Greens plan is a blueprint for poverty

The Greens plan to lift 100,000 children out of poverty is unworkable and defies reason on a number of counts.

First the definition of poverty is relative. It puts a number of children below a specified threshold. Arbitrary thresholds are exceedingly troublesome in their own right. The US is currently grappling with a new and better way to measure poverty. In the UK not so long ago hundreds of thousands of children were lifted out of poverty overnight simply by moving the threshold! A move no less silly than the Green's proposal as we shall see.

In New Zealand poverty is usually defined as falling below either 50 or 60 percent of the eqivalised (adjusted for number of householders) median household income. But difficult-to-measure outgoings are just as important as incomes. Most of the 100,000 children the Greens target are in DPB homes. Yet there are nearly twice that number relying on that particular benefit. The government tries to make payments to them that are as equitable as possible. Yet some fall below the defined poverty level when others don't. Which straight away indicates that some have greater outgoings than others. For beneficiaries, outgoings are more amenable to change than incomes. Adjusting expenses will do more to alleviate their children's poverty than waiting for an income increase, all the while racking up debt.

The Greens don't want them to wait. They want a parent who does not work to receive the incentive, the In Work Tax Credit, given to a parent who does. How silly is that? Even the Human Rights Tribunal found that the government was justified in discriminating against non-working parents. If they weren't then welfare advocates could demand beneficiaries receive 100 percent of the median household income!

But just imagine for a moment the Greens achieved their desired rise in benefit payments. An abundance of international research has shown a link between level of payments and rate of unmarried births. Put simply, the more the DPB pays the more people will choose it over work. Children that enter the benefit system at birth stay the longest and subsequently cumulatively cost more. That means what the Greens have budgeted is less than the actual cost over time. But hey what doesn't grow exponentially when it comes to handouts. Paid Parental Leave is a great example. It now costs twice what Treasury initially forecast it would.

The next part of the Green's plan is to re-introduce the Training Incentive Allowance yet Treasury reported to the WWG that this allowance probably contributed to beneficiaries staying on welfare even longer ( as studying became the modus operandi?). In reality there is no case for a beneficiary to not have to get into the same debt as other students do to fund the education they choose. Exceptions only produce incentives for people to make bad choices eg having children before acquiring any means of supporting them.

Raising the minimum wage barely warrants comment. What hasn't been said, and demonstrated, before about the effect minimum wages have on overall employment? They reduce it. When the cost of labour increases, all else remaining equal, employers buy less of it. Extra unemployment incurs additional burden on the benefit system. Which means that again the Greens have under-calculated the cost of such a move.

The last part of the plan is the require rental homes to be insulated. The additional expenditure will end up in the tenant's hands as increased rent. There goes the extra benefit payment which is the first step of the grand plan.

We all know that the Greens are economically the most socialist party in the political spectrum. And we all know that socialism makes countries poor. Socialism makes children poor.

What the Greens have produced is not a plan for less poverty but a blueprint for more.

Are you a Conservative?

Are you a Conservative?

I didn't score enough to need a Conservative Party (8 out of 15). And that was an ambivalent 8 as some of the questions are multi-pronged.

Doesn't solve my problems about who to vote for come November.

Why so many NZ children are poor

Yesterday saw the release of the Household Incomes in New Zealand Report which is updated periodically. It is full of data, both domestic and international. Extremely detailed, very lengthy.

What it does usefully highlight is that many statistics are estimates which lead to considerable variation. But this quote says it all about children in poverty in New Zealand:

What can be said with certainty is that more than one in five and perhaps as many as one in four New Zealand children live in households where there is no adult in full-time employment. These rates and the rate for children in workless households are high by OECD and EU standards.

Yet New Zealand has relatively low unemployment by OECD standards.

What New Zealand does have is a very high proportion of sole parent families living on benefits. Hence the high proportion of 'workless' households.

The high proportion of sole parents, some stats say second highest in the developed world, is a result of social policy accommodation of cultural tradition and feminist dogma. Feminists will say it is the result of male failure to take responsibility but that was secondary. The policy enabled that abrogation.

The very best way - in fact, probably the only way - to reduce the poverty of New Zealand children is to get rid of the policy that creates and sustains (albeit meagrely) sole parent families.

Having more children on welfare...

...is one thing the general public is largely against.

MSD provided a paper to the WWG on the parameters of the problem.

The data matched what I had been getting through different OIA requests.

22-23 percent add a further child to an existing benefit.

I had always thought that seemed fairly low given the number of families on the DPB with more than one child. Further information in the paper explains why my instincts are probably right. The estimates...

"...only count children who were conceived while the caregiver was receiving the DPB
...count only newborns who were included in benefit on the day of their birth or within four weeks of birth and were still includede in benefit three months after birth."

People cycle on and off the benefit constantly. The deliberate adding of a child could be planned whilst off benefit; in fact, for the very reason of getting back onto one.

Here's another quote which again matches my information, or rather, lack of. The estimates...

"...are not able to separately identify whether these newborn children were added to a benefit as a result of an adoption, or a whangai or foster arrangement."

Isn't privacy taken too far when people expect support for their 'dependent' children but don't have to identify what the relationship is? And again I remind you that the whangai process is without any legal standing in NZ justice system. No wonder Maori children are particularly vulnerable.

The NZ Herald's blitz on child hunger rolls on

The NZ Herald's blitz on hungry children in New Zealand continues today with a further piece about the Waikato. Simon Collins at least has the level of objectivity required to acknowledge that the hunger was persistent through the 'economic boom', something I pointed to last week.

A five-year doctoral study by Waikato University sociologist Dr Kellie McNeill has found that charities served 25,000 free meals, Work and Income gave out 12,000 food grants and foodbanks gave out 4000 food parcels in Hamilton in 2006-07.

That was at a time when the economy was booming.

Specifically, in the Waikato, the number of unemployed beneficiaries dropped from 2,800 to 1,900 over the period. Almost a third. But the other three main benefits were flat or grew. There were around 8,000 on the DPB - half Maori.

It would be interesting to know how many of the families given food parcels or food grants were on the DPB. I am sure the researcher, given her long stint - 12 years dependent on same - would have paid attention to circumstances of hungry individuals.

It is clear that the phenomena of child poverty and child hunger are effects of the DPB. The Herald's blitz, following a series of articles about sole parents triggered by the WWG proposals, may have done society a favour by allowing subscribers to read between the lines. Relatively few signed up for the requested monthly donation to feed a New Zealand child (even though I imagine many are deeply concerned about their general circumstances). At a time when we have been seeing tragic footage streaming in from Somalia it seems almost obscene that chubby kids in South Auckland are being held up as our National tragedy.

There is growing national awareness and unease about the 'new' structure of communities; those previously 'working-class' but today largely made up of single parent families (with or without a hanger-on) whose economic hub is welfare.

The NZ Herald has contributed to this awareness. But I am not sure that they were after what is likely to be the result.

Come November the public will give National the green light to do something meaningful about welfare and the learned helplessness it induces. I just hope the public's faith in the current government is well-placed.

Crucial admission

So someone with credibility comes out and says that some boys expect to grow up and live off the mothers of their children because that is what they have grown up with. I have not a shred of doubt that Alison Sutherland is correct.

Alison Sutherland, who works in Wairarapa schools with children who have behavioural problems, says many of the boys she deals with – who haven't even reached their teenage years – can only see being the father of children and living with their mothers ahead.

"That is their career future," she said of youngsters who were opting out of education and employment because they saw babies as a source of income.

But coupled with the desire for children was a complete lack of understanding of what being a good parent might entail.

"There is no warmth about loving little children or wanting to be good parents. It is purely about this being a pathway to an income," the one-time principal of a youth justice facility school said.

"They have a perception that their future is to be unemployed. That is their norm. They have no sensitivity for the children – they see it as their form of income."

Sutherland said in some cases the children were merely repeating what they saw in their own homes.

Not mentioned is the expectation is most certainly more widespread amongst Maori. Consider recent research I previously linked to that showed those teenagers, male or female, identifying as sole Maori, were seven times more likely to become teen parents.

This is an insidious and dangerous state of affairs because, like children that are meal tickets and therefore unvalued and unloved for themselves, so are females. They will be abused in one way or another; to one degree or another.

