The brilliant van Beynen does it again

From Stuff:

OPINION: Guess what? Fixing child poverty in New Zealand is not that hard.

Let's call it the John Minto solution. First, every family with less than a certain income will be brought up to a minimum stipend based on what is required for the family to live comfortably in their location.

More

Hurunui ratepayers will be pleased

Briefly, I cannot believe this woman's attitude.

She has been newly-elected a Councillor and is demanding a subsidy for childcare so she can attend the weekly meetings.

Didn't she research what the role entailed before applying?

When I ran for parliament my children were very young. I took the serious and somewhat uncomfortable step of asking my parents if they would consider moving close to us before I undertook the decision to run. The children and I would need their support. In the event (thankfully in retrospect) the need didn't arise. The point is you make your own arrangements and fund them...unless of course you are an entitlist.

I am just glad she isn't in my electorate. That kind of hand-out solution to the first problem she encounters does not auger well for her ongoing performance.

Judith Collins telling it as she sees it

Reported on Radio New Zealand:

Ms Collins was challenged at the Police Association's annual conference in Wellington today by a delegate, who said poverty was making law enforcement harder.

The delegate said his officers had been very busy with gangs, which he said were often filled with people who had experienced poverty as children.

The government's approach to child poverty was criticised in a recent United Nations report, as well as by opposition politicians.

Ms Collins responded by saying the government was doing a lot more for child poverty in New Zealand than the UN had ever done.

In New Zealand, there was money available to everyone who needed it, she said.

"It's not that, it's people who don't look after their children, that's the problem.

"And they can't look after their children in many cases because they don't know how to look after their children or even think they should look after their children."

Monetary poverty was not the only problem, she said.

"I see a poverty of ideas, a poverty of parental responsibility, a poverty of love, a poverty of caring."

As the MP for Papakura, she saw a lot of those problems in south Auckland, she said.

"And I can tell you it is not just a lack of money, it is primarily a lack of responsibility.

"I know that is not PC, but, you know, that's me."

She refused an interview on the John Campbell Show. Quite wise. Jacinda Adern did appear but typically contradicted herself and her party by talking up Working For Families, and its role in child poverty reduction, while ignoring that National kept the policy.

She was a pig in muck canoodling with Campbell. But her grasp of the wider context of historical child poverty was woefully lacking.

The new child protection direction

In today's NZ Herald Dr Ian Hyslop takes fire at the government and its plans for vulnerable children:

The Government's proposed reforms to our child protection laws are regressive, myopic and likely to have unfortunate outcomes for children who have been ill-treated in stressed families.
They have been narrowly conceived and signal a return to rescue-based fostercare. This, in my opinion, is a huge step backwards for child protection in New Zealand, particularly for Maori.

It is difficult to envisage a 'step backward' from what is a deteriorating situation. The incidence of child abuse among Maori is disproportionately high and 60 percent of children in state care are Maori.

I worked in state social work for 20 years and witnessed the genesis of the ground-breaking Children, Young Persons and their Families' Act, 1989. This legislation addressed institutional racism (identified in the Puao Te Ata Tu Ministerial Advisory Committee Report of 1988) by making an understanding of Maori values and social structures central to working with Maori children.
The 1989 Act responded to the cultural alienation of Maori children in the care of the state by bringing Maori concepts of whakapapa and whanaungatanga into mainstream statutory social work legislation.
It required that placement of children outside of immediate family be with a member of their whanau, hapu, iwi, or at the very least with someone from the same cultural background. This vision has never been adequately supported or resourced and now, under these proposed reforms, it is abandoned.

There is nothing in the statistics that would indicate that the "ground-breaking" Act was a success. Forty five percent of the children with a substantiated finding of physical abuse in 2015 were Maori. These children often develop into the offenders that go on to make up half of the prison population.

So, typically, blame for the lack of success went on inadequate support and resourcing.

I believe these misguided changes have been based on a persuasive but inaccurate and overly simplistic assertion that the ills of the current child protection system are due to an insufficiently child-centred approach.

