Regarding Labour's US-style 'primary'

Over the years, more than once, the suggestion has been made that ACT's US-style 'primary' of 2004 destroyed it, albeit the subsequent death was protracted and the party still clings to life by a thread. Even as a mere spectator with a vote I found the process unsettling with torn loyalties and developing rifts. Public Address reported at the time:

 The lid seems finally to be coming off the Act party’s leadership “primary” election, with Stephen Franks use of his Unfranked email newsletter to issue an “urgent appeal for help in defeating the frontrunner, Rodney Hide.

Nobody has ever expressed a positive opinion about the process that I'm aware of. And though I'm only surmising, the ill-feelings and neuroses engendered by the battle festered thereafter. Hide and Franks were both worthy contenders, but my sense is they didn't trust each other and their politics were not necessarily aligned. The vote was probably split along similar lines: the social liberal vs the social conservative - loosely. Members who wanted Franks were bound to be bitterly disappointed and vice versa (though I could have lived with Franks as leader.)

That's all in the past but it's worth remembering as we watch Labour embark on its own primary. Three weeks gives too much time for divisions to form, for expectations to lift, for hopes to rise  and ensuing disappointments to cause lasting fall-out.

The jungle drummers have been trying to beat a tune out this week that Key must be very afraid. That he knew what he had with Shearer as contender next year. Cunliffe or even Robertson could be a whole different kettle of fish.

Personally I doubt he's overly bothered. This match is just another public display of the instability within the Labour ranks which highlights how strong his own team management has been.

In a vague way the celebratory mood and behaviour amongst Labour members currently, as they drop Shearer and look for another messiah,  reminds me of the Egyptians wildly celebrating the overthrow of President Mohhamed Morsi a few weeks back. Look what's happened since.

More battles being won to the end to the war on drugs

This article  contains good news and is well worth the read for those against the war on drugs:

Is it the thin end of the wedge for a policy shift in America's war on drugs? The announcement last week by Attorney General Eric Holder that his office will abandon mandatory minimum sentences for some low-level drug offenders signals not only a rethink towards "unsustainable" incarceration policies but a wider reappraisal of entrenched drug policy.
"We must face the reality that, as it stands, our system is, in too many ways, broken," Holder said. "And with an outsized, unnecessarily large prison population, we need to ensure that incarceration is used to punish, to deter and to rehabilitate - not merely to warehouse and to forget."

Two murders

Jackson St, Petone has become increasingly gentrified with many more apartments and boutique shops.

But down the east end isn't a particularly pleasant place. That's probably where last night's murder occurred - the second this year. Pure speculation on my part mind you.

Murders don't make headlines any more. And I think it's because many people think the victim is probably as bad as the offender.  In fact if one gang member kills another some say "good job".

At this point I'd like to say something humane. Human life is human life. The victim was once an innocent child. The victim is possibly still innocent. Something to that effect.

But what I am actually thinking is, if you lie down with dogs...

I abhor violence. But it excites many. These are the inevitable results.

Unintended consequences and crystal balls

In NZ the de-institutionalisation of mentally ill people happened through the late 1980s and into the 1990s. I'm certain that the thinking behind this development was well-intended and not purely economic. There was a conviction that being out in the community was kinder and better for them. And it may be for some. But not all.

Imagine if the powers-that-be could look into a crystal ball and see the consequences  of their good ideas.

The following is a UK initiative but I have no doubt a similar programme would be warranted here: mental health nurses routinely accompanying  police to attend to emergencies.

It's an eminently sensible idea but it's sad to see mentally unwell people reach the point where they come to the attention of the police. That they become a danger to themselves and others. The incidence is obviously reasonably common in the UK and statistics relating to the mental health of our prison population would suggest similarities with British society.

It seems that some at-risk people are left in or to the community until they reach the point where they end up in a far worse institution than hospital or residential care home.

As part of the scheme, mental health nurses will:

• Support police officers while they are out on patrol
  
• Assist officers when they are responding to emergency calls
  
• Give advice to staff in police control rooms
  

The five new police forces that the Department of Health will be working with are:

• Metropolitan Police
  
• British Transport Police
  
• West Yorkshire Police
  
• West Midlands Police
  
• Thames Valley Police
  

In launching these new pilot sites, Care and Support Minister Norman Lamb said:

Making sure people with mental health problems get the right assessment, care and treatment they need as quickly as possible is really important, especially in emergency situations.
We know that some police forces are already doing an extremely good job of handling circumstances involving mentally ill people but we want this to be the reality everywhere. By providing police forces with the support of health professionals we can give officers the skills they need to treat vulnerable people appropriately in times of crisis.

