What a whinger

What a whinger Michelle Duff is. Writing a piece about how hard done by women have been during the Covid crisis she says:

" 90 per cent of those who have lost their jobs post-Covid are women"

 Well that's BS for starters. Look at her own link.

 The shocking revelation – that of the 11,000 fewer people in paid employment, 10,000 of them were women - should be taken with a grain of salt, said KiwiBank economist Mary Jo Vergara, because the level of disruption during lockdown made it hard to conduct the survey.

“But I think the message there is clear - even if you adjust for some anomalies in the data you’d still see over 50 per cent, probably around 60 or 70 per cent of those who lost their jobs, would be women.”

While men were the hardest hit in previous recessions, this time around it’s part-time workers in the female-dominated industries – retail and hospitality – who are losing their jobs.

So let's split the difference and call it 60%. Consider though that part-time workers are not as reliant on their income as full-time workers. It is often a benefit or Super top-up, or a contribution to the main household income. If it were men (who usually work full-time) being harder hit (which it may well yet turn out to be) it's very likely that would impact their female partners more than the loss of her part-time job. In any case the Covid Inome Relief Payment was made available to women who had lost part-time jobs and had partners. Forgot to mention that.

Duff goes on to cite a survey which finds,

Around 76 per cent of women said childcare is holding them back, standing in the way of career achievements. 

Well frigging well don't have children. Don't make it everybody else's problem.

...women wanted pay equity, better laws to combat bullying and harassment, and for paid parental leave to be granted to both parents...improving sick leave to include looking after dependants, and funding daycares to provide more flexible hours.

Oddly enough the more women get in respect of legislated work-life balance policies, the fewer children they have. So maybe it is just complaining for the sake of it.

Almost half of all respondents said they had experienced violence or abuse from an intimate partner. 

Each time I see a statistic about the prevalence of violence or abuse from a partner it has increased from the last (which was BTW when recently at the Warehouse Stationary where signs everywhere claimed one in three women experienced such. I was asked to make a donation to the cause and declined).

Mobilising the women’s vote can win elections, with 2017 showing that women are overall more likely to vote than men.

To capture that vote, political parties need to get serious about improving women’s lives.

There it is. Who does identity politics the best? Who was the PM's biographer?

Duff's whining on behalf of 'women' (an imaginary collective) is no more than a blatant effort to gender-gerrymander the election result. 

 

 

Child poverty: failing to make a difference

"One of our goals and aspirations as a Government is to make New Zealand the best place in the world to be a child."

Jacinda Ardern, PM of New Zealand

 “Child poverty was a national crisis before Covid-19 and without urgent action, it risks turning into a catastrophe.” 

Anita Baker, Mayor of Porirua

After all the money she has thrown at the problem (see first link above) the PM has made no difference. In Porirua matters are only getting worse. According to the Mayor, "“Whether it’s school attendance, oral health, hospital visits or social housing waiting lists, the report paints a grim picture. These indicators weren’t looking good even before Covid. The danger now is that they accelerate in the wrong direction.” 

Society's fault too many Maori are in prison?

 Here's a proposition to explore:

"...the extent to which society provides housing, health, and benefits/welfare is a critical factor in whether people avoid the justice system in the first place."

Coming from the current crop of public service apologists this suggests it is the fault of "society" that people are in prison.

It's extracted from a foreword  by the CE of Corrections or  Ara Poutama Aotearoa, a name which has been "... gifted to us after extensive consultation with Māori communities and iwi."

My attention was drawn to this document  after I OIAed Corrections asking why they had ceased publication of Practice: The New Zealand Corrections Journal, a $10,000 six-monthly value-for-money collection of articles penned by those working with prisoners. The answer is the journal has been put on hold while they focus on Hokai Rangi, the new Maori strategy.

But back to the statement. Most people in prison have more than a passing acquaintance with state housing, public health services and the benefit system.

Is it too much or not enough?

