Go ahead - break the law

I am unspeakably angry at the government's, no, John Key's reaction to the referendum. But I shouldn't be. Smacking is effectively against the law and that is how it will stay. But those authorities that administer the law are being told to act like it isn't. And I shouldn't feel angry because there are lots of other things in New Zealand that are against the law but are routinely ignored.

Cannabis use. You can even light up in the grounds of parliament and get ignored.

Truancy. Kids stay home and get ignored because frankly it is a relief not to have them disrupting other children.

Censorship law. Kids are prohibited from buying, borrowing or playing Xbox and Playstation games that wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the market the same kids provide.

Thou shalt not shack up and claim a benefit. The habit is now so pervasive most people have forgotten it is against the law.

Under-age sex. Oh, let's not even go there.

And you will no doubt be able to think of others. What's one more piece of turn-a-blind-eye law added to the list?

(But, if I hear or read any more mealy-mouthed analysis of the non-vote I will scream. After an election poll, do we agonise over what those who stayed home would have voted? Should we return to November last year and declare National a non-winner because 22 percent of people didn't vote for them or any other party? The fact is people who don't speak can't be heard.)

Worst in the world?

Naturally the YES voters are ramping it up in the face of an overwhelming NO from the public. Here is Deborah Morris-Travers from the YES vote coalition:

"We have the world's worst child death by maltreatment rate, and the consequences of child maltreatment and are costing all New Zealanders $2 billion a year in social welfare, legal, prison system and other costs, let alone the community and social costs.....The Prime Minister is to be applauded for sticking by the law as it stands, and for seeking non-legislative responses which can give people comfort on the issues that clearly concern many."

The world's worst?

The only data I am aware of is from UNICEF and covers only 27 countries, is from the 1990s and had NZ third worst equal with Hungary but a long way behind the US and Mexico.

In a review of the NZ situation by Mike Doolan he wrote;

"International comparisons must be interpreted with caution, however, as child deaths from maltreatment are a rare event. In a small country like NZ, the very small numbers involved produce highly volatile rates. The UNICEF report acknowledges that inconsistencies of classification and lack of common definitions and research methodologies mean that little internationally comparable data exists and that the extent of child maltreatment is almost certainly under represented by the statistics."

Not only is Morris-Travers exaggerating, she is ignoring the rest of the developing world. That's a bit unusual and a tad convenient for a Leftist.

NZ doesn't have a good record when it comes to child abuse. But the message from the public is quit hitting us all over the head with the woeful inadequacies of the pathetic-excuse-for-a-parent minority.

Recession is no excuse to put work-testing on hold

Media Release
RECESSION IS NO EXCUSE TO PUT WORK-TESTING ON HOLD
Monday, August 24, 2009

Based on UK developments, welfare commentator, Lindsay Mitchell, is questioning why the National government decided not to introduce work-testing on the DPB, despite campaigning on this promise.

"The Minister of Social Development, Paula Bennett, has said the decision is because of the recession. However, the recession has not hit New Zealand in the way it has the United Kingdom, where the unemployment rate is 7.8 percent compared to 6 percent here. Despite this, in two months the United Kingdom will introduce new rules for benefit-dependent lone parents. Those whose youngest child is 10 will be required to claim a Jobseeker's Allowance - the equivalent of our Unemployment Benefit - and from October next year, the requirement will be extended to those whose youngest child is 7. The Jobseeker's Allowance requires recipients to be looking for and available for work. "

"Likewise in Australia, in 2007 work-testing was effectively introduced when the youngest child turned 7 by requiring their parents to register for the Newstart Allowance, the Australian unemployment benefit. And most European countries work-test lone parents when their youngest turns 3."

"New Zealand is now well out of step with the rest of the developed world in both having a dedicated welfare payment for single parents, and allowing them to claim it until their youngest child turns 18."

"Blaming the recession for a lack of action doesn't cut it. The government should put the rules in place ready for the economic upturn. This would be consistent with the Finance Minister, Bill English's repeated emphasis on planning for the recovery."

Follow your first instincts Prime Minister

Family First has unearthed a comment made in 2007 by John Key. I agree with it 100 percent.

“Proponents of the bill say that doesn’t matter; that in reality no one is ever going to be prosecuted for lightly smacking their child. But if the reality is that no one is ever going to be prosecuted for lightly smacking their child, then don’t make it illegal. Don’t make it a crime. It’s poor law-making to write a very strict law and then trust the police and the courts not to enforce it strongly. The law shouldn’t depend on which police officer or which judge or which jury you happen to get on the day.”

A get-rich-quick scheme!

When I began this blog nearly 4 years ago one of the first posts took a tongue-in-cheek look at what various afflictions were costing NZ society and concluded we should be bankrupt.

Today's news that, according to Infometrics, child abuse is costing NZ $2 billion prompts me to do an update.

Alcohol is costing $4.794 billion and drug use $1.427 billion annually according to BERL.

Smoking comes in at $1.22 billion

Diabetes is taking up 8.5% of the $12 billion health budget costing $1.02 billion.

Motor vehicle crashes are costing $4.5 billion according to the Ministry of Transport.

No-one has tackled the social costs of gambling but extrapolation from US findings would pout the figure at $66 million. Not a biggie. But wait....

This is. Treasury estimates the cost of crime at $9.136 billion

MSD estimates family violence at $1.2 billion but there may be some overlap with the child abuse figure.

