Welfare state not living up to expectations

In the budget run-up Every Child Counts is warning the government they must invest in children.

“As we head into Budget 2012, it is time for the government to publicly acknowledge the significant return on effective investment in children and assure the public that their policies will improve life for our most vulnerable children,” says Jenny Prince, Every Child Counts Steering Group member and CE of Plunket.

At the same time, a new study from the US  casts doubt on whether the welfare state can make up for a lack of two parent families. The study compares US and UK cohorts.

“WASHINGTON, DC, May 16, 2012 — Children in the United States and Great Britain share a number of common risk factors that increase the likelihood that they will have behavioral problems—and Britain’s broader social welfare programs don’t appear to mitigate those risks, according to a new study in the June issue of the Journal of Health and Social Behavior (JHSB)....

"We wanted to see whether the role of parents was equally important in both societies because the argument has been made that more developed welfare states—such as Great Britain—can make the role of parents less important, by providing additional supports that can help compensate for situations where households have more limited resources. This study tells us that parents are important in households, regardless of the strength of the welfare state.”

The UK Daily Mail has coverage here. They headlined coverage of the study from the Journal of Health and social Behaviour with:

Research found children from broken homes did worse regardless of how much state support is given
(Hat-tip Bob McCoskrie)

Social security wasn't unaminously welcomed - 1938

Response to Savage's Social Security proposals publicised via a radio broadcast earlier the same week;

(Source - The Evening Post, April 4, 1938)

Truth Column May 18

The following is my column published in The Truth, Friday, May 18:

When the first Old Age Pension was introduced in 1898 - over one hundred years ago - the qualifying age was 65. Fast forward to 2012 and the qualifying age is still 65. Given male life expectancy has risen from around 62 to 79 this seems astonishing.

Like so many government assistant schemes, pensions for the aged began as a tightly controlled, rather stringent programme but gradually ballooned, becoming a political football in the process. That's exactly what Super is right now with John Key staking his Prime Ministership on retaining the status quo.

Personally, I have never understood this intransigence. I asked him directly via a talk show question and answer session - why? He responded, during the 2008 election it became apparent that Labour was going to embark on a whispering campaign about his party's intention to raise the age. Thus he decided to put the mockers on it quick smart.

But it wasn't smart. Super is a huge cost with the youngest recipients accounting for a disproportionate share. The yearly bill for 65 and 66 year-olds alone is around $1.3 billion Looking ahead, as the baby-boomers age, the size of the workforce is going to shrink relative to the size of the 65 plus group. As one of them, I am uncomfortably aware of this. My kids will be (increasingly?) taxed to keep me.

So what, you may say? Hasn't that always been the way? Yes, but we haven't faced this kind of demographic change in the past. As are many European countries and the US. That's why they are lifting their entitlement ages.

Uncharacteristically Key has read this one wrong. When Phil Goff made lifting the age Labour policy in 2011 many people sensibly approved. Politicians are renowned for flip-flopping and generally we denigrate them for it. But this is one instance when a change of mind might reap kudos rather than derision.

Link not up yet but the editor's column is here.

McCarten missing the point

More mangled logic from Matt McCarten today. About the extended free contraception to the teenagers of women on the DPB:

"If we really want to reduce teenage pregnancy and abortion it would be more principled, and just as cost-effective, to offer it to all young women."

Stupid. But I have heard this sentiment over and over. Who can believe it comes from the mouths of lefties who in the very next breath are demanding all sorts of targeted assistance for the poor.

But if we treat contraception as purely a health matter anyway, it is the poorest teenagers that become teenage mothers. DHB statistics illustrate this fact. So prevention is targeted at that group.

I wonder what McCarten thinks of the targeted funding for the reduction of rheumatic fever?

Tariana Turia:

"Today we announced that as part of Budget 2012 we are doubling the spending, from $12 million to $24 million, over the next 4 years to reduce rheumatic fever in vulnerable communities. We currently have 101 schools engaged in the rheumatic fever campaign, targeting 35,000 children in seven regions. This new funding will allow more schools and more children to be targeted in this preventive programme. Around 70 percent of children who get this Third World disease will suffer some heart damage, but with proper treatment that risk is dramatically reduced.

McCarten's idea of  "principled" policy would require the programmes to be run in all communities whether or not rheumatic fever is a problem.

ACT's biggest backer a bigot

It sickens me reading the views of one Louis Crimp, who I have never heard of before today, although his face looks vaguely familiar. He is a bigot and apparently ACT's biggest backer.

Unfortunately, because I stood for ACT twice, I still get associated with  stuff that goes on in and around the party. And so I am compelled to publicly disassociate myself from this guy.

According to The Herald Mr Crimp said in an interview:

"All the white New Zealanders I've spoken to don't like the Maoris, the way they are full of crime and welfare."

Asked if his political views could be labelled racist, he said: "I don't give a stuff what I'm called. You have to look at the facts and figures. This is the problem with New Zealanders. Most of them dislike the Maoris intensely - I won't say hate - but they don't like to say so."

But here's the kicker:

Act's president, Chris Simmons, said he disagreed with Mr Crimp on some areas but respected his right to have a view....Mr Simmons said the party would take Mr Crimp's money again.

ACT has utterly lost its way. It was the champion of individual rights and arch critic of collectivism, and should be the party speaking out most vehemently against racism - not tolerating and tacitly condoning it through allowing a bigot to buy influence. I am appalled.

Teenage birthrate hits new low

The March quarter teenage birthrate has dropped to 25.3 per 1,000 15-19 year-olds.

This is the lowest rate since  1972 when the number was 69 per 1,000.

This is good news because most babies born to teenage parents end up on welfare.


Currently there are 3,051 18-19 year olds on the DPB (some might not be parents but caregivers to someone sick).

In March 2009 when the teenage birth rate was 32.2, there were 3,570 on DPB, so the drop in the birthrate is reflected in numbers dependent.

It may be that the messages about the DPB no longer being a long-term option are getting through. But the number of babies being born is dropping across the spectrum from 64,159 (year ended March 2009) to 60,860 March 2012.

