But what about Super numbers?

Kiwiblog has a post up about the declining benefit numbers. He's analysed the drop in numbers since December 2010. I've left this comment:

Over the period you have chosen to analyse there were 31,000 fewer working age beneficiaries and I agree. that can only be good news (albeit the decrease may mainly involve short-term dependants and reflect economic conditions rather than welfare reforms. Hard to know now the longevity reporting has changed.) But there were 79,000 more superannuitants. When is National going to address this problem?

I don't see Super in the same light as a benefit for a number of reasons. However it's still a debit on government revenue which is growing every year, faster than any decrease in the working age welfare bill.

Eligibility for the very first Old Age pension was set at 65. It's madness to ignore how different 65 year-olds of today are.

Key's obstinence over this matter is one of his few electoral vulnerabilities.

17,000 fewer on benefits - welfare reform or economic conditions?

According to the Minister:

Latest benefit numbers reveal thousands of New Zealanders have gained financial independence by coming off welfare in the past 12 months, Social Development Minister Paula Bennett says. Figures for the December 2013 quarter released today show over 17,000 fewer people are on benefit compared to December 2012. “This is a significant decrease and proof that the welfare reforms implemented by this Government are making a huge difference for New Zealanders,” Mrs Bennett said.

Yet MSD says:

Main benefit numbers increased substantially between December 2008 and December 2012, though they have fallen from their peak in 2010. The main driver for this pattern has been changes in economic conditions.

I'm inclined to agree that economic conditions are the greater influence.

The categories of benefit changed in July 2013 and the earlier numbers have been adjusted accordingly. I'd like to see the chart go back further to ascertain whether the prior pattern also reflected the economy (in the absence of any meaningful reforms under Labour).

Further from Bennett:

“The decrease includes over 8,000 sole parents who have gone off the benefit, a 9.4 per cent drop compared to the same time last year,” Mrs Bennett says.
Welfare reforms included new obligations for sole parents to be ready and available for part-time work when their youngest child is school-age and full-time work when their youngest turns 14.
“This impressive drop is down to thousands of sole parents seeking a better future for them and their families through work, and also thanks to Work and Income case managers, who are doing a fantastic job offering better, more targeted support than ever before.”

Yes, sole parent beneficiary numbers have dropped by 9.4 percent, but they did this during the 2003-07 period too. So as much as I want the reforms to make a difference, it is probably too soon to tell.

Trends in proportion of the working-age population receiving Domestic Purposes Benefits at the end of December, between 2002 and 2012

Update:

HOWEVER there is one factor that would lend support to the Minister's claim which she should probably be drawing attention to.

The number of people who are long-term dependants (over 1 year by this government's definition) has fallen as a percentage of all beneficiaries. At December 2012 the percentage was 70.5% ; at December 2013 the figure was 69.4%. (Those numbers relate only to the current benefit spell). In real terms between Dec 2012 and Dec 2013 there were 15,755 fewer long-term beneficiaries but only 1,471 fewer short-term beneficiaries.

I've also looked at Sept quarter figures because the Dec figures are distorted by an influx of students.

Sept 2012 74.4%
Sept 2013 73.7%

But I'd like to see data relating to those dependent for 4 or more years but those stats are no longer provided.

The truth about welfare dependence and what the Left denied

The graph below, from the latest Taylor Fry valuation of beneficiary liability, shows the age of entry into the benefit system for those beneficiaries aged 30-39 at June 2013. For a long time I tried to get this information out of MSD but the limitations of their data prevented a certain outcome. However I could get enough to suggest that somewhwere between a third and a half of people on the DPB began on welfare as teenagers. That was disputed by people like Susan St John (see below).

The reason 30-39 year-olds are depicted here is that older data is not available (ie the full benefit history of 40+ idividuals is unknown).  Almost two thirds of current 30-39 year-old beneficiaries began on welfare aged 19 or under; three quarters aged 24 or under. Stunning. This information clearly shows why it is so important to stop young people entering the benefit system from the outset.

