"Don't divide us.nz"

 This is a great initiative. While double-vaccinated I am deeply uncomfortable with coercion to comply and this presents a "middle ground" solution:

“Vaccine OR Testing” Campaign Launched

A family advocate and an educational leader (also a registered nurse with a PhD in aged care) are making a joint application to get a rapid COVID test authorised in New Zealand so that thousands of kiwis don’t lose their jobs on the 16^th November under the Government’s proposed ‘no jab no job’ mandate.

 

A joint application has been made to import, distribute and use The Sienna Covid-19 Rapid Antigen Test on behalf of workplaces, community groups, places of faith, and families who have workers or family members who with good conscience do not want to take the vaccine.

 

The rapid antigen test has been approved by the FDA. It is a self-contained Naso-pharyngeal test, needing no machine, is up to 99% accurate, takes 10 minutes to get the result, and affordable for those who don’t want to take the vaccine.

 

It will be the obligation of those not jabbed to provide proof of regular testing. This alternative approach will – as the FDA recently said - help meet the public health needs as we respond to COVID.

 

While both applicants have chosen to be double-jabbed and support the vaccination programme, they are justifiably concerned that New Zealanders may be excluded from their teaching or nursing job, or sporting career, or going to their marae, going to church or the mosque or the gym or hair salon, university to study, weddings, visiting family members in prison, attending events – and there are many other examples – because they have chosen out of good conscience not to be vaccinated.

 

We are looking for a reasonable and workable middle ground that doesn’t divide the country and set family members against each other.

 

A divided society with a ‘no jab no job’ mandate does not sit well with many New Zealanders – even those who support the vaccine programme. Unfortunately, under the current proposal by the Government, thousands and thousands of kiwis are going to lose their jobs in the next couple of weeks. It’s just not the kiwi way.

 

With new developments on treatments, the approach to COVID is constantly evolving. We need a cautious approach - but also flexibility as we learn more about the disease and treatment.

 

We have received support from teachers, education leaders, medical professionals, politicians, and church leaders from a number of faiths for this middle-ground approach.

 

An accompanying petition“Don’t Divide Us.nz” has also been launched – “We oppose the ‘no jab no job’ policy, which will create a divided New Zealand. We call on the Government to allow the use of COVID rapid antigen testing as an alternative for unvaccinated kiwis to access workplaces, schools, maraes, large gatherings, and places of worship.”

 

We call for an approach to COVID that targets the disease without dividing the country.

ENDS

 

For More Information and Media Interviews, contact:

Dr Christine Clark

Mob. 027 499 0142    

Bob McCoskrie

Mob. 027 55 555 42 

PM digging herself into a horrid hole

The Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern entered parliament vowing to reduce child poverty. She even made herself Minister of Child Poverty Reduction. A popular call.

But the PM is in trouble. Her halo is slipping. The country has turned on her covid response and  increasingly mistrusts her motives.

So today she went back to basics and promised more money for the poor children: increased Family Tax Credits and Best Start payments.

This mirrors the US where Biden has increased child benefits against a great deal of evidenced opposition. A typical critic says:

While money can help in the short run, the truth is that no country ever got out of poverty because of income redistribution (a point economist Thomas Sowell took great pains to demonstrate in his work). If such ‘redistribution’ could deliver such a happy outcome, the U.S. should have no child poverty at all.  ~ Veronique de Rugy

The thrust of US opposition is that more 'free' money into poor families with children reduces work effort. That could run the gamut of none-at-all to less. Workless families and children don't mix well when risks of health, education, and safety outcomes are weighed up.

Since Labour took office the number of children dependent on a benefit has risen by 21 percent or 36,000.

It's a dereliction of duty to simply keep upping benefit incomes with no thought to how children in workless families fare. Many are at the bottom of the heap and will face lifelong struggles. How do parents with no work responsibilities integrate their children into that world?

But the PM is hostage to her promises and hellbent on delivering measurable income increases unrelated to work effort, while simultaneously and steadfastedly ignoring the unwanted side effects. 

Relationship between unemployment rate and unemployment benefits

Graphs are great tools for getting the big picture. Here I have plotted the unemployment rate against 'unemployment' benefits:

The heavy blue line is a combination of unemployment and sickness benefits. In 2013 the two benefits were combined into the single Jobseeker benefit (heavy brown line) but still with two categories - JS Work Ready and JS Health Condition and Disability.

