What the Left constantly ignores

Here is the political argument from the Left:

Poverty causes hardship for children. Whether the parent is working or on a benefit makes no difference. It's the lack of income that matters.

My argument is that the source of income matters. A lot.

Children in households with the same low income suffer hardship disproportionately if their parent is on a benefit.

I can speculate as to why. The beneficiary household may lack in budgeting ability. It may lack the discipline of the daily routine and obligations associated with working. It will probably stay at a low income persistently as opposed to temporarily. It may develop a sense of dependence versus self-reliance which transfers into a not-getting-around-to-it mentality; not maintaining a home, neglecting a child's needs, not paying bills on time and incurring debt. It may prioritise money on expenditure that is self-destructive such as substance abuse or gambling.

Of course, the Left will say all of the above is no more than an ignorant display of prejudice. Blaming the victim. Punching down. And given Maori and Pacific feature disproportionately among beneficiary households with children, it smacks of racism too. In fact, as one of the privileged I have no right to an opinion.

But the criticism has never stopped me expressing one. And more importantly it hasn't stopped me searching for the evidence that politicians prefer to ignore.

MSD publishes a Child Poverty Report by Bryan Perry and has done so for many years. Since 2022 it has been biannual. I mention Bryan by name because I rate him and his analysis should be  the gold standard for all government departments in its thoroughness and neutrality.

The latest edition features a section on Children in 'working' and 'beneficiary' households. Rather than interpret (or misinterpret) I will quote him directly:

(left click on image to enlarge)

"The right-hand panel in Table E.4 to a considerable degree removes the impact of the income factor by looking only at households in the lower AHC income quintile (Q1). These low-income ‘working’ and ‘beneficiary’ households have hardship profiles that are a little less different than when looking at the whole income spectrum, though the children in low-income ‘working’ households are still better off (fewer restrictions / deprivations). The respective material hardship rates are 8% and 44% across all incomes and 17% and 47% when only those in the low-income zone (Q1) are considered – a rough means of controlling for income."

For children in poor working households their material hardship rate was 17 percent; for children in poor beneficiary households, their hardship rate was 47 percent.

That is a significant difference.

The hardship rate is derived from a list of deprivations/ restrictions such as foodbank use; inadequate income for basics; inability to keep house warm; delayed replacement or repair of appliances; borrowing from friends and family; no computer or internet; worn out clothing or shoes; inadequate protein or fresh fruit and vegetables etc.

The mean equivalised (for household size) income for the family with market income is $15,400. The mean equivalised income for the family with govt income is $15,600 - slightly higher. (Table E.5)

Perry also looked at the liquid assets and consumer durables held by each group and unsurprisingly found consumer durables considerably higher in households with market income. In his words, "working households have a higher level of resources to draw on." He suggests that a longitudinal dataset would be needed to examine income trajectories further.

In the past longitudinal studies have shown households moving within income bands over time. This type of data shows up persistent versus temporary poverty. Given the high future years dependent expectation for children on, for example, the Sole Parent Support benefit, their poverty tends towards persistent. Hence it is harder to build assets and durables. 

Based on the data above a child in a poor benefit family is more than three times more likely to be in material hardship than a child in a poor market family.

Whatever the personal circumstances, it is impossible to build a broad-based case for children growing up on welfare rather than in a working household.

Repeatedly though leftwing administrations wilfully ignore the facts and implement policies that draw more children into long-term dependency. Jacinda Ardern was a prime example.

If the Left (Labour, the Greens, TOP and the Maori Party) was sincere about reducing child hardship they'd stop ignoring crucial evidence.

Why the vacuum around the new Children's Commissioner?

For those of us who take an interest in child welfare and listen to various media outlets, Jane Searle is a familiar voice. As head of the organisation Child Matters, she was often the go-to person when child abuse deaths occur. As an ex detective who worked in a child abuse team, Jane wasn't afraid to talk about contributing factors such as drug addiction. My first response to her appointment was that she would have to be better than the wet Claire Achmad.

So naturally I am keen to hear what she has to say in her new capacity as Children's Commissioner but can find very little. Here's why:

"Children's Commissioner Jane Searle will be available for media interviews from Monday 17 August."

So she has two weeks grace to get her feet under the table and familiarise herself. Is that unusual? Perhaps the news of her appointment (from August 1) was prematurely leaked? Perhaps because the outgoing Commissioner was going reluctantly?

The single media report I can find is at Waatea News:

"For Māori communities, the appointment comes amid continuing concerns about the disproportionate number of tamariki Māori involved in the state care system and ongoing calls for culturally responsive approaches that strengthen whānau, whakapapa and community connections."

Here we are presented with the Maori worldview (or te ao perspective) which I am not sure Searle is particularly onboard with due to previous comments about the politicisation of Oranga Tamariki and staff inability to just get on with the basics.

But before Searle is available for interviews she was available to the local marae.

Louise Upston wrote on Instagram yesterday:

"This week I joined in welcoming new Children’s Commissioner Jane Searle at Waiwhetū Marae. I know Jane will be a fierce and independent advocate for children. She stands in good stead for the role, with more than 15 years’ combined experience in different parts of the children’s sector, including child protection. Thanks to outgoing Children’s Commissioner Dr Claire Achmad for her passion and advocacy for young people. Go well."

Some people are getting to hear from the new Commissioner.

