End of Life book cover example of the 'misinformation and emotion' it seeks to counter

A new book which discusses the End of Life Choice bill has been published. From the author:

"I did some research and the further I got into the issue the more I realised how intricate it is and how many levels there are to it. I came away with questions ... and there's so much misinformation and so much emotion out there, I think it's hard to find good information to make sure you can make a good choice - it's really to equip people to make good choices."

And there's a shining example of "misinformation and so much emotion" right there in the cover image, a seemingly healthy young women standing on a cliff-side contemplating jumping:

 Just google 'terminally ill cancer patient' to find hundreds of highly suitable, relevant images.

Greens: Increasing welfare with a wealth tax

The Green Party has released its welfare policy which substantially raises benefits, WFF, Best Start, and Student Allowances by introducing a 'wealth' tax set at 1% on net wealth over $1,000,000 and 2% at wealth over $2,000,000.

Earners will also pay more income tax at higher levels.

This is to fund "no stand down, no deduction of child support and no sanctions." The usual Green's no-holds-barred welfare policy. Metiria Turei will be cheering.

If you have a rental property on top of your freehold $1,000,000 home you are going to be taxed 1% on the value of that. So that'll take your yield down from maybe 4% to 3% - on top of all the extra costs imposed under the present government. If you've got a boat or a bach you'll be taxed on that.

Other assets included would be shares, bonds, business assets, and valuable artwork.

Elderly with high wealth but low income can defer the payment until death (like death duties).

They reckon the wealth tax will only affect the "top 6% of wealthiest New Zealanders."

They don't reference that figure and it sounds too low to me.

My numbers?

One out of ten for aspiration.

Student demographics

Just a post of general interest.

I was unaware of the large discrepancy between male and female students, with the female portion trending up.

Interesting too that the ethnic percentages are reasonably in line with population percentages - perhaps slightly under for Maori and Pacific given their young populations.

Overall you'd have to conclude that the student population is dominated by young white women.

Say no more.

Jobseeker numbers down?

When you hear that Jobseeker numbers are decreasing, be aware that many recipients are transferring to the new higher Covid-19 Income Relief Payment granted to nearly 7,000 between the 8th and 19th of June.

If CIRP was classed as a benefit - albeit temporary - there was a net gain of 4,743 in the period 8-19 June 2020

Meaningless stats

A lot of statistics appearing in current news items paint an optimistic picture. Whatever the indicator (eg house sales, houses to rent, jobs advertised) the good news story is, that compared to April 2020 the increases are like 100% up. Wow! Well of course increases are impressive when compared to the month of lock-down. What I want to hear is how June 2020 compares to June 2019.

The following preface and graph doesn't provide year-on-year data but it does highlight my point:

Janet Faulding, General Manager SEEK NZ comments: “With the lifting of restrictions we have seen an increase in job advertising of 133.9% in the fortnight ended 14 June, compared to the average of the month of April.

Lawyer speaks against sexual violence bill

Andrew Little's Sexual Violence (Legislation) Bill, main sponsor Jan Logie from the Greens, has sort of snuck under the radar. But it jumped right back into my consciousness this morning when I read the following opinion piece in the DomPost:

As a young woman, I came to New Zealand eleven years ago from the Middle East to undertake my Master of Laws degree.
Early on I was struck by how rights and freedoms are so frequently taken for granted by those born in this country. Because I come from a part of the world with so few protections, fair trial rights that protect people accused of crimes - of any type - are particularly important to me.
Now as a defence lawyer, I feel compelled to explain the very damaging effects to those rights that the Sexual Violence (Legislation) Bill would inflict if enacted.
So what are fair trial rights? There are several, all protected in our Bill of Rights Act, and they include the right to be presumed innocent, the right to run an effective defence and the right to remain silent instead of having to help the prosecution prove your guilt. This bill would seriously violate each.

More 

Unfortunately I cannot direct you to the Bills Digest because for some reason there is no parliamentary link.

But here is the final report of the justice committee.

Based on the first reading  it looks like National is largely supportive.

In my view the pendulum has swung too far in the direction of complainant's rights. I need add little more when Samira Taghavi covered these concerns so adequately suffice to say, I have written on a number of occasions about false rape complaints which have been well-documented over the years. It would appear that Judges will in future be required to instruct juries against "misconceptions about  the prevalence or features of false complaints."

Update on Loheni's clarion call

(This post updates yesterday's which you might need to read first)

Today Fellow National MP Alfred Ngaro says, 

“Yesterday after discussing the story of the murder of Crystal Lee Selwyn with my colleague Agnes Loheni, she turned to me and asked ‘what are you going to do about it?’”



“This is a truly confronting issue we face in our country and sadly this is not the first time one of our mothers has been lost to domestic violence.



“I’m calling on all men to rise up and march against the continuing violence we perpetuate against our wāhine.



“Men need to own this issue. We need to take the burden of addressing male violence off women who are currently shouldering this unfair load.



“Over the next few days I will be organising a day where we men can come out in our thousands to stand in solidarity with our women, our daughters, sisters, and mothers.



“It is time to take back the space for women to live safely and free from the fear of us.”

Goes from bad to worse. What ridiculous rhetoric.

Clarion call is emotional coercion

According to Agnes Loheni, National List MP, after another domestic murder of a female by a male,

"If you are a man stand up for the mums, the wives, the daughters, the grand-daughters in your lives and demand accountability of yourselves," she said.
"I challenge the men to organise the protest march against this death and all these deaths. I challenge our men to flood the streets of Auckland, Hamilton, and Wellington with as many people as have stood for George Floyd.
"I challenge the men to take over the organisations that work with intimate partner violence and take this burden off women who should not have to address your violence. It is your problem. 

Silence is assent tane ma."

Most of the people who read this blog are men. How do you feel about that?

I reject it. As an individualist I reject it on principle. This is yet another manifestation of a collective 'ism'  - sexism. How can racism be so wrong but sexism OK?

The vast majority of men are not violent.

So why by virtue of your gender must you own the problem? Worse, this clarion call that 'Silence is Assent' is a form of bullying, guilt-tripping and emotional coercion.

Shame on Agnes Loheni.

I understand how utterly devastating it is to imagine that child trying to defend his mother but her response is way off the mark.

The Simpson Report overwhelmingly biased

Simpson's Health and Disability Review has just been released. I've only considered the executive summary. Because it immediately reeks of racial preoccupation  I searched the following descriptors.

The word 'European' appears once; 'Asian' appears 2 times, 'Pacific' 9 times and 'Maori' 145 times.

And here are just two quotes to give you a flavour of the recommendations:

"A new crown entity, Health NZ, should be established to lead delivery of health and disability services across the country. A Charter for Health NZ would be developed that sets out shared values and aims to guide the health workforce culture and behaviours.
Health NZ should be governed by a board of eight members and a Chair, with 50:50 Crown-Māori representation, with board membership drawn from DHB board members in each of the regions."

