Almost half of sole parent beneficiaries are Maori

47.4 percent of Sole Parent Support beneficiaries are Maori. In the Youth and Young Parent category the proportion rises to 49.4 percent.


I've charted the latest June data below:

(Right click to enlarge)

Some commentary.

1/ This disproportion accounts substantially for the high rate of Maori child poverty. While Pacific children are also disproportionately poor, they are more likely to have working parents.

2/ The Maori numbers are dropping. There are 9.5 percent fewer on Sole Parent Support now than at June 2014.

3/ But, some with children aged 14 and older are now buried away in JobSeeker statistics. I suspect these numbers will be relatively high in regions like Northland and the East Coast

4/ The falling Maori teenage birth rate may make a positive reduction in the future OR the delayed births may still appear in the benefit numbers


I have included the notes regarding ethnicity that accompany the data tables.

Ethnicity data is self-identified and multiple ethnicities may be chosen by an individual as fits their preference or self-concept. Multiple selected ethnicities are then prioritised into a hierarchy. The Māori ethnicity has the highest priority in this hierarchy, followed by Pacific peoples. NZ European has the lowest priority. This is to ensure that smaller and politically significant ethnic groups do not get overwhelmed by the larger ethnic groups. A single ethnicity is assigned to an individual based on this hierarchy. Ethnic groups do not currently align with Statistics New Zealand ethnicity groupings.

Blurring lines badly

I'm with Sian Elias. This kind of police work makes me sick. It blurs the lines between right and wrong so badly that it can only make outcomes worse.

Using lies and deceit to entrap someone, to encourage worse criminal activity than might otherwise have been the case, and to use oodles of public money to engage in such elaborate baiting is unacceptable.

I don't know how we are supposed to trust an organisation that for months sits around conniving more than 20 set-ups to deceive an impressionable, possibly not that bright, young person. How can sane individuals participate in this sort of hoax? And do they have to graduate from acting school?

It is bad enough that so many young men live in a virtual reality world that leaves them amenable to propositions to join a glamorous criminal underworld. But the supposed upholders of justice exploiting it?

It is a horrible crime to cause the death of a baby but it was manslaughter. Why was the state so hell-bent on punishing this guy (still technically a 'child' when he committed the crime)  when he was only ever going to serve a short sentence?

If I wasn't so repulsed I would find it risible.

It's the 21st of July

I mention it only because the June quarter benefit statistics have not yet been released.

On April 21st the minister issued a release heralding lowest benefit numbers since 2008.

On January 21st she made a statement referring to the steady annual decline in numbers.

It'll be most interesting to see if the overall downward trend is continuing.

Update: Right on cue
And Jo Goodhew gets the job of putting out the release which is remarkably similar to the April 21st version.

'Marriages that end in divorce' is not the same as the divorce to marriage ratio

Jim Rose has highlighted the following depiction of "the percent of marriages that end in divorce". The range of percentages from 9%  to 71% is fascinating. Naturally the question arises, where would NZ fit in? What colour would this country be?





The answer is....we don't really know.

According to Statistics NZ:

One half of all marriages ends in divorce

This frequently uttered factoid looks like a good reason to save money on an expensive wedding. But can it be true?

Statistics New Zealand’s Population Statistics unit records the number of marriages registered each year and tracks how many of these end in divorce. Analysis of this data shows that roughly one-third of couples who married in 1970 had divorced by their jade wedding anniversary (35 years). This suggests that two-thirds of marriages end in the death of one partner.

But aren't divorce rates increasing? Of those who married in 1980, one-third of couples had already divorced by their silver wedding anniversary (25 years). This is still well below one-half of all marriages.

The longest marriage certified by the Guinness Book of Records is 86 years, although there are longer marriages pending verification.

Conclusion
This myth is busted.

How did this myth arise?
There are roughly 10,000 divorces and 20,000 marriages in NZ each year. 10,000/20,000 = 1/2 – so one-half of all marriages end in divorce, right? Wrong! The couples divorcing in a year are not the same couples who marry in that year, but a subset of all those who married in preceding years and have not yet divorced (a much greater number than 20,000).

