The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer

Many are pushing inequality as an election issue.

The gini coefficient measures inequality.

"From 2000 the level of inequality as expressed by this measure has been static or tending to fall."




Over the same period two countries that had greater annual change (+) were Sweden and Finland. Greece had the greatest negative annual change (-). That is, their gini coefficient dropped. Their equality increased. Yahoo.


Source of graph.

DPB dependency records

A journalist from the Waikato Times has been investigating long-term benefit dependence in her region:

A single Waikato mother of six children has been receiving benefits for almost 30 years.

She is one of an army of long term Waikato beneficiaries revealed in information released to the Waikato Times under the Official Information Act.

Social Development Ministry statistics show 1647 people in the region have been receiving some form of benefit for 15 years or more.

A further 1500 have been on it for between 10 and 15 years, 3655 between five to 10 years, 6309 between two to five years and 12,904 for less than two years.

Bear in mind these periods describe continuous dependency. If people leave welfare and return, the clock starts afresh.

According to the ministry's information, Waikato's longest claiming beneficiary first started receiving the Domestic Purposes Benefit in 1982 and is still on it. The ministry would not say where the woman lived or give details of how much she received.

If she was to receive the present DPB rate for the Domestic Purposes Benefit of $288.47 for the next 30 years it would cost taxpayers $449,280.

That's a strange observation. If the woman had begun on the DPB at the youngest possible age - 16 - she would now be 47. She can't spend "the next 30 years" on the DPB but she will probably spend the next 18.

The journalist goes on to say that she "has received $450,000 in tax payer's money during that time." The writer has probably used the current rate and multiplied it by 31. Which ignores all of the additional assistance for her children and accommodation costs. And, of course she cannot factor in the change in the value of money over time. It is highly, highly unlikely MSD tallied up the women's tab for the 31 years dependent on you.

Anyway she isn't on her own or holding the record. Here's one that has been on the DPB for 36 years. I seem to remember that Muriel Newman uncovered cases that had been on it since it was created.

Update; A discussion about this matter is going on at Kiwiblog. I have just posted the WWG recommendation to deal with people who add children to their benefit, something this parent must have done.

Addressing unintended consequences from incentives for parents to have additional children

We have heard a concern among some people that setting a work expectation for parents when their youngest child reaches three years or six years may create an incentive for a small minority of parents to have additional children to avoid this work expectation. Should this eventuate, this would likely contribute to worse outcomes for the parents, their existing children and the family as a whole, and make it even harder for parents to regain their independence from the welfare system. The Working Group considers that one component of addressing this incentive is to provide support for people on welfare to manage their fertility, including through contraception and information about expectations.
The Welfare Working Group also proposes a change in the conditions of eligibility to address this issue. The majority of the Working Group recommends that a work test in the case of parents having an additional child while on welfare should be aligned with paid parental leave provisions (when the youngest child reaches 14 weeks). A minority of members felt that the work-test in the case of parents having an additional child while on welfare should be aligned with parental leave employment protection provisions (at 12 months). The Working Group is of the view that if the changes to the work test do not address the incentives to have additional children while reliant on welfare payments, then it may be necessary to consider additional financial disincentives in the future. There was agreement that should such provisions be introduced emergency and exemption provisions would be critical.

A bit of irony Sue Bradford has overlooked

Sue Bradford is celebrating the implementation of her bill to allow imprisoned mothers to have their babies in prison for "up to two years, instead of the six to nine months that currently applies."

‘I feel it is absolutely fitting that news that the new law is finally being actioned inside womens’ prisons has come through on Women’s Suffrage Day.’

Ironically, at the same time, the right to vote when in prison for less than three years has also been removed.

In respect to these changes, who did the better job as an MP?

Paul Quinn or Sue Bradford?

I vote Bradford. But with deep reservations.

Sex ed squirms

Just a quick post re parents getting uncomfortable about today's sex education.

My just-turned 13 year-old will relate some part of that curriculum to me and we almost simultaneously both go "oooooooh" as in "yicky" (or as my husband would say, "more information than I wanted".) The lessons are jointly to boys and girls and it seems there is quite a bit of "oooooh" on both sides.

They are taught that some 'practices' are 'normal'. Which is better, in my book, than teaching they are 'abnormal'.

I figure as she is comfortable enough to relate the episodes to me, and we can have a little laugh about it all (something I would never have done with my mother) then probably no harm done. Pulling her out of lessons to save hers and my sensibilities wouldn't be a better option.

But really, aren't some aspects of our sexuality just private?

Socialised health and longevity - the nagging never ends

I care about what happens to people. Especially those personally involved with me. But also, those who I don't know, in a broader sense.

But I can't care more about them than they do themselves.

If they want to eat their way to an early grave then quite frankly, that's their prerogative. Don't give me all the burden- on- the- public- health- system pleading. Firstly, because over their lifetimes unhealthy people will ultimately consume fewer public funds and secondly, if you are serious about that argument, why have public health? Why not privatise and improve the incentives to be healthy?

No. Thought so. Can't do that. So let's stick with the current context.

There is no sense behind the onslaught of nannying that has suffocated targets for many decades now. Actually, didn't it begin with the welfare state? 'Now we have nationalised your body, we have the right to nationalise your behaviour'.

Matt McCarten - get over yourself . The rest of the world doen't need you to watch over them, stop them eating your idea of unhealthy food, or force them into sport and activity, or make them read food labels.

You have your beloved socialised health and security. Stop rubbing salt into to the wounds of those forced to fund a system they are fundamentally opposed to.

When it comes to people who foreshorten their lives through over-eating, over-drinking, smoking etc., what the taxpayer loses on the swings, they will regain on the roundabouts. The best that can be said for health and longevity as subsidised and supervised by the state.

Need a laugh?

Did my dough on the All Blacks to be ahead at half time by a margin of 16-25.

It's depressing for the Japanese and I don't think it is going to get any brighter somehow.

But this made me laugh, just arrived in my inbox from a non-rugby-watching philistine friend:

How attempts to protect children might backfire

The NZ Herald reports:

Turning a blind eye to child abuse will now be classified as criminal after Parliament tonight passed a law to hold people accountable.

The Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) creates a new offence of failing to take reasonable steps to protect a child or vulnerable adult from the risk of death, grievous bodily harm or sexual assault, which comes with a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment.