"Each locality should have an indicative budget based on the age, ethnicity, and socioeconomic deprivation of its population, which is transparent to the public. This would ensure services address local needs."

Apprenticeship reality

MSD surveyed business about the wage subsidies and got a 25% response. The results were released yesterday. This caught my eye:

The Wage Subsidy Scheme has enabled businesses to manage cashflow, retain staff & continue operating. They were less likely to use the subsidy to continue workplace training/apprenticeships.

Son two years into an apprenticeship was made redundant.  He's turning that into a positive but it does call into question Labour's much heralded investment into ... more apprenticeships. The $1.6b Trades and Apprenticeships Training Package .That was announced the day after he was let go. We just looked at each other and shook our heads.

Having seen the confirmation of the non-use of the wage subsidy to keep apprentices I suspect there are likely thousands of young people who've been let go from existing apprenticeships because of the Covid response. They are also most likely first in line to resume employment if/when the economy picks up.

Or the government pays an employer to hire a new apprentice and keeps paying the old apprentice the dole.

State interference in the economy to keep it artificially afloat never fails to produce distorted outcomes.

Muller's speech

The following passages are those that stood out for me from Todd Muller's speech in Te Puna today:

I joined the National Party, rather than the Labour Party, when I became active in politics in 1988.... because I did not agree with the speed and indifference with which Labour had gone about the economic reforms.
I was in for a bit of a shock when my own party took over in 1990 and moved even faster, allowing unemployment to reach 11 per cent in 1992 – the worst since the Great Depression, but a record that will probably be broken over the next year...I believe the speed and sequencing of the economic reforms did terrible harm to the institutions of our communities, and to far too many of our families...

I do not believe that previous governments, or the current Government, moved fast enough or boldly enough to address the social deficit, or help the underclass, or however you describe the deep-seated social problems we continue to see all around us.
[Social investment, whanau ora and the Living Standards Framework] were historic steps by the last National Government – but we did not put them in place as fast as we should have.
So too, I believe successive governments should have acted faster, and more boldly, to achieve stable policy on issues such as:
· Climate change [and water management]

It's an odd juxtaposition.

He leans very heavily on National's track record of economic management yet criticises past National governments for moving too fast and then too slow.

On the whole it seems a speech designed to 'not frighten the horses' but I found it overly long, and somewhat muddled in its attempts to be all things to all people. Especially on the subject of families. It was like listening to one of those symphonies which signals the crescendo, the finale and you feel slightly relieved but then ... it continues on.

It isn't a speech for me though. I'm a committed ACT voter. I'm also a 'policy voter' whereas Muller seems keen to sell himself to the 'personality voter' as a People's  Prime Minister who will be "kind, competent and bold."

In fact, "I don’t think that kindness is a deep enough value. I was born in a town called Love."

He uses the word 'love' no less than 17 times.

You can't help but conclude he is determined to out-Jacinda Jacinda. That is a very risky and frankly, timid strategy. Dear Leader fans have got their woman. It's the ones she turns off who are looking for their man. And I doubt he will be the male embodiment of her.

The failure to police

 From the 2018/19 Annual Police Report:

Addressing cultural unconscious bias 

Police understands the potential for unconscious bias when it comes to the use of discretion and decisionmaking. For this reason, we have made the identification and management of unconscious bias a priority. The first step in managing bias is having all staff identify that they have them. People can then challenge their biases to understand how they influence their decisions and behaviours. To achieve this, we have started to roll out targeted unconscious bias training to key staff across the organisation.

Um. Training in unconscious bias. That sounds lucrative.

Here's a Wellington course at Vic. $595 for a day.

Nice work if you can get it.

Personally I'd like the taxes we pay for policing to be spent on .... policing. That would be novel.

It's a while since I've needed the services of the police but there is a constant theme on talk-back that calls about car theft or home burglary are logged and not much more. Looks like it's not just jungle drums either. From the report

Property crime - Percentage of victimisations where investigation is finalised within the year because Police determine ‘no crime has occurred’ or the ‘offender is proceeded against’: 13%

Sickly self-congratulations symptom of a society in trouble

Man am I over all this self-congratulatory stuff about beating Covid. Latest example yesterday from my local council:

Kia ora
We'd like to start this email with a thank you.
We should all be proud of our collective efforts to successfully stamp out COVID-19.

No need to nauseate you further.  You've all heard variations of it time and time again, especially from Dear Leader.

I don't buy it. Most of us just did what we were told to do (some less willingly than others). We do not deserve a medal, let alone constant meritorious mention.

I recently watched a 1968 news clip about the Wahine Disaster and was struck by how different the national psyche was fifty years ago. The stoicism, the pragmatism and practical response.Within hours the public were being advised of timetable changes to the Maori, Aranui and Aramoana sailings to accommodate bookings the ill-fated Wahine could no longer honour. No candlelit vigils, no maudlin social media preoccupation, no rahui on the harbour and no premature finger-pointing either. People just carried on.

Twenty years ago I sat in the end-of-year prize-giving audience at primary school. The list of recipients seemed endless. Each mounted the stage until there were more children upon it than left on the hall floor. It was ridiculous. Everyone's a winner. My son tells a story. He played soccer - or rather plodded after the last person in a group chasing the ball. Totally unsuited and he knew it. At the end of one game, after "Player of the Day" have evaded him yet again, the coach turned to him and said, "You can have a turn next week".

The accolade had become meaningless. Just as the current Covid congrats are.

The outcome of this foolish philosophy of embracing mediocrity is now rife. It's there in those dreadful Covid mental health ads that basically urge you to do nothing and feel good about it. Hang out in your PJs all day and pat yourself on the back for it.

It doesn't fly in my house. It isn't a preparation for real life. Nobody is well-served by this nonsense. And it needs to stop.

99 reasons to vote Labour

"100 reasons to vote Labour" just arrived in my email inbox.

Here's number 30:

Here's number 99:

It really should be titled, "100  99 reasons you are going to be paying a shitload of tax in the coming decades."

When race isn't a divisive issue

The following data is extracted from Ethnic Intermarriage in New Zealand using 2013 Census, the latest available:

With regard to the trend between 2001 and 2013, "Over the period, the number of Maori who have a Maori partner dropped from 53 to 48 per cent for Maori men, and from 52 to 47 per cent for Maori women."

When I reflect on friends and acquaintances over my lifetime these graphs are highly representative.

