Thanks a lot, National

A plan to close the wealth gap with Australia is "too radical" for Finance Minister Bill English, who says bringing the two countries to economic parity by 2025 is an "aspirational" rather than realistic goal.

So catching up with Australia is only an "aspirational" goal. Not a realistic one.

What a losing attitude. Do the AllBlacks have aspirational rather than realistic goals?

By the end of this week my entry (or more accurately, a photograph of my entry) into the biennial National Portrait competition is due. Do I want to win? You bet. There probably isn't a great chance given the high number of entries and the judge being an unknown quantity. But I went out and bought best quality canvas, re-stocked my paints and brushes, chose a subject close to my heart, studied it hard, took some chances with new colours and put in the hours. In other words I am doing what I have to, to be in with a chance - at the very least.

I didn't say, well, despite getting into every competition since it began, I have never won, so why bother. Or, if I just keep on doing what I always do the result will somehow change. I am not asking people what they think and ignoring what they tell me.

I hate having a mediocre, going-through-the-motions government. I am sick of Guy Smiley and his self-professed optimism. I heard him on radio saying I'm a glass-half-full kind of guy. Idiot. A glass half full is being filled. Our glass is half empty because it is being drained. NZ is not making progress economically and hasn't for a long time. What right does he have to refuse to act in the countries best long term interests? He can slum it with the best of them, side with the losers, molly coddle the moaners. But he's no leader. He's where he is in the polls because he isn't Helen.

In 2025 I will be 66. I don't care about the f-----g super John. Put the bloody age up. What I care about is whether my kids and grand kids will want to live here, will be able to afford to live here. But if you believe achieving strong economic growth isn't a realistic goal the chances of that happening will continue to slip away.

Thanks a lot John.

2025 productivity report makes crucial recommendations

Media Release

2025 PRODUCTIVITY REPORT MAKES CRUCIAL RECOMMENDATIONS

Monday, November 30, 2009

Crucial recommendations about the reform of working age welfare contained in the 2025 Taskforce Report must not be ignored, according to welfare commentator, Lindsay Mitchell.

"The report says that far too many fit and able New Zealanders are receiving their income from the state, " said Mrs Mitchell. "This reduces New Zealand's productivity through loss of participation and contribution."

"The authors have specifically recommended that the domestic purposes benefit have a 'absolute cut-off period' of 5 years. It observes that in many households parents work when their children are quite young, even when they may not want to. It finds no reason why those supported by the taxpayer should be treated more generously."

"It goes on to detail the disproportionate growth in invalid and sickness beneficiaries and urges serious efforts to get people off these benefits and into jobs wherever this can be realistically and compassionately achieved. Interestingly the report does not mention reform of the unemployment benefit. That may be because the authors recognise that sickness and invalid benefits have become, to some extent, de facto dole payments."

"The report's welfare recommendations are not out of line with what National campaigned on but have yet to deliver. The recommendations are not particularly radical and should be welcomed by all New Zealanders as the very minimum required to lift productivity and living standards to Australian levels by 2025."

Cat -chup

The next batch is due any day now. Mother is demented. Hissing and growling at anyone who even looks at her. I thought about taking her to the vet but considered that may cause her even greater stress, apart from which putting a possum in a box would be easier. This time, post birth, she will be whipped to the vet faster than John Key can say, no flat tax. But before we move on here are Jeffrey and Palangi now. I must say, as a dog person, these two have given us a great deal of pleasure. But there will be no more keepers! Fortunately four kittens are already spoken for. Let's hope Daisy produces to order.

Shootings, stabbings, suicides

Yes it's a grim title for a post. I have gotten side tracked yet again. Or am I? Look at the link. It makes for very disturbing reading. Somehow bureaucratic matter-of-fact reports are more sobering than sensational media stories. It is the Los Angeles County;

Department of Children and Family Services' internal log of 98 fatalities in 2009 (through early August) among children who had passed through the county child-welfare system. It was obtained by The Times and has not been altered, except for the deletion of children's names to protect families' privacy. In most cases, The Times was unable to verify the circumstances the log describes and has not corrected misspellings and typographical errors.

The shooting of teenage boys figures very prominently. But what has this got to do with New Zealand?

From late 2007;

When New Zealand's suburban teenagers first began imitating the clothes, language and antisocial posturing of America's `gangsta' culture, they were laughed off as ludicrous, if unnerving, fantasists. Perhaps they still are, but 10 murders in two years, and a spate of vicious alcohol-fuelled assaults, have forced police to acknowledge they can cause a lot of harm.

Has the situation improved? Counties Manukau police, MSD, the local council and public have put a huge amount of effort into tackling gangs. Let's hope it is paying off. For my part I am doubtful significant improvement will be achieved as long as the machinery for creating the dysfunctional families and kids remains intact.

NZ "suffering from policy paralysis" ...still

NUMBERS ON DPB INCREASING

The number of people on the unemployment benefit is dropping, but numbers claiming the sickness and domestic purposes benefits are increasing at an alarming rate, according to Margaret Bazley, director-general of Social Welfare. She told delegates at a youth justice conference in Wellington last week that an extra 5,000 people a year were signing up on the DPB.

Other stats from her speech: 268,000 NZ children live in welfare-dependent homes, 30% of children live in sole-parent homes, and 76% of children in sole-parent families were in the lowest income group.

Source -- The Daily News 1 November 1996 "Welfare Boss: Dependence increasing" by NZPA


RUTH RICHARDSON'S SOCIAL POLICY RECIPE

Former Finance Minister Ruth Richardson has been on the campaign trail to promote her political memoir, Making a Difference. She believes that NZ is suffering from policy paralysis. Her prescription: A dose of social reform including a six-month time limit on the unemployment benefit, the abolition of the domestic purposes benefit for those unmarried mothers who had not been in an established relationship, a rise in the age of eligibility for superannuation to 70yrs, a voucher system for education, and further privatisations including the sell-off of all state houses and health care. Ms Richardson doesn't believe her proposals would be difficult to sell politically, but "they would need leadership".

Source - The Dominion 30 September 1995 "Cut dpb and limit dole, says Richardson"


Nearly fifteen years on, my oldest child's lifetime, and nothing much has changed....
Ruth was right. NZ is suffering from policy paralysis.

Australia extends benefit quarantining beyond Aboriginal communities

AUSTRALIA EXTENDS BENEFIT QUARANTINING BEYOND ABORIGINAL COMMUNITIES

Saturday, November 28, 2009

Australia is about to extend the Howard government imposed benefit quarantining beyond Northern Territory Aboriginal communities across urban and regional parts of the state. Other income management trials are also underway in Queensland and Western Australia.

Welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell said that income management involves quarantining half of a benefit payment for spending on essentials like food and clothing rather than alcohol, drugs or gambling. "Half of the benefit payment is only available by way of an electronic card or other arrangements with Centrelink (the Australian version of Work and Income). This protects the beneficiary from intimidation for or theft of cash and improves the well-being of dependent children."

"Rather than caving in to objections from groups who say the current income management scheme constitutes racial discrimination, the Rudd government is extending the programme to other non-Aboriginal communities."

"New participants will include young people who have collected welfare for 3 of the past 6 months; older people who have been on a Parenting (DPB) or Newstart (Unemployment) payment for one of the last two years; people referred by child protection agencies or assessed by Centrelink as requiring budgeting management and victims of domestic violence. Other beneficiaries can voluntarily buy into the scheme and there are various cash incentives available to all income-managed clients for participation and saving."

Mitchell said that, "Of particular interest for New Zealand is whether Maori Party plans to expand whanau ora include income management for Maori beneficiaries, based on the practical implementation and experience of Australia. Then, of course, whether such schemes will be extended across other areas of New Zealand. And if an Australian Labour government is clearly serious about making the principles of obligation and responsibility a feature of their welfare system, will the New Zealand Labour Party adopt similar policies?"