Child safety takes precedence over whanau-first

It doesn't always make sense to me how Ministers manage news releases. Here's the latest from Paula Bennett. It kicks off with another innovative idea:

KiwiSaver for kids in care

Social Development Minister Paula Bennett has announced measures to better support children as they move out of State care and into independence.
“While on my U.S Eisenhower fellowship, I was impressed with savings accounts set up for children in care and saw an opportunity with KiwiSaver.”
“New Zealand children in care generally don’t have family who can sign them up to Kiwisaver, but being enrolled will help them later in life and send a message that their future matters,” says Mrs Bennett.



But the most important message appears at the end of the press release:

The Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act will be amended to clarify the intended prominence of section 13(a) that children must be protected from harm, their rights upheld and their welfare promoted.
In his 2010 report into the serious abuse of a nine year old girl, Mel Smith noted section 5 of the CYPF Act (which says where possible the relationship to family should be maintained) often takes precedence over section 13.
“Mel Smith said this is possibly to the detriment of the safety, welfare and interests of the child, so I think we need to strengthen the core purpose of the Act which is to put the needs of the child first,” says Mrs Bennett.

Let me put it simply.

Child safety takes precedence over whanau-first.

Welfare in the US today - two views

A just-released report from Cato, who have been responsible for much of the welfare analysis that led to the eventual 1996 reforms finds:

The current welfare system provides such a high level of benefits that it acts as a disincentive for work. Welfare currently pays more than a minimum-wage job in 35 states, even after accounting for the Earned Income Tax Credit, and in 13 states it pays more than $15 per hour. If Congress and state legislatures are serious about reducing welfare dependence and rewarding work, they should consider strengthening welfare work requirements, removing exemptions, and narrowing the definition of work. Moreover, states should consider ways to shrink the gap between the value of welfare and work by reducing current benefit levels and tightening eligibility requirements.

Then the World Socialist Website talks to an associate Professor from University of Michigan about the extreme poverty amongst those with the lowest incomes:

Really, I think our interests stemmed at the start from the 1996 Welfare Reform that got rid of this cash assistance entitlement program which, for all of its faults, was an entitlement program that if you fell below a certain income, you could rely on it. They replaced it with this program, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), which has all these restrictions. It requires work, and as a result of that, our cash assistance caseloads plummeted in the US to the extent to which there’s only about 1.5 percent of the entire US that gets a cash check for being poor, which is I think far less than a lot of people think.
Now, we’ve actually expanded a lot of other benefits. We have the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), which is much larger than our cash assistance program ever was. We spend about $60 billion on it, but those benefits are actually targeted towards families who are working. So if you are just above the poverty line and have a minimum wage job, the federal government supplements your income to a greater extent than it ever did before. But if you are on really hard times, have ever been in a long period of unemployment, or you have multiple barriers to work like substance abuse problems or some sort of mental health problems, if you’re at the very bottom, the federal government actually does less for you in terms of cash support than ever before.

The two views aren't mutually exclusive.

The US (in general) is spending more on welfare, but handing out less cash.


That's what our government is doing with the Youth package. Youth and young parents get the same basic benefit, less cash in the hand but can earn more. I expect the government will extend the income management process to other beneficiaries progressively.

(And our In Work Tax Credit is similar to the US Earned Income Tax Credit.)

Welfare versus tax debt

Victoria University last week published research which compared tax debt to welfare debt and concluded that,

“The more punitive approach to managing the debts of welfare recipients appears to reflect the underlying view of those on welfare as less deserving, while taxpayers—even those who do not pay their taxes—are viewed as providing a greater contribution to society and therefore worthy of preferential treatment.”

To compare the two things is silly.

Officially,

People owe money to the Ministry primarily as a result of overpayments or payments of recoverable assistance loans. (OIA correspondence 2008)

Last time I asked the question, just over half of all beneficiaries were in debt to the Ministry so it's fairly common.

