Stuff has picked up on a report released by the OECD mid-week. I subscribe to OECD social statistics releases and scrolled through the report it but it is typically full of out-of-date information.
The writer of the piece fails to say her headline statistic is from 2007. But strangely does date recent information. But here's what gets me frustrated;
Birthright national manager John Donaghy said there were about 219,000 single-parent families in New Zealand, most of whom were middle-aged.
"Unfortunately there are many people who basically poke at the 18-year-old person on the DPB who is seen as a weight on the rest of society, but actually they're a minority."
In March, 46 per cent of single parents were aged 25 to 39, and 20 per cent were aged 18 to 24.
How many times do I have to point out that teenage parents age. They stay dependent and they stay single. Hence we find that there is a spread of single parents across all agebands. The fact remains that up to a half began life as a single parent, usually on the DPB, as a teenager. That is why I bang on, or "poke at" that particular group.
Birthright are apologists for a serious problem that won't be resolved as long as they fail to understand it. As a volunteer I once attended a meeting between a seriously inadequate teenage mother and one of their social workers. The social worker, a pleasant enough young woman, was going through the motions - counsel, make a next-visit appointment and bugger off - whereas I was getting stuck into the filthy surroundings, showing the mother how to look after herself and her once-was-perfectly-nice home. (Another battle I eventually lost even though I won the girls trust. The usual happened. Rent arrears piled up and she disappeared.)
I am sure Birthright serves some purpose but politically they are aggravating the problem they were born out of.
Saturday, April 30, 2011
Friday, April 29, 2011
Consensus on Brash
Isn't it indicative that Labour's cheerleader, The Standard and National's cheerleader, Home Paddock are essentially saying the same thing this morning.
Home Paddock blogs, Most votes are in the middle
The Standard blogs, ....what he’s [Brash] thinking is batshit crazy stuff that most New Zealanders want nothing to do with.
Doesn't that tell you how centrist and similar the two big parties are, no matter how much National protests.
Anyway, no matter. We are about to find out how big "most" is. Helen Clark used to say something at this juncture. But I will refrain.
Home Paddock blogs, Most votes are in the middle
The Standard blogs, ....what he’s [Brash] thinking is batshit crazy stuff that most New Zealanders want nothing to do with.
Doesn't that tell you how centrist and similar the two big parties are, no matter how much National protests.
Anyway, no matter. We are about to find out how big "most" is. Helen Clark used to say something at this juncture. But I will refrain.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Another dead baby
I feel bad because I look at the photo of this baby, this time, and I don't feel as much as I used to. Am I losing my humanity? I've cried in the past. Why? For the pain they may have endured? The waste? The thought of a limp, lifeless corpse that should be a warm, snuggly, chubby, wriggly, smelling- of- baby being?Perhaps the edge is taken off what should be deep sadness, by anger. Perhaps mothers with older children are less emotional than mothers of very young and I am now in the former camp. I don't know.
But we should all resign ourselves to more of the same as the causes of child abuse and neglect, sometimes ending in death, continue to be enabled with state money and state systems. Perhaps not feeling deeper sadness is a protective mechanism. More probably it is just mental fatigue. Human beings are made to be resilient, to adjust, to get used to. That is what we do well.
I am sorry you were failed little thing.
Benefit numbers rise over the year
The March quarter benefit statistics just came out.
The numbers on the unemployment and invalid's benefit have been flat over the year.
BUT the numbers on the sickness benefit have risen by 7 percent. Thirty percent of the rise occurred in Canterbury. As the invalid's benefit is flat (0.02% rise) it may be that beneficiaries are being moved from that benefit to the sickness. Only an OIA question would answer that.
And the DPB numbers have risen by 3 percent. So, six months of work-testing the DPB has made no impression so far.
Numbers at March 31, 2011
DPB 113,077
IB 85,055
UB 59,940
SB 59,582
The numbers on the unemployment and invalid's benefit have been flat over the year.
BUT the numbers on the sickness benefit have risen by 7 percent. Thirty percent of the rise occurred in Canterbury. As the invalid's benefit is flat (0.02% rise) it may be that beneficiaries are being moved from that benefit to the sickness. Only an OIA question would answer that.
And the DPB numbers have risen by 3 percent. So, six months of work-testing the DPB has made no impression so far.
Numbers at March 31, 2011
DPB 113,077
IB 85,055
UB 59,940
SB 59,582
Monday, April 25, 2011
Brash "very old"?
Seventy is not "very old". In fact, believing that says more about the outlook of the person who said it than the subject of the claim. The statement tends to fall into that collectivist-thinking basket of ideas I hate so much. It's ageist. Some people in their seventies may be very old - near death's door because of physical and mental ailments and deteriorating health. Others have good health, sound minds and decades of life experience under their belts. Above all they have a living memory of a New Zealand when values were different. Some better, some worse. But some worth reviving as universal. Like possesion of a work ethic. And here's another thing. The population is ageing. For those who don't properly comprehend that term - possibly the owner of the ageist attitude - the proportion of people over 65 is growing in relation to those under. And they all have a vote. And life expectancy is growing. So a growing percentage of voters are less likely to judge a politician on their age - at least, having too much of it.
Brash has been upfront about what he wants. There is only room for one party that wants less government involvement in the economy so he has to try and use the ACT vehicle first. Anyone that has been around ACT for any length of time knows the high regard supporters hold him in. So if he just went ahead and formed his own party he will decimate ACT's vote anyway. In that context his strategy is fair to current ACT players.
National's lines on this are eminently silly, as described by Whaleoil whose political opinion is worth rather more than mine.
If Brash assumes ACT leadership and runs a campaign based on the 2025 Taskforce recommendations I am in the camp that believes he can get up to 10 percent of the vote.
Disclaimer: I am not an ACT member and learnt about the leadership bid through the media.
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Aussie ahead again
Listen to any racing industry pundit and they will tell you NZ racing is in a perilous state. With globalisation many trainers have upped sticks and left for Australia or Asia where stakes are higher and training is more viable. Punters can bet with competing bookies internationally with ease and do. From my small knowledge breeding seems to be the only aspect of thoroughbred racing that is sound. And that is because so many good types are exported.
Sorry to drag us back to the seemingly insurmountable problem of catching Australia but here is yet another instance of where they are more open-minded and commercially savvy. They are racing today. Easter Sunday. All over Australia. Thousands of NZ dollars will flow into Aussie coffers while our trainers miss opportunities thanks to archaic law.
Sorry to drag us back to the seemingly insurmountable problem of catching Australia but here is yet another instance of where they are more open-minded and commercially savvy. They are racing today. Easter Sunday. All over Australia. Thousands of NZ dollars will flow into Aussie coffers while our trainers miss opportunities thanks to archaic law.
Saturday, April 23, 2011
Kiwiblog takes a predictable position
Kiwiblog is pouring cold water on 'Don's decision' . Hardly surprising. A Brash-led ACT would drag default votes away from National; people who want far more economic austerity and long-term vision but would have ticked National as better than anything else on offer. For mine I would like to see Rodney stay in ACT but move aside. He is brilliant in many ways but not as a leader. I mean that as no criticism and have said it before. I see it because I would say exactly the same about myself (not the brilliant bit). Simply that there are some personality types that just don't want to manage people. There is no shame in admitting that.
