National - in breach of its stated values, yet again

National now endorses Working For Families.

Here are some reasons that I posted earlier in the year why they should not. After each reason I have listed one of National's stated values that is breached.

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.

• Equal citizenship and equal opportunity

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

• Limited government

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

• Competitive enterprise and rewards for achievement

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.

• Individual freedom and choice

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.

• Competitive enterprise and rewards for achievement

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

• Personal responsibility

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.

• Equal citizenship and equal opportunity

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.

• Limited government

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

• Competitive enterprise and rewards for achievement

Of course with a little imagination each of National's stated values could be applied to each point.

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.

Rodney Hide's appraisal is worth repeating;

Act leader Rodney Hide said National's move emphasised there was nothing between the two big parties.

"It's consistent with their strategy," he said. "They agree now with everything Labour has done, and the only thing they disagree on is who should be Prime Minister."

Clear difference; clear choice

The National Party has moved to defuse fears it will dismantle the Working for Families scheme if it wins the election.

Party leader John Key told this morning's TV One Agenda programme he is planning no changes to the system. He says a careful look at the way the scheme functions has shown it is not worthwhile changing it.

Mr Key says it is important to offer people certainty during tough economic times.


_______________________________________________

Sir Roger Douglas delivered [ACT's plan], listing renting hospital wards out to doctors and nurses to do "Mrs Tamati's hip operation," greater privatisation of education, hauling back tax rates, topping up poor people's incomes through tax system and getting rid of Working for Families and slashing government spending by 10 per cent.

He launched into Michael Cullen's treasured Working for Families scheme, which he said was "the very worst type of policy."

The phoney war

A friend recently remarked to me that her dealer was on home detention. That's nice. Wouldn't want to see people who are perpetrating victimless crimes locked up in prison. And the dealer has found a lucrative job he can do from home.

I was reminded of this tidbit by new figures for home detention. There has been a 60 percent increase in people serving such a sentence since judges were allowed to impose one.

In 2007-08, 2677 people were on home detention sentences or orders, up from 1672 on home detention orders in 2005-06, a 60 per cent increase.

It occurs to me this may largely be another (new) aspect of the state's farcical war on drugs. Still I would rather live in a country that puts up a show of fighting soft drugs than one that actually brings all it legal might down on the activity.

Happy campers

Oh Golly. This is exciting. When did a political party last have a policy to create "new, affordable" campsites? Thank you National. That's high on my list of priorities for something a government should be focusing on.

UK tackles incapacity problem

While on the subject of incapacity benefits, the United Kingdom has the same problem. Here is their proposal for reform. Don't get too excited;

Incapacity benefits

From October 2008, the Employment and Support Allowance will replace Incapacity Benefit and Income Support claimed on the grounds of incapacity for new customers. The new system will consider what an individual is capable of, and what help they need to manage their condition and return to work.

A new test, the Work Capability Assessment, will be introduced in October 2008 alongside the new Employment and Support Allowance and will be applied to all those people claiming the new allowance. The new test is more robust, accurate and fairer. It will replace the current Personal Capability Assessment, which is weighted more towards a person’s physical disability and bases itself around assessing people’s incapability for work.

The Work Capability Assessment will look at people’s physical and mental ability, including conditions such as learning disabilities and other similar conditions. It will assess what an individual can do - rather than can’t do. Individuals with health conditions or disabilities will be given support and employment advice to enable them to return to work where possible. People whose condition causes very severe limitation of their ability, who are not able to engage in any work-related activity, will get a higer rate of benefit. They will still be able to volunteer to get support and employment advice if they want to.

This measure is part of The Welfare Reform Act 2007.


Now contrast this to what New Zealand has been doing. Here's a release from over three years ago;

Trials of a new work-focussed service for all beneficiaries will begin in 12 locations across the country next month as part of the government's reform of the welfare system, Social Development and Employment Minister Steve Maharey said...

"Rather than categorising people on the basis of why they are unable to work, the service will focus on what support people need to help them move into work, regardless of their benefit type."

Not much changes, the numbers keep rising.

The UK is simply embarking on an elaborate relabelling process. Still, people wanting to hold onto their public service jobs (and consultants) have to be seen to be doing something.

Six more CYFS offices to open

Here's some good news for fans of big government.

Six new CYF offices are to open across the greater Auckland area.

The first opened on Wednesday in Clendon.

Now why does the name Clendon seem familiar to me.

Ah yes. Because there are 1,616 people on the DPB using the WINZ Clendon service centre. And the number has risen over the past 5 years. Where DPB populations are concentrated, social problems are most prevalent. On that basis I should be able to predict where the next offices will open. Try Mangere, Manurewa, Otara, Papakura, Waitakare and Manukau, if they haven't already got one.

It's the old story of some government intervention leads to more government intervention. In their attempts to meet need, they create it. There is a massive problem of children in need of better parenting. The majority of them will live in homes where nobody works and nobody teaches them constructive values. What a bind this country has got itself in.

Another big rise in the invalid's benefit

The numbers on the invalid's benefit have increased by seven percent in the year to June 2008. In the previous year they had climbed 3 percent. The most common incapacity continues to be psychological or psychiatric conditions at 28.1 percent (up from 26.7 in 2004.)

Sickness benefit numbers dropped by 4 percent but the net gain over the two benefits was 4,000. The sickness benefit has the same most common complaint as the invalid's benefit with 39 percent (up from 35.1 in 2004) of claimants in this category.

As I have blogged before the DPB has stalled. No surprises there. In the year to June 2008 the total is down by ..... 27. I wonder how much by way have resources has gone into achieving that stunning result.

But I better mention the unemployment benefit, down by 5,000.

I calculate this to be an overall drop of 1,000 but the remaining factsheet - all main benefits - insists the drop is 3,000 so there must be some movement in the more minor benefits like widow's or emergency benefits.

DPB 96,440
IB 82,879
SB 46,271
UB 17,710
All main benefits 258,317

At this rate we are on track to return to the kind of numbers common in the sixties and seventies by 2087.

Smokers are a cash cow 2

Not PC was wondering about whether smokers paid their way. More than.

Current tobacco tax revenues amount to approximately $1 billion per year, and have been at that level for some years. This is just under 2 percent of total tax revenues.

- Of the approximate $1.6 billion per year retail spending on tobacco products, approximately 70 percent is tax revenue, including GST as well as tobacco excises.

- Thus, the average amount spent by New Zealand’s 750,000 smokers is approximately $2,135 each per year and approximately $1,500 is tax revenue.

NZ Medical Association, Tobacco Taxation In New Zealand, November 2007

The cost of smoking-related health care to the New Zealand taxpayer is about $250 million.

The Cancer Society, Cancer Society of New Zealand Inc September 2004

(BTW I just buried my dog in the garden. She had a invasive, inoperable tumour. She never smoke or drank, ate well and exercised every day. RIP dear Griffy.)

No 'contest of ideas'

Can I be bothered blogging about National's housing policy? The most noteworthy aspect is its similarity to Labour's - again. They will return tenants right to purchase their state home but if this happens the state home stock will be replaced.

