The CPAG will be delighted

Later today I will link to the media release the Child Poverty Action Group issues in reaction to Tariana Turia being made Associate Minister of Social Development. They will be delighted. Their first pick might have been Sue Bradford in a Labour-led government but given their major issue over the past few years has been opposing Labour's In Work payment going solely to working parents, a Labour government may not have been their choice.


The Maori Party and the Greens were the only parties to publicly back the CPAG's court action. Tariana's solution to the relative poverty that many Maori children experience is to increase benefits. John Key has given her a role in which she can promote that solution. (This is a perfect example of what Rodney Hide means when he says Key, on some issues, is to the left of Clark and there was no need for him to apologise).

The point of the In Work payment is in its name. It was introduced by Labour to encourage mainly sole mums to move into part-time work or increase their existing hours. That is because they believed that work was the best way out of poverty.

The Maori Party have fostered a strong impression that they agree with that. But when push comes to shove you will find they do not. Remember Tariana's words during the campaign. Working for welfare did not include Maori women.

Campbell: You’re saying welfare is bad for Maori, so we have to break the cycle by introducing a compulsory element -

Turia : We’re talking Maori unemployed. We’re not talking about Maori women on benefits.

Sharples has also insisted that single parents are to be supported.

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 Maori Party falls into the trap of putting the short term interests of children ahead of their long term. All the evidence points to raising benefits drawing more people onto them.

Will National do the same? Writing in The Press earlier this year John Minto commented;

Interestingly, the CPAG report launch was attended by the National Party's flinty social welfare spokeswoman, Judith Collins, who listened silently through the presentations. It could be that National, in its attempts to brand itself as compassionate and caring, will develop some policies to outflank Labour on the Left.

The 'flinty' Judith Collins isn't going to get welfare though because it seems Key considers her too 'hard line'. That in itself could signal a softening on this particular policy.

It will be a strange business when we have the Labour opposition calling for National not to make benefits more generous. But I think that is what we are in for.

The Agreement

What I like about it is the clarity and the language. ACT has done very well in covering all of its identified priority policies and getting a commitment to action on each. Great result in that respect.

But there are a few of things ACT has signed up for which I do not like. That's compromise for you I guess. That's the difference being being in government or not.

From the Key Commitments;

Maintain and build New Zealand’s asset base by increasing investment in infrastructure such as roads, broadband and public transport, and by not selling Kiwibank or any other state-owned company.

I oppose state ownership of banks and disagreed with Key's broadband roll-out to every home. Huge expenditure for questionable gain.

Give families financial certainty by continuing all Working for Families payments at current levels...

WFF is a bad policy. It breaches not only ACT's but National's stated values. It should be abolished.

Give seniors financial certainty by keeping the age of eligibility of NZ Superannuation at 65.

The qualification age for Super should rise given ever-extending life expectancies. If the qualifying age for Super was set to match the average periods spent on the aged pension in 1900, the eligibility would now be well into the seventies for men and pushing 80 for women. Not that I am advocating a rise to those sorts of levels.

And from the Post Election Action Plan;

Introduce legislation to require DNA testing for every person arrested for an imprisonable offence.

This is wrong. The state has no right to take DNA samples before a person has been tried and convicted.

Introduce legislation to give police the power to issue on-the-spot protection orders to help them protect victims of domestic violence.

This will be abused by women who want the law to intervene in troublesome situations that do not warrant it. It will be used to achieve personal vendettas.

Instruct that a full 12-month course of Herceptin be publicly available.

I have reservations about overriding Pharmac on Herceptin funding as it sets a dubious precedent. We now have control of expenditure by political noise. But that could work in a negative fashion eg undoing funding of things like the morning-after pill. Of course, I would rather Pharmac ceased to exist but as it is not going anywhere, caution must be exercised in opening it up to less-than-expert lobbyists.

There is one error which results in ambiguity. The word 'eliminating' should replace 'elimination'.

National agrees to work with ACT to achieve better value for money in the public sector by:
• Involving the ACT Leader Rodney Hide as a member of the Cabinet Expenditure Control Committee process. A focus of this work should be on elimination programmes that do not deliver value for money.

It will be now most interesting to compare this agreement to that between National and the Maori Party.

Acknowledging the politics that hinder welfare reform

David Cameron, UK leader of the Conservatives, gave this speech earlier in the year.

Today, there are almost five million people on benefits and out of work.... 2.6m people on incapacity benefit is not right.... the first reason reform hasn't happened before is that one vital step - reform of sickness benefits - could mean an increase in the unemployment figures and that's bad PR for any Government.

Just like here where the sickness and invalid benefits, now totalling in excess of 130,000 individuals, have been masking real unemployment. National's leadership needs to be as forthright as its UK counterpart and start by explaining the politics behind welfare reform resistance.

Try as I may, I just can't hear it in my head.

And that instinct is confirmed by this little tidbit regarding Key's new cabinet line up;

One likely surprise is that Judith Collins, the party's social welfare spokeswoman, is unlikely to get the social welfare portfolio - a sign, perhaps, that Key did not want a hardliner in that role.

No. Let's not go anywhere remotely near the truth. I do not always agree with Judith Collins but she would have a better handle on the problems than Paula Bennett. What a waste of 4 years getting to know the issues, only to be turfed out of playing any part in fixing them.

What about the ETS?

But what about the ETS?

Update;

Here is the relevant text from the agreement,

National agrees to a review by a special select committee of Parliament of the current Emissions Trading Scheme legislation and any amendments or alternatives to it, including carbon taxes, in the light of current economic circumstances and steps now being undertaken by similar nations.

National further agrees to pass forthwith an amendment to the ETS legislation delaying its implementation, repealing the thermal generation ban and making any other necessary interim adjustments until the select committee review is completed.

ACT is not opposed to New Zealand adopting responsible climate change policies. What it opposes is an ETS that was never adequately justified. If a rigorous select committee inquiry establishes a credible case that New Zealanders would benefit from action by New Zealand, in conjunction with other countries that are important to us, ACT would be prepared to support legislation giving effect to such action.

Good. Delaying its implementation is a good start.

The public sector versus the public service

Earlier in the week some bloggers were somewhat triumphant about John Key's stated intent to cut the number of public servants as reported by Radio New Zealand.

Now he is promising NOT to cut any public service jobs. He is going to need to learn to communicate better than this;

Mr Key said the point of National's policy was to cap the number of public servants - whatever that was - at its current level.

"Whatever the starting point is, it's an apples for apples comparison," he told reporters.

"The point is it's not rising from the starting point."

Anyway (takes a deep breath) this whole business warrants further investigation given the additional remarks by the State Services Commissioner.

He said public sector growth between 2003 and 2008 was roughly in proportion to private sector growth.

So let's look at what yesterday's report actually tells us, because, like you, I was under the impression that the public service has blown out over the last few years.

Between 2003 and 2008, employment in the public sector as a whole increased by 36,452 to 335,012 (12.2%) compared with an increase of 232,000 to 2,163,800 (12.0%) in the employed labour force.


But wait...


The increase in public service headcount is 33 percent, with the largest increase among advisors and policy analysts.

