Benefits: blackmail money extracted under threat?

The NZ Herald editorialises today about drugs and beneficiaries.

"...using the benefits system as a means of forcing people off drugs and getting their lives back in order has never been considered before."

Let's back up a bit here.

According to the 1965 NZ Yearbook;

Invalids' Benefits-Subject to certain residential and other qualifications, every person of the age of 16 years and upwards who is not qualified to receive an age benefit is entitled to an invalid's benefit if he-

1. Is totally blind; or
2. Is permanently incapacitated for work as the result of an accident or by reason of illness or of any congenital defect.

The other qualifications referred to are as follows:

1. That he has fulfilled certain residential qualifications, these in the main being the same as for superannuation benefits described on page 178.

2. That incapacity for work was not self-induced or in any way brought about with a view to qualifying for an invalid's benefit.

3. Applicant must be of good moral character and sober habits.

My next question is, then, wasn't requiring eligible recipients to be "of good moral character and sober habits" also using the benefit system to control how people behaved? Later in the 1960s (judging by Yearbook information) this requirement disappeared. So in effect the door was opened to addicts.

In 1964 the population was 2.4 million and there were 8,000 invalid beneficiaries in total. In 2012 the population is 4.4 million and there are 84,000 invalid beneficiaries, 6,000 of them drug and/or alcohol addicts.

So now the Minister is trying to put the genie back in the bottle but gets told she is doing something unacceptable.

The NZ Herald continues:

Taking money away from them will make no difference because addicts will go to any length to obtain drugs. Indeed, in some cases, they are more likely to be lured into crime or prostitution to feed their addiction.
Sensibly, therefore, the Government plans to exempt drug and alcohol addicts from sanctions for refusing or failing a drug test. It has, however, hinted that such beneficiaries may be forced to get treatment for their addictions. Such a step should be resisted as the policy detail is finalised. In no other area of health is such an approach taken.
For those suffering from a wide range of mental illnesses, for example, collecting a benefit is not contingent on agreeing to treatment. Why, then, stigmatise addicts in this manner? Specialists in drug treatment are adamant that addicts should not, and cannot, be coerced into abstinence.

So there you have it. We have to support people with addictive drug habits lest they threaten us with crime. In a similar way as we have to support people with children lest the little children suffer. So it took me a while but I get to the point of this post.

In some cases paying a benefit is like paying blackmail money. And our acquiescence is wrong.

Paying it will only encourage more extortion.

Better to be addicted

The main message readers can take from this report is that if you are on a benefit and using drugs, better to be addicted and you won't be pestered to find a job. Tell me I'm wrong. Inevitably pressure will go on doctors to certify more cases as addiction.

I wonder if any older readers can remember what happened in the fifties and sixties when Social Welfare operated under legislation that exempted people who caused their own incapacity, and were not of sober, moral character, from receiving benefits?  Did they actually apply the legislation and were the streets full of drug and/or alcohol-addicted derelicts?

CYF notifications for 2010/11

More from the MSD Statistical Report just released.

The next set of figures is interesting and quite misleading unless you read through the text carefully. Since 2007/08 the Police have been required to notify CYF whenever they attend a family violence incident where children are present. Up until 2010/11 the police referrals were combined in general notifications. Last year where they did not require further action they have been listed separately. So what the following chart actually shows is that notifications not requiring further action are increasing.


 table CY.1: Numbers of notifications received and requiring further action

Outcome of initial assessment of notifications received	Number of notifications received1,2
	2006/2007	2007/2008	2008/2009	2009/2010	2010/2011
Notifications requiring further action	43,845	40,739	49,224	55,494	57,949
Police family violence referrals3	-	-	-	-	57,153
Notifications not requiring further action	28,082	48,722	61,573	69,427	35,645
Total notifications received	71,927	89,461	110,797	124,921	150,747

And what is the ethnic make-up of the children who are subject to these notifications?

Nearly one half of the notifications requiring further action were concerned with Māori children and young people Of the notifications requiring further action between 2008/2009 and 2010/2011: around 46% concerned children and young people identified as Māori 31% concerned children and young people identified as European around 11% concerned children and young people identified as Pacific people.

What type of abuse was found?

 table CY.3: Substantiated findings by type

Type of finding	2006/2007	2007/2008	2008/2009	2009/2010	2010/2011
	Number of abuse and neglect findings from investigation of notifications1,2
Emotionally abused	8,256	8,664	10,938	12,535	12,595
Physically abused	2,274	2,321	2,855	2,886	3,225
Sexually abused	1,194	1,003	1,126	1,201	1,505
Neglected	4,486	4,302	4,677	4,403	4,762
Total abuse and neglect findings	16,210	16,290	19,596	21,025	22,087

So how can the picture be summed up? More notifications of which a smaller proportion required further action. However actual substantiations have also increased. So, notwithstanding I haven't accounted for any demographic change, and CYF may be being over-zealous, it looks very much like the overall situation for children is not improving.

Moving from welfare to Super

The latest Statistical Report from MSD has just been released.

I'm reading through it looking for interesting titbits. 

Here's one.

In the financial year to June 2011 there were 48,307 Super grants made. 16 percent were transfers from another benefit. A further 4.6 percent were to people who had been on a benefit within the last 4 years.

One in five. Sort of reminiscent of the one in five on welfare by the end of their birth year...

Truth Column June 22

My Truth column from Friday June 22 is now on-line.

WATCHING Bronwyn Pullar being interviewed on 60 Minutes provided most people their first opportunity to hear her story first-hand, though much had been written and speculated about prior to this.


Pullar presents herself as a ‘whistle-blower’. She’s had a gutsful of ACC and is going public to force change. So far she has succeeded in bringing down the Minister, the CEO, the chairman and other board members. But what does head-rolling actually achieve?

More

Other Truth columns here

Informed debate or ignorant squabbling?

'Informed debate' is one of those smug phrases used by pseudo academics, students with a smattering of university education who think they are experts, and generally patronising know-it-alls. They  typically call for 'informed debates' until the information disproves their position.

Some comments from The Standard yesterday:

 The average length of the DPB recipient is just 3 years.

I am sure that the average length of the DPB recipient would  best be measured in metres but if he means the average time spent on the DPB, he is wrong.

FACT

Of all sole parents who came on to Domestic Purposes Benefit–Sole Parent or the Emergency Maintenance Allowance in the year to June 1996, just over one-quarter received main benefits for less than three years out of the following 10. One in three received main benefits for eight or more years out of the following 10. 