The article goes on to say,

The sole-parent domestic purposes benefit is available to those over 18 who are not in a relationship with the other parent and do not have a partner, or who have lost their support.

Wrong.

They can be in a relationship with a partner and receive the DPB so long as it is not deemed as 'in the nature of marriage'. This involves the male not providing any financial support or emotional committment. Perfect.

Christ. I don't know what is wrong with the people who have the power to change this state of affairs yet let it continue. It is thoroughly de-humanising, immoral on any scale of values and exponentially self-perpetuating.

State buries the truth

Don't miss this posting by John Ansell.

Annette King - uber politician

Where was deputy Labour leader, Annette King, on the removal of section 59? A staunch supporter.

In this video she, and Deborah Morris Travers, tell us that it is clear police will use discretion and common sense to administer the new law wisely.

Since the law change there has been a large rise in reports of child abuse.

Now, about the Green Paper proposal to make reporting of child abuse mandatory, this is her position:

She said mandatory reporting could lead to vexatious claims, such as neighbours dobbing in each other simply because they don't like each other."I'd also have grave concerns about the ability of CYF to handle a huge influx of what could be seen to be child abuse but may not be."

So she has abandoned her former faith in the police and CYFS to handle changed legislation.

In this 2008 press release she describes John Key as talking "out of both sides of his mouth on the serious issue of child abuse."

Annette King is now using the exact arguments of those who opposed the anti-smacking law, which she pooh-poohed at the time. Her description of the PM should be self-directed.

National's Green Paper on Child Abuse

Apparently, "Ms Bennett told reporters today the discussion paper was different, gusty and controversial."


(Gusty? Very.) Gutsy? Not. Different? I wish. Controversial? Like whether cinnamon or cocoa is better on cappuccino.

It is 'talked up' to disguise.

Just another governmental PR consultative exercise.

Talks predominantly about Leadership and then Asks for Answers. So, so many.

Uses the word 'appropriate' 14 times.
Uses the word 'vision' 21 times.

Green.

Green?

Made from Blue and Yellow.

Foodbanks - build them and they will come

This is a graph depicting food parcel uptake from today's NZ Herald.




First thing I notice is that the usage of foodbanks grew rapidly in the first part of the 2000's when unemployment and reliance on benefits was dropping.



Then I notice that after the introduction of WFF in 2005 usage dropped but by 2008 had resumed earlier levels.

Next the ratio of children to adults has increased from 2.86 children per adult in 2001-02 to 3.86 by 2010-11. One extra child. Which reminds me of a trick low income parents can pull. They simply invent an extra mouth. A client of mine got caught out when she couldn't remember the name of the extra mouth (cat got the mince from that particular parcel.)

But in any event the graph does not include details about whether the applicant is a parent or caregiver. It could be that when the ratio was lower there were more single applicants.

Obviously there is an impact from the recession. But underlying that there is a growing habit. A typical example of how governments or other organisations act to meet 'need' and in the process, create it.

Another wonderful example is the US food stamp program - now ever-so sensitively named the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program. A temporary measure which has become part of the wall paper. Foodbanks - build them and they will come.

Countdown decision the right one

The answer is 'no'. I will not sponsor a New Zealand child 50 cents a day so he or she can eat breakfast. I will not because

1/ Taxation already provides Family Tax Credits for that purpose
2/ It is the parent's responsibility to feed their children
3/ More handouts will further reduce that responsibility
4/ Reducing parental responsibility only teaches children they can expect the same in turn
5/ There are conflicting messages about obesity among the lowest quintile and hunger both pushed by leftist outfits who make a living out of their advocacy
6/ I choose to use my money to sponsor a child in Malawi or Mali or wherever World Vision is currently using it to improve farming methods, build community irrigation schemes, etc., to make people self-sufficient rather than dumb and dependent

Good on Countdown for pulling out. I would change my shopping habits to show my appreciation but can't. I already shop there.

Arguing over who is "patronising"

Kathryn Ryan, Radio NZ interviewing UK Secretary for Work and Pensions Ian Duncan Smith.

Smith talks about assessing, monitoring, supporting and sanctioning unemployed or 'disabled' people. Ryan talks about the state hectoring them.

He describes communities which have a culture of worklessness, hopelessness and low life expectancy. Only miles away are aspirational communities with much longer life expectation. He wants the people in poor neighbourhoods to mirror that aspiration.

She calls him patronising and he says, more or less, her attitude is patronising.

Overall I don't hold a huge amount of hope for the UK reforms. Smith is obsessed with simplicity of operation and making work pay. But won't go to the lengths that the US has gone. For instance, where the US (many states) expect work from sole parents when the youngest is one (or even younger), Smith will only apply similar expectations when youngest is 5. Unless temporary means temporary, the attitude to welfare won't change. That was what Clinton understood and built the 1996 reforms around. Until temporary means temporary, people will keep getting themselves into dependent circumstances.

Sweden: not an egalitarian paradise

This is cut and paste from James Bartholomew's blog, originally from the Spectator (no link). Really worth the read.

Sweden is iconic like Marilyn Munroe or Karl Marx. It is supposed to stand for something special: a kind of socialist paradise where socialism and a big welfare state all work together with being a successful, rich country.

The Left use it as a triumphant example: “See! It works in Sweden! High levels of equality, a big welfare state, socialism and it works!” People think that Sweden proves it is possible for a socialist welfare state to be prosperous, happy and civilised. They think it shows a relatively high levels of tax do not make much difference to economic performance. In fact, for the Left, Sweden demonstrates that all that they dream of is possible. An article in the Guardian of November 16th 2008 (“Where tax goes up to 60pc, and everybody’s happy paying it”) shows the idea is alive and well. The Left can’t quite work out why similar ideas in Britain have never led to quite the same success. But they still look to Sweden as an ideal.

The main trouble with this idea is that when Sweden was as close as it ever has been to being a socialist welfare state, it went bust. For a while, it may have seemed like a great model but it was unsustainable. The Swedish government ran out of money. Why? Because Sweden found, like Britain, that if you pay people to be unemployed, take early retirement or be sick, you get a gradually increasing number of people who claim the relevant benefits. And if you have sky-high taxes people don’t work as hard and/or they cheat and/or they leave.

Then came the financial crisis of the 1990s. Unemployment surged and it reached the point where there were simply too many well-remunerated claimants for too few taxpayers. More than one out of every five people of working age was on one benefit or another. The ideal of Sweden still worshipped by the Left as if nothing had happened didn’t actually work.

But Sweden is different from Marilyn Munroe and Karl Marx. Those icons are dead and unchanging. For Sweden, though, life went on. Going bust could not be the end of the story. The country woke up from the dream and now had to face reality. This is the untold story of Sweden. It went bust and then it made changes.

It toughened up its benefits. The money you could get for unemployment benefit was reduced. So was the length of time for which you can get it. A claimant is required to take menial jobs more quickly than before. This is a process which has applied to virtually all the benefits and which continues to this day.

The Swedes gave up a tradition lasting a generation. They started voting for non-socialist governments. These parties have won the last two elections in a row which has not happened at any time since the Second World War. In response to the pressure of events and the growing success of the non-socialist parties, the Social Democrats have also joined in the movement towards greater realism. It is reminiscent of Labour giving up on state ownership.

There has been a series of measures over the last 20 years and more which have been aimed at making Swedish capitalism freer and more effective. You could call them Thatcherite reforms.

A variety of industries from trains to taxis have been de-regulated. Competition has been allowed in business post. Farm prices which were negotiated are now set by the market. The production of electricity has been opened to competition. Taxation is complicated because there are local as well as national taxes but broadly speaking, the top rate of tax has been brought down from over 80pc to 60pc.

Then Sweden went beyond what Margaret Thatcher introduced in Britain. It went further in introducing choice and competition in healthcare and education. Free schools – that is to say schools started by parents, teachers or private companies which get paid the same amount per pupil as government schools – now account for 10 percent of children being taught in Sweden. And the proportion is still growing. One director of a private school company in Stockholm told me that he expects the proportion easily to reach 30% in the next 15 years.

