Govt response to poverty report will tell us all we need to know about Bill English

Written By: - Date published: 8:04 am, December 13th, 2016 - 264 comments
Categories: bill english, class war, national, poverty - Tags: , , ,

The 2016 Child Poverty Monitor Technical Report is out today. A summary of the graphics from the Child Poverty Monitor is attached at the end of this post. Here is some of the media coverage.

RNZ:

Third generation of Kiwi children face life of poverty

The Children’s Commissioner has warned action needs to be taken, or New Zealand risks relegating a third generation of children to a life of poverty.

This year’s Child Poverty Monitor Report, released today, shows no real improvement in child poverty rates, with 295,000 children – 28 percent – living in low income homes.

More than 8 percent of children were in severe poverty. That meant 90,000 children experienced both material hardship and lived in a low-income home.

While child poverty was reasonably stable for several years, it was significantly worse than the 1980s.

In 1982, the percentage of children in families experiencing income poverty was 14 percent, compared to 28 percent now. …

Stuff:

‘Significant, enduring’ child poverty in New Zealand according to Child Poverty Monitor

New Zealand’s child poverty rates aren’t improving but we are starting to “wake up to the serious problem”, according to the 2016 Child Poverty Monitor.

The monitor, released on Tuesday morning, shows there has been no real improvement in child poverty rates.

Fourteen per cent of children are living in material hardship where they are living without seven or more necessary items for their wellbeing and 28 per cent of children are living in low income homes, up from 14 per cent in 1982.
…
Child poverty has been identified by New Zealanders in recent opinion polls as one of the most significant issues facing our country.

“New Zealanders are starting to wake up to the serious problem we face. We are in real danger of creating pockets of a third generation of ingrained poverty – which seriously impacts children’s health, ability to learn and contribute to society.”

New Zealand has a goal to halve all poverty by 2030.

“To attain this goal within the next 14 years, we need a plan to reduce child poverty. It must be a government led plan all New Zealanders can work towards. It should involve business, community and non-government groups.” …

Herald:

Children’s commissioner Andrew Becroft ‘shaken’ by extent of child poverty in New Zealand

Children’s commissioner Judge Andrew Becroft says he was “shaken” by the 2016 child poverty monitor, the first to be issued since he took the advocacy role.
…
Judge Becroft told the Otago Daily Times he will ask new Prime Minister Bill English to set a poverty reduction target, a request that was knocked back by former prime minister John Key.

Judge Becroft, who has been in the role for five months, hopes to have more success with English. … Key had said it was too difficult to set a specific target. …

So now we get to see what Bill English is made of. There have been many gushing words from certain commentators about his “compassionate conservatism” and the wisdom of his “social investment” approach. Now he’s in a position to act, to start addressing the Nats’ so far shameful record on poverty. So, what will Bill English’s government do about poverty – evasions, words, or actions?

Update:

Update: Bill fails.

https://twitter.com/grantrobertson1/status/808480119027212288

264 comments on “Govt response to poverty report will tell us all we need to know about Bill English ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Carolyn_nth 1
    13 December 2016 at 8:13 am

    In an interview yesterday on Checkpoint, English was talking about needing to build more “social” housing. Social housing is not state or public housing. HNZ needs more state housing for low income people. Contracting it out to charities and/or private (Aussie) companies won’t cut it.

    • saveNZ 1.1
      13 December 2016 at 9:00 am

      Yep, lets face it, if the government can’t even manage a state house portfolio successfully, they should not be in government!

    • michelle 1.2
      13 December 2016 at 9:18 am

      Bill English is actually a hypocrite to say he will now vote for gay marriage but doesn’t believe in abortion or euthanasia. He has also changed his tune why? has he and his government after 8 years realized many NZers are sick and tired of his government and their policies that have made the rich richer and the poor poorer. Remember he was responsible for implementing and developing the policy platforms for the gnats. Now he is talking from another song sheet people need to ask why? a change to be more inclusive all of sudden after 8 years.

      • Carolyn_nth 1.2.1
        13 December 2016 at 9:26 am

        Yes, same song, different arrangement.

        And the spin of Paula Bennett’s backstory – trying to mirror JK’s rise to power. When Key began with his state-house-to-Beehive narrative, he was a clean political skin – little record in politics to contradict that backstory.

        But Bennett (and Bill) come with parliamentary records that contradict their attempts at new (old) spin.

      • Gosman 1.2.2
        13 December 2016 at 12:20 pm

        The statistics don’t seem to back you up on that

        http://www.statschat.org.nz/2013/12/09/inequality-in-nz/

        • michelle 1.2.2.1
          13 December 2016 at 12:44 pm

          Whose stats are they gosman and how reliable are they because we all know how easy it is to manipulate stats and change how things are measured to suit ones own political agenda

          • Gosman 1.2.2.1.1
            13 December 2016 at 12:56 pm

            The thing is michelle you haven’t even provided ANY statistics to back up your claims that this government has made poverty worse in NZ. I would be to happy to debate the reliability of statistics at the point YOU actually start using them.

            • McFlock 1.2.2.1.1.1
              13 December 2016 at 1:25 pm

              Except the fact that the technical report in this post actually provides more up to date data than the drivel you offered.

              For example, figure 65 shows p80/20 increase in the 1990s, a drop between the 2004 and 2007 datapoints (especially for BHC w/kids, thanks WFF) and a cyclical increase since 2007.

              So the stats do actually back Michelle up on that.

              • Gosman …
                13 December 2016 at 1:37 pm

                No they don’t. The statistics suggests there was a rapid rise post 2007 till 2010. Given the policies enacted by National only started to have an effect from 2009 they can’t be blamed for the first part of that. Post 2010 the rate has fluctuated and on some measures is lower than it was when they took over. However the rate has not really moved significantly (i.e. more than 2 or 3 percent ) from the 2007 baseline. The point being is that that you lot can’t back up the oft reported claim that the current government has been making poverty and inequality worse. The most you can argue is that they are not really tackling it in an effective manner. That is not as a simplistic attack point though hence why you spin this for your own political advantage.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  13 December 2016 at 1:43 pm

                  That, and the homeless families.

                • McFlock …
                  13 December 2016 at 1:57 pm

                  Post 2010 the rate has fluctuated and on some measures is lower than it was when they took over.

                  lol nice cherrypicking.

                  However the rate has not really moved significantly (i.e. more than 2 or 3 percent ) from the 2007 baseline. The point being is that that you lot can’t back up the oft reported claim that the current government has been making poverty and inequality worse.

                  Except that moving 2 or 3 percent from a measure of 20 or 30 percent is actually a ten percent change. Hell, it could be 40,000 more kids below the line. That might not be “significant” to you, but it is to them. And the point being is that in several measures, even with your cherry-picked time periods, it is demonstrably worse.

                  The most you can argue is that they are not really tackling it in an effective manner.

                  No, that’s merely the most you’ll admit. But even that is inexcusable.

                  • Gosman …
                    13 December 2016 at 2:26 pm

                    How is using 2010 cheery picking data when National came in to office in 2008 and there was no real policy changes that would have impacted poverty rates till 2009 at the earliest?

                    • Paul …
                      13 December 2016 at 2:29 pm

                      Wow!
                      Rather than being concerned by the amount of poverty in the country, you spend all your energy defending the government.
                      Why not put your energy into some solutions?

                    • McFlock …
                      13 December 2016 at 2:50 pm

                      Because it’s picking the highest convenient value for comparison, which in turn helps you argue that this government is merely careless with the lives of tens of thousands of children, rather than being an active threat to their wellbeing and survival.

                    • Gosman …
                      13 December 2016 at 4:48 pm

                      No, I’m countering the narrative that this government has made relative poverty levels worse than when they took over. It is quite clear that the poverty rates were rising when they took over as a result of the GFC. This continued till around 2010 when they started to fluctuate and have eventually fallen slightly. It is simply not true that the current government’s policies are making things worse.

                    • Paul …
                      13 December 2016 at 4:54 pm

                      You don’t care about poverty.

                    • Gosman …
                      13 December 2016 at 5:12 pm

                      I care about ensuring we focus on problems based on facts not emotions. Essentially your arguments boil down to ‘Won’t someone think about the little children’.

                    • McFlock …
                      13 December 2016 at 6:03 pm

                      lol now your best argument is that poverty rates today are still only ever so slightly lower now than they were at the height of the GFC, six years ago.

                      Booming economy, yadda yadda, but poverty is static. Clap for you bastards. And yes, think of the children. Because obviously you’re not

                    • Tracey …
                      14 December 2016 at 4:38 am

                      So, this was the best we could hope from a “rock star” economy Gosman?

                      All this Growth and no real dent. wage increases of at best 1% for those working to generate the growth despite real inflation being higher (house prices for example not factored into CPI).

                      I rate ANY government on how well they speak of, and take care of, our vulnerable. We have had 30 years of “if we grow the economy everything will be taken care of” and there is now decades of evidence that growth is not the answer. Yet we keep using it as the yardstick.

                      So, if evidence is your yardstick Gosman, you must agree that we can’t keep doing the same stuff we have been doing for a few decades if we want to have an entire society that thrives?

      • Tracey 1.2.3
        14 December 2016 at 4:31 am

        Hi michelle

        I dont think he has changed his beliefs. he has had a couple of months of training before the PM announcement to become more key-like. remember whenKey started? he was put through training, like all PM’s. The Nats training is focussed on how to say what people want to hear rather than what you believe. In this regard he is passing the first Nats/Business test with flying colours. There is no way to prove or disprove what he would vote for today on things that have passed. he knows that and Joyce and his handlers know that so they get him making all these statements to paint him as socially liberal.

        That’s my take on it anyway

    • AB 1.3
      13 December 2016 at 9:27 am

      The purpose of housing is to not provide your citizens a secure healthy place to live from which they can make a contribution to society.
      The purpose of housing is to deliver unearned, untaxed capital gains to National Party supporters. Understand this and then everything they do on housing makes sense.

    • Gosman 1.4
      13 December 2016 at 12:17 pm

      Why won’t it cut? Do people get better quality social housing from the State than from other sources? If so, where is the evidence backing this up?

    • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1
      13 December 2016 at 8:56 am

      Measuring the effects of poverty, examining its victims, tut-tut-tutting over them. Anything other than address the underlying causes of the problem.

      Unfortunately, while the DMHDRU does all this good research, the Economics department is riddled with neo-liberals like a fly-blown sheep. They are the disease.

      What’s the cure?

      • Pat 2.1.1
        13 December 2016 at 10:43 am

        I think the suggestion is to measure and mitigate…….the conclusions of this study has the potential to improve the future of the individual and society as a whole…though there appears a hint of eugenics surrounding it.

        Obviously what actions are taken with this information would be critical but is it a discussion that will be seriously examined by the wider public?

        • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1.1.1
          13 December 2016 at 11:17 am

          We are aware of the potential for misusing these findings, for stigmatising and stereotyping…

          My preferred option is to take steps to increase wages across the board, and keep post-hoc mitigation to a minimum.