A pathway but not a panacea

Regarding the ongoing battle between some Maori and Oranga Tamariki:

Hands Off Our Tamariki spokesperson and researcher Alison Green has been comparing the state care systems in Canada and New Zealand.
The Oranga Tamariki legislation restricted mana motuhake, and Māori needed a system of their own like tribes in Canada, Dr Green said.
"We are ready for tribal governments," she said.
"For tribes to be able to enact legislation and for tribes to take over the jurisdiction and authority of their young Māori people and their families and take it right away from the state."

Regarding the Canadian experience:

 When I became a judge in 1976 they were just starting to talk about turning the control of child welfare agencies over to Indigenous groups. This changeover took place during the 1980s, and 90s. The theory advanced by Indigenous advocates was that there were far too many Indigenous children in care because white child care workers did not understand Indigenous culture and the Indigenous way of life. If only Indigenous workers and supervisors could take over, the numbers would go down. That didn’t happen. As the Indigenous agencies took over, the numbers went up instead of down. That remains the case today...

...the state of Indigenous child welfare is no better than it was when Indigenous child welfare agencies took over – by some measures it is a whole lot worse. Those neglected children have become pawns in the political games that are now playing out federally. Parents who have clearly failed their children are let off the hook by advocates claiming that it is not their fault that they drank and made a mess of their children’s lives – it is society’s fault, or it is because of colonialism or residential schools – or almost anything going back five hundred years that might have affected their long dead ancestors’ lives. The irresponsible parents are told that they are victims. Never mind acting like a grownup, getting off welfare and starting to support your family. To the contrary, accepting personal responsibility and changing one’s behaviour is considered an old fashioned and discardable notion. Forget the best interests of the child – permanent victimhood and racial politics are where it’s at. But I will stop.

As I said earlier, I know little about the New Zealand situation. I simply don’t know if there are similarities between Canada’s Indigenous situation and the Maori situation in New Zealand. But if I am allowed to give just one word of advice on the subject of child welfare, it is this: “A child is a child. Keep racial politics out of it, and just see to that child’s best interests.” 

Brian Giesbrecht was a Provincial Court Judge in Manitoba, Canada, from 1976 to 2007. During that time he served as Acting Chief Judge, and Associate Chief Judge. 

It was heartening yesterday to hear OT defending itself on two fronts. 1/  The latest report from the Children's Commissioner represents only 12 mothers - a tiny number of the cases dealt with annually and 2/ it focuses on the mothers and not the best interests of their children.

Spot the problem

Spot the problem with the following passage in an RNZ article essentially condemning the removal of Maori babies:

Judge Becroft said there were clear examples of the whānau experiencing racism and discrimination.
Māori babies aged 0-3 months were taken into state custody at five times the rate of non-Maori babies in 2019.
Findings of abuse have decreased overall, yet, more and more Māori babies are being assessed and removed earlier.

Update. No takers.

Here's the problem. That "findings of abuse have decreased" is the desired policy outcome. It is not a reason to rail against the policy.

A racist policy?

According to Work and Income:

If you or your partner have an uncleared warrant for criminal matters, you'll be told that unless it’s cleared, or you've taken reasonable steps to try and clear it, your benefit will either:
-stop, if you don't have dependent children, or
-reduce by up to half, if you have dependent children.
If it hasn’t been cleared within 28 days after its issued, you'll get a letter advising you to clear it within 10 working days. If you have an arrest warrant and the New Zealand Police considers you to be a risk to public safety, your benefit can be stopped or reduced immediately, without telling you first.
To clear your warrant to arrest you need to:
-go to the criminal counter at a courthouse. It’s best to go to the court where the warrant was issued, but it can be done at any courthouse. You can’t clear a warrant over the phone
-tell them you want to make a “voluntary appearance” to clear your warrant
-try to arrive early in the day. If you leave it too late you may not be able to clear the warrant that day.
-You can go to a police station to start the process of clearing your warrant if you can’t get to a court.

So the action to prevent a sanction lies wholly in the hands of the person receiving the benefit. Nobody else. And the actions required are laid out very clearly.

Here is an ethnic breakdown of sanctions on those with children. The 2019 stats are only up to June 2019.

Is this an illustration of a racist policy?

In the current climate many will say 'yes' because it disproportionately disadvantages Maori and their children regardless of the fact that the agency lies with the individual. The sanction is avoidable and you would think that with children involved, the motivation to do so would be strengthened. In fact the policy treats everybody the same.

The Left loathe the concept of the 'deserving' and 'undeserving'

A commentor on Kiwiblog drew attention to a Newsroom article by an Auckland University sociology professor:

Dr Louise Humpage was hoping Covid would help Kiwis better understand how tough it is to live off the benefit, but the newly unemployed are not being treated like main beneficiaries at all...

I became more suspicious of the Government’s intentions when it announced that 35 new unemployment centres would be established across the country, along with an employment service specific to those directly impacted by Covid-19, who are not on a main benefit.

Why? Work and Income already has offices in most towns and cities across New Zealand which focus on finding employment.

Could it be that they are either a) not very good at their job; or b) that the ‘toxic culture’ endemic in these offices is so awful that we couldn’t bear the shame of letting ‘ordinary’ (i.e., working) New Zealanders experience it?

I doubt the 35 new employment centres referred to will be places people walk into. Applications and grants all take place on-line. The new processing centres will be about boosting staff capacity to approve applications and attempt to redeploy workers.

The usual eligibility requirements she refers to as a “toxic culture” have been suspended because of the increased workload in processing new applications. Not because they were unfair.

She writes, “the base rate for the existing Job Seeker Support is $250 a week (before tax – yes, it is taxed) for a single person over 25.” Wrong. It is $250 after tax.

Essentially she wants all benefits paid at the same rate as the temporary Income Relief Payment saying, “a truly brave government would look voters in the eye and say ‘we want to treat all unemployed people, no matter when or how they came to be jobless, with the same dignity and respect that all New Zealanders deserve’.”

There are thousands of beneficiaries who have 1/ never worked 2/ made themselves unemployable through crime and/or drug and alcohol abuse and 3/ have no incentive to work because it pushes up their child support liability and income-related rent. This is the unfortunate reality of the benefit system.

In fact it would be preferable if the system could take more account of ‘deserving’ and ‘undeserving’ – not less, leading to greater fairness for anyone who is genuinely (temporarily or permanently) unemployed through no fault of their own.

Treasury predicts 1 in 6 on a benefit by June 2021

Treasury is forecasting 487,500 working age people will be on some form of benefit by June 2021 (16.2 percent).

At the moment it is nearer to 1 in 10 (11.7 percent).

Here are the numbers to May 22:

I haven't posted much about the data to date because the numbers are being kept artificially low by the wage subsidy AND now the new Income Relief Payment (IRP) which cannot be applied for until after June 8. 

Obviously Jobseeker numbers will stabilise as people apply for the better paying benefit but one has to assume that Treasury's forecast includes IRP recipients despite Labour insisting that the IRP is NOT a benefit.