When measuring the frequency of an event in a population (eg divorces) it is important to express the number of events in the context of the population who are likely to experience that event (sometimes called the 'at risk' population). For divorces, that population is the estimated number of existing marriages (from all years past and present). The method used to bust this myth, where divorces are analysed by year of marriage, is known as a ‘cohort analysis’.


What the chart above actually shows is the divorce to marriage ratio. Based on that NZ would be 43% in 2015, or the same colour as the UK.

Graph of the Day

Released today by Statistics NZ an article discussing "The Kiwi factor in record net migration."

At the 2008 election  (which I stood in as an ACT candidate so remember the issues well) it was all hand-wringing over our young people leaving to live overseas. The brain-drain even.

Now they aren't leaving, pushing up net migration, it's all hand-wringing over housing prices and job poaching due to high net migration.

There is no happy medium. Because the oppositional style of politics, aided and abetted by media, will always find a crisis.

New painting

Updating artist blog. 

Nice news on Sunday last. My entry into the annual Muriel Hopper Art Award, "Denise", received one of two People's Choice Awards.  I also won one in 2014 for "Azalea"

National behaving like Labour/Greens again

Just announced:


“Sole Parents spend on average 14 years on a benefit, but we know that tertiary education can significantly reduce the average time they spend on welfare so we’re making it as easy as possible for them to transition to study.

We knew a decrease in accommodation assistance was a disincentive for sole parents to move off a benefit and into study. This policy removes that barrier to higher education, encouraging more parents to take steps towards sustainable and rewarding employment.

“On average beneficiaries with a tertiary qualification spend six and a half years less on a benefit compared to those without, so supporting them into full time study is a good investment in their futures, and their children’s future,” Mrs Tolley says.

Using 14 years dependent on welfare as the bench mark makes it possible to sell this move as an 'investment'. But why not use NO time on a benefit as the ideal rather than seven and a half years? Why not set policy that encourages people to complete their education before having children?

Paula Bennett made reforms to the Training Incentive Allowance (slammed by the opposition)  based on evidence from the Welfare Working Group:

For DPB clients, most Work and Income interventions used appear to have little effect; training interventions are a particular weakness. Fifty-one percent of DPB recipients participating in an intervention took the Training Incentive Allowance, which MSD found to have no effect on the time a beneficiary was likely to spend off benefit – in fact the study found there was a chance TIA slightly increased the average time spent on benefit. MSD did note there was a chance that TIA may have an unobserved long-term impact (after seven years) on time spent off benefit. 

Essentially policy creates single parents then more policy is required to ensure they stay dependent for only seven and a half years. We're going backwards.

Talk about dodging the question Jacinda

David Seymour writes in today's SST:

OPINION: Why are so many children born into benefit-dependent families?

"Much of the country is focused on child abuse, poverty, and putting kids' needs first. The political left tell us the Government should just spend a few dollars more, as they have told us for decades.

Yet the current Government taxes and spends $80 billion every year.  This surpasses the wildest dreams of the welfare state's architects.  When Michael Joseph Savage departed office, government spent, in today's money, only about $2700 per person per year. Now it's $17,000 per person (or $85,000 per family of five).

Just 2 per cent of working-age New Zealanders received benefits in the decades following Savage's reforms.  Now it's 10 per cent, and welfare spending is the biggest item of government expenditure. So how can we still have child poverty and neglect in New Zealand?

Lindsay Mitchell has made ending poverty her passion.  She studies it meticulously and presents her conclusions politely and respectfully.  The most staggering statistic she's given lately is that one in five children are born into benefit-dependent households.

You might think that if you're on a benefit it's a bad time to bring a child into the world.  You're probably like the overwhelming majority of New Zealanders who think it proper to wait, save and sacrifice before having children, in a comfortable environment, then stop when you feel your family is at a size you can support.

