Sudden Unexpected Death in Infancy Syndrome - ethnicity

The really good news is the general SUDI rate is trending down - significantly. But:

"We were especially concerned to see that the rate of death in Maori and Pacific infants is significantly higher than for European infants,'' Dr Baker said.
"We're not sure exactly why this is, although differences in the rate of smoking during pregnancy may be a factor. We know that infants exposed to cigarette smoke in pregnancy tend to be smaller and are more prone to suffocation.''

A summary of the first results from Growing Up In NZ, a birth cohort study, found:

* More than one in 10 mothers continued to smoke through their pregnancies (with an over-representation of those identifying as Maori and living in the most deprived areas.)

Again (and I could write a paper on this subject) conflating Maori and Pacific isn't helpful.

Over 2003 to 2007 there were 202 SUDI deaths for Maori babies; 42 for Pacific; 4 for Asian and 80 for 'other'. The rate (per relevant population) for Pacific is well under Maori although higher than 'other'.

Any report that differentiates between 'Maori and Pacific' and 'other'  should  go  further and highlight the difference between Maori and Pacific. That story also holds important clues.

Cyprus

“Any government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have."

(source disputed)

Some more up-to-date quotes about the situation via Robert Tracinski:

Thomas Pascoe explains why this is such an alarming precedent.

"The principle that there is no division between your private property and communal property which may be appropriated by the government whenever it sees fit is an outrageous one in any system other than Communism. The idea that a government which has chronically misspent may order the banks to close and deduct a sum of its choosing from a person's balance before allowing it to re-open is beyond parody. "In the name of saving the state, central banks throughout the West have been conducting inflationary policies which act as a tax on savings. At least that is subtle. Now, in order to mitigate the excesses of the rash, both private borrowers and the government, savers are being taxed directly.
"The establishment of the principle that a government can, and at times of economic strain must, help itself to your savings, and that this is a legitimate tool of statecraft, ought to provoke riots."

Megan McArdle explains why European finance ministers thought they could get away with raiding accounts in Cyprus: it has become a haven for tax-dodging Russian oligarchs. The problem is the question everyone is asking themselves right now: where will this be tried next?

"If Cyprus had done this on its own, the country would be in trouble, but the rest of the world would just emit a bemused sigh and move on. Now, however, this plan has the imprimatur of the EU stamped on it—and so people are going to be looking hard at other European banking systems. Which other nations' depositors might have to take a similar haircut in the future? "Hopefully, savers will view Cyprus as an extreme one-off: a tiny nation whose banking system was unsustainably oversized for its economy, and whose substantial depositor base of kleptocratic foreigners made it uniquely difficult to deliver government support.
"The problem is, Europe seems to be chock full of unique, one time problems with its banking system. There's a real risk that investors will decide that they'd rather not stick around to see what one-of-a-kind, custom-crafted solution the European ministers come up with next."

Truth column March 7-13

A local bus-stop shelter was recently spray-painted with "Aoteoroa is not for sale." The tagging was a response to the Crafar Farm deal. In a similar vein last week, there were calls from NZ First and The Greens (unlikely bedmates) for the government to 'do something' about house sales to foreigners, in particular, Asians. Foreign investors, they say, are locking New Zealanders out of the housing market with their preparedness to pay good money for property. It's not fair, they say. It's not looking after our own first.

For every buyer of a house, there's a seller. Before asking politicians to regulate against freedom to purchase property, owners should think about what that means for them.

More

A good news story about getting off the dole

Home from work and having a happy hour glass of bubbly, feeling a bit more benign towards mankind as Michael Laws would put it, I came across this and thought I'd just cut and paste it. I can theorise till the cows come home about why government shouldn't be involved in wage subsidies, skills training, job placement etc but they are and this is at least one good, heart-warming even, result.

"I’ve learnt a lot and my knowledge is growing all the time."

