Road toll statistics - how are we doing?

With all the current talk of tightening up on driver licensing and regulations I thought I would just blog some statistics.

The first shows how NZ compares to other countries in deaths per 10,000 vehicles. Not too badly;



The second shows the growing vehicle fleet and casualties compared to 1990. Not too bad;



The third shows the number of 15 to 19 year-olds involved in fatal crashes. Not good but generally going in the right direction;



The fourth shows the age distribution of road deaths for selected countries which shows NZ has a high proportion clustered in the young age group. Important point here is that those deaths include passengers. In the year to end January 2010 47 15-24 year old drivers were killed but so were 49 15-24 year-old passengers. This is the only age group which has this kind of pattern. In every other age group (bar 45-54) the ratio is around 3 drivers killed to 1 passenger.

Note on this page the completely different profile for Japan and South Korea. South Korea, which has a much higher road toll than NZ has its problem heavily clustered at the other end of the age spectrum.



Finally I had a look at NSW where the driving age is 17. What difference does it make?

People under 26 are involved in 36 percent of road fatalities.

Here people under 25 are involved in 28 percent of road fatalities (111 deaths out of 391 to the end of Jan 2010.)

(The NZ statistic includes one extra year.)

In NSW the clamouring is to raise the driving age to 18 because 17 year-olds are killing themselves and their mates on the road.

Two sides to every story

Labour is opposing a rise in GST and has taken to the roads (more David Shearer on Guitar?) with "Axe the Tax" as its slogan. Lou from No Minister has whipped around the other side with his camera;

Rack up another $240 M

Today the annual rise to benefits and Super is announced. The increase is 2 percent for most and 2.3 percent for Superannuitants. The net cost will be around $240 million.

I don't have a fundamental problem with benefits and super being adjusted for cost of living but it is easy to see why the total social security bill continues to grow and some. It is also of no comfort to people who have had their hours cut, weeks shortened, or businesses dry up to observe the relative security of those receiving their income from the state.

Poke him with a stick

Kurariki Bailey is a very disturbed, and potentially dangerous young man. He is comparable to a maltreated cur, but the media pokes him with a stick and then cries foul when he reacts.

He has legal restrictions laid on him. Its about time some were laid on the media. Our fleeting titillation is not worth the further wreckage of his and anybody else's lives.

I know I am supposed to be outraged at the ongoing refusal of Bailey to fit back nicely into society, but it is the press, and other talker-stalkers that really raise my ire.

Observation about commentary on ACT

Expressing an opinion about ACT is risky territory for me but what is the point of a blog if not used to articulate a thought or impression?

The attacks on ACT in the trail of this weekend's conference have been many. They come from the left and the right; from without and within; overtly and less overtly. And perhaps attendees are still sleeping it off, but I see no-one defending or counter-attacking (accept for the Cactus who has been multi-tasking). Perhaps because the party appears split. Split along personality, and to a lesser degree, identity lines. This is very different from the straight forward philosophical division which was survivable. Someone once commented to me that Prebble managed the liberal/conservative tension successfully.

But this current division of loyalties and purpose will quite possibly weaken ACT to the point of no return.

There are now two swinging voters in this house and our perception of what is happening - right or wrong - takes us no closer to a decision that favours ACT.

The Standard - what are they complaining about?

The Standard claims Don Brash called voters "stupid and greedy".

He actually descibed them as "venal and ignorant".

Venal - open to bribery

Ignorant - lacking knowledge

Labour have been trading on this fact since its conception.

Big rise in child deaths through family violence

Dying at the hands of a family member is becoming more common, although it is still a rare event. Of course the sort of activity which precedes a death is far more widespread than what the fatality statistics represent.

The Family Violence Death Review Committee released figures showing the number of deaths uncreased from 18 in 2008 to 41 last year. 16 were children. Typically these will be the deaths of very young children. The first two years is the most dangerous time for a child in a dysfunctional environment.

But 16. That is high.




How long have New Zealanders been collectively wringing their hands over child abuse? About 50 years. During which time it has probably worsened. One cannot say with absolute certainty that this is the case because of the hidden nature of abuse and the robustness of identifying and reporting over time.

There have been so many attempts to 'fix' this problem via the state and private initiatives, yet it persists. And I have nothing new to say. If a child is loved and wanted it will not be abused.

