Fore...tee...

...thousand. That's what the lady captain of a Cheshire golf club had claimed in disability living allowances. Perhaps she thought 'disability' included not having enough money to suit her lifestyle.

Valerie Lewis received more than £40,000 in Disability Living Allowance, claiming she suffered back pain that meant she could barely walk.

But the mother-of-two played four nine or 18-hole rounds of golf a week and was lady captain of her local club.

The 55-year-old first claimed the disability benefit in 2001, insisting she had difficulty walking more than 7ft, getting dressed and even cutting up food or tying her shoelaces.

Fraud investigators filmed her teeing off at Sutton Hall Golf Club near Runcorn, Cheshire, loading her golf buggy, lifting clubs in and out of her car and walking ‘five or six miles’.

She was filmed at the 6,000-yard course in November 2008 after investigators received a tip-off that she was ‘fitter than stated’.

Lewis was further implicated by her own diary, which revealed she had played in a golf competition on the day of her very first disability assessment and rode a horse the day after.

In January she escaped jail after admitting failing to inform the Department for Work and Pensions about changes to her circumstances.

At Warrington Crown Court, Lewis, from Runcorn, was given a sentence of 24 weeks in prison, suspended for two years, and 200 hours of community service.

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

At the risk of stating the obvious, the problem is dishonesty. The more people who are dishonest, the more it becomes normalised and the more people accept it as normal. A values survey conducted over many decades showed that increasingly people thought it was OK to apply for benefits they were not legally entitled to.

MSD research includes this insight into inter-generational welfare dependence:

"First, poor children are more likely to grow up to be poor, so the correlation could just result from shared economic circumstances. It could also arise if parents who get welfare have less distaste for welfare (and perhaps more distaste for work) and transmit these attitudes to their children. Finally, it could arise if parents who get welfare transmit information about getting welfare to their children in a way that lowers the transaction costs of the children's participation in welfare programmes. Gottschalk (1992), using NLSY data, finds that among individuals eligible for welfare, adults who grew up in families that received welfare were more likely to receive it themselves than adults who grew up in families that did not receive welfare. This suggests that at least some of the intergenerational transmission of welfare use results either from parents and their children sharing norms and values about welfare receipt, or from parents and children sharing information about welfare receipt."

So the transmission of degraded values happens within families and across broader communities.

The question is, of course, how to arrest and reverse the decline. People cannot suddenly be made more honest, but the opportunity to exploit can be minimised, and the rewards for integrity increased, even if only in a relative sense.

Thanks Darren

I would like to thank Darren Hughes. For adding to the public perception that most politicians are a pathetic lot. Most do not have the talent to reach similar levels of public recognition and attention in any other sphere. The ones who are attracted to politics very young are particularly suspect. Their convictions almost exclusively rest on the acceptance that government is good and government is power. In that order. And they want a piece of the action. They fancy themselves as leaders because they have more apparent confidence and certainty than their compatriots. They think that they are more capable and compassionate, when, in fact, they simply have an utter lack of compunction about using other people's money to take the easy way out of any given situation. In their minds, life is black and white. Because government is good and powerful, as agents they can do no wrong. And the recompense for being agents just happens to be well above anything they might earn elsewhere given their paucity of skills and talent. They increasingly believe in their goodness and infallibility. Which can be contagious, especially for impressionable wannabes made in their mirror image. But there is a vast difference between admiration of a mind and attraction to a body. If they do co-exist, great. But to assume as much is very, very dicey.

So that's a mistake most mere mortals make at some point. But our politician isn't a mere mortal. Not in his mind. Not until it is convenient to re-assume such a humble position anyway. Hughes is a victim of his own self-regarded success. Yes, lots of people say what a popular guy, what a great wit, what a great debater, what a future. But notice that they all share the government is good and powerful world view.

We yearners-after-small-government sometimes use the quote, a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take it all away. In an ironic way Hughes has just had a nasty taste of that.

Paying the earthquake bill - every bit helps

It has been suggested that California legalise dope and tax it, to go some way towards fixing their financial woes. While NZ scratches around looking for ways to pay the Christchurch earthquake bill here's a company donating $5 from each sale. What does it produce? Cannabis look-alikes - or as they describe their products - "legal weed".

I wonder if the Mob or Black Power have made similar pledges?

Unfortunately I expect NZ will probably do the retrograde thing and close these legal businesses down rather than accept human nature for what it is and make some gain for the good. Similar products are already illegal in Germany and Australia apparently. Oh and look who is leading the charge.

