Cows don't know they are crims

Here's an uplifting story to permeate the sense of gloom the earthquake and bad weather has cast. It concerns a Corrections-run a prison farm near Milton in the South Island;

This farm is run by the Corrections Inmate Employment (CIE) scheme,and in three years is footing it with any well-run dairy farm, evident from its two milk-quality awards from Fonterra last season.

CIE southern farms manager Allan Gorton said the awards for high milk quality (a low somatic cell count) were tributes to the farm instructors and prisoners...

The farm is run as a commercial venture and also as a training facility for prisoners before release.

In conjunction with daily farm work, inmates are offered training through the Agriculture Industry Training Organisation.

Last season 75 prisoners gained 283 unit standards in a variety of courses. For some these were their first qualifications.

The credits were earned for courses as diverse as animal health, animal handling, chainsaw safety, Grow Safe and tractor and all-terrain vehicle driving.

Mr Gorton said he knew of seven men who were now working on dairy farms as a result of training at the Milton property. Others had jobs in related farm industries...

"For some, it is the first time they have passed something in their life. To them it's very meaningful. It lifts their self-esteem."

For many, it was the first time they had worked with large animals, which could be intimidating as well as rewarding.

"The thing about animals is that they don't argue, condemn or criticise," Mr Gorton said.

I am never able to fall into one or other camp when it comes to crime and punishment. Prisons are essentially places that make most who go there more likely to re-offend. Yet sending them there is often unavoidable.

So why don't we do more of this sort of stuff? I can see a strong libertarian argument that objects to using taxpayer money to create competition with other tax-paying farms. But if the primary role of the state is to maintain law and order doesn't rehabilitation take a higher priority?

I am reminded of a recent conversation I had with a man who did a spray painting apprenticeship in prison. By sheer chance he got the opportunity to demonstrate his proficiency with a potential employee. He told me how he had stepped into the booth, done all the right things bar neglecting to don the mask of the usual worker. He was stopped and asked if he had heard of OSH? To which he replied, "Listen. I've just come out of jail. I've got me a clean bill of health. No hep. No HIV." Of which he was evidently very proud. "You think I'm putting that germ-riddled thing on, your mad." Suffice to say, he got the job.

Child Support - facts and figures

As Child Support is topical here are some facts and figures produced through an OIA request last year;

* In 2008 IRD collected $363 million in child support

* Of that sum $136 million went into the consolidated fund to offset the $1,530 million DPB bill

* At March 31, 2009 there were 130,762 liable parents

* Of these parents 59,536 (46 percent) paid the minimum amount of $66.60 per month

* A typical monthly payment to a sole parent with two dependent children living in Auckland receiving the DPB, accommodation supplement and other allowances could be $2,513

* Under that example, a liable parent paying the minimum for two children would be contributing 5.3 percent of the custodial parent's benefit payment

* At 31 March 2009 there were 201,900 children subject to child support. That has risen to 210,000 in 2010 - approximately one in five under 18s.

* 45 percent of liable parents had incomes of under $20,000; 3 percent had incomes in excess of $100,000

* 27 percent of liable parents and 54 percent of custodial parents received benefit income during the month of April 2009

* 18 percent of liable parents are female (some parents share custody of children and both incur liabilities)

* At March 31, 2009 7,135 or 1 in 20 liable parents lived overseas

* In NZ child support is payable up to 19 (unless he or she becomes 'financially independent'); in the UK child support is payable up to 16 (unless the child remains in non-advanced education)

Maharey was wrong

Way back in 2001 I started challenging the Minister of Social Development about the time people were spending on the DPB. Steve Maharey commonly cited 3 and a half years which was accepted on his authority and became the standard line for DPB proponents.



But I said it was more like double that because people had repeated stays and he was only counting each individual stay. A fair bit of correspondence passed between us. In 2003 I took my calculations before the select committee which was debating removing work tests on the DPB. That generated the following news report;

April 4, Page 2, Dominion
Public misled on DPB - campaigner

By David McLoughlin

The length of time the average sole parent spends on the domestic purposes benefit could be almost double the official 3.7 years.

This is because thousands of sole parents go off, and then back on to, the DPB, but each period drawing the benefit is counted separately rather than cumulatively.