If I get a loan from the bank I expect they will want it back. If the bank makes an error in my favour I expect when they pick it up they will want to recover the money. Perhaps a better comparison to welfare debt would have been debt to another public enterprise - Kiwibank. Would Associate Professor Marriot describe efficient management of that debt as 'punitive'?

Tax debt is the result of unpaid taxes as determined by the IRD. It is not primarily the result of borrowing or the IRD having given you too big a refund and asking for it back. 
Additionally the size of it can be substantially inflated by interest and penalties, which isn't going to happen with welfare debt.

It might be argued that as welfare debt or recoverable assistance does not incur interest it's the beneficiary who is receiving preferential treatment.

Over-reacting to earthquakes

When did this culture of over-reacting to earthquakes start?

Wellington city went crazy yesterday with people pouring out post-quake despite there being no substantial damage. At the other extreme, the school my teenage daughter attends in the city wouldn't let her leave unless a parent collected her, despite the buses running as normal. At least they were until people started driving into the city to collect those stranded by the cancellation of all train services  (there was no damage to tracks either which surely could have been ascertained fairly quickly).

I left home at 3.20 and eventually met her at Dixon St at 5pm. The roads were grid-locked. It took me back to sitting at lights through many change-phases unable to go anywhere having driven in inner London for 5 years. Streets were awash with people going nowhere, along with the traffic.

Some precaution is reasonable but this over-reaction was nonsensical. The quickest way to get out of a city, if indeed the action is warranted, is not to force thousands to pour in to collect friends and family.

It wouldn't have happened in the past.

(And I see Trentham races have been cancelled today purely as a 'precautionary' measure and wonder about the economic cost.)

To work or not to work - what is the government trying to incentivise?

This is intriguing.

Below are the rates for the Youth Parent Payment:

Category		Net	Gross
Sole parent, 16 to 17 years, living with or supported by parents who earn less than the Family Tax Credit threshold		$137.47	$153.60
Married, civil union or de facto couple (with children)	Total	$343.68	$384.00
	Each	$171.84	$192.00
Sole parent		$295.37	$335.18
Hospital rate		$42.64	$47.64

$295.37 is exactly the same as Sole Parent Support.

Regarding the YPP, the Minister asked for an abatement free threshold of $203.15 per week (before tax) here. That was implemented according to the Youth Service website.

But someone on the Sole Parent Support benefit has an abatement free threshold of only $100. According to WINZ:

 You can get up to $5,200 a year (before tax) in additional money (for example from working) before your benefit payment is affected, and $20 more a week if you have childcare costs.

This puts the YPP beneficiary at a distinct financial advantage and I am trying to understand the thinking behind it. Back to the cabinet paper:

I'm just not getting this.

The party you want to work less you allow to earn more and vice versa?

The more I learn about this new benefit, the more it baffles me. The Minister has aligned the abatement threshold with the student allowance. But the threshold applies whether or not the recipient is a student. With only a small in-hand allowance the parent is going to be incentivised to earn. That's good. Let's face it. A lot of these young people aren't interested in tertiary education.

But what happens when they turn 19 or 20? They start losing their benefit. Back to the old problem of 'it's not worth working.' Most will still have children young enough that they won't have to either.

Wouldn't you love to be a fly on the wall during some of the discussions surrounding these reforms?

Once governments begin intervening there is no end to it. And the more they intervene, the more contradictions and inconsistencies abound.

90 percent of teenage parents on welfare haven't met obligations

From August 20, 2012 teenage parents requiring financial assistance were put on the Young Parent Payment (YPP).

At the end of March 2013 there were 1,346 YPP recipients.

56 percent were Maori.

6 percent were male.

87 percent were living in the North Island.

Each YPP recipient has a Youth Service provider who manages their benefit. Up to $50 a week is paid as a personal allowance.  This is a relatively small amount of cash compared to the previous system whereby the beneficiary would receive all of their benefit in cash.

The parent can earn up to $200 weekly without it affecting their benefit however.

As well, they can earn incentive payments to increase their weekly benefit.

