Creative gravy train - an oxymoron

I am alerted to the following because I subscribe to a community and volunteer sector newsletter;

Changes to arts funding announced

Creative New Zealand will introduce two new and complementary multi-year funding programmes from January 2012 to provide clarity, stability and flexibility in the way it funds arts organisations and artists. The new funding programmes are:

* Arts Leadership Investment (Toi Tōtara Haemata) to provide support for between two and five years to well-run, financially sound organisations that fulfil a key role or roles in the creation, presentation and distribution of high-quality arts experiences to New Zealanders

* Arts Development Investment (Toi Uru Kahikatea) to complement the Arts Leadership Investment programme by offering greater flexibility in the range of activities it supports. Funding will be available for periods from six months to two years for arts organisations, groups and individuals. Applicants will not need to fulfil a key role (see above).

The changes follow a review, where the arts sector identified an ongoing need for skills development. Creative NZ will work to enhance existing capability building programmes to meet the needs of both emerging and established arts organisations. It will also look at ways to offer incentives for artists and arts organisations to collaborate on projects, such as the commissioning and presentation of new work or to provide support for young and emerging artists.

You may have noticed I have been blogging less frequently. This is because I am painting and sketching more frequently. Why? Because I need to contribute to our household income. A few weeks back I took my portfolio into a couple of framers with the proposition that I sketch on their premises (providing me with exposure) and any commissions I pick up, they do the framing. I have priced my sketches at a very accessible price. So far the exercise has been successful picking up 4 commissions, with three of them for multiple sketches and more in the pipeline. I also met a fascinating Maori man who has agreed to be a subject for some new paintings. It isn't hard work because I enjoy interacting with the public and I love creating with pastels. But it is honest work.

It pisses me off immensely that we have a 'creative' art gravy train in New Zealand. Firstly because you and I have to fund it. Secondly because it often turns out crap. Real talent will attract willing sponsors and patronage. Lack of talent relies on handouts. Thirdly is provides 'jobs' for bureaucrats and fourthly it removes audience and potential buyers from artists who are trying to go it off their own efforts. Bah. Back to work for me.

Update; Sam provides a useful link about NZ On Air funding which comes from the Culture and Heritage budget which was Helen Clark's own portfolio. Between 1999 and 2008 expenditure rose from $427 million to $1,107 million. And National seems to have accepted this level along with all the other Clark administration spend-ups.

On vouchers instead of benefit cash

Sean Plunket is now writing a column for the DomPost. His first provoked a comment from me which was published yesterday.

Not on-line, I was cutting out the letter for scanning when I noticed the photo under the headline it was given. I think I'll make an exception for her.

ACT voters least loyal

According to the latest Horizon poll of 3,673 voters ACT appears to be losing support to National;

National has 30% of decided voters (3% down on its 2008 share of all registered voters).



Labour has 22% (3% down on its 2008 share of all registered voters).



ACT has 2% (down from 2.7% in 2008) but only 40% of its 2008 voters remain loyal. Some 28% of ACT voters have switched to National while 19% say they don’t know who they would give their party vote to if a general election were held tomorrow.

Unfortunately the period over which the survey was conducted is not specified.

As rich as Australia - once

Statistics New Zealand has published updated material it provided to the Taskforce 2025 including many interesting tables comparing labour forces and migration rates among other things.

Ironically, as a response to the catching- up- to- Australia campaign, a fatalistic feeling is emerging amongst New Zealanders that this country can never be as rich as Australia. That view is in danger of becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy in that it contributes to driving away people who don't accept it. Ambitious people who keep hearing, "They've got the population; they've got the mineral wealth; they've got the markets..." will want to be in the 'they' team.

I don't accept it. NZ has been as wealthy as Australia and can be again. It just takes political will.

At last, my kind of candidate

I am not voting for a mayor and struggling to find names to tick for any of the other FIVE selection processes. God knows why there are so many. There are a couple of no nonsense experienced types who hold mild appeal but when I trawled through all the electoral bumf last night I was defeated by the inanity of the proclamations. So many people with 'vision' and 'passion'. We are fair drowning in a sea of these self-confessed attributes.

Then I got excited. This morning. At last a billboard that didn't make me baulk. A billboard that even made me smile and feel like there is a upside to the tiresome charade of democracy local body elections have become.



I can nominate a Hutt City candidate for the same ticket;


Now there's vision and passion in spades.

And as I stepped out with madam candidate this morning I reflected that her public speaking abilities really are second to none.

Any other nominations?

The future of David Garrett

David Garrett is now deciding whether to quit parliament completely or return as an independent MP.

"But it seems to me the people elected five Act MPs - not four and an independent..."

That's according to Rodney Hide.

There is talk that Sensible Sentencing contrived the placement of David Garrett at number 5 on the ACT list. That Rodney Hide had to swallow this because he needed the votes that SST would bring. One commentator put the number at 100,000. I do not know what the size of the Trust's membership is, and there is no guarantee that members would vote ACT simply because they belonged to the Trust.

However if it is correct that a sizeable share of ACT's 2008 party vote came from SST members (as the left would have us believe) then with their continued support David Garrett does have a mandate as an independent MP.

I mean the SST could spin their continued support as embracing redemption which adds credibility to their hard-line-on-only-the-worst-offenders claim.

There are around 2,350,000 voters so each MP is worth 19,500 votes. Are there 19,500 people who want to be represented by David Garrett?

I don't but I never made any secret of that. It just irks me to hear the PM telling Paul Henry this morning that New Zealanders have spoken and the polls say Garrett isn't wanted.

Neither was ACT by the vast majority of people. Isn't that the point of MMP? That small minorities get a voice?

(My apologies if this proposition has already been put elsewhere. I haven't seen it.)

Australians are having the debate our parliament denies us

Australians are debating voluntary euthanasia.

Fourteen years after the Northern Territory became the first place in the world to legalise euthanasia - only to be overridden nine months later by the Howard government - Greens leader Bob Brown pledged his first priority would be a bill to restore the territories' power to pass euthanasia laws.

A poll asking if that right should be restored is running roughly three quarters in agreement.

ACT Chief Minister Jon Stanhope said he believed euthanasia laws would be passed if introduced to the ACT Parliament, where Labor rules in alliance with the Greens.

''I think … it is quite likely with such a large Green cohort with the balance of power now that it would possibly pass,'' Mr Stanhope said.

''I don't support legislation to legalise euthanasia, but I'm in a minority within my party. There has always been very strong support for euthanasia in the ACT.''

Which leaves the question, what about the rest of Australia?

Senator Brown's bill comes as voluntary euthanasia legislation is set to be debated in both the South Australian and the West Australian parliaments.

Meanwhile we New Zealanders are being denied any vehicle to debate the issue despite it being of relevance to everybody.

On Garrett

Michael Laws has put the Garrett business into perspective perfectly, and prompted me to give it a shot.

Garrett did a very stupid, calculated and deliberate thing as a young man. He is rough-edged still, and a risk-taker. But above all he is now a victim. And in a world where victimhood is the bleat on too many people's lips I don't use the word lightly.