But I find myself agreeing less and less with the sentiment expressed by John Sax of For The Sake Of Our Children Trust;

Mr Sax says questions need to be asked about what is happening with social policy. He believes there needs to be a holistic approach to family violence, with a big focus on trying to keep children with their immediate family where possible.

That is exactly the philosophy CYF has been operating under for the last few decades.

Update; Having found the source of the figures I should include a comment from their spokesperson;

"We are working with a broader definition to ensure we look as widely as possible at the problem, and this means we have come up with a higher figure than has been suggested from previous work in this area."

The statistics come from the Police but the Death Review committee says it uses a different definition of a family violence death. As yet I haven't been able to work out the difference from reading their report.

Their definition;

Family violence death is defined in the Terms of Reference as:
The unnatural death of a person (adult or child) where the suspected perpetrator is a
family or extended family member, 4 caregiver, 5 intimate partner, previous partner of the victim, or previous partner of the victim’s current partner.

They may have broadened the relationship status beyond that considered by the policy as 'family'.

The report contains this quote;

Family violence is a global problem affecting all cultural, religious and economic groups and is caused by a multitude of complex factors (Ma¯ ori Reference Group for the Taskforce for Action on Violence within Families 2009).

And then this;

The over-representation this year of Ma¯ori as victims and perpetrators of family violence deaths signals an impact on the fabric of Ma¯ori society. Preliminary data indicates that three-quarters of family violence deaths involve Ma¯ori. While Ma¯ori have been involved in a large number of the identified cases this year, the issues are not for Ma¯ ori alone to address.


So the Review Committee is taking the politically correct line.

The Committee will work with the community as a whole, but will also engage with Ma¯ori in as many ways possible to ensure it is operating in a culturally appropriate, sensitive and responsive manner.

The committee should be working primarily, and as a priority, with Maori. That would be the best use of its resources which they complain have been too few.

Single parents on benefits through 'lifestyle choice'

I always get it in the neck when I use the words 'lifestyle choice'. "Why would anyone choose to be on a benefit?" DPB defenders remonstrate.

Well research from Geoff Dench, a fellow of The Young Foundation, has confirmed that many single mothers are making a lifestyle choice and favouring benefits over fathers.

As reported in the Mail Online;

One in four mothers is now a single parent, having made a 'lifestyle choice' to rely on benefits rather than a partner, a report revealed yesterday.

In NZ at last census 28 percent of parents with dependent children were single. Around three quarters rely on welfare.

More than half of mothers with children under 13 have never married or lived with a boyfriend and find it 'rewarding' to stay at home supported by state handouts, it said.

So how does NZ compare?

Nobody knows.

The Ministry no longer collects this information. Last time I asked they replied;

With regards to your other question on the reporting of the relationship status of single parents currently receiving the DPB, up until 2000 the Ministry included data on the relationship status of clients at the time they were granted Domestic Purposes Benefit in the Statistical Report. However since 2000 this information has not formed part of the Ministry's formal reporting and has not been reported on since 2003. As you are aware the Ministry is not required under the Official Information Act 1982 to create information in order to meet the specific requirements of an individual request. For this reason your request for this information was declined under section 18(e) of the Act.

Continuing from the Mail;

Researcher Geoff Dench, a fellow of the Young Foundation research group, said: 'The existence of state benefits as a source of economic security seems to be encouraging young mothers not to bother with male resident partners.'

...The report said there is growing evidence that 'lone motherhood is less a result of relationship breakdown, more a lifestyle choice'.

...The findings run counter to the claim, regularly made by pressure groups for single parents, that women most often become lone mothers because of divorce or separation.

...The analysis was based on findings from British Social Attitudes, the annual Government-backed survey of opinions and lifestyles that has been run every year since the early 1980s.

It shows that in the 1980s it was true that a typical single mother had broken up with a partner after years of marriage or cohabitation. In 1986 only 15 per cent of single mothers of children under 13 said they had never married or lived with a partner.

But by 2006, 57 per cent of single mothers had never lived as part of a couple.

...At the same time, more than three million men are classed as 'economically inactive', and live on sickness benefits, state handouts or in the black economy.

