I've used my computer time up today responding to a Green candidate brought to my attention by Shane. So it's also today's posting:
bsprout says: "What Key's government is currently doing has actually
worsened child poverty and he clearly suggested that there wasn't much
more he is prepared to do."
The latest HES finds that using the AHC ‘fixed line’ 60% measure of child poverty the rates were:
2009 22
2010 22
2011 21
And they are down or the same on every other measure depicted.
Table s.2, pg 13
http://www.msd.govt.nz/documents/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/monitoring/household-income-1982-2007/2012-hir-full-summary.doc
bsprout
says:"...there appears to be a pervasive view that the 270,000 children
living in poverty are suffering because their parents made poor choices
and by restricting support will encourage them to get jobs and budget
better. The fact is that the majority of these parents are in work or
part-time employment."
The Children's Social Health Monitor says:
"In
New Zealand, children who are reliant on benefit recipients are a
particularly vulnerable group. During 2009, 75% of all households
(including those with and without children) relying on income-tested
benefits as their main source of income were living below the poverty
line (housing adjusted equivalent disposable income <60 2007="2007" br="br" median="median" of="of">
In 2011 there were 234,572 benefit-dependent children.
Assuming that non-child households are as poor as dependent-child
households (unlikely) the number of beneficiary children living below
the poverty line would be 175,929 or 75 percent.
http://www.nzchildren.co.nz/children_reliant.php
That
represents a majority of 270,000. There is some overlap between benefit
and part-time work but not enough to justify your statement. In fact,
those children with parent on a benefit and working part-time are more
likely to be above the threshold.
bsprout says: "Only a very
small percentage of families abuse the system and to keep tightening the
availability of benefits is just punishing many families who through
redundancy and lack of jobs are suffering."
Your idea of abuse is
probably fraud. My idea of abuse is to add children to an existing
benefit at the rate of 18 percent of all children born each year. It is
hardly surprising we have a child poverty problem.
http://www.occ.org.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/9866/No_3_-_Causes_and_consequences.pdf
Final
point. Even when NZ had the lowest unemployment rate in the OECD (2007
or thereabouts) the number of children on benefits did not fall below
200,000.
When a child is born
46 minutes ago
19 comments:
Lindsay, thank you for linking to my post and taking the time to comment on what I said. I would just like to reply to your criticisms as you imply some dishonesty on my part.
The numbers of children in poverty have increased over the last few years according the very reputable Child Poverty Action Group http://www.cpag.org.nz/assets/Publications/LFBDec2011.pdf
Using the same AHC 'fixed line' 60% measure that you used the numbers have increased by 30,000 children since when National took office (from 240,000 to 270,000). It was higher under Labour but Working for Families made a huge difference and numbers had dropped from 310,000. It is concerning that numbers are increasing again.
As for your figures regarding the percentage of families in poverty who have some employment I do not have access to figures that can support that properly and am prepared to concede somewhat on that. However the intent of my statement doesn't change as there are a huge number of families categorized as the "working poor" and there is currently an initiative to get support for a living wage. Over the last four years the median household income has dropped and the median Maori household has dropped by $40 per week and Pacifika households by $65. It is not poor management and negligence that has caused many families to struggle but an increase in living costs and a decrease in income.
You must also consider the recent Roy Morgan analysis of the unemployment level which they claim is actually 9.1% and the underemployed is slightly more. when you overlay the 20% child poverty level with the combined percentage of unemployed and under employed (over 18% of the workforce) you can see how I could have reasonably have thought that a large percentage of poor families would have some employment.
Sadly, Lindsay, you seem to buy the idea that parents have a choice to bring their children in to a life of poverty and dependence on the benefit and you imply that that dependence extends for some time. 90% of recipients of the DPB remain on it it for less than 5 years and it is a sad fact that we have one of the highest levels of working mothers of children under 12 months in the OECD (61%).
Compared to other OECD countries we spend less on children in their early years than most. Isn't it about time we actually focussed on doing the right thing by these children? The Government is prepared to spend $12 billion on motorways that don't produce a good return on their investment yet, despite the fact it costs the country $6 billion address the health, welfare and educational needs of disadvantaged children, there is no more money to invest in them.
"Sadly, Lindsay, you seem to buy the idea that parents have a choice to bring their children in to a life of poverty and dependence on the benefit and you imply that that dependence extends for some time."
Probably because she has seen this first-hand- as have most of us not blinkered by socialist dogma.
