Swede "shocked" at NZ violence

Sorry for the repetition but we keep getting Sweden shoved down our throats as a shining example of a peaceful country thanks to the banning of corporal punishment in the home.

Swedish Expert Shocked By NZ's Tradition of Violence

When Swedish psychology student My Wilkstedt arrived at Otago University a decade ago, it wasn't only the fact that her friends had been smacked that upset her. "I was actually quite shocked," she says.

But rugby upset her too.

"I really couldn't watch it," she says from Malmo, near Stockholm, where she now works for the Swedish Corrections Service. "Let's face it, it's a violent game."

I am equally shocked when a finger is pointed at NZ's violence from a country with violent crime statistics that pretty much mirror ours. And she works in Corrections so can't plead ignorance.

Mixed reaction to Maori and Welfare

The launch of Maori and Welfare resulted in quite a few interviews (with more to come), and a great deal of discussion on talkback, most of which seemed positive when I was able to monitor it. Disappointingly, but probably not surprisingly, John Key and Paula Bennett ran for the hills.

But how did Maori respond?

At the launch of Maori and Welfare last Monday, a number of Maori leaders were present and asked questions after I had spoken. I don't believe I offended anyone present; some agreed with my description of the problem privately but there is also a sense off weariness and wariness about what to do. John Tamihere was on the list of expected attendees and I was sorry he couldn't make it. We have talked briefly on radio before and he apparently gave the paper positive publicity on his Radio Live programme the next day.

Although we had hoped to have the Minister of Maori Affairs attending, Pita Sharples, another commitment prevented that happening. It now appears the Maori Party, or Tariana Turia at least, has decided to ignore me according to the closing sentence in the following report from the Wanganui Chronicle which says Tupoho find my paper insulting. This is my response sent to the editor, and copied to the Maori Party MPs adding that I was sorry on both of our behalfs', theirs and mine, that the paper has been misinterpreted. But it sadder still for young Maori because the status quo is not a happy prospect;

Tupoho say that my paper, Maori and Welfare, is insulting to Maori (Wanganui Chronicle, 22nd July.) It certainly wasn't intended to be.

Statistics show that at least half of Maori single parents currently on welfare started on a benefit as a teenager. My opinion is that many young women default to welfare because their alternatives are not bright, having failed to acquire qualifications or skills. The same could be said of the non-Maori population. The Maori teenage birthrate however, is more than three times that of non-Maori and the teenage birthrate in the poorest decile areas is ten times higher than in the wealthiest. A majority of teenage mothers go on welfare and many stay there for years. Long term dependence on welfare has been shown to produce poor outcomes for both mothers and children in terms of education and health.

My paper explores the historical discrimination and separatism Maori experienced as a reason why welfare has had a disproportionate effect on that ethnicity. Maori were more vulnerable to the damaging aspects of welfare because they have been historically economically disadvantaged. Welfare incomes can equate to an unskilled wage but they create a false economy. Although money flows into a poor community there is no commensurate economic productivity. People are not engaged in producing goods or services. Communities stagnate.

Each year the inflow of young Maori people into the benefit system continues unabated. Stopping that must be a priority for Maori. Hence my suggestion that the DPB be replaced with strictly temporary assistance signalling a strong message that welfare can no longer be viewed as a lifestyle. The paper does not recommend cutting off assistance to those already in the welfare system. It also discusses ways in which Maori could find their own solutions via organisations like Urban Maori authorities if that is what Maori want. There are 6 or 7 suggestions put up for debate. Loans instead of benefits was part of a separate proposal, 'opting-out', which although canvassed, I specifically stated may not best suit most Maori at this time.

Even in a recession there are opportunities. For instance NZ has a chronic shortage of childcare yet 50,000 single parents on the DPB have just one child. They could be employed in community or workplace crèches caring for 3 or 4 other children. Before the DPB Karitane hospitals routinely employed young single mums as staff who could combine their child care responsibilities with work. We just aren't being creative enough when we approach the problem of welfare.

In my work with beneficiaries as a community volunteer I have seen lives transformed by moving off a benefit and into work. It isn't just about financial independence. People gain a great deal from the purpose and friendships that working brings to their lives.

Finally, the paper was extracted from a larger body of work about welfare and the general population. It would be a mistake to give the impression that I consider welfare a problem only for Maori. It is a problem for anybody that gets trapped early and finds getting out nigh on impossible. I cannot accept that anybody believes we do young people a favour by letting this happen.

'The Triumph of Progressive Public Policy'

Busy morning so I'll let someone else do the writing today. This is a succinct piece from the NCPA speculating about the effect of unions and government running the show. (Of course there is also the not insignificant matter of the bottom dropping out of the US auto market);

DETROIT: THE TRIUMPH OF PROGRESSIVE PUBLIC POLICY

Imagine a city where all the major economic planks of the statist or "progressive" platform have been enacted:

* A "living wage" ordinance, far above the federal minimum wage, for all public employees and private contractors.
* A school system that spends significantly more per pupil than the national average.
* A powerful school employee union that militantly defends the exceptional pay, benefits and job security it has won for its members.
* A powerful government employee union that does the same for its members.
* A tax system that aggressively redistributes income from businesses and the wealthy to the poor and to government bureaucracies.

