More bad bureaucracy proposed

Labour has announced the establishment of a Ministry for Children - if it gets elected. Labour's chances of getting re-elected are small. They are the equivalent of a 20 to 1 shot in a small field. So a comment on this proposal is probably redundant. But what the heck.

It seems traditionally that the left purport to do more and care more for children. They appear to premise this less on the obvious, that children deserve protection from those who break laws intended to protect their safety or well-being, than on the idea that children are a public good. A public investment.

CHILDREN ARE NOT A PUBLIC GOOD. They exist for themselves. They own their own lives. They are not utilities for state investment as potential revenue generators.

Their parents are their temporary guardians and bear temporary responsibility for them (albeit a non-legally binding mutual responsibility lasts between 'real' parents and children across a lifetime).

So NZ does not need a ministry to advocate, or special plead on the behalf of children. To propose as much is more state interventionism, more usurping of the parent's role.

But Labour knows that the mere mention of 'children' evokes a warm fuzzy especially amongst its female voters. Voters who want someone else to make bad stuff go away or at least act like they can and will.

Won't.

Budget

Actually, sorry, I can't be bothered. Move on, move on, nothing to see here. 4 percent growth ???? Hahahahaha.

So I was nagging Dave Armstrong, standing in for Sean Plunket on NewstalkZB this morning, that local government - ratepayers - shouldn't be forced to fund artists. Art should stand or fall on its merits.

Lovely unintended result. Someone heard me, rang for a price. I referred them to my website to view works and they are coming on Monday to arrange a commission.

Some recent pastels:

Key keen on welfare reform...

...or at least talking (around 44:00) about it.

In the studio with Sean Plunket on NewstalkZB today, Key brought up the issue of welfare reform virtually unbidden. No, I didn't ring to pose a searching question, as I have in the past. He knows the statistics off by heart and referred to the WWG report, the recommendations of which he seems to want to take on board. And it isn't just about saving money says he. It's about the social implications of having 11 percent (12 actually) of working age people on a benefit and the lessons their children learn or don't learn about acquiring skills and being self-supporting. Spot on. That is the most important angle to approach it from. TICK.

No, it's not fair but you vote for it

Reported in NZ Herald today:

KiwiSaver worked well, he said "because the money comes out of your pay packet and once that happens, people don't give too much thought to it. They just carry on living to what they have and take home every week."

Just like PAYE. And the reason why it is so difficult to get some people excited about the issue of taxation.

Unless someone stirs the pot. Like in today's DomPost where Vernon Small runs with a Stuart Nash Labour MP assault on farmers and the tax they don't pay. Farmers, who create wealth, are compared to beneficiaries and superannuitants, who use up wealth. Farmers who are subject to seasonal, currency, market changes and fluctuating incomes; state dependents who are assured of a steady weekly income no matter what. And of course a whinging (almost certainly WFF recipient) two-child couple turns up: "It's not fair". I am only surprised they didn't continue with, "We are raising the next generation of taxpayers!"

If you want fair let's have flat tax. Let's have simplicity and transparency. Let's have less frigging government pitting one group against another for their own gain.

PM says ACT can't get 5 percent

Just listening to Mike Hosking interviewing John Key, and on the back of a Horizon Poll that shows ACT support up to 5.3 percent, Hosking asks the PM is ACT a 5 percent party? Key is emphatic. No. Then he attacks the poll.

I don't think he should be going down the road of attacking polls. Echoes of Clark. Polls have been his best friend. Sure the Horizon Poll may have its shortcomings but it is one in a parcel of polls which together tell the public what voters are thinking. He and people like David Beatson , can naysay the existence of people who want more reform than National will ever undertake, all they like. But they are not going away. And I stick by my prediction that ACT, under Brash, can poll up to 10 percent. I just wish a deal of it wasn't going to come from anti-Maori sentiment.

