A 9 and 4 year-old left to play in a park by their father, George Kenton. Would I do that? Probably not because I am an overly anxious parent. I envy the parent that can make that decision, who is confident the 9 year-old is able to adequately care for the 4 year-old. Maybe if the park was nearby I would be comfortable. The 9 year-old is no problem but 4 year-olds can be unpredictable.
But surely it isn't the business of the state to scrutinise parents to this degree? Sure, we can go on about "what-if". But what-ifs rarely happen and if we proceed on the basis of what-if, nobody would be doing anything. We would all be in a state of paralysis.
I am bloody sick of the state and the evolving law it devises to impose a suffocating strait-jacket culture on parents. I really don't know what those of us who feel this way can do.
(At least it looks like this guy had the benefit of being cleared by CYF before the police got involved. Last weeks dad was prosecuted for shoving before CYF had chance to clear him. So, to make matters worse, in its zealous need to interfere, the state and its institutions are bungling the process.)
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Saturday, June 27, 2009
We'll take the pleasure, thanks
What does it mean when you hear people say, I grew up with Michael Jackson? I'll tell you.It means your bedroom walls were plastered in Michael Jackson pin-up posters; you collected all his 45s which cost $1.15 each back then and stencilled your initials on the labels; you sketched his face; you played Rockin' Robin endlessly and watched Ed Sullivan appearances with awe and excitement. Later you made clothes sporting his name or The Jacksons and paraded them up town on Friday night; you danced alone or with friends or crooned along with tracks from the best ever album, Off The Wall.
It would all seem a long time ago until you have a daughter who is genetically programmed to react the very same way. The albums are hauled out. A needle sought for the disused stylus and after much searching, located at a specialist hi-fi shop. We watch the Ed Sullivan shows on DVD; the many Carol Burnett show appearances on YouTube. She sings, dances, mimics Michael - up on the table, tilting her hat, bending the knee and pointing the toe. So many hats she collects that match his different styles at different times. She adores him. Just the way I had.
She came home from school yesterday and said a friend had said she was glad Michael Jackson was dead because she didn't like him. Why? Because her mum didn't like him. All that weird stuff, you know.
Give me my sweet pea's pleasure over the cynic's pain any day.
So my girl and me put on the Bucharest Tour DVD last night and marvelled together all over again. Marvellous, magical, over-the-top, pushing-it-to-the max, Michael. Thank you.
Friday, June 26, 2009
"... a damning indictment. "
This is possibly the best summary of the week. From the Maxim Institute;
The continuing debate over the referendum on child discipline took a turn for the surreal this week, with politicians from across the spectrum lining up to attack the referendum question as nonsensical, saying things like "the law is working" and "the question is weird."
The question we are supposed to answer does not seem hard. "Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?" Committed to his brokered "compromise" John Key can't afford to admit the law is not working. Phil Goff can't afford to offend elements in his own party, ideologically committed to the ban on physical discipline. And neither of them want to ignore the large majority of Kiwis who keep telling pollsters they support a good parent's right to make disciplinary decisions.
So, they pretend contempt for the question, and count on a low turnout.
This in itself is a damning indictment. The growing popularity of referenda and public distrust in politicians, are the products of people feeling that the government is distant, that they don't care what we think. Regardless of the merits of the question (whose limitations are unavoidable given that it must be a yes/no question) the gist of the referendum is clear to both the Yes and No campaigns, and the public should have their say on it.
Contempt for the democratic process is far too general across the spectrum—from Parliament, when it abuses urgency, to leaders when they disregard the feedback they are receiving from constituents. Luckily for the country, our democracy does not belong to them alone—it is a precious right belonging to all of us. From the end of July, we should all do our duty and value the imperfect but vital process of democracy—especially when others are not.
The continuing debate over the referendum on child discipline took a turn for the surreal this week, with politicians from across the spectrum lining up to attack the referendum question as nonsensical, saying things like "the law is working" and "the question is weird."
The question we are supposed to answer does not seem hard. "Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?" Committed to his brokered "compromise" John Key can't afford to admit the law is not working. Phil Goff can't afford to offend elements in his own party, ideologically committed to the ban on physical discipline. And neither of them want to ignore the large majority of Kiwis who keep telling pollsters they support a good parent's right to make disciplinary decisions.
So, they pretend contempt for the question, and count on a low turnout.
This in itself is a damning indictment. The growing popularity of referenda and public distrust in politicians, are the products of people feeling that the government is distant, that they don't care what we think. Regardless of the merits of the question (whose limitations are unavoidable given that it must be a yes/no question) the gist of the referendum is clear to both the Yes and No campaigns, and the public should have their say on it.
Contempt for the democratic process is far too general across the spectrum—from Parliament, when it abuses urgency, to leaders when they disregard the feedback they are receiving from constituents. Luckily for the country, our democracy does not belong to them alone—it is a precious right belonging to all of us. From the end of July, we should all do our duty and value the imperfect but vital process of democracy—especially when others are not.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Sleight of hand socialism
Many state house tenants are on benefits.
In 2007 only 170,000 out of 260,000 working-age beneficiaries were getting an Accommodation Supplement. HNZ tenants do not qualify for this supplement. There are 69,000 state houses so I am picking the percentage of tenants who are beneficiaries would be significant.
Beneficiaries in state houses have their rent paid for by the state, through a Housing NZ rental subsidy and their benefit. Therefore the money stays with or goes back to the state.
However, if those people decide to buy their houses, a possibility if the government raises the mortgage cap, they will instead get their mortgage paid for by the state through the Accommodation Supplement. (In 2007 43,000 people received an Accommodation Supplement to cover or contribute to mortgage repayments.) That money is then lost to the state.
So I am not quite sure how there will be (nett) extra money available for building more state houses.
I suppose it is one way to get people to save. KiwiSaver isn't dissimilar.
But it is a little philosophically mischievous for National to applaud and encourage private ownership yet achieve it by upping the degree of wealth transfer.
DPF thinks it's a great idea - Cactus doesn't.
In 2007 only 170,000 out of 260,000 working-age beneficiaries were getting an Accommodation Supplement. HNZ tenants do not qualify for this supplement. There are 69,000 state houses so I am picking the percentage of tenants who are beneficiaries would be significant.
Beneficiaries in state houses have their rent paid for by the state, through a Housing NZ rental subsidy and their benefit. Therefore the money stays with or goes back to the state.
However, if those people decide to buy their houses, a possibility if the government raises the mortgage cap, they will instead get their mortgage paid for by the state through the Accommodation Supplement. (In 2007 43,000 people received an Accommodation Supplement to cover or contribute to mortgage repayments.) That money is then lost to the state.
So I am not quite sure how there will be (nett) extra money available for building more state houses.
I suppose it is one way to get people to save. KiwiSaver isn't dissimilar.
But it is a little philosophically mischievous for National to applaud and encourage private ownership yet achieve it by upping the degree of wealth transfer.
DPF thinks it's a great idea - Cactus doesn't.
Using the recession as an excuse
There are now 302,000 working-age people on benefits. According to a report on TV3 last night, the Minister, Paula Bennett, told a select committee yesterday that unemployment benefit numbers had climbed to 45,000.
So fewer than one in six people on a benefit is on the dole.
A the end of March the overall total was 288,959. So now there are at least 13,041 more beneficiaries. But the rise in unemployment - from 37,146 to 45,000 - is just 7,854.
As I have commented before, the numbers on all benefits will swell alongside the growth in unemployment benefit numbers. That is why using the dole queue as a measure of unemployment is faulty.
