Education funding: awful attitudes and awful approaches

It's all in the way words are used:

Mike Williams moaning about inequality in NZ in today's HOS:

Can it be fair, for example, that decile 10 schools serving the wealthiest communities get more than $1000 more a pupil each year than decile 1 schools, a fact revealed by the Council for Educational Research?

Government funding for the wealthiest schools is half the funding for the poorest, but you wouldn't know it based on the above. (Update: Commentor Merlin, writes, "Deceptive writing - typical Mike Williams. Decile 1 schools serving the poorest areas get the most government funding and by quite a long chalk. High decile schools get more donations but that is no crime.")

Here's the Minister on the same issue:

Ms Parata said she was unable to comment on a New Zealand Council for Educational Research report that found decile 10 schools in wealthy areas had about $1100 more per pupil to spend a year than decile one schools, despite lower decile schools receiving larger sums of government money.
The report found the decile one schools' average spending money totalled $7500 per pupil per year, while the decile 10 schools' amounted to about $8600
However, she said she would be surprised if that figure was right. The government had increased investment into schools by 30 per cent increase since 2008 and some New Zealand schools had dropped their requests for school donations, because they were managing without them.

So any extra funding in the decile 10 schools is coming directly from parents.

Which reminds me of a suggestion in the Child Poverty in New Zealand book by Jonathan Boston and Simon Chapple:

There are various ways through which public funding of the education system could be changed to mitigate child poverty. For schools, there are three broad options available:

1. To boost the overall level of resources available, especially for lower-decile schools

2. To limit the capacity of high-decile schools to raise additional revenue, and

3. To redistribute existing resources within the overall education sector.

It is the second idea I find abhorrent. That children of wealthier parents should be intentionally disadvantaged in order to bring their opportunities relatively closer to those of children in lower decile schools. Not satisfied with the existing level of redistribution the power of the state should be used to flatten the educational spectrum further.

Making the poor relatively richer by making the rich relatively poorer is a truly awful approach.

Another take on Cunliffe's apology

Thanks to Brendan for uncovering this information.

From the American Government National Library of Medicine website:

Objectives. We sought to examine the prevalence of reciprocal (i.e., perpetrated by both partners) and nonreciprocal intimate partner violence and to determine whether reciprocity is related to violence frequency and injury.

Methods. We analyzed data on young US adults aged 18 to 28 years from the 2001 National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, which contained information about partner violence and injury reported by 11 370 respondents on 18761 heterosexual relationships.

Results. Almost 24% of all relationships had some violence, and half (49.7%) of those were reciprocally violent. In non-reciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70% of the cases. Reciprocity was associated with more frequent violence among women (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]=2.3; 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.9, 2.8), but not men (AOR=1.26; 95% CI=0.9, 1.7). Regarding injury, men were more likely to inflict injury than were women (AOR=1.3; 95% CI=1.1, 1.5), and reciprocal intimate partner violence was associated with greater injury than was nonreciprocal intimate partner violence regardless of the gender of the perpetrator (AOR=4.4; 95% CI=3.6, 5.5).

Conclusions. The context of the violence (reciprocal vs nonreciprocal) is a strong predictor of reported injury. Prevention approaches that address the escalation of partner violence may be needed to address reciprocal violence.

No doubt lead researcher in The Christchurch Health and Development Study would have sympathy with these findings. Professor David Fergusson:

  "The proper message is that both gender groups have a capacity for domestic violence [and] women probably perpetrate more assaults on children then men do," Mr Fergusson said.
The ramifications are a public health system that tends to overlook male victims of domestic violence.

Finally, a thoughtful letter from this morning's DomPost:

I believe all of the above. But, no, I am not about to apologise for being a woman.

Maori Prince hides under Daddy's korowai

The heir to the Maori king has been discharged without conviction on counts of burgalry, theft and a drink/driving blood alcohol count of 761 when his legal limit is 0.

The Maori King's son has succeeded in his bid to avoid drink-driving and theft convictions after his lawyer argued it was likely to bar his succession to the throne...

The burglaries and theft happened in March while he was on bail and the judge noted it had also occurred after a night of drinking.
Paki, supported in court by his heavily pregnant girlfriend, previously pleaded guilty to all charges arising from the theft of two surfboards from Waikanae Motor Camp and items from a car.
His accomplices to the thefts, Te Ahorangi Totorewa, 20; Hamuera Wipoha Pugh, 19; and Raa Ngaru Smith, were sentenced in the Gisborne District Court last week.
The trio was ordered to each pay prosecution costs of $400 and were discharged without conviction.
Paki also applied for a discharge without conviction today.
His lawyer Paul Wicks QC told the court a conviction would impede his ability to accede to the throne.