Supposedly socialist Sweden has gone further than the British coalition government by allowing profit-making private companies to open new schools. Nor are the local authorities allowed to get in their way. The key political thing here is that these companies are not allowed to receive a penny more per pupil than the government-run schools. So when the private schools do better in exams, no one can claim it was because they had more resources. On the contrary, the schools spend less because they are taking out a profit margin of, say, five or six per cent. So they demonstrate that they can offer a better education for lower cost. In any case, it is up to the parents to decide. Nobody has to go to a private school. These schools only get customers who want to be there.

Sweden is also adopting a free market, capitalist approach to healthcare that would give Cameron and Clegg the vapours. If you go to a hospital or clinic there is no cult belief in healthcare being absolutely ‘free at the point of delivery’. You pay some £20 for a first visit. Nearly a third of all primary healthcare – that is general practitioners – is provided by private practices. The figure is 60pc in Stockholm which has led this revolution. Private competition is now set to be opened up in specialist care, too. The idea is that consultants will be taken out of the hospitals where overheads are high and people will increasingly be able to choose private providers of specialist care at no extra cost. The money will follow the patient. Meanwhile some government hospitals are contracted out to private companies to operate.

Beyond all that, there is a complete ignorance in Britain of just how capitalist Sweden is. The steel industry has been privatised as has forestry (remember the furore over this sort of thing in Britain?) Inheritance tax has been abolished. Yes, that’s right, abolished. The country found that too many rich people were leaving so they got rid of a tax which remains in Britain at 40pc.

Mistakes about the nature of Sweden go on and on. People think it is unambiguously an equal and happy society. But while Sweden appears relatively equal in income terms, in terms of wealth it is more unequal than the United States. You can certainly argue that this bare statistic is misleading but then the statistic about income equality could be misleading, too. If the super-rich leave a country, as quite a few did when tax rates were absurdly higher, that would make it appear a more equal society. That is one of a several factors which could exaggerate income equality in Sweden.

Sweden is also probably not such a happy society, either. The incidence of unmarried and lone parenting and divorce is very high. Research from around the world tells us that these things cause unhappiness and alienation for all those concerned – the father and mother as well as the children. Beneath the happy surface of a sunny evening in beautiful Stockholm, is a lot of loneliness. There are said to be more single person households there than in any other city in the world. Certainly there are more such households in Sweden than in any other country in the European Union.
There is also high unemployment among the young and immigrants. This is surely partly because of an effective minimum wage imposed on the various industries by the still-powerful unions. Those who cannot command a good wage, are not allowed to work for a lower one. The consequence is a high unemployment rate among those with lower skills or less experience.

Another illusion is that the welfare state in Sweden is endlessly generous. It isn’t. The main benefits are strictly based on paying insurance premiums. If you have not got a record of those payments, the social assistance you will get (commonly known as ‘income support’ in Britain) is a great deal less and is also difficult to obtain at all. It is administered by local regions out of their own funds and they are reluctant to hand out more than a minimum.

To put it bluntly, Sweden is not a socialist, welfare state paradise of equals because it is not socialist; its welfare state is in some ways tougher than ours; it is not a paradise nor are they as equal as assumed. In fact, take any popularly accepted belief about Sweden and it is probably wrong.

The Swedes are still averting their eyes from two major problems – unemployment caused by the high effective minimum wage and the lone parenting issue. But in general, they have been more realistic and active in dealing with the sort of problems that have become normal in modern democracies. They saw how socialism and over-generous welfare statism were causing potential disasters. And they reacted. The political atmosphere in Sweden is very different from that in Britain. There is a strong desire to reach consensus wherever possible. One almost gets a feeling there, that this is a democracy that is actually grown-up.

Yes, we have some things to learn from Sweden. But it is not how to be a socialist paradise. It is, rather, how to react when the idea of a socialist paradise is shown to be fatally flawed.

Angry today

Sometimes after I have a letter published in the paper people react. First I get a message of encouragement left on the answerphone supporting the views expressed. Older man.

Later my 12 year-old answered the phone to someone who has been ringing me since 2001. The caller gives me only her first name. Was a time her son would get on the other extension and they would harangue me doubly. An elderly lady who goes on and on without taking a breath about walking a mile in her shoes, unfairness, rich capitalists,etc etc. Yesterday she knowingly visited it on my daughter. That makes me very, very angry.

Then this message was put on an older post (alerted through e-mail). Probably a further response after searching my name:

The minimum Wage for a 40 hour week is too low.The person on this could also get accommadation benefit and working for families etc if they are elligible.You didnt mention this.Have you ever lived on this amount Lindsay?Where would you live?Would you want to live in a bad,crime ridden neighbourhood with children in your care?How would you like to live with a drug dealer across the road?A convicted paedophile next door who has just got out after 18 months in jail for raping his step children.His wife likes to invite the young children of the street in for biscuits and lollies?I bet you would not.That is the choice some have.Money can help you live in a better area and your children are then able to attend a better school.Life is nice in Eastbourne.Life is nice when you have a nice husband who cares about his family.Life is nice when nothing bad has happened to you or your family.I dont believe in long term welfare for single parents but I do believe in appropriate help to enable people to become independent.But I also dont think children should have to live in crime ridden neighbourhoods.

In essence I agree with this comment. Children having to live in crime ridden neighbourhoods and attend schools with children who are learning their criminal parents ways, but little else, too quickly is appalling. Yes, wages are too low and taxes are too high. More wealth redistribution through the labour market instead of via the government would improve that.

And I agree that I am lucky I live where I live and am married to who I am married to. But is that a reason not to speak out about the problems that the commentor accurately describes? I go into these neighbourhoods so I know they exist. And to a large extent they exist because of long-term welfare.

So detractor and I are actually on the same page. He or she just doesn't think I have any business writing to the newspaper expressing my views publicly. Perhaps he or she would prefer I buried my head in the sand I am lucky to have at the bottom of the street and forget about what life is like for some children. Adopt the ' I'm alright Jack' approach to life? Yes?

The cost of teenagers who end up in prison

This fact is contained in a report released by CYF yesterday:

"The estimated cost to society of the one percent of teenagers who end up in prison is around $3 million each over their lifespan."

There are very roughly 420,000 13-19 year-olds.

4,200 end up in prison.

At a cost of $12.6 billion.

I imagine the cost is based on youth and justice services, policing, incarceration, benefits. The time they spend locked up or on a benefit will probably span decades so $3 million looks entirely reasonable.

And this largely male group will father more offspring than average adding to the next generation of criminality and costs.

Slack, biased reporting

From Page 2 of Monday's Dominion Post:

A leading paediatrics academic has slammed the Welfare Working Group for not considering the well-being of children.

In an open letter to the Government, Professor Innes Asher said important issues were overlooked in the report and she urged that several of its recommendations be rejected.

Welfare cuts in 1991 drove children into poverty, not parents into work, and the same mistakes should not be made again, she said.

"The unpaid work of nurturing needs to be given high value - not just job-seeking and paid work. Parents of babies and young children should not be labelled job seekers."

The Welfare Working Group, led by Paula Rebstock, suggested current benefits be replaced by a universal Jobseekers Support allowance and that all but the very sick be forced to look for work.

It also recommended beneficiary parents be forced to look for work once their youngest child was 14 weeks old, the Government has ruled that out but it was not clear whether it would set a later age, such as 12 months. The current requirement kicks in once a youngest child is three.

More

My response published today under the headline Poverty is not the problem:

Dear Editor

A recent piece about Professor Innes Asher's open letter to the government which "slammed the Welfare Working Group for not considering the well-being of children," contains a number of inaccuracies about work-testing proposals and current arrangements for sole parents. The 14 week recommendation applied to beneficiaries who continue to add children to an existing benefit. The "current requirement kicks in" when the youngest child is 6, not 3 as reported.

Innes Asher believes that material poverty is putting children of beneficiaries at risk. However, the poorest New Zealanders are actually Asians. Asian children are not routinely beset with health and other social problems.

The reason the WWG targetted sole parents is because at least a third began on the DPB as teenagers. Their chances of leaving welfare are the lowest;and their children have multiple disadvantages primarily caused by familial dysfunction, not poverty.

Increasing benefit payments - Asher's solution - will only lead to more people going on welfare. This has been shown by numerous overseas studies.

