So the teenage birth rate continues to climb (as does the share of DPB recipients that are aged 18-19.) Here's why according to Statistics NZ top demographer;
The proportion of girls aged 15 to 19 having babies rose for the sixth year in a row, from a low of 2.6 per cent in 2002 to 3.1 per cent in 2007 and 3.3 per cent last year, Statistics NZ said yesterday.
The agency's principal demographer, Mansoor Khawaja, said young women appeared to be refusing to follow their mothers' decisions to have few children later in life.
"I reckon they just didn't agree with their mothers, which is not uncommon," he said.
"If you look at the previous generations, the mothers of the baby-boomers had roughly four children on average. The baby-boomers [born between 1945 and 1965] have ended up with less than two children each.
"There might have been a generation gap between the mother and the daughter. It's very interesting that every generation reverses the pattern of their mothers. They go back to their grandmothers."
I think this is completely wrong.
Most of the 15-19 year-olds having babies live in the poorest areas. The teenage birthrate in the poorest decile is around ten times higher than in the richest. These girls very often follow in their mother's footsteps. It is part and parcel of the environment of disadvantage and disregard for education. The above comments take no account of socio-economic differences and attitudes. It assumes uniformity amongst fertile females.
Also the Maori teenage birth rate is much higher and accounts for nearly half of all these births. Yet the comments virtually ignore this aspect of teenage birth. Many of today's 15 to 19 year-old Maori females were born when Maori unemployment was very high and they consequently grew up on welfare. I would be very surprised if they were the first-borns of 'older' mothers who then counselled their daughters to similarly delay childbirth. Very.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Bluff and bluster from CE
It certainly isn't an unusual occurrence to learn that someone who committed a crime requiring physical strength and dexterity, was on a sickness or invalid benefit. This prison census shows that 386 sentenced inmates had been on one of these benefits before incarceration.
What is unusual is the following letter published in this morning's DomPost;
Mr Hughes knows that he cannot legally deny an individual a benefit. ( Would that he could). But she could be reclassified as 'unemployed'. That would reduce her weekly 'pay' however, to which her response may very well be to go for a better paying 'job'. A domestic purposes beneficiary perhaps. She's only 43 after all. Having a baby now would just about see her through to Super. And that's assuming she doesn't already have other dependent children.
All bluff and bluster I'm afraid. The application of emphasis removes any misapprehension on the part of the reader.
"I can assure you that if Ms Stevens is not meeting the criteria for THIS benefit, it will be stopped."
What is unusual is the following letter published in this morning's DomPost;
Mr Hughes knows that he cannot legally deny an individual a benefit. ( Would that he could). But she could be reclassified as 'unemployed'. That would reduce her weekly 'pay' however, to which her response may very well be to go for a better paying 'job'. A domestic purposes beneficiary perhaps. She's only 43 after all. Having a baby now would just about see her through to Super. And that's assuming she doesn't already have other dependent children.
All bluff and bluster I'm afraid. The application of emphasis removes any misapprehension on the part of the reader.
"I can assure you that if Ms Stevens is not meeting the criteria for THIS benefit, it will be stopped."
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Beat-ups and over-reactions
Firstly, Labour and the Greens are bleating about public service staff cuts under National but the biggest cut was under way under the last administration. A five percent reduction from the Ministry of Social Development was detailed in the Briefing to the Incoming Minister
Implementing the Value for Money initiatives
Implementing the savings initiatives will be challenging, and it will involve, among other things, reducing the number of staff we employ by upwards of 5 per cent over the next four years. We will need to dedicate significant resources, leadership and capability to ensure projects are successfully completed and the gains are fully realised
Secondly the letter from WINZ (under Labour the use of the term 'WINZ' was banished but Annette King seems happy to use it) does not instruct a beneficiary to go to a loan shark. It is a reiteration of what a client told their case manager they could do to improve their situation.
Paula Bennett's reaction to this letter in parliament yesterday was ... interesting. She visibly winced, acquiesced and then told the opposition that she did not expect to be agreeing with them so soon into her term as Minister. She should simply have said she would look into the matter.
Poor old MSD. What they have to put up with. And if all the political posturing isn't enough have a look here. This guy has really got it in for them. Really.
Implementing the Value for Money initiatives
Implementing the savings initiatives will be challenging, and it will involve, among other things, reducing the number of staff we employ by upwards of 5 per cent over the next four years. We will need to dedicate significant resources, leadership and capability to ensure projects are successfully completed and the gains are fully realised
Secondly the letter from WINZ (under Labour the use of the term 'WINZ' was banished but Annette King seems happy to use it) does not instruct a beneficiary to go to a loan shark. It is a reiteration of what a client told their case manager they could do to improve their situation.
