Kiwi Party not contesting general election

This is news to me, so possibly to you. From Larry Baldock's newsletter:

The Kiwi Party will not be contesting the general election this year. The response we have had from the vast majority of our members has encouraged us to work with the Conservative Party. Therefore many of us will be standing as Conservative Party (CP) candidates and taking significant places on the CP list. At this stage it looks likely that the CP will have at least 30 candidates in electorates across the country and with over 1200 signed up members the CP is now ready to compete for votes on November 26.

In 2010 Colin Craig launched a campaign for the Auckland Super City Mayoralty as a completely unknown candidate and achieved the stunning result of 3rd place with over 8% of the vote. Eligible voters in that election represented 32.5% of all voters in New Zealand.

Could Colin achieve a similar result nationwide in this campaign?

One of the keys for any small party, as you will know from past elections, is whether the party can win an electorate seat and therefore become eligible for list candidates to be elected to Parliament. Polling conducted by Research First has Colin ahead of the new National candidate Mark Mitchell, in the Rodney electorate. Voters nationwide therefore can be encouraged to give their Party vote to the Conservative Party knowing that every vote will count towards increasing the number of MPs that will be elected.


They don't interest me but are going to make it harder for ACT.

ACT's priorities - welfare missed again

The Nelson Mail reports on a meeting held by Don Brash:

"If National needs a scapegoat, if you like, we could be that scapegoat," he said. The main priorities were to cut government spending, reform the Resource Management Act, restore a youth minimum wage and raise the age of eligibility for superannuation.

No problem with those but it's so disappointing to again see them failing to prioritise welfare. Yesterday these policies appeared on-line:

ACT will continue to push for major welfare reform. A Party Vote for ACT is a vote to:

• Ensure that there is strong, adequate support for the genuinely needy;
• Re-introduce a youth training rate or minimum wage;
• Introduce obligations for sole parent beneficiaries to ensure their children are properly cared for including taking budgeting instruction and meeting regular health checks;
• Introduce sanctions – such as suspension of the unemployment benefit and mandatory work-for-the-dole – in cases where reasonable offers of employment are declined;
• Require mandatory drug rehabilitation or loss of benefit for unemployed beneficiaries who fail work tests because of drug or substance addiction;
• Introduce income management and the requirement to live with a responsible adult for parents under the age of 18;
• Have independent, government-approved gatekeeping and assessment of applicants for the sickness and invalids benefit, and six monthly reassessment of sickness beneficiaries;
• Outsource all employment placement activities to private sector providers and foster a competitive market for sickness, invalid and employment insurance;
• Encourage practical Maori-focused solutions, including Whanau Ora, to lift Maori out of poverty and benefit dependency;
• Introduce a hotline (like Crimestoppers) to report benefit fraud;
• Cut welfare payments to middle and upper income earners through reform of Working for Families.

Some good stuff. Some I am not so keen on. For instance I don't think whanau ora is about reducing Maori benefit dependency. I think it's about teaching them to be better parents. Different things. Not sure about work-for-the-dole although I understand why the WWG recommended a programme. Perhaps PD services could be extended. Cutting WFF (which is only a return to pre-2005 conditions) is absolutely the right move. ACT will be the only party proposing that. Things like budgeting courses and rehab are already used - just not mandatory. Excepting (I think) that if a beneficiary applies for extra assistance so many times they must attend a course as a condition of getting the extra help. But I would have to verify that.

Trouble is, when you set about conditions for receipt of a benefit you are actually sanctioning the receipt. And the very receipt, for perfectly capable people, is wrong.

So what is missing?

The single-most important policy required is time-limits. The single-most important message is, welfare is no longer a way of life. It certainly isn't an option for raising children. We need a sea-change in thinking. These policies aren't going to achieve that.

Benefit-dependent babies - nearly half are Maori

Earlier in the week I blogged about 23 percent of children born in 2010 being on a benefit by the end of the year. I cannot be specific about the ethnicity of the child because Work and Income only records details pertaining to the caregiver.