Did you know the weather costs? The drought cost us $2.8 billion last summer according to the Minister of Agriculture.

The cost of leaky homes is likely to be $11.5 billion according to Price Waterhouse Coopers.

Absenteeism from the workplace come in at $2.5 billion according to WellNZ.

Skin cancer costs $33 million.

Lost people cost search and rescue $1.28 billion.

Suicide costs $1.4 billion according to the Ministry of Health.

The cost of obesity is $303 million and ballooning.

Foetal alcohol syndrome comes in at $1 billion annually.


OK. Let's have a total. That's $47.07 billion.

For context, around 70 percent of total government revenue.

A good chunk of the above is avoidable. Imagine how much richer NZ could be! And there are lots of other items I can think of like the social cost of abortion, drowning, teenage birth, attention deficit disorder, SIDS, etc. You may have another to add.

NZ Herald makes stuff up

Today's NZ Herald op-ed about the proposed reserved Maori seats today contains a lie;

Ever since the rush-of-blood decision to exclude Maori, Mr Key has, quite correctly, been seeking to fashion a compromise.

Maori are not excluded just because reserved seats are not allocated.

Hell, it's not even as if they had reserved seats and their removal has been proposed.

Why has this business become so convoluted that a lie is now propagated as the truth in New Zealand's major newspaper?

Last week I was invited to a Barnardos organised Every Child Counts conference in Auckland. Very unusual. It'll be harder for me to get there than some of the other participants because I live in Wellington. In fact, the cost of an airfare could even be prohibitive. But I am not going around saying I have been excluded from participating.

That would be a lie.

Ever since the rush-of-blood decision to exclude Maori, Mr Key has, quite correctly, been seeking to fashion a compromise.

A compromise? How about inclusion on the same terms as everyone else.

Rodney Hide - a rare politician

While cooking tea last night I received a call from Radio New Zealand. Nothing unusual there. Except they didn't want to know what I thought about anything to do with welfare. The reporter wanted to know what I thought about Rodney Hide's latest position. Apparently he is not only saying he will resign as Local Government Minister but will quit all his other portfolios. I asked why she was asking me. Because you are an ACT member? No. I resigned. I was a candidate. I would be happy to comment described as a former candidate but not as a member. She was still keen.

Of course I support what he is doing. It's hugely important to him because it is hugely important for the future of New Zealand. We can't progress under different democratic rules. That will do nothing for the relationship between Maori and Pakeha or Maori and any other minority.

Do you think other ACT members support him? They should. ACT philosophy is about individual rights yet this is an example of the collective demanding privilege. Maori should have to fight for seats along with everybody else.

What will it mean for ACT's relationship with National? How would I know. You would have to ask the Parliamentary representatives.

That's the guts of it. But I should add that thank God we have a politician prepared, as Lou Taylor wrote yesterday, to put his balls on the line over an issue.

Here's the RNZ item canvassing various views.

Goodbye Your Majesty

When I was seven I felt sure the Queen would want to know that I was about to leave her kingdom. And so I wrote to Her Majesty informing her of my impending departure for a country as far away as I could go - New Zealand. I told her I was unconvinced that a ship of that size would stay afloat but hopefully I would be proved wrong. Because it was an official missive I used the name that appeared on my birth certificate (but my contrary mother never used.)

Here is her reply;

NZ judge pushes for same-sex/de facto adoption

NewstalkZB reports;

Judge pushes for gay and de-facto adoption

His call is all very well but surely gay or de facto adoption is a moot point. There are sadly hardly any babies available for adoption anyway. From a high of almost 4,000 adoptions in the early seventies there are now only between 100 and 200 each year (77 non-family adoptions in 2008 according to the Adoption Trust). CYF counsels young mothers to keep their babies and go on the DPB.

Lumping Maori and Pacific people together

It is often the case that people quoting statistics will lump Maori and Pacific people together. I was guilty of doing the same thing when I first began researching welfare.

The practice often does a disservice to Pacific people. It has intrigued me for some time that Pacific people are not over-represented in the welfare dependence statistics to the degree that Maori are. And on combined sickness and invalid benefits, not at all.

For instance, currently the Pacific unemployment rate is slightly higher than Maori. But their share of unemployment benefit is 10.6 percent whereas for Maori it stands at 32.8 percent.

So why is this? I can only speculate but primarily I believe it is because the Pacific family is stronger and the family is a source of support. Religious institutions also play a part in providing services. Perhaps too Pacific unemployment is shorter term hence the opportunity or need to go on the dole is lesser.

Another important reason Pacific people are more independent is that they are not in grievance mode. They see life in New Zealand as offering opportunities whereas some Maori, including Maori leadership, are more concerned with blame, resentment and languishing.

Here are the percentages of total caseload for each benefit (followed by Maori). The population shares are lower than total population shares as Pacific and Maori both have very young populations;

18-64 year-old population share 5.5 (12.5)

Unemployment 10.6 (32.8)
DPB 10 (41.4)
Sickness 6.3 (21.7)
Invalid 4.8 (21.5)
All main benefits 8.1 (31.5)

What religion tree-huggers?

Down our road there is a tree. It is a very big tree. A Norfolk Pine - one of four. It is near a dead-end so not much traffic passes it. A couple of boys whose house is next to the tree decided to mount a basketball hoop upon it. They didn't have a facility or the space on their own property to throw hoops. Seemed like a good idea. Goodness knows, we hear enough about getting kids active.

