VAT rise to 20 percent

With a mooted rise in GST to 15 percent are we comparatively lucky? Or do we just have prevaricating leadership attempting to have its cake and eat it too?

Reported in The Times;

A rise in VAT is looming whichever party wins the general election, as Labour and the Conservatives draw up plans to balance Britain’s books.

Alistair Darling and George Osborne, the Shadow Chancellor, are both considering raising VAT to as high as 20 per cent — the European average — from the current rate of 17.5 per cent, The Times has learnt.

Doing so would raise an extra £13 billion a year at a time when financial markets are searching for signs that whoever takes power is serious about tackling Britain’s £178 billion deficit.

Though Labour and the Tories have denied having any current plans to increase VAT, neither will rule it out and The Times understands a rise in the tax is being considered by both parties.

No talk of compensation either.

Of course our rise in GST is supposedly about making the tax system more efficient and less penalising. Not raising revenue.

Whose stupid idea was this?

Depriving prisoners of the right to vote is a pointless waste of time. I'd like to know whose idea it was. Paul Quinn's? Or is he being used to front the bill because he is Maori and it will be predominantly Maori who are affected? Being a Hutt South candidate I attended every meeting Quinn spoke at and can't remember him ever raising this issue (but it is entirely possible that is just a failure of my memory.)

Why make a distinction of 'in prison' anyway? What about people serving home detention or community sentences? They have also committed a crime. Having said that the current criteria of disenfranchisement if the sentence being served is longer than three years is also completely arbitrary.

And who is going to be politically disadvantaged by losing 5 ot 6 thousand votes? Perhaps the Aoteoroa Legalise Cannabis Party might take a hit:-) But seriously, spending bucketloads of parliamentary time and taxpayer money on this bill is just absurd.

UK - 200,000 would-be sickness beneficiaries put on dole

I have been getting pilloried at the Frogblog for suggesting that invalid and sickness benefits are, in many cases, de facto unemployment benefits.

So it is with interest that I read about the new testing regime being applied in the UK.

Anyone claiming incapacity benefits, now called Employment and Support Allowance (ESA), must undergo a thorough medical examination within 13 weeks.

The Work Capability Assessment grades them in categories such as walking, sitting, standing, memory and concentration.

Those with 15 points or more are classed as "Support Group" and are allowed full benefits.

A second classification, the "Work Related Activity Group", means the person does have health issues but will be given work-focused interviews with a personal advisor to help them get a job.

The third classification, "Fit for Work", get no incapacity benefits and have to sign on for Jobseeker's allowance.

Every benefit claimant will have taken the test by 2013.

So what are the results so far?

I am relying here on a report from The People because it would appear they obtained an exclusive release of information. But it looks genuine enough as the reporter has included quotes from officialdom. (Further DWP info is here.)

...[of] almost 300,000 people who applied for sick benefits, 200,000 failed the test and were told to get a job.

And just 24,800 of those who passed, less than ten per cent, were told by medical experts they could do no work at all...

....68 per cent of people trying to go on the sick were fit enough to get a job.

They were put on Jobseeker's Allowance and paid a lower rate than the disability benefit of up to £95 a week.

A different welfare reform idea

Here's a different idea. Canada has also been ahead of the game when it comes to welfare reform. In British Columbia however, time-limits failed due to massive opposition from a variety of quarters.

According to this 2008 article however another measure aided a reduction of rolls by 30 percent.

The government's target of a 30 per cent reduction in the welfare budget and caseloads was achieved through other methods, particularly the new rule that required two years of financial independence in order to be eligible for welfare, and a new required wait of three weeks before a person could apply for benefits.

Requiring two year's prior financial independence would certainly close the door on thousands of young incomers who subsequently can't get off welfare.

It is an idea that might be politically feasible here. And if ideas aren't politically feasible, unfortunately, no matter their merits, they are dead in the water.

Prime Minister - right and wrong

I talked to the Prime Minister today. He was doing his regular question and answer session on NewstalkZB . The host, Justin du Fresne, tackled him about work-testing the DPB and the problem of people adding to their families to get around it. Mr Key said if we can just park that for a moment, went onto a related issue and didn't return to it. So I rang in and asked him not to park it. And while he was busy getting people off the DPB and into work at one end, what was he going to do about the couple of thousand of teenagers going on it every year?

Here is his answer.

NewstalkZB at 52:59

I was particularly interested in the last thing he said. That the US time limits were "in states" which gave the advantage of simply being able to pack up and move to another state. That is exactly the objection I used to hear from the Left.

If this was the case, that people could move to another state where there wasn't a time limit (wrong), or one could start one's entitlement over (wrong) one would expect to see reduction in some states and growth in others. That wasn't the case. Not in the early days, when the rolls plummeted, and not from Jan 2004 - Jan 2008 when only four states showed slight growth - Maine 12%, Massachusetts 6%, Oregon 8% and South Dakota 2% - and that was probably due to the recession beginning. I was unable to challenge him on it having been disconnected after putting the question. But that's OK. It's a great opportunity anyway.



To his credit he acknowledged that some people were having children to either get on or stay on a benefit but, reading between the lines, there is little appetite to change because of the "what will happen to the child?" argument.

As I have said before, that is exactly what some beneficiaries bank on. Children are meal tickets and hostages to their own desired lifestyle.

Tough?

Tough? That's what The NZ Herald headline says.

TOUGH NEW WELFARE LAWS LOOM THIS YEAR.

OK. Let me read this from the viewpoint of a beneficiary.

I'm on the DPB but my kids are only aged 2 and 3. So this isn't going to affect me for four years yet. And even then, the change is being phased in over several years. So that might push it out for another 2 or 3. Mr Key was talking about what getting 5 percent of parents with children aged 6 or older would save the country, so obviously their expectations that I am going to go to work aren't that high. And even if they do tell me I have to do something in 2017 say, it's only 15 hours a week. 3 hours a day. I can do some sort of course at home while I ease my way back into the workforce. Anyway, might have another kid by then, in which case none of this matters.

I'm a 16 year-old girl who has grown up on welfare but I really want my own space, I really want to get away from my pain in the arse mother. If I got pregnant, like Mum did, it wouldn't really matter. I can still get the DPB (and a place of my own) for six years at least. That's an age. Oh, and I can fast-track it all by getting on the sickness benefit first.

I'm on a sickness benefit because I have alcohol-related depression. What does all this mean? I have to jump through some more hoops? Big deal. They've already been making me do that anyway. I've already been signed off by that 'designated doctor' WINZ sent me to.

Nobody should be under any illusion that National is getting tough on welfare. They should be red-faced over these window-dressing gestures. Really. It's nothing more than 'been there, done that'.

(Rider; Not all beneficiaries think like this. But those who do not, are not the problem.)

PM admits welfare rolls are out of control

Media Release

PM ADMITS WELFARE ROLLS OUT OF CONTROL
Tuesday, February 9, 2010

In his statement to parliament Prime Minister John Key today said that New Zealand needs to bring welfare rolls "back under control".

"Mr Key's assessment of the situation is correct but his prescription for bringing the rolls back under control is not," said Lindsay Mitchell, welfare commentator.

"Work-testing the DPB when the youngest child is six will simply encourage some people to ensure their youngest child is never older than six. In other words they will add children to their benefit. It is already the case that around 5,000 babies are added to existing benefits every year. At the very least a cap on the number of children needs to be applied."

"He talked about stricter criteria and testing for those on the sickness and invalid benefits yet mentioned nothing about, for instance, compulsory treatment for drug and alcohol addicts. He said the reforms would 'squarely focus on helping people get back to work as soon as possible'. But Labour had already implemented extensive reforms aimed at achieving exactly this and made no impression on the numbers, which continue to grow. Last year, under the new National government, the number on the sickness benefit grew by 16 percent, the biggest growth in any year ever."