Claims that don't stack up

Murray Edridge, speaking on behalf of Every Child Counts, in support of the NZ Child and Youth Epidemiology Service report, New Zealand Children’s Social Health Monitor;

“The report makes some international comparisons of countries care of children during recession. In Peru, for example, child mortality rates climbed. In Sweden they did not. Why? Because Sweden has a much more comprehensive welfare safety net including free child health care.

Let's check that. Living in Peru.com;

Peru had one of the best-performing economies in Latin America last year, with GDP growth of 9.8%—higher even than that of China (9%). Despite a severe global economic bust and sharply decelerating domestic growth, the Andean country is likely to remain, relatively speaking, a star performer in 2009.

Peru’s growth has exceeded that of most other countries in the region during the last seven years, driven by high global minerals prices and expanding output from the natural-resources sector, including from the huge Camisea natural-gas field. In 2008 only Uruguay’s spectacular rate of growth of 11% eclipsed that of Peru.

This is Peru's infant mortality rate.

This is Peru's child mortality rate.

I can find no evidence of a rise in either. There is a difference between the infant rate (under 1 year) and child rate (under 5 years). If one confused the two they might make the mistake of thinking there had been a rise. The other possibility is regional rather than national rates are being used.

If I could find the report I might be able to figure out what the claim is based on.

Another call for bigger and better benefits

Two academics have corroborated in an article published in today's NZ Herald entitled, Crisis may just be starting for poor. It continues from the anti-child poverty activity generated earlier in the week by the Paediatric Society report into the social health of New Zealand children.

...children exposed to low family income in the early years, in addition to experiencing higher hospital admissions and mortality in the short term, also have worse long-term results.

What they should have added then, is, that children on low incomes from benefits do even worse than children on low income from work. Ministry of Social Development research found;

Standard of living data show that poor children reliant on government transfers are more likely to be subject to restrictions in key items of consumption than are poor children in families with market income. The results demonstrate that there is considerable variation in the living standards of those below the poverty threshold, and suggest that poor children in families with government transfers as the main income source are a particularly vulnerable group and warrant a policy focus that recognises their multiple sources of disadvantage.


It follows then that the focus should be on work over benefit reliance. But no. Although the writers do not specifically spell it out, what they want is benefit rates to rise. In particular the In Work payment to be extended to parents who do not work.

"...the numbers moving off the DPB, also a low-replacement-rate benefit, are falling too."

The DPB is not, by international standards, a low replacement benefit. In 2002*, for a single parent with two children the long-term replacement rate was 79 percent whereas the OECD average was only 69 percent. And there is no time limit on uptake. This results in NZ having one of the lowest single mother employment rates in the OECD, averaging 47% through 2009. According to the OECD;

Sole parents have one of the highest rates of joblessness in the OECD. The disparity in employment rates between sole parents and other mothers is higher than in any other Member country.

Paula Bennett was right when she recently described NZ's welfare system as "generous compared to many other countries". That applies not only the how much is paid but to the period of entitlement - indefinite.

The effects of the recession may be prolonged for certain groups. That is true. But it is because the benefit system allows too many in, too easily and for too long.

*Since then there have been annual CPI increases and upward adjustments to family support/tax credits.

"Starving in the age of recession"

A conference is being convened called "Starving in the age of recession."

According to a DomPost journalist;

One in five Kiwi children are now being raised in households reliant on benefits, sparking fears that children are "starving in the age of the recession".

The number of children living with beneficiaries is up 15,000 in the past year to 226,000 in April 2009.

The rise has concerned doctors, child welfare groups and academics, who say living with beneficiaries increases the risk of leaving school early and health effects including hospital admissions and deaths."

I have more recent figures;



What this shows is that "children were starving" all through the economic good times and record low unemployment.

That is because most of them are on the DPB and reliance on the DPB is only slightly affected by the unemployment rate. And that is because people on the DPB are not generally looking to work, especially when their children are young.

Yes, more children will end up on benefits during a recession but for many of those, it will be a temporary experience while Mum or Dad finds another job. It's the entrenched, often intergenerational group producing chronic health problems. Here's an honest doctor;

Wellington Hospital paediatrician Brendon Bowkett said child health was "a basketcase well before the recession".

Let me quote an even more honest doctor, NZ Medical Association deputy chairman Don Simmers (2006);

"Too many women are contemplating pregnancy on a benefit and we need to do better than that."

The problem is not the recession. The problem is the DPB.

Crash stats by age

Here are the road crashes by percentage for various age groups. Without my addition one could be excused for thinking the performance of young people had improved, whilst that of older had worsened. But then I have overlaid the share of total population for each age group. The lines are clearly related. Bear in mind that these are against a backdrop of a halved road toll since the late 1980s. The road toll peaked in 1987 at 795 deaths. (I know, road deaths are not the same as road crashes but I have run out of searching energy for now.)

Defining 'close to'

At the risk of being labelled pedantic reports like this annoy me. Was it the PM who said,

There were 56,769 on the sickness benefit and 85,085 on the invalids benefit, he said. The figures were close to those of a year ago.

Or the reporter?

Because 'close to' would be a stretch of the imagination.

On those sort of numbers 'close to' would indicate maybe a few hundred either way.

I cannot make a comparison to exactly one year ago but in September 2008 there were 48,208 people on the sickness benefit and by December there were 50,896. Now there are 56,769. Is that 'close to'? Maybe a 14-16 percent increase?

Doing the same with the invalid's benefit indicates around a 2 percent increase. Now that is closer to 'close to'.

The 59,028 people now drawing the [unemployment] benefit was 1722 fewer than seven weeks ago, and well below the 82,000 Treasury had predicted in one estimate.

OK. That's more positive. But The Standard yesterday pointed out that the recent drop may be nothing more than normal seasonal fluctuation. So what have we got. A recent drop in the unemployment benefit due to a combination of seasonal change and job subsidies and every other benefit continuing to grow. As the DPB is not mentioned you can be fairly sure that is also continuing its upward trend.



Anyway, the main point of the article was to announce that more jobs are going to be subsidised. I have posted before about the problems therein. Skewing markets, in this case, the labour market, is just another example of squeezing the partially inflated balloon.

ACT to support ETS

ACT has just announced it is going to support the ETS legislation. This appears to be a move to curtail the Maori Party demands and prevent legislation being passed under urgency and before Copenhagen. This is intriguing however:

Mr Hide said that while ACT was strongly supportive of foreign investment and the private sector, it also had concerns about proposals to allow private companies, foreign or domestic, to establish carbon farms on the conservation estate.

“If a company, foreign or domestic, earns carbon credits from planting trees on the DoC estate, but then sells those credits offshore, it does nothing to improve New Zealand’s fiscal position under the Kyoto protocol. It is as if the trees had never been planted.

“If National wants more trees on the DoC estate, it makes most sense for DoC to plant them itself – then the Government will own the carbon credits which would reduce its Kyoto liability to the benefit of all taxpayers.”

ACT advocating state ownership of production. Sure carbon credit trading creates a phoney market, but don't similar principles apply as to the production of any goods or services? I am struggling with the difference. And surely the gain to the government (and benefit to the taxpayer) comes from leasing the DoC land rather than owning the carbon credits? What am I missing here?

Not understanding what she quotes

Tapu Misa quoting Ayn Rand to support today's column about Saturday's march;

As the philosopher and writer Ayn Rand observed, "Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by the majority (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual)."

Anybody who regularly reads Misa will know what a hoot this is.

Misa is a collectivist of the tallest order.

Let's have a look at a couple of her previous columns dismissing the rights of the individual.

On ACC, supporting its founder, Sir Owen;

To read Sir Owen is to understand how far we've strayed from many of the principles on which ACC was built. Like community responsibility, which goes against the idea that you should levy one section of the community more heavily than others, as proposed by the current government. Sir Owen held that as we all benefit from risky activities, we should all bear the cost equally.

