Duff rides again

Alan Duff has a go at Tuku Morgan, his greed and lack of a "self-regulation" button. He proceeds onto the lack of Treaty money spent on creating employment and helping "flax roots Maori."

Then he takes an interesting turn.

You live overseas for a few years and come to realise it's quite an advantage being part-Maori.
There's the warrior bit that makes you feel pretty safe in most situations and not afraid of being mugged or attacked on some dark city street. (And anyway, it just about never happens, or not in France; they're a civilised people, the French. Booze does not give them an excuse to be violent.)
There's the musical side, and when you get a group of Maori and a guitar or two, it is quite a neat feeling all singing together at least knowing you're in tune and by French musical standards pretty damn good.
Just being an expat Kiwi feels great - our friendliness, our love of rugby, the people we know in common.
By French drinking standards, we're a bit thirstier and definitely rowdier. However, we have all embraced the behavioural code here.
But I believe being a Maori in Enzed is a more negative experience. All that compulsion to live by the myth of whanau, hapu and iwi. Ask many Maori who have moved to Australia; they'll tell you living as an individual is infinitely better. If I was a benign dictator I'd pack every Maori off out of the country so they could realise what a wonderful thing it can be to be Maori and Kiwi and individualistic at the same time.
Many of our Maori leaders have to invest in this potential and step away from the Champagne tap.

(The "warrior bit" worked for him second-time around. First time he ended up in a British prison.)

How many second chances when children involved?

The NZCPR has an expanded version of my earlier blog post as their guest commentary this week.

"New Zealand (as represented by the child protection authority and its practices) is currently officially anti-adoption. The anti-adoption groundswell that built over the nineteen seventies and eighties grew out of an abhorrence of the past removal of babies from unmarried mothers. Today most feel repugnance for the practice. 

But isn’t wholesale shunning of adoption an over-reaction? There are many instances whereby newborns go directly into the care of CYF. The prospects for these children are bleak yet their rights seem trumped by the rights accorded to their birth parent and extended family. Babies aren’t simply removed from mothers by dint of being ‘illegitimate’. These babies are removed because their mothers are criminal; are incarcerated or live on the streets; have abused prior siblings and pose a serious threat to their newborn. The principle of redemption or second chances is all well and good when offered to the adult individual. But how many times should a child be exposed to known risks in order to satisfy liberal impulse? 

Children’s lives shouldn’t be gambled with. And they needn’t be if we once more considered adoption."

More

Muriel Newman's associated column provides an excellent summation of the Expert Panel report into CYF and concludes:

"It is an unfortunate fact of life that at the heart of the child abuse crisis are government incentives for women to have children they are ill-equipped to provide for. Until the State stops paying women to have babies, children will continue to suffer. The State is no substitute for a loving mum and dad, and no role model for a child. In fact it’s a tragedy that idealists have exerted such influence on policy and brought us to the systemic failure we have today. 

The child abuse crisis is a national disgrace. Only the State could fail children on such a monumental scale. Anyone concerned should read the Expert Panel’s report. It helps to explain why, in spite of the very best efforts of those who are trying to help, the child abuse crisis continues unabated."

More

60 percent of rental properties subsidised

I frequently use my blog as a filing system. While I don't use 'labels', running a 'search'  for what I want inevitably leads to success.

So the reason for this post is primarily to record a new fact - new to me anyway.

60 per cent of all rentals in New Zealand are subsidised by the Government.

Six out of ten rented homes are subsidised by the taxpayer.

That's all....apart from..... I would also observe the speech from Bill English (source of the information) began with:

I am old enough to remember the mid-1980s. After leaving university, I was involved in farming. At that time we had a number of arrangements in New Zealand that meant people who were involved in farming weren’t getting the right price signals. Then, suddenly, they did. I was a part of communities that were drastically affected by that. Farm subsidy systems were abruptly removed. Our communities changed drastically and dramatically.That was a sharp personal lesson, and one that many New Zealanders also experienced.

A strong focus of our policy is to make sure our markets work.

Yet the rental property market is still heavily subsidised and still not working.

Child abuse hand-in-glove with benefit abuse

Yesterday I was on Larry William's show backing Anne Tolley's call for contraceptive intervention with mothers who have children already earmarked for removal by CYF at birth. I pointed out that many of these children will be damaged in utero by their mother's alcohol or drug addiction.

