...or at least talking (around 44:00) about it.
In the studio with Sean Plunket on NewstalkZB today, Key brought up the issue of welfare reform virtually unbidden. No, I didn't ring to pose a searching question, as I have in the past. He knows the statistics off by heart and referred to the WWG report, the recommendations of which he seems to want to take on board. And it isn't just about saving money says he. It's about the social implications of having 11 percent (12 actually) of working age people on a benefit and the lessons their children learn or don't learn about acquiring skills and being self-supporting. Spot on. That is the most important angle to approach it from. TICK.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
No, it's not fair but you vote for it
Reported in NZ Herald today:
Just like PAYE. And the reason why it is so difficult to get some people excited about the issue of taxation.
Unless someone stirs the pot. Like in today's DomPost where Vernon Small runs with a Stuart Nash Labour MP assault on farmers and the tax they don't pay. Farmers, who create wealth, are compared to beneficiaries and superannuitants, who use up wealth. Farmers who are subject to seasonal, currency, market changes and fluctuating incomes; state dependents who are assured of a steady weekly income no matter what. And of course a whinging (almost certainly WFF recipient) two-child couple turns up: "It's not fair". I am only surprised they didn't continue with, "We are raising the next generation of taxpayers!"
If you want fair let's have flat tax. Let's have simplicity and transparency. Let's have less frigging government pitting one group against another for their own gain.
KiwiSaver worked well, he said "because the money comes out of your pay packet and once that happens, people don't give too much thought to it. They just carry on living to what they have and take home every week."
Just like PAYE. And the reason why it is so difficult to get some people excited about the issue of taxation.
Unless someone stirs the pot. Like in today's DomPost where Vernon Small runs with a Stuart Nash Labour MP assault on farmers and the tax they don't pay. Farmers, who create wealth, are compared to beneficiaries and superannuitants, who use up wealth. Farmers who are subject to seasonal, currency, market changes and fluctuating incomes; state dependents who are assured of a steady weekly income no matter what. And of course a whinging (almost certainly WFF recipient) two-child couple turns up: "It's not fair". I am only surprised they didn't continue with, "We are raising the next generation of taxpayers!"
If you want fair let's have flat tax. Let's have simplicity and transparency. Let's have less frigging government pitting one group against another for their own gain.
Monday, May 16, 2011
PM says ACT can't get 5 percent
Just listening to Mike Hosking interviewing John Key, and on the back of a Horizon Poll that shows ACT support up to 5.3 percent, Hosking asks the PM is ACT a 5 percent party? Key is emphatic. No. Then he attacks the poll.
I don't think he should be going down the road of attacking polls. Echoes of Clark. Polls have been his best friend. Sure the Horizon Poll may have its shortcomings but it is one in a parcel of polls which together tell the public what voters are thinking. He and people like David Beatson , can naysay the existence of people who want more reform than National will ever undertake, all they like. But they are not going away. And I stick by my prediction that ACT, under Brash, can poll up to 10 percent. I just wish a deal of it wasn't going to come from anti-Maori sentiment.
I don't think he should be going down the road of attacking polls. Echoes of Clark. Polls have been his best friend. Sure the Horizon Poll may have its shortcomings but it is one in a parcel of polls which together tell the public what voters are thinking. He and people like David Beatson , can naysay the existence of people who want more reform than National will ever undertake, all they like. But they are not going away. And I stick by my prediction that ACT, under Brash, can poll up to 10 percent. I just wish a deal of it wasn't going to come from anti-Maori sentiment.
The robustness of Starship statistics and data in general
If the seemingly unimpeachable Starship hospital is going to use its admission statistics to lobby for legislation (which they are increasingly doing) they should ensure its consistency or provide additional descriptive information. Take these two examples for instance:
Then:
Reconciling the two statements poses difficulty. 95 victims of domestic violence over 11 years is considerably less than 181 over 6 years. 8.6 per year versus 30 per year. The qualifying definitions may be different but that should be noted. One may relate to any admission while the other relates to admission to intensive care. Though I would have thought as Starship tends to the most serious injuries the difference wouldn't be that great.