Wellington woman Lindsay Mitchell, who is campaigning for a select committee review of the benefit, calculates from official data that shows how many times sole parents have drawn the DPB that the average real time spent on it is 6.5 years.

Mrs Mitchell, of Eastbourne, obtained Social Development Ministry data on how many people currently drawing the DPB had been on it previously. She found that 25,058 of the current 101,000 paid the sole parent DPB had drawn on it once before, 11,493 had drawn it twice, 5043 three times and 3663 for or more times previously.

With the help of her husband David, who formerly worked for Statistics New Zealand, she calculated the 6.5 years average from the number of times each sole parent has drawn the DPB.

She was critical yesterday of politicians, including Social Services Minister Steve Maharey, as well as the news media, for continuing to repeat the 3.7 years when it was "misleading".

Yesterday I was reading a new report

Sole parenting in New Zealand: An update on key trends and what helps reduce disadvantage

snuck onto the MSD website with no corresponding media release. Here is what it says;

... when the benefit histories of all New Zealand sole parents receiving benefits at June 2008 are examined, half appear to have become parents before age 23, and the median share of time spent on benefits in the previous 10 years (or a shorter period in the case of younger groups) is 83 percent (mean: 72 percent).

The mean time spent on the DPB in the last ten years is 72 percent or 7.2 years. By my crude method I calculated a minimum figure of 65 percent (or 6 and a half years) over a similar period, assuming the data MSD gave me in 2002 extended back to 1993, the limitation of their benefit history at that time.

I suppose an apology from Mr Maharey, now Vice Chancellor of Massey University where he is probably continuing to infect young minds with socialist propaganda, would be too much to expect.

Pork barrelling in local government elections

Lower Hutt Mayor David Ogden is offering free swims for seniors. My letter to the Hutt News;

Is David Ogden morphing into Winston Peters? His campaign promise of 'free' swimming for seniors sounds very nice but must be recognised for what it is. A vote-buyer. And politicians can only ever buy votes with somebody else's money. It's called pork-barrelling. Rife in central government, it is a shame to see it appear so unabashed in local government.

Mayor Ogden cloaks his vote-buying with the well-meaning intention of encouraging "healthier and more active lifestyles." Is that where we want local government to go? Using ratepayer's money to nanny them?

He says it is time to "invest in the people" . It is the individual's prerogative to decide for themselves what they want to invest their money in. There are probably far more elderly folk worrying about paying their rates than fretting over paying $4-50 for a swim in the local pool.

The worst of it is, his only opponent agrees. In fact Ray Wallace will no doubt soon be upping the ante. Those who want lower rates and a focus on core services are faced with choosing between the lesser of two evils.

The "science" Sellman asked for

Well done NZ Conservative. They have just linked to a US study that finds non-drinkers have the highest mortality rate.

The sample of those who were studied included individuals between ages 55 and 65 who had had any kind of outpatient care in the previous three years. The 1,824 participants were followed for 20 years. One drawback of the sample: a disproportionate number, 63%, were men. Just over 69% of the never-drinkers died during the 20 years, 60% of the heavy drinkers died and only 41% of moderate drinkers died.

But Professor Doug Sellman says;

“I’m not happy using words like responsible, moderate and safe. They are the words that the [liquor] industry likes to use.”

“The public needs to know what low-risk drinking is. The government should be telling us all, using the best science possible.”

Oh dear. It looks like "low-risk" drinking is no drinking.

Susan St John - Child Poverty charlatan

Billed at the left-wing WelfareWatch under the heading "Facts and Figures" I have just come across this June 16 letter to the NZ Herald from Susan St John, associate economics professor, Auckland University;

Dear Editor

Lindsay Mitchell (NZ Herald letters, 15th June) claims that Ministry of Social Development data shows that at last a third of current DPB recipients began on welfare as teenagers. She then goes on to suggest, with no supporting data, that the actual percentage may possibly be twice that. This is designed to make us believe that New Zealand has an enormous problem of sole parents starting young and being on the benefit for years. This Bogey may justify all kinds of draconian knee jerk responses.

In fact MSD says that, of the 34,000 DPB recipients aged 29 and under who had any time on a benefit as a teenager, only 17% (5,780 people) received the DPB, and the others may have had a minimal stint on unemployment or sickness benefit long before they had children. Thus only 6% of current DPBs started as teenagers. It is a gross exaggeration to describe this as a huge dependency problem.

