Welfare reform taking shape in the UK

Hat-tip to The Welfare State We're In.

There has been a lot of talk about welfare reform in the UK since the Conservatives won government. As in this country the changes take time. On Thursday the new bill (175 pages) was introduced. The following is from the Guardian's political live blogging;

Cameron will deliver a speech on welfare speech at about 11.15am. Downing Street released some extracts overnight, and they show that Cameron believes that the welfare state needs to be reformed because people are less responsible than they were 60 years ago.

When the welfare system was born, there was what we might call a collective culture of responsibility. More than today, people's self-image was not just about their personal status or success…it was measured out by what sort of citizen they were; whether they did the decent thing. That meant that a standardised system of sickness and out-of-work benefits – with limited conditions – was effective.

It reached the people who needed that support, and not those who didn't, in part because fiddling the system would have brought not just public outcry but private shame. In other words, personal responsibility acted as a brake on abuse of the system.

And because the ethos of self-betterment was more wide-spread, the system supported aspiration rather than discouraging it. Now let's be honest about where we've travelled to, from there to here. That collective culture of responsibility – taken for granted sixty years ago – has in many ways been lost.


11.40am: Cameron makes the point about people being more responsible 60 years ago. I quoted this extract earlier. (See 8.35am.)

He says the welfare system now operates in such a way as to encourage people to be irresponsible.

But I know this country and therefore refuse to believe that there are five million people who are inherently lazy and have no interest in bettering themselves and their families.

What I want to argue is that the real fault lies with the system itself. The benefit system has created a benefit culture. It doesn't just allow people to act irresponsibly, but often actively encourages them to do so. Sometimes they deliberately follow the signals that are sent out. Other times, they hazily follow them, trapped in a fog of dependency. But either way, whether it's the sheer complexity and the perverse incentives of the benefits
system, whether it's the failure to penalise those who choose to live off the hard work of others, or whether it's the failure to offer the right support for people who are desperate to go back into work, we've created the bizarre situation where time and again the rational thing for people to do is, quite clearly, the wrong thing to do.

11.44am: Cameron is now giving examples of how the system encourages people to be irresponsible.

High marginal deduction rates mean that a single mum has no incentive to work if she is going to lose 96p for every £1 she earns, he says.

And the benefits system makes it sensible for couples to live apart.


You might think, no one would split up because of benefits. But in our country today, there are two million people who 'live apart together' – that is couples who maintain separate homes while being economically interdependent. Can we honestly say the signals in the benefit system have nothing do with this?

11.46am: Cameron says nothing has shocked him more since he has come into government than the situation with housing benefit.

We inherited a system that cost £20 billion a year, with some claimants living in property worth £2,000 a week in rent. That's £104,000 a year. That's the income taxes and national insurance contributions of sixteen working people on median income ...

We've been sending a signal to people that if they're out of work, or on a low wage, and
living in an expensive home in the centre of a city, that the decision to go back to work, or take a better paid job, could mean having to move to a cheaper home, in a different part of the city, in order to escape benefit dependency.

11.49am: Cameron is now talking about how the universal benefit will be. He says it will be much simpler than the current system.

With the universal credit, you would keep 35p of benefit for every extra pound you take home. And because this rate of benefit withdrawal is the same whatever you earn - it's easy to calculate just how much better off you will be.

11.51am: Cameron is now talking about the tougher sanctions that will be imposed.

So if you're unemployed and refuse to take either a reasonable job or to do some work in your community in return for your unemployment benefit, you will lose your benefits for three months. Do it again, you'll lose it for 6 months. Refuse a third time and you'll lose your unemployment benefits for three years.

11.52am: People who can't work and can't be expected to work will be supported, Cameron says. "Full Stop, end of story."

11.53am: Cameron says the government will pay companies to get the unemployed into work.

Don't let anyone tell you this happened before. Under the last government's model, some companies still got a large share of their payment – even if they didn't get someone into work. We're saying: we will withhold the vast majority of these companies' payments until they get someone into work – and they stay in work.

He says that people have been suggesting programmes like this for years. But in the past the Treasury opposed them. Now the Treasury is in favour. Cameron pays tribute to Lord Freud, the welfare minister, for helping to develop this idea. He says he is glad the Tories "poached" Freud from Labour.

11.57am: Cameron says the bill marks the beginning of "a cultural change". It will create "a new culture of responsibility", he says.

The last Labour government took most of its ideas about welfare from the UK. It was always Maharey's big ambition to move to a single benefit. Politically New Zealanders seem more comfortable with following what the UK does as opposed to what the US does. And the Welfare Working Group, which I believe releases is last report next week, have already mooted a single benefit. I have been opposed to such a move in the past. And I am still not persuaded that it isn't just tinkering and political expediency.

One change that is unclear. If people can keep 35 pence of their benefit for every extra pound earned, at what point does that cease? I really hate trying to get to grips with abatement systems. Confounded complicated things. It doesn't appear that any journalist is too keen on it either because I cannot find a simple explanation of the single taper and earnings disregard system being proposed.

Why low income teenagers become mothers

Teenage parenthood, particularly when the mother is under 18, is known to increase risk and poor outcomes for their children.

Whether low income teenagers (responsible for a majority of the births) get pregnant to receive an income and subsidised accommodation from the state is an ongoing debate. It is impossible to say that this is true or untrue given the claim concerns thousands of individuals with their own circumstances and motivations. Most people can quote anecdotal evidence that would support the notion. I tend towards thinking that many of those who get pregnant and give birth do so because there is little reason to avoid it. The upsides outweigh the down. The following passage is interesting;


In "Promises I Can Keep: Why Poor Women Put Motherhood Before Marriage," Kathryn Edin and Maria Kefalas report the findings of their two-and-a-half year field study of 162 young, unmarried mothers living in Philadelphia's blighted urban neighborhoods. Although considerable research has been devoted to understanding the dramatic increase in non-marital child bearing among young women in low-income communities, Edin and Kefalas saw that the "perspectives and life experiences" of low-income single mothers were mostly absent from the body of scientific evidence. In the course of their interviews and interactions with the women in their study, Edin and Kefalas found that low-income teenagers do, in fact, "knowingly" become pregnant, and many consider early, out-of-wedlock child-bearing as not only a valid life option, but a mature and responsible choice.

"To most middle class observers, depending on their philosophical take on things, a poor woman with children but no husband, diploma or job is either a victim of her circumstances or undeniable proof that American society is coming apart at the seams," the authors write. "But in the social world inhabited by poor women, a baby born into such conditions represents an opportunity to prove one's worth." While the poor women they studied perceive marriage as a "luxury" -- "something they aspired to but feared they might never achieve" -- having children is viewed as a necessity, "an absolutely essential part of a young woman's life, the chief source of identity and meaning." And while the exclusive rhetoric of Single Mothers by Choice identifies the ideal single mother as a woman who has "completed college," and is "able to support a child without recourse to public funds," the young women in "Promises I Can Keep" express a high degree of confidence in their ability to be excellent mothers despite their disadvantaged circumstances.

Two heading dogs

The lower dog is the mother, the upper, her son. I took the photos used outside my shop. She was very camera shy and it was impossible to get a shot with them posed together so I treated them as individual (but combined) portraits. Lovely temperaments.

Some fundamental misunderstandings about welfare

Gordon Campbell has written a piece called 10 myths about welfare. Some of it is accurate; some is not.

The vast majority of people want to work. The history of the last ten years in particular shows that when jobs exist, people work.

The "history of the last ten years" shows almost the opposite. During the economic boom numbers on the DPB dropped by a maximum of 15 percent and numbers on the sickness and invalid benefits continued to grow. Only the dole total dropped significantly.

"...the NZ figures on DPB recipients do not bear out Key’s specific assertion about ‘significant numbers of very young women going onto the DPB and staying there for a lifetime.”

In fact, only 3.1 % of those on the DPB are under 20 years of age – and that figure has barely flickered since 2005, when the figure was 2.9 %. Put another way, 97% of the people on the DPB are NOT the ‘very young women’ of Key’s lurid imagination. There are in fact, significantly more people on the DPB over 55 years of age (5.6%) than there are ‘very young women’ receiving this benefit."