The problem for children is not poverty. It is the often chaotic, unstructured and unsafe environments that long-term welfare enables.

Someone I admire

My volunteering went into suspension when I got back into my art full time. But I keep in touch with one ex-client - now a very good friend. When I met her she had never had a job, had been on the DPB around 20 years. I would spend a morning with her once a week initially on practical stuff, getting the household functioning etc. The trust built between us gradually. On my birthday we went to the local pub, played pool and drank raspberry lemonade and hot chocolate. She has a really mean right arm and while a much flashier player than me not as consistent. But you can picture the incongruity of the two of us - someone who had lived on the streets as a teenager while I'd enjoyed (took for granted) a cossetted upbringing.

About two years into our relationship she rang to say she had gotten a job! I was almost disappointed because it would mean curtailing my visits. Naturally though I was as excited as she was but privately cautious about whether she could hold it down.

Three years on and she is still there. I pick her up from work at lunchtime and we go to the local McDonalds. She regales me with the latest gossip. Nearly got the sack when she got into a scuffle with an old enemy from the street days who recognised her at work. I say, workplace or not, walk away. That's the smart, clever thing to do. I am always trying to get her to redefine what is smart; how she can get the edge on someone. What works in her value system.

Now working she gets her family tax credit in a lump sum. Flush yesterday she had decided she needs to get her youngest daughter on-line. She recognises that the daughter is becoming disadvantaged school-wise. So I give her some advice about laptops, vodems etc. She doesn't have a landline so a pre-paid vodem will be perfect.
It's a buyers market, I impress on her. Make sure you get the best deal you can. Ten percent discount might be a hundred bucks left in your pocket. Imagine how many smokes that'll buy.(Yeah, yeah, maybe not in her best interests but as she always says, she can't be perfect. Better is enough.)

I get two texts in quick succession last night. Can't get the sim card in the t-stick. She has a telecom version I am unfamiliar with. I ring and am no help but she manages to sort through the initial problem on the 0800 number. Then she stumbles when trying to register. She has no e-mail address!! Of course she hasn't. This is the first computer she has ever owned. She can't get on-line to get an e-mail address if she can't register. Imagine the frustration. Mr 0800 can't talk her through this one. He keeps going on about dot com dot com she says.

OK. I will get you an address and ring you back with it. That I do and find myself explaining what @ looks like and how to hold down the shift key and punch in the number 2. Unfortunately she cannot even get back to the invitation to register now.

Tomorrow she will be back at ______'s getting them to show her how to use the equipment they sold her. It reminds me of the Plunket carseat service. I watched the women who ran that asking Pacific mothers if they knew how to install the seat. The Pacific people, as is sometimes their way, would compliantly, nod and smile without a clue. Probably did it myself but my English is strong enough to be able to follow written instructions. The Plunket people, happy to take the money, if at all in doubt, should have showed hirers how to use the seats safely.

Anyway, last nights episode brought the 'digital divide' home to me. I am very pleased that my friend is getting her child into a world that is totally foreign to her. And my admiration for the way she has increasingly assumed responsibilities over the past three to four years is genuine. Her childhood experiences would have sent most down a path they would never get off. Yes she had more than once been her own worst enemy but if her eventual move to greater independence and responsibility could be replicated across the country NZ would be a hell of a lot better off. She gives me hope and sustenance.

Disadvantaged youth report relies on incorrect data

A report about disadvantaged youth in NZ contains incorrect data.

The teenage birth rate for 2008 (December quarter) was 33 per 1,000 - not somewhere around 22.

The NZ Institute has relied on OECD data. I have previously written to the OECD pointing out their errors in this particular table but it remains uncorrected. The US total was also considerably higher at 41.5 percent.



Don't have time now to look at the other statistics. They may be OK but I have long since decided not to rely on the OECD Family Database. And the NZ Institute could have easily cross-checked the NZ statistic with Statistics New Zealand.

Transparent Labour strategies fall flat

When the Capital Gains Tax was a 'good news' story Goff was fronting it (and it was getting as much media chat and talkback before the official announcement as after). It struck me that Clark used to leave it to her Finance Minister Cullen to talk economic matters. But it was Goff constantly fronting on the 'game-changer' - the CGT.

Now it has failed to revive Labour in the polls, finance spokesman David Cunliffe is suddenly the face. Looks like a very transparent strategy. Strategies that treat people like fools deserve to fall flat. Probably more from the maladroit Mallard.

A very disturbing account

If you have the time today watch the DVD Family First has just released about cases where parents have been dragged through the courts for 'assault' on their children. I saw the film at the conference and it has impact. After the film had finished three of the couples involvd actually took the stage. These are real people whose lives have become a disorientated nightmare.

These are people whose natural impulse was to tell CYF or the police exactly what had happened in the belief that reasonable fellow adults would be able to put their actions in context. That telling the truth would be the best course of action.

It wasn't. And if you have a look at what 10 lawyers are saying now, if CYF or the police turn up on your doorstep with an accusation of 'assault' on your child, or another, say nothing.

That is the world we live in. Our best and honest instincts must be surpressed because the state cannot be trusted. We rail against cases like the Kahuis where witnesses clammed up but are discovering that we must do the same. In the first instance at least.

So well-intentioned sorts who believe if you have nothing to hide the law can only be your friend, think again.

ACT and last chances - eg Cactus

When Brash took over the leadership of ACT I thought, here's a go. Now there will be some discipline. Some strong economic messages. Strong welfare, health and education policies. Hell, I didn't even care if they veered off the classical liberal track into conservatism if they gave us consistent small government goals. Social conservatism mostly manifests in conscience votes anyway. If some MPs are opposed to abortion, voluntary euthanasia, drug decriminalization, same sex adoption etc., so be it. For the next election, just take us in the right economic direction, for pities sake. In this political landscape, beggars can't be choosers.

But I am badly disappointed so far.

Why is ACT so susceptible to single issue groups or ideology? Law and order, climate change, and now race have featured disproportionately over the past years. Unlike leftists I do not believe in conspiracies or all-encompassing plans in which many are complicit. Infiltration or takeovers for instance. When you get close to the action in any organisation, political or otherwise, you understand that unique circumstances and connections dictate whatever happens next. Believers in the necessary spontaneity of markets see the replication elsewhere.

The only person connected with ACT giving me a reason to vote for them right now is Cactus, whose candidacy is still not official.

So Cactus, no single person can bring demands to the table but, if they (whoever they are) don't start asserting themselves as the lean mean economic party soon, give it a wide berth. Your long-standing loyalty is immensely commendable but don't let it be your Achilles' heel.

"A smaller better welfare state" ?

A smaller and better welfare state
Kristian Niemietz
14 July 2011
Liberals who support a limited public safety net are faced with a dilemma. On the one hand, they want government to fulfil the role of a provider of last resort. They envisage a situation in which people provide for the vicissitudes of life through savings, asset accumulation, private insurance, mutual assistance, the extended family, private philanthropy and an active charitable sector. The government’s job should begin when all these things have failed – but only then.

More

The main problem with this short column is that in the US the spending on Social Security has actually increased. Spending is devolved to individual states with federal top-ups. It may be that socially the returns are better because the dysfunction is reducing - crime, child abuse/neglect, teen birth and abortion(until the recession) all trending down - but the taxpayer is still pouring money in.

So better maybe, but not smaller yet.

Still going

Eight months on and I still have my shop. It's a cold hole during the day but once I am working, I am oblivious. And there is always piping-hot chocolate from the neighbouring cafe to wrap my mitts around and make last for half an hour. Here's a recent sketch. Had to chase this critter around the master bedroom before I got the shot I wanted:

Open letter to Don Brash and Pita Sharples

Dear Don and Pita

I watched you both on Native Affairs last night. You are talking not to each other, but past each other. You are not so far apart in age that it is a generational difference in views. You have grown up in the same times and the same country. But you have grown in different coloured skins and different social environments.

Don, you approach matters dispassionately, academically and logically. That is part of your world view. Pita, you approach matters emotionally, pragmatically and intuitively, again a result of your life experiences.

