Iwi working constructively with OT

The media is always looking to beat-up on Oranga Tamariki. That their Chief Executive is moving on to Internal Affairs is reported thus:

Grainne Moss has confirmed Oranga Tamariki deputy chief executive Hoani Lambert has resigned, but she herself is not stepping down.

A clear inference is made by the framing of the resignation.

Anyway I shall report some positive news about OT to redress the balance.

On December 7 they formed their seventh agreement with Iwi.

This is an agreement to work TOGETHER.

Named Developing Te Rangapū Ahi Kā Roa, the strategic partnership agreement looks to build a sustainable and effective relationship between Oranga Tamariki and Wellington region iwi. It was signed by Helmut Modlik, Chief Executive Officer Te Rūnanga O Toa Rangatira, Wirangi Luke, Chief Executive Officer Te Rūnanganui o Te Āti Awa and Oranga Tamariki Chief Executive Gráinne Moss at Parliament on Thursday...“We want to ensure that tamariki are thriving in the protection of their whānau, hapū and iwi and our strategic partnerships are helping us to continue the downward trend of tamariki Māori coming into state care.”

 

It would appear that some Maori - the radical separatists - want the resignation of Grainne Moss while others do not.

The nasty new collectivism

My parent's generation harboured bigots. People who put all Women, all Maori, all Teenagers, all Poms (to name a few of the flawed) into each of their collective boxes. They lazily stereotyped to their heart's content. 

My generation wrote TV series that highlighted the Alf Garnetts and Archie Bunkers - bigotted collectivists on steroids. Some viewers laughed with them. Others laughed at them. But they weren't muzzled. The players or the audience.

The response came by way of a rejection of nationalism (war), rejection of racism (civil rights) and embrace of feminism (women's rights). Like the welfare state these -isms have well-intentioned roots but get unwieldy, distorted and become a bigger problem than that which they formed to alleviate.

But there was also an underlying move towards individualism. A greater diversity of thought. Enabled by the improving economic conditions.

Individualism describes those who don't conform or subscribe to ANY collective. Individualists refuse to hold allegiance or obligation by sheer dint of type or class which are mere accidents of birth. Their identities, loyalties and reciprocal dependencies are chosen. Not imposed.

This freedom to choose lies at the heart of a truly free society.

I thought we were ever-so-slowly getting somewhere (along with the self-destructive over-indulgences along the way that have caused considerable havoc.)

But right now we seem to have come full circle, and collectivism is fashionable like never before. People hanker to be part of a group - especially those groups perceived as victimised. Grievance is earnestly sought and if the seekers can't legitimately be part of the aggrieved group, they protest vigorously in the group's name. Brand new groups are created and labelled, with the non-member creators then patting themselves on the back for embracing them! Unwittingly people are forced into groups of believers and deniers, enemies or allies. It's almost comical. Almost...

Except the new collectivism is best characterised by its propensity to rapidly lash out at, denigrate and silence any party that questions. Despite their largely collective facelessness, through mass communication they are far more powerful and influential than any individual bigot. This monstrous movement changes the meaning of words and disregards facts. So detractors are left impotent.

Though its economic 'solutions' to inequality and climate change are largely state-driven, its enormous power now displays in controlling the private sector by naming and shaming businesses and manipulating corporate cultures.

None of it is sustainable but they don't care. Because they think the world is ending anyway. 

I took a break to look at today's 'news' and found this from Alison Mau:

“[David] Seymour’s attempt to skewer Mallard for wasting taxpayer money in litigation is misdirected, shallow and self-serving. Why is he not more seriously concerned about addressing, if not his women colleagues’ victimisation by his male co-workers, then the current epidemic of sexual crime experienced by the female population of New Zealand, as evidenced by the 6-month waiting list for help reported by all relevant agencies?

“In short, there is no help. There is just lots and lots of rape and serious sexual assault, everywhere.

“This is the serious concern Seymour should be raising in the media. This is where the serious cost is, both in taxpayer dollars and wasted female potential, most of it young. Perhaps he could initiate a cost deficit analysis to the country about this. He won’t, because nobody cares, least of all Parliament.”

This is the perfect example of everything wrong with the new religion that Mau is part of (kudos that she at least is not faceless).

First the chosen adoption of a severely contorted word - 'rape' - landed Mallard in hot water but devastated an innocent man. Mau approves of going after people first and finding out if they are innocent second.

So then she attacks Seymour for not behaving how she wants him to. Which is to collectively share the guilt of male harrassers because he happens to be a man. Idiocy.

I feel no shame or guilt for being the same sex as Mau.

(As an aside Brooke van Velden has taken mental health as her porfolio and is proposing remedies for waiting lists.)

But what can we do about this stifling atmosphere of convoluted and controlled thinking?

Resist. Communicate with your younger ones. Encourage them to think. Oddly, encourage them to rebel. That's the prerogative of youth. Some of their world view has justified roots, and we should listen. But many of us do have something they don't. A lifetime's experience of the world and its many earlier bouts of madness and mayhem.

Benefit numbers back to GFC levels

Percentage of working age people (18-64) on a benefit just hit 12% or one in eight (377,096).

Last time it was that high was 2010/11 during the GFC.

 

(It should be noted that benefits do usually spike slightly during December/January as students move onto a Jobseeker Support Student Hardship.)

Mallard makes more in a year than was paid to the slandered individual

Mallard makes $296,007 a year. Almost double what was paid to the individual he slandered.

That's what stuns me most about this revelation.

$158,000 seems a paltry pay-out for what the ex-parliamenatry employee endured.

Mallard has no mana going forward. He has no choice but to resign.

36 years is long enough. Bow out gracefully.

Update: There is talk on NewstalkZB that the falsely accused staffer recieved nothing. So was the $158,000 just court costs? Clearly I am not savvy about these procedures.

Update 2: The Taxpayer's Union has launched a petition calling for Mallard to pay the taxpayer back

Cure worse than the disease

The New York Post reports:

Japan is struggling with a mental health crisis as the coronavirus pandemic rages on, with more people dying in one month from suicide than from COVID-19 all year long.

The National Police Agency said suicides surged to 2,153 in October alone, with more than 17,000 people taking their own lives this year to date, CBS reported.

By comparison, fewer than 2,000 people in the country have died from COVID-19 in 2020.

Experts say the pandemic has exacerbated mental health issues due to prolonged lockdowns, isolation from family members, unemployment and other financial concerns, and a lack of school structure.

Expect more examples of  'the cure is worse than the disease' (albeit Japan already has one of the higher developed world suicide rates.)