This morning's NZ Herald features the heart-breaking story of exactly the sort of child who is being failed first and foremost by his mother and father, but secondly, by CYF, who are tasked with the care and protection of children.

The only saving grace in this awful story is that one social worker recognised the mother's use of her child as "a cash cow".That's the next issue that needs open and honest debate (if an honest debate can be had about a dishonest practice). The use of children as meal-tickets. It disgusts me.

A severely disabled child was used as a "cash cow" by his alcoholic mother and her boyfriend to access up to $80,000 in benefits, according to notes in a Child, Youth and Family file.
In it, a social worker said of the boy's caregivers: "It would appear that it's more about receiving financial payment from Government agencies, than actually providing a home for Benjamin*."

Anne Tolley shows some gumption ...sort of

This'll cause an uproar among feminists ("don't interfere with my reproductive rights") and Maori who think like Tariana Turia ("I am intolerant of attempts to control our fertility"):

The Minister for Social Development wants to find a way of stopping the most at-risk beneficiaries from having more children.


Unfortunately Tolley is being somewhat timid.

 ... said she was talking about a small number of families, where Child Youth and Family was removing more than one child at birth, most from homes with a history of abuse and neglect. "I know of a case where they were taking the sixth child from that woman and of course the first question I ask is; 'So what sort of family planning advice is being made available to that woman, is it there immediately for her to think about?'

Every year, one in five children born will be benefit-dependent by the end of it.

In the 6 months to March 31, 2015, 6,347 babies were added to an existing benefit.

In that context Tolley's ambition looks lacking. But still upsetting for some.

Association of Social Workers chief executive Lucy Sandford-Reed said she felt uncomfortable about the minister's comments.

There's a big part  of the problem. A denier. Head of the Social Worker's union no less. She should be applauding the Minister for at least  having the gumption to publicly ask why some women keep having babies when they are incapable of providing for them or worse.

"...stripping the influence of CYFS back to bare bones..."

The Daily Blog is defending CYF and state monopoly of child care and protection. This comment caught my eye:

Inequality may be declining

Thanks to the reader who sent in this very interesting observation from the Economist blog:

ONE of the key aims of taxation and public spending is to redistribute income from rich to poor. The way most statisticians, economists and policymakers think about this is in terms of a cross-sectional snapshot: what the distribution of wealth or income is between different people in a population in a single year. But we might care more about lifetime incomes: in the modern labour market, many people now have very high incomes in certain parts of their lives, and much lower ones at other times.

NZ's Gini coefficient is very similar to the UK's cross sectional so it may very well be similar to their lifetime. I can't think why it wouldn't. In which case inequality may be declining.

Restructuring CYF is not the answer

Watching Paul Henry interview Anne Tolley about the latest CYF report was very dissatisfying. There was no discussion of getting to the real core of the problem. Only the terrible statistical outcome for those children who went into state care in 1991, then a lot of blaming of current hierarchy followed by dogged promises of change.

1/ There will always be children born into circumstances that warrant their removal. But when you pay people to reproduce there will be more.

2/ In the past most of these children were put up for adoption. That outcome wasn't always ideal but it was a better alternative than constant upheaval and removal from one placement to another. Adoption delivered a better result than the philosophy of striving to keep the child with its birth mother or blood family at any cost. Because ultimately the child ends up in state care anyway more damaged than it would have been if adopted out at birth.

A Salvation Army home in the 1950s

3/ Increasingly there are people who want and cannot have children. That's abundantly clear from the burgeoning fertility treatment industry.

I've known a number of people who were adopted out at birth, and have read or heard other people's stories. Most have relished the fact that their adoptive parents raised and loved them as their own and they were provided with stability and security. Some have had emotional and behavioural problems coming to terms with the circumstances of their birth and being 'given up'. One I knew was getting into trouble with the law as a teenage boy; another was getting into trouble with the law because the family he was adopted into had strong gang links. But they were the exceptions.

Compare the now known results of "having a care placement" by age 21:

• Almost 90 per cent were on a benefit;
• More than 25 per cent were on a benefit with a child;
• Almost 80 per cent did not have NCEA Level 2;
• More than 30 per cent had a youth justice referral by the age of 18;
• Almost 20 per cent had had a custodial sentence;
• Almost 40 per cent had a community sentence;
• Overall, six out of every 10 children in care are Maori.



