Shocking waste

The really 'big' idea that comes out of the WWG report is the recommendation to move to a single benefit and extend employment services to most beneficiaries.

We propose that all people seeking welfare support would apply for Jobseeker Support. This common support would start with the assumption that people can work and would send strong signals about the value of paid work.

• Jobseeker stream – Most people who enter the system and apply for Jobseeker Support would be expected to take steps immediately to move into paid work, including applying for job vacancies. There would be clear signals about the consequences of not actively looking for work and the expectation that any reasonable job offer is to be accepted. A range of targeted support would be available, such as childcare support and job search assistance.

• Transition to work stream – For people with significant vocational and non-vocational barriers to securing and maintaining paid work there would still be the strong default expectation that they would transition into paid work, but there would be a more flexible, tailored approach to take account of their particular circumstances. Work-focused interviews, action plans and work related activity would be fundamental.

What intrigues me about this proposal is that Labour was on this track six years ago.

6821 (2005). Judith Collins to the Minister for Social Development and Employment (27 May 2005): In what ways is the new work-focused service for all beneficiaries expected to underpin, or move towards, the single core benefit?

Hon Steve Maharey (Minister for Social Development and Employment ) replied: The new service model, that is being trialled in 12 prototype sites, extends employment services to all beneficiaries, regardless of benefit type. Delivering services based on individual circumstances rather than benefit categorisation is integral to the concept behind the proposed single core benefit.

And...

3168 (2005). Judith Collins to the Minister for Social Development and Employment (09 Mar 2005): What is officials' current best estimate of the number of add-ons that will be required on top of the single benefit?

Hon Steve Maharey (Minister for Social Development and Employment ) replied: As part of the announcements in February 2005, I outlined three areas of additional support; accommodation, family support and disability. These are the subject of ongoing work.

And...

3162 (2005). Judith Collins to the Minister for Social Development and Employment (09 Mar 2005): Further to written question 2152 (2005), what has been the frequency of meetings of the group comprising senior officials from the Ministry of Social Development, Treasury, Department of Labour, Ministry of Health and the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, which provides guidance on the co-ordination of the work programme and options for the development of the Government's plan to introduce a single core benefit, in the last 12 months?

Hon Steve Maharey (Minister for Social Development and Employment ) replied: The group comprising senior officials from the Ministry of Social Development, Treasury, Department of Labour, Ministry of Health and the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, which provides guidance on the co-ordination of the work programme and options for the development of the Government's plan to introduce a single core benefit meets fortnightly or as required. The group’s first meeting was held on 13 August 2004. The group last met on 30 November 2004, further meetings are yet to be scheduled. This is also my response to written parliamentary question 3163 (2005) to 3165 (2005) and 3167 (2005).

And finally...

2263 (2005). Judith Collins to the Minister for Social Development and Employment (25 Feb 2005): What are the names and dates of any reports or written advice received during 2000 relating to the idea of a single benefit?

Hon Steve Maharey (Minister for Social Development and Employment ) replied: There are three reports relating to the idea of a single benefit that fall within the scope of the member’s question. These are: * 15 June 2000 Social Assistance: Paper One: The Context and Reconfiguring the Community Wage * 12 September 2000 Social Assistance Strategy: Goals and Work Programme * 1 December 2000 Benefit Design: Social Security Benefits for those of Working Age

So not such a new or radical idea after all. A mass of reports, trials, and high level meetings done and dusted and back to square one.

And just one more question from me.

How much time and money do government and bureaucrats waste?

Aotearoa - "safe and wholesome"

Sue Bradford has certainly become more extreme since leaving parliament. About the WWG, last week this was reported;

Former Green MP Sue Bradford said the group seemed to be "looking to Nazi Germany for inspiration, with its underpinning 'work makes free' philosophy, attempted eugenic control of a portion of the population, and its potential racist implications for Maori".

How do you derive that from a report that essentially finds there are far too many people, disproportionately Maori, living off the extremely-stretched public purse because they have children to care for and no jobs, and to at least arrest the problem they should be offered free contraception?

Then yesterday she started blogging about 'baby farms' (next it'll be 'baby-farmers' conjuring up images of the baby killer Minnie Dean, forgetting we have many more recent examples of people who killed their own children). She is reacting to the proposal that the limit of childcare centres rolls be raised from 50 to 150. But this is the statement that stunned me.