Paula Bennett's reaction to this letter in parliament yesterday was ... interesting. She visibly winced, acquiesced and then told the opposition that she did not expect to be agreeing with them so soon into her term as Minister. She should simply have said she would look into the matter.
Poor old MSD. What they have to put up with. And if all the political posturing isn't enough have a look here. This guy has really got it in for them. Really.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
On the baby-faced father ... et al
I haven't felt inclined to comment about the now-famous adolescent couple from that English town my home is named after. But this is very good and says all that I have thought and much more;
... The local priest chimed in with additional stupid comments. “Whatever their ages, I say well done for bringing the child into the world,” said Father Seamus. No worries says the good reverend: “I expect social services will help and I would hope that they have got family and friends to help both of them.” No contraception, no abortion, no wonder the Catholic priest is thrilled. After all social services, i.e., the taxpayer, is there to support the child.
... The local priest chimed in with additional stupid comments. “Whatever their ages, I say well done for bringing the child into the world,” said Father Seamus. No worries says the good reverend: “I expect social services will help and I would hope that they have got family and friends to help both of them.” No contraception, no abortion, no wonder the Catholic priest is thrilled. After all social services, i.e., the taxpayer, is there to support the child.
Children's Commissioner covering up
The Children's Commissioner Cindy Kiro is reacting to National's proposed amendment of the Child, Youth and Family legislation;“The hype around escalating serious youth offending and alleged public concerns about unsafe communities is not supported by data. The figures have stayed quite steady for the past 10 years."
Well, let's contrast that to what others have to say;
Last year, from the Principal Youth Court Judge;
"Violent offending is increasing. There has always been severe violence, but it is hard to get an accurate picture. We need to have much better statistics from the Ministry of Justice. We need to know [what is happening] early and the extent it's happening."
Judge Becroft said one thing that was known was that violence, especially severe violence, was escalating.
And from a 2007 MSD report;
While there was growth in the young person population, overall offending rates remained static over the same period. In fact, when considered on a per 10,000 of population basis, the ratio of apprehensions to population decreased by over 11%.
However, there were significant increases in violent offending. Apprehensions for violent offending rose by 36.4% over the previous 8 years and charges for violent offending increased by 57.6% between 2000 and 2005. This suggests it is the ferocity, not the frequency of offending which is changing.
And again from 2008, Kim Workman, National Director of Prison Fellowship and new appointment to the Families Commission said;
Yes, there has been a recent rise in the rate of apprehensions for violent offending, particularly serious violent offending. But that increase applies to every age cohort of the population – apart from 10 – 13 year olds.
And finally Family Court Judge Peter Boshier;
Judge Peter Boshier, who has been a judge since 1988, made the politically charged statement at a foster care conference in Hamilton yesterday, where he said he was shocked at what he saw happening in families now compared with what he saw 19 years ago.
"Twelve-year-olds, many of whom are committing quite heavy crimes, need to be more accountable than the present system is able to make them," he said.
Cindy Kiro has diminished the integrity of the role of Children's Commissioner. Yes, she is charged with speaking for children and youth and protecting their rights. But not at the cost of the truth.
Not a pretty picture
While searching for how many individuals go through the Youth Court (to put the 'worst 1,000 offenders' into context there are roughly 7,000) I came across this;
And in case you are wondering, between 2002 and 2007, the number of convictions for violent offences rose by 29% and the number of convictions for traffic offences rose by 28%.
I can't be bothered analysing it but I do like visual representations. Pictures are much easier to carry around in one's head.
And in case you are wondering, between 2002 and 2007, the number of convictions for violent offences rose by 29% and the number of convictions for traffic offences rose by 28%.
I can't be bothered analysing it but I do like visual representations. Pictures are much easier to carry around in one's head.
Questions about farcical re-trials
What is it with the ever growing tendency towards appealing court decisions? They didn't used to be so commonplace. What changed? Is it legal aid? Lazy lawyers? Criminals addicted to seeing their name in print?
Do you want to pay for this guy to be re-tried? I sure as hell don't. Surely too, appeals use up resources contributing to unacceptable waiting times for initial trials. Appealing seems to be par for the course these days and is fast turning into a farce.
Do you want to pay for this guy to be re-tried? I sure as hell don't. Surely too, appeals use up resources contributing to unacceptable waiting times for initial trials. Appealing seems to be par for the course these days and is fast turning into a farce.
Monday, February 16, 2009
US welfare reforms under threat
There are fears that Obama will undo the welfare reform achievements of Reagan and Clinton;
[Obama's] success in piloting a $785 billion (£546 billion) stimulus package through Congress was being overshadowed by warnings that an unprecedented increase in welfare spending would undermine two decades of bipartisan attempts to reduce dependency on government handouts.
