Welfare and unfunded liabilities

As it is Budget Day let's talk about money. The discussion can be opened by Jim Powell of the Future of Freedom Organisation;

Back in 1935, when Social Security was being debated, nobody talked about billions of dollars of unfunded liabilities. “Trillions” was beyond comprehension. Social Security generates unfunded liabilities because current Social Security payroll taxes go to pay for current benefits, and nothing is set aside to cover future benefits of current taxpayers. FDR’s smart advisors assumed that the number of taxpayers would increase as fast as the number of people collecting benefits, but the number of people collecting benefits has grown faster, and now Social Security is going broke.

In New Zealand the same is true. The number of people collecting benefits has grown faster than taxpayers.



This table doesn't extend to the present (unemployment well down, DPB steady, Sickness and Invalid's well up) but you get the picture.

It seems to me, and has for a long time now, that this country needs to be reforming welfare because of the damage it does first, and because of the cost second. But I grow less and less optimistic that the first imperative will be realised. Sadly it will be the second. Sadly because the second will hurt people more.

You see we could have done this in a planned and compassionate way while the economy was in good shape. Instead of saying to existing beneficiaries, there is no money available for your benefit, we should have been saying to young people, there is no money available to you if you drop out of school, don't support yourself or any child you produce. The distinction is sharp.

Let's flesh it out. For example, there are over 4,000 teenage parents on a benefit right now. They all came into the system after 2005 - during a time of low unemployment. These individuals will typically stay on welfare until their late 30s. So a crude calculation means they alone are going to cost $1.6 billion. Of course that leaves out the costs of their families health and education and other social needs which could easily double the figure.

If our politicians were prepared to bite the bullet and close the door to future long-term dependants billions could be saved. Instead John Key is acting like Obama, promising to retain all social security entitlements and even extending them.

Being in a recession shouldn't and hasn't eased the urgent need for reform. It has brought the crunch closer. But the sooner the country wakes up to that, the softer the crunch will be.

I just don't get it

I really, really don't want to be insensitive or offensive here but there is something that always puzzles me. Tragically, a keeper was attacked and killed by a lion today and the lion was subsequently destroyed.

This is a rare and valuable animal kept in captivity for the purposes of, one assumes, preservation of the species. It is commonly understood that such an animal, given the opportunity, is quite capable of killing. So when it does just that, we destroy it. Can anyone explain that to me?

Law Society Opposes Three Strikes

There is no link available yet but NewstalkZB is reporting the Law Society is opposing the three strikes bill. They want sentencing discretion to stay with the judge. A spokesperson didn't think the "blunt instrument" that is three strikes was conducive or consistent with "social development". They also believe that a three strikes policy could have the unintended consequence of encouraging criminals facing their third strike to kill any potential witnesses. Um. If judges are to continue to use their discretion I wish a few more would give public safety a higher priority.

Update; The radio report led me to assume that the Law Society had just submitted on the bill but according to this report that happened earlier in the month. I am mystified as to why it has become newsworthy again today.

A socialist wishlist

The Child Poverty Action Group has released a list of recommendations for the budget. Its a socialist wishlist and as such, a waste of their time.

CPAG has nine recommendations for the Government leading up to this year’s Budget:

1) Set a target date to end child poverty, and undertake to produce a child impact assessment for all proposed legislation.

There is only relative poverty in NZ. By definition it is impossible to end it.

2) Treat all children as deserving support and acknowledge that parenting is important work. Recognise the ‘In-Work Tax Credit’ as part of family assistance that is needed by all low-income families, as the ReStart package proves. This should be done by adding $60 to the first child rate of the Family Tax Credit.

As I have commented before if there is no financial incentive to work more people will opt for or stay on benefits. Having no working parent is bad for children.

3) Increase social assistance payments to adequate levels, and make good on the pre-election promise of raising the earned income disregard for beneficiaries from $80 to at least $100.

What is an 'adequate' level? The second part of 3 I agree with.

4) Abandon development of proposals for income splitting.

Agree. Flat tax would be better.

5) Provide free primary health care for under-18s, at all hours.

The resources aren't there. Many people can afford to take their children to the doctor but can't find one.

6) Increase the operating grants for low-decile schools to cover all children’s basic educational needs, including the provision of amenities such as swimming pools.

The grants are already heavily weighted towards low decile schools.

7) Ensure that 20 hours free ECE is extended to Playcentre, Kôhanga Reo, state kindergartens, and not-for-profit private and community-based education and care services.

As with GPs the lack of amenities is more of a problem than affordability. And already, many low-income children have a single mother who is paid to look after her children full-time and, on top of that, paid a subsidy to put them in ECE. This is a recessionary budget isn't it?

8) Urgently address the severe overcrowding and poor living conditions of thousands of children by expanding the state house building programme and providing extra funding to community housing providers.

More state housing = more ghetto-like neighbourhoods. Explain to people that having children makes them poorer (unless they are on a benefit). If they are already poor, it might not be a great idea having more.

9) Tax capital gain from residential property in a fair way, for example by using the risk-free rate of return method.

Oh yeah. Keep on taxing the 'rich' to pay for all of the above. They won't mind.

In addition, the group urges the Government to implement plans to improve children’s access to better nutrition, including making breakfast in schools available unconditionally to all children in all Decile 1, 2 and 3 schools.

If their parents can't afford to get a couple of pieces of toast into them before they go out the door they need budget advice. Not more money.

Racist law

In an increasingly multi-racial country more care should be taken with the term 'racist'. Housing NZ want to add a clause to new housing tenancy agreements requiring that permission is sought for someone to be bailed or paroled to one of its properties.

Council for Civil Liberties chairman Michael Bott said the measure was racist, as Maori and Pacific Islanders were the most heavily represented in the court and prison system.

It isn't racist. If the clause specified permission must be sought only for Maori or Pacific Islanders it would be racist. This is also a favourite with the Maori Party. To incorrectly label a law that disproportionately affects Maori as racism.

In the past genuinely racist laws have existed. Maori women were barred from drinking in pubs, Asians were barred from collecting the old-age pension. These laws were racist because they excluded someone based purely on their race.

Following Michael Bott's line of thought we would arrive at the following; Any law that Maori disproportionately break is a racist law.

First do no harm

Dear me. Same old solutions trotted out again. This time by the Prime Minister no less.

Prime Minister John Key is proposing to combat the drug P by banning its main ingredient, pseudoephedrine, from use in over-the-counter cold and flu tablets.

He's been listening to New Zealand's premier drug-war proponent;

Methamphetamine consultant Mike Sabin said pseudoephedrine had been taken off shop shelves and made prescription-only in Oregon, which was now leading the United States in combating the drug.

"If you want to control meth, you've got to control pseudo - and getting rid of pseudo is the only way you can control it."

According to the US Department of Justice;

The distribution and abuse of methamphetamine, primarily Mexican ice methamphetamine, pose the greatest drug threat to the Oregon HIDTA [high intensity frug trafficking area] region. In August 2005 Oregon passed legislation requiring a doctor’s prescription for the purchase of cold and allergy medications that contain ephedrine or pseudoephedrine; Oregon was the first state in the nation to enact such a requirement. This legislation significantly reduced local methamphetamine production but has not reduced the amount of metham-phetamine available in the state....

Methamphetamine availability will increase as Mexican DTOs [drug trafficking organisations] establish a stronger foothold in the methamphetamine market by supplying increasing amounts of Mexican ice methamphetamine. How-ever, methamphetamine production within the Oregon HIDTA region will continue to decrease. Outdoor and indoor marijuana production will rise in the near term. Thousands of acres of public lands in Oregon on which law enforcement policing is limited will enable Mexican DTOs to operate an increasing number of cannabis grow sites in rural,unpopulated areas with relative impunity. Additionally, Asian DTOs will most likely establish additional indoor cannabis grow operations within the Oregon HIDTA region to supply increasing demand for high-potency marijuana in the HIDTA region as well as in neighboring markets.

