Media Release
PRISON TURNS OVER 3,000 BENEFICIARIES A YEAR
Friday, October 31, 2008
Figures released under the Official Information Act show that during 2007 2,860 beneficiaries left welfare to go to prison and 3,171 inmates left prison to go on a benefit.
According to welfare commentator, Lindsay Mitchell , the current prison population is around 8,000.
"These figures raise a number of questions, " she said today. "Firstly, the public assume that if benefits are not paid to certain individuals , crime will increase. However these statistics prove that people receiving benefits commit crime anyway. Secondly, does the benefit system have any sort of moral compass when people who have repeatedly broken the law, who have committed the most serious offences, are still entitled to taxpayer support? Thirdly, how successful are prisons at readying prisoners for release if they are cycling on and off benefits? Does the availability of welfare on release undermine the motivation to learn new skills while incarcerated?
And finally these figures show that being on a benefit more than doubles the risk of imprisonment. What research is being done into the backgrounds of prisoners? How many were raised on welfare?
It seems to me that while it is vital to create better policies to deal with the present levels of crime, far more attention needs to be paid to state-funded lifestyles that lead people to crime. Ultimately, relieving able people of a responsibility to support themselves relieves them of life's very productive purpose - working to survive. "
Friday, October 31, 2008
Thursday, October 30, 2008
The tale of two Tims
From the Waikato Times reporting on National Candidate Tim Macindoe's statement at a candidate meeting;
He also denounced methamphetamine or P users as participants in an evil trade and said dealers should be tried as murderers.
So why not try supermarket check-out operators who sell alcohol "as murderers"? Oh right. They don't have evil intent and 'P' dealers do. Actually 'P' dealers want to make quick, easy, serious money. The illegal status of 'P' makes it difficult (but not impossible) to make and sell. That combined with the high demand results in high prices and high profits.
Here's what the Libertarianz candidate, Tim Wikiriwhi, says;
In response to a question about the P epidemic, Mr Wikiriwhi said prohibition was not the answer and legalising cannabis would result in less P use.
He's got a point. As it is we have created a recreational drug black market of immense proportions and very dark dimensions that cannot be destroyed even using all the force that the state can muster. And yet nearly every political party and candidate continues to pretend that it can.
He also denounced methamphetamine or P users as participants in an evil trade and said dealers should be tried as murderers.
So why not try supermarket check-out operators who sell alcohol "as murderers"? Oh right. They don't have evil intent and 'P' dealers do. Actually 'P' dealers want to make quick, easy, serious money. The illegal status of 'P' makes it difficult (but not impossible) to make and sell. That combined with the high demand results in high prices and high profits.
Here's what the Libertarianz candidate, Tim Wikiriwhi, says;
In response to a question about the P epidemic, Mr Wikiriwhi said prohibition was not the answer and legalising cannabis would result in less P use.
He's got a point. As it is we have created a recreational drug black market of immense proportions and very dark dimensions that cannot be destroyed even using all the force that the state can muster. And yet nearly every political party and candidate continues to pretend that it can.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Cindy Kiro caught out
In August 2007 Steve Braunias interviewed the Children's Commissioner, Cindy Kiro. Here is an excerpt from that interview;
I asked if Nia's torturer's fitted a profile of child abusers. Yes, she said: "Impulsive young males. Poverty. Drug and alcohol background. What I call the normalisation of violence within the family. A tolerance for really quite aberrant behaviour, for thinking that it's OK.
Did that profile include being Maori? "There is a particular issue for the Maori community," she said. "It is true that Maori disproportionately hurt children. But out of 88 children killed between 2002 and 2006, 48 were Pakeha. Maori were 28. The remainder were Pacific Island and a few Asian. So I think people need to get a little bit careful when they start on this business."
At the time I questioned the figures on this blog.
In September 2008 another journalist, Keri Welham, interviewed Kiro for the Dominion Post weekend magazine. Welham reproduced the same figures.
I blogged again pointing out that if these figures were correct there had been a very large increase in child deaths since 2003.
This time I decided to investigate. I rang the Office of the Children's Commissioner and spoke with their 'media' person who promised to call me back when she had located the source of the statistics used in the Dominion Post magazine article. I called her again the next day and she told me that the source was not their office but the article by Steve Braunias. At which point I realised I was going around in circles as Cindy Kiro has been the source for the Braunias statistics.
So I wrote to the Commissioner under the Official Information Act. My letter follows and her response below.
So the Commissioner is confirming "the figures are inaccurate" but still not providing a source. In fact, SHE was the source. I contacted Steve Braunias to confirm that the quote was verbal, emailed him the letter from Kiro and he responded,
"The figures were indeed direct quotes from Cindy Kiro, made to me during the course of the interview. I didn’t discuss any aspect of the story afterwards with her, and there was no call made on her to make any kind of retraction. Good on you for following up on those figures, though. Interesting!"
We now have statistics in the public domain that are grossly inaccurate. That a second journalist used them proves people will access the information and treat it as official and accurate. The Children's Commissioner knows they are inaccurate and has a responsibility to set the record straight. That she has failed to do so amounts to a cover-up of her mistake - accidental or otherwise.
Note the Commissioner's letter says that for the period 2001-2005 the death rate was 0.8 per 100,000. That's approximately 7 deaths or 35 over a 5 year period.
In the context of a discussion about child abuse, claiming 88 children were killed over a five year period only one year removed, and that a majority of them were Pakeha, AND never attempting to correct the statement, is quite reprehensible.
I personally believe she used those erroneous figures to rebut claims that child abuse is a Maori problem. Of course child abuse is not exclusively a Maori problem. But more Maori children are killed through maltreatment than would be the case if their statistics reflected their proportion of the population.
According to the New Zealand Herald Cindy Kiro's contract is up for renewal this year. What has she achieved?
1/ a 28 percent overspend of her budget in 2007/08
2/ a reputation for spending too much time overseas
3/ being instrumental in making the highly unpopular anti-smacking legislation a reality
4/ and now a serious dent in her credibility regarding statistical reliability and objective analysis
She should go and so should her department.