Outrageous. But it gets worse.

Outside court Paki's representative and former MP Tuku Morgan said it was a "major turning point in his life".
"He's an expectant father and you can see he's brought shame upon his father, his family and Tainui," Morgan said.
He heralded the court's decision as a victory for Maori.
"I think that is a recognition of the uniqueness of this country. Maori tikanga, Maori culture has been recognised today by a very senior court."

I got a drink/driving charge at a similar age. Just over the limit, fined $300 and disqualified for six months, I lost my job. I was deeply ashamed. It was a rock bottom point in my life but accepting the consequences turned me around.

His father should  let him face the same fall-out as anyone else. Particularly that faced by many a less privileged Maori.

Classism is alive and kicking within Maoridom.

Update:

This guy isn't a learner either.

Asking too much of parents

A school donation of $100 per year equates to $2.50 a week.

It's too much to ask of any parent. Just as it's too much to ask them to find $2 or $3 for breakfast and lunch for their child. Too much to ask them to go down to Savemart or Rebound and buy a raincoat or second pair of shoes for a few dollars.

It's all too much.

Thank God for Labour. I hope they will also issue parenting guidelines recommending that parents don't make demands on their children. There is nothing to be gained from asking children to assume some responsibility by doing household chores to earn pocket money for example.

The more people are absolved from contributing, the less the stigma will be when they don't.

Hurray. This policy is the mark of a truly compassionate party.

Youth Service evaluation rather too glowing

The Youth Service Evaluation report is now on-line

The evaluation compares a group who received benefits before the Youth Service was introduced to a group post.

Youth Service is helping young people gain NCEA Level 2, so they have a better chance at getting a decent job

During their first year [my emphasis] in Youth Service, young people are more likely to gain NCEA credits and meet the requirements of NCEA Level 2 than under the old welfare system:

• 63 per cent of 16 and 17 year olds receiving YP achieved NCEA credits in their first year, compared to 24 per cent of similar young people who received the old Independent Youth Benefit (IYB).
• 14 per cent of Youth Payment participants met the requirements for NCEA Level 2, compared to 5 per cent of the young people who received IYB.
• 43 per cent of teen parents achieved NCEA credits in their first year, compared to 20 per cent of similar teen parents who received Emergency Maintenance Allowance (EMA) or the Domestic Purposes Benefit (DPB).
• 7 per cent of Young Parent Payment participants met the requirements for NCEA Level 2, compared to 5 per cent of the comparison group.

But guess what? Unless you read the report you will not find out:

 However, 12 months after enrolment in the Youth Service, YP and YPP participants remained less likely to have met the requirements of NCEA Level 2 than young people in the comparison group

At the point of entry to Youth Service, YP and YPP participants were less likely to have met the requirements of an NCEA Level 2 qualification than their comparison group. There are two reasons for this:

·           the comparison group was selected without consideration of prior educational achievement, as NZQA qualifications data was not available at the time of the matching process;

·           Youth Service targets young people who have lower levels of educational achievement.   

The gains made by YP and YPP participants toward NCEA Level 2 as a result of Youth Service have not been large enough to compensate for this difference (Figure 8). After one year in the service, YP and YPP participants remain less likely to have met the requirements of NCEA Level 2 than their comparison group.

A more robust estimate that controls for differences in prior educational achievement will be developed for the 2015 evaluation update.

I would have thought that a majority (certainly not all)  of young people entering the benefit system at 16-17 would have  "lower levels of educational achievement".

Back to the report.

More young people aged 16 and 17 are moving off benefit as a result of Youth Service

Young people are now gaining the education, qualifications and skills needed to move off benefit and into employment or full-time tertiary study.

• After one year in the service fewer 16 and 17 years olds receiving Youth Payment remain on benefit, compared to similar young people who received IYB under the old welfare system.
• We expect to see the same trend for teen parents as their children become closer to school age and they have increased ability to move into full-time work or study.

You can view the relevant tables on pages 15 and 16.

The differences are very small. In the Youth Payment group the leaving benefit rate was slightly higher; in the Young Parenting Payment the reverse is seen. The leaving rate is lower.

The real concern I have is that after they leave the Youth Service young parents have around two to three years on the sole parent benefit. Does the pressure continue to stay with education, ie move on to tertiary training?

I want the Youth Service to succeed. Very much. But evaluations should be fairly represented. The Better Public Service goals do seem to be driving a tendency to report only the gains.

58 child deaths

For the Sake of Our Children Trust has produced an analytical table identifying 58 "horrific" abuse and neglect child deaths at the hands of caregivers since 1990.