The letter below was published in the NZ Herald, June 16, 2010. I responded here:

Dear Editor

Lindsay Mitchell (NZ Herald letters, 15th June) claims that Ministry of Social Development data shows that at last a third of current DPB recipients began on welfare as teenagers. She then goes on to suggest, with no supporting data, that the actual percentage may possibly be twice that.

This is designed to make us believe that New Zealand has an enormous problem of sole parents starting young and being on the benefit for years. This Bogey may justify all kinds of draconian knee jerk responses. In fact MSD says that, of the 34,000 DPB recipients aged 29 and under who had any time on a benefit as a teenager, only 17% (5,780 people) received the DPB, and the others may have had a minimal stint on unemployment or sickness benefit long before they had children. Thus only 6% of current DPBs started as teenagers.

It is a gross exaggeration to describe this as a huge dependency problem. The data clearly shows that sole parents largely move off the benefit when suitable jobs are available and when the needs of their children allow them to. The hand-ringing over sole parents should be replaced with community respect for the difficult lonely and yet vital work they do in caring for their children.

Susan St John, Exec CPAG

(St John is now on Radio NZ disputing Bennett's claim that the welfare reforms are having a positive effect on lowering the liability valuation because the numbers "have no context". Of course they do. The context does mean that the role the reforms has played is debatable, as I said yesterday, but there is context.)

Welfare reforms working, says Bennett

RNZ asked me to comment on Paula Bennett's release today heralding the drop in beneficiary liability due to the welfare reforms.

Social Development Minister Paula Bennett has welcomed the latest valuation of the welfare system showing a significant reduction in the liability.
The June 2013 valuation shows the current lifetime liability^[i] is $76.5 billion.
"Of the $10.3 billion reduction in liability^[ii], $4.4 billion is due to Work and Income actively exceeding expectations by getting more people off benefit for longer, and less people coming onto benefit," says Mrs Bennett.

I had the luxury of half an hour to look at the numbers but concluded I'd have to take them on good faith. Future projections concerning so many people and so many variables are always going to be debatable. For example, some of the drop is due to CPI forecasts coming in lower than predicted.

But it's conceivable that a small drop in the percentage of beneficiaries can equate to a much larger drop in the percentage of projected liability (13 percent between June 2012 and June 2013). This is because some beneficiaries will use welfare for much longer than others. The reforms have targeted those people.

While the government is happy to claim responsibility for the improvement on their reform programme, other factors are also at play. The falling teenage birth rate, improving economy and falling youth unemployment.

In any event I have always believed the focus of the reforms - youth and sole parents - is the correct one. If the actuarial indications showing these reforms having a positive impact are sound, that can only be good.

Reflections on a brief OE

I've been away.

Went to Hong Kong, Macau and China.

Countries, their people and political systems, become far more interesting when experienced firsthand. Retrospective rambling accounts are not necessarily  interesting for those who weren't there.

So just a few observations.

Our teenagers - 15 and 19 - did not want to come home. New Zealand's merits, for example, space and clean air, do not compensate for the internationalism, excitement, variety, customer service, efficiency and fascination Hong Kong offers. As do Macau and Shenzhen to lesser degrees. But at that age, their priorities are understandable.

We were surprised and slightly amused when a tour guide showing us around one of China's Special Economic Zones spoke glowingly about the comparative ease of doing business in NZ where you can, "... set up a company in a day!" (He did not know we were from NZ seeing our mainly British passports.)

The same guide had just fathered his second child and was expecting to pay US$1,200 by way of a penalty (and I'm not talking child support). But he explained  that his rural-born status meant his fine would be less than that of others who could face much steeper penalties. He cited a local celebrity facing millions. Perhaps a progressive tax?  There didn't appear to be any particular rancour about this. A bigger point of complaint was losing money on Shenzhen's stock exchange.

The border we crossed between the New Territories and China is an ugly affair. A glass-enclosed corridor between two stations crosses over a brown canal-like ditch with barbed wire on either side. The initial impressions of China are slightly depressing but quickly improve.