On the US health reforms;

As Obama was at pains to point out last week, ensuring health care for all Americans isn't a matter of individual responsibility, and can't be left solely to big business - it requires government intervention.

Tapu Misa believes passionately in the role of government to regulate individuals. This directly infringes on the few rights they actually possess. In her world government should have more responsibility and power than the private sphere; from charity to business. The very idea of big government, one involved in all the areas Misa thinks it should be - health, education and welfare - rests on the suppression of the individual for the sake of the community.

The columnist has no idea what Ayn Rand was talking about. Misa believes in positive rights - that is the right to something like education or income support or healthcare. Ayn Rand believed in negative rights - the right to be free from something like government coercion. The two are incompatible. In effect Rand was arguing against everything Misa holds dear.

This is a better explanation of the theory of rights;

Within the philosophy of human rights, some philosophers and political scientists see a distinction between positive and negative rights. According to this view a positive right imposes an obligation on others and the state to do certain things, while a negative right merely obliges others and the state to refrain from certain activities.

Other readers may know where Rand stood on the rights of children. She may have argued the right of children to be free from any degree of physical force. I do not know.

But I would be hard-pressed to find any column Misa has ever written about society and government that Rand would have approved of.

Love and care, stability and security trump anything else

A reader was upset and angry enough to e-mail through a story that had shocked him. I think I was less surprised than he had been but it is worth the re-telling. The subject is very topical right now.

A foster family, who had raised two of their own children, had care of a 2 year-old Maori girl. This child had been removed from a whanau with gang associations or, for want of a better term, a gang house. The mother had made no attempt to make contact with the child since the removal. The foster family have apparently quickly grown very fond of the child (from which I am guessing they would like her to remain in their care.) However, another whanau member has been found and deemed a more suitable carer. This is the practical application of the holy grail at which Minister Turia worships- 'whanau first' or 'no child should be raised outside whakapapa links'. The more suitable carer is her eighty year-old grandmother who already has a younger child in her care. That might indicate she has proved she can look after the mokopuna very well or, conversely, that she is already stretched enough. But the odds of the child staying in the grandparent's care for the duration of her child/young adulthood are not particularly high. If the Grandmother wants full time care of the child then she is entitled - she is, after all, blood. But I do not know if she has been offered any alternative and obligation to whanau is an overriding force for Maori - both a blessing and a curse.

The younger foster family however would probably be better able to give the two year-old long term security. But they are neither kin nor culturally appropriate. They are Pakeha.

I wonder how many Pakeha couples would step forward to raise Maori children given the chance? I once made noises about taking care of a child I had come to know through visits to her neighbour. In time the child was removed from her mother. The case was serious enough to warrant media coverage. She was a sunny child despite being neglected and abused, although her older sibling was already showing signs of a troubled personality. My impulse and overtures were quite actively discouraged. And to be fair, I had no official status or experience as a carer. The children ended up with their grandmother also and I think of her to this day. There were days when I was the only person to wipe her nose for her. It never seemed to occur to anyone else. Trivial maybe, but it sticks in my mind. Along with the bare feet and uncovered nappy in mid-winter.

If Paula Bennett is true to her word I hope she stands very firm and insists on an investigation into where Maori children are placed and what the outcomes are for them. There would be a big enough cohort over the years to provide a sizeable sample. If it transpires those children placed within the whanau are better off, so be it. But lets have a good, honest look at it.

The life chances of these children hang on what may be a questionable policy.

US unemployment and the stimulus

Here's an interesting theory that I tend to agree with. The US unemployment rate climbed as rapidly as it did because unemployment benefits were extended. Other countries with sharper declines in GDP fared better.

Why did the unemployment rate rise so rapidly -- from 7.2 per cent in January to 10.2 percent in October? It was clearly the administration's "stimulus" bill -- which in February provided $40 billion to greatly extend jobless benefits at no cost to the states, says Alan Reynolds, a senior fellow with the Cato Institute.

And from the same source today a report about the jobs apparently created by the stimulus is riddled with errors.

The acting head of the Government Accountability Office (GAO), Gene Dodaro, told the committee his investigators found 3,978 reports where recipients reported creating a total of 58,386 jobs without spending any money. Another 9,247 reports covering $965 million in spending listed no jobs created or saved.

So what is the overall outcome of government intervention in the labour market? Increased unemployment and wasted taxpayer money.

Breathtaking arrogance and appalling bias

The Children's Commissioner is telling people to boycott the March for Democracy, to be held in Auckland tomorrow.

An indicator of the level of his arrogance is that he doesn't realise his decree will actually have the opposite effect to what he wants to achieve. He actually believes that the people will do as they are told if he speaks out. Why? What especial wisdom and beneficence does Mr Angus possess beyond mere parents?

I like Bob McCoskrie's response;

“If the existence of the office of the Children’s Commissioner was put to the democratic vote, it would be gone by lunchtime,” says Mr McCoskrie.

It gets worse. I have only just gone to the second page of the Herald article where I see the march has been described as;

DEMANDING THERIGHT TO HIT
March start: Queen St/Fort St corner, 1.30pm.
Transport: Free buses from noon from Constellation Drive park and ride (North Shore), Campbell Cres entrance to Alexandra Park and along Tamaki Drive.
Songs and speeches: Outside Town Hall, about 2.30pm.
Event ends: About 3pm. Free buses from Britomart from 3.30pm.

This is appalling bias on the part of the NZ Herald.

Update; The Herald pulled the description. It hadn't been my imagination though. I rang talkback to express my anger at the Herald for such an explicitly biased moniker and the host had seen the same piece and had a similar reaction.

What exactly is Whanau Ora?

Here is an exchange from parliament Wesnesday. It does not serve any purpose. Nobody is any the wiser from listening to or reading it - politician or member of the public. It only serves to increase the suspicion that National and the Maori Party either don't know what they are doing or don't want us to know what they are doing.

Whānau Ora—Purpose and Outcomes

3. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister for Social
Development and Employment: What definition, if any, did her Associate Minister Hon Tariana Turia provide to her to explain the purpose and intended outcomes of the Whānau Ora programme?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I have had many discussions with Minister Turia on the definitions of Whānau Ora. The member does not understand that it is not a programme; it is a way of working that leads towards positive outcomes for whānau independence and positive well-being. Frankly, the integrated provision of health, education, and social services for all New Zealanders is something Labour talked endlessly about but never accomplished. This Government is working towards it.

Hon Annette King: Does she stand by her statement that she does not envisage carving off a billion dollars to go into that sort of scheme; if so, where will her Associate Minister get the billion dollars she has claimed to fund the Whānau Ora programme?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: We are still working through developments on how that programme will come together. I can say that is looking really positive. What I have said is that, under Labour, welfare dependency increased; sickness, invalid, and domestic purposes benefit numbers went up; and abuse and neglect of children increased. What Labour did in the past did not work; Whānau Ora has the potential to work.

Mr SPEAKER: Is the Minister deaf? I called for order several times. She continued to give an answer that was absolutely irrelevant to the question asked. It is unnecessary.

Hon Annette King: Does the Minister agree with her Associate Minister that “to be quite frank with you there’s probably a billion dollars already being wasted now”? If so, what programmes or initiatives is her ministry wasting millions of dollars on, and will these programmes be cut to make way for the new Whānau Ora programme?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: We are looking at value for money for every taxpayer dollar that this Government is putting in, and we make no apologies for it. I tell members that our ministries are excited about the prospect of Whānau Ora, this Government is excited about the prospects of whānau ora, and we believe that it can make a positive difference for all families, and we will continue to work towards that.

Hon Tau Henare: Was does the Whānau Ora taskforce say about the current delivery mechanisms and the outcomes for Māori?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: The taskforce discussion document states: “Despite Government investment across a number of sectors the results for whānau are often disappointing.” It continues: “The taskforce is not convinced that whānau and taxpayers are getting value for money, or that the efforts of Government are matched by the measurable gains for whānau.” That is what we need to address.

