On 'denial'

I gave this release from the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition a quick once over yesterday before forwarding it to my son at school.

It has become commonplace knowledge, and is unchallenged, that global average temperature has not increased since 1998. This corresponds to a 9-year period during which the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide, in contrast, did increase, and that by almost 5%.

The greenhouse hypothesis - which asserts that carbon dioxide increases of human origin will cause dangerous global warming - is clearly invalidated by these data.

As if that were not enough, a leading computer modelling team has recently published a paper in Nature which acknowledges what climate rationalists (the so-called “sceptics”) have always asserted. Which is that, contrary to IPCC assessments, any human influence on global temperature is so small that it cannot yet be differentiated from natural cycles of climate change. The same modellers have even predicted (after the start of the event, of course) that cooling will now occur for at least the next few years.

This morning I see that Chris Trotter has titled his Dominion Post column, The moral equivalent of war. Um. What could that be about I speculate.

"...the fight against global warming must become the moral equivalent of war. The threat we face is much greater than the threat posed to the world by Hitler....indeed the argument is strong for an all party coalition dedicated to bringing us through the crisis. Nor can there be the slightest suggestion that anything other than full equality of sacrifice constitutes the guiding principle of our climate change policies. And most importantly, we must learn to recognise the nay-sayers, the special pleaders, the not-in-my-backyarders, and the climate change deniers for the Quislings that they are and treat them accordingly."

By doing what exactly?

The only war going on here is between emotion and reason.

And I will borrow a quote from this week's Maxim newsletter,

"Men are never so likely to settle a question rightly as when they discuss it freely."

Thomas Babington Macaulay, 1800 - 1859

"Employment declines"

That's the headline at Statistics New Zealand website. By the time Ruth Dyson has got her hands on it, and the spin appears at SCOOP it's become "Labour Force Survey reflects stability (in the face of economic challenges)"

Take your pick. The facts remain. In seasonally adjusted terms, the number of people employed dropped by 29,000 (1.3 percent) in the March 2008 quarter.

Having browsed through the tables a few things stand out;

The biggest increase in unemployment is in the 20-24 year-old age group with 18,000 unemployed up at the end of March, up from 11,000 in December.

The Pacific unemployment rate has jumped from 4.8 in December to 8.2 percent in March.

One parent with dependent children only households where nobody is employed have increased from 38.9 to 45.6 percent.

Well I hate to say I said so, but I did. The downward trend of the DPB is plateauing.

But I have just realised something worse. Usually employment grows between December and March. The opposite has happened.

Who to believe

A public meeting to talk about crime in Christchurch took place last night. Contradictory views were expressed;

[Superintendent Dave] Cliff presented police statistics showing violence, drugs and anti-social behaviour offences had all increased in Canterbury by almost one third since 2003 despite a decline in total crime for the period.

The number of all recorded offences over the past four years decreased by 6% with 50,807 offences recorded in 2003 compared with 47,853 in 2007.

The figures showed violence offences had risen 29%.

This reflects the national trend.

Penal reform campaigner Nigel Hampton, QC, gave the meeting a different perspective.

Hampton said the media over-reported violent and sexual crime and distorted the perception of how violent New Zealand was.

Hampton said Christchurch was a safe place to live and he accused the media of letting interest groups use them.

Given the presence of a number of victim's families at this meeting, this was either a brave or foolish thing to say. Is Christchurch a safe place to live? I imagine it would depend very much whereabouts in Christchurch you live. But it's also about perception. If people feel frightened about being out and about after dark, or worse still, frightened in their homes, their quality of life is impaired. The statistics may show that their fear is irrational. It never the less exists. Its presence is surely what drove the convening of such a meeting.

And blaming the media is a waste of time. It is the media's job to report the news. Crime is news. Beats me how a journalist can over-report an event...unless the same crime keeps cropping up due to extraordinary length of time it takes cases to proceed through the justice system. Perhaps the QC should be advocating for reform in that area.

Blaming the media for "letting interest groups use them"? Well isn't that exactly what a QC campaigning for penal reform is? An interest group. And he most certainly will have wanted the media to report on his 'perspective'. Precious.

"It's a free world"

Did anyone see Key on TV last night being asked about Tama Iti's release from bail conditions to travel overseas? Now-famous pictures of Iti shooting the ground predictably appeared and I recalled Stephen Frank's assiduous pursuit of that action. If he was watching I am sure he would have been somewhat frustrated to see John Key shrugging the question off with, "It's a free world." Actually it's most definitely not a free world when you are on bail.

