We could do with a Winston Smith at Work and Income

This morning I came across a blog previously unknown to me. Winston Smith (a pseudonym) works in Supported Housing in the UK and writes about his daily dealings with 'clients'. (It occurs to me if I wrote an anonymous blog about my volunteer work and experiences it would not differ much though my writing talents would not match Mr Smith's. You win some but you lose more.)

I will add him to my blog roll. Here are some excerpts. The last is long because it is just too good to cut.

Bribing addicts to meet targets

Now, call me a cynic but when I read about bribing members of the underclass in order to ascertain their views I smell the scent of performance targets. Why? You may ask. Well, we in Supported Housing have our own targets, (the QAFS. see earlier posts) one of which is consulting residents about various aspects of the project. One of the problems though is that most residents don't want to be consulted they just want to be left on their own in their rooms staring blankly at TV screens, knocking each other up, spreading chlamydia and avoiding any contact with reality. To get them out of their rooms and to hear their insane ideas we use fast food, cash incentives and sugary fizzy drinks. It always works. I'd put good money, if I earned it, that the Drug and Alcohol action team are using a similar tactic. Just like us their jobs depend on it. If they could get away with giving them drugs or alcohol to get them to the meeting then I have no doubt they'd be tempted. If you think about it they have done just that. What do you think all those junkies, potheads, pill poppers and alco-teens are going to spend that ten quid on? Hazard a guess go on.

Can the Drug and Alcohol team be that naive and stupid? Believe me I regularly encounter people in this industry who are that thick and worse. If you pay circus wages you will often attract clowns. However, it is just as possible that in the interests of meeting performance targets the judicious decision was discarded in favour of the expedient.

Failing to scrounge from the state

Five minutes after getting rid of Gavin, Kenny, 21, knocks on the office door. He too is failing to successfully scrounge from the state. I’ve seen slugs with more get up and go. Soon, his ex-girlfriend with whom he has a fractious relationship, will be bearing him a child. There are similar scenarios throughout the project and indeed up and down the country ensuring that Britain has yet another generation of employment and education averse youngsters to take the place of today’s underclass when they go to the great Burberry factory in the sky. He seeks my sage advice in relation to benefits.

“Any chance you could help me think of an excuse to tell the Job Centre why I’ve missed signing on?”

Is being a toe-rag an excuse or is it a reason? I ponder. I’m in no mood for him and I’m not employed to lie for him so I tell him exactly what is on my mind, well with some modification.

“Go away Kenny. I’m not paid to lie for you and besides if you can’t even manage to sign on once every two weeks to get free money without it turning in to a drama what hope is there for you in life,”

Kenny shuffles off swearing under his breath as he goes. He isn’t used to such straight talk, even from me. I was a bit more forthright than usual. In fact, were he to fill in a complaint form I could get in trouble as such direct talking could be interpreted as “oppressive” language, in the terminology of the social sector, and as such could be detrimental to his self-esteem. Well, as far as I’m concerned if you are sitting around on your arse 24/7 and making no efforts to do anything constructive and can’t even manage to draw the dole then you should have very low self-esteem. The only things that Kenny has contributed to society are several bouts of chlamydia and a child he will soon abandon. I know it’s not much in fashion these days but just the smallest amount of shame can be a great motivator to change and regulator of one’s behaviour.

Britain: The Land Where The Criminal's Victimhood Supersedes That of The Decent and Law Abiding

A couple of weeks before the Christmas, one of our residents, Mike, 18, openly divulged to several staff that he had acquired some of his yuletide gifts for his family by stealing them. Although starved of intelligence and devoid of manners, Mike is in no ways cash hungry. He is on lucrative benefit payments and receives regular cash donations from his father who works abroad. However, much of his income is regularly being paid out on various fines he receives from the courts and the police whilst persuing his favourite hobby of being a public nuisance. In defence of his latest criminal activities Mike felt that it should be appreciated that he was no longer burglaring people's homes as he had lately required a conscience in this area. One of my colleagues actually congratulated him for this, as if he was doing the local community a favour by no longer 'choosing' to break in to people's homes.