They comment:

Based on the 58 known cases listed,

51 cases identified child’s biological parents were NOT married. The perpetrator responsible for the death indicated 27 of the deaths tabulated had a ‘stepfather’ or ‘boyfriend/partner of

the mother being responsible or part responsible for the child’s death.

The remaining figures for the perpetrator was indicated the  mother or relative of the child or unknown.Many of the children killed were of Maori descent with 35 cases indicating ethnicity of child . The question New Zealanders need to ask is ‘What are our Maori Leaders doing about these staggering statistics?

...The research was unable to provide evidence of welfare dependency of parent(s) as this information is not stated in most of the cases. The Trust stands steadfast on its assumption that for many of the children born into a single parent home or

an environment where their parents were not married is

associated to long term welfare dependency, hence undermining marriage and breaking up families

A fair assumption given that around 87 percent of children who have contact with CYF appear in the benefit system very early in their lives.

Colin James on Labour

Colin James is more impartial than most which is why I read his weekly column:

A long shadow will encroach on the Labour party’s pre-election “congress” this weekend: a Green shadow. There will be shorter shadows, too.
The short shadows are a faltering leadership, bad polls and a spectre looming out of history and off the internet. They add up to a growing sense in the electorate that for a second election in a row Labour is not headed for office.
A year ago most MPs agreed David Shearer had to go as leader. Now a broadening number concede that Labour under Shearer would not be doing worse than it is under David Cunliffe.

More

Denver crime - up or down?

JC made a comment regarding crime increasing in Denver, Colorado since the legalisation of cannabis. This is his link:

According to American Thinker:

The misinformation continues regarding how Denver's crime rate has changed following Colorado's legalization of recreational marijuana sales in January.
Vox.com claims that "5 months into legal pot sales, crime is down in Denver."  Nothing could be farther from the truth.  Actually, after five months of legal pot sales, crime is way up in Denver.
Denver's crime statistics for the first five months of 2013 and 2014 are available here.  The total number of reported offenses has increased by more than 10 percent, from 17,450 in 2013 up to 19,234 in 2014.

Here are the official crime statistics Vox used for Denver:

There is however another set here.

That set shows crime is up.

So I googled the question,

Why are there two different sets of crime statistics for Denver?

Seems there is indeed a controversy:

Denver's top two law enforcement officials disagree on the answer to what ought to be a simple question: Is violent crime up or down? Police Chief Robert White and District Attorney Mitch Morrissey aren't quibbling over minor details; they have a nearly 18 percentage-point difference in opinion about the way crime is trending. Experts say their disagreement underscores the complexities of measuring and interpreting crime trends in a major city.


White said his figures are based on numbers the department presented to the FBI for its annual Uniform Crime Report [first set above]. He said they are a more accurate reflection of crime in the city than another set of data posted on the department's website that indicates a 13.9 percent increase in crimes against persons last year.
Those are the police department's crime data classified under the National Incident Based Reporting System, which measures the individual crimes contained within a single incident. If, for example, someone is killed during a robbery, the NIBRS [second set] numbers include both a homicide and a robbery. The Uniform Crime Report that White points to includes only the most serious crime, so the same incident would be classified only as a homicide.

Rennison said NIBRS is a better gauge of crime because it offers a broader view of different types of offenses. Driving the 13.9 percent increase in the NIBRS numbers was a 71.5 percent increase in intimidation offenses and a 28.8 percent spike in simple assault, neither of which are offenses included in the Uniform Crime Report, said Chris Wyckoff, director of the police department's data analysis unit.
Crimes such as those seemed higher last year because of a change in the way police officers report them, she said.
Certain citations would be reported directly to court under the old system, so they would not have been captured in the statistics.

I guess the only approach is to ... wait and see.

Police react to changing attitudes to cannabis

Over the weekend the results of a Herald poll showed:

Public opinion on smoking weed is turning towards decriminalisation, according to a new poll.
A Herald DigiPoll survey published on Saturday shows almost a third of those surveyed supported decriminalisation, saying they thought smoking cannabis should attract a fine but not a criminal conviction.
Twenty-five per cent went even further and said they think it should be legalised.
Among National Party supporters, 45 per cent supported decriminalisation or legalisation.
However, 53.8 per cent said they favoured keeping the status quo...
...However, the government says it doesn't favour the approach.
"We do not think there are any benefits for decriminalising or legalising cannabis, for medicinal purposes or otherwise, which outweigh the harm it causes to society," Justice Minister Judith Collins told Fairfax.