Appalling mismanagement

How slack are our law and order authorities? I read this story from the Manawatu and then searched the offender on the Sensible Sentencing Trust database. From there we learn;

29/9/2006 A MANAWATU Mongrel Mob member was jailed for 12 months yesterday for failing to honour his parole conditions and assaulting a protected female. Leon Tuiriangi Hakaraia, 27, formerly of Palmerston North, appeared in the Invercargill District Court before Judge Murray Abbott after pleading guilty to the charges. Judge Abbott said Hakaraia assaulted his former partner at Palmerston North Hospital's accident and emergency waiting area in the presence of two security officers on March 13. After an argument and confrontation, Hakaraia punched the woman in the back of the head then kicked her twice to the torso, the judge said. He had already previously breached the conditions of his parole.

In April this year he had been granted bail yet again. This time from Manawautu prison, where he was remanded in custody awaiting trial on a charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.

Surprise, surprise he absconded from the care of Maori wardens (are the Maori wardens a problem? Is Maori blood thicker than water?)

Now police are warning people that he and his equally violent brother are at large and dangerous. For chrissakes. Why can't those charged with keeping the public safe do their jobs properly in the first place?

"Getting it"

A team of councillors in New Plymouth have been dubbed The Razor Gang. Good on them. They have "outlined plans to slash council spending in an effort to keep rates down."

One caused a stink last night when he ripped up what he called a bad report from Venture Taranaki Trust. He called it a cover-up. He is obviously trying to control council spending on 'economic growth'.

That provoked a response from the chief executive of the Trust, also present at the meeting; "And as far as I'm concerned, economic development is like sex - as long as you're getting it, don't knock it."

Sounds like something Cactus might say. But I am sure she would appreciate that economic development using other people's money is never as productive as economic development using voluntarily invested money. And money taken from ratepayers is money that can't be spent elsewhere.

There is sex and there is sex. Just "getting it" is a pretty pathetic ambition.

Disorientation

I only clicked on this headline, Hungry kids fed 30,000 meals in Red Cross plan, to see if I was looking at a story about the Sudan or South Auckland.

When a state-owned asset isn't

Just listened to the ever-energetic and sharp Richard Prebble being interviewed by Paul Henry on the issue of the rail by-back.

He calls the move 'looney'. The government paid way over the odds and are now subsidising the largest Australian-owned trucking company in NZ. Prebble says government in NZ has owned railway for over one hundred years through about 40 different governments, none of which have been able to run it successfully, so why does this Labour government think it can?

He has a neat solution for National's folly in putting their head in the noose by promising no asset sales in their first term. Since when has rail in New Zealand been an 'asset' he asked? Quite.

(My own further thoughts) The truly awful aspect of this is the PM's statement that 'we are not in this to make money'. No. They are in it to lose money. Your money.

But why stop here? Why doesn't Cullen buy Foodstuffs and run it as a not-for-profit organisation? Food prices are hurting New Zealanders much more than rail costs. Is that a good idea? And we could subsidise Woolworths at the same time, seen as profit and competition aren't important.

I am living in a nuthouse of a country.

Morning-after

No, I don't have a hangover. Just two comments with a morning-after theme;

On the morning-after the government bought back rail this makes gloomy reading.

When the state gets involved in projects that can be done by private enterprise, the results are almost certain to be bad. We would therefore be best off with a firm rule against such endeavors, says George C. Leef, vice president for research at the John W. Pope Center for Higher Education Policy.

Government officials are apt to undertake projects that should not be done at all, explains Leef. Even if they hit upon a potentially worthwhile venture, they will approach it in a very inefficient manner. Politicians and bureaucrats are not spending their own money and do not stand to lose if they are wrong. Therefore, resources will be wasted.

And on the morning-after contraception pill. Predictably the conservatives are up in arms about a scheme to provide these pills free through community pharmacy. The Waikato Health Board wants a reduction in teenage pregnancies, a commendable goal. Should taxpayers foot the bill? It's one of those 'pay a little to pay less' situations thanks to the socialist health bind we are caught in.

But I'll make a prediction. It won't work anyway. Existing free contraception hasn't so why would more? The reporter states that the number of teenage births have been relatively stable this century. He bases that on Health department statistics (on which I must make a closing comment). He was only provided with data to 2004.