Would this be a shining city on a hill, exciting the admiration of all? We don't have to guess, because there is such a city: Detroit, says Jarrett Skorup, a research intern at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy.

* In 1950, Detroit was the wealthiest city in America on a per capita income basis.
* Today, the Census Bureau reports that it is the nation's second poorest major city, just "edging out" Cleveland.

Could it be pure coincidence that the decline occurred over the same period in which union power, the city government bureaucracy, taxes and business regulations all multiplied? While correlation is not causation, it is striking that the decline in per capita income is exactly what classical economists predict would occur when wage controls are imposed and taxes are increased, says Skorup.

Specifically, "price theory" predicts that artificially high business costs caused by excessive regulation and above-market labor compensation rates imposed by so-called "living wages" will lead to an increase in unemployment, explains Skorup:

* Detroit's minimum wage is a whopping $7.40 an hour, more than $2 above the federal minimum wage when it was enacted; and pressure groups are pushing for more.
* Additionally, any company contracting with the city must pay its employees $8.23 an hour if they offer benefits or $10.28 an hour if they do not offer benefits.
* The city has the highest unemployment rate among all large U.S. cities.

Source: Jarrett Skorup, "Detroit: The Triumph of Progressive Public Policy," Mackinac Center, July 6, 2009.

Foetal alcohol syndrome - questions

Yesterday a group submitted to the parliamentary health select committee about FASD, foetal alcohol syndrome disorder. The first thing that caught my eye in the report about their submission was their targeting of Glen Innes and East Tamaki for education action. That tells us a lot. They have chosen areas where they know drinking during pregnancy is a problem. Suburbs that feature a high welfare population and high teenage birth rate.

The second thing I noticed was their costing to New Zealand of FASD as "more than $1 billion each year."

By coincidence yesterday I was reading this report;

4.4.1 Fetal Alcohol Syndrome

This study uses recent estimates that 2.0 per 1,000 live births have FAS and that it cost an estimated $1.9 billion in 1992 to treat infants, children, and surviving adults for FAS and its sequelae.

4.4.1.1 Synopsis

FAS is estimated to occur in 2.0 per 1,000 live births in the United States each year (Bloss 1995, personal communication). It is estimated that during 1992, the cost of treating FAS-affected infants, children, and adults was $1,944 million. Most of the cost associated with FAS treatment is incurred while developmentally disabled persons are either institutionalized or receiving intensive home-based services during their adult years. This estimate does not include other effects that result from fetal alcohol exposure that has not been diagnosed as FAS.

So in NZ it is estimated that over 1 percent of babies are born with FAS yet the US estimates the incidence at 2 per 1,000 births or 0.2 percent. These figures are wildly divergent. Which results in correspondingly divergent costings.

Yet I can believe that 1 percent (and much more) of mothers drank considerable amounts of alcohol during pregnancy. The US is probably employing a much higher diagnostic threshold ie they are documenting the most severe cases.

Getting back to where the problem is concentrated as indicated by where the group is focussing their efforts, "teenage girls and their families" in the poorest areas of Auckland. Around 4,500 females were granted a sickness benefit for pregnancy related reasons in 2008. Two thirds transfer to a DPB. 80 percent were aged 18-24 (an unknown number were younger). I wonder how much of their sickness benefit was spent on alcohol?

If society really wants to promote responsible parenting, pre- and post-birth, is putting up cash incentives to anyone with reproductive equipment the best idea we can come up with?

Taxpayer funded trips

Not what you are expecting.

Research from the Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation shows that from a sample of 1046 frequent drug users, of those injecting drugs in 2008, 77 percent had used an unemployment or social welfare benefit to pay for the drugs; for methamphetamine users the percentage was 43 and for ecstasy users 18. For injecting drug users this was the main way they paid for their drugs.



(Left click to enlarge image)

Work and Income cannot compel people on benefits who abuse drugs to accept treatment. Not even if drug and substance abuse is their primary incapacity for being in receipt of a sickness or invalid benefit.

The taxpayer, on the other hand, is compelled to fund their benefits.

No degree - no debate

At MJ's request I have removed the original post. She says it has personally identifying details despite my having removed her name before publishing it. Initially she emailed me on Tuesday asking for my qualifications. I responded that I was not University educated. Not satisfied with that response she then asked the same question via my blog creating a strong impression that she was keen to expose what she views as my inadequacy publicly.

I have never pretended to have letters after my name. Similarly I have no art qualifications - not even a pass in school certificate art - but because I receive commissions, exhibit and sell my work I describe myself as an artist. This is also, according to one commentor yesterday, unacceptable.

I am still waiting for a substantive argument about the content of my paper rather than attacks on my suitability to produce it.

MJ, if you do not want your emails to me made public, don't send any.