For the sake of clarity the following is the OIA information MSD provided:

Parenting incentive payment

A young person can earn the parenting incentive payment after three months of engaging with a service provider if:

- they are receiving the Young Parent Payment
- they have participated in and completed a parenting education programme
- their dependent child/ren are enrolled with a primary health organisation
- their dependent child/ren aged 5 years or under are up-to-date with their Well Child/Tamariki Ora checks
- their child/ren under 5 years attends an approved early childhood education programme or is placed in other suitable childcare while the young person is in education, training, work-based learning or part-time work.

This poses the question, do they need to meet all these requirements to get the incentive payment? Here's the information provided at the youth service website:

Incentives

You can get a further $10 a week if you meet all your parenting requirements and have regular talks with your Youth Service provider for three months. Once you are getting the extra payments you need to keep up the good work. You will lose the incentive payments if you don’t.

So all requirements must be met. (There are two other distinct incentives as well - Education and Budgeting.)

At the end of March only 139 people on the YPP were receiving incentive payments. One in ten.

Interpreted another way, 90 percent of teenage parents receiving YPP are not meeting basic parenting obligations.

Additionally, I understood these obligations had to be met to avoid sanctions. Here's the youth service advice:

Parenting

To help you as a parent, you have to complete a parenting course. Your Youth Service provider will find a suitable course for you.
It is important that your child can get medical care when they need it so you have to enrol them at a Primary Health Organisation medical centre or doctor.
You also have to register your child (or children) under five with a Well Child provider, like Plunket, and make sure they have regular check-ups with this provider until they are five years old.
While you are in education, training or doing part time work your child has to go to an early childhood education programme or be in suitable childcare.

 

What happens if you don’t meet your obligations?

The first and second time you don’t meet your obligations your weekly allowance will be suspended and any extra incentive payments you have earned will be stopped. You have four weeks to put it right. If you still have not done what is required your ongoing access to the Young Parent Payment will be looked at.

Which leads to a further question (as my OIA requests inevitably do). How many people on YPP have been sanctioned?

(If you are wondering why my data is months old, I requested it on 26 April 2013 and finally received a reply on 12 August, 2013).

DPB and child conduct disorder

MSD has just released research findings into the Incredible Years pilot programme which works with the parents of children with  conduct problems.


The recruited population was not large (166) but it's interesting to note that in regard to parental income, 34 pecrent of the parents/caregivers relied on the domestic purposes benefit.

How does that compare to the general population of parents with dependent children?

The NZ Income Survey showed that in June 2012 there were 585,500 households with dependent children. At the same time, around 100,000 people received income from the DPB. I accept in some cases two recipients could share a household, but roughly speaking 17 percent of parents with dependent children rely on the DPB. Yet of the children with conduct disorder, 34 percent had a parent on the DPB.

Being utterly unscientific one might conclude that children on the DPB are twice as likely to have conduct problems. Doesn't sound unreasonable.

Anyway the good news is the programme made a positive difference for both Maori and non-Maori parents and children.

Turei and Turia on the removal of Maori children by the state

According to the NZ Herald today Metiria Turei and Tariana Turia are back on the old issue of Maori children and Maori responsibility. They want whanau, iwi and hapu to have more input into the decision to remove a child from its home. My instinctive response is whanau, iwi and hapu should have had more input before the removal of the child.

Extra iwi oversight is needed over new, permanent out-of-family placements for Maori children who are three times as likely to be removed from their families as non-Maori, the Green Party says.
Social Development Minister Paula Bennett yesterday unveiled new laws that would prevent some parents from having access to any future children and would see more children permanently taken away from their families.
Green Party co-leader Metiria Turei said extra care is needed to ensure Maori children are genuinely better off in the state's care.
Ms Turei's comments echo those of Maori Party co-leader Tariana Turia, that the State was too quick to take Maori children away from their families and extended communities.
Ministry of Social Development statistics show about 4000 children - about half of whom are Maori - are in out-of-home placements.
Maori children make up about 25 per cent of the child population in New Zealand, so are three times as likely as non-Maori to be in out of home care, Ms Turei said.

Maori children make-up 21 percent  of the child population actually but in any event the size of the population has nothing to do with the greater likelihood they will be put into out of home care. The reason they are more likely to be removed by the state is that Maori children are more likely to be abused or neglected. There's no other way to cut it.