"But the main problem with Mr Key's prescription is that beneficiaries, and potential beneficiaries, have heard it all before. Welfare is business as usual. Any government serious about reducing dependence would be spelling out time limits, and strict conditions of receipt which would manifestly change expectations. He has missed the opportunity again."

Promises, promises

Key is tipped to announce welfare reform plans in his speech today. This will no doubt involve a reiteration of their 2008 campaign promises. While manifesto promises are not implemented there remains an opportunity to keep rolling them out as 'new' announcements.

For instance, in the manifesto National said,

"Within twelve months of a new National Government, every person who has been on the UB for more than a year will be required to re-apply for their benefit and undergo a comprehensive work assessment."

That was re-announced just before Xmas and it wouldn't surprise to see it re-re-announced today.

An earlier post covered each manifesto promise and the failure thus far to implement even one of them.

Still, putting aside rational judgement, I am ever the optimist. But a reader over my shoulder has just walked away saying the prospect of those Tories doing anything isn't great. In fact, he has just returned to tell me that John Key is not a powerhouse of ideas; he is not an ardent reformer or we would have heard about him long before now; he isn't a Mike Moore or a Roger Douglas; or even a Helen Clark.

Or a Bill Clinton, who said the following in his State of the Union address of 1996;

I say to those who are on welfare, and especially to those who have been trapped on welfare for a long time: For too long our welfare system has undermined the values of family and work, instead of supporting them. The Congress and I are near agreement on sweeping welfare reform. We agree on time limits, tough work requirements, and the toughest possible child support enforcement. But I believe we must also provide child care so that mothers who are required to go to work can do so without worrying about what is happening to their children.

I challenge this Congress to send me a bipartisan welfare reform bill that will really move people from welfare to work and do the right thing by our children. I will sign it immediately.

Let us be candid about this difficult problem. Passing a law, even the best possible law, is only a first step. The next step is to make it work. I challenge people on welfare to make the most of this opportunity for independence. I challenge American businesses to give people on welfare the chance to move into the work force. I applaud the work of religious groups and others who care for the poor. More than anyone else in our society, they know the true difficulty of the task before us, and they are in a position to help. Every one of us should join them. That is the only way we can make real welfare reform a reality in the lives of the American people.

Where Australia needs to catch up with NZ

It is unfortunate that the current Reserve Bank Governor is a naysayer while the ex is the ambitious one. Bollard may be praised for speaking his mind but should also now have a question mark over his suitability.

Anyway, Goff says.

I'm not fatalistic about New Zealand being unable to close the gap. But based on the evidence so far this Government is taking us in the opposite direction." New Zealand incomes were about one-third lower than those in Australia and unemployment was higher after years of being lower.

By the HLFS calculation, yes Australian unemployment is lower.

But based on benefit dependency it is not.



These figures are Sept 2009.

Let's compare (as best we can).

That's not straightforward because Australia uses a working age population definition of 15-64. Our statistics are 18-64. Australia includes people on a benefit under 18. Our quarterly statistics do not. So maybe if I just multiply our data by a population factor of 5.08 that will allow a rough comparison.

Sept 2009 - Around 560,000 people were claiming the unemployment benefit (Newstart) in Australia compared to 61,000 in NZ. Australia proportionately much higher.

Around 340,000 people were claiming DPB in Australia compared to 108,000 here. NZ much higher. (Part of the reason for this is Australia has rightly started moving these claimants onto the unemployment benefit.)

Around 750,000 people in Australia were claiming a disability pension while in NZ 141,000 people were on a sickness or invalid benefit. Australia slightly higher.

Looks like another 220,000 are on other benefits bringing the total to 1.870 million compared to a total in NZ of around 332,000 (incl 16-17 year-olds).

NZ's dependency rate is lower, or around 90 percent of Australian total.

So there we go. Benefit dependency is a huge cost on government and the economy and Australia needs to catch up with New Zealand's lower rate.

Opinionated Mummy

Opinionated Mummy is going through hard times. WINZ won't help. No, it's not fair when you have paid your taxes, but the assistance is supposedly targeted to the greatest need (of course I have written endlessly about how the very availability of assistance creates the need). It seems to me OM needs to find whatever temp work she can get while a 'real' job is secured. But I know that is easier said than done. I went through a period after returning to NZ of living with my parents and getting less confident and more depressed as I failed interviews and felt guilt ridden about relying on their support. And I only had myself to worry about. Not three children.

I sympathise with OM and I don't think she has brought her problems on herself. So in the ethos of voluntary giving, which I believe strongly in, I would like to have a whip around for her and will start off the kitty with $100. I know its not a huge amount but neither is her current shortfall. Would anyone like to chip in? E-mail me at dandl.mitchell@clear.net.nz

And OM. Don't go all proud on us. You can pay it back one day if you want but I certainly wouldn't expect you to. I like the way you think and I like the way you approach life. So I can help if I wish. Let me know how I can get the money to you.

National Standards 4 - still unpersuaded

John Hattie is "Auckland University professor, student assessment expert and the man top politicians in this country see for advice about education". This is what I have been saying, or attempting to say, about the introduction of National Standards;

If it ain't broke...

Hattie's first point is that, despite sweeping claims of failure by Key and Education Minister Anne Tolley, the New Zealand school system is in good shape, especially compared with the rest of the world.

National standards, he argues, are usually the catchcry of countries where the education system is in serious trouble. They have been introduced in the US, Britain and Australia but none of these countries have been able to show any overall improvement in student achievement.

Hattie believes national standards may lift the performance of a few children at the bottom of the educational heap but says the average will not change because bright children will be neglected. He thinks the policy threatens to destroy one of the great strengths of New Zealand's education system, which recognises that children of the same age have different academic abilities and allows them to learn at the level of their current ability.

There is an indication later in the piece that the Minister is allowing schools to keep "their own testing system, rather than introducing national testing." So now I will try to find out exactly what that means.

The growth in incapacity isn't just a factor of an ageing population

Excuse me while I attend to a comment from SPC over at Frog blog;

"LM claims little expertise on the matter of SB and IB – their rates are increasing worldwide."

Never have I made a secret out of Australia, the UK and the US grappling with the same issue. Does that make it acceptable? I have blogged about all at some time or another. I have also mentioned more than once the OECD's observation that reliance on incapacity benefits is the medicalisation of labour market problems.

"Indications are that the levels on these benefits will continue on a rising trend whatever government policy is in place to manage the numbers down. This is a factor of the aging of baby boomers, a higher retirement age and over the last 20-30 years long periods of unemployment and poverty (consequences include addictions and mental health issues) and health problems resulting from smoking and dietary trends (which while reversing have left many in poor health)."

While I won't argue with any of that MSD says;

This paper reports on research that uses the Ministry of Social Development’s benefit administration data to advance our understanding of the growth in the number of people receiving the Invalid’s Benefit over the decade to 2002. It investigates the growth in inflows of people to Invalid’s Benefit, as this was the main cause of growth in recipient numbers. Some of the growth in inflows can be explained by population growth, population ageing, and the effects of the rise in the age of eligibility for New Zealand Superannuation. However, more than half cannot be accounted for by these factors and is explained instead by an increase in the proportion of people aged 15–59 taking up Invalid’s Benefit. (my emphasis)

Next is an MSD graph which shows which age group is increasing its reliance on sickness benefits;



2009 would show a further increase in the 18-24 year age group.