This morning the NZ Police have issued this statement:  

Police believe the true success of this year’s national cannabis operation is not the drugs destroyed, the guns seized or the suspects arrested but rather the harm that has been prevented from occurring in the community.
Detective Senior Sgt. Scott McGill said that during Operation Lucy 105,000 cannabis plants were destroyed, 112 firearms seized and 640 suspects arrested.
“The cannabis trade is a destructive force in New Zealand society,” Mr McGill said. “By destroying over 100,000 plants before they were harvested police have prevented significant social damage from occurring in our community.”
Mr McGill said the arrest of 64 patched gang members or associates during Operation Lucy shows the strong connection between organised crime and the cannabis trade.
“We are very pleased with the results from this year’s operation which show our commitment to restrict the influence of these organised criminal groups.”

An analysis of this could lead to a conclusion that the police also support decriminalisation (though I doubt that was the intention). When they say their greatest success is in the harm  prevented they do not allude to any inherent harm in the cannabis itself. It is, the police say, the cannabis trade that is destructive. They go on to describe why, by referring to 64 patched gang members/associates and firearms seized.

Many people who support change do so because of the criminality illegal trade breeds. This statement from the police won't change their position. It will probably reinforce it.

Told to choose between Super and ACC

This is curly. In New Zealand the welfare state forces people to pay for insurance against accidents and their consequences.  There is a dedicated ACC payment which, amongst other things, provides for compensation for a surviving spouse in the case of death.

Super is different. It is paid from current revenue. (Though one could mount a non-legalistic argument that having been taxed at levels that furnish the current Super bill,  ability to make private provision was diminished.)

A man's wife was killed in a car (workplace) accident shortly before turning 65. He is the surviving husband, already retired and 65. He is told after one year he must choose between the ACC payment or Super:

Is superannuation an entitlement or a benefit? Fin Heads has taken a case against the attorney-general over "obscene'' legislation that forced him to choose between his superannuation and his dead wife's ACC compensation. The retired Dunedin plumber tells Bruce Munro about his traumatic five-year battle with the Government to win what would be landmark case, and why he believes some in power hope he will die.

My compliments to the journalist who wrote this up. A complicated story made comprehensible.

I believe Mr Heads is entitled to both. He and his wife had no choice but to pay ACC  premiums. Do you think if he'd read the fine print 30 years ago and didn't like it he could have opted out? No.

And Super is not means-tested.

This case highlights the incompatibilities of our social security and accident insurance system. Even more importantly, the pitfalls of state run compulsory monopolies.

"Working for New Zealand"...

... National's new campaign slogan.

On the downside it immediately recalls Working for Families which National originally damned and then retained. Highlights their hypocrisy but also the reality of winning government and staying in government.

Working also suggests some that something is operational and functioning. The economy.

But perhaps most importantly it sends the message that National is the party for Working New Zealanders. The working class even. That's robbing Labour.

It's quite clever really.

The difference between taxing at 33 and 36 cents in the dollar

I wonder who wrote this  Stuff editorial ? It was the lead editorial in yesterday's DomPost:

Increasing the top tax rate from 33c to 36c is not an "envy tax", as John Key claims. It is a tiny impost on the top 2 per cent of taxpayers. Someone earning $160,000 a year will pay an extra $6 a week in tax. They simply won't notice it. It is similarly daft for Steven Joyce to claim that this will somehow have an effect on the brain drain. It will have no effect whatever.

$6 a week looks immediately suspect. Why would Labour bother?

So I did the numbers using income tax rates from IRD:

$160,000

First $14,000 at 10.5 cents = $1,470
Next $34,000 at 17.5 cents = $5,950
Next $22,000 at 30 cents = $6,600
Remaining 90,000 at 33 cents = $29,700

Total tax paid = $43,720

Remaining 90,000 at 36 cents = $32,400
Total tax paid = $46,420

Difference = $2,700 or $52 a week.

What did the writer do?

Forget to add a 0 on the tax taken at $90,000?

What a numpty.

Update. OK. I'm the numpty who shouldn't have assumed the thresholds were staying the same.

Bye bye Bobby Womack

One of my all time favourites, Bobby Womack has just passed away aged 70. The Poet 11 was his best work. From that album here's American Dream:

 

 

 

"Horrible arrangements"

A version of the following column appeared in this morning's DomPost. An unorthodox view.