The data clearly shows that sole parents largely move off the benefit when suitable jobs are available and when the needs of their children allow them to. The hand-ringing over sole parents should be replaced with community respect for the difficult lonely and yet vital work they do in caring for their children.

Susan St John
Exec CPAG

The following is from an OIA request in 2005 and shows that 32.7 percent of single parents currently on a benefit first received welfare under 20.




At this time the Ministry could only provide data relating to people aged 32 or younger, so 32.7 percent is a minimum figure.

I have always been up front about most of them starting on the unemployment benefit and what that implies. Here is a media release I issued earlier this year using more recent data (note the Ministry had changed tack and is only supplying data relating to people aged 29 and under);

Media release

FROM DOLE TO DPB

Thursday, February 18, 2010

Most benefit-dependent single parents who go on welfare as teenagers appear first in the dole queue.

Welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell said today, "Data released under the Official Information Act shows that of those welfare-dependent single parents the Ministry has full benefit history for (aged 29 or younger) 33,730 first claimed welfare as a teenager, but surprisingly, only 17 percent began on the DPB. For 61 percent, the first benefit they relied on was an unemployment benefit."

"This indicates that rather than getting into work or training , many unemployed young people are starting families and moving onto the DPB. Failing to acquire any work experience or further education is virtually a guaranteed pathway to long-term dependency, which is detrimental to both parents and children."

"Over half of these young parents are Maori. Many will have started on welfare during a period of very low unemployment so it is no good blaming the recession or high Maori unemployment. Pacific people experience equally high unemployment rates but they are not over-represented in this group."

"In his opening address to parliament the Prime Minister, John Key, talked about moving people off the DPB. But just as important, if not more, is stopping them from going on it in the first place. Especially as teenagers."

But what did St John write?

In fact MSD says that, of the 34,000 DPB recipients aged 29 and under who had any time on a benefit as a teenager, only 17% (5,780 people) received the DPB, and the others may have had a minimal stint on unemployment or sickness benefit long before they had children. Thus only 6% of current DPBs started as teenagers. It is a gross exaggeration to describe this as a huge dependency problem.

What MSD says is this;

"Less than 17 percent of the 34,004 people first received a Domestic-Purposes-related Benefit."

By omitting the word "first" she has completely changed what MSD say. She doesn't know whether individuals moved from a different benefit onto the DPB while still teenagers.

Next she extrapolates an misinterpreted percentage across all current recipients despite MSD only providing information for those aged 29 or younger (the age will increase as their data expands if they don't lose it all again). St John does not know about those 30 and older who make up 64 percent of the total.

But wait, it gets worse.




This table clearly shows that at the end of December 2009 52 percent of the DPB recipients aged 29 and under, had first received the DPB as a teenager. Some of the number will still be teenagers but remember what St John said in her letter;

"Thus only 6% of current DPBs started as teenagers."


Unbelievable.

If you don't want to rely on my information try the latest MSD research;

The research considered all sole parents in receipt of a main benefit at 31 December 2005 – around 114,000 people. Of this group:

• just over half had spent at least 80% of the history period supported by main benefits
• a third appeared to have become parents in their teens.

Again this is an estimate because it is...

Derived by comparing the birthdate of the sole parent with the birthdates of all the children included with them in periods when they received benefit as a sole parent over the previous 10 years. In the case of older sole parents, this will not be as good as an indicator of early parenting because some first-born children may have already turned 18, or may have left the care of the parent, before the beginning of the 10-year window.


Most recently MSD told Simon Collins of the NZ Herald;

"We expect that the proportion of DPB clients who first received any benefit as a teenager is somewhat higher than a third, particularly as receipt of a benefit is such a common experience in people's teenage years."

Again contrast this with St John's statement

"Thus only 6% of current DPBs started as teenagers."

Based on all of the available information I believe that at least half of all sole parents currently on a benefit started on welfare as teenagers. It wouldn't surpise me if the fraction is higher but in the absence of data and the Ministry's seeming reluctance to conduct a sampling survey we will never know.