He is a victim of the media. Last week the NZ Herald actually asked for any reader who knew more about the passport incident OR ANYTHING ELSE ABOUT DAVID GARRETT to contact them. This kind of scrutiny is going to keep real people out of politics. I've made many a mistake over my life but am in a better headspace for them. A drink driving conviction I received in 1985 wouldn't have been much material to prosecute and persecute given there are current and ex-parliamentarians (and media) who have received much more recent convictions for the same. Put in context though drinking and driving has the potential to cause more physical harm than stealing a dead baby's identity.

Worse, Garrett is a victim of a culture of backstabbing in ACT which is utterly abhorrent. I never liked the law and order mantle ACT donned (and didn't put up any pertinent campaign signs in 2008). To me three strikes is authoritarian; prisons create career criminals out of young men and, regarding other legislation, too much power is being invested in the police. However these are matters to debate and Garrett and I did come to blows over them in the ensuing months. But to dislike someone's ideas and actions (or allegiances) to the point where you want to destroy them personally, is revolting.

And that is what ACT has come to. It's like watching a murder-suicide with Garrett playing a bit-part of sacrificial lamb.

The glaring anomaly when state steps in

The High Court case featuring caregivers providing care to their disabled adult children is currently being conducted in Auckland. The carers want to be paid for the care they provide because, they argue, if a stranger is required to provide it that stranger gets paid. The Crown lawyer, acting for the Ministry of Health, counteracts;

Coleman explained the Ministry's argument that a social contract existed where people look after their own, and pointed out the policy in question was about filling gaps in services for people with disabilities.

It was not about providing a wage for families - that was the business of the Ministry of Social Policy.

So sometimes the state is happy to ignore the "social contract", and at others, it suits to uphold it.

When it ignores the contract it undermines and weakens it. That has already occurred on a massive scale at an enormous social and economic cost.

The state should uphold the social contract. Having said that these parents are more deserving of assistance than those who treat a "wage for families" as a lifestyle option.

Rearranging deck chairs

There is a certain useful phrase about rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic (and I am not referring to the post on Big News about ACT). No. It was my instant response to reading that Iain Duncan Smith ( double-barrelled surnames are bad enough - unhyphenated ones are worse), Incomes and Pensions Minister in the UK, is still pursing a 'single' benefit. It is "doable" he insists.

To what end? NZ Labour spent years pursuing the idea. Why would it encourage people off welfare or discourage them from going on? As I heard a talkback caller astutely point out the other day on an unrelated matter, you can staple feathers on a Labrador but that doesn't make it a chicken.

And the classic political argument is employed to justify the estimated $7 billion pound cost of setting up this new creature. It will be paid for by the taxes that the long-term unemployed will produce when they get jobs.

Run a mile Chancellor.

Identity theft - identical crime

I wonder what Frank Macskasy was sentenced to?

Update: the answer is here.

"Lifestyle choice is going to come to an end"

Will we ever hear Treasurer Bill English saying this?

"People think it's a lifestyle choice just to stay on out-of-work benefits; that lifestyle choice is going to come to an end."

Of course just exactly how UK Chancellor George Osborne plans to bring it to an end is not at all clear. This won't cut it.

When Clinton vowed to "...end welfare as we know it" he carried through on the promise.

Still I suppose even publicly acknowledging the lifestyle choice is progress.

Musical mammeries

Apple announced today that it has developed a breast implant that can store and play music.

The iTit will cost from $499 to $699, depending on cup and speaker size.

This is considered a major social breakthrough, because

women are always complaining about men staring at their breasts and not listening to them.

Garrett revelation: why now?

The only aspect of the David Garrett assault conviction story that interests me is, why has it come out now? Are we in for another morbidly fascinating round of murky leaks, accusations and counter-accusations ACT-style? Will Whale Watch once again attract more visitors than Kaikoura? Or is this revelation merely the work of the tacky, tabloid media and Mr Garrett's fellow MPs can be expected to stand stoically behind him? Or he may prefer beside and in view.

Kiro calls for higher benefits for Maori

From Simon Collin's article it becomes apparent that what Cindy Kiro said last week was misreported by Catherine Delahunty. She isn't looking at what employment opportunities await young Maori but asking for more early investment and higher benefits.

Former Children's Commissioner Cindy Kiro has made an impassioned plea to invest more in Maori children - for the sake of New Zealand's economy.

She told a conference on welfare reform that Maori were "the canary in the coalmine", losing their jobs and being thrown on to welfare benefits before others when the economy was hit by recession.

It actually matters not whether the country is in recession. Throughout the 'good' times Maori continued to be heavily over represented on benefits.

Dr Kiro, now an associate professor at Massey University's School of Public Health, said these differences were driven by a wider increase in inequality in New Zealand since the late 1980s.

"Maori and Pacific families and individuals are among the most deprived and this is part of the macroeconomic environment that we need to address," she said.

A challenge for Dr Kiro. How does she explain the sharp difference between Maori welfare dependency and Pacific? At June 2010 of all those receiving a benefit 32.1 percent were Maori whereas only 8.3 percent were Pacific.

Professor Kiro said the ageing non-Maori population, combined with relatively high Maori and Pacific birth rates, meant the future NZ economy would depend on today's Maori and Pacific children.

"Quite apart from the moral imperative, we have an undeniable self-interest in making sure they grow up well-educated and well-adjusted. They must, to look after us oldies when it comes time.

"The scientific evidence about the importance of the early years in terms of good life outcomes, including productivity, is now overwhelming."

If Maori children were growing up in families on welfare, then welfare payments had to be high enough to support good lives in decent housing.

Defeated. Forget that children do better when their income comes from the market. Forget that they need a working parent to build expectations. Forget that they need in situ fathers to protect from going off the rails and being prey to gang recruitment.

Put welfare payments up and all we will have is more relatively poor parents and children on benefits. Especially Maori. Kiro has a very poor understanding of what really matters regardless of ethnicity. People need work and strong, constructive relationships, both of which are undermined by the DPB in particular.

In need of a ' home for life'

On first reading this is a heartbreaker but on second thoughts it might be the best thing that could have happened. Let's hope Paula Bennett can find these two a ' home for life'.

Maori and Pasifika children "future caregivers of an ageing population"

Green MP Catherine Delahunty made the following statement about an address by Cindy Kiro to the shadow Welfare Working Group last Thursday;

I loved Cindy Kiro’s challenge to our self interest by investing our best in Maori and Pasifika children as the future caregivers of an ageing population.

Now that is a most interesting statement. At a child poverty conference in Auckland last year I suggested to Cindy Kiro directly that there exists a great deal of care-giving capacity in the DPB population which our ageing population could harness thus providing many more paid jobs. She responded to me that she didn't want to see sole mothers "ghettoised" into rest home workers.

Perhaps she has been thinking a little more about where the employment opportunities lie for many Maori and Pacific females in particular. There is no shame in providing care for the aged (or the young for that matter) and being paid to do it well.