'Maori and Welfare'

The NZ Business Roundtable today published a paper I penned as part of their Te Oranga o te Iwi Maori project. The media attention has been high and I have gone from one interview to the next and then the official launch. On Breakfast TV tomorrow 6:50.

I will link to the paper when it is on-line. Here's the release.

Report calls for major welfare shake-up

20/07/2009 17:44:35

A report has been released which recommends the Domestic Purposes Benefit be scrapped and replaced by a shorter-term support package.

Researcher Lindsay Mitchell has made the recommendation in her study of welfare policy and social problems among Maori, which was commissioned by the Business Roundtable.

Citing the high rates of Maori women receiving the DPB, she says steps should be taken to discourage them from getting pregnant in the first place.

Ms Mitchell says to that end, the DPB should be abolished and the Government should only provide support for one year. She says beyond that period financial support should be provided by the child's mother, father and extended family.

The report also recommends looking at the introduction of contributory unemployment insurance for workers and a restriction on current universal welfare entitlements.

It advises tighter eligibility criteria for sickness and invalid benefits and suggests panels of doctors be used to approve applications as opposed to individual practitioners.

Mrs Mitchell believes steps will have to be taken by the Government at some stage - not because it wants to, but because it has to. She says there is a lot of public concern about welfare dependency becoming a lifestyle among both Maori and Pakeha.

Mrs Mitchell says the state should provide welfare support only as a last resort safety net.

Squawking when their own chickens come home to roost

There is little easier than writing policy in opposition.

Phil Goff wants the dole paid to people whose partners are working. What a hypocrite. It is Labour's pursuit of means-testing egalitarianism which has left New Zealanders with a tax-funded unemployment insurance system which rips half of them off when push comes to shove.

Using the recession to do nothing

I feared this would happen. That National would use the recession to do nothing about reforming welfare, the DPB in particular.

According to the DomPost;

Social Development Minister Paula Bennett said the rise in numbers on the DPB was a reflection of the job market.

Correct in part but not to the exclusion of anything else.

Bennett implies that the 8,000 increase from June 08 to June 09 is primarily about women losing their jobs. Some, yes. But it is more complex than that.

Or is she actually admitting that when jobs are harder to come by women get pregnant to get on welfare? Or that people break up relationships so they can claim both dole and DPB? I don't think she is.

In 2008 over 6,200 first-time mothers with babies under 12 months old were granted the DPB. 55 percent were Maori and Pacific. A third were NZ European.

An important reason why the DPB is growing again is increased fertility rates, especially among the young. Throw in, as well, increasing ex-nuptial births, now approaching half of all births.

If the job market is the most important influence on DPB numbers why, during a period of very low unemployment, did DPB numbers shown relatively little change? The total caseload has averaged around 105,000 for the past decade, with a low of 96,000 and a high of 109,000. It is currently at 104,400. If the job market is the most important influence on DPB numbers then this is as good as it gets.

But she was confident that once the job market had improved, numbers on the DPB would drop again.

Not necessarily. Young mothers entering the system stay the longest. Until National gets a grip on that fact and decides to do something about it, a high DPB toll is here to stay.

I have said it before - the DPB is institutionalised. Numbers on it are affected by more factors than the job market. But if those other factors are not acknowledged, what chance they will ever be addressed?

Finally ask yourself this. If a single mother has been in work and loses her job, why doesn't she receive the unemployment benefit? Why isn't she subject to the same conditions as other unemployed people? There is less pressure to work when on the DPB. That's why. And that is another reason why the Minister's optimism that the numbers will soon drop again is misplaced.

How many genuinely abused children will fall by the wayside?

The following figures just received from MSD show that care and protection notifications to CYF are rising significantly. For the financial year 06/07 there were 71,927 notifications; in 07/08 there were 89,451; and for the first three quarters of 08/09 there have been 82,459. Notifications are therefore on target to rise around 23 percent on the 2007/08 financial year.

This is a result of the social climate produced under the section 59 hysteria. Some will perceive it as welcome.

However, CYF are cutting staff numbers and closing community offices while the workload is rising. Social workers are under increasing pressure trying to manage growing caseloads. What chance the real problems will, to use a hackneyed but useful phrase, 'slip through the cracks'?

Biggest jump in unemployment benefit numbers since late 1980s

Media Release

BIGGEST JUMP IN UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT NUMBERS SINCE LATE 1980s

Wednesday, July 15, 2009

Latest benefit statistics just released by the Ministry of Social Development reveal the second largest rise in unemployment benefit receipt since records have been kept.

"Not since the financial year 1988/89 has New Zealand seen such a large rise in numbers on the unemployment benefit, " welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell said.

Over the year to June 2009 the numbers rose from 18,000 to 51,000 - a rise of 33,000 or 187 percent. "The only other time such a large rise was recorded was over the period between June 1988 and June 1989 when unemployment numbers jumped by 37,000. "

As well, numbers on the sickness benefit have surpassed 50,000 for the first time ever. "There was a 17 percent jump in sickness benefits from 46,000 to 54,000. Receipt of invalid's benefit grew by another 2 percent to reach 85,000 and the numbers drawing the DPB grew by 8 percent climbing to 104,000."

