Any live-streaming?

Anyone know if the Libertarianz/True Liberal/Cannabis reform get together today in Auckland is live-streaming?

Welfare reform protests alarm beneficiaries

WELFARE REFORM PROTESTS ALARM BENEFICIARIES

Friday, October 5, 2012

The language protesters are using to describe ongoing welfare reforms is unnecessarily frightening people on benefits, according to welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell.

"Welfare reforms are being described as 'cruel', 'punitive', 'brutal', 'vicious' and 'violent' prompting beneficiaries to fear the worst - that they will lose their income."

"This is simply untrue. The reforms are focussed on getting more people into work and on creating better outcomes for children. For people on the DPB the work expectation kicks in when their youngest child goes to school and can be met with a little as ten hours per week until their youngest turns 14. But if there is no work, they will continue to be supported. Loss or partial loss of benefit will only apply to those who repeatedly refuse to meet drug test requirements for suitable jobs; who repeatedly refuse to enrol their child with a local GP or kindergarten, or who have an unresolved arrest warrant against them."

"If benefit payment rates were being cut, as happened in the early nineties, an outcry would be understandable. But demonstrating against the government putting more effort and resources into getting people into work makes no sense. Especially  in such a distraught fashion which, as I said earlier, is actually alarming the people the protesters claim to care about."


www.welfarereform.co.nz

Quote of the Day

This is beautiful in its simplicity. Coincidentally I'd only yesterday been having a conversation with my Dad about Somerset Maugham and he was recommending various works. The Moon and Sixpence particularly appealed to him not least for its naming.  Anyway the quote that arrived in my inbox this morining:

If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose its freedom; and the irony of it is that, if it is comfort or money it values more, it will lose that too.

— William Somerset Maugham, Strictly Personal [1941]

Where did that protest banner come from?

People opposing the government's welfare reforms are gearing up to protest nationally on Friday this week. One protester has made this sign:

Curious as always I searched the quote. Here is the original:

Morality is doing what's right, regardless of what you're told. Religion is doing what you're told, regardless of what's right."- unknown

It would seem the original quote was a protest against religion. But I didn't think the protester would have come up with the substitution herself.

So I googled images and found this:

This amended phrase actually appears on  the Wisconsin Oath Keepers shared Tenth Amendment Center's photo.


Now  Oathkeepers are libertarian/conservative, nationalist, constitutionalists associated with the Tea Party and would be pro welfare reform. When they talk about not obeying they refer to not obeying what they view as illegal government (the Obama administration) and, for instance, his gutting of the 1990s welfare reform.

It's strange world when left-wingers parade around with right-wing protest banners. Or statists carry the same message as non-statists.

Truth column September 20

My September 20 Truth column is now on-line

Why does Labour persist in creating state dependency unnecessarily? Or at least it would, given the chance. Its half-baked food in schools policy makes no sense. Most children in decile one to three schools – the lowest income – arrive at school with breakfast on board.

More

Other Truth columns here

Principles are the problem

I laughed outright at Bryce Edwards' complaint about the Libertarianz

“Part of the problem is that the Libertarianz are just too damn principled, and all about promoting their core ideology," said political commentator and lecturer Bryce Edwards.

At least  they have some principles and ideology to adhere to.

Or would it be better if they had some political wannabe minor celebrities using the party as a personal vehicle. Or a leader who appealed to old ladies and racists. Or embodied any of the new religions like global warming, freedom from genetic engineering or trees before humans. Or provided a hitching post for old religionists who cling to biblical ideas of sin. Or played to separatists and first-people privilege sentiments. Or were such a broad church as to be indistinguishable from the next broadest church.

Are these political entities what Libz should be looking to emulate?

Sean Plunket moving on - what next for NewstalkZB?

Whale reports Sean Plunket is moving on.

He was off air the day before the TVNZ Close Up demise was announced leading me to wonder if the two were connected.

But I also noticed a lift in his mood about a week ago leading me to suggest  to my other half that,  "Plunket's got a new woman". He just had that boyish wickedness thing going on. He's very, very funny when  in that frame of mind. But maybe I mistook a new relationship for a new job. There was certainly a sense of relief about him. A devil-may-care, let down your hair (sorry for atrocious rhyme) attitude.

I've listened to him off and on, whereas when Justin du Fresne was host, ZB was the only station I tuned into. It's more likely now that I'll switch over from the fabulous Sound (97.3fm) after dropping daughter off and singing our way to work, to Michael Laws (who was happily replaced by Rodney Hide yesterday doing a sterling job with the lines filled all morning and Rodney chirping away about his new born baby Grace).

In Plunket's first year he made the mistake of treating talkback callers like hostile interviewees. He would lead them through an argument using faulty logic to disprove their position. He had none of du Fresne's congeniality. But this year he had improved. I thought he was warming to the listeners and they to him. If I switched off it was because I wasn't interested in the topic, or some of the nuttier callers were  irritating.

He could sometimes pull off an unusual idea. When Margaret Mahey died he spent a morning talking to people about their favourite books. It was quite compelling and nostalgic as caller after caller evoked universal memories of childhood fiction.

But where does NewstalkZB go now? It wouldn't bother me one iota if they switched the Welllington network over to the national network and beamed in Leighton Smith. BUT he isn't popular with a number of the Wellington audience, who are very parochial and sometimes not that bright. Ironically the programme's very weakness.

A permanent post for Rodney perhaps?

Quote of the week

The Centre for Independent Studies has a weekly newsletter "Ideas" from which this is taken:

Freedom quote of the week:

If you have been voting for politicians who promise to give you goodies at someone else's expense, then you have no right to complain when they take your money to give it to someone else, including themselves.

– Thomas Sowell

The only problem is, where are the politicians NOT promising to give you goodies at someone else's expense?

"Job creation is free in the private sector"

With all the talk from Labour and the Greens about government job creation, or the lack of, this Washington Times editorial is timely:

.....the fiscal cost of “creating or saving” jobs in the private sector should equal $0 because true job creation should add value to the employer’s bottom line. In fact, if creating a job was ever a net cost to the employer, a rational employer wouldn’t be hiring anyone — how could his enterprise remain healthy?

Further (from me) if a employee in the private sector does turn out to be a cost (eg an investment  failure) the cost is born by that business. The lost opportunity stays within that business. It isn't socialised out across every other business or tax-paying individual as happens when governments get involved in job creation.


(Hat-tip FFF)

Barbara Sumner Burstyn on welfare reforms....