Chances are you don't begrudge taxpayer support for people who fall on hard times, need to escape an abusive partner, or have any of a dozen other circumstances.  But here is the interesting thing: being on a benefit seems to make you more likely to have children.

Only 10 per cent of working-age people are on a benefit, yet 20 per cent of children are born into families receiving benefits.  In the six months to March 2015, 6000 babies were added to existing benefits.  That's enough to raise the hackles of those paying tax while preparing to have their own family, but worse is the outcomes for the kids involved.

Benefits seem to make people have kids early, a key risk factor for maltreatment.  As of 2015, in the general population 22 per cent of births were to mothers 24 or younger, but 44 per cent of beneficiary caregivers (mostly mothers but sometimes fathers) with a child born that year were 24 or younger.

The ultimate result has been calamity for New Zealand kids.  University of Auckland researchers have found that, of under-fives who faced maltreatment, 83 per cent were on benefits before age two.

Out of fairness to the taxpayer and the children, we need a new deal.  It's simply not good enough that the Government taxes some people, who are often waiting, saving, and sacrificing for parenthood, so that it can pay others to have kids earlier.  It's absolutely unacceptable when we know this policy is enlarging child poverty and abuse.  We need to put children first.

If you're 18 or younger, you can't get an all-cash benefit from the Government.  Instead it pays rent, power, and basic necessities before giving the remaining entitlement in cash.  A compassionate government should attack child poverty by extending Income management to any parent who has additional children while on a benefit.

The message would be simple.  If you want to have children while receiving a benefit that's fine, but the Government will give entitlements in a form that puts the needs of the children first."

JACINDA ARDERN REPLIES:

"You're right, David. A lot has changed since Savage's day.

But it's not quite right to claim that in the decades following his reforms, that very few received benefits. From 1946, every family received Government support. It was called the Universal Family Benefit, and it went to every mother who had children under the age of 16. That made them part of the welfare state, but no one was vilified for that.

Back then we also had low unemployment, generous state housing, high home ownership rates, and a 40-hour week that delivered wages you could live on. In contrast, we now spend billions of our welfare budget topping up working people's low wages and high rents – this is where the fastest growth in our welfare spending has been. In contrast, the number of people on sole parent support for instance, has remained static for years and represents just over 2 per cent of the working age population.

Yes, there will be a small, tiny minority of people who make bad calls and it impacts on their children, whether they are on government support or not. And yes, we should have the tools in place to deal with that (just like we should have the tools in place to deal with people who avoid paying their taxes) But if we want to look at what has really changed since Savage, it's the fact our welfare state is having to pick up everything  that is broken – ridiculous housing costs, low wages, people working multiple jobs to put food on the table and barely see their children, an education system that leaves too many behind, and a generation of kids who have lost hope.

If you want to genuinely help turn the bus around, start with that list. I'm sure Savage would."

This is classic Ardern waffle. Totally avoiding the central question and steeped in irony. But let's deal with the dodges anyway. In the order they appear:

Instead of the Universal Family Benefit there's now Working For Families which targets those families on lower incomes. National tightened the targeting. So Labour's response is to stop targeting low-income families? And people who get WFF are not vilified for it either, by the way.

Back when there was "low unemployment, high home ownership rates, generous state housing and a 40-hour week that delivered wages you could live on" we had preferential tax rates for family men, wages set by the Arbitration Court, unproductive jobs and lots of horrible stuff that went with a highly regulated economy. So Labour's response is to re-regulate the economy? Undo their late 1980s work?

The "fastest growth in welfare has been on topping up working people's low wages and high rents". Really? That'd be the accommodation supplement and WFF. When you create a policy and go from zero spending to over $2 billion of course it's going to show the fastest growth. So Labour's response is to get rid of its own policies? 

What she claims is anyway only true over a short period. The growth Seymour refers to has come because NZ went from having around 2% of its working age population on welfare for many decades (most commonly the Widow's Benefit) to 10% today (and it's been higher).

