Today Mallard has graphs which show falling median incomes since National was in government. He has used the NZ Income Survey June Quarter 2011. Ethnicity appears at Table 4.
The figures are actually as follows.
Total (what Trevor calls 'typical') weekly median income from all sources rose from $536 to $550 between June 2008 and June 2011. It didn't drop by $35.
For Maori it dropped by $40 and Pacific $65.
Not $85 and $106 as depicted in Trevor's graphs which incidentally use the same scaling trick as yesterday.
Trevor has used inflation adjustment to 2008 figures to arrive at his considerably bigger differences eg what was $536 (according to the NZIS) in 2008 he has transformed into $585. Now I don't claim any knowledge about how inflation adjustment is done. Perhaps a reader can make comment. But what does occur to me is that those median income figures are inflation-proofed to some degree as superannuitants and beneficiaries have their incomes annually adjusted for the CPI. That's around 900,000 incomes. I can't get my head around the implications of this in further adjustments. Perhaps the drops over the period would be even greater.
Incidentally unadjusted Asian incomes rose by $61 over the same period. I wonder if he is going to produce a graph for that group?
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
CPAG lose case - Labour lose too?
Thanks to Bob McCoskrie for sending me the decision of the High Court in relation to the Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) case appealing an earlier Human Rights Tribunal decision upholding the right of government to discriminate between working people and beneficiaries.
Their conclusion finds, "...the discrimination caused by the exclusion of beneficiaries from the In Work Tax Credit is demonstrably justified. it follows that CPAG is not entitled to the declaration of inconsistency sought."
Looking for the political ramification it strikes me that Labour will be frustrated by this decision albeit the IWTC was originally their policy. It would have suited Labour, whose campaign is expediently 'child-centred', to join the other parties whose policy it is to give the IWTC to beneficiary parents - Mana, Maori and Greens. A High Court finding of unjustified discrimination would have paved the way to a reversal.
Their conclusion finds, "...the discrimination caused by the exclusion of beneficiaries from the In Work Tax Credit is demonstrably justified. it follows that CPAG is not entitled to the declaration of inconsistency sought."
Looking for the political ramification it strikes me that Labour will be frustrated by this decision albeit the IWTC was originally their policy. It would have suited Labour, whose campaign is expediently 'child-centred', to join the other parties whose policy it is to give the IWTC to beneficiary parents - Mana, Maori and Greens. A High Court finding of unjustified discrimination would have paved the way to a reversal.
Mallard's graphs
Trevor Mallard has two graphs comparing unemployment benefit numbers when National took over and September 2011, and unemployment numbers over a similar period. Putting aside the international recession which has seen the unemployment rate rise significantly but not as badly as in many other developed countries - the OECD Europe average is 9.2 compared to NZ's 6.5 - Trevor couldn't resist mucking about with the scales to create a misleading impression. The first starts at zero and the second starts at 75,000.
Update. My comment at Red Alert was censored and now appears as:
Your second graph should start at zero like the first. By using two different scales you create a misleading impression. Balance deleted. You have done plenty of statistical work yourself over the years. You know my graphs are clearly marked. Stop your nonsense. Trevor
For the record the deleted balance consisted of, Oh silly me. That was your intention.
Update. My comment at Red Alert was censored and now appears as:
Your second graph should start at zero like the first. By using two different scales you create a misleading impression. Balance deleted. You have done plenty of statistical work yourself over the years. You know my graphs are clearly marked. Stop your nonsense. Trevor
For the record the deleted balance consisted of, Oh silly me. That was your intention.
Monday, October 24, 2011
No time for complacency
The Greens campaign slogan is Vote green for a richer New Zealand - or something like that.
This is their specific income support policy:
Spending billions more on welfare.
One of the reasons NZ has gradually become poorer than other developed-world countries is the loss of productivity through welfare dependence. Voting Green, and getting these policies, would make NZ even poorer - not richer, in any sense of the word. And though I don't think we will get them, a bevy of parties together - Maori, Mana, Green, and Labour - are pretty much in the same ballpark on welfare.
If ACT goes the election result could be much, much tighter than predicted. Just like that game last night.
This is their specific income support policy:
• Set benefit amounts at a level sufficient for all basic needs of the individual/family.
• Protect all benefit levels by linking rates to a fixed percentage of the average wage (like superannuation).
• Replace the current Social Security Act 1964 with a simple two-tier benefit system consisting of a universal base rate that is enough to live on, with add-ons for specific circumstances, such as dependants, disability or chronic illness.
• A Universal Child Benefit of $18.40 per week per child for the first child, $13.00 for subsequent children, with the ability to capitalise it towards a home deposit.
• Abolish stand-down periods, treat people aged 18 and over as adults for benefit purposes; no forced work for the dole.
• Support urgent Government action to address the problem of benefit abatement for those moving into employment, and the removal of the poverty trap created by high marginal tax rates that exist for people on low incomes.
• Introduce a tax-free zone at the bottom end of the income scale.
• DPB to be protected; no compulsory work-testing.
• Appropriate training, vocational advice and support for sole parents.
• Remove discrimination from tax credit regimes such as the In Work Payment component of Working for Families.
• Support an allowance to beneficiaries who carry out a minimum number of hours of voluntary work per week.
• Improve the culture of Work and Income so that people are treated with dignity and respect and are enable to access their full entitlements promptly.
Spending billions more on welfare.
One of the reasons NZ has gradually become poorer than other developed-world countries is the loss of productivity through welfare dependence. Voting Green, and getting these policies, would make NZ even poorer - not richer, in any sense of the word. And though I don't think we will get them, a bevy of parties together - Maori, Mana, Green, and Labour - are pretty much in the same ballpark on welfare.
If ACT goes the election result could be much, much tighter than predicted. Just like that game last night.
Sunday, October 23, 2011
New link
Just added a link to Eternal Vigilance authored by friends Tim Wikiriwhi and Richard Goode. Both Libertarians but not Libertarianz.
Being Christians they were rejected by Objectivist Libertarians. I always thought Libertarians were about live and let live. I wouldn't deny someone their faith. It mightn't be for me but I abhor anti-religionism when it takes on all the fanaticism of some religions.
Richard is standing for the ALCP in Mana and Tim is standing as an Independent in Hamilton West. Good luck guys. I admire your courage and conviction.
Being Christians they were rejected by Objectivist Libertarians. I always thought Libertarians were about live and let live. I wouldn't deny someone their faith. It mightn't be for me but I abhor anti-religionism when it takes on all the fanaticism of some religions.
Richard is standing for the ALCP in Mana and Tim is standing as an Independent in Hamilton West. Good luck guys. I admire your courage and conviction.
Saturday, October 22, 2011
Welfare reform "controversial"?
According to Audrey Young:
For instance they could promise work-testing on DPB dependents when the youngest child turns 3. That would illicit howls of outrage not only from pro-welfare advocates and left feminists but conservatives who oppose childcare outside of the home.
But it shouldn't provoke controversy. By western standards supporting a parent till their youngest is three is fairly generous.
And here's another way to look at it.
Welfare reforms will be "controversial" because the media tells us so. "Controversy" keeps them gainfully employed.
Only because this country is up-to-the-eyeballs in entitlement culture and learned helplessness.Lately, he [Bill English] has been working with Paula Bennett in Social Development in his role co-ordinating all policy for the election campaign.
National's welfare reform plans will be unveiled soon and promise to be controversial.
For instance they could promise work-testing on DPB dependents when the youngest child turns 3. That would illicit howls of outrage not only from pro-welfare advocates and left feminists but conservatives who oppose childcare outside of the home.
But it shouldn't provoke controversy. By western standards supporting a parent till their youngest is three is fairly generous.
And here's another way to look at it.
Welfare reforms will be "controversial" because the media tells us so. "Controversy" keeps them gainfully employed.
Friday, October 21, 2011
DPB numbers - highest September quarter ever
Latest September quarter figures show DPB numbers standing at 114,147. No other September quarter has ever surpassed that number.
And this is after one year of National's work-testing policy applying.
In terms of children around 185,000 rely on this benefit. Think in terms of 600-plus medium sized schools.
In terms of cost, the average weekly DPB payment is around $513.00 so the cost tops $3 billion.
I wonder what the creators of this benefit would think, or do think, now? Some time ago I examined Hansards from that time, 1972-73. There was surprisingly little debate. National would have created the DPB if Labour hadn't. I remember reading how there were around 9,000 sole parents on emergency benefits and the relevant Minister estimated it would cost around an extra one million dollars (additional to the existing $11 million) if the emergency benefit had entitlement rather than discretionary status conferred upon it.
Have you ever known a sitting member of parliament spending taxpayer money to over-estimate the cost of anything?
