Holiday?

An enforced 'holiday'. I will end up doing housework all day. Because when I am not at my shop working (suddenly the work has come in - hallelujah) I will be forced to confront the other environment. And there is no other escape. No horses to speculate on, no trips to the mall which I loathe but mini-me adores. Thank goodness I remembered to buy a bottle of sav yesterday so at least when I have finished vacuuming, washing floors, windows, laundry, mowing lawns, weeding, cooking a roast (not a leg of break-the-bank lamb :-() sighing over my munted car after someone fell asleep behind the wheel of their van and left me with no choice but to go into the sea or take a hit, cleaning the oven (now I jest), I can reward myself. Best I get on.

The cost of taxation

This is explained well by Laffer and summarised by the NCPA:

* To start with, individuals and businesses must pay the government the $1 in revenue plus the costs of their own time spent filing and complying with the tax code; plus the tax collection costs of the IRS; plus the tax compliance outlays that individuals and businesses pay to help them file their taxes.
* In a new study, Laffer and his colleagues estimate that these costs alone are a staggering $431 billion annually.
* This is a cost markup of 30 cents on every dollar paid in taxes.

If it is 30 percent in the US I can think of no reason why it would be any less here.

He then goes on to show how a simplified flat rate would add to economic growth:

* Consider a family that made $40,000 in the year 2000.
* If their income grew by 3.2 percent per year, the average long-term gross domestic product growth rate, their income by 2010 would be $53,110.
* Now imagine that the growth in the family's income was not 3.2 percent but 3.72 percent (the impact from halving the costs of our current complex tax system).
* Under this higher growth scenario, the family's annual income would have been $55,568 in 2010.
* The slight increase in the economic growth rate raises this family's purchasing power by 4.6 percent.

Do you think that the politicians and activists moaning about the rising costs of living could be interested in this counter-balance? In fact, the CPI would not be rising to the same degree if a flat tax were introduced, so you can add to the increased purchasing power the family would have. And not that I want to hold up government spending, but a lower flatter tax rate could be achieved without reducing revenue.

Just a thought that follows on as I muse about NZ's tax system, Peter Dunne, as Revenue Minister, is a waste of space. But imagine Hide in that role. And then imagine if Honest John actually told us who he wants as Ministers before the election.

Teenagers on a sickness benefit

MacDoctor makes mention of Professor Innes Asher hand-wringing over the rising number (Table SR.1) of teenagers on a sickness or invalid benefit. I pointed out that the majority of grants for an SB during 2007 were for pregnancy. But I suspect that overall the rise is because of the growing diagnosis/ incidence(?) of psychological and psychiatric disorders amongst teenagers. This is the cause for general growth across these benefits.

From my OIA file:



As MacDoctor points out Innes says;

“There was a large increase in the number of young people receiving the sickness and invalid benefit between 2002 and 2007 (the largest increase was in the 18-19 age group). “Why was there such an increase in young people on invalid and sickness benefits? How much is due to mental and physical disease as a result of the increase in child poverty?”

She refers to the increase in child poverty in the 1990s and those children now becoming young adults.

Yet statistics show;

June 1990 9.7 percent of sickness beneficiaries were aged 15-19
June 2009 5.4 percent of sickness beneficiaries were aged 16-19

Children of the 1970s were also victims of growing child poverty?

Incidentally, in 1990 67 percent of sickness beneficiaries aged 15-19 were unmarried women. Hint.

Progressive tax - US versus Sweden

Funny how the word 'progressive' usually has good connotations. Not when it comes to tax (unless you are a socialist). NCPA reports;

U.S. Tax Code Is One of World's Most Progressive

The United States has one of the most progressive tax systems in the world, and has become much more progressive in the past 30 years, says Richard Rahn, a senior fellow with the Cato Institute.

* The top 1 percent of taxpayers pay 38 percent of all the income taxes despite having just 20 percent of the income.
* The top 10 percent of taxpayers pay 70 percent of the income tax while having just 46 percent of the income.
* At the other end, the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers pay just 2.7 percent of the income tax while having 13 percent of the income.

This has resulted in a situation in which a relatively small minority of taxpayers pay the bulk of the taxes, while most American pay little or no income tax. This is causing an increasing disconnect between benefits from government and what most citizens pay for. One result is a greater polarization in the political realm where a majority of citizens increasingly demand more government benefits for which they want others to pay.

