Anyone for an Irish joke?
Even more dramatically, numbers on the dole represented only 32 per cent of the officially unemployed in New Zealand, compared with 99 per cent in Australia, 69 per cent in Britain and 164 per cent in Ireland.
Say what?
Seriously. According to the NZ Herald, for every 100 people officially unemployed in Ireland, 164 are on the dole.
No it's Friday afternoon. I can't be bothered trying to figure that one out.
Friday, June 19, 2009
State intrusion now a "non-issue"
Today's DomPost editorial says that the repeal of section 59 was a burning issue two years ago but is a "non-issue" today. Then it repeats the message we are all supposed to absorb for our own good, that the poll question is confusing and ambiguous.
It continues;
Kiwi Party leader Larry Baldock and Family First's Bob McCoskrie, those chiefly behind the poll, believe that most parents should be left alone to raise their children as they wish, which might sometimes involve administering a smack. Opposing their stance are charities such as Unicef, Barnardoes, Plunket and the Families Commission.
It now occurs to me that the smacking referendum is being portrayed solely as a socialist left vs fundamentalist Christian crusade, with those in neither camp, the majority, getting or being turned off (as suits Messrs Key and Goff).
There is plenty I would normally disagree with Baldock and McCoskrie on. This time our views coincide, probably for different reasons. But I am not going to abandon my ability and right to think for myself and express those thoughts just to avoid lining up with Christian Right.
Most parents should be left alone to raise their children as they wish. It is nobody else's business. But the interferers, especially those who make their living out of it, want the right to meddle, to impose their beliefs, to control society. So they change the language. A smack is an assault (which yesterday led to the ridiculous event of Sue Bradford calling smacking an inconsequential and trivial assault.)
So now we have a situation whereby the police have the power (innocuously called 'discretion') to prosecute individuals because the worthies have changed the language. The worthies now have the power by proxy.
You like that then go ahead and vote 'yes'. But don't vote yes or abstain simply because you can't abide the conservative fundamentalists.
It continues;
Kiwi Party leader Larry Baldock and Family First's Bob McCoskrie, those chiefly behind the poll, believe that most parents should be left alone to raise their children as they wish, which might sometimes involve administering a smack. Opposing their stance are charities such as Unicef, Barnardoes, Plunket and the Families Commission.
It now occurs to me that the smacking referendum is being portrayed solely as a socialist left vs fundamentalist Christian crusade, with those in neither camp, the majority, getting or being turned off (as suits Messrs Key and Goff).
There is plenty I would normally disagree with Baldock and McCoskrie on. This time our views coincide, probably for different reasons. But I am not going to abandon my ability and right to think for myself and express those thoughts just to avoid lining up with Christian Right.
Most parents should be left alone to raise their children as they wish. It is nobody else's business. But the interferers, especially those who make their living out of it, want the right to meddle, to impose their beliefs, to control society. So they change the language. A smack is an assault (which yesterday led to the ridiculous event of Sue Bradford calling smacking an inconsequential and trivial assault.)
So now we have a situation whereby the police have the power (innocuously called 'discretion') to prosecute individuals because the worthies have changed the language. The worthies now have the power by proxy.
You like that then go ahead and vote 'yes'. But don't vote yes or abstain simply because you can't abide the conservative fundamentalists.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Should time out as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?
Should time out as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?
Time out is a tool for dealing with unwanted behaviour. So is a smack. Personally I never used time out nor particularly liked the idea. Do adults impose time out on each other? Sounds psychologically manipulative or cruel to me. But I don't think it should be a criminal offence. So I would have no difficulty answering this question.
Why is it so difficult to answer if I substitute 'a smack'? What is ambiguous about that?
If you don't like the thought of smacking and want it outlawed answer YES.
If you don't like the thought of smacking but don't want it outlawed answer NO.
Time out is a tool for dealing with unwanted behaviour. So is a smack. Personally I never used time out nor particularly liked the idea. Do adults impose time out on each other? Sounds psychologically manipulative or cruel to me. But I don't think it should be a criminal offence. So I would have no difficulty answering this question.
Why is it so difficult to answer if I substitute 'a smack'? What is ambiguous about that?
If you don't like the thought of smacking and want it outlawed answer YES.
If you don't like the thought of smacking but don't want it outlawed answer NO.
Abortions down - why?
Stuff reports;
The drop in abortions performed in New Zealand probably indicates people are being more careful but more research is needed, the Abortion Law Reform Association (Alranz) says.
According to Statistics New Zealand figures released today, 17,940 induced abortions were performed in the year ending December 2008, down 440 (2.4 per cent) from the 2007 year.
