The psychology of the welfare debate

Unusually insightful article here from one Kevin E Schiemsing.

US religionists are in disagreement about proposed cuts to welfare programmes. The disagreement isn't just between various sects but between Catholics. This arises out of how different Catholics view the role of government. Without doubt the same variance of view exists in NZ.

The proponents of government welfare programmes came up with this declaration called The Circle of Protection. It appears that signatories insist that cuts will hurt the poor.

But this is what really struck me:

Defenders of government welfare programs not only cannot conceive of the possibility that government programs actually harm rather than help the people they target; they cannot conceive of the possibility that anyone else could conceive of the possibility. Those of us who sincerely believe that such programs are harmful are baffled at what we perceive to be stubborn resistance to the facts of the matter.

Totally.

This explains why people like me are characterised as selfish and uncaring. Pro welfare types don't actually believe that I believe welfare hurts individuals. In which case I must have another evil agenda. Racism, or eugenics, whatever.

Talking to Leighton Smith the other day, the matter of my paper Maori and Welfare came up. He asked an odd question I thought. Pretty much, do you believe the things you write? Or maybe it was, do you believe the things you write to be true or factual? That was what I took from the question anyway. Which actually made me burst into laughter. Of course I believe them I said. I wouldn't write them if I didn't.

But here's another thing. I don't reflect the other side's disbelief. That is, I do not characterise proponents of government welfare as evil or having secret agendas. I describe them as well-intentioned but misguided. Patronising at best. Dangerous at worst. But nevertheless sincere in their clinging to faith in government efforts to reduce poverty.

Back to the column:

What unemployed and impoverished people really need is not government handouts, but access to, and the capacity and inducement to engage, the market economy—as Pope John Paul II put it, to “enter the circle of exchange.” Government policy should be encouraging companies to hire and potential employees to be hired. Yet, to take but one example of recent counter productivity, economists have shown that extending unemployment benefits beyond a certain length of time correlates with higher unemployment rates. If a safety net becomes too comfortable, people are inclined to remain in it. Welfare program advocates deny this vehemently—everyone wants to work, they say; they just need the chance—but statistical evidence and a realistic understanding of human nature contradict them. It could be that the perfect job is not available; maybe finding work means picking up and moving, or taking a cut in pay, or training to acquire a new skill. People faced with these situations deserve our compassion and assistance. But if we minimize the incentive to do what is necessary to find employment, we do neither the out-of-work individual nor the overall economy any favors.

So, do you think this fellow really believes all that?

You bet. And so do I.

On Whaleoil's latest foray - hurray

When I thought Cameron Slater had hacked into the Labour site I was conflicted. Glad he had (intentionally or otherwise) avenged the Brash burglary, but two wrongs don't make a right.

Now it is clear he merely helped himself to what was on offer through another party's carelessness, the morality changes. And context is everything.

Although his outing of the on-line alias 'Micky Savage' (a person with views that would offend the original name-bearer) may have not been facilitated by his newly acquired database, if it has, I look forward to lots more.

Some of us have put our opinions and addresses and images out there for all to see, for some years. It gives me immense pleasure to see those who haven't, who have used the cloak of either an alias or anonymity to ridicule, malign, lie or bully, get their come-uppance.

More tripe about children in poverty

The DomPost reports that according to the school principal at Cannon's Creek School, "... about three quarters of parents are unemployed." Money is tighter than ever before apparently. It's the worst the principal has seen. In 30 years!

Slightly odd that as there are fewer people drawing an unemployment benefit in Porirua now than there was in 2006*. More on the DPB though.

Hasn't some well-meaning lefty pointed out to her that being on the DPB does not mean a parent is "unemployed"? Parenting is work afterall.

Seriously, when will 'child poverty' start being blamed on family structure instead of unemployment?

And Kidscan, who are supplying raincoats and breakfasts to the pupils only make it easier for their parents to get by on benefits.

*Porirua Unemployment Benefit March 2006 1,421 March 2011 1,261
Porirua Domestic purposes Benefit March 2006 2,108 March 2011 2,152

The Official Information Act for Officials?

Reading a NZ Herald report about households receiving high total benefits due to high total occupants had me thinking...

A report obtained under the Official Information Act shows 14 people, including three children, were listed at one household in Papatoetoe. Collectively it was getting over $4000 a week net in benefit payments - adding up to about $224,000 a year.

... how can the Herald get the sort of specific information I can't? The answer is, they can't. But the Minister can.

