Living wage promises little to the poorest

A reader has kindly sent me a copy of the Treasury report which analyses the proposed living wage.

Below is a table from it showing how much more the living wage will provide to various earners. The red section however will benefit the government, not the earner.

Take the first row. It is well known that sole parents are proportionately the poorest families in NZ. If a sole parent with two children (in a 3 bedroom home paying $380 in rent)  moves from $15 an hour to $18.40 he or she will only be better off by around $24 because of losses in accommodation supplement and other tax credits.

The report goes on to comment on the research that developed the $18.40 living wage:

    Treasury questions whether the methodology used to arrive at $18.40 is robust, for the following reasons (A more detailed explanation is provided in Appendix 3):

·                The research is based on a family composition of two adults and two children.  The research acknowledges that while it is possible in principle to identify different wage levels for different numbers of dependants, this is not done because it would make the Living Wage estimate unhelpful as a communication tool.

·                Families comprising two adults and two children represent only 6% of families earning below the Living Wage. Those who have the highest deprivation level (i.e. absolute, not relative) are sole parents and this analysis generally does not apply to them.

Treasury can't call the Family Centre Social Policy Unit research nonsense, but I can. Why base a calculation on an atypical low-income earner?

The report goes on:

" The research is inconsistent with Household Economic Survey which finds that at least 70% of people in even the lowest income band say that their current income is either just enough or better."

And here are two more noteworthy tables showing that 1/ internationally NZ has a relatively high minimum wage, and 2/ NZ has a low proportion of its population earning low incomes. 

Going back to the first graph, there is a question nagging at me. Could a strictly voluntary living wage be a good thing if it reduces the burden on the unrelated party (taxpayers) and shifts it to the party who gains the benefit of the labour paid for? If an employer can pay more (acknowledging all the 'ifs' that entails) isn't that preferable to taxpayer subsidies?




The answer is yes. Problem is though, most of the people who would benefit from the living wage aren't currently subsidised (my inference from other data provided). So the living wage does not provide an efficient solution to reducing working welfare.

On Guy Fawke's night explosions

Last night's thunderous Wellington display,  combined with a neurotic, extremely anxious dog with an existing tummy upset manifesting in diarrhoea,  does not make for a fun night...

I must be a dinosaur too

The current backlash against the 'rape culture'  personified by Roast Busters, dictates, insists,  the 'victim' has no culpability.
I don't accept that and here's why.

Because if I accept that I must tell my 15 year-old she can get herself into any situation of vulnerability, go to someone's house where there will be a bunch of boys or even one boy, drink alcohol, do whatever happens with the loss of inhibitions that causes, and she is totally blameless.

Sorry. I'm not giving her that message.

If I did I wouldn't be protecting her.

Only she can take responsibility for avoiding unwanted events outside of my knowledge or control.

The attitude that she is blameless might be emotionally useful after the event.

But that's too late.

(Published with the consent of my 15 year-old).

Implications of living wage

I have noticed that the living wage is now being touted as the level of income necessary to participate in society. I heard a British proponent using this phrase on NewstalkZB yesterday and here is an earlier reference:

A Living Wage of $18.40 an hour is being launched today - that allows people to have the basics but still participate in society.

This is the exact language used in the 1972 Royal Commission on Social Policy which recommended  benefit levels should be set at a level  "which would enable [beneficiaries] to participate in and belong to the community (Royal Commission of Inquiry 1972:65)..."

So as the living wage gets progressively rolled out, the implications for the benefit system are obvious.

(It might be argued that rather than allowing people to participate in society, benefits allow people to not participate. The need to support themselves and their families through paid work and family networks is often what draws people into society. In some cases benefits allow people to drop out of society.)

Teenagers behaving more responsibly

Amidst all the furore about teenage sex, not only the sordid West Auckland carry on but the supply of free condoms to adolescents, the following statistics are interesting.

In 2012 only 18 girls under 15 years old gave birth.  There is a strong downward trend.