ACT: "Minimum Wage Hikes And Handouts -Sounds Like Labour"

Todd Muller made a speech today. Seymour responds:

Minimum Wage Hikes And Handouts -Sounds Like Labour

Friday, 29 May 2020, 2:49 pm

Press Release: ACT New Zealand

“It sounds like Labour, is what I’m already hearing about National’s promise to raise the minimum wage regularly while handing out money to businesses,” according to ACT Leader David Seymour

“ACT won’t sign up to supporting a Labour Government, or vote for Labour Party policies in any Government.

More

I would add that as Labour made the historical move of linking benefit rates to average wages, National is also promising regular benefit increases.

No matter what you think about the policy, it's proof that under Todd Muller, National is even more deserving of the label 'Labour-lite'.

Trying to please everyone results in pleasing no-one.

Forget the forecasts - free up the restrictions

One: Unemployment could rise to 18 per cent, house prices could halve, and the viability of the banks could be "called into question" if the coronavirus prompted a further period of economic lockdowns, the Reserve Bank has warned.

Two: Unemployment is likely to peak at only 8.1 per cent and not until March 2022, according to a relatively upbeat forecast by the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research.

The first is more than double the second. I'm in the middle. But apart from Treasury trying to guess the size of the expenditure it's pretty futile. Trying to make people feel 'upbeat' isn't going to save their job.

We need action and activity immediately.

The Prime Minister is now clearly the one with the foot on the brake. ACT and Winston First are both calling for a move to level one. National appears neutral. Useless as usual.

Sue Bradford says Labour betrays its traditions

If Sue Bradford writes something I generally read it. Because Sue has political conviction. She shunned Kim Dotcom's money and has stayed true to her roots. I respect that she engages with opponents in a  thoughtful and non-combative manner. That was my experience anyway.

Here she addresses the rift created by the Jobseeker Premium benefit introduced from June 8:

For over three decades, we've had governments who politically and through the administration of a flawed, punitive welfare system have blamed unemployed people and beneficiaries for their situation, rather than treating "them" as "us".

Yesterday, Labour brought this two-class system into stark focus once again, as it did when it introduced the discriminatory "In Work" payment as part of Working for Families back in the mid-2000s.

During his Budget speech on 14 May, Grant Robertson evoked the "great traditions of the First Labour Government who rebuilt New Zealand after the Great Depression".

I reckon the employed and unemployed workers and their families who brought the first Labour government to power in 1935 would be scandalised by Robertson's evocation of that era at a time when his government is entrenching a brutal divide between the worthy and unworthy poor.

No. I doubt they would. A 'brutal divide between the worthy and unworthy poor' was a stark feature of early Social Security. Unmarried mothers couldn't access a benefit. Criminals couldn't. And sorry to go on about it but anyone who was considered the author of their own misfortune certainly would not have been able to drawn on the pooled social security funds paid into a specific account and recorded individually in a passbook weekly.

What the "employed and unemployed workers" of 1935 would be scandalised by is being forced to support other people's children whose father's pay nothing. They would be outraged that someone who has committed a crime can come out of a prison and get immediate recourse to welfare - repeatedly! They would be angry that  entire isolated rural communities could turn their local economies on welfare.

What I think Sue overlooks is the strong socially conservative streak that existed in Labour (and in most people) back at the outset of social security. The left today is rather revisionist in recalling the sentiments of their forebears.

Questions about the Income Relief Payment

Perhaps Freudian, the word ‘relief’ hasn’t been used in relation to state assistance since the Great Depression when it described the government’s relief work schemes eg the building of the Homer Tunnel on the Milford Road.

But questions …

1/ How are the other 300,000 beneficiaries not on the Jobseeker Premium going to feel about being paid a basic rate of up to 50% less than the favoured? Probably like those green grocers and butchers who were shut down in favour of dairies and supermarkets during lock down four. Justifiably angry and unhappy.

2/ Grant Robertson says the IRP is about ‘cushioning’ and economic stimulus but if you’ve just been made redundant and know the benefit you are receiving will be halved in 12 weeks, would you be out spending? Apart from on the basics like mortgage or rent, food and utilities?

3/ Given the two large English-speaking countries without wage subsidies - Canada and the US – have  unemployment  rates of 13-14 %, why will NZ be any different? Ours will be in double digits when the IRP policy ends - when the chance of finding other work is lowest. If still in power, will a left-wing government introduce massive ‘benefit cuts’ - knocking the Jobseeker Premium recipients back to Jobseeker Regular rates? (BTW Treasury estimates are for Jobseeker numbers  to reach 297,000 in 2021)

4/ How long can the economy be kept artificially afloat? That’s the question for National. Will they have the kahuna’s to tell the country – during the election campaign - that we cannot keep borrowing? Or will they be forced into a Faustian bidding war for votes?

5/ Does the public understand that when Roberston talks about creating a unemployment insurance scheme similar to other countries  that it will, if it is anything like the US scheme, be paid for via employer and employee premiums?

(BTW when I searched the budget expense tables for the wage subsidy I found one item described as  "The 2020 forecast of non-departmental expenses includes costs in relation to the Government's response to COVID-19" projected as $9.122 billion. That's already well surpassed.)

What will National do?

The new Income Relief Payment for people who have lost their jobs due to the  Covid response is available from June 8 for 12 weeks. That takes Labour up till 2 weeks before the election.

So how will this play out in the election campaign? Because the question hangs in the air and demands an answer.

Will Labour extend The Jobseeker Premium (pays around 75% more than The Jobseeker Regular) beyond September 7?

Which forces National to answer the same question.

However it plays out, Labour has put National in a politically fraught position.

Labour are being either very smart or very foolish and I can't decide which it is. But I don't think like socialists.

These wage subsidies and high rate income relief payments cannot go on and on. National may just have to come out and say so.

And if the public can't accept or understand that, then would you want to govern them anyway?

I get more worried by the day.

Update: The PR says, "The payment will be available for 12 weeks from 8 June for anyone who has lost their job due to the impact of COVID-19 since March 1." I understood that in terms of the wage subsidy framing ie it would be available over that 12 week period. In fact the availability is from the time of the claim for up to 12 weeks for any job lost between March 1 and October 30 so could extend into 2021. The question I asked isn't substantively affected.

The Great Depression birthed Social Security. The Covid Depression could kill it.

Social Security benefits were legislated in 1938. The Labour government harnessed the collective financial power of all workers to provide for those who fell on hard times through no fault of their own (quite removed from today's premise where own-fault is ignored).

Participation was  a personal process with each citizen having their own recorded contributions and a pocketbook notating them. The money originally went into a distinct fund from which the government invested. State forests for example. It started going into the consolidated fund during the sixties.

It all worked well for a period. People had common values and didn't abuse benefits. They had been bruised by the Great Depression and the First World War.