But more importantly, it is much harder to get people off the other benefits once they are on them. Letting the numbers on sickness and invalid, and especially the domestic purposes benefit swell, will prolong the effects of this recession.
Unfortunately politicians can use the recession as a cover or an excuse for continuing bad policy that can be summed up as overly easy access, too little pressure to regain independence and inverted incentives, ie greater incentive to do the wrong thing rather than the right thing.
So fewer than one in six people on a benefit is on the dole.
A the end of March the overall total was 288,959. So now there are at least 13,041 more beneficiaries. But the rise in unemployment - from 37,146 to 45,000 - is just 7,854.
As I have commented before, the numbers on all benefits will swell alongside the growth in unemployment benefit numbers. That is why using the dole queue as a measure of unemployment is faulty.
But more importantly, it is much harder to get people off the other benefits once they are on them. Letting the numbers on sickness and invalid, and especially the domestic purposes benefit swell, will prolong the effects of this recession.
Unfortunately politicians can use the recession as a cover or an excuse for continuing bad policy that can be summed up as overly easy access, too little pressure to regain independence and inverted incentives, ie greater incentive to do the wrong thing rather than the right thing.
Monday, June 22, 2009
An unhappy birthday
Yesterday was the second anniversary of Sue Bradford's legislation. Here she lauds the change and the progress made since. Today I will attend court to see for myself how well the law is working for a father charged with common assault. Not for smacking, but shoving his son.
The young people of New Zealand will look back on the law change as a pivotal seachange in our country’s culture, Mrs Turei said.
But will it be a change for the better?
In Christchurch, for the first time to my knowledge, we have reports of a rise in children abusing their parents.
The young people of New Zealand will look back on the law change as a pivotal seachange in our country’s culture, Mrs Turei said.
But will it be a change for the better?
In Christchurch, for the first time to my knowledge, we have reports of a rise in children abusing their parents.
Herbert said the [Battered Women's] trust had also noticed more parents being abused by their children.
"The number is not large, but it's definitely increasing. With teenagers, it's both boys and girls, and there are also cases of children who are even younger."
Friday, June 19, 2009
An Irish joke?
Anyone for an Irish joke?
Even more dramatically, numbers on the dole represented only 32 per cent of the officially unemployed in New Zealand, compared with 99 per cent in Australia, 69 per cent in Britain and 164 per cent in Ireland.
Say what?
Seriously. According to the NZ Herald, for every 100 people officially unemployed in Ireland, 164 are on the dole.
No it's Friday afternoon. I can't be bothered trying to figure that one out.
Even more dramatically, numbers on the dole represented only 32 per cent of the officially unemployed in New Zealand, compared with 99 per cent in Australia, 69 per cent in Britain and 164 per cent in Ireland.
Say what?
Seriously. According to the NZ Herald, for every 100 people officially unemployed in Ireland, 164 are on the dole.
No it's Friday afternoon. I can't be bothered trying to figure that one out.
State intrusion now a "non-issue"
Today's DomPost editorial says that the repeal of section 59 was a burning issue two years ago but is a "non-issue" today. Then it repeats the message we are all supposed to absorb for our own good, that the poll question is confusing and ambiguous.
It continues;
Kiwi Party leader Larry Baldock and Family First's Bob McCoskrie, those chiefly behind the poll, believe that most parents should be left alone to raise their children as they wish, which might sometimes involve administering a smack. Opposing their stance are charities such as Unicef, Barnardoes, Plunket and the Families Commission.
It now occurs to me that the smacking referendum is being portrayed solely as a socialist left vs fundamentalist Christian crusade, with those in neither camp, the majority, getting or being turned off (as suits Messrs Key and Goff).
There is plenty I would normally disagree with Baldock and McCoskrie on. This time our views coincide, probably for different reasons. But I am not going to abandon my ability and right to think for myself and express those thoughts just to avoid lining up with Christian Right.
Most parents should be left alone to raise their children as they wish. It is nobody else's business. But the interferers, especially those who make their living out of it, want the right to meddle, to impose their beliefs, to control society. So they change the language. A smack is an assault (which yesterday led to the ridiculous event of Sue Bradford calling smacking an inconsequential and trivial assault.)
So now we have a situation whereby the police have the power (innocuously called 'discretion') to prosecute individuals because the worthies have changed the language. The worthies now have the power by proxy.
You like that then go ahead and vote 'yes'. But don't vote yes or abstain simply because you can't abide the conservative fundamentalists.
It continues;
Kiwi Party leader Larry Baldock and Family First's Bob McCoskrie, those chiefly behind the poll, believe that most parents should be left alone to raise their children as they wish, which might sometimes involve administering a smack. Opposing their stance are charities such as Unicef, Barnardoes, Plunket and the Families Commission.
It now occurs to me that the smacking referendum is being portrayed solely as a socialist left vs fundamentalist Christian crusade, with those in neither camp, the majority, getting or being turned off (as suits Messrs Key and Goff).
There is plenty I would normally disagree with Baldock and McCoskrie on. This time our views coincide, probably for different reasons. But I am not going to abandon my ability and right to think for myself and express those thoughts just to avoid lining up with Christian Right.
Most parents should be left alone to raise their children as they wish. It is nobody else's business. But the interferers, especially those who make their living out of it, want the right to meddle, to impose their beliefs, to control society. So they change the language. A smack is an assault (which yesterday led to the ridiculous event of Sue Bradford calling smacking an inconsequential and trivial assault.)
So now we have a situation whereby the police have the power (innocuously called 'discretion') to prosecute individuals because the worthies have changed the language. The worthies now have the power by proxy.
You like that then go ahead and vote 'yes'. But don't vote yes or abstain simply because you can't abide the conservative fundamentalists.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Should time out as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?
Should time out as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?
Time out is a tool for dealing with unwanted behaviour. So is a smack. Personally I never used time out nor particularly liked the idea. Do adults impose time out on each other? Sounds psychologically manipulative or cruel to me. But I don't think it should be a criminal offence. So I would have no difficulty answering this question.
Why is it so difficult to answer if I substitute 'a smack'? What is ambiguous about that?
If you don't like the thought of smacking and want it outlawed answer YES.
If you don't like the thought of smacking but don't want it outlawed answer NO.
Time out is a tool for dealing with unwanted behaviour. So is a smack. Personally I never used time out nor particularly liked the idea. Do adults impose time out on each other? Sounds psychologically manipulative or cruel to me. But I don't think it should be a criminal offence. So I would have no difficulty answering this question.
Why is it so difficult to answer if I substitute 'a smack'? What is ambiguous about that?
If you don't like the thought of smacking and want it outlawed answer YES.
If you don't like the thought of smacking but don't want it outlawed answer NO.
Abortions down - why?
Stuff reports;
The drop in abortions performed in New Zealand probably indicates people are being more careful but more research is needed, the Abortion Law Reform Association (Alranz) says.
According to Statistics New Zealand figures released today, 17,940 induced abortions were performed in the year ending December 2008, down 440 (2.4 per cent) from the 2007 year.
"I'm hopeful that what it means is there's better use of contraception, better sex education and people are being more careful. But without research, one cannot really say that," Alranz president Dr Margaret Sparrow said.
(Assuming the miscarriage rate is steady) there were more pregnancies in 2008. Perhaps more were intentional. We simply don't know. But the fact that there were more pregnancies casts doubt on Margaret Sparrow's speculation about "better use of contraception, better sex education and people are being more careful."
For whatever reason more people decided to give birth rather than have an abortion.
I believe the most significant factor driving the current baby boom (across western nations) is fashion. Then policies like paid parental leave and baby bonuses. Then growing unemployment and the security of a benefit. But like Sparrow, I am only speculating.