And another source reports;

Today, it’s undeniable that Oregon’s laws were hugely successful in one area: The meth labs that endangered children and created hidden toxic waste dumps in basements and backyards across the state have been all but eliminated.

As the officers indicate, however, that success has borne unintended consequences — thanks to a massive influx of meth supplied by Mexican drug cartels.

Interviews with numerous local law enforcement officials and several meth addiction counselors — as well as a pending federal meth case investigated by the Portland Tribune’s news partner, Fox News 12 — suggest that Oregon’s legislative changes contributed to a radical transformation in the underground meth economy, one that in some ways is making the problem even more difficult to fight.

“The labs are gone, but there’s more meth,” said a longtime Portland Police Bureau drug cop, Sgt. Brian Schmautz, who stressed that he was only speaking for himself, not the agency.

“I’m not saying (Oregon’s meth laws are) not a good thing,” he said. “But we shouldn’t be fooled and say we have less meth, or less meth-related crime.”

And if you think our isolation makes us invulnerable you are wrong. From NZ Customs;

Recent drug seizures by Customs indicate strongly that New Zealand's borders are under a three-pronged attack from the illicit drug trade.

The first attack is the emergence of New Zealand as a target of transnational drug trafficking syndicates, notably trafficking in Amphetamine Type Substances (ATS). Crystal methamphetamine ("ice") is becoming the drug of choice for drug traffickers, with more than 3kg intercepted at the border so far this year in four separate significant seizures. One of the interceptions led to a joint Police/Customs investigation team recovering an additional 7kgs of recently imported crystal methamphetamine.

The second attack is the use of New Zealand as a transit point for large drug shipments destined for the larger Australian market. This is particularly the case with cocaine arriving from South America. In the first four months of this year Customs seized more than 15kgs of cocaine in eight separate cases. Investigations showed it was all destined for Australia.

The third attack is the continuing increase in the amount of precursor substances being imported for methamphetamine production. In the first four months of this year more than 770,000 tablets, or powder equivalent, of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine-based substances were seized in 175 separate incidents. This compares to 830,000 tablets seized in 444 cases for the whole of 2003.

I repeat, first do no harm.

Clear as mud - S59

NZ Child Protection Specialists (CPS), whoever they are, put out a press release today attempting to clarify the confusion they claim exists over the removal of section 59;

Mrs Simcock likes to use an analogy around school attendance to help people understand and not fear the law.

“It is illegal in New Zealand to not send your child to school. I am sure every parent has, for some reason, kept their child away from school before. No one ever expects that all parents will be charged and made criminals because of those one or two days that most parents have kept their children away from school.

However, we DO expect that those parents who intentionally and repeatedly keep their children out of school, or allow their children to be repeatedly truant, should be dealt with according to the law. These parents are jeopardising the social, academic and pshycological future of their children.”

How does that work? One could just as easily claim that retaining section 59 - the ability to claim a defence of using reasonable force - is analogous to the law regarding school attendance. Ergo, it is illegal to not send your child to school (it is illegal to strike your child) except when reasonable circumstances dictate (except when the force used is reasonable in the circumstances).

I don't believe the public is confused. They know there is now legally no defence at all for smacking a child because smacking constitutes assault. The only uncertainty lies in whether the police will prosecute or look the other way.

The self-deprecation of the Irish

Talking to Kim Hill about the rapid contraction of the Irish economy, writer, Fintan O'Toole quipped,

"The rest of the world says, 'Things are serious, but they are not desperate yet'. Here we say, 'Things are desperate, but they are not serious yet.'"

I went looking for the interview and also noticed this earlier one; Richard Thaler: libertarian paternalism.

This encompasses ideas like enrolling everybody in schemes but allowing them to opt out. So state decides what is best for you (paternalism) but can't force you to comply (libertarianism). Or state decides what is bad for you and uses every measure it can (stopping short of banning) to make you less likely to do it. It's all about 'nudging' people to make the right choices.

Paid Parental Leave - Treasury got it wrong

In the 2003 BEFU, Treasury predicted, based on 2003 actual figures, the uptake of Paid Parental Leave (a welfare benefit) would increase 27 percent by 2007. What actually happened? The 12,372 people receiving PPL in 2003 grew to 28,852 - or 133 percent - in 2007.

Lesson; If you throw free money at people and want to guess how many will hold their hands out, make your estimate high and then double it - at least.

Grandparents raising grandchildren

The scale of the practice of grandparents raising grandchildren seems unknown. Yesterday a reader alerted me to some Family Court statistics regarding the application for a parenting order (or in old jargon, custody).

In 2007 alone at least 2,452 grandparents applied. The year before, an only slightly smaller number. If on average around 60,000 children are born each year it is conceivable that over 1 in 30 children is being raised by a grandparent, or will be in the future.

While there can be no doubt these children will be better off with someone who genuinely wants them, they nevertheless impose a significant burden on older people who often have limited resources (notwithstanding many grandparents are still relatively young). It is an issue that gets canvassed at each election with calls for greater financial support from government. Unexpectedly, at a Grey Power meeting, one women stood up and said, they are your flesh and blood, your grandchildren, just get on with it and stop asking for handouts.

While grandparents raising grandchildren deserve appreciation for stepping into the breach, the woman had a point. This is yet another example of people wanting the taxpayer to assume a responsibility that is actually theirs. It is exactly this type of thinking, a societal expectation that parents should be paid to produce children they cannot care for, that often lands the grandparent in the subsequent bind.

Too inconvenient to break the law?

In just over a month the gang patch ban is due to come into effect in Wanganui. Apparently;

Chester Borrows says the gangs have resigned themselves to abiding by the law, because it is going to be too inconvenient to skirt around it.

At first glance this is an absurd assertion. Like gangs abide by other laws because it is just too inconvenient not to. Sure.

But at second glance, there may be a grain of truth lurking. In the interests of breaking weightier laws some gang members might just comply. A senior cop told me in the 1990s that gangs were becoming less visible because the kind of serious money they were involved in meant they wanted to attract less attention.

It remains to be seen how the lower echelons react.

Wild Wellington

The last two days in Wellington have been wild. But the dog gets walked by the waterline every day - come rain or shine. That is where she runs at top speed,impervious to the conditions, barking like a maniac at the gulls held up in the gale force winds, un-phased by waves crashing over her despite the fact she has never demonstrated to us she can swim.

Our beach has changed shape over night. All manner of sea-life has been cast adrift; starfish, paua, mussels and many animals we couldn't identify. Getting out and into it is invigorating but there is no way to stay dry. My bright idea of 100% cover-up, a $2 shop orange poncho (which David says looks like an enormous condom) was an utter failure. Eventually we had to abandon the beach leaving one hardy soul trying to secure his boat hull. Yes. You can keep your warmer climes with blue days on blue days. Give me the dramatic changeability Wellington serves up any day.

Today the ferries are cancelled. Here's one leaving Wellington on a similar day with a captain no doubt wishing he'd stayed in berth. Warning; Don't watch if you get seasick.

Beneficiaries of human error

Wouldn't you know it. In a week when someone gets $10,000,000 mistakenly put in their account, I score a packet of wrongly priced sausages.


Think about all the people who have failed to pick that error up. The person who created the label,the person who put the sausages on the butchery shelf (who may very well have been someone different from the labeller), the check-out operator - and me!

