Foreshore and Seabed showdown looms

National only needs 4 Maori Party MPs to pass the Marine and Coastal Area Bill. Which has left me wondering why it is conceding ACT's amendment. There was a thread at Kiwiblog about this a couple of days back, with contributions from Rodney Hide clarifying ACT's position but I am still unconvinced about motives on either side. That ACT aren't simply being populist and that the Maori Party don't want more than they are letting on.

Now Turia is starting to hint at pulling their support.

Even if my limited capacity to grasp the legal nuances involved leaves me frustrated, watching this political stand-off develop is fascinating.

Presently National needs either ACT or the Maori Party to govern. But only for a few more months.

One of those parties is looking rather precarious. ACT is in danger of losing parliamentary representation next year. The Maori Party will almost certainly bring at least the same number of seats. Who is Key going to placate?

So naturally ACT needs to rouse public opposition to such a degree that Key daren't concede to the Maori Party demands which, all the while, Hone Harawira, now calling Hide "a little fat redneck", is furiously lobbying to ramp up.

But if National just pull the plug on the bill, do they pull the plug on post election support from the Maori Party? Tariana Turia has walked away from a major party before over the very same issue. They won't want to get to the end of this innings with no progress on the very issue the party was formed to resolve.

Perhaps Key could rethink his position on the Urewera demands. Would that be enough to keep the Maori Party on board? That would seriously endanger core National support but might bolster ACT (or NZ First). Or perhaps he could pull the plug on it, make more noise about the shortcomings of MMP, major parties being held to ransom by minor parties, the old ' tale wagging the dog' catchcry thereby priming people to vote in a FPP manner allowing National to go it alone.

Whatever develops, ACT is fighting for its life and the showdown is set to escalate.

On jockeys and second chances

Tragically top Australian jockey, set to ride champion racehorse Shoot Out in the upcoming Cox Plate has been found dead at his Brisbane home. The 31 year-old father of one young son was found by his wife. He has had drug problems in the past but was apparently very fit and mentally well of recent times.

On a happier note I see that Lisa Cropp, ace New Zealand jockey who lost her licence due to P use, resumed riding on Saturday. Not in New Zealand however. She rode in Victoria. I wish her well and will be following her career.

Unlike Trevor Mallard who obviously doesn't believe in second chances.

Quote of the Day

"Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule — and both commonly succeed, and are right."

— H.L. Mencken

Some (I will link to this morning's DomPost editorial, Labour shift offers voters a clear choice when it is on-line) are celebrating Labour's move to the left because it will strengthen the difference between National and Labour. I am not. As Labour moves economically left, National can stay firmly where it is. And that isn't a good place.

Conservatives, liberals and libertarians

This is a fascinating WSJ article (hat tip Welfare State We're In) about the contrast between social conservatives, liberals and libertarians. The writer explains it in terms of 'karma'. The feeling that what goes around comes around. I think of it more simply as believing in whether or not people are deserving.

The notion of karma comes with lots of new-age baggage, but it is an old and very conservative idea. It is the Sanskrit word for "deed" or "action," and the law of karma says that for every action, there is an equal and morally commensurate reaction. Kindness, honesty and hard work will (eventually) bring good fortune; cruelty, deceit and laziness will (eventually) bring suffering. No divine intervention is required; it's just a law of the universe, like gravity.

Karma is not an exclusively Hindu idea. It combines the universal human desire that moral accounts should be balanced with a belief that, somehow or other, they will be balanced....

Liberals in the 1960s and 1970s seemed intent on protecting people from the punitive side of karma. Premarital sex was separated from its consequences (by birth control, abortion and more permissive norms); bearing children out of wedlock was made affordable (by passing costs on to taxpayers); even violent crime was partially shielded from punishment (by liberal reforms that aimed to protect defendants and limit the powers of the police).

Now jump ahead to today's ongoing financial and economic crisis. Again, those guilty of corruption and irresponsibility have escaped the consequences of their wrongdoing, rescued first by President Bush and then by President Obama. Bailouts and bonuses sent unimaginable sums of the taxpayers' money to the very people who brought calamity upon the rest of us. Where is punishment for the wicked?

...One of the biggest disagreements between the political left and right is their conflicting notions of fairness. Across many surveys and experiments, we find that liberals think about fairness in terms of equality, whereas conservatives think of it in terms of karma. In our survey for YourMorals.org, we asked Americans how much they agreed with a variety of statements about fairness and liberty, including this one: "Ideally, everyone in society would end up with roughly the same amount of money." Liberals were evenly divided on it, but conservatives and libertarians firmly rejected it.

On more karmic notions of fairness, however, conservatives and libertarians begin to split apart. Here's a statement about the positive side of karma: "Employees who work the hardest should be paid the most." Everyone agrees, but conservatives agree more enthusiastically than liberals and libertarians, whose responses were identical.

And here's a statement about the negative side of karma: "Whenever possible, a criminal should be made to suffer in the same way that his victim suffered." Liberals reject this harsh notion, and libertarians mildly reject it. But conservatives are slightly positive about it....

Libertarians are closer to conservatives on two of the five main psychological "foundations" of morality that we study—concerns about care and fairness (as described above). But on the other three psychological foundations—group loyalty, respect for authority and spiritual sanctity—libertarians are indistinguishable from liberals and far apart from conservatives. We call these the three "binding" foundations because they are the psychological systems used by groups—including religious groups, the military and even college fraternities—to bind people together into tight communities of trust, cooperation and shared identity. When you think about morality as a way of binding individuals together, it's no wonder that libertarians (who prize individual liberty above all else) part company with conservatives.

