Work-testing not working

The December 2011 benefit factsheets have been released. The DPB total climbed a further 1 percent over the year to reach 114,230. the work-testing implemented in September 2010 hasn't made an impression yet.

Here's the breakdown:

 

Characteristics of working-age Domestic Purposes Benefit recipients (aged 18–64 years), at the end of December 2006 and at the end of December 2011

Percentage of recipients who were:	Dec-2006	Dec-2011
Male	10.2	12.3
Female	89.8	87.7
Māori	40.4	42.4
Pacific people	9.5	10.1
18–19 years	3.0	2.8
20–24 years	14.8	16.8
25–39 years	51.1	45.9
40–54 years	26.6	28.6
55–64 years	4.5	6.0
Declaring earnings	20.4	16.1
Caring for a dependent child aged 6 years or under*	60.1	62.4
Caring for a dependent child aged 7–13 years*	30.0	27.3
Caring for a dependent child aged 14 years or over*	9.9	10.3
Caring for two or more dependent children*	51.1	47.9
Number of working-age Domestic Purposes Benefit recipients (aged 18–64 years)	100,309	114,230

Manipulating outrage

I wasn't alone yesterday in interpreting media reports about women breastfeeding while driving as applying to women drivers, such was the implied sense of outrage. Look at the NZ Herald coverage. They have a photo with a caption, Breastfeeding behind the wheel has not impressed the police. But the content of the report says nothing of the sort.

The three mothers observed were  passengers. OK. Still an element of risk but an entirely different scenario. I can't even be sure I didn't do this myself, in the backseat, with the seatbelt over the baby and myself, when it wasn't possible to just pull over and the baby was getting very distressed.

Of course, if the baby was bottlefed that could be achieved more  safely in transit. But wait, what about the outrage over bottle-fed babies? Don't under-estimate the potential of the current extraordinary pressure to breastfeed resulting in some people thinking they are doing the right thing regardless of circumstance.

Then there is the punishment for this 'reckless' act. A $150 fine. So the mother is going to be $150 poorer. That's $150 less to put food in her children's stomachs. BUT IT WASN'T THE CHILD'S FAULT. Isn't that the argument advanced whenever we hear about children going hungry because their parents have spent their budget on the wrong things? Personally I don't accept this objection because it allows parents to use children as hostages to their own interests.

Nevertheless I increasingly find 1/media hype 2/ police nannies and 3/ inconsistent attitudes very tiresome.

She's not unusual

Simon Collins has typically turned up another case of someone who doesn't want to work if it doesn't pay better than being on a benefit. Significantly better.

She isn't unusual. Not by any means.

Read it and recall that 46 percent of Maori females aged 20-29 are on welfare.

Call for the suspension of political agendas naive

The writer of yesterday's NZ Herald editorial takes what he or she thinks is a considered and objective stand on child abuse. The piece is titled , Find practical way to save our children

Another baby, 2-month-old Hinekawa Topia, has died in hospital of a head injury police do not consider accidental.

Another round of hand-wringing ensues. Social Welfare Minister Paula Bennett reminds critics that she issued a Green Paper on Vulnerable Children six months ago and it is open for discussion until the end of February. Labour's spokeswoman Jacinda Ardern repeats a call for a cross-party study of abuse as an issue of child poverty.

All of this, of course, leaps far ahead of the known facts in the latest death which is under police investigation. The officer in charge of the homicide inquiry warns against leaping to conclusions. But it does no harm to be reminded yet again that this country must do something about its high rate of child abuse and that it should be a subject beyond political point-scoring.

Separating politics and social problems is not possible.  Politicians make policy. Even the repeal or reform of bad policy requires political action and it will always be contentious because human interests will always conflict.

So far the Government has spurned Labour's request to be included in a study of child poverty, which is to be undertaken by a committee of ministers. The Government sounds serious in its undertaking to do something for children in impoverished circumstances, just as it must want to reduce the country's incidence of child abuse.

But it will be wary of confusing the issues.

Not all children in poverty are abused, not all abuse occurs in poor households. There may be a heavy co-relationship between them but each problem deserves dedicated attention. Neither should be happening in a small society with well-developed social services, good accessible schools and reasonable levels of income support.

What is a "small society"? This may be a small country in terms of land mass and population but it is not a small society. A society implies common values, interests and interdependence. Does anyone believe that describes NZ today?

But still we get cases such as Mikara Reti, killed last January by a blow to his liver, aged 5 months, Serenity Scott in April, dead of brain injuries, also 5 months, baby Afoa, a week old, whose body was found in a makeshift grave in June and James "JJ" Lawrence, 2 years old when he was killed in November.

Every possible way to prevent these things should be considered. No civil liberty should stand in the way of a practical precaution, no ethnic sensitivity must restrict useful discussion, no political agenda should apply.

All New Zealanders care for these children and all want them to be raised safely and well.

No civil liberty should stand in the way....

Again, this is unworkable. The writer advocates the suspension of civil liberties but wants it disassociated from political agendas. Some of us actually value civil liberties. And we are sophisticated enough to understand the fight for them goes beyond that of our own.

Ironically , when the overall tone of the piece is considered, even the writer has their own political agenda. That is their tacit belief in collectivism and assumption that it is desirable for government to dominate social spheres.