The depressed economy? More potential dads leaving the country? (The abortion rate is also trending down so fewer women are getting pregnant in the first place.) Motherhood less fashionable? The moral climate?

I think that people are beginning to appreciate that the road ahead might not be so easy and are starting to adjust their behaviour accordingly. Whatever their circumstances are.

What do you think is changing?

Tom Scott gets it

There are times when a cartoon really nails it.

PPL- time to take a step back

A column for the NZCPD, May 13:

Paid Parental Leave - time to take a step back The NZ Herald recently ran a poll asking whether National was right to use its veto to override Labour MP Sue Moroney's private member's bill to extend Paid Parental Leave (PPL) from 14 weeks to 6 months. After 16,000 votes were submitted, sixty percent of respondents had answered yes.

Frustratingly, this doesn't tell us whether people were against the extension in the context of the current economic climate, against an extension full-stop, or against the entire scheme. I fall in the last category.

More

Another redundant objection to extended free contraception

S Beast commented on an earlier post,

"I also find the idea of a government agency prying into the sex life of 16 year olds more than a little creepy."

You will no doubt also find the idea of the education and health departments doing the same "creepy"? 12 and 13 year-olds given the immunisation against cervical cancer are asked if there was any chance they could be pregnant. School counsellors get intimately involved in situations surrounding the sex lives of adolescents. CYF, another "government agency" would also be closely involved with the sex lives of young people, and unfortunately, even children.

More generally, because I have seen other objections about case managers being involved in the 'new' policy,WINZ staff already deal with special grants for:

Vasectomies and termination of pregnancies

Pregnancy terminations

Terminations for dependent children

They also have to deal with difficult areas such as rape and incest when enquiring  after the father of a dependent child, the naming of whom is a requirement for receipt of the DPB. They use their discretion over whether or not to impose a penalty for not complying if the aforementioned scenarios are involved.

I imagine then they are quite capable of exercising discretion over offering a referral to a family planning clinic or GP for the purposes of receiving free long-acting contraception.

"NZ has a problem"

Friday's Right On  column in The Truth:

New Zealand has a problem

Working-age welfare accounts for around 13% of government’s total expenditure – that’s up from 2% 40 years ago. Many people – by no means all – end up on a benefit due to the choices they make, especially around partnering and parenting.

By the end of 2010, 23% of babies born that year had a caregiver on welfare. The pattern is fairly well established, so a lack of jobs is only part of the problem.

New Zealand has the second highest rate of sole parent families in the OECD at 30%. Most people don’t want to be sole parents, and most children want mum and dad in their lives.
These are statements of fact, not finger-pointing, blame or vote-buying.

By financially replacing fathers, government policy inadvertently caused substantial child poverty. The left wants this poverty reduced with higher benefits but this approach is only more of what created the problem in the first place. At least a third of mothers on the DPB started on welfare as teenagers. Without qualifications or work-skills, a benefit income can match or even surpass any working wage they might expect.

Welfare reforms being passed by Parliament have two goals. The first is preventing these young people from coming into and remaining in the system for many years, through more intensive and practical management from outside organisations, and restricting how benefit money can be spent. The second is passing the financial responsibility for their children back to parents through greater work expectations. For example, a single parent must be available for part-time work when their youngest child starts school.

The reforms are hardly radical. But they reflect a change in the way politicians and voters view welfare. They want a safety net, not a trap that damages families and children. The current set-up is not representative of a society that cares.

 Bomber's and and other Truth editorials here

Nasty and offensive journalism

There's been some hysterical responses to National's plan to extend the type of free contraception available to beneficiaries. Some of them serious, some laughable. But the following is offensive:

"The really noxious component of the whole proposal is its extension to the teenage daughters of beneficiaries who are over the age of consent.

It would be comforting to believe that this plan was not meant to be a slur on women on the DPB. Yet the inference is unavoidable.

As is the implication that being a trollop is hereditary. There's a slut gene that gets transmitted from solo mothers to their daughters. If your mother was a slut, you'll probably be one, too. Maybe not, but let's not take any chances. These second-generation sluts can't help themselves. Only long-term invasive contraception can counter the effects of the gene."

Who is Paul Little? Someone who makes stuff up for a living?

It was Colin Craig who raised the idea of promiscuity, who implied that NZ women are sluts. Little has developed this further into the idea that women on the DPB are sluts because they are the ones being offered the  extended free contraception.

It wasn't Paula Bennett, who was herself a teenage parent on the DPB. I stopped short of being one due to a miscarriage. I was very glad of the contraceptive pill but it wasn't foolproof. And over time I probably had more partners than was wise. Plenty of willing men around. And go ahead Paul Little. Call me a slut. It doesn't bother me.

But don't go calling anyone on the DPB a slut simply by reason of being a beneficiary.

The reason that the teenage daughters of mothers on the DPB are being offered extra free contraception is because girls raised in single parent homes have a significantly greater likelihood of becoming teenage mothers. If they are already dependent on a mother who is reliant on a benefit they will almost certainly follow in her footsteps. The science shows that these girls will stay on a benefit a long time and their children, along with those who are added to a benefit, will experience the poorest educational and health outcomes. It is an EXCELLENT idea to do everything possible to delay parenthood in these circumstances.

I have written about this method before. Opposition (in any form) describe an idea in nasty and offensive terms and then attribute those nasty and offensive terms to the originator of the idea. Very shallow and inadequate thinking.


(And for the Herald to drop a photo of Paula Bennett with her daughter next to this crap is also nasty and offensive. )

Hard to get excited about more Mob misuse of money

As a 'welfare commentator' I suppose I should have something to say about the alleged Mongrel Mob's misuse of whanau ora funding. But it is hard to get even mildly warm under the collar about it, not least because it is Winston Peters poking the stick.

When you line it up against all the other tax money gangs absorb, the DPB that finances their women and children, the $100,000 annual upkeep when inside, the law and order funds for policing and processing them, etc. $20,000 is small beer. Within or without the rules, it's all the same to me.

Two snippets

Two snippets noticed today:

Stories of children scavenging through pig slops and downing entire bottles of antibiotics out of hunger are an "embarrassment to the country" says a Kaitaia GP.
Doctor Lance O'Sullivan said he had been doing what he could to fight the effects of child-poverty in his region but it sometimes felt like an uphill battle.