Hospital statistics are vital because they represent actual incidents as opposed to reported or suspected events. However as the first statistic does contain the qualifier for the cause as, " suspected or definite", the second leads me to believe many of the susepected causes turn out to be unprovable or wrong.
The increasing tendency for Starship practitioners to lobby government however also casts doubt on the data they provide. It is natural for lobbyists to build their case with the most compelling picture. This may even result in conflict amongst the practitioners themselves. Especially if they were lobbying for extra resources. Not very helpful really. (Notwithstanding, this anomaly may just be a failure or omission by the journalist.) Additionally, if a problem being over-stated there is an accompanying tendency towards over-suspicion.
I can't remember where but I read about the suggestion or proposal that a neutral group should be formed to scrutinise statistical information. They exist in other jurisdictions? Perhaps it would need to be formed from unpaid, possibly retired folk with the necessary credentials.
A leading authority on shaken baby syndrome says the level of child abuse in New Zealand is staggering, with nearly one child a week admitted to Auckland's Starship Hospital with serious physical injuries. Hospital data, released to the Herald on Sunday under the Official Information Act, shows that since 2001, 181 children have been hospitalised as a result of "suspected or definite" child abuse. July 2007.
Then:
"...the largest group of injuries treated at the Starship's intensive care unit were suffered by juvenile car passengers.
They accounted for 150 admissions in 11 years since 2000, ahead of 105 child pedestrians knocked down in streets and driveways, and 95 victims of domestic violence. May 2011."
Reconciling the two statements poses difficulty. 95 victims of domestic violence over 11 years is considerably less than 181 over 6 years. 8.6 per year versus 30 per year. The qualifying definitions may be different but that should be noted. One may relate to any admission while the other relates to admission to intensive care. Though I would have thought as Starship tends to the most serious injuries the difference wouldn't be that great.
Hospital statistics are vital because they represent actual incidents as opposed to reported or suspected events. However as the first statistic does contain the qualifier for the cause as, " suspected or definite", the second leads me to believe many of the susepected causes turn out to be unprovable or wrong.
The increasing tendency for Starship practitioners to lobby government however also casts doubt on the data they provide. It is natural for lobbyists to build their case with the most compelling picture. This may even result in conflict amongst the practitioners themselves. Especially if they were lobbying for extra resources. Not very helpful really. (Notwithstanding, this anomaly may just be a failure or omission by the journalist.) Additionally, if a problem being over-stated there is an accompanying tendency towards over-suspicion.
I can't remember where but I read about the suggestion or proposal that a neutral group should be formed to scrutinise statistical information. They exist in other jurisdictions? Perhaps it would need to be formed from unpaid, possibly retired folk with the necessary credentials.
Sunday, May 15, 2011
Kerre Woodham under siege
Last week Woodham told it like it is. Any one who sees with their naked eyes instead of through bleeding-heart lens' knows that her slamming of useless mothers who produce children as meal tickets is an accurate assessment of where a good deal of child abuse and neglect stems from.
Two detractors put up a response in this week's SST. I will address some of it:
Let's see what Kerre actually said:
But this year - sorry to be a spoil sport - let's turn the spotlight on those mothers who are abject failures. All those mothers who haven't got a clue who their children's sperm donors were. All those mothers who have children because they get paid to - and, let's face it, they wouldn't get paid to do anything else. Those mothers who stay with men who hurt them and their kids because they're so pathetic and useless that any shag - even when it comes with a biff - is better than being alone.
She also blames the hangers-on who hurt the children. Hateful hangers-on who are attracted to low self-esteem women with a steady income and a roof over their heads.
Back to the detractors:
The writers imply an obligation on society and then deny any right to judge. I admire (judge) a woman who keeps her child but when she is doing it for the right reasons - not because the child is a source of income. And society has every right to judge when the action results in the requisition of public money, currently in very scant supply and unavailable for other 'needs'.
Now the writers are simply being wilfully ignorant. In the US and in Europe the theory that women have children, or more children, to access more money has been tested by comparing states or countries. The link between higher benefits and more children born outside of marriage or partnership is clear.
The money is not a "pittance" when including basic benefit and other allowances. The NZ Herald has repeatedly identified examples of DPB incomes that are too high to compete with paid work.