St John is chairing a privately organised Child Poverty conference in October. I was invited to participate but declined. This is because I have come to understand that the pro-welfare lobby will tell lies and discredit those with whom they disagree because they believe the ends justify the means and it is an article of faith for them that government redistribution of wealth is the only solution to child poverty.

Celia Lashlie on solution to crime

Celia Lashlie has written another book which I will be reading. My responses to her thoughts are always mixed but she makes me think. In the latest she apparently pushes the idea that the way to end crime is to work with the mothers who raise criminals. This isn't a new idea from her.

However;

She is critical of the Government's new push for the faster permanent placement of children, which will leave in its wake, for some, a burning anger and resentment and a pathway to prison.

But for others it might be what saves them. Transient fostercare is a sure-fire pathway.

Nearly all of the women prisoners, 80 to 90 per cent of them, have been sexually, physically and psychologically abused throughout their lives, and often we - as in society and our state agencies - continue to abuse them when they get out, she says.

"I think that's the flash of anger I have," Lashlie says.

The media help in abusing them and no one claims any responsibility, she says.

"We run this idea that they've had terrible lives and it was someone else's fault, and I've become increasingly angry because it wasn't someone else's fault.

"Sometimes it's our bloody state agencies that have done it and how about we stop being quite so sanctimonious."

Lashlie is very angry with the way the state and society handle dysfunctional mothers and their children but I can't see how much more liberal society can get. Relative to earlier times, nobody is stigmatised. Nobody is punished. Nobody is left penniless. There are many organisations trying to work alongside families with criminal issues. The Salvation Army, various church and community groups, prisoner rehab groups, Jigsaw, Barnardos, Birthright, Supergrans, etc. The law has recently been changed to allow greater presence of newborns in prisons.

I've worked with a few people who fit the bill and I know that they get chances. Often many. Some make the most of those opportunities and others waste them.

In the book, Lashlie writes that we can focus on the building of more prisons and sit in our comfortable chairs with a glass of wine lamenting the lack of parenting skills among the lower classes.

What we really need to do, she says, is work with the mothers.

But I can agree that more people need to step up and offer whatever they can in terms of their time and their own capabilities. The people Lashlie is talking about aren't scary. They aren't a threat to you and me. In fact they are as various as any other people in society. Sometimes highly likeable and sometimes not. Depends whether you hit it off. But a good match can make a difference. And when it does, it's extremely rewarding.

Matt McCarten's diatribe is drivel

In his opinion piece today Matt McCarten slams the "cult of individualism" and blames it for ACT's meltdown.

Matt McCarten does not understand what individualism is. But then neither do some in ACT. And, coincidentally, a commentor on this blog earlier in the week.

Individualism puts individual rights and personal responsibility over collective rights and collective responsibility.

Let's use an example to explain the difference.

Raising a child. Individualism would put the responsibility for this with the parents. Collectivism puts it with the largest group - society.

Obviously there will be shades between the two positions and a mix of both philosophies co-existing but a true classical liberal party would endeavour to pull the balance in the individual direction.

Individualists believe that groupings should be voluntary, not enforced by the state. They reject the use of force as much as it is practically possible. They especially reject the use of state force to penalise some collectives and reward others at its whim.

Individualists abhor the idea of class and tribal hierarchy. Individualists will make sacrifices for others but are repulsed by the idea that the collective dictates who those others should be.

Individualists believe in the right to live their own lives with a minimum of rules and regulations which should be replaced by tolerance, non-interference with others and mutual respect for that right.

Individualists believe that self-interest, when practised peacefully and co-operatively produces the maximum amount of mutual gain. Trade is good. Entrepreneurship is good. Profit is good. Greed is not.

Get it now Matt?

Individualism can't be blamed for the impending downfall of ACT (just as collectivism couldn't be blamed for the downfall of the Alliance Party). A party that doesn't even have stated values or philosophy can hardly be the victim of them.

Winston Smith on bleeding hearts

He does it again. Adeptly exposes the shonky kind of thinking that proliferates among social workers and various other do-gooders (in my own experience);

One of the issues that I have had intense debate with other colleagues over is the issue of an open office door policy where a teenage resident can just walk in to the staff office uninvited to seek support, guidance or more often than not complain or make an unreasonable demand or hurl abuse at you if the mood takes them. The other day one of my colleagues, Nicola, decided to rebuke me for the fact that the office door was closed upon her arrival as this was injurious to her working philosophy of the bleeding heart. She also complained because I demand that the young people knock and wait to be invited in to the office. A diplomatic yet heated debate ensued.