Campbell repeats a widespread misunderstanding here. If Key's assertion is correct then we would expect to see exactly the kind of percentages Campbell describes. When people stay on welfare a long time they progressively appear in older age bands. The most important fact is that at least a third of current sole parents became parents as teenagers. I have shown that probably around a half of the DPB population first began on welfare as a teenager. The current age of a DPB recipient is irrelevant.

"...more DPB recipients are engaged in part-time work (16%) than those on the dole."

This claim is based on the DPB fact sheet showing 15.7 percent of recipients have 'declared earnings' for the year. It does not necessarily mean that they are currently working.

Most of the people on welfare are unmarried mothers – many of them teenagers – who have extra children so that they can get more money.

Not most. But 27,219 is significant. Certainly the public perception is grounded in reality.

Lots of people are on welfare for years and years, and then their children and grandchildren become welfare dependent.

This myth is based on stereotypes about the chronically shiftless and teemingly fertile poor. Lets stick with the DPB for a moment. Since the DPB involves the care of children who are dependent at least until they are 18, you’d think it would reflect lifetime dependency very strongly. Yet instead, over two thirds of DPB recipients (67.7%) are on the DPB for less than four years. More than a quarter of them (26%) are on it for less than a year, even during the recession. If this is a lifestyle choice, it is hardly a fashionable one.

Again, a fundamental misunderstanding of the data. Campbell has pulled figures from the benefit fact sheets that show current spell on a benefit. Many people have repeated spells thus increasing the time they spend dependent. MSD research most clearly explains this misinterpretation;

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.

This reflects the over-representation of sole parents with long stays on benefit among those in receipt at any point in time, and the longer than average stays on benefit for those who become parents as teenagers.

Had the research considered all people granted benefit as a sole parent, or all people who received benefit as a sole parent over a window of time rather than at a point in time, the overall profile of the group would have appeared less disadvantaged.

Inter-generational dependence is a proven phenomenon. Academic research provides evidence. Some part of it works through the much higher likelihood that a teenage parent will have a daughter who also becomes a teenage parent. Additionally it occurs because of the transmission of attitudes towards welfare.

Young people need welfare reform in order to teach them the value of work.

Far from being a myth young people do need to grow up with at least one working parent to understand the value of work. Building an expectation of independence is probably one of the most important goals of reforming the DPB especially.

The current rate of Maori unemployment is a catastrophic 36.7%.

This claim was not intended to be a "myth" but ironically, it is. The Maori rate of unemployment in December 2010 was 15.5 percent.

People are usually in hardship for economic reasons, and not due to a lack of moral fibre. The churn of jobs and the likelihood of multiple careers in one’s working life – ie the labour ‘flexibility’ so beloved by Treasury and its corporate friends – means that it is more and more likely that at any given time in their working lives, more people (and their children and grandchildren ) will be at risk of needing temporary welfare assistance during thedir job transitions.

Granted people are in hardship for economic reasons but also because of personal choices they make. Go back to the MSD quote. Is the economy to be held responsible for a teenage birth that results in many years reliant on a benefit?

Could boot camps increase the risk of re-offending?

The re-offending rate - 53 percent - after completion of boot camp is not looking promising and will probably worsen yet. The fact that it is still "early days" is not a positive mitigating factor. It is a negative. Here is Corrections description of re-imprisonment rates and ethnic breakdown;

The re-imprisonment rate over 48 months for Maori offenders (55%) is considerably higher than the rate for both NZ Europeans (45%) and Pacific offenders (36%). This difference is likely to be a reflection of a number of variables. Maori offenders as a group tend on average to be younger than Europeans (see Appendix 1). Maori are also more likely to be serving time for offences which have base-rates, especially dishonesty offences (burglary, car conversion, theft, etc) 4. Pacific offenders on the other hand tend to be in prison for offences which have relatively low base rates (violence and sexual offences). Although the high re-imprisonment rate for Maori undoubtedly contributes to the disproportionate number of Maori in prison, its impact is likely to be considerably less than that of the very large numbers of young Maori entering the criminal justice system for the first time each year.

Without knowing anything specific about the small sample that has undergone boot camp 'rehab' there is a reasonable question to be posed. Does it increase the risk of re-offending?

The ways in which I am stupid

I don't mind being called stupid when I am. My family calls me stupid when I (re) heat the just-delivered Hell's Pizza salad along with the pizza or when I boil chillies instead of green beans and then make the gravy from the resulting vegetable water. Yes. I can be stupid.

But I don't take kindly to being called stupid over stating an opinion which is based on my own experiences as a volunteer, listening and looking, research and reading. But perhaps I should be humbled that an academic completing a thesis can spare me the time.

I want to talk about Lindsay Mitchell and Dr. Paul Moon, both of whom have said some remarkably stupid things in the last few days. Moon really has no excuse for his ill-considered comments; Mitchell probably just doesn’t know better. Let’s start with her.

More

What's wrong with Win-a-wife competition?

The kerfuffle around a radio station's Win-a-wife competition continues with the Hand Mirror linking to a facebook campaign. Sue Bradford climbed out of her tree over the issue also.

I am assuming that there are women who want to find husbands outside of their own country. Their reasons are their own business. Why is it feminists don't support the freedom of other women to make their own choices? These women might be intent on exploiting the husband; he may be intent on exploiting her. But the attempt to prevent bad stuff destroys the opportunity to create good stuff. So in the final analysis it can only be left to individuals to make their beds and lie (or lie) in them.

This is what I abhor about feminism and other collectivisms. They pretend to more freedom but actually seek to lessen it.

National - do some lateral thinking about childcare

The Government is signalling a big childcare boost under plans to push more DPB, sickness and invalid beneficiaries back into the workforce....."We need to absolutely have a focus on lifting those children out of benefit-based households, but it may cost us money to make it happen."

So says the PM.

The childcare needed to get people off the DPB or more accurately doing something productive needn't be more costly.

Let me explain by going back to what happened before the DPB when single mothers had to find ways of combining their childcare responsibilities with work. Karitane hospitals, for instance, employed young single mothers before and after the birth of their children. They paid them very little but accommodation, meals and childcare were provided. After the advent of the DPB those workers left. Maybe not directly as a result but ultimately the hospitals closed.

What people on the DPB need is a way of earning their income whether from the public (health, education) sector or private. If they want to keep their young children with them they could work in pre-school childcare centres or even offer child-minding in their own homes. Those who want to work in other caring roles (remembering the National government cut back on aged care in the community) can move into that sector at no extra cost to the atate if the government were to re-instate higher hours. Something has to give in respect of the rapidly ageing population and allowing elderly people to stay in their own homes is the best social and economic option. So a large movement of funding out of MSD and into Health makes sense. A reversal of what happened in the first place.

More creches in rest homes are needed; more creches in schools; more creches in large centres of employment.

The nub of it is the country needs to either stop paying the DPB or get a return for the money that is being spent. For small government advocates, even the latter would be an improvement. The change would be neither punitive nor, most importantly, hurt children. And with the non-working lifestyle no longer an option the number of single parent families might just stop rising.

The objection to reforming the DPB that comes up constantly is 1/ there is no childcare and 2/ there are no jobs. With half of those on the DPB caring for just one child the solution is blindingly obvious.

There's the problem - right there

The family Mr Key befriended a couple of years back are still struggling.

But it's not their fault.

Mrs Nathan just had her sixth child while on the DPB.

"Bread, milk, everything that we need that is a basic necessity for us is going to be more expensive. It's going to be harder for us to feed our kids."

See, the DPB doesn't pay enough Prime Minister, "arsehole".

Around the time she had her latest child her oldest was removed from her care.

"...which Mrs Nathan said was better because "it's a life I can't give her"."

Poor thing. Poor things, both of them. The eldest "got in with the wrong crowd". Nothing to do with Mrs Nathan who likes to call people arseholes because they won't give her the extra money that she surely deserves. No. Her values are very sound.

I don't know what's wrong with this country. The government should make rich arseholes like me, people who work hard and plan their families, pay more tax so Mrs Nathan can get a bigger benefit and her new baby doesn't end up like her oldest. Because if we aren't made to fork out now, we will only end up forking out more later.

Welfare justice for all! That's what we need.