It doesn't matter how CYF is structured or how caregivers are reimbursed or how professionalised social workers are. What matters is reducing the incentives for people to produce children haphazardly, but, if they do, acting swiftly to get those children into a nurturing and stable home.

Report on CYF

This post simply offers some cut and paste excerpts from the preliminary report to the Minister from the "independent expert panel" for those who have neither the time or inclination to read it. I've only selected information (largely statistical) that is new to me.

Although the overall number of children coming to the attention of CYF has been decreasing over the past six years, an increasing proportion of these children are already known to the agency. In 2004, most of the notifications made to CYF were for children not previously known to the agency. In 2014, six out of ten notifications were for children the agency already knew about. Many of these children had extensive history with the agency - on average, these children had engaged with CYF on three previous occasions.

This pattern of increasing repeat notifications is associated with an increasing delay between notification and subsequent intervention. In 2014, children having their first care and protection Family Group Conference had, on average, more than four prior reports of concern and this figure more than doubled between 2000 and 2014.

Child abuse and neglect occurs within families across all parts of the community. However, many of the children and young people who come to the attention of CYF are living in families who are experiencing the combined impacts of long-term unemployment, low income, unaddressed physical and mental health needs, parental alcohol and drug addictions and family violence.

To illustrate, of all children born between 2005 and 2007 who had come to the attention of CYF by age five, 70 per cent were in families where the Police had records of at least one family violence incidence involving the parents in the five years prior to the birth of the child and 37 per cent had a least one parent who had served a criminal sentence over that same period. 40 per cent had a mother who had been receiving a benefit for more than four out of the last five years prior to their birth. 

CYF currently works with about 3,500 caregivers, yet there is no national picture of the needs of our care population, the range and needs of caregivers, what works in their recruitment or retention and what kind of support is needed. There is no overarching, nationally co-ordinated approach to caregiver recruitment and there is an inability to predict and plan for future requirements. 

A high proportion of caregivers are in low income households and 42 per cent of the caregiver population are in receipt of a benefit. The majority of CYF caregivers are middle-aged, but a significant proportion are nearing the age of 60 years or older. This is a concern in that children who have complex and significant needs are being placed in households where resources may already be stretched and the capacity of the caregiver to meet needs may be constrained. 

CYF employs about 3,200 FTEs and relies on social work and social workers as the primary means of service delivery. There is currently fragmentation at a national level in social worker qualification and training, which is reflected in a lack of consistent practice within CYF. There is also a lack of workforce planning and reporting capability within CYF that results in a lack of long term planning to address these issues.

No shortage of marriageable men after all

A most interesting piece from Brookings challenges the traditional idea that there is a shortage of men in the marriage market.

The original definition of marriageability, from sociologist William Julius Wilson, was based on the ratio of employed men to all women of the same age. All women of the right age are assumed, under this definition, to be equally marriageable. But this is an outdated assumption, given cultural, economic, and social changes. A high percentage of women participate in the workforce; many have children from a prior relationship.  

On only one definition of marriageability—Wilson’s original one, comparing employed men to all women—do we find a ‘shortage’ of men so often lamented in the media. On all other measures, there is in fact a surplus

However the surplus disappears for black men and women. (Inter-racial marriage rates in the US are very low - in 2010 only 4.6% of married Black females had a non-black husband).

The writer says the difference is due to lower employment prospects, high rates of incarceration and shorter lives.

Terribly sad state of affairs.

Steve Maharey - still waffling

Ex Social Development Minister and "sociologist" Steve Maharey has a column in today's DomPost titled "Centre-Left needs a new vision".

It opens:

Perhaps the most interesting outcome of the election of Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the British Labour Party will not be his 60 per cent support but the 4.5 per cent support given to the "modernising" candidate Liz Kendall.
The need to "modernise" gripped parties of the centre-Left in the 1970s and 80s in the wake of the neo-liberal revolution led by British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and US Present Ronald Reagan. Welfare states were one by one replaced by the market.

I've heard this assertion from the academic Left before and it flummoxes me.

