodgy Dyson

National MP Judith Collins made a calculating error, according to Minister for Social Development Ruth Dyson. She took total the total number of beneficiaries in debt and divided it by the total number of working-age beneficiaries. Dyson labelled this 'New Maths'.

Dyson prefers to count in superannuitants, of which there are around half a million, even though the vast majority have no debt to Work and Income. The predictable result is that the percentage of beneficiaries in debt is a modest-looking 19.8 percent.

In reality the number of working age beneficiaries in debt is almost half. On the DPB it rises to 60 percent.

Dyson's creative maths is more devious and dodgy than Collin's 'New' maths even if it is statistically correct.

Refuting Rogernomics myths

I listen to a lot of talkback radio because it gives me a feel for where people sit. It's reasonably representative politically. The conversation about the return of Roger Douglas has been substantial over the past week. As you would expect the positions are polarised. But the support is higher than I expected. Sometimes my view of the average intelligence of voters is tarnished by the seeming preponderance of political ignoramuses but this week my faith has been rekindled by the callers who can talk knowledgeably about economic philosophy and are prepared to debate the ideas. What is also needed are a few facts and figures that squash the mindless myths that have grown up around Rogernomics.

Some callers, especially to Willie Jackson, have talked about suicides due to redundancies, the hearts being ripped out of small town New Zealand, with Jackson running the line that Douglas is a 'mongrel'. (The 'mongrel' had the guts to ring in by the way and will appear for a question and answer session some time in April.)

But let's have a look at the claim that Rogernomics caused widespread and devastating unemployment.



Clearly New Zealand was not alone during the early 90s and not the worst-off either in terms of unemployment. None of the other countries experiencing high unemployment had implemented the sorts of economic reforms NZ had. Roger Kerr talks about the effects of 'disinflation' being significant during this period. Why did new monetary policy focus so heavily on controlling inflation? Rampant inflation during the 70s and 80s had a lot to do with the employment slump of the early 90s.

Another caller talked about how New Zealand's GDP per capita tumbled due to Rogernomics. "Rogernomics is why we are now 22nd in the OECD", he said.



We had already fallen from being near the top in the 50s to 18th by 1982.

I don't want this election campaign to be about fighting past battles but ACT must be able to quickly and simply refute the claims made by those who will attack them. Candidates should remember a few statistical facts that can be absorbed and are indisputable.

Without the reforms things would have gotten a lot worse. With them New Zealand's recovery was faster. What a shame Douglas never got the chance to finish the job. What a shame he never got his flat tax in. What a shame Labour have managed to undo much of the achievement by ramping up government spending and regulation.

And isn't it great to be having some real debate between left and right economic theory, debate about the future of the country, instead of a personality contest between Helen Clark and John Key?

Hallelujah

So Roger Douglas would abolish Working For Families. Fantastic. There is so much wrong with that grand redistribution scheme;

1/ Redistribution always involves privilege for one and punishment for another with the government deciding who is the winner and who is the loser. It accords too much power to the state.

2/ The dead-weight cost of redistributing money is utter waste.

3/ When people receive money without commensurate effort they work less. That is bad for productivity.

4/ As an attempt to boost fertility rates redistribution to families with children has not been successful. Note some of the most 'family-friendly' European countries have low fertility rates. The US has the highest in the OECD.

5/ WFF has created very high effective marginal tax rates. In fact some people are no better off if they boost their income through advancement or longer hours, as they move into the top tax rate bracket and lose WFF benefits. WFF dulls ambition.

6/ WFF is the hallmark of Labour governments. It is all the old schemes dressed up in new cloths. These schemes have never achieved their stated goals.

7/ Redistribution creates resentment amongst those who are not beneficiaries. In this case young, childless people. It contributes to their motivation to leave New Zealand.

8/ With WFF being used as a voting bribe, the cost of promoting it has been enormous including ridiculous expenses like megabucks to commission a musical theme.

9/ WFF acts as a subsidy to employers. The wrong people (not those targeted) end up benefiting.

Look. It is simple. Let everybody keep more of their own money. Let individuals take responsibility for their own decisions. The flow-on will be far more beneficial than any government attempts to grand plan society. Thank God someone of influence is talking sense at last. Again - hallelujah!! It's a good day.

Media Release
COMPULSORY DNA TESTING ANOTHER UNWELCOME CONSEQUENCE OF DPB
Thursday, March 20, 2008

The need for compulsory DNA testing to establish paternity is a further unwelcome consequence of the DBP system, says Lindsay Mitchell, welfare commentator.

"Since the introduction of the DPB in 1973, more and more women have resorted to welfare to raise their children. The application process involves naming the father of their child or children, with the state seeking recompense from him by way of child support payments. The father is responsible for these payments, which are calculated by way of an iniquitous formula, until the child turns 18 (and sometimes 19 according to circumstance). Naturally, cases arise whereby the father wishes to confirm his paternity. To deny him this right is indefensible. However that is what the courts have been doing if the mother refuses consent to a DNA test."

"Before the DPB, income for single mothers came from work or temporary social security assistance. There was far less incentive to have a child alone or leave a relationship. Whereas in 1966 only 7.5 percent of families were single parent, today the figure has grown to 28 percent. Consequently the number of disputes over parentage has also risen."