The inherent stupidity of paying young people to become parents

Money is a powerful motivator. But the degree to which it motivates varies strongly across individuals. My own self-assessment is low on the scale. My ideal is to be free from financial anxiety and unmanageable debt but I don't yearn after overseas travel, flash clothes, etc. When I was a teenager I was more motivated by money than I am now because I didn't have any! And I wanted stuff. So I worked at various jobs while still at school.

Where is all this leading? You know that claim that young women don't get pregnant to get on the DPB; "There is no evidence" welfare supporters say. The anecdotal, like being told personally by a teenage parent co-ordinator that money is a major factor, is not admissible.

I accept that young women want to become mothers. The prospect of a tiny little soft, loving, dependent being that is all theirs is not an unattractive idea. But would it be so if there was no money attached?

Imagine a moment. A 16 year-old girl disinterested in school bar the social aspects; unhappy at home where she is nagged about not achieving and being lazy; or worse, where she is fighting off a frequently drunk 'uncle'; with a group of slightly older mates who are flatting together and 'earning' their own money from student allowances; but with no interest in continuing to study; with a boyfriend she is crazy about but at the same time insecure about. Tell me that having up to $500 a week appear in her bank account wouldn't be appealing.

And she can get that even before the baby is born so it's not like she has to wait a full nine months. She can sign up for the sickness benefit, claim an accommodation supplement and Bobs your uncle (and hopefully escaped from).

But what do we know about young people? Their brains aren't formed we are told. That's what the anti-drinking brigade hammers on about. The driving age should be raised because they lack decision-making capacity and judgement skills. That's what the raise-the-driving-age brigade tells us. Too many young teens, particularly Maori smoke. That's what the anti-smoking brigade tell us.

The teen years are extremely risky years. They still really need a great deal of guidance and advice from mum and dad, the wider family, from teachers and, in some cases, their peers.

Yet as a society we persevere with this idea of incentivising them to become parents.

Babies are incredibly demanding. My first was premature and colicky. My marriage was at its rockiest during his first year. There are times when you have to dig deep for reserves of energy and patience in a way you never have before. Most young teenagers aren't up to it. Any neither should we expect them to be. It's still their time to focus on their life.

Today we read that Family Start funding is going to be cut to some agencies. They aren't tackling child abuse and neglect successfully enough apparently. Home visitation to parents at risk of harming or abusing their children through indifference has not proved to be the shining solution after all. Not across the board anyway. Is anybody surprised?

Well-intentioned home visitors can, in any event, only get into the homes of the willing. My example has just gotten away from annoying, demanding, adults. The last thing she wants is her inability to cope criticised in the same way as her inability to focus at school. And, anyway, tomorrow she will start coping. There's always plenty of time when you are 16. Plenty of time to change. Trouble is, the baby doesn't have the same luxury.

We've changed to TV3

Well, husband has. I don't fully engage with the telly in the mornings but Three's new News show, from what I see and hear, is a vast improvement on the simpering, magaziny, faux funny junk on One. TV One may have held their audience after the departure of Paul Henry, who was genuinely funny while still capable of delivering a serious, probing interview, but there was no alternative for morning viewers. Looks like One's Breakfast ratings will take a hit now.

Methodist Mission attack on the WWG misguided

Interview with Larry Williams, NewstalkZB (starts at 20:00)

Media Release

METHODIST ATTACK ON WWG MISGUIDED

Monday, March 21, 2011

The Christchurch Methodist Mission has published a misguided and unwarranted attack on the work of the government-established Welfare Working Group. Welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell said today that the four page pamphlet Facts about welfare in New Zealand is highly selective, contains inaccuracies and misleads.

"The Mission accuses the Welfare Working Group of 'misuse of data' and having 'manufactured a crisis that doesn't exist' and urges its members to write to newspapers and MPs to ' challenge ill-informed criticisms of beneficiaries and welfare support'. "

"It selectively uses data relating to the unemployment benefit and DPB to claim that 'most people receive social support for limited periods to make it through particular challenges or crises'. But the data used contrasts strongly with more in-depth analysis supplied to the WWG by the Ministry of Social Development."

"The Welfare Working Group found that, '... in 2008, just prior to the recent recession, and after a decade of economic growth, roughly ten percent of the working age population, or around 286,000 people were receiving a benefit...one in five children were living in benefit dependent families...170,000 had been on a benefit for at least 5 out of the last ten years...in 1960 only 2 percent of the working-age population were receiving benefits' ."