But a 'free' money genie can never be kept in a bottle.

As societal values changed, calls for greater widening of the safety net came. For instance, Family Benefits were relatively (but decreasingly over the years) generous and paid to the mother. But only married mothers qualified. Resistance to benefits being restricted to the nuclear family grew and from the mid 1960s all mothers qualified.

As communities became more tolerant of human frailty, especially drug addiction, sickness and invalid benefit qualification criteria loosened.

That's just two examples of how social security has evolved.

Add in another compounding condition. The more normalised benefit dependence became, the greater the uptake.

The recession of the late 1980s wrought havoc and receipt blew out in the 1990s to eye watering levels. While academic lefties will tell you that the welfare state was dismantled under Roger Douglas and Ruth Richardson that's rubbish. Yes some cuts to rates were made (but eventually effectively  restored via other new forms of second and third tier assistance). The Family Benefit was abolished but half of the savings were redistributed to needier families (a little known fact). While numbers relying on an unemployment benefit gradually fell uptake of the other three - Sickness, Invalid's and Domestic purposes continued to climb.

This century receipt had gradually declined (after the GFC spike) but only to levels viewed as reasonable when compared to the early nineties, not the 1960s or 70s. Dependence is still historically high at around 1 in 10 people.

The current Labour government was in the process of turning the downward  trend around. More people were accessing benefits despite the unemployment rate being low and jobs plentiful.

And that was before Covid.

Now?? Here's a few future scenarios.

Social security is the greatest $ liability the govt has, though the majority was in Superannuation. The wage subsidy is heading towards the total annual Super bill. Means-testing and lifting the qualifying Super age cannot be avoided. NZ was out of step with Australia, the US and the UK anyway in not raising the age. Though everyone seems to have forgotten we still have a rapidly ageing population.

With dwindling income ACC will seek to offload as much of its caseload to MSD as it can, increasing pressure on the MSD budget. At the same time more people will pile up on the sickness-type benefits as the health system struggles either playing catch-up after weeks of unnecessary inactivity or coping with new Covid outbreaks. The payment rate of the highest paying benefit, the Supported Living Payment, will drop.

There will be cuts to the accommodation supplement as the property market adjusts downwards.

More assistance will be provided as repayable regardless of whether that prospect is realistic.

As the imperative to get anybody they can into work ramps up the sole parent benefit will go. Paying people to look after their own children will be seen as a luxury.

Instead of the current move to NOT chase fathers for child support, the reverse will occur.

The lower age limits for benefits will rise and families will be expected to provide for previously independent children.

Working for Families will be severely curtailed.

Paid Parental Leave axed.

That's just a few possibilities.

Social Security is the very opposite of its name. It is not secure. It relies wholly on revenue from taxation or borrowing. It's sustainability cannot and should not be taken for granted as we go into a depression of unknown depth and extent.

It won't matter whether the government is Labour or National. The former will just delay the inevitable.

Rawinia Barrett ... or not

In 2015 I came across this photo of an unidentified Maori woman on the internet.

Because I used it to produce the painting below I came to know it quite intimately.

Early January 2020 I walked into the Taranaki Museum and came across this exhibit:

I stopped in my tracks. My unidentified subject was revealed as Waikawa, or Rawinia, Barrett the wife of whaler and trader Dicky Barrett - after whom Barrett's Hotel and Barrett's Reef are named.

In my mind there was no doubt at all that the photo had lent itself to the woodcut. This was a fairly exciting discovery to me.

But as I absorbed the information overnight I realised that there was a fly in the ointment. Next day I went into the reference section of the Taranaki library and read all I could about Dicky and Rawinia Barrett. Plenty about him but very little about her. Then I went and visited their joint graves.

Rawinia lived between 1811 and 1849. Before photography.

So I sent the following email to the curator:

I visited your museum for the first time on 4/1/20. You are displaying an image of Rawinia Barrett, Dicky Barrett's wife as per attached.

The image was immediately familiar to me because I produced a painting from a photograph with the same face, pose and clothing details:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C4%81_moko#/media/File:Femme_Maori_1998-3160-173.jpg

The photo is in a collection held by the French National Library and labelled as created between 1860 and 1879.

The similarity between the 'woodcut drawing' and the photo is unmistakable. I believe the woodcut drawing was executed from the photo.

But the photo could not be of Rawinia Barrett who lived between 1811 and 1849 - before the age of photography in New Zealand.

Perhaps you can check the provenance of your display image to ascertain whether she is indeed Rawinia Barrett.

Not long after I received the following response:

I've had a look into the woodcut image that is described as depicting Rawinia Barrett, and what I've been able to find is that the image was published in the book 'Early Days Taranaki' by local historian and collector Fred B. Butler, with a credit line stating that the image was reproduced with permission from Mr and Mrs W.T. Duffin of New Plymouth (descendants of the Barretts), and that the woodcut block was loaned by the Taranaki Herald.
But as you say, the woodblock image is very clearly an artistic derivative of the photograph that you found online, and it's certainly highly unlikely that Rawinia was ever photographed as I don't believe she left the country. So I suspect that someone along the line has incorrectly attributed the woodblock.

The writer assured me that she was going to do "some more digging" and I inquired again mid March but was told nothing definitive had been discovered. I now expect the issue is not of great urgency given recent events. BUT...

This is a prime example of how errors - even unintentional - become 'truths' over time.

I note that there are a couple of family trees into which descendants have put a lot of time and energy using the woodcut image to depict Rawinia.

Sadly it is not.

"...you're going to do WHAT!!!?"

Another wonderful Wahlberg creation

I love this work. The hammer cowers like a supplicant dog being menaced by a more aggressive beast who may not be bigger and stronger but is defiant and dominant. I like the hammer because she reminds me of my dog Limmey. Not a nasty bone therein .... Wahlberg's sculptures always evoke a response in me.

Prisoners on remand double

In the first three periods charted just over one in five prisoners was on remand - awaiting trial. The latest March statistics show the ratio has climbed to 38.5% - almost 2 in 5.

What is the saying? Justice delayed and all that.

And it is projected to get worse.

The number of prisoners held on remand over the period from June 2017 to June 2027 is projected to nearly double from 3,000 to 5,400, the Ministry of Justice says.

Brave new world makes no sense

Simplicity of idea is always desirable. But the idea still has to make sense. A professor reported on RNZ says:

"I think the pandemic spells the end of the neoliberal era and I think the idea that government should be small and inactive and everything should be left to market forces has seen its day."

People had few possessions until there was an explosion of prosperity in the 20th Century, and now people have garages, basements and houses full of stuff, and full themselves with too much food, Westacott said

But if Westacott wants to frame matters historically the, "small and inactive" government he decries coincided with when, "people had few possessions". His nirvana.