More recent Statistics NZ data shows the 15-19 birth rate hit a low of 25.6 in 2002 and has climbed back to 31.3 in 2007. Hence my comment that existing free (or subsidised) contraception isn't having the desired effect (although one could mount an argument that the teenage birth rate would be even higher without it.)

And with regard to health statistics. I haven't followed the issue closely but there is dissension from the private sector over the new Public Health Bill and it's proposed capacity to force statistical information from them. That's rich. The availability of health statistics from government departments is appalling. Their statistics are typically very dated and hard to access. They should look to their own record keeping first.

Thumbs down on emissions trading

Two radio stations have mentioned the Stuff poll today so the message goes beyond internet land.

71 percent of respondents are opposed to the government's emission trading scheme.

So is ACT.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill be now read a first time.
Ayes 119 New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland, Field.

Noes 2 ACT New Zealand 2.

This is Rodney Hide's contribution at the first reading;

RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) : I know that Mr Harawira worries about the quality of the speeches given under urgency, but I say that the speeches on this bill have been excellent.

On behalf of the ACT party I feel as though I need to offer an explanation, because I believe that we will be the only party voting against this bill. Let me explain. I first became aware of the possibility of anthropogenic effects on the world’s climate, I believe, in 1972. There was some debate then about whether the earth could be possibly warming or cooling, and certainly there was a possibility of an effect of industrialisation and its impact on world climate. Subsequently, the consensus emerged in the late 1970s, interestingly, that the earth was cooling as a consequence of human actions. Indeed, because of my interest in such matters I went on to do a master’s degree in ecology and environmental science, and indeed lectured in environmental science for many years, and did a master’s degree also in resource economics.

Over that time a lot of scares came along and obliterated the concern people had about the possibility of human impact on world climate. These scares have come and, thankfully, gone. I am mindful of Mr Peter Dunne when he was speaking, and alarming the House about Y2K. The scare now of course is global warming, or in fact as it has now been called, climate change.

It is a worry, of course, because we are having such a large impact on the earth, and it is a worry in a host of complex ways. New Zealand is a trading nation, and the perception of New Zealand and our markets is crucial. So whatever we might think of the science, we have to be good environmental citizens. I use the word “good” not in an objective, scientific way, but in a way to justify ourselves to the very peoples we want to be selling our products to in order to maintain our access, and, more particularly, to win a preference for New Zealand goods and services. It is good that New Zealand maintains and extends its green image, and I fully support that.

Let me just run through why we are opposed to this bill. I think essentially it is that we do not want to be running ahead of the rest of the world. If we are going to constrain carbon emissions in New Zealand, it is going to be a huge cost on New Zealand. I find it interesting that not even a rudimentary cost-benefit analysis has been done on the scheme. I notice with some interest that the National Party leader, John Key, said “Oh, by 2050 we’re going to reduce what emissions were in 1990 by 50 percent.”, which is a huge stretch. It would constrain enormously New Zealand’s capacity to produce, and divert resources out of current industries from which we make a great deal of money into those that are not even on the horizon. It is hard to imagine how New Zealand could possibly meet that goal. Even holding the level of emissions has proved impossible for this Government. We can set these worthy goals without thinking about the costs, but if we are going to hold down carbon emissions it will be a huge cost on the economy, and indeed a huge disruption to the economy. So members should make no bones about it; this is a big issue.

The second point I will make is that although there is some debate about the science, I think a good working place for politicians to start is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. We can all point to that and say that, yes, this is where—I guess I am saying—there is scientific consensus, but we all know that science is not run by consensus; it is run by facts. Yet as politicians we have to come up with a response, and that is a good place to start. I should point out that that is a political response. The science does not tell us what we should do. At the end of the day it is going to be politicians, not scientists, who have to decide what the response is to any environmental scare or threat. As limited as we are in many people’s imaginations, it is hard to think of any other route whereby there can be a response, other than a political one, to the questions and issues of science and, in particular, of the environment.

When we look at it, certainly the alarm statistics we were having some years ago have somewhat diminished, so it is less scary than it was. We are talking a long time frame—a hundred years, a temperature rise of 2 or 3 degrees over a hundred years. But a lot can happen in a day, a lot can happen in a week, a lot happens in a year, and a heck of a lot will happen in a hundred years. For example, the Western World will probably be three times richer per capita. Poorly developed countries will be eight times richer per capita, hopefully, if they pursue good policies. So the world will be a richer place, it will be a different place, and it will be a technologically advanced place compared with what it is now. So the sorts of things that we are worried about—about where we are going—are quite something.