Throwing ever increasing amounts at (sorry for the cliche) ambulances at the bottom of the cliff is never going to stop or stem the problem. And, the TIA was stopped because evidence showed people using it were tending to stay even longer on welfare. But I suppose the concept of career students would also be hotly disputed by this pair.
The final blows are fully intended to lay a guilt trip on Kerre so burdensome she will never repeat her opinion again.
Some people deserve denigration, their motivations and actions are so lacking in human empathy and devoid of any thought beyond immediate self-gratification. They need to know how other people view them or they will never change. Society, urged by the likes of these writers, is unable to prevent child abuse because it has been ordered to furnish the conditions that create it, through modern day ethical frameworks and social policy.
Indeed, this pair are contributing to the problem through their wishy-washy platitudinous apologism.
Two detractors put up a response in this week's SST. I will address some of it:
"Kerre Woodham seems to have identified the culprits of our high levels of child abuse - 'dumb, stupid, needy, dysfunctional slappers [who] are failing at being mothers'.
She says they 'have children because they get paid to - and, let's face it, they wouldn't get paid to do anything else'.
Firstly, let's address the accusation that mothers alone are responsible for the potential abuse of their children.
Let's see what Kerre actually said:
But this year - sorry to be a spoil sport - let's turn the spotlight on those mothers who are abject failures. All those mothers who haven't got a clue who their children's sperm donors were. All those mothers who have children because they get paid to - and, let's face it, they wouldn't get paid to do anything else. Those mothers who stay with men who hurt them and their kids because they're so pathetic and useless that any shag - even when it comes with a biff - is better than being alone.
She also blames the hangers-on who hurt the children. Hateful hangers-on who are attracted to low self-esteem women with a steady income and a roof over their heads.
Back to the detractors:
These people, already suffering the effects of poverty and possibly cyclical family violence, need all our help to protect themselves and their families. Throwing abuse at them, calling them slappers, or sluts who 'don't know who their sperm donors are' is just perpetrating the abuse and prejudice they face on a daily basis.
We have no right to judge a woman for falling pregnant, or choosing to keep a child if she wishes to.
The writers imply an obligation on society and then deny any right to judge. I admire (judge) a woman who keeps her child but when she is doing it for the right reasons - not because the child is a source of income. And society has every right to judge when the action results in the requisition of public money, currently in very scant supply and unavailable for other 'needs'.
Secondly, it is incredibly worrying that the myth of women getting pregnant to get more DPB money is being trotted out yet again.
There is absolutely no evidence that this has ever been done. In fact, the amount of money one gets is a pittance, for which the woman has to go through nine months of pregnancy (including time off any work she might have) and undergo labour, all to gain another mouth to feed.
Now the writers are simply being wilfully ignorant. In the US and in Europe the theory that women have children, or more children, to access more money has been tested by comparing states or countries. The link between higher benefits and more children born outside of marriage or partnership is clear.
The money is not a "pittance" when including basic benefit and other allowances. The NZ Herald has repeatedly identified examples of DPB incomes that are too high to compete with paid work.
To fight the scourge of child abuse in our society we need to re-assess our attitude towards women and the poor.
Cutting funding to childcare services and the Women's Refuge has made things worse, particularly with the Rugby World Cup coming up (look up abuse statistics when the All Blacks lose if you don't understand this).
Oh, and cutting the Training Incentive Allowance wasn't particularly helpful; talk about shutting the door behind you. We need to reverse these moves and put support behind our vital social services.
Throwing ever increasing amounts at (sorry for the cliche) ambulances at the bottom of the cliff is never going to stop or stem the problem. And, the TIA was stopped because evidence showed people using it were tending to stay even longer on welfare. But I suppose the concept of career students would also be hotly disputed by this pair.
We need to take concrete steps, not have people like Kerre, from positions of relative comfort, complaining about how horrible poor people are.
This only denigrates these women further and allows a smug sense of self-satisfaction."
The final blows are fully intended to lay a guilt trip on Kerre so burdensome she will never repeat her opinion again.
