Damien Grant: "Here's your problem, National: You need to take your leader seriously"

"Around 400,000 formerly blue voters abandoned National at the last election. If recent opinion polling can be trusted, they have not come back.

National’s review of why this happened is out, and a sanitised version has been released to the public. The report wants the party to focus on diversity and recruitment. Both recommendations fail to address the party's malaise.

National does not have a diversity problem, and even if it does, it does not matter.

I do not care about the racial make-up of any political party. Neither, I suspect, do most Māori, given that the Māori Party only collected 33,000 party votes.

Indeed, the last time National was polling in the forties it was buoyed by widespread Pākehā support, despite being led by two individuals with Māori heritage. If National believes that dragging Shane Reti around to every photo shoot is going to boost its support among those who identify as Māori, it has a shockingly low opinion of the Māori electorate.

National can embrace the Treaty if it will make it feel better, but diversity isn’t its problem."

More

"I think the Treaty has been breached"

Oh really?

This from the Minister for Children, Kelvin Davis, regarding Oranga Tamariki's uplift of Maori children and their over-representation in state care.

"I think the Treaty has been breached"

What else has been breached?

A child's right to be nurtured and protected?

The child's innate trust in their mother?

A families responsibility to rally around a newborn child to enure its wellbeing?

The Treaty being breached is way down the list of what matters to that child.

It's got months, a couple of years, to receive the crucial input it needs.

Meanwhile racial politicking drones on ...

Sepuloni "useless"

Peter Williams described the Minister of Social Development, Carmel Sepuloni as "useless" on his Magic Talk programme this morning. Specifically, because she had no idea how much MSD had given to moteliers etc for damage caused by "MSD clients".

Is she useless, or something worse?

Since 2017 Sepuloni has driven a culture change at Work and Income. On the surface, treating clients with respect and care (if they weren't already) is laudable and hard to argue with. WINZ offices are brighter, security staff are less visible, there are water dispensers and play areas for children. Away from the coalface, thousands of clients are rung to ensure they are receiving their full and correct entitlements.

This is the policy of kindness in action.

Long-established rules are dispensed with or overlooked. COVID was a great enabler in advancing this change of approach. The Greens, whose MSD spokesperson used to be a beneficiary advocate, should be pleased (though they never are). The Green Party wants benefits to be completely unconditional and open-ended. Last term Labour needed the Greens, and it shows.

The use of sanctions to enforce obligations has fallen away. Benefit reviews have been abandoned. Medical certificates too. Grants for all types of emergency assistance have sky-rocketed; denied applications have plummeted. 

Expectations have been established not just by visibly changing how WINZ looks and operates. But by more insidious messaging.

The promotion of victimhood through claims that structural racism abounds, and colonisation is to blame for every ill imaginable, used to be the territory of extremists. Now it is routinely promulgated by academia and other authorities. If not Maori, there are other excuses for disaffection provided by mainstream Marxism.

People on benefits have every right to feel resentful and aggrieved. So much so that bad behaviour is understandable. It’s just a form of protest bound to become more prolific.

But some (often blameless beneficiaries) who live in or near emergency housing feel very unsafe. The protestors doubtless sleep all day and come out at night to wreak havoc; do drugs, do violence and do damage. These aren’t working people who have to get a decent night’s sleep.

They are anti-social miscreants who arc between apathy and aggression and wear their alienation as a badge of honour.

Instead of a system that refuses to tolerate their destructiveness, we get a system which rewards them with no-strings-attached cash and plenty of excuses for their defection from the rest of society.

Nobody has explained to them that the social security system was born out of shared values, shared compassion for genuine need, and shared commitment to fund it.

Certainly Sepuloni hasn’t bothered. And it is highly unlikely that the new compulsory history curriculum will cover what Mickey Savage envisaged when he created it over eighty years ago.

