Grant Robertson's baseless claims

According to Grant Robertson today:

"New Zealand’s growth per person is significantly lower than countries like the UK and America, showing our economy is driven by population growth rather than productivity, says Labour’s Finance spokesperson Grant Robertson.
“Along with flat per person growth, we have seen a fall in per capita real incomes. This means on average Kiwis are getting poorer. That’s because the key driver is population growth, not new businesses, industries and exports which is what’s needed to boost growth per person."

I queried the OECD database for GDP per capita between 2008 and 2015:

(Left-click to enlarge)

This shows that the growth in the UK was 2.4%; in the US, 4.4% and in NZ, 7.5 %

Here's the data graphed.

No NZ isn't flash overall but it's comparatively  better now than it was when Labour left office.

Robertson even included Japan in his headline yet their growth was lower than the UK or US between 2008 and 2014.

What globalisation looks like

Idly reading an article I was captured by the photo.

What city is that a photo from, I wondered?


I can see 3 or 4 Asian looking people, maybe a Philippine, 2 or 3 Caucasian people, a tall black man, someone who looks slightly eastern European or even middle eastern.

It just intrigued me because I can only partly see the trains logo.

Then I checked the source - the Fraser Institute. So Canada. I googled Canadian Subway logos and found this.




Toronto. Without the source clues I never would have guessed.

Globalisation. It's a wonderful thing.

Crowded subway trains are not.

Distribution of preference for new flag by electorate

Another graph from David. I don't know enough off the top of my head to see the pattern but he says the pro-change vote aligns to National seats, particularly in the South Island. Also the strong no-change vote in Winston country. Obviously the Maori seats are excluded in this picture. They all voted strongly for the status quo (but with low turn-out).

(Left-click to enlarge image)

The higher the voter turn-out, the stronger the preference for change

I was looking at the voter turn-out and noticed that the higher turn-out electorates had a stronger preference for change. David made a graph for me.

The correlation is pretty strong.

(Left-click to enlarge)

A third of people couldn't be bothered

Even when voting is made as easy as a tick and a trip to the postbox, a third of people can't be bothered.

Probably the same people who don't vote in general elections.

People don't have to vote and I am utterly opposed to compulsory voting. For selfish reasons, I don't want someone who doesn't give a fig cancelling out the vote of someone who is engaged and voting with purpose and reason. Me:-)

But for all our vaunting and celebration of democracy, a segment much bigger than it should be, just doesn't give a f--k.

A profoundly stupid idea

Breaking with normal practice, I am blogging on the same subject in successive posts.

Giving every teenager $200 a week when they turn 18 is a profoundly stupid idea.

The most meaningful reform National has made is scrapping the old cash benefit available to youth and young parents. Instead their income from the state is managed and there are tight strings attached. They get a tiny sum of cash and can only increase it by meeting certain challenges. They are heavily mentored, parented in a way they have probably never been before. The idea is to get educational qualifications, work skills and self esteem into them before it is too late.

An unconditional $200 a week would reverse this whole approach. It would be madness.

It would replicate the mindset of generational dependency seen in families that encourage - even expect - their kids to go on the dole or DPB as soon as possible to boost the family's income.

Its a truly frightening prospect.

Labour's $40 billion policy (updated)

The universal basic income.

$40 billion. Yes. That's roughly what it will cost to give every New Zealander aged 18 or over $11,000 annually.

Putting aside questions of affordability, who will vote for this?

Pensioners?

It's well under what Super pays so I don't think so - not en masse anyway.

Beneficiaries? There's mention of supplementary transfers for the most disadvantaged. Vague. I doubt it.

Students? Possibly. But they'll have to be convinced to pay the substantially higher tax such a policy demands. After all they expect to form the most highly-taxed bracket ultimately.

Self-employed and business owners? They won't be keen on higher taxes either. And they aren't silly. They understand the senselessness of pay without productivity.

You would think there was some sort of massive employment crisis yet the unemployment rate is 5.3%.

Not 15.3% or even 10.3%

Time and again there have been points in history when technology has been tipped to make man redundant. Yet jobs keep inventing themselves.

And what would the effect on other services be? Education, Health, Law and Order?

Credit to Bill English for calling it without equivocation:

National's Finance Minister Bill English said a universal basic income "would be very expensive and likely discourage work".

Well, perhaps he could have been a tad more dismissive.

But nobody could put it past Labour, with their mid-2000s record of bribery, to craft this craziness into policy in time for the next election.

Update; I had forgotten Treasury's work in this area. The following is a comment I just posted at Kiwiblog 

At the request of the Welfare Working Group Treasury did some modelling on Guaranteed Minimum Incomes in 2010:

“An income of $300 per week is just over the average (mean) benefit income – therefore a plausible minimum income. However, paying a guaranteed income of $300 per week to every New Zealander aged 16 years and over, excluding superannuitants, comes at considerable fiscal cost. The fiscal cost
of the GMI proposed in the first model (Model 1) is $44.5 billion (including the cost of all social transfers – in particular, New Zealand Superannuation payments, would cost $55.5 billion), requiring
a flat personal tax rate of approximately 45.4%. Note that this tax rate and the others considered below are cost-neutral – not fiscally neutral – as personal taxes currently raise approximately $6
billion in excess of current social assistance costs.
However, a consequence of Model 1 is that the higher personal taxes rates lower post-tax New Zealand Superannuation payments by approximately 44% on average. Therefore, a second model
(Model 2) was developed that removed New Zealand Superannuation and extended the GMI payment to superannuitants. As expected, the fiscal cost of the GMI increased to $52.6 billion ($55.6 billion including all social transfers) requiring a higher flat personal tax rate of 48.6%. However, it did  improve the outcomes for superannuitants, evident by declining poverty levels.”

http://igps.victoria.ac.nz/WelfareWorkingGroup/Downloads/Working%20papers/Treasury-A-Guaranteed-Minimum-Income-for-New-Zealand%20.PDF

Treasury concluded:

“The GMI scheme proposed by the Welfare Working Group is a significant policy change with large
economic consequences. The scheme is fiscally very costly and would not necessarily achieve its  main goal of reducing poverty. The high personal tax rates required to fund the scheme are highly
distortionary to the labour market and to savings and investment decisions, and would be likely to
induce a significant behavioural response. This has damaging effects on the tax system and economic
growth. “

On-line bullying the new fall guy

Social media has become the new fall guy for everything wrong with teenagers. Older generations are always looking for new evils to explain the behaviours and characteristics of teenagers. It's like blaming rock and roll in the fifties, and other nasty American influences on young people.

Here's today's silly headline

Children are more resilient at 10 years old than 15, study finds 

"Research shows children are at their most resilient at age 10... Ten-year-olds are at the top of their game, it's the time in their lives they are most likely to feel happy, confident and ready to take on the world. But by age 15, that resilience has plummeted. So what happens on the way to those mid-teen years?" 