"Fathers should financially support their children. But while we have a system that encourages women to have babies on the back of welfare, with the estranged father expected to recompense the taxpayer, it is imperative he is able to confirm that he is indeed the biological father. "

"If state assistance was returned to a short term hand-up, far fewer people would become single parents and far fewer paternity disputes would occur."

Background; United Future MP Judy Turner is promoting a bill to allow courts to order compulsory DNA testing to establish paternity

Paternity testing

In light of the post below it is entirely reasonable to expect that a good number of children have mothers who have lied about their parentage. It is sad that social policy which encourages such exploitation had led us to a situation whereby courts now need to be able to issue DNA-testing orders that confirm a child's biological father.

It's a simple matter. Fathers have a right to know. Well done Judy Turner. And Judith Collins, if this law change is what you "have been talking about it for a long time" why didn't you draw up a bill? Don't try and steal United Futures's thunder.

The fairer sex

In this land where feminist doctrine dominates public policy, where men have supplanted money as the root of all evil, where the bond between biological mother and child is sacred but bond between father and child is disposable, isn't it surprising to find that women are almost 3 times more likely to defraud Work and Income? Perhaps the women who cheat and steal are models of good behaviour in every other respect.

Oxymoron

A group of Pacific men band together to persuade others that being tough guys isn't the way to raise a family and they call themselves .... Gladiators??

Wilfil ignorance

National MP Judith Collins is attempting, with a series of WPQs, to ascertain how many people on the DPB began there as a teenager. As part of her answer, the Minister for Social Development, Ruth Dyson, has written,

"I am advised that the Ministry of Social Development's current statistical system only holds complete benefit history for people who commenced their first benefit since June 1996."

This is a departure from their last letter to me (on this subject) dated December 2006;

"The following tables only record benefits that commenced after January 1 1993. As I advised you in my previous response....the Ministry does not hold accurate electronic information on benefit recipients granted benefit prior to this date."

What a piss-poor performance this is. At this rate they will soon hold no data. Or none they are obliged to release.

Based on my information, at December 2006 at least 37,600 or 37 percent of current DPB recipients had first received a benefit as a teenager. If complete benefit histories could be accessed the percentage is likely to be much higher.

The DPB is a trap for teenagers. And it produces families from which much social dysfunction emanates. The emotional and economic costs incurred by these families could be significantly curtailed but nobody has the guts to do anything about current policy.

Breaking the monopolies

First, an explanation of why so little blogging. As mentioned earlier I took a local shop to have a painting sale two weeks ago. The sale went moderately well but the interest in commissioned pastels was enormous. Hence I have extended the arrangement and am working there every day.

But I did want to respond to this comment from yesterday.

Did anything come out of the ACT conference, or from Douglas's mouth to say you're going to reduce the size of the State? NO! Like the socialist Key, you're still talking about merely curtailing it at the level it is now.

The media, as I pointed out yesterday, didn't report on the content of Rodney or Roger's speeches.

The major thrust of Roger's speech was getting politicians and bureaucrats out of education, health and welfare by breaking state monopolies. It was all about competition and choice. I had never heard Roger speak before and was impressed with his conviction about how much better services could be with private providers. This is his holy grail. If ACT is no better than National I am missing something (and so is the PM who yesterday said, "....the National Party only stands for power and people in ACT at least have things they believe in and they believe in them quite passionately....they're not my beliefs, in fact I am quite strongly opposed to them, but I do credit them with having a belief system and that I think is something National just puts aside as being desperate for power.")

While some policies will not go as far as I and other libertarians want them to, a gradualist doesn't take an all or nothing approach. The education policy, detailed in Rodney's speech, doesn't abolish state schools but it does open the door to more private schools and deal with the inequity of taxpayers paying twice for their children's education. Parents would no longer be forced to send their children to substandard schools. It wouldn't be just the 'rich' who would have choice.

National, on the other hand, can't even lend their support to bulk funding any more.

Hell, yes

For the media the ACT conference was all about the return of Roger Douglas. That is what they have covered, speculating on his reasons for returning and the possible implications. The media are not particularly interested in ACT ideas and ACT policies. Or one would have to make this assumption based on their coverage. It's personalities and political shenanigans.

Roger Douglas laid out clearly in his speech what is wrong with this country. As I listened it struck me that Labour has done an awful lot of damage in nine years. But nine years is a long time and much of it has already receded into the murky past and we've forgotten. The results are low productivity, low wage growth, huge rate rises, substantial increased costs to doing business; we trail most other OECD countries in many areas - not just GDP per capita - then we have violent crime increasing, social problems escalating, the loss of so many skilled people. It doesn't have to be like this. But people get up and go, admittedly to countries with some of the same problems, but they feel emotionally disconnected from those problems. It's a relief not to have to care in the same way because it isn't your country that is failing to deal with problems that are fixable.

So am I standing? Hell yes. I don't want to. But I have no choice. As Roger put it, we can't keep standing on the sidelines. And if he can find the energy and time to make a commitment to make New Zealand a better place for everybody then so can I.

ACT is back

National Party Conference - 600 delegates

Labour Party Conference - 700 delegates

ACT Party Conference - 200 delegates



Not bad for a 1% party.

Bugger the polls!