What I am less happy about is Banks climbing on the ACT band wagon. He tried in 2008 and I opposed the idea. No reason to change.
What I am less happy about is Banks climbing on the ACT band wagon. He tried in 2008 and I opposed the idea. No reason to change.
Friday, April 22, 2011
Holiday?
An enforced 'holiday'. I will end up doing housework all day. Because when I am not at my shop working (suddenly the work has come in - hallelujah) I will be forced to confront the other environment. And there is no other escape. No horses to speculate on, no trips to the mall which I loathe but mini-me adores. Thank goodness I remembered to buy a bottle of sav yesterday so at least when I have finished vacuuming, washing floors, windows, laundry, mowing lawns, weeding, cooking a roast (not a leg of break-the-bank lamb :-() sighing over my munted car after someone fell asleep behind the wheel of their van and left me with no choice but to go into the sea or take a hit, cleaning the oven (now I jest), I can reward myself. Best I get on.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
The cost of taxation
This is explained well by Laffer and summarised by the NCPA:
If it is 30 percent in the US I can think of no reason why it would be any less here.
He then goes on to show how a simplified flat rate would add to economic growth:
Do you think that the politicians and activists moaning about the rising costs of living could be interested in this counter-balance? In fact, the CPI would not be rising to the same degree if a flat tax were introduced, so you can add to the increased purchasing power the family would have. And not that I want to hold up government spending, but a lower flatter tax rate could be achieved without reducing revenue.
Just a thought that follows on as I muse about NZ's tax system, Peter Dunne, as Revenue Minister, is a waste of space. But imagine Hide in that role. And then imagine if Honest John actually told us who he wants as Ministers before the election.
* To start with, individuals and businesses must pay the government the $1 in revenue plus the costs of their own time spent filing and complying with the tax code; plus the tax collection costs of the IRS; plus the tax compliance outlays that individuals and businesses pay to help them file their taxes.
* In a new study, Laffer and his colleagues estimate that these costs alone are a staggering $431 billion annually.
* This is a cost markup of 30 cents on every dollar paid in taxes.
If it is 30 percent in the US I can think of no reason why it would be any less here.
He then goes on to show how a simplified flat rate would add to economic growth:
* Consider a family that made $40,000 in the year 2000.
* If their income grew by 3.2 percent per year, the average long-term gross domestic product growth rate, their income by 2010 would be $53,110.
* Now imagine that the growth in the family's income was not 3.2 percent but 3.72 percent (the impact from halving the costs of our current complex tax system).
* Under this higher growth scenario, the family's annual income would have been $55,568 in 2010.
* The slight increase in the economic growth rate raises this family's purchasing power by 4.6 percent.
Do you think that the politicians and activists moaning about the rising costs of living could be interested in this counter-balance? In fact, the CPI would not be rising to the same degree if a flat tax were introduced, so you can add to the increased purchasing power the family would have. And not that I want to hold up government spending, but a lower flatter tax rate could be achieved without reducing revenue.
Just a thought that follows on as I muse about NZ's tax system, Peter Dunne, as Revenue Minister, is a waste of space. But imagine Hide in that role. And then imagine if Honest John actually told us who he wants as Ministers before the election.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Teenagers on a sickness benefit
MacDoctor makes mention of Professor Innes Asher hand-wringing over the rising number (Table SR.1) of teenagers on a sickness or invalid benefit. I pointed out that the majority of grants for an SB during 2007 were for pregnancy. But I suspect that overall the rise is because of the growing diagnosis/ incidence(?) of psychological and psychiatric disorders amongst teenagers. This is the cause for general growth across these benefits.
From my OIA file:
As MacDoctor points out Innes says;
She refers to the increase in child poverty in the 1990s and those children now becoming young adults.
Yet statistics show;
June 1990 9.7 percent of sickness beneficiaries were aged 15-19
June 2009 5.4 percent of sickness beneficiaries were aged 16-19
Children of the 1970s were also victims of growing child poverty?
Incidentally, in 1990 67 percent of sickness beneficiaries aged 15-19 were unmarried women. Hint.
From my OIA file:
As MacDoctor points out Innes says;
“There was a large increase in the number of young people receiving the sickness and invalid benefit between 2002 and 2007 (the largest increase was in the 18-19 age group). “Why was there such an increase in young people on invalid and sickness benefits? How much is due to mental and physical disease as a result of the increase in child poverty?”
She refers to the increase in child poverty in the 1990s and those children now becoming young adults.
Yet statistics show;
June 1990 9.7 percent of sickness beneficiaries were aged 15-19
June 2009 5.4 percent of sickness beneficiaries were aged 16-19
Children of the 1970s were also victims of growing child poverty?
Incidentally, in 1990 67 percent of sickness beneficiaries aged 15-19 were unmarried women. Hint.
Friday, April 15, 2011
Progressive tax - US versus Sweden
Funny how the word 'progressive' usually has good connotations. Not when it comes to tax (unless you are a socialist). NCPA reports;
And additional information from Sweden;
My conclusion?
A lot less government is still preferable BUT where it exists, paying for it should be as equitable as possible. Nothing would persuade me that paying an average tax rate of 57.77% was a good thing. Those economic growth rates in Sweden are similar to what NZ had in the mid 2000s without paying exorbitant (relatively speaking) tax rates. And the US has had similar rates under similarly progressive regimes as described above. There are far more factors affecting economic growth than tax rates alone.
(Out of interest, in NZ, based on income tax alone;
* The top 2 percent of taxpayers pay 17 percent of all the income taxes despite having just 20 percent of the income.
* The top 12 percent of taxpayers pay 49 percent of the income tax while having just 46 percent of the income.
* At the other end, the bottom 45 percent of taxpayers pay just 8 percent of the income tax.)
U.S. Tax Code Is One of World's Most Progressive
The United States has one of the most progressive tax systems in the world, and has become much more progressive in the past 30 years, says Richard Rahn, a senior fellow with the Cato Institute.
* The top 1 percent of taxpayers pay 38 percent of all the income taxes despite having just 20 percent of the income.
* The top 10 percent of taxpayers pay 70 percent of the income tax while having just 46 percent of the income.
* At the other end, the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers pay just 2.7 percent of the income tax while having 13 percent of the income.
This has resulted in a situation in which a relatively small minority of taxpayers pay the bulk of the taxes, while most American pay little or no income tax. This is causing an increasing disconnect between benefits from government and what most citizens pay for. One result is a greater polarization in the political realm where a majority of citizens increasingly demand more government benefits for which they want others to pay.
The Swedes were on this same destructive path, but they reversed course over the last couple of decades and made their tax system far less progressive, even though their tax rates at all levels are above most of those in the United States. The result has been a tempering of demand for new government services as people at all income levels realize they will be the ones paying for those services and not some mythical "rich" person. The side benefit is that Sweden, as a result of tax and other reforms, now has one of the highest economic growth rates in the world, says Rahn.
Source: Richard W. Rahn, "Tax Inequity," Washington Times, April 11,2011.
And additional information from Sweden;
Sweden may need to push through tax cuts at every budget if it is to reduce unemployment further, Finance Minister Anders Borg said.