 

1996	27
1997	48
1998	34
1999	30
2000	31
2001	28
2002	29
2003	29
2004	36
2005	37
2006	35
2007	52
2008	39
2009	29
2010	26
2011	25
2012	18

Neither is this downward trend caused by increased abortions. They are also falling rapidly, more than 50 percent since 2006:

 

1996		60
1997		56
1998		65
1999		56
2000		74
2001		66
2002		78
2003		89
2004		85
2005		92
2006		105
2007		104
2008		83
2009		79
2010		84
2011		68
2012		51

These patterns are also reflected in the 15-19 year-old population.

These stats do not prove that teenagers are having less sex. Or that they waiting till they are older to start having sex. But they do show that teenagers are behaving more responsibly in the area of birth control and pregnancy prevention.

A law change won't stop worst offenders

In today's DomPost:

The law could be changed to zero tolerance and have as much effect on drink-drivers as the smacking ban has had on child abusers.

Quote of the day

I couldn't resist posting this one, from the Freedom Foundation today:

The greatest threat to the future of our nation -- to our freedom -- is not foreign military aggression … but the growing dependence of the people on a paternalistic government. A nation is no stronger than its people and the best measure of their strength is how they accept responsibility. There will never be a great society unless the materialism of the welfare state is replaced by individual initiative and responsibility.

 

- Charles B. Shuman

"Real men don't whine" - Cunliffe

Newstalk ZB just featured Labour leader David Cunliffe talking about discomfit with the man ban saying, "Real men don't whine". This is a reference to potential and existing male Labour MPs who have dared to take issue with the gender quota.

That's a nasty new low. But so typical of the left's modus operandi. To paint your detractor as having a flawed or weak character rather than argue the idea.

Achievement should be based on merit. No more and no less. Start basing it on anything else and it becomes meaningless and damaging. But male readers, don't agree with me or you're a wuss, a big girl's blouse.

There is a clear development here. Cunliffe is saying any man that doesn't support feminism is not a "real man".

The Labour party has effectively put up a sign, "Feminists only need apply."

Asia rising

Since changing laptops I have been unable to post images, and my sitemeter and search function both disappeared. The problem is now fixed and am belatedly posting a graph that caught my eye  last week depicting the rising fortunes of Asia and waning fortunes of the West. We are lucky to be well-placed to take advantage. The rankings depicted are 2009-2013.

Does parental separation affect children's partnership outcomes?

I don't want to misrepresent this study and the findings so will just cut and paste the extract and you can draw your own conclusions:

Parental separation/divorce in childhood and partnership outcomes at age 30.

Fergusson DM, McLeod GF, John Horwood L.

Source

Department of Psychological Medicine, Christchurch Health and Development Study, University of Otago, Christchurch, New Zealand.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Previous research has found that children exposed to separation/divorce may also experience relationship problems in adulthood. The aim of this investigation was to examine this issue in a birth cohort of over 900 New Zealand children studied to age 30.

METHODS:

Data were gathered over the course of the Christchurch Health and Development Study (CHDS). The CHDS is a 30 year longitudinal study of a birth cohort of 1265 children born in Christchurch (NZ) in 1977. The data collected included the following: (a) timing and number of parental separations and divorces from birth to 15 years; (b) partnership outcomes (16-30 years) of the number of cohabiting/marriage partnerships; positive partner relations; negative partner relations; partner adjustment/conduct problems; and interpartner violence victimization and perpetration; and (c) potential covariate factors.

RESULTS:

Study findings showed the presence of significant associations between childhood parental separations/divorces and number of cohabiting/marriage partnerships (16-30 years) (p < .001), negative partner relations (p = .021), extent of partner adjustment/conduct problems (p < .001), and perpetration of interpartner violence (p = .018). Childhood parental separation/divorce explained less than 2.5% of the variance in partnership outcomes. These associations were explained statistically by a series of covariate factors associated with childhood parental separation/divorce including parental history of illicit drug use, childhood sexual abuse, childhood conduct problems (7-9 years), interparental conflict and violence, childhood physical punishment/maltreatment, family socio-economic status at the child's birth, and parental history of criminality. Tests of gender interaction showed that the effect of childhood parental separations/divorces may be the same for males and females. Analysis of the number of childhood parental separations/divorces experienced into three age groups (birth to 5, 5-10 years and 10-15 years) yielded similar results.