Unhealthy health professionals

It is unedifying when one professional attacks another. It might even be described as 'bullying' not that I have much truck with that over-used catchcry.

I listened carefully to Simon Thornley yesterday speaking to Peter Williams on Magic Talk. Williams canvassed the professional relationship between Simon and Rod Jackson, who had a piece in the NZ Herald the same day. At no point did Thornley criticise Jackson but kept firmly on his own course.

Today the Dompost has a lengthy piece canvassing the views of epidemiologists in New Zealand.

[Jackson] has little time for Thornley’s arguments, and says they should not be given any oxygen. “I don't understand why people are pushing these obviously completely wrong messages.”

“He [Thornley] is the only dissenter in the epidemiological community,” he says.

“It’s not like this is a discussion like a boxing match with two equal partners. What you’ve got is every experienced epidemiologist in the country supporting the Government’s elimination approach.

“We are all advising the Government, and we speak with one voice. And you have got a junior epidemiologist who is presenting a different case.”

He uses the word "silly" twice to describe Thornley's views.

For mine I am always glad when someone who has doubts expresses them. Again we are seeing this creeping pattern of thought-supression playing out with Covid 19. 

It's very unhealthy.

Babies taken into care

Two new evidence papers were released by Oranga Tamariki this month. The first calculates the risk of mothers who have a history of care and protection having their own child removed. I've run the numbers through a different calculation to assess population likelihood of a baby being removed based on the following data:

1,050 mothers out of 58,730 means 1.8% - or almost one in fifty 20-28 year-old mothers has a child removed.

If for argument's sake 18%* of all mothers are Maori (10,571) 536 removals means 5% - one in twenty 20-28 Maori mothers has a child removed. 

That's pretty high. One in every small class group.

The second brief looks at reasons why babies are removed:

"A random sample of cases for babies who were aged under 30 days when they were taken into care under s78 of the Oranga Tamariki Act was analysed to determine the reasons they were taken into care

In the sample:

• In cases of maternal alcohol and drug use, 59% involved methamphetamine and 44% involved alcohol

• Overall methampthetamine was a factor in half (49%) of entries to care in the sample

• Substance abuse was present in 65% of cases, and family violence present in 64%

• Neglect/deprivation and emotional abuse were present in over 50% of cases"

* According to the last census 16.5% of the population is Maori. But it is a young population and Maori women tend to become mothers earlier so 18% may be too low. If I entered 23% the percentage of mothers with a baby removal would drop to 4% - one in twenty five.

On equality of opportunity vs equality of outcome

Back to basics, I very much enjoyed the following timeless piece written by John Mendzela after the 2015 Rugby World Cup:

"We’ve won the Rugby World Cup again! But now it’s time for a resolution to make 2016 better than the year before. Something that matters. Here’s what you can do.

You’ve been hearing that the greatest economic and social problem of our time is inequality. Until now, you might have dismissed that notion. You might have said it was enough to give everyone a fair go – a reasonable chance to compete, and succeed through persistence and hard work. Just create that equality of opportunity.

But think harder. That’s not enough. It can’t be. Life teaches us some people will take those equal opportunities and do something with them, while others simply won’t. In fact, equality of opportunity just encourages individual differences to shine. What we need is equality of outcome – making sure everybody ends up the same.

It’s a big challenge. Where to start? How can Kiwis show we really care, and inspire others? It’s obvious. Start where we’re known best globally – on the rugby pitch. Take the All Blacks – a grotesque example of inequality. They score lots more points than opponents, win almost all their games, and collect far more international awards than other teams. It’s an unequal outcome, and so it’s unfair. A national disgrace!

It’s time to put that right. Please join KAURI – Kiwis Against Unjust Rugby Inequality.To start, KAURI will tackle inequality of “income” – the points that get scored in rugby.To ensure the teams have equal outcomes, we just need to total up the points scored in a game and share them out evenly at the end. 25-15 becomes 20-20. Simple!

