Green's cynical exaggeration of child poverty

The Greens are riding the child poverty issue for all its worth. According to Stuff , quoting Meteria Turei from yesterday:

There were 275,000 children living in severe poverty and two out of every five of those children came from households with parents in work but whose pay rates were too low, she said.

The figure seems to grow at each turn. That's the highest I have seen yet.

What do official measurement sources say?


• In 2010, there were 1.07m dependent children (under 18) – on the measures in Table S.2, between 170,000 and 270,000 children were in households with incomes below the low-income thresholds (ie ‘in poverty’).
• In 2010, on the Social Report measure (AHC ‘fixed line’ 60%), there were 230,000 (22%) children in households below the low-income threshold (ie ‘in poverty’), down from 380,000 (37%) in 2001.

Note though Turei's use of the word "severe".

Severe poverty would be indicated by using not the After Housing Costs (AHC) 60 % threshold but the AHC 50 % threshold which is 16 percent.

That produces a number of 171,200.

But what does it matter if you overstate a problem by one hundred thousand plus when you can trust the media to accept anything you say?

Another sad sack

Just another sad sack who thinks the world owes them a living.

Yes it was incompetent of New Zealand authorities to miss his deliberate deception. But systems are set up based on most people's propensity to be honest.

I have been ripped off by someone I did a lot of work for this year and who now refuses to pay me. I could be described as 'incompetent' for doing the work up front. But isn't that how most people operate? On trust? And I don't plan to change my modus operandi because of one toe rag.

This WINZ fraudster is just another example of someone who promotes an utter inversion of values. He should be held up as such. He is the embodiment of the enemy of honesty.

"Labour welfare policy a sham"

A variation on an earlier blog post published in today's NZ Herald on-line opinion page.

Insight into how OECD operatives think

I have mentioned before that James Bartholomew is writing a new book about welfare. Researching it he recently spent some time at the OECD. His observations about concepts that are currently influencing the thinking in that organisation are not very encouraging:

"As part of the research for my new book, I visited the OECD last week and interviewed eight people there. The concept of low inequality being a ‘good thing’ was referred to explicitly or implicitly a remarkable number of times.... There are certain concepts that were taken for granted as being valid and important at the OECD. In addition to low inequality, there was the idea that women should work because of both economic efficiency and equality with men. The concepts that did not get so much of a look-in were personal freedom, personal responsibility and the idea that families headed by the natural, married parents might be good for the children."

Two little boys...

...had two little toys.

Sorry. There is no relevance to the poignant song Rolf Harris used to sing. Regardless, the lyric and melody entered my head as I read about two little boys. Now dead. The first a one year-old and the second aged two. One from Otahuhu and the other from Orakei. Both families known to Child Youth and Family Services.

The Mexican stand-off that is Epsom

According to Stuff:

The ACT Party is facing an election wipeout – with a new poll showing Epsom voters have been turned off by last week's tea party.

A Fairfax Media-Research Media International mini-poll of 200 eligible Epsom voters showed National's Paul Goldsmith easily winning the seat on 45.5 per cent.

ACT candidate John Banks trailed on 29.1 per cent, while Labour's David Parker had 14.6 per cent. The snap poll, taken on Tuesday, showed last Friday's meeting with National leader John Key shifted support away from Mr Banks.

Almost 30 per cent said they were now less likely to vote for him. Just under 23 per cent said Mr Key's public endorsement made it more likely they would favour Mr Banks. About 43 per cent said it made no difference. However, the poll also showed almost 40 per cent were undecided over the blue-ribbon seat, suggesting voters were waiting to see if National needed ACT as a support partner.

And the rest of us potential ACT voters are waiting to see if you will put ACT back in. This is a classic Mexican stand off.

If John Banks can't win Epsom I am not wasting my vote and effectively giving the Left another tick. My voting priority is making sure Labour can't form a coalition with more seats than National.

But the results also tell us that John Banks was the wrong choice for Epsom and the wrong choice for ACT.

Now it's National's turn to tell porkies

I try to be even-handed and give credit where it is due. At least National are talking about criminals who continue to receive welfare (in the thousands) and women who add babies to their benefit (also in the thousands) but in their latest Welfare Fraud document they make this patently untrue statement.

