In poverty but not hardship

Thanks to the reader who drew my attention to a recently released Ministerial Committee on Poverty report. It contains information familiar to me but presented in new and revealing ways. For instance the chart below shows that of the 270,000 children 'in poverty' around half are not experiencing hardship. That's because income is arguably less important than outgoings, or budgetary prioritising:

This report is very encouraging in that it identifies children of beneficiaries and particularly sole parent beneficiaries as forming the major share of children at risk of deprivation, but it resists leftist solutions. It finds for more targeting (eg of services), not universalising payments (no child benefit as proposed by the Children's Commissioner), and is clear that getting sole parents into work, or increasing their hours, is the best strategy. It notes that in Nordic economies parents are expected to return to work when their child is 13 months old. It also makes mention of the need not to disincentivise work (or encourage fertility patterns that are not in the nest interests of children) with higher benefit payments.  I will blog more of the graphs later.

OECD GDP per capita - a question

The NZ Initiative featured this graph (courtesy of Capital Economics) in its weekly newsletter today. It poses a question for me. Why is the Australian line so erratic compared to NZ's? A guess: there is more competition/changeability of rankings amongst the richest nations, whereas relativity between the poorer nations (of which NZ is one) is steadier. (The 10 years to 2011 gdp per capita stats are here. Both countries showed steady growth from 2002 flattening over 2008-11 but Australia's gdp per capita grew by 14 percent whereas NZ's grew by 6.)

Ed Miliband proposes "one nation"

UK Labour leader Ed Miliband has given a speech called, "A One Nation Plan for Social Security Reform" in which he repeatedly refers to "one nation". I can't get the echoes of Pauline Hanson out of my head but I don't suppose most poms would have heard of her.

James Bartholomew has summarised and commented on the speech here.

As always it's interesting to note the shared language and ideas between UK Labour and NZ Labour. For instance he talks about David Cameron's "dirty secret" -  a phrase I've heard Jacinda Ardern use against Paula Bennett.

But I don't think NZ Labour will be picking up on this particular term.

Good stuff from Affordable Auckland

I like Stephen Berry and wish him well in his local government candidacy campaign. Here's a cut and paste of his press release today:

‘Not Your Usual Hui’ Patronises Homosexuals

Thursday, 6 June 2013, 5:03 pm
Press Release: Affordable Auckland ‘Not Your Usual Hui’ Patronises Homosexuals
“I would be hard pressed to argue that engagement with Auckland ratepayers and residents is not a core function of Auckland Council. Of course it is. However, the ridiculously politically correct manner in which this Council goes about this interaction is wasteful and ineffective.” Affordable Auckland Waitemata & Gulf candidate Stephen Berry is referring to one example; ‘Not Your Usual Hui’ being held at Auckland University on 7 June 2013.
“Not Your Usual Hui is a forum for the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex (GLBTI) communities to start the conversation about how we strengthen and build capacity in Auckland to create ongoing, positive social change,” says Auckland Council’s media release on the event.
Mr. Berry, who is openly gay, says, “I find this Council’s PC overbearing foppishness in its desire to be inclusive of everyone highly patronising. Why ‘Not Your Usual Hui?’ Is it an unusual hui because it will be full of homosexuals? Are homosexuals incapable of gathering in a usual manner? Is this a warning that there may be men with sparkles on their cheeks wearing shorts with pockets hanging out of the bottom? Is a meeting of heterosexual Irish seagull hunters considered to be a usual hui?”
“I also question what value is attained by boxing all individuals with varying sex lives into otherwise unrelated collectivist packages and expecting to find one opinion representative of an entire ‘community.’ According to Council logic, men who have sex with men will hold the same opinions as women who have sex with women, individuals who have sex with anyone, people who have had sex changes, people who want a sex change and people who haven’t really made up their minds.”
“Some homosexuals are leftist, some are libertarian, some are even conservative. All are individuals who have varying belief systems and do not live their lives separated in a gated community working gay jobs, driving gay cars and living in gay houses. Holding a forum to obtain a gay view will be as successful as seeking men’s views, women’s views, European’s views, Maori’s views, Pacific Islanders views and Asian’s views. You’ll get the opinion of a few activist self-appointed representatives demanding more public money for their special interest group and little else.”
Stephen Berry says that the Council should engage with those who live in Auckland. “Engage with as many individuals as possible about what happens in this city. Do not patronise them with collective labels in the process!”
ENDS

Find yourselves some volunteers

If "charitable" organisations were truly voluntary they wouldn't be bemoaning the necessity of laying off staff due to government funding cuts.

Five out of eight staff at the Mangere Budgeting Service will lose their jobs at the end of this month because of a funding cut.

The 'cut' was the cessation of temporary funding by the way.

I worked for a charitable organisation for a few years. Some of the volunteers went on budgeting courses and were able to offer that service to the 'client'. All they were ever paid was petrol money to make the home visits.

"We have staff wanting security of jobs. We simply can't offer it."

What you need then is staff with a different motivation. People who have an existing source of income. Perhaps more superannuitants - a growing pool of able and time-rich people. That's your answer.

Libertarians not interested in social order or cohesion?

This is a excerpt from Colin James' latest ODT column (not on-line yet) about politics and inequality:

The social security state and its successor, the welfare state, bedded in not because the liberal-left initially triumphed. It endured because National adopted it in the late 1940s.
National's reason was not kindness. It was a liberal-conservative belief in the intrinsic value of a cohesive society to all its members. Exclusion of some from the community undermines social order and social order is precious to most conservatives. (Libertarians such as ACT and some National ministers are a different breed.)
Some days John Key and at times some other ministers exhibit that instinct, which some call a "communitarian" conservatism, traceable back to Edmund Burke.
So later this decade will that instinct prevail in National if a future different government tries to restore a secure, because less unequal, society?

I can only take from this that James thinks Libertarians (and "some days John Key"?- Edmund Burke was a classical liberal) are not interested in a cohesive society. Is it the leftist  every- man- for- himself characterisation?

Speaking for myself, social cohesion and social order (as opposed to chaos) are hugely important but when sought after through coercion by either government or individuals, won't endure. People can only be forced  to be each other's keeper or to think in certain ways for so long.