Pg 17 of the report you link to shows that 240,000 children were in poverty in 2007 rising to 270,000 in 2009. National took office late 2008.
I reiterate that the Household Incomes Report found, "16 Child poverty rates were flat from 2009 to 2011 – this is a good result in the circumstances (GFC, economic downturn) …" For impartial reporting see http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1208/S00346/household-incomes-trend-in-inequality-and-hardship.htm
There might be numerous reasons why the Maori and Pasifika median household incomes have dropped. For instance, Maori who were earning have departed for Australia leaving a larger percentage reliant on benefits lowering the median income. But whatever the reasons, the reductions are not something I relish.
As far as I am aware there isn't a published figure regarding children in poverty who are reliant on welfare. I try to piece together the available data.
Your assumptions re the Roy Morgan Poll are reasonable. But various estimates of unemployment beyond the official figure provided by the Household Labour Force Survey are not new. It has always been possible to find higher and valid figures using different methods.
Yes, I do think that parental choice has a great deal of bearing on whether children grow up in poverty. And dependence on the DPB can extend for very long periods. Where did you get "90 percent of the DPB remain on it for less than 5 years"?
MSD can only interrogate its database back to 1996. When a study looked at the period from December 2005 back it found,
"On average, sole parents receiving main benefits had more disadvantaged backgrounds than might have been expected:
• just over half had spent at least 80% of the history period observed (the previous 10 years in most cases) supported by main benefits
http://www.msd.govt.nz/documents/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/research/sole-parenting/understanding-sub-groups-of-sole-parents-receiving-main-benefits.doc
The conundrum is, how does a country put more unearned money into workless households without encouraging more of them? Growing up in homes where nobody works for a living isn't good for children. You think the right thing to do is simply transfer money from the rich to the poor to bring up low incomes. But it isn't as simple as that. It creates perverse incentives which end up hurting children more than helping them.
I'm a parent. I am not indifferent to children. But I can't support the Greens superficial approach to what is a problem which extends well beyond just financial parameters (either extending the IWTC or a universal child benefit).
It wasn't my intention to imply dishonesty on your part. Merely to point out other non-supporting evidence.
My idea of abuse is taxing money from hardworking parents and giving it to bludgers.
Lindsay, here is some data on the DPB to support the average length of stay on the DPB. Only a small percentage remain on it after five years. http://igps.victoria.ac.nz/WelfareWorkingGroup/Downloads/Working%20papers/MSD-Overviews-of-DPB-SB-IB.pdf
New Zealand has shocking statistics on child health and welfare and it is largely to do with lack of spending. I am not one to just throw money at a problem and hope it works, we need to target money in areas that make the most difference.
Labour's Working for Families initiative has made a huge difference to removing families from a cycle of poverty and I do think a Universal Child Benefit would also make a difference. I have estimated that it will cost between 2-3 billion, but when you consider it costs us $6 billion to manage the effects of child poverty it will be an investment worth paying. It costs us all to keep children in a cycle of poverty and when you consider it costs $91,000 a year to keep someone in prison spending a few thousand in those first years will save money in the long term.
I feel you are also misrepresenting the Greens Policy on lifting children out of poverty, what is most important is families finding good employment and earning living wages. There are many ways to do this , whether it is through adult education, improved early childhood education (we spend near half of what most OECD countries do, the average is over 1% of GDP and we spend 0.6%), raising minimum wages and just creating more jobs. The Greens plan is here:http://www.greens.org.nz/sites/default/files/gp_endchildpoverty_2011_no_crest_bookletforprint.pdf
There is nothing superficial about our Green Policy and already our home insulation scheme has made a difference in providing both jobs and warmer homes. We now need to push it into the thousands of substandard rental properties.
Celia Lashlie has written an excellent book called "The Power of Mothers" where rather than continually punishing and cutting benefits to poor mothers (who have had poor mothering themselves) and removing their children, we break the cycle and empower them to have the confidence and skills to do the right thing by their kids.
When I was a kid most mothers stayed at home to look after the children and parenting was regarded as an important job. When family benefit was first introduced it was actually relatively much more than any current payments and was universal. It allowed mothers to be mothers (I feel the 61% of mothers with children under 12 months having to work appalling) and did not require so much spending on child care. As a teacher it really upsets me when small children are in after school care till after 5pm because parents need the work. It upsets me when children are sent to school sick because parents don't want to lose their jobs. It concerns me when the vast majority of families have few holidays together because the two working parents can't co-ordinate their time off.