...wonders what character Paula Bennett would be in a modern version of Oliver Twist:

Paula Bennett and her second stage welfare reforms may not yet have gone so far as the workhouse. But despite the mounting evidence of human misery right here and now in our land of plenty, clearly, there is serious Malthus channeling occurring inside the National Party. Charles Dickens wrote the character of Oliver Twist to protest the New Poor Laws. An author today could easily write a modern version. I wonder what role Paula Bennett would play?

The reaction to the latest reforms has been so over the top. But this particular writer is an extremist. After her expressions about the  female soldier killed in Afghanistan it's a bit rich to evoke her own victimhood at the hands of Work and Income.

"Feminist rhetoric" blamed for public misconception

Professor David Fergusson who has headed the Christchurch Health and Development Study for many years says that "feminist rhetoric" is to blame for the public perception that domestic violence is nearly always perpetrated by men.

"The proper message is that both gender groups have a capacity for domestic violence [and] women probably perpetrate more assaults on children then men do," Mr Fergusson said.
The ramifications are a public health system that tends to overlook male victims of domestic violence.
One example was White Ribbon Day, which he had been critical of because it focused on female survivors of domestic violence and there was "no comparable day for male victims".
"It is those biases which have been built into our system right the way through it, largely from feminist rhetoric that implies that males are always to blame"

Gareth Morgan doesn't know what he is talking about

Gareth Morgan has changed his tune over the past few years. I once thought he dealt in facts. But reading the following in today's NZ Herald proved me wrong. He wrote:

The numbers on benefits move in line with business cycles. When the economy is growing and employers are short-staffed beneficiaries go to work - even those most maligned of beneficiaries, sole parents.

Data:

The only "numbers on benefits" moving in line with business cycles are the unemployed. And Gareth's article is most definitely about all beneficiaries.

September 13 Truth column

 My September 13 Truth column is now on-line:

"When well-paid policy advisers are less interested in the cause of a problem than racing to solutions, you know they’re selling the taxpayer short. Such is the case with a recent Children’s Commissioner report into child poverty which allocated just two paragraphs to the causes in a 58-page paper. This apparent lack of interest in the causes is doubly disturbing when his “expert” advisory panel had provided a supporting paper on exactly that."

More

Other Truth columns here

Just how does MSD define 'fraud'?

Reconciling these two pieces of information is a struggle.

A partnered mother admits she "lied" to Work and Income to get (presumably) the DPB. She claimed her husband was an illegal immigrant who had returned to India.

Yet Ministry of Social Development Chief Executive says she won't be prosecuted because "There is no evidence of fraud."

There have been many instances of women  taken to court and successfully prosecuted for claiming a benefit they weren't entitled to. After lying about being unemployed, claiming the DPB while living with a partner is the most common form of fraud. Perhaps this offending hadn't reached a high enough monetary level to prosecute. Perhaps the Ministry defines this case as abuse but not fraud. Where is the line drawn?

The ironic thing about this case is, if India doesn't work out, it's highly likely Ms Heremaia will be soon 'legitimately' collecting welfare.

It has to be "hard"

Simon Collins has been out talking with teenagers affected by the new welfare rules which pay most of their benefit as in-kind assistance. It would appear there are a few hitches with getting the balance right but some good stories about the difference the new service providers are making. These are the people contracted to work alongside the teenagers. These are the 'mentors'  that ACT always thought would be at the heart of any successful reform. And they are put with the most important cases first - the young beneficiaries.

Whereas the title of Collins' report has negative connotations - Teen welfare hard for guinea pigs - I see it as a positive. In terms of making ends meet it has to be hard and seen to be hard because part of the rationale for these reforms to deter others from going there.

My heart goes out to some of these kids though. I've got two teenagers and they are very, very lucky. They have something you can't put a price on. Security and unconditional love. That's what launches youngsters into a world that they can get the best out of. I fervently hope this new approach can make a real difference.

On addiction

Are we going to reach a point when every behaviour that has bad consequences is described as " an addiction"? There's the obvious alcohol and drug addiction, then gambling addiction; then there was sex addiction, and I believe I've read about shoplifting addiction. There's the obvious offshoots from adrenalin addiction. Caffeine addiction. And more. Now food addiction has appeared.

The effect of describing bad-consequence behaviours as 'addictions' is two-fold; legitimisation and collectivisation.

The perpetrator of bad-consequence behaviours isn't in control because their brain is cross-wired by some malfunctioning chemical messages. This constitutes a medical condition that requires treatment, ergo, funding. Guess who from.

So he who cannot control his urges becomes the obligation of he who can. But the very legitimisation of his bad-consequence behaviour will provoke more of it because he was handed a convenient excuse.

I eat, drink and gamble. But they are under control. Part of the reason they are under control is that out-of-control they stop bringing pleasure. I worked that out for myself. My brain hasn't been "hijacked" as Doug Sellman describes people whose reason has abandoned them.

David Cunliffe making stuff up

David Cunliffe writing a post on Red Alert which started on the subject of Women's Suffrage Day goes off on a tangent and gets to this,

The median household is at least $900 worse off than a couple of years ago.

Obviously not per week, or even per month, so he must mean annually.

The annual median household income from all sources for the last three years available was:

2009 $64,168
2010 $64,272
2011 $67,028

Time spent on welfare update

There is now a discussion under way at Public Address about what Paula Bennett claimed on Radio NZ this morning, which was subsequently reported in the NZ Herald (see last post).

I still find the latest revelations surprising. Mainly because they weren't part of the Welfare Working Group (WWG) report. Or I would have reacted then.

So I went back and checked. The WWG Issues report said,

As can be seen, there are over 170,000 people who had spent five or more of the last ten years on a benefit. Within this group of people, 100,000 had spent more than nine or more years on a benefit.

What I'd expect. But contrast the NZ Herald report today:

... Some 161,000 people had been on benefits for at least five of the last 10 years, and another 139,000 people had been on benefits for at least 10 years.

Still some mismatch  BUT the second figure is a subset of the first. Not 'and another'.

For the record, the Ministerial Q & A sheet says,  

"More than 161,000 people have received a benefit for at least half of the last 10 years and 139,000 have spent more than a decade on benefit since 1993."

Post note: After some correspondence the NZ Herald on-line is amending their copy.

When did the recession begin?

The NZ Herald reports:

Some 161,000 people had been on benefits for at least five of the last 10 years, and another 139,000 people had been on benefits for at least 10 years.

If this is correct then  half of current beneficiaries have been on welfare for five or more years and 43 percent  for 10 or more.

Remind me, when did the recession begin?

And coincidentally today's welfare reform protest at Ministry of Social Development Auckland offices featured the theme, "Job creation, not intimidation."