And what of the wellbeing of the staff attempting to provide care and education in conditions more reminiscent of Eastern Europe than of safe, wholesome little Aotearoa?

Aotearoa, safe and wholesome?

You mean since the removal of section 59 Sue? I must have missed that.

Choice from government: work or pregnancy

Sense from The Spectator:

Few could doubt that welfare reform is most urgently needed. The British welfare state is now incubating the very poverty it was designed to eradicate, creating what Beveridge called the ‘giant evil’ of idleness. The welfare state, in effect, ‘employs’ the people who would otherwise be part of the economy. Women suffer most. Girls leaving British schools without decent qualifications are given a choice by the government: work or pregnancy. A lone parent with two children in Britain is assured more disposable income than a hairdresser, post office worker or clerk. Only those both living and working in Westminster could fail to see why this is a problem.

(Hat-tip, The Welfare State We're In)

Roger Douglas - political swansong that needs urgent attention

Roger Douglas speech to the House on the Budget Policy Statement 2011:

On the 28th May 2009 I said in this House that “this is a budget of deficits. A deficit of spending, a deficit of the current account, a deficit of courage, but most importantly, a deficit of imagination”.

I realise that I got it wrong – I was being far too generous to the Government. This country is up the proverbial creek, not only without a paddle, but in a boat that is quickly sinking. We are running a cash deficit of $300 million a week (which is about to get much larger) and the Government’s response has been to act like cowards.

They have refused to do the right thing. They want to fund reports, hold press conferences, give speeches – do everything humanly possible to avoid making any decisions that might be unpopular. I am sick of it. We are in a state of financial ruin and the Government wants to sit on its hands. I am disgusted and have had enough.

New Zealand faces problems that are of a long standing nature. If we look around the world we can see inspiring examples of countries that have had the guts to do what is right, made the tough decisions, and are now enjoying tremendous success.

Their economic prosperity has meant that the vulnerable and old in society are looked after, the physically able have access to productive jobs, the sick have access to healthcare and their children are well-educated. These are the hallmarks of a functioning society. For many politicians in this House a vision of a prosperous society is just too difficult for them to fathom. Steve Chadwick made this clear when she said that her children had already resigned themselves to earning less in New Zealand than they would overseas. Is this the vision and inspiration we see coming out of the Labour Party.

What a great future and vision she has instilled in her children for New Zealand. Instead of looking for reforms that could see us pass Australia many politicians in this House have given up! It is a disgrace and unacceptable from a politician in this House. If this is what you are selling to New Zealand as their future you should give up.

In this speech I do not want to focus on a comparison with Australia, the National Party by rejecting the 2025 taskforce report shows that they do not want to catch Australia. This was too ambitious for them. I want to look at a country that we should be outperforming almost in every respect – Singapore. Singapore has everything against it, it has roughly the same sized population as New Zealand, it has absolutely no mineral wealth, and it could easily fit into Lake Taupō. In almost every respect we should outperform them, however the reality is that we do not even come close.

Let us draw comparisons between the two countries. First, New Zealand GDP growth in 2010 was under 1 percent. Singapore grew at a whopping 14 percent. In 1960, our GDP value was almost 3 times that of Singapore. In the last 20 years, Singapore has raced ahead. In 2015, Singapore will have a GDP value that is 3 times that of New Zealand. If we are to look at labour productivity per capita in New Zealand dollars – Singapore labour productivity in 2010 was $182,546 per person, that is almost twice New Zealand’s $93,365.

Why have they been able to achieve such prosperity with no minerals, no land and a relatively small population? They certainly did not do it by giving $43 million loans to private televisions channels. It is because they were willing to make tough decisions.

Government expenditure accounts for only 17% of GDP, that compares to New Zealand’s 43%. Their tax rates are also low, the top take rate being on 20 cents in every dollar kicking in at around $320,000 New Zealand dollars rather than the 33 cents which kicks in at $70,000 in New Zealand. Most importantly, their politicians had a vision for the future, they put aside short-term political gains and focused on the future – in short they had the guts to do what was right. They outlined a blueprint of where they want to go and they moved swiftly to achieve it. In doing so, they have left New Zealand in the dust.

But that is enough of that. What vision should we lay for New Zealand’s future? The first point should be to not accept apathy and poverty. We need new leaders that are inspired and inspiring. They need to implement quality reform. I want to outline what will be needed to leap over Australia and catch Singapore.