Overall the total number of people receiving a main benefit increased by 20 percent from 258,000 to 310,000.

"While some of the growth is outside of the government's control there are certainly areas in which some reform or rules tightening could make a difference. The OECD has repeatedly warned New Zealand that benefits are too open-ended in comparison with other member countries. There are no treatment requirements on people receiving invalid or sickness benefits for drug or substance abuse problems; no work-testing on the DPB; no benefit time-limits or reducing payments over time. Yet there are still areas of employment that are experiencing shortages. Childcare and care of the aged are two."

"In the past New Zealand maintained almost full employment with government sponsored work schemes whereby local infrastructure projects were subsidised through payments to local government. While it is infinitely preferable for jobs to be created by the private sector, if National is not going to provide the tax relief and incentives to create these jobs, maybe it is time they started looking at options other than simply handing out money for no productive return."

A different approach to assisted suicide

An elderly high profile English couple, one terminally ill and the other struggling with eyesight and hearing problems, travelled to Switzerland where they ended their lives at an assisted suicide clinic.

It is news to me that Switzerland has such an enlightened approach to death.

Switzerland allows assisted suicide by a nondoctor provided that it is not done for profit. That is the most liberal ruling in Europe and its principles were set out as early as 1918: “In modern penal law suicide is not a crime . . . aiding and abetting suicide can themselves be inspired by altruistic motives.”

It is interesting to read the comments that follow. It is not enough that some people want to tell others how to live their lives but also how to end them. Naturally. In severe pain or drugged up to your eyeballs with morphine; in and out of consciousness but sometimes aware of the grief of those watching; slowly, with no control over your bodily functions; powerless . Your life did not belong to you so why should your death?

Welcome to New Zealand. Welcome to most supposedly civilised western nations.

Over half teenage mothers go on welfare

Media Release

OVER HALF TEENAGE MOTHERS GO ON WELFARE

Tuesday, July 14, 2009

New information released by the Ministry of Social Development shows that more than half of first-time teenage mothers giving birth in 2007 and 2008 went on welfare.

There was a yearly average of 5,044 births to 15-19 year-olds in 2007/08. According to welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell;

"Around 2,800 mothers - or 56 percent - went on the domestic purposes benefit*. Of these mothers 48 percent were Maori, 30 percent were NZ European and 10 percent were Pacific. The most common age was eighteen. "

"What's more, an unknown number of babies will have been taken into the care of family or whanau and are being raised with the assistance of an Unsupported Child's benefit. A further unknown number will be second and even third births added to an existing benefit."

"Clearly teenage parenthood is a significant and ongoing cost to the taxpayer. But far worse than the financial implications are the social. Many of these children will be severely disadvantaged by impoverished environments, transience, exposure to the drug and alcohol abuse associated with 'partying' before and after birth, and subsequent poor health and educational outcomes ."

"This state of affairs has been let go for decades now. Although successive governments have played the intervention card via CYF and a host of other non-government organisations, the number of materially and emotionally ill-equipped young girls becoming teenage mothers continues unabated. It is a matter of urgency that the government takes a dispassionate and evidence-based look at why this is happening and what role the DPB plays in perpetuating the problem."

Not pulling on my head or heart strings

Occasionally, when watching something like Nigel Latta's Into The Darklands, or reading an Alan Duff book, it is possible to feel some sympathy for a killer. Taffy Hotene, for instance, suffered severe abuse and alienation from his family, from very young and for many years.

I have yet to experience the faintest twinge for this character. In fact the effect is inverse to the amount of past 'hardship' he parades.

There is nothing feminine about netball nutters

This has got to be a joke;

A Palmerston North netball team that wears shorts instead of skirts is embroiled in a stoush with the sport's administrators after it was told to fall back into the feminine line.

Feminine?? Anyone with any experience of netball coaches and administrators will know they are the most bureaucratic battleaxe butch bitches about. On any scale of reasonableness they are absent. Because they stopped growing vertically but kept on going horizontally their subsequent inability to foot it with the players leads to a deep-seated inadequacy vented through raging authoritarianism. Out of control tubs of testosterone.

And the ridiculous incongruity of their insistence on addressing each other as "ladies" at all times - even little girls on the receiving end of a strident barking are "LADIES". They exhibit a fascinating and appalling combination of militarism and political feminism. Netball Nazis. Utter nutters.

Restraint

Regular readers of this blog will know that in the league of blogosphere rudeness mine just doesn't rate. It is not in my nature to slam and slag people off. I don't find it therapeutic and attention seeking isn't a priority either. However I would not like to give the impression that I never speak ill of people. I do. But I confine my comments to people I know well and trust - making them, that is:-)

That, I feel, is as it should be.

