"Can Pakeha raise Maori children?"

In response to this article which was headlined Can Pakeha raise Maori Children? in the hard copy.

 

Jobseeker benefit - new trend

 

The orange line shows that the numbers of people who can't work due to a temporary health condition or disability rose quite quickly after the first lock down and continues upwards. 

By September 10, 2021, the number had risen to 81,579 - the highest it has ever been since this category of benefit was introduced (and higher than numbers on the old sickness benefit it replaced ever reached).

This is undoubtedly a consequence of delayed treatment. Just one aspect of the underlying harms that are being caused by lock downs.

Women run the show

 

The Taxpayer's Union Curia Poll released yesterday includes a gender breakdown. While we know more females than males vote Left, I didn't expect a gap this big.

50% of males would vote National/ACT with only 43.2 percent voting Labour/Greens.

Essentially women, collectively, are running the show.

What is it about Labour/Greens policies that women love?

The trend isn't confined to New Zealand. Here's one explanation from Europe:

"...social liberalism has been gaining ground. It appears to have a direct impact with women increasingly calling for the redistribution of wealth, and men insisting more often on personal responsibility in politics."

That'd explain the policy attraction of Labour and the Greens here. And of course there's the indispensible policy called 'Jacinda'.

What really worries me is the conclusion drawn. That ACT and National  need to attract more support from women. True but they can't do it at the risk of losing support of men.

For integrity's sake parties should stick to policies based on their principles. ACT should stick to its traditional recourse to personal responsibility but endeavour to explain to female voters why.

For instance, a popular policy among women is taxpayer-funded Paid Parental Leave.

Wouldn't it be better to have lower income tax that would enable a new mother to stay home OR to use according to her own priority?

Some of the strongest support I received when campaigning against the DPB was from mothers angry at having to work to pay the taxes for others to stay home indefinitely (with no obvious social benefit to society).

ACT can gain more female support by convincing women that greater freedom and choice doesn't lie with greater government.

Effect of lock down 2020 on satisfaction with govt

From a survey by MSD into how the 2020 Covid lock downs affect various aspects of people's lives, two graphs. 

The propensity control group was surveyed before the pandemic.

"Satisfaction with the Government. Respondents rated their satisfaction (0 = completely dissatisfied; 10 = completely satisfied) with “the performance of the current New Zealand government”:

Voting in the 2020 election confimed this pattern.

I'll be watching for a repeat of this survey in 2021.

Does anyone think the effect will be the same?

We better hope not or there will be plenty more lock downs coming.

Not unusually I'm out of step with the norm - or surveyed respondents anyway.

My satisfaction with govt went south (if that's possible) with the onset of the first lock down.

Judge rules against Oranga Tamariki actions

A Family Court judge ruling on the high profile case involving a Maori child removed from a Pakeha couple who'd been her stable caregivers for three years, has found in their favour.

Very briefly, because you can read the details here, I make one observation.

This is the money quote:

“Until such time as Parliament gives statutory effect that the views of an iwi are the start and end points, the determination must be by reference to the holistic factors in the statutes, which include the taking into account of such important cultural perspectives as part of the matrix of considerations,” [ Judge Peter Callinicos] said.

There's the steer to Maori separatists within parliament.

If you are unhappy with my decision, change the law. 

'Expert' invokes myth

This is Dr Rodney Jones backing New Zealand's Covid elimination strategy:

"When we did elimination we were the first country to pursue elimination. And, you know, in the '30s we were the first to create a welfare state. I think ... we have to be the ones to do this. I don't think there's any examples we can actually look at ... this is very specific to us."

We weren't the first to create a welfare state, and circumstances here - The Great Depression - certainly weren't very specific to NZ.

Even if it was factual I am struggling with relevance of this claim.

The United States led NZ.

The Social Security Act was signed into law by President Roosevelt on August 14, 1935. In addition to several provisions for general welfare, the new Act created a social insurance program designed to pay retired workers age 65 or older a continuing income after retirement...it included unemployment insurance, old-age assistance, aid to dependent children and grants to the states to provide various forms of medical care.

New Zealand borrowed from their thinking. They stole the term 'benefits' to replace 'pensions' which had become demeaning and stigmatising. The 'aid to dependent children' applied regardless of the parent's marital status so in effect ushered in single parent assistance LONG before NZ.

Germany was well ahead adding an unemployment benefit to old-age and disability pensions in 1927.

Then:

[Modern social insurance arose in the 1880s in the German Reich.] It quickly became a model for other countries, including Switzerland. 