State subsidies benefit the wealthiest

David Craig, senior lecturer in Sociology at the University of Auckland, has has written an interesting piece about the state subsidising wages. Essentially he describes how the 1980s economic reforms left NZ a low wage economy which both National and then Labour addressed through wage and rent subsidies. Some of the policies he identifies are less obvious than others.

There can be no doubt that it is near impossible to live alone on the minimum wage. And that low wages drive people off shore. New Zealand needs higher wages. But when the state steps in with tax credit top-ups and accommodation subsidies the pressure on employers to lift wages or landlords to lower rents is reduced. Ironically it is largely the left that create these subsidy policies. They worry over rising inequality but inadvertently enable it to grow because their redistributive policies play back into the hands of those who own most of the wealth.

Tax credits have been proven to be the only way to get vast numbers of ex-beneficiaries in the US into work and earning enough to live on. In the short term I support them because having a parent in work will provide the best chance of breaking into the inter-generational state dependence cycle. But will their children also have to rely on top-ups as a permanent state of affairs?

I want to see a more egalitarian society. But I don't support the state being the instrument by which that is achieved. Neither however do I think the unfettered market will achieve it. I base that on human nature and the reality of greed.

I gather Craig supports the state as that instrument but is in a quandary as to how incomes can be lifted and inequality stemmed continuing on the current pathway. So where do statists go from here?

Brief look at the shadow WWG proposals

The shadow welfare working group met yesterday There are reports here and here. In Green MP Catherine Delahunty's words;

Longer term strategies such as a Universal Basic Income or at least some universal provision for children were well supported in order to simplify the system and remove the judgmental attitudes often attached to all benefits other than New Zealand Superannuation.

A UBI requires high tax rates in order that every adult New Zealander receives a basic income from the state. This replaces the current benefit system. I would never support it despite some libertarians having mooted the idea from time to time (of recent times, notably Charles Murray). Briefly, it would badly affect entrepreneurship and productivity and it continues the 'paying people to do nothing' syndrome.

It's a dangerous idea that could, however, easily gain widespread currency in a relatively poor country like NZ.

There was a realistic understanding about the costs of change at both the ideological and the practical levels. The visions of a compassionate and respectful agency which supported people to towards meaningful work were supported, alongside a call for immediate changes.

These included extending Working for Families to all families and restoring benefit rates to pre-1991 levels; restoring the discretionary Special Benefit for people who cannot meet their essential financial commitments; and creating some real jobs appropriate for the diversity of people who need them.

I couldn't agree that these proposals do reflect a "real understanding". Even Labour refused to extend the In Work tax credit to beneficiary families and were backed by the Human Rights Tribunal in that action.

There is nothing new being proposed by the shadow group. It's simply an organised front for advocating greater state involvement in the redistribution of wealth. Their goals are short-sighted and would be implemented to the detriment of all New Zealanders over the long term.

Lazy French

As a nationality the French are a puzzle. On one hand they can get off their backsides to protest en masse. But on the other, what are they squealing about? Not being able to sit on their backsides from age 60.

Oh, but really. They aren't lazy. They are magnanimous.

Francois Courton, 80, a retired manager from the Paris city roads department, said that he was there "for the younger people".

"If people don't retire at 60, where are the jobs for the young to come from?"

The same place they come from in all the other countries with higher retirement ages.


GERMANY
The statutory retirement age in Germany is 65. Recent reforms will increase the retirement age to 67 by 2029.

UK
With a slightly more favourable demographic development than the EU as a whole, the statutory retirement age is set at 65 for men and 60 for women.

Current reforms have slated a new retirement age for women from 60 to 65 by 2020 and 68 for both sexes by 2046.

SPAIN
Spain faces one of world’s most severe demographic challenges, with almost one in three Spaniards over 65 by 2049, according to government estimates.

The retirement age is currently 65 for both men and women. While early retirement is possible at 60, pension payments are substantially reduced in this case.

The ruling Socialist government has adopted legislation to raise the retirement age to 67, with the reform to be introduced gradually from 2013.

NETHERLANDS
The retirement age in the Netherlands is 65. The Dutch government has decided to raise it gradually to 67 by 2025.

ITALY
Italy’s current retirement age is 65 for men and 60 for women, but since the length of contribution also counts, actual exit ages can be considerably lower.

Legislation adopted in 2007 marks the minimum retirement age at 60 in 2011 and 61 in 2013.

According to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), public pension expenditure will increase to almost 25 percent of Italian GDP by 2050, about twice as high as the value projected for the EU.

GREECE
The retirement age is 65 for men and 62 for women, but under significant pressure from the Eurozone group, Greece’s Socialist government has introduced changes to its pensions system to curb massive debt.

The retirement age for women will rise to 65 to match that of men, but women and men will still be able to retire earlier provided they have worked at least 37 years.

SWEDEN
French lawmakers have cited Sweden’s 1994 pension legislation as a model for future changes to its own system. Under Sweden’s reforms, which split retirement plans between private and public schemes, the minimum pension age is set at 61 for both men and women, with no maximum retirement age.

ADHD associated with welfare benefits

A recently published Swedish study has found;

Coming from a family on welfare benefits increased the risk of ADHD medication by 135 per cent when compared with households not claiming benefits.

As usual there are inter-related factors - low maternal education, single parenthood and low income.

"Our study showed that almost half of the cases could be explained by the socioeconomic factors included in our analysis, clearly demonstrating that these are potent predictors of ADHD-medication in Swedish schoolchildren" says Professor Hjern.

"There are several ways that family factors may influence ADHD. For example, low parental education is associated with general social disadvantage, a higher number of stress factors and a greater risk of childhood adversity.


A NZ Herald report from 2003 adds another dimension to this link:

Parents of children prescribed methylphenidate for ADHD were selling it to supplement their benefit, while there was anecdotal evidence children had been selling it at school, Dr Morgan said.

The National Addiction Centre director and psychiatrist, Associate Professor Doug Sellman, said the more methylphenidate was used for ADHD, the more families would trade it.

"The temptation to sell Johnny's medication is stronger in poorer families, and ADHD tends to be found more in lower socioeconomic families," he said.

So I guess there may be a question about whether the condition and diagnosis is more prevalent amongst beneficiary adults and children, or the desire for the medication. Probably a combination of both.

Sole parents: blighted by poverty and mental illness

The following graphs paint a clear picture of the deprivation associated with sole parenthood.

But first, the extent of sole parenthood, which grew from 10 percent of all families with dependent children in 1975 to 28 percent in 2006:



The second describes the extent of poverty amongst sole parents:



And the third describes the extent of mental illness amongst sole parents:



The natural reaction to this is concern. Especially as these circumstances affect not just the parent but the child living with the parent.

The response of the left is to call for more money to be diverted from two parent families into one parent families. This ignores the likelihood that in doing so more sole parent families will be created. In any event a well-known Swedish study into a huge cohort of relatively advantaged (in comparison to other countries) sole parents in that country showed that their children still suffered higher rates of mental illness, suicidal ideation, drug addiction etc which suggests the parents were similarly afflicted.