Too often the focus has not been on the children. It has been on the parents. Social workers focus on sorting out the parent's dysfunction and trying to keep the child in their care. This can go on over crucial years of the child's life and development. A child-centered approach would actually put their need first. And while it is difficult to extricate their needs from their parents needs, more effort to do so is vital.

Hyslop continues:

But it must be recognised that these reforms are also linked with the Government's social investment approach to public services. Social problems are seen in terms of the costs " prisons and benefits " that result from the behaviour of failing families. One way of breaking the cycle is permanently removing children from their care.
Key principles of our child protection legislation are being revised with this goal in mind.
This approach is clearly reflected in the proposal that the CYP&F Act should include a commitment to ensure "those children and young people who come to the attention of the new ministry have a safe, stable and loving home from the earliest opportunity".
Of course, the notion of safety, stability and love triggers a powerful emotional response to the needs of children. However, an idealised notion of love provided by the state and middle New Zealand carers is no basis for a progressive child welfare system in my view.

This is a misrepresentation. More than once, in the cabinet papers referred to,  Anne Tolley points out that the state cannot provide the love that children need. That must come from "stable and loving families". Her words.

In any case we've tried the "progressive child welfare system" and it has failed. The old system of adoption had its pitfalls too but the incidence of physical child abuse (as recorded by child protection services) was far lower.

In practice this will translate into the earlier and more frequent removal of children from parental care, into permanent alternative care and a reduced emphasis on securing whanau placement for children who cannot safely remain with immediate family.

Indeed it will. The cabinet papers twice mention the recruitment of more caregivers.

Anne Tolley says, "I am proposing...to develop a dedicated cross-agency transformation team to design and implement priority initiatives such as an engagement strategy for all New Zealanders, a
caregiver recruitment strategy and increased support for caregiving families."

The academic continues:

With high-risk families, the intention is to plan alternate care concurrently with intensive intervention to encourage speedy long-term attachment and stability with new carers. Further, Family Court judges may have the power to make final guardianship and custody orders without a formal declaration being made.
In other words, parents will have no opportunity to dispute the removal of their children and statutory social workers will not be required to formally prove the accuracy of the evidence they are relying on.
This is a breach of human rights justified by the quick dispensation of safety, stability and love. It is ideologically driven and, in reality, will be punitive and damaging to the socially disadvantaged in our increasingly unequal society.

Why is it that the current government is driven by ideology but former governments were not? The academic has his own ideology. We all do.

Great care must be taken over extending powers of the state. At the same time great care must been accorded to children who are demonstrably in danger. Getting the balance right is the challenge.

There are many New Zealand couples who would relish the opportunity to adopt (or provide life-long care to) a child whose parent or extended family is severely impaired by violence, addiction, and/or mental ill health. Temporary and transient fostercare and spells in state care have not worked well. Often the damage created to the child in his or her first months and years is irreversible.

Part of the new child-centered approach, which can potentially act as a brake on overzealous intervention is also proposed:

Legislation establishing an independent youth advocacy service to ensure that the voices of children and young people are heard in the design of systems and services.

The area of child protection is fraught but I disagree with Dr Hyslop (who I expect would lay the blame for child abuse on poverty and inequality disregarding that the vast majority of poor New Zealanders  neither abuse nor neglect their children).

I believe the government is on the right track if only because the status quo is simply unacceptable.

More bleating about budget cuts

Over a 1,000 budget advisors are waiting to see whether their government funding will continue. This is pitched as a terrible situation by the contractors and opposition, including the Sallies (who are now just a de facto state agency.)

I 'worked' for an organisation that had voluntary budget advisers. It was headed by a couple of paid full-time staff but the rest were older women, most retired. If they needed it, they could get petrol reimbursement. Other wise they took nothing for the services they performed.

Budget advising is the perfect role for a superannuitant. As the state pays people to retire perhaps those people could give back?

There is massive resource in the baby boomers. I continue to volunteer in a different role and thoroughly enjoy the work. While not a superannuitant I am still saving the state by doing something it would otherwise have to pay for.