"We won't be running down the state housing stock. We acknowledge that we need it."

Mr Heatley said the party would now keep Labour's policy of fixing state house rents at only 25 per cent of the tenants' incomes except for tenants on high incomes.

He promised to keep the accommodation supplement.

He also promised to keep Labour's Housing Innovation Fund, which provides $12 million a year in capital for community groups providing shared-equity and other subsidised housing to low-income people.

What is the point of this election? The Dominion Post comments in its editorial today, on the matter of the closing poll gap between National and Labour,

What this poll and others taken around the same time do show is that there will not be a walkover. This is healthy. Democracy thrives on the contest of ideas, policies and personalities, not on forgone conclusions.

Except there is no contest of ideas. "What this poll" actually shows is that we are not living in a 'thriving' democracy. A thriving democracy would be one that is flourishing, prospering and growing rich. We are living in a tired, cynical, paralysed democracy that is deeply dissatisfied with the status quo but too scared to change it.

Questions about meningococcal vaccine campaign

I am one of the hundreds of thousands of parents who reluctantly acquiesced to the request that my children be given the meningococcal vaccine. It now emerges that the immunity is reasonably shortlived.

Here is the official advice referred to in today's media articles;

Data from the MeNZB™ trials have shown that the detectable duration of immunity post-vaccination is measured in months rather than years.

1/ How many parents would have complied if they had known the immunity was short-lived?

2/ How are the parents of those children who experienced bad reactions to the vaccine now feeling?

3/ Was the $200 million campaign considered a one-off?

4/ Where has this site - www.immunise.moh.govt.nz - gone?

5/ How does one weigh up the risks against benefits when the real benefit is not known?

6/ Do any other parents out there recall being told that the vaccine was short-lived?

7/ How does the Ministry of Health propose to ensure all parents remain vigilant because their children may not have functional immunity? Another multi-million dollar information campaign?

Update; Today's NZ Herald editorial sums up the situation well.

Comparing homicide rates

This is from an Economist article about how violent the UK has become, in which we get a mention.

England and Wales are not unusually murderous (see chart). The homicide rate is higher than anywhere in western Europe except Finland, Belgium and indeed France (though Britain edges ahead of France when Scotland and Northern Ireland are included). But Britain looks gentle next to former colonies such as Canada, New Zealand and especially America. And it compares favourably with the EU average, thanks to the new eastern European states: in Latvia and Lithuania homicide is five times as common as it is in Britain.



In 2004 New Zealand had 2.1 homicides per 100,000

(The only comparable NZ figure for attacks and threats I can find comes from 1992 at 5.7 per 100)

Don't get sick here

Here are some interesting health statistics from the OECD databank;

In 2006 New Zealand had 2.3 practising physicians per 1,000 population. That ranks us 18th out of 24 countries. Behind us are Korea, Turkey, Mexico, Canada, Poland, Japan.

In 2004 there were 13,832 hospital discharges per 100,000 population also ranking us 18th - this time out of 27 countries. Well maybe that's because we are healthier?

Perhaps not. For example where we don't want to rank more highly is in malignant neoplasms. In 2005 there were 172.9 per 100,000 population making us the 8th highest out of 24 countries.

None of it is very encouraging. Relatively speaking, this is not a good country to get sick in.

I have said it before but will say it again. We are now relatively poor. It is not a coincidence that the first two rankings equate roughly to our GDP per capita ranking.

Wasted taxpayer money

Rodney Hide interview on Agenda.

It's straight and it's honest.

GUYON Which government departments do you want to close?

RODNEY Oh, which ones do you want to keep. We've had a massive expansion in size of the State, we've seen government expenditure grow in the last ten years by 80%.

GUYON Okay, two government departments.

RODNEY Oh well how about Women's Affairs, Pacific Island Affairs, Youth Affairs, the Families Commission and I've hardly started. We have government departments.

GUYON They should all be closed down?

RODNEY I think so what use do they do?

Sunday sketching

Spent some of today minding the Farsite Gallery in Petone. They are currently showing works of Eastbourne artists, myself included, so we take turns sharing the minding at the weekends.To occupy myself I had some pastels at hand. However I had no suitable paper to draw on. But I found some brightish blue card in the storeroom and based the following sketch on a photo of Daisy. Passersby are often drawn in by someone working and they are also frequently pet owners out exercising their hounds. The result was a larger-than-life elongated landscape with lots of blue to the left (not caught on camera here.)

Leading the way..... in economic suicide

The Australian Labour-proposed emissions trading scheme is insane.

Basically government places a huge tax on an industry (let's call it $1,000,000).

It then gives up to $300,000 back to said industry as an incentive not to move to a country where it won't be taxed $1,000,000.

It gives up to $300,000 to researchers trying to find better ways of not producing carbon emissions.

And it gives the rest to struggling households who have been charged far more by the industry trying to survive after losing $1,000,000 of it's previous profit to the government.

Do you think the industry is going to stay? I don't.

Do you think that the middle and upper income earners will be 'reimbursed' for extra household costs when the low income group is swelling in its ranks as job losses snowball? I don't.

And what will the spin-off for New Zealand be, given Australia is our biggest export market?

As the Wall St Journal comments today;

If the government-directed breakdown of free-market price signals sounds like creeping socialism, it is....the ultimate cost in terms of jobs and growth is unknowable.

Hot off the press

Check out the graphs below and understand why many New Zealanders get very frustrated about people being described as living 'in deprivation' in this country.





People living in the most deprived areas are the heaviest smokers, drinkers and eaters. The just-published New Zealand Health Survey proves it. Another fine example of how leftists have inverted the meaning of words.

ACT on ACC

Rodney Hide talks about ACC with Justin du Fresne on NewstalkZB (starts at 33.33).

Rodney makes the point (more than once) that it is the way ACC is funded that lays it open to abuse. "The incentives are all wrong. We have produced a nation of cheats and crooks."

He says change the system. The principles are wrong. Contributions should be made in our name, into a personalised account, then when we claim, we run down our own money. We can only rip ourselves off. That is what should have been done at the outset of ACC.

This prompted a call from someone asking why it is National is such a useless opposition and it is left to the likes of Rodney Hide or Ron Mark to say what the majority of us are thinking.

And no. It wasn't me.

Child support debt is just a symptom

Given it is National's policy to "intelligently intervene" in the economic and social lives of New Zealanders, I wonder what they will do about child support?

National MP Judith Collins, a long-time critic of the Government's failure to target payment dodgers, was unimpressed.

"This is a government that is happy to nab at the border, people with outstanding parking fines and speeding tickets, but turns a blind eye to the billion-dollar-plus problem of burgeoning child support debt. That's appalling."

More cracking down? More surveillance? More prosecutions?

The problem with the child support system is that it is inherently unfair and biased towards the custodial parent, usually the mother. What is financially required (and taken from the non-custodial parent) is not based on the costs of raising the child but on what the non-custodial parent earns.