And according to Mitchell, "Other MSD research shows that over half of DPB recipients had spent 8 of the last 10 years dependent on welfare."

"Yet the Methodist Mission insists that ' the Welfare Working Group has painted a picture of long term welfare dependence that is just not reality'. "

The Welfare Working Group had at its disposal the best advice and data available from MSD, Treasury, the OECD and many other international experts in their field.

Denying there is a dependence problem denies an attempt to address it. That will not help the thousands of children and adults whose lives welfare reform seeks to improve.

Ends

Detailed rebuttal;

The Facts About Welfare In New Zealand by the Christchurch Methodist Mission – a response

The Christchurch Methodist Mission has produced a tract that purports to be The Facts About Welfare In New Zealand. It was triggered by the work of the Welfare Working Group, established by government to examine long-term welfare dependence and how to reduce it.

The Methodist Mission’s claims follow in italicised type:

ONE

The total number of people receiving benefits has dropped over the past decade

> the number of unemployed has declined significantly.
> the number of sole parents needing support has also declined.

Facts:
Total number receiving benefits in December 2000 was 392,307 (MSD Benefit Factsheets)
Total number receiving benefits in December 2010 was 352,707
Total number receiving the Unemployment Benefit in December 2000 was 146,692
Total number receiving the Unemployment Benefit in December 2010 was 67,084
Total number receiving the Domestic Purposes Benefit in December 2000 was 109,663
Total number receiving the Domestic Purposes Benefit in December 2010 was 112,865

Their third claim is incorrect

Notably, the Mission fails to mention throughout the publication the ever-increasing numbers of people reliant on a sickness or invalid benefit and the degree of that reliance.

TWO

Most people receive social support for limited periods to make it through particular challenges or crises.
> Less than 1% (0.2 percent) of those currently needing the unemployment benefit have received it continuously for 10 years or more.
> Clients who have received a Domestic Purposes Benefit continuously for 10 years or more made up only 0.4 % of the total working-age population

Both of these statements are factual and are taken directly from MSD benefit Factsheets. However, the second hides more than it reveals. Contrast their facts to Ministry of Social Development data:

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.

Contrast their facts also with findings reported in the Welfare Working Group Issues paper;

“In 2008, just prior to the recent recession, and after a decade of economic growth, roughly 10 percent of the working age population, or around 286,000 people, were receiving a benefit. At that time, about one in five of New Zealand’s children were living in benefit dependent families.
At the same time, roughly 170,000 people had been on a benefit for at least 5 out of the last 10 years. That is the equivalent of the cities of Dunedin and Invercargill combined. “

And:

In 1960, only 2 percent (1 in 50) of the working-age population were receiving benefits. By April 2008, after a decade of strong employment growth, around 10 percent of the working-age population (around 278,000 people) were receiving a benefit.

Note that the Christchurch Methodist Mission goes on later to say:

The Welfare Working Group has manufactured a crisis that doesn’t exist and painted a picture of ‘long term welfare dependency’ that is just not reality.

THREE

Benefit spending is predicted to decline substantially as a share of GDP, for the next 40 years.

This is in direct contrast to estimations made by the Welfare Working Group based on current trends:

“In looking to the future, many of the historical social and economic drivers of increasing rates of benefit will continue. While there is considerable uncertainty about the future, there is a clear possibility that the current recession, labour market changes, globalisation, and continued family changes will lead to a growing proportion of the working age population receiving benefits. This is particularly important in the context of population ageing and a shrinking proportion of the population in work. In the Working Group’s Issues Paper we highlighted that if the long-term upward trend in Sickness and Invalid’s beneficiaries continued, as it has done in many countries with higher levels of benefit receipt than New Zealand, then benefit numbers could rise to 16 per cent of the working age population by 2050. “

In any case long-term Treasury predictions, if that is what the claim is based on, are invariably inaccurate.

FOUR

Benefit fraud is minuscule – fraud as a proportion of the total benefits paid was only 0.1% last year.

This figure is based on prosecutions. Actual incidence is unknown. However, the Welfare Working Group was more concerned with benefit misuse. In principles that should guide future policy they include:

1.1.1. Principle 4: Be efficient and free from misuse

Focussing on fraud is somewhat a red herring

FIVE

Numbers of people on benefits is dependent on the availability of suitable jobs – it is as simple as that.

