The Nat's "welfare crackdown" looks timid

Most journalists do not understand the statistics surrounding benefits. Here is an example of more mis-reporting and emotionalism on welfare;

The Prime Minister says the Government will forge ahead with some of the Welfare Working Group's recommendations, aimed at pushing 100,000 beneficiaries into work within a decade.

The target is to have 100,000 fewer people on benefits in 10 years. The pool of beneficiaries is far from static. People are constantly flowing in and out of it. 1/ The target would also include discouraging people from going onto benefits 2/ Many people leave a benefit for reasons other than to go to a paid job so 3/ the target does not rest on ' pushing' 100,000 people into work.

That is why, by the way, the target is far too low. Only a few years back, early 2008, there were 80,000 fewer people on benefits but the deeply entrenched dependency remained. Reform has to focus sharply on the long-term, inter-generational group.

The only recommendation he ruled out immediately yesterday was for solo mothers who had another child while on the benefit to return to work when that child was 14 weeks old.

But he would not rule out setting another age for that to happen - indicating the Government could be considering the group's second option of a return to work when the child was 1.

There is an obvious reason I don't need to spell out why one year is too long if a beneficiary is in the habit of producing babies to avoid work.

Work-test at the earliest opportunity. Then the disincentive to add children is strongest. 14 weeks was picked because it falls in line with what most working parents face. 14 weeks paid parental leave and then a return to work or make their own arrangements. If work and childcare is available why should sole parents be any different?

He said significant reform of the system would be steered by a group of high-ranked ministers and the proposed reforms set out before the election.

I am more hopeful about that statement only because it indicates that Key understands he will need a group to push through reforms. One person alone will have a great deal of difficulty dealing with the opposition (remember what happened to Katherine Rich). What opposition?

Auckland Poverty Action Group spokeswoman Sue Bradford said the line-up of high-powered ministers charged with the reforms showed National planned significant change.

"They are clearly going to do a 'beneficiaries and bludgers' dog-whistle campaign. And we will fight them on it the whole way. We have to because we can't afford to have those recommendations in place." She said it amounted to semi-privatisation of the welfare system and would worsen the plight of children who were already struggling.

The Welfare Justice Group is a collection of many named and unnamed welfare advocates who will pull out all stops to turn the public against reforms. When churches and so-called child welfare advocates start crying foul the impact cannot be under-estimated. They think they are well-motivated. They think they have God on their side. But their short-term easy remedies for reducing the poverty of beneficiaries will only aggravate the problem of welfare dependence further. Their's is the recipe we have been following for four decades.

The Budget set aside $40 million for the reforms, likely to be the system's largest shakeup since it began in 1938.

Dear me. Already spending money to save money? Looks like government business as usual. Oh, I suppose I could go along with a massive media campaign to tell New Zealanders that there will be no more DPB from April 1, 2012. Could you live with that?

Extreme - yes

This word extreme is a strange one. On the one hand New Zealanders seem to embrace the idea of extreme activities or extreme sports or extreme fun. Extreme branding brings adventure tourists to our shores. Imagine what bland bungying, safe snowboarding, moderate mountain climbing, or pedestrian paragliding would do for us.

Yet when it comes to politics the connotations are negative.

Perhaps instead of fruitlessly trying to point out that Don Brash' ideas are NOT extreme it would be better to go with it. Yes. ACT the extreme party. You want extremism in your sport, in your leisure time, why not in your real life? Too chicken to try it?

Just what this country needs. A bloody good dose of extremism. The yellow bellies can stick to National or Labour. All those types who are scared of their own shadow, the risk aversionists, the can't-even-hold-a-candle-to-a-hobbit mob. Shame on them.

Brash is the choice for rugged individualists - now a rare breed in dire need of revival.

Is Maori secularism ever offered?

I suppose you and I will be paying for this:

A new parenting programme targeted at Maori tells them they are inherently loving and nurturing caregivers and family violence has arisen only because of European missionaries.

Whatever.

The pivotal point is should the way people behave be based on reason or faith? Or perhaps a mix of both?

"Maori people want to see their own culture reflected in programmes. This is uniquely Maori and is based on our history and legends. It gives us a whole lot of values that possibly many of us didn't realise we had."

Plans are under way for Plunket to pilot the programme in Hamilton. The report researched the treatment of children using oral histories, poems, and European observations.

It traced Maori history from the separation of Ranginui the Sky Father and Papatuanuku the Earth Mother through to early Europeans' reports of children's relationships with whanau.

Mythology has long been used by all cultures to teach and provide meaning. This practice seems to particularly appeal to Maori. Or is that just the imression we get?


Surely Maori secularism also exists? But I remember a recent post where I referred to the Maori all- or- nothing view, "the scared or the profane", acknowledged in a public service policy document. So is secularism only ever bad in Maori eyes?