          • Pat 2.1.1.1.1
            13 December 2016 at 11:42 am

            and you believe a) an increase in income across the board at the say bottom 20% of earners will resolve the issues outlined and b) that there is a greater chance the incomes of the lowest 20% will be sufficiently increased ahead of a targeted programme?

            • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1.1.1.1.1
              13 December 2016 at 12:02 pm

              False dichotomy: action is needed right now. Putting robber barons like Mr. Peter Talley in their place will take time and legislation. In the meantime, mitigate by all means.

              Bear in mind that mitigation will immediately be fed to National’s raw meat as “bludging”. We need solutions that can survive right wing hate speech.

              • Sam C …
                13 December 2016 at 12:08 pm

                Sir Peter Talley to you.

                • DoublePlusGood …
                  13 December 2016 at 12:52 pm

                  Mr Talley does not warrant his knighthood, given his behaviour toward his workers over decades. As such, many of us do not use the title when referring to him, preferring to reserve that for people who actually deserve such recognition.

                  • alwyn …
                    13 December 2016 at 1:42 pm

                    “many of us do not use the title ”
                    A perfectly reasonable attitude.
                    That is just like the way I feel about Micky (Finn) Cullen.
                    And as for the “Right Honourable” HC. Please.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  13 December 2016 at 12:59 pm

                  Get off your knees Sam.

              • Pat …
                13 December 2016 at 12:13 pm

                flowery….. but doesn’t answer the questions.

                but i guess it does answer one question at least from your perspective…its not a discussion that will be seriously examined.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  13 December 2016 at 12:36 pm

                  I answered your questions by stating that I think both courses of action are necessary, so I guess the specific answers are (a) “partially” and (b) it’ll be hard to tell with both in place.

                  • Pat …
                    13 December 2016 at 12:49 pm

                    then it can hardly be a false dichotomy……and also think you have misunderstood b)….there is nothing to discern….it was asking which scenario was more likely to occur.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      13 December 2016 at 12:58 pm

                      Sorry, I thought you were proposing a one-or-the-other question.

                      As for (b), in that case the answer is beyond my ken. The link I gave Gosman might shed some light. It provides evidence that a minimum wage hike may increase economic activity, but whether it would have a stronger effect than direct mitigation…in the long term I think so, but…?

                    • Gosman …
                      13 December 2016 at 1:08 pm

                      You’re not just calling for an increase in the minimum wage though. You are actually asking for a general wage increase ACROSS the board. Ignoring for a moment that relative poverty levels won’t really be impacted if you do that you don’t have any evidence doing so won’t impact employment.

                  • Pat …
                    13 December 2016 at 1:12 pm

                    a increase in income would solve many of the problems for many of the group noted….but not all. An increase in income won’t solve dysfunction, drug/alcohol abuse , lack of skills or health issues nor will it provide expertise and/or support…especially when the need is not recognised. It also assumes that the 20% identified are exclusively in the lowest income bracket.

                    When I have the time to concentrate on it I will read the report but from the outline I have seen it appears to me to be proposing a type of Plunket on steroids (at least by inference). If resourced well it could be hugely beneficial, unlike deinstitutionalisation which was adopted and not funded/supported.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      13 December 2016 at 1:19 pm

                      Lifting the lowest 20% of salaries would lower the GINI, so would indeed have a significant effect on mental health issues such as substance abuse.

                      I’m also in favour of getting back to a top-notch well-funded education system.

                      My concern with the report is its focus on symptoms rather than causes. Unless we address the market and economic failure that is at the root of the problem, it’s a bottomless pit.

                    • Gosman …
                      13 December 2016 at 1:23 pm

                      Cuba apparently made huge improvements in education. The country is still an economic basket case though. Increasing education without having an economy equipped to cope can just lead to highly educated unemployed young people. Look at southern Europe to see that effect.

                      http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/16/world/europe/youth-unemployement-in-europe.html

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      13 December 2016 at 1:35 pm

                      Gosh, so there are no other countries in the world for you to compare with? I know ignorance is a condition we all share, but yours seems a tad wilful.

                      Yep, as McFlock notes, you haven’t even looked at the information. Feet of clay, Gosman.

                    • Gosman …
                      13 December 2016 at 1:39 pm

                      Cuba, Spain, Italy, France, Greece, Zimbabwe, South Africa ummm pretty sure I could provide a large number of countries where highly educated young people have a high unemployment rate.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      13 December 2016 at 1:45 pm

                      Off you go then, make an extensive list that you can brandish at anyone who looks like they might be part of the solution.

                    • Tracey …
                      14 December 2016 at 4:41 am

                      Hi Pat

                      I haven’t read the report but have been wondering, since listening to Ritchie Poulton on the radio, were the tests conducted in English or the language of the child?

                    • Pat …
                      14 December 2016 at 8:28 am

                      Hi Tracey

                      The life course outcomes have been developed from the data of the Dunedin Study, which i assume was conducted in the language of those interviewed.

                      http://dunedinstudy.otago.ac.nz

            • Gosman 2.1.1.1.1.2
              13 December 2016 at 12:21 pm

              What happens to people who don’t have jobs?

              • Pat …
                13 December 2016 at 12:31 pm

                is that addressed to me or OAB?

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                13 December 2016 at 12:38 pm

                Mitigation, in whatever form it takes. Don’t worry, no-one expects you to be part of the solution.

                • Gosman …
                  13 December 2016 at 12:42 pm

                  What do you mean mitigation?

                  If you increase wages across the board then two things are likely to occur at some stage.

                  1) The jobless rate will increase as some businesses (e.g. export orientated businesses) costs rise and they can’t recoup this from higher prices meaning they have to reduce overheads (usually by reducing staffing levels)

                  2) The income gap between those working and those not working rises and therefore poverty rates can actually increase.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    13 December 2016 at 12:50 pm

                    1) Bullshit. Yes I know it’s the dogma you believe very very hard, and the real world confounds you.

                    We do not find compelling evidence that the minimum wage has caused significant increases in business failure rates. Moreover, if there has been any increase in business closings caused by the Minimum Wage Ordinance, it has been more than offset by an
                    increase in business openings.

                    I suspect you know this, and are lying about it deliberately, because of your low character.

                    • Gosman …
                      13 December 2016 at 1:00 pm

                      We aren’t talking about minimum wage ordinance here. I believe your argument is to increase wages ACROSS THE BOARD. It may have little impact at the low level the minimum wage impacts but for many businesses paying higher salaries paying higher salaries could well mean the difference between success and failure.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      13 December 2016 at 1:07 pm

                      Fair enough, “across the board” was a poor choice of words. Pre-distribution is still a lot less complicated than re-distribution.

                    • Phil …
                      13 December 2016 at 1:23 pm

                      We do not find compelling evidence that the minimum wage has caused significant increases in business failure rates.

                      “This report presents the short-run effects of the Seattle Minimum Wage Ordinance on the Seattle labor market”

                      Hmmm… yes, that’s perfectly applicable to New Zealand, sure.

                      But seriously, we know that around the world minimum wages tend to be set at specific levels for political, not economic, reasons.

                      What that ends up meaning is that often the minimum wage sits below the market clearing equilibrium price for labour and, consequently, raising the minimum wage is unlikely to have an impact on employment because the minimum is relatively ineffective, rather than inefficient.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      13 December 2016 at 1:29 pm

                      Sure thing Phil. I could have quoted the Treasury Department, but I realise now that economic findings aren’t applicable to New Zealand.

                      Mind you, they drive on the right in Seattle, so I expect Physics doesn’t apply to them either.

                      But seriously, we know that economic theory is full of holes, and infested with dogma, so I admire your certainty.

                    • Phil …
                      13 December 2016 at 3:11 pm

                      Right… so your comment boils down to “don’t talk economics to me – it’s wrong. You should just accept as gospel the economic paper I found.”

                      *slow clap*

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      13 December 2016 at 5:55 pm

                      Nope, Phil. If you have a point other than you doubt everything, please make it sometime soon. “Perfectly applicable”? Can you say what you mean?

                      PS: I didn’t cite theory, I cited some observations.

                    • Tracey …
                      14 December 2016 at 4:47 am

                      “for many businesses paying higher salaries paying higher salaries could well mean the difference between success and failure.”

                      Could you post your evidence to support this statement?

                      For some businesses they could achieve this now but with a reduction in profit or a reduction in owner perks and salaries. How much is enough to earn is also the counter question? For example Paul Collins was in charge of Brierley’s during its decline and was paid 4m to leave. Then he took his expertise to a number of Boards (some government funded such as Sport NZ). When my employer declines the business I am employed in, I dont even get redundancy.

                  • Tracey …
                    14 December 2016 at 4:44 am

                    When a business like, say, a bank, makes 4 billion profit a year, do you think there is room for them to raise the wages of their employees?

                    • Phil …
                      14 December 2016 at 9:43 am

                      ANZ, New Zealand’s largest bank, made $1.5b profit in the year to September 2016. They have approximately 9,000 employees across the country and total “personnel expenses” of $894m. Theoretically, they could double the salary of everyone working for them and still make $600m in profit.

                    • Tracey …
                      15 December 2016 at 4:36 pm

                      Thanks Phil. Exactly

  3. Rosemary McDonald 3
    13 December 2016 at 8:44 am

    “So, what will Bill English’s government do about poverty …?”

    What has been his openly declared agenda since 2010…..http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10644993

    Since I read that, six and a half years ago, NOTHING that has occurred involving government spending on social issues has surprised me.

    What really gets me sometimes is that National are still rating high in the polls despite more and more people from all strata of New Zealand society being directly negatively impacted by his ‘kick them when they’re down’ policies. Makes a non trusting person wonder if the polls could somehow be mistaken.

    Bill embraces the ‘building resilience’ ideology….make people and communities stand on their own two feet and not rely on state assistance. All well and good in theory, but fails when so many have poor foundations due to systemic failures and neglect in education, employment conditions and housing.

    We are now hearing more emphatic statements made in louder voices from government appointees such as Becroft, Boshier, Gibson, Henwood, Blue about what can only be described as human rights violations committed by this and previous governments.

    The sooner New Zealand is exposed on the world stage for the hypocrites we are the better.

    • saveNZ 3.1
      13 December 2016 at 9:14 am

      Maybe if governments bothered to have a taxation system that was fair and not full of loophole’s so that 38% of companies turning over $100 million plus in OZ, don’t pay a bean… it’s probably worse in NZ and the companies actually kill the worker’s aka Pike River, our government refuses to collect real statistics and publish them meaningfully, as well as avoiding other social responsibilities like taxation.

      We have a big corporate welfare problem in NZ that sucks out the social welfare while the MSM cheers them on and the opposition seems paralytic on the issue.

      “THE AUSTRALIAN TAX OFFICE (ATO) released the ‘Corporate Tax Transparency Report’ last week.

      It shows that 38% of the 1539 public and private foreign companies with turnover greater than $100 million paid no income tax in the 2013-14 financial year.

      https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/tax-big-business-avoidance-and-other-bruises,8509

      • Gosman 3.1.1
        13 December 2016 at 12:25 pm

        Why do you think businesses should pay tax?