The robustness of Starship statistics and data in general

If the seemingly unimpeachable Starship hospital is going to use its admission statistics to lobby for legislation (which they are increasingly doing) they should ensure its consistency or provide additional descriptive information. Take these two examples for instance:

A leading authority on shaken baby syndrome says the level of child abuse in New Zealand is staggering, with nearly one child a week admitted to Auckland's Starship Hospital with serious physical injuries. Hospital data, released to the Herald on Sunday under the Official Information Act, shows that since 2001, 181 children have been hospitalised as a result of "suspected or definite" child abuse. July 2007.

Then:

"...the largest group of injuries treated at the Starship's intensive care unit were suffered by juvenile car passengers.

They accounted for 150 admissions in 11 years since 2000, ahead of 105 child pedestrians knocked down in streets and driveways, and 95 victims of domestic violence. May 2011."

Reconciling the two statements poses difficulty. 95 victims of domestic violence over 11 years is considerably less than 181 over 6 years. 8.6 per year versus 30 per year. The qualifying definitions may be different but that should be noted. One may relate to any admission while the other relates to admission to intensive care. Though I would have thought as Starship tends to the most serious injuries the difference wouldn't be that great.

Hospital statistics are vital because they represent actual incidents as opposed to reported or suspected events. However as the first statistic does contain the qualifier for the cause as, " suspected or definite", the second leads me to believe many of the susepected causes turn out to be unprovable or wrong.

The increasing tendency for Starship practitioners to lobby government however also casts doubt on the data they provide. It is natural for lobbyists to build their case with the most compelling picture. This may even result in conflict amongst the practitioners themselves. Especially if they were lobbying for extra resources. Not very helpful really. (Notwithstanding, this anomaly may just be a failure or omission by the journalist.) Additionally, if a problem being over-stated there is an accompanying tendency towards over-suspicion.

I can't remember where but I read about the suggestion or proposal that a neutral group should be formed to scrutinise statistical information. They exist in other jurisdictions? Perhaps it would need to be formed from unpaid, possibly retired folk with the necessary credentials.

Kerre Woodham under siege

Last week Woodham told it like it is. Any one who sees with their naked eyes instead of through bleeding-heart lens' knows that her slamming of useless mothers who produce children as meal tickets is an accurate assessment of where a good deal of child abuse and neglect stems from.

Two detractors put up a response in this week's SST. I will address some of it:

"Kerre Woodham seems to have identified the culprits of our high levels of child abuse - 'dumb, stupid, needy, dysfunctional slappers [who] are failing at being mothers'.

She says they 'have children because they get paid to - and, let's face it, they wouldn't get paid to do anything else'.

Firstly, let's address the accusation that mothers alone are responsible for the potential abuse of their children.

Let's see what Kerre actually said:

But this year - sorry to be a spoil sport - let's turn the spotlight on those mothers who are abject failures. All those mothers who haven't got a clue who their children's sperm donors were. All those mothers who have children because they get paid to - and, let's face it, they wouldn't get paid to do anything else. Those mothers who stay with men who hurt them and their kids because they're so pathetic and useless that any shag - even when it comes with a biff - is better than being alone.

She also blames the hangers-on who hurt the children. Hateful hangers-on who are attracted to low self-esteem women with a steady income and a roof over their heads.

Back to the detractors:

These people, already suffering the effects of poverty and possibly cyclical family violence, need all our help to protect themselves and their families. Throwing abuse at them, calling them slappers, or sluts who 'don't know who their sperm donors are' is just perpetrating the abuse and prejudice they face on a daily basis.

We have no right to judge a woman for falling pregnant, or choosing to keep a child if she wishes to.

The writers imply an obligation on society and then deny any right to judge. I admire (judge) a woman who keeps her child but when she is doing it for the right reasons - not because the child is a source of income. And society has every right to judge when the action results in the requisition of public money, currently in very scant supply and unavailable for other 'needs'.

Secondly, it is incredibly worrying that the myth of women getting pregnant to get more DPB money is being trotted out yet again.

There is absolutely no evidence that this has ever been done. In fact, the amount of money one gets is a pittance, for which the woman has to go through nine months of pregnancy (including time off any work she might have) and undergo labour, all to gain another mouth to feed.