Let us think about temperature. There are a lot of cold countries in the world. Finland is cold, and it is a very successful economy. I guess its average temperature must be zero degrees or 5 degrees. If we look at Singapore, its average temperature must be jolly hot, and the temperature range between Singapore and Finland is far, far higher than any change we are talking about for the world, even in the worst case scenario from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. That is the point that I would like to make in this speech. The amazing thing about human beings and modern society is our ability to adapt to our environment and, indeed, our ability to change our environment, which is what we are debating here. All this alarm that we have that we must stop climate change, and that we must stop carbon emissions, escapes the point that we can adapt to changes. We can adapt to somewhat higher water levels; of course we can. We have adapted to far worse. We can certainly adapt to different temperature regimes. Human beings demonstrate that. We can succeed in cold environments and warm environments. Yet the suggestion is that somehow some change in temperature would be a calamity. Actually, the facts do not bear that out. So my view on the science is that we should just be a bit cautious and a bit sceptical, particularly in our response.

I know that Jeanette Fitzsimons said that this bill will have an almost negligible effect on New Zealand’s carbon dioxide emissions. That is absolutely true. This bill is a political thing so that Parliament, the Government, and the political parties can say they are doing something. But the actual impact is quite small. It goes nowhere to meeting the commitments that Labour and National have signed up to; all it does is set up a soft regime. That is another point about this environmental trading scheme.

Here is my worry about it. I was involved on the side, as an academic, in setting up the quota scheme for the fisheries, so I know something about setting up market schemes. I heard Dr Nick Smith say that we need to incentivise in pricing, and I think that that is true. But what we are doing here, I think, is setting up a scheme that will be a potentially corrupt scam worldwide, because what is being traded is an odd thing—the ability to emit carbon dioxide, and eventually other greenhouse gases, I guess. Countries that are crooked will be involved, and companies that are crooked will be involved, and they will be trading in these emissions.

There will also be people sitting on property rights that are made valuable simply because of legislation such as this. They will defend those rights to the death, lobby politicians, and say: “No, you can’t do that.” We have seen that already in New Zealand with the forest owners. They said: “We thought we were planting these trees and that we’d own these carbon credits.” I think the potential for abuse and corruption on this is massive. I agree with Jeanette Fitzsimons that this is a very second-best solution. We can achieve Nick Smith’s goal of incentivising in pricing by a tax. The virtue of a tax is that it does not create a property right or therefore a political lobby group that will be arguing around that. In fact, a tax creates a lobby group that says: “Is this a good thing that we should be doing—paying this tax?” But the lobby groups will be huge on this bill when it goes through the committees, and over time.

It is a great thing to be part of the ACT party. We are just two MPs, but we have two votes against this scheme.

Some suggestions for Tapu Misa

Tapu Misa's constant theme is child poverty should be alleviated by higher benefits. The unfortunate family she uses to plead her case is led by a father with cancer. An unusual family but exactly the sort a state-provided safety net is there for. Could he be paid more?

Well here's a couple of ideas. If the 40,000-odd single parents looking after school-age children only and totally reliant on a benefit became at least partially self-supporting, considerable financial resources would be freed up. If benefit-dependent single parents looking after one child only (around half of DPB total) could look after the children of one or two others, releasing them to become at least partially self-supporting, again more would be available for cases of genuine need.

Tapu Misa can try laying a guilt trip on the 'wealthy', those who contribute through paying their taxes everyday. Maybe they could contribute more through charitable organisations. But it's people wringing resources wrongly out of WINZ who could really make a difference.

Blissful oblivion or apathetic ignorance?

Nearly one quarter million eligible-to-vote New Zealanders do not even know there is an election this year.

National Manager Murray Wicks says they are alarmed at the number of people who do not know an election is only months away.

He says over half of Pacific Islanders and young people, and just under half of Maori and Asian people do not have a clue.

Almost 240,000 people still are not enrolled to vote.

I find it hard to get excited about this bunch. When I was a teenager I was one of them. The only reason I voted was because my mother badgered me into it. My vote would have cancelled out one from somebody who had invested heaps of energy and thought into which party to choose. Leave them alone, I say.