NZ's system wasn't especially different. It wasn't funded through taxation. It was funded by employees who each compulsarily made dedicated contributions recorded in their social security book. A very elderly neighbour, aware of my interest, once paid a visit to show me his.

Our claim to be the first to give women the vote is also accompanied by numerous riders.

"...a number of other territories enfranchised women before 1893..." 

NZ puffs its chest out over world-leading myths. In the scheme of things it doesn't really matter. It's a rather endearing small-country trait.

But when myths are used as reasons why we should pursue a particular strategy, especially one of such moment, it's hard to let it pass without comment.

Low Maori vaccination rates

John Tamihere on low Maori vaccination rates:

"When 30 per cent of our people are on the dole, earning under $28,000 a year, and another 30 per cent earning less than $50,000, working their guts out while supporting families - there are bigger things on their mind than getting vaccinated."

1/ "On the dole" and "earning" do not belong in the same sentence.

2/  Whatever JT means by "on the dole" those people, more than most,  have the time to prioritise free vaccinations.

3/  I have some sympathy with the 30 percent who are low income earners, often working more than one job, or long hours. Vaccination centres need to be open when their targets are available. But many will also be 'essential workers' with employers facilitating and prioritising vaccinations.

Yet again we see a Maori leader adopting a defeatist, apologist attitude. 'It's too hard. Accessibility is racially restricted. It's not our fault.'

If he wants more Maori to be vaccinated he should stop dishing out bogus reasons why they aren't.

Perhaps the 'soft bigotry of low expectations' is a form of self-inflicted racism?

Dropping like flies at Magic Talk

They're dropping like flies at Magic Talk.

Leah Panapa opened what had been Peter William's show this morning with the news that he'd retired - just like that. There Friday - gone Monday. The media are describing it as something about to happen. It's happened. Without a whisper of warning.

I've listened to Williams fairly regularly since he started out in early 2019. He was getting slicker and more energetic in my view. He didn't sound jaded, tired or unenthusiastic. So I am naturally skeptical about the reason given for his sudden disappearance from the airwaves.

And one could hardly be forgiven for being slightly suspicious when his departure has quickly followed Duncan Garner (August), Tony Amos (July), Sean Plunket (February) and part-timer John Banks (January).

Williams steadfastedly rejected man-made climate change and interviewed qualified experts like Willie Soon. He gave airtime to lock down questioners like epidemiologist Simon Thornley. He talked with doctors who have questions about the covid vaccine. He gave airtime to The Taxpayer's Union and Bob McCoskrie from Family First. He didn't leave listeners in any doubt about his political preference and it wasn't National. He appeared to me to be socially conservative and economically liberal. He was no friend of the government.

I repeat, if anything, he was getting more focussed and outspoken. He certainly didn't sound like a man who'd grown bored or disinterested in his work (or maybe he'd simply given himself licence to be more candid knowing he was going to shortly pull the plug?)

Phil Gifford also recently departed NewstalkZB as afternoon co-host. I'm clueless as to whether so many departures are mere coincidence or otherwise. But the optimist in me hangs onto the prospect of a new broadcasting enterprise emerging. One prepared to rigorously engage in political and philosophical debate; and to take a chance on there being enough support to attract crucial advertisers. 

I'd be tuned in like a shot.

Update: I was reminded by a comment on Kiwiblog that Chris Lynch, NewstalkZB Christchurch host was another recent 'casualty' in May this year. So there is a workforce of at least half a dozen highly experienced broadcasters on the loose...

135,570 jobs

 Data for the COVID-19 Wage Subsidy Scheme (August 2021) since applications opened on 20 August 2021:

135,570 jobs - most probably still in limbo - some never coming back.

Yet the focus is always on the health risks - almost never the economic. Not from the government anyway.

The two are in any case deeply intertwined. Unemployment is a leading cause of depression.

Why aren't health specialists talking more about the toll lock downs take on the mental health of the population?

How much suffering for 'safety' will New Zealanders put up with? 

Inflated death rate over Covid-free summer

 

From the University of Waikato, this is a multi-layered chart.

The black line depicts deaths during the year from just before the first lock down to the end of  Feb 2021.

The gray lines depict deaths in the same period for each of the prior 9 years.

The red line depicts nine-year average deaths in the same months.

The black line veers strongly away from the norm after October/November 2020.