Truth column September 7

My September 7 Truth column is now on-line.

There’s every chance this is National’s last term in government. Its performance has been fair under difficult international and domestic circumstances, but where are the 2014 support partners?

More

Other Truth columns here

Journalists: stupid or mischievous?

Left-leaning commentators have been grossly misrepresenting the government-commissioned benefit-system actuarial figures and report released last week. Scoop's Gordon Campbell here, and NZ Herald's Paul Little here.

According to Campbell,

Social Development Minister Paula Bennett is such a troll, it can seem pointless to rise to the bait. But yesterday’s claim – dutifully run as the lead on the NZ Herald website– surpasses even her own usual high standard of offensive stupidity. According to Bennett, if everyone on a benefit last year stayed on it for the rest of their lives, the cost to the nation would be $78 billion.

And Little says,

With all the grace of a cat dragging a dead rat on to the dining table and dumping it in the trifle, she told us she has just found out that if all the people on benefits stayed on benefits until they were 65, the cost to the country would be $78 billion.

What the report attempts to calculate is, based on a number of factors such as age at entry into the system, benefits applied for, presence of children etc the likelihood of existing beneficiaries remaining on welfare and the cost of that. This work began with estimations made by the Welfare Working Group which found that people entering the benefit system at 18 were likely to stay the longest for instance. (I had been attempting to draw attention to this for a long time through OIA questions around how many current beneficiaries began on welfare as teenagers, length of stay, benefit type etc).

Hence the following graph shows the cost of current beneficiaries tapering off. The way the above writers have described the calculation would have resulted in a graph with climbing payments (static number of beneficiaries plus inflation).

I can't believe the stuff they get away with.

Letter in yesterday's DomPost

Social obligations

To be honest I find it difficult to understand why anyone would want to mount an argument against children being enrolled with a doctor, completing WellChild healthcare checks (things like ante-natal weight monitoring and vaccinations), go to kindy and then onto school. This is what a large majority of parents expect to do as part of raising their children responsibly. It's also what what parents on benefits do. But some don't. Some do not even register the birth of their child. This results in  those children described as "falling through the cracks". Paula Bennett has a way of trying to prevent this from happening. Using their benefit to motivate them to do all the right things by their children.

And I don't have a problem with it. Yes, it's state intervention and state compulsion but it is also the state protecting children whose parents are not up to the job.

And in the final analysis if you don't like these social obligations then don't go on a benefit. The rest of society has social obligations; to partners, to employers and to the government, like it or not.

Just did a pre-record on National Radio with Child Poverty Action Group's Janfrie Wakim. She wanted to make it a political fight. I think it's going to play after 8am if they use it.



Update: Interview here

Yes shock, horror I end by calling for the government to be allowed to do what it can to get the estimated 5 percent of children from highly stressed and dysfunctional families enrolled with a doctor, attending kindy and then school. Just remember, I am asking for this within the context of a benefit system which isn't going away any time soon.

Quote of the day

The federal government, in guiding the economic destiny of the country, must be staffed largely with those who are unaware of how little they know, who have no qualms about their ability to plan and regulate the national economic growth, set wages, prescribe hours of work, write the price tags for everything, decide how much of what shall be produced, expand or contract the money supply arbitrarily, set interest rates and rents, subsidize with other peoples' earnings whatever activity strikes their fancy, lend billions not voluntarily entrusted to them, allocate the fruits of the labor of all to foreign governments of their choice - in short, decide what shall be taken from each Peter and how much of the 'take' shall be paid to each Paul.

— Leonard E. Read, Anything That's Peaceful [1964]

(Hat tip fff.org)

The good news is New Zealand no longer regulates to this degree. But there's no shortage of people who think we should....a return to the "golden age".

Greens launch campaign at a primary school

"At a campaign launch at Miramar South school today, Green Party Co-leader Metiria Turei and ‘Laughing Samoan’ Tofiga Fepulea’i joined with pupils to leave their colourful footprints on a banner promoting our campaign to recruit Champions to ‘take a step’ and help end child poverty.....Metiria Turei’s Income Tax (Universalisation of In-work Tax Credit) Amendment Bill is due for its first reading and would extend the tax credits to the children of beneficiary and student families.....'This isn’t about signing up to a political party. Children don’t care if your colours are green, red, blue or pink.' "

Of course this is a political campaign. It's about drumming up support for a Green bill that is highly controversial. I'm very surprised that Miramar School joined in this high profile support for Green policy.

In my experience schools won't even hire out their halls to political parties for campaign or fund-raising activities.

Justifying theft

I'm wondering how widespread Community Justice Panels (CJPs) are. Perhaps it's just a Christchurch development. I've never heard of such a thing before. It appears a CJP is a panel to which criminal offenders are referred to if there is an element of social injustice motivating their offending. But looking at an example the process looks open to manipulation.

"Police had referred some low-level shoplifters to the Community Justice Panel (CJP), made up of community members who deliver justice on behalf of society.
CJP co-ordinator Senior Sergeant Roy Appley said 17 of the 20 cases heard by the panel since July 1 were for shoplifting. About half of those were single mothers on a benefit with low self-esteem and a poor support network.
In two recent cases, the women were stealing items of clothing for children, while another young mother was stealing items to supplement what she had already bought for her son's birthday because she felt she was not able to give him enough.
In a similar manner Another young woman said she had stolen beauty products because of a low self-image problem. "She wanted to look and feel better," Appley said.
The panel had seen cases in which women were stealing for "hand-to-mouth" necessities, but they were in the minority, he said."

Along similar lines - justifying theft because of social injustice -another child poverty article contains this:

"Mangere Budgeting Services chief executive Darryl Evans said there were hungry children throughout New Zealand, particularly in South Auckland and parts of Christchurch.
His organisation ran a breakfast club at the Southern Cross Campus school in Mangere East. ''We estimated we would get about 30 kids a week turning up, we had 80 on one day.''
Teachers also reported children were having their lunches stolen by other children, he said. ''Not because they're naughty but because they're hungry.'' 

I am troubled by this attitude. Telling offenders that their actions are understandable provides neither a reason why they are wrong, or why they should stop. When theft occurs, at any level, there is a victim.

But I suppose the moral relativists would tell us that by definition 'rich' kids or 'rich' business owners can't be victims.

Chart/Table of the day

1.17 million individuals or 27 percent of the total population on an income-tested benefit or Super (left click on images to enlarge.)

Dane Moeke is back

Dane Moeke first appeared on Homai Te Paki Paki in 2009.  His rendition of Whitney Houston's I Will Always Love You was sensational. Sadly, the YouTube clip has been removed.