Of course there is something of the 'chicken and egg' scenario occurring. Does a mental disorder predispose to sole parenthood or does sole parenthood make mental illness more likely? I believe it is at least safe to say that an existing mental disorder will generally be exacerbated by becoming a sole parent.

So are we between a rock and a hard place with sole parents? Is the only way to reverse the trend a withdrawal of the subsidy? And isn't that unthinkable?

No.Yes.No.

But the subsidy shouldn't be removed over night or in totality. In practice that means time-limits and exemptions. It certainly must not be increased. And as well as mental illness requiring more medical intervention, there are other safeguards - having work and a partner.

An over-simplified analysis? Quite probably. But sometimes we just get bogged down in detail and paralysed by the parameters and politics of the problem.

Cows don't know they are crims

Here's an uplifting story to permeate the sense of gloom the earthquake and bad weather has cast. It concerns a Corrections-run a prison farm near Milton in the South Island;

This farm is run by the Corrections Inmate Employment (CIE) scheme,and in three years is footing it with any well-run dairy farm, evident from its two milk-quality awards from Fonterra last season.

CIE southern farms manager Allan Gorton said the awards for high milk quality (a low somatic cell count) were tributes to the farm instructors and prisoners...

The farm is run as a commercial venture and also as a training facility for prisoners before release.

In conjunction with daily farm work, inmates are offered training through the Agriculture Industry Training Organisation.

Last season 75 prisoners gained 283 unit standards in a variety of courses. For some these were their first qualifications.

The credits were earned for courses as diverse as animal health, animal handling, chainsaw safety, Grow Safe and tractor and all-terrain vehicle driving.

Mr Gorton said he knew of seven men who were now working on dairy farms as a result of training at the Milton property. Others had jobs in related farm industries...

"For some, it is the first time they have passed something in their life. To them it's very meaningful. It lifts their self-esteem."

For many, it was the first time they had worked with large animals, which could be intimidating as well as rewarding.

"The thing about animals is that they don't argue, condemn or criticise," Mr Gorton said.

I am never able to fall into one or other camp when it comes to crime and punishment. Prisons are essentially places that make most who go there more likely to re-offend. Yet sending them there is often unavoidable.

So why don't we do more of this sort of stuff? I can see a strong libertarian argument that objects to using taxpayer money to create competition with other tax-paying farms. But if the primary role of the state is to maintain law and order doesn't rehabilitation take a higher priority?

I am reminded of a recent conversation I had with a man who did a spray painting apprenticeship in prison. By sheer chance he got the opportunity to demonstrate his proficiency with a potential employee. He told me how he had stepped into the booth, done all the right things bar neglecting to don the mask of the usual worker. He was stopped and asked if he had heard of OSH? To which he replied, "Listen. I've just come out of jail. I've got me a clean bill of health. No hep. No HIV." Of which he was evidently very proud. "You think I'm putting that germ-riddled thing on, your mad." Suffice to say, he got the job.

Child Support - facts and figures

As Child Support is topical here are some facts and figures produced through an OIA request last year;

* In 2008 IRD collected $363 million in child support

* Of that sum $136 million went into the consolidated fund to offset the $1,530 million DPB bill

* At March 31, 2009 there were 130,762 liable parents

* Of these parents 59,536 (46 percent) paid the minimum amount of $66.60 per month

* A typical monthly payment to a sole parent with two dependent children living in Auckland receiving the DPB, accommodation supplement and other allowances could be $2,513

* Under that example, a liable parent paying the minimum for two children would be contributing 5.3 percent of the custodial parent's benefit payment

* At 31 March 2009 there were 201,900 children subject to child support. That has risen to 210,000 in 2010 - approximately one in five under 18s.

* 45 percent of liable parents had incomes of under $20,000; 3 percent had incomes in excess of $100,000

* 27 percent of liable parents and 54 percent of custodial parents received benefit income during the month of April 2009

* 18 percent of liable parents are female (some parents share custody of children and both incur liabilities)

* At March 31, 2009 7,135 or 1 in 20 liable parents lived overseas

* In NZ child support is payable up to 19 (unless he or she becomes 'financially independent'); in the UK child support is payable up to 16 (unless the child remains in non-advanced education)

Maharey was wrong

Way back in 2001 I started challenging the Minister of Social Development about the time people were spending on the DPB. Steve Maharey commonly cited 3 and a half years which was accepted on his authority and became the standard line for DPB proponents.



But I said it was more like double that because people had repeated stays and he was only counting each individual stay. A fair bit of correspondence passed between us. In 2003 I took my calculations before the select committee which was debating removing work tests on the DPB. That generated the following news report;

April 4, Page 2, Dominion
Public misled on DPB - campaigner

By David McLoughlin

The length of time the average sole parent spends on the domestic purposes benefit could be almost double the official 3.7 years.

This is because thousands of sole parents go off, and then back on to, the DPB, but each period drawing the benefit is counted separately rather than cumulatively.

Wellington woman Lindsay Mitchell, who is campaigning for a select committee review of the benefit, calculates from official data that shows how many times sole parents have drawn the DPB that the average real time spent on it is 6.5 years.

Mrs Mitchell, of Eastbourne, obtained Social Development Ministry data on how many people currently drawing the DPB had been on it previously. She found that 25,058 of the current 101,000 paid the sole parent DPB had drawn on it once before, 11,493 had drawn it twice, 5043 three times and 3663 for or more times previously.

With the help of her husband David, who formerly worked for Statistics New Zealand, she calculated the 6.5 years average from the number of times each sole parent has drawn the DPB.

She was critical yesterday of politicians, including Social Services Minister Steve Maharey, as well as the news media, for continuing to repeat the 3.7 years when it was "misleading".

Yesterday I was reading a new report

Sole parenting in New Zealand: An update on key trends and what helps reduce disadvantage

snuck onto the MSD website with no corresponding media release. Here is what it says;

... when the benefit histories of all New Zealand sole parents receiving benefits at June 2008 are examined, half appear to have become parents before age 23, and the median share of time spent on benefits in the previous 10 years (or a shorter period in the case of younger groups) is 83 percent (mean: 72 percent).

The mean time spent on the DPB in the last ten years is 72 percent or 7.2 years. By my crude method I calculated a minimum figure of 65 percent (or 6 and a half years) over a similar period, assuming the data MSD gave me in 2002 extended back to 1993, the limitation of their benefit history at that time.

I suppose an apology from Mr Maharey, now Vice Chancellor of Massey University where he is probably continuing to infect young minds with socialist propaganda, would be too much to expect.

Pork barrelling in local government elections

Lower Hutt Mayor David Ogden is offering free swims for seniors. My letter to the Hutt News;

Is David Ogden morphing into Winston Peters? His campaign promise of 'free' swimming for seniors sounds very nice but must be recognised for what it is. A vote-buyer. And politicians can only ever buy votes with somebody else's money. It's called pork-barrelling. Rife in central government, it is a shame to see it appear so unabashed in local government.

Mayor Ogden cloaks his vote-buying with the well-meaning intention of encouraging "healthier and more active lifestyles." Is that where we want local government to go? Using ratepayer's money to nanny them?