The broken line is the official unemployment rate BUT expressed as a percentage of 18-64 year-olds, not 15+. Thats why in Sept 2021 it's 4.4% - a point higher than the rate announced yesterday of 3.4%

The vertical lines mark the changes of government.

Points of note:

1/ The bottom line shows sickness is increasing. This is being driven primarily by increasing  psychiatric and psychological conditions. When National became government they believed not enough attention was being paid to those people on a sickness benefit. So they abolished it, intending case managers would put as much employment effort into that group if they were part of the overall jobseeker group. It appears that the line was arrested for a time but after Labour came back in in 2017 the line started to trend up again.

2/ During Labour's 1999-2008 term the heavy blue line is thereabouts the unemployment rate. During National's term 2008-2017 the heavy blue/brown line is consistently under the unemployment rate. This probably reflects at tougher, more effective approach to benefits (which some would describe as 'punitive').

3/ Covid is largely responsible for the late steep upward trajectory of the heavy brown line BUT is was trending up before March 2020. My last post explained why the line has crossed the unemployment rate line and there is now a large gap between the two.

4/ The covid upturn is very similar to the GFC onset in magnitude. Lockdowns (policy within control of government) caused as much job loss as the global financial crisis (outside of government control).

5/ Another observation some would make is the gap between the unemployment rate and unemployment benefit lines during National's term is now being corrected by Labour. Labour is more generous with benefits. The gap right now is a reversal of the period 2011-17.

There's another line.

It's the very fine line between being generous with benefits and entrenching dependency and all the misery that entails.

Unemployment rate: treat with caution

The New Zealand Herald ran this chart from a private research company called Sense Partners. The chart depicts Maori numbers in the North Island and highlights that the officially unemployed and Jobseeker claimants are trending in opposite directions:

To be officially unemployed a person needs to be available for and seeking work. Just over  30,000 Maori in the North Island are officially unemployed. 

But over 70,000 are on a Jobseeker benefit.

Why?

1/ You can be on the Jobseeker benefit with no immediate work obligation, so not officially unemployed.

For instance the old Sickness Benefit was rolled into the new Jobseeker benefit. So now 38 percent of all Jobseeker claimants are classified as having a Health Condition or Disability which excuses them from immediate work requirements. Not officially unemployed.

2/ You can be on the Jobseeker benefit with part-time or seasonal work so not officially unemployed. With work becoming more tenuous and interrupted more people will be claiming a Jobseeker benefit while having some attachment to the workforce. 

In addition, under a Labour government implementing reforms recommended by the now Governor General Cindy Kiro as head of the Welfare Expert Advisory Group, the softening of WINZ approach towards requiring people to look for work (sanctions and employment focus have both reduced) releases more from the official  definition of unemployed. 

Back to the Maori stats highlighted in the chart, in Northland, a region with a high Maori population the unemployment rate is 3.9% yet the Jobseeker rate is 10.5 percent.

In the general population the figures are:

Unemployment rate     3.4% 

Jobseeker rate     6.1%

 All benefit-dependent rate   11.3% 

Important numbers to remember whenever you hear Grant Robertson, the Finance Minister, waxing lyrical about the wonderfully low unemployment rate.

Downward trajectory of prison population continues

 The latest prison stats came out yesterday. The downward trend continues:

Looking at a broader view the pink area would now be at the horizontal axis:

Out of interest I have graphed individual prison musters at Sept 2017 compared to Sept 2021 and a couple stand out as having very large reductions:

I was volunteering up at Rimutaka during 2017 and it was pretty chocker, also housing overflow from Arohata. Their roll has since dropped from 1,067 to 623 - a 42% reduction. Waikeria has reduced by 45 percent. Arohata's population has reduced by a massive 64 pecent.

On the other hand Mt Eden has only shed 4%. But Mt Eden is primarily a remand prison. Which might say something about reduced offending not being a driver of shrinking musters.

The total NZ prison population has fallen from 10,470 to 8,034 - a 23 percent reduction.

Which made me wonder if the staffing levels are still the same?

The most recent data source is the Annual Report 2019/20 which says, "Our frontline team includes 4,103 corrections officers..." In 2016/17 there were approximately 3,800 corrections officers. Not a perfect match for the graph timeline but the trend in corrections officer numbers would appear slightly upward.

The vast majority of the staff I interacted with were good people.  I hope having a better officer- to- prisoner ratio is making their job a bit easier. 