But watching the first episode of NZ's Got Talent I was thrilled to see him auditioning. He sang The Greatest Love of All which isn't his strongest song (on those I've heard) BUT he got through with huge kudos from the judges. And this is smart. Starting with a lesser performance and saving his stronger for later. Again, his Dad was there in the wings supporting him.

He came on in bare feet and judge, Rachel Hunter asked him why. Slightly embarrassed he replied his jandals had gotten too sweaty. Downplaying expectations works for him. No-one anticipates the voice.

Can't wait for his next appearance.

Truth column August 30

My August 30 Truth column is now on-line

Inequality between household incomes is at its highest level ever (at least since 1982) according to a report released last week. But before we react, some context is needed. 
 
More

Other Truth columns here

Why not uniforms for life?

"Once the preserve of secondary, private or religious schools, primary schools are increasingly using uniforms to mask the disparity between social classes at primary level."

The idea that schools are using uniforms to mask economic disparities is pretty damn awful. It recalls a recent conversation I had with a neighbour. My daughter attends a non-uniform wearing secondary school and the neighbour remarked upon it. "[Uniforms] are a great leveller though, " she said. Here's the thing. I don't send my children to school to be levelled. I send them to school to hopefully learn useful things and above all, to think.

But addressing the issue from a practical point of view, clothes have become cheaper and cheaper.

 "....a core reason for many primary schools making the switch was to remove the distinction between rich kids and poor kids, which could be a distraction from children's learning. "It is distracting to see other kids with Nike shoes and changing clothes every day and all these lovely things they have, and you coming in wearing the same pants two or three days. Children can notice those things."

With the advent of recycled clothing nobody needs to wear the same pants two or three days (in any case, do you ever wear the same pair of jeans two or three days? I do). A parent with any nous can pick up good , even branded (if you care) clothes and shoes for next to nothing. Just like you can give your kids breakfast for next to nothing. What is lacking is some effort and imagination. Slapping them all in uniforms might just compound those particular short-comings.

I mean what is so appealing about all looking the same? Well, actually, they don't all look the same. Fat is still fat, short is still short and uniforms amplify physical differences.

Whereas allowed to dress how they want, kids will quickly learn what clothes mean to them. Do they dress for comfort, to conform, to stand apart, to suit their activities and environment, to maximise their best attributes? It gets them thinking. But no. Instead schools opt for this easy, literal dumbing-down of dress sense and, worse, individualism.

Hell. Why don't we pass a law to make uniform wearing compulsory for life if it's such a great thing?

Cut and paste press statement

Here's a good example of an almost immediate and almost verbatim cut and paste media statement appearing in the NZ Herald.



Hon Paula Bennett
Minister for Social Development
Minister of Youth Affairs
5 September 2012
Benefits stopped for those with arrest warrants
People with outstanding arrest warrants will no longer receive a benefit while evading Police says Social Development Minister Paula Bennett.
“Of the approximately 15,000 people with a current arrest warrant, around 8,200 are on benefits,” says Mrs Bennett.
“If someone has an unresolved arrest warrant we will stop their benefit until they do the right thing and come forward to the authorities.”
“In exceptional circumstances where someone poses a danger to the public, their benefit can be stopped immediately at the request of the Police Commissioner,” says Mrs Bennett.
Around 58 per cent of people clear their arrest warrants within 28 days. Those who don’t will be given 10 days to clear or challenge the warrant before their benefit is stopped, or reduced by fifty per cent if they have dependent children.

People will still be able to apply for hardship assistance for themselves and their children.
“Most people clear their warrants within a month, so 38 days is a reasonable amount of time to step forward and straighten things out,” says Mrs Bennett.
“Once someone has come forward their benefit can be reinstated but there will be clear consequences for people who continually refuse to acknowledge or resolve arrest warrants.”
ENDS

No benefit for people on the run

By Kate Shuttleworth

 

Social Development Minister Paula Bennett. Photo / Janna Dixon

Minister of Social Development Paula Bennett has announced people with outstanding arrest warrants will no longer receive a benefit while evading police.
"Of the approximately 15,000 people with a current arrest warrant, around 8,200 are on benefits,'' said Mrs Bennett.
"If someone has an unresolved arrest warrant we will stop their benefit until they do the right thing and come forward to the authorities.''
Around 58 per cent of people clear their arrest warrants within 28 days - those who don't are given 10 days to clear or challenge the warrant before their benefit is stopped, or reduced by fifty per cent if they have dependent children.
In exceptional circumstances where someone poses a danger to the public, their benefit can be stopped immediately at the request of the police Commissioner,'' said Mrs Bennett.
"People will still be able to apply for hardship assistance for themselves and their children.
"Most people clear their warrants within a month, so 38 days is a reasonable amount of time to step forward and straighten things out.

"Once someone has come forward their benefit can be reinstated but there will be clear consequences for people who continually refuse to acknowledge or resolve arrest warrants.''

Responding to Green assertions about child poverty

I've used my computer time up today responding to a Green candidate brought to my attention by Shane. So it's also today's posting:

bsprout says: "What Key's government is currently doing has actually worsened child poverty and he clearly suggested that there wasn't much more he is prepared to do."

The latest HES finds that using the AHC ‘fixed line’ 60% measure of child poverty the rates were:

2009 22
2010 22
2011 21

And they are down or the same on every other measure depicted.

Table s.2, pg 13

http://www.msd.govt.nz/documents/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/monitoring/household-income-1982-2007/2012-hir-full-summary.doc

bsprout says:"...there appears to be a pervasive view that the 270,000 children living in poverty are suffering because their parents made poor choices and by restricting support will encourage them to get jobs and budget better. The fact is that the majority of these parents are in work or part-time employment."


The Children's Social Health Monitor says:

"In New Zealand, children who are reliant on benefit recipients are a particularly vulnerable group. During 2009, 75% of all households (including those with and without children) relying on income-tested benefits as their main source of income were living below the poverty line (housing adjusted equivalent disposable income <60 2007="2007" br="br" median="median" of="of">

In 2011 there were 234,572 benefit-dependent children. Assuming that non-child households are as poor as dependent-child households (unlikely) the number of beneficiary children living below the poverty line would be 175,929 or 75 percent.

http://www.nzchildren.co.nz/children_reliant.php

That represents a majority of 270,000. There is some overlap between benefit and part-time work but not enough to justify your statement. In fact, those children with parent on a benefit and working part-time are more likely to be above the threshold.

bsprout says: "Only a very small percentage of families abuse the system and to keep tightening the availability of benefits is just punishing many families who through redundancy and lack of jobs are suffering."