The only little f-----r who noticed was my cat who thought, hey, whaddya know. Sausages for a cent each. That's cheaper than jellimeat. Oh yeah. They must be for me. That label looks like a good point of entry.....

Torture or tortured logic?

Speaking on behalf of the Maori Party;

"We agree with the UN when its says that the severe pain caused by tasers could be seen as a form of torture and could even kill someone," Mr Harawira said.

"The last time I checked the job description of this country's police force I didn't come across any duty to torture people.

"We realise there are dangerous people out there, but we also know there are innocent people out there and therefore we don't want tools of torture in the hands of police or anyone else for that matter.

So there are dangerous people out there, and there are innocent people out there. And yes, we do all know that. We also know it is the job of the police to protect the innocent people from the dangerous people. In the pursuit of fulfilling that expectation the police are given tools like batons and dogs. We don't make a song and dance about the possibility of innocent people falling foul of batons and dogs, both of which could kill inadvertently. Both of which are capable of inflicting severe pain.

I just don't get Hone Harawira sometimes.

Blog roll added

A near dis-arse-ter trying to add a bog-roll - sorry - blogroll. I had to upgrade my blog first. What should have been a three minute exercise turned into three hours after I lost my site meter and couldn't figure out how to reinstall it. On trying to copy the html for it into the new template I was playing around with I lost the lot. I thought the new template was easier to read, changed to that and then remembered lots of people don't like change so reverted back. After three and a half years - that's how old my blog is, not how long it took - I was feeling like a new look but then again, there is probably something to be said for branding.

Hope you find the new list useful.

Shearer thoughtless and ill-considered

Watching TV3 news last night we saw Mt Albert Labour candidate David Shearer putting his foot right down his throat inferring that growing unemployment in migrant communities would lead to more crime emanating from them. He was appearing on an Indian TV programme. Initially the remark is directed towards the people of the interviewer, but Shearer swerves and instead directs it to Pacific people. You can see the brief item and ensuing comments over at Whale Oil.

Some seem to think Shearer was right. Trevor Mallard comments, Looked pretty good to me. Certainly more articulate than monday's postcabber.

I think he was wrong. I think his comments were thoughtless and ill-considered. Pacific people do have disproportionately high unemployment rates and Shearer's recent data was correct. But they do not commit crime at a rate disproportionate to their share of the population.

Convictions for all crime in 2006 had the following ethnicity breakdown;

NZ European 45 %
Maori 43
Pacific 9
Other 3

Shearer's was the typical laziness of thinking that lumps all brown people, especially polynesians, together. Some ethnicities do better at supporting each other through unemployment. Some ethnicities have stronger families. Rising unemployment does not automatically lead to more crime.

How big the hikoi?

Talk about betting on two flies climbing up a wall. The Australians are now gambling on the unemployment rate.

I was turning that one over when I started reading about Monday's hikoi to protest the omission of guaranteed Maori seats from the Super City council. It's going to be a biggy. Maori are amazingly effective at mobilising the troops. But I am picking many Pakeha will be joining them. One estimate is that 6,000 will turn out. Umm. Perhaps we could be betting on that. I will listen to JT and Willie Jackson this afternoon promoting the hikoi, listen to the feedback and then take a stab at it.

Seems to me Auckland is in the mood for a huge bun fight.

There is no excuse for not supporting Brash Inquiry

Between 2003 and 2005 hundreds of e-mails were stolen from the Leader of the Opposition. You are all familiar with the subsequent details. Mercifully Don Brash is not going to let the ensuing corrupt cover-up die a death. Good for him.

Anybody who doesn't support his call for a Commission of Inquiry into the police handling of his stolen e-mails should examine their motives. As Brash says, it isn't about him. It is much bigger than that.

Many New Zealanders are far too smug and complacent about their country being corruption-free. Others want to turn a blind eye to this issue simply because they don't care for Don Brash. Others won't brook any criticism of the police. Others will want it buried because it is a very bad look for one or other of the two main political parties.

They are all illegitimate, unworthy, evasive cop-outs.

Update. That was quick. Too quick. Why weren't "all practical avenues of investigation" exhausted in the first police investigation? Isn't that an admission they were buggering about? Brash should get the independent Commission of Enquiry he asked for. Not another potential whitewash

Dunne's opposition to Christine Rankin

This a is a great quote from Garth George's column today;

I'm not a bit surprised that Mr Dunne has expressed his displeasure at Ms Rankin's appointment since the last thing a fence-sitter needs is for someone to shake the fence.

To be honest I was mildly confused at Peter Dunne's reaction to Christine Rankin's appointment as a Families Commissioner. Dunne would have been dismayed to have his Commission hijacked by "the lefty liberals who so appealed to Labour and the Greens." At the outset, during the select committee stages, the controversy was about defining the family. The 'inclusive' approach won the day;

The Commission will not work on behalf of individual families, but will advocate on behalf of all families, in all their forms. It will not be prescriptive about what a family is, or what form it should take.

This approach guarantees and sanctions the continuance of family formations that rely on the state. If the Families Commission was ever going to achieve anything it would have been to question what role government has played in weakening families, not what role it should play in strengthening them. But no. They took the easy, anything goes, approach.

Rankin is undoubtedly in the marriage-and-two-parents-is-good-for-children camp. The same camp I would have thought as Dunne.

So I think his fierce opposition must come down to personality. The sometimes purse-lipped Mr Dunne must disapprove of Rankin's style more than her substance.

Or he suspects that Rankin could threaten the very survival of his Commission and he would rather have it as the useless entity it is than not at all. That would be somewhat pathetic.

Whatever is behind his opposition isn't well-motivated. He isn't a left Liberal yet is taking their side. Perhaps it is just the usual 'putting Peter first' modus operandi we have all come to know....which I guess is what Garth George was saying.

A new make-work scheme

What a colossal waste of parliamentary time.

Ex unionist, Darien Fenton, asked 140 separate written parliamentary questions about the number of people on various benefits, at various times, at various service centres only to be told;

Hon Paula Bennett (Minister for Social Development and Employment) replied: I refer the Member to the Ministry of Social Development’s quarterly benefit factsheets, which are published on the Ministry’s website (www.msd.govt.nz). This is also my response to written parliamentary questions 6219 to 6285 and 6304 to 6377 (2009).

Some of the questions asked for information about non-quarterly totals which wouldn't be published but 140 questions could nevertheless have been condensed into 3 or 4 quite easily. Perhaps filibustering has become institutionalised.

And the irony. The only other time Darien Fenton has come to my attention was when she was whining about New Zealanders working too hard.

Ms Fenton says the time has come to change the way people think about how many hours they should be working. She believes employers should also take a good hard look at how much work they throw at staff.

We mustn't laugh though. We are paying for it.

The men are catching up

Just released by Statistics New Zealand ... the men are catching up:

A newborn girl can expect to live an average of 82.2 years and a newborn boy 78.2 years, Statistics New Zealand said today. These levels for 2006–08 represent longevity gains of 1.1 years for females and 1.9 years for males since 2000–02. Since 1975–77, life expectancy at birth has increased by 6.8 years for females and 9.2 years for males. This has resulted from reductions in death rates at all ages.

Any suggestions as to why? Be as frivolous as you like.

Clinging to failed ideas

An advocacy manager for Unicef NZ has written a piece in this morning's DomPost resisting the suggestion that more 12-13 year-olds be dealt with in the Youth Court. To background it, 12 and 13 year-olds are currently dealt with through family conferences and the Family Court as a last resort.

.....the family group conference and Family Court system provide the best opportunity for rehabilitation...our youth justice system is highly regarded and has a reputation in New Zealand and abroad for achieving good results....our youth justice system is enlightened and reasonable - we just need more of it.