        • DoublePlusGood 3.1.1.1
          13 December 2016 at 12:53 pm

          Because they earn income, so they should contribute tax just as private individuals pay tax on their income.

          • Gosman 3.1.1.1.1
            13 December 2016 at 1:04 pm

            Money earned by businesses does get taxed. To claim otherwise ignores reality. Why do you want businesses taxed?

            • DoublePlusGood 3.1.1.1.1.1
              13 December 2016 at 3:40 pm

              Did you even fucking read my previous comment?

              • Gosman …
                13 December 2016 at 4:53 pm

                And you didn’t understand mine. Money earned by a business including profits get’s taxed already. Why do you think it needs to be taxed at the business level?

      • Phil 3.1.2
        13 December 2016 at 1:28 pm

        There is A LOT of confused reporting in that piece. It’s almost like the author has no comprehension that a company pays tax on its profits, not its revenue.

        • saveNZ 3.1.2.1
          13 December 2016 at 2:32 pm

          Yes, Phil and so easy to hide your profits, money transfers and routs and loopholes so that 38% of $100 million dollar companies can avoid paying taxes.

          By the same token, workers can’t claim ‘expenses’ on PAYE, in addition companies that do not avoid taxes are at a disadvantage, so there seems to be a double standard going on.

          • Gosman 3.1.2.1.1
            13 December 2016 at 4:55 pm

            Companies can hide all the profits they like. They will still have to pay tax on them eventually.

            • DoublePlusGood 3.1.2.1.1.1
              13 December 2016 at 5:43 pm

              You do know what a tax haven is, yes?

            • UncookedSelachimorpha 3.1.2.1.1.2
              14 December 2016 at 12:13 am

              Except the owners who can buy and sell the company for a tax-free capital gain – a practice most common among the rich, and not available to those unable to afford to own a company.

    • AB 3.2
      13 December 2016 at 9:43 am

      Yep – “building resilience” is the sort of crap that expensive business ‘coaches’ talk about when they come in to companies and ‘train’ middle managers who are imprisoned in a meeting room for 2 days.
      From there it can easily spread it’s insidious tentacles out into the wider community. It’s code for abandonment, sink or swim. And if you are a worthy person you will swim, and if you sink that’s because you are unworthy and ultimately perhaps it’s better in that case that you do sink.

      • Rosemary McDonald 3.2.1
        13 December 2016 at 10:05 am

        Yep…its a movement…an actual thing.

        Trending now!

      • Incognito 3.2.2
        13 December 2016 at 10:47 pm

        When you associate “building resilience” with ”the sort of crap that expensive business ‘coaches’ talk about when they come in to companies and ‘train’ middle managers who are imprisoned in a meeting room for 2 days” it seems to trigger a very negative response.

        I have another view of “building resilience”, i.e. in the context of earthquake-hit regions and cities. This happens to be one of the National Science Challenges: Resilience to Nature’s Challenges.

        https://www.resiliencechallenge.nz/

        Do you think there are fundamentally different forms or levels of resilience?

    • Nick 3.3
      13 December 2016 at 11:47 am

      I am sure these Politicians would complain and change ‘building resilience’ ideology if it affected them directly. But they have built such a cosy nest…..

  4. saveNZ 4
    13 December 2016 at 9:03 am

    “To attain this goal within the next 14 years, we need a plan to reduce child poverty. It must be a government led plan all New Zealanders can work towards. It should involve business, community and non-government groups.”

    Simple answer – vote the National government out – they have led 8 years of worsening poverty – time to go….

    • michelle 4.1
      13 December 2016 at 9:26 am

      Agree with save NZ . If we haven’t learnt from the last 8 years we will never learn
      Now the gnats front has gone we can see the true blue rotten party the gnats really are and will always be the party where inequalities always come to the fore.

    • Rosemary McDonald 4.2
      13 December 2016 at 10:00 am

      “Simple answer – vote the National government out – they have led 8 years of worsening poverty – time to go….”

      It is not as simple as ‘vote National out”.

      National has to be replaced by something better.

      Labour has to prove that the neo liberal policies the party embraced and foisted onto the country have been forever abandoned….and I can’t see them doing this at this point in time.

      These structures have been building for over two decades and have become totally integrated into many, if not most government funded ‘supports’.

      Organisations, profits and non profits, who have built empires on the back of providing disability supports amounting to $billions each year across ACC, MOH, DHBs and MSD have never, ever met the full needs of their client base, can refuse to provide services if clients fall into some arbitrary category of “too high” and leave these people incarcerated in appalling conditions…or dependent on family support….which of course is not funded, or funded at a much lower level than ‘professional support’.

      There are some in the disability community who say that the system is broken…and only complete destruction and removal of ALL personnel who have enabled the system to thrive (from the providers perspective) will effect meaningful change.

      Seeing what has happened as a result of privatisation of the disability sector has made me more aware, and nervous as the race is on to do the same for housing and….more worryingly…child welfare and health.

    • Gosman 4.3
      13 December 2016 at 12:26 pm

      The statistics don’t support that statement. See my above post.

    • Gosman 4.4
      13 December 2016 at 12:28 pm

      There is little evidence that poverty rates have got significantly worse over the past 8 years

      • One Anonymous Bloke 4.4.1
        13 December 2016 at 1:12 pm

        Then stop cherry-picking your start date and go back to 1982. Define “little” and “significantly”. I expect the extra families living in cars will be delighted to hear how insignificant they are.

        • Gosman 4.4.1.1
          13 December 2016 at 1:18 pm

          I’m not cheery picking the start date. It was chosen by the numerous leftist comments on here who claim this government has made poverty and inequality worse in their time in power. Unless you are trying to argue they have in fact been in power since 1982.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 4.4.1.1.1
            13 December 2016 at 1:23 pm

            This government has made poverty and inequality worse in the last eight years, according to you. You claim it’s “little” and “insignificant”, but since you refuse to define or quantify these terms…how about I consult my memory of the relative number of beggars on the streets…

            Yep, you’re wrong again: they seem significant to me.

            • Gosman 4.4.1.1.1.1
              13 December 2016 at 1:27 pm

              What was the GINI coefficient in 2008 and what is it now?

              What was the Poverty rate in 2008 and what is it now?

              Please provide links to statistics backing your claims up.

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                13 December 2016 at 1:47 pm

                What McFlock said. And UNICEF. And the Sallies.

              • McFlock …
                13 December 2016 at 5:49 pm

                geez, you really couldn’t be bothered reading the post, could you.

              • wellfedweta …
                14 December 2016 at 7:25 pm

                1. Income inequality since 1982 is graphed at http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/snapshots-of-nz/nz-social-indicators/Home/Standard%20of%20living/income-inequality.aspx

                There has been virtually no change since 1994, and very little change since 1982.

                2. The GINI increased during the late 1950’s and early 1990’s, but has remained virtually unchanged since the mid 1990’s. http://www.statschat.org.nz/2013/12/09/inequality-in-nz/. This is in direct contradiction to the claims of many on the far left. And from most Labour members of parliament.

                Note – Frankly I don’t see the problem as inequality, unless we live in a country of envy. I don’t care whether my brother earns twice what I earn, as long as I have the basic necessities of life. Also, it is not the governments job to ensure equality of outcome. It is the governments job to attempt to achieve equality of opportunity.

                The next question is – if inequality has not changed since the mid 1990’s, and since 2008 there have been significant increases in the minimum wage and real wages, why is the left claiming poverty has increased? The answer to that is complex, and is found in more detailed studies, such as the Dunedin Study.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  14 December 2016 at 7:37 pm

                  Your witless dickhead failure to redefine inequality to mean whatever you want it to mean is duly ridiculed. No-one cares what you reckon.

                  • wellfedweta …
                    14 December 2016 at 7:51 pm

                    The GINI is not my attempt to redefine inequality. But it doesn’t suit your misrepresentation of reality, I do understand that.

  5. Draco T Bastard 5
    13 December 2016 at 9:23 am

    So, what will Bill English’s government do about poverty – evasions, words, or actions?

    Probably the same as any National government – kick them while they’re down and blame them for the kicking.

  6. Karen 6
    13 December 2016 at 11:08 am

    Bill has Minister of Finance over the past 8 years and therefore he is the one who is responsible for increased poverty in this time. Cuts in health spending, welfare reforms and selling off state housing are down to Bill English.

    The “social investment” approach is just a way of reducing social spending by pushing the responsibility for poor outcomes onto private companies. The pretence that private enterprise does a better job than the state is crap. All that happens is that private companies are better able to hide the true outcomes while sending all their profits overseas. Compass and Serco are good examples. “Compassionate” conservative? You have to be kidding.

    I don’t agree with everything here but Easton has summed up Bill’s role quite well.
    http://www.pundit.co.nz/content/letter-to-bill

    As for Bennett – while on DPB she was able to give up her part-time work that she found hard without any penalty but she insists solo-parents have to find work when their child turns 3. Paula got a training incentive allowance that allowed her to go to university – her first job as Social Development minister was to scrap the TIA. She also got rid of Sickness Benefit replacing it with a Jobseeker Benefit. If you haven’t seen the film “I, Daniel Blake” then I suggest you do so. Paula consulted with the UK before bringing this same inhumane system to NZ.

    Bill English said on Morning Report this morning that he had given every beneficiary family an extra $25. This is a lie. Very few qualified for the full $25 – many got nothing. Even for those who did qualify for for a few extra dollars it was not nearly enough to make up for the massive increase in accommodation costs that Bill is in part responsible for..

    Expect a lot more about Bill English the “compassionate” conservative and Paula Bennett the teenage solo mum who climbed to the top in the media. Hopefully some journalists will dig a little deeper but I’m not holding my breath.

    • Bob 6.1
      13 December 2016 at 12:20 pm

      Sorry Karen, I only got to “Bill has Minister of Finance over the past 8 years and therefore he is the one who is responsible for increased poverty in this time” and you lost me.
      Did you even look through the report? Almost all poverty measures peaked in 2011 at the height of the GFC and have now dropped back to, or below the level they were at in 2008 when Bill English became Minister for Finance.
      Hard to make an argument around Bill English being responsible for increased poverty when the report this post is based on doesn’t back up what you are saying.

      • Gosman 6.1.1
        13 December 2016 at 12:30 pm

        Yes there is little evidence that poverty rates have increased dramatically since 2008

        • Paul 6.1.1.1
          13 December 2016 at 12:35 pm

          Why not be honest, Gosman?
          You don’t care abut the poor.

          • Bob 6.1.1.1.1
            13 December 2016 at 12:45 pm

            Why not be honest, Paul?
            You haven’t even looked at the report.

          • Gosman 6.1.1.1.2
            13 December 2016 at 12:45 pm

            Why don’t you guys be honest? You don’t really care about the true state of poverty in NZ. You just like to use the issue as an attack against a political grouping you don’t like. Trying to pretend the current government has made inequality and poverty worse is not supported by much in the way of evidence.