The (gr)immigration officials are very stern but otherwise efficient. Below their panelled window is a facility to press buttons rating their service. Going in, we pressed the left-most button for the 'best' rating. But coming back my daughter got confused and again pressed the left-most button, this time though delivering a 'poor' rating. She was mortified at her mistake not wanting to cause the  young Chinese female official any bother. Two Australian teenage boys had pressed the poor button on purpose and thought Sam was a great source of amusement for being so concerned over her mistake.

Sam and I tried to figure out squat toilets. Mentally. Not physically.

In Macau we put our lives in the hands of a hustling cab driver. We christened him Brian for reasons that I won't explain because they are racist. Well, maybe I will. Brian is the name we give to every stereotypically bad Asian driver we encounter in NZ. This trip gave us greater insights into that phenomena. They do not hail from Hong Kong where the driving is excellent - assertive but accommodating. In Hong Kong they drive on the right. In China they drive on the left. That might explain something.

But Brian was a godsend. Drove us around Macau and managed to manage us with very little English. We paid him at the end of our day-trip, and, as I had discovered through our conversations, he was duly off to a casino to lose it. That was his daily routine.  Macau is the new Vegas and I couldn't do justice to describing the bizarre spectacle. Massive hotel casinos are looming up in the smog everywhere interspersed with development sites, cranes, and temporary facades.

Hong Kong in winter is hotter than NZ this summer. In Wellington anyway.

If we wanted to live in a comparable suburb of Hong Kong to Eastbourne (eg Stanley) we would pay 7-8 times the value of our 5 bedroom house for a two bedroom apartment, probably with no view. Otherwise  the cost of living is lower. Taxis and buses are affordable. We used both and marvelled at the low fares. Food is cheaper. Loyal to NZ wine, I was buying Oyster Bay sauvignon at 7 Eleven at less than the NZ price.

Kowloon Buddhist monks are graspy rip-off artists. Perhaps this is a misconception on my part based on the monk's misconception of my behaviour. I dropped some money in his collection bowl intending to walk on, but was subjected to the preliminaries of a blessing, with a bracelet pushed over my wrist then told I must pay $100HK. He wasn't taking no for an answer and I wasn't paying it. It got a tad physical. Quite unpleasant. Not that $100 HK would have broken the bank but I would rather give it to the lady with the burnt face and no hands. Avoid Kowloon if desperate beggars bother you. At one point I decided to not buy stuff I didn't need from street markets and give away the savings. I filled my pocket with change and then didn't see another. So perhaps not as prolific after all.

Air NZ is a great airline. Compatriot service companies should take a leaf out of their book. 

Great to be home but we returned with a reluctance. The bittersweet sign of a great  holiday. 

Living wage critique

I posted earlier some opportunity cost examples Brian Scott provided in his critique of the living wage calculations. Kiwiblog has now linked to his full published report.

Brian Scott has published a critique of the so called Living Wage, and it should be compulsory reading for any politician that has treated the calculations done by Rev Waldegrave as a fit basis for public policy decisions. It is quite legitimate to have a view that wages should be higher, but to insist that the correct level is that calculated by Rev Waldegrave is a surrender to symbolism over substance.
The key findings by Scott are:

1. Only 12% of low income households are two adults and two dependents, which the Waldegrave calculation is based on
2. They assume you need 10 hours of childcare a week, even if the children are aged over 14
3. They calculation of level of “basic necessities” is not based on any empirical measurement of the lowest cost of necessities, but merely a proportion of the average expenditure in deciles 1 to 5 (this one is key – it is a calculation based on the Browns should be spending as much as the Jones, and is not a caculation on how much income the Browns need)
4. The calculation doesn’t account for some sources of household income such as trade-ins, sales, teenagers income (yet does include their costs) and school donation tax refunds
5. The calculation double counts some expenditure such as childcare costs
6. The calculation includes as a basic necessity costs such as Sky TV, pets, international travel and video games
7. The calculation includes insurance for dwellings and mortgages, despite assuming they are renting

Implication of ageing population

The graph below depicts the 'support ratio' for NZ over the next 46 years. The support ratio is the ratio of workers to consumers. The best way to reduce the drop is through greater immigration (the blue line) although at some point immigrants also become consumers and not workers. Increasing fertility takes women out of the workforce so produces more consumers in the short term (the green line). Whichever way you look at it by 2060 the ratio will be probably lower than ever before. And in 1960, when families produced three,  four or five children, the consumers were generally less expensive than those of the future - more predominantly the elderly. Though I guess that's a debatable point.