Those who impose the lock-downs don't have to deal with the god-awful reality of them. They are running around making adrenalin-flowing, power-tripping, momentous decisions, commanding a national, even international stage for perhaps the first and only time in their lives.

The rest of us can eat cake.

PM complains about sluggish child poverty data

 Stuff's Luke Malpass talks to the PM about her future priorities:

Ardern ... nominated housing, child poverty, and climate change as key areas she would continue to focus on in 2021.

In particular, the Prime Minister expressed frustration at how long it takes to measure child poverty data – 18 to 30 months.

The Child Poverty data is collected from the Household Economic Survey. The PM upped the number of respondents from 5,500 to 20,000. Was that likely to increase the turn-around time for collection and publication of data?

However there is data she could get her hands on WEEKLY. 

Children on  benefits are considered to be among those in poverty. That's why the Children's Commissioner wants benefit rates increased. Remember, "One of the best ways to reduce the number of tamariki in poverty is to raise whānau incomes by increasing benefits."

So an early robust measure of child poverty would be the number of children on benefits.

Currently the number of benefits in place is published every friday and lags by JUST ONE WEEK.

Data relating to benefit type, gender, age, ethnicity, duration of stay and broad age of sole parent dependent children are all available. But not the number of dependent children attached to primary recipients.

From my own Official Information requests I know the number has risen. Hardly surprising. But it had risen substantially BEFORE Covid.

So why doesn't the PM use 'children on benefits' as an indicator?

Because she has chosen household income as her primary measure. That's a lever she can pull. Household income can be lifted by increasing benefit income, which she has done in a number of ways.

But there's trade-off. The only conclusion one can draw is that she would rather see children on benefits than see children in poor working households.

Big mistake.

Challenging Stuff's 'Truth Project'

 

Children's Commissioner draws a picture of what he wants

I'd have substituted pigs for buzzy bees.

Source

Stuff's tortured apology

Yesterday Stuff declared to the world that it had been racist in the past but now, in their "brave new era" they will tell the truth!!

So they kick off today with a confession that THEY made Maori the face of child abuse.

To an extent this is true. The media in general focuses on Maori child abuse deaths more than non-Maori, sometimes because the behaviour of whanau keeps the case alive and dragging out over months and years. Cases where the offender pleads guilty and is processed through the system garner less attention.

Anyway they start by slapping themselves over reported likelihood risks. They looked at stories from 2000 about Lillybing and James Whakaruru:

Both stories claimed Māori children were “five times more likely” to be abused than Pākehā children.

The statistic was not correct. At the time, around 25 per cent of children were Māori, and 75 per cent Pākehā: Three times higher, not five.

The figure lowered even further when comparing Māori to non-Māori as a whole. An analysis by the Ministry for Social Development later showed Māori children were around 2.5 times more likely to be abused than non-Māori. A review of literature predominantly published in the early 2000s showed the rate of maltreatment among Māori was consistently double that of non-Māori. 

A rate two or three times higher than other groups is still significant, and the essence of the claim – Māori are overrepresented in child abuse figures – was accurate.

But the inaccurate “five times more” figure was not corrected, and served as a springboard for fevered coverage in the months afterwards, seemingly used as permission to cover Lillybing’s death in a racialised way.

Well let me tighten this with the most recent, and more relevant, Child Abuse and Neglect Deaths (CAN)  official data from 2009 to 2015:

 Māori children were three times more likely to die from CAN than non-Māori children. Similarly, offenders of Māori ethnicity were six times more likely to be responsible for CAN deaths than those of non-Māori ethnicity. When stratified by age, the rate of CAN deceased was highest among children aged 0–4 years and, for Māori, the rate of the children killed by CAN aged 0–4 years was four times higher than the non-Māori rate

Then in an attempt at revisionist impartiality Stuff goes on to bring up names of non-Maori children who were killed in filicide/parental suicide events and under-reported.

There isn't a lot to be said about open and shut cases of this nature. They are mental crisis events which often come out of the blue. The children are seemingly well-cared for, even over-loved. The media can't hammer CYF failure, or police inaction or follow a court hearing.

The reason the two aforementioned Maori child cases garnered so much attention was the revelations of the ongoing abuse and gross neglect leading up to the deaths. To compare them to cases where the parent took their own life is a mistake. In the former we had adults trying to absolve themselves or cover up for someone, ongoing police investigations and a court case; in the latter, parents who no longer wanted to live and decided to take their children with them.

The inclusion of these types of child deaths (9) in the CAN stats probably lowers the Maori likelihoods cited above but the report does not separate the types of CAN deaths by race. However, clues relating to quintile deprivation suggest the filacide/parental suicide cases are non-Maori - though the unusual and very sad recent case up on the East Coast will change the next lot of stats: 

"... among the offenders whose socioeconomic status was known, deprivation differed for the different types of CAN death events. A deprivation gradient was noticeable for fatal physical abuse/grossly negligent treatment death events – two-thirds (67 percent) of the offenders who killed children by fatal physical abuse/grossly negligent treatment were from the most deprived neighbourhoods (deprivation quintile 5) and no offenders were from the least deprived neighbourhoods(deprivation quintile 1). By contrast, the neonaticide and filicide with parental suicide CAN death events involved offenders from neighbourhoods that spanned the range of deprivation quintiles...The distributions of Māori deceased and offenders were skewed towards the most deprived quintile, whereas for non-Māori the deceased and offenders were more evenly distributed across the range of deprivation quintiles. No Māori offenders responsible for CAN deaths lived in the least deprived neighbourhood. "

In conclusion yes Stuff probably did disproportionately report on Maori child deaths BUT there are reasons for this that go beyond race. They relate to the circumstances surrounding the death.

This cleansing exercise Stuff has embarked upon is so bizarre that I wonder if they are trying to pre-empt any future prosecutions for past behaviour? Sounds preposterous but you couldn't rule it out in today's crazy world. 

More likely they don't want to be victims of the senseless cancel-culture.

The inverted world of blameless individuals

The Child Poverty Action Group has issued a stocktake on government's unsatisfactory implementation of the WEAG's recommendations. A WEAG panel member said on radio, one in seven children are on a welfare benefit and that they "can't wait." From the report:

 A background paper to Whakamana Tāngata, entitled The income support system, noted that 168,275 dependent children were living in families receiving main benefits in March 2018...Children cannot wait for more resources, as their minds, emotions, bodies are constantly developing and are often permanently adversely affected by toxic stress and lack of essentials. Our inadequate and ineffective welfare system continues to entrench poverty for children. 

The number had risen to over 217,000 by July 2020.