The drop in abortions performed in New Zealand probably indicates people are being more careful but more research is needed, the Abortion Law Reform Association (Alranz) says.
According to Statistics New Zealand figures released today, 17,940 induced abortions were performed in the year ending December 2008, down 440 (2.4 per cent) from the 2007 year.
"I'm hopeful that what it means is there's better use of contraception, better sex education and people are being more careful. But without research, one cannot really say that," Alranz president Dr Margaret Sparrow said.
(Assuming the miscarriage rate is steady) there were more pregnancies in 2008. Perhaps more were intentional. We simply don't know. But the fact that there were more pregnancies casts doubt on Margaret Sparrow's speculation about "better use of contraception, better sex education and people are being more careful."
For whatever reason more people decided to give birth rather than have an abortion.
I believe the most significant factor driving the current baby boom (across western nations) is fashion. Then policies like paid parental leave and baby bonuses. Then growing unemployment and the security of a benefit. But like Sparrow, I am only speculating.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Dane Moeke - Something very special
Don't miss this. On Friday nights we always watch Homai Te Pakipaki on Maori Television. Last Friday I was floored by this kid. I wrote to Maori TV suggesting they get him up on YouTube - who needs Susan Boyle - and just got a reply saying done, already. I've just watched it again and it had the same powerful effect. Made me cry.
Dane Moeke singing to his Dad. Sensational.
Dane Moeke singing to his Dad. Sensational.
Key interfering with the democratic process
John Key is wrong to insist that the results of the smacking referendum won't change the law. Why? Because he appears to be sending a message to the public that they are wasting their time bothering to vote. At this stage he should just butt out. Instead he is taking up the case for the left, repeating their claims that the law is working well.
The debate may turn out to be an expensive waste of effort for both sides, with Mr Key saying yesterday that he had no intention of changing the law regardless of the outcome of the referendum.
"I think it's important that governments listen to the public, but the test I've had is that if I don't think the law is working I will change it," he said. "To date I have not seen any evidence that it is not working."
The question being asked in the referendum was ambiguous as it did not directly call for the law to be changed or repealed. The issue was of significant public concern two years ago but had died away, he said.
Again signalling to susceptible minds what to think or not to think.
Of course Mr Key doesn't want the referendum turnout to be large and meaningful because again, it will put him in the spotlight and if the overwhelming vote is 'no' he will have to come up with a better course of action than last time.
Update; Family First's Bob McCoskrie has unearthed this quote from Key when still in opposition -
Key getting disturbingly close to walking in his predecessor's shoes.
The debate may turn out to be an expensive waste of effort for both sides, with Mr Key saying yesterday that he had no intention of changing the law regardless of the outcome of the referendum.
"I think it's important that governments listen to the public, but the test I've had is that if I don't think the law is working I will change it," he said. "To date I have not seen any evidence that it is not working."
The question being asked in the referendum was ambiguous as it did not directly call for the law to be changed or repealed. The issue was of significant public concern two years ago but had died away, he said.
Again signalling to susceptible minds what to think or not to think.
Of course Mr Key doesn't want the referendum turnout to be large and meaningful because again, it will put him in the spotlight and if the overwhelming vote is 'no' he will have to come up with a better course of action than last time.
Update; Family First's Bob McCoskrie has unearthed this quote from Key when still in opposition -
The Labour Government has shown utter contempt for New Zealanders and the democratic process with its plan to railroad the anti-smacking bill through Parliament. The Labour-led Government knows the measure is deeply unpopular, so it plans to act against the wishes of the majority of Kiwis and ram the bill through under urgency. This is a deeply cynical abuse of power as Labour tries to clear the decks of this controversial issue. Helen Clark has refused to let her MPs vote the way they really think on this bill. To ram it through under the cover of urgency shows just how out of touch her government has become.
Key getting disturbingly close to walking in his predecessor's shoes.
Monday, June 15, 2009
A black hole where the opposition used to be
One of the ways I gather information is by monitoring parliamentary written questions to the Minister of Social Development. That has become a fruitless exercise. The kind of questions I am interested just don't get asked. Where there used to be strong and effective opposition in new Zealand (ACT) there is now a black hole. It is very unhealthy.
Think back to Labour's first two terms. People like Muriel Newman - agree with her or not - was constantly digging and dishing. She kept the issue of welfare in the papers, on the screens and in the minds of New Zealanders. She was Maharey's nemesis. Subjects like the non-naming of fathers, child support debt, women spending their entire adult lives on the DPB, benefit fraud, etc. were all canvassed regularly. In a similar vein Heather Roy did a much-needed, highly effective job on health consistently probing productivity and spending failures and the tragedy of public health rationing and waiting lists. While they may not have been in government, the public was served very well by these opposition MPs.
Unfortunately ACT MPs got sick of being in opposition. Sick of not being able to 'achieve anything' (forgetting that they were achieving a great deal simply by virtue of doing the job of opposition socialist National could not). So when Blair Mulholland asks what is the point of ACT now, with the exception of the Local Government Minister's efforts, I sympathise.
Roger Douglas, with the welfare portfolio, has asked only one question from the Minister of Social Development this year. While I can understand his staunch championing of a privatise-everything approach to welfare, that it's all-or-nothing means no attention is drawn to what might be done within the existing system, which let's face it, isn't going away in his lifetime and probably not mine.
Labour isn't opposition. Apart from being more profligate with public money in the public sector, their basic policies vary little from the government's. They can hardly go attacking National for what they would do themselves. Only for not doing it enough. And present problems are still very much of Labour's making anyway.
The Greens and the Maori Party are not overly keen on attacking National while hedging their pet-policy bets and in the area of welfare are again averse to highlighting the dysfunctional problems it creates and National's refusal to relinquish the status quo.
So now we have a black hole where genuine opposition once operated with zest and purpose. They are all on the same side but it's not the one I'm on.
Now we get this low grade scrapping over what a randy old minister did and didn't do, an abysmally petty by-election where the major 'foes' hug each other at the end. Doesn't this photo say it all?
Most of the money the government takes off you goes on welfare, health and education. Are you happy with what you are getting for it? Tell me yes and I will concede we don't need a real, functioning, opposition.
Think back to Labour's first two terms. People like Muriel Newman - agree with her or not - was constantly digging and dishing. She kept the issue of welfare in the papers, on the screens and in the minds of New Zealanders. She was Maharey's nemesis. Subjects like the non-naming of fathers, child support debt, women spending their entire adult lives on the DPB, benefit fraud, etc. were all canvassed regularly. In a similar vein Heather Roy did a much-needed, highly effective job on health consistently probing productivity and spending failures and the tragedy of public health rationing and waiting lists. While they may not have been in government, the public was served very well by these opposition MPs.
Unfortunately ACT MPs got sick of being in opposition. Sick of not being able to 'achieve anything' (forgetting that they were achieving a great deal simply by virtue of doing the job of opposition socialist National could not). So when Blair Mulholland asks what is the point of ACT now, with the exception of the Local Government Minister's efforts, I sympathise.
Roger Douglas, with the welfare portfolio, has asked only one question from the Minister of Social Development this year. While I can understand his staunch championing of a privatise-everything approach to welfare, that it's all-or-nothing means no attention is drawn to what might be done within the existing system, which let's face it, isn't going away in his lifetime and probably not mine.
Labour isn't opposition. Apart from being more profligate with public money in the public sector, their basic policies vary little from the government's. They can hardly go attacking National for what they would do themselves. Only for not doing it enough. And present problems are still very much of Labour's making anyway.