But the child support system is only a spin-off from the DPB system. If there was no DPB, which acts as an incentive to become a single parent, there would be nowhere near the current number of liable parents - 157,858.

As I have argued many times, the state can't have it both ways. Not morally anyway. It can't replace the father and then expect him to pay the bills. Hence the growing mess this area has become.

Yes. As a general rule fathers should support their children. But they need to know that the child is biologically theirs (not currently possible if the mother resists) and the state has to stop putting up cash rewards to the prospective single mother.

Yes. It used to be difficult for mothers to chase support through the court system and fathers ran the risk of jail for non-support. But these are different times. Avoiding becoming pregnant and giving birth is straight forward. And in respect of relationship breakdowns women are much, much better equipped to handle being a breadwinner and men are much, much better equipped for sharing parenting.

Ultimately people have to work out their own problems. That's life. It's part of the process. If we won't accept that then we will continue on down this all-too-familiar road on which the state tries to sort every personal problem and leaves far bigger ones behind in its wake.

Making stuff up

This is the kind of journalism I really object to;

Every week in Palmerston North, more than 200 children cower in their rooms knowing the grown-ups in the house are fighting.

It's stated as fact. So how is this known?

Child advocate Rachel Smithers says police attend more than 70,000 family violence incidents throughout New Zealand each year, while more than an estimated four times as many go unreported.

Based on the figure of 400,000 incidents a year in New Zealand, there are 175 to 200 incidents in Palmerston North alone each week.

How did she arrive at 400,000?

Never mind. Palmerston North has 1.9 percent of New Zealand's population. So using the figure of 400,000 they have 7,600 family violence incidents. That's 146 per week. But it's still an estimation.

If the reported figure was used - 70,000 - we would be down to 26 incidents.

In two out of three cases, the adults think the children don't know and aren't affected.

But they're wrong.

What's that based on? Have the children been interviewed? No, but...

One Australian study has shown that only one in three abused parents realise their children know what's going on, when in fact, they all do, and they all want it to stop.

Ignoring what this sentence actually says (which is nonsensical) and what the journalist intended it to say, it is not OK to extrapolate the findings in one setting as fact in another.

And the following isn't the journalist's problem but highlights the silliness of some of these 'counsellors'.

Ms Smithers says while many agencies offer help to abused victims, and to the abusers, her role is making people think about how the children are affected.

There were almost always children affected when adults were violent, she says, even in cases like the alleged Tony Veitch incident.

"There will be children who really admire him, and now they are hearing that he hurt a woman."

So now even more of Palmie's children are victims of violence. Fallen role models. What a tragedy.

Now, to be fair, there is every chance that many children in Palmerston North are frightened by parents/caregivers who are violent. Probably more than the police have had dealings with. Victimisation surveys show that violence in the home is amongst the least reported crimes. By all means say so and make your own estimations but don't write them up as statements of fact.

"Intelligent intervention"

"What she said" - in case I need to say it again...


Only last week I blogged about the $1 billion Dear Leader has spent on the arts, heritage and culture;

It's pretty damn disgusting when there are people unable to access life-saving surgery and pharmaceuticals, schools that are in a state of disrepair, businesses being broken by increasing taxes.

Now Chris Finlayson has revealed National's policy;

The National Party's Arts, Culture and Heritage policy, announced today, confirms that National will maintain current levels of arts funding, should it be in the position to form a government following the 2008 election.

But wait! There's a difference!

National's approach is for intelligent intervention rather than constant interference.

That has got to be THE catch phrase of the campaign. Apply it to any sphere of government spending. That is what National voters are going to vote for. You thought Labour was arrogant. Hah. The next generation we-know-best government is on its way.

I love it

I've just enjoyed a really good belly laugh.

ACT Party leader Rodney Hide says his bright yellow jacket is stylish and he will continue to wear it throughout the election campaign despite it being lambasted as a fashion disaster.

The Newmarket Business Association has asked Mr Hide not to wear the canary-coloured garment which bears the ACT Party logo. Spokesman Cameron Brewer says it is an "intolerable sight" and does not help promote Newmarket as New Zealand's fashion capital.

"For sure we see the occasional fashion faux pas around the place, but this is completely unacceptable from someone in a leadership role. To be getting around in a crass canary campaign coat is simply offensive to Newmarket, particularly during school holidays."

Mr Hide says it is not the first time someone has told him to put the jacket back in the closet. He says Helen Clark has also tried to shut him down because the jacket has not been authorised under the Electoral Finance Act.

Cameron Brewer really said that? "Offensive .... particularly during the school holidays"!!!

I didn't think there was anything left is this country that could be offensive. Certainly not a politician whose ditched his me-too suit for something a little more colourful and fun.

Oh, it gets worse,

"What kind of message does this send out to our young people? It implies that when you're in position of power you can wear whatever you want no matter how inappropriate or horrid a garment may be. It's not right and so we're taking a stand," says Cameron Brewer.

Good God Cameron. Get a grip. This is the Liberal Party. Nothing demonstrates better how illiberal too many people have become when a man can't step out in whatever the hell colour he likes and not get flogged for it. You got to love Rodney's chutzpah.

Rampant research

How quickly complacency and abandon with taxpayer's money set in. This isn't big biccies but the percentage increase is.

Please note that as part of business-as-usual activities the Families Commission holds annual staff planning days. The total cost for each planning day including venue hire, food, travel, accommodation, facilities and miscellaneous costs is $2,363 in 2005; $8422 in 2006 and $14,194 in 2007.

The Families Commission now has 40 full-time staff. It is primarily a research unit on top of the massive research unit of the Ministry of Social Development. Yesterday I put up the stats showing the effect of rampant government. One reason - rampant research.

Knowledge, knowledge everywhere and not a drop of use. Could it be privatised? Not a chance. Nobody would willingly pay for what they produce. Get rid of it.

Ugly picture

I should be using my brushes to make prettier pictures than this disgusting representation. Government is rampant.




(data source NZ Income Survey)

The huge income gap

New Zealand would slot into this table between Portugal and Spain.

Note where Australia is.

The latest average weekly income for people in paid employment I can source for NZ is June 2007. NZ $670 per week. (Table 5).

In February 2008 Australians were earning NZ $1,127 per week.

The gap is huge. That's why we need a real and workable plan to bridge it. If you haven't already had a look at ACT's you should.

Being a candidate

Husband well-meaningly brought home a book from the library entitled "How to win an election". (Join the National Party, I immediately thought, but as that is never going to happen I better see what this book has to say.)

It is written in the UK context so the FPP scenario, not quite the reality of being in a minority party where one individual can fill more than one role. For instance Paul Richards, the author, identifies the nine "tribes" involved in an election; voters, candidates, pollsters, policy wonks, activists, spin doctors, journalists, pundits and fixers. In the broadest sense, at least 5 or 6 of these can apply to me.

But I was most interested in what he had to say about candidates and although it is depressing it only confirms what I believe.