Robert Rector, a prominent welfare researcher who was one of the architects of Clinton's 1996 reform bill, warned last week that Obama’s stimulus plan was a “welfare spendathon” that would amount to the largest one-year increase in government handouts in American history.
But how can extra spending alone undo the reforms? My interest sparked I went and had a look at exactly what Robert Rector is saying;
The welfare reform of 1996 replaced the old Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) with a new program named Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF). The key to welfare reform's reduction in dependency was the change in the funding structure of AFDC.[1]
Under the old AFDC program, states were given more federal funds if their welfare caseloads were increased, and funds were cut whenever the state caseload fell. This structure created a strong incentive for states to swell the welfare rolls. Prior to reform, one child in seven was receiving AFDC benefits.
When welfare reform replaced the old AFDC system with TANF, this perverse financial incentive to increase dependence was eliminated. Each state was given a flat funding level that did not vary whether the state increased or decreased its caseload. In addition, states were given the goal of reducing welfare dependence (or at least of requiring welfare recipients to prepare for employment).
The House and Senate stimulus bills will overturn the fiscal foundation of welfare reform and restore an AFDC-style funding system. For the first time since 1996, the federal government would begin paying states bonuses to increase their welfare caseloads. Indeed, the new welfare system created by the stimulus bills is actually worse than the old AFDC program because it rewards the states more heavily to increase their caseloads. Under the stimulus bills, the federal government will pay 80 percent of cost for each new family that a state enrolls in welfare; this matching rate is far higher than it was under AFDC.
It is clear that--in both the House and Senate stimulus bills--the original goal of helping families move to employment and self-sufficiency and off long-term dependence on government assistance has instead been replaced with the perverse incentive of adding more families to the welfare rolls. The House bill provides $4 billion per year to reward states to increase their TANF caseloads; the Senate bill follows the same policy but allocates less money.
In effect the gatekeepers have been given permission to ease up.
Rector goes on to say that yes, extra money may be needed for those unemployed but that contingent already existed. This is like making more money readily available to anyone who wants to go on the DPB, which as we know, is often resorted to for reasons other than unemployment.
[Obama's] success in piloting a $785 billion (£546 billion) stimulus package through Congress was being overshadowed by warnings that an unprecedented increase in welfare spending would undermine two decades of bipartisan attempts to reduce dependency on government handouts.
Robert Rector, a prominent welfare researcher who was one of the architects of Clinton's 1996 reform bill, warned last week that Obama’s stimulus plan was a “welfare spendathon” that would amount to the largest one-year increase in government handouts in American history.
But how can extra spending alone undo the reforms? My interest sparked I went and had a look at exactly what Robert Rector is saying;
The welfare reform of 1996 replaced the old Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) with a new program named Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF). The key to welfare reform's reduction in dependency was the change in the funding structure of AFDC.[1]
Under the old AFDC program, states were given more federal funds if their welfare caseloads were increased, and funds were cut whenever the state caseload fell. This structure created a strong incentive for states to swell the welfare rolls. Prior to reform, one child in seven was receiving AFDC benefits.
When welfare reform replaced the old AFDC system with TANF, this perverse financial incentive to increase dependence was eliminated. Each state was given a flat funding level that did not vary whether the state increased or decreased its caseload. In addition, states were given the goal of reducing welfare dependence (or at least of requiring welfare recipients to prepare for employment).
The House and Senate stimulus bills will overturn the fiscal foundation of welfare reform and restore an AFDC-style funding system. For the first time since 1996, the federal government would begin paying states bonuses to increase their welfare caseloads. Indeed, the new welfare system created by the stimulus bills is actually worse than the old AFDC program because it rewards the states more heavily to increase their caseloads. Under the stimulus bills, the federal government will pay 80 percent of cost for each new family that a state enrolls in welfare; this matching rate is far higher than it was under AFDC.
It is clear that--in both the House and Senate stimulus bills--the original goal of helping families move to employment and self-sufficiency and off long-term dependence on government assistance has instead been replaced with the perverse incentive of adding more families to the welfare rolls. The House bill provides $4 billion per year to reward states to increase their TANF caseloads; the Senate bill follows the same policy but allocates less money.
In effect the gatekeepers have been given permission to ease up.
Rector goes on to say that yes, extra money may be needed for those unemployed but that contingent already existed. This is like making more money readily available to anyone who wants to go on the DPB, which as we know, is often resorted to for reasons other than unemployment.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Is there another sponsor for Peter Brown's bill?
