Unemployment and children

The Summitt I attended on Wednesday was a hand-wringing hui about children affected by recession and what the government should be doing for them. My contention was child poverty in NZ is fairly constant. The recession has only broadened it.

According to the NZ Christian Council for Social Services, at June 2009 there were 219,627 children relying on benefits. 13.5 percent of working age beneficiaries have a current earnings declaration meaning they had participated in work throughout or at some point during the previous 12 months. A crude calculation taking 13.5 percent off the total to get the lowest possible number of children with non-working parents produces 189,977.

There are an estimated 1,083,690 children aged under 18 (NZ Statistics).

The percentage of children in workless families is therefore 17.5 percent.

So how does that compare to Europe?



NZ is higher than any.

But when unemployment rates are laid alongside these countries, the picture changes.



This strikingly illustrates the effect of the DPB.

Summit delegate disagrees with benefit recommendations

Media Release

SUMMIT DELEGATE DISAGREES WITH BENEFIT RECOMMENDATIONS
Thursday, 17 September, 2009

A Child Poverty Summit convened by the Every Child Counts organisation has recommended higher core benefit levels.

As one of the 70 invited delegates attending the Summit welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell says she did not agree with this proposal. "As a participant in the Social Exclusion workshop which made this particular recommendation, I argued against it. There are at least nine international research papers that show that an increase in benefit levels increases the number of children born outside of marriage or a stable relationship. This has the effect of drawing more children onto benefits, putting even more children at risk of the unintended consequences the Summit wants to reduce."

"Additionally, the figures supplied by Every Child Counts show that of the children living below the poverty threshold 65,000 were in sole parent families. I emphasised that there are currently around 165,000 children reliant on a DPB income. If the majority are not below the poverty threshold, why increase the level of the benefit across the board? Factors beyond the income level are responsible for the poverty."

Neither of these objections was dealt with indicating that the recommendation is more about ideology than enduring solutions.

Over half of adolescents spent time on a benefit

Media release

OVER HALF OF ADOLESCENTS SPENT TIME ON A BENEFIT
Thursday, September 17, 2009

As many as 55 percent of children reaching adolescence have spent time being supported by a benefit. According to Lindsay Mitchell, welfare commentator, this is the startling finding of research just published by the Ministry of Social Development

The study also found that throughout most of the 1990s around one in four children were included in a benefit at birth or very soon after. Since 2000 the proportion had declined to one in five children born in 2005 and 2006, and 18 percent of children born in 2007.

Mitchell said that although the trend had been positive it was sobering to learn just how little record low unemployment had affected child reliance on welfare. "In 2005 New Zealand had the lowest unemployment rate in the developed world, yet one in five children were still being born onto a benefit."

"The trend has now, however, reversed. A large majority of children relying on main benefits have a parent on the DPB and since 2007, the number of DPB recipients has grown from 96,467 (June 2007) to 104,400 (June 2009). Others rely on the unemployment benefit which has more than doubled from 23,159 to 50,855 over the same period."

As well as starting their lives on a benefit, large numbers of children stay there for long periods. The report says that just over half of children currently reaching adolescence have been supported by the main benefits* at some time. Specifically,

"...one in five children born in 1993 are estimated to have been supported by a main benefit for seven or more of their first 14 years of life. An estimated one in ten spent a total of 11 or more of their first 14 years of life supported by a main benefit. "

Mitchell said that growing up on welfare has become a deeply entrenched facet of life for New Zealand children, one which seems largely impervious to economic conditions.

"As long as the welfare system remains essentially unchanged, too many children are going to experience the varying degrees of disadvantage that go hand-in-hand with life on a benefit."

Subsidies will always be abused

Paula Bennett is impressed with 1,000 new subsidised jobs created after potential employers were offered $5,000 to employ a young person for six months. While I fully support the sentiment behind getting young people into jobs, distorting the value of their labour with subsidies is probably not the answer.

The rules for the Job Ops scheme were tightened after initial publicity last month about a rush of employers seeking the subsidy. The criteria now state that jobs must be "opportunities that wouldn't exist if the Job Ops subsidy wasn't available".

What a nonsense. There is no test of proof. For instance, it could be argued that a employer had previously advertised the position without subsidy. But the employer could counter, possibly truthfully, that he had changed his mind about offering a position due to the recession. Then he had changed it back when the subsidy became available. Or it could be argued that a young person is employed alongside others doing the same work unsubsidised. The employer could argue that he purposely produced one extra job that he couldn't have without the subsidy.

Whether the opportunities would or wouldn't exist without subsidy will only become evident after the subsidy runs out. Hopefully, by then, at least some of those employed will have proved themselves to be worth it.

"The case for legalising all drugs is unanswerable"

This is the first thing I read today and is probably the best thing I will read today. The title is a challenge. Those who want to keep on with prohibition should state their case as clearly and succinctly. But has anyone ever read such a treatise? Does one exist? It seems to me that prohibition continues largely because changing deep-seated but irrational convictions is just too hard.

A decade or so ago, it could be argued that the evidence was not yet in on drugs. No one has ever believed illegal drug use could be eliminated, but there was a defensible view that prohibition could prevent more harm than it caused. Drug use is not a private act without consequences for others; even when legal, it incurs medical and other costs to society. A society that adopted an attitude of laissez-faire towards the drug habits of its citizens could find itself with higher numbers of users. There could be a risk of social abandonment, with those in poor communities being left to their fates.

These dangers have not disappeared, but the fact is that the costs of drug prohibition now far outweigh any possible benefits the policy may bring. It is time for a radical shift in policy. Full-scale legalisation, with the state intervening chiefly to regulate quality and provide education on the risks of drug use and care for those who have problems with the drugs they use, should now shape the agenda of drug law reform.

Is anywhere safe from naggers?