"Modern politics is a tough, unfair, exhausting and grubby pursuit....the pressures are enormous, the hours exhausting, the reward little and the thanks non-existent. The incidence of divorce, alcohol abuse and mental illness is high...if you put yourself forward for an election, the first thing to disappear is your private life...if your political career rises above the very lowest of the rungs on the ladder, the truth will out.....It was Aristotle who suggested that democracy would only work if everyone who wanted to stand for office was immediately disqualified, and maybe he had a point."

Which is exactly the point I made when I briefly addressed the audience at our national conference earlier this year. I don't want to be an MP. We should be suspicious of people who so desperately do. I am only running because I have no choice. Someone has to control the control freaks. Someone has to try and neutralise the nannies, the regulators and social engineers. As I seem unable to shut up about how much bad ideas have hurt this country, I also seem to be duty bound to take it a step further.

But I confess to being a very poor specimen by this book's standards;

"In an election the candidate is the lynchpin. They must be unfailingly cheerful. They must never lose their tempers, or raise their voices...never tired or grumpy....never let their feelings show. Candidates must possess super-human reserves of happiness, energy, gratitude, interest in others and gregariousness."

Unfortunately, the day I stop being angry is the day I stop doing this. But I add the proviso that the day I lose my sense of humour is also the day everyone else should tell me to stop doing it.

Aussies must love it

You gotta laugh. The Lefties go on about not sending money offshore but they look the other way when it comes to gambling. Government keeps a firm grip on gambling here whereas in Australia there is a good look in for private bookmakers.

Still Centrebet is government-owned which begs the question, why doesn't our TAB run a book on the NZ election?

I imagine that Clark would be pretty unhappy with headlines like "TAB odds plummet on Labour victory."

If you want to put a bet on Clark losing the next election, you can't do it here.

But if you are happy sending your money to Australia, you can get $1-30 on her losing at the moment. It's not bad money really. And the Aussies must love taking it off us. They aren't afraid to bet on their own elections but we are. What a joke.

Policing Child Pornography

The Department of Internal Affairs seems to have morphed into Department of Policing Child Pornography. Here's yet another press release from them today celebrating a successful prosecution. Do they do anything else? I checked out their recent press releases and found that 10 of the last 14 have been about this particular subject.

So I went back to the same months in 2004 and found quite a different emphasis or variation of press releases.

The department increasingly seems to be the morals police. And I don't really understand why this department is responsible for what is surely a matter of law and order?

My children are racists...

...using this criteria.

More from the UK thought-police.

Toddlers who turn their noses up at spicy food from overseas could be branded racists by a Government-sponsored agency.

The National Children's Bureau, which receives £12 million a year, mainly from Government funded organisations, has issued guidance to play leaders and nursery teachers advising them to be alert for racist incidents among youngsters in their care.

This could include a child of as young as three who says "yuk" in response to being served unfamiliar foreign food.

Unwanted pregnancies

Here is a potential minefield. Police are considering whether to charge a heavily pregnant woman for drinking a good deal of alcohol.

There is no law I am aware of that they can use. But it wouldn't surprise me if government doesn't some time soon try to introduce one because there is a big and probably growing problem here. If a woman cannot look after her baby in the womb what chance she will outside of it?

But how would one draft and enforce such a law. The most dangerous time for ingestion of alcohol is in the first trimester when the foetus is forming. During this period many people are unaware they are pregnant so certainly nobody else would know. In which case could people be prosecuted retrospectively?

Then there would be a great deal of arguing over safe levels of consumption. One glass of wine is a different story to one carton.

Can you imagine the kind of 'narking' , with or without genuine cause, that would go on?

What would the punishment be? Earlier this week Work and Income admitted they cannot force beneficiaries to undergo treatment for alcoholism. I suppose the courts can, but on pain of what? Certainly not losing one's benefit. And yes I am picking that many of these sorts of cases would involve beneficiaries. The threat of losing or not getting back custody of imminent birth child and any other children? Unfortunately the damage is already done. And that's what really worries me.

I forsee a future where adoption will once again become a more popular and acceptable option for unwanted (this one is) children but many will be starting life with significant health and developmental problems due to being carried by mothers who have high and daily intake of tobacco, alcohol and other drugs. In which case these potential mothers should be financially incentivised to use long-term contraceptives, injections or implants or, if they already have children and are happy to, have an immediate tubal ligation. There are youngish mothers who would be happy to be free from pregnancy risk but medical wisdom says rationed operations should go to older women. Wrong.

Prevention can work. More laws and futile attempts to police them will not.

The state of politics

I am not given to pinching things from other people's blogs but this is irresistable.

(Hat-tip NotPC)

Rodney Hide spoke to the ACT Wellington conference at the weekend. He can say it for me;

There's no difference in policy between National and Labour. But if we keep doing the same old thing, we will keep getting the same old result. It doesn't matter who's administering the policy; it's the policy that counts first and foremost. It's policies that will determine our standard of living in the future, and determine whether New Zealanders choose to return to New Zealand or stay away. Labour's policies are bad for our country, bad for Kiwi families, and they will be equally bad policies under a National-led Government....

... John Key's aim is to win votes off Helen Clark. He will stick to her policies but be a new, fresh face.

It's clearly working: National is riding high in the polls. National's "no policy" policy is good for National – but it's bad for the country. National is providing no debate about the country's direction, what our goals should be, and what we need to achieve them. That job has been left to ACT.

ACT has plenty of policy – but is low in the polls. Let's hope that's not a lesson for politics in the future.

So far, National has released 16 policies. The latest is a commitment from John Key to re-arrange and re-prioritise sports funding. Now, I'm sure SPARC could do with its funding re-arranged and re-prioritised - but it's not the most pressing problem confronting the country. It's not going to change the opportunities and standard of living for New Zealanders – unless you're a SPARC staffer. It's not going to lift our country's performance or bring our kids home faster.

Yet our next Prime Minister devoted an entire speech to it. We're heading into the election with no policy debate or policy difference between the two old Parties.

Births and deaths

There is something different about this graph.

It represents births and deaths.

But births and deaths of what?

When you look more closely the trend is very telling and quite disturbing.

The 'compassionate' society

Ahh. More results of the 'compassionate' society or what Russel Norman would inaccurately describe as Mickey Savage's applied christianity. Over 5,000 people on benefits because they are drug dependent. Bear in mind there will be many, many more people also on benefits for this reason but it is not listed as the primary cause. They might appear under depression for instance.

In earlier times, before we were a 'compassionate' society, when benefits were available but strictly monitored, such rules applied.

Rule (3) (dispensed with after 1965); Applicant must be of good moral character and sober habits

Rule (2) (dispensed with after 1969); That incapacity for work was not self-induced or in anyway brought about with a view to qualifying for an invalid's benefit.

By the way, in 1965 there was a grand total of 8,744 people on an invalid or sickness benefit.

Now I am no wowser. I like a drink as much as the next person. But I am totally opposed to the idea that one person is forced by the state to pay for his neighbour's over-indulgence. Fine if he wants to but that's not what's happening here.

Question

Why just small businesses?

If the idea is right, it will be just as right for a 21 worker business as a 19 worker business.

What a wonderful shot and amazing story of recovery.