And this is after one year of National's work-testing policy applying.
In terms of children around 185,000 rely on this benefit. Think in terms of 600-plus medium sized schools.
In terms of cost, the average weekly DPB payment is around $513.00 so the cost tops $3 billion.
I wonder what the creators of this benefit would think, or do think, now? Some time ago I examined Hansards from that time, 1972-73. There was surprisingly little debate. National would have created the DPB if Labour hadn't. I remember reading how there were around 9,000 sole parents on emergency benefits and the relevant Minister estimated it would cost around an extra one million dollars (additional to the existing $11 million) if the emergency benefit had entitlement rather than discretionary status conferred upon it.
Have you ever known a sitting member of parliament spending taxpayer money to over-estimate the cost of anything?
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
The poverty excuse is a cop-out
The NZ Council of Christian Social Services publishes a quarterly Vulnerability Report. The most recent issue contained the following graph which shows the correlation between children being poor and risk of maltreatment or neglect. Children in the poorest decile (10 in the case because it uses the Health scale - not Education) are ten times more likely than the children in wealthiest to be admitted to hospital for reasons of maltreatment or neglect. Below the graph is the angle the NZ Council of Christian Social Services takes on it.
The report then goes on to point out, "Maori children and young people are over represented in [care and protection] notifications requiring further action, constituting 45% in the June quarter."
BUT Asian and Pacific people have lower incomes and are not over represented.
Poverty does increase stress but alone, it is not an excuse for abuse.
And lest you are getting bored with the statistics, let's put a face to them.
Five years old and being taught to "harden up." Christ. CHRIST.
The report then goes on to point out, "Maori children and young people are over represented in [care and protection] notifications requiring further action, constituting 45% in the June quarter."
BUT Asian and Pacific people have lower incomes and are not over represented.
Poverty does increase stress but alone, it is not an excuse for abuse.
And lest you are getting bored with the statistics, let's put a face to them.
Five years old and being taught to "harden up." Christ. CHRIST.
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
"Bribery and corruption "
The Mana Party has just announced its social welfare policy:
There are 1,874,000 individuals paying tax on incomes up to $30,000. If we took away maybe 24,000 that are under 18 the cost of this Christmas bonus would be $1,850,000,000 or $1.85 billion.
The cost of extending the In Work Tax Credit is around $360,000,000 (120,000 families at $3,000 per year)
Who knows what lifting benefits to pre 1991 levels would entail.
Perhaps a $2-3 billion dollar bribe all-up?
Ironically, election rules regarding managing the event advise:
For the record, I am saying something.
Provide a one off hardship grant of $1,000 for everyone aged 18 and over who is on an income of $30,000 or less, whether on a benefit or in paid work, to be paid by Christmas 2011.
Lift benefits to at least pre-1991 equivalent levels, ensuring people have enough to live on without constantly going into debt.
Extend the In Work Tax Credit to the children of beneficiary parents.
There are 1,874,000 individuals paying tax on incomes up to $30,000. If we took away maybe 24,000 that are under 18 the cost of this Christmas bonus would be $1,850,000,000 or $1.85 billion.
The cost of extending the In Work Tax Credit is around $360,000,000 (120,000 families at $3,000 per year)
Who knows what lifting benefits to pre 1991 levels would entail.
Perhaps a $2-3 billion dollar bribe all-up?
Ironically, election rules regarding managing the event advise:
Any attempts at bribery and corruption have two participants – those who offer the bribe and those who accept it. Anyone who knows about the bribe but says nothing is also implicated.
For the record, I am saying something.
Tapu Misa embraces Thomas Jefferson?
NZ Herald columnist Tapu Misa often uses quotes from, or about people, that are intended to support her latest fad. But sometimes the people she chooses to exploit are, or were, exponents of a philosophy or ideas that are the polar opposite of hers.
Here is a direct quote from Thomas Jefferson:
Unless she has experienced some sort of sea-change in thinking Tapu Misa would never aspire to the type of "wise and frugal" government Jefferson envisaged. Can you imagine the day when she writes a column calling for the abolition of income tax?
(And there is something scatterbrained about a column on the subject of public happiness that berates the "winner-take-all pursuit we've seen in the last few decades" but uncomplainingly accepts that happiness is currently hinging on whether NZ triumphs in the Rugby World Cup.)
America's founders reckoned "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" to be inalienable human rights.It seems Thomas Jefferson had in mind a less selfish idea of happiness than the winner-take-all pursuit we've seen in the last few decades.
In his book Inventing America: Jefferson's Declaration of Independence, journalist and historian Gary Willis wrote: "When Jefferson spoke of pursuing happiness, he had nothing vague or private in mind. He meant a public happiness which is measurable; which is, indeed, the test and justification of any government."
Here is a direct quote from Thomas Jefferson:
A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government.
Thomas Jefferson
Unless she has experienced some sort of sea-change in thinking Tapu Misa would never aspire to the type of "wise and frugal" government Jefferson envisaged. Can you imagine the day when she writes a column calling for the abolition of income tax?
(And there is something scatterbrained about a column on the subject of public happiness that berates the "winner-take-all pursuit we've seen in the last few decades" but uncomplainingly accepts that happiness is currently hinging on whether NZ triumphs in the Rugby World Cup.)
Monday, October 17, 2011
Libz challenge poverty advocacy
Libertarianz Candidate Challenges Poverty Propagandists
Monday, 17 October 2011, 2:47 pm
Press Release: Libertarianz Party
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Poverty
Libertarianz Candidate Challenges Poverty Propagandists
Libertarianz announce New Zealand's youngest electorate candidate, Reagan Cutting, standing for Wellington Central.
"After preparing a short documentary exposeon one of New Zealand's poorest suburbs, which is also the greatest recipient of public welfare, I was amazed at the level of infrastructure and support services available, with seemingly no benefit to the people living there," said Reagan.
'Left wing parties in New Zealand continue to promote the idea that there is a never-ending need for continued public money to go into these areas at the expense of productive New Zealanders.
I would challenge all New Zealanders to view this short film clip and then tell me with a straight face that these people are really living in poverty.
The real problem with poverty in New Zealand comes when an overbearing government reduces individual's sense of self-confidence and hope. Poverty is artificially defined in New Zealand by Statistics NZ as a relative measure rather than an absolute one.
This means that if everyone in New Zealand became instantly richer, official poverty would not change. Conversely if a billionaire moved in New Zealand it would increase official poverty. New Zealanders are being conned into supporting policies that can never solve the problem because the problem is defined in a way that means it will always exist.
"I support cutting welfare to empower individuals to take control of their own lives," Cutting concluded.
See video here.
Some additional relevant information from me. Cannons Creek School is rated Decile 1 while Newlands (nearby 'rich' neighbourhood) school is Decile 8. The decile rating substantially affects the level of government funding. For example from the 2011 operational funding budget:
Targeted Funding for Educational Achievement
Including Redistributed Decile Funding
Decile Per student
Decile 1 A 871.49
B 810.21
C 703.59
Decile 2 D 594.40
E 487.80
F 404.60
Decile 3 G 336.98
H 266.81
I 212.23
Decile 4 J 175.82
K 144.31
L 130.00
Decile 5 M 111.37
Decile 6 N 90.16
Decile 7 O 68.93
Decile 8 P 45.08
Decile 9 Q 27.83
Decile 10 Z 0.00
Special Education Grant
Base per school 1,354.69
Decile Per student
Decile 1 71.14
Decile 2 69.11
Decile 3 65.04
Decile 4 60.98
Decile 5 56.92
Decile 6 52.85
Decile 7 48.80
Decile 8 44.74
Decile 9 40.66
Decile 10 36.60
Careers Information Grant
(for schools with students in years 9-15)
Decile Per student
Decile 1 35.90
Decile 2 34.49
Decile 3 31.66
Decile 4 28.83
Decile 5 26.05
Decile 6 21.11
Decile 7 17.56
Decile 8 16.18
Decile 9 15.48
Decile 10 14.78
Monday, 17 October 2011, 2:47 pm
Press Release: Libertarianz Party
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Poverty
Libertarianz Candidate Challenges Poverty Propagandists
Libertarianz announce New Zealand's youngest electorate candidate, Reagan Cutting, standing for Wellington Central.
"After preparing a short documentary exposeon one of New Zealand's poorest suburbs, which is also the greatest recipient of public welfare, I was amazed at the level of infrastructure and support services available, with seemingly no benefit to the people living there," said Reagan.
'Left wing parties in New Zealand continue to promote the idea that there is a never-ending need for continued public money to go into these areas at the expense of productive New Zealanders.
