Dating dogs

Anyone else having problems with Blogger?

Disappearing posts (even this is a second try).

John Banks on why Epsom voters should vote for him

Campbell Live tonight.

Banks says a vote for him is a vote for "Brand Key".

Still going on about branding.

Having a philosophy or a set of principles is just so old hat.

Replaced by brand spend and brand spend more.

How I shall resent giving my vote to you Mr Banks.

I hope this won't be exploited by the Opposition

If you were watching the build-up to the NZ Cup on Trackside you would have observed John Key seemingly talking during the called-for minute's silence for the earthquake victims - John Key and thousands of others.

How do you quiet people in the midst of a riotous party - a deserved party?

Trying to get 'over it' (with consideration to the families that lost members) means not having to constantly recall the grief. Especially not in the middle of what should be a welcome distraction.

The Addington Stand has been demolished but Christchurch managed to put on the great event. Then in the middle of it someone thought it would be a good idea to send everybody enjoying themselves on a massive guilt trip for being alive. Naturally it was less than successful.

Raising benefits increases the rate of unmarried birth...

...which increases dependence on welfare.

Extending the IWTC to beneficiaries increases benefit payments.

If you want some evidence go the my Welfare Reform website and click on 'recommended books' in the lefthand column.

Then click on Michael Tanner's The End of Welfare and go to page 78. He cites 8 studies that show the correlation.

If you don't like US research go here.

Labour desperate with diametrically opposed positions

Today Labour released its welfare policy, now named ' child policy'.

According to the NZ Herald:

"We consider that the ways the In Work Tax Credit stigmatises beneficiary families, undervalues care, and keeps poor families income unnecessarily low outweigh any remaining issues about work incentives," the policy says.

It was Labour that introduced the In Work Tax Credit because they believed that the best way out of poverty was work.

This is a major turn around. It betrays their earlier position, arrived at under better intellects than Annette King's.

The Social Security Amendment Bill 2006, passed under Labour revolved around the principle:

"Work in paid employment offers the best opportunity for people to achieve social and economic well-being."

This policy reneges on that position. Implementation of it would drive up beneficiary numbers as the financial incentive to work is destroyed.

Observation about competition

Watching TV these days nobody can not notice just how much competition shapes what's on offer. Constant Master Chefs, survival shows, talent shows like X Factor, American Idol and whatever-countries Got Talent, home development shows like The Block, Dancing With The Stars and so on.

Radical feminists, and their co-opts, tried to shape a modern culture that largely obliterated competiton. Because competition means winners and losers; competition means hurt feelings; competition challenges equality of outcomes.

What a bitch. They lost.

National's welfare reforms - lots of smoke but not much fire

My column about National's welfare reform proposals has just been published over at The NZ Centre for Political Research.

4 in 5 reject Gareth Morgan's plan

Three NZ Herald reporters took to the road and interviewed 522 people about the upcoming election and their reponse to policies. They call it their Mood of the Nation Survey and it will no doubt provide a number of articles over the next week or so.

Today they detail how most are apparently still against sole parents being work-tested because it would hurt the children. I have to do better on getting across the other side of the coin; that the DPB hurts the children more by often depriving them of fathers, and keeping them poor environments where the risk of neglect and abuse is higher. At least the government is well aware of the reality.

But some good news:

And 79 per cent reject Dr Morgan's proposed $11,000 basic income for everyone, because it would encourage some not to work and because it would be too harsh for sole parents, who now get at least $19,600 including family tax credits, and superannuitants, who get $17,700 if living alone.

Only 15 per cent support the idea and 5 per cent agree in part. "You'd be taking from people what they are entitled to, to give to other people who might not need it," says Devonport doctor Amanda Jones.

So the general noise Morgan says shows New Zealanders want a new way and all the favourable response by way of comment to his series of articles in the NZ Herald isn't reflected amongst the broader community.

Announcing...WELFAREREFORM.CO.NZ

For some time I have been working on a new website called Welfare Reform. This has only been possible because of the generous help of Linda Reid who encouraged me to create a more comprehensive site than just my blog. Linda has done all the technical work involved in building the site unpaid. And I am indebted to her.