Why they go

A letter from the Dominion Post today. Miss you Tina.

Hey Big Spender

The Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage, 'Herself', spent a whopping 41.5 percent more last year.

In the year to May 2008 expenditure slid in at just under a $ billion (999 million to be exact). In the prior year she spent $706 million.

It's pretty damn disgusting when there are people unable to access life-saving surgery and pharmaceuticals, schools that are in a state of disrepair, businesses being broken by increasing taxes.

The plebeians are expected to prioritise their budgets wisely while government Ministers continue to act like the "rich pricks" they so despise.

Getting rid of the DPB

Yes. The government is going to get rid of the DPB. From April 2009 it will simply be known as income support. As will the problematic incapacity benefits.

Ms Dyson announced plans to scrap "stereotyped" names such as the dpb, and invalid and sickness benefits when the Government moves to a single core benefit next year - a change that will require the ministry to drop the names from all its brochures, letters, websites and training material from April.

This move, originally Steve I-know-of-no-social-science-that-says-the-nuclear-family-is-more-successful-than-other-kinds Maharey's big idea, has been heralded for a long time. The government's plan to introduce one single core benefit is par for the course - if you can't solve a problem, bury it. Minister Ruth Dyson says she wants to get rid of stereotypical names. What that means is she wants to destroy any stigma attached to being on a benefit instead of self-supporting. This has always been Labour's aim. The more people that receive state support the more 'normal' it becomes. So they are equalising everyone on benefits and overlapping them with people working but receiving income support.

A report from 2004 said, The Cabinet papers suggest the move to a single benefit is designed to break down entrenched attitudes and stereotypes about benefits and their purpose. The Cabinet papers: "Too much of the system is still inherited from a past in which jobs were scarce and it was assumed categories of people, and particularly people with health conditions or disabilities, couldn't work and didn't want to work."

So there it is again. This change is primarily about altering non-beneficiary attitudes. More psycho-social engineering. The politically correct process of changing the language to change how people think.

In practice this move will reduce transparency. It will be far more difficult to identify trends and problems. Under the present system we are able to quickly and easily identify that while unemployment has dropped, more individuals are now on other benefits.

At the moment there are a quarter of a million working-age people on various benefits and we can identify where the problems remain; which groups have longer durations dependent on welfare; which groups have dependent children; which groups present the biggest challenge.

National and ACT should both be strongly opposing this move.

Great Expectations

I was just thinking. What a revelation. One which had completely passed me by.

MANY CURRENT NATIONAL SUPPORTERS ARE EXPECTING THE INCOMING GOVERNMENT TO BE LIKE THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT OF THE EARLY NINETIES.

They are wrong. The next National government will be as dissimilar to the early nineties National administration as the current Labour government is to the late eighties Labour administration. They were both aberrations.

Anyone who wants anything resembling the government actions of late 80s/ early 90s needs to vote ACT. Don't take risks. Don't court disappointment. Don't waste another three years. We don't have time to throw away.

Hutt News coverage

(left click on image to read)

New work

Here's a recent effort. I saw this photo of the late Syd Jackson, or I should say, the black and white version used in the Dominion Post obituary. I discovered the internet version more latterly. It was one of those instances when I felt compelled to paint an image. Now I just need to find the right home for him.

Responding to Russel

Excerpt from Russel Norman's maiden speech;

The first item on the agenda of Savage’s first cabinet meeting in December 1935 was a Christmas bonus for the unemployed. This was not popular amongst the bankers in London – it was an act of compassion.

When was the last time we did that for beneficiaries? We punish the children of the poorest by refusing them the in-work payment of $60 per week. The truth is that we have yet to restore Jenny Shipley’s benefit cuts of 1991.

There is another memorial in Auckland. One dedicated to those who turned their backs on ordinary New Zealanders. In the Auckland CBD there is a memorial to Roger Douglas and Ruth Richardson, it is a casino in the shape of a syringe. They created a society in which desperate people’s only hopes are pokies and drugs.

You’re gonna reap just what ya sow. And we are reaping in South Auckland and Bridge Pa.

Last month the Child Poverty Action Group said New Zealand had the fastest growth in income and wealth inequality in the OECD. And I’ll repeat that, because I didn’t say fastest GDP growth. I said that New Zealand had the fastest growth in income and wealth inequality. We are becoming more divided.

The latest figures show about 150,000 children in benefit families in significant or severe hardship.

These 150 000 are the children of the poor that have been forgotten. These are the children of the poor Michael Cullen’s last nine Budgets should have focussed on. These are the children of the poor John Key should stop posing with and start telling us how he’s going to offer hope to - assuming he wants to be more than a breathing replacement to a struggling Government.

And these may well become the teenagers and young adults who feature on our TV screens at 6 o’clock in a decade’s time.

We’re gonna reap what we sow.

I fear that the people in this room have forgotten their history. Is this the future Micky Savage had in mind? Is this his ‘applied Christianity’?

Dear Russel,

The benefits instigated in 1938 were paid for by a dedicated social security tax, not general taxation, and included unemployment, sickness and invalid benefits.

Mickey Savage did not give us the DPB. The children you refer to are almost entirely from single parent homes. I doubt very much that Savage's vision for New Zealand included mass separation, unpartnered childbrith and kids having kids.

The only answer your party has to this problem is greater transfer of wealth and more collective responsibility whereas the only real and lasting solution will be for people to take individual responsibility for their lives and those of any children they create. People will not make good decisions, people will continue to act in self-destructive ways, as long as society picks up after them.

Your brand of 'compassion' can only cause more harm to future generations of children. Children of beneficiaries are not being punished by Labour refusing them the In Work payment. They are being punished by a system that encourages their parents to live apart; that encourages entitlement and victimhood mentalities; and that makes meal tickets of them.

The 'last time' we did something for beneficiaries was when we eased abatement rates and introduced the In Work payment which allows them to earn more from work than from income support. You would turn that on its head.

And we would end up reaping what you have sown. More benefit dependence and more discontent on all sides. Widespread welfarism hasn't brought members of society together. It has divided them. Look a little deeper than mere income levels. The greatest inequalities lie in degrees of personal commitment, conscientiousness and caring. You cannot bridge those gaps with benefit money.

Lindsay Mitchell

We want equality - but not here

This is a good example of feminist inconsistency. It's a piece from The Times opining that women are particularly hurt by being imprisoned.

Women are not, on the whole, members of the criminal classes. They are basically law-abiding. Prison is certainly not one of the places where women aspire to equal treatment. The family is central to their world view and their lives revolve round it.

Men are not, on the whole, members of the criminal classes either. Family not being central to a man or a woman is at the core of their criminality.

First and foremost, women bear and look after children. That makes it essential that they serve their sentences within reach of their families.

And men are less entitled to receive visits from their children?

Women's crimes are most often - 36 per cent - theft and handling stolen goods, crimes that may go hand in hand with the men they know who are doing the thieving and asking for a bit of help: “Pop this in the back of the wardrobe, love, until I come and get it.”

All his fault again.

