MSD throws in the towel

An announcement appeared at the MSD website that a Declaration of Seasonal Tasman Labour Shortage was being made on April 5.

A declaration of a labour shortage from the very agency charged with getting the unemployed into jobs? That must mean the local unemployment rate is close to zero.

Actually it's 3.5%

But there are no beneficiaries left in the region?

Actually there were 924 "work-ready jobseekers" in February. Not to mention a few hundred more in nearby Blenheim, Westport and Greymouth.

The natural question question to ask is, why, then, is there a shortage? But the answer to that lies in the incapacity of beneficiaries to provide the required quality and consistency of work required.

The real question is why the announcement?

The answer appears at the very end of the statement, by which time most will have ceased reading.

"By declaring a labour shortage in Tasman, people from overseas with visitor visas can apply for a Variation of Conditions, which allows them to work through the declaration period."

MSD giving up and admitting that local growers want overseas pickers in preference to beneficiaries.

Updating artist blog

Still playing catch up after the year spent renovating full-time.

Have just updated my artist blog with a few newer works.

Here's one, a still-life in oil with palette knife:

And this gorgeous Rottie pup:

Turning the tide on compulsory over-parenting

More in from yesterday's contributor, to whom I am most grateful.

Source

Utah governor signs law legalizing ‘free-range parenting’
Lindsay Whitehurst

SALT LAKE CITY — So-called free-range parenting will soon be the law of the land in Utah after the governor signed what appears to be the country’s first measure to formally legalize allowing kids to do things on their own to foster self-sufficiency.

The bill, which Gov. Gary Herbert announced Friday that he’d signed, specifies that it isn’t neglectful to let kids do things alone like travel to school, explore a playground or stay in the car. The law takes effect May 8.

Utah’s law is the first in the country, said Lenore Skenazy, who coined the term free-range parent. A records search by the National Conference of State Legislatures didn’t turn up any similar legislation in other states.

Utah lawmakers said they were prompted to pass the law after seeing other states where parents had been investigated and in some cases had their children temporarily removed when people reported seeing kids playing basketball in their yards or walking to school alone.

Headline-grabbing cases have included a Maryland couple investigated after allowing their 10- and-6-year-old children to walk home alone from a park in 2015.

Republican Sen. Lincoln Fillmore of South Jordan has said allowing kids to try things alone helps prepare them for the future, though some have raised concerns the law could be used as defenses in child-abuse cases if not carefully deployed.

The law states the child must be mature enough to handle those things but leaves the age purposely open-ended so police and prosecutors can work on a case-by-case basis, Fillmore has said.

Skenazy, who wrote the book “Free Range Kids” after writing about letting her 9-year-old ride the New York City subway alone, has said the law is a good way to reassure parents who might be nervous about their parenting decisions.

Graph of the Day

A reader sent me the following graph:

As he comments, "No surprise".

Yet the media witter on and on about the gender earnings gap.

Why more prisons are needed

Source

Two things are happening:

1/ Some inmates released on parole commit serious, even fatal, crimes
2/ Some inmates who have the potential to rehabilitate are kept in prison longer than necessary

But if Labour doesn't want to build more prisons they will have to address the legislation that's driving up numbers. After all, it was passed under a Labour government.

The Rainbow Tick

Ever heard of The Rainbow Tick? I came across it at the Human Rights Commission website:

The Rainbow Tick programme allows businesses and organisations to understand what they are doing well in regard to their Rainbow personnel, what they need to improve, and how to do this. Through the help of the Rainbow Tick a manager can derive the best from an employee by being a good employer.
Getting the Rainbow Tick also allows us to show our employees and all New Zealand that we are a progressive, inclusive and dynamic organisation that reflects the community that we serve.
We are really proud and excited to be recognised for our efforts as a welcoming and inclusive work place and urge other organisations to consider doing the same. 

Nothing of particular interest here then. Just PC back-patting. But wait:

 Other organisations and businesses who have already achieved the Tick include: Westpac, ASB, Fletcher Building, Coco-Cola Amatil, KPMG, Microsoft, PWC, Simpson Grierson, AUT, Sovereign, Publicis Loyalty, Sky City, Repromed and Russel McVeagh.

That last one rings a bell. They certainly have been inclusive.

On a serious note, is it any wonder that the Human Rights Commission cannot hear cases and complaints because they simply don't have the resources? Apparently they are only investigating 'urgent' complaints currently. Perhaps some prioritization is in order.

Michael Cullen can't be trusted

A report in today's DomPost  details Michael Cullen's thinking as he embarks on his chairmanship of the Tax Working Group. The title alone, Cullen: Taxes could change bad behaviours is enough to send a shiver down your spine. But so should this:

Cullen said taxes were normally higher in richer countries than in poorer ones and said New Zealand's tax system did less, compared to most in the OECD, to redistribute money from the rich to the poor.

Really?

According to latest OECD data (published 2017) NZ has the highest percentage cash transfer to the lowest quintile:

And NZ rates above the OECD average in how much of its GDP is turned into public social spending to the working-age population:

New Zealand doesn't do so much universalism but it certainly rates right up there when it comes to redistributing money "from the rich to the poor".

A very dodgy start from Cullen.

Vigilantism reaches NZ

A US writer adequately states the problem:

"What counts as sexual harassment? Good question. Men accused of boorish gestures or vulgar remarks face the same disgrace as outright rapists. And never mind if the accusations lack proof and the accusers remain anonymous."

Now we have our own #metoo campaign headed by journalist Ali Mau who yesterday told Mark Sainsbury that her "investigation" would be naming and shaming. "I'm coming for you," said the fearless Mau.

I have one word. Vigilantism.

Who will define the deed(s) and the perpetrator? What legislative framework will they work under? Who decides whether hurt to the families of perpetrators is justified? Who calculates an acceptable degree of collateral damage? Who sets the standard of proof to be met by accusers?

The potential for this exercise to snowball wildly out of control is significant.

One year on

A year on. Who'd have thought it'd take so long. But how much we have learned. Probably the most educative year of my entire life. Would I recommend it? Not if making money is the goal.


Some before and after shots:

More

Bravo Bryce

Bryce Wilkinson from the New Zealand Initiative writes:

When I was a lad, Treasury was a home for bean counters. Many a fine public servant did an accounting degree part-time at evening classes at Vic. Full-time study was unaffordable; they needed a day job for income.