Let's look at the next claim, "..the number of people on sole parent support for instance, has remained static for years and represents just over 2 per cent of the working age population." Static at 4% actually (see above). It has now dropped to 2.4% due to National's welfare reforms that concentrated on getting sole parents into work but also moved them onto other benefits. The fact is at the 2013 census 28 percent of families with dependent children were sole parent and just over three quarters received a benefit. So Labour's response is to sweep these numbers under the carpet?

According to Ardern, who is all-knowing, a "small, tiny minority of people make bad calls". But one in five children born onto welfare does not represent a tiny minority. Which implies most of the decisions to have children who will immediately be plunged into 'child poverty' are good ones. 

And her piece wouldn't have been complete without the requisite pop at tax evaders. You see, rampant welfare isn't the problem. It's the people who question why they are paying their taxes for it who really need to be chastised and controlled.

Ardern is a nice person who is very big on sympathy but, like the party she represents, woefully short on solutions.

"Freedom to choose foolishly"

"Deepening social inequality" - where?

Venezuela maybe? How's that working out? The 'rich' are ordering food parcels on-line from Miami. The 'middleclass' is cutting out meals and going without basic necessities. The 'poor' are attacking food trucks and warehouses, stealing crops, foraging and storming supermarkets in border cities.The situation is deteriorating quickly. The country is being brought to its knees by socialism.

So it's Alice in Wonderland time reading the following complaints about New Zealand on the World Socialist Web Site:

"...the National Party government’s austerity measures since 2008 have “confiscated” billions of dollars from the poor and transferred this wealth to the rich. It has cut taxes for top income earners and corporations, increased the regressive Goods and Services Tax and pushed thousands of people, including single parents, off welfare payments. Spending on healthcare and education has been effectively cut, and thousands of jobs have been shed in government departments and publicly-owned companies, including Solid Energy, NZ Post and KiwiRail....the political establishment is seeking to wash its hands of any responsibility for the deepening social crisis."

The writers should seek sanctuary from this brutal regime in a country that has embraced and implemented their political ideals. Oh, but they would be out of a job. Nothing to complain about. Nothing to eat. Nothing to wipe their bottoms with.

The spousing crisis

The spousing crisis is leading to homelessness and child poverty.

Rental spouses are just too expensive.They are insecure and impermanent. You could get kicked out at any time and have to go looking for another. Some spouses have become P-contaminated and put children at risk. But there simply aren't enough solid, life-time spouses available, so more and more people are being forced into the rental spouse market.

The spousing problem in Auckland is worst. Auckland spouses are the most expensive and are driving people to look for spouses in other parts of the country. But it just gets worse. People are having to shack up with other people's spouses and share. Some even turn their backs on spouses to live in cars!

Some spouses wait, empty. Nobody wants them. they have been turned down for more attractive spouses.

Some say state-spousing is the answer but is it? State spousing (sometimes called the DPB) only makes poverty worse.

If Labour has a policy to solve the spousing crisis, I'll vote for them.

But honestly I think the only way to solve the spousing crisis is to stop meddling with the market.

A rare occasion on which I agree with the Greens

Why, after so long, has a prison volunteer's gang membership become an issue?

Someone is feeding stuff to Sensible Sentencing. SST is threatening to reveal numbers of guards with gang connections as well. This will develop.

Sometimes I can agree with SST. But I probably hold a deeper conviction about rehabilitation and taking whatever effective measures possible to achieve it.

Ngapari Nui should be judged on his work in prisons - gang membership is not illegal.

Disenfranchise the elderly!

It's a somewhat tempting idea. It'd do for Winston Peters.

Writing in the NZ Herald this morning Matt Heath says:

Should old people be allowed to vote?
Unsurprisingly the Brexit vote was carried by older people. Only 19 per cent of those 18-24 wanted to leave. Yet the young will have to live with the result for the longest time. Lumped for life with a decision largely made by pensioners. Older voters specialise in looking back instead of forward. So why should those on their way out decide a future they won't be around to see?
The same thing is happening here. There are clear changes NZ needs to make if we are to thrive in the modern world. Many of these changes are being stalled because politicians must appease baby boomers to survive.