The Greens and the Maori Party are not overly keen on attacking National while hedging their pet-policy bets and in the area of welfare are again averse to highlighting the dysfunctional problems it creates and National's refusal to relinquish the status quo.
So now we have a black hole where genuine opposition once operated with zest and purpose. They are all on the same side but it's not the one I'm on.
Now we get this low grade scrapping over what a randy old minister did and didn't do, an abysmally petty by-election where the major 'foes' hug each other at the end. Doesn't this photo say it all?Most of the money the government takes off you goes on welfare, health and education. Are you happy with what you are getting for it? Tell me yes and I will concede we don't need a real, functioning, opposition.
Saturday, June 13, 2009
All Black conjecture over-confident
Regular readers of this blog will know I love to calculate chances.
Listening to SportsTalk on Radio Live this morning, walking the dog along the beach, I was underwhelmed by the cockiness of the commentators regarding the chances of the All Blacks winning against France in Dunedin tonight. The only debate was over how much they would win by. The French would roll over and die after 10 minutes, apparently. One individual had placed $200,000 on the All Blacks with the TAB bookies.
The bookies will be slumping over their desks in relief.
The payout to me for guessing Ma'a Nonu would score the last try but France would win was a mere $66.
Listening to SportsTalk on Radio Live this morning, walking the dog along the beach, I was underwhelmed by the cockiness of the commentators regarding the chances of the All Blacks winning against France in Dunedin tonight. The only debate was over how much they would win by. The French would roll over and die after 10 minutes, apparently. One individual had placed $200,000 on the All Blacks with the TAB bookies.
The bookies will be slumping over their desks in relief.
The payout to me for guessing Ma'a Nonu would score the last try but France would win was a mere $66.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Are Kiwis as unhealthy as Americans?
Americans are becoming less healthy.
The study compared results from the National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey conducted from 2001 to 2006 with results from the same survey conducted from 1988 to 1994. The study focused on the more than 7,000 participants ages 40 to 74 who participated in the two surveys because they are at the greatest risk for heart disease.
* The percentage of U.S. residents who eat five fruits and vegetables a day has decreased from 45 percent to 26 percent.
* Those who drink alcohol moderately -- one drink daily for women or two for men -- increased from 40 percent to 51 percent, while the number who do not imbibe at all declined from 51 percent to 40 percent.
* The rate of smoking fell only slightly, from 27 percent to 26 percent.
* The rate of obesity rose from 28 percent to 36 percent.
* The percentage of U.S. residents who said they exercise at least 30 minutes three times a week declined from slightly more than 50 percent to 43 percent.
The first seems incredibly low. The NZ 2006/07 health survey showed that in the 45-54 age group 62% of men and 73% of women ate three or more servings of vegetables per day and respectively 50% and 71% ate two or more servings of fruit. The figures tend to increase with age.
The second, in respect of teetotallers, is high compared to NZ where only 16 percent of adults hadn't drank alcohol in the past year. It would appear we do not measure moderate drinking - only hazardous, which says something.
On the third indicator, it looks like we are about on par for smoking both in rates of (1 in 4 adults) and trend - slow decline.
Obesity in NZ adults peaks at 36 percent in the age group 55-64 so taken over a comparable age group the NZ rate is lower but not by much.
Finally the NZ criteria for adequate exercise is 30 minutes 5 times a week rather than 3 times. Around 50 percent achieve this in NZ so we are doing better than Americans who only achieve 43 percent at a lower threshold.
On the whole it would appear Kiwis are healthier than Americans but similarly are getting fatter, exercising less, drinking more, but smoking less.
Personally I do not eat enough fruit (although I shovel it down the kid's throats), drink too much wine (which I do not shovel down the kid's throats), don't smoke, get more than the required amount of exercise and am not obese.
The US, by the way, is the only country I have ever visited where anti-acid tablets are sold in restaurants.
The study compared results from the National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey conducted from 2001 to 2006 with results from the same survey conducted from 1988 to 1994. The study focused on the more than 7,000 participants ages 40 to 74 who participated in the two surveys because they are at the greatest risk for heart disease.
* The percentage of U.S. residents who eat five fruits and vegetables a day has decreased from 45 percent to 26 percent.
* Those who drink alcohol moderately -- one drink daily for women or two for men -- increased from 40 percent to 51 percent, while the number who do not imbibe at all declined from 51 percent to 40 percent.
* The rate of smoking fell only slightly, from 27 percent to 26 percent.
* The rate of obesity rose from 28 percent to 36 percent.
* The percentage of U.S. residents who said they exercise at least 30 minutes three times a week declined from slightly more than 50 percent to 43 percent.
The first seems incredibly low. The NZ 2006/07 health survey showed that in the 45-54 age group 62% of men and 73% of women ate three or more servings of vegetables per day and respectively 50% and 71% ate two or more servings of fruit. The figures tend to increase with age.
The second, in respect of teetotallers, is high compared to NZ where only 16 percent of adults hadn't drank alcohol in the past year. It would appear we do not measure moderate drinking - only hazardous, which says something.
On the third indicator, it looks like we are about on par for smoking both in rates of (1 in 4 adults) and trend - slow decline.
Obesity in NZ adults peaks at 36 percent in the age group 55-64 so taken over a comparable age group the NZ rate is lower but not by much.
Finally the NZ criteria for adequate exercise is 30 minutes 5 times a week rather than 3 times. Around 50 percent achieve this in NZ so we are doing better than Americans who only achieve 43 percent at a lower threshold.
On the whole it would appear Kiwis are healthier than Americans but similarly are getting fatter, exercising less, drinking more, but smoking less.
Personally I do not eat enough fruit (although I shovel it down the kid's throats), drink too much wine (which I do not shovel down the kid's throats), don't smoke, get more than the required amount of exercise and am not obese.
The US, by the way, is the only country I have ever visited where anti-acid tablets are sold in restaurants.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
"Family functioning"
That's a misnomer.
The following was written ten years ago as part of the Briefing to the Incoming Minister for Social Development.
What's changed?
The last sentence is an unusual reference to problems that have resulted from the de-institutionalisation of mentally ill or disabled people. I have grave misgivings about that development. People may not want to be supervised and stigmatised but they do need and want care and support. (Idealistic) integration into the community in practice more closely resembles isolation in the community.
The volunteer organisation I work with was formed to pass on practical domestic and budgeting skills but increasingly the families needing help have mental health problems and others as outlined above. Those are primarily in need of attention before the day to day living skills can be successfully conveyed.
It can be overwhelming.
The following was written ten years ago as part of the Briefing to the Incoming Minister for Social Development.
What's changed?
The last sentence is an unusual reference to problems that have resulted from the de-institutionalisation of mentally ill or disabled people. I have grave misgivings about that development. People may not want to be supervised and stigmatised but they do need and want care and support. (Idealistic) integration into the community in practice more closely resembles isolation in the community.
The volunteer organisation I work with was formed to pass on practical domestic and budgeting skills but increasingly the families needing help have mental health problems and others as outlined above. Those are primarily in need of attention before the day to day living skills can be successfully conveyed.
It can be overwhelming.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
So-called newspapers
Some mornings I have time to flick through the Dompost - others I don't and just go straight to the internet where I can get most of what I want anyway. The first Section of the Paper (A) is apparently devoted to New Zealand news. But it struck me quite forcibly this morning that it was more like a junk mail delivery. So I measured (unscientifically) how much advertising appeared in the 14 pages.
8.2 pages were advertisements.
Which would indicate a number of things.
1/ The newspaper has to increasingly get its revenue through advertising as circulation declines.
2/ There are less news staff generating content.