What I don't understand is why commentors want to make excuses for - or legitimise - the problem of people increasingly relying on these benefits. A great deal of the incapacity claimed could have been avoided. A great deal of the incapacity claimed is self-inflicted. Changing the rules to sanction self-inflicted incapacity was definitely a factor in climbing benefit numbers.

(There is also some confusion about dole numbers after Radio NZ reported 168,000 on the dole. There are 168,00 unemployed. Two different things.)

Sir Roger on the cause of high youth unemployment

On the matter of youth unemployment, specifically 15-19 year-olds, Roger Douglas released the following yesterday,

"It's very rich of Labour's Annette King to blame National for the high rate of unemployment for young New Zealanders when it is, in fact, Labour's abolition of youth rates that has caused this problem", ACT Finance Spokesman Sir Roger Douglas said today.

"Since youth rates were abolished in early 2008, the unemployment rate for 15-19 year-olds has almost doubled. The number of unemployed youth has risen by 18,800 people," Sir Roger said.

"It is pretty clear what is causing this to happen – if you look at the 10-year period before the abolition of youth rates, youth unemployment peaked at 15.9 percent. Today, it stands at 26.5 percent."

So now that youth must be paid the adult minimum wage, their prospects of employment are diminished. Hence their current high unemployment rate. Can we test that theory?

The average 15-19 year-old rate for the 2009 was 23.4 percent. I use this figure because December is always high and I want to compare to an earlier average rate.

In 1993 the gap between the general unemployment rate and the 15-19 rate was 12.1 percentage points (10.1 percent versus 22.2 percent).

In 2009 the gap is 17.2 percentage points (6.2 percent versus 23.4 percent).

The important difference between 1993 and 2009? In 1993 under 20s were exempt from the minimum wage.

Sadly, the young always take the brunt of a recession (the primary culprit) but the abolition of the youth rate appears to have had a compounding effect.

It would be preferable to have young people working for less than the minimum wage than sitting on a benefit, but the hard Left would disagree.

National Standards 3 - no thanks

Yesterday I received my 'soft soap the standards' letter from Mr Key and it has failed. It has scored a 'not achieved'.

First, National Standards will impose a new regime on schools which are already testing, assessing and providing the results to parents. These schools have presumably chosen those testing procedures the teachers and boards believe are the best for their school. But now they will have to conform to a national scheme. For years some secondary schools and ACT stood against the NCEA because it was a one-size fits all regime. They argued and still do for secondary schools to be able to adopt their own preferences eg Cambridge or Baccalaureate. While National Standards do not constitute an exam system as such, the principle of choice still applies. Each school is unique.

Put in practical terms my letter tells me how the new reports "might look".



As it stands I get more information than this. I am told what my child's reading age is for instance. My child frequently gives me reports herself about what her spelling age is. She is naturally proud of being well above her actual age.

Under National's regime all she will know is that she is somewhere on a scale. This was exactly the problem with NCEA and its demotivating effect on high achievers.

Mr Key says;

"National Standards in education will give you accurate information about how your child and school are doing, so you can make the right decisions for your child."

But I already get better information than the system you are about to impose.

The letter features a photo of a Maori or Pacific boy smiling warmly as he holds a picture book. And that gets full marks. Because he is what this policy is about. It's a misguided attempt to pull up the under-achieving tail. It's not about improving the education of hundreds of thousands of other children.

It is the imposition of change where none is needed. And based on what I see in my letter it may be change for the worse.

So I am angry and the parting salvo from Mr Key only makes me angrier;

"This policy is a critical step along the pathway to achieving [a brighter future for New Zealand]. I hope you and your family make the most of it."

Oh Prime Minister, we are forever in your debt - NOT.

The changing face of unemployment and benefit dependence

According to the NZ Herald;

New Zealand's unemployment rate has surged to 7.3 per cent, from 6.5 per cent, and now stands at its highest level since June 1999.

In June 1999 there were 148,573 people on the unemployment benefit.

Yet today there are only 66,328.

How is that? The labour force is larger so 7.3 percent should represent a larger number.

In June 1999 there were 81,863 people on a sickness or invalid benefit. Today there are 144,191.



The two columns have virtually reversed. But the situation is worse in terms of cost and outlook. The movement in sickness and invalid benefits only ever goes in one direction - up. The rate of dependence on these is greater because people stay on them for longer. That means the cost is higher (10,000 people on the unemployment benefit may represent 30,000 months dependence whereas 10,000 people on a sickness or invalid's benefit might represent 120,000 months.) And the prospects of leaving these benefits is lesser.

For a good many people a sickness or invalid benefit is merely a de facto unemployment benefit.

(Strictly speaking the chart label 2010 should read Dec 2009. I don't have time to change it now.)

More on National Standards

Reaction to yesterday's post about the existence of standards already, included skepticism and some questions. For instance if the school compares itself to other decile 10 schools, where does it get the information? From its ERO report;

"____ School emphasises teaching and learning in literacy and numeracy. As a result, a considerable amount of student achievement information has been gathered in these areas since the 2004 ERO report. Since that time, increased use has been made of national assessment tools to gather school‑wide data to support annual target setting and guide teaching practice. This information is further analysed in terms of gender and ethnicity, and shows comparison between students at ____School and those at schools of a similar type and decile ranking.

School-wide achievement data are collected for reading, written language, spelling, mathematics, including numeracy and basic facts. Overall, the majority of students at ____ School achieve well above national norms for the assessment tools used, with only a small percentage underachieving. This is gauged through the use of Supplementary Tests of Achievement in Reading (STAR) and Progressive Achievement Tests (PATs). Other national assessment tools are used to show achievement in writing and numeracy against the levels of the curriculum.

Since 2004, the annual targets have aimed to raise achievement for specific year groups or for small groups of students within each cohort who are performing below national norms for the tests and the school’s expectations. Results, using soundly analysed achievement information, show a steady improvement over time.

The March 2007 results from STAR showed that well over 70% of students in years 4 to 8 scored between stanines 5 to 9, with 96% of the year 7 students in this range. Results from the mathematics PAT indicated that approximately 60% of the years 4 and 5 students, 75% of the year 8 students and 80% of the years 6 and 7 students scored in this range.

The school can show some comparative data for specific year groups that indicate continuous improvement. In particular, the information for written language across years 4 to 8 is well analysed to show the rate of progress made within a year."

Standards are already used. And the results are shown to parents at parent/teacher interviews.

I don't think the achieving schools are worried about published tables. It'll be under-achieving schools who will feel (somewhat understandably) aggrieved by comparisons. But I am for publication. Name the problem or it cannot begin to be solved.

But what my post was about is how we turn specific problems into universal ones and impose change where none is needed.

"Broken society" not so broken?

A war of words has broken out in the UK. The Tories have been using statistics about violent crime without a caveat. And they continue to stand by them.

The way in which violent crime was defined and recorded changed in 2002. This led to an increase in recorded violent crime statistics. The Tories are touting this as an enormous increase in violent offending - in Milton Keynes, of 236 percent. (Mind you, I would commit a crime to get out of Milton Keynes.)

There are numerous ways in which crime can be measured; court convictions, police recorded offences, victim reports. Not all crime is reported and recorded. Not all crime is prosecuted or if it is, successfully prosecuted. There may be more crimes arising from the same number of offenders. In which case crime may be escalating but not necessarily becoming more widespread.

But for all the difficulty inherent in measuring crime there is no excuse for doing what the Tories did. They would lose my vote on the basis of dishonesty alone.

A $45,000 warning

Going, going, gone - a New Zealand teenager has auctioned off her virginity to a stranger for over $45,000 to fund her university tuition fees.

A $45,000 warning. What could that be? That the experience with the inexperienced might be a let down? That she might be a porker telling porkies?