But the left always want it to be about the state funding everything so they can complain when it doesn't happen.

A fresh mindset is required. Ask not what your country can do for you etc.

Who affronts feminism more -Trump or Clinton?

Bill Clinton ( husband of Mrs Clinton) leaves a long line of aggrieved encounteresses. Yes, I made up the word.

This doesn't matter apparently. It's the past. Hillary has countenanced the encounteressances ongoing.

But Hillary campaigns on being a feminist. A feminist that puts up with a man who is repeatedly sexually fickle?

OK, OK, So its only sex. I get that. She has bigger fish to fry.

But that was Trump's specific argument today. That he did some boastful locker talk quite a few years ago. NOW there are much more serious matters at hand. (We don't know if he physically transgressed against women in a manner that is worse and stuff could come out yet.)

A further observation:

Today's male moderator, very early in the piece, defined Trumps's indicative talk as  'sexual assault' . The voters on Trump's side probably don't buy the modern definition of sexual assault and the moderator accusing Trump of such will only inflame their disconnect and contempt for the language distortions  that feminists have forced on society.

I could not vote for either candidate.

Who's radical?

Naturally the US media are attacking presidential candidate Gary Johnson for his 'radical' ideas.

From Jacob Hornberger, explaining why libertarians are not the radicals.

Excerpt:

Guess who the radicals were in the late 1800s and early 1900s. The socialists and interventionists! That is, those Americans who were proposing programs like income taxation, national health care, minimum-wage laws, maximum-hours legislation, and public (i.e., government) schooling, all which they were importing from socialists in Germany. It was those statists who were considered by our American ancestors to be radicals who were trying to shift America from a free-market economy way of life to socialism and interventionism.

Let’s not forget what those radical statists were saying when they were battling for the enactment of the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913. They were saying, “We promise that if we are permitted to bring income taxation to America, it will only be levied on the rich — and even then, it will only be a very small percentage of taxation on the rich.” It was an unvarnished appeal to the great sins of envy and covetousness.

As Thomas and others of his socialist and interventionist ilk know full well, income tax didn’t end up being limited to the rich and the percentage didn’t stay small for long. Instead, like a metastasizing cancer it spread throughout the middle class and even to the poor, to the point where many people today, especially the young, can’t make ends meet.

More

Child poverty pleaders mislead yet again

New Zealand should emulate the United Kingdom.

This call has surfaced repeatedly over the past few days. For instance:

[Max Rashbrooke] said New Zealand should follow Britain's lead and pass a Child Poverty Act, which would set out measures and targets, as well as a plan of meeting them.
"It's about taking a comprehensive approach so I think we need to start with measures, start with a plan and then I think the right actions will flow out of that."

And Jonathon Boston,  Professor of Public Policy at Victoria University of Wellington and 'expert' in solutions to child poverty, in this morning's DomPost:

Moreover, there is nothing new about governments setting child poverty-reduction targets. Governments around the world have done so for many years. In Britain a Child Poverty Act was enacted in 2010 with cross-party support committing governments to setting and achieving specific targets to curb child poverty.

But wait.

Only three months ago the UK Child Poverty Action Group reported:

 “A decade ago, when David Cameron became party leader, he promised that under his leadership his party would measure and act on child poverty. It’s a tragedy that we are now talking about rises in child poverty not falls. It’s also hugely depressing that at a time when we’re seeing rising child poverty the Government has passed legislation that eliminates its target to reduce child poverty, or even to report on the progress it is making."

Confirmed by this from 2015:

The government is to scrap its child poverty target and replace it with a new duty to report levels of educational attainment, worklessness and addiction, rather than relative material disadvantage, work and pensions secretary Iain Duncan Smith has said.The old target set by Tony Blair, based on the percentage of households with below average income, will continue to be published as a government statistic – but will no longer be seen as a target.

Out of touch or just willfully ignorant?

