The word 'poverty'

At 57:46 a Samoan 35 year-old female called Kathryn talks to Danny Watson about the word 'poverty'. What it means to her living in Mangere Central; what it means to her mates and why the rest of us should stop using it.

Have a listen. You won't regret it.

"Rescue me"

From the Centre for Independent Studies, Australia:

Rescue me

Where once it was a mark of pride to take care of oneself in difficult situations, there is now an expectation that the government should save us, salve us, and secure us in all areas of our lives.

For example, travelers and expats are increasingly expecting the government to rescue them from volatile foreign hotspots.

A further example of our coddled citizenry comes from a couple who, according to Richardson, queried whether they could claim frequent flyer points from a government-arranged emergency flight out of Egypt during the recent upheavals – where the taxpayer was footing the bill.

Government is a mechanism to ensure a degree of order, national security, and representation in our lives. It is not a substitute parent whose role is to fund, soothe and cater to the demands of overindulged and heedless children, although with pandering to the polls and policy-on-the-run, you could be forgiven for thinking otherwise.

A recent commercial on television showed a fit, young man offering his dole cheque to win tickets to a rugby competition. What was most striking about this ad – its tongue-in-cheek nature notwithstanding – was the assumption that it’s normal for a healthy and able-bodied man to be on welfare.

Such attitudes are becoming commonplace in today’s dysfunctional welfare society, but this is certainly not desirable. Welfare statism effectively reduces elements of its citizenry to an enfeebled and dependent state, unable or unwilling to take responsibility for their own lives, actions and decisions. And it infuses the culture with a widespread belief that it’s up to the government to fix and manage just about everything, including help in claiming air miles.

The final word goes to acting Foreign Minister, Craig Emerson, who said recently: ‘There are limits to what the Australian government can do in a consular crisis.’ There are indeed limits to what the Australian government, or any government for that matter, can do – and should do – in our lives. Period.

Meegan Cornforth is Events Manager at the Centre for Independent Studies.

Too much irony ceases to be amusing

Every Child Counts, the left-wing conglomerate - blame-everybody-but-the-parents-for-child-poverty group - commissioned a report from Infometrics (yes, Gareth Morgan's outfit - now also part of the poverty industry). It was released mid-August but gained no traction. Initially I thought, on reading a piece in the NZ Herald this morning titled, Brown poverty a 'time bomb', they are having a second push by bringing race into it. Guaranteed to spark.

But then the Herald says the report is released "this morning". Not short of a bob or two are they? Ironically the 'poverty' industry appears quite rich.

Anyway, one of the Every Child Counts advocates, Hone Kaa, is lining up behind the coroner who wants all children monitored. But isn't the problem 'brown', to use his word?

"I really don't care for adults who say 'that's prying too much into my personal business'. As far as I'm concerned I want to save a child," Dr Kaa said.

The report argues that new ways of measuring well-being need to be developed which take into account Polynesian world views.

That is also rich in irony. Remember this quote from an earlier post:

.... the Status of Children Act 1969, [which] ended discrimination between children born within and outside registered marriage and removed the term "illegitimate" from the statute books. This legislation reflected a desire to reduce some of the stigma associated with ex-nuptial birth that New Zealand inherited from English family law and brought the judicial system into line with the much more liberal concepts of Māori (Cameron 1967, 1969, Quin and O'Neill 1984).

The liberal concepts of Maori. Polynesian world views.

They worked in past context perhaps. Within a large whanau or hapu. Children being raised by elders.

But they don't work within the modern NZ welfare state. Still the problem is misdiagnosed.

Labour's very old new policy

Kiwiblog has a post about Labour's old 'new' youth unemployment policy.

It details the recycling of the old policy at least four times.

But why stop at 2000?

Below is their 1980 policy as it appeared in the Evening Post, Thursday October 30, 1980.

Let's check the similarities.

2011 - Labour today announced its youth skills and employment package which gives all teenagers the opportunity to be earning or learning within three years.

1980 - Mr Rowling said a fourth Labour Government would go into office after the 1981 election with a total commitment to full employment as its priority.

2011 - “This is a ticking time-bomb and has to be fixed. These kids are our future but at the moment they are being left on the scrapheap. If we don’t do something now, we will all pay a far higher price. The New Zealand Institute estimates the cost of disengaged youth is $900 million a year.