I asked if Nia's torturer's fitted a profile of child abusers. Yes, she said: "Impulsive young males. Poverty. Drug and alcohol background. What I call the normalisation of violence within the family. A tolerance for really quite aberrant behaviour, for thinking that it's OK.
Did that profile include being Maori? "There is a particular issue for the Maori community," she said. "It is true that Maori disproportionately hurt children. But out of 88 children killed between 2002 and 2006, 48 were Pakeha. Maori were 28. The remainder were Pacific Island and a few Asian. So I think people need to get a little bit careful when they start on this business."
At the time I questioned the figures on this blog.
In September 2008 another journalist, Keri Welham, interviewed Kiro for the Dominion Post weekend magazine. Welham reproduced the same figures.
I blogged again pointing out that if these figures were correct there had been a very large increase in child deaths since 2003.
This time I decided to investigate. I rang the Office of the Children's Commissioner and spoke with their 'media' person who promised to call me back when she had located the source of the statistics used in the Dominion Post magazine article. I called her again the next day and she told me that the source was not their office but the article by Steve Braunias. At which point I realised I was going around in circles as Cindy Kiro has been the source for the Braunias statistics.
So I wrote to the Commissioner under the Official Information Act. My letter follows and her response below.
So the Commissioner is confirming "the figures are inaccurate" but still not providing a source. In fact, SHE was the source. I contacted Steve Braunias to confirm that the quote was verbal, emailed him the letter from Kiro and he responded,
"The figures were indeed direct quotes from Cindy Kiro, made to me during the course of the interview. I didn’t discuss any aspect of the story afterwards with her, and there was no call made on her to make any kind of retraction. Good on you for following up on those figures, though. Interesting!"
We now have statistics in the public domain that are grossly inaccurate. That a second journalist used them proves people will access the information and treat it as official and accurate. The Children's Commissioner knows they are inaccurate and has a responsibility to set the record straight. That she has failed to do so amounts to a cover-up of her mistake - accidental or otherwise.
Note the Commissioner's letter says that for the period 2001-2005 the death rate was 0.8 per 100,000. That's approximately 7 deaths or 35 over a 5 year period.
In the context of a discussion about child abuse, claiming 88 children were killed over a five year period only one year removed, and that a majority of them were Pakeha, AND never attempting to correct the statement, is quite reprehensible.
I personally believe she used those erroneous figures to rebut claims that child abuse is a Maori problem. Of course child abuse is not exclusively a Maori problem. But more Maori children are killed through maltreatment than would be the case if their statistics reflected their proportion of the population.
According to the New Zealand Herald Cindy Kiro's contract is up for renewal this year. What has she achieved?
1/ a 28 percent overspend of her budget in 2007/08
2/ a reputation for spending too much time overseas
3/ being instrumental in making the highly unpopular anti-smacking legislation a reality
4/ and now a serious dent in her credibility regarding statistical reliability and objective analysis
She should go and so should her department.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Key on Douglas
This guy deserves the vapid Peter Dunne.
Hell. Some economical austerity is exactly what we need. Rich government, poor people.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
"Act warns about growing benefit roll"
Out early pamphleteering this morning, to avoid the nasty weather predicted for later, it was a surprise to hear my press statements being picked up by NewstalkZB. They ran one about the growing DPB numbers during the 9am news and the other about the Invalid Benefit blow-out at 11am. I was surprised because I had issued the statements as 'welfare commentator' but they went to air as ACT party releases.
Act warns about growing benefit roll
25/10/2008 12:32:01
The Act Party is predicting a growing roll of people on the invalids benefit, if Labour gets back into office.
Figures from the Ministry of Social Development show there were 78,000 people on the benefit a year ago, but more than 83,000 now claim support.
Act candidate Lindsay Mitchell says it is the biggest single annual rise since Labour came to power. She is concerned that the length of time people remain on the benefit is also growing. Mrs Mitchell says there is a steady input of people going on the benefit and fewer people coming off.
Act warns about growing benefit roll
25/10/2008 12:32:01
The Act Party is predicting a growing roll of people on the invalids benefit, if Labour gets back into office.
Figures from the Ministry of Social Development show there were 78,000 people on the benefit a year ago, but more than 83,000 now claim support.
Act candidate Lindsay Mitchell says it is the biggest single annual rise since Labour came to power. She is concerned that the length of time people remain on the benefit is also growing. Mrs Mitchell says there is a steady input of people going on the benefit and fewer people coming off.
Trigger happy Hutt City Council
Today in the mail I received this;
Never before have I received such a document. I had recently incurred a $12 fine for overstaying two hours outside the Petone Library that had now incurred court costs of $30.
But as I read through the notice from the court warning me about the possibility of arrest, that I must contact them immediately if I plan to travel in the next 48 hours, etc, I thought, that fine is not overdue. It is in my pile of bills awaiting payment.
On checking I found sure enough it wasn't due until 28 days after October 7.
So how often are people sent extra fines before time and the payee doesn't realise the court has acted prematurely? How often are people bailed up at airports for not paying fines that are not overdue?
I rang the Justice Department who are blaming the Hutt City Council who have sent it through to the courts before time. It's hard to imagine mine was on its own. This sort of stuff really pisses me off. Not because they nearly got $30 extra dollars out of me but because there is the potential for this process to cause huge inconvenience and embarrassment to people who are fully intending to pay their fines by the due date. I can just picture how angry my husband would have been with me if we were prevented from getting on a plane because I had allegedly not paid a fine. What an unholy row that would have been. Never mind the District Court. It would have been the Divorce Court.
Never before have I received such a document. I had recently incurred a $12 fine for overstaying two hours outside the Petone Library that had now incurred court costs of $30.
But as I read through the notice from the court warning me about the possibility of arrest, that I must contact them immediately if I plan to travel in the next 48 hours, etc, I thought, that fine is not overdue. It is in my pile of bills awaiting payment.
On checking I found sure enough it wasn't due until 28 days after October 7.