"I'm hopeful that what it means is there's better use of contraception, better sex education and people are being more careful. But without research, one cannot really say that," Alranz president Dr Margaret Sparrow said.
(Assuming the miscarriage rate is steady) there were more pregnancies in 2008. Perhaps more were intentional. We simply don't know. But the fact that there were more pregnancies casts doubt on Margaret Sparrow's speculation about "better use of contraception, better sex education and people are being more careful."
For whatever reason more people decided to give birth rather than have an abortion.
I believe the most significant factor driving the current baby boom (across western nations) is fashion. Then policies like paid parental leave and baby bonuses. Then growing unemployment and the security of a benefit. But like Sparrow, I am only speculating.
The drop in abortions performed in New Zealand probably indicates people are being more careful but more research is needed, the Abortion Law Reform Association (Alranz) says.
According to Statistics New Zealand figures released today, 17,940 induced abortions were performed in the year ending December 2008, down 440 (2.4 per cent) from the 2007 year.
"I'm hopeful that what it means is there's better use of contraception, better sex education and people are being more careful. But without research, one cannot really say that," Alranz president Dr Margaret Sparrow said.
(Assuming the miscarriage rate is steady) there were more pregnancies in 2008. Perhaps more were intentional. We simply don't know. But the fact that there were more pregnancies casts doubt on Margaret Sparrow's speculation about "better use of contraception, better sex education and people are being more careful."
For whatever reason more people decided to give birth rather than have an abortion.
I believe the most significant factor driving the current baby boom (across western nations) is fashion. Then policies like paid parental leave and baby bonuses. Then growing unemployment and the security of a benefit. But like Sparrow, I am only speculating.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Dane Moeke - Something very special
Don't miss this. On Friday nights we always watch Homai Te Pakipaki on Maori Television. Last Friday I was floored by this kid. I wrote to Maori TV suggesting they get him up on YouTube - who needs Susan Boyle - and just got a reply saying done, already. I've just watched it again and it had the same powerful effect. Made me cry.
Dane Moeke singing to his Dad. Sensational.
Dane Moeke singing to his Dad. Sensational.
Key interfering with the democratic process
John Key is wrong to insist that the results of the smacking referendum won't change the law. Why? Because he appears to be sending a message to the public that they are wasting their time bothering to vote. At this stage he should just butt out. Instead he is taking up the case for the left, repeating their claims that the law is working well.
The debate may turn out to be an expensive waste of effort for both sides, with Mr Key saying yesterday that he had no intention of changing the law regardless of the outcome of the referendum.
"I think it's important that governments listen to the public, but the test I've had is that if I don't think the law is working I will change it," he said. "To date I have not seen any evidence that it is not working."
The question being asked in the referendum was ambiguous as it did not directly call for the law to be changed or repealed. The issue was of significant public concern two years ago but had died away, he said.
Again signalling to susceptible minds what to think or not to think.
Of course Mr Key doesn't want the referendum turnout to be large and meaningful because again, it will put him in the spotlight and if the overwhelming vote is 'no' he will have to come up with a better course of action than last time.
Update; Family First's Bob McCoskrie has unearthed this quote from Key when still in opposition -
Key getting disturbingly close to walking in his predecessor's shoes.
The debate may turn out to be an expensive waste of effort for both sides, with Mr Key saying yesterday that he had no intention of changing the law regardless of the outcome of the referendum.
"I think it's important that governments listen to the public, but the test I've had is that if I don't think the law is working I will change it," he said. "To date I have not seen any evidence that it is not working."
The question being asked in the referendum was ambiguous as it did not directly call for the law to be changed or repealed. The issue was of significant public concern two years ago but had died away, he said.
Again signalling to susceptible minds what to think or not to think.
Of course Mr Key doesn't want the referendum turnout to be large and meaningful because again, it will put him in the spotlight and if the overwhelming vote is 'no' he will have to come up with a better course of action than last time.
Update; Family First's Bob McCoskrie has unearthed this quote from Key when still in opposition -
The Labour Government has shown utter contempt for New Zealanders and the democratic process with its plan to railroad the anti-smacking bill through Parliament. The Labour-led Government knows the measure is deeply unpopular, so it plans to act against the wishes of the majority of Kiwis and ram the bill through under urgency. This is a deeply cynical abuse of power as Labour tries to clear the decks of this controversial issue. Helen Clark has refused to let her MPs vote the way they really think on this bill. To ram it through under the cover of urgency shows just how out of touch her government has become.
Key getting disturbingly close to walking in his predecessor's shoes.