ACT's position on the Foreshore and Seabed

I think I'll stick to welfare. Trying to sift through the arguments and counter arguments put by National and ACT regarding the Coastal and Marine Bill has defeated me. But my claim that ACT has reversed its position since 2005 is apparently wrong. Fair enough. I was still distracted by their insistence that Maori shouldn't be able to block, or charge for, access to private property (as proven under customary title).

Here is what Rodney Hide said a while back on Kiwiblog;

ACT is the only party never to have flip-flopped on the foreshore and seabed. Our position has never changed.

ACT opposed Labour’s discriminatory Foreshore and Seabed Bill 2004. I joined the Hikoi in Wellington. We argued that iwi — like every NZer — were entitled to their day in court.

In our discussions with both the Maori Party and National Parties, ACT’s position has always been the same:

1. Repeal the Foreshore and Seabed Act;
2. Return iwi and hapu to their pre-2004 legal position with respect to the Foreshore and Seabed;
3. Enable claims for customary title to be heard by the High Court, not the Maori Land Court. As I understand it the Maori Land Court is not equipped either to (a) hear claims for customary title; or, (b) recognise customary title. Their only redress is to award fee-simple title;
4. Legislate public access.

Instead the Maori Party and National Party have agreed to a confusing and confused legislative solution. It is to be Parliament, i.e. politicians and politics, determining the extent of customary title (of course, it is to be no longer customary title, but statutory title), and the test for granting title. It won’t be the Courts determining customary title based on the law and the facts, but politics.

Worse, National’s new Bill gives the Attorney-General the power to negotiate deals carving up the coast with iwi in his office in secret. It’s a disgrace. Politics will determine which iwi get in the door — and what they get.

The objection to ACT’s position from both parties is that the courts would take too long and may determine that iwi and hapu claims are without merit, i.e. that the courts would not award title. That’s certainly what the Court of Appeal judgement suggested and that would be consistent with the 1963 90-mile beach claim. The test under customary law is a high one. Perhaps an impossibly high one.

But that’s not an argument for lowering the test and extending the extent of the rights that can be awarded.

ACT is the only party that has stuck to its principles throughout.

Both the National and Maori Parties promised that iwi would not charge the public for access to the foreshore and seabed in statutory title. But, of course, the Bill as drafted doesn’t preclude that.

ACT is attempting to make sure the government delivers on that promise by proposing an amendment accordingly.

Commentators referring the situation of land held in fee simple or rights granted by the courts are making a straw man. The title being granted under the proposed Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill is not fee simple, and is not customary title being granted by the courts under customary law; but rather is title granted by politicians in parliament and the Attorney-General in his office.

ACT will oppose this law for the reasons outlined above but in the meantime will propse amendments to ensure it does what the politicians promise it does!

Rodney Hide

Dunne proposes compulsory DNA testing

Peter Dunne gave his own State of the Nation speech which outlined what he would be campaigning on this year no doubt.

The first is that families should be able to capitalise their Working for Families payments to buy a house. I predicted Labour would put up this policy at the last election and I was wrong. It's just a return to the days when Family Benefit got many people into their first homes. People capitalising their WFF payments makes the assumption that the policy is here to stay. Let's not forget that the two parties Dunne is in government with both opposed the introduction of WFF on principle. It is still bad policy even if used to encourage property ownership.

The second is an extension of Paid Parental Leave to 13 months. This would cost millions yet as Eric Crampton recently pointed out, there is no evidence to support it being an 'investment'.

The last is a bit more from left field;

Mr Dunne said compulsory DNA paternity testing in cases where claims, counter-claims and doubts exist over the parentage of a child would “unnecessarily excite certain civil libertarian tendencies” but commonsense needed to apply.

The idea doesn't excite my civil libertarian tendencies. Currently, as I understand it, DNA tests require the mother's consent and we have the tragic scenario of fathers(?) stealing samples and sending them overseas for testing. From memory statistics show around 1 in 5 fathers turn out not to be, yet a man named in a child support application has to compulsorily make payments for 18 years with no requirement for the mother to prove he is indeed the father. That state power disturbs me more than requiring a mother to prove paternity.

What Prebble said in 2004

First, good column from Deborah Coddington this morning.There has been too much of this individual-rights-robbery going down under the current National government. (From an earlier post) trying to turn NZ into a 'soft' police state by increasing police discretion. Non reversal of the very unpopular anti smacking legislation. Introduction of on-the-spot DV orders, requiring DNA swabs from non-convicted people, three strikes which encompasses non-violent crimes, patch bans, looming alcohol clampdowns, upping war on P, car crushing, loss of right to elect trial by jury, confiscation of property upon just the mere suspicion of a crime committed. Enough to make me even feel a twinge of dismay at Keith Locke's departure because he is one of the only MPs that advocates for civil liberties since ACT dropped the classical liberal ball and started voting for more state power over the individual.

And harking back to yesterday, I mentioned ACT's reversal on the Foreshore and Seabed issue. Another instance where they have ceded classical liberal principle. Here again is what Richard Prebble said in 2004;

ACT is a party that believes in private property rights, the rule of law, the citizens’ right to go to court for justice, and one law for all...

The bill discriminates against Maori, by removing the right that the Court of Appeal has found, that Maori have to seek a declaration from the courts that the seabed and foreshore is Maori land....

Let me make it clear that in upholding the rights of all citizens to go to court I am not lending support to claims that Maori under the Treaty own all the foreshore and seabed around New Zealand. As a lawyer it is very clear that in law, whether it be legislation or British common law or Maori customary law, it is very clear that Maori do not own the vast majority of the foreshore or seabed of New Zealand....

Both Maori and British common law require continuous occupation and control for common law ownership. If Maori controlled and occupied Takapuna beach I am sure we would have noticed.

But it does not follow that it is not possible there are some parts of the foreshore and the seabed that is still owned by Maori, and indeed I think it is likely that Maori do own some parts of the foreshore and seabed.....

Any claim by anyone to the foreshore and seabed should be brought in a proper court, and the appropriate court is the High Court...

I realise that the position the ACT party takes is not a populist one.

It is now.

National has a special on-line article about the Marine and Coastal Bill here. I wonder where Prebble stands on that?

ACT to campaign on One Law for All

Speaking on National Radio during the week Rodney Hide talked up ACT's achievement of ensuring a National-led, stable government for New Zealand and downplayed the internal problems the party has experienced. What interested me was when asked why people wouldn't vote National rather than ACT (it was put to him that National are moving into their territory with things like asset sales) he basically outlined the three election issues for ACT this year. 1/ The Economy 2/ Education and 3/ One Law for All. His emphasis was on the last. No mention of law and order, no mention of welfare, no mention of health, all usually in the running when deciding election year strategy.

No surprises really with the efforts that ACT have been making to block the Seabed and Foreshore legislation. What bothers me is the debate teases out a lot of ignorant, anti-Maori sentiment. The type heard on talkback this week concerning a fee being charged to media attending the lower marae at Waitangi. Many Maori callers saw it as a racket and disagreed with the action. But some Pakeha just start running off at the mouth about Maori get this and Maori get that. I tried to make the point to Sean Plunket that it is those sort of sentiments that are racist. People seem unable to grasp that in their own accusations of race based privilege or discrimination they are being inherently racist themselves by lumping all Maori together. Do reprehensible individual Pakeha actions generally elicit cries that "Pakeha do this" and "Pakeha do that"? No they don't.

I am still betwixt and between regarding the Coastal and Marine Bill and whether it will advance or set back race relations. That will only be known when and if the legislation is passed. But I am very uncomfortable with divisive scaremongering, the blithe imposition of the Pakeha worldview on Maori, and the reversal (since 2005) in both National and ACT positions on establishing customary rights and all that might entail. One law for all surely infers Maori should also have recognised property rights.

Underneath the unemployment rate

Yesterday the unemployment rate for December was released - up from 6.4 percent in September to 6.8%.

But here are some comparisons to December 2009 (first column);

Total unemployment 7 6.8
Male unemployment 7 6.5
Female unemployment 7 7
Maori 15.4 15.5
15-19 year-old 26.5 25.5
one parent with dependent children only 47.7 51.7
Auckland 8 7.8
Wellington 6.3 5.4
Canterbury 5.7 6

So things are slightly improved overall but with a slight worsening for some groups.