So how often are people sent extra fines before time and the payee doesn't realise the court has acted prematurely? How often are people bailed up at airports for not paying fines that are not overdue?
I rang the Justice Department who are blaming the Hutt City Council who have sent it through to the courts before time. It's hard to imagine mine was on its own. This sort of stuff really pisses me off. Not because they nearly got $30 extra dollars out of me but because there is the potential for this process to cause huge inconvenience and embarrassment to people who are fully intending to pay their fines by the due date. I can just picture how angry my husband would have been with me if we were prevented from getting on a plane because I had allegedly not paid a fine. What an unholy row that would have been. Never mind the District Court. It would have been the Divorce Court.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
The failure of Labour's 'welfare reforms'
The September quarter benefit statistics have just been released. Ruth Dyson is being very quiet. I have a issued two statements below.
INVALID'S BENEFIT - ANOTHER BLOW-OUT
Thursday, 23 October, 2008
Just released Ministry of Social Development figures show a large rise in Invalid Benefit recipients.
"The previous Minister of Social Development, David Benson-Pope, assured the public more than once that the growth in this benefit was slowing. Yet the numbers have risen from 78, 268 to 83, 618 in the year to September 2008 - a 7 percent rise. In fact, this is the biggest single-year increase since Labour has been in government, " welfare commentator , Lindsay Mitchell, said in response to the news.
"Their much touted plans for reducing the numbers reliant on an invalid's benefit have made no impression. What we are seeing is further evidence of 'welfare reforms' that have failed."
DPB NUMBERS ON THE RISE AGAIN
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Newly released figures from the Ministry of Social Development show that over the past year numbers on the DPB have climbed from 96,673 to 98,473 - a rise of 1,800.
Welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell is not surprised. "I have predicted that the Labour's so-called reforms would run out of steam once those most likely to take up the In Work payment had moved into paid employment."
"What we are now seeing with the DPB is growth in the young uptake, continual gradual growth in Pacific and Maori uptake and in the numbers of women who have children aged 14 and older. Treasury are not forecasting falling numbers either."
"Labour missed a golden opportunity to do something bold with this benefit. From its peak the United States managed to decrease numbers on their equivalent benefit by 70 percent during the prolonged period of good economic growth and low unemployment. Since 1999 Labour have managed a mere 10 percent reduction."
"Let's hope that the next government has a really hard look at what the benefit system is doing to young women and their children by continuing to offer an welfare lifestyle which commonly leads to so much lost potential."
INVALID'S BENEFIT - ANOTHER BLOW-OUT
Thursday, 23 October, 2008
Just released Ministry of Social Development figures show a large rise in Invalid Benefit recipients.
"The previous Minister of Social Development, David Benson-Pope, assured the public more than once that the growth in this benefit was slowing. Yet the numbers have risen from 78, 268 to 83, 618 in the year to September 2008 - a 7 percent rise. In fact, this is the biggest single-year increase since Labour has been in government, " welfare commentator , Lindsay Mitchell, said in response to the news.
"Their much touted plans for reducing the numbers reliant on an invalid's benefit have made no impression. What we are seeing is further evidence of 'welfare reforms' that have failed."
DPB NUMBERS ON THE RISE AGAIN
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Newly released figures from the Ministry of Social Development show that over the past year numbers on the DPB have climbed from 96,673 to 98,473 - a rise of 1,800.
Welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell is not surprised. "I have predicted that the Labour's so-called reforms would run out of steam once those most likely to take up the In Work payment had moved into paid employment."
"What we are now seeing with the DPB is growth in the young uptake, continual gradual growth in Pacific and Maori uptake and in the numbers of women who have children aged 14 and older. Treasury are not forecasting falling numbers either."
"Labour missed a golden opportunity to do something bold with this benefit. From its peak the United States managed to decrease numbers on their equivalent benefit by 70 percent during the prolonged period of good economic growth and low unemployment. Since 1999 Labour have managed a mere 10 percent reduction."
"Let's hope that the next government has a really hard look at what the benefit system is doing to young women and their children by continuing to offer an welfare lifestyle which commonly leads to so much lost potential."
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
David Garrett - ACT's number 5
I attended one of Maxim's election panel discussions last night primarily to listen to ACT's number 5 David Garrett. I thought I better have a look at and listen to who I am voting for with my Party Vote.
This is a man who doesn't suffer fools. During the discussion about abortion a poor quality heckler suggested Roger Douglas ought to be aborted. Garrett responded to the elderly man, "I think you are confusing the words abort and euthanase. At your age that could be a very dangerous thing Sir."
On the role of the state he was very good. This came up when a question was put about the importance of non-governmental leadership. Garrett exhorted people to lead themselves. We need very little government, he said. (I noted Darren Hughes can't tell the difference between the state and the non-government sector saying that leadership in the community sector, in organisations like the Women's Refuge and Plunket, is very important and that's why Labour wants to fully fund them. What is the difference between a government agency and a fully-funded-by-government agency?)
Mr Garrett upset Hughes when he described a claim by him as a 'lie'. Hughes didn't like the "big bad ACT Party" language, so Garrett repeated it. I approved. I can't stand mincing words. If Garrett knew what Hughes was saying was a lie he has every reason to describe it as such. And it is ironic that the Labour candidate should object to what he sees as unpleasant language when the hecklers supporting Labour are amongst the most rude. (I spoke later with the Rimutaka United Future candidate who is quite upset at the level of nastiness from Labour hecklers she had been witnessing at Upper Hutt meetings. The same wasn't happening at the Hutt South meetings she and I have done together).
The touchiest subject was yet again the anti-smacking legislation. I thought Garrett needed to take a little more care here. We mustn't fall into the trap of using the left's words. Avoid 'beating' and use 'smacking' - always. In response to that hackneyed objection that children should have the same protection as adults he made the point that the reason you don't beat your wife is she knows not to run out onto the road.
Of course that leaves the inference that it is okay to beat your children. Actually Chris Finlayson described the distinction legalistically very, very well. So well I cannot repeat it word for word. (I was impressed with Finlayson who has improved immensely since I last heard him speak on the campaign trail in 2005.)