A gang initiation act?

Ah. Too late for me to say, I told you so. Well, I can to my husband. But I didn't blog about my suspicion that the Turangi attack might be a gang-initiation act. There was no sign that the offender was mentally unstable, no record of him acting similarly in the past, no record of him interfering with other children from an early age, no previous sexual assaults. And the circumstances didn't describe a temptation that just happened to present itself. An ulterior motivation was the only explanation that made any sense to me.

And Turangi....

Well, whichever gang it was, he'll be able to join them inside. He'll  need to.

Rodney Hide hosts talkback

Rodney Hide co-hosted the Radio Live Willie Jackson and JT show yesterday, standing in for John Tamihere . Anyone familiar with the show expects Willie to get over-excited and combative and he was. That makes it nigh on impossible to have a measured discussion, which was especially so given the topic of conversation - the Ports of Auckland. But Rodney wasn't letting Jackson out-shout him. Freed up from representing a party or the government he was throwing the BS word liberally at his co-host. But in typical Hide-style following it up by explaining why.

Prior to that discussion, which dominated the programme, Willie asked Rodney whether Gareth Morgan should have paid for the Blanket Man's funeral. That's his business Rodney replied. Willie asked, "But did he do it for publicity?" "Yes" said Rodney. "Otherwise why would you ring the paper to tell them about it. If you didn't want the publicity you would pay for it anonymously." Quite.

Jackson canvassed the melt-down of ACT probing how Rodney had handled it. How tough it had it been emotionally.  "Nobody died," Rodney shot back, "Living through the Christchurch earthquakes is tough. Losing a loved one. That's tough." He was upbeat on the new opportunities ahead. I had a sense that his refusal to sob over spilt milk frustrated Jackson.

But he did relate a discussion he'd had with Don Brash about Don's publicly-stated goal of getting 15 percent of the vote as ACT leader. He apparently counselled Brash to scale it back and over-deliver. But Don was adamant that as he had taken National to however many percent of the vote in 2005 he could expect as much for ACT. Rodney said Don couldn't understand that it wasn't his vote.

Of course the tired 'R' words - raving right-winger, rich mates, red neck, racist, radical - labels were getting a fair airing from callers and Jackson. Rodney tried to get Jackson to see that it is he, Willie, that has a closed mind. That he was  raised on socialism and can't look at matters any other way. "There is no space in your head for different ideas." Then he called him a lefty-liberal pinko. It was quite jolly.

What I most enjoyed was Hide's lack of hesitation in calling-out talkers on real racism and ignorance. One man bemoaning foreigners taking all the jobs was reminded very firmly that when he needed medical care  he would likely find himself relying on a foreigner. And would be glad of it.

When asked how NZ First and Winston would work out he said Winston won't work. He doesn't work. He is lazy. The laziest MP.

It was mentioned that Rodney was at Lincoln University with David Shearer. He said he oversaw Shearer's PhD work.

That's most of what I can remember. With my on and off attention span it might not be totally accurate. I was listening through one earphone, writing an article and dealing with the odd customer simultaneously. If you want to check it out you can.

I look forward to him co-hosting with John Tamihere who is far more erudite  than Willie and a better match for Hide's intellect. Or even better. Hosting solo.

Families receiving welfare - NZ versus US

Attempting to follow the progress of the US welfare reforms can be difficult simply because Americans mean different things when they use the terms 'government benefits' and 'welfare'. It is correct to believe that there is far less cash welfare to families than before the 1990s reforms. But headlines like this, "Nearly half of US Households receive government benefits" appear to contradict that.

Not included in 'welfare' are benefits like unemployment (funded through payroll taxes), supplemental social security (funded through social security taxes) food stamps, housing subsidies and Medicaid (health provision for the poorest).

The last sentence of the following NCPA summary is the one that interests me most:

Nearly Half of U.S. Households Receive Government Benefits

The pool of Americans relying on government benefits rose to record highs last year as an increasing share of families tapped aid in a weak economy, says the Wall Street Journal.
Expanding government programs combined with the worst downturn since the Great Depression have led to an explosion in the share of Americans relying on outside help.

• Some 48.6 percent of the population lived in a household receiving some type of government benefit in the second quarter of 2010, up a notch from 48.5 percent in the first quarter, according to Census data.
• To combat prolonged economic weakness, Congress extended unemployment benefits to a record 99 weeks (up from the normal 26-weeks offered in most states).
• The food stamp program was tweaked so it was more generous.
• Americans flocked to Social Security disability, a last bastion of support for some of the long-term unemployed.

The largest chunk of benefits flowing to families came from means-tested programs.

• In the second quarter, 34.4 percent lived in a household benefiting from food stamps, subsidized housing or Medicaid, among others.
• That number is up from 32.8 percent a year ago (when a total of 46.8 percent of the population lived in a home receiving benefits).
• The biggest increases came from an uptick in those turning to food stamps and Medicaid.
• Nearly 15 percent of Americans lived in a household receiving food stamps in mid-2010; almost 26 percent had access to Medicaid.

Only a small share of the population accessed cash welfare benefits as the 1990s overhaul made it more onerous in many cases to receive and maintain those payments.  Some 1.9 percent of the population lived in a household that received welfare in the second quarter of 2010.

