The "lynch mob mentality" is just as ugly

A Palmerston North judge banned photographs of the accused and the accused is not seeking bail. The reason for both actions is the "lynch mob mentality" alive and well in the community meaning the accused and his family would not be safe if either of these things happened. Threats have been made against the accused's brother. The accused is allegedly responsible for the death of a 3 year-old girl.

Some children live in a culture of neglect and violence. It occurs to me that there can be more than one potential killer within a group of people that have contact with a child. The people brimming with retribution are quite probably just as bad as the accused. And while they are posturing and slagging off and brewing, they are no doubt doing it around children. It's a dismal picture. Clueless, valueless people in charge of young minds.

Hone on the warpath

Hone Harawira plans to slaughter tobacco industry executives when he drags them before a Maori Affairs select committee 'full inquiry' into their industry.

He says, "...tobacco companies are responsible for the murder of 100,000 New Zealand citizens in the last 25 years."

Are you comfortable with that statement? National obviously is because they have given this retributive bully session the go-ahead.

... I thank the National Party leadership and in particular Prime Minister John Key, his deputy Bill English, and Committee Chairman Tau Henare for supporting this because if they hadn’t, it would have died on the table

This inquiry will be New Zealand’s greatest opportunity to have Tobacco companies explain their actions of promoting and maintaining tobacco addiction, which leads to these horrific deaths.

It will also provide New Zealand's greatest opportunity for parliamentary representatives to explain why they support the promoting and maintenance of tobacco addiction by taking their own sizeable cut of the profits.

Perhaps Hone could appear in that capacity?

He says, "To be brutally frank Mr Speaker, I’d like to lynch these #$^&** tobacco company executives."

In which case a murder/suicide would be the most elegant solution. Which amply illustrates the hot-headed stupidity of Hone's rhetoric.

Phoney accusations of racism

A post over at Oswald's reminded me of two protest signs recently waved at the President of the US;

"The problem with Obama isn't that he's black; it's that he's red."

and

"Do I look like an ATM to you?"

Lower the age Garth George can drive until!

Garth George's column today is the work of a grumpy old man not thinking straight. It's a punitive rant against young people driving. I have showed before that the statistics for young drivers have improved considerably over the years yet people like George, who was young during a time when there was more irresponsibility and death on the roads, want to take away freedoms across the board. Put the driving age up to 18! Put the legal drinking age up to 20! Make people with fast cars pay more insurance!

Well two can play at that. Take the driving age down at the other end when the age-risk factor demonstrably climbs again. Let's campaign against the elderly on the roads. Lower the age Garth George can drive until!

Not likely. Because we are all going to be elderly one day.

Whereas we have already been young and now resent that we are no longer. So let's blame young people for as much as we can. Let's take away their freedoms and preserve our own. Because we are old and drive sensible cars at sensible speeds. Some of us get slow and doddery and, to be frank, dangerous, but why should we all suffer? Why should we all be tarred with the same brush?

Exactly.

Kids need 'free computers'

Apparently the PPTA are going to make submissions to the government regarding accessibility of computers to poor kids. Thousands of - one estimate puts it at 100,000 - kids need 'free computers'. I wonder how many homes with no computer/internet access have Sky TV? A good number.

So this is the next 'public good' argument. These children are our future and they need to be properly educated which won't happen if they can't get to the internet to research their homework.

Well actually they can get to the internet. At their local library, internet cafe, at their friends houses and when they are at school. In fact, these are possibly better places for them to be doing their research if their own home is chaotic and overcrowded.

It is the parents who have to do the prioritising. It is the parents who have to put a value on learning over leisure. It is not the job of perfect strangers. And it pains me to say so. Because education is key to raising aspirations and expectations. But what lesson is learnt when people can constantly look to others instead of themselves for solutions?

Police passing the buck

Yesterday I posted statistics showing that convictions for crime had increased by 28 percent in the last ten years and one commentor said that we need far more cops. I am not sure that we do. What we need is for cops to focus on crimes against people and property instead of a myriad other things. The writer of the following latter, spotted in the Hutt News, encapsulates the sentiment;

Kitten, anybody?

That was quick - 6 weeks old, eating solids, drinking cow's milk and house-trained.

Now they need homes - except for Geoffrey. Geoffrey stays. A most ungainly, misshapen but clever cat. A go-getter which will unfortunately probably include go-getting things we wish he hadn't gone and gotten.



Palangi (behind Geoff) is a boy. He has been the least interested in trivial matters like food but is the most interested in the outdoors. Sits at the window watching more than the others. He's a big picture boy.



Eddie likes being handled. He is the most like his mum. Small and fine featured. Not that you can tell from this shot. He's the sensitive type.



And last but not least is Tabs - another boy I think. Possibly the prettiest and knows it. He likes to watch his reflection in our highly polished piano. A self-aware sort. Sam's favourite so parting will be tricky.




David would keep the lot. I am a tad more practical. If we can find good and caring homes they will go. Kitten anybody?

Conviction and sentencing statistics

Conviction and sentencing statistics 1999 - 2008 contains lots of interesting stuff. For instance;

* Between 1999 and 2008, the number of charges prosecuted increased by 27 percent.
* From 1999 to 2008, the number of charges resulting in a conviction rose by 28 percent.
* The number of charges that were not proved increased by 29 percent from 1999 to 2008.

Consistent increase throughout. The population increased by 11 percent over the same time - the 15-40 year-old age group, from which most crime hails, increased by only 8 percent.

Between 2003 and 2008, the number of convictions for violent offences rose by 40 percent and the number of convictions for traffic offences rose by 29 percent.

Yet during the 2008 election campaign I constantly heard that crime, including violent crime, was decreasing. Yet every measure - victimisation reports through to conviction rates show the opposite.