“It is a human right's violation to tell poor people they can't have children.”
- Susan Fraser (Crofton Downs)

Strange report

The latest report about a Russian aircraft 'test-flight' that ended in tragedy is odd:

Twenty-one minutes after takeoff, the crew asked for permission to decline from 3000 metres to 1800 metres, said Daryatmo.

Aviation expresses altitude in feet. And permission to 'descend' is requested; not 'decline'.

Probably just journalistic bumbling.

Sallies interfering again

The Salvation Army gets up my nose and they may as well stop sending me begging letters because they are off my list of worthy causes. I abhor their stance on welfare and now I can add their lobbying on alcohol reform to my reasons for disaffection:

The Salvation Army recommends the Government immediately increase excise on alcohol by 25 per cent. This would have little effect on moderate drinkers but would reduce alcohol consumption by teenagers and heavy drinkers – the most price-sensitive consumers – by as much as 10 per cent.

Stop promoting punishment of the responsible for the actions of the irresponsible, not to mention the economic damage threatened to the many industries associated with alcohol production and sale. I'm sick of it.

I would gladly fund their practical work but cannot separate it from their ignorant and annoying advocacy.

Depressing picture

What a (largely) depressing picture Alistair Bone paints of young people in Huntly. I am copying it in its entirety to keep on the record. Think about it next time you read or hear some do-gooder saying there is no evidence that females have kids to get on the DPB. Go into the right neighbourhood and homes (like I have and this writer has) and you will see it for yourself. I just hope that Paula Bennett is choosing the people who are going to be in charge of changing this mindset, culture, whatever you want to call it, very carefully. (Hat-tip Clint Heine and Friends)

'Cracking it' on welfare in Huntly


Mike Watane had plans and savings when he was a kid. He wanted to go around the world.
"There were places I had planned in my head. I saw the Gold Coast on TV and thought that was a lot better than Rainbows End had to offer". Then the unexpected happened.
"I saw her stomach getting bigger and bigger and thought 'aw yeah, I'm trapped now'. That was pretty much my money gone, getting her stretchy waist clothes."
He was 21 and she was 22.
He's still with his girlfriend. Baby is three. He's just come off a welding course and goes down to Hamilton every couple of days looking for something.
There's been no luck yet, so he's on his bike, literally, and talking to mate Poro Kingi on a street in Huntly West.
On paper it's a terrible place. Dead bottom and 10 out of 10 on the deprivation scale, worse than Meremere, worse than Ngaruawahia, worse even than living across the river in Huntly East.
It's hard to find actually abandoned houses in New Zealand, but there's heaps here, their windows boarded with graffitied plywood.
The rail line runs straight through Huntly West and the twin towers of the power station don't go anywhere. There are so many gangs locals need more than a hand to count them off and subset them into senior and junior.
Kingi's hefting baby Cali on his shoulder.
He and his partner are struggling, but Cali was planned and wanted. He says a lot around here are not even 18 when they have their first. He's lived here all his life and can't think of a time when that's not been true.
They like the Government's new plan. Watane thinks long-term contraception would help the younger generation, make it a place where you just see girlfriends and boyfriends together and not with a kid in tow.
The heat of the moment can do funny things to your plans, he says.
Down the road a bit and Te Aroha Kirkwood and Shanelle Herewini hear that.
"You tell them to wrap it, but sometimes they don't listen or they are too drunk." Te Aroha giggles, she's on a benefit, 19 years old, eight months gone.
Shanelle says she wouldn't take the contraceptive, even free – "put the money in the bucket".
Get the kid and take the money. She's laughing, maybe playing up. But Te Aroha whispers, just about to herself, "I would like to have that."
The Police Ten Seven crew were at the dairy earlier. Someone knocked it over looking for smokes, the girls say. Three young guys turn up on bikes. They're intense, they give names, probably not real.
Walter is 16, his girlfriend is 17 and pregnant. He doesn't have a job, just a mystery magic formula.
"Money is all around me. Why do I need a job when money just gets given to me?"
Despite that, he's going to hold off. He'll see how "hard case" the first one turns out before getting another.
Most of the girls won't go for the Government offer, he reckons. They want babies.
"I heard you crack it on the benefit if you have babies." he says.
One of his lieutenants has a different take. He learns the Government doesn't actually want to pay people on a benefit to have babies.
"They should move that thing – the minimum wage, yeah – up from $13.50 and they might get a job. Even if they moved it to $15, that would make a big difference," he says.
Farther down the same street lives Fay Love. She's been bowled by a purse snatcher, but still takes a stick to the hoods in her yard.
The voluntary contraception offered to the teen girls of beneficiaries is never going to work: "Half the parents round here are going to say 'it's my child, they can do what they like'."
As she talks, more and more women appear on her steps. They agree. Take their benefit away or it's a joke.
Abby Martens flats with Desiree Maddern. They're both on the benefit. Desiree was pregnant five times before she was 20, twice by accident. She works with the cops in the Blue Light programme, trying to put kids back on track. She's dead against it being compulsory.
She poses a question. "Are girls just having babies for the money, or because they want a baby, or to keep a guy?"
At 19, Abby would be the bullseye for the programme. But she wouldn't do it. She doesn't believe in unnatural contraception; her parents were very into homeopathy.
She's brave, honest. When she's with a partner, she uses a condom she says, but sometimes ...

82% say "YES"

A Campbell Live poll just announced the following result:

"Is it a good idea for beneficiaries to be given free long-acting contraceptives?"

YES - 82 percent

Paula Bennett was more genuine and convincing than Meteria Turei who was undone by opposing for the sake of it.

"...state should not play a role in women's reproductive lives"?

Sue Bradford says, about the just-announced extra funding for long-term contraception for beneficiaries and their teenage daughters, "There are many in the church and community groups who believe that the state should not play a role in women's reproductive lives."

So the state should discontinue current funding of contraception, family planning services, abortion, tubal ligations, maternity services, Paid Parental Leave, Plunket, fertility treatments, etc ? Is that really what Bradford is saying? It is a highly troublesome argument for her to advance.