CONCLUSIONS:

These findings suggest that the general associations between childhood parental separation/divorce and partner relationships in adulthood reflect the consequences of various contextual factors that are associated with childhood parental separation.
© 2013 The Authors. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry © 2013 Association for Child and Adolescent Mental Health.

Labour "delutes" pension policy

It was the word "delutes" that caught my attention. Never totally secure about my own vocabulary I did check to see if this was a real word. It isn't. Labour have 'diluted' their pension policy. Vernon Small reports:

Finance spokesman David Parker, a strong advocate of raising the age, downplayed the significance of the policy platform change.
He said it was a high level document and the party's detailed policy would not be known until closer to the 2014 election.
He said "you will have to wait until we release our manifesto" when asked if a rise to 67, or some other age, would be part of Labour's manifesto.
Yesterday former MP Jenny Kirk said all options should be investigated to maintain the current 65 pension age.
Lifting the age to 67 was "an electoral turnoff".
But Parker argued against holding the age at 65, saying it would make his job harder.
He said Labour was always positioned as a tax and spend party by National and as finance spokesman he would have a much tougher job promoting extra spending on Labour policy in health and education if the state pension age did not rise over time.

Parker has my sympathy. Anything that cuts handouts is an "electoral turnoff". What a gutless position. This was the one policy that made me take Labour seriously.

Update: Headline now corrected.

Tribalism: Blood is thicker than water

There's an interesting thread developing between sharihyder and Jigsaw on my post about the Memorandum of Understanding developed between Tainui and MSD.

I used to be in the Jigsaw camp and was totally opposed to tribalism. But my years of volunteering took me into Maori homes and  the philosophical difference between Pakeha and Maori (not withstanding there is plenty of overlap as well) became more obvious. It doesn't require clever language to describe the difference. Maori are bound to their immediate and extended whanau more strongly than Pakeha. There isn't necessarily a choice operating, though it would be ridiculous to describe the bonds as onerous. But there is obligation to the group over self. For Maori blood is thicker than water.

Pakeha have moved increasingly away from that proverb. We tend to choose our networks. Friendships can outweigh family ties, especially to the extended family. Our immediate family - parents siblings brothers and sisters - are hugely important but we still choose to what degree those ties shape our lives. We are the dominant individualist culture - Maori are the minority collectivist culture.

The intermingling of these cultures has not resulted in a diminishing of tribal feeling. Pakeha marriage and nuclear family living seemed to gain favour post war but now Maori marriage rates have dropped off. It recently dawned on me when reading Surviors of Nga Morehau that Maori adopted formal marriage to qualify for the family benefit. Once they didn't need to be officially married to get welfare the marriage rate plummeted

Which brings me to what IS the problem with tribalism. Pakeha made whanau and tribes weak through welfare. They reduced their strength, their capacity to nurture and provide for their own by reducing the need to work the land, the sea or to find other employment.

My philosophy prioritises individual freedom and responsibility and I doubt I could be assimilated into Maori culture. Such an unhappy prospect, probably shared by many readers, should give pause to those who would impose individualism on Maori.

And I also remind myself to live and let live. So have your tribalism but make it a strong institution that is self-sufficient, that prioritises a positive responsibility to each other - not an exploitative burden on each other.

It's not for me to tell Maori how to live. But neither should I be forced to pay for their preferences. That I have been has only weakened this long-standing Maori institution.