All of this makes imminent good sense to me. I can see myself in there as a conservative in some ways. Let me illustrate that. I recently visited a home with children. I knew it would be a reasonably poor home. I wasn't there on volunteer business. It was a private matter. We have lots of toys the children have now grown out of. A particular toy would make a great gift I thought. But I left it in the boot of my car. If the home was looked after, if the kids were looked after, I would leave the gift. If the property was a mess with broken toys strewn all over the section (not uncommon in my experience) I would not leave the truck. There is my sense of deserving. Happily I was able to leave the children falling all over the gift.

Certainly for me fairness is about deserving, not about divvying up regardless.

On the other hand I am not a believer in punishment. If I was volunteering my job would be to help the family establish some routine and order and posivity which I would take on with gusto and cheerfulness which sometimes diminishes after a few visits. But I believe in everyone having a chance, everyone having potential. So there I am closer to the liberal.

The idea of having to conform to group-think or behaviour however leaves me cold and I move rapidly away from the conservative. Politically I am neither right nor left.

Can you recognise yourself in this article?

Wells: "...we are collectively being ripped off"

Tao Wells, advocate for arsing about, is not at all bright. Having provoked an angry reaction he refuses to recognise the substance of it;

Wells said the anger prompted by his argument was a response to the issues he raised, not an attack on him. "The anger is very real and it's not about me. It's about feeling ripped off – we are collectively being ripped off."

My anger is most definitely directed at you Mr Wells. Then at Creative New Zealand. Then at the socialist condition of New Zealand. I am not part of any 'we' you belong to. You are the rip-off merchant.

He was not advocating for people living off the state but "living for the state". However, he did not have any ideas on how this would be achieved, admitting "we're making this up as we go".

Translated: People should be communists but as communism doesn't work I have to make stuff up.

Look. It is simple. Find some fool who wants to part with their money to keep you fed, watered and intellectually indulged. Taking money from those who do not is theft. It is not art.

Labour promises built on faulty premises

Media Release

LABOUR PROMISES BUILT ON FAULTY PREMISES

Sunday, October 17, 2010

Addressing this weekend's Labour Party Conference, Deputy Leader and Welfare Spokesperson, Annette King, singled out the domestic purposes benefit as a policy that would change under their new 'putting children first' philosophy.

"Unfortunately Ms King doesn't properly understand the dimensions of existing DPB dependence and its effect on children, "said welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell.

"Ms King claimed that, 'Around 70% of people on the DPB move off the benefit in 4 years, it's used as a family transition.'

In striking contrast recent Ministry of Social Development research found that:

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[1]

Ms King went on to criticise National for cutting training support for sole parents yet a Treasury Report to the Welfare Working Group found that the Training Incentive Allowance may have actually resulted in beneficiaries staying on welfare for longer;

Fifty-one percent of DPB recipients participating in an intervention took the Training Incentive Allowance, which MSD found to have no effect on the time a beneficiary was likely to spend off benefit – in fact the study found there was a chance TIA slightly increased the average time spent on benefit. MSD did note there was a chance that TIA may have an unobserved long-term impact (after seven years) on time spent off benefit.[2]

The speech also claims that the DPB does not provide an adequate income. Yet a typical DPB recipient with two children living in Auckland receives $580 per week [3], significantly more than someone working full-time on the minimum wage earns. Hence the incentive to move off a benefit is reduced. International research shows that the higher benefit payments are, the more workless households result."

Mitchell says that starting from so many faulty premises does not bode well for the potential of Labour's promises to improve the prospects of children on welfare.


[1] http://www.msd.govt.nz/documents/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/research/sole-parenting/understanding-sub-groups-of-sole-parents-receiving-main-benefits.doc

[2] http://ips.ac.nz/WelfareWorkingGroup/Downloads/Working%20papers/Treasury_Report_WWG_Sept2010.pdf

[3] http://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/newsroom/factsheets/future-focus/domestic-purposes-benefit.html#ImportantstatisticsaboutDPB7

There is nothing " noble" about choosing to live off the efforts of others

Taxpayers and rate-payers, via Creative NZ and the Wellington City Council, have been forced to fund, to the tune of $52,000, a one finger gesture aimed right back at them.

This arsing-about advocate who believes "We should never be forced to take a job,'' needs to add a few more caveats to understand how untenable his position is. How about, We should never be forced to take a job in order to allow someone else not to? Both can't be right.

In any case, who is forced to work? If we didn't have a massive state bureaucracy busy redistributing income willy-nilly, people would be "forcing themselves" to work. Or starve.

I really detest this highly infectious idea that it is somehow noble to not work and not consume. Taken to its logical conclusion we would all perish. Or is Mr whatever- his- name- is saying just some should never be forced to take a job, a new sort of elitism. State supported saints perhaps.

All the media talk this weekend is about the dire state of the economy; the lack of recovery. Yet money continues to be dished out on bullshit 'art'. Art promoting loafing as a lifestyle. Just what we f____ing need.

PM says Coastal Coalition " misleading" people

Wrangling over the Coastal and Marine Bill continues. Audrey Young reports on ACT " boasting" about achieving a clause out of Finlayson that states access to beaches will be "free".

And here (47:50)the Prime Minister tells a caller to NewstalkZB that Hugh Barr of the Coastal Coalition is intentionally or otherwise misleading people about what the legislation will mean.

