John Armstrong has his own 'ideology'

NZ needs to have the welfare debate because change can't happen without it. But when we have it, it becomes almost insufferable reading the claptrap every man and his dog comes out with.

John Armstrong writes that the working group's prescription for change may be blinkered by ideology such as time limits.

Why is it 'time-limits' are ideology but an absence of time-limits is not? Why does National have ideology and Labour none? Armstrong's own angle on welfare is ideological. Can't he see that? We all have some sort of belief system; principles, ideas, world-view. After criticising the actuarial calculations and describing the paper as "polemic masquerading as analysis" he writes;

Perhaps worst of all, it makes assertions that are just plain wrong.

As part of the discussion paper's emphasis on getting beneficiaries into work, it cites Denmark, France, Germany, Sweden and Ireland as countries where, in contrast to New Zealand, sole mothers have higher employment rates than mothers with partners.

The OECD's family database tells a rather different story. In Ireland. mothers with partners outstrip sole mothers when it comes to paid employment - as they do in France and Germany, though not by much.

Armstrong has used this graph;



The Issues Paper relied on Peter Whiteford's presentation slide;



There is a time difference in the statistics. Unfortunately many of the statistics presented to the 2 day forum were outdated. (Not mine).

The fact remains that NZ has a low rate of employment among single mothers when compared with other single mothers in the OECD. That is an effect of the open-ended DPB. Quibbling about unintentional errors won't make that fact go away.

Political management or political cop-out?

Did anyone notice that the Minister for Social Development did not commenmt on the Welfare Working Group's Issues paper? First the lack of comment was put down to her not having read it yet. Then the PM made a response that at least some of the recommendations from the next paper would be adopted. Then... that was it. (Nobody front-footed a defence of the paper against opposition criticisms.)

But on Wednesday morning the Minister went on Breakfast TV to announce a "new" scheme, Home For Life. The scheme would see more permanency for children whose own parents could not look after them. Certainly a good news story with little political risk.

The scheme has in fact been operating for a while.

March 24, 2010

Finding a ‘home for life’ for children and young people
in care is a primary focus for Child, Youth and Family.
This means that as soon as a child comes into care, we
will work towards finding them a permanent home,
either with their own family, extended whänau, or a
new family they can call their own.

“We know the best thing for children in care is a
safe and stable place to call home, where they have
the opportunity to build a strong and nurturing
attachment to the people who are caring for them,”
says Ray Smith, head of Child, Youth and Family.

“This makes the single greatest difference in helping
children in care grow into secure adults.”

A ‘home for life’ project has been established to look
at ways we can strengthen our efforts in finding
permanent homes for kids in care. “We want to
identify ways we can remove uncertainty and provide
support for caregivers so they can be confident about
offering a home for life,” says Karen Petrie, who is
leading the project. “It’s our job to do what’s best for
children and young people in care, and keep them at
the centre of our decision making at all times.”

Last month, Ray met with Family Court judges, to talk
about how we can work together to keep the child at
the centre of decision making. “It’s about building a
relationship of trust, so that we all feel confident we
are doing what’s best for the child,” he says.

“Being in care should be a process towards finding a
home, it should never be the end point for children
and young people,” says Ray. “All children and young
people deserve a family who will keep them safe and
well cared for, a home to call their own, and a sense
that they belong.”

Brian Rudman also in denial

In a response to the Welfare Working Group paper, Brian Rudman has joined the naysayers this morning:

They've tried to put the fear of God into every right-thinking taxpayer by conjuring up the nightmare that if everybody currently on a benefit stayed on it for the rest of their lives, the cost would be $50 billion.

And that's ignoring all the yet-to-be sick and unemployed and pregnant, bludgers who are queuing round the corner, waiting to sign up for their lifetime of sponging off the taxpayer. Shock, horror and pass the smelling salts.

The discussion paper concludes "If current trends in benefit receipt continue unabated, 16 per cent of the working-age population could be receiving a benefit by 2050. The social and economic cost of this will be unsustainable."

It forgets to mention about 16 per cent of working age people were on benefits for most of the 1990s, thanks to high unemployment, yet somehow we managed to survive without marching the beneficiaries off to work camps.

During the 1990s a much greater share of the people on benefits were on the unemployment benefit. An annual average of 159,000 using end of year totals. On the sickness and invalid benefits combined there was an average of 63,784. DPB was pretty much the same as it is now.

At the end of December 2009 there were 66,000 on the unemployment benefit and 144,000 on the sickness and invalids benefit. The numbers have pretty much reversed on the 90s average and the latter number is constantly growing.

The significance of this?

The sickness (often a gateway benefit) and invalid benefits, and unchanged DPB, harbour most of the long-term dependence. The future costs of people currently on the unemployment benefit are far less than the future costs of someone on the invalid's or domestic purpose's benefit. So the situation today is not the same as it was in the 1990s.

Looking at point-in-time numbers or percentages of the population on a benefit only tells us so much. The Issues Paper addressed this by calculating future liabilities based on the current beneficiary population make-up. An exercise not previously undertaken.

Long-term benefit dependence is growing and it grew in spite of the good economy of the early 2000s.

How many times does this need explaining to people who refuse to take off their blinkers and stop carping on about "beneficiary bashing"?

You know I actually agree that NZ can afford to carry on as it is BUT it will be to our economic detriment, and worse, to the detriment of the children and adults who never realise their potential in life. The left-leaning advocates, politicians and media are showing just how little they understand or care about the big picture.

A gift for Goff

The creation of the welfare working group has turned out to be a gift for the left. As the group issues their papers and recommendations Phil Goff can repeatedly return to a tried and trusted refrain, what is the government doing about unemployment? Let's quickly revisit what he said yesterday:

"It's not that people don't want to work; the jobs simply aren't there at the moment and the situation's getting worse."

That is true of some. But not all.

Connie Raiwhara, who runs the Pikorua community house where Ms Heremaia attends a sewing class, said many sole parents had no qualifications and would not give up the benefit for a minimum-wage job.

A sole parent with three young children paying the $332 average rent for a three-bedroom house in Papakura would get $206 in family support and $165 in accommodation supplement on top of the $278 DPB, a total of $649 a week.

"A lot of our solo parents get well in the $700s. They are not going to go from $700 to $400," Ms Raiwhara said.

"Even if you're in a fulltime job on $400-$500 a week [after tax], childcare is $240 a week. You're working to pay for someone else to look after your child.

"Maybe they should put the wages up and maybe that would give people the incentive to go back to work."

This explains why people stay on the DPB even during good economic times. And it's a rational response. Nobody has been taught that welfare is actually supposed to be a last resort. They haven't been taught about the ethics of citizenship or economics. They expect the faceless state to put money into their bank accounts every week. That's just the way it is.

And when I think about that phrase it was also the title of a Bruce Hornsby song from the mid-eighties and referred to coloured people being unable to get jobs due to racial discrimination in the US. Not quite the same problem as we are seeing in NZ today.

The Standard plays down dependency

According to The Standard the Welfare Working Group's Long-term Benefit Dependency; The Issues paper is about creating an "air of crisis" where there is none and as usual "Tory welfare bashing". Their latest post is a selection of quotes. So I thought I would pull out some of my own extracts and tables.

At the end of April 2010, almost 13 percent of the working age population was receiving a benefit. Of the people who were on a benefit at the end of June 2009, more than 170,000 