Super crisis averted

NZ hits one million adults with obesity
 
That's what the Daily Blog claims, predictably followed by nagging over the looming costs to the public health system.

Here's the source, the Ministry of Health Annual Report for 2013:

In 2011/12 about 28 percent of adults aged 15 years and over were obese, which is about one million adults (Ministry of Health 2012c). A further 35 percent of adults were overweight but not obese. About 10 percent of children aged 2–14 years were obese in 2011/12, and a further 21 percent were overweight but not obese (Ministry of Health 2012d).

So just over a third of adults aren't overweight.

That's it then. Superannuation crisis averted. That's what John Key knows. That's why the scheme is apparently sustainable. Most of the ageing population will meet a self-inflicted early demise.

Seriously, if people want to eat themselves into an early grave that's their choice. If food equals happiness or satisfaction or comfort then so be it.

What right has the state to decide that quantity of life is the ultimate goal for everybody?

More data transparency and accessibility

More praise from me for the Minister of Social Development's initiatives to improve the accessibility and transparency of benefit data.

The new format benefit factsheets have just been released. This was necessitated by the change in benefit categories. What impresses me however is 1/ the publication of numerous data spreadsheets showing regional, territorial authority, Auckland board etc information. Some of this has been available previously but to gather it into a table required hours of work trawling through individual factsheets. The Ministry has just made my job much easier. And 2/ the new factsheets have estimated back-data which will enable trends to be tracked from 2008. As well the historic data enabling tracking back to 1999 has been retained.

To use a hackneyed sporting term , this government, by setting public service goals and  making the data that measures their success more transparent and accessible, has actually 'backed itself.'

Naturally, I have to end with the observation that they can and must go further (before I get it in the neck from small government individualists.)

Futile attempt

Two years ago...

Pseudoephedrine, a drug commonly found in cold, flu and hayfever medication, will be reclassified from a class C to B2 controlled drug under the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act (No 2) 2011 on Thursday.
Pharmacies will no longer stock bulk supplies of the drug and people will only be able to buy pseudoephedrine-based products using a prescription from their doctors.

...Today 
 

The amount of methamphetamine seized by Waikato police has quadrupled in the past year, making the haul the second-biggest in the country.
The massive rise in busts of the notorious stimulant pushed the region's tally - $1.99 million - above Bay of Plenty and Counties Manukau police districts, which respectively netted $375,000 and $1.3m of "P", in the year to June 30.
Waitemata was the country's "crystal" capital where police seized 2962.9 grams.
Seizures of the highly addictive psychoactive stimulant are increasing in the Waikato, according to police seizure statistics released to the Waikato Times under the Official Information Act.

So you could equivocate about what the stats mean but making it much harder for innocent users of pseudoephedrine to purchase the product hasn't curtailled the manufacture of methamphetamine.

Complaints about ECE care

In my article Vulnerable Children bill: Will it make a difference? published at NZCPD yesterday, I wrote

Today abuse is split into four categories; emotional, physical, sexual and neglect. In 2012 emotional abuse made up 56 percent of substantiated findings, physical – 15 percent , sexual – 6 percent and neglect, 22 percent. Child, Youth and Family record data about the nature of substantiated findings. Unfortunately information about the relationship between the offender and victim is not available.
Pieces of information about that relationship can be collated though. Almost 85% of emotional abuse findings are associated with family violence situations.2 In terms of child injury mortality and homicide, “… most perpetrators are parents, acting either alone or together. “3  Emotional abuse and neglect tends to be associated with parents who abuse alcohol and drugs and/ or have untreated mental health problems.4 Sexual abuse is the only type of abuse that is commonly associated with offenders outside of the immediate family but even then a third of perpetrators were parent figures and just over a fifth were other relatives according to a sample of childhood sexual abuses cases reported to police.5
Despite this the Vulnerable Children Bill, currently under public consultation, focusses very strongly on vetting people who work with children.

I've written to the Ministry of Social Development asking for information, "Regarding substantiated findings of child abuse during the calender year ending 2012, details of familial relationship between offenders and victims," and am awaiting an answer.

In the meantime another organisation, ChildForum, appears to have pursued similar lines via the Ministry of Education. The information they have received under the OIA is reported rather sensationally in today's NZ Herald.

Bear in mind these are complaints, not substantiated findings:

Litany of tears
The 247 complaints included:
* Teacher bit a child and twisted her hands and arms.
* Parents not told their child had fallen off a slide and had to wait for medical treatment.
* Student on teaching practice saw staff smacking children and dragging them by their arms.
* Child found wandering on the street while centre was unaware he was missing.
* Dogs roaming in play areas.
* Staff not administering prescribed medication to a child.
* Children left alone in vehicles.
* Staff smoking near youngsters.
* Food withheld from pupils.
* Infants' nappies unchanged.

To put 247 into context, in 2012 there were 152,800 reports of concern to CYF.

Only 14 percent of reports to CYF dveloped into substantiated findings. If the rate was similar for ECE complaints that would translate to 35. But any number between 35 and 247 would be a tiny fraction of the 195,000 children attending pre-school.

Ironically, I can envisage these "horror" tales being used to campaign against beneficiary parents being required to send their children to Kindergarten etc from age 3 when statistically speaking  a child is at greatest risk when at home with welfare-dependent caregivers.

Vulnerable Children bill: Will it make a difference?

This week's guest commentary for NZCPD:

A recent Child Poverty Action Group report about child abuse claimed that, ” …the Ministry of Social Development and its predecessors have been researching and writing about child abuse for almost quarter of a century.” Wrong. Investigations extend back much further.

More

Ending child poverty shouldn't rely on paid work

So says the Child Poverty Action Group

CPAG says the most effective way to reduce child poverty is to give children's payments to all low income children on the same basis. They say a policy which relies on paid work is not a solution to child poverty.

Any solution to poverty relies on somebody's paid work. CPAG are simply happy for it to be yours and not the child's parent.