Officially:

"The fall in all‐causes mortality after lockdowns in 2020 is only a short‐term effect. A winter of no excess mortality was followed by four months of excess mortality totaling  about 1200 deaths (ca. four percent of annual deaths). The surge in deaths was concentrated on the elderly so public health interventions only slightly postponed death.  Repeating Covid control measures in future to deal with  seasonal influenza may provide just short‐term benefits."

But there was also a small "surge" in deaths in  0-64 year-olds around Dec/Nov:

I can only speculate. 

But Covid definitely affected death rates - just not in the way anticipated.

UNROC Submission

Periodically the UN requires the NZ government to report on the progress - or otherwise - it is making on upholding the many articles that form the UN Rights of the Child convention. This is my submission on the latest draft report.

Submission on the government’s draft sixth periodic report to the United Nations on the Rights of the Child (UNROC) 

I wish to make two observations regarding the government’s draft sixth report to the United Nations on the Rights of the Child (UNROC).

1/ UNROC ARTICLE 26 states: 

“Social security - The child has the right to benefit from social security.”

Data at Table 21 in the draft report shows the number of children dependent on a social security benefit increased by 14.4 percent or 25,842 between 2016 and 2021.

The length of parental stay on a benefit is also increasing. The proportion of sole parents dependent for a year or more grew by 3.6 percent over the same period.

The NZ government can claim to be upholding the right required by article 26.

However, analysis of data by the NZ Treasury shows, “There is a clear gradient between the proportion of time spent on a benefit as a child and the likelihood of future poor outcomes across all domains.”[1] 

2/ UNROC ARTICLE 19 states: 

“Freedom from abuse - The State shall protect the child from all forms of maltreatment by parents or others responsible for the child’s care.”

A strong association between dependency on a social security benefit and the incidence of child abuse also exists.

The Auckland University of Technology reported: “Of all children having a finding of maltreatment by age 5, 83% are seen on a benefit before age 2.”[2] 

NZ Police data at Table 13 of the draft report shows the number of reported cases of violence and abuse against children, including sexual abuse, rose by 4 percent or 435 cases between 2017 and 2020. However, Serious Assaults Resulting in Injury rose by 34% - from 2,023 to 2,706 while Common Assaults fell by 29 percent. This indicates that the severity of physical violence against children and young people is worsening significantly.

It can be seen from these two observations that UNROC articles 19 and 26 are not necessarily compatible. UN required adherence to article 26 does not guarantee enhanced child outcomes, and worse, may increase physical harm to children. That leads to a contravention of article 19.

This is just one instance of the folly in allowing the UN to dictate domestic policy. Furthermore, the hours and money spent fulfilling UN reporting demands would go a long way to funding effective initiatives which have a direct and positive impact on needy New Zealand children.

Note: The brevity of this submission is due to the late notice given by MSD who made public notification of the consultation period - July 20 to August 31, 2021 - on August 26, 2021, when only 2-3 working days remained. Whether intentional or incompetent, the process shows no commitment to ‘open and transparent government.’

[1] https://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/ap/using-integrated-administrative-data-identify-youth-who-are-risk-poor-outcomes-adults-ap-15-02-html#section-6

[2] https://www.msd.govt.nz/documents/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/research/vulnerable-children/auckland-university-can-administrative-data-be-used-to-identify-children-at-risk-of-adverse-outcome.pdf

ENDS

If you feel inclined to make your own submission the email address is uncroc@msd.govt.nz

I've focussed on my particular area of interest but you may have thoughts about the education system or the mental health of children, for example.

Most open and transparent govt ever

Most open and transparent govt ever. That's what the Prime Minister, who charged herself with bettering outcomes for NZ children, promised. 

I monitor the Ministry of Social Development's website daily.

Today the following notice appeared:

Every five years, New Zealand reports to the United Nations about what they are doing to make sure children’s rights are met. 

The government has apparently prepared a response and says:

We would like your feedback on how well the Government has responded to the issues raised by the Committee.

Furthermore:

Submissions are welcomed and encouraged from-

children and young people

forums that operate on behalf of children and young people

iwi and Māori engagement forums, particularly those that work with tamariki and rangatahi Māori

parents

interested individuals and experts

non-governmental organisations (NGOs)

professionals who work with children.

Wonderful. Inclusive. Participatory.

Except the notification appeared today and...

The opening date for submissions and feedback is Tuesday 20 July 2021.

The closing date for submissions and feedback is Tuesday 31 August 2021.

So the notice appears 28 working days after the opening date and 3 working days before the submission closing date. 