Late one night last year, an elderly man found himself harassed by a group outside a Wellington bar. Afraid and unable to escape the situation, he sought refuge inside the bar. Henry Lemalu was working security when the man came up and asked him for help.
A quiet-spoken, steadfast individual, Henry was relatively new to security but he knew what to do.
“I went out there and told them to mind their own business. The following week the man came back and gave me a present to thank me for helping him out. That was a great feeling – knowing you can make a difference.”
For employer Darryl Stonnell of First Contact Security, it would have come as no surprise to see his trainee handle the situation so well.
Intelligent, committed and worthy are the words Darryl used when he nominated Henry for the Security Trainee of the Year 2012.
And yet, 18 months before he won the industry-wide award, Henry Lomalu was so afraid he wouldn’t measure up, especially with writing and theory, that it took all his courage not to walk away from the opportunity.
Struggling to find work on the Unemployment Benefit back in 2011, Henry was offered a place on an eight-week training course with a security company, First Contact. The company partners with Work and Income, training unemployed clients with the aim of moving them into work or further training.
It was the first time Henry had studied or trained since leaving school.
“I was so afraid that I almost had second thoughts. I wasn’t sure if I was capable or what I was getting myself into. But I’m pleased I convinced myself that this was something I could do and that I needed to do”, says Henry.
He shouldn’t have worried. Not only did he pass and gain a job, but First Contact saw the potential in Henry and encouraged him to go for the National Certificate in Security.
“It was a nice feeling to know that Darryl and the team supported me and wanted me to gain more qualifications. Otherwise I don’t think I would have attempted it. I was worried about the theory aspect; I’ve never had to write reports before or learn the specific alphabet used in the industry.”
Henry is now a team leader and studying towards the Level 3 certificate. He says he’s proud of what he’s done so far.
“I’ve learnt a lot and my knowledge is growing all the time.”
For Darryl, the reward is not only gaining a valuable employee but seeing Henry grow in confidence and skill.
He says he is impressed by Henry’s determination and hopes that winning the award will prove to Henry that he is capable of achieving even more.
“He is a prime example of someone who hasn’t found the training easy, has struggled at times, but has persevered and is now reaping the rewards of his efforts.”

Parental leave - pay for it yourself

The private members bill legislating for an increase of taxpayer-funded Paid Parental Leave (PPL) from 14 to 26 weeks is back in parliament today. Bear in mind, if lobbyists get 6 months it'll only be a matter of time before they want 1 year.

The main argument goes that bonding and breastfeeding are so important they should be encouraged as much as possible.

If you look at how mothers are behaving after a birth most already appreciate that.

NZ statistics analysed data from 2002 -2005 when the provision was for 12 weeks PPL.

Did most mothers return to work when their leave entitlement ran out?

No.

4 months after starting PPL only 12.5 percent were back working - at 5 months, only 33 percent.

30 percent had not returned to work after 18 months.

So, outside of 12 weeks, the majority of mothers were already funding motherhood themselves. They don't need the taxpayer to make it possible for them to stay home.

60.4 percent were aged 30 or older,  probably well-established in work and earnings. The average monthly earnings before PPL were $3,450. Mothers in the 99th percentile had monthly earnings of $10,490 but under the proposed  legislation would still be getting 6 months tax-payer funded PPL.

Finally, "Employment and return to work rates were higher for those who had earned the most before starting parental leave. "

The people who least need taxpayer support return to work faster anyway.

Begrudging farmers and attitudes to welfare

Those people commenting here and elsewhere about their lack of sympathy for farmers and opposition to any assistance will be pleased to know that Work and Income has not made any payments to farmers since the official drought declaration.

A spokesman for Work and Income said no rural assistance payments had been made since drought had been declared.

As I pointed out yesterday on an earlier thread these payments will be very hard to access and are only for people in extreme hardship.

Personally I don't begrudge it.

Here's something relevant written by an economist:

Attitudes towards welfare may differ substantially even across otherwise similar countries, but the basic determinants of solidarity and willingness to help are understood well enough. An interesting summary of the quantitative and qualitative research is provided by Horton and Gregory (2009: 110–30). It shows, first of all, that most people are not indifferent to the distress of others. 

 

Most people, however, have strong views on what they expect from those receiving help. The single biggest deterrent to generosity is fear of being taken advantage of. Free-riding is so destructive that it need not even be especially widespread in order to undermine people’s willingness to help. At the same time, nothing boosts the willingness to be generous as much as the confidence that most recipients of aid will collaborate, and do their best to improve their own situation.

 

The bottom line of the research is that people empathise with those who try – even if they try unsuccessfully. This is such a strong determinant of people’s willingness to help others that it trumps all other considerations.

 

An interesting illustration is an experimental study in which participants are presented with a set of fictional characters, and are asked to evaluate the degree to which they are deserving (ibid.:123–30). One of the characters has entered hard times through no fault of his own, receives benefits now, has the opportunity to change his situation, but does not do so. Another character has only himself to blame for having come on hard times, but is now doing his best to get his life back on track again. Participants empathised more strongly with the latter character. People are not primarily interested in who is to blame for a situation, but in who is doing their best to remedy the situation.

Who's 'beneficiary bashing'?

It seems to me the phrase 'beneficiary bashing' was coined in the 1990s and originally used to describe Ruth Richardson's benefit cuts. For some time I've been reflecting that the Left are now very quick to cry beneficiary bashing whenever  government attempts to reform welfare IN ANY WAY.

But this National government has never cut benefit payments. In fact they've introduced more protection for benefit levels through indexing.  National hasn't reduced the incomes of beneficiaries.