Who pays the lion's share of income tax?

A reader sent me the following:

Could these comments apply to NZ and Australia ? The top 1 percent of U.S. earners pay nearly 40 percent of U.S. income taxes. The top 10 percent pay 70 percent. The top 50 percent pay more than 97 percent of income taxes. The poor pay nothing. 

Absolutely the comments can apply to NZ. The numbers change only slightly. From Treasury:

Who pays income tax... and how much?

Annual individual taxable income ($)	Number of people (000)	Number of people %	Tax paid ($m)	Tax paid %
Zero	260	8	0	0
1 - 10,000	374	11	171	1
10,001 - 20,000	704	21	1,234	5
20,001 - 30,000	469	14	1,539	6
30,001 - 40,000	341	10	1,756	7
40,001 - 50,000	293	9	2,001	8
50,001 - 60,000	234	7	2,232	8
60,001 - 70,000	188	6	2,340	9
70,001 - 80,000	138	4	2,138	8
80,001 - 90,000	95	3	1,791	7
90,001 - 100,000	65	2	1,427	5
100,001 - 125,000	99	3	2,689	10
125,001 - 150,000	42	1	1,488	6
150,001+	75	2	5,590	21
All	3,375	100	26,397	100

The trouble is these figures don't include tax credits, benefits, and other cash tansfers. When they are taken into account:

... Treasury earlier this year [2013] estimated that this year households earning over $150,000 a year – the top 12 per cent of households by income – will pay 46 per cent of income tax.

But when benefit payments, Working for Families, paid parental leave and accommodation support are taken into account, these 12 per cent of households are expected to pay 76 per cent of the net income tax. And that is before New Zealand Superannuation payments are counted.

By contrast, households earning under $60,000 a year – which is half of all households – are expected to pay 11 per cent of income tax.

“When we take income support payments into account, as a group they will actually pay no net income tax at all,” Mr English says.

“That’s because the $2.7 billion of income tax they are expected to pay will be more than offset by the $8.1 billion they will receive in income support.

 So, "12 per cent of households are expected to pay 76 per cent of the net income tax" is pretty much the same as the US figure of, "The top 10 percent pay 70 percent". Notwithstanding I don't know whether the US figure applies to households or individuals.

Drug testing beneficiaries unconstitutional Florida judge rules

From Reason.com:

A district court judge in Florida granted summary judgment for the plaintiff in a case challenging the constitutionality of a law requiring welfare recipients to submit to drug testing.

More

Fair enough. Making beneficiaries pass a drug test as a condition of receiving welfare is a bridge too far in my opinion. The drug-testing Work and Income conduct is on people who will be referred to jobs that require applicants to be drug-free. That's a different matter.

Paula Bennett:

“Around 40 percent of the jobs listed with Work and Income require drug tests and it’s reasonable for employers to expect people to be drug free.”

As I've commented before the whole drug-testing issue is thorny for me, beneficiary or not. If private companies want drug-free employees that's their prerogative. However it's unrealistic to broaden the expectation to ever-increasing types of employment. And a breach of people's privacy rights...which I think is what this judge is ruling.

Pacific people more self-sufficient than Maori

At 15.7 percent, Pacific people have higher unemployment than Maori at 12.2 percent.
 
Yet their reliance on benefits is low compared to Maori.

At September 2013, there were 9,546 Pacific people on a Jobseeker Benefit compared to 42,277 Maori. As a percentage of all people on JS that equates to 7.5 and 33 percent. The Pacific share is roughly equal to their overall percentage of the population. The Maori share is more than double their overall percentage of the population.

Looking at sole parents the pattern is repeated with 10 percent of those receiving Sole Parent Support being Pacific and 46 percent, Maori.

The final benefit, Supported Living Payment, shows a similar ratio though the numbers are lower at 6 and 24 percent.

So why the difference?