Why a 'child poverty reduction target' is wrong

Anti-child poverty campaigner Max Rashbrooke writes at RNZ:

Anyone planning their summer holiday will already be thinking about the logistics - the plane tickets, the car hire, the hotel bookings, and so on.
But before they get onto those things, they'll have decided on one key point: where they're actually going for their holiday, and when.
The same point applies to government policy, and the currently hot topic of tackling child poverty. The first thing is to know where you're going: how much you want to reduce child poverty, and by what date.

He contends that the government has done none of this latter planning.

I thought when I started reading Rashbrooke's opening he was going to allude to the thousands of children whose families can't go on holiday once a year. Not being able to afford an annual holiday is now just one item on a list of family shortfalls indicating material hardship.

So should the government start subsidizing poor-family holidays as part of the demanded percentage reduction in child poverty?

Most people would think that insulating damp state houses might take priority. Or upping immunization rates. Or funding 'home-for-life' parents who take on the most needy, damaged and disadvantaged children there are.

This is the point the Prime Minister is making to those who want a blanket catch-all child poverty reduction target.

Many children in income poverty experience no hardship. Others, whose income is above the poverty threshold, are experiencing a number of deprivations.

Many children in  families on benefits have worse outcomes than children in families who work, even when their incomes are similar. The reasons why are nuanced. But poor working families are more likely to have two parents and budget better. Policy needs to deal with those nuances.

This government, more than any before, has attempted to cross-identify data from a number of agencies that deal with children and their families - MSD, IRD, Corrections, Health and Education - to find those children most at risk of living unhappy, unsafe, unhealthy, and unfulfilled lives.

Targeting whatever funding is available to those children is the correct and humane approach.

New Children's Commissioner plays same old record

Radio NZ reports:

The Labour Party has accepted the Children's Commissioner's challenge to reduce child poverty rates by 10 percent by the end of next year.
Commissioner Andrew Becroft is urging National and Labour to work together to achieve the change.
Mr Becroft wants a material deprivation measure to be used as the official benchmark for child poverty, under which 149,000 children would be considered to be living in hardship.

So the Commissioner is challenging government to reduce child poverty.

What about challenging individuals?  Why not, for instance, challenge couples to stay together and committed to their children? Or challenge people who are dependent on benefits not to add more babies? Or challenge young people to finish their education, pay off their loans and get jobs before they start families?

What a difference changing poverty-inducing behaviours would make.

But the new Commissioner has simply taken up the old demands. Disappointing. Very.

Resisting the evidence

An interesting article appeared in the Daily Signal entitled, "What Happened When New Zealand Got Rid of Government Subsidies for Farmers."

I can't vouch for the veracity of it. I wasn't living in NZ during the 1985 to 1991 period. But the very first comment post article echoes what I thought reading it.

Fertility rates may be dropping, but not that fast

Sometimes I can be idly reading through some fluff when I get stopped in my tracks. That happened this morning when I read in the NZ Herald:

According to the 2014 US Census, 47.6 per cent of women go through their peak-fertility years (ages 15 to 44) without giving birth.

This can only be read as 47.6% of women over 44 don't have children.

A ridiculous claim. So I googled it, betting it was a mangling of some fact by the writer.

The Huffington Post describes what is actually happening:

According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey, in 2014, 47.6 percent of women between age 15 and 44 had never had children, up from 46.5 percent in 2012. This represents the highest percentage of childless women since the bureau started tracking that data in 1976.
Time reported that this pattern is particularly pronounced for women between 25 and 29 — 49.6 percent of women in that age group don’t have kids. Unsurprisingly, after age 30 those numbers drop and more women become moms. The survey found that 28.9 percent of women ages 30-34 are childfree.

And it will drop further after age 34.

From the US census:

2.0 - Average number of children that women age 40 to 44 had given birth to as of 2014, down from 3.1 children in 1976, the year the Census Bureau first began collecting such data. The percentage of women in this age group who had ever given birth was 85 percent in 2014, down from 90 percent in 1976.

So now we have 15% of women go through their peak fertility years (15-44) without giving birth.

Fertility rates may be dropping, but not that fast.

Court statistics - good news story?