Parents or people aged over 18 could be found liable if they had frequent contact with the victim, including if they were a member of the same household or if they were a staff member at an institution where the victim lived.

There is a distinct possibility this law will increase the danger for abused children. That is because children may become more isolated as people who merely suspect abuse remove themselves from the circle of liability.

This may appear to be an abdication of responsibility but even for the best intentioned people, those who give freely of their time to work in high risk communities, the potential risks to themselves may become too high.

What is Rodney Hide going to do?

Sorry if I have missed something significant on this subject, but what is Rodney Hide doing?

Twice it has been reported that he is not giving a valedictory speech because he is not leaving parliament.

He isn't on National's list. He isn't standing for National in Epsom.

He isn't on ACT's list (with number three yet to be confirmed) and he isn't standing for ACT in Epsom.

Don't think he will be standing for the Mana Party somehow.

Which leaves another distinct possibility. He will stand as an Independent in Epsom.

Traditionally independent candidates do diddly squat. BUT Hide is a Minister. If National does a deal for him to continue in ministerial capacity he can continue to be an effective electorate MP. Peter Dunne and Jim Anderton have essentially been doing the same thing at various times.

I imagine that Rodney has a fair bit of personal loyalty saved in the Epsom bank. If I lived there I would vote for him even as an Independent.

And even if he failed he would probably do for Banks in the process. John Banks, who has to win Epsom to keep ACT in parliament. Can't see that worrying Rodney somehow. And why should it?

Interview about child poverty

Did an interview with Geoff Robinson on Morning Report today. I was asked to comment on the latest child poverty report released yesterday by CPAG. For some reason I was introduced as a researcher from a conservative right-wing think-tank called the Institute For Liberal Values (a contradiction in terms.) I haven't been in that role for years.

Anyway a local business couple came into my shop this morning saying I should be hiding. That people would be "ripping shreds off me" for suggesting that parents need to take more responsibility for those choices and actions which resulted in their children living in 'poverty'. They were tongue-in-cheek. But what a strange world we live in. Only governments are to blame for every ill that befalls us and only governments can resolve every ill that befalls us. It seems to be a mindset that many people and many media players can't get beyond. Perhaps it's because there is no story if individuals are at fault.

Absurd response to income management

The following is an Australian editorial about income management. It largely argues against the practice of allocating 50-70 percent of a benefit to a payment card, on the basis it restricts freedom and impinges on dignity.

A PROPOSAL by the federal government to manage welfare recipients' income has some merit if it is aimed at protecting children.

But any intervention - that most inflammatory of words - into the lives of people and denial of their basic human rights must be treated with great circumspection.

Income management, which is on trial in the highly cosmopolitan Bankstown region of western Sydney, involves apportioning between 50 and 70 per cent of a person's welfare payment to their BasicsCard.


The percentage is determined by Centrelink public servants on a case-by-case basis and the card can be used only in approved outlets such as supermarkets, department stores and motoring retailers. The card cannot be used for alcohol, tobacco or gambling.

It may seem hard to argue against an initiative that diverts money from the pub or the betting shop to the weekly food, clothing and medical budget. But income management impinges on people's right to make their own choices. It also risks stigmatising sections of our society.

The Howard government no doubt had its heart in the right place when it introduced its intervention policy into Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory.

How can protecting women and children from the brutal legacy of drug and alcohol abuse be a bad thing? Well, nominally, it can't.

But the reality is that such interference has an Orwellian aspect that must be questioned. The government and its hired help - the public service - assume the right to tell people how to live their lives.

Eradication of dignity, independence and freedom belongs in a totalitarian state, and even the suggestion of a move in this direction must be subject to rigorous scrutiny and debate.

While some in the Northern Territory have praised the intervention policy - now being sustained by the Gillard government - others have been implacably opposed to what they see as a denial of liberty.

Supporters argue that lives have been saved or greatly improved by intervention.

But while governments must do everything possible to educate and even regulate so that vulnerable members of society are protected, they must not trample people's rights to shape their own destiny.

There are many examples in Australia of a nanny state and most, such as anti-smoking legislation, helmets for cyclists, compulsory seat belt wearing and blood alcohol limits enjoy the support of the sensible majority.

But if income management threatens our democratic foundations its implementation must be such that it in no way encroaches on Australian ideals.

Note that it begins by saying intervention is the most imflammatory word. Absolutely. State intervention is something to be limited as much as possible. But has the writer forgotten what pays for benefits? Massive intervention by way of taxation.

So how come it is OK to intervene in the lives of working people but not in the lives of the non-working people they support?

Then he or she invokes Nanny State. Well really. The welfare state is the nth degree expression of Nanny State. If the prospect of income managment puts off some of the not-so-needy that would represent a reduction in Nanny State. Not an extention.

"Eradication of dignity, independence and freedom belongs in a totalitarian state..."

The eradication of these things is the very result of a sprawling benefit system that sees one in seven or eight people living off the state; dosed up and addicted to hand-outs; caught in debt traps, and having to live cheek by jowl with people they are afraid of.

The editorial arguments are pompous and fickle.

It is morally defensible to income manage all beneficiaries.

But that still doesn't get to the crux of the problem of having ridiculous numbers of people treating benefits like a legitimate alternative to work or reliance on each other.

No evidence of Maori family violence?

A story about the "dark side" of NZ characterised by Maori gangs and violence, written by a Sydney-based journalist and running in UK's Independent contains the following:

Jim Anglem, of the Violence Research Centre, rejects this notion, saying women and children were revered in traditional Maori society. Moreover, between 1950 and 1970 there was little evidence of Maori family violence.

He hasn't been looking very hard for it.

Historian Bronwyn Labrum reviewed child welfare files from the 1950s and 60s.

"As with Pakeha however, domestic conflict contributed to a sizeable number of cases, and appears to have intensified, or become more visible, under pressures of urbanisation, relocation and living in a nuclear family style. Money troubles and commonly accepted rates of Maori drinking only made matters worse. In 1958 the Secretary of Maori Affairs informed the minister that welfare officers were constantly being called on upon to mediate in 'domestic disputes' and ' needed tact and diplomacy plus a fair share of good fortune' to solve such cases. The reports from the districts suggested excessive drinking, unequal distribution of family income, unfaithfulness, and bad living conditions, among other things as reasons."