With the election less than three weeks away it is ready to officially launch.

The site is intended to be a resource for anyone interested in welfare reform. It contains most of the information I have obtained from the Ministry of Social Development under the Official Information Act since 2001. It has links to overseas sites, recommended books, press releases, interviews etc.

Because it has taken me so long to put together given my changed 'occupational' circumstances this year, there is a possibility some of the information or a link may have already become obsolete. If you find anything that doesn't work please let me know.

And if any fellow bloggers want to link to the site that would be much appreciated.

National's welfare policies - time to bring out the accusations of "misogyny"

I was just listening to political commentator Linda Clark on TV3 saying she thinks there is a gender split in the response to National's welfare policy. That even well-paid, well-educated women like her (and she included the interviewer) have trouble juggling children and work and affording quality childcare so (by inference) they empathise with the plight of poorer women. The males she has heard commenting On the policy seem on the other hand to think people will like it.

This is the slant the left are putting on the proposals. That they are misogynistic.

Shallow. Do they really believe that the way the DPB has undermined family and harmed children means more of it is needed? That when all is said and done the DPB has been good for women?

Apart from which, the women I speak to feel somewhat aggrieved that they work, get maligned for putting their kids in childcare and pay the taxes that fund others who get praised for staying home. One, reacting to the idea that a child added to a benefit should get one year of state assistance in line with parental leave said to me, nobody with a job gets a year of paid parental leave.

Also I hear plenty of female callers to talkback supporting a toughening up on welfare.

Clark went on to say she didn't even think Paula Bennett was comfortable with the policy watching her body language. I saw an interview with John Campbell and Bennett didn't look comfortable to be honest. She needs to spend more time enunciating what the problems are instead of defending the details of the policy. She needs to come out and attack the people who would preserve the status quo or extend welfare. Their's - and Linda Clark's - is that 'soft bigotry of low expectations.'

Thanks

Many thanks to all of you who sent birthday wishes yesterday via Facebook and e-mail. Much appreciated. Sorry I haven't sent personal thanks. Have been frantically busy. National's release of its welfare policy meant I had a number of calls for a response. I did a couple of radio interviews but turned down TVNZ. I just couldn't face the sleepless night that typically precedes an early morning slot. A full column about the reforms has just been completed and I will post it soon. Have quite a bit of artwork queued up and kids have assignments and end-of-year exams which they need help with. So I better get on!

Blog stats

Don't know if Tumeke is still collecting these but as I have nothing else to say today....yet..... I thought I'd post my stats. Next month will be the blog's 6th birthday. Golly how time flies.

Welfare policy: Lots of name-changing hides lack of substance

I don't like all the name changes. What will the IT implementation and printing costs be? The problems of dependency aren't going to be changed by re-naming benefits. I have always opposed name changes, as did National when Labour looked like doing it. Ironically now Labour opposes what National looks like doing.

The part-time work-testing on the DPB drops from youngest child aged 6 to 5. However if another child is added the work-testing rules are suspended for one year. Because a lot of people transit on and off the DPB it'll be interesting to see if the same rule applies to a new benefit spell. Unhappily there is still room for someone to keep adding a children to avoid work-testing.

Between one third and a half of current DPB recipients started on welfare as teenagers. If a teenager can still get 5 years on the DPB without work-testing (and at 16 or 17, five years into the future is a very long time away) is that going to be a big enough discouragement to stop this continuing to happen? Many countries - US, some Canadian provinces and Sweden is thereabouts - expect parents to be in work from when the youngest is one. Norway at three.
The WWG recommended dropping the age to three. Which is when free early childhood education kicks in.

The sickness benefit is already work-tested so no change there.

Reduction goals. They are talking about 66,000 in the next 4 years. In the 4 years running up to 2008, a strong economic growth period, the Unemployment Benefit alone dropped by 52,000. So if the economy improves the goal doesn't look particularly ambitious.

National's leaked welfare policy

NewstalkZB has me saying that National's leaked goal of moving 46,000 off a benefit is "unambitious". I suggested they could double that target. Not sure if they are using other soundbites from the comments I made on request (with very limited information) but here is my reasoning.