Key maintains that deals labelled "backroom" are no different to what property developers already pursue through local councils for example. The new legislation simply means that when the government won't cede to Maori claims they can then proceed to court.

I am not sure who to believe.

Australia - "the dumb blonde"

A British branding expert has told Australians that their country is viewed as "the dumb blonde" of the world - shallow, unintelligent but attractive. Which probably explains why so many NZ men go there.

But assuming his theory has some veracity it raises two questions for me.

Do New Zealanders see Australia in the same way as other nationalities? And, if Australia is the dumb blonde, what is New Zealand? I've only been to Australia a couple of times, and bypassed it on the big OE. It seemed too similar to NZ to hold much excitement. Having said that I still travelled to English speaking countries - the US and my original home, the UK, which is a great base for visiting European destinations. But now I am grown up the sameness, paradoxically, holds more attraction. Like many New Zealanders I imagine my lifestyle could be replicated there if I really got sick of NZ, which hasn't happened and is very unlikely to.

Because of our geographical proximity to Australia I don't think we do see it through the same lens as say Americans or Europeans. And I couldn't presume to speak for Asians. Rather than a dumb blonde Australia seems like a scout mistress maybe. Practical, capable, no nonsense, unable to see how others view her. Or rather uncaring about how others view her. (Having already received a couple of nasty shocks searching for an image of a blonde with an Australian flag I am disinclined to look for a picture of a scout mistress.)

New Zealand on the other hand has none of Australia's confidence and self-certainty. New Zealand is still searching for an identity and ergo, a brand. Trying to find one in the dumb blonde vein shouldn't be confused with trying to describe kiwi women. I think the world does have a handle on girls from NZ but how do they see the country? When people would ask me what is NZ like, sometimes, if they were actually interested in an answer and not something else, I would venture that NZ is to Australia what Canada is to the US. Now I think about it, I have no idea what I was talking about beyond accents. Kiwis and Canadians have milder forms of Australian and US accents. Perhaps milder forms of everything.

So maybe NZ is the dumb blonde's mousey friend. The second best but with a bigger heart and a bigger brain.

Benefit growth continues

Acting Social Development Minister Judith Collins, issued a statement about latest benefit numbers putting the usual positive slants on it. Seasonal factors and slowing rate of growth. But cutting to the chase...

There are 338,212 New Zealanders currently receiving a benefit.

That is 1.6 percent higher than in June 2010 when there were 332,924.

Of the 5,288 increase only 1,371 was accounted for by the unemployment benefit. So three quarters of the increase is on other benefits. That is bad news because, as I have pointed out many times before, people stay on the DPB and invalid's benefit much longer and create much higher future liabilities (and social costs).

By December I expect the DPB will exceed the previous high at December 1997 of 114,799. Unless the 'anticipatory' effect of work-testing kicks in (ie faced with a looming obligation to find work some will jump before they are pushed).

One benefit to rule them all

The UK government is forging ahead with its Universal Credit which will apparently replace all benefits. According to the Independent:

Millions of welfare claimants are set to have their benefits scrapped and replaced with a single "universal credit", it was reported today.

The decision represents a victory for Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith in his lengthy battle with the Treasury over his plans to overhaul the welfare system, The Times reported.

Under the changes, housing benefit, income support, incapacity benefit and dozens of other payments will be swept away in a major reform programme intended to break the culture of welfare dependency by making work pay.

The move was announced in a fairly dramatic and sometimes gushy speech given by Iain Duncan Smith on October 1. Some excerpts:

This Conservative-led government has concern for the poor running through its DNA and we are focused each day in order to see joined up government working together for the national interest....

This country needs a completely different type of government. It needs a government of transformation. A Government determined to mend what is broken and reform what doesn't work....

For me, for my department and for this coalition government we recognise that there are five pathways out of poverty.

• Strong, stable families.
• A school that gives you the skills you need for your future.
• Work where you can provide for your family
• Streets that are free of drugs so that our children can grow up in safety
• And freedom from debt.

A government welfare cheque can protect against hardship but can never substitute for a loving parent, an inspirational teacher and a good employer....

But detail on exactly how the Universal Credit will improve on the status quo is not available.

Then, ironically, after announcing the one benefit to rule them all he announces another new benefit:

Today we are going to go further. After discussions with the Prime Minster and the Chancellor I can announce that I will set up the New Enterprise Allowance that will be run by Chris Grayling.

If you have been unemployed for 6 months and want to start your own business we want to support you.

We will provide business mentoring and a financial package worth up to £2000 to get your business up and running.

We want to see 10 000 new small businesses by next year.

Well let's just back up a moment. He also says in his speech;

I'm all for fairness.

I will always fight for fairness for people who have fallen on hard times.

I will always fight for fairness for the very vulnerable.

But fairness must be a two way street.

I'm determined that the people who pay their taxes into this welfare state get a fair deal too.

How are the many self-employed plumbers, roofers, builders, electricians, retailers, cafe owners, cab drivers, couriers etc etc going to feel about the government using their money to fund 10,000 new competitors when times are already very tough?

Sorry, but I just don't think this guy has any hope of making the difference he has sworn to.

What is needed is less welfare; not more welfare, and not welfare under another name.