"Winston, why do you close the office door and ask the young people to knock? We have an open door policy here so that the young people can feel they can talk to us about anything at anytime and we don't believe in barriers here."

"Well Nicola, I've talked to Jim, the manager and he said its up to the discretion of the staff and when Im lone working it will be closed. The reason that I am opposed to an open door policy is that it doesn't actually help the young person in that in the real world you have to queue for assistance in banks, shops, benefit offices, job interviews and so on. It also teaches the young person to practice patience which is a virtue in itself and it also teaches them that they are not the centre of the universe, just a part of it. Above all though, it fosters respect in the young person for other people who are taking time and effort to assist them. So, what you on the surface describe as me putting up a barrier is in fact imbued with values that I believe help develop functional young adults with respect, not deference, for their fellow citizens."

"Well, I think its authoritarian and this project is their home and they should be able to go in to whatever room they like and at the end of the day you are here to assist them not hide away in the office."

"Authoritarian? Are you equating my belief that people should knock on a door and wait to be invited in with the Third Reich or Franco's Spain? Perhaps you are right and trying to cultivate good manners is the thin end of a wedge that could lead to a modern day Auschwitz or Guernika. Sarcasm aside, I have spoken to all of our residents and informed them that when I am on shift that they can come and see me at anytime with any problem or with relation to any advice they need related to benefits or education. As they are used to being able to just walk in I have explained why I close the door, but that I am still available should they need me. Only two or three out of the fifteen of them seem to have a problem with this. The rest are fine with it. It seems to be you Nicola that are most opposed to my working practice and not the residents. We will just have to agree to disagree on this."

I saw no further point in talking to Nicola on this topic as I think her mind was well and truly made up. So, just what have been the fruits of the open door policy as practised by Nicola who also espouses a working philosophy of anti-authoritarianism, non-judgmentalism and an opossition to so called barriers? Well, upon coming to work one morning lately there was nowhere to sit for me as the office was full of teenage girls dressed in skimpy and revealing nightwear. Nicola saw nothing wrong with this until I objected and asked the girls to leave. When she is working the office is full of residents and ex residents and other waifs and strays from the neighbourhood, many of them stoned out of their mind and stinking of skunk weed. She allows them to take office materials such as pens, paper, sellotape, envelopes and to use the phone for personal calls. Instead of supporting our young people to do things for themselves, like fill in benefit forms or make their own enquiries to benefit or employment agencies, she will do it for them thus robbing them of the opportunity to learn to become independent. She never makes them wait for anything, including her time, and constantly reinforces in them what their benefit and state entitlements are. She rarely says no and has helped foster a belligerent, demanding, state dependent, instant gratification mindset in several current residents and many more of our ex-residents who still turn up looking for her 'help'. The likes of Nicola are very common across the state dependency sector. With so called support like this is it any wonder that so many youngsters leave supported housing even more entrenched in the value system of an excessive welfare state? The ironic thing is that we exist to help break this cycle and whilst we do have some success, in the majority of instances we are just making matters worse and perpetuating the existence of an underclass.

Stalemate

Questions I have asked myself

How long will it be before this appears somewhere under the headline 'Global warming'?












Did Heather Roy intend to prove just how much better she looks in a pin-striped suit than Rodney?









Would you vote for a man who is so serious about cutting rates he is prepared to do the job of mayor for nothing?

The ACT saga continues

Heather Roy will apparently appear on Close Up tonight, after turning up unexpectedly at Parliament today claiming business as usual, albeit as an MP rather than a Minister. This is getting worse for ACT. As someone who cared enough to stand as a candidate twice - a bigger commitment than being a member, and much bigger commitment than being a voter - if I am getting increasingly turned off then it's a safe bet many more are. To be fair I was pretty turned off anyway but if the antagonistic factions continue to co-exist I have sod all interest in the party left.

Bored with hysteria

The two following passages are just pulled off the net randomly to illustrate a common train of current thinking;

Stress and addiction - Drug Addiction

Many of us suffer from or will experience stress at some point in our lives. Stress appears to be a condition of modern life and even more so for those of us who are ‘asset rich but time poor’.