But wait. In 2019 over 6,000 babies were added to an existing benefit.

Information released to me under the OIA shows that 6,190 caregivers had added one or more 'subsequent children' aged less than 12 months to their benefit during 2019. That represents one in ten of all babies born last year.  For Maori the ratio doubles to one in five.

If their existing children are indeed experiencing "toxic stress" why are the parents having more?Perhaps their existing children are not experiencing "toxic stress"? Perhaps parents don't recognise that their existing children are experiencing "toxic stress"?

Whatever. It isn't the welfare system that "continues to entrench poverty". It's parents who continue to produce babies in the full knowledge a benefit is their only source of income for the forseeable future. 

It's an inarguable fact and yet we are constantly bombarded with bullshit messages to the contrary.

In the same vein a Stuff article has a Maori advocate saying that health services are failing mothers who continue to drink during pregnancy!

OT fights it corner

Oranga Tamariki has taken the unusual step of letting a journalist work alongside a social worker for the duration of an uplift case. It's well covered, not overly sentimental and succeeds in providing an impartial insight into a case of severe physical abuse. It's told through the eyes of a fairly young social worker, Alex McKintosh.

What made me wince (beyond the injury descriptions) was this line:

“It’s not just the public that hate Oranga Tamariki,” she says when she ends the call, “all the other agencies do as well”.

This to explain why she has to push to have a reluctant paediatrician re-examine the child in question.

That makes her work doubly difficult.

I have always viewed OT/CYF/CYPS as being unavoidably stuck between a rock and a hard place, damned for not 'being there' and damned by many for being there.

But they only exist due to parental or other caregiver failure, or criminality.

Without a doubt it is an organisation like any other. Some members will be better at their jobs; better intentioned, better motivated and more effective.

This particular employee expresses a belief in parental redemption but persisted to first and foremost secure the child's safety.

If she is a fair representation of other OT social workers I am reassured.

(Reflecting on this case being a Pacific family, I am unaware of calls from that sector about racism and the need for Pasifika to take charge of Pasifika child protection. I stand to be corrected.)

Highly unusual graph

The graph below shows child entry into state care by ethnicity from March to June 2020.

Can you spot what is unusual about it? Certainly I have never seen a graph representing NZ ethnicities like this one before. Ever.

Source

A debate coming our way

Whether or not to criminalise 'coercive control' - a precursor to family violence.

According to the Melbourne Age:

Coercive control - which can include isolating a partner from their friends and family, restricting their movement, monitoring their phone and controlling their finances - is the most common factor leading up to an intimate partner homicide.

A couple of Australian states have - or are in the process of doing so. 

What is striking about the linked article is how balanced it is with reasoned views from differing perspectives. In NZ a mainly one-sided argument would be presented featuring various anti-male campaigners and favoured by left-wing blogs like The Spin-off, and MSM like Stuff and RNZ in particular. 

I'd suggest criminalising coercive control in NZ is a foregone conclusion once the idea gains traction.

When group dissension becomes THE issue

Because of collectivism and identity politics, and RNZ's obsession with such, when one Maori disagrees with another THAT becomes the story.

Minister for Whanau Ora, Peeni Henare told Maori News that the head of Oranga Tamariki looked about to resign. Minister for Children, Kelvin Davis reprimanded him for stepping outside of his portfolio. Minister of Maori Development, Willie Jackson waded in and said the Maori caucus has a view on the head of OT.

So the story gets headlined that main players are "at odds".

It must be very frustrating for Maori who want to get beyond being Maori first and foremost.

In the same way that a female MP might be thoroughly frustrated if her every word and action was framed and critiqued from a feminist perspective with the actual content and intent overlooked.

The inexorable move to separatism

Maori and non-Maori partner at very high rates. StatsNZ: "In the 1996 census, 66 percent of partnerships involving people of Maori ethnicity were partnerships between a Maori and non-Maori partner."

After reading the statements by various government and state agency players speaking to the Waitangi Tribunal yesrday there is no doubt in my mind that a move to separate child protection systems is developing. For instance:

Assistant Māori Commissioner for Children Glenis Philip-Barbara said the government must determine whether iwi and hapū could take on a transfer of power from Oranga Tamariki.

"What we're asking for is for the government to recognise mana Māori by handing over the power to define, determine and decide what 'good' looks like for tamariki Māori to Māori.

"I don't think we've had a better time in our history as a nation to realise this dream. I'm hopeful that government will step back and understand how important it is to share power as a Treaty partner."

Putting aside the politics, what will this mean for real people?

If a child has any Maori blood, his or her interests will be decided solely by Maori?

Envisage a Maori whanau versus a non-Maori family vying for custody of their mokopuna/grandchild. It isn't difficult to imagine the heartaches that will be involved if the non-Maori family's rights are dismissed because whakapapa links are the most important consideration.

The principle is already given a great deal of weight under current legislation but it can't dominate to the cost of all else.

Stability and security must be paramount when deciding the best interests of children. It's a colourblind requisite. 

"In New Zealand today"

 Karl du Fresne has written the second of what I hope is a series of posts, "In New Zealand today" which highlights various media items that typify the way the country is immersing itself in identity politics. 

New Zealand has to decide what type of place it wants to be: a diverse, harmonious, tolerant, multicultural country with a common interest in prosperity and freedom, or a splintered one in which multiple groups jostle for special treatment on the basis of real or imagined differences of ethnicity, sexual preference, culture, religion, gender or any one of the many other divisive “identities”. I think I know which society most New Zealanders would opt for.

Karl's has to be one of the most important voices 'In New Zealand Today'. 

Pronoun ommission an offence?

The Public Service Commissioner is recommending employees include a pronoun in email signatures. This to signal their commitment to diversity and inclusion.

Get this:

Having pronouns in an email signature signals you as an LGBTQIA+ ally.

So, if you don't want to add 'she/her' or  'he/him' to your signature you are an LGBTQIA+ enemy?

This is exactly like the compulsion to actively support 'black lives matter' or be told your 'silence is violence'.

The use of coercion to make people think and behave in ways the state sees fit is reprehensible.

If a transgender or gender diverse person wants to adopt the practice, fine.

Surely we don't all have to be the same. Isn't that the point about diversity?

More upheaval coming at Oranga Tamariki?

 Back in July I questioned how long the stand off between the head of Oranga Tamariki and Maori advocates calling for her resignation would go on for.

Newshub/NZ Herald is now intimating Grainne Moss' resignation is imminent. With Tracey Martin out of parliament - who stood by Moss as Children's Minister - and her replacement, Kelvin Davis (as well as the PM) refusing to publicly express support for her, it's hardly surprising.