Feminism vs multiculturalism

Don't you love it when gender politics slams up against ethnic politics? A prominent instance was when Josie Bullock refused to move to a back row on a marae in observance of Maori cultural customs. This left the Corrections Department in a very difficult position unable to uphold both sets of 'rights'. Feminists will normally jump on the multiculturalist band wagons because both groups are collectivists and work to harness state power to advance their agendas. But feminists from the Hand Mirror are at loggerheads with Te Papa over Te Papa's insistence that women who go on a behind-the-scenes tour of Maori exhibits be neither pregnant nor menstruating.

Deborah Russel, prominent feminist blogger on The Hand Mirror blog, does not think the policy should be enforced in modern society.

"I don't understand why a secular institution, funded by public money in a secular state, is imposing religious and cultural values on people.

"It's fair enough for people to engage in their own cultural practices where those practices don't harm others, but the state shouldn't be imposing those practices on other people."

However, Margaret Mutu, head of Maori Studies at Auckland University, said the policy was common in Maori culture.

Women cannot go into the garden, on to the beach or in the kitchen when they are menstruating.

"It's a very serious violation of tapu for women to do those things while menstruating. Women cannot have anything to do with the preparation of food while they are menstruating."

She said the exhibition rule was quite normal. "It's just the way we are ... It's part of our culture, but it's just one that isn't well known and that Pakeha aren't aware of."

Umm. What was that again?

"I don't understand why a secular institution, funded by public money in a secular state, is imposing religious and cultural values on people."

Therein lies the difficulty. "Public money" is, in part, raised from people with "religious and cultural values". Feminists are quite happy to use that money to further their own causes even when those causes clash with the values of the people forced to pay for them.

"The real problem is not enough jobs"

Kay Brereton, Benefit Rights advocate responded to last weeks Treasury report to the Welfare Working Group by saying, The real problem is not enough jobs.

There are 4 points I would make about that statement;

1/ Economies are cyclical. Nobody knows when, but the NZ economy will recover. If we fail to change the current policy settings around the sickness and invalid benefits (what Treasury wants) when we have another strong period of economic growth similar to that of 2003-2008, the numbers on those benefits will continue to rise, as they did during that period.

2/ NZ has a rapidly ageing population which is going to mean increasing demand for aged care workers in rest homes and in the community. Demand already outstrips supply. There is significant caring capacity within the DPB population where over 40,000 people are caring for school age children only.

3/ Many mothers want to work but there is a shortage of pre-school care available. The government pays around half of the DPB population (50,000) to care full-time for one child only. This is a very inefficient use of resources. Every dollar spent on benefits can't be spent elsewhere creating employment.

4/ Tourism is an integral part of the NZ economy. Our PM is Minister for Tourism. Tourism creates many low-skilled jobs but potential workers need to be in the right location to take them. Labour was very successful at moving people off the unemployment benefit into work and one of their strategies was the Jobs Jolt which prevented unemployed beneficiaries from moving to places where there was no work. But that policy was never applied to the sickness, invalids or DPB. Again, all Treasury wants is the same effort put into those people on other benefits who can do some work.

But as long as people continue to take a paralysed defeatist approach that says there are no jobs, there will be no jobs.

US unemployment - how it compares to NZ

A Washington Post report describes how the US economy continues to shed jobs. The good news is that the reduction is in the public sector. The private sector is adding jobs.

The nation's 14.8 million unemployed people have been out of work an average of 33.3 weeks, and nearly 42 percent of the unemployed have been out of work for at least six months.

By way of comparison in NZ 21 percent of the unemployed have been out of work for 6 months or more (not including those who have not specified the duration of spell).

Men continued to bear the brunt of the unemployment problem, with an overall unemployment rate of 9.8 percent, compared with 8 percent rate for women. The unemployment rate for 16.1 percent for blacks, 12.4 percent for Hispanics, 8.7 percent for whites and 6.4 percent for Asians. All of those rates were little changed from August.

Again a comparison to NZ shows that the unemployment rate for men is 6.9 percent compared to 6.8 percent for women. The unemployment rate for Maori is 16.4 percent, Pacific 14.1 percent, Asian 10.5 percent and European 4.4 percent.

Interesting that in the US Asians have the lowest unemployment rate whereas is NZ it is considerably higher than for Europeans. Do Asians do better in a more capitalist society? Are Asians more (or less) integrated into the US compared to NZ and what difference does that make? Perhaps where an ethnicity is less integrated their own economies provide more work opportunities? I have no idea what the answers are. You might.

John Campbell: Should Paul Henry be sacked?

Short on time this morning so a quick post.

John Campbell ran a text poll last night from 6.30 to 7.30 which was responded to by 29,000 (from memory): Should Paul Henry be sacked?

The result was 41 percent said yes and 59 percent, including me, said no.

The site is also polling and the yes/no split is currently at 35/65.

Paul Henry is a very funny man. Sometimes he laughs at things that I don't find funny. Like a lone donkey being hoisted up and flown out to sea under a para-glider. Some say the way he behaves is 'inappropriate' for his role. But what is his role? Breakfast TV seems to be a work in progress to me. It's still a relatively new phenomenon. If Henry wasn't on it I'd find no reason to watch. In the same way as when he left Radio Pacific I stopped listening.

Home of public service wealthiest

I extracted the regional tables from the latest Income Survey released yesterday and made a simple graph which provides an unpretty picture of bureaucracy looking after itself.

Bradford calls Treasury recommendations "evil"

An interview from National Radio Morning Report yesterday;

Treasury recommendations "evil" and "ridiculous"

The Alternative Welfare Working Group, which includes former Green MP Sue Bradford, is describing recommendations to move sickness and invalid beneficiaries onto the unemployment benefit in order to get them ready for work, as"evil"and"ridiculous".