Has anybody else noticed the public address messages now being broadcast when they are super marketing? There I am in, aisle whatever, just enjoying a trip down memory lane listening to some schmlatzy Whitney Houston number wafting through the speakers and in crashes Woolworths Marketing Manager advising me how many women are dying from cervical cancer and how important it is to have a regular smear test. Oh, I groan. For god sakes, is nowhere safe from these naggers. It's a gross invasion of my consciousness. Like NotPC last week, I am up to here with it. Leave me the hell alone.

And just as private charities are now thinly disguised government agents, so are private enterprises that buy into public health indoctrination.

I think I am going to change my shopping habits. But I am assuming that Progressive Enterprises has the same policy across their chain. Anybody been assaulted at a Pak'n'Save lately?

Maori "identity interventions" challenged

Another study from David Fergusson et al., based on the Christchurch birth cohort of 1,265 was published in Social Policy, recently posted on-line.

It addresses the role of Maori ethnicity in childhood maltreatment. The finding that Maori children were not at greater risk of sexual abuse didn't surprise me, although the author states it is in contrast to common assumptions and other research findings. I seem to recall CYF statistics I requested under the OIA confirm Fergusson's findings.

In the area of experiencing serious and severe physical punishment and exposure to parental violence however Maori had higher rates.

Fergusson then went on to break down the Maori group into sole Maori and Maori and other. What he found here is very interesting. First is a summary of one current approach to tackling Maori over-representation in child physical maltreatment;

A third framework, focusing on the role of cultural identity has, over the preceding two decades, been the dominant explanation employed to account for the ethnic asymmetry in child maltreatment rates in New Zealand (Balzer et al. 1997, Keddell 2007, Kiro 2000, Ministry of Social Development 2006, Pihama et al. 2003, Stanley 2000, Stanley and Thompson 1999). This view proposes that it is the degree of association that Māori families have with Māori kin groupings and the level of commitment they show to traditional customary practices that will influence the likelihood of Māori children experiencing maltreatment. From this perspective, strength of Māori identity in families is a protective factor for child abuse, and a lesser identification with Māori cultural domains may increase the risk of children being exposed to maltreatment. Intervention guidelines for child abuse have therefore been specifically developed for Māori, by Māori (Kruger et al. 2004, Stanley 2000, Stanley and Thompson 1999). These focus on determining the levels of affiliation Māori families have to cultural domains and the strength of cultural identity of individuals who reside in the family. Reattachment of Māori families to cultural domains and customs has therefore become a key feature of current child abuse intervention efforts.


Then comes Fergusson's findings and the implications;



The results suggest that sole Māori identity may be a risk factor for exposure to physical child abuse and inter-parental violence....These findings do pose a challenge to current policies aimed at reducing the over-representation of Māori children in rates of child maltreatment, which emphasise “identity interventions” that are not evidence-based and are largely ideologically driven. Even though such policies are no doubt well intentioned and observe statutory requirements unique to the New Zealand context, following the view expounded by UNICEF (2003, 2007), they must be exposed to ongoing critical scrutiny and empirical evaluation.

A surprising invitation

Surprise, surprise, I have been invited to attend this child poverty summit next week.

Surprise because generally, the views of Every Child Counts and mine would clash. But let's see. I'm keeping an open mind.

Every Child Counts, a coalition of non-government agencies that includes Barnardos, Unicef, Plunket and Save the Children, estimates that of the 60,000 children born in New Zealand this year, 10,000 would be born into in poverty.

That'd be right. Around 3,000 to mothers who have no form of support even while pregnant and relying on the sickness benefit.

6,000 to mothers aged 28 or less granted their first DPB before the child was 12 months old.

5,000 babies added to an existing benefit.

But this is normal behaviour. It goes on outside of a recession. There are probably valid reasons for it increasing during a recession. Unemployed men are more dependent on their DPB-incomed partners and more babies equals more income. Job opportunities are fewer for females and motherhood is a viable alternative.

Of course what worries me is the summit will be looking for greater transfer of wealth so the needy have more money in their pockets. Whereas my view is always that the more bad decisions and behaviours are rewarded, the more they happen.

What about a transfer of wealth framed differently? If more of the babies being 'born into poverty' were (openly) adopted out to parents with the means to raise them, the desired wealth-sharing would still be achieved. Be it would be achieved voluntarily and quite possibly, with better outcomes for all parties.

Rather than spending more on benefits why not reward people for not having more babies. Give them a bonus for turning up for their long-acting contraceptive injection. It wouldn't be a difficult scheme to implement.

What about paying some attention to those industries where there is demand, like aged and childcare? Surely there is an opportunity to match some of the DPB population with that demand.

With those sorts of ideas I will probably be a fish out of water, a whale out of water even, but that's OK. There are those who agree with me and someone needs to take their ideas to the table as well.

CYF attempting to reap kudos?

This is a bad judgement call from CYF.

Anybody taking an interest in this case will speculate on CYF's involvement. Nobody will ever be able to conclusively say whether or not the removal of the children saved their lives. It may have aggravated circumstances and more deeply endangered the life of the mother. Nobody knows.

So CYF should have stayed quiet. To do otherwise suggests they are attempting to either justify their actions or positively politicise them. As if management thought, at last, a case that shows us in a good light. Let's make the most of it.

Dependency growing on all fronts

In the past ten weeks the number on the DPB has increased by 2,240 from 104,400 to 106,640.

At this rate, within the year, the DPB will easily exceed its highest ever total of 113,329 in 1998.

The Sickness and Invalid's benefits have both increased also.

Naturally the largest increase is on the Unemployment Benefit which is up 8,296 from 50,855 to 59,151.

The reason we need to be very concerned about the DPB, SB and IB is those benefits are harder to get people off. Dole numbers will drop as the economy improves. We saw that happen under Labour. But there is absolutely no guarantee of that happening with the other benefits.

National needs to start acting on its campaign promises. So far they have done nothing about the constant upward trend of sickness and invalid benefits despite claiming they would and they have done nothing about work-testing the DPB.