He says it is time to "invest in the people" . It is the individual's prerogative to decide for themselves what they want to invest their money in. There are probably far more elderly folk worrying about paying their rates than fretting over paying $4-50 for a swim in the local pool.

The worst of it is, his only opponent agrees. In fact Ray Wallace will no doubt soon be upping the ante. Those who want lower rates and a focus on core services are faced with choosing between the lesser of two evils.

The "science" Sellman asked for

Well done NZ Conservative. They have just linked to a US study that finds non-drinkers have the highest mortality rate.

The sample of those who were studied included individuals between ages 55 and 65 who had had any kind of outpatient care in the previous three years. The 1,824 participants were followed for 20 years. One drawback of the sample: a disproportionate number, 63%, were men. Just over 69% of the never-drinkers died during the 20 years, 60% of the heavy drinkers died and only 41% of moderate drinkers died.

But Professor Doug Sellman says;

“I’m not happy using words like responsible, moderate and safe. They are the words that the [liquor] industry likes to use.”

“The public needs to know what low-risk drinking is. The government should be telling us all, using the best science possible.”

Oh dear. It looks like "low-risk" drinking is no drinking.

Susan St John - Child Poverty charlatan

Billed at the left-wing WelfareWatch under the heading "Facts and Figures" I have just come across this June 16 letter to the NZ Herald from Susan St John, associate economics professor, Auckland University;

Dear Editor

Lindsay Mitchell (NZ Herald letters, 15th June) claims that Ministry of Social Development data shows that at last a third of current DPB recipients began on welfare as teenagers. She then goes on to suggest, with no supporting data, that the actual percentage may possibly be twice that. This is designed to make us believe that New Zealand has an enormous problem of sole parents starting young and being on the benefit for years. This Bogey may justify all kinds of draconian knee jerk responses.

In fact MSD says that, of the 34,000 DPB recipients aged 29 and under who had any time on a benefit as a teenager, only 17% (5,780 people) received the DPB, and the others may have had a minimal stint on unemployment or sickness benefit long before they had children. Thus only 6% of current DPBs started as teenagers. It is a gross exaggeration to describe this as a huge dependency problem.

The data clearly shows that sole parents largely move off the benefit when suitable jobs are available and when the needs of their children allow them to. The hand-ringing over sole parents should be replaced with community respect for the difficult lonely and yet vital work they do in caring for their children.

Susan St John
Exec CPAG

The following is from an OIA request in 2005 and shows that 32.7 percent of single parents currently on a benefit first received welfare under 20.




At this time the Ministry could only provide data relating to people aged 32 or younger, so 32.7 percent is a minimum figure.

I have always been up front about most of them starting on the unemployment benefit and what that implies. Here is a media release I issued earlier this year using more recent data (note the Ministry had changed tack and is only supplying data relating to people aged 29 and under);

Media release

FROM DOLE TO DPB

Thursday, February 18, 2010

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

Welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell said today, "Data released under the Official Information Act shows that 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."

"This indicates that 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 detrimental to both parents and children."

"Over half of these young parents are Maori. Many will have 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 the Prime Minister, 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."

But what did St John write?

In fact MSD says that, of the 34,000 DPB recipients aged 29 and under who had any time on a benefit as a teenager, only 17% (5,780 people) received the DPB, and the others may have had a minimal stint on unemployment or sickness benefit long before they had children. Thus only 6% of current DPBs started as teenagers. It is a gross exaggeration to describe this as a huge dependency problem.

What MSD says is this;

"Less than 17 percent of the 34,004 people first received a Domestic-Purposes-related Benefit."

By omitting the word "first" she has completely changed what MSD say. She doesn't know whether individuals moved from a different benefit onto the DPB while still teenagers.

Next she extrapolates an misinterpreted percentage across all current recipients despite MSD only providing information for those aged 29 or younger (the age will increase as their data expands if they don't lose it all again). St John does not know about those 30 and older who make up 64 percent of the total.

But wait, it gets worse.




This table clearly shows that at the end of December 2009 52 percent of the DPB recipients aged 29 and under, had first received the DPB as a teenager. Some of the number will still be teenagers but remember what St John said in her letter;

"Thus only 6% of current DPBs started as teenagers."


Unbelievable.

If you don't want to rely on my information try the latest MSD research;

The research considered all sole parents in receipt of a main benefit at 31 December 2005 – around 114,000 people. Of this group:

• just over half had spent at least 80% of the history period supported by main benefits
• a third appeared to have become parents in their teens.

Again this is an estimate because it is...

Derived by comparing the birthdate of the sole parent with the birthdates of all the children included with them in periods when they received benefit as a sole parent over the previous 10 years. In the case of older sole parents, this will not be as good as an indicator of early parenting because some first-born children may have already turned 18, or may have left the care of the parent, before the beginning of the 10-year window.


Most recently MSD told Simon Collins of the NZ Herald;

"We expect that the proportion of DPB clients who first received any benefit as a teenager is somewhat higher than a third, particularly as receipt of a benefit is such a common experience in people's teenage years."

Again contrast this with St John's statement

"Thus only 6% of current DPBs started as teenagers."

Based on all of the available information I believe that at least half of all sole parents currently on a benefit started on welfare as teenagers. It wouldn't surpise me if the fraction is higher but in the absence of data and the Ministry's seeming reluctance to conduct a sampling survey we will never know.

St John is chairing a privately organised Child Poverty conference in October. I was invited to participate but declined. This is because I have come to understand that the pro-welfare lobby will tell lies and discredit those with whom they disagree because they believe the ends justify the means and it is an article of faith for them that government redistribution of wealth is the only solution to child poverty.

Celia Lashlie on solution to crime

Celia Lashlie has written another book which I will be reading. My responses to her thoughts are always mixed but she makes me think. In the latest she apparently pushes the idea that the way to end crime is to work with the mothers who raise criminals. This isn't a new idea from her.

However;

She is critical of the Government's new push for the faster permanent placement of children, which will leave in its wake, for some, a burning anger and resentment and a pathway to prison.

But for others it might be what saves them. Transient fostercare is a sure-fire pathway.

Nearly all of the women prisoners, 80 to 90 per cent of them, have been sexually, physically and psychologically abused throughout their lives, and often we - as in society and our state agencies - continue to abuse them when they get out, she says.

"I think that's the flash of anger I have," Lashlie says.

The media help in abusing them and no one claims any responsibility, she says.

"We run this idea that they've had terrible lives and it was someone else's fault, and I've become increasingly angry because it wasn't someone else's fault.

"Sometimes it's our bloody state agencies that have done it and how about we stop being quite so sanctimonious."

Lashlie is very angry with the way the state and society handle dysfunctional mothers and their children but I can't see how much more liberal society can get. Relative to earlier times, nobody is stigmatised. Nobody is punished. Nobody is left penniless. There are many organisations trying to work alongside families with criminal issues. The Salvation Army, various church and community groups, prisoner rehab groups, Jigsaw, Barnardos, Birthright, Supergrans, etc. The law has recently been changed to allow greater presence of newborns in prisons.