Now the writers are simply being wilfully ignorant. In the US and in Europe the theory that women have children, or more children, to access more money has been tested by comparing states or countries. The link between higher benefits and more children born outside of marriage or partnership is clear.

The money is not a "pittance" when including basic benefit and other allowances. The NZ Herald has repeatedly identified examples of DPB incomes that are too high to compete with paid work.

To fight the scourge of child abuse in our society we need to re-assess our attitude towards women and the poor.

Cutting funding to childcare services and the Women's Refuge has made things worse, particularly with the Rugby World Cup coming up (look up abuse statistics when the All Blacks lose if you don't understand this).

Oh, and cutting the Training Incentive Allowance wasn't particularly helpful; talk about shutting the door behind you. We need to reverse these moves and put support behind our vital social services.

Throwing ever increasing amounts at (sorry for the cliche) ambulances at the bottom of the cliff is never going to stop or stem the problem. And, the TIA was stopped because evidence showed people using it were tending to stay even longer on welfare. But I suppose the concept of career students would also be hotly disputed by this pair.

We need to take concrete steps, not have people like Kerre, from positions of relative comfort, complaining about how horrible poor people are.

This only denigrates these women further and allows a smug sense of self-satisfaction."

The final blows are fully intended to lay a guilt trip on Kerre so burdensome she will never repeat her opinion again.

Some people deserve denigration, their motivations and actions are so lacking in human empathy and devoid of any thought beyond immediate self-gratification. They need to know how other people view them or they will never change. Society, urged by the likes of these writers, is unable to prevent child abuse because it has been ordered to furnish the conditions that create it, through modern day ethical frameworks and social policy.

Indeed, this pair are contributing to the problem through their wishy-washy platitudinous apologism.

The Brash letter - Taskfarce

What appalled me, and should disturb all National and John Key supporters, is Key's refusal to meet with Brash to discuss the Taskforce 2025 report. How many photo opportunities does Key enjoy, performing nice- to- do but not essential- to- do things? Yet he can't make time to discuss the Taskforce 2025 recommendations which are crucial to creating a NZ that is at least keeping up with Australia. By his ignorance, the PM has consigned it to being a Taskfarce.

Maori hurt most by youth rates?

The opening lines from a new US study into the employment consequences of minimum wages:

When the Great Recession’s negative effect on the U.S. labor market was strongest, the national unemployment rate stood at 10.1 percent—a depth last seen in June 1983. But the greatest amount of pain was felt by younger and more vulnerable workers—though not in equal amounts. For instance, the unemployment rate for 16-to-19 year-olds reached 27.1 percent at the recession’s trough. For white teens, the figure was 25 percent; for black teens, it was close to 50 percent.

New Zealand's current 15-19 year-old unemployment rate is 27.5 percent. Unfortunately the HLFS tables do not show the ethnic breakdown of each age group. There is a suggestion here that Maori youth unemployment is over 40 percent.

According to the Department of Labour the Maori Youth NEET (not in education, employment or training) rate is around 17 percent:



The difference between the two rates comes about because the DOL defines youth as 15-24, not 15-19, and the unemployment rate for 20-24 year-olds is much lower.

Anyway the point of this post is to highlight the findings of the study because what holds for US blacks probably has relevance for NZ Maori.

... the picture grows even more troubling when the authors focus just on the 21 states fully affected by the federal minimum wage increases in 2007, 2008, and 2009. Approximately 13,200 black young adults in these states lost their job as a direct result of the recession; 18,500 lost their job as a result of the federal wage mandate—nearly 40 percent more than the recession. In
other words, the consequences of the minimum wage for this subgroup were more harmful than the consequences of the recession.

The substantial disemployment effects that emerge from the data raise an important question: Why do black males suffer more harm from wage mandates than their white or Hispanic counterparts?

The authors find that they’re more likely to be employed in eat-ing and drinking places–nearly one out of three black young adults without a high school diploma works in the industry. Businesses in this industry generally have narrow profit margins and are more likely to be adversely impacted by a wage mandate. There’s also substantial variation in regional location, as black young adults are
overwhelmingly located in the South and in urban areas. It’s also likely that unobserved differences in skill level and job experience play a role. To the extent that these differences are concentrated among young men of a particular race or ethnicity, this group would have the greatest risk of losing jobs when the minimum wage is increased.