# The prosecution rate was higher than average in many rural North Island areas (Figure 3). In 2008, rates ranged from less than 170 per 10,000 residents in Kaikoura, Te Awamutu, Waipukurau, Feilding, and Gore to over 450 per 10,000 residents in Rotorua, Kaikohe, Gisborne, Whangarei, and Taupo.

Ethnicity and gang factors. Not surprising but unsettling that some of NZ's most popular tourist destinations are relatively dangerous places.



Total prosecutions look like this;



The number of people sentenced to imprisonment increased by 32 percent between 1999 and 2006. From 2006 to 2008 however, this number has decreased by 17 percent.

And yet the prison muster has just reached an all-time high. This must be due to longer sentencing/rejection of parole.

The number of offenders receiving deferment rose by 74 percent from 1999 to 2008.

The ONLY type of sentencing that is decreasing is imprisonment. But in 2008 2,479 convictions resulted in home detention sentences.

Overall, nothing to write home about.

Drink/driving and tougher penalties

Some discussion on talkback about two recent deaths due to drink/driving highlighted in the DomPost, prompted me to look at a country where penalties are tougher.

According to the Singapore police these are the current penalties for drink driving. (Their limits are the same as in NZ by the way);

First Time – Drink driver will be fined between $1000 and $5000 or six months imprisonment.

Second Time – Drink driver will be fined between $3000 and $10,000 fine and imprisonment for a term of up to one year.

Repeated Time – Drink Driver will face enhanced punishment up to 3 times the penalty, a maximum of $30,000 fine and three years' imprisonment.

Offenders causing death or serious injuries can also be caned up to 6 strokes.

All those convicted will be disqualified from driving for at least 1 year, even if they have not caused any traffic accidents.

Is it working? The police say:

The significant rise in drink-driving arrests is a worrying trend – recording a 7% rise from 3,733 cases in 2006, to 4,009 cases in 2007. The total number of drink-driving cases in 2007 has also been the highest for the last 10 years.

So now the police are trying something different;

Apart from maintaining regular enforcement efforts against drink driving, Traffic Police also collaborated with entertainment outlet operators in 2008 to launch several new Anti Drink Drive (ADD) initiatives. For example, the distribution of complimentary taxi vouchers and the provision of a complimentary chauffeur service to escort drunken patrons home.

Result?

A drop of 10.5 percent in arrests for drink/driving from 2007 to 2008.

Perhaps NZ has to start thinking beyond penalties.

What will break the bias?

Historian, David Thompson, wrote an essay in 1990 about the scholarship surrounding the New Zealand welfare state. He described it as uncritical, laudatory, containing a distinct left-wing bias, overwhelmingly political, naive, riddled with jargon. About the available critiques he wrote;

The superficial, shadow-boxing nature of many of these critiques should also be noted. At one level they are valid and trenchant counterblasts to the more familiar litanies of increase and success. At a deeper level, however, they stem from and serve to reinforce widely shared assumptions about the correct and inevitable nature of the welfare state. What is criticised is not the welfare state itself, but the failure to make ours more of a welfare state - more munificent, more redistributive, more dominant. Evidence of failure does not lead to a querying of the goals and ideals of the welfare state, or a search for other ways of organising a modern society. New Zealand lacks, perhaps most strikingly by contrast with North America, a parallel scholarship built on opposition to the welfare state. It is possible to oppose the welfare state in important aspects and yet be human, civilised and thoughtful, though one might doubt it reading the New Zealand literature. If one of the duties of scholars is to keep alive and develop alternative, unfashionable modes of thought, then it must be said that our intellectual traditions have been impoverished by an unwillingness or inability to reflect upon core assumptions - in short, to question ourselves.

And really, not much has changed.

A couple of books that criticised the welfare system were published by the NZ Business Roundtable during the 1990s, but neither were by New Zealand writers. This century, now nearly nine years old, has seen a continuation of dominance by left-leaning academia and policy analysts whose criticism of the welfare state extends only as far as changing delivery mechanisms, levels and targets. Margaret McClure's extensive work spanning one hundred years of social security is a mine of useful information but her language is full of loathing for private charity. Her approval of the welfare state is signalled in the title of her work, A Civilised Community.

The reform landscape is barren. There is absolutely nothing that would indicate National wants to have a debate about "the way a modern society organises itself." What will it take to break the uncritical bias towards the welfare state?

Or, is it already broken and just not reflected among the lofty elites, political leaders and sentinel civil servants?

Children in workless HOUSEHOLDS

A commentor has taken issue with my post about the number of NZ children living in workless families. Apparently the European statistics were for households - not families. That was how the chart was labelled unfortunately. I didn't label it.

Here is another chart which is based on households. The data is not as up-to-date but shows essentially the same thing. The NZ proportion is high compared to many other European countries;

The National/Act government - to the left of Sweden's

How depressing.

The National/Act government can't even keep up with the Swedish government, which is reducing taxes to cope with the recession. From their budget for 2009;

To strengthen the work-first principle and increase the labour supply, the Government proposes a third step in the in-work tax credit and a reduction in total state income tax. The proposals have an overall scope of SEK 15 billion. The three steps combined mean that approximately 97 per cent of all people in full-time work will have received tax reductions of more than SEK 1 000 a month.

The Government also presents a tax package for businesses that will lower their taxes by nearly SEK 16 billion in 2009. The aim is to strengthen incentives for companies to invest and take on new employees. The corporate tax rate will be reduced from 28 to just over 26 per cent and employers' social security contributions will be reduced by one percentage point. In addition, the administrative burden on businesses will be eased by a number of simplifications, as a step towards the Government's target of reducing the administrative burden on businesses by 25 per cent by 2010.

Till unemployment do us part

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."