Coincidentally, on the same day that the country was reacting en masse to the discharge without conviction of a young rugby player who brutally assaulted a group of people on the street in Wellington, the latest youth court statistics were released. They show a continuing fall in the numbers of young people being charged.

Adult statistics graphed look similar:

The cynic in me questions sudden reverses in trends always looking for some fish hook. Especially when the prison population is growing. According to Corrections:

The Department of Corrections has embarked on a major recruitment drive and aims to employ around 600 new Corrections Officers by September 2017, with at least 500 of them coming from New Zealand.
The new recruits are needed because the prison population is expected to reach 10,000 by 2017. This increase is due to more people being held in prison on remand than previously. Legislative changes have also meant prisoners serve more of their sentence in prison, and there has been an increase in prisoners serving longer sentences for more serious crimes. 

NZ Lawyer recently published an article about the falling court statistics.
Here's one explanation:

“The police have made greater use of pre-charge warnings and alternative mechanisms (eg, community and iwi justice panels) to ensure minor offending is more appropriately dealt with.”

I suspect that is the major reason. Not an improvement in behaviour. Serious offending continues at the same levels.

Lizzie Marvelly

I shouldn't read them. Lizzie Marvelly's columns always irritate me but they do provide an insight into the modern feminist's mind. 

Today she has been unusually arrogant - even by her standards - about David Seymour's comments this week suggesting that if a Women's Ministry was legitimate so should a Man's Ministry be. Not that he was promoting the formation of such. Rather, he was highlighting the inconsistency.

Marvelly lets fly:

During this otherwise celebratory week, however, I was unfortunate enough to stumble upon a publication entitled Free Press, which the Act Party seemingly sends out as a press release on a regular basis. On Suffrage Day (September 19), the Act Party decided to tell the nation (or more accurately, the small minority of New Zealanders who have nothing better to do with their time than read the party's public relations material) that there is no longer any need for a Minister for Women, when in fact, it is men who are disadvantaged.
"Where once women were clearly marginalised, men are now behind in most social statistics," Free Press asserted, on a day dedicated to celebrating the still-challenged idea that women are as important as men.
More men go to prison. More men commit suicide. More women graduate from university than men. Men even die earlier!
Never mind the fact that women are paid less than men for the same work. Nor that women are more likely than men to suffer from mental illness. Nor that men commit the vast majority of the country's crimes.
Though I generally try to avoid reading about anything the Act Party says or does out of concern for my sanity, the Free Press caught me by surprise. I'd almost have thought that a Suffrage Day issue dedicated to mansplaining was a joke, but that would require the Act Party to have a sense of humour and a shred of self-awareness.

....From a party that has had exactly zero female leaders in its 22-year history, perhaps the Free Press' stance is unsurprising. Ignorance, however, is no excuse.

A female President is a female leader. The accusation of ignorance is somewhat ironic.

Not that ACT would concern itself with gender parity because its core philosophy is individualism.
Marvelly's is collectivism. But I am not sure she comprehends that.

The woman is a chronic belly-acher. To men, she says,

When you have no experience of what it's like to live in a world where another gender running the show is the way it's always been - from the fact that we've had only two female prime ministers out of 38, to the injustice of Sir Ed and Lord Rutherford receiving titles for their achievements while Kate Sheppard gave half the population the vote and was never made a dame - it must be hard to imagine.

I have lived in that world rather longer than MS Marvelly and  I often reflect on the freedom I have relished as a female, and a mother, a freedom furnished by a husband who has not had the same time or opportunity to pursue his every inclination because he has busied himself with supporting his family. Perhaps Ms Marvelly's father did the same. Perhaps not.

But what about a little gratitude? If not to men especially, for the privilege you have enjoyed by dint of being born in a relatively peaceful, prosperous and civilized country.

You don't know how lucky you are Lizzie.

Compassion

Former British MP Bryan Gould has written in today's NZ Herald about what Labour needs to do:

But voters will feel more confident in voting Labour if they are convinced that a Labour government will approach individual issues from a consistent viewpoint - one that will give priority to the values of tolerance, mutual respect, compassion, care for each other, and a recognition that "we're all in this together".