But no. Very soon a letter arrived in their postbox telling them to remove the offending hoop or a fine would be forthcoming. The council said it is a protected tree. Never mind that at Xmas they hang lights all over other local trees of the same species; that they regularly lop big branches off to accommodate powerlines; that our coastal windy Wellington weather frequently gives them a good working over. A ball shall not be thrown at or near this lump of wood.

As I reflected on this, when walking past the tree today, I wondered what religion, if they aren't one in their own right, tree-huggers most resemble. Catholicism perhaps? Rules-bound beyond common-sense? Intolerant, uncompromising, can't see the forest for the Norfolk Pines perhaps? Or am I being too hard on tree-lovers?

Driven to distraction

A comment by PC over at Kiwiblog on the matter of banning the use of cellphones while driving prompted a trip down memory lane for me.

The last car accident I had the misfortune of experiencing involved a young man who did not have a hands-free pie-eating device installed.

Having purchased his pastry at the dairy, he was unable to curb his impulse to consume it immediately. So absorbing was this exercise that he forgot to check his side mirror and proceeded to make a hasty u-turn across a busy road. Thus he collected the back end of my car, just missing the door behind which my 2 year-old was seated. (My car was also not fitted with a hands-free pie-eating device, so I suppose I was equally culpable under today's share-the-blame-if-you-don't-embrace-the-policy religion.)

The pie was delicious. So much so that the young man got out of his vehicle and proceeded to haul the badly damaged bumper off his vehicle with the right hand, all the while continuing to convey the pie to his mouth using his left.

Now when I think about it I too have been guilty of eating a pie while driving. Not being quite as ambitious as this young man, who was attempting to eat a hot mince pie, I contented myself with a cold pork one. Of the kind purchased from the M1 Services. When I had to break suddenly (altogether expected on a British motorway) the large book I had resting on my knee to collect any greasy crumbs from said pie, shot forward and down and virtually guillotined me at the ankles. Very painful, very distracting.

So like PC and DPF, I look forward to the list of accident-causing activities that Mr Joyce is going to ban. I promise never to eat, operate audio equipment, mediate between arguing children, check a pimple in the rear vision mirror, or even think about anything but driving again - so long as he passes a law compelling such.

Sue Bradford rejects inconvenient truth about DPB

Media Release
Sue Bradford rejects inconvenient truth about DPB
Monday, August 17, 2009

Green MP Sue Bradford is refusing to accept that the DPB is now responsible for violence towards women.

Quoted in The Epoch Times, 8 August, 2009, Ms Bradford said, "To remove it [DPB] would be one of the most evil things we could do to our women and children." It would mean a return to times when women " were dependent on men often (suffering) humiliation and physical violence."

Bradford was responding to a proposal contained in a report, Maori and Welfare, published by the New Zealand Business Roundtable last month.

Lindsay Mitchell, author of the report, said that Ms Bradford was ignoring aspects of the DPB that actually increased women's vulnerability to violence.

"Giving young women, in particular, a long-term secure income and home, makes them attractive to men who have no desire to raise and support a family themselves. Men who want a roof over their heads, sex on demand and another source of money when their own dries up. Men who want to control women physically and financially."

"This life style was acknowledged by the 1996 Ruka Ruling in which the Court of Appeal agreed that a woman who was living in a de facto relationship featuring violence and a lack of emotional or financial support from the partner, should be entitled to continue receiving state support - usually the DPB."

"Sue Bradford just doesn't want to accept that the DPB is no longer primarily about leaving violent relationships. It is about encouraging and staying in them."

"If, on the other hand, assistance became temporary only, the recipient stops being the proverbial goose that lays the golden egg. Women would make far more cautious choices about partnering and deadbeat men would cease to have their exploitive expectations met."

Reiterating the central message in her paper, Mitchell said every year thousands of uneducated and unskilled teenagers enter the welfare system that then traps them. "So long as the present rules continue, the benefit system is condemning many young mothers and their children to the very lives Sue Bradford likes to think it frees them from."

Teaching lies

How ironic such an inversion of reason should come out of a school principal.

The state school system relies on redistribution of wealth. The poorest school gets double the funding of the richest school. The 'rich' are robbed to pay the 'poor'.

When that fails to happen (or to a lesser degree at least) the Principal cries out;

"It seems that we're robbing the poor to pay the rich," said Mr Gall, who is also president of the Secondary Principals Association.

That's plain wrong. What kind of lesson does it teach to young minds? No wonder we are experiencing an epidemic of entitlement.

Most New Zealanders, it would appear, are prepared to live with some degree of socialism. But let's at least have it properly understood, and honestly and accurately represented.

FIPS

Family Intervention Projects is the latest UK initiative to try and improve the lives of children living in families where crime and violence are not uncommon.

A newspaper report;

THOUSANDS of the worst families in England are to be put in “sin bins” in a bid to change their bad behaviour, Ed Balls announced yesterday.

The Children’s Secretary set out £400million plans to put 20,000 problem families under 24-hour CCTV super-vision in their own homes.

They will be monitored to ensure that children attend school, go to bed on time and eat proper meals.

Private security guards will also be sent round to carry out home checks, while parents will be given help to combat drug and alcohol addiction.

Around 2,000 families have gone through these Family Intervention Projects so far.

I did a little further searching and found some information about the types of families in the programme. No surprises.