Green associate housing Minister Marama Davidson is appalled. The situation is unacceptable she says. Yet this is a leading proponent of an anything-goes benefit regime. Is she really surprised at what such a mushy modus operandi results in?

A much harder line must be taken with offenders. They will be breaking multiple laws and for the sake of those in closest proximity – those in genuine, unavoidable need – the very least that should happen is a threat to immediately end their benefit entitlement. Whatever ensues, we have a police force to deal with.

Someone needs to get – and someone needs to give – the correct message: you can’t keep biting the hand that feeds you.

Don’t hold your breath for that someone to be the person in charge though.

"Cuddly teddy bear"

Confusion reigns in some lives. A man is murdered. Coleman was his partner:

Three days on from the killing, Coleman told Stuff she wanted to know why someone would viciously attack the “cuddly teddy bear” her daughter thought of as a father.

Rose-coloured glasses after the fact?

 At the time of his death, Hawkins was on electronically monitored bail for alleged family violence-related offending against Coleman.

Tragic.

"If only they could talk"

Not a burning issue for many people I realise (though a matter of their livelihood for hundreds) but I thought the following two columns were a great example of contrasting opinion from two people; one a politician and one a retired vet.

Opinion: Since only the beginning of 2021, seven greyhounds have been killed and 282 injured on racetracks across Aotearoa.

Take a moment to let that sink in. This is our dog-racing industry, one of the last still in operation in the world.

These deaths and injuries aren’t a bug. They’re a design feature, and they always have been.

Fifteen years ago, former racing minister Winston Peters launched the Greyhounds As Pets adoption scheme, seeking to improve the public perception of the industry’s approach to animal welfare.

In 2017, he reflected on that moment 11 years prior, lamenting: “It is disappointing the industry is still grappling with these underlying issues”.

Those underlying issues are greyhound deaths, injuries, and the occasional meth-doping scandal.

Seven greyhounds have been killed and 282 injured on racetracks across Aotearoa so far this year.

Time and again, the industry argues that it loves these dogs. I would hope that anyone who loves their dogs would have learnt from nearly 20 years of broken legs and ankles, ruptured stomachs and trauma that, just maybe, they should stop doing the same thing over and over again.

Because we’ve been here before.

In 2013, the ‘WHK report’ made a slew of recommendations to improve animal welfare. Then in 2017, with disconcert from the broader racing industry, former High Court judge Rodney Hansen QC produced yet another report.

That report found: “The number of greyhounds reported as euthanised continues at high levels with evidence of widespread non-compliance with reporting requirements strongly suggesting the true figure is much higher”.

There were at least 1200 dogs unaccounted for in the four years since that last report.

Last week, the Government announced the third review of the industry this decade, with new Minister for Racing Grant Robertson stating he was “not satisfied the [Hansen] recommendations are being implemented in a way that is improving animal welfare”.

When the same questions keep turning up the same answers, and those answers are the mistreatment of animals, how long are we supposed to extend goodwill? How many more dogs will die or disappear in that time?

Greyhound Racing New Zealand will tell you greyhounds are athletes; they love to race! This is a sport! Research the breed, you’ll find out!

The reality is greyhounds are typically low-energy dogs with a light frame and, obviously, the ability to run fast. Because of that, these dogs have been bred and imported into New Zealand to generate income for the gambling sector.

Do they love to race? More importantly, do they have a choice? When the gun goes off and the gate goes up, the dogs run, because they’ve been trained to do so, and thousands of dollars are at stake in each race.

In an industry plagued by claims of doping, live baiting, animal welfare issues and kennel cough outbreaks, the dogs that don’t perform don’t make it.

Greyhound Racing New Zealand reported that 165 dogs alone in the last annual reporting period were killed ‘for other reasons’ – they’re too slow or too broken for the industry, and too traumatised to be a family pet.

The dogs that do make it out of the gate on race day are the ones that are still useful. This has nothing to do with ‘loving to race’, and everything to do with training and the window of opportunity the industry has to use them up.