3/ We may be in a recession but there is still plenty of money for advertising. Some would view advertising as an even greater necessity.
4/ The paper is doing special deals on advertising.
5/ NEWSpapers are turning into what used to be advertising supplements which people like me could avoid.
What this brings me to is value for money. Do I need the DomPost? I like the letters-to-the-editor section and occasionally do a crossword. If I was a public transport commuter I would probably buy a copy but resent carrying around pages of advertising. As it is I am gradually turning my back on it in favour of the net.
Is there anybody out there that reads and enjoys the advertising? Would the 'newspaper' have more value if indeed it was exactly that?
8.2 pages were advertisements.
Which would indicate a number of things.
1/ The newspaper has to increasingly get its revenue through advertising as circulation declines.
2/ There are less news staff generating content.
3/ We may be in a recession but there is still plenty of money for advertising. Some would view advertising as an even greater necessity.
4/ The paper is doing special deals on advertising.
5/ NEWSpapers are turning into what used to be advertising supplements which people like me could avoid.
What this brings me to is value for money. Do I need the DomPost? I like the letters-to-the-editor section and occasionally do a crossword. If I was a public transport commuter I would probably buy a copy but resent carrying around pages of advertising. As it is I am gradually turning my back on it in favour of the net.
Is there anybody out there that reads and enjoys the advertising? Would the 'newspaper' have more value if indeed it was exactly that?
Tuesday, June 09, 2009
Not another compulsion, please
Booster seats until the age of 12?
I still use one. It's called a cushion.
When I was flying, the club had an L-shaped booster seat which shorter trainees and pilots frequently used. The panel of a Cessna 172 is very high.
Sure kids could benefit from staying in booster seats for longer. But please, not another compulsion. A little bit of persuasion of parents, who can in turn persuade their short children of the merits (they do like being comfortably able to see out of the window, especially on long trips) would go a long way.
Just make a plain, very comfortable, foam rubber booster seat a common optional extra in a vehicle and it won't be long before the kids are fighting over it.
I still use one. It's called a cushion.
When I was flying, the club had an L-shaped booster seat which shorter trainees and pilots frequently used. The panel of a Cessna 172 is very high.
Sure kids could benefit from staying in booster seats for longer. But please, not another compulsion. A little bit of persuasion of parents, who can in turn persuade their short children of the merits (they do like being comfortably able to see out of the window, especially on long trips) would go a long way.
Just make a plain, very comfortable, foam rubber booster seat a common optional extra in a vehicle and it won't be long before the kids are fighting over it.
Nosey shopper
This came my way yesterday. I particularly enjoyed it because although not the action of the person who sent it to me, it could well have been;
Yesterday I was at my local PAK N SAVE buying a large bag of Purina dog chow for my loyal pet, Biscuit, the Wonder Dog and was in the checkout line when a woman behind me asked if I had a dog. What did she think I had, an elephant? So since I'm retired and have little to do, on impulse I told her that no, I didn't have a dog, I was starting the Purina Diet again. I added that I probably shouldn't, because I ended up in the hospital last time, but that I'd lost 50 pounds before I awakened in an intensive care ward with tubes coming out of most of my orifices and IVs in both arms.
I told her that it was essentially a perfect diet and that the way that it works is to load your pants pockets with Purina nuggets and simply eat one or two every time you feel hungry. The food is nutritionally complete so it works well and I was going to try it again. (I have to mention here that practically everyone in line was now enthralled with my story.) Horrified, she asked if I ended up in intensive care because the dog food poisoned me. I told her no, I stepped off a curb to sniff an Irish Setter's ass and a car hit us both.
I thought the guy behind her was going to have a heart attack he was laughing so hard... PAK N SAVE won't let me shop there anymore.
Better watch what you ask retired people. They have all the time in the world to think of crazy things to say.
Yesterday I was at my local PAK N SAVE buying a large bag of Purina dog chow for my loyal pet, Biscuit, the Wonder Dog and was in the checkout line when a woman behind me asked if I had a dog. What did she think I had, an elephant? So since I'm retired and have little to do, on impulse I told her that no, I didn't have a dog, I was starting the Purina Diet again. I added that I probably shouldn't, because I ended up in the hospital last time, but that I'd lost 50 pounds before I awakened in an intensive care ward with tubes coming out of most of my orifices and IVs in both arms.
I told her that it was essentially a perfect diet and that the way that it works is to load your pants pockets with Purina nuggets and simply eat one or two every time you feel hungry. The food is nutritionally complete so it works well and I was going to try it again. (I have to mention here that practically everyone in line was now enthralled with my story.) Horrified, she asked if I ended up in intensive care because the dog food poisoned me. I told her no, I stepped off a curb to sniff an Irish Setter's ass and a car hit us both.
I thought the guy behind her was going to have a heart attack he was laughing so hard... PAK N SAVE won't let me shop there anymore.
Better watch what you ask retired people. They have all the time in the world to think of crazy things to say.
Monday, June 08, 2009
The debate that won't die
Dear Editor
Linley Boniface (DomPost, June 8) says there have been no downsides to the repeal of Section 59. In fact, care and protection notifications to CYF have soared. Substantiations have not. Presumably this means social workers are further overloaded and potentially unable to deal effectively with genuine cases.
The new law fosters a atmosphere of confusion, distrust and suspicion. Smacking is 'sort of' illegal. The public's respect for law is further diminished.
People have also become more mistrustful and cynical about the political process because the "huge" parliamentary majority that Ms Boniface refers to as having passed the law, did not reflect public opinion.
Meantime, as she points out, the very real, life-threatening abuse continues unabated.
Sunday, June 07, 2009
Depressed Christchurch - don't blame the recession
New Zealand went into recession early 2008. Headline;
Recession depression on the rise
Then;
Canterbury is the most depressed region in the country, with 191,000 people prescribed medication for depression in 2007, the latest year for which a breakdown by district health board is available.
We weren't in recession in 2007. Canterbury has been the most depressed region for some time. I have blogged before about the disproportionate numbers of people on sickness and invalid benefits with the primary incapacity of depression. There is also a lot of substance abuse going on in Christchurch.
When I went back to locate my earlier posts I came across this comment;
I'm 20 years old and suffer from depression. If it wasn't for the sickness benefit I would probably be dead now.
I just got back from a holiday in Darwin which I really enjoyed. As soon as I got back to Christchurch I felt like crap, I hate this place.
So does Christchurch make people depressed or is it just coincidental that a lot of depressed people congregate there? Or is the medical fraternity too quick to write prescriptions and sign people off for benefits?
There are some serious questions to be asked about this region. A once-over-lightly, talk-to-a-few-local-celebs and list what's cool in Canterbury fluff piece is silly.
Recession depression on the rise
Then;
Canterbury is the most depressed region in the country, with 191,000 people prescribed medication for depression in 2007, the latest year for which a breakdown by district health board is available.
We weren't in recession in 2007. Canterbury has been the most depressed region for some time. I have blogged before about the disproportionate numbers of people on sickness and invalid benefits with the primary incapacity of depression. There is also a lot of substance abuse going on in Christchurch.
When I went back to locate my earlier posts I came across this comment;
I'm 20 years old and suffer from depression. If it wasn't for the sickness benefit I would probably be dead now.
I just got back from a holiday in Darwin which I really enjoyed. As soon as I got back to Christchurch I felt like crap, I hate this place.
So does Christchurch make people depressed or is it just coincidental that a lot of depressed people congregate there? Or is the medical fraternity too quick to write prescriptions and sign people off for benefits?
There are some serious questions to be asked about this region. A once-over-lightly, talk-to-a-few-local-celebs and list what's cool in Canterbury fluff piece is silly.