In New Zealand we don't value children or parenting nearly as much as many other countries and our shocking statistics for child health and welfare are the result. It is not because we just naturally have 25% of our parents who are useless it is because our culture has changed in family support, in work expectations and conditions and the fact our local communities no longer have time to look out for one another as before.
It is not because of dependence on welfare either, because it is not an easy life and statistic show most people would move of it if they have the chance. There will always be some truly hopeless families, but they are actually a minority. I have taught in low decile schools in some pretty poor communities and in any class (of around 27-30 children) there would be only be 1-2 families at the most who i would think would need on going support.
bsprout, There is still a problem with the stats you link to but it is not immediately obvious. MSD stats are based on continuous spells on a benefit but large numbers of DPB recipients have multiple spells on a benefit.
"Between 49% and 54% of clients granted a Domestic Purposes Benefit between 2008/2009 and 2010/2011 had received a main benefit in the previous 12 months."
http://statistical-report-2011.msd.govt.nz/main+benefits/domestic+purposes+benefits#head_anchor_5
There is no definitive statistic for the average all-up time spent on the DPB.
So I accept the statistic you used at face value, but it hides more than it reveals.
Also it is important to distinguish between statistics deduced from a period of time and at a point in time. Try this link for an explanation:
http://lindsaymitchell.blogspot.co.nz/2011/11/why-phil-goff-should-never-get-near.html
Regarding a universal family benefit, when it was introduced in the forties it began dependency problems for Maori in particular. Problems that have never ceased. Because Maori families were typically large, and wages from work typically low, the benefit could accrue to a relatively attractive sum. This led men to reduce their work efforts and it indulged self destructive habits. Alcoholism for instance. Margaret McClure has documented this in A Civilised Community saying that the family benefit was the most controversial benefit during the 1950s and 60s. (Now it's probably the DPB.)
As for working mothers I sympathise with the idea that they should be able to full-time parent if they want to. And that children benefit from them being able to do so. But it's their choice and their responsibility to fund. Just passing the responsibility over to the taxpayer has resulted in over 100,000 sole parents staying at home on welfare while far more partnered parents have to go to work to pay the tax required to fund their sole counterparts.
Now, I say again, if you make the benefit even more generous it won't just be 22 percent of all children born in a year ending up on welfare. It'll go up. And then so will taxes and we're still stuck in the cycle that provides the results you are so unhappy about. Can I remind you that we are already borrowing hundreds of millions weekly.
And your statistic that 61 percent of NZ mothers work with children under 12 months is suspect.
Chart LMF 1.2.B at this OECD link:
http://www.oecd.org/els/familiesandchildren/38752721.pdf
...shows that the maternal employment rate of mothers with children 3 and under is just above 40% - well under the OECD average.
bsprout says, "In New Zealand we don't value children or parenting nearly as much as many other countries..."
I value my children highly. They are the most precious thing in the world to me. I am sure that is the case for most parents. But until it is the case for the vast majority no amount of collective responsibility is going to bridge the gap.
bsprout, Actually I withdraw my acceptance of your amended claim regarding the DPB to "...Only a small percentage remain on it after five years."
The table at your link shows the average years spent on a benefit for all new entrants to the DPB in 1999 was 5.1 years.
How can you interpret that as only a small percent remain after 5 years?
Some of your stats are very dodgy. Do you actually check them or just repeat them? Sorry to sound rude but investigating your claims is time-consuming.
You are right to question me on those figures, Lindsay, as I couldn't find the original source that broke it down to actual numbers, I agree that data wasn't as useful as I intended. However I'm am still sure that most spend little time on the DPB because as you know averages skew the result. They should use the median amount to give a clearer idea what is the reality for most. I would imagine the median may be even lower because the few that spend a long time on a benefit will lift the average.
For instance the average household income is almost $80,000 and the median (which most households earn) is only $62,000, $18,000 less.
I appreciate your challenges as it is important to show evidence to support our arguments. I guess we both need to find more useful data to support our conclusions :-)
You also questioned my claim that 61% of mother with a child under 12 months work. I had repeated that statistic from what I thought was a reliable source in good faith but like you I struggled to find support. The OECD information you found isn't helpful because the data from the different countries varies greatly in the years they had been collected and the most recent I could find from Statistics New Zealand was done in 1996. In that year 40% of mothers with children under 12 mnths were in employment. Because of the 20 hours free childcare initiative and the pressures on mothers to have extra income sources it is conceivable that it has increased by another 20%, but I accept that I can't verify it. However even 40% is too high for my liking.