She [Paula Bennett]had asked for the breakdown of benefit payments per household as part of work a panel of ministers is doing on welfare reforms following the Welfare Working Group report.

I can provide many examples of refusal to release information by MSD.

Ah, but now I understand. The Official Information Act is so-called because it refers to Information accessible only to Officials.

Kill some local economies

I remember the first ACT 'do' I ever attended. Still a member of the Libz, I had been very active in campaigning against the DPB from the social, economic and philosophical viewpoints. It was 2002. The local candidate had persuaded me to attend this dinner and he would sit me next to Muriel Newman and we could exchanges ideas etc about welfare. It was at the Hutt Men's club, very plush and with many grey-haired, well-heeled in attendance. I was dumbstruck when this gentlemen, who had begun the conversation about welfare, said to me, smugly I thought, "If we took away the DPB it would kill some local economies. Can't be done." Because it was such an unexpected comment with validity, because I was amongst business people who may well share the same attitude, I let it go. If it was repeated to me today I would agree and explain why those particular economies need to be killed off. Economies that survive on the money pumped into them every day by Work and Income. Places like Ruatoria, Te Kaha, Waverley, Flaxmere, Reporoa and Kawerau. And certain suburbs near all of NZ's major towns and cities. Places of hopelessness. Places where inhabitants experience small superficial highs and desperate deep lows. Where life is about day-to-day survival with no capacity to aspire to anything else.

False economies do not work on a large scale, and they do not work on a small scale. The Labour government's official recognition of this manifested in the Jobs Jolt policy, which forbade unemployed people from moving to places where there were no jobs - not if they wanted to receive taxpayer support anyway. But because they never extended the policy to other beneficiaries, particularly those on the DPB who could support a none-work inclined partner, the jobless economies survived.

The remark from the ACT dinner attendee was probably well-intentioned in his view. It may have been self-interested. But it was shallow in its ignorance of 'that which cannot be seen' and a denial of the day of reckoning which must surely come.

The cute things children say - not

Another study from the previously mentioned June issue of the Social Policy Journal of New Zealand is into children's perceptions of violence - physical, sexual and emotional, which is how CYF also categorises abuse by the way. Over 2,000 children randomly selected from 28 schools of "various sizes, geographic areas and socio-economic neighbourhoods" filled out questionairres. Apart from telling us the overall incidence of experience ...

Sixty-three percent of children reported having directly experienced physical violence at some time in their lives. Two-thirds reported having witnessed physical violence directed at other children, and nearly 90% reported having seen violence in the media. Although less common, still more than a quarter of the children (27%) reported witnessing violence against adults.

...there is no breakdown of socio-economic status, gender, age or ethnicity. What I would have been interested in.

Instead, because of the nature of the type of research, the report features many direct quotes from children. If you only like the cute things kids say, stop here.

"I've been punched, grabbed by the throat and hung over a trellis and then thrown on the concrete"

"I get hidings all the time and some people hurt me"

"Kicked by somebody I don't know because my dog went on their land"

"I got into a fight with my Mum and I hit her. Then she hit me with the broom and kicked me out of the house"

"Some kids tease me and do wrestling moves on me and I'm getting scabs and bruises"

"I saw people having a fight. Blood on walls and carpet. Screaming and yelling."

"My Mum and her boyfriend always get in arguments and I've seen heaps of things get smashed"

"I watched my Aunty and my Dad fighting with knives inside at night"

"My Dad hurt Mum in town and made her mouth bleed".

"In the Christmas holidays my family went away with our friends, but Dad wasn't allowed to come because Mum had a something order out on him. But on the third day we were there Dad came because he needed to talk to Mum, and Dad and my Dad's friends got in a big fight with me, all my sisters and the rest of the camp watching."

"I woke up and heard fighting and banging the walls. I thought my Mum's boyfriend was beating her up."

"When my Mum and Step-Dad broke up they started hitting each other. I was in my room in bed."

"I've been hit with metal or any objects my parents pick up. My Dad abused my Mum when I was young"

"When I got beaten up and when I got chased by a man. When my sister got beaten up by my Dad and when my sister got raped"

"I have been followed by a man six times. I got taken off my Dad. Dad went to jail for beating my Step-Mum and assaulting her. I got punched by someone in my family. But I am not telling who. And my Mum is having a bad time at the moment at home."

"People get mean to me because my Mum goes out with heaps of men"

"Dad's girlfriend yells at me and swears at me when Dad isn't around for no reason"

"People said I would be traded for a dog"

"When my Mum and Dad had a fight and my Dad wouldn't stop beating my Mum up and I can't stop thinking about it, but they don't do that any more and when my Dad yells at my brother and the way he speaks."