(This post is not to be read as a criticism of people who are genuinely incapacitated. That should go without saying but apparently doesn't.)

Nannies no more - you're kidding

Philicitous Goff is apologising for past nannying and cites eco-light bulbs, low pressure shower heads and the anti-smacking legislation as examples of where Labour went wrong.

Then he praises Kiwisaver and Working for Families as great Labour policies blithely ignoring that these are amongst the worst examples of nannying. Nanny will save for you. Nanny will give you extra money if you have more children than you can afford.

Nanny = state.

But most voters only dislike nanny when she is telling them they can't do something. It's just fine and dandy when she is feathering their nests.

Phil knows this. And so does Key.

It is plain to see what Labour is up to. They are positioning themselves as an anti-nanny opposition. Because National are most certainly giving them plenty ammunition. Think alcohol laws, raising the drinking age, raising the driving age, banning pseudoephedrine, and the real biggy, agreeing to keep the loathed anti-smacking legislation.

Labour is brazenly clearing the decks to brand themselves as the non-nannies. What a joke.

But the truly dreadful aspect of this is people will buy it. And the country will carry on down the alternating Labour/National road with the only real change to the size and power of the state going in the wrong direction.

Symbolic gestures - who are they for?

It seems that every day is something-or-another day. Where does one go to apply for a day to recognise, celebrate or navel-gaze over something? Whoever is running the application office has cocked up because today has been double allocated.

Today is Michigan Fire Services Awareness Day.

But it is also International Suicide Prevention Day. Sorry. I know this is a desperately sad and serious business. But is lighting a candle going to make a blind bit of difference?

The World Health Organisation says;

We are hoping this activity will bring light into the world and increase awareness of the good work so many people do in preventing suicide.

Which reminds me of a message God (or someone acting on his behalf) sent me yesterday. "Due to the recession, there will be no light at the end of the tunnel."

I suppose that is why people kill themselves. The light at the end of their tunnel has gone out.

In 1969 there were 278 deaths from suicide - a rate of 10 per 100,000 people

Today the rate is 13.2 per 100,000.

There is a two day suicide prevention conference going on in Wellington right now. A lot of people are making a living out of other people dying. But not much is changing.

I don't wanna know

Yeah. I feel a bit like that too.

Paid Parental leave would cost at least $700 million

Media Release
PAID PARENTAL LEAVE WOULD COST AT LEAST $700 MILLION ANNUALLY
Wednesday, September 9, 2009

The Families Commission today called for the government to extend Paid Parental Leave from 14 weeks to 13 months. Welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell says this move would cost New Zealand at least $672 million a year by 2013.

"Based on Treasury figures, the current scheme cost $135 million in 2008. Extending entitlement from 14 weeks to 13 months would push this cost up to $540 million. Based on Treasury's current projections, this would further increase to $672 million by 2013. Add to this the month's paid leave the Families Commission wants for fathers/partners , and the cost would rise to over $700 million."

Mitchell cautioned, however, that Treasury doesn't always get it right. "Their initial projected costings for PPL were far too conservative. In 2003 Treasury estimated PPL would cost $74 million by 2008. In fact, it climbed to almost double that figure."

The Families Commission says that most developed countries paid parental leave for at least 12 months yet according to the OECD, the average period is 18 weeks, just four more than New Zealand. "As well, many of the countries that provide longer entitlements than New Zealand do not have long-duration single parent benefits. In Sweden , for example, all parents get the same paid leave entitlement but all are expected to return to work when the entitlement ceases."

"At a time when welfare costs in other areas are rising rapidly, New Zealand simply cannot afford to follow the Families Commission recommendation."

The game of "servants" and "masters"

So CYF workers were told the Minister of Social Development is their "master" and they are her "servants". Big deal. The minister is the 'servant' of the taxpayers but does anybody observe the implications of that? Like heck.

Consider the matter that is frustrating Annette King;

Ms King said there were wider problems of the Government blocking information and communication and said she was frustrated by poor responses to written questions and Official Information Act requests. She had also struggled to get permission to visit CYF offices.

I read the parliamentary questions, but I may as well not. The process is a total sham. Annette King can get no more information out of the Ministry of Social Development than can the general public. There is a constant refusal to answer questions and the asker is sent on a paper chase which goes like this; Refer to my reply 12345. Get to reply 12345 to be told to refer to reply 11345. Get to reply 11345 to be told that the information requested is only published quarterly and the asker should refer to fact sheets at the MSD website.

I have tried in vain via the Ombudsman to get answers to requests that were met previously. Trying to track certain trends has become near impossible.

It had been getting worse under Labour and has deteriorated further under National.

So there are two problems.

First, the current government cannot be properly held to account if they cannot be properly scrutinised. That is a corruption of open and democratic government.

Second, the players (including opposition MPs, their staff, ministry staff, staff at the office of the Ombudsman) are wasting their time and our money.

So you can now see what I mean about the relationship of servant and master being meaningless. We pay, but they say.

But I suppose as most people are National supporters they don't give a damn.

Who is Poneke?

I am an "unqualified beneficiary bashing talkback ranter"

But who is Poneke? Anybody know? Whoever he is he likes his work so much he republishes it within the space of weeks.

'Art' that isn't

Soon I will be submitting an entry into the National Portrait Award. Now I am thinking I should just send the following instructions;

To the installation manager. Walk over to the photocopier and lift the lid. Press your face against the glass and select 'copy'. The result is my entry.

It would save me many hours of expense and effort and maybe, just maybe, I'll get lucky and strike a complete and utter fool of a judge who decides there isn't another entry more deserving of the $15,000 prize.

(Hat-tip Crusader Rabbit)

New libertarian blog

Russell Watkins and Graham Clark are two very politically active libertarians from the Bay of Plenty. They have just launched a new blog at SunLive, the on-line version of the Weekend Sun, Tauranga's free weekly. Today's guest blog, The War on Government Welfare, is by....oh, me :-)

Good luck guys.