I would challenge all New Zealanders to view this short film clip and then tell me with a straight face that these people are really living in poverty.
The real problem with poverty in New Zealand comes when an overbearing government reduces individual's sense of self-confidence and hope. Poverty is artificially defined in New Zealand by Statistics NZ as a relative measure rather than an absolute one.
This means that if everyone in New Zealand became instantly richer, official poverty would not change. Conversely if a billionaire moved in New Zealand it would increase official poverty. New Zealanders are being conned into supporting policies that can never solve the problem because the problem is defined in a way that means it will always exist.
"I support cutting welfare to empower individuals to take control of their own lives," Cutting concluded.
See video here.
Some additional relevant information from me. Cannons Creek School is rated Decile 1 while Newlands (nearby 'rich' neighbourhood) school is Decile 8. The decile rating substantially affects the level of government funding. For example from the 2011 operational funding budget:
Targeted Funding for Educational Achievement
Including Redistributed Decile Funding
Decile Per student
Decile 1 A 871.49
B 810.21
C 703.59
Decile 2 D 594.40
E 487.80
F 404.60
Decile 3 G 336.98
H 266.81
I 212.23
Decile 4 J 175.82
K 144.31
L 130.00
Decile 5 M 111.37
Decile 6 N 90.16
Decile 7 O 68.93
Decile 8 P 45.08
Decile 9 Q 27.83
Decile 10 Z 0.00
Special Education Grant
Base per school 1,354.69
Decile Per student
Decile 1 71.14
Decile 2 69.11
Decile 3 65.04
Decile 4 60.98
Decile 5 56.92
Decile 6 52.85
Decile 7 48.80
Decile 8 44.74
Decile 9 40.66
Decile 10 36.60
Careers Information Grant
(for schools with students in years 9-15)
Decile Per student
Decile 1 35.90
Decile 2 34.49
Decile 3 31.66
Decile 4 28.83
Decile 5 26.05
Decile 6 21.11
Decile 7 17.56
Decile 8 16.18
Decile 9 15.48
Decile 10 14.78
Green's strawman - poor people are bad
Stuff has an interview with Green Co-leader Russel Norman:
And just because people are rich doesn't mean they are bad. But you could be forgiven for believing that's what Greens think with their anti-farmer, anti-capitalist overtones. Both positions are based on conveniently collectivising people.
Anyway, the point I want to make is this: poor people = bad people is a Green Party proposition. It isn't mine.
But that's politics. Tell would-be voters what the nasty opposition thinks of them to further your own ends. That's why I am so glad to be out of this round of conniving and contriving.
In my dealings with people of low income and on benefits I find as much diversity as amongst the opposite. But I will never support the Green's policy of giving the in-work tax credit to beneficiary families because it will not help them in the long run. And I have explained many times why. Higher benefits are associated with higher levels of unmarried or unpartnered birth. Higher benefits keep more people in the system as wages become less attractive. Where the level of household income is the same, children in working homes do better than those on benefits. Giving the in-work tax credit to beneficiary families is a policy that will do more harm than good over time.
The Greens won't deal with the demonstrably probable unintended consequences of this policy. Instead they will go around the traps telling beneficiaries that National and ACT (and Labour, as they try to differentiate themselves) won't give you more money for their children because they think you are bad. That's the depth of the Green's debate. Very shallow.
SOME OF the Greens' economic policies remain quite left-wing. One of its three main planks (Kids, Rivers, Jobs) is to reduce child poverty. It would alter the Working for Families scheme so that beneficiary families as well as working ones would get the extra in-work supplement. Both the big main parties want to keep a gap between beneficiary and working parents as an incentive to work.
The Greens believe people will try to find work and won't bludge (there might be a tiny number of exceptions, Norman says). This is out of kilter with the prevailing view that beneficiaries are not to be trusted.
"We believe that people are good and they just need to be provided with opportunities. And the right-wing idea that we constantly have to get the stick out to take it to the poor – we just don't buy that.
"Because there was a time when I was in a poor family, you know. We were supported and we got ahead because other taxpayers paid for us...Just because we were poor didn't mean we were bad."
And just because people are rich doesn't mean they are bad. But you could be forgiven for believing that's what Greens think with their anti-farmer, anti-capitalist overtones. Both positions are based on conveniently collectivising people.
Anyway, the point I want to make is this: poor people = bad people is a Green Party proposition. It isn't mine.
But that's politics. Tell would-be voters what the nasty opposition thinks of them to further your own ends. That's why I am so glad to be out of this round of conniving and contriving.
In my dealings with people of low income and on benefits I find as much diversity as amongst the opposite. But I will never support the Green's policy of giving the in-work tax credit to beneficiary families because it will not help them in the long run. And I have explained many times why. Higher benefits are associated with higher levels of unmarried or unpartnered birth. Higher benefits keep more people in the system as wages become less attractive. Where the level of household income is the same, children in working homes do better than those on benefits. Giving the in-work tax credit to beneficiary families is a policy that will do more harm than good over time.
The Greens won't deal with the demonstrably probable unintended consequences of this policy. Instead they will go around the traps telling beneficiaries that National and ACT (and Labour, as they try to differentiate themselves) won't give you more money for their children because they think you are bad. That's the depth of the Green's debate. Very shallow.
Saturday, October 15, 2011
Kiwi Party not contesting general election
This is news to me, so possibly to you. From Larry Baldock's newsletter:
The Kiwi Party will not be contesting the general election this year. The response we have had from the vast majority of our members has encouraged us to work with the Conservative Party. Therefore many of us will be standing as Conservative Party (CP) candidates and taking significant places on the CP list. At this stage it looks likely that the CP will have at least 30 candidates in electorates across the country and with over 1200 signed up members the CP is now ready to compete for votes on November 26.
In 2010 Colin Craig launched a campaign for the Auckland Super City Mayoralty as a completely unknown candidate and achieved the stunning result of 3rd place with over 8% of the vote. Eligible voters in that election represented 32.5% of all voters in New Zealand.
Could Colin achieve a similar result nationwide in this campaign?
One of the keys for any small party, as you will know from past elections, is whether the party can win an electorate seat and therefore become eligible for list candidates to be elected to Parliament. Polling conducted by Research First has Colin ahead of the new National candidate Mark Mitchell, in the Rodney electorate. Voters nationwide therefore can be encouraged to give their Party vote to the Conservative Party knowing that every vote will count towards increasing the number of MPs that will be elected.
They don't interest me but are going to make it harder for ACT.
The Kiwi Party will not be contesting the general election this year. The response we have had from the vast majority of our members has encouraged us to work with the Conservative Party. Therefore many of us will be standing as Conservative Party (CP) candidates and taking significant places on the CP list. At this stage it looks likely that the CP will have at least 30 candidates in electorates across the country and with over 1200 signed up members the CP is now ready to compete for votes on November 26.
In 2010 Colin Craig launched a campaign for the Auckland Super City Mayoralty as a completely unknown candidate and achieved the stunning result of 3rd place with over 8% of the vote. Eligible voters in that election represented 32.5% of all voters in New Zealand.
Could Colin achieve a similar result nationwide in this campaign?
One of the keys for any small party, as you will know from past elections, is whether the party can win an electorate seat and therefore become eligible for list candidates to be elected to Parliament. Polling conducted by Research First has Colin ahead of the new National candidate Mark Mitchell, in the Rodney electorate. Voters nationwide therefore can be encouraged to give their Party vote to the Conservative Party knowing that every vote will count towards increasing the number of MPs that will be elected.
They don't interest me but are going to make it harder for ACT.
Friday, October 14, 2011
ACT's priorities - welfare missed again
The Nelson Mail reports on a meeting held by Don Brash:
No problem with those but it's so disappointing to again see them failing to prioritise welfare. Yesterday these policies appeared on-line:
Some good stuff. Some I am not so keen on. For instance I don't think whanau ora is about reducing Maori benefit dependency. I think it's about teaching them to be better parents. Different things. Not sure about work-for-the-dole although I understand why the WWG recommended a programme. Perhaps PD services could be extended. Cutting WFF (which is only a return to pre-2005 conditions) is absolutely the right move. ACT will be the only party proposing that. Things like budgeting courses and rehab are already used - just not mandatory. Excepting (I think) that if a beneficiary applies for extra assistance so many times they must attend a course as a condition of getting the extra help. But I would have to verify that.
Trouble is, when you set about conditions for receipt of a benefit you are actually sanctioning the receipt. And the very receipt, for perfectly capable people, is wrong.
So what is missing?
The single-most important policy required is time-limits. The single-most important message is, welfare is no longer a way of life. It certainly isn't an option for raising children. We need a sea-change in thinking. These policies aren't going to achieve that.