Your idea of abuse is probably fraud. My idea of abuse is to add children to an existing benefit at the rate of 18 percent of all children born each year. It is hardly surprising we have a child poverty problem.

http://www.occ.org.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/9866/No_3_-_Causes_and_consequences.pdf

Final point. Even when NZ had the lowest unemployment rate in the OECD (2007 or thereabouts) the number of children on benefits did not fall below 200,000.

Crucial statistic omitted

Concerning the Children's Commissioner report released last week about child poverty and proposed solutions, there is a very short section headed The Causes of Child Poverty. This  is supported by an additional  paper: Working Paper no.3 What causes child poverty? What are the causes? An economic perspective.

The supporting paper contains this fact:

"Wilson and Soughtton (2009) report that about 18 percent of New Zealand children are born to a parent on a main benefit (about 13 percent are born to a parent on the DPB), down from 25 percent in the 1990s."

Here's my question for you. If you were responsible for the final report, the one for public consumption, would you have considered that statistic important and would you have included it?

(BTW the reason the percentage is down from the 1990s is far fewer people on are an unemployment benefit.)

Truth column August 23

My August 23 Truth column is now on-line.

Surprise, surprise – not. The Greens want higher welfare payments.

Last week, they had a private member’s bill to extend the In Work Tax Credit (IWTC) to beneficiary parents pulled out of the ballot. That means it will probably be debated and has a chance of becoming law.

More

Other truth columns here

Quote of the day

“Every jobs market needs a ladder and, at present, the bottom rungs of that ladder have been sawn off by a welfare state that has trapped the people it was designed to help. The waste of taxpayers’ money is as nothing compared to the waste of human potential.”  
                          Fraser Nelson, Spectator

(Hat-tip Karl du Fresne by way of Neville Gibson)

Sign of tough times in the public service

Things must be tough at Statistics NZ. They didn't produce their usual Father's Day facts this year. Nor, quite correctly, Mother's Day. Never mind, it was always a bit of a feel-good puff piece. It never told us for instance how many Fathers would spend the day in prison, or otherwise estranged from their children, or visiting under supervision - such is the lot of thousands of Dads.

On a cheerier note, soon children will be able to celebrate double-dad days! Father's Day will become Fathers' Day.

Strange times in which we live.

Australia: Taxpayer funding versus medals won

I came across this graph via the New Zealand Initiative newsletter. It wasn't the subject of their article but appeared at the same linked page.

On the other hand NZ taxpayer funding will have undoubtedly risen along with the medal tally over the same period. Perhaps we can only safely conclude that taxpayer funding does not guarantee medals.

Russell Norman - ticket clipper

Yesterday Green co-leader Russell Norman had a conversation with Larry Williams about, amongst other things, child poverty. Norman was in favour of the universal child payment recommended by the Children's Commissioner report released earlier this week. When Larry protested that it would result in money going to families that don't need it Norman was unperturbed. His defence was that it was a simpler system to administer (so is flat tax) and would prevent those who needed it from falling through the cracks. He maintained it should be free like healthcare for all under sixes. He personally thinks its great he can take his children to the doctor free of charge. Williams again protested that Norman doesn't need to take his kids to the GP free of charge. He can afford to pay. It went on in this fashion. When Larry suggested to the co-leader that perhaps people shouldn't be having children that they can't afford to raise Norman replied, "But that's not the real world. That's an ideological position."

So common sense is now ideological. "But that's not the real world...." It's never going to be the real world either with politicians like Russell Norman blithely accepting  that people do have children utterly irresponsibly - resulting in 22 percent on a benefit within the year - and demanding that the rest of society pick up the tab for their upkeep, education and health.  Oh, and he's happy to clip the ticket along the way.

For the love of a dog

I received this story via e-mail and it touched me.

A Wisconsin man has been thrust into the spotlight after a picture of him and his 19-year-old dog went viral on the Internet, according to a story from Granite Broadcasting sister station Northland's NewsCenter.

According to the Northland's NewsCenter report:
The image of John Unger and his dog Schoep has been viewed millions of times on Facebook, reaching people across the world.
They say a picture is worth a thousand words but, it's safe to say one of Hannah Stonehouse Hudson's newest snapshot is worth millions.
"It's been viewed almost three million times; it's been shared I think 150,000 times. It's been like an incredible amount of times," said Hudson on an overcast day in Bayfield, Wis. "My mother has a saying, "For the comfort and convenience of the dog," and he is the epitome of this saying. He loves this dog, he takes care of this dog, his life is about this dog."
John Unger and Schoep have spent almost twenty years together; he was rescued as a puppy.
"We both wanted to work with a dog that had been abused and we knew this. We talked about it and that's what we wanted to do. We wanted to help out an animal and bring out his full potential," said Unger.
It's hard for Unger to talk about their time together because 19-year-old Shoep is nearing the end of his long, happy life.
"What he means to me? I can't put into words."
He suffers from arthritis and has trouble sleeping, so to ease his pain, Unger takes him swimming and Schoep will fall asleep in his arms.
"Not too many more times are we going to be able to do this. So every time now it's a pretty special feeling....the buoyancy it gives him in the water relieves the pain, or at least some of it to the point where he's relaxed," said Unger with Schoep by his side. 


 And there is more here about how people reacted to this story.

Two wins for responsible people...

...and two blows against advocates of universal penalty.

Drinking age stays at 18 and folic acid addition to bread remains voluntary.

Great. I don't often applaud parliament but today being at their mercy is just a little less painless.

Three OIA tables that explain child poverty

Little commentary needed from me. The tables are self-explanatory. If you pick up slight discrepancies that is because the questions asked were slightly different; some variations in how the database is queried, and the first table doesn't include 16 and 17 year-olds. Suffice to say the numbers are shockingly high.

13,634 caregivers (and some will have added two babies) account for 22 percent of all babies born in 2011.

The single most influential impact on reducing child poverty would be the reduction  in these numbers

Walker takes offence at "'rape jokes"

A piece appears in the DomPost page 2 today about Holly Walker tweeting her disgust at "fellow MPs making rape jokes" prior to a select committee hearing. Her tweet included "#rapeculture #oldboysclub". She then laid a complaint with the speaker. Jamie-lee Ross subsequently put his hand up, apologised and the complaint was withdrawn. But he says his comments were misunderstood. And Walker won't repeat what she heard.

Now on one hand it's a nothing story because the complaint was withdrawn. But on the other the impression is left that Ross is a oafish, loose cannon....or that Holly Walker is particularly precious and humourless. Perhaps  there is a responsibility on her, having gone public with her strong feelings of offence, to explain what caused them.