Saturday, June 06, 2009
One $ in six coming from welfare
As reported at the NCPA today;
This prompted me to wonder how New Zealand compares. The best way to find out is through the NZ Income Survey. Unfortunately is only publishes yearly and the latest is last June 2008 - nearly a year ago. So the following will all have risen;
Of the average weekly income of all people aged 15 and over, one in 9 dollars ($8.88 to be specific) came from government transfers.
For Maori it climbs to one in six ($5.72)
For Pacific, one in six ($5.74)
For females, one in six ($5.65)
For males, one in fourteen ($14.07)
For one parent with dependent child(ren) only, one in three ($2.62)
So without the "bad economy" and high unemployment the US has experienced, our average female, Maori, or Pacific person matches their crisis-created one in six dollars welfare income. And single parents double it.
The recession is driving the safety net of government benefits to a historic high, as 1 of every 6 dollars of Americans' income is now coming in the form of a federal or state check or voucher, says USA Today.
This prompted me to wonder how New Zealand compares. The best way to find out is through the NZ Income Survey. Unfortunately is only publishes yearly and the latest is last June 2008 - nearly a year ago. So the following will all have risen;
Of the average weekly income of all people aged 15 and over, one in 9 dollars ($8.88 to be specific) came from government transfers.
For Maori it climbs to one in six ($5.72)
For Pacific, one in six ($5.74)
For females, one in six ($5.65)
For males, one in fourteen ($14.07)
For one parent with dependent child(ren) only, one in three ($2.62)
So without the "bad economy" and high unemployment the US has experienced, our average female, Maori, or Pacific person matches their crisis-created one in six dollars welfare income. And single parents double it.
Friday, June 05, 2009
Judge and CYF at odds
A judge remanded a 38 year-old mother in custody after she beat her son repeatedly with a soup ladle. But CYF wanted her bailed to continue to care for her other children. The judge turned that down and said he couldn't understand CYF's position. He intends to imprison the mother.
I would very much like to have heard more about CYF's supporting evidence. On the face of it I imagine CYF have supported bail because they believe the children are best left together, in their mother's care, for the time being. It may be that there is no ready alternative. It may be the alternative poses even greater risks. It may be that the mother has a particularly difficult relationship with the son but not the other children. But it frustrates me that we get statements like these from a judge set on sending a message. At the cost of the other children's wellbeing? Who is best placed to make that assessment. CYF or the judge?
This is in no way to be interpreted as a defensive comment regarding the woman's actions. They were reprehensible. But there is clearly a clash of interests at play, one that occurs frequently no doubt. Another judge who did "understand" CYF's position may very well have granted bail.
"Not enough is done about this sort of thing and this is an appalling assault on this poor boy," he said. "Imprisonment is inevitable."
The judge said he did not understand the position of Child, Youth and Family, which provided supporting evidence for the bail application.
"We have an epidemic in this country and this needs to be marked."
I would very much like to have heard more about CYF's supporting evidence. On the face of it I imagine CYF have supported bail because they believe the children are best left together, in their mother's care, for the time being. It may be that there is no ready alternative. It may be the alternative poses even greater risks. It may be that the mother has a particularly difficult relationship with the son but not the other children. But it frustrates me that we get statements like these from a judge set on sending a message. At the cost of the other children's wellbeing? Who is best placed to make that assessment. CYF or the judge?
This is in no way to be interpreted as a defensive comment regarding the woman's actions. They were reprehensible. But there is clearly a clash of interests at play, one that occurs frequently no doubt. Another judge who did "understand" CYF's position may very well have granted bail.
Thursday, June 04, 2009
Significant risk factor for child abuse omitted
Media Release
SIGNIFICANT RISK FACTOR FOR CHILD ABUSE OMITTED
Thursday, June 4, 2009
A report released today by the Children's Commissioner lists factors associated with fatal assault and serious injury of New Zealand children. The report is fairly comprehensive, welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell said, but disappointingly fails to mention welfare dependence as a significant risk factor for the abuse and neglect of children.
"The overlap between Work and Income clients and CYF clients is documented. New Zealand research has revealed that care and protection notifications were 4 times more likely where children are living in a family relying on the DPB . US research showed that families receiving benefits accounted for 15 percent of Illinois children but 60 percent of cases referred to their child protection services."
"It seems to me that while identifying a factor like young maternal age as important, ignoring that most 16 and 17 year-old mothers (with children in their care) are welfare dependent is an omission. There can be no doubt that the availability of welfare benefits to very young people is a factor in their decision to have babies. Yet the report identifies their children as 8 times more likely to suffer serious assault."
"Other factors identified include exposure to non-biological parents and the abuse of alcohol and drugs. Both of these are exacerbated by welfare lifestyles whereby there is no necessity to commit to a partner or hold down a job."
"If welfare dependence is ignored there is no ensuing imperative to take any action in that arena. Unsurprisingly the report's recommendations revolve only around greater intervention after at-risk children are born. "
Data; At the end of March 2009 there were 683 female 16 and 17 year-old parents in receipt of the Emergency Maintenance Allowance.
SIGNIFICANT RISK FACTOR FOR CHILD ABUSE OMITTED
Thursday, June 4, 2009
A report released today by the Children's Commissioner lists factors associated with fatal assault and serious injury of New Zealand children. The report is fairly comprehensive, welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell said, but disappointingly fails to mention welfare dependence as a significant risk factor for the abuse and neglect of children.
"The overlap between Work and Income clients and CYF clients is documented. New Zealand research has revealed that care and protection notifications were 4 times more likely where children are living in a family relying on the DPB . US research showed that families receiving benefits accounted for 15 percent of Illinois children but 60 percent of cases referred to their child protection services."
"It seems to me that while identifying a factor like young maternal age as important, ignoring that most 16 and 17 year-old mothers (with children in their care) are welfare dependent is an omission. There can be no doubt that the availability of welfare benefits to very young people is a factor in their decision to have babies. Yet the report identifies their children as 8 times more likely to suffer serious assault."
"Other factors identified include exposure to non-biological parents and the abuse of alcohol and drugs. Both of these are exacerbated by welfare lifestyles whereby there is no necessity to commit to a partner or hold down a job."
"If welfare dependence is ignored there is no ensuing imperative to take any action in that arena. Unsurprisingly the report's recommendations revolve only around greater intervention after at-risk children are born. "
Data; At the end of March 2009 there were 683 female 16 and 17 year-old parents in receipt of the Emergency Maintenance Allowance.
Capital gains tax or status quo?
Treasury is proposing a capital gains tax. On reading the headline alone one would have every reason to think the Left would be jumping for joy. But read on to find a capital gains tax would be offset with drops in income and company tax. Treasury Secretary, John Whitehead;
One of those classical 'classical liberal' dilemmas. What to support?
a/ the suggestion (because there will be less tax on individuals)
b/ the status quo (because any new tax should be opposed)
The cautionary aspect for me would be that whenever government changes the tax system it designs the changes in a way that delivers it more revenue. No reason to believe National would be any different given their commitment to leave big-ticket spending alone. And the state grows.
"A key priority has to be reducing effective marginal tax rates and increasing the rewards for effort. There is a growing view that the high mobility of our skills base means high personal income taxes are especially harmful for New Zealand's growth and productivity," he said.
At the same time New Zealand's company tax rates are at the upper end of the scale by the standards of the OECD and other open, small economies. "The pressure on us will be even stronger if the review of Australia's tax system currently under way leads to further company tax cuts across the Tasman."