Monday, June 15, 2009
A black hole where the opposition used to be
One of the ways I gather information is by monitoring parliamentary written questions to the Minister of Social Development. That has become a fruitless exercise. The kind of questions I am interested just don't get asked. Where there used to be strong and effective opposition in new Zealand (ACT) there is now a black hole. It is very unhealthy.
Think back to Labour's first two terms. People like Muriel Newman - agree with her or not - was constantly digging and dishing. She kept the issue of welfare in the papers, on the screens and in the minds of New Zealanders. She was Maharey's nemesis. Subjects like the non-naming of fathers, child support debt, women spending their entire adult lives on the DPB, benefit fraud, etc. were all canvassed regularly. In a similar vein Heather Roy did a much-needed, highly effective job on health consistently probing productivity and spending failures and the tragedy of public health rationing and waiting lists. While they may not have been in government, the public was served very well by these opposition MPs.
Unfortunately ACT MPs got sick of being in opposition. Sick of not being able to 'achieve anything' (forgetting that they were achieving a great deal simply by virtue of doing the job of opposition socialist National could not). So when Blair Mulholland asks what is the point of ACT now, with the exception of the Local Government Minister's efforts, I sympathise.
Roger Douglas, with the welfare portfolio, has asked only one question from the Minister of Social Development this year. While I can understand his staunch championing of a privatise-everything approach to welfare, that it's all-or-nothing means no attention is drawn to what might be done within the existing system, which let's face it, isn't going away in his lifetime and probably not mine.
Labour isn't opposition. Apart from being more profligate with public money in the public sector, their basic policies vary little from the government's. They can hardly go attacking National for what they would do themselves. Only for not doing it enough. And present problems are still very much of Labour's making anyway.
The Greens and the Maori Party are not overly keen on attacking National while hedging their pet-policy bets and in the area of welfare are again averse to highlighting the dysfunctional problems it creates and National's refusal to relinquish the status quo.
So now we have a black hole where genuine opposition once operated with zest and purpose. They are all on the same side but it's not the one I'm on.
Now we get this low grade scrapping over what a randy old minister did and didn't do, an abysmally petty by-election where the major 'foes' hug each other at the end. Doesn't this photo say it all?
Most of the money the government takes off you goes on welfare, health and education. Are you happy with what you are getting for it? Tell me yes and I will concede we don't need a real, functioning, opposition.
Think back to Labour's first two terms. People like Muriel Newman - agree with her or not - was constantly digging and dishing. She kept the issue of welfare in the papers, on the screens and in the minds of New Zealanders. She was Maharey's nemesis. Subjects like the non-naming of fathers, child support debt, women spending their entire adult lives on the DPB, benefit fraud, etc. were all canvassed regularly. In a similar vein Heather Roy did a much-needed, highly effective job on health consistently probing productivity and spending failures and the tragedy of public health rationing and waiting lists. While they may not have been in government, the public was served very well by these opposition MPs.
Unfortunately ACT MPs got sick of being in opposition. Sick of not being able to 'achieve anything' (forgetting that they were achieving a great deal simply by virtue of doing the job of opposition socialist National could not). So when Blair Mulholland asks what is the point of ACT now, with the exception of the Local Government Minister's efforts, I sympathise.
Roger Douglas, with the welfare portfolio, has asked only one question from the Minister of Social Development this year. While I can understand his staunch championing of a privatise-everything approach to welfare, that it's all-or-nothing means no attention is drawn to what might be done within the existing system, which let's face it, isn't going away in his lifetime and probably not mine.
Labour isn't opposition. Apart from being more profligate with public money in the public sector, their basic policies vary little from the government's. They can hardly go attacking National for what they would do themselves. Only for not doing it enough. And present problems are still very much of Labour's making anyway.
The Greens and the Maori Party are not overly keen on attacking National while hedging their pet-policy bets and in the area of welfare are again averse to highlighting the dysfunctional problems it creates and National's refusal to relinquish the status quo.
So now we have a black hole where genuine opposition once operated with zest and purpose. They are all on the same side but it's not the one I'm on.
Now we get this low grade scrapping over what a randy old minister did and didn't do, an abysmally petty by-election where the major 'foes' hug each other at the end. Doesn't this photo say it all?Most of the money the government takes off you goes on welfare, health and education. Are you happy with what you are getting for it? Tell me yes and I will concede we don't need a real, functioning, opposition.
Saturday, June 13, 2009
All Black conjecture over-confident
Regular readers of this blog will know I love to calculate chances.