69 percent were headed by a lone parent and 61 percent were receiving out-of-work benefits.

Products of the modern welfare state.

The early results from those families that have completed the intervention show some improvement - more so for children - better school attendance, less anti-social behaviour orders received, less trouble with housing authorities, improved health. Interestingly this mirrors the Christchurch EarlyStart programme which is improving outcomes for children but not for adults to the same degree.

And are the families less state-dependent? Barely.

Once a perkbuster...

What fun. ACT's leader, Rodney Hide, is back banging the bust-the-perks drum;

His Act colleague Sir Roger Douglas used his 90 per cent discount to fly himself and his wife to Britain to visit family, but Mr Hide scoffed at claims from former MPs that it should remain.

"If you're an ex-MP and you've got the perk, of course you'd love it. But it was another time in New Zealand.

"It's hard to believe we ever did that, but that's how things used to operate. There were always perks in doing jobs and now there aren't perks.

"That goes right across New Zealand, and Parliament should be the same," Mr Hide said.

Claims the travel subsidy was part of the employment package at the time and compensation for accepting lower salaries were rubbish, he said.

This is pure, unadulterated, put'em up Hide. It is also damage control. Douglas' attitude towards his perks has detracted badly from ACT's core ethic. Hide's workload is doubled by not just having to work to build support but work to hang on to it.

Meantime another intransigent trough snuffler, Sir Douglas Graham, has some advice for us;

"You better keep paying your taxes".

Excuse me waiter, is that the calories or the price?

Apparently United States legislators want restaurants to start menu detailing of calorie counts on their meals.

From the USA Today;

This is another pointless and expensive federal proposal that will lead to cookie-cutter menus and will actually retard our incentive to think for ourselves. Do politicians really think that people don't know that a salad has fewer calories than a cheeseburger?

And how long will it be before this asinine idea comes to a country near you?

Questions that have occupied me

Why are the proposed emission reductions benchmarked to 1990 levels, almost 20 years ago?

Why won't the husband and wife directors of KidsCan disclose their self-awarded salaries?

Will Sir Roger Douglas be joining the 'Hands off our perks' campaign?

How big is Adolf's sample?

Forced donation to telethon

So even if you had decided not to support the weekend's telethon because you prefer to support other causes, because you believe that more handouts only create more dependency, that kind Mr Key decided he would do it for you.

The sickening monotony of it

As sure as unspeyed cats will have kittens another child will be assaulted and killed.

There is nothing new to say about the rate of child death due to intentional injury. I wonder if the referendum papers were on the bench of her home waiting to be filled in?

Live blogging from the cat delivery suite

Daisy has gone into labour under the desk. Poor little thing.

Stand by.





2 so far....





Three... mother's doing great.



I think that's it. One tabby, one black and white and one black.
Lovely.

Uh oh. Wrong. After mother appeared to settle down to rest another black one popped out. Running late on time.

No, the second black is actually a dark tabby.

All done.

Words of little worth

Trevor Mallard giving David Garrett advice is like Oprah Winfrey giving guidance to Kirsty Alley.

Another hike in dole numbers

According to National;

As at 31 July, there were 55,272, working aged people (18-64) receiving the unemployment benefit. Overall unemployment benefit numbers are up by 34,726 (169%) since July 2008.


Up from 50,855 at June 30, 2009. That's difficult for National who have been insisting that Labour's claim of 1,000 people a week losing their jobs is an exaggeration.

Of course some of the new unemployed beneficiaries will be people returning from overseas or even dropping out of education.

It would be interesting to know how the other sometimes pseudo-unemployment benefits are bearing up.

Free speech petition?

A petition, sparked by the actions of Paula Bennett, has been set up as per the following;



It is all about free speech apparently.

I am very much for free speech. What I am not for is free lies, or free half-truths.

If the Minister had released information that did not pertain directly and only to that already released by the protester I would also be up in arms. As it stands there is already enough legislated protection of privacy so I do not feel a need to add my signature.

23,400 teenagers did not lose their jobs

According to the NZ Herald;

The latest household labour force survey, published yesterday, confirms young people are bearing the brunt of the downturn, with a net 23,400 teenagers losing their jobs in the past year.

This claim is spurious. But it makes for good copy. Unfortunately thousands of people will read it and believe it.

How does it come about.

First of all the government, through Statistics New Zealand, conducts what they call a Household Labour force Survey every three months. There are 16,000 households on it at any given time but it is a changing group as new participants are rostered on and old rostered off. Each participant spends 2 years in the survey (I have been a participant).The information is gathered and extrapolated across the population.

The tables produced breakdown the employment data gleaned in various ways.

In June 2008 146,900 15-19 year-olds were employed. In June 2009 the number had dropped to 123,500. The difference is 23,400.

At June 2008 the majority of employed teenagers would have been 19. By June 2009 they would no longer be teenagers. They didn't lose their jobs. They stopped being teenagers.

Yes, there are certainly more unemployed teenagers than there were a year ago - 9,800 according to the survey because employers are not taking on young people to the degree that they had been.

Two-thirds of the 18,200 lost jobs in the past year were in retailing and wholesaling, with the next biggest losses in farming, forestry and fishing, transport, storage and communications, and manufacturing.

Now the 'lost jobs' are less than the numbers who apparently 'losing their jobs'.

But wait...

A massive 43,000 people under 50 lost their jobs, but there was a net gain of 24,400 jobs for people aged 50-plus.