Some people deserve denigration, their motivations and actions are so lacking in human empathy and devoid of any thought beyond immediate self-gratification. They need to know how other people view them or they will never change. Society, urged by the likes of these writers, is unable to prevent child abuse because it has been ordered to furnish the conditions that create it, through modern day ethical frameworks and social policy.
Indeed, this pair are contributing to the problem through their wishy-washy platitudinous apologism.
Saturday, May 14, 2011
The Brash letter - Taskfarce
What appalled me, and should disturb all National and John Key supporters, is Key's refusal to meet with Brash to discuss the Taskforce 2025 report. How many photo opportunities does Key enjoy, performing nice- to- do but not essential- to- do things? Yet he can't make time to discuss the Taskforce 2025 recommendations which are crucial to creating a NZ that is at least keeping up with Australia. By his ignorance, the PM has consigned it to being a Taskfarce.
Friday, May 13, 2011
Maori hurt most by youth rates?
The opening lines from a new US study into the employment consequences of minimum wages:
New Zealand's current 15-19 year-old unemployment rate is 27.5 percent. Unfortunately the HLFS tables do not show the ethnic breakdown of each age group. There is a suggestion here that Maori youth unemployment is over 40 percent.
According to the Department of Labour the Maori Youth NEET (not in education, employment or training) rate is around 17 percent:
The difference between the two rates comes about because the DOL defines youth as 15-24, not 15-19, and the unemployment rate for 20-24 year-olds is much lower.
Anyway the point of this post is to highlight the findings of the study because what holds for US blacks probably has relevance for NZ Maori.
(Hat-tip NCPA)
When the Great Recession’s negative effect on the U.S. labor market was strongest, the national unemployment rate stood at 10.1 percent—a depth last seen in June 1983. But the greatest amount of pain was felt by younger and more vulnerable workers—though not in equal amounts. For instance, the unemployment rate for 16-to-19 year-olds reached 27.1 percent at the recession’s trough. For white teens, the figure was 25 percent; for black teens, it was close to 50 percent.
New Zealand's current 15-19 year-old unemployment rate is 27.5 percent. Unfortunately the HLFS tables do not show the ethnic breakdown of each age group. There is a suggestion here that Maori youth unemployment is over 40 percent.
According to the Department of Labour the Maori Youth NEET (not in education, employment or training) rate is around 17 percent:
The difference between the two rates comes about because the DOL defines youth as 15-24, not 15-19, and the unemployment rate for 20-24 year-olds is much lower.
Anyway the point of this post is to highlight the findings of the study because what holds for US blacks probably has relevance for NZ Maori.
... the picture grows even more troubling when the authors focus just on the 21 states fully affected by the federal minimum wage increases in 2007, 2008, and 2009. Approximately 13,200 black young adults in these states lost their job as a direct result of the recession; 18,500 lost their job as a result of the federal wage mandate—nearly 40 percent more than the recession. In
other words, the consequences of the minimum wage for this subgroup were more harmful than the consequences of the recession.
The substantial disemployment effects that emerge from the data raise an important question: Why do black males suffer more harm from wage mandates than their white or Hispanic counterparts?
The authors find that they’re more likely to be employed in eat-ing and drinking places–nearly one out of three black young adults without a high school diploma works in the industry. Businesses in this industry generally have narrow profit margins and are more likely to be adversely impacted by a wage mandate. There’s also substantial variation in regional location, as black young adults are
overwhelmingly located in the South and in urban areas. It’s also likely that unobserved differences in skill level and job experience play a role. To the extent that these differences are concentrated among young men of a particular race or ethnicity, this group would have the greatest risk of losing jobs when the minimum wage is increased.
Minimum wage increases remain politically popular, which means they’ll continue to be debated at the state and federal level for years to come. But the debate on the employment consequences of the minimum wage has been settled conclusively, and this research proves that those consequences are felt most by young black males.
(Hat-tip NCPA)
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Returned heads reminders of a brutal past
In an article about 16 Maori heads being returned to New Zealand from France the following appears:
But that is only part of the story. Slaves were deliberately tattooed and beheaded when carved faces became a commodity. I can think of nothing more terrifying and barbaric. Undergoing the extreme pain of having one's face chiselled for reasons of rank and pride is one thing. Imagine experiencing the same agonising process in the knowledge that it is preceding your death. That is always my first thought when I hear about heads being repatriated. I struggle to understand why anyone wants a reminder of this brutal, exploitive practice.