No matter how civilised a divorce is, it always makes children unhappy, says Penelope Leach, hurling a grenade into the cosy liberal consensus on the matter. The veteran child psychologist has infuriated fathers with her new book, Family Breakdown, in which she suggests that very small children whose parents separate should not stay overnight with the absent father (or mother). “You get situations,” Leach says, “where children are spending a week in Mum’s house and a week in Dad’s house and all kinds of horrible arrangements. I call them horrible because we do know that they are desperately wrong for children, who need the security of a place called home and who, when very little, shouldn’t be taken away overnight from what is usually the mother – the person they are attached to.”

Leach’s view flies in the face of evidence which shows, consistently, that it is better for the child to have regular contact with both parents, though she is right and brave to point out that divorce, which now affects nearly half of all marriages, is too often about the selfish interests of the parents, with children seen as property to be haggled over.

More

Very low tolerance for misuse of welfare funds

This is an intriguing story. 

Indiana spends $250 million on TANF (largely equivalent to our Sole Parent Support) in a population of 6.5 million. NZ spends 7 times more for a population 31 percent smaller.

But what really surprised me was the small numbers that followed.

$120,000 withdrawn from ATMs in no-go places like liquor stores in 2012.

$45,000 spent developing technology to stop it.

$400 a month to run the system.

These are highly motivated and efficient bureaucrats.

Of course there is nothing to stop people withdrawing cash elsewhere and still spending it on things like alcohol and tobacco. But TANF spending is already very low because the US moved towards a system of emphasis on in-kind assistance over cash. A lot of federal and state funds are spent getting people into work, job subsidies, Medicaid, food stamps, utility payments, housing subsidies, childcare etc. There's not that much cash splashing around.

Cutting Down on Welfare Abuse in Indiana

June 26, 2014
What has kept welfare recipients from spending taxpayer dollars on alcohol, slot machines and strip clubs? Very little, writes Jillian Kay Melchior for National Review, until Congress passed a bill in 2012 outlawing the use of benefits at such places and encouraging state governments to institute similar controls.
Indiana has been especially successful in its crackdown on unlawful use of welfare funds:

• The state passed a law requiring ATM vendors to block withdrawals of cash benefits at certain restricted locations.
• The Indiana Family and Social Services Administration spent $45,000 to develop technology that can match electronic-benefits-transfer (or EBT) transactions and track EBT users who have received warnings from the state's Alcohol and Tobacco Commission about unlawful withdrawals. Now, the technology costs less than $400 per month in monitoring, including staff time.
• Welfare recipients who withdraw cash at an unlawful location receive a strongly worded letter, followed by a letter and investigation after their second offense and action by the local prosecutor after their third offense. Beneficiaries found guilty of unlawful withdrawals face a $500 fine and up to 60 days in prison.

The state began a major media mail campaign to inform residents of the new rules affecting Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) recipients. The new rules have been effective:

• In 2012, Indiana TANF users withdrew more than $120,000 from ATMs with their EBT cards in liquor stores, strip clubs, tobacco shops, casinos, resorts, golf clubs and amusement parks.
• In 2014, fewer than 15 first-time EBT violations have taken place each month, according to Indiana officials. Additionally, there have been less than 5 second-time offenses each month and only two third-time violations in all of 2014.

Of the $250 million in the state's TANF program, officials have identified less than $6,000 in unlawful fund use.
Source: Jillian Kay Melchior, "Welfare Abuse Almost Quelled," National Review, June 24, 2014.

Inter-generational welfare dependency

The statistical evidence for inter-generational welfare dependency is thin on the ground. But MSD has just released its Benefit System Performance Report (what a couple of weeks for reports).

Here's one finding that caught my eye:

About 90% of new 16-17 year old beneficiaries have been supported by main benefits at some time in their childhood

A lot of focus has rightly gone on young entrants because they have the greatest forward liability. Not just because of their age but the factors that contribute to their early reliance. When I delve into the actual report I may find data about just how long these newcomers had spent on their parent's benefit.

Some other findings:

• While the number of people on Jobseeker and Sole Parent benefits has also been declining at a faster rate than the 2012 valuation projected, there has been a higher than expected rate of transition from Jobseeker – Work Ready to both the Jobseeker – HCID state and to Supported Living Payment.
• A higher than expected rate of transfer to Supported Living Payment is also occurring from both Jobseeker – HCID and Sole Parents.

Essentially what this is describing is migration from work-tested unemployment benefits to non-work-tested disability benefits. It's the backlash to setting tougher work expectations.

The Future Focus changes were introduced from September 2010. They require reapplication for unemployment benefit every 52 weeks and place part-time work obligations on sole parents whose youngest child is aged five or more and full-time obligations if youngest child is aged 14 or more.
Both of these initiatives have led to a shorter average time spent on benefit for Jobseeker and Sole Parent clients of approximately one and a half weeks. There is no indication to date of an increase in the time spent off benefit for either group, which suggests greater focus is required to ensure off benefit outcomes are sustained.