But the one parent statistic is interesting. Remember last year part-time work-testing was introduced for single parents whose youngest child was 6 or older. This could have been expected to have had an anticipatory effect pre-change, as well as real effect post change. But the number without work has actually increased quite markedly.

Hot day at Taurenikau

Something different from my usual portraits. Since I have had the shop/studio Richard Ponder, whose own gallery is a few metres away, has been popping in and encouraging me to experiment more. First result - a purposely under-developed scene created from a series of photos I took at Taurenikau last month. It was a very hot day and I wanted to capture that feeling and also the movement of the horses. The canvas was coated in violet, a new colour for me, and I have left quite a lot of it showing. The turquoise is also a new pre-made colour on my palette.

Honest John versus perfidious Peters

Winston Peters would make me laugh if I had even a skerrick of good feeling whenever I hear him speak. But I don't. About the Prime Minister ruling him out of any National-led government he says:

"New Zealanders don't take kindly to being told what they've got to do, particularly when they're the masters come election day."

Labour leader Phil Goff also believed Mr Key was arrogant for ruling out NZ First prior to voters having their say.

"I'm going to let the voters make the decision."

What Key has given voters is clarity about what their decision means. He has afforded them more power - not less.

Key has done three honest, up front things this year; given people the option to vote for or against asset sales; given us the date of the election and ruled Peters out of any coalition arrangement. This is what people want more of from politicians.

Gillard focuses on getting beneficiaries into work

Good to see the Australian PM focusing on getting people off welfare and into work AND stressing the importance of work to people's well-being. Unfortunately for the pro-welfarists governments of every hue are now pushing this message;

AUSTRALIA must get many more people into the labour force or working more, Julia Gillard has said.

In her first economic speech of 2011, the Prime Minister said: ''To the maximum extent possible, I want to ensure that every Australian who can work, does work.

''I want to ensure that the incentives of work always outweigh the attractions of staying on welfare''.


With Australia now technically at full employment and the mining boom creating a skills shortage that will affect the rest of the economy, Ms Gillard said up to 2 million working-age Australians were not in the full-time workforce or registered for work.

The government looked ''with particular care and concern'' at this large number. Of the 2 million, about 800,000 were in part-time jobs but wanted to work more. Another 800,000 were outside the labour market, including discouraged job seekers. Also, many thousands on disability pensions might have some capacity to work.

''We know that not all of them can work right away. Many of them will need re-skilling; the right mix of incentives; help to overcome ill-health or meet family responsibilities,'' she said.

''But we do want them to re-engage with the workforce and gain the benefits that come from having a job - increased income, social engagement and friendship, self-esteem and well-being.''

Between a rock and a hard place

From Reason.com;

You've had the experience of walking along and negotiating around someone who is walking slowly, weaving, or bumping into other pedestrians for an obvious reason: He or she is talking on a cell phone, listening to an iPod, or texting on a Blackberry.

And you've had the natural, inevitable response to this annoyance: demanding a law to prevent it.

Oh, you haven't responded that way?

No I bloody haven't. I do get mad. I wonder why some people are so bloody oblivious; why it is too difficult to tuck themselves away in a non-traffic space for the duration of their call; why they lack the ability to co-exist courteously and intelligently with the surrounding people and environment. The same thoughts flash through my mind when I see people who have stopped their vehicles in the middle of the road to chat to a friend; or stand two shopping trolleys abreast in the supermarket aisle yacking; or travel at 40 km in a 70 km zone.

I do not demand a law to prevent it.(Oh, confession, I have been known to suggest that if people have to keep down to a speed limit they should need to keep up to it also, but if push came to shove I wouldn't actually support such a law. Some people are such awful drivers they probably cannot handle faster speeds. But that's a whole new topic...)

Obliviousness. Or oblivion. Whatever. One of my pet hates. Probably the best way to wake people up is to deal with it on the spot. Give them a rude and abrupt shock of some sort. Preferably with your mouth, not vehicle. That would have more impact and effect than a remote, faceless, unenforced law.

The trouble is those of us who do try not to inconvenience others, who are consciously trying to live co-operatively with others, who are prepared to make compromises like walking a few more metres in the rain because double parking outside a school is dangerous, are also not the type of people who enjoy being unpleasant and confrontational. That's THEM.

So its rock and a hard place time. I don't have the answer. Except that parents should do a better job of teaching and showing their kids that being even semi-conscious of their planet earth co-inhabitants would be a good idea. For everyone.

The brand new Fazioli

Yesterday the Waikanae Music Society unveiled their brand new Fazioli. Sounds something like a Ferrari - in name, not engine sound. And the price ticket wasn't far removed either. It cost them $174,000. What is it? A grand piano. Brand-spanking new and just arrived from Italy.

We were there to hear Michael Houston give it its first workout - J S Bach, Schumann, some jazz sonata which was my second favourite piece and finishing with the most ethereal Liszt. No expert by any stretch of the imagination, his performance seemed flawless to me. But I didn't like his jacket or lack of encore for an audience largely on its feet. Recital etiquette is also beyond my own realm of familiarity. Robert, 16 year-old son and currently grand piano obsessionist was suitably awestruck. Unlike attending a more upmarket venue, he was able to get a close-up inspection of the Fazioli during interval. A truly remarkable piece of craftsmanship.

But where the heck do they store such a valuable and vulnerable object?

The new left party

Did anyone else wonder if Keith Locke, by announcing his resignation from Parliament, was freeing himself up for the rumoured new leftist party? Today Sue Bradford has pushed the murmurings along a further step by saying she is prepared to lead such a party. What has been overlooked, or at the least not commented on by the media, is the organisation and communication efforts surrounding the creation of the Alternative Welfare Working Group provide a strong basis for launching the new party. It is a strange mix of social conservatives and social liberals but they will be able to agree on a strongly state-controlled wealth redistributionist philosophy. ACT hung together for many years with a similar mix when you think about it.

That would leave the Greens free to focus on the environment and hopefully more willing to consider property rights as the best protector of it, although Metiria Turei is busily positioning her party as the natural vehicle for Maori aspirations.

I believe the party will emerge, and in part the emergence will have been driven by National's attempts to reform welfare, which I thoroughly support notwithstanding my expectation their policy will be well short of what is really needed.

What this highlights again, however, is the extreme political difficultly in ever undoing policies that become virtual institutions, one of the best examples being the DPB. If a new left party can effectively mobilise the beneficiary vote, and National will play as big a role in that as their own efforts, they will have every chance of gaining political representation. And with Labour looking impotent under Goff their chances are further improved.

Now is the time and I expect to see developments speed up. It wouldn't be a surprise if they coined their party something along the lines of The Social Justice Party. Their big mistake is believing that only the state can deliver such a thing, and ignoring the existing repercussions of such a fraught idea. And that is the ground on which they should be countered.

This'll make Oswald apoplectic

The American Council of Science and Health notes:

Late last week brought news that the World Health Organization (WHO) has been working to facilitate a worldwide ban on ads for foods high in sugar, fat and salt intended for children. To that end, the WHO has arranged for a meeting of heads of state to discuss restrictions on ads for foods the WHO considers unhealthy. The conference will take place this September at the United Nations offices in New York.

Reuters says that the WHO has already persuaded Coca-Cola, Mexico's Grupo Bimbo, General Mills, Kellogg, Kraft, McDonald's, Mars, Nestle, Pepsico, Unilever and the World Federation of Advertisers to sign a code of conduct in which they promise not to market their “unhealthy” items to children younger than age 12. The WHO notes that of the 42 million obese children around the world, 35 million are in less-developed countries.

ACSH’s Dr. Elizabeth Whelan wonders how all this happened so under the radar. “Since when’” she asks, “did all these companies agree not to market ‘unhealthy’ products? This type of regulation is troubling in as much as it’s leading to a dichotomy of so-called ‘good food’ and ‘bad food’ in which a handful of experts are deemed qualified to tell us which is which.”

Even 'science' can't be trusted

Reported in Stuff today;

The latest findings echo an extensive review by the American Psychological Association in 2008 that found no evidence that ending an unwanted pregnancy threatens women's mental health.