"A petition that keeps growing"

 Not normally a petition signer I have added my name to this one calling for:

"A petition that keeps growing" is how Kiwiblog describes it.

People say it will make no difference BUT if it gets to the point where  mainstream media can't ignore it, I would be satisfied.

MSD stocktake: "...not yet following the desired direction of travel..."

The Ministry of Social Development, Carmel Sepuloni's portfolio, has just released its annual report. Here are some of the indicators of their 'progress':

Average future years on a benefit:

Median time to house clients on the housing register:

Percentage of clients exiting main benefit who return to main benefit (within one year):

Client net trust score:

The official word on this failure is:

Results, in general, indicate that performance is not yet following the desired direction of travel for all indicators.

The Chief Executive's forward should reassure us all though. Never fear - the waka is turning!

No jab, no unemployment benefit

 As this country inches closer to a 'no vaccination, no job' scenario, the question on my mind - one I'm sure must have crossed others - is, will vaccinations be mandated for receipt of an unemployment (or other) benefit?

The 2011 welfare working group set up under National (not to be confused with the Labour's WEAG headed by Cindy Kiro, about to be sworn in as new GG) considered whether benefits could be used to compel parents to immunise their children. The idea was never implemented. A condition of receiving the Young Parent Payment for 16-19 year-olds stopped at, "you must also enrol your child (or children) at a medical centre or with a doctor."

Australia financially penalises parents who fail to immunse their child through reducing family benefit. That began under the Howard government. So there is a sort of precedent for linking vaccination to benefit receipt.

I've had a look around the world to see what other countries are doing in this area. Not much. Most are still grappling with mandating vaccines for certain employment sectors.

In the US unemployment benefits (which are distinct from other  Social Security benefits):

If an employer terminates you because you don’t follow its policies, it has “cause” to fire you. And if you’re fired “for cause,” you may be ineligible to claim unemployment benefits.

“Every state defines ‘for cause’ differently,” Mariel Smith, partner at law firm Hall Booth Smith, PC. “Most states have similar statutes that indicate if an employee is terminated for breaking company policy, the employee would be denied unemployment benefits.”

Further:

 Some states have made it clear that people terminated for not adhering to vaccination policies are likely precluded from receiving benefits. Oregon is one example of a state that has mandated health care, education, and government workers to get vaccinated. The head of the state Employment Department has said eligibility will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, but those terminated by public or private employers for refusing to get vaccinated probably won’t be eligible.

Notice in the first sentence two incomaptible words - 'clear' followed by 'likely'. The latter negates the former. Oregon sounds more definitive. 

Three days ago:

New York state's labor department makes clear on its website that workers in health care facilities, schools and nursing homes who quit or are terminated for refusing the vaccine will be ineligible for unemployment benefits, unless they qualify for a medical or religious exemption to the mandate.

 Last month in Austria:

Job seekers in Austria will risk losing some of their unemployment benefits if they turn down a job offer because it requires getting vaccinated against COVID-19, local media reported Thursday.  

Austria’s Der Standard newspaper shared a letter sent on Aug. 25 by the Austrian Labor Ministry to the Austrian Public Employment Service (AMS).

It said that In the event that job hunters refuse any employment offer due to a requirement to get vaccinated, the AMS will have the right to cut their unemployment benefits.

In this case, the unemployment benefits of job seekers who do not have a medical excuse for not getting vaccinated can be blocked for up to six weeks.

This month in Canada:

 People [core public service, as well as air travel and rail employees]  who’ve had only one dose will be given 10 weeks to get their next one before they are put on unpaid leave. They won’t be allowed back at work until they’re either vaccinated or the policy is no longer in effect. Employees put on unpaid leave will generally not qualify for employment insurance benefits, say officials.

That's all a variety of phrase searches turns up presently.

For a long time New Zealanders have appeared happy to pay taxes to support people who choose not to work/ make themselves unemployable. That's the price of having a safety net they say.

But considering how bitterly and deeply divided society here and around the world  is becoming over the decision to covid vaccinate or not, this could be when intolerance of carrying others sets in.

Those who have reluctantly immunised themselves to stay employed (and for other reasons) may feel deep resentment against those who have refused and want to be financially supported as a consequence.

There will be compulsory vaccination ramifications for the welfare state. Just how significant, remains to be seen.