Some people have 'too much stuff' even for the size of their homes as evidenced by the explosion of the storage industry but their consumerism has contributed to voluntary wealth redistribution  globally, lifting many out of poverty. Voluntary is indisputably better than  forced wealth redistribution.

I wonder how the professor squares the well being of people in developing nations making our imports - those emerging from poverty -  against ours? Or does philosophy have geographical borders?

It's an indulgent novelty for rich countries to play at non-consumerism. 

The pandemic should not be encouraged to end the general progress to a richer, more peaceful globe.

Colonisation key driver in men's violence

Released last month from the Family Violence Death Review Committee.

Sixth report | Te Pūrongo tuaono Men who use violence |
 Ngā tāne ka whakamahi i te whakarekereke


The report looks at 97 men, from between 2009 and 2017, whose family violence resulted in death (not theirs).

I hoped for some real insight and recommendations. But my anticipation was short-lived.

The report very quickly draws attention to, " ... the historical and ongoing impact of colonisation, which includes unchecked privilege, and how colonisation contributes to chronic and complex trauma for both individuals and communities. We believe these factors are central reasons why Māori and non-Māori experience violence across generations. Addressing these issues requires an honest partnership between the Crown and Māori, leading to decolonised services and measures that address structural racism."

More specifically,

Colonisation and Aotearoa New Zealand society 

Different groups in a population will always vary in their behaviour and episodes of violence. However, here we raise questions about cultural norms and how society responds to them. Indigenous researchers both in Aotearoa New Zealand and internationally see a patriarchal social structure as removing the natural supports and caring that people had for each other before this structure was imposed. Mikaere, for example, describes how Māori before colonial times understood the roles of men and women as part of the interrelationship or whakawhanaungatanga of all living things.  

Both men and women were essential parts in the collective whole, both formed part of the whakapapa that linked Maori people back to the beginning of the world, and women in particular played a key role in linking the past with the present and the future. 

It goes on to describe how colonisers came here with notions of men owning women and children. That may be but they didn't practice slavery. And Chiefs must have 'owned' their highly born daughters because they gave them away in marriage to useful traders.

Yes there was tension between the Maori and Pakeha cultural beliefs and behaviours but some of us have moved on. For instance, women fought to be free as individuals, to be educated and independent. New Zealand has evolved and this whole backward-looking narrative about the superiority or otherwise of anthropological worldviews of 200 years ago is pointless.

But the academic authors do not think so. Thus their recommendation  to stop the violence is decolonising institutions and services, which means infusing those institutions and services with Maori tikanga and Maori worldviews (already rife in the public service). Ending institutional racism and properly honouring the treaty.

This will stop men murdering, including the 64 who are European, Asian, African, Pacific and other ethnicity.

Right.

In my humble opinion the only offenders who truly reform are those who look in the mirror, see themselves for what they are and resolve to change. If they can't achieve this, they need to be locked up to keep innocent people safe.

But there I go with my patriarchal unchecked-privileged point of view...

Excuse me. We'll take that prize.

Here's an interesting chart from Jim Rose's blog.

I don't know why there is "no data" for NZ. From the 2013 census - within the period they analysed -from NZ Stat chart,  "Number of dependent children and total number of children, for one parent families in occupied private dwellings, 2001, 2006, and 2013 Censuses (RC, TA)"  in 2013 =  201,804 out of a total of 671,287. 30 percent. Higher than any other number on the graphic above.

But that would have spoiled the title.

Censorship by omission: importance of family

A reader sent this interview to me. I have selected the passages that particularly interest me:

On April 14, 2020 Gonzalo Schwarz, President and CEO of the Archbridge Institute, conducted the following interview with Dr. James J. Heckman. Dr. Heckman is the Henry Schultz Distinguished Service Professor in Economics and the Director of the Center for the Economics of Human Development at the University of Chicago. 

S: Without going into detail, what do you think are the main barriers to income or social mobility? (Could be micro level such as agency and family structure or on a bigger scale in terms of labor markets, entrepreneurship, etc.)

H: The main barriers to developing effective policies for income and social mobility is fear of honest engagement in the changes in the American family and the consequences it has wrought. It is politically incorrect to express the truth and go to the source of problems. Public discourse, such as it is, cannot speak honestly about matters of culture, race, and gender. Powerful censorship is at play across the entire society.

S: In your research you discuss the key importance of family structure for social mobility. Why do you feel so strongly about this issue?

H: The family is the source of life and growth. Families build values, encourage (or discourage) their children in school and out. Families — far more than schools — create or inhibit life opportunities. A huge body of evidence shows the powerful role of families in shaping the lives of their children. Dysfunctional families produce dysfunctional children. Schools can only partially compensate for the damage done to the children by dysfunctional families.

ME: Despite the "censorship at play"  American academics are still far more open and prone to research families objectively. NZ just doesn't go there. For instance NZ has little interest in the relationship status between couples with dependent children and how that impacts (but I am working on how to correct that.)

A 'tool buy-back scheme'

Son has been made redundant two years into a building apprenticeship. Employer laying off over a third of their workforce.

Said to me this morning, "Do you think the government should run a 'tool buy-back scheme' for apprentice builders? The tools in my boot are worth more than my car!"

Quote of the Day

"...if you are worried about stupidity in high places, your best solution would be to get rid of high places."

Eamonn Butler, Adam Smith Institute

Weirdos

I know I should be sleuthing for serious stuff but it's Friday night and I really can't be bothered. This whole lock down debacle has made me realise the government is a law unto itself. If the necessary legislation doesn't exist in the here-and-now, it can be conjured up retrospectively.

But I did have a half-hearted look at the papers dumped today. Being a visual person, shortly into my perusal I was caught by the signatures:

Ashley's signature is terribly, incredibly elegant and David's is a dog's breakfast and looks like ... well I won't say what immediately springs to mind.

But it recalls my thoughts today (and every day) listening to the press conference addresses with the requisite Maori greetings. "How many times do they rehearse the phrases to get the pronunciation right?"

Similarly, now I wonder, how many times have they practiced their signatures - or variations of - to get those just right? I mean, look at them.

Weirdos.

(Disclaimer: The only time I ever practiced a signature was when trying to forge my mother's on absentee explanations at college.)

Spurious comparison

Here's what Grant Robertson said at noon today:

He said 40,000 people had signed up for the jobseeker benefit since 20 March.
Robertson said the increased number of people on the benefit represented 0.8 percent of the country's total population.
"For comparison, in the United States, they have had new jobless claims relating to Covid-19 of 33 million, or 10 percent of their population."

The elephant in the room is the wage subsidy. Yes NZ has fortunately not had a huge call on the jobseeker benefit yet because of the 1.7 million wage subsidies being paid out.
Which totally muddies the picture.

