Not that I agree with Rosslyn Noonan, Chief Human Rights Commissioner, but according to this news item we are already back to square one in respect of the anti-smacking law;
She says force can be used when it is reasonable to do so, such as stopping the child from hurting themselves or others.
What the 'yes' vote urgers are missing is this. Because of a combination of media reporting and the controversial debate about banning smacking, the social climate has changed. There is hysteria about child abuse abroad. This isn't dissimilar to the hysteria over sexual abuse earlier. (Sexual abuse similarly underwent a change of definition to eventually encompassing any unwanted touching.)
Many more people are reporting what they personally define as abuse or assault which the police may or may not prosecute. The reports do not need witness substantiation or evidence. If the particular police involved are inclined towards empathising with the current climate, a prosecution is more likely to occur. There have been and will be miscarriages of justice.
People cognisant of what has happened are fearful, with good reason. Worse, I don't think there is any putting this cat back in the bag.
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
Monday, July 06, 2009
Having kittens - literally
Remember Daisy?
She's up the duff. We first noticed something awry when she started missing her target when leaping. Then Robert, who likes to carry her around cradled in his arms, noticed her tummy getting harder. Then Sam, searching for fleas, noticed her teats changing. Now she is ballooning daily. Sam wants to do a pregnancy test but I asked her how she proposes getting the stick into a constant stream of cat pee? Much less why you would want to. If she isn't pregnant, I'm the pope.
Anyway, it's written all over her face.
She's up the duff. We first noticed something awry when she started missing her target when leaping. Then Robert, who likes to carry her around cradled in his arms, noticed her tummy getting harder. Then Sam, searching for fleas, noticed her teats changing. Now she is ballooning daily. Sam wants to do a pregnancy test but I asked her how she proposes getting the stick into a constant stream of cat pee? Much less why you would want to. If she isn't pregnant, I'm the pope.
Anyway, it's written all over her face.
Doctor shortage
The OECD has just released a comparison of health data. In many ways NZ is unremarkable. Except for this;
"New Zealand has fewer physicians per capita than most other OECD countries. In 2007, New Zealand had 2.3 practising physicians per 1,000 population, well below the OECD average of 3.1."
By my reading of the situation this is largely a result of political interference. Successive governments have made the role of general practitioner less and less attractive. And of course our general economic standing means physicians are better paid elsewhere. My husband is a health professional (not a physician) but our children have never shown the remotest inkling of interest in pursuing a career in health. With all the dire media coverage, why would they?
"New Zealand has fewer physicians per capita than most other OECD countries. In 2007, New Zealand had 2.3 practising physicians per 1,000 population, well below the OECD average of 3.1."
By my reading of the situation this is largely a result of political interference. Successive governments have made the role of general practitioner less and less attractive. And of course our general economic standing means physicians are better paid elsewhere. My husband is a health professional (not a physician) but our children have never shown the remotest inkling of interest in pursuing a career in health. With all the dire media coverage, why would they?
Discretionary welfare - the irony and the problem
Last week I commented on the turn-around the Left has made on the issue of discretion in the area of welfare benefits. Having achieved their rules-based welfare, they are now calling for eligibility rules to be bent and discretion used for top-ups.
To illustrate my claim here is a passage written by Geoffrey Palmer, then a Professor of Law at Victoria, later Labour PM and briefly PM, in 1976;
In 1975 there was a grand total of 54,152 working age people receiving a benefit and nearly a third were widows. The population was 3.1 million.
Today there are over 300,000 with a population of 4.3 million. The results of rules and entitlement-based welfare are clear.
My own view about discretion is that is belongs in the area of private and voluntary charity where it can be exercised rightfully by people who have raised their own money and gathered their own resources. We should have far more of this sort of assistance. The organisation I work for does not carry on providing help endlessly to people who are not making a reciprocal effort.
When it comes to the state, the use of discretion becomes more difficult. How much power should state agents have when it comes to taxpayer purse strings? Hence we should have far less state assistance.
To illustrate my claim here is a passage written by Geoffrey Palmer, then a Professor of Law at Victoria, later Labour PM and briefly PM, in 1976;
"The message is, in my view, that whatever benefits we decide to pay we should pay them as of right. We should cut down the areas of discretion. We should make the benefits available automatically where at all possible and we should eliminate the screening mechanisms which destroy the dignity of the person receiving the benefit. When the community has decided to spend as much money as New Zealand has on income maintenance the money ought to be delivered by efficient and up to date machinery which aims to serve the recipient of the benefit without making him feel like a beggar."
In 1975 there was a grand total of 54,152 working age people receiving a benefit and nearly a third were widows. The population was 3.1 million.
Today there are over 300,000 with a population of 4.3 million. The results of rules and entitlement-based welfare are clear.