“We have a lot of work to do to secure full employment,” Borg said at an event today arranged by Svenska Handelsbanken AB (SHBA) in Stockholm. “It will require that we make changes to taxes and spending in practically every budget going forward if we are to come down to unemployment rates in line with the best European countries.”
The government yesterday raised its economic growth forecasts for 2012 and 2013 and predicted budget surpluses, allowing it to cut taxes when most other European countries are grappling with austerity measures. The fastest-growing European economy will expand 4.6 percent this year, 3.8 percent in 2012 and 3.6 percent the following year, Borg said yesterday.
The krona strengthened 0.2 percent against the euro to 9.0224 at 9:40 a.m. in Stockholm. It jumped 0.9 percent yesterday following the government’s forecasts.
Unemployment fell to 7.9 percent in February from 8.2 percent the previous month, Statistics Sweden said on March 17, citing non-seasonally adjusted figures.
My conclusion?
A lot less government is still preferable BUT where it exists, paying for it should be as equitable as possible. Nothing would persuade me that paying an average tax rate of 57.77% was a good thing. Those economic growth rates in Sweden are similar to what NZ had in the mid 2000s without paying exorbitant (relatively speaking) tax rates. And the US has had similar rates under similarly progressive regimes as described above. There are far more factors affecting economic growth than tax rates alone.
(Out of interest, in NZ, based on income tax alone;
* The top 2 percent of taxpayers pay 17 percent of all the income taxes despite having just 20 percent of the income.
* The top 12 percent of taxpayers pay 49 percent of the income tax while having just 46 percent of the income.
* At the other end, the bottom 45 percent of taxpayers pay just 8 percent of the income tax.)
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Goff can't copy Gillard
Two months ago Australian PM Julia Gillard made her first major economic speech of the year about getting people off benefits.
She has just re-iterated her focus on work in a further address. This is how she defines what Labor, her party, stands for;
Immediately one mentally contrasts this to the New Zealand Labour Party, and reflects on the latest attempt by one of their own to define his party. Something to do with geese.
Uninspired political leaders often look overseas to see what their counterparts are doing. But there isn't a cat's chance in hell that Phil Goff will come out saying what Gillard said. It would be judged utterly implausible and generate further public derision.
Which is very sad because it was once quite true. Ironically, when we had an Australian PM.
She has just re-iterated her focus on work in a further address. This is how she defines what Labor, her party, stands for;
In her speech to the Sydney Institute last night, Ms Gillard said Labor was ''politically, spiritually, even literally the party of work. The party of work not welfare, the party of opportunity not exclusion, the party of responsibility not idleness.''
Immediately one mentally contrasts this to the New Zealand Labour Party, and reflects on the latest attempt by one of their own to define his party. Something to do with geese.
Uninspired political leaders often look overseas to see what their counterparts are doing. But there isn't a cat's chance in hell that Phil Goff will come out saying what Gillard said. It would be judged utterly implausible and generate further public derision.
Which is very sad because it was once quite true. Ironically, when we had an Australian PM.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Power goes too far again
According to the NZ Herald;
Another step too far.
It'll be interesting to see where the Maori Party fall on this one. Given Turia's drive to make more families responsible for their own to reduce family violence, will she support National on this one? It could play either way. More state involvement always leads to less personal responsibility. On the other hand the new punishment might be described as enforcing greater responsibility. No. I hope, along with the Greens (ACT are hopeless in this area) the Maori Party will denounce this.
It is clear that getting CYF involved in family problems is not necessarily the cure-all. It isn't difficult to conjure scenarios where a family member might be loathe to go to them or the police preferring to deal with a situation themselves. What about a mother who sees one of her children abused by a violent partner but the others left alone? She can plan to leave. In the interim she suspects that bringing the police into the picture will exacerbate matters. Ramp up the violence. Involve the other children. She makes a choice to try and resolve her situation herself and with help from other close friends she trusts and tells about the violence. They are also now culpable.
They weren't "doing nothing" but they failed to report the abuse. Will the two parts of the equation be separated?
I see other problems as well. The threshold for abuse and neglect is legally very low. A grandparent who has always smacked to discipline, and still does, should be reported by the parent lest he or she risks a jail term? Yes, my objection sounds vaguely silly but it's valid.
And what about people involved with families as volunteers or mentors? Someone working with a violent family who's task it is to change that behaviour? What if they fail and the police become involved. Retrospectively, is that person - who has become a "close friend" - now culpable?
And was the abuse actually seen, or is 'suspected' enough to make an associate take a walk? Imagine the finger-pointing when one person is going down.
We all know what kind of people Power is trying to net here. But his solution is going to be fraught.
One last question. If it's such a good idea why has it taken until now to think of?
Extended family and close friends of child abusers could face up to 10 years in prison if they turn a blind eye to abuse and do not report it.
Justice Minister Simon Power yesterday introduced changes aimed at protecting children from abuse and neglect, including a new offence making people who are close to a family liable if they do not report abuse to the authorities.
Another step too far.
It'll be interesting to see where the Maori Party fall on this one. Given Turia's drive to make more families responsible for their own to reduce family violence, will she support National on this one? It could play either way. More state involvement always leads to less personal responsibility. On the other hand the new punishment might be described as enforcing greater responsibility. No. I hope, along with the Greens (ACT are hopeless in this area) the Maori Party will denounce this.
It is clear that getting CYF involved in family problems is not necessarily the cure-all. It isn't difficult to conjure scenarios where a family member might be loathe to go to them or the police preferring to deal with a situation themselves. What about a mother who sees one of her children abused by a violent partner but the others left alone? She can plan to leave. In the interim she suspects that bringing the police into the picture will exacerbate matters. Ramp up the violence. Involve the other children. She makes a choice to try and resolve her situation herself and with help from other close friends she trusts and tells about the violence. They are also now culpable.
They weren't "doing nothing" but they failed to report the abuse. Will the two parts of the equation be separated?
I see other problems as well. The threshold for abuse and neglect is legally very low. A grandparent who has always smacked to discipline, and still does, should be reported by the parent lest he or she risks a jail term? Yes, my objection sounds vaguely silly but it's valid.
And what about people involved with families as volunteers or mentors? Someone working with a violent family who's task it is to change that behaviour? What if they fail and the police become involved. Retrospectively, is that person - who has become a "close friend" - now culpable?
And was the abuse actually seen, or is 'suspected' enough to make an associate take a walk? Imagine the finger-pointing when one person is going down.
We all know what kind of people Power is trying to net here. But his solution is going to be fraught.
One last question. If it's such a good idea why has it taken until now to think of?
Dressing down CPAG
Oh joy. Someone other than me having a go at the Child Poverty Action Group. Big ups to Dr Rosy Fenwicke for her column in yesterday's DomPost;
More
OPINION: KIWI mothers are battlers too. Donna Wynd and Susan St John need to be enlightened about this fact before they consign all mothers in New Zealand to the state-funded victimhood they seem to be advocating in their column Enlightening the Welfare Working Group.
Sometimes events beyond our control conspire to undermine our abilities to look after ourselves and our children, which is where a caring community kicks in.
The Welfare Working Group seems to be offering hope with help and the Child Poverty Action Group is offering help without hope to Nikki - the solo mother example. It is the second option that riles me the most.