Listening to SportsTalk on Radio Live this morning, walking the dog along the beach, I was underwhelmed by the cockiness of the commentators regarding the chances of the All Blacks winning against France in Dunedin tonight. The only debate was over how much they would win by. The French would roll over and die after 10 minutes, apparently. One individual had placed $200,000 on the All Blacks with the TAB bookies.
The bookies will be slumping over their desks in relief.
The payout to me for guessing Ma'a Nonu would score the last try but France would win was a mere $66.
Listening to SportsTalk on Radio Live this morning, walking the dog along the beach, I was underwhelmed by the cockiness of the commentators regarding the chances of the All Blacks winning against France in Dunedin tonight. The only debate was over how much they would win by. The French would roll over and die after 10 minutes, apparently. One individual had placed $200,000 on the All Blacks with the TAB bookies.
The bookies will be slumping over their desks in relief.
The payout to me for guessing Ma'a Nonu would score the last try but France would win was a mere $66.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Are Kiwis as unhealthy as Americans?
Americans are becoming less healthy.
The study compared results from the National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey conducted from 2001 to 2006 with results from the same survey conducted from 1988 to 1994. The study focused on the more than 7,000 participants ages 40 to 74 who participated in the two surveys because they are at the greatest risk for heart disease.
* The percentage of U.S. residents who eat five fruits and vegetables a day has decreased from 45 percent to 26 percent.
* Those who drink alcohol moderately -- one drink daily for women or two for men -- increased from 40 percent to 51 percent, while the number who do not imbibe at all declined from 51 percent to 40 percent.
* The rate of smoking fell only slightly, from 27 percent to 26 percent.
* The rate of obesity rose from 28 percent to 36 percent.
* The percentage of U.S. residents who said they exercise at least 30 minutes three times a week declined from slightly more than 50 percent to 43 percent.
The first seems incredibly low. The NZ 2006/07 health survey showed that in the 45-54 age group 62% of men and 73% of women ate three or more servings of vegetables per day and respectively 50% and 71% ate two or more servings of fruit. The figures tend to increase with age.
The second, in respect of teetotallers, is high compared to NZ where only 16 percent of adults hadn't drank alcohol in the past year. It would appear we do not measure moderate drinking - only hazardous, which says something.
On the third indicator, it looks like we are about on par for smoking both in rates of (1 in 4 adults) and trend - slow decline.
Obesity in NZ adults peaks at 36 percent in the age group 55-64 so taken over a comparable age group the NZ rate is lower but not by much.
Finally the NZ criteria for adequate exercise is 30 minutes 5 times a week rather than 3 times. Around 50 percent achieve this in NZ so we are doing better than Americans who only achieve 43 percent at a lower threshold.
On the whole it would appear Kiwis are healthier than Americans but similarly are getting fatter, exercising less, drinking more, but smoking less.
Personally I do not eat enough fruit (although I shovel it down the kid's throats), drink too much wine (which I do not shovel down the kid's throats), don't smoke, get more than the required amount of exercise and am not obese.
The US, by the way, is the only country I have ever visited where anti-acid tablets are sold in restaurants.
The study compared results from the National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey conducted from 2001 to 2006 with results from the same survey conducted from 1988 to 1994. The study focused on the more than 7,000 participants ages 40 to 74 who participated in the two surveys because they are at the greatest risk for heart disease.
* The percentage of U.S. residents who eat five fruits and vegetables a day has decreased from 45 percent to 26 percent.
* Those who drink alcohol moderately -- one drink daily for women or two for men -- increased from 40 percent to 51 percent, while the number who do not imbibe at all declined from 51 percent to 40 percent.
* The rate of smoking fell only slightly, from 27 percent to 26 percent.
* The rate of obesity rose from 28 percent to 36 percent.
* The percentage of U.S. residents who said they exercise at least 30 minutes three times a week declined from slightly more than 50 percent to 43 percent.
The first seems incredibly low. The NZ 2006/07 health survey showed that in the 45-54 age group 62% of men and 73% of women ate three or more servings of vegetables per day and respectively 50% and 71% ate two or more servings of fruit. The figures tend to increase with age.
The second, in respect of teetotallers, is high compared to NZ where only 16 percent of adults hadn't drank alcohol in the past year. It would appear we do not measure moderate drinking - only hazardous, which says something.
On the third indicator, it looks like we are about on par for smoking both in rates of (1 in 4 adults) and trend - slow decline.
Obesity in NZ adults peaks at 36 percent in the age group 55-64 so taken over a comparable age group the NZ rate is lower but not by much.
Finally the NZ criteria for adequate exercise is 30 minutes 5 times a week rather than 3 times. Around 50 percent achieve this in NZ so we are doing better than Americans who only achieve 43 percent at a lower threshold.
