Ruck 'em!

I can't help but think there is huge missed opportunity in the debate surrounding the way Paula Bennett is bullying two women who have gone public with their criticisms of the government’s cuts to the Training Incentive Allowance.

If you're out of NZ or under a rock - our Minister of Social Development released details of the two women's benefit incomes (although it seems she got the numbers wrong) in response to their criticism. She is now unrepentant and her PM is backing her.

There's an issue around the appropriateness of a Minister of the Crown releasing personal details relating to the benefits paid to clients of her department without first seeking their permission or informing them of her intention. There's also a question about whether her actions amounted to a breach of the Privacy Act. She may also have misled Parliament (or the public) with her explanantions about whether or not she got advice before acting.

Predictably the blogs and news reports have veered from "she's a bully" to "bloody beneficiaries". I will be very interested to see if Labour's complaint to the Privacy Commissioner bears any fruit. I find the beneficiary bashing side of it all so reminiscent of a by gone era (Muldoonism, anyone?) but I am much more interested in the continued lack of informed debate.

I say lack of informed debate because not one media type has made an effort find out and explain exactly how our benefit system works or to find out how successful such support of education and training for beneficiaries can be.

I posted Elsewoman's comments about the DPB earlier. Such information would really help people understand that there simplyaren't the imagined hoards of solo mums out there trying to rip off hard working tax payers.

I'd also like to see some discussion of studies from Europe and Scandinavia that indicate the more support we provide to recipients of a range of benefits the less time they continue to draw that benefit.

But none of this will see the light of day in the New Zealand media. I don't know why. I suspect it's because the system is now simply not up to the research and investigation required to write such an article. News rooms are getting smaller and younger. There's neither the resources nor the expertise. Nor, I uspect, is there a will. Most journalists are just as prejudiced and uninformed as the rest of us and to begin the process of writing such an article one would need an open and enquiring mind and some knowlege of the issue to start with.

That's a shame. The vitriol about beneficiaries in comments to news stories and blogs is so 1970's. With a bit of help from media outlets we could at least progress the discussion.

I don't think Bennett intended to progress anything. She's now feigning horror at the level of abuse these two women have received but she'd have to be a moron not to have foreseen it. No, it was just old fashioned bullying from her. She didn't like being put on the spot and being accused of pulling up the ladder (she sold herself as a success story solo Mum in the election) and she went ad hominem on their arses. As she said on the telly - it was “a bit of a lesson for what happens if you go out there and put your story”.

And since no one in the news industry is interested in getting their eye back on the ball, the only option we're left with is to watch the other team play the woman. I have to admit I'm kinda enjoying watching a Tory sweat at the bottom of the ruck but I would really have been interested in seeing more of the broader game plan.

Teen Pregnancy. Elsewoman says it all.

Elsewoman is a great blog from one of those people who actually know stuff. Unlike, it seems, Lindsay Mitchell.

Take me to the Moon

I've really enjoyed all the coverage of the anniversary of the Moon Landings.

I know that the kazillions they spend on space travel could be used to solve world hunger. I know that it's a huge industrial/military/government complex of a conspiracy to keep American millionaires.......millionaires. I know that scientists could be using their extraordinary minds to solve the Earth's problems. But I think flying to the moon is cool and I love the idea that humans are going to go further.

And I want to know what's out there just as much as I want to know what's under our oceans or what creatures and plants once inhabited our planet or what happens when two sub-atomic particles collide or how my body knows the difference between pineapple juice and petrol.

I'm not religious. I do not believe in a god or gods. I do, however, share something in my response to the universe with those of a religious persuasion. I think it's awe. I am in awe of how this whole thing works. This seems to manifest itself in me as a sort of geeky interest in things scientific.

I honestly look up at the the Milky Way and - like a kid - try to imagine what it must be like to be closer to one of those stars than to our Sun. I read all the articles about the Large Hadron Collider. I'll buy any magazine which advertises itself with pictures of dinosaurs or planets. I search shuttle launch on Youtube every time there is one. I am endlessly fascinated by the human body - from gross muscle movements to biochemical processes.

I want to know more about how it all works. I think we should all be fascinated by how it all works. I think every teacher and parent should instill in every kid a wonder and thirst for knowledge about this extraordinary thing - our ability to know and want to know the world around us. I believe that if this sort of excitement about how interesting it all is was instilled in people then people would do less bad stuff. Kids with a fascination and wonder about life would be less inclined to damage it or themselves. People whose minds are opened to the marvel of it all are more inclined to want to listen to others in order to learn more.

That's why I want someone to go out, take a look and report back on what they find. I want to say - I want to hear others say - with wonder in our voices - "Wow, that's cool".

Throw away the Key

I was fascinated by how defensive Simon Power appeared when responding Dame Sian Elias' comments on our prison system yesterday. Garth McVicar's comments were predictable but I thought John Key's McVicar-like "we are not going to just open the gates and let them walk out" comment was very telling. Today it was "three strikes" ACT MP David Garrett being very aggressive in his attempts to shut her down.

What interests me is the defensiveness of their responses. Neither of the Nats outlined the government's approach nor did they try to justify policy. Power just tried to bully Elias into shutting-up and Key trivialised the discussion with a ridiculous dog whistle to McVicar's cronies. Both demonstrated a fair amount of insecurity about their position.

I think this insecurity about their position stems from the fact that their position is so insecure. In other words there actually isn't any analytical, reasoned approach to their policies.

What we have seen from many of the new Government ministers have been policy announcements based on nothing more than the minister's opinion. An opinion which might go down well over G&T's with their mates but simply doesn't hold up to any sort of analysis or scrutiny.

Their current justice and prisons policy is a classic. There is ample evidence from all around the world that no matter how harsh or punitive we make prisons they simply don't actually work. Greg Newbold points out in his "The Problem of Prisons" that it makes no difference whether our system is harsh or liberal (and NZ has had a range of responses. We currently have - historically - very long sentences) there is always pretty much a 50% recidivism rate. Half the people who go to prison will re-offend no matter what you do to them while they're in there. As an aside, he points out that almost every prisoner gets out of prison eventually and he'd rather live next to someone who was treated moderately humanely than an ex-prisoner who was brutalised while inside. He also refers to his own history as an example of what happens for at least some prisoners if they are offered a chance at redemption.

Dame Sian Elias knows all this. She knows the research from around the world and the models of justice that do- in some countries - seem to work better than just building more and more prisons. Simon Power, David Garrett and John Key of course don't care for this research and knowledge because it conflicts with their populist stance - the public want 'em locked up so we'll just lock 'em up. Neither of them have a reasoned leg to stand on so they don't bother with reasoned discussion about the issue.

Watch them - they will repeat their "not opening the gates" and "Government makes the policy, judges action it" lines over and over. They won't try to address the real issues or listen to the arguments. Neither, of course, will the telly interviewers or the talk-back hosts.

And as long as we have these guys in power that will be the intellectual level at which these debates take place.