Again, 43,000 people under 50 did not lose their jobs. We don't know how many people lost their jobs. If there is a 'net' gain to older age groups there is a strong possibility some of the difference is due to people ageing and holding their jobs.

In June 2008 there were 2,189,000 people employed - in June 2009 there were 2,169,000. Therefore there were 20,000 fewer employed people - based on a household survey. That's all that can be said with absolute certainty.

If Paula Bennett is releasing benefit data today, that will tell us more about how many people 'lost their jobs'. But that information is still not definitive given many people losing jobs are not entitled to a benefit.

We don't know how lucky we are - at the moment

As the saying goes, there is always someone worse off than yourself. The same can be said of countries.

Look at Ireland. Same population as NZ with current (June 2009) unemployment at 11.9 percent. Last year is was 5.9 percent. Doubled in 12 months. Gulp. Only Turkey and Spain have higher unemployment rates. This table shows unemployment benefit claimants.


(The 'live register' also includes part-timers, seasonal and casual workers entitled to claim a jobseekers allowance.)

Unemployment statistics - who is the recession affecting?

A quick round up;

Unemployment rate up from 5 percent in March 2009 to 6 percent in June 09

Male rate 5.1 to 5.7

Female rate 4.8 to 6.3

15-19 year-old rate 19.1 to 22.9
20-24 no change
25-29 4.9 to 5.6
30-34 4.9 to 4.6
35-39 4.4 to 4.1
40-44 3.6 to 3
45-49 3.9 to 3.7
50-54 2.5 to 3.4
60-64 3.3 to 2.5
65+ 1.2 to 1.3


European 3.9 to 4
Maori only 10.7 to 12.6
Pacific only 13.6 to 12.8
Asian only 6.7 to 7.8

Highest regional jump Taranaki 2.7 to 4.2

Regions;

Northland 8.3
Auckland 6.6
Waikato 6.8
Bay of Plenty 5.8
Gisborne/Hawkes Bay 7.3
Taranaki 4.2
Manawatu-Wanganui 4.5
Wellington 5.5
nelson/Marlborough/West coast 3.1
Canterbury 4.8
Otago 5.3
Southland 3.4

Industries which had drops in employment;

Agriculture, Fishery and Forestry
Other Services

Highest household type with all unemployed;

One parent with dependent children only 46.1

The full-time workforce dropped over the year from 1,691,000 to 1,665,000
The part-time workforce grew over the year from 496,000 to 502,000

NZ is now 9th in the OECD which is the same ranking as June 2008

Abandonment of "constitutional responsibility"

At last. A clear explanation of the unclear.

Jim Evans, emeritus professor of law at Auckland University, on the National-supported Bradford law.

He concludes;

This is not clear legislation. In creating this law, Parliament abandoned its constitutional responsibility to say with clarity just which conduct is criminal.

The section results from a political fudge. Whatever other views one takes about the topic of smacking, that much at least ought to be kept clear.

Thicker than sheep

There are times when my fellow citizens fill me with despair, such is their blind faith in regulation.

The Herald is running a poll;

Should you need a licence to own a dog?

FFS NO. What difference would it make to those who 'own' dangerous animals?

If they don't register them why would they bother with a licence?

The only effect would be to penalise the many animal lovers who take better care of their pets than some people take of their children.

Oh...the result.

82 percent say YES.


AAAAARRRRGGGHHHHH.


Update; The poll has mercifully reversed. The 'baas' now form a minority. That is encouraging.

More misinformation from MSM

Yesterday the DomPost published misinformation about benefit entitlement. Now the NZ Herald is getting it wrong as well.

The main unemployment benefit is not available under 18. The only benefit payable below that age, the independent youth benefit (IYB), was paid to only 1750 teenagers at the end of June.

As I said yesterday, the unemployment benefit is available but only under certain, unusual circumstances. For most intents and purposes it isn't available.

But to say that the Independent Youth Benefit is the only benefit payable below 18 is nonsense. Sickness, invalid, training, emergency and DPB (Emergency Maintenance Allowance) are all available. So too is the student allowance. Remember yesterday's table?



Should 16 and 17 year-olds qualify for welfare? The approach to parental responsibility is mixed. For instance child support is paid until a dependent reaches 18 ( and in some cases 19). Then when it comes to eligibility for a student allowance parental income is means tested until the age of 24.

National needs to bite the bullet on this one and stop dithering. Sixteen and seventeen year-olds should be the responsibility of their parents. As it is, they attract decent family tax credits of up to around $100.

Dole for 16-18 year-olds to be scrapped?

This morning's DomPost front page shouts, Dole to be scrapped for 16-18 year-olds.

Before the release of details I offer some comments.

The signal is good. For those who need to be receiving it.

But I think the headline is wrong. It should read 16-17 year-olds.

[Key] also confirmed National would introduce legislation before the end of the year ending the unemployment benefit for school-leavers under 18.

But under 18s rarely qualify for the unemployment benefit.

The current rules are a person must be 18 years old or over (or 16-17 if you are married or in a civil union or in a de facto relationship and have one or more children you support).

Hence the numbers look like this;



Granted this was two years ago but I would be very surprised if suddenly far more 16-17 year-olds had married, or were in de facto relationships supporting children.

The benefit 16-17 year-olds normally qualify for when unemployed is the Independent Youth Benefit (1,430 at the end of March 2009 but down from almost 4,000 in 2000). Is this being scrapped?