No I'm not mistaken. MSD even dated the public notification:

This is a very shonky and incompetent government. Make no mistake.

Ardern will not want a report to the UN reflecting badly on her. The opportunity for criticism is minimised.

But 3 working days in lock down is three days when many people may have time on their hands.

Make a submission. I'm going to.

I may even mention the lack of commitment to 'open and transparent government'.

Cruel to be kind

'You have to be cruel to be kind' is a long-standing axiom.

Axioms arise from generational wisdom. Human nature doesn't change.

Jacinda Ardern consistently calls for Kiwis to "be kind". In today's 4pm stand-up, the record hadn't changed.

How would she respond if asked what cruelty she had exercised in the pursuit of kindness?

Because she has inflicted cruelty on New Zealanders through lock down.

Currently NZ has no 2021 Covid deaths and few hospitalisations (compared to 9 RSV deaths and over 4,000 hospitalisations) yet people are cut off from each other; from elderly, needy parents; can't work with their mates; can't  run their businesses; can't get treatment for life-threatening illnesses; can't socialise; can't arrange or attend funerals or weddings, and are encouraged to nark on anyone breaking these rules. 

Jacinda certainly fulfils the first part of the old wisdom. There's plenty of cruelty going down.

But does she even get close to the second goal?

Her pleading to "be kind", her kindness ideal, is no more than an instruction and expectation about how people should treat each other on a superficial level, bcause under lock down our interactions are no more than fleeting.

If she is asking people who barely tolerate each other in normal circumstances to transform under lock down, you know she lacks any understanding of the human condition under extreme stress.

She must. Or she wouldn't be pig-headedly pursuing the same pathway she led us down in 2020.

"Be kind" is a hollow platitude. That's all it has ever been.

Lock down cruelty can never be rewarded in the way the axiom intended.

MĀORI SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC INDICATORS UNDER COLONIZATION: A Picture of Progress

 NZCPR has just published a brief paper I've written which leans heavily on graphic data hence the title:

 MĀORI SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC INDICATORS UNDER COLONIZATION: A Picture of Progress 

"The over-riding theme from those academics, politicians and public servants currently holding sway is that colonization was and is a negative experience for Māori. Poor outcomes are given as concrete and conclusive evidence.

This paper takes a different tack. It examines social and economic indicators for Māori under colonization over various time periods (dictated by available data). It relies heavily on graphic depictions. Rather than comparing Māori to other ethnicities, the focus is on how Māori themselves are progressing or otherwise….

This brief paper shows for most Māori living standards have improved enormously, as has equality of opportunity. The progress of Māori social and economic indicators that has occurred under the process of colonization stands in stark contrast to the constant barrage of contrary claims."

Read the full report here

Eye-watering graph

 

Can our children and grandchildren repay all the debt being incurred as well as fund Super and aged Healthcare? Perhaps a cynic might reply 'yes' - they can spend it on us instead of all the children they don't have.

Something to think about while you twiddle your thumbs under lock-down.

New Zealand’s teenage birth rate: Is it time to stop worrying about it?

Family First has just published my new report examining New Zealand’s teen birth rate which has plummeted by almost two thirds since 2008. 

The report tracks trends in teenage maternal inputs and child outcomes, but finds that a number of the risks associated with teenage births have actually worsened.

Teen mothers are increasingly likely to live in the poorest quintile; obesity, which increases pregnancy and birth complications is rising; and the dependency rate on welfare benefits appears slightly elevated. The disproportionate perinatal mortality rate – the death of babies between 20 weeks after conception to 27 days after birth – remains tragically and unacceptably high, and possibly rising according to official data.

The smoking rate for pregnant teens, which increases risk of miscarriage and premature, low weight births, is much higher than for other teens. There was only a small reduction in mothers under 20 smoking at registration with Lead Maternity Carer between the periods of 2008-2012 and 2013-18 from 36.4 to 34.4 percent. Indicators for drug and alcohol use also suggest higher rates among pregnant or teen parents.

Compounding all of this, teen mothers and their children are susceptible to ‘falling through the cracks’. Drop-out from the longitudinal Growing Up in New Zealand study typically comprised Māori and Pacific teen mothers living in high deprivation areas with incomplete education. About those children who present the greatest concern, we know the least.

Based on the findings of this report, a continuing decline in the teenage birth rate should be actively encouraged and welcomed. There is no margin for complacency.

Read the report here.

"Should Maori children be placed with non-Maori families?"

That was the question headlining a lengthy article by Marty Sharpe in the weekend's DomPost.