More underwhelming results. If, for argument's sake, a sole parent is currently spending an average of 8 years dependent, the reforms have shaved off just a third of a percent.

Generally benefit numbers fell between the reporting dates - June 2012 and June 2013. Hence the estimated liability cost falls. But most of the decrease is in Jobseeker and Sole Parent and these are often the easy- to- place people. Many would have been temporarily unemployed due to the GFC. The 2014 (295,320 in March) numbers are still above what they were in March 2008 (255,754).

Doing National's job

National do little to explain or defend their 'child poverty'  position publicly. They'll answer questions in the house (which few people listen to) but don't strenuously explain why an employment strategy to reduce child poverty is the only effective choice. Avoidance of emotive, easily misconstrued or misunderstood issues might be a deliberate strategy.

Muriel Newman has never lost her determination to make change happen. And we regularly work together on expressing a view that is distinct from the Left.

My latest NZCPR article discusses Child Poverty in New Zealand, by Jonathon Boston and Simon Chapple.

This week’s NZCPR Guest Commentator, welfare researcher Lindsay Mitchell, has carefully read the book and shares her analysis with us. She refutes the claim that child poverty is the result of the benefit cuts in the nineties, demonstrating that supplementary assistance has risen at a faster rate than wages since that time. In particular she points out that increasing benefit levels would reduce the incentive to work.
“In my view, this is the crux of the matter. To maintain a margin between incomes from work and incomes from welfare, benefit payments should stay at their current level. However, greater efforts to get beneficiary parents into employment are paramount.
“It is particularly disappointing that the authors went back only to policies of the early 1990s to explain why child poverty increased so rapidly. I would take them back to 1973. After the domestic purposes benefit was introduced, the annual number of ‘unmarried births with no resident father’ grew from around 3,000 to reach around 12,000 by 1991. The numbers reliant on the DPB had rapidly grown to 97,000.  With a relatively generous benefit payment available the employment rate for sole mothers plummeted over the same period. When the state could no longer afford the same level of generosity and cut benefits, child poverty soared. Nevertheless, it was, and remains, the change in family structure that drove up child poverty.”

Muriel  takes on the Owen Glenn Report here.

The People’s Report is the first tranche of Sir Owen Glenn’s $2 million inquiry into child abuse and domestic violence.[3] Set up in 2012, the final report of the inquiry is expected to be published before the end of the year as a policy Blueprint.
While there will undoubtedly be some worthwhile policy suggestions from the inquiry, this first report (which summarises the experiences of around 500 victims, offenders, and frontline workers) appears to have been largely captured by ideological interests.
Three examples will suffice.
Firstly, the study seems to suggest that colonisation is a cause of domestic violence. It states: “Māori were once a people who held in high esteem their tamariki (children) and wāhine (women) because of the treasured roles they had in their whānau, hapū (sub-tribe) and iwi (tribe). Nevertheless, colonisation brought with it new ways, including privileging the place of men, which rendered women and children as their possessions. As Aotearoa was settled, new ways of treating children and women were introduced to Māori whānau and hapū, which included beating them. Some, but not all, Māori chose to adopt these new ways in their whānau as they were pressured to become assimilated with colonialists.”
It goes on to say,  the experience of colonisation is responsible for domestic violence, in that “these experiences broke down their wairua (spirit, soul) and their mana (status, control), making people feel whakamā (ashamed, embarrassed) and whakaiti (belittled) – some of which has survived in successive generations”.

A life we cannot comprehend

From time to time there are conversations and calls to talkback that justify why I listen. When the debate gets gritty most calls demand attention. But then one call will stop you still. It happened on Leighton Smith's show today.

The scissor attack in a Pacifc Christian South Auckland school, following a myriad of other recent violent incidents, prompted the conversation we have ad nauseam : Why?

A quietly spoken Samoan lady described her upbringing as seriously sexually abused and physically beaten by her palangi father from the age of three. Farmed out to father's friends for sexual gratification.

Leighton asked, where was your mother? She had left. Deserted the family to the father's custody.

When she confronted her mother years later, her mother said, "Better you than me. You were bred for him."

It gets worse. The caller went on to marry and have her own family.  But when her mother told the caller's  husband about the abuse, he declared her "used goods"  and walked out. Left her to raise the children alone. Which she has done well by all accounts.

How vicious and inhuman and self-indulgent and evil some people are.

