Friday, April 23, 2021

Children's Commissioner gets it right - and then horribly wrong

I posted yesterday about the child poverty stats and why they are a joke. While recalibration shows better reduction, nothing materially changes for children.  Here's the Children's Commissioner on the same subject:

“A different number behind a decimal point doesn’t change things for the thousands of tamariki and whanau doing it tough. Children who are growing up in a motel, or whose families are struggling to pay for the basics, still need big bold changes to unlock opportunities to live their best lives."


But then he plunges headlong down the leftist rabbit hole:

 “Government efforts to target poverty reduction, improve incomes through the families’ package, expand the school lunch programme and peg benefits to wages have created the strongest foundations for making progress on poverty in decades.

“Poverty and hardship rates, particularly among Māori, Pacific and disabled children are still unacceptably high.

“We want to see benefits raised in line with the recommendations of the Welfare Expert Advisory Group, and a major shift in the availability of social and affordable housing for whānau."

So his solution is greater dependence on the state. Bigger benefits means more children growing up on benefits. 

There is so much documented evidence, here and internationally, that shows benefit dependence - especially long-term - is detrimental to children's outcomes.

Benefits erode family cohesion and they discourage work.

I had high hopes for Andrew Becroft, who back in relatively sane times was outspoken about the young people who appeared before him in the Youth Court. He identified an absence of fathers as the most common factor in their troubled backgrounds. If he hadn't connected that to the state's encouragement of single parent families through the DPB then he must be wilfully blind.

Perhap he is. As Children's Commissoner he is now actively calling for more of the same medicine despite known adverse side effects outweighing any advantage.


Brendan McNeill said...


like you I had much higher hopes for Andrew Becroft. It seems when people put on the mantel of 'Children's Commissioner' common sense evaporates, and they are overwhelmed by the leftist narrative they are surrounded by in their office.

His response is once again evidence that we live in a world no longer influenced by facts, but governed by emotions. What a tragedy for those children on whose behalf he is appointed to advocate.

Oi said...

I'm sorry, but this man is a tool.
He - along with others, but he is prominent - has been tireless in his attempts to destroy the family unit with his efforts to prevent any juvenile from suffering any discipline, penalty or other consequence for any action, illegal or otherwise. that that juvenile may commit.
Sue Bradford started it, this idiot is taking results of her act and running with it.

[There! I feel much better now.... Nurse!]

oneblokesview said...

It is another example of groupthink.
I think of Susan Devoy and Meng Foon.

Both arriving in the job with huge potential, but then ground down by the Yes Minsiter types in their respective offices.

Maybe it time for a change of style.
When a new commissioner is appointed (Poverty, Child, Race etc), the Yes Minister types are obliged to resign.
The new Commission then appoints who they wish on a fixed term contract to serve at the Commissioners pleasure.

Then the Yes Minister types will be motivated to support the new "guy" and not spend their days doing white ant operations.