But I liked too Garrett's directness, his slightly rough edge by comparison (both are barristers). This contrast helped add weight when Garret closed saying ACT would provide the spine in a National government.
Given Garrett was the only non-MP on the panel his performance was credible and creditable.
(My own liberalism still has me feeling slightly uneasy about the three strikes policy. I back it because I agree that ultimately victims and potential victims must be protected. But I can still imagine situations where somebody's circumstances might explain their violent offending - it may be against the same person and they pose no danger to others - or they might be wrongly convicted of a violent offence, and applying a blanket law may produce a miscarriage of justice. But I am not well-versed in this area and Garrett is.)
This is a man who doesn't suffer fools. During the discussion about abortion a poor quality heckler suggested Roger Douglas ought to be aborted. Garrett responded to the elderly man, "I think you are confusing the words abort and euthanase. At your age that could be a very dangerous thing Sir."
On the role of the state he was very good. This came up when a question was put about the importance of non-governmental leadership. Garrett exhorted people to lead themselves. We need very little government, he said. (I noted Darren Hughes can't tell the difference between the state and the non-government sector saying that leadership in the community sector, in organisations like the Women's Refuge and Plunket, is very important and that's why Labour wants to fully fund them. What is the difference between a government agency and a fully-funded-by-government agency?)
Mr Garrett upset Hughes when he described a claim by him as a 'lie'. Hughes didn't like the "big bad ACT Party" language, so Garrett repeated it. I approved. I can't stand mincing words. If Garrett knew what Hughes was saying was a lie he has every reason to describe it as such. And it is ironic that the Labour candidate should object to what he sees as unpleasant language when the hecklers supporting Labour are amongst the most rude. (I spoke later with the Rimutaka United Future candidate who is quite upset at the level of nastiness from Labour hecklers she had been witnessing at Upper Hutt meetings. The same wasn't happening at the Hutt South meetings she and I have done together).
The touchiest subject was yet again the anti-smacking legislation. I thought Garrett needed to take a little more care here. We mustn't fall into the trap of using the left's words. Avoid 'beating' and use 'smacking' - always. In response to that hackneyed objection that children should have the same protection as adults he made the point that the reason you don't beat your wife is she knows not to run out onto the road.
Of course that leaves the inference that it is okay to beat your children. Actually Chris Finlayson described the distinction legalistically very, very well. So well I cannot repeat it word for word. (I was impressed with Finlayson who has improved immensely since I last heard him speak on the campaign trail in 2005.)
But I liked too Garrett's directness, his slightly rough edge by comparison (both are barristers). This contrast helped add weight when Garret closed saying ACT would provide the spine in a National government.
Given Garrett was the only non-MP on the panel his performance was credible and creditable.
(My own liberalism still has me feeling slightly uneasy about the three strikes policy. I back it because I agree that ultimately victims and potential victims must be protected. But I can still imagine situations where somebody's circumstances might explain their violent offending - it may be against the same person and they pose no danger to others - or they might be wrongly convicted of a violent offence, and applying a blanket law may produce a miscarriage of justice. But I am not well-versed in this area and Garrett is.)
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Campaigning , Catholic meetings and near calamities
Last night I took a punt and went back to basics. Candidates had been given a joint statement from Catholic Bishops to respond to and then take questions. The church was fairly full. The questions were mainly relating to personal and private matters and taking what I will describe as a 'negative' position on abortion, same-sex marriage, voluntary euthanasia, embryo stem cell research, etc. You get the picture.
This is my speech (without the electioneering tagged on the end). I knew we would have plenty of time to talk policy during question time;
We were asked to provide a response to this collective statement by Bishops . I don't much like the word collective. Neither do other members of the ACT Party if they are true to ACT's philosophy. Unlike other parties ACT actually has a defining philosophy. That of individual rights and responsibility. We put the rights of the individual above the rights of the collective because we believe people own their own lives and should be free to live them as they choose providing they inflict no force or harm on others. Of course there are grey areas about what constitutes harm or force, for example Libertarian views can differ on abortion, but in the main we can agree on quite a lot. We can certainly agree that currently the state interferes far too much in our lives.
It seems to me that the Bishops want too much from government and too much from candidates. ACT was formed on the idea of personal responsibility. Look at most of today's problems, some described in here, and the solution to them could be found in the individual taking responsibility and making the right decisions. For instance, if people produced only children that they want and can provide for , much of the New Zealand's child poverty would be resolved. I often muse that if people had and used three things - common sense, commitment and conscientiousness, their lives, and the lives that touch theirs, would be simpler, happier and more effective. Of course, we all make mistakes. The key is to learn something from those mistakes. Unfortunately when the state collective picks up the pieces and buffers the individual from the consequences of their mistakes, many fail to learn anything.
The idea of individual rights should not be confused with selfishness or a culture of 'me first'. Exercising personal responsibility doesn't preclude one from exercising responsibility for someone else. But that care for others, and the acting on it , should be a voluntary matter. We shouldn't mandate governments to exercise social responsibility on our behalf. Because when we do that we are reliant on the government of the day's goals and values matching our own and of course, as many of you have discovered, there is no guarantee of that.
So the best way to ensure that doesn't happen is to reduce the government to as small a role as possible. Unfortunately I sense that the Bishops would like to use the state to serve their values and determinations, as much as any other collective attempts to. That can lead to more conflict than harmony.
In a largely secular, free society, there will always be individuals who have moral values not embraced by the greater community , and you know how that feels. But when that happens the solution is not to ask govt to step in and use organised force but to use moral persuasion and example to change the views of other.
To sum up forcing the collective interests of one group on another doesn't provide a successful blueprint for society. That's what I believe and certainly ACTs current MPs would share the view that individuals should enjoy , and respect I might add, having as much individual freedom as possible.
A number of people approached me after the meeting to thank me for my honesty. I can't think of a better compliment. Two elderly ladies in particular were delighted that I had "said 'no' to the Bishops" and said until then they had never known what ACT actually stands for.