I've worked with a few people who fit the bill and I know that they get chances. Often many. Some make the most of those opportunities and others waste them.

In the book, Lashlie writes that we can focus on the building of more prisons and sit in our comfortable chairs with a glass of wine lamenting the lack of parenting skills among the lower classes.

What we really need to do, she says, is work with the mothers.

But I can agree that more people need to step up and offer whatever they can in terms of their time and their own capabilities. The people Lashlie is talking about aren't scary. They aren't a threat to you and me. In fact they are as various as any other people in society. Sometimes highly likeable and sometimes not. Depends whether you hit it off. But a good match can make a difference. And when it does, it's extremely rewarding.

Matt McCarten's diatribe is drivel

In his opinion piece today Matt McCarten slams the "cult of individualism" and blames it for ACT's meltdown.

Matt McCarten does not understand what individualism is. But then neither do some in ACT. And, coincidentally, a commentor on this blog earlier in the week.

Individualism puts individual rights and personal responsibility over collective rights and collective responsibility.

Let's use an example to explain the difference.

Raising a child. Individualism would put the responsibility for this with the parents. Collectivism puts it with the largest group - society.

Obviously there will be shades between the two positions and a mix of both philosophies co-existing but a true classical liberal party would endeavour to pull the balance in the individual direction.

Individualists believe that groupings should be voluntary, not enforced by the state. They reject the use of force as much as it is practically possible. They especially reject the use of state force to penalise some collectives and reward others at its whim.

Individualists abhor the idea of class and tribal hierarchy. Individualists will make sacrifices for others but are repulsed by the idea that the collective dictates who those others should be.

Individualists believe in the right to live their own lives with a minimum of rules and regulations which should be replaced by tolerance, non-interference with others and mutual respect for that right.

Individualists believe that self-interest, when practised peacefully and co-operatively produces the maximum amount of mutual gain. Trade is good. Entrepreneurship is good. Profit is good. Greed is not.

Get it now Matt?

Individualism can't be blamed for the impending downfall of ACT (just as collectivism couldn't be blamed for the downfall of the Alliance Party). A party that doesn't even have stated values or philosophy can hardly be the victim of them.

Winston Smith on bleeding hearts

He does it again. Adeptly exposes the shonky kind of thinking that proliferates among social workers and various other do-gooders (in my own experience);

One of the issues that I have had intense debate with other colleagues over is the issue of an open office door policy where a teenage resident can just walk in to the staff office uninvited to seek support, guidance or more often than not complain or make an unreasonable demand or hurl abuse at you if the mood takes them. The other day one of my colleagues, Nicola, decided to rebuke me for the fact that the office door was closed upon her arrival as this was injurious to her working philosophy of the bleeding heart. She also complained because I demand that the young people knock and wait to be invited in to the office. A diplomatic yet heated debate ensued.

"Winston, why do you close the office door and ask the young people to knock? We have an open door policy here so that the young people can feel they can talk to us about anything at anytime and we don't believe in barriers here."

"Well Nicola, I've talked to Jim, the manager and he said its up to the discretion of the staff and when Im lone working it will be closed. The reason that I am opposed to an open door policy is that it doesn't actually help the young person in that in the real world you have to queue for assistance in banks, shops, benefit offices, job interviews and so on. It also teaches the young person to practice patience which is a virtue in itself and it also teaches them that they are not the centre of the universe, just a part of it. Above all though, it fosters respect in the young person for other people who are taking time and effort to assist them. So, what you on the surface describe as me putting up a barrier is in fact imbued with values that I believe help develop functional young adults with respect, not deference, for their fellow citizens."

"Well, I think its authoritarian and this project is their home and they should be able to go in to whatever room they like and at the end of the day you are here to assist them not hide away in the office."

"Authoritarian? Are you equating my belief that people should knock on a door and wait to be invited in with the Third Reich or Franco's Spain? Perhaps you are right and trying to cultivate good manners is the thin end of a wedge that could lead to a modern day Auschwitz or Guernika. Sarcasm aside, I have spoken to all of our residents and informed them that when I am on shift that they can come and see me at anytime with any problem or with relation to any advice they need related to benefits or education. As they are used to being able to just walk in I have explained why I close the door, but that I am still available should they need me. Only two or three out of the fifteen of them seem to have a problem with this. The rest are fine with it. It seems to be you Nicola that are most opposed to my working practice and not the residents. We will just have to agree to disagree on this."

I saw no further point in talking to Nicola on this topic as I think her mind was well and truly made up. So, just what have been the fruits of the open door policy as practised by Nicola who also espouses a working philosophy of anti-authoritarianism, non-judgmentalism and an opossition to so called barriers? Well, upon coming to work one morning lately there was nowhere to sit for me as the office was full of teenage girls dressed in skimpy and revealing nightwear. Nicola saw nothing wrong with this until I objected and asked the girls to leave. When she is working the office is full of residents and ex residents and other waifs and strays from the neighbourhood, many of them stoned out of their mind and stinking of skunk weed. She allows them to take office materials such as pens, paper, sellotape, envelopes and to use the phone for personal calls. Instead of supporting our young people to do things for themselves, like fill in benefit forms or make their own enquiries to benefit or employment agencies, she will do it for them thus robbing them of the opportunity to learn to become independent. She never makes them wait for anything, including her time, and constantly reinforces in them what their benefit and state entitlements are. She rarely says no and has helped foster a belligerent, demanding, state dependent, instant gratification mindset in several current residents and many more of our ex-residents who still turn up looking for her 'help'. The likes of Nicola are very common across the state dependency sector. With so called support like this is it any wonder that so many youngsters leave supported housing even more entrenched in the value system of an excessive welfare state? The ironic thing is that we exist to help break this cycle and whilst we do have some success, in the majority of instances we are just making matters worse and perpetuating the existence of an underclass.

Stalemate

Questions I have asked myself

How long will it be before this appears somewhere under the headline 'Global warming'?












Did Heather Roy intend to prove just how much better she looks in a pin-striped suit than Rodney?









Would you vote for a man who is so serious about cutting rates he is prepared to do the job of mayor for nothing?

The ACT saga continues

Heather Roy will apparently appear on Close Up tonight, after turning up unexpectedly at Parliament today claiming business as usual, albeit as an MP rather than a Minister. This is getting worse for ACT. As someone who cared enough to stand as a candidate twice - a bigger commitment than being a member, and much bigger commitment than being a voter - if I am getting increasingly turned off then it's a safe bet many more are. To be fair I was pretty turned off anyway but if the antagonistic factions continue to co-exist I have sod all interest in the party left.

Bored with hysteria

The two following passages are just pulled off the net randomly to illustrate a common train of current thinking;

Stress and addiction - Drug Addiction

Many of us suffer from or will experience stress at some point in our lives. Stress appears to be a condition of modern life and even more so for those of us who are ‘asset rich but time poor’.

But too much stress can lead to addiction.

The pace of life has speeded up over the last decade or so and we find ourselves continually trying to keep up! Juggling the demands of work with family and friends can be difficult and this pressure often leads to stress.