For example on the matter of 'privilege'. Don uses the literal meaning. A privilege is a special right which confers advantage often at someone else's disadvantage. Pita sees privilege in the broader sense. Being privileged as in being born into homes where you are loved, protected and given the best launch in life possible.

Hence, strictly speaking, Maori are both privileged and under-privileged. You are both right. There is little to be gained from going round in circles over a word.

Pita sees the Waikato river as having deep, spiritual meaning for Maori. It has a life force. Don sees it as a body of water. It is an organism.

This is only the difference that has lived between and within cultures and races for time immemorial. It is religion versus lack of it. But faith can never be rejected in another and I think Don would agree with that. Belief is an intensely personal matter. However, for the sake of living together with the greatest degree of freedom possible advanced societies have abandoned allowing religious belief to shape law, for most part. Application of some religious beliefs would make life intolerable for some minorities. As part of a minority Pita would appreciate other minority's rights. Usurping individuals rights to develop their own property because of what are essentially religious beliefs cannot be a good thing.

But denial of another's faith is also doomed. And as long as tolerance is a two way street, unnecessary.

Many Pakeha can or have attempted to try to understand what being Maori means for Maori. The talk of blood parts is superfluous and even offensive when someone has a conviction about which culture they primarily belong to. To varying degrees, Maori feel different and feel differently. It is arrogant to fail to recognise that.

What New Zealanders are looking for is the way in which we can all progress. That is not going to happen when people talk past each other. Or when people intentionally or through ignorance misunderstand each other.

No one-on-one relationship ever truly succeeded without respect, compromise, humility and deep communication.

Don, for all the representations you receive from aggrieved Pakeha I do not think they justify an assumption that race relations are critical and we are headed down a dangerous separatist path which must be halted at any cost.

Pita, your race is generally on the 'up'. Your attention should fall to the deep disaffection felt by a minority of Maori due to urban drift, whanau breakdown and the social ills that ensue from that. The rights you seek regarding extra representation and environmental consultation will not address the disadvantage of your poorest. Resolving that lies largely in their own individual and community efforts.

Despite the fact that last night you talked past each other, at least you didn't talk over each other. You are both men who I have utmost respect for and we need more talking - not less. But it bothers me enormously that ACT and now radical Maori (in the form of the Mana Party) are polarising and subsequently dividing people along racial lines.

As a former ACT candidate I know this letter will alienate some people who have supported me in the past. The One Law For All stance cannot encompass the give and take required to get ahead. Sir Apirana Ngata has been mentioned many times over the past few days. He was not an assimilationist. He took the best from the Pakeha world, eg the acquisition of state loans for developing dairying but urged the retention of the Maori language, spirituality and culture. He is buried under a mountain that for Maori is more than just organic. If Pakeha cannot feel that same regard for natural phenomenon they should at least respect it, or at worst, tolerate it.

The way you are approaching matters differs, as I said. But neither is totally right or wrong. Please resolve to make some concessions so much of the good that has been achieved over the past decades will not be undone.

Lindsay Mitchell

Big call or bad call?

This is a big call from the new Children's Commissioner:

New Zealand's shameful child abuse rates have hit a "plateau" and will nosedive by 2014, our new Children's Commissioner says.

On what does he base that prediction?

...a combination of new campaigns and programmes, better collaboration and an increased awareness of child abuse would see the number of cases drop sharply by three years' time, if not sooner...

Why does he think that NZ has a worse record than other developed countries?

...a high rate of children in poverty, low investment in services to support parents and services that had been allowed "to drift into things that don't work"

There it is again. The Poverty Excuse.

While I can accept that material poverty can lead to poorer child health through over-crowded inadequate housing it is no excuse for child abuse. As I have shown before any correlation between the poorest children and abuse or neglect is inconsistent across ethnicities.

As for supporting parents, good luck. Generally only parents who are amenable to support are positively affected by it. Parents with criminal involvement and addictions will be indifferent to services so long as benefit money keeps arriving in their bank accounts each week and the war on drugs continues.

While I admire optimism my own prediction would be far less so. And I don't suppose he is going to be paid on performance anyway.

Update: Bob McCoskrie just sent through this:

Mon, 11 Jul 2011 5:47a.m.

RadioLive has obtained shocking new statistics on child abuse.

Figures released to RadioLive under the Official Information Act reveal Maori children are being abused at a higher rate now than ever before.

Maori make up more than half of the 21,000 children harmed in the last year, and the number abused over the last five years has also more than doubled to 11,000 in 2010.

More than half of the 4000 children removed from families and put into foster care were also Maori.

Social Development Minister, Paula Bennett, says programmes being rolled out like Whanau Ora will help.

The figures also show 64 children have died while in the care of Child, Youth and Family over the last 10 years. A third were recorded as suicide.

Answers at the Family First Forum

I attended the Family First Forum as a speaker yesterday.

Bob McCoskrie conducted a sit down interview with John Key for an hour, and later in the morning repeated the exercise with Phil Goff.

The contrasting answers to a common question stuck in my memory are:

Who are the wisest, most influential people in your political lives?

Goff answered Mandela (and explained why), Ghandi (ditto) and Michael Joseph Savage.

Earlier John Key, with little hesitation answered his mother (and elaborated). And Wayne Eagleson, his chief-of-staff and a "clever" lawyer.

Make of it what you will.

Questions re NZ Herald-DigiPoll

Apparently:

Most New Zealanders are against sending solo parents back to work before their children start primary school, according to a new poll.

The Government is looking into the Welfare Working Group's recommendations on reforming the welfare system into a work-focused programme, with an eye towards campaigning on welfare reforms at the election.

Among the group's more radical suggestions were having solo parents work 20 hours a week when their youngest child reached three years old, and if they had a subsequent child while on welfare, they would have to look for paid work when the child turned 14 weeks.

A New Zealand Herald-DigiPoll released today found just 9.8 per cent of New Zealanders were in favour of solo parents on the DPB having to look for work when their child turned three.

That compared with 31.6 per cent support for sending solo parents back to work when their child turned five, and 54.2 per cent when they turned six - the current age. Some 4.4 per cent said they did not know.

The poll had a margin of error of 3.6 per cent and an unstated sample size.

Why unstated?

And where is the group that doesn't believe in work-testing at all? The policy setting up until last September.

Where are the people who want an even shorter term of assistance or would get rid of the DPB completely?

Lumped in the tiny 4.4 percent of 'don't knows'?

I was wrong

I said it wasn't a hanging offence but I was wrong.

Note to self: be very cautious about alluding to overseas research that NZ women in particular do not want to hear about. Be very careful not to make attempts to 'explain' something come across as, or be interpreted as, attempts to 'justify' it.

Second thoughts, just keep your damn trap shut.

Then again, no-one can sack me.

Average DPB payment versus 40 hours at minimum wage

Some members of the public are mislead into believing that someone on the DPB only receives $288.47 per week.

Or:

The alternative group, chaired by Massey University social policy expert Mike O'Brien and including former Green MP Sue Bradford, says current benefits of $194 a week for a single adult or $366 for a sole parent with one child are "simply too low to live on".

In fact they receive considerably more because all parents or caregivers receive Family Tax credits for dependent children and the majority receive an Accommodation Supplement (or live in a subsidised state house).

Under the Official Information Act I asked what are the average accommodation supplement and family tax credit payments made to DPB recipients.

Calculated at the end of March 2011 the respective payments provided to me were $89 and $135.76

That totals $513.23 net

The minimum wage for a 40 hour week is $520 before tax

The new entrants or training wage for a 40 hour week is $416 before tax


You do the maths.

(Even this calculation is inadequate because it does not include other available allowances.)

Tau Henare is right

Tau Henare is right that yet another inquiry into child abuse is a waste of time.

But committee chairman Tau Henare said the committee did not have time to do a proper inquiry before the election due in November.

"We'll take part in it, that's democracy. I'm the chairman and I'll chair the meetings to the best of my abilities," he said.

"But in the last 15 years there have been umpteen dozen reports. I don't think we are going to get anywhere if we continue to sit on our arses and do reports.

But the so-called child advocates insist on pressing ahead wasting time and money;

Maori Party MP Rahui Katene, who co-chairs the group with Green MP Metiria Turei, said she hoped the inquiry would open people's eyes to the fact that many Kiwi children lived in poverty.