But my gut instincts about honesty are right. People are crying out for honesty (as distinct from somebody simply mirroring their own thoughts) yet get increasingly less of it. I stood in the last two elections because I believe in Rodney Hide. He never evades the hard questions and he never lets down people like me who believe deeply, almost achingly, in the rights of the individual. The world is overflowing with people who want to run other people's lives for them and they fill the ranks of politicians, bureaucrats and religious authoritarians. I can't stand them. But the good news is they are still in a minority and many of the silent minority can't stand them either - although I wouldn't presume to include Catholics.
Low light of my campaign so far came yesterday when I lost my trailer frame to an almighty wind gust. Thankfully nobody was behind me. It must have made a hell of a racket. As luck would have it - my second most welcome dose - an ACT supporter lived nearby. He heard the racket and came to my aid, driving the trailer around the block and back to where I was hanging on to the corflutes madly flapping in the wind and threatening to fly away with me in tow. We managed to bundle the signs into my slightly damaged car and get the frame back onto the trailer. I realised then what had happened. We had put a sign on the back and it had created a build up of pressure inside. That combined with the gale force winds Wellington experienced yesterday was just too much. Last election I towed a trailer for many weeks with no problems but we changed the design. Bad mistake. Today we rebuild it - better and stronger than ever before.
As my good Samaritan waved me off he chortled, "Thank goodness it was you and not a Green Party candidate I had to help. Keep up the good work!"
This is my speech (without the electioneering tagged on the end). I knew we would have plenty of time to talk policy during question time;
We were asked to provide a response to this collective statement by Bishops . I don't much like the word collective. Neither do other members of the ACT Party if they are true to ACT's philosophy. Unlike other parties ACT actually has a defining philosophy. That of individual rights and responsibility. We put the rights of the individual above the rights of the collective because we believe people own their own lives and should be free to live them as they choose providing they inflict no force or harm on others. Of course there are grey areas about what constitutes harm or force, for example Libertarian views can differ on abortion, but in the main we can agree on quite a lot. We can certainly agree that currently the state interferes far too much in our lives.
It seems to me that the Bishops want too much from government and too much from candidates. ACT was formed on the idea of personal responsibility. Look at most of today's problems, some described in here, and the solution to them could be found in the individual taking responsibility and making the right decisions. For instance, if people produced only children that they want and can provide for , much of the New Zealand's child poverty would be resolved. I often muse that if people had and used three things - common sense, commitment and conscientiousness, their lives, and the lives that touch theirs, would be simpler, happier and more effective. Of course, we all make mistakes. The key is to learn something from those mistakes. Unfortunately when the state collective picks up the pieces and buffers the individual from the consequences of their mistakes, many fail to learn anything.
The idea of individual rights should not be confused with selfishness or a culture of 'me first'. Exercising personal responsibility doesn't preclude one from exercising responsibility for someone else. But that care for others, and the acting on it , should be a voluntary matter. We shouldn't mandate governments to exercise social responsibility on our behalf. Because when we do that we are reliant on the government of the day's goals and values matching our own and of course, as many of you have discovered, there is no guarantee of that.
So the best way to ensure that doesn't happen is to reduce the government to as small a role as possible. Unfortunately I sense that the Bishops would like to use the state to serve their values and determinations, as much as any other collective attempts to. That can lead to more conflict than harmony.
In a largely secular, free society, there will always be individuals who have moral values not embraced by the greater community , and you know how that feels. But when that happens the solution is not to ask govt to step in and use organised force but to use moral persuasion and example to change the views of other.
To sum up forcing the collective interests of one group on another doesn't provide a successful blueprint for society. That's what I believe and certainly ACTs current MPs would share the view that individuals should enjoy , and respect I might add, having as much individual freedom as possible.
A number of people approached me after the meeting to thank me for my honesty. I can't think of a better compliment. Two elderly ladies in particular were delighted that I had "said 'no' to the Bishops" and said until then they had never known what ACT actually stands for.
But my gut instincts about honesty are right. People are crying out for honesty (as distinct from somebody simply mirroring their own thoughts) yet get increasingly less of it. I stood in the last two elections because I believe in Rodney Hide. He never evades the hard questions and he never lets down people like me who believe deeply, almost achingly, in the rights of the individual. The world is overflowing with people who want to run other people's lives for them and they fill the ranks of politicians, bureaucrats and religious authoritarians. I can't stand them. But the good news is they are still in a minority and many of the silent minority can't stand them either - although I wouldn't presume to include Catholics.
Low light of my campaign so far came yesterday when I lost my trailer frame to an almighty wind gust. Thankfully nobody was behind me. It must have made a hell of a racket. As luck would have it - my second most welcome dose - an ACT supporter lived nearby. He heard the racket and came to my aid, driving the trailer around the block and back to where I was hanging on to the corflutes madly flapping in the wind and threatening to fly away with me in tow. We managed to bundle the signs into my slightly damaged car and get the frame back onto the trailer. I realised then what had happened. We had put a sign on the back and it had created a build up of pressure inside. That combined with the gale force winds Wellington experienced yesterday was just too much. Last election I towed a trailer for many weeks with no problems but we changed the design. Bad mistake. Today we rebuild it - better and stronger than ever before.
As my good Samaritan waved me off he chortled, "Thank goodness it was you and not a Green Party candidate I had to help. Keep up the good work!"
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Sunday campaigning
A different kind of Sunday drive....
What a neat bunch of people. Especially Alwyn who not only supplied his labour and van for the day but had prepared a lunch of pasta and home-made bread (and Doreen left scones) for us to stop off to at midday.
For years Hutt South has had some very generous and loyal volunteers. Thank you all.
What a neat bunch of people. Especially Alwyn who not only supplied his labour and van for the day but had prepared a lunch of pasta and home-made bread (and Doreen left scones) for us to stop off to at midday.
For years Hutt South has had some very generous and loyal volunteers. Thank you all.