One of the best things about the Treaty is that it effectively abolished slavery in Maoridom. The history of NZ Maori is a savage one. Peaceful tribes were obliterated or enslaved by stronger, more violent and acquisitive tribes. A recipe for a harsh, short-life society. The spiritualistic ceremonies that accompany the return of the remainders and reminders of such times are misplaced.
Ironic as they weren't respected in life. Perhaps there is a healing and closure; an apologistic aspect to the process that evades me.
Some Maori heads, with intricate tattoos, were traditionally kept as trophies from tribal warfare. But once Westerners began offering prized goods in exchange for them, men were in danger of being killed simply for their tattoos, French museum officials have said.
But that is only part of the story. Slaves were deliberately tattooed and beheaded when carved faces became a commodity. I can think of nothing more terrifying and barbaric. Undergoing the extreme pain of having one's face chiselled for reasons of rank and pride is one thing. Imagine experiencing the same agonising process in the knowledge that it is preceding your death. That is always my first thought when I hear about heads being repatriated. I struggle to understand why anyone wants a reminder of this brutal, exploitive practice.
One of the best things about the Treaty is that it effectively abolished slavery in Maoridom. The history of NZ Maori is a savage one. Peaceful tribes were obliterated or enslaved by stronger, more violent and acquisitive tribes. A recipe for a harsh, short-life society. The spiritualistic ceremonies that accompany the return of the remainders and reminders of such times are misplaced.
Maori, the island nation's indigenous people, believe their ancestors' remains should be respected in their home area without being disturbed.
Ironic as they weren't respected in life. Perhaps there is a healing and closure; an apologistic aspect to the process that evades me.
Monday, May 09, 2011
What makes some people vote
Yesterday I was having a lengthy conversation with a young man. He pops in to chat at my shop and tells me all sorts of interesting things about his job and day to day experiences. He is a very friendly, open, and hard-working individual. Generally I don't bring up politics with people. That is their prerogative. Suddenly he said, "You were a Green candidate weren't you?". See this comes about because people are vaguely aware that I was involved in elections but as the only other thing they know about me is that I am an artist, they assume I must be a leftie.No, I responded, I stood for ACT. Oh, Ok. Do you like John Key he asked. Yes, I replied. Then he got very enthusiastic. I do too he said. I don't care about how much tax I pay and all that other political stuff. I'm just not interested. But because I like people and I am a friendly person, and because it is really important to me, being friendly and people being friendly back, and that's what John Key is like, I really like him. I love it when I hear him on the radio making people laugh.
Now that is not a stupid reason to vote for someone. This young man has identified his most important value. And he looks for someone who mirrors that. I don't really know why but I found it fascinating witnessing how the Mr Nice Guy persona manifests in votes. And let's face it. There aren't that many people who are very interested in politics. I wasn't at his age either.
While it seems strange to me I need only examine my own attitude to sports. The names I hear about are vaguely familiar but I couldn't tell you whether a particular one waa a league player or netball star. When it comes to sports I tune out. But if I had to vote for a sports star it would be Tana Umaga because I met him and he was very nice and generous. And good looking.
Now that is not a stupid reason to vote for someone. This young man has identified his most important value. And he looks for someone who mirrors that. I don't really know why but I found it fascinating witnessing how the Mr Nice Guy persona manifests in votes. And let's face it. There aren't that many people who are very interested in politics. I wasn't at his age either.
While it seems strange to me I need only examine my own attitude to sports. The names I hear about are vaguely familiar but I couldn't tell you whether a particular one waa a league player or netball star. When it comes to sports I tune out. But if I had to vote for a sports star it would be Tana Umaga because I met him and he was very nice and generous. And good looking.
Sunday, May 08, 2011
National's election platforms - welfare avoided again
Just heard on Radio Live News that the PM has announced National's election platforms for 2011 - the economy, education, health and law and order. And indeed, that is the case.