"I've been scared when my Mum and Dad fight because I don't know who to go to."

"I have been sexually abused and just had it sorted out and I had to move away from all my friends and family. My brothers always hurt me by calling me names about my weight and size."

"My Dad went to jail for raping me."

"My friend got body slammed before my eyes and I was too weak to help him get up."

"Mum has been quite a witch, spelt with a B, and started screaming at me. I've tried suicide two times because of her"

Enough?

You will be interested in the conclusion from the researchers:

The level of children's exposure to violence in this country is relatively high, and New Zealand appears to be a more violent country for children than was previously realised. The perceptions of the children in this study were that their experiences had a notable impact on their wellbeing. Furthermore, observation of violent events was rated as having a more powerful impact on children than their own victimisation. For many children the conclusion can be drawn that bullying is part of their childhood. Reporting the effects of their violent experiences highlighted the special vulnerability of children. Adults must assume responsibility to reduce our children's exposure to violence because New Zealand cannot afford the devastating effects of failing to protect its children.

Servant? Give me a break

"Whatever I do, I would like to continue to serve our community and our country."

And get paid a hundred grand more than the average annual income of those I serve.

So "much to offer". So much magnanimity.

Brash was at the Knowledge Wave Conference too

Fran O'Sullivan was delving through old file boxes and came across one about the Knowledge Wave conference in 2001. Ten years ago already. She writes that is was a lost opportunity:

...Catching the Knowledge Wave project stands out as one of the key missed opportunities that also litter New Zealand's history...

Essentially she says we are all talk. But quotes Helen Clark, mentions ex University of Auckland vice-chancellor John Hood and "political, business and social leaders from countries like Australia, Canada, Ireland, Israel, Singapore, Korea, the US and Taiwan."

She makes no allusion to Don Brash, then Reserve Bank Governor. But I was impressed enough by what he said to also keep a clipping.



The headline reads, Let's get radical, challenges Brash. NZ could only climb back into the ranks of the wealthy with a change of attitude and behaviour but New Zealanders had " deeply ingrained cultural characteristics", a disdain for commercial success, no strong passion for education and a tendency for immediate gratification. The economy would not improve significantly while 350,000 working age people received tax-payer funded income support. He suggested lifetime limits on how long able-bodied people could claim state benefits.

But let me finish with Fran O'Sullivan's words:

In retrospect, Catching the Knowledge Wave was too much about conversation and too little about action. It would be too pat to put this down to the heavy infusion of public relations messaging. Although that is a factor.

The real issue is that New Zealand body politic is still far too slow and far too slack when it comes to implementing a big agenda.

The John Key Government's own growth strategy is a case in point. For example, the shambles over the mining strategy and the failure to put some ballast under the PM's financial services hub project. Until recently, NZTE has been a relative shambles ... the list goes on.

It's unfathomable that a private sector operator like Key doesn't put a few more skilled ministers alongside Steven Joyce and Tony Ryall to form a speed team to get major change bedded down.

After three years of economic crises, endlessly debating is no longer an option.

Brash obviously agrees with the final sentence. But the way Key and National reacted to his political re-emergence illustrates exactly why we are going nowhere fast. Perhaps there should be an age limit on becoming the leader of a country. Too young and there is little or less sense of urgency and certainly less context.

Ten years ago my son had barely started primary school. This week he recieved his electoral enrolment form. Ten years is a bloody long time.

As Brash said ten years ago, New Zealand needs to get radical.

New research into early Maori parenting skirts around the issue of incentives

The Social Policy Journal has just been released and contains a study into the early pregnancy/parenting rate of young Maori using the Christchurch Health and Development birth cohort. It agonisingly pores over the reasons for this and not once considers benefits as an incentive due to the potentially low incomes from work of Maori youth.

What is interesting is new information about the difference between those who identify as sole Maori and those who identify as Maori/other, and the results also include males who were asked if they got a partner pregnant or became a parent under 20.

The following is a quote from the ' discussion':

Two major findings emerged from these analyses. First, respondents having a sole Māori cultural identity had odds of early pregnancy and parenthood that were over seven times higher than those of non-Māori, while those of Māori/other cultural identity had odds of early pregnancy and parenthood that were over three times higher than non-Māori. These results were evident for both males and females. Also, those of sole Māori cultural identity had rates of pregnancy and parenthood that were significantly (p < .05) greater than those of Māori/other cultural identity. Similar findings were obtained using an alternative method of classifying Māori identity. These findings are consistent with the view that cultural identity plays an important role in ethnic differences, since rates of early pregnancy/parenthood increased steadily with increasing Māori cultural identity.