Bronwyn Dalley, in Family Matters, described a 1967 investigation into child abuse that found the reported rate of abuse for Maori children was six times that for Pakeha.

And there are other first-hand testimonies from social workers of those decades detailing domestic violence in rural Maori communities.

A trip to the local library alone would provide the evidence he can't find.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10750847
(Can't embed the link)

Accurate headline

Good to see the MSM getting the headlines right for a change, instead of parrotting what the Minister chooses to highlight:

Dole numbers drop, welfare increases


Yesterday all I heard about in various news bulletins was how the number of people unemployed had dropped.

It is arguably worse when the other benefits rise because the people that go on those tend to stay on welfare much longer. So behind the 'good news story' was a 'worse news story'. Typically recessions cause a lagging rise in totals on benefits other than the dole. Totals which do not fall again.

Left-wing feminists are illogical

You have to laugh over the incongruity and inconsistencies of left-wing feminists.

Here is a diehard example, ex-Alliance MP, Liz Gordon, now "Annoyed campaigner for more women MPs" demanding more women in the ranks of National.

John Key was all over the radio this morning saying that he wanted more women MPs. He could not have wanted them enough, in my view. It has always appeared to me that what John wants, John gets. His wanting is therefore a cop-out – he should have demanded more women on the National list.

But surely a National politician is a National politician period. Why is a National woman preferable to a National man? When you hate the right, why go to bat for any of them?

Liz Gordon won't be shedding any tears over the fact that I am not standing. If she was a logical person she should be.

CPAG: back in court right on cue

In 2008 the Child Poverty Action Group took a case to the Human Rights Tribunal. They want the In Work Tax Credit paid to parents who are Not In Work. The Tribunal found against them.

Now they have taken that decision to the High Court. Anyone got any idea who would be funding that? Excuse my ignorance about legalistic matters but could the group be receiving legal aid to appeal?

The Crown is also appealing the Tribunal's finding so no question who is funding that. Is the taxpayer funding both parties to slug this thing out?

I have noted in the past that politically this case has an added dimension. National obviously support the right of the government to design a benefit system that encourages and incentivises people into work. In the past however the Maori Party has backed the CPAG. With 40 percent of Maori females aged 20-30 on a benefit (mainly the DPB) an extra $60 per child would represent a large increase in Maori income generally. At the same time it would intensify the problem of dependence.

And it is surely more than coincidence that both of the cases occurred near to elections. The Greens back the CPAG but will Labour be forced to take a new position? That'll be fascinating as the In Work Tax Credit was their 'baby' so to speak.

Case begins today.

Duplicate figures puzzling

Back in March 2009, under the OIA, MSD supplied the following information:

On a sickness or invalids benefit with a primary incapacity of substance abuse, at end December 2008:

Sickness 4,190
Invalid 1,648

I recently asked the same question to track any trend and received the following table:




Two and a half years later I find it remarkable that the total for those on the invalid's benefit is exactly the same and for those on the sickness benefit only 17 more. (No, MSD didn't just send me the same table twice).

Multiple factors would lead to an expectation of increased numbers. More work-place drug testing, more unemployment, apparently greater alcohol abuse among young people are three. I know there are at least two GPs who read this blog who might like to comment.

One would almost suspect a quota.

The word 'poverty'

At 57:46 a Samoan 35 year-old female called Kathryn talks to Danny Watson about the word 'poverty'. What it means to her living in Mangere Central; what it means to her mates and why the rest of us should stop using it.

Have a listen. You won't regret it.

"Rescue me"

From the Centre for Independent Studies, Australia:

Rescue me

Where once it was a mark of pride to take care of oneself in difficult situations, there is now an expectation that the government should save us, salve us, and secure us in all areas of our lives.

For example, travelers and expats are increasingly expecting the government to rescue them from volatile foreign hotspots.

A further example of our coddled citizenry comes from a couple who, according to Richardson, queried whether they could claim frequent flyer points from a government-arranged emergency flight out of Egypt during the recent upheavals – where the taxpayer was footing the bill.

Government is a mechanism to ensure a degree of order, national security, and representation in our lives. It is not a substitute parent whose role is to fund, soothe and cater to the demands of overindulged and heedless children, although with pandering to the polls and policy-on-the-run, you could be forgiven for thinking otherwise.

A recent commercial on television showed a fit, young man offering his dole cheque to win tickets to a rugby competition. What was most striking about this ad – its tongue-in-cheek nature notwithstanding – was the assumption that it’s normal for a healthy and able-bodied man to be on welfare.

Such attitudes are becoming commonplace in today’s dysfunctional welfare society, but this is certainly not desirable. Welfare statism effectively reduces elements of its citizenry to an enfeebled and dependent state, unable or unwilling to take responsibility for their own lives, actions and decisions. And it infuses the culture with a widespread belief that it’s up to the government to fix and manage just about everything, including help in claiming air miles.

The final word goes to acting Foreign Minister, Craig Emerson, who said recently: ‘There are limits to what the Australian government can do in a consular crisis.’ There are indeed limits to what the Australian government, or any government for that matter, can do – and should do – in our lives. Period.

Meegan Cornforth is Events Manager at the Centre for Independent Studies.

Too much irony ceases to be amusing

Every Child Counts, the left-wing conglomerate - blame-everybody-but-the-parents-for-child-poverty group - commissioned a report from Infometrics (yes, Gareth Morgan's outfit - now also part of the poverty industry). It was released mid-August but gained no traction. Initially I thought, on reading a piece in the NZ Herald this morning titled, Brown poverty a 'time bomb', they are having a second push by bringing race into it. Guaranteed to spark.

But then the Herald says the report is released "this morning". Not short of a bob or two are they? Ironically the 'poverty' industry appears quite rich.

Anyway, one of the Every Child Counts advocates, Hone Kaa, is lining up behind the coroner who wants all children monitored. But isn't the problem 'brown', to use his word?

"I really don't care for adults who say 'that's prying too much into my personal business'. As far as I'm concerned I want to save a child," Dr Kaa said.

The report argues that new ways of measuring well-being need to be developed which take into account Polynesian world views.

That is also rich in irony. Remember this quote from an earlier post:

.... the Status of Children Act 1969, [which] ended discrimination between children born within and outside registered marriage and removed the term "illegitimate" from the statute books. This legislation reflected a desire to reduce some of the stigma associated with ex-nuptial birth that New Zealand inherited from English family law and brought the judicial system into line with the much more liberal concepts of Māori (Cameron 1967, 1969, Quin and O'Neill 1984).