And that is why they are primarily wasting their time. Because they persist in coming at it from the wrong angle. Always they pin the essential problem on poverty.

Yes. Many Kiwi children live in (relative) poverty but many, most, do not suffer neglect or abuse.

Look at the figures that Simon Collins provides at the close of his article:

Children in poverty

22 per cent of all children

One in six European children

One in four Maori children

One in three Pacific children


By material measures Pacific children are the poorest.

Let's look at some reliable indicators of child neglect or abuse.

The ethnicity of children in Care and Protection Foster Care Placements in 2006.

7 percent were Pacific (412) whereas 48.7 percent (2,869) were Maori.

At 7 percent, because the Pacific population is very young, that proportion is probably an under-representation.

The number of Pacific children in CYF family homes was 22 compared to 166 Maori - again 7 percent versus 51 percent.

Of those children with Care and Protection notifications requiring further action, 12 percent were Pacific and 44 percent were Maori.

So what now? Poverty is the cause of Maori child abuse and neglect but not the cause of Pacific child abuse and neglect? And let's not even go looking for some Asian statistics.

If the problem is misdiagnosed, a remedy will never be found.

People who lay false rape complaints should be exposed

Some people are very vindictive. Unhealthily so. And it seems the incidence of this form of mental instability is on the rise.

When reading about false rape accusations one can't help but wonder if the accuser, even in the knowledge that she will not succeed in bringing a conviction, is motivated by knowing a trial will make the accused's life miserable. His name will be dragged through the mud whereas she will remain unknown to the larger public.

It really is time that false accusations were punished. If not at least by removing name supression.

Two cases appear in headlines this morning. One in NZ:

In summing up the case yesterday, Murrell's defence lawyer, Fergus Steedman, said his client and the complainant had been friends. Murrell's testimony showed he cared about the complainant and knew her well.

Mr Steedman said the woman was yet to become an adult who took responsibility for her own mistakes. The false accusation had been made to prevent her from having to face her mistakes, Mr Steedman said.

The complainant was a compulsive liar, he said, and throughout the trial her testimony had been contradicted by other witnesses and evidence.

"She lies as a matter of routine. She lies when she doesn't need to. She is a liar, full stop," he said.

And the other in Australia:

A MOTHER has described as a ''gross injustice'' a legal process which she says led her son's life to the edge of destruction over a rape charge found to be baseless.

It was of small comfort to her that a judge has now ordered the Director of Public Prosecutions to pay defence costs of almost $20,000 after the case collapsed.

''We have been traumatised beyond belief by the system,'' she told The Age. ''We've been watching our son's life potentially get destroyed in front of our eyes.'' She had ''lived in abject fear of an injustice'' while her son, now 20, a third-year university student, had had his reputation ruined.

'Life' imprisonment sentences leap

Statistics NZ has just released conviction and sentencing data for 2010. A couple of stand-outs are the increasing use of home detention over its short history, and a leap in life sentences handed down.

In 2010 50 such sentences were imposed.

The closest year to that previously was 1997 when 37 sentences occurred. In the last ten years the average was 27 life sentences.

Is it just an aberration? Brains more familiar with the legal system might have an explanation.

MSD Statistical Report released

If you wanted to do a crash course in the benefit system and current trends this weekend (in-law visit avoidance perhaps) you could bury yourself in the Statistical Report, released today. It is bursting with 300-odd pages of information about trends, expenditures, grants, reasons for leaving, historical data, and much more. Trouble is it only extends to June 2010. A year ago. So not a great deal is newsworthy. Just a few things caught my eye while browsing;

* Nearly two fifths of benefit expenditure was on the DPB and nearly a third on the Invalids benefit

* Older clients - aged 40-64 - account for nearly half of benefit expenditure. More precisely 47-49%.

My comment - why not rephrase that as younger clients account for over half of benefit expenditure? Not a good look really.

* Women accounted for the majority of total main benefit expenditure

That's enough for late on a Friday afternoon.

I have more enjoyable things to do.

ACT, don't forget the 'youths' on the DPB

NZPA reporting about ACT's push for the reintroduction of a youth rate mentions the following statistic:

There were 17,726 youths - people aged 18-24 - on an unemployment benefit as of May.

It would add greater weight to consider also that there are 22,502 'youths' on the DPB.

If paying the adult minimum wage means young males are less likely to get work the same applies to young females. The only difference is they have an alternative benefit to go on. One that pays better and has more perks attached.

Image supression?

Not far below a NZ Herald photo of Chris Kahui's sister, who gave evidence at the Coroner's trial into the deaths of her twin nephews yesterday this appears:

Coroner Garry Evans granted suppression of Ms Kahui's image today, after she told the inquest her children were bullied during her brother's trial for the twins' murder.

Australia moves on welfare for teenage parents

The World Socialist Website reports on a pilot scheme to target teenage parents who receive welfare:

The program will affect some 4,000 parents, predominantly mothers, aged 19 or under who receive the Parenting Payment. When their baby turns six months old, they will be required to attend so-called support and engagement interviews at the government’s Centrelink agency. They will be forced to develop a “participation plan” which will include compulsory activities designed to ready them for the workforce, including placing their one-year-old infants in childcare while they finish secondary school, or engage in other training or paid work. Attendance at regular interviews will be mandatory until the parent completes Year 12 or its equivalent, or their child turns six years old, when they will then be obliged to look for work.

Good job too. The Welfare Working Group made extensive suggestions about conditions that must be put on young parents if they are to receive taxpayer funds.

The source of this excerpt is a socialist site which, naturally, can only see what is designed to enhance the life chance of both young mothers and their offspring, as part of a capitalist plot.

The Labor government’s objective is to increase business profitability and make Australian capitalism “internationally competitive” in order to attract globally mobile capital. The systematic dismantling of the welfare system will facilitate the lowering of business tax rates, while at the same time expanding the pool of exploitable labour, using those cut off welfare to leverage to drive down the wages and conditions of the working class as a whole.

The rationale driving the government’s stated goal of “breaking the cycle of welfare-dependency” is not that of helping the impoverished, but of eliminating the basic right to welfare altogether.

Sounds just like the Greens and soon, the Mana Party.

Seeking redemption or justice? Either way it's a joke

What does Macsyna King expect to achieve through telling her side of the story and naming who she thinks killed her children?

She has no moral compass afterall. So what is motivating her? She obviously liked sex, especially with younger men but didn't like the result. There seems not to be a mothering bone in her body. Does she understand that most people find her indifference to all of the children she has given birth to utterly abhorrent? Or has she changed her ways, perhaps become a Christian and needs forgiveness? That isn't an uncommon transformation and might explain Ian Wishart's involvement.

Don't look here for it.

She may be able to convince readers she is innocent of murder, but she will never convince me she was innocent of ongoing gross neglect and inhumanity. These I consider worse crimes than a murder committed by a child too young to know what he was doing.

If I seem harsh, here is a taste of what the book might read like:

A look of shock passed over the doctor's face as he examined the fatally injured Kahui twins, says their mother.

"His eyebrows raised, his eyes widened," said Macsyna King.

Macsyna King 31, was giving evidence in the High Court in Auckland where her former partner Chris Kahui is on trial for the murder of their three month-old twin boys Chris and Cru.

"I remember thinking that if he's looking like that and he's a doctor, then what else is wrong."

Ms King she decided after talking to Kahui to take the babies to their GP. Cru was due for a follow up visit and she was concerned about what had happened the night before, she said.

She collected the car seats and strapped the boys in, not stopping to change their nappies or clothes.

On the way to the doctors, they stopped at MacDonald's for breakfast but could not remember if she took the twins in with her, or left them strapped in their car seats in the car.

They arrived at the doctor's surgery about 1pm and told the reception they needed to see their GP, that it was "about the boys".

They waited about 20 minutes then were shown into the doctor's room where the twins were examined one at a time while they remained strapped in their car seats.

After examining the babies, Dr Nayar said he was concerned about the boys and would write a referral.

"He needed me to take the boys to Middlemore Hospital."

Asked by Crown lawyer Richard Marchant who was the dominant person in the relationship, Ms King replied "I thought I was".