The injuries suffered routinely are serious – horrific major bone breaks and organ rupture – painful, fatal injuries there can be no recovery from.

Athletes aren’t put down. But these dogs are, when they become a balance-sheet liability.

We’ve got plenty of other sports, and many you can gamble on if that’s really what you’re after. Those athletes have a say in what they’re doing and when they retire.

Greyhounds can pursue a love of running in plenty of other ways, like chasing a ball at the park with other dogs.

Or, they can be found nuzzled into the arm of a couch for notorious hours-long naps that come quite naturally, if you ask anyone who’s ever owned a greyhound as just a good old pet, not a bet.

Green MP Chlöe Swarbrick is working on a Member’s Bill to end greyhound racing in New Zealand.

OPINION: Recent comments distributed by animal activists and the SPCA reveal it is time to change the narrative about greyhound racing. Contrary to continuing claims, the welfare of the dogs is now well managed and previous problems have largely been overcome.

Since I became the independent chairman of the Greyhound Racing New Zealand Health and Welfare Committee in 2015, the major focus has been on the development and implementation of new health and welfare standards which surpass those required by the Code of Welfare for Dogs issued in 2010 under the Animal Welfare Act.

New Zealand greyhounds are probably the most regulated and protected animals in the country throughout their racing careers until they are rehomed at the end.

As a result of valid concerns highlighted in the past greyhound racing continues to be subject to thorough scrutiny and a third review in the last decade has just been announced. Greyhound Racing New Zealand is confident that all the required management improvements have been made as a result of the first two reviews.

 Greyhound Racing New Zealand has shown no hesitation to suspend racing in the face of disease outbreaks or adverse track conditions. In such circumstances, support is always provided to ensure the welfare of the dogs and the people involved.

Greyhounds have a lovely temperament and chasing is natural behaviour which they love to do, just as much as other dogs. Watch the obvious enjoyment when two or more dogs race to get to a ball that is thrown for them on a park or at the beach.

The concerns expressed by the SPCA and SAFE indicate a lack of current knowledge as the fears they have raised are many years out of date. For instance the SPCA says it wants veterinarians to be present at all race meetings, but this has been mandatory for over 30 years.

All dogs receive a pre-race check and a number identified during and after each race are also sent immediately for veterinary examination by the race day vet. In the event of accident or injury, adequate pain relief is available within minutes, as compared to the fate of working, sporting, and hunting dogs which may wait several hours.

Mandatory collection and publication of lifecycle reports has been in operation and steadily improved upon since the first 2012-2013 inquiry into greyhound racing. Subsequent inquiries have established that most of the “missing data” previously reported had been collected but was not in an easily accessible format. Similar comments apply to injury statistics and with compulsory ear branding and now micro-chipping, greyhounds are the most easily traced breed in New Zealand.

A further SPCA complaint that more greyhounds are bred for the racing industry than will enter is inconsistent with the reality. With the establishment of the greyhound Welfare Committee, the welfare code for greyhounds was largely rewritten with considerable emphasis on all welfare aspects, including adequate socialisation as young pups, restrictions on the number of litters any one female can have, and a ban on breeding from females over eight years-old, except in very special circumstances. These circumstances must be explained, in writing, to a panel of three veterinarians who have the absolute right to grant or deny breeding permission. In recent years the numbers of pups born has remained remarkably stable with any not making it to the race track simply entering the adoption programme at a younger age.

The number of greyhounds euthanased is reported to the Government, published on the GRNZ website and in the annual report. These statistics are not able to be compared with the numbers of dogs euthanased elsewhere in New Zealand because none of the other organisations that euthanase animals in their care make their numbers available. GRNZ has minimised the numbers of greyhounds put down through measures taken to limit injuries and support treatment; and rehoming programmes. With rehoming being the priority for all Greyhounds there is no time limit preventing the rehoming of dogs as they exit the sport. They are cared for until they are matched with the right family.