"The fast pace that we live our lives is causing more problems then it is solving. Quality time has diminished while road rage, automobile accidents, and health problems are all on the rise due to our fast-paced lifestyles.


The fast pace of our lives leaves little time for quality time over dinner. When I was growing up we would sit down and spend an hour taking about the day’s events and connecting with each other. With the speed of life as it is my dinners with my family are rushed to an average of 15 minutes, then it is on to the next thing each of us has to do that evening."

The next extract is from an article titled "The Mental Hospitals" and refers to the increasing admission rate.




It was from the Evening Post, September 6, 1910.

I am so bored with hysteria I cannot be fagged blogging about the changes to alcohol laws and what is driving them. Suffice to say the government takes our money to control us in ways that are unnecessary, ineffective, and unwanted.

Paula Bennett - big tick

I have talked before about MSD's habit of quietly posting stuff on its website late Friday. One such document appeared 2 days ago. The forward alone, by the Minister, Paula Bennett, is written in a different style from that to which we have become uncomfortably accustomed. I have not read the full document yet but there are shades of ex-Governor General Dame Silvia Cartwright's farewell speech in which she referred to NZ's "dark secret" ;

Minister’s Foreword: Why you should care

New Zealand is a land of opportunity and for most, a great place to bring up kids. But there is a dark side to this remarkable country which resides within too many homes.

Thousands of children are growing up unsafe and unprotected in chaotic homes. Many are abused and neglected by the very people who should love and protect them. This is New Zealand’s ugly secret.

In the last year Child, Youth and Family received over 125,000 reports from people concerned enough about a child’s safety to notify authorities. In over 21,000 of these cases, child abuse or neglect was confirmed. So that’s over 340 notifications and 57 confirmed serious abuse and neglect cases every day. That’s 2,400 reports of child abuse and neglect every week in New Zealand.

There is no excuse for beating, abusing and neglecting our children. No child’s life should begin this way. And when it does, the harm is substantial and long lasting. The social and economic costs of abuse and neglect are beyond comprehension. A baby shaken in anger and out of ignorance may be left with permanent brain damage, or even die as a result. Children beaten and sexually abused grow up carrying the burden of that abuse. Many driven by anger, low self esteem and distrustful of others, follow a path to crime and violence and many repeat their experience on the next generation.

The neglected child is a silent timebomb. Left alone, unwashed and unloved this child may not be physically bruised or injured but will be deeply affected and is unlikely to grow into a healthy, loving individual who is a productive member of the community unless we step in to help.

What we are discussing here is ugly, it is shameful and it is unpalatable. But it is New Zealand’s reality and one we must all address. Not just the Government, not just Police and Child, Youth and Family, but community, families, individuals, neighbours, teachers, friends, uncles, aunties. We must face this together. We must do everything we can to protect our children from abuse and neglect. This is a challenge for all New Zealanders. It is a challenge for Māori. Māori children
are over-represented in abuse and neglect statistics. Māori clients make up more than half of all findings of abuse. In New Zealand, there can be no excuse for beating and neglecting children.

I invite you to read this document. It shows that Child, Youth and Family is more responsive now than any time in the past two decades and able to respond to increasing notifications and reach out to more at-risk families. It outlines important changes to further improve the way we protect children which are in the pipeline as well as some recent initiatives. It’s clear there is a lot of work being done and more to do because protecting children and keeping them safe will always be a Government priority. Which is why we need to think about the following things:

No matter how efficient and how innovative Child, Youth and Family continues to be,
resources are limited. The organisation and its dedicated, hard working staff are coping well with current demand but in truth that only takes care of the critical cases.

We all know early intervention is the best way to make a difference, but Child, Youth and Family is in the position of having to throw the bulk of its resources into dealing with critical cases when the aim is to be more involved with families before things get really bad.

Surely, the answer ultimately lies in a change in our country’s culture; a change which leads to zero-tolerance for child abuse and neglect. Otherwise, we will continue to lead the world in beating, neglecting and abusing our children.
And we know those children who are abused and neglected are the same adults we
see years later filling New Zealand courts and prisons. Many of those who live ruined lives will ruin the lives of others - the victims of their crimes and also their own children. That is the price for tolerating child abuse. We must work together to protect our children.

Just scanning through the rest of the document, a detailed description of the work CYF is doing, it is similarly-written and shouts transparency. What a change.

And this is what Paula was trying to talk about on The Nation yesterday but the pathetic panel kept steering the conversation back to the Welfare Working Group, the 'manufactured crisis' and the awful spectre of insurance. Then they had the audacity to say she didn't have the intellect to pull it off.

What she can do is get into this child abuse area like no other player can. And I think she can make a difference.

But I return always to my main objection. All of the early intervention, which is clearly being stepped up, cannot combat paying people to lead dysfunctional lives and putting a monetary value on the children they have. Welfare reform is critical alongside the intervention.

My take on ACT - for what it's worth

I have stayed quiet about ACT. Maintaining a distance partly because I know as little about the last few months as most. But I cannot pretend that I have felt indifferent. And I write now if only to get the stuff out of my head that prevents me properly concentrating on other matters.

I have never known Rodney as a bully. And I was relieved to hear Deborah Coddington say the same on NewstalkZB last night. On the other hand I did experience Stephen Franks as a bully over a matter where I chose to put personal loyalty above political expediency and was severely chastised for it. I like Stephen but was very uneasy about his appearance as Heather's 'support person'. It was Stephen who ensured that Heather was placed at number 2 on the list in 2005 to act as some sort of moderating influence or counter to Rodney at number 1. Stephen had lost the mad primary-style leadership election to Rodney and I believe the current problems go back that far - at least. Richard Prebble should carry the can for that piece of insanity.

Rodney would have tried to avoid personal conflict coming to a head because I don't think he handles relationships very well. I still see him as a lone player but a very effective one. His intellect and charisma are substantial. Heather's are not.

As an ACT member and candidate I was overtly loyal to Rodney. I was transparent about voting for him to lead the party and would do the same over again. Realising how deep the division went through 2005-2008, with Heather seeing herself as the only one of the two ACT MPs maintaining party "respectability", my being offered 14 on the list by Heather's clique makes more sense. Thank God it happened or I might have been embroiled in this current crisis.

Because once you are an MP you can never be your own person again. I have come to the view that is it impossible to maintain integrity and avoid being compromised. That is the nature of the beast when you work with people whose motives or priorities may differ from your own. In life there are good people and there are bad people, and we are nearly all one or the other at some point. Thankfully the conflict and dramas remain private. In politics they unfold in public.

Heather probably believes she was well-intentioned; working selflessly for the good of the party (leaving aside any ill-judgement shown in allowing another or others too much influence on her defence associate ministership). But she overestimated her following. Went to that classic place politicians go to when they listen only to people fawning all over them most probably.

Rodney now has to put the facts on the table. Mapp should assist him. Let the court of public opinion do its work with as much objectivity as can be mustered. That's the best hope he has of salvaging his party and reputation. And I don't think salvaging is too strong a word.