So let's be clear about the difference between the public service and public sector.

The public service is made up of bureaucrats, pen pushers etc who manage the public sector.

If the rise in the public service is much higher than in the public sector as a whole then those vital frontline jobs (those which would have to be filled whether education, health, etc were private or public) must be proportionately diminishing. Which begs the question; why do we need more managers for fewer staff?

So get a grip John and start asking the same questions instead of playing pals with the PSA. Right now the last thing New Zealand needs is a nice, (self-described) 'smiley', Prime Minister.

That depends, Obama

New Zeal has a Penn and Teller video about Obama and his tax plans. Obama is featured telling a detractor facing higher taxes that he believes, "When you spread the wealth around it's good for everybody."

And guess what? I agree.

But spread the wealth through jobs and supportive relationships. NOT through taxation and handouts.

Because wealth spread through jobs and mutually dependent relationships between individuals is wealth spread voluntarily and for mutual gain. The incentives stay right. People have to work at their jobs and their relationships and they are rewarded.

But when the state takes it upon itself to direct money to people who do neither, it distorts incentives. It rewards the very actions that would be fruitless in a society reliant on goodwill, trust and mutual gain.

So it is with a sinking sense of disbelief that I hear Barack Obama making this sentimentalised statement when he fully intends to try and achieve the 'sharing of wealth' the wrong way.

Where's Ronnie Reagan when we need him most?

Treasury forecasts bode ill for welfare bill

Media Release
TREASURY FORECASTS BODE ILL FOR WELFARE BILL
Thursday, November 13, 2008

A Treasury report released today forecasts unemployment rising to 5.7 percent by 2010.

Commenting on this prediction, welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell said, "To put that number into perspective, last time unemployment was at that level, in September 2000, 135,000 people were claiming the unemployment benefit - 112,000 more than today."

"Bear in mind too, that 5.7 percent of today's labour force represents more people than it did in 2000."

"Additionally, whenever unemployment rises so do numbers on other benefits, particularly the Domestic Purposes Benefit. During two previous periods of rapid unemployment growth - 1980 to 1983 and 1985 to 1988, DPB numbers climbed by 30 and 32 percent respectively."

"This is a time when it is crucial that government ensures that the numbers of people resorting to welfare for reasons other than unemployment are contained. For example, a stand-down period for the DPB would discourage families from splitting in order to claim two benefits instead of one."

Unbidden thoughts

Isn't it interesting that ACT was essentially formed out of Labour yet nobody ever entertains the idea that the party would do anything other than support National. Yes, ACT campaigned on changing the government. And a Labour government with a new Prime Minister, Deputy and Party President would be a changed government. A government that included the Maori Party (with Helen the Impediment gone) would be a changed government. A government that isn't beholden to the worst weasel, Winston Peters or that populist pretender, Peter Dunne, would be a changed government.

Holy hell. Get thee away such outlandish thoughts.

Why Labour lost

This is a load of old bollocks. I wonder if the author actually lives here. Apparently the electorate threw out Labour because they weren't socialist enough.

Far from being a popular endorsement of Key and the National Party, the vote represents a clear repudiation of Labour and its pro-business orientation by significant layers of the working class.

ACT, New Zealand First and even the Maori party are all "right-wing";

The Maori Party split from Labour over its Seabed and Foreshore legislation, which was designed to cut off Maori claims to indigenous rights over the inter-tidal zone. It then contested the 2005 election, winning four of the special Maori seats by posturing as the champion of the Maori population, which is one of the most impoverished sections of the working class. The Maori Party, however, is a right-wing formation that speaks for a thin layer of the Maori petty bourgeoisie who reaped the benefits of multi-million dollar land settlements and built businesses and careers on the basis of Maori identity politics.

Not once is the anti-smacking legislation mentioned, a significant factor in Labour's downfall, nor the Electoral Finance Act, another. The entire election outcome is explained in terms of Marxism and the evil that is big business. Very funny.

"Show some sensitivity Rodney"

Jane Clifton is channelling the arrogance of National in these comments;

A political analyst is warning Act leader Rodney Hide not to overplay his hand as National's coalition partner.

It is understood Mr Hide is pushing for a role in finance, law and order or local government.

The Listener's political commentator Jane Clifton says he needs to be careful to show some sensitivity and remember he does not exactly have a towering mandate.

"He's been extremely ill-mannered to John Key making public remarks like 'John Key is to the left of Helen Clark' and harping on about still wanting Roger Douglas in Cabinet. It's just bad manners."

Ms Clifton says Mr Hide would do well to remember he is only in his seat because he got the nod from the last couple of National leaders.

How frigging hoyty toyty, matronly is that? "Mr Hide would do well to remember..."

Those people who invested hours and hours of their time helping get Rodney elected in Epsom should bow down before the superior knowledge of Ms Clifton. And Rodney should eat a substantial slice of humble pie. There but for the grace of National...

Get away.

Earlier this year Clifton wrote, Bloggers and activists make it hard to tell the accurate from the biased and the malicious.

Of course Clifton is herself untainted by bias. Her description of Rodney as 'bad-mannered' for telling the truth (Key is demonstrably to the left of Clark on certain issues) demonstrates just how deadly objective she is.

Consulting members

The Maori Party have drafted an agreement with National and are now heading off to consult with members.

No word on ACT's consultation schedule as yet.

Minister of Social Development

Is Key about to put a one-term MP, who has not even held the portfolio, associate or otherwise, in charge of the single biggest government department and spending ticket?

The Maori Party and Nanny State

How does a party that believes in the power of nanny state to the extent that she can increase life expectancy, work constructively alongside parties that purport to be the parliamentary opposers of her? (notwithstanding that National doesn't properly comprehend what nanny state is and throws the term around expediently.)

Tariana Turia is at it again.

The gap in life expectancy between Maori and non-Maori is like an epidemic wiping out 10% of the Maori population, according to the Maori Party.

“If bird ‘flu killed one in ten of New Zealand’s population, a national emergency would be declared. There would be crisis plans put in place, trained personnel and resources redeployed and public spending redirected until the emergency was over,” said Health spokesperson Tariana Turia.

“There is an equivalent disaster taking place in Aotearoa right now. The latest life expectancy figures show Maori people have 10% shorter lifetimes than non-Maori...

...It is utterly appalling, and a national disgrace that this country does not expect that tangata whenua should live as long, or as well, as others, but we have come to regard this situation as normal and it barely rates a mention in the news.

“These terrible discrepancies in Maori health do not get the priority they deserve. Successive governments have drawn up Maori health strategies and action plans, but they have not been given sufficient urgency and importance.

Her approach to life is vaguely similar to the approach socialists take to money. There is only so much of it to go around and those getting more do so at the cost of those getting less. It's a nonsense. Just as Maori as a whole could earn more, invest and save more, so they could increase their life expectancy.

I could probably increase my own life expectancy if I ate better, drank less, exercised a bit more and went to bed earlier. But the truth is I want to enjoy my life on my terms. So do those individuals who just happen to have Maori ancestry. If anybody is robbing us of extended lives it is ourselves.