1980 - "Experience shows that if young people are left out of work in the early period of their lives they never adapt to the work situation. The economic and social costs for a country of 3,000,000 people are devastating."

2011 - Converting dole payments into a $8700 subsidy to fund 9000 additional apprenticeship places


1980 - Abolition of the dole...and a vigorous apprenticeship drive....private employers hiring additional young people would qualify for a subsidy...

Somehow I don't think today's announcements are a game changer for Labour. They weren't in 1980 either.

A universal basic income is not the answer

Gareth Morgan's answer to the burgeoning welfare system, the Universal Basic Income (UBI) of $11,000 per year for every adult, leaves three acknowledged cohorts worse off - superannuitants, sole parents and the asset rich - probably a third of the adult population. Gareth addressed those but ignored a fourth group - 144,000 sickness and invalid beneficiaries many of whom are receiving more than $211.50 per week. Over half receive an accommodation supplement and many receive disability allowances. The targeted assistance Morgan wants to dispense with helps these people to a much greater extent than the UBI would.

Treasury modelled a Guaranteed Minimum Income for the Welfare Working Group (at the group's request after Gareth and Sue Bradford both proposed some form of universal basic income at its initial conference). It pointed out that some of the neediest welfare recipients would be worse off even at a level of $15,600 per annum. As well Treasury noted the negative effect these schemes would have on productivity, savings and investment, none of which can be over-emphasised in my opinion.

Similar experiments have been tried before, notably negative income tax in the US, and did not have beneficial outcomes. Which is hardly surprising. Paying all adults - Treasury modelled from 16 years up - with or without productive return, is surely more of what has unhinged the present system which provides a viable alternative to work but indulges family breakdown and self-destructive behaviour. Morgan is extolling more of the state-legislated wealth redistribution which has us in the mess he now wants to 'fix'.

Surely the point is that individuals used to rely far more heavily on each other. They formed stable and committed families that provided for raising children, caring for the elderly, and supporting each other in times of adversity. Incidentally, very much the Asian way of providing welfare. For three decades after the 1938 social security net was created people relied on it sparingly and treated the system and, by inference, each other with respect. That was the overriding value that has weakened and needs to be restored.

People are born to make their way in life through endeavour and forming positive partnerships. Not to wait till they reach 16 and have the state chuck a couple of hundred bucks their way unconditionally for the duration. Morgan fails to acknowledge the enormous personal disincentive effect such a practice would incur.

For instance, drug and alcohol abuse are increasing problems in society. Young people could pool resources and lead lives that require none of the discipline associated with working for a living. All of the social fall-out and intergenerational dysfunction would continue.

Rather than re-invent 'welfarism' - broadly speaking, any subsidy from the state - New Zealand needs to reduce it. That begins with the clear, unequivocal message that welfare is a strictly temporary hand-up for any person capable of working and supporting themselves. As well, the eligibility age for Super must be lifted to match lengthening life expectancies. That will enable lower taxation - not greater as required by the UBI - and will bring investment, entrepreneurship and jobs to a country that is now blessed with its geographic position in relation to the rapidly economically transforming world.

I was wrong about ACT

It was my prediction that the ACT party's polling would climb under Don Brashs' leadership. I was wrong. But I am so often in a such a small minority intellectually it is no wonder I cannot understand how other people think.

However, I made my prediction before knowing John Banks was going to stand in Epsom. That now makes my vote highly marginal and perhaps other past ACT voters are feeling the same. Catherine Isaac might neutralise the 'Banks effect' for me but the problem remains - that ACT has no clear political philosophy.

Apparently it is now the farmer's party. It also looks very euro centric at times. What is ACT 2? If there are members in there still holding out to give the party a clear classical liberal direction I admire their tenacity.

Perhaps past voters are just fed up with the in-party shannanegins, for want of a better word. Ongoing instability does not engender confidence. Or trust.

Perhaps polling will improve markedly on the day that counts. But because that has happened in the past is no guarantee it'll happen again. And do I even care?


(Yes I do sound like Eyeore today.)

Child ill-being: the recession isn't the problem

You will have read or heard about the updated Children's Social Health Monitor released today.

It examines the effect of the recession on things like unemployment, benefit dependence, deprivation, ill-health and hospital admissions.

But the following graphs highlight that dependence on the DPB isn't enormously effected by the unemployment rate. With or without a recession, far too many children rely on the DPB and subsequently are 'poor'.