So why not the biggest chunk of government spending - social security? Leaving it for ACT?
But in this term and the last, ACT also abandoned welfare as a central issue. Roy was spokesperson from 2005-08 and Douglas thereafter. Neither raised public conciousness about welfare the way Newman had before.
The greatest potential area for NZ to reduce spending, as well as improve outcomes, is in welfare. But that market research stuff they do tells parties to avoid the issue as too electorally sensitive.
Back yourself Brash and go after it. In the early 2000s, while still Reserve Bank Governor, you were publicly critical of welfare. Your outspokeness in that role laid the base for much of your current support. National has done next to nothing in this term and NZ now trails other developed countries in the reform stakes. We cannot afford to.
So why not the biggest chunk of government spending - social security? Leaving it for ACT?
But in this term and the last, ACT also abandoned welfare as a central issue. Roy was spokesperson from 2005-08 and Douglas thereafter. Neither raised public conciousness about welfare the way Newman had before.
The greatest potential area for NZ to reduce spending, as well as improve outcomes, is in welfare. But that market research stuff they do tells parties to avoid the issue as too electorally sensitive.
Back yourself Brash and go after it. In the early 2000s, while still Reserve Bank Governor, you were publicly critical of welfare. Your outspokeness in that role laid the base for much of your current support. National has done next to nothing in this term and NZ now trails other developed countries in the reform stakes. We cannot afford to.
My advice to Kerre Woodham (and myself on more than one occasion)
Kerre Woodham writes in today' SST:
Her emotion (or lack of it) is called burn out.
My advice to Kerre is don't stop writing but do start thinking about what policies need to change and be specific about what needs to happen. If you know that people have children because they are paid to, call for the end of such a policy. It is your money being used after all. If you think adoption is a better option, push for a change in CYF's attitude to adoption. How do you think it came about that NZ literally turned its back on the process? Vociferous, relentless, activism by feminists who believed that a child should always stay with its natural mother. How did it come about that we pay single women to have children? Feminist activism that deplored the nuclear family. Fight back and keep fighting. Not for a return to the past but for a new approach. Women today have so much more opportunity. They don't need these state crutches which if anything turn them into victims rather than empowered beings.
Take a breather and wait for the energy to return. It will.
Mother's Day is more a day for the children than it is for mums - all mums with healthy, beautiful children have a mother's day every day that their children stay safe and happy.
But this year - sorry to be a spoil sport - let's turn the spotlight on those mothers who are abject failures. All those mothers who haven't got a clue who their children's sperm donors were. All those mothers who have children because they get paid to - and, let's face it, they wouldn't get paid to do anything else. Those mothers who stay with men who hurt them and their kids because they're so pathetic and useless that any shag - even when it comes with a biff - is better than being alone.
This Mother's Day, I would plead that every mother who has had a child that they don't care about or can't cope with gets the help that they need....
I've been writing columns and banging on on talkback for more than 13 years about this and I am so, so sick of railing against the abomination that is child abuse in this country.
So this will be my last column on the subject. What I do is utterly futile.
Her emotion (or lack of it) is called burn out.
My advice to Kerre is don't stop writing but do start thinking about what policies need to change and be specific about what needs to happen. If you know that people have children because they are paid to, call for the end of such a policy. It is your money being used after all. If you think adoption is a better option, push for a change in CYF's attitude to adoption. How do you think it came about that NZ literally turned its back on the process? Vociferous, relentless, activism by feminists who believed that a child should always stay with its natural mother. How did it come about that we pay single women to have children? Feminist activism that deplored the nuclear family. Fight back and keep fighting. Not for a return to the past but for a new approach. Women today have so much more opportunity. They don't need these state crutches which if anything turn them into victims rather than empowered beings.
Take a breather and wait for the energy to return. It will.
Friday, May 06, 2011
Mr Tactless
Not quite Hone Harawira but....
Am I being pc because this guy makes me wince?
"What's so tragic about a 6.6 per cent jobless rate anyway?" asked Bank of New Zealand economist Craig Ebert.
Ex Treasury. Bloodless. Yeah, yeah and I'm a bleeding heart.