Is it simply that Pacific families and communities are stronger and more supportive? Is it a matter of eligibility for benefits? Is there a shame attached to being on a benefit?

My knowledge of Pacific people and their culture isn't sufficient to provide the answer but I favour the first reason.

Given their self-reliance though I wonder why they vote Labour? Perhaps they don't, or won't in the future.

Here's a quote from 2011:

Mr Laulu [senior Labour Party office holder] said he did not believe Labour could continue to rely on Pacific people to vote Labour "because I'm union or my parents and family have always voted Labour".

Graph of the Year

The current and beloved article of faith amongst leftists is rising inequality.

Here's a very recent example from Boxing Day:  

Inequality keeps rising, says UC social research expert

Earlier in the year I was fortunate enough to be sent a hard copy of the latest Household Incomes report by its author. Lucky because a request to MSD went unacknowledged and it's such a lengthy, comprehensive report a printed reference copy does wonders for data ease of accessibility and my good humour. Thank you Bryan Perry.

Here's the graph that should accompany every press release about growing inequality.

This is the official measure of inequality in New Zealand. The trend line can best be described as declining albeit slowly.

Taking envyism to a new level

Here's an interesting claim from a poster at the Daily Blog:

Right now the minimum wage is so low that those receiving it look upon beneficiaries with envy. - See more at: http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/12/30/next-year-is-election-year/#sthash.AMxcxww8.dpuf

Right now the minimum wage is so low that those receiving it look upon beneficiaries with envy. - See more at: http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/12/30/next-year-is-election-year/#sthash.AMxcxww8.dpuf

 "Right now the minimum wage is so low that those receiving it look upon beneficiaries with envy."

If that's true, it's a major problem for the Left who look for voters from both low-income groups - workers and beneficiaries.

With envy comes resentment. You might expect low income workers to feel some sympathy for beneficiaries if both groups are 'struggling'. But if the Left continue to stir and fuel bitterness about low wages, those workers might consequently feel more resentful towards beneficiaries than government.

Then, when Labour and the Greens talk about lifting benefit levels specifically through paying beneficiaries the IN WORK tax credit, how are they going to react?

Is that what's really behind the living wage campaign? To lift minimum wage levels up to the equivalent that (some) beneficiaries receive?

The political poser for the Left is how to keep low wage workers and beneficiaries both happy with election promises. What an awful dilemma.

Right now the minimum wage is so low that those receiving it look upon beneficiaries with envy. - See more at: http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/12/30/next-year-is-election-year/#sthash.AMxcxww8.dpuf

Ten positive trends

Time for a break from the hand wringing promulgated by left-wing academics, politicians and media, and note some of the positive trends that are happening in New Zealand:

1/ Assaults on police

Tasers and training are credited with a double-digit drop in assaults against police.
Recorded offences against police dropped more than 20% between 2009-10 and 2012-13, figures released under the Official Information Act figures reveal.

2/ Deaths from sudden infant death syndrome

The number of infants dying suddenly has dropped but the rate is still too high, officials say.

In 2012, 36 infants died of cot death or sudden unexpected death in infancy (SUDI). This is down from 55 deaths in 2008.

3/ Recorded crime

Police Minister Anne Tolley has praised frontline Police, with recorded offences down for the third fiscal year in a row, and a massive 17.4 per cent drop in crimes in the past three years.
There were 29,337 fewer recorded offences in the year to June 2013, a fall of 7.4 per cent, representing a 7.9 per cent drop per head of population.

4/ Smoking rate

The recently-issued 2013 census results show a big fall in smoking rates since the last count in 2006. Little by little, great progress has been made...The news stories focused mainly on the overall decline in the numbers of smokers, which had fallen by nearly a quarter, from 598,000 to 463,000. That means that today only about 15 per cent of adults smoke, compared with nearly 21 per cent in 2006.

5/ Teenage birth rate

... the birth rate per 15-19 year-olds has been dropping since 2008.

6/ Abortion rate

The general abortion rate decreased from 17.3 per 1,000 women aged 15-44 years in 2011 to 16.1 in 2012. It cemented a five-year downward trend, and the rate was the lowest since 1995, when it was also 16.1 per 1,000, Statistics New Zealand said.