Think you morons

People keep telling me, there is no work for those on the DPB anyway. Even if we wanted to reform it, where are the jobs?

I'll tell you where the jobs are. In childcare and aged care, both occupations that would allow mothers to combined their own child caring responsibilities with paid work.

Again today more evidence to back me up.

Big queues to get into preschools

Figures released yesterday by the Ministry of Education show an extra 23,026 children including 15,872 under the age of three have joined early-childhood centres in the past eight years. Two-thirds of centres have waiting lists and the wait is more than six months at almost a third (28 per cent) of those catering to children aged three and four well up from 11.9 per cent in 2002 and 17.3 per cent in 2006.

But instead of linking the two needs together we get the typical, easy-option, statist response.

The issue has reignited calls to extend paid parental leave.

No,no,no.

Think you morons. Part of the reason two parents have to work is that taxation demands to fuel the welfare state are very high. Some mothers are returning to the workforce early because somebody has to pay for those who either never entered the workforce , are returning to it very late or never.

If a start was made now on training DPB recipients to look after pre-schoolers and the elderly (whose numbers are going to explode in the coming decades) in a short time there wouldn't be worker shortages in either of these industries. With more people productive, taxation would fall. How hard can it be?

Why are we so wedded to dipping hands into taxpayer pockets to fix every perceived problem?

Or don't we want people to have to pay for their own choices?

....child psychiatrist Dr Sally Merry said society should support parents to provide the best care for their children. "We ought to be thinking very hard about ways in which we can support those who would like to stay at home and look after their children."

We did that in the seventies, created the DPB and look where it got us.

Give that man a medal

This is most enjoyable. An excerpt from an interview by Paul Holmes with Chief Families Commissioner Jan Pryor.

PAUL Dr Pryor, isn't the fact true that you exist simply because Labour needed to buy Peter Dunne's cooperation to form a government years back, purely political invention is what you are, you can do nothing and you can make nothing happen, and it costs us eight million dollars?

JAN That’s a view that I hope is changing Paul. The Commission before I came spent about four years clarifying and focusing on what its role should be, because you're right, it was established as a political agreement. I would argue very strongly now that the Commission has earned its stripes. What we do we have three functions, we listen to families…

PAUL All bureaucracies believe in the right to exist and justify that don’t they?

JAN Well let me give you a personal account here, I until a year ago was a full time academic and researcher in a university, I was leading a research centre that was doing research on families, when I was asked if I would do this position I had to think very hard about it. I believed then and I believe even more strongly now that I can do more for New Zealand families in this position of independence, of giving contestable advice to government, to NGOs, to communities and work alongside families and communities, than I could do from the university.

PAUL Alright but certainly in its five years of existence the Families Commission has certainly not affected the child abuse stats, 12,100 kids were listed as abused or neglected by Child Youth and Family last year, 12,100, and that was two and a half thousand more than the previous year. You don’t seem to be achieving much there.

JAN Well do you know – well let me tell you what the Commission does around family violence generally, and remember there is a Children's Commissioner who focuses particularly on children,

PAUL And then there's a department of Social Development as well.

JAN Social Development doesn’t have the independence we have, but let me tell you, I as Chief Commissioner am on the Family Violence Child Support which is a very powerful body of people from everywhere, Police, government…

PAUL Who are obviously really effective in stopping family violence.

The fix is worse than the problem

The not unusual thrust of Tapu Misa's column today, that inequality is the source of all social ills, is too big to take on wholesale. So I will deal with just one claim;

The more hierarchical society becomes, the more sensitive people become to their social status. In fact, say Wilkinson and Pickett, much violence happens because people, especially males, feel disrespected and humiliated.

People live their lives in a microcosm. Family and friends influence them most. Then the wider community and then society. Or whanau, hapu and then iwi, though I am less certain about the order for Maori.

If "males especially" are feeling "disrespected and humiliated" it is most likely by peers, parents or teachers, then later, workmates/playmates or partner. I have heard Maori direct their anger towards the "f---ing Pakeha system" when in trouble with the "f---ing Pakeha law." How widespread that is, I don't know. But I am guessing it is secondary, and contrived anger. The individual first falls foul of, or becomes alienated from, other individuals who he has been far more closely connected to than the somewhat amorphous society.

In Maori and Welfare I wrote;

James Belich plausibly speculates that the ‘desocialisation’ of Pakeha men, a crime-inducing process that occurred in the nineteenth century during male migration from their homelands (and families) to New Zealand, was a similar process to the ‘detribalisation’ that happened to Maori in the latter part of the twentieth century, and similarly caused high crime rates. Belich argued that:

People avoid crime, not primarily because it is illegal, but because of the disapproval of those that matter to them – in the traditional, rural Maori case, the kin group.

Detribalisation and relative confinement of large families within small urban houses delivered ‘street culture’ and youth gangs. The economy that supported the detribalisation process was a mix of low-wage employment and increasingly accessible welfare benefits.

In both Pakeha and Maori worlds, the role of the male has become increasingly disrupted. And that is the result of government attempts to equalise material well-being. The Royal Commission of 1972 recommended that social security be widened so everyone had a sense of belonging, a right to participate. It was thought there was too much inequality then, yet violence wasn't anywhere near today's levels.

Retrospectively the major policy to arise from the Commission was the domestic purposes benefit. Men could now be fathers in the most limited sense of the word. Sperm donors and wallets (where wallets had anything in them).

Some men would have celebrated this new found 'freedom'. No more court or prison for failing to provide. No submitting to shotgun marriages. No need to hold down a job. But the downside is obvious. No need to take responsibility. No need to commit or care. Idleness and disaffection. And women are more violent as well. No social constrictions or stigmas to acquiesce to. No relationship compromises to bow to. That's freedom?

