Homeless with $70K

This guy's problem isn't really unemployment - it's mental illness.

If he was able to think straight he'd have worked out that he could buy a small property in rural NZ, claim more in dole payments as a result, and get the taxpayer to pay his mortgage through the accommodation supplement. By 65 it'd be paid off and he'd be collecting Super. Having learned to live off the smell of an oily rag he'd then be able to save and travel on his Super as well as keep his house as his nest egg for "a rainy day."

May as well go down that track because the way he looks after himself - or fails to - he's not going to work again.

"Inequality: A New Zealand Crisis"

A new book about NZ's rising inequality is due to be published in May this year. It's by Wellington journalist Max Rashbrooke. He wrote an article for an international project known as Sustainable Governance Indicators (SGI) which is here. Gives you an idea of how the book will pan out.

In New Zealand, a widening gap between the rich and the rest threatens many of the country's greatest strengths, writes Max Rashbrooke, who argues for a new settlement of welfare...

New Zealand's recent history has been marked by an increasingly punitive approach towards beneficiaries, despite evidence of their strong work ethic and desire to fill jobs if they are available.

A more humane – and ultimately more productive – approach would be to invest in them as well, by increasing benefits to enable them to participate better in society, and by matching that with greater investment in personalised retraining and job placement programmes, in order to tackle the low skills that prevent many from rejoining the workforce. This could be funded by higher – and thus fairer – taxes on those who have done well while enjoying the benefits of our common investment in roads, healthcare, education and other public services.

(Hat-tip Gordon Campbell)

Beneficiary discrimination

I'm certain beneficiaries are discriminated against. But it isn't usually the state doing the discriminating because the law makes that almost impossible. It's employers, landlords, retailers, service providers etc discriminating.

But here's another angle to consider. Aren't beneficiaries sometimes discriminated in favour of?

Landlords who prioritise guaranteed rent payments may prefer someone receiving a rent subsidy every week. A secondhand goods dealer may prefer a beneficiary buyer who qualifies for a WINZ grant. A youth employer may prefer a young candidate who has been through one of Work and Income's training courses or mentored by a contracted organisation.

It's conceivable that some employers may even prefer to employ someone on a benefit because of their particular type of social conscience eg the beneficiary needs a job more than the already employed applicant.

Some beneficiaries have been able to jump public waiting lists for surgery to enable them to regain capacity to work. Beneficiaries with children will take priority on Housing NZ waiting lists.

And here's an uncomfortable but feasible stretch. Female beneficiaries in the market for a partner might find potential mates discriminate in their favour because they have a secure income and home (after a fashion).

There's always more ways to look at circumstances than the one stuck under your nose by a self-interested party.

ACT Conference 2013

I was sent a a book of columns by Jamie Whyte, who is guest speaker at ACT's conference in a couple of weeks. The first few columns (all I've read so far) are very entertaining. For instance, in The Good Life With David Cameron, published in the Wall St Journal, he questions the idea of using divorce statistics as a factor in the calculation of Gross National Happiness (the newfangled alternative to GDP) when his own divorce contributed to his  personal happiness. Ultimately, what business does government have trying to measure such things anyway? Along with economist Eric Crampton of the unusually sane Offsetting Behaviour blog, two very apt speakers for an ACT Conference:

Media Advisory

ACT’s Line of Speakers to the Annual Conference on Saturday 23 February at Gibbs Farm, Kaukapakapa

Keynote addresses:

Jamie Whyte - Head of Research and Publishing at the management consultancy firm Oliver Wyman, a fellow of the Institute of Economic Affairs and a senior fellow of the Adam Smith Institute.

Mr Whyte will speak at 12.05pm

Hon John Banks - Leader - ACT New Zealand,

Mr Banks’ Leader’s address is at 2.15pm

Hon John Boscawen - Incoming ACT President, Former ACT MP and Minister of Consumer Affairs

Mr Boscawen’s Presidential address is at 12.40pm


Other speakers:

Alan Gibbs - Businessman, Entrepreneur, Philanthropist
Cameron Brewer - Auckland Council member, Publicist
Greg Fleming - CEO, Maxim Institute
Hon Rodney Hide - Former ACT Leader, Economist and Founding Chairman of ACT
Catherine Isaac - Chair of the Partnership Schools / Kura Hourua Working Group
Dr Eric Crampton - Senior Economics Lecturer, Canterbury University

....any enquiries should go to info@act.org.nz. Or 09 523 0470.Lunch is provided in the rego price and there will be a shuttle leaving Newmarket to the Farm and return also. That will save people having to drive there if they don’t want to do that.

'Life' is a lie

Pardon my naivety but 'life' imprisonment sounds like a very long sentence. One that should encompass the remainder of one's life.