If I was cleverer and quicker remarks such as the following might trip off my tongue. They would also be more than acceptable;

"I've just learned about his illness. Let's hope it's nothing trivial." - Irvin S. Cobb

"He is simply a shiver looking for a spine to run up." - Paul Keating

"He loves nature in spite of what it did to him." - Forrest Tucker

"Some cause happiness wherever they go; others, whenever they go." - Oscar Wilde

"I've had a perfectly wonderful evening. But this wasn't it." - Groucho Marx

"I have never killed a man, but I have read many obituaries with great pleasure." Clarence Darrow

"Thank you for sending me a copy of your book; I'll waste no time reading it." - Moses Hadas

"I am enclosing two tickets to the first night of my new play; bring a friend.... if you have one." - George Bernard Shaw to Winston Churchill
"Cannot possibly attend first night, will attend second... if there is one." - Winston Churchill, in response.

"I feel so miserable without you; it's almost like having you here." - Stephen Bishop

Arguing the law but missing the point

Not that I agree with Rosslyn Noonan, Chief Human Rights Commissioner, but according to this news item we are already back to square one in respect of the anti-smacking law;

She says force can be used when it is reasonable to do so, such as stopping the child from hurting themselves or others.

What the 'yes' vote urgers are missing is this. Because of a combination of media reporting and the controversial debate about banning smacking, the social climate has changed. There is hysteria about child abuse abroad. This isn't dissimilar to the hysteria over sexual abuse earlier. (Sexual abuse similarly underwent a change of definition to eventually encompassing any unwanted touching.)

Many more people are reporting what they personally define as abuse or assault which the police may or may not prosecute. The reports do not need witness substantiation or evidence. If the particular police involved are inclined towards empathising with the current climate, a prosecution is more likely to occur. There have been and will be miscarriages of justice.

People cognisant of what has happened are fearful, with good reason. Worse, I don't think there is any putting this cat back in the bag.

Having kittens - literally

Remember Daisy?

She's up the duff. We first noticed something awry when she started missing her target when leaping. Then Robert, who likes to carry her around cradled in his arms, noticed her tummy getting harder. Then Sam, searching for fleas, noticed her teats changing. Now she is ballooning daily. Sam wants to do a pregnancy test but I asked her how she proposes getting the stick into a constant stream of cat pee? Much less why you would want to. If she isn't pregnant, I'm the pope.

Anyway, it's written all over her face.

Doctor shortage

The OECD has just released a comparison of health data. In many ways NZ is unremarkable. Except for this;

"New Zealand has fewer physicians per capita than most other OECD countries. In 2007, New Zealand had 2.3 practising physicians per 1,000 population, well below the OECD average of 3.1."

By my reading of the situation this is largely a result of political interference. Successive governments have made the role of general practitioner less and less attractive. And of course our general economic standing means physicians are better paid elsewhere. My husband is a health professional (not a physician) but our children have never shown the remotest inkling of interest in pursuing a career in health. With all the dire media coverage, why would they?

Discretionary welfare - the irony and the problem

Last week I commented on the turn-around the Left has made on the issue of discretion in the area of welfare benefits. Having achieved their rules-based welfare, they are now calling for eligibility rules to be bent and discretion used for top-ups.

To illustrate my claim here is a passage written by Geoffrey Palmer, then a Professor of Law at Victoria, later Labour PM and briefly PM, in 1976;

"The message is, in my view, that whatever benefits we decide to pay we should pay them as of right. We should cut down the areas of discretion. We should make the benefits available automatically where at all possible and we should eliminate the screening mechanisms which destroy the dignity of the person receiving the benefit. When the community has decided to spend as much money as New Zealand has on income maintenance the money ought to be delivered by efficient and up to date machinery which aims to serve the recipient of the benefit without making him feel like a beggar."

In 1975 there was a grand total of 54,152 working age people receiving a benefit and nearly a third were widows. The population was 3.1 million.

Today there are over 300,000 with a population of 4.3 million. The results of rules and entitlement-based welfare are clear.

My own view about discretion is that is belongs in the area of private and voluntary charity where it can be exercised rightfully by people who have raised their own money and gathered their own resources. We should have far more of this sort of assistance. The organisation I work for does not carry on providing help endlessly to people who are not making a reciprocal effort.

When it comes to the state, the use of discretion becomes more difficult. How much power should state agents have when it comes to taxpayer purse strings? Hence we should have far less state assistance.

Doctor beat-up

This is an entirely spurious headline designed to antagonise patients and taxpayers;

Doctors prescribe drugs that don't work

Three out of four New Zealand doctors have prescribed placebo medications to patients, new research suggests.

Medical researcher Shaun Holt said the practice could be costing the taxpayer several million dollars.

The placebo effect exists, therefore if a drug improves someone's condition, it has 'worked'. The writer tells us as much in the article;

Placebos are associated with the release of natural painkillers in the brain, including dopamine. Taking a placebo creates a "self-reinforcing feedback loop" in the brain: during pain an individual recalls having taken the placebo and reduced pain reinforces its status as a painkiller. About one-in-three people appear susceptible to placebo effects.