Minimum wage increases remain politically popular, which means they’ll continue to be debated at the state and federal level for years to come. But the debate on the employment consequences of the minimum wage has been settled conclusively, and this research proves that those consequences are felt most by young black males.

(Hat-tip NCPA)

Returned heads reminders of a brutal past

In an article about 16 Maori heads being returned to New Zealand from France the following appears:

Some Maori heads, with intricate tattoos, were traditionally kept as trophies from tribal warfare. But once Westerners began offering prized goods in exchange for them, men were in danger of being killed simply for their tattoos, French museum officials have said.

But that is only part of the story. Slaves were deliberately tattooed and beheaded when carved faces became a commodity. I can think of nothing more terrifying and barbaric. Undergoing the extreme pain of having one's face chiselled for reasons of rank and pride is one thing. Imagine experiencing the same agonising process in the knowledge that it is preceding your death. That is always my first thought when I hear about heads being repatriated. I struggle to understand why anyone wants a reminder of this brutal, exploitive practice.

One of the best things about the Treaty is that it effectively abolished slavery in Maoridom. The history of NZ Maori is a savage one. Peaceful tribes were obliterated or enslaved by stronger, more violent and acquisitive tribes. A recipe for a harsh, short-life society. The spiritualistic ceremonies that accompany the return of the remainders and reminders of such times are misplaced.

Maori, the island nation's indigenous people, believe their ancestors' remains should be respected in their home area without being disturbed.

Ironic as they weren't respected in life. Perhaps there is a healing and closure; an apologistic aspect to the process that evades me.

What makes some people vote

Yesterday I was having a lengthy conversation with a young man. He pops in to chat at my shop and tells me all sorts of interesting things about his job and day to day experiences. He is a very friendly, open, and hard-working individual. Generally I don't bring up politics with people. That is their prerogative. Suddenly he said, "You were a Green candidate weren't you?". See this comes about because people are vaguely aware that I was involved in elections but as the only other thing they know about me is that I am an artist, they assume I must be a leftie.No, I responded, I stood for ACT. Oh, Ok. Do you like John Key he asked. Yes, I replied. Then he got very enthusiastic. I do too he said. I don't care about how much tax I pay and all that other political stuff. I'm just not interested. But because I like people and I am a friendly person, and because it is really important to me, being friendly and people being friendly back, and that's what John Key is like, I really like him. I love it when I hear him on the radio making people laugh.

Now that is not a stupid reason to vote for someone. This young man has identified his most important value. And he looks for someone who mirrors that. I don't really know why but I found it fascinating witnessing how the Mr Nice Guy persona manifests in votes. And let's face it. There aren't that many people who are very interested in politics. I wasn't at his age either.

While it seems strange to me I need only examine my own attitude to sports. The names I hear about are vaguely familiar but I couldn't tell you whether a particular one waa a league player or netball star. When it comes to sports I tune out. But if I had to vote for a sports star it would be Tana Umaga because I met him and he was very nice and generous. And good looking.

National's election platforms - welfare avoided again

Just heard on Radio Live News that the PM has announced National's election platforms for 2011 - the economy, education, health and law and order. And indeed, that is the case.

So why not the biggest chunk of government spending - social security? Leaving it for ACT?

But in this term and the last, ACT also abandoned welfare as a central issue. Roy was spokesperson from 2005-08 and Douglas thereafter. Neither raised public conciousness about welfare the way Newman had before.

The greatest potential area for NZ to reduce spending, as well as improve outcomes, is in welfare. But that market research stuff they do tells parties to avoid the issue as too electorally sensitive.

Back yourself Brash and go after it. In the early 2000s, while still Reserve Bank Governor, you were publicly critical of welfare. Your outspokeness in that role laid the base for much of your current support. National has done next to nothing in this term and NZ now trails other developed countries in the reform stakes. We cannot afford to.