In fact it is one you would be more likely to hear from me. Yet she is against this subsidy and I am for it. My reasoning?

I will go along with the latest funding because it is an attempt to reduce the social and economic cost that generally follows the birth of a child onto a benefit.

Why I get put in the right-wing box

Published in last Friday's Truth:

Describing political beliefs as 'left' or 'right' is convenient but problematic. An old friend recently asked, "When did you become a right-winger?"  I didn't, I replied. A right-winger is conservative on social issues like alcohol laws, gay marriage and voluntary euthanasia. I'm not, because I believe in individual choice and freedom. From very young the maxim 'live and let live' resonated for me.  So when government  tells me what I can and can't do, I chafe.

Local government is, in some respects, a worse offender than central, with vast powers to dictate what can and can't be done with private property. To demolish my garage and build a new one, I am told I have to push it back; or turn it adjacent to the street; have a roller-door rather than an angle-opening one despite there being no footpath outside. The process drags on and to rub salt into the wound,  my rates fund those putting unfathomable obstacles in my way.

Central government is a less obvious but more pervasive force with the power to take my property (compulsory taxes) to use in ways not just wasteful, but actively destructive. Paying people to have babies is a good example. Children produced as meal-tickets are highly vulnerable.

When government robs Peter to pay Paul, it limits Peter's choices to promote Paul's. Peter has no say in the matter except perhaps once every three years, but even then, there isn't a lot to differentiate National and Labour, both big spenders.

What I want from a government is less benefit spending, less productivity-stifling regulation, less corporate and middle-class welfare and lower, flatter taxes. And that's why I get put in the right-wing box.

Roger Kerr's successor

The NZ Business Roundtable has merged with the NZ Institute to form what is now called The NZ Initiative.

The new head of this group is Oliver Hartwich. Here are some excerpts from an interview on The Nation.

Rachel When our next guest left the UK to take up a new job in Australia, then Conservative MP David Cameron remarked, the sooner he gets on the ship the better. Economist Dr Oliver Hartwich has critics and fans who've closely watched his work at Britain's leading think tank, the Policy Exchange, and more recently at the Centre of Independent Studies in Sydney. He's now in New Zealand to head up the New Zealand Initiative, a merger of the Business Round Table and the New Zealand Institute. And after his first week on the job he joins us now in the studio. Welcome to the programme Dr Hartwich. It's quite an interesting merger, two very different beasts. Why do you think they’ve brought you in, is it because for example you may have a blank slate when it comes to New Zealand?

 Oliver Hartwich – New Zealand Initiative Executive Director
I think they were looking for someone with a sense of humour so they couldn’t go past a German of course. But seriously the organisation, I mean it's built on the legacy of two existing organisations, the Business Round Table and the New Zealand Institute, but the idea was really to form a new initiative, and that’s why it's called the New Zealand Initiative, and it's built to really promote policies that promote good policies for all New Zealand, for all New Zealanders. We're basically showing the same visions whether we're standing on the left or on the right, it doesn’t really matter too much, we all believe in sound economic management. Nobody wants to see high inflation, no one wants to see high unemployment. We basically believe in the same things, and we're trying to actually promote policies that work for the whole of the country...

I think the whole political spectrum is basically converging towards the centre, it's not just a thing that you will see on the right, you actually see it on the left as well. I think we have seen quite a bit of a conversion in the last 20 years globally. So you’ve got the traditional left wing parties moving closer to the centre, traditional right wing parties moving closer to the centre, because in the end they're driven often by opinion polls, by focus groups, by short termism, and they're really trying to just grab the issues of the day and politics I think has become much less ideological after the end of the Cold War, and I think that’s probably seen in many countries around the world including of course most European countries..

I'm an old Liberal, I'm not a Neoliberal, I really believe in individual freedom, I believe in policies that work, I believe in empirical research driving policy making.

....Maybe we should see a first light return of ideology in political debates anywhere, because what I actually miss from political debates is some clear divisions. We have this convergence to what is centre. What's really missing are debates, real passionate debates really based on principles not just on opinion polls, not just based on some focus group polling. I think the times when we actually had debates between people who believed in a more planned economy and other people who believed in a more free economy, I think that they're quite healthy for democracy. When democracies converge on the centre ground, political debates become quite stale, they become personality driven. I would actually like to have real debates upon policy."

More.

Some good stuff.

Big discrepancy in reported funeral grant figures

According to Stuff "Department of Work and Income statistics show in the 12 months to the end of March, 5473 funeral grants were made, totalling $9.8 million.....In 2011, Work and Income issued 5412 grants totalling $9.3m, and in 2010, 5562 grants cost $9.3m. "

Check out this MSD table which shows that in the financial year 2009/10 only 26 funeral grants were made.

I have searched 'funeral' in the latest MSD Statistical report and no other results are found.

I am intrigued because the Stuff figure sounds far more plausible.

What this highlights is the difference between statistical information gained under the OIA (where I think it was sourced) and what is in the public domain.

Clash of cultures

This is an odd story described as "an ugly encounter with aggression, racism and abuse". All it really highlights are cultural differences between Germans and Kiwis. Germans are very rules-bound and quite obedient. I discovered that after a few visits there, both working and for leisure.

The story goes, after a collision at a roundabout "We said, 'OK, we want to leave everything like this until the cops come," Ms Kirn said. "In Germany, what we learn is if you have a car accident just leave everything like it is."

I can appreciate the consternation and frustration these two women caused by refusing to move their vehicle which was presumably holding up other traffic. Imagine for a moment if I behaved the same way. I'd get called a stupid woman doubtless. Then I could run to the papers about misogyny being rife in NZ?

Or imagine if I was in Germany, caused a collision at a roundabout and proceeded to drive my car into a position where it was no longer impeding the flow of traffic. The Germans would get very angry with me for interfering with the 'crime' scene  most probably. And they would phlegmatically bar me. I've encountered this sort of unbending slavery to unreasonable rules first-hand. And it isn't pleasant.

Now, I am sure all Germans are not like that. And neither are all Kiwis aggressive, abusive, racists .

"I felt I never want to come back to NZ. It's very nice nature but we didn't know people were racist." 