But it is interesting that the worst of all (criminals) - even Myra Hindley and Rosemary West - committed their appalling crimes as the sidekicks of men.

And again.

The attached comments are for the most-part interesting. Here are two.

This article states that women wish to choose where they are equal and where they are not. Several (women) commentators clearly agree with this. It is interesting that the wider world doesn't notice. Proof that you can, in fact, fool all of the people all of the time?

Here we go again. Special pleading for women.So it's equality when it's convenient, and privilege when it ain't.

Equal opportunity in Dannevirke

Dannevirke, a small nothing-to-do Manawatu town was often laughingly referred to as Dannevegas. And with recent meatworks lay-offs things weren't looking too bright. But there is good news. Dannevirke is about to get its first brothel. However it would appear there aren't enough "promiscuous girlz" available in the town as the proprietor is having to go to the nearby mega-tropolis of Palmerston North to recruit staff. But this is interesting. There are going to dannegirls and danneboys available (did she miss a great naming opportunity there or what?)

"I think I am a service provider like most people down the main street of town. If you don't want to use the service, you don't have to."

Quite.

Switching from NannyRed to NannyBlue

Just as the Wellington High School children wouldn't eat the healthy food mandated by government, neither will they pick up a bat and ball if they don't want to, which is the assumption underlying John Key's new big idea - spending more on sports equipment and sports clubs.

What this observation illustrates is that New Zealand under National will differ little from New Zealand under Labour. All National is promising is better management.

But as National have spent as much time in government as Labour for the past forty years of steady decline in personal responsibility and prosperity, the prospect fills me with little joy. All we are going to get is a switch from Nanny Red to Nanny Blue.

The sports culture

Here we go again. An All Black goes off the rails and the nation is spurred into red hot debate. The talkback lines are full of opinion. New Zealanders, once dubbed 'passionless', prove they can get as worked up as any other group of people. Should he stay or should he go?

Should I care or should I not? It frustrates the hell out of me listening to grown people putting so much effort and energy into thinking about an issue that is so far down my list of priorities. I mean every day they let Nanny take almost half of their income, tell them where to send their kids, how to raise them and how not to raise them, tell them when and where they can get healthcare and that they just have to put up with being burgled and .... not a squeak. But a 26 year-old acts like a complete tosser and looks like risking his job and the nation rises up in condemnation or defence!

And it doesn't even have to be an All Black. Any well-known sports celebrity behaves like thousands of other mere mortals and the tongues start.

Yes John Key has it right. We need much more of a sports culture in New Zealand. It diverts the people from those issues which actually do affect their lives. All those problems that government are primarily responsible for creating and maintaining. A sports culture provides a substitute life-of-the-mind where people can express their feelings of impotency and anger. A sports culture satisfies emotions poorly educated people have no other outlet for. It gives vicarious arm-chair living legitimacy. Let's all live for the Saturday game which, win or lose, participate or watch, will be followed by an almighty piss-up to enhance feelings of temporary fragile superiority or anaesthetise predictable pain.

What a worthy role for the state to fill. Just as Dear Leader made herself Minister for Arts, John Key should make himself Minister for Sports. How wonderfully symbolic. A Prime Minister who also has the sports culture as his major portfolio.

I can't wait.

How truly awful

Groan. More than groan.

National's latest big idea is more sport for children.

Look. Those children who want to be involved in sport already are.

Those who do not can do without the brow-beating.

This is just the worst confirmation of National being a bunch of socialists. The state owns you. You will be fit.

Really. I cannot express more my disgust with this speech. How on earth can National criticise nanny state in one breath and then make themselves the deepest embodiment of her in the next?

I am truly struck dumb by this awfulness.

In praise of mediocrity

On one hand I understand the impulse to praise children, but on the other I think we do them a great disservice by using flattering adjectives about their performance at every opportunity, warranted or not.

Last Saturday morning my girl Sam tried out for New Zealand's Got Talent, the new series screening on Prime. This was her idea and I supported it. I am not one of those mothers vicariously living through my child. But if she has talent and ambition then I'll give her all the encouragement I can. She can sing but perhaps more importantly, she has self-belief.

We turned up at Avalon at 8.30. It took around an hour to make the main entrance; another 30 minutes to register and be photographed. Another 30 minutes in the holding room. Then a wait of around half an hour in a corridor outside the auditioning room before her number was called. We were surrounded by other singers, magicians, dancers, and fools looking for their moment of fame by being tasteless but outlandish.

Not true to the tv series, at this stage the performers sing for just one judge and they appear to be neither accepted nor rejected but given an indication they will hear later in the week as to whether they will go on further.

Sam had no accompaniment and dressed simply. She's very small but has a surprisingly big voice. She was asked various questions and then the camera rolled. She sang "Tomorrow" from Annie. When she had finished the judge said to her, "You have a great talent". And to me, "Have you got her with an agency? You should get her an agent. She would rock through an audition."

Very nice. But as I began with this post, are these words to be taken with a pinch of salt or acted on? Hence my opening complaint. I hate this PC age of crap and praise for mediocrity because I am not sure I am any the wiser. Then I read this piece from the Times which sums up the new phenomenon of over-praise and molly-coddling.

A recent production of Snow White at a primary school in Japan featured 25 Snow Whites, no dwarfs and no wicked witch, as parents objected to one child being picked out for the title role. In Sweden a boy was prevented from handing out invitations to his birthday party at school because he was “discriminating” against the two classmates he did not invite.

A straw poll in Netmums’ virtual coffee house produced distinctly mixed feelings about the phenomenon. “The cushioning effect of awarding stickers and praise for inconsequential trivia masks what children really need and are looking for – guidance, consistency, self-reliance and love,” said one mother, Liz.

Anyway here we are over a week later and she (of "great talent") still hasn't heard anything and I'm telling her that she has to get used to disappointment. Because if you are an achiever that means having to risk possible disappointment all the time. Life is a rollercoaster.

Actually she doesn't seem all that bothered. A far more stoic being than myself. Which illustrates the conclusion of the article. Children are very resilient.

Margaret Pope's counter-strike

Fascinating. Don't you love a good stoush?

Margaret Pope has hit back at Michael Bassett's version of what happened inside the Labour caucus during the reforms, opening with "...the first time I ever met Dr Michael Bassett I felt my flesh creep". Oh my goo'ness, as a wide-eyed Shirley Temple would say.

Pope rejects Bassett's claim that she was behind David Lange's rejection of the flat tax proposal, etc. She says Lange's rejection of flat tax was "one of principle". What principle was that? The reforms had a clear philosophy underpinning them and flat tax was in keeping with it. Bassett's book (which I haven't completed) makes the point very early that Lange had no strong political philosophy. Whether she stepped into the void with hers, I have no opinion on as yet.

But clearly Pope still doesn't understand the political vision Douglas and Bassett shared and espoused. She says she was "prompted by social rather than economic issues". Sorry but the two are inseparable. What she is actually saying is she was more concerned about the short term than the long term - or the little picture over the big picture. And I think that is exactly what influenced Lange.