"Of course, Child Youth and Family must act to protect Maori children, and all Kiwi kids, when they are in danger.
"But given the huge over-representation of Maori children in the state's care, whanau, iwi and hapu must have additional guarantees they'll be involved in any decision to remove a child from their home.
"The prospect of more Maori children being raised in strangers' homes is hugely concerning," she said.

The alternative is perhaps worse?

Ms Turia said she'd recently returned from Australia where politicians there are strongly promoting the adoption of Aboriginal children, resulting in more being removed from their homes.

Frankly I hope we get to that option in this country. Adoption is no cure-all and brings with it a new set of possible problems. But it's still a better idea than leaving a child in a situation of serious risk, or moving them around from placement to placement.

"All the experts here say that by addressing poverty, we'd remove a huge stressor on families that is connected to increased rates of child maltreatment and neglect."

Always back to the collective, political, failed solution.

New political party

Under Public Notices in today's DomPost the Electoral Commission advised the application  for approval of the logo representing a new political party called THRIVE.

I've just googled them. A techno-based party which, as yet, stands for nothing.

John Minto on child abuse

John Minto says that Labour needs "a kick up the backside" for not pushing the message that poverty is the "key factor" behind child abuse.

He says there are NEVER any excuses for child abuse but there are REASONS behind it.

Unfortunately reasons becomes excuses very easily.

Can I take you back to just a couple of things that people like John Minto ignore.

Child abuse rates are not high amongst all groups with high poverty rates. In fact they are lower amongst poor Asians.

Household incomes of Maori and Pacific families are growing faster than the median, yet the rate of Maori child abuse is not declining.

And there's another thing that leftists frequently claim. That abuse happens right across society. It isn't just the poor. That's another inconsistency then.

But Minto is angry with Labour for understanding the issue better than he does. He writes:

But the most pathetic aspect of the announcement was the reaction of the Labour Party.

Fresh from the 1980s Labour’s Social Development spokesperson Annette King never mentioned poverty or the causes of child abuse. Here’s how she was report by Fairfax:

'Labour’s acting Social Development spokesperson Annette King said all New Zealanders wanted to see child abuse stopped and National’s proposals provided the opportunity to look at the best ways to do that. “Let’s look at the evidence, hear the experts who work in the field, and let the public have their say. We need to hear the evidence and be assured the proposals will work.”

A number of the proposals were “worthwhile”, including legislating to make Government departments accountable for protecting children as well as screening and vetting processes for Government employees working with children.'

Whether or not I agree with Annette it was refreshing to hear a Labour spokesperson not opposing for the sake of it. If Jacinda Ardern had been available she'd have taken Minto's line no doubt. (And where is she by the way? Sidelined on this issue or out of the country?)

Child abuse - casting the net too wide?

When it comes to child abuse substantiations there is no publicly available information about the relationship between the abuser and abused. CYF must have it but don't release it.

I have assumed, possibly wrongly, that most abuse is perpetrated by the caregiver or other family member/friend.

The extent to which 'wider circle' people are involved in the abuse of the child is also unknown. Yet reforms announced today would suggest the bigger circle is a significant problem:

Screening and Vetting
We will introduce minimum standards for screening and vetting of every government worker in the children’s workforce.

This covers the core workforce, e.g. paediatricians, teachers, Child, Youth and Family social workers and children’s counsellors as well as the wider children’s workforce e.g. non-teaching staff, library reading group leaders and Work and Income case managers. All up, it’s more than 370,000 people.

Minimum standards for screening and vetting will identify potential abusers. It will include specific interview techniques, thorough reference and Police record checks as well as the history and behaviour of every one of those individuals. It’ll also mean checking with former employers and wider community members about any concerns relating to children.

This will be mandatory for all government agencies and any government-funded organisations working with children and voluntary for wider community organisations. Agencies will be required to do a thorough risk assessment with periodic reassessments every three years.

This kind of scrutiny is not only time-consuming and expensive, it gets people's backs up. They feel as though they are working in an environment that suspects first, and trusts second. I've undergone police checks in order to volunteer with families. While I didn't particularly object, the ensuing time delay in my getting started (months) could have seen me lose interest or pursue another activity.

 Children’s Workforce Restrictions
In conjunction with the changes outlined to screening and vetting we will introduce restrictions on people who have serious convictions, such as murder, manslaughter, sexual violation, assault on a child and sexual conduct with young people, stopping them entering the children’s workforce. There will be serious consequences if organisations fail to comply with these restrictions.