As far as the claims of over exertion go, racing greyhounds are elite athletes, with the top grade dogs the equivalent of Olympic competitors and treated as such by their trainers. They make every endeavour to ensure their dogs are fit and ready for the distance they will be racing over. Trainers know their dogs and do not ask them to exceed their capabilities.

Greyhound Racing NZ accepts there will always be those who do not support the racing of animals and want it banned. They are entitled to this belief, but it is important when opposing any activity that the true picture is acknowledged and misinformation is corrected.

Retired veterinarian Jim Edwards ONZM is the independent chairman of the Greyhound Racing NZ Health and Welfare Committee. He is also a former president of the New Zealand Veterinary Association and the World Veterinary Association.

Children's Commissioner gets it right - and then horribly wrong

I posted yesterday about the child poverty stats and why they are a joke. While recalibration shows better reduction, nothing materially changes for children.  Here's the Children's Commissioner on the same subject:

“A different number behind a decimal point doesn’t change things for the thousands of tamariki and whanau doing it tough. Children who are growing up in a motel, or whose families are struggling to pay for the basics, still need big bold changes to unlock opportunities to live their best lives."

Correct.

But then he plunges headlong down the leftist rabbit hole:

 “Government efforts to target poverty reduction, improve incomes through the families’ package, expand the school lunch programme and peg benefits to wages have created the strongest foundations for making progress on poverty in decades.

“Poverty and hardship rates, particularly among Māori, Pacific and disabled children are still unacceptably high.

“We want to see benefits raised in line with the recommendations of the Welfare Expert Advisory Group, and a major shift in the availability of social and affordable housing for whānau."

So his solution is greater dependence on the state. Bigger benefits means more children growing up on benefits. 

There is so much documented evidence, here and internationally, that shows benefit dependence - especially long-term - is detrimental to children's outcomes.

Benefits erode family cohesion and they discourage work.

I had high hopes for Andrew Becroft, who back in relatively sane times was outspoken about the young people who appeared before him in the Youth Court. He identified an absence of fathers as the most common factor in their troubled backgrounds. If he hadn't connected that to the state's encouragement of single parent families through the DPB then he must be wilfully blind.

Perhap he is. As Children's Commissoner he is now actively calling for more of the same medicine despite known adverse side effects outweighing any advantage.

Moving people off benefit is "the old paradigm"

MSD set up a division of case managers to work with people who enter the benefit system very young and/or are "entrenched" beneficiaries. They have a smaller caseload and can work more intensively on other barriers to work the client is experiencing.

A qualitative evaluation of the service has been published and (perhaps understandably)  there seems to be no overall data regarding how successful the programme was/is in getting people independent. 

"Time off-benefit for clients assigned to the ICS treatment group, as compared to those assigned to the control group (and who continue to receive services as normal), is the key metric by which the success of the ICS trial is assessed.7"

Go to footnote 7 to find:

"7 Ministry of Social Development: Intensive Client Support (ICS) Trial Evaluation: Interim 12 Months Evaluation, pg 23. Unpublished internal report." 

Perhaps the quantitative data will come later. We are told, "Of the 26 trial participants interviewed for this research, seven had achieved off-benefit outcomes, although three had subsequently returned to the benefit, one having lost their job, one returning due to an injury, and one due to seasonal work finishing."

Not flash. But the case managers evaluate their own success differently. Two views:

I must resist any pressure from certain staff who are still in the old paradigm of just moving people off benefit as quickly as possible. It’s not about numbers, these are people. They’re people who, if you don’t do anything with them, sure, will cost the government over their lifetime. But the downstream effects are not just one benefit for a lifetime, it’s use of the criminal justice system, their children’s failures and risks. Who cares if they stay on a benefit if it means they don’t go back to jail, if they can get help for their trauma in childhood, if they learn to read and write better so they feel more positive, if they are able to leave the house more. It’s about improving their lives to make society better. (ICSM)

Measuring success rates are quite difficult because who says they’ve done well, and how is that measured? And that’s quite hard for your personal development to go “Oh well I’ve got so many people, this person has been showing up to appointments” and so that’s an achievement to me. But my manager’s like “no, how many people have you got into work?” (ICSM) 

Isn't this illuminating?