Policies of (usually) the political Left though, like tobacco and alcohol taxes, supposed environmentally-friendly fuel and energy taxes, a proposed fat tax, or Labour's capital gains tax, actually do or will hurt the lowest income people the most. Does anybody cry 'beneficiary basher' when Tariana Turia ratchets up the price of a cigarette yet again? Despite Maori women being the most prolific users of welfare and the biggest users of tobacco?

I was just reading a paper that shows  spending on alcohol and tobacco accounts for 10.7 percent of the incomes of those in the lowest quintile in the UK. The same paper shows how government interference in the housing market - and the UK has the same affordability problem as NZ - leads to high rents, again disproportionately hurting the working poor and beneficiaries. Do environmentalists seeking to prevent urban sprawl get called beneficiary bashers? Do climate change activists who campaigned for the ETS get called beneficiary bashers?

But offer free long-acting contraception to a beneficiary sole parent and her teenage daughter and you are not only a basher but a eugenicist! Everything aimed at trying to better the material and social lot of people on welfare and their children - work obligations for those able, short-term retention of benefit while transitioning into work, requirement to partake in child health and educational facilities, income management to ensure essentials get paid for - are all labelled punitive and beneficiary bashing.

Perhaps we should turn the term on the Left at every occasion they suggest making life financially tougher for those on low incomes, be they beneficiaries or workers (or both). Even BUY NZ could be construed as a beneficiary bashing campaign on the premise most cannot afford such indulgent nationalism. It'd be drawing a longish bow but isn't that what the Greens, Mana and Labour do every time they invoke the mantra?

A survey that tells us stuff all

Reported at Stuff:

Employers have slammed the government's scorecard on creating jobs and developing a viable growth agenda, a survey of business owners has found.
The Ernst & Young/Sunday Star-Times Job Creation Survey also indicated how widespread employers' concerns over unemployment and job creation are, with an overwhelming majority expecting it to be a major issue at the next General Election.
The survey participants were owners or managers, mainly mid-market, in a variety of industries nationwide.
It found that just over half of those businesses (54 per cent) had hired someone in the last year, but slightly less than that (51 per cent) intended hiring anyone in the year ahead.
When asked if they thought job creation was the responsibility of the government, the private sector or a combination of both, an overwhelming majority (79 per cent) said both.
However most were unimpressed with the government's contribution to that process.

What's missing is any in indication of whether the employer wants the government to be more active in loosening up employment legislation, wage controls, tax legislation, monetary policy etc. or they want the government to spend more on job creation schemes, wage subsidies, training, start-up subsidies etc.

It's depressing that 79 percent think job creation is both the responsibility of government and the private sector. But if I was answering the question precisely, at this point I'd have to agree. The government and only the government can extract itself from activities that contribute to unemployment and business failure. National has done a few things, for example the 90 day work law, but they need to do far more. Especially big stuff like lowering corporate tax. Not tweeking stuff.

So they can't really win when it comes to a survey like this. Labour supporters and National  supporters alike will find fault. But Labour's employment spokesperson, Grant Robertson says:

 "We need a hands-on government, not a hands-off one and I think the message from the business people who have been surveyed here is that they think this is a hands-off government that is not playing its part."

That's not the message I get. I don't get any clear message because the questions (those reported) weren't specific enough. And he shouldn't take it as a sign employers are so unhappy with the government they will vote to change it.

Talking up child poverty

Talking up child poverty is not an unusual practice. But it normally comes from the mouths of any number of people who make their living  documenting or advocating as part of the ' child poverty industry'.

An opinion piece in the NZ Herald earlier this week by the former head of Telstra Clear, exhorted business to get more involved in solving the social problems of NZ children:

Let's look at the facts. Today, a quarter of children live in poverty in New Zealand. That means going without a doctor, good food, shoes, raincoats and decent housing. If you look at Pasifika children, that statistic rises to 51 per cent; and more than half of Maori families are dependent on benefit incomes.

Facts?

Firstly, Mr Freeth has defined living in poverty by the 'reduced living standards measure' which is where his 51 percent of Pasifika children comes from - MSD's  2008 Living Standards Survey. So, 51 percent of Pasifika children experienced (or didn't as the case may be) 4 or more of the following

Ownership/Participation

• A good bed
• Ability to keep main rooms adequately warm
• Suitable clothes for important or special occasions
• Home contents insurance
• Presents for family and friends on special occasions

Economising ‘a lot’ (to keep down costs to help pay for other basics)

• Continued wearing worn out clothing
• Continued wearing worn out shoes
• Went without or cut back on fresh fruit and vegetables
• Bought cheaper or less meat than wanted
• Postponed visits to the doctor
• Did not pick up a prescription
• Put up with feeling cold to save on heating costs
• Went without or cut back on visits to family or friends
• Did not go to a funeral (tangi) you wanted to

And there are other measures mentioned like not being able to have friends to a party of your own bedroom when aged 10 plus. It's all very subjective stuff. BUT experiencing reduced living standards does not condemn a child.