It is safe to assume however that in most cases the ethnicity of the child will match the ethnicity of the caregiver who is usually the mother.

Of the 14,537 caregivers receiving a main benefit at the end of 2010 with one or more children born in 2010:

Maori 47 percent
NZ European 29 percent
Pacific 13 percent
Other or unspecified 11 percent

There is the disproportion of welfarism amongst Maori again.

Remember too that, officially Pacific children are the poorest in NZ but they tend to live in working poor families. And then what Peter Hughes, the departing CE of the Ministry of Social Development said: 'We know that for the same level of income, kids do better where that income's derived from paid work.'

It's no good blaming unemployment for the fact that Maori are disproportionately not supporting their children independently. Their unemployment rate is high (13.7) but so is the Pacific unemployment rate (13.1).

Raising babies on a benefit is simply a habit; a part of Maori culture. And it isn't something either of the Maori Parties are prepared to do anything about. In fact, with Sue Bradford as Mana's 'social well-being' spokesperson you can bet, along with the Greens, the clarion cry will be for higher benefits - not less dependence.

Drug testing beneficiaries - a diversion

ALCP have found a vote winner - they think.

Beneficiaries who risk losing their benefits due to drug testing are being encouraged to give their party vote to the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party in the upcoming election. Party Leader Michael Appleby said the only way for beneficiaries to contiunue using cannabis was to ensure the ALCP was elected on November 26 to fight for their rights.


Legal or illegal, the government can make non-use of drugs and/or alcohol a condition for receiving a benefit if they chose to. I wouldn't support such a move. It simply avoids the bigger issue of what people are doing on benefits when they should be self-supporting. Someone terminally ill reliant on an invalid's benefit shouldn't be barred from using whatever eases their end.

The Government's Welfare Working Group led by economist Paula Rebstock, aims to tackle drug addiction by introducing drug testing for those on the benefit. Social Development Minister Paula Bennett said she supported the move. "We expect it for people who are in work so why shouldn't we expect it for people who are looking for work? Frankly, I don't think that is too much to ask," she said.

But we don't expect it for all people in work. So why expect it for all beneficiaries?

Mr Appleby said the move could have disastrous consequences for medical users of cannabis. "We will fight for the right of all New Zealanders to grow and use cannabis for personal or medical use," he said. "It is important than beneficiaries give their party vote to ALCP otherwise they risk losing their benefits."

As I said decriminalising or legalising cannabis won't change the risk of losing their benefit if the government makes non-use a condition of eligibility. In the past people who caused their own incapacity through alcoholism weren't eligible for social security. But alcohol was legal.

If a doctor deems drug or alcohol abuse the primary cause of a person's incapacity I would support accepting mandatory treatment as a condition for continuance of a benefit. Drug testing might form part of such a regime. And it wouldn't surprise me if this isn't what the government is considering.

Most people aren't on a benefit because they smoke or drink. They are on one because they can be. That's the problem.

Organ donation - another awful NZ record

Here's a new idea (and they are rare):

A LEADING medical ethics body wants the NHS to pay for the funerals of organ donors in an effort to help tackle the shortage of donations in the UK.

Hugh Whittall, UK director of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, dismissed suggestions that covering the cost of funeral expenses for those who sign the donor register was a way of getting around the legal ban on selling organs.

He told The Scotsman that the move would be a thank-you for an "altruistic act".

Mr Whittall claimed that covering the cost of funerals would provide an "extra prompt" to "drive up" the number of organ donors, which last year was just 67 in Scotland - a rate of 13 donors per million of population.

They think they have a problem?

Last year (2006) there were just 25 organ donors in New Zealand, down from an average of 40 donors a year prior to 2005. At 40 donors a year we were at the bottom of developed countries for the number of donors we have. Now with just 6 donors per million of population we are between Iceland and Mexico for our donation rates.