Yes, social cohesion (amongst Pakeha society anyway) increased after the introduction of social security. Every worker made a dedicated contribution to ensure that a very tiny minority of needy people had a better standard of living than they would have had pre -1938. It was post war and post depression. To an extent people were in shell-shock (some literally). It was a time when people valued living peaceably and each other. It was a time when personal courage and integrity were valued as people mourned those they had lost and lauded those who had survived. (It was also a time when certain behaviours were heavily stigmatised and thus controlled by individuals backed by government - divorce, unmarried childbirth, non-sobriety, homosexuality).

But, and this isn't a new theme for me I know, values have changed. And intrinsically caught up in that change, both as a cause and an effect, is welfare. It stopped being port of last call and started to develop into support all had a right to call on for whatever reason they chose to promote. The numbers on benefits exploded through the 1980s.

Family life, particularly for Maori, started to break-down. As the units broke down, the larger community lost cohesiveness. Yes, inequality grew (the topic of James' column) as a growing percentage of people received low incomes via benefits, and the middle class increased their incomes through women progressively working and professionalising. Middle class working two parent families are now relatively rich and single parent families are relatively poor; compared to the rest of the developed world NZ is now poorer - the inequality the left don't talk about.

Wages haven't kept up, in part, because the government keeps trying to subsidise low incomes through various methods, letting employers off the hook in the process. We have reached the stage, thanks to social security, where we have more redistribution of wealth going on than at any other time in New Zealand's history (barring perhaps the early 90s) and yet we still have inequality and a less ordered and cohesive society than during the 50s and 60s. More violence, more dysfunction, more child neglect, more mental illness, and more reliance on artificial means to relieve stress.

What's left for a government to force people to do in the name of equality and security?

Gangs committing most of the crime in NZ?

This RNZ reported statement from Corrections Minister Anne Tolley, on the back of the Springhill riots, intrigues me:

She said most crime in New Zealand is committed by gang members.

How does she know?

One would assume that the number of gang members in prison might provide a pointer but I don't believe that has been measured since the Prison Census was discontinued in 2003, at which time patched and associates made up 11.1 percent of the prison population.

Now if the percentage was unchanged (unlikely) and her statement was true, that reflects very badly on those charged with detecting crime and locking up offenders.

There were 376,013 crimes recorded in NZ in 2012.

Yet according to National MP Todd McClay:

 Police estimate there are 3,500 patched gang members in New Zealand.

(Revealing comment at the bottom of that op-ed)

The Sensible Sentencing Trust claims there are 21,882 gang members and affiliates. That's very specific.

Anyway, the numbers don't  stack up.

I've tried to verify that Tolley actually said this, but there's no press release on the matter.

Don't you wish that journalists would be a bit sharper and dig deeper when confronted with quite startling claims?

Jarrod Gilbert, who has researched gangs for a decade says,

"There's a lot of hysteria which is unnecessary for the most part."

So what's the truth of it? Even if she intended 'violent' crime I'm dubious about the accuracy. (And when gangs are committing crime it's often against each other or other gangs though that's not really relevant to the topic of this post.)

Finally, after a bit more searching I've found this from a 2009 paper prepared for Parliament about young people and gangs:

Recorded apprehensions where the offender was recorded as gang affiliated at the time of offence declined from 4,711 in the 2002/03 fiscal year to 3,706 in 2004/05 but then increased to 6,392 in 2005/06. [19]   The Department of Corrections’ Census of Prison Inmates and Home Detainees 2003 found that 62 percent of sentenced gang members were imprisoned for violence or sexual violence. This was slightly higher than for those without gang connections (58 percent). [20]  
As at 16 May 2007 a total of 1,471 prisoners were identified as actively affiliated with gangs. The largest numbers were affiliated with the Mongrel Mob (523) and were Black Power (426). [21]   This compares to a total prison population at 30 June 2007 of 8,083. [22]   In June 2008 the Minister of Police Hon Annette King said Police estimated the total number of patched gang members and associates was between 3,000 and 3,500. [23]   Police Association President Greg O’Connor thought the figure was higher – probably over 3,500. [24]  

I can't find any basis for the Minister's claim. It could come from Victimisation Surveys which capture non-prosecuted crime but....I'm still skeptical. Looks like she was wrong or mis-reported.

Sole mum spoiler

We probably all know someone like this.

A father-son bonding session planned by a North Island primary school was cancelled after a single mother demanded to be included.
Two "Band of Brothers" seminars were arranged by Matakana School to help fathers get more involved in their sons' lives, and as a forum for dads to share their issues. One session was for dads and another was for fathers and sons.
A solo mum wanted to attend but was told she couldn't because her presence would inhibit discussion. She was told a mother and son seminar was planned for later in the year.
"We really just wanted an opportunity for the guys to open up and chat, and they wouldn't particularly want to do if there were females around - which I think is understandable," said principal Darrel Goosen.
The woman's son was welcome at the second seminar and the guest speaker offered a specific session with her and her son but she continued to insist on attending, Goosen said, so the school board decided to cancel the event.

She is probably still defiantly claiming the high ground.

This bothered me though:

Psychologist Sara Chatwin, from MindWorks, said in today's society - where almost 50 per cent of Kiwi households are single-parent households - the session should have been promoted as a parent-child affair.
"I understand where the mother is coming from. The implications are that that child will feel incredibly left out if they are the only child without a dad who is going to a seminar like that."

Since when were half of NZ households single parent? Try 18 percent of all families, or 30 percent of families with dependent children (and possibly declining). When someone can't even get factual information correct I'm disinclined to listen to their personal opinion. And unsurprisingly, what she says next is in fact silly. If there are so many single parents, but the event was open to their children, the child wouldn't feel left out. And nobody was barring the father from attending even if he is estranged from the mother.

This mother sounds like someone with a lot of baggage who unfortunately isn't making life for her child any easier.

Truth column May 24

My Truth column May 23. It's not on-line yet but I thought I'd put it up anyway. Despite being over a week old it seems somewhat topical:


We're told 270,000 children are living in poverty. That's the number of children living in homes below 60 percent of the median household income after housing costs. Some argue that income isn't as indicative as spending. Amongst that 270,000 are children not experiencing hardship because their parents prioritise and budget. In any event, using the 60 percent measure, child poverty actually declined from 2001, and plateaued after the Christchurch earthquakes and global financial crisis. So why do we constantly hear about growing hunger?