            • McFlock 6.1.1.1.2.1
              13 December 2016 at 1:51 pm

              Careful, gos, your moral compass is showing.

              Just because you don’t give a shit about poverty, it doesn’t mean that others are just as fucked up as you.

        • michelle 6.1.1.2
          13 December 2016 at 1:01 pm

          Of course the report is written to appease who and hide what, we aren’t stupid we can see how our country has gone downhill in the last 8 years. Our govt have received many reports in the 8 years and dismissed them and the contents. This government has been damaging our country and our people and they ignore and denigrate any reports when they don’t like what they hear now you are trying to shuff a report down people throats and expect us to believe it is gospel after all the lies and half truths we have been fed get real gosman.
          What about Pulla Rebstocks 500 k MFAT leak inquiry the one that your govt had to pay the public servants an undisclosed amount. This is the sort of rot we have in govt now and this is just the tip of the iceberg . And by the way gosman we are still waiting for our Saudi trade deal the one that cost us tax payers 11.5 million any updates for us Bro

          • Gosman 6.1.1.2.1
            13 December 2016 at 1:06 pm

            Once again no statistics just your emotive view on the subject. Except your emotive view hasn’t really been terribly successful at convincing more than half the electorate has it? Why don’t you try something new and provide some hard evidence to support your position?

        • saveNZ 6.1.1.3
          13 December 2016 at 2:36 pm

          Go down Queen ST in Auckland, Gosman!

          • saveNZ 6.1.1.3.1
            13 December 2016 at 2:39 pm

            Maybe like the Freshwater111 site – there should be a homeless site with proof for the skeptics like Gossie and John Key and other RWNJ (but with faces obscured so that homeless people are not further victimised).

            https://web.facebook.com/groups/freshwater111/

            • Gosman 6.1.1.3.1.1
              13 December 2016 at 3:20 pm

              So you haven’t got any links to any sites with actual statistical evidence then? Why not if it is such a no brainer that this government has caused a sustained increase in poverty and inequality?

              • McFlock …
                13 December 2016 at 3:32 pm

                What, you mean other than the child poverty monitor site that’s in the fucking post?

                How about the nice wee Census comparison that shows a larger proportion of people in severe housing deprivation in the last census?

                • Gosman …
                  13 December 2016 at 4:38 pm

                  We’ve already discussed this. Child poverty rose from 2007 to 2010 and then has drifted up and down. There is no evidence that it is getting worse on a consistent basis (which is what you would expect if people here were correct and the current government’s policies are designed to hurt the poor).

                  • adam …
                    13 December 2016 at 4:52 pm

                    OH for god sake, who cares if it it getting worse. The fact its so high already – IS THE PROBLEM!

                    So stop trying to score points with kids lives you tosser.

                  • McFlock …
                    13 December 2016 at 5:43 pm

                    Child poverty rose from 2007 to 2010 and then has drifted up and down.

                    More up than down on most measures, and roughly the same on the other measures.

                    Funny how it seems to get worse then remain static under tory governments, isn’t it. And that that’s the best you can say about them: gets worse, then stays the same.

                    • Gosman …
                      13 December 2016 at 6:01 pm

                      It got worse under a policy framework that was mainly reflective of a center left government. The main influence subsequent is housing costs which are caused by the fact we are not building enough houses to satisfy demand. Free that market up and poverty rates will decrease.

                    • McFlock …
                      13 December 2016 at 6:04 pm

                      more fucking lies.
                      Key was never centre left.
                      Nor was Richardson.

      • Karen 6.1.2
        13 December 2016 at 1:52 pm

        Actually Bob, I did read the report. I suggest you do so again.
        Re child poverty:

        “The promising decline seen from 2001 to 2007 when policies such as Working for Families contributed to some families’ income increasing, has not been maintained. Between 2007 and 2010 child poverty rates increased (reflecting the time of the global financial crisis), then declined, so that in 2013 the rates were nearly equal to those in 2007.”

        Let’s not blame the GFC. After all there were plenty of people who got rich during that time. Just not the poor. Oh and Bill English approved tax cuts didn’t he?

        Perhaps you are just looking at measurements that do not take housing costs into account.

        “In New Zealand the most rapid rises in income inequality occurred from 1988 to 1992. From 2004 to 2007 income inequality fell, particularly for households with children, after the introduction of the Working for Families (WFF) package. Unemployment rates also fell during this period. There has been more volatility in the P80:P20 ratio since the 2008 global financial crisis. Housing costs contribute to income inequality as they usually take up a greater proportion of household income for households on lower incomes than those on higher incomes. Although the P80:P20 ratio BHC (before housing costs) suggests that inequality was fairly stable from 2000–2015, the P80:P20 ratio AHC (after housing costs) indicates that inequality increased from 2008 to 2015 and was close to the previous high point before the 2004 WFF package.”

        • Bob 6.1.2.1
          13 December 2016 at 3:47 pm

          So you read the report, actually quoted back to me the point that by 2013 “the rates were nearly equal to those in 2007.” and quoted ” (reflecting the time of the global financial crisis)” which was stated as the reason for the rise from 2007 – 2010, then decided to ignore the 2015 data which showed further drops in poverty across almost every measure and still say “Bill has Minister of Finance over the past 8 years and therefore he is the one who is responsible for increased poverty in this time”?

          “Oh and Bill English approved tax cuts didn’t he?”
          Yes he did, they came into effect October 1st 2010. Go back to the report and have a look what happened to poverty levels from that date.

          “Perhaps you are just looking at measurements that do not take housing costs into account.”
          Fair point, ‘Hospitalisations due to assault, neglect or maltreatment’, ‘Deaths from assault, neglect or maltreatment’, ‘Deaths from conditions with a social gradient’, ‘Sudden unexpected death in infancy’, ‘Severe poverty’, ‘Material hardship’ and ‘Child poverty’, are all at or below 2008 levels (you seemed to miss these), but taking housing costs into account poverty levels have increased.
          Good news for you though Karen, looks like that may be changing too: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/property/news/article.cfm?c_id=8&objectid=11765203

          I take it based on these numbers you will be voting National in 2017?

          • Karen 6.1.2.1.1
            14 December 2016 at 11:08 am

            You are being very selective again, Bob. I have better things to do that engage with people like you so I would suggest everybody should read the report themselves and ignore everything that does not include housing costs as there is no point to any measure that does not include the cost of housing. Then they should reflect on the fact that the number of homeless has increased and ponder on how many of these people will get counted in a household survey.

    • Nick 6.2
      13 December 2016 at 12:28 pm

      Nice comment Karen….PB….pulling up the ladder as fast as she can.

    • Draco T Bastard 6.3
      13 December 2016 at 1:10 pm

      The “social investment” approach is just a way of reducing social spending by pushing the responsibility for poor outcomes onto private companies.

      The ‘social investment’ approach is all about shifting government money into private profit. It has no other purpose.

      “Compassionate” conservative? You have to be kidding.

      Sociopathic, greedy scum would be a far more accurate description.

      • Gosman 6.3.1
        13 December 2016 at 1:16 pm

        And that is why you are unlikely to get much traction for your ideas Draco. While there may indeed be sociopathic greedy scum business people out there labelling them all this is just going to alienate people who may be interested in some of what you have to say but either know and like or are business people themselves. The good thing from my perspective is telling you this won’t ever change your mind as you will continue to do so. The bad thing from my perspective is you’re such a fringe dweller on the left of the political spectrum you have no real influence on any left grouping that could pose a danger to my world view.

        • Draco T Bastard 6.3.1.1
          13 December 2016 at 2:51 pm

          If they don’t like it then perhaps they should stop being sociopathic, greedy scum.

          As for others liking them – well, psychopaths really are known for being very charming while lying to your face.

    • Pat 6.4
      13 December 2016 at 3:19 pm

      “The “social investment” approach is just a way of reducing social spending by pushing the responsibility for poor outcomes onto private companies.”

      that may well be behind the agenda of this government but there is no need for the concept to involve private enterprise to any great degree or potentially even at all.
      The logic of identifying and assisting individuals/families at risk BEFORE the damage is done is beyond argument however the practicality of implementation is fraught with potential dispute…..as always the devil is in the detail.

      There is no reason why Labour couldn’t appropriate and enhance a Nat policy for a change.

  7. adam 7
    13 December 2016 at 2:01 pm

    I see Gossy is at his usual and I’m not sure why people argue with him, this is an individual who put Pinochet on a pedestal, economically. If that is his logic, do you think mutual aid, or stopping poverty is somthing he actually cares about? It is his rather fixed, and rabid ideology which worships money over people – which is on display.

    So my advise, don’t feed the ideology of selfishness. People like gossy feed off it, they like proving that there selfish, it’s all about me, my way of economics is the only answer. If you look at his arguments this morning, not only is it desperate, it is t.i.n.a, very little actually looking for solutions, and nothing for wanting us to be better human beings.

    Nothing you can say will influence gossy, ideology rules OK, so don’t bother.

    Instead, work on solutions to end poverty, here you actually have to look at the base of a society, which is run by, and for those who are ideologically tethered to radical liberalism.

    • McFlock 7.1
      13 December 2016 at 2:06 pm

      goss’s role at times like these is to sow misinformation, minimise the demonstrable, and outright lie about the obvious, all while pretending to sound reasonable.

      goss is a deplorable piece of shit, but today’s unchallenged lie becomes tomorrow’s accepted truth.

      • Red 7.1.1
        13 December 2016 at 2:39 pm

        No he just put forwards facts and stats, you and others emotion hyperbole and the odd personal observation or testimony that supports your view, ideology and some how this trumps facts, go figure ?

        • adam 7.1.1.1
          13 December 2016 at 2:49 pm

          So red or what ever other names you go by. I see you went straight for trolling. But what facts? What numbers, the out of date ones?

          But then maybe you could think things through, but I’m at the point you may not, much simpler to be a typical alt-right spoiler ah red, much much simpler.

        • McFlock 7.1.1.2
          13 December 2016 at 2:59 pm

          But if he had a leg to stand on, he could merely use the facts and stats in the child poverty monitor, rather than searching for his own.

          Yes, I’m emotional, but it’s not hyperbole. Child poverty is why I especially hate this ladder-kicking bunch of sociopaths. Kids being admitted to hospital due to conditions that are directly linked to overcrowding is why I especially hate this government. Poor housing being named as a direct contributor to the deaths of babies is why I hate this government.

          And yes, Labour did it too and every government for the last thirty years has ignored or slapped ineffectually the growing problems. But at least most of the other parties view it as a bad thing, and if you squint really hard you could believe that they are merely on the wrong track in their attempts or too small in parliament to address the problem. But you fuckwits give the distinct impression that you don’t even care.

          That’s the insult. That’s the crime. That’s the obscenity. You bastards don’t even care.

          • ropata 7.1.1.2.1
            13 December 2016 at 3:43 pm

            The beancounter is in charge of NZ now. Poor people are a cost to be minimised and/or swept under the carpet. Social investment is far too long term for Bling’s ideological budget surplus. Shame that the human cost is not on his ledger.