Welfare, or the redistribution of cash to achieve equality, has done far more to create violence than the pre-existing inequality. Yet Tapu Misa's prescription for a better world would require more of it.

Public notice for Auckland readers

Boscawen Challenges Local MPs To Front
John Boscawen MP, ACT New Zealand
Friday, September 4 2009

ACT New Zealand MP John Boscawen today challenged Labour leader Phil Goff to attend a public meeting this Monday, in his Mt Roskill electorate, in order to defend his decision not to support a law change, despite the overwhelming smacking referendum results.

"More people voted 'No' within the Mt Roskill electorate than voted for Mr Goff to be their local MP. It's time Mr Goff fronted up to the residents of Mt Roskill to explain why he is ignoring their wishes and why he thinks he knows best," Mr Boscawen said.

"In fact, out of the 70 electoral seats in Parliament, 56 electorates had more residents vote 'No' in the referendum, than who voted for the MP who now represents them. I have yet to see one of those MPs fighting for a change in the law.

"New Zealanders vote for their electorate MPs to be their voice in Parliament – not so that those MPs can run their lives and tell them what to do.

"That is why I will be holding not one, but a series of public debates around the country on the smacking referendum and how the adoption of my Private Members Bill – to amend Section 59 - could solve this issue. I intend to hold a public debate in the Helensville electorate where 25,327 voted 'No'.

"I will be challenging the local electorate MP in each area – including Prime Minister John Key - to front up to their constituents, and defend their decision not to support a change to the law.

"This is no longer just about the smacking referendum; it's about the whole democratic process in New Zealand. After all, what value is there in an electorate MP that doesn't listen to their constituents?

"Under the constitutional principle of the rule of law, our citizens need to have certainty that they can go about their lawful business without fear or threat of being detained or investigated by the police. I am delighted that Professor Jim Evans, Emeritus Professor of Auckland Law School, has agreed to address this issue at the Mt Roskill meeting," Mr Boscawen said.

Public Debate On Smacking Referendum, Monday, September 7 2009, 7.30pm, Hay Park School, 670 Richardson Road, Mt Roskill, Auckland

An "endearing" Minister

Colin James wrote a column in The Press last week about Key's continuing popularity. Since then a Roy Morgan poll has the National-led government up further to 60 percent. One of the comments Colin James makes is this;

So Paula Bennett can make gaffes, some serious, and Key can rely on the public seeing them as endearing.

Beyond gaffes, other aspects of Paula Bennett's life also endear her to the public. Maori solo mum made good - great role model stuff. Her new westie-chick car. Her forgiving Christian attitude to the young man her daughter is involved with. Her ballsy intervention in a shopping mall fracas.

But here's the question. Will New Zealand be well-served by an endearing Minister of Social Development? Is she going to be the Mother Theresa of beneficiaries when the time is well-overdue for some tough love?

Young women on benefits have a strange attitude to life in my experience. They are waiting for it to start. Like, one day, they are going to be a lawyer or something. And when you ask when they are going to start doing the work that will be required (which is usually going back to NCEA level and passing some exams) their eyes glaze over. One day.

It is quite likely one day will never come but the dole will keep on coming. They can just keep on living in limbo, making themselves feel good about it because they have ambitions, like, y'know.

Sure they aren't all in this mold. But the ones that aren't are self-motivated. The Minister doesn't need to lose any sleep over them. She does need to be thinking hard, very hard, about what will shake up the others. And it isn't a hey girlfriend approach.

US unemployment reaches 9.7% and males take the biggest hit

On the same day that the Washington Post breaks the news that US unemployment has risen to 9.7%, the NCPA has run a piece about the growth of female employment;

Women held 49.83 percent of the nation's 132 million jobs in June and they're gaining the vast majority of jobs in the few sectors of the economy that are growing, according to the most recent numbers available from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, says reporter Dennis Cauchon.

That's a record high for a measure that's been growing steadily for decades and accelerating during the recession. At the current pace, women will become a majority of workers in October or November.

From December 2007 to June 2009:

* Men have lost 74 percent of the 6.4 million jobs erased since the recession began in December 2007.
* Men have lost more than 3 million jobs in construction and manufacturing alone.

The only parts of the economy still growing -- health care, education and government -- have traditionally hired mostly women, says Cauchon. That dominance has increased in part because federal stimulus funding directed money to education, health care and state and local governments.

How does that compare to NZ?

Obviously our unemployment rate is much lower at 6 percent.

Over the last three June quarters (2007 - 2009) the numbers (millions) employed have looked like this;

Males 1.163 1.166 1.159
Females 1.009 1.023 1.011

So although when unemployment information was last released it was noted that females were taking the brunt, over two years they have actually fared better.

Looking at which sectors have continued to grow over the same period they are, as in the US, health and community services, and education. The only other sector to grow was business and financial services.

The sectors that actually generate wealth - construction, manufacturing, agriculture, forestry and fishing all shrank.

It's a worry.

(David has just objected that health indirectly creates wealth. Can't generate wealth without a healthy workforce he says. Can't pay for health without any wealth generation, I counter. I don't think it's a chicken and egg scenario. The wealth comes first. That is observable historically.)

Beat-up headline?

There isn't time to delve very deeply into this right now but the following headline has got to be the biggest beat-up;

DIY disasters kill nearly 600 a year

An average of 11 people died each week from accidents in their homes in the year to the end of June - an annual total of 573. That compares with the road toll last year of 366.

That is amazing. In 1993 157 people died from accidents at home (1996 NZ Yearbook, p180). The number has quadrupled? (Population in 1993 = 3.48 million.)

Unfortunately many elderly die from falls in the home. After age 75 the rate for women is higher than for men. Are they included in the 11 deaths per week?

Also the ACC website says ;

More people are injured at home than anywhere else in New Zealand. Children factor highly in our home injury statistics.....Each year 700 children cut themselves badly enough at home to be admitted to hospital.