Even when the subsidy ceases there will be a lag while WINZ makes covid-response collateral use any redundancy, sick and annual leave payments before 'commencement day' begins.

I don't even know why Robertson brought it up. Just another instance of treating us like numpties.

Update. I checked out the rule re redundancy payments before I wrote this post. Now it would appear that WINZ has been acting unlawfully in taking redundancy payments into account. Good sleuthing on someone's part.

Individualisation of benefits not imminent

A Stuff ("trustworthy, accurate and reliable news") headline reads:

Government considering change to benefit access rules

A spokeswoman for Social Development Minister Carmel Sepuloni said entitlement to most benefits and social assistance was reliant on the "couple" unit of assessment.
“Moving to an individual unit of entitlement would be very complex however it is something that is in our medium to long-term work programme.”

Despite the headline which infers something that might happen shortly in response to the pandemic, I doubt there's any immediacy regarding  individualising benefits.

In 2018 economist and social policy advisor Michael Fletcher was commissioned by Superu to investigate individualising entitlements in New Zealand’s benefit system.  Fletcher cites investigations as far back as the Royal Commission on Social Policy 1988 which concluded, “…a rapid move to individual entitlement would mean a very large increase in government expenditure…”
Fletcher goes on to model changes that “… suggest the cost of individualising all entitlements would be in the order of $1.5 billion to $2 billion.” But he also cites forthcoming work from Anderson and Chapple that estimates individualisation would cost several billion dollars per annum.

On the one hand, compared to what has been spent on wage subsidies to date, "several billion" might seem palatable. Bear in mind though that those estimates are based on 'normal' levels of benefit uptake. Not during a recession or depression.

To make this change in the near future could only be achieved by more borrowing.

(BTW I cannot leave this article without a further comment. Geoff Simmons from the TOP party says,"“Relationships aren't life-long like they were in the 70s and 80s when these rules were designed. I don't know many people who even have joint bank accounts any more.” What a sad observation. I really don't give a monkeys if people want to flip in and out of relationships. That's their business. But very little thought is given to the effect this has on their children...a whole other topic for another day.)

Who cares?

The years stolen from this baby would probably exceed all of the years left to those who've died from Covid 19.

Oh well. Who cares?

Hold your nose

Help me out here. Below is a selection of passages from Bomber Bradbury's blog. Now I know Martyn likes to use hyperbole and stir people up but surely, he can't really believe what he writes? Perhaps it's a case of saying it enough will make it true.

Employing as much objectivity as I can muster, among my small circle of immediate friends and family - and whose views I know - support or otherwise for the PM is 50/50. I listen to talkback most days, especially when out walking dogs, and again my sense is that the country is split. There maybe a gender bias operating also, with males tending to not support the PM more than females. Of course there is another younger generation I don't know much about.

But if Bomber is right the silent majority must all be as enthralled as he is. What do you find in your circles?

Warning. Hold your nose.

"Voters who have voted Blue their entire lives have been bewildered by Jacinda’s competence and are considering voting Labour in gratitude..."

"Jacinda’s extraordinary leadership not only through this plague but through the White Supremacist Terror attack and the volcanic eruption (all the while being  new mother) have lifted her to legacy level."

"We are seeing a political leader who has every chance of being Prime Minister for 4 terms."

"Jacinda has won the vast majority of New Zealanders over. She asked for lockdown sacrifice and the nation obliged, there is a real sense of pride and gratitude in her leadership that builds an electoral loyalty."

Covid 19 in context

Here's another viewpoint on Covid 19 from a retired English professor.

"Robert Watson: A comparison of the relative magnitude of ‘COVID-19’ and ‘All other causes’ of deaths per 1,000 for age and sex cohorts

The analysis indicates that:

(i) whilst COVID-19 is most certainly a new cause of death, its victims are predominantly older men (75+) and very elderly women (80+); as both these cohorts are already very small (particularly so in the case of males) and also suffer from very high rates of death from all other causes, COVID-19 deaths only make up a small minority of the deaths (many of which would have occurred anyway within a few months); hence, it seems highly unlikely that COVID-19 will result in a long-term increase in death rates even amongst these vulnerable age cohorts.

(ii) Covid-19 does not kill off young people at all or even the middle aged to any significant extent; indeed, the pattern of deaths largely replicates existing patterns of deaths from all other causes; moreover, COVID-19 actually marginally reinforces the existing pattern of early male death rates
and the very high death rates experienced by the very elderly of both sexes;

(iii) as a new ‘killer’ disease, COVID-19 has the benign characteristic of choosing its victims from the already elderly, i.e., it is best seen as reinforcing the natural order of death; essentially, is there an alternative age cohort that one would rather this new disease decimates?; COVID-19 really would be a human life game-changer if it drew its victims from the young and/or otherwise healthy people in their prime of life!

(iv) If the blither being put about in the media that ‘every life saved is worth it’ really is to be taken seriously, then it is clear that we ought to forget about COVID-19 and instead throw vast medical resources at trying to reduce the existing massive premature slaughter of males in their 40s, 50s and 60s."

Hat tip Rodney Hide

PM's patronising accolades are misguided

The police are running around ordering people off Christchurch beaches. Their message: "If you're not exercising, clear out." So you can skip on a beach but not sit on it.

It's a revolting and indefensible state of affairs.

But it set me off again on trying to get my head around another consideration.

Many New Zealanders are not law-abiding. Think the size of the black economy. Or that some don't bother to register a birth. Or that substantial numbers lie about their family circumstances to qualify for a benefit. Or the extent of still-illegal cannabis use. Just a few examples I can substantiate for any readers who think I make stuff up.

Despite the PM's patronising and puke-making accolades for our en masse efforts, do YOU honestly believe the level 4 lock down was dutifully observed across the country?

I don't. Not for a minute.

Yet the Covid incidence reduced anyway.

Which explains why Australia's far less intrusive and stringent lock down measures achieved similar results.

Forget Level 4 - Here's Wave 4

Source

Birthdays during the debacle

We've had three April birthdays during the debacle.

My dear Mum turned 88. Yesterday we were at last able to play a few games of Scrabble in her and dad's house at the village she now calls Stalag Summerset. My son turned 26 and was happily at home (choosing more space over his small flat for the duration). And my beloved Limmey turned 2.

I was slightly hesitant about taking on a newborn but she has grown quite painlessly into a charming young adult.

1,000 people a day going on a benefit

Source

God, I really feel for them. That's all.

Don Brash: Have we been conned?

Have we been conned? (originally published in elocal April 2020)

Perhaps it is dangerous to write about such a fast-moving situation as the Covid-19 pandemic when what I write may not be published for 10 days or more, but at time of writing my strong impression is that the public believe that the Government has done a remarkably good job of suppressing, perhaps even eliminating, the spread of Covid-19 in New Zealand, and that they deserve warm applause.