The liberal concepts of Maori. Polynesian world views.

They worked in past context perhaps. Within a large whanau or hapu. Children being raised by elders.

But they don't work within the modern NZ welfare state. Still the problem is misdiagnosed.

Labour's very old new policy

Kiwiblog has a post about Labour's old 'new' youth unemployment policy.

It details the recycling of the old policy at least four times.

But why stop at 2000?

Below is their 1980 policy as it appeared in the Evening Post, Thursday October 30, 1980.

Let's check the similarities.

2011 - Labour today announced its youth skills and employment package which gives all teenagers the opportunity to be earning or learning within three years.

1980 - Mr Rowling said a fourth Labour Government would go into office after the 1981 election with a total commitment to full employment as its priority.

2011 - “This is a ticking time-bomb and has to be fixed. These kids are our future but at the moment they are being left on the scrapheap. If we don’t do something now, we will all pay a far higher price. The New Zealand Institute estimates the cost of disengaged youth is $900 million a year.

1980 - "Experience shows that if young people are left out of work in the early period of their lives they never adapt to the work situation. The economic and social costs for a country of 3,000,000 people are devastating."

2011 - Converting dole payments into a $8700 subsidy to fund 9000 additional apprenticeship places


1980 - Abolition of the dole...and a vigorous apprenticeship drive....private employers hiring additional young people would qualify for a subsidy...

Somehow I don't think today's announcements are a game changer for Labour. They weren't in 1980 either.

A universal basic income is not the answer

Gareth Morgan's answer to the burgeoning welfare system, the Universal Basic Income (UBI) of $11,000 per year for every adult, leaves three acknowledged cohorts worse off - superannuitants, sole parents and the asset rich - probably a third of the adult population. Gareth addressed those but ignored a fourth group - 144,000 sickness and invalid beneficiaries many of whom are receiving more than $211.50 per week. Over half receive an accommodation supplement and many receive disability allowances. The targeted assistance Morgan wants to dispense with helps these people to a much greater extent than the UBI would.

Treasury modelled a Guaranteed Minimum Income for the Welfare Working Group (at the group's request after Gareth and Sue Bradford both proposed some form of universal basic income at its initial conference). It pointed out that some of the neediest welfare recipients would be worse off even at a level of $15,600 per annum. As well Treasury noted the negative effect these schemes would have on productivity, savings and investment, none of which can be over-emphasised in my opinion.

Similar experiments have been tried before, notably negative income tax in the US, and did not have beneficial outcomes. Which is hardly surprising. Paying all adults - Treasury modelled from 16 years up - with or without productive return, is surely more of what has unhinged the present system which provides a viable alternative to work but indulges family breakdown and self-destructive behaviour. Morgan is extolling more of the state-legislated wealth redistribution which has us in the mess he now wants to 'fix'.

Surely the point is that individuals used to rely far more heavily on each other. They formed stable and committed families that provided for raising children, caring for the elderly, and supporting each other in times of adversity. Incidentally, very much the Asian way of providing welfare. For three decades after the 1938 social security net was created people relied on it sparingly and treated the system and, by inference, each other with respect. That was the overriding value that has weakened and needs to be restored.

People are born to make their way in life through endeavour and forming positive partnerships. Not to wait till they reach 16 and have the state chuck a couple of hundred bucks their way unconditionally for the duration. Morgan fails to acknowledge the enormous personal disincentive effect such a practice would incur.

For instance, drug and alcohol abuse are increasing problems in society. Young people could pool resources and lead lives that require none of the discipline associated with working for a living. All of the social fall-out and intergenerational dysfunction would continue.

Rather than re-invent 'welfarism' - broadly speaking, any subsidy from the state - New Zealand needs to reduce it. That begins with the clear, unequivocal message that welfare is a strictly temporary hand-up for any person capable of working and supporting themselves. As well, the eligibility age for Super must be lifted to match lengthening life expectancies. That will enable lower taxation - not greater as required by the UBI - and will bring investment, entrepreneurship and jobs to a country that is now blessed with its geographic position in relation to the rapidly economically transforming world.

I was wrong about ACT

It was my prediction that the ACT party's polling would climb under Don Brashs' leadership. I was wrong. But I am so often in a such a small minority intellectually it is no wonder I cannot understand how other people think.

However, I made my prediction before knowing John Banks was going to stand in Epsom. That now makes my vote highly marginal and perhaps other past ACT voters are feeling the same. Catherine Isaac might neutralise the 'Banks effect' for me but the problem remains - that ACT has no clear political philosophy.

Apparently it is now the farmer's party. It also looks very euro centric at times. What is ACT 2? If there are members in there still holding out to give the party a clear classical liberal direction I admire their tenacity.

Perhaps past voters are just fed up with the in-party shannanegins, for want of a better word. Ongoing instability does not engender confidence. Or trust.

Perhaps polling will improve markedly on the day that counts. But because that has happened in the past is no guarantee it'll happen again. And do I even care?


(Yes I do sound like Eyeore today.)

Child ill-being: the recession isn't the problem

You will have read or heard about the updated Children's Social Health Monitor released today.

It examines the effect of the recession on things like unemployment, benefit dependence, deprivation, ill-health and hospital admissions.

But the following graphs highlight that dependence on the DPB isn't enormously effected by the unemployment rate. With or without a recession, far too many children rely on the DPB and subsequently are 'poor'.





The next graphs, also extracted from today's report, highlight that child hospital admission rates for assault, neglect or maltreatment are ten times higher in the poorest decile compared to the wealthiest (which coincides exactly with the teenage birth rate.)




Following that is the ethnic breakdown.



How many times have you heard PC, self-deceiving types saying that abuse happens across all of society? I suppose technically that is true but it is intended to detract attention from where most of it happens.

Meerkat

This year I have been giving pastel lessons which involve the student bringing a subject they want to capture. I provide the materials and we begin with the student following the steps I would take if the subject was a commission. At some point I abandon my demonstration piece and devote my full attention to their work. One talented lady turned up with a Meerkat (photo of at least) and was thrilled with her final painting.

Last week, with nothing else to work on I got out the sketch I had begun and finished it off.