Anyway, when trying to talk to him about his immoral behaviour I became aware that both myself and my colleague were trying to get Mike to see the error of his ways by appealing to how crime would affect him as opposed to the effects it has on others. My colleague made no mention of the victims of his actions and I only made reference to it and was immediately accused by Mike of the greatest taboo in the social delinquents perpetuation sector: judgmentalism. My colleague was quick to assure Mike that he wasn't being judged. Instead, I took to plain speaking and told him that it wasn't I that was going to judge him but rather someone called a Judge who would indeed be judgemental as his job description requires just that. However, as I have said the angle we were taking was one of trying to make him see how crime would affect him should he continue to keep appearing in court. Should we have employed a technique of say condemnatory language for his actions as well as trying to make him ashamed of himself by being harsh in describing how his crimes affect other people we could have well faced disciplinary action should he have made a complaint, which is his right, about the way and manner we spoke to him.

In fact, Mike did just that with regards to a colleague verbally reprimanding him for bad behaviour on the project the year before. The colleague was suspended and an investigation was launched. She was so demeaned by this experience that she resigned her post whilst being investigated for the crime of plain speaking to a feral yob. Mike openly boasted of how he got rid of her. The threat of such complaints censors many staff from plain speaking when dealing with young people engaged in crime or other anti-social behaviour. One wrong word or misconstrued phrase and you could find yourself up on a disciplinary hearing for 'oppressive' language. This culture where 'judgmental' language is seen as the ultimate taboo allows for criminals like Mike to shift the balance of power in their direction in that support workers fear telling the truth or evoking shame in a resident for fear of a complaint being made against them.

What I have highlighted in the above example is indicative of a trend in the wider society and that is how perpetrators of crimes, even the most heinous, can so easily achieve victim status even superseding the rights of those they have commited crimes against. This trend is being reported more and more by the media lately. The actress and singer Myleene Klass was warned by police for trying to protect herself in her own home. There was the high profile case of the business man jailed, but later released for the crime of defending his home against vicious and dangerous criminals.

After the horrific case in Edlington where two boys attacked, tortured and brutalised two boys of a similar age,the social care magazine, Children and Young People Now advocates reaching out to future torturers and trying to understand them. No mention is made of providing services for their victims. Whilst I agree that the torturers were to a degree a product of their environment and don't advocate or support lynch mobs to deal with such people something in me cringes when reading an article that makes no mention of the people who have suffered at the hands of the people they are defending.

Instead of arguing for targeting dysfunctional families whose children may be being socialised in to savage torturers would it not make more sense to prohibit such people from breeding in the first place? However, that wouldn't suit the social services and social care industry which requires the children of the extremely dysfunctional and disturbed for its perpetuation. Many livelihoods and lucrative salaries depend on Britain remaining in the social morass in which it finds itself. As a boss of mine once said, "If we do our job correctly we do ourselves out of a job."

Harawira harebrained

According to Hone Harawira people want to drink alcohol, they want to smoke cannabis but they do not want to smoke tobacco. That is why banning tobacco wouldn't create a black market. People don't want to smoke cigarettes or rollies. There would be no consumer demand. Nil. Zilch. Zero.

Have you ever heard anything so absurd?

Same unemployment rate - far fewer on dole

Got into an argument over at The Standard again. One of their writers claimed that the unemployment rate when Labour took office in 1999 was nearly double what it is now. Of course that is quite wrong. It was 6.8 percent in September 1999 and it is 7.3 percent now. Another writer then said the first had intended that the number of people claiming the unemployment benefit was nearly double. He is right there. But the situation was still not so very different as the total number of people claiming main benefits was higher then but only by 16 percent (yes I know the population has grown). So, as I have said many times before, and as is now accepted in places like the UK, the sickness, invalid, incapacity, disability benefits (call them what you will) are mopping up those who would otherwise be on an unemployment benefit.

Other reasons that fewer people are on benefits than was the case in 1999 may be;

1/ We are coming off a boom and people have greater assets/savings and are not qualifying for the dole, whereas in 1999 we were still recovering from the deep recession of the early nineties.

2/ Equally families and partners are better placed to support unemployed members

3/ Work and Income are being more stringent in their application of eligibility rules

Need anyone to carry your bags?

Ow. What was that. A little twinge of jealousy perhaps? Minister for Social Development, Paula Bennett will spend 5 weeks in the US looking at private sector involvement in welfare. In the states that will no doubt include a fair bit of faith-based as well as corporate activity.

What a great opportunity for her. Now watch for the knockers to roll out with strident admonitions about Paula's visit being precursory to privatisation of the welfare system.

Women's income

The Human Rights Commission has released a report about the status of women's human rights. One of their concerns is that more women live in poverty than men.

