I wish I'd never read this

Don't read this story of child abuse and murder if you don't want to start your day depressed.

Throughout I felt angry until the last line:

It is understood she has now had a baby with a new partner since her release from prison.

Then I just felt very sad.

Remember this one next time you hear some feminist bleeding-heart lecturing about the sanctity of female reproductive rights.

DomPost at it again

The DomPost is a highly manipulative paper. If they publish a piece that is in conflict with their own editorial viewpoint some trick will be employed to twist it.

Today's prime example is the appearance of this headline in BusinessDay:

Living wage good for singles


Naturally I look first for the author. Eric Crampton. Well there is no way Eric Crampton would be plumping for the living wage.

The guts of his column deals with how the living wage is not an effective tool for lifting the living standards of those with dependent families because of the commensurate loss of WFF assistance. The majority of council workers are not supporting families so the living wage fails in targeting those most in need. He says central govt is better placed to design income support via the tax system. He then works through some of the negative but "logical" effects of the WCC imposing the living wage on contractors (ruling pending in the courts).

The implication can be drawn that the living wage is good for singles despite not helping the partnered-with-children.

But is isn't good for the ratepayers (everyone directly or indirectly, including singles) if it leads to "higher rates, fewer services, or more debt" .

It also won't be good for singles, particularly the young, if it drives up unemployment.

KidsCan talk up a problem they can't solve

A brief piece in today's DomPost describes how a "crisis" at KidsCan is leading to nearly 600 Wellington school children going without "basic healthcare, food and clothing from the charity".

Chapman said it cost about $8000 a child each year to provide the support. 

That is a staggering sum which poses the question, how much does it take to operate KidsCan?

The report then goes on to say that 260,000 children are living in poverty; 180,000 children are living without the basic needs of food, clothing and warmth.

To attend to all the need, KidsCan would require over $2 billion.

No wonder they had to get into the business of child sponsorship. Unfortunately they have over-promised and under-delivered. Which says something about what potential donors think about the cause.

I'll stick with funding the most-basic education of a  Nigerian child whose family is being provided with a hygienic toilet to prevent sickness and death.

"...being a beneficiary is a type of servitude"

Over a month ago I wrote about Tuhoe's desire to be paid out benefit money up front to invest in job creation. Today the NZ Herald has finally written about it. 

This post is simply to draw attention to a stunning statement from Tamati Kruger. He echoes what I and many others have come to believe. It's long been behind my opposition to welfare. I've hated being labelled a' beneficiary basher' for attacking welfare, though you can get used to anything. A white middle-class, middle-aged woman presents an obvious target for derision and denigration, but how does the leftist, pro-welfare lobby deal with the same expression of frustration when it comes from the heart of a subjugated community?

Tuhoe chief executive Kirsti Luke said a majority of Tuhoe people in that area were on benefits, and tribal leader Tamati Kruger said the iwi aimed to change that.
"We are declaring war on dependency," Mr Kruger said. "Our motivation is that if we want to be a vibrant people, to be a productive people who live up to their beliefs and to their faith as to what life is all about, and the honour that has to be part of humanity, then this is clearly what we have to overcome - because being a beneficiary is a type of servitude."

If best attack is hypocritical statistical manipulation, Labour's stuffed

From Question time today:

Grant Robertson: Is it correct that the 46,000 long-term unemployed is the highest level since 1999, other than two quarters in 2012?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: I would certainly want to investigate the number, because, as the member will be aware, in the welfare reform process there has been a lot of reclassification of people, and the product of that reclassification is that a lot more people are now regarded as available for work. They used to languish on the sickness benefit under the Labour Government, which decided they were hopeless and gave up on them. We do not give up on people like that. Even if they cannot get a job immediately, we try to help them get ready to get a job.

It was National that put a definition on "long-term" unemployed. In fact, long-term on any benefit was defined as 1 year plus.

There were 65,652 Jobseeker claimants who had been on a benefit for more than a year at September 2015. A substantial drop from 82,006 in September 2010.

Labour never officially defined long-term dependence on a benefit. Not until Robertson - in Opposition - decided it was 26 weeks or more....well, at least for the unemployment benefit.

Chris Trotter's feminist phonyism

Pompous prat Chris Trotter is parading his feminist solidarity by scolding Michelle Boag for not exhorting National women MPs to join the parliament walk-out earlier this week.

It's a feeble, non-factual play from the willfully ignorant Marxist.

Rather than pouring scorn on the women from the Opposition, Boag should have been upbraiding her sisters in the National Party for not having the courage to join the Opposition women’s protest. Then again, perhaps the National women were happy to go along with their party leader’s cynical exploitation of such emotionally-charged words as “rapist”, “murderer” and “child-molester” to distract the nation from their government’s failure to adequately defend the rights of New Zealanders detained in Australia’s concentration camps.
Perhaps, if New Zealand was blessed with a Women’s Minister who was happy to describe herself as a feminist, a mass walk-out of all women MPs might have been the result. Perhaps, if the last two Ministers for Social Development, both of them women, had been willing to educate their male colleagues about the endless, wearing, anxiety of being a woman without resources or influence, with two or three children to house, feed, educate and keep healthy on a Sole Parent Support benefit of $295.37 per week, there would have been no need.

This idiot arrogantly calls for "male" National MPs to be "educated", yet can't even educate himself.

The income he cites as causing "endless, wearing, anxiety" is under half of the actual average income a sole parent receives.

Not a sentence he writes is worth serious consideration when the substance behind them is so wanting.

Desperate to be victims

Several female opposition MPs declared that they are victims of sexual abuse, presumably to stake their credentials for a parliament walk-out today.

The day I declare myself a victim is the day I lose control of my life.

These are not "courageous" women. They are politicians doing what politicians do best - theatre.

How beneficiaries have experienced the welfare reforms

Left-wing beneficiary advocates have constantly criticised the use of sanctions (cuts to benefit payments)  to enforce work and social obligations. The CPAG has written entire papers about them. (Even Carmel Sepuloni jumps on the band wagon periodically despite Labour being the government that instigated the regime.)

Here's a typical example:

 Lisa Woolley, the president of the Council of Christian Social Services, said the numbers were shocking.
She said the first thing to go when budgets were cut was food, but some may also be struggling with rent, which could lead to overcrowding.
"The impact on the health for children on overcrowding is huge and also when you think of the children being moved from house to house, it's their education that gets impacted," she said.

MSD has now conducted some  qualitative research into how beneficiaries have perceived and experienced the welfare reforms. From the findings comes this:

Clients who had been sanctioned said the experience had encouraged them to swiftly visit their case manager, and had not impacted on their wellbeing
The few clients interviewed who said that they had been sanctioned reported that they had quickly fulfilled Work and Income requirements to restore their benefits.
While they did not feel that the sanctions had impacted their work search or their wellbeing, receiving notice of the sanction had encouraged a swift visit to their case manager.[My emphasis]

Granted the sample is very small. "Only five of the 140 clients spoken to in the evaluation remembered having their benefit suspended or reduced." But their actual experience is counter to the what anti-reformists want us to believe.

Generally, the overall responses are a mixed bag. There are misconceptions about changes (formed by listening to the media apparently), and adherence to old benefit names. However, a broad understanding that there's a much stronger emphasis on finding work has developed.

If your views of WINZ were formed solely on the negativity pushed by the left, the positivism and even appreciation among interviewees would surprise. The over-riding impression I am left with though is the case manager relationship is all important to beneficiaries experience of  and attitude to the reforms. The beneficiaries take on the reforms should not be discounted or downplayed. There is wisdom in the old adage, you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink. I am a great believer in persuasion over force.

Little shows how well-qualified for the job he is

Politicians in particular are creatures who use statistics to suit their own purposes. They have no compunction in spinning the worst scenarios when in opposition and Andrew Little is right up there.

According to the NZ Herald:

[Little] said 305,000 children were living in poverty.

He selected the highest number he could find. Technically speaking, in 2014 there were 305,000 children living in homes that were below 60 percent of the median equivalised household income after housing costs as measured by 'moving line'.

But you can bet that if Labour ever regains power they will very quickly start looking for the smallest numbers they can find. For instance 90,000 children are living in  households experiencing severe material hardship as measured by European Union standards.

Selfies illustrate how wealthy we all are

The latest expose of unequal wealth accumulation by Max Rashbrooke has the NZ Herald featuring photo shots of John Key's son Max and some other girl I've never heard of.

Wealth inequality is driving us back to the days of Victorian England, argues a new book which exposes the rise of the rich kid club.

The journalist continues:

Decadent lifestyles shown by social ­media's young elite have echoes of portraiture from the 18th century, says Rashbrooke.

As oil painters once sought to show off a subject's prestige, now selfies - where youth snap their Bollinger receipts - have the same ­effect of implying status and are in stark contrast to the austerity being forced on most of the West's economies.

Before photography only the very rich could commission oil renditions of family.Today the ability to take selfies extends  across society and wonderfully illustrates how much wealthier we all are. What those selfies portray is another matter....

But the facility to record all and sundry for posterity is nevertheless available to each and every New Zealander.

We've come a long way from Victorian England and we aren't heading back there.

Only sensible policy swapped for sugar showdown

The NZ Herald reports,

The Labour Party has officially dumped its policies to .... raise the retirement age.

Little says it sent the wrong message to people physically unable to work past 65.

Without a doubt those people are in a minority. Policy should be made for the majority and outliers dealt with differently. Someone physically and indefinitely unable to work currently goes on a Supported Living payment. Joining National in this stubborn adherence to Super entitlement at 65 has removed one of  Labour's major points of difference.

Meantime,

 The Labour Party will make food manufacturers reduce the sugar content of processed food and use prominent labels listing how many teaspoons of sugar and salt was in a product.
Labour's health minister Annette King set out the anti-obesity policy at the party's annual conference in Palmerston North today.
She said the Government's recent obesity package was a "feeble attempt" at addressing the problem.

Labour cannot beat John Key (and the National govt, which runs a distance behind the leader in popularity) by doing what he does better. And it seems unable to sufficiently differentiate itself with alternative ideas.

This situation highlights why politics gets in the way of good governance. In trying to win a popularity contest, the difficult calls are not made. Then, when the harder- to- swallow policy is dropped, there's no impetus to measure  public support for it. It's not on the agenda so can be swept under the carpet yet again.

State housing - it's about choice, not need

The government is reducing the number of times a prospective tenant can turn down a property from 3 to 1.

It's also increasing stated location preferences from a minimum of one to three.

That it even has to do this proves state housing is frequently not about need. It's about choice.

Nearly 10,000 social housing offers were made last year and of those 3,453 were declined, with 414 for unacceptable reasons such as wanting a garage or a bigger back yard.

Primarily people want a state house because they are cheaper than private rentals. Social agencies and budgeting organisations know this and work with the client to facilitate acquisition of state rentals.

There is an old adage "beggars can't be choosers" which means people with no other options must be content with what is offered.

They are not content because they have other options.

Yet this compromising centrist government still gets the jelly wobbles:

Under the changes people who refuse a property without a good reason may be removed from the social housing register for 13 weeks.

Why not much longer or permanently? The door is always left open to those who would play the system.

Herald hyping 'poverty' again

The Herald is running a series on educational under-achievement which starts today. Here's the opening gambit:

Disadvantage remains a major dictator of underachievement in schools. Poor children pass at rates well and a clear gulf in opportunities afforded to students at either end of the decile spectrum, educators say it’s below their wealthy peers, despite efforts to address the disparity. With poverty affecting one in four children, time to act, before another generation are consigned to the cycle.

Obviously there is a glaring omission in the second sentence (update: now fixed) but what struck me, after reading the entire piece, is that the media is the main party guilty of creating the stereotypes the students hate and talk about to the journalist.

It's the media, egged on by left-wing ideologues, that keeps telling children from low income homes that they are living in poverty; that poverty means deprivation, hardship, struggle and under-achievement. That poverty marks and excuses you.

Yet the 'one in four' statistic relates purely and only to relative low income.

Measuring material deprivation looks slightly different.

8 percent of children live in families that lacked seven or more of the above. 18 percent lacked 5 or more.

When will the media stop hyping 'poverty'? Young people clearly don't want or appreciate being stereotyped. 

Being a moderate type I sometimes cringe at Whale Oil's description of media, "Pimping the Poor".

But that's exactly what this series is. Using South Auckland school children to sell newspapers under the guise of social advocacy.

Aussies not unusually claiming undue kudos

I notice that Michelle Payne has a ride in the Melbourne Cup today. Good for her. Often there is no female presence. NZ is far more progressive in using and elevating women riders in our racing industry. It is entirely possible (and happens)  for NZ females riders to win the jockey premiership. Some say women have more affinity with their mounts. Michelle Payne's own trainer father though notes an old horsemanship saying; “Men fall like boiled eggs. Women fall like raw eggs.”

Anyway in checking out my facts I came across this from the Melbourne Cup Betting Directory:

 In 2003 the first female jockey to take part in the Melbourne Cup was Claire Lindop where she finished 19th out of twenty-three on Debben

Bull. The first female rider in the Melbourne Cup was NZ jockey, Maree Lyndon in 1987. Lindop was the first Aussie female rider.

Any way, I think I'll back Preferment today - not Payne's ride. NZ trainer based in Flemington. Any other picks out there?

Chance to be part of OIA survey

As part of the Ombudsman review, it's now the public's turn to voice their dissatisfaction with the OIA process.

User experiences of the OIA
The Chief Ombudsman now wants to hear from users of the OIA, including members of the public, journalists, Members of Parliament and their staff, people working for interest groups, and academics. We also want to hear from current and former employees and contractors in government departments and agencies.
To do this we have created three different surveys to learn about your experiences and perceptions of how the OIA is working in practice.  This will help us determine where improvements are most needed.

The only question now is can you find the time/ be bothered?

Apparently each survey takes between 20 and 45 minutes.

Portable pensions

The just-released HLFS population estimates show that there are 642,700 people aged 65+. It's an estimate based on the last census, births, deaths etc but it's the best data available. The large majority - but not all - of this group would qualify for super.

Yet at September 2015 there were 693,409 people receiving Super or a veteran's pension.

Is the difference made up by younger partners sharing the Super?

Not according to the table which I requested from MSD earlier this year showing the numbers and ages of non-qualifying spouses receiving Super. (OK the data is 9 months apart but that wouldn't account for the discrepancy).



Does this mean that the HLFS estimate is significantly wrong? No.

The difference must lie in the number of pensions being paid to people who are not currently residing in New Zealand. Officially...

You can reside almost anywhere in the world and still get part or all of your New Zealand Superannuation or Veteran’s Pension payments. What you’ll get depends on where you go to and how long you’ve resided in New Zealand.

 Potentially there  could be upwards of 40,000 superannuitants living outside of NZ.

Groupies

Statistics NZ surveys on all sorts of things that are no business of government and serve no useful policy information requirements. The data is then presented in such a way as to be of relevance to the moment.

For instance here's the headline:

New Zealanders belong to a sporting nationAlmost two-thirds of Kiwis belong to a club or organisation, Statistics New Zealand said today. In keeping with a nation that takes great pride in the All Blacks, Silver Ferns, and All Whites, sporting clubs are the most popular. 

Yet 72 percent - almost three quarters - do not belong to a sporting club.

The second highest group membership belongs to religion - 21 percent. A header that said New Zealanders belong to a religious nation would be unthinkable. Especially from a government department. Yet the difference between membership of sporting and religious clubs is only 7 percentage points.

Where does it stop?

So much more to be said.... like, individualised savings accounts would bypass a lot of the wrangling collectivised health and social security throws up, particularly of late. Of course that would require an element of compulsion.

And that this micro-management of people's lives isn't really about saving money, at least not in the overall scheme of government expenditure. It's about saving people from themselves. It's the imposition of a prescriptive set of behaviours that the state defines as acceptable, and the suppression of those it does not.

"Breaking the adoption 'taboo' "

A shift in thinking is gathering momentum in Australia as it should here. The same circumstances and questions apply in this country, where thousands of children are in state care next to a low number of adoptions.

How much CYF resource is wasted?

New data shows a significant drop in substantiated findings of child abuse:

 Yet there were 150,905 notifications in 2014/15 - a  3 percent increase on the previous year.

Only 30 percent of notifications require further action.

16,472 substantiated findings from 150,905 notifications (allowing for some year on year overlap) represents 10.9  percent. Note though that multiple findings can apply to one child, just as multiple reports could apply to one child so it would be incorrect to simply state that 10.9 percent of notifications are substantiated. But you get the picture.

Reports are trending up; substantiations are trending down.

The level of notifications that are unnecessary - perhaps even vexatious - must be very high. Or perhaps the difference reflects a gap between CYF's standards and the community's. Certainly the public has been heavily encouraged to report their concerns, and the police are also  now required to make a notification if attending a family violence incident even if the child/ren are not directly involved.

Whatever the reasons for the difference in reports and substance are, it must be costing a fortune in resource.