Heath is correct to worry about the top-heavy demographic but wrong to assume they all vote similarly. They are not all grey power socialists looking to further feather their own nests at the cost of the rest of the population.

 If you're under 50, why the hell are you paying for Super you will never get yourself? Why aren't we increasing the age of retirement? Why is there no means testing on pensions? Why is there no movement on our property issues? Simple. There's lots of old people, they love to vote and backing changes they don't like is electoral suicide.

Well, I have a great deal of sympathy for these points and there is probably some truth in his reasoning. But the older generation will eventually be passing on their wealth. To force down property prices would mean carving value off assets and risking deflation. Property prices are what they are (under current legislation) because NZ is a very attractive place to live. That means it's also a country abounding in opportunity and looking at a better future than many others.

You can't blame the elderly for why they vote. We all vote selfishly. But it becomes unfair when the demographics shift so far that young voters are drowned out. At 65 a New Zealander has been voting for 47 years, surely that's enough time to get your point across.

I would challenge the statement that "we all vote selfishly". I vote primarily with a whole country view. And that coincides for what is best for following generations.

Old age is a time to relax. You deserve a rest at 70. Let the young people who live for the future mould that future. When I am old I hope I am brave enough to hand power over without a fight.
The world is a terrifyingly confusing place when you're elderly. You're being left behind. When you're young you jump up stairs two steps at a time. When you're old you stand at the top trembling. Unfortunately fear can lead to judgmentalism and bigotry. Which leads to illogical positions.

Uuumm. Isn't ageism a form of "judgmentalism and bigotry?" Isn't Matt's an "illogical position"?

Oldies say they paid taxes their whole lives and deserve a pay day. If that's the case, where is all that money? If you saved it, where is it? Why does so much of our tax today go to Super? The answer is clear. All the money has gone. Boomers and the Governments they voted in have already spent it on themselves. It was a massive, short-sighted, generational cock-up. Hopefully the current tax-paying population will be more responsible with their futures. Unfortunately much of the money we should be saving for our futures is being spent on covering a generation who voted to put nothing aside.

It's been a very long time since anything was "put aside" for Super. Fifty years at least. There used to be a few state forests owned by the social security fund but since the sixties pensions (and all the other not inconsiderable working-age welfare) has been funded from the current tax-take.

Though we do have KiwiSaver and start-up subsidies. How did that get voted in???

But Super is the real source of his anger I think. And again, I sympathise. So what Matt Heath needs to do is stop complaining, figure out which party is prepared to vote in his interests - start one if need be - and make sure he gets the message out to all of his like-minded generation.

But he should also remember that many of the people he wants to disenfranchise are grandparents and parents who will vote with their children's interests uppermost.

Increase in benefit fraud?

RNZ is reporting:

"Work and Income is owed $180 million from former and current clients who have defrauded the system - and that amount has doubled in five years."

Yesterday a journalist working on CheckPoint sent me some OIA data looking for comment.

I told him I've have never seen figures this big. That's because they represent cumulative debt. In the note it says: "The data has been produced from the Legacy Audit Trail (LAT) reporting. LAT information provides a fuller picture of debt owed to the Ministry and takes into account debt owed by current and former clients."

I advised that he look at this graph:

MSD is getting better at detecting fraud. Fraud detections doubled in 2013/14 because of MSD's IRD data-matching programme, It isn't getting better at recovering the debt. But I would be surprised if the behaviour of beneficiaries has changed particularly.


The second most common type of benefit fraud (after working while claiming a benefit) is people claiming a single parent benefit when they are in a relationship. In February 2014 MSD started a 12 month trial involving following up with 1,616 sole parent support clients to establish entitlement to a benefit.



Then, the Social Security (Fraud Measures and Debt Recovery) Amendment Bill passed into law in April 2014. It's purpose was "to make spouses and partners, as well as beneficiaries, accountable for fraud, and to enable the Ministry of Social Development to recover debt more effectively". Obviously not working yet.