Is this a valid 'human rights' issue?

They complain that women have incomes more than one third less than men. But there are good reasons for this.

1/ Many women rely on a partners income, especially when children are young.
2/ Many women choose a benefit over a relationship.
3/ More women than men receive Super alone because women have longer life expectancies and are less likely to have income from investments.

If equal income is a human right then the Commission is going to have to look at disparities between ages, ethnicities, regions, occupations, etc.

And how, anyway, would the gap be closed? I contribute to the imbalance because my income is far below my husbands but that is my choice. And I believe it reflects a happier household than would be the case is I was earning at the same level as he is.

Of course groups like the Human Rights Commission would probably favour greater wealth redistribution by the state, which is essentially taking the product of one person's labour and giving it to someone else. Is that an abuse of their human rights? Don't expect a debate about that any time soon.

Dole down - student allowances up

Unemployment benefit numbers are down. Particularly for young people. The Minister says there is light at the end of the tunnel. Their work schemes - Job Ops and Community Max - have made a difference.

But look at the student allowance numbers;

2005 56,806
2006 59,431
2007 62,479
2008 65,702
2009 82,636


So many more people than usual are either qualifying for a student allowance or many more people than usual are applying. Or both. It would be interesting to see what the numbers are for the Jan - Mar quarter when available. Moving from the dole to a student allowance may be part of the reason for the drop in unemployment benefit numbers.

Children's Day

Honestly. Hrrmmmpphhh. Why do we need a Children's Day and why do we need talking heads like Murray Edridge to inveigle us to spend time with our children and remember how much they mean to us? It's not the touchy-feeliness oozing out. I can suffer that. It is the arrogance that assumes we don't think about how much they mean to us unless he reminds us to.

I remember 2 or 3 days after Robert was born, standing at the kitchen sink weeping. In hindsight it was probably just hormonal. But trying to rationalise my tears at the time, I felt it was because it had suddenly dawned on me that I was in love with this new entity and I would remain so all my life and if anything ever happened to him the pain would be unbearable. Did you know that mothers actually experience a physical reaction when they see their child hurt? Or if he stepped too close to the edge of the wharf for instance I would get this zing, something like hitting a funny bone. Anatomically I think it was in the region of the ovaries (I just had to check with Sam where the ovaries are - at 11 she knows much more about human reproduction than I do). It happens when you see a wound on your child.

My children are always around me. Physically - alot and spiritually - alot. Yesterday Sam and I spent time playing Connect Four and then Mastermind, which is a fantastic game for developing powers of deduction. How to solve using a hypothesis. Later we watched American Idol together. We searched for new music for her to sing going through a pile of sheet music we brought home from the library Friday after she, Robert and I had all been to the hairdressers together. Yes we all share the same hairdresser. A very entertaining hairdresser he is too. I listened while Robert practised his latest piano piece and cursed at him for cursing at the piano. We sit side by side at our computers on and off during the day, pouring scorn on the reaction to the child making a couple of air traffic control transmissions at JFK, obviously supervised by a doting father now suspended. I am closer to my children than my parents were to me. That isn't a criticism of them. They both worked full-time, there were four children and times were just different. Funnily they are closer to their grandchildren than they were their own at the same age. The generational divide isn't there. We all seem to be more grown up somehow.

I worry about what life will be like when they flee the nest. There will be an emptiness but I know I will fill it because there is always so much to do. So much to do that sometimes I feel perhaps I neglect them a tad. But then they are always doing as well. We often tend to be doing alongside each other more than together. That's fine too.

It doesn't need a Children's Day to make me appreciate or agonise over them. That is a daily business. I really don't need to be told how to think and act. So all you do-good dipsticks, keep your sticky beaks in your own business and butt out of mine.

"Lefties too clever by half"

I couldn't resist posting this in its entirety. It comes from the Centre for Independent Studies newsletter;


Lefties too clever by half

This week’s news held an unpleasant surprise for the world’s conservatives and religious. Luckily for them, they were probably too dumb to understand it.

A long-time study by the London School of Economics (LSE) just revealed that being politically conservative or religious goes hand in hand with lower intelligence. The more respondents identified as left-wing or atheist, the higher their IQ. Conversely, conservative or religious convictions correlated with lower intelligence.