Achieving equal outcomes for players will be harder. Luckily, we have all those TV statistics. Take the 20 shared points for the team, divide them up in proportion to the time players spent on the pitch, and credit each one with scoring that many. It gets complicated. We’ll need computers. But it’ll be equal – maybe 1.17 points per hour.

That will ensure equal outcomes going forward. But KAURI can’t stop there. There’s inequality of “wealth” to deal with too. New Zealand can set an example to combat injustice and achieve equal outcomes for all. It won’t be easy, but let’s find a way to hand back those Rugby World Cups – especially the latest - and equalise World Cup outcomes for all teams everywhere. And then we can re-write all the record books…

KAURI needs your support. Please join us. These famous Kiwi rugby names have:

“It felt good at the time, winning all those games. But it was wrong. I know that now. I’ll dedicate my new career to equal rugby outcomes with KAURI.” (Richie McCaw)

“When I think back to all my World Cup tries, I feel really ashamed. Opponents tried hard too, and never scored any. KAURI can redistribute all mine.” (Julian Savea)

“KAURI will lead rugby into a fairer future. Things will change, but we’ll still have challenges. Future All Black teams will be famous for kind tackles.” (Steve Hansen) "

An ugly fantasy promulgated by a supremely patronising PM

The kind one is so very unkind when she relishes people hanging on to hear what is going to happen to their lives, their families, jobs and businesses, but blathers on endlessly. It's so disrespectful, so self-centered and self-serving.

No Prime Minister has ever behaved so autocratically and patronisingly.

We cannot eliminate this virus, and to keep on telling the gullible we can is fantasy, ugly fantasy.

Covid-Plan B

 The formation of Covid - Plan B has only just come to my attention:

"Epidemiologist Simon Thornley says the new virus outbreaks and lockdown responses are proof that New Zealand must, as the WHO has recently said, learn to live with the virus."

More from the press release

And more about the group

Great to see an alternative view to 'elimination' expressed.

Banksies unscientific poll

 John Banks filled in for Peter Williams on Magic Talk this week. He spent this morning polling the audience on their Party vote intentions and received around 700 responses. I jotted down the result. Later Sean Plunket refused to share the result because it was "unscientific". Well, that's a given. But I will share it. Not particularly surprising given the audience:

Another graphic illustration of Labour's achievements

Another graphic illustration of Labour's achievements, the Housing Register, previously known as the state house waiting list:

Source

Have a baby every three years and you'll never have to get a job

National's 'subsequent child' policy said a woman who has another baby on welfare would still have work obligations when that child turns one. It wasn't discouraging the habit though because seven years after implementation (in 2019) 6,000 babies were still  being born onto an existing benefit.

But a war isn't abandoned just because a battle is lost.  You mount another battle, a different strategy.

Not this government. They simply surrendered, held up a white flag saying, "Have a baby every three years and you'll never have to get a job."

Labour says this is 'kind' to mothers who should not be expected to work in the first 1,000 days of their babies life. A luxury denied to mothers who return to work to pay mortgages and taxes. Stuff reported:

ACT employment spokeswoman Nicole McKee, who is a candidate for the party outside Parliament, said Labour was “promoting welfare as a lifestyle option and will harm kids in benefit-dependent households”.

“Many couples wait to start families in order to ensure they can afford to feed, clothe, house and support their children. Those couples who wait and plan are being forced to subsidise those whose lifestyle is dependent on welfare,” she said.

Quite.

But consider this also. 

Children born in 2010, whose caregiver spent more than 80% of their next five years on a benefit, would be 38 times more likely to experience maltreatment by age two than those with no benefit history. 

This 'kick-start' sends children off on a downward spiral. 

Most of the mothers having babies on welfare are 'single' and disproportionately Maori.