Puberty, you egg.

 At 10 life is uncomplicated.

I can't believe anyone would think that the difference between 10 and 15 is a mystery waiting to be solved. Surely I will read on and get to it.

 The 15-year-olds, usually in year 9, are far less likely to feel encouraged at school, to feel safe at school, to have an adult who listens to them or to feel "very hopeful". And in one clue to why there is such a marked difference between the older and younger children, 15-year-olds were more than twice as likely to have been bullied online in the past year.

Oh, on-line bullying. Of course.

Except, on-line bullying is a symptom, not a cause.

Keep going.

As to why there is such a drop in confidence towards the mid-teen years, Fuller says parents often feel less close to their kids during adolescence and involvement in community activities and groups typically drops off around this age.

Having parents less involved and peers more involved is again an effect of how the individual is adjusting to the changes his or her body and brain is going through.

Having read the whole article, 'puberty' didn't get a look in. Must have gone out of fashion.

Here's some sense from Psychology Today:

 For most young people, puberty catches them at a bad time - during the early adolescent years (around ages 9 - 13) when they are separating from the shelter of childhood and begin striving for social belonging and place among their society of peers. Already feeling adrift from family and at sea in this brave new world of more social independence, puberty demonstrates how they are also out of control of their body. Developmental insecurity and early adolescence go hand in hand.For most young people, puberty is the enemy of self-esteem.

How National is killing Labour

It is still odd to me to read questions and answers that would have sat very comfortably with the last Labour govt. Just substitute Anne Tolley with Steve Maharey and you get my drift:

9. MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri) to the Minister for Social Development: How is low inflation supporting a real increase in superannuation?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): Thanks to the strong financial management of this Government, superannuation has increased by over 34 percent since 2008, which is double the rate of inflation of 15.5 percent in that same time. As this Government has committed to keeping superannuation and veterans pension rates at 66 percent of average income, both rates will increase by 2.73 percent on 1 April. This means that, in addition to lower living costs, our superannuitants are better off, with an extra $15.74 a week for a married couple, $10.23 a week for a single person living alone, and $9.44 for a single person sharing accommodation.
Matt Doocey: In addition to superannuation, what other supports are set to increase on 1 April?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: On 1 April changes introduced as part of the child hardship package will come into effect. That means benefit rates for families with children will rise by $25 a week after tax—the first real increase in 43 years. Given the falling cost of living, this is a significant increase for these families on a benefit. Working for Families rates will also increase by $12.50 for low-income working families, and $24.50 for very low-income working families. The child hardship package reaches over half a million children and will help ease the depth of hardship experienced by families in New Zealand’s lowest-income households.

It's super politics when staying in government is the top priority. But is it fiscally responsible? Is it going to help low income people in the long-term?

Reducing the gap between income from work and income from welfare is very risky. National of the early 1990s did the very opposite to National of 2016. It increased the gap in an explicit effort to get more people working.

Both Labour and National agree that work is the best way out of poverty. I have records of both Helen Clark and John Key making this assertion.

The real problem is, neither have acted like they believe it.

Add too that the John Key-led government  is now fully embracing and boosting what he once called "communism by stealth".

Labour have been utterly out-Laboured.

David Seymour then inserted a supplementary:

David Seymour: How long after the current Prime Minister’s retirement will the Government raise the age of entitlement to New Zealand superannuation?
Mr SPEAKER: No. Oh, I will let the Minister address it. It is a marginal question, I have to accept.
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: That is so far in the future I could not even contemplate it.

So again we have a National government not only bragging about increasing Super payments but promising an increase in recipients by way of the ageing population with no change to qualifying age.

They can hold their National voters so long as the pretence that nobody has to pay for it lasts.

But they can't continue to ramp-up redistribution without increasing revenue or cutting services.

Forget P houses - focus on the P babies

The story being carried by most media this morning relates to P contamination in brand new state houses:

Nearly a quarter of homes built for a brand new state housing development in Christchurch have already been contaminated with P less than a year later.
In most cases, the tenants were single mums with small children, including four toddlers under two.
Social Housing Minister Paula Bennett said she found the figures "shockingly high" and the age at which some children were being exposed to P, or meth, was an "extreme concern".
"Four of them are two years or younger, so wee babies. It's at a time when they are most susceptible to their environment and they need the healthiest environment they can possibly get. There are some quite serious health effects [from P] with skin and respiratory conditions. And equally you have to question if its a healthy and safe environment. "

The public has every right to take an interest in this. They are paying for it. Paying people to use P around babies - and quite possibly before their births (but that's another matter).

In NZ CYF advises it's social workers:

How does methamphetamine use affect the care of a child or young person?

While methamphetamine use isn't an automatic indicator of unsuitability to care for a child or young person, it does affect a parent/caregiver's ability on different levels. Low-intensity users can generally still function but may experience mood swings. When high, users can feel 'good', be alert, and have a high level of physical activity.

Methamphetamine users may experience increasing feelings of depression, lethargy and loss of energy when 'coming down' after use. These symptoms can impair the user's interest in caring for their children, depriving them of basic physical and emotional needs. This period can last for months during which there is a high probability of substance re-use and an increased need for sleep.

There is a P crisis and there is a child abuse crisis. Or am I overstating the situation?

When National came to power they launched an attack on P. Is it working? From the Drug Foundation:

One of the Prime Minister’s major allies (and instruments) in the war on meth is Assistant Commissioner Malcolm Burgess. He was skeptical of the downward trend in the statistics the last time I interviewed him in 2014, and eight months on, in light of these two enormous busts, he shows no sign of changing his mind.
“I think we’re probably getting mixed messages around that,” he says into the phone, the wryness in his delivery as reliable as ever.
“Some of the survey data, and Chris Wilkins’ data out of Massey, suggests that the numbers are stable or potentially diminishing. But balanced against that, we’re seeing pretty significant amounts of drugs either being manufactured or imported.”

I am in the legalise- all- drugs camp because prohibition is a failure on so many counts, here and internationally.

But when users expose their children pre and post birth, it's a matter for the law.

(Someone asked me at the ACT conference what I thought about orphanages. I am inclined to believe that properly run, they would be better places than some of these toxic shit-holes children are being raised in).

Rates rise 14 percent in 3 years

The local authority statistics were released on Friday. The tables make interesting reading.

Rates collected have risen 14 percent when comparing December quarters 2012 to 2015.

We haven't seen our rates go up that much. Some poor sod has seen his go up by more.

But we aren't getting more for our money.  Purchases and operating expenditure is up by a mere 1.7%. The big jumps are in interest and depreciation.

Well, it's local body election year. I'd be looking for candidates promising to keep rates within the margin of inflation at least. Promising some fiscal responsibility.