I have impressed on my family more than once that, in the event of death, if I have anything useable, they must do everything they can to ensure it is made available.

If you have 'donor' on your Driver's Licence make sure you convey the same sentiments to yours.

23% babies born 2010 on benefit by year end

Media Release

23% BABIES BORN 2010 ON BENEFIT BY YEAR END
Tuesday, October11, 2011

Data released to welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell show that 23 percent of the babies born in 2010 were reliant on a benefit by the end of that year.

"Statistics released under the Official Information Act show that at December 31, 2010, 14,537 Work and Income clients receiving a main benefit had babies in their care that were born during 2010. That represents 23 percent of all babies born in 2010. Almost one in four."

"The implications for this high percentage lie in the likelihood of these children remaining on a benefit for many years. Ministry of Social Development research found, 'The older the child when they first have contact with the benefit system, the greater their likelihood of leaving benefit. Compared to those in contact at birth, those who first have contact between birth and six months have a 15% increase in the probability of leaving benefit. Between six months and one year there is a 33% increase, between one and two years there is a 41% increase, and first contact between two and three years is associated with a 56% increase in the probability of leaving benefit.' "

"These are the circumstances which are overwhelmingly contributing to New Zealand's child poverty problem."

Better news from ACT

From Scoop:

In a joint press statement, ACT Party Leader Don Brash and President Chris Simmons today confirmed that all ACT candidates would move one place up the list to fill the position vacated by the Party’s retiring Parliamentary Leader John Boscawen, and that the number two spot would be filled by former Party President Catherine Isaac.

I have a lot of time for Catherine. This is just what ACT needs. Someone with quiet dignity, strength and courage.

Banks and Red Bull

I have "experience in talking about welfare". Does that mean more people will listen to me than to Don Brash? No.

The odious John Banks told The Nation yesterday that he had blocked a planned speech about welfare that Don Brash was scheduled to deliver because "he had no experience in talking about welfare".

So who does Banksie?

As the leader of ACT Brash can talk about whatever he likes.

Banks tried to take over ACT in 2005 with a silly speech about Red Bull and branding. He shouldn't have been doing that. He had no experience in talking about Red Bull.

Oh I despair over ACT. I shouldn't. I know. The ACT I knew and stood for is long gone.

Forget about nanny state...

Front page NZ Herald:

All Blacks star Cory Jane went on a drinking binge and lit up a cigarette inside a packed Auckland bar - less than 72 hours before playing in today's Rugby World Cup quarter-final.

HE DIDN'T, DID HE????

We used to rail against nanny state.

Now we have nanny media.

The "married father of three" reportedly "lit a cigarette in the bar - breaking the Smoke-free Environments Act 1990 banning smoking in pubs, in force since 2004......A top sports medical expert said drinking alcohol so close to a test match could reduce the player's performance and increase the risk of injury......a single cigarette would reduce a player's lung capacity but it would also introduce carbon monoxide and nicotine to the player's blood."

This is a joke. Surely.

Falling newspaper circulation

Utterly misleading headline

The Stuff headline reads,
Country's prison roll tumbling

There is a clear inference that considerably fewer people are in prison now than was the case at some earlier point.

So I look for the passage that tells about the September quarter total compared to the June quarter. Not there. And Corrections still has the June total up.

So what is the headline based on?

In the past decade the prison population grew by 45.6 per cent – but the latest annual Justice Sector Forecast predicts that in the next 10 years it will fall by 6.2 per cent.

It's based on a prediction.

But go back to Corrections which only three months ago was displaying this graph:



The Justice Sector Forecast was predicting continuing growth. The story is actually about why the forecasts have changed.

The headline is utterly misleading.

It's akin to my issuing a statement headed with
DPB numbers rocket based on Treasury budget forecasts. I would be pilloried.

Older mothers "selfish and self-centred"

A Perth doctor has labelled women who have their children in their late thirties as "selfish and self-centred." And a third of Melbourne Age readers agree with him.