 "Too many of our children are dying from poverty related diseases. Others bear life-long physical, mental and emotional damage, and grow up to endure poverty as adults," says St John. "The evidence is that families are slipping into ever more desperate situations especially with the implementation of recent very harsh and under-scrutinised welfare reform policies."

Asking a sole parent to be available for 12 or more hours work per week after their youngest turns five is "very harsh"? Asking them to ensure their child is enrolled with a GP and attending school in return for state support is "very harsh"?

The short term solution to child poverty is working parents with increased prospects of growing their income and re-partnering, and reduced prospects of rasing a child to become a beneficiary in turn.

The long term solution is people having children when they are in a position to look after them independently, provide security and stability.

A majority of the children CPAG identify as being in poverty were on a benefit at birth or shortly after. CPAG's solution - pay beneficiary parents more - will increase the size of this group. Even Labour, under Clark and Cullen, recognised that reality.

The question is, does Cunliffe? And even if he does, is their solution a price worth paying for a prime ministership?

A defence of income inequality

This is a brief must-read from Aurthur Brooks because it equips us with a basic but just defence of income inequality:

In America we stand for equality. But for the large majority of us, this means equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.
If you are like most Americans, you believe we all should start at more or less the same place with more or less the same opportunities to succeed in life. But you also believe that, within reason, it's perfectly all right if we end up in different places.

More

Go ahead and smack your kids

That's what Michael Laws is advising:

Despite claims to the contrary, no parent has ever been convicted for lightly smacking their child, or had their child removed by CYF. Indeed, CYF has guidelines on what a light smack is: "an open palm, sharp slap leaving no enduring mark or injury to the child." By itself "this is most unlikely to constitute physical abuse . . . and there is unlikely to be any basis for further action".
So read the guidelines for social workers - published by CYF in December 2009 - as part of the prime ministerial review of how section 59 was working. It was authored by the chief of police, the head of CYF, and prominent child psychologist Nigel Latta.
And it's the reason why - despite all the clamour - neither Prime Minister John Key nor Parliament shows any appetite for revisiting the smacking issue. Indeed, recent court judgments - one involving the Court of Appeal - have emphasised CYF's operating instructions. The courts have got involved only when other elements of alleged abuse are at play, or there are demonstrable injuries.
So what does this mean - in practical terms - these school holidays? First, the anti-smacking legislation - or the section 59 amendment as it is more technically known - is, effectively, a non-issue. Beat your child, and you are rightly in trouble. Lightly smack them, and you're fine. Never use a belt, stick or similar - only an open palm is OK.

I don't share Laws' confidence in the ability of CYF to discern. And there are certainly many cases of families having children removed once they come to the attention of the agency. Families who feel badly aggrieved. Families dragged through the court system.  I sat through the court case of one such father preosecuted for 'shoving' his son.

  It's your child, your circumstance, your choice.

It's easy for Laws to blithely counsel action you feel is your right. He used to do the same when he had his talkback show. Somehow though I don't think "Michael Laws said it was OK" will have any legal standing as a defence.

Green spokesperson shows unfamiliarity with portfolio

A couple of weeks ago CYF chief social worker, Paul Nixon, had an opinion piece published in the DomPost. It wasn't on-line when I checked so I clipped and filed it in my 'child abuse' folder because it contained useful information. It is however available here.

The Greens are complaining about crime statistics not containing family violence statistics here.

The Government must ensure crime statistics next week show the true extent of domestic violence crime as CYF’s chief social worker confirmed today it is a key driver of child abuse, the Green Party said today.
Women’s Refuge, the Pacific Islands Safety & Prevention Project Inc. and the Shakti Community Council Inc. tonight criticised the police crime statistics for hiding the true incidence of domestic violence by lumping it in with all assaults that occur in the home.

The groups also claim to have noticed a trend of fewer prosecutions, more diversions for serious domestic violence offences, and a trend towards not charging offenders and relying more often on the victim being the evidence provider.

“This comes the same day that CYFS chief social worker Paul Norris wrote of the ‘toxic trio’ of domestic violence, parental substance abuse and untreated mental illness, that has led to a “dramatic rise in notifications of abuse and neglect of children,” Green Party women’s spokesperson Jan Logie said.

People make mistakes. But if you're an MP and make it your business to know the agencies that relate to your portfolio you could fairly be expected to know the key people and their names.

Just checked with the press releases at their website and no-one has picked up or corrected the error.

A "terrifying" prospect?

A spokesman for the Wellington City Coucil commenting on a rehash of burial laws:

"There has to be strict controls in place," a spokesman said. "There's a terrifying possibility of people just being able to ... dig a hole and put granny in it and put some flowers in it. It raises all sorts of obvious questions about procedure."

Terrifying? Like when a beloved pet expires and is buried in the garden? It'd be a whole lot cheaper than current procedures, good for the earth and a more peaceful ending than cremation. With the way families are these days, distributed all over the world, frequently remarried with complicated family relationships, cemeteries aren't as user-friendly.

Charter schools not an unpopular idea

Nearly 45 per cent of respondents supported charter schools because they felt they would provide a different approach to education.

A finding from a recent Herald Digi-poll.

I was having a conversation with an ex ACT staffer about the charter school policy just the other day. He said he was surprised that Labour didn't constantly refer to the charter schools as "ACT's" charter schools thus demonising them in the public eye. I said I thought the policy was actually reasonably popular going on what I'd seen and heard. Then he speculated that's what Labour's polling might be telling them and to tag them ACT's schools would actually accrue credit to the party. It's a possibility given the above result.

I'm in favour of a different appproach as well. But my gut feeling is the upbringing and home environment is the bigger factor in educational failure.

We frequently hear about the 20 percent that come out of the education system without qualifications. And I constantly talk about the 20 percent of children who go onto a benefit at birth or shortly after. The proportion has fluctuated between 18 - 25 percent over the last couple of decades. What's the correlation or overlap?