In between mowing two lawns I must break to comment on NZ First Deputy Leader Peter Brown's resignation. Why? Because he was the sponsor of the Death With Dignity Bill. It was still in the ballot. The only live challenge to the status quo in respect of voluntary euthanasia. Will another party pick it up or draft similar? I very much hope so. It would be a good opportunity for ACT to reassert its traditional liberal credentials. The individual is the rightful owner of his life. Not society or God.
Putting the record straight
Earlier in the week Deborah Coddington asked me for information about the invalid and sickness benefit, statistics or direction on where to get them. I sent the following;
For current numbers go to;
http://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/statistics/benefit/2008-national-benefit-factsheets.html
Note those are 18-64 year-olds and there are people aged 16 and 17 also receiving sickness and invalid benefits. Last stats I had were 1,250 (combined total) at Oct 2007. They are not routinely published.
That has become the following in her weekly Herald column;
Longtime benefit reform campaigner and one-time Act candidate Lindsay Mitchell said the number of 18- to 64-year-olds on invalid benefits rose at a rate of about 6 per cent a year under the Labour Government, and that doesn't include the 16- and 17-year-olds, about 2000, also drawing this benefit.
I don't know where the first part of the quote comes from. It's not far off the mark though. Having just worked it out, the average yearly increase between 1999 and 2008 is 5.4 percent. But the second part is incorrect.
In 2007 there were 1,113 16-17 year-olds on a invalid's benefit and 137 on a sickness benefit. In a column about the invalidity of the invalid's benefit I wouldn't have mentioned the 1,113 16-17 year-olds simply because they are quite likely to be young people with intellectual disabilities and severe lifetime physical disabilities.
I am happy to help journalists. I don't care if I don't get credit as long as the correct information gets out there.
For current numbers go to;
http://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/statistics/benefit/2008-national-benefit-factsheets.html
Note those are 18-64 year-olds and there are people aged 16 and 17 also receiving sickness and invalid benefits. Last stats I had were 1,250 (combined total) at Oct 2007. They are not routinely published.
That has become the following in her weekly Herald column;
Longtime benefit reform campaigner and one-time Act candidate Lindsay Mitchell said the number of 18- to 64-year-olds on invalid benefits rose at a rate of about 6 per cent a year under the Labour Government, and that doesn't include the 16- and 17-year-olds, about 2000, also drawing this benefit.
I don't know where the first part of the quote comes from. It's not far off the mark though. Having just worked it out, the average yearly increase between 1999 and 2008 is 5.4 percent. But the second part is incorrect.
In 2007 there were 1,113 16-17 year-olds on a invalid's benefit and 137 on a sickness benefit. In a column about the invalidity of the invalid's benefit I wouldn't have mentioned the 1,113 16-17 year-olds simply because they are quite likely to be young people with intellectual disabilities and severe lifetime physical disabilities.
I am happy to help journalists. I don't care if I don't get credit as long as the correct information gets out there.
Friday, February 13, 2009
Get your priorities right
Deputy Prime Minister, Bill English answered for Minister for Social Development Minister, Paula Bennett, in the house yesterday. Asked what savings she had made in her portfolio, he answered;Hon BILL ENGLISH: I can inform the member that the Minister recently visited a programme set up under the last Government where children were taken out of school for 6 hours a week to pat dogs in the animal shelter, providing animal therapy—whether to the children or the dogs, I am not sure. The parents and the children involved were as mystified about the outcomes of that Government-funded programme as the Minister was. I can assure hard-working New Zealanders that under a National Government such spending will not continue.
That's a cheap shot. Within the context of having the government run our lives, which we seem to be stuck with in the meantime, there are some children who can benefit from spending time with animals in order to develop empathy. Sure it's not ideal that the need even exists but there's plenty of other MSD expenditure that should be well up the chopping list. The kind of expenditure that creates disaffected, neglected, unloved, angry children in the first place.
The photograph is of a boy from the Epuni Care and Protection Centre Residence;
Each fortnight, Sputnik and other children from the centre get to train and feed an SPCA puppy. Trainers sit with the children, many of whom are victims of abuse, to teach them how to handle the puppies.
Epuni manager Ross Barber says: “Developing empathy is natural, but exposure to violence interrupts this process. Contact with safe, loving others can begin to redress this harm.”
I am a great believer in the power of animals to positively influence lives.
Cop-convenient DNA database one step closer
Last night the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill passed its first reading supported by all but the Greens and the Maori Party. TV3 reports the voting was 108 - 13 (one missing). I am still hoping that ACT (and Labour for numbers) will not support this bill further down the line. It is entirely at odds with ACT's claims to classical liberalism. It is an extension of the powers of the state against the rights of the individual. All sorts of excuses can be made about the rights of the majority or existing contraventions of individual rights making this development acceptable, even ho-hum, but I am sticking to basics.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
A culture of "game-playing"
As I have no other post this morning I will continue yesterday's.