Latest figures from the US Government Accountability Office show the following:

Only 5 percent of the families receiving cash assistance are two parent so the figures relate mainly to single parent. 1.9 million families just happens to coincide with around 1.9 percent of the US population (x 1.9 million families by 3/ 308 million total population). If we compared NZ DPB figures from June 2010 using the same formula the result would be 7.6 percent of the total population (x 112,000 families by 3/ 4.4 million total population) . Much higher despite our unemployment rate being considerably lower - 6.6 percent (NZ) versus 8.5 percent (USA).

(My calculations do not take into account a number of details and are non-specific but they serve the purpose of making a broad comparison between the two countries.)

Guest Post: Cuts to CalWorks

Cuts to welfare budgets have become a reality across nations. A reality that NZ has so far avoided. Elaine Hirsch looks at cuts to California's Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) programme, CalWorks:

Scheduled Cuts to CalWorks

The state of California was among the hardest hit by the bursting of the subprime housing bubble and the events which followed: a global financial crisis, national recession, and a weak economic recovery. As a result, annual revenue plunged and the budget deficit exploded, reaching a peak of $40 billion for the fiscal year 2009-10. Since taking office in January 2011, Democratic governor Jerry Brown has sought to impose fiscal discipline on the budgetary process through a combination of cuts to social services and higher education. Among these were cuts to CalWorks (California’s welfare program) the program which moves poor families from temporary financial assistance to work.

According to the non-profit advocacy group California Budget Project, these changes include an overall cut to CalWorks of about $1 billion (16% of its budget,) an 8% cut for direct cash assistance to needy families, a lowering of the earning limit for enrollees (from 112% of the poverty line to 88.7%,) a reduction of the lifetime cap from 5 to 4 years, and cuts to welfare-to-work transitional programs such as child care and job training. The cuts are expected to have a significant impact on many families, especially parents who may be forced to drop out of state-funded job training programs without yet having secured a job. Although these cuts will hurt public sentiment in the short run, it will also be a source of motivation for individuals to seek out new education opportunities such as community colleges or online MBA programs. Another significant budget decision was the one year suspension of Cal-Learn, the program which paid for transportation and other costs for pregnant and parenting teens to complete high school.

Non-profits such as Catholic Charities have struggled to meet the increased need. Its Los Angeles chapter, for example, saw a 21% increase in clients during 2008-09, and another 13% increase in 2009-10. The charity maintained its budget by increasing its appeals to foundation grants and private donations, as well as relying more heavily on volunteers. The United Ways of California is also preparing for greater demand for services, criticizing the proposed cuts and predicting that many California children would lose access to health care as a result.

Non-profit partnerships with counties are responding to the changes as well. The Community Services Agency, for example, which partners with Stanislaus County to administer the county's CalWorks programs (StanWorks), has used $3.4 million in state funding to hire an additional 41 employees to stem the tide. Positive responses from private-sector entities are a much-welcomed sight to see during times of fiscal deficits.

Though cuts to CalWorks have saved the state approximately $3.5 billion since 2008, including about $940 million projected for fiscal year 2011-12, the most recent budget cuts are only accelerating a long term trend. Since 1996, when legislation signed by President Clinton converted the federal welfare program into a block grant for states and implemented welfare-to-work standards for those receiving assistance, the percentage of the state's budget devoted to welfare has fallen by more than 50%, according to Jean Ross of the California Budget Project.

Unfortunately, many of the federal law's provisions which were friendliest to needy families -- such as subsidized child care, job training, and other support for families in transition -- have been scaled back due to the new fiscal reality. It is highly questionable whether the budget can ultimately be balanced by cuts to social services that so many families depend on. Rather, the true measure of the state's fiscal health is its long-term economic outlook. The one number from Governor Brown's 2011 budget that politicians made the most of is 4, as in $4 billion in additional revenue projected over the next fiscal year. That's the rosy scenario the Governor is counting on to make the numbers work as the state tends to its future.

Poverty. The word for 2012.

Had enough of it yet? Take a deep breath because the word 'poverty' is going to sound like a stuck record this year.

I respect David Fergusson and the research he does but today's report from the NZ Herald made me baulk at a couple of comments:

"It could be that competent, bright families transmit their skills to their children and also earn higher incomes.

"It could also be that being bred in a high-income family provides children with role models and resources for both educational achievement and career success."

Is there any need for the "could" in either of those sentences? I know that academics have to split hairs and become almost paralysed by preciseness but the results sound antithetical to common sense.

Professor Fergusson said children being born in poor families today might face even worse outcomes than their parents born in the 1970s and 80s because of the greater disparity in earnings.

I agree with the first part. Children born today are more likely to be born to an unpartnered mother, more likely to lack a working role model, more likely to have a parent affected by drugs and alcohol and more likely to spend a longer time on welfare than if they had been born in the 1970s and 80s. But I wouldn't prioritise disparity in incomes (let's not call them "earnings" when many are not) .

 The study results are reported in a newsletter published by Children's Commissioner Dr Russell Wills, who has said that attacking child poverty should be the first of seven goals in an "action plan" arising out of a Government paper on vulnerable children.