As a research project it's doable but not by me. A team would need to identify a group and examine their benefit histories, so privacy issues would come into play. I was thinking about any existing research. Perhaps the Christchurch Health and Development Study. But that followed a 1973 birth cohort. Growing up on welfare was far less common in the seventies. In 2028 or thereabouts, the Growing Up In New Zealand Study would have the data but that's a long time to wait. And as I've observed before, the study already has considerable drop-out and those children are most likely to be on welfare and transient.

Of course, any results would be discounted by the opposition as down to poverty and not welfare dependence ... but my, it would be fascinating to know what the overlap is.

(There is a review here -p57- of various studies into the effect of income from welfare on child outcomes. I don't have time now to quote from it. Mixed results anyway.)

Benefit cancellations

This is a table for Bill at the Standard.

Graph of the day

This was published in a report released yesterday about older New Zealanders. The graph is headed with "Opportunities created by our ageing population".  They are mostly 'broken window' opportunities though. That is, most of the opportunities identified require resource taken from somewhere else to fulfil them. It all smacks of too much government and as one of the people who will be part of these statistics, makes me feel slightly nauseous. We need to decrease the burden the aged will impose, not increase it. That or open our doors to young immigrants which ironically enough is generally resisted by the elderly, Winston's mob in particular.


Opportunities created by our ageing population
This changing demographic and social landscape provides New Zealand with opportunities to:
•    develop innovative approaches to the provision of healthcare, transport, housing,
social and other services
•    develop and grow businesses targeting older consumers from a range of cultural
backgrounds
•    establish long-term, affordable and accessible rental housing for older people
and ensure social and supported housing is available for those who need it
•    retain experienced and skilled employees to contribute to productivity growth and
to mentor young employees
•    deliver Better Public Services, including greater creativity in connecting New
Zealanders with government information employment and further education (results
five and six) 3 
•    increase co-operation and partnership across government agencies, communities
and businesses to develop and enhance services, economic opportunities and living options.

2,000 benefits a week cancelled!

The Standard is hysterical  over 2,000 benefits a week being cancelled. It's "warfare of welfare" they say. The NZ Herald today reported Paula Bennett saying:

"On average 1500 benefits are cancelled every week because people get work, with another 2000 cancelled weekly for a variety of other reasons."

The Standard says:

That’s 2000 people every week who do not have jobs having their benefit cancelled.That’s 2000 people, bashed and vilified at the best of times, having the safety net pulled out from under them every week and left without rent money or food money or any obvious means of support.

In the April to June quarter 2013,  69, 043 people had their benefit cancelled.

213 people a week had their benefit cancelled due to a change in marital status; 74 because they went to prison; 266 because they became a full-time student; 49 because they passed away; 180 because they left the country; 76 because they had excess income or assets; 751 because they didn't renew, or contest a non-payment; and 34 because a child in their care was no longer dependent.

Only 136 had their benefit cancelled because they didn't meet work obligations.

I wonder how many benefits were cancelled under Labour?

Go back to 2003/04 when there was a similar number of main benefits in place (320,000-ish)

That year 277,000 benefits were cancelled. 34 percent because people obtained work. 37 percent for 'other reasons'. 26 percent were transferred to other benefits. (The remaining 3 percent are 16-17 year-olds with no cancellation reason given but they are most likely transfers to other benefits.)

Shock horror.

Under Labour 1,956 a week people a week had their benefit cancelled with no job to go to.

UK ending the "something-for-nothing culture"

The Scotsman is reporting:

THE long-term unemployed are to be put into community service, made to look for work every day or be put on a programme to tackle their underlying problems in a dramatic toughening up of the welfare system, Chancellor George Osborne will announce today.
In his address to the Conservative Party conference in Manchester, Mr Osborne will say that the option of simply signing on to receive unemployment benefits will end within months.
The Chancellor will promise an end to “the something-for-nothing culture”, in a move that is expected to go down well with Tory members.
The £300 million “Help to Work” package will see 200,000 people who have been unemployed for at least two years, including more than 20,000 Scots, being forced to work for their benefits or attend intensive programmes aimed at getting them a job. The programme is set to be rolled out in six months, and Mr Osborne will tell Tory members that it is part of his strategy to make the economic recovery last.
In a conference where the Tories are pitching themselves as the party “for hardworking people”, the Chancellor will explain that he is an “economic optimist”, but tell delegates he is offering an “economic plan, not a quick fix”.
And in a direct rebuff to Labour’s attacks on falling living standards, he will warn that “without an economic plan, you do not have living standards”.
The unemployment initiative was last night condemned by Labour as a return to the spirit of the workhouse, as strict new rules will see people lose their benefits if they do not follow the programme.
From April next year, people claiming Jobseekers Allowance will have to either do full-time community work, attend the jobcentre and search for work every day, or be placed on the new Mandatory Intensive Regime – a tough programme which will see claimants with problems such as drug addiction or mental health issues attend jobcentres regularly to tackle the difficulties which stop them working. They will regularly meet specialist advisers to deal with their individual problems.
If they fail to do one of the three options they will lose their benefits, at present worth up to £71.70 a week.
Mr Osborne will boast that the scheme is the first across the UK which will see people forced to work or lose their benefits.
The Chancellor will argue that under Labour, people were left “trapped on benefits”, with 1.4 million people in 2010 having spent nine out of the previous ten years on benefits.
Complaining about a “lost generation”, Mr Osborne will also point out that the number of workless households in the UK almost doubled under Labour, from 136,000 in 1997 to 269,000 in 2010. He will say: “By the time Labour left office, five million people were on out-of-work benefits. What a waste of life and talent. A generation of people recycled through the jobcentre, collecting their dole cheques year in, year out, and no-one seemed to notice.”
Recent statistics from the Office for National Statistics reveal that Glasgow has a higher proportion of workless households than any other part of the UK, with 30.2 per cent of homes in the city being workless. The figures showed huge disparity across Scotland. Only 12 per cent of households are out of work in Aberdeen and Moray, in contrast to many parts of west-central Scotland, such as North Ayrshire, where 28 per cent of homes had no-one working, and Inverclyde, where the figure was 25 per cent.
Mr Osborne will blame the “open door immigration policy” under Labour for keeping UK citizens out of the low-skilled labour market. Highlighting government achievements so far he will say: “Well, never again. We’ve capped benefits and our work programme is getting people into jobs. Immigration down by a third.”