Just for some balance, if the OECD measure of child poverty was used the percentage would immediately drop to around 12% of NZ children.

Then he says that, "More than half of Maori families are dependent on benefit incomes." Say what?

I'd be the first to agree that Maori are disproportionately dependent on welfare and it's not good for their children. But the percentage is not that high.

At December 2012 around 112,000 Maori received a main benefit. There were around 375,000 18-64 year-old Maori in 2012. So just on 30 percent of the Maori working age population receives a benefit.

The proportion for Maori single parents on a benefit is higher but even the highest age group - 20-29 - doesn't exceed half.


I have no idea where he got his statistic from.

Ironically later in the piece he writes:

Our statistics are not simply unacceptable, they are truly outrageous. They are beyond comprehension. And where, as business leaders, have we been, I wonder, as more and more reports are released showing more issues with children and youth health and welfare?

Probably getting on with their first priority - running a business - and feeling suspicious about media reports exaggerating child poverty.

Truth column Feb 28 - March 6

The Truth site is now up-to-date and I should be able to post my column weekly again.

The 'living wage'  idea poses more questions than it answers. Apparently the proposed non-compulsory hourly wage of $18.40 is based on the needs of a family with two children, with one full-time and one part-time worker.

But someone with dependent children who is currently earning less than the living wage will almost certainly be receiving  Working For Families assistance. As well, someone without children might be receiving accommodation supplement which helps with rent, board or a mortgage.

More

Farmers likened to "solo mums" - Helen Kelly

Regarding the government assistance available to farmers in officially drought-ridden areas, in a column titled  "We are all beneficiaries now" Helen Kelly writes,

Solo mums are a bit like these farmers. They are working but not earning and need community support to do that....  The drought shows how important social protection systems are.  When the unexpected happens – your farm dries up, you get sick, you lose your job, you find yourself alone raising your kids – the community steps in by way of tax funded Social Protection. 

I wonder how farmers feel about being compared to people who default to a welfare lifestyle in their thousands every year?

Tax-paying farmers are subject to the whim of the weather; many DPB mums are subject to their own (or their partner's) personal whims and wants. But Kelly can't differentiate between people who are  products of a habitual hand-out regime and people who need temporary help.

Shoring up support for a debased benefit system on the back of drought-stricken farmers sucks.

(Should farmers get government assistance? A tax break to buy income protection insurance against such advents would be better).

Truth Column Feb 21-27

My Truth column for February 21-27. The political poll referred to in this column has since been superseded by others.

Here's a scary headline: LABOUR, GREENS WITH MINOR PARTIES WOULD WIN ELECTION.  So said the latest Roy Morgan poll. Emboldened Green co-leader Metiria Turei shoved aside her education spokesperson to lead the charge against charter schools and pave the way to becoming Education Minister in 2014. Any charter school would be turned into a state school under her direction, she threatened. In other words she'd remove the "greater flexibility in exchange for greater accountability of educational outcomes" promised to partnership schools. Before the initiative has chance to prove itself, the Greens (and Labour) would trample it dead.
What else could we expect from such a government?

More.

And a few words from the Minister...

Regarding Jacinda Ardern's claims and what the Herald on Sunday published, Paula Bennett has responded;

"Ms Ardern and the Herald on Sunday need to get their facts right. The Herald on Sunday reported today that changes to youth are progressing through Parliament and will be introduced shortly. Wake up - they passed through the House last year and were implemented in August 2012."
“This is shoddy journalism and scaremongering by Labour. They might not like the truth and prefer to talk down people's chances of finding work, but I believe in people and their abilities, and want to support and encourage them in their hunt for work,” says Mrs Bennett.

Note the Herald headline has now changed. From memory it was something like Benefit numbers swell. If I google that term said article comes up with a new title.

The print media turns over a lot of young journalists. Or moves them around different portfolios. It's a good thing the blogosphere is now around to hold them to account.

(Bennett should also be careful when talking about DPB numbers to explicitly refer to sole parents. As is stands her release has the potential to confuse when matched against MSD's benefit factsheets.)

Median time on welfare 7.4 years

I was reviewing some of the papers presented to the WWG back in 2010 and noted some important statistics relating to the degree of dependence on welfare in New Zealand. 

Of people aged 28-64 receiving benefit at June 2009 (for whom there is a full ten years since they turned 18), half had spent at least three-quarters of the preceding decade on benefit. Just under a quarter had received benefit for all of the decade.