Living wage calculation exposed

Back in March I wrote in a Truth column,

The ‘living wage’  idea poses more questions than it answers.
Apparently the proposed non-compulsory hourly wage of $18.40 is based on the needs of a family with two children, with one full-time and one part-time worker.
But someone with dependent children who is earning less than the living wage will almost certainly be receiving  Working For Families assistance.
As well, someone without children might be receiving an accommodation supplement which helps with rent, board or a mortgage.
Because these are income-tested payments, they reduce as the employee’s salary or wage increases.
Under the living wage scenario then, an employer would pay more, but in many cases the worker’s income would remain the same as he progressively loses other government assistance, especially the accommodation supplement.  Who has gained? Neither of them. The gaining party would be the government.

Kiwiblog has just reported on Treasury analysis of the living wage in a post coincidentally titled:

 Living Wage proposal would mainly help the Government, not low income families

 The data fatally undermines the policies being pushed by Labour and Greens. Only 6% of those who earn below the living wage are in the type of family the calculation is based on. Who would you set wages for 94% based on a situation which doesn’t apply to them?

AGCP and MSD at odds?

This is interesting. MSD has just published a report by the Advisory Group on Conduct Problems (a bunch of academics) at its website. MSD has however taken issue with some of it:

Caveat statement

With regard to Chapter 5, the Ministry of Social Development wishes to comment on the current wording in the Adolescent Report that presents the use of the Family Group Conference (FGC) as a practice that addresses conduct problems.
The FGC is a statutory process for making decisions concerning children and young people. It is a participative approach to child protection and youth offending and involves the child / young person, their parents, members of their extended family/ whānau and professionals coming together to develop solutions to specific situations.
The FGC should be seen as a process that enables decision-making on subsequent approaches to respond to the broader needs of a child or young person (including conduct problems).
It is these subsequent approaches that need to be evaluated to measure their effectiveness in changing the behaviour of young people.
Furthermore, the report does not acknowledge that Child, Youth and Family have recently partnered with the University of Canterbury to evaluate FGC practices and outcomes.
The evaluation objectives are to (a) identify the effectiveness of the FGC process for facilitating positive outcomes for children and young people and their whānau, (b) to identify best practice for implementing FGCs, including culturally appropriate practices and (c) further develop the theoretical underpinnings of how the FGC process effects change for children and young people and their whānau.
The University of Canterbury has completed a scoping phase which provides the foundation for the next phase of the evaluation.

You would have to assume some discussion preceded the decision to add this caveat. Some discussion/disagreement that could not be resolved.

Naturally I'd like to read the report but the link (at 12:12pm) doesn't work.

(Post note. Link now up.)

'Memorandums of Understanding' with Maori

It'd be interesting to know where these  MoUs fit with whanau ora.

Regardless, that Maori are confronting the CYF-related problem by tribe is probably positive. Collectivism is still a way of thinking and living for many Maori. We can rightfully complain when it imposes a burden on those outside of the collective but that doesn't automatically confer a right to demand Maori adopt individualism. If their child abuse and neglect problems can be eased best through the tribal community, all well and good. That the negotiations have been with a National government rather than Labour gives me more cause for optimism.

Child, Youth and Family and Tainui connect

Thursday, 31 October 2013, 4:51 pm
Press Release: New Zealand Government Hon Paula Bennett
Minister for Social Development
Associate Minister of Housing
31 October 2013 Media Statement
Child, Youth and Family and Tainui connect
An agreement between CYF and Tainui marks a new understanding and connection between the two says Social Development Minister Paula Bennett.
The Memorandum of Understanding was signed in Waikato today.
“This is the third agreement to be signed with iwi and is a significant step forward,” says Mrs Bennett.
“A new working relationship will focus on protecting children, using iwi networks to proactively support whānau in need.”
“Too many Māori children are hurt and abused; by openly acknowledging this and working together with iwi we can support these children and their families earlier, and then this MoU will really mean something.”
Child Youth and Family had a staff member seconded to Waikato Tainui for the last twelve months to help pave the way for the new relationship.
Tainui and Child, Youth and Family will work together to put the interests of vulnerable children first.
There are close to 5,000 children in the care of CYF, 441 of those children are affiliated to Waikato Tainui.
Child, Youth and Family has now signed Memorandums of Understanding with Tainui, Ngapuhi and Ngati Porou.
ENDS