Redbaiter says that my criticism of the written questions fiasco is "nit-picking and piffling" and an "over eager beat up."
No, it's not a beat-up Redbaiter. It is an expression of frustration at the extensive and expensive time-wasting (on both sides) that goes on in parliament. And the obstructiveness extends into the ministries and their handling of questions put under the Official Information Act, as identified and criticised by the Ombudsman late last year.
Game-playing by some bureaucrats to delay the release of public information has been criticised by the ombudsman.
Chief Ombudsman Beverley Wakem said there was a growing tendency by some government departments and ministers' offices to delay providing requested information within legal time frames. "While in some cases this was clearly a misunderstanding of their obligations, there is also a regrettable tendency to game the system and delay responses until the complainants' interest in the matter had passed."
You may be happy paying for the "game-playing" that goes on in parliament and the public service. You may think ready access to information of no account. I can't agree.
Redbaiter says that my criticism of the written questions fiasco is "nit-picking and piffling" and an "over eager beat up."
No, it's not a beat-up Redbaiter. It is an expression of frustration at the extensive and expensive time-wasting (on both sides) that goes on in parliament. And the obstructiveness extends into the ministries and their handling of questions put under the Official Information Act, as identified and criticised by the Ombudsman late last year.
Game-playing by some bureaucrats to delay the release of public information has been criticised by the ombudsman.
Chief Ombudsman Beverley Wakem said there was a growing tendency by some government departments and ministers' offices to delay providing requested information within legal time frames. "While in some cases this was clearly a misunderstanding of their obligations, there is also a regrettable tendency to game the system and delay responses until the complainants' interest in the matter had passed."
You may be happy paying for the "game-playing" that goes on in parliament and the public service. You may think ready access to information of no account. I can't agree.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Just answer the damn question, can't you
People are waxing lyrical about Speaker Lockwood Smith's new regime. Lockwood will make Ministers answer questions properly, they are saying.
Well I hope he plans to include written questions. Here's a smattering of answers from the Minister for Social Development. The spelling mistakes are not mine. Comments are interspersed.
8749 (2008). Hon Annette King to the Minister for Social Development and Employment (15 Dec 2008): Will she guarantee no frontline staff will lose their jobs as a result of her holding the Ministry of Social Development to their target of 5% overall reduction in staff numbers in the next 4 years?
Hon Paula Bennett (Minister for Social Development and Employment) replied: The question the Member asks relates to operational and employment matters, which are the responsibility of the Chief Executive.
Evasive. If Ministers have no input into operational matters why did we bother changing government?
8692 (2008). Hon Annette King to the Minister for Social Development and Employment (12 Dec 2008): How many staff are employed within the Ministry of Social Development, by section and occupation, at 12 December 2008?
Hon Paula Bennett (Minister for Social Development and Employment) replied: I am advised that the number of staff employed by the Ministry of Social Development is regularly raised as part of the Annual Financial Review and Estimates Examinations of the Ministry of Social Development by the Social Services Committee, which are both available from the Parliamentary Library.
I do not have access to the Parliamentary library. These answers are supposed to serve the public as well as MPs. What is so secret, anyway, about the number of staff employed by MSD? This one is uncooperative and obstructive.
8668 (2008). Hon Annette King to the Minister for Social Development and Employment (12 Dec 2008): In light of the Government’s statements about an “underclass” in New Zealand, What is the Government’s definition of an underclass?
Hon Paula Bennett (Minister for Social Development and Employment) replied: The Government's overall priorities for this parliamentary term are set in the Speech from the Throne which is publically available via the beehive.govt.nz website. I am currently in the process of further developing and confirming my priorites for the Social Development and Employment portfolio. This is also my response to written parliamentary questions 8669 (2008).
Vague. Throwaway.
8590 (2008). Hon Annette King to the Minister for Social Development and Employment (11 Dec 2008): What, if any, additional funding will she be seeking for effective parenting programmes such as Family Start and Strategies with Kids - Information for Parents (SKIP)?
Hon Paula Bennett (Minister for Social Development and Employment) replied: Information on funding being considered as part of future Budgets is Budget Sensitive. Any decisions will be announced at the appropriate time. This is also my response to written parliamentary querstion 8591 (2008).
Waffle.
Yes, yes. Just par for the course. Just what Labour would have done. No big deal.
Only I thought the National government was going to be a cut above.
Well I hope he plans to include written questions. Here's a smattering of answers from the Minister for Social Development. The spelling mistakes are not mine. Comments are interspersed.