- the median proportion of time spent on benefit in the preceding decade was 74%

- 23% had spent all of the preceding decade on benefit. 

- Māori were much more likely than non-Maori to be in receipt of benefit and had spent larger shares of time in receipt of benefit, on average, than non-Maori.

- Pacific people and people from “Other” ethnic groups in receipt of benefit had, on

average, spent smaller shares of time in receipt of benefit than both Māori and European benefit recipients.

 

(That last statistic is important because too often Pacific people get put together with Maori in a 'Polynesian' category. That does a disservice to Pacific people who aren't over-represented in the benefit system in either numbers or duration of dependence.)

A lot of left-leaning commentators and politicians play down welfare dependence by using statistics pertaining to  the total population use of benefits over time. Naturally many people do use welfare at some point and that skews the overall picture towards shorter periods in receipt. Here's an example from Jacinda Ardern:

"There are 112,000 sole parents on the Domestic Purposes Benefit. Most come off it within four years"

What she omits to mention is many go back on it quite quickly. The report linked to shows that at June 2009 73 percent of DPB sole parents had spent 50 percent or more of the preceding decade on a benefit. These are the numbers that describe long-term dependence - the problem welfare reforms are trying to reduce - and it is wilfully misleading  to use any others.

Children's Day dying a death

Today was Children's Day. News to me. This media release was the first I knew about it:

The future of New Zealand depends on the well being of every child. Child Poverty Action Group says Children’s Day this Sunday is a chance for New Zealanders to reflect on our collective responsibility for the well-being of all our children.

Hopefully people are tiring of annual, designated 'concern' days for everything and anything. The over-subscription to 'days' has cast a pall over their efficacy. Usually a socialist construct designed to put political heat on governments to 'do something', I look forward to their demise.

More bad stats from Ardern

Jacinda Ardern is clutching at straws.

In the NZ Herald today:

Labour spokeswoman for social development Jacinda Ardern said the highest unemployment numbers were at around 10 per cent in the early 1990s but support for solo parents and invalids have hit record highs during Bennett's reign as Social Development Minister.

Infoshare shows that DPB numbers reached a high of 113,329 in 1998.
In 2011 a new high was reached of 114,039.

However, not all people on the DPB are "solo parents".

The table below shows that at December 2011 100,266 sole parents were on the DPB...

   

Benefit	December 2011	September 2012	December 2012	Quarterly change		Annual change
Domestic Purposes Benefits (DPB)	114,230	110,738	109,118	-1,620	-1.5%	-5,112	-4.5%
DPB-SP	100,266	96,648	95,138	-1,510	-1.6%	-5,128	-5.1%
DPB-CSI	7,650	7,806	7,943	137	1.8%	293	3.8%
DPB-WA	3,859	4,003	3,773	-230	-5.7%	-86	-2.2%
EMA	2,455	2,281	2,264	-17	-0.7%	-191	-7.8%

  
...compared to 106,881 in 1998 (contained within 2002 report here)

	1998
	Number
Domestic Purposes Benefit – Sole Parent	106,881
Domestic Purposes Benefit – Caring for Sick or Infirm	1,925
Domestic Purposes Benefit – Woman Alone	2,945
Emergency Maintenance Allowance	1,578
Total	113,329

So every thing else Ardern says in this article in relation to the DPB and sole parents, failure of work-testing etc is bunkum.

Let's look at the invalid's benefit. Using the same Infoshare table, yes, numbers reached a record high in 2011. But under National they increased from 85,197  2008 to 88,134 in 2011 - or 3.4%. Under Labour the increase was 51,173 in 1999 to  79,077 in 2007 or 54.6 percent. 

And as a percentage of the working age population numbers on the Invalid benefit have been trending down since 2009.

Ardern is quite pathetic.

But doesn't the reporter have some responsibility to dig a bit deeper?

ACT's problem

PRIMARY VOTE	National	Labour	GreenParty	NZFirst	MaoriParty*	ManaParty*	ACTNZ	UnitedFuture	Conservatives	Other
	%	%	%	%	%	%	%	%	%	%
General Election, July 27, 2002	20.9	41.3	7	10.4	n/a	n/a	7.1	6.7	n/a	6.6
General Election, September 17, 2005	39.1	41.1	5.3	5.72	2.12	n/a	1.51	2.67	n/a	2.48
General Election, November 8, 2008	44.93	33.99	6.72	4.07	2.39	n/a	3.65	0.87	n/a	3.38
General Election, November 26, 2011	47.31	27.48	11.06	6.59	1.43	1.08	1.07	0.60	2.65	0.73

I was pondering the latest Roy Morgan poll results and this table in particular.

Thinking about the minor parties, it struck me that ACT has nothing going for it.

Greens have environmentalism.

NZ First has a charismatic leader.