I believe the public has been conned.

To begin with, in common with most of the countries in Europe and North America but quite unlike the countries of East Asia, the New Zealand Government was very slow to take the virus seriously. Despite the Ministry of Health issuing a statement in late January talking of the extremely serious threat posed by the disease, the Government did little or nothing to prepare for its arrival on our shores for more than a month.

By contrast, and perhaps because they had had experience of the SARS epidemic some years ago, countries like South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and Hong Kong swung swiftly into action with far-reaching testing and tracing. As a result, for example, Taiwan – geographically and economically much closer to the source of the virus in China than New Zealand – has vastly few total Covid- 19 cases than New Zealand has had. Indeed, on a per capita basis, New Zealand has had some 17 times as many cases as Taiwan has had.

As late as the middle of March, there had been no suggestion that the very large public ceremony to mark the anniversary of the Christchurch massacre would be cancelled, even though a crowded public event would have been the perfect way of spreading the virus.

On 17 March, the Minister of Finance announced what he called a “$12.1 billion support for New Zealanders and business”. Some of that was well targeted – including an extra $500 million for the health sector and a substantial wage subsidy to help businesses retain staff. Other parts were very poorly targeted, including a permanent increase in benefit levels and a change in the depreciation rules around commercial buildings. And the Government made it clear that they intended that a further increase in the minimum wage would still take place on 1 April, making it certain that whatever impact the virus had on employment would be made worse by a significant increase in the cost of employing people.

On 23 March, the Prime Minister announced that two days later the country was moving into an Alert Level 4 lockdown for four weeks. We had to do this, we were told, because otherwise “tens of thousands” of New Zealanders would die from the disease and our hospital system – especially the availability of ICU hospital beds – would be overwhelmed. Yes, there would an economic cost it was acknowledged, but faced with a choice between saving lives and worrying about dollars, the Prime Minister was clear that she placed a higher value on lives saved than on dollars.

Has it worked? Superficially yes. The number of new cases yesterday (I’m writing on 18 April) was just eight, only 14 people were in hospital, and only three were in ICU beds. Only 11 people have died from the virus. Perhaps we could even look forward to the day when New Zealand has no cases of Covid- 19, and we can all get back to work, though with our international borders permanently closed, or at least closed until an effective vaccine is discovered and deployed.

But very serious questions must be asked.

First, it is now clear that “tens of thousands of deaths” were never likely. Yes, some of the projections made by epidemiologists at Otago University suggested that deaths could rise to between 8,600 and 14,400 – not exactly “tens of thousands” but certainly a very large number – but those numbers assumed that the Ministry of Health would abandon its trace, test and isolate strategy. As Ian Harrison of Tailrisk Economics has noted, the same model “configured with effective tracing and isolation, and some other plausible assumptions, generated about 160 deaths” 1. And given that we have had 1,409 identified cases at this stage, and only 11 deaths as a result, it appears that the fatality rate is not much over 1% (I’m allowing for a few more deaths from those who, at time of writing, had contracted the disease but had not yet recovered).

Second, it also seems clear that Australia has had fewer cases of Covid-19 than New Zealand has had, on a per capita basis, despite having a much more relaxed attitude to “lock-down”.

Third, without exception all those who have died of Covid-19 in New Zealand are people who were over 70 (and most were over 80), all with one or more other serious “health issues”. While clearly overseas experience confirms that younger people can die of Covid-19, it appears that in other countries too those who have succumbed to the virus have overwhelmingly been over 70, and overwhelmingly people with other health issues. At no time has our hospital system even looked like being overwhelmed, and typically no more than three or four ICU beds have been occupied at one time – of the several hundred ICU beds which either are, or could quickly be, available.

More serious still is the fact that the Prime Minister seems to think that by locking the economy down tightly she is showing that she cares more about lives than about dollars. If she imagines for a single moment that locking the economy down tightly has no effect on lives lost she is even less well informed than I had imagined. We all know that four weeks of isolation in our respective bubbles has seen a marked spike in domestic violence. We can guess that seeing a business that one has spent years or decades building up destroyed in the course of a few weeks has led to an increase in suicide. And suddenly being unable to bring home a wage or salary will be having a similarly devastating effect on the mental health and lives of many tens of thousands of employees.

Professor John Gibson, one of New Zealand’s leading academic economists, has drawn attention to the fact that life expectancy is to some extent a function of real GDP per capita. He has noted in a recent paper that “if real per capita GDP in New Zealand falls by 10% due to the lockdown and other effects associated with Covid-19, life expectancy would be predicted to fall by 1.4 years” 2. Of course, not all the fall in real GDP per capita is a result of the lockdown: earnings from international tourism, and the education of foreign students, were going to fall precipitously, almost no matter how severe our cdomestic lockdown had been.

But there can be little doubt that severely locking down much of the economy will have cost a great many lives, and very probably many more than the lives clost to Covid-19 to date. As the Prime Minister must surely know, every time cthe Government decides to spend money on improving road safety, or cincreasing the Pharmac budget, or increasing the school lunch programme, they are implicitly (and often explicitly) calculating how many dollars they are willing to spend to save a life. I strongly suspect that in adopting perhaps the strictest lockdown regime in the world, the  government has cost more lives than it has saved.

Don Brash
April 2020

[1]The Ministry of Health’s modeling of the impact of the Coronavirus on New Zealand: A look behind the headlines, April 2020, Ian Harrison.

[2] Quoted in Croaking Cassandra, a blog by former Reserve Bank economist Michael Reddell, on 16 April 2020.

Dancing on the grave of Radio Sport

I recently wrote a piece about the forced  feminization of society.

Here's another blow for the boys. The death of Radio Sport, much to the delight of someone called Zoe George who, if the internet links are up-to-date, is paid by the state via RNZ.

She must have listened in to Radio Sport's farewell episode on Monday furiously scrawling her complaints, counting how many times sportswomen women weren't mentioned, taking offence at the blokiness and a derogatory mention of Paris Hilton (who I am sure subscribes to the adage '... any publicity is good publicity'), fulminating whilst formulating  "Why Radio Sport missed the mark."

"Only four female voices were heard among the sea of middle-aged men on Monday's show."

She quotes a female journalist who worked there briefly saying, "Radio Sport was never able to shake that macho appeal."

Well here's a thought. Perhaps it didn't want to.

Just where can men be men anymore?

A commercial enterprise, Radio Sport doubtless died from the lack of sport, sponsorship, advertising etc. under lock down conditions. More Covid collateral.

But no. Along comes this publicly-funded person to tell us all that it failed, "missed the mark"  because it refused to submit to feminization.

In conclusion she crows,"By taking all these blokes off the airwaves, the percentage of female sports journalists is higher than ever before."

Says it all really doesn't it?