But Tariana wants more taxpayer money spent on denying that reality. That people actually make their own choices - good or bad. In fact she patronises 'her people' by suggesting that it is somehow the lack of government action - and by implication, spending - that is robbing them of life itself; that without government telling them, they can't draw constructive conclusions themselves. I wonder when she is going to grow up and in doing so, allow her adherents to.

"Successful lives"

The Ministry of Social Development recently revamped its website. I have been looking for a picture to accompany their service descriptor.

The Ministry of Social Development helps people to be successful in their lives.

Every day our people invest energy and passion into making a difference in the lives of children and young people, families, individuals and communities. In helping New Zealanders gain a job, an education, a responsibility or an opportunity, we build their security and welfare. We support people to form strong families, build vibrant communities and a dynamic nation.



(Photograph: Kirk Hargreaves)

Risky arrangements

It was Clark who began the practice of having Ministers outside of cabinet. Here she explains how that operates;

HELEN New Zealand First is not in coalition with Labour, a minister is in the executive government, there's two distinctions here.

GARTH Well what does that distinction mean though?

HELEN It means they're not in coalition, it's a confidence and supply agreement. Because they have accepted a position in the executive ministerial responsibility will apply to that position and the same for United Future, but they're not in coalition.

GARTH But that must be confusing to anyone looking on surely.

HELEN well it's not a question of whether it's confusing it's a question of what are the practical arrangements you need to make to set up a government in present circumstances, and that’s the practical arrangement we've made.

GARTH The deal that you’ve done with New Zealand First says that it will fully represent the government's position and be bound by the cabinet manual provisions in areas within the responsibilities that you’ve given Winston Peters, so what exactly does that mean?

HELEN It means that collective responsibility applies to the portfolios which he holds and the same for Peter Dunne but neither he nor Mr Dunne or their parties are expected to speak for the government or in line with the government on issues outside those portfolios.

GARTH So what happens is Ron Mark gets up in the House for example and wants to criticise Annette King as Police Minister in the way that he went after George Hawkins and really hounded him?

HELEN Nothing to stop him. I guess New Zealand First is going to have to work through how they position in this parliament but the agreement does not take away their right as a party to express their views on issues outside those portfolios.

GARTH And you can't see that posing any problem at all for a stable coalition?

HELEN Not particularly, I think if people have got used to the idea that with MMP governments the support arrangements can be quite complex and parties are entitled to keep their brand identity.

So ACT are going to be the meat in the sandwich this time. Haranguing National over the many policy matters with which it disagrees while simultaneously being loudly berated by the opposition for propping up the government. That's a very principled position.

The public has limited capacity or care to familiarise itself with complex arrangements. There are real risks (for the minor party) in this sort of set up. I don't need to spell them out.

Not that ACT has a better alternative....

Changing fortunes

Thought that'd give the lefties a brief fright.

Time for a ramble back.

25 years ago Roger Douglas, "Labour's Manurewa maverick", was assigned finance in the newly-led Lange Labour government.

Helen Clark was given disarmament and overseas aid. Today (or thereabouts) she relinquishes her Prime Ministership and leadership of Labour. Today Douglas returns to parliament.

But what role will he play?

How much influence can a back-bench minor party MP (inside or outside the government) have?

Quite a bit. How much will be entirely up to Roger. But I do think he has to abandon the grand schemes and start pushing for radical change within the existing system. Particularly the welfare system. He has to accept that New Zealand is not going to move to an individual compulsory savings/insurance scheme, which will cover all manner of incapacities to earn, any time soon, and focus on what can be changed.

Ending lifestyle welfare by ending the entitlement mentality. If he expresses reform in those terms he can build public support.

Wrong about 'right'

Yesterday saw headlines that were various versions of "New Zealand moves to the right."

I was going to comment on the laughability of this claim. New Zealanders voted for the continuation and escalation of expansive redistributionist policies; the retention of state assets; the state saving on their behalf and the state sorting out climate change.

But I need not bother. I will borrow from the Melbourne Age which has concisely put the change into context;

The New Zealand media is portraying the Key government as right-wing, but it is only in what has become a nanny state like New Zealand that such a charge could reasonably be made.

Hence, unlike others, I am not taking for granted that National will do a deal with ACT.

Regrets

Sunday morning a little the worse for wear but with a life.

As the song goes, regrets, I've had a few, but then again, too few to mention.

What the hell. I'll mention them anyway.

I am very sorry Stephen Franks missed out. The irony is, if he had backed the same horse, he would have been quids in. Whoever put him at 60 on the National list needs their head read.

Ron Mark. Personally I like Ron. It takes guts to run a strong campaign shackled to a liar.

Judy Turner. Judy is worth ten Peter Dunnes. Elections are cruel.

The Libertarianz. Give up. You are too good for New Zealand. Buy an island somewhere and secede from the world.

Myself? All through the campaign I was lucky. The kind of luck whereby bad things happen but they could have been much, much worse. Twice I lost significant material from the trailer but both times there was no-one behind me. The second time a cop was just 5 seconds from coming over the brow of the hill and would surely have thrown the book at me. Similarly I was dumped down the list but it could have been much worse. I could have been number 5.

Paintings await. My welfare campaign awaits. My book about welfare awaits. And the dog always wants to walk. Freedom! There's a lot to be said for it.

Voting with hearts and minds

Here is the late political shift I blogged about on Tuesday. I am assuming this is the Fairfax-Nielsen poll as the DomPost doesn't actually label it;



When I got home Wednesday there was a message on the answerphone from a gentleman who did not identify himself but told me he had just voted. "I've given my vote back to ACT. I think you've got the right policies."

BACK being the key word.

Vernon Small describes this in his comment today.

"...even ACT is starting to rise, as the right-wingers in National have granted the themselves the luxury of voting with their hearts."

Personally I would have thought they were voting with their hearts and minds.

On Obama

Cactus has written an exceptional piece on the election of Obama.

I have nothing more to offer than this comment just left at No Minister;

All the hoo-ha over America electing its first black President reminds me of the fuss over Helen Clark's election as the first NZ woman Prime Minister. Who cares their sex or colour? It's what happens to the country under their leadership that matters. Obama is not an economic liberal.

What price the Maori Party?

Here's the latest Maori Party policy.

To gift $500 to parents of some 230,000 children 'living in poverty' and superannuitants, to help them over the Xmas period.

They say it will cost $136 million.

I make it roughly $300 million (500,000 superannuitants and 100,000 parents x $500)

Basically workers are being asked to pass the hat and put in $150 each so beneficiaries can get a $500 Christmas present. Labour governments have done this sort of thing in the past, although perhaps not exclusively for beneficiaries.

The Maori Party say it will be good for the economy because the recipients will spend it. That is making the assumption that you will not. Of course you are 'rich' and won't need the money yourself at Xmas.

One lady is honest enough to acknowledge the money might not reach the children.

"Who it makes a difference to depends on which families you give it to. There are a lot of drugs and alcohol. If I'm being honest [there are some who would] rather spend money on things like that."

But that is just an annoying detail. Probably the price the Maori Party are prepared to pay.

But will National or Labour?