MSD: "What's happening to the number of sole parents on a benefit?"

Until the welfare reforms of 2013 most sole parents on a benefit relied on the DPB - not exclusively but mainly.

Since the introduction of the Sole Parent Support (SPS) benefit, which sole parents only qualify for until their youngest child turns 14, it's been harder to track how many sole parents are actually reliant on welfare. Far more are now receiving Jobseeker support.

Usefully MSD released some research in September, "What's happening to the number of sole parents on a benefit?" Numbers have been increasing - in part due to the economic effect of lock downs  - and they wanted to predict whether the growth trend will continue. More on that later.

First some facts. At January 2021 there were "around 99,000 sole parents receiving a main benefit". Yet at December 31, 2020 there were just 67,563 on SPS. That highlights the significant difference I was talking about. Almost fifty percent more than receive SPS are relying on other benefits.

Of the current total 46 percent are Maori, 28 percent NZ European and 12 percent Pacific Island. Other/ unspecified make up the remainder.

On the upside 99,000 is still fewer than  in the early 2000s. The chart below covers 1996 to the present. The decline since the GFC is due to the falling teen birth rate and increased employment rates of sole parents.

If  the trend reversal could be pinpointed it looks like the beginning of 2018 - well before covid.

As to whether the trend will continue, the authors expect the growth to be "temporary."

I am less certain.

Since Labour took over there has been a clear shift in approach to sole parents. Financial penalties for not naming the father of a child were abolished and early work obligations for mothers who add a child to an existing benefit have been removed. Benefit payment rates increased as did family tax credits, including the Best Start payment for 0-2 year-olds.

The paper itself gives clues to an attitudinal change. For instance,"A strong work focus may not be appropriate for all parents in the long-term..."

There is also a cultural tolerance, bordering on apologism, for the high rate of Maori dependence with,"Wahine Māori have higher and earlier fertility rates than other women, meaning they are more likely to require support from the benefit system as a parent."

Further to this, the following statement appears to endorse sole parenthood for Maori: "...research suggests for tamariki Māori, diverse family trajectories, including living in a sole parent household, may be associated with higher levels of cultural connectedness in some cases."

So in light of the above, including racial indulgence, I will not be surprised if the numbers of sole parents on a benefit actually continues to grow.

And now for something completely different...

From March through November 2019 I conducted weekly interviews with local composer, musician and teacher, Dorothy Buchanan. It had been a joint ambition to get Dotty's memoirs recorded and formed into a book. But I hadn't expected to personally get so much out of the process; transcribing, researching, the geneological tracing and chronological  ordering of material; visits to the Alexander Turnbull Library where the composer's ephemera is held; trawling through reference publications and microfiche material. So much pleasurable learning about a person and a process.

Dotty is an amazing individual who achieved so much so young, and simply never stopped. At just seventeen,  she was playing violin in the Christchurch Civic Orchestra,  – the forerunner to the Christchurch Symphony Orchestra; at eighteen she recorded her Mass in English and received performance royalties from the NZBC for the first time. At nineteen she was leading the Christchurch Orchestral Society, and at twenty – when long distance air travel was in its infancy - Dotty celebrated her birthday with a Pimms in a London pub whilst on tour with the Christchurch Harmonic Society.

Her musical pedigree comes through both sides of the family and goes back generations. But her origins are West Coast and humble. The opening chapter will evoke their own memories for New Zealanders of a similar vintage.

'The Birds Began To Sing' is about to be released by Cuba Press. The first few pages can be read here by clicking on 'look inside'.

Long-term benefit dependency is growing

Long-term benefit dependency is growing, and it was growing before Covid, though the advent of the virus has obvioulsy played a role.

The blue line shows the effect of the first March 2020 lockdown and then returns to near  'normality'.

The orange line however continues to climb and the gap between the two extends.

A significant contributor to this is psychological and psychatric conditions - rising sharply after the first lock down -  keeping people on Jobseeker HCD (Health Condition and Disability). Over the same time frame:

There are also over 32,000 adults on a Supported Living Payment (ex Invalid benefit) suffering from pyschological or psychiatric disorders. That's up around 4,000 over the same period.

These numbers are very sad. It's just horrible to think of thousands of mentally unwell people unable to get treatment and live functioning lives.

If you need a lift...

Give Us Hope Jacinda update:

More weasel-wokery; more welfarism

Yesterday I wrote about a recent law change which effectively encourages adding children to an existing benefit.