Get it into perspective. An unfortunate accident and ensuing misunderstanding which brought out the worst in some individuals.

Work-testing the DPB having effect?

The following are the quarterly 'all employed' percentages for households with 'One parent with dependent child(ren) only' (first row) and 'One parent with dependent and adult children' (second row). They span each quarter since March 2010 ending with March 2012.

Work-testing the DPB for care-givers with children aged 6 or older started in September 2010. 

The sole parent employment rates are picking up.

 

51.6		51.4		50.0		48.3		51.4		52.0		53.1		53.8		54.5
34.4		34.2		32.8		34.6		38.6		27.8		29.9		37.6		39.2

But the overall unemployment rate is up. Which group is reducing their employment?

 

Couple with one dependent child (first row)

Couple with two dependent children (second row)

 

66.5		66.2		67.8		68.3		66.1		67.6		67.6		69.4		64.9
65.3		67.0		67.7		66.1		65.8		64.8		65.2		67.9		66.8

When I find time I will graph these interesting developments.

The law of unintended consequences

A fine example of the law of unintended consequences has recently come to my notice.

Where I live the council recently erected pooh-bag dispensers. These bags are easier to use than plastic shopping bags, which often have holes and are bulkier in the pocket, so people are making use of them and not carrying their own bags.  BUT the dispensers keep running out. Result - less dog pooh is  picked up. The consequence of the policy is the exact opposite of its intent - more dog pooh.

I have reverted to carrying my own bags but  can imagine some people now blaming their failure to pick up after their dog on the council for not ensuring the dispensers are full at all times!

Moral of the story. The more you do for people, the less they will do for themselves. The more responsibility you assume for them, the less they will assume for themselves.


(I was reminded of this by a story on 3 News this morning about a set-up whereby people can exchange dog pooh for free wifi. Great incentive to get people busy collecting as much of it as they can find.)

Writing for the Truth

The Truth is re-launching and I will be providing a brief weekly column to put a different perspective from Bomber Bradbury's views from the 'left' regarding matters of the moment. My introductory column explains why I get put in the 'right' corner even though I am not a conservative. I will link to the columns post-publication.

ACT can't go any lower

Kiwiblog has a breakdown of the latest Herald Digipoll.

As an ACT voter at the last election I still take an interest in its fortunes.

Now on 0.0%

Even ACT's social conservatives have defected.

Eighties reforms recalled

I was out of New Zealand from 1985 (with a brief period of return)  to 1991 and missed the following. As apolitical as I was in my 20s the extent of the reforms probably wouldn't have permeated my consciousness even if I had been here. Perusing old issues of the Social Policy Journal I came across this description of them. I hadn't previously appreciated their scope. For your interest:

Since 1984, social and economic reform has occurred at a pace which has no precedent since 1935, when the first Labour Government came to power.

Some of the most notable reforms (not presented in strict chronological order) are:

•         the floating of the foreign exchange rate;

•         the transformation of state trading departments into State Owned Enterprises and the subsequent privatisation of some of them;

•         the flattening of the income tax scale and the elimination of many exemptions;

•         the introduction of the Goods and Services Tax;

•         elimination of most import restrictions;

•         the changes in Māori affairs policy, reflected in the replacement of the Department of Māori Affairs by Manatu Māori and the Iwi Transition Agency, and the subsequent replacement of those agencies with Te Puni Kōkiri;

•         legislatively mandated changes to the structure of local and regional government;

•         extensive changes to the child protection and juvenile justice systems brought about through the Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act;

•         changes in the structure of government funded health services (including the creation of a funder/provider separation through the replacement of Health Boards with the Regional Health Authority / Crown Health Enterprise structure);

•         extensive changes in the operation of the labour market, brought about through the Employment Contracts Act;

•         extensive changes to the mode of operation of state agencies as a consequence of the State Sector Act and the Public Finance Act;

•         changes within both the health and welfare sectors directed towards "deinstitutionalisation" of services;

•         the incorporation of traffic enforcement within the police, brought about through the amalgamation of the Transport and Police Departments;

•         numerous job creation and work training schemes (ACCESS, MACCESS, Taskforce Green, TOPS, etc);

•         the introduction of the National Superannuation tax surcharge, and the subsequent tightening of the surcharge;

•         the introduction of the Guaranteed Minimum Family Income for families supported by a full-time earner;

•         the introduction of some data sharing between the Inland Revenue Department and the Department of Social Welfare;

•         extensive changes to the child support system, including transfer of its administration from the Department of Social Welfare to the Department of Inland Revenue:

•         the abolition of Family Benefit and the introduction of Family Support;

•         the reduction (announced in December 1990 and implemented from April 1991) of most social security benefit rates, and the introduction of a modified system of supplementary assistance (in the form of Special Needs Grants, Special Benefit, and the Accommodation Supplement);

•         the increase in the qualifying age for National Superannuation;

•         the introduction of new health charges, with the introduction of the Community Services Card as a mechanism for income testing previously untested health subsidies;

•         the increase of the school minimum leaving age from 15 to 16 years;

•         the rise in age for eligibility for unemployment benefit from 16 to 18 years;

•         rises in tertiary education fees;

•         the application of parental income testing to student allowances;

•         the introduction of repayable student loans;

•         the contracting of some state agency functions (e.g. DSW debt recovery) to the private sector;

•         the withdrawal by the state from the provision of subsidised rental housing and the introduction of the income tested Accommodation Supplement; and

•         the reduction of the state child care subsidy for persons who are not in paid work.

I really don't care if people don't vote

During the week a voter survey was getting publicity. Reasons why voter turnout was so low in 2011 were canvassed.

"41% of non-voters put just a little thought into whether or not to vote, and 29% didn’t think about it at all."

Politically mindless.

" The main overall reasons for not voting were that they had other commitments (14%) or work commitments (9%)"

Seemed to me that it was easier than ever before to place an early vote at a convenient time. Lazy.

"33% of all non-voters agreed ‘I don’t trust politicians’ was an important factor (4 or 5 out of 5) on their not voting."

Putting aside the obvious typo in that sentence, I don't particularly trust  politicians either but I have a go at figuring out who I distrust least. I don't particularly trust real estate agents and cops but I am sure there are good ones. Unable to discern.