John Campbell Show can never credibly cover 'bullying' as a subject again

The John Campbell Show made a rare appearance on my TV screen tonight. His hectoring, biased style turned me off long since. But trailers during the TV3 News persuaded me to stay tuned. Another chance wasn't warranted though. His protege went stalking John Palino with some "serious questions, SERIOUS QUESTIONS." One actually. Why had he spent so long in the car with Bevan Chuang? Now, I can imagine many plausible answers to this. Some good, some not so good. But Palino maintains he talked about the threatening texts at her request. He engaged with the shouty she-Campbell to the best of his ability referring her back to a comprehensive statement he'd released earlier and continuing to hold that he didn't know about the Chuang/Brown affair. All the time she over-talked, interrupted, and ear-bashed Palino. He did well to stay as calm as he did.

Then we flick back to the studio where Campbell oh so reasonably and humbly insists that the invitation was open to Mr Palino to go on the show and tell his side of the story. Give me a break. He would have been subjected to even worse thuggery than he met in the carpark.

Again, I'm not holding a candle for either side. As such I am  interested in objective reporting. Once again Campbell illustrates why his show isn't the vehicle for that. It has become an enclave for bully-boys and girls shameless in their efforts to take down their targets.

CPAG still not owning their errors

A note has been added at the link to the CPAG report I highlighted a couple days back:

Report 2: Child Abuse: An analysis of Child, Youth & Family data

Please note: Due to feedback CPAG has become aware that there is an error on page 9 of the report. The relevant paragraphs should read: 

"The percent of distinct clients with substantiated abuse or neglect for each site office from 2008-2012 was averaged and divided by the estimated number of 0-17 year olds in each site office (2012 population)  in order to calculate the proportion of children who were victims of substantiated abuse (see Table 3 in the Appendix).

Figure 3 shows the 10 site offices with the highest proportion of children being victims of substantiated abuse. Even within this small group there is considerable variability with Papakura having the highest percentage of substantiated abuse (4%) and the Far North having a rate slightly over half that (2.2%) (a ranked listing of site offices is at in Table 4 the Appendix)."

The error does not affect the results or the substance of the report. A corrected full version of the report will be available shortly.

Let's recall what the original report said:

"The percent of distinct clients with substantiated abuse or neglect for each site office from 2008-

2012 was averaged and divided by the estimated number of 0-17 year olds in each site office (2012

population) in order to calculate the proportion of children who were victims of substantiated abuse

(see Table 3 in the Appendix).

This figure was multiplied by 100 to give an easy-to-read number. It is therefore important to exercise caution when interpreting the numbers. For example the proportion of 0-17 year olds who were victims of abuse in Papakura was not 4.0% but 0.40 of 1% (my emphasis)

 

Figure 3 shows the 10 site offices with the highest proportion of children being victims of substantiated abuse. Even within this small group there is considerable variability with Papakura having the highest rates of substantiated abuse (0.040%) and the Far North having a rate slightly over half that (0.022%) (a ranked listing of site offices is at in Table 4 the Appendix)".

 

Note the middle paragraph was omitted from their correction. That was the section that illustrated their inability to mentally calculate a proportion.

In any case, this correction owns only one of three mistakes I have written to them about.

If the author had acknowledged that the denominator population used to calculate benefit dependence is wrong, then the relationship between the rate of child abuse and benefit dependence - the "substance of the report" -  would change. (I don't have the information yet to show by how much but I'm working on it.)

While CPAG can attempt to minimise their errors in this fashion, they cannot minimise the negative impact on their credibility.

Redundant analysis politically motivated?