Here's the next move in this government's reckless expansion of welfarism.

But first some background:

"The introduction of a statutory DPB [1973] represented a major shift towards public responsibility for the financial support of sole parents, but it did not extinguish private maintenance obligations. Applicants for the DPB continued to be required to take maintenance proceedings as a condition of being granted the statutory benefit until the introduction of the Liable Parent Contribution Scheme in 1981, when the Department of social Welfare took over this responsibility and sole parents had only to name the liable parent. This policy was continued when the Child Support Act came into effect in 1992. There is no maintenance disregard: all maintenance received is paid into the Consolidated Account to offset the cost of providing the benefit.  For almost all sole parents on benefit, therefore, receipt of maintenance makes no difference to their income."

The government that created the DPB was regarded as generous in providing a secure income regardless of whether or not the father (or sometimes non-custodial mother) paid maintenance/child support. The taxpayer would henceforth be picking up the majority of the tab for the family upkeep.

Fast forward to 2021 and reason has flown the coop.

Various advocates now want the partial reimbursement the father has been making to the taxpayer to go direct to the mother.

An Auckland professor says, "At the moment it just sends the signal that the government wants to take the money for itself."

By implication the government is no longer generous. It is greedy.

The Children's Commissioner, Andrew Becroft also says current practice 'fails the fairness test.'

But if  the $150m currently collected from non-custodial parents is not used to offset the benefit then the unseen invisible taxpayer will have to stump up with it. Because there sure as heck won't be a reduction in benefit rates. So that 'passes the fairness test'? How so?

But wait. Here's comes the inevitable weasel-wokery. According to Becroft, because more than half of sole parent beneficiaries are Maori, it's a RACIST law.

Naturally enough the Minister for Social Development, Carmel Sepuloni is acquiescing, agreeing that the law is "discriminatory," needs to change and that "the mahi on it is underway."

The upshot will be 1/ a rise in the income of sole parent beneficiaries which increases disincentive to work and 2/ a funding shortfall (one of many) inevitably leading to higher taxation.

Carte blanche to keep having kids on a benefit

 An evidence brief prepared for Oranga Tamariki and published in April 2021 contains some fascinating data.

It looks at people born 1997 to 2002. At around 60,000 each year that should be around 300,000. And so it is:

The first group is those who had interaction with both care and protection (CP) and youth justice (YJ). You can figure the rest from there.

The next shows the association with benefits at age 17:

Looking at just the first group 19% had already received their own benefit; in the past year 23% had a parent who'd received Jobseeker; 20% a parent on sole parent support and 8% with a parent receiving suported living payment.

That totals to 70 percent. (This might be an overcount because it's feasible one parent received both types of benefit in the same year but the paper doesn't spell out any overlap).

For those 17 year-olds who had never been involved with care and protection or youth justice the equivalent number was just 13 percent.

The link between long-term benefit dependence and appearing in the care and protection or youth justice systems is very strong.

On Thursday last week the government effectively sent a message that it's fine to be on a benefit and keep having kids. They passed a law to undo prior attempts to discourage this, known as the 'subsequent child policy'. Put simply, a rule to stop people avoiding work obligations by having more babies.

Why has the government done this?

Here's Minister for Social Development Carmel Sepuloni:

The subsequent child policy has a disproportionate effect on Māori women. By removing the policy, we can further our commitment to improving outcomes for Māori and valuing the role of carers, who are predominantly women. 

Maori make up 56% of the people adding children to a benefit. 

So I leave you with one last graph from the brief:

The last Labour government swept having babies on a benefit under the carpet. That was bad enough. 

Now it's overt and encouraged.

Madness.

Still waiting for Jacinda to start on "that list"

 

Replying to a column by David Seymour when she was still in opposition Jacinda Ardern wrote:

...our welfare state is having to pick up everything  that is broken – ridiculous housing costs, low wages, people working multiple jobs to put food on the table and barely see their children, an education system that leaves too many behind, and a generation of kids who have lost hope.

If you want to genuinely help turn the bus around, start with that list.

 Over five years later - half a decade - and what's changed?

That old hoary chesnut about Maori children being forced to speak English

Graham Adams details a number of media failures to provide the full story culminating with: 

Perhaps the most egregious omissions, however, occurred during Maori Language Week, which ran from 13-19 September. The programme aims to encourage wider use of te reo, with relevant stories featuring heavily in most media outlets. 