Assuming there is some connection between injury and death some of the 11 deaths per week could include children.

No, I am very suspicious of this statistic. But it is Safety Week after all. Got to scare the sheeple.

Time to do nothing

Is the war on child abuse any different from the war on drugs or the war on poverty? They all feature escalating measures and escalating failure. Yet governments doggedly persist, doubtless justifying their actions internally by speculating that the statistics would be even worse if they did nothing (and that they need to be seen to be doing something or what rationale for their very existence?)

Pause for a moment. In the war on child abuse, what would a do nothing approach look like? Governments doing nothing sounds like a unthinkable abdication of responsibility. That is what you have been trained to think.

Fact; Most of the abuse goes on in beneficiary homes. Who or what created these homes? The bricks and mortar is often owned by the government and the occupants are paid to live by the government. These are homes created by social policy.

So the first do-nothing action could be to stop paying people to have babies they have no means of supporting. That would reduce the number of people doing just that, although some babies would still be born into untenable situations. Left to find their own solutions, people would sort out themselves who was best placed to care for and raise the child. That already goes on to a certain degree. Without any state benefits only the most motivated would be stepping forward. The most motivated would coincidentally also provide the best care.

Where children are still being subjected to abuse or neglect, the state then has a role in protecting that child's legal rights - but that's all.

Instead we get the Minister of do-something, as well as keeping current social policy settings unchanged, launching a whole new campaign against child abuse. She says she doesn't care what it costs. If it saves just one child it will be worth it (heard on TV last night). Of course Pharmac doesn't have the luxury of sitting around the table deciding which medicines to fund on this basis - just the Minister of do-something. Then she says it would appear a whole new generation of parents needs to relearn that shaking babies is dangerous. That means this exercise has to be repeated every generation because the state has to step in and do what the failed parent-educator (also a product of the state) doesn't.

You see. It's just a nauseatingly endless self-feeding cycle. Paula Bennett is like the mouse inside the tread wheel. Time to get off.

OECD warns against long-duration single-parent benefits

Media Release
OECD WARNS AGAINST LONG-DURATION, SINGLE-PARENT BENEFITS
Thursday, September 3, 2009

The OECD has just released a comparative report about child well-being across developed countries. New Zealand is described as having high child poverty rates.

Welfare Commentator Lindsay Mitchell said that while some child advocacy groups interpreted that as a signal more should be spent on welfare, that isn't what the report is recommending. Mitchell quoted the report as saying, "Some countries spend considerable amounts on long-duration single-parent benefits. There is little or no evidence that these benefits positively influence child well-being. Durations could be reduced and resources concentrated on improving family income during the early part of the life cycle for those children."

This means adopting a work-based anti-poverty strategy. The report looks at the effect of time-limiting and a number of welfare-to-work US programmes by reviewing the available research and finds;

"Overall, employment promotion pilots linked to making work pay have positive but modest short-term effects on some important dimensions of child well-being, in addition to reducing child poverty. Whether these effects can be sustained into better long-term outcomes for children from permanent polices remains unclear."

So those countries that have focussed their efforts on getting single parents into work have not seen a detrimental effect on children.

The report specifically mentions Norway where in 1998 benefits were raised by a fifth BUT a work or education test was imposed on the parent when the youngest child turned 3. Mitchell noted, "In NZ we wait until the youngest child turns 18. This is bad policy. "

As the report points out, "The indirect evidence from United States welfare-to-work experiments suggest that eligibility for such benefits until late in the child life cycle does not have positive effects on child well-being."

Mitchell says that the government should be paying attention to what the OECD advises. "After all, they campaigned on work testing the DPB."

More pathetic paternalism

Unless the NZ Herald has made a significant mistake a health economist is truly barking. He has proposed a Smartcard system for beneficiary and WFF recipients that "attract the subsidies of about $5 a week per child" to be used on healthy food.

We are talking about 300,000 children at the very least.

He estimated this would cost the Government around $100,000 a year.

Very strange maths. I figure it would cost $78 million. Perhaps he has worked in some 'benefits' from healthy eating by way of health savings. Or perhaps he is referring to the annual administration costs. Or perhaps this is the reimbursement he wants for continuing to mastermind such magnificent, medical intervention.

Whatever the reason behind this somewhat 'conservative' estimate, the suggestion is no more than another pathetically, paternalistic nanny-state-doing-your-thinking-for-you idea.

I thought he said he had bigger fish to fry?

What a lot of BS this is. Key says he hasn't got time for trivial stuff like the anti-smacking law but has the time to ponce about currying favour with the feminists.

Where is the Child Support review going?

A couple of weeks back there was some media reporting about the costs of raising children. The costs seemed over-inflated to me. As the research has been produced in advance of a review of the child support system a closer look is required.

The 21 page report, prepared by the IRD, uses a method used by Australia to estimate child costs as part of its child support reforms. The data comes from the Statistics NZ Household economic survey and comprises 930 households.

The actual formulas are hieroglyphics to me but here is what they produce;

The thing that is immediately obvious is the average low income is actually quite high when one considers that a majority of custodial parents are on a benefit. The lower the income, the higher the proportion the cost of raising a child becomes. If on an income of $450 a week the proportion rose to 24 percent the cost would be $108. But I am only guessing. Why didn't they model as low as that given the purpose of the research? Or wasn't their sample representative of typically low income custodial/liable parents? In which case, was it relevant?

Around half of the paying parents (approx 66,000) currently pay the minimum $14 per week (2007). The maximum level of child support payable (for the year ending 3/2010) is$577 per week, which just happens to be very close to the combined cost of two children (one in each age bracket) at an average income.

So beyond concluding that child support payments as they stand do not realistically meet the costs of raising children as modelled in this paper, it is very difficult to see where this review is going. You can't get blood out of a stone. Upping demands on higher income liable parents or upping state support?

The problematic child support system is anyway largely a side effect of the DPB. That's where attention needs to be focussed.