People will naturally leave the unemployment benefit as the economy improves. They already are. That's what happened between 2004 and 2007 when the total on the dole dropped by 45,000. So National could meet their three year target without any focus or improvement on the other benefits.

I also said that at $9000 a job, that's very expensive from the taxpayer's point of view. Especially if an improving economy can achieve the same reduction without the extra expenditure.

And it's all very well to talk about moving people off welfare but the arguably more important goal is to stop them moving on. For example of all the babies born in 2010 23 percent were relying on welfare by the end of the year. People going on the DPB with a newborn will frequently stay there for many years - unlike those who typically have a much shorter stay on the unemployment benefit.

Maori Party rejects 'free lunches'?

Rarely do I fall on the same side of an argument as Tariana Turia. But on the subject of expecting the state to feed breakfast and lunch to children I give her a tick.

“Whanau should feed our own children – not politicians” says Turia

Of course this stance has been prompted by Hone Harawira's call for the opposite.

Tariana continues however:

“Gone are the days when we allow the State to take over the role of families; to encourage whanau to abdicate their responsibilities” said Mrs Turia.

You only need to look at my previous post to see the absurdity of that statement.

“The last thing we need is for another politician to come in to save our families by handing out free breakfast and free lunch to their kids”.

“It’s patronizing, it’s demeaning and it devalues the vital capacity of our whanau to take responsibility for their own children’.

Now all you need to do is develop that line of thinking. Doesn't handing out benefit cash do the same?

“Hone has picked a number out of the air ($38m) but the costings are at least ten times that” said Mrs Turia “and that’s not for all children either”.

“If we provided free breakfast and lunch to the children the Child Poverty Action Group has classified as living in poverty (230,000) that brings a cost of $368m per year – that’s right - a billion dollars for the next term of Parliament to authorise politicians to take over the rights and responsibilities of families”.

Well said. Good to see an influential politician doing the sums. Next do them on what extending the In Work Tax Credit to beneficiary parents would cost, your policy. Even more.

“We must resist any attempts by politicians to paint our families as incapable of doing for themselves. We should be working to inspire hope; to remind our whanau of their capability to feed their children, provide a healthy lifestyle, a warm and secure home”.

“Government’s job is to ensure that there is support for families to look after their own; that there is meaningful work available; and a minimum wage of at least $16 an hour”.

"Support for families" must be code for the DPB which Tariana has always backed. So it is OK for the government to "encourage whanau to abdicate their responsibilities" after all? Because that's exactly what the DPB does.

The government's job is to ensure they do not get in the way of the economy producing jobs, for example, by enforcing minimum wages.

“And we must restore to ourselves our time-honoured traditions. The Maori Party has invested in the recreation of maara kai so that our whanau can fend for themselves, determine their own futures”.

“Our whanau are our future – not a politician handing out a free lunch”.

In the final analysis she doesn't want a literal free lunch but a figurative one is just fine.

What if all women relied on welfare like Maori?

When the Welfare Working Group first reported back on the 'issues', greater light was shed on the disproportionate reliance of Maori women on welfare. Nothing new to me but at least the data was getting a wider airing. One of their statistics was:

In 2006 40 percent of Maori women aged 20-29 were beneficiaries.

Always keen to have data that is current, I asked the Ministry of Social Development how many Maori women were dependent at the end of 2010. I matched their response against Statistics NZ population estimates. Here is the result:




This is quite revealing. Nearing half are dependent when young, but many do not overcome that dependency. While quite a few Maori women will go into work after raising a family, many others won't and will appear in either the DPB, DPB Women Alone, Unemployment, Sickness or Invalid Benefit statistics. Maori women disproportionately experience ill-health, unemployment or take on care-giving for sick dependants, grand children or other whanau.

Anyway, if the rate of dependence for working-age Maori women extended across women in general, there would be almost half a million working-age New Zealand females on a benefit.

As it stands there are around 190,000.