The number of people on benefits is dependent on far more than just this one factor. It is affected by fertility and marriage rates, educational attainment, hospital waiting lists, availability of medical treatment, counselling and addiction treatment services, societal attitudes to benefits, and more. If the last claim was true, when New Zealand enjoyed the lowest unemployment rate in the OECD (2007) there should have been very few people dependent on a benefit. That was not the case. It is a naive claim at best.

SIX

Average benefit payments as a proportion of the average wage have fallen more or less steadily since the 1970s. In the late 1970s, it reached around 44%, by 2009 it was well under 30% of the average wage. (my emphasis)

The current basic DPB rate is $278.04 per week

Average benefit payments usually refer to the basic rate and do not include add-ons like the accommodation supplement.

According to MSD a typical weekly all-inclusive DPB payment for a parent with two children living in Auckland is $580.

According to Statistics NZ the average ordinary time female weekly wage for the fourth 2010 quarter was $686.55 (before tax).

$580 per week is above female wages for some industry sectors such as accommodation and food services, retail, arts and recreation services.

SEVEN

There is no evidence that anyone has babies to get more welfare – and there is no relationship between the provision of welfare and the number of children welfare recipients have.

At the end of June 2006 27,210 recipients of the DPB had added extra children to their existing benefit. 8,708 had added more than one additional child.
In 2006 New Zealand Medical Association deputy chairman, Don Simmers, told a conference that too many women were contemplating pregnancy on a benefit.

EIGHT

Very low benefit levels make it harder to get off a benefit. And for those who have to stay on a benefit, a much lower chance of belonging and contributing to society.

Rather, it is generous benefit levels that make it harder to get off a benefit.
Social reporter for the NZ Herald, Simon Collins, highlighted this phenomenon last year when interviewing mothers on the DPB in South Auckland:

“Connie Raiwhara, who runs the Pikorua community house where Ms Heremaia attends a sewing class, said many sole parents had no qualifications and would not give up the benefit for a minimum-wage job.
A sole parent with three young children paying the $332 average rent for a three-bedroom house in Papakura would get $206 in family support and $165 in accommodation supplement on top of the $278 DPB, a total of $649 a week.
"A lot of our solo parents get well in the $700s. They are not going to go from $700 to $400," Ms Raiwhara said.”

NINE

Recommends…Adequate income support, including income support at a level which enables people to meet their basic needs and to participate fully in community life.

OECD research has shown that raising benefit levels results in more workless households. European and US research shows that raising single parent benefits results in more unmarried births.

TEN

Recommends… Restoring Training Incentive Allowance (TIA) at degree level

The Treasury Report to the WWG found that the TIA may actually have resulted in people staying on benefit longer.

ELEVEN

Recommends…Removal of financial sanctions - The benefit system is already paid below the poverty line; cutting family incomes further by sanctioning their benefits is not in the best interests of children.

Without sanctions any attempts to impose reciprocal obligations (an important tenet of charitable giving) will be unworkable. It is not in the “best interests of children” when their parents have no conditions put on receipt of welfare. For instance the WWG recommended that where drug abuse is preventing employment a beneficiary must accept, where available, treatment. It is not in the “best interests of children” to have a parent who is abusing alcohol or drugs.

TWELVE

The Welfare Working Group was established in April 2010 to “conduct a fundamental review of New Zealand’s welfare system and to make practical recommendations on how to improve economic and social outcomes for people on a benefit and New Zealanders as a whole”. In August 2010, the Welfare Working Group published "Long-Term Benefit Dependency: The Issues". In late November 2010, the Welfare Working Group completed an “Options Paper”.
Both reports are notable for their misuse of data and ideologically loaded language while ignoring the reality and causes of unemployment in New Zealand today. The Welfare Working Group has manufactured a crisis that doesn’t exist and painted a picture of ‘long term welfare dependency’ that is just not reality.
There is a crisis in our country but it's not a crisis of welfare dependency. It's a crisis of a depressed economy and failed economic policies – that do not treat full employment as a goal – causing many tens of thousands of New Zealanders to face a precarious existence with either no work or poorly paid, insecure work.

The Methodist Mission accuses the WWG of misuse of data with no evidence to support this claim. They have themselves wilfully misrepresented the current situation in New Zealand by selective use of data. The WWG group was tasked with examining long-term welfare dependency which exists mainly among domestic purposes, sickness and invalid beneficiaries, not those on unemployment benefits. In its own report to the WWG, Treasury found that the benefit with the most potential for reform was the DPB followed by the Invalid’s benefit.