Doctors are quite probably adept at identifying the one in three.

And what about prescribing drugs as a diagnostic tool? If the doctor guesses wrong, the drug 'doesn't work'. But it does eliminate one possible diagnosis so hasn't been a waste of money.

There is a subtle but significant difference between a drug not doing what it is therapeutically supposed to do and it being a waste of money.

Gordon Campbell on Paula Bennett's welfare abuse

This is a column by Gordon Campbell. My comment follows;

Paula Bennett’s welfare abuse
July 1st, 2009

To date, the government’s response to the recession has been faulted on the demand side – for not giving sufficient stimulus to the economy, as reflected in its wilful misdirection of most of the April tax cut money to the top tier of incomes, when low income earners would have spent the money to far better economic effect. The lack of proper planning and funding for social welfare provision has been just as disastrous.

Right now, the government seems intent on forcing more and more of the victims of this recession into fewer and fewer job openings. On National Radio this morning for instance, Social Welfare Minister Paula Bennett could be heard riding off energetically in all directions. Why, she was going to hand the Disabilities portfolio over to Taraina Turia in order to concentrate on getting people into jobs! We were dreaming, Bennett said, if we didn’t think that unemployment wasn’t going to increase.

Fabulous. So, beyond the slogans and empty gestures, would she be relaxing any of the eligibility settings for assistance, in recognition of the scale of the recession? No, not at all. Earlier this year, Bennett refused to instruct her staff to exercise discretion when it came to dispensing help through the Temporary Additional Support (TAS) scheme – which is the last line of defence for people in danger of slipping through the welfare safety net. Now was not a time to ‘tinker’ with the rules, she told me when taking questions about the government’s response to the recession, at a post Cabinet press conference.

In similar vein, Bennett is refusing to revisit the eligibility rules in households where one partner is still working. Currently, as Sue Bradford of the Greens has pointed out, couples with an earner in paid employment need to be amassing below $534 a week before the unemployed partner can qualify for the dole, or the DPB. This rule is, among other things, serving to keep the welfare figures conveniently and artificially low. As Bradford says, the situation is putting pressure on couples to split, in order to gain access to assistance. Shouldn’t Christine Rankin and the Families Commission be having something to say to Bennett about her eligibility rules?

These rules, as Susan St John and Keith Rankin showed yesterday in the NZ Herald, stand up badly to international comparison, and are inherently unfair :

Mary Williams, of Muriwai Beach, who lost her job in a bank in March, said in a letter to the Herald: “Why am I classed as a single earner paying ACC and income tax when employed, but classed as a couple when out of work?”

She and her husband Neville have started selling their possessions. “Because my husband earns just above the income limit for a couple, I cannot register for unemployment,” she said.

So, it is all very well for the government to say it is concentrating on getting people back into work. Already, the inadequacy of this response is evident : because there are not enough jobs for the people, and for the families, most at risk. Eligibility rules for assistance that have been premised on a relatively healthy job market and a ready return to employment are no longer adequate. Still, this government currently seems uninterested in responding to genuine need – it is more about spinning an appearance of concern, for the re-assurance of the majority still in work.

That approach is extremely short-sighted. “Financial pressures that attack the family unit lead to deepening poverty and emotional damage for all concerned,” Bradford says. “In the long term, poor educational, health and employment outcomes for children and adults in sole parent families will cost us more than easing rules on income levels and benefit entitlements.”

It would take five minutes for Bennett to issue a direction that people with partners in paid employment can access the unemployment benefit. She should also be telling her front line staff to administer the TAS benefits with discretion, and according to need. Yet that would be to assume that this government has an interest in steering New Zealand through this recession with anything other than its own welfare in mind.

By Lindsay on Jul 3, 2009 | Reply
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

But socialists have traditionally despised the idea of discretionary entitlement. Universal rules and rights-based entitlement is their ideal. In order to provide such, means-testing has to be applied. That allows targeting of the neediest.

“Eligibility rules for assistance that have been premised on a relatively healthy job market and a ready return to employment are no longer adequate.”

The eligibility rules have been premised this way since the first Labour government introduced Social Security.

Welfare benefits are paid from general taxation. If people want better cover, then the country needs to change to a more comprehensive insurance-based model.

Sue Bradford,“In the long term, poor educational, health and employment outcomes for children and adults in sole parent families will cost us more than easing rules on income levels and benefit entitlements.”

So Bradford is now admitting that there is a problem with sole parent families. This is only because, she would counter, their benefits are insufficient and their children live in poverty.

But now she is suggesting that couples be given preferential treatment in terms of how much household income they can acquire via welfare.

You really should be thanking Paula Bennett - not attacking her - for sticking with the welfare philosophy of the Left. State, universal, means-tested, rules-based, entitlement.

MSD take a year to release statistics

Yesterday the Ministry of Social Development released their annual statistical report - 1 year after the most recent statistical information contained therein. It covers the 30 June 07 to 30 June 2008 period. That means we can look forward to having current statistics available in a year's time.