The Swedes were on this same destructive path, but they reversed course over the last couple of decades and made their tax system far less progressive, even though their tax rates at all levels are above most of those in the United States. The result has been a tempering of demand for new government services as people at all income levels realize they will be the ones paying for those services and not some mythical "rich" person. The side benefit is that Sweden, as a result of tax and other reforms, now has one of the highest economic growth rates in the world, says Rahn.

Source: Richard W. Rahn, "Tax Inequity," Washington Times, April 11,2011.

And additional information from Sweden;

Sweden may need to push through tax cuts at every budget if it is to reduce unemployment further, Finance Minister Anders Borg said.

“We have a lot of work to do to secure full employment,” Borg said at an event today arranged by Svenska Handelsbanken AB (SHBA) in Stockholm. “It will require that we make changes to taxes and spending in practically every budget going forward if we are to come down to unemployment rates in line with the best European countries.”

The government yesterday raised its economic growth forecasts for 2012 and 2013 and predicted budget surpluses, allowing it to cut taxes when most other European countries are grappling with austerity measures. The fastest-growing European economy will expand 4.6 percent this year, 3.8 percent in 2012 and 3.6 percent the following year, Borg said yesterday.

The krona strengthened 0.2 percent against the euro to 9.0224 at 9:40 a.m. in Stockholm. It jumped 0.9 percent yesterday following the government’s forecasts.

Unemployment fell to 7.9 percent in February from 8.2 percent the previous month, Statistics Sweden said on March 17, citing non-seasonally adjusted figures.

My conclusion?

A lot less government is still preferable BUT where it exists, paying for it should be as equitable as possible. Nothing would persuade me that paying an average tax rate of 57.77% was a good thing. Those economic growth rates in Sweden are similar to what NZ had in the mid 2000s without paying exorbitant (relatively speaking) tax rates. And the US has had similar rates under similarly progressive regimes as described above. There are far more factors affecting economic growth than tax rates alone.

(Out of interest, in NZ, based on income tax alone;

* The top 2 percent of taxpayers pay 17 percent of all the income taxes despite having just 20 percent of the income.
* The top 12 percent of taxpayers pay 49 percent of the income tax while having just 46 percent of the income.
* At the other end, the bottom 45 percent of taxpayers pay just 8 percent of the income tax.)

Goff can't copy Gillard

Two months ago Australian PM Julia Gillard made her first major economic speech of the year about getting people off benefits.

She has just re-iterated her focus on work in a further address. This is how she defines what Labor, her party, stands for;

In her speech to the Sydney Institute last night, Ms Gillard said Labor was ''politically, spiritually, even literally the party of work. The party of work not welfare, the party of opportunity not exclusion, the party of responsibility not idleness.''

Immediately one mentally contrasts this to the New Zealand Labour Party, and reflects on the latest attempt by one of their own to define his party. Something to do with geese.

Uninspired political leaders often look overseas to see what their counterparts are doing. But there isn't a cat's chance in hell that Phil Goff will come out saying what Gillard said. It would be judged utterly implausible and generate further public derision.

Which is very sad because it was once quite true. Ironically, when we had an Australian PM.

Power goes too far again

According to the NZ Herald;

Extended family and close friends of child abusers could face up to 10 years in prison if they turn a blind eye to abuse and do not report it.

Justice Minister Simon Power yesterday introduced changes aimed at protecting children from abuse and neglect, including a new offence making people who are close to a family liable if they do not report abuse to the authorities.

Another step too far.

It'll be interesting to see where the Maori Party fall on this one. Given Turia's drive to make more families responsible for their own to reduce family violence, will she support National on this one? It could play either way. More state involvement always leads to less personal responsibility. On the other hand the new punishment might be described as enforcing greater responsibility. No. I hope, along with the Greens (ACT are hopeless in this area) the Maori Party will denounce this.

It is clear that getting CYF involved in family problems is not necessarily the cure-all. It isn't difficult to conjure scenarios where a family member might be loathe to go to them or the police preferring to deal with a situation themselves. What about a mother who sees one of her children abused by a violent partner but the others left alone? She can plan to leave. In the interim she suspects that bringing the police into the picture will exacerbate matters. Ramp up the violence. Involve the other children. She makes a choice to try and resolve her situation herself and with help from other close friends she trusts and tells about the violence. They are also now culpable.