Anglicans making sense

Good for the Anglicans. At last a religious organisation prepared to break with the usual advocacy stance of the Social Service and Catholic councils. In Australia the Brotherhood of St Lawrence are backing the government plans to extend income management beyond Aboriginal communities. Income management means a beneficiary receives their income part cash/ part credit, which can only be used for specified purposes. There is less potential for cash to be misused or stolen and greater potential for children to get fed and clothed.

Typically,

The Australian Council of Social Service has said the changes would make income support recipients' lives harder and less dignified, and Catholic Social Services Australia has said they are unjust and may undermine social inclusion.

These groups have their counterparts in NZ. Invariably the Salvation Army, the NZ Council of Christian Social Services and National Council of Women oppose any suggestion of tightening welfare.

But the Brotherhood of St Lawrence have taken a different tack, the common-sense approach.

''If taxpayers are making an investment in social services, it's reasonable to expect people to change their behaviour,'' executive director Tony Nicholson told The Age. ''Our view would be that quarantining is a legitimate part of the welfare system - but it also ought to be easy for people to demonstrate they are meeting their obligations.''

Hardly radical.

Generally I reject paternalism but if people can't manage their own lives, and as a result are damaging the lives and prospects of their children, then something has to give. If a dysfunctional beneficiary doesn't want their income managed there is a solution. Get a job.

Inhabitants of Wonderland

There are people whose comprehension of a given situation is exactly the reverse of mine. Here are two examples.

Benjamin Easton is a 'professional' activist but nobody is willing to pay him for his activism so he draws the unemployment benefit and says...

"It is a sacrifice, really. I am perfectly capable of earning."

A sacrifice? It's abuse. It's abuse of those who fund a welfare system which is sold as being there for people who genuinely cannot support themselves through work.

And then there is Millsy who unimaginatively continues to misrepresent my opposition to the DPB. He or she comments at the Hand Mirror;

It would seem to me that the Lindsay's of this world tend to want women to be trapped in unhappy and sometimes abusive marriages 'for the sake of the kids'.

I find that unacceptable. People's family arrangements are no place for anyone to stick their nose in.

Especially the 'collective' people as represented by the state.

Oh no, I forgot. Feminists approve of that.

They want their next door neighbour to fund them out of a bad relationship but otherwise, keep their nose out. Very convenient.

Feminists are clamouring for the state to stick its nose into family affairs when it suits. Paid Parental Leave, subsidised childcare, marital property legislation, state-funded anti-violence campaigns, state-funded pro-breastfeeding campaigns, a female biased Family Court. The examples are many. They even have their own government department.

So there are two examples of people who inhabit this Alice in Wonderland world we live in. Where up is down, and down is up.

Auckland brewing social problems

Statistics NZ has released projections that show Auckland's population will grow to 38 percent of the country's total by 2031. Two thirds of the growth will come from natural increase - births minus deaths.

The population of Auckland has been growing faster than the national average for some time. The natural growth that has already occurred is reflected in numbers on the DPB.

Between 1999 and 2009 the national DPB total dropped 1 percent.

But in Auckland the number rose by 16 percent to 37,376. Additionally the numbers that are aged 18 and 19 grew by 38 percent.

Auckland certainly is breeding and brewing plenty of social problems for itself. The forum on Auckland social policy should have this issue as its number one priority.

The Clayton Weatherston potrait

The National Portrait Competition is gaining unusual publicity this year due to the exhibition of a large sketch of Clayton Weatherston.

I was disappointed not to be part of the exhibition this year. It's the first time I have missed out. Strangely with what I thought was probably my best entry since it began. So it is always interesting to see what does get selected.

I left my entry very late and then quickly painted this of a friend. I hadn't developed a background or honed in the features and clothing because I sometimes get criticised for tending towards too much realism and time prevented it. The colours are also stronger and more various than I would normally use. Now I may rework it and show it in my April exhibition.


But I can hear my friend when she sees the front page of the DomPost this morning at teabreak. "Eh? They turned me down and took him?? Faaa....."

I think the Weatherston portrait is very good. Sometimes I think over-size faces are a bit gimmicky but there is no question over whether or not it should have been exhibited.

Growing political cynicism of Americans

What must it be like living in the States right now? Putting aside the financial hardship many are enduring (that is not to minimise it in any way) I might rather enjoy the growing level of political cynicism. Most Americans think Washington is screwed and most think neither the Democrats nor Republicans have answers worth voting for. I wish a few more New Zealanders would wake up to the problem of the big government parties on both sides of the political spectrum.