Maybe he wanted me to say something derogatory about fraudulent beneficiaries to provide 'balance'. Because he didn't use any of my comment.

I hope she has plenty more where that came from

Just what this country needs. A bleeding-heart pop star with more money than sense.

I recently wrote about the Upper Hutt man who had failed to sell his idea of the private sector funding school lunches to local businesses.

Seems he has since started up a give-a-little-page to fund his Fuel the Need sheme. And Lorde has donated $20,000 with a message that she is "passionate about all kids having access to food at school".

I'm passionate about parents taking responsibility for their children. Every time something like this happens we chip away at the societal expectation of 'responsibility' being the flip side of  'right'.

It is each person's right to have children but it is increasingly everybody else's responsibility to look after them. And this super role model has just given that attitude the stamp of approval.

If she wants to give away her money it'd be better spent funding a local community group that goes into the homes of these 'hungry' kids and finds out what's going wrong; what needs to change and shows the family how. And stays involved until the situation is resolved.

I applaud her generosity but she needs to think very hard about what comes next.

Household wealth inequality and family structure

On the back of statistics released yesterday there has been some grizzling about the top 10% increasing their share of household wealth. I am not about to argue with the data. My position is that the inequality is being substantially driven by change in family structure. Look at the data from the tables:

The median household wealth at June 2015 was $289,000.

One parent households with dependent child(ren) have a median household wealth of just $26,000 - less than a tenth of the median.

The wealthiest households are empty-nest couples or those with adult children living at home.

In the tiny cohort of my children's friends, more than half of their parents split at some point after their birth. It's a fairly middle-class sample. About half of the separated mothers have stayed single.

We live in world characterised by relationship instability yet expect or want the division of wealth to remain what it was when marriage was almost universal and divorce unusual.

The following graphs depict household incomes as opposed to wealth but they illustrate the point I am making. I compared household incomes from the 1966 census to those in the 2013 census and adjusted to $2013:

In 1966 far more families were clustered in the two middle income bands. There were fewer families at the extremes.

(While the 1966 data only comprised  married families, just 4.3% of all families were excluded. They were predominantly widows. Even if those families were added to the lowest income bands, the bands' content would still be below 10%. In contrast, by 2013, 25 percent of families appeared in the lowest income bands.)

Yet the constant refrain is that growing inequality is the fault of factors beyond the individual's control.

I believe it's more a facet of personal choice. Don't get me wrong. I am all for personal choice. But there remains a distinction between good and bad choices, notwithstanding a 'bad' choice may be 'good' choice if you don't mind being poor. But don't then complain about it - personally or on somebody else's behalf - and blame a host of other factors like capitalism, unemployment, low wages etc.

The current  levels of income inequality and wealth will continue to grow if people continue to choose to raise children alone or have children by multiple partners. Not all, but most, will end up at the wrong end of the income scale.

Lawyer blames Moko's death on "extreme poverty"

Ron Mansfield, the defence lawyer for one of  Moko's killers, Tania Shailer, blames "extreme poverty" for her actions.

You can listen here.

Not twice but three times he said that 'we' need to deal with poverty or more of this will happen.

What an insult to the many thousands of parents who would be financially in the same boat as the killers were, but who still manage to make their children's safety and well-being paramount.

Resorting to the poverty excuse is just facile.

( I can agree however with Mansfield's assertions about mental ill health. But even that has many of its roots in the welfarism - not poverty.)

Update: RNZ has written up some of his statement to media:

"As a country we need to stand back and we need to look at how we're dealing with poverty. There's extreme poverty out there and where there's poverty there's stress. And all of the reports on child abuse show us that where there's stress there's going to be higher rates of child abuse."

Garth McVicar's open letter to the Solicitor General

23rd May 2016 By e-mail and post

Dear Ms Jagose,
Re: Moko Rangitoheriri – Decision to downgrade charges

I am the founder the Sensible Sentencing Trust (SST), an organization set up in 2001 to provide support to victims of crime, and to lobby for changes to the law. Our organization now has some thousands of members and many more supporters.