So let's break that down as:

26% under 3 years
41% between 3 and 8 years
33% over 8 years

While I cannot ascertain an average from the data, it isn't three.

Then looking back from December 2005 of the 114,000 on the DPB at that point

 just over half had spent at least 80% of the history period [10 years] supported by main benefits

 Burt numbers on DPB have sky rocketed under National.
up from 80 odd thousand to 115,00 is hypocritical and another broken promise.

FACT

At December 2008 there were 100,000 on the DPB; at March 2012 there were 113,000. Not all are single parents but the large majority are. (My guess is the increase would have been worse under Labour but we are dealing with facts here - not supposition.)

 That Māori women feature disproportionately in DPB numbers does not necessarily infer a deliberate choice to be on the benefit. To follow your implication further – while 20-23% of people on the DPB are Māori, 77 – 80% are non-Māori.

FACT

43 percent of DPB recipients are Maori (March 2012)

FACT

 45 percent of Maori females aged 20-29 rely on welfare (October 2011)

And just because the irony is breathtaking here is a final comment from a defender of the DPB arguing with a  "witless" right-winger (not me):

Facts can’t enter this person’s world-view, and when they do they get rejected in favour of the familiar ol’ security blankie of prejudice.

So I put up some facts and got told to "piss off".

More on the work-test after one year

Carrying on from yesterday's post about Simon Collins' article which featured a number of talking heads bleating about separating babies and mothers when the baby is 12 months or older. Psycho Milt at No Minister has written an on-the-money post highlighting this drivel.

As I pointed out yesterday, the work requirement may be as little as 15 hours a week. Now it occurs to me that Work and Income already funds mothers on the DPB to put their pre-schoolers into daycare for up to 9 hours a week. That's right. They pay the mothers to look after them as well as paying someone else to look after them.

But surely that practice should stop because it causes the very separation the talking heads are anguishing over. How much support would a campaign along those lines get? Bugger all.

I suspect the only separation that really bothers the types that Collins turned up is when mother has to go to a job she doesn't want. The objection is not about the child's well-being.

Why 22 percent of children born are on a benefit by the end of the same year

NZ Herald social issues reporter Simon Collins does a great job of seeking out 'real' people. And his statistics have integrity. Here are some characters from today's article about the new rule that will work-test mothers who add a baby to their benefit when that child turns one. If you read the full article and get to the objections bear in mind that the work required could be a little as 15 hours a week so hardly represents a wrenching child-mother separation issue. (I started a business when my first child was 6 months old. Luckily I had the help of my mum when needing to visit prospective customers. My devotion  to my baby - now a very stable and well-adjusted 18 year-old - was no less. There might be exceptional cases but the legislation provides for discretion to waive the rule anyway.)

Tough welfare reforms now going through Parliament may deter some women from seeing the sole parent benefit as a viable lifestyle - but at the risk of long-term harm to their children. Social issues reporter Simon Collins reports


Otara administrator Delaney Papua, who turns 20 next month and is expecting her first baby in November, says going on the benefit seems to be just what you do when you get pregnant.
"All the people that I know that have kids go on it, so I kind of just assumed that you have to be on that," she says.
The babies' fathers often have no role in the families they help create, giving them no anchor in society. Papua doesn't expect her baby's father to support her....


Melanie Hoto, 33, worked in a lunch bar on the North Shore and then at a fish market in Tauranga but eventually ended up on the DPB.
"I came back to Auckland and lost interest [in work]. It was so hard trying to find work. I even applied to work here at McDonald's," she says over a hot chocolate at McDonald's in Glen Innes.
"In the end I fell pregnant with my daughter and I thought, 'I get a good amount of money on the benefit, why bother working?"'
Her partner "was never in the picture".
"It was a one-night stand," she says. "He's in jail now for robbing a shop. He was into drugs - a lot of people are into it, it's easy cash."


Another woman, Renee, became pregnant with a flatmate while on the benefit when her first two children were 8 and 5, and says it "was never a boyfriend/girlfriend thing". She also thinks the new law is "fair".
"If the law had been in place, I just would have been probably more cautious," she says.
At another McDonald's recently, she overheard two young mothers with babies talking about how they were trying to get pregnant again.
"I'm loving this benefit shit," one said. "I'm going to have another baby, I'll keep having them, it's free money."

What $32 million worth of change looks like

MSD are investing $31.65 million to get from here...

 ...to here.

(P = service providers of which there are 2,300)

I wonder how much went on the pictures? At least they make more sense than the Whanau Ora ones.

And I also wonder how many times MSD has re-organised its structure and operations over the past few decades?

Bill English questions parameters of drug-testing

Bill English apparently mooted drug-testing all beneficiaries - not just those on the new dole - the Jobseekers Support. That predictably brought a variety of responses. But there doesn't seem to be any guiding principle at play.

Not all workers are drug-tested. Why should all jobseekers? If someone fails to get or keep a particular job because they are failing a drug-test then they shouldn't be eligible to taxpayer suppport.

The broad principle should be anyone causing their own ongoing incapacity to work make themselves ineligible for a benefit. And that would include any working age person.

The bigger issue with drug-testing is how widespread will it become and to what purpose?

Imagine this.

Cannabis is fully legalised but use it, and you will never work.

Cat seeks camouflage

Thomas Sowell's political glossary

Thomas Sowell's political glossary

"A more positive term that is likely to be heard a lot, during election years especially, is "compassion." But what does it mean concretely? More often than not, in practice it means a willingness to spend the taxpayers' money in ways that will increase the spender's chances of getting reelected. If you are skeptical — or, worse yet, critical — of this practice, then you qualify for a different political label: "mean-spirited." A related political label is "greedy." In the political language of today, people who want to keep what they have earned are said to be "greedy," while those who wish to take their earnings from them and give it to others (who will vote for them in return) show "compassion." "

Hat tip The welfare State We're In

Painting poser

This doggie was painted posthumously. The unusual thing about him was he had a missing front leg. So I crafted the painting in such a way as to put the attention on his face rather than chest. Looked like a very appealing chap. I see it is unsigned so it might not have been finished when I took this photo. I think he was a bit hairier by the time he left.