At the end of June 2008 there were 258,317 people on a main benefit. Towards the end of June 2009 there were 302,000. So some trends depicted in the report have reversed.

But here is a smattering of tables and graphs of particular interest;

Firstly this table shows welfare expenditure as a share of gdp.



Note that the total expenditure on pensions and main benefits was $9,285,000. Yet if you check 2008 Crown Expenses tables you will actual 2008 Social Security and Welfare spending at $17,877,000. This includes all of the other expenditure like accommodation supplement, emergency benefits,etc and the cost of running the whole kit and kaboodle. That pushes the share of gdp up to just short of 10 percent. The share of total government spending is 31 percent.

The next is interesting because it illustrates the extent of DPB 'churning'.



These figures relate only to grants - not total numbers of recipients. Of the 36,494 people granted the DPB in 2007/08 only 23 percent had either never received a benefit before or not within the last four years. Over three quarters were transferring benefits or returning. This indicates being on the DPB is more a way of life than an unusual and temporary event.

The next two tables again show grants, not total numbers, and provide reasons for those grants.






There was a big annual increase in invalid benefit grants (36 percent) and psychological and psychiatric conditions continue to trend up with both invalid and sickness grants. Nearly all of the growth in sickness grants was due to psychological/psychiatric disorders and substance abuse.

Objecting to 'good moral character'

Speaking to the medicinal cannabis debate last night Lianne Dalziel said;

The problems I see with the Bill are:

The introduction of a complex regulatory framework - with a Medicinal Cannabis Registration Board being established to issue Medicinal Canabis Identification Cards and Designated Agent Identification Cards - A Designated Agent is required to prove him or herself to be of good moral character. I totally object to that phrase being inserted in NZ law.

What is that about? A facet of the religion of 'non-judgementalism', a dogma adhered to fanatically by the Left and promulgated thoughtlessly through various state institutions?

It is hardly surprising that many people now exist in a moral vacuum. If good moral character is archaic and unmentionable, what are we left with?

More interest in the smacking referendum than the 2008 general election?

In respect of the 2008 General Election;

At 14 October, 2008, "... around 200,000 people still weren't enrolled."


On 4 November, 2008, there were, "...170,000 people who are still not enrolled to vote on Saturday."


So in those 3 weeks preceding the 2008 General Election only 30,000 people enrolled to vote.

In the two weeks since the smacking referendum campaign was launched by the Electoral Commission, over 25,000 have enrolled or updated their details.

While not directly comparable these figures provide some context.

People appear just as, or more motivated, by the smacking referendum.

Key's strategy a flop

Great. New Zealanders are not going to be told that the referendum is a waste of time. Bad call John Key.

Just released;

More than 25,000 people have responded to the call to get enrolled or update their enrolment details to take part in the upcoming referendum - but there are still many more who need to take action today.

In the two weeks since the official campaign started to raise awareness of the referendum on the question “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?” at least 25,000 people have updated their enrolment details or enrolled for the first time.

“We’re recording an average of over 2,000 people a day taking action by enrolling or updating their details to get ready to vote in the referendum,” says Murray Wicks, National Manager, Electoral Enrolment Centre.

It is only 7 months since the election when most motivated people would have been up-to-date. Around 33,000 young people will have turned 18 during that time and many people will have moved. But I think 25,000 is quite significant. Especially when it is also quite typical for people to wait until the last minute to take action.

From better pay to no pay

Back in 2005 one of the most controversial issues was the passage of legislation that would force sheltered workshops, which employ intellectually disabled people, to pay the minimum wage. This was a Labour move, backed by the unions, besotted with equal pay. ACT in particular, led by Muriel Newman, warned that the change would lead to the closure of workshops and the loss of jobs. The arrogant Ruth Dyson sailed on undeterred by the pleas of families whose main concern was to keep their sons and daughters employed and with purpose and meaning in their lives.

And so it has come to pass.

The Hutt News yesterday reported that after twenty four years Packworx would close leaving 23 intellectually disabled workers without jobs. In 2006 it had employed 60 people.

At the time Labour announced it was repealing legislation that covered sheltered workshops, around 3,000 people were employed in the sector. Mrs Gray said some workshops closed immediately and a good number of others shut up shop when the legislation came into full effect on December 1 last year.

I suppose the women that marched on Parliament yesterday want similar equalising legislation. How does the saying go? Be careful what you wish for because you might just get it.

Welfare mentality creep

It is official.

When in need, most New Zealanders now believe that strangers, rather than their own families, should support them.

The radical feminist, the minority rights activist, and the Marxist succeeded in putting the machinery in place whereby the state would be a more influential institution than the family. The machinery was the law coupled with insidiously growing welfare benefits.

Now minds and psyches have been infiltrated and most people won't even realise what has happened.

While I am not much on conspiracy theories, there were handfuls of people who had active agendas at various times and over time. On the whole, however, the process has been a haphazard series of what appeared to be good intentions (with resulting political and public buy-in) gone bad.