Friday: First, food for thought and then just friggin' funny

From the Acton Institute:

In a society that does not value private property and fosters a spirit of envy and class warfare through wealth redistribution, why should we be surprised that young people don’t value someone else’s property?

Said about 'flash mobbing' in the US. Could have been about the UK riots. It's a selective quote on my part because I don't hold with other views expressed by the Acton people. Nevertheless, as it stands, it makes crystal clear sense.

Then (unrelated) Kiwiblog features some recent Bob Jones correspondence. I recall reading a book titled something like Bob Jones Letters which was full of this sort of highly articulate piss-taking. Love it.

(Tried linking to the Acton Institute repeatedly but kept getting total disarrangement of post.)

Message for Paula Bennett

I don't want to repeatedly beat up on Paula Bennett and the job she is doing but her response to Coroner Wallace Bain's call for spot checks on all children under five is incredibly ill-considered and should have been a firm 'no'.

"As a country, we have to decide what we are prepared to give up to stop other children experiencing the abuse baby Nia did."

So those of us who aren't prepared to put up with state authorities sticking their noses into our homes to examine our child-raising abilities (remember the sort of standards being set for what constitutes abuse these days), we are heels. We are now the problem.

Yesterday I had to take both of my children to the doctors. There was a couple with a sick baby, obviously anxious and obviously adoring of their child. This is how most parents are. They love their children desperately. The state has no business monitoring their care of their children. The idea is quite repulsive.

So no Ms Bennett. I will defend the right of good parents to be left alone. Harassing them will do nothing.

The state has a role to play in preventing real harm to children and it is eminently possible to identify where those children are.

Stop prevaricating and buck-passing. You are the Minister.

Checks on sole parents have happened before

The Coroner in the Nia Glassie case is one Wallace Bain. Apparently Dr Bain wants spot checks on all children and...

Dr Bain is also calling for all solo parents on a benefit to be monitored and overseen to ensure the safety of children in their care.

Dr Bain wants a return to the past.

The Child Welfare Act 1925 introduced mandatory inquiries into the living circumstances of all children born outside marriage.

But decades later:

.... the Status of Children Act 1969, [which] ended discrimination between children born within and outside registered marriage and removed the term "illegitimate" from the statute books. This legislation reflected a desire to reduce some of the stigma associated with ex-nuptial birth that New Zealand inherited from English family law and brought the judicial system into line with the much more liberal concepts of Māori (Cameron 1967, 1969, Quin and O'Neill 1984).

And didn't that create a much kinder world? One where children are routinely loved and cared for?

Unfortunately not.

What's in a name?

The Domestic Purposes Benefit has been named as such since 1968. 43 years ago National instituted the DPB Emergency Benefit. How much life has changed since then. For instance women now make up half of the workforce and tertiary education rolls.

The benefit itself is dated and unsuited to the times, and so is the name. The reason I was thinking along these lines was looking at what various US states call their equivalent DPB. Many simply use the words 'temporary' and 'transitional' and 'work' but here are a few of the more imaginary examples:

Arizona EMPOWER (Employing and Moving People Off Welfare and Encouraging Responsibility)

Montana FAIM (Families Achieving Independence in Montana)

North Dakota TEEM (Training, Employment, Education Management)

Oregon JOBS (Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Program)

Virginia VIEW (Virginia Initiative for Employment, Not Welfare)

Wyoming POWER (Personal Opportunities With Employment Responsibility)

You can view the lot here.

The essential difference is the expectation that the name creates. The federal and state funds that go into these programmes only pay out a small percentage in cash assistance. The rest goes into things like childcare, training etc.

I would judge the success of the US reforms primarily on whether they break the inter-generational cycle of dependence. Changing the parent's expectations will change their children's. Poor and working is better than poor and on welfare. Aspirational is better than apathetic.

While many commentators (somewhat smugly) predict the economic decline of the US I think they have been tackling their social problems with real vigour and discipline. Eventually they will see a pay-off. NZ, frankly, is well behind.

Two working parents = problem children?

The front page of the Dominion Post features a story about the increasing bad behaviour of 5 and 6 year-olds. One of the reasons put up is:

Social problems contributed, with both parents in many families having one or more jobs.

This return to the 'latch key' children idea is bothering me.

It was one of the reasons the DPB was introduced in the first place. To allow single parents to stay at home with their children. That proved no panacea.

But I am not convinced that two working parents is really the crux of the problem. Parents who work are taking financial responsibility for their kids. It follows they are more likely to be taking responsibility for them, and each other, in other ways as well.

One child psychologist says poor parenting is part of the problem, and exposure to drugs or alcohol in the womb is having a terrible impact of some children.....There was a subset of children who had more challenging behaviour than previously seen. "Part of it could be exposure to drugs and alcohol in utero – we really under-diagnose that in New Zealand. We know we have children who have been exposed to P in utero that are in schools now ... but it's not going to be the only factor."

Holding down more than one job and abusing drugs and alcohol isn't very easy to do, especially with more and more drug-testing in the workplace.

I am more inclined to accept that the worst children are coming from dysfunctional family relying on a mix of welfare, and income from crime or the black market; these families began with a birth to a young mother who has probably been abused in her lifetime, and grow through a succession of partners. Not exclusively but more likely.

There are families with mothers, for example, working night shifts where older siblings are left to supervise the younger and it is true that they get baby-sat by X Boxes and movies and left to play into the night.

A working one or two parent family may neglect a child through sheer lack of time but I would love to see some evidence that the problem is about too much work and not about too much welfare.

There is also the obvious point that needs making. Two parents working by necessity are paying the taxes that support the 113,000 people on the DPB. And the only research available on the subject shows that CYF Care and Protection notifications are nearly 4 times more likely to occur to a child in a DPB dependent home.

Billy T

Billy T James didn't know me from a bar of soap. And this photo is only the result of an uncharacteristic action on my part. Asking someone who did know him slightly to take a photo of us together, with his permission. The occasion was backstage at a Dolly Parton and Kenny Rogers concert in 1987, Auckland. I was a sales rep for RCA at the time and as such, met lots of famous people. Well, a few. But I never fawned on them or tried to get memento type shots. I had too much respect for their privacy and my dignity. But Billy was an exception. I selfishly wanted my own little piece.

But lots of people wanted a bigger piece.