My own view about discretion is that is belongs in the area of private and voluntary charity where it can be exercised rightfully by people who have raised their own money and gathered their own resources. We should have far more of this sort of assistance. The organisation I work for does not carry on providing help endlessly to people who are not making a reciprocal effort.
When it comes to the state, the use of discretion becomes more difficult. How much power should state agents have when it comes to taxpayer purse strings? Hence we should have far less state assistance.
Saturday, July 04, 2009
Doctor beat-up
This is an entirely spurious headline designed to antagonise patients and taxpayers;
Doctors prescribe drugs that don't work
Three out of four New Zealand doctors have prescribed placebo medications to patients, new research suggests.
Medical researcher Shaun Holt said the practice could be costing the taxpayer several million dollars.
The placebo effect exists, therefore if a drug improves someone's condition, it has 'worked'. The writer tells us as much in the article;
Doctors are quite probably adept at identifying the one in three.
And what about prescribing drugs as a diagnostic tool? If the doctor guesses wrong, the drug 'doesn't work'. But it does eliminate one possible diagnosis so hasn't been a waste of money.
There is a subtle but significant difference between a drug not doing what it is therapeutically supposed to do and it being a waste of money.
Doctors prescribe drugs that don't work
Three out of four New Zealand doctors have prescribed placebo medications to patients, new research suggests.
Medical researcher Shaun Holt said the practice could be costing the taxpayer several million dollars.
The placebo effect exists, therefore if a drug improves someone's condition, it has 'worked'. The writer tells us as much in the article;
Placebos are associated with the release of natural painkillers in the brain, including dopamine. Taking a placebo creates a "self-reinforcing feedback loop" in the brain: during pain an individual recalls having taken the placebo and reduced pain reinforces its status as a painkiller. About one-in-three people appear susceptible to placebo effects.
Doctors are quite probably adept at identifying the one in three.
And what about prescribing drugs as a diagnostic tool? If the doctor guesses wrong, the drug 'doesn't work'. But it does eliminate one possible diagnosis so hasn't been a waste of money.
There is a subtle but significant difference between a drug not doing what it is therapeutically supposed to do and it being a waste of money.
Friday, July 03, 2009
Gordon Campbell on Paula Bennett's welfare abuse
This is a column by Gordon Campbell. My comment follows;
By Lindsay on Jul 3, 2009 | Reply
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
But socialists have traditionally despised the idea of discretionary entitlement. Universal rules and rights-based entitlement is their ideal. In order to provide such, means-testing has to be applied. That allows targeting of the neediest.
“Eligibility rules for assistance that have been premised on a relatively healthy job market and a ready return to employment are no longer adequate.”
The eligibility rules have been premised this way since the first Labour government introduced Social Security.
Welfare benefits are paid from general taxation. If people want better cover, then the country needs to change to a more comprehensive insurance-based model.
Sue Bradford,“In the long term, poor educational, health and employment outcomes for children and adults in sole parent families will cost us more than easing rules on income levels and benefit entitlements.”
So Bradford is now admitting that there is a problem with sole parent families. This is only because, she would counter, their benefits are insufficient and their children live in poverty.
But now she is suggesting that couples be given preferential treatment in terms of how much household income they can acquire via welfare.
You really should be thanking Paula Bennett - not attacking her - for sticking with the welfare philosophy of the Left. State, universal, means-tested, rules-based, entitlement.
Paula Bennett’s welfare abuse
July 1st, 2009
To date, the government’s response to the recession has been faulted on the demand side – for not giving sufficient stimulus to the economy, as reflected in its wilful misdirection of most of the April tax cut money to the top tier of incomes, when low income earners would have spent the money to far better economic effect. The lack of proper planning and funding for social welfare provision has been just as disastrous.
Right now, the government seems intent on forcing more and more of the victims of this recession into fewer and fewer job openings. On National Radio this morning for instance, Social Welfare Minister Paula Bennett could be heard riding off energetically in all directions. Why, she was going to hand the Disabilities portfolio over to Taraina Turia in order to concentrate on getting people into jobs! We were dreaming, Bennett said, if we didn’t think that unemployment wasn’t going to increase.
Fabulous. So, beyond the slogans and empty gestures, would she be relaxing any of the eligibility settings for assistance, in recognition of the scale of the recession? No, not at all. Earlier this year, Bennett refused to instruct her staff to exercise discretion when it came to dispensing help through the Temporary Additional Support (TAS) scheme – which is the last line of defence for people in danger of slipping through the welfare safety net. Now was not a time to ‘tinker’ with the rules, she told me when taking questions about the government’s response to the recession, at a post Cabinet press conference.
In similar vein, Bennett is refusing to revisit the eligibility rules in households where one partner is still working. Currently, as Sue Bradford of the Greens has pointed out, couples with an earner in paid employment need to be amassing below $534 a week before the unemployed partner can qualify for the dole, or the DPB. This rule is, among other things, serving to keep the welfare figures conveniently and artificially low. As Bradford says, the situation is putting pressure on couples to split, in order to gain access to assistance. Shouldn’t Christine Rankin and the Families Commission be having something to say to Bennett about her eligibility rules?