The Maori party has race.

Mana has extreme disaffection.

United Future has religion, though losing it to the Conservative Party.

But what does ACT have?

Freedom isn't it. Because all of the people who fall into the above categories would consider themselves primarily interested in freedom. Freedom is highly subjective.

Capitalism? Business people are pragmatists and will vote for a likely, safe result. And most don't actually mind government being significantly involved in the economy.

ACT has no brand. It has nothing for people to emotionally identify with.

This isn't an attack on ACT. It's just my explanation for why they poll so poorly. ACT is going to have to do something very radical if they want to survive the 2014 election.

I'm not much of a marketer but I'd go back to basics and hammer personal responsibility hard. Get spokespeople outside of parliament making statements that make National look wishy washy.

When New Zealanders took responsibility for themselves, their families, their friends we had a stronger economy, more social cohesion, less inequality, less crime. But it can't be a backwards looking campaign. In many ways the country is a much better place to live in today than in the 1950s and 60s. Women in particular play a much bigger role in the economy and have much more autonomy. But there is a group of women (and their children) shut out as a direct result of diminished personal responsibility. ACT needs to keep consistently showing that individual responsibility is paramount. For example, a child failed by a parent can never be fully compensated by other minor players in their lives. They need to be brave enough to say things that will be unpopular in parliament and with the media but will resonate with a large, non-vocal section of the population. BUT they need more voices.

Unfortunately John Banks may be an impediment to gathering those voices.

Husbands and Wives

I received the following press release from my friend Bob McCoskrie:

‘Husband’ and ‘Wife’ To Be Removed From Family Laws

Family First NZ says the Select Committee report on the same-sex marriage bill confirms that the terms ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ will be removed from 16 pieces of legislation as it seeks to redefines marriage.

I sent this quick e-mail:

This pisses me off. I have always held the terms wife and husband dear. I don't refer to my husband as my partner because  it's too ambiguous.

So what is left after husband and wife, 'marriage partner'? You know that I support same-sex marriage but this is an encroachment on my 'culture'.

What has the response been like to this revelation?

Update: Kiwiblog has a post clarifying the situation. "So no the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill does not remove the term “husband and wife” from the law books. It doesn’t remove it from the Marriage Act. It doesn’t introduce the term spouse into the law as a replacement – the term is already used in 136 Acts of Parliament. This issue is a red herring."

Truth column Feb 7-13

The Truth site catching up quickly now. This was my column for Waitangi Day:

In 1987 I left New Zealand. Returning in 1992 two new things struck me: Japanese imports and The Treaty of Waitangi. Asked at a petrol station if my borrowed car was a Japanese import, I drew a blank. Apparently it was. Once alerted, I started seeing cheap imports everywhere.
Next, a friend asked what I knew about the Treaty Principles. The what? 

More

No work-tests for almost two thirds of beneficiaries

The following is an exchange during parliament's question time yesterday:

6. Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) to the Minister for Social
Development: What impact have the Government’s welfare reforms had to date?
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development): The Government’s welfare reforms are seeing real gains for New Zealanders. Future Focus, implemented in September 2012 as a precursor to our current major reforms, introduced clear obligations and greater fairness to the benefit system. Since Future Focus started, more than 171,000 benefits have been cancelled because people found work, which is a good result in spite of a tough local market and a global economic recession. Over the last 2 years benefit numbers are now reducing by 165 net every week, on average, which equates to about 34 people every working day.
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: What changes has she seen as a result of the annual reapplication requirement?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: One simple policy change requiring unemployment beneficiaries to reapply if they remain on the benefit after a year has seen more than 21,400 people come off that benefit, with savings of more than $74 million to the taxpayer.
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: What results have there been to date by increasing expectations and obligations for those receiving benefits?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: Prior to National’s Future Focus changes, 79 percent of beneficiaries had no work-test obligations at all. Because of Future Focus, it is now around 64 percent and will reduce further with the changes coming through in the second welfare bill. There is no doubt at all that expectations mean that we see better results for people.

On current numbers that's 217,000 working-age people with no obligation to become self-supporting.

At least the percentage is reducing.

Quick international comparison

Statistics NZ has just issued this handy table. NZ isn't top or bottom in any category except % population under 15 years old. Ours is highest (due to the Polynesian population):

International comparisons with our top five visitor source countries

Truth column Jan 17-23

Truth's site is coming together. Here's my column from Jan 17-23. Bit out-of-date now but the topic is perennial:

A friend texted to tell me her partner was down at the local cop shop. Making enquiries about an unrelated matter, police had smelt dope and entered his flat demanding he reveal what he had. Was that legal, she asked? Yes, I responded.