I was going to write a review of Billy T: Te Movie after seeing it today. But it feels too close. The times, the gorgeousness of his humour, the loss. I will recommend it but can't guarantee you will come away feeling uplifted. I didn't. I just missed him all over again.

'Compassion' - the Left's buzzword for election campaign

Have you noticed the word 'compassion', or derivatives of it, cropping up increasingly of late?

It's a word that the left loves. But it needs a new definition. Spending other people's money to make oneself feel righteous, perhaps; The state supposedly fixing problems but actually making them worse, perhaps.

The Greens have launched an entire project entitled "A compassionate economy".

By definition if you aren't a Green you aren't compassionate. You are hardhearted, cruel, uncaring.

But do you notice that the Green's form of compassion entails even greater use of force against individuals? Is it compassionate to force people to take responsibility for problems not of their own making? Is it compassionate to prevent people from freely pursuing life, liberty and happiness because others don't understand or care about those things?

Someone called Deborah Russell (a taxation lecturer from Massey) recently wrote a column in the Dominion Post calling for the welfare state to be compassionate. She said she was happy to pay her tax for it to be so.

She said specifically that the welfare system should err on the side of compassion. Rules for eligibility should not be toughened up as recommended by the Welfare Working Group.

NZ has been erring on the side of compassion since the 1972 Royal Commission on Social Policy urged as much. Then around 8,000 sole parents were receiving an emergency benefit and it was considered caring and inclusive to create a statutory benefit that guaranteed welfare to any single parent regardless of the reason for their single parenthood.

Now there are 113,000 people receiving that benefit, along with nearly twice as many children who are often characterised as living in poverty and without the input of fathers.

If that is the result of 'compassion' then perhaps it is time for a little less. The welfare system is in dire need of reform; not the continued application of thoughtless emoting.

Bennett doing a bad job on latest policy

Paula Bennett is being too vague with the latest welfare reform policy. That became more painful to witness yesterday as Labour tried to tease out the details. OK. The policy is actually part of National's election manifesto; not an announcement of legislative change that will occur before November. But the way it is rolling out it really smacks of finger in the wind. Starting tough but softening under pressure. Perhaps the cash allowance will be more generous? Perhaps the range of payment card licencees will be quite broad?

Notwithstanding that I want to see benefits made temporary for most, short of that, income management is not necessarily a bad thing. Certainly not "sinister", how Bradford's outfit described it.

In Australia the policy began in some Aboriginal communities where children were being neglected and women were frequently the subject of 'economic violence' - their benefit cash was stolen from them. The policy was intended to protect women and children by ensuring they got the necessaries taken care of through a BasicsCard. Usually 50 percent (but up to 70 percent) of the benefit was loaded onto a card and could only be used for essentials.

Then the government widened the policy to include young people who had been on welfare more than 13 of the past 26 weeks; families referred by child protection services; others that Centrelink defined as 'vulnerable'; and those who voluntarily chose it.

The reasons for applying the policy to certain groups or individuals are clear. It would be easy enough to implement the same here. And to provide a clear rationale.

It is impossible to stop people spending cash on what they want to but it is possible (with loopholes) to ensure that the basics are more likely to be attended to. Especially important when children are involved.

But the way the policy has been mooted - applying only to 16 and 17 year-olds plus 18 year-old single parents - it is itself very vulnerable to criticism. And ensuing complication. Especially now a letter expressing Bennett's own distaste for income management has emerged.

The Minister needs to be far more definitive about what National wants to do and why.

(This is the gist of comments I made to NewstalkZB when they rang for an opinion. The soundbite they are running doesn't reflect my main, final point. That may come out in a later bulletin.)

Gordon Campbell: Deliberately misleading the public?

In last week's Hutt News Gordon Campbell, doyen of the left, wrote the following article (not on-line unfortunately):




My attention was immediately caught by the quote in the fourth paragraph. It is reasonably well-known that NZ's elderly are relatively well-off. So the quote he used surprised me and warranted further investigation. Here is what I found:

Outside my window

We are about 20 metres above sea level. Just up from the beach. Beautiful. And will be until the power goes out. Like it did last night. Twice. For long periods. I bought two extra hot water bottles today because I can heat water from the gas stove top. But that's it. Another night of chess by torchlight I am not looking forward to. But our trials, while very unusual, are minimal compared to others.

Option for reforming welfare?

Drove through steadily falling snow into Wellington yesterday to pre-record a Close Up interview. It was about National's welfare reforms for youth. Sitting next to me was Gareth Morgan who was against the reform. I was for but only as a first step. Gareth was also launching his new book about the benefit system yesterday and was taking the opportunity to push his Negative Income Tax or Guaranteed Minimum Income scheme - not sure what label he is using. It involves scrapping all benefits in favour of everyone getting a yearly income from the state.

I am against these schemes. They naturally grate with me because require even greater forced wealth redistribution. They require very high taxation (Gareth wants to use tax on capital gain). They disincentivise however in more ways than one. Labour productivity, savings, investment. And some of the worst off, lifetime invalids with high health costs reliant on the state, are ...even worse off. Strangely some of the Libz want these schemes and so does well-known American writer and libertarian, Charles Murray.

Sue Bradford is also all for a GMI. Her and Gareth shared a platform at the initial WWG conference and agreed this idea as a way to solve many of the welfare problems. Consequently the WWG asked Treasury to model a GMI which gave every New Zealander 16 and over $300 a week. Here's their response.

In the event the weather news overtook other items and the producer rang to tell me they had run out of time to use it but want me back on another day.

Claudette Hauiti. More interesting than the welfare speech.

Here's an interesting new candidate for National, Claudette Hauiti. I like her. And I don't think she is just mouthing platitudes when she talks about smaller government, less bureaucracy, more self-responsibility, and greater reward for hard work. But you would have to watch the video to get a sense of that for yourself.

National's welfare reform proposals don't go far enough

NATIONAL'S WELFARE REFORM PROPOSALS DON'T GO FAR ENOUGH
Sunday, August 14, 2011

The welfare reform proposals that relate to young people on benefits announced today don't go far enough, welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell said today.

"Allowing the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Social Development to share information about school leavers going on welfare should never have been stopped in the first place. "

"Attaching obligations and money management regimes to benefits received by 16 and 17 year-olds, and 18 year-old sole parents, is an improvement on the status quo. However, many single parents enter the benefit system older than 18 still without the maturity or wherewithal to raise a child. Which begs the question, why draw an arbitrary line at 18?"