My secularism is based on reason. I trust myself before I trust anything I can't see or hear evidence of. But I don't think I am lacking in some degree of spiritualism which I find in music, art and nature. And, when I think about it, my love for my children who are an essential part of my wholeness emotionally.

So why would I ever abuse or neglect them? My reason tells me to do so would be an act against myself.

Isn't that what troubled people need to understand? Forget all the extraneous stuff about "you are like this because aliens taught you to be a hundred years ago."

You are in control. It's your life and you own it. The change has to come from within the individual. Otherwise when it all goes pear-shaped the out is to go on blaming someone else.

Maori culture, as described in this article, is positive. But its absence leaves a vacuum. Maori need to work on filling that vacuum with some grounded, here and now, cause and effect, education.

Who are the real enemies?

Labour's post-conference pitiable policy announcements have depressed me.

What will it take to break the accursed connection between keeping people expectantly dependent, one way or the other, and political power-grab?

I deplore the contemporary 'victimhood' society but hell, we are all most certainly victims of one particular group. Politicians. Our franchise makes us victims of their boring bribery. Yes, they aren't even imaginative in their cajolery any more. The bribes are recycled and renamed; bribes that are enabled by forced wealth redistribution which all must submit to or face the legal might of the state.

But here is the very worst aspect of this despicable process.

The politicians turn people against people. Groups against groups; individuals against individuals. They do it knowingly and purposefully by manipulating one of the most powerful human emotions - jealousy - and its companion - resentment.

So, conveniently for the politicians, we start hating each other instead of hating them. But why? Especially when the abhorrence results from the leftists stirring loathing of the so-called 'rich'. After all, Labour and Green politicians are well within their own prescribed boundaries for qualifying as 'rich pricks'.

But low income people are too busy glowering about the unfairness of farmers supposedly not paying tax, to recall that politicians don't risk anything or produce anything. Politicians don't have incomes subject to the cruel vagaries of the weather. They aren't subject to the harsh physical realities of farming. Or the see-sawing economy.

Unbelievably politicians are even accorded recognition and kudos by dependent voters for revealing just who isn't pulling their weight. Like the employers. The very people who provide us with jobs and livelihoods. They are the greedy bastards, they say. Not us politicians, consumed by playing you off against each other to ensure our continued comfortable circumstances and regular ego massages.

And don't tell me National didn't bribe voters in the latest budget. Of course they did. They continued the handouts and hampers of various goodies despite their patent lack of affordability.

We are played for fools. We delegate our responsibilities gladly and take perverse pleasure in the battles that result. The battles that the biggest bandits, politicians, orchestrate through the most cynical play on human nature - evocation of the politics of envy.

Are we really so devoid of self-respect, so pathetic, as to keep submitting to this embittering exploitation? Would we let others in positions of relative power blatantly play us off against each other for their own gain? Isn't such an utter milking the hallmark of dysfunctionalism?

My faith in democracy is vanquished. I am squashed beneath the heavy abeyance of individual autonomy. I am surrounded by unseeing fools. And worst of all I don't know how to end this post.

An exhortation to rise up and throw off the shackles of dependence? Bah. All we are seeing around the developed world is revolt against the loss of entitlements.

The only people who will read my post and empathise belong to a minority so small we cannot even obtain a piffling, paltry portion of parliamentary presence. Let alone power. And how distasteful. To need to join the game to have the merest chance of scuppering it.

Bad news, good news - take your pick

The bad news is that the number of jobs continues to fall. The good news is at a slower rate.

“What we are seeing in the March 2010 year is a slowing of the recession’s effect on the labour market in New Zealand. Jobs have continued to decrease, but at a slower rate than in previous quarters, and more people are now moving between employers," project manager of employment and education statistics, Guido Stark, said.

The bad news is notifications of child abuse continues to rise. The good news is, as a percentage, fewer need investigating.

"CYF figures show that between 2003-04 and 2009-10, the number of notifications nationally increased by 200 percent from 40,939 to 124,921."

"But in the same period the amount of notifications requiring further action has increased by just 56 percent. In Hawke's Bay the figures are even better. Notification jumped 236 percent but the number requiring further action increased by just 10 percent." Russell Wills, new Children's Commissioner.

The bad news is the Horizon Poll has NZ First at over seven percent.The good news is ACT polled over 5 percent.

Act continues to poll over the vital 5% threshold needed to win seats in Parliament if it does not retain the Epsom electorate. It has 5.1%, compared with 5.3% on May 14.

Or we can flip it the other way.

The good news is Labour's new ingenious policy of a minimum wage puts extra costs on employers. The bad news is employer pass them on through price rises.

