DPB longevity - a typical case

After the sob stories here's a refreshing change. A Fairfax news story about a woman on the DPB for twenty years who decided to get a job when she heard her daughter saying how she intended to follow in her mother's footsteps. Good for her. Mum that is.

But there's some misinformation reported:

Until six months ago, Judy Wilson was one of about 80,000 sole parents in New Zealand receiving a benefit.

This is incorrect. 80,000 is the number on Sole Parent Support at September 2013. There are many more who have been shifted to the Jobseeker Support, Young Parent Payment, or Supported Living Payment. The data here would indicate around another 17-18,000. And there's maybe 2-3,000 on emergency benefits. A more accurate number might be close to 100,000

... In July, New Zealand's welfare system had a major shakeup and the Government introduced new expectations and obligations for beneficiaries. The changes were slated by advocacy groups as punitive, but they seem to have had the Government's desired effect - for better or worse - in reducing the number of people receiving assistance.

The numbers are coming down. But I think the reporter might be under the impression they are falling more rapidly than is the case. Nevertheless he's done a good job of putting a human face to the new data showing how long sole parents stay on welfare.

CPAG research faulty

Media Release

CPAG RESEARCH FAULTY
Thursday, October 24, 2013

Recent research by the Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) has been found faulty.

CPAG's analysis of Child Youth and Family child abuse data claimed, "The data suggests there is no correlation between benefit receipt and child maltreatment". This despite earlier Auckland University research finding, "Of all children having a finding of maltreatment by age 5, 83 percent are seen on a benefit before age two".

Welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell says she asked the Ministry of Social Development for the data supplied to CPAG.

"I was supplied with the number of substantiated cases of child abuse and the 0-17 population for each CYF site office. These show that CPAG's calculations are incorrect. For instance, their report states, '...the proportion of 0-17 year olds who were victims of abuse in Papakura was not 4.0% but 0.40 of 1%.' (p9)"

In fact the proportion was 4 percent (608 distinct cases in an estimated 0-17 population of 14,413). The flawed methodology was repeated for every CYF site office recorded.

In an attempt to ascertain correlation between child abuse and benefit dependence, the report went on to estimate the number of beneficiaries that lived in each CYF site area.

"At this point CPAG counted all working age beneficiaries whereas the relevant population to use would be those beneficiaries with children in their care - a minority of all beneficiaries," said Mitchell.

The rate of benefit dependency was also incorrectly calculated.  Data at Figure 5 (p11) is labelled "% income-tested beneficiaries estimated in total population". Data at Table 6 (p24) purports to be "rate of benefit receipt in working-age population". Yet the two sets are data are identical.

Using the example of Papakura again, CPAG's estimate for the rate of benefit dependency is 10%. In fact the number of working-age beneficiaries was 6,096; the 18-64 population was approximately 31,302. That results in a benefit dependency rate of 19.5 percent.

Mitchell says, "I have written to CPAG about these errors. They have conceded that their report needs amending and say, 'An amended version of the report will be available on our website as soon as practicable.' Over two weeks later the faulty version is still on-line.

CPAG research is publicly promoted to influence social policy. It's therefore hugely important that policy-makers can trust their work. If CPAG is publishing faulty research that trust would be misplaced."

Why so sad?

A spokesman for the Postal Workers Union (?) has just been on Breakfast TV talking about how "sad" it is that people aren't using snail mail any more. He used the adjective three times.

Why? Why is it sad that there is so much more convenience available to us through technology? Why is it sad that we don't need to write cheques, buy envelopes, buy stamps and go to the post office or post box to send off bill payments? Why is it sad that we can communicate with our friends and family locally and overseas instantly?

It's a reality that slow post has had its day - like the hand-driven loom and the horse and cart.

But like those devices, postal deliveries aren't going to disappear overnight. They will be reduced to half the number in urban areas.

Still Grey Power are terribly upset:

The reductions would severely disadvantage the elderly, especially those who could not afford computers.

Surely they exaggerate. If the highlight of your day is the postman coming, with our without mail, you need to get an interest.

And as people change their habits, in particular, purchasing increasingly from the net, including everyday items like groceries, more delivery opportunities will arise. Posties need to anticipate the changed opportunities more than anybody else and plan their employment around them.

Sick of the sob stories

Simon Collins tells this story:

A solo mother has had her benefit halved, just eight weeks after having a new baby, because she failed to attend an appointment with Work and Income.
Leanne Griffin, 39, went to Work and Income's Albany office one week after giving birth by Caesarean section to tell the agency about her new son, Blair. She was surprised to be told that she had to look for full-time work.