On the one hand I have some sympathy for their efforts and priorities. And of course, behind the numbers are real people.

But it also concerns me that the damage the benefit system has done in some families and sectors is so great, self-sufficiency is now a secondary consideration. Just rescuing some people from themselves is enough.

If  'moving people off benefit' is the "old paradigm" have we lost the battle?

When I worked with beneficiaries I resisted trying to solve their problems by trying to get more WINZ money or a food parcel. I tried to help them find practical solutions or make better decisions. But I eventually identified that the biggest obstacle to them making changes was the guarantee of cash in their bank account every week regardless of how they lived their lives. Not uniformly but typically.

Child poverty stats

Child poverty stats are a joke.

If grown-ups get collectively poorer, children get richer (relatively).

Never has this been better illustrated than by a just-announced Stats NZ cock-up.

They have recalibrated recently released child poverty stats and they are better than initially thought. How convenient.

Treasury , "identified several respondents incorrectly reporting the superannuation payments they received, resulting in double counting their income from superannuation, which has also been resolved in this corrected release.

The corrections resulted in a change to the median income for the year ended June 2020, which is used to provide the thresholds for child poverty reporting. The median equivalised disposable household income for the year ended June 2020 before housing costs are deducted reduced from $42,486 to $41,472. After housing costs are deducted, it reduced from $32,579 to $31,717."

If the threshold goes down, fewer children fall below it.

None of this makes children materially any better off.

But it might make the PM puff her chest out.

Stand by.

Benefits stats and some aberrations

 Here's National on the March quarter benefit stats:

Labour Mislead on Negative Statistics Again

Labour’s celebratory social media posts touting a “record 32,880 people moved into work” are disingenuous and only tell one part of the story, National’s Social Development & Employment spokesperson Louise Upston says.

“What Labour aren’t telling us, is that more people were put on a benefit than moved into work across the same time period. That’s 46,437 additional people moving on to benefits.

Yes, it is correct that 46,437 grants of benefits occurred during the March 2021 quarter.

But during the same period there were 60,573 cancellations of benefits.

That's net 14,136 fewer people on benefits. And for a March quarter 32,880 moving into work is a record for the last 6 years. 

That is what Labour is crowing about.

Now if you want to make comparisons to when Labour took office, or the degree of dependence in respect of how long people are staying on benefits, that's another matter....

 If I was putting a question to the minister I'd be asking what happened to the blue lines. Why no cancellations due to benefit reviews or health improvements?

I went into the data tables for a look:

Something very odd about those two categories.

As far as I am aware benefits are still reviewed annually. Most have to be re-applied for after 52 weeks.  And one assumes that a failure to present a medical certificate for  benefit requiring one would typically lead to X amount of cancellations as per past March quarters.

Maybe some porcedures went West during Covid and just haven't been reinstated since.

Benefit increases we don't hear about

MSD has just released a report into how Labour's Families Package has affected incomes of parents with infants in the first six months post-birth. The first table compares mothers with children born in 2017 with mothers with children born in 2018. It uses data from a 3 month cohort pre July 1. The reason for this is that the Best Start payment didn't kick in till July 1, 2018.

Those recieving the largest increase in absolute terms were beneficiary, and by ethnicity, Maori.

Then the study examines the effect of the Best Start payment post July 1 which is "in addition to income gains from other parts of the Families Package":

The Best Start payment is $60 weekly in the first year but it may be offset by adjustments to other assistance. For instance:

...some families receiving a benefit or with a low income lost Temporary Additional Support – this is a payment of last resort that is withdrawn dollar-for-dollar as income from other sources, including Best Start and other Working for Families tax credits, increases

• some families appear to have also lost Accommodation Supplement income

Nevertheless the net increase in incomes for all mothers, but especially mothers on a benefit, is considerable.