The reader should by this stage be feeling moderately confident that youth offending in New Zealand is comparably low then. But no.

What is worrying is that violent acts are on the increase...

The legislative act that created our current system is 20 years old. I would have thought that if it isn't achieving after this length of time there is good cause to change it. But Unicef typically clings to past ideas. Not unlike the socialists clinging to discredited economic theories.

Here we come back to the thorny old issue of the age of culpability. The problem is that at 14 society says a child becomes a youth and commands a different justice approach. At 12 and 13 he is an innocent wee thing upon whom all our best collective endeavours should be visited to steer him away from "embarking on the path to criminal notoriety."

It is unlikely that a 13 year-old will understand the technicalities, complexities and consequences of criminal charges.

But the day he turns 14 he will? Let's face it, many people of many ages do not understand the technicalities and complexities of charges - but they sure as hell understand the consequences - very often, bugger-all. And they understand the consequences of their crimes in personal terms. They got something they wanted, whether it was material or mental. And it was worth the risk to get.

There is already police flexibility at the charging level and judicial flexibility in the court. Extend it. If the severity and frequency of the offending is serious, a 12 or 13 year-old should not be unduly protected.

(When all is said and done however cosmetic changes will make little difference as long as we persist with the current welfare system which churns out tomorrows criminals ad nauseum.)

Unimaginable goings on

Taking the following report purely at face value, can you imagine how aghast people would have been if they could have foreseen this sort of carry-on 40 or 50 years ago?

Father's child assault trial begins today

18/05/2009 6:32:05

The trial of a Christchurch father charged with assaulting his two sons starts today.

Jimmy Mason was charged in January last year after he allegedly assaulted his two sons, aged two and four, by flicking their ears. He argues he was disciplining his children for riding their bikes dangerously.

The trial in the Christchurch District Court is set down for two days.

Again, taking the report purely at face value my own fleeting thought is these boys are lucky to have a father that cares about them. 40 or 50 years ago, a father in the dock on charges relating to his children was likely being prosecuted for non-support - and quite possibly jailed as a consequence.

Today if the father fails to support his kids we just shrug and do it for him. But, woe betide any that take their role seriously albeit outside of post-modernist precepts. Or in non-academic terms - uses some old-fashioned discipline.

Maori Television responds

On Thursday I wrote a post about a comment made on Maori Television on Wednesday night. I was very glad to get the following e-mail yesterday and asked permission to reproduce it here;

Tena Koe Lindsay,

I write to apologise for the error in the subtitling of the Te Tepu programme that you viewed this week which discussed education issues.

The translation that you have raised on your blog should have read - “One of the main problems is that teachers do not relate to Maori children.” – Instead of teachers don’t like Maori children.

Not only was the translation incorrect, the context of what was said was not translated as the two women were talking about the mainstream education system that Maori children experienced historically and there are many examples of how Maori were strapped and disciplined in other ways for speaking Maori.

However as the Executive Producer of this programme I do convey my apologies for any offence this subtitling error caused.

Kind regards,

Te Anga Nathan

Kaiwhakahaere Matua - Kawepurongo

General Manager News and Current Affairs

Māori Television

In addition to the blog post I was on the NewstalkZB Face Off panel on Friday morning. At the close of the discussion each panellist has an opportunity to offer a bouquet and brickbat. I gave a bouquet to Maori TV for the high quality of their programming but a brickbat for the comment. I will also make sure the explanation reaches that audience next week.

I need to act on my irregular resolutions to learn to speak te reo.

Alcoholic mothers - time to get real

As it stands Rachael Brown is a lawless menace. It would appear nothing can be done to stop her drinking and diving. She was sentenced to a year in prison yesterday which will keep her contained for some months but,

Serving jail time for similar past offences had not stopped her offending, [Judge James Weir] said.

She has been ordered to undergo treatment for her alcoholism,

She will have to serve at least six months in jail, and will have special conditions to help her with her alcohol problem when she is released.

But in another report we learn that alcohol treatment agencies are swamped and cannot cope with the numbers needing help.

There is every chance Brown is a lost case. The community cannot control her so best stay out of her way as much as possible. BUT there is one thing that should be done. She should be offered a tubal ligation operation while in custody. If necessary a system of cash incentives should be instituted for compliance. If not an operation, a reward for using long acting contraceptive injections. Not just for Ms Brown. But for any other female who is not physically safe to carry or raise a child. They have been responding to the cash incentive to produce children - for years in some cases. Time to try a different way of harnessing that response.

Maori Television and startling sentiments

From time to time I watch Maori Television. The quality is often above anything else on offer. People have serious and extended discussions about matters, something that has disappeared from other channels. Last night I watched a conversation about education, kura kaupapa, children's needs, the lack of fathers, furthering Maoritanga, etc. The discussion featured two Maori teachers (who may have been principals) from Maori immersion schools. The subtitles are good though I sometimes wonder how closely they represent what is said given the Maori language is comparatively constrained in terms of expressing complex or subtle concepts.

Towards the end of the programme the interviewer made a statement to the effect that the large majority, eighty percent I think he said, of Maori children were still in the mainstream system and asked about the implications of that. The first respondent said that their spirit wasn't attended to in the Pakeha system, language and culture being a big part of spirit. Fair enough I thought. Then the second respondent said, more or less, some would be OK, but that Pakeha teachers don't like Maori children. Aye, the other nodded.

It was there in the subtitles. Pakeha teachers don't like Maori children.

I expect this would have come as a terrific surprise and been very hurtful to many Pakeha teachers. What did she base this statement on? Was it a generalisation or a statement of fact, in her mind? And is this the view these two ladies take to their own teaching and propagate to their students?

My strongest reaction was to the racism it revealed. But I forget Maori cannot by definition be racist because they are the oppressed people. Only oppressors can be racist.

It was a sad end to an otherwise instructive and enlightening programme.

The 'old days'

When I had just turned 16, school cert sat, studying over, summer break stretching ahead, my friend and I decided to head off down the South Island with her older sister and boyfriend in their ancient Austin A40, back to their even more ancient settler's cottage, complete with coal range and outside long drop, located in Riverton, not far from Invercargill. We had a wonderful summer but it had to end ... with no lift back on offer. So we caught the Southerner from Invercargill to Christchurch intending to the ferry the rest of the way. Unfortunately we arrived in Christchurch late in the day but the ferry didn't sail until early in the morning. No problem we thought. We will just bunk down in the Christchurch railway station waiting room. So there we were. Two young, naive teenage girls; one European and one Polynesian; one with a guitar and one without.

"Oi," came a loud voice, shattering our security. "You can't stay here. I'm locking this place up."

Uh oh. Nowhere to go, not enough cash to pay for anywhere to stay even if we had any idea how to get there. A railway guard, in cap and uniform, a diminutive, nondescript sort, witnessed our confusion and probably a bit of fear I imagine.

"You can come home with me. I'll just ring the wife."

Blessed relief. Not a negative thought or suspicion did occur.

So off we went in his humble little car, to his humble little railway home. Being very middle class I can see that his possessions and demeanour were ... very humble. The house was spartan but as clean as an operating theatre. His mousey, taciturn wife, with child on hip, showed us a bedroom with twin beds, candlewick covers, bedside drawer with lace doily between. I think we more or less collapsed with exhaustion.

In the morning she made us mince on toast to set us right for the next part of our journey. Neither of us had ever had mince on toast for breakfast before. And Mr Railway Guard drove us to Lyttleton before going on to work. I hope we adequately expressed our gratitude to these exceptional people.

It was 1976.

Why the hell did I wake up thinking about this?