I mean, isn't this just another example of wiping people's bottoms for them? The Electoral Commission will spend a fortune in sending out forms to every enrolled voter and the bulk will be binned. Absolute waste. Let people take some responsibility for organising and educating themselves. Voting is a right but it is also a privilege. Allow people to value it as such.

They are probably both right

Here's an exchange of views. The first from criminologist Greg Newbold and the second from Maori Party co-leader Pita Sharples. They are spin-off comments regarding a documentary about the Mongrel Mob made by Ross Kemp;

Newbold said "the brown middle-class who are tending to revive Maori culture and to possibsome extent rewrite Maori prehistory" would find the links offensive, but they were based on well-researched fact.

Other social issues among Maori such as prevalent domestic abuse, alcoholism and violence had historical cultural roots, he said.

"Almost every time you hear about a child that's been beaten to death they are Maori that's not new. It's a bloody sad truth. They can keep arguing the point but it's not going to change until people acknowledge it. Everyone who's involved in this kind of work knows it... But very few people are prepared to say it because you are called a racist."

Sharples said: "Greg Newbold is talking rubbish. In pre-European times Maori did not whack their babies and there was no alcohol. What I've looked at is the impact of colonisation on Maori and the bringing in of fatty foods and flour and all these kinds of things into a group that did not fit in the mainstream.

"It's natural that the group should be over-represented in negative and low socio-economic statistics."

The reason for their disagreement is the definition of 'historical terms'. Newbold is probably talking about the Maori/European period whereas Sharples is clearly going back further. There can be no doubt that since Maori have been trading for and using alcohol there have been problems. Then throw welfare into the mix and for some reason the combined detrimental effect has been greater than on Pakeha. The difference will almost certainly have to do with different values. In particular the Pakeha culture of individualism versus the Maori tradition of collectivism. Of course that is a very black and white statement and over the one hundred and sixty years or so the line has become blurred as the races have mixed and Pakeha have increasingly embraced collectivism. Unfortunately I suspect those Maori who have embraced individualism have buggered off. We need to get them back.

Waiting a long time

The failure of the petition to force a referendum on the anti-smacking legislation to deliver the required number of signatures rekindled the debate on talkback this week. Some callers insisted that the issue is not dead and they are still very angry; others said that we need to give the legislation a chance, time to work.

Consider this;

Children at risk

For a number of years, attention has been drawn to conditions for children at risk. The work of the social services and other authorities in this area is undergoing continuous development. This group of children includes children who grow up in homes in which physical or psychological violence takes place, children who are neglected, children who have been subjected to sexual abuse, children of substance abusers, children of people with mental disorders and children who live in conditions of economic vulnerability.

Children who have experienced domestic violence have long been disregarded by society, but are being given increasing attention. According to the Committee on Child Abuse, around ten per cent of all children have at some time experienced this type of violence, and five per cent experience it often. Attention has been given to the need to develop support for children who have experienced violence and in other ways have been affected by violence by and towards family members.

No. This is not an excerpt from a New Zealand report although the statistics quoted mirror ours. Click on this link to see which country the report is referring to. Smacking was banned there in 1979.

Sexual abuse of Maori children

On the eve of Rape Awareness Week, an Anglican Minister reiterated these claims;

“Organisers of this week estimate that 1 in every 3-5 girls, and 1 out of every 6-10 boys are likely to be sexually abused or raped before they turn 16. Maori children are twice as likely as other groups to be abused so rape and sexual violation of children is a very serious issue for us.”

Just using some loose numbers let's say that means 1 in every 1.5 - 2.5 Maori female children are sexually abused or raped before they turn 16.

Right now there are around 104,000 Maori female aged 0-15.

So between 41,600 and 68,640 are sexually abused or raped over fifteen years. Get real. Unless 'sexual abuse' includes inappropriate touching or unwanted kissing.

In the 11 months to December 2006 there were 397 findings of sexual abuse among Maori children (not to be confused with 397 children being sexually abused - multiple findings may apply to one child.) Extrapolate that over 15 years to get 6,496 findings which could apply to either sex.

Yes, an amount of sexual abuse will go unreported and uninvestigated but let's keep some sense of perspective here.

Why long-term migration matters

Chris Trotter writes in today's DomPost that there really is too much fuss over people leaving NZ. That's what they have always done apparently. Jilted lovers, greedy acquisitionists, adventurers.