The OECD data is for 2009 unless otherwise indicated. The Children's Commissioner Expert Advisory Group was happy to use the chart in a just-published working paper and commented:
"Employment rates for New Zealand mothers with children under age three are well below the OECD norm."
http://www.occ.org.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/9866/No_3_-_Causes_and_consequences.pdf
sfuoricHowever it would be good to have some confirmation from Statistics NZ. I still don't think we value parenting as much as we should, when our children were young my wife and I deliberately worked part time to share their care. Even though both of us were professionals, we struggled financially. We have never regretted it and our immensely proud of our children's many successes.
We did this over 15 years ago and I am aware it is even harder for parents to make their children a priority now, especially on low incomes.
My wife and I deliberately limited our family to that which we believed we could afford. We do not believe we ought to enslave anyone else to pay for our decisions.
The trouble with that theory Shane is that the workers at the Aluminium Smelter, the coal miners, the workers at the Hillside Workshop, the 4,500 civil servants who have all lost their jobs probably thought they were financially secure to have a family.
I guess you are also saying that no one should have a family unless they can earn a certain income which makes the likes of Paula Bennett and Metiria Turei irresponsible. The optimum time for women to have children is when they are younger than thirty and yet how many young parents with employment insecurities and large student loans could claim they are financially secure. This means 75% of young couples shouldn't have kids.
I also hear you suggesting that if you are stupid enough to have children when you are unable to have financial security, don't expect any support.
Trouble is bsprout, you are comparing people who suffer 'lifeshocks' that are generally temporary and who have paid tax, with young people who start on the DPB as teenagers (at least a third) or keeping adding children to an existing benefit. Those factors are driving most of the child poverty.
Even if I agreed with your figures we still have 66% who are not teenagers when they need support and many of those teenagers will pay back the investment as did Paula Bennett and Metiria who are to examples of this group I referred to.
As the father of a teenage daughter I am also aware that pregnancy in this age group is not generally seen as a career pathway. Those who are getting pregnant in her high school are not all from challenging backgrounds. I would say alcohol plays a huge part in unplanned pregnancies and is the cause of the growing number of those children with Fetal alcohol Syndrome.
Fiscal restraints will not stop what is happening just make those who are this position worse off and effecting children even more. It is investing in education, working with existing problem mothers/families to break the cycle (Celia Lashlie) and providing more flexible and better paid jobs.
The government wiped the initiative to give female dominated jobs greater equity with equivalent male jobs (a road worker earns more than a teacher aid working with high needs children). For many women they earn less when employed than they do on a benefit-where is the incentive to do otherwise. The government also wiped the ability for women on the DPB to get support for higher learning
This is a complex problem that needs multiple strategies to even start to solve. Working for Families made an immediate difference for children. Such inputs of funding is needed to protect children in immediate need but we have to work towards a situation where families can survive without needing support. It is dealing with this initial crisis where we probably disagree and I'm sure we both share the vision of where we want to be.
Just realized how many spelling and grammatical errors above, I am mutltasking. Apologies.
bsprout, You may find some of the data in this 2009 Statistics NZ report reassuring.
"Only 12.9 percent of children
under 1-year-old were attending formal care. This compares with 45.6 percent of those aged 1
year, 52.7 percent of those aged 2 years, 73.3 percent of those aged 3 years, and 86.7 percent
of those aged 4 years. Use of informal care was far less varied by age and ranged between 37.7
percent and 48.1 percent of children for each age."
While it doesn't tell us conclusively about maternal employment rates the low percentage of under ones in formal care would suggest a lower rate of working mothers than 40 percent (the three years and under rate).
http://www.stats.govt.nz/~/media/Statistics/Browse%20for%20stats/ChildcareSurvey/HOTP2009revised/ChildcareSurvey2009revisedHOTP.pdf
However there is sad anecdotal evidence that the poorest families find professional childcare not always an option and their children are left with people who shouldn't have that responsibility.
We spend .4% of GDP on early childhood education while the OECD average is 1%. The UNICEF report I linked to shows we do a lot on very little financial support: http://www.unicef.org.nz/article/610/nzscores6outof10inoecdearlychildcareeducationleaguetable.html
Dave, it is not a theory, it is a fact.
Post a Comment