Benefits are adjusted annually for inflation to keep up with living costs. Rents are a big consumer of income but the aforementioned improving data is after housing costs. Also, New Zealand's had it tougher before. The early 1990s recession was deeper than the GFC, yet there was no clamour about hungry children then.

There's one consumable with a price that has risen significantly, and is set to rise further. Low-income people, especially Maori women, use a lot of it. Tobacco. Ironically the tobacco tax hikes have been driven by the Maori and Mana Parties, whose leaders are determined to price cigarettes (scheduled to rise to $20 a packet by 2016) out of the reach of Maori and Pacific people. The reality is, though, most don't kick the habit.  Add to tobacco the drought-induced escalating cost of cannabis, also used more by Maori than other ethnicities, and it's entirely reasonable to speculate about the contribution this makes to foregone grocery items.

I'm not denying that children are suffering, often from experiences worse than hunger. But there's too little honesty about why. The hypocrisy of high-earning leaders who deliberately ratchet up costs for their already skint constituents, and then carp about the consequences for the kids, is breathtaking. And to rub salt into the wound, on April 1 this year, the tobacco hike was omitted from the inflation adjustment to benefits. Not a very funny prank.

Where are the offended old codgers?

That cartoon. The thing I noticed about it immediately is that it featured two old codgers also trying to get a free lunch. Old people demanding free this and that, or refusing to entertain giving up privileges other members of society don't enjoy, aren't uncommon. But they don't represent all over-65s. Haven't heard Grey Power complaining yet.

Metiria Turei, on the other hand, is being hysterical - and I don't mean funny. Her reaction is ridiculous. "Does our country really hate us?"

(Comments are "closed" because ... the Greens want an open exchange of ideas??)

Personally I didn't think the cartoon was very clever or funny. It was limp. If you are going to offend people it should at least be witty and worth it.

Budget focus on teen parents

On Monday the government made a formal response to the Children's Commissioner Expert Advisory Group Solutions to Child Poverty which were very extensive and costly. Essentially the government has simply reiterated everything they have already done, but I thought it worthwhile highlighting the section about teen parents who are, to my mind, where much of the available government and non-government resources need to go. Generally teen parents get stuck in the welfare rut for longer than most and contribute to the intergenerational cycle more than most. They are teen parents for a short time but single, benefit-dependent parents for many years thereafter. Their children will almost certainly figure amongst the poorest, most deprived in the country:

Investing in teen parents

Budget  2012  set  aside  $287.5  million  over  four  years  for  the  first  phase  of  the
Government’s  welfare  reforms  to  help  more  New  Zealanders  into  work.   Much  of  this  is earmarked for supporting youth, including $80 million over four years for  early childhood education, childcare and the Guaranteed Childcare Assistance Payment for teen parents. Another $77.6 million was set aside to support the roughly 14,000 disengaged 16 and 17 year olds, to move them into education or training.

A new Youth Service and reciprocal obligations 

The Government has set up a new Youth Service to work with vulnerable young people. 
Community-based providers are funded to deliver wraparound support to teen parents and unemployed or disengaged young people, in order to improve their educational outcomes.  

One  of  the  groups  targeted  by  the  Youth  Service  is  16-18  year  old  parents  who  are receiving  financial  assistance  from  the  Government.    In  return  for  receiving  financial assistance, these Young Parent Payment recipients are supported to complete a range of obligations focused on improving their parenting skills, including: 

    completing a parenting education programme
    enrolling every dependent child with a Primary Health Organisation
    keeping every child under the age of 5 years up to date with WellChild checks, and
    ensuring  their  children’s  attendance  at  an  approved  early  childhood  education
programme or other suitable childcare while they are in education, training, work-based
learning or part time work.

Learning what works for young Māori parents

55% of Young Parent Payment recipients have identified themselves as Māori.  Alongside the  Youth  Service,  the  Government  has  invested  in  a  Supporting  Intergenerational
Success initiative, which provides tailored support for young single Māori mothers to move into meaningful training and employment opportunities.  This initiative is being run by Te Puni Kōkiri for one year.  Its focus is on harvesting information to find out what works and identifying the opportunities and challenges for this group.  

Supporting  Intergenerational  Success  was  designed  to  complement  the  Government's
welfare reforms and other initiatives that focus on young mothers with more complex and
entrenched needs.  Providers are working with single Māori mothers aged 16-20 years old
who are receiving the Emergency Maintenance Allowance or Domestic Purposes Benefit in
South Auckland, Rotorua, Waikato, and Gisborne.

More Teen Parent Units

The  Government  is  funding  the  establishment  of  a  further  5  teen  parent  units  in  2013, which  will  provide  more  educational  options  for  teen  parents  in  these  areas.    Not  every school can have a teen parent unit, however, so the Government is exploring alternative ways to incentivise teen parents to return to or remain in education.
 
Dedicated Intensive Case Workers

In  2010,  the  Government  invested  $7.9  million  in  Teen  Parent  Intensive  Case  Workers. These  Case  Workers  are  working  in  19  high  needs  communities  to  support  the  most vulnerable teen parents and their children.  

Their  aim  is  to  help  teen  parents  stay  in  education,  and  work  with  those  on  benefits  to prepare for future employment.  They link teen parents and children to the services and support  they  need,  such  as  antenatal  care,  services  that  help  prevent  repeat  teen pregnancies, housing, budgeting, and home visiting and parenting services (parents aged under 18 are prioritised for the limited available  places in Family Start).  They also help ensure children of teen parents are participating in Well Child services and early childhood education.  
 
Volunteer Neighbourhood Support

Volunteer  Neighbourhood  Support  initiatives  assist  the  Teen  Parent  Intensive  Case
Workers in nine priority communities.  They provide support for teen parents who are not facing  major  challenges,  but  who  may  be  isolated  and  able  to  benefit  from  greater
connections  with  their  neighbourhoods.    Improved  access  to  parenting  and  mentoring programmes has been a focus of most of these initiatives. 
 
Parenting Support for Teen Fathers

This programme focuses on helping teen fathers to be responsible and nurturing parents.
In  2010,  the  Government  provided  $730,000  for  it.    A  resource  created  for  service
providers  brings  together  what  is  known  from  research  and  good  practice,  and  enables examples  of  effective  parenting  support  to  be  shared.    This  resource  is  being  used  by communities across New Zealand to develop support services for teen fathers.  