Hon Annette King: What has she done to convince her Government colleagues to now support separate and identified funding for Māori service provision, something that members opposite opposed when in Opposition and called race-based funding; and how did she convince Tony Ryall to agree to the Whānau Ora programme, when he only a short time ago said that race-based funding had to come to an immediate end?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: What that member does not recognise is that Whānau Ora has the potential to be good for all families, for all New Zealanders. Through a different delivery mechanism we will see positive outcomes; we will see changes that we did not see in the 9 years of the Labour Government, which just piled programme on top of programme.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Tēnā koe. Kia ora tātou. Kei te hāngai pū te Whānau Ora ki ngā ratonga hauora, ki ngā ratonga whakahiato ora, noa iho?

[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] [Is Whānau Ora just about health and social services?]

Hon PAULA BENNETT: No. Whānau Ora is focused on re-empowering families to take responsibility for themselves. It is about the contribution that iwi, hapū, communities, and extended whānau make to family outcomes. Māori economic development contributes to Whānau Ora, as do the services associated with health, social services, housing, justice, the community and voluntary sector, and education.

Mr SPEAKER: Dr Rajen Prasad. [Interruption] I apologise to the member, but if his own frontbench colleagues would only be quiet, so that we could hear the supplementary question from Dr Rajen Prasad, I would be obliged.

Te Ururoa Flavell: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. As the person who asked the question, I unfortunately did not catch pretty much half of the delivery from the Minister. I just could not hear it from here. Is it possible to have a rerun of the end part? I did not hear it.

Mr SPEAKER: In fairness I—[Interruption] A point of order is being dealt with. I do not know what was in the lunch that some members had today. [Interruption] Has the Hon Paula Bennett quite finished? I say to the honourable member that I could hear the Minister’s answer reasonably clearly.

Dr Rajen Prasad: Did she see the reported comments at the weekend from her Associate Minister, the Hon Tariana Turia, that the Minister’s views on the “whānau first” policy, a key aspect of Whānau Ora, are hugely controversial; if so, what discussions has she had with her Associate Minister, and have they decided which social services will be covered by the Whānau Ora interventions framework?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Actually, that statement was factually incorrect. What I can tell the member is that we have some real challenges ahead of us as a country on how we deal with our abused and neglected children.

Carmel Sepuloni: Blah-blah-blah.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Sorry, what was that? The member does not see it as being important?

Carmel Sepuloni: You heard me.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Has she got a problem with that?

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am not entirely sure what happened during that interchange, but after a question from the member Rajen Prasad, the Minister looked at somebody, made a comment, then sat down. We did not get a complete answer to the question that had been put by Dr—

Hon Tau Henare: No.

Hon Darren Hughes: Mr Henare keeps interjecting during everyone’s—

Mr SPEAKER: I ask the House please to come to a little more order today. It is not very tidy at all. What happened—in answer to the honourable member’s question—was that the Minister simply disagreed with the statement contained in the member’s question. I think she then felt that she had continued on for long enough. So I think the matter was dealt with. I was just waiting for the House to settle down.

Dr Rajen Prasad: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The term “hugely controversial” was attributed to the honourable Minister in the—

Mr SPEAKER: I realise that the member has not been here for many years, but he cannot use the point of order process to litigate a question in that way. The Minister—

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Actually, it was I who said it was hugely controversial.

Mr SPEAKER: I am on my feet; I just do not know what has got into members today. Where the member asking a question inserts a statement into the question, and the Minister refutes the statement, the question has been answered—because the Minister has refuted the statement. It cannot be litigated by way of point of order.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Kei te tautoko ia i te kaupapa Whānau Ora? [An interpretation in English was given to the House.] [Does she support the Whānau Ora approach?]

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Of course I do. Whānau Ora has the potential to transform whānau in an unprecedented way. It is consistent with my goals—and this Government’s—of having service providers working together more effectively for whānau. I also strongly support anything that encourages families to take responsibility for themselves.

If, like me, you are still dissatisfied with your understanding of what whanau ora actually means in concrete terms the following, lifted from the discussion paper prepared by the whanau ora taskforce, will probably raise your blood pressure even further. No doubt people are being paid thousands of dollars to turn out this stuff.

(Safety warning; left clicking to enlarge image may be dangerous to your health.)

Right on cue

A few days back I mused about why Labour isn't attacking the government over youth unemployment. Mainly because (I had to explain in a second post) parliamentary attacks create headlines and headlines are the heartblood of politicians.

Today this question is being asked;

2. Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she believe that the Government’s package to address unemployment has done enough to give youth a firm footing in the labour market?

As I said, 16.8 percent - one in six - 18-24 year-olds was unemployed at the end of September.

She would have been four by now

What is there left to say about the 'mysterious' deaths of some babies in NZ? 'Mysterious' does not refer to SID syndrome, though there is sometimes an uncomfortable uncertainty over what is or isn't genuinely described as such. No. The reference is to the mystery created by a person or people who lie to protect themselves or others. Partly, I suspect, this is another symptom of the racial victim-hood some people feel. Closing ranks is, in their minds, morally justifiable. Of course, this strategy isn't confined to Maori, as we have recently seen. Lying, especially where benefit incomes and accommodation supplements are involved, is a well-established pattern of behaviour anyway. Work with people like this and you even start lying to yourself as well. It's an occupational hazard. Trying to cross the divide between two sets of morality is fraught. But if no attempt is made we may as well shut up shop now.

But there is one blinding, unavoidable question about the case of Staranise Waru.

Had she lived she would now be four. Why the hell did it take the coroner three and a half years to deliver a result?

An absurd protest

Another protest in Wellington today - another I won't be joining.

As women are paid on average less than men, somebody has calculated that women on average are working for nothing from November 18 each year. Because they claim to be subsidising the economy to the tune of $4 billion they are going to make out an invoice for said amount and hand it over.

And who will it be made out to? Treasury should be on the list because it oversees the economy. The PM because he leads a National government that refuses to consider pay equity issues at select committee.

And of course the Salaried And Waged Men Of New Zealand who we all know have been ripping women off for centuries by taking more than their fair share of the cake.

Um. Without trying too hard it isn't difficult to come up with some invoices that might be handed back.

*An invoice for Paid Parental Leave - $135 million
*An invoice for unpaid tax on deficit earnings - $1 billion
*An invoice for the extra Super that women consume - $15 billion
*An invoice for the DPB - $2 billion

If they want to talk about "subsidising" and "the economy" none of the above invoices are any less absurd than the one that will appear today.

Sallies call for 25 percent increase in alcohol tax

The Salvation Army wants a 25 percent increase in alcohol tax because it would cut teenage and other problem drinking by 10 percent (perhaps Mr Crampton can explain that one?)

What it would also lead to is less discretionary dollar and less money available to donate to charity, although I already bin any requests for money from the Sallie Army. And I get a lot, having been a past supporter. (How much money do organisations waste continuing to pester people who have told them to go jump? Barnardos is another prime example.)

But reducing the discretionary dollar won't worry these guys who are deep into the taxpayer's pocket already via government funding. Perhaps they are sensing that Sir Geoffrey and the law commission need some support for their draconian ideas and have also figured calling for increased alcohol tax will curry favour with their biggest benefactor - the government. After all it is the government that stands to gain the most from increased tax.

Salvation Army welfare centres have seen a growing number of families coming to them citing alcohol abuse and addiction as a leading cause of poverty and domestic violence in their lives.

People can be as self-destructive as they like when the government guarantees a pay cheque not contingent on work. Perhaps the Salvation Army should be thinking about that.