"If National needs a scapegoat, if you like, we could be that scapegoat," he said. The main priorities were to cut government spending, reform the Resource Management Act, restore a youth minimum wage and raise the age of eligibility for superannuation.
No problem with those but it's so disappointing to again see them failing to prioritise welfare. Yesterday these policies appeared on-line:
ACT will continue to push for major welfare reform. A Party Vote for ACT is a vote to:
• Ensure that there is strong, adequate support for the genuinely needy;
• Re-introduce a youth training rate or minimum wage;
• Introduce obligations for sole parent beneficiaries to ensure their children are properly cared for including taking budgeting instruction and meeting regular health checks;
• Introduce sanctions – such as suspension of the unemployment benefit and mandatory work-for-the-dole – in cases where reasonable offers of employment are declined;
• Require mandatory drug rehabilitation or loss of benefit for unemployed beneficiaries who fail work tests because of drug or substance addiction;
• Introduce income management and the requirement to live with a responsible adult for parents under the age of 18;
• Have independent, government-approved gatekeeping and assessment of applicants for the sickness and invalids benefit, and six monthly reassessment of sickness beneficiaries;
• Outsource all employment placement activities to private sector providers and foster a competitive market for sickness, invalid and employment insurance;
• Encourage practical Maori-focused solutions, including Whanau Ora, to lift Maori out of poverty and benefit dependency;
• Introduce a hotline (like Crimestoppers) to report benefit fraud;
• Cut welfare payments to middle and upper income earners through reform of Working for Families.
Some good stuff. Some I am not so keen on. For instance I don't think whanau ora is about reducing Maori benefit dependency. I think it's about teaching them to be better parents. Different things. Not sure about work-for-the-dole although I understand why the WWG recommended a programme. Perhaps PD services could be extended. Cutting WFF (which is only a return to pre-2005 conditions) is absolutely the right move. ACT will be the only party proposing that. Things like budgeting courses and rehab are already used - just not mandatory. Excepting (I think) that if a beneficiary applies for extra assistance so many times they must attend a course as a condition of getting the extra help. But I would have to verify that.
Trouble is, when you set about conditions for receipt of a benefit you are actually sanctioning the receipt. And the very receipt, for perfectly capable people, is wrong.
So what is missing?
The single-most important policy required is time-limits. The single-most important message is, welfare is no longer a way of life. It certainly isn't an option for raising children. We need a sea-change in thinking. These policies aren't going to achieve that.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Benefit-dependent babies - nearly half are Maori
Earlier in the week I blogged about 23 percent of children born in 2010 being on a benefit by the end of the year. I cannot be specific about the ethnicity of the child because Work and Income only records details pertaining to the caregiver.
It is safe to assume however that in most cases the ethnicity of the child will match the ethnicity of the caregiver who is usually the mother.
Of the 14,537 caregivers receiving a main benefit at the end of 2010 with one or more children born in 2010:
Maori 47 percent
NZ European 29 percent
Pacific 13 percent
Other or unspecified 11 percent
There is the disproportion of welfarism amongst Maori again.
Remember too that, officially Pacific children are the poorest in NZ but they tend to live in working poor families. And then what Peter Hughes, the departing CE of the Ministry of Social Development said: 'We know that for the same level of income, kids do better where that income's derived from paid work.'
It's no good blaming unemployment for the fact that Maori are disproportionately not supporting their children independently. Their unemployment rate is high (13.7) but so is the Pacific unemployment rate (13.1).
Raising babies on a benefit is simply a habit; a part of Maori culture. And it isn't something either of the Maori Parties are prepared to do anything about. In fact, with Sue Bradford as Mana's 'social well-being' spokesperson you can bet, along with the Greens, the clarion cry will be for higher benefits - not less dependence.
It is safe to assume however that in most cases the ethnicity of the child will match the ethnicity of the caregiver who is usually the mother.
Of the 14,537 caregivers receiving a main benefit at the end of 2010 with one or more children born in 2010:
Maori 47 percent
NZ European 29 percent
Pacific 13 percent
Other or unspecified 11 percent
There is the disproportion of welfarism amongst Maori again.
Remember too that, officially Pacific children are the poorest in NZ but they tend to live in working poor families. And then what Peter Hughes, the departing CE of the Ministry of Social Development said: 'We know that for the same level of income, kids do better where that income's derived from paid work.'
It's no good blaming unemployment for the fact that Maori are disproportionately not supporting their children independently. Their unemployment rate is high (13.7) but so is the Pacific unemployment rate (13.1).
Raising babies on a benefit is simply a habit; a part of Maori culture. And it isn't something either of the Maori Parties are prepared to do anything about. In fact, with Sue Bradford as Mana's 'social well-being' spokesperson you can bet, along with the Greens, the clarion cry will be for higher benefits - not less dependence.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Drug testing beneficiaries - a diversion
ALCP have found a vote winner - they think.
Beneficiaries who risk losing their benefits due to drug testing are being encouraged to give their party vote to the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party in the upcoming election. Party Leader Michael Appleby said the only way for beneficiaries to contiunue using cannabis was to ensure the ALCP was elected on November 26 to fight for their rights.
Legal or illegal, the government can make non-use of drugs and/or alcohol a condition for receiving a benefit if they chose to. I wouldn't support such a move. It simply avoids the bigger issue of what people are doing on benefits when they should be self-supporting. Someone terminally ill reliant on an invalid's benefit shouldn't be barred from using whatever eases their end.
The Government's Welfare Working Group led by economist Paula Rebstock, aims to tackle drug addiction by introducing drug testing for those on the benefit. Social Development Minister Paula Bennett said she supported the move. "We expect it for people who are in work so why shouldn't we expect it for people who are looking for work? Frankly, I don't think that is too much to ask," she said.
But we don't expect it for all people in work. So why expect it for all beneficiaries?
Mr Appleby said the move could have disastrous consequences for medical users of cannabis. "We will fight for the right of all New Zealanders to grow and use cannabis for personal or medical use," he said. "It is important than beneficiaries give their party vote to ALCP otherwise they risk losing their benefits."
As I said decriminalising or legalising cannabis won't change the risk of losing their benefit if the government makes non-use a condition of eligibility. In the past people who caused their own incapacity through alcoholism weren't eligible for social security. But alcohol was legal.
If a doctor deems drug or alcohol abuse the primary cause of a person's incapacity I would support accepting mandatory treatment as a condition for continuance of a benefit. Drug testing might form part of such a regime. And it wouldn't surprise me if this isn't what the government is considering.
Most people aren't on a benefit because they smoke or drink. They are on one because they can be. That's the problem.
Beneficiaries who risk losing their benefits due to drug testing are being encouraged to give their party vote to the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party in the upcoming election. Party Leader Michael Appleby said the only way for beneficiaries to contiunue using cannabis was to ensure the ALCP was elected on November 26 to fight for their rights.
Legal or illegal, the government can make non-use of drugs and/or alcohol a condition for receiving a benefit if they chose to. I wouldn't support such a move. It simply avoids the bigger issue of what people are doing on benefits when they should be self-supporting. Someone terminally ill reliant on an invalid's benefit shouldn't be barred from using whatever eases their end.
The Government's Welfare Working Group led by economist Paula Rebstock, aims to tackle drug addiction by introducing drug testing for those on the benefit. Social Development Minister Paula Bennett said she supported the move. "We expect it for people who are in work so why shouldn't we expect it for people who are looking for work? Frankly, I don't think that is too much to ask," she said.
But we don't expect it for all people in work. So why expect it for all beneficiaries?
Mr Appleby said the move could have disastrous consequences for medical users of cannabis. "We will fight for the right of all New Zealanders to grow and use cannabis for personal or medical use," he said. "It is important than beneficiaries give their party vote to ALCP otherwise they risk losing their benefits."
As I said decriminalising or legalising cannabis won't change the risk of losing their benefit if the government makes non-use a condition of eligibility. In the past people who caused their own incapacity through alcoholism weren't eligible for social security. But alcohol was legal.
If a doctor deems drug or alcohol abuse the primary cause of a person's incapacity I would support accepting mandatory treatment as a condition for continuance of a benefit. Drug testing might form part of such a regime. And it wouldn't surprise me if this isn't what the government is considering.
Most people aren't on a benefit because they smoke or drink. They are on one because they can be. That's the problem.
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Organ donation - another awful NZ record
Here's a new idea (and they are rare):
They think they have a problem?
I have impressed on my family more than once that, in the event of death, if I have anything useable, they must do everything they can to ensure it is made available.
If you have 'donor' on your Driver's Licence make sure you convey the same sentiments to yours.