There they go again. Come back to the fact that plenty of children in 'poor' families do well, especially those from Asian and Pacific families. Stop focusing on poverty per se but the differences between various poor families and the source of their incomes. You already know that when incomes are low and similar, the children from benefit-dependent homes have worse outcomes.

But let's finish on a positive note:

Professor Fergusson said the study showed that income inequality and behavioural issues, such as parents' addictions, both had to be tackled to fix social problems. "For example, increasing the income of substance-using parents may be counter-productive since it will give them more access to purchasing alcohol or drugs," he said.

Which is a perfect example of why simply lifting the benefits of parents is no panacea. There is no guarantee the extra income will be used on the children. But that was the policy of The Maori Party, The Greens and belatedly, Labour. Thank goodness they lost.

Why do people get wound up about child abuse and neglect?

I am tossing up whether to make a submission on the government's Green Paper on Child Abuse and Neglect. 

I spent an hour or so looking over their "Children's Action Plan"  and my shoulders slumped, progressively.

On the front page of the website it says, "Every year an average of 10 children die at the hands of the people closest to them, the people they love and trust."

My first reaction was to the words "love and trust". Do we really believe children love and trust the people who abuse or neglect them to the point of death? Who wrote that bit of fluff?

Then I thought about the number. Ten. A lot more children die from drowning, transport accidents, cancer, etc than ten, yet child abuse and neglect is the issue that really gets people going. The monologue in my head says, that's because it is only the tip of the iceberg. We all know that thousands are living pretty shitty lives and will go on to become pretty shitty parents.

Or is it guilt? Because people buy the poverty-causes-abuse argument so feel somehow shame-faced that they have, others have-not, so they are, by implication, responsible? In many cases I suspect so.

But then there is the other group not buying into the proposition and feeling angry that they are getting the blame for "New Zealand's shameful statistics".  They are equally wound up.

Why do I get wound up? If I don't know how can I make a submission? People would think I should know by now. But the reasons have changed or taken different priority over the years.

Back in 2001 I would get highly emotional about what a child had suffered. Probably because I was a mum with a young child. That's the mindset mums of babies are in.

But now I am more clinical. I guess the overriding feeling is anger. And that isn't even directed at the useless perpetrators. What's would be the point of that? Punishment and string 'em up responses have never been my cup of tea. Unless fury and horror can be harnessed and provoked amongst the peers of the parents it only serves to create more them and us, alienation, resentment and greater risk for the children.

No. My anger is directed at the establishment. The academics, the professionals across the justice and social work arena, government agencies and politicians. Because of their wilful ignorance of elephants in rooms.

Self-interest in a civil society is good. It leads to the willing exchange of goods, services and IDEAS. But in a society funded by government it is bad. And those charged with the well-being of children are in a government funded society. Paid to talk, paid to analyse, paid to practice, paid to plan, paid to liaise, paid to make policy, paid to protect their own patch, paid to perform. They think they want to change the world but the very core of their necessary self-interest is dictated by responsibility to the state. This prevents change from happening. Because they are wedded to the idea that the state is the ultimate provider and no-one must want. They are horrified at the thought of just leaving people to find their own solutions. They can't accept that if the state fails to step into the breach someone else might. Or, even more radical, the breach might not even open up.

So I am on a different planet to those who say they want to hear me.

Stop asking me what I want the state to do. Bugger off and do nothing.  Even 'less' would be better. Perhaps I should submit a single sentence. In the case of child welfare and state intervention, less is more.

Farm pics...

...look like they need a caption. I want to do a rather grand Te Horo Turneresque landscape with cows. But son and I got a bit carried away with the close-ups. Is there a nicer, more peaceful way to spend time on a balmy summer's day than quietly sitting amongst the cow paddies and flies, inviting and allowing close inspection on both sides?

Colonisation and crime

Just a brief comment.

There are many reasons put up for why Maori make up half of the prison population in 2012. Some say it has to do with colonisation. Yet when colonisation was a nearer event historically, Maori were not  disproportionately represented in prison. I suppose the counter argument would go, the impacts of colonisation are compounding.

From the 1929 Official NZ Yearbook:

The following table shows the sexes and ages of distinct prisoners received into prison under sentence during the year 1927, and distinguishes between Maoris and others:—

AGES AND SEXES OK DISTINCT PRISONERS RECEIVED INTO PRISON UNDER SENTENCE DURING 1927.
Age, in Years.	Excluding Maoris.			Maoris.			Including Maoris.
	Males.	Females.	Total.	Males.	Females.	Total.	Males.	Females.	Total.
Under 20	178	21	199	25	1	26	203	22	225
20 and under 25	302	10	312	49	..	49	351	10	361
25 “ 30 “	344	12	356	24	2	26	368	14	382
30 “ 35 “	316	14	330	14	..	14	330	14	344
35 “ 40 “	311	22	333	8	..	8	319	22	341
40 “ 45 “	272	20	292	3	..	3	275	20	295
45 “ 50 “	266	14	280	6	..	6	272	14	286
50 “ 55 “	189	8	197	5	2	7	194	10	204
55 “ 60 “	146	4	150	1	..	1	147	4	151
60 “ 65 “	59	1	60	..	..	..	59	1	60
65 “ 70 “	36	2	38	1	..	1	37	2	39
70 “ 75 “	11	1	12	..	..	..	11	1	12
75 “ 80 “	6	..	6	..	..	..	6	..	6
80 and over	..	..	..	..	..	..	..	..	..
Not stated	3	..	3	2	..	2	5	..	5
Totals	2,439	129	2,568	138	5	143	2,577	134	2,711

Maori made up 5.3 percent of the prison population and just under 5 percent of the total population. (Yes, many more Maori lived rurally and may have never come to the attention of European authorities.)