What amused me about the last sentence is what he says later:

And in a bid to give an upbeat message he will add: “I’m an optimist about the world. “I am a believer in freedom and free markets. I see the global economy growing. I see hundreds of millions of people in places like India and China leaving grinding poverty to join it. That’s something to celebrate.”

Maybe I am mistaken but I always thought that "freedom and free markets" stood alongside open immigration. Call it pragmatism if you like but politicians only ever sing from the right song sheet to the extent that it aligns with popular beliefs - and getting re-elected.

 

Children's Commissioner gets it wrong

An article from Stuff at the weekend described research into the increase in babies dying from head injuries.

The number of babies dying from deliberately inflicted head injuries increased almost four-fold since 1991, with damage seen akin to that suffered in car accidents, a new study says. In the first study of its kind in New Zealand, researchers examined data from Auckland's Starship Hospital and the Auckland city forensic pathology department, examined clinical records, autopsies, and police reports from 1991 to 2010.

At the end the Children's Commissioner comments.

Wills said over the 20 years studied, several factors could have led to the dramatic increase in inflicted injuries, including a sharp increase in teenage pregnancies, sole parenthood, and most likely an increase in domestic violence.

There was no sharp increase in teenage pregnancy or sole parenthood over 1991 to 2010

I'm not denying that teenage births and sole parenting are factors in child abuse, but it's the dysfunctional welfare lifestyle that often accompanies these circumstances that's the problem. There were more teen pregnancies and births before the DPB but back then society dealt with them in a way that improved the outlook for the babies. Not the opposite. The genie got out of the bottle in the seventies. The last twenty years have seen something of a stabilisation in numbers but intergenerational dependency has continued to increase.

Extending time on benefit by adding children

From the Taylor Fry actuarial report released yesterday here's a couple of interesting graphs. The first shows how many sole parents fall into each group by age of youngest child. Note that the largest group is those who have a youngest child 5 or older and have been on a benefit for more than one year. The smallest group is the same by age of child but have been on welfare for less than a year.

The second graph shows the movement between these groups. Here we can see that 360 people who have been on a  benefit more than a year who had a youngest child aged 5 or older have returned to the group with a youngest child 0-2.  All up, in the year to June 2012, 3240 ( 810 x 4) sole parents returned to the group with children aged 0-2.

That is interesting because the average annual number of  children added to a sole parent benefit during 2006 - 2010 was 4,400.

The difference may be explained by the fact that someone can only return once within two years but could, during that period, have yet another child. 

The new policy that only suspends work obligations for one year when a subsequent child is added (dependent on the age of next oldest child) didn't kick in until October 2012  so it'd be surprising if there has been a big reduction. Especially as the rate of adding children had been increasing.

Never let Labour near welfare again

When he was Minister for Social Development Steve Maharey either said or wrote repeatedly that the average duration on the DPB was 3 and a half years. He was wrong about that. More importantly, he made policy based on incorrect information.

If Labour is re-elected the next Minister will be Sue lets-extend-paid-parental-leave Moroney. Clearly another steeped in hand-out mentality who can't get her facts right.

The current Minister has a better handle on welfare than any previous. She has opened up the books and given data to people who know how to analyse it. She has subsequently targeted reforms at those people who are at greatest risk of being long-term dependent, for their sake and the rest of the country. She can go further but she'll need a mandate.

Whatever else your priorities are, factor in welfare when making a choice next year.

"Sole parents spend an average 15.8 years on benefit"

Well.

After years of trying to tell people that sole parents spend many, many years on benefit I see MSD has just released a statement containing this:

"...sole parents spend an average 15.8 years on benefit with a lifetime cost² of $234,000."

I have repeatedly talked about Professor Bob Gregory's Australian research which found sole parents spend an average of 12 years on welfare not including benefits they may move to when they no longer had dependent children.

People have derided me for it in public forums. For instance Marilyn Waring sneeringly telling an audience I had included time spent on Super. Time and again politicians, welfare advocates, bloggers etc have sought to convince the population that the average time spent on the DPB is, most commonly, only about 3 years. They look at the available data but don't understand it.

This official finding only covers benefits up to age 65. It backs up what Gregory found. I can think of no reason why Australian and NZ sole parents would be markedly different.

Now I will go and read the latest actuarial valuation report to understand how the calculation was made (if my struggling lap-top can find the resource to open it.) It may not be rock solid. I don't know. But we are getting closer to the truth all the time.

Detained because of your genetic make-up?

Makes a change to read something intellectually stimulating in the press. But it is the ODT:

Research suggested people with genes causing low levels of an enzyme called MAO-A, when combined with a bad childhood, had a ''significantly higher'' rate of ''violent criminality'', he said.
In contrast, those with high levels of MAO-A, even those who experienced bad childhoods, were less prone to violence.
This and other genetic and neuroscientific research had already been used in the Italian justice system and it could be used here in ''two ways''.
It could be used to excuse a defendant of their conduct or ''reduce their culpability'' - for example having murder reduced to manslaughter or being given a lighter sentence.
''I have spoken to one judge fairly recently who said he would have no problem with admitting genetic evidence at [sentencing] if he was convinced it was reliable evidence.''
It could also be used as evidence to keep people in prison for longer, or deny parole, on the basis they were genetically predisposed to reoffend when released.
Prof Gavaghan, the director of the New Zealand Law Foundation Centre for Law and Policy in Emerging Technologies, said this could become more relevant if Justice Minister Judith Collins' Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill passed, which would allow the most serious sexual or violent offenders to be detained after serving their sentence if they were judged to pose an imminent risk of reoffending.
As the science developed, there was a possibility of it being used in more disturbing ways, with The Anatomy of Violence author Adrian Raine raising the possibility of a future where all males at age 18 are given a brain scan - and if they failed they could be ''detained indefinitely''.
The development of science in this field raised ''important'' political questions over the course New Zealand should take, Prof Gavaghan said. He also said that a large proportion of the public would likely support the scenario envisaged by Mr Raine.
''If the public are offered a possibility that they and their children will be safe and the only cost will be a small number of dangerous people will be deprived of their freedom, I don't think politically that's a hard sell at all.''
Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics director Prof Julain Savulescu explored the issue further and also looked into the idea of using drugs to enhance people's morals.
He suggested children with the low MAO-A producing gene could be prioritised by social service agencies, because they were more likely to commit violence if they were not well raised.
He also argued in favour of using drugs to enhance morals in ''targeted ways'', and not just for criminals.
''It is only a matter of time before the human brain can be under our control, as indeed our body is, in terms of physical enhancements,'' Prof Savulescu said.

An individual's freedom could be curtailed based on his or her genetic make-up. That's scary stuff. But early  intervention to decrease negative effects of low MAO-A sounds more reasonable. In fact it probably already happens arbitrarily. Unfortunately the intervention eg removal from a bad home environment, doesn't guarantee a better home environment.

I don't know. This brave new future doesn't hold much appeal for me regardless of the "enhancements" promised. But then I live a  relatively safe and secure middle class existence...

Weak start for Sue Moroney

A question irrelevant to the subject. I don't know why Bennett can't simply say 'No'.

Benefits—Outstanding Arrest Warrants
7. MELISSA LEE (National) to the Minister for Social Development: How is the Government’s new warrants to arrest policy for those on benefits ensuring a fairer welfare system?
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development): As part of this Government’s substantial welfare reforms we said we would stop benefits for those who are on the run from the police with an outstanding warrant. Since this policy took effect on 15 July, 311 people have been matched and notification sent. Of these, 161 warrants have been cleared within 6 weeks of operation and 95 people have been sanctioned.
Melissa Lee: What process takes place before reducing or suspending benefit payments where there is an outstanding warrant?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: The new policy means that beneficiaries who have an outstanding warrant to arrest for more than 28 days will receive a letter from Work and Income asking them to clear their warrant or face their benefit payments being stopped or reduced. They get another 10 days to clear it, but if they do not the benefit is stopped. The exception to this is for parents, who, as with all sanctions, never lose more than half of their benefit.
Melissa Lee: How often has the discretion of the Commissioner of Police been applied in highrisk offending cases?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: We did make an exception for the Commissioner of Police to request an immediate benefit suspension for seriously high-risk offenders. To date this has happened in nine cases.
Sue Moroney: Does this policy help anyone on welfare to get a job?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: What this policy does is make it fair, and people who are on the run from the police are held to account. They should not actually be getting taxpayers’ money to be on the run from the police. It is that simple. This policy is about being fair.
Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Sue Moroney: Point of order. You go. [Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is a point of order.
Grant Robertson: I think that Sue Moroney and I had the same point of order in mind. That was a very direct question, which the Minister did not answer.
Mr SPEAKER: I invite Sue Moroney to repeat the question, please.
Sue Moroney: To the Minister—another go. Does her policy—[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Start the question again.
Sue Moroney: Does her policy help anyone on welfare to get a job?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: Well, these people need to clear their warrants to start with, so currently they are actually breaking the law. We thought we might clear up the legal problems they have got and get them to account for that and then we will work on the job.
Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry to say that that still did not address the question. I presume the answer is no, so we can just move on. [Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Order! On this occasion the question was then addressed.

Best movie ever

It just might be. My best movie ever. RUSH.  A review from me would be redundant when Variety says it all.

 ...you’ve seldom felt more alive in a movie theater than you will experiencing “Rush.”

The rivalry and relationship between Formula One drivers James Hunt and Niki Lauder provides much more than just another movie. Seriously. Don't miss it.

Roger's reforms didn't work

I made a comment to a friend while discussing New Zealand's low wage economy. Roger Douglas' reforms, however well-intentioned, didn't work I said. But they did, she replied. Well yes some of the reforms were successful and have never been undone as a consequence. But what I was thinking about was low wages. A lack of trickle-down. A lack of increased wealth. Then I came across this graph which illustrates what I mean.

The reforms might have worked if they had been left to develop without state interference - bail-outs and excessive welfare for starters.

This conversation came out of one I'd had with a visiting local government candidate who kept telling me we live in a low wage economy. No doubt her solution was a living-wage based on the tenor of her conversation and the colour of her pamphlet. "But while we have a government that subsidises employers to keep wages down, and subsidises landlords to keep rents up, what's the answer?" I asked. She simply repeated back to me ,"We live in a  low wage economy."

Very few people want to stop the hand-outs, whatever form they take. So we are trapped in a complex money go-round with the people on the low wages and benefits no better off since Roger's reforms. The left thinks that the problem is not enough state assistance and too few jobs. In fact there is too much state assistance, creating less productivity, and investment capital tied up in real estate instead of enterprise.

The Dutch put on notice

Thanks to Eternal Vigilance for drawing my attention to this development now being reported extensively.

Holland’s new king Willem-Alexander today declared the end of the welfare state in a nationally-televised annual address.
The king, who is at 46 the youngest monarch in Europe, said a new 'participation society' would take its place, in which people must save and invest to create their own social safety net with less help from the national government.