My youngest was born when I was almost 39. She was unplanned. I didn't really intend on having another child but thought that on balance providing a sibling for the older one and my husband's delight at the development made it a good thing. When she was born I fell in love with her immediately. Such a sure-of-herself, snuggly and robust little thing. Physically stronger and healthier than my first-born.

The article covers all the reasons why women are apparently "selfish and self-centred" for having children later. The additional cost to the health service, becoming geriatrics and a burden on the children later. But women who give birth later have usually contributed more tax. As far as it being a debate about public goods, its swings and roundabouts. The choice to leave parenthood till later doesn't impinge on anyone else, unlike the choice to have children you can't financially support - at any age.

But really, it's nobody else's bloody business. And I wouldn't have blogged on the subject bar it being yet another example of the busybody mentality displayed by people who think they know best. And disgustingly, a large minority fall in behind.

A responding 'social commentator' can have the last word. The very sane Mr Salt:

''The age of a mother isn't the issue,'' said Mr Salt. ''But, my observation of women having children later, is how they absolutely want and love and adore those children… as long as a child is yearned for, loved, adored, provisioned for, parents' age, sexual orientation, income, ethnicity, race - none of that matters.''

NCEA and other stuff

Apparently secondary school teachers are to get two more 'teacher only' days next year to cope with the NCEA workload. They already get quite a few. Or that's how it seems when you have a child in the system.

How good is a regime that requires more and more administration and delivers less teaching and learning? And are there any fans of NCEA out there?



A Waikato Times editorial suggests that 'beneficiary bashing' is the next most popular sport to rugby. It recommends venues to play and tools to use. Dripping with sarcasm of course. Charming.

As a prime critic of the welfare system it jars to be characterised as ignorant and indifferent but not enough to make me stop.



Yesterday I blogged about the outgoing MSD boss affirming that benefits are not best for children. Today a WINZ regional commissioner is saying, "We all know from the research that is being done that people are better off when they are not on benefits."

This statement seems commonsense and obvious but it is a substantial shift for a government department to publicly get in behind the ethos of the presiding government.

MSD boss admits benefits not best for kids

The outgoing chief executive of the Ministry of Social Development has at last acknowledged the findings of research conducted almost ten years ago. This is a welcome but long overdue admission.

Peter Hughes yesterday told a Wellington newspaper, 'We know that for the same level of income, kids do better where that income's derived from paid work.' He is referring to his own department's research that appeared in the Social Policy Journal of June 2002 but was never widely publicised. The findings would suggest that policy should aim to both reduce the number of children reliant on welfare and prevent more coming into the system. None of which happened under Mr Hughes' stewardship. The findings, and Hughes' belated admission, have implications for the many groups who oppose work-testing of the DPB and advocate a parent's right to stay on a benefit unconditionally.

Hughes also described how 'people get stuck [in the system] and they need help to get out' and characterised the welfare system as 'very passive for a long time'. Whether he believes the system has become less passive under his watch is unclear. While numbers on the unemployment benefit plummeted during the early to mid- 2000s, numbers on other benefits have risen or remained fairly static.

It is a great shame that the outgoing CE has waited until now to make these observations. And that senior public servants seem unable to draw public attention to matters of considerable national importance to the country within the boundaries of an apolitical civil service.

Question about the murder rate

Never one to take things at face value something I notice about the large drop in recorded murders is this;

Going back two years to the 2008/09 year there were 88 homicides which compares to 93 in the latest year.

In 2008/09 manslaughter and driving causing death acccounted for 12 of the homicides. In the latest year that almost trebled to 35.

In 2008/09 murder accounted for 54 of the homicides. In the latest year that dropped to only 34.

The increase/decrease is a very similar margin.

How much of the drop in murder rate is due to the charge laid and conviction determined?

Greens finding fault with National's resourcefulness

Over on FrogBlog Meteria Turei is bemoaning National's move to loosen up regulation out-of-school care.