If so, yet the Emergency Maintenance Allowance for 16-17 year-old single mothers remains, isn't there an incentive being set up for young people to become parents to continue to get assistance?

Call me cynical but when eligibility rules change the first thing some will do is look for the loophole, the way around the hurdle, because one usually exists.

(The NZ Herald makes no mention of the 'dole' being scrapped.)

Fancy names for failed ideas

Job Ops and Community Max. Flash new names for government work creation schemes just announced by John Key.

First consideration must be given to the opportunity cost of taking the tax to fund these schemes. Better if the money is left with the private potential employer in the first place. It's pretty illogical to tax the employer and then turnaround and say, if we give it back, could you provide a job?

However the reality is the scheme is going ahead.

I agree with the central idea that if money is going to be chucked at young people, best get a return for it. Best make it an 'investment' in them for all our sakes.

But one has to assume that money is still going to be chucked for no return because no mention has been made of restricting access to the dole, sickness benefit, dpb, ema or independent youth allowance.

No mention of sanctions if young people refuse a placement.

Maybe that is to come but I am not holding my breath. Are you?

Finally there is nothing new under the sun with these sorts of schemes. In the final analysis what they actually achieve is a distortion of the labour market. There are no free lunches and there are no free jobs. Other potential employees unfortunate enough to be older than 24 will be disadvantaged by not attracting a subsidy. They are most likely to be low-skilled Pacific, Maori, and migrants.

Do the job properly Mr Key

Just listening to the Radio Live news reporting that John Key is focussing on young people at the National Conference today. There was a snippet of him speaking about how their lives could be damaged by the recessional environment of few jobs.

Now this catches my interest because it is closely linked to what I said when launching my paper, Maori and Welfare, a few days back; that I feared we were going repeat the mistake of the early 90s when too many young people were admitted onto benefits and subsequently stayed there for years. (In fact their children are now repeating the parent's behaviour.)

In the paper I concluded that the sort of change needed could only happen when there was a consensus that individuals are first and foremost responsible for themselves and their children. To quote it directly;

"As part of achieving that consensus, an agreed priority must be established. For Maori that priority must be to stop the inflow of young people into the benefit system. Many, including exisiting beneficiaries, can be persuaded of the sense and humanity in this. That aim is even more important than dealing with present caseloads."

NewstalkZB is also reporting; He is expected to launch a new youth opportunities package tomorrow.

Key will have to make sure that those opportunities are more attractive than going on a benefit - especially for young females. Or restrict the access of young people to welfare.

He might want to consider the experience of British Colombia;

Teens more successful in school when welfare access is tight, researcher finds

Randy Shore
Vancouver Sun
Thursday, June 05, 2008

Teens as young as 13 are more likely to stay in school and proceed to the next grade when access to welfare is restricted, says a University of B.C. researcher. Bill Warburton had observed that the dropout rate for children at risk of receiving income assistance rose with B.C.'s welfare caseload through the early 1990s and fell when a substantial package of welfare reforms was introduced Jan. 1, 1996, which removed about 100,000 people from the welfare rolls.

"We wondered if that was a coincidence," wrote Warburton, executive director of the Child and Youth Development Trajectories Research Unit at UBC.

Using data from the B.C. ministries of education and employment and income assistance, Warburton found that when the New Democrats began a program of welfare reform in the mid-1990s, high school dropout rates began to fall and continued to fall for several years. Dropout rates had been rising through the early 1990s as access to welfare expanded and was liberally extended to minors, but the change in policy quickly reversed that trend, he explained in an interview and a written response to a query from The Vancouver Sun.

The effect was stronger the older the student and the closer the student was to being eligible for welfare, he said. But it was also significant in students as young as 13.

"I was surprised at how young the kids were that responded [to the change]," said Warburton. "We found strong evidence that it wasn't a coincidence."

Warburton worked for the B.C. income security renewal secretariat in the mid-1990s and for the research branch of the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance through 2004. He was aware that some regions of the province were "more on board" with welfare reform during the late 1990s.

By comparing data between regions, he was able to determine that the effect was strongest -- that is, kids tended to do better in school -- in areas that put the tightest controls on income assistance for people under 25. The teens' expectations about the availability of welfare is at the heart of the effect, according to Warburton.

"I would have guessed that their decisions would be influenced more subliminally than consciously," he said. But the data showed that teens who left school and went on to collect welfare tended to come from the same schools, suggesting that localized welfare cultures had developed.

The kids talk to each other about how to apply, they see their older friends getting welfare. The data suggests that kids are communicating with each other about the system and how it works, he said.

More on perks

No wonder they need so many parliamentary holiday breaks!

Context;

I haven't been overseas for 8 years, and that was a trip across the ditch. Don't even have a current passport and neither do my children. I wear-out clothes and shoes. Last week I changed my car because it was 14 years-old, had done over 200,000 km and failed its warrant ...seriously. We traded it for a 7 year-old car (which I am in love with). Yesterday I got a tax refund of $143 which is a third of the donations I made to charity last year. I was really chuffed. That's a tidy sum of money to me. When I use my car for volunteer work I don't claim mileage.

My home is large by necessity (we both work from home and painting takes up a lot of space) and comfortable but we haven't turned on the underfloor heating in years because its too expensive. We have takeaways on Friday but eating out is a treat. My husband has inherited land but I have always made it clear to him that is his - not mine. Both of our children go to state schools. One has singing lessons and the other has piano lessons. Like me, they also wear-out their clothes and shoes.