They knew their day job. It was to run a surgical eye over departmental spending proposals. Noes were more satisfying than Ayes. Noes could help a minister of finance keep the budget healthy. Noes saved ‘the country’ money.

The proportion of Noes that won the day in Cabinet was a measure of one’s batting average.

They wrote short, incisive reports with recommendations based on a few well-chosen facts, knowledge, and experience. Cabinet deadlines were tight. A succinct one-page report was good. It would be read. A longer one might not be.

Looking back, one has to feel sorry for these investigating officers. The poor chaps never had a chance in these short reports to muse about such lofty matters as intergenerational wellbeing.

Happily, today’s Treasury is not so constrained by cold-hearted value-for-money considerations. Your and my wellbeing and that of our children and their future children are ever closer to its throbbing heart.

This week it added to the warming embrace by releasing four discussion documents on its wellbeing framework. Treasury wants “government agencies to be more cohesive so public policy on wellbeing, spending and other government interventions is aligned with improving intergenerational wellbeing”.

At long last the public service will overcome its silo tendencies. We look forward to seeing agencies graciously deferring to each other: “No, please cut our budget to help you expand yours, what you are doing is more important for intergenerational wellbeing”.

The Treasury old-timers probably never conceived that this might be possible.  One can almost imagine them applauding in unison from their graves.

It is comforting to know that the public service will be focusing on how much you want to cut back on your spending to bequeath more to the next generation. You won’t need to think about that for yourself as much.

Perhaps the day will come when the sign outside Treasury, coined from a Christchurch art exhibit, reads: The House of Wellbeing, Resilience and Sustainability: All Welcome, bar Bean Counters.

Renovation completed

It seems a life time ago (yet only a year) when I asked readers whether I should keep the fireplace in our recently purchased renovation property:



We didn't.

Here is how the room looks today with brand new bay window featuring original leadlights, additional ceiling batons ...

...and en suite:

Why child poverty targets make no sense

Published in NBR, Friday, Feb 9, but behind a paywall:

Why child poverty targets make no sense

The new coalition government intends to set targets to reduce the proportion of children living in low income homes, and impose them on future governments. It's feel-good stuff from a fledgling Prime Minister who's made fighting child poverty her own personal crusade.

It's feel-good but definitely fraught, and probably futile and foolish. Let me explain by way of example.

My family is 2,2 (two adults, two dependents). That's the coding description used in the Household Incomes Report, the official  source of child poverty statistics.

For argument's sake, our income could be $100,000.  Because, according to the report, "... a larger household needs more income than a smaller household for the two households to have similar standards of living... " a process called equivalisation is applied. That means  $100,000 is scaled down to $50,000 for comparative data purposes.

Equivalised incomes provide the median from which thresholds are set. Children in poverty are usually deemed to live in households with incomes under the 60 percent threshold of the equivalised median.

Your eyes are glazing over.

But the point to make is that in 2017 our 2,2 family reduced to a 2,1 group after 1 left home to study in Dunedin. Immediately we got 'richer' due to the equivalisation process artificially bumping up our income.

In fact we got 'poorer' because 1 in Dunedin required more financial support than when part of our 'official' household.

The current statistical measurement does not capture what is actually happening in our household. We apparently got richer but actually got poorer. Of course this is just a one-off example of how surveyed statistics can't accurately measure what is happening in individual households.

At the macro level, let me pose a circumstance whereby children in poverty could also apparently get 'richer'.

The ageing population and reducing home ownership means that increasingly, more elderly will rely solely on Super. That means more will be poorer. As they move into statistical ranks of poverty, fewer children can occupy those ranks (remembering all measured poverty in New Zealand is relative).

The Household Incomes Report - a meticulous and honest piece of work -  highlights how various circumstances can throw up misleading outcomes:

"...in times of good economic growth with rising real wages, rising employment and reducing unemployment, median income (and therefore the poverty lines which are simply a proportion of the median) can rise more quickly than the incomes in the lower parts of the income distribution. In these circumstances a REL measure would report increasing poverty even if those in low-income households were experiencing real income growth.

This counter-intuitive result was observed in Ireland in the 1990s: the poor became ‘richer’ in real terms, but because the income growth of the middle income households was even greater, poverty rates grew considerably as measured using a REL threshold. This also happened for New Zealand from 1998 to 2004, albeit on a more modest scale.

The reverse is also possible. It was observed in the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland in the early 1990s when each of these nations experienced large falls in national income. Real incomes fell, but poverty was reported as declining as measured by a REL approach as a result of the falling median and therefore the lowering poverty thresholds."

Under this scenario, a government which drove the local economy into recession could still argue it had met its child poverty reduction targets!

Then we have another problem. The statistics apply in any given year (and are always lagging). But incomes are very fluid. Especially for the contracted and self-employed. Also, parental relationships and living arrangements change more frequently than in the past. A child recorded in poverty in 2017 might not be in 2018. The economic fluidity of parents in New Zealand is much greater than in lesser economically developed countries. Poverty is not generally persistent.

The minefield that is measuring and setting poverty reduction targets has already been exposed. The United Kingdom tried and failed. Aware of this, the National government nevertheless kept a close eye on every available social indicator. Anyone who doubts this should refer to the work of the Ministerial Committee on Poverty (https://www.dpmc.govt.nz/publications/ministerial-committee-poverty).

They concluded that a small group of children were in persistent and chronic poverty. They targeted efforts at this group (which in part explains their support for whanau ora). For example the strongest correlate for child poverty is welfare dependence. A goal of reducing the number of children in benefit-dependent households was set as part of the Better Public Service goals. Real progress had been made seeing a reduction of 61,000 between 2011 and 2017, yet Labour has scrapped the goals.

Most voters didn't have a clue what English was up to. But he had studied the problem for decades.

New kid in town hasn't had the time or experience to draw conclusions vital to effective action.

Re-resorting to hiked income redistribution to lift children above artificial and arbitrary thresholds is senseless.

Worse, there is a very real prospect of the deep-seated problems connected with parental state dependency - diminished or relinquished responsibility for their own children -  will worsen.

Quote of the Day

Paul Meredith writes, "Sorrenson (Ngata et al.1986, 258) cites a letter from Sir Peter Buck to Eric Ramsden who states:

'I am with you as an advocate for miscegenation. It is an inevitable process which has taken place down the ages and the blending of the two races into New Zealand citizenship should do away ultimately with the bickering between pakeha and Maori.' "

Source

Some positive poverty news

There is NZ research from the SOFIE (now discontinued) data that mirrors the findings below recently published by the University of Queensland. It's out of step with the leftist discourse so little is heard about it:

Poverty is not a life sentence in Australia
January 24, 2018, University of Queensland

"Researchers say almost half of Australian families tracked in a 30-year study have experienced poverty at least once.