Social Development Minister Paula Bennett has realised that if you’re going to work-test sole parents and force them into low-paid jobs when their children are six (or younger), someone’s going to have to look after the kids.

So she’s announced an extra $2.8 million for out of school care programmes, while lowering the standards for those programmes so they can fit more kids in without having to worry about “ticking boxes.”

Quality out of school care is critically important for many parents balancing full or part-time work with child rearing, and more funding for the sector is certainly welcome. However, I’m pretty concerned at the moves to reduce standards at the same time.

As a parent, it can be incredibly hard to leave your kids with carers – even the most trustworthy and able carers – without feeling stressed, anxious, or guilty. You want to be certain that your kids are safe and well looked after, and it helps if they’re with carers who will get to know them as individuals.

My comment is awaiting moderation:

"If the work-tested sole parent you refer to was themselves employed in before and after schoolcare – say 4 hours a day for 5 days a week – that would fulfil the part-time work-test. In the process they would be providing care for their own and other children. What’s wrong with that?"

Benefits and costs of a GMI

At the request of the Welfare Working Group Treasury produced a paper about a GMI (Gauranteed Minimum Income - not Gareth Morgan's Indulgence). Here is the table summarising benefits and costs:



Clearly the costs outweigh the benefits. But no doubt we will be treated to another sales pitch for Morgan's Big Kahuna in this week's NZ Herald.

GM announces new car

(Arrived in my inbox from South America)

Terry Serepisos - just like government

There seems to be a recurring theme for me this week. Extravagance with other people's money. Terry Serepisos is one example. He owed millions to people who have taken him on trust; paid for materials to do work for him; paid wages for people to do work for him; taken on their own debt waiting for him to pay up. It struck in the middle of the night, worrying about monies owed to me, I may be a victim of his foolhardiness myself as a downstream domino.

People laud him for the Phoenix but he was spending money and building debt. He is really no better than governments using tax and ratepayers money for things they don't need and don't want.

For instance, my local government, the Hutt City Coucil, is an assinine spenthrift. There are signs going up all over the place (not signs of belt-tightening either).

In our street there are six Norfolk pines. They have been designated 'protected trees'. Fine. But every single one has to have its own sign (each a duplicate) to inform the public of their hallowed status among things with roots and leaves.

A nearby alleyway suddenly has a name with signs, at either end just in case you miss it.

Now these bloody blue signs are popping up everywhere telling us the name of our home. I thought I lived in Eastbourne but no, I live in Muritai. But some people who think they live in Eastbourne have it confirmed. Indeed they do live in Eastbourne.

Entering the bays an enormous sign has been erected with symbols I have yet to work out completely. One means swimming - not shit Sherlock. You can swim in the sea?
Another looks like a narrow bridge of which we have none. Maybe the knife and fork is a reminder to check your picnic implements are of the 'safe' variety.

All of it costs money that cannot be spent elswhere. I know that a number of local businesses are teetering on the brink. The lotto and confectionary shop closed two weeks ago. I am sure business owners and other residents regard this splurge of signage with the same bewilderment and anger as I do.

Spending other people's money in an unrestrained, devil-may-care manner is bad enough in a boom. In that respect I can comprehend Serepisos' activities. But not now and not the council. They are just kicking sand in our faces.

Perhaps I could fashion my own sign warning off sand-kickers. But it'll have to wait till I am back in the black.

Vernon Small poses a question about ACT

In today's DomPost Vernon Small asks whether John Key should continue to "hold out the lifeline to ACT" or:

"...would it be better in the long run (and more humane) to allow ACT and its damaged brand to die a quiet death? That may create room for a new liberal free market party to spring up on his right."

I have my own question.

I want Brash, but I don't want Banks. Do I want Brash more than I don't want Banks? If ACT polls like it did in 2005 that's what ACT will be. No good for me.

So I'll keep watching the polls and waiting for number three to be announced.