But too much stress can lead to addiction.

The pace of life has speeded up over the last decade or so and we find ourselves continually trying to keep up! Juggling the demands of work with family and friends can be difficult and this pressure often leads to stress.

"The fast pace that we live our lives is causing more problems then it is solving. Quality time has diminished while road rage, automobile accidents, and health problems are all on the rise due to our fast-paced lifestyles.


The fast pace of our lives leaves little time for quality time over dinner. When I was growing up we would sit down and spend an hour taking about the day’s events and connecting with each other. With the speed of life as it is my dinners with my family are rushed to an average of 15 minutes, then it is on to the next thing each of us has to do that evening."

The next extract is from an article titled "The Mental Hospitals" and refers to the increasing admission rate.




It was from the Evening Post, September 6, 1910.

I am so bored with hysteria I cannot be fagged blogging about the changes to alcohol laws and what is driving them. Suffice to say the government takes our money to control us in ways that are unnecessary, ineffective, and unwanted.

Paula Bennett - big tick

I have talked before about MSD's habit of quietly posting stuff on its website late Friday. One such document appeared 2 days ago. The forward alone, by the Minister, Paula Bennett, is written in a different style from that to which we have become uncomfortably accustomed. I have not read the full document yet but there are shades of ex-Governor General Dame Silvia Cartwright's farewell speech in which she referred to NZ's "dark secret" ;

Minister’s Foreword: Why you should care

New Zealand is a land of opportunity and for most, a great place to bring up kids. But there is a dark side to this remarkable country which resides within too many homes.

Thousands of children are growing up unsafe and unprotected in chaotic homes. Many are abused and neglected by the very people who should love and protect them. This is New Zealand’s ugly secret.

In the last year Child, Youth and Family received over 125,000 reports from people concerned enough about a child’s safety to notify authorities. In over 21,000 of these cases, child abuse or neglect was confirmed. So that’s over 340 notifications and 57 confirmed serious abuse and neglect cases every day. That’s 2,400 reports of child abuse and neglect every week in New Zealand.

There is no excuse for beating, abusing and neglecting our children. No child’s life should begin this way. And when it does, the harm is substantial and long lasting. The social and economic costs of abuse and neglect are beyond comprehension. A baby shaken in anger and out of ignorance may be left with permanent brain damage, or even die as a result. Children beaten and sexually abused grow up carrying the burden of that abuse. Many driven by anger, low self esteem and distrustful of others, follow a path to crime and violence and many repeat their experience on the next generation.

The neglected child is a silent timebomb. Left alone, unwashed and unloved this child may not be physically bruised or injured but will be deeply affected and is unlikely to grow into a healthy, loving individual who is a productive member of the community unless we step in to help.

What we are discussing here is ugly, it is shameful and it is unpalatable. But it is New Zealand’s reality and one we must all address. Not just the Government, not just Police and Child, Youth and Family, but community, families, individuals, neighbours, teachers, friends, uncles, aunties. We must face this together. We must do everything we can to protect our children from abuse and neglect. This is a challenge for all New Zealanders. It is a challenge for Māori. Māori children
are over-represented in abuse and neglect statistics. Māori clients make up more than half of all findings of abuse. In New Zealand, there can be no excuse for beating and neglecting children.

I invite you to read this document. It shows that Child, Youth and Family is more responsive now than any time in the past two decades and able to respond to increasing notifications and reach out to more at-risk families. It outlines important changes to further improve the way we protect children which are in the pipeline as well as some recent initiatives. It’s clear there is a lot of work being done and more to do because protecting children and keeping them safe will always be a Government priority. Which is why we need to think about the following things:

No matter how efficient and how innovative Child, Youth and Family continues to be,
resources are limited. The organisation and its dedicated, hard working staff are coping well with current demand but in truth that only takes care of the critical cases.

We all know early intervention is the best way to make a difference, but Child, Youth and Family is in the position of having to throw the bulk of its resources into dealing with critical cases when the aim is to be more involved with families before things get really bad.

Surely, the answer ultimately lies in a change in our country’s culture; a change which leads to zero-tolerance for child abuse and neglect. Otherwise, we will continue to lead the world in beating, neglecting and abusing our children.
And we know those children who are abused and neglected are the same adults we
see years later filling New Zealand courts and prisons. Many of those who live ruined lives will ruin the lives of others - the victims of their crimes and also their own children. That is the price for tolerating child abuse. We must work together to protect our children.