When William Booth launched the Army on its mission, the three greatest social evils were poverty, homelessness and unemployment. He, like his hero John Wesley, saw that the Kingdom of God has as much to do with this world as the next. The famous Cab Horse Charter resulted from Booth's observation that the London cab horses were provided with food, shelter and work; and he was determined to ensure that these most basic of needs were provided to all people. Booth also recognised that work was a critical factor in human worth. His great scheme for social and spiritual regeneration has as its keystone ‘work for all'.

Not benefits for all.

Killing two birds with one stone

Under proposal, in the UK, is a personal carbon allocation. People will be tracked by ID numbers and sent statements describing their liability if they exceed allocations.

NCPA reports;

* It would involve people being issued a unique number which they would hand over when purchasing products that contribute to their carbon footprint, such as fuel, airline tickets and electricity.

* As with a bank account, a statement would be sent out each month to help people keep track of what they are using.

* If their "carbon account" hits zero, they would have to pay to get more credits.

* Those who are frugal with their carbon usage will be able to sell their unused credits and make a profit.

What worries me is that plenty of low income people will 'buy' into it seeing a chance to make a buck. But,

Under the Climate Change Act, Britain is obliged to cut its emissions by 80 percent of 1990 levels by 2050. This means annual CO2 emissions per person will have to fall from about 9 tons to only 2 tons.

So wouldn't the allocation be well under what the average current consumption is? Even existing low consumers would struggle to stay within limits.

But that assumes that each individual is given the same allocation. What if allocations were progressive according to income/ ability to pay? Then there would be a grand opportunity for the 'poor' to profit from the 'rich'.

Another glorious state wealth redistribution scheme would be achieved.

(Meanwhile, back home, the Trading Emissions Scheme, set to make individual taxpayers poorer, significantly, hangs on Maori Party support. If Maori can get special concessions, then non-Maori can go whistle. New Zealanders may be about to experience the practical effect of having a parliamentary party based on race.)

Note to Sir Roger

On Saturday I blogged about the fundamental difference in views between the Minister and associate Minister of Social Development re the placement of Maori children removed from high risk situations. Another looms. Taken at their word, National has said they are now going to press ahead with work-testing the DPB when the youngest child turns 6.

But the Maori Party is completely opposed to this.

One third of working-age Maori women are on welfare - most, the DPB. Which legislation will actually have more practical impact on Maori? Enshrining customary right to the foreshore and seabed or making Maori mothers get a job?

So what, you may say. ACT will support the legislation allowing the Maori Party to vote against it. But what if ACT sees this as a golden opportunity to push National further and, for example, introduce a cap on the number of children eligible for assistance or a time limit on DPB receipt (note to Sir Roger), then the Maori Party could be pushed into supporting the legislation as it stands. Or they could continue to hold out, leaving ACT having all the influence.

They would be between a rock and a very hard place. This is exactly the sort of stuff that is causing friction amongst Maori Party members. In a way I sympathise with Hone and his philosophical antipathy towards National. I feel a similar antipathy and didn't want ACT to go into government with them. But that is water under the bridge now.

And ACT, (note to Sir Roger), has a chance to actually do something important on the welfare front.

450 staff to investigate fraud

The Ministry of Social Development posted its annual report on Friday. It may not be intentional but website postings are nearly always made on a Friday when media are less attentive.

This annual report is typically replete with jargon and self-flattery. This super-Ministry is vast and records endless descriptions of initiatives, programmes, committees, task forces, panels, divisions, funding streams, accounting practices etc. etc. It is essentially very boring. But I will note some isolated interesting facts;

It is important New Zealanders have trust and confidence in how we deliver income support to people. We have a dedicated Integrity Services team made up of five units with 450 staff in 15 locations nationwide in the 2008/2009 year. Over the past year, we have:

* investigated more than 26,400 cases of potential benefit fraud
* compared more than 22 million records through data matching with other agencies to detect incorrect benefit payments
* been successful with 95 per cent of the benefit fraud cases we've prosecuted

Poachers...gamekeepers....

We have around 300 sites that provide services to more than 1.6 million people.

About half of the adult population.

The number of jobseekers and beneficiaries grew dramatically during the year and the Unemployment Benefit numbers increased by 187 per cent. There were also significant increases in the Sickness, Invalids and Domestic Purposes Benefit numbers. In the first six months of 2009, approximately 1.15 million people attended appointments and seminars and we handled 3.4 million phone calls asking for advice or for our help.

Lots of recession-induced calls no doubt supplemented by a large dollop of 'learned helplessness'.

Over the last year we worked closely with local councils in Counties Manukau and Otahuhu where:

*
over 60 per cent of youth had current gang involvement
*
23 youth workers provided activities and programmes and individual support - over 10,500 youth were reached through over 800 events or activities
*
six integrated case managers dealt with individual issues for 499 youth and their families, 81 of whom have exited the programme
*
1,292 parents of at-risk youth in Otara and Manurewa received parenting programmes

At the same time hundreds more young mothers will have been admitted into the system with a child as a meal-ticket to a life of handouts. South Auckland bucked the national decreasing DPB trend between 2004 and 2008. At-risk youth hail predominantly, but not exclusively, from benefit-dependent homes.

Yesterday Crusader Rabbit sent me a wonderful quote which seems the most apt note on which to end this post.

"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer."
- Benjamin Franklin

Effect of police over-enthusiasm

More people are escaping conviction for assault. The hand-wringers are outraged. My sense of what is going on, based on court visits, is, however, encapsulated by this comment from someone far better placed to know;

Wellington barrister Robert Lithgow said the rise came from police putting more trivial matters before the court, which didn't justify the stigma of a conviction. "The courts are saying this is out of all proportion."

That is right and proper. But while the court system is already so over-burden with serious cases, this required over-enthusiasm on the part of the police creates another problem of itself. People unnecessarily hauled before the courts and the ensuing considerable wasting of time and resources is the result of the ongoing anti-violence campaigns and, more recently, the anti-smacking law. There is an analogy about what government does with legislation. Trying to solve a problem (in this case family violence) is like squeezing a semi-inflated balloon. The air is simply moved from one area to another.

Was this new problem covered off in the Ministry of Social Development review into how the anti-smacking law is working in practice? I don't think so.

12 arguments against raising the driving age

(re-posted in light of today's news.)


1/ Statistics for young drivers are improving:

In 1986 15 and 16 year-old drivers were involved in 32 fatal accidents and 884 serious crashes.

In 2006 15 and 16 year-old drivers were involved in 16 fatal accidents and 122 serious crashes.

In 1986 15-19 year-old drivers involved in fatal crashes numbered 167 and made up 16.9 % of all crashes.

In 2006 15-19 year-old drivers involved in fatal crashes numbered 64 and made up 11.7 % of all crashes.

2/ The law is being changed by people who enjoyed a privilege they are now seeking to remove, despite their generation’s performance having been demonstrably worse.

3/ Arguments that New Zealand is out of step with the rest of the world are irrelevant;

- We have been out of step for decades yet only now it has become a problem?
- If international standards are an important consideration then why aren’t we raising the age to 18, common in most European countries?

4/ Putting the driving age up does not send the right message to young people. If we want to encourage a culture of personal responsibility and independence this move is counter-productive.

5/ Often it is parents who dictate when their child will learn to drive. They are a better judge than the government.

6/ New Zealand’s road deaths per 100,000 in 2005 were 9.9, just above the OECD median of 9.5. Many OECD countries have a higher road toll rates and higher legal driving ages;
Age deaths per 100,000 in 2005
Poland 17 14.3
Belgium 18 10.4
Portugal 18 11.8
Spain 18 10.2
Czech Republic 17 12.6
Slovakia 18 11.1 (2004)
South Korea 18 10.2
Greece 17 15.0
Hungary 18 12.7
USA 16 14.7

7/ Across Australia the minimum driving ages are;

Minimum driving age:
New South Wales - 17 yrs 7.5
South Australia - 16 yrs 9.6
Victoria - 18 yrs 6.9
Queensland - 17 yrs 8.3
Northern Territory - 17 yrs 27.0
Tasmania - 17 yrs 10.5
Western Australia - 17 yrs 8.1

Obviously there are a range of ages all above 15 with a broad range of results

8/ If this move is successful, when will the calls to raise it higher begin?