The subsequent child policy was imposed in October 2012. This baby was conceived after that date. Looks like the mother was already on the DPB caring for her 15 year-old daughter. She would have had full-time work obligations as her daughter was 14+. Having a new baby would only give her one year free from those obligations. She may have been told she had to look for full-time work when the baby was one. (That she gave birth via Caesarean section is irrelevant.)

"I was speechless. I didn't know what to say," she said. "I had a week-old baby who I'm feeding."
She had taken her hospital discharge papers to confirm she had had a baby, but said her case manager had refused to look at the papers, saying she needed a birth certificate. Ms Griffin did not receive the birth certificate until last week.

So this incident with WINZ happened 7 weeks ago.

Instead, the case manager asked why she had not attended two previous appointments she'd made with Work and Income when she was looking for a house to rent and needed an advance for the bond.

She cancelled both appointments when she failed to secure the houses and is staying with her baby's paternal grandparents in Torbay until she can find a home. The baby's father has admitted himself to rehabilitation after a long history of drug use.

It appears that failing to keep these appointments (and/or a later one) is the reason for having her benefit cut. The cut isn't due to failure to meet a work-test. Just as a side note, notice the taxpayer is expected to fund her new home but she can and is living with her in-laws currently. What of their responsibility for their absent son and grandchild?

Ms Griffin, who also cares for her 15-year-old daughter and has an 8-year-old son not in her care, said she told the case manager she wanted to finish a degree in social work which she has started at Massey University. But the case manager "didn't really want to know". "She was more interested in getting me into full-time work. She made it clear it was full-time."

WINZ aren't going to fund mature students indefinitely any more.Some of the resource has been channelled into getting younger people educated and capable. That's sensible.

At one stage, she paused, looked at her computer a while, then said: "Pause 30 seconds and resume interview." Ms Griffin said: "I looked around to see who she was talking to. She was just so cold and horrible throughout the meeting."

Sounds like Ms Griffin might also have been quite a 'difficult' client to provoke this response. If not in her behaviour, certainly in the circumstances she presented.

Ms Griffin had to cancel a later appointment made as she'd been disqualified from driving and couldn't get a lift. She didn't hear from the agency again until a letter arrived saying her benefit was being halved for not meeting obligations.
A spokesman said Work and Income staff went "out to their way" to help her but their hands were tied.

I'm getting a bit sick of these hard luck stories. Here's a 39 year-old woman still living in a state of chaos; getting pregnant to a drug addict, with an estranged son, a recent driving disqualifiction (incurred while pregnant?), and who'd have guessed it - wants to be a social worker. I'm no angel, a delayed maturer in the responsibility stakes. But for goodness sake, this woman needs to get her act together.

As a supporter of the welfare reforms, I'm not going to be made to feel somehow guilty for whatever difficulty she now finds herself in.

(NB There isn't enough information in this report to properly ascertain why her benefit was cut.)

CPAG: Paid work "a time-consuming farce"

 The Child Poverty Action Group has just released new data into the benefit sanctions regime which has operated since Labour introduced it and continues under National. Since 2010 however beneficiaries with dependent children can only lose 50% of their benefit which the Minister says has resulted in the number of people having their benefit cut entirely "reducing dramatically". That's not mentioned in the paper.

The use of sanctions to enforce what policymakers assume to be universally shared “social norms”(New Zealand Government, 2012, p. 4) is a new development... CPAG has argued elsewhere (Child Poverty Action Group, 2010) that trying to leverage outcomes in areas such as health and education is an improper use of the welfare system, which should be concerned with income support.

I would suggest that other agencies have found it difficult or impossible to "leverage outcomes" so using the benefit system is the next logical step.

In 2012 CPAG made an Official Information Act request asking what advice the Minister of Social Development had received in respect of the decision to impose obligations on sole parent beneficiaries. 17 According to an aide memoir dated 24 th May 2012, social obligations “reinforce and achieve important social objectives including better outcomes for vulnerable children and maintenance of law and order .” There was no supporting evidence that these “important social objectives” would be achieved, nor any explanation of why “maintenance of law and order” is an appropriate purpose for the welfare system.

Again existing "maintenance of law and order" is, at best, a partially unsuccessful affair. Many law breakers receive taxpayer-funded income support however. So to make that support conditional on behaving lawfully seems sensible and legitimate. "Appropriate" even.

Emphasising the reforms’ focus on achieving social goals rather than income support, the aide memoire notes: “By its nature, the benefit system provides an opportunity to improve social outcomes because it supports, primarily, lower socio-economic groups.” This highly loaded sentence suggests it is appropriate to use the benefit system to pursue better outcomes for “lower socio-economic groups” even though it is not clear who, exactly, is a member of this group or groups.

Anybody on a benefit is by definition a member of  a "lower socio-economic group". If they are'nt they are defrauding the benefit system.