The next graphs, also extracted from today's report, highlight that child hospital admission rates for assault, neglect or maltreatment are ten times higher in the poorest decile compared to the wealthiest (which coincides exactly with the teenage birth rate.)




Following that is the ethnic breakdown.



How many times have you heard PC, self-deceiving types saying that abuse happens across all of society? I suppose technically that is true but it is intended to detract attention from where most of it happens.

Meerkat

This year I have been giving pastel lessons which involve the student bringing a subject they want to capture. I provide the materials and we begin with the student following the steps I would take if the subject was a commission. At some point I abandon my demonstration piece and devote my full attention to their work. One talented lady turned up with a Meerkat (photo of at least) and was thrilled with her final painting.

Last week, with nothing else to work on I got out the sketch I had begun and finished it off.

Friday: First, food for thought and then just friggin' funny

From the Acton Institute:

In a society that does not value private property and fosters a spirit of envy and class warfare through wealth redistribution, why should we be surprised that young people don’t value someone else’s property?

Said about 'flash mobbing' in the US. Could have been about the UK riots. It's a selective quote on my part because I don't hold with other views expressed by the Acton people. Nevertheless, as it stands, it makes crystal clear sense.

Then (unrelated) Kiwiblog features some recent Bob Jones correspondence. I recall reading a book titled something like Bob Jones Letters which was full of this sort of highly articulate piss-taking. Love it.

(Tried linking to the Acton Institute repeatedly but kept getting total disarrangement of post.)

Message for Paula Bennett

I don't want to repeatedly beat up on Paula Bennett and the job she is doing but her response to Coroner Wallace Bain's call for spot checks on all children under five is incredibly ill-considered and should have been a firm 'no'.

"As a country, we have to decide what we are prepared to give up to stop other children experiencing the abuse baby Nia did."

So those of us who aren't prepared to put up with state authorities sticking their noses into our homes to examine our child-raising abilities (remember the sort of standards being set for what constitutes abuse these days), we are heels. We are now the problem.

Yesterday I had to take both of my children to the doctors. There was a couple with a sick baby, obviously anxious and obviously adoring of their child. This is how most parents are. They love their children desperately. The state has no business monitoring their care of their children. The idea is quite repulsive.

So no Ms Bennett. I will defend the right of good parents to be left alone. Harassing them will do nothing.

The state has a role to play in preventing real harm to children and it is eminently possible to identify where those children are.

Stop prevaricating and buck-passing. You are the Minister.

Checks on sole parents have happened before

The Coroner in the Nia Glassie case is one Wallace Bain. Apparently Dr Bain wants spot checks on all children and...

Dr Bain is also calling for all solo parents on a benefit to be monitored and overseen to ensure the safety of children in their care.

Dr Bain wants a return to the past.

The Child Welfare Act 1925 introduced mandatory inquiries into the living circumstances of all children born outside marriage.

But decades later:

.... the Status of Children Act 1969, [which] ended discrimination between children born within and outside registered marriage and removed the term "illegitimate" from the statute books. This legislation reflected a desire to reduce some of the stigma associated with ex-nuptial birth that New Zealand inherited from English family law and brought the judicial system into line with the much more liberal concepts of Māori (Cameron 1967, 1969, Quin and O'Neill 1984).

And didn't that create a much kinder world? One where children are routinely loved and cared for?

Unfortunately not.

What's in a name?

The Domestic Purposes Benefit has been named as such since 1968. 43 years ago National instituted the DPB Emergency Benefit. How much life has changed since then. For instance women now make up half of the workforce and tertiary education rolls.

The benefit itself is dated and unsuited to the times, and so is the name. The reason I was thinking along these lines was looking at what various US states call their equivalent DPB. Many simply use the words 'temporary' and 'transitional' and 'work' but here are a few of the more imaginary examples:

Arizona EMPOWER (Employing and Moving People Off Welfare and Encouraging Responsibility)

Montana FAIM (Families Achieving Independence in Montana)

North Dakota TEEM (Training, Employment, Education Management)

Oregon JOBS (Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Program)

Virginia VIEW (Virginia Initiative for Employment, Not Welfare)

Wyoming POWER (Personal Opportunities With Employment Responsibility)

You can view the lot here.

The essential difference is the expectation that the name creates. The federal and state funds that go into these programmes only pay out a small percentage in cash assistance. The rest goes into things like childcare, training etc.