Thanks to  Sensible Sentencing Trust research into the sentencing notes of 100 male offenders over 18 who have committed serious crimes- Murder, Manslaughter, Rape, Sexual Assault - we now know that most were brought up by a single mother or had migrated into the care of grandparents or OT.

The Labour/Green ideology does not value stable two-parent families despite eons of evidence proving they are good for children.

It appals me that not only do they blindfold themselves to the facts but barge off pigheadedly in the opposite direction. And the Children's Commissioner support for this latest move utterly dismays.

 

The unrepresentative unemployment rate

According to Statistics NZ the June quarter unemployment rate dropped to 4%

These figures are derived from a 15,000 household survey and extrapolated.

ACTUAL numbers on the combined Jobseeker benefit and Covid Income Relief Payment at July 24, 2020 are 212,397.

A couple of reasons the numbers are so different are:

1/ Someone working just a few hours is not defined as 'unemployed' in the survey but can qualify for the Jobseeker benefit

2/ Someone who has been made redundant and receiving the Covid Income Relief Payment temporarily might not be looking for work right so is also not defined as 'unemployed' in the survey.

Then there is the not inconsequential matter of the 452,425 currently employed on a wage subsidy...

Exceptional turn out for ACT's Wellington launch

I've been around ACT for a long time. If anything convinces me the momentum building in the polls is real, the turn-out at the Wellington launch last night did. It was also an unusually young crowd for ACT. I talked to a young women who'd driven down from Wanganui with her partner who hadn't even been born when I first took an interest in the party. 

The highlight for me was 27 year-old Brooke van Velden. I'd never met her or heard her speak and she impressed me immensely. Quietly spoken, just the right measure of emotion, compelling content and an easy presence, she strikes me as a safe pair of hands. And David Seymour has come a long way from the youth wing of ACT. He's an accomplished, quick and entertaining speaker handling audience questions with candour and good humour.

Just a brief report as I can find no other in the media although I believe some journalists were in attendance.

ACT supporters "sceptical about the state generally"

Apparently, a Stuff-Massey University survey of voters showed:

ACT voters, for instance, while saying that they felt safe in their own neighbourhood, were more likely to say the police were not doing a good job at protecting communities.

“If you’re an ACT Party supporter, you’re very sort of sceptical about government generally and about the state generally. And so you're more likely, I think, to give any agency of the state a negative rating.”

 Back in June I wrote a post about how the police failed to resolve 87% of property crimes within the year. That fact is from their own annual report. Does that represent a police force "doing a good job of protecting communities"?

In May I wrote a post about how the number of prisoners on remand has doubled. The justice system is not functioning properly.

Those are just two recent instances of my skepticism about state agencies. 

Warranted?

Jobseeker numbers were on the rise well before Covid

Since Labour took office the number of people on the Jobseeker benefit has risen steadily in spite of the reported low unemployment rate. I've blogged numerous times about the divergence. The following just-released MSD graph displays it starkly. The blue line provides the source of NZ's official unemployment rate. It continued a broadly downward trend after 2017 whereas the red line starts increasing.

The point is that Labour will blame high Jobseeker numbers on Covid but that's only partly true. 

The upward trend pre-existed the economic response to the virus.

A changing picture

Source

JS-WR = Job Seeker Work Ready

Children not a meal ticket

On the 'subsequent child' policy in parliament today

Dialogue in Parliament today with my italicised comments interspersed:

Question No. 5—Social Development

5. WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development: What recent announcements has she made about putting children first as part of the Government's welfare overhaul?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): Yesterday, I announced that this Government is putting children first and making our welfare system fairer by removing the punitive subsequent child policy. The subsequent child policy was introduced in 2012. The policy has meant that parents who have a subsequent child whilst on a benefit have work obligations imposed on them earlier, from when their youngest child is just one year old, and, depending on the age of their next oldest child, this can also affect their eligibility for the sole parent support benefit. This is a policy that has furthered inequities in the welfare system for parents and their children, undermined the value of parenting, and exacerbated stigma and stress for many families.