University of Queensland researcher Emeritus Professor Jake Najman said the study found little evidence of a persistent 'underclass,' suggesting that for many families poverty was a transient stage in life.

"It was common for families to move in and out of hardship, due to a change of circumstances such as loss of employment or marital breakdown."

"However, there was evidence of substantial economic mobility – the ability of a family or individual to improve (or experience a decline) in their economic status – both within a single generation and across generations."

Emeritus Professor Najman said it was not surprising those most likely to suffer poverty were single mothers, the unemployed and aged pensioners.

"The study suggested that poverty in Australia could be split into two groups – a relatively small group who experience chronic, long-term poverty and a much larger group who experience shorter periods of hardship."

"Interestingly, adversity experienced early in the child's life course does not independently predict poverty when the child reaches adulthood. "

He said that meant those who experienced high levels of poverty and/or adversity in early childhood rarely went on to experience persistent poverty and adversity such as unemployment as adults, and other factors were more likely to lead to adult poverty.

The study of more than 2000 Brisbane families measured family income when the child was born, and at five, 14, 21 and 30 years.

Emeritus Professor Najman said future research would investigate the health and behavioural consequences of the different forms of poverty."

First child poverty reduction target

"Reduce the proportion of children in low income households (before housing costs) from roughly 15 per cent of all children to 5 percent. This reduces the number by more than half from 160,000 to 60,000."

The threshold used to measure the proportion below is the median (the middle whereupon half fall below and half fall above).

The next  measure, which establishes "low income",  is arbitrary. It might be 50% of the median or - most commonly used internationally -  60% of the median.

The easiest way to reduce the proportion of children from "15 to 5 percent" is to lower the median.

With Labour's new workplace policies, that's not an unrealistic prospect.

This might also be naturally achieved with an ageing population who have increasingly not owned their own homes and will rely solely on Super.

If more childless families  are poorer then the child poverty problem will reduce.

This target is bunkum.

Having children makes you poor

Clearly children are a cost on a household economy but my statement goes beyond that.

What most people don't appreciate is how the government measures household income and the effect  the presence of children has on the result.

It's called equivalisation.

It's the application of a formula to adjust income for the number of household members.

Here is the relevant table from last year's report:

"The first row of figures identifies the family or household type: (1,2) is a one adult, two child household, and so on. The second row gives the values of the equivalence ratios used. The body of the table indicates, for example, that a (2,2) household needs around $28,000 to have the same purchasing power as a (1,1) household with an income of around $18,000. Each has an equivalised income of $13,000 (or, to put it another way, each household has an income of $13,000 per equivalent adult). "

The way child poverty is measured is derived from the median equivalised household income.

So from the example a 2 adult, 2 children household has their income more than halved before it is entered into the calculation.

So we have this crazy conundrum.

The mere fact of having children drives households into 'poverty'. Or the way poverty is measured creates a greater problem than might otherwise present.

Heather Du Plessis - oxygen for the suffocating

Heather du Plessis-Allan is now the morning talk host at Wellington NewstalkZB.

I've never understood why the station doesn't just can the Wellington programme and let Leighton Smith blast us. But demand for localism  prevailed. This combined with a moderate host stopped me listening.

Now Heather, I am going to disagree with plenty of times but at least she takes a position with conviction. After years of not participating I was compelled to ring and express a view this week.

At only 33 she has clearly avoided the offence and victimhood virus most prevalent and contagious  in young adulthood.

If you are in Wellington - or the NewstalkZB listening area -  I can commend her to you.

Winston picking winners

Readers know I love my horse racing. The industry has been screaming for more government support because that's why it's so much healthier in Australia (and hurting our industry in the process).

Today Racing Minister Winston Peters apparently promised an all weather track at the cost of $10 million (double it for starters) and either promised or called for tax breaks because the industry (breeding in particular) brings in so much money.

If tax breaks can make one industry stronger, then they can make any industry stronger.

Government picking winners is a recipe for corruption and injustice. We cannot expect New Zealanders who have not a skerrick of interest in the racing industry to disproportionately pay taxes to advance it.

Tax breaks are not subsidies if they are applied universally. Reduce tax period.

You are a guardian of public money Winston. Not a private investor.

On the upside, I am looking forward to our Prime anti-poverty crusader getting it in the neck today over her government's support for "rich pricks".

Interesting silence

Latest benefit statistics show year-on-year decreases.

Should National or Labour take credit for this?

Quarterly benefit data release typically elicits party pressers.

No mention in the media so neither finds a political gain to shout about.

National could justifiably claim credit. Maybe still knocked off for summer.

Make-work Mistakes

Treasury has made a cock-up.

Some sort of coding error related to the accommodation supplement has meant their calculations about the reduction in child poverty are incorrect.

So what? They are probably going to be incorrect anyway because there are so many variables at play. What is going to happen in the housing market for instance. How potential parents are going to react to the $3,000 baby bonus. How unemployment trends, etc etc.

But the number of well-paid boffins studying poverty plebs will swell as Treasury seeks to review and understand where it went wrong.

It's an absurdity.

We aren't all feminist drones

Readers know I am into horses. My last 5 percenter, Everything, did me proud.

My new 5 percenter, Jaktar, is also looking good.

Listening to Radio Trackside's Des Coppins interveiwing another syndicate manager today, I laughed out loud.

One guy has 1 share and another 99 women have the others. The woman 'manager' suggested they call the syndicate Witches of  Westview. The male was hesitant. What if some members took offence at being called "witch"? The woman manager responded, if they take offence, they aren't the sort of women we want in the syndicate.

Me too.

The Hollywood witch-hunt

Why am I so agitated by the campaign against sexual harassment building a head of steam in Hollywood, and elsewhere?

The question isn't a mere opener to a post. I put it to myself in order to write this.

I get some easy answers, for instance, I don't like any collectivism at all.

1/ Individuals should fight their our own battles and 2/ Aspersions should not be cast on non-offenders based on the class they occupy, for instance, all men are not rapists.

But it goes further.