Gwenda Sloane has been sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of Michelle Hoffman-Tamm in Rotorua last November.
The judge has also imposed a minimum non-parole period of 17 years.

Many women could fit 5 such  'lives' into their natural term of existence.

AAAP on contraception for beneficiaries

The Auckland Action Against Poverty group is all mouth and ... no trousers:

Low MSD uptake figures confirm that the contraception programme instigated as part of National’s welfare reforms is all about stigmatising woman on benefits, rather than any genuine kind of support, says Auckland Action Against Poverty spokesperson Sarah Thompson.
“This policy is simply another weapon in the war against women on benefits, implemented as a way of garnering the beneficiary bashing vote in time for the next election.
“It's a deep irony that the outright misogyny of recent welfare reforms, including this one, has been lead by two women- Paula Bennett and Paula Rebstock.

Can we also have a companion press release calling the offer of free vasectomies to male beneficiaries "war against men on benefits" and "misandry"?

“This blaming and shaming tactic can be seen in other proposed policies which attempt to paint beneficiaries as drug users and criminals who don't care for their children."

Thousands of beneficiaries are drug users and criminals. Whether they care for their children, who knows. And whether their idea of 'care' is the same as my idea of care is another point to ponder.

Is inequality growing?

Depends over which period you measure it.
 

Treasury fudges numbers to hide growing inequality

Published: February 1, 2013

The Greens are complaining that Treasury is misleading us about NZ's comparative inequality rating, intimating it is behaving like a "right wing think tank" - dishonestly they say.

(I've commented - in moderation currently - to the effect that recent trends show inequality reducing in NZ and linking to my sources)

NZ First endorses long term dependency on DPB

It's never been clear to me where NZ First stands on the DPB.  Here's an indication:

NZ First spokeswoman for social policy and welfare Asenati Lole-Taylor said ... "I'm one of those people who just don't accept that people can become statistics on the welfare system, knowing full well that they're capable of working. I object to the idea of the welfare system being seen as an easy way of accessing money... Anyone who's on a benefit for more than 15 years, who is not a solo mother with young kids ... it's just madness."

International Housing affordability - NZ rates a mention

I found the following from NCPA fascinating, especially that the US has the best housing affordability, so have cut and paste it for your interest:

The 9th Annual Demographia Housing Affordability Survey for New Geography rates housing markets based on the median multiple, which is median house price divided by pre-tax median household income. Affordable housing markets have a median multiple of 3.0, while severely unaffordable housing markets have a median multiple of 5.1 or over, says Wendell Cox, an adjunct scholar with the National Center for Policy Analysis and principal of Demographia, a public policy firm located in St. Louis.

• Hong Kong, Vancouver, Sydney, San Jose, San Francisco and London were the least affordable housing markets of the 337 metropolitan markets analyzed in the study. Each had a median multiple close to 8.0 or above.
• Detroit, Atlanta, Cincinnati, Rochester and St. Louis were the most affordable housing markets in the study. Each had a median multiple close to 2.0.

Of all the nations in the world, the United States has the most affordable or moderately unaffordable markets. The United States had an overall median multiple of 3.2, compared with 5.1 for the United Kingdom, 3.6 for Ireland, 13.5 for Hong Kong and 4.7 for Canada.

• Overall trends in the nine years the study has been conducted by the Performance Urban Planning organization indicate that housing affordability has risen most in the United States and Ireland.
• Australia and New Zealand have the most unaffordable major markets that have not shown any sign of improvement. Every major market has been severely unaffordable in every single year.

Empirical evidence suggests that urban containment policies, particularly urban growth boundaries, raise the price of housing relative to income. Cox notes that urban planning results in reduced standards of living, increasing poverty rates and lower discretionary income.
Cox says that urban policy needs to be reset. To make housing more affordable, cities and nations need to shift away from designing urban areas and instead let free market principles allocate land efficiently. With major demographic shifts underway in most nations, access to affordable housing will play a large role in the duration and quality of life of each nation's people.


Source: Wendell Cox, "Demographic and Economic Challenges: The 9th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey," New Geography, January 21, 2013.

Banks' response to PM's 2013 opener

This isn't a bad message - shame about the messenger.

What would your response have been as the single ACT MP holding a ministerial position?

In three sentences, mine:

Direction passable.

Speed not.

Acceleration barely discernible.

Child sponsorship in New Zealand

Variety has started up a scheme for New Zealanders to sponsor a New Zealand child. The money involved is the same as international sponsorship - $35 monthly.

I'm not going to write in criticism of the scheme. It's charitable and voluntary. Whether the need being met could be sorted differently, or whether meeting the need will just grow more of it are issues for consideration. But assuming donors have thought through these it's their prerogative to give.

But this is what I want to point out.

