They have us over a barrel

The women (attached to gang members) that Housing New Zealand are attempting to evict from a Taita street are taking legal action. We ain't going anywhere, they say.

They are apparently all on benefits so will qualify for legal aid. A certificate from Work and Income showing their gross income is less than $20,000 will take care of that. Although legal aid is supposed to be a loan it will likely be written off in this case. There is no owned property to make a charge against.

So the taxpayer is funding these women's benefits and their accommodation, both of which have been abused. They get away with the first abuse because of a legal ruling which defines their relationships as 'not in the nature of marriage'. Then, when they decide to fight the consequences of the secondary property abuse, the taxpayer has to foot their legal fees.

Just how far removed is all of this from a 'safety' net?

And in wades Parekura Horomia in his shadow Maori Minister role;

"I'm concerned about the effect on the women and children. Housing NZ have really really rushed this."

What a first-class apologist for manipulators this man is. These tenants and their partners have society over a barrel. They are not victims and they are not clueless. Children are hostages to and guarantors of their chosen lifestyles. It's a pig of a mess made worse by weak leaders like Horomia.

"Is that your Daddy?"

Some interesting divorce data has just been released from Statistics NZ;

Analysis of divorce statistics by year of marriage shows that about one-third of New Zealanders who married in 1983 had divorced before their silver wedding anniversary (25 years).

Gee, I thought it might have been higher than that. Maybe a good number just stay separated.

I may have recounted this before but it springs to mind right now.

My young daughter had a friend over. She was a talkative, curious child. On espying a wedding photograph of David and I she turned to my daughter and asked, "Is that your Daddy?", which Sam confirmed. It was the next question that floored me. "Where does he live?"

Auckland carrying a disproportionate share of benefit growth

I have been playing with some of the regional benefit data released for March 2009.

These figures show the total number of people on main benefits and the percentage change (they are all positive) over the year.



Obviously the highest growth is occurring in the cities, most noticeably, Auckland.

Then I have broken down each main benefit.

The following shows the Unemployment benefit numbers at 2008 and 2009 and the percentage change;


The highest percentage unemployment growth is Canterbury with Auckland second, but on a much larger base number.

Sickness benefits are next;



The percentage growth in sickness benefits is quite erratic across the regions ranging from zero in the East Coast to 21 in Canterbury. That may indicate that the growth is influenced by differing regional policy/procedures as much as individual incapacities. And some offsetting/contrasting figures can be seen in the next table which may indicate some reclassification/transfer - Invalid's benefit;




The next is the DPB numbers at 2008 and 2009 and the percentage change;



Again the highest growth is Auckland. More bad news because the highest percentage growth is also where the largest numbers reside.

In conclusion most of the benefit growth is happening in Auckland. And it's not simply because that's where most of the population lives. Almost half - 46 percent - of the extra numbers on welfare over the year to March 2009 live in Auckland.

Although, to be fair, it is still proportionately under-represented in terms of general welfare dependence.

Relishing our dependence

According to the Minister of Social Development,

"One in five New Zealanders has some form of disability, and that number is expected to grow by 60 per cent over the next 40 years."

That means one in five is going to become one in three.

Apart from the ageing population, why? What the hell is going on here?

Why does government talk up disability? It seems almost to relish the prospect of growing dependence. I blame the infiltration of mothers (or potential mothers) into wider society, especially via the public service. It is one thing to mollycoddle one's own. To some extent that is the very essence of a mother. I do it with my own kids but that's where it ends.

I really can't stand this disability-isation of people. So many invisible and invented maladies are now 'disabilities'. That means more funding, more planning, more nappy-changing. And it does a disservice to those with genuine and debilitating conditions. Proud people who struggle to maintain as much independence and self-reliance as they can.

They are demeaned by all the me-tooers; the snouters wearing their newly described 'disabilities' like badges of honour demanding that government fawn all over them. People fighting to be more disabled than the next. And those that would indulge them.

One in three people will have some form of disability? What a pathetic prediction and pathetic acquiescence.

Foolish head-banging?

No. Not of the 'musical' kind. Rather,the banging-it-against-a-brick-wall variety.

