Large majority think National should have done deal with Conservatives

A NewstalkZB poll surprises me. I'm one of the few 'no' votes. My preference is for ACT and a deal with the Conservatives might weaken that option:

Electorate deals Results

Should National have cut a pre-election deal with Colin Craig?

• Yes 94 %
• No 5 %
• Undecided 1 %

New Zealand's war on poverty is the same failed story

Jerry Newcombe marks 50 years of the US War on Poverty:

Rather than alleviate poverty in America, the War on Poverty helped increase it in the long run.
How so? It broke the back of the urban family. They chased dad out of the house. They subsidized illegitimacy and got more of it as a result. Some ghettos resemble a war zone.
Even liberal commentators, like Juan Williams, have said that the rates of children born to unwed mothers has been disastrous for everyone, especially the children.
President Reagan delivered his “Radio Address to the Nation on Welfare Reform” (2/15/86).
The 40^th president said, “In 1964 the famous War on Poverty was declared and a funny thing happened. Poverty, as measured by dependency, stopped shrinking and then actually began to grow worse. I guess you could say, poverty won the war. Poverty won in part because instead of helping the poor, government programs ruptured the bonds holding poor families together.”

Last week from NZPA:

• According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 72 percent of black children are born to single mothers.
• Fifty-five percent of black children live in single-parent homes, in contrast to 21 percent of white children that live in single-parent homes.

If those numbers are "staggering" consider these:


















New Zealand's war on poverty is the same failed story.

SNP promises jobs through cutting corporate tax

The Scottish National Party are promising "full employment" if Scotland becomes independent. How believable  that is matters not. What interested me was their measures to achieve it:

The plan sets out measures such as cutting corporation tax, boosting international exports and productivity, as well as getting a generation of women back into the workplace to create a jobs boom after a Yes vote...Full-time childcare for youngsters from the age of one is also proposed which could see a generation of women return to work and mean up to 35,000 more Scots in employment. Mr Swinney admitted independence “is not a magic wand”, but said few countries had Scotland’s economic potential.

That perhaps partially explains why fewer women want to become independent form the UK:

A BATTLE of the sexes is emerging in the debate over Scotland’s constitutional future, as women snub the Yes camp amid uncertainty about the consequences of leaving the UK.
Women have always been less supportive of independence than men, but the gap in attitudes between the sexes has doubled in the past year and now stands at a 15-year high, according to ScotCen research.

Pensioner policy - as bad as each other

The NZ Herald rightly describes Labour's bribe to pensioners:

It is too easy for political parties to promise handouts in election year. No rival is going to say senior citizens do not need it. The election becomes an auction in which all parties put up their bids at public expense. If the party wins power it is obliged to carry out the promise no matter how cheaply it was made. And once enacted, the benefit becomes almost impossible to remove. Taxpayers bear the waste and the economy loses the investment. It is one way that nations get poor.

But didn't their major rival, National, say "senior citizens do not need it"?

Not really. Their line is to highlight the hypocrisy of Labour saying 65-67 year-olds don't need Super but do need 'free' health care. This is just an opportunity for National to keep promoting their own stubborn  largess with taxpayer money.

Money management extended as expected - not far enough though

TV3 reports:

The Government will extend its money management welfare scheme to all teenage parents and many 18 and 19-year-old beneficiaries if it's re-elected.

The scheme was introduced in 2012 for 16 and 17-year-old beneficiaries and teenage parents up to 18.

Under the scheme, their rent and power is paid and they're given a charge card for other essentials.

They come under the guidance of an adult from a community organisation and have $50 a week spending money.

Social Development Minister Paula Bennett announced the extension today, confirming it was a National Party election policy.

This is timid. Some 19 year-old teen parents are already on the money management scheme because they entered the benefit system shy of 19 but must enrol with a  youth provider for at least 6 months.

Money management should be extended to any beneficiary who is repeatedly turning up at Work and Income needing extra hardship assistance. It's an especially justifiable policy to all those voters claiming to care about children experiencing hardship.