8749 (2008). Hon Annette King to the Minister for Social Development and Employment (15 Dec 2008): Will she guarantee no frontline staff will lose their jobs as a result of her holding the Ministry of Social Development to their target of 5% overall reduction in staff numbers in the next 4 years?
Hon Paula Bennett (Minister for Social Development and Employment) replied: The question the Member asks relates to operational and employment matters, which are the responsibility of the Chief Executive.
Evasive. If Ministers have no input into operational matters why did we bother changing government?
8692 (2008). Hon Annette King to the Minister for Social Development and Employment (12 Dec 2008): How many staff are employed within the Ministry of Social Development, by section and occupation, at 12 December 2008?
Hon Paula Bennett (Minister for Social Development and Employment) replied: I am advised that the number of staff employed by the Ministry of Social Development is regularly raised as part of the Annual Financial Review and Estimates Examinations of the Ministry of Social Development by the Social Services Committee, which are both available from the Parliamentary Library.
I do not have access to the Parliamentary library. These answers are supposed to serve the public as well as MPs. What is so secret, anyway, about the number of staff employed by MSD? This one is uncooperative and obstructive.
8668 (2008). Hon Annette King to the Minister for Social Development and Employment (12 Dec 2008): In light of the Government’s statements about an “underclass” in New Zealand, What is the Government’s definition of an underclass?
Hon Paula Bennett (Minister for Social Development and Employment) replied: The Government's overall priorities for this parliamentary term are set in the Speech from the Throne which is publically available via the beehive.govt.nz website. I am currently in the process of further developing and confirming my priorites for the Social Development and Employment portfolio. This is also my response to written parliamentary questions 8669 (2008).
Vague. Throwaway.
8590 (2008). Hon Annette King to the Minister for Social Development and Employment (11 Dec 2008): What, if any, additional funding will she be seeking for effective parenting programmes such as Family Start and Strategies with Kids - Information for Parents (SKIP)?
Hon Paula Bennett (Minister for Social Development and Employment) replied: Information on funding being considered as part of future Budgets is Budget Sensitive. Any decisions will be announced at the appropriate time. This is also my response to written parliamentary querstion 8591 (2008).
Waffle.
Yes, yes. Just par for the course. Just what Labour would have done. No big deal.
Only I thought the National government was going to be a cut above.
Never a truer word
Yesterday I was sent a list of great quotations. They are mostly familiar to me. Now I can add another, which wasn't and I've only just read;
1. In my many years I have come to a conclusion: that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm and three or more is a congress. ~ John Adams
2. If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed, if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed. ~ Mark Twain
3. Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But then I repeat myself. ~ Mark Twain
4. I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket & trying to lift himself up by the handle. - Winston Churchill
5. A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul. ~ George Bernard Shaw
6. A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money. ~ G. Gordon Liddy
7. Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. ~ James Bovard, Civil Libertarian (1994)
8. Foreign aid might be defined as a transfer of money from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries. ~ Douglas Casey
9. Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys. ~ P.J. O'Rourke, Civil Libertarian
10. Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else. ~ Frederic Bastiat, French Economist (1801-1850)
11. Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it. ~ Ronald Reagan (1986)
12. I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts. ~ Will Rogers
13. If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free! ~ P.J. O'Rourke
14. In general, the art of government consists of taking as much money as possible from one party of the citizens to give to the other. ~ Voltaire (1764)
15. Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you! ~ Pericles (430 B.C.)
16. No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the Legislature is in session. ~ Mark Twain (1866 )
17. Talk is cheap...except when Congress does it. ~ Anonymous
18. The government is like a baby's alimentary canal, with a happy appetite at one end and no responsibility at the other. ~ Ronald Reagan
19. The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery. ~ Winston Churchill
20. The only difference between a tax man and a taxidermist is that the taxidermist leaves the skin. ~ Mark Twain
21. The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools. ~ Herbert Spencer, English Philosopher (1820-1903)
22. There is no distinctly Native American criminal class ... Save Congress. ~ Mark Twain
23. What this country needs are more unemployed politicians. ~ Edward Langley, Artist (1928 - 1995)
24. A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have. ~ Thomas Jefferson
...and last but not least,
25. If we each pretend we can be made wealthy through taxing others, then we are destined for poverty. - Sir Roger Douglas
1. In my many years I have come to a conclusion: that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm and three or more is a congress. ~ John Adams
2. If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed, if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed. ~ Mark Twain
3. Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But then I repeat myself. ~ Mark Twain
4. I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket & trying to lift himself up by the handle. - Winston Churchill
5. A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul. ~ George Bernard Shaw
6. A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money. ~ G. Gordon Liddy
7. Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. ~ James Bovard, Civil Libertarian (1994)
8. Foreign aid might be defined as a transfer of money from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries. ~ Douglas Casey
9. Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys. ~ P.J. O'Rourke, Civil Libertarian
10. Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else. ~ Frederic Bastiat, French Economist (1801-1850)
11. Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it. ~ Ronald Reagan (1986)
12. I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts. ~ Will Rogers
13. If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free! ~ P.J. O'Rourke
14. In general, the art of government consists of taking as much money as possible from one party of the citizens to give to the other. ~ Voltaire (1764)
15. Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you! ~ Pericles (430 B.C.)