Minimum wage rise would put costs onto employers rather than taxpayers

"Recent discussions about Labour's plans to increase the minimum wage seem to have missed an important point" Says Kay Brereton of the Wellington People's Centre.

The good news is the number of criminal sentences and orders being served has dropped. The bad news is the prison population continues to grow.

Bits and pieces

Bits and pieces this morning.

The Welfare State We're In looks at welfare in Italy:

In Italy, pensions are the biggest item. Social assistance or tax-fund benefits for the unemployed, lone mothers, children etc are very small compared to the UK. Low benefits for lone parents surely has had a major influence in the very low rate of lone parenting. (There are Catholic countries which have far higher rates.) In fact a professor told me, “The lone mothers are wealthy”. He did not mean they get high benefits. Only wealthy women can afford to be lone mothers.

NCPA covers off the problem with social entitlements:

Freedom and entitlement are largely two different paradigms to think about the fundamentals of economic development. Depending on the balance between free choices and more coerced decisions, individual opportunities to learn, own, work, save, invest, trade, protect and so forth could vary greatly across countries and over time, says Jean-Pierre Chauffour, lead economist in the International Trade Department at the World Bank...For developed countries, they suggest that prioritizing economic freedom over social entitlements could be an effective way to reform the welfare state and make it more sustainable and equitable in the long run.

Don Brash sticks to economic matters addressing a Federated Farmers meeting in Southland. Good. Less pleased to see latest polling but its very early days.

Mr Brash criticised the National Government for not having the courage or willingness to repeal some of the previous Labour government's "dopier policies", such as interest-free student loans and KiwiSaver subsidies. They did not help from a government policy point of view and required more overseas borrowing to afford the schemes.

If ACT gained power or influence, it would aim to cut out "sillier programmes" that Labour had introduced, he said.

The National Government might not have created the economic mess the country was in, but it failed to draw it back. It should not have taken three budgets to introduce a more austere one when the global financial crisis was developing, Mr Brash said.

Many of ACT's policies were what National had been promoting at the previous election.

And Tariana Turia goes all flowery launching the WE CARE SOCIAL AWARENESS campaign. What a lot of bollocks.

Some of you in this room may be gardeners. For those who are not, let me share with you a little secret.

There is no such thing as a green thumb.

There are gardeners who care – whose gardens reflect the quality of care they are exposed to. That care might extend to some pretty unorthodox approaches – gardening under moonlight; with mood music; with teabags or potato peelings as fertiliser….but whatever it is, the quality of care is immediately observable by the vibrancy and the strength of the plants.

Today we are talking about a different garden – the garden of humanity.

It isn't so much what she says that I object to but that government is all over the issue and arena of caring. It is their interference that breaks down the natural networks that provide care. Which takes me back to where I started, with a further quote from James Bartholemew about the Italian welfare system:

The Mediterranean system. This is centred around the ideal of the family as the first resort for welfare. Children and the elderly are considered firstly as the responsibility of the family. The state’s role is only to assist the family in doing this task.

Update on Working For Families (WFF)

Reading Helen Kelly in the DomPost this morning it struck me that many people do not fundamentally understand what WFF consists of. Kelly describes it as "effectively a tax cut aimed at those who need it most."

The $2.7 billion WFF bill is mostly made up of family tax credits to beneficiaries with children. If a family pays no tax they cannot receive a cut. Family tax credits used to be more accurately called Family Support. But when they started being paid to higher income workers the named was changed.

Here are some facts from Treasury:

In 2006, $1.5 billion of WFF tax credits were paid out to 159,000 people. By 2009, this had risen to $2.7 billion paid out to 419,200 people.

In 2006 the vast majority of recipients were parents on a welfare benefit. There are more now than there were in 2006.

To buy votes (and to be fair, try and entice more beneficiaries into work with the In Work tax credit) Labour introduced WFF.

National is not prepared to seriously risk fickle votes so has tinkered with various thresholds and payments slightly. Then trumpeted that they are saving almost half a billion.

Like most touted government savings they are the difference between forecasts if they do and forecasts if they don't and calculated over years, not annually. Back to Treasury:

These changes are expected to generate $448 million of savings over the four years to 2014/15. As a result, the total cost of WFF will reduce from $2.8 billion in 2011/12 to $2.6 billion in 2014/15.

Thoroughly underwhelming. I would put money on it that if no further cutbacks or complete repeal of WFF is made, by 2014/15 the forecast figure of $2.6 billion will be well under actual spending.

Kiwis choose to be poor

So Sir Paul Callaghan makes a point from the view of scientist. But there is another aspect to this statement which is just as worthy of debate.

When I heard that Newt Gingrich was going to run for the US presidency the first thought that jumped into my head was a quote about how to avoid poverty. As it turns out it wasn't attributable to Gingrich but exactly the sort of thing he might say.