A separate review by Blum and his colleagues found that the most rigorous research on the topic did not find a relationship between abortion and long-term mental health problems. Previous studies that suggested such a connection were often poorly designed, had dropout rates or did not control for factors that could affect the conclusion.

Reported in the NZ Herald in 2008;

The long-term Christchurch study of more than 500 women found a link between having an abortion and an increase of nearly a third in the risk of disorders such as depression and anxiety.

Reporting their findings in the British Journal of Psychiatry, the Otago University researchers say that abortions account for 1.5 to 5.5 per cent of the overall rate of mental disorders.

They said their study backed up others overseas which concluded that having an abortion may be linked to an increased risk of mental health problems.

Depending on your own personal viewpoint about abortion, take your pick.

It's their choice

I have blogged previously about the situation with funding for stomach reductions and asked why people are not prepared to borrow what is required? The Whanganui DHB is holding out on making $35,000 available to a patient in that area. One Dr Soloman, who also sits on the board, has been pushing hers and another's case for some time.

I personally know of people who have borrowed/funded their own surgery and been able to live dramatically improved lives. Between $17,000 and $35,000 is equivalent to purchasing a car or taking out a student loan. Other people borrow sums of this size all the time.

However the pair have managed to swing a deal with the Korean Tourism agency (?) to get operations in that country at no charge. The doctor is still wringing his hands, now over the risk involved. The two women obviously think the risk is preferable to borrowing.

Guess who will get the blame if anything goes wrong, dear taxpayer.

Bans do not work

Banning does not stop the banned activity or commodity.

That is a fact illustrated repeatedly over the course of history.

These road crash statistics just provide more evidence.

Some will say, well at least they improved. But the smallish improvement was in the period directly after the legislation was introduced - typically when the effect is strongest.

Some people are stupid. That is also a fact. More people become stupid when a herd mentality is the norm and when the real consequences of stupid behaviour are minimised by collective responsibility.

Power for the sake of it is worthless

According to Home Paddock this is what John Key directed at Hone Harawira at Ratana yesterday. Home Paddock says it could just as well apply to Ratana;

“I say to the critics what can you achieve from opposition, and the answer is nothing. You achieve things when you are part of the solution not when you are solely carping on about the problems,”

That is the short view.

Effective opposition, in all forms, shapes public thinking. Effective opposition keeps a government in check.

And if the "solution" is not the right one, why would you want to be part of it anyway?

(While I have no sympathy for Harawira's world view, when he asks what National has done for Maori, it's hard to think of something. He will find a good deal of company with those Maori who still believe that the government is the be all and end all for their aspirations.)

Labour dives in latest poll

Just a couple of links to things that caught my eye this morning.

Labour takes big dive in the latest Roy Morgan Poll. They must be becoming resigned to sitting out another term.

And expect more of these stories in the near future as the welfare 'industry' gears up to fight the WWG recommendations.

There is no reason why provision can't be made for unusual cases. But they should not be used to prevent changing the welfare system for the majority.

Tedious nagging from the UN and repetitious waffle from Labour

News this morning seems to be dominated by the UN damning NZ again about its shameful record on children's rights. Too many children are living in poverty apparently. There isn't a Ministry for Children. Labour's response is nothing more than repetitious waffle. They would create a Minister for Social Policy; they would take a "whole of government approach"; they would "break the cycle of economic deprivation". It is just so tedious.

So many children live in relative poverty because we have so many families living on welfare. There is no imperative to work when on welfare so dysfunction flourishes. But wait for a raft of responses today calling for MORE welfare.

Update; MacDoctor has an excellent post on the subject

Media educates MP

Isn't this where the blogoshere comes into its element?

Labour MP Ashraf Choudary creates a Red Alert blogpost using a press statement urging the government to make folic acid in bread compulsory based on new research. He criticises the media coverage of his statement as "light on facts".

Here is the response from NewstalkZB's political correspondent, Felix Marwick, in the comments section;

felix marwick says:
January 19, 2011 at 6:44 pm

Ashraf,
the reason the story was short is because it was written for radio. Basically I have 30 seconds, or 120 words, to get a point/angle across.

Additionally I had also covered the story on Tuesday so some of the extra detail you allude to had already been included in that copy.

DPB stats - I was wrong

I predicted that in December 2010 the DPB stats might reach an all-time high in absolute numbers. The December quarter benefit statistics are just out and I was wrong. The DPB only rose to 113,000. (In December 1997 the total reached 114,799.)


Over the year to December 2010, the number of recipients of a main benefit increased by 7,000, or 2 percent.

Over the year to December 2010, the number of Domestic Purposes Benefit recipients increased by 4,000, or 3 percent.

Over the year to December 2010, the number of Sickness Benefit recipients increased by 1,000, or 1 percent.

Over the year to December 2010, the number of recipients of an Unemployment Benefit increased by 1,000, or 1 percent

Unintended consequences of US health reforms

Interesting piece from the NCPA today which reports that McDonalds has warned the US government they may stop providing health insurance for 30,000 employees. The increased cost of health insurance under the Obama reforms means that the cost of labour increases and companies will either shed jobs or wages will stagnate. Just what the US needs.

Labour wants to dig us deeper

I begin this post with an acknowledgement that it is framed around generalisations as policy should be.

Labour says it will extend Paid Parental Leave and make changes to the DPB. Specifically they do not like the work requirement when the youngest child turns six (which is only being applied to a small percentage of that group currently anyway.)

Annette King says;

"Nobody is saying it should be a benefit for life, but it is to assist people at a time when they are caring for children. Surely the aim here is to bring up responsible, well cared for kids. And those of us who have tried it know that that is hard work."

There are screeds of statistics available that show the children who do best are raised in two parent families. Good outcomes increase further when the two parents are their biological parents. And further improve when the two biological parents are married.

Now I am not a conservative. That means I do not think the state has to enforce such arrangements, or even actively incentivise them. But neither should it be constantly making laws that undermine the family as the best social and economic unit there is.

That is what leftist liberal policy - economic and social - has done for many decades. And in this country the supposed conservative party National is in that basket too.

People are born to form relationships; to form mutual dependencies on each other. A constructive mutual dependency is healthy and it is certainly the best environment within which to nurture children. But start ascribing monetary deficit to either existing partnerships or their breakdown, and then demanding the state ameliorate or correct the deficit, and it is easy to predict what the response will be. Single parents go from forming a very small percentage of society to forming a quarter to a third of all families raising children.

Then we have to take more from working families to support non-working, mostly single parent families, which means working parents, if their relationship can stand it, have to work more to keep ahead of the game. Next the same people who demanded that women should be recompensed for not being in a mutual dependency set-up start demanding that two parent families should also get more financial help and work less.

Where will it end?

When will a politician, preferably a leader, stand up and say, "Sorry folks but you are just going to have to start relying on each other again because we are not up to the job and are broke anyway"?

It ain't going be Mr Smiley.

The Prohibition and prohibition

Reason.com reviews a new book about the Prohibition and its implications for ending the war on drugs. It sounds like a fascinating read and reveals to me how little I knew about that period.

The real puzzle, as the journalist Daniel Okrent argues in his masterful new history of the period, is how a nation that never had a teetotaling majority, let alone one committed to forcibly imposing its lifestyle on others, embarked upon such a doomed experiment to begin with. How did a country consisting mostly of drinkers agree to forbid drinking?

The short answer is that it didn’t. As a reveler accurately protests during a Treasury Department raid on a private banquet in the HBO series Boardwalk Empire, neither the 18th Amendment nor the Volstead Act, which implemented it, prohibited mere possession or consumption of alcohol. The amendment took effect a full year after ratification, and those who could afford it were free in the meantime to stock up on wine and liquor, which they were permitted to consume until the supplies ran out. The law also included exceptions that were important for those without well-stocked wine cellars or the means to buy the entire inventory of a liquor store (as the actress Mary Pickford did). Home production of cider, beer, and wine was permitted, as was commercial production of alcohol for religious, medicinal, and industrial use (three loopholes that were widely abused). In these respects Prohibition was much less onerous than our current drug laws. Indeed, the legal situation was akin to what today would be called “decriminalization” or even a form of “legalization.”