The long-term departure tables I could quickly get my hands on (1993 - 2007) show that in the five years from 1993 236,682 people left. In the five years from 2003 this rose to 325,461 or by 37.5 percent. Interestingly a lot more people left during a period of lower unemployment on both sides of the Tasman.

One gets the feeling that Trotter is a bit miffed about the idea that our "best and brightest" are leaving. He is still here after all.

Probably the talent and drive that goes is replaced by the talent and drive that arrives but as I have said before, the disruption to families is significant. There was a time when all of my siblings and me had moved to the UK and had established ourselves there. My parents had all but decided to join us because they wanted to be there as we started having families of our own. In the event it wasn't necessary but I know a number of elderly people who are badly missing being part of their grandchildren's lives. I don't want it to happen to me. And so making NZ a place that people want to stay in or come back to is very important.

But Trotter is right in one respect. It will take more than a cut in personal income tax to make New Zealand economically competitive.

Anti-Social Behaviour Orders

Now a subject for NZ debate.

The Government has a guarded view on ASBOs.

In a recent Cabinet paper, Justice Minister Annette King rejected them as a way of tackling organised crime.

She said the orders were designed to counter social problems peculiar to Britain. They had an economic and social cost, and their benefits for the criminal justice system were unclear.

I am struggling to think of a social problem that would be peculiar to Britain. Can you?

Roger and Rodney on Eye to Eye

Sir Roger Douglas and Rodney Hide will appear on Eye To Eye this weekend. You can participate by e-mailing a question to host, Willie Jackson. Eye To Eye shows on TV1 at 11.30am Sunday but also a various times on TV7.

Update and correction; Rodney is not appearing. The guests are Laila Harre, Matt McCarten, Alisdair Thompson and Roger Douglas.

Proportion of teenage child births internationally

This is a chart just released from the OECD social/family database. Why they couldn't get a more up-to-date figure for New Zealand I don't know. In 2005 the percentage was 7 and in 2007, 7.6 percent.

There is a general consensus that reducing teenage births is desirable because teenage mothers tend to be disadvantaged and that is transmitted to their children. It contributes significantly to child poverty (and haven't we heard a lot about that recently) yet there are some people eg Tariana Turia who refuse to accept this reality. Which is unfortunate given Maori teenage child birth accounts for just over half of the total.

Car insurance is fear-mongering!

Making car insurance available is 'sending out the wrong' message, it is fear-mongering and leading people to believe they might have an accident when in fact the chances are very small. After all there are over 4 million vehicles on the road in New Zealand but only around 40,000 crashes occur. A 1 percent chance.

Does anyone agree with that? These two would have to given their statements regarding insuring unborn babies.

New Zealand College of Midwives chief executive Karen Guilliand said the college would be "really concerned" to see the policy introduced in New Zealand.

She agreed with the response of New South Wales Midwives Association secretary Hannah Dahlen, that ING was marketing fear to expectant mothers.

"It is making women think about the terrible things that can happen, when the reality is there are very few mothers who suffer from complications during pregnancy," Dr Dahlen said.

Very few but more than 1 percent. Combine still births,neo-natal and post neo-natal deaths and the percentage in 2004 was 1.4

Stupid women.

Swimming against the tide

This is a summary of the press releases issued on the subject of child poverty over the past few hours.

Mine is the only one disagreeing with the Child Poverty Action Group's solution for eradicating child poverty by 2020.

What a wet and naive country this is. What hope for individual responsibility?

I am probably the only one who works unpaid. As David Farrar notes, this is the poverty industry.

* Child Poverty Action Group - Download CPAG Report Executive Summary
* NZ Govt - Child poverty report welcomed
* Maori Party - Tax cuts for poorest families, says Maori Party
* NZ First - End Of Child Poverty Worthy Goal
* NZ Council of Trade Unions - CPAG Commended For Highlighting Child Poverty: CTU
* Public Health Association - More Money Needed To Eradicate Child Poverty - PHA
* Grandparents Raising Grandchildren - Child Poverty Action Group report
* Lindsay Mitchell - CPAG At Loggerheads With OECD
* Problem Gambling Foundation - Suffer the Little Children
* QPEC - “Tail” of underachievement is tale of poverty
* Playcentre Federation - Playcentre supports the call to end child poverty
* Paediatric Society - 'Left behind' report a sobering reminder
* National Distribution Union - Kids biggest victims of current food price crisis
* NZCCSS - Child Poverty: Give Breaks To Those Who Need It
* Barnardos - "Left Behind" report welcomed

Media Release

CPAG AT LOGGERHEADS WITH OECD

Tuesday, April 29, 2008

The latest Child Poverty Action Group report has slammed work-first policies as discriminating against children of beneficiaries and 'insufficient to eliminate child poverty'.

Welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell says the CPAG wants child poverty solved through higher benefits. "This ignores international research* that shows an increase in benefit payment results in increased rates of sole motherhood and subsequent benefit uptake."

The group states that, 'generous welfare need not result in a poverty trap...' . According to Mitchell, however, "This is exactly what generous benefits do already. The OECD showed out of 23 countries New Zealand has the third highest sole parent benefit payment at 54.8 percent of the median income. Because our benefits are not time-limited they draw young and unskilled women into many years of dependency. As many of half of those sole parents currently on welfare started there as teenagers. "

"The CPAG acknowledges that the vast majority of children in poverty are living in one-parent welfare dependent homes yet reject work as the best way to reduce child poverty. This puts them in direct conflict with the OECD. In 2007 , on the back of extensive international research** exploring the comparative effectiveness of using benefits or work to reduce child poverty, the OECD recommended to New Zealand 'reforms to reduce joblessness among families with children should be a priority.' Sweden, the most effective country at reducing child poverty, has a sole mother employment rate almost 60 percent higher than New Zealand."

Mitchell concludes, "It is the availability of welfare that is central to the child poverty problem - not the availability of work. The solution does not lie in simply giving people more money. As a strategy this has already proved extremely unsuccessful."

Lindsay Mitchell
Welfare commentator
ph/fx 04 562 7944

* The Effect of Benefits on Single Motherhood in Europe, Libertad Gonzalez, August 2006
**What Works Best in Reducing Child Poverty: A Benefit or Work Strategy?, Peter Whiteford and Willem Adema, OECD, 2007

No, no, no!

Oh no. The Sensible Sentencing Trust is going overboard. I see the Trust as fulfilling an important role by giving voice and support to victims and lobbying on their behalf. But this is draconian.

The Sensible Sentencing Trust are promoting a return to compulsory Military training combined with the Tent City prisons and chain-gangs as a means of combating a rising violent crime rate and escalating prison population.

What on earth is to be gained from forcing all young men (and why not young women as they commit crime as well) to do compulsory military service? How dreadful. This ties in with my earlier post about how we swing from one extreme to another.

Thank You Mr Gibbs

Gibbs Donates $100,000 To ACT
Monday, 28 April 2008, 9:41 am
Press Release: ACT New Zealand

Gibbs Donates $100,000 To ACT

New Zealand developer Alan Gibbs – known for such projects as high-speed amphibian vehicles like the Aquada – today said he is delighted to donate $100,000 to the ACT Party.

“ACT is the only Party with the guts to do what's right for New Zealand, and I think it's fantastic that the Hon Sir Roger Douglas is coming back into active politics," Mr Gibbs said.

"Just recently Margaret Thatcher was voted the most successful British Prime Minister since the war. She's universally regarded as having dragged Britain out of its socialist bog.

"Sir Roger Douglas did the same for New Zealand and he's certainly the greatest New Zealand politician of the 20th Century. It would be tremendous to have him back helping us catch up with Australia.

"To those who say ACT can't do much good under MMP, I say look at what the Progressive Democrats did in Ireland. A small ACT-like Party in a similar political system had a major role in transforming the Irish economy from the ‘poor man’ of Europe to the envy of the world."

ACT Leader Rodney Hide welcomed the donation.

“Alan Gibbs’ donation is a big vote of confidence in ACT. That’s what we’re now seeing up and down the country with members, support and candidates. More and more people are realising that a vote for National is a vote for Labour policies plus Winston, but a vote for ACT is a vote for good policies plus Sir Roger.”

“Alan Gibb’s donation will help ACT get the message out and do well this election,” Mr Hide said.

ENDS

Time for a change

A recent commentor wrote;

Welfare is as much part of the NZ scenery as the Southern Alps.