CNS reports;

After he signed a law last week authorizing the U.S. Treasury to borrow an additional $1.9 trillion, President Barack Obama delivered a characteristically sanctimonious speech. It was about his deep commitment to frugality.

“After a decade of profligacy, the American people are tired of politicians who talk the talk but don’t walk the walk when it comes to fiscal responsibility,” he said. “It’s easy to get up in front of the cameras and rant against exploding deficits. What’s hard is actually getting deficits under control. But that’s what we must do. Like families across the country, we have to take responsibility for every dollar we spend.”

To put Obama’s Olympian hypocrisy in perspective, one need only examine the federal budget tables posted on the White House website by Obama’s own Office of Management and Budget.

More

Solo mums sacrosanct

Family First issued this statement today;

...Fatherlessness is a major contributor to increasing rates of juvenile violence,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

“Scientific research is unanimous on a number of conclusions regarding family structure – that strong marriages increases the likelihood that fathers have good relationships with their children and lowers the risk of alcohol and substance abuse, domestic violence and child abuse,”

“Conversely, parental divorce or non-marriage appears to increase children’s risk of delinquent and criminal behaviour, amongst other factors. One only needs to observe proceedings at the Youth Court to see the effect of fatherlessness.”

“According to The Heritage Foundation, an influential US research institute, an analysis of social science literature over 30 years shows that the rise in violent crime parallels the rise in families abandoned by fathers. A state-by-state analysis indicated that a 10% increase in the percentage of children living in single-parent homes lead typically to a 17% increase in juvenile crime. The research found that criminal behaviour has its roots in habitual deprivation of parental love and affection going back to early infancy.”

“Research has shown time after time that the father’s authority and involvement in raising his children are great buffers against a life of crime,” says Mr McCoskrie.

“There are other factors such as violence in the media, the ‘rights’ culture being fed to young people, and the undermining of parental authority which are contributors, but family structure is a crucial place to start.”

“Violent crime will continue to increase as long as we downplay the importance and significance of having two parents, a mum and a dad, committed to each other and to their children.”

The feminist blog, The Hand Mirror, has interpreted this as an attack on solo mums.

NZ is particularly prone to letting the left rule the roost on this sort of stuff. Middle (apolitical) NZ has let feminists shut down the debate on the whether family structure matters by being bullied into accepting that solo mums are victims. Feminists, who know how powerful a weapon guilt is, wield it unhesitatingly and very effectively. Mothers, particularly sole mums, are sacrosanct.

Perhaps it is time to start recognising that it is children who are victims. If children's need were elevated above those of their mothers, because their needs are often conflicting, perhaps some progress could be made.

Whanau Ora - a cautionary note

Though frustratingly little is known about whanau ora it is safe to say that it is about Maori solutions for Maori problems. Doing things the Maori way.

But I am reminded of one of Professor Fergusson's papers released last year. The emphases are mine;

The Role of Cultural Identity

To explore the possible role of cultural identity in mediating associations between ethnicity and childhood maltreatment, the group of Māori respondents was subdivided into those of sole Māori identity and Māori/other identity. The data were then re-analysed to examine the premise underlying current theories in New Zealand that claim that strength of Māori cultural identity mitigates the risk of young Māori people being exposed to child maltreatment. Following adjustment for socio-economic and family functioning factors, this re-analysis revealed a complex set of relationships between cultural identity and risks of childhood maltreatment.

In terms of childhood sexual abuse, those of sole Māori identity had the lowest adjusted rate of exposure. Although these differences failed to reach statistical significance, the findings provide some support for the view that being of sole Māori identity may be a protective factor that reduces risks of exposure to childhood sexual abuse. However, quite the opposite pattern was observed for exposure to childhood physical abuse and exposure to inter-parental violence, with those of sole Māori identity being at greater risks of these outcomes. The results suggest that sole Māori identity may be a risk factor for exposure to physical child abuse and inter-parental violence. The findings are in general agreement with research by Kukutai (2003), who suggested that the degree to which an individual identifies with Māori cultural identity may be associated with increased risks of social and economic disadvantage.