They weren't "doing nothing" but they failed to report the abuse. Will the two parts of the equation be separated?

I see other problems as well. The threshold for abuse and neglect is legally very low. A grandparent who has always smacked to discipline, and still does, should be reported by the parent lest he or she risks a jail term? Yes, my objection sounds vaguely silly but it's valid.

And what about people involved with families as volunteers or mentors? Someone working with a violent family who's task it is to change that behaviour? What if they fail and the police become involved. Retrospectively, is that person - who has become a "close friend" - now culpable?

And was the abuse actually seen, or is 'suspected' enough to make an associate take a walk? Imagine the finger-pointing when one person is going down.

We all know what kind of people Power is trying to net here. But his solution is going to be fraught.

One last question. If it's such a good idea why has it taken until now to think of?

Dressing down CPAG

Oh joy. Someone other than me having a go at the Child Poverty Action Group. Big ups to Dr Rosy Fenwicke for her column in yesterday's DomPost;

OPINION: KIWI mothers are battlers too. Donna Wynd and Susan St John need to be enlightened about this fact before they consign all mothers in New Zealand to the state-funded victimhood they seem to be advocating in their column Enlightening the Welfare Working Group.

Sometimes events beyond our control conspire to undermine our abilities to look after ourselves and our children, which is where a caring community kicks in.

The Welfare Working Group seems to be offering hope with help and the Child Poverty Action Group is offering help without hope to Nikki - the solo mother example. It is the second option that riles me the most.

Let's look again at Nikki. She has two children aged six and three and works part-time at night to help support her family. Let's not talk about a nebulous no-good partner, but give the father of her children an identity - Sam.

Sam and Nikki, for whatever reasons, have decided to split. Nikki keeps her night-time job because she likes it and it is the place where she is treated like an adult after day-long childcare. Sure, she is tired but sometimes she gets help from her family.

It does not require magic to continue working and looking after children. New Zealand mothers (and fathers) do this every day and we cope. Support is nice but not always available.

Accessible, safe and affordable childcare close to the workplace is essential, or mothers of children aged under five are not able to work. Once this is properly addressed, there are no barriers, other than choice, to a mother working after having children. Lots of us do it (alone). We have to. Our kids are fine.

More

Blind to the forest for the trees

Details are boring and irrelevant when it comes to the government-run systems of benefits and tax. But those details keep thousands of people in employment. And they provide a focus for divisive politics. The two main parties are perpetually entangled in debate over details and rarely seem to take a breather step back and examine the underlying idea. Then the incongruous situations arise where one says my detail is better than your detail. But both are wrong.

This is highlighted in yesterday's blog about the unpaid parliamentary intern-ship organised by Carmel Sepuloni. Yes, it is a good thing for the young lady in question to be getting some work experience (in something other than how to run other people's lives would have been preferable), even if it was unpaid. But it clashed with the benefit rules (at least until the MP intervened). And the rules- aren't- really- rules perception of WINZ is at the heart of welfare misuse. By necessity, where government presides over people's lives, so do rules.

Today throws up another silly details scenario.

Child Poverty Action Group says the definition of ‘family scheme income’, which came into force on 1st April goes too far.

Spokesperson Susan St John says it is fair that income from trusts and ‘portfolio investment entities’ (PIEs) is now counted when calculating Working for Families, Student Allowances and the Community Services Card entitlements. “But the new definition includes regular gifts of money from other family members, for example, if an outside family member pays for something like the electricity bill.”

While gift duty is abolished for the rich, regular transfers which total over $5,000 to struggling low income families are penalised. Transfers totalling $5,001 means $1,000 loss of Working for Families tax credits.

These low income ‘working families’ are not the ones hiding money in PIEs and trusts. The government ought to be encouraging grandparents who can afford it to help their children. In the recession, without such help many more working families will resort to loan sharks and foodbanks.