Is this what the Maori Party support will come down to?

Back in 2006 Tariana said, "...the Maori Party is not for sale."

It is. And so are the other minor parties. But I would hope that a party like ACT would set a price that was of benefit to all New Zealanders. If the Maori Party hold the balance of power I fear that their actions will create division and resentment. I hope I am wrong.

Late shift in the political breeze

There is a late shift in the political breeze. Having campaigned in 2005 and 2008 I can tell you that there is more positivity towards ACT this time around. Part of this is the goodwill towards Rodney, whose image we have really promoted in the Hutt South.

People are feeling confident that there will be a change in government and are now thinking how to best use their votes to make it a worthwhile change. I am getting this at street level but I think it was reflected last night in the comments of Jenny McManus and Jon Johanssan after the leader's debate. They were both talking up ACT's prospects.

As usual we have had a devil of a time keeping the signs up (if they haven't been nicked or destroyed). That relies on myself and whoever will help as re-erecting the large signs is a two person job. Huge thank you to Neo-girl. We don't have the unions running around doing it all for us. And we are also trying to look after two electorates. But we have had fun and it's great when people yell out that they are voting for us or even stop to say they have just done so.

The mail will all go out. It's been tight but we are on target to make it. One more meeting and then, roll on Saturday and, as the campaign manager has coined it, The Fall of Helengrad!

Doing a DPB apprenticeship

In Australia Rupert Murdoch is railing against welfare dependency in the first of the Boyer Lectures.

Meanwhile, back across the ditch in God's Own, thousands of young people continue to embark on their welfare careers annually.

I asked a friend to guess how many young females had moved from being on the sickness benefit for pregnancy reasons, to the DPB last year. Without a pause she replied, "As many as moved from the dole to the sickness benefit a few months earlier."

Smart. When I put the same question to my husband he replied, "A hundred, hundred and fifty maybe."

"Try three thousand," I answered.

OK. I'm exaggerating. Actually it was 2,972.

Eighty percent were aged 24 or less. 51 percent were Maori.

This is not a safety net. This is a career choice. This is the DPB apprenticeship.

Grey Power - privilege in perpetuity

The campaign is an experience that makes me even more than usually aware of how the vast majority of people are in socialism up to their necks. It is a mindset that blinds them to what present day politics is all about. Vividly demonstrating this is a statement in today's Dominion Post by Grey Power;

We have a political system which has been built up to serve politicians and vested interest groups, rather than serving the public.

Now what is Grey Power if it isn't a 'vested interest group'?

I turned 49 yesterday so in just one more year I will qualify to join this crew. I can't wait - not.

Grey Power epitomises the pursuit of privilege. They cleverly cover this by tugging on the heartstrings with cases of elderly people shivering in their cold homes, suffering on hospital waiting lists. All the while thuggishly pulling the guilt lever on those who have not yet reached that lofty position of having 'paid taxes and served their countries all their working lives'.

Their inability to step back and see that the problems affecting them are a product of the political system they fuel and feed on by boastfully reminding politicians that their ranks hold many, many thousands of voters and their bidding should be heeded by those whose seek power.

What tops it then is to hear members almost uniformly slating Roger Douglas, the man who did more than any other politician this country has ever seen to try and tear apart this nasty, sticky web of socialism whereby the biggest whiners win the day. He opposed privilege in its every manifestation.

Perhaps Grey Power are cleverer than I give them credit for. Perhaps they understood that if people like Prebble and Douglas had their way there would be no government of any consequence worth whingeing to. That their own children and grandchildren might be infinitely better served by a government that stopped robbing people blind, allowing real freedom and prosperity, seems of little consequence.

The advert describes Grey Power as 92,000 mature citizens. Mature? My definition of mature requires that people have grown up and are able to think for themselves. This bunch are the herd-like cradle-to-gravers who are responsible for the last 50 years of the scratch my back politics we should all loathe and fear.

And get this. They want to know...

"...why governments have to tax the hell out of our superannuitants to pay for other vote catching bribes."

They just don't get it. Lie down with dogs etc.

Prison turns over 3,000 beneficiaries a year

Media Release
PRISON TURNS OVER 3,000 BENEFICIARIES A YEAR

Friday, October 31, 2008

Figures released under the Official Information Act show that during 2007 2,860 beneficiaries left welfare to go to prison and 3,171 inmates left prison to go on a benefit.

According to welfare commentator, Lindsay Mitchell , the current prison population is around 8,000.

"These figures raise a number of questions, " she said today. "Firstly, the public assume that if benefits are not paid to certain individuals , crime will increase. However these statistics prove that people receiving benefits commit crime anyway. Secondly, does the benefit system have any sort of moral compass when people who have repeatedly broken the law, who have committed the most serious offences, are still entitled to taxpayer support? Thirdly, how successful are prisons at readying prisoners for release if they are cycling on and off benefits? Does the availability of welfare on release undermine the motivation to learn new skills while incarcerated?

And finally these figures show that being on a benefit more than doubles the risk of imprisonment. What research is being done into the backgrounds of prisoners? How many were raised on welfare?

It seems to me that while it is vital to create better policies to deal with the present levels of crime, far more attention needs to be paid to state-funded lifestyles that lead people to crime. Ultimately, relieving able people of a responsibility to support themselves relieves them of life's very productive purpose - working to survive. "

The tale of two Tims

From the Waikato Times reporting on National Candidate Tim Macindoe's statement at a candidate meeting;

He also denounced methamphetamine or P users as participants in an evil trade and said dealers should be tried as murderers.

So why not try supermarket check-out operators who sell alcohol "as murderers"? Oh right. They don't have evil intent and 'P' dealers do. Actually 'P' dealers want to make quick, easy, serious money. The illegal status of 'P' makes it difficult (but not impossible) to make and sell. That combined with the high demand results in high prices and high profits.

Here's what the Libertarianz candidate, Tim Wikiriwhi, says;

In response to a question about the P epidemic, Mr Wikiriwhi said prohibition was not the answer and legalising cannabis would result in less P use.

He's got a point. As it is we have created a recreational drug black market of immense proportions and very dark dimensions that cannot be destroyed even using all the force that the state can muster. And yet nearly every political party and candidate continues to pretend that it can.

Cindy Kiro caught out

In August 2007 Steve Braunias interviewed the Children's Commissioner, Cindy Kiro. Here is an excerpt from that interview;

I asked if Nia's torturer's fitted a profile of child abusers. Yes, she said: "Impulsive young males. Poverty. Drug and alcohol background. What I call the normalisation of violence within the family. A tolerance for really quite aberrant behaviour, for thinking that it's OK.

Did that profile include being Maori? "There is a particular issue for the Maori community," she said. "It is true that Maori disproportionately hurt children. But out of 88 children killed between 2002 and 2006, 48 were Pakeha. Maori were 28. The remainder were Pacific Island and a few Asian. So I think people need to get a little bit careful when they start on this business."



At the time I questioned the figures on this blog.

In September 2008 another journalist, Keri Welham, interviewed Kiro for the Dominion Post weekend magazine. Welham reproduced the same figures.