"The writing is purple, overheated, even foam-flecked." Um. Anything like "...the first time I ever met Dr Michael Bassett I felt my flesh creep"? I'll be very, very surprised if it is. Certainly I have encountered any examples yet.

She leans on other left-wing reviews (eg Gordon Campbell) that have branded Bassett as fixated with Pope and even anti-women. I find that quite silly.

Bassett calls a spade a spade. Not one for shilly-shallying if I wanted an honest opinion or advice, he is a man I would trust. In fact I wish we could get him back into parliament as well as Sir Roger.

(BTW why is John Roughan credited with this piece? Makes for very confusing reading.)

Prison Debate

On Wednesday I attended a debate between Kim Workman, National Director of Prison Fellowship and David Fraser, author of A Land Fit For Criminals. It was chaired by Mel Smith (who we heard rather too much from in a tight programme). The topic was, What Should Prisons Do?

Mr Workman said;

- prisons do not rehabilitate, re-offending rates are high
- prisons are very hard on the inmates and their families (though the brutality he described derived from other inmates, not the correction's officers)

He concluded that he would rather see more money being put into higher education and poor South Auckland communities than spent on more prisons. What kind of society do you want to live in he asked? His ideal is a Christian, forgiving and compassionate one.

Mr Fraser said;

- prisons do not rehabilitate, re-conviction rates are high (he made the point that Mr Workman was wrong to talk about re-offending rates which we can know little about.)

- prisons do not deter

- prisons do not make people even worse criminals. Most are very bad when they eventually get there.

- prisons do protect the rest of society but there are too few criminals in them.

He concluded it is a utter scandal that so many paroled prisoners are committing violent crime and hurting or killing people. What kind of society do we want to live in? A safe one.

I went with an open mind but came away (depressingly) concluding that David Fraser is right. The priority for the function of prisons must be to keep the public safe because they are failing to either rehabilitate or deter.

Workman used some graphs based on statistics that hide more than they reveal, to Stephen Frank's frustration, who pointed out that while lines on the graph were not showing increasing crime, police tolerance had increased and much crime was now being ignored. I became somewhat agitated myself when he talked about putting more money into Otara and Mangere. I pointed out that these communities were already turning on welfare.

Kim Workman is to be admired for his attempts to reform prisons and their inmates. But his abiding faith and idealism may very well contribute to the degree of danger the rest of the law-abiding community is exposed to. It is not a conclusion that sits easy with me. I believe in giving people a second, maybe even third chance. I want to believe people can change. Some can. But it would appear more cannot.

He claimed many individual views about criminals and prisons are formed young and often by a cataclysmic experience. I imagine this was a reference to those members of the Sensible Sentencing Trust in attendance. That may be but others attitudes are formed by observation of the facts. Public safety is paramount. And, as Mr Fraser alluded to more than once, nobody is forced to commit crime. Free will exists.

Watching political suicide

According to the New Zealand Herald,

Prime Minister Helen Clark says a postal ballot in 2009 is the best course for a potential referendum on the anti-smacking law because having it on election day would cause voter confusion and slow down the vote count.

I hope this is the last piece of corruption we have to stomach from this government.

The Prime Minister's reaction to the anti-smacking CIR is actually worse than her support for the legislation after earlier ruling it out. There is every provision for the referendum to be held at the same time as the 2008 election. How did she manage to procure the advice she wanted to hear?

In a speech to launch my candidacy I observed that my recent canvassing, which comprises superannuitants, has shown there is a large chunk of disillusioned Labour voters. The proverbial straw was the anti-smacking legislation. Here we have an entire generation who have been told they got it fundamentally wrong. And that hurt.

Now she is rubbing salt in the wound by saying voters are too stupid to handle more than one choice on her big day.

And it will be a big but very bad day for Labour. Without the referendum voters will still express their anger and alienation. They will either vote against Labour or stay home.

Minister confirms "urban myth"

From Parliament yesterday;

Russell Fairbrother: What is the main reason for people to move off the unemployment benefit?

Hon RUTH DYSON: The main reason for people leaving the unemployment benefit is to enter paid employment. It is simply not true to allege, as the National Party does, that a large number of people move from the unemployment benefit to the sickness or invalids benefit. Between March 2000 and March of this year there were close to 1 million cancellations of the unemployment benefit; 8.8 percent of those cancellations were because of a transfer to the sickness benefit, and only one-third of 1 percent were because of a transfer to an invalids benefit. The main reason for people leaving the unemployment benefit is to move into paid work.

That means there were 88,000 transfers from the unemployment benefit to the sickness benefit. From there many thousands have transferred to the invalids benefit.

So in March 2000 around 85,000 people were on a sickness or invalid benefit whereas today the total is 130,000. Yet Work and Income deputy CE continues to insist there is no link between these benefits as per this Dominion Post letter of June 13;



To claim there is no link between benefits is absurd. The very fact of being on a benefit can trigger behavioural responses which then necessitate the need to be transferred to another benefit. For instance being on an unemployment benefit long-term can cause people to develop depression, one of the major reasons for the rapid growth in incapacity benefits. Being on an unemployment benefit and relieved of the need to work can lead to people developing alcohol and drug addictions. This then necessitates a move onto a sickness or invalid benefit.

The letter from Work and Income is quite unbelievable. Or do I no longer understand what the word 'link' means?

"Caring about NZ"

That's the title of a webpage Jim Anderton has set up. It is also the headline on a FULL page ad in my local paper;

Typically the statements are highly questionable;

The Government hgas done a lot to help out. Working for families has helped lift more children out of poverty than at any time since the Great Depression. Income related rents for state houses, cheaper doctors visits and much more have helped thousands of families. The minimum wage is up by $200 a week for the very poorest workers. And best of all, around a thousand jobs a week have been created every week for the last eight years. That’s 330,000 more jobs.

For a start 52,000 jobs a year for eight years would be 416,000 jobs and the obvious typo is not mine. The only jobs governments create are those of bureaucrats and public servants. The rest are created by the private sector.

And lifting "more children out of poverty than at any time since the Great Depression"? Even people firmly on Jim's side of the political spectrum would argue with that. For instance,

....an Auckland University public policy lecturer and former Children's Commissioner, Ian Hassall, said the Working for Families package had probably helped reduce child poverty by at least 10%. But he said with possible job losses in the predicted economic downturn, many of these gains were likely to be lost.

And my own response is that it was Jim's lot that was responsible for creating the latter day 'child poverty' with the DPB. It's a bit rich to now be skiting about moving a few people sideways from the DPB onto an In Work payment. And to compare that with the recovery from the Great Depression is just ludicrous.

Interestingly for the newspaper ad the wording has been changed from, "The Government hgas done a lot to help out," to "There has been a lot done to help out."

Is this to avoid creating the impression the advertisement is asking for votes? Has it all been paid for by Parliamentary services? Did we all pay for this bunkum?

I tried sending Dear Jim the following message but the fields have also been set up incorrectly resulting in a failure to submit.