Friday, October 17, 2008
DUMPING THE DOLE AVOIDS THE BIGGER ISSUE
Media Release
DUMPING THE DOLE AVOIDS THE BIGGER ISSUE
Friday, October 17, 2008
The Maori Party has announced it wants to abolish the unemployment benefit.
Welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell said in response today, "While this policy has brought commendation from many quarters little analysis has been done on what it would actually achieve."
"In June 1999 there were 42, 074 Maori receiving an unemployment benefit. By June 2008 that number had plummeted to 6,588."
"Over the same period Maori receipt of the domestic purposes benefit has risen from 35,615 to 40,119. "
"While co-leader Tariana Turia is happy to talk about Maori men and their damaging reliance on welfare, she told election commentator, Gordon Campbell , just months ago, that reform did not apply to Maori women. This means it doesn't apply to Maori children either."
"Right now the DPB is a much bigger problem for Maori than the dole. That is because it encourages very young women to have babies they cannot financially or emotionally support; it keeps thousands of Maori children relatively poor; it deprives Maori men of their defining role as provider; it makes women vulnerable to free-loaders who do not want to support a family, preferring to spend the money they earn on themselves; it causes intergenerational welfare dependence, with female children more likely to depend on the DPB in turn and it increases the likelihood that children will suffer neglect and abuse."
"Only 8 percent of the 81,369 working-age Maori on welfare are on the dole. As it stands the Maori Party needs to focus on how to wean their people off those benefits where the numbers are still heading in the wrong direction. "
DUMPING THE DOLE AVOIDS THE BIGGER ISSUE
Friday, October 17, 2008
The Maori Party has announced it wants to abolish the unemployment benefit.
Welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell said in response today, "While this policy has brought commendation from many quarters little analysis has been done on what it would actually achieve."
"In June 1999 there were 42, 074 Maori receiving an unemployment benefit. By June 2008 that number had plummeted to 6,588."
"Over the same period Maori receipt of the domestic purposes benefit has risen from 35,615 to 40,119. "
"While co-leader Tariana Turia is happy to talk about Maori men and their damaging reliance on welfare, she told election commentator, Gordon Campbell , just months ago, that reform did not apply to Maori women. This means it doesn't apply to Maori children either."
"Right now the DPB is a much bigger problem for Maori than the dole. That is because it encourages very young women to have babies they cannot financially or emotionally support; it keeps thousands of Maori children relatively poor; it deprives Maori men of their defining role as provider; it makes women vulnerable to free-loaders who do not want to support a family, preferring to spend the money they earn on themselves; it causes intergenerational welfare dependence, with female children more likely to depend on the DPB in turn and it increases the likelihood that children will suffer neglect and abuse."
"Only 8 percent of the 81,369 working-age Maori on welfare are on the dole. As it stands the Maori Party needs to focus on how to wean their people off those benefits where the numbers are still heading in the wrong direction. "
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Charter schools succeed where state schools fail
In the United States charter schools exist and succeed where others fail. They are still publicly funded but run more like businesses. To paraphrase Wikipedia, charter schools have been freed from some of the rules, regulations, and statutes that apply to other public schools in exchange for some type of accountability for producing certain results. (You've got to wonder why state schools aren't accountable). Charter schools are able to specialize and emphasise uniqueness.
Sounds like the results a voucher system could provide. Schools like KIPP, and in Sweden, Kunskapsskolan could operate here if we could get vouchers introduced. Given the results these organisations are achieving it beggars belief that anyone would oppose similar reform.
The demand for more educational choice in predominantly minority South Los Angeles is pronounced. The waitlist for existing Inner City Education Foundation (ICEF) schools has at times exceeded 6,000 kids. And no wonder. Like KIPP, Green Dot and other charter school networks that aren't constrained by union rules on staffing and curriculum, ICEF has an excellent track record, particularly with black and Hispanic students. In reading and math tests, ICEF charters regularly outperform surrounding traditional public schools as well as other Los Angeles public schools.
ICEF has been operating since 1994, and its flagship school has now graduated two classes, with 100% of the students accepted to college. By contrast, a state study released in July reported that one in three students in the L.A. public school system -- including 42% of black students -- quits before graduating, a number that has grown by 80% in the past five years.
Despite this success, powerful unions like the California Teachers Association and its political backers continue to oppose school choice for disadvantaged families. Last year, Democratic state lawmakers, led by Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez, tried to force Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to sign a bill that would have made opening a new charter school in the state next to impossible. Mr. Nunez backed down after loud protests from parents in poorer neighborhoods.
School reformers in New York, Ohio, Florida, Connecticut, Utah and Arizona have faced similar challenges of late. Last year in Texas, where 81% of charter school students are minorities (versus 60% in traditional public schools), nearly 17,000 students had to be placed on charter waiting lists. Texas is currently bumping up against an arbitrary cap on the number of charters that can open in the state. Unless the cap is lifted by state lawmakers, thousands of low-income Texas children will remain stuck in ineffective schools.
Back in California, ICEF says that its ultimate goal is to produce 2,000 college graduates each year, in hopes that the graduates eventually will return to these underserved communities and help create a sustainable middle class. Given that fewer than 10% of high-school freshmen in South Los Angeles currently go on to receive a college diploma, this is a huge challenge. Resistance from charter school opponents won't make it any easier.
Sounds like the results a voucher system could provide. Schools like KIPP, and in Sweden, Kunskapsskolan could operate here if we could get vouchers introduced. Given the results these organisations are achieving it beggars belief that anyone would oppose similar reform.
The demand for more educational choice in predominantly minority South Los Angeles is pronounced. The waitlist for existing Inner City Education Foundation (ICEF) schools has at times exceeded 6,000 kids. And no wonder. Like KIPP, Green Dot and other charter school networks that aren't constrained by union rules on staffing and curriculum, ICEF has an excellent track record, particularly with black and Hispanic students. In reading and math tests, ICEF charters regularly outperform surrounding traditional public schools as well as other Los Angeles public schools.