The NZ Herald reports:

Children's Commissioner Dr Russell Wills has decided to publish his own annual stocktake of child poverty after the Government spurned his call to publish official measures and targets.
His first annual update will be published in December with analysis by experts at Otago University, edited by a private communications company and totally funded by a $525,000 grant from the philanthropic Wellington-based JR McKenzie Trust.
He said the project would not involve any taxpayers' money and he did not need to get it signed off by Social Development Minister Paula Bennett, who appointed him in 2011 for a five-year term.

There is already lots of data available about children's incomes, living standards, health status etc. There is a constant barrage of stuff from MSD already sifted through by goups like the Salvation Army.

The NZ Child & Youth Epidemiology Service, who will carry out the new analysis, already produce The Children's Social  Health Monitor. There is even the Prime Minister's Ministerial Committee on Poverty.

I'm not sure what the point of spending half a million dollars more on measuring and reporting child poverty is, unless it's political.

Reforms not enough - Minister responds

From time to time Muriel Newman and I collaborate on a theme for her organisation NZCPR. And from time to time the resulting articles make it into the MSM. The NBR has picked up for instance. Last week the Northland Age ran Muriel's piece in which I am also quoted extensively. Together we maintained that the welfare reforms to date still leave a benefit system that incentivises young women to have children and these children are at greater risk of abuse than others.

Excerpt:

“In New Zealand children are casually produced because someone else is made to take responsibility for financially providing for them. Their arrival guarantees an ongoing source of cash. It is hardly surprising that those without the financial wherewithal to raise a child also struggle with the emotional requisites.
“What then is being done to reduce the incentives that encourage ill-equipped entry into parenthood? Not enough. A young female (aged 19 plus) can still have a baby and expect government assistance and a home for five uninterrupted years. When the child goes to school she’ll have to look for a part-time job and take one if it materialises. But if she is in a rural area the chances of that occurring are slim. Just as slim are the chances of a full-time job cropping up when her child turns 14. The DPB replacement is still a promise of unearned, long-term income and housing for young females. And males, some who will pose a known risk to non-biological children, will continue to piggyback on it.”

The Minister for Social Development, Paula Bennett responded with a letter:

 Last week’s Northland Age’s column, ‘Incentives need to change,’ by Dr Muriel Newman, provided an interesting perspective on child abuse. But important points were missed about welfare changes which the column dismissed as incentivising abuse.

More

I have replied with the following:

 The Minister for Social Development, Paula Bennett (For the children, October 24) describes welfare reforms that "are helping parents get into work and provide a better life for their children." The Minister deserves accolades for what she has achieved to date. My position remains however that the reforms have not gone far enough.

At 23 percent, benefit dependency in the Far North District is double the national average. At June 2012 the Far North Territorial Local Authority had 7,800 working-age beneficiaries out of  a 18-64 year-old population of 33,370 (latest Statistics NZ estimate.)  While it is well known the district also features the highest unemployment rate in the country, only 18 percent of those on benefits were on the unemployment benefit. 38 percent - the largest group - were on the DPB.

Even with the new work-test regime,  Sole Parent Support (the DPB replacement) guarantees an ongoing income from the state for those with dependent children. The reality is people can continue to live and raise families in areas where jobs are non-existent. Unless the government compels parents to move where the jobs are (which Labour did with unemployment beneficiaries under Jobs Jolt in the mid-2000s) the long-term and inter-generational welfare dependence will continue. These are the conditions that increase the risk of child maltreatment.

Given the extra discretion case managers now have, there may be an informal policy to do this. But such an approach has not been legislated for.

Readers of this blog will know I have praised National repeatedly for the changes they have made to the welfare system. And I understand that a government can only move incrementally if they are to retain the support which is critical to staying in government. But that doesn't prevent me from taking a critical position about the shortcomings of the reforms.

Wth ACT dead in the water there is no vehicle for and very little publicised opinion about National's shortcomings ACCEPT from the left. The Minister generally ignores that and so she should.

Interestingly her letter is basically an advertisement for the reforms. I could use it myself to explain to people who think welfare is an important issue why they should vote National back in.

But when they get their third term let's hope they give it a bigger and better shake.

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