Why are these participating women so hellbent on being victims? Hurt is a private matter for me, rationalised and resolved (if ever) at a personal level. (If ever) is a big deal. Maybe historical hurts should be left in the past, in context, and with regard to one's own contribution to the circumstances.

Contribution? But each and every accuser is a non-contributing angel... surely? If you believe that then you haven't lived.

But above all, feminism - which represented a longing for greater freedom when I was a teenager - has evolved into a grotesque PC witch hunt hellbent on robbing freedom from the rightly or wrongly accused. Contextual 'truth' is irrelevant.

If there is an individual who is exploiting and abusing you, walk away. If you are letting them, to further your own interests, then you are a collaborator. Don't sanctify your capitulation retrospectively.

Distorted self regard

Reacting to the passing of Jim Anderton, Jacinda Ardern waxed lyrical about how he "gave 40 years service to New Zealand."

Up a ladder painting, I responded to nobody in particular, "He didn't 'give' it. He was paid, quite handsomely."

The notion that public service employees are somehow self-sacrificing needs crushing.

They occupy some of the best paid and most secure jobs to be found.

Politicians exist in a place of privilege.

And it's a long way from up my ladder, or amongst the cat-shit under the renovation house, or sweltering in the attic. Places I have enjoyed this year 'hoping' to earn a living.

We have provided work for numerous people and made a significant contribution to the economy.

But in the private sector none blathers on about giving service to the country. Neither should they.

Shock, horror, UNICEF says something positive about NZ

It's true. For once UNICEF isn't banging on about child poverty levels in New Zealand. Apparently,

"Babies born in New Zealand have access to high levels of care, education and medical assistance, which is reflected in their long life-spans."

Yet in June 2017 they were saying:

 New Zealand has performed poorly in a global report card on children’s well-being, and Kiwi kids will continue to miss out unless there is a massive upheaval in how children’s best interests are served, says child rights organisation UNICEF NZ.

The first statement is accurate. The second is political.

Welcome to 2018, a year when 'feelings' will rule over facts.

"Let's Undo This"

Signing up to a social media campaign isn't something I've ever done before. I did so because it's one way I can register may protest at the new government.

National policies leave a lot to be desired but they were  better than Labour's.

It'd be satisfying to hear the numbers responding to this campaign reported in the media. That might happen if the numbers are very high.

And it's a well put together site.

Update on sole parent economic situation

An interesting graph from the Briefing to Incoming Social Development Minister:

After the In Work tax credit came in the gap between being on a benefit and working for the minimum wage opened up.

This has undoubtedly contributed to the fall in the number of benefit-dependent sole parents. But anti-child poverty activists want the in work tax credit paid to all beneficiaries. This will be a sticky issue for the new government. Their families package (especially the payment for babies aged 0-2) will effectively close the gap anyway.

Another interesting fact from the Briefing. Maori represent 15% of the population but "48 percent of Sole Parent Support recipients."

Here's a table from my own 2008 paper, Maori and Welfare:

It would appear the employment status of Maori sole parents is not improving as quickly as the general population.

A question remains that I have not had time to properly research. While the number of sole parent support recipients continues to drop...

... it must be remembered that many are now moved onto jobseeker support as their youngest child reaches 14. There may also be some migration onto the supported living benefit positively affecting the drop. The Briefing stresses that "The proportion of clients with mental health conditions has been growing substantially over time."

Reckless changes to benefit system will hurt children

Myself and Muriel Newman explain how in this week's NZCPR lead articles.

The first part of my piece, which concerns the removal of the requirement to name the father of a child supported by a benefit,  has mostly been stated already at this site but the second was something I had been intending to blog about but hadn't:

"But wait – there’s more.

This is just one of the changes this far-Left government intends to make. They also want to scrap other sanctions (benefit cuts) such as those imposed for failing a drugs test or for failing to keep Work and Income appointments. It won’t surprise if they also scrap sanctions that motivated young parents to attend parenting and budgeting courses, and enrol their child with a local GP.

Many of the sanctions loathed by the Left merely imitate the obligations that the paid workforce experience. Now taxpayers will be expected to meet obligations beneficiaries don’t have to and pay for the beneficiary’s ‘privilege’.

This topsy-turvy ‘world view’ was recently exemplified when Catriona McLennan, a well-meaning lawyer and advocate for the Child Poverty Action Group was heard extolling the generosity and kindness of Micky Savage’s original benefit system, and how New Zealand needs to return to that inclusiveness.

What a shock it would be for a young single mother of today to find, under the 1938 social security provisions, nobody was interested in whether she named the father of their child or not: because there was no benefit for single mothers. At best, a deserted wife could apply for a Widow’s Benefit but eligibility rested on her having been married and having sought financial support from the father through the courts.

It’s almost laughable when today’s beneficiary advocates complain about National’s ‘harshness’.

They are out of touch with reality. But they plan to drive policy made by a government with the same problem."

Life on a benefit drives to crime

A man was let off a charge of stealing around $180 worth of groceries because he said that life on a benefit is hard.

This poses a number of questions for me.

Why has this petty crime made headlines?

Is there still a moral discomfit about beneficiaries biting the hand that feeds?

Would someone on the minimum wage who claimed financial difficulty be let off?

If life on a benefit is hard, isn't  the better reaction to try and get off it?

Will this dismissal of a crime encourage more people to put up a defence of "life on a benefit is hard"?

Why didn't the offender go to a foodbank?

National makes a valid objection, but timidly

The student allowance - which was paid at the same rate as the unemployment benefit - is about to increase by $50 per week.

There is a suggestion from National that, along with the first year free tertiary education, an incentive will present for some to swap 'benefits' without a genuine motivation to study. Well, I dressed that up nicely, as did the spokesperson Paul Goldsmith.

He was being interviewed by a disbelieving Guyon Espiner who said this was a most cynical view.

If it had been me I'd have conceded the point, but maintained that we are dealing with Labour's idealistic and naive view. The truth lies somewhere in  between.

In the past data showed that when the invalid benefit was paid at a higher rate than the sickness benefit there was definite migration to the former.

Mr Goldsmith might also have talked about the pressure that his government had put on work-capable people to find jobs. A year's break from that, along with a $2,600 bonus might be very appealing.

Another angle

Here's a letter that appeared in today's Dompost. I am unable to find the piece it responds to. Odd. But it does highlight another unintended consequence that removing sanctions for not naming fathers will bring:

There's a surprise

Encouraging more adoption?