Assistance-in-kind is superior to money. It guarantees provision for basic needs and avoids the negative incentives that come with  'free' cash.

Independent individuals should be the ultimate aim, but in the interim, and by way of progressing that goal, a money management/assistance-in-kind regime is hard to argue with for any political party.

Cunliffe's poverty propaganda

In his campaign launch speech David Cunliffe said,

And we’ll tackle child poverty by increasing the minimum wage.

In the Child Poverty in New Zealand book by left-leaning Johnathan Boston and economist Simon Chapple there is a lengthy discussion about lifting minimum wages, implementing a living wage and the effect on child poverty. They summarise:

In short, the living wage proposal, whether implemented via an increase in the statutory minimum wage or through voluntary actions in particular sectors or industries, will do little to solve child poverty in New Zealand.

When we discussed this on Radio NZ Boston talked about the unemployment risks associated with raising the minimum wage, and I made the point that most people on the minimum wage aren't parents.

Yet Labour keep on rolling out this pointless anti-poverty policy.

Cunliffe concludes with another cherry-picked claim:

 We’ve seen more children in poverty...

Here are the official figures. By the favoured, highlighted measure there are the same number of children living in poverty as in the first year National was the government.

ACT on track to win Epsom

Like many voters who read this blog, I am watching Epsom. Here is the result of Q&A's Colmar Brunton poll released today:

Who would you vote for with your electorate vote?
National Paul Goldsmith 44%
Act David Seymour 32%
Labour Michael Wood 10%
Green Julie Anne Genter 9%
Conservative Christine Rankin 4%
Internet Mana Pat O'Dea 0.8%
Independent Grace Haden 0.3%
Don't know 8%

Were you aware John key is encouraging National Party supporters to give their electorate vote to the Act Party candidate?
Yes 70%
No 28%
Don't know 2%

With this in mind, who would you now vote for with your electorate vote?
National Paul Goldsmith 31%
Act David Seymour 45%
Labour Michael Wood 9%
Green Julie Anne Genter 10%
Conservative Christine Rankin 4%
Internet Mana Pat O'Dea .08%
Independent Grace Haden 0.1%
Don't know 13%

Do you support or oppose arrangements like the one John Key has made with the Act Party in Epsom?
Support 47%
Oppose 37%
Don't know 16%

Which political party would you vote for?
National 60%
Green 16%
Labour 14%
NZ First 3.3%
Act 2.7%
Conservative 2.1%
Internet Mana 1.5%
Maori 0.6%
Don't know 6%

The important revelation here is that a significant percentage of Epsom voters don't know about Key's endorsement of ACT. Without that knowledge they will vote the wrong way. That is, they won't be voting for the outcome they want. A National-led government.

Example of Metiria Turei being untruthful

Earlier today I referred to Metiria Turei "making stuff up" but there is no transcript or recording of last night's debate available. On two occasions I remember saying out loud, That's not true.

The Standard has helpfully summarised the debate between Paula Bennett and Metiria Turei and included this comment:

Bennett did the line about less teenagers giving birth and taking some credit for it. Turei said that trend started before the Nats came into government.

Here is the teenage (15-19) birth rate per 1,000 females over the past 20 years. The data comes from Statistics NZ Infoshare.The trend changed from  2008:

Bennett versus Turei on Prime last night

Did anyone watch Paula Bennett face off with Metiria Turei last night on Sean Plunket's new Prime TV show?

Paula can smile with eyes that are steely. She is the one that has had to do all the often thankless reform work over the past
six years; handle all the obnoxious personal critcisms. And having to put up with the smug, only-ever-been-in-opposition Metiria Turei at times making stuff up, brought out a display of the dour determination Bennett has needed.

Bennett won on the strength of evidence and strength of character.

But also of note, on Left side was Alan Johnson who is researcher for the Salvation Army Social Policy Unit. He conceded that the youth reforms have made a real difference to the numbers of teen parents and youth on a benefit.

This is hugely significant. After I really began to grasp welfare statistics, I realised that stopping the teenage inflow was crucial. That is what Bennett has started to achieve.