CPAG also queries how such as scheme could possibly be administered fairly. “And there are other anomalies,” says St John . “For example, payments for daycare made by a working grandparent is captured by ‘family scheme income’. But if the grandparent looks after the grandchild themselves it is not counted. The overall value of the help is the same but the impact on the way IRD treat it is very different”

St John says “Under the changes one-off cash gifts are exempt, raising the prospect that families will be planning their transfers much more carefully in the future”

Unusually I agree with Susan St John's opinion that transfers of money between family members eg a grandparent paying for a grandchild's childcare costs, should not be means-tested for the purposes of WFF. But if WFF didn't exist neither would interminable wrangles over how it should be administered. The government shouldn't be interfering in people's private financial affairs full stop.

Every day the news is full of where lines are drawn, because the principle has long been ceded. Scrapping over screeds of ridiculous rules and regulations. Vast resources of wasted mental and physical energy; money and time.

Then if you have any energy left to point out the undesirability of the whole kit and kaboodle you are labelled an extremist. I give up.

Naive and arrogant Labour MP

A blunder by someone who should know better.

Labour MP Carmel Sepuloni expects someone volunteering in her office - because she has no money to employ them - should also receive an unemployment benefit. Then she chastises WINZ for enforcing rules regarding the compulsory attendance of unemployment beneficiaries at a seminar, which her 'intern' missed.

I have copied her post and the ensuing comments in case it disappears;

Get it together WINZ
Posted by Carmel Sepuloni on April 11th, 2011

So about three weeks ago a young Samoan women came in to my office asking ever so nicely if we could give her some work experience.

She recently completed a National Certificate in Business Administration but hasn’t been able to get work because she has no work experience.

I told her that I didn’t have any money in the budget to hire someone else but she pleaded with me to let her volunteer her time. I agreed to put her on a Parliamentary Internship to provide her with the work experience she needs as well as to support her in what ever way I can to assist her with getting in to paid employment.

Then what happened….

A week in to her starting I get a call from a WINZ case manager asking if I would agree to her being on a subsidised work scheme i.e. WINZ subsidise her being in paid employment for me. I told them - nope, I have no money and therefore can not pay her and I’m not even sure if parliamentary regulations would allow for me to do that anyway.

I explain to the WINZ guy that I will assist her as best I can with getting the work experience she needs as well as support her in trying to find work. I explain to him that I’ve even set it up, as a legit Parliamentary Internship. He tells me that he understands and that this sounds like a great opportunity for the young woman and that if she’s still actively seeking paid work, then that would be fine.

A week later (beginning of last week). I find out from this poor young woman that WINZ have cut her benefit. Despite the fact that the last case manager I’d spoken to, had said it was fine – another WINZ case manager had wrongly assumed that the young woman had deliberately (and without good reason) missed a WINZ seminar that she was suppose to attend as an Unemployment Benefit recipient.

I rang WINZ that day when I find out and leave a message (outlining the situation) on the phone of the case manager that had made this decision (a different case manager from the one I spoke to the previous week). I don’t get a response from her, but the very next day the young woman undertaking an internship in my office, gets her benefit reinstated.

Get it together WINZ! Not all of these poor young people are going to have an MP on their case, who can ring up and leave rather firm voice messages for you when these mistakes happen. The vast majority of our young people are wanting to be engaged with work or study but at this point in time, things are against them and they need additional support. Don’t treat them like criminals out to commit benefit fraud and/ or bludge of the system.
« National: Putting up the white flag on the economy

This entry was posted on Monday, April 11th, 2011 at 12:43 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
6 Responses to “Get it together WINZ”

1.
jennifer says:
April 11, 2011 at 1:37 pm

Are these the new ‘front line’ services that big Paula keeps crowing about?
2.
Richard says:
April 11, 2011 at 2:49 pm

Surely unpaid internships are exploitation, or does Labour not believe in the minimum wage anymore?
3.
Frank says:
April 11, 2011 at 3:13 pm

On the information you just provided, you inappropriately excercised political influence over a public servant who appears(on the facts you have chosen to represent) to have done exactly the correct thing.