My memories of Roger

In 2001 I had decided to take on the DPB and started making as much fuss as I could. That included circulating my petition to the NZBR. A complete political/activist novice I rang Roger Kerr with a great deal of trepidation. It was unnecessary. Roger wasn't dismissive. He was interested and receptive though he warned that getting endorsement from members might be difficult. He wasn't wrong.

To receive petition copies I had set up a P O Box. One day, clearing it, I found a large package. Given some of the very hostile letters waiting for me most days I regarded the package with some nervousness. To my delight and gratitude the package was from Roger and contained all the NZBR publications pertaining to welfare. It came out of the blue. But I understand today, with my own pathway in and out of politics and reasonably rapid realisation that influencing thinking is just as important as political power, that for Roger, sharing ideas, and especially sowing them on fertile ground, was paramount.

In 2008 I approached Roger again. This time book in hand. He took time to read it, call me in and go through it page by page. It was a wonderfully self-interested free market gesture. He wanted a part of my book and I wanted critique. From that meeting came the paper the NZBR published in 2009 which led to more occasions when I would enjoy Roger (and Catherine's) company.

I remember turning up for the media launch of the paper and Roger leaping forward with his typical energy, smiling broadly at me saying something like "here's the star tonight". Absolutely the wrong thing to say to an introvert like me but he meant to make me feel welcome and to give me confidence.

One night during the 2008 political campaign I was called on to stand in for Rodney at a student meeting at Victoria. Roger and I took the affirmative for free trade. He was very experienced and accomplished. I was out of my league. But neither the audience nor myself was made to feel as though Roger was superior, above us, imbued with some god-given truth. Roger knew that persuasion meant honest and non-personal debate. In fact I think he was Mr non-Nasty. A rarity in the emotional arena of philosophical ideas.

Roger made time for people. He was humble and magnanimous. He could never have met the low standards of politicians and political debate in the house. And neither will Catherine (which is why I am voting for her.)

It is so very sad that he won't be around to continue this hugely important work for what I would have easily entertained as another 20-30 years. But mostly I feel for his and his closest's personal loss.

As someone who always tries to make sense out of untimely and undeserved loss I will resolve to keep trying to persuade people to ideas that will make New Zealand a better place. Can't do it a patch on the way you did it Roger but a few of us might add up to the sum you were.

Best reason for giving my party vote to ACT

The best reason for giving my party vote to ACT.

Raise the Super age - now

About Labour's Raising the Age for Super policy Winston Peters says:

“It is mean spirited to expect a person who has raised a family and paid his or her taxes to go out job seeking at the age of 66 – particularly if there are not enough jobs to go around as is the situation now."

Cute. Winston is of course job-seeking at 66. Hopefully there aren't enough "jobs to go around" for him.

When the first Old Age Pension was instituted in 1898 the qualifying age was 65. Today it is unchanged. In his 1997 work Reforming New Zealand Welfare, Michael Jones wrote,

“If the age of eligibility for New Zealand Superannuation was adjusted to equal average periods on the aged pension in 1900, the eligibility would now be 75 for men and 80 for women.”

In the last 14 years life expectancies have extended further. People are living longer and longer yet expect to receive Super at the same age. (Interestingly other long-standing age-based laws, for example the qualifying age for a driver's licence, can be changed. No doubt because there isn't a substantial voting backlash.)

At a time when the economy is in undeniable trouble, lifting the qualifying age for Super would save billions. But it needs to happen now and it needs to happen decisively and clearly. Labour say they want to raise the age for super eligibility to 65. In the next breath they say they will make an exception for people who can't work past 65. If someone can't work due to illness or disability they go on the relevant benefit.

Why is it that so many superannuitants are happy to have their pension linked to the CPI and average wage but not average life expectancy?

Greens evade by omission

Got a Green's campaign leaflet in the letterbox today. It is carefully evasive by omission.

Under their heading, Bring 100,000 children out of poverty they promise to "Extend 'Working For Families' so 140,000 of the poorest households with children have an extra $60 per week."

OK. The policy accurately described is to extend the In Work Tax Credit to beneficiary parents.

The Greens have intentionally omitted any reference to the In Work Tax Credit because most thinking people (and even the Greens want to appeal to thinkers) will immediately question the wisdom of giving a tax credit designed to incentivise work, to people who are not working.