What a poisoned, politicised chalice that position is.

1999 - 2003 Jackie Pivac quit 10 months before contract end after a bad review of CYF

2003 Paula Tyler quit late 2005 just 14 months into a three year contract

2006 -2010 Public service veteran Ray Smith appointed

2010 Bernadine McKenzie appointed and quits in 2015 ahead of Rebstock report into CYF

2016 Grainne Moss appointed from the private sector and ....

Update: Grainne Moss says, "I'm not set to resign, I can confirm I'm staying in my role... I'm absolutely committed to the kaupapa, we've made lots of progress, but there's lots more to do and it's a privilege to be able to have an opportunity to improve the outcomes for tamariki, rangatahi and their whānau".

More tax...more love...more kindness

 

Source

Labour govt gradually increasing % of your income they spend

StatsNZ released household accounts data on Friday.

Important to note they apply to before the lockdown.

Of interest, spending on health, education and housing is increasing as a % of disposable income per capita:

And,

Income tax payable by households increased 7.2 percent to $41.5 billion.

The major point made in the StatsNZ release:

New Zealanders are spending almost everything they earn, with only about $700 million in household saving in the March 2020 year, slightly less than in 2019, Stats NZ said today.“That’s the equivalent of each occupied household, numbering 1.79 million in New Zealand, earning about $412 more a year than they spend,” national accounts senior manager Paul Pascoe said.

NZ's child protection agency is informed by...

 ... a recent Oranga Tamariki paper titled:

UNDERSTANDING MĀORI PERSPECTIVES:Tamariki and rangatahi who are victims of sexual violence or display harmful sexual behaviour

Excerpts:

"Sexual violence and harmful sexual behaviours were considered uncommon before the arrival of settlers."

 

"The idea that men have a right to dominate women or children was not a feature of Māori society and stories about interpersonal violence towards women and children in the past are not common nor was rape widely understood or embedded in Māori language." 

 

Has anybody told the Mob?

Could Oranga Tamariki researchers please approach them with this revelation?

They are bound to see the error of their ways once pointed out by accredited academics.

Aotearoa or New Zealand?

 Did anyone notice the irony of new Tourism Minister Stuart Nash speaking at Summit Aotearoa  saying " ‘Brand New Zealand’ is paramount"?

The government and the public service are determinedly moving to Aotearoa as the name of this country.

But the world they want to court knows it as New Zealand.

A government running with the hares and hunting with the hounds...

On whether our falling fertility rate matters

Talking to Heather du Plessis Allan on NewstalkZB this afternoon (the article was generated before the interview).

Update - Kerre McIvor picked up the theme and some of the interview this morning. Great. Exactly what the report was intended to generate. Discussion.

Two worlds

Using the Maternity Report web tool I have extracted birth profiles for the most southern region of New Zealand, the Southern DHB and the most northerly region, the Northland DHB. Ministry of Health definition, "Deprivation quintiles of residence range from 1 (least deprived) to 5 (most deprived)."

Note the almost mirror-like reversal of deprivation quintiles. In Southland most babies are born in the least deprived quintile whereas in Northland most babies are born in the most deprived quintile. What a fascinating contrast.

Just for good measure let's throw in the middle of the country, the Wellington region, Capital and Coast DHB:

Comparatively New Zealand is a great place to be born in but whereabouts in NZ predicts a great deal about outcomes.

Lowest birth rate ever

 StatsNZ today on September 2020 data:

The total fertility rate was 1.63, the lowest on record in New Zealand. 

This trend began in 2008. There have been 12 straight years of falling fertility which includes Maori fertility.

Some will welcome this fall. I don't. The essence of life is procreation and family. Used to be, grandchildren living overseas was a major regret for my generation. Soon it will be, no grandchildren at all.

The main reasons for the decline are females putting off having children until their thirties. The window gets smaller and conceiving gets harder. 

And more females are remaining childless by choice.

The trend is a major demographic development mirrored across the developed world and being slowly echoed in India and very faintly echoed in the African continent. Countries that don't have falling TFRs are experiencing only slight upturns (from already low rates) due to aggressive fertility encouragement policies. When I last looked Hungary and Japan were two but both are still under New Zealand's current level.

Colin James on Seymour

Colin James makes this prediction (echoing earlier statements elsewhere not least by National's leader):

David Seymour will have trouble managing his disparate bunch of new MPs. 

I think I know what 'disparate' means. Different from each other. But let's check a google definition to be safe:

 essentially different in kind; not able to be compared.

Well I am very pleased about that. A party that represents individualism - individual rights must not be subjugated to collective rights - should feature free thinkers with varying interests.

You wouldn't want ACT to behave like a herd of sheep, very similarly to one another.

Seymour may have trouble managing them but does he want to? He needs them to be able to manage themselves.

They are all mature people. Worldly even.

There are bound to be political missteps in an environment where the media is salivating for a slip-up and not past precipitating one.

But parliament was overdue for some new blood that's not running through the veins of conformists.

Beneficiary debt balloons under Labour

 Under Labour the culture at WINZ was deliberately changed. Far more resources were put into ensuring that clients were receiving their full entitlements and fewer into work brokering. There was an all round softening of attitude, more 'kindness' I expect. That might also include approving more grants and recoverable assistance. Which might have the unintended consequence of driving more beneficiaries into more debt? (A bit like those nasty money-lenders Labour detests).

Someone asked the question and I've charted the answer.

Note the acceleration occurred BEFORE Covid.

Total monies owed:

Still. Look on the brightside. It's not a billion yet. Chickenfeed compared to this government's borrowing.

Unfashionable truths

Bernard Hickey has joined the chorus calling for benefit increases. That's because beneficiaries will spend the money. But he fails to address the unintended consequnces of benefit rises.

1/ There is risk of landlord 'capture'

2/ All second tier assistance will be subject to reductions negating the benefit rise. If the assistance is redesigned so as to not reduce, then the margin between working and not working gets smaller and more people rationally choose not to work or to reduce their hours

3/ That will lead to even less productivity ...

4/ ... and more intergenerational dependence on benefits

5/ Finally there is no guarantee that the extra money will be spent on children (Hickey's implication with his final comment).

Which goes like this:

It’s worth leaving the last word to the Growing Up in New Zealand longitudinal study of 6000 children born in the Auckland, Counties Manukau and Waikato DHB regions in 2008/09. There’s now eight and the latest report was published this week. Nearly 40 per cent are living in cold, mouldy and damp homes. About a third are obese. About 20 per cent of the families surveyed did not have enough money to eat properly.