British PM: Welfare system eroded culture of responsibility

 The following is an excerpt from a speech about welfare just delivered by British PM David Cameron:

"Now when we look at how we got into this mess, we can go back in time and see a lot of good intentions.
Why does the single mother get the council house straightaway when the hard-working couple have been waiting for years?
Because governments and local councils wanted to make sure children got a decent start in life, so mothers were given priority for council housing.
Why do we have people on big salaries living in council houses?
Because governments wanted social housing to support hard-working people, so the eligibility criteria were set wide and the tenures long.
Why has it become acceptable for many people to choose a life on benefits?
Because governments wanted to give people dignity while they are unemployed – and while this is clearly important, it led us to the wrong places…
…to job seekers being called ‘customers' instead of claimants…
…and to conditionality on benefits being set at the bare minimum.
As well as the good intentions of governments, there was that assumption of trust at the heart of the system…
...that people would naturally do the right thing…
…that they would use the system when they fell on hard times but then work their way out of it.
This may have worked when the welfare state was born, when there was a stronger culture of collective responsibility in this country.
But as I've argued for years, the welfare system has helped to erode that culture."

It's a lengthy speech and it's all there in respect of recognising the problems.

But there remains a sense of avoiding tough answers.

"Back in the 90s the Clinton administration in the US started time-limiting benefits, and they saw federal case-loads fall by over 50 per cent.
Instead of US-style time-limits – which remove entitlements altogether – we could perhaps revise the levels of benefits people receive if they are out of work for literally years on end.
It is extraordinary that there are 1.4 million people in this country who have been out of work for at least nine of the past 10 years.
So softer time-limits – that increase the incentive to work, that stop people getting stuck in that welfare trap – could be something we consider."

The US reforms were the cumulative result of many states experimenting with reform ideas. I've looked at them extensively and consider they are the best implemented. Cameron misrepresents them here by talking about the total removal of entitlements. There are exemptions from time-limits and enormous assistance-in-kind programs. And individual states/counties still have autonomy with their own funds.

Crucial however is telling able people that the state will help them to a point and beyond that they are on their own. Britain and New Zealand are still too afraid to make that call.

Welfare targets are very soft

According to the NZ Herald:  

"The Government wants Work and Income to cut the number of long-term beneficiaries on a working-age benefit by 30 per cent over five years.....Result. Reduce the number of people who have been on a working-age benefit for more than 12 months by 30 per cent by 2017."

Of the 322,951 working-age beneficiaries at March 2012 214,440 had been on a benefit for more than a year. Back to the NZ Herald: 

"That would see the number of people on working age benefits drop from 78,000 to 55,000 by 2017."

Something isn't adding up. That's because the long-term beneficiaries the government has identified are a discrete group. Those who will be transferred to the new Jobseeker Support. Within that category the government is aiming to move 23,000 into work.

That represents 7 percent of the overall current total.

"Aspirational"?

The tale of two ex MPs

What a contrast ex MPs Rodney Hide and Georgina Bayer make.

 Rodney:

I thought i'd be unemployed about now. Happily it's not turned out that way. I have spent the week up to my eyeballs in mud, knocking over a concrete wall. Who'd have guessed?.....When I was a politician I was supposed to pretend sympathy for people without a job. The truth is I never had much. I always figured there's work to be done for anyone prepared to get stuck in. I now know that's true. I got a job pushing a wheelbarrow and swinging a hammer. Why can't the so-called unemployed? We all know why. They're too picky. The jobs don't suit. It's a bit cold. It's a bit wet. It's a bit hard.

Georgina:

Former Labour MP Georgina Beyer says she is broke and living off the unemployment benefit in a one-bedroom granny flat.... Ms Beyer admits she has been told to "lower her sights", but says some jobs are off the agenda. "I do draw the line at being a crew member at McDonald's. I'm a little bit past that sort of thing."

Remind me which one belonged to Labour - the party for the workers?

Will The Greens supplant Labour?

My Friday June 15 column from The Truth is now on-line.

When last in power Labour introduced an incentive to entice parents on welfare into jobs, the In Work Tax Credit (IWTC). 


The Child Poverty Action Group decided this constituted discrimination against children of beneficiaries and took a case to the Human Rights Tribunal. They lost. 


The Tribunal found that while discrimination was occurring, the government was justified in applying it. 

The Labour government stood firmly behind its policy, bringing in overseas experts to argue their corner.

More

Other columns here

Scottish doctors strike over plans to increase pension age and contributions

This is apparently the first time in 37 years doctors in the UK have gone on strike.

It surprises me that given the various European crises essentially caused by the welfare state, the 'privileged' in Scotland are so strenuously fighting austerity measures, and I wonder how much public sympathy there is for them. I'm no envier but there are highly paid public employees throughout the western world with far more capacity to tighten their belts than most.

Rules about work-testing the DPB

When parents on a benefit face work-testing as their youngest child turns five, some will attempt to avoid this eventuality by adding another baby. In recognition of this the government is introducing a rule that says the work-testing will only be waived till the subsequent child is one year-old.

It seems to me that there will still be grey areas, for instance, what if a subsequent child is born during a brief period off benefit? On re-application for a benefit does the caregiver get 5 years free from work-testing?

So in an attempt to find out what  attention had been given to this scenario I sent the following question to MSD:

In respect of the DPB welfare reforms which will introduce part-time work-testing when the youngest dependent child turns one if that child was been added to an existing benefit, has any official advice or correspondence occurred between cabinet and MSD discussing how the new rule will apply if the beneficiary has a period off benefit and returns?

The reply:

"In response to part four of your request, I refer you to recommendation six of the welfare Reform Cabinet paper, Paper C Parents on Benefit Who Have Subsequent Children"

This is what recommendation six says:

Agree that in implementing and maintaining this policy intent the Chief Executive should have discretion to consider application and, on occasion, exemption in the full range of circumstances where a subsequent child is added to a benefit dependent household.

Is that any kind of answer? Perhaps I didn't explain myself clearly.

I'm not talking about a subsequent child added to a benefit dependent household. I'm talking about a second, third, fourth child born between benefits. What rules will apply to their caregivers? Because as it stands a caregiver could have a child every five years and never reach work-testing so long as that child is not added to a benefit.

And if they could physically manage to add a baby a year to a benefit, that would also exempt them from work-testing.

These 'loopholes' demonstrate why it would be much better to have simple time-limits.

Under the regime about to be implemented I think we will see a pattern developing of repeated DPB-dependent spells in five year clusters (except it won't be DPB spells - it'll be SPS Sole Parent Support spells.)

Stat of the week

The Statistics Department of the University of Auckland awarded me Stat of the Week  at their Stats Chat site for which I receive a $20 iTunes voucher. Ta very much. Don't know what I do with such a thing. But probably one of my kids will take care of that.

The Stat?

That's the big lie.

(Thanks to Eric Crampton for alerting me to the site and competition).