9/ The Labour government liberalised rules pertaining to aged driver licensing by removing compulsory tests for 80+ drivers despite their over-representation in road crashes. It would be inconsistent to tighten rules relating to young drivers under the same premise.

10/ Responsible 15 and 16 year-olds will be penalised because of irresponsible 15 and 16 year-olds

11/ Irresponsible 15 and 16 year-olds already break the law by carrying passengers they are not licensed to carry or by travelling with drivers not licensed to carry them. If the driving age is raised they are likely to continue to ignore the law. The result will be more drivers on the road who have no knowledge of road rules or who have not experienced any driver training.

12/ Experience and driver education are vital. The first cannot be gained by delaying the starting age. A lot could be achieved with more of the second.

Ministers at odds with each other?

The Herald reports today, in an article about CYF and child abuse intervention;

The minister [Paula Bennett] also said she was increasingly concerned about the placement of abused Maori children with poorly chosen members of their extended family.

She had asked Child, Youth and Family to compare the progress of Maori children placed with whanau and those placed elsewhere to see what worked best.

We have been here before. In 2000, Peter Douglas, then head of general services, Maori strategy, CYF, urged removal of at-risk Maori children beyond the whanau. He obviously harboured the same concerns as Paula Bennett. No doubt, with good reason.

Tariana Turia, then a Labour MP and associate minister, said, “I am totally opposed to children being raised outside whakapapa links.”

Douglas countered,

“I saw a really interesting example of how whanau gather and support each other and it was centered around a little girl killed in the Wairarapa, and that whanau gathered and supported and hid from the police….So if we are going to talk about whanau let’s talk about all of them.”

He was talking about the Lillybing case.

But Turia's position was firm;

The Associate Minister of Social Services told a national hui on child abuse in Christchurch on Saturday that at-risk Maori children should never be allowed into "stranger care."

Turia is now, of course, the associate Minister for Social Development in the National government. If she hasn't changed her mind the two ministers are going to be at odds.

No enlightenment here

Until I read this Economist article I hadn't appreciated how far behind the rest of the world NZ is falling in respect of our drug laws. Apparently;


* seven European countries have decriminalised drug possession

* Mexico has decriminalised the personal possession of small amounts of any drug from cannabis to crack

* 13 American states let people smoke marijuana for medical reasons

* New Mexico, Rhode Island and Massachusetts license non-profit corporations to grow medical marijuana

* California and Massachusetts are holding committee hearings on bills to legalise pot outright

* Oregon is expected to introduce such a bill within the next couple of weeks

* Personal possession of any drug — even the hardest — is not a crime in Spain, Portugal, Italy, the Czech Republic or the Baltic states

* Some German states and Swiss cantons take the same line

* In August, Argentina’s supreme court said it was unconstitutional to prosecute people for drug possession. The following month, Colombia’s supreme court issued a similar ruling. Now, Brazil and Ecuador are said to be mulling decriminalisation.

I think some of these claims may need some qualification but increasingly NZ is looking positively unenlightened.

A misunderstanding and an explanation

David Farrar took issue with yesterday's post asking why John Key wasn't under fire for high youth unemployment the way Gordon Brown is.

Lindsay - you're not stupid so you know the answer to this.

Gordon Brown is under fire because he has been the Chancellor and then Prime Minister of the UK for the last 12 years.

John Key has been Prime Minister for less than 12 months and no one outside you and Trevor Mallard seem to think he is responsible for the high level of youth unemployment.

David, Where did I say Key was responsible for the high youth unemployment? That is you reading something that isn't there. My question was about why NZ Labour isn't launching the kind of parliamentary attacks that the UK Conservatives are. That is where the headlines come from and headlines are the lifeblood of political parties. Brown may have been in power for years and made claims he hasn't delivered on but is he personally responsible for the current recession? I don't think so. But the Conservatives make out like he is. Is Key responsible for the current recession? Of course not. But there is nothing to stop Labour attacking him for steeply rising unemployment during the year he has been PM.

So either they have decided to be honest (unusual in politics), avoid putting the spotlight on their own performance in government, or simply haven't got the belly for it. You see I take an interest in welfare and employment. I watch Annette King and the questions she puts up in order to figure out how they are going to re-invent themselves policy-wise. That, as well as the subject of my post, I do not know the answer to.

Interesting contrast

Gordon Brown is under the gun for youth unemployment which has reached 19.8 percent in the UK.

David Cameron today accused Gordon Brown of failing Britain's youth after figures were released showing one in five young people is now out of work.

The pair clashed at Prime Minister's Questions in the Commons with youth unemployment now at an unprecedented level.

Among those aged 16 to 24 the number looking for work, has reached almost 19.8 per cent — almost one million — for the first time.

I wonder why we don't get similar headlines about Key being under fire because 16.8 percent of NZ 15-24 year-olds are unemployed? That's one in six.

Shifting blame - getting it right and getting it wrong

Two examples that have caught my attention today.

1/ The Australian High Court ruled;

"Balancing the pleasures of drinking with the importance of minimising the harm that may flow to a drinker is also a matter of personal decision and individual responsibility.

"It is a matter more fairly to be placed on the drinker than the seller of drink."

Succinct and spot on. Hallelujah.


2/ Last night I watched Tariana Turia subtlety shift the focus of wrong-doing from Hone Harawira to the public response. Caught in print, but not as telling as her demeanour on screen,

While Mr Harawira's behaviour was "unacceptable", she had been flooded with emails which were "equally racist and abusive".

Sorry for the platitude but two wrongs do not make a right. Perhaps the Maori Party should however let the public be the judge of whether the e-mails are racist. The paper I wrote on Maori and Welfare was described as racist for instance. It was never explained to me why. I can only conclude that it is OK for Maori to talk about themselves as a group, and describe particular problems that disproportionately affect them as a group, but it is not OK for me to do it.

Literal "nannies"

Under Oranga Whanau, groups of three kuia will visit pregnant Maori women to identify welfare issues.

Speaking yesterday at a violence and abuse research symposium, Dr Sharples said the $1 million programme would roll out in Auckland, Northland, Rotorua and Hutt Valley.

Under the scheme, the three "nannies" will work in a team visiting mothers in their regions. Dr Sharples said it followed a smaller trial that iwi in Ngati Kahungunu undertook this year.

The "nanny principle" puts into practice the cultural way older people relate to younger people in the same non-threatening way that Maori wardens work. "It works really well. One puts the kettle on, one natters about the whakapapa, the other one cuts the cake," the minister said.

"It is a catch-all - it's an opportunity to help people before issues become issues."

I am involved in something a little similar as a volunteer but work on my own and tend to roll up the sleeves instead of nattering. The real nattering comes during the work and after the trust is gained. But I have to say that progress is often quite limited because other issues crowd it out. You cannot be in people's houses and lives 24/7. There are always other influences, often harmful, pulling in another direction.

To me a team of 3 uses up too many resources in one place. Visiting every week would be more effective than visiting every 3 weeks. Getting to know someone well is the key.

Dr Sharples said the programme had parallels with his own experience working with Maori families reaching back to the 1970s, where he dealt with those struggling with alcoholism, unemployment, domestic abuse and other issues.

And isn't that the crunch? We are still on the same treadmill except it is going faster and we are running out of breath. This kind of approach will help a few problem families. But in the main the welfare system ensures that many more are presented than can be helped. Or who want to be helped.

Spending more than we are making

Bill English talked to the Taranaki Chamber of Commerce yesterday and what he said is worth repeating;

He told chamber members that there were two parts to the New Zealand economy – the tradeable portion via exports and tourism, and the non-tradeables comprising the likes of health and social services, and housing.