No.

Fellas. I made a comment over on Kiwiblog and thought it worth repeating here. You can laugh all you like about men who pay for sex with virgins or otherwise. But the last laugh may be on you.

By delightful coincidence the average child support bill is around $45,000.

Don't get caught. And don't let your sons.

State school funding

A comment on the last post made me think I shouldn't assume people understand the way schools are currently funded. Schools are classified into deciles explained here.

According to the Ministry of Education Resourcing Handbook, in 2009 all state schools received $707.83 funding per Y1 to Y6 pupil .

A decile one (poorest) school receives an additional $804.07 per pupil called Targeted Funding for Educational Achievement and decile ten (the wealthiest) receives nothing. All other schools are somewhere in between.

Hence many schools now charge rather hefty fees which are wrongly, in my view, called 'donations.'

National Standards

As a parent of a primary school student I suppose I should have an opinion about the introduction of National Standards. Firstly there are schools, and there are schools. My firsthand experience extends only to my child's school which is a decile 10 school. I have anecdotal knowledge of other schools but it is very limited. For instance a friend had sent his children to a decile 1 school because he was in the zone. Eventually he pulled his children from the school because they were spending too much time trying to help non-English speaking children to learn. He had wanted to support the local school but the cost was too high. There is a great deal of difference between decile 10 and decile one schools.

When we visit the teacher at our school we are given information about how our child is performing relative to her age. This is based on testing. I had a look at the school's targets and performance to find out what the tests are called and discovered a range depending on what year is involved. Evaluations include national end-of-year NumPA benchmark norms, PAT maths test and IKAN and NZ English Curriculum Benchmarks, etc.

Our school compares itself performance-wise to other decile ten schools. Which is meaningful and fair. In its own assessment of how the school is achieving the board notes;

We note that these types of assessments and the use of results is aligned with the expectations of the National Standards programme that all schools will have to deliver by 2010.

I don't know how the staff or board feel about the introduction of national standards but it would seem to me superfluous.

It looks like those schools that are not producing children meeting satisfactory levels of literacy and numeracy are responsible for the imposition of unnecessary universal policy.

But that is the story of New Zealand isn't it? Forever introducing rules and regulations to try and fix problems that are not universal.

In depth analysis of child abuse

The fourth study into the incidence of child abuse in the US has just been released. A study has been conducted each decade from the 1970s. It collects data from 126 counties.

There is no NZ equivalent. We have statistics (bits here and bits there) but no comprehensive analysis of other factors like socio economic background, family structure, educational enrolment, relationship of perpetrator to child, involvement of drugs and alcohol etc. It seems to me that we could learn a lot from their findings. Certainly the findings put to bed the sorts of claims commonly heard like, "child abuse and domestic violence happens right across society".

The report is 455 pages. I have only skimmed through it and lifted a dew points of interest

Background;

The NIS–4 measures the total number of children who are abused or neglected in the United States and indicates the degree to which this number has changed since the earlier cycles collected similar data (the NIS–1 in 1979, the NIS–2 in 1986, and the NIS–3 in 1993).

Some findings;

Compared to children with employed parents, those with no parent in the labor force had 2 to 3 times the rate of maltreatment overall, about 2 times the rate of abuse, and 3 or more times the rate of neglect. Children with unemployed parents had 2 to 3 times higher rates of neglect than those with employed parents.

Children in low socioeconomic status households had significantly higher rates of maltreatment in all categories and across both definitional standards. They experienced some type of maltreatment at more than 5 times the rate of other children; they were more than 3 times as likely to be abused and about 7 times as likely to be neglected.

Children living with their married biological parents universally had the lowest rate, whereas those living with a single parent who had a cohabiting partner in the household had the highest rate in all maltreatment categories. Compared to children living with married biological parents, those whose single parent had a live-in partner had more than 8 times the rate of maltreatment overall, over 10 times the rate of abuse, and nearly 8 times the rate of neglect.

Which again brings me back to why marriage makes a difference to children. In a nutshell the state has discouraged marriage through the welfare system and legislation. Today it is frantically running around trying to mop up the mess.

(Hat tip to Crusader Rabbit for alerting me to the report.)

ACT forgets its "great purpose"

It must be personally satisfying for an MP to enter parliament and achieve something for some people. That is the way of modern politics. Nearly every MP is after taxpayer funding, or legislation that will enhance the interests of some people.

And as such Heather Roy will be pleased with her group of students going into independent schools on the back of tax-payer funded scholarships.

But a speech given by Muriel Newman in 2007 captures exactly why this is exactly not what ACT should be doing.

Muriel said, "The great purpose of ACT was to attack privilege in New Zealand."

It's a hard message to sell. It should have been the opposite but unfortunately too many noses and too many troughs .....

With this policy ACT has wimped out and taken the line of least resistance. I know I am out on a limb on this one but it is quite antithetical to what ACT stands or stood for.

When he's 64

Kiwiblog linked to a Treasury paper within which is this little gem. It's a wonderful depiction of the ageing population. I mentally plotted the line that would represent my first born across it. He will enter the grey zone in 2059 when there will be, well, one heck of a lot more oldies than there are now. What do you reckon will have happened to Super by then?

My guess is that the country will still be arguing over means-testing, surcharges, universality etc, as it did all through the 20th century; the eligibility age will be 70 and the payment rate will be a lower percentage of the average wage than it is now.

New data on ex-nuptial births

I blogged last week about why marriage makes a difference to the security and stability of children.

The latest ex-nuptial (unmarried) birth data has just been released.

Last year 30,533 births out of 62,964 were ex-nuptial or 48.5 percent. That is up from 47.7 percent in 2008 and 47.2 percent in 2007.

In 1964, the earliest data provided, 9.9 percent of all births were ex-nuptial. The fastest rate of change happened during the eighties. The ten years to 2008 showed a slower rate of change than the previous decades. But there has never been a year when the percentage didn't rise.

Misa misfires

Tapu Misa has written her usual denunciation of growing inequality. This time she launches from a report about income inequality in Britain;

The report, An Anatomy of Economic Inequality in Britain, says the gap between rich and poor is greater than at any time since World War II, despite 13 years of Labour rule and the billions which Labour has poured into initiatives to try to close the chasm.

By some measures it's harder for a child born into poverty today to rise up the social ladder than at any time since the 1950s.

The fact that the inequalities opened up in the 1980s under Friedmanite Margaret Thatcher, and were held back, if not significantly narrowed, by Labour policies, is little consolation...

The parallels with New Zealand are striking.

But are they?

In fact the growth in income inequality in Great Britain is much lower than in NZ as shown here. The growth in income inequality in GB is half of the OECD average.



It would be much more accurate to claim the parallels between NZ and Finland are "striking" when measuring income inequality growth.

Misa has written about Finland before;

There are no private schools in Finland and education is free all the way through university. But Finnish 15-year-olds top the OECD in educational achievement, as measured by the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA)...

We could learn a lot from Finland, not just in the way it treats its teachers but in the way it reformed its education system from the late 1960s.

Could we replicate their success? Naysayers often point to the fact that Finland's population is more homogenous than ours, but Massey High's principal, Bruce Ritchie, who visited Finland on a study tour, points out that it was a more monocultural society 40 years ago, when its education system had similar problems to ours.

Bugger. For someone who strongly believes public education will solve the problem of inequality, that throws a bit of a spanner in the works.

I am sympathetic to her desire to see the incomes of the 'poor' rise. But as I wrote on Friday, that cannot be achieved through taxation and redistribution.