On the whole it would appear Kiwis are healthier than Americans but similarly are getting fatter, exercising less, drinking more, but smoking less.
Personally I do not eat enough fruit (although I shovel it down the kid's throats), drink too much wine (which I do not shovel down the kid's throats), don't smoke, get more than the required amount of exercise and am not obese.
The US, by the way, is the only country I have ever visited where anti-acid tablets are sold in restaurants.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
"Family functioning"
That's a misnomer.
The following was written ten years ago as part of the Briefing to the Incoming Minister for Social Development.
What's changed?
The last sentence is an unusual reference to problems that have resulted from the de-institutionalisation of mentally ill or disabled people. I have grave misgivings about that development. People may not want to be supervised and stigmatised but they do need and want care and support. (Idealistic) integration into the community in practice more closely resembles isolation in the community.
The volunteer organisation I work with was formed to pass on practical domestic and budgeting skills but increasingly the families needing help have mental health problems and others as outlined above. Those are primarily in need of attention before the day to day living skills can be successfully conveyed.
It can be overwhelming.
The following was written ten years ago as part of the Briefing to the Incoming Minister for Social Development.
What's changed?
The last sentence is an unusual reference to problems that have resulted from the de-institutionalisation of mentally ill or disabled people. I have grave misgivings about that development. People may not want to be supervised and stigmatised but they do need and want care and support. (Idealistic) integration into the community in practice more closely resembles isolation in the community.
The volunteer organisation I work with was formed to pass on practical domestic and budgeting skills but increasingly the families needing help have mental health problems and others as outlined above. Those are primarily in need of attention before the day to day living skills can be successfully conveyed.
It can be overwhelming.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
So-called newspapers
Some mornings I have time to flick through the Dompost - others I don't and just go straight to the internet where I can get most of what I want anyway. The first Section of the Paper (A) is apparently devoted to New Zealand news. But it struck me quite forcibly this morning that it was more like a junk mail delivery. So I measured (unscientifically) how much advertising appeared in the 14 pages.
8.2 pages were advertisements.
Which would indicate a number of things.
1/ The newspaper has to increasingly get its revenue through advertising as circulation declines.
2/ There are less news staff generating content.
3/ We may be in a recession but there is still plenty of money for advertising. Some would view advertising as an even greater necessity.
4/ The paper is doing special deals on advertising.
5/ NEWSpapers are turning into what used to be advertising supplements which people like me could avoid.
What this brings me to is value for money. Do I need the DomPost? I like the letters-to-the-editor section and occasionally do a crossword. If I was a public transport commuter I would probably buy a copy but resent carrying around pages of advertising. As it is I am gradually turning my back on it in favour of the net.
Is there anybody out there that reads and enjoys the advertising? Would the 'newspaper' have more value if indeed it was exactly that?
8.2 pages were advertisements.
Which would indicate a number of things.
1/ The newspaper has to increasingly get its revenue through advertising as circulation declines.
2/ There are less news staff generating content.
3/ We may be in a recession but there is still plenty of money for advertising. Some would view advertising as an even greater necessity.
4/ The paper is doing special deals on advertising.
5/ NEWSpapers are turning into what used to be advertising supplements which people like me could avoid.
What this brings me to is value for money. Do I need the DomPost? I like the letters-to-the-editor section and occasionally do a crossword. If I was a public transport commuter I would probably buy a copy but resent carrying around pages of advertising. As it is I am gradually turning my back on it in favour of the net.
Is there anybody out there that reads and enjoys the advertising? Would the 'newspaper' have more value if indeed it was exactly that?
Tuesday, June 09, 2009
Not another compulsion, please
Booster seats until the age of 12?
I still use one. It's called a cushion.
When I was flying, the club had an L-shaped booster seat which shorter trainees and pilots frequently used. The panel of a Cessna 172 is very high.
Sure kids could benefit from staying in booster seats for longer. But please, not another compulsion. A little bit of persuasion of parents, who can in turn persuade their short children of the merits (they do like being comfortably able to see out of the window, especially on long trips) would go a long way.
Just make a plain, very comfortable, foam rubber booster seat a common optional extra in a vehicle and it won't be long before the kids are fighting over it.
I still use one. It's called a cushion.
When I was flying, the club had an L-shaped booster seat which shorter trainees and pilots frequently used. The panel of a Cessna 172 is very high.
Sure kids could benefit from staying in booster seats for longer. But please, not another compulsion. A little bit of persuasion of parents, who can in turn persuade their short children of the merits (they do like being comfortably able to see out of the window, especially on long trips) would go a long way.