The $1.155 billion collected in the December quarter 2012 kept to current inflation would have been $1.183 billion in 2015

NOT $1.321

Rates up equal rents up. Again it's the poorest who bear the brunt. But it's big-spending councils who are squealing about living wages and poverty. How long will it take them to figure out what Winston Churchill did.

"Can a people tax themselves into prosperity? Can a man stand in a bucket and lift himself up by the handle?" 1904, Free Trade Hall, Manchester

"Prawn addiction"

I hope Jenesa Jeram, a smart young woman from The NZ Initiative doesn't mind my posting her piece from their newsletter this week. She is a breath of fresh air. And this is very clever at more than one level:


Too many New Zealanders are walking around with a shameful addiction.

Your family members, colleagues or even spouse may be secretly struggling. Deluded by unrealistic expectations of romance and physical attractiveness, they should know it is okay to seek help.

I am, of course, talking about the embarrassing yet unshakeable addiction to TV3’s The Bachelor.

Just kidding. The Bachelor is awful, but apparently socially acceptable. Olympian Nick Willis’ prawn addiction* on the other hand? That’s shocking enough to make mainstream news.

My problem with this coverage is not that it made me feel uncomfortable. It is that the whole story is so utterly boring.

I probably should have stopped reading after such insightful gems like “It [prawn] is not sexy nor appealing.” Why watch it then? I don’t think The Bachelor is sexy or appealing, but I don’t expect the Herald will trip over themselves to publish my opinion. It’s a matter of taste.

More problematic is the modern characterisation of addiction: defined as pleasurable activities that become compulsive and interfere with normal life.

How very perceptive. People like doing things that make them feel good, and may even go out of their way to do them. Things that are pleasurable stimulate the pleasure centres of the brain.

But with such a loose definition, why just stop at prawn?

Last year health experts tried convincing us that cheese is as addictive as crack cocaine. Yet cheese-related crime rates remain low. Even in Remuera, where they supply the good stuff (Roquefort, of course).

Other addictive foods identified by Otago University’s National Addiction Centre include ice cream, muesli bars and mayonnaise.

I think I’d be more scared of meeting a methamphetamine addict than an ice cream addict at the end of a dark alleyway. And I can’t imagine a muesli bar addict experiencing Trainspotting-esque withdrawals.

Maybe Willis sharing how compulsive behaviour affected his marriage could help other couples going through the same.

But labelling everything enjoyable as addictive (thus dangerous) is unhelpful. Let’s not forget that love messes with the brain too, and can make people do crazy things.

Besides, what is problematic in one marriage may be the secret to another marriage’s happy ending.

*I’m not talking about prawns here, but the more common term for “adult entertainment” may not have made it through the work email filters. 

HRC calls for adoption laws to stop discriminating

It amuses me that the Human Rights Commission is calling for  adoption laws to cease to discriminate. Here is a list of how that currently occurs:

• The requirement for sole male applicants to prove “special circumstances” before being permitted to adopt a female child (when there was no such requirement for a single female to prove “special circumstances)
• The ability for the Court to dispense with the consent of birth fathers in some circumstances before a child was adopted (but not birth mothers )
• The inability of civil union partners or same sex de facto couples to adopt.
• The absence of a requirement for unmarried opposite sex or same sex partners of a sole applicant for an adoption order to give consent (even when the couple is living together at the time of the application).
• The ability to dispense with consent of a disabled parent or guardian before his or her child is adopted.
• The prohibition on persons under the age of 25 adopting a child.
• In relation to the Adult Adoption Information Act –the prohibition on a person under the age of 20 obtaining a copy of his or her original birth certificate.

But the greatest discrimination of all is that non-Maori must observe whatever is dictated by adoption laws yet Maori are exempt.

Adding further irony, only days ago parliament was debating the inclusion of whangai adoptions in entitlement to paid parental leave:

Employment law reforms to extend paid parental leave has included the eligibility of family guardians of whangai children.
The term whangai is used to describe the traditional Maori custom of informal adoption, and had never been formally recognised in legislation on parental leave.
The Government's Employment Standards Legislation Bill passed its second reading on Thursday. Among other changes, it looked to extend paid parental leave from 16 to 18 weeks. The changes would need to be in effect from 1 April to fulfil Government announcements.

So whangai should have official legal status if there is some benefit to be attained.

Maori want to think carefully about what might/will follow. Certainly loss of sovereignty over this particular traditional custom.

Quote of the Day

Worrycrats, as I call them, are a special breed of totalitarian bureaucrats who spawn rapidly as society is socialized. These people concern themselves with our health, education, welfare, auto safety, drug intake, diet, and what have you. Worrycrats today outnumber any other professionals in history, so rapidly have they proliferated.

– Leonard E. Read, The Freeman [April 1971]

And that was in 1971!

(Hat tip FFF)

Update: And right on cue here comes another addition

"WHALE OIL: CHARTER SCHOOL’S RIGHT OF REPLY"

Whale Oil has carried a response from one of the Charter Schools. Excellent work SB.

The writer included the DomPost among the "faceless" critics. This is just an excerpt from his full response.

Here is the thing though. Every person who is writing this nonsense in their distant and/or faceless mode ignores the children and their extended families. They have come to SAMS to receive an outstanding academic education and a high level of care. We work 24/7 to the best of our ability to provide that. They have exercised a choice to come and get an education that they do not believe is being offered elsewhere and they want to break the cycles the see parts of their communities.
Mr Hipkins has been asked to visit many times. He hasn’t had time during the last two years and three months. He could even come and explain to our families why he intends to shut down their school. To Mr Hipkins and the faceless commentators here is a photo of our kids – each of them represent families and communities. I have only shown you their backs to be consistent with your approach. When any of you can make some time to build some integrity into your thoughts and writing – come and meet them – I think you will like them and love hearing about their experiences and ambitions.
– Academic Advisor Alwyn Poole

How to stop children being added to existing benefits?

Below are a couple of slides from my presentation to the recent ACT conference. I talked about the successful (thus far) reforms and the failures. These graphs show a particular policy failure.

National, to their credit (and unlike Labour)  got to grips with welfare numbers and what drives them quite quickly. They acknowledged that adding subsequent children to an existing benefit was a big problem. A cabinet paper explored the situation and recommended a policy solution. This is the official advice now provided by Work and Income:

I compared data from 2006 to 2014 because the number of births in those two years was almost the same. As you can see, even more children were added after the reform. And last year, although fewer children were added, so too was the total number of births.

Work testing is ineffective in areas where there are no jobs. There are towns in NZ that are dying. They are not great places to raise children. But they are homes to beneficiaries - especially inter-generational - only because they provide more affordable living.