We need to decide to switch from government delivery, to private sector delivery like Singapore did in a whole range of industries. I have an 11 point action plan to get this country back on track:

1. Tax Choice

1. Introduce a $35,000 dollar tax free threshold.
2. Right to stay on current system for over 30s if they so choose.
3. Allow the poorest in society to keep their money – compassionate.
4. Singapore has a tax free threshold of around $21,000 NZD, and only taxes at 2% up to around $35,000 NZD.



2. Flat tax rate beyond $35,000.

1. Singapore have significantly flattened their tax rate. There top tax bracket is 20%, kicks in at around $320,000 NZD.



3. Replace company tax with an asset tax

1. 1.2 cents in the dollar (not available to fee based industries i.e. lawyers and engineers).



4. Healthcare –

1. Singapore 1 – 3 percent GDP v 9% in NZ.



5. Education

1. Māori – underachievement For Maori, 56 percent will not gain NCEA level 1 or above before they leave school.
2. More generallya third of school leavers fail to achieve NCEA Level 2 or higher.
3. Singapore – education is seen to be a great source of social mobility. Singapore has released statistics recently that show that children from disadvantaged backgrounds continue to achieve academically. Of students in the bottom third socio-economic bracket, about half score within the top two-thirds of their Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE). This is cannot be said about New Zealand.



6. Welfare

1. Minimum income.
2. Time limit.
3. Re-education.



7. Government expenditure

1. Goal to get total government expenditure under 20 percent – ideally get it to 17% like Singapore.



8. Regulations

1. Get rid of remaining tariffs.
2. Cut through red tape.



9. Immigration

1. Open up immigration – get skilled people in.



10. Reform Government assets



I want to provide a future where my grandchildren live in New Zealand and can earn wages that are competitive with the world. I have a vision. I know how to get there. I refuse to be like Steve Chadwick and let my grandchildren accept that we will always be poorer than everyone else. It is disgusting. It is time to wake up – it is time to lay the groundwork for our children, make the tough decisions, rather than sit back and give in to apathy and poverty.

Willie Jackson at ACT conference

Listening to Radio Live yesterday I heard John Tamihere make mention that Willie Jackson is speaking at the ACT conference this weekend. First I had heard of it."You would speak to a hole in the wall if you were paid to, " Tamihere observed.

What would Willie Jackson have to say to an ACT audience?

Willie Jackson, Broadcaster: Why Maori should be given
special treatment in New Zealand today

First he will have to define what special treatment is, which will at least include having reserved seats on the Auckland council. Hide is completely opposed to that and I can't imagine any ACT member supporting them. Remember ACT is going to heavily campaign on 'One Law For All' this year.

No doubt it will include the recognition of Maori customary title. ACT is ambivalent on that but against the Seabed and Foreshore Bill. So that'll be a red rag to a bull to at least some audience members, Coastal Coalition types perhaps.

He is there because Willie courts any attention, and because ACT are courting media attention. Silly Willie.

No reasoning person can argue with one law for all. But I don't want to be involved with the anti-Maori sentiment it seeks and succeeds in provoking for the purposes of vote-buying. There will be racists in that audience and Willie himself is racist. Result? They will simply reinforce each others views which will only become further entrenched in the process.

Or no. Silly me actually. This is the enlightened, progressive, big-hearted ACT that engages and listens. Humble apologies. We'll have a little less cynicism from you young lady. Yes Mum.

Then and now

It is a shock to me that 1981 is 30 years ago. Yesterday, looking for a incident I want to research, I looked through all of the Evening Post for January 1981. Fascinating but tiresome when on microfilm. Scanning through all the sport and classified and supplementary advertising is hard on the eyes and neck.

What were the issues of the day?

Violent crime was at unacceptable levels and birching was the proposed solution. Birching. Yes. A serious debate was being had by the public and in parliament and penal reforms groups were enacting such a practice publicly by way of protest.

Child abuse was on the rise.

Red tape was crippling business.

Road deaths were out of control and young drivers were the worst culprits.

Unemployment among young Maori was estimated at around 50 percent. But benefits to 16 and 17 year-olds shouldn't be scrapped because the education system couldn't cope with them staying on at school.

And women should stay out of the workforce, stay at home and be mothers, as a solution to generally rising unemployment.

I was 21. That was NZ then and not much progress has been made on many of these issues. The red tape is different, violence is worse but perhaps more localised, child abuse is arguably worse, unemployment is higher than it was then. The best improvement would be in the reduction in road deaths - although you wouldn't know it listening to the media.

