Obese people smack their kids more

Family First NZ is questioning why a government sponsored survey of obesity rates and related issues of exercise, TV watching, nutrition, fast food and drinking patterns has included a question on smacking and its effectiveness.

The survey noted that Pacific Island children were more likely to be smacked, but parents stated smacking was the least effective option. "I would have thought it was patently obvious that the more obese a child was, the less effective the smack would be", Mr McCoskrie said. "The fatter you are, the less it would hurt".

Children's Commissioner Dr. Cindy Kiro welcomed the surveys findings. "Once again yet another survey shows that smacking is ineffective, and that proves that anti smacking legislation works," she said. " Yee-har".

Overseas research shows that mildly obese kids are 25% more likely than skinny runts to have a smack hit its target. With moderately obese kids the likelihood increase to 65% as these poor kids are have the additional problem in that they are so obese they cant run away from parents brandishing the wooden spoon.

Green MP Sue Bradford, whose private member's bill removed from the Crimes Act the statutory defence of reasonable force to correct a child,said even obesity has its positive spinoffs in terms of harm minimisation. "However, its a bit of a concern that obese children are getting smacked more purely because they are less able to run away from smacking parents, with the additional impediment that they have more body mass to be struck with."

"No wonder obese kids are getting bullied more at school."

Dr. Kiro praised skinny kids who are able to run away from school bullies, and parents who intend to smack. "This further proves smacking is ineffective if parents can't catch their kids to administer violence. Wouldn't it be better just to shout at them instead and give them a hug later on?"

"The reason the smacking question was in that survey is because we need to do more research on why obese children are getting smacked more."

Mr McCoskrie said reason was obvious. "They`re obese! They need to stay trim and eat less pies. Perhaps they should go without breakfast twice a week." He said the heavyweight Children`s Commissioner should be downsized because she was clearly not doing her job in promoting the welfare and best interests of children. "Although most parents are doing a marvellous and effective job in smacking their kids, others should be taught how to smack forcefully and correctly, instead of being taught how to operate DVDs. What we need is a public education campaign to teach parents how to smack their children, and this obviously needs a fitness component for obese parents of skinny kids".

More about →

CPAG want beneficiaries to get more than the minimum wage

The MSM has reported on the case [also here] taken today by the Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) on the In Work Tax Credit (IWTC) aspect of the Working For Families package, maintaining that not to give this tax credit to beneficiaries is allowing children to live in poverty.

What struck me was that the CPAG defines poverty as living on less than 60 per cent of the median income - about $43,000 a year after tax. Assume that includes WFF payments. Many families with cars and mortgages will be living in poverty if it wasn't for WFF as it means that if you are an average sized family earning less than $33,000 you`re living in poverty and CPAG thinks you should get the In Work Payment whether you work or not.

But if you are on an income tested benefit, the CPAG thinks you deserve it more than if you are a low income family on , say $30,000 who works 29 hours a week. Should the CPAG win its case, beneficiaries may* get more than the current minimum wage. And given that Work and Income consider a full time earner to be working 30 hours a week or more, any coming off the benefit to work 30 hours a week on the minimum wage will be taking a $3,0000 pay cut to get a job if their benefit is not topped up - and that's allowing for the $60.00 IWTC.

And if it is topped up, the Social Security Act will have to be amended to allow for this guise of work for the dole. If the CPAG wins its case, the Government may have to increase the minimum wage as those on the minimum wage can't go on a benefit to get more money as they working more than 30 hours a week* - although those on the benefit can get a part time job to get more money. If they drop their hours and go on an abated benefit they would still keep their IWTC.
Please check out the earlier post on this over here.

*however the case is not binding so it may well mean the Government ignores any success.

More about →

Should non workers get an in work payment?

Should beneficiaries get a $60.00 In Work Tax Credit (IWTC)? Currently, they don't, so the Child Poverty Action Group is challenging the Government tomorrow, claiming the policy is discriminatory.

Yet it is no more discriminatory than refusing the IWTC to students with kids who collect a student allowance - or even perhaps grandparents who parent children while collecting National Superannuation.[Update: National super is not an income tested benefit so, like most earners, those on National Super would only get the IWTC if they worked 30 hours a week or more].

While I support moves to assist the poor I have a few questions: If the Child Poverty Action Group thinks government policies should treat all children from low income families the same then why isn't this reflected in this case?

Whats so special about children whose parents collect a main benefit?

Why should parents on a benefit get the IWTC but superannuants and low income two parent families who get off their backsides, off a benefit, and work part time - say 29 hours a week - miss out completely?

More about →

Tonight's TV1 poll: National 55, Labour 29

This is just getting silly. These aren't seats, they are percentages. If this poll translates to seats in the House and the Maori Party get all the Maori seats, even with the overhang, National can govern alone.

Although Greens and NZ First seem to be picking up votes from Labour, one wonders why 6% see Winston Peters as preferred PM but not many of them willing to vote NZ First, I don't know...

Labour has no friends. Well, maybe Jim Anderton, that's all. Not even the Greens are friends now. Still waiting for the Greens to come out and say they`ll either go with National or with the party with the highest number of seats after the election...

More about →