I blogged again pointing out that if these figures were correct there had been a very large increase in child deaths since 2003.

This time I decided to investigate. I rang the Office of the Children's Commissioner and spoke with their 'media' person who promised to call me back when she had located the source of the statistics used in the Dominion Post magazine article. I called her again the next day and she told me that the source was not their office but the article by Steve Braunias. At which point I realised I was going around in circles as Cindy Kiro has been the source for the Braunias statistics.

So I wrote to the Commissioner under the Official Information Act. My letter follows and her response below.





So the Commissioner is confirming "the figures are inaccurate" but still not providing a source. In fact, SHE was the source. I contacted Steve Braunias to confirm that the quote was verbal, emailed him the letter from Kiro and he responded,

"The figures were indeed direct quotes from Cindy Kiro, made to me during the course of the interview. I didn’t discuss any aspect of the story afterwards with her, and there was no call made on her to make any kind of retraction. Good on you for following up on those figures, though. Interesting!"

We now have statistics in the public domain that are grossly inaccurate. That a second journalist used them proves people will access the information and treat it as official and accurate. The Children's Commissioner knows they are inaccurate and has a responsibility to set the record straight. That she has failed to do so amounts to a cover-up of her mistake - accidental or otherwise.

Note the Commissioner's letter says that for the period 2001-2005 the death rate was 0.8 per 100,000. That's approximately 7 deaths or 35 over a 5 year period.

In the context of a discussion about child abuse, claiming 88 children were killed over a five year period only one year removed, and that a majority of them were Pakeha, AND never attempting to correct the statement, is quite reprehensible.

I personally believe she used those erroneous figures to rebut claims that child abuse is a Maori problem. Of course child abuse is not exclusively a Maori problem. But more Maori children are killed through maltreatment than would be the case if their statistics reflected their proportion of the population.

According to the New Zealand Herald Cindy Kiro's contract is up for renewal this year. What has she achieved?

1/ a 28 percent overspend of her budget in 2007/08
2/ a reputation for spending too much time overseas
3/ being instrumental in making the highly unpopular anti-smacking legislation a reality
4/ and now a serious dent in her credibility regarding statistical reliability and objective analysis

She should go and so should her department.

Key on Douglas

This guy deserves the vapid Peter Dunne.

Hell. Some economical austerity is exactly what we need. Rich government, poor people.

"Act warns about growing benefit roll"

Out early pamphleteering this morning, to avoid the nasty weather predicted for later, it was a surprise to hear my press statements being picked up by NewstalkZB. They ran one about the growing DPB numbers during the 9am news and the other about the Invalid Benefit blow-out at 11am. I was surprised because I had issued the statements as 'welfare commentator' but they went to air as ACT party releases.

Act warns about growing benefit roll

25/10/2008 12:32:01

The Act Party is predicting a growing roll of people on the invalids benefit, if Labour gets back into office.

Figures from the Ministry of Social Development show there were 78,000 people on the benefit a year ago, but more than 83,000 now claim support.

Act candidate Lindsay Mitchell says it is the biggest single annual rise since Labour came to power. She is concerned that the length of time people remain on the benefit is also growing. Mrs Mitchell says there is a steady input of people going on the benefit and fewer people coming off.

Trigger happy Hutt City Council

Today in the mail I received this;



Never before have I received such a document. I had recently incurred a $12 fine for overstaying two hours outside the Petone Library that had now incurred court costs of $30.

But as I read through the notice from the court warning me about the possibility of arrest, that I must contact them immediately if I plan to travel in the next 48 hours, etc, I thought, that fine is not overdue. It is in my pile of bills awaiting payment.

On checking I found sure enough it wasn't due until 28 days after October 7.


So how often are people sent extra fines before time and the payee doesn't realise the court has acted prematurely? How often are people bailed up at airports for not paying fines that are not overdue?

I rang the Justice Department who are blaming the Hutt City Council who have sent it through to the courts before time. It's hard to imagine mine was on its own. This sort of stuff really pisses me off. Not because they nearly got $30 extra dollars out of me but because there is the potential for this process to cause huge inconvenience and embarrassment to people who are fully intending to pay their fines by the due date. I can just picture how angry my husband would have been with me if we were prevented from getting on a plane because I had allegedly not paid a fine. What an unholy row that would have been. Never mind the District Court. It would have been the Divorce Court.

The failure of Labour's 'welfare reforms'

The September quarter benefit statistics have just been released. Ruth Dyson is being very quiet. I have a issued two statements below.

INVALID'S BENEFIT - ANOTHER BLOW-OUT
Thursday, 23 October, 2008

Just released Ministry of Social Development figures show a large rise in Invalid Benefit recipients.

"The previous Minister of Social Development, David Benson-Pope, assured the public more than once that the growth in this benefit was slowing. Yet the numbers have risen from 78, 268 to 83, 618 in the year to September 2008 - a 7 percent rise. In fact, this is the biggest single-year increase since Labour has been in government, " welfare commentator , Lindsay Mitchell, said in response to the news.

"Their much touted plans for reducing the numbers reliant on an invalid's benefit have made no impression. What we are seeing is further evidence of 'welfare reforms' that have failed."

DPB NUMBERS ON THE RISE AGAIN
Thursday, October 23, 2008

Newly released figures from the Ministry of Social Development show that over the past year numbers on the DPB have climbed from 96,673 to 98,473 - a rise of 1,800.

Welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell is not surprised. "I have predicted that the Labour's so-called reforms would run out of steam once those most likely to take up the In Work payment had moved into paid employment."

"What we are now seeing with the DPB is growth in the young uptake, continual gradual growth in Pacific and Maori uptake and in the numbers of women who have children aged 14 and older. Treasury are not forecasting falling numbers either."

"Labour missed a golden opportunity to do something bold with this benefit. From its peak the United States managed to decrease numbers on their equivalent benefit by 70 percent during the prolonged period of good economic growth and low unemployment. Since 1999 Labour have managed a mere 10 percent reduction."

"Let's hope that the next government has a really hard look at what the benefit system is doing to young women and their children by continuing to offer an welfare lifestyle which commonly leads to so much lost potential."

David Garrett - ACT's number 5

I attended one of Maxim's election panel discussions last night primarily to listen to ACT's number 5 David Garrett. I thought I better have a look at and listen to who I am voting for with my Party Vote.

This is a man who doesn't suffer fools. During the discussion about abortion a poor quality heckler suggested Roger Douglas ought to be aborted. Garrett responded to the elderly man, "I think you are confusing the words abort and euthanase. At your age that could be a very dangerous thing Sir."

On the role of the state he was very good. This came up when a question was put about the importance of non-governmental leadership. Garrett exhorted people to lead themselves. We need very little government, he said. (I noted Darren Hughes can't tell the difference between the state and the non-government sector saying that leadership in the community sector, in organisations like the Women's Refuge and Plunket, is very important and that's why Labour wants to fully fund them. What is the difference between a government agency and a fully-funded-by-government agency?)

