Violence causes poverty

 Yes. An inversion of the hackneyed NZ mantra.

"Violence is a serious cause of poverty" is a headline about  Guatemala, (or any developing world country for that matter). In the first world we generally hear, "...poverty is a cause of violence".

But thinking about it a moment, first,  second, third whatever-world status, violence will cause poverty.

In our world, violence will break relationships incurring the costs of supporting two households, family court proceedings, being on welfare or reimbursing the state for benefits.

If resulting in a criminal conviction, violence will  reduce chances of good or any employment, and travel (for employment). It may incur a fine which grows as repayments are not met.

Violence will alienate people who might otherwise be sources of support, including children in the perpetrator's old age.

It may result in a prison sentence which impedes future earning  prospects significantly. It may draw people into a circle of might-is-right and might-is-money - not easily held onto with no recourse to legal protections.

In fact any action or behaviour detrimental to harmonious, co-operative human relations is ultimately going to make people generally poorer.

Truth Column October 18

My October 18 Truth column is now on-line:

As the politicking over Kim Dotcom continues unabated other arguably more important news has gone almost unnoticed. For instance, an Otago University study into hospital admissions due to serious assaults showed that, contrary to political assurances, violent crime is probably increasing.

More

Other Truth columns here

Never been to Wellington?

To be honest I am surprised that so many children from the lowest income deciles have never been outside them.

Naenae College principal John Russell said that of 26 pupils in a recent year 9 class, 16 had never been to Wellington.

My surprise is due to the number of school outings that children go on. Visits to Te Papa, the Carter Observation Centre, the Zoo,  Capital E, for instance. I've got a Year 9 student and was forever being invited to do parent accompaniment on trips right from kindergarten. Yes these children come from poorer families but their schools get more funding. So I'm taking this assertion with a pinch of salt.

If education is about broadening horizons perhaps the schools should be doing more about this shortfall.

"...fiscally conservative and socially liberal-libertarian"

A new book by David Boaz published by Cato claims, "...The Libertarian Vote: Swing Voters, Tea Parties, and the Fiscally Conservative, Socially Liberal Center reveals that 10 to 20 percent of Americans are fiscally conservative and socially liberal-libertarian."

It's quite probably matched in this country.  The voting homeless.

MSD's inconsistent application of work-test rationale

In an analysis of the options discussed by MSD over work-testing sole parents, the following table illustrates part-time work expectations for sole parents internationally. New Zealand has chosen the soft option of 5 years along with a soft definition of part-time work (10-20 hours).

I'm with the one year of age option because it deters people from producing children they can't support. But the Ministry argues against the one year of age option saying

"Earlier work availability expectations could reduce the amount of time that parents have available for the care of their children, which could impact on their child’s health and developmental wellbeing."

Yet later in the same Regulatory Impact Statement MSD puts forward this argument to support work-testing the sole parent (who has added a child to her benefit) when that child turns one:

"One year of age is a reasonable period for parental attachment with the child to be established, and is reflected in current parental leave provisions and child development findings."

What can I say? Obviously the Ministry agrees to disagree with the Ministry. However this sort of inconsistency leaves the policy open to challenge from the any number of aggrieved groups or individuals.  The new rules came in on October 15. There are probably people working on a complaint to the Human Rights Commission as I write.

Unintended consequences of drug-testing beneficiaries

I've previously expressed concern that when a drug-testing regime is applied to Jobseekers but addicts are exempted, more beneficiaries will seek to be diagnosed as 'addicts'.

Expressing a similar concern is the Ministry of Health. In a Regulatory Impact Statement the following is contained:

 "The Ministry of Health (MOH) raised concerns with the drug testing proposals in Paper D. Their major concern is beneficiaries that fail drug tests will overstate their drug use to claim that they are drug dependent thereby avoiding financial sanctions. This in turn will lead to unnecessary referrals to drug addiction services, putting pressure on scarce resources."

Further MOH commented that:

"...the policy may result in a 'substitution effect' where some people substitute detectable drugs like cannabis, for drugs that are not detectable for as long such as alcohol or amphetamine-type substances, which may be more harmful."