Along with many, I am both appalled and bewildered by the decision to replace the charges of murder originally laid against Tania Shailer and David Haerewa for the killing of Moko Rangitoheriri (Moko) with charges of manslaughter, to which the accused then pleaded guilty. Clearly this came about by what is popularly known as a “plea bargain”. It is unclear whether the prosecution or defence initiated the discussions which led to that deal. No one is talking.

SST has a number of qualified lawyers as legal advisors. All of those lawyers find the decision inexplicable, assuming the facts are as they have been widely reported. One criminal defence barrister with 25 years experience has said that if the facts are as reported, he would not even have bothered trying to get the charges against Moko’s killers downgraded. At no time since this story broke has there been any statement from your office which clarifies or contradicts the facts as reported in the media.

The Crown Solicitor in Rotorua has referred all queries to you. We understand that you – or one of your delegates – approved the plea bargain under which the murder charges were replaced with charges of manslaughter as required by law.

As I have said, we have sought advice from qualified and experienced lawyers both within and outside our ranks. No-one can explain – or even speculate on – the reasons for this deal being done. Most of our advisers say “there must be something more”.

On behalf of the members of SST, I would like to know if there is in fact anything more, and why exactly this decision was made and if indeed you or your office made it.

SST is organizing a number of rallies to be held at various Courts on the day of the sentencing for Tania Shailer and David Haerewa. While there will be a number of marches and rallies around New Zealand as a build up to the Court House rallies on the 27th. The purpose of the rallies on 27th June will be primarily to address the plea bargain issue.

We would like to read out a statement from you to hopefully allay the publics’ worst fears and I invite you to submit such a statement for me to action.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Garth McVicar 
Founder Sensible Sentencing Trust

Crowded house

The headline reads, "Baby gets sick in crowded house".

It is now an established trend for young people to stay longer in the family home. It's happening in our family and I am fine with it. It makes sense due to various circumstances.

But if the young person then adds a partner, followed by children, it is inevitable that overcrowding is going to happen.

What I would like the media to decide is which is worse? Poverty - higher when housing costs consume a greater part of income - or overcrowding, which allows people to pool their resources.

Overcrowding actually alleviates poverty. So then the story has to be about how overcrowding makes people sick.

I have a suspicion that state houses are the cause of the problem - not the solution. Because they are cheap compared to private rentals families tend to congregate in them as well as on the grounds.

It may be that the son can't find a rental in Tauranga or that, compared to living with his mother in a cheap state house, he can't find anything 'affordable'.

No free lunches in Upper Hutt

A social entrepreneur has contacted 300 Upper Hutt businesses to pay for school lunches for children who turn up without. He's had no takers.

Hutt Valley Chamber of Commerce CE says,

"I'm genuinely surprised to be perfectly honest . . . the feedback that's been given to me is that there's been a genuine lack of interest and in most cases a non-reply which absolutely astounds me for a business community that we have in the valley that do like to normally support community projects."

The social entrepreneur says,

"I'm not trying to sound harsh but if there are businesses that are making money off our community then I'm sort of garnering towards making them socially responsible to give back to the community that it makes money from."

But they do give back. As the first comment records. And they give back in taxes that run the welfare system that distributes income for the very purposes of feeding children.

So I am not surprised that there is little interest in this project. Businesses will also have figured out that once 'free lunches' are on offer the need will mysteriously grow.

These schools need to talk to the parents. Or send them a letter saying that if their children continue to come to school with no food CYF or Work and Income will be contacted. That will result in the parent either having to do budgeting course or have their income managed by a third party.

A couple of slices of bread, apple, and biscuit. How hard can it be for god's sake? And if the school can prepare and freeze sandwiches in advance why can't the parents?

All this guy is doing is encouraging absolutely slack parenting (if indeed children are genuinely without lunch. I bet some are given money to buy food but spend it on whatever it is kids buy these days.)

It is disgraceful that he is trying to shame businesses when it is the parents who should be shamed.