To view table in its entirety go here.

Universities raise the bar

You will have heard murmurings that getting into University was going to get tougher. Good thing too. But I must admit I thought to myself, they will probably tinker with the entry requirements at the margins. I was vaguely interested because they affect my son this year. He isn't the most academically inclined and I am in no position to criticise him because he gets it (or in this case, doesn't get it) from me. We are both very focussed, to the point of obsession, in those matters that interest us. If they don't it's a struggle to concentrate. For him it is music. And we are all supporting in him his attempts to build a career around it.

Next year he continues his piano studies and music production. But he had planned to do two papers at the Victoria School of Music. Yesterday he found out that, despite having passed the music school's requirement - sat a theory test - he missed the overall entry requirement for Victoria University by 5 points and is now wait-listed for the papers if a place becomes available. The university raised the requirement from 120 points in 2011 (I am told) to 150 in 2012. Good for them.  Son will have to redo one of his NCEA papers and re-apply. Fortunately he is young for his year. Many other 17 year-olds are only starting year 13 next month.

Somewhat surprisingly he's more relieved than disappointed. I hadn't realised he was dreading a major fail - a miss by a mile. And that his parents would, in his words, "go ballistic". We didn't. We talked about it, the options and we move on. Both of my children are musical and their performances, when they are in the zone, move me immensely. Robert's practising of Bach, Rachmaninov and Chopin fills the house and I couldn't be happier. At 17 he is extremely self-aware. Is utterly determined to make his life count for something. To make it matter. How could I be disappointed with that?

NZ Herald's benefit fraud story incomplete

The NZ Herald reports today that "Benefit fraud cost taxpayers a record $22.6 million last year..." and that it is up from $15.9 million in 2009/10.

They got this information under The Official Information Act.

But anyone can access this page which shows that in 2009/10 the total fraud was $39,336,133

The Herald fails to define what sort of fraud it is referring to. Perhaps it is that fraud which is prosecuted.

Types of benefit fraud comprise working, living in the nature of marriage, child out of care, multiple benefits, accommodation, false documents and other.

Anyway, if they had wanted to be sensationalist, the current flavour, they could have almost doubled their headline figure.

Interestingly, according to MSD, 

In 2009/2010, marriage-type relationship cases accounted for 39% of overpayment cases but 57% of overpayment dollars.

 

Elaborate rip-offs make for lurid reading but most of the fraud is committed by parents pretending they live alone when in fact they do not.

What "filth and squalor" looks like

The Scotsman (or the Crown Office) has taken the unusual step  of publishing photos of the home environment in which a 15 month-old baby boy died. I am reproducing them because I recognise them (generically)  from my time volunteering. I once described a home I worked in as presenting an archaeological challenge. You start with the first layer of detritus and work your way down, meeting ever worsening degrees of rot. Fortunately I have a strong stomach, probably because my curiosity and urge to 'put right' overrides my constitution. If it is any comfort, the children who live in them know nothing else.

One of the appalling images of filth and decay, which were released by the Crown Office, shows the cot where Declan’s body was found. It is surrounded by so much rubbish – clothes, plastic bags and toys strewn across the floor – that the carpet is no longer visible. In another room, Declan’s playpen or travel cot – where Hainey had claimed she found his dead body – looks like a rubbish dump, filled with empty bottles of 3 Hammers, a strong white cider, Irn-Bru, old newspapers and crisp packets.

At the extremes, and not withstanding other complicating factors, this is what you get when you give people money every week and expect  nothing in return.

Speculation about sole parent families

Continuing with the theme the Taranaki Daily News has been pursuing about child poverty and hunger, the Waitara Central Primary School principal speculates

She says because families might receive a benefit of about $750 a week people assume poverty isn't real. "The problem is the mismanagement of those funds.
"We watch people try to cope on the benefit and it doesn't work," she says. It has to be a political socio-economic issue and maybe the high number of solo parent families at the school is another contributing factor.

At the 2006 Census one parent families with dependent children in Waitara numbered 29 percent. Below the national average of 30 percent.

Couple With Child(ren)	447,894
One Parent With Child(ren)	193,635

You want high, look at places like Porirua East with 41 percent, Tokomaru Bay with 40 percent and Otara 38 percent.

I don't know what is happening with the population of Waitara though. It was static between 2001 and 2006 and the 2011 census didn't go ahead. But between 2006 and now the number of people on the DPB has risen by 39 percent to 429.

"Nanny state in danger of being replaced by the bully state"

I have touched earlier this week on the series that the Taranki Daily News has been running on child poverty. Someone (thank you) sent me this link to today's paper. The article describes how beneficiary parents are turning up at budgeting advice simply to get the tick they need to stay eligible for their benefit. You can take a horse to water etc. But while I was looking at that I also noticed this editorial by Gordon Brown (ironic name) which really hits the nail on the head.