More

F&P win preferred supplier contract to beneficiaries

This is an interesting development:

Paula Bennett

18 September, 2013

Whiteware initiative good deal for beneficiaries and taxpayers

The Government has finalised a whiteware purchasing agreement which will provide a good deal for both beneficiaries and taxpayers.
“In this year’s Budget I announced we would work to get better value for beneficiaries and taxpayers in the way we help people purchase fridges, freezers and washing machines,” Social Development Minister Paula Bennett said.
Hardship grants are available to beneficiaries and people on low incomes to purchase whiteware products. These grants have to be repaid.
Over $10.5 million was spent over the last year in assistance for these purchases, however second-hand products are commonly bought which can ultimately cost hundreds of dollars extra in repair and maintenance costs, increasing debt for beneficiaries.
Whiteware will be provided under the Haier brand, by Fisher & Paykel Appliances Ltd, the sole distributor of the brand in New Zealand.
The initiative will see the Ministry of Social Development enter into a preferred supplier agreement with Fisher & Paykel Appliances Ltd. Beneficiaries will continue to apply for hardship assistance and if they qualify, will be provided with a high quality appliance which they will repay MSD for.
MSD are anticipating the arrangement will result in a $10 million reduction in hardship assistance for whiteware over five years.
“For people on low incomes, paying to get the fridge or washing machine fixed can often mean going without other essentials,” Mrs Bennett said.
It is estimated the new units will cost around the same as an average second-hand unit to buy, but maintenance costs over five years will be more than halved.
“We are ensuring people needing whiteware products are able to buy a quality, reliable product, which will come with at least a two-year warranty.”
“Fisher & Paykel is a company well trusted in New Zealand, and along with a strong distribution network already in place, also operate a 24/7 customer support service.”
“This means beneficiaries purchasing whiteware through the arrangement can have confidence in the product they’re buying.”
The rollout will begin in the South Island later this month, with the whole country covered by early next year.
As part of this agreement MSD and Fisher & Paykel are also working together to identify employment opportunities in the company for beneficiaries, another positive outcome of awarding the contract to a single supplier.

 Some observations:

This is good news for beneficiaries. But if F&P is giving a preferential price, someone else is paying for it. That'll be other F&P customers.

Certainly it's very bad news for second-hand dealers who are already struggling to compete with Trade Me.

A "good deal for taxpayers?" If the grants are repayable I can't see why. It should be neutral to the taxpayer.  Unless the debt is not being repaid. The more likely issue.

A good marketing/ PR move for F & P? You tell me.

The Left attacking Maori

Mike Hosking interviewed  (1.25) Raewyn Tipene this morning. She has one of the contracts to establish a charter school in the North and already has a track record of success with Maori children. Hosking asked how she felt about the PPTA response to charter schools and she said she hadn't read their releases having been forewarned by her admin manager that they are "bullying and threatening." That's the exact culture this school wants to avoid. Asked how she felt about the possibility Labour would close them if they win the election next year she was stoic. She said that Maori  could not afford to live in fear of what might happen. She's quite an inspiration.

So this is a whole new ball game. The Left aggressively attacking initiatives aimed at improving the prospects of Maori children. Even threatening to isolate and ostracise them by, for instance , not playing sport with them. Pathetic.

I wonder what Shane Jones makes of it?

Great predictive quote about prohibition

It is an established fact that alcoholism, cocainism, and morphinism are deadly enemies of life, of health, and of the capacity for work and enjoyment; and a utilitarian must therefore consider them as vices. But this is far from demonstrating that the authorities must interpose to suppress these vices by commercial prohibitions, nor is it by any means evident that such intervention on the part of the government is really capable of suppressing them or that, even if this end could be attained, it might not therewith open up a Pandora's box of other dangers, no less mischievous than alcoholism and morphinism.

- Ludwig von Mises, Liberalism [1927]

Cunliffe calling it wrong already

My gut feeling is the public supports charter schools. That's because they need no persuading  public schools are failing a good percentage of pupils. That's not to say the teachers in particular are at fault; the curriculum; the parents or the pupils themselves. It'll be a combination of all of these factors in different measures.

But there can be little doubt that an alternative approach must be worth a go. At this stage it's only 5 schools, a few hundred pupils. I hope desperately that those given the contracts will give it their very best.

After hearing Larry Williams interviewing the PPTA vice president tonight (a must-listen) and then listening to the outraged, contemptuous reactions to her bombarding Larry's in-box I am further convinced people want this policy to get a fair go.

It's no surprise that the Greens are threatening to undo it at first opportunity. But Cunliffe is also saying he would exclude charter schools because they are "barking mad".

To echo Mr Cunliffe's expression, that "sucks". It's a bad call. It's negative. It's anti-opportunity and anti-working class (to use Labour's descriptor) families that have previously had no option but same old state offering.

That old Strawbs song just popped into my head, "You don't get me I'm part of the Union".

No, I don't get you.

(Hat-tip to Cam Slater for supplying the link)

Nobody will have borrowed Margaret McClure's book, A Civilised Community: A History of Social Security in New Zealand 1898-1998, from the Lower Hutt library more than me.

Throughout there are hints of bias. No problem. I'm biased too. But today's column in the NZ Herald really showcases her left-leaning worldview.

But before you read her column go here first and look at table OT.3.

Then think about the title of her piece,

Holes in safety net grow larger

 

Yet despite those growing holes, the net manages to catch ever greater numbers.

Why assume suicide is always about depression?

Stuff has an article today about the increasing suicide rate amongst baby boomers:

Marie Hull-Brown, a mental health promoter at the Mental Health Foundation, said the figures were distressing but "not surprising".
"Seeing friends die, family moving away and one's home becoming increasingly hard to maintain are losses that are hard to bear, and older people may become depressed about their ability to manage alone, yet not want to see their GP about the black dog that sits on their shoulder."
Conwell said there needed to be improved detection and treatment of depression in older adults, social programmes to reach out to isolated seniors, and access to good health care that allowed them to remain as independent as possible.
If you or someone you know is feeling depressed contact the following services, available 24 hours a day, seven days a week unless otherwise specified.