Variety chief executive Lorraine Taylor said donors could write to their sponsored child, receive regular updates about their health and wellbeing, and were provided with a breakdown at the end of the year detailing where their money went.

This is exactly why private charity trumps state aid. The charity has to be accountable, which in turn means the person receiving the donation has to be accountable. Real progress can be made.

So why not apply these principles to government assistance? Heavens no. Imagine the administrative costs, the invasion of privacy,  and the denial of human rights!

Imagine government having to report on the health and well-being of every individual child on a benefit. Some of the reports would be deeply disappointing and deeply disturbing. The donor would immediately withdraw or turn to a different charity with a better track record.

Oh but I forget. We are taxpayers, not willing donors. We must put up and shut up.


(Update. The Greens say, "We shouldn't need to sponsor kids in NZ". Their variety of caring and sharing must be monopolised by the state.)

Damien Grant on child poverty

Damien Grant has written a very unusual column in today's NZ Herald. I don't really follow the logic but was engaged nevertheless. Let's see if I can paraphrase, making some sense of it in the process.

First he says child poverty doesn't exist in NZ. Not by the UN definition. And the NZ definition is  a silly invention, based on the latest Children's Commissioner report.

Then he leaps to poor African children saying he'd rather spend any available money he had upgrading his cellphone than sending it to them. Hence he doesn't care and neither do many others (unless they are sponsoring a child to massage their own ego.)

So if we don't even care about real child poverty in Africa why should we care about invented child poverty in NZ?

Then he ends with an after thought about the office of the Children's Commissioner being abolished.

Um. Well, I agree with some of sentiments, especially the last. But comparing Africa and NZ doesn't work for me.

We've sponsored children for longer than we've had our own. But their photo is not on our $2,000 fridge. Frankly I find the idea of being some sort of phantom parent onerous and worry when World Vision sends cards for you to write a little message to your assigned child. Personally I think it's pointless but do it because I'm concerned that other sponsored children will get messages and photos, and mine will feel left out if they don't. The reason we sponsor World Vision is because we believe in the work they do in making communities self-sufficient or more self-sufficient.

But child poverty in NZ is an entirely different kettle of fish. Here we hand out fish instead of fishing rods. Trite. I know.

My views on how welfare has created child poverty have been well and truly canvassed so no more to say there. But instead of simply not caring we need to be saying to idiots like the Children's Commissioner, I care about the problem (neglect, under-achievement, avoidable ill-health for instance) but I don't give a fig for your diagnosis or solution.

I don't know where I fit into Damien Grant's world.

DomPost on drug test bill "unfairness"

The DomPost editorial this morning claims an "inherent unfairness in drug test bill."

It does so on the assumption that employers with jobs that don't have "obvious health and safety implications" may require a beneficiary to pass a test. Therefore beneficiaries will be subject to an "invasive and deeply personal procedure that most people in the workforce never have to face."

I think the writer is being over-imaginative.

The Ministry of Labour advises:

"If an employment agreement gives an employer the right to require employees to undergo drug testing then, provided the provision in the agreement is reasonable and does not contravene the protections contained in any relevant laws, it is more likely that the employer will be able to require drug testing. Similarly, it will be difficult for an employer to introduce drug testing if that right is not contained in the relevant employment agreement, unless the employee gives the employer informed consent."

Beneficiaries will be covered by the same laws.

Those opposed to welfare reform or National in general are trying very hard to find fault with the legislation aimed at stopping people using drugs to avoid work.

The other problem the new law addresses is the employer bias against beneficiaries who they consider, from experience, won't be drug free, so won't even interview them or list jobs with WINZ. In the past, when employers have drug-tested beneficiaries they carried the cost, pass or fail. Now the cost of a failed test will fall on the beneficiary.

But it should be made clear in the legislation that drug tests can only be required when they are standard practice for that employer.

Peters says Maori do better when all NZers treated equally

Winston Peters went to Ratana and had a go at the Mana and Maori Parties.

Speaking to Ratana elders at the Ratana celebrations today, the New Zealand First leader said it was unsightly and unseemly to watch the four locked in a power struggle while ordinary people are struggling with issues such unemployment, serious health problems, education and housing.

“They have the warped view that Maori will only progress if they have a separate system for everything whereas history shows the most progress has been made while all New Zealanders receive fair and equal treatment.”

I don't know if he has the evidence to substantiate this claim but I am sure it's true. And I'm even more sure it's the only way Maori will progress in the future.

$13 billion on working-age welfare

Here's a useful sort of chart which unusually includes WFF in working-age welfare spending. It's from a January 2013 draft Treasury paper:
 

Employ force if you have to

Hone Harawira has a bill due to go to select committee that legislates for the state to provide breakfasts in all decile 1 and 2 schools.

In their typically co-ordinated efforts the child poverty political activists all issued supportive media releases yesterday.