I miss the past and I miss my friend (although I can e-mail her in Australia and reminisce.) No. I believe something I was reading about Victorian attitudes to the poor based around deserving and non-deserving cases triggered my memory of such obviously 'poor' people, living in almost Victorian austerity, who would have, if they needed help, been deemed eminently deserving. People who, in turn, would share what little they had.

But what I am left pondering is whether the same thing would happen today? Are there people that would care and trust enough to bring two complete strangers into their home? But more so, should two 16 year-olds get into a car with an unknown man on the promise of a bed for the night?

New Zealand is not the place it was in the sixties and seventies. I read a lot of debate about violence and whether or not it is worsening but it is usually in the context of those debater's experience - the last twenty years. Their memories do not extend to those safer times.

I am not going to finish by expressing a desire to turn back the clock. There is much that we would not want to return to. But I do fervently wish we could go forward to safer times. I see absolutely no sign that would give cause for optimism though.

"Human beings" and "human becomings"

Warning; If you are a parent the following could make you very angry.

First an extract from a paper that appears in the July 2008 Social Policy Journal (only recently published at the MSD website);

A research project analysed a sample of the submissions to Parliament in 2006 on the Bill to repeal section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961. S.59 had provided a defence to parents accused of assaulting their children, the defence being that they used force for the purpose of correction. The project examined two particular contrasting social viewpoints of children -- children as "human beings" and as "human becomings" -- and whether these two viewpoints were implicated in people's views on the use of physical punishment. The research hypothesis was that people who advocate the use of physical punishment are more likely to conceptualise childhood as a phase of development, where the child is on his/her way to becoming an adult, unable to reason and in need of constant guidance from adults; in other words, that children are human becomings. Alongside this, we hypothesised that people who see childhood as a complete state in its own right, and see children as fully developed at whichever age and stage they are in, having full human rights and contributing to society -- the human beings view -- are more likely to reject physical punishment. We found that submitters expressing a view of children as human beings were more likely to oppose physical punishment and support repeal, whereas people who saw children as human becomings favoured physical punishment and opposed the Bill.

I take exception to this concept for starters. It leaves no room for another view which is that children are becoming adults and are at varying stages of development. That I do not see a child as an adult does not mean I do not see it as a human being - that is a preposterous idea. Most people cherish their children. The idea that people who opposed the repeal of section 59 do not view children as human beings is pretty offensive to be honest.

The different ways of viewing children have implications for how children should be raised and what sorts of rights children should have within society. In the developing adult view of childhood, where children are seen as on the road to adulthood, their status as children now is less important than what they will become in the future. Viewing children as social actors and childhood as a structural form has implications for the roles and relationships of parents and children. Here, adults are no longer seen as all-knowing and all-powerful, and children are no longer viewed as incompetent, ignorant and unable or unwilling to reason, or in need of constant adult guidance in their development towards becoming complete human adults.

It gets worse. Because I see my child as "on the road to adulthood" it follows that I also see her as "incompetent, ignorant and unable or unwilling to reason."

In fact I see her as none of those. Quite the opposite. If anything the labels are more fitting to adults I have experienced.

We developed a hypothesis which we would test by examining the submissions using Qvortup's (1994) summary terms as a framework. Our research hypothesis was that people who advocate the use of physical punishment are likely to conceptualise childhood as a phase of development, where the child is on his/her way to becoming an adult; in other words, children are "human becomings". The logic of this view is that since children are less than adult, not yet competent and reasonable human beings, or even in some cases, sinful, then adults can assume a right and a duty not only to guide but also to chastise if necessary, as the child is unable to be reasoned with and is in need of correction.

We also hypothesised that, on the other hand, people who see childhood as a complete state in its own right are more likely to reject physical punishment. In this view children's competencies are valued and children are viewed as able to understand others' perspectives and to respond in sensitive and reasoned ways to others, according to their abilities. A children's rights perspective fits within this view, since here children are perceived as full and complete "human beings", who therefore command the same human rights as any other people. Of course children always need care and nurturance appropriate to their development.

Are you starting to form an impression that the researchers are slightly biased? One of the reasons I never had my children christened (their father has a faith) is the ceremonial utterance that children are born into sin. I can't pretend to really understand what theologians mean by it but the words are unpleasant and I want no part of it. Now because I see children as "less than adult" (and sometimes more than adult) I am associated with a view that sees children as "sinful".

Further, there is no discussion of nuances. No consideration of how a two year-old might differ from a 12 year-old and how their parent's regard for their faculties and handling of them will change over time.

Although submitters clearly either supported or opposed the Bill, most did not comment on the nature of children. Thirteen wrote that children are bad, wilful, and sinful; six submitters thought that children were good and intelligent. For nine submitters children did not have cognitive ability and could not be reasoned with, whereas 13 submitters thought that children had cognitive ability and could be reasoned with.

In 41 submissions, using the categories listed above, children were considered as human becomings whereas in 50 submissions they were considered as human beings. Although this total of 91 submissions is only slightly more than half the total number of submissions analysed (170), there was a very distinct difference in the support or opposition to the Bill among these submitters....

....for those 91 submissions indicating views of children as either human becomings or human beings, the results support our hypothesis. Those people who saw children as human becomings were more likely to oppose the Bill and support physical punishment, and those who saw children as human beings were more likely to support the Bill and oppose physical punishment.

Well of course the results will support their hypothesis. They have borrowed a faulty concept and overlaid it according to their rules.

Next they can extrapolate their 'findings' to anyone who disagrees with a ban on smacking. We are all vilified by their silly black and white ideas.

This post is already too long. But let me leave you with this. These people make a public living out of intellectualising life; the behaviours and relationships of your world, of which they have no knowledge. They arrogantly pigeon-hole views they disagree with or cannot comprehend and then charge you for the privilege of receiving their wisdom.

This nonsense really has to stop.

Comparing NCEA results

Schools are pleased that the NCEA results are being statistically represented in a way that is fairer. Instead of percentages being based on rolls they are now based on participation. In some cases this has made a substantial difference. Nationally, 63 percent of all year 11 pupils jumps to 70 percent. Great.

So what is happening to those students enrolled and NOT sitting NCEA? Surely it is important to compare these differences between schools as well.

It is one thing for a school to do well in getting pupils successfully through the exams and assessments but whether or not they are motivating students to actually participate in the first place is also a marker of their success.

Collins gatekeeps at Garrett's expense

Readers know that I am not a supporter of 'three strikes' but any bill that is before select committee deserves a thorough investigation of its merits and pitfalls. The refusal of Judith Collins to answer David Garrett's question (below) would be less surprising if he was in opposition. But this bill is a combination of her own party's campaign promises as well as ACT's. What gives? One is inclined to suspect that National really doesn't want a bar of it, giving weight to Garrett's earlier claim that they had stymied the bill's chances of passage by changing the list of qualifying offences.

There is an adage that goes something like, he who controls the knowledge controls your fate, or in this case, your bill's fate.

3318 (2009). David Garrett to the Minister of Corrections (08 Apr 2009): How many persons currently incarcerated for either murder or manslaughter had, at the time they committed the offence for which they are currently incarcerated, served at least three sentence episodes for any of the following offences: Sexual Violation contrary to section 128 of the Crimes Act 1961; Murder contrary to section 167 or 168 of the Crimes Act; Attempted murder contrary to section ….of the Crimes Act; Manslaughter contrary to section 171 of the Crimes Act; Wounding with intent contrary to section 188 of the Crimes Act; Injuring with intent contrary to section 189 of the Crimes Act; Injuring by an unlawful act contrary to section 190 of the Crimes Act; Aggravated wounding or injury contrary to section 191 of the Crimes Act; Aggravated assault contrary to section 192 of the Crimes Act; Assault with intent to injure contrary to section 193 of the Crimes Act; Assault on a child, or by a male on a female contrary to section 194 of the Crimes Act; Cruelty to a child contrary to section 195 of the Crimes Act; Using any firearm against a law enforcement officer etc. contrary to section 198A of the Crimes Act; Commission of a crime while using a firearm contrary to section 198B of the Crimes Act?