            It is on God’s ledger though. Repent Bill!! (various quotes from openbible.info)

            Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty and did an abomination before me. So I removed them, when I saw it.

            For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs.

            Whoever despises his neighbor is a sinner, but blessed is he who is generous to the poor.

            Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.

            Whoever is generous to the poor lends to the Lord, and he will repay him for his deed.

            Whoever closes his ear to the cry of the poor will himself call out and not be answered.

            But if anyone has the world’s goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God’s love abide in him? Little children, let us not love in word or talk but in deed and in truth.

          • wellfedweta 7.1.1.2.2
            13 December 2016 at 3:47 pm

            Hi McFlock

            I think people do care, but maybe we need to discuss solutions, rather than arguing about the numbers. We live in a country where we spend an increasing amount of money on welfare, where we have an internationally high minimum wage, where education and healthcare all but free, yet we have people falling through the cracks. We can blame governments, poor parenting, laziness, neo-liberalism, or any other ‘ism’ you choose to invent, but that doesn’t actually help anyone. So here’s a challenge. What would you do to reduce child poverty?

            • McFlock 7.1.1.2.2.1
              13 December 2016 at 3:51 pm

              First step to identifying solutions is to assess the nature and extent of the problem.

              Denial of the problem when it’s listed in such detail brings one’s concern into doubt.

              • wellfedweta …
                13 December 2016 at 5:10 pm

                But there are plenty of reports about this problem. Who cares about the extent of it. What do we do to fix it?

                • McFlock …
                  13 December 2016 at 5:28 pm

                  We need to know the extent of it to see whether we have improved the situation or made it worse. Currently we’ve made it worse, unless you take gosman’s sunny view that we’ve note changed it in any significant way in almost the past decade.

                  Easiest way to end poverty: give poor people money on a weekly basis, via benefits and wages if they have jobs.

                  Cheaper but more difficult way to end poverty: well-fund a copious supply of doctors, social workers, and teachers. Provide free childcare and education to tertiary level. Fund it by having those who benefitted disproportionately from the intelligence of previous governments taxed at a slightly higher rate than those who did not receive that same level of benefit, rather than enabling the disproportionate beneficiaries kick the ladders away behind them. As well as give poor people money on a weekly basis, via benefits and wages if they have jobs.

                  Expensive way to perpetuate the problem: underfund everything and build more prisons. Pretend increases in minimum wage to living wage level will do more harm than good. Pretend nothing needs to be done, or if something needs to be done then nothing can be done, or if something can be done pretend it’s too late now. Standard tory playbook.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    13 December 2016 at 6:22 pm

                    underfund everything and build more prisons. Pretend increases in minimum wage to living wage level will do more harm than good. Pretend nothing needs to be done, or if something needs to be done then nothing can be done, or if something can be done pretend it’s too late now.

                    That’s worth a post all on its own. just to remind people what the National Party is. Why aren’t you an author McFlock?! Please consider it. Your input has so much value.

                    • McFlock …
                      13 December 2016 at 11:13 pm

                      bit busy these days. Besides, this denialist bullshit is bad formy blood pressure. Fucking tories.

                  • Gosman …
                    13 December 2016 at 6:28 pm

                    Except Sweden does all those things and their poverty rates have tracked slightly upwards recently.

                    • McFlock …
                      13 December 2016 at 10:48 pm

                      More proof you prefer to make shit up rather than read the post or the links in the post.

                      figure 23.

                      Feel free to compare sweden and NZ levels if you have more recent data. Bryan Perry might like to see it, too.

                    • Gosman …
                      13 December 2016 at 10:58 pm

                      I didn’t state they were higher than us. I stated their recent trends have been negative while ours has been stable.

                    • McFlock …
                      13 December 2016 at 11:10 pm

                      Oh, indeed.

                      Tracked upwards ever so slightly while still being far below NZ, who choose to follow policies that benefit only the rich.

                      We should only pray that we do as badly at addressing the poverty problem as Sweden, even with the slight swedish uptick. Hey, maybe we could copy their policies just to enjoy their Fury Road level of inequality and social decay.

                  • wellfedweta …
                    13 December 2016 at 7:56 pm

                    Thanks McFlock, at least you have attempted to answer my question. How would determine who is ‘poor’? In principle I want to help people, but I am not interested in subsidising people who could do more to help themselves. How do we achieve this balance?

                    • weka …
                      13 December 2016 at 8:26 pm

                      For every 100 people in need that get helped, how many people are you willing to subsidise who could do more to help themselves? How would you determine who those latter people are?

                    • wellfedweta …
                      13 December 2016 at 8:32 pm

                      “For every 100 people in need that get helped, how many people are you willing to subsidise who could do more to help themselves? How would you determine who those latter people are?”

                      Excellent question.

                      1. As many as meet the criteria.
                      2. I don’t believe determining those in genuine need is that hard. Between the Police, a revitalized MfVC and other government and non-government agencies, I believe we could weed out those who on the take.

                    • weka …
                      13 December 2016 at 8:46 pm

                      Did you misunderstand the question or did I misunderstand your earlier statement? You said,

                      “In principle I want to help people, but I am not interested in subsidising people who could do more to help themselves.”

                      By “people who could do more to help themselves” I took you to mean people who you think shouldn’t have assistance. I want to know how many of those people you would be willing to subsidise in order to help 100 people who need help? Is it zero? Or a number higher than that?

                      What is MfVC?

                    • McFlock …
                      13 December 2016 at 10:57 pm

                      Oh, so the person who didn’t need to know the extent of the problem now wants a precise definition of it?

                      From a population level, I’ll start with anyone living <50% of the median household income or living in extreme hardship as defined as meeting seven or more "lacks" in dep17 or the equivalent MWI.

                      At a case level, I'd say anyone who relies on social workers, food banks or government transfers to live, as determined by those organisations on a case by case basis.

                      But, to quote John Oliver, the poverty level is a bit like the age of consent for sex: if you feel the need to parse exacty where it is, the chances arethat you've already done something very, very wrong. So I don't care if the people who are poor don't meet your level of whether they deserve your condescending assistance.

                    • wellfedweta …
                      14 December 2016 at 2:49 pm

                      “Oh, so the person who didn’t need to know the extent of the problem now wants a precise definition of it?”

                      No. Where did I ask that? There are plenty of definitions. Let’s get on with fixing it.

                    • Muttonbird …
                      14 December 2016 at 2:51 pm

                      @Weka.

                      Ministry for Vulnerable Children. Even righties can’t bear the name so they can’t bring themselves to use it.

                    • wellfedweta …
                      14 December 2016 at 2:58 pm

                      “By “people who could do more to help themselves” I took you to mean people who you think shouldn’t have assistance.”

                      Not zero, but close to it. Again each case needs to be assessed. You can’t just make a decision based on subjective criteria. That’s why I support the cross agency information sharing we are using a lot more of, and it is why I support much of what English etc have been doing to target investment where it is most needed.

                      Throwing money at dysfunction has been tried and failed. We need a more targeted, evidence based approach, and that is what I see happening now. More to come.

                    • McFlock …
                      15 December 2016 at 12:18 pm

                      “Oh, so the person who didn’t need to know the extent of the problem now wants a precise definition of it?”

                      No. Where did I ask that? There are plenty of definitions.

                      You asked how to determine who is poor. Given that income, assets, expenditures and social service use are trivially available on a routine basis, that leaves only the definition against which those are measured.

                    • wellfedweta …
                      15 December 2016 at 12:41 pm

                      “You asked how to determine who is poor.”
                      Yes. Which is quite different to not knowing the ‘extent of the problem’.

                      “Given that income, assets, expenditures and social service use are trivially available on a routine basis, that leaves only the definition against which those are measured.”

                      That isn’t much use. Two people can exist on exactly the same income levels, one do well, the other not. Defining poverty as a % of some wage number is equally silly, as has been demonstrated often. Poverty is being without, not being with less than the rest.

                    • McFlock …
                      15 December 2016 at 1:10 pm

                      “You asked how to determine who is poor.”
                      Yes. Which is quite different to not knowing the ‘extent of the problem’.

                      Indeed. It does, however, require a benchmark definition of “poor” against which one can make the determination.

                      Two people can exist on exactly the same income levels, one do well, the other not. Defining poverty as a % of some wage number is equally silly, as has been demonstrated often. Poverty is being without, not being with less than the rest.

                      And of course “being without” is exactly what is covered by the MWI/Dep17 measures to which I referred. But median income measures are more comprehensively obtained and measurably correlate to similar outcomes reflected by material hardship, so can act as a reasonably accurate proxy at a policy level. However, you will also note that I included some case assessment criteria to catch any who were missed by the broader instruments.

                      Yes, some will live with dignity on lower incomes – the fewer number the lower the income. I’m happy for them. Who really gives a shit if a beneficiary can afford a boutique beer now and then. My concern is for those who need more to live in dignity – that is how I measure the success of the policy. Not on whether someone might get a little bit more than they need, but whether anybody in this land of plenty simply cannot make their ends meet.

                      And this country is failing dismally by that measure. Not because of distribution inaccuracy at the lower end, but the unwillingness to take it off the people at the top end.

                    • wellfedweta …
                      15 December 2016 at 4:15 pm

                      ” It does, however, require a benchmark definition of “poor” against which one can make the determination.”

                      Determining whether a single person (which was the question) is poor, is very different to determing the ‘extent of the problem’.

                      “And this country is failing dismally by that measure. Not because of distribution inaccuracy at the lower end, but the unwillingness to take it off the people at the top end.”

                      That doesn’t work. Never has. We pour money at the ‘poor’ now. More than ever before. Yet you claim the problem gets worse. Doesn’t this resonate with you in any way at all?

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      15 December 2016 at 4:24 pm

                      It resonates with me: false narratives about poverty are nothing but hate speech.

                      You need to do more homework.

                    • wellfedweta …
                      15 December 2016 at 4:25 pm

                      “It resonates with me: false narratives about poverty are nothing but hate speech.”

                      Oh my little snowflake. Please do tell me what McFlock or said that was a ‘false narrative’?

                    • McFlock …
                      15 December 2016 at 6:33 pm

                      Creating population benchmarks of “poor” means the government doesn’t need to spend hours interviewing every single person just to make sure they fit your definition of “poor”.

                      Your tightwad nature actually costs more money to implement in the real world than being at home with the fact that no system can every perfectly divide the “poor in need of assistance” from the rest of the population, and erring on the side of caution.

                      We don’t “pour money at the poor” now.
                      We throw money at a currently dysfunctional system that harrasses everyone who applies, drives people to suicide, puts its own employees at risk of serious harm and death, and still does next to nothing to address the problem.

                      When we had a genuine social welfare system, rather than a system of alienation and exploitation, we spent less money and had much less poverty. It wasn’t perfect, but it was a fuck of a lot better than it is today. That does “resonate” with me.

                      But you want to quibble about whether this person or that person is poor and deserves your precious assistance. Hundreds of thousands of people would need to be intensively assessed before you’ll pretend to start looking at solutions. The only “resonance” you have is the echo as conceit rattles around the vacuum between your ears.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      15 December 2016 at 6:49 pm

                      Wellrehearsedgimp, in your own words you “detest” people. You are motivated by hate.