Beneficiary parents already receive WFF in the form of Family Tax Credits which are not ungenerous.

Very shabby.

A poser for you

Earlier this week orange ribbons began appearing on most lamposts in Eastbourne. At least, south of the shops. Initially I thought the posts were being marked for some sort of maintenance. Then, walking dog, I noticed the same ribbons had been tied to the railings that go over the steps at the esplanade seawall. At which point I figured it was some sort of stunt. 2 days later plaques sporting whatzone.co.nz began appearing over some of the ribbons. Well, I thought, someone has gone to so much trouble to get my attention, it would be churlish not to do what they want me to.

Have a look.

Any ideas as to what this is about? Anyone more imaginative than me want to take a stab? Not some bureaucratic council zoning according to tsunami threat I hope.

ACT and Labour agree

Labour has apparently just announced policy to raise the eligibility age for Super.

So ACT and Labour agree on a major issue.

Interesting.

Sorry to bang on but.....

....Trevor Mallard is unfortunately my MP so I take an especial interest in his blog.


Average and Median Weekly Household Income(1)

June 2008 quarter

Total "Median:
all sources collected"

1,271


The above figures are copied from the NZ Income Survey

Now check out Trevor's Blog.

He has the figure at $1,371 and writes about National, "After just three years, they’ve managed to slice $82 a week off the income of the typical household."



The graph should clearly indicate that the data has been adjusted.

Another new addition to 'blogs I read'

I like this girl.

"More children are safe"?

In the just-released Ministry of Social Development Annual Report the following facts appear under the heading More children are safe

- In 2010/2011, we received 150,747 Care and Protection notifications. This is an increase of 20.7 per cent from 2009/2010. The increase was due, in part, to the number of family violence referrals from the New Zealand Police and the greater visibility of child abuse in the community.

- The number of substantiated abuse/neglect cases within six months of previous abuse/neglect finding increased from 1,797 in 2008/2009, to 2,253 in 2009/2010, to 2,509 in 2010/2011.

- The rate of substantiated abuse/neglect within six months of previous abuse/neglect finding increased from 2.21 per 1,000 children aged 0–16 years in 2009/2010, to 2.48 per 1,000 children in 2010/2011.

If more children are safe MSD must believe that they have only previously detected and dealt with a small portion of those who are either abused, neglected or at risk.

Can we have some policy like this please?

Rick Perry is a Republican, is the governor of Texas and a candidate for president.

Read his plan for the US here.

Flat tax, tax exempt income to $12,000, spending cap for federal government set at 18% of GDP, a ban on bail-outs......and Texas is not the basketcase other US states have become.

According to Muriel Newman today:

Texas has a small government, with a legislature that meets for only 90 days every two years. Taxes are low and there is no state income tax. As a result, its economy thrives as large and small businesses generate new jobs. Unemployment rates have been below the national average for more than a decade. In spite of weak state sector unions, public services are said to be superior, with education test scores higher than those in many other states.

Americans have been voting with their feet and moving to Texas at double the rate of any other state. Texas is also a magnet to families from abroad, who are attracted by a small, low-tax government that encourages creativity and opportunity.

More Mallard graphs

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?

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.

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.

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:

• 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.

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.

Welfare reform "controversial"?

According to Audrey Young:

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.

Only because this country is up-to-the-eyeballs in entitlement culture and learned helplessness.

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.

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?

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.

"Bribery and corruption "

The Mana Party has just announced its social welfare policy:

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.

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.)

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

Green's strawman - poor people are bad

Stuff has an interview with Green Co-leader Russel Norman:

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.

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.

ACT's priorities - welfare missed again

The Nelson Mail reports on a meeting held by Don Brash:

"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.

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.

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.

Organ donation - another awful NZ record

Here's a new idea (and they are rare):

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."

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.

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.

Forget about nanny state...

Front page NZ Herald:

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.

Falling newspaper circulation

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.

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.''

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

GM announces new car

(Arrived in my inbox from South America)

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.

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:

"...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.

Gareth Morgan's vision

From Gareth Morgan's latest NZ Herald article:

"...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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.