What's wrong with National's DPB work-testing policy?

What's wrong with National's DPB work-testing policy which passed into law last night?

The explicit goal of the Future Focus Bill was to " ...break the cycle of welfare dependency".

On that count it will fail because;

1/ There is nothing to prevent existing beneficiaries adding children to their benefit to avoid work-testing

2/ Six or more years out of the workforce is too long. The longer people stay on a benefit the less likely they are to leave it

3/ There is no disincentive created for teenagers who will view some point 6 or more years into the future as remote

It also falls short in other respects

4/ Many OECD countries faced with the same problem now work-test when children are younger than 6

5/ It implies approval for taxpayers to support sole parents, regardless of their reason for being a sole parent, for long periods of time

6/ Resources will now focus on the most employable who are arguably less in need of them

7/ National can claim to be "doing something". A little akin to fiddling while Rome burns.

Dunne divvies up the dough

MacDoctor asks the question this morning, when will it be enough? He was referring specifically to benefit levels. I'd ask the same about Working For Families;

Transfers via tax credits to families with dependent children have become larger in value and more widespread in recent years. In 1998, an earlier form of payments, also mainly delivered via the tax system and which targeted the same groups as WFF does, went to 280,000 families, with an average annual receipt of $3,500. In 2008, WFF was received by more than 384,000 families at an average annual amount of $6,500. Over the intervening decade, the number of recipient families grew by 37% and their average receipt by 84%. Currently, a working family with three children, all aged under 13 years, would still receive some amount of WFF tax credits provided their annual income is below $106,000.

And in 2009 the annual bill rose again to $2.7 billion.

And now couples with children want income-splitting as well?

It is no wonder we get socialist government after socialist government.

I thought the drive from National was for a simpler tax system yet churning ...churns on. Simple = don't take it off them in the first place. Then we could start replacing dead-weight bureaucrats with productive workers.

But no. We have companies crashing while politicians continue to debate how best to confiscate and divvy up the dough to keep themselves in their positions of power, prestige and privilege.

Beyond silly

Apparently a sole parent is starving on $517 a week. It's that wicked benefit system again.

Hold on. That's equivalent to $13.79 an hour after tax working 37.5 hours a week. Would a worker who chooses to spend 57 percent of their income on rent and then struggles to make ends meet, make newspaper headlines?

It isn't the benefit level that is the problem. It is living beyond means. Get a flatmate.

On a benefit and working

The following is an assortment of statistics. I'll stop short of calling them facts. You will see why.

* According to the latest Household Incomes in New Zealand report the full-time employment rate for sole parents was 35% in 2009.

* According to the OECD the employment rate for sole parents was around 52 percent in 2009




* According to the Household Labour Force Survey, in 2009 the average employment rate for a sole parent with dependent children only was 52.5 percent.

* According to Ministry of Social Development Benefit Factsheets during 2009 only 15.3 percent of people on the DPB had declared earnings (indicating they worked for all or some of the year).

* According to the Household Incomes in New Zealand report 73% of sole parents were in receipt of a main benefit in 2009.

* At March 2009 there were 105,448 single parents on a main benefit (OIA request)

So that means there were around 144,500 single parents.

52 percent were working; 73 percent were on a benefit and 11 percent were officially doing both. Which leaves 10 percent unofficially doing both by my calculations.

(The only information I don't have is how many sole parents on benefits other than the DPB had declared earnings. At best that might add another percentage point onto the officially doing both portion).

Tapu Misa; another NZ Herald journo who doesn't get it

Tapu Misa has taken up the familiar role of defending the DPB citing Child Poverty Action Group research;

According to a recent report from Child Poverty Action Group, most DPB recipients are on the benefit for a relatively short time while their children are young, and most re-enter the workforce when their circumstances allow.

What is it that is said about statistics hiding as much as they reveal?

EXTENT OF DPB DEPENDENCE SURPRISES MINISTRY

Monday, August 16, 2010

The Ministry of Social Development has just published research that finds the length of time sole parents stay on the DPB is greater than previously thought.

"This finding is in line with what I have been saying for many years," said welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell. "The real level of dependence has been masked by the short-term and often repeat stays many sole parents experience."

The Ministry's new research finds;

On average, sole parents receiving main benefits had more disadvantaged backgrounds than might have been expected:

· just over half had spent at least 80% of the history period observed (the previous 10 years in most cases) supported by main benefits

· a third appeared to have become parents in their teenage years.

"The research also finds that of the teenage sole parents who went onto the DPB (or EMA) in the year to June 1996, over half received a benefit for eight or more years of the following ten. These recipients, along with others who became parents under twenty five years of age, were categorised as 'early starters' ; over half were Maori and due to larger family size, their children accounted for 45% of the total reliant on the DPB. The early starters also had the highest benefit-debt level and uptake of special needs grants for food; were also most likely to incur a penalty for failing to name the father of their child(ren); had the highest uptake of child disability allowance and lowest level of educational qualification.

"Unfortunately even the new research has limitations. For example it attempts to identify whether sole parents had become parents as teenagers by matching their age against the age of their oldest dependent child. But if the oldest child was over 18 he or she would no longer be officially dependent and would not appear in the data used."

"It is a great shame the Ministry has taken so long to produce this research which is now being euphemistically described as presenting a 'more disadvantaged profile than might have been expected.' "

Mrs Mitchell concludes, "One now wonders how long it is going to take the Minister and the National government to act on it."

The "fatherless generation"

Radical feminists (and more latterly celebrities) argue that women can ably raise children alone. Most didn't, and still don't, have the financial resources to however. Therefore those with the ability to influence or make policy were happy to swap dependence on the state for dependence on the 'patriarchal' nuclear family.

Certainly some females do raise children well by themselves. We can probably all think of examples. But the evidence is that stable two-parent families provide children with, on balance, greater emotional and financial security. My own instincts have always been very pro-fathers probably for the simple reason that my own dad has been very important in my life. So it dismays me that children today are routinely deprived of their fathers and that the liberal left policy-makers refuse to join the dots. Subsiding single parents breaks down the family unit and makes men redundant.

The weekend Dom Post ran an in-depth article about the marae youth courts that are becoming more numerous across the country. Unfortunately it isn't on-line.

Again the observation appears about the common theme amongst kids in trouble.



Instead of thinking about how the damage the DPB has caused might be undone, the state is all the time trying to deal with the consequences by introducing new family law structures and practices. The proverbial chasing the tail.

Pap

That's the only word I can think of to sum up a column written by Phil Goff in today's NZ Herald (hat-tip to No Minister for pointing it out).

"I'm well experienced at the skills you need to be a minister. Analysing a problem, being sure of your facts, finding solutions that work. I've done it for years and I can do it well. "

Contrast that to his handling of the Long-term Benefit Dependency: The Issues

Labour leader Phil Goff said that rather than a culture of long-term welfare dependency, the numbers on benefits reflected economic conditions.



"It's not that people don't want to work; the jobs simply aren't there at the moment and the situation's getting worse."

Great skills. Superb analysis. Yes, he has done it for years. Too many.