The welfare state is one where compulsory collective responsibility for social needs - education, health, and income assurance, especially in old-age - dominates.

While governments have pulled out of funding tertiary education to the past extent, in most English-speaking countries (especially the UK) responsibility for health, education and income assurance remains overwhelmingly in state hands.

Even in the United States, where reconfiguration (aka reform) of welfare was greatest, social security spending continues to grow and cause immense concern.

I struggled on with his waffle about how the centre left needs a new vision but am left with a question. How does it create a vision based on lies about the past?

Just not ready yet

The latest 3 News Reid Research poll has found only one in four people want to change the flag.

The process of change is often gradual. At an individual level people try to change something about themselves multiple times before actually succeeding.

Perhaps changing the flag is like trying to get voluntary euthanasia legalised. Parliamentarians failed in 1995; failed again in 2003, though it was a much closer run result. They failed because the weight of public opinion wasn't behind change.  I believe it'll be third time lucky for that particular battle.

And so it may be with the flag.

Disregard for the facts

Over at the Daily Blog Mike Treen has a post entitled "Benefit cuts designed to help cut wages as well." There is a distinct lack of balance and I've left some corrections in a comment (now published).



Treen "The unemployment benefit was cut by 25% for young people, 20% for young sickness beneficiaries, and 17% for solo parents. "

DPB was cut 10.7% with one child; 8.9% with two children. The only sole parents who received a cut of 16.7% were those without dependent children.

Treen "They abolished the family benefit and made many workers ineligible for the unemployment benefit with a stand down period of up to a six months.......Universal entitlements like the family benefit were eliminated so assistance could be targeted to the deserving more accurately."

The universal Family Benefit was abolished but half was reallocated to into Family Support which went to beneficiary families with children. In other words the money was better targeted and made up some of the money lost through cuts to basic rates.

The six month stand down applied to people who had become voluntarily unemployed or had a redundancy payment.

Treen "Unemployment benefits were stopped for 16 and 17 year-olds and the youth rate for 18 & 19 year-olds extended to the age of 25."

The Independent Youth Benefit was created instead.

Source: Social Developments, Tim Garlick, p146,7.

4 in 10 Superannuitants don't use the internet

MSD launched some new website yesterday. Money to burn.

This surprised me though.

61 per cent of New Zealanders over the age of 65 used the internet last year.

That's a truckload of people missing out on all the wonderful communication, knowledge and entertainment available through the web. Close to a quarter million.

39 percent non-users is higher than I would have thought. An elderly friend of mine recently lost her cat. I thought she would replace it but she feels she is just too old and it would outlive her. Last time I saw her though she was utterly animated and over the sadness. Her son had bought her a tablet and she was buzzing with everything she could do with it. I don't think elderly people actually understand that they can access a wealth of nostalgic material they never thought they'd enjoy again. All they see is the negative aspects of social media, and it's too easy to carp on about people losing communication skills etc.

They don't know what they are missing.

State confiscation of private wealth

State confiscation of private wealth. That's all it is. Appalling.

The Government's rejection of the Lochinver sale causes some issues, not the least being what happens to the station now.
It is owned by the Stevenson Group which wanted to complete the sale to free up capital to reinvest in other businesses such as expanding its quarry in Drury and investing in a West Coast coal mine.
It is unlikely a New Zealand buyer with $88 million can be found, reducing the value of the property on the open market.

Beneficiary advocates could drive this into court

Asked yesterday by Radio NZ for a comment(s) about this incidence of seeming law-misinterpretation by the Ministry of Social Development that has seen new benefit grants paid out a day late, I said that beneficiary advocacy groups were like a dog with a bone. There are precedents where they have forced MSD into court and MSD has lost. So I wouldn't under-estimate what the taxpayer could be up for. By my calculation easily $200 million.  I don't know if the government can successfully retrospectively change the legislation to get MSD off the hook.

But the beneficiary advocates are over-egging the effect of a pay-out citing hardship and child poverty etc. Collectively the sum is large but individually the pay-outs are small. One grant would equate to an average of $40 or thereabouts. And the poorest beneficiaries - those on welfare long-term - would get the smallest payout or none at all.

I have no idea how a 'compensation'  process would work but if WINZ were to invite people to make a claim with the exact date of application and any other relevant details, it might just be too tough to bother.