"Labour did nothing to stop fraud and abuse of the welfare system, allowing it to largely go unchecked."

Look at the facts (as I pointed them out to Larry Williams last night):

In 2005/06 under Labour there were 937 prosecutions for fraud.

In 2010/11 under National there were 690.

The following details the number of investigations and reviews completed:

table IS.1: Trends in fraud and abuse investigation statistics¹

Financial year2	Number of investigations and reviews completed	Number of overpayments established	Value of overpayments ($)
2004/2005	55,632	8,203	41,455,851
2005/2006	45,992	7,299	35,757,865
2006/2007	39,141	7,084	41,935,634
2007/2008	26,736	4,407	33,702,275
2008/2009	26,400	3,327	33,780,453
2009/2010	19,935	2,996	39,336,133

And why has it taken National 3 years to get around to doing something as straight forward as stopping the benefits of people on the run from the police?

World Socialist Website puts the boot into Mana

What an interesting read about the "pseudo-radicals" that make up the Mana Party.

"Harawira’s posturing is entirely bogus.He was a member of the Maori Party caucus that went into coalition with National after the 2008 election, and voted for all its anti-working class measures. The Maori Party supported National’s agenda of attacking welfare beneficiaries and youth, “downsizing” the public sector and increasing the regressive Goods and Services Tax (GST). The government gave tax cuts to the rich and imposed drastic cuts to living standards. The Maori Party’s principal initiative, the Whanau Ora welfare program, opened the door to the privatisation of welfare.

In his own electorate, Harawira oversaw a social disaster. According to a New Zealand Herald report in June, unemployment in the Northland electorate was at “crisis levels,” hitting 9.8 percent in the first quarter this year—the highest since 2003 and almost 2 percentage points above the next-highest region. A fifth of the working-age population, 29 percent of young people aged 18-24, and 48 percent of working-age Maori were on welfare....

Mana’s policies are steeped in nationalism and profoundly anti-working class. While replete with empty promises to abolish the GST, raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour, and lift welfare benefits to pre-1991 levels, the party proposes to abolish the dole for the unemployed and to discriminate against immigrants by “prioritising the employment of New Zealand residents.” Its opposition to the Key government’s planned further asset sales is rooted in New Zealand nationalism—asserting that “NZ lands” should be protected from foreign ownership. It has published no foreign policy platform, and only belatedly called for NZ troops to be withdrawn from Afghanistan following the deaths of two SAS troopers last month.

The party’s program centres on identity politics, which has been used for decades to divide the working class on ethnic lines. Mana calls for Maori “self determination,” which is an orientation to the business interests of a privileged layer. The Mana Party is demanding that multi-million dollar land claims under the Treaty of Waitangi be extended, further enriching tribal leaders. Recent research by Berl economist Ganesh Nana puts the combined asset base of Maori tribes at $NZ36.9 billion—a fortune built up on the exploitation of workers of all ethnic backgrounds."

Well Hone certainly doesn't cut it with the true Trotskyites.

Why Phil Goff should never get near government again

Labour is going to scrap any work-testing of the DPB if it returns to government. Annette King says that there shouldn't be an arbitrary age for requiring a parent to find a job.

They are also refusing to deal with the problem of women adding children to their benefit by limiting how long they can stay on the DPB thereafter. Yesterday, when tackled about this, Phil Goff told Mike Hosking (21:04) that most women on the DPB were there for a short period of time only and came from a marriage break-up.

He doesn't know where most come from actually. The Social Statistics Report used to record whether someone had been divorced, separated, separated from a de facto or single. But they stopped doing that in 2001 and I have a letter from the MSD confirming this.




So he doesn't know what precipitates an application for the DPB.

Next he doesn't define a short period of time. 6 months? 2 years? Three years? That's a subjective quantification.

But DPB statistics can be twisted to distort the picture significantly and nobody explains this better than Michael Tanner in The Poverty of Welfare:



So it is possible to say that most people go on the DPB for a short period of time AND most of the people on it have been there for quite a long time.