I doubt this guy is a good fit for a feminist government.

The ghost of Metiria and more lies

She may as well have stayed. In addition to scrapping the legal requirement to name fathers or face a penalty...

As part of a major welfare system overhaul agreed with the Greens, the government would remove other excessive sanctions and ensure people could access what they were entitled to.

And here is Carmel Sepuloni propagating more lies. Lies are OK on the Left.  And when the media reporting are also Left, they enable them.

 Ms Sepuloni said some parents had good reason for not naming the other parent.
"The most common reason for not naming the parent was often family-violence related and so, keeping that mind, it's almost like you're doubly punishing these women and their children. So, we're not going to allow that to continue."

Here is what the Work and Income manual says:

 Your benefit payments may be reduced if you don’t legally identify the other parent or apply for Child Support. In some situations you may not need to do this, for example if you or your child would be at risk of violence. Work and Income can tell you more about this.

There is already an exception to the rule for cases of violence.

So what is the real reason for the change? It's the imposition of  radical feminism whereby women's rights are elevated above children's....with the added bonus of screwing the taxpayer.

Can't disagree with any of this

Arrived in my inbox. I didn't steal it.

From The NATIONAL BUSINESS REVIEW October 27th 2017

The Limits of Cleverness versus Capitalism

Hidesight  -  Rodney Hide

I have concluded our new prime minister Jacinda Ardern is clever stupid.
She's quick, has good analytical skills and communicates well. There's no doubt she's clever.
    But she's stupid on how the world works and lacks thought-through principles and values. She bobs along on feelings and sounding good and thereby perfectly in tune with a media that emotes rather than reports and analyses.
    By her own account she grew up Mormon but jumped to socialism, becoming president of the International Union of Socialist Youth. She substituted one whacky religion for another. Her work experience is university and Parliament, first as a Labour Party staffer, then as an MP.
    She's driven by belief, not understanding. She can't argue ideas and must dismiss her opponents as uncaring or not yet enlightened. The shortcoming in opposing ideas is not the ideas themselves but the moral deficiency of those expressing them.
    When asked if capitalism had failed low-income New Zealanders, the prime minister-designate said: "If you have hundreds of thousands of children living in homes without enough to survive, that's a blatant failure. What else could could you describe it as?"
    "Hundreds of thousands of children living in homes without enough to survive." That  means "hundreds of thousands of children" dying because of material want. It's nonsense. There would be UN relief missions and international popstars having concerts to aid New Zealand were her claim true.
It isn't.
    It's part of the media-manufactured Jacindamania that such rubbish claims are passed over. She cares, that's enough. It's as if her nonsensical hyperbole underscores the extent of her caring. "Yes, she might have been out by a few hundred children, and yes, they're not exactly not surviving, but her heart is in the right place."
    The problem of poor and neglected children is not the fault of capitalism but of welfarism.  Generations of handouts have robbed too many of any sense of personal responsibility even for the  care and upbringing of their own children.
     It's perfectly respectable now not to provide for yourself, nor house your family, nor commit in any way to your partner in child-making and to have children without the ability to provide or care  or them.
    It's not your fault. You're a victim. Capitalism has failed.
    Ms Ardern's blinkered, if not blind, view of the world sees her advocating more of the policies causing the very problems concerning her rather than treating the cause.
    No facts, no analysis, no experience would shift her view. Her socialism is her religion.
    I'm a white, privileged male. I would say all of the above, wouldn't I ? I'm threatened by a female in charge and fear that my greedy exploitation of the poor is at an end. There, I dismissed my argument myself to save her supporters the effort.

Labour happy for taxpayers to be "rorted"

Radio news has Carmel Sepuloni, Minister for Social Development, saying she will get rid of the penalty for not naming fathers of children who are supported by benefits. We knew it was coming and new information indicates NZ First is going to support the change.

To reiterate on past posts, one of the major reasons mothers refuse to name fathers is to help them dodge child support.

In the past Labour has acknowledged this.

From parliament, 2004:

Heather Roy: When will he admit that this is just a rort so that fathers can dodge child support, and why should taxpayers always have to pick up the bill?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: It is a rort, and I have said time and time again in this Parliament that fathers must front up to their obligations, and we will make sure they do, as much as we can.

Maharey meant it and he increased the penalty in an effort to reduce the rort.

But today Labour  don't care what is costs the taxpayers. And apparently they don't care about children being denied their father's name on their birth certificate.

Sepuloni will argue that the penalty isn't working. However the numbers who incur a section 70a penalty have fallen. In 2004 there were 19,443.

Last year the number had fallen to 13,616.

What's in a word

It is infrequently that I come across an unknown word. Today however I was reading some hullabaloo (on both sides) about NZ sinking into the shadows of far right influence.An opinion piece was published by the Washington Post, "How the far right is poisoning New Zealand, " and duly responded to by Tim Watkin at RNZ.

Here's the sentence, from the first piece, containing the word:

"Appealing to ethnically homogenous, overwhelmingly cisgender male voters with limited education and economic prospects who feel they’re being left behind in a changing world is nothing new for the far right."

Cisgender. I had to google it.

 Cisgender is a term for people whose gender identity matches the sex that they were assigned at birth. Cisgender may also be defined as those who have "a gender identity or perform a gender role society considers appropriate for one's sex". Wikipedia

No surprises in a politically correct world that a new label has been attached to a group to categorise and explain with reference and respect to anyone who falls outside of it.

My interest is, am I the only one who wasn't aware of this term? Am I such a dinosaur? You see I think my ignorance of this word is just part and parcel of my whole ignorance about how to really solve problems.

In fact I can't even see the problem a lot of the time. Why are we trying to fix stuff that isn't broken? Why are we obsessing about problems in advance of them actually happening?

Cisgender first appeared in 1994. Our newest generation is full of anxiety. While there have always been global scares, the rate they occur at seems to have sped up. Now our young are worrying about manmade global warming, the 'future of work', inequality, and often the very personal nature of their own sexual identity. Labeling stuff helps them try to sort it, to make sense of it. To feel logical about the illogical.

Because so often much of what they spout is illogical - not all, but even thinkers struggle with the bombardment of paranoia engulfing them.

It is totally redundant to explain to them that they have been born into a world that is more peaceful and more prosperous than any other time in history.

That's not their problem.

The Minister for Child Poverty Reduction may very well succeed

The PM has made herself Minister for Child Poverty Reduction. Symbolically a good move for her. But crucial questions have to be answered.