The  Government  has  also  funded  support  services  for  teen  fathers  in  nine  high  needs communities.  These services provide teen fathers with information and skills to prepare for the  birth  of  their  child,  parent  their  children  effectively,  and  identify  and  respond  to  their children's health, education and social needs. 

Supported Housing for Teen Parents and their Children

In 2010, the Government invested $6.2 million in Supported Housing for Vulnerable Teen
Parents  and  their  Children.    This  initiative  provides  housing  with  adult  supervision  and support by trained staff 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.  It addresses the needs of the most vulnerable teen parents and their children.  

The houses are for teen parents (ranging in age from 13-19 years) who are unable to be
supported  by  their  parents/caregivers  and  who  lack  the  resources  to  find  a  stable  and suitable place to live.  Teen parents in these homes receive parenting support and social work support, learn budgeting and other life skills, and get help to plan for their futures.

Food in schools - non-culpability creep

The Prime Minister has confirmed that National will be extending food in schools programmes. He knows there is discomfit about this amongst his constituency but, according to the NZ Herald says,

 "...if the child is not fed ... we know they don't learn...In the end they are a victim, they may well be a 6- or 7-year-old victim that can't stand up for themselves so we have some responsibility to do something about that."

Yet a Auckland University study undertaken across 14 low socio-economic schools where children received free school breakfasts organised through Red Cross or the private sector found,

 "A free school breakfast did not have a significant effect on New Zealand children's school attendance, academic achievement, self-reported grades, sense of belonging at school, behaviour or food security. However the programme had significant positive effects on children's short-term hunger ratings. More frequent programme attendance may be required to influence school attendance and academic achievement."

Sounds familiar. The policy isn't working because we aren't doing enough of it. I'm not buying it. And speaking of buying....

.... these are the payment rates for Family Tax Credits received by beneficiaries specifically for the care of their children:

Category	Amount per week
First or only child, 0 - 15 years	$92.73
First or only child, 16 years or older	$101.98
Second or subsequent child, 0 - 12 years	$64.44
Second or subsequent child, 13 - 15 years	$73.50
Second or subsequent child, 16 years or older	$91.25

 
A box of Homebrand Cornflakes costs $2.39

A loaf of Signature range wholemeal toast bread is $2.49

500g Anchor butter $3.89

2L Signature milk $3.79

That's shopping at Countdown, not the cheapest, but should feed one child breakfast easily. That's 13.5% of the 'first and only' child payment.

The minute anyone disagrees with the 'feed the children in schools' policy they are put into the non-caring, greedy corner.

But I won't accept that characterisation.

Every time we cede to non-culpability creep we actually make the overall situation and outlook for children bleaker. If we fail to ask for parental responsibility, we won't get it. And the fall-out from non-responsibility manifests in far worse ways than hungry children and at times when nobody else is available to step in and fill the void.

CPAG return to court - again

The Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) is about to return to court for the third time arguing that the In Work Tax Credit should go to beneficiary families. The group has an opinion piece in today's DomPost:

OPINION: New Zealand continues to grapple with a poor track record for child poverty and particularly the rising inequality affecting our poorest children.

More

My response:

Dear Editor

An opinion piece from the Child Poverty Action Group (Dominion Post, May 28) is prefaced with a statement that the group is back in court this week trying to get Working for Families extended to those getting benefits. Children in beneficiary families do receive Family Tax Credits, part of the WFF package. What they don't get is the In Work Tax Credit (IWTC) specifically for parents who work.

The IWTC was created by the last Labour government which believed the best way out of poverty, including for children, was paid work. It reflected the extra costs of going to work and the often negligible gap between income from low-paid work and income from a benefit.

Research from the OECD (whose experts assisted the government at the last defence of this policy) has shown that reducing child poverty simply by lifting benefit payments increases the number of workless homes. In short, paying the IWTC to children in benefit homes will lift their income in the immediate future but won't eliminate the ongoing source of their poverty - parental unemployment - in the long run. That's why the Human Rights Tribunal ruled,"...the discrimination caused by the exclusion of beneficiaries from the In Work Tax Credit is demonstrably justified."

CPAG refuse to accept this and continue to throw good money after bad fighting the decision. It could probably be better spent on practical measures to reduce hardship amongst poor children.

Benefit expenditure forecasts

Below are welfare benefit expenses projected to 2017. Note that the table accommodates the benefit changes from Unemployment, Domestic Purposes, Sickness and Invalid benefits to Jobseeker Support, Sole Parent Support and Supported Living payment. Interesting though that the forecasts are for pretty much unchanged expenditure from actual total of $4.794 billion in 2012 to forecast $4.697 in 2017.

Long list of likeable policies - not for Labour

Labour MP Clare Curran has posted a list of "right-wing" policies from Australia's Institute of Public Affairs (must add to my blog roll). Curran highlights the only one she thinks has merit.I like most of them. Brightened my morning to see these ideas being promoted:

• Means-test Medicare
• Eliminate family tax benefits
• Abandon the paid parental leave scheme
• Abolish the Baby Bonus
• Abolish the First Home Owners’ Grant
• Repeal plain packaging for cigarettes and rule it out for all other products, including alcohol and fast food
• Repeal the alcopops tax
• Reject proposals for compulsory food and alcohol labelling
• Repeal the Fair Work Act
• Allow individuals and employers to negotiate directly terms of employment that suit them
• Introduce a single rate of income tax
• Return income taxing powers to the states
• Cut company tax to 25 per cent
• Cease subsidising the car industry
• Abolish the Foreign Investment Review Board
• Abolish the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission
• Abolish the Office for Film and Literature Classification
• End local content requirements for Australian television stations
• Break up the ABC and put out to tender each individual function
• Devolve environmental approvals for major projects to the states
• End mandatory disclosures on political donations
• End all corporate welfare and subsidies by closing the Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education
• Immediately halt construction of the National Broadband Network and  privatise any sections that have already been built
• Privatise Australia Post, Medibank and SBS
• Halve the size of the Coalition front bench from 32 to 16
• Reduce the size of the public service from current levels of more than 260,000 to at least the 2001 low of 212,784
• Slash top public servant salaries
• Force government agencies to put all of their spending online in a searchable database
• Repeal the carbon tax, and don’t replace it (if it is replaced by another costly scheme, most of the benefits will be undone).
• Abolish the Department of Climate Change
• Abolish the Clean Energy Fund and repeal the renewable energy target
• Withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol
• Repeal the mining tax
• Privatise the CSIRO and the Snowy-Hydro Scheme
• Abolish the Commonwealth Grants Commission
• Introduce fee competition to Australian universities
• Means test tertiary student loans
• Repeal the National Curriculum
• Introduce competing private secondary school curricula
• Reintroduce voluntary student unionism at universities
• Introduce a voucher scheme for secondary schools
• Abolish the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA)
• Eliminate ‘balance’ laws for radio and television broadcasters
• Abolish television spectrum licensing and devolve spectrum management to the common law
• Eliminate media ownership restrictions
• Cease funding the Australia Network
• Rule out government-supported or mandated internet censorship
• End public funding to political parties
• Introduce voluntary voting
• End media blackout in final days of election campaigns
• Formalise a one-in, one-out approach to regulatory reduction
• Legislate a cap on government spending and tax as a % of GDP
• Legislate a balanced budget amendment which limits the size of budget deficits and the period the government can be in deficit
• Allow people to opt out of superannuation in exchange for promising to forgo any government income support in retirement
• Encourage independent contracting by overturning new regulations designed to punish contractors
• End all hidden protectionist measures, such as preferences for local manufacturers in government tendering
• Remove all tariff and non-tariff barriers to international trade
• Remove anti-dumping laws
• Deregulate the parallel importation of books
• End preferences for Industry Super Funds in workplace laws
• Privatise the Australian Institute of Sport
• Rule out federal funding for 2018 Commonwealth Games
• End all public subsidies to sport and the arts
• Eliminate the National Preventative Health Agency
• End all government funded ‘Nanny State’ advertising
• De-fund Harmony Day and close the Office for Youth
• Repeal Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act
• Allow the Northern Territory to become a state
• Introduce a special economic zone for northern Australia including:
  a) Lower personal income tax for residents
  b) Significantly expanded 457 Visa programs for workers
  c) Encourage the construction of dams.

Truth column May 16-22

 My Truth column for May 16-22

Criminologist Greg Newbold’s recent remarks on Maori’s over-representation in violent crime statistics reminded me of another.  A 2007 Corrections report found, “… over 16,000 Maori males currently between the ages of 20 and 29 years [over 30% of that age-band] have a record of serving one or more sentences …” Also noted was the over-representation of Maori victims because “… much crime occurs within families, social networks or immediate neighbourhoods.” This was called a “catastrophe” for Maori.

More

Beagles go to parliament

Lexie and I are off to parliament to join other Beagle owners as a petition asking the government to rule out testing recreational drugs on animals is presented. I'm not heavily involved in  this campaign but can't see any case for using Beagles (chosen for their gentle easy- to- handle nature) to keep recreational drug users safe. Couldn't those who like to experiment with drugs, inherently risk-takers, test them personally?


 Update:




No Minister. No Peter Dunne. Green MP Mojo Mathers accepted the petition and she sent apologies on behalf of John Banks who also strongly opposes but couldn't attend. Some coverage here.

1 in 5 new entrants still on DPB after ten years

Here's an interesting table which reveals quite a lot about who and how long people stay on the DPB:

1 in 5 of those single parents who went on the DPB in the year to June 1998 was still on it (or back on it) ten years later. Almost one in three of those who'd had their first child under 18 were still dependent.

(If you look back from a point-in-time, the proportion that are long-term is much greater as they accumulate.)

Earlier 1998 research looking at entry (to any main benefit) in 1993 found,

35% of the 1993 entrants overall and 57% of the DPB entrants were in receipt of benefit on the five-year anniversary of their 1993 grant.......

If we could identify the long duration group early in their benefit history and turn that history around, the benefit savings would be great, possibly sufficient to support a greater up-front investment in assisting people to secure sufficient incomes to become and remain independent of the benefit system than has been contemplated in the past.

That's what the later research does and why National's reforms have targeted very young entrants.

Voter turnout

Came across this snippet from 1938 which showed a voter turnout in Wellington of 89 percent.

"...a surprising number of people on the rolls for the six Wellington seats and Hutt did not record their votes in the General Election October 15."

Did the writer express surprise because the turnout was lower than previous?

Today's Wellington and Hutt electorates voter turnout is 81 percent.

He'd be flabbergasted at the national 74 percent turnout - less than three quarters (with 58 percent in the Maori electorates.)

Roger Douglas versus Peter Conway on the budget

Rodney Hide hosted Sean Plunket's Radio Live show on friday and from 11am Roger Douglas and Peter Conway (Council of Trade Unions) discussed the budget. But it developed into a more far-reaching debate about the real problems facing NZ, especially education and welfare. Does poverty cause dysfunction or vice versa? Roger kept returning to education and the need to get it right for Maori. Conway insisted that the public schools were fine but the homes that the failing kids came out of were the problem due to poverty and unemployment. Roger used an example of a Ruatoria school run by Maori, with children mainly from beneficiary homes, that is apparently getting great results whereas the next door public school is not. The kids from the private school go on to tertiary education, the kids from the public school don't.

On welfare, Conway was adamant that when jobs were available people took them. He specifically talked about the reduction in the numbers on unemployment benefit dropping from 162,000 to 17,000 which showed that "When the jobs were there people took them and so only a very tiny number didn't...human characteristics didn't change....what changed was the opportunity and availability of work." And that all happened under Labour's investment approach.

Sounds great except the total number of people on benefits  dropped from 1 in 7 to 1 in 10. Not a very tiny number. As Roger pointed out quite a lot of people moved onto incapacity benefits which continued to rise throughout. If that is the best that can be achieved under a Labour government it leaves a lot to be desired.

You can pick up the interview here. It's covered over the four quarters from 11am to 12am, Friday May 17.

Rodney does a great job on radio. This is the kind of discussion I want to hear. And judging from caller's comments to him, so do others.

Wall sticking her neck out

Labour MP, Louisa Wall isn't going to be making herself popular with Ngai Tahu and other operators of so-called charities.