MSD research highlights this phenomenon:

On average, sole parents receiving main benefits had more disadvantaged backgrounds than might have been expected:

• just over half had spent at least 80% of the history period observed (the previous 10 years in most cases) supported by main benefits
• a third appeared to have become parents in their teenage years.

This reflects the over-representation of sole parents with long stays on benefit among those in receipt at any point in time, and the longer than average stays on benefit for those who become parents as teenagers.

Had the research considered all people granted benefit as a sole parent, or all people who received benefit as a sole parent over a window of time rather than at a point in time, the overall profile of the group would have appeared less disadvantaged.

But what does Phil Goff do?

Uses the picture that paints less disadvantage because it suits him politically.

Which is exactly why he should get nowhere near government ever again. He has no intention of fixing a huge problem when he refuses to tell the truth, and the whole truth, about it.

Significantly more Aussie births are to married couples

The Melbourne Age has a piece about the record number of babies born in Australia in 2010.

One interesting fact:

Of the new parents, 66 per cent had made the trip down the aisle or had registered a marriage before the birth of their child.

The relevant statistic in New Zealand would be 51 percent (2009), a big difference probably largely accounted for by the low rate of marriage among Maori.

On the lighter side the article also gives New Zealand a mention:

Across the Tasman, New Zealand is expected to experience a mini-baby boom of its own sometime next July.

The last time the All Blacks won the Rugby World Cup in 1987, there was a surge in births nine months later that statisticians explained away as a country in celebration - and copulation.

And typically I wonder how many of these predicted births will be to people able to support a child?

Why is Winston climbing the polls?

I make no secret of being a big fan of horse racing - both codes - and horsebreeding. The industry has been struggling recently with low stakes, high ACC charges and subsequent loss of NZ talent - trainers, breeders and jockeys - to overseas, particularly Australia, Singapore and Hong Kong. I don't profess to know exactly what Winston Peters did for the industry as Minister from 2005 to 2008 but his record is one that the industry applauded. At the same time Roger Douglas attacked the industry because they received tax breaks. Privilege. But it wasn't as simple as that. The racing industry wasn't getting the same treatment as other gaming industries and argued its case accordingly. My view was that they should all be on the same footing obviously but instead of attacking the racing industry, which began to thrive under Winston, Douglas should be using it as an example of how lower taxation allows business to flourish to the point where they produce more income and jobs for a country.

Douglas wrote in 2009, about what families were paying in tax:

“Given the current economic climate, this robbery must stop. What have families got for their $30,000? How has the Families Commission helped? Or introducing tax breaks for the racing industry?"

I wrote to Roger:

"Actually the racing industry is thriving and becoming more globalised. Which means the agistment, breeding and export industries are thriving. This is NZ doing what it does well. In fact it is probably a super example of how industry blossoms with lower taxes and it is entirely possible that the government is now collecting more tax because of that growth.

Of course the tax breaks need to be right across the board otherwise the concession is privilege. But it would be worth highlighting the industry positively rather than negatively."

He replied, "The last thing nz needs is govt picking winners ie taxing some nzers to give to others. Roger"

I countered,

"I agree. That's what I said. But the racing industry is a good example of why tax breaks should be universal; it provides tangible proof that the govt shouldn't be picking losers. Or do you think that the racing industry can only prosper at someone else's expense? Lindsay"

No further response was forthcoming.

I still maintain Roger missed an opportunity. Libertarians often argue this point and mostly agree that politically they should support any tax reduction but push for equivalence.

So what is the point of my post?

Winston appears to have spent all of (or damn near to) his advertising budget on Trackside TV. And the industry loves him.

How government begets government

The Ministry of Social Development has just posted about The Government Property Management Centre of Expertise. Looks like this is a new agency. Apart from despairing over more bureacracy, reading the bumph just makes my head hurt.

The PMCoE proudly supports improvements in property management and seek to leverage knowledge, increase knowledge-sharing and improve property management practice across many government agencies, regardless of size.

The PMCoE provides tools, information and guidance on government property management best practice and is the central repository for the cross government property data base, enabling the identification and facilitation of collocation or collective procurement opportunities.