Hon Judith Collins (Minister of Corrections) replied: The answer to this question would require significant collation and I do not consider this a good use of the Department of Corrections’ resources.

Blogs and MSM

The relationship between blogs and the mainstream media is a developing one. The readership of my blog is not particularly high. I don't know about unique visitors but I average around 180-200 visits on week days. Sometimes I want to express a view more widely so will dispatch a particular post in the form of an letter-to-the editor. (I also feel obliged to satisfy the locals who frequently comment directly to me if they haven't seen a letter for a while. Or if they have seen one they particularly liked. Other less 'appreciative' types simply avoid making eye contact I suspect:-)) The following appeared as lead letter in the DomPost on Saturday. It's a slight variation on a post from last week;



Further interaction may be seen in another way. On Tuesday I posted this piece about unemployment. It contained the following table;



On Thursday the following appeared, again in the DomPost. It may or may not have come from this blog. If it did that's good. If it didn't, apologies for my presumptuousness.

Get-Off-My-Back-And-Out-Of-My-Face Day

Every time I start thinking about what I want to say on my blog today I get a headache. Perhaps it's anger, or frustration, or maybe I shouldn't have mixed two different wines last night. I am trying to listen to Trackside, my escape from the absurdities of the world around us, and this damn advertisement for "Families Day" keeps bloody well intruding. FFS. I do not need the frigging Families Commission telling me that I need to appreciate my family and do stuff with them, especially on Mother's Day. How many goddamn days can we stomach? You see, the United Nations passed a resolution to promote families, especially mothers and children. And so now the waste-of-space Families Commission is using your money to do just that - all week.

...the Families Commission also wants everyone to stop and think about Why Families Matter? - to you, to your community and to all New Zealand society. How does being part of a family help in your life? How do healthy and positive families help your community or New Zealand as a country? And how do we help each other put family first?

Aaarrrggghhh.

And male readers, Pansy Wong, National's Minister for Women's Affairs wants you to start pulling your weight around the house.

"My vision sees New Zealand as a place where women are recognised for balancing their roles as mothers and workers; a place where unpaid work is shared evenly between men and women".

Aren't you sick and tired of being either hen-pecked or ordered to celebrate at every turn?

Oh please, please can I have a Get-Off-My-Back-And-Out-Of-My-Face day.

And I was going to say something about Greg O'Connor's statement that the Napier shooting is a wake-up call to New Zealanders to stop tolerating the increasing violence in our society. Perhaps the wake-up call is actually to the utter futility of continuing cannabis prohibition.

But, bugger it. I better go and take an Ibuprofen or 10 instead.

Which reminds me about teenage son Robert who was being theatrically melodramatic about all the time pressures on him to do music practice, homework, travel in and out of the city every day, etc. "I'll kill myself!" he said.

"But you don't have time to," I replied.

"Oh yeah," he said. And after a few more seconds, "I'm not doing it on my time anyway."

'Liberty creates order'

Here’s an editorial worth posting in full. It deals with the incessant criticism from socialists and statists that individualists and freedom seekers are no more than me-firsters who hate humanity. It is a colossal misrepresentation. People need people. Our relationships are an integral and essential part of living. But Sheldon Richman explains it much better than I can:

Liberty Creates Order
by Sheldon Richman, May 8, 2009

David Brooks, the New York Times’s resident neoconservative, delights in peddling a false alternative: freedom or social order. His latest column hawking this snake oil comes in the form of advice to the struggling Republican Party: “If the Republicans are going to rebound, they will have to reestablish themselves as the party of civic order.” In other words, give up freedom.

I have no wish to defend the Republicans. Heaven knows there’s nothing left to defend. In a mere eight years that party embroiled the United States in two murderous invasion-occupations, ushered in a dramatic decline in civil liberty, spat on the decency of Americans by authorizing and applauding torture, bailed out big banks, and spent the country into mind-numbing debt.

But according to Brooks, the Republicans’ problem is that all they care about is freedom! “Republicans are so much the party of individualism and freedom these days that they are no longer the party of community and order,” he writes. Is he kidding?

Republicans certainly talk about freedom. They just they never get around to actually respecting it. Small-government rhetoric is like a costume they don when they need votes or money.

But back to Brooks’s false dichotomy. To create it he has to invent a straw man. He pits “untrammeled freedom and the lone pioneer” against social customs, community, and order.

The flaw in Brooks’s argument is that history’s most authentic advocates of individual liberty (they weren’t Republicans) saw harmony, not conflict, between freedom and community. Freedom, they realized, blossomed within a community, not just because of the benefits bestowed by the division of labor (as important as they are), but because of the rewards of deep human contact. Man’s nature as a social animal is not an argument against liberty. Quite the contrary. Liberty, Proudhon said, is the mother, not the daughter, of order.

What real individualists oppose — is coercive community. Here’s where Brooks shows either his ignorance or his disingenuousness. I defy him to name an individualist philosopher who extolled the life of the hermit. By nature individuals form communities. They don’t need to be coerced. The bedrock laws most people respect — those concerning life, liberty, and property — began as spontaneously evolving reciprocal social customs born of people’s desire to engage in material and “spiritual” exchanges with one another.

Brooks writes, “The emphasis on freedom and individual choice may work in the sparsely populated parts of the country. People there naturally want to do whatever they want on their own land. But it doesn’t work in the densely populated parts of the country: the cities and suburbs.... People in these areas understand that their lives are profoundly influenced by other people’s individual choices.”

Brooks is unaware that individualism — once known as liberalism — began in cities. The medieval countryside was steeped in coercive order and tradition. People sought escape to the city because “city air breathes free.” In cities, rights evolved to demarcate one person’s free sphere from another’s. Individualism was never “atomistic.”

Brooks complains that those who place great value on the market order, “which is a means, ... are inarticulate about the good life, which is the end.” The great individualist philosophers were never inarticulate, but they understood, as Brooks does not, that what constitutes the good life is none of the government’s damn business. What rational person would want George W. Bush or Barack Obama or John Boehner or Barney Frank to have any say in the matter?

Brooks asks, “What threatens Americans’ efforts to build orderly places to raise their kids? The answers would produce an agenda: the disruption caused by a boom-and-bust economy; the fragility of the American family; the explosion of public and private debt; the wild swings in energy costs; the fraying of the health-care system; the segmentation of society; and the way the ladders of social mobility seem to be dissolving.”

Has he no clue that every problem he names has it origins in government interference with freedom, voluntary community, and the market order?

Contrary to Brooks, the problem with Republicans is not their (empty) expressions of individualism. Rather, it’s their hypocritical refusal to take their own words seriously.

The state and the family - 50 years in 150 words

This is a comment from JC posted at Home Paddock well worthy of further exposure. It covers quite a complicated picture succinctly;

In 1960 it was one man, one job, one family, over 4 kids and compulsory wife and mother.

Now its two parents, two jobs, 2 kids and other families/partners optional.

The big difference is that equal opportunity and pay had the effect of making two jobs a necessity for the average family as the state could spend vastly more on social spending, allow plenty of inflation that eroded the value of just one wage packet and allow the concept of the nuclear family to erode.

Somewhere between 1960 and today we allowed the equilibrium between the nuclear family and fairness to women to be lost, to the point where two wage packets are needed to support a national structure where 50% of the population are net beneficiaries of the state.