Parker on unemployment rate

Our official unemployment rate is artificially low but not for the reasons David Parker suggests - the high number of New Zealanders leaving for Australia. Any opposition in any country could claim its unemployment rate was "masked" by people leaving. Where to is irrelevant. Just as governments can claim their unemployment rates are boosted by people arriving. I don't know what point Parker is trying to make or for what gain. Has he forgotten that Labour kept the unemployment rate down by overseeing rises on the sickness and invalid benefits and sustaining high DPB dependence?

He needn't worry anyway. The unemployment rate is about to become higher. The new benefit categories which come into play next year...

...will result in a significantly larger number of people on Jobseeker Support (135,000) than the Unemployment Benefit (50,000).

Although the official unemployment rate is not devised from unemployment benefit numbers, when more people are work-tested they will have to be available and looking for work. That is what constitutes being unemployed.

How far should liability extend?

Just one question this morning.

If scientists are legally liable for incorrectly assessing risk resulting in death, what about bail judges and parole board members?

For The Wowsers 2

Slack

On the face of it the security risk of the 'BasicsCard' now provided to (some)  teenage beneficiaries looks high - not least because a reporter has now told the world that the pin for the card is actually printed on it. OK, not a lot of money is involved but when it's most of the money you have its safety is paramount. This seems really incompetent.

I'm in favour of cards over cash, of in-kind assistance wherever possible for obvious reasons. But MSD needs to get the system right. Especially as it is highly likely they will expand 'income management' across other groups. As is happening in Australia.

Another mark against MSD and the reforms that needn't have happened.

John Ansell

My experience of John Ansell is of a genuine, somewhat obsessive, totally honest individual. I haven't swung in heavily behind his colourblind campaign because it's misunderstood. That's not John's fault. It's those seeing or hearing what they want and not what he puts in front of them. Plus talking about Maori privilege always seems slightly absurd taken at face value. Those featuring overwhelmingly in all the worst social statistics are Maori.

But there is undoubtedly privilege in its strictest sense of the word. And particularly amongst those benefiting handsomely from the Treaty industry. The propagators of a supreme tangata whenua culture and tribalism have driven many away, not least non-politicised Maori. Yes, you might argue that Pakeha have propagated their culture as supreme since inhabiting New Zealand but two wrongs do not make a right.  Why are Christian beliefs any better than Maori spiritual beliefs? They are after all just that. Articles of faith.

Apirana Ngata had it right. Maori should take those elements of European institutions that work for them while preserving their own language and customs.

I'm a strong supporter of the retention of te reo and would love to be able to speak it myself but again these are matters of choice. You cannot make people do things that they do not want to. So when the push to grow te reo falls short it isn't anyone's fault but individuals. As soon as blame starts getting thrown around the accuser has slipped into what John is attacking. The grievance mode. Some Maori grieve about not only the past but the present. Constantly.

Grieving is necessary for a time. But when people become locked into grieving it suffocates them. They can't move forward and neither can the people they infect.

John has dedicated himself to attacking the Grievers by educating people about the history of Maori and European, to expose what he sees as propaganda via a reconstructed past and achieving true racial equality before the law. I believe he is driving this campaign because he feels he has no choice. He feels utterly, personally compelled to speak out.

He's taken on a mammoth challenge and he's not far from financially broke. I just hope his campaign doesn't break him psychologically. He could surely do without personal attacks on his integrity.

For The Wowsers 1

US welfare spending

The United States spends $746 billion on welfare. That's just federal spending. States also spend their own money lifting the total to $1.03 trillion. Makes your eyes water but it's still less proportionately than NZ welfare spending.
 
It's almost impossible to do a direct comparison to NZ because the US figure includes medical assistance. The Washington Times article suggests medical assistance makes up 46 percent of the federal spend leaving $403 billion, and most of the state spend. So my guesstimate is $500 billion all-up.

NZ spends $11 billion on welfare. Doing a straight comparison, we're spending half as much again per capita (11/4.4 x 312). That is, if the US spent as much per person they'd be spending $780 billion - not $500.