Of 4,828 respondents 6% had a major problem with damp and mould; 31% had a minor problem. My expectation would be that minor problems are fixable problems. My own home falls into this category (though perhaps into the former category after this week's deluge.)

And what is "eating properly"? If its chicken and veges ... cheap as chips - literally. It has been demonstrated repeatedly that a family can eat well and inexpensively with some application and planning.

But truths are very unfashionable in 2020.

Raising benefits is a quick-fix; a deceptively appealing but ultimately damaging policy.

Fathers forgotten again

 The Growing Up in New Zealand Study continues to frustrate me. Just released is their Now We Are Eight report. Yet again there is bugger all information about the fathers of these children.

The word 'father' appears 3 times in the 172 page report, ironically the last time in the appendix describing the study's "overarching research questions" which include, "How involved are fathers in children’s lives, and what are their influences over time on children’s development?"

The word 'mother' appears 468 times.

'Partner' crops up 18 times, the context of which relates only to

- partner conflict

- study methodology

Data relating to single or two parent households is inconclusive.

In the extracted chart 'parent alone' makes up a smallish percentage for each ethnicity, but the grey and green portions could contain either a single or two parent family. And the 'two parent' portion doesn't necessarily indicate two biological parents.

But that's all there is.

According to the Census 2018 (conducted around the same time as the Now We Are Eight report was compiled):

Twenty eight percent of families with children are one parent.

Next, in the past, the GUiNZ collection waves have included information about sources of income including benefits. Not this time.

Perhaps this is due to the Auckland University of Technology previously pointing out:

"A weakness of the GUiNZ data is that it may not be population representative and is not linked to administrative data.... Overall, 95% of GUiNZ children are born to mothers who are partnered. The GUiNZ sample seems to have low sole-parent status compared to a 2009 study that found one-third of families with dependent children were headed by sole-parents (Ministry of Social Development, 2010). This could be because being partnered in the GUiNZ data is not the same as their domestic-purposes benefit status, from which partnership status is inferred by other studies. We find that 70% of those who say they receive the domestic-purposes benefit also answer yes to the question of whether they have a partner – confirming that the sole-parent status derived from GUiNZ is essentially different to those studies which rely on benefit status to infer partnership status." 

Perhaps the GUiNZ survey designers do not want to 'compromise' the authenticity of reponses by including questions about benefits.

The media discussion created by the release of Now We Are Eight has been all about how the 8 year-olds responded to questions about gender identification.

More important than fathers, and whether or not they have one.

Briefly on partner violence being all one way...

Earlier last week Peter Williams, Magic Talk, decided to spend the morning discussing "men beating their wives". This was on the back of the Johnny Depp court case and the appointment of Green Party co-leader Marama Davidson as Minister for the Prevention of Family & Sexual Violence. His framing of the violence problem was decidely that it's a male issue. He recalled how he felt about the sickening violence portrayed in Once Were Warriors many years ago and how seemingly nothing much has changed. (I was simultaneously recalling that the author, Alan Duff, was blessed with a peaceful father but suffered a violent alcoholic mother.) 

Anyway, very quickly Williams  began receiving text after text taking him to task, and then callers describing female aggression and manipulation, a couple from grown children who had witnessed it with their mothers. A few people referenced David Fergusson's work in this area who steadfastedly maintained domestic violence is a problem with both genders.

Consequently I have been meaning to write something very brief and gather some international stats from GOVT sources ie crime surveys conducted by state agencies which canvas victim experience as opposed to police prosecutions, convictions, etc which always predominantly feature male offenders,. the type of statistics Williams was citing. Male victims generally don't report violence to the authorities.

But first, I came across this. A fact sheet from the US National Coalition Against Domestic Violence. It is hard to imagine NZ's White Ribbon organisation being as even-handed in their advocacy:

1 in 4 men have been physically abused (slapped, pushed, shoved) by an intimate partner. • 1 in 7 men have been severely physically abused (hit with a fist or hard object, kicked, slammed against something, choked, burned, etc.) by an intimate partner at some point in their lifetime.  • Nearly 1 in 10 men in the United States has experienced rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner and reported at least one measured impact related to experiencing these or other forms of violent behavior in the relationship (e.g., being fearful, concerned for safety, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms, need for healthcare, injury, contacting a crisis hotline, need for housing services, need for victim’s advocate services, need for legal services, missed at least one day of work or school). • 1 in 18 men are severely injured by intimate partners in their lifetimes. • Male rape victims and male victims of non-contact unwanted sexual experiences reported predominantly male perpetrators. Nearly half of stalking victimizations against males were also perpetrated by males. Perpetrators of other forms of violence against males were mostly female.  • From 1994 to 2011, the rate of serious violence (rape, sexual assault, robbery and aggravated assault) committed by an intimate partner declined 64% for males • During the most recent 10-year period (2002-11) for which data is available, nonfatal serious violence accounted for more than a third of intimate partner violence against males (39 percent).

So to my unofficial chart:

The US numbers reflect an earlier period  (2003 to 2012) than the others (2018-19) . The percentages reflect lifetime experience. IPV is expressed in different ways in different jurisdictions so I'm not 100% satisfied apples are being compared with apples. But the consistent gender proportions lend credibility to the reporting.

Before I leave the subject, remember these two? Exhorting men to march in the streets of South Auckland and "own the issue"?

National MPs Agnes Loheni and Alfred Ngaro. Never happened. Both gone. Out of touch.

Intergenerational reliance on benefits

Australian data depicting young Australians’ chances of receiving welfare (aged 18–26) by parental welfare receipt:

What the hell is wrong with this country

 Again the effects of welfarism are manifested in waste and frustration.

New Zealand is heading into peak harvest season and there aren't enough workers to get fruit off trees or vegetables from the ground.

"This could be my last crop," says Heap, who grows courgettes near Waipapa in Northland. "I'm at the point where I'm not going through it again."

Northland for God's sake. Highest unemployment in the country. Thousands being paid to do nothing. NOTHING.

Worse than nothing in some cases. Paid to terrorise and steal from people who the govt has already stolen from to pay hush money. The flawed 'benefits reduce crime' theory.

What we are doing is insanity writ large.

The gendered impact of COVID-19 on employment

The repeated and popular news story is how much worse women's employment was hit by the Covid crisis.

Stats NZ issued a release saying "Women have fared worse than men across key labour market measures..."

I'd have thought that the numbers having to resort to benefits was also a key measure.

Those numbers tell a different story.

My suggestion is this.

Men whose sole source of income was their job have fared worse since Covid 19.

Are beneficiary incomes too low?

 The new government is going to come under a great deal of pressure to lift beneficiary incomes from many quarters: CPAG, AAAP, Salvation Army, The Christian Council of Social Services, to name a few advocacy groups. Their parliamentary partners, the Greens, will also be exerting pressure.

Are beneficiary incomes too low?

One way of looking at it is, how do they compare internationally?

Below I have charted the assistance available to a single parent in Australia versus a single parent in New Zealand. I've only included the major income components: basic benefit rate, family tax credits for children and accommodation assistance. Certainly in NZ there is extra assistance available via special grants for additional accommodation needs, food etc. As well in Australia anyone currently on a benefit is receiving a Corona Virus $125 weekly supplement until December 31, 2020. That is not included. I modelled a parent with young children as that is when they are most likely to be on income support.

Although NZ's basic benefit rate is lower, family tax credits are slightly higher and maximum accommodation supplements are a lot higher resulting in a substantial difference between total incomes. Yes, its slightly cheaper to rent in Brisbane than Auckland but the government is only going to pick up a small portion of the cost.

Sources:

https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/individuals/services/centrelink/parenting-payment/how-much-you-can-get

https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/individuals/services/centrelink/family-tax-benefit/how-much-you-can-get/ftb-part-payment-rates#baserate

https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/individuals/services/centrelink/rent-assistance/how-much-you-can-get

https://www.workandincome.govt.nz/products/benefit-rates/benefit-rates-april-2020.html#null

Unemployment rate versus Jobseeker uptake

The following graphs compare the September 2020 unemployment data released yesterday by Stats NZ with corresponding MSD Jobseeker benefit data. The first is a regional breakdown of the % of working age population on the Jobseeker benefit versus the regional unemployment rate:

The disparaties are more marked in the provinces (though StatsNZ reports Tasman/ Nelson/Marlborough/ West Coast as one region at 3.5% whereas MSD benefit data is localised).

The next depicts the numbers unemployed versus the numbers on Jobseeker by ethnicity.

Again it is to be expected that there will be some disparity given that Stats NZ data is a survey extrapolation whereas MSD data is actual receipt. 

For Stats NZ purposes, the 'unemployed' are offcially: "All people in the working-age population who, during the reference week, were without a paid job, available for work, and had either actively sought work in the past four weeks ending with the reference week, or had a new job to start within the next four weeks."

Based on that definition, many Maori  recipients of the Jobseeker benefit are not actually seeking jobs. Perhaps because they have a 'health condition or disability' as do 35 percent of those receiving JS.

Or, they have a part-time job and also receive JS.

I don't think the large gap necessarily shows anything fraudulent. But it does highlight a different employment pattern for Maori. For instance I expect there may be quite a number of Maori sole parents with older children, doing part-time work and being topped up by the Jobseeker benefit.

They are in the blue column but not the orange.

New Police Minister: Does she still want to reverse the burden of proof?

 Poto Williams has been appointed Minister for Police. 

I recall being rather alarmed about her views just three years ago:

Labour MP Poto Williams is calling for rape investigations to reverse the "innocent until proven guilty" legal methodology.

Labour's sexual violence spokesperson, Mrs Williams has called for radical reform of the sexual justice system which would see rape accusers believed by police as a starting point.

This would place the burden of proof on the accused - directly contradicting the philosophy of "innocent until proven guilty".

It's conceivable the new Minister for Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence, Green MP Marama Davidson could throw her weight behind this.

Am I wrong to be worried that we are in for some scary stuff?

And how come Greg O'Connor has never gotten anywhere near a police ministerial role with his decades of experience?

Too conservative. By a long shot.

The number of babies removed halves in two years

 Data from Oranga Tamariki show that in the year to June 2020, 151 babies  - aged up to three months old - were removed by the state due to concerns about their care and safety. (While officially under state care babies are most commonly removed to the care of a family member).

In 2018 the number was 299. A halving.

But the number of babies 'referred for assessment or investigation' dropped only slightly from 1,899 in 2018 to 1,848 in 2020.

A number of inferences can be taken.

Based on the investigation level being relatively stable, a large drop in removals must mean a change in policy/ threshold. That could indicate a lack of resources, eg available caregivers, or a deliberate attempt to lower the number due to political pressure.

I am eternally suspicious of sudden large changes in numbers in any data BUT to be fair OT has signalled a cultural change in behaviours.

I just hope like hell that this change in procedure - for whatever reason - will mean better outcomes for the babies. OT has claimed it as a success. Surely it's a little too soon to tell.

(Note also that the brief containing this data makes no mention of ethnicity. Also a departure from usual practice.)

Resounding referendum result

 David Seymour decided to draw up his End of Life Choice Bill five years ago. His primary reason was compassion. He believed it was the right thing to do. To the degree that he turned down two ministerships in the John Key government in order to pursue his bill.

The bill was drawn from the ballot on June 7, 2017 - before the 2017 election. It then went to parliamentary debate but NZ First made their support conditional on a referendum. I'm glad they did and was always confident that the public would support the bill. Why? Because this was the third time a voluntary euthanasia bill had been to parliament and the issue was not going away. Support was growing.

The 2020 referendum returned almost two thirds in favour.

What a great result.

Thank you David for the decision you made 5 years ago.

Alarm bells

 RNZ reports on the Waitangi Tribunal hearing into the disproportionate number of Maori children in state care:

Dr Alison Green is completing her post-doctoral research at the University of Saskatchewan in Canada, comparing the policy for removing indigenous children from their families in both Canada and New Zealand.

She points to a federal government law passed in Canada last year as a mechanism New Zealand could draw from to put in place the structural changes needed to devolve power from Oranga Tamariki to Māori.

Bill C-92 gives First Nations, Inuit and Metis collectives in Canada the right to create and enforce legislation to look after their own children.

In January this year in the Canadian province of Saskatchewan, the Cowessess First Nation enacted their own legislation which gives them to the right to operate their own child protection services based on their cultural practices.

Green suggested those redesigning how Oranga Tamariki interacts with Māori children should approach the Cowessess First Nations.

The implementation of indigenous responsibility for indigenous children is not new in Canada. The provincial devolution of services to native tribes has been ongoing and not much has changed. Bill C-92, a federal law, only expands the scope of devolution. 

I urge you to read An Endless Cycle of Despair by Brian Giesbrecht an ex Provincial Court Judge in Manitoba, Canada.

Excerpt (picks up the story in the 1970s/80s):

Out-adoption was eventually abandoned in favour of devolution as provincial child welfare authorities relinquished most of their authority over reserves to local Indigenous agencies such as the DOCFS in Manitoba. As a sitting judge, I watched as this policy unfolded in real time.