And taking a more cynical view, children continue to provide an opportunity to increase income by an additional $3,328 annually (subsequent child under 13 qualifies caregiver for $64 weekly) - not to mention the April benefit increase that is coming.

Meal ticket children must have the worst prospects of all NZ children.

Government should stop being held hostage by their parents, and by bureaucrats and politicians who believe that "suffer the little children to come unto me" means dishing out more cash for kids.

These parents should be supported via assistance-in-kind only. Ensure their children have adequate housing, food and power (more than what some have now) and that's it. It's do-able. It's called 'income management' and the technologies already exist and are applied to those on Youth and Young Parent Payments.

I don't think many people on welfare (many people full-stop) would relish the prospect of losing their cash income. But a radical disincentive to poorly-motivated procreation is overdue.

"VOTE FOR CHANGE" missed the bus

This morning I found a pamphlet sitting on the dining room table. It must have come up with other junk mail yesterday.

How badly organised was that bit of politicking?

All our ballot papers have been returned already.

Sir Bob was serious

Eric Crampton recounts a response from Sir Bob regarding Eric's assessment of the economic impact of the proposed Morgan statue:

Dear Dr Crampton,

Your report on the long overdue Morgan statue has been shown to me.  Plainly there has been a misunderstanding.  It most certainly was not a “tongue in cheek” proposal.  The widespread affection and admiration for Mr Morgan demands nothing less.

For example, indicative of the emotion stirred by this announcement, the chief Ombudsman Mr Peter Boshier, has generously offered himself as a ceremonial human sacrifice when the foundation stone is laid.  He won’t take no for an answer.

As for the difficulties you describe there’s a simple solution, namely ask Mr Morgan.  I gather that following imminent publication of his next two books (“Why Einstein’s Theory of Relativity Is Wrong” and “The Cure for Cancer”) written simultaneously, a pen in each hand, Mr Morgan will then be available to address your concerns.

I hope this is helpful.

Yours sincerely,
Sir Robert Jones

The real cost of gangs

Earlier this week MSD released a report that found gang members had cost Work and Income, and Child Youth and Family $714 million in the 22 years between 1993 and 2014. I commented earlier that the annual cost of each gang member works out to $8,948 annually (3,627) - less than a superannuitant.

The remark was flippant. But I did mentally muse that raising the super qualifying age to 67 (in line with other countries we like to compare ourselves to) would save far more than $714 million over 22 years.

On a serious note - and the problem of gangs and their children is a very serious issue - the all-up cost to the tax payer is much higher than $32 million annually.

A few other major costs can be roughly (but totally unscientifically) calculated.

Not included in the MSD bill is the social security benefits of the mothers of gang member's children. Their welfare receipt will be greater than the father's. How much greater is unknown. But,

"7,075 dependent children were included in benefits with gang members for an average of 2.8 years."

Not very long because the children would generally be included in the benefits of their mothers.

I reckon doubling the cost would be conservative. There's another $64 million.

Then there's the cost to Corrections. According to SuperU (ex Families Commission):

"As of April 2013, gang members and affiliates comprised over 30 percent of inmates, with over 10 percent of the prison population belonging to the Mongrel Mob."

Thirty percent of prisoners  equates to around 2,400 @ $100,000 each which represents a yearly bill of $240 million.

Next is the cost to the Justice system. It costs $450 million to run the Ministry of Justice. May as well carve off 10% of that for gangs. A further $45 million.

And the police of course. Their annual budget is $1.4 billion. Let's be conservative again  and say 10% is spent on dealing with gangs so $140 million annually.

I guess ACC would have some involvement but wouldn't like to hazard a guess at a number.

So what have we got so far:

MSD  $96m
Corrections $240m
Justice $45m
Police $140m

Total $521 million annually.

Or $143,645 for each gang member on average.

Credible? Maybe I've over-stated costs - maybe not. What I haven't done is include the Health system costs from violence and ill-health; nor Customs involvement nor Housing NZ.

While the MSD numbers were somewhat underwhelming, and expressed as a 22 year sum, not very helpful, this further exercise has rammed it home to me that breaking the cycle of inter-generational gang membership and activity would have enormous benefits for everybody.

Flag Poll

Radio NZ is running a "highly unscientific" poll.

At 7:50am

Presidential candidate's plans for reducing poverty

I found this a fascinating read. Oh how I wish that we had such variation and delineation of ideas in this country.

Ron Haskins lays out the difference between 1/ Democrat and Republican voter attitudes to poverty and 2/ the various anti-poverty/ poverty (some will make poverty worse) policies espoused by individual candidates.

My pick is Cruz' flat tax though his social conservatism would preclude me voting for him.

Haskins concludes:

 The main difference: The Republicans would transfer authority over how the money is spent to parents and to states and localities. If the specific proposals being offered by Bush, Kasich, and Rubio on programs for the poor were adopted, it would represent a historic shift in responsibility and control from the federal government to the states and to parents. By contrast, Clinton and Sanders would greatly increase the amount of money controlled by the federal government, an increase mainly secured through tax increases on the rich.

Gang women no tender lillies either

MSD are going to conduct trials designed to intervene in gang life and improve their children's outcomes. It's got to be better than trying to stamp gangs out - colossal failure.

In among the copious amount of statistics about gangs, their welfare receipt, and contact with CYF released today, this caught my eye:

The alleged perpetrator of abuse or neglect of gang member’s children was more often recorded as the child’s mother than the gang member father. 

Well, well.  Though the perpetrator status is  'alleged' and not 'substantiated' . Maybe she is fitted up or takes the fall. Or maybe she just is the abuser.

This data also brought a wry smile to my face:

Ninety-two per cent (3,627) of the total 3,960 known gang members received main benefits from MSD at some stage between 1 January 1993 and 31 December 2014.

The 3,627 gang members spent on average 8.9 years on a main benefit (not necessarily continuously). Over half the time was receiving job seeker-related benefits and nearly a quarter of the time was receiving health or disability-related benefits

Eighteen per cent of all gang members had received a main benefit for a total of over 15 years, whereas 13 per cent received main benefits for two years or less, and eight per cent had not received main benefits at all.

Is there any other group in society that can boast this degree of welfare dependence? None I can think of. Even the blind have better rates of employment and self sufficiently (no disrespect intended).

And that's just the benefit the gang member receives directly. What about the mother of his children?

And those stupid lefties carry on with the assertion that welfare reduces crime ergo welfare reform will increase it.

Welfare is staple diet for gangs but certainly only a small part of their real incomes.

Update: Prompted by Eric Crampton's post I did some quick calculations and left the following comment:

The total cost amassed to MSD (includes CYF) was $714 million over 22 years by 3,960 gang members.

$8,195 annually. Cheaper than a superannuitant.

Minimum wage earners wealthier than their employers?