How will she measure child poverty? I suspect there will be an emphasis on incomes. This mirrors what the UK Labour government did in 2000 when they legislated to reduce child poverty.

But this approach was highly controversial and eventually abandoned:

After the 2010 General Election, a Coalition government, made up of the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties, was elected in the UK. The Coalition remained committed to the Child Poverty Act, but there was a difference in approach. As part of a larger shift away from policy measures to increase income in favor of a focus on efforts to combat what the government identified as the “drivers of poverty” (family breakdown, low levels of education, worklessness, alcohol and drug dependency, personal debt, welfare dependency, and more), the Conservative-led government began to adapt the measurements of the target itself.

This is not dissimilar to the track Bill English was on, though he also concerned himself with lifting incomes via wealth distribution. Contrary to the picture of indifference that Labour painted, National was tackling poverty and, most importantly, its causes. There was a Ministerial Committee on Poverty which produced some strong work on who was poor and why.

In 2016 a follow-up report on progress was published. Here we see emphasis on a strong economy and welfare reform, particularly regarding teen parents, a "special area of focus".

Indications from the new far left government  (compared to the Clark/Cullen administration) to date are that welfare reforms will largely be abandoned and the economy is likely to weaken due to immigration cuts, new and higher taxes, and greater government intervention in the labour market.

On that basis the PM may very well succeed in reducing relative child poverty. After all, if median household incomes go down, a smaller percentage of families will be in relative poverty as highlighted by the UK experience. While,

"....relative low income declined during the recession, absolute low income increased."

Green's persist with Turei's campaign

Thanks to a reader for highlighting this blog post from Jan Logie, now the Under-Secretary to the Minister of Justice (focussing on Domestic and Sexual Violence Issues).

Logie has stepped straight into Metiria Turei's shoes. This is exactly the message she was pushing before her fall. The message that unsettled so many New Zealanders.

Under the cloak of compassion it promotes open slather access to benefits.

Greater benefit dependency is not good, for many reasons. Being born to unknown or unnamed fathers is not good for children. These statements are generalities but they are self-evident.

People who work have obligations to their employers, and vice versa. The same should apply to a system that purports to replace income from work, at the very least.

This Labour/Greens/NZ First coalition will be a different kettle of fish from the last Labour govt

This Labour/Greens/NZ First coalition will be a different kettle of fish from the last Labour government. If you doubt that, here's a perfect example.

Just heard on Radio NZ, Ardern talking about excessive sanctions in the welfare system like the penalty for not naming the father of a child. James Shaw then chimes in backing this concern.

When Steve Maharey was Minister for Social Development he too was concerned about mothers not naming the fathers of the children - a growing trend. So he increased the existing penalty against opposition from the Greens.

Most moderate New Zealanders back a welfare system that helps people in genuine need. I accept that. But they balk against  being forced to be financial fathers to children whose biological fathers  fly the coup.

HOWEVER, here is what NZ First MP Bill Gudgeon said in the debate relating to raising the penalty in 2005:


"The Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill goes part of the way to try to rectify this problem. An increase from 5.6 percent in 1993 to 16 percent in 2004, indicates an increase in the number of liable parents who are failing to meet their responsibilities. One result is that it makes it financially harder for the custodial parent to move off the benefit, as that parent would not receive child support. The crux of the matter in sole parenting is how the children receive physical and spiritual support. Is the benefit sufficient? Will the sole parent become independent of the State? Many in today’s society would consider these questions to be quaint and old-fashioned, yet I say that we should look at where we have been, where we are, and where we are heading.

The bill increases the rate of reduction in the benefit, and does so as an incentive for sole parents to carry out certain actions so that the other parent contributes financially to the upbringing of the child. Currently, under section 70A of the Social Security Act the rate of benefit paid to the sole parent is reduced by $22 per week for each dependent child where that parent fails or refuses to identify the other parent in law, to make an application for child support, or to attend a hearing and give evidence at proceedings brought under the Child Support Act. By July 2005 additional increases in the rate of reduction will be imposed, but this decision will be reconsidered should the beneficiary meet the section 70A requirements.

Let us look at the responsibilities that we have as parliamentarians, because within the four walls of this Chamber we have the power to pass laws. But what about the citizens of this country? New Zealand First is not judgmental of people who find themselves in this situation, but it is the responsibility of Parliament to help them to become independent of the State. It is our responsibility to ensure financial support is given to the sole parent from the other partner, who, in many cases, is the father. On too many occasions we sit here and debate with each other, and among parties, about who did this and who did that, but our prime responsibility as parliamentarians is to govern so that freedom prevails and assistance is given to people in need.

This legislation will be very difficult to implement, but New Zealand First supports it."

So what will Winston do in 2018? Without NZ First support, Labour and Greens are stymied. What price is NZ First prepared to pay for power?

Trotter's advice for Ardern

Writing in today's DomPost:

A "Real Change" Government, determined to reverse the draconian policies adopted by a Ministry of Social development advised by neoliberal "experts", would call upon the experience and expertise of Sue Bradford and Metiria Turei. Those who find themselves astonished and/or offended by the thought of two such bitter opponents of this country's actuarially inspired and excessively punitive welfare system being asked to advise Jacinda's government on its root-and-branch reform should, perhaps, pause and consider just how radical (albeit from the opposite end of the political spectrum) was the "expert" advice that created it.

What were those "draconian" policies?

- funding early childhood education so single mothers could return to the workforce
- providing intensive monitoring for teenage parents
- asking parents receiving benefits to enrol their children with a GP
- increasing penalties (that Labour had introduced) for people who failed to turn up for interviews or pass drug tests
- creating a new category of benefit with no work-testing at all, the Supported Living Payment...
to name a few

Trotter seems to have forgotten that the last Labour government also tried many ways to reduce welfare numbers. The Jobs Jolt is just one example that the far left bitterly opposed.

Again a reality check is sorely required. Not only regarding Trotter's description of National's reforms but the idea that the new government would let Turei anywhere near it. Even I do not think the PM would be that stupid.

"I'm intending to stay and critique these buggers pretty hard"

So said Steven Joyce. I hope he sticks to this. 

Explanations of policy concessions are now emerging and it appears National rejected those 'bridges too far'.