The interview includes comments from Phil Goff and me. My focus was on the DPB which Treasury had identified as having the greatest potential for reform.

Treasury finds greatest opportunity for reform with DPB

A Treasury report prepared for the Welfare Working Group has correctly identified that the greatest opportunity for welfare reform lies with the Domestic Purposes Benefit. Treasury identified six ways in which welfare reform could improve outcomes for both beneficiaries and the economy. They are improved labour force participation; reduced poverty risk; fiscal savings; improved intergenerational outcomes; greater individual and social well-being and increased economic growth.

The DPB ticked 4 of these boxes as presenting a large opportunity. The Invalid's benefit ticked 2, the sickness benefit one, and the unemployment benefit, none.

Treasury has also identified the DPB as being the most expensive benefit at $1.7 billion in the last financial year, with the highest future liability costs. Liability associated with current domestic purposes beneficiaries is around $17 billion compared to only $3 billion for the unemployment benefit yet 'administration expenditure is primarily focused on Unemployment Beneficiaries'.

It has long been my contention that the DPB is most in need of reform because it is adversely affecting the lives of hundreds of thousands of children many of whom will grow up to be beneficiaries themselves. The report states that, 'child poverty rates are almost 75 percent for ‘work-less households’ compared to 11 percent where at least one adult is working-full time, ' and, ' living in a benefit dependent home has serious impacts on child wellbeing. '

In light of this, Treasury's recommendations are disappointing. Guaranteed entitlement based on having dependent children is preserved. There is no recommendation to cap the number of children a beneficiary can add to a benefit (with increased payments each time). While they identify that mothers entering the benefit system aged 16 and 17 have a high probability of remaining there for a very long time, changes to eligibility or conditionality for teenagers is not explored. Perhaps most surprising is a lack of discussion about time limits, which have the greatest potential to change expectations and behaviour.

Women's Refuge propaganda exposed

The Women's Refuge is a highly politicised propaganda machine. In a welcome new development they have been taken to task for exaggerating about the number of New Zealand women "living in fear". I will not support this organisation on principle. That is unfortunate because there are women who desperately need the sort of help provided by the refuges. But the distorted image of NZ women, and by implication NZ men, they promulgate serves no useful purpose. In fact it is detrimental to their cause.

TV3 reports;


Women's Refuge breached advertising standards by claiming that "one in three" New Zealand women were "living in fear" because of domestic abuse, without having adequate proof, the Advertising Standard Authority(ASA) has ruled.

The ASA made the ruling in two separate decisons after receiving complaints.

The upheld complaints related to two separate advertisements, one printed in the Waikato Times and the other broadcast on television.

The advertisements were part of Women's Refuge annual appeal which was held in July.

Both complainants argued the advertisements breached standards because there was no evidence to back the claim, which asserted that one in three women needed help because of abuse, and the complaint about the print version also argued the advertisement discriminated against men.

"This is absurd and it's impossible that they can produce honest stats proving this," one complainant said.

Women's Refuge argued that it was not in breach of standards as the assertion was based on a World Health Organisation (WHO) study which concluded that 33 percent of woman in Auckland and Waikato experienced physical or sexual violence from a partner in a life time.

The ASA disagreed and said it was concerning that Women's Refuge had used a local study as the basis for national statistics.

The majority of ASA members also thought it was inappropriate to base the claim that "one in three" women were living in fear on statistics which concluded one in three women experienced partner abuse in a "lifetime".

The ASA did not uphold the complaint that the print advertisement discriminated against men.

The ASA found both advertisements to be in breach of basic principle four which says "all advertisements should be prepared with a due sense of social responsibility to consumers and society" and rule 2 which says advertisements should not make exaggerated claims or mislead consumers.

"In the Complaints Board's view there was nothing in the advertisement to indicate that it reached threshold to cause serious and widespread offence in relation to it's portrayal of men," the ASA's decision read.

A minority of ASA members disagreed that the advertisements breached standards in both complaints.

The minority members should be sacked.

Prison populations and sleight of hand statistics

A commentor from yesterday points out that most prisoners serve only short sentences hence they do not qualify for rehab programmes. That is why only slightly more than half of the prison population is working or training apparently.

The commentor links to this;

Clearly the majority of offenders ending prison sentences spent relatively short periods of time (less than six months) in prison as sentenced prisoners. Less than five percent of those released each year have spent more than three years in prison.

Now that paints a very different picture from the last Prison Census (discontinued after 2003) which looks at a point in time population as opposed to all prisoner movements. This table shows that only 4.9% of prisoners were serving a sentence of 6 months or less. Granted that was 2003 but the statistical phenomenon will persist. The same happens when considering how long people spend on benefits. If it is worked out over all people who ever used a benefit, the time is dramatically shorter than if it is calculated at a point in time.

Leaving aside the issue of remand prisoners, it looks like over 90 percent of prisoners are serving sentences over 6 months but a large chunk of them are not involved in work or training.

And returning to the remand or short sentence inmates, given the illiteracy and life skills deficit problems surely there should be mandatory programmes operating for these inmates as well.

Welfare discourages prisoner rehab

Surely the following statement will provoke the same response in most readers;

More prisoners are undertaking job training and literacy and numeracy education than ever before, Corrections Minister Judith Collins and Associate Minister of Corrections Dr Pita Sharples said today.