One of those classical 'classical liberal' dilemmas. What to support?
a/ the suggestion (because there will be less tax on individuals)
b/ the status quo (because any new tax should be opposed)
The cautionary aspect for me would be that whenever government changes the tax system it designs the changes in a way that delivers it more revenue. No reason to believe National would be any different given their commitment to leave big-ticket spending alone. And the state grows.
Wednesday, June 03, 2009
A first for parliament?
Has it crossed anyone else's mind that parliament might be about to witness its first case of what has plagued team sports, media celebrities and the police force periodically? On one hand I hope if Worth has (being reported) women problems they are genuine and on the other that they are not. Am I making sense? Let's hope we aren't in for a tawdry, drawn-out, unpleasantly detailed, display of he said/she said.
Some art for a change
As a self-taught artist one of the exercises I laboured over was copying. As Goldie is my favourite I chose one of his masterpieces to copy. Knowing more now than I did then, I paid no attention to the support and used a standard piece of uncoated canvas board. Goldie however coated his mounts with lead white which would conceal the texture of the canvas and produced a more fluid and flowing surface. A method I now favour.
Here is the original;
Ena Te Papatahi, a Chieftainess of the Ngapuhi Tribe, 1902
And my humble attempt....
Here is the original;
Ena Te Papatahi, a Chieftainess of the Ngapuhi Tribe, 1902
And my humble attempt....
Put up the qualifying age for Super
When the Old Age pension was introduced in 1898 the qualifying age was 65. At that time the life expectancy of males was 58.
111 years later, after life expectancy has risen by over twenty years, the qualifying age remains the same. It should go up. Key made a significant mistake in committing to keep it at 65.
And staying with the sensitive subject of Super, I didn't hear the interview but Phil Goff was apparently protesting yesterday on State Radio that, thanks to the suspension of the Cullen fund contributions, Maori would ending up paying for the Super needs of future generations because of their young population. I would advise against opening that can of worms Mr Goff. Maori are by a long shot the biggest users of working-age welfare and that usage is trending up. Analysis from around 2003 showed that the Maori economy was paying $2.4 billion in tax and receiving $2.3 billion in 'social benefits in cash'. It wouldn't be wise to go starting arguments about who is paying for who in Aoteoroa.
But it's funny isn't it? When it suits the socialists the song goes, "We're all in this together" and when it doesn't, fingers start being pointed. That's the problem with collective rights. They are never equal or fair.
111 years later, after life expectancy has risen by over twenty years, the qualifying age remains the same. It should go up. Key made a significant mistake in committing to keep it at 65.
And staying with the sensitive subject of Super, I didn't hear the interview but Phil Goff was apparently protesting yesterday on State Radio that, thanks to the suspension of the Cullen fund contributions, Maori would ending up paying for the Super needs of future generations because of their young population. I would advise against opening that can of worms Mr Goff. Maori are by a long shot the biggest users of working-age welfare and that usage is trending up. Analysis from around 2003 showed that the Maori economy was paying $2.4 billion in tax and receiving $2.3 billion in 'social benefits in cash'. It wouldn't be wise to go starting arguments about who is paying for who in Aoteoroa.
But it's funny isn't it? When it suits the socialists the song goes, "We're all in this together" and when it doesn't, fingers start being pointed. That's the problem with collective rights. They are never equal or fair.
New govt pushes NZ to No 1 spot
New Zealand is apparently the most peaceful nation in the world.
The rest of the world must be in pretty bad shape.
But this caught my attention;
The report, which surveyed 144 countries, says New Zealand's rise to first is partly explained by the election of a National-Act coalition last year.
"The centre-right National Party has a strong popular mandate and a robust parliamentary majority by New Zealand's standards, putting the new Prime Minister, John Key, in a good position to push through his agenda."
He has an agenda? Apart from managing the economy and public sector better?
I was talking to a friend in the US a couple of days back and we were reflecting on the similarities between the political honeymoon's of Obama and Key. People here were so glad to see the back of Clark (likewise Bush), Key can do anything. More precisely, stuff that was unpopular when Helen was boss is OK under Key. Image and personality trump action.
I can't help but suspect that if New Zealand is the most 'peaceful' it is because New Zealanders are the most apathetic, gullible, dullards.
The rest of the world must be in pretty bad shape.
But this caught my attention;
The report, which surveyed 144 countries, says New Zealand's rise to first is partly explained by the election of a National-Act coalition last year.
"The centre-right National Party has a strong popular mandate and a robust parliamentary majority by New Zealand's standards, putting the new Prime Minister, John Key, in a good position to push through his agenda."
He has an agenda? Apart from managing the economy and public sector better?
I was talking to a friend in the US a couple of days back and we were reflecting on the similarities between the political honeymoon's of Obama and Key. People here were so glad to see the back of Clark (likewise Bush), Key can do anything. More precisely, stuff that was unpopular when Helen was boss is OK under Key. Image and personality trump action.
I can't help but suspect that if New Zealand is the most 'peaceful' it is because New Zealanders are the most apathetic, gullible, dullards.
Tuesday, June 02, 2009
More Maori single parents on benefits
The number of single parents on welfare is rising.
At Feb 2005 there were 102,350 on a main benefit (DPB, invalid,sickness or unemployment). At March 2009 there are 105,448. Not a huge rise - 3 percent - but a reversal in trend.
And the ethnic make-up has changed again.
2005 Maori = 39%
2009 Maori = 42%
2005 NZ European = 41%
2009 NZ European = 37%
2005 Pacific = 9%
2009 Pacific = 10%
2005 Other/Unspecified = 11%
2009 Other/Unspecified = 11%
We now have two influential Maori role models - Metiria Turei and Paula Bennett - who spent some years bettering themselves on the DPB. This legitimises and promotes taking advantage of a spell on the DPB to improve one's circumstances. Which has to be better than the alternative - getting stuck in a rut where turning out children becomes an income-increasing habit. But some thinking to follow the former route will end up on the latter. Others have no plan at all. The statistics tell us this is the case.
Best all round if they avoid welfare in the first place.
At Feb 2005 there were 102,350 on a main benefit (DPB, invalid,sickness or unemployment). At March 2009 there are 105,448. Not a huge rise - 3 percent - but a reversal in trend.
And the ethnic make-up has changed again.
2005 Maori = 39%
2009 Maori = 42%
2005 NZ European = 41%
2009 NZ European = 37%
2005 Pacific = 9%
2009 Pacific = 10%
2005 Other/Unspecified = 11%
2009 Other/Unspecified = 11%
We now have two influential Maori role models - Metiria Turei and Paula Bennett - who spent some years bettering themselves on the DPB. This legitimises and promotes taking advantage of a spell on the DPB to improve one's circumstances. Which has to be better than the alternative - getting stuck in a rut where turning out children becomes an income-increasing habit. But some thinking to follow the former route will end up on the latter. Others have no plan at all. The statistics tell us this is the case.
Best all round if they avoid welfare in the first place.
"We thought we'd got rid of you for the weekend"
The Manawatu Standard has the story behind a QSM recipient, Lew Findlay, who richly deserves the recognition. One of his efforts was setting up a volunteer organisation called Street Van which works to get kids off the streets and home on Friday and Saturday nights.
It'd make you cry.
Standing in The Square, Mr Findlay mused on how much the city has changed. Glue sniffing and solvent abuse wasn't the problem it was 15 years ago today's problems were alcohol and drug fuelled.
"P and marijuana, and RTDs. They're everywhere."
He has a simple recipe to fix most of society's woes. It is that parents should love their kids.
He's lost count of the times young teens have been delivered home by Street Van volunteers, to be greeted with a blast from parents who couldn't care less.