Several times over the week readers would have seen references to Maori being beaten for speaking te reo at school. 

On Stuff, the Human Rights Commission’s chief executive, Rebecca Elvy, was reported saying: “State-sanctioned attempts to assimilate Māori into British culture through the removal of language have a long and documented history in Aotearoa. For more than 100 years Māori children were beaten and traumatised in Native Schools for speaking their reo.” 

In the Guardian, former RNZ journalist Eva Corlett wrote: “When Aotearoa was colonised, Europeans actively set out to erase Māori language and culture. Schoolchildren were beaten for speaking it.” 

On RNZ, former Labour Māori Affairs Minister Dover Samuels related his experience of being caned in the 1940s for speaking te reo — and asked the Queen to send Prince William to apologise for this injustice. 

It is extremely rare for any journalist or editor to put this unfortunate practice of corporal punishment into a historical context. The sad fact is that caning or being strapped was an extremely common form of punishment for school children of any race until at least the 1970s. Qualifying misdemeanours could be as minor as having dirty shoes, an untidy sports locker or talking in class. Thrashings were so commonplace they were unremarkable. 

But a much more significant omission is the fact that well-intentioned Pakeha and Māori alike during the late nineteenth century and early decades of the twentieth believed teaching Māori children English as a priority was the best way of helping them prosper. Banning any Māori being spoken in schools — and punishing those found speaking it — was an inevitable extension of such a policy. 

And it was, in fact, Maori leaders who pushed most energetically for English to be the only medium of instruction in Native Schools. 

In 1871, newly elected MP Karaitiana Takamoana pointed out in Parliament that missionaries had been teaching children “for many years, and the children are not educated. They have only taught them in the Māori language. The whole of the Māoris in this island request that the government should give instructions that the Māoris should be taught in English only.” 

A petition by Wi Te Hakiro and 336 others presented to the House of Representatives in 1876 recommended: ”There should not be a word of Māori allowed to be spoken in the school, and the master, his wife and children should be persons altogether ignorant of the Māori language.“ 

There were more, including one by Renata Kawepo and 790 others. They asked that: “The government should use every endeavour to have schools established throughout the colony, so that the Maori children may learn the English language, for by this they will be on the same footing as the Europeans, and will become acquainted with the means by which the Europeans have become great.” 

Piri Ropata and 200 others also asked that Māori children be given the opportunity to be instructed only in English at school. 

The great Sir Apirana Ngata — who served as Minister of Native Affairs, was ranked third in Cabinet and whose image graces our $50 note — was positively evangelical in his campaign in the 1920s and 1930s to have English given priority in Māori primary schools. He argued that proficiency in the English language was “the key with which to open the door to the sciences, the mechanised world, and many other callings”. 

Furthermore, it was an approach endorsed by many Māori parents, who backed teachers disciplining their children for speaking te reo because they believed learning English was the path to success. 

The essential countervailing fact that helps make sense of these campaigns is, of course, that te reo was widely spoken in homes and marae, where Ngata and other leaders believed it would continue to prosper. In short: Māori at home; English at school.

OT Report starts with half-truths

The Oranga Tamariki Ministerial Advisory Board report released today paints a picture of pre-colonisation nirvana. There s a heavy emphasis on Maori because Maori children dominate among OT's caseload, and the Board members are all Maori.

It begins with a section called, TE AU O TE KANOHI MĀORI, which translates as 'The Maori Eye'.

It states  "...the reality for tamariki Māori " was they "were nurtured and treasured as the centre, the pito, the magnetic pole of Māori society in pre-colonial times."

"We recognise that of course Māori are not unique in treasuring their tamariki as the strength and centre of their culture and their economy, and of the wealth and health of all their futures. This is a common scenario across humanity and particularly in pre-industrialised economies where the health of the collective was what mattered. It is our view that the processes of colonisation, bringing urbanisation and commodification of people as units of production has broken that down. Inevitably transported to Aotearoa New Zealand with settlers from industrialising Europe, a view of organising family as individual units with tamariki as a subset - and in some Victorian eyes to be seen and not heard - has been imposed."

People were also "units of production" pre-industrialisation. They did back-breaking work in fields and their survival depended on the climate's co-operation. A pining for our agrarian past isn't prevalent among the general population.