Quote of the Day

"The government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can't get and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing.The tenth time is made good by looting A to satisfy B. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods." -H. L. Mencken

- (1880-1956) American Journalist

 

(Hat-tip ICH newsletter)

Voting for policy not for the party

In yesterday's Hutt News:

David Shearer is pathetic

Here is his hot- off- the- press media statement. My italicised comments are interspersed:

David SHEARER
Labour Leader
28 August 2012 MEDIA STATEMENT

John Key in denial over Kiwis in hardship 

The number of Kiwi children living in poverty has grown significantly under John Key’s watch but rather than acknowledging the problem, the Prime Minister would rather play the fool in Parliament, says Labour Leader David Shearer.

 The Household Incomes report released yesterday says "Child poverty rates were flat from 2009 to 2011 – this is a good result in the circumstance"

 
“John Key’s flippant response to this crisis is disappointing. He refuses to accept the findings of several reports showing the gap between the rich and poor is the widest it has ever been, that inequality is rising and the number of children living in hardship is up to 21%.

 Just as the level of inequality dropped in the 2009/10 year, it is entirely possible it dropped in the most recent 2011/12 year due to  current economic volatility. The most recent year isn't yet available.


“John Key just shrugs his shoulders and says, oh well, ‘things are bouncing around’ for these children and their families. Apparently it’s all the fault of the global financial crisis and that’s why he hasn’t been able to deliver the so-called brighter future he’s been promising Kiwis for years.

 The report says that because of the GFC, the Christchurch earthquakes, the economic downturn and recovery it cannot predict where inequality trends will go.

“That excuse and his mocking attitude won’t wash with the many New Zealanders who are working harder than ever but failing to get ahead.

“Hard-working parents can’t support their family on the paltry $13.50 an hour they’re earning. But John Key’s not rushing to help them out, saying only that they’ll ‘eventually’ get a pay rise.

 And a single earner family with two children on $55,000 or less effectively pays no tax.

“Children are going to school without breakfast or lunch because their parents can’t afford to feed them but John Key’s more interested in spending millions of dollars on drug-testing people.

 Can't afford to feed them? Even KidsCan says it takes just $241 per year to feed each of these children, maybe a dollar a school day. DPB beneficiaries get an average of around $516 a week.

“More than 50,000 New Zealanders are leaving for Australia looking for better paying jobs every year but Bill English says we shouldn’t be crying over them at the airport.

“This Government doesn’t have solutions for these problems. It just has excuses,” said David Shearer.



And you want us to prefer your crap?

Children's Commmissioner child poverty cop-out

The scene-setting opener:

"In  1986  an  estimated  11  percent  of  children  lived  in poverty.  By 2011, that figure had risen to 25 percent, or about 270,000 New Zealand children."

Those statistics are remarkably synonymous with the sole parent rates; between 8 and 11 percent in 1986 and 28 percent in 2006. Though not all child described as living in poverty are in single parent homes there's still substantial correlation. 65% of the 270,000 are on welfare. Most will be relying on the DPB.

The report just released by the Children's Commissioner asks for a lot. An awful lot.

It wants

1/ Child support payments to go to the custodial parent instead of to the government to offset the DPB (cost $159 million annually)

2/ Family tax credits to rise by an average of $17 per child and incrementally for those aged 0 - 6

3/ A new universal child payment of $125-150 per week that would be targeted to the poorer after the child reaches 6 (this could replace current forms of financial support like Family Tax Credit)

4/ To raise the take-up of other child entitlements such as the child disability allowance. It wants these rates of take-up published and the IRD and WINZ to offer performance pay for higher rates realised.

5/ More government-funded budgeting services

6/ Increased parental earnings from income and more childcare assistance 

7/ A new Child Poverty Act to "embrace" targets

The list goes on  but forgive me, as I stopped when it got to housing and health. I was overwhelmed. It's all been said before in one form or another. It's a depressing deterministic prescription. No rigorous analysis of why children are in poverty or why some children in poverty have perfectly good outcomes. The closest the authors get is this:

Social commentators often talk about child poverty resulting primarily from parents making poor decisions about how they spend their money, bad morals, a poor work ethic, bad luck, unwise lifestyle choices and so on. While some parents undoubtedly make poor choices, there is little evidence  that  poor  people  mismanage  their  income  to  a  greater  extent  than  those  who  are better  off.  This  is  not  to  suggest  that  we  should  ignore  the  contribution  of  parental  lifestyle choices  and  various  social  ills  (including  drug  and  alcohol  addiction)  to  poor  outcomes  for children, but the main causes of child poverty lie elsewhere. (My emphasis)

That's put "social commentators" in their proper place.

Let me leave you with this sample:  

It is important to recognise the impact of the experience of colonisation on Māori. The alienation of land and resources has seen the loss of a cultural and spiritual base and the loss of an economic base (Cram, 2011). Any analysis of the financial and material deprivation of whānau today is incomplete without understanding this context (Baker, Williams & Tuuta, 2012).

Contrasting attitudes and approaches to low decile school parents

When things are made free there will always be uptake and more 'need' created in the process as people's willingness to pay themselves is eroded. But these two school stories provide a sharp contrast.

On the one hand there are calls for the existing free food programmes  in low deciles schools to be expanded because parents aren't providing it; on the other is an effective new e-learning programme in Auckland's poorest suburbs, where (in Tamaki)  the average income is $19,000 but the parents are finding the $3.50 per week for their children to participate.

At you would expect the first call comes from government - or an agency of - the Children's Commissioner. Whereas the second expectation and request for parents to contribute is from the private sector.

It is too easy for parents to expect others to pick up the slack for them in this country. It becomes a habit. But as the second story demonstrates, not an unbreakable one.

Truth column August 16

My August 16 Truth column is now on-line.

I’m a non-smoker and consider my right to be free from other people’s cigarette smoke well and truly satisfied under current legislation. The anti-tobacco religionists are now starting to get up my nose far worse than cigarette smoke used to.

More

Other Truth columns here

Employers take subsidy but don't uphold their end of the bargain

This issue has concerned me since learning that a Wellington/Taranaki employer subsidised by WINZ to take on young unemployed beneficiaries was paying his employees in a haphazard and suspect way. It isn't advisable to accept just one side of the story though, so I wrote to MSD and asked them under the OIA if the company was under investigation (as described to me by the mother of one of their ex-employees). I also asked if it was Work and Income practice to apply a stand-down period to those youngsters who lost subsidised jobs apparently through no fault of their own.