I would judge the success of the US reforms primarily on whether they break the inter-generational cycle of dependence. Changing the parent's expectations will change their children's. Poor and working is better than poor and on welfare. Aspirational is better than apathetic.

While many commentators (somewhat smugly) predict the economic decline of the US I think they have been tackling their social problems with real vigour and discipline. Eventually they will see a pay-off. NZ, frankly, is well behind.

Two working parents = problem children?

The front page of the Dominion Post features a story about the increasing bad behaviour of 5 and 6 year-olds. One of the reasons put up is:

Social problems contributed, with both parents in many families having one or more jobs.

This return to the 'latch key' children idea is bothering me.

It was one of the reasons the DPB was introduced in the first place. To allow single parents to stay at home with their children. That proved no panacea.

But I am not convinced that two working parents is really the crux of the problem. Parents who work are taking financial responsibility for their kids. It follows they are more likely to be taking responsibility for them, and each other, in other ways as well.

One child psychologist says poor parenting is part of the problem, and exposure to drugs or alcohol in the womb is having a terrible impact of some children.....There was a subset of children who had more challenging behaviour than previously seen. "Part of it could be exposure to drugs and alcohol in utero – we really under-diagnose that in New Zealand. We know we have children who have been exposed to P in utero that are in schools now ... but it's not going to be the only factor."

Holding down more than one job and abusing drugs and alcohol isn't very easy to do, especially with more and more drug-testing in the workplace.

I am more inclined to accept that the worst children are coming from dysfunctional family relying on a mix of welfare, and income from crime or the black market; these families began with a birth to a young mother who has probably been abused in her lifetime, and grow through a succession of partners. Not exclusively but more likely.

There are families with mothers, for example, working night shifts where older siblings are left to supervise the younger and it is true that they get baby-sat by X Boxes and movies and left to play into the night.

A working one or two parent family may neglect a child through sheer lack of time but I would love to see some evidence that the problem is about too much work and not about too much welfare.

There is also the obvious point that needs making. Two parents working by necessity are paying the taxes that support the 113,000 people on the DPB. And the only research available on the subject shows that CYF Care and Protection notifications are nearly 4 times more likely to occur to a child in a DPB dependent home.

Billy T

Billy T James didn't know me from a bar of soap. And this photo is only the result of an uncharacteristic action on my part. Asking someone who did know him slightly to take a photo of us together, with his permission. The occasion was backstage at a Dolly Parton and Kenny Rogers concert in 1987, Auckland. I was a sales rep for RCA at the time and as such, met lots of famous people. Well, a few. But I never fawned on them or tried to get memento type shots. I had too much respect for their privacy and my dignity. But Billy was an exception. I selfishly wanted my own little piece.

But lots of people wanted a bigger piece.

I was going to write a review of Billy T: Te Movie after seeing it today. But it feels too close. The times, the gorgeousness of his humour, the loss. I will recommend it but can't guarantee you will come away feeling uplifted. I didn't. I just missed him all over again.

'Compassion' - the Left's buzzword for election campaign

Have you noticed the word 'compassion', or derivatives of it, cropping up increasingly of late?

It's a word that the left loves. But it needs a new definition. Spending other people's money to make oneself feel righteous, perhaps; The state supposedly fixing problems but actually making them worse, perhaps.

The Greens have launched an entire project entitled "A compassionate economy".

By definition if you aren't a Green you aren't compassionate. You are hardhearted, cruel, uncaring.

But do you notice that the Green's form of compassion entails even greater use of force against individuals? Is it compassionate to force people to take responsibility for problems not of their own making? Is it compassionate to prevent people from freely pursuing life, liberty and happiness because others don't understand or care about those things?

Someone called Deborah Russell (a taxation lecturer from Massey) recently wrote a column in the Dominion Post calling for the welfare state to be compassionate. She said she was happy to pay her tax for it to be so.

She said specifically that the welfare system should err on the side of compassion. Rules for eligibility should not be toughened up as recommended by the Welfare Working Group.

NZ has been erring on the side of compassion since the 1972 Royal Commission on Social Policy urged as much. Then around 8,000 sole parents were receiving an emergency benefit and it was considered caring and inclusive to create a statutory benefit that guaranteed welfare to any single parent regardless of the reason for their single parenthood.