Further analysis suggested that, in part, the associations between cultural identity and early pregnancy/parenthood were due to socio-economic and family-related factors. After adjustment for these factors, those of sole Māori identity had rates of early pregnancy and parenthood that were more than three times higher than those of non-Māori and those of Māori/other identity. Again, similar results were found for males and females, and these findings were replicated in a supplementary analysis using an alternative measure of Māori identity.

Collectively these findings suggest that the higher rates of early pregnancy and parenthood among Māori are a consequence of a combination of socio-economic, family and cultural factors that combine to place young Māori at significantly increased risks of early pregnancy and parenthood. The implications of these conclusions are discussed below.

Although it has been argued that early parenting has been constructed as a problem by the health profession (e.g. Barker 1998), there is evidence that draws links between early age of pregnancy and greater likelihood of negative outcomes for offspring and parents (Coley and Chase-Lansdale 1998, Fergusson and Woodward 1999, Singh et al. 2001, Hobcraft and Kiernan 2001, Mantell et al. 2004, Ministry of Social Development 2008a, Robson and Berthoud 2006, Woodward et al. 2006, Boden et al. 2008). The results of the present study suggest that Māori, and in particular individuals of sole Māori cultural identity, are at increased risk of early pregnancy/parenthood. It could therefore be argued that at least some of the social disadvantage experienced by Māori in New Zealand may be due in part to increased rates of early pregnancy/parenthood among those of sole Māori cultural identity.

It "could therefore be argued?"

What are these people frightened of?

What timidity looks like

From Stuff:

The welfare group's February report said the cost of welfare would go from $47 billion to $34b by 2021 if its reforms proceeded - cutting the 360,000 on welfare by 100,000, by putting work obligations on them in exchange for support such as childcare.

Even if the goal is achieved, in simple terms of total number of beneficiaries, the reduction will be a worse performance than under Labour.

Bans to brush gangs further under the carpet

Todd McClay, who I respected for standing by his Dad but was unimpressed with at select committee when in the 3 hours I was in attendance said nothing, is proposing a ban on gang patches in all property owned by govenment. Really it's quite laughable when you consider the underlying silliness.

"There will be people who will say this is an infringement on civil rights. But these are members of gangs; people who attack old ladies in the streets or sell drugs to their grandchildren. Those are bigger violations of human rights than a law that says if you want support from a government department, you must not wear gang insignia".

But it will be OK to wear your patch in your state-owned house, when you are driving on a state-owned highway, visiting your state-owned GP to get a sickness certificate signed off, visiting the chemist to get your kids state-paid prescriptions filled or visiting a cash machine to draw your state-paid benefit.

You can do all that but if you chance to work for a living and it's on government owned property - a forest perhaps - forget it.

This country is so schizophrenic about gangs. This approach can only be described a bumbling attempt to brush them further under the carpet. There still there though. And once again ACT appears to be in support.

Entitlement malaise strikes at any age

The inevitable comment arrived (also inevitably made by 'anonymous') reacting to my post about the extra handouts to over 65s:

And why not,we have paid taxes all our lives.get the young into eork and leave the oldies alone.Remember most of the facilities the young enjoy today were paid for by these oldies.

I think I am fairly even-handed in my criticism of the entitlement malaise. I don't care what age the sufferer is. The world does not owe you a living.

Recently I wrote about how politicians play one group off against the other by using the welfare state. The commenter should read David Thompson's Selfish Generations which is a fairly good crack at showing how people born from around 1925 to 1940 got back proportionately more in benefits (broad definition) than they paid in tax throughout their lifetimes. He doesn't attack the older generation for this. Merely points out that as welfare states age, later generations fare less well. In turn, my kids are going to do it tougher than my generation.

I won't attack oldies for this either, except when they bleat about wanting even more and ignore that it is their children and grandchildren who are paying for it. And if you want to get a whopping big dose of it go to a Grey Power meeting.

If you are a socialist I will oppose your thinking regardless of age.

Extra handouts for some

It isn't unusual to hear oldies bleating about Working For Families and how much money their adult children are getting that they don't need. Probably to each other as they flash their Super Goldcard to get a 'free' ferry trip somewhere. In AUSTRALIA.