7/ Road deaths

 A record-low Labour Weekend road toll is part of a "downward trend" in deaths on New Zealand roads, police say.

8/ Child mortality rate

New Zealand's infant mortality rate - babies who die before their first birthdays - has fallen steadily from 25 for every 1000 births in the early 1950s to 4.8 for every 1000 in the Unicef data, and to 4.2 in the latest Statistics NZ figures for 2012.

9/ Maori suicide rate

The drop in Maori suicide was largely accounted for by a decrease in male Maori suicide, in particular young male Maori suicide. In 2011/12 there were 94 male Maori suicides, while in 2012/13 there were 72.

10/ Rheumatic fever amongst children

The Rheumatic Fever Prevention Programme began on 1 July 2011, and has been significantly expanded since. The goal of the programme is to reduce rates of new cases of rheumatic fever by two thirds, from a baseline rate of 4.2 cases in 2011 to 1.4 cases per 100,000 people by June 2017. In 2012, the rate of rheumatic fever had reduced to 3.8 cases per 100,000 people

Poverty and relativity

Part of the 'poverty' proganda focuses on house size. In particular, how many children have to share a bedroom.

While New Zealand's narrative is similar to the United Kingdom's, the following piece from The Scotsman provides a more optimistic slant:

Modern Scots are living in relative luxury compared with conditions 150 years ago.
Two people were sharing every room in a home, the 1861 census shows, compared with a current average of two rooms for every person.

The term 'relative' should be employed in both a contemporary and historic sense.

In the developed world, we are all undoubtedly richer today then ever before.

I've been intending to link to this new site and now presents the perfect opportunity.

HUMAN PROGRESS

Forecast welfare spending

Governments come and go with ambitious reform ideas and plans.  Treasury just keeps on forecasting numbers and expenditures seemingly regardless of those policy changes. The depressing thing is, if you were going to put money on who has the most reliable crystal ball, it'd have to go on Treasury. That's what history shows anyway.

Table 6.2 - Welfare benefit expenses (continued)

Beneficiary numbers (Thousands)	2009 Actual	2010 Actual	2011 Actual	2012 Actual	2013 Actual	2014 Forecast	2015 Forecast	2016 Forecast	2017 Forecast	2018 Forecast
New Zealand Superannuation	522	540	561	585	612	640	667	692	716	739
Jobseeker Support and Emergency Benefit1	..	..	..	..	..	138	132	127	125	125
Supported living payment1	..	..	..	..	..	96	96	95	94	94
Sole parent support1	..	..	..	..	..	79	77	77	77	77
Domestic Purposes Benefit1	101	110	114	114	109	..	..	..	..	..
Invalid's Benefit1	86	88	88	87	87	..	..	..	..	..
Sickness Benefit1	50	58	60	60	60	..	..	..	..	..
Unemployment Benefit1	48	78	80	73	67	..	..	..	..	..
Accommodation Supplement	267	312	320	311	305	297	296	294	296	299

Do NZ women really get such a raw deal?

Here's a passage written earlier this year by a female academic:

New Zealand women are losing their human rights - the right to:

 •Life, liberty and security of person.

 •Not be discriminated against for any reason including gender.

 •Be equal before the law and, without any discrimination, to equal protection of the law

 •Free choice of employment, just and favourable conditions of work and protection against unemployment.

•Equal pay for equal work.

 •A standard of living adequate for the health and wellbeing of herself and her family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services.

 •Security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond her control.

I wonder if they would also like equal social spending?

Per capita social expenditures by age (males)

This Treasury working  paper only featured the graph for males but the tables that contain the data the graph(s) are made from are available from another paper.

I expected that for females the social expenditures per capita would be higher, but was surprised by how much.

Looking at three age groups here are the total social expenditures per capita:

20-24 male $6,654 female $8,674 (+30%)
40-44 male $9,044 female $11,559 (+28%)
60-64 male $9,526 female $11,743 (+23%)
80-84 male $24,459 female $25,787 (+5%)

Over their working age lifetimes females consistently cost the state considerably more. Even at 80-84 females cost more in Super and Disability Support Services.