I blogged about the Shotover tax-free status 6 years ago here.

Just as charitable status for the purpose of exempting donations should be tested, so should straight out tax exemptions for organisations that  look more like businesses than charities.

We all pay too much tax because we have a too-big government. Taxes should be lower, flatter and fairer. Exemptions without obligation don't fit the last criteria.

The budget and welfare-related matters

The government is concerned about the growing student allowance bill so have restricted allowances for over 40s (from memory) to 120 weeks and made over 65s ineligible.

Can't see this saving much as less than 1 percent are over 65 (how come you can get a student allowance on Super but not if you are on any other benefit?)

91 percent of student allowance recipients are under 40 and nothing changes for them.

Next, state housing reviews to ensure people move on when their circumstances change, will be shifted into the realm of MSD. Work and Income probably know more about the circumstances of state house tenants than the landlord and are best placed to assess their needs.

Also, non-government social housing will now receive income-related rent subsidies. Unclear from the speech whether this applies to council-owned housing (if it doesn't already).

The child-related measures seemed confined to already announced extra funding for fighting rheumatic fever and extending house insulation to a further 49,000 low income homes.  No food in schools mention but more funding for mentoring NCEA level 2 students.

And more funding for budgeting services.

Truth column May 9-15

My Truth column May 9-15

Parliament resumed this week.  Why do MPs get school holidays off anyway?  Other working parents have to pay for child care or farm their offspring out to family, though I reckon quite a few break that absurd law that says a child under 14 can’t be home alone. But it wouldn’t do for an MP to break the law.  And if anyone should have to live by some of the claptrap that comes out of Parliament, it should be the claptrap creators.

My youngest went to school in the city from 11, footing it unaccompanied on city streets daily.  Am I expected to believe he’s safer there than at home?  A flying squad could swoop on thousands of homes during the school breaks and find under-age children fending for themselves. Good thing too, learning to take responsibility for themselves. I can’t fathom a law that says developing initiative and becoming independent is a bad thing.

More

No gains in learning or behaviour for children fed breakfast in school

Thanks to a reader who sent me a link to a presentation about evaluation research into the programme that already exists to feed children in schools:

  Programme led to a significant decrease in
hunger
•  No effect on other outcomes measured
(attendance, learning, behaviour, food
security)
•  Participation in programme less than expected
– ranged from 5-79% but on average students
attended ~30% of the time (dilution effect)
•  Rather than increasing breakfast consumption
overall many children who previously ate
breakfast at home appeared to swap location
(substitution effect)

So again I'm left asking the same question (spurred by a different reason) as yesterday. Why a 'Feed the kids' bill now?

'Feed the kids' bill starts with a lie

Hone Harawira's bill, Education (Breakfast and Lunch Programmes in School) Amendment Bill, starts with a lie. From the Explanatory note:

"Growing levels of poverty in New Zealand have resulted in too many parents being unable to afford to provide their children with breakfast before school and/or lunch at school, or being unable to afford to provide their children with sufficiently nutritious meals before and during school."

 The latest data available shows that levels of child poverty are declining:

The shaded area shows that the percentage of children living in households with income below 60 percent of the median after-housing costs household income (referenced to 2007) has fallen from 37 percent in 2001 to 21 percent in 2011.

Poverty is though measured in various ways. One is to look at non-monetary indicators of hardship. On that measure children are experiencing increased hardship.

 
However the report says:

"... it is noted that income poverty rates for children remained much the same from 2009 to 2011, yet here material hardship rates are reported as rising.  One of the main reasons for this difference of trend is that families with children with family incomes above the poverty line reported increased hardship, thus increasing measured hardship irrespective of what the income poverty trend was."

From this I understand that increasing material hardship does not relate to the poorest children, presumably those in decile 1 and 2 schools - the target of the bill.

Also,

 

    " The longer-run findings on child poverty reflect the fact that AHC incomes in 2011 for low-income households were around the same as they were in the early 1980s in real terms, but that relative to the median the incomes of lower-income households with children had fallen away (ie higher inequality in 2011 than in the mid 1980s)."

So I keep coming back to the question, why now? Why have we reached a point where children need to be fed breakfast and lunch in schools when they haven't in the past, during times of greater or similar poverty and hardship?

Maori first

 I wonder how widespread the following practice is:

If a respondent reports more than one ethnicity, the ethnicity attributed is determined according to a hierarchical classification of Māori, Pacific Island, Other and then European/Pākehā.

This is out of the Household Incomes Report which uses data from the Household Economic Survey conducted by Statistics NZ.

I was reflecting on Greg Newbold's comments yesterday about Maori violent crime stats being too high.

Statistics NZ also collects and publishes crime stats. Based on the above "hierarchical classification" if you do anything wrong and are of mixed ethnicity, it's the Maori bit of you that did it.

Ryall has a point

Being badgered about child poverty measures by Jacinda Ardern yesterday in parliament, Tony Ryall, answering for Paula Bennett, made this statement:

"We put a lot of time and effort into dealing with poverty and we consider it far more of a priority than the members opposite, who have given their spokesman the opportunity to ask questions in this House on only three occasions this year."

Now that rather surprised me so I thought I'd check the veracity of the claim. It's right and it's wrong. Prior to yesterday she had asked all of  4 questions this year -  3 relating directly to poverty and another indirectly.

10. Child Poverty—Minister’s Statements

JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development
11 Apr 13

5. Welfare Reforms—Progress and Beneficiary Numbers

JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development
28 Feb 13

8. Child Poverty—Government Actions to Address and Measuring Numbers Affected JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) to the Deputy Prime Minister 13 Feb 13 7. Child Poverty—Prime Minister’s Statements JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) to the Prime Minister 30 Jan 13

'Arts, recreation and other services' adds more than 10,000 jobs?

I was just having a look at the HLFS tables released today.

Table 7 (cont) shows that the 'Arts, recreation and other services' sector added over 10,000 jobs in the March quarter. That's an 8% percent rise.

But I'm suspicious because the jobs were nearly all male. The male numbers went from 64,700 to 74,900 from Dec 2012 to March 2013. They look entirely out of place sequentially. The rise for females went from 66,200 to 67,100.

Can anyone think of something that's occurred to explain the leap for males?