The differences were too large to be random. While young adults who thought of themselves as ‘very progressive’ scored 105 points on average, their ‘very conservative’ contemporaries only managed 95 points on the IQ scale. The gap between the atheists and the faithful was smaller, but the non-believers still beat the religious by 103 to 97.

Dr Satoshi Kanazawa, a psychologist at the LSE, has a simple explanation for these patterns. He believes that more intelligent people were better able to respond to new problems and thus willing to question traditional beliefs and values.

Unfortunately, he did not say whether this was, in fact, an intelligent strategy. True conservatives, at least the barely literate among them, could argue that it is not a sign of great cleverness to fiddle with time-tested institutions such as property rights or civility.

In the same way, we may well wonder about the wisdom behind another of Dr Kanazawa’s findings. In previous times, he said, we only cared for friends and families. But the more intelligent among us had left this ancient pattern behind to reach a higher evolutionary level. Lefties are now ‘caring about millions of total strangers and giving up money to make sure that those strangers will do well.’

This may well explain the left’s support of the welfare state and foreign aid. And yet, at least in historical terms, there is no example of a people becoming prosperous because strangers wanted them to be. Again, conservatives would intuitively understand this, although they may not be able to put this thought into a complete sentence.

The LSE findings may not cheer up conservatives, but they don’t need cheering up anyway. According to another study by the Aarhus School of Business in Denmark, personal happiness is far more widespread among conservatives than among lefties. And yet another study, this time by the University of Florida, revealed that conservatives also have higher incomes than the unhappy left-wing ‘intelligentsia.’

Considering all this evidence, perhaps being a leftie is not such a clever idea after all?

DPB - an investment?

Colin James looked at the recommendations of the expert panel on child abuse in his Press column this week and made this observation;

... Bennett -- a rarity in a National cabinet -- knows social assistance can be an investment. She got educated while on a domestic purposes benefit.

The problem is while Bennett used her time on the DPB wisely, most do not. Those who use it wisely, and temporarily, then make much of defending its very existence despite the evidence that long term dependence is bad for parents and children. Encouraging and allowing long term dependence is not an investment. Long term dependence is encouraged by admitting people into the system as young as 16 with no limit on how long they can stay there.

Personally I do not see why the taxpayer has to fork out for someone's living costs because they have a child and no partner and want to participate in tertiary training or education. Single mothers used to do things like put themselves through teacher's training college with the support and help of their families. Having a child young posed a difficulty but families managed.

However if someone is going to be on the DPB (and it isn't going away any time soon) it is better that they use that time wisely and come off it better equipped to provide. But that could happen within a regime of strict time limits.

What really annoys me is when women who have been on the DPB fight for its retention on a status quo basis because it helped them. They are not prepared to acknowledge and accept that it isn't helping a great deal of others who are still stuck there.

Why is Stephen Joyce using old data?

According to Stephen Joyce, on Wednesday, March 3, 2010;

Young drivers make up 14.5 percent of New Zealand's population and 16 percent of all licensed drivers, but in 2008 they were involved in around 37 percent of all serious injury crashes.

The latest annual road crash statistics to the end of January 2010 show that young drivers were involved in 32 percent of all injury crashes.

From the same release;

"Across the Tasman, for example, young Australians have a road fatality rate of 13 per 100,000 of population, while young New Zealanders have a fatality rate of 21 per 100,000 of population."

In NZ there were 47 15-24 year-old driver fatalities in the most recent year.

According to the HLFS estimated working age population at Dec 2009 there were 627,300 15-24 year-olds.

That means the fatality rate for young drivers was 13.3 per 100,000. The fatality rate for all 15-24 year-old drivers, passengers, pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists is 17.7 per 100,000.

If he is going to use annual statistics, why not the most recent? Because they are not as bad?

The Experts Forum on Child Abuse

A panel of experts gathered for two days and put this document together. It is only 10 pages and simply written. Marks for that. It begins;

History shows us that many projects and programmes have started with enthusiasm and promise. Many millions have been spent. And yet Forum participants do not believe the rate of child abuse/neglect is falling.

In the Forum’s view, resources are wasted in two ways:

3.1 ineffective programmes are allowed to continue and;
3.2 effective programmes are allowed to wither away.

Neglected and abused children are the taxpayers of the future. It is in the
interests of all of society that we find new ways to protect these children so
that they can grow up to fulfil their potential.