NZ First is also understood to have won concessions from Labour that National balked at, including work to progress a multi-billion dollar Northland port.
The deal will also cut property sales to foreigners - another policy National balked at, warning it would send an unfortunate message to our neighbours and be in breach of trade agreements.
Immigration was also crucial to NZ First's position - National rejected whole sale cuts. concerned about a labour shortage.

The last point mirrors my major concern with the new government.

New Zealand was built on immigration. I am an immigrant. The public services in particular - Health and Corrections I can personally attest to - are heavily supported by immigrant workers. Many rural sectors cannot operate without immigrant labour.

National could not support policies that would actively hurt the economy.

Effort needs to go into explaining this, relentlessly.

Unfounded statements - hallmark of PM Ardern

If you think I have a grudge against Ardern, you are partly right. She  publicly ridiculed my research. But my problem with Ardern is mainly impersonal. It's just another battle in the war against dishonesty.

From NewstalkZB:

She's told TVNZ's Q&A programme that leaving everything to the market simply hasn't worked for workers.

"Everything" is not left to the market though.

Working For Families subsidises employers. It allows them to pay their workers less (and the childless suffer as a consequence).

Ganesh Nana, left-leaning BERL economist, was lamenting this subsidisation last week. But he never drew the correct conclusion. Abolish the state subsidies. Certainly Jacinda isn't going to.

A state-mandated minimum wage  is hardly descriptive of "leaving everything to the market". And she plans to raise it.

Huge regulation/ compliance costs are hardly "leaving everything to the market". Those costs are reflected in wage constraints. They are passed down to employees and clients.

Company tax, GST, rates, etc. all dictate costs to the labour market.

"Leaving everything to the market" is the most absurd statement.

Oh, correction. There will be a more absurd statement shortly. Money on it.

And so the Prime Minister's prevarications begin

Well continue actually, but begin as Prime Minister

Let's start with this one:

"When you have a market economy, it all comes down to whether or not you acknowledge where the market has failed and where intervention is required. Has it failed our people in recent times? Yes. How can you claim you've been successful when you have growth roughly 3 per cent, but you've got the worst homelessness in the developed world?"

This was refuted earlier this year by NZ Herald reporter Isaac Davison who found:

New Zealand was ranked as having the highest homeless rate per capita in a piece of analysis published by Yale University last month.
The analysis was based on an OECD paper which said 0.94 per cent of NZ's population was homeless. The lowest homeless rate in the OECD was Japan, at 0.03 per cent.
The OECD paper said that NZ's high incidence of rough sleepers could partly be explained by its broad definition of homelessness.
As Social Housing Minister Amy Adams says, if NZ measured homelessness the same way Japan did, it would be ranked among the top of developed countries.
Japan only measures rough sleepers. According to the Otago study, New Zealand has around 1400 rough sleepers, or 0.03 per cent of the population - equivalent to Japan.
Conclusion: Mostly fiction. The study does not compare apples with apples, so it is unfair to say NZ has performed worse than every other country on the list.

Then the PM claimed that  most people's incomes are "not keeping up with inflation...."

Another lie. The official source for data on household incomes says:

 • From HES 2015 to HES 2016 median household income (BHC) rose 3% in real terms (3% above the CPI inflation rate)

And over a longer period?

It's going to be a long three years listening to fabrications, distortions and exaggerations ad nauseam. 

The " high quality of palliative care" argument not so strong

If the accuracy of this RNZ report can be relied on, those who argue against voluntary euthanasia using the high quality of palliative as support, are misinformed:

"[Hospice] Patients don't have access to stronger pain-killing drugs because they aren't fully-funded, top New Zealand hospice and palliative care doctors say."

More

Benefit numbers at change of government

For your ongoing reference, here are beneficiary numbers, released today, at change of government. The slow but consistent reduction continued:

This illustrates just one of many positive social and economic factors for National, ignored by voters and Winston Peters (who insists on talking up a looming crisis for which he cannot be held culpable.)

Another one bites the dust

What a blow. Rodney Hide announces his last column for the Herald on Sunday. I suppose it'll save a few minutes of my day not having to open the Herald page of a Sunday morning but that's the only upside I can think of and it's not a very good one.

There are countless opinion writers, as mentioned yesterday. There are three I take note of. Karl du Fresne, Martin van Beynen and Colin James. Occasionally I will glance at other writers columns, if the headline interests. But rarely do I reach the end. Mostly because it's recycled pap. The same ideas get expressed repeatedly with little thought about the manner of expression even. Originality is a rare commodity. In part that is why I blog infrequently now. I have said all I have to say and don't want to bore the readers or myself.

But Hide always had a new twist on something. Sometimes the twists seemed implausible but they never failed to either entertain or turn over the grey matter.

Perhaps he could be persuaded to start a blog? Creative thinkers need an outlet. And Lord knows, the rest of us need to hear their thoughts.

Karl du Fresne on Winston Peters

In the on-line media age, where both 'writers' and readers are seemingly insatiably thirsty for content, opinion pieces have become all about quantity - not quality.

But this one is a cracker:

OPINION: As is well known, the MMP electoral system was created to ensure, as far as possible, that no party ended up wielding absolute power.

So far you'd have to say it has worked exactly as intended. In the eight elections since New Zealand adopted MMP, no one party has won an absolute majority. They have all had to compromise and negotiate with smaller coalition partners.

Now we find ourselves in the same position again. It should be familiar by now, yet something seems not quite right. What could it be?

Oh, that's right – Winston Peters, the 7.5 Per cent Man, is back in the mix, and making the most of his intoxicating moment in the spotlight.

He said he was out of phone range when Bill English called last Sunday. But what sort of politician goes bush, leaving his phone unattended, when he's in the hot seat and the country is waiting for a government to be formed?

Then there was his excuse that he was waiting for the 384,000 special votes to come in, as if these had the potential to skew the election night result by such an order of magnitude that any preliminary negotiations with other parties would be futile.

Peters wanted us to think he was delaying showing his hand out of respect for democracy, but I don't think anyone was fooled. We've seen it all before.

If he truly respected democracy, he would acknowledge that his party pulled a measly 7.5 per cent of the vote and stop behaving like some sort of vainglorious potentate from Berzerkistan. Heck, he couldn't even retain his own seat.

But this is Peters we're talking about. The "h" word that comes between "humidify" and "hummingbird" in most dictionaries apparently doesn't exist in the edition on Peters' bookshelf.

Perhaps MMP works best when you have politicians who are prepared to be conciliatory, to compromise and to make concessions. The Germans seem to manage it.