Mr Garrett upset Hughes when he described a claim by him as a 'lie'. Hughes didn't like the "big bad ACT Party" language, so Garrett repeated it. I approved. I can't stand mincing words. If Garrett knew what Hughes was saying was a lie he has every reason to describe it as such. And it is ironic that the Labour candidate should object to what he sees as unpleasant language when the hecklers supporting Labour are amongst the most rude. (I spoke later with the Rimutaka United Future candidate who is quite upset at the level of nastiness from Labour hecklers she had been witnessing at Upper Hutt meetings. The same wasn't happening at the Hutt South meetings she and I have done together).

The touchiest subject was yet again the anti-smacking legislation. I thought Garrett needed to take a little more care here. We mustn't fall into the trap of using the left's words. Avoid 'beating' and use 'smacking' - always. In response to that hackneyed objection that children should have the same protection as adults he made the point that the reason you don't beat your wife is she knows not to run out onto the road.

Of course that leaves the inference that it is okay to beat your children. Actually Chris Finlayson described the distinction legalistically very, very well. So well I cannot repeat it word for word. (I was impressed with Finlayson who has improved immensely since I last heard him speak on the campaign trail in 2005.)

But I liked too Garrett's directness, his slightly rough edge by comparison (both are barristers). This contrast helped add weight when Garret closed saying ACT would provide the spine in a National government.

Given Garrett was the only non-MP on the panel his performance was credible and creditable.

(My own liberalism still has me feeling slightly uneasy about the three strikes policy. I back it because I agree that ultimately victims and potential victims must be protected. But I can still imagine situations where somebody's circumstances might explain their violent offending - it may be against the same person and they pose no danger to others - or they might be wrongly convicted of a violent offence, and applying a blanket law may produce a miscarriage of justice. But I am not well-versed in this area and Garrett is.)

Campaigning , Catholic meetings and near calamities

Last night I took a punt and went back to basics. Candidates had been given a joint statement from Catholic Bishops to respond to and then take questions. The church was fairly full. The questions were mainly relating to personal and private matters and taking what I will describe as a 'negative' position on abortion, same-sex marriage, voluntary euthanasia, embryo stem cell research, etc. You get the picture.

This is my speech (without the electioneering tagged on the end). I knew we would have plenty of time to talk policy during question time;

We were asked to provide a response to this collective statement by Bishops . I don't much like the word collective. Neither do other members of the ACT Party if they are true to ACT's philosophy. Unlike other parties ACT actually has a defining philosophy. That of individual rights and responsibility. We put the rights of the individual above the rights of the collective because we believe people own their own lives and should be free to live them as they choose providing they inflict no force or harm on others. Of course there are grey areas about what constitutes harm or force, for example Libertarian views can differ on abortion, but in the main we can agree on quite a lot. We can certainly agree that currently the state interferes far too much in our lives.

It seems to me that the Bishops want too much from government and too much from candidates. ACT was formed on the idea of personal responsibility. Look at most of today's problems, some described in here, and the solution to them could be found in the individual taking responsibility and making the right decisions. For instance, if people produced only children that they want and can provide for , much of the New Zealand's child poverty would be resolved. I often muse that if people had and used three things - common sense, commitment and conscientiousness, their lives, and the lives that touch theirs, would be simpler, happier and more effective. Of course, we all make mistakes. The key is to learn something from those mistakes. Unfortunately when the state collective picks up the pieces and buffers the individual from the consequences of their mistakes, many fail to learn anything.

The idea of individual rights should not be confused with selfishness or a culture of 'me first'. Exercising personal responsibility doesn't preclude one from exercising responsibility for someone else. But that care for others, and the acting on it , should be a voluntary matter. We shouldn't mandate governments to exercise social responsibility on our behalf. Because when we do that we are reliant on the government of the day's goals and values matching our own and of course, as many of you have discovered, there is no guarantee of that.

So the best way to ensure that doesn't happen is to reduce the government to as small a role as possible. Unfortunately I sense that the Bishops would like to use the state to serve their values and determinations, as much as any other collective attempts to. That can lead to more conflict than harmony.

In a largely secular, free society, there will always be individuals who have moral values not embraced by the greater community , and you know how that feels. But when that happens the solution is not to ask govt to step in and use organised force but to use moral persuasion and example to change the views of other.

To sum up forcing the collective interests of one group on another doesn't provide a successful blueprint for society. That's what I believe and certainly ACTs current MPs would share the view that individuals should enjoy , and respect I might add, having as much individual freedom as possible.

A number of people approached me after the meeting to thank me for my honesty. I can't think of a better compliment. Two elderly ladies in particular were delighted that I had "said 'no' to the Bishops" and said until then they had never known what ACT actually stands for.

But my gut instincts about honesty are right. People are crying out for honesty (as distinct from somebody simply mirroring their own thoughts) yet get increasingly less of it. I stood in the last two elections because I believe in Rodney Hide. He never evades the hard questions and he never lets down people like me who believe deeply, almost achingly, in the rights of the individual. The world is overflowing with people who want to run other people's lives for them and they fill the ranks of politicians, bureaucrats and religious authoritarians. I can't stand them. But the good news is they are still in a minority and many of the silent minority can't stand them either - although I wouldn't presume to include Catholics.

Low light of my campaign so far came yesterday when I lost my trailer frame to an almighty wind gust. Thankfully nobody was behind me. It must have made a hell of a racket. As luck would have it - my second most welcome dose - an ACT supporter lived nearby. He heard the racket and came to my aid, driving the trailer around the block and back to where I was hanging on to the corflutes madly flapping in the wind and threatening to fly away with me in tow. We managed to bundle the signs into my slightly damaged car and get the frame back onto the trailer. I realised then what had happened. We had put a sign on the back and it had created a build up of pressure inside. That combined with the gale force winds Wellington experienced yesterday was just too much. Last election I towed a trailer for many weeks with no problems but we changed the design. Bad mistake. Today we rebuild it - better and stronger than ever before.

As my good Samaritan waved me off he chortled, "Thank goodness it was you and not a Green Party candidate I had to help. Keep up the good work!"

Sunday campaigning

A different kind of Sunday drive....

What a neat bunch of people. Especially Alwyn who not only supplied his labour and van for the day but had prepared a lunch of pasta and home-made bread (and Doreen left scones) for us to stop off to at midday.

For years Hutt South has had some very generous and loyal volunteers. Thank you all.

DUMPING THE DOLE AVOIDS THE BIGGER ISSUE

Media Release
DUMPING THE DOLE AVOIDS THE BIGGER ISSUE
Friday, October 17, 2008

The Maori Party has announced it wants to abolish the unemployment benefit.

Welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell said in response today, "While this policy has brought commendation from many quarters little analysis has been done on what it would actually achieve."

"In June 1999 there were 42, 074 Maori receiving an unemployment benefit. By June 2008 that number had plummeted to 6,588."

"Over the same period Maori receipt of the domestic purposes benefit has risen from 35,615 to 40,119. "

"While co-leader Tariana Turia is happy to talk about Maori men and their damaging reliance on welfare, she told election commentator, Gordon Campbell , just months ago, that reform did not apply to Maori women. This means it doesn't apply to Maori children either."