Let's look again at Nikki. She has two children aged six and three and works part-time at night to help support her family. Let's not talk about a nebulous no-good partner, but give the father of her children an identity - Sam.
Sam and Nikki, for whatever reasons, have decided to split. Nikki keeps her night-time job because she likes it and it is the place where she is treated like an adult after day-long childcare. Sure, she is tired but sometimes she gets help from her family.
It does not require magic to continue working and looking after children. New Zealand mothers (and fathers) do this every day and we cope. Support is nice but not always available.
Accessible, safe and affordable childcare close to the workplace is essential, or mothers of children aged under five are not able to work. Once this is properly addressed, there are no barriers, other than choice, to a mother working after having children. Lots of us do it (alone). We have to. Our kids are fine.
More
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Blind to the forest for the trees
Details are boring and irrelevant when it comes to the government-run systems of benefits and tax. But those details keep thousands of people in employment. And they provide a focus for divisive politics. The two main parties are perpetually entangled in debate over details and rarely seem to take a breather step back and examine the underlying idea. Then the incongruous situations arise where one says my detail is better than your detail. But both are wrong.
This is highlighted in yesterday's blog about the unpaid parliamentary intern-ship organised by Carmel Sepuloni. Yes, it is a good thing for the young lady in question to be getting some work experience (in something other than how to run other people's lives would have been preferable), even if it was unpaid. But it clashed with the benefit rules (at least until the MP intervened). And the rules- aren't- really- rules perception of WINZ is at the heart of welfare misuse. By necessity, where government presides over people's lives, so do rules.
Today throws up another silly details scenario.
Unusually I agree with Susan St John's opinion that transfers of money between family members eg a grandparent paying for a grandchild's childcare costs, should not be means-tested for the purposes of WFF. But if WFF didn't exist neither would interminable wrangles over how it should be administered. The government shouldn't be interfering in people's private financial affairs full stop.
Every day the news is full of where lines are drawn, because the principle has long been ceded. Scrapping over screeds of ridiculous rules and regulations. Vast resources of wasted mental and physical energy; money and time.
Then if you have any energy left to point out the undesirability of the whole kit and kaboodle you are labelled an extremist. I give up.
This is highlighted in yesterday's blog about the unpaid parliamentary intern-ship organised by Carmel Sepuloni. Yes, it is a good thing for the young lady in question to be getting some work experience (in something other than how to run other people's lives would have been preferable), even if it was unpaid. But it clashed with the benefit rules (at least until the MP intervened). And the rules- aren't- really- rules perception of WINZ is at the heart of welfare misuse. By necessity, where government presides over people's lives, so do rules.
Today throws up another silly details scenario.
Child Poverty Action Group says the definition of ‘family scheme income’, which came into force on 1st April goes too far.
Spokesperson Susan St John says it is fair that income from trusts and ‘portfolio investment entities’ (PIEs) is now counted when calculating Working for Families, Student Allowances and the Community Services Card entitlements. “But the new definition includes regular gifts of money from other family members, for example, if an outside family member pays for something like the electricity bill.”
While gift duty is abolished for the rich, regular transfers which total over $5,000 to struggling low income families are penalised. Transfers totalling $5,001 means $1,000 loss of Working for Families tax credits.
These low income ‘working families’ are not the ones hiding money in PIEs and trusts. The government ought to be encouraging grandparents who can afford it to help their children. In the recession, without such help many more working families will resort to loan sharks and foodbanks.
CPAG also queries how such as scheme could possibly be administered fairly. “And there are other anomalies,” says St John . “For example, payments for daycare made by a working grandparent is captured by ‘family scheme income’. But if the grandparent looks after the grandchild themselves it is not counted. The overall value of the help is the same but the impact on the way IRD treat it is very different”
St John says “Under the changes one-off cash gifts are exempt, raising the prospect that families will be planning their transfers much more carefully in the future”
Unusually I agree with Susan St John's opinion that transfers of money between family members eg a grandparent paying for a grandchild's childcare costs, should not be means-tested for the purposes of WFF. But if WFF didn't exist neither would interminable wrangles over how it should be administered. The government shouldn't be interfering in people's private financial affairs full stop.
Every day the news is full of where lines are drawn, because the principle has long been ceded. Scrapping over screeds of ridiculous rules and regulations. Vast resources of wasted mental and physical energy; money and time.
Then if you have any energy left to point out the undesirability of the whole kit and kaboodle you are labelled an extremist. I give up.
Monday, April 11, 2011
Naive and arrogant Labour MP
A blunder by someone who should know better.
Labour MP Carmel Sepuloni expects someone volunteering in her office - because she has no money to employ them - should also receive an unemployment benefit. Then she chastises WINZ for enforcing rules regarding the compulsory attendance of unemployment beneficiaries at a seminar, which her 'intern' missed.
I have copied her post and the ensuing comments in case it disappears;
Get it together WINZ
Posted by Carmel Sepuloni on April 11th, 2011
So about three weeks ago a young Samoan women came in to my office asking ever so nicely if we could give her some work experience.
She recently completed a National Certificate in Business Administration but hasn’t been able to get work because she has no work experience.
I told her that I didn’t have any money in the budget to hire someone else but she pleaded with me to let her volunteer her time. I agreed to put her on a Parliamentary Internship to provide her with the work experience she needs as well as to support her in what ever way I can to assist her with getting in to paid employment.
Then what happened….
A week in to her starting I get a call from a WINZ case manager asking if I would agree to her being on a subsidised work scheme i.e. WINZ subsidise her being in paid employment for me. I told them - nope, I have no money and therefore can not pay her and I’m not even sure if parliamentary regulations would allow for me to do that anyway.
I explain to the WINZ guy that I will assist her as best I can with getting the work experience she needs as well as support her in trying to find work. I explain to him that I’ve even set it up, as a legit Parliamentary Internship. He tells me that he understands and that this sounds like a great opportunity for the young woman and that if she’s still actively seeking paid work, then that would be fine.
A week later (beginning of last week). I find out from this poor young woman that WINZ have cut her benefit. Despite the fact that the last case manager I’d spoken to, had said it was fine – another WINZ case manager had wrongly assumed that the young woman had deliberately (and without good reason) missed a WINZ seminar that she was suppose to attend as an Unemployment Benefit recipient.
I rang WINZ that day when I find out and leave a message (outlining the situation) on the phone of the case manager that had made this decision (a different case manager from the one I spoke to the previous week). I don’t get a response from her, but the very next day the young woman undertaking an internship in my office, gets her benefit reinstated.
Get it together WINZ! Not all of these poor young people are going to have an MP on their case, who can ring up and leave rather firm voice messages for you when these mistakes happen. The vast majority of our young people are wanting to be engaged with work or study but at this point in time, things are against them and they need additional support. Don’t treat them like criminals out to commit benefit fraud and/ or bludge of the system.
« National: Putting up the white flag on the economy
This entry was posted on Monday, April 11th, 2011 at 12:43 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
6 Responses to “Get it together WINZ”
1.
jennifer says:
April 11, 2011 at 1:37 pm
Are these the new ‘front line’ services that big Paula keeps crowing about?
2.
Richard says:
April 11, 2011 at 2:49 pm
Surely unpaid internships are exploitation, or does Labour not believe in the minimum wage anymore?
3.