The  study also examined whether the 4 week extension to Paid Parental Leave had the intended effect of allowing mothers a longer bonding period.

"The size of the effect on months with no wages and salaries appears small [0.21 of a month] relative to the four-week extension in paid parental leave made available to parents in 2018. One possible explanation is that recent inflation in house prices and rents worked in opposition to the policy reform."

Pretty much a policy fail there. 

The next report will be of great interest when the effect of increased incomes on the health and well-being of the children is assessed.

Another policy fail is entirely possible.

Also, look out for the Child Poverty Action Group and other anti-poverty advocates kicking up a stink when the first recipients of Best Start (3 year entitlement) lose the income from July 1 this year. That's what they did when the Winter Energy payment stopped last year.

With friends like that Labour doesn't need enemies.

Covid 19 vaccination rates by ethnicity

 Regular readers will know I love data. It's like a toy you can play with in different ways. The visual representation relays speedily what raw numbers do not. So for no other reason, I was drawn to this chart and thought others may be interested:

Latest benefit numbers

Three graphs for you from March quarter benefit fact sheets released today.

Unsurprisingly, large increase in Jobseeker numbers year-on-year. Though on an optimistic note the numbers are slightly below what Treasury was forecasting:

Note the massive increase in emergency housing expenditure:

And the overall picture...

What happens to children of beneficiaries?

In regard to my last post questioning what children learn from beneficiary mothers with ingrained helplessness and over-developed senses of entitlement, a commentor, Sam, asked "What happens to children of beneficiaries when they become adults?"

I am aware of various NZ research which answers the question.

Broadly speaking, the longer the parent is dependent, the worse the risk of inter-generational dependence becomes.

While Bill English was Finance Minister there were multiple actuarial reports into the benefit system.

From 2015:

"New analysis this year shows that just under half of all children born in 1993/94 and 1994/95 with a parent on benefits during their childhood went on to become beneficiaries themselves before age 23; 75% of those from long-term benefit families."

And:

About three quarters of current clients aged 16 to 25 (for whom data is available) had a parent who received benefits during their childhood. 45% of the overall liability for all beneficiaries under age 25 is associated with children from families that received benefits for 80% or more of their teen years. 

Perhaps most telling, the following graph shows the probability of a child entering the benefit by the number of years their parent is on welfare (SPS = Sole Parent Support). 

A child who has spent all or most of their life dependent on their parent's benefit is very likely to migrate onto their own benefit as a young adult. In my experience as a volunteer it wasn't uncommon to find the parent encouraging this event as it upped the household income.

The occurrence of inter-generational benefit receipt is now well-documented.For other research see links here.

But a happy story to finish with. One of my clients (then on a benefit but now working) was very unhappy when WINZ advised her son he'd be better off on a benefit than working part-time. This because of the board she was making him pay. She was trying to instill a different set of values, while I was helping him produce and print a decent CV. That was maybe 14-15 years ago. Last year the same young man and his partner bought their first home.

Where and when will it end?

Here is a mother on a Sole Parent Support benefit. She has four children and debt to MSD of nearly $10,000. She repays $46 out of the basic benefit of $386 each week and says, 

"It’s a big difference 'cause we need that money. It’s not enough, even the benefits not enough. If they cannot do anything then we’re going to need a new Government that cares." 

Put aside that on top of the basic weekly rate of $386.78 she'll receive:

Souh Auckland accommodation Supplement = $305 max

Family tax credits for four children = $386.79

That's $1,078.57

And putting aside that there are many other top-ups including for non-repayable grants rent, food, etc...

Where is the father or fathers of her four children?

Why has she no sense of personal agency?

Where did she learn the mindset of entitlement?

What are her four children learning from her?