Writing a good story

According to the NZ Herald:

Many young Aucklanders face having to pay for previously free sexual health consultations because of the Government's squeeze on health dollars.

This is expected to contribute to an increase in New Zealand's already internationally high rates of teenage pregnancy and some sexually transmitted infections, including chlamydia.

So I read on to see who is making this claim.

 [ProCare CE] Mr Hooton acknowledged that under ProCare's move "it is possible that teen pregnancy, abortion and STI rates could increase".

 So it appears to be the journalist's suggestion which, put to the 'expert', couldn't be ruled out.

That's a good trick for making attention-grabbing copy.

The subject of the story, limiting health funding in certain areas, seems to be in line with the general trend of more targeted spending, which on one hand is inequitable, but on the other tackles the problems where they are worst.

Asians too single-minded and smart

Have a read of Rodney's column today. It's based on an interview with Ranginui Walker which I happened to hear. I've commented at the site to the effect that I don't care what colour my GP is. But I do want them to be smart and capable, something Ranginui Walker seems to have somewhere down his list of prerequisites.

When Professor Ranginui Walker rang radio recently to argue the case for increasing the number of Maori in medical training in New Zealand, I hardly expected to finish with the view that too many Pakeha are being allowed to become doctors.

More

Super sense of inevitability

It's my view that New Zealanders have a strong sense of inevitability about the eligibility age for Super going up.

So for the life of me I cannot understand the political football it has developed into.

NZ First are backing no change. Winston plays to the entitlement brigade. Key says, according to the NZ Herald:

"This is my challenge to Winston Peters - I dare him to go out there and say he will not under any conditions form a government with Labour even if Labour's policy is to raise the super age from 2020, not in the 3 year period from 2014 to 2017. I dare him to say that. He will not. He will not because he's tricky. He'll find a way around all of that stuff."

It's all so risible, really.

On gay adoption

My Friday June 8 Truth column is now on-line

What a hullabaloo the issue of gay adoption causes.

So many people theorise about its merits or otherwise. But why should anyone with the capacity to love and raise a child well be barred from doing just that? And guess what. If the gay couple were Maori, adoption would be fine.


More

Other Truth columns here.

On gay marriage

Bob McCoskrie sent me a two-pager explaining why libertarians should not support gay marriage. Full of woolly thinking. Bob and I agree on some things but this isn't ever going to be one of them. Below are the 4 assertions made by Maggie Gallagher and a response to them from another source. 

 1.  Government did not create marriage and has no business redefining it.   

1. She wants government to prevent evolution in marriage. Marriage is constantly redefined and conservatives wish to prevent that. So they do want government involvement very heavily, to the point of taxing people in 'unmarried' relationships at higher rates. Was govt. redefining marriage when it allowed divorce? Marriage is always changing and most the time government is playing catchup, it doesn't lead the charge but reluctantly brings up the rear. 

Notice also her non sequitur. She argues that marriage encourages the binding of parents to children. "If encouraging mothers and fathers for children is a key part of marriage’s public purpose, then same-sex couples simply do not fit."

There are many parts to marriage. No marriage is required to fill all of them. Certainly allowing the marriage of post-menopausal woman doesn't fit. Nor does the marriage of women, or men, who are sterile, or men who had vasectomies. There are many functions to marriage not just one.

 2.  When marriage declines, government expands. 

 2. If the decline of marriage causes government to expand, then wouldn't expanding marriage reduce the size of government, so why fight the expansion of marriage?

 3.  Gay marriage has no economic benefits. 

 3. No economic benefits to whom? She is very careful to define economic benefits in odd ways. The benefits to couples, who don't pay the higher tax rates, she seems to ignore. Marriage gives people backup, that is others who care for them. When they don't have that they rely on the state. So wouldn't allowing gays to marry eventually reduce welfare costs?

 4.  The Slope Really Is Slippery 

 4. Slippery slope arguments are mostly impossible to address. Where did the slope begin? Why is gay marriage the beginning and not interracial marriage? 

Also note she says people only have a "right to raise our natural children." Does this mean that adoptive parents do not have parental rights? Is she slipping in Catholic crap to mean no one has the right to children born through IVF? 

And Unsolicitedious has a good post on the subject here. 

Heaven forbid responsibility should be handed back to families

Gordon Campbell agrees with John Key. The qualifying age for Super should stay at 65. Here's one of the reasons why:

"...there’s no easy way of easing the costs involved in meeting the burden of care for our ageing population. If we simply raise the entitlement age and/or cut the pension – and National did both in the 1990s under the Shipley administration – while ignoring the employment context, we will simply privatise the social, psychological and financial costs of care, and hand the responsibility over to families."

Heaven forbid we should shift responsibility to individuals or their families. The welfare state has been such a successful experiment who would want a return to the ethos of personal responsibility?

What educational failure looks like

What educational failure looks like

Good luck with that

The government thinks it can get money out of a DPB recipient's partner if she (usually) is done for fraudulently claiming a single parent benefit.

Just demanding it back from the recipient causes a "gender imbalance" apparently. Paying homage at the equal rights altar now.

Like they get money for unpaid fines and money for child support debt......

And if he has to pay on the principle that he 'benefited' from the fraud, what about a live-in parent or the landlord?

As I said, good luck with that.

Running on empty

One of my all time favourites.

 Sometimes I read stuff that just riles me anew. By now I should be de-sensitised to emotive (yet essentially empty) grandiosity; ignorance of fact and shallow thinking. Sadly a section of the upcoming generation  has been schooled to repeat seductive but superficial reasons for all manner of societal maladies.

I attempted to put a response in a letter to the editor but, I don't know. I've been arguing this so long my pen-to-paper expressions feel as trite as whatever prompts them.

In Green co-leader Metiria Turei's column about protecting children from child abuse the words women, kids, mothers,  families  and midwives appear repeatedly. The word father does not feature. The only inference to men at all appears in the line, "...protecting kids and women from violence and abuse....". This type of unconscious dismissal of fathers, and worse, the perpetuation of the idea that only men abuse women and children, is disgraceful. Official child abuse statistics show that women commit around half of all abuse and neglect, and in 2010 made up 35 percent of apprehensions for child assault.

Like it or not, all the evidence shows (and Metiria Turei calls for evidence-based policies) that children are safest in committed two-parent families, yet social policy of the past forty years has reduced the likelihood they will grow up in those environments.

Ms Turei prides herself on being a feminist and all the gains feminism has brought. But feminist-driven government intervention is also responsible for the alienation of fathers and men from the lives of children. Therein lies a substantial factor in the child abuse problem.