A LEADING medical ethics body wants the NHS to pay for the funerals of organ donors in an effort to help tackle the shortage of donations in the UK.Hugh Whittall, UK director of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, dismissed suggestions that covering the cost of funeral expenses for those who sign the donor register was a way of getting around the legal ban on selling organs.
He told The Scotsman that the move would be a thank-you for an "altruistic act".
Mr Whittall claimed that covering the cost of funerals would provide an "extra prompt" to "drive up" the number of organ donors, which last year was just 67 in Scotland - a rate of 13 donors per million of population.
They think they have a problem?
Last year (2006) there were just 25 organ donors in New Zealand, down from an average of 40 donors a year prior to 2005. At 40 donors a year we were at the bottom of developed countries for the number of donors we have. Now with just 6 donors per million of population we are between Iceland and Mexico for our donation rates.
I have impressed on my family more than once that, in the event of death, if I have anything useable, they must do everything they can to ensure it is made available.
If you have 'donor' on your Driver's Licence make sure you convey the same sentiments to yours.
23% babies born 2010 on benefit by year end
Media Release
23% BABIES BORN 2010 ON BENEFIT BY YEAR END
Tuesday, October11, 2011
Data released to welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell show that 23 percent of the babies born in 2010 were reliant on a benefit by the end of that year.
"Statistics released under the Official Information Act show that at December 31, 2010, 14,537 Work and Income clients receiving a main benefit had babies in their care that were born during 2010. That represents 23 percent of all babies born in 2010. Almost one in four."
"The implications for this high percentage lie in the likelihood of these children remaining on a benefit for many years. Ministry of Social Development research found, 'The older the child when they first have contact with the benefit system, the greater their likelihood of leaving benefit. Compared to those in contact at birth, those who first have contact between birth and six months have a 15% increase in the probability of leaving benefit. Between six months and one year there is a 33% increase, between one and two years there is a 41% increase, and first contact between two and three years is associated with a 56% increase in the probability of leaving benefit.' "
"These are the circumstances which are overwhelmingly contributing to New Zealand's child poverty problem."
23% BABIES BORN 2010 ON BENEFIT BY YEAR END
Tuesday, October11, 2011
Data released to welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell show that 23 percent of the babies born in 2010 were reliant on a benefit by the end of that year.
"Statistics released under the Official Information Act show that at December 31, 2010, 14,537 Work and Income clients receiving a main benefit had babies in their care that were born during 2010. That represents 23 percent of all babies born in 2010. Almost one in four."
"The implications for this high percentage lie in the likelihood of these children remaining on a benefit for many years. Ministry of Social Development research found, 'The older the child when they first have contact with the benefit system, the greater their likelihood of leaving benefit. Compared to those in contact at birth, those who first have contact between birth and six months have a 15% increase in the probability of leaving benefit. Between six months and one year there is a 33% increase, between one and two years there is a 41% increase, and first contact between two and three years is associated with a 56% increase in the probability of leaving benefit.' "
"These are the circumstances which are overwhelmingly contributing to New Zealand's child poverty problem."
Monday, October 10, 2011
Better news from ACT
From Scoop:In a joint press statement, ACT Party Leader Don Brash and President Chris Simmons today confirmed that all ACT candidates would move one place up the list to fill the position vacated by the Party’s retiring Parliamentary Leader John Boscawen, and that the number two spot would be filled by former Party President Catherine Isaac.
I have a lot of time for Catherine. This is just what ACT needs. Someone with quiet dignity, strength and courage.
Sunday, October 09, 2011
Banks and Red Bull
I have "experience in talking about welfare". Does that mean more people will listen to me than to Don Brash? No.
The odious John Banks told The Nation yesterday that he had blocked a planned speech about welfare that Don Brash was scheduled to deliver because "he had no experience in talking about welfare".
So who does Banksie?
As the leader of ACT Brash can talk about whatever he likes.
Banks tried to take over ACT in 2005 with a silly speech about Red Bull and branding. He shouldn't have been doing that. He had no experience in talking about Red Bull.
Oh I despair over ACT. I shouldn't. I know. The ACT I knew and stood for is long gone.
The odious John Banks told The Nation yesterday that he had blocked a planned speech about welfare that Don Brash was scheduled to deliver because "he had no experience in talking about welfare".
So who does Banksie?
As the leader of ACT Brash can talk about whatever he likes.
Banks tried to take over ACT in 2005 with a silly speech about Red Bull and branding. He shouldn't have been doing that. He had no experience in talking about Red Bull.
Oh I despair over ACT. I shouldn't. I know. The ACT I knew and stood for is long gone.
Forget about nanny state...
Front page NZ Herald:
HE DIDN'T, DID HE????
We used to rail against nanny state.
Now we have nanny media.
The "married father of three" reportedly "lit a cigarette in the bar - breaking the Smoke-free Environments Act 1990 banning smoking in pubs, in force since 2004......A top sports medical expert said drinking alcohol so close to a test match could reduce the player's performance and increase the risk of injury......a single cigarette would reduce a player's lung capacity but it would also introduce carbon monoxide and nicotine to the player's blood."
This is a joke. Surely.
All Blacks star Cory Jane went on a drinking binge and lit up a cigarette inside a packed Auckland bar - less than 72 hours before playing in today's Rugby World Cup quarter-final.
HE DIDN'T, DID HE????
We used to rail against nanny state.
Now we have nanny media.
The "married father of three" reportedly "lit a cigarette in the bar - breaking the Smoke-free Environments Act 1990 banning smoking in pubs, in force since 2004......A top sports medical expert said drinking alcohol so close to a test match could reduce the player's performance and increase the risk of injury......a single cigarette would reduce a player's lung capacity but it would also introduce carbon monoxide and nicotine to the player's blood."
This is a joke. Surely.
Saturday, October 08, 2011
Utterly misleading headline
The Stuff headline reads,
Country's prison roll tumbling
There is a clear inference that considerably fewer people are in prison now than was the case at some earlier point.
So I look for the passage that tells about the September quarter total compared to the June quarter. Not there. And Corrections still has the June total up.
So what is the headline based on?
In the past decade the prison population grew by 45.6 per cent – but the latest annual Justice Sector Forecast predicts that in the next 10 years it will fall by 6.2 per cent.
It's based on a prediction.
But go back to Corrections which only three months ago was displaying this graph:
The Justice Sector Forecast was predicting continuing growth. The story is actually about why the forecasts have changed.
The headline is utterly misleading.
It's akin to my issuing a statement headed with
DPB numbers rocket based on Treasury budget forecasts. I would be pilloried.
Country's prison roll tumbling
There is a clear inference that considerably fewer people are in prison now than was the case at some earlier point.
So I look for the passage that tells about the September quarter total compared to the June quarter. Not there. And Corrections still has the June total up.
So what is the headline based on?
In the past decade the prison population grew by 45.6 per cent – but the latest annual Justice Sector Forecast predicts that in the next 10 years it will fall by 6.2 per cent.
It's based on a prediction.
But go back to Corrections which only three months ago was displaying this graph:
The Justice Sector Forecast was predicting continuing growth. The story is actually about why the forecasts have changed.
The headline is utterly misleading.
It's akin to my issuing a statement headed with
DPB numbers rocket based on Treasury budget forecasts. I would be pilloried.
Thursday, October 06, 2011
Older mothers "selfish and self-centred"
A Perth doctor has labelled women who have their children in their late thirties as "selfish and self-centred." And a third of Melbourne Age readers agree with him.
My youngest was born when I was almost 39. She was unplanned. I didn't really intend on having another child but thought that on balance providing a sibling for the older one and my husband's delight at the development made it a good thing. When she was born I fell in love with her immediately. Such a sure-of-herself, snuggly and robust little thing. Physically stronger and healthier than my first-born.
The article covers all the reasons why women are apparently "selfish and self-centred" for having children later. The additional cost to the health service, becoming geriatrics and a burden on the children later. But women who give birth later have usually contributed more tax. As far as it being a debate about public goods, its swings and roundabouts. The choice to leave parenthood till later doesn't impinge on anyone else, unlike the choice to have children you can't financially support - at any age.
But really, it's nobody else's bloody business. And I wouldn't have blogged on the subject bar it being yet another example of the busybody mentality displayed by people who think they know best. And disgustingly, a large minority fall in behind.
A responding 'social commentator' can have the last word. The very sane Mr Salt:
''The age of a mother isn't the issue,'' said Mr Salt. ''But, my observation of women having children later, is how they absolutely want and love and adore those children… as long as a child is yearned for, loved, adored, provisioned for, parents' age, sexual orientation, income, ethnicity, race - none of that matters.''