And why do idiot journalists frame her situation (and thousands of others) as being put into debt by the government because they don't earn enough on their benefit? (You'll have to watch the newsclip for that additional contortion of the facts).

ACT MP Karen Chhour off to a good start

 From Newshub:

ACT is accusing Labour MP Willie Jackson of "perpetuating a victimhood mentality" for saying we have "institutional racism" in "every area of New Zealand society"...

...ACT's Social Development and Children spokesperson Karen Chhour calls these "inflammatory comments" which will "only perpetuate a victimhood mentality".

"Constantly blaming racism for the problems faced by Māori is wrong. We can't move forward as a nation if that is our only response," she says in a statement.

"Rather than using such divisive language, our Government should be uniting New Zealanders behind good ideas that lift everyone up.

"Jackson's comments also promote a narrative that all Māori are the same and that we don't have our own individual aspirations." 

Chhour criticised Jackson, saying Labour had shown it doesn't believe in 'by Māori, for Māori' solutions in the past.

"[Jackson's] waatea (organisation) sponsored a charter school, but his own party completely opposed the concept and shut it down," Chhour says.

"Labour likes to believe it is the saviour of Māori, but it clearly has no idea how to fix our country's deeply-ingrained problems."

Karen is totally sincere in her comments. I have been meaning to put up her Maiden Speech and now is a good time to do it. Too often children are politicised. They are used to promote leftist ideology: greater state redistribution of wealth. Chhour's speech left me in no doubt that she actually does want to improve children's lives, especially Maori children.

The worst form of racism

The worst form of racism perpetrated against Maori is that "they all think the same way."

They don't. Never have and never will.

I was just watching this Billy Te Kahika episode from Christchurch today.

Yet another freedom of speech issue. Another case of  'social media'  quashing real life gatherings.

We all have to rally behind the freedom to speak and be heard. 

If we allow ourselves to be divided racially by political manipulation (current modus operandi), we get weaker - not stronger.

Sexist, ageist AND racist

 Is it interesting that of those people convicted of breaching covid 19 restrictions 

- most were men

- around half were under 30

- around half were Maori.

Pretty much the same story as other crime.

Proves yet again the justice system is institutionally sexist, ageist AND racist!

(And before anyone thinks I am condoning people being convicted of breaching covid 19 restrictions, I fully expect that they were concurrent charges to some other law-breaking offences).

Damien Grant nails it

Great column from Damien Grant this morning. It nails the frustration that those of us older than most current  MPs feel.

"One of the economic lessons we are determined not to learn is that government cannot regulate prosperity. Each generation must learn, from scratch, this lesson. Helpfully, we already know the script.

A successful economy is, over time, corroded by a growing layer of restrictions. Each set of regulations imposes an unintended and unanticipated cost or outcome. This necessitates further rules and government oversight. Eventually the entire system becomes so overwhelmed that it either grinds to a halt or there is a sudden and dramatic economic liberalisation."

More

Sense out of Britain which seems to be re-gaining its wits faster than some other countries

 According to today's Economist

A commission in Britain that was created after last year’s Black Lives Matter protests to investigate racial disparities concluded that race is less important than social class and family structure in explaining inequality. On schooling, the report found that most children from ethnic-minority groups did as well or better than their white peers. It added that the catch-all term BAME (black, Asian and minority ethnic) was not very useful. The report contradicted the claims of critical race theorists, some of whom claim that white privilege is the prime cause of most disparities.

It's lengthy and I have only scanned through it but the conclusion, which I've reproduced here in full gives some idea of the clarity of thought and open-mindedness demonstrated by the commissioners. You can download the report from:

"We have tried in this report to present a new race agenda for the country, relevant to people from all backgrounds.

Rather than just highlighting minority disparities and demanding the government takes action, we have tried to understand why they exist in the first place.

That has meant some challenging conversations about today’s complex reality of ethnic advantage and disadvantage, a reality no longer captured by the old idea of BAME versus White Britain.