These rules, as Susan St John and Keith Rankin showed yesterday in the NZ Herald, stand up badly to international comparison, and are inherently unfair :
Mary Williams, of Muriwai Beach, who lost her job in a bank in March, said in a letter to the Herald: “Why am I classed as a single earner paying ACC and income tax when employed, but classed as a couple when out of work?”
She and her husband Neville have started selling their possessions. “Because my husband earns just above the income limit for a couple, I cannot register for unemployment,” she said.
So, it is all very well for the government to say it is concentrating on getting people back into work. Already, the inadequacy of this response is evident : because there are not enough jobs for the people, and for the families, most at risk. Eligibility rules for assistance that have been premised on a relatively healthy job market and a ready return to employment are no longer adequate. Still, this government currently seems uninterested in responding to genuine need – it is more about spinning an appearance of concern, for the re-assurance of the majority still in work.
That approach is extremely short-sighted. “Financial pressures that attack the family unit lead to deepening poverty and emotional damage for all concerned,” Bradford says. “In the long term, poor educational, health and employment outcomes for children and adults in sole parent families will cost us more than easing rules on income levels and benefit entitlements.”
It would take five minutes for Bennett to issue a direction that people with partners in paid employment can access the unemployment benefit. She should also be telling her front line staff to administer the TAS benefits with discretion, and according to need. Yet that would be to assume that this government has an interest in steering New Zealand through this recession with anything other than its own welfare in mind.
By Lindsay on Jul 3, 2009 | Reply
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
But socialists have traditionally despised the idea of discretionary entitlement. Universal rules and rights-based entitlement is their ideal. In order to provide such, means-testing has to be applied. That allows targeting of the neediest.
“Eligibility rules for assistance that have been premised on a relatively healthy job market and a ready return to employment are no longer adequate.”
The eligibility rules have been premised this way since the first Labour government introduced Social Security.
Welfare benefits are paid from general taxation. If people want better cover, then the country needs to change to a more comprehensive insurance-based model.
Sue Bradford,“In the long term, poor educational, health and employment outcomes for children and adults in sole parent families will cost us more than easing rules on income levels and benefit entitlements.”
So Bradford is now admitting that there is a problem with sole parent families. This is only because, she would counter, their benefits are insufficient and their children live in poverty.
But now she is suggesting that couples be given preferential treatment in terms of how much household income they can acquire via welfare.
You really should be thanking Paula Bennett - not attacking her - for sticking with the welfare philosophy of the Left. State, universal, means-tested, rules-based, entitlement.
MSD take a year to release statistics
Yesterday the Ministry of Social Development released their annual statistical report - 1 year after the most recent statistical information contained therein. It covers the 30 June 07 to 30 June 2008 period. That means we can look forward to having current statistics available in a year's time.
At the end of June 2008 there were 258,317 people on a main benefit. Towards the end of June 2009 there were 302,000. So some trends depicted in the report have reversed.
But here is a smattering of tables and graphs of particular interest;
Firstly this table shows welfare expenditure as a share of gdp.
Note that the total expenditure on pensions and main benefits was $9,285,000. Yet if you check 2008 Crown Expenses tables you will actual 2008 Social Security and Welfare spending at $17,877,000. This includes all of the other expenditure like accommodation supplement, emergency benefits,etc and the cost of running the whole kit and kaboodle. That pushes the share of gdp up to just short of 10 percent. The share of total government spending is 31 percent.
The next is interesting because it illustrates the extent of DPB 'churning'.
These figures relate only to grants - not total numbers of recipients. Of the 36,494 people granted the DPB in 2007/08 only 23 percent had either never received a benefit before or not within the last four years. Over three quarters were transferring benefits or returning. This indicates being on the DPB is more a way of life than an unusual and temporary event.
The next two tables again show grants, not total numbers, and provide reasons for those grants.
+2007+to+08.jpg)
There was a big annual increase in invalid benefit grants (36 percent) and psychological and psychiatric conditions continue to trend up with both invalid and sickness grants. Nearly all of the growth in sickness grants was due to psychological/psychiatric disorders and substance abuse.
At the end of June 2008 there were 258,317 people on a main benefit. Towards the end of June 2009 there were 302,000. So some trends depicted in the report have reversed.
But here is a smattering of tables and graphs of particular interest;
Firstly this table shows welfare expenditure as a share of gdp.
Note that the total expenditure on pensions and main benefits was $9,285,000. Yet if you check 2008 Crown Expenses tables you will actual 2008 Social Security and Welfare spending at $17,877,000. This includes all of the other expenditure like accommodation supplement, emergency benefits,etc and the cost of running the whole kit and kaboodle. That pushes the share of gdp up to just short of 10 percent. The share of total government spending is 31 percent.