A comment on the last. I find it really offensive when children are reduced to the status of future taxpayers. Children's lives have inherent value to them. Their lives belong to them and not the state. In any case "neglected and abused children" are very often not future taxpayers. Their lives will never be productive. They will never contribute because they will be damaged. Our passive welfare system will exacerbate this outcome.

Next general principles are outlined including;

All programmes must be consistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and responsive to Maori.

Heaven forbid the Treaty doesn't get a look in.

Next they define the issue and observe;

Nor will it ever be possible to say, even with the best policy mix, that no more children will be abused or killed by their abusers. But the Forum believes we can do better.

Agree. Considerably better.

Barriers are identified which include statutory responsibility being confined to MSD, Justice and the Police. And the Privacy Act. Not enough information sharing. Likely families are often known to various agencies who are not talking to each other. (How often have we heard this before?)

Steps need to be taken to actively foster relationships and engender a culture of shared responsibility.

Surely the culture of shared responsibility is underlying the mess. It starts with the parent of the child who refuses to take individual responsibility for their child and fans out from there.

The forum believes lots of money will need to be spent but can be obtained from existing Votes. In particular workforce capacity needs to be lifted in size and ability.

So Recommendation 1;

Universal Well-Child Support

This was the Cindy Kiro's baby and the torch is still being carried. Apply greater scrutiny and intervention with all children.

Why? The vast majority of children are not abused.

Targeted home-based support

This will apply to an estimated 15 percent of families (which begs the question why use resources screening the other 85 percent?)

Recommendation 2

Files should always stay open. Where abuse has occurred the family should be monitored. Agree. At least in the short-term. But people do have a habit of growing up and that should be recognised.

Recommendation 3

They want a statutory statement about governmental responsibility. And responsibility written into education and health acts. Ironic because child welfare used to be the statutory responsibility of the Education Department. Again all this extra responsibility is really only more fingers in the pie. And we seem to ricochet between tightening it and then broadening it, to no appreciable effect.

Recommendation 4

A focus on families with mental health problems. This is very important. The volunteer group I work with are dealing increasingly with people who have (or claim to have) mental health 'issues'. Their children are particularly vulnerable.

In conclusion they ask for data-matching, evaluation and capacity building. It gets a bit jargonish towards the end.

Anyway, am I surprised that there is no mention of the bigger picture? The social policies and attitudes that have created an environment where children needs are secondary to the rights of their poor excuses for parents? No.

The team at the top of the league table may have changed but the players are still the same.

Welfare reform reduces child abuse

Media Release

WELFARE REFORM REDUCES CHILD ABUSE

Thursday, March 4, 2010

Debate has flared on the back of calls for sterilisation of the worst child abusers. When a problem is extreme, as is the incidence of child abuse in New Zealand, people sometimes understandably react with extreme ideas, welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell said today.

"However, there is now clear evidence from the US that a massive reduction in welfare dependence has coincided with a significant drop in child abuse. This is because children in two-parent working homes are the least likely to suffer neglect or abuse."

"Beginning in the 1970s, each decade the US Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has reported to Congress on the incidence of child abuse and neglect. Early this year their 4th report was published. It found a 32 percent decrease in the rate of abuse per 1,000 children since 1993."

"Here in New Zealand there is a clear overlap between clients of Work and Income and clients of CYF. In 1996 a study showed that children whose caregivers were beneficiaries were 4 times more likely to be subject to a CYF care and protection notification."

"Unfortunately some people - certainly not all people who find themselves on welfare - regard children as meal tickets. They are seen as both a way to increase income and avoid work. Such poorly motivated parents are the most likely to neglect or abuse their children. Abuse is also associated with very young mothers who are not emotionally equipped for the stress of parenting and also have multiple partners who may abuse them or their children. These potentially dangerous partners are additionally attracted by the steady benefit income."

"Until we start to acknowledge the role of welfare dependence in the incidence of child abuse we cannot begin to tackle the problem. The US faced up to the family dysfunctionality created by welfare, by introducing time limits and family caps. They removed the incentives that encouraged people to have children they were ill-prepared to care for. By requiring families to work wherever possible they restored structure, routine, motivation and purpose."

"There is good news here for New Zealand's social policy makers. We can lower the rate of child abuse by introducing common-sense welfare reforms. There is no need for extremism."

Update on Tom

Thank you to the well-wishers. Tom is making good progress and thoroughly enjoying all the tea and sympathy. He can never get enough attention this one. As long as he keeps the leg dry and no infection sets in he should be able to bring it home with him again after tomorrow's inspection under anaesthetic.