"Other important factors were ‘it was obvious who would win so why bother’ (31%)...."

Fatalistic.

"....and I’m just not interested in politics (29%)."

And that's legitimate if not somewhat ostrich-like.

But why agonise over getting people like the above to tick a box, possibly cancelling out a vote made with a high degree of information and motivation?

Boy's fun

So what political  'scandals' do we have running at the moment?

The eating-itself-Labour Party, the SkyCity silliness, and the Banks abuse-of-anonymous-allegations. If they were movies and you were booking seats, which would you rather go to?

I'd flag them all in favour of Titanic in 3D, something I have sworn black and blue to avoid.

But what is noticeable as you read the news reports, the blogs, listen to the commentators (which seem lately to have exploded like a rabbit population), and watch the telly, is the domination of the male.

These wrangles are tawdry substitutes for a real contest; a dignified and meaningful expenditure of testosterone for a worthy cause.

Mallard, Banks, Joyce, Trotter, Shearer, Edwards, Whale Oil, Farrar, DotCom, Roberts, Brown, Campbell, Garner, Gower and other lesser known players. All men.

(No, you aren't at the Hand Mirror).

I make this generalisation. Women involve themselves more in policy matters, in advocacy and practical coalface stuff. For this I respect them.

The trouble is, they are nearly all socialists. Even those characterised as on the 'right' are not particularly radical and at best will broadly maintain the status quo.

So while the afore-mentioned dramas play out, behind-the-scenes legislative matters, those that will really affect lives, form the more important battles.

(And note that Jacinda Ardern has kept a very low profile media-wise. Politically smart if not policy clever).

Quote of the day

Socialized medicine includes government care of the sick and support for the family as well. If this support amounts to approximately the same as the man can earn from his own daily labor, he is tempted to be sick continuously.

— Charles B. Jones, The Freeman [February 1958]

Update: And the following statistics from the US graphically illustrate this phenomena  

More than 5 Million Join Disability Rolls under Obama Administration A record 5.4 million workers and their dependents have signed up to collect federal disability checks since President Obama took office, according to the latest official government data, as discouraged workers increasingly give up looking for jobs and take advantage of the federal program, says Investor's Business Daily. 

Since the recession ended in June 2009, the number of new enrollees to Social Security's disability insurance program is twice the job growth figure. In just the first four months of this year, 539,000 joined the disability rolls and more than 725,000 put in applications. As a result, by April there were a total of 10.8 million people on disability, according to Social Security Administration data released last week. Even after accounting for all those who have left the program -- about 700,000 drop out each year, mainly because they hit retirement age or died -- that's up 53 percent from a decade ago. 

To be sure, disability rolls have grown steadily as a share of the workforce since the 1990s. 

The main causes of this broader trend, according to economists David Autor and Mark Duggan, are the loosening of eligibility rules by Congress in 1984, the rise in disability benefits relative to wages, and the fact that more women have entered the workforce, making them eligible for disability. But the big factor in the recent surge is the slow pace of the economic recovery after the severe recession. That has kept the unemployment rate above 8 percent and created an enormous pool of long-term unemployed and discouraged workers. Few people who get on disability will ever participate in the labor force again.

What's more, the explosive growth in enrollment is not only increasing the financial strain on the Social Security Disability Insurance trust fund -- which is scheduled to go bankrupt in 2018 -- it's boosting costs for Medicare as well, since enrollees can qualify for Medicare after two years. Reform ideas so far have spurred little action. But with the program's bankruptcy looming just a few years off, and with the economy showing no signs of producing a surge in jobs, that indifference to reform may soon have to change. 

 Source: John Merline, "5.4 Million Join Disability Rolls under Obama," Investor's Business Daily, April 20, 2012.

ACT conference - a cursory comment

Unplanned, for a while today I listened to live streaming from the ACT Party conference. The unexpected opportunity presented and it was convenient (just finished mowing the lawns and cleaning the car, and was checking  e-mail). My interest was initially desultory. However, I've never attended  a Richard Prebble speech that didn't engage. And that's where I joined in, minutes before he was introduced. Prebble quoted a scale of measures necessary for freedom eg competition, and tested them against recent major speeches by main party leaders Key and Shearer. Did those measures rate a mention? Key just did better, but Prebble said his could easily have been a Labour leader's speech. He referred to Key's claim  that National was continuing to increase productivity and growth (gets a tick for mentioning 'productivity' - one of the prerequisites for freedom) but said it would have been more convincing if Key hadn't used the word 'continuing'. When did they start asked Prebble?

And then he made amusing comparisons between various historic big name leaders who wanted NZ to be like another country ( as per Shearer and Finland). For Norm Kirk it was for NZ to be the Switzerland of the Pacific. (My comment - not forgetting that ACT has cited Ireland and Singapore enviously in past times). Or the many versions of a 'smart' economy  promoted over the years culminating in Clark's 'knowledge' economy which had Prebble envisaging the "E = M whatever it was......"  floating over the country. Notably Prebble did describe Key as possibly the "most talented politician" he has witnessed.

But when it came to Banks, I  gradually lost interest. Nothing new was canvassed (although to be fair, the content  might be new for him). What he said about his adopted children and the merits of "unconditional love" was winning. That came early and warmed for whatever followed . But he failed to move beyond the usual ACT travail of slumping economic relativity (in fairness he may have later but I'd switched off.)

Thinking about Jim Anderton and Peter Dunne, no party yet has rebuilt from one, although Winston Peters overcame even worse odds. I am not going to make a prediction about whether or not ACT can. Prebble talked about a book which had tested 80,000 (that sounds high? May be misheard) political 'expert' predictions which found that in the main, tossing a coin would have been more accurate. And I don't wish ACT ill.

My husband wasn't hanging on Banks' every word  and wondering why I was tuning in.  As I said to him, we will have to vote for someone next time. And this is one of limited options.