...As Prohibition wore on, its unintended consequences provided the fire that wets had lacked before it was enacted. They were appalled by rampant corruption, black market violence, newly empowered criminals, invasions of privacy, and deaths linked to alcohol poisoned under government order to discourage diversion (a policy that Sen. Edward Edwards of New Jersey denounced as “legalized murder”). These burdens seemed all the more intolerable because Prohibition was so conspicuously ineffective. As a common saying of the time put it, the drys had their law and the wets had their liquor, thanks to myriad quasi-legal and illicit businesses that Okrent colorfully describes.

Entrepreneurs taking advantage of legal loopholes included operators of “booze cruises” to international waters, travel agents selling trips to Cuba (which became a popular tourist destination on the strength of its proximity and wetness), “medicinal” alcohol distributors whose brochures (“for physician permittees only”) resembled bar menus, priests and rabbis who obtained allegedly sacramental wine for their congregations (which grew dramatically after Prohibition was enacted), breweries that turned to selling “malt syrup” for home beer production, vintners who delivered fermentable juice directly into San Francisco cellars through chutes connected to grape-crushing trucks, and the marketers of the Vino-Sano Grape Brick, which “came in a printed wrapper instructing the purchaser to add water to make grape juice, but to be sure not to add yeast or sugar, or leave it in a dark place, or let it sit too long before drinking it because ‘it might ferment and become wine.’ ” The outright lawbreakers included speakeasy proprietors such as the Stork Club’s Sherman Billings-ley, gangsters such as Al Capone, rum runners such as Bill McCoy, and big-time bootleggers such as Sam Bronfman, the Canadian distiller who made a fortune shipping illicit liquor to thirsty Americans under the cover of false paperwork. Their stories, as related by Okrent, are illuminating as well as engaging, vividly showing how prohibition warps everything it touches, transforming ordinary business transactions into tales of intrigue.

The reviewer then considers whether the actions of the anti-prohibitionists - at practical and political levels - could today be emulated to end today's prohibition of drugs;

Another barrier to emulating the antiprohibitionists of the 1920s is that none of the currently banned drugs is (or ever was) as widely consumed in this country as alcohol. That fact is crucial in understanding the contrast between the outrage that led to the repeal of alcohol prohibition and Americans’ general indifference to the damage done by the war on drugs today. The illegal drug that comes closest to alcohol in popularity is marijuana, which survey data indicate most Americans born after World War II have at least tried. That experience is reflected in rising public support for legalizing marijuana, which hit a record 46 percent in a nationwide Gallup poll conducted the week before Proposition 19 was defeated.

A third problem for today’s antiprohibitionists is the deep roots of the status quo. Alcohol prohibition came and went in 14 years, which made it easy to distinguish between the bad effects of drinking and the bad effects of trying to stop it. By contrast, the government has been waging war on cocaine and opiates since 1914 and on marijuana since 1937 (initially under the guise of enforcing revenue measures). Few people living today have clear memories of a different legal regime. That is one reason why histories like Okrent’s, which bring to life a period when booze was banned but pot was not, are so valuable.

Reflecting on the long-term impact of the vain attempt to get between Americans and their liquor, Okrent writes: “In 1920 could anyone have believed that the Eighteenth Amendment, ostensibly addressing the single subject of intoxicating beverages, would set off an avalanche of change in areas as diverse as international trade, speedboat design, tourism practices, soft-drink marketing, and the English language itself? Or that it would provoke the establishment of the first nationwide criminal syndicate, the idea of home dinner parties, the deep engagement of women in political issues other than suffrage, and the creation of Las Vegas?” Nearly a century after the war on other drugs was launched, Americans are only beginning to recognize its far-reaching consequences, most of which are considerably less fun than a dinner party or a trip to Vegas.

Time to get over it

Reading Rosemary McLeod's column today which uses The Blanket Man to represent all that is wrong with Maori I initially had this response, The Bucket Man;



McLeod writes;

Blanket Man is Maori, and wears his blanket much how Maori did when Europeans first arrived here to settle.....The outcome of our arrival and colonisation has not been a happy one for Maori overall, and I hate to be starting another year with Blanket Man in his usual place. He symbolises much that's wrong with how we live together, his wilful, slow suicide an indictment of our lack of understanding.

That is rather sweeping.

Should the "overall" situation of Maori be compared to their pre-colonisation one or to that of present NZ European? On the first count there is no comparison. Life expectancy, health, housing, access to technology, etc is vastly improved. On the second count, today probably a majority of Maori have the same standard of living as a larger majority of NZ European.

And then we can go down the other avenue of conjecturing over what the outcomes might have been for Maori if a different race had colonised NZ. But really this whole colonisation thing, which is factual and undeniable, has, at some stage, to be put to bed.

I'm not prepared to call those people feral, or condemn them, without having a realistic solution for the problems that lie behind their destructive choices. Where are the jobs for them? Where are the schools designed to cater to their learning needs? Why do we continue to fail them in an education system which half of all Maori boys leave without any achievement recorded? Why don't we consider that as outrageous as serious crime? And why are Maori still so unhealthy?

Now we are firmly in the realms of paternalism and determinism. What is it? We stuffed-up for Maori and we have to un-stuff-up? The labour market and education system are to blame, not personal choices and actions or lack thereof? I am certain that in the early part of the 1900s the prescribed problem was Maori lack of access to Pakeha health and education services. Now it is the services themselves?

It's not as if we haven't been down a 'corrective' pathway with Maori immersion schools and umpteen funding initiatives aimed at improving Maori health. Fully restoring Maori property rights is yet to occur. I hope it does.

But it is a dangerous thing to describe the situation of Maori in NZ today as "overall" worse than previously. It plays to the culture of victimhood and resentment that has been perpetuating social problems for too long already.

Quote of the day

"Government, in its final analysis, is organized force."

— Woodrow Wilson

Jobs and good news

Good news for anyone thinking about heading off to Australia to work - their unemployment rate has dipped just below 5 percent for the first time in two years. It stands at 4.98% - officially 5 - compared to our most recent rate of 6.4 percent. Ours however is September, not December. The NZ December figure will almost certainly be higher.

Australia is probably a better bet than the UK where their latest unemployment rate (October) was 7.9 percent.

And for those staying put, Trade Me reports a big increase in job listings.

....32,000 jobs were listed in the last three months of 2010, a 28 per cent increase in the same quarter a year ago.

Of course it could be simply that more employers are using Trade Me to advertise.

I am hanging in there with my new job - running a working portrait studio. Just had a call from a lady who is going to make a $1000+ purchase from me today. And the rent is paid to February. And the sun has just come over the hill.

Links from non-English blogs

It is interesting where links sometimes come from.

Here's one from an Asian blogger linking to some comparative stats I produced between various female occupations and the DPB.

I wish I could comprehend the accompanying commentary. Can anyone else? It's quite amusing to speculate. But there may be useful insight into how other cultures view our welfare system.

Stop Press;

Here is an on-line translation provided by cutting and pasting text at this site;

In Taiwan mentioned the European and American advanced countries, the first choice is naturally US, next is Western Europe, Northern Europe or the Australian various countries.Missed as for the New Zealand this far away tiny small country strength.Recently saw talks about New Zealand's social welfare to an article.The welfare good in a big way frightened me one to jump.Therefore my Chen Kyle immediately regarding this barren land, tiny small country change ones attitude toward.

Because is most early saw in mainland " day Uygur network " pastes the article to speak New Zealand's social welfare, but also thought is Chinese Communist Party's united front plot, takes advantage of this reveals difference of the Taiwan social welfare to press up to the third world suddenly, splits up the Taiwan popular sentiment.I spent some time to find the original text source.We also let the numeral speak, you then understood how New Zealand to does nurture has two child's single-parent families is looks after.Below is New Zealand's profession don't with the weekly salary.

Simple saying, you so long as is the divorce also alone takes care of two children, also lives in Auckland, a week may only receive 580 Niu coins.22.48 calculated by yesterday China business silver closing exchange rate that, is equal to the dollar 13038 Yuan.Compares the New Zealand local other professions, the income is not inferior.In other words, the light leads two child's single mothers in the home, what fart class doesn't use, crossed comfortably.But also because the welfare too is just good, New Zealand common people some people eat the taste, some human of vacations divorce, therefore at present planned repairs the law, if the single parents of son or daughter-in-law's child already six years old, the single mother or the daddy had a week to work for 15 hours.