Metiria wasn't buying the youth reforms. Doesn't like the micromanagement,  reciprocal obligations, sanctions and money management. Still wants an unconditional ride with higher payment rates. I pray she gets nowhere near cabinet, ever.

Pregnancy subsidies grossly under-estimated

According to the NZ Herald:

Pregnant women would get free dental care, doctors' visits and prescriptions under a Labour Government in a plan to be unveiled at the party's campaign launch.The Weekend Herald understands a primary healthcare package for pregnant women costing just over $10 million will be one of two policy announcements on the day...
The Weekend Herald understands free dental healthcare for mothers would cost about $5 million a year, free GP visits about $4 million and free prescriptions about $1 million.

Based on 62,000 annual births (5 year average to 2013) that would allow $80 per mother for dental care.

But what about the mothers who are pregnant but then have an abortion or miscarry?  There are some 14,000 abortions annually. For the period that the female is pregnant she too will qualify for the pregnancy subsidies. And

Estimates suggest that 10-20% of confirmed pregnancies result in miscarriage

So the number of pregnant women swells again to around 90,000 annually.

So let's look at the estimate for their free prescriptions, the subsidy most likely to be taken up across all pregnancies.

$1 million for 90,000 females  averages at $11.11 each. Free GP estimate allows for $44.44 each. That's one visit.

Give me a break. Even if these estimates are additional to some existing care, they are peanuts.

Oh, and forgive me for my cynicism, but free dental care provides a rather significant incentive to get pregnant. Maybe not to stay pregnant though.

And consider for a moment debt-ridden dentists. Remember what happened when ACC allowed physiotherapists to provide up to 12 'free' sessions to people ACC clients?

The most important things expectant mothers should do are give up smoking, stop using drugs, strictly contain alcohol intake, and eat well.

Personal responsibility. It isn't society's responsibility to pay for and prioritise the foetus. It is the mothers. Because only she can guarantee it will happen.

Is our justice system too soft?

There have been a number of cases recently that seem to have remarkable outcomes. An obvious contender yesterday was the discharge without conviction of the teenager who beat-up Stephen Dudley, who subsequently died.

But that's not the one that caught my attention today.

A woman in the Waikato  stole over $90,000 from her employer.

Richard Annandale, prosecutor for the Department of Internal Affairs, said a feature that loomed large was the degree of trust placed in Hamilton...

Hamilton's lawyer, Eilidh Hook, said her client was very remorseful for her actions, had already paid $10,000 reparation to the court and was prepared to pay the remainder with a cleaning job that paid $240 per week.
Hamilton, who has a young child with her partner, initially had no intention of stealing the money.
It was simply "in front of her and it became a habit that she could not turn down", Hook said.
She asked for a sentence of community detention and community work so Hamilton could continue her part-time cleaning. But the judge declined to do that, given the gravity of the offending.
He also said he felt uneasy about having Hamilton left repaying such a large amount of money over such a long period of time, so ordered that she repay a total of $30,000 to Gittings. Given the fact she is pregnant and a first offender, Macdonald said a home detention sentence was appropriate.

FELT UNEASY. What the heck does that mean? Did he feel uneasy about the effect the crime had on the business owner? Did he feel uneasy about the message this woman sends to other employers about trust?

She only has to repay a third of what she stole. That's a tidy profit.

Waikato Chamber of Commerce chief executive Sandra Perry said bar owner Bernard Gittings has received a "double slap in the face".
Perry said not only was Gittings ripped off by employee Jane Hamilton but also he's only going to recoup one-third of the $90,000 stolen from his business.
"First of all the businessperson suffers and then the person doesn't get fair retribution. That just seems like a double slap in the face for him. Doesn't it look like crime pays?"
Perry said she had been shocked by the amount of fraud hitting Waikato businesses in recent times. Even more disturbing was the fact that most was committed by women, she said.

No wonder. The consequences  are soft.