What role the driving age?

A commenter over on Whale Oil has provided updated statistics for the NSW road crash toll and pointed out that most recently, under 26 year-olds were involved in only 20 percent of fatal crashes. A significant improvement on the average of 36 percent in the five years to 2003, the stats I used yesterday.

The question remains in my mind however.

The dri­ving age was 17 dur­ing the 5 year period to 2003 and it has remained at 17 since. The post 2003 improved per­for­mance is not related to any rise in the dri­ving age. Yet NZ is push­ing the case that rais­ing our age will bring the type of improve­ment seen in NSW?

Here are the changes implemented in July 2007.

David Garrett makes headlines again

A post appeared over at Kiwiblog yesterday (latterly identified as written by Jadis) responding to Michael Laws' call for voluntary sterilization of parents who have perpetrated the worst abuse on children. David Garret contributed a couple of comments, The Standard slammed him for it in their typically misleading modus operandi and now it has made MSM.

No discussion is possible in this country about people's rights and ability to procreate and parent without someone inevitably turning it into a hysterical accusation of advocating eugenics.

Let's not forget what is driving this discussion. The horrid abuse and sometimes possibly merciful death of children who were never wanted, got in the way, provided a target for sadism or relentless cruelty for someone who hasn't emotionally developed because they were treated the same appalling way.

I am not defending Laws or Garrett. But I am defending the freedom of expression without misrepresentation.

For the record I also made a comment;

Most (but not all) of the worst abuse goes on in benefit dependent homes. Some people have babies for the wrong reasons, one being that they are meal tickets. If you doubt that, watch the family wrangles that go on in the court over custody when a beneficiary parent stands to lose their source of income. Having had children for the wrong reasons they do not make good parents. So another approach could be to make using a long-acting contraceptive a condition of receiving welfare. In order to keep getting an income from the state the mother cannot have any more children. Anyone using the DPB the way it was intended would be avoiding having more children anyway. No need to sterilise men or women. No coercion.

At the same time, for people not already parents, change expectations. No more open-ended, easy-to-get-on and easy-to-stay on welfare. Reforming welfare isn’t the whole answer. Like others I do not think there is a total solution. Child abuse, like other crime, will always be with us. But we shouldn’t be encouraging it by attaching substantial cash incentives to babies.

That's needs further clarification. In the worst cases the children would have been removed and the welfare would be the dole. But in general anyone on the DPB should, in any event, be using contraception.

Tough

Our oldest cat Tom, 10, went missing last Wednesday. We scoured the neighbour-
hood,talked to people, checked the SPCA, local noticeboards etc. All to no avail. We figured either he was hurt - or worse - and unable to get home or had had enough of the invasion of kittens and gone on the hunt for a more suitable home for a slightly grumpy middle-aged man. The kids were very upset.

Yesterday I was painting when I heard a bit of a clatter and thump. I opened my studio door - closed against kittens who scratch canvas (expensive lesson) and there was Tom, just through the catflap, hobbling and dragging a dreadfully damaged back leg. He was emaciated, dehydrated, dirty and bleeding. Foolishly I rushed to offer him food and water not thinking that the vet may have to administer anaesthetic. Fortunately he did not want either.

He was losing a fair bit of blood but it appeared to be from a wound just re-opened. He was, suffice to say, distressed but quite malleable as I laid him in his cage on a towel and left immediately for the vets. He cried a fair bit during the short journey but at least I knew he was still in the land of the living.

Tom stayed with the vet who rang me later to say his injury was consistent with being run over or possibly trapped somehow. Much of the tissue above and below his paw had to be removed but he was hopeful that the limb could be saved. There were no fractures. They wanted to keep him in because of his condition. He was being fed a drip with antibiotics etc. His weight was down one and a half kilos - roughly a third of his normal body weight.

I rang today to be told he may come home. His temperature and appetite are good but he will need to be kept inside, away from the rest of the menagerie and return regularly for dressings under anaesthetic.

Of course we will never know what happened to him between when he received his injury, which the vet said was 5 or 6 days old, and when he eventually found his way home yesterday. But his tenacity and survival instincts are very strong. And although you cannot put a financial value on a pet, when I pay the bill today he will become an even more valuable cat. Can't wait to get him home and spoil him rotten.

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.