So in a vacuum I'll have to do my own research and draw my own conclusions.

In a media announcement about her appointment Searle said:

“There are approximately 1.2 million children in New Zealand. Of those, 170,000 live in material hardship. What’s more, tragically last year alone eight children were killed at the hands of someone else, while thousands more live with severe abuse and neglect.

“These are the children who deserve our priority attention. Too often, they are unknown, uncounted, and unseen by the system. They deserve to be supported, and they deserve a safe, successful future.”

My personal view is that the best advocate for the vast majority of children is their own parents. While I agree with her prioritisation of children living with severe abuse and neglect, straight away it is implied that material hardship and severe abuse are linked.

In 2024 Searle did an interview with Mike Hosking:

Child poverty continues to increase, coming as no surprise to frontline organisations

The latest Stats NZ figures show a two percent rise to 12.5% of all children are living in households that can't afford the basics.

Child Matters chief executive Jane Searle says the numbers of two-income families needing the help of community initiatives has risen substantially.

She told Mike Hosking that the "working poor" is now something they're seeing all the time."

Ironically this is the exact same line the outgoing Commissioner was pushing to Jack Tame at the weekend. It indicates an excessive focus on child poverty as a cause for child maltreatment.

Sean Plunket challenged Searle on this association in an interview in 2022 about the death of Ruthless Empire. He said he was not going to let people get away with killing a child because, " 'I couldn't pay the grocery bills and I was unemployed.' You cannot use the economic circumstance to justify barbarism." Searle agreed saying that New Zealand has high levels of methamphetamine use. Specifically, "Methamphetamine's had a huge impact on child abuse." She added that drug addiction, housing and untreated mental health issues all increased risk for children.

The following year she spoke with Michael Laws (who will probably be an MP later this year), again on the issue of child abuse after another high profile case. Laws asked, Why is it that it nearly always transpires that OT knew about the child concerned yet did nothing or not enough? Searle said Oranga Tamariki was not fit for purpose. That there are huge issues with the culture, workload, training, leadership and there has been for thirty years. Of course that criticism was laid while Labour was still the government.

But in April last year she told Ryan Bridge that OT was " ...a very big ship to turn around and it is going to take years. We always knew that. But this shows that the capacity is still not what it should be. If wait lists are still growing it's going to increase risk. There's no way around that."

She constantly calls for more resourcing to tackle child abuse. But what sector isn't calling for greater resource?

Early intervention is also one of her 'solutions'. Few would disagree but what does that mean in practical terms? Uplifting babies? We have seen the massive opposition from Maori over that particular state power. As Children's Commissioner she will have to take a stand on a number of contentious issues. Where will she land?

Her time and experience in police child abuse teams led to her promoting mandatory reporting - timely, given National MP Andrew Bayley's bill to criminalise non-reporting - though that position could change.

I am concerned that she will concentrate on child protection (the bottom of the cliff) rather than looking at what creates the circumstances which lead to maltreatment. Will she advocate for actually using the predictive risk modelling AUT pioneered but Anne Tolley rejected? Data behind the modelling showed:

“Of all children having a finding of maltreatment by age 5, 83% are seen on a benefit before age 2, translating into a very high “capture” rate.”

To this best of my knowledge I am unaware of Searle ever talking about the connection between welfare and child abuse.

I hope that she does remain a "fierce and independent" voice for children as promised by the Minister, and isn't captured by the Wellington wokery or Maori separatists. Advocacy is a waste of time if it doesn't translate into action.

Outgoing Children's Commissioner calls for bigger benefits as swansong

Outgoing Children's Commissioner calls for bigger benefits as swansong.

Today on Q&A outgoing Children's Commissioner Claire Achmad  told Jack Tame the idea that work alone will lift children out of poverty is a "fallacy". 

Yet the US evidence says the opposite.

NZ has a very high rate of sole parent benefit dependency. So did the US. The two countries share the family breakdown of African Americans and Maori. The Maori ex-nuptial birthrate is currently 81 percent and Maori make-up 51 percent of sole parent beneficiaries (with a recorded ethnicity).

Under a Democratic administration the US reformed its welfare benefit for families (not specifically but frequently headed by a single parent) in 1996. AFDC - Aid for Families with Dependent Children - became TANF - Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. Time limits and work requirements were introduced.

Here's what happened:

 

Source of graphs

Achmad wants both wages and benefits to increase. But what about the gap between them needed to  incentivise work? 

And has she chosen to ignore NZ research that shows children in poor families whose source of income comes from the market, fare much better than children in poor families whose income comes from the government?

To summarise, the findings show that poor children reliant on government transfers, when compared with poor children reliant on market incomes, have lower living standards and a number of compounding shortfalls that can be expected to place them at greater risk of negative outcomes. 

Claire Achmad has no understanding of behavioural economics. Or any other kind of economics.

She sat with Jack Tame on Q & A today talking like a clone of Jacinda Ardern. The similarity of ill-informed ideas, expression thereof and mannerisms was astounding.

Of course her appointment couldn't be extended. Her advocacy is thoroughly misguided and to that extent, would only ever worsen children's life chances in general.

Perhaps her recent vacuous virtue-signaling campaign should serve to illustrate just how badly she needed to go. Her petition Dear Children gathered, after seven months, the grand total of 4,385 signatures. Not even her fellow travelers were roused.