Government gets in the way of people caring for each other by taking tax for so-called 'welfare'; by 'applying Christianity' on behalf of individuals. It is your political allies that created the DPB, that in turn created latter-day child poverty. If you would just stop 'caring' we would all be better for it.

Throw some more money at the problem

What does a Labour government do when throwing money at a problem has only made it worse? Throw some more.

In the UK Gordon Brown is now promising cash grants of 200 pounds to get parents of under-fives to look after their children properly ie teach them to read, feed and vaccinate them.

I would bet any money you like that the problem parents are those who are already welfare dependent.

But no. Let’s have another bet. Which New Zealand party will be the first to pick up this policy? National or Labour?

Editorial misses the mark

Real men don't run
The Dominion Post | Tuesday, 24 June 2008


No father should need to be told that his responsibility does not end at conception, The Dominion Post writes.

It is, however, a sad reality that increasing numbers do need to be told just that. Not enough young men acknowledge fatherhood is a life-long commitment, not a bothersome by-product of a sexual encounter that someone else will take care of.

United States presidential candidate Barack Obama's decision to deliver just that message on the day Americans celebrate fatherhood is a welcome attempt to provide some long-needed reality in a debate that is fogged by a willingness to excuse irresponsibility.

Too often for children at the dawn of the 21st century the narrative of their growing years is drawn not from Father Knows Best, but The Man Who Wasn't There. In this country there are 95,861 people of working age receiving the domestic purposes benefit, nearly 90 per cent of them women. Maori are hugely over-represented in those figures, accounting for 41.4 per cent of those receiving the dpb. In the 2006 census, nearly a third of the children in one-parent households identified themselves as Maori.

No one should pretend that a two-parent household is inevitably better than a solo-parent one. No relationship between parents is infinitely better than an abusive one where the family lives in fear of the next angry outburst and the next beating.

But nor should any notions of political correctness be allowed to disguise the reality that children benefit immensely from having two parents who love and support them, and who provide a stable environment where they canlearn what it is to be an adult.

Boys in particular need to have strong male role models and the natural person to do that job is the father. Mr Obama said as much in his Father's Day address, speaking of the burdens single parenthood had imposed on his mother, of "the hole in your heart when you don't have a male figure in the home who can guide you and lead you", of his own resolve to break the cycle and his determination "that if I could be anything in life, I would be a good father to my children".

Too few share his determination and too few understand that the solution is not more money in benefits but more responsibility.

Young men now fathering children and then abandoning them need to get the message that it is more staunch to hold down a job, raise a family in a loving environment and develop a stake in the community, than it is to strut around wearing a patch and beating people up. Gang culture, with its warped sense of belonging, is a poor substitute for a true family, but that is what many young Maori in particular are left with.

Outspoken black advocate Al Sharpton predicts parts of the US black community will attack Mr Obama for "airing dirty laundry" and say he is beating up on the victims. But he also told the New York Times that not discussing it is not going to make it go away, and Mr Obama's comments were "courageous and important".

What New Zealand needs is for its leaders to be as courageous as Mr Obama, and to speak as plainly. Then its absentee fathers might begin to realise that real men don't run away.



Dear Editor

The message, Real Men Don't Run, is a good one, but fails to appreciate the 'real' situation. Granted some males run away from commitments to relationships. But so do many women. Using DPB statistics tells us nothing about who ran.

Ever since the state assumed the financial role of the absent father, the single mother industry has boomed. Many women choose single motherhood by leaving a relationship or having a child outside of one. The trend is towards the second scenario. Her choice is very much influenced by the promise of indefinite taxpayer support. Her decision made, the man is often left with little but an eighteen year child support bill.

It was entirely predictable that the DPB would change the balance of power in parenting relationships. There is little more important than fatherhood but too many of both sexes discount it and are 'sanctioned' by a benefit.

Unfortunately society cannot have it both ways. If we genuinely want fathers back in their children's lives as the norm, the DPB has to go. It was created at a time when women were not as well-educated, had fewer work skills and barriers to their advancement were greater. It is now time to revisit this policy.

Lindsay Mitchell
ACT Hutt South Candidate

What the boss says, goes

Last week I had to speak at a conference for people who work in the disability sector. Minister for Disability Issues, Ruth Dyson spoke and National MP Paul Hutchison, plus UF and the Greens. I talked about the economy and why it is vital to get economic growth if the country is to support people with disabilities well. Also why ACT strongly supports volunteers like the group I work for. (In his first answer to a specific question about funding Paul Hutchison endorsed "ACT's policy of focussing on economic growth".)

A question came from an older man who wanted to know from the Minister if there was provision to "review the Pathways To Inclusion policy". He explained why he wanted one.

The Minster gets up and says, "There will be no review, " in a way that left no-one in doubt that she is the boss.

I got up and said what I was sitting there thinking. "I am appalled that the Minister is telling you, the people who work in the sector, that there can be no review. This is the whole problem with government monopolising a sector and it is central to ACT's philosophy of less government. You are.... You are government slaves." I had intended to say something a little more moderate like you are captured by government dictates but it wouldn't come out.

This was the first time I had witnessed a Minister wielding her power and I was truly appalled. I was greeted with silence. I don't know whether they were shocked or hurt or disapproving. I so much wanted them to take a step back and consider what is going on here.

People talked to me afterwards which is always a good sign:-) Not about that specific comment though. I was the only candidate who talked about the blow-out of the sickness and invalid benefits and how the misuse of these benefits removed resources from genuinely needy. That people sitting on these benefits unnecessarily were like people who park in disability parks. They make life for the disabled that much harder. Concern about this was reflected back to me privately. The suggestion being that the proliferation of drug and alcohol problems is only going to see this problem get much worse in the future.

Now 'silence' is the scapegoat

This headline alerts us to the new culprit for child abuse, Silence let child abuse continue

Silence is the scapegoat now. This is the inevitable result of the thinking that 'it takes a village to raise a child.' And it's right up there with ideas like Asian women shouldn't carry so much cash in their handbags if they don't want to get murdered. Always the collective conscience is looking for excuses and finding them in the wrong places.

Clearly in a black and white world neighbours will make every effort to help a child they perceive as being ill-treated.

But what if the neighbour has no faith in or their own fear of the authorities they are expected to turn to?

Worse, what if they have been threatened with violence to their own children?



You may not think these are good enough reasons to 'mind their own business'. Frankly I do. I would put my own children before someone else's because that is my job. If other people were doing their job, well, this horrid 'sophie's choice' situation wouldn't arise.

In an almost 'Oh, did I forget to mention...' vein, we get halfway through the story before the real culprit shows up. Another young Maori man looking for a mother substitute but acting out his father's life no doubt.

So thanks to the newspaper's slant I expect today talkback will be abuzz with the gross failure of somebody else to take responsibility and act. Unfortunately most people cannot comprehend the dark and mean psychology that pervades in neighbourhoods where violence is normal.

Reasons to vote Labour

Big News has a post about why he is voting Labour.

The scary thing is that although Dave is tongue in cheek his reasons find their basis in reality. They are exactly the reasons why people vote Labour.