OECD on raising pension age

I have written in favour of raising the Super entitlement age a number of times. I once made the suggestion that as Super is linked to the average wage and the CPI, why not life expectancy? That idea makes an appearance below.

Here's what the OECD is saying:

11/06/2012 - Governments will need to raise retirement ages gradually to address increasing life expectancy in order to ensure that their national pension systems are both affordable and adequate, according to a new OECD report. At a time of heightened global economic uncertainty, such reforms can also play a crucial role in governments’ responses to the crisis, contributing to fiscal consolidation at the same time as boosting growth.

Over the next 50 years, life expectancy at birth is expected to increase by more than 7 years in developed economies. The long-term retirement age in half of OECD countries will be 65, and in 14 countries it will be between 67 and 69. The Pensions Outlook 2012 says that increases in retirement ages are underway or planned in 28 out of the 34 OECD countries. These increases, however, are expected to keep pace with improved life expectancy only in six countries for men and in 10 countries for women. Governments should thus consider formally linking retirement ages to life expectancy, as in Denmark and Italy, and make greater efforts to promote private pensions.

“Bold action is required. Breaking down the barriers that stop older people from working beyond traditional retirement ages will be a necessity to ensure that our children and grand-children can enjoy an adequate pension at the end of their working life,” said OECD Secretary-General Angel Gurría. “Though these reforms can sometimes be unpopular and painful, at this time of tight public finances and limited scope for fiscal and monetary policy, these reforms can also serve to boost much needed growth in ageing economies.”

The Pensions Outlook 2012 finds that reforms over the past decade have cut future public pension payouts, typically by 20 to 25 per cent. People starting work today can expect a net public pension of about half their net earnings on average in OECD countries, if they retire after a full career, at the official retirement age. But in nearly all the 13 countries that have made private pensions mandatory, pensioners can expect benefits of around 60% of earnings.

Conversely, in countries where public pensions are relatively low and private pensions voluntary, such as Germany, Ireland, Korea, Japan and the United States, large segments of the population can expect major falls in income upon retirement.

This could cause pensioner poverty to increase significantly. Later retirement and greater access to private pensions will be critical to closing this pension gap, says the OECD.

However, making private pensions compulsory is not necessarily the answer for every country. According to the report, such action could unfairly affect low earners and be perceived as an additional tax. Auto-enrolment schemes – where people are enrolled automatically and can then opt out within a certain time frame – might be a suitable alternative.

Italy and New Zealand have already introduced such schemes and the UK is set to roll one out in October 2012. However, the report finds that results are mixed, with a major expansion of coverage of private pensions in countries like New Zealand, and having only a small effect in others like Italy.

More broadly, reforming tax reliefs to encourage private pension savings is also needed, as low earners and younger workers are much less likely to have a private pension. Facilitating matching contributions or giving flat subsidies to savers, such as in Germany and New Zealand, would improve their incentives to contribute. To boost confidence in private pensions, governments also need to improve their oversight of funds to ensure that charges are kept low and risks minimised.

This inaugural edition of the Pensions Outlook also includes the first comprehensive evaluation of national Defined Contribution systems, which are now a central feature of many countries’ pension systems. Among other recommendations, the report argues that it is critical to set the minimum or default contribution rate in Defined Contribution systems at an appropriate level.

Contributions to these systems need to be high enough so that together with public pensions they generate sufficient income at retirement. While Australia is moving in the right direction by increasing its contribution rate from 9% to 12%, it remains too low in countries such as Mexico and New Zealand (6.5% and 3%, respectively).

For comment or further information, journalists should contact Juan Yermo of the OECD’s Financial Affairs division (tel. + 33 1 45 24 96 62) or Edward Whitehouse of the OECD’s Social Policy division (tel. + 33 6 25 89 56 67).

Highlights of the report are available at www.oecd.org/daf/pensions/outlook

The big lie of the day

"The vast majority of child abuse is perpetrated by men."

That's according to an editorial in this morning's Herald on Sunday.

The following statistics from 2006 clearly show that females are perpetrating a great deal of child abuse.

And just released official data shows that in 2010 35 percent of the apprehensions for assault on a child were females.

It beggars belief that such inaccurate claims from what should be  reliable commentators make print. "I read it is the newspaper - it must be true...."

A break from the serious stuff

An elderly man from Stratford is stopped by the police around 2 a.m. And is asked where he is going at this time of night.

The man replies, "I am on my way to a lecture about gambling, alcohol abuse and the effects it has on the human body, as well as smoking and staying out late."

The officer then asks, "Really? Who is giving that lecture at this time of night?"

The man replies, "That would be my wife."

And this is an absolute must for doggie types. Hilariously put together and utterly heart-warming. The Irish pug sung by the Irish Pug.

"The Empty Playground and the Welfare State"

This is a fascinating piece distributed by the NCPA. Apparently people who don't have children are 'free-riders' and socialised retirement has created more and more of them. I have a couple of problems with this. Many childless people pay disproportionate amounts of tax over their lifetimes. And thanks to other forms of working-age welfare some parents produce children that are not contributors. And the reasons behind falling fertility rates are multiple. But it's nevertheless an interesting theory.

The Empty Playground and the Welfare State

In centuries past, the traditional method for workers to prepare for retirement and ensure that their needs would be met was to have children.  Ideally, parents would invest time and resources into raising their children, who would then care for their elderly parents in their retirement, says Ramesh Ponnuru, a senior editor for the National Review.
This process has changed, but less than one might think.  The relationship between the younger and older generation remains the same (the prior financially provides for the latter) -- the primary difference is that the system is socialized.  All younger citizens pay in, and all older citizens receive.
Interestingly, the hidden effect of the socialization of this relationship is that it has created a widespread free rider problem, pitting those with children against those without them.

• Parents must invest in their children in order to turn them into productive workers, capable of caring for themselves and contributing to government programs for the elderly.
• Parents will then receive outlays from these programs later in life, which are presumably the fruits of their children's labor.
• However, non-parents will have the same retirement security provided by Social Security without having to raise their own children.
• In short, non-parents are given a free ride off of the efforts and sacrifices of parents.

This is not to say that there are no other reasons for having children than retirement security; of course, many parents gain joy from raising children while others see it as an expression of gratitude for the life they have been given.  Nevertheless, the presence of this free rider problem should, theoretically, result in people having fewer children in countries with developed Social Security programs.