Frank says:
April 11, 2011 at 3:13 pm
On the information you just provided, you inappropriately excercised political influence over a public servant who appears(on the facts you have chosen to represent) to have done exactly the correct thing.
You cannot do voluntary work INSTEAD OF being available for full time employment:
http://www.workandincome.govt.nz/manuals-and-procedures/employment_and_training/programmes_and_services/voluntary_work/voluntary_work.htm
So maybe give some more details to prove that “WINZ got it wrong”? or maybe even better – ask Work and Income directly?!
4.
peteremcc says:
April 11, 2011 at 3:22 pm
How come you’re happy for this woman to work for you just for the experience and for zero pay, yet you don’t want to let me or her or anyone else work for the experience and $10/hour (which would be more than she’s getting at the moment from WINZ)?
5.
David says:
April 11, 2011 at 4:30 pm
How many other volunteers do you have in your office collecting a benefit ?
6.
Lindsay says:
April 11, 2011 at 4:49 pm
Someone on the Unemployment Benefit must be available for paid work. Your ‘volunteer’ must meet those conditions. It’s quite straight forward. It would appear Work and Income are doing their best to ensure unemployed beneficiaries are doing everything in their power to get paid work and you are attempting to thwart their processes.
Labour MP Carmel Sepuloni expects someone volunteering in her office - because she has no money to employ them - should also receive an unemployment benefit. Then she chastises WINZ for enforcing rules regarding the compulsory attendance of unemployment beneficiaries at a seminar, which her 'intern' missed.
I have copied her post and the ensuing comments in case it disappears;
Get it together WINZ
Posted by Carmel Sepuloni on April 11th, 2011
So about three weeks ago a young Samoan women came in to my office asking ever so nicely if we could give her some work experience.
She recently completed a National Certificate in Business Administration but hasn’t been able to get work because she has no work experience.
I told her that I didn’t have any money in the budget to hire someone else but she pleaded with me to let her volunteer her time. I agreed to put her on a Parliamentary Internship to provide her with the work experience she needs as well as to support her in what ever way I can to assist her with getting in to paid employment.
Then what happened….
A week in to her starting I get a call from a WINZ case manager asking if I would agree to her being on a subsidised work scheme i.e. WINZ subsidise her being in paid employment for me. I told them - nope, I have no money and therefore can not pay her and I’m not even sure if parliamentary regulations would allow for me to do that anyway.
I explain to the WINZ guy that I will assist her as best I can with getting the work experience she needs as well as support her in trying to find work. I explain to him that I’ve even set it up, as a legit Parliamentary Internship. He tells me that he understands and that this sounds like a great opportunity for the young woman and that if she’s still actively seeking paid work, then that would be fine.
A week later (beginning of last week). I find out from this poor young woman that WINZ have cut her benefit. Despite the fact that the last case manager I’d spoken to, had said it was fine – another WINZ case manager had wrongly assumed that the young woman had deliberately (and without good reason) missed a WINZ seminar that she was suppose to attend as an Unemployment Benefit recipient.
I rang WINZ that day when I find out and leave a message (outlining the situation) on the phone of the case manager that had made this decision (a different case manager from the one I spoke to the previous week). I don’t get a response from her, but the very next day the young woman undertaking an internship in my office, gets her benefit reinstated.
Get it together WINZ! Not all of these poor young people are going to have an MP on their case, who can ring up and leave rather firm voice messages for you when these mistakes happen. The vast majority of our young people are wanting to be engaged with work or study but at this point in time, things are against them and they need additional support. Don’t treat them like criminals out to commit benefit fraud and/ or bludge of the system.
« National: Putting up the white flag on the economy
This entry was posted on Monday, April 11th, 2011 at 12:43 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
6 Responses to “Get it together WINZ”
1.
jennifer says:
April 11, 2011 at 1:37 pm
Are these the new ‘front line’ services that big Paula keeps crowing about?
2.
Richard says:
April 11, 2011 at 2:49 pm
Surely unpaid internships are exploitation, or does Labour not believe in the minimum wage anymore?
3.
Frank says:
April 11, 2011 at 3:13 pm
On the information you just provided, you inappropriately excercised political influence over a public servant who appears(on the facts you have chosen to represent) to have done exactly the correct thing.
You cannot do voluntary work INSTEAD OF being available for full time employment:
http://www.workandincome.govt.nz/manuals-and-procedures/employment_and_training/programmes_and_services/voluntary_work/voluntary_work.htm
So maybe give some more details to prove that “WINZ got it wrong”? or maybe even better – ask Work and Income directly?!
4.
peteremcc says:
April 11, 2011 at 3:22 pm
How come you’re happy for this woman to work for you just for the experience and for zero pay, yet you don’t want to let me or her or anyone else work for the experience and $10/hour (which would be more than she’s getting at the moment from WINZ)?
5.
David says:
April 11, 2011 at 4:30 pm
How many other volunteers do you have in your office collecting a benefit ?
6.
Lindsay says:
April 11, 2011 at 4:49 pm
Someone on the Unemployment Benefit must be available for paid work. Your ‘volunteer’ must meet those conditions. It’s quite straight forward. It would appear Work and Income are doing their best to ensure unemployed beneficiaries are doing everything in their power to get paid work and you are attempting to thwart their processes.
Attitude
This headline from Radio NZ irks somewhat;
'Super-rich' yet to contribute to quake appeal
If I were 'super-rich', and in a position to make a substantial donation, I would be waiting for representations to be made to me about exactly how the money would be used. And reading on, it would appear that is the reason that donations haven't yet been forthcoming. But the headline plays to the knee jerk resent-the-rich sentiments of too many Kiwis.
Other people just get on with it. Like Catherine Bailey who organised a art auction fund-raiser at the local pub and called on Eastbourne artists and businesses to donate works and raffle prizes. When returning an easel and sample art to me Sunday (I offered a pastel portrait voucher which apparently went for $200) she said they had raised around $7,000. Good for her. That's what the country needs. More doers.
'Super-rich' yet to contribute to quake appeal
If I were 'super-rich', and in a position to make a substantial donation, I would be waiting for representations to be made to me about exactly how the money would be used. And reading on, it would appear that is the reason that donations haven't yet been forthcoming. But the headline plays to the knee jerk resent-the-rich sentiments of too many Kiwis.
Other people just get on with it. Like Catherine Bailey who organised a art auction fund-raiser at the local pub and called on Eastbourne artists and businesses to donate works and raffle prizes. When returning an easel and sample art to me Sunday (I offered a pastel portrait voucher which apparently went for $200) she said they had raised around $7,000. Good for her. That's what the country needs. More doers.
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Susan St John - whiny, one-eyed economics
From today's NZ Herald;
And if we retain Working For Families which, remember, people somehow managed without before they were bribed by Labour in 2005, how do we stop the exodus of childless young to Australia and further afield?
I have two children. When we decided to have a family we didn't expect any financial help to do so. People similar to me are also leaving for Australia. They don't immigrate looking for handouts. They immigrate looking for better incomes from work and less whining from Susan St John types.
I am so sick of the hand-out mentality, the we're-raising-the-next-generation-of New Zealanders crap. How the hell do people know if they are raising the next-generation-of-New Zealanders when so many will live and contribute elsewhere. Thanks to the continuing screwing over advanced by socialists.