You cannot do voluntary work INSTEAD OF being available for full time employment:

http://www.workandincome.govt.nz/manuals-and-procedures/employment_and_training/programmes_and_services/voluntary_work/voluntary_work.htm

So maybe give some more details to prove that “WINZ got it wrong”? or maybe even better – ask Work and Income directly?!
4.
peteremcc says:
April 11, 2011 at 3:22 pm

How come you’re happy for this woman to work for you just for the experience and for zero pay, yet you don’t want to let me or her or anyone else work for the experience and $10/hour (which would be more than she’s getting at the moment from WINZ)?
5.
David says:
April 11, 2011 at 4:30 pm

How many other volunteers do you have in your office collecting a benefit ?
6.
Lindsay says:
April 11, 2011 at 4:49 pm

Someone on the Unemployment Benefit must be available for paid work. Your ‘volunteer’ must meet those conditions. It’s quite straight forward. It would appear Work and Income are doing their best to ensure unemployed beneficiaries are doing everything in their power to get paid work and you are attempting to thwart their processes.

Attitude

This headline from Radio NZ irks somewhat;

'Super-rich' yet to contribute to quake appeal

If I were 'super-rich', and in a position to make a substantial donation, I would be waiting for representations to be made to me about exactly how the money would be used. And reading on, it would appear that is the reason that donations haven't yet been forthcoming. But the headline plays to the knee jerk resent-the-rich sentiments of too many Kiwis.

Other people just get on with it. Like Catherine Bailey who organised a art auction fund-raiser at the local pub and called on Eastbourne artists and businesses to donate works and raffle prizes. When returning an easel and sample art to me Sunday (I offered a pastel portrait voucher which apparently went for $200) she said they had raised around $7,000. Good for her. That's what the country needs. More doers.

Susan St John - whiny, one-eyed economics

From today's NZ Herald;

Bernard Hickey's column last week elicited this response from Susan St John, associate professor of economics at the University of Auckland business school.

Bernard Hickey says dropping "middle-class welfare" such as Working for Families would be the fastest way to reduce the budget deficit.

His analysis displays no understanding of family economics at all.

Unfortunately, the antipathy to Working for Families is now widespread and he helps smooth the path for the Government to slash this programme.

But Working for Families tax credits simply adjusts tax to take account of family size and to share the costs of raising the next generation.

In Australia, one-child families, including those on benefits, receive maximum assistance of A$10,200 ($13,000) if there is a baby bonus paid, A$8815 for a child aged 1-4 and A$7738 for a child aged 5-13.

In New Zealand, if this one-child family is on a benefit the most they can get from Working for Families is $4472. A family defined as "working" qualifies for the In Work Tax Credit, but they can only get the full entitlement of $7592 if their total income is less than $36,868.

Contrast these with the Australian figures when our dollar is only worth about 75 per cent of Australian currency.

If we do away with the meagre Working for Families tax credits, how will we stop the exodus of our young struggling families to Australia?

And if we retain Working For Families which, remember, people somehow managed without before they were bribed by Labour in 2005, how do we stop the exodus of childless young to Australia and further afield?

I have two children. When we decided to have a family we didn't expect any financial help to do so. People similar to me are also leaving for Australia. They don't immigrate looking for handouts. They immigrate looking for better incomes from work and less whining from Susan St John types.

I am so sick of the hand-out mentality, the we're-raising-the-next-generation-of New Zealanders crap. How the hell do people know if they are raising the next-generation-of-New Zealanders when so many will live and contribute elsewhere. Thanks to the continuing screwing over advanced by socialists.

Restoring family responsibility

Tariana Turia had an opinion piece in the Dominion Post during the week. My response was published in today's paper;

Wealthy parents should pay more

That's the latest idea afoot in Australia. Wealthy parents, already paying school fees, are an "untapped" source of further funding apparently.

WEALTHY parents should pay a levy to upgrade the nation's rundown schools, according to the headmaster of Australia's oldest private school.

Tim Hawkes, head of The King's School at Parramatta, said the levy should apply to well-off parents who send their children to government schools, which he described as an untapped funding source.

Well-off parents already paying school fees to send their children to private schools would also have to pay the levy.

Gee. I bet that has made him popular with his customers.

Of course I fundamentally disagree with the proposal for any number of reasons. How is wealthy defined? Many wealthy parents already pay a lot more to educate their children so how is 'fairness' achieved? Why punish effort and entrepreneurship and reward the absence of it? I could go on.

But the reason I thought the article from The Age worth comment, is the response from readers. The poll (at 6 am) shows only 33 percent agree with the idea. If the same sort of thinking got an airing in the NZ Herald I believe the 'yes' vote would be significantly higher.