ICEF has been operating since 1994, and its flagship school has now graduated two classes, with 100% of the students accepted to college. By contrast, a state study released in July reported that one in three students in the L.A. public school system -- including 42% of black students -- quits before graduating, a number that has grown by 80% in the past five years.
Despite this success, powerful unions like the California Teachers Association and its political backers continue to oppose school choice for disadvantaged families. Last year, Democratic state lawmakers, led by Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez, tried to force Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to sign a bill that would have made opening a new charter school in the state next to impossible. Mr. Nunez backed down after loud protests from parents in poorer neighborhoods.
School reformers in New York, Ohio, Florida, Connecticut, Utah and Arizona have faced similar challenges of late. Last year in Texas, where 81% of charter school students are minorities (versus 60% in traditional public schools), nearly 17,000 students had to be placed on charter waiting lists. Texas is currently bumping up against an arbitrary cap on the number of charters that can open in the state. Unless the cap is lifted by state lawmakers, thousands of low-income Texas children will remain stuck in ineffective schools.
Back in California, ICEF says that its ultimate goal is to produce 2,000 college graduates each year, in hopes that the graduates eventually will return to these underserved communities and help create a sustainable middle class. Given that fewer than 10% of high-school freshmen in South Los Angeles currently go on to receive a college diploma, this is a huge challenge. Resistance from charter school opponents won't make it any easier.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Turia still off the mark on welfare
Yesterday Tariana Turia was speaking in Flaxmere;
"I'm opposed to the dole. I don't think it is healthy for the spirit of our people, to be getting money for doing nothing."
Good. I agree.
But in May she had this exchange with Gordon Campbell;
Campbell: You’re saying welfare is bad for Maori, so we have to break the cycle by introducing a compulsory element -
Turia : We’re talking Maori unemployed. We’re not talking about Maori women on benefits.
There are 7252 Maori on the dole. Around two thirds are men.
However, there are around 73,000 Maori on other benefits. I estimate almost two thirds are women, most on the DPB.
There is a very clear line in Turia's mind between being paid to 'do nothing' without kids and being paid to do nothing with kids. So the message is clear. If you want to be paid to do nothing, make sure you have a child who is dependent on you. Hence the disproportionate incidence of child neglect amongst Maori. That neglect gives rise to later problems like learning difficulties, truancy, early pregnancy, alcohol and substance abuse and problems with the law. (None of which is exclusive to Maori but Tariana talks exclusively about Maori).
I cannot take her seriously until she acknowledges that the problem of welfare extends beyond just the dole and Maori men.
If it was only the dole causing the kind of social dysfunction experienced disproportionately by Maori then matters would have improved dramatically over the past decade. They haven't.
"I'm opposed to the dole. I don't think it is healthy for the spirit of our people, to be getting money for doing nothing."
Good. I agree.
But in May she had this exchange with Gordon Campbell;
Campbell: You’re saying welfare is bad for Maori, so we have to break the cycle by introducing a compulsory element -
Turia : We’re talking Maori unemployed. We’re not talking about Maori women on benefits.
There are 7252 Maori on the dole. Around two thirds are men.
However, there are around 73,000 Maori on other benefits. I estimate almost two thirds are women, most on the DPB.
There is a very clear line in Turia's mind between being paid to 'do nothing' without kids and being paid to do nothing with kids. So the message is clear. If you want to be paid to do nothing, make sure you have a child who is dependent on you. Hence the disproportionate incidence of child neglect amongst Maori. That neglect gives rise to later problems like learning difficulties, truancy, early pregnancy, alcohol and substance abuse and problems with the law. (None of which is exclusive to Maori but Tariana talks exclusively about Maori).
I cannot take her seriously until she acknowledges that the problem of welfare extends beyond just the dole and Maori men.
If it was only the dole causing the kind of social dysfunction experienced disproportionately by Maori then matters would have improved dramatically over the past decade. They haven't.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Serious debate or big-time brawl?
Some readers will be old enough to remember a popular New Zealand TV show called 'On The Mat'.It featured bawdy big-time wrestlers and was full of faux anger, irate indignation and pretend pain. But audiences loved it. People bought it. People believed it.
I wonder if tonight's debate between Clark and Key will satisfy the same shallow emotions? After all the two main parties are essentially caricatures of true opponents. They'll strut and glower, feign animosity and moral superiority; one may even take a pummelling, but at the end of the night they'll walk off together, with our money in their pockets.
Extending the welfare mentality
My son will turn up at university the year the parental income threshold goes completely. That's $153 a week for you, young man. What for? To vote Labour, that's what for.
We understand the concept of debauching beneficiaries with easy money, and easy credit, yet are so quick to extend the process. This is a mind-numbingly foolish policy.
We understand the concept of debauching beneficiaries with easy money, and easy credit, yet are so quick to extend the process. This is a mind-numbingly foolish policy.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Disability and benefits
Reading about health issues or listening to people wax on about them bores me witless. The Dominion Post has a resident health columnist by the name of Chris Kalderimis. He knows how boring health is so he gets people's attention by rather cynically using photos of dead guys - recently dead - to discuss what killed them. Last week it was Paul Newman, to discuss lung cancer and smoking (even though we don't know whether Paul Newman smoked) and today it is Rob Guest and stroke. Casting a reluctant eye over the text (only slightly less reluctant than the one I cast over political news) I noticed this statement;
"In New Zealand stroke is the leading cause of disability..."
Being reasonably familiar with the leading reasons why people rely on disability benefits this rather floored me.
More recent figures are most certainly available but the following are those I can quickly lay my hands on.
At July 2004 1,435 people were receiving a sickness or invalid's benefit due to having suffered a stroke. That's 1.2 percent of all the people on those benefits.
Either there is a massive number of people who have suffered strokes who are not relying on welfare or there are thousands of people who are on benefits who do not suffer from what this doctor would class as genuine disabilities.
It's not a politically easy business questioning the number of people who rely full time on a sickness or invalid's benefit but given there are now over 130,000 whereas in the 1940s (post-war),1950s,1960s and 1970s there were never more than 20,000 some serious attention is overdue.