Individual family units were not imposed on Maori. For decades Maori remained predominantly rurally-based and lived on and around maraes. But as they moved to the towns and cities for better paying jobs (turning their backs on working as agricultural units of production) they began to arrange themselves similarly to Europeans, just as they had adopted European dress and housing.

The report goes on to complain about the misrepresentation of warrior culture which apparently actually existed for the protection of children.

"An example has been the portrayal of this role as the warmongering, aggressive leader of the community. While the depiction may have become self-fulfilling for some, the primary role of a warrior was to provide for the community and to keep it safe from harm."

Safe from what harm? Other warriors seeking to violently plunder and pillage for starters.

So here we have yet another report which starts from fallacy. Let's be generous. Half-truths.

How Maori lived before colonisation was much better. Children were safer being raised by the collective. Therefore a return to that way of organising Maori society is the solution.

"While the context of the 21st century is different from that of pre-colonisation, views shared with us from hapū, iwi and Māori organisations indicate that these responsibilities and structures must be rebuilt so that the whānau can once again be self-determining."

The Minister Kelvin Davis has accepted every recommendation summarised as:

-Decision making and resources to be shifted to communities, with children and whānau at the centre of the system

-A new operating model, with better support and training for social workers

-Without notice orders (uplifts) to be only used after proper engagement with whānau

I find it ironic that one Maori Minister wants to centralise control for the benefit of Maori (Three Waters) while another seeks to decentralise control for the benefit of Maori (Oranga Tamariki).

Bouquet for OT social worker

An Oranga Tamariki social worker makes a cameo appearance at their site. This seems primarily to encourage more people to become social workers. I want to take my hat off to this one, Racheal, for the following observation:

She says one of the most satisfying things about social work is seeing changes in the lives of the people she works with: returning tamariki to their whānau and setting them up for success, seeing parents getting jobs and gaining self-respect, being greeted by young people in the street (‘Levin is a small place!’).

Connecting 'jobs' with 'self-respect' seems almost radical.

Not sure how she slipped through the net. 

But a bouquet to her.

I've seen this process first hand too. When people have either been disconnected from the workplace long-term or never worked full-stop, getting a job can be a huge hurdle. The prospect of creating a CV when there's bugger-all to put on it is totally demoralising. People feel inferior and worthless.

But  given a go, they just double in size.Somebody trusts them; somebody is willing to pay them to peform a role; they join their working mates. It's a lovely transformation to behold.

"Can Pakeha raise Maori children?"

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

 

Jobseeker benefit - new trend

 

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

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

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

Women run the show

 

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

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

Essentially women, collectively, are running the show.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Effect of lock down 2020 on satisfaction with govt

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

The propensity control group was surveyed before the pandemic.

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

Voting in the 2020 election confimed this pattern.

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

Does anyone think the effect will be the same?

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

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

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

Judge rules against Oranga Tamariki actions

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

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

This is the money quote:

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

There's the steer to Maori separatists within parliament.

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

'Expert' invokes myth

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

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

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

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

The United States led NZ.

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

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

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

Then:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Low Maori vaccination rates

John Tamihere on low Maori vaccination rates:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dropping like flies at Magic Talk

They're dropping like flies at Magic Talk.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'd be tuned in like a shot.

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

135,570 jobs

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

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

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

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

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

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

Inflated death rate over Covid-free summer

 

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

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

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

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

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

Officially:

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

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

I can only speculate. 

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

UNROC Submission

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

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

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

1/ UNROC ARTICLE 26 states: 

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

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

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

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

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

2/ UNROC ARTICLE 19 states: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ENDS

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

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

Most open and transparent govt ever

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

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

Today the following notice appeared:

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

The government has apparently prepared a response and says:

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

Furthermore:

Submissions are welcomed and encouraged from-

children and young people

forums that operate on behalf of children and young people

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

parents

interested individuals and experts

non-governmental organisations (NGOs)

professionals who work with children.

Wonderful. Inclusive. Participatory.

Except the notification appeared today and...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Make a submission. I'm going to.

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

Cruel to be kind

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But does she even get close to the second goal?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read the full report here

Eye-watering graph

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read the report here.

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

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

Here are my questions in response. 

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

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

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

Will cultural ties triumph over blood ties?

These questions literally keep me awake at night.

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

They were being what it is to be human.

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

Pause.

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

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

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

Gillespie wrong about ACT's support for conversion therapy law

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

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

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

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

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

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

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