Not sure manslaughter should be on the list but anyway.... what is "the children's workforce"? Are private tutors, music teachers, gym coaches, nannies, babysitters, hairdressers, casual creche staff, school bus drivers, taxi drivers etc etc part of the "children's workforce"? They are often self-employed.

The other measure that looks unimpressive is:

Child Harm Prevention Orders
There are cases where children have been abused because a dangerous individual got close enough to do so, sometimes literally by moving into their home.

A High Court or District Court will be able to place these new civil orders on adults with a history of serious convictions who pose a high risk of abusing children. This could also include cases where it’s believed the person was responsible for the serious abuse or death of a child on the balance of probabilities. These orders can restrict people from living with children and going to places where children often are – like parks, and working or associating with children.

Like Protection Orders, these may be toothless when it comes to desperate people. Or colluding people. A woman can have a protection order taken against an abusive partner and then conveniently ignore it when the two have kissed and made up...until the next incident. I knew of a couple where the male had an order out against him so he rented a property three doors up. That way he could retain proximity to his son and partner (with her consent) without breaking the law.


BUT there's some good stuff in here too. Breaking down the prior privacy barriers between the main government departments and increasing accountability in the process (stopping buck-passing) is good. Giving the Family Court powers to increase the guardianship rights of adoptive parents is good.

And action rather than lip-service is good.

More gender inequalities

Statistics NZ has changed the tables that accompany the Household Labour Force .Survey. They've excluded the two that show 'employed' or 'none employed' by household type, (though they will be available after September at another location) and introduced replacement tables that show labour force status by earner, employer, self-employed or unpaid relative assistant. The tables are separated into gender.

This shows some interesting things.

Of employers, 29 percent are female.

Of the unpaid relatives assisting,  64 percent are female.

Of the self-employed, 34 percent are female.

Oh dear. More inequalities.

Care of elderly and the welfare state

The author of The Welfare State We're In is writing a new book. His latest post coincides with my earlier topic this week prompted by discussions on Radio Live about elder care:

What do you do about granny?

I have just finished the first draft of the chapter on care for the elderly for my new book. So here is a quiz question: what is the range -  among different European countries – of the percentage of women aged over 65 and without a partner/husband who are living with one of their adult children? When I have asked people this question, they have mostly been totally wrong about both ends of the range. The statistics are indeed extraordinary. Please have a guess. The answer is revealed later on.

The chapter was really difficult to write. First,  the subject is depressing. It is grim to come across figures showing how many people in residential care are clinically depressed and wish they were dead. It is sad to read of the loneliness. Second, it is tough or impossible to come up with a simple answer to fit all situations. There is so much variety in the condition and preferences of people over 65. But it does seem to me that many countries have been too eager to give up the family as a unit which can provide comfort and care to elderly parents. It is strange – but I think is true – that supposedly backward Greece, Portugal, Spain (and Italy) may have been right while  ‘advanced’ Denmark, the Netherlands and Sweden (and the EU which has encouraged institutional care) may have been wrong.

The answer: the range of percentages is from 3% in Denmark to 61% in Portugal (research report dated 2000). Quite an astonishing range, I think. It shows how the behaviour of people is strongly influenced by their welfare states. We should not assume that the cultures of these countries were always different with regard to the elderly. There is reason to believe that all cultures, including the Scandinavian,  used to look after their elderly parents. Now I am moving on to crime and civil behaviour. I would be grateful for any input or experience from any country about how these things are now or how they have changed in the past 30, 40 or more years.

For example: if you go to public buildings like a post office or hospital in your country, is there a sign warning you not to abuse the staff? But I would be delighted to hear about any other perceptions you may have about crime or behaviour or, indeed, how the concepts of virtue or duty are doing in your country.

And this country?

New Zealand "has previously reported high rates of residential aged care relative to other OECD countries."

(Actually it won't be about "Granny". It'll be about Mum or Dad. I don't know why it's so fraught. But I've yet to meet the harsh realities some face.)

Corporate welfare

I accept the government's tax subsidy to Rio Tinto is corporate welfare.

Corporate welfare is bad because it's privilege for some.

The only way to reduce corporate welfare is to reduce the size of government.