Though who knows. That option might not be legal either.

I did say to the reporter that benefits, whilst an entitlement, are a privilege. New Zealand's welfare system is among the most generous in the world in terms of the length of time people can claim welfare for, and one day's payment wasn't a big deal in the scheme of things. The beneficiary advocates could find better bones to chew on.

Universities are going to hate this aren't they?

Just announced

Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment Minister Steven Joyce has today announced that from 2017 all Universities, Wānanga and Polytechnics will be required to publish information about the employment status and earnings of their graduates broken down by specific degrees and diplomas.
“This Government is committed to providing better information to assist students’ decisions. This is important so students can make the most of their time in tertiary education, and because of the significant investment students and taxpayers make,” says Mr Joyce.

This is a great move. User-pays has incentivised universities to get more bums on seats and, in some areas,  dumbed-down the level of  learning and graduate. But I don't think throwing out user-pays is the solution.

My son (in his last year at Uni) said, "I am going to become a statistic". I observed probably "compulsorily" as with other government surveys. At least this survey will provide really useful information.

Update: A reader sent the following graph which shows 'earning advantages from tertiary  vs secondary education ratio'

A nation of inveterate moaners

New Zealanders are encouraged to moan about how hard done by they are by groups of people with political axes to grind, hobby horses to rock and incomes to generate. The strategy isn't just domestic - it is rife in the first world. Instead of righting any injustice though, it breeds bitterness, animosity and division.

Enough of the rant.

In practical terms, the dividers use statistics to support their chosen cause. But for those who can think for themselves, reference to official data (the best we have) will  always turn up a counter-balancing statistic.

For instance - and this presented itself randomly as I caught up with Statistics NZ latest - median incomes.  (Below is revised on the basis of Census data but the changes are not statistically significant so visually indiscernible).

Median incomes have risen steadily since 1997 except during the GFC.

But without inflation adjustment the graph is meaningless.

At 1998 the income level was around $300. By 2014 it had doubled. But what was $300 worth in 2014 $? Using general CPI here's what the Reserve Bank calculates:

Apart from housing, other goods and services measured -  transport, food, and clothing - cost far less in 2014. For instance, $300 in 2014 would buy double the amount of clothing it would in 1998.

But good news isn't exciting unless it's personal. Almost masochistically, people latch on to the bad news stories - inequality, poverty, disease, violence and premature death.

In reality, Fred Dagg said it best. And New Zealanders once believed it. We don't know how lucky we are.

News flash - it's still true.

"Drinkers subsidise non-drinkers"

Doug Sellman, look the other way now.

A study from IEA finds

"... estimates suggest that the net cost of alcohol to the state is minus £6.5 billion pounds, which is to say that drinkers subsidise non-drinkers to the order of £6.5 billion pounds a year. The government could halve all forms of alcohol duty and still receive more in tax than it spends dealing with alcohol-related problems."

I immediately noticed that the study does not consider the economic contribution alcohol makes in terms of job creation for instance (eg NZ's wine industry is purported worth in excess of $1 billion) but the paper later explains why:

We have also ignored all financial benefits except those that go directly to government, i.e. alcohol taxes. In line with Leontaridi’s methodology, we do not include benefits provided by the alcohol industry, such as job creation, corporation tax and income tax, on the basis that replacement goods, services and jobs would fill the void if alcohol did not exist. Since it is unclear whether substitute industries would lead to the government receiving more, less, or the same amount of revenue (aside from the loss
of alcohol taxes), we have ignored the economic contribution of the alcohol industry altogether.

Fair enough.

But with the public-cost arguments against drinking (and smoking) removed, hectoring academics are exposed for what they are. Well-paid agents of Nanny State hellbent on micro-managing your life because they know best.

'Victimhood' contextualised

Here's a plausible hypothesis;

"U.S. society is in the midst of a large-scale moral change in which we are experiencing the emergence of a victimhood culture that is distinct from the honor cultures and dignity cultures of the past. If true, this bodes really bad for future social and political peace."

The concept of victimhood has been talked about for some time but this is a new attempt at context and definition.

(For mine, feminists long postulated that a world ruled by women would be free from war. They failed to add that it wouldn't be free from conflict.)

Original paper noted at Reason