When I look back, a similar jump happened to females in the same period Dec 2011 - March 2012. Does Creative NZ suddenly release a lump of funding? But again, why the big difference in genders?

10,000+ is a big jump when you consider the total increase across all employment was 34,700.

Only one other sector out-performed Arts etc and that's the largest (Professional, scientific, technical, administrative and support services) with one quarter million employed. Their increase of around 12,000 jobs was only a 0.5% rise.

Update

I queried the number with Statistics NZ and received a very prompt reply:

 Hi Lindsay

Just returning your email re the HLFS Arts,recreation and other services estimates.

Firstly, yes those numbers are correct.

Secondly, we advise looking at the change in unadjusted data , such as industry estimates, over the year rather than over the quarter. This removes any seasonal pattern from the data.

So that you have an idea of what types of industries are included under the broad 'Arts,recreation and other services' label, the following sub industries are included:
-Heritage activities
-Creative and Performing Arts activities
-Sport and recreation activities
-Gambling activities
-Repair maintenance
-Personal and other services
-Private households employing staff and Undifferentiated goods-and service-producing activities of households own use

Although breaking down this industry by sub industries means the estimates are quite small, we did see a notable rise in the repair and maintenance, the artistic activities and the gambling activities sub industry groups over the year.

Again, who should pay for political advocacy?

In an editorial not dissimilar to my post earlier in the week about who should fund political advocacy, the NZ Herald says, not taxpayers. There should be no rebates for donations for political advocacy and there is no need for a debate.

A problem remains and I've commented to this effect.

What would you do then about an organisation like the Salvation Army, which does charitable work by your definition but also a good deal of political advocacy?

The issue is not as clear-cut as the writer would have us believe.

Truth Column May 2-8

My Truth column May 2-8 (the print edition carried the photo):

It’s my son’s 19th birthday. So I retrieved the newspaper kept from the day of his birth.
My younger daughter reads the TV schedule over my shoulder.
“You had Oprah then?”
“Yep.”
“But why was she on at one o’clock in the morning?”
“No, silly. That’s one in the afternoon. TV shut down at midnight.”
“WHAT?”
Then we laugh over a photo of a very young Helen Clark aiming to make Labour “… the biggest party in Parliament”.
She did, temporarily, but she’s been and gone. Like Margaret Thatcher though, she left a legacy.

More

Who should pay for political advocacy?

I asked the question yesterday, how come an advocacy outfit like the Child Poverty Action Group retains charity status while an advocacy outfit like Family First loses theirs?

Simon Collins is doing pretty much the same in the NZ Herald and has listed a few others.

It seems to me that either all political advocates should get charitable status, or none. There are plenty of taxpayer funded political advocates like the Families Commission and the Children's Commissioner. We have no choice about 'donating' to these lobbyists. So perhaps it could be argued that we should also be able to easily donate (meaning get a rebate) to groups who represent our own particular viewpoint.

But then why shouldn't other commercial interest representative groups also claim charity status? Outfits like Federated Farmers or Business New Zealand? Their members pay for political advocacy on their behalf. But I am forgetting. They are about profit, and profit and political advocacy should never be mentioned in the same sentence.

(For the record I've never solicited donations to do my welfare reform advocacy, as low profile as it is. In fact, it costs me.)

The underlying problem is the size of government. If it didn't pretty much monopolise spending in the social sphere,  there would be no need for the degree of political pleading that goes on.

Young adults staying home longer

The graph below comes from the Household Incomes Survey and shows that a decreasing percentage of 18-24 year-olds are partnering and setting up home together. Increasingly they are staying home (almost half) and a similar percentage to 1984 are going flatting. The pattern is certainly borne out in my family. I left home to live in a flat with my boyfriend at 18. My oldest is now 19 and showing no signs of leaving home.

Monday Morning Questions

Why can  the US report jobs data for April while in NZ we are still waiting for jobs data from March?

Isn't bullying just as bad when the mob turns on the bully?

Is the rapid rise in the use of long-acting contraceptives partly to blame for the drop in births from 64,315 in 2010 to 61,568 in 2012?

And on that issue, what's worse? An STD or an unwanted pregnancy?

How come an advocacy outfit like the Child Poverty Action Group retains charity status while an advocacy outfit like Family First loses theirs?

Is being made to pick up dog faeces abuse? I have to do it every day.

Aren't pukekos native birds? So where's Gareth Morgan now?

Another high profile arrest on suspicion of rape

Yet another high profile person arrested on suspicion of rape. This alleged incident is more recent and the MP is gay. But you've got to wonder where this 'phenomenon' is going and how big it will get. There must be a fair few prominent people trawling through their memories wondering whether they crossed a boundary at some point in their lives...

Voters react to Labour/Green power policy?

The latest Roy Morgan poll shows surge of support for National and notes that

National Party rebounds 6% to 46.5%; Labour down 4% to 31.5% As New Zealand passes laws to legalise same-sex marriage

Strangely it fails to mention the Labour/Green power policy also announced during this period (April 15-28) which is likely to have far more effect on voter choice.

Truth Column April 25 - May 1

My Truth column published April 25 - May 1:

Apparently the electricity market isn’t operating correctly so consumers pay too much. Like petrol, it seems suppliers have formed unofficial price-fixing cartels. While each operator maintains an acceptable market share and profits are good, they don’t compete hard. The wide price variations seen in clothing or food (two other essentials) don’t occur.

With power the retailer buys from the wholesaler – or generator.
Norman Shearer (let’s call him Little Norm) says forcing down the generator’s price with state legislation – or price-fixing – will stop the problem of … price-fixing. Why?

More

Excusing thuggery

The Greens are promising to repeal the Three Strikes law because it's apparently rendering punishments too severe for the level of offending.

In this case a 20 year-old with 20 convictions was given his first strike for violent aggravated robbery in 2010. Now he has been given a second strike for two further charges of aggravated robbery. It would appear that some people think kicking and robbing people is small beer which didn't warrant a second strike (meaning any subsequent similar  conviction would receive the maximum sentence possible - 14 years.)

Greens justice spokesman David Clendon said: "Judges know the detail and context of each case, but they are hamstrung by this legislation that says no matter what the circumstances they must impose the highest possible sentence ...
"Fourteen years is a sentence for manslaughter, a sustained beating, an assault on a child or even attempted murder."
The Greens would "definitely" seek to repeal the law if they came to power, Mr Clendon said.