Their response told me that MSD was in the process of recovering subsidies from the company in question but that it was not under investigation for fraud. And that the stand-down period didn't apply in these instances.

I've since wondered  how widespread this problem is. Labour MP Su'a Wlliam Sio has also asked questions and found that employers owe $800,000 in job subsidies paid out for employees that did not, in his words, "fulfil their end of the bargain".

 “If Job Ops workers are sacked inside six months then employers are supposed to pay back the up to $5000 in wage subsidies they get to take them on in the first place.  It is not good enough that there are currently 477 employers who owe taxpayers a refund, with a total of $814,541 outstanding."

Almost certainly there will be employers who see the job subsidies as an opportunity to advance business interests. And that's OK if ultimately the young person remains in  their ethical employ. Subsidies should be the optimum win-win, despite the purist in me opposing them. The system is what it is and it's better for taxpayer money to be spent on getting someone into a job than keeping them dependent.

Quote of the day

Every dime the government spends—whether acquired through taxation or borrowing—is a dime that someone in the private economy won’t be spending. If people are not spending already—which is not the case these days—we must look to the earlier government interventions that brought about that condition—and then repeal those anti-market corporatist policies, regulations, and taxes.

— Sheldon Richman, “Bastiat Misread” [August 24, 2012]

(Hat Tip FFF)

Banning fun and creativity

This blinkered, rigid 'philosophical' idea that food shouldn't be played with is quite awful. It pains me to read the silly opinions of people whose minds have been captured by ideas with no rational basis. These are the 'can't' people. They are everywhere but tragically they abound in education. What reasonable explanation can a child comprehend about why it is bad to play with food? Bad to make play dough; bad to use eggs or flour to make sticky pastes from which you can then create all sorts of weird and wonderful structures; bad to use food colourings and vegetables to make fantastic wallpaper; bad to use macaroni to make colourful necklaces; bad to use carrots to make snowmen noses; bad to use icing sugar to depict snow on wintry painting - the list is endless. If they don't get a good reason they either get resentful and rebellious or just repeat the stupid one and so the stupidity stretches on .

I am not at one with the world today. Probably never have been and never will be. The thinking and actions of too many people just goes from bad to worse. I'm going out with my dogs. Their behaviour makes more sense to me than that of some supposedly intelligent human-beings.

Jacinda Ardern in The Truth

Jacinda Ardern, Labour spokesperson for welfare, wrote an article , Welfare of the nation, which appeared in last week's Truth. Note she starts with her own door-knocking story which counteracts David Shearer's now infamous roof painter on a benefit (more evidence of the ideological split on welfare currently dividing Labour).

Door knocking in an area with low electoral enrolment last year, I met a woman who was ecstatic I could enrol her. When I asked what occupation she would like listed, she dropped her head and said: “I was a receptionist, but I’m a bit sick right now. I start chemotherapy soon. I’m so sorry”. I asked her why she was apologising and she replied “because I’m on a benefit”.
Nothing indicates to me more that something is wrong with our welfare system than when those who need help apologise for receiving it, and the minority who don’t need the support, but get it all the same, are portrayed as the norm.
The concept of the system hasn’t actually changed all that much since 1938, when the unemployment benefit was made available to anyone who was “unemployed, is capable of and willing to undertake suitable work, and has taken reasonable steps to secure employment”.
It was a social contract. Everyone paid into a collective pot, and if you fell ill or lost your job, you drew from the pot until you found work again. Simple. The concept remains unchanged, but not our perception of it. Why? And how do we restore the notion of true social security?

The concept does not remain unchanged though.  For starters, today "everyone" does not pay "into a collective pot" before they have access to a benefit. Thousands of teenagers start life there and stay year after year. Also, as I have demonstrated before, pre 1970s people had to be of sober habits, good moral character and not have induced their own incapacity to work. And before the 1970s the DPB - in terms of dependence, now the single biggest benefit type - did not exist. Hence it is not a "minority who don't need support" - it's a majority. Not if you define support the way it was defined at the outset of social security.

To say all people on a benefit have chosen welfare as a ‘lifestyle’ is way off the mark. We know Kiwis want to work – the queues of people who turn up for jobs at supermarkets are evidence of that.
There are 112,000 sole parents on the Domestic Purposes Benefit. Most come off it within four years. The overall rate fluctuates very little, although the Ministry of Social Development predicts that the Government’s costly welfare reforms will still see more people on the DPB than when the Government started.
In 2009, IRD surveyed why people on government support struggle to get off it. The first reason was job availability. Numbers two and three? Whether they had the right skills, and could cover childcare costs.
These are legitimate issues. A sole parent on the DPB receives $293 per week before housing assistance. If they find part-time work, they can apply for help with child care and receive a maximum of $3.91 per hour. If you’re moving into a minimum wage job that has curious hours and requires either a babysitter or childcare, it has the potential to wipe out your wages from day one.

Who is saying "all" people on a benefit have chosen welfare as a 'lifestyle'? We all know that there are people with terminal illnesses, people made redundant or people born intellectually disabled who need support. And most people appear happy with paying taxes to provide it.

But let's get on to the DPB. There aren't 112,000 sole parents on it for starters. She's failed to identify that a growing number of DPB recipients are caregivers to people who would otherwise need to be hospitalised or institutionalised. Then she downplays the level of dependency by telling us that "most come off it within four years". But many go back on it. Her statistic conveniently masks what the government now knows to be the truth as expressed here:

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

Next, if people came off the DPB when jobs were available how come when NZ had the lowest unemployment in the world (2007) the numbers only just dipped below 100,000?

Then she emphasises the weekly payment of $293. Add to this the average weekly accommodation supplement and average family tax credit and the sum is $519 per week. And the IWTC that Labour now wants to abolish was exactly about preventing moving into work having "the potential to wipe out your wages from day one". Honestly, she is stupid.

Finally:

It’s time to revive Michael Joseph Savage’s philosophy and create a social security system minus the shame.

Be careful watch you wish for there Jacinda. Savage's system was based on the concept of the deserving and non-deserving. Whereas you and your comrade Deborah Russell want it to be free from any notion of worthiness. Make your mind up.

Childless and single are the new 'poor'

MSD has just released the Household Income Report for 2012. It's as up-to-date as it can be after surveying, analysing and publishing, and relates to the 2010-11 financial (June) year. I've pretty much copied main points:

Incomes fell for deciles 3-6 … but rose for the top decile especially. At the very bottom incomes were flat (protected by benefit rates being CPI adjusted and NZS being wage related).