My youngest was born when I was almost 39. She was unplanned. I didn't really intend on having another child but thought that on balance providing a sibling for the older one and my husband's delight at the development made it a good thing. When she was born I fell in love with her immediately. Such a sure-of-herself, snuggly and robust little thing. Physically stronger and healthier than my first-born.
The article covers all the reasons why women are apparently "selfish and self-centred" for having children later. The additional cost to the health service, becoming geriatrics and a burden on the children later. But women who give birth later have usually contributed more tax. As far as it being a debate about public goods, its swings and roundabouts. The choice to leave parenthood till later doesn't impinge on anyone else, unlike the choice to have children you can't financially support - at any age.
But really, it's nobody else's bloody business. And I wouldn't have blogged on the subject bar it being yet another example of the busybody mentality displayed by people who think they know best. And disgustingly, a large minority fall in behind.
A responding 'social commentator' can have the last word. The very sane Mr Salt:
''The age of a mother isn't the issue,'' said Mr Salt. ''But, my observation of women having children later, is how they absolutely want and love and adore those children… as long as a child is yearned for, loved, adored, provisioned for, parents' age, sexual orientation, income, ethnicity, race - none of that matters.''
Wednesday, October 05, 2011
NCEA and other stuff
Apparently secondary school teachers are to get two more 'teacher only' days next year to cope with the NCEA workload. They already get quite a few. Or that's how it seems when you have a child in the system.
How good is a regime that requires more and more administration and delivers less teaching and learning? And are there any fans of NCEA out there?
A Waikato Times editorial suggests that 'beneficiary bashing' is the next most popular sport to rugby. It recommends venues to play and tools to use. Dripping with sarcasm of course. Charming.
As a prime critic of the welfare system it jars to be characterised as ignorant and indifferent but not enough to make me stop.
Yesterday I blogged about the outgoing MSD boss affirming that benefits are not best for children. Today a WINZ regional commissioner is saying, "We all know from the research that is being done that people are better off when they are not on benefits."
This statement seems commonsense and obvious but it is a substantial shift for a government department to publicly get in behind the ethos of the presiding government.
How good is a regime that requires more and more administration and delivers less teaching and learning? And are there any fans of NCEA out there?
A Waikato Times editorial suggests that 'beneficiary bashing' is the next most popular sport to rugby. It recommends venues to play and tools to use. Dripping with sarcasm of course. Charming.
As a prime critic of the welfare system it jars to be characterised as ignorant and indifferent but not enough to make me stop.
Yesterday I blogged about the outgoing MSD boss affirming that benefits are not best for children. Today a WINZ regional commissioner is saying, "We all know from the research that is being done that people are better off when they are not on benefits."
This statement seems commonsense and obvious but it is a substantial shift for a government department to publicly get in behind the ethos of the presiding government.
Tuesday, October 04, 2011
MSD boss admits benefits not best for kids
The outgoing chief executive of the Ministry of Social Development has at last acknowledged the findings of research conducted almost ten years ago. This is a welcome but long overdue admission.
Peter Hughes yesterday told a Wellington newspaper, 'We know that for the same level of income, kids do better where that income's derived from paid work.' He is referring to his own department's research that appeared in the Social Policy Journal of June 2002 but was never widely publicised. The findings would suggest that policy should aim to both reduce the number of children reliant on welfare and prevent more coming into the system. None of which happened under Mr Hughes' stewardship. The findings, and Hughes' belated admission, have implications for the many groups who oppose work-testing of the DPB and advocate a parent's right to stay on a benefit unconditionally.
Hughes also described how 'people get stuck [in the system] and they need help to get out' and characterised the welfare system as 'very passive for a long time'. Whether he believes the system has become less passive under his watch is unclear. While numbers on the unemployment benefit plummeted during the early to mid- 2000s, numbers on other benefits have risen or remained fairly static.
It is a great shame that the outgoing CE has waited until now to make these observations. And that senior public servants seem unable to draw public attention to matters of considerable national importance to the country within the boundaries of an apolitical civil service.
Peter Hughes yesterday told a Wellington newspaper, 'We know that for the same level of income, kids do better where that income's derived from paid work.' He is referring to his own department's research that appeared in the Social Policy Journal of June 2002 but was never widely publicised. The findings would suggest that policy should aim to both reduce the number of children reliant on welfare and prevent more coming into the system. None of which happened under Mr Hughes' stewardship. The findings, and Hughes' belated admission, have implications for the many groups who oppose work-testing of the DPB and advocate a parent's right to stay on a benefit unconditionally.
Hughes also described how 'people get stuck [in the system] and they need help to get out' and characterised the welfare system as 'very passive for a long time'. Whether he believes the system has become less passive under his watch is unclear. While numbers on the unemployment benefit plummeted during the early to mid- 2000s, numbers on other benefits have risen or remained fairly static.
It is a great shame that the outgoing CE has waited until now to make these observations. And that senior public servants seem unable to draw public attention to matters of considerable national importance to the country within the boundaries of an apolitical civil service.
Question about the murder rate
Never one to take things at face value something I notice about the large drop in recorded murders is this;
Going back two years to the 2008/09 year there were 88 homicides which compares to 93 in the latest year.
In 2008/09 manslaughter and driving causing death acccounted for 12 of the homicides. In the latest year that almost trebled to 35.
In 2008/09 murder accounted for 54 of the homicides. In the latest year that dropped to only 34.
The increase/decrease is a very similar margin.
How much of the drop in murder rate is due to the charge laid and conviction determined?
Going back two years to the 2008/09 year there were 88 homicides which compares to 93 in the latest year.
In 2008/09 manslaughter and driving causing death acccounted for 12 of the homicides. In the latest year that almost trebled to 35.
In 2008/09 murder accounted for 54 of the homicides. In the latest year that dropped to only 34.
The increase/decrease is a very similar margin.
How much of the drop in murder rate is due to the charge laid and conviction determined?
Monday, October 03, 2011
Greens finding fault with National's resourcefulness
Over on FrogBlog Meteria Turei is bemoaning National's move to loosen up regulation out-of-school care.
My comment is awaiting moderation:
"If the work-tested sole parent you refer to was themselves employed in before and after schoolcare – say 4 hours a day for 5 days a week – that would fulfil the part-time work-test. In the process they would be providing care for their own and other children. What’s wrong with that?"
Social Development Minister Paula Bennett has realised that if you’re going to work-test sole parents and force them into low-paid jobs when their children are six (or younger), someone’s going to have to look after the kids.
So she’s announced an extra $2.8 million for out of school care programmes, while lowering the standards for those programmes so they can fit more kids in without having to worry about “ticking boxes.”
Quality out of school care is critically important for many parents balancing full or part-time work with child rearing, and more funding for the sector is certainly welcome. However, I’m pretty concerned at the moves to reduce standards at the same time.
As a parent, it can be incredibly hard to leave your kids with carers – even the most trustworthy and able carers – without feeling stressed, anxious, or guilty. You want to be certain that your kids are safe and well looked after, and it helps if they’re with carers who will get to know them as individuals.
My comment is awaiting moderation:
"If the work-tested sole parent you refer to was themselves employed in before and after schoolcare – say 4 hours a day for 5 days a week – that would fulfil the part-time work-test. In the process they would be providing care for their own and other children. What’s wrong with that?"
Benefits and costs of a GMI
At the request of the Welfare Working Group Treasury produced a paper about a GMI (Gauranteed Minimum Income - not Gareth Morgan's Indulgence). Here is the table summarising benefits and costs:
Clearly the costs outweigh the benefits. But no doubt we will be treated to another sales pitch for Morgan's Big Kahuna in this week's NZ Herald.
Clearly the costs outweigh the benefits. But no doubt we will be treated to another sales pitch for Morgan's Big Kahuna in this week's NZ Herald.
Sunday, October 02, 2011
Saturday, October 01, 2011
Terry Serepisos - just like government
There seems to be a recurring theme for me this week. Extravagance with other people's money. Terry Serepisos is one example. He owed millions to people who have taken him on trust; paid for materials to do work for him; paid wages for people to do work for him; taken on their own debt waiting for him to pay up. It struck in the middle of the night, worrying about monies owed to me, I may be a victim of his foolhardiness myself as a downstream domino.
People laud him for the Phoenix but he was spending money and building debt. He is really no better than governments using tax and ratepayers money for things they don't need and don't want.
For instance, my local government, the Hutt City Coucil, is an assinine spenthrift. There are signs going up all over the place (not signs of belt-tightening either).
In our street there are six Norfolk pines. They have been designated 'protected trees'. Fine. But every single one has to have its own sign (each a duplicate) to inform the public of their hallowed status among things with roots and leaves.
A nearby alleyway suddenly has a name with signs, at either end just in case you miss it.