Just make a plain, very comfortable, foam rubber booster seat a common optional extra in a vehicle and it won't be long before the kids are fighting over it.
Nosey shopper
This came my way yesterday. I particularly enjoyed it because although not the action of the person who sent it to me, it could well have been;
Yesterday I was at my local PAK N SAVE buying a large bag of Purina dog chow for my loyal pet, Biscuit, the Wonder Dog and was in the checkout line when a woman behind me asked if I had a dog. What did she think I had, an elephant? So since I'm retired and have little to do, on impulse I told her that no, I didn't have a dog, I was starting the Purina Diet again. I added that I probably shouldn't, because I ended up in the hospital last time, but that I'd lost 50 pounds before I awakened in an intensive care ward with tubes coming out of most of my orifices and IVs in both arms.
I told her that it was essentially a perfect diet and that the way that it works is to load your pants pockets with Purina nuggets and simply eat one or two every time you feel hungry. The food is nutritionally complete so it works well and I was going to try it again. (I have to mention here that practically everyone in line was now enthralled with my story.) Horrified, she asked if I ended up in intensive care because the dog food poisoned me. I told her no, I stepped off a curb to sniff an Irish Setter's ass and a car hit us both.
I thought the guy behind her was going to have a heart attack he was laughing so hard... PAK N SAVE won't let me shop there anymore.
Better watch what you ask retired people. They have all the time in the world to think of crazy things to say.
Yesterday I was at my local PAK N SAVE buying a large bag of Purina dog chow for my loyal pet, Biscuit, the Wonder Dog and was in the checkout line when a woman behind me asked if I had a dog. What did she think I had, an elephant? So since I'm retired and have little to do, on impulse I told her that no, I didn't have a dog, I was starting the Purina Diet again. I added that I probably shouldn't, because I ended up in the hospital last time, but that I'd lost 50 pounds before I awakened in an intensive care ward with tubes coming out of most of my orifices and IVs in both arms.
I told her that it was essentially a perfect diet and that the way that it works is to load your pants pockets with Purina nuggets and simply eat one or two every time you feel hungry. The food is nutritionally complete so it works well and I was going to try it again. (I have to mention here that practically everyone in line was now enthralled with my story.) Horrified, she asked if I ended up in intensive care because the dog food poisoned me. I told her no, I stepped off a curb to sniff an Irish Setter's ass and a car hit us both.
I thought the guy behind her was going to have a heart attack he was laughing so hard... PAK N SAVE won't let me shop there anymore.
Better watch what you ask retired people. They have all the time in the world to think of crazy things to say.
Monday, June 08, 2009
The debate that won't die
Dear Editor
Linley Boniface (DomPost, June 8) says there have been no downsides to the repeal of Section 59. In fact, care and protection notifications to CYF have soared. Substantiations have not. Presumably this means social workers are further overloaded and potentially unable to deal effectively with genuine cases.
The new law fosters a atmosphere of confusion, distrust and suspicion. Smacking is 'sort of' illegal. The public's respect for law is further diminished.
People have also become more mistrustful and cynical about the political process because the "huge" parliamentary majority that Ms Boniface refers to as having passed the law, did not reflect public opinion.
Meantime, as she points out, the very real, life-threatening abuse continues unabated.
Sunday, June 07, 2009
Depressed Christchurch - don't blame the recession
New Zealand went into recession early 2008. Headline;
Recession depression on the rise
Then;
Canterbury is the most depressed region in the country, with 191,000 people prescribed medication for depression in 2007, the latest year for which a breakdown by district health board is available.
We weren't in recession in 2007. Canterbury has been the most depressed region for some time. I have blogged before about the disproportionate numbers of people on sickness and invalid benefits with the primary incapacity of depression. There is also a lot of substance abuse going on in Christchurch.
When I went back to locate my earlier posts I came across this comment;
I'm 20 years old and suffer from depression. If it wasn't for the sickness benefit I would probably be dead now.
I just got back from a holiday in Darwin which I really enjoyed. As soon as I got back to Christchurch I felt like crap, I hate this place.
So does Christchurch make people depressed or is it just coincidental that a lot of depressed people congregate there? Or is the medical fraternity too quick to write prescriptions and sign people off for benefits?
There are some serious questions to be asked about this region. A once-over-lightly, talk-to-a-few-local-celebs and list what's cool in Canterbury fluff piece is silly.
Recession depression on the rise
Then;
Canterbury is the most depressed region in the country, with 191,000 people prescribed medication for depression in 2007, the latest year for which a breakdown by district health board is available.