Lives you does not dare in such country to give birth to the child?


The Taiwan government is not does not have the money, but is not uses in a " government enterprise, the enterprise laborer " incomprehensible nonsense subsidy; Or buys the munitions greatly; Or is the government self-enriches, including self-enriches the armed forces Catholicism treatment, the national travels card, remuneration for life and so on skills.Does what as for 1,000,000 bonuses to like giving birth to child's slogan, basic with gives birth to the child to have nothing to do with, is purely deceives the child, shouts makes child's acrobatics.

Asks the Taiwan government to use the dessert, is not does stimulates moves, does the slogan to be possible to promote the common people to live.Entire social need more fair and unjustness.

Not sure I am any the wiser.

Is Maggie Barry to old for politics?

Whale Oil has a post about Maggie Barry seeking the Botany nomination. In my opinion she is mad. But then people said that to me when I stood for ACT and it's just something you have to find out for yourself. Someone suggested to me being an MP would be like taking a shower in shit. Having watched politics for a number of years, and particularly last year, I can see the motivation for that statement. Individuals might think they can rise above it but to me that smacks of the naivety of a female hooking up with a known boozer and batterer thinking she can tame the man.

But what interests me about Whale Oil's post is his focus on her age. He refers to her more than once as being like a Grandma or great aunt. She is only 51, and physically, a youthful 51 at that. Of course it is entirely possible to be both at that age but something more normally associated with being 60 or so, especially among NZ Europeans who tend to have their children older.

Whale Oil specifically states her age will be against her because she won't have time to achieve much. Yet plenty of people work well into their 60s and 70s, especially men. Perhaps a 51 year-old male prospect would be viewed differently.

So I am utterly at odds with Cameron over this point. But an otherwise interesting read from someone close to the party and process.

Response to 'stargazer' at The Hand Mirror

I need to respond to a blogpost/comment at The Hand Mirror so, having limited time, will make it my post today. Stargazer, another anonymous blogger, linked to Donna Wynd's Herald article describing it as "a reasonable response " to something I wrote which she had not had "the stomach to read". I queried how she could know that it was a reasonable response to something she hadn't read. Her reply:

apologies lindsay, i should have said it's a very reasonable piece (actually a damn good one), written in response to something you wrote. it stands alone as a good piece of writing regardless of anything you've had to say.

given what i've read of your views on this issue, in comments here & on other blogs and the couple of posts on your blog i mistakenly read a couple of years ago, i can't imagine you said anything too different from what you normally said. but go on, surprise me. tell me that you've discovered some empathy for women who leave abusive unhappy relationships, or whose husbands leave them for someone else, or who had a contraceptive failure, or who were never given enough accurate sex education to keep themselves from getting pregnant, or who were raped. tell me you think these women and their children, and male sole-parents who may be in that situation for any number of reasons, deserve our collective support so that they can get back on their feet and so their children can also have the opportunity to succeed. tell me that you mentioned that most sole-parents are on the DPB for 4 years or less, and that an economic recession & high unemployment make it harder to find part-time work that is compatible with parenting duties. tell me you supported child-care subsideies and training allowances that would make it possible for these parents to improve their situation and get off the benefit. tell that you think parenting is so valuable that we should support parents to be able to do it when circumstances are difficult for them, and that you think financial investment in parenting and families (regardless of structure) will pay back to the society that so invests, many times over - at the very least because good parenting should produce a generation of taxpayers rather than a generation of "bludgers".

go on, lindsay, surprise me.

I have always maintained that the state should support people in the situations described above, but in general, for a limited period. There are exceptions - as there are exceptions in the US under time-limiting whereby 20 percent of cases can be exempted - for, example, caregivers of children who are severely physically or mentally disabled.

The statement that most sole parents are on the DPB for 4 years or less is inadequate, which is why I do not use it. To grasp the degree of dependence on the DPB one needs to understand the difference between point in time statistics and over time statistics. The DPB population turns over constantly and many people use it temporarily with which I have no problem. The short-termers bring down average times. Also the statement made by stargazer ignores that almost half of the people who leave the DPB will return beginning a new period. She can check that the period she refers to is 'continuous' - not 'cumulative'.

Latest research from MSD actually covers these distinctions;

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.

This reflects the over-representation of sole parents with long stays on benefit among those in receipt at any point in time, and the longer than average stays on benefit for those who become parents as teenagers.

Had the research considered all people granted benefit as a sole parent, or all people who received benefit as a sole parent over a window of time rather than at a point in time, the overall profile of the group would have appeared less disadvantaged.

I do support child-care subsidies if that is what it takes to enable women to work but as I have mentioned previously, there is ample child-caring capacity within the existing DPB population with around half of caregivers being paid to care for just one child.

Treasury has shown that the Training Incentive Allowance leads to people being on benefits longer. Student loans are interest free so why should a parent get advantage over a non-parent when it comes to education?

Of course parenting is valuable but it essentially comes from motivated individuals. It isn't the prerogative of the state to pay for and regulate. Unfortunately the adults that end up costing society the most are also the most likely to have had subsidised upbringings.

And there isn't much I can say to prove that I do have sympathy for individuals whose lives fall apart through no fault of their own that doesn't sound self-serving so I'll leave that.

Overlap between CYF and WINZ clients

The re-ignition of the debate about child abuse and association with welfare has reminded me about the lack of recent statistical evidence assessing the overlap between between beneficiaries and CYF clients. The only reference source is now 15 years old. And MSD has no plans to repeat the research. I know this because I asked them last year when submitting a number of questions (4,5,6 and 7 below) attempting to establish what the degree of overlap is. According to their responses they have no idea.

How bad is that?

More facts about the abuse of children

Extracted from the US National Incidence of Child Abuse 2010;

* children whose parents are unemployed have about two times the rate of child abuse and two to three times the rate of neglect than children with employed parents

* children in low socioeconomic families have more than three times the rate of child abuse and seven times the rate of neglect than other children

* living with their married biological parents places kids at the lowest risk for child abuse and neglect, while living with a single parent and a live-in partner increased the risk of abuse and neglect to more than eight times that of other children

Taking just the last one, there is another reason why Maori children experience more abuse than others.

The Maori marriage rate is much lower than that of the general population - according to the Census 2006, 29 percent compared with 49 percent of over-15 year olds, while the Maori cohabitation rate is only slightly higher than the general population’s (31 percent compared with 27 percent.) Yet Maori still have a higher fertility rate. In 2004, however, 76 percent of all Maori births were ex-nuptial or unmarried.

All of these life decisions about tenuous partnering and having children are enabled by welfare.

Progress

Donna Wynd, from the Child Poverty Action Group, responded to my column in the NZ Herald.

There are some statistical mistakes or misunderstandings I could comment on but the point I want to highlight is this.

For ten years I have been actively, purposefully and methodically attacking the DPB. When I began the detractors were outnumbering the supporters easily.

I would diligently, obsessively, deal with any arguments using fact. But in the early days I also invested emotion and took counter-attacks very personally. That is a no-no now.

The comments in the NZ Herald responding to my column ran roughly 50/50 pro and agin. Progress. Great.

The first three comments to Donna Wynd are negative. I read these because they came out on the printed version. Haven't perused the others as yet.

My personal battle with the DPB protagonists isn't important. We could spar endlessly and never persuade each other.

The vital aspect of the debate is to allow people who agree (with either viewpoint) to say so, or even if they don't voice their thoughts aloud, to know they are not alone.

The process of advancing ideas is slow but requires persistence. It doesn't feel as though this particular cause is lost.

My brief response to Wynd by way of a letter to the editor;

Donna Wynd, in Make villains of sole mothers at children's peril (NZ Herald, Jan 7) rebutted my suggestion that children are abused because they are meal tickets, by unnecessarily defending the entire sole parent population. Clearly all sole parents do not abuse or neglect their children. Nor do all beneficiaries.

However NZ research shows that a notification to CYF is almost 4 times more likely to occur in a benefit dependent household. She can access this study, The Benefit Status of Caregivers of Children and Young People Who Come to the Notice of CYPFS, on-line.