Trying to resurrect the debate over the WWG report

I said that the opponents of the report would lose more by being denied the debate triggered by the WWG report. Accordingly, today a number, probably working in cahoots, have issued releases or made blog posts in an attempt to reignite the issue.

Time to dismiss Welfare Working Group report, The Greens

Welfare Working Group recommendations flawed without investment, COMVOICES

Wrong-headed Welfare Working Group miss the point,NZCTU

If only those poor people would stop breeding, The Hand Mirror

A beneficiary advocate says proposals to contract out welfare services will create an industry out of misery, Sue Bradford

The only one I have a reaction to is Meteria Turei's, on behalf of the Greens;

“The earthquake in Christchurch has shown the compassionate and supportive power of communities. In that context the Welfare Working Group’s report looks incredibly harsh and inappropriate.”

My feeling is that most New Zealanders can differentiate between emergency aid and lifestyle welfare. The WWG report is an attempt to deal with the latter.

By the end of December 2009 14,394 babies born that year were being supported by a main benefit. A big chunk of the ensuing dependency must have been preventable. The earthquake was not.

US job figures disappoint?

That's the headline. The question mark is mine.

The keenly awaited jobs figures have been released in the US and experts are disappointed.

Unemployment has dropped just below nine percent, and more than 190 thousand new jobs were created.

Government employee numbers dropped because of cutbacks but hiring in manufacturing, health care, construction and transportation numbers increased.

Experts say the 8.9% unemployment rate is still too high to consider the US economic recovery strong.

They say around 250,000 new jobs were needed at this time.

It is disappointing for those unemployed at this time but the really good news is the rebalancing.

There is the essential movement out of the public sector and into the private. Any recovery without that is artificial. It is the private sector that provides the jobs that create wealth directly or indirectly.

Sunday morning rave

Usually people label me as right-wing. Yet I have never been a National member, never voted for National and generally take so little interest in their party politics that I didn't even know whether Jami-lee Ross was a bloke or a girl until I googled the name and image after misinterpreting the opening line from a Standard post.

I was firmly in the ACT camp when it was classical liberal, which is not right-wing.

Classical liberal philosophy promotes above all else individual rights. It opposes the power of the state over individual rights.

On the other side are collective rights. These are pushed by left-wingers. They love the state because it promotes the interests of groups to the detriment of individuals.

But true right wingers are collectivists too. They want the state to promote the rights of groups they belong to. National has a few of those.

A lot of nonsense is talked about left and right in this country. And from time to time I even indulge in it myself for the simple reason that most people are too poorly educated to understand anything else.

There is no classical liberal party in this country currently. Some talk about National having a classical liberal wing but that's a joke. Especially when people regret Simon Power's resignation because he led their more liberal team. Power? He steered through many pieces of legislation that offended against individual rights. And plans to ram through more before November.

Some people just can't grasp the importance of individual rights. People like Sean Plunket who last week took a very illiberal position on his talkshow. He was aghast at the judge's decision about the Wanganui gang patch ban. He believes the wearing of the patch should be illegal across the country. So should gang membership and the very gangs themselves. He says that to get a patch someone has to commit a crime therefore all patch wearers are criminals.

It was gratifying to hear some people challenge him saying, punish the crime, not the process of association or expression of it. I put it to him that some gang leaders are trying to turn their gangs around, recalling an interview he did when he was still at Radio NZ. He interviewed a Sally Army rep and a gang leader over the matter of a group attending rehab at a location in Turangi. Plunket was hostile towards the gang member and seemed to be trying to stir up community unrest about the rehab activity. My point to Plunket was that some gang members do turn their backs on criminal activity but not on the gang. The gang is more than just men. It is their women and children. It is entirely possible that someone sports a patch when they are not currently criminal or have already served time for past misdeeds. I acknowledged it would be naive to believe many fitted the description. But tried to get him to see that the regalia itself should not be illegal. Still he insists that in the matter of gangs like the Mongrel Mob and Black Power there is no room for 'niceties' like freedom of expression, freedom of association, etc. On this matter he would sit quite comfortably in the ACT party.

Relating the exchange to my husband he broke into the famous passage, "First they came for ...

That is exactly why individual rights must be preserved at all cost, even when we don't like the individuals who rights we uphold.

And it is a sobering thought that there isn't a party in our parliament that bases its philosophy and actions on this idea.