• In a 2005 paper by economists at the National Bureau of Economic Research, they found that fertility rates dropped rapidly just after World War II, just when socialized retirement security programs were expanded.
• Additionally, fertility rates fell further in Europe, where entitlements were expanded more than they were in the United States.
• In their model, entitlements account for roughly half of the decline in fertility.
• They found that when a pension system expands by 10 percent of gross domestic product, the average number of children per woman drops by 0.7 to 1.6.

Bradford berates Bennett

At the weekend it was Metiria Turei bollocking Paula Bennett for "plunging the knife" into solo mums. Today it's Sue Bradford's turn. But first, consider the incongruity of her position.

Sue Bradford wants the state to step in when a child is smacked. She didn't want any parent to be able claim the use of 'reasonable force' when disciplining a child and get away with it.

But she wants the state to keep right out of influencing whether or not a parent previously convicted of serious child abuse or murder has a further child.  

[Paula Bennett] said the Cabinet was considering a range of options to deal with the issue of known child abusers or killers having further children - including allowing the Court to direct someone convicted of serious child abuse or neglect or murder not to have more children.

Bradford responds:

Government moves towards judicial control of some womens’ reproductive rights are another insidious step on the slippery road to State eugenics says Auckland Action Against Poverty spokesperson Sue Bradford. ‘It is abhorrent that on top of encouraging long acting contraception for all women beneficiaries and worktesting them from the time their baby is one year old, Paula Bennett now intends to find a way to stop some mothers from having children at all. ‘While the protection of children should always be paramount, our group recognises that the courts and CYFS already have the right to step in and remove babies and children if they are in danger.’

But this is after the fact and frequently these children will be damaged in utero because of their mother's (and father's) habits.

I am the last person to defend the state's desire to interfere in personal matters. But the first to concede it has a role in protecting children and adults from real harm inflicted by another individual. What I want to see is known perpetrator's paying for crimes. Not the vast majority taking the weight of interventionist legislation which attempts to find the needle in the haystack.

Truth Column Friday June 1

 

Last week's Truth column about TV7 and others here.

I see Bob Jones is now writing a weekly column for the NZ Herald and Rodney Hide's Herald on Sunday offering was superb.

And I am confused because I thought Deborah Coddington had finished writing for the same paper but maybe she is doing an occasional column.

NZ no longer tied to the Monarchy's apron strings

I'm not particularly interested in the Monarchy but I am in social change. Statistics New Zealand put together this pictorial for the Queen's Jubilee:

New Zealand’s population – both humans and cows – has more than doubled in the 60 years that Queen Elizabeth II has been on the throne, but it seems the price of an electric kettle is a fraction of what it once was.

Statistics New Zealand has been delving into historical data from 1952 and comparing it with the latest information available. 

Deputy Government Statistician Dallas Welch says New Zealand’s population has changed markedly. 

“Back in 1952, New Zealand broke through the 2 million population barrier and 60 years on, that’s more than doubled to 4.4 million. Coincidentally, the number of dairy cows has also more than doubled from less than 3 million, to over 6 million.” 

Mrs Welch said immigration patterns have also changed. 

“When the Queen first took the throne, more than half of our immigrants came from the United Kingdom. Today that’s more like 17 percent, although in the past year, more people still moved here from the UK than from any other place. 

“In trade, the Old Country used to contribute about two-thirds of our export earnings. Last year, 3 percent of our export earnings came from the UK.” 

And as for making a nice cup of tea, in 1952 an electric kettle cost 59 shillings and 6 pence (about $164 in today’s terms) and a 1lb (500g) pack of tea was 6 shillings and 4 pence (about $16.60). Today a kettle costs about $44 on average, and a box of 100 teabags (about 200g of tea) costs about $4.46.

More on welfare reform and teenage birth/abortion

More discussion with Mr Puddleglum which you can ignore if you are not interested:

"Second, I see your graphs (on your blog) confirm, or don’t contradict, the claim that rates of African American ‘out of wedlock’ births were pretty constant between 1920 and 1990. So I take it you accept that point?"

I have scanned what Murray actually wrote about illegimate births in Losing Ground. He didn't dispute it either.

You say (or cite someone else saying)  black, employed and married women decreased the number of children they were having so the illegitimate percentage rose. But surely the problem is that the illegitimate babies were the ones being raised on welfare, being poor and being disadvantaged and their numbers, in absolute terms, were growing. (By the way, Charles Murray's latest idea about solving poverty and welfare reliance is a basic minimum income from the state for every adult individual. Something like Gareth Morgan's proposition.)

"Since 1990, the graphs you posted indicate significant reductions in that rate, especially amongst African Americans but also, to a much smaller degree in other groups. You think – or at least I assume you do – that that decline is associated with ‘welfare reforms’ initiated prior to and during that period? These ‘reforms’ being removal of access to cash benefits, etc. I’m interested in why you are interested in that particular possibility rather than others such as (a) the economic up-turn in the 1990s (If I recall from the link in my last response, that was the explanation for the increase in the proportion of African American ‘out of wedlock’ births prior to 1990 – more employment and therefore fewer births overall, therefore unmarried births formed a greater proportion of the birth rate) and (b) the increased funding for Medicaid and related contraception and abortion services (here and here), especially for low income groups. I’m particularly interested in the latter as I also take it that you support the current proposal to provide free, long-acting contraception to young women beneficiaries (suggesting that you think it will be an effective measure)? Given that African Americans are disproportionately represented amongst the low income groups, the effect would be particularly significant for that group."

What I said was, "In which case you would have to conclude that reforms have nothing to do with the tumbling rates after 1990. I don't accept that. Neither do I rule out other factors at play." If it were the economy alone a turn-around would have occurred during the later 2000s. It hasn't. I'd guess that the extra contraception funding was effective as part of the reforms because the abortion rate also decreased. So unless sexual behaviour has changed, falling birthrate and falling abortion rate equals more prevention.

Abortion rates

Do I think offering free long-acting contraception to women beneficiaries will help? To a degree. When female beneficiaries know that they will be work-tested when any additional child is one year-old they will be more motivated to avoid that outcome. But young women who want babies - for whatever reason - or who are disinclined to use contraception for other reasons - eg weight gain - aren't going to be persuaded.

"There’s a third possible cause for this decline in rates of unmarried births – marriage may have become popular again, especially for young teenagers (I seem to recall something about the ‘resurgence’ of marriage?). There’s also the artefactual effect stated in the footnote to the table underpinning the graphs (in the original source): “Trends in non-marital births may be affected by changes in the reporting of marital status on birth certificates and in procedures for inferring non-marital births when marital status is not reported.” (Interestingly, the rates of unmarried births reduced far less significantly for African Americans aged 18 and 19 years (about 15% between 1995-2002) than it did for 16-17 year olds (33%) – why would that be the case given that, presumably, any ‘welfare reforms’ would have affected those groups equally?)"