Just scanning through the rest of the document, a detailed description of the work CYF is doing, it is similarly-written and shouts transparency. What a change.

And this is what Paula was trying to talk about on The Nation yesterday but the pathetic panel kept steering the conversation back to the Welfare Working Group, the 'manufactured crisis' and the awful spectre of insurance. Then they had the audacity to say she didn't have the intellect to pull it off.

What she can do is get into this child abuse area like no other player can. And I think she can make a difference.

But I return always to my main objection. All of the early intervention, which is clearly being stepped up, cannot combat paying people to lead dysfunctional lives and putting a monetary value on the children they have. Welfare reform is critical alongside the intervention.

My take on ACT - for what it's worth

I have stayed quiet about ACT. Maintaining a distance partly because I know as little about the last few months as most. But I cannot pretend that I have felt indifferent. And I write now if only to get the stuff out of my head that prevents me properly concentrating on other matters.

I have never known Rodney as a bully. And I was relieved to hear Deborah Coddington say the same on NewstalkZB last night. On the other hand I did experience Stephen Franks as a bully over a matter where I chose to put personal loyalty above political expediency and was severely chastised for it. I like Stephen but was very uneasy about his appearance as Heather's 'support person'. It was Stephen who ensured that Heather was placed at number 2 on the list in 2005 to act as some sort of moderating influence or counter to Rodney at number 1. Stephen had lost the mad primary-style leadership election to Rodney and I believe the current problems go back that far - at least. Richard Prebble should carry the can for that piece of insanity.

Rodney would have tried to avoid personal conflict coming to a head because I don't think he handles relationships very well. I still see him as a lone player but a very effective one. His intellect and charisma are substantial. Heather's are not.

As an ACT member and candidate I was overtly loyal to Rodney. I was transparent about voting for him to lead the party and would do the same over again. Realising how deep the division went through 2005-2008, with Heather seeing herself as the only one of the two ACT MPs maintaining party "respectability", my being offered 14 on the list by Heather's clique makes more sense. Thank God it happened or I might have been embroiled in this current crisis.

Because once you are an MP you can never be your own person again. I have come to the view that is it impossible to maintain integrity and avoid being compromised. That is the nature of the beast when you work with people whose motives or priorities may differ from your own. In life there are good people and there are bad people, and we are nearly all one or the other at some point. Thankfully the conflict and dramas remain private. In politics they unfold in public.

Heather probably believes she was well-intentioned; working selflessly for the good of the party (leaving aside any ill-judgement shown in allowing another or others too much influence on her defence associate ministership). But she overestimated her following. Went to that classic place politicians go to when they listen only to people fawning all over them most probably.

Rodney now has to put the facts on the table. Mapp should assist him. Let the court of public opinion do its work with as much objectivity as can be mustered. That's the best hope he has of salvaging his party and reputation. And I don't think salvaging is too strong a word.

What's wrong with National's DPB work-testing policy?

What's wrong with National's DPB work-testing policy which passed into law last night?

The explicit goal of the Future Focus Bill was to " ...break the cycle of welfare dependency".

On that count it will fail because;

1/ There is nothing to prevent existing beneficiaries adding children to their benefit to avoid work-testing

2/ Six or more years out of the workforce is too long. The longer people stay on a benefit the less likely they are to leave it

3/ There is no disincentive created for teenagers who will view some point 6 or more years into the future as remote

It also falls short in other respects

4/ Many OECD countries faced with the same problem now work-test when children are younger than 6

5/ It implies approval for taxpayers to support sole parents, regardless of their reason for being a sole parent, for long periods of time

6/ Resources will now focus on the most employable who are arguably less in need of them

7/ National can claim to be "doing something". A little akin to fiddling while Rome burns.