"In recent times these two have got right out of kilter," he said.

"The income part of the economy has shrunk 10 per cent over the past five years, and in fact our export sector hasn't created a single additional job over the past 10 years. But the consumer part of our economy has grown by 15 per cent in the last five years.

"There's the problem. Try running your organisation when your spending is growing at twice the rate of your revenue."

Mr English stressed the importance of Taranaki's export sector; that it is vital to the success of NZ.

But so is cutting spending, or at the very least capping spending. I hope someone pointed that out to him.

The problem for the Maori Party

The Maori Party make a lot out of style. They adhere to concepts or manaakitanga which are enshrined in their constitution.

Manaakitanga is behaviour that acknowledges the mana of others as having equal or greater importance than one’s own, through the expression of aroha, hospitality, generosity and mutual respect. In doing so, all parties are elevated and our status is enhanced, building unity through humility and the act of giving. The Party must endeavour to express manaakitanga towards others, be they political allies or opponents, Māori and non-Māori organisations, taking care not to trample mana, while clearly defining our own.

Yesterday while Hone Harawira was hanging tough, and Dover Samuels was reinforcing what Hone said as what Hone believes, Pita Sharples was elsewhere saying this;

Abuse whether it be physical, psychological, sexual, emotional is an attack against the person, and in doing so, an attack against their whakapapa, their whanau, their identity.

And we must see all violence within that definition – including abusive and offensive remarks; derogatory language; intimidating behaviour. Whether it is in a gang war; a newspaper column; or across the airwaves, abuse of any sort brings shame to us all.

Yet even Pita says forcing an apology out of Hone is not the right thing to do. That's understandable. It would be worthless.

In these days of reduced standards and the unremarkable, regular use of bad language Hone's remarks have been somewhat cushioned. But when I turn them over in my mind again, they are very, very offensive.

Hone is blatantly contravening the constitution of the party that got him into parliament. But more importantly he is undermining the bridge-building that Pita Sharples works so very hard at. He is making a mockery of the philosophy that many thought was important enough to record as central to how members conduct themselves.

The problem is you cannot change what is in someone's psyche. It is now clear what is in Hone's and if the Maori Party keeps him it is will be perceived as political expediency trumping their core values, or a quiet condoning of what was said.

The feminist burden

Here is a very jaundiced view of men and marriage. It asks me some questions so best I answer them;

Lindsay
You are a traitor to the female gender and it gets you some nice misogynist fans and might even pay quite well. Most women who disagree with your points of view do not even speak because of the consequences like loss of career mariage leading to impoverishment etc. Only women who promote vicous victimisation of their own gender are comfortable enough to speak out. They have some ardent male fans.
Just incase you are unaware Lindsay if children are left alone a woman can be jailed for neglect. How do you suggest single mothers pay the childcare fees to avoid this problem. The fathers of their children are not asked to contribute yet often sit on the sidelines and slag off the mothers of their own children who are required by law to provide 24 hour care.
Yes it might be a sensisble idea financially for women to marry before they have children but I think you will find most single parents have been married and are divorced.
According to a Herald poll more than 40% of men have been unfaithfull to their wives and about 16% of married women have cheated. They failed to mention though that wives infideity is usually a revenge affair after discovering a husbands affair.
We get this constant bullshit that men are just different and women are forgiving but the truth is the consequences for a mother having an affair are the end of her marriage and life long impoverishment unless she gets another ( cheating bastard ) husband. Wronged women bury their
anger to keep a roof over theirs and their childrens heads but they shouldnt have to.
Do you think women should put up with infidelity Lindsay please tell me.
You talk about their being less poverty when mothers get off welfare but what are their lives like? Studies in the US show the average mother does about 50 hours housework per week. If you combine this with working say a minimum of 40 hours thats 90 hours per week and many mothers work sixty hours plus for pittance wages. Their children are often left alone. So what should women in the US and NZ do when their partners visit prostitutes, strip clubs, bash them etc Lindsay. The cause of female poverty is often abuse by husbands. If your husband cheats or beats you either put up with it or you pay for the rest of your life.
What sort of quality of life do mothers have working 24/7. They might have a little more moeny but most compalain of complete physical exhaustion. They have no quality of life as is the same for many married mothers doing the same thing. Marriage is not something I would even think about. Its just slavery for many women Lindsay.
I know many mothers who come home from work and start doing the housework while their husband minds the kids. They work untill midnight and dont even get time with their own children. The husband and children have a slave cleaner. Women putting up with this is nothing to do with childrens welfare if all they actually do is work cook and clean.
We are constantly lectured by capitalists that women should sacrifice for children.
Well if they live miserable impoverished overworked lives then their daughters will too. The only benefactors are men.

First, my welfare reform advocacy is unpaid. I have only ever once been paid for my writing. I pay to promote my ideas. I suppose I could even buy into the nonsense of foregone earnings because of spending so much time on welfare research and writing. But I won't because that's my choice.

I have no obligation to the female gender by virtue of being one. Such a blind loyalty would demand a far greater 'sacrifice' than any other the writer rails against. A sacrifice of honesty because all women are not all right all of the time.

Many of the people who read this blog, like myself, have happy and enduring relationships. Believing there are problems with welfare, and the DPB, does not make one a misogynist. To the contrary. It usually accompanies a belief that men and women should rely more on each other, do more for each other, instead of depending so heavily on government assistance.

I wouldn't rely on a Herald poll as an accurate representation of how much infidelity can be accorded to either sex. But no, it shouldn't be tolerated if it hurts one partner very deeply. If a short period of assistance was required to exit a relationship I can live with that. But for how long does the 'help' go on before it becomes a destructive crutch or a weapon to use against the ex? And how many men walk away for the primary reason that the state will fill their shoes?

Poverty levels for single mothers in the US have been (recently) fairly steady but are still lower than before the reforms. Obviously many ex beneficiaries will be in low paying jobs but working for a living has many other upsides beyond income levels. In particular, the children form an expectation that working for a living is expected.

Most people on the DPB have not been married.

Childcare is quite heavily subsidised. The subsidies increased under Labour. The tax credit system was designed so that a single mother would always be better off working. There is a shortage of childcare which is ironically, in part, a result of the female workforce being reduced by over-reliance on benefits.

If women are doing housework until midnight every night they have some sort of obsession. The whole idea that women are slaves to children and men is pathetic. I suspect the writer is clinically depressed and projects her experience on the rest of her gender because misery loves company. In fact, if she really believes this stuff she is better off alone.

Arriving at the right idea the wrong way

This excerpt is from a Times columnist who has, triggered by the ongoing saga of British MPs and their expenses, arrived at the idea that far fewer are needed. If that happens here, great. Unfortunately one of our main offenders is one of the MPs we do need. At least he has apologised and, for what it's worth, I think it was sincere.

Another political female who is comically out of touch on such matters is Helen Goodman, the work and pensions minister. Kelly has recommended that MPs should no longer be allowed to charge for cleaners or gardeners on their expenses. In response to this, Goodman solemnly announced last week that women would be put off standing for parliament unless they could have cleaning ladies on expenses. What’s more, she is accusing Kelly and his reforms of sexism, because it is women who usually do the family cleaning.

The best of the joke is that she earns more than £96,000 a year as a politician at Westminster. I wonder why it hasn’t occurred to her to do as the rest of us do and either clean up ourselves or pay for a cleaner out of our own taxed income. Out of £96,000 one might have thought that should be feasible.

How on earth does this minister for work imagine other working women manage? Perhaps she somehow doesn’t understand that there are millions of women and men out there who are sorting out their domestic cleaning without handouts from the taxpayer and also managing to confront domestic sexism, should they encounter it, without governmental support. A woman who can’t make her husband help with the housework, one way or another, or handle it on her own is hardly likely to have the political skills one might expect even of the humblest backbencher. Yet this is the calibre of minister that the present system does and must raise up.