It comes apparently from the Economist but certainly that is not where I first came across it:

"An American's chance of staying poor is less than 1/2 percent if he or she does the following three things: (a) completes high school; (b) gets and stays married; (c) stays employed, even if initially only at the minimum wage. Americans who fail these three requirements have an up-to-80 times greater chance of staying for a long time below the official poverty line, and breeding sad generations there."

But I think there is another version that includes children somewhere. Ah, yes. Walter Williams' rules for avoiding poverty:

* Graduate high school
* Get married before you have children
* If you get married, stay married
* Get a job, any job. A minimum wage job is a stepping stone
* Avoid engaging in criminal behavior

Sounds a bit fusty?

Even acquiring some NCEA credits and sticking with a de facto partner would probably boost the chances of avoiding poverty significantly.

But thousands fail to meet even those conditions. Maori in particular. The education levels of people on the DPB for instance are woeful. Let me look them up.

Sole Parenting in New Zealand: Understanding sub-groups of sole parents receiving main benefits

Educationl attainments for sole parents reistered as jobseekers December 2005

None 48
School qualifications 44
Post-school qualification 6
Unknown 2

So returning to Sir Paul:

Kiwis are poor because they choose to be, says Sir Paul Callaghan, one of the country's top scientists.

This assertion was part of a series of attacks he has directed at the Government's plans to develop the economy.

If the government stopped "planning" so much, the economy and the lives of people perceived as needing their assistance, NZ would be richer for it.

More obvious alarm from National supporters

Here's a letter I sent earlier this week to the DomPost. Hardly a surprise it went unprinted as I was criticising one of their columnists. Sorry there is no link to Long's column but the gist of it is covered in the letter:

I read with amusement columnist Richard Long's pseudo letter to Don Brash in the name of John Key, (Dominion Post Tuesday, May 17.) In it he lays out Key's superior conciliatory credentials regarding race relations. Thus Long joins other National cheerleaders in attempting to warn disaffected National voters away from Brash.

Why the amusement? In a 2005 North & South Warwick Roger article about the rising popularity of then National leader Dr Brash, Richard Long, his chief-of-staff at the time, was described as "gleeful at all the pre-publicity" Brashs' Orewa speech was receiving.

Seems the expedient Mr Long is happy to change tune to suit whereas Brash has been consistent in his criticism of government policies since his days as Reserve Bank Governor.

More bad bureaucracy proposed

Labour has announced the establishment of a Ministry for Children - if it gets elected. Labour's chances of getting re-elected are small. They are the equivalent of a 20 to 1 shot in a small field. So a comment on this proposal is probably redundant. But what the heck.

It seems traditionally that the left purport to do more and care more for children. They appear to premise this less on the obvious, that children deserve protection from those who break laws intended to protect their safety or well-being, than on the idea that children are a public good. A public investment.

CHILDREN ARE NOT A PUBLIC GOOD. They exist for themselves. They own their own lives. They are not utilities for state investment as potential revenue generators.

Their parents are their temporary guardians and bear temporary responsibility for them (albeit a non-legally binding mutual responsibility lasts between 'real' parents and children across a lifetime).

So NZ does not need a ministry to advocate, or special plead on the behalf of children. To propose as much is more state interventionism, more usurping of the parent's role.

But Labour knows that the mere mention of 'children' evokes a warm fuzzy especially amongst its female voters. Voters who want someone else to make bad stuff go away or at least act like they can and will.

Won't.

Budget

Actually, sorry, I can't be bothered. Move on, move on, nothing to see here. 4 percent growth ???? Hahahahaha.

So I was nagging Dave Armstrong, standing in for Sean Plunket on NewstalkZB this morning, that local government - ratepayers - shouldn't be forced to fund artists. Art should stand or fall on its merits.

Lovely unintended result. Someone heard me, rang for a price. I referred them to my website to view works and they are coming on Monday to arrange a commission.

Some recent pastels:

Key keen on welfare reform...

...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.

No, it's not fair but you vote for it

Reported in NZ Herald today:

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.

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.

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:

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.

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:

"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.

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.

Maori hurt most by youth rates?

The opening lines from a new US study into the employment consequences of minimum wages:

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)

Returned heads reminders of a brutal past

In an article about 16 Maori heads being returned to New Zealand from France the following appears:

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.

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.

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.

My advice to Kerre Woodham (and myself on more than one occasion)

Kerre Woodham writes in today' SST:

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

"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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

The cost of taxation

This is explained well by Laffer and summarised by the NCPA:

* 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.

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;

“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.

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;

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.)

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;

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.

Power goes too far again

According to the NZ Herald;

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;

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Susan St John - whiny, one-eyed economics

From today's NZ Herald;

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.