Dunne divvies up the dough

MacDoctor asks the question this morning, when will it be enough? He was referring specifically to benefit levels. I'd ask the same about Working For Families;

Transfers via tax credits to families with dependent children have become larger in value and more widespread in recent years. In 1998, an earlier form of payments, also mainly delivered via the tax system and which targeted the same groups as WFF does, went to 280,000 families, with an average annual receipt of $3,500. In 2008, WFF was received by more than 384,000 families at an average annual amount of $6,500. Over the intervening decade, the number of recipient families grew by 37% and their average receipt by 84%. Currently, a working family with three children, all aged under 13 years, would still receive some amount of WFF tax credits provided their annual income is below $106,000.

And in 2009 the annual bill rose again to $2.7 billion.

And now couples with children want income-splitting as well?

It is no wonder we get socialist government after socialist government.

I thought the drive from National was for a simpler tax system yet churning ...churns on. Simple = don't take it off them in the first place. Then we could start replacing dead-weight bureaucrats with productive workers.

But no. We have companies crashing while politicians continue to debate how best to confiscate and divvy up the dough to keep themselves in their positions of power, prestige and privilege.

Beyond silly

Apparently a sole parent is starving on $517 a week. It's that wicked benefit system again.

Hold on. That's equivalent to $13.79 an hour after tax working 37.5 hours a week. Would a worker who chooses to spend 57 percent of their income on rent and then struggles to make ends meet, make newspaper headlines?

It isn't the benefit level that is the problem. It is living beyond means. Get a flatmate.

On a benefit and working

The following is an assortment of statistics. I'll stop short of calling them facts. You will see why.

* According to the latest Household Incomes in New Zealand report the full-time employment rate for sole parents was 35% in 2009.

* According to the OECD the employment rate for sole parents was around 52 percent in 2009




* According to the Household Labour Force Survey, in 2009 the average employment rate for a sole parent with dependent children only was 52.5 percent.

* According to Ministry of Social Development Benefit Factsheets during 2009 only 15.3 percent of people on the DPB had declared earnings (indicating they worked for all or some of the year).

* According to the Household Incomes in New Zealand report 73% of sole parents were in receipt of a main benefit in 2009.

* At March 2009 there were 105,448 single parents on a main benefit (OIA request)

So that means there were around 144,500 single parents.

52 percent were working; 73 percent were on a benefit and 11 percent were officially doing both. Which leaves 10 percent unofficially doing both by my calculations.

(The only information I don't have is how many sole parents on benefits other than the DPB had declared earnings. At best that might add another percentage point onto the officially doing both portion).

Tapu Misa; another NZ Herald journo who doesn't get it

Tapu Misa has taken up the familiar role of defending the DPB citing Child Poverty Action Group research;

According to a recent report from Child Poverty Action Group, most DPB recipients are on the benefit for a relatively short time while their children are young, and most re-enter the workforce when their circumstances allow.

What is it that is said about statistics hiding as much as they reveal?

EXTENT OF DPB DEPENDENCE SURPRISES MINISTRY

Monday, August 16, 2010

The Ministry of Social Development has just published research that finds the length of time sole parents stay on the DPB is greater than previously thought.

"This finding is in line with what I have been saying for many years," said welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell. "The real level of dependence has been masked by the short-term and often repeat stays many sole parents experience."

The Ministry's new research finds;

On average, sole parents receiving main benefits had more disadvantaged backgrounds than might have been expected:

· just over half had spent at least 80% of the history period observed (the previous 10 years in most cases) supported by main benefits

· a third appeared to have become parents in their teenage years.

"The research also finds that of the teenage sole parents who went onto the DPB (or EMA) in the year to June 1996, over half received a benefit for eight or more years of the following ten. These recipients, along with others who became parents under twenty five years of age, were categorised as 'early starters' ; over half were Maori and due to larger family size, their children accounted for 45% of the total reliant on the DPB. The early starters also had the highest benefit-debt level and uptake of special needs grants for food; were also most likely to incur a penalty for failing to name the father of their child(ren); had the highest uptake of child disability allowance and lowest level of educational qualification.

"Unfortunately even the new research has limitations. For example it attempts to identify whether sole parents had become parents as teenagers by matching their age against the age of their oldest dependent child. But if the oldest child was over 18 he or she would no longer be officially dependent and would not appear in the data used."

"It is a great shame the Ministry has taken so long to produce this research which is now being euphemistically described as presenting a 'more disadvantaged profile than might have been expected.' "

Mrs Mitchell concludes, "One now wonders how long it is going to take the Minister and the National government to act on it."