More

Ministry of Men's Affairs

A press release about the topic of the day, prosecuting beneficiary partners, has appeared from the MINISTRY OF MEN’S AFFAIRS, MINITATANGA MO NGA TANE

 This proposed legislation reaches a new low in the financial exploitation of men and also represents a giant backward step for women to a past patriarchal era in which men were held legally responsible for their spouses’ behaviour.

 A Domestic Purposes Benefit (DPB) fraudster commits an offence by signing a legal document affirming (s)he is not in a marriage-type relationship. The partner committed no offence but Chester Burrows wants to make the partner pay for the beneficiary’s offending even if that partner in no way encouraged it. Burrows’ law will only apply to the partners of DPB and ‘Sole Parent Support’ fraudsters not to other types of benefit fraud, and his public statements have made it clear this distinction is based on the gender of the beneficiaries concerned. The intention of the law is to make men pay for female offending.

 

Anyone know who's behind this group?

RNZ bias

If you ever wanted confirmation that Radio NZ, or Kathryn Ryan at least, is utterly biased listen to the difference in her treatment of the interviewed lawyer compared to the associate Minister for Social Development Chester Borrows here.

Prosecuting beneficiary partners

National's new law that will see partner's of beneficiaries prosecuted is a good step forward.

Most of the currently prosecuted fraud - after claiming while employed - is claiming the DPB while living in a marriage-type relationship.

Most DPB claimants are women so this change generally affects men though other situations will occur. Same-sex partnerships are now recognised in  the Social Security Act so a lesbian partner could also be prosecuted. And obviously the main beneficiary might be male.  Given there is provision for couples to live together and claim a benefit in their own right - albeit at a reduced rate - the government has every right to start cracking down on people who break the rules. Both of them.

Also this move should reduce the vulnerability that having a secure income and home creates for DPB recipients - especially young, low esteem, malleable types who are all too willing to let a male sponge off her.

It's no surprise that the Maori Party aren't supportive. It's my belief that this sort of living arrangement whereby one half of the couple brings in the DPB and the other has no income, draws a benefit or works, is more common amongst Maori. It might not reflect intent to defraud necessarily. But it does reflect more transient, haphazard living.

In any case there are probably thousands of people who already know their living arrangements are not legit (some because a protection order also forbids them from living under the same roof.) Now it's a matter of changed dynamics as the blame and punishment spreads.

Will it make a difference? These people - mainly men - are risk-takers anyway. They probably have unpaid fines, other debt, previous convictions, child support debt, are possibly unemployable, possibly ex-prisoners, gang members, drug dealers. Is the threat of a $5,000 fine or prison going to change this particular behaviour? I doubt it.

But it does give the female another tool though, if she wants shot of the guy. Perhaps National should go a step further and offer an amnesty to the claiming partner if the other refuses to move out during the period following the new law implementation.

Update: Something was niggling at the back of mind about the business of actually defining someone as a partner. I had forgotten that Work and Income must demonstrate that the beneficiary is in a relationship with the required "emotional commitment" and "financial interdependence" for the other person to be defined as a de facto partner.

"...when considering if a client is in a relationship and the client indicates they are a victim of domestic violence, extra care must be taken when determining if the required level of emotional commitment is present." Here we go again with bad incentives. If he hits her he won't be a 'partner' and he won't go to prison or pay a fine. Good lord. What a mess the benefit system is.

Justice and injustice

Just finished reading Liberty Scott's post featuring a case of carping, chronic entitlitis when I came across this:

Liberty means the security given to each man that, if he employs his energies to sustain the struggle on behalf of himself and those he cares for, he shall dispose of the product exclusively as he chooses. It is impossible to know whence any definition or criterion of justice can be derived, if it is not deduced from this view of things; or if it is not the definition of justice that each shall enjoy the fruit of his own labor and self-denial, and of injustice that the idle and the industrious, the self-indulgent and the self-denying, shall share equally in the product.
 

- William Graham Sumner, "Socialism" [1880s]

...and so it came to pass and this is what it looks like.

Child support and teen Dads

I'm writing a belated post about this article from Sunday because there seems to be some confusion over liability.

One rogue 19-year-old is a liable father to 13 kids to different mums.
A source has confirmed the man is named on the birth certificates of 13 children, and is liable to pay child support for them.
Figures released by the Inland Revenue Department show 943 teenage fathers were liable to pay child support at the end of last year. Some were just 15 years old, and already liable for two children.

If this liable teenage father does exist he will be assessed for 13 x $16.30 weekly, the minimum, or $$211.90 in total. With that kind of liability going on for the next 18 plus years he may well have skipped the country and become one of the many the Australian government are now trying to chase - or was that student loans?

In any discussion about the merits or otherwise of child support I inevitably come back to the DPB.