But our spending is mostly cash transfer whereas in the US its mainly in-kind assistance:

Mr. Kogan said the cash assistance figure was “a shockingly small amount of money” in the scheme of things.
“Virtually all the rest is in the form of in-kind assistance: Medicaid, SNAP, WIC, housing vouchers, Pell Grants, LIHEAP and child care vouchers; or in the form of direct services, such as community health centers, Title 1 education, foster care, school lunch and Head Start,” he said.
Rather than straight transfers, those other programs provide support for services Congress has deemed worthy of funding. SNAP is the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program that used to be called food stamps; LIHEAP is the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program; WIC is the Women, Infants and Children nutrition program; and Pell Grants provide assistance for college costs.

Willie Jackson on Mike Tyson

In the NZ Herald, Willie Jackson asks some pertinent questions about NZ's refusal to allow Mike Tyson to visit:

The hypocrisy of this matter raises several questions. Why is it No to Tyson, but Yes to so many other criminals who have come to this country?
Australia's most notorious criminal, Chopper Read, and the triple murderers the West Memphis Three are recent examples of that. And every second rock band that comes here has someone in it who's committed a crime.
And why was it that a Pakeha organisation, Life Education Trust, got approval for Tyson to come into this country with virtually no questions asked, yet my organisation - which is committed to turning around Maori offenders - wasn't considered good enough to be given a reason for Tyson's rejection.
And why is it that so many people think they know what's best for us and patronisingly tell us who should and should not come on to our marae?
Metiria Turei offered to enlighten us about why we got it so wrong and especially wants to talk to the women in our organisation. I can assure Metiria that they, too, are looking forward to talking to her.

I asked some of my own in last week's Truth column:

New Zealand’s a country that produces advocates for justice like QC Peter Williams, prison reformer Kim Workman and social worker Sam Chapman. They maintain that every man has the potential for rehabilitation into society; that many had childhoods so loveless only belated adult affection and acceptance can heal them.
Redemption has always been an article of faith for the political left. One of the few that strikes a chord with me.
So there’s a surprising and uncomfortable hypocrisy in this country’s attitude towards Mike Tyson. By all accounts Tyson has stayed crime-free since his 1992 rape conviction (a crime he steadfastly denies). Guilty or not, liberal Kiwis would normally celebrate the ensuing absence of reoffending.
But not when the crime was rape it would appear.

More

Other Truth columns here
(with a recommendation you read the editor's, Joe Lose)

Question for MSD: How is dominance 'diversity'?

The graph below is from the just-released MSD Annual Report. 
 
It's quite funny really. They state, "We aim to have a diverse workforce that reflects the whole community."

A workforce that is dominated by females reflects the whole community?

The rest of the Public Service is a closer reflection of the "whole community".

Based on their "aim" MSD should be adopting a new policy of only employing NZ European  males.

One in fifty on benefit because of psychiatric/psychological problems

The September quarter benefit fact sheets have just been released. All benefit categories show reduced numbers except for the sickness benefit.

The percentage of people who receive a sickness or invalid benefit because of a psychiatric or psychological condition has gradually increased over time.

There are now just under 2 percent of the working age population (18-64 years) on one of these benefits for psychiatric or psychological problems - 0.91 percent on SB and 0.92 percent on IB.

Around one in fifty. Or maybe someone in every 16th household.

That's very high.

The percentage relying on one of these benefits for any reason is over 5 percent or one in twenty of the working age population.

That's very high too.

The good news is the overall benefit dependency rate has fallen to just under 12 percent of the working age population. Around one in nine.

One in four children at medium or high risk of poor outcomes

Statistics NZ has just released a report into vulnerable children and families. The findings are from a survey of 8,000 individuals aged 15 or more. First they identified risk factors (as they applied to the survey respondent) and then categorised children by the degree they were exposed to those factors.

Risk factor	Percent
Current cigarette smoker	21
Victim of crime in last 12 months	20
Living in a high deprivation area	20
Feeling isolated some, most, or all of the time	17
Poor mental health	15
Victim of discrimination in last 12 months	12
Low economic standard of living, based on ELSI	11
More than one housing problem	10
Living in an overcrowded house	9
Limited access to facilities	8
Poor physical health	8

Number and proportion of children by risk group April 2010–March 2011 Number of risk factors Number of children (aged under 18 years) Proportion of children (%) No risk  0  328,000  30  Low risk 1–2  482,000  45  Medium risk  3–4  201,000  19  High risk  5+  67,000  6  Source: Statistics New Zealand Then they looked at the correlation between benefit income and risk

And the correlation between family type and risk

 

Remember ex Minister for Social Development Steve Maharey and his claim, "I know of no social science that says the nuclear family is more successful than other kinds."

I don't think the Tui billboards were around then but this absurdity would have been a prime candidate.

The report also looks at ethnicity and age of mother and turns up no surprises.

 "Nearly 43 percent of households in the high-risk group had a Māori respondent, compared with 8 percent in the no-risk group"






"1 in 5 high-risk and medium-risk households contain a young mother, compared with 1 in 20 in the no-risk group."



NOTE finally that the report states,  

"The selected risk factors are related to health, housing, income adequacy, neighbourhood, social connections, crime, and discrimination. The measures are not exhaustive and information on other possible risk factors, such as parental drug or alcohol abuse, is not covered by the survey. As some risk factors are linked to the individual respondent, not the household as a whole, this report will understate the number of households and children at risk."

So the actual picture is probably worse. Considerably.

Arse about face

Regular readers know that I monitor the MSD site daily and blog about any interesting new information. But lately - at least over the last three to four weeks - I have been frustrated by their search function not working.  Typically I'll be looking for evidence to support something I'm writing and will remember a certain study and go searching for it. I like to use government research wherever possible to deflect accusations of using "right-wing think-tank propaganda". Government research suits my purposes.

But now this message is appearing far too frequently:

There are too many pending search requests, so the search appliance cannot respond to your query at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.

Can't achieve legitimate access to information. It's all arse about face.

Dane Moeke

I blogged a couple of weeks back that Dane Moeke is back, this time trying his luck on New Zealand's Got Talent. I love this kid. In this performance I don't think he really hits his straps till around half way in and the dancers the idiot producers put behind him are nothing more than an utterly irritating distraction.  But if you like what you hear and want to help him on from the semi-final text 'Dane' to 8981

Political disaffection amongst French young

Stephen Franks has written  about a new French political movement launched in early October. Below is the  'declaration of war' from Generation Identitaire. The link takes you to the video with English subtitles and young French people reciting the declaration. It's deeply disturbing but in some respects totally understandable. And there is a universalism about the themes. Sexual liberation, broken families, over-burdened social security, anti-white racism.

"The Generation of National Identity" – A Declaration of War

We are Generation Identitaire.

We are the generation who get killed for glancing at the wrong person, for refusing someone a cigarette, or having an "attitude" that annoys someone.

We are the generation of ethnic fracture, total failure of coexistence, and forced mixing of the races.

We are the generation doubly punished: Condemned to pay into a social system so generous with strangers it becomes unsustainable for our own people.

Our generation are the victims of the May '68'ers who wanted to liberate themselves from tradition, from knowledge and authority in education.

But they only accomplished to liberate themselves from their responsibilities.
We reject your history books to re-gather our memories.

We no longer believe that "Khader" could ever be our brother, we have stopped believing in a "Global Village" and the "Family of Man".

We discovered that we have roots, ancestry and therefore a future.

Our heritage is our land, our blood, our identity. We are the heirs to our own future
We turned off the TV to march the streets.

We painted our slogans on the walls. Cried through loudspeakers for "youth in power" and flew our Lambda flags high.

The Lambda, painted on proud Spartans' shields, is our symbol.

Don't you understand what this means? We will not back down, we will not give in.
We are sick and tired of your cowardice.

You are from the years of post-war prosperity, retirement benefits, S.O.S Racism and "diversity", sexual liberation and a bag of rice from Bernard Kouchner.

We are 25 percent unemployment, social debt, multicultural collapse and an explosion of anti-white racism.

We are broken families, and young French soldiers dying in Afghanistan.

You won't buy us with a condescending look, a state-paid job of misery and a pat on the shoulder.

We don't need your youth-policies. Youth IS our policy.

Don't think this is simply a manifesto. It is a declaration of war.

You are of yesterday, we are of tomorrow.

Unbelievable (updated)

I went to the Work and Income website to see if there was any media release about the Kiosk catastrophe. But look what I found:

Don't give too much away

09 October 2012

Find out how to keep your information safe so you don't become a victim of identity theft.

Have you ever thought about how much information about yourself you freely give away and what could be done with it?
Dig into someone's wallet, look at their Facebook profile, or go through their rubbish and you will find a wealth of valuable information. Simple personal information, like your name, address, date of birth or bank account number is all that is needed for someone to pretend to be you and do harm.
Identities may be stolen to commit many different crimes, such as obtaining credit, false proof of age, IRD number theft and tax avoidance or to evade police. It varies from false Facebook pages, which can seriously damage people’s reputations, to organised crime syndicates using false identities to perpetrate serious crimes. In the past, New Zealanders have not had to worry so much about identity crime, but it is a growing problem around the world and is likely to affect more of us in the future.
The most unfortunate fact about identity theft is that the victim not only suffers, but also ends up being the one who has to clean up the mess. As many details about you don’t change much over time, victims can continue to have problems long after the initial theft.
You may think that identity theft is a problem on the Internet, but it happens in the real world too. There are some steps you can take to keep your identity safe.

• don’t give out personal information unnecessarily
• don't be afraid to ask why the information is needed and how it will be used
• don’t write down PIN numbers, or give them to people,
• don’t throw out bills or statements (shred or burn them)
• be wary if you receive unusual mail.

For more information, or help if you may have been a victim of identity theft, visit

www.identity.govt.nz/

Talk about adding insult to injury.

UPDATE: The press release headline and link was on the front page . Not now. I tried searching the release title and source and found this. "The page you are trying to access doesn’t exist on the Work and Income website. It may have been moved or renamed."

I suppose we should take comfort in the fact they acted, albeit belatedly.

Ramifications of MSD leakage

Just wondering what the ramifications of the MSD leakage will be in light of other current activity

"ACC sent apology letters in June to sensitive-claims clients and offered to pay them $250 if they agreed to stay silent, after one of New Zealand's biggest privacy breaches in August last year.
The "insulting" offer came after ACC mistakenly released the names and details of 6500 claimants, including 250 sensitive-claims clients who are victims of sexual abuse and violent crimes, to claimant Pullar.Wellington lawyer John Miller, a specialist in taking on ACC, said more than 100 claimants affected by the massive Pullar breach had approached him to take the case. He said those wanting to pursue ACC were sensitive claimants who generally had long simmering feelings of being poorly treated by the ACC system. "

Who knows what MSD information is now at large? Will the Privacy Commissioner advise MSD that clients will have to be notified that their information may no longer be private? How does this stuff work?

And how many aggrieved clients out there would happily accept an apology from the Minister? The relationships between WINZ/CYF and their clients are often far from hunky dory as it stands.

I do not think I am overstating this situation as a nightmare for the government. Do you?

New portraits

The first is philosopher and Austrian School economist, Ludwig von Mises. A life-size oil based on the following black and white photo:

 Then economist, Milton Friedman,

They're now on sale in the US at a relevant conference. Not actually sure what the name of it is. I was drawn to these particular shots as they portrayed men with warm and intelligent faces and the lighting on the subjects was perfect. A deadline meant I had to leave them a tad under-worked. A couple of things I'd like to slightly adjust but then I am never 100 percent happy with my paintings. The main thing is that the painting conveys what I was getting from the photograph.

Children's Commissioner says sole parents should be working one year after giving birth

 A 'special report' into child poverty ran in the NZ Herald. It looked at the report the Children's Commissioner recently released:

"The group's initial "options paper", on which submissions close next Friday, proposes targets to cut child poverty, a food in schools programme, changes to welfare and housing subsidies, a "warrant of fitness" for rental housing, and passing on child support from absent parents to custodial parents instead of siphoning it off to pay for sole-parent benefits.
On the first key poverty driver, jobs, it suggests a carrot-and-stick mix.
"Carrots" include more flexible childcare subsidies and giving parents priority for job subsidies.
The "stick" is to turn the DPB into a "young child-carer benefit", make sole-parents look for part-time work one year after giving birth, and stop the benefit completely when their youngest child turns 6, "when there would be an expectation of full-time work".
Family tax credits would be raised for young children in the short term. In the long term, the group proposes a universal child payment higher than existing tax credits for the first year after giving birth, then stepping down gradually and becoming a targeted top-up like the current tax credits from age 6.
On the second key driver, disintegrating marriages, Wills says the reforms would reduce the current incentive for young parents to separate so that one can get the DPB.
The universal payment would lift couples' incomes in the first year, and beyond that the proposed DPB-replacement would be much harder to get.
He believes that passing on child support, usually from absent dads to custodial mums, will also encourage dads to take ongoing responsibility for their children."

Now I am sure that report did not recommend making sole parents look for part-time work when their child turns one (which I agree with). The Commissioner, Russell Wills is also sounding sensible here saying the DPB replacement should be much harder to get. But I don't recall that in the report either.


The report says:

"In conjunction with the Child Payment, we propose changes to the benefit system to help more sole-parents  into  employment  when  their  child  starts  school.  The  research  evidence  suggests that between the ages of one to five, part-time work is likely to be beneficial for most children of sole-parents. The benefits are two-fold: high-quality ECE aids child development; and the extra income has positive impacts for the family. We therefore propose that the sole-parent benefit (DPB) be re-named the Young Child Carer Benefit. The Young Child Carer Benefit would end at age six, when there would be an expectation of full-time work, except where the needs and best interests  of  the  child  rule  out  full-time  work  (for  example,  if  the  child  had  a  disability),  or if sustainable full-time employment cannot be found."

That's it.

And the summary of the report doesn't mention a DPB replacement at all.

It appears the Children's Commissioner is improvising and improving the recommendations made.

This news also prompted me to  check the supporting Working Paper, Reforms to the Tax, Benefit and Active Employment System to reduce child poverty.

Here are the recommendations that I believe were played down in the final report:

104.  Work testing from when the youngest child turns one year old is consistent with the current approach to job protection in the parental leave system. Job-protection exists up until age one, where the system then provides a strong signal that it is time for a return (often part-time in actuality) of the parent on leave to work.

105.  The reason for one year of job protection is that: (1) having someone at home with an infant is good for the child, and (2) longer periods out of the labour market are likely to   be   increasingly   damaging   to   the   human   capital   and   positive   work-related behaviours and attitudes of the care-giver, and hence the child. 

106.  The belief that early parental re-attachment to the labour market for sole parents and high quality ECE of children is an integral part of the Nordic welfare systems, and this approach has achieved the lowest levels of child poverty in the OECD. 

107.  When  the  youngest  child  reaches  an  age  where  full-time  parental  work  is  child  age-appropriate,  the  YCCB  could  terminate.  If  the  sole  parent  cannot  obtain  full-time employment  thereafter,  they  will  make  a  transition  to  the  jobseeker  benefit  with  a full-time  work  test.  If  they  have  health  barriers,  a  health-related  benefit  may  be appropriate.

This advice should be taken into account during the debate over the next welfare reforms. The government is currently proposing that the new Sole Parent Support will only be part-time work-tested (10-20 hours per week) when the youngest child turns 5; full-time when they turn 14.

I hope the Office of the Children's Commissioner will be submitting these recommendations.

Mike Tyson

My Truth column today supported the granting of a visa to Mike Tyson. I can't reproduce it yet due to my agreement with the publisher.

But I have had a couple of additional thoughts not expressed in the column.

A number of people have suggested that admitting Tyson into New Zealand is to down-play rape. On Radio Live Rodney Hide asked a caller supporting Tyson if he also condoned rape? He went on to muse about there being no degrees of rape.

More often than not I agree with Rodney but thought this line of questioning was unfortunate. Why? I think of it this way.

Should the same question be put to the women who marry convicted rapists and bear their children? In their act of forgiving and redeeming a convicted rapist, are they apologists for rape?  An ACT conference had one such guest poised to take the  stage some years back. His background mirrored the sort of upbringing Tyson had. His wife was in the audience. I remember her eyes when she turned and looked at audience members. They seemed to say, Give him a chance. Some attendees didn't want to hear from the man. I did. Others did. And Rodney did I believe.

Similarly, consider the bureaucratic argument about assessing the risk Tyson poses. How much risk does the woman who wants to rehabilitate a criminal take? It is her trust that makes him want to stop offending. She trusts him for a lifetime  - not a mere 20 hours.

I'm ashamed and embarrassed of  New Zealand's attitude to Tyson.

Truth column October 5

My Truth October 5 column (reproduced in full because the print version was edited changing some of the sense.) Since I wrote this there have been further developments but my sentiments hold.

I just can't get excited about the Kim Dotcom affair. Which leaves me with a niggling sense of guilt. My inattention and disinterest must surely be quite negligent? And I am usually quick to criticise indifference or apathy as personality traits go. But if I'd got Carry On Kim Dotcom out on DVD I'd have given up well before his attempts at rap had me diving for the remote.

The only actual exposure to the German I've had - speaking that is - left me with the impression of a very good communicator, especially with English as a second language. In fact, he'd leave most New Zealanders for dead. I get what his MegaUpload site is about and can understand his arguments regarding lack of culpability. I appreciate that any ensuing court action and outcome will set important precedents.

It's also comprehensible to me that people are highly agitated about the involvement of New Zealand authorities in illegal surveillance in cahoots with United States authorities (but I'm too lazy to look up the exact monikers for the parties involved.) My interest is slightly piqued when the mention of civil liberties arises. Still....

Here's my problem. It's overblown. The media is milking it dry, as are opposition politicians. This case has become less about injustice and illegal process, and increasingly about the opportunity to damage the government. Opposition MPs  remind me of my Beagle before breakfast, though her drooling is more discreet. Now, as I said, their behaviour may well be justified but their ceaseless clamouring just turns me off.

See, I am even struggling to make up my quota of words this week but Bomber wanted to do Kim Dotcom. Perhaps I should let him borrow some. He'll doubtless have stacks to say.

83 percent of child abuse and neglect cases are from families on benefit

Thanks to Brendan for alerting me to the fact that 83 percent of child abuse and neglect cases are from families on welfare. That's according to Professor Rhema Vaithianathan interviewed for Radio NZ lunchtime news.

I returned to the study cited this morning to see how that percentage compared to 1994-5. Information held in the CYF computer was compared to that held in the Social Welfare system. A 'match' indicated the subject of the care and protection order had a caregiver with a Social Welfare Number (SWN).

Table 1 Matched Cases Between SWIFT and SWis Systems

	Care and Protection		Youth Justice
Match/No Match	Number	Per cent	Number	Per cent
Match, with SWN	236	79	256	85
Match, but no SWN	10	3	7	2
No Match	54	18	37	12
TOTAL	300	100	300	99*

So 82 percent of the Care and protection cases involved a caregiver (usually mother) who had a SWN.

However, "In a substantial minority of these matches, 107 cases (36%) in the care and protection sample and 80 cases (27%) in the youth justice sample, no current income-tested benefit was being paid nor was there a benefit paid over the 1994-95 period."

This would drop the percentage significantly.

So I'm still keen to know what the source is for the Professor's claim. Some questions I think.

UPDATE. I have been in touch with the Professor who has very quickly responded and provided a link to their study. Here is the exact wording:   "Of all children having a finding of maltreatment by age 5, 83% are seen on a benefit before age 2, translating into a
very high “capture” rate."

Useful research for a change

It's pleasing to see some really useful research being undertaken. The NZ Herald article I linked to in earlier post contained the following:

The model was developed by the University of Auckland after assessing 52,000 children born between 2003 and 2006 whose parent or parents were on a benefit, and monitoring them for five years.

The apologists for welfare who refuse to acknowledge a link between long-term benefit dependence and child abuse/neglect will be dismayed to read the above.

A 1996 study revealed that a CYPF Care and Protection notification was 3.8 times more likely to occur when the child lived in a benefit dependent home. I asked MSD if they were going to repeat the research and was told there were no plans to.

But the Auckland University has been working on an exercise that would probably reveal something similar. Will have to investigate.

Big Brother for the bad guys

The development of a database for at-risk children is a good idea....I think. When unsure about something I work it out by writing.

Yes, it's state intrusion. However, the state has a legitimate role in protecting children.

But let me give you a hypothetical case of one child who'll be going on that database (as a result of being present at a domestic dispute the Police were called to). We should be relieved that 'other' people involved in her life will be made aware (IF they use the database) of the potential for exposure to further violence.

But at this stage how many 'other' people would be in her life? A doctor? She wasn't born in the city she now resides so may not be enrolled with a GP. A social worker? Probably because the Police have to notify CYF when a child is at an address where a family violence incidence occurs. But there won't be any teachers. She's too young.

Now, it's the first year of life that is riskiest for babies. Will the new database help? It will apparently put up an alert if a 'high-risk' adult moves into the home. But adults don't necessarily use their real addresses. Especially if they are moving into the home of someone on the DPB. For obvious reasons. (In this case even the baby's father, who has past convictions for violence, isn't registered in the database at the same address. His 'official' address is elsewhere to enable the mother to claim the DPB.)

As it stands the family is on notice that another incident will lead to the (at least temporary) removal of the child. But another incident may be one incident too many. The database can't predict if, when or how severe it will be.

My invented scenario happens all over the country.

Invasion of privacy? If people break laws intended to protect others, and abuse welfare, they give up certain rights. Yes, I imagine some people are going to also abuse the database. We've seen that sort of infringement with police and WINZ databases. Some klutz might even email its contents or part thereof to an unintended recipient!

But, on balance, I can support the database. Don't expect it to be the silver bullet though.

Cut Super to reduce child poverty!

I've been waiting for this suggestion and am only surprised it took so long.

The 'solutions'  to child poverty - and its so-called manifestations like abuse - will cost around $1.5 - 2 billion by the Children's Commissioner calculations.

Where could that kind of money come from?

Raising the Super age to 67.

So says Children's Doctors Patrick Kelly:

"My personal view, and this is my personal view and not the view of the Paediatric Society, is that I would raise the age at which people get national super, because life expectancy has changed hugely since about 1905 when national super was introduced and there are many healthy, active people in their late sixties who ... do not need financial support from the Government.

1898 actually.

I support raising the Super age for the same reason expressed here. But I do not support a massive transfer of the money saved into potty ideas like a universal child benefit, state-funded school lunches, and paying the IWTC to beneficiary parents. That isn't going to stop abuse and neglect. That will only reduce when we stop paying people to have babies they don't want and can't care for.

NZ could use the saved money to pay down some debt and in other ways that would help the economy.

Kelly continues:

"If those who are middle-aged now want to be supported in their old age, they will be voting for a Government that spends money on the children of today."

Not me. That's exactly the government I won't be voting for. The last thing NZ needs to do is grow the welfare state.

Rebutting The Spirit Level

I'm way behind the eight ball here but have intended for ever so long to look up the rebuttal of The Spirit Level, the new bible of the left which purports to show that income inequality is the source of many social ills.  Previously it was sufficient for me to know that the hypothesis was flawed but I hadn't taken the time to read about specifically why.

A post by James Bartholomew prompted me to go looking. In case you are interested, here it  is:

This report shows that The Spirit Level has little claim to validity.  Its evidence is weak, the analysis is superficial and the theory is unsupported.  The book’s growing influence threatens to contaminate an important area of political debate with wonky statistics and spurius correlations.  The case for radical income redistribution is no more compelling now than it was before this book was published.

(There may of course be other rebuttals I'm unaware of).

Quote of the Day

George Osborne, British Chancellor of the Exchequer speaking about limiting the number of children benefits would cover.

"How can we justify that people in work have to weigh up the costs of having another child when those out of work don't?"

"40,000?"

Prompted by a Whale Oil post I went looking for the statistical evidence for this claim:

"According to the EPMU, since 2008 nearly 40,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost to the economy."

I checked the 2012 HLFS data here against the 2008 HLFS data here

June 2008 186,300 manufacturing jobs
June 2012  175,100 manufacturing jobs

BUT there were 184,600 in March 2012. Obviously a good deal of fluctuation occurs. Nevertheless the lost jobs as quoted by EPMU will have been counter-balanced by created jobs.

Truth column September 27

My September 27 column is now on-line:

There is no better example of the radical left than Sue Bradford. Last week, she resumed chaining herself to convenient fixtures. This time, a pillar at the Ministry of Social Development’s Auckland office. Her major complaint was against cuts to benefit payments if new obligations aren’t met.

More

Other Truth columns here

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