"I would yell the loudest, I would swear at him and I just wouldn't stop till I got my way," she said.

"I've kicked him in the shin, I've slapped his face before."

Kahui, eight years her junior, was a quiet, softly spoken person who would bottle things up.

"That would come out when he'd get really angry – he'd lose it."

Ms King told the court she had three children to two different fathers prior to meeting Kahui in 2004. All three children were now cared for by their respective fathers and she did not have contact with them.

She started living with Kahui shortly after meeting him and quickly fell pregnant, giving birth to a boy, Shayne, in 2005.

In September that year, she split with Kahui for several months and went to live with her sister Emily.

During that time she got into a relationship with another man but then returned to Kahui.

She fell pregnant with the twins soon after her return.

Kahui's sister, Mona, later questioned her about the paternity of the twins.

"She asked me if Chris was the father of the twins" Ms King said.

"I said 'Yes'."

Ms King said she then went to Kahui and repeated the conversation to him and reassured him he was the father.

The next day, after a second argument with Kahui about taking time out, she left again for Emily's place.

About 6pm they went to visit a friend of Emily's where they drank and talked.

As she had only had one or two glasses of wine, Ms King said she drove them home about 1am, and she slept on the couch.

Although she could not recall anyone trying to wake her in the night, her sister told her in the morning that had attempted to, to tell her that Cru had "held his breath overnight", she said.

"That was the very first time I knew about that."

She got home about 10am, to find her brother Stuart King looking after the twins.

As he was telling me what happened the night before, Ms King said she was walking towards the nursery. She dropped the side of the cot, bent down and felt their breath on her cheek.

At the same time, she noticed a fresh bruise on baby Chris's face.

"I stood up and started on my brother about where the hell was he when all this was going on."

Then Kahui arrived and she started yelling at him.

Kahui told her Cru had held his breath the night before and had to be given CPR and that the bruise on baby Chris' face was from Shayne.

He told her he had left the babies on the couch in the nursery after feeding them, while he returned the bottles to the kitchen.

The door to the nursery had been left partially opened and Shayne had pushed it opened, climbed up on to the couch and "got at the boys".

She accepted his explanation but then Kahui started blaming her.

"He said "well you should have been home taking care of the kids," she said.

"He was blaming me. If I had stayed home and looked after the kids this would not have happened, I would know what happened."

KING ADMITTED VIOLENCE, SOCIAL WORKERS SAY

Earlier today, social workers told the court they had discussed referring Ms King to Child, Youth and Family in the weeks before their deaths.

Social worker Nadine Ingham said she first met Macsyna King after the twins were born and were being cared for in Middlemore Hospital’s neonatal unit.

Hospital staff were concerned about the lack of visits to the unit by Ms King and her partner Chris Kahui.

Ms King said she did not like being told what to do by hospital staff and had a problem with their "expectations".

She said she had not been up to the hospital because the house she was living in was unsuitable for the babies and she had to find somewhere else for them to live. She also had to train a new person to take over her job.

During her conversation with Ms Ingham, Ms King said she sometimes hit Kahui – but not around the head or face – and occasionally smacked their one-year-old son Shayne with an open hand. She also said she was attending an anger management course.

She also said she like to go out with her friends and get drunk but would get the babies "out of her hair" first.

Hospital staff had discussed referring her to Child, Youth and Family, but the referral was never made, she said.

'DELIBERATE KILLING'

The Crown alleges the babies were killed deliberately, with the fatal injuries being delivered shortly before an episode in which baby Cru’s eye rolled back, his lips turned blue and he stopped breathing.

Kahui was alone with the babies in the nursery for up to 10 minutes before the episode and was the only one who had the opportunity to harm them.

The babies' mother, Macsyna King, was not home at the time so could not have been the killer, the Crown alleged.

But in her opening address yesterday, Kahui’s lawyer Lorraine Smith said the mother was the most likely killer and had confessed that she "did it".

Medical experts would testify the babies’ injuries could have been caused earlier than the Crown alleged, at a time when Ms King was at home with the babies, she said.

This morning Counties Manukau District Health Board homecare nurse Jane Eyres said the twins showed no sign of being injured in the weeks before their deaths.

They slept in a "beautiful", clean, warm nursery, were feeding well and were putting on weight, she said.

Despite stripping each of the twins to examine them, she never saw bruises or any other sign that the babies were injured.

It was only after they were killed that she became aware one of the babies had an old brain injury and the other an old wrist fracture.

Middlemore Hospital play specialist Kathryn Greenwood said Macsyna King told her the babies had been hurt by their toddler brother.

Greenwood told the court she first met Kahui and Ms King when their twins were in the neo-natal unit in April 2006 at Middlemore Hospital.

She looked after their eldest child Shane, who was 10 months-old.

Miss Greenwood was working on June 13 when Ms King brought the twins into hospital and went to see her in the resuscitation room where the twins were being treated.

Ms King told Ms Greenwood that Shane had climbed onto a couch at home and into the twins cot and "got them".

Ms King talked about how busy she had been and how life was a balancing act, she said.

Initially Ms King was angry but became more in control over the course of the day, Ms Greenwood said.

Her observations of Shane before June 13 was that he was not an "active child" and was not able to hold himself up but could crawl, Miss Greenwood said.

On Cactus standing for ACT

I am pleased to see Cactus is going to stand for ACT. Why? I'm not sure. I have never met Cactus. Not that I am aware of. We have communicated sporadically via e-mail. We seem to favour the same ACT types. Or maybe it was just Rodney. She has been incredibly loyal to ACT whereas I, as she puts it, "chucked my toys". Fair enough. Don't want to revisit why.

Cactus personifies what I value most in people. Honesty. But when she enters politics there will trouble. For everyone, including Kate. I expect she has the constitution to handle it. Although she is deep, I have seen no sign that she is sensitive. Or the trait is well-buried for her own protection.

Unavoidably politics is also about compromise. Does anyone see Cactus as a compromiser? Me neither. My sympathy is extended in anticipation.

But Lordy politics is not going to be dull if she is in the house. And no-one will be left wondering what the heck is going on with ACT. Unlike Heather Roy who essentially wasted her time as an MP and Minister, Cactus will take her portfolio and stamp herself indelibly all over it. I expect she will fearlessly rark up every one and everything she sees as needing it.

The other morning I was watching that awful Jacinda Ardern on television and musing mawkishly that she could be a future Prime Minister, such is the sad state of NZ politics. Now mercifully I can see the perfect foil for her.

Crisis? What crisis?

The Alternative Welfare forum last Monday was addressed by Professor Paul Dalziel. According to Metiria Turei:

Professor Paul Dalziel from Lincoln University pointed out that the Welfare Working Group attempt to portray some sort of “crisis of sustainability” in the welfare system was not backed by the evidence. Welfare payments as a percentage of GDP are actually dropping and will continue to drop, even under the Welfare Working Group’s worst case scenario. As I suspected, the whole basis upon which the Welfare Working Group’s report was based is flawed.

From page 58 of this report you can view the various modelling charts that attempt to estimate what will happen with the numbers of beneficiairies and associated costs. This is what the group found under a 'current trends' projection:

"....if current trends continue, there would be 16 percent of the working age population on a benefit by 2050. This would be unsustainable, particularly in the context of an ageing population, and would reduce the government’s ability to respond to a serious economic downturn."

A rise from the current 12 percent to 16 percent would increase costs by a third.

GDP would have to rise much faster if the increased costs were to account for a lower percentage than now.

And even if working age welfare was consuming a smaller percentage of GDP, Super and the health costs of our ageing population will be consuming considerably more.

But isn't the crisis of sustainability as much about lives impaired by welfare as the financial cost? Is it OK to give our blessing to spending X amount of GDP on welfare and disregard the social fall-out?

The Greens and other adherents of the modern-day welfare state seem to think so.

Turn it up please

This is a good show. Not quite Coro but getting there....

Alternative to the alternative

Here is the one of the up shots of Monday's meeting of the Alternative Welfare Working Group. The one that wants more welfare. The Greens are sticking with their effective use of children (saccharin images) to promote policy. Policy that will unfortunately work against children's best interests.