Mr Ebert obviously doesn't have friends or relatives who have lost jobs or businesses.
"A lot of countries would give their eye teeth for that sort of level, albeit we should hope for something a bit lower in due course. For a truly stuffed labour market, and economy, go back to the early 1990s, with 11.2 per cent [unemployment]."
Mr Ebert doesn't look old enough to have actually experienced the early 1990s. For the first time in my life I couldn't get a job and it is a most depressing, but empathy-building experience.
What really pisses me off is this supercilious attitude is what gives capitalism a bad name. Thoughtless prick.
Am I being pc because this guy makes me wince?
"What's so tragic about a 6.6 per cent jobless rate anyway?" asked Bank of New Zealand economist Craig Ebert.
Ex Treasury. Bloodless. Yeah, yeah and I'm a bleeding heart.
Mr Ebert obviously doesn't have friends or relatives who have lost jobs or businesses.
"A lot of countries would give their eye teeth for that sort of level, albeit we should hope for something a bit lower in due course. For a truly stuffed labour market, and economy, go back to the early 1990s, with 11.2 per cent [unemployment]."
Mr Ebert doesn't look old enough to have actually experienced the early 1990s. For the first time in my life I couldn't get a job and it is a most depressing, but empathy-building experience.
What really pisses me off is this supercilious attitude is what gives capitalism a bad name. Thoughtless prick.
Thursday, May 05, 2011
Auckland tornado a socialist 'cause celebre'
It never ceases to surprise the lengths socialists will go to to exploit events. Even natural disasters.
Worker killed in New Zealand tornado
Subsidising youth into work looks good on paper but....
A fanfare was made yesterday about a further $55 million available to subsidise young people into jobs or training.
It is unpopular to argue against this initiative but I will.
1/ Primarily any subsidy distorts the labour market. As do legislated minimum wages. The first assists the employer and the second penalises. I am surprised the anti-capitalist Greens aren't arguing against the (0n-going) subsidy. Sue Bradford used to rightly argue against WFF on the basis that it subsidises employers.
2/ Subsidies favour one and punish another. The potential worker who attracts the subsidy takes opportunity away from the potential worker who doesn't. Probably an older Maori or Pacific worker with greater financial committments than the young person.
3/ There are around 64,000 (15-24) young people officially unemployed. 1,000 subsidised positions tackles only a small percentage. It is an inefficient use of taxpayer's money to solve the problem of youth unemployment.
4/ What 'can't be seen' is as usual ignored. That $55 million is taken from taxpayers who might have used it to invest in their own economically constructive ways.
5/ Yes. If youth are going to be paid the dole it is better to get something for the money. Which simply avoids debating whether or not youth should even be paid the dole having contributed nothing to the economy thus far. Why shouldn't they remain the responsibility of their parents? Afterall, their parental income is relative when it comes to qualifying for a student allowance. Why isn't the same criteria applied to the unemployment benefit?
6/ Some employers will abuse the subsidy, especially when the government demands they pay inexperienced workers a minimum rate. The criteria that jobs must be "opportunities that wouldn't exist if the Job Ops subsidy wasn't available" is a test easily met.
7/ Industries that can only employ skilled workers are disadvantaged.
8/ There is inherent unfairness in expecting one young person to pay for their own skills acquisition and subsidising the next.
9/ Subsidies should be no part of a policy programme run by a free enterprise party.If they are wrong in principle then ...they are wrong. Sneaking them in here and there to look like they are 'doing something' is an abrogation of their responsibility to introduce better policy. Like low flat tax and labour market regulation reduction. Typically National.
It is unpopular to argue against this initiative but I will.
1/ Primarily any subsidy distorts the labour market. As do legislated minimum wages. The first assists the employer and the second penalises. I am surprised the anti-capitalist Greens aren't arguing against the (0n-going) subsidy. Sue Bradford used to rightly argue against WFF on the basis that it subsidises employers.
2/ Subsidies favour one and punish another. The potential worker who attracts the subsidy takes opportunity away from the potential worker who doesn't. Probably an older Maori or Pacific worker with greater financial committments than the young person.