Paying for other people's choices

Paying for other people's choices. Where will it end?

Last week the Families Commission proposed that child support payments for custodial parents on a benefit should go directly to those parents instead of to the IRD to offset the welfare costs to the taxpayer. With some minor and conservative adjustment to 2006 figures that would mean each custodial parent getting an average income boost of $2,222 per annum and the taxpayer paying an extra $200 million per annum.

So the beneficiary custodial parent gets a rise, the liable parent is no worse off, while the taxpayer picks up the tab. (Or some other service is cut.) Of course father activists are all for it. They shouldn't be.

At a low income, a boost of $42 per week is quite substantial. In reality many will only get $14 extra because the paying parent is either also on a benefit or in low income work. But at the other end of the scale mothers with ex's on better incomes will receive substantially more. That means if the relationship is rocky, leaving becomes a better prospect than it is now. That means the incentive to go on the DPB rises again. More people go on it. More men suffer the consequences.

National is on record as saying New Zealand should consider doing just this. They would certainly get the support of the Maori Party.

Prescription-only pseudoephedrine creates more problems

Making pseudoephedrine prescription-only is back in the media today. Having discussed this with my on-call pharmacist he puts up another objection. MacDoctor, quoted in the article, will no doubt also have considered this angle.

P cooks and crooks (or their agents) currently buy pseudoephedrine at the chemist. They are purchasing it in a peopled and open environment. There is safety and steadfastness in numbers. The potential for trouble caused by a refusal to sell is lower than when the same person attempts to get a prescription from an unwilling GP working essentially alone.

Making pseudoephedrine only available on prescription transfers, and potentially worsens the problem. I have posted before about the Oregon experience. Yet it seems to be Mr Key's favoured weapon in the war on 'P'.

The new social order

Last weekend I was driving my daughter and a friend to a pool (swim, not snooker) party and the girls were discussing why the venue had been chosen. Probably because it is half way between where her mum lives and her dad lives was the conclusion. "----'s parents have split up ?" I ask. News to me. But then most of what goes on in the days and lives of locals is. "Yes," Sam's friend replied."Sam and I are about the only one whose parents are still together."

Maybe I get an unrepresentative view. Maybe more people in 'rich' neighbourhoods split because they can afford to; in 'poor' neighbourhooods they never formalised their relationship in the first place. Maybe there is a large group in the middle acting like my parent's generation. Staying together, happy or otherwise, because they have no choice. Perhaps relationships are now as impermanent as jobs and careers. Or were people more satisfied with their relationships 40 or 50 years ago?

I tend to the latter view. People now have unrealistic expectations of marriage being based on romantic love. Perhaps because they live on a diet of glossies and TV. I don't and didn't, either the first or second. My approach to marriage was very pragmatic. I knew what I didn't want (to be controlled or restricted) and spotted it in my husband. I wanted a highly intelligent partner and spotted in in my husband. Certainly my first attraction to him was physical but that lust stuff wears off over years. Is that where most (but not all) marriages come unstuck? People still seem to want to mate for life but the desire to make it happen doesn't win the day.

I will show my prejudice by admitting that I hope whoever my own children pick as a partner comes from parents with a stable enduring relationship. That is then their template for life. And whether or not you think it important that kids have parents who live together, relationship break-ups are often hellish, sometimes worse than deaths and scar people permanently. As necessary as they sometimes are, they add to the sum of life's unhappiness.

Enough of the Kennedy worship

Sheldon Richman, from the Future of Freedom Foundation, takes an objective look at what Edward Kennedy stood for.

In theory government is supposed to be the servant. Yet in practice it is not the servant but the master. Kennedy surely would have disagreed, and he might have meant it. But facts are facts. When a self-described servant insists on taking care of you according to his notion of your interests, whether or not you want his help and whether or not you want to surrender the necessary resources, he is no servant at all. He is the master. You will be served — or else.

More.

Geoffrey might stay

This is Geoffrey. Named by Robert. He's almost three weeks old. That's if he is a he. He may be a she. Not wanting to over-handle him I haven't really determined his or her status. But Geoffrey is the one who always comes to the door of the box when he hears someone call. And Geoffrey I think he or she will stay for life. Geoffrey is a big clue that Dad was black. His siblings all have markings that relate to their mother and grandmother. They walk on very shaky legs, have tele-tubby tummies and seem altogether satisfied with the way life is unfolding. Our Huntaway, Girl, has taken to sleeping at the door of the box. Being an unspeyed female I think her mothering instincts are quite aroused. David is equally soppy about them.

Are taxpayers about to be asked to pay more for the DPB?

I am about to read a paper just released by the Families Commission about a review of child support. But the following statement from the press release is significant enough to warrant early comment. It is from Jan Pryor, Chief Families Commissioner;

"We also believe it is time for New Zealand to consider passing on child support payments to the parent who is getting the DPB or other social security benefit. Sole parent beneficiaries are among the poorest of New Zealand families. Those with former partners paying child support to Inland Revenue would be better off if the payments came to them instead."

The inference is that the amount of the total DPB bill that is currently offset by liable parent contributions would disappear. It probably currently lies somewhere around 10-12 percent of the total - approx $170 million - but I haven't calculated it for a while (so don't quote me on it.)

Doesn't that proposal fill you with joy.

(Well I was going to read the paper but the link isn't working).

The social welfare challenge

I was further reflecting about the amount of government funding given to the Salvation Army, Barnardos, Plunket, and hundreds of other so-called social service NGOs. Many get the majority of their funding from government.

Imagine the Ministry of Social Development is like a giant construction company which builds some good, but many substandard homes. People have to use the company, however, because it has a legal monopoly on domestic construction. In turn, the company funds other contractors to go around fixing the properties up. But the demand for fix-up is far greater than can be met and many people go on living in leaking, unsanitary and unsafe homes. Sometimes the botch-ups are so bad that even contracted plumbers and roofers can't resolve the problems. But the contractors won't speak against the companies practices because they rely on the company for their own survival.