Dogism

Along with all the other evangelic crusades of the new century - anti-alcohol, anti-drugs, anti-obesity, anti-hooliganism, anti-prostitution (mostly mirroring those of early last century) comes the anti-dog campaign.

It is understandable that people with children are cautious about dogs but having both children and dogs gives perhaps a more balanced perspective.

The NZ Herald editorial today has made the re-ignited issue about Rodney Hide and his attempts to bring some deeper thinking to the debate over freedom and restriction. It quotes Hide;

"I am not sure that people with an irrational fear, however real, of dogs have a right to require the physical restraint of all dogs in public places," he said when announcing the review last October.

Setting aside the question of how a fear can be irrational and real at the same time, it is worth pointing out the size of the margin by which Hide misses the point.

There is no "question" about a fear being both real and irrational. Plenty of people harbour fears that are irrational. Extreme cases are called phobia. But that sentence captures the fault-finding mood of the writer.

All dogs should be leashed all of the time. That seems to be the position taken.

All dogs pose a problem or a potential problem. Perhaps a potential problem is a problem of itself. Ergo all dogs are a problem.

In reality, some dog owners and some dogs are the problem. The attitude taken by the Herald would be bizarre and repulsive if it was applied to people. Some people are criminals, or potential criminals but it doesn't follow that everybody's freedom should be restricted - although that is the path we are going down with the likes of surveillance cameras. Pursuing this line of thought the Herald would have us all in monitoring anklets.

A new term should be coined. Dogism. Like feminism and racism it describes an attitude that treats all individuals as one based on some attribute beyond the control of the bearer.

Dogism is growing thanks, in part, to the media. It is itself irrational. It forgets that domesticated dogs have shared our society forever. That they fulfil many functions no other animal or person can; leading the blind; assisting the disabled; tracking offenders; protecting property; herding farmstock; hunting or retrieving; supporting racing and showing industries; visiting terminally ill people or dysfunctional children; saving lives. But above all they are companions and for some, provide a purpose for living.

So I am not about to become an apologist for dogs. And it makes a change to see a politician bring some broader thinking to the issue of dangerous dogs beyond the reactionary and emotional dogist response.

Maximum rent

Stephen Franks is musing about the proposed property tax and its effect on the rental market/ housing availability. Which prompted this comment from me (I risk broadcasting the idea to deter National, not to encourage the statists);

I have also pondered this in a vague sort of way. A great deal of rent is currently paid for with the accommodation supplement ( $1 billion annually). If rents rise as a result of a property tax, under this government's approach of compensating the 'poor' for any rise in their living costs, the accommodation supplement will also have to go up. How much of the extra revenue raised will be offset by the extra expenditure?

The Left puts up two irreconcilable demands. As you put it "soak the rich", and subsidise the poor. But while the landlord has freedom of pricing, nothing has been achieved except more cash transfer. The same happens with employment. While on one hand the Left wants workers topped up by the state, they also rail against subsidising the employer. Hence a minimum wage is legislated.

So don't be surprised if the Left start talking about a maximum rent. If National go down this road they will have to contend with this demand, and as Mr Key has already fiercely asserted that the 'poor' will be compensated for any rise in GST, he will be in a very weak defensive position.

More is broken than just the tax system

Writing in today's NZ Herald, Susan St John succeeds in showing how complex and counter-productive the state's attempts to redistribute wealth have become. But because the writer believes in the notion of state responsibility for income equality she is merely hoping that the government can come up with a better design on the back of "an adequate and comprehensive review."

Perhaps, instead, it is time to examine the beliefs behind government-mandated redistribution - or put more crudely, robbing Peter to pay Paul.

There are two broad ways that wealth gets redistributed. Through taxation and transfers, or through work and shared profit. Over the past 40 years the trend has been towards the first method. State cash transfers have grown steadily. That growth has brought with it more and more complexity as more and more people want a piece of the pie. It is undeniable that whenever a new 'benefit' is introduced it isn't long before there are calls to extend it, either by generosity or by eligibility. A recent example is Paid Parental Leave. Not happy with the current status, lobbyists want 52 weeks instead of 14 and fathers to be paid as well. (Notice here that the prime lobbyist, the Families Commission, is also, after a fashion, a recipient of cash transfers.)

So why is it that government continues to increase the rate of transfer - from the frugal 19th century beginnings of welfare through to the recent Working For Families - yet inequality, according to St John, keeps growing? It is now apparently at an unacceptable level.

The problem lies in the method. When people work for their income there is a return to both employer and employee. The sum of wealth is added to. When people do not work but receive income from the state, the sum of wealth is diminished. This means there is a very obvious limit on how much the state can transfer.

Add to this the disincentive factor. It is reflected in the vast number of people now receiving some form of welfare. If the state is offering cash, the need and desire to work is reduced.

Which is how we have arrived at the current "mess", to use Ms St Johns description. But the only question being asked is, how can the state keep giving people money and keep them working? Trying to solve that conundrum has resulted in the very complicated interface between the cash transfer and taxation system.

Somehow NZ has to pull back from the current pathway and fiddling with the tax system isn't the answer. Taking money off people just to give it back (and more) is patently silly and inefficient. Paying people benefits from a very young age thus locking them into the cash transfer system for years is socially and economically counter-productive.

There are better ways to organise a society. Better economic brains than mine have put up ideas worth exploring. Flat tax, tax-free income thresholds, negative income tax, private social security provision, individualised social security accounts, etc.

But underlying all of these ideas is a philosophy of minimal government intervention. If simplicity and equity are paramount we need less taxation, less taxation machinery, less churning and less transfer - not more.

Goff's speech - warning

Don't waste your time reading it.

Spun to be something it wasn't.

In a nutshell;

The recovery. All should share in it. Every NZer wants to work and should be paid at least $15 an hour. State sector chiefs shouldn't be paid more than $400,000 though. Rich bankers and CEOs of finance companies should be dealt with. The rich should pay their way and benefit fraudsters should be cracked down on (so National can't use them to cut social services.) No child should be left behind because all parents want the best for their children. But the community is responsible for stepping in where parents fail. Three strikes sucks and a promise to address Maori and Pacific educational failure. Tax reform must be fair. Beat the R&D funding drum.

Stephen Franks was wrong. More's the pity.

Grassroots Labour's Kaine Thompson says Labour lost the last election because voters became bored with them. Nothing in this speech is going to change that. If this is his best, Phil Goff should pursue a new direction in life.

Lord, I am tired of vapid politicians.

Goff to define a 'welfare rort'

It is very hard to read this and remain composed;

Labour leader Phil Goff is expected to ramp up his rhetoric against welfare rorts and vested interests in a speech in which he needs to put Labour back on the front foot after a year in the poll doldrums.

....He is expected to return to his theme of personal responsibility – taking aim at those who "rip off" the system, rich or poor. Among those in his sights will be wealthy Kiwis exposed by a tax working group last week to be hiding income to qualify for benefits.

It will be fascinating to hear how Goff defines a "welfare rort". He can hardly use the high profile examples National has been parading, when the whole point of this 'state of the nation' speech is to differentiate the party he leads.

Make no mistake. It is Labour that has time and time again given society programmes that are open to exploitation. They are warned of the unintended consequences but always press ahead in the interests of 'social justice' and vote-buying. They gave us Working For Families and now he is going to rail at the matter of it being ripped off.

And "personal responsibility"? It is a long, long time since Labour philosophy and policy has been synonymous with personal responsibility. Personal responsibility is only for the suckers who keep the show on the road in spite of extensive government efforts to demoralise and disincentivise the lot of us.

Another sickening animal story

An aggrieved neighbour takes the law into his own hands and slaughters 33 dogs. This is exactly the reason why the idea of vigilantism sparks deep reservations within me.