Yet women's  participation in the workforce is also lower throughout their lifetimes.


 

Absent fathers

The weather in Wellington has packed up so time for a bit of reading.

After Colin James drew my attention to it, I thought I'd have a closer look at what the Parliamentary Health Committee published. The title of the report is long-winded: "Inquiry into improving child health outcomes and preventing child abuse with a focus on pre-conception until three years of age", November 2013, Report of the Health Committee. It's 126 pages.

When I got to about page 70 it suddenly occurred to me that fathers were absent. So I did a search.

"Fathers" are effectively mentioned once. There is a two paragraph section titled, "Fathers and the maternity system" and an ensuing recommendation. Apart from the acknowledgement of a submission from Great Fathers Trust (that was a waste of time), that's it.

So I tried "male". Again one mention. This time relating to sterilisation.

As a society we nag on about deadbeat Dads and absentee fathers.

This report only demonstrates that fathers aren't particularly valued anyway. Any protective and positive role they play is virtually ignored.
 
Update

I'd rather end on a happy note. My Dad was probably the most influential person in my childhood and youth. Even today, when I need solace or advice or help he is often the first person I turn to. So my thoughts about fathers are coloured by my own experience. I wish it was one more commonly shared. Merry Christmas, especially to those Dads who are unwillingly separated from their children and finding this time of year hard.

Colin James' christmas message

I didn't want to blog today. But this couldn't go without comment. It's an extract from Colin James' Christmas message:

In our small, enlightened society many tens of thousands of children go without some necessities or nourishing food or emotional security or guidance to learn.

Through the actions of mothers who eat badly and/or smoke, drink and take drugs before conception and during pregnancy and/or live with a violent man and/or then don't or can't get their children reading and counting and ready to be schooled, many of those children are in effect imprisoned, not in a hulk but in the lesser persons they become compared with what they might have been. Many are imprisoned in drugs, mental illness, delinquency and crime.

Well, that's just bad parents, isn't it? None of our business. Our job is to bring up our kids right, not interfere in others' private affairs, isn't it? Isn't that individual liberty? 

Individual liberty requires individual responsibility. When individuals cease to act responsibly, when they neglect or abuse their child, they are no longer living in a state of individual liberty.

They lost - or never achieved - that status because the collective has absolved them from taking it. That is the genesis of the conditions James' describes. Will more intervention and investment by the collective return these parents to a state of individual liberty? That seems to be the advice.

The parliamentary health committee disagrees. A report in November, chaired by National MP Paul Hutchison and signed by all 10 MPs on the committee -- five National, three Labour, one Green and one New Zealand First -- focused on the needs and opportunities of the child and proposed many interventions to get parents ready and fit and get children a good start.

That report, the most important parliamentary report in a long time, essentially said the country should frame policy and then make social investments on the presumption that a child of one of us is a child of all of us and that no child deserves a bad start.

That is a simple economic calculation: a child who can get educated and is emotionally stable will join the workforce, pay taxes, take a full part in society and bring up children who do the same in turn.

It is also a calculation of social cohesion: the more numerous the children who grow up feeling they are fully part of society, the stronger, and probably richer, that society will be.

But as the Health Committee report notes NZ's spending on children is already high compared to other OECD countries.

So the message sounds noble but it doesn't take me past the essential problem. You can't make people more responsible by taking responsibility off them. And in a large part, that's what the welfare state does.

You could spin it either way

Social Development Minister, Paula Bennett, released a good-feel statement to end the year.

Welfare reforms helping thousands get ahead

Social Development Minister Paula Bennett is delighted over 62,700 people went off benefit and into work in the first nine months of 2013 alone.

That does not however equate to overall benefit numbers dropping by the same number.

Here's the official graph for benefit numbers since National took office.

On the one hand, numbers did not soar in spite of a deep (and ongoing IMO) recession.

On the other, for all of the fanfare about welfare reforms, the picture doesn't offer a lot to get excited about.

Every ninth New Zealander is still dependent on the state.

Go into some neighbourhoods and it'll be every second or third.