Just one name.

Philip Cottrell.

Violent aggravated robbery can easily result in significant physical or mental injury, even death.

And the judge who deals with this type of criminality daily says Whaanga's offending is escalating.

I'm relieved he has been sent to prison for two years with no parole and a very large incentive to stop being a dangerous thug when he comes out. I care more about his past and potential victims than his rights.

Paid Parental Leave : Just a drop in the ocean?

There are always people looking for a hand-out prepared to argue that the cost to the taxpayer is "just a drop in the ocean". What's $100 million in a budget of $70 billion?

Come on Bill. Stop being so tight. Think of the public good.

Actually, it isn't a drop in the ocean. It's a drop in a shot glass.

100 million: 70 billion represents 1:700

There are 12 drops per ml or 700 drops per 58 ml.

(Without much forethought I expected this exercise would reveal a large bucket or bottle. Just shows the power of idiom.)

What happened to Tapu Misa?

I've only just noticed that long-time NZ Herald columnist Tapu Misa hasn't produced anything since February 2013. Is she gone burger or just on leave?

Swedes reject Save the Children claim about child poverty in their country

In 2011 Save the Children put out a report claiming 250,000 Swedish children were living in poverty. But some Swedes didn't accept the claim. Early this year a TV research team investigated:

According to charity organizations, Save the Children, there are a quarter million poor children in Sweden. But when the Swedish television made an investigation into such claims, it turned out that child poverty in Sweden conducted by these organization, tend to be based on issues that are not considered a necessity for child welfare in a typical Swedish environment. Therefore, the picture presented by the Swedish television research give a different picture.

Another report says the ensuing TV programme has prompted the three largest child organisations to abandon their use of the term "child poverty".

The organization Bris, which also started using the term in 2011, has now decided to abandon the term “child poverty” for Swedish children and replace it with "social and economic vulnerability".

Also Save the Children, who first launched the term in 2011, has admitted that it gave a misleading portrayal of the situation and has since abandoned the campaign.

I wish NZ media would be a little less compliant when international and domestic advocacy groups make claims about child poverty in NZ.

Truth column April 18-24

My Truth column April 18-24:

I’m confused but I don’t think it’s an early onset of Alzheimer’s.
In the 1960s, during the sexual revolution, the liberal left threw off the shackles of marriage, slamming it as a patriarchal device to suppress women, or for the less conspiratorially inclined, a meaningless piece of paper.
Former PM Helen Clark is rumoured to have fought capitulation to the bitter end, ceding only for the sake of her political prospects.
People started shacking up in droves. I was one. But I always intended to marry if children came along. And before the event, to boot.

More

MSD goes on the defensive

This is unusual. MSD has put up a media release relating to the removal of a baby from its caregiver. I am guessing the family has gone to the media who are asking questions.

Now I google the name here's the story as published in Stuff. MSD's release is entitled "Baby Victoria safe in care".

Last week a seven week-old baby was taken into Child, Youth and Family care after she was admitted to Starship Hospital in Auckland with an injury that was suspected to be not accidental.
Medical authorities called Police, who in turn called in Child, Youth and Family.  The decision to remove Baby Victoria from her family’s care was made in cooperation with specialist medical staff and the Police.
Police are investigating how Baby Victoria became injured. Until that investigation is complete, the law requires that Child, Youth and Family ensure she is safe.
Child, Youth and Family has taken custody of this baby on a temporary basis until the full facts can be established, including whether Victoria can be safe with her family.
Child, Youth and Family is working closely with the family to ensure they know what is going on and to allow her parents to see her regularly.
I understand that this is hard for the whole family; however our legal responsibility is the safety and wellbeing of a vulnerable baby.
Every step in the process to date has followed New Zealand law, which requires doctors to report suspicious injuries to children. The law also specifies how Police and Child, Youth and Family should respond, and what happens to the child involved.
The nationality of the family is irrelevant; our focus is on the welfare and best interests of the child.
Baby Victoria was taken into our care under a “place of safety” warrant issued by a court judge.
A place of safety warrant lasts for five days and enables social workers to take emergency action to ensure the immediate safety of a child while an investigation takes place.  There must be serious concerns about the safety and care of a child before New Zealand courts will grant a warrant.
Since the Police investigation has not yet finished, Victoria will remain in the care of Child, Youth and Family for longer.
Social workers are working closely with the family to agree on a longer term care arrangement for Victoria. Family members have an important role to play in ensuring she is safe and well cared for in the future and our priority is to identify and approve a caregiver in her family.
This baby is not subject to an adoption process.
It was not possible to immediately place Victoria with a family member as the warrant under which she was taken into care required her to be placed with a caregiver previously approved by Child, Youth and Family.
The process we are following may take some time to be completed. However, the parents will be briefed every step of the way and will have access to Victoria.
We would welcome contact from Victoria’s grandmother in Russia so we can update her on what is happening with her granddaughter.
Baby Victoria is currently with a loving family who provide temporary care for babies while our investigations proceed and while suitable family members are identified to take over care.
This is about ensuring her safety and that her family has support through the process.
Child, Youth and Family’s aim is to keep families together.  Where there are problems, we support families to help them look after their children.
To summarise, three separate processes are now underway:

• Police are investigating Victoria’s injuries to see whether criminal prosecution is warranted.
• Child, Youth and Family is working with the family to assess and approve family members to take over care while the agency’s wider investigation is concluded.
• Child, Youth and Family is investigating to determine if and when the parents can resume normal care of Victoria and what support they may need.

ENDS

You just hope CYF get it right because if the various 'authorities' are wrong, this experience must be utterly harrowing for the parents.I remember when I thought I would be temporarily separated from my first-born because he may need re-hospitalising I was devastated. The need to be with, comfort, feed and protect your baby overwhelms all else.

Babies don't die violently in house-proud families

Nobody clicks on a headline about a baby dying from 'injuries' sustained in a home incident and expects to see a lovingly cared for home. No change this time.

National lose support in latest Roy Morgan poll

More

Who should be shoulder-tapped for this one?

Something for you to think about.

Who should Judith Collins select for the just-listed ministerially appointed job of Chief Families Commissioner?

Sid Going?