If there was a problem with these dogs (as yet unproven) they should have been destroyed humanely.

The whole story is utterly sickening and sad. The owner is clearly something of an eccentric man who has chosen a lifestyle most people wouldn't understand. But apart from not registering his dogs, which would have been financially beyond him, what harm was he doing anybody else?

The guy that committed this atrocity is the headcase. He may well have been heartbroken over the loss of his pet but as such should have understood something of the way Mr Hargraves might have felt about his own animals.

Benefits by region

My analysis of the latest benefit data;






Things to note;

1/ The DPB has the highest numbers in all bar two regions.
2/ The Canterbury and Southern regions have disproportionately high numbers on invalid benefits (and high ratios due to psychological and psychiatric reasons). These are the only regions where there are more people on IB than DPB.
3/ Auckland is the only region that has more sickness beneficiaries than invalid beneficiaries.
4/ The growth in sickness benefits has been very high over the past year averaging 16 percent nationally, compared to 4 percent in the previous year. It is highest in the Waikato which also features the highest DPB growth.
5/ Wellington, home of government, has the lowest unemployment benefit growth; Canterbury the highest.

You may notice and want to comment on other aspects of the data. But the graphs do not paint a very bright picture.

Abdominal abomination

The call for publicly-funded stomach stapling is just abominable. Not that it doesn't already go on to a degree but talking it up as an 'entitlement' is just a green light to get fat and then take the easy way out. And 2 National MPs have backed up the call. Obviously individual responsibility doesn't apply to what you choose to put away on a daily basis. But then it doesn't apply to much else with this particular version of a National government.

Yesterday I blogged about just how tight the health budget is. There are many people who are going to be living in pain because they have degenerative unavoidable conditions. MacDoctor told us last week that he is having a devil of a time getting patients in to see a hospital specialist.

But that is the economic ethics of publicly funded health. If you are old you are a burden. If you are young you are an investment. No matter if you failed to control the behaviour that caused the need for a $28,000 operation.

Turia says;

"We already pay billions of dollars for the care of diabetics ... All of that is huge money that the state has to pay."

Here's a radical idea. Avoid the frigging diabetes in the first place or pay for the op yourself.

Unspeakably horrible stories of cruelty

The story of the man feeding kittens to his pitbull has been widely canvassed but I only just came across this one. It's chilling.

I saw and heard the sister of the man who fed kittens to his pitbull saying he was just being stupid. She valued their lives just about as much as he did. A certain type of people don't care about themselves (except in the most base way) and don't care about others - human or otherwise. Quite commonly, they are parents.

Health spending - the rationing can only increase

It would be possible to embark on a similar exercise using NZ statistics but let's just rely on the work the Australian Treasury has already done. According to the Age;

FEDERAL Government spending per person on health will rise in real terms from $2290 today to $7210 in 2050, with state governments at risk of being overwhelmed by rising costs, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has said.

Treasury projects that, on present trends, the total health spending of all states will exceed all of their tax revenues, excluding the GST, by 2045-46, and possibly earlier in some states.

Our government spending is currently $2876 per person. This cannot be compared directly because in Australia the states spend individually on top of the federal government. But it is the projected increase that is important.

In the mix are new technology, price inflation and, most importantly, the ageing population. If a much bigger chunk of the population is 'old' the average spend increases. This is progressively happening against a backdrop of recession or the lag from it.

I understand that our DHBs have been told that they are only getting a little over 1 percent of increased funding this year. It is already very tight. And it's going to get much tighter.

So it is no surprise that the government is going to fight the Human Right's ruling regarding payment for the care of disabled adult children by their parents or that some DHBs are looking for other sources of revenue.

Just as an aside looking at the health spending projections there is no allowance for an increase ($13.4 billion in 2010 to ...$13.4 billion in 2015). On the other hand social security and welfare spending equivalent figures are $21.1 billion to 24.6. Why the big difference? Yes some of the welfare increase is Super but that means the country is forecasting for old-age pensions but not the healthcare needs of the pensioners. That's a worry. I would prefer to see budget limitations being put on Work and Income. When is that going to happen?

Well said Muriel

Beautifully put;

There are around 340,000 private rental dwellings in New Zealand, many owned by mum and dad investors who have put their savings into rental property as part of their retirement plan. Any decision by John Key and National to punitively punish these people – because the government can’t get its own spending under control – is contemptible. As is any further attempt to politically portray them as pariahs.

From Muriel Newman's weekly column.

Marriage makes a difference

What is it about marriage? Social liberals don't much care for the state-sanctioned traditional custom. Modernists wanted to dispense with 'the piece of paper'. Helen Clark apparently loathed the idea of marriage.

Marriage is a very public promise. You hear folk say it means nothing these days. People don't expect it to last. But on an individual basis, I am certain many do. De facto relationships have their place, especially for the young, but they aren't really about commitment (I generalise).

I am a big fan of the institution of marriage but stop short of saying the government should get involved in promoting it. It is government involvement in the private lives of people that has played a significant part in undermining marriage.

Crusader Rabbit drew my attention to this news out of the UK, a similar society to NZ. Only 3 percent of unmarried couples stayed together until their child was 16.

The only similar NZ information I have ever come across is;

According to Jan Pryor, director of the Roy McKenzie Centre for the Study of Families (and now Chief Families Commissioner) only about 12 to 13 percent of kids’ parents live together but aren’t married.

Mr and Mrs Average, Dominion Post, July 26, 2008

The divergence of percentages may be explained by a lack of age specification.

So why does any of this matter?

When starchy phrases like out-of-wedlock birth or illegitimacy rates or even unmarried parenthood are used, lots of folk get up in arms. They claim that the terms are irrelevant because many children are born to unmarried parents who are nevertheless in stable and committed relationships. This research turns that on its head.

NZ is approaching an unmarried birth percentage of 50. It isn't uncommon for parents to marry after the birth of their children but neither is it uncommon for them to split when the going gets tough. That is a sad development. It is an emotionally and financially costly business. And the costs are socialised.

Sure, married parents split up to, but less frequently. So marriage makes a difference.

Proof that most people are politically ignorant

A very funny piece of satire posted by Adolf at No Minister reminded me of a few thoughts I had had regarding the Massachusetts victory (isn't it great how you can put in a few letters vaguely resembling the state name and the spell checker obliges?)

Was there ever a more glaring illustration of how politically ignorant most people are?

Barack Obama was voted in on a wave of feel-good romanticism. No doubt many felt bighearted and broad-minded simply by voting in the first black President. Did they care or know what Obama's politics were? I don't think so. It was symbolism and idealism all the way to the polls.

But how quickly his popularity has waned as his plans have actually permeated the almost-impenetrable political conciousness of many, thanks to a huge effort on behalf of those individuals and groups who have relentlessly written about, lobbied and rallied against Obamacare, which would represent a huge step towards what America has rejected since its constitution was written.

There is a lot wrong with the US but there is still an understanding of individual freedom simmering away. They have been through, and are still going through, very tough times. But out of adversity, good will often result. A reawakening of what their founding fathers believed in may be that good. I hope so.

Record rise in sickness benefit numbers

Media Release

RECORD RISE IN SICKNESS BENEFIT NUMBERS
Friday, January 22, 2010

Statistics released today by the Ministry of Social Development show that numbers on the sickness benefit have jumped by 8,000 or 16 percent in the past year. That is the largest yearly increase recorded since the sickness benefit became available in the 1930s.

Welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell believes this is as much a reflection of the recession as an increasing incidence of sickness or accidents.