We weren't in recession in 2007. Canterbury has been the most depressed region for some time. I have blogged before about the disproportionate numbers of people on sickness and invalid benefits with the primary incapacity of depression. There is also a lot of substance abuse going on in Christchurch.
When I went back to locate my earlier posts I came across this comment;
I'm 20 years old and suffer from depression. If it wasn't for the sickness benefit I would probably be dead now.
I just got back from a holiday in Darwin which I really enjoyed. As soon as I got back to Christchurch I felt like crap, I hate this place.
So does Christchurch make people depressed or is it just coincidental that a lot of depressed people congregate there? Or is the medical fraternity too quick to write prescriptions and sign people off for benefits?
There are some serious questions to be asked about this region. A once-over-lightly, talk-to-a-few-local-celebs and list what's cool in Canterbury fluff piece is silly.
Saturday, June 06, 2009
One $ in six coming from welfare
As reported at the NCPA today;
This prompted me to wonder how New Zealand compares. The best way to find out is through the NZ Income Survey. Unfortunately is only publishes yearly and the latest is last June 2008 - nearly a year ago. So the following will all have risen;
Of the average weekly income of all people aged 15 and over, one in 9 dollars ($8.88 to be specific) came from government transfers.
For Maori it climbs to one in six ($5.72)
For Pacific, one in six ($5.74)
For females, one in six ($5.65)
For males, one in fourteen ($14.07)
For one parent with dependent child(ren) only, one in three ($2.62)
So without the "bad economy" and high unemployment the US has experienced, our average female, Maori, or Pacific person matches their crisis-created one in six dollars welfare income. And single parents double it.
The recession is driving the safety net of government benefits to a historic high, as 1 of every 6 dollars of Americans' income is now coming in the form of a federal or state check or voucher, says USA Today.
This prompted me to wonder how New Zealand compares. The best way to find out is through the NZ Income Survey. Unfortunately is only publishes yearly and the latest is last June 2008 - nearly a year ago. So the following will all have risen;
Of the average weekly income of all people aged 15 and over, one in 9 dollars ($8.88 to be specific) came from government transfers.
For Maori it climbs to one in six ($5.72)
For Pacific, one in six ($5.74)
For females, one in six ($5.65)
For males, one in fourteen ($14.07)
For one parent with dependent child(ren) only, one in three ($2.62)
So without the "bad economy" and high unemployment the US has experienced, our average female, Maori, or Pacific person matches their crisis-created one in six dollars welfare income. And single parents double it.
Friday, June 05, 2009
Judge and CYF at odds
A judge remanded a 38 year-old mother in custody after she beat her son repeatedly with a soup ladle. But CYF wanted her bailed to continue to care for her other children. The judge turned that down and said he couldn't understand CYF's position. He intends to imprison the mother.
I would very much like to have heard more about CYF's supporting evidence. On the face of it I imagine CYF have supported bail because they believe the children are best left together, in their mother's care, for the time being. It may be that there is no ready alternative. It may be the alternative poses even greater risks. It may be that the mother has a particularly difficult relationship with the son but not the other children. But it frustrates me that we get statements like these from a judge set on sending a message. At the cost of the other children's wellbeing? Who is best placed to make that assessment. CYF or the judge?
This is in no way to be interpreted as a defensive comment regarding the woman's actions. They were reprehensible. But there is clearly a clash of interests at play, one that occurs frequently no doubt. Another judge who did "understand" CYF's position may very well have granted bail.
"Not enough is done about this sort of thing and this is an appalling assault on this poor boy," he said. "Imprisonment is inevitable."
The judge said he did not understand the position of Child, Youth and Family, which provided supporting evidence for the bail application.
"We have an epidemic in this country and this needs to be marked."
I would very much like to have heard more about CYF's supporting evidence. On the face of it I imagine CYF have supported bail because they believe the children are best left together, in their mother's care, for the time being. It may be that there is no ready alternative. It may be the alternative poses even greater risks. It may be that the mother has a particularly difficult relationship with the son but not the other children. But it frustrates me that we get statements like these from a judge set on sending a message. At the cost of the other children's wellbeing? Who is best placed to make that assessment. CYF or the judge?
This is in no way to be interpreted as a defensive comment regarding the woman's actions. They were reprehensible. But there is clearly a clash of interests at play, one that occurs frequently no doubt. Another judge who did "understand" CYF's position may very well have granted bail.