The next is interesting because it illustrates the extent of DPB 'churning'.
These figures relate only to grants - not total numbers of recipients. Of the 36,494 people granted the DPB in 2007/08 only 23 percent had either never received a benefit before or not within the last four years. Over three quarters were transferring benefits or returning. This indicates being on the DPB is more a way of life than an unusual and temporary event.
The next two tables again show grants, not total numbers, and provide reasons for those grants.
+2007+to+08.jpg)
There was a big annual increase in invalid benefit grants (36 percent) and psychological and psychiatric conditions continue to trend up with both invalid and sickness grants. Nearly all of the growth in sickness grants was due to psychological/psychiatric disorders and substance abuse.
Thursday, July 02, 2009
Objecting to 'good moral character'
Speaking to the medicinal cannabis debate last night Lianne Dalziel said;
The problems I see with the Bill are:
The introduction of a complex regulatory framework - with a Medicinal Cannabis Registration Board being established to issue Medicinal Canabis Identification Cards and Designated Agent Identification Cards - A Designated Agent is required to prove him or herself to be of good moral character. I totally object to that phrase being inserted in NZ law.
What is that about? A facet of the religion of 'non-judgementalism', a dogma adhered to fanatically by the Left and promulgated thoughtlessly through various state institutions?
It is hardly surprising that many people now exist in a moral vacuum. If good moral character is archaic and unmentionable, what are we left with?
The problems I see with the Bill are:
The introduction of a complex regulatory framework - with a Medicinal Cannabis Registration Board being established to issue Medicinal Canabis Identification Cards and Designated Agent Identification Cards - A Designated Agent is required to prove him or herself to be of good moral character. I totally object to that phrase being inserted in NZ law.
What is that about? A facet of the religion of 'non-judgementalism', a dogma adhered to fanatically by the Left and promulgated thoughtlessly through various state institutions?
It is hardly surprising that many people now exist in a moral vacuum. If good moral character is archaic and unmentionable, what are we left with?
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
More interest in the smacking referendum than the 2008 general election?
In respect of the 2008 General Election;
At 14 October, 2008, "... around 200,000 people still weren't enrolled."
On 4 November, 2008, there were, "...170,000 people who are still not enrolled to vote on Saturday."
So in those 3 weeks preceding the 2008 General Election only 30,000 people enrolled to vote.
In the two weeks since the smacking referendum campaign was launched by the Electoral Commission, over 25,000 have enrolled or updated their details.
While not directly comparable these figures provide some context.
People appear just as, or more motivated, by the smacking referendum.
At 14 October, 2008, "... around 200,000 people still weren't enrolled."
On 4 November, 2008, there were, "...170,000 people who are still not enrolled to vote on Saturday."
So in those 3 weeks preceding the 2008 General Election only 30,000 people enrolled to vote.
In the two weeks since the smacking referendum campaign was launched by the Electoral Commission, over 25,000 have enrolled or updated their details.
While not directly comparable these figures provide some context.
People appear just as, or more motivated, by the smacking referendum.
Key's strategy a flop
Great. New Zealanders are not going to be told that the referendum is a waste of time. Bad call John Key.
Just released;
It is only 7 months since the election when most motivated people would have been up-to-date. Around 33,000 young people will have turned 18 during that time and many people will have moved. But I think 25,000 is quite significant. Especially when it is also quite typical for people to wait until the last minute to take action.
Just released;
More than 25,000 people have responded to the call to get enrolled or update their enrolment details to take part in the upcoming referendum - but there are still many more who need to take action today.
In the two weeks since the official campaign started to raise awareness of the referendum on the question “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?” at least 25,000 people have updated their enrolment details or enrolled for the first time.
“We’re recording an average of over 2,000 people a day taking action by enrolling or updating their details to get ready to vote in the referendum,” says Murray Wicks, National Manager, Electoral Enrolment Centre.
It is only 7 months since the election when most motivated people would have been up-to-date. Around 33,000 young people will have turned 18 during that time and many people will have moved. But I think 25,000 is quite significant. Especially when it is also quite typical for people to wait until the last minute to take action.
From better pay to no pay
Back in 2005 one of the most controversial issues was the passage of legislation that would force sheltered workshops, which employ intellectually disabled people, to pay the minimum wage. This was a Labour move, backed by the unions, besotted with equal pay. ACT in particular, led by Muriel Newman, warned that the change would lead to the closure of workshops and the loss of jobs. The arrogant Ruth Dyson sailed on undeterred by the pleas of families whose main concern was to keep their sons and daughters employed and with purpose and meaning in their lives.
And so it has come to pass.
The Hutt News yesterday reported that after twenty four years Packworx would close leaving 23 intellectually disabled workers without jobs. In 2006 it had employed 60 people.
I suppose the women that marched on Parliament yesterday want similar equalising legislation. How does the saying go? Be careful what you wish for because you might just get it.