The following graph shows that a substantial portion of minimum wage workers live in relatively wealthy households, possibly wealthier households than their employers. Still the state demands employers pay more.

Source

ACT Conference

I was at the ACT conference yesterday to speak about welfare, but also heard  most of the other addresses. Some  highlights:

1/When Ruth Money - an independent advocate for victims, particularly of sexual assault - took questions, two were from young members (male and female)  who wanted to know whether she had concerns about 'victims' who were those falsely accused of crimes but acquitted. Should there be compensation for instance? This warmed my heart. It's very encouraging to hear the evidence of young minds appreciating the importance of justice at a more nuanced level, especially in ACT. It would be very bad form for a fellow speaker to ask a question when the time was limited but the one in my mind was similar. Does she have any concerns about the increasing numbers of people imprisoned without trial?

2/ Hearing Dame Lesley Max questioning  bureaucrats  prioritizing the non-stigmatization of children over the identification of the most at-risk groups. From memory she called it immoral

3/ Retirement funding specialist Michael Littlewood saying whatever policy decisions we make today will not effect what taxpayers choose to pay to support retired people at any time in the future. In 2066, or 2046 or 2086. Think about it.

4/ Seeing a couple of ex Libertarian buddies in attendance, and Don Brash still taking an interest. Just sorry I  couldn't find the time to say hello to many familiar faces.

5/ Not seeing John Banks there (nothing personal. I just never thought he promoted the ACT values I identify with).

6/ David Seymour's refreshing  resemblance to a real person and not a real politician. There was widespread popularity for his decision not to accept a ministerial role.

Whatever the media reports it was a very positive, good-humoured and forward-looking conference.

"The Closing of the Liberal Mind"

Kim Holmes writes in advance of his forthcoming book, "The Closing of the Liberal Mind":


Why have liberals become so intolerant? They think nothing of denying someone as prominent as former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice from speaking on a college campus. They embrace activists who shut down speakers. They publicly shame people for the slightest deviation from liberal orthodoxy.

Their mindset is the very definition of closed-mindedness.

For them everything from science to the law is “settled” once they get into power. Progress is a one-way street. Their mindset is the very definition of closed-mindedness.

The easy answer would be “they are all bad people.” But frankly that’s a cop-out. Not all liberals are bad people, any more than all conservatives are angels. No doubt among the fevered minions of liberal activists there are people with, shall we say, psychological issues, but that doesn’t explain why so many otherwise reasonable people are so beholden to liberalism as an ideology.

The short answer is that it pays. A lot of people in and out of government benefit. Liberalism also makes people feel good. Whether you are politician dispensing government benefits or the citizen receiving them, liberalism hides the self-interest and sometimes even greed that motivate people.

But the devolution of liberalism into something now openly illiberal has causes far more complex than these familiar explanations provide.

For one thing, liberalism is no longer mainly about ideas. It is about power—as in who has it and who doesn’t. Believing they already know the answers to all questions, liberals view politics and governing as mopping up operations.

More

"Poor decisions" lead to poor lives

The NZ Initiative released a report into poverty this week. Co-author, Jenesa Jeram has a piece in this morning's DomPost explaining the various measures used to gauge poverty and how they can show very different things. She also points out that various parties are motivated to cherry pick to suit their purposes. That's fine but there needs to be transparency around exactly what the numbers they use mean.

The report is a good summary and a great reference source. Unfortunately the overriding message  taken from the report (in part because the NZ Initiative chose to highlight it) was that high housing costs are making some people poor. That is undeniably true. It is a fact. But armed with the facts people continue to expose themselves and their children to that reality.

Take a step back. Those now three famous ways to steer clear of poverty are; finish your education, have your children after you marry, and stay married. Life's expenses are manageable if people make sensible choices, and most do.

The report does allude to this in the executive summary:

Benefit levels and conditions presumably reflect public opinion about the causes of hardship. The more than four-fold increase since 1970 in the proportion of the working age population on a benefit other than the unemployment benefit could be influencing public perceptions. One survey of public perceptions suggests that many might not be accepting the most exaggerated claims of the extent of child poverty and consider poor decisions to be a material reason why some people of working age are experiencing hardship. 

Poor decisions lead to poor lives. I have made some shockers in my own but I did learn from them.

This isn't about being judgmental or on a moral high horse. People need to think ahead, take seriously the consequences of the choices they make especially about forming relationships and having children. Unfortunately welfare has relieved them of the worst outcomes and diminished that ability.

The rush to be state house kids

An interesting piece in today's NZ Herald highlights excerpts from speeches of various MPs deliberately personalising the "kiwi dream" by relating their own childhood experiences. It makes the MPs seem a little silly and their anecdotes contrived when thrown together but it could be coincidence. Whatever. The mad rush to be a state house kid (or grow up next to one) began with the Prime Minister.

The nostalgia for the sixties should be tempered though.

I was flipping through a book at Lower Hutt library yesterday and stopped on a page describing 1961. TV was just being introduced. A handful of restaurants were being granted licences to serve alcohol (their names were recognisable to me illustrating how few there were). The only businesses open at the weekend were dairies. Every man trundled home to his suburban housewife and kids to embark on a weekend of gardening and home maintenance  maybe with a trip to the park or some sports game or beach. Lives were quite predictable and uniform.

I also picked up Gordon McLauchlan's The Passionless People Revisited and opened it somewhere at the back. He was explaining why New Zealand wives last so long as sexual partners. Apparently because they have so few moving parts. I thought that was jolly funny and decided to take the book out. But on getting it home I was disappointed to find it opens with a deeply grudging literary assassination of John Key and a litany of every thing wrong with New Zealand. Another soul pining for regulation and state control.What a drudge. That's going back unread.

It is true we have left behind some good values, or moved away from them increasingly. But it is also true much that was undesirable has been consigned to the past - thankfully. If the sixties were put up for auction I doubt there'd be a bidder in the room.

The left in charge...in Wgtn anyway

Local body politics in Wellington is dominated by left activists including churches, unions, political party members and lots of troughers.

Living Wage Wellington is calling for wider implementation because,

 "Becoming a Living Wage council and paying the Living Wage to all council staff — directly employed and those employed via contractors and in CCOs — was overwhelmingly supported in public consultation for the 2014/15 Annual Plan and the 2015/25 Long Term Plan. The Council has voted for this. The people of Wellington have backed it. Now it’s time to make the commitment to the Living Wage a reality.”

So I had a quick scroll through submissions (737 pages).

The following form-submission appears many, many times. Obviously cut and paste from a source and simply e-mailed in. Now there is nothing to stop other non-Left groups encouraging people to do the same, but it tends not to happen.