(If you cared to listen her call crosses from the end of the 10.15-10.30 am quarter to the next)

Mallard's rejection of a list placing

It's understandable that Trevor Mallard has refused a place on Labour's list. Being dumped down the list sends an ambiguous signal to the public. Does the party have so much faith in him they think he's a shoo in for the electorate? Or do they not want a bar of him if he can't win the electorate?  I doubt it is the first. And bet Trevor does too. By refusing a place, the depth of the disrespect doesn't go public. And he salvages some pride. And frankly, why should he play their game? In fact, why not exercise some utu?

As a voter in Hutt South that's how I see it.

If voters want Trevor as their MP there is now zero utility in a Labour Party vote. They must give him their electorate vote leaving the party vote free for the government they want. It is not inconceivable that centre right voters would plump for Mallard (he isn't particularly left-wing) and give their party vote to National.
He'll be hoping that's the case. But it does nothing for Labour's total seats.

Yes, if he'd been low on the list a  party vote may also have been ineffective BUT most people won't check where he is. They will just know he is on it. This way Mallard can make a big deal about the electorate vote being the only one that will return him.

Trevor's choice is the right one for him. It's the wrong one for Labour.

Isn't this a great election?

Update

In the interests of fairness and promotion of quality fiction, Trevor's version of events:

Mallard, the Hutt South MP, said he made the decision not go on on the list before the moderating committee met "in order to give people like Kelvin [Davis] a chance to be higher".
He said he did not pull his name based on where he expected to be put, saying his caucus ranking of 17 out of 34 MPs gave an indication of where he would fit on the list.

"It just gives him an advantage."
The decision was made in light of this year's changes to electorate boundaries which he says caused him to lose "more than half" of his 4825 majority in Hutt South.
"I've never ever taken an electorate for granted but I also really like being a constituency MP and only being a list one has no appeal at all."

Never stopped him using the list insurance in the past.

Conservative Party policies

The Conservative Party launched yesterday with an emphasis on these policies:

The headline policies of this campaign will be:
1. That referendum become binding on government,
2. That we stop dividing the country on the basis of race. All New Zealanders should have equal rights and privileges under the law
3. That we stop discounting justice. Those who commit crimes do the time they are sentenced to, with longer sentences for violent crimes, and a requirement that prisoner’s do some hard work to repay victims and society.
4. Simplify the tax system, closing loop holes, and the introduction of a tax free threshold that provides a tax break for all New Zealanders, not just the wealthy.

1/ Tyranny of the majority

2/ Absolutely although I would prefer to see the word 'responsibilities' substituted for 'privileges'.

3/  I like the idea of shortened sentences for good behaviour and demonstrated efforts to rehabilitate. On the other hand we have a serious problem with paroling dangerous people. I recently visited someone in prison who talked about the number of people he knew would re-offend on release. They were hellbent on pay back.

4/ Another I can't disagree with.

I hope Christine Rankin does stand. She's colourful and outspoken.

Update ACT criticises The Conservative Party tax policy here.

Discussing Child Poverty with Jonathon Boston

On National Radio today discussing child poverty with Jonathan Boston. There are interviews with three Year 13 students who have experienced low incomes in childhood, followed by an introduction to the book and our discussion (18.50).

In celebration of Gen Y

And the beat goes on...

Wellington High School had their music evening last night. The range of talents was notable. Classical  singing, playing, through jazz through to reggae, rock and blues. One of the bands, Head Chef, has just won the Wellington Battle of the Bands.

Here are two peformances (make allowances for the poor visual and audio recording). All 15 year-olds.

Guitarist Wayne Williams playing Friends, a Sungha Jung composition and my Sam singing B B King's, The Thrill is Gone, with Lawrence, Thomas, Bill and Sean and a guitarist

What socialists don't get

 This is a great summary of the economics socialists don't get. Too good not to cut and paste from NCPA:

While today's political climate is tense, agreement on some essential economic truths could help lawmakers get things done in Washington, says Jeffrey Dorfman, University of Georgia economics professor.
Dorfman identifies 10 important economic facts that he says policymakers need to recognize:

• Government only reshuffles wealth, jobs and income; it cannot create anything on its own, as it has to take money from some in order to spend it on others. Any money collected or jobs "created" by government merely replace the private sector investment and job creation that would have occurred had people been allowed to spend their own funds.
• Income inequality does not harm the economy. While the poor spend nearly all of their money, higher-income earners save some of their income, which is just as good for the economy as spending, if not better. Saving leads to more investment and greater national income in the long run.
• Paying low wages is not corporate exploitation. Just as businesses have to set prices according to consumer demands, they establish wages based on the supply and demand for labor.
• Environmental over-regulation drives up prices. Because the poor spend a greater percentage of their income, especially on energy, such over-regulation acts as a regressive tax.
• Education is not a public good. While we publically fund K-12 education, it produces human capital that is privately owned by each person. While many defend public education because it is a "public good," it is important to realize that the ensuing benefits of education are not given away for free.
• CEO pay may be high, but so is the pay to athletes and movie stars. Such pay may reduce a company's profits, but it does not reduce the pay of other employees, as their pay is determined the marketplace.
• Consumer spending does not drive the economy. Saving more and spending less of our income will lead to greater wealth in the long run.
• "Free" things provided by the government are typically low-quality and unnecessarily expensive.
• Injustices happen. The government cannot correct every injustice, and every time the government steps in to "fix" something, it puts costs on someone else. Affirmative action policies, for example, grant college admissions only by denying admissions to other applicants.
• There is no such thing as a free lunch. "Free" government services cost money. Similarly, raising the minimum wage gives money to employees only by taking away jobs and raising prices for consumers.

While liberals often focus their policy arguments on compassion, compassion cannot trump basic economic truths, writes Dorfman. All too often, government policies have unintended -- and harmful -- consequences.
Source: Jeffrey Dorfman, "10 Essential Economic Truths Liberals Need to Learn," Forbes, June 5, 2014.

Maori spam

Received this in my in-box:

Matohi Haumaru

Kitea e matou mahi pāme-rite i roto i tō pūkete webmail,
i te mea ki to tatou Use Policy Whakaaetia (AUP).


Aroha pāwhiritia konei: ki te manatoko e koe te rangatira o te http://ffhfjg-kfgj.webs.com/
  pūkete me te kore he kaiparaurehe.

Tatarahapa tatou no te poroaki, tenei kia meinga koe.

"Team Tautoko Tukutuku"
Copyright © Admin tukutuku 2014 Rights Reserved katoa.

Fortunately (and to my surprise)  Google Translate can facilitate Maori translation:

Security Alert

We see the spam-​​like activity in your webmail account,
It is our Acceptable Use Policy (AUP).


Sorry click here to verify you over the http://ffhfjg-kfgj.webs.com/
   account and not a spammer.

We repent of farewell, this may cause you.

"Team Support Web"
Copyright © 2014 Web Admin All Rights Reserved.

How many people claim a sole parent benefit unlawfully?

I have now had chance to look at the report released today, Growing Up In NZ.
Last report the children were 9 months; this report they are 2 years.


Total numbers reporting:

9 months 6476
2 years 6327
 
Numbers reporting being sole parents

9 months 439 (6.8%)
2 years  319   (5%)

Numbers on an income tested benefit

9 months 1062 (16.4%)
2 years  980    (15.5%)

Now, easily the most common form of benefit for people with dependent children is DPB (or now Sole Parent Support.) In 2013, 77 percent of benefit-dependent children relied on the DPB.

77 percent of those on a benefit at 9 months would equate to 818 of the study recipients claiming welfare.

Yet  only 439 claimed to be sole parents. Stunning.

I can also tell you that the data gathered under the Household Labour Force survey is being checked against benefit data and showing some significant anomalies. More on that later.

(The numbers reporting being on a benefit in the study are lower than mine but the drop-outs could account for the difference. Data released under the Official Information Act shows around 22 percent of babies born in either 2010 or 2011  were dependent on a caregiver receiving a welfare benefit by the end of the same year. )

How myths begin

Not on line yet, this appears on page 3 of today's DomPost:

This mixes two sets of statistics with a qualification in tiny print.

The left and right statistics are official data from Police and CYF.

The one in the middle is from a self-selecting poll.

Whether the ethnic proportions relate to the poll or official data isn't made clear.

But it won't be long before someone conflates the two.

(Even the call-out rate  to family violence incidents is wrong based on the number given:
525,600/87,000 = 6.)

Very odd numbers

About the Growing Up In NZ third report, the NZ Herald reports today:

Families Commissioner Belinda Milnes highlighted the study's findings on changes in the number of women without a partner, from 212 in the pregnancy phase, to 439 at the 9-month interview and 319 at 2 years.

There is something very odd about those numbers.

Of 7,000 children followed, at 9 months the percentage was 6.3%.

Whereas there are consistently around 20 percent of babies dependent on welfare by the end of their birth year. Most on a sole parent benefit.

Additionally, Counties Manakau has a higher proportion of benefit uptake than nationally.

I know the study has a reasonably high drop-out rate but the numbers seem, as I said, very odd.

One implication is that a lot of people who have partners are claiming a sole parent benefit. A lot.

The report doesn't appear at the Growing Up In NZ website yet.