Now these bloody blue signs are popping up everywhere telling us the name of our home. I thought I lived in Eastbourne but no, I live in Muritai. But some people who think they live in Eastbourne have it confirmed. Indeed they do live in Eastbourne.
Entering the bays an enormous sign has been erected with symbols I have yet to work out completely. One means swimming - not shit Sherlock. You can swim in the sea?
Another looks like a narrow bridge of which we have none. Maybe the knife and fork is a reminder to check your picnic implements are of the 'safe' variety.
All of it costs money that cannot be spent elswhere. I know that a number of local businesses are teetering on the brink. The lotto and confectionary shop closed two weeks ago. I am sure business owners and other residents regard this splurge of signage with the same bewilderment and anger as I do.
Spending other people's money in an unrestrained, devil-may-care manner is bad enough in a boom. In that respect I can comprehend Serepisos' activities. But not now and not the council. They are just kicking sand in our faces.
Perhaps I could fashion my own sign warning off sand-kickers. But it'll have to wait till I am back in the black.
People laud him for the Phoenix but he was spending money and building debt. He is really no better than governments using tax and ratepayers money for things they don't need and don't want.
For instance, my local government, the Hutt City Coucil, is an assinine spenthrift. There are signs going up all over the place (not signs of belt-tightening either).
In our street there are six Norfolk pines. They have been designated 'protected trees'. Fine. But every single one has to have its own sign (each a duplicate) to inform the public of their hallowed status among things with roots and leaves.
A nearby alleyway suddenly has a name with signs, at either end just in case you miss it.
Now these bloody blue signs are popping up everywhere telling us the name of our home. I thought I lived in Eastbourne but no, I live in Muritai. But some people who think they live in Eastbourne have it confirmed. Indeed they do live in Eastbourne.
Entering the bays an enormous sign has been erected with symbols I have yet to work out completely. One means swimming - not shit Sherlock. You can swim in the sea?
Another looks like a narrow bridge of which we have none. Maybe the knife and fork is a reminder to check your picnic implements are of the 'safe' variety.
All of it costs money that cannot be spent elswhere. I know that a number of local businesses are teetering on the brink. The lotto and confectionary shop closed two weeks ago. I am sure business owners and other residents regard this splurge of signage with the same bewilderment and anger as I do.
Spending other people's money in an unrestrained, devil-may-care manner is bad enough in a boom. In that respect I can comprehend Serepisos' activities. But not now and not the council. They are just kicking sand in our faces.
Perhaps I could fashion my own sign warning off sand-kickers. But it'll have to wait till I am back in the black.
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Vernon Small poses a question about ACT
In today's DomPost Vernon Small asks whether John Key should continue to "hold out the lifeline to ACT" or:
I have my own question.
I want Brash, but I don't want Banks. Do I want Brash more than I don't want Banks? If ACT polls like it did in 2005 that's what ACT will be. No good for me.
So I'll keep watching the polls and waiting for number three to be announced.
"...would it be better in the long run (and more humane) to allow ACT and its damaged brand to die a quiet death? That may create room for a new liberal free market party to spring up on his right."
I have my own question.
I want Brash, but I don't want Banks. Do I want Brash more than I don't want Banks? If ACT polls like it did in 2005 that's what ACT will be. No good for me.
So I'll keep watching the polls and waiting for number three to be announced.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Gareth Morgan's vision
From Gareth Morgan's latest NZ Herald article:
All of the above should be delivered through civil society (sorry, can't find a better term ). That is people finding the means to create a "balance between paid and unpaid activity" through their relationships with each other.
Gareth Morgan wants the state to deliver it to people through taking "the means" off one and giving it to another.
The civil society involves no force - Morgan's vision involves significant force.
The civil society binds people - Morgan's vision isolates them.
The civil society (with increasing interference from the state) is the long-standing basis by which many (but not all) have lived happy and fulfilling lives - Morgan's vision is merely a re-run of demonstrably disastrous utopian fantasies.
"...we need a system of redistribution that gives to each adult the means to live in dignity in the absence of paid work, delivering to all the freedom to find a balance between paid and unpaid activity, while ensuring that all those who do seek paid work get rewarded for their efforts."
All of the above should be delivered through civil society (sorry, can't find a better term ). That is people finding the means to create a "balance between paid and unpaid activity" through their relationships with each other.
Gareth Morgan wants the state to deliver it to people through taking "the means" off one and giving it to another.
The civil society involves no force - Morgan's vision involves significant force.
The civil society binds people - Morgan's vision isolates them.
The civil society (with increasing interference from the state) is the long-standing basis by which many (but not all) have lived happy and fulfilling lives - Morgan's vision is merely a re-run of demonstrably disastrous utopian fantasies.
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
More on the ACT dope debacle
ACT was always supposed to be the party of ideas. That was what I constantly heard when I was involved. That means leading thinking; expressing possibly contentious ideas; and influencing reform.
When one of them rightly waves that flag, others run a mile. Pathetic.
Banks is an idiot. He doesn't, never did and never will belong in a party of new ideas. He can't even get his head around this debate not being about drugs good/drugs bad. It's about whether the way authorities and lawmakers currently approach them is effective.
The current approach is riddled with inconsistencies and hypocrisies. If that is what society thinks will make the best impression on young minds then it is deluding itself.
When one of them rightly waves that flag, others run a mile. Pathetic.
Banks is an idiot. He doesn't, never did and never will belong in a party of new ideas. He can't even get his head around this debate not being about drugs good/drugs bad. It's about whether the way authorities and lawmakers currently approach them is effective.
The current approach is riddled with inconsistencies and hypocrisies. If that is what society thinks will make the best impression on young minds then it is deluding itself.
Monday, September 26, 2011
Campbell poll - 72 percent say 'yes' to decriminalising cannabis
John Campbell just conducted a poll on the back of interviews with both Don Brash and John not-over-my-dead-body Banks.
Should cannabis be decriminalised and 72 percent texted YES.
A Stuff poll shows 77 percent support.
A NZ Herald poll is less emphatic with 48 percent of over 16,000 saying yes.
Honestly? I am surprised but very pleased at that result.
As for the Brash/Banks schism, business as usual for ACT. Just much more publicly overt.
Should cannabis be decriminalised and 72 percent texted YES.
A Stuff poll shows 77 percent support.
A NZ Herald poll is less emphatic with 48 percent of over 16,000 saying yes.
Honestly? I am surprised but very pleased at that result.
As for the Brash/Banks schism, business as usual for ACT. Just much more publicly overt.
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Good on Don
Kiwiblog reports Don Brash calling for the decriminalisation of cannabis. Good for him. Even the Greens aren't pushing this barrow anymore.
Act leader Don Brash is calling for the decriminalisation of cannabis.
He says prohibition of the drug hasn’t worked, and policing it costs millions of tax payer dollars and clogs up the court system.
He’s told TVNZ’s Q&A programme there are other ways to restrict the use of marijuana.
“It’s estimated thousands of New Zealanders use cannabis on a fairly regular basis, 6,000 are prosecuted every year, a $100million of tax payers money is spent to police this law,” says My Brash.
Act leader Don Brash is calling for the decriminalisation of cannabis.
He says prohibition of the drug hasn’t worked, and policing it costs millions of tax payer dollars and clogs up the court system.
He’s told TVNZ’s Q&A programme there are other ways to restrict the use of marijuana.
“It’s estimated thousands of New Zealanders use cannabis on a fairly regular basis, 6,000 are prosecuted every year, a $100million of tax payers money is spent to police this law,” says My Brash.
Saturday, September 24, 2011
Separatism versus secularism
New Zealand is a secular state. The public service is secular in its practices and policies. If you are Pakeha.
Maori spiritualism and cultural beliefs are another matter however.
A fine example of this can be seen in a report just released by MSD.
It canvasses child misconduct and the ways in which the state deals with the problem.
IF a different approach were successful, and IF correcting child misconduct is to continue be the job of the state, then so be it.
BUT research into the effectiveness of the Maori world-view approach conducted by Professor David Fergusson warned:
Maori spiritualism and cultural beliefs are another matter however.
A fine example of this can be seen in a report just released by MSD.
It canvasses child misconduct and the ways in which the state deals with the problem.
Te Hohounga: Mai I Te Tirohanga Māori – The Process of Reconciliation: Towards a Māori View - The Delivery of Conduct Problem Services to Māori (Te Hohounga). The report was commissioned by the Ministry of Social Development in 2009. The author, Lisa Cherrington, (Ngati Hine, Ngapuhi), is a Senior Clinical Psychologist, School of Psychology, Massey University.