Some information about exactly why individual elderly people commit suicide would be useful. How many have been diagnosed with some illness they simply do not want to face or put their families through? This generation, more than any prior, favours voluntary euthanasia. Perhaps because it is more secular. Perhaps because baby-boomers have enjoyed more control over their lives and destinations than previous generations. Without that facility I am certain more people are taking action themselves.

In any case I can't see that suicide - causes and prevention - should be treated generically across vastly different age groups. A young person suiciding is likely avoiding life. An ageing person suiciding is quite possibly avoiding death - a long, painful or undignified death that is.

Grant Robertson and David Cunliffe - two astonishing statements

On Radio Live today Sean Plunket had each Labour leadership candidate available for questions.

First Grant Robertson (9:09)

Caller asks "Should you be successful in securing the leadership ... what would you do to address the shameful child abuse and child killing statistics?"

Robertson answers  that we need to address the poverty that drives crime and we should be, "...making sure men are actually getting the help they need to stop this kind of abuse, and it is largely driven by men..."

The claim that most child abuse is perpetrated by men is wrong. I blogged some dissenting voices here, among them Professor David Fergusson who heads the Christchurch Health and Development Study.

Then David Cuncliffe (13:06)

Caller with two special needs children queries what Labour will do about their employment prospects.

Cunliffe answers, "National has cancelled a lot of those sheltered employment schemes that provided a stepping stone into full-time employment..."

As I recall, in Labour's last two terms, parents of special needs young adults were up in arms about Ruth Dyson, Disabilities Minister, forcing the minimum wage onto sheltered workshops predicting closures. The IHC, the major sheltered workshop provider, has closed enterprises since.

"120 Years of Women's Suffrage"

Statistics NZ has just produced the following graphic representation of 120 years of women's suffrage:

Even at full-size the small print is hard to read but the statistics pertain to the years 1893, 1953 and 2013 and show parliamentary representation, percentage of working-age women employed, the percentage women make up of higher education students, average age of at first birth and average number of children. As the first four numbers have increased, the last has decreased.

Might have been useful to add in how working-age women were on social security benefits.

My estimates:
1893 - Strictly speaking, 0 ('outdoor relief' was provided by locally-funded hospitals but no figures were kept)
1953 - 2.5 percent
 2013 - 13 percent

(Interesting to note that the percentage of higher education students that were female in 1893 surpassed the 1953 figure. However there were only 680 university students in 1893. 81 percent were at Christchurch or Otago.)

The Labour Leader Contest

This factionalism was always going to develop. Or, more accurately, accelerate.

Having Labour and their vote-buying policies in the headlines momentarily has been useful for the party, but the post-primary fall-out will obliterate that utility.

(Unless the outsider, the only contender I fear, Shane Jones wins ... )

Strong support for cannabis decriminalisation amongst younger voters

Family First has just released the results of a poll they commissioned through Curia.

Kiwis Say Nope To Dope - Poll

Only one in three NZ’s believe that marijuana should be decriminalised, according to an independent poll of NZ’ers.

In the poll of 1,000 NZ’ers by Curia Market Research, respondents were asked whether they agreed with the statement “If an adult wishes to use a drug such as marijuana, they should be able to do so legally.” Only 33% of respondents agreed, with 60% disagreeing and 7% being unsure or refusing to say. Females were more likely to oppose marijuana being legal, but there was greater support from the 18-40 age group compared to other age groups. National supporters were most opposed to legalising marijuana (68%) compared to other parties.

To Bob's credit he has also released the details.

As an anti-prohibitionist (not pro-cannabis) I'm encouraged to see the younger the voter, the more likely they will be to support the statement. While only 23 percent of 61+ voters were in support, the number jumped to 42% amongst 18-40 year-olds. It'd be fair to say that some will change their views as they age but many will not. Some may even change in the other direction, in favour of decriminalisation.

It's not clear to me how the support breaks down over deciles because I don't know whether Curia has used the education or health ranking system. Decile 1 in health statistics represents the highest socio-economic area; decile 1 in education statistics represents the poorest. The support for decriminalisation is strongest in the decile 10 areas according to Curia. Do you think that would be the richest or poorest? 36 percent in deciles 8-10 versus 28 percent in deciles 1-3.

Men were more likely to support at 38 percent of all male respondents. The percentage for women was 28 percent.

Support was fairly evenly spread amongst the areas described as metro, provincial and rural, although slightly weaker in provincial.

Support was weakest amongst National voters at only 25 percent. Still, even then, one in four National voters think people should be able to use marijuana legally. Progress.

On the increasing risks to children on benefit long-term

In the Herald on Sunday Rodney Hide writes about the increasing likelihood of child abuse and neglect with long term benefit dependency:

A total of 76,000 New Zealanders were born in 1993. About 6000 were subsequently abused or neglected; 3000 became known to the Youth Justice system by the age of 17; and 41,000 - more than half - spent time in a household dependent on a main benefit such as the dole or DPB.
The benefit-supported children were six times more likely to be abused than those who were not benefit-supported. And they were 14 times more likely to be known to Youth Justice.
Those in households benefit-dependent for nine or more years were 13 times more likely to be abused and 29 times more likely to be known to Youth Justice.
Spending less than a year in a benefit-dependent household didn't increase the likelihood of abuse but doubled the chance of trouble with the law.

So the increasing risk for children isn't conjecture, it's factual.

But what about the risk of long-term dependence occurring?

10339 (2013). Jacinda Ardern to the Minister for Social Development (06 Aug 2013): What percentage, if any. of sole parents are estimated to be at medium risk of long term benefit dependency? 

 

Hon Paula Bennett (Minister for Social Development) replied: I am advised that the Ministry uses a range of ways to determine whether clients are considered medium or high risk of long term benefit dependency. Assessments take into account such factors as clients’ length of time in receipt of benefit, the level of their skills or qualifications, their communication skills (including whether English is a second language), any criminal history, and a range of other factors. Due to their caring responsibilities, sole parents are likely to spend longer periods on benefit than other jobseekers. At the end of June 2013, around 10% of sole parent clients were considered medium risk of staying on benefit long term, and around 90% were considered high risk. 