I have two conflicting views about this. The first is that I despairingly believe the statement to be true. NZ has now accepted that there will always be a huge pool of people reliant on the state. We have 'officially' one of the lowest unemployment rates in the developed world and crow about it, while a quarter of a million people can't or won't work. Bill English says there are no more people to put into jobs. There is a general attitude that this is as good as it gets. Societies are structured differently now. One parent families are as useful as two parent even though the majority are not self-supporting. The levels of crime, violence, drug and alcohol abuse mean that we need the benefit system more than ever and everybody deserves support regardless of whether or not their problems are self-inflicted. The welfare state has expanded (WFF) to take in more and more recipients so being reliant becomes more 'normal' and there is only a minimal residual stigma attached. Hand-outs are renamed tax credits to blur the lines.

But there is a second view which logic tells me is the correct one. A study of countries with longer welfare histories show that a cycle operates. Or a pendulum swings. The welfare blow-out of the past forty years is a first experience for New Zealand. The US and the UK first experienced it in the 1830s. And they acted on it. By changing laws they pulled back from widespread reliance on 'outdoor relief' and then moved into the Victorian age which saw values of thrift, independence and temperance holding sway. From one extreme to another.

Societies are dynamic; constantly changing. People change their values and laws. It's a two-way flow. Add to this the ageing phenomena - 65+ will make up an ever-growing proportion of the population - and one can see our expectations about welfare are going to have to change.

If I live another 40 years I expect to see substantial reform. The important thing is to make the reform as effective and kind as possible. The sooner we act the greater the chance of achieving both.

Welfare isn't as much a part of the New Zealand scenery as the Southern Alps. But it is part of the current wallpaper. It's not really a very nice wallpaper. Those of us who don't much care for it should keep saying so.

Peter Dunne's piecemeal approach

Peter Dunne is once again rolling out his big policy plank - income-splitting for couples with children for tax purposes.

And he said it was time to give something back to middle- and higher-income earners who might be earning too much to qualify for other financial support programmes such as Working for Families.

Why stop there? Isn't it time to give something back to middle and high income earners who don't have children?

If income-splitting would be fairer than the current system, a flat tax would be fairer again. My family would benefit from Dunne's policy but it's still unfair and doesn't provide the economic stimulus the country needs.

Advocating income-splitting is just more of the messy piecemeal approach to taxation.

Fibre - the new 'public good'?

For those of you who have decided fibre is the new 'public good' and should be paid for by the tax-payer, answer me this.

National wants to put in $1.5 billion and says it will need to be matched by the same and more coming from the private sector. (Maurice Williamson puts up some very persuasive arguments as to how and why the private sector will come to the party - he should listen to himself and ask why, then, government needs to get involved?)

So let's say it's going to take $4 billion to lay fibre to 1,000,000 homes.

That's just 4 grand a home.

If I got a call tomorrow from a salesperson trying to sell me fibre for $4,000 I would tell them quite firmly to piss off. Would you?

So why are you happy for the government to use your money buying something you wouldn't fork out for privately?

As usual with big government subsidies the majority end up paying for the benefit of a minority. Just like social welfare. But this is called corporate welfare.

Coarse calculations

I wonder if Michael Cullen's mullings go something like this.

Forget the polls. There are about 3.17 million people aged 18 and over in NZ. Voter turn-out in 2005 was 77%. That's 2.4 million. (Sounds about right as there were just under 2.3 million votes cast in 2005)

There are 371,000 families receiving WFF tax credits. Not all of these families will have two voters but let's assume two thirds do have. So 616,000 potential Labour voters. Improving WFF would tend to increase the chances of these voters ticking Labour. Tops this group provides 26 percent of the vote.

Another strong group for Labour are working-age beneficiaries currently totalling 256,000. Take away the 180,000 who are receiving WFF tax credits which leaves 76,000 or 3 percent of the vote.(Labour will focus a lot of energy here as they did in 2005 in South Auckland.)

Then look at 65+ age group. Roughly half a million voters. Many will vote Labour because they have always voted Labour. Voting Labour is an act of tradition and faith. Why change the habit of a lifetime? Let's guess that half will tick Labour. That's another 10 percent.

Then there are some 200,000 single and couple childless people receiving an accommodation supplement. That's 8 percent but could overlap significantly with the beneficiary vote and 65+ vote so call it 3.

What about civil servants? 36,000. Good for another 1 percent.

That's 43 percent best scenario. Risky. Some more bribery will soon be called for.

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.