Unfortunately, Peters is not one of those politicians. Bluster and demagoguery, rather than consensus, is his default setting.

Politically, he's a living fossil: a relic of Muldoonism, with all its bullying, divisiveness and ad hoc state interventionism. From the time he first entered Parliament in 1978, his career has been marked by fractiousness and petulance. He is a settler of scores and a bearer of grudges.

Some of his policy ideas – reinstating the old Forest Service, introducing a police "flying squad", legislating to ensure free-to-air coverage of major sporting events – appear designed to exploit the nostalgic yearning of his ageing supporters for New Zealand the way they remember it.

Peters is a political Doctor Who, inviting us to join him in the Tardis for a trip back to a simpler time when an all-powerful state pretended it could solve complex problems with the pull of a lever. Look where that got us.

I said at the start of this column that MMP is working exactly as intended. Does this mean it's a good system? Not at all. It's a dog that replaced a turkey.

We weren't sure at the time that we wanted a dog. All we knew is that we desperately wanted to get rid of the turkey, and a highly motivated lobbying campaign convinced us – by a less than overwhelming majority, incidentally – that the dog would do the job better.

And so we ended up with a system in which a vain and egotistical politician whose party got 7.5 per cent of the vote determines who the next government will be; and where every solemn pledge made during the election campaign is now up for negotiation in a secret process that voters have no control over or input into.

We could, however, do a few things to improve the situation. For one thing, the media could stop stoking Peters' already rampant ego by refusing to give him daily opportunities to grandstand. And let's stop treating the post-election guessing game as some sort of diverting spectator sport or reality TV show. We're talking about the future of the country, for heaven's sake.

Oh, and here's another suggestion that might negate the Peters problem altogether.

You'd think that if any party "got" MMP, it would be the Greens. But at the very suggestion of a deal with National, they clutch at their skirts like startled virgins.

Well, Labour has never invited them into bed. If promiscuity is the price for getting some runs on the board, perhaps they should forget about virtue and get their knickers off.

 - The Dominion Post

Dreaded de javu

And so it came to pass. The self-serving, bad-mannered, boorish, duplicitous, Winston Peters has once more fooled some of the people, thereby visiting an unwanted prospect on all of the people.

Stephen Franks has a piece by his colleague, Rob Olgilvie, well worth a read:

Why just king-maker? Why not king?

Never a truer word...

Decades of state welfare and political paternalism have [since] conditioned some people to believe they cannot take care of themselves without government support. So they jeopardise their own freedom by giving government increasing authority over their lives while reducing the freedom of others too.

Source 

Only one party isn't promising to increase their authority over your lives this election. They are the only party promising to spend less, not more.

I will party vote ACT tomorrow. And despair over the vast majority who want to increasingly cede control of their lives. But I have long since stopped trying to understand why.

Jacinda Ardern will increase poverty because she doesn't understand the drivers

Last year I wrote a paper which explored the link between child poverty and family structure. The strongest correlate with child poverty is single parent families on welfare. Additionally, children born into de facto relationships - which had a much higher likelihood of dissolving than marriages - were much more likely to become poor.

In a Sunday Star Times column Jacinda Ardern attacked my research:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I was allowed only 150 words to respond via a letter-to-the-editor, but you can read my full response here.

Because she doesn't understand child - no let's call it 'family' poverty, Ardern is on the brink of making it much worse.

Granted that particular paper was about incomes. But they account for only one aspect of the poverty problem.

When countries redistribute wealth to raise incomes it comes at a cost - joblessness. Peter Whiteford and Willem Adema write:

"...there is an unavoidable trade-off between providing generous assistance to the poor and improving incentives for people to work and provide for themselves. On average across OECD countries, there is a fairly strong correlation between the effectiveness of tax and benefit systems in reducing poverty and the level of family joblessness. The correlation coefficient is 0.63 – implying that every 1 percentage point increase in the level of poverty reduction achieved by the welfare state is associated with an increase in the number of jobless families by 0.63 percentage points. Among the English-speaking countries  the correlation is even stronger (about 0.92), so that Australia and the United Kingdom reduce child poverty very significantly and have very high levels of joblessness among families; while Canada and the United States reduce poverty much less, but have much lower levels of joblessness (although they have much higher poverty among working families with children). That is, in the English-speaking countries the argument made by Adam, Brewer and Shepherd (2006) appears to apply – more generous support to poor families is associated with higher levels of family joblessness."

Source

In a nutshell, for every percentage point family poverty is reduced, joblessness increases.

The possible future Prime Minister will substantially lift benefit incomes for young parents but reduce the incentive to work. Adding $3,120 annually per child aged 2 or under (and that's only one part of her policy) reduces, if not closes, the gap between incomes from work and incomes from benefits. And don't doubt that recipients factor this into a choice between working and staying dependent on the taxpayer.

"I get a good amount of money on the benefit, why bother working?"

Because work has many more benefits than money alone. Most importantly it teaches your children how the real world operates.

The last two decades has seen countries across the western world debating which is the best strategy to get families out of poverty - increasing work participation or redistributing income. National went largely with the former with their welfare reforms. Now there are fewer children benefit-dependent than since the 1980s (though there's a long way to go yet). Ardern though is predominantly choosing the latter. And if she needs the Greens, a softening of the reforms will be inevitable.

While claiming to have researched  child poverty extensively she has ignored the effect that redistribution has on both work participation and relationship status.

NZ Herald's Simon Collins summarized some of the research into the effect of welfare on relationships:

For parents on benefits or low incomes, the tax and benefit system actually created a financial incentive to separate. Economist Patrick Nolan calculated in 2008 that a mother earning $240 a week and an unemployed father would be $132 a week better off apart, even allowing for the extra costs of two households, because of the extra welfare top-ups the mother could get if she lived alone with the children.
Social researchers Paul Callister and David Rea, in a new draft paper, trace the other side of the equation - a worrying minority of mid-life men aged 30 to 44 missing out on both work and marriage. Mid-life men outside the labour force rose from 2 per cent to 11 per cent in the 30 years to 2006, and those living without partners rose in the past 20 years from 19 per cent to 33 per cent. 

Ardern is intent on reducing income poverty (with no guarantee the money will be spent on the children) but will unwittingly or worse, uncaringly, increase another kind of poverty. A poverty of purpose and spirit. These deficits are what drives the problems all New Zealanders want to see alleviated.