Spoken like a true politician.

Here is Thomas Sowell's definition of 'compassion', from his political glossary:

 "A ... term that is likely to be heard a lot, during election years especially, is "compassion." But what does it mean concretely? More often than not, in practice it means a willingness to spend the taxpayers' money in ways that will increase the spender's chances of getting reelected. If you are skeptical — or, worse yet, critical — of this practice, then you qualify for a different political label: "mean-spirited." A related political label is "greedy." In the political language of today, people who want to keep what they have earned are said to be "greedy," while those who wish to take their earnings from them and give it to others (who will vote for them in return) show "compassion." "

UBI for kids

Here's a group advocating a universal basic income for all children of $40 a week.

Lowell Manning, President of Basic Income New Zealand (BINZ) is calling for a Universal Basic Income for Children. “I like to call it a Kids’ Basic Income” he says. Mr Manning said that a Universal Basic Income for Children would work much better than tax cuts, substantially reducing child poverty in New Zealand and boosting the economy where it is needed.

Referring to reports (Radio New Zealand 27th May on Nine to Noon), that Prime Minister John Key and Finance Minister Bill English would like to cut taxes by about $2-3 billion*, Manning says, “if we are serious about eliminating child poverty here in New Zealand, the Government is well placed to lead the world in 2017 by implementing a Universal Basic Income for Children”.

“The Kids’ BI would be similar to the old Universal Family Benefit that ended in 1991 after 45 years of continuous use”, he said, “so the idea is neither new nor radical. What was radical was abolishing the Universal Family Benefit in the first place”.

“A Kids’ basic income of $40 paid weekly in addition to all existing income support to every child under the age of 18 irrespective of family income or assets would return about $2.6 billion annually to the productive economy excluding establishment and administration costs”, he continued. “That’s about the same as the tax cuts the Government is considering. It creates a clear choice between substantially reducing the rapidly worsening child poverty that is causing widespread concern throughout the country and tax cuts that poorly target child poverty.”

“Moreover, the $2.6 billion a year spent on the Kids’ Basic Income would generate more government revenue because the Kids’ Basic Income will increase national output, GDP, by about 1%, and the tax on that extra output will increase Government revenue more than tax cuts will”, said Mr Manning.

“The Kids’ Basic Income is about the wellbeing of children, not family size or structure, ethnicity or social status” he concluded.

I'd like some expert economic comment on that bit of maths. Sounds like the impossible task of standing in a bucket and trying to life yourself up by the handle. We cannot tax ourselves into prosperity etc.

That not insignificant matter aside, I see a number of problems.

The income would be paid to the parent. If it's like the old Family Benefit it would be paid to the mother. In other cases to whoever has legal custody I guess. But it'll be that person who decides how it is used. Yes, poorer parents will tend to spend it but the wealthier might choose to save it towards future costs eg university fees.

So it cannot assumed it will automatically add to GDP.

Second, the behavioural effect on those who would rather breed than work for an income is a worry.

Third, how can it be fair to anyone who isn't  a parent and aged 18 and over? They don't get any tax relief because proposed cuts would be going to parents with dependent children only. So those just starting out, many already burdened with student debt, become relatively poorer.

Fourth, to really quibble, if all families with children receive the income boost, median household income rises as does the poverty threshold. On paper, relative child poverty persists.

Finally, the universal family benefit was stopped in favour of targeting poorer children. This is a reversal.

Military style camps not making a difference

MSD released two reports last week which you can find here. I have simply extracted the recidivism rates but there is additional data about the type of offending, gender, age etc. if you are interested

"This report describes changes in the offending outcomes observed for 79 young people who between October 2010 and December 2013 graduated from 11 Military-style Activity Camps (MACs) held at Te Puna Wai ō Tuhinapo youth justice residence in Christchurch. All of these young people had a post-MAC follow-up period of at least 12 months so their follow-up offending could be observed."