Some sympathy for Guy McCallum

I don't know him, haven't talked with him. But I get where Guy is coming from. When Jamie Whyte said he "...had no interest in Maori bashing as a political game" I was relieved because the issue of race and privilege is  highly misunderstood and misrepresented. And it attracts genuine racists.

However, I agree with the principle of one law for all. In our relatively recent history Maori did not enjoy that status (eg shut out of or paid a pension at a lower rate.) So some latter day affirmative action could be perceived as justified. Whether that has been successful or should be continued needs to be talked about. Whether separate Maori courts, and health and social services are better than non-Maori should be up for debate.

When a political figure - intentionally or otherwise - starts people grumbling and rumbling, on either side of the fence, a defensive element wants to shut them down (Devoy). Another wants to inflame controversy by crying "bashers"and "racists" (the media). Others want to have their say (the public).

Guy doesn't want to be on the team that looks the way most of the anti-ACT media paints them. And he doesn't like the cynicism of stunts. But all politicians pull stunts in campaigns. I created a series of signs detailing Labour's multiple misuses of taxpayer money and erecting them illegally along the Esplanade during peak hour traffic. People still remember them.

Yesterday a friend who is fairly non-political asked me, "You were ACT weren't you?".

She went on to try and describe what Jamie Whyte was saying and how she thought he was right and brave. A friend of hers, who does accounts at a school with a Maori immersion unit, is very put out about the disparities in funding and resources. "People are concerned about this sort of stuff," she went on. And she wanted to know how to use her vote to make it a vote for Jamie.

So sometimes Guy, political candidates just have to suck it up. The media is not there to perform a policy education service. They will always seek to create controversy.

But potential ACT voters won't be told what to think by the media any more than they will be told what to think by the candidate. They know what they think. They are just waiting for a candidate who verbalises it.

Motivating the unemployed

Regarding the $3,000 payment to move to a job in Christchurch, the Southland Times reports:

Ministry of Social Development figures show 157 people throughout the country had so far made the move, with most coming from the southern, Nelson, Wellington and Bay of Plenty regions. There had been 24 from Southland.
The southern area includes Balclutha, Dunedin, Invercargill, Oamaru and Timaru.
As of this week none of the 157 had reapplied for a benefit.

Four months ago, when the policy was announced:

The Government is providing further support for the Canterbury rebuild with $3.5 million of new operating funding for 2014/15 in Budget 2014 to assist beneficiaries to take up work in Christchurch.
“We’re offering up to 1,000 beneficiaries a one-off payment of $3,000 each if they have a full-time job offer in Canterbury and are ready and willing to move there,” Social Development Minister Paula Bennett says.
“The rebuild is creating thousands of jobs in Christchurch, and there are people around New Zealand ready to take them up, but who don’t currently have the means to get there.

According to MSD at the end of June 2014:

• 121,131 working-age people were receiving Jobseeker Support. 

0.13 percent have taken up the offer.

What does this say about the motivation of unemployed people who the Left repeatedly insist "want to work"?

Jamie Whyte and whanau ora

The clobbering machine is out on Jamie Whyte for not knowing what whanau ora is.

The NZ Herald reports:

 Act leader Jamie Whyte's been caught short once again - this time clueless about Whanau Ora.

I bet you most New Zealanders couldn't tell you what whanau ora is.

Annette King, then Labour's social services spokeswoman, described it as 'blancmange' because "when you try to get a grasp of it, it slips through your fingers."

Here's a challenge. Summarise the following diagrammatic representation of whanau ora in a sound bite.

 

All whanau ora does it transfer funds to Maori service providers, a process that occurred before it became known as whanau ora. But there has been a concerted effort to dress it up as a hugely significant development for political reasons. Ask what the Maori Party's great legacy is as we run up to the election and the answer will undoubtedly be whanau ora.

Once more I am pleased and relieved to hear a political candidate being honest. Makes a welcome change to bluster and bluff or evasion.

Is there a Christian consensus on child poverty?

