Jacinda Ardern in the SST

Jacinda Ardern attacked my report in last week's Sunday Star Times.

Lobby group report ignores the realities.

--------------------

This week I opened the paper to find some astonishing "news" - a lack of marriage is to blame for child poverty.

I've spent the better part of six years reading and researching the issue of child poverty, and what we need to do to resolve this complex problem in New Zealand

And yet here it was, the silver bullet we have all been looking for. Marriage. Getting hitched. Tying the knot. It turns out that we didn't need an Expert Advisory Group on child poverty, or any OECD analysis for that matter - apparently all we really need is a pastor and a party.

At least, that's the world according to Family First, who commissioned a report this week which, they claim, provides "overwhelming and incontrovertible" evidence that when it comes to child poverty, a lack of marriage is our problem, and it's simply become "politically unfashionable" to talk about it.

I'm happy to talk about it; in fact all of Parliament is. We debated the ins and outs of the institution not that long ago - it was called the Marriage Equality debate. Oddly, I don't recall Family First supporting the idea of increasing access to marriage when it came to same-sex couples. But I digress.

The major piece of evidence Family First use to back up their claims? Child poverty has risen significantly since the 1960s, and more people were married back then. I am paraphrasing, but that's the general gist. And yes, those two pieces of information are true. But are they linked? You only have to look at where child poverty figures really jump around to figure that bit out. Back in the mid-1980s, child poverty numbers (after taking into account housing costs) were about half the levels they are now. What happened to cause the spike? De facto relationships and single parenting didn't all of a sudden become "on trend".

What happened was Ruth Richardson's Mother of all Budgets. Government support was slashed, unemployment rates were grim, and child poverty, as you would expect, went up significantly. Equally, you can also see a downward trend in child poverty numbers around the early 2000s when Working for Families was introduced.

So what about the other claims in the report? How about "51 per cent of children in poverty live in single-parent families". Stating the obvious, surely. Single parent equals single income.

So, Family First, here's my view for what it's worth. Families will take many forms. Some children will be raised by one parent, some will be raised by two, possibly with some distance in between, and some will be raised by four. But the other factors Family First was so quick to dismiss - low wages and staggering housing costs - mean we have 305,000 children in poverty. And this is the stuff that needs to change. It's time we faced reality.

I wrote a response below but have been told that only a 150 word letter-to-the-editor will be accepted. She gets nearly 500 words to attack and I get 150 to defend.

Here is my full rejected response.

Labour, not Family First, ignores realities

The Family First report Child Poverty and Family Structure: What is the evidence telling is?, attacked by Jacinda Ardern in last week's Sunday Star Times,  traced the change in family structure from 1961 - the year more babies were born than ever before, or ever since. Families were much bigger, mother's educational qualifications far fewer and their work force participation much lower. Yet child poverty was also very low. Under 5% of families with children lived in the two lowest household income bands.

Using the measure Labour/Greens favour (because it provides the highest estimate and greatest political impact) child poverty grew to around 16% by 1990 following 15 years of growing unemployment and numbers of sole parent families. Because so many children relied on welfare, it then shot up after the benefit cuts, peaked around 2001 and has fluctuated since. In 2014 it still sat at 29% despite unemployment falling to 5.7 percent.

Ardern says Family First ignores realities. Here is the reality she and Labour ignore. The strongest correlate for child poverty is the sole parent rate. Ardern is correct to say that de facto relationships and single parenting didn't, "...all of a sudden become 'on trend'." The growth in the rate of each is tracked in the report. Increasingly single parent families became the product of births to single females and this is now a well-established pattern.  In 2015, 5% of babies had no father details on their birth certificate; a further 15% had fathers with different residential addresses to the mothers. This is then reflected in the number of babies who will be benefit-dependent either immediately or shortly after their birth - 17.5 % of all babies born in 2015. It is somewhat fatalistic to bring a baby into the world with no means of supporting it and then start complaining about low wages, low benefits and high housing costs. That's after the fact.

Yes, two parent families also experience poverty but it tends to be short-term because their incomes are generally  derived from the market. Sole parent incomes are generally derived from benefits which create a trap for poorly educated and unskilled mothers and lead to long-term child poverty exposure. New Zealand's largest longitudinal study, SoFIE, showed that two parent families move out of poverty faster. Those most likely to stay poor over many years are Maori and sole parents.

Marriage comes into the income equation because marriages are far more stable than de facto relationships. By the time a child turns five, his parents are 4-6 times more likely to have separated if they were cohabiting rather than married. This high dissolution rate also drives sole parenting, leading to more child poverty. But even stable cohabiting relationships are often poorer because they are second or third partnerships struggling to support children from previous unions.

Ardern claims "low wages and staggering house costs" are the major reasons 305,000 children live in poverty.

Housing costs are contributing latterly, especially in Auckland. But the report details evidence from the New Zealand Institute for Economic Research that finds, with regard to the long-term picture, "...the cost of renting has remained broadly stable relative to income over many decades." Child poverty pre-dates the housing affordability problem by a long margin.

Perhaps relatively higher wages contributed to lower child poverty in the 1960s but does Ardern think voters want a return to state-mandated award rates? And while Working For Families - a Labour policy - goes some way to easing child poverty, it also subsidizes employers keeping wages artificially low. Similarly, rental subsidies go straight into landlord pockets. MSD recently published findings from a literature review that found, "... a proportion of demand-side housing subsidies is capitalised into higher rents in the private rental market."

A government cannot subsidize its way out of child poverty problems. Take another example. Subsidizing sole parents saw their portion of families with children almost triple between the 1976 and 2013 censuses.

The answer to solving the child poverty problem lies largely with individuals. Without a reverse in the trend away from stable, committed two-parent families, child poverty will remain high.

"...abuse and neglect inflicted on young children is a product of staggering levels of poverty..."

The soft bigotry of extreme socialists rears its ugly head in the following report from the World Socialist Web Site. It refers to the death of Moko Rangitoheriri:

"Thirteen children died in New Zealand during 2015 in similar circumstances. Their average age was three. Over half the victims were Maori, one of the most exploited layers of the New Zealand working class. In the final analysis, the abuse and neglect inflicted on young children is a product of staggering levels of poverty, social breakdown and family dislocation."

So, there is no self-will available to this "most exploited class"; no access to feelings of humanity or compassion; no intellectual escape from the exploitative oppression.

Individuals are mere puppets.

So how is it that within this "most exploited class" a massive majority do not beat and kill their children? What makes them different?

The socialist explanation for the horrors that occur to some children is utterly deficient.

Apart from that, the paragraph's statistics hail from this report which also notes,

The most common cause of death for a child was a head injury, followed by asphyxia, which includes suffocation, strangulation and carbon monoxide poisoning.

The circumstances of Moko's death were extraordinary. Protracted and unspeakable.

Where are the fathers? Where is accountability?

Since Martin Van Beynan asked the question, Why doesn't anybody ask the questions? three more published writers have expressed very similar sentiments.

Ewen McQueen, in the NZ Herald, "The court has reached its verdict. The marchers have gone home. The politicians and media have done their usual hypocritical hand-wringing. But the question remains - where was Moko's dad?" He then generalised it to, where are the fathers?

David Seymour writing in the Sunday Star Times (opposite Jacinda Ardern who slated my child poverty and family structure report but more on that soon) asked, "Where the hell was his Dad?" referring also to Moko but broadening to a "fatherhood crisis".

And now, in this morning's DomPost, somewhat surprisingly, Rosemary McLeod has joined in,

I am sorry for women left alone and homeless with dependent children, but increasingly annoyed that nobody tracks the fathers of the children down to see how they are living, and ask why everyone else should pay for their offspring. While suffering mothers and children pose for the cameras, how come nobody ever asks such obvious questions?

It takes years, even decades for public opinion to reach tipping point but societal acceptance of fatherless families is on the wane.

Andrew Becroft - good luck

I'd vote to abolish the Office of Children's Commissioner because it's just more state bureaucracy and to date, the lead role has only been occupied by seeming leftists.

But I've always had some time for Andrew Becroft because he was prepared to stand up and say the most common factor among the youth that came before him as Principal Youth Court judge was a lack of a father.

And he said it during the last Labour innings.

On the eve of his taking the reins from Russell Wills, the DomPost has written a piece about him. Again I warm to his attitude and conclusions (which mesh with mine when it comes to keeping on with dysfunctional families):

He says he's never written a young person off, though there is an air of "desperate inevitability" that comes with the family situations of some of them.
"I've always felt that with the right intervention, and with the right people in a young person's life, there is always hope.
"The reality is for some that is never going to be the case. But you never know, you see - you can't say for sure."
There is something about the job that "gives while its takes".
"There are enough stories of significant change to help you through the more distressing or despairing times when you wonder if change is possible."

So I wish him luck.

Report summarized in NBR

The NBR has kindly run an op-ed summarizing my report as 'free' content over the long weekend:

"On the back of last week's budget, opposition politicians, academics and other advocates again expressed outrage at the incidence of child poverty. The culprits routinely blamed are unemployment, high housing costs and insufficient benefit payments.
But there is another factor – probably the most important – that is constantly overlooked. That is the rapid change in family structure.
In 1961, New Zealand experienced peak fertility. The average number of births per woman was 4.3. There were more babies born that year than ever before or ever since."

More

The inconsistency of the Left - featured comment

From Jim Rose:

"One of the oddities of the 21st-century left is if you are gay, your life is incomplete unless you can marry and have children. If you suggest others, in particular parents, have an incomplete life if they do not marry, you are some sort of throwback."

I did not oppose same-sex marriage. I think marriage is a great institution. But it is odd how hard the left fought for gay inclusion and yet, when you put up data that shows de facto relationships are far less stable than marriages and therefore contribute more to child poverty, their defence of cohabiting as equal to marriage is strident.

Responding to criticism that goes beyond mere dismissal - there's not much of it

On the back of the release of Child Poverty and Family Structure on Monday, I had a busy day talking to media, dealing with e-mails, etc.

The attacks started around midday from the likes of Nigel Latta, Max Rashbrooke, Susan St John, Marama Davidson  and Janet Wilson. In a nutshell, after much uncomplimentary preamble, Latta said "... correlation does not equal causation". Rashbrooke said my stats were high school level. Green MP, Marama Davidson said I had misinterpreted  the statistics and NewstalkZB panelist Janet Wilson said Bob McCoskrie had made me write stuff I didn't believe.

Susan St John is the only one who has chosen to actually argue against elements of the report.

So I am going to respectfully address her objections.

"To say that parental breakup is the prime cause of child poverty is a bit like saying spots are the prime cause of measles."

The report says that sole parent families are the poorest in NZ (quoting MSD). It identifies the various pathways into sole parenthood, with especial attention given to those females who are single parents from the time of their child's birth (sole parents from the get-go as Larry Williams puts it). 2015 birth registration data showed 5% of babies had no father details recorded, and a further 15% had fathers with different residential addresses to the mothers. This is further reflected in 17.5% of babies born last year being reliant on welfare by the end of the year. At no point in the report did I say "parental breakup is the prime cause of child poverty."

"We can agree with her that sole parents and their children have higher rates of child poverty compared to married or defacto couples with children.  But around 50% of poor children come from two parent households."

Again I address this in the report saying,

While child poverty also occurs among two parent families, its severity and longevity tend to differ, primarily because two parent families generally derive their income from the market which is subject to fluctuations; single parents are more likely to derive their income from a benefit which is reasonably static and not subject to market fluctuations. Ironically, while benefit income is more secure, market income is more likely to improve over time. Sometimes a reported low annual income can mask a family’s financially stronger position when home ownership and savings are accounted for. But home ownership rates are also low among single parents. In 2001 only 9.7%
of single parent householders owned their own home. The largest group of homeowners was couple-with-children at 42%.
When debt ratios – dollars of debt versus every $100 dollars of assets – are measured, single parents have $56 for three or more children whereas couples have $18 for three or more children. 18

 St John continues:

It is deeply offensive to read this:
“It is not the intention of this paper to explore at length why marriage has fallen out of favour with most social science academics and policy-makers. The aim has been to show that marriage provides the best economic environment for raising children. The evidence is overwhelming and incontrovertible.“
Apart from the blanket statement that marriage is best when often it clearly is not, her snipe at left wing academics is misplaced.

Marriage does provide the best economic environment. I demonstrate it with the statistics extracted from customised Census 2013 data. I couldn't doctor that data. St John continues,

"Thinkers on the left favour strong, caring, mature relationships of equals. The left reject the limitations of traditional marriages where the woman is assumed to be dependent on the man. Parents who are respectful and caring of each other do provide a good environment for children- this can often be found in ‘unwed’ groups,  but is too often not found in those who are traditionally  ‘wed’. "

All the paper differentiates between is sole parent families, cohabiting families and legally married families; their incomes and, in the case of two parent relationships, propensity to separate over time (though I do briefly comment on the increasing incidence of dual earner families with children, adding to household income inequality - these are hardly 'woman dependent on man' families.)

"Lindsay Mitchell wants to claim child poverty is caused by marriage dissolution at the same time as she claims policy encourages that dissolution because separated couples are better off on welfare."

It took me a while to sort this one out. What the report says is that benefit settings incentivised separations if a mother preferred to get an income in her own name because 1/ it would match her partner's unemployment benefit and 2/ she won't have to share it. But it'll still be a low welfare income leaving her and the children around or below the poverty threshold.

"What exactly does Lindsay Mitchell want here? Less welfare? Policy implications of this report might be taken that she intends a reduction in the safety net yet further to limit ‘incentive to separate’ and to further stigmatize the unwed. These moves would be extremely dangerous. It is best to accept the world the way it is, rather than make policy for the world the way family values ideologues think it ought to be."

The report did not suggest any policy solutions. The only suggestions are St John's.

(On this post I won't publish any borderline comments.)

Family Structure and Child Poverty: What is the evidence telling us?

Very busy with media this morning.

Read the report, commissioned by Family First, here.

On with Leighton Smith at 9.30am.


Executive Summary

Despite families being much smaller, parents being older, mothers being better educated and having much higher employment rates, child poverty has risen significantly since the 1960s.

In 1961, 95 percent of children were born to married couples; by 2015 the proportion had fallen to 53 percent.

For Maori, 72 percent of births were to married parents in 1968; by 2015 the proportion had fallen to just 21 percent.

In 2015, 27 percent of registered births were to cohabiting parents. The risk of parental separation by the time the child is aged five is, however, 4-6 times greater than for married parents.

Cohabiting relationships are becoming less stable over time.

Cohabiting parents are financially poorer than married parents. They form an interim group between married and single parent families.

Single parent families make up 28 percent of all families with dependent children. These families are the poorest in New Zealand.

51% of children in poverty live in single parent families.

Single parents have the lowest home ownership rates and the highest debt ratios.

Children in sole parent families are often exposed to persistent poverty and constrained upward mobility.

Of registered births in 2015, 5% had no recorded father details and a further 15% had fathers living at a different home address to the mother.

Of all babies born in 2015, 17.5% (10,697) were reliant on a main benefit by the end of their birth year, over two thirds on a single parent benefit. Over half had Maori parents/caregivers.

The higher poverty rates for Maori and Pasifika children are reflected in the greater number of sole parent and cohabiting families.

Rapidly changing family structure has contributed significantly to increasing income inequality.

Child poverty is consistently blamed on unemployment, low wages, high housing costs and inadequate social security benefits. Little attention has been given to family structure.

Despite marriage being the best protector against child poverty it has become politically unfashionable – some argue insensitive – to express such a view.

But if there is to be any political will to solve child poverty the issue has to be confronted.

Hitting the nail firmly on the head

Absolute must-read from Martin van Beynen published in today's Dom Post under the hard-copy headline, The dysfunctional are exasperating our patience:

"We have tried everything and all we have created is a culture of dependence, entitlement, helplessness and irresponsibility."

Bennett being a bully?

From today's DomPost:

This is an injudicious response from Bennett.

1/ It sounds threatening

2/ The question is entirely reasonable given the data now available about at risk children and long-term welfare dependence

3/ The government is doing quite a lot to reduce the incidence of "young, incapable and irresponsible" parents through various policies. Does Bennett stand behind those policies?

4/ In light of this, her taking aim at a particular question/er displays illogical defensiveness and  animosity


I have only ever had one direct piece of correspondence from Bennett when she objected to my pointing out that while many sole parents came off welfare, they also returned. She was offended on their behalf. At least they were trying. And she herself had tried to come off welfare and had to return.

It's a little like the Left's 'walk a mile in my shoes' deflection whenever someone questions the circumstances of a needy person. It doesn't wash with me.

An MP or  Minister's job is to deal with questions objectively. I am sure that the questioner knows what Paula's background is. It's been well-publicized.

(Disclaimer - My reaction is based purely on the DomPost snippet. I have no further context. But nether do the thousands of other readers.)

"No cost control mechanism and not under active review"

MSD has just released its Four Year Plan. The stats are only current to June 2015. Not much caught my attention bar this diagram:

(Left click to enlarge.)

The most worrying aspect of this is the note attached to Super:

"No cost control mechanism and not under active review".

Benefit rise sucked up by Auckland landlords?

Yesterday the NZ Herald reported:

 Rents in Auckland jump $20 a week to record high

"...in April rents jumped up $20 a week to $520, a record high."

That's according to Trade Me anyway.

Is it a mere coincidence that benefits rose on April 1st by $25?

Rents didn't rise by $20 nationally because there isn't demand nationally.

The resistance to increasing the accommodation supplement is based on the theory that it will go straight into landlord pockets.

Subsidies. They always distort markets and often end up failing to achieve their goal.

Do we need to bring back orphanages?

A woman with eight children has been barred from Housing NZ because she was evicted from a meth contaminated home. WINZ is going to pay $100,000 to keep her in emergency accommodation until she can get back on the HNZ list.

This is madness. The threat of losing her home if it was abused obviously failed. WINZ can't turn her away because she has 8 children. Seems yet another instance of someone using their children as hostages to their lifestyle.

What's the answer? The children need to be cared for, housed and fed. Are we at a point in the welfare state cycle that we need to bring back orphanages that will care for children when their parent/s can't or won't?

But when you think about what it costs to keep one individual in prison the sums say it's cheaper to keep the children in their mother's care and pay out the $100,000.

Foster care? Probably best keeping the children together so a placement for 8 children would rule that out.

In any case, CYF must have deemed the mother the best care solution (if they are involved). So surely it would be better to find a house in a provincial centre, close to schools and other amenities, at around $300 a week and shift her there. She may not want to move out of Auckland but perhaps that's the price she will have to pay. Sorry, WE will have to pay. It's better than $100,000.

Prisoner stats

Statistics NZ recently released prisoner stats some of which I have graphed below.

The Maori and European lines intrigue me. Why do they follow each other so closely in terms of trend? You would almost think there was a quote system in place. Obviously practice and policy plays an important role.

From Corrections here is the latest. At March 2016 there were 9,273 people in prison.

Just as an aside I was reading a paper on Maori over-representation in the justice system.

I searched the paper for the word 'father'. Not one mention.

This despite a number of relevant facts like Maori men under twenty are 6 times more likely to be fathers than NZ European. And children who grow up without fathers in their lives are much more likely to offend.

'Mothers' are mentioned 14 times. For example:

Māori children are more exposed to the risk of fatal child maltreatment associated with having a step-parent, as Māori children are twice as likely as New Zealand European to be raised in a family situation where unrelated persons - such as a new partner to the mother - are resident.

Isn't this what we always come back to? The disruption - even abandonment - of the nuclear family has so much to answer for.

I'll end with another quote:

"There is nothing fixed or immutable about these high rates of imprisonment. The over-representation of Māori in prison is a relatively recent phenomenon, dating from the period of increased urbanisation.  Changing values, family breakdown, lack of education and social competencies and social and economic inequality all feature as explanations of the current situation." 

Unemployment rate under-estimated

Current unemployment levels could be underestimated by up the 0.5%

Why?

Because the source of the unemployment rate is a sample of around 15,000 households which are compulsorily surveyed.

Naturally enough some people refuse to disclose information, can't be contacted, move, etc.To adjust for this the surveyors weight households with similar characteristics to those not responding. To test how effective this is researchers matched March 2013 HLFS with Census 2013 data.

The results suggest that the calibration employed by the HLFS does a reasonable job of adjusting for non-response (once region is included as a benchmark), and that further non-response adjustments have minimal effect on reducing the bias introduced by non-response.

However,

 Using the linked dataset we discovered that bias from non-response exists in the estimates of labour force status from the HLFS. The unemployment rate in the responding sample is underestimated by around 0.3 percent to 0.5 percent, while the labour force participation rate is underestimated by around 0.2 percent. Unemployed people had both the highest non-contact rate and the highest refusal rate. This differs from other studies’ findings, where employed people were found to be harder to contact (Foster, 1998; Stoop, 2005).

So unemployment could be as high as 6.2%

This problem has always existed but appears to be worsening.

Response rates for the HLFS were around 86 percent on average over the four years to 2014, but there has been a downward trend in response rates in recent years that reached an all-time low in the June 2013 quarter (80.8 percent). 

Still, many countries use a form of the HLFS to assess labour force status and will no doubt have similar problems. Arguably comparability and tracking trends is more important than point-in-time accuracy.

Quote of the Day

This sentence leapt out at me from a piece entitled, "Don't be a sucker for socialism" by Glenn Reynolds:

Under capitalism, rich people become powerful. But under socialism, powerful people become rich. 

The Moko Rangitoheriri case

Alan Duff savages "Maori violence" and lack of leadership once again.

Back in NZ - and only Auckland - last week it seems as if I never left France.
Except for one major difference, the negative first: a young Maori couple from Taupo convicted of torturing then killing a child under their care. And not one Maori leader stood up and said anything.

Not so young.

As it turns out the male perpetrator - 43 - had been bailed to the address.

CYF has just released a lengthy statement responding to inquiries about the case of Moko Rangitoheriri:

Was CYFS aware David Haerewa was living with Tania Shailer?

No

Did Probations/Corrections inform CYFS that David Haerewa was being paroled to Tania Shailer's address?

You need to speak to Corrections about this.

If this did not happen - why not - as a result of the inquiries into James Whakaruru's death agencies were meant to share information?

See above

Was CYFS aware of David Haerewa's background?

We did not know David was living with Tania.

If not how could that be the case when Women's Refuge was aware of this?

You need to speak with Women’s Refuge.

So much for joined up government.

I don't blame CYF. I don't blame Corrections. There is so much dysfunction nobody can keep tabs on it all.

And I don't blame Maori leadership either.

But the single-most important point Duff makes is this, quoting Jason Witehira :

Mr Witehira said in his acceptance speech, "It's not about who you are, but what you are. It's about attitude and being an individual and having belief in yourself."
You can bet those hideous child-killer monsters were never exposed to any positive, can-do attitude. No. They grew up on a diet of abuse.

Being a self-believing individual is not particularly compatible with the essentially collective, conformist, Maori culture.

Green dogma disabused

Green MP Jan Logie has jumped on the man-bad/woman-good domestic violence band wagon.

Adding insult to injury, she extends her prejudice to the abuse of children.

At last report, 74,785 children and young people aged under 17 were present at domestic violence police call-out in one year. There is a lot at stake in terms of getting the Government’s response to this right.  Men who abuse their partners are also likely to assault their children.....Internationally the most up to date practice clearly states domestic violence best practice needs to be internalised by the child welfare system. It states there needs to be a specific commitment to partnering with adult survivors and to intervening with perpetrators to enhance child safety. If we don’t do that we put women, children and our society at further risk.

A simple graph will suffice to illustrate how ill-founded Logie's bias is:

The stats are slightly dated but that is because their promulgation is infrequent.

Woman abuse and neglect children too. And when they do, they are neither aberrant nor exceptional examples of female perpetration.

Domestic violence - public attitude can't be railroaded by indoctrinists

In the interests of balance, having been both critical and skeptical earlier last week, I should report that the NZ Herald finally printed a column about family violence that took a differing view from the majority.

The NZ Herald is to be congratulated for its series highlighting NZ's atrocious record of family violence, but there is an inconvenient truth not being spoken, and reinforced by Kyle MacDonald's column Domestic violence is a male problem.
Kyle MacDonald is partly right - but based on the facts, he's also partly wrong. Family violence is not just a male problem. If we as a nation are really serious about reducing family violence, we need to talk about family violence in all its forms and all its causes. The last time I spoke up about this issue was in 2011 and the political response and condemnation was swift.
But I'm more interested in the facts and research and solving the problem than concerns around being politically incorrect.

And Bob McCoskrie goes on to details numerous statistics and research works that support the premise that domestic violence is not just a male issue.

He will be no doubt surprised at the degree of backing he gets from commenters. Almost unanimous.

How do I trust thee NZ Herald? Let me count the ways

Yesterday, David left a comment that made me go and look at the latest NZ Herald editorial relating to domestic violence. It was titled:

Never any excuse for a man to hit a woman

The number of responses that took issue with the sentiment expressed was surprising.

Now, at the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist, I know for a fact that NZ Herald's current modus operandi is achieving website hits.  For example, they set up minimal word (for the attention deficit readers) contrasting views to provoke debates readers will repeatedly return to.

Regarding their anti-domestic violence campaign, I'd accepted their anti-male bias as sincere if misguided.

But I may be a muggins. Perhaps this entire campaign has been set up to antagonize and enrage, thus setting up a flurry of website hits.

Or maybe I am over-thinking it.

It's bad enough not trusting their so-called facts.

It's worse not trusting their motivation.