Willow-Jean Prime: What difference will this make for parents and children?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The subsequent child policy has a disproportionate effect on Māori women. 

Most children being added to an existing benefit are Maori. That has long been the case.

By removing the policy, we can further our commitment to improving outcomes for Māori and valuing the role of carers, who are predominantly women. 

The research resoundingly shows children born onto a benefit have poorer outcomes. Condoning - even encouraging this occurrence - will not improve "outcomes for Māori".

The first 1,000 days of a child's life are critical for their long-term development. It is not fair that these children might not be given the same time and support simply because they were born while their parents were on a benefit. 

Most children today do not have the luxury of 1,000 days with their mothers. To buy a home requires two incomes.  Prospective mothers and fathers plan around this reality and wait to have their children hence the ever-increasing average age of first time mothers. They wait and save while people on benefits keep having kids.

Removing the subsequent child policy will give the estimated 9,000 parents affected the flexibility to be carers. However, the removal of this policy does not preclude parents who are able to work from getting access to the employment and upskilling support from the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) that this Government has significantly bolstered investment in.

The "flexibility to be carers" comes at the expense of those taxpayers denying themselves the same luxury. And "this government" did not significantly bolster investment in access to employment support. Quite the opposite. It reduced case manager engagement at that level.

Last year the Expert Advisory Welfare Group pointed out, "In June 2014, employment-focused case managers engaged proactively with 50% of their clients every month to support them into employment. This has fallen to an all-time low of 19%, and, over the past year, has continued to drop by an average of one percentage point per month."

Willow-Jean Prime: Why is the subsequent child policy being removed?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: MSD has found no evidence that the subsequent child policy has positively impacted financial or social outcomes for those affected. This highlights, for me, how punitive policies, underpinned by judgment of those in our welfare system, are ineffective and only serve to stigmatise people who, in this case, have been disproportionately Māori women. 

The 'subsequent child policy' has not worked. Reckless or exploitative fertility continues. All that means is a different policy is required - not a surrender.

Under our confidence and supply agreement, this Government has committed to creating a fairer and better welfare system and removing excessive sanctions, and this—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think the member has answered the question, thank you.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I'd like to finish my answer—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm sorry, but I think the member has already answered the question—

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Point of order, Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No—

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Actually, my word count is—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm sorry, sit down. Sit down. It was a very long answer. It was a very simple question, much of which in the member's answer had already been stated. I think the answer has been completed.

I was left with an uncomfortable feeling that the Minister is framing the issue around Maori women to deliberately ward off criticisms of the policy repeal. It sets up the government to paint detractors as racist.

If the kids really come first their life chances should not be thwarted by the politics of race.

More reversal of welfare reforms

What a lot of dangerous codswallop. Sepuloni says she is putting children first by removing National's 'subsequent child' policy.

I remember back in 2012, with the Nat's welfare reforms, there was a drive to get sole mothers in particular back into work because it was good for them and good for their children. Work gives adults a community, an independent income, self-esteem and discipline. And all of these are important for their children to experience firsthand.

So they increased work obligations in terms of how much and when (in relation to age of youngest child). 

But there was always the legitimate concern that some mothers would simply keep having children to avoid work. 

To that end they devised a policy whereby when a child was added, the existing work obligation kicked back in when that child turned one.

Now Sepuloni, no doubt 'encouraged' by the Greens, is doing away with it as part of the not-naming-fathers and indexing benefits to wages package.

There is a wealth of data analysis showing children added to benefits stay there the longest and have the worst outcomes. But she doesn't seem to have given the research a second thought.

Last year one in ten babies was added to an existing benefit at birth. For many of them it's a life sentence to neglect, abuse, transience, involvement with OT and eventually their own criminal offending and custodial sentences.

Aspiring SOAP candidate campaigning for a brighter future

Aspiring SOAP candidate campaigning for a brighter future: