The glaring anomaly when state steps in

The High Court case featuring caregivers providing care to their disabled adult children is currently being conducted in Auckland. The carers want to be paid for the care they provide because, they argue, if a stranger is required to provide it that stranger gets paid. The Crown lawyer, acting for the Ministry of Health, counteracts;

Coleman explained the Ministry's argument that a social contract existed where people look after their own, and pointed out the policy in question was about filling gaps in services for people with disabilities.

It was not about providing a wage for families - that was the business of the Ministry of Social Policy.

So sometimes the state is happy to ignore the "social contract", and at others, it suits to uphold it.

When it ignores the contract it undermines and weakens it. That has already occurred on a massive scale at an enormous social and economic cost.

The state should uphold the social contract. Having said that these parents are more deserving of assistance than those who treat a "wage for families" as a lifestyle option.

Rearranging deck chairs

There is a certain useful phrase about rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic (and I am not referring to the post on Big News about ACT). No. It was my instant response to reading that Iain Duncan Smith ( double-barrelled surnames are bad enough - unhyphenated ones are worse), Incomes and Pensions Minister in the UK, is still pursing a 'single' benefit. It is "doable" he insists.

To what end? NZ Labour spent years pursuing the idea. Why would it encourage people off welfare or discourage them from going on? As I heard a talkback caller astutely point out the other day on an unrelated matter, you can staple feathers on a Labrador but that doesn't make it a chicken.

And the classic political argument is employed to justify the estimated $7 billion pound cost of setting up this new creature. It will be paid for by the taxes that the long-term unemployed will produce when they get jobs.

Run a mile Chancellor.

Identity theft - identical crime

I wonder what Frank Macskasy was sentenced to?

Update: the answer is here.

"Lifestyle choice is going to come to an end"

Will we ever hear Treasurer Bill English saying this?

"People think it's a lifestyle choice just to stay on out-of-work benefits; that lifestyle choice is going to come to an end."

Of course just exactly how UK Chancellor George Osborne plans to bring it to an end is not at all clear. This won't cut it.

When Clinton vowed to "...end welfare as we know it" he carried through on the promise.

Still I suppose even publicly acknowledging the lifestyle choice is progress.

Musical mammeries

Apple announced today that it has developed a breast implant that can store and play music.

The iTit will cost from $499 to $699, depending on cup and speaker size.

This is considered a major social breakthrough, because

women are always complaining about men staring at their breasts and not listening to them.

Garrett revelation: why now?

The only aspect of the David Garrett assault conviction story that interests me is, why has it come out now? Are we in for another morbidly fascinating round of murky leaks, accusations and counter-accusations ACT-style? Will Whale Watch once again attract more visitors than Kaikoura? Or is this revelation merely the work of the tacky, tabloid media and Mr Garrett's fellow MPs can be expected to stand stoically behind him? Or he may prefer beside and in view.

Kiro calls for higher benefits for Maori

From Simon Collin's article it becomes apparent that what Cindy Kiro said last week was misreported by Catherine Delahunty. She isn't looking at what employment opportunities await young Maori but asking for more early investment and higher benefits.

Former Children's Commissioner Cindy Kiro has made an impassioned plea to invest more in Maori children - for the sake of New Zealand's economy.

She told a conference on welfare reform that Maori were "the canary in the coalmine", losing their jobs and being thrown on to welfare benefits before others when the economy was hit by recession.

It actually matters not whether the country is in recession. Throughout the 'good' times Maori continued to be heavily over represented on benefits.

Dr Kiro, now an associate professor at Massey University's School of Public Health, said these differences were driven by a wider increase in inequality in New Zealand since the late 1980s.

"Maori and Pacific families and individuals are among the most deprived and this is part of the macroeconomic environment that we need to address," she said.

A challenge for Dr Kiro. How does she explain the sharp difference between Maori welfare dependency and Pacific? At June 2010 of all those receiving a benefit 32.1 percent were Maori whereas only 8.3 percent were Pacific.

Professor Kiro said the ageing non-Maori population, combined with relatively high Maori and Pacific birth rates, meant the future NZ economy would depend on today's Maori and Pacific children.

"Quite apart from the moral imperative, we have an undeniable self-interest in making sure they grow up well-educated and well-adjusted. They must, to look after us oldies when it comes time.

"The scientific evidence about the importance of the early years in terms of good life outcomes, including productivity, is now overwhelming."

If Maori children were growing up in families on welfare, then welfare payments had to be high enough to support good lives in decent housing.

Defeated. Forget that children do better when their income comes from the market. Forget that they need a working parent to build expectations. Forget that they need in situ fathers to protect from going off the rails and being prey to gang recruitment.

Put welfare payments up and all we will have is more relatively poor parents and children on benefits. Especially Maori. Kiro has a very poor understanding of what really matters regardless of ethnicity. People need work and strong, constructive relationships, both of which are undermined by the DPB in particular.

In need of a ' home for life'

On first reading this is a heartbreaker but on second thoughts it might be the best thing that could have happened. Let's hope Paula Bennett can find these two a ' home for life'.

Maori and Pasifika children "future caregivers of an ageing population"

Green MP Catherine Delahunty made the following statement about an address by Cindy Kiro to the shadow Welfare Working Group last Thursday;

I loved Cindy Kiro’s challenge to our self interest by investing our best in Maori and Pasifika children as the future caregivers of an ageing population.

Now that is a most interesting statement. At a child poverty conference in Auckland last year I suggested to Cindy Kiro directly that there exists a great deal of care-giving capacity in the DPB population which our ageing population could harness thus providing many more paid jobs. She responded to me that she didn't want to see sole mothers "ghettoised" into rest home workers.

Perhaps she has been thinking a little more about where the employment opportunities lie for many Maori and Pacific females in particular. There is no shame in providing care for the aged (or the young for that matter) and being paid to do it well.

State subsidies benefit the wealthiest

David Craig, senior lecturer in Sociology at the University of Auckland, has has written an interesting piece about the state subsidising wages. Essentially he describes how the 1980s economic reforms left NZ a low wage economy which both National and then Labour addressed through wage and rent subsidies. Some of the policies he identifies are less obvious than others.

There can be no doubt that it is near impossible to live alone on the minimum wage. And that low wages drive people off shore. New Zealand needs higher wages. But when the state steps in with tax credit top-ups and accommodation subsidies the pressure on employers to lift wages or landlords to lower rents is reduced. Ironically it is largely the left that create these subsidy policies. They worry over rising inequality but inadvertently enable it to grow because their redistributive policies play back into the hands of those who own most of the wealth.

Tax credits have been proven to be the only way to get vast numbers of ex-beneficiaries in the US into work and earning enough to live on. In the short term I support them because having a parent in work will provide the best chance of breaking into the inter-generational state dependence cycle. But will their children also have to rely on top-ups as a permanent state of affairs?

I want to see a more egalitarian society. But I don't support the state being the instrument by which that is achieved. Neither however do I think the unfettered market will achieve it. I base that on human nature and the reality of greed.

I gather Craig supports the state as that instrument but is in a quandary as to how incomes can be lifted and inequality stemmed continuing on the current pathway. So where do statists go from here?

Brief look at the shadow WWG proposals

The shadow welfare working group met yesterday There are reports here and here. In Green MP Catherine Delahunty's words;

Longer term strategies such as a Universal Basic Income or at least some universal provision for children were well supported in order to simplify the system and remove the judgmental attitudes often attached to all benefits other than New Zealand Superannuation.

A UBI requires high tax rates in order that every adult New Zealander receives a basic income from the state. This replaces the current benefit system. I would never support it despite some libertarians having mooted the idea from time to time (of recent times, notably Charles Murray). Briefly, it would badly affect entrepreneurship and productivity and it continues the 'paying people to do nothing' syndrome.

It's a dangerous idea that could, however, easily gain widespread currency in a relatively poor country like NZ.

There was a realistic understanding about the costs of change at both the ideological and the practical levels. The visions of a compassionate and respectful agency which supported people to towards meaningful work were supported, alongside a call for immediate changes.

These included extending Working for Families to all families and restoring benefit rates to pre-1991 levels; restoring the discretionary Special Benefit for people who cannot meet their essential financial commitments; and creating some real jobs appropriate for the diversity of people who need them.

I couldn't agree that these proposals do reflect a "real understanding". Even Labour refused to extend the In Work tax credit to beneficiary families and were backed by the Human Rights Tribunal in that action.

There is nothing new being proposed by the shadow group. It's simply an organised front for advocating greater state involvement in the redistribution of wealth. Their goals are short-sighted and would be implemented to the detriment of all New Zealanders over the long term.

Lazy French

As a nationality the French are a puzzle. On one hand they can get off their backsides to protest en masse. But on the other, what are they squealing about? Not being able to sit on their backsides from age 60.

Oh, but really. They aren't lazy. They are magnanimous.

Francois Courton, 80, a retired manager from the Paris city roads department, said that he was there "for the younger people".

"If people don't retire at 60, where are the jobs for the young to come from?"

The same place they come from in all the other countries with higher retirement ages.


GERMANY
The statutory retirement age in Germany is 65. Recent reforms will increase the retirement age to 67 by 2029.

UK
With a slightly more favourable demographic development than the EU as a whole, the statutory retirement age is set at 65 for men and 60 for women.

Current reforms have slated a new retirement age for women from 60 to 65 by 2020 and 68 for both sexes by 2046.

SPAIN
Spain faces one of world’s most severe demographic challenges, with almost one in three Spaniards over 65 by 2049, according to government estimates.

The retirement age is currently 65 for both men and women. While early retirement is possible at 60, pension payments are substantially reduced in this case.

The ruling Socialist government has adopted legislation to raise the retirement age to 67, with the reform to be introduced gradually from 2013.

NETHERLANDS
The retirement age in the Netherlands is 65. The Dutch government has decided to raise it gradually to 67 by 2025.

ITALY
Italy’s current retirement age is 65 for men and 60 for women, but since the length of contribution also counts, actual exit ages can be considerably lower.

Legislation adopted in 2007 marks the minimum retirement age at 60 in 2011 and 61 in 2013.

According to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), public pension expenditure will increase to almost 25 percent of Italian GDP by 2050, about twice as high as the value projected for the EU.

GREECE
The retirement age is 65 for men and 62 for women, but under significant pressure from the Eurozone group, Greece’s Socialist government has introduced changes to its pensions system to curb massive debt.

The retirement age for women will rise to 65 to match that of men, but women and men will still be able to retire earlier provided they have worked at least 37 years.

SWEDEN
French lawmakers have cited Sweden’s 1994 pension legislation as a model for future changes to its own system. Under Sweden’s reforms, which split retirement plans between private and public schemes, the minimum pension age is set at 61 for both men and women, with no maximum retirement age.

ADHD associated with welfare benefits

A recently published Swedish study has found;

Coming from a family on welfare benefits increased the risk of ADHD medication by 135 per cent when compared with households not claiming benefits.

As usual there are inter-related factors - low maternal education, single parenthood and low income.

"Our study showed that almost half of the cases could be explained by the socioeconomic factors included in our analysis, clearly demonstrating that these are potent predictors of ADHD-medication in Swedish schoolchildren" says Professor Hjern.

"There are several ways that family factors may influence ADHD. For example, low parental education is associated with general social disadvantage, a higher number of stress factors and a greater risk of childhood adversity.


A NZ Herald report from 2003 adds another dimension to this link:

Parents of children prescribed methylphenidate for ADHD were selling it to supplement their benefit, while there was anecdotal evidence children had been selling it at school, Dr Morgan said.

The National Addiction Centre director and psychiatrist, Associate Professor Doug Sellman, said the more methylphenidate was used for ADHD, the more families would trade it.

"The temptation to sell Johnny's medication is stronger in poorer families, and ADHD tends to be found more in lower socioeconomic families," he said.

So I guess there may be a question about whether the condition and diagnosis is more prevalent amongst beneficiary adults and children, or the desire for the medication. Probably a combination of both.

Sole parents: blighted by poverty and mental illness

The following graphs paint a clear picture of the deprivation associated with sole parenthood.

But first, the extent of sole parenthood, which grew from 10 percent of all families with dependent children in 1975 to 28 percent in 2006:



The second describes the extent of poverty amongst sole parents:



And the third describes the extent of mental illness amongst sole parents:



The natural reaction to this is concern. Especially as these circumstances affect not just the parent but the child living with the parent.

The response of the left is to call for more money to be diverted from two parent families into one parent families. This ignores the likelihood that in doing so more sole parent families will be created. In any event a well-known Swedish study into a huge cohort of relatively advantaged (in comparison to other countries) sole parents in that country showed that their children still suffered higher rates of mental illness, suicidal ideation, drug addiction etc which suggests the parents were similarly afflicted.

Of course there is something of the 'chicken and egg' scenario occurring. Does a mental disorder predispose to sole parenthood or does sole parenthood make mental illness more likely? I believe it is at least safe to say that an existing mental disorder will generally be exacerbated by becoming a sole parent.

So are we between a rock and a hard place with sole parents? Is the only way to reverse the trend a withdrawal of the subsidy? And isn't that unthinkable?

No.Yes.No.

But the subsidy shouldn't be removed over night or in totality. In practice that means time-limits and exemptions. It certainly must not be increased. And as well as mental illness requiring more medical intervention, there are other safeguards - having work and a partner.

An over-simplified analysis? Quite probably. But sometimes we just get bogged down in detail and paralysed by the parameters and politics of the problem.

Cows don't know they are crims

Here's an uplifting story to permeate the sense of gloom the earthquake and bad weather has cast. It concerns a Corrections-run a prison farm near Milton in the South Island;

This farm is run by the Corrections Inmate Employment (CIE) scheme,and in three years is footing it with any well-run dairy farm, evident from its two milk-quality awards from Fonterra last season.

CIE southern farms manager Allan Gorton said the awards for high milk quality (a low somatic cell count) were tributes to the farm instructors and prisoners...

The farm is run as a commercial venture and also as a training facility for prisoners before release.

In conjunction with daily farm work, inmates are offered training through the Agriculture Industry Training Organisation.

Last season 75 prisoners gained 283 unit standards in a variety of courses. For some these were their first qualifications.

The credits were earned for courses as diverse as animal health, animal handling, chainsaw safety, Grow Safe and tractor and all-terrain vehicle driving.

Mr Gorton said he knew of seven men who were now working on dairy farms as a result of training at the Milton property. Others had jobs in related farm industries...

"For some, it is the first time they have passed something in their life. To them it's very meaningful. It lifts their self-esteem."

For many, it was the first time they had worked with large animals, which could be intimidating as well as rewarding.

"The thing about animals is that they don't argue, condemn or criticise," Mr Gorton said.

I am never able to fall into one or other camp when it comes to crime and punishment. Prisons are essentially places that make most who go there more likely to re-offend. Yet sending them there is often unavoidable.

So why don't we do more of this sort of stuff? I can see a strong libertarian argument that objects to using taxpayer money to create competition with other tax-paying farms. But if the primary role of the state is to maintain law and order doesn't rehabilitation take a higher priority?

I am reminded of a recent conversation I had with a man who did a spray painting apprenticeship in prison. By sheer chance he got the opportunity to demonstrate his proficiency with a potential employee. He told me how he had stepped into the booth, done all the right things bar neglecting to don the mask of the usual worker. He was stopped and asked if he had heard of OSH? To which he replied, "Listen. I've just come out of jail. I've got me a clean bill of health. No hep. No HIV." Of which he was evidently very proud. "You think I'm putting that germ-riddled thing on, your mad." Suffice to say, he got the job.

Child Support - facts and figures

As Child Support is topical here are some facts and figures produced through an OIA request last year;

* In 2008 IRD collected $363 million in child support

* Of that sum $136 million went into the consolidated fund to offset the $1,530 million DPB bill

* At March 31, 2009 there were 130,762 liable parents

* Of these parents 59,536 (46 percent) paid the minimum amount of $66.60 per month

* A typical monthly payment to a sole parent with two dependent children living in Auckland receiving the DPB, accommodation supplement and other allowances could be $2,513

* Under that example, a liable parent paying the minimum for two children would be contributing 5.3 percent of the custodial parent's benefit payment

* At 31 March 2009 there were 201,900 children subject to child support. That has risen to 210,000 in 2010 - approximately one in five under 18s.

* 45 percent of liable parents had incomes of under $20,000; 3 percent had incomes in excess of $100,000

* 27 percent of liable parents and 54 percent of custodial parents received benefit income during the month of April 2009

* 18 percent of liable parents are female (some parents share custody of children and both incur liabilities)

* At March 31, 2009 7,135 or 1 in 20 liable parents lived overseas

* In NZ child support is payable up to 19 (unless he or she becomes 'financially independent'); in the UK child support is payable up to 16 (unless the child remains in non-advanced education)

Maharey was wrong

Way back in 2001 I started challenging the Minister of Social Development about the time people were spending on the DPB. Steve Maharey commonly cited 3 and a half years which was accepted on his authority and became the standard line for DPB proponents.



But I said it was more like double that because people had repeated stays and he was only counting each individual stay. A fair bit of correspondence passed between us. In 2003 I took my calculations before the select committee which was debating removing work tests on the DPB. That generated the following news report;

April 4, Page 2, Dominion
Public misled on DPB - campaigner

By David McLoughlin

The length of time the average sole parent spends on the domestic purposes benefit could be almost double the official 3.7 years.

This is because thousands of sole parents go off, and then back on to, the DPB, but each period drawing the benefit is counted separately rather than cumulatively.

Wellington woman Lindsay Mitchell, who is campaigning for a select committee review of the benefit, calculates from official data that shows how many times sole parents have drawn the DPB that the average real time spent on it is 6.5 years.

Mrs Mitchell, of Eastbourne, obtained Social Development Ministry data on how many people currently drawing the DPB had been on it previously. She found that 25,058 of the current 101,000 paid the sole parent DPB had drawn on it once before, 11,493 had drawn it twice, 5043 three times and 3663 for or more times previously.

With the help of her husband David, who formerly worked for Statistics New Zealand, she calculated the 6.5 years average from the number of times each sole parent has drawn the DPB.

She was critical yesterday of politicians, including Social Services Minister Steve Maharey, as well as the news media, for continuing to repeat the 3.7 years when it was "misleading".

Yesterday I was reading a new report

Sole parenting in New Zealand: An update on key trends and what helps reduce disadvantage

snuck onto the MSD website with no corresponding media release. Here is what it says;

... when the benefit histories of all New Zealand sole parents receiving benefits at June 2008 are examined, half appear to have become parents before age 23, and the median share of time spent on benefits in the previous 10 years (or a shorter period in the case of younger groups) is 83 percent (mean: 72 percent).

The mean time spent on the DPB in the last ten years is 72 percent or 7.2 years. By my crude method I calculated a minimum figure of 65 percent (or 6 and a half years) over a similar period, assuming the data MSD gave me in 2002 extended back to 1993, the limitation of their benefit history at that time.

I suppose an apology from Mr Maharey, now Vice Chancellor of Massey University where he is probably continuing to infect young minds with socialist propaganda, would be too much to expect.

Pork barrelling in local government elections

Lower Hutt Mayor David Ogden is offering free swims for seniors. My letter to the Hutt News;

Is David Ogden morphing into Winston Peters? His campaign promise of 'free' swimming for seniors sounds very nice but must be recognised for what it is. A vote-buyer. And politicians can only ever buy votes with somebody else's money. It's called pork-barrelling. Rife in central government, it is a shame to see it appear so unabashed in local government.

Mayor Ogden cloaks his vote-buying with the well-meaning intention of encouraging "healthier and more active lifestyles." Is that where we want local government to go? Using ratepayer's money to nanny them?

He says it is time to "invest in the people" . It is the individual's prerogative to decide for themselves what they want to invest their money in. There are probably far more elderly folk worrying about paying their rates than fretting over paying $4-50 for a swim in the local pool.

The worst of it is, his only opponent agrees. In fact Ray Wallace will no doubt soon be upping the ante. Those who want lower rates and a focus on core services are faced with choosing between the lesser of two evils.

The "science" Sellman asked for

Well done NZ Conservative. They have just linked to a US study that finds non-drinkers have the highest mortality rate.

The sample of those who were studied included individuals between ages 55 and 65 who had had any kind of outpatient care in the previous three years. The 1,824 participants were followed for 20 years. One drawback of the sample: a disproportionate number, 63%, were men. Just over 69% of the never-drinkers died during the 20 years, 60% of the heavy drinkers died and only 41% of moderate drinkers died.

But Professor Doug Sellman says;

“I’m not happy using words like responsible, moderate and safe. They are the words that the [liquor] industry likes to use.”

“The public needs to know what low-risk drinking is. The government should be telling us all, using the best science possible.”

Oh dear. It looks like "low-risk" drinking is no drinking.

Susan St John - Child Poverty charlatan

Billed at the left-wing WelfareWatch under the heading "Facts and Figures" I have just come across this June 16 letter to the NZ Herald from Susan St John, associate economics professor, Auckland University;

Dear Editor

Lindsay Mitchell (NZ Herald letters, 15th June) claims that Ministry of Social Development data shows that at last a third of current DPB recipients began on welfare as teenagers. She then goes on to suggest, with no supporting data, that the actual percentage may possibly be twice that. This is designed to make us believe that New Zealand has an enormous problem of sole parents starting young and being on the benefit for years. This Bogey may justify all kinds of draconian knee jerk responses.

In fact MSD says that, of the 34,000 DPB recipients aged 29 and under who had any time on a benefit as a teenager, only 17% (5,780 people) received the DPB, and the others may have had a minimal stint on unemployment or sickness benefit long before they had children. Thus only 6% of current DPBs started as teenagers. It is a gross exaggeration to describe this as a huge dependency problem.

The data clearly shows that sole parents largely move off the benefit when suitable jobs are available and when the needs of their children allow them to. The hand-ringing over sole parents should be replaced with community respect for the difficult lonely and yet vital work they do in caring for their children.

Susan St John
Exec CPAG

The following is from an OIA request in 2005 and shows that 32.7 percent of single parents currently on a benefit first received welfare under 20.




At this time the Ministry could only provide data relating to people aged 32 or younger, so 32.7 percent is a minimum figure.

I have always been up front about most of them starting on the unemployment benefit and what that implies. Here is a media release I issued earlier this year using more recent data (note the Ministry had changed tack and is only supplying data relating to people aged 29 and under);

Media release

FROM DOLE TO DPB

Thursday, February 18, 2010

Most benefit-dependent single parents who go on welfare as teenagers appear first in the dole queue.

Welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell said today, "Data released under the Official Information Act shows that of those welfare-dependent single parents the Ministry has full benefit history for (aged 29 or younger) 33,730 first claimed welfare as a teenager, but surprisingly, only 17 percent began on the DPB. For 61 percent, the first benefit they relied on was an unemployment benefit."

"This indicates that rather than getting into work or training , many unemployed young people are starting families and moving onto the DPB. Failing to acquire any work experience or further education is virtually a guaranteed pathway to long-term dependency, which is detrimental to both parents and children."

"Over half of these young parents are Maori. Many will have started on welfare during a period of very low unemployment so it is no good blaming the recession or high Maori unemployment. Pacific people experience equally high unemployment rates but they are not over-represented in this group."

"In his opening address to parliament the Prime Minister, John Key, talked about moving people off the DPB. But just as important, if not more, is stopping them from going on it in the first place. Especially as teenagers."

But what did St John write?

In fact MSD says that, of the 34,000 DPB recipients aged 29 and under who had any time on a benefit as a teenager, only 17% (5,780 people) received the DPB, and the others may have had a minimal stint on unemployment or sickness benefit long before they had children. Thus only 6% of current DPBs started as teenagers. It is a gross exaggeration to describe this as a huge dependency problem.

What MSD says is this;

"Less than 17 percent of the 34,004 people first received a Domestic-Purposes-related Benefit."

By omitting the word "first" she has completely changed what MSD say. She doesn't know whether individuals moved from a different benefit onto the DPB while still teenagers.

Next she extrapolates an misinterpreted percentage across all current recipients despite MSD only providing information for those aged 29 or younger (the age will increase as their data expands if they don't lose it all again). St John does not know about those 30 and older who make up 64 percent of the total.

But wait, it gets worse.




This table clearly shows that at the end of December 2009 52 percent of the DPB recipients aged 29 and under, had first received the DPB as a teenager. Some of the number will still be teenagers but remember what St John said in her letter;

"Thus only 6% of current DPBs started as teenagers."


Unbelievable.

If you don't want to rely on my information try the latest MSD research;

The research considered all sole parents in receipt of a main benefit at 31 December 2005 – around 114,000 people. Of this group:

• just over half had spent at least 80% of the history period supported by main benefits
• a third appeared to have become parents in their teens.

Again this is an estimate because it is...

Derived by comparing the birthdate of the sole parent with the birthdates of all the children included with them in periods when they received benefit as a sole parent over the previous 10 years. In the case of older sole parents, this will not be as good as an indicator of early parenting because some first-born children may have already turned 18, or may have left the care of the parent, before the beginning of the 10-year window.


Most recently MSD told Simon Collins of the NZ Herald;

"We expect that the proportion of DPB clients who first received any benefit as a teenager is somewhat higher than a third, particularly as receipt of a benefit is such a common experience in people's teenage years."

Again contrast this with St John's statement

"Thus only 6% of current DPBs started as teenagers."

Based on all of the available information I believe that at least half of all sole parents currently on a benefit started on welfare as teenagers. It wouldn't surpise me if the fraction is higher but in the absence of data and the Ministry's seeming reluctance to conduct a sampling survey we will never know.

St John is chairing a privately organised Child Poverty conference in October. I was invited to participate but declined. This is because I have come to understand that the pro-welfare lobby will tell lies and discredit those with whom they disagree because they believe the ends justify the means and it is an article of faith for them that government redistribution of wealth is the only solution to child poverty.