In the 10 months to July 2010 the number of prisoners in employment and job training increased 9 percent (from 4415 to 4791). More than half the prison population was in some form of employment or training during the 2009/10 year.


What the heck are the rest doing?

According to Corrections;

The 20 prisons situated throughout New Zealand house over 8,000 prisoners. The majority of these prisoners have limited education or work experience. The last prison census (2003) identified that 52% of prisoners had no formal qualifications and only 45% were in paid work before going to prison.

My own data from OIA requests shows that in 2009 there were;

4,192 cancellations of a benefit for reason ‘going to prison’
3,496 grants of a benefit for reason ‘leaving prison’

The problem is that prisoners only participate in employment or training on a voluntary basis. Whereas a beneficiary can be sanctioned for refusing the same, there is no penalty that can be applied to a prisoner. But it does appear that for many people who have been on a benefit prior to incarceration, prison actually presents a real opportunity to learn some useful skill. And an uptake and acceptance of just over half is pretty appalling. Perhaps if inmates knew there would be no benefit on release they might be more inclined to make the most of what ever is on offer.

So there is yet another example of how welfare has a perverse and unintended effect. It works against rehabilitation.

No wagering with welfare money

Not content with banning the use of benefits for the purchase of alcohol or tobacco some US states are now eyeing gambling. Imagine the outrage in NZ if even the first was proposed (although I am not sure how it is effectively enforced). There would be a vigorous human rights debate calling for beneficiaries to be allowed to spend their money in the same way as anyone else. But there would be no individual rights debate about the philosophical problem of removing one individual's property to furnish the lifestyle of another's.

Welfare recipients have long been banned from using their benefits for alcohol and tobacco. Some state lawmakers are eyeing the vice of gambling, a move some advocates for the poor see as unnecessary and unfair.

More

I must need rehab

The Manawatu Standard has an interesting piece on Lesley Martin and her continuing advocacy of voluntary euthanasia. She now lives in Ashurst. She speaks about her 15 months in Arohata;

"What a pointless exercise. Going to jail didn't change my views. It didn't rehabilitate me. It didn't make me remorseful, make me feel that I would never do it again. If one of my sons was suffering interminably and asked me to assist, I would."

Probably the most useful thing she achieved in jail was cataloguing Arohata Women's Prison's 4000 library books, and guiding some of her fellow inmates to better reading.

"When they first come in, they want books about crime and drugs and bulldogs and demons and dragons. Then you see the rehab start to work, and they'd read Maori culture and mana, self-help books, poetry, books about peace. Nice fiction."

Funny. I'd read a book about crime and drugs any day over a self-help book. And you can give me bulldogs over poetry too. I must need rehab.

Updating artist blog

Updating artist blog. Working yesterday in Tawa, nothing gives me more pleasure than school kids getting excited about what results can be achieved with a few pastels. A couple of ten year-olds chatted at length (how can you see green and purple in a dog? How do you make things look near and far?) and then left, armed with tips and insights, to hopefully try drawing their own black labrador. Increasingly I am thinking about teaching but need to explore possibilities. Not being academically trained I don't want to pass on bad habits. But I keep getting asked if I do give lessons and hate saying 'no'.

Here I started with an error. I used the side of the paper with bolder texture. But whenever I make a mistake I persevere to see what can be salvaged.

US - soaring costs of anti-poverty programmes

This table is from the Cato blog.

Obviously the deep US recession has contributed to soaring costs but those areas equivalent to the DPB (TANF), IB abd SB (SSI) are reasonably contained. That is because there is a much stronger focus on providing assistance in kind rather than in cash.

And Medicaid, public health provision for uninsured low income working age Americans, makes up most of the absolute increase (contrary to what many leftists believe - that there is no public health provision in the US). The figures relate only to federal spending. States spend on their own anti-poverty programmes. In the case of TANF, from memory, spending equates to around 70 percent of what the federal government puts in.



A comparison to NZ is difficult.

Cash spending (minus Super) has risen from $7.8 to $12.9 billion (non inflation adjusted) but it is impossible to extract health spending on low income families alone. Housing (not including the accommodation supplement which comes under cash spending) has risen from roughly $68 to $365 million. The figures are based on Core Crown expenditures.

Matchbox calculations, if those totals are divided by population NZ spends around $3,000 per head (excluding health) against the US at $2,100 but remember that the US spending is only federal and US dollars are worth more. Their poverty threshold is around US $11,000 for one person. A large chunk of left liberals seem to think NO money gets spent on the poor in the US.

The redistribution (and slight reduction) of crime

The police have issued some new statistics relating to various measurements of crime prevention, crime detection and crime reporting. They compare monthly statistics for August 2009 to August 2010 and can be viewed nationally or by district.

From these graphs it is noticeable that where more crime prevention measures are applied less crime is reported. Unfortunately the input isn't consistent across the country. For instance I have compared Counties Manukau with Lower Hutt on just a couple of measures. In the Hutt 'foot patrols' have almost halved and 'vehicle thefts' have risen. In Counties Manukau the opposite applies.

This isn't necessarily consistent across other areas but it is clear that the police are putting resources into particular areas (functional or regional) at a cost to others. It would be interesting to see what plugging in all the various data shows.

Nationally, reports of crime are down slightly by 4.4% and detected crimes are down 2.7%

That of itself is interesting because leftists usually link increased poverty (recession) with increased crime. This is however a comparison between months - not years.

Why?

Why did the NZ Herald use this photo with this story?