Worth reproducing in full:

What a chord Saturday's stories about Waitara Central school principal Sharren Read struck. It was all about the "poverty" that exists among those who go to her school and how she and other committed staff members deal with it. She told it pretty much as it is, which was refreshing in itself, but what a desperately sad story it was as she drew a picture of what was going on.

"Kids come to school simply to be fed. With help from Fonterra and Sanitarium for two days a week, which means the school fundraises to pay for the rest, children are given a free breakfast every morning. Lunch is also available to the neediest ones. "Some probably slept for a few hours amid the noise of partying, boozing and drugs. "They fight for a space to curl up on the mattress they are sharing with four siblings, sharing one urine-soiled blanket. They might get to school on a Monday because a teacher picked them up. Mum was still drunk from the Sunday night binge session."

There was more, much more sordid detail, but that's enough to go on with. You get the picture. Ms Read and other like-minded colleagues do their best to make a difference and they should be congratulated for what they do. Some of Ms Read's quotes are worth further examination. "We have one child that often won't be at school on a Monday and we're now aware it's because mum is coming down from the weekend and needs the kid to be home to help out," she said. It was revealed, which will be startling to many, that some families receive a benefit of about $750 a week. "The problem is the mismanagement of those funds." Let's start with that first quote.

Mum (no mention of a dad, of course) is presumably coming down from partying during the weekend. Booze, drugs and who knows what else is cited as part of the lifestyle. Therefore, the child has to stay home from school to "help out". That is a form of child abuse, nothing less. I wonder when mum was last prosecuted under the truancy laws. Anyone disagree with the answer: never? On to the second, and perhaps most revealing, quote in the article.

Ms Read courageously points the finger exactly where it belongs, at those self-indulgent, greedy parents who shamelessly squander money on themselves, rather than their children. It amounts to theft. Taxpayers gave that money to them to look after the children. As always, it is important to point out that not every recipient of government benefits does that. Some do a fine job under difficult circumstances and work hard to better themselves. The accurate, but unpalatable, message from Ms Read that some parents not only contribute to the "poverty" the children exist in, but are also the main reason for it, will have the apologists and do- gooders scrambling to attack the very notion that the noble oppressed classes could actually be the problem.

But Ms Read and deputy principal Emma Burleigh are the heroes in this debate, so rather than attack them and risk the wrath of right-minded people, no doubt those who know best will abuse columnists such as myself for merely having the temerity to agree with the sentiments expressed. As usual there will be personal observations, insults and much claiming of some self-created moral high ground from which their missives will be fired. The only thing missing will be facts and a willingness to debate the specific issues. Often the outraged letter writers will have a vested interest in prolonging the "poverty" state, but invariably that is never mentioned.

The nanny state is in danger of being replaced by the bully state, where those who don't toe the party line that everything is the state's fault and beneficiaries are victims, quickly become targeted with just one aim - to shut the dissenting voice down. One thing Ms Read said does require a rebuttal is "that shops that allow families with little to take on debt through hire- purchase are making the problem worse". It is not the shops' fault, it is the people who buy the big television sets when they can't afford them that are the problem. It is the same as the shoplifters and their apologists blaming retailers for displaying their goods in such an attractive manner that theft was inevitable. Wrong. For every action, there is a consequence and every one of us makes our decisions and are accountable for them. Simple as that.

Rift over reform

I see Trevor Mallard is now getting it in the neck from The Standard over his allusion to UK Labour taking up the welfare reform cause.

The welfare system isn’t broken – unless you count the 40% of 65 and 66 year olds who are getting a pension while being employed.  The point of the welfare system is to do what any civilised society ought to do: provide some basic support to those who are unable to work due to sickness or injury and to those who want to work but find none is available. It does that at a cost of $5 per day each.
The system works because when there are jobs to be had people go off the dole and into work. Employment growth under Labour dramatically reduced the number on the dole to just 17,000. Long-term unemployment recipients numbered a couple of thousand. The numbers on other benefits only rose in line with population and demographics. Overall, Labour got 100,000 people off benefits. Now, its gone up 60,000 under National. Why? Not because anything’s changed about benefits. Because there’s no fucken jobs.

The problem with these observations is the assumption that the high number of people on other benefits when Labour took over was OK.  It wasn't. The phenomenal rise in dependency - DPB and SB and IB - occurred during the 1980s and 1990s. That has to be reversed.

Decisions, decisions

A new year. Back to work today. I have three commissions to complete. Did a stock-take on business done since opening last November. Have completed 57 commissions and sold 7 paintings off the wall. Portraits of people unknown to the viewer are not easy to sell but I have proved there is a good market for commissions of pets and grandchildren. Problem. I am not charging enough to make a profit. Because I have overheads to meet I am very reluctant to raise my prices. If I price my work at a level where it will return a viable profit I honestly don't think I will get the same number of commissions. So I have options. Return to working from home with only marketing overheads but no shop window. Go into an arrangement with a nearby gallery to preserve my presence and work from there part-time. Or stay put and charge more. I am pretty certain what I will do. But at the same time prevaricating.....I'll pay another months rent and then make my mind up....

Here's a painting from earlier last year. It is a composite. That is, made up from three different photographs.