This is a Green e-card designed to be sent to Paula Bennett. Below it I have used a different image and written some alternative (alternative to the alternative) text. Please feel free to e-mail this blog post to the Minister.



Dear Paula Bennett

Please reject the Welfare Working Group report.

The report's recommendations are extreme and will hurt vulnerable New Zealand families.

New Zealand kids deserve access to essentials and opportunities, especially in hard-times.

Cutting benefits, work-testing parents, and targeting the disabled will leave many people and their children out on the cold.

Please reject this report and give all our kids a chance.











Please accept the Welfare Working Group Report.

The report's recommendations are rational and will improve the lives of New Zealand families, especially in the long term.

New Zealand children deserve access to essentials and opportunities. Most importantly, they deserve parents who will do everything in their power to support and care for them through work, and who will instil similar expectations in them.

As benefits will not be cut where genuine attempts to find and accept work are made, and the small number unable to support themselves will not be targeted, children will not be out in the cold.

Please accept this report and give all our kids a chance.

What Thompson said is not a hanging offence...

...except maybe in this country.

Women Take Almost 50 Percent More Short-Term Sick Leave Than Men

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080204212846.htm

According to data from the U.S. Labor Department released last November, both married and unmarried women with children report a higher rate of absences from work than those without children.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=4241746&page=1

Women take more sick days than men

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/8534796/Women-take-more-sick-days-than-men.html


And:

In most Western countries illness-related absenteeism is higher among female workers than among male workers. Using the personnel dataset of a large Italian bank, we show that the probability of an absence due to illness increases for females, relative to males, approximately 28 days after a previous illness. This difference disappears for workers age 45 or older. We interpret this as evidence that the menstrual cycle raises female absenteeism. Absences with a 28-day cycle explain a significant fraction of the male-female absenteeism gap.

To investigate the effect of absenteeism on earnings, we use a simple signaling model in which employers cannot directly observe workers' productivity, and therefore use observable characteristics – including absenteeism – to set wages. Since men are absent from work because of health and shirking reasons, while women face an additional exogenous source of health shocks due to menstruation, the signal extraction based on absenteeism is more informative about shirking for males than for females. Consistent with the predictions of the model, we find that the relationship between earnings and absenteeism is more negative for males than for females. Furthermore, this difference declines with seniority, as employers learn more about their workers' true productivity. Finally, we calculate the earnings cost for women associated with menstruation. We find that higher absenteeism induced by the 28-day cycle explains 11.8 percent of the earnings gender differential.

http://neweconomist.blogs.com/new_economist/2006/07/menstruation2.html

Why won't New Zealanders grow up and engage in rational debate instead of indulging emotion?

What is the 'official' unemployment rate?

On the front page of Statistics NZ the unemployment is given as 6.6 percent for the March quarter.

That is the figure provided by the March quarter HLFS.

Yet when using Table Builder the rate appears as 7 percent.

That is a big difference.

And the sets of figures that produce the rate vary yet my understanding is the source for the data is the same.

Now this all may seem pedantic but when official unemployment rates are released a song and dance is made about them. They are taken as a significant indicator of how the economy is faring and add to or detract from business confidence.

NZ hasn't seen an unemployment rate of 7 percent or over this decade. Sorry, this century (according to TableBuilder). Was it there in March?

I will query Statistics NZ. There is probably an explanation but I want to know what it is.

Update: Very quick response from Statistics NZ. Inside two hours. Big tick.

Both figures are from the HLFS.

The 7.0% figure from Table Builder is the number of unemployed persons
expressed as a percentage of the labour force as of the quarter. These
statistics are averages for the three-month period.


The headline 6.6% figure is seasonally adjusted. Seasonal adjustment aims
to eliminate the impact of regular seasonal events on a time series. In the
labour market, cyclical events that affect labour supply and demand occur
around the same time each year. For example, in summertime a large pool of
student labour is both available for, and actively seeking, work. Demand
for labour in the retail sector and in many primary production industries
also increases.


Seasonal adjustment makes data for adjacent quarters more comparable by
smoothing out the effect on the times series of any regular seasonal
events. This ensures that the underlying movements in the time series are
more visible. Each quarter, the seasonal adjustment process is applied to
the latest and all previous quarters. This means that seasonally adjusted
estimates for any of the previously published quarters may change slightly.

What effect the earthquakes on beneficiary numbers?

With reports of increased domestic violence, stress, workplace bullying, and job losses I thought I would have a quick look at Canterbury beneficiary stats.

The national increase across all benefits was 2 percent. In Christchurch it was 3.8 percent. On the face of it, surprisingly small.

But intriguingly, DPB numbers, against the national trend, have dropped, but only very slightly. 15 to be exact. I suspect this is because single parent families have packed up and left. Beneficiaries have, in some respects, more economic mobility than others. Their registration would shift to whichever region they moved to. There have been some significant DPB rises in places like Invercargill and Timaru.

So if many leave (transfer registration) but quite a lot go on (newly register in Christchurch) we could see either a small net loss or gain. Consequently the earthquake may have contributed significantly to more people on benefits but it isn't immediately obvious by viewing the Canterbury statistics.

DPB - more going on than leaving

Just for the record, Paula Bennett told a Welfare and Social Sector Policy Reform conference in Wellington yesterday:

The number of those coming off the DPB since part-time work requirements were introduced had increased by 22 per cent over the past year - to more than 3,500 people.

Part-time worktesting when the youngest child is six was introduced in September 2010.

Here are the DPB totals for each quarter over the past year:

June 2010 111,689
Sept 2010 112,765
Dec 2010 112,865
March 2011 113,077

Ops normal.

More people going on the DPB than leaving.

(While that conference was taking place so was another meeting of the Alternative Welfare Justice group and supporters. The organiser was the Catholic Social Justice Agency, Caritas. Expect rumblings from that today. The NZ Herald Social Issues reporter did not report on the conference Bennett attended so he may have been at the other.)

Votes needed

I am a big fan of aspiring people seeking sponsorship through the private sector. Rather than via SPARC or Creative NZ or other taxpayer-funded bonanzas.

Here's an inspiring case.

It only takes a moment to register your vote.

A lot of special needs young adults have been stuffed about by poor government policy over recent times. Give this guy a break.

MSD spinning

The glossy Ministry of Social Development's Rise magazine (note to self - ask how much it costs to produce under the OIA) was released during the week, and contains an article about the Manurewa-based Taonga Trust, which works with teenage parents. For a change some statistics, but not good ones, are presented:

New Zealand has the second highest teenage birth rate among the world's developed countries. In 2009 there were 4,670 births to New Zealand teenagers.

In Manukau City around 630 teenagers give birth each year.

We are second only to the US where their rate is also boosted by very high minority teenage birth rates.

The piece continues:

Vulnerable and unsupported teen parents and their children can face a multitude of disadvantages. New Zealand studies show that compared with women who had not become mothers by age 21, teen mothers are:

nine times more likely to have no qualifications
twice as likely to suffer from major depression
twice as likely to be substance dependent
three times more likely to be suicidal at times
and three times more likely to be dependent on a benefit.

Well this is refreshing. An acknowledgement that having babies very young is neither good for the mother nor the children.

But what would I put this unusual frankness down to?

Pleading on behalf of the Trust? They will always need more funding.

But the pleading highlights the way government handles the problem. Pour in more and more corrective resources.

Instead of saying, hang on a minute. This is avoidable. Why are the statistics so high? What has the welfare incentive got to do with it?

Health analysts have no problem grasping the concept of prevention. It is cheaper (and better for the patient) than treating disease.

In the social arena however the attitude seems to prevail that the high teenage birth rate is fait accompli, a cultural tradition even.

And as I re-read the article it strikes me, looking at the cover and the smiling faces, that this is published by the MSD as a good news story. Look at us. Look how well we are doing.

But it isn't. It's a bad news story about a government-created social disaster which provides work for worthies. That's all.

(The number registered on the DPB in Manukau has risen 18.5 percent in the ten years to March 2011. There are 1,621 on the DPB with roughly 2,500 children. That would fill half a dozen good-sized schools. That's just Manukau. In Mangere there are 3,329 and Manurewa 2,929 - attached to which will be around another 10,000 or so children. I don't think 'disaster' is too strong a word.)