Work-testing single parents apparently part of the feminist plan

The following is in cached form only. The site has disappeared. Over the years I have heard bits and pieces about the 'sisterhood' conspiracy but haven't seen it laid out in print (I don't read Wishart). Not sure I follow the logic re the motivations of government and cannot tell whether the writer approves or disapproves of feminism. But the way I see it, work-testing single parents should strengthen the family in the long-term, which would be a blow for the radical feminists who sought to destroy it as an institution. Why? Because many women want to raise their children personally and to do that they need a supportive partner.


Single mothers are being forced to work - but why?
By Julie, on May 21st, 2010

There’s quite a few single mothers unhappy with our leading single mother, MP Paula Bennett at the moment for her openness about single mothers working when their children turn 6 years of age. If you walked into a WINZ office and said MP Paula Bennett was terrific, you’d cop it from both sides of the counter.

The strangest part is that single parents have been forced to work for years yet it’s been so subtle, they’ve not noticed it. I can only assume single mothers on the DPB thought everything they’ve been offered over the past years was to make their life more comfortable and to give them choices. Maybe, they’ve never stopped to question what the cost would be.

Well, I think it would be a good time to look at the bigger picture and explore the reasons government would give money away – after all, they would never do it unless there was a pay-off for them whether cost saving or profit…… Funny, single parents do both. Anyways, the first thing I’d liked to share is a bit of history because to understand the present and future, you need to understand the past.

Divorce


In England prior to 1857, only an Act of Parliament could permit a full divorce allowing remarriage and it could only take place in England. This was very expensive so 10 years later the Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Act was passed in New Zealand which meant the judgement on divorce proceedings was passed over to the courts where it had to be heard in Wellington before three judges. A husband could divorce his wife on the grounds of her adultery while a wife could divorce for cruelty, desertion or bigamy. In 1881, it was changed from three judges to one judge and all the way up to 1968 law changes were made to give up to 24 grounds of divorce and lessen the time to wait.

Divorce rates rapidly rose in the 60′s and 70′s with all these new ‘faults’ as ground for divorce, making the way for even further changes. In 1980 the Family Proceedings Act was passed that removed divorce from the High Court to the newly created Family Court where for legal purposes, the term divorce became ‘dissolution of marriage’, and with it came ‘No fault’ where an application for dissolution on the grounds that the marriage had broken down irreconcilably, could be made jointly or by either the husband or wife, provided they could satisfy the two-year separation requirement.

There were 4 divorces in 1857 while now one third to 50% of marriages end in divorce (research varies). Added to this are women and men living in de facto relationships, women by choice being solo mothers through sperm donation and men being solo fathers through surrogacy.

Benefits

The Old Age Pensions Act 1898 established the basis of the present welfare system. During the following 30 years the pension system was extended to include widows (1911), Maori War veterans (1912), miners (1915), and the blind (1924), while the size of the pensions was steadily increased and conditions of payment were made less stringent, though always subject to a means test. In 1926 family allowances were introduced at the rate of 2s. per week for each child in excess of two, again subject to means testing.

The passing of the Social Security Act 1938 allowed for welfare to be extended for anyone in hardship including unemployment, sickness and invalids. The principle of the means test was abandoned with respect to superannuation benefits and medical benefits and, to emphasise the contributory nature of the scheme, the term “benefit” was substituted for the terms “pension” and “allowance”.

The 1973 Social Security Amendment Act introduced the Domestic Purposes Benefit to New Zealand’s social welfare system so that widows and single mothers could stay at home to take care of their children. Today there is 97,000 single parents on the DPB and in the year ending 2009, 10,000 extra single parents applied for the DPB.

Feminism and single mothers

“The nuclear family must be destroyed… Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process.” — Linda Gordon

“Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women’s movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage.” — Sheila Cronin, the leader of the feminist organization NOW

“Marriage as an institution developed from rape as a practice.” — Andrea Dworkin
“In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them”

(Dr. Mary Jo Bane, feminist and assistant professor of education at Wellesley College, and associate director of the school’s Centre for Research on Woman).

I want to see young women who come right out of school and start running for office or start moving into some positions where they will be able to shape the institutions that define our culture. And so if there are men who just don’t get it, then they’re just going to have to get it. —Patricia Ireland
“No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.”

— Interview with Simone de Beauvoir, “Sex, Society, and the Female Dilemma,” Saturday Review, June 14, 1975, p.18
How does feminism affect women today?

Feminist and Communist Kay Goodger attended the first-ever feminist United Women’s Convention as well as Helen Clark, Margaret Wilson, Marilyn Waring and Silvia Cartwright along with nearly 2 thousand other women.

From this convention came the attack on the traditional family. It was concluded if they could crush the family, break it down or have it sidelined as irrelevant or portrayed as no better than other methods of child rearing, radical feminism could set the agenda for centuries to come.

Goodger’s 1973 plan was to make a utopian future for “Amazonian” reflecting what she believed was once a reality. She called on radical feminists to do all they could within political parties, government departments and communities.

Goodger back in 1973 knew that if women could work and children were raised in childcare the family would suffer a body blow. Radical feminists following this woman are intending to have Government funded 24 hour a day childcare. As of 1st July 2007, 20 free hours daycare was given in Australia and New Zealand and Europe with Australia forcing single mothers on the DPB to work and New Zealand encouraging women to decide for themselves work is the right choice. Sweden has compulsory childcare from the age of 1.