Tackling disability dependence is one of the most difficult tasks facing govts

News out of Britain is Boris Johnson has attacked Conservative plans to reform disability payments. This blog links to media coverage about how the Mayor of London made a critical submission on a forthcoming reform bill which was only uncovered under the Freedom of Information Act. Naturally some very vulnerable people are afraid of what 'cuts' may mean for them and they have my sympathy. But what can governments do about the disproportionate rise of the numbers of people on incapacity benefits? Simply let the dependency rate continue to rise? It's a phenomenon that has occurred across many developed countries.

The following graphs depict NZ's growth in Invalid and Sickness benefits from 1973 to the present. Unfortunately the first is absolute numbers whereas the second two are as a percentage of the working age population.

The growth prompted commissioned research published in 2005 by MSD. Here are the concluding remarks:

Our findings answer many important questions about the growth in IB and SB and the people who receive these benefits.

We find no simple, single explanation for the growth that occurred over the decade to 2002 in numbers receiving IB and SB. The dynamics of growth were different for the two benefits, and varied over time and between subgroups.

Growth in inflows has been an important driver of growth for both benefits. While much of the growth in inflows was inevitable given changes in the size and structure of the population and the increase in the age of eligibility for NZS, more than half cannot be explained by these factors and reflects an increase in the proportion of the population aged 15–59 coming on to the benefits. For SB, most of this growth was due to an increase in entries from outside the benefit system (but when we examine the recent growth between 1999 and 2002, increased transfers from within the benefit system account for 28% of the increase). For IB, entries from outside the benefit system and transfers from inside the benefit system both contributed to the growth. Growth in transfers accounted for 60% of the 1993–2002 increase in the proportion of the population aged 15–59 coming on to that benefit.

The long stays of IB entrants converted sustained growth in inflows into rapid growth in numbers in receipt.  Even though the duration of stays on IB did not increase between the beginning and the end of the decade, duration played a key role in generating the growth that occurred. 

1.1        Possible causal processes

Why did SB and IB inflows grow in the context of a general improvement in economic conditions?

Some of the possible explanations relate to changes in policy and administration, which appear to have shifted people with incapacities on to IB and SB from other parts of the benefit system.

Other possible explanations relate to changes in the structure and intensity of employment which may have caused employment opportunities for people with ill-health and disabilities to worsen in spite of the improvement in overall employment conditions. Analysis of the New Zealand Disability Survey suggests that the presence of a disability reduces an individual’s probability of full-time employment to less than half that for a non-disabled individual with similar demographic characteristics, and that employment disadvantage is particularly notable for those experiencing psychological or psychiatric disabilities (Jensen et al 2005).   

Yet another set of possible explanations relate to changes in the way that qualifying incapacities were interpreted or administered. Determining whether an individual is sufficiently incapacitated to qualify for IB or SB is not straightforward (Lennan 2000). The eligibility criteria are subject to interpretation and a range of factors other than medical eligibility may influence the decisions of assessing doctors (White 2000). Given this, changes in the way in which doctors interpreted the medical criteria for entry could have increased the proportion of the population viewed as having qualifying incapacities.

A final set of possible explanations relate to changes in the prevalence of incapacity.

Growing numbers of people were coming on to SB and IB with a mental illness. The increase is consistent with trends in other developed countries. Comparisons of the prevalence of mental illnesses over time are difficult to make but rates may have been rising.  Possible contributors include an increasing prevalence of stressors such as financial hardship and social isolation. New Zealand drug surveys also indicate a significant increase in the use of amphetamine and methamphetamine between 1998 and 2001. This can lead to a range of psychological disorders, including deep depression and symptoms that may be indistinguishable from schizophrenia, as well as physical disorders such as stroke and respiratory problems (EACD 2002).

We observe patterns of growth that are consistent with the likely effects of the current rise in the prevalence of diabetes. The associated growth in obesity may also be contributing to the growth in numbers of people coming on to SB and IB with musculoskeletal conditions.

Some of the growth in IB and SB might be due to the effects on health of long-term unemployment.

Growth in IB inflow rates was more rapid for those aged 30–39 and 40–49 than for those aged 15–19 and 20–29. There is something different about the cohorts that experienced the economic restructuring of the 1980s and early 1990s in their early to middle years compared to those that entered the labour market either during or after the restructuring.

Our findings show disparities in mortality across ethnic subgroups that are consistent with those found in the New Zealand Census Mortality Study (Ajwani et al 2003). This study found that while life expectancy improved dramatically for Europeans over the two decades to 1999 it was static for Māori and Pacific peoples, the ethnic groups most affected by economic restructuring. The main driver of the divergent trends was higher chronic disease mortality in middle and older ages for Māori and Pacific peoples.

The 1998 National Heath Committee report on the determinants of health in New Zealand suggested that, despite an overall improvement in population health status, socio-economic inequalities in health had not decreased over the preceding two decades and may even have been increasing (National Advisory Committee on Health and Disability 1998). SB and IB trends over the decade to 2002 may partly reflect worsening health status for some groups in New Zealand society.