"In New Zealand stroke is the leading cause of disability..."
Being reasonably familiar with the leading reasons why people rely on disability benefits this rather floored me.
More recent figures are most certainly available but the following are those I can quickly lay my hands on.
At July 2004 1,435 people were receiving a sickness or invalid's benefit due to having suffered a stroke. That's 1.2 percent of all the people on those benefits.
Either there is a massive number of people who have suffered strokes who are not relying on welfare or there are thousands of people who are on benefits who do not suffer from what this doctor would class as genuine disabilities.
It's not a politically easy business questioning the number of people who rely full time on a sickness or invalid's benefit but given there are now over 130,000 whereas in the 1940s (post-war),1950s,1960s and 1970s there were never more than 20,000 some serious attention is overdue.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Early puberty in the NZ context
I believe this guy, Professor Peter Gluckman, is onto something. Not necessarily with his collectivist call for action - parents need to take more responsibility - but with his theory that the earlier onset of puberty is a fairly significant problem.
A Swiss study showed that children who went through puberty earlier were more likely to abuse drugs and alcohol, be more anxious and depressed and have sex earlier. "In boys, the attempted suicide rate was five times higher in those who went through early puberty than those who went through it at a normal age, which is a frightening statistic. Nothing I know of comes close as a risk factor for teen suicide," said Gluckman.
Being Maori also presents a much higher risk factor than being non-Maori, but not 5 times higher. Look around you and it is pretty obvious that Maori and Pacific males and females often develop younger. I hadn't thought of it in terms of a 'national crisis' but greater awareness of it can only be good. I know of two Maori boys who took their own lives - both over a girl. Such a sad, sad waste. And if it isn't suicide, it is some other response which lands them in trouble.
There is a theory - I read about it in a James Belich book - that many of our contemporary social problems stem from the time education became compulsory and teenage boys and girls were put together in secondary schools. Until then they hadn't routinely mixed on a day-to-day basis.
Well, we can't go putting that one back in the bottle. But with ever-increasing early puberty and day-to-day exposure to the opposite sex the potential for problems is heightened. Yes. I definitely think he is onto something.
A Swiss study showed that children who went through puberty earlier were more likely to abuse drugs and alcohol, be more anxious and depressed and have sex earlier. "In boys, the attempted suicide rate was five times higher in those who went through early puberty than those who went through it at a normal age, which is a frightening statistic. Nothing I know of comes close as a risk factor for teen suicide," said Gluckman.
Being Maori also presents a much higher risk factor than being non-Maori, but not 5 times higher. Look around you and it is pretty obvious that Maori and Pacific males and females often develop younger. I hadn't thought of it in terms of a 'national crisis' but greater awareness of it can only be good. I know of two Maori boys who took their own lives - both over a girl. Such a sad, sad waste. And if it isn't suicide, it is some other response which lands them in trouble.
There is a theory - I read about it in a James Belich book - that many of our contemporary social problems stem from the time education became compulsory and teenage boys and girls were put together in secondary schools. Until then they hadn't routinely mixed on a day-to-day basis.
Well, we can't go putting that one back in the bottle. But with ever-increasing early puberty and day-to-day exposure to the opposite sex the potential for problems is heightened. Yes. I definitely think he is onto something.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Flatter and fairer is what we need
These guys want politicians to essentially put aside their differences and resolve how to ride out the economic crisis.
If politicians can't put aside their differences in the good times, how are they going to do it in a crisis, when the outcomes riding on their decisions are even more crucial? Having said that, there is no real difference between Labour and National and they should be able to concur on some nutty statist 'solutions' like enticing ex-pats home with tax breaks those of us who stayed here won't get.
It's all a bit holier-than-thou to slag off tax cuts to middle New Zealand but then suggest targeted tax cuts as one of their own silver bullets. More state manipulation of the tax system and bestowal of privilege should be avoided now as much as at any other time.
Flatter and fairer is what we need. (And I wish economists would stop referring to subsidies as tax credits. In my dictionary a tax credit is only possible if an entity or individual has paid some tax. Soon we will hear social welfare benefits referred to as 'tax credits'. The language is intended to neutralise emotions and sanctify receipt of other people's money.)
If politicians can't put aside their differences in the good times, how are they going to do it in a crisis, when the outcomes riding on their decisions are even more crucial? Having said that, there is no real difference between Labour and National and they should be able to concur on some nutty statist 'solutions' like enticing ex-pats home with tax breaks those of us who stayed here won't get.
It's all a bit holier-than-thou to slag off tax cuts to middle New Zealand but then suggest targeted tax cuts as one of their own silver bullets. More state manipulation of the tax system and bestowal of privilege should be avoided now as much as at any other time.
Flatter and fairer is what we need. (And I wish economists would stop referring to subsidies as tax credits. In my dictionary a tax credit is only possible if an entity or individual has paid some tax. Soon we will hear social welfare benefits referred to as 'tax credits'. The language is intended to neutralise emotions and sanctify receipt of other people's money.)
Friday, October 10, 2008
Suspend the sex education lessons - now
Remember this wee baby?
And people say children grow up so fast.
Daisy is on heat. Forgive my naivety but I haven't had the privilege of sharing a house with a cat on heat before. And this cat rivals Cactus Kate in the over-abundance of testosterone stakes.
Unfortunately the kids have realised they can get her going simply by simulating her "I'm ready, boy am I ready " mewls. The first few times we watched her wiggling her arse and lifting her back legs at anything that moves it was hilarious. But I am so over it.
We all need to get some sleep at night - her included.
Anyone for a kitten?
And people say children grow up so fast.
Daisy is on heat. Forgive my naivety but I haven't had the privilege of sharing a house with a cat on heat before. And this cat rivals Cactus Kate in the over-abundance of testosterone stakes.
Unfortunately the kids have realised they can get her going simply by simulating her "I'm ready, boy am I ready " mewls. The first few times we watched her wiggling her arse and lifting her back legs at anything that moves it was hilarious. But I am so over it.
We all need to get some sleep at night - her included.
Anyone for a kitten?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