"Looking at the profile of people on the sickness benefit, compared to five years ago they are younger, fewer have worked in the past year and more have a psychological or psychiatric incapacity. Often depression and stress can relate to being unemployed."

"The government needs to take great care at this time not to let people who should be on an unemployment benefit migrate to one of the longer term benefits like sickness, invalid or domestic purposes benefits. As the economy recovers numbers on the unemployment benefit can be expected to fall. But people on other benefits have a much greater likelihood of becoming entrenched."

Increasing benefits to compensate for GST rise - stupid

Another day of reading the news and shaking the head. Keys says if GST rises, so will benefits. That's only fair.

A wealth of research shows behavioural changes according to benefit payment rates. For example, the rate of single parenthood rises with an increase in the relevant benefit payment.

Do those people reacting to a higher benefit spend time analysing why the benefit payment has been increased? And if they did they would figure that benefits have increased relative to low wages. There is no mechanism for lifting low wages to compensate for increased GST (unless the government lifts the minimum wage but that hasn't been suggested - yet).

By the time the behavioural change is factored in, the extra revenue from increased GST (only $200 million after adjusting benefits, Working For Families and pensions) could disappear. If there was just a 3 percent rise in working age people claiming a benefit, the advantage would vanish. Any higher percentage growth and the government's position worsens.

This really is a pathetic government. Face facts Mr Key. We got by before WFF and all the other increased spending Labour introduced. We got by before the feminist, minority and human rights lobbies started using the benefit system to further their causes resulting in an explosion in welfare receipt. We need real tax reform and that can only happen with real spending reform. But you are not the man for that job.

Moreover, if you are talking about increasing WFF then you are, by your own previous definition, talking about increasing "communism by stealth."

A cruel example of the "limitations of law"

The state of Victoria has a higher population than NZ but fewer road fatalities. Last year they had a record low in road deaths.

But a terrible accident at the weekend killed five young people. Typical aspects all present. Young, male driver. Limited licence requirements flouted. High speed. Alcohol.

STEVEN Johnstone, the 19-year-old driver in Sunday's horror crash that claimed five young lives in Mill Park, makes a chilling case study on the limits of the law. The apprentice roof tiler had a speeding conviction in the past year and was only allowed to carry one passenger, according to police.

Instead, his car was crammed with six people as it slammed into an oak tree at 140 km/h after hurtling through the intersection of Childs and Plenty roads.

This is followed by a discussion of the limitations of the law, what has been tried so far and what direction the police may go in next.

The Deputy Police Commissioner was similarly unmoved by the call to destroy cars.

"I intuitively understand why people want to crush cars, but again I go back to the evidence that 99 per cent of people that lose their cars in the first instance don't reoffend."

(Cars can be impounded for up to 48 hours for a first speeding offence.)

The highly readable piece goes on to describe how there is a risk-taking type who shouldn't be behind the wheel and efforts to identify them are being stepped up. Academics are talking about brain scans. The police are talking about working more closely with health professionals and educationalists. The police have apparently "veered into the realm of psychology".

The thing is, even when you identify the 'type', how do you stop him from getting behind the wheel of a car, whether he owns it or not?

You would have more success trying to persuade other people not to get in a car with him. Ultimately, you cannot save people from themselves.

The Supreme Court

What a great analogy for well-intentioned policy gone awry; the hallmark of big government.

The plan ...











The outcome ....


(Outcome pinched from Kiwiblog.)

Airfares for fatties inflate

Air France-KLM is going to begin charging obese people 75 percent of the cost of buying a ticket for the adjacent seat. But I wonder how they are going to define obese? I think KLM is missing a more creative opportunity and solution. I am quite small and wouldn't mind doing a deal with a fattie. They can encroach on half of my seat if they pay half of my fare. It's a win-win. And I'd rather sit next to a fatty than someone who never shuts up.

9 on dole for 20 years - so what?

So, Stuff tells us, 9 people have been on the unemployment benefit for more than 20 years. This unimpressive piece of trivia hides more than it reveals about the general degree of dependence on benefits. I believe the Ministry does not want that known because they have never conducted the research or supplied data in a form that would reveal its extent. But US and Australian research would indicate the level is likely to be high.

Looking at just the DPB for example 10,700 people have received that benefit continuously for 10 or more years; 15,800 have received that benefit or any other continuously for 10 or more years.

But many people have breaks off a benefit where they might work a period or form a relationship temporarily. They then drop out of the numbers that have been continuously on benefit. That doesn't mean their level of dependence is significantly less over a long period or over a lifetime. At June 2007 43,866 people on the DPB were reliant for a second (third, fourth etc) time. Many of them would not be featuring in the continuously dependent for 10 years or more despite having been cumulatively dependent for 10 or more years.

Bearing this significant short-coming in mind, across all benefits 37,300 people have been reliant continuously on their current benefit for 10 years or more; 62,000 have been reliant on their current or any other benefit for 10 years or more.

The highest rate of long-term dependence naturally features among invalid beneficiaries, but it is followed by the DPB. As partnered women with dependent children have higher employment rates than unpartnered, it is safe to conclude that single mothers are dependent on the state for longer than partnered women depend on their spouses or de factos.

It should be the other way around. But I see Paula Bennett is stalling again about introducing work-testing - the government is "still working on its welfare manifestos" - the very least National should be doing.

Three strikes - an anti-climax

ACT has just issued a press release entitled; 'Three strikes' to become law.

ACT Leader Rodney Hide was today pleased to announce that ACT's 'Three Strikes' policy is to be incorporated into the Government's Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill for passing into law.

The deal that is acceptable to National seems well short of what ACT wanted.

David Garrett says;

"The key issues were the list of 'strike' offences, whether there should be a three or five year sentence to qualify for a 'strike' or just a conviction, and whether the 'Third Strike' would mean 'life' or the 'max',"

As the release reads, the sentence settled on to qualify the conviction as a 'strike' is 7 years.

And as far as I can ascertain the third strike simply delivers the maximum sentence without parole.

(You can make the comments).

Early education - is it really all it's cracked up to be?

Apparently a new evaluation of the long-standing early education programme for low income children in the US has shown that there is very little difference in outcomes between those that are enrolled and those who were not. Rather than rely on the report about the report I had a very quick look at the actual evaluation;

In sum, this report finds that providing access to Head Start has benefits for both 3-year-olds and 4-year-olds in the cognitive, health, and parenting domains, and for 3-year-olds in the social-emotional domain. However, the benefits of access to Head Start at age four are largely absent by 1st grade for the program population as a whole. For 3-year-olds, there are few sustained benefits, although access to the program may lead to improved parent-child relationships through 1st grade, a potentially important finding for children’s longer term development.

Importantly this is an evaluation through to 1st grade only. A further report is pending into outcomes by 3rd grade.

Head Start has been going since 1965 and was instituted as part of Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty.

It costs nearly $US7 billion and 60 percent of enrolled children are non-white.

I guess what interests me is other countries have modelled educational/social policies after Head Start. In NZ there has been increasing focus on and professionalisation of early education across the board. No doubt there will be many studies that show a positive effect. But when it comes to low income children in particular, I would think that the home environment and the parental input are more influential. Perhaps there is only so much intervention can (generally) achieve - and if this study is anything to go by - the difference may be disappointingly modest.

(Of course, it could also be argued that the quality of education and environment of Head Start needs to be extended through to later grades or that there is something wrong with US schools or that children are less malleable as they get older. I am beginning to wonder if I should even hit the publish button....but there isn't anything else that caught my interest today.)

The Methadone Programme

Last year I wrote to each of the 21 DHBs and the Ministry of Health asking questions about the Methadone Programme under the Official Information Act. Over the years I have sent requests to various Ministries but none that I can recall to the Ministry of Health. The nature of the response itself was interesting.