Here are my questions in response. 

What if the Maori child's aunties, uncles and grandparents are non-Maori families?

More Maori partner with non-Maori than Maori. This is a long-standing trend.

Will the radicals who are currently pushing a separatist agenda decide that a Maori child must be placed with a Maori family in preference to kin family? 

Will cultural ties triumph over blood ties?

These questions literally keep me awake at night.

In the sixties in Auckland more Maori married non-Maori than Maori. These people formed life-changing and often lifelong bonds. They were possibly the most important thing in each others lives. 

They were being what it is to be human.

In the same way children can and do form bonds with caregivers. They don't care about about skin colour.

Pause.

So not far on from the original question posed in the headline, will we hear, "Should Maori be having children with non-Maori?"

When that sort of thinking gets a grip, well...

I am reminded of a  gut-wrenching novel I read in the late 1990s, Holly, by Albert French, set in North Carolina 1940s. The story of a young negro who fell in love with a white girl, Holly, who reciprocated. She got pregnant. He lost his life for it.

Gillespie wrong about ACT's support for conversion therapy law

 I was somewhat surprised at the following piece of information from Polly Gillespie in her SST column today about her support for conversion therapy legislation. She uses the example of John Key siding with Labour on the anti-smacking bill to show how National should support Labour on this issue:

"The current lot in Opposition might be wise to choose similarly around their peculiar stand on the evils of conversion therapy. Even ACT, who it can be argued have some flamboyant conservatives lurking about, are standing on the right side of history. ACT who, but for the general all round likability of David Seymour, possibly would not have a s... show of sitting in the parliamentary chambers. They are clearly morally intact around this."

Now I did't know what ACT's position is but I'm surprised because what I've read about the proposed legislation is concerning, especially the intent to criminalise and imprison parents who talk about conversion therapy to their children. So I did a search and found the following report from RNZ:

ACT this afternoon said it would support the bill at its first reading, but had "serious concerns" about it in its current form. National's Justice spokesperson Simon Bridges said the party supported the intent of the bill, but it would need amendment.

Heading into the debating chamber, Seymour said it was "very unlikely" the party would continue to support it - although the majority Labour government will have little trouble getting the bill passed.

"If I was taking odds at the TAB I wouldn't want to bet on ACT voting for this further on," Seymour said.

Gillespie doesn't distinguish between supporting a bill through to select committee and voting for it to become the law.  

Benefits viewed as self-reliance

 RNZ reports on research from a Christchurch Beneficiary Advice group which looked at the effect of benefit sanctions, the consequence of not meeting obligations - those pesky things we wll have in our lives. Here's the quote that stopped me:

"We had clients talk about how they had to go and ask friends and family members for food for their children, which I think quite often causes embarrassment. They don't want to be seen to not be providing for their family," she said.

This amply illustrates that many people whose income arrives weekly from WINZ make no dinstinction between that source and earnings from work.

They don't want to be reliant on visible people but don't understand that they are reliant on invisible people. 

Should there be some form of plain-English Work and Income pamphlet that explains how benefits are funded, how taxation from workers is spent on non-workers, and the incongruity of a beneficiary describing her or himself as a "provider"?

Yet again we see another example of the inversion of English. Words have lost their original meaning and with it comprehension of real life.

The people to blame for this are not those dependent. It's the people they deal with, who should know better.

Child Poverty Reduction Minister is a foolish risk-taker

 According to a report in Stuff the Prime Minister - also Child Poverty Reduction Minister - asked for advice on raising benefits by $50 weekly. That would bring more children out of poverty on paper. But she was advised that the incentives to work, which are already weak for sole parents, would be even further eroded.

The PM seems disinterested in the question of whether it is more important for children to be in working homes than on benefits.

Her overriding goal is for family incomes to rise regardless of source.

Since she became responsible for reducing child poverty Ardern has done a number of things including creating Best Start, lifting child tax credits, linking benefits to wages and increasing core payment rates (and it won't stop there based on the advice sought since.)

That has coincided with a nineteen percent increase - or 32,427 - more children in benefit households.

Currently almost two thirds of the children are in sole parent homes and the proportion of parents who have been dependent for more than a year has increased from 75 to 79 percent.

Now consider the following Treasury evidence (work done under Bill English) about the poor outcomes associated with benefit dependency:

These are the real risks the PM is prepared to take so she can talk about lifting thousands of children out of poverty.

Perhaps in a generation's time there will be damaged adults calling for an apology from her for being reckless with their lives?