And so it has come to pass.
The Hutt News yesterday reported that after twenty four years Packworx would close leaving 23 intellectually disabled workers without jobs. In 2006 it had employed 60 people.
At the time Labour announced it was repealing legislation that covered sheltered workshops, around 3,000 people were employed in the sector. Mrs Gray said some workshops closed immediately and a good number of others shut up shop when the legislation came into full effect on December 1 last year.
I suppose the women that marched on Parliament yesterday want similar equalising legislation. How does the saying go? Be careful what you wish for because you might just get it.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Welfare mentality creep
It is official.
When in need, most New Zealanders now believe that strangers, rather than their own families, should support them.
The radical feminist, the minority rights activist, and the Marxist succeeded in putting the machinery in place whereby the state would be a more influential institution than the family. The machinery was the law coupled with insidiously growing welfare benefits.
Now minds and psyches have been infiltrated and most people won't even realise what has happened.
While I am not much on conspiracy theories, there were handfuls of people who had active agendas at various times and over time. On the whole, however, the process has been a haphazard series of what appeared to be good intentions (with resulting political and public buy-in) gone bad.
Here is a smattering of comment from the NZ Herald website;
I hope all the people that are saying that the situation is fine the way it is could live on $534 a week to cover all their costs of living and someone else's.
Many married couples keep their finances seperate these days.The $80 earning limit is now also a joke while power, insurance and petrol esculate. The $80 limit plus the connection with what the wife is earning will end up making us all get a divorce to get the dole which nobody can live on anyway.
The dole system should not discriminate against anybody. It shouldn't matter if one partner is still working. That partner is still contributing tax and the more they are earner the more tax they are paying.
Yes, if one partner is made redundant and the other is still employed, then the redundant partner should definitely be able to claim the full dole payment (but only when redundancy occured).
I think there should be some kind of assistance for people who are made redundant and are married or in a relationship...I think it just takes one look at the mortgagee sales to realise people need more help than what is on offer!
Yes, you should be able to get the dole if your partner is working.
When in need, most New Zealanders now believe that strangers, rather than their own families, should support them.
The radical feminist, the minority rights activist, and the Marxist succeeded in putting the machinery in place whereby the state would be a more influential institution than the family. The machinery was the law coupled with insidiously growing welfare benefits.
Now minds and psyches have been infiltrated and most people won't even realise what has happened.
While I am not much on conspiracy theories, there were handfuls of people who had active agendas at various times and over time. On the whole, however, the process has been a haphazard series of what appeared to be good intentions (with resulting political and public buy-in) gone bad.
Here is a smattering of comment from the NZ Herald website;
The dole threshold level must be increased to help working people in these extra ordinary financial times..... it is really important that our government act with speed on this matter.
I hope all the people that are saying that the situation is fine the way it is could live on $534 a week to cover all their costs of living and someone else's.
Reality is these days if you are paying off your own home and one person in the relationship loses their job then 1 income isnt going to pay the bills.
Many married couples keep their finances seperate these days.The $80 earning limit is now also a joke while power, insurance and petrol esculate. The $80 limit plus the connection with what the wife is earning will end up making us all get a divorce to get the dole which nobody can live on anyway.
Of course you should be able to get the dole if you have paid taxes you are entitled to it, should have no bearing upon whether you have a partner or not.
The dole system should not discriminate against anybody. It shouldn't matter if one partner is still working. That partner is still contributing tax and the more they are earner the more tax they are paying.
Why this discrimination is allowed to continue, I have no idea, but marital status shouldn't enter the equation, when one partner loses employment and the other is still working.
Yes, if one partner is made redundant and the other is still employed, then the redundant partner should definitely be able to claim the full dole payment (but only when redundancy occured).
Yes I think everyone should be entitled to something, to be able to contribute to their portion of the weekly costs. Even the basic costs these days are barely covered by a reasonable full time wage.
I think there should be some kind of assistance for people who are made redundant and are married or in a relationship...I think it just takes one look at the mortgagee sales to realise people need more help than what is on offer!
I think it should be decided on the income that is left coming into the house and probably the threshold in NZ needs increasing with living costs sky rocketing.
Yes, you should be able to get the dole if your partner is working.
Monday, June 29, 2009
McDonalds scam
I do not expect any readers of this blog will be silly enough to fall for this .... but, I just received the following e-mail.
It takes you to a very authentic looking site. The give away is the spelling mistakes. But if you can't spell, a widespread affliction as indicated by the comments people make on the net, you might not notice. After filling out a survey it then asks for your credit card details in order to pay you the bonus.
I was going to let McDonalds know but they are on to it.
Dear McDonald's Customer,
We are planning big changes for 2009 at McDonald's Australia chain of restaurants and because your opinion is very important to us, we invite you to take a short Customer Satisfaction Survey that will help us improve the quality of our food and services.
We know your time is valuable, so we will give you a $50 bonus just for taking our quick 7 question survey. The entire process will take no more than 5 minutes.
Terms and conditions apply. Click here to take the survey.
You can participate in this survey only once.
It takes you to a very authentic looking site. The give away is the spelling mistakes. But if you can't spell, a widespread affliction as indicated by the comments people make on the net, you might not notice. After filling out a survey it then asks for your credit card details in order to pay you the bonus.
I was going to let McDonalds know but they are on to it.
It has been brought to our attention that a fraudulent email relating to a customer satisfaction survey has been circulated claiming to be from McDonald's New Zealand. This email was not sent by McDonalds New Zealand.
The survey requests amongst other things, credit card details, citing that participants will be credited with a $50.00 voucher. Please be aware that McDonald’s NZ only use reputable research companies and would never request bank or credit card details. Hoax emails come from known and unknown sources and email addresses in most cases can be 'spoofed' (term for a spam email whereby spammers make the email appear from someone other than the actual sender).
Please disregard and delete this email if you happen to receive it.
Unemployment chickens coming home to roost
Keith Rankin and Susan St John want the dole to be available without the means-testing of a partner's income. However, the choice New Zealand made way back in 1938, was to create an unemployment benefit (paid for initially through a new tax but later - c 1964 - out of general taxation) that was available to all, with no time-limits or reducing payments over time, regardless of how much or whether recipients had paid in. The price for this was means-testing.
If we want a more generous unemployment benefit, with more generous entitlements, then we need tailored unemployment insurance. In fact, people can already take out loss of income insurance privately, but many argue, why should I pay twice?
I have every sympathy with those people being made redundant and finding they do not qualify for the dole because their partner's income is too high. They have paid taxes only to find they aren't supported in return. It isn't fair. But then I have spent years arguing that the welfare system isn't fair.
By the way, the Australian income test limit provided in the NZ Herald doesn't look right to me. Here is the NZ limit of $534. That's right.
But the following is how the limit is calculated in Australia.
Partner income which exceeds the cut-out point also reduces your payment by 60 cents in the dollar.
The cut-out point looks like $775 per fortnight or $387.50 per week.
So you can get the dole if your partner works but it will be abated at the rate of 60c in the dollar if you partner's income exceeds $387.50 per week.
The dole pays $204.50 per week. If 60 cents is lost on every dollar of income your partner earns over $387.50 your eligibility would cut out when their income reached $728.33 - not $1069.
I could be wrong but wild variations eg $534 versus $1069 invite suspicion.
Update; NZ Herald - In Australia, the dole is reduced by only 60c for every dollar of a partner's income above A$387.50 ($485) a week, so a partial benefit is available until the partner earns A$1069 ($1340) a week.
Now I see the mistake. The writer has used the fortnightly dole figure of $409 to calculate a weekly cut-out point. Did this piece go out in the hard copy NZ Herald?
If we want a more generous unemployment benefit, with more generous entitlements, then we need tailored unemployment insurance. In fact, people can already take out loss of income insurance privately, but many argue, why should I pay twice?
I have every sympathy with those people being made redundant and finding they do not qualify for the dole because their partner's income is too high. They have paid taxes only to find they aren't supported in return. It isn't fair. But then I have spent years arguing that the welfare system isn't fair.
By the way, the Australian income test limit provided in the NZ Herald doesn't look right to me. Here is the NZ limit of $534. That's right.
But the following is how the limit is calculated in Australia.
Partner income which exceeds the cut-out point also reduces your payment by 60 cents in the dollar.
The cut-out point looks like $775 per fortnight or $387.50 per week.
So you can get the dole if your partner works but it will be abated at the rate of 60c in the dollar if you partner's income exceeds $387.50 per week.
The dole pays $204.50 per week. If 60 cents is lost on every dollar of income your partner earns over $387.50 your eligibility would cut out when their income reached $728.33 - not $1069.
I could be wrong but wild variations eg $534 versus $1069 invite suspicion.
Update; NZ Herald - In Australia, the dole is reduced by only 60c for every dollar of a partner's income above A$387.50 ($485) a week, so a partial benefit is available until the partner earns A$1069 ($1340) a week.
Now I see the mistake. The writer has used the fortnightly dole figure of $409 to calculate a weekly cut-out point. Did this piece go out in the hard copy NZ Herald?
Sunday, June 28, 2009
NZ Parents Under the Microscope
A 9 and 4 year-old left to play in a park by their father, George Kenton. Would I do that? Probably not because I am an overly anxious parent. I envy the parent that can make that decision, who is confident the 9 year-old is able to adequately care for the 4 year-old. Maybe if the park was nearby I would be comfortable. The 9 year-old is no problem but 4 year-olds can be unpredictable.
But surely it isn't the business of the state to scrutinise parents to this degree? Sure, we can go on about "what-if". But what-ifs rarely happen and if we proceed on the basis of what-if, nobody would be doing anything. We would all be in a state of paralysis.
I am bloody sick of the state and the evolving law it devises to impose a suffocating strait-jacket culture on parents. I really don't know what those of us who feel this way can do.
(At least it looks like this guy had the benefit of being cleared by CYF before the police got involved. Last weeks dad was prosecuted for shoving before CYF had chance to clear him. So, to make matters worse, in its zealous need to interfere, the state and its institutions are bungling the process.)
But surely it isn't the business of the state to scrutinise parents to this degree? Sure, we can go on about "what-if". But what-ifs rarely happen and if we proceed on the basis of what-if, nobody would be doing anything. We would all be in a state of paralysis.
I am bloody sick of the state and the evolving law it devises to impose a suffocating strait-jacket culture on parents. I really don't know what those of us who feel this way can do.
(At least it looks like this guy had the benefit of being cleared by CYF before the police got involved. Last weeks dad was prosecuted for shoving before CYF had chance to clear him. So, to make matters worse, in its zealous need to interfere, the state and its institutions are bungling the process.)
Saturday, June 27, 2009
We'll take the pleasure, thanks
What does it mean when you hear people say, I grew up with Michael Jackson? I'll tell you.It means your bedroom walls were plastered in Michael Jackson pin-up posters; you collected all his 45s which cost $1.15 each back then and stencilled your initials on the labels; you sketched his face; you played Rockin' Robin endlessly and watched Ed Sullivan appearances with awe and excitement. Later you made clothes sporting his name or The Jacksons and paraded them up town on Friday night; you danced alone or with friends or crooned along with tracks from the best ever album, Off The Wall.
It would all seem a long time ago until you have a daughter who is genetically programmed to react the very same way. The albums are hauled out. A needle sought for the disused stylus and after much searching, located at a specialist hi-fi shop. We watch the Ed Sullivan shows on DVD; the many Carol Burnett show appearances on YouTube. She sings, dances, mimics Michael - up on the table, tilting her hat, bending the knee and pointing the toe. So many hats she collects that match his different styles at different times. She adores him. Just the way I had.
She came home from school yesterday and said a friend had said she was glad Michael Jackson was dead because she didn't like him. Why? Because her mum didn't like him. All that weird stuff, you know.
Give me my sweet pea's pleasure over the cynic's pain any day.
So my girl and me put on the Bucharest Tour DVD last night and marvelled together all over again. Marvellous, magical, over-the-top, pushing-it-to-the max, Michael. Thank you.
Friday, June 26, 2009
"... a damning indictment. "
This is possibly the best summary of the week. From the Maxim Institute;
The continuing debate over the referendum on child discipline took a turn for the surreal this week, with politicians from across the spectrum lining up to attack the referendum question as nonsensical, saying things like "the law is working" and "the question is weird."
The question we are supposed to answer does not seem hard. "Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?" Committed to his brokered "compromise" John Key can't afford to admit the law is not working. Phil Goff can't afford to offend elements in his own party, ideologically committed to the ban on physical discipline. And neither of them want to ignore the large majority of Kiwis who keep telling pollsters they support a good parent's right to make disciplinary decisions.
So, they pretend contempt for the question, and count on a low turnout.
This in itself is a damning indictment. The growing popularity of referenda and public distrust in politicians, are the products of people feeling that the government is distant, that they don't care what we think. Regardless of the merits of the question (whose limitations are unavoidable given that it must be a yes/no question) the gist of the referendum is clear to both the Yes and No campaigns, and the public should have their say on it.
Contempt for the democratic process is far too general across the spectrum—from Parliament, when it abuses urgency, to leaders when they disregard the feedback they are receiving from constituents. Luckily for the country, our democracy does not belong to them alone—it is a precious right belonging to all of us. From the end of July, we should all do our duty and value the imperfect but vital process of democracy—especially when others are not.
The continuing debate over the referendum on child discipline took a turn for the surreal this week, with politicians from across the spectrum lining up to attack the referendum question as nonsensical, saying things like "the law is working" and "the question is weird."
The question we are supposed to answer does not seem hard. "Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?" Committed to his brokered "compromise" John Key can't afford to admit the law is not working. Phil Goff can't afford to offend elements in his own party, ideologically committed to the ban on physical discipline. And neither of them want to ignore the large majority of Kiwis who keep telling pollsters they support a good parent's right to make disciplinary decisions.
So, they pretend contempt for the question, and count on a low turnout.
This in itself is a damning indictment. The growing popularity of referenda and public distrust in politicians, are the products of people feeling that the government is distant, that they don't care what we think. Regardless of the merits of the question (whose limitations are unavoidable given that it must be a yes/no question) the gist of the referendum is clear to both the Yes and No campaigns, and the public should have their say on it.
Contempt for the democratic process is far too general across the spectrum—from Parliament, when it abuses urgency, to leaders when they disregard the feedback they are receiving from constituents. Luckily for the country, our democracy does not belong to them alone—it is a precious right belonging to all of us. From the end of July, we should all do our duty and value the imperfect but vital process of democracy—especially when others are not.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Sleight of hand socialism
Many state house tenants are on benefits.
In 2007 only 170,000 out of 260,000 working-age beneficiaries were getting an Accommodation Supplement. HNZ tenants do not qualify for this supplement. There are 69,000 state houses so I am picking the percentage of tenants who are beneficiaries would be significant.
Beneficiaries in state houses have their rent paid for by the state, through a Housing NZ rental subsidy and their benefit. Therefore the money stays with or goes back to the state.
However, if those people decide to buy their houses, a possibility if the government raises the mortgage cap, they will instead get their mortgage paid for by the state through the Accommodation Supplement. (In 2007 43,000 people received an Accommodation Supplement to cover or contribute to mortgage repayments.) That money is then lost to the state.
So I am not quite sure how there will be (nett) extra money available for building more state houses.
I suppose it is one way to get people to save. KiwiSaver isn't dissimilar.
But it is a little philosophically mischievous for National to applaud and encourage private ownership yet achieve it by upping the degree of wealth transfer.
DPF thinks it's a great idea - Cactus doesn't.
In 2007 only 170,000 out of 260,000 working-age beneficiaries were getting an Accommodation Supplement. HNZ tenants do not qualify for this supplement. There are 69,000 state houses so I am picking the percentage of tenants who are beneficiaries would be significant.
Beneficiaries in state houses have their rent paid for by the state, through a Housing NZ rental subsidy and their benefit. Therefore the money stays with or goes back to the state.
However, if those people decide to buy their houses, a possibility if the government raises the mortgage cap, they will instead get their mortgage paid for by the state through the Accommodation Supplement. (In 2007 43,000 people received an Accommodation Supplement to cover or contribute to mortgage repayments.) That money is then lost to the state.
So I am not quite sure how there will be (nett) extra money available for building more state houses.
I suppose it is one way to get people to save. KiwiSaver isn't dissimilar.
But it is a little philosophically mischievous for National to applaud and encourage private ownership yet achieve it by upping the degree of wealth transfer.
DPF thinks it's a great idea - Cactus doesn't.
Using the recession as an excuse
There are now 302,000 working-age people on benefits. According to a report on TV3 last night, the Minister, Paula Bennett, told a select committee yesterday that unemployment benefit numbers had climbed to 45,000.
So fewer than one in six people on a benefit is on the dole.
A the end of March the overall total was 288,959. So now there are at least 13,041 more beneficiaries. But the rise in unemployment - from 37,146 to 45,000 - is just 7,854.
As I have commented before, the numbers on all benefits will swell alongside the growth in unemployment benefit numbers. That is why using the dole queue as a measure of unemployment is faulty.
But more importantly, it is much harder to get people off the other benefits once they are on them. Letting the numbers on sickness and invalid, and especially the domestic purposes benefit swell, will prolong the effects of this recession.
Unfortunately politicians can use the recession as a cover or an excuse for continuing bad policy that can be summed up as overly easy access, too little pressure to regain independence and inverted incentives, ie greater incentive to do the wrong thing rather than the right thing.
So fewer than one in six people on a benefit is on the dole.
A the end of March the overall total was 288,959. So now there are at least 13,041 more beneficiaries. But the rise in unemployment - from 37,146 to 45,000 - is just 7,854.
As I have commented before, the numbers on all benefits will swell alongside the growth in unemployment benefit numbers. That is why using the dole queue as a measure of unemployment is faulty.
But more importantly, it is much harder to get people off the other benefits once they are on them. Letting the numbers on sickness and invalid, and especially the domestic purposes benefit swell, will prolong the effects of this recession.
Unfortunately politicians can use the recession as a cover or an excuse for continuing bad policy that can be summed up as overly easy access, too little pressure to regain independence and inverted incentives, ie greater incentive to do the wrong thing rather than the right thing.
Monday, June 22, 2009
An unhappy birthday
Yesterday was the second anniversary of Sue Bradford's legislation. Here she lauds the change and the progress made since. Today I will attend court to see for myself how well the law is working for a father charged with common assault. Not for smacking, but shoving his son.
The young people of New Zealand will look back on the law change as a pivotal seachange in our country’s culture, Mrs Turei said.
But will it be a change for the better?
In Christchurch, for the first time to my knowledge, we have reports of a rise in children abusing their parents.
The young people of New Zealand will look back on the law change as a pivotal seachange in our country’s culture, Mrs Turei said.
But will it be a change for the better?
In Christchurch, for the first time to my knowledge, we have reports of a rise in children abusing their parents.
Herbert said the [Battered Women's] trust had also noticed more parents being abused by their children.
"The number is not large, but it's definitely increasing. With teenagers, it's both boys and girls, and there are also cases of children who are even younger."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