Yet Wynd writes, "Abuse and neglect of children cuts across income, class and ethnicity." Yes, instances can be found to support this assertion but the fact remains that the predominance of both occurs in lower socio economic, Maori, welfare-dependent settings. It is this blinkered denial of reality that actually perpetuates abuse.

The Ministry of Health, for instance, does not target Pakeha, middle-class females for smoking reduction despite the fact that some smoke. They focus their efforts and resources where the problem is greatest; among Maori, particularly women and girls. This is more likely to effect an overall reduction in smoking.

Shortage of news

A rather breathless headline says,

Youth jobless rate soars to 19.4%

We all know that unemployment is currently relatively high. Unfortunately youth and minority groups always bear the brunt.

Here is the OECD paper the reporter has been looking at. NZ's rate of 15-24 year-old unemployment is 0.9 percent above the OECD average. Not desperately alarming by international standards.

And checking the HLFS rate over the year to September 2010 reveals that the percentage for 15-19 year-olds has dropped slightly from 25.1 to 23.3. The rate for 20-24 year-olds increased slightly from 10.9 to 11.8 percent. So the use of the word "soars" needs some context.

The story is, in line with rising unemployment due to recession, New Zealand's youth unemployment rate climbed after 2007. It has steadied over the past year and is just above the OECD average but below the EU average.

Half-arsed reporting

Here is a stupid headline from the NZ Herald;

More US kids report abuse

Nearly half of United States children who've been victims of crime or abuse are stepping up to tell school officials, doctors and police, according to a 2008 telephone survey of more than 4500 US children and teens. That compares with 25 per cent in a similar study done in 1992.

That's it. Two sentences.

This leaves more questions than answers the central being, how many of the 4,500 were victims?

According to the National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect, overall abuse is down on the 1990s. The data reported on is gathered from various state Child Protection Services (CPS). NIS 4 was published this year. Excerpt:

The number of children who experienced Harm Standard abuse declined significantly, by 26%, from an estimated 743,200 in the NIS–3 to 553,300 in the NIS–4. This reflects a 32% decrease in the rate of Harm Standard abuse per 1,000 children in the nation. Moreover, the incidence of all specific categories of abuse decreased: The incidence of sexual abuse decreased significantly, while the declines in physical abuse and emotional abuse were both close-to-significant.

What the survey reported in the Herald shows is that of the children experiencing a crime or abuse, more are reporting it.

To illustrate my point, let's say 100 children were abused in 1992 and 25 (quarter) of them reported it. In 2008 only 68 children were abused but 34 (half) of them reported it.

More children reported abuse but fewer children were abused.

Yet the headline, without greater context, leaves the distinct impression that child abuse in the US is getting worse. The alternative headline may very well have been that

Fewer US children abused

(Although the half-arsed type would probably say, Less US children abused, if bothering).

And yes I could go hunting for the survey myself but that is irrelevant to the point I am making about half-arsed reporting.

Don't frigging tell me how to have fun

One thing that really raises my hackles is being told how to have fun.

"Ideally, parents will be in the water with the child. They'll also have more fun that way. And, if they are in the water with the child, there is less opportunity to be distracted."

A child will swim, especially if the pool (corrected typo 'pot' - must have been subliminal) is well-heated, all day, every day, of a holiday. It is not my idea of fun being in the water remorselessly badgered with "Mum, watch me do this", and "Mum, watch me do this, " and "Mum, watch me do this" which come at the rate of about 60 per minute.

Once big enough for water-wings my kids were off. Kicking around the motel pool happily while I could enjoy a rare read with one eye and ear on them. They were happier with more swimming time, and I was happier with more intellectual stimulation.

Have you noticed how busy the fun police have been this break? And people have started wishing each other a safe and healthy holiday?? I went to Tauherenikau races. They issued bottled water at the gate and kept making public announcements about keeping your fluid level up. I was trying but someone knocked over my glass of Lindauer. Then the cops were breath-testing every punter leaving. I don't object to the last. We make provision for it. But I can do without the constant hectoring about staying out of the sun because the "current UV reading is ---".

Now some utter killjoy has come up with the idea of alcohol-free February. Not happy with a day, these greedy bastards want to impose an entire month on recalcitrant pleasure seekers. Not in my house.

And who is sick of Paula poster-girl-for-the-police Rose? Nanny supremo banging on about road safety every time you turn the telly on. She leads me to having utterly paranoid thoughts like, what if David and I are killed on the road going to the races? The road is the most dangerous place a human being can venture to? What will happen to the kids? Now that they are too busy reading to want to come and have fun with me??

And spare a thought for the poor smokers. Whammo. There's another three bucks penalty for doing something that gives some relief from all the stress of worrying about getting fat, dying in an earthquake or on the roads or from skin cancer or dehydration or just the interminable nagging.

Let the smokers smoke themselves to death if they want. Because that's one less ageing baby-boomer, the new cause célèbre for the anxiety addicts.

Then somebody came into my shop and told me that pastels are highly carcinogenic. I should be wearing a mask and gloves. Oh fuck. No.

I may as well curl up in a little ball and die right now.

Who is John Key's "untrustworthy and obnoxious" suggestion?

Have your guess here as to who the "untrustworthy and obnoxious" character is that John Key has apparently suggested for the next Governor General.

I didn't have to think very hard at all who this description fits.

Winston Peters.

Laws and his problem

The trouble with Michael Laws is he makes statements about Maori which are founded in fact but the qualifier never sees the light of day. Embroiled in a conflict over his use of another child victim's photo on his facebook page he responds;

"I have no intention of letting the feral Maori underclass keep killing their kids. They are almost all exclusively Maori ... victim and perpetrator. Look at the local roll call: Karl Perigo-Check, Cherish, Jhia Te Tua ... now Sahara. Notice the common thread?"

Now "feral Pakeha underclass" could have been substituted and the sentiment still founded in fact. Not all of the children killed through maltreatment are Maori. And most Maori have Pakeha blood anyway (stating the tiresome obvious there.)

The simple truth of the matter is the Maori underclass is more obvious because it is bigger. It is bigger because of historical factors; the massive urban drift, and dislocation and isolation of individuals. Grandparents, and older family members, were not involved in the upbringing of children the way they traditionally had been. Substitute whanau developed; gangs. Economically Maori were the poor NZ race and the creation of benefits therefore had a much greater effect on them than Pakeha. The same happened in the US with Blacks and Hispanics. Family formation (Travis Snyder) was hit harder. And, in the main, Maori cultural values didn't hold education and provision for the future as dear. Understandable when only 100 years ago merely surviving was the priority.

From Nga Iwi o te Motu, Michael King offers:

[Peter] Buck wrote in his annual report [as Native health officer], “The [Maori] communism of the past meant industry, training in arms, good physique, the keeping of the law, the sharing of the tribal burden, and the preservation of life. The communism of today means indolence, sloth, decay of racial vigour, the crushing of individual effort, the spreading of introduced infections, diseases, and the many evils that are petrifying his advance.” [Maui] Pomare added: “The Maori having been an active race and always having been kept in a state of excitement by wars and the rumour of wars, can now only find vent for his feelings on the racecourse, gambling and billiard-playing, with an occasional bout in the Land court”.

The traits Buck describes are still evident today.

But there are Pakeha aplenty essentially mired by the same "communism" - living off other people by right. No vent for their energy through work, they look for excitement elsewhere. I do not believe a young Maori male who is unemployed, abusing drugs and alcohol, mentally scarred by his own upbringing and in a gang, is any more dangerous than a young Pakeha male in the same circumstances. The last time I spent a day in court observing proceedings the more desperate types, as confirmed by their ongoing state custody, up on domestic violence charges, were young white men.

But returning to my main point, there are fewer of them in relation to NZ European numbers.

There are things that need saying in NZ. But for mine Laws just puts it too bluntly and in doing so probably goes no way towards improving matters. Quite possibly he pushes some into resentful, reproachful retreat and doubly deviant.

What we actually need is for (some) Maori to do way better. That is up to individuals and those people who have the most influence over them. Their whanau or whatever is left of it. It isn't for Laws to singlehandedly solve.

BUT ... exactly the same can be said for (some) Pakeha.

(I cede the point in anticipation that constant qualification is a pain in the butt and often fail myself to adhere.)