Submissions

Dear Annual Plan
I write as a citizen and ratepayer of Wellington to  call on Wellington City Council, through
your 2014/2015 Annual Plan, to:
 Fully implement your decision to become a Living Wage employer and ensure all
Council workers, including directly employed and those working through CCOs and
contractors, are paid a living wage
 Make this a priority in order to address inequality in our city and recognising that the
benefits of a living wage far out-weigh the costs
 Meet the cost through a range of measures, including from the Council’s current
wage budget and through negotiation with relevant contractors. Any cost to
ratepayers will be staged as contracts come up for renegotiation.

I was astonished at the huge number of submissions from cyclists wanting better cycle ways, and other multiple submissions were from anti-fluoridation advocates.

One gets the strong impression that the left are highly organised in Wellington and accordingly, have a great deal of pull with the council.

As far as I am aware the council did not poll on the living wage issue so we cannot know that "the people of Wellington have backed it".

The only "known" is overwhelming support from the very sources you would expect.

Has the 'child poverty' barrow stopped working for the Greens?

Shedding a third of their vote (12% down to 8% in the latest Colmar Brunton poll) is either about Green MPs or their ideas. Some people think it's a strategic decision by voters to ensure a strong Labour. I'm not buying that. A vote for the Greens is a vote for a Labour-led government after all.

Child poverty is an issue the Greens own. They blatantly campaign in primary schools enticing young minds into their own victimhood mentality. They exploit children on campaign posters in the most thinly-veiled attempt to buy votes.

Never forget that the Greens are Marxist. Child poverty has been an effective way to win the public over to greater wealth redistribution compelled by government.

It doesn't matter to Metiria Turei that redistribution has so far not only failed to improve the lot of children - it's worsened their outcomes.

Doesn't matter that making more people reliant on welfare will make more people more miserable.

Instead of re-evaluating their ideas based on evidence, they forge on, most recently joining and heavily promoting a social media campaign built around the slogan "Child poverty - it's not a choice."

I believe  this slogan was arrived at exactly because of the realization that voters aren't disassociating children from their parents. Voters think that child outcomes are heavily influenced by parental decisions. Voters think that parental choices have a good deal of bearing on whether a child will experience hardship.

Next, showing exactly how out of touch they are, the Greens nominated Sue Bradford for Children's Commissioner. Perhaps they think a blast from the past (a more glorious Green past) would boost their ratings. Fail.

The next poll may very well prove me wrong but my money is on  Metiria Turei and child poverty - the MP and the idea - being a loser for the party.

That damned flag

In today's HOS this photo appears with the by-line: It’s not over yet, but it looks like the old flag, left, will win out over the new in the upcoming referendum. 

A friend gave me a book yesterday called Who moved my cheese? which is a little parable about accepting change. After I finished it I thought, I still don't like that damn flag.

I have listened to all the sensible arguments for change yet when I look at the photo above I feel something for the flag on the left that I don't for the flag on the right. So maybe I am letting emotion override logic? How can I have feelings for a set of colours and lines?

I suppose as an artist (I allowed myself to think in terms of being an artist when I started to sell paintings and receive commissions and had to describe how I earned income) I live and breathe colours and lines. And when it comes to what I like - which heavily influences what I produce - it's about beauty, harmony and depth. I hate art that merely serves a purpose or expresses some deep-seated anxiety or is invented only to shock.

But it is virtually impossible to describe why certain colours and lines evoke a good emotional response. And I have never wanted to analyse it.

The current flag is far more aesthetically pleasing to me than the alternative.

And that's why I can't change my mind.

Kim Workman on the 'low' murder rate

Kim Workman kindly sent me a graph which depicts murder rates in New Zealand extending back even further than mine. I've included his commentary below it.

Hi Lindsay



You might like to post the attached graph on your blog – it shows the murder rate from 1879 through to 2010 – it was prepared by the Ministry of Justice. 



What it shows is that there was a very high rate from 1880 to 1890 – New Zealand was a very ‘atomised’ society, high numbers of single men, high levels of vagrancy, itinerant workers significant drinking culture.  A significant downward trend to around 1905, and then it was all over the place until 1950 when there was a significant rise until 1990, when it started to decline, and has been declining ever since. Well over half the murders today are within the family, or people that are in a relationship.  About 1 to 1.5 murders a year are random killings of people who are unknown to the murderer. 



There is no evidence that I know of, which shows that ethnicity is a factor – but a lot of evidence which points to general social dysfunction.   The latest NZ Crime and Safety Survey, (which is the only statistical survey that’s reliable , given the propensity of government agencies to play around with stats) shows that  3 percent of the population experienced more than half of all crime in 2013, - a greater concentration of crime than in 2008 when six percent of the population experienced 52 percent of all crime.  In other words there is a small group of chronic victims, living in marginalised communities.   And the distribution of victimisation is becoming more unequal over time. 

Justice sector: "The murder rate is low"

You will be pleased to know that the murder rate is low:

The natural reaction of older folk like me is, Compared To What?

Not 50 years ago.

Data source

(The population grew by 126% over the same period. How to put in a secondary axis has temporarily evaded me.)

Pacific Islands Family Study: Fathers also victims of partner violence

There are a number of longitudinal studies underway in NZ.

The well-known Christchurch Health and Development Study (birth cohort 1977); the Dunedin Multi-disciplinary Study (birth cohort 1973); and Growing Up in New Zealand Study (birth cohort 2009-10) are those that jump to mind.

But today I learned of the Pacific Island Family Study (birth cohort 2000) reported here.

Readers might be interested in some of the findings to date.

Participants: the PIF Study recruited 1,376 mothers of a cohort of 1,398 Pacific infants (22 pairs of twins) born at Middlemore Hospital (a large tertiary hospital) in South Auckland between 15 March and 19 December 2000. An infant was deemed eligible for the study if at least one of their parents identified themselves as being of a Pacific ethnicity and was a permanent resident of New Zealand

Data collection: the PIF Study primarily collects self-reported data through structured interviews with mothers and fathers in their homes and with children in their schools. Children and their families have been visited when the children were aged six weeks, and 1, 2, 4, 6, 9 and 11 years

This one intrigues me  because fathers were less likely to smoke over time but mothers more.

This caught my eye because it shows (as often argued on this blog) that men are also victims of partner violence. At Year 11 of the survey 10% of fathers and 16% of mothers reported being victims of minor physical partner violence; 4% of fathers and 8% of mothers reported being victims of severe partner violence.

Noteworthy is this commentary:

"The PIF findings are consistent with those reported in other New Zealand groups (Magdol et al, 1977), and revealed that mothers were just as likely as fathers to perpetrate and be victims of severe IPV."

Overcrowding is not unusual in PI households but this puts some dimensions on the extent. This prompted me to speculate about the apparent poverty of PI children using the official child poverty measurements which are based on equivalised household incomes. Equivalising means adjusting for numbers of household members. So the more members, the lower the equivalised income will be.