The earthquake bill

An interview with Mike Hoskings, NewstalkZB, Thursday morning, about whether or not trimming Working For Families would go any way towards meeting the earthquake bill (starts at 20:41). Pieces were spliced into subsequent news bulletins and (to my frustration) I am still being described as a 'former ACT candidate'. It'll probably get carved into my gravestone.

ACT on message

Brief and simple so re-produced in full;

Hide - Vaulting Matilda March 4
Friday, 4 March 2011, 7:53 pm
Press Release: ACT New Zealand


ISSUE 15, March 4 2011
REPRIORITISE, REBUILD

These are grim times for Canterbury, and indeed for New Zealand. Our second largest city is devastated and the people of Christchurch are enduring the hardest of times.

We are now forced to make hard choices, to focus intensely on only the highest priorities – we need to face reality.

Our starting point is not good. Our government has been borrowing a massive $300 million per week simply to keep afloat. That’s almost $200 per week for each and every Kiwi household.

And now we have Christchurch to rebuild.

However it’s not just government that overspends – as a nation we have built up overseas debt of $162 billion, 85% of GDP.

We have seen the economic and social turmoil in the most highly indebted European countries. The future has arrived for them. Those in deep trouble were the countries with the highest current account deficits, the highest levels of overseas debt and the highest levels of government debt. If you need to know what the future holds on our present track, just look at the so-called PIIGS: Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece and Spain.

The reason we have so much wasteful, pointless and counterproductive government spending is that politicians have every incentive to spend more, and promise too much. As voters we encourage them.

The middle class want free childcare. Students want interest-free loans. Pensioners want pensions and gold cards. On and on it goes. Every interest group wants their own government department or agency. Helen Clark’s Labour government perfected the art of spending money on key interest groups to hold on to power at all cost.

We couldn’t afford that before the earthquakes and we absolutely cannot now. Government capital spending is going to increase as we rebuild Christchurch.

We must ensure now that the general good prevails over narrower self-interest. Government must live within a budget as tight as the budgets that ordinary households face.

Rodney Hide

Leader, ACT Party

New blog

A new blog coming in from Christchurch with an interesting take on the refugee exodus.

WFF - changes at the top-end won't cut it

Because the PM has suggested making Working For Families less generous in an attempt to find the money needed to pay for the Christchurch recovery the Labour vote-buyer is once again in the news.

Earthquake or no earthquake many economists regard these sorts of family spending programmes as highly ineffective and inefficient. As a vehicle to reduce child poverty they often result in more workless homes. Yes, the In Work tax credit (one of four WFF tax credits) was intended to get more beneficiaries into the workforce but at the same time an evaluation showed more partnered mothers left the work force. ( And then the recession wiped out the increase in single parent employment too.) At the very low income end Family Tax Credits to benefit-dependent families tend to keep people on benefits because of the high marginal tax rates they produce and the incentive that higher benefit-packages bring.

When Labour widened the scope of eligibility for family assistance and re-named it WFF they virtually doubled the cost in the interim period. In 2005, as the opposition leader John Key called WFF "a giant welfare package". And at some point "communism by stealth". That is still true but in order to win the 2008 election he decided he could not risk undoing the scheme. There are over 400,000 families with dependent children - nearly four in five - receiving an average annual entitlement of between $6 and 7,000. Obviously, however the higher up the income scale we go, the lower the payments are. So cutting them back at the top end isn't going to save the government very much money. Not when they are talking about a $5 billion drop in tax revenue due to the loss of economic activity in Christchurch.

Other reasons why WFF is a bad business include the privilege/ penalty process. Childless individuals and couples resent having to pay for other people's choices. No wonder so many migrate. Some research shows that families with children actually accumulate more wealth over a lifetime though larger homes and more constrained life styles. So why is the taxpayer expected to add to that wealth?

Churning significant amounts of income involves dead-weight loss. It is inefficient. The bureaucracy wouldn't be needed if the money was left in someone's pocket in the first instance, rather than taking it and giving it back.

Some people believe that family assistance programmes increase fertility rates but any correlation is uneven across various countries. In fact groups like the Child Poverty Action Group claim NZ puts a shockingly small amount of GDP into family assistance yet we have one of the highest fertility rates in the developed world. Many European countries they admire - Sweden, Denmark and Norway for instance - all have lower rates than NZ.