And the difference is why Australia is leaving us behind for dust.

Welfare - a hopeless bind

What a hopeless situation this country has gotten itself into with regard to welfare. Hopeless. It is laid out starkly by Simon Collins in today's NZ Herald. Hardship itemised alongside the inability of welfare payments to meet the cost of living of a single parent despite those payments being greater than the average weekly earnings of a female living in Auckland of $798. The mother concerned receives $827 after tax. Her main problem is she is spending over half of it on rent.

It is no wonder that NZers love to invest money in property. There are so many families, often single parent, that can only afford to rent. And the presence of WINZ in the market keeps the rental charges artificially high.

There are only two answers for this mother. Move or share rental expenses. Neither prospect is easy to face but people cut their cloth. It's part and parcel of life.

Working isn't going to lift her income and if her condition worsens she may be unable to. If I was in her shoes I would move out of Auckland. Does she have parents she could stay with temporarily?

On one hand I am sympathetic. But on the other when you compare her problems with those faced by many Christchurch residents, relatively speaking, they pale in comparison.

I have met Pam Apera. A sensible woman. But she should not be putting her hand in her pocket. Silly, silly. I know. I have done it and so have other volunteers I have worked with. It's against the rules for very good reasons. Oswald will tell us why.

The parent has to take control of the situation and make some tough decisions.

CYF advise "don't be stoic"

There has been an increase in crime, domestic violence and alcohol-related incidents in Canterbury towns hosting families who have left Christchurch after the earthquake. Overcrowding and stretched resources are being blamed. But this advice from a CYF worker stopped me in my tracks, so to speak;

It was "no time to be stoic", and people should seek CYF help before they reached "breaking point", she said.

Being stoic is actually how some people cope. Time was when exercising self-control was considered a virtue, a strength. I suppose modern sensitive types would now describe a stoic as anal-retentive.

In any case people who are committing alcohol-fuelled crime or abuse weren't being stoic anyway. I suspect that their behaviour isn't out of character. The circumstances have just ratcheted it up a notch or two; given them an excuse to be more self-indulgent than usual.

And along come CYF telling them they shouldn't have bottled it up. There, there. Let it all hang out. Wear your heart on your sleeve, cry on as many shoulders as you can find. But above all, come to us.

What the hell for? People would be better off going to the local church (although, in this day and age, the church would probably refer them on to CYF, such is the sell-out to socialism).

Some good old-fashioned stoicism, or even a resemblance of it, is exactly what is needed. No, I don't know what some of these people have been through, but there is always someone worse off than yourself and if they are parents, they have greater responsibilities than to their own emotional expediencies.

Yesterday a woman came into my shop taking a break from Christchurch. She wanted to talk about what had happened and I was very happy to listen. She wasn't hand-wringing or feeling sorry for herself. She was calm and philosophical. But she was upset about a nearby couple living on a lifestyle block, with all the latest and best possessions, who couldn't handle their material loss and had split up. She was very sad for the children. She felt the parents should have been strong for their children.

Stoic, perhaps.

Welfare and refugees

A criticism of Libertarianz immigration policy at Crusader Rabbit yesterday prompted me to have a closer look at the NZ situation. The discussion assumed that all refugees are Muslim (not true) and therefore, to be blunt, not wanted. It is a view that has some validity if refugees are eventually a source of trouble (crime, welfare dependence, and intolerance to other cultures.) However, to treat all refugees as a single class of people is collectivist, an approach I will always take issue with. I abhor collectivism because I will always advocate and fight for the rights of individuals. Detractors at Rabbit will argue that Muslims will collectively override the culture of individualism given a chance. And that is also possibility.

I argued that the Libz policy of allowing unlimited refugees as long as they have a private ongoing sponsor is reasonable. I might be persuaded to change my mind about limitations but not the idea of sponsorship. Private sponsorship would probably have a self-limiting effect anyway.

In NZ, the particular problem with refugees is they are dependent on the public purse from the outset and frequently remain that way. This does not assist integration. It means refugees remain out of the workforce with no demands on them to learn English and new skills, if they choose not to.

There is a paper entitled Does a rising tide lift all boats? which examines how the US compares to NZ in its refugee resettlement programme. It is not written by a New Zealand public policy wonk which is immediately obvious in its clarity of structure and straightforward writing.