"Labour's families policy will increase welfare dependency"

That's the large headline the DomPost put over my letter published this morning:

Dear Editor

Your editorial of November 9 took Labour to task for promising to extend the In Work Tax Credit (IWTC) to all beneficiary parents. It correctly describes how Labour has done an about-face on what was originally their own policy. Back in 2006 Labour argued that work offered the best chance of economic and social well-being for children. Now Labour is saying that a higher benefit payment offers the best chance.

A large majority of the parents who would receive the extended IWTC are on the DPB. Many are there because they had children they couldn't support because they didn't have a partner. Numerous international studies have linked the rate of benefit payment to the rate of unmarried births. The higher the payment, the higher the rate of unmarried births.

Labour is taking a dangerous gamble in joining all the other Left parties with this policy. Should it be in a position to implement the policy after the election, there is every chance it will drive up the numbers of people who become dependent on the state long-term. And I can't believe that Labour doesn't know that long-term benefit dependence is known to be bad for children.

Third time lucky for CPAG?

The Child Poverty Action Group have announced they are going back to court for a third time to contest the legality of the IWTC.

CPAG has filed an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal today against the High Court decision that the Government’s In Work Tax Credit was “not unlawful discrimination”.

CPAG has consistently argued that the In Work Tax Credit is part of per week child–related family assistance. “The basic needs of low income children do not change when parents’ source of income changes” says CPAG spokesperson Susan St John.

I think this is a case of throwing good money after bad. Theirs and ours.

It could be argued that the IWTC isn't for the needs of children anyway. It is used to meet the costs of going to work - transport, clothing, childcare.

Thoughts on the election campaign

Much to my surprise I have actually started to enjoy the campaign. It's a great relief to take no active part, having done so in the last three. But more than that, the polls telling us what real people intend to do, show that New Zealanders are cleverer than Labour think they are. What a tonic. Yes, I know National adopted Labour's big ticket policies but they haven't extended them or added more. Small mercies.

At the campaign start I was neutral on Goff but now I can't abide him. Having seen him in action firsthand, the finger wagging did it for me. Or didn't do it for me. So little do I care what comes out of his mouth.

As others have observed, this campaign has seen the re-emergence of the politics of envy on a grand scale. But the things that worked for Labour post the Great Depression aren't going to work for them now. Not when unemployment is still low by OECD standards; when the welfare system is redistributing furiously to the degree that some beneficiary's incomes are higher than those of the people funding them and when Maori no longer suffer institutionalised widespread discrimination.

And I am growing more confident that ACT can pull perhaps 3 percent - although less confident that Banks will win Epsom. That's a waiting game.

But essentially I am just relishing Labour's vote dwindling by the day.

Duncan Garner doesn't understand WFF

Duncan Garner was on TV3 this morning saying if beneficiaries are going to get Working For Families then WFF should be renamed because beneficiaries aren't working.

That's not right. Beneficiary parents already get WFF. They get it by way of Family Tax Credits which are part of WFF. The name WFF is a play on words really. It implies a tax credit system that works for families. But which also included a new tax credit for people who work - the In Work Tax Credit.

The following is from Work and Income to clarify the matter:

Working for Families Tax Credits

Working for Families Tax Credits are entitlements for families with dependent children 18 years or younger. There are four types of payment and you may qualify for one or more, depending on your personal situation.

Family Tax Credit
In-Work Tax Credit
Minimum Family Tax Credit
Parental Tax Credit

To find out if you qualify for Working for Families Tax Credits

Family Tax Credit

This provides ongoing financial support for families. You can get it while on a benefit or while you’re working (Inland Revenue pays it if you work).

The other payments have different rules and you can only get them if you’re not on a benefit.


And as far as I can ascertain these are the rates:

First child if under 16 $88
First child if 16 or over $101
Subsequent child if under 13 $61
Subsequent child if 13 to 15 $69
Subsequent child if 16 or over $91

That is why some people on the DPB with large families end up on quite substantial incomes.

Reflection on the story of ACT

Just reflecting that ACT began under two ex Labour MPs - Douglas and Prebble.

And ACT will probably end under two ex National MPs - Brash and Banks.

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.