We have focused not just on persistent race-based discrimination but on the role of cultural traditions, including family, within different minority groups, the overlap between ethnic and socio-economic disadvantage, and the agency we have as individuals and groups.

And we believe that perhaps more than previous reports on these issues a degree of optimism is justified. Our agenda is rooted in the significant progress we have made as well as the challenges that remain.

We were established as a response to the upsurge of concern about race issues instigated by the BLM movement. And we owe the mainly young people behind that movement a debt of gratitude for focusing our attention once again on these issues.

But most of us come from an older generation whose views were formed by growing up in the 1970s and 1980s. And our experience has taught us that you do not pass on the baton of progress by cleaving to a fatalistic account that insists nothing has changed.

And nor do you move forward by importing bleak new theories about race that insist on accentuating our differences. It is closer contact, mutual understanding across ethnic groups and a shared commitment to equal opportunities that has contributed to the progress we have made.

Too many people in the progressive and anti-racism movements seem reluctant to acknowledge their own past achievements, and they offer solutions based on the binary divides of the past which often misses the point of today’s world.

We have paid close attention to the data and tried to avoid sweeping statements or over-ambitious targets and recommendations. Instead, our recommendations have tried to account for the messy reality of life and have been aimed, where possible, at everyone who is disadvantaged, not just those from specific ethnic groups.

Many of our recommendations, on Class B drugs or extending school hours for example, are aimed especially at the COVID-blighted generation of young people. Others focus on better use of data and the development of digital tools to promote fairness at work or for keeping young people out of trouble.

We have also acknowledged where we do not know enough and called for further research on what works in promoting fairness at work, and the role of the family and the reasons behind the success of those minority groups that have been surging forward into the middle class and the elite.

We focused our recommendations on the 4 broad categories of change that the Commission wishes to affect – build trust, promote fairness, create agency, and achieve inclusivity – and never assumed that minorities are inert victims of circumstance. As mentioned in the foreword the fact that most of us are successful minority professionals has no doubt shaped this thinking. And our experience of ethnic minority Britain from the inside makes it obvious to us that different groups are distinguished in part by their different cultural patterns and expectations, after all that is what multiculturalism was supposed to be about. It is hardly shocking to suggest that some of those traditions can help individuals succeed more than others.

Beneath the headlines that often show egregious acts of discrimination, the Windrush scandal most recently, incremental progress is being made as our report has shown beyond doubt. Through focusing on what matters now, rather than refighting the battles of the past, we want to build on that progress.

Finally, a thanks to all those individuals and organisations from across the country who gave us their time to to share their perspectives and evidence, and explain how their inspiring projects are helping to build a fairer Britain.

The year 2022 promises to be a special one: a new energy as we are fully released from COVID captivity, The Queen’s 70th Jubilee and the Commonwealth Games in Birmingham. And we hope it will be infused with the spirit of British optimism, fairness and national purpose that was captured by that 2012 Olympic opening ceremony, and has animated this report."

April 1 marks another egregious error by this government

Indexing benefits to wages last year set a precedent. They've been indexed to inflation since 2001 but indexing to wages had always been resisted.

For many people the margin between income from a benefit and income from work is a cost they are prepared to pay. Fix that margin and they will always be prepared to pay it. Increase the margin and work becomes attractive.

Covid highlighted NZ's heavy reliance on imported workers in areas where benefit dependence is also high. With benefits linked to wages, that's the way it will stay.

The previous Labour government (a godsend compared to this lot) understood the importance of keeping a margin:

 "...it is desirable to create a margin between being dependent on a benefit and being in employment....

The Labour Party isn’t the party that says living on a benefit is a preferred lifestyle. Its position has always been that the benefit system is a safety net for those who are unavoidably unable to participate in employment. From its history, the Labour Party has always been about people in employment."

Michael Cullen, 2008

Not Jacinda's Labour Party.