The Auckland Action Against Poverty had this to say:

“As the Bill recommends, the provision of this food shouldn't be left to charity but should be taxpayer funded - this will ensure greater access country-wide and decrease the dependance on the whims and follies of individual charities and businesses"

So charities and businesses have whims and follies, but government provides surety.

That's because government uses force. Government can force you and me to pay for school breakfasts whether we want to or not. Charities and businesses have to persuade us that it's a good idea.

And AAAP want to "decrease dependence" on willingness and increase dependence on force.

Note too the disdain with which AAAP regards the private sector. Whims (sudden fancies) and follies (foolish actions or ideas). Make no mistake, the child poverty activists are socialists and anti-capitalists through and through. If their bottom line was easing child poverty they'd be appreciating and applauding help wherever it came from.

Finally, by using children as the object of their forced redistributionist campaigns they make it extremely difficult for people to oppose them.

Goodbye Gareth

I'm not giving Gareth Morgan's latest publicity grasp any air. He has progressively pissed me off over the past couple of years with his steady transformation into a redistributionist, statist, sometimes nasty non-respecter of property or individual rights, smug know-it-all.

There is a better way to register my disapproval than writing about it.

This was a welcome arrival in our letterbox today:

PS I realise that GM no longer owns the scheme. But demonstrating against the commercial usefulness of his name is still worth the effort.

Today it's Jacinda Ardern

Every day of late I am having to write posts correcting misinformation put about by journalists. For a change, today it's a politician. Jacinda Ardern  has sprung to life with a very weak criticism of Bill English containing this emotive assertion (she must have been reading the NZ Herald):

"In the meantime the number of young Kiwis not in education, work or training continues to soar."

Here are the NEET (Not in Employment, Education or Training) rates for 18-24 year-olds for the last 9 quarters ending with September 2012:

 

12.9
13.2
14.3
12.8
12.4
13.1
13.5
13.1
13.4

Any line that plotted those percentages couldn't possibly be honestly described as "continuing to soar".

I don't rate Ardern. This isn't the first time I've pointed out her incompetence. Labour needs to get a better spokesperson into that job for what could be National's most vulnerable portfolio this year. Then again, have they got anyone more capable?

NZ Herald misleads again

Last week I posted about the NZ Herald getting it wrong on youth unemployment. Today it misrepresents welfare reforms currently at select committee:

The bill also requires jobseekers to be drug-free, and requires beneficiaries with children to immunise them and have toddlers enrolled in early childhood education.

Not quite. The Bill actually says:

Changes in this Bill give effect to the Government’s manifesto commitment to introduce pre-employment drug testing requirements for beneficiaries. The requirements will apply where undertaking and passing a pre-employment drug test is required as part of a job application, or as part of a training programme to which beneficiaries  are referred by Work and Income.....Beneficiaries will not be referred to jobs with pre-employment drug tests if they are dependent on drugs or undergoing drug treatment. Sanctioning these people for their drug use would be ineffective, as sanctions are about changing behaviour, but those dependent on drugs are generally unable to change their behaviour without support.  Instead, people addicted to or dependent on drugs will be offered support to deal with their addiction.

 The reality is only a minority, probably quite small, of jobseekers will be required to be "drug-free".


And on the matter of immunisation which cannot be administered without parental/caregiver consent, the legislation will,

  ....require beneficiary  parents to take all reasonable steps to have their dependent child:
•        aged 3 years or over, enrolled in and attending early childhood education until they start school; and
•        enrolled in and attending school from age of 5 (or 6) years depending on when the child first  starts school; and
•        enrolled with a primary health care provider; and
•        up-to-date with the core Well Child checks.

The reality here is that a beneficiary parent can refuse to have his or her child or children immunised in the same way as any other parent.

Legal expertise required

Regarding the matter of beneficiaries adding children to an existing benefit, legislation currently before select committee states,

Where a sole parent has a subsequent child on benefit, their
work expectations will be deferred for 12 months and will resume
based on the age of the previous youngest dependent child.

 Further into the bill (pg 16) the following appears:

Beneficiaries   having additional
dependent child:  exempting people
resident in certain overseas countries, and
eligibility for sole parent support


.....The third amendment inserts a new section 60GAE(3A), which varies section 60GAE(2) as applied to a determination of a specified kind of beneficiary’ s eligibility for sole parent support. The variation re-quires an additional dependent child of the beneficiary not to be included in the determination not merely once that child is aged 1 year old or over, but instead at all times after that child is born.

Am I correct in interpreting this as meaning at discretion Work and Income can decide not to include a newborn when assessing eligibility for benefit type? So if a sole parent beneficiary has been assessed eligible for Jobseeker Support, and is being work-tested accordingly, the birth of another baby will not change that?

It's complicated and requires reading of the section from pg 16-17