While it is quite true that more members will require more financial resources I am nevertheless reminded that child poverty measurement is based on a constructed household income - not actual household income.

Here's a final observation I also found interesting:

The high percentage of traditional gift giving among Pacific families, and the level of financial stress associated with such practices, may play a role in reducing the financial security for some of these Pacific families. There is growing evidence that younger, New Zealand-born, Pacific people are becoming less committed to traditional gift giving to churches and other cultural obligations. 

That may be a good or bad thing depending on which side of the transfer one stands.

PM says something useful

In Parliament last week, after a great deal of belly-aching and nagging by Metiria Turei about taxing people more, the Prime Minister responded:

"...our whole system relies on people getting out of bed in the morning, working hard, and paying taxes. In my experience, there are literally millions of New Zealanders who get up every morning, who do not want the Government to give them a handout, and certainly just want to have a fair system in which to operate."

Then, with some prompting from David Seymour

"As we know, when we have a broad-based, low rate that is fairly applied, actually what you see is that New Zealanders get on and they pay their tax bills. They do not spend time trying to avoid taxes. What we know, actually, with the Green Party and, to be frank, with the Labour Party, is that all they know how to do is spend other people’s money, when the rest of the country is actually focused on how to make money."

Just thought I'd put that up this morning because we don't hear the PM nailing his colours to the mast (other than the flag mast) often enough.

Many of us don't see  a great deal of difference between National and Labour when it comes to spending. But it is also inescapable that to stay in power National has to play a pragmatic game balancing taxing and spending for the greatest political gain. It must frustrate the PM and a number of MPs equally. But in a democracy, is there a choice other than slowly,slowly, catch a monkey?

Some religion on Sunday

My sentiments exactly, but expressed by Rodney Hide in today's Herald on Sunday. On the govt's attempt to tax smokers out of existence

"Taylor's proposal would see a packet of cigarettes priced at a $100 by 2025.
I suspect that would achieve the Government's target. New Zealand would be smoke free. Taylor would not be seeing any smokers. The job would be done.
That would be because we smokers would be holed-up, out of sight, hidden in the hills, puffing furiously on our home-grown weed - bandits and outlaws, but free.
I hope I would be with them. I would prefer the fun and the freedom compared to the prissy lot we have become."

Risk-free living is a relatively new most unwelcome religion.

After the tragic recent spate of drownings we are being told

"Never swim alone and only ever swim at patrolled beaches."

How realistic or desirable is that?

Alcohol causes cancer. Take the law into your own hands and refuse to serve a pregnant women.

Meat causes cancer. Don't barbecue.

Speed kills.  Fine the bejesus out of minor offenders. And again wrest keys of suspect drivers if you like.

Gambling is an insidious addiction further encouraged by alcohol sponsorship. Ban it like we banned tobacco sponsorship.

And while you are at it ban it from all sports. Young minds are too impressionable.

Facebook is a fiendish scourge on young minds too. It drives people to suicide.

Quad bikes. More dangerous than a loaded gun. Guns!! A horrible symbol of animal exploitation and male dominance. Ban them.

I could go on and on. But in the interests of my own safety and sanity ...well it's just too risky or  I'll end up in Them Thar Hills too, swinging off the branches of some nasty non-native tree. Or holed up in my non-consented tree house.

"...their problems are therefore those of the Maori people..."

It has been clear for a long time that a disproportionate number of children who are reported to CYF, have a substantiated finding of abuse or neglect against their parent or caregiver, or end up in state care are Maori. But I haven't seen the statistics put in these terms before (or if I have I've forgotten):

 "...35 per cent of all Maori children are notified to CYF before age 5, compared with 11 per cent of non-Maori children."

This is from the 'interim' report by the group led by Paula Rebstock tasked with examining CYF.

Statistics relating to ethnicity are increasingly redundant as more and more New Zealand-born children report (or their parents report) more than 1, 2, or even 3 ethnicities.

The above finding is particularly intriguing because many Maori children who  also have Pacific Island, NZ European, Asian, etc parentage will be counted as Maori because of the hierarchical system government uses.


From a Families Commission report 2004:


"...if a person reports more than one ethnic identity they will be counted only once, in the following priority order: Māori, Pacific peoples, Asian, other, European." 

(Yes, some reporting  systems take account of multiple ethnicities leading to annoying and meaningless totals for the purposes of research, and  reliance on self-identification produces Maori as the overriding ethnicity anyway.) 

I came across a passage (not on-line) the other day that crystallizes the problem.

The children of a mixed marriage are also usually very readily accepted by their grandparents, both Maori and Pakeha. In the wider community such children are nearly always looked on as Maori if their ancestry is at all obvious (the term ‘half-caste’ seems to be used less now than formerly), and their problems are therefore those of the Maori people… Harre 1968

I have been reading up on mixed marriages/partnerships and the rate of partnering between Maori and non-Maori is very high especially when compared to other races in other countries.

Personally I think it's a good thing but when it comes to problems with offspring it has to be said the contributing ethnicity who is not Maori gets of scot free when it comes to the reporting of ethnic contribution.

Anti-smacking law is bad law

The anti-smacking law has failed to reduce the abuse and neglect of children. It was never going to make a difference because lawless people don't give a damn. In fact normally law-abiding people don't give a fig for it either. On a recent plane trip, the row in front of me contained a mother and two youngsters one of whom was being stroppy. I didn't see what the child did (to her sibling I think) but what I did hear was the mother, having handled the situation saying to the daughter, "I'm sorry if I tapped you too hard but...." She followed the law by changing the language.

Many people think we should just get over it and get on with it. But this report highlights that the anti-smacking law, which is being policed, may actually be making the situation worse.

It's bad law. I've listened to people speak who have been criminalised by it and their experiences have been harrowing.

Read the  report summary here.

US politics - contrasting views

I noticed two editorials that related this morning. First the DomPost lamenting the bizarrenness of US politics but citing Republican candidates only. Not a  Democrat in sight. (Oh, and typically the writer manages to have a crack at ACT in the process).

 American politics may seem grotesque to New Zealanders. We have reckless demagogue politicians; but we don't have anyone as bizarrely irrational as Donald Trump.
We have narrow and fanatical politicians, but no-one as bigoted or as nasty as Ted Cruz. We have ignorant and foolish politicians, but none as breathtakingly weird as Ben Carson. 

Then a piece by a very angry American taking extreme umbrage at front-running Democrat candidate Hillary Clinton.

Hillary Rodham Clinton is not qualified to be president of the United States of America, because she doesn’t know what the United States of America are. Terry Shumaker, former U.S. ambassador to Trinidad (I wonder what that gig cost him) and current abject minion in the service of Mrs. Clinton, quotes Herself telling an audience in New Hampshire: “Service is the rent we pay for living in this great country.” There is a very old English word for people who are required to perform service as a rent for their existence, and that word is serf. Serfdom is a form of bondage.