"Right now the DPB is a much bigger problem for Maori than the dole. That is because it encourages very young women to have babies they cannot financially or emotionally support; it keeps thousands of Maori children relatively poor; it deprives Maori men of their defining role as provider; it makes women vulnerable to free-loaders who do not want to support a family, preferring to spend the money they earn on themselves; it causes intergenerational welfare dependence, with female children more likely to depend on the DPB in turn and it increases the likelihood that children will suffer neglect and abuse."

"Only 8 percent of the 81,369 working-age Maori on welfare are on the dole. As it stands the Maori Party needs to focus on how to wean their people off those benefits where the numbers are still heading in the wrong direction. "

Charter schools succeed where state schools fail

In the United States charter schools exist and succeed where others fail. They are still publicly funded but run more like businesses. To paraphrase Wikipedia, charter schools have been freed from some of the rules, regulations, and statutes that apply to other public schools in exchange for some type of accountability for producing certain results. (You've got to wonder why state schools aren't accountable). Charter schools are able to specialize and emphasise uniqueness.

Sounds like the results a voucher system could provide. Schools like KIPP, and in Sweden, Kunskapsskolan could operate here if we could get vouchers introduced. Given the results these organisations are achieving it beggars belief that anyone would oppose similar reform.

The demand for more educational choice in predominantly minority South Los Angeles is pronounced. The waitlist for existing Inner City Education Foundation (ICEF) schools has at times exceeded 6,000 kids. And no wonder. Like KIPP, Green Dot and other charter school networks that aren't constrained by union rules on staffing and curriculum, ICEF has an excellent track record, particularly with black and Hispanic students. In reading and math tests, ICEF charters regularly outperform surrounding traditional public schools as well as other Los Angeles public schools.

ICEF has been operating since 1994, and its flagship school has now graduated two classes, with 100% of the students accepted to college. By contrast, a state study released in July reported that one in three students in the L.A. public school system -- including 42% of black students -- quits before graduating, a number that has grown by 80% in the past five years.

Despite this success, powerful unions like the California Teachers Association and its political backers continue to oppose school choice for disadvantaged families. Last year, Democratic state lawmakers, led by Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez, tried to force Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to sign a bill that would have made opening a new charter school in the state next to impossible. Mr. Nunez backed down after loud protests from parents in poorer neighborhoods.

School reformers in New York, Ohio, Florida, Connecticut, Utah and Arizona have faced similar challenges of late. Last year in Texas, where 81% of charter school students are minorities (versus 60% in traditional public schools), nearly 17,000 students had to be placed on charter waiting lists. Texas is currently bumping up against an arbitrary cap on the number of charters that can open in the state. Unless the cap is lifted by state lawmakers, thousands of low-income Texas children will remain stuck in ineffective schools.

Back in California, ICEF says that its ultimate goal is to produce 2,000 college graduates each year, in hopes that the graduates eventually will return to these underserved communities and help create a sustainable middle class. Given that fewer than 10% of high-school freshmen in South Los Angeles currently go on to receive a college diploma, this is a huge challenge. Resistance from charter school opponents won't make it any easier.

Turia still off the mark on welfare

Yesterday Tariana Turia was speaking in Flaxmere;

"I'm opposed to the dole. I don't think it is healthy for the spirit of our people, to be getting money for doing nothing."

Good. I agree.

But in May she had this exchange with Gordon Campbell;

Campbell: You’re saying welfare is bad for Maori, so we have to break the cycle by introducing a compulsory element -

Turia : We’re talking Maori unemployed. We’re not talking about Maori women on benefits.

There are 7252 Maori on the dole. Around two thirds are men.

However, there are around 73,000 Maori on other benefits. I estimate almost two thirds are women, most on the DPB.

There is a very clear line in Turia's mind between being paid to 'do nothing' without kids and being paid to do nothing with kids. So the message is clear. If you want to be paid to do nothing, make sure you have a child who is dependent on you. Hence the disproportionate incidence of child neglect amongst Maori. That neglect gives rise to later problems like learning difficulties, truancy, early pregnancy, alcohol and substance abuse and problems with the law. (None of which is exclusive to Maori but Tariana talks exclusively about Maori).

I cannot take her seriously until she acknowledges that the problem of welfare extends beyond just the dole and Maori men.

If it was only the dole causing the kind of social dysfunction experienced disproportionately by Maori then matters would have improved dramatically over the past decade. They haven't.

Serious debate or big-time brawl?

Some readers will be old enough to remember a popular New Zealand TV show called 'On The Mat'.

It featured bawdy big-time wrestlers and was full of faux anger, irate indignation and pretend pain. But audiences loved it. People bought it. People believed it.

I wonder if tonight's debate between Clark and Key will satisfy the same shallow emotions? After all the two main parties are essentially caricatures of true opponents. They'll strut and glower, feign animosity and moral superiority; one may even take a pummelling, but at the end of the night they'll walk off together, with our money in their pockets.

Extending the welfare mentality

My son will turn up at university the year the parental income threshold goes completely. That's $153 a week for you, young man. What for? To vote Labour, that's what for.

We understand the concept of debauching beneficiaries with easy money, and easy credit, yet are so quick to extend the process. This is a mind-numbingly foolish policy.

First sign goes up

Disability and benefits

Reading about health issues or listening to people wax on about them bores me witless. The Dominion Post has a resident health columnist by the name of Chris Kalderimis. He knows how boring health is so he gets people's attention by rather cynically using photos of dead guys - recently dead - to discuss what killed them. Last week it was Paul Newman, to discuss lung cancer and smoking (even though we don't know whether Paul Newman smoked) and today it is Rob Guest and stroke. Casting a reluctant eye over the text (only slightly less reluctant than the one I cast over political news) I noticed this statement;

"In New Zealand stroke is the leading cause of disability..."

Being reasonably familiar with the leading reasons why people rely on disability benefits this rather floored me.

More recent figures are most certainly available but the following are those I can quickly lay my hands on.

At July 2004 1,435 people were receiving a sickness or invalid's benefit due to having suffered a stroke. That's 1.2 percent of all the people on those benefits.

Either there is a massive number of people who have suffered strokes who are not relying on welfare or there are thousands of people who are on benefits who do not suffer from what this doctor would class as genuine disabilities.

It's not a politically easy business questioning the number of people who rely full time on a sickness or invalid's benefit but given there are now over 130,000 whereas in the 1940s (post-war),1950s,1960s and 1970s there were never more than 20,000 some serious attention is overdue.

Early puberty in the NZ context

I believe this guy, Professor Peter Gluckman, is onto something. Not necessarily with his collectivist call for action - parents need to take more responsibility - but with his theory that the earlier onset of puberty is a fairly significant problem.

A Swiss study showed that children who went through puberty earlier were more likely to abuse drugs and alcohol, be more anxious and depressed and have sex earlier. "In boys, the attempted suicide rate was five times higher in those who went through early puberty than those who went through it at a normal age, which is a frightening statistic. Nothing I know of comes close as a risk factor for teen suicide," said Gluckman.