"Twelve- and 14-year-olds being told, what are you doing back here? We thought we'd got rid of you for the weekend."
It'd make you cry.
Monday, June 01, 2009
Shocking death
I subscribe to the Feminist Majority Foundation and just received this e-mail from their President. It is shocking and terribly sad;
George Tiller, who endured countless threats, an assassination attempt, bombings and assaults on his clinic, and many legal challenges by anti-abortion extremists was murdered in his church by such an extremist today.
I am greatly saddened by his death and by the loss of a friend to me and countless women, but I am also outraged that this could have happened again. I and the Feminist Majority Foundation had the privilege of knowing and working with Dr. Tiller over the last two decades. He was a courageous, unassuming, and soft-spoken man who cared deeply about his patients and about women's rights and lives. He knew his life was in danger, but continued to provide vitally needed healthcare services to women when few others would.
Dr. Tiller expected no accolades - he was doing what he knew was right and medically needed. However, he deeply appreciated the gratitude he received from his patients and pro-choice supporters nationwide. I am glad so many of us had the opportunity to thank him -- He deserved it.
Forget the Third Way
Forget the Third Way. Next up is the Golden Rule. It is apparently France's creative response to the ongoing class wars and the so-called 'failure of capitalism';
Good God. It's almost obscene. Read the entire column here.
There is an inner circle in the Elysee Palace, very close to the President, that is launching trial balloons to prepare ground-breaking legislation for a Golden Rule for a sort of purified, moralised, benevolent and above all New Capitalism to end all class wars. Its cornerstone would be the Rule of Three, meaning roughly that profit would not belong to the owner (e.g. the shareholders) of an enterprise, but would have to be divided into three equal parts, one for dividends, one for the wage-earners and one for investment. The future profit yielded by this investment would again fall under the Rule of Three, and so on to eternity. This would serve a "more just distribution of wealth".
Good God. It's almost obscene. Read the entire column here.
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Children from broken homes lagging behind in education
Does Mr Driessen know what a political statement he has made? His words are not in the least sensational. His observations make perfect sense. But they will be heresy to some fanatics.
Many women - and some men - do not want to know, especially from an educational specialist, that children from broken homes are lagging behind. That challenges the orthodoxy that women alone can raise children (of both sexes) just as well as a couple. I am not talking here about single mums finding it a battle having been deserted by an irresponsible father; those struggling and doing their best to fill the void. I am talking about the intellectual elite who told and taught that family structure is neither here nor there. In fact a family structure free from the heavy hand of the patriarchy may be preferable. Those that purposefully set about harnessing the power of the state to replace fathers with anonymous public money.
And there is a section of the legal fraternity that would vehemently disagree. Custody battles are often about who gets the money. If a 50/50 split is assumed it is left to the parents to make their own arrangements. There would be no point in child support because they would be cancelling out each others payments. A great deal of family court work would dry up.(I always remember one unusual academic saying to me that in practice it was probably better for the father to have custody as he generally had the higher earning power. It was said with some irony because, again, it made sense but would be considered audacious in the current feminist-dominated cultural and political environment.)
So await the bru ha ha this triggers. The first objection put up will be the poverty problem. It is poverty - not lack of a father. If I had the time this morning I could write the response myself as predictable as it will be. But I don't.
Education consultant Joseph Driessen said children who came from broken homes were typically 25 per cent behind other children in achievement.
"Boys are affected by divorce very deeply because 85 per cent of custody goes to the mother and guys just disappear. That needs to change," he said.
"We need to have a family split-up philosophy where we realise that sons need their fathers. All custody and access should be 50-50."
Many women - and some men - do not want to know, especially from an educational specialist, that children from broken homes are lagging behind. That challenges the orthodoxy that women alone can raise children (of both sexes) just as well as a couple. I am not talking here about single mums finding it a battle having been deserted by an irresponsible father; those struggling and doing their best to fill the void. I am talking about the intellectual elite who told and taught that family structure is neither here nor there. In fact a family structure free from the heavy hand of the patriarchy may be preferable. Those that purposefully set about harnessing the power of the state to replace fathers with anonymous public money.
And there is a section of the legal fraternity that would vehemently disagree. Custody battles are often about who gets the money. If a 50/50 split is assumed it is left to the parents to make their own arrangements. There would be no point in child support because they would be cancelling out each others payments. A great deal of family court work would dry up.(I always remember one unusual academic saying to me that in practice it was probably better for the father to have custody as he generally had the higher earning power. It was said with some irony because, again, it made sense but would be considered audacious in the current feminist-dominated cultural and political environment.)
So await the bru ha ha this triggers. The first objection put up will be the poverty problem. It is poverty - not lack of a father. If I had the time this morning I could write the response myself as predictable as it will be. But I don't.
Friday, May 29, 2009
"The best of times"; Labour's legacy
Yesterday's budget and the budget from 2000/01 are depicted below. The figures show that in 2000/01 social welfare made up 34.6 percent of government spending. After nine years that have been described as "the best of times" social welfare spending now accounts for 32.3 percent. Labour's three terms will be forever characterised in my mind as a negligent, colossal, wasted opportunity to pare welfare back to being what its political forbears intended - a safety net.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Budget 2009: Welfare Forecasts
Further to my post this morning - no plan, no vision, more welfare.
- A 31 percent increase in total spending forecast by 2013.
- Unemployment to rise to almost 100,000 by 2010/11.
- DPB numbers to rise by 13 percent - far too optimistic without policy change
- Accommodation supplement expenditure to rise by 45 percent.
- Childcare assistance funding to rise 41 percent - why, when unemployment and DPB is also forecast to rise? Why are we paying other people to look after children we are also paying their unemployed parents to look after?
- "Other" benefits spending to rise by 39 percent.
- Cost of Super to rise 32 percent (because there will be no lift in qualifying age despite life expectancy growing steadily).
- Income related rents expenditure to rise 47 percent.
- Spending on the "In Work" tax credit to drop by 11 percent. That's what ambition looks like.
What an uninspiring, lacklustre, roll-over-and-die bunch of figures.
(All of the above are based on actual spending in 2008 to forecast spending by 2013. The population, by the way, based on the last 5 years growth, will rise by 6 percent.)
- A 31 percent increase in total spending forecast by 2013.
- Unemployment to rise to almost 100,000 by 2010/11.
- DPB numbers to rise by 13 percent - far too optimistic without policy change
- Accommodation supplement expenditure to rise by 45 percent.
- Childcare assistance funding to rise 41 percent - why, when unemployment and DPB is also forecast to rise? Why are we paying other people to look after children we are also paying their unemployed parents to look after?
- "Other" benefits spending to rise by 39 percent.
- Cost of Super to rise 32 percent (because there will be no lift in qualifying age despite life expectancy growing steadily).
- Income related rents expenditure to rise 47 percent.
- Spending on the "In Work" tax credit to drop by 11 percent. That's what ambition looks like.
What an uninspiring, lacklustre, roll-over-and-die bunch of figures.
(All of the above are based on actual spending in 2008 to forecast spending by 2013. The population, by the way, based on the last 5 years growth, will rise by 6 percent.)
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;
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.
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.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
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.
Monday, May 25, 2009
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;
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.
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,
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.
"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.
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.
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.
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Too inconvenient to break the law?
In just over a month the gang patch ban is due to come into effect in Wanganui. Apparently;
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.
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.
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.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
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.....
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.....
Friday, May 22, 2009
Torture or tortured logic?
Speaking on behalf of the Maori Party;
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.
"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.
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.
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.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
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
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.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
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.
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.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
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.
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.)
.....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.)
Monday, May 18, 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