16. No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the Legislature is in session. ~ Mark Twain (1866 )
17. Talk is cheap...except when Congress does it. ~ Anonymous
18. The government is like a baby's alimentary canal, with a happy appetite at one end and no responsibility at the other. ~ Ronald Reagan
19. The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery. ~ Winston Churchill
20. The only difference between a tax man and a taxidermist is that the taxidermist leaves the skin. ~ Mark Twain
21. The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools. ~ Herbert Spencer, English Philosopher (1820-1903)
22. There is no distinctly Native American criminal class ... Save Congress. ~ Mark Twain
23. What this country needs are more unemployed politicians. ~ Edward Langley, Artist (1928 - 1995)
24. A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have. ~ Thomas Jefferson
...and last but not least,
25. If we each pretend we can be made wealthy through taxing others, then we are destined for poverty. - Sir Roger Douglas
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Compulsory DNA sampling from suspects
Is anybody else really bothered by this?
I have been against DNA sampling from people who are mere suspects of a crime from the outset. How far afield can the suspicion net be cast? And the establishment of a DNA link is not necessarily conclusive. DNA can be present for reasons other than the suspect committed the crime.
DNA technology has probably improved but anyone who watched the David Dougherty story at the weekend should be concerned about the misuse of DNA evidence which saw this man wrongly imprisoned for years.
It's really, really bugging me that National are going to pass this legislation. WITH the support of ACT.
I have been against DNA sampling from people who are mere suspects of a crime from the outset. How far afield can the suspicion net be cast? And the establishment of a DNA link is not necessarily conclusive. DNA can be present for reasons other than the suspect committed the crime.
DNA technology has probably improved but anyone who watched the David Dougherty story at the weekend should be concerned about the misuse of DNA evidence which saw this man wrongly imprisoned for years.
It's really, really bugging me that National are going to pass this legislation. WITH the support of ACT.
"Youth culture dumbs down teenagers"
Based on just the information provided by the NZPA (the study is not on-line yet) Jim Flynn's latest research appears to contradict his earlier. Professor Flynn says English teenagers are dumber than they were 28 years ago.
Professor James Flynn, of Otago University, found that IQ scores for the average 14-year-old had dropped by more than two points between 1980 and 2008. For those in the upper half of the intelligence scale, average IQ scores were six points down on 28 years ago.
The study contrasts with Professor Flynn's previous work, which suggested that intelligence has been consistently rising among all age groups in industrialised countries.
Of course, it could just be that the English are getting thicker. I am sure Theodore Dalrymple would be a subscriber to this theory.
Professor Flynn suggested that the falls could be down to lifestyle changes, including more time spent in front of the television or playing video games.
"Other studies have shown how pervasive teenage youth culture is, and what we see is parents' influence on IQ slowly diminishing with age."
Even if the tests are robust, the sampling robust, blaming youth culture seems rather weak. Youth culture existed before the 1990s. I misspent my youth on a diet of Casey Kasam's American Top Forty for instance. Perhaps Mr Flynn's earlier laments about less educated women having a greater proportion of children (a predictable outcome of welfarism) hold more promise of an explanation. But after the uproar he caused last time he went there, it is safer to look for other factors to blame.
Professor James Flynn, of Otago University, found that IQ scores for the average 14-year-old had dropped by more than two points between 1980 and 2008. For those in the upper half of the intelligence scale, average IQ scores were six points down on 28 years ago.
The study contrasts with Professor Flynn's previous work, which suggested that intelligence has been consistently rising among all age groups in industrialised countries.
Of course, it could just be that the English are getting thicker. I am sure Theodore Dalrymple would be a subscriber to this theory.
Professor Flynn suggested that the falls could be down to lifestyle changes, including more time spent in front of the television or playing video games.
"Other studies have shown how pervasive teenage youth culture is, and what we see is parents' influence on IQ slowly diminishing with age."
Even if the tests are robust, the sampling robust, blaming youth culture seems rather weak. Youth culture existed before the 1990s. I misspent my youth on a diet of Casey Kasam's American Top Forty for instance. Perhaps Mr Flynn's earlier laments about less educated women having a greater proportion of children (a predictable outcome of welfarism) hold more promise of an explanation. But after the uproar he caused last time he went there, it is safer to look for other factors to blame.