I think I am possibly not shouting loud enough or what is important to me is trivial and boring to others. Or a combination of both. But I will restate some news from earlier in the week.

6,000 more people are on the DPB than one year ago.

That's around 10,000 children - enough to fill twenty five substantial schools.

An annual six percent rise hasn't been seen since the early 90s.

There are 37,000 unemployed people but over 100,000 on the DPB, where they will remain, on average, far longer than those on the dole.

But the media thinks the demise of Wheel Of Fortune is more important.

What's happening here is politics. Labour won't make a noise about it because they squandered the best opportunity to do something about the DPB any government has had. And National won't make a noise about it because they aren't prepared to do anything about it.

Have we given up caring? Is the DPB just part of the wallpaper now? Is it so institutionalised there is no going back? Or rather, going forward?

Good news hyped into bad

Good news. A new MP, Kanwal Bakshi has a property that was being operated as a brothel. That's what we need. More property-owning MPs.

What's left of the welfare state

Chris Trotter writes in today's DomPost that Mr Key and his right wing mates are showing signs that they are about to get rid of "what's left of the welfare state".

This implies most of what constitutes the welfare state has already been dismantled.

All that remains are the unemployment, sickness, invalid and domestic purposes benefits; the independent youth, emergency, and unsupported child benefits; super and veteran's pensions; accommodation supplement and state housing; the minimum wage; Working For Families; residential care subsidies; childcare subsidies; Paid Parental Leave; student allowances; interest free student loans; 'free' public hospitals and public schools; various family and child tax credits; universal no-fault accident compensation; widow's benefit; orphan's benefit; free dental care for the young; free healthcare for under sixes; the Super GoldCard; the Community Services card; the methadone programme; legal aid; Restart and Replace; 9 day working fortnight subsidies; subsidies to hundreds of 'charities'...

No. There's not much to remember. Did I miss anything? Oh yes, there is a case to include corporate welfare, and grants to the arts and sports as part of the broadest-sense welfare state.

I wonder what Trotter thinks has been dispensed with? The family benefit, which had deteriorated in value to almost nothing by the time National threw it out? Farming subsidies? I tell you what. It's a helluva sight harder trying to identify what went than what stayed.

Unemployment benefit - numbers almost double

Media Release

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT - NUMBERS ALMOST DOUBLE

Thursday, April 30, 2009

Data just released by the Ministry of Social Development show that numbers on the unemployment benefit have nearly doubled over the last year to 37,000.

"While this was largely expected the equally bad news is that every main benefit has seen an increase in numbers since the end of March 2008. Of particular concern is a 12 percent increase in the sickness benefit when earlier indications and assurances were the growth was easing off. There are now 135,000 working-age New Zealanders receiving either a sickness or invalid's benefit - around one in twenty people aged 18 - 64."

"As well, the numbers receiving the domestic purpose's benefit have increased by 6,000 or six percent with much of the growth in the 18-24 age group."

"Being in a recession is no reason to accept that all benefits will take on numbers. The government needs to be toughening and tightening up. If it fails to keep a lid on growth in the DPB, sickness and invalid benefits, we will see exaggerated numbers for years to come, similar to the legacy of the last severe employment slump of the early nineties."

NZ - third highest reported crime rate

The net is great in terms of information accessibility and currency BUT sometimes one stumbles across depictions that really can mislead;



I have sent the following feedback;

Your reported crime rate for New Zealand is inaccurate. There were 431,381 reported crimes (source NZ Police) in 2008. The population is currently around 4.3 million. That provides a rate per 100,000 of 10,032 - not 12,586.64

It is unfortunate that those countries with accessible and transparent statistics consequently appear to be the most 'dangerous' when there are certainly riskier places to visit. South Africa, for instance, is notorious for its high crime rates.

In fact, thinking on it further, that a country has a 'reported' crime rate is reassuring of itself. It means there is someone to report crime to and some point in reporting it.

NZ Institute calls for welfare spending cuts?

The NZ Institute (funded by business subscription) is saying scrap the tax cuts and think about property taxes to raise additional revenue. You have to wonder how representative of their funders that position is.

Also,

The institute said health and welfare spending should be cut, but KiwiSaver should be enhanced.

Always interested in welfare proposals I had a quick look at the actual report. In fact the only proposal that could be construed as calling for a cut in welfare spending is a suggested review of Working For Families. Otherwise other references to welfare spending imply boosting expenditure on youth unemployment and support for those affected by the recession.

Prebble on balancing the budget

Why we miss Richard Prebble.

In the OECD only two countries owe more money per person than we do; Iceland which is bankrupt and Spain where unemployment has just hit 17 percent. New Zealand’s external debt is now $167 billion. Politicians used to say “Most of the money is owed by Aussie banks, it is not our worry”. The banks owe most of the debt but just days before the election the Labour government extended a guarantee to cover all bank borrowing. Potentially you owe $41 thousand; that’s what $167 billion divided by 4 million works out at. As only a third of us pay income tax as a taxpayer you potentially owe around a $120 thousand.

Only a third? He is probably right. While the workforce is around 2.2 million, many low income workers effectively pay no income tax.

Families Commission - biased and barking up the wrong tree

The Families Commission is once again wearing its utopian fool's hat for all to see;

“Healthy, positive relationships within families do not involve people hitting each other and the Commission continues to believe that repeal was one step that, combined with other nationwide efforts to address violence, will help us become a violence-free society."

The specific function of the Families Commission is to encourage informed debate about families.

Not discourage (as would appear to be the case with respect to Family First).

So with their blessing I will continue to debate what they expect to achieve with their romantic visions. The role model for the legislation which still sits very awkwardly on the shoulders of many New Zealand parents is Sweden. You may remember that Sweden banned smacking in 1979. No doubt then-protagonists of a total ban on physically disciplining children also talked about a violence-free society.

Here is the reality;



In case you miss it, "Reported assaults on children up to six years of age increased by 13 percent to slightly more than 1,550 offences in 2007. The number of reported assault offences against children aged between seven and fourteen (almost 8,100 offences) increased by eight per cent by comparison with the figure for the previous year."

I have read excuses about the values and behaviour of new immigrants being to blame but recorded violence has been increasing steadily over the entire period (during which the population increased by about 13 percent.)

Based on this result I will go to my grave still waiting for the promised land.

Size of child abuse problem "horrific"

Australian Community Services Minister describes the size of Australia's child abuse problem as "horrific";

Ms Macklin said more than 55,000 substantiated cases of child abuse and neglect were recorded last year. "We have to confront the reality that these numbers tell us that we are letting down far, far too many children in this country," she said.

Professor Fiona Stanley, a child welfare specialist and chairwoman of the research alliance that commissioned the report, described the level of abuse and neglect in Australia as an "epidemic".

The latest comparable statistic I have for New Zealand is from 2006. (Later statistics are available about the number of reports and those requiring further action but that is not the same as 'substantiated'.)


If we crudely multiplied 15,248 by a factor of 5 we would get 76,240. Putting aside that I have compared different time periods and there may be slight demographic differences, it is clear that our rate of substantiated child abuse is significantly higher.

I wonder what superlative Paula Bennett would use to describe our figures?

A job for Mythbusters?

I was ruminating over how people, especially feminists, might respond to an equivalent type of ad appearing in a men's centre newsletter focussing on girlfriend violence. Or doesn't it exist?

A welcome diversion

In the midst of economic woe, piggy pandemics and leaky-house inducing weather, something to laugh about is needed. Anything to laugh about actually.

The police must be quietly seething over this criminal chap down in Canterbury that keeps giving them the big finger before donning his invisibility cloak. But their anger is probably more directed to the communities that are watching on with such obvious glee. One of the entertained has produced a "Where's Billy?" teeshirt and Robbie Robertson, who normally pens songs about legendary New Zealand race horses, has come up with a rather pithy little piss-taker, a copy of which he has thoughtfully handed over to the local constabulary.

If the subject of the song has half a brain, and his antics would indicate as much, he will spend the next prison spell writing up his adventures, selling the movie rights, etc. IF they ever catch him.

Poetic justice

By uncanny coincidence Labour is asking Mt Albert to return a 'red' candidate on the same day we mercifully stop working for the government.

June 13

Anyone living in Mt Albert has a great opportunity to loudly and effectively protest the lateness of this year's Tax Freedom day by giving Labour the big brush off.

Labour lines up behind Geoffrey Palmer

Labour is supporting Geoffry Palmer's attacks on alcohol consumption, in particular, a tax hike.

Increasing tax on alcohol was about making those who buy alcohol pay for the harm it does, Ms Dalziel said, and there needed to be debate about whether this was the right option.

As previously stated, the use of alcohol is not evil in and of itself. Ms Dalziel's reasoning may seem sound at first glance but why not apply it to food and cars.

Let's hike the tax on food to pay for the harm it does to over-eaters; let's hike the tax on cars to pay for the harm caused by bad drivers. In fact let's hike the tax on cars to pay for the damage drink drivers do. After all it was the car as much as the alcohol that 'caused' the crash.

The problem is people and how they behave. The alcohol, the car, the gun, the cigarette, the food, etc., etc., are all incidental. The more we spread the burden of bad behaviour consequences, the more people will indulge in it.

Here is something else to think about. The tax on cigarettes far exceeds the cost of treating smoking-related health problems. Smokers are a cash cow. More than 70 percent of the retail price of cigarettes is tax. A lot higher than the tax on alcohol. Under Labour's desired option, are users of alcohol going to be the next one?

A cure for cancer, I kid you not

I must be quick because I have a cake to bake, cool, fill and ice by lunchtime. It is Robert's 15th tomorrow so we have a family get together today. No. Not a prompt to blog about birth and its politicisation. But. My, doesn't time fly? My beautiful little baby is now legal to drive a car. And there are two conflicting thoughts I have about the passage of time. One adage tells that the more folk change the more they stay the same. Is human nature unchanging? Because our environment certainly isn't. I can't find a better way to highlight this than a clipping from the first Evening Post, dated 1865. Not an editorial piece but an advert. Often advertising tells us more about the times than opinion. But it is worth a read just to shake us up to the reality. The pace of change over the last 100 or so years has been phenomenal. Hope this amuses you as much as it did me, the language as much as the exhaustive indications.

(Left click on image to enlarge.)









WOW.

Alcohol crack-down - utilitarianism in reverse

Utilitarianism as a principle isn't perfect. It embodies the idea of achieving the greatest good for the greatest number, so can leave minorities in a position of disadvantage. Mostly, however, it is the best idea we can come up with - like democracy.

Raising tax on alcohol, restricting access, and lowering thresholds for drinking and driving will punish all drinkers (an estimated 90 percent of New Zealanders drink alcohol) in an attempt to control a few drinkers. It is utilitarianism in reverse.

Geoffrey Palmer, the purveyor of the finest alcoholic deterrent proposals;

"I do not understand why bars need to be open until 6am on a Sunday morning," he said.

No. Neither do I. I don't understand a lot of things that are none of my business. That is why I don't understand them, nor attempt to.

Alcohol use of itself is not evil. The poor health impacts and criminal behaviour which arise from alcohol abuse impose costs which should be borne by those doing the abusing. If we applied that blindingly obvious fundamental the deterrent affect would be significant. The 'no consequences' welfare state is again a major culprit in encouraging buck-passing behaviours.

The corruption of "volunteering"

When I read headlines like this I get momentarily confused,

Volunteers face funding cuts

My understanding of a volunteer as someone who provides a service without paid recompense is obviously incorrect.

Further, providing "volunteer" services becomes increasingly costly. It must, because "volunteers" who once relied on church donations now rely on taxation via government funding.

This particular group get funding from Work and Income. To provide work-training courses. In this respect they are merely an extension of state welfare. That's OK if they are as successful as they claim to be. But it remains a misnomer to label activities that are paid for as "volunteering". There may be an element of unpaid work involved although I doubt that people running a full-time course would be unpaid.

We even have a "Minister for the Community and Voluntry Sector" (not my spelling mistake). Why?

Because there are over 105,000 paid staff in the "voluntary" sector which receives a good part of its funding from government. We should probably rightly call many of these people 'public servants'. Hence one can better grasp why they are facing cuts.