If social security had been contained how much better off would we be?

Most of today's benefits were created at the point of passing the Social Security Act 1938 or after. During the post-war years benefit levels were reasonably stable despite population growth. For instance between 1940 and 1975 the population grew by 92 percent but receipt of Unemployment, Sickness and Invalid benefits grew by only 9 percent. As a percentage of working age people, reliance on these benefits actually dropped.

Compare this to the next almost 35 year period - 1975 to 2009 - and the picture is vastly different. Reliance on the same three benefits grew by 903 percent or 9 times. The population grew by a mere 37 percent over the same period.

What if benefit dependence had stayed at 1975 levels?

Using some rough estimates based purely on total population growth it would look something like this;

Unemployment benefit 3,964
Sickness benefit 10,727
Invalid's benefit 12,897

Add in the DPB created in 1973;

DPB 23,606

That's a total of 51,194.

But the actual total today is 309,717. The difference in terms of expenditure is $5.17 billion.

How much tax per earner (2.154 million)?

$2,400

Unlike purist libertarians I do not advocate wholesale destruction of the welfare state although I understand why they do. It is a too unrealistic proposition to advance the cause of welfare reform.

But a return to respect for benefits and taxpayers, an avoidance of moral hazard through education, and levels of reliance that reflect genuine incapacity or emergency, would see us all much, much better off.

(And yes, I do realise this is a very simplistic calculation and there are umpteen factors and objections that could be made, both statistical and philosophical.)

US unemployment reaches 10.2 percent

October quarter data shows that US unemployment rose from 9.8 to 10.2 percent. This is apparently a bigger jump than was predicted.

Meantime NZ unemployment climbed from 6 to 6.5 percent for the September quarter.

The OECD average is 8.6 percent. NZ ranks 10th and the US 25th.

The full list;

Norway 3.0
Netherlands 3.5
Korea 3.8
Switzerland 4.1
Austria 4.7
Japan 5.5
Australia 5.7
Denmark 5.9
Mexico 5.9
New Zealand 6.5
Luxembourg 6.6
Czech Republic 6.9
Iceland 7.0
Italy 7.4
Germany 7.7
United Kingdom 7.8
Belgium 7.9
Poland 8.0
Canada 8.4
OECD – Total 8.6
Finland 8.7
Portugal 9.1
Greece 9.2
Sweden 9.4
Hungary 9.6
United States 9.8
France 9.9
Slovak Republic 11.6
Turkey 12.3
Ireland 12.5
Spain 18.9

How to avoid poverty

This advice isn't new to me but I thought I would reproduce it in full. Sometimes the way to go is so blindingly obvious entire governments miss it. From NCPA;

HOW TO AVOID POVERTY AND ENTER THE AMERICAN MIDDLE CLASS

The conventional wisdom says that if we want to increase opportunities for children, we should give their families more income. Of course money is a factor in upward mobility, but it isn't the only one; it may not even be the most important, says the Brookings Institution.

According to Brookings:

* If you want to avoid poverty and join the middle class in the United States, you need to do three things: Complete high school (at a minimum), work full time and marry before you have children.
* If you do all three, your chances of being poor fall from 12 percent to 2 percent, and your chances of joining the middle class or above rise from 56 to 74 percent.
* Brookings defines middle class as having an income of at least $50,000 a year for a family of three.

Many American families need supplements to their incomes in the form of food stamps, affordable housing and welfare payments. But such aid should not be given unconditionally, says Brookings:

* The public is concerned that unconditional assistance will end up supporting those who are not trying to help themselves.
* New research in economics and psychology has shown that individuals frequently behave in ways that undermine their long-term welfare and can benefit from a government nudge in the right direction.

Policies with strings attached have had considerable success, says Brookings. One example is the 1996 welfare reform law, which required most adult recipients to get jobs, and dramatically increased employment and lowered overall child poverty. In the midst of a recession, we can't expect everyone to work. But social policies will be more successful if they encourage people to do things that bring longer-term success.

Source: Isabel V. Sawhill and Ron Haskins, "Five Myths About Our Land of Opportunity," Brookings Institute, November 1, 2009.

Reacting to Hone: Grin and bear it

Have just been listening to Willie and JT talking about Hone's latest outburst. Willie maintains his remarks do not pertain to people today but the colonists. JT disagrees. I'm with JT.

Hone says that white men (he used another word) have been "...raping our lands and ripping us off for centuries." It is very hard to believe he isn't talking about a miscarriage of justice that is ongoing.

It doesn't surprise me coming from Hone. But what really bothers me is that lots of people - myself included - who make comment about Maori problems get labelled racists and have nasty prejudices attributed to us that don't exist. Hone comes out with this mouthful and ... well... who knows what will happen. But I am certain that all hell won't break loose in the manner it would if a Pakeha politician expressed similar sentiments about Maori. White guilt requires that we collectively grin and bear it.

US Poverty Rates

The Green blog has taken issue with a claim I made in an op-ed published recently in the NZ Herald. The claim;

When the United States declared war on poverty and expanded welfare in the 1960s, poverty won. When it reformed welfare in the 1990s, welfare rolls dropped dramatically and so did poverty levels.

The following chart is from the US Bureau of the Census




Then Frog says; "...And they started to decline in 1993 – three years before the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act was signed into law by Bill Clinton. Mitchell is wrong again."

US welfare reform began before 1996. That was when federal reforms were legislated. State reforms began in 1989.

And to claim the trifecta of inaccuracy, under the welfare reforms Mitchell lauds poverty levels rose between 2000 and 2004.


Yes poverty levels have climbed but family poverty, especially that of single female led families, is still considerably lower than in the early nineties.

I am a "bullshit troll" apparently

This happens from time to time. Someone has a crack me for not just a view expressed but for living in Eastbourne. I guess Metiria Turei is taking over from Sue Bradford, except, Sue never got personal I must say.

Worse than this however is a comment on the Standard;

Lindsey is incorrect, and so are you. Why do I know this? Because I’ve never seen her do a straight set of stats to date, it is always biased to what result she wants. I don’t think that she will have changed her long term trend just now. For that matter I’ve yet to see her link to the sources of her stats – the sure sign of a bullshit troll.

I know that over the years I have made mistakes but always put my hand up and I certainly don't hide the sources of my statistics. The poster says he will provide me with examples when he gets time.

I hope so because far more people read The Standard than read this blog. If there is substance to the claim, put it up.

Multitude of media contacts

The Welfare State We Are In reports on the mass of media contacts employed by national government in the UK.

There are about 197 full page listings in the booklet and, at a rough estimate, about 20 press officers per page (some room is needed to fit in their grand titles with words like 'head', ''chief', 'strategy' and 'senior' liberally sprinkled around). So that is about 3,940 press officers - and this is exclusively for national government. I wonder how many journalists are left in Fleet Street to ask them anything? It may be a staff-to-customers ratio that the Ritz would envy.

Our Ministry for Social Development has 17 media contacts listed. If a simple x 15 calculation (based on population) was applied that would produce 255. I can't make a direct comparison to the UK equivalent but their Health Department has 145 press officers so perhaps we are similarly blessed.

Blog stats October

Unemployment rises but not for all

The official unemployment rate is released tomorrow. If the Quarterly Employment Survey, released yesterday, is anything to go by then the figure will go up.

But females are faring better than males. I pay attention to this because if more female jobs, particularly part-time jobs, are being created or becoming available, the prospects for getting people off the DPB is better. It also supports the claim that climbing DPB numbers are more a reflection of young women having children than the recession.

Based on quarterly change the only group to drop since June is full-time male employees. Unfortunately it was a big drop compared to previous quarters. Between the same quarters last year the drop was 1.3 percent - in 2009, 2.3 percent.

"Social Welfare Shake-up"

Here's my interview with Paul Henry yesterday. One could always do better:-) I never watch these things but I always review mentally, thinking about what I omitted.