How is social welfare any different? And what would it take to remedy the problem?

What will Australia do?

Australians are also coming under increasing UN pressure to ban corporal punishment in the home.

They will be treated to all the same misinformation we endured.

School-aged children in Australia are twice as likely to be killed as their British peers, usually as a result of child abuse by their mother or her de facto partner, according to a study in the Medical Journal of Australia in January. The study's authors, from St Vincent's Hospital in Sydney, argued measures to reduce the rate of physical abuse of children, including banning corporal punishment, would have the greatest potential to reduce the number of children being killed. Fatal child abuse declined to "very low levels" after corporal punishment was banned in Sweden in 1979, they found.

Two points. As I have shown before assaults on children in Sweden have continued to increase and the UK has not banned smacking.

And, predictably, the media message is, look, they did it in NZ and it's just not a problem;

A survey by the Australian Childhood Foundation found 69 per cent of adults in 2006 thought it sometimes necessary to "smack" a naughty child - down from 75 per cent in 2002.

But such minimal force is unlikely to be caught under an anti-smacking law such as New Zealand's, where parental force for the purpose of correcting a child is banned. The 2007 law won bipartisan support because of provisions permitting parents using reasonable force to prevent or minimise harm to the child, or to stop them engaging in offensive or disruptive behaviour. Police, the law states, have the discretion to dismiss complaints where the offence is "inconsequential".

No prosecutions have been brought for smacking children under the new law, which has had "minimal impact" on police activity, New Zealand police say.

Sally Army says, "Move On"

The Sallies are telling those of us who voted to decriminalise smacking to "move on".

Doesn't look like we have much choice, thanks to National.

What I do have a choice about though is whether I ever donate to the Salvation Army again. I won't. They can just get by with their government bribe money which accounts for 61 percent of their total income.

That's not a private charity. That's an arm of the Ministry of Social Development.

No wonder their theme tune is, "We're all in this together".

Wrong. Count me out.

Offending Mr Key might be a winner

Another of National's big ideas? Subsidised holiday programmes for poor kids. A week in a lifetime. It's hard to get excited about. Unless you are Mr Key who is "personally offended that many children could not go to holiday programmes because their parents could not afford them."

Gee whiz. How come he isn't personally offended that special needs children are losing their caregivers because their parents can't afford them, that superannuitants are losing their treasured night classes because they can't afford them, that beneficiaries are losing their access to training schemes because they can't afford them?

I was beginning to think it was almost impossible to get a handle on what National is doing. Cutting spending one day, increasing it the next; counselling belt-tightening one day and splashing out the next.

But it is becoming more clear. Resources are being channelled into whatever personally offends Mr Key.

Under-representation in family violence statistics

I am still wading through the Families Commission 292 page Family Violence Statistics report released yesterday. Here are two graphs that speak for themselves. All offending is rising, but Maori offending is rising faster. I wonder if instead of asking why Maori are so over-represented, because that seems to cause offence and finger-pointing about finger-pointing, I should frame the question differently. Why are NZ European so under-represented in the family violence statistics?

The DPB - A social catastrophe

This is lifted from a slide presentation produced by the Ministry of Social Development and the Inland Revenue Department. It is a surprisingly candid description of the variety of levels people on the DPB are at. It would be an interesting exercise to consign numbers to each category. Certainly the shape would resemble a very young population pyramid. That is with a wide base and tapering towards the top.

Why? Because I estimate a small majority of people on the DPB started on welfare in their teens - although not necessarily on the DPB. That indicates every likelihood of intergenerational dependence which features on the bottom layer.

I am less certain than the person who produced this table that the two, or even three, lowest layers can be separated out. The 'diseases' of poverty and accumulated adversity could apply to the lowest level. But it may be that the designer had age in mind. Accumulated adversity may apply to those women in their 40s and 50s, who are still not working despite their children no longer being dependent on them.

Those in the intergenerational category may be the young, particularly in rural communities where there is no work, and welfare has been the means of support for decades.

I would put two thirds of the current 104,000 recipients in the bottom three levels and the remaining third in the top two, with only a few thousand, if that, in the top bracket.

As you can see, MSD/IRD fully understand that what they have with the DPB is not a temporary safety net for people transitioning from a partnership to being a self-supporting single parent. They have a social bloody catastrophe on their hands.

Violence risk 4 times greater for female beneficiaries

Media Release

VIOLENCE RISK 4 TIMES GREATER FOR FEMALE BENEFICIARIES

Tuesday, 25 August, 2009

Women who are beneficiaries have a four-fold risk of experiencing partner violence according to the New Zealand Crime and Safety Survey 2006, published today as part of the Families Commission report, Family Violence Statistics.

In answering the question, who was most at risk of partner violence, the survey found risks were considerably higher for people in sole-parent households; Maori women had risks 3 times the average for women overall; women who were beneficiaries had risks over 4 times the average; women living in the most deprived areas were at higher risk; young people aged 15-24 were at higher risk, as well as those living as flatmates or in rented accommodation.

Welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell noted that the profile typically fits the thousands of young, Maori, single parents living on the domestic purposes benefit, in deprived neighbourhoods, in state or other rental properties." This new information is hugely important because it confirms that far from relieving women of partner violence, one of the original purposes behind the DPB, receiving a benefit actually heightens the risk of it."

"Also significant is that those living in sole parent households have an incidence rate of experiencing partner violence more than 5 times greater than those living as a couple with children. This raises a question about how legitimate the survey participants 'sole parent' status is. Are they describing themselves as sole parents primarily for the purposes of claiming a benefit?"

Mitchell also commented about the lack of attention drawn to this aspect of interpersonal violence. " For instance the report explores the role of drugs and alcohol but not welfare. An admission that welfare enables a lifestyle that too often features partner violence is long overdue."

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."