Margaret Shields says, “We began to reorganise the Women’s Section of the Party so that it became an agent for change; through organising, training and encouraging women to take a larger, more strategic role in politics” She says things are not done by accident.

This was the 30 year plan the sisterhood made from their list of demands.

Abortion to be free and on demand DONE
Sex education/Birth control at all levels DONE
An end to coercive family laws DONE
De facto relationships to have same status as marriage DONE
The rearing and education should be from society not parents BEING DONE TODAY
Discrimination of homosexuals outlawed DONE
Abolish laws victimising prostitutes DONE
Paid maternity of 12 weeks without loss of seniority or job DONE
Free Government paid 24 hours a day child care for all children from infancy NOT DONE
Reference: Investigate Magazine, May 2005, page 39.

Kay Goodger is now a senior Government advisor on policy initiatives earning hundreds of dollars an hour in pay, still mixing with Marxist organisations in Europe and is mentioned in dispatches on the website of the Portuguese Communist Party.

Margaret Sheilds is a former Minister of Customs and organised the 2005 conference for women.

Helen Clark was New Zealand’s Prime Minister and now works in the United Nations making a global tax.

Margaret Wilson first entered Parliament on the Labour Party list in 1999 and gained a Ministerial post immediately after her election. Her Ministerial positions included Attorney-General, Minister of Labour, Minister responsible for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations and Minister of Commerce. She was elected the first woman Speaker of New Zealand’s House of Representatives in March 2005 and was re-elected Speaker in November, 2005

Marilyn Waring is Ruth Richardson’s replacement on the board of directors of the Reserve Bank.

Silvia Cartwright became the 18th governor general of New Zealand. She also became the first female high court judge.

As you can see, single mothers working and placing their children in childcare is a feminists issue. It doesn’t matter if the left or right wing political parties have power for either way, women will proceed with the plans of feminists from 1966.

Another factor to be considered

The DPB traps single parents in poverty as it’s just a means to make ends meet. On top of this, working part-time does not add extra wealth but rather takes away extra money single parents receive such as accommodation supplement, disability, childcare costs and temporary additional support. It can also put a single parent above the financial level to receive a community service card.

There is no other way to get many single parents out to work than forcing them when they see no benefit financially to work.

Bottom line, you be the judge on whether this is MP Paula Bennett’s fault or whether she is just the right person in the right place at the right time to make further progress for women’s rights.

New benefit rules from tomorrow

According to an e-mail I received from the Ministry of Social Development, from tomorrow;

• Sole parents whose youngest child is six or older will need to look for part-time work. We’ll help people find suitable jobs that fit their role as a parent and may be able to help with after school care if needed.

At the end of August there were 112,500 people on the DPB. Last year 43,000 had a youngest child aged 6 or older.

The pro-welfare advocates say this new requirement is "draconian" but it only brings NZ in line with Australia and the UK. Other European countries and the US have a much lower youngest-child criteria.

Crucially, what is omitted is some sort of rule to prevent addition of children to the benefit extending eligibility.

• People who are unemployed will need to reapply for Unemployment Benefit every 12 months. A case manager will work with people to complete a comprehensive work assessment to determine what they can do and how we can help them find suitable work.

A yearly reapplication should be the very least that is required.

• People who are unable to work due to illness will be encouraged to look at what they can do. From May 2011, if someone is assessed as being capable of working at least 15 hours a week, they’ll be expected to look for a suitable job.

The success of this strategy will rest with the medical fraternity delivering objective assessments. The risk is more people will attempt to transfer to an invalid's benefit. And....

• People on Invalid’s Benefit will see no change to the eligibility. We will continue to support those people who are unable to work because of permanent and severe sickness, injury or disability.

• People applying for Hardship Assistance will be given more help to manage their money.

Compulsory budgeting advice.

• A young person supporting themselves on Independent Youth Benefit will be encouraged to stay in education or training that will better prepare them for future work.

Encouraged. What does that amount to? Why not 'required' to stay in education and training?

All in all these changes are fairly wishy-washy yet have taken almost two years to implement (in the case of changes to the sickness benefit, almost 3). They will modify how compliant and motivated beneficiaries behave, but those who are only interested in the status quo of their current situation will find ways around them. In some respects the changes may provoke some very unwelcome responses, especially among the existing and would-be DPB population. Dependent children - their own or someone else's - will remain the key to long-term eligibility.

The facts about childhood obesity

This is not an overweight child. It's a chubby baby for god's sake. Unfortunately it is running alongside a headline Number of obese Kiwi children 'scary'.



The highest rates of childhood obesity are concentrated in the poorest deciles and amongst Pacific and, to a lesser degree, Maori children. But does the report allude to those facts? No.

Meanwhile the susceptibility neurotic and angst-ridden middle-class mothers will be looking at their healthy chubby cherub unnecessarily agonising over whether she is over-feeding (and now under-loving) him.

Absolutely asinine suggestion from Mary Wilson

Mary Wilson, trying to emulate an abrasive Sean Plunket on National Radio this morning, makes the utterly asinine suggestion that ACT should sacrifice Epsom to prove it can cross the 5 percent threshold and therefore has a mandate. The 'interviewer' tries her hardest to make Rodney agree with Phil Goff's view that ACT is "terminal" but succeeds only in sounding rude and silly.

Here's a page from a February 2005 article from North and South.

Rodney has been written off many, many times. And yes, I am guilty of describing recent events as akin to a murder-suicide. But I have also predicted that Rodney Hide will survive, even if only as a Ron Paul figure.

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.