                      Consolidated wrote a song about you.

                    • wellfedweta …
                      15 December 2016 at 7:52 pm

                      “Creating population benchmarks of “poor” means the government doesn’t need to spend hours interviewing every single person just to make sure they fit your definition of “poor”.”
                      Then, based on your criteria, we will allocate resources to people who are abusing the system. That is a waste of money.

                      “Your tightwad nature actually costs more money to implement in the real world than being at home with the fact that no system can every perfectly divide the “poor in need of assistance” from the rest of the population, and erring on the side of caution.”
                      No, I disagree. By implementing greater accountability, the genuine needy will be able to access more targeted services.

                      “We don’t “pour money at the poor” now.”
                      Yes, we do. At record levels.

                      “We throw money at a currently dysfunctional system that harrasses everyone who applies, drives people to suicide, puts its own employees at risk of serious harm and death, and still does next to nothing to address the problem.”
                      Hyperbole. But I agree with you the system needs change, and that is what we’re seeing happen.

                      “When we had a genuine social welfare system, rather than a system of alienation and exploitation, we spent less money and had much less poverty. It wasn’t perfect, but it was a fuck of a lot better than it is today. That does “resonate” with me.”
                      What you’re referring to was not a welfare system, it was an economy protected by access to guaranteed markets within the commonwealth. Times have changed.

                    • McFlock …
                      16 December 2016 at 12:29 am

                      Then, based on your criteria, we will allocate resources to people who are abusing the system. That is a waste of money.

                      No they’re not – they qualify so they’re entitled. No it’s not, because the alternative is to send massive amounts of money on assessing each and every applicant to the nth degree.

                      No, I disagree. By implementing greater accountability, the genuine needy will be able to access more targeted services.

                      But how much does that “accountability” cost? The more hoops people jump through, the more bureaucrats you need. And the greater the chance that people in genuine need will be unable to satisfy all your “accountability” requirements.

                      “We don’t “pour money at the poor” now.”
                      Yes, we do. At record levels.

                      Massive amounts of that money don’t actually reach the poor. They go to the bureaucracy.

                      “We throw money at a currently dysfunctional system that harrasses everyone who applies, drives people to suicide, puts its own employees at risk of serious harm and death, and still does next to nothing to address the problem.”
                      Hyperbole.

                      A current coroners inquest and recent worksafe prosecution suggest not hyperbole at all.

                      But I agree with you the system needs change, and that is what we’re seeing happen.

                      For the worse: more harrassment, less assistance.

                      What you’re referring to was not a welfare system, it was an economy protected by access to guaranteed markets within the commonwealth. Times have changed.

                      Oh bullshit. Not only do the timeframes between the NZ welfare state destruction and UK common market entry not match up, nothing in those changing times required that we start treating people like shit. That’s purely down to your corrupt ideology.

                    • wellfedweta …
                      16 December 2016 at 9:21 pm

                      “No they’re not – they qualify so they’re entitled. No it’s not, because the alternative is to send massive amounts of money on assessing each and every applicant to the nth degree.”

                      I hear what you’re saying, but my point is over the long term the investment can be allocated over less families, because the ones who are not genuinely in need will find out the system is too robust.

                      “A current coroners inquest and recent worksafe prosecution suggest not hyperbole at all.”

                      Sorry you may need to elaborate on what you mean.

                      “Oh bullshit. Not only do the timeframes between the NZ welfare state destruction and UK common market entry not match up, nothing in those changing times required that we start treating people like shit. That’s purely down to your corrupt ideology.”

                      The time frames do match. The full impact of entry of GB into the EEC took years to impact on NZ. And we don’t treat people like shit, at least not often and not as a matter of policy. In fact we have one of the most generous welfare systems in the world. Finally my ideology is not corrupt. It is somewhere near the prevailing thinking in vast swathes of the planet that is reducing poverty and empowering initiative and enterprise.

                    • McFlock …
                      16 December 2016 at 11:29 pm

                      Ok,so now we all know that you don’t follow news headlines in NZ, you have no idea about the process that friends of mine are going through right now and how they are treated, and that you prioritise “not giving people more than they need” over “give people all that they need”. Because that last one is a practical dichotomy.

                      Oh, and we also now know that you confuse “not corrupt” with “most people I can think of do it”. Which is an interesting juxtaposition with your attitudes to beneficiaries, but whatever, dude.

                    • wellfedweta …
                      17 December 2016 at 7:42 am

                      “Ok,so now we all know that you don’t follow news headlines in NZ, ”

                      If you seriously think that the entry of the UK into the EEC had nothing to do with the reforms of the 1980’s in NZ or of the economic challenges this country faced from then, then you clearly have zero grasp on reality.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      17 December 2016 at 7:49 am

                      @McFlock: Idly speculating whether Maninthemiddle’s non-sequitur is a consequence of illiteracy, or a tacit surrender.

                    • wellfedweta …
                      17 December 2016 at 7:58 am

                      “…and we also now know that you confuse “not corrupt” with “most people I can think of do it”.”

                      That’s plain dishonest. But then you don’t know what trend analysis is, so I presume you don’t know what juxtaposition means either. You really are getting desperate.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      17 December 2016 at 8:02 am

                      The prevailing characteristic of this thread is that McFlock is right.

                    • McFlock …
                      19 December 2016 at 1:36 pm

                      Why do you think the statement “my ideology is not corrupt” is at all relevant to whether it is “somewhere near the prevailing thinking” anywhere in the world?

                    • wellfedweta …
                      20 December 2016 at 2:10 pm

                      “Why do you think the statement “my ideology is not corrupt” is at all relevant to whether it is “somewhere near the prevailing thinking” anywhere in the world?”

                      I don’t. You need to read my full quote, in which I referred to the results of the ‘prevailing thinking’ quote:

                      “Finally my ideology is not corrupt. It is somewhere near the prevailing thinking in vast swathes of the planet that is reducing poverty and empowering initiative and enterprise.”

                    • McFlock …
                      20 December 2016 at 9:47 pm

                      and yet if you were demonstrably correct in that assertion, all you would need to point to is one. Not “vast swathes”. Just one.

                    • wellfedweta …
                      21 December 2016 at 2:16 pm

                      “…and yet if you were demonstrably correct in that assertion, all you would need to point to is one.”

                      Gladly. https://mises.org/library/data-clear-free-markets-reduce-poverty

                      “Thirty years ago half (50 percent) the people in the poorer nations of the world lived in extreme poverty. In 2012, 21 percent of people in the poorer nations of the world live in extreme poverty. Development of global markets has greatly lessened poverty around the world. This is a very important fact.”

                    • McFlock …
                      21 December 2016 at 9:35 pm

                      lol, a Mises link! I call tory bingo!

                      Even if that link weren’t bullshit in that it takes a couple of global metrics (per capita gdp, really?) and attributes their movement solely to international market liberalisation, and if I ignored your slide from “poverty” to “extreme poverty”, then are you saying that the sum total of your personal idealogy is market liberalisation?

                    • wellfedweta …
                      22 December 2016 at 12:45 pm

                      “Even if that link weren’t bullshit …”

                      The link isn’t bs. It is supported by hard data, and many other sources. You can run but you can’t hide McF.

                    • McFlock …
                      22 December 2016 at 7:35 pm

                      It completely ignores the impact of the billions of dollars spent on global water, roads, housing, and health programmes both privately and by the UN and government aid agencies over the past few decades.

                      It has no link between gdp and trade liberalisation, and no link between gdp and poverty rates. If we’re matching two random things together to assume a causal relationship, saying that AIDS causes trade liberalisation because they both increased in the same rough time period would be just as valid. Hell, Cuba has someof the most restricted trade in the Caribbean, and one of the lowest AIDS rates. By mises logic, one obviously causes the other.

                    • wellfedweta …
                      24 December 2016 at 3:03 pm

                      “It completely ignores the impact of the billions of dollars spent on global water, roads, housing, and health programmes both privately and by the UN and government aid agencies over the past few decades.”

                      Who funds that work?

                      Who funds the countries that fund that work?

                      Who pays the taxes that fund the countries that fund that work?

                      It doesn’t matter how much aid goes in, if an economy is run like a shit-house (eg Venezuela) then no amunt of aid will assist.

                    • ropata …
                      24 December 2016 at 3:15 pm

                      Time wasting troll cannot back up his claims, attempts to change the subject.

                    • McFlock …
                      26 December 2016 at 11:35 pm

                      Who funds all that work?

                      Interesting question.
                      Pity your mises bullshit never even mentioned the work, let alone a link between that and anything else in the article.

            • Paul 7.1.1.2.2.2
              13 December 2016 at 3:55 pm

              Firstly, acknowledge its seriousness.

              • The Other Mike …
                13 December 2016 at 4:43 pm

                THEN you get the Govt to act in best interests of the people who might just vote them back when they are doing better:

                “For years, conservatives have been telling us that a healthy business-friendly economy depends on low taxes, few regulations, and low wages. Are they right?

                We’ve had an experiment going on here in the United States that provides an answer. At the one end of the scale are Kansas and Texas, with among the nation’s lowest taxes, least regulations, and lowest wages.

                At the other end is California, featuring among the nation’s highest taxes, especially on the wealthy; lots of regulations, particularly when it comes to the environment; and high wages.

                So according to conservative doctrine, Kansas and Texas ought to be booming, and California ought to be in the pits.

                Actually, it’s just the opposite. For years now, Kansas’s rate of economic growth has been the worst in the nation. Last year its economy actually shrank. Texas hasn’t been doing all that much better. Its rate of job growth has been below the national average. Retail sales are way down. The value of Texas exports has been dropping.”

                Read the full article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/why-liberal-states-won-americas-tax-experiment_us_584e19a2e4b0bd9c3dfd4e67

              • Gosman …
                13 December 2016 at 4:44 pm

                How is child poverty in NZ worse than say child poverty in the UK or Canada or Japan?

              • wellfedweta …
                13 December 2016 at 5:11 pm

                Then?

                • Paul …
                  13 December 2016 at 5:14 pm

                  Do you acknowledge its seriousness?

                  • Gosman …
                    13 December 2016 at 5:15 pm

                    Why do you think it is serious?

                    • Paul …
                      13 December 2016 at 5:16 pm

                      You clearly are trolling.
                      I have better things to do.
                      People like you are beneath contempt.
                      Go away.

                    • McFlock …
                      13 December 2016 at 5:19 pm

                      fuckwit’s confusion over why any poverty is a serious problem displays exactly what makes him a fuckwit.

                    • wellfedweta …
                      13 December 2016 at 5:24 pm

                      “fuckwit’s confusion over why any poverty is a serious problem displays exactly what makes him a fuckwit.”

                      Hi McFlock

                      If that was directed at me it is unfair. I have clearly stated I find poverty and homelessness unacceptable. But I am not particularly interested in more studies or measurement. I actually want to hear suggested policy to remedy the problem. So far all I’m getting is ‘admit the problem’. That doesn’t put food on the table.