"The new message being sent is, if you go on the DPB at 19 you won't get hassled. "

"Today's announcement is a good start but doesn't go nearly far enough. Not only is it vital that existing teen parents are required and supported to continue their own education or training, but that more potential sole parents are discouraged from choosing or defaulting to the benefit lifestyle."

"Strict time limits across all ages would act as such a deterrent."

"If the government is serious about reducing New Zealand's very high teenage birthrate and the associated deprivation, it should promise an end to 16-17 year-old eligibility, and time limits - with some exemptions - extended to all others."

Child support debt is a putting- the- cart- before- the- horse problem

Deborah Coddington is angry about fathers who renege on their child support payments.

There are multitudes of reasons why exes refuse to pay, or can't pay, child support. Maybe they're broke. Some scum have income hidden in trusts. Often they just want to punish the other, following a bitter custody battle, so they think nothing of using their children as weapons.

I call that child abuse, on the same bell curve as the man who threw his kids off a Melbourne bridge.

There are many reasons, but no excuses. You split up, you take financial responsibility for your family. You don't blame everyone else and make the country pay.

Not all liable parents are "exes". They were sperm donors. There was no "split-up". They don't pay child support because they are in prison, the mother hasn't named them as the father, they have more children and child support liabilities than a benefit can support. Think of the many who don't pay court fines. Some have been used to supply a meal ticket to the mother. That action might be described as child abuse on Deborah's "bell curve" too.

Yesterday I was speaking at the Libertarianz conference and we had a discussion along similar lines. That fathers should face up to their financial responsibilities. Bear in mind that even when they meet child support requirements most only pay a fraction of the DPB cost to the taxpayer.

I stated my position back in 2009. It is unchanged;

Mitchell said the traditional political response is to demand fathers face up to their financial responsibilities. "However, the child support problem is only a spin-off from the DPB system. If there was no DPB, which acts as an incentive to single parenthood, there would be nowhere near the current number of liable parents - 130,762. The state has effectively replaced many fathers who are nevertheless expected to pay the bills for children they often have no role in raising. "

"As a general rule fathers should take responsibility for their children but the state has to stop skewing the morality of this by putting up cash rewards to prospective single mothers."

"Before the DPB it was difficult for mothers to chase maintenance through the court system and fathers ran the risk of conviction and imprisonment for reneging on a court order. But that was forty years ago. Today, avoiding becoming pregnant and giving birth is much simpler. And in respect of relationship breakdowns, women, who now make up half of the workforce, are much better equipped to handle being a breadwinner and men are much better equipped for sharing parenting."

"Until the DPB is reformed to suit the times, the taxpayer will continue to foot the lion's share of its cost."

Men failing

A quick cut and paste from NCPA this morning. Written about the US but entirely relevant to the NZ situation.

As Girls Excel, What Happens to Boys?

Women today are entering adulthood with more education, more achievements, more property and, arguably, more money and ambition than their male counterparts. This is a first in human history, and its implications for both sexes are far from simple, says Kay Hymowitz, the William E. Simon Fellow at the Manhattan Institute.

You can see the strongest evidence that boys and young men are falling behind in high school and college classrooms.

Boys have lower grade point averages and lower grades in almost every subject, including math, despite their higher standardized testing scores, and they are 58 percent of high school dropouts.
In the mid-1970s about 28 percent of men had college degrees; since then, that number has barely budged.
Meanwhile, the percentage of women with a college degree increased from 18.6 to 34.2 percent and women now earn 57 percent of college degrees.
Male earnings have come to reflect their educational disadvantage -- childless twentysomething men now earn 8 percent less than their female counterparts in 147 out of 150 of American cities.

So what explains this stunning shift between the sexes? The deepest roots of women's current success lie in economic and technological change.

In the early decades of the 20th century, a "household revolution" dramatically eased the domestic burdens primarily borne by women.
Women's release from household drudgery coincided with the emergence of the postindustrial labor market, meaning a growing number of service and knowledge-based jobs -- all areas where women have excelled.

The second and related theory about why men are falling behind is that today's labor market prizes female strengths more than male strengths.

Hymowitz adds a third, more existential explanation, for the male problem: The economic independence of women and the collapse of marriage norms have deprived men of the primary social role that incentivized their achievement. What this means is that boys today are growing up in a culture that, unlike any before in civilization, is agnostic about their future familial responsibilities.

Aside from school reforms that could help keep boys more engaged, the new gender gap has no obvious solutions. The profound economic changes that have led to female success and male stagnation have also transformed our culture and its expectations for men.

Source: Kay Hymowitz, "What's Happening to Men?" Cato Unbound, August 8, 2011.

For text:

http://www.cato-unbound.org/2011/08/08/kay-hymowitz/whats-happening-to-men/

I disagree that there are no obvious solutions. Mine would revolve around getting the state out of areas it shouldn't be. Reforming or discarding social policies that have interfered with the formation and endurance of relationships for instance. Some policies might have been justified as corrective (although foreseeing the unwanted consequences could also have acted as a brake) but they have now outlived their usefulness.

"NZ Classical Liberal"

Here's a new blog that looks promising. Added to my blogroll for your convenience.

Separatism in the City

Another example of different laws. But this one may not work to Maori advantage.

Wellington bar owners say drunk Maori will be specifically targeted during the World Cup, by a 50-year-old law that has been pulled from the archives by police and the city council. The law allows Maori wardens to enter bars and remove drunk or violent Maori.

It'll be interesting to watch the response from Maori politicians. No doubt this form of 'privilege' - having their own, additional security force - will be labelled as discrimination. That's what the bar owners appear to see it as. In practice the whole idea looks utterly fraught.

The law means Maori wardens can stop the bar selling liquor to any Maori who appears to be drunk, violent, quarrelsome or disorderly or likely to become so.

"Likely to become so." That is a licence to turf anyone drinking.

And just how do Maori wardens go about identifying Maori? Isn't ethnicity now about self-identification? The mind boggles.

Meantime overseas visitors will be given the impression that NZ has a problem with Maori drinking similar to that seen with Aboriginal drinking in some Australian cities. Great image to carry away with them.