Here is a smattering of comment from the NZ Herald website;

The dole threshold level must be increased to help working people in these extra ordinary financial times..... it is really important that our government act with speed on this matter.

I hope all the people that are saying that the situation is fine the way it is could live on $534 a week to cover all their costs of living and someone else's.

Reality is these days if you are paying off your own home and one person in the relationship loses their job then 1 income isnt going to pay the bills.

Many married couples keep their finances seperate these days.The $80 earning limit is now also a joke while power, insurance and petrol esculate. The $80 limit plus the connection with what the wife is earning will end up making us all get a divorce to get the dole which nobody can live on anyway.

Of course you should be able to get the dole if you have paid taxes you are entitled to it, should have no bearing upon whether you have a partner or not.

The dole system should not discriminate against anybody. It shouldn't matter if one partner is still working. That partner is still contributing tax and the more they are earner the more tax they are paying.

Why this discrimination is allowed to continue, I have no idea, but marital status shouldn't enter the equation, when one partner loses employment and the other is still working.

Yes, if one partner is made redundant and the other is still employed, then the redundant partner should definitely be able to claim the full dole payment (but only when redundancy occured).

Yes I think everyone should be entitled to something, to be able to contribute to their portion of the weekly costs. Even the basic costs these days are barely covered by a reasonable full time wage.

I think there should be some kind of assistance for people who are made redundant and are married or in a relationship...I think it just takes one look at the mortgagee sales to realise people need more help than what is on offer!

I think it should be decided on the income that is left coming into the house and probably the threshold in NZ needs increasing with living costs sky rocketing.

Yes, you should be able to get the dole if your partner is working.

McDonalds scam

I do not expect any readers of this blog will be silly enough to fall for this .... but, I just received the following e-mail.

Dear McDonald's Customer,

We are planning big changes for 2009 at McDonald's Australia chain of restaurants and because your opinion is very important to us, we invite you to take a short Customer Satisfaction Survey that will help us improve the quality of our food and services.

We know your time is valuable, so we will give you a $50 bonus just for taking our quick 7 question survey. The entire process will take no more than 5 minutes.

Terms and conditions apply. Click here to take the survey.

You can participate in this survey only once.

It takes you to a very authentic looking site. The give away is the spelling mistakes. But if you can't spell, a widespread affliction as indicated by the comments people make on the net, you might not notice. After filling out a survey it then asks for your credit card details in order to pay you the bonus.

I was going to let McDonalds know but they are on to it.

It has been brought to our attention that a fraudulent email relating to a customer satisfaction survey has been circulated claiming to be from McDonald's New Zealand. This email was not sent by McDonalds New Zealand.

The survey requests amongst other things, credit card details, citing that participants will be credited with a $50.00 voucher. Please be aware that McDonald’s NZ only use reputable research companies and would never request bank or credit card details. Hoax emails come from known and unknown sources and email addresses in most cases can be 'spoofed' (term for a spam email whereby spammers make the email appear from someone other than the actual sender).

Please disregard and delete this email if you happen to receive it.

Unemployment chickens coming home to roost

Keith Rankin and Susan St John want the dole to be available without the means-testing of a partner's income. However, the choice New Zealand made way back in 1938, was to create an unemployment benefit (paid for initially through a new tax but later - c 1964 - out of general taxation) that was available to all, with no time-limits or reducing payments over time, regardless of how much or whether recipients had paid in. The price for this was means-testing.

If we want a more generous unemployment benefit, with more generous entitlements, then we need tailored unemployment insurance. In fact, people can already take out loss of income insurance privately, but many argue, why should I pay twice?

I have every sympathy with those people being made redundant and finding they do not qualify for the dole because their partner's income is too high. They have paid taxes only to find they aren't supported in return. It isn't fair. But then I have spent years arguing that the welfare system isn't fair.

By the way, the Australian income test limit provided in the NZ Herald doesn't look right to me. Here is the NZ limit of $534. That's right.

But the following is how the limit is calculated in Australia.

Partner income which exceeds the cut-out point also reduces your payment by 60 cents in the dollar.

The cut-out point looks like $775 per fortnight or $387.50 per week.

So you can get the dole if your partner works but it will be abated at the rate of 60c in the dollar if you partner's income exceeds $387.50 per week.

The dole pays $204.50 per week. If 60 cents is lost on every dollar of income your partner earns over $387.50 your eligibility would cut out when their income reached $728.33 - not $1069.

I could be wrong but wild variations eg $534 versus $1069 invite suspicion.

Update; NZ Herald - In Australia, the dole is reduced by only 60c for every dollar of a partner's income above A$387.50 ($485) a week, so a partial benefit is available until the partner earns A$1069 ($1340) a week.

Now I see the mistake. The writer has used the fortnightly dole figure of $409 to calculate a weekly cut-out point. Did this piece go out in the hard copy NZ Herald?

NZ Parents Under the Microscope

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.)

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.

"... 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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 -

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.