One effect of the subsidy is keeping Meridian Energy economically sound.

Selling off Meridian is just a small step towards downsizing government.

So I'm supporting this dose of corporate welfare as a means to a more important end....

I think....

I'm open to changing my mind.

Tamihere First?

New Zealand's small population makes politics particularly fertile ground for power-hungry egos. Combined with the incestuousness of MMP,  implications for the entire country may ride on past rejections,  and subsequent development of further destructive co-dependent relationships. That's kind of fitting. The story of many personal lives.

I don't know when the jungle drum started beating but its rhythm picked up tempo very quickly. Radio Live host, Sean Plunket must have kicked off the public conversation about JT (also Radio Live host) joining forces with Winston First this morning. Matthew Hooton continues in the NBR (based on the time and day attributed).

This coupling would be hugely significant. The votes they'd pull are NZ male - 'good blokes' -  who feel disenfranchised by feminism; homophobes; xenophobes; nationalists;  elder entitilitis addicts; women who swoon over handsome Maori men; AND plenty of good folk to boot.

Ex-politicians who want to return make me distrustful. In the current climate, the money isn't bad. Importantly, it's steady. Tamihere can argue his altruistic leanings, his vocation to improve the lives of Maori, but his return to parliament isn't necessary to further that cause.

Under National, a couple of really important developments should have progressed Tamihere's urban Maori authority endeavours - whanau ora and charter schools. These initiatives deliver power into Maori hands. Nothing Paula Bennett knows or says is any different to what Tamihere was saying as a Labour MP. However, she did cut off some Waipareira funding(? Not sure what the court resolution was in that battle.)

If the rumour that Tamihere is talking to Winston has substance, what is it that Tamihere wants that NZ First can give him?

Or is this whole episode about Radio Live making the news instead of reporting it?

The care of aged Maori

There are only 34,200 Maori aged 65 and older.

65+  34,200
75+  11,000
80+  5,000

In the total population  616,660 people are aged 65 plus.  160,000 are 80 plus.

So only 3 percent of 80 year-olds and older are Maori.

I was prompted to look up these figures - I knew they were low - on the back of a conversation Willie and JT had yesterday about Maori and care of the elderly. They were talking about how, in the past, their elderly were always cared for by the whanau whereas Pakeha put their old in rest homes (though this was changing).

A caller said she had seen research showing that by the 1980s this was no longer true. That rates of 'institutionalisation' were actually the same. In particular, elderly Maori were often committed to psychiatric units. I came across the following table in my hard copy of the 1994 NZ Yearbook. It shows high Maori rates of first admission in the younger population but not the 60+. These stats relate to first admissions though.

Table 7.21. RATES OF FIRST ADMISSION TO PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITALS*

Year	Ages							Total all ages
	0-9	10-19	20-29	30-39	40-49	50-59	60 and over
*Per 100 000 mean population. Year ended 31 December. Source: Health Information Service
1987—
Maori	15	170	393	253	117	103	51	180
Non-Maori	13	111	218	149	127	98	149	127
1988—
Maori	5	210	488	275	170	131	90	218
Non-Maori	10	108	222	159	127	103	151	129
1989—
Maori	12	179	444	260	153	91	92	197
Non-Maori	11	95	225	157	129	95	133	124
1990—
Maori	12	165	496	338	292	156	37	230
Non-Maori	7	88	240	213	165	140	136	142
1991—
Maori	4	168	470	318	197	91	93	208
Non-Maori	7	80	225	174	122	98	125	121

I've been trying to find historical data relating to residential care populations but drew a blank.

Relating to current numbers the Human Rights Commission produced this report:

 "During visits to aged care facilities the Commission was struck by the absence of Māori as residents. Conversations with providers suggest that residential care residents are predominantly female and Pakeha, although providers have noted increasing diversity in recent years. Data from the OPAL study (2008) based on Auckland figures, show that two percent of rest home residents were Māori, compared to 92.4 percent European and 4.5 percent Pacific Island. Of those in hospital level facilities, 2.6 percent were Māori, 89.1 percent European and 6.4 percent Pacific."

Those numbers are particularly low for Auckland and doubly interesting in light of the Pacific numbers.

So it would appear elderly Maori are disproportionately cared for in their own homes or their adult children's homes. That's a good disproportionality in my view.