My advice to Kerre Woodham (and myself on more than one occasion)

Kerre Woodham writes in today' SST:

Mother's Day is more a day for the children than it is for mums - all mums with healthy, beautiful children have a mother's day every day that their children stay safe and happy.

But this year - sorry to be a spoil sport - let's turn the spotlight on those mothers who are abject failures. All those mothers who haven't got a clue who their children's sperm donors were. All those mothers who have children because they get paid to - and, let's face it, they wouldn't get paid to do anything else. Those mothers who stay with men who hurt them and their kids because they're so pathetic and useless that any shag - even when it comes with a biff - is better than being alone.

This Mother's Day, I would plead that every mother who has had a child that they don't care about or can't cope with gets the help that they need....

I've been writing columns and banging on on talkback for more than 13 years about this and I am so, so sick of railing against the abomination that is child abuse in this country.

So this will be my last column on the subject. What I do is utterly futile.

Her emotion (or lack of it) is called burn out.

My advice to Kerre is don't stop writing but do start thinking about what policies need to change and be specific about what needs to happen. If you know that people have children because they are paid to, call for the end of such a policy. It is your money being used after all. If you think adoption is a better option, push for a change in CYF's attitude to adoption. How do you think it came about that NZ literally turned its back on the process? Vociferous, relentless, activism by feminists who believed that a child should always stay with its natural mother. How did it come about that we pay single women to have children? Feminist activism that deplored the nuclear family. Fight back and keep fighting. Not for a return to the past but for a new approach. Women today have so much more opportunity. They don't need these state crutches which if anything turn them into victims rather than empowered beings.

Take a breather and wait for the energy to return. It will.

Mr Tactless

Not quite Hone Harawira but....

Am I being pc because this guy makes me wince?

"What's so tragic about a 6.6 per cent jobless rate anyway?" asked Bank of New Zealand economist Craig Ebert.

Ex Treasury. Bloodless. Yeah, yeah and I'm a bleeding heart.

Mr Ebert obviously doesn't have friends or relatives who have lost jobs or businesses.

"A lot of countries would give their eye teeth for that sort of level, albeit we should hope for something a bit lower in due course. For a truly stuffed labour market, and economy, go back to the early 1990s, with 11.2 per cent [unemployment]."

Mr Ebert doesn't look old enough to have actually experienced the early 1990s. For the first time in my life I couldn't get a job and it is a most depressing, but empathy-building experience.

What really pisses me off is this supercilious attitude is what gives capitalism a bad name. Thoughtless prick.

Auckland tornado a socialist 'cause celebre'

It never ceases to surprise the lengths socialists will go to to exploit events. Even natural disasters.

Worker killed in New Zealand tornado

Subsidising youth into work looks good on paper but....

A fanfare was made yesterday about a further $55 million available to subsidise young people into jobs or training.

It is unpopular to argue against this initiative but I will.

1/ Primarily any subsidy distorts the labour market. As do legislated minimum wages. The first assists the employer and the second penalises. I am surprised the anti-capitalist Greens aren't arguing against the (0n-going) subsidy. Sue Bradford used to rightly argue against WFF on the basis that it subsidises employers.

2/ Subsidies favour one and punish another. The potential worker who attracts the subsidy takes opportunity away from the potential worker who doesn't. Probably an older Maori or Pacific worker with greater financial committments than the young person.

3/ There are around 64,000 (15-24) young people officially unemployed. 1,000 subsidised positions tackles only a small percentage. It is an inefficient use of taxpayer's money to solve the problem of youth unemployment.

4/ What 'can't be seen' is as usual ignored. That $55 million is taken from taxpayers who might have used it to invest in their own economically constructive ways.

5/ Yes. If youth are going to be paid the dole it is better to get something for the money. Which simply avoids debating whether or not youth should even be paid the dole having contributed nothing to the economy thus far. Why shouldn't they remain the responsibility of their parents? Afterall, their parental income is relative when it comes to qualifying for a student allowance. Why isn't the same criteria applied to the unemployment benefit?