In the final analysis WFF was a vote-buyer. With NZ's current somewhat dire situation National has to persuade people of the right course of action. What is needed is not necessarily what they want. People do understand this. Key has to convince then to vote using their heads and hearts, and not through their pockets. The programme Labour introduced in 2005 should go.

(The likes of Lianne Dalziel will protest that cuts to spending are the last thing Christchurch needs. So make a temporary exception for Christchurch. The precedent is already set with special spending packages and, last year, the DPB reforms were deferred for Christchurch beneficiaries.)

Stigmatising drink-drivers

Here's a new idea, to me anyway. Various states of America require first time drink drivers to display what are called 'whiskey-plates' on their vehicles. This marks them for the police to pay special attention to and identifies them for the purposes of public reprobation I suppose. I can empathise with the arguments both for and against;

Washington has become the latest state to see a push for a so-called whiskey-plate law to combat drunk driving, a move defense lawyers and civil libertarians say can unfairly stigmatize offenders, and sometimes their families as well, reports the Wall Street Journal.

* The law would require first-time drunk drivers to replace their license plates with easy-to-spot tags that end with the uppercase letter "Z," a signal to police to pay close attention to the car.
* Minnesota, an early adopter of such a law, uses the letter "W" -- hence the term "whiskey plate" -- on a plain white background.
* Offenders in Washington would be required to display the special plates for three years after their driving privileges are restored.

Vanita Gupta, deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, said whiskey plates were part of a "trend of overcriminalization" in the United States. "These sorts of laws just create obstacles to offenders getting fresh starts and moving forward with their lives," she said.

A handful of other states have adopted similar laws.

* In Minnesota, certain drunk-driving offenders are required to attach special plates to their car for a year after their driving privileges are restored.
* An earlier version of the Minnesota law was enacted in 1988.
* Drunk-driving-related fatalities have fallen steadily since.

Cactus on capitalism, caring and Canterbury

I doubt this blog can add to Cactus' traffic but I must link to her latest piece if only to recognise and acknowledge its worth.

The Left's Deluded Monopoly on Caring


...Capitalism seeks to create wealth. Socialism seeks to buy votes by spending it. For years leftist tilting welfarism has destroyed New Zealand's chance of a nest-egg for this rainiest of days. Over-generous dollops of welfarism has spent up the nations inheritance for moments like these...

Blow out in long-term unemployed - Australia

The Age reports a "blow out in the long-term unemployed".

THE number of people on welfare benefits for more than a year has hit its highest since early 2002, with long-term recipients swelling by nearly 40 per cent since the global financial crisis.

Despite claims of skills and labour shortages, 349,806 people have been on Newstart Allowance for more than a year, according to Centrelink data for January, published by the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations.

I stand to be corrected but surely this was to be expected after people who had been or would have been on the Parenting Payment - DPB equivalent - were required to either go onto or move to the Newstart Allowance.

Imagine if we did the same. Those parents with children 6 or older were moved onto the Unemployment Benefit. The long-term unemployed would increase.

But the journalist makes no mention of this. It seems a shallow analysis. Hence the conundrum of rising long-term unemployment set against falling unemployment.

The response to that welfare report

As the days past last week I became less and less inclined to enter the welfare report debate. Primarily because of the timing, but running a close second to that, the quality of the debate. Here is just one example;

MEDIA RELEASE

Friday 22 February 2011

Celebrate Beneficiaries - The Heroes of the Recession


It is the government who is making bad life choices, not beneficiaries! In fact, Trevor McGlinchey from the NZ Council of Christian Social Services (NZCCSS) says beneficiaries are the heroes who are carrying the country through the recession.

NZCCSS Executive officer McGlinchey was speaking in response to today’s release of the third and final report from the government Welfare Working Group Report.

...“Last year’s Budget offered millions in tax assistance to those on mid to high incomes, many of whom pay relatively minimal tax because they know how to work the system. That leaves low income earners and beneficiaries to pay off the nation’s debts!”

So I apologise for encouraging people to get in and show support for reform and then failing to do so myself.

As it happens the report was overtaken by events and its opponents will be more frustrated about that than the group itself. There is good and bad in it. Now it awaits National to pick up the best and make it policy.

Sneaking into the supermarket to buy my porn... er sorry...wine.

Oswald blogs on the demands of the anti-alcohol apparatchiks;

"...Displaying alcohol in supermarkets should be treated in the same way as dirty movies are displayed in a video store, the Alcohol Reform Bill select committee was told yesterday.