I wouldn't assume they were affected equally by the welfare reforms. Part of the reform process was focussed on keeping younger girls in school and living with a 'responsible adult' as a prerequisite for receiving cash assistance. Similar to what National is going to attempt. Marriage resurgence? In general marriage rates across races are down. That doesn't mean a sub-group (by age) wouldn't be following a different trend but I can't find any evidence of it among African American teenagers. Increasing co-habitation is another muddying factor but co-habitations tend to be far less stable than marriages. In fact their brevity often leads to reliance on welfare assistance with a young child.

"Given these other possible explanations why focus on an explanation that, if incorrect, could result in significant further hardship (i.e., no effect on birth rates but more instability of income for the mother)? Isn’t that quite a risk to take?"

Can I take a broad approach now because arguing individual points is interesting but very time-consuming.

Here's my position (and it encompasses your further remarks about time spent on welfare not being a problem.) In all of your discussion you haven't mentioned fathers and the role they used to play in 'poor' families. I think fathers are very important. I think men's evolved role - in western societies - has been significantly damaged by welfare in as much as low-income earners were made redundant as bread-winners. The curtailment of welfare - or at least the restoration of welfare as a genuine last resort - carries with it risks. But the greater risk in my mind is to continue to allow or encourage the demise of the two-parent family (see, I am also old-fashioned:-))

Your viewpoint appears to accept the high level of single parents and works on how best the  state should ensure their children, who are disproportionately reliant on welfare,  do well. Hence the DPB isn't a problem to you.

Whereas I believe the strongest society is built on enduring, mutually supporting, voluntarily co-dependent relationships between individuals. There will always be relative poverty but strong families compensate for this (in NZ this is illustrated by Pacific and Asian families.) I have no doubt that we both want the same end but we are going to disagree on means.

I reflect momentarily, wouldn't it be great to see the US downward trends in teenage birth and abortion happening here.

 
There is some very recent improvement but there isn't a long-term established trend.

 By the way I found a more recent table (2010) for the US:

African American teenage birthrate and reliance on welfare

The following is posted to support a discussion I am having elsewhere. The Political Scientist is arguing, or seems to be, that teenage birth and recourse to welfare shouldn't be characterised as a problem or 'poor choice' and offering long-acting contraception is the wrong approach.

I have already responded to one claim he cites - "there was likely no correlation between the level of welfare ben­efits and the incidence of out- of-wedlock births" -  at his blog.

Below I address two more:

Claim:

 "An examination of the rate of babies born to unwed African American teenagers remains virtually unchanged from 1920 through 1990.[39]"

The "rate of babies born" means the number of births per 1,000 15-19 year-old African Americans.

The graphs below show plummeting unwed teenage births to African Americans since the early 1990s. Many individual states had their own reforms well before 1996 - the year when federal reform occurred.

The claim implies welfare benefits had nothing to do with the rate of African American illegitimacy 1920 to 1990 because of its constancy (ignores the steep rise during the 80s).

In which case you would have to conclude that reforms have nothing to do with the tumbling rates after 1990. I don't accept that. Neither do I rule out other factors at play.

The rate has continued to fall by the way with a slight blip somewhere around 2007-08 (from memory).

Source

Claim:

"...the myth of widespread permanent welfare status proved equally impossible to correct. Numerous reports and studies demonstrated that welfare was a transient state for most recipients and that it served primarily as a temporary safety net during financial crisis caused by job loss or family crisis.[42]”

 The Political Scientist reiterates this in a comment to me:

"I’m also aware that you have spent much time and energy arguing for ‘welfare reform’ on the assumption that it creates something that you, and many others, refer to as ‘welfare dependency’.

It is, of course, mistaken but, given the correlational nature of much of the research that is perhaps understandable. We are all prone to confirmation bias."

The statistical phenomenon of short-term reliance hiding long-term is explained below via NZ research into how long people rely on the DPB:

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

·          just over half had spent at least 80% of the history period observed (the previous 10 years in most cases) supported by main benefits

·          a third appeared to have become parents in their teenage years.

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

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

 And another explanation I have used before from The Poverty of Welfare:

8 out of 10 years reliant on the DPB is a good enough definition of 'welfare dependency' for me.

Social messaging promoted over basic safety

When you toot a horn you startle and momentarily distract every other driver or pedestrian in the vicinity. Hence Officially:

Using the horn

The horn should only be used as a reasonable traffic warning. It should not make an unnecessary or unreasonably loud, harsh or shrill noise.

 Maori Party co-leader Tariana Turia has suggested drivers should show their disapproval of others smoking in cars carrying children by tooting at them and wagging their finger like Supernanny scolding a child.

Some are so obsessed with the long-terms dangers smoking can cause that they have left their common-sense parked up somewhere.

I've had it

This poor bastard has had enough.

 (Hat tip Sean Fitzpatrick)

5 kids, 2 dead, 2 years jail

None of this raises eyebrows any more. There are loads more culprits just getting away with it. Just having the luck scales tip their way. Just avoiding criminality. But the impact on their surviving children is the same. Born to incapable parents, sent to questionable second carers, set on a life of utter insecurity and incomprehension of why. This is New Zealand.

(No need to point out to me that is was probably 6 kids. It is de-humanising to squabble over the adequate and accurate  quantification of humanity.)

Crowding

For the 'sky is falling' types a paper released by Statistics NZ today describes 'crowding ' since 1921.

"The 1921 Census identified 9 percent of dwellings as crowded. These were dwellings with more than 1.5 people per room (now considered severe crowding)......According to the 1921 people per room measure, less than 1 percent of households were severely crowded in 2006."

Just under 1 in 10  down to under 1 in 100.

The world is a better place in very, many ways.

Families Commission - effectively gone

I didn't really want to think very hard about the implications of the Families Commission 're-structuring' but was prompted to when asked to go on Jim Mora's panel this afternoon (contact from RNZ 2 days running - did a taped interview yesterday's about the 22 percent of babies being on welfare by year-end).

I have concluded that its a de facto abolition. The money from their budget is going into projects that will support the welfare reforms. Parenting programmes for instance. And the new SuPERU unit (Social Policy Evaluation and Research Unit) will support, in particular, all the extra 'wrap-around' privately-provided youth services dovetailing with the new Youth Payment.