6/ Some employers will abuse the subsidy, especially when the government demands they pay inexperienced workers a minimum rate. The criteria that jobs must be "opportunities that wouldn't exist if the Job Ops subsidy wasn't available" is a test easily met.

7/ Industries that can only employ skilled workers are disadvantaged.

8/ There is inherent unfairness in expecting one young person to pay for their own skills acquisition and subsidising the next.

9/ Subsidies should be no part of a policy programme run by a free enterprise party.If they are wrong in principle then ...they are wrong. Sneaking them in here and there to look like they are 'doing something' is an abrogation of their responsibility to introduce better policy. Like low flat tax and labour market regulation reduction. Typically National.

Income from govt - US vs NZ

Americans depended more on government assistance in 2010 than at any other time in the nation's history, a USA Today analysis of federal data finds. The trend shows few signs of easing, even though the economic recovery is nearly two years old.

* A record 18.3 percent of the nation's total personal income was a payment from the government for Social Security, Medicare, food stamps, unemployment benefits and other programs in 2010.
* Wages accounted for the lowest share of income -- 51.0 percent -- since the government began keeping track in 1929.

In NZ 12.6 percent of personal income comes from government transfers. I can't factor in Medicare equivalent which would push up the NZ percentage but it is interesting that....

From 1980 to 2000, government aid was roughly constant at 12.5 percent.

(Hat tip Welfare State We're In, who points out that many people incorrectly believe there is no welfare state in the US.James Bartholemew has, by the way, been conracted to write a new book comparing welfare states around the world. I look forward to that. Big job.)

National bolsters war on drugs

Nothing much captures my imagination today. Perhaps worth a mention is National's replacement for John Carter's safe seat. Mike Sabin, the ex-policeman who wages war against P. His anti-drug advocacy doesn't stop at P.

"New Zealand ranking second only to the United States for cannabis use provides further evidence that our country is descending into the world's gutters," Mr Sabin said.

I wonder if National has a seat they can offer to Doug Sellman?

Teen mothers adding children to a benefit

Liberty asked yesterday;

What percentage of teen mothers go on to have 2 or 3 children while staying on the DPB?



It is impossible to answer the question based on the information MSD can provide due to a lack of historical data.

The above tables would indicate that 35,485 mothers (or female caregivers) aged 32 or less who started on welfare as a teenager had 58,004 children.

Some may have added 1; others more, so it is impossible to tell from the above data a specific percentage. But it is clear that Maori and Pacific mothers are considerably more likely to have additional children on a benefit.

There are also a number of other unknowns about the data for instance the dependence on a benefit may not have been continuous. And a very small number might be dependent on a benefit other than the DPB.

Birthright get it wrong

Stuff has picked up on a report released by the OECD mid-week. I subscribe to OECD social statistics releases and scrolled through the report it but it is typically full of out-of-date information.

The writer of the piece fails to say her headline statistic is from 2007. But strangely does date recent information. But here's what gets me frustrated;

Birthright national manager John Donaghy said there were about 219,000 single-parent families in New Zealand, most of whom were middle-aged.

"Unfortunately there are many people who basically poke at the 18-year-old person on the DPB who is seen as a weight on the rest of society, but actually they're a minority."

In March, 46 per cent of single parents were aged 25 to 39, and 20 per cent were aged 18 to 24.

How many times do I have to point out that teenage parents age. They stay dependent and they stay single. Hence we find that there is a spread of single parents across all agebands. The fact remains that up to a half began life as a single parent, usually on the DPB, as a teenager. That is why I bang on, or "poke at" that particular group.

Birthright are apologists for a serious problem that won't be resolved as long as they fail to understand it. As a volunteer I once attended a meeting between a seriously inadequate teenage mother and one of their social workers. The social worker, a pleasant enough young woman, was going through the motions - counsel, make a next-visit appointment and bugger off - whereas I was getting stuck into the filthy surroundings, showing the mother how to look after herself and her once-was-perfectly-nice home. (Another battle I eventually lost even though I won the girls trust. The usual happened. Rent arrears piled up and she disappeared.)

I am sure Birthright serves some purpose but politically they are aggravating the problem they were born out of.