The result?



The paper goes on to point out that the refugees characteristics on arrival appear to be fairly similar, "and certainly not disparate enough to be the basis for marked difference in the outcomes."

The passage encapsulates what is wrong with the social compact New Zealanders apparently have with their government (though I do not believe for a moment it is a compact by consensus). Is a refugee stuck on a benefit more equal? Is she more free?

And exactly the same can be said about New Zealanders.

The company Tizard keeps

I must be leading a sheltered life. I don't know any sulky 15 year-olds who smoke too much dope. So I have no idea how they behave. What have I been missing?

Maori - unrealistic standards?

As a result of someone pulling my leg over the Maori translation of Ministry of Women's Affairs I had a look at said website this morning. Surprising - or is it? - how much of it is devoted to Maori.

By sheer coincidence this month is the 100th anniversary of the first convention of the Māori branch of the Women's Christian Temperance Union (WCTU) held at Pakipaki in 1911. Maori were enticed in their droves to sign up to a pledge promising not to smoke or drink. But I never knew about the third requisite.

Temperance Pledge

He whakaae tene naku kia kaua ahau e kai tupeka, e inu ranei I tetahi mea e haurangi ai te tangata, kia kaua hoki ahau e whakaae ki te ta moko. Ma te Atua ahau e awhina.

Translation:

I agree by this pledge, not to smoke tobacco, not to drink any beverages that are intoxicating, and also not to take the ta moko. May God help me.

Ta moko has long interested me and I've painted many tattooed subjects. Countless women died of septicaemia as a result of the practice and one hundred years ago the process was painful, dangerous and barbaric. But that has been replaced with safe modern day techniques and I imagine the idea of bowing to a European/other culture request to forsake ta moko today would rightly be reviled.

But isn't there a hint of an analogy in there?

(Leaving aside tobacco) isn't the answer for leading a good life finding some middle ground or moderation or better way without total abandonment? For many Maori there seems to be only the high road or the low road. All or nothing. And I suppose the same must be said for some Pakeha. But there does seem a stronger delineation with Maori. "Churchies or crims" as I have heard one Maori friend remark about a family which ended up making the worst sort of headlines.

These concepts - good and bad - even make an appearance in public service contracts today:

Tapu/Noa Sacred/profane The recognition of the cultural means of social control envisaged in tapu and noa including its implications for practices in working with Maori Service Users.

Are Maori setting themselves unrealistic standards? And then, too often, failing spectacularly?

Blog stats March

Best month ever. Coincides with the second biggest business confidence downturn since the survey began. Reading blogs make people gloomy? Or gloom encourages people to read blogs? Actually it's probably got something to do with my google ranking, whatever that is.

Criminals and misnomers

Just two quick thoughts this morning.

1/ Anybody who defrauds Work and Income should be barred from ever claiming welfare again, including Super. That would a huge deterrent to people who think they can behave how the hell they like and always fall back on other people's money. Otherwise this extraordinary state of affairs, whereby no matter what people do their 'entitlements' remain intact, will continue to be a major reason why so much crime occurs and will continue to occur. The bullet must be bitten and a stop put to this utter nonsense. The facts;

In 2009;
Cancellations of a benefit for reason ‘going to prison’ 4,192. Grants of a benefit for reason ‘leaving prison’ 3,496.


2/ Does anyone else find the constant use of the term 'mass grave' in reference, to the inability to identify Christchurch quake victims, questionable? Mass graves have connotations associated with mass murder. Surely a better, more sympathetic description could be found. Multiple grave maybe. I don't know but I am certain the term being used is all part and parcel of the tragedy voyeurism some commentators have identified.

Update; Having returned from walking the dog there is something else I want to say. In the business of beneficiaries defrauding the taxpayer and going back on welfare the writer went to ACT for a response;

ACT MP Heather Roy said it was obvious further changes needed to be made. "The question is, how much was the system allowing this to happen? It seems to me if we've got that much money going west ... there's something going wrong."

What a piss-poor response. ACT has had years to think about this matter. And Roger Douglas is supposed to be the welfare spokesperson anyway. I may not always have agreed with Muriel Newman but she didn't prevaricate or miss an opportunity to stamp an impression on voters about where the party stood. And they call National "spineless".