Bennett doesn't mince her words

Paula Bennett addressed the Christian Council of Social Services Conference during the week. You should know that the audience would be hostile to National. The CCSS is left-leaning and their submissions on National's welfare reforms to date have been negative. She said:  

"We used to have a benefit system that provided for a few. We were a nation that saw welfare as a backstop, as something you went on if you hit dire straits. Many were on Welfare because they were hit alright Welfare was a way out of domestic violence. It was also for those who were cruelly widowed and there was no such thing as being born into welfare. But what about today? In the context of welfare; who are we now? Now we have 220,000 children living in welfare dependent households. We have nearly 7,000 babies born to teen mums, most of who will be on a benefit for at least seven of the next 10 years and many for a lifetime. One third of women currently on the DPB started on the benefit as teen mums. That is more than 30,000 people. Is this the system we envisaged? It is not who we were. It is who we are. But is it who we want to be? I am the Minister of Social Development. I head up this mammoth beast we call the welfare system and I will not sit back and accept that this is the best we can do by people. I do not apportion blame. I think no less of someone on a benefit than I do on any other New Zealander. In fact I often think more of them because I acknowledge and respect how damned hard a life it can be. So, I will believe in them, their ability and their contribution. I will believe in their path out of welfare into a path with opportunity. I will reform the system."

And then she talked about the recent goings on with some providers, notably the Waipareira Trust headed by John Tamihere:  

"Family Start. You have probably already heard about some changes to Family Start. Family Start is one of MSDs flagship programmes. It costs about $31 million a year and on average about $5,000 or $6,000 per baby. I have heard it called the ‘Rolls Royce’ of programmes because it is ‘top of the line’ and worth so much more than any other program. Family Start has been running for more than 14 years. As Minister I had to question if it was getting the kind of results that it should be. After two independent reviews it was ascertained that some Family Start providers were doing a great job, some were doing okay and some were doing a poor job. But what was alarming was that some were considered to potentially be doing damage. The next logical question is why? And of course there were a number of complex reasons. One of which though was the level of support from MSD. These providers were more or less being left to it They were being asked to tick boxes and fill in a ream of nonsense paperwork. So I spoke directly to providers and pulling no punches, I laid it out straight. There had to be change and I would spend more time and money supporting that change. A year later and some changes had been made but not enough. Again I fronted and told them that although progress had been made, some had not made any changes and more needed to be done. In fact in that speech I said, “…for some of you this is your second strike. Three strikes and you‘re out." A few weeks ago Family and Community Services announced that five providers would not have their contracts renewed this year. This was not done lightly but the families these providers were supporting needed results. I know that home based visiting can and does work and so I will back it. But results are absolutely paramount. This process doesn’t end with Family Start and we will be working our way through all of our contracts. There is over $550 million of contracting for services that MSD does and we are demanding that they all be up to a high standard. You will see the outline of this programme of work over the upcoming months. I know what you demand of me as your Minister. You demand that I provide quality services to those families that need it most and that I do it in partnership with you. The New Zealand public also demands that I don’t turn a blind eye to substandard practice and that I have the courage to stand up and make the hard calls."

If I may indulge myself for a moment, this time last year I blogged the following after speaking at the select committee hearing regarding the Future Focus reforms:

In brief I urged them to focus their attention where it is needed - young, unskilled, uneducated women entering and remaining in the benefit system for years. I cautioned that the proposed work-testing will not deter this group and could see even more children added to existing benefits as an avoidance tactic.

Returning to Bennett's speech:

"In New Zealand we are lucky to have a welfare system for those who need it. But under the old system the back to work clock was reset when an additional baby was born to a woman on DPB. For example; if a woman on benefit had another child when their youngest was 18 they would automatically get another 18 years on benefit. In some cases that clock has been ticking for over 35 years and counting. This is not happening in isolation. Around 29 per cent of those on DPB have had a subsequent child while on benefit. Relying on a benefit indefinitely is not healthy, especially for children. As I just mentioned we there are well over 200,000 children living in benefit dependant homes. Tackling this growing problem has been left in the ‘too hard’ basket for too long. It is time to make the hard calls." 

At the very last sentence in her speech repeats that sentence:  

"It’s time to make the hard calls." 

I truly hope that she isn't thwarted by nay-sayers, second-raters or even her own Ministry.

Right place at the wrong time

Bugger. The kids had dental appointments this morning so by the time I got to parliament it was 11am. The 'Closed to the Public ' sign was out and there were people milling about outside the room. I waited, thinking it was a repeat of yesterday when the room was cleared of the public for around 40 minutes. After about 15 minutes the doors were opened and those outside invited in. I trailed in after  seven or eight other bods and sat down in the back row. The chair starts to speak saying that all the oral submissions had been heard, and the committee would be moving on....Typically I stopped listening, thinking about the implications of the oral submissions being finished. Perhaps they were going to look at written submissions, I don't know. But it quickly became evident that they were onto committee business and it became uncomfortably obvious that I was persona non gratis, a member of the public. Oooops. I was hurriedly ushered out. So no report from me today. I mentioned to the person firmly guiding me out that the parliamentary website details had indicated the hearings were open to the public from 10 - 4 on both days, and that I hadn't been there before 11, so didn't know the submissions had finished. She said they had changed the website details. When I check now there are no details at all.

But here's the thing. They scheduled two days and only needed one and a bit. So the rapidity of the process opposition member and submitters were vociferously complaining about had an effect.  Apparently the Green MP moved that the submission period should be re-opened and extended but was outvoted by one vote.

Here's a report regarding the  submitters I missed:

Proposed new welfare laws run the risk of discrimination, a parliamentary committee has been told. The Human Rights Commission says there's insufficient evidence to justify imposing compulsory budget management on young beneficiaries.

Under the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Bill benefit payments can be made through cards that can only be used for accommodation and food, with a small cash-in-hand allowance.

Chief Human Rights Commissioner David Rutherford told the social services select committee on Friday "the evil of discrimination" had to be avoided unless it could be justified and he didn't think in this case that it was.

Deputy Children's Commissioner Jo Cribb said in her submission there must be monitoring to assess the impact of the proposed new welfare regime on young mothers and children.
The bill delivers payments for childcare while it imposes new work obligations on sole parents.

Ms Cribb said it was essential for childcare to be high quality and accessible - particularly for young mothers in remote areas.