A number of DHBs rang me obviously curious to know why I was curious to know. One woman was quite hostile, demanding indignantly, "Who are you?". An interested individual I answered. Another Doctor had a long conversation with me because, I think, he thought I was an ACT MP (this didn't become apparent until the end of our conversation or I would have put him right.) He was very forthcoming and told me how, for example, before they had been able to resolve waiting lists in his region, he believed women had deliberately become pregnant to get on the scheme. But the waiting lists were no longer a problem. Some areas however were still struggling because there was a shortage of or no pharmacies prepared to dispense to methadone patients.

Anyway it was quite clear that my request was provoking a mixed reaction. It must have been raised at a general MOH/DHB meeting and it was decided that the MOH would make a response on behalf of all DHBs. However, by this stage some of the DHBs had been good enough to compile an individual response. The variation between them, and the fact that the DHBs had no protocol for dealing with a request of this nature, is, as I said, interesting of itself.

For instance I asked how many patients had dependent children. All bar one response declined an answer citing either a lack of information or privacy. The DHB that did provide an answer said 85 percent of their methadone patients had dependent children.

I asked about the duration of stay on the methadone programme. The umbrella response from the MOH said that the information wasn't readily available "..but of those clients seen by methadone services in 2007/08, 3244 (81%) were seen for at least a year."

But I received more fulsome information from individual DHBs including;

The current average duration on the programme is 6 years which is the same as five years ago.

49.9 months currently and 28.5 months five years ago.

The average duration of patients on the programme is estimated at 5 years.

There are still some patients receiving the methadone since the programme started in ___ in 1995.

The MOH said they could not provide average duration. However when I asked how many people had used the programme since inception they answered that in the period 1 July 2001 to December 31 2008 the number was 8,887 nationally. As the number was 4,437 in 2007/08 a high turnover is not indicated. In fact in the calendar year 2008 517 people started on the programme and 300 left.

2 DHBs would only respond to certain questions if I paid. One estimated 40 hours at $76 per hour to answer 7 out of the 10 questions I asked. The other, 34 hours at $76 per hour. One said it would take 4 hours to calculate the cost of treating patients whereas all the other respondents, including the MOH, were able to provide an answer at no cost.

3 DHBs provided answers to 7-8 questions but they weren't necessarily the same ones. None of these mentioned charging.

All up there wasn't a single question that either one of the individual DHBs or the MOH didn't answer.

Which begs some questions; Why such a patchy response? Is information in certain areas only available to the wealthy? Isn't the OIA supposed guard against this very thing?

Some DHBs made a real attempt to supply the information. Others did not.

What did I learn?

*That, as I expected, the methadone programme is more about maintenance than rehabilitation. Of those who left the programme (300) 3 overdosed, 39 died, 39 left involuntarily and 219 left voluntarily. If we assumed that anyone who managed to wean themselves off methadone is in the 'voluntarily left' group, then the success rate in terms of rehabilitation is not high. 5% percent at the most.

*That if the one response I got regarding patients having dependent children is representative, the percentage is high.

*That the costs of administering the programme are climbing inexplicably. It rose by 52 percent between 2007/08 and 2001/02 whereas the numbers were relatively stable.

*That there is nothing remarkable about the ethnic make-up of patients which roughly matches the general population.

*That very few patients (1 percent) are under 20. Amazingly 17 are over 65.

If it was my call I would not dispense with the programme. It gives heroin addicts a chance to normalise (eg avoid crime, hold down a job, parent) or even recover. But the actual cost of methadone is next to nothing and some scrutiny into why it is costing $14 million to primarily maintain rather than cure addicts wouldn't go amiss. It's not unlike the welfare system really. Best of intentions gone awry. More dependence instead of less.

But I will conclude with my own bottom line in this area. If women are on the programme they should also have to use long-acting contraception as a condition of their admission. It could easily be administered as part of the clinic treatment. Babies being born addicts courtesy of the taxpayer weighs very heavily on my mind. There is an opportunity to discourage this from happening and strongly incentivise female addicts to get clean. It may be that some clinics already unofficially encourage female patients in this direction. I don't know.

Growing up

Kittens are born...and the next minute they are ready to leave home, or their drawer. One is still looking for a someone who will love and care for it. We simply cannot keep another. Four cats is absolutely enough. Anyway, I can't get any more food in the shopping trolley. An old Geordie gent tapped me on the arm this morning, pushing my piled high trundler out of Woolies, "Back agin t'morrow, will 'e?"

Haiti fund-raising effort

Is $500,000 'generous'? It's only around 30 cents a household. Perhaps 'generous' needs to be prefixed with 'relatively'(as compared to previous appeals, not countries).

In terms of government aid the following countries have pledged;

NZ $1 million
UK 6 million pounds (NZ$13 million)
Australia $10 million (NZ$12.5 million)
US $100 million (NZ$135 million)


The Australian government has pledged 13 times the amount that NZ's has.

Some people have a problem with the government sending 'their' money - I don't. This is a valid area for collective action. In any case, our government can and does waste $1,000,000 at the drop of a hat at home.

Disagreements between Turia and Bennett

The NZ Herald reports on the associate Minister of Social Development strongly disagreeing with the Minister of Social Development over the proposal to require the unemployed to re-apply for the dole after one year.

"This is a vulnerable group ... Surely if you are saying people are unemployed for too long and malingerers, then you have to be really clear about taking steps to help them back into work. "

Except "malingerers" do not want help.

This is going to be a year of sparks flying between these two. Despite The Herald saying they have worked closely together so far, at least two other deep divisions between the two come readily to mind. Work-testing the DPB and putting at-risk Maori children in placements away from whanau.

I don't know how the decision-making hierarchy pans out. You may. An Associate Minister has responsibility for specific areas but I imagine ultimate authority still rests with the Minister. Is that correct?

Apart from which any Bennett/National legislative policy will get the numbers anyway.

Is there a problem with GPs?

I am hoping to attract MacDoctor's attention and expert input. Health is not a sector I have studied in any depth. So I stand to be corrected on the following conclusion.

Waiting in the surgery with my poorly (that's an old-fashioned term for sick) daughter days back I overheard the receptionist telling someone via phone that the practice could not see them because they weren't registered there. She gave a number to ring where someone would tell them which Hutt Valley practices were taking on patients or the caller could go on the waiting list to be taken on at that particular practice.

Another incident was recently recounted to me about a young woman who turned up with shingles or chicken pox at a pharmacy. The virus was getting near her eyes and the pharmacist was very worried about her and tried ringing several practices in an effort to get her in front of a GP.

As I understand it, Labour poured an extra couple of billion into primary health. They changed GP funding. GPs are now paid per capita. That is they are paid for each enrolled patient whether they see them or not. I have heard that the DHBs are now becoming quite frustrated with some GPs because they are taking time off. And they are not enrolling new patients. Apparently GPs describe the problematic situation as an economic one. But it has been suggested to me it is an ethical one.

Not long ago we needed a plumber urgently. It was a Saturday morning and we had a burst main flooding the garden. I deal with a fantastic outfit, and a plumber was there within a couple of hours. He worked all day to fix the problem. He was able to go and get the supplies he needed because hardware stores open all weekend because they are staffed by people prepared to work all weekend.

But if you need to see your doctor urgently, even when he has been paid to see you, frequently it's an impossibility. GP practices work very limited hours. So the alternative is hospital emergency services or after hours - neither of whom has been paid to see you. (It could be argued that the hospital has, indirectly, but you will pay through the nose at the after hours.)

Outcome; Labour upped the spend on primary health substantially for no increase in productivity.