 

 

In defence of cats...

... of which we have too many,  a neighbour videoed 45 tuis (by his count) in a bordering kowhai tree.

And as of today we have also joined ranks with the rats.

In solidarity

Dissatisfaction among public servants

This survey has just been reported on Radio Live. Perhaps the best slant that could be put on it is the response rate of just under one third. Perhaps those who are more positive don't say so:

"The study showed that, in general, public service staff do not feel recognised or rewarded for putting in extra effort or for performing well. Dr Plimmer says the reported rates of bullying are high although the number of workers experiencing sustained and frequent bullying are relatively low.

He said survey respondents are ambivalent about their managers and view them as often basing decisions on politics rather than facts, as weak at taking prudent risks and poor at developing staff."

Wouldn't it be interesting to know whether those who think their managers are politically biased are themselves left or right, or a mix? And also whether these findings have any historic comparison. Were public servants happier under a Labour government?

Update: I asked the head researcher if there were comparable earlier surveys. None exactly the same exists but there are plans to repeat this in a few years plus put the same questions to private sector employees.

The other side of the coin

In the last blog post regarding Lady Stout's ideas about alcohol, I noted there was no mention of women drinking, only men, specifically fathers. Two days later the ODT has another gem of a piece in their '100 years ago' feature:

At the quarterly meeting of the Wellington Licensing Committee on Monday (says the New Zealand Times), Superintendent Ellison spoke strongly on the subject of women loitering in hotels.
He stated that in the Magistrate's Court on the previous Friday morning several women were charged with being idle and disorderly persons, in that they did habitually consort with reputed prostitutes, while the evidence indicated that frequently two and three, and sometimes four or five, of these women were seen congregated together in the Royal Tiger and Cricketers' Arms Hotels.
The superintendent went on to say that he had told the licensees that he would mention the matter at the committee meeting, so that they could attend if they desired. Under section 162 of the Licensing Act, said the superintendent, it was conceded that women had the right to drink in an hotel, but the licensees of such houses could not expect anything but a bad report if they fostered and encouraged a trade with this class of women.
The licensees would also find great difficulty in getting a transfer to another house if they wanted it.
Women had the same right to obtain drink as a man, but they should remain in the hotel only a reasonable time for the consumption of liquor. In the cases referred to, the police found hordes of women congregated together drinking, and he contended that those houses were badly conducted.
If any strange young man fell in with ''these harpies'' at an hotel, continued the superintendent, he would be in need of a young men's protection society. Dr A. M. Arthur, S. M., stated that the committee desired him to say that they would support the superintendent in every respect.

Come to think of it, myself and girlfriend could be spotted loitering at the local pub last Saturday lunchtime over a couple of pinot gris' and salt and pepper calamari. We were not in the company of prostitutes and the young men in our vicinity were quite safe. It may have taken 100 years, but we have learned to drink responsibly in a public place.

"The role of the father"

This piece of writing from 100 years ago published in the ODT today intrigued me.

Lady Stout, who is at present on a visit to Wanganui, gave some plain truths to a public meeting on Sunday concerning the responsibilities of fatherhood.
This was, she said, the century of the woman and the child.
It was claimed that girls should be taught the virtues of wifehood and motherhood, but no one talked of training the boys.
Fatherhood was the highest privilege a man could attain to, yet men were not to be taught that responsibilities were attached to that privilege.
The girls were expected to be trained in every essential that went towards the making of an ideal mother, yet the man was allowed perfect freedom from all responsibility, He could gamble, drink, and commit immorality at will, and do as he liked before and after marriage.
There was no one to warn him of his duty to his wife and children.
Alcohol, Lady Stout continued, did more harm to the physical development of the child than tight lacing and high heels.
Then there was the spiritual aspect of the duties of fatherhood to be remembered.
The racial function consisted of service to the mother and seeing that her health and strength were closely guarded.
Lady Stout referred to the awakening of women and quoted a number of passages showing that an evolution with regard to the relationship between man and woman was in progress.
In New Zealand, she continued, the many youthful imbeciles had to thank their fathers for their affliction.
The sins of the fathers were revisited on the third and fourth generation.
Heredity did not stop at birth.
Lady Stout referred to the white slave traffic, to cruelty to children, which darkened the annals of the courts, to the rescue and maternity homes, packed full of unmarried mothers, and to the asylums and the hospitals.
Would these exist, she asked, if man realised the duties of fatherhood?

Is Lady Stout foreshadowing foetal alcohol syndrome but attributing the incidence to men? Or is her point that the behaviour of drunk, profligate men was not conducive to reproduction and raising of healthy children? She makes no reference to mothers' use of alcohol.

In any case, over the century many men did not learn the "responsibilities of fatherhood" and the state took over their financial role leaving the mother in charge of the "physical development of the child",  and that hasn't provided the perfect answer either.

Making families on welfare

What is welfare for?

I can accept a refugee coming into NZ and getting some emergency relief while they establish themselves and any family members.

But it's not for making family members.

Work and Income has ordered a refugee mother with a 5-month-old baby to attend a seminar about the military-style Limited Service Volunteer scheme.
The young mother, who came here from Burma under the United Nations refugee quota in 2010, was ordered to attend a seminar about the "boot-camp" scheme on August 2, despite having only very basic English, a 2-year-old son and a 5-month-old daughter.
The letter, dated July 29, arrived the day before the seminar and warned: "If you don't attend the seminar or contact us to make an appointment by 02 August 2013, your benefit may reduce or stop."

Yes, the blanket approach from WINZ is probably a waste of time if it doesn't fit her practical circumstances . But what does she understand about welfare? That a state income is no-questions-asked as long as there are children in the picture?

I get very annoyed with the NZ Herald portraying people as victims of an unreasonably heavy-handed state. Whatever she ran from was worse.

(And, yes, none of the 'father' questions are canvassed either).