What I am trying to convey here is a modest lifestyle (bar consumption of wine).

So reading about MPs perks, which for some reason I hitherto had not given much thought to, leaves me feeling rather underwhelmed. I am not sure which is more deflating. Discovering a perfectly able beneficiary is getting $715 a week or that we are paying for 90 percent of MPs overseas holidays.

Look, consumerism and consumption make the world go around but to the politicians, for pity's sake, use the money you earn. You are hardly underpaid.

Perks are privilege

Roger Douglas spent his political career opposing privilege - that is the practice of the state forcing one individual or sector to pay for or subsidise the activities of another individual or a sector. In that I fully support him.

The other ex MPs he is now testily pointing to as enjoying the same right and entitlement as him to travel the world on the taxpayer, did not make a holy grail out of attacking privilege. That is why it just doesn't wash as an excuse, recession or not.

What the future holds

These graphs are from a sustainability report released yesterday by Statistics NZ.

The first shows that currently, for every 100 people aged 15-64 there are around 50 younger or older. That allows a rough measurement of dependency notwithstanding that people older than 15 are often still dependent and people over 65 are not.

By 2061, when my children will be in their 60s, there will be around 73-74 dependants for every 100 15-64 year-olds. If nothing changes about the extent of government involvement in health, education and welfare that's a truckload more tax to be paid.




This one simply depicts the increasing diversity of the population. Note that it only projects out to 2026 - not 2061. Not that we didn't know it, but the graph highlights that the Asian population is growing faster than the Maori population. Not something I have a problem with but it is going to bring political tensions and friction.




Finally it has to be said these are projections - they are not written in stone.

$50m to embark on motherhood unsupported

Media Release

$50M TO EMBARK ON MOTHERHOOD UNSUPPORTED
Thursday, 30 July, 2009

Thousands of young women are using the welfare system to embark on motherhood with no partner or financial support.

The claim comes from welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell who says that figures show that during 2008 2,300 females aged 18-24 years-old transferred from a pregnancy-related sickness benefit to the domestic purposes benefit. "These are young women who had no partner or financial support before or after birth."

"In one year alone the cost of supporting these women would be around $50 million. But that is just a start. Typically those who begin on welfare young, stay dependent for many years, often having more children. Because being long-term dependent on welfare has been shown to produce poor educational and health outcomes for both mothers and their children, the downstream costs to society are ongoing. And females born to young single mothers are far more likely to become single mothers themselves repeating the cycle."

At a time when the government is cutting back on funding for severely disabled children and training allowances it is enormously surprising and disappointing that they are determined to ignore this huge problem. Last week, when the NZ Business Roundtable released a paper suggesting the DPB be replaced with time-limited assistance, the Prime Minister described the proposal as 'draconian'. Yet President Clinton and his democratic government did exactly that in the United States during the 1990s.

"The National Party needs to start paying some real attention to how welfare is being used. The public response to this week's revelations of surprisingly high DPB payments and entitlement attitudes should be taken as a strong indication that many want to see significant change."

Tables released under the Official Information Act attached.

Graceless carping

There has been a lot of reaction today to the Minister of Social Development releasing information about the incomes of two beneficiaries to the media. The story in the NZ Herald is light on facts but the two net weekly incomes given - $715 and $554 - are no doubt correct. It appears the Minister is attempting to expose the culture of moaning that typically emanates from middle-class Pakeha women on the DPB. Here's a comment from another blog which is more of the same;

Also for peoples information those benefits have multiple layers to it.. your core benefit is only about 460, IRD give ALL parents between one to two hundred per week depending on numbers of children and the rest is accomodation that ALL low income earners are entitled too. My benefit is 620 (including ird) with two kids and my rent in Auckland is a cheap (??) 360 per week.. i cant have flatmates, i dont have a partners pay packet and i tell you its fricken hard work.. try feeding two growing kids and the rest in whats left. Im at uni and claim another 80 for transport and pay all my own fees and books.. its all for you to see and if you'd like to walk a few days in my shoes your more than welcome.

That's another receiving $700 a week and resenting it. Someone put a pertinent question to me this morning. How are people like this ever going to get off a benefit because, even armed with a degree, no entry level job in the private sector is going to pay that much? Is that what the public service is for?

So much for a welfare safety net. This isn't somebody experiencing a crisis. It's somebody who has gotten the pieces of her life in the wrong order ie got kids before qualifications, and gracelessly expects the taxpayer to sort it for her. I wonder how those workers who are being made redundant only to find they have no unemployment entitlement would view this outburst?

About the release of the information, Sue Bradford says;

"This form of silencing opposition is simply not acceptable in a democratic society and I hope the Government will urgently reconsider its intimidating tactics," Ms Bradford said.

Nobody is being silenced. They are simply being encouraged to tell the truth. If the full facts are used to protest there is nothing further the government can add.

Criticism from an academic

At last. Some criticism about the content of my paper. It comes from feminist writer, Dr Anne Else, BA Hons, PhD, NZ Order of Merit.

Business Roundtable discovers new contraceptive

I see the Business Roundtable is at it again. They've commissioned a report from one Lindsay Mitchell, who is well known for being a virulent opponent of 'welfare' in general and the DPB in particular. The best way to stop young women - especially young Maori women - getting pregnant is to axe the DPB, she says.