Te Hohounga contributes toward a Māori view of conduct problems and to provide advice on how Māori tamariki, taiohi and whānau experiencing conduct problems receive the most effective and culturally enhancing interventions possible and on improving behavioural services for Māori....
The starting point to Te Hohounga is the importance of indigenous knowledge and identity, and how this is reflected in mythology stories to understand, and respond to, conduct problems:
“Kōrero pūrākau (mythology stories) highlight the impact of separation. After Ranginui and Papatuanuku were separated, their children all had different reactions. Kōrero pūrākau show us how our atua coped, adapted and dealt with change, separation and loss. Aspects of tikanga came about from the actions of the atua who were reacting to the changes. In addition, the pūrākau show the capacity for both positive and negative actions. When considering the behaviour of each of the children, the pūrākau reflect a strong, strengths-based focus. This is relevant to viewing conduct problems within a Te Ao Māori perspective”.
IF a different approach were successful, and IF correcting child misconduct is to continue be the job of the state, then so be it.
BUT research into the effectiveness of the Maori world-view approach conducted by Professor David Fergusson warned:
These findings do pose a challenge to current policies aimed at reducing the over-representation of Māori children in rates of child maltreatment, which emphasise “identity interventions” that are not evidence-based and are largely ideologically driven. Even though such policies are no doubt well intentioned and observe statutory requirements unique to the New Zealand context, following the view expounded by UNICEF (2003, 2007), they must be exposed to ongoing critical scrutiny and empirical evaluation.
Friday, September 23, 2011
Child poverty - what is left unsaid
In the run up to the election, groups wanting the government to solve child poverty have been very active. A mix of academics, political activists, religious lobby groups etc. say that 200,000 New Zealand children are living in poverty thereby significantly increasing their risks of poor health, educational and social outcomes.
But who are these children? The Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG), authors of the latest report, Left Further Behind, are not specific about the group’s composition. They make observations like, “The[se] poorest children in New Zealand are found disproportionately in sole parent households…” and “Māori children are twice as likely as Pākehā to be living in a poor household … a fact the report identifies as reflecting the relatively high proportion of Maori children living in sole parent beneficiary families and households.” Some of the children also live in two-parent working households apparently.
Other sources, The Child Health Monitor 2011 for instance, provide further clues. It records that in April 2011 children reliant on the DPB numbered 180,845. Also, “During 2009, 75% of all households (including those with and without children) relying on income-tested benefits as their main source of income were living below the poverty line.”
Assuming an unchanged proportion, 75% of the 180,845 DPB-dependent children are living below the poverty line; around 135,600. So two thirds of the child poverty problem relates to DPB reliance.
Recent Ministry of Social Development research into sole parents on benefits found,"The research considered all sole parents in receipt of a main benefit at 31 December 2005 – around 114,000 people. Of this group: just over half had spent at least 80% of the history period supported by main benefits; a third appeared to have become parents in their teens."
Importantly, a third is a minimum estimate due to the method of calculation. The research also found that the ‘early starters’ tended to have larger families, more debt and greater hardship. Putting together the pieces thus far, conservatively 60,000 of the children living in poverty belong in welfare families which sprang from a teenage birth.
Surprisingly CPAG’s report mentions teen births just once and then only as an OECD indicator of child well-being, not as a significant source of child poverty.
The CPAG’s approach is one of government responsibility after the fact. It chides the Welfare Working Group for over-emphasising individual responsibilities rather than human rights. CPAG’s attention is on their cure - a greater shift of wealth into these families – and not prevention.
Given the increasing ability of young people to avoid early births, that is odd. Young people across socio-economic levels are having relationships and sex. But most of the births to teenagers occur in the poorest deciles – 56 percent in the lowest three and 23 percent in the poorest. Poor, uneducated girls have less to lose when choosing or failing to avoid premature parenthood. A benefit will pay equal to or more than working full time at the minimum wage.
Yet the major recommendation advanced by CPAG is to increase benefits. Given the above set of circumstances, it isn’t difficult to anticipate what raising benefits may do. Increase the number of children on benefits.
Does that matter? Yes. When the Ministry of Social Development studied whether the source of income mattered to the living standards of poor children in benefit households versus poor children in working households they found that, "The results demonstrate that there is considerable variation in the living standards of those below the poverty threshold, and suggest that poor children in families with government transfers as the main income source are a particularly vulnerable group...Poor children whose families are primarily reliant on market income are in an intermediate position."
This indicates that poverty, of itself, isn’t necessarily the problem. Yet CPAG, and their counterparts, seem quite reluctant to pin down the 200,000 children by family structure, employment status or ethnicity.
They certainly aren’t interested in a discussion about the long-term impacts of New Zealand’s high teenage birth rate, especially among Maori. If they were, a report into reducing child poverty would be the very place to have it.
But who are these children? The Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG), authors of the latest report, Left Further Behind, are not specific about the group’s composition. They make observations like, “The[se] poorest children in New Zealand are found disproportionately in sole parent households…” and “Māori children are twice as likely as Pākehā to be living in a poor household … a fact the report identifies as reflecting the relatively high proportion of Maori children living in sole parent beneficiary families and households.” Some of the children also live in two-parent working households apparently.
Other sources, The Child Health Monitor 2011 for instance, provide further clues. It records that in April 2011 children reliant on the DPB numbered 180,845. Also, “During 2009, 75% of all households (including those with and without children) relying on income-tested benefits as their main source of income were living below the poverty line.”
Assuming an unchanged proportion, 75% of the 180,845 DPB-dependent children are living below the poverty line; around 135,600. So two thirds of the child poverty problem relates to DPB reliance.
Recent Ministry of Social Development research into sole parents on benefits found,"The research considered all sole parents in receipt of a main benefit at 31 December 2005 – around 114,000 people. Of this group: just over half had spent at least 80% of the history period supported by main benefits; a third appeared to have become parents in their teens."
Importantly, a third is a minimum estimate due to the method of calculation. The research also found that the ‘early starters’ tended to have larger families, more debt and greater hardship. Putting together the pieces thus far, conservatively 60,000 of the children living in poverty belong in welfare families which sprang from a teenage birth.
Surprisingly CPAG’s report mentions teen births just once and then only as an OECD indicator of child well-being, not as a significant source of child poverty.
The CPAG’s approach is one of government responsibility after the fact. It chides the Welfare Working Group for over-emphasising individual responsibilities rather than human rights. CPAG’s attention is on their cure - a greater shift of wealth into these families – and not prevention.
Given the increasing ability of young people to avoid early births, that is odd. Young people across socio-economic levels are having relationships and sex. But most of the births to teenagers occur in the poorest deciles – 56 percent in the lowest three and 23 percent in the poorest. Poor, uneducated girls have less to lose when choosing or failing to avoid premature parenthood. A benefit will pay equal to or more than working full time at the minimum wage.
Yet the major recommendation advanced by CPAG is to increase benefits. Given the above set of circumstances, it isn’t difficult to anticipate what raising benefits may do. Increase the number of children on benefits.
Does that matter? Yes. When the Ministry of Social Development studied whether the source of income mattered to the living standards of poor children in benefit households versus poor children in working households they found that, "The results demonstrate that there is considerable variation in the living standards of those below the poverty threshold, and suggest that poor children in families with government transfers as the main income source are a particularly vulnerable group...Poor children whose families are primarily reliant on market income are in an intermediate position."
This indicates that poverty, of itself, isn’t necessarily the problem. Yet CPAG, and their counterparts, seem quite reluctant to pin down the 200,000 children by family structure, employment status or ethnicity.
They certainly aren’t interested in a discussion about the long-term impacts of New Zealand’s high teenage birth rate, especially among Maori. If they were, a report into reducing child poverty would be the very place to have it.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
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.
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.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
DPB dependency records
A journalist from the Waikato Times has been investigating long-term benefit dependence in her region:
Bear in mind these periods describe continuous dependency. If people leave welfare and return, the clock starts afresh.
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 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.
Monday, September 19, 2011
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."
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.
‘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?
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?
Sunday, September 18, 2011
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.
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.
Friday, September 16, 2011
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:
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:
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.
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.
Thursday, September 15, 2011
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?
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?
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
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.
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.
Monday, September 12, 2011
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.
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.
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.
Sunday, September 11, 2011
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:
He hasn't been looking very hard for it.
Historian Bronwyn Labrum reviewed child welfare files from the 1950s and 60s.
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)
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)
Thursday, September 08, 2011
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.
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.
Tuesday, September 06, 2011
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.
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.
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.
Monday, September 05, 2011
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.
Sunday, September 04, 2011
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.
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.
Saturday, September 03, 2011
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.
Friday, September 02, 2011
"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.
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.
Thursday, September 01, 2011
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