Advocates assured provincial governments that as newly formed Indigenous agencies opened up and Indigenous leaders gained more control, the old problems would ease. Appropriate cultural influence would inevitably reduce the number of children in care. Some even claimed chronic Indigenous welfare problems would disappear altogether. I once expressed my skepticism to a highly placed welfare bureaucrat. He candidly, if naively, responded: “How could it possibly be worse than the current situation?”

As it turned out, it could. To the story of Lester Desjarlais, we have added the equally tragic stories of Tina Fontaine, Phoenix Sinclair, Serenity and Devon Freeman, to name just a few of the better-known entries from a long list of despair. In Manitoba, approximately 90 percent of the province’s 11,000 children under the care of a child welfare agency are Indigenous, either on or off reserve. The biological parents of these children are often themselves products of an Indigenized child welfare system.

And because off-reserve adoption has been so severely discouraged, many children are placed in temporary foster care instead of with permanent families. This means that when they reach adulthood they are often left to fend for themselves, without any reliable family supports. This is one major reason why the majority of homeless people on Winnipeg’s streets are believed to be former child welfare wards. Meanwhile, FASD takes its toll on reserves, generation after generation.

Many of the Indigenous organizations given responsibility for child welfare were initially incapable of protecting native kids. Training and education among staff were dramatically different from the provincially-run agencies and these problems were exacerbated by dysfunction and corruption within other reserve institutions, including school boards and local government, as the Lester Desjarlais inquiry painfully illustrated. Again, this is not a racially-motivated accusation; the size of many reserves’ polity leaves them especially prone to conflicts of interest and nepotism. The problem of “small democracies” is detailed in University of Calgary academic Tom Flanagan’s 2016 study Corruption and First Nations in Canada.

Today, staff at Indigenous-run agencies are much better credentialed and the organizations more professional. After several decades of devolution, the care provided to children at risk is now largely equivalent to provincially-run child welfare agencies. Yet the statistics continue to worsen. Indigenization alone is clearly not sufficient to remedy the massive problems facing Indigenous children. Regardless of who is in charge, the root causes remain: addiction, family breakdown and poor community oversight. It has even become common for Indigenous child welfare workers to be criticized for making the same difficult choices that federal and provincial child welfare workers once made during previous eras.

 

When devolution began, it was common for Indigenous agencies to declare that no native babies would ever be apprehended from maternity wards. Parental and cultural rights would trump the rights of children at risk. This belief is further embedded in Bill C-92 through its “cultural continuity” requirement. Yet Indigenous child welfare officials have lately come to realize that leaving a newborn baby with his or her mother can be so fraught with risk that immediate apprehension is the only safe option.

That was the situation in the high-profile G (DF) case, in which a Winnipeg-based Indigenous child welfare agency tried to detain an addicted pregnant mother for treatment. She had previously given birth to several brain-damaged babies, yet the Supreme Court of Canada ultimately decided that detention violated the mother’s rights and, hence, was unlawful. The child, and many others since, was therefore consigned to a fate of painfully low chances.

After more than 30 years on the bench, it was clear to me that governments and agencies have very little control over how parents actually care for their children, or the eventual outcomes. Child welfare workers, Indigenous or non-Indigenous, are all motivated by a deep desire to do what is best for children under their watch. If a child has become a permanent ward of the state, it is almost certain that his or her home life was thoroughly and irreparably dysfunctional. Accordingly, the only way to remedy the high number of native children in foster care is to tackle the root cases. Family dysfunction on reserves is not the fault of child welfare agencies. The blame lies with parents and their communities.

It is this difficult reality that the federal government was trying to cope with using residential schools, and the provinces with the Sixties Scoop. Given the subsequent failure of devolution to remedy the situation, it is impossible to imagine a further push to sever native child welfare from the rest of the country will yield the desired results.

If Canada truly wishes to reduce the number of Indigenous children in foster care – and all Canadians have a stake in this outcome − we must start by emphasizing the importance of sobriety, parental responsibility and family stability among all citizens. Instead, Ottawa has chosen to place the blame for native child welfare failures on past injustices such as colonialism and institutional racism.

Ring any bells? 

"...there's going to be fruit sitting on the ground rotting"

 Alexandra 387

Balclutha  594

Dunedin Central 3,241

Gore  562

Invercargill 3,033

Mosgiel 414

Oamaru 704

Queenstown 588

South Dunedin 984

Timaru 1,655

Total 12,162

These are the number of people on Jobseeker Support at September 30, 2020.

I post them on the back of a conversation between Mike Hosking, Mark Mitchell  and Stuart Nash on NewstalkZB this morning. Nash was in denial that there are thousands of people on the unemployment benefit who don't want to work whereas Mark Mitchell had been down to the Blossom festival in Alexandra and said there are "six and a half thousand jobs empty at the moment"  as a consequence "there's going to be fruit sitting on the ground rotting."

No lockdown for Lockey

 On the lighter side of life, prior to the first lockdown I was providing daycare for two extra dogs. The arrangement had run for about a year. Lockey, a chihuahua cross, was slow to warm to me. On our very first day together out walking he took off, me in vain pursuit and high-tailed it for home. I gathered up the other ward and my own, went home. We drove around to his house on the hill and coaxed him back into the car. The months passed and Lockey got surer about me. Then April came and the arrangement couldn't stand. But within days there was yapping at the front gate. Lockey had brought himself around. And so the habit has continued. Most days he turns up early and someone will collect him late in the day. We have all agreed that it works for him and it works for us.

Purposefully re-purposing motels

Apparently some moteliers have sold out to purchasers happy to accommodate the need for emergency housing. They charge way over the normal asking price per unit and seem prepared to operate this new 'model'. I've heard multiple reports of damage and trouble associated with some WINZ occupants (and it can't be pleasant for other WINZ occupants having to live amongst it either). 

Regardless, the practise and cost to the taxpayer is ballooning. In the last September quarter it was reported at $83 million - up from $9 million three years ago. 

The following recent post from a motel owner seems to suggest the conclusion I had arrived at - that the government would do better to buy these motels outright and modify or rebuild - is already afoot. Although asking prices will be inflated it is better the taxpayer gets stung once rather than repeatedly and indefinitely. And under three more years of Labour more state housing of one form or another is a given.

Anyway lest I be accused of 'beneficiary bashing' yet again, here is the owner of Tongariro River Motel's experience and explanation for why he will no longer accept WINZ clients:

TRM continue to receive regular requests for emergency accommodation from WINZ/MSD-type “clients”. They are easily recognised when they request two or three weeks and never ask the $ room rate! TRM have recently been questioned for refusing their applications with criticism – accused of being selfishly selective – which deserves response.