Monday, February 09, 2009
Big fat moralising hypocrite
I take it this guy didn't swim to Egypt;
New Zealand Archbishop says Anglicans should offer “moral leadership” in the fight against global warming
Archbishop David Moxon has told an international press conference that the Anglican Communion should offer “moral leadership” in the campaign against global warming.
Archbishop Moxon is in Alexandria, Egypt, for a meeting of the Anglican Primates, or leaders of the 34 Anglican provinces that make up the worldwide Anglican Communion.
Archbishop Moxon later told a press conference that the gathered Anglican leaders were agreed that the Anglican Communion should offer “moral leadership” in the campaign against climate change.
This, he suggested, was significantly a matter of setting an example.
He spoke of the need for Anglicans to embrace lifestyle changes, and to cutback unnecessary or environmentally hazardous modes of travel.
New Zealand Archbishop says Anglicans should offer “moral leadership” in the fight against global warming
Archbishop David Moxon has told an international press conference that the Anglican Communion should offer “moral leadership” in the campaign against global warming.
Archbishop Moxon is in Alexandria, Egypt, for a meeting of the Anglican Primates, or leaders of the 34 Anglican provinces that make up the worldwide Anglican Communion.
Archbishop Moxon later told a press conference that the gathered Anglican leaders were agreed that the Anglican Communion should offer “moral leadership” in the campaign against climate change.
This, he suggested, was significantly a matter of setting an example.
He spoke of the need for Anglicans to embrace lifestyle changes, and to cutback unnecessary or environmentally hazardous modes of travel.
The photos Air New Zealand didn't want you to see...
Well, not quite. But they may as well have been. From the NZ Herald;
Passengers see fuel pour from plane
Rattled passengers were told not to take photos as fuel streamed out of the wings of an Air New Zealand jet bound for Los Angeles.
Flight NZ6, with 365 people on board, was forced to turn back about 20 minutes after leaving Auckland on Saturday night when the pilots were unable to retract the landing gear.
In the 1993 David and I were on a 747 bound for Japan from Auckland. About 30-40 minutes into the flight I said to David, "We have been in a very shallow right hand turn for the past few minutes. Wonder what's going on." A radio announcement shortly followed. It was explained that the Captain's cockpit window had developed a 'bubble' and we were returning to Auckland for a precautionary landing. But before we could land we would be dumping fuel and what to expect visually.
Nobody instructed us not to take photos, albeit these were the days before widespread digital image communication. As I recall on the flight I was on, there was more a sense of curiosity than fear. Instructing people not to take photos would have fostered a sense of alarm. Perhaps they were simply trying to minimise bad publicity.
So if you wanted to know what you missed, that's what tonnes of fuel being jettisoned off the East Coast of Northern New Zealand looks like.
Passengers see fuel pour from plane
Rattled passengers were told not to take photos as fuel streamed out of the wings of an Air New Zealand jet bound for Los Angeles.
Flight NZ6, with 365 people on board, was forced to turn back about 20 minutes after leaving Auckland on Saturday night when the pilots were unable to retract the landing gear.
In the 1993 David and I were on a 747 bound for Japan from Auckland. About 30-40 minutes into the flight I said to David, "We have been in a very shallow right hand turn for the past few minutes. Wonder what's going on." A radio announcement shortly followed. It was explained that the Captain's cockpit window had developed a 'bubble' and we were returning to Auckland for a precautionary landing. But before we could land we would be dumping fuel and what to expect visually.
Nobody instructed us not to take photos, albeit these were the days before widespread digital image communication. As I recall on the flight I was on, there was more a sense of curiosity than fear. Instructing people not to take photos would have fostered a sense of alarm. Perhaps they were simply trying to minimise bad publicity.
So if you wanted to know what you missed, that's what tonnes of fuel being jettisoned off the East Coast of Northern New Zealand looks like.
Sunday, February 08, 2009
The rudeness and incompetence of a local council
I have been following this story from Kismet Farm.First instalment and second are a good read because the writer has a sense of humour but don't go there if you have blood pressure problems.
Not quite on this scale but we have also experienced the incompetence and rudeness of local council. It must happen over and over (notwithstanding I have also heard of good experiences.) I would advise these people to enlist the support of the Minister for Local Government in their battle. The time is ripe.
Not quite on this scale but we have also experienced the incompetence and rudeness of local council. It must happen over and over (notwithstanding I have also heard of good experiences.) I would advise these people to enlist the support of the Minister for Local Government in their battle. The time is ripe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