It seems to me that what was initially a fair recognition of women in the workplace has morphed into women becoming an economic necessity first with family in the rear.

Of course there are lot's of other influencing factors like increased consumerism, increased ability to control fertility, and greater (often unrealistic) demand for personal happiness but, well-said JC. I am sorry I don't know who you are and probably should. You have provided a valuable overview.

"I have a problem but it's not my fault"

Remember Leigh Sturgiss? She used to spend her days worrying us to death of the dangers of smoking. Now she has re-invented herself as the guardian of your diet. Sometimes it is just best to ignore these pests. But the following assertion is hard to;

She questioned where responsibility for nutrition, physical activity and obesity fell if not with DHBs. "It's too big for the individual person to cope with. You need a supportive environment."

There it is in plain language. The individual is powerless and weak.

Now it is true that some of the individuals I have come across are weak and powerless but they have been made that way by the thinking and practices that surround them. Their lives lurch from one crisis to another against a backdrop of self pity and external indulgence. People like Sturgiss feed their self-justification for failure, "I have a problem but it's not my fault."

The nutrition, physical activity and obesity target for DHBs had included goals for increasing the proportion of people who ate their recommended servings of fruit and vegetables. "How can you hold a DHB accountable for that?"

A big tick for Mr Ryall on this one. I must say watching the anti-obesity campaigners put firmly on the back foot by National has been quite satisfying.

Fast forward

Gang members facing fines for wearing patches in Wanganui's Victoria Avenue are taking legal action to stop Work and Income from making deductions from their benefits.

They have also lodged a complaint with the Human Rights Commission, claiming the ban on their patches and associated insignia unfairly punishes Wanganui members and their partners and children.

"No-one's paid a fine and no-one's going to," an affected member told The Wanganui Times yesterday. "The police can't do this. They can't take our patches when we haven't done anything wrong. These patches belong to us."

The members taking the action, who are understood to be on benefits and may qualify for legal aid, have hired a lawyer to gain an injunction and fight the ban.

Two weeks ago members filed their complaint with the Human Rights Commission.

Though the fines were due for payment this month none were willing to pay, the affected member said.

One partner claimed her nine-year-old son had watched in tears as his father was arrested on Victoria Avenue last week.

Three gang members arrested in the confrontation appeared in Wanganui District Court yesterday on joint display of insignia charges.

Wanganui Council's tough new national policy, designed to sidestep the Bill of Rights, follows a two-year legal battle to get gang insignia banned.

Gang members have been angry about losing their patches to police but say they are easy enough to replace.

"It's a waste of their time and our money, oops, sorry, that's your money, aye?" a laughing member told the Times.

They have us over a barrel 2

So we can't stop gangs and their women from bludging off us wholesale BUT we can take away their patches. Yes. Just confirmed in parliament, ACT (or at least ACT's leader who took the call) is going to vote for the Gang Insignia Bill because patches constitute intimidation; because David Garrett has gone to Wanganui and talked to the police and the gangs, and the police have promised to enforce the ban and the gangs have said they will stop wearing their patches.

No. This isn't a piss take.

Update;

Hide said in his speech that the passage of the bill relied on his vote. It didn't. Perhaps he miscalculated. Perhaps he saw an opportunity to buy the popular vote. It is the first time we have seen ACT's split vote facility in action. It won't be the last.

The split vote is a sop to members. It'll allow ACT to support National in the passage of authoritarian and conservative legislation, while continuing to claim their liberal principles to members. It is a cynical manipulation of supporters. I agree entirely with Blair Mulholland about what ACT's role should be.

Bernard Darnton also hits a different nail on the head with this observation;

Backers of the law claim that it’s necessary to crack down on gang members and that they need to be cracked down on because they’re always breaking stuff and hurting people. If that was true you wouldn’t need a law against leather jackets, you could just arrest all these gangsters under the Prohibition of Breaking Stuff (and Hurting People) Act.

They have us over a barrel

The women (attached to gang members) that Housing New Zealand are attempting to evict from a Taita street are taking legal action. We ain't going anywhere, they say.

They are apparently all on benefits so will qualify for legal aid. A certificate from Work and Income showing their gross income is less than $20,000 will take care of that. Although legal aid is supposed to be a loan it will likely be written off in this case. There is no owned property to make a charge against.

So the taxpayer is funding these women's benefits and their accommodation, both of which have been abused. They get away with the first abuse because of a legal ruling which defines their relationships as 'not in the nature of marriage'. Then, when they decide to fight the consequences of the secondary property abuse, the taxpayer has to foot their legal fees.

Just how far removed is all of this from a 'safety' net?

And in wades Parekura Horomia in his shadow Maori Minister role;

"I'm concerned about the effect on the women and children. Housing NZ have really really rushed this."

What a first-class apologist for manipulators this man is. These tenants and their partners have society over a barrel. They are not victims and they are not clueless. Children are hostages to and guarantors of their chosen lifestyles. It's a pig of a mess made worse by weak leaders like Horomia.

"Is that your Daddy?"

Some interesting divorce data has just been released from Statistics NZ;

Analysis of divorce statistics by year of marriage shows that about one-third of New Zealanders who married in 1983 had divorced before their silver wedding anniversary (25 years).

Gee, I thought it might have been higher than that. Maybe a good number just stay separated.

I may have recounted this before but it springs to mind right now.

My young daughter had a friend over. She was a talkative, curious child. On espying a wedding photograph of David and I she turned to my daughter and asked, "Is that your Daddy?", which Sam confirmed. It was the next question that floored me. "Where does he live?"

Auckland carrying a disproportionate share of benefit growth

I have been playing with some of the regional benefit data released for March 2009.

These figures show the total number of people on main benefits and the percentage change (they are all positive) over the year.



Obviously the highest growth is occurring in the cities, most noticeably, Auckland.

Then I have broken down each main benefit.

The following shows the Unemployment benefit numbers at 2008 and 2009 and the percentage change;


The highest percentage unemployment growth is Canterbury with Auckland second, but on a much larger base number.

Sickness benefits are next;



The percentage growth in sickness benefits is quite erratic across the regions ranging from zero in the East Coast to 21 in Canterbury. That may indicate that the growth is influenced by differing regional policy/procedures as much as individual incapacities. And some offsetting/contrasting figures can be seen in the next table which may indicate some reclassification/transfer - Invalid's benefit;




The next is the DPB numbers at 2008 and 2009 and the percentage change;



Again the highest growth is Auckland. More bad news because the highest percentage growth is also where the largest numbers reside.

In conclusion most of the benefit growth is happening in Auckland. And it's not simply because that's where most of the population lives. Almost half - 46 percent - of the extra numbers on welfare over the year to March 2009 live in Auckland.

Although, to be fair, it is still proportionately under-represented in terms of general welfare dependence.

Relishing our dependence

According to the Minister of Social Development,

"One in five New Zealanders has some form of disability, and that number is expected to grow by 60 per cent over the next 40 years."

That means one in five is going to become one in three.

Apart from the ageing population, why? What the hell is going on here?

Why does government talk up disability? It seems almost to relish the prospect of growing dependence. I blame the infiltration of mothers (or potential mothers) into wider society, especially via the public service. It is one thing to mollycoddle one's own. To some extent that is the very essence of a mother. I do it with my own kids but that's where it ends.

I really can't stand this disability-isation of people. So many invisible and invented maladies are now 'disabilities'. That means more funding, more planning, more nappy-changing. And it does a disservice to those with genuine and debilitating conditions. Proud people who struggle to maintain as much independence and self-reliance as they can.