Scoop has a notice about a child poverty forum tomorrow evening in Wellington:

Forum on Child Poverty
The extent to which Aotearoa New Zealand turns a blind eye to children who suffer the effects of economic deprivation is the extent to which we fail to live up to our claim of being a just and caring society.
A forum on child poverty on 5 August will look at this political issue that is set to become key in the parliamentary elections on 20 September.
Living up to their prophetic calling, the two religious leaders of the Anglican and Catholic Churches, Bishop Justin Duckworth and Archbishop John Dew, have taken the initiative to bring together a panel of leaders and leading figures of all the major political parties in our country.
This may be one of the few times such an event will take place during the present election campaign.
Neither Bishop Justin nor Archbishop John wishes to dictate how people should vote. But they are calling on people to vote responsibly and for political leaders to clearly state where they stand in regard to the various issues that demand clear and decisive political action.
Among those issues, and a matter of crucial concern at this time, is the right of all children to adequate nutrition, proper housing, good education and a happy and healthy family lifestyle.
Speakers include Attorney General Chris Finlayson (National), David Cunliffe (Labour), Peter Dunne (United Future), Hone Harawira (Mana), Te Ururoa Flavell (Maori co-leader), Jan Logie (Green) and Asenati Lole-Taylor (NZ First) .
Children’s Commissioner Dr Russell Wills will be the first to address the forum. Then the Anglican Bishop Justin Duckworth and the Catholic Archbishop John Dew will highlight the Christian perspectives on child poverty.
The event will end with a Young Voter Forum from 8.15 to 9.30pm.
The forum is in St Paul’s Anglican Cathedral on Tuesday, 5 August. Snacks and drinks will be provided at 5.45pm and there will be a formal welcome at 6.30pm.

Are there no Christians who believe in individual responsibility? Who don't think that child poverty remedies automatically involve, "... clear and decisive political action." Are there any Christians who suspect welfarism has created more child poverty than it has solved? Do these guys really speak for all Christians?

The churches increasing preference for and advocacy of state solutions is very depressing.

Rating National's welfare reforms B -

This is a rating from best to worst :

1/ Thousands fewer teenage parents on benefits

How much this is an effect of the welfare reforms is impossible to gauge without some sort of qualitative research. The teenage birth rate has dropped and as virtually all single teen parents go on welfare, the dependency levels have consequently fallen. A teenage birth is so often the beginning of a severely disadvantaged life for the mother, the child and the subsequent children that inevitably follow in quick succession. This fall will show social dividends in the coming decades. And that it is happening across all ethnicities is especially notable.

 

2/ Fewer sole parents on benefits

The work obligations on now stronger than they were under Labour. The number of sole parents has dropped  by 11% since June 2009. But the work-testing is still too soft. In reality a parent can work as few hours as 12 a week from when her youngest goes to school until he or she is 14. And most importantly, if there are no work opportunities, too often the case in small towns, the work obligations are meaningless.

June 2009 83,387
June 2014 74,027
(These numbers are considerably lower than under the DPB system because sole parents with children 14 and older were moved to JobSeeker, and DPB carers of infirm people were moved to Supported Living.)

3/ Introduction of payment cards and money management

This may be an important factor in reducing the incentive to rely on welfare as a teenager. The regime can now be rolled out amongst older beneficiaries who are, for example, failing to provide for their children.

4/ Annual reapplication for the dole  has seen people 'disappear' off roll

Thousands fewer people receive the dole after the government introduced a requirement to reapply annually in 2011.

5/ Removal of the sickness benefit.

There is now only Jobseeker or Supported Living benefits. Permanently incapacitated rely on the latter. Temporarily incapacitated go on the Jobseeker benefit.This increases the focus on getting temporarily incapacitated people well and employable.

6/ Partners of people who defraud WINZ are now liable

Much of the benefit fraud is by 'single' parents who have  a partner. Welfare has made young, single mums vulnerable to spongers looking for a free ride. The ability to prosecute them might make a difference, although these predators are often law breaking, risk takers by nature. Too soon to tell

7/ Future liability has reduced slightly

Because the numbers of young and sole parents have reduced, and they typically have long stays on welfare, future liability has reduced.

8/ Existing long-term dependence has not improved

Most governments can chip away at the margins which feature employable people affected mainly by economic circumstances. Making inroads into long-term reliance on welfare is a much tougher ask.

At December 2013 143,000 people had been continuously on welfare for more than 4 years; 63,000 for more than ten years. These numbers are higher than when National became government. In December 2008 the respective numbers were 124,000 and 62,000.

9/ The Supported Living payment (ex Invalid Benefit) is continuing to attract transfers from other benefits

This continues to baffle researchers:

 A higher than expected rate of transfer to Supported Living Payment is also occurring from both Jobseeker – HCID and Sole Parents.

Back in the 1960s only around 1 percent of the population was 'permanently' incapacitated. That now stands at around 3%



10/ Children are being added to an existing benefit at an even greater rate than pre-reform

The policy intended to reduce this habit has failed. Individuals - especially Maori - continue to have babies when they are already unemployed and without any independent means to raise their children. In the six months ending March 31, 2006, 5854 children aged under one were added to a benefit. In the same period prior to March 2014 the number increased to 6634 - a 13% rise.

If you were to grade National, what would you give it?

Don Brash described the reforms as "a useful start". I thik that is quite apt. On the basis that much more is planned I'll give them a B-.

What is Labour's Super policy?

One of the neglected aspects of raising minimum and public service wages is the effect that will have on average wages, and as a consequence, the level of Super payments.

Super is indexed to the average wage as well as the CPI. And as everyone knows, the proportion of the population aged 65+ is set to grow rapidly.

Labour could argue that they will offset the icreased resulting financial costs through lifting the Super qualifying age. Which gave me pause for thought.

They have gone very quiet on that front.

Here are the senior policies so far announced:

Senior Citizens

• Aged Care Commissioner
• KiwiAssure - an insurer for New Zealanders
• NZ Power: Bringing down power prices
• Support for Veterans

Here's a Radio NZ report from late 2013:

Labour Party delegates have rejected a proposal that the party drop its plan to raise the age of eligibility for New Zealand Superannuation at its annual conference in Christchurch.
At the last election, Labour campaigned on a transition to raising the age to 67 over time.

David Cunliffe.

Photo: RNZ

Electorate committees Northland and Coromandel both put up amendments at the party's annual conference in Christchurch on Friday to axe any move to raise the age of eligibility. But after a feisty debate, that was rejected by a substantial vote.
Instead, it was agreed that Labour would consider all options to make New Zealand Superannuation sustainable, including raising the age of eligibility.
Labour's finance spokesperson David Parker says he is happy with the amended policy.
"We've got to a really good outcome. We're given freedom to make the decisions that are necessary to ensure the sustainability of superannuation. That's what we wanted, so we've reached an agreement through our policy process that's consistent with that."
Labour leader David Cunliffe says the change is not a watering down of the policy.
"I think there is some confusion. Our policy platform is a high level in general document and it leaves room for us to fix an age. It indicates the age will rise, but it's not at a level of detail of saying how much, by when."
The policy will be debated by the whole conference on Saturday morning, but David Parker is confident it will be supported.

Clear on that?

Susan Devoy lambasts Jamie Whyte

From Scoop:

In the run up to the general election Race Relations Commissioner Dame Susan Devoy is urging politicians to “do the right thing and stick to those major issues that will help make New Zealand a better place for all our children to grow up in.”
“Equating Maori New Zealanders to French aristocrats who were murdered because of their privilege is a grotesque and inflammatory statement. Accusations of Maori privilege are not borne out by Maori socio economic statistics.”
“Whether we like it or not the reality is that ethnicity and disadvantage are connected and found in damning statistics that on average sees Maori New Zealanders life expectancy, education and health outcomes lagging behind non Maori New Zealanders,” said Dame Susan.
“The connection between ethnicity and disadvantage did not appear overnight and breaking it won’t happen overnight either. Treating everyone exactly the same will not necessarily make everyone exactly the same and anyone who thinks so is incredibly naïve.”