Alcohol Action said the proposals adapted by the Government from a Law Commission report into alcohol reform did not go far enough.

Alcohol should not be easily accessible and should not be displayed at the front of stores or with other products such as fruit and vegetables, the group said yesterday.

"Supermarkets are treating alcohol like it's a commodity rather than a drug," spokeswoman Professor Jennie Connor said.

"It should be treated like dirty movies, they should be in one corner of the supermarket at the back..."

Utter unadulterated hysteria.

Have these cheerless naysayers ever taken a trip to a vineyard to observe the work, the craft and the dedication that goes onto producing wine? Have they no regard for the talent brought to the label design and marketing? The jobs provided to thousands of harvesters, bottlers, distributors, and on-sellers? Have they ever entered a really first class cellar and felt the romance of wine bottled and aged for many years?

How dreadfully insulting to compare wine to "dirty movies" (and even dirty movies have a place, like them or not.)

Painting and making sense of stuff

It's been a shit week. I have nothing to say about the heartache that many people have been condemned to live with. We say, life goes on. But for them, it hasn't and won't. All our moods are affected even if we are only observers. In our own ways we look for things that balance the deficit.

Here's something I have been working on for a while. This character always lifts me up. A life turned around; turning around. Certainly the proof that hope springs eternal both within, and for, seemingly hopeless cases.

DPB work-testing when youngest child turns three

According to the NZ Herald;

It is understood the group will tomorrow recommend solo parents get work from when the child is three years old, One News reported.

This will cause an unholy outcry.

But the recommendation is not radical by international standards.

The following table is now out-of-date but I can tell you that the trend is lowering the age of youngest child. Not lifting it. The UK and Australia have moved to 6 as has NZ. The US and Canada have a range of ages according to the state or province, with the US maximum of 1 year. Norway, France, Germany and Switzerland were work-testing at 3 when this table was published.



The Herald's Simon Collins has found a trier who can't get work, or much of it.

But this individual is not what the reforms are about. The reforms are aimed at reducing the sort of long term dependence that persists throughout periods of low unemployment. That's why the focus is on the DPB, the sickness and invalid's benefits.

Also some media commentators yesterday started talking up "benefit cuts". That is scaremongering and unnecessarily worrying those on benefits. The level of payments was outside of the scope of this report. Key has confirmed there will not be cuts.

Maxim - a National Party caucus takeover??

Whale has this extraordinary claim on his blog.

The fun­da­men­tal­ist Maxim Insti­tute have been pointed to as behind this selec­tion jack up, as the first stage for the takeover of the National Party by fundies. Brent is appar­ently one of 37 can­di­dates they have primed around the coun­try to take over cau­cus between now and 2017.

The Maxim Institute seems to have abundant money and was very politically active organising debates around the country prior to the last election. I have regarded them generally as a transparent outfit which produces quite a bit of good, balanced, politically centre-right stuff. Their Real Issues weekly e-mail is usually worth a read. CEO Greg Fleming is a man I like and respect notwithstanding there are issues we would disagree on because I am not a conservative or Christian.

Fundamentalists? A caucus takeover?? Seems fanciful. But its a free country. People are free to organise and free to oppose. Any input or views people have on this matter would be welcome.

Welfare recommendations out tomorrow - pitch in

Two reports herald the publication of the Welfare Working Group's final report tomorrow. Campbell Roberts of the Salvation Army says radical new welfare proposals are set to become a defining moment in New Zealand's history. If only.

And, despite not knowing what is in the report, Sue Bradford is already planning her protest outside Work and Income in Henderson tomorrow.

National is taking the right line on this. Key has repeatedly identified the most important goal over the past few weeks. That is getting children off welfare. It isn't about persecuting or punishing people. And he needs to hold that line because he is in for a barrage of angry, often misguided, and often personal abuse.

What I want to see is more people actually pitching in behind Key. Because when it gets ugly those people who support reform mysteriously clam up and are happy for someone else to take the flack. If we want to see the recommendations become election policy, and in turn actual policy more people need to state the case for them. Write a letter to the editor; make a comment in a newspaper forum; make a comment on talkback; write to John Key. But don't let it look like the reforms are too unpopular to implement just because the very active and very loud left win the day.

Remember the end goal. Better futures for everyone. But especially the child who will be born into a welfare home today, and without change, will spend years living with disadvantage and dysfunction and dwindling chance of breaking the mould.

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.)