"The reoffending outcomes ...for MAC graduates appear very similar to those seen for all young people who have received SwR orders.  However caution must be taken with such a comparison, as measuring the impact of the MAC relative to SwR would require a robust statistical approach such as a matched comparison analysis. This could usefully be undertaken in the future."

Another report looks at the recidivism rate for those who went through the Youth Court and received supervision orders:

"Records for a total of 552 young people  who received a stand-alone Supervision (SUP) order between 1 October 2010 and 31 March 2013 were examined."

A final report looks at recidivism rate among those who went through a Family Group Conference process. The outcomes are slightly better but these are probably the less serious offenders. 

Based on these graphs the Military style camps had the least success.

On a brighter note, according to the summary:

Offending by children aged 10-13 years has dropped in the last five years for both genders, across all ethnic groups and ages, across almost all offence types, and in all regions.
A falling youth crime rate is not unique to New Zealand, and the reasons for the fall are unclear and therefore subject to debate.
Much of the drop in offending by children in New Zealand has been because fewer children are becoming offenders in the first place – a very positive finding.

The UN should mind its own business

It incenses me when the UN sticks its nose into New Zealand's social and political affairs. Anne Tolley has apparently been challenged in Geneva over child poverty and naming the new agency the Ministry for Vulnerable Children. According to RNZ:

"...Unicef NZ executive director Vivien Maidaborn, who was part of the delegation, said the panel had expressed concern about the new ministry.
"The comment that was made was, 'I don't understand why you would call a Ministry the Ministry of Vulnerable Children when it could just have been the Ministry of Children. You're in danger of overtargeting towards vulnerable children at the expense of rights to all New Zealand children.'"

This is bullshit.

Most New Zealand children do not need the government in their lives. They do not need a Ministry. Their parents give birth to them, care for and feed them, raise them and send them into the world without any help from a government agency that concerns itself with the care and protection of children. Sure they might receive some tax subsidy and use public education and health services but that is the nature of the beast right now.

Around 3-5 percent of children are in circumstances that even a libertarian would acknowledge  (in the absence of private charities) require state intervention. The argument is about the nature and timing of that intervention.

Seriously, how can genuinely vulnerable children at risk of abuse, neglect, and failure to develop, be 'over-targeted'?

New Zealand has every right to tackle its own problems in the way it believes will work best. I know what I would have said to the UN.

Tax and transfer

From the latest Household Incomes Report overview a couple of interesting points.

Pertaining to the lower graph, "The transfers received by the top decile are almost entirely from NZS. The rest is from low-income ‘independent’ adults living in high-income households while (legitimately) receiving a core income-tested benefit such as Sole Parent Support."

Which raises a question for me. Why is it that student eligibility for an allowance is tested against parental income but eligibility for sole parent support is not?

The genesis of the DPB and not naming fathers

The first DPB Emergency benefit was created by a National government in 1968.

The DPB statutory benefit was passed into legislation in 1973, under an incoming Labour government. But it was pushed along by a National MP Lance Adams-Schneider's private member's bill under debate at the time.

That's why I wrote to Leighton Smith today that the DPB was introduced by a National govt.

I should have been clearer. And I should not rely on my memory:-)

Don W picked it up and Leighton didn't have time to read my clarification.

The subject of the DPB was under discussion because of a campaign launched by Auckland Action Against Poverty to have the penalty against sole parents on welfare who refuse to name the father of their child abolished.

If the business of naming the father is genuinely troublesome (the child is the result of rape or incest) Work and Income will not apply the penalty.

However there is also a dodge that goes on which the bureaucracy tries to discourage.

Current law requires the naming of fathers in order to collect Child Support from him. By not naming the father, the mother colludes to help him avoid paying Child Support which, if she is on welfare, is kept by the state to offset the benefit cost. In return the father agrees to pay her a lesser sum than Child Support but higher than the penalty. So both win.

Of course AAAP wouldn't have a problem with this. They are happy for the 'downtrodden' of any hue to rip off the 'neoliberal' welfare system.

Do they comprehend that these sorts of campaigns actually hurt the poor by hardening voter attitudes?