The aide memoire cites a US study showing most welfare sanctions were for work test failures (61%) while only 15% were for obligation failures (such as children not attending school). This suggests that the behaviour of beneficiaries as a whole is not that different from the general population. Indeed, recent reports have highlighted “rich and poor families pulling their youngsters from school for travel” while the principal of a South Auckland school observes “older children sometimes missed school to help babysit or step in for parents who were working long hours” (Jones, 2013a). It is therefore difficult to see why beneficiary parents have been singled out for special treatment.

15% of all sanctions tells us nothing about the actual number or how it relates to the comparative population. Why not look at the data regarding the increased incidence of child abuse and neglect and then try the line, "It is therefore difficult to see why beneficiary parents have been singled out for special treatment." But I forget. CPAG don't accept that difference either.

Of all the benefit sanctions in 2012 (56427) only 15 percent (8286) applied to beneficiaries with children. Only 918 had their benefit suspended or cancelled. CPAG admits,
.

The majority of clients (520) who are sanctioned have sanctions imposed for up to four weeks, while a much smaller number (78) are sanctioned from 4-8 weeks, and a very few (25) are sanctioned for over 8 weeks.While the numbers are relatively small, the question remains as to how families cope with severely restricted incomes, especially over long periods.

CPAG nevertheless want to use this data to advocate that children of sanctioned beneficiary parents are in dire straits. That expectations and obligations upon their parents are highly unreasonable. That work is not the best way out of poverty. In fact, in some circumstances...

...paid work just becomes a time-consuming farce which is cost ineffective and harmful to the long term wellbeing of the children.

Another hypocrisy regarding the Len Brown affair...

...and there has been so many.

In Wellington the centre right Mayoral candidate was smeared for issuing a public invitation to a painted lady to join him in the shower. He was subsequently cast as a misogynist, a "sexist relic".

  “These incidents show the true nature of the man,” says Denise Ritchie. “It’ll be up to Wellington voters to decide if a sexist relic from a bygone era is suited for the role of our capital city’s future mayor.”

Despite being apparently happily married and supported by his wife, a forthright, calls-a-spade-a-spade type, the feminist led campaign against John Morrison possibly/probably cost him the election. He was leading Wade-Brown until the liberal Green/female vote ramped up. Post election Deborah Coddington wrote,

Relax Wellington women, Mayor Celia's back. John Morrison, the man who wanted to shower with a body-painted young girl, won't be the capital's ambassador.
I can't believe so-called sophisticates found it hard to choose between incumbent Celia Wade-Brown and Morrison, the "sexist relic from a bygone age".

Contrast that to Auckland where the centre left Mayoral candidate didn't just eye the object of his lust (what man or woman  hasn't?) No need for me to canvas the rest.

But the absence of feminist outrage against Brown has been stunning. A man who used his power and position to exploit a young woman would ordinarily be a prime target. Yes, Chuang was using the Mayor too and I'm not playing the violin for her. But it is breathtaking how much the left will stomach to keep their man.

Me? I don't care whether he stays or goes. And the right team aren't looking too flash either. What winds me up is the staggering  hypocrisy and moral twistedness political scandals throw up every time.

Free market myths

The latest fashionable wisdom is that the free market doesn't work. The GFC is proof. Power prices are proof. The price of fish is proof. Unaffordable housing is proof. Etc etc.

Except we've never had a free market. One of the major reasons being government intervention. And it appears that people who used to champion the free market are amongst those who now say it doesn't work.

So I was attracted to this short list of myths about the free market.

Falsehood: The free market creates scarcity and higher prices.

• Reality: In any economic system the quantity of a good will typically not be enough to satisfy demand when the price is zero. In a free market, in which people trade their legitimate claims to those resources, prices will tend to rise or fall to the level where the quantity supplied equals the quantity demanded, and in that way prices help us to cope with scarcity.

Falsehood: The free market means the government gives businesses special privileges.

• Reality: The free market is free precisely because it denies special legal privileges to any person or group.

Falsehood: The free market requires that all valuable resources be privately owned and traded on markets.

• Reality: Sometimes the alternatives to individual ownership just work better, such as when we "exchange" favors with family, acquaintances, and sometimes with strangers without the need for formal markets and market prices.

Falsehood: The free market is pro-war.

• Reality: War and the government interventions that inevitably accompany it restrict markets and free association, make it more costly for most people to buy and sell, reduce the purchasing power of households and businesses, and disrupt the peace that is necessary for a thriving free market.

Falsehood: The free market is always efficient.

• Reality: The real world is populated by real people who don't have complete information, who may have bad information and who may just make mistakes. An "ideal" economic system is not one in which no one ever makes a mistake; it is one in which the mistakes that people inevitably make are corrected as effectively as possible.

 Hat tip NCPA

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.