Agree or not, at least the second writer has zest for his topic. And note he identifies himself thereby owning his thoughts unlike the DomPost editorialist.

I wonder if the US political process is considered "grotesque" simply because too many commentators in this country have become overwhelmed by political correctness allowing it too censor and comfortably numb their intellects?

Quite different pictures

The NZ Hearld has a headline, New Zealand now much safer for children as injury cases plunge.

There must have been data availability restraints for the black and blue lines on the graph below because the writer could have taken the red line to 2012 showing even greater overall improvement.

Below the NZ Herald graph is the result of querying the NZ Injury Query System. The death rate per 100,000 children from 'unintentional injury' dropped to 6.5 by 2012. I went on to query fatalities from 'all intents'  and have graphed the difference. That produces a slightly different picture.



 

Seymour vs Ardern is going to be entertaining

At the supermarket checkout this afternoon I spotted the header on the Sunday Star Times heralding two new columnists - David Seymour and Jacinda Ardern. Very nice. I expect they'll be given (or agree together) a subject each week.

Then I got an e-mail alert that Ardern had tweeted the link so took a look.

Interesting. It appears David has taken  on the subject and Jacinda has responded. I assume next week it'll reverse.

This format will make for much more entertainment.

Here's the first installment .



OPINION: Like almost all Kiwis I have always avoided Waitangi on the big day. Images of protesters, crying prime ministers, and actual mud-slinging are enough to put most people off.  If you've ever been in Sydney for Australia Day, you'll know how much better our national day could be.

But Parliament obliges me to be here, so I'm writing this from an old Paihia motel (my parliamentary colleagues had booked out the Waitangi Copthorne, but that's another story).

The trouble this time is the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, or TPPA. People oppose it for the same reason people used to have mullets – fashion, not logic. Being of Ngāpuhi descent myself, it's been a real struggle to understand why local Maori are protesting a trade agreement. 

If an iwi is going to host representatives of the Crown to symbolise this 176-year-old relationship, why not rotate the host iwi and location?

The fact is, many colonial-era Maori were very entrepreneurial, and took ready advantage of the more secure property rights provided by the Treaty – more secure than being invaded by nearby tribes as happened through the musket war period around 1820 to 1840. One of the many important rights the Treaty gave was access to sea lanes protected by the most powerful navy on the planet.

I've been reading Hazel Petrie's Chiefs of Industry. It tells the story of colonial-era Maori such as Te Hemara Tauhia. In the 1850s he built a sawmill in the north and charged Pakeha to mill their timber.

Then he realised they were making money off the shipping so he commissioned a 20-tonne ship to move it, too. That guy would have favoured signing the TPPA.

He was not unusual. As another author summed up, colonial Maori "were able to leverage European technologies to build remarkable trading relationships around the world as well as forcing the world's most powerful empire into a stalemate."

Back up here at Waitangi Day 2016 the usual suspects (about 0.01 per cent of the population) have made the elected prime minister of New Zealand stay away and denied all of us a national day we can enjoy because they don't like the TPPA. It got me thinking.

The Treaty was not signed just at Waitangi. It went on tour and was signed by Chiefs all over the country.  Waitangi is just the place it was signed first.

It's never been clear why one iwi gets to monopolise the celebrations, but this year's circus has made it especially unclear. The disruptors don't know much about trade or even their own history of trade.

Even the device that one protester threw at Steven Joyce probably entered the country under the China FTA.

If an iwi is going to host representatives of the Crown to symbolise this 176-year-old relationship, why not rotate the host iwi and location? It could be in a different place each year, following the actual path that the Treaty took during 1840.

Ngāpuhi have denied the whole country a proud national day just one time too many. It is time to take this show on the road. There were 20-odd signing locations so it'll come back around in 2036. Estimates are that the TPPA will be adding an extra $3 billion to our economy every year by then.

And a bit of competition among locations might also help to lift standards of behaviour, bringing some dignity and joy back to this historic occasion.

Jacinda Ardern responds

Australia Day? Are you kidding? That is the last place we should be looking for a model of race relations, let alone a national day of celebration – unless you're into drunken, casual racism. 

I am sorry you felt a sense of duty rather than any desire to be at Waitangi, David. Or that your auto lodge didn't meet your expectations.

But your interpretation of what the pilgrimage to this place symbolises is just plain wrong. It's not about the dominance of any one iwi as you claim, it's about recognising the place where the treaty - and the relationship between Maori and the crown, all began, and what that relationship means now.  
And that's what makes your argument so ironic. You believe that moving around the country every year, presumably having the talks and debate we have at Waitangi, would be a better way to mark our national day. And yet this is the very thing that caused the difficulties this year - the fact the government didn't talk, didn't debate, an agreement that they signed on behalf of New Zealand, and Maori - the TPPA. 

I hand on heart believe in free trade, and so does my party. But we also know that this agreement was about more than trade, and it was these elements of the agreement that the government should have discussed openly- they didn't. 

There is no denying that there have been ups and downs over the years at Waitangi, but it remains a place for open debate and dialogue. That's worth celebrating.

Gang children - growing the problem

"The proportion of gang members and affiliates in New Zealand’s prison population has grown. The 2003 Department of Corrections census of prison inmates showed that gang members and affiliates accounted for 11.5 percent of the sentenced inmates. Over two thirds of those inmates belonged to either the Mongrel Mob or Black Power gangs. As of April 2013, gang members and affiliates comprised over 30 percent of inmates, with over 10 percent of the prison population belonging to the Mongrel Mob. Forty-six percent of prisoners under the age of 19 have gang affiliations."

"The literature suggests that single-faceted approaches are unlikely to be effective in dealing with gang issues. Suppression in particular has been criticised as largely ineffective in reducing involvement in gangs and offending.

In 2008, the Ministry of Social Development noted that:

A sole suppression strategy is costly…and gains are short term. Suppression has proven the least successful of all interventions and can have a negative impact as members convert stigmatisation into a symbol of status. Further … a reliance on the Police as public commentators on gang issues can be problematic, as many have narrow views of gangs and criminality, which may then be perpetuated
through the media leading to simplified notions about how best to respond.

Black Power member Denis O’Reilly similarly notes: “You have got to have an integrated response. But if the only weapon you have is a hammer then everything looks like a nail”.
Moreover, suppressing and imprisoning gang members can exacerbate the problem by providing gangs the opportunity to recruit new members in prisons, dominate prison culture and run criminal activities within prisons such as contraband trading. Prisons are a major recruiting ground for the largest ethnic gang in New Zealand – the Mongrel Mob – and a Mob chapter was formed in Auckland Maximum Security Prison in the late 1970s."

Source