Being Maori also presents a much higher risk factor than being non-Maori, but not 5 times higher. Look around you and it is pretty obvious that Maori and Pacific males and females often develop younger. I hadn't thought of it in terms of a 'national crisis' but greater awareness of it can only be good. I know of two Maori boys who took their own lives - both over a girl. Such a sad, sad waste. And if it isn't suicide, it is some other response which lands them in trouble.

There is a theory - I read about it in a James Belich book - that many of our contemporary social problems stem from the time education became compulsory and teenage boys and girls were put together in secondary schools. Until then they hadn't routinely mixed on a day-to-day basis.

Well, we can't go putting that one back in the bottle. But with ever-increasing early puberty and day-to-day exposure to the opposite sex the potential for problems is heightened. Yes. I definitely think he is onto something.

Flatter and fairer is what we need

These guys want politicians to essentially put aside their differences and resolve how to ride out the economic crisis.

If politicians can't put aside their differences in the good times, how are they going to do it in a crisis, when the outcomes riding on their decisions are even more crucial? Having said that, there is no real difference between Labour and National and they should be able to concur on some nutty statist 'solutions' like enticing ex-pats home with tax breaks those of us who stayed here won't get.

It's all a bit holier-than-thou to slag off tax cuts to middle New Zealand but then suggest targeted tax cuts as one of their own silver bullets. More state manipulation of the tax system and bestowal of privilege should be avoided now as much as at any other time.

Flatter and fairer is what we need. (And I wish economists would stop referring to subsidies as tax credits. In my dictionary a tax credit is only possible if an entity or individual has paid some tax. Soon we will hear social welfare benefits referred to as 'tax credits'. The language is intended to neutralise emotions and sanctify receipt of other people's money.)

Suspend the sex education lessons - now

Remember this wee baby?



And people say children grow up so fast.

Daisy is on heat. Forgive my naivety but I haven't had the privilege of sharing a house with a cat on heat before. And this cat rivals Cactus Kate in the over-abundance of testosterone stakes.

Unfortunately the kids have realised they can get her going simply by simulating her "I'm ready, boy am I ready " mewls. The first few times we watched her wiggling her arse and lifting her back legs at anything that moves it was hilarious. But I am so over it.

We all need to get some sleep at night - her included.

Anyone for a kitten?

Labour has widened income gaps

There is significant disparity between the growth rate of average weekly income (for all people, from all sources) between Auckland and Wellington.

Auckland has seen the lowest increase of 16 percent in the five years to June 2008, whereas Wellington has enjoyed a 35 percent increase, the second highest in the country. I have charted the various regional increases below;

Taranaki 41 percent
Wellington 35
Nelson/Tasman/Marl/West Coast 33
Southland 31
Otago 30
Gisborne/Hawke's Bay 26
Bay of Plenty 25
Canterbury 24
Manawatu-Wanganui 19
Waikato 19
Auckland 16
Northland 16

In 2004 the difference in the regions between the highest incomes (Auckland) and lowest (Otago) was $169

In 2008 the difference in the regions between the highest incomes (Wellington) and lowest (Northland) is $246

Isn't it ironic how the great equaliser's - the Left - through ever-increasing government, have only managed to widen income gaps.

Coro St trumps candidates?

Yesterday evening saw the local Rotary-organised meet-the-candidates assembly which is traditional and held in the Muritai School hall. It usually pulls the biggest crowd of the campaign at 2-300. Last night 60 people showed up to hear 9 candidates. Theories as to why ranged from it being Coro night to people having already made their minds up. I tended towards the second. Or is it simply that meetings have had their day?

The memorable moment for me was when a member of the audience asked what each party intended to do about the continuing persecution of cannabis users? NZ First's Ron Mark leapt quickly to his feet, strode to the mike and said, "Nothing" and sat back down. Trevor Mallard followed suit, "Nothing", and finally the National Party candidate stood and said he would be the "third stooge" and agree with both. I saw red. So I walked to the edge of the stage, carefully confirmed that ACT had no policy to decriminalise but that, being at the socially liberal end of the party, I opposed prohibition. Then turning to the aforementioned candidates I lambasted their position, describing the worsening, highly destructive affects of prohibition, and their collective refusal to abandon the status quo, as negligence. To be honest I can't remember quite what I said but to my surprise the audience enthusiastically cheered. I am not sure whether it was because I was angrily dressing down the three stooges or because they agreed.

But I do believe the ground is shifting on this one. Not before time.

(The Green candidate later thanked me for what I had said and even forgave me for my remark about their billboards which she had waxed lyrical about during her speech. Responding in my address I pointed out that every party could justify having children saying Vote For Me on their billboards and if it was a choice between Sue Bradford and children, they probably would.)

"The pain of bureaucracy"

Fortunately the Hutt News is still publishing letters from submitters who are also temporarily candidates. The Dominion Post will not while the election campaign is on. I had an amicable conversation with their letters editor about their policy and she confirmed this. At least I now know not to waste my time.

I like the title this one was given.

Treasury costs ETS

Now where would you go to find the projected cost of the Emissions Trading Scheme?

Well, I sure as hell wouldn't have looked for it under Culture and Heritage. But there it is. Projected to cost the taxpayer a mere $billion within 5 years. But that's just the direct costs....

It's not over yet for Helen

Here's what Helen Clark told the Maori Women's Welfare League 56th Conference on Friday;

You have my word : under Labour, the Maori electorates will stay as long as Maori want them to stay.

Every five years, the Maori electoral option gives Maori that choice.

It would be wrong, wrong, wrong for a Pakeha majority to take that choice away.

Yet under National Party policy, there would only be one more election with Maori seats after this one.

In electoral terms, that’s gone by lunchtime.

"You have my word". Intimate and compelling. Clark now has a powerful tool to pull the Maori party vote (and the Maori Party support.)

A tool possibly powerful enough to win another term.

What will Turia do? Turn her back on the party that stole their property rights to support a party that will steal their electoral power-base?

It's going to be fascinating.

Gazumped

Today's Dominion Post features the front page headline "National plan for life to mean life - two strikes policy for violent crimes".

Ye Gods. Gazumped. ACT's policy is only three strikes.

Clever move by National. Makes ACT irrelevant on the very ground they chose to fight the election on.

Where ACT should have gone - publicly - is to the root of most crime and the best way to prevent it. Serious and radical welfare reform. National would never follow them there.

It's OK to lock up high risk violent offenders for life but what about the next generation of criminals being bred every day under our policy of paying people without the means - either material or emotional - to have babies? Under our obsessive state-backed anti-adoption stance? Under our 'the child is always best with its biological mother' policy? Under our 'if you have an addiction you can live off the taxpayer' policy? Under our 'being a victim of ongoing domestic violence but staying with the perpetrator qualifies you for the DPB' policy? Under our 'men are alienated and neutered by the anti-male bias of the welfare system but we don't give a shit' policy?

No. National wouldn't go there.

A day with the MP for Epsom

Steve Braunias (I thought he had retired?) spends a day with Rodney Hide on the campaign trail. Steve's writing is always to the point; sharp bordering on lethal. But I think he has spared Rodney. It mightn't be a winner for ACT but certainly won't harm the high-profile MP for Epsom.