  Seems to me that laws discriminate against young people canstantly. I don't have to list the ways. As regards young mothers in "remote areas", the Jobs Op policy Labour ran which made unemployed people ineligible for the dole if they moved to areas where there were no jobs should apply to anyone being work-tested.

What went on at today's select committee

As promised, I spent the morning at the social services select committee hearing on the latest social security amendment bill legislating well-publicised changes to the DPB and a new youth payment. I predicted the submissions would be opposed and each was. As well, each submitter complained about the rapid process in that not enough notice was given for submissions, and the non-Wellington submitters uniformly complained about having to present via video rather than face-to-face. I heard three individual males; young, middle-aged and elderly. Then came the Women's Health Action Trust and the Auckland Women's Centre. The main themes were;

- there are no jobs
- the reforms are punitive and mean-spirited
- they contravene women's human rights and their sexual and reproductive freedom, as prescribed by the UN

When the chair, National MP Sam Lotu-liga asked the second submitter, Robin Gwynn, if he was aware that Seek is advertising 15,000 jobs he was reprimanded by Labour MP Rajen Prasad for engaging in such a manner . Prasad told the chair to "desist or it will lead to disorder". Having heard from Mr Gwynn that "the government has a moral and humane responsibility to make sure the jobs are available before passing such legislation" which was "bullying the weakest and most defenceless elements of our society" I thought the chair had a reasonable point but the Labour MPs were quite indignant at having such relevancies mentioned.

Next up was an arch lefty unbeknownst to me but recognisable by content, David Tolich. He vehemently objected to the video process and that is was arranged by a "private company with taxpayer money" no less. (Ignores that fewer tax payer dollars are required for this facilitation than the alternative). He said it contravened Te Riti O Waitangi and the Constitution. He said that the DPB reforms were an insult to parenting, an abuse of children and parents, and culturally abusive to boot. He wanted the benefit levels pre-1990s cuts restored and, surprise, surprise, the IWTC given to beneficiary parents. It would only cost $400m which he described as "chicken feed". He spoke so long there wasn't much time for questions but Jacinda Ardern managed a patsy about  whether he agreed (or words to that effect) that the incentives to work in NZ are very high because of "how low benefit rates are."

Next came the Women's Health Action Trust. The presenter, Christy Parker, senior analyst, tried to cram in as much as she could but focussed on the policy that will require women who add a child to their benefit to be available for work after one year. This creates "a differential gender impact because it undermines women's sexual and reproductive rights, fails to value parenting, increases social stigma..."

There was no support for;

-raising the DPB age to 19
-the youth payment
-private providers working with youth
-information sharing
-compulsory parenting courses

Parents should be "supported, celebrated and empowered". This legislation would "jeopardise women's self determination." You get the drift.

Labour's Mangere MP Sua William Sio, to his credit asked if the group had had any practical experience with private providers that led to their opposition. The submitter pointed to the UK reforms and private providers, and "welfare reforms internationally that have been a failure" but admitted she had no personal experience to call on.

Next Leonie Morris of the Auckland Women's Centre. Again she complained bitterly about the process. She wanted to be able to speak in person and described what she could see at her end; just the committee chair and the back of each MP's monitor. She requested that each member introduce themselves. They obliged, but it wasted her tight time allocation. She hammered her organisation's  expertise in the DPB. Said that 50 percent of women on the DPB came from a background of domestic violence. (I will attempt to investigate this claim). The other 50 percent have "experienced traumatic separation". She said about women on the DPB, "Most live in poverty, the majority have health problems, the majority have low educational qualifications" but then that the reforms were "mean-spirited and punitive". After such a testimony about life on the DPB it was ironic to hear her slamming attempts to change the system.

National MP Mike Sabine (who had been the only National MP engaging with the submitters bar the chair and there were 3 more) asked if the Centre had any problem with women who chose to go back to work when their children were very young (responding to the constant theme that requiring mothers to be available for work devalued parenting and even verged on child abuse according to Tolich). The submitter from the Women's Health Action Group butted in and said the key word was 'choose'. Women being work-tested were unable to choose.

If I could have had one moment of redress this is when I would have used it. These women go on and on about rights (human), freedom and choice for beneficiaries not once acknowledging the loss of rights (property), freedom and choice imposed on all those who fund the DPB.

I might return tomorrow. Sucker for punishment that I am.

An experiment

This arrived in my e-mail inbox recently:

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism".. All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A.... (substituting grades for dollars - something closer to home and more readily understood by all).

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied 'hard' were upset and the students who studied 'little' were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied 'even less' and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied 'little'.

The second test average was a 'D'. No one was happy.

When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.

As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that "socialism" would also ultimately 'fail' because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.

Latest benefit statistics

Latest benefit statistics have just been released at MSD website.

All benefit numbers are down over the year to March 2012. The DPB had the smallest decrease of 72 or 0.1 percent. But at least the trend is positive.

Compared to five years ago there are increased percentages of males, Maori and Pacific, 18-24 year-olds and 40-54 year olds making up the total. And a smaller percentage of beneficiaries have worked during the previous year.

John Minto deliberately malicious

John Minto, speaking on behalf of the Mana Party, has described the removal of people from state houses in Glen Innes as "ethnic cleansing". Obviously designed to shock and offend, perhaps I should ignore the headline. It wouldn't matter who was in the state houses, the value of the land is too high to have locked up serving a small number.

The far left pretend to loathe racism but are happy to invoke its overtones when it suits.

Colin James on the future of ACT

Coolin James writing for the Otago Daily Times:

Economists and politicians talk endlessly of economic "recovery". But what are we "recovering" to?

And can we go there?

A "re-" prefixed to the wrong word can seduce us away from the uncertain future to a comforting - but lost - past.

Take the Act party, in conference this coming weekend.

Twenty years ago, Act's formula for economic and, as a result, social policy powered a lot of thinking and a large amount of government policy, here and in many market-economy countries.

Much smaller government, greater individual and corporate freedom and weariness of "welfarism" formed a tide in intellectual and political circles.

But by the late 1990s National Party ministers had tired of and grown resistant to Act's lectures and those of its supporting think-tank, the Business Roundtable.

More