3/ There are around 64,000 (15-24) young people officially unemployed. 1,000 subsidised positions tackles only a small percentage. It is an inefficient use of taxpayer's money to solve the problem of youth unemployment.
4/ What 'can't be seen' is as usual ignored. That $55 million is taken from taxpayers who might have used it to invest in their own economically constructive ways.
5/ Yes. If youth are going to be paid the dole it is better to get something for the money. Which simply avoids debating whether or not youth should even be paid the dole having contributed nothing to the economy thus far. Why shouldn't they remain the responsibility of their parents? Afterall, their parental income is relative when it comes to qualifying for a student allowance. Why isn't the same criteria applied to the unemployment benefit?
6/ Some employers will abuse the subsidy, especially when the government demands they pay inexperienced workers a minimum rate. The criteria that jobs must be "opportunities that wouldn't exist if the Job Ops subsidy wasn't available" is a test easily met.
7/ Industries that can only employ skilled workers are disadvantaged.
8/ There is inherent unfairness in expecting one young person to pay for their own skills acquisition and subsidising the next.
9/ Subsidies should be no part of a policy programme run by a free enterprise party.If they are wrong in principle then ...they are wrong. Sneaking them in here and there to look like they are 'doing something' is an abrogation of their responsibility to introduce better policy. Like low flat tax and labour market regulation reduction. Typically National.
Wednesday, May 04, 2011
Income from govt - US vs NZ
Americans depended more on government assistance in 2010 than at any other time in the nation's history, a USA Today analysis of federal data finds. The trend shows few signs of easing, even though the economic recovery is nearly two years old.
* A record 18.3 percent of the nation's total personal income was a payment from the government for Social Security, Medicare, food stamps, unemployment benefits and other programs in 2010.
* Wages accounted for the lowest share of income -- 51.0 percent -- since the government began keeping track in 1929.
In NZ 12.6 percent of personal income comes from government transfers. I can't factor in Medicare equivalent which would push up the NZ percentage but it is interesting that....
From 1980 to 2000, government aid was roughly constant at 12.5 percent.
(Hat tip Welfare State We're In, who points out that many people incorrectly believe there is no welfare state in the US.James Bartholemew has, by the way, been conracted to write a new book comparing welfare states around the world. I look forward to that. Big job.)
Tuesday, May 03, 2011
National bolsters war on drugs
Nothing much captures my imagination today. Perhaps worth a mention is National's replacement for John Carter's safe seat. Mike Sabin, the ex-policeman who wages war against P. His anti-drug advocacy doesn't stop at P.
I wonder if National has a seat they can offer to Doug Sellman?
"New Zealand ranking second only to the United States for cannabis use provides further evidence that our country is descending into the world's gutters," Mr Sabin said.
I wonder if National has a seat they can offer to Doug Sellman?
Monday, May 02, 2011
Teen mothers adding children to a benefit
Liberty asked yesterday;
What percentage of teen mothers go on to have 2 or 3 children while staying on the DPB?
It is impossible to answer the question based on the information MSD can provide due to a lack of historical data.
The above tables would indicate that 35,485 mothers (or female caregivers) aged 32 or less who started on welfare as a teenager had 58,004 children.
Some may have added 1; others more, so it is impossible to tell from the above data a specific percentage. But it is clear that Maori and Pacific mothers are considerably more likely to have additional children on a benefit.
There are also a number of other unknowns about the data for instance the dependence on a benefit may not have been continuous. And a very small number might be dependent on a benefit other than the DPB.
What percentage of teen mothers go on to have 2 or 3 children while staying on the DPB?
It is impossible to answer the question based on the information MSD can provide due to a lack of historical data.
The above tables would indicate that 35,485 mothers (or female caregivers) aged 32 or less who started on welfare as a teenager had 58,004 children.
Some may have added 1; others more, so it is impossible to tell from the above data a specific percentage. But it is clear that Maori and Pacific mothers are considerably more likely to have additional children on a benefit.
There are also a number of other unknowns about the data for instance the dependence on a benefit may not have been continuous. And a very small number might be dependent on a benefit other than the DPB.
Saturday, April 30, 2011
Birthright get it wrong
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