They are demeaned by all the me-tooers; the snouters wearing their newly described 'disabilities' like badges of honour demanding that government fawn all over them. People fighting to be more disabled than the next. And those that would indulge them.

One in three people will have some form of disability? What a pathetic prediction and pathetic acquiescence.

Foolish head-banging?

No. Not of the 'musical' kind. Rather,the banging-it-against-a-brick-wall variety.

I think I am possibly not shouting loud enough or what is important to me is trivial and boring to others. Or a combination of both. But I will restate some news from earlier in the week.

6,000 more people are on the DPB than one year ago.

That's around 10,000 children - enough to fill twenty five substantial schools.

An annual six percent rise hasn't been seen since the early 90s.

There are 37,000 unemployed people but over 100,000 on the DPB, where they will remain, on average, far longer than those on the dole.

But the media thinks the demise of Wheel Of Fortune is more important.

What's happening here is politics. Labour won't make a noise about it because they squandered the best opportunity to do something about the DPB any government has had. And National won't make a noise about it because they aren't prepared to do anything about it.

Have we given up caring? Is the DPB just part of the wallpaper now? Is it so institutionalised there is no going back? Or rather, going forward?

Good news hyped into bad

Good news. A new MP, Kanwal Bakshi has a property that was being operated as a brothel. That's what we need. More property-owning MPs.

What's left of the welfare state

Chris Trotter writes in today's DomPost that Mr Key and his right wing mates are showing signs that they are about to get rid of "what's left of the welfare state".

This implies most of what constitutes the welfare state has already been dismantled.

All that remains are the unemployment, sickness, invalid and domestic purposes benefits; the independent youth, emergency, and unsupported child benefits; super and veteran's pensions; accommodation supplement and state housing; the minimum wage; Working For Families; residential care subsidies; childcare subsidies; Paid Parental Leave; student allowances; interest free student loans; 'free' public hospitals and public schools; various family and child tax credits; universal no-fault accident compensation; widow's benefit; orphan's benefit; free dental care for the young; free healthcare for under sixes; the Super GoldCard; the Community Services card; the methadone programme; legal aid; Restart and Replace; 9 day working fortnight subsidies; subsidies to hundreds of 'charities'...

No. There's not much to remember. Did I miss anything? Oh yes, there is a case to include corporate welfare, and grants to the arts and sports as part of the broadest-sense welfare state.

I wonder what Trotter thinks has been dispensed with? The family benefit, which had deteriorated in value to almost nothing by the time National threw it out? Farming subsidies? I tell you what. It's a helluva sight harder trying to identify what went than what stayed.

Unemployment benefit - numbers almost double

Media Release

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT - NUMBERS ALMOST DOUBLE

Thursday, April 30, 2009

Data just released by the Ministry of Social Development show that numbers on the unemployment benefit have nearly doubled over the last year to 37,000.

"While this was largely expected the equally bad news is that every main benefit has seen an increase in numbers since the end of March 2008. Of particular concern is a 12 percent increase in the sickness benefit when earlier indications and assurances were the growth was easing off. There are now 135,000 working-age New Zealanders receiving either a sickness or invalid's benefit - around one in twenty people aged 18 - 64."

"As well, the numbers receiving the domestic purpose's benefit have increased by 6,000 or six percent with much of the growth in the 18-24 age group."

"Being in a recession is no reason to accept that all benefits will take on numbers. The government needs to be toughening and tightening up. If it fails to keep a lid on growth in the DPB, sickness and invalid benefits, we will see exaggerated numbers for years to come, similar to the legacy of the last severe employment slump of the early nineties."

NZ - third highest reported crime rate

The net is great in terms of information accessibility and currency BUT sometimes one stumbles across depictions that really can mislead;



I have sent the following feedback;

Your reported crime rate for New Zealand is inaccurate. There were 431,381 reported crimes (source NZ Police) in 2008. The population is currently around 4.3 million. That provides a rate per 100,000 of 10,032 - not 12,586.64

It is unfortunate that those countries with accessible and transparent statistics consequently appear to be the most 'dangerous' when there are certainly riskier places to visit. South Africa, for instance, is notorious for its high crime rates.

In fact, thinking on it further, that a country has a 'reported' crime rate is reassuring of itself. It means there is someone to report crime to and some point in reporting it.

NZ Institute calls for welfare spending cuts?

The NZ Institute (funded by business subscription) is saying scrap the tax cuts and think about property taxes to raise additional revenue. You have to wonder how representative of their funders that position is.

Also,

The institute said health and welfare spending should be cut, but KiwiSaver should be enhanced.

Always interested in welfare proposals I had a quick look at the actual report. In fact the only proposal that could be construed as calling for a cut in welfare spending is a suggested review of Working For Families. Otherwise other references to welfare spending imply boosting expenditure on youth unemployment and support for those affected by the recession.

Prebble on balancing the budget

Why we miss Richard Prebble.

In the OECD only two countries owe more money per person than we do; Iceland which is bankrupt and Spain where unemployment has just hit 17 percent. New Zealand’s external debt is now $167 billion. Politicians used to say “Most of the money is owed by Aussie banks, it is not our worry”. The banks owe most of the debt but just days before the election the Labour government extended a guarantee to cover all bank borrowing. Potentially you owe $41 thousand; that’s what $167 billion divided by 4 million works out at. As only a third of us pay income tax as a taxpayer you potentially owe around a $120 thousand.

Only a third? He is probably right. While the workforce is around 2.2 million, many low income workers effectively pay no income tax.

Families Commission - biased and barking up the wrong tree

The Families Commission is once again wearing its utopian fool's hat for all to see;

“Healthy, positive relationships within families do not involve people hitting each other and the Commission continues to believe that repeal was one step that, combined with other nationwide efforts to address violence, will help us become a violence-free society."

The specific function of the Families Commission is to encourage informed debate about families.

Not discourage (as would appear to be the case with respect to Family First).

So with their blessing I will continue to debate what they expect to achieve with their romantic visions. The role model for the legislation which still sits very awkwardly on the shoulders of many New Zealand parents is Sweden. You may remember that Sweden banned smacking in 1979. No doubt then-protagonists of a total ban on physically disciplining children also talked about a violence-free society.

Here is the reality;



In case you miss it, "Reported assaults on children up to six years of age increased by 13 percent to slightly more than 1,550 offences in 2007. The number of reported assault offences against children aged between seven and fourteen (almost 8,100 offences) increased by eight per cent by comparison with the figure for the previous year."

I have read excuses about the values and behaviour of new immigrants being to blame but recorded violence has been increasing steadily over the entire period (during which the population increased by about 13 percent.)

Based on this result I will go to my grave still waiting for the promised land.

Size of child abuse problem "horrific"

Australian Community Services Minister describes the size of Australia's child abuse problem as "horrific";

Ms Macklin said more than 55,000 substantiated cases of child abuse and neglect were recorded last year. "We have to confront the reality that these numbers tell us that we are letting down far, far too many children in this country," she said.

Professor Fiona Stanley, a child welfare specialist and chairwoman of the research alliance that commissioned the report, described the level of abuse and neglect in Australia as an "epidemic".

The latest comparable statistic I have for New Zealand is from 2006. (Later statistics are available about the number of reports and those requiring further action but that is not the same as 'substantiated'.)


If we crudely multiplied 15,248 by a factor of 5 we would get 76,240. Putting aside that I have compared different time periods and there may be slight demographic differences, it is clear that our rate of substantiated child abuse is significantly higher.

I wonder what superlative Paula Bennett would use to describe our figures?

A job for Mythbusters?

I was ruminating over how people, especially feminists, might respond to an equivalent type of ad appearing in a men's centre newsletter focussing on girlfriend violence. Or doesn't it exist?