Yes. The welfare state now pays out money to enhance Kiwi pensioner's holidays to the Gold Coast. But in a rich irony called 'reciprocity', one of the many ironies inherent in the fiasco welfare has become, holiday-making Aussies over 60 will be able to enjoy handouts same-age Kiwis can't in their own country!! Wah,wah. Quick get Peters onto it. The Supergold card must be available from 60. It's not fair. Wah, wah.

Sickness and invalid benefits - try something different

In regard to welfare reform my focus has always been on the DPB for the reasons that 1/ children are being disadvantaged, sometimes very badly 2/ this benefit is at the heart of inter-generational dependence and 3/ it has the greatest potential for reform and improved lives in the process.

While I am very familiar with the history, statistics, reasons for being on and other aspects of sickness and invalid benefits I have spent far less time talking about them. But a lot of time thinking about them. Their reform is absolutely essential but much more fraught, in terms of hardship and politics. Sometimes I wonder if they aren't being handled by the wrong bureaucracy. That is, shouldn't they be part of the health system? If they were, perhaps more focus would go on getting people better, more rigorous diagnosis and attention to trends.

As it stands well people are lumped together with unwell people and are all seen under the same roof by the same people. People with no expertise in matters physical or psychological. If the money for sickness and invalid benefits was coming out of DHB funding you can bet that the focus on why more and more people are going on them would sharpen up pretty fast.

Which leads me to a further thought. Money is very tight in Health. It is also capped, whereas MSD funding is not. Does Health tacitly sign people over to the responsibility and cost of MSD because there isn't money available for whatever it would take to get them functioning?

This must be right to a degree. That is why various governments have tried programmes like Pathways to Health, bumping beneficiaries up public waiting lists in the Counties Manakau system I recall.

Some individuals may have been helped by these initiatives but overall the trend upwards continues. The percentage of working age New Zealanders reliant on one of these benefits continues to climb.

Suggestion: The existing funding pool for sickness and invalid benefits could be transferred over to the relevant DHB and thereafter managed but capped. Money saved by reducing the caseload (the current levels are artificial) and used elsewhere in the health system or invested in resources to further assist beneficiaries back to good health. Mental health exponents will tell you how badly under-funded their area is. This would give them a chance to up their funding and treat people to the best of their capacity which is surely what health professionals want to do.

Gordon Campbell - is anyone on the left prepared to deal with realities?

There is opinion, and there is wilful misrepresentation.

Yesterday, Key-the-moderate was engaged in the age-old right wing election year rhetoric of welfare bashing.

More in sorrow than in anger though, of course. The current system was “broken”. It was “unaffordable” And it was “unsustainable ” – unless most of the wilder ideas of the Welfare Working Group are put into action. A Cabinet working team and government departments are now to be tasked with furthering the WWG recommendations.

These welfare alarums are bogus, of course. Only three years ago, this same allegedly broken system had benefit levels down at record lows.

Sickness and invalid benefit levels were at record highs and the DPB levels were not far off flat-lining. Only unemployment benefit levels were "at record lows". Yet the welfare reforms, as recommended by the WWG, barely touch on the unemployment benefit.

The main determinant of beneficiary numbers is a functioning economy where jobs are available – and that’s something for which Key takes no responsibility whatsoever. Instead, the government seems to be hellbent on making beneficiaries keep their side of the social contract – while taking no responsibility as managers of the economy, for failing to keep its side of the bargain.

In that respect, the government’s welfare reform rhetoric is as dishonest as the timeframe that Key chose to introduce the topic at yesterday’s press conference. In 1970, Key twice pointed out, only 2% of the working age population were on benefits, while 13% were on benefits today. Conclusion: the system is making it too easy for people to get on, and stay on benefits. No concession that he is measuring those beneficiary numbers at the employment trough of the worst global recession since the 1930s, and in the wake of one of New Zealand’s worst natural disasters.

The main determinant of beneficiary numbers can not be a "functioning economy". If that was the case, after the economic boom under Labour, there wouldn't have been ten percent of the working age population dependent. There would have been 2 or 3 maybe.

The system is making it to "too easy for people to get on, and stay on benefits" regardless of the state of the economy.

Were things really as wonderful 41 years ago as he was intimating? Back in the 1970 that he carefully chose for comparison, there was no Domestic Purposes Benefit at all. Is Mr Moderate saying that the DPB has been a mistake?

Of course it has been a mistake. Any benefit that has 40 percent of all Maori women aged between 20 and 30 dependent on the state is a drastic error of policy.

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