These findings, however, are not consistent with the assumptions underpinning influential theories, social policies and a number of intervention guidelines (Department of Social Welfare 1988, Ministry of Social Development 2002, Balzer et al. 1997, Stanley and Thompson 1999, Kiro 2000, Stanley 2000, Kruger et al. 2004), which claim that strengthening Māori identity and links with traditional Māori cultural practices will lead to reduced rates of child abuse among Māori. To the contrary, while the findings of this study suggest that this approach may lead to reduced risks of childhood sexual abuse, it may also be associated with increased risks of childhood physical abuse and exposure to inter-parental violence. These findings do pose a challenge to current policies aimed at reducing the over-representation of Māori children in rates of child maltreatment, which emphasise “identity interventions” that are not evidence-based and are largely ideologically driven. Even though such policies are no doubt well intentioned and observe statutory requirements unique to the New Zealand context, following the view expounded by UNICEF (2003, 2007), they must be exposed to ongoing critical scrutiny and empirical evaluation.

Paying people to have babies

At a business lunch yesterday the finance Minister was "talking down" tax cuts and economic reforms. One attendee was not happy.

Ms Hamilton-Manns, 33, worked in Qatar, Kuwait, Britain, Italy and South Africa for five years as a teacher and then as an event manager. She came home in 2006 and runs her own business staging events in the finance sector, but told Mr English she was thinking of leaving again.

"I don't see opportunities in New Zealand apart from having babies," she told him.

Well-spotted Ms Hamilton-Manns.

Coincidentally I received information earlier this week that illustrates her observation very well.

Most benefit-dependent single parents who go on welfare as teenagers appear first in the dole queue.

Of those welfare-dependent single parents the Ministry has full benefit history for (aged 29 or younger) 33,730 first claimed welfare as a teenager, but surprisingly, only 17 percent began on the DPB. For 61 percent, the first benefit they relied on was an unemployment benefit.

Rather than getting into work or training many unemployed young people are starting families and moving onto the DPB. Failing to acquire any work experience or further education is virtually a guaranteed pathway to long-term dependency, which is bad for both parents and children.

Over half of these young parents are Maori. Many started on welfare during a period of very low unemployment so it is no good blaming the recession or high Maori unemployment. Pacific people experience equally high unemployment rates but they are not over-represented in this group.

In his opening address to parliament John Key talked about moving people off the DPB. But just as important, if not more, is stopping them from going on it in the first place. Especially as teenagers.

As long as the "opportunity" remains, young people will continue to take it.

National standards - further down the road

While we in New Zealand haggle over the introduction of national standards, the Australians are haggling over the veracity of their national standards introduced in 2008.

Brotherly love

This isn't Daisy and her kittens. It's Palangi and his younger brother and sister. Palangi was born in August last year and Cecil, the one he is diligently grooming, was born in December. He does this for prolonged periods.



In steps Daisy and has a desultory lick of her older boy and then she leaves him to it.


Is this unusual behaviour? I ask because Palangi is a most unusual cat. Even if you were not a cat person it would be hard not to warm to him. He behaves more like a faithful puppy than a cat, hasn't a shred of aggression, snuggles up to my face as close as he can and gazes at me. Sleeps with his chin on my shoulder through the night. Sleeps at my feet when I paint during the day. Is a terrible jumper, missing things or falling off things. Won't eat the food the other cats eat, confining himself to tuna and red meat. And when he hears the call of the wild, departs to catch and fetch challenging prey like tissues and bits of wood. Well, there was a lizard the other day but I don't think he caught it. When visiting the vet for his vaccine booster this morning she had difficulty hearing his heartbeat because he wouldn't stop purring. If cats have spirits this one's is special.

Raising one finger

Here's a judge asking a rhetorical question I think;

"Is it a case of the more kids she has at home the lighter the court should be on her?"

I can think of a few others.

"Is it a case of the more kids she has at home the more income she receives?"

"Is it a case of the more kids she has at home the longer she can avoid getting a job?"

"Is it a case of the more kids she has at home the more men she can do a dodgy child support deal with?"

Don't you just love paying taxes to fund this fiasco? It really is a privilege to live in a country where the welfare system ensures everyone can belong and participate. And then some.

Dangerous WINZ clients

Remember the Harris family?

Fairfax newspapers reported Marcia Harris and her husband, former gang leader Darryl Harris, have claimed unemployment and sickness benefits continuously since 1984.