TRM are targeted as it has older style low density with larger family units offering more spacious living accommodation. Every unit has under cover parking and fully equipped kitchens with full sized ovens, fridge freezer units, microwaves, etc. particularly to cater for fishos wanting to stay several weeks every year. Many of them from across the ditch are missing in action this season so the continual requests to provide “emergency housing” have continued.

It is understandable or simple economics in other motels which have been left struggling to survive with the lack of tourist traffic. When MSD clients need emergency housing they cannot afford not to open their doors. The “clients” are allowed to choose the motel which suits them best.

TRM’s first WINZ client last year booked a studio through the iSite for one week. As it was quiet at the time the room rate was reduced by 20% and she was upgraded into a larger one bedroom unit. After booking in, the rest of her whanau moved in with two large guard dogs for the rest of the week. It was a disaster.

When we visited the local WINZ office to request their help to remove them they denied any responsibility claiming the guest had booked through the iSite. When their culpability was questioned they called their security guards and I was “escorted” off the premises. Unbelievable!

During the difficult covid lockdown period TRM remained open and reluctantly accepted two other desperate cases. Both had unfortunate issues which were incompatible with other fishy guests, who advised they would not return if TRM was going to accommodate these emergency guests. We had to agree with them. After property damage and thefts they were both forced to leave anyway.

So for an obviously selfish reason TRM have continued their “no-WINZ” clients policy. We trust you can understand why. It is hard to believe how other motels persevere with them at all. In Taupo and Rotorua we know of massive motel price hikes to compensate for the anticipated damage and trouble, but that is not our style. TRM management and inmates prefer the motel to be half empty to enjoy the jovial considerate company of anglers instead. It is such a cruel world out there.

On the PM going forward

 The election has come and gone and we have the same Prime Minister. She says she will govern "for all New Zealanders". If that was possible then our whole political system would be redundant. She can't govern for me because I disagree with her philosophical ideas about how to solve problems. If she could govern for all New Zealanders why did ACT garner so many votes? It's a fatuous statement accorded no critical analysis. What's more, she isn't a personality who can turn a diversity of opinion  into consensus because she is a polariser. New Zealanders either think she is The Second Coming, or see her as a signaller of little substance. No doubt she is smart and strong. That doesn't dictate that she has any sense of what she wants to achieve for New Zealand or how to go about it. The first three years have demonstrated that. If the problem was actually NZ First, or the Greens, she now has the golden opportunity to prove that. I'm sticking with my initial prediction that she won't make a dent in child poverty and the many regrettable statistics that show child wellbeing in NZ leaves much to be desired.

Bitter sweet nostalgia and a prediction I stand by

From my archives, a post written just prior to the 2017 election:

Jacinda versus Bill: TV One Debate

Jacinda would be great cast as the humble, charismatic  up-and-coming politician who wins hearts and minds. Tom Hanks would play the male equivalent.

But this is an election. Not Hollywood.

Bill wouldn't be cast by any director. He gets tongue-twisted, he misses his cues and he resides very much in the head space where facts are a given and don't need ardent defence or advocacy. They speak for themselves - thank goodness. Because he does't.

But on a more subtle level, Bill versus Jacinda found a perfect performance in him. There was not a skerrick of anything  unsightly or ugly. He looks like the man who continues to do the business; who gets what aspiring NZers are about, and is respectful. We might have preferred more sass and sparks but that wasn't going to happen.

Bill is a bit of a bumbler. The crew had to contain him when the show ended. He went to move away and then realised he was supposed to stay still. Is that the man who can't wait to get out of the limelight or the man who needs to move on to the next task?

Personally I just think it's the man who has a job to do and finds all of the media stuff an unwelcome intrusion and burden.

That's the kind of character I would to prefer running the country.

Let's never forget that as Minister for Social Welfare Steve Maharey spent his period in office defending welfare dependency. Bill English turned that on its head. He sought to understand what drove it and what would reduce it. English goes deep when it comes to social deprivation.

Jacinda would return to pulling the levers that drive it.

The longer we delay raising the Super age, the more painful it will be

 The country is facing  not only a cartload (polite descriptor) of debt to be repaid but burgeoning costs of supporting a rapidly expanding 65+ population.

An article from Stuff today compares NZ's system to others noting:

This year’s Global Pension Index from Mercer showed that New Zealand’s retirement income system had slipped down the rankings, from eighth to 10th.

Then the retirement commissioner points out:

...that might sound worrying but the country was still in the “B team”. Only Netherlands and Denmark scored an A. 

What is the retirement age in these two countries?

 In the Netherlands it is currently 66 years and 4 months and will reach 67 in 2024. Most interestingly, "For those born after 30 September 1957, the statutory retirement age is linked to life expectancy."

And in Denmark what was 65 is gradually rising to age 67 from 2019 to 2022 and to age 68 by 2030.

New Zealand is well out of step with most other nations notably those we most frequently align with - the UK, Australia and the US.

The longer we delay raising the Super age, the more rapid and painful the inevitable implementation will be.

Little will to get people into jobs

 

When people receive a benefit they have certain obligations eg to accept a job when one becomes available. If they fail to meet these obligations they lose part or all of their benefit.

Has that become an archaic idea?

Naturally the imposition of sanctions dropped off during the initial lock-down but since then the numbers have been very low.

I believe one reason is that WINZ has been so busy processing applicants for assistance other functions have been suspended.

But it is also likely that compaints from various sectors that they can't find workers is also connected with WINZ reticence/inability to actually chase people up to meet their obligations.

When Labour took office in 2017 they appointed the Welfare Expert Advisory Group to make recommendations on the overhaul of the welfare system. Here is an excerpt from one of the papers provided to the group:

Out of 40 [OECD] countries, New Zealand ranked:

 6th most strict for availability requirements and suitable work criteria

 20th (in the middle of the group) for strictness of job-search requirements and

monitoring

 27th for strictness of sanctions

 14th most strict overall (Langenbucher, 2015).

It'd be safe to say NZ will have fallen down those rankings since. 

Over a third of Maori children on welfare before first birthday

 

Around 36 percent of Maori children aged 0 were included in a benefit during the year ended July 2020. This is up from 33.7% in the year to July 2017. For non-Maori the proportion is 18% - up from 15.9% three years earlier.

These stats sit at the core of ongoing and disproportionate Maori disadvantage.

The answer isn't to increase benefit payment rates (which the new Labour government will come under enormous pressure to do.) It's to increase educational achievement and employment.