Couples will always split or divorce and courts have always ordered maintenance be paid by the father (or occasionally) mother of any dependent children. That's fair. That morphed into today's child support (around 1991-2). Some couples negotiate the payment privately. Some choose to involve the state and subsequently, there is a good deal of argument over whether the current assessment formula is fair.

But for those fathers supporting a child being raised on the DPB from birth, fathers who were never in an ongoing relationship with the mother; who were never told about the pregnancy, had no opportunity to discuss what to do about it; who may have been knowingly used to provide a child/meal ticket - I am very uncomfortable about their liability. Yes, they are responsible to a point but if the DPB didn't exist, the mothers wouldn't have been using them or making the decision which leads to their 18 year liability.  Let's put it another way. A female finds herself pregnant. She knows if she has the child she will get an income equivalent to the minimum age and a home. She can get it from the state on the condition (and even this is easy enough to get around) she names the father so he can pay some probably pathetic amount to the taxpayer. And it usually is a trifling amount because of the socio-economic group these children are generally produced from.

Get rid of this gaming and a good deal of the child support problems disappear.

(BTW I have no idea why, according to the article, "welfare workers were shocked". There are always a few thousand teenagers on the DPB at any given. It's not surprising at least some of the fathers of those children would be teen Dads. Throw in another known fact - male Sole-Maori identifiers are three and a half times more likely to have a partner pregnant by age twenty than non Maori - and none of this is surprising).

DPB trivia

Around 10,000 sole parents on the DPB have had children to more than one child-support paying partner. (There will be more who have failed to name the father).

This piece of information was contained in an answer to a written question from Jacinda Ardern to the Minister of Revenue.

Wonder why she kept it quiet?

The current minimum child support payment is $16.30 - a mere 3 percent of a typical weekly payment to a single parent with two children living in Auckland.

And the left don't even want that tiny amount to go towards offsetting the DPB bill.

Sally Army report and the Living Wage campaign

It's hardly surprising that the Salvation Army Report, She'll  Be Right, got little media coverage. There's nothing particularly remarkable about the statistics, only the spin that Major Campbell Roberts puts on them. Every year he says something in his introduction that demonstrates his socialist bent. Last year he said the Prime Minister had no moral authority for the welfare reforms (despite having been elected on an overt agenda to overhaul the benefit system). This year Roberts writes:

"...the solutions to our challenges around child poverty, youth employment and housing—The Salvation Amy considers it’s naïve to believe and dishonest to suggest that these solutions do not require more tax dollars. The source of these extra tax dollars is, of course, a problem particularly considering the global economic situation. In our view the need for a society that is just and gives every citizen the right to participate economically and socially is so important, that ways must be found to find this additional tax revenue."

As Michael Laws commented yesterday, when did the Sallies become communist?

And in the related matter of a living wage, at last Bill English is pointing out that many people have their minimum wage topped up with various forms of government assistance.

Here's the problem for the living wage campaigners. If a worker receives a higher wage, he will lose his means-tested government assistance. He'll quite probably be no better off.

I'm quite happy for the employer to pay more so the tax payer pays less. It's is the employer that benefits from the labour purchased. But the bottom line is, the worker is no better off. And isn't improving worker well-being and prosperity the whole aim of this campaign?

Cycling between benefit and prison

There are people who cycle between benefit and prison. It's highly likely that there's significant overlap between the numbers below.

I've just got the data for 2011.

Benefit ceased for reason of 'in prison' numbered 4,304
Benefit granted for reason of 'released from prison' numbered 3,815

The numbers in 2009 were respectively 4,192 and 3,496
2008 - 3,050 and 3,144
2007 - 2,860 and 3,171
2001 - 3,563 and 4,467

There's a trend there. Interesting. Under a Labour government more people were granted a benefit on release than had a benefit stopped on incarceration. Under a National government, that has reversed.

What can be said for certain is that more people on benefits are going to prison. Of course, it's still only a tiny fraction of the beneficiary population.

But it's quite a large fraction of the prison population.

Cop-out by Corrections

Here's a classic piece of public service obfuscation contained in Corrections latest Annual Report 2011/12:

 "The profile of the prison population also provides challenges. Maori continue to be over-represented in our prisons, reflecting the high proportion of Maori population in the crime-prone age range."

The highest crime-prone age group is 20-24.

8 percent of the total male Maori population is 20-24.

7 percent of the total male non-Maori population is 20-24.

Of the crime-prone 20-24 year-old  age group Maori represent only 17 percent.

What a cop-out.

Ethnicity of prison population at September 2012:

Footnote. By coincidence, searching for something else, I just came across the following statement in the 1939 NZ Yearbook:

"The total number of Maoris convicted and sentenced in the Supreme Court during the last five years is only 216, indicating that serious crime amongst the Native race is far from prevalent."