                    • McFlock …
                      13 December 2016 at 5:31 pm

                      no, it was a reply to gosman concerning gosman’s question as to why poverty is serious.

                      If you think the hat fits, it simply says something about either your ego or suggests that your true attitudes to poverty differ slightly from your declared position.

                  • wellfedweta …
                    13 December 2016 at 5:20 pm

                    Irrelevant. We have homeless people. We have poverty. The size of the problem is secondary to finding solutions. I want to know what you plan to do about it.

                    • Paul …
                      13 December 2016 at 5:22 pm

                      Go away.

                    • wellfedweta …
                      13 December 2016 at 5:26 pm

                      “Go away.”

                      So you have consumed considerable time and energy discussing a problem for which you have ZERO solutions. What a prat you are.

                    • Gosman …
                      13 December 2016 at 5:39 pm

                      Many on the left don’t really want a solution to poverty as that would mean they would lose a reason to get righteously indignant at people on the right over. They really just want to moan and show how much they care about issues they they think are ‘serious’.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      13 December 2016 at 6:13 pm

                      A simple plan.

                      1. Copy countries who’ve achieved better outcomes.
                      2. Cooperate with them to improve on that.
                      3. Profit!

                    • wellfedweta …
                      13 December 2016 at 7:57 pm

                      “Copy countries who’ve achieved better outcomes.”

                      Example?

                    • Cinny …
                      13 December 2016 at 8:04 pm

                      What are your ideas and solutions WFW to tackle the problem you see? You are happy to ask others, but what are your ideas?

                    • wellfedweta …
                      13 December 2016 at 8:21 pm

                      “What are your ideas and solutions WFW to tackle the problem you see? ”

                      I’m not the one highlighting the problem. But, seeing as you ask, I see this from a very different point of view.

                      NZ has more jobs than ever. We spend more on welfare than ever. We spend more on education and healthcare than ever. So clearly throwing more money at the problem is not the answer. It may be part of the answer, but clearly it hasn’t worked so far.

                      At the same time, we have a serious issue with dysfunctional families, who are contributing to inter-generational welfare dependency, family violence and other assorted crime.

                      I know a number of people who have worked in this environment at the coal face, and whose opinion I value. A common theme I hear is that many of these people need to get away from their familial surroundings. They need the ability to break free from dysfunctional relationships.

                      I would immediately introduce a ‘fresh start’ policy that funds a family (often this will be a single mum) to leave their dysfunctional environment and relocate. This funding would provide for the parent(s) to be independent of abusive family/friends, would provide adequate schooling, housing and healthcare for the family unit. But it would come with strings attached. Contact with named persons would be prohibited. Truancy of children would be unacceptable. Once the children reached high school age the parent(s) would be expected to be in trade training or work.

                      This one idea.

                    • Cinny …
                      13 December 2016 at 8:26 pm

                      So WFW your idea is ..

                      “I would immediately introduce a ‘fresh start’ policy that funds a family (often this will be a single mum) to leave their dysfunctional environment and relocate.”

                      What exactly is a dysfunctional environment?

                      And is that the reason you believe that there is poverty because of a dysfunctional environment?

                      What kind of cost would be involved?

                      How many do you expect to take up this kind of offer?

                      Is it proven to work?

                      Won’t the dysfunctional environment still be there even if one removes the people from it? I’m sure an environment is more than just people.

                      Is NZ becoming an increasing dysfunctional environment for many?

                      Sounds like the national party has become a dysfunctional environment with so many leaving.

                    • wellfedweta …
                      13 December 2016 at 8:38 pm

                      “What exactly is a dysfunctional environment?”
                      Where there is substance abuse, domestic violence, criminal activity…

                      “And is that the reason you believe that there is poverty because of a dysfunctional environment?”
                      Yes in SOME cases. That is not what I believe, it is what I have observed.

                      “What kind of cost would be involved?”
                      Don’t know. My hope would be to reduce welfare dependency by mentoring people away from dysfunction and into healthy families.

                      “How many do you expect to take up this kind of offer?”
                      You seem to be under the illusion people should have to volunteer. People in need would be identified by government and non-government organisations (as they currently are) and put into the scheme.

                      “Is it proven to work?”
                      Yes.

                    • Robert Guyton …
                      13 December 2016 at 8:40 pm

                      “Truancy of children would be unacceptable”

                      Is it presently acceptable?
                      More irresponsible management from National!

                    • wellfedweta …
                      13 December 2016 at 8:43 pm

                      “Truancy of children would be unacceptable”

                      I am speaking from the point of view of the family.

                    • Robert Guyton …
                      13 December 2016 at 8:44 pm

                      “I would immediately introduce a ‘fresh start’ policy that funds a family (often this will be a single mum) to leave their dysfunctional environment and relocate.”

                      Relocate=dislocate
                      Isolating and breaking individuals off from their communities – sounds like a dictatorial sort of solution to me. It takes a village to raise a child, they say. You seem to be flying in the face of that philosophy. I guess you’re not a great Whanau Ora fan then.

                      You “solution” looks to me very interventionist, heavy handed and dictatorial. But it’s for their own good, I’ll bet you want to say.

                    • Robert Guyton …
                      13 December 2016 at 8:47 pm

                      “mentoring people away from dysfunction and into healthy families”
                      Sounds lovely, eh, gentle, benevolent. I’ll bet the Australian Government used similar language when the took the “abo” kids away to those “healthy (white Australian) families”.

                    • wellfedweta …
                      13 December 2016 at 9:11 pm

                      “Isolating and breaking individuals off from their communities – sounds like a dictatorial sort of solution to me”
                      We are talking about people who are dire circumstances. People move all the time to seek work, better career options, better schooling, you name it. A soft option is not an option.

                      “It takes a village to raise a child, they say.”
                      Not when that village is a criminal enterprise.

                    • Cinny …
                      13 December 2016 at 9:21 pm

                      Okies WFW.. so you feel that poverty is caused by mostly but not completely.. a dysfunctional environment, you identify such an environment as having.. substance abuse, domestic violence, criminal activity. Fair enough, that does go on in ANY society, have any countries solved those problems or reduced them and if so how?

                      What if I told you that most poverty is actually caused by low income and the high cost of living? Or that many poor households have no substance abuse, domestic violence or criminal activity? People don’t choose poverty, some things are outside of their control, a birth right of a NZ citizen, such as those in power dictating the minimum wage, etc.
                      What would you suggest to do in those circumstances?

                      And importantly where has your relocation idea worked? Evidence please and thank you.

                      People move all the time you say… no they don’t WFW, it is not easy to move a family, especially when nothing is guaranteed where they are going. As well research has shown that frequently changing schools during childhood may cause mental health issues in later years.

                      Where are the criminal enterprise villages you speak of please? So that we can keep clear of them or see what we can do to help them.

                      What really causes poverty?

                      Vulnerability to natural disasters

                      Discrimination and social inequality

                      National Debt

                      Surely we don’t have those problems, or do we?
                      http://borgenproject.org/what-causes-global-poverty/

                    • wellfedweta …
                      13 December 2016 at 9:35 pm

                      ” Fair enough, that does go on in ANY society, have any countries solved those problems or reduced them and if so how?”
                      Most attempts at change have been under totalitarian regimes, which I would find unacceptable. But that doesn’t mean we cannot break the cycle.

                      “What if I told you that most poverty is actually caused by low income and the high cost of living?”
                      Then you’d be wrong, or at least simplistic.

                      “Or that many poor households have no substance abuse, domestic violence or criminal activity?”
                      And many do.

                      ” People don’t choose poverty”
                      No, but some people make poor decisions that lead to poverty.

                      “…some things are outside of their control, a birth right of a NZ citizen, such as those in power dictating the minimum wage, etc.
                      What would you suggest to do in those circumstances?”
                      The minimum wage in NZ is the 4th highest in the world. What is your point?

                      “And importantly where has your relocation idea worked? ”
                      You’re obsessed with relocation. I’m advocating moving people away from dysfunctional environments, not transplanting them on the moon.

                      “People move all the time you say… no they don’t WFW, it is not easy to move a family, especially when nothing is guaranteed where they are going. As well research has shown that frequently changing schools during childhood may cause mental health issues in later years.”
                      Actually, aside from the fact that you haven’t bother to understand what I meant, this is a fundamental difference in philosophy between our positions, I suspect. When someone is dependent on state welfare, they owe the country some things. One is to put themselves in a position to be free of dependency as soon as possible. If that means moving, so be it. Yes, in the real world families move, and have done for centuries.

                    • Cinny …
                      13 December 2016 at 11:17 pm

                      WFW you said re your ‘relocation idea’ which you brought up

                      “I would immediately introduce a ‘fresh start’ policy that funds a family (often this will be a single mum) to leave their dysfunctional environment and relocate.

                      This funding would provide for the parent(s) to be independent of abusive family/friends, would provide adequate schooling, housing and healthcare for the family unit.

                      But it would come with strings attached. Contact with named persons would be prohibited.

                      Truancy of children would be unacceptable.

                      Once the children reached high school age the parent(s) would be expected to be in trade training or work.”

                      Then WFW you claimed that it is proven to work.

                      I asked for examples as to where it has worked, which countries? etc but you are yet to provide that information.

                      Don’t get sidetracked or tripped up with all your other spin, some can see right thru it.

                      Looking forward to seeing examples of where it has worked. I won’t give you guide lines on authors, ideas, policy and wish lists within your reply. I prefer freedom of speech. So bring on the links, don’t stay up too late

                      Oh and re minimum wage… when the cost of housing is so high that the government is propping up greedy landlords by paying them an accommodation supplement, isn’t that an indication that the minimum wage in nz is not acceptable or workable in the present economic and housing climate? Landlords profiting from our taxes, cause that’s where the accommodation supplement is coming from.

                      Do you really care or is your interest WFW purely to win an online debate?

                      Food for thought.

                    • wellfedweta …
                      14 December 2016 at 2:41 pm

                      “Food for thought.”

                      Where did you get the notion that relocation means moving to another city? Another country? Relocation could mean to a neighbouring street. The issue is to get people away from dysfunction. I encourage you to read this http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/87485762/editorial-how-the-numbercrunchers-could-hold-the-key-to-our-biggest-social-ills, or if possible the Dunedin Study itself. We need to catch these children BEFORE they are a statistic, by putting space between them and the statistics around them.

                      Let me give you an example. I have been watching in despair as the Greens have tried (in vain) to attack the governments plans to reduce the priority given to family involvement in the lives of kids from dysfunctional backgrounds. One of the single biggest hurts for those working in the field that I speak to is returning kids to abusive families, time and again, because of the priority given to the familial link. Let’s get over this PC bs and get our kids out of these families.

            • adam 7.1.1.2.2.3
              13 December 2016 at 4:41 pm

              What actually works wellfedweta, what people like the child’s commissioner are suggesting. But that would take you having to read what was in the piece above.

              Our minimum wage is well below a living wage, and quite frankly to say it’s high, is just trolling. No one on the left is blaming poor parenting, that you lot, and laziness, nope again a lie from you lot.