In 2008, prior to the election, Key told Family First he would get rid of the Families Commission and then hastily retracted his statement when it was published in the DomPost. This is the next best move. Christian conservative Peter Dunne has never been happy with his 2002 confidence and supply trophy which couldn't even define what a family is. The Commission was subsequently hijacked by Labour under Rajen Prasad, now a Labour MP and constant apologist for welfare dependence. For instance, it strongly advocated for the anti-smacking legislation which United Future vehemently opposed. And Dunne won't feel any regret about losing Christine Rankin, a current commissioner.

The Families Commission was largely a waste of time and resources though I will say that recently, some sharper,  more NZ-relevant research emerged.

But we are past talking now. We were past talking in 2003 when I submitted my opposition to select committee overseeing the formative legislation. More government isn't the answer.

Growing up in New Zealand

According to the NZ Herald, the restructured Families Commission is to take responsibility for the Growing Up in NZ study which has a sample of just under 7,000 babies born in Counties Manukau and Waikato in a period between 2009-2010.

Coincidentally I was looking at that study just yesterday. Regarding 'family resources',  at nine months of age it found 18 percent of babies had parents who received income from a main benefit in their first year. This number is too low, especially in those regions. The reason for the undercount is probably considerable drop-out from the study - 7 percent by nine months. And quite probably the very people we need to take more notice of, those families that are least able to provide good care for their children, are the ones most likely to drop out. So as long-term studies go it is already carrying a frustrating deficiency.

Nevertheless the first report is chocker full of interesting information about the babies and their parents. Things that stand out for me include the high reported use of marijuana, especially by partners; one in ten mothers smoked tobacco through pregnancy; reported relationship status doesn't match  DPB use when the baby is young - that is a fair number of people receiving the DPB actually have a partner. 457 mothers had no partner when the baby was 9 months yet 723 received income from the DPB.  And 8-9 percent slept in their parent's bed.

"Awaiting moderation" on Frogblog

Green MP Holly Walker wants to end child poverty in two terms by arriving at a parliamentary accord about the matter. As my subject today was the number of babies born last year relying on welfare by year-end contributing substantially to the child poverty problem, this afternoon I posted the following comment. It has been "awaiting moderation" ever since (now 9:10pm). I don't know why both Frogblog and Red Alert do this to my comments. I am never rude or abusive.
 

I released statistics today that show that 22 percent of babies born last year were dependent on a benefit by year-end. This isn’t an aberrant stat. Through good times and bad between one in four and one in five children is added to a new or existing benefit at or shortly after their birth. You won’t solve ‘child poverty’ without reducing this pattern of behaviour.

(BTW, who is Photonz1 who consistently puts up arguments against Green positions? Be nice to know.)

Smokers save the taxpayer money

So the latest taxes are no more than imposing state ideals and revenue gathering....

Radio NZ reports on Treasury officially acknowledging the truth.

A report by the Treasury has admitted smoking actually saves the Government money in the long run.
The fiscal benefits of smoking have long been suspected but rarely acknowledged and a report by Treasury now puts this on the record.
In its report, Treasury says smokers often die earlier than non-smokers and save the state in superannuation costs.
Treasury says smokers pay $1.3 billion a year in excise which may already exceed the direct health costs they impose.
The report then goes on to consider broader economic questions. It says smokers' shorter life expectancy reduces superannuation and aged care costs, meaning they are already "paying their way in narrowly fiscal terms"
The report was prepared for last week's Budget decision to raise the tax on cigarettes to discourage smoking.
Research by the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research has suggested that people should be able to pay increased prices into a special fund and get the money back later if they can prove they have quit.
The economic consultancy says that would be more effective than giving the money to the Government in higher taxes.

22 percent of babies born 2011 on welfare by year-end

Media Release

22 PERCENT OF BABIES BORN IN 2011 ON WELFARE BY YEAR-END

Monday, 28 May, 2012

Welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell said that data released to her under the official Information Act  show that 22.2 percent of babies born in 2011  were dependent on a caregiver receiving a benefit by the end of the same year.

"Over one in five babies reliant on welfare by year-end is a sobering statistic. Almost half of the caregivers were Maori and half were aged 24 or younger."

"There is an established pattern of childbearing followed by reasonably rapid, if not immediate, recourse to welfare in New Zealand.  This occurs during good and bad economic periods."

"The implications for this high percentage lie in the likelihood of these children remaining on a benefit for many years. Ministry of Social Development research found, 'The older the child when they first have contact with the benefit system, the greater their likelihood of leaving benefit. Compared to those in contact at birth, those who first have contact between birth and six months have a 15% increase in the probability of leaving benefit. Between six months and one year there is a 33% increase, between one and two years there is a 41% increase, and first contact between two and three years is associated with a 56% increase in the probability of leaving benefit.' "

"These are the circumstances which are overwhelmingly contributing to New Zealand's child poverty problem."

Truth column Friday May 25

 Last Friday's Truth column:


The alcohol reform debate is boring. New Zealand has been agonising over alcohol since Adam was a boy. Parliament has tried to control its sale and consumption  since the 1800s. Then, lobby groups like the Salvation Army pushed abstinence; today, an alcohol tax hike. Dealing with lives ravaged by alcohol they forget most drinkers do not have a problem. To the contrary. People are now able to enjoy New Zealand-made boutique beers of international quality, visits to vineyards, wine and food festivals and economic benefits - like jobs - that vintners and brewers provide.


Yet all we hear is bad news about 'booze'. Particularly young drinkers. Which is somewhat forgetful of those doing much of the moaning - the middle-aged. Look back to their heyday to find a far worse culture of drink-driving for instance. In 1990, 139 15-24 year-olds affected by alcohol/drugs were involved in fatal crashes. Twenty years later the number had fallen to 54. After-match drinking was chronic and flat 'parties' were frequent. Drunken youth weren't as obvious because the 'Courtenay Places' didn't buzz all night. But young people using and abusing alcohol is no new thing.


Ironically, it is much harder for teenagers to purchase alcohol now than it was in the seventies and eighties yet  lobbyists and legislators still aren't satisfied. Some want the purchase-age put back to twenty, sales from convenience stores banned, trading hours cut and excise lifted.


As parents we want our kids to learn from our mistakes. Unfortunately human nature is such that they need to learn from their own. We hope and pray they survive those mistakes - the vast majority do. And they grow up in the process. But as a country, are we growing up?


Next month parliament will probably raise the purchase-age and impose further restrictions. Yet another exercise in punishing the responsible for the behaviour of the irresponsible. Par for the course in New Zealand I'm afraid.