Now there are 113,000 people receiving that benefit, along with nearly twice as many children who are often characterised as living in poverty and without the input of fathers.

If that is the result of 'compassion' then perhaps it is time for a little less. The welfare system is in dire need of reform; not the continued application of thoughtless emoting.

Bennett doing a bad job on latest policy

Paula Bennett is being too vague with the latest welfare reform policy. That became more painful to witness yesterday as Labour tried to tease out the details. OK. The policy is actually part of National's election manifesto; not an announcement of legislative change that will occur before November. But the way it is rolling out it really smacks of finger in the wind. Starting tough but softening under pressure. Perhaps the cash allowance will be more generous? Perhaps the range of payment card licencees will be quite broad?

Notwithstanding that I want to see benefits made temporary for most, short of that, income management is not necessarily a bad thing. Certainly not "sinister", how Bradford's outfit described it.

In Australia the policy began in some Aboriginal communities where children were being neglected and women were frequently the subject of 'economic violence' - their benefit cash was stolen from them. The policy was intended to protect women and children by ensuring they got the necessaries taken care of through a BasicsCard. Usually 50 percent (but up to 70 percent) of the benefit was loaded onto a card and could only be used for essentials.

Then the government widened the policy to include young people who had been on welfare more than 13 of the past 26 weeks; families referred by child protection services; others that Centrelink defined as 'vulnerable'; and those who voluntarily chose it.

The reasons for applying the policy to certain groups or individuals are clear. It would be easy enough to implement the same here. And to provide a clear rationale.

It is impossible to stop people spending cash on what they want to but it is possible (with loopholes) to ensure that the basics are more likely to be attended to. Especially important when children are involved.

But the way the policy has been mooted - applying only to 16 and 17 year-olds plus 18 year-old single parents - it is itself very vulnerable to criticism. And ensuing complication. Especially now a letter expressing Bennett's own distaste for income management has emerged.

The Minister needs to be far more definitive about what National wants to do and why.

(This is the gist of comments I made to NewstalkZB when they rang for an opinion. The soundbite they are running doesn't reflect my main, final point. That may come out in a later bulletin.)

Gordon Campbell: Deliberately misleading the public?

In last week's Hutt News Gordon Campbell, doyen of the left, wrote the following article (not on-line unfortunately):




My attention was immediately caught by the quote in the fourth paragraph. It is reasonably well-known that NZ's elderly are relatively well-off. So the quote he used surprised me and warranted further investigation. Here is what I found:

Outside my window

We are about 20 metres above sea level. Just up from the beach. Beautiful. And will be until the power goes out. Like it did last night. Twice. For long periods. I bought two extra hot water bottles today because I can heat water from the gas stove top. But that's it. Another night of chess by torchlight I am not looking forward to. But our trials, while very unusual, are minimal compared to others.

Option for reforming welfare?

Drove through steadily falling snow into Wellington yesterday to pre-record a Close Up interview. It was about National's welfare reforms for youth. Sitting next to me was Gareth Morgan who was against the reform. I was for but only as a first step. Gareth was also launching his new book about the benefit system yesterday and was taking the opportunity to push his Negative Income Tax or Guaranteed Minimum Income scheme - not sure what label he is using. It involves scrapping all benefits in favour of everyone getting a yearly income from the state.

I am against these schemes. They naturally grate with me because require even greater forced wealth redistribution. They require very high taxation (Gareth wants to use tax on capital gain). They disincentivise however in more ways than one. Labour productivity, savings, investment. And some of the worst off, lifetime invalids with high health costs reliant on the state, are ...even worse off. Strangely some of the Libz want these schemes and so does well-known American writer and libertarian, Charles Murray.

Sue Bradford is also all for a GMI. Her and Gareth shared a platform at the initial WWG conference and agreed this idea as a way to solve many of the welfare problems. Consequently the WWG asked Treasury to model a GMI which gave every New Zealander 16 and over $300 a week. Here's their response.

In the event the weather news overtook other items and the producer rang to tell me they had run out of time to use it but want me back on another day.

Claudette Hauiti. More interesting than the welfare speech.

Here's an interesting new candidate for National, Claudette Hauiti. I like her. And I don't think she is just mouthing platitudes when she talks about smaller government, less bureaucracy, more self-responsibility, and greater reward for hard work. But you would have to watch the video to get a sense of that for yourself.