What Whyte said:
 

Maori are legally privileged in New Zealand today, just as the Aristocracy were legally privileged in pre-revolutionary France.
But, of course, in our ordinary use of the word, it is absurd to say that Maori are privileged. The average life expectancy of Maori is significantly lower than Pakeha and Asian. Average incomes are lower.  Average educational achievement is lower.
Legal privilege offends people less when the beneficiaries are not materially privileged, when they are generally poorer than those at a legal disadvantage... the principle of legal equality is far more important than any redistributive or compensatory impulses that people may have.  It is not some philosophical nicety to be discarded because you feel guilty about what people with the same skin pigment as you did 150 or 200 years ago.

 I can't figure out whether Devoy  is OK with affirmative action but doesn't think it's a major issue, or doesn't  think equality before the law is a major issue? Either way, as race relations commissioner they should both be major issues for her.

Update: Whyte responds by calling for Devoy to resign.

Ombudsman - public sector could do better

OIA requests to the Ministry of Social Development are now never met within the required maximum  20 working day time limit. A notification of an extension is received. And then sometimes a second extension. Complaining to the Ombudsman is a waste of time.

Or is it....

I decided to write to the State Services Commission and ask about average response times to OIA requests and how MSD compared to other departments . This resulted in the SSC referring my letter to other departments eg Education and Health. But SSC also advised me to write to the Ombudsman who, while not subject to the OIA, might provide information on complaints received about MSD.

That is what I did.

The Ombudsman duly obliged and told me that 110 complaints had been received against MSD in the 2013 financial year. 62 were about delays.

On its own that doesn't mean very much. But then I received a letter from MSD (the one that had been passed on to them from SSC) refusing my request for information about average response times. However they did tell me that in the 2013 financial year they had received 482 requests.

Context then shows that the complaint rate against MSD is quite high. 482 requests and 110 complaints.And this happens even when many people consider complaining to the Ombudsman a waste of time.

Anyway, there is good news.

The Ombudsman finished:

You may also be interested to know that the Chief Ombudsman is intending to conduct a wider administrative investigation into concerns that the broader public sector is not managing requests for information under the OIA as well as it should.

Perhaps a better public service target is required.

Labour just not serious

There have been weaknesses in the welfare reform results.

The educational achievements of those on the Youth Payment are mixed.

Yet last week in Parliament the following patsy and response went unchallenged.

Youth Programmes—Reports 5. MELISSA LEE (National) to the Minister for Social Development: What recent reports has she received about the Government’s Youth Service initiative?
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development): Youth Service, which is about reaching out early to young people on or at risk of going on a benefit and engaging them in education or training, is already producing great results. The latest evaluation report shows that four out of five young people enrolled in Youth Service are now in education or training, and 63 percent of 16 and 17-year-olds on the youth payment achieved National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) credits in their first year on the Youth Service, compared with just 24 percent of young people who were on the old independent youth benefit. Fourteen percent of those on the youth payment achieved NCEA level 2, compared with 5 percent before the Youth Service. Achieving NCEA level 2, of course, makes someone far more likely to be able to support themselves and be financially independent.
Melissa Lee: What evidence has she seen that the Youth Service is working to stop young people becoming dependent on the benefit in the long term?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: It is early days but I am pleased that we are already seeing a drop in the number of young people on the youth payment who go on to a main benefit when they turn 18. Seventy percent of young people on the youth payment did not go on to a main benefit when they turned 18 in the year to March 2014. These are young people who have often come from very difficult backgrounds. Wrapping support around them early and ensuring that they are not on a lifetime of welfare is what our Youth Service is all about.

Not a supplementary in sight.

Another example - Last week I provided data showing that the policy to discourage adding children to a benefit wasn't working.

It is the job of a good opposition to monitor government policies, especially if they oppose them. Yet Labour's Sue Moroney does little but push her paid parental leave bill.

Now, on balance, I think Paula Bennett has a better grasp on the welfare problem than previous Ministers and there have been good reforms with good results.

But there are vulnerabilities a credible government-in-waiting would be exposing.