              A high welfare budget, indeed, and it’s going to explode even higher as we spend the overwhelming majority of it on the 65+ age bracket. Oh not the poor then, who would have thought…

              Solution are many, political will from Tory Scum = zero.

              • wellfedweta …
                13 December 2016 at 5:07 pm

                ” and quite frankly to say it’s high, is just trolling”

                No, it’s fact. NZ has the 4th highest nominal MW in the world (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_minimum_wages_by_country).

                “what people like the child’s commissioner are suggesting. ”

                Which is what? The only suggestion in the piece above is to come up with a plan. A plan to do what?

                I asked you for solutions. You clearly have no idea.

                • Paul …
                  13 December 2016 at 5:15 pm

                  You clearly are trolling.
                  I have better things to do.
                  People like you are beneath contempt.

                  • wellfedweta …
                    13 December 2016 at 5:19 pm

                    So you are unable to accept facts when presented to you and referenced. Well at least we’ve cleared that up.

                • adam …
                  13 December 2016 at 5:26 pm

                  If you had followed the links in reading as I suggested. You would have found this little chestnut.

                  http://www.occ.org.nz/assets/Uploads/EAG/Final-report/Final-report-Solutions-to-child-poverty-evidence-for-action.pdf

                  As for saying a high minimum wage is trolling, simply, yes, because minimum wages are a bad joke, full stop. Our one in particular is a sad little number, that is no where near a living wage . (You know the wage that means you are not in dire poverty, just poverty, but I’m sure you knew that) So if you want to trumpet shallowness, feel free, no one is stopping you.

                  This is one of those comparisons people make to look good when the whole neo-liberal agenda is failing and dragging everything down, but again, feel free to make a fool of yourself by spouting silly comparisons with no compassion, no one is stopping you.

                  • wellfedweta …
                    13 December 2016 at 7:46 pm

                    Yes, the report contains some excellent recommendations. It’s a shame you were not able to answer my question.

                    As to the minimum wage, you are being disingenuous. The minimum wage is not intended to be a living wage, and very few adults try.

              • Gosman …
                13 December 2016 at 5:14 pm

                You lot tried turning the 2014 election in to one about child poverty. Most of the electorate (or at least a significant chunk of it) didn’t buy it then. Why should they care now?

                • adam …
                  13 December 2016 at 5:28 pm

                  I see your inner selfish self is now out Gossy, any more deflecting trolling you’d like to do today? Alt-right fan boy, is that the label?

                • Robert Guyton …
                  13 December 2016 at 6:16 pm

                  ’cause it’s 2016 (almost 2017) and it’s worse!
                  Just thinkin’…

                  • Gosman …
                    13 December 2016 at 6:26 pm

                    But it isn’t worse.

                    • Robert Guyton …
                      13 December 2016 at 6:30 pm

                      Yes it is. Given that it is worse, the voting public will be far more likely to react when confronted by the reality (rather than your insistent denial) and vote accordingly. Straight forward logic, I’m sure recognise.

                    • Gosman …
                      13 December 2016 at 6:34 pm

                      You have no evidence that it is worse now than it was in 2014

                    • Robert Guyton …
                      13 December 2016 at 6:43 pm

                      There is ample evidence that poverty has worsened in New Zealand and that National have been doing all they can to obscure the fact from the voting public, as you are trying to do here. Perception is everything, Gosman, as you know and it is increasing obvious that there is a real and worsening problem with poverty in this country. Bill English made the comment today that there are many ways to tell a story, many ways to present facts; you are having a go, not very convincingly I have to say, judging by the reaction here, and I and others are telling ours. In my opinion, our story, not yours, is the one that is being widely accepted and that’s what counts when it comes to issues like poverty affecting the outcome of an election – your team will go all out to convince the public that there is no significant poverty in New Zealand while our team will do the same to show that there certainly is. In my view, we already have a major lead and the public has a strong belief that poverty is serious and worsening. Your representatives in Parliament seem defensive, quite rightly, and appear to be doubling-down denial and spin in order to regain the public’s support. I think they’ve already lost the competition for the public’s confidence on this issue, and that’s helped greatly because our position is true and feels true to most people. And that’s what it’s all about.

                    • Gosman …
                      13 December 2016 at 8:28 pm

                      Still no evidence I see Mr Guyton. Do you enjoy operating in a fact free environment?

          • Gosman 7.1.1.2.3
            13 December 2016 at 4:41 pm

            It is in there. The stats worsened between 2007 and 2010 and then have remained relatively static or drifted down. In the first part of that period Labour party policies were in place for 2 out of the 3 years. How come you are attributing the upswing to National?

            • adam 7.1.1.2.3.1
              13 December 2016 at 4:46 pm

              I see you really into alt-right trolling now Gossey, so Labor did it too, BFW.

              The issue is there is no solution offered by those in power, no desire to fix the issue. Accept you don’t care, you hate the poor, and go play with your mate whaleoil.

              • Gosman …
                13 December 2016 at 5:29 pm

                Where’s the evidence I hate the poor? I think you are meaning to state that you believe that people who think the same as you do care more about those in poverty than someone like myself. If I truly hated the poor why would I support a welfare state?

                • McFlock …
                  13 December 2016 at 5:35 pm

                  But you don’t support a welfare state.

                  You support a gossamer-thin pretence of a welfare state to cover your contempt for everyone less fortunate than you.

                  You’ve not once proposed a single policy that would reduce poverty by, say, half, or even eliminate it. You don’t even know why it’s a bad thing.

                  • Gosman …
                    13 December 2016 at 5:42 pm

                    Cut middle class welfare and allow people to build house far easier than they can now. Both of those policies will have a greater impact on relative poverty levels than raising the minimum wage will.

                    • McFlock …
                      13 December 2016 at 5:47 pm

                      Oh, they’ll have a massive impact on relative poverty levels, I agree.

                      But we’re looking for ways to eliminate it, not give you a couple more dank rental properties to stuff the poor into.

                    • Gosman …
                      13 December 2016 at 5:54 pm

                      Relative poverty is a factor of inequality between the middle and the bottom .Reduce government support for those in the middle that don’t really need and redirect it to those at the bottom.

                      In relation to housing, note that poverty rates before housing costs have actually fallen over the past 8 years. One of the reasons the poverty rate is persistently high is because housing costs have sky rocketed because we are not building enough houses. Build more houses and poverty rates will decrease.

                      There we go two policies that will do more to alieviate poverty than anything we’ve seen from you lot.

                    • McFlock …
                      13 December 2016 at 6:09 pm

                      Bwahahahaha!
                      Your solution to poverty is to level-down the middle class so less people come under the median?

                      Next Dr Gosman will lower the Rheumatic Heart Disease rate by shooting anyone who gets rheumatic fever.

                      Fuck I keep forgetting how much of a sociopath you really are.

                    • Gosman …
                      13 December 2016 at 6:14 pm

                      You think relative poverty is a problem. I’ve given you a solution to it. Raising the minimum wage won’t do that. Instituting a living wage certainly won’t either. You are likely to either entrench it or make it worse by doing that.

                    • McFlock …
                      13 December 2016 at 11:03 pm

                      Oh, it’s “a” solution, I grant you.

                      The solution only a tory could come up with: increase the pool of people living in a higher measure of poverty in order to eliminate harsher poverty without inconveniencing the rich.

                      as for your predictions of the impact of a living wage, keep spouting the tory catechism as if it’s based in reality. Your levelling down solution shows where that leads.

                • adam …
                  13 December 2016 at 5:48 pm

                  Oh come on Gossy where have done anything to offer a solution? Just once, when have you said you want a solution, just once? You are doing nothing but what you usually do at this point, and go poor me. Take some responsibility for your actions!

      • Draco T Bastard 7.1.2
        13 December 2016 at 2:56 pm

        but today’s unchallenged lie becomes tomorrow’s accepted truth.

        QFT

  8. Karen 8
    13 December 2016 at 2:31 pm

    Paula Bennett certainly doesn’t like answering questions about child poverty. Goes from smiley Paula to hard-faced Paula very quickly.

    https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/watch-jack-tame-catches-nzs-evasive-new-deputy-pm-unprepared-questions-kiwi-kids-in-severe-poverty?auto=5244794407001

    • Rosemary McDonald 8.1
      13 December 2016 at 2:48 pm

      Thanks for that link…

      I’m listening and watching as Bubbles’ eyes go cold at Tame’s tone…and I’m waiting, waiting, waiting for Bubbles to say the two magic words that were going to solve the problem of intergenerational poverty and child neglect/abuse.

      Whanau Ora.

      Never came…despite Our 2IC’s fairly recent re connection to her Tainui whakapapa.

      She could have hit pay dirt there…” Oh, Jack…our partners in the Maori Party have secured funding for addressing these issues…Whanau Ora, the wraparound service for all New Zealanders living with multi causal dysfunction.”

  9. The PInk Postman 9
    13 December 2016 at 2:47 pm

    Get ready to be bored stiff with the Bennett sob story of how she was a solo mum but pulled her ‘Straps up” and changed her life. Nothing about the fact that it was under a Labour government and nothing about the fact that her family owned a shop and looked after her child whilst she attended university . She’s a fraud regarding that and perhaps now she is playing the Maori card she will tell us how much Maori blood she actually has?

  10. The PInk Postman 10
    13 December 2016 at 2:54 pm

    Be prepared to have Bennett continuously repeat the ‘Poor Solo Mum story of how she managed to pull up her “boot straps “. Not ever a mention of the fact that that was under a Labour Government .
    She is also playing the Maori card I wonder just how much Maori blood sh has ? She is a fraud and needs to be shown as such.

    [Quantum has nothing to do with anything. That’s the shit they pull in the US (25%) with the idea being there will be no indigenous peoples. Letting it through because it seems to be comment based on genuine ignorance. Also sent your similar comment that was caught in pending to spam] – Bill

  11. Robertina 11
    17 December 2016 at 1:40 pm

    Social investment is a successful narrative for the right to avoid responsibility for the system’s failure to provide adequate housing, wages, and benefits. It’s rubbish, of course, but highly effective.
    The problem with the ”technical” monitor is while it plays a straight bat (unlike the now seemingly co-opted Dunedin Study), its measures are open to misinterpretation and concern trolling.
    Income measures can be dismissed as a measure of inequality rather than poverty, and the material hardship measures are also problematic.
    Children’s commissioner Andrew Becroft, interviewed on Morning Report, was railroaded into agreeing that one could just ”go down the list” as the interviewer put it, and start ticking off items as provided to children by corporates and businesses (or whoever).
    And of course that already happens now so it’s hardly a novel idea.
    But the point of the measure in the monitor – and it includes occasion items like birthday parties – is that those items serve as a proxy for underlying deprivation.
    Most people would infer from the interview that corporate or community welfare is the answer and we can simply ”go down the list” and dish out items like shoes and jackets to solve poverty.
    In my view the third world health statistics and their link with housing are a better focus backed by some strong qualitative case studies as well as the raw technical data in the report.