God-awful excuses for UK rioting

(I lived and worked in London for four years and it is the only other place in the world I have ever regarded as home or would want to make my home again, entirely because of the people who live there.)

Right on cue the socialists start to recount the reasons why young men in London, Birmingham and Liverpool are rioting. But before we read the excuses let's remember what these rioters are doing. Destroying private property and invading private homes. Thieving from and terrorising private individuals.

This isn't some sort of intellectual response to material deprivation directed at the state. It may be a subconscious, base response to emotional deprivation. That is the most generous response I can summon.

It certainly jars with the idea that the welfare state would prevent such malcontent.

Hell, these guys don't even have the balls to chance their arms at real crime with real risk. No. They create a contrived circumstance whereby they can loot and assault without consequence. Cowards. Creeps. And there is another word beginning with 'c' I have never uttered in my life. I hope those who are detained feel the full contempt of the already incarcerated in due course.

In recent months the government has tripled the cost of university tuition and abolished the Education Maintenance Allowance, paid to some 640,000 16-18 year olds to help them continue in higher education.

Areas like Tottenham, amongst the most deprived in the country, have been particularly hard hit. Unemployment officially stands at 8.8 percent, but will be much higher amongst young people. Claims for Jobseeker’s Allowance have risen by 10 percent in the last year, while Haringey Council has cut £41 million from its budget, reducing its youth services by 75 percent.

This is the social reality that underlies the London disturbances. It is replicated in working class areas across the country. It is the reason Cooper anticipates “repeated” disorder in the coming months.

Bad haircut

A Northampton garage owner was apparently sick and tired of thugs breaking into his garage shop to steal tools, etc. So he came up with an idea. He put the word out that he had a new Mexican Lion that would attack anyone that tried to break in or climb his fence.


Would-be thieves saw the "Lion" from a distance and fled the scene.

What's behind Paula Bennett's 'good news'?

Social Development Minister Paula Bennett says Future Focus changes implemented last September have saved taxpayers more than $6 million.

“The changes implemented last September as a pre-cursor to major reforms introduced clear obligations and greater fairness to the benefits system.”

Future Focus changes include requiring:
• Unemployment Beneficiaries to reapply if they remain on the benefit after a year and prove their eligibility to continue receiving assistance.
• DPB recipients with children over six to look for part-time work.

“This common sense approach has seen 7,400 people go off Unemployment Benefits and taxpayers have saved more than $6 million,” says Ms Bennett.

About half of the 7,400 didn’t complete the process, more than 2,000 were in work and 1,400 had left the country, were studying or just failed the work test.

“This simple policy change alone is expected to save a further $3.5 million by October,” says Ms Bennett.

Since September last year, more than 10,800 people have gone off the DPB into work.

“The number of people who’ve found jobs and gone off the DPB since last year’s welfare changes has gone up by 20 percent, that’s significant”

Prior to Future Focus changes there were 13,700 people on DPB doing some part time work and now there are 15,300.

ENDS

DPB statistics

Sept 2010 112,765
June 2011 113,429

Doesn't matter how many go off when more come on.

And those going off most likely represent short-termers best capable of gaining employment while those coming on most likely represent young unskilled and uneducated types quite likely to stay for years.

In earlier years (granted they were years of lower unemployment) MORE people were leaving the DPB and going to work with NO work-testing regime.
2004 12,773
2005 13,484
2006 16,132

One other thing. $6 million represents about 0.03 percent of the $20 billion MSD budget. Big deal. They could easily save the equivalent by dropping some of the highly paid bureaucrats.

Having just been reminded about our $300 million a week borrowing here, that also makes $6 million look skinny; not even worth the iou it was printed on.

ACT list

Naturally enough I am interested in who is on the ACT list this year. According to the NZ Herald:

On Friday it issued its list of 47 candidates, with only one identifying as Maori.

Anyone know where the list was published?

"They fuck you up, your Mum and Dad"

I love my Mum and Dad.

They came for dinner last night. A roast. Because that's all I can cook with real confidence. And my mum, bless her, says she loves my roasts. Leg of lamb. She brought the desert.

I have two close friends I grew up with and Mum and Dad consequently know them well - or knew them well as children. Recently my friends and I got together for a weekend away, one coming from Australia to visit her 90 year-old father. We banded together on a friday and took off for the Wairarapa. Inevitably 4pm - or thereabouts - saw us huddled over a bottle of wine, near an open fire, relishing being able to talk as we always have done. Without reservation and with the security of knowing each other inside out.

But it became apparent that the one who separated from her husband around 4 years ago now, had an attitude to men that was quite irrational. She was always a beauty. But in her fifties is quite convinced - no, convinced isn't the right word - absolutely certain that men are only interested in women superficially.

We dug and delved around why. Kept holding up our own experiences and others that conflicted with hers but she clung passionately to her arguments and examples. As we pushed on, it came out. Her father had always told her that men were only after one thing. He persuaded her he was right. She married early and probably thought she had found the man who was the exception to the rule. Cruelly, after many years of unquestioned faith, that man fell short and found younger (or something) targets for his affection. Of course her father had been right.

I was telling my own Mum and Dad about this. They remember her father. The family lived one house away. My Dad, without hesitation, but quiet recollection, recited the following:

They fuck you up, your mum and dad.
They may not mean to, but they do.
They fill you with the faults they had
And add some extra, just for you.

Philip Larkin

My children were probably mildly shocked to hear Grandad use the f word but are mature enough to understand the context. Dear Grandad. Always makes us laugh, sometimes till we wish he would stop. Always makes us think. Never fucked us up.

But perhaps the lesson is, you will get what you expect from life. If you look for it, you will find it.

DPB cancellations due to incarceration more than double

Periodically I ask MSD for the reasons why people are leaving the DPB. Just tracking trends.

Not much stands out from today's response. Despite the new work-testing regime people are leaving for the reason 'obtained work' at no greater rate. Not when compared to the earlier 2000s.

But the following statistics are interesting enough to graph (the first years are to December; the last two are to June). Since 2002 the number of DPB cancellations due to incarceration has more than doubled.

There are increasingly more men on the DPB and more males than females go to prison from the DPB according to the 2003 Prison Census.

That's a hell of a lot of kids losing a caregiver to prison anyway and the provision of welfare wasn't enough to prevent these recipients resorting to crime, one of the major reasons advocates advance to justify it.

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.