Principals on hungry children

For some time it has seemed to me that the general public has stopped buying into the idea that poor, hungry children simply need more money given to them by the government. The parties promoting this during the election did not find favour. OK, it could be argued that the Green vote increased but I don't think it was due to their policy to increase benefits. I recently talked to the previous local Green candidate - the one I campaigned alongside in 2005 and 2008 - and even she felt it was a weak policy. Coincidently she was a teacher.

The Taranaki Daily News has spoken to a few principals at low decile schools and heard the following:

Waitara Central principal Sharren Read says mismanagement of income and unaffordable debt mean basic needs like housing suffer. 

Devon Intermediate principal Fiona Parkinson says her students come from all walks of life and there are families attending the school bordering on poverty.
"It comes back to the Government and their priorities for spending. The issue is a societal one – not just a school one – and it needs to be addressed at a high level. It's to do with the support given to families and isn't just a case of throwing money at them," she says.

Good. Some sense at least.

High incomes funded through forcible removal of OPI

This guy Marryatt has little judgement or empathy. I don't usually find myself amongst those dragging down people who earn high incomes, but when it comes to incomes funded through forcible removal of other people's incomes, I get very toey. I sent this to the DomPost:

Christchurch Council's chief executive, Tony Marryatt, says his salary is based on market rates. This defence ignores that local and central government jobs are funded from compulsory taxes or rates. Christchurch citizens have no recourse should they object to Mr Marryatt's salary or increase. To be fair, in monopolistic circumstances the customer may also lack a voice but generally, in the market, an aggrieved customer or shareholder  expresses it through withdrawal of purchases or investment.

Marryatt says after February he didn't have a  weekend off in 9 weeks. At least he had paid employment. Some would be eternally grateful for a job paying the total of the chief executive's  $68,000 increase alone.

He insists he is not refusing the 14.4 percent pay increase or giving it to charity. I think he has lost sight of who his real employer is. For a so-called public servant Tony Marryatt shows little public-spiritedness.

What Americans think about open-ended unemployment benefits

US unemployment has dropped to 8.6 percent. Most US States provide 6 months unemployment benefits but the rules can change according to unemployment levels. The benefits are funded through payroll taxes and are not means-tested. In NZ on the other hand unemployment benefits are means-tested but open-ended. Many Americans however believe that lengthening the availability of unemployment benefits encourages unemployment. Studies have supported this idea. A Reason Poll asked 1,200 people how long they thought benefits should be available for when someone loses their job?

60 percent think a year or less is enough.

What did Michael Joseph Savage expect?

Just reflecting on what Michael Joseph Savage expected from social security bearing in mind the new benefits were created only 30 years after the first old age pension which was strictly administrated to exclude people who were not 'of good moral character'.

Do you think he expected  benefits to support around a quarter of all children because their fathers couldn't or wouldn't?

That benefits would support criminals caught in the revolving door between prison and the community?

That benefits would support people who believe paid work and consumerism are capitalist concepts to be avoided?

That benefits would supports thousands of people who had caused their own incapacity to work through drug and alcohol abuse?

I can answer the last definitively. No. There were rules to prevent people in this category from qualifying.

So when Labour's shadow minister for Work and Pensions says that a new vision is needed over the one William Beveridge  (UK equivalent to MJS) had how can anyone, including Labour supporters, disagree?

Which will be the party of reform?

At Red Alert Trevor Mallard links to a report about UK Labour re-thinking welfare. But he makes no comment of his own. Mine is still in moderation (while the considerably more caustic Cactus has carte blanche. Can never figure this particular censorship rule. Must be Trev's titillation thermometer.)

It has always been my view that based on history, Labour would be the party to make meaningful welfare reforms in this country. And I haven't abandoned it entirely. National is doing stuff but mainly mimicking what has already occurred in the UK and  Australia.

But hell. Time marches on. National evolves, Labour evolves. There is no ACT to speak of. The Greens remained wedded to 'social justice' - code for communistic compulsory wealth 'sharing'. And Maori politics continues to be schizophrenic. Independence and identity is idealised but impossible without economic input from non-Maori. Their craved population boom presently relies heavily on the continuance of the DPB. (Ironically Maori politicians could boost their population  more by enticing whanau back from Australia but that won't happen until they wean themselves off the victimhood politics and pleading that alienates the ex-pats).

So which party in the next 30 years (my average life expectancy remainder) will make the difference? Remember 30 years ago was only 1982 which saw the beginnings of major economic reform under Labour.

Stupidity

You would think that blaming 'stupidity' for the high holiday road toll was somehow sensational. The reporter who sought a comment from the new Police Minister, Anne Tolley has used it for his headline. That or the editor has.

Tolley is on the button. I hope to see more headlines blaming social calamities on 'stupidity'. Let's stop pussy-footing around the issue of blame and start stigmatising stupidity. Too many people make stupid decisions and stupid choices. I did it myself in younger days. I survived through the ability to learn from them. Some people seem incapable. At an enormous cost to everyone else.

Instead of agonising analysis (eg government commissions) over why NZ figures so prominently in too many negative social indicators, let's start saying it's because NZ has more than its fair share of stupid people.

Second chances are a good thing. A degree of tolerance for the young is a good thing. But it doesn't mean we can't call a spade a spade and say stupid is as stupid does. Grow up for gods sakes. Because if you refuse to mentally, you might never get the chance to in reality.