Thursday, June 04, 2009
Significant risk factor for child abuse omitted
Media Release
SIGNIFICANT RISK FACTOR FOR CHILD ABUSE OMITTED
Thursday, June 4, 2009
A report released today by the Children's Commissioner lists factors associated with fatal assault and serious injury of New Zealand children. The report is fairly comprehensive, welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell said, but disappointingly fails to mention welfare dependence as a significant risk factor for the abuse and neglect of children.
"The overlap between Work and Income clients and CYF clients is documented. New Zealand research has revealed that care and protection notifications were 4 times more likely where children are living in a family relying on the DPB . US research showed that families receiving benefits accounted for 15 percent of Illinois children but 60 percent of cases referred to their child protection services."
"It seems to me that while identifying a factor like young maternal age as important, ignoring that most 16 and 17 year-old mothers (with children in their care) are welfare dependent is an omission. There can be no doubt that the availability of welfare benefits to very young people is a factor in their decision to have babies. Yet the report identifies their children as 8 times more likely to suffer serious assault."
"Other factors identified include exposure to non-biological parents and the abuse of alcohol and drugs. Both of these are exacerbated by welfare lifestyles whereby there is no necessity to commit to a partner or hold down a job."
"If welfare dependence is ignored there is no ensuing imperative to take any action in that arena. Unsurprisingly the report's recommendations revolve only around greater intervention after at-risk children are born. "
Data; At the end of March 2009 there were 683 female 16 and 17 year-old parents in receipt of the Emergency Maintenance Allowance.
SIGNIFICANT RISK FACTOR FOR CHILD ABUSE OMITTED
Thursday, June 4, 2009
A report released today by the Children's Commissioner lists factors associated with fatal assault and serious injury of New Zealand children. The report is fairly comprehensive, welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell said, but disappointingly fails to mention welfare dependence as a significant risk factor for the abuse and neglect of children.
"The overlap between Work and Income clients and CYF clients is documented. New Zealand research has revealed that care and protection notifications were 4 times more likely where children are living in a family relying on the DPB . US research showed that families receiving benefits accounted for 15 percent of Illinois children but 60 percent of cases referred to their child protection services."
"It seems to me that while identifying a factor like young maternal age as important, ignoring that most 16 and 17 year-old mothers (with children in their care) are welfare dependent is an omission. There can be no doubt that the availability of welfare benefits to very young people is a factor in their decision to have babies. Yet the report identifies their children as 8 times more likely to suffer serious assault."
"Other factors identified include exposure to non-biological parents and the abuse of alcohol and drugs. Both of these are exacerbated by welfare lifestyles whereby there is no necessity to commit to a partner or hold down a job."
"If welfare dependence is ignored there is no ensuing imperative to take any action in that arena. Unsurprisingly the report's recommendations revolve only around greater intervention after at-risk children are born. "
Data; At the end of March 2009 there were 683 female 16 and 17 year-old parents in receipt of the Emergency Maintenance Allowance.
Capital gains tax or status quo?
Treasury is proposing a capital gains tax. On reading the headline alone one would have every reason to think the Left would be jumping for joy. But read on to find a capital gains tax would be offset with drops in income and company tax. Treasury Secretary, John Whitehead;
One of those classical 'classical liberal' dilemmas. What to support?
a/ the suggestion (because there will be less tax on individuals)
b/ the status quo (because any new tax should be opposed)
The cautionary aspect for me would be that whenever government changes the tax system it designs the changes in a way that delivers it more revenue. No reason to believe National would be any different given their commitment to leave big-ticket spending alone. And the state grows.
"A key priority has to be reducing effective marginal tax rates and increasing the rewards for effort. There is a growing view that the high mobility of our skills base means high personal income taxes are especially harmful for New Zealand's growth and productivity," he said.
At the same time New Zealand's company tax rates are at the upper end of the scale by the standards of the OECD and other open, small economies. "The pressure on us will be even stronger if the review of Australia's tax system currently under way leads to further company tax cuts across the Tasman."
One of those classical 'classical liberal' dilemmas. What to support?
a/ the suggestion (because there will be less tax on individuals)
b/ the status quo (because any new tax should be opposed)
The cautionary aspect for me would be that whenever government changes the tax system it designs the changes in a way that delivers it more revenue. No reason to believe National would be any different given their commitment to leave big-ticket spending alone. And the state grows.
Wednesday, June 03, 2009
A first for parliament?
Has it crossed anyone else's mind that parliament might be about to witness its first case of what has plagued team sports, media celebrities and the police force periodically? On one hand I hope if Worth has (being reported) women problems they are genuine and on the other that they are not. Am I making sense? Let's hope we aren't in for a tawdry, drawn-out, unpleasantly detailed, display of he said/she said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