Three of the couple's four children are on benefits. The family got $30,000 in special-needs grants since 2000, including $16,000 in the past two years. Grants went towards car tyres and a pool fence at one of several properties the family owns in Christchurch....the family has been transferred to a special "remote monitoring" unit. The unit deals with Work and Income clients deemed too dangerous for face-to-face meetings with staff.

At the time I made comment that the people managed through this unit would be able to avoid face-to-face intensive management and work-testing. Now I reflect on this, it is really rather silly. Yes. My comment.

I received a letter from MSD saying that these clients "must meet their obligations, including work-testing, just like any other client."

That means that people deemed too dangerous, too aggressive and violent to have direct contact with case managers, are nonetheless expected to find work in other workplaces. Are they sent along for interviews with unsuspecting prospective employers? Somehow I doubt it.

There were 18 clients in 2004, when the unit was established. Now there are 52. Fifty six percent are on an invalid's benefit and 77 percent are male. Two have dependent children. I hope their children are safe.

What should happen to people like this? In the past they were probably institutionalised. When the benefit system was introduced there was a strong and accepted ethos that people had to be of good moral character and sober habits. Sounds archaic but we have since travelled to the other extreme, where the benefit system is the place where people with acute anti-social behavioural problems are parked.

The courts must be hellish busy

The Sallies research centre released a report into the social health of the nation last week and it just got buried under the GST palaver. It contains a lot of useful statistical information which I might blog over the next few days. Little commentary is needed. (Although this particular table reminds me of my question about why Paul Quinn's disenfranchisement bill is confined to people in prison. If it was targeted at anyone convicted of a crime and sentenced, the polling gain to National would be more significant. Because that's what it's about isn't it? If it isn't and it is actually about loss of rights for criminals then, again, why stop at supervised sentencees?)



Part of the reason the courts are so busy is growing recidivism. Nearly 2 out of 3 Maori are reconvicted within two years of release. More are going through the 'revolving door'.



(Any spelling pedants notice the error above?)

God, I hope this turns out OK

All of us with daughters and sons have our hearts in our mouths waiting for the outcome of this episode. If I was religious I would be praying for her and her family. Please just let it be an unhappy tantrum of sorts and let her be found safe and well. And sorry, Mum, for the times I put you through the mill.

Women's magazine junkies

I make no secret of my contempt for women's magazines. What are they really? Grown-up picture books that depict good and evil; good being tight bellies and bad being dimply thighs. Or maybe they are like national standards for supposedly mature females. A chance to check out how their looks and lives rate. That's why the bad pictures are actually more titillating than the good.

What fills the pages of Women's magazines occasionally permeates my consciousness when once in a blue moon I forget to take some worthwhile reading matter on a visit to the dentist or WOF centre. These trashy tomes ooze superficiality. They speak to people whose own lives are all façade. They make women dissatisfied and depressed by publishing fabulous fairy tales of wealth and beauty. Then they cheer them up by publishing sorry stories about loss and separation and tragedy. But the release of endorphins is a temporary state of affairs. The readers become addicted. They are magazine junkies.

Alison Mau is being used to lace the latest dose. And she is not happy. She launched an attack on Women's Day on Breakfast TV today culminating in providing the editor's e-mail address, no doubt expecting an avalanche of complaints to follow.

Silly, silly. That is exactly the publicity Women's Day is courting. Mau supporters might forgo this week's WD hit but they won't go cold turkey. They'll simply score a dose of whatever other drivel is available from the news-stands.

Key needs better advice

According to Mr Key, if 5 percent of people on the DPB moved into work that would save the government $200 million over 10 years.

This was reported yesterday on NewstalkZB. It is also an excerpt from Key's statement to Parliament last week.

This is interesting.

In the financial year to June 2008 14,754 people moved off the DPB and into work. That's 15 percent.

In addition to that a further 17 percent moved off for other reasons.

So why isn't the government saving millions already? Why is it spending more each year on the DPB?

Because more people come on than go off. Around one in three leavers will be back within the year. And around two thousand teenagers will be granted the DPB each year.

What National needs to grasp is that stopping people going onto benefits will reduce numbers and save millions. Prevention is just as important, if not more important.

But to talk about a goal of moving 5 percent off and into work shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what is driving the numbers.

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.