Inequality rose to its highest level ever [but] redistribution through the tax and transfer system reduces inequality very significantly compared with what it would otherwise be. An example is that single-earner two-child families with income less than around $55,000 from wages pay no net income tax. They receive more from WFF tax credits than they pay in income tax and ACC.

Child poverty rates were flat from 2009 to 2011 – this is a good result in the circumstances. 50% of poor children are Maori/Pacific.

50% of poor children are from sole parent families and 50% from two parent.

Income poverty rates for single person working-age households trebled from the 1980s to 2007 (10% to 30%) and were 35% in 2011.

(The headline from Stuff is misleading: Poor get poorer, inequality reigns. In fact the 'poor' flat-lined. The middling incomes dropped. Same journalist writes, "It also painted a damning picture into child poverty, with 21 per cent of Kiwi kids living in poverty, compared to 15 per cent in 2007."  See above were the child poverty rate is described as a "good result" in the circumstances.)

Percentage of teen pregnancies aborted

Reading through a paper about the high teen birth rate in the US and why it matters, linked to by Eric Crampton earlier this week, I came across this table:

The Danish figure for percentage of teen pregnancies aborted is very high. I don't know, but it may be similar in other Scandinavian countries because they have similar low teenage birth rates.

Paradoxically it is those teenagers who stand to lose the most by having a baby that avoid giving birth. Those who believe their (economic) life chances are slender continue with the pregnancy (generalising here you understand).

Trying to slot NZ in there, in 2010 (our birth and abortion statistics have improved recently) there were 28 births per 1,000 15-19 year-olds and 22 abortions. This lines us up closely with the United Kingdom in 2003. So, assuming the miscarriage rate is also similar, 37 percent of teen pregnancies in NZ in 2010 ended in abortion. A long way off Denmark.

I am emotionally averse to  abortion but when it means subsequent births result in children  born to people ready, able and wanting to become parents the incidence of it is ameliorated.

Across the news

(Don't you hate those trendy media phrases that develop?)

"Why we are all beneficiaries of the welfare state"

This column, by Massey University tax lecturer Deborah Russell, appeared in the Dom Post yesterday under the heading, "Why we are all beneficiaries of the welfare state":

"It's easy to criticise the welfare system. Beneficiaries get too much money, too many of them cheat, and it all costs too much. But the unrecognised reality is that our comprehensive health and welfare systems create freedom and security for us all......

But when we criticise people who receive welfare, we are not just imprudent. We also undermine the security of our friends and family members and fellow citizens who depend on the welfare system.

If we complain about teenage mothers, and insist that someone ought to control their income and make them stop having babies, we make every sole mother worry about interference....

 Our health and welfare systems are based on need, not some notion of worthiness.

More

The first thing that came to mind was Benjamin Franklin's quote, "Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither."

People are hardly free when compelled to pay tax for systems they neither approve of nor use. Those making the largest tax contribution are often also paying for private health and education and would never qualify for a welfare benefit due to means-testing. So it is farcical to claim that,  " ....we are all beneficiaries of the welfare state."

Worse, many beneficiaries do not feel free; they feel trapped and forgotten. They are living at a subsistence level in substandard housing due to their safety net now being called upon by one in eight working-age New Zealanders. The welfare system has created so much contrived 'need' (consider Russell's example of teenage sole parents),  real adversity and emergency cannot be adequately met.

It is not a noble idea that the welfare system is no longer based on some "notion of worthiness". It used to be. That was how the architects designed it. Otherwise the system would be open to abuse. As it now is.

But the worst aspect of this academician's position is her cautioning against criticism of the welfare system. Is this how she teaches her students?

Truth column August 9

My Truth column from August 9 is now on-line.

In 2004 the Civil Union Bill was bitterly contested. Conservatives lobbied MPs furiously to prevent gays from forming state sanctioned and recognised partnerships.

 Even parties were split on the issue – ACT for example – although United Future members were unanimous in their opposition. The bill passed into law narrowly.

Just eight years later a new bill to legislate for gay marriage seems to be stirring far less division and looks like having the numbers to pass into law. Even lone surviving United future MP, Peter Dunne, is indicating support for it. That’s quite a sea change.

Society can change quite rapidly. Emotions burn out. Or people see incremental change, realise the sky hasn’t fallen and are then amenable to more. It is my fervent hope that the same attitudinal shift will have occurred to views about voluntary euthanasia. Labour MP Maryan Street currently has an End of Life Choice Bill in the ballot. 

The last time Parliament debated this issue was 2003. Then, New Zealand First’s Death With Dignity Bill was voted down 60-57.

More

Other Truth columns here

On WINZ paying for vasectomies

The NZ Herald reports:

NZ First social policy spokeswoman Asenati Lole-Taylor said it was difficult to justify the amount of public money spent on vasectomies.
"Why should the population in New Zealand pay for something that is supposed to be a personal expense? It's astounding really.

Who cares how much WINZ spends on vasectomies so long as they don't spend money on reversing them!

But if we accept the NZ First argument, where does the line get drawn on what "is supposed to be a personal expense"? What about raising your children? Paying your rent? Do you suppose that NZ First are launching an attack on all welfare? Because that's going to look pretty funny up against the privileges pumped out under the Super Gold Card.

Generally I am against the "spend now to save later" arguments so loved by the Left. Too often there are those unintended consequences, and it's a licence to ramp up spending enormously in the here and now when there is no guarantee there will be a later saving.

But as vasectomies do provide an almost 100 percent certainty of future saving I can make an exception.

Europeans not measuring up

Is it just that I am so brow-beaten over the issue of racial discrimination that when I get to the following paragraph it feels as though, as a European, I am being castigated for being under-represented in prison?

 Despite Europeans making up 68 per cent of the population, only 33 per cent of those in prison are Europeans. That compares with 49 per cent Maori and 11.3 per cent Pacific - yet they make up only 15 per cent and 7 per cent respectively of the overall population.

If I put that aside and actually engage with the 'accusation' Maori and Pacific both have young populations and so you could expect some slight  over-representation, which is what we see with Pacific. But not gross over-representation, which is what we see with Maori. Why isn't some thought given to that difference. In the report's terms, why does the justice system let down Maori in a way that it isn't letting down Pacific people?

And as always, when these sorts of reports make it into mainstream media and are widely broadcast on the TV, I worry about the message they send to subjects of them. It'd be like me telling my kids that whenever they have a problem,  it's not their fault. They know however I am far more objective that that. Loving them doesn't mean I can't see their weaknesses. But it does mean that I have to help them overcome those weaknesses in anyway I can.