Now I just happen to have been looking up teenage pregnancy statistics recently. Births to teenage women (aged under 20) climbed from 5,315 in 1962 to a high of 9,150 in 1972. That's an increase of 72 percent.

The DPB wasn't introduced until 1973. That was the year teenage births started to fall. By 1982, they had more than halved, to less than 4,500 - well below the 1962 number.

Of course, the number of births is related to the number of teenagers. So let's look at this another way. In the early 1970s, before the DPB, 70 out of every 1,000 female teenagers were having a child. By the mid-1980s, this was down to 30 per 1,000. It stayed between 30 and 35 until the late 1990s, then it trended down again. By 2002, the rate was at its lowest in our recorded history, at 25.6 per 1,000 female teenagers.

That's still high compared with all other developed countries except for the USA and UK. But there's no way you can argue that the DPB is responsible - or that axing it would lower the rate.

Business Roundtable members head up major companies. If this report represents what they consider to be inteligent analysis, it's a bit of a worry, eh.

First, Else's statistics are correct although she could have gone further and looked up the latest figures to find out the teenage birth rate is now back up to 32.9 per 1000. She points out that in the early seventies 70 out of every 1000 female teenagers was having a child. Then she describes how the rate trended down to our lowest rate in recorded history at 25.6 per female in 2002.

A majority of teenage births in the early seventies occurred within a marriage albeit many were shotgun marriages. There were 9,150 teenage births in 1971, 55 percent within marriage. Many ex-nuptial teenage births resulted in adoption which peaked at around this time.

The contraceptive pill became available in the 1960s and abortion in the 70s. Thereafter teenagers with an interest in controlling their fertility were better able to do so. There was every likelihood the teenage birthrate would decrease, as did the general fertility rate, dramatically. This doesn't mean the DPB availability wasn't having any influence.

Looking at the general teenage birth rate alone obscures a great deal. It doesn't tell us about the tenfold likelihood that teenage births will be in the poorest communities when compared to the richest. For unqualified and unskilled girls in poor communities the DPB is an incentive because it pays more than any wage they could hope to command. MSD figures show the average all-up benefit for a sole parent in 2006 was $21,580. It's incentive appeal obviously lessens through the rising deciles as young women's alternatives to the DPB improve. In 2006;

* 65.8 girls per 1000 aged 15-19 gave birth in the most economically deprived areas, classified as decile 10.

* 6.92 per 1000 gave birth in the most affluent areas, or decile one.

Looking at the general teenage birth rate tells us nothing about ethnic differences. In 2000-02 the Maori rate was still up at 70 per 1000 - the same as the general rate in the early 70s. The Pacific rate was 48 and the European rate 22.

As demonstrated, teenage births in the early seventies frequently occurred inside a marriage. Being a feminist Else is opposed to shot-gun marriages. She would prefer the state intervened. Many other teenage births ended up in adoption. Something Else is also strongly opposed to (at least the 'closed' variety). Perhaps she would prefer children stayed with their biological mothers at any cost.

When one considers the indicators for a range of social problems, for example, landing in the Youth Court, coming from an adoptive home is not up there with other factors like being fatherless (top of Principal Youth Court Judge Andrew Becroft's list), being born to an adolescent mother, or being moved from one foster home to the next as a result.

I cannot know if stopping lifestyle welfare (what we have now) will reduce the teenage birthrate, particularly that of Maori. The US experience was a decline in African American and Hispanic teenage birth rates from 1990 until 2006 with rises since.

But even if the rate didn't drop, taking babies into the wider family, adoption or whangai, or channelling young mothers into jobs or training where they can combine their parenting responsibilities with work, would be preferable to what we do now.

When welfare becomes a lifestyle

I used to write to Steve Maharey when he was Minister of Social Development trying to persuade him that welfare was no longer a safety net.

He would reply with assertions like,

"...I do not support the view that the DPB is a lifestyle choice." 19 October 2001

"The domestic purposes benefit is necessary to ensure that children are not thrown into poverty when relationships fail." 13 September 2002

Maharey was among the many people who refuse to accept that the DPB is frequently used by single women having babies. But the following statistic proves it. Over 2,300 females aged 18-24 moved off a sickness benefit for pregnancy-related reasons onto the DPB in 2008.

These are women who (officially) have no financial support - no partner or job - before or after the birth.

These females are a subset of the 6,000 plus that are granted a DPB for the first time each year with one child only aged 12 months or younger and in addition to the 5,000 who add a child under one year old to an existing benefit each year.

So 17-18 percent of children are starting out life on welfare. If there was a 'relationship' between the mother and father it was short-lived.

Around half of the total are Maori so around 1 in 3 Maori children start life on a benefit.

Most of the births will be congregated in low decile areas. The problem with that is the 'normalisation' of the behaviour. That's a lifestyle. That's just the way it is.

But it wasn't the way welfare was intended to operate.

My estimate, by the way, ties in with earlier MSD research;

Analysis of longitudinal benefit administration data for New Zealand has shown that by the time children born in 1993 turned seven, half had been supported by one of New Zealand’s main social assistance benefits at least once. While this was a transitory experience for many, approximately one in five children in the 1993 birth cohort spent at least five of their first seven years of life supported by a main benefit (Ball and Wilson 2002).

Pregnancy is hard work

Daisy-up-the-duff does little but eat and sleep as she balloons. The other two went out in sympathy.

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'?