Bernard Hickey's column last week elicited this response from Susan St John, associate professor of economics at the University of Auckland business school.
Bernard Hickey says dropping "middle-class welfare" such as Working for Families would be the fastest way to reduce the budget deficit.
His analysis displays no understanding of family economics at all.
Unfortunately, the antipathy to Working for Families is now widespread and he helps smooth the path for the Government to slash this programme.
But Working for Families tax credits simply adjusts tax to take account of family size and to share the costs of raising the next generation.
In Australia, one-child families, including those on benefits, receive maximum assistance of A$10,200 ($13,000) if there is a baby bonus paid, A$8815 for a child aged 1-4 and A$7738 for a child aged 5-13.
In New Zealand, if this one-child family is on a benefit the most they can get from Working for Families is $4472. A family defined as "working" qualifies for the In Work Tax Credit, but they can only get the full entitlement of $7592 if their total income is less than $36,868.
Contrast these with the Australian figures when our dollar is only worth about 75 per cent of Australian currency.
If we do away with the meagre Working for Families tax credits, how will we stop the exodus of our young struggling families to Australia?
And if we retain Working For Families which, remember, people somehow managed without before they were bribed by Labour in 2005, how do we stop the exodus of childless young to Australia and further afield?
I have two children. When we decided to have a family we didn't expect any financial help to do so. People similar to me are also leaving for Australia. They don't immigrate looking for handouts. They immigrate looking for better incomes from work and less whining from Susan St John types.
I am so sick of the hand-out mentality, the we're-raising-the-next-generation-of New Zealanders crap. How the hell do people know if they are raising the next-generation-of-New Zealanders when so many will live and contribute elsewhere. Thanks to the continuing screwing over advanced by socialists.
Saturday, April 09, 2011
Restoring family responsibility
Tariana Turia had an opinion piece in the Dominion Post during the week. My response was published in today's paper;
Friday, April 08, 2011
Wealthy parents should pay more
That's the latest idea afoot in Australia. Wealthy parents, already paying school fees, are an "untapped" source of further funding apparently.
Gee. I bet that has made him popular with his customers.
Of course I fundamentally disagree with the proposal for any number of reasons. How is wealthy defined? Many wealthy parents already pay a lot more to educate their children so how is 'fairness' achieved? Why punish effort and entrepreneurship and reward the absence of it? I could go on.
But the reason I thought the article from The Age worth comment, is the response from readers. The poll (at 6 am) shows only 33 percent agree with the idea. If the same sort of thinking got an airing in the NZ Herald I believe the 'yes' vote would be significantly higher.
And the difference is why Australia is leaving us behind for dust.
WEALTHY parents should pay a levy to upgrade the nation's rundown schools, according to the headmaster of Australia's oldest private school.
Tim Hawkes, head of The King's School at Parramatta, said the levy should apply to well-off parents who send their children to government schools, which he described as an untapped funding source.
Well-off parents already paying school fees to send their children to private schools would also have to pay the levy.
Gee. I bet that has made him popular with his customers.
Of course I fundamentally disagree with the proposal for any number of reasons. How is wealthy defined? Many wealthy parents already pay a lot more to educate their children so how is 'fairness' achieved? Why punish effort and entrepreneurship and reward the absence of it? I could go on.
But the reason I thought the article from The Age worth comment, is the response from readers. The poll (at 6 am) shows only 33 percent agree with the idea. If the same sort of thinking got an airing in the NZ Herald I believe the 'yes' vote would be significantly higher.
And the difference is why Australia is leaving us behind for dust.
Thursday, April 07, 2011
Welfare - a hopeless bind
What a hopeless situation this country has gotten itself into with regard to welfare. Hopeless. It is laid out starkly by Simon Collins in today's NZ Herald. Hardship itemised alongside the inability of welfare payments to meet the cost of living of a single parent despite those payments being greater than the average weekly earnings of a female living in Auckland of $798. The mother concerned receives $827 after tax. Her main problem is she is spending over half of it on rent.
It is no wonder that NZers love to invest money in property. There are so many families, often single parent, that can only afford to rent. And the presence of WINZ in the market keeps the rental charges artificially high.
There are only two answers for this mother. Move or share rental expenses. Neither prospect is easy to face but people cut their cloth. It's part and parcel of life.
Working isn't going to lift her income and if her condition worsens she may be unable to. If I was in her shoes I would move out of Auckland. Does she have parents she could stay with temporarily?
On one hand I am sympathetic. But on the other when you compare her problems with those faced by many Christchurch residents, relatively speaking, they pale in comparison.
I have met Pam Apera. A sensible woman. But she should not be putting her hand in her pocket. Silly, silly. I know. I have done it and so have other volunteers I have worked with. It's against the rules for very good reasons. Oswald will tell us why.
The parent has to take control of the situation and make some tough decisions.
It is no wonder that NZers love to invest money in property. There are so many families, often single parent, that can only afford to rent. And the presence of WINZ in the market keeps the rental charges artificially high.
There are only two answers for this mother. Move or share rental expenses. Neither prospect is easy to face but people cut their cloth. It's part and parcel of life.
Working isn't going to lift her income and if her condition worsens she may be unable to. If I was in her shoes I would move out of Auckland. Does she have parents she could stay with temporarily?
On one hand I am sympathetic. But on the other when you compare her problems with those faced by many Christchurch residents, relatively speaking, they pale in comparison.
I have met Pam Apera. A sensible woman. But she should not be putting her hand in her pocket. Silly, silly. I know. I have done it and so have other volunteers I have worked with. It's against the rules for very good reasons. Oswald will tell us why.
The parent has to take control of the situation and make some tough decisions.
Wednesday, April 06, 2011
CYF advise "don't be stoic"
There has been an increase in crime, domestic violence and alcohol-related incidents in Canterbury towns hosting families who have left Christchurch after the earthquake. Overcrowding and stretched resources are being blamed. But this advice from a CYF worker stopped me in my tracks, so to speak;
Being stoic is actually how some people cope. Time was when exercising self-control was considered a virtue, a strength. I suppose modern sensitive types would now describe a stoic as anal-retentive.
In any case people who are committing alcohol-fuelled crime or abuse weren't being stoic anyway. I suspect that their behaviour isn't out of character. The circumstances have just ratcheted it up a notch or two; given them an excuse to be more self-indulgent than usual.
And along come CYF telling them they shouldn't have bottled it up. There, there. Let it all hang out. Wear your heart on your sleeve, cry on as many shoulders as you can find. But above all, come to us.
What the hell for? People would be better off going to the local church (although, in this day and age, the church would probably refer them on to CYF, such is the sell-out to socialism).
Some good old-fashioned stoicism, or even a resemblance of it, is exactly what is needed. No, I don't know what some of these people have been through, but there is always someone worse off than yourself and if they are parents, they have greater responsibilities than to their own emotional expediencies.
Yesterday a woman came into my shop taking a break from Christchurch. She wanted to talk about what had happened and I was very happy to listen. She wasn't hand-wringing or feeling sorry for herself. She was calm and philosophical. But she was upset about a nearby couple living on a lifestyle block, with all the latest and best possessions, who couldn't handle their material loss and had split up. She was very sad for the children. She felt the parents should have been strong for their children.
Stoic, perhaps.
It was "no time to be stoic", and people should seek CYF help before they reached "breaking point", she said.
Being stoic is actually how some people cope. Time was when exercising self-control was considered a virtue, a strength. I suppose modern sensitive types would now describe a stoic as anal-retentive.
In any case people who are committing alcohol-fuelled crime or abuse weren't being stoic anyway. I suspect that their behaviour isn't out of character. The circumstances have just ratcheted it up a notch or two; given them an excuse to be more self-indulgent than usual.
And along come CYF telling them they shouldn't have bottled it up. There, there. Let it all hang out. Wear your heart on your sleeve, cry on as many shoulders as you can find. But above all, come to us.
What the hell for? People would be better off going to the local church (although, in this day and age, the church would probably refer them on to CYF, such is the sell-out to socialism).
Some good old-fashioned stoicism, or even a resemblance of it, is exactly what is needed. No, I don't know what some of these people have been through, but there is always someone worse off than yourself and if they are parents, they have greater responsibilities than to their own emotional expediencies.
Yesterday a woman came into my shop taking a break from Christchurch. She wanted to talk about what had happened and I was very happy to listen. She wasn't hand-wringing or feeling sorry for herself. She was calm and philosophical. But she was upset about a nearby couple living on a lifestyle block, with all the latest and best possessions, who couldn't handle their material loss and had split up. She was very sad for the children. She felt the parents should have been strong for their children.
Stoic, perhaps.
Tuesday, April 05, 2011
Welfare and refugees
A criticism of Libertarianz immigration policy at Crusader Rabbit yesterday prompted me to have a closer look at the NZ situation. The discussion assumed that all refugees are Muslim (not true) and therefore, to be blunt, not wanted. It is a view that has some validity if refugees are eventually a source of trouble (crime, welfare dependence, and intolerance to other cultures.) However, to treat all refugees as a single class of people is collectivist, an approach I will always take issue with. I abhor collectivism because I will always advocate and fight for the rights of individuals. Detractors at Rabbit will argue that Muslims will collectively override the culture of individualism given a chance. And that is also possibility.
I argued that the Libz policy of allowing unlimited refugees as long as they have a private ongoing sponsor is reasonable. I might be persuaded to change my mind about limitations but not the idea of sponsorship. Private sponsorship would probably have a self-limiting effect anyway.
In NZ, the particular problem with refugees is they are dependent on the public purse from the outset and frequently remain that way. This does not assist integration. It means refugees remain out of the workforce with no demands on them to learn English and new skills, if they choose not to.
There is a paper entitled Does a rising tide lift all boats? which examines how the US compares to NZ in its refugee resettlement programme. It is not written by a New Zealand public policy wonk which is immediately obvious in its clarity of structure and straightforward writing.
The result?
The paper goes on to point out that the refugees characteristics on arrival appear to be fairly similar, "and certainly not disparate enough to be the basis for marked difference in the outcomes."
The passage encapsulates what is wrong with the social compact New Zealanders apparently have with their government (though I do not believe for a moment it is a compact by consensus). Is a refugee stuck on a benefit more equal? Is she more free?
And exactly the same can be said about New Zealanders.
I argued that the Libz policy of allowing unlimited refugees as long as they have a private ongoing sponsor is reasonable. I might be persuaded to change my mind about limitations but not the idea of sponsorship. Private sponsorship would probably have a self-limiting effect anyway.
In NZ, the particular problem with refugees is they are dependent on the public purse from the outset and frequently remain that way. This does not assist integration. It means refugees remain out of the workforce with no demands on them to learn English and new skills, if they choose not to.
There is a paper entitled Does a rising tide lift all boats? which examines how the US compares to NZ in its refugee resettlement programme. It is not written by a New Zealand public policy wonk which is immediately obvious in its clarity of structure and straightforward writing.
The result?
The paper goes on to point out that the refugees characteristics on arrival appear to be fairly similar, "and certainly not disparate enough to be the basis for marked difference in the outcomes."
The passage encapsulates what is wrong with the social compact New Zealanders apparently have with their government (though I do not believe for a moment it is a compact by consensus). Is a refugee stuck on a benefit more equal? Is she more free?
And exactly the same can be said about New Zealanders.
Monday, April 04, 2011
The company Tizard keeps
I must be leading a sheltered life. I don't know any sulky 15 year-olds who smoke too much dope. So I have no idea how they behave. What have I been missing?
Sunday, April 03, 2011
Maori - unrealistic standards?
As a result of someone pulling my leg over the Maori translation of Ministry of Women's Affairs I had a look at said website this morning. Surprising - or is it? - how much of it is devoted to Maori.
By sheer coincidence this month is the 100th anniversary of the first convention of the Māori branch of the Women's Christian Temperance Union (WCTU) held at Pakipaki in 1911. Maori were enticed in their droves to sign up to a pledge promising not to smoke or drink. But I never knew about the third requisite.
Ta moko has long interested me and I've painted many tattooed subjects. Countless women died of septicaemia as a result of the practice and one hundred years ago the process was painful, dangerous and barbaric. But that has been replaced with safe modern day techniques and I imagine the idea of bowing to a European/other culture request to forsake ta moko today would rightly be reviled.
But isn't there a hint of an analogy in there?
(Leaving aside tobacco) isn't the answer for leading a good life finding some middle ground or moderation or better way without total abandonment? For many Maori there seems to be only the high road or the low road. All or nothing. And I suppose the same must be said for some Pakeha. But there does seem a stronger delineation with Maori. "Churchies or crims" as I have heard one Maori friend remark about a family which ended up making the worst sort of headlines.
These concepts - good and bad - even make an appearance in public service contracts today:
Are Maori setting themselves unrealistic standards? And then, too often, failing spectacularly?
By sheer coincidence this month is the 100th anniversary of the first convention of the Māori branch of the Women's Christian Temperance Union (WCTU) held at Pakipaki in 1911. Maori were enticed in their droves to sign up to a pledge promising not to smoke or drink. But I never knew about the third requisite.
Temperance Pledge
He whakaae tene naku kia kaua ahau e kai tupeka, e inu ranei I tetahi mea e haurangi ai te tangata, kia kaua hoki ahau e whakaae ki te ta moko. Ma te Atua ahau e awhina.
Translation:
I agree by this pledge, not to smoke tobacco, not to drink any beverages that are intoxicating, and also not to take the ta moko. May God help me.
Ta moko has long interested me and I've painted many tattooed subjects. Countless women died of septicaemia as a result of the practice and one hundred years ago the process was painful, dangerous and barbaric. But that has been replaced with safe modern day techniques and I imagine the idea of bowing to a European/other culture request to forsake ta moko today would rightly be reviled.
But isn't there a hint of an analogy in there? (Leaving aside tobacco) isn't the answer for leading a good life finding some middle ground or moderation or better way without total abandonment? For many Maori there seems to be only the high road or the low road. All or nothing. And I suppose the same must be said for some Pakeha. But there does seem a stronger delineation with Maori. "Churchies or crims" as I have heard one Maori friend remark about a family which ended up making the worst sort of headlines.
These concepts - good and bad - even make an appearance in public service contracts today:
Tapu/Noa Sacred/profane The recognition of the cultural means of social control envisaged in tapu and noa including its implications for practices in working with Maori Service Users.
Are Maori setting themselves unrealistic standards? And then, too often, failing spectacularly?
Saturday, April 02, 2011
Blog stats March
Best month ever. Coincides with the second biggest business confidence downturn since the survey began. Reading blogs make people gloomy? Or gloom encourages people to read blogs? Actually it's probably got something to do with my google ranking, whatever that is.
Friday, April 01, 2011
Criminals and misnomers
Just two quick thoughts this morning.
1/ Anybody who defrauds Work and Income should be barred from ever claiming welfare again, including Super. That would a huge deterrent to people who think they can behave how the hell they like and always fall back on other people's money. Otherwise this extraordinary state of affairs, whereby no matter what people do their 'entitlements' remain intact, will continue to be a major reason why so much crime occurs and will continue to occur. The bullet must be bitten and a stop put to this utter nonsense. The facts;
In 2009;
Cancellations of a benefit for reason ‘going to prison’ 4,192. Grants of a benefit for reason ‘leaving prison’ 3,496.
2/ Does anyone else find the constant use of the term 'mass grave' in reference, to the inability to identify Christchurch quake victims, questionable? Mass graves have connotations associated with mass murder. Surely a better, more sympathetic description could be found. Multiple grave maybe. I don't know but I am certain the term being used is all part and parcel of the tragedy voyeurism some commentators have identified.
Update; Having returned from walking the dog there is something else I want to say. In the business of beneficiaries defrauding the taxpayer and going back on welfare the writer went to ACT for a response;
What a piss-poor response. ACT has had years to think about this matter. And Roger Douglas is supposed to be the welfare spokesperson anyway. I may not always have agreed with Muriel Newman but she didn't prevaricate or miss an opportunity to stamp an impression on voters about where the party stood. And they call National "spineless".
1/ Anybody who defrauds Work and Income should be barred from ever claiming welfare again, including Super. That would a huge deterrent to people who think they can behave how the hell they like and always fall back on other people's money. Otherwise this extraordinary state of affairs, whereby no matter what people do their 'entitlements' remain intact, will continue to be a major reason why so much crime occurs and will continue to occur. The bullet must be bitten and a stop put to this utter nonsense. The facts;
In 2009;
Cancellations of a benefit for reason ‘going to prison’ 4,192. Grants of a benefit for reason ‘leaving prison’ 3,496.
2/ Does anyone else find the constant use of the term 'mass grave' in reference, to the inability to identify Christchurch quake victims, questionable? Mass graves have connotations associated with mass murder. Surely a better, more sympathetic description could be found. Multiple grave maybe. I don't know but I am certain the term being used is all part and parcel of the tragedy voyeurism some commentators have identified.
Update; Having returned from walking the dog there is something else I want to say. In the business of beneficiaries defrauding the taxpayer and going back on welfare the writer went to ACT for a response;
ACT MP Heather Roy said it was obvious further changes needed to be made. "The question is, how much was the system allowing this to happen? It seems to me if we've got that much money going west ... there's something going wrong."
What a piss-poor response. ACT has had years to think about this matter. And Roger Douglas is supposed to be the welfare spokesperson anyway. I may not always have agreed with Muriel Newman but she didn't prevaricate or miss an opportunity to stamp an impression on voters about where the party stood. And they call National "spineless".
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Rhodesian Ridgeback
This is sketched by eye. I am usually more methodical and take short cuts with the use of technology. Sadly this girl is no longer with us. But I remember her as a particularly lollopy, peaceful beast.
Not doing his homework - Dick Smith
Dick Smith calls for two-children limit on families
EVERY Australian family should be limited to just two children to curb the population explosion, controversial millionaire Dick Smith says.
He called for a China-like quota on the number of kids, warning the growing burden on our resources was like "a plague of locusts".
Yes the Australians have been over-producing for decades - haven't they?
EVERY Australian family should be limited to just two children to curb the population explosion, controversial millionaire Dick Smith says.
He called for a China-like quota on the number of kids, warning the growing burden on our resources was like "a plague of locusts".
Yes the Australians have been over-producing for decades - haven't they?
Attacks on WWG report continue
This column appeared in the Dominion Post and NZ Herald yesterday.
It disappoints me that everything we are seeing and hearing in the media is coming from the knockers. The Greens, left-wing activists, church groups, academics. The group members, bar one exception, appear to silent, by choice or by some agreed tactic. There is so much one could say in response to this latest column, not least that is ignores wholly the moral imperative for welfare and the role of the family in society but confined to 200 words I thought best to reiterate the big picture:
It disappoints me that everything we are seeing and hearing in the media is coming from the knockers. The Greens, left-wing activists, church groups, academics. The group members, bar one exception, appear to silent, by choice or by some agreed tactic. There is so much one could say in response to this latest column, not least that is ignores wholly the moral imperative for welfare and the role of the family in society but confined to 200 words I thought best to reiterate the big picture:
Dear Editor
Donna Wynd and Susan St John co-wrote a column (Dominion Post, March 30) criticising the final Welfare Working Group report. Almost entirely it comprised analysis of how a sole parent might be affected by "punitive" recommendations. No attention was given to what has happened and will continue to happen under the status quo.
The Group was tasked with examining long-term welfare dependence and found, "Around 60,000 had spent at least ten years on a benefit, and 100,000 had spent at least nine of the last ten years on a benefit," 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." Currently, the figure sits at 13 percent.
Clearly reforms are needed to reverse the trend. Accordingly the Group made many recommendations including part-time work-testing single parents whose youngest child is three, in line with some other OECD countries. Being on a benefit long-term is documented as detrimental to children and must be discouraged. There may be some short-term difficulties adjusting to a tightening of welfare but the long-term gain, particularly for children, outweighs this.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Why stop at the hut?
Looking at the photo of these two boys I ask myself, why stop at the tree hut? The Nelson City Council tore it down because if someone fell from it they might injure themselves. But the two boys are still in the tree well above ground. Why not chop down the entire tree? And any other council tree they might choose to climb and fall from. That is the logical extension of their initial action.This reminds me about the notice that appeared on a tree in our street. Two boys had attached a basketball hoop to it before a nasty notice appeared warning them to remove the hoop or face a fine. The tree is 'protected'. Just like the Nelson boys are being 'protected'.
Protected. What an abused word. Try stifled, constrained, prevented, forbidden. My guess is around 90 percent of people do not agree with council's 'protective' actions. But there is also a lurking 10 percent of control freaks winning the day. How do we fight them? Usually they operate under the cloak of anonymity. Who are these people and what drives them? Do they see themselves as superior beings with greater foresight and therefore a duty to act? Do they regard themselves as selfless and altruistic in their concern for their fellow human-beings every safety? Or are they grumpy, miserable old farts and fartesses who can't abide the laughter and chatter of excited children?
What we desperately need more than anything else is protection from them - not ourselves.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
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.
(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:
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.
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.
Sunday, March 27, 2011
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.
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.
Friday, March 25, 2011
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.
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.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
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.
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.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
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.
Monday, March 21, 2011
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:
Contrast their facts also with findings reported in the Welfare Working Group Issues paper;
And:
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 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:
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:
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.
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":
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.
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.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
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 :-)
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 :-)
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
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.
And I've just discovered a second comment in my junk tray;
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