THIRTEEN

Finally the Mission urges its members to:

Write a letter to the editor of your local paper. Challenge ill-informed criticisms of beneficiaries and welfare support.

The Christchurch Methodist Mission should itself have become better acquainted with the ‘facts’ about long-term dependence before launching an attack on the work of a group which had at their disposal the best advice and data available from MSD, Treasury, the OECD and many other experts in their fields. Instead it has produced an emotive, misleading and somewhat pathetic piece of propaganda that will do nothing to improve the lives of those people welfare reform is intended to help.

Recurring themes: whanau first

A theme that recurs on this blog is recurrence itself. Last week I wrote about the idea of the single benefit and how long it had been around. Yet some media, often too young to know otherwise, regard these ideas as 'new'. Here's another today from Paula Bennett. This was at least prefaced with the description of "re-opening the debate":

Social Development Minister Paula Bennett is reopening the debate on the "whanau first" childcare policy, questioning if it is "doing well" by abused children.

When at risk youngsters can't live with their parents, Child, Youth and Family workers look first to extended whanau or people connected to the family to provide a home.

However, the Kahui twins, whose tragic death in 2006 shocked the nation, were living with their father in the Auckland home of their grandparents. The twins would have turned five tomorrow.

Flashback 11 years to head of Maori Strategy for CYF at that time. Peter Douglas caused waves when he urged removal of at-risk Maori children beyond the whanau. Tariana Turia, then a Labour MP, said, “I am totally opposed to children being raised outside whakapapa links.”

He referred to the tragic case of Lilybing.

“I saw a really interesting example of how whanau gather and support each other and it was centered around a little girl killed in the Wairarapa, and that whanau gathered and supported and hid from the police….So if we are going to talk about whanau let’s talk about all of them.”

I hope that after the 2011 election National are not beholding to the Maori Party because there are areas, and this is one, where Tariana Turia is wrong-headed and will try to stand in the way of her younger, yet senior Minister.

Recent sketches

Two recent efforts - one a commission, the other a gift for an 88th birthday.






Although I am still in the shop three months on, it is getting tough. I can pinpoint the turning point. The Christchurch earthquake. Maybe it was just coincidental (Sam says people are donating any spare money) but I haven't had a paying job since and will have to go into debt to pay the next rent instalment. Have printed and am delivering around 600 flyers so maybe that will produce a result. There are still lots of people saying they have plans to commission a work and occasionally someone walks through the door and buys a painting but I need to decide how in debt I am prepared to get. I don't give up easily :-)

We should be grateful

A comment came in overnight. It'll get no attention if I publish it at the post it responds to, When the DPB pays more than the average female wage and one would expect the author wants her thoughts noted.

goodkiwimum has left a new comment on your post "When DPB pays more than the average female worker...":

how dare you. you are the exact reason women and children grovel on in this country. one day lady you will be old and need my kids taxes to pay your effing "welfare". i expect this rubbish from men, not from women and especially not from mothers. if you are griping about wages, then gripe about wages. why will solo parents always be bandied about like the banner for misdeeds in this country. the dpb annually costs this country 2.9B, out of a total social welfare budget of 21B, where does the other 85% go, i dont effing care, over one hundered thousand families are looked after on that meagre portion of welfare, less than 10%of our adult population caring for the next generation, supporting your future. Meanwhile 122 mp's languish around doing little to improve our country, selling it off in fact and squabbling all day in some foolish kangaroo court, soaking up over 16M in wages alone. let alone expenses...oh and please dont get me started on all the self employed people who ritually screw their taxable income down to under half of what they should declare due to lax income tax laws for the privelaged and this is not costing us apparently. so yeah, you just keep on picking on women and children, we've done it for thousands of years, why stop now, we're just getting so bloody good at it now...
http://werewolf.co.nz/2011/02/ten-myths-about-welfare/

And I've just discovered a second comment in my junk tray;

oh yes and I quote "Moreover, other forms of unacceptable behaviour leave benefit fraud far behind in the dust without attracting the same negative stereotypes. The major foreign owned banks for instance finally agreed in late 2009 – and only after being pursued at great expense through the courts by the IRD – to cough up $2.2 billion of what they owed in unpaid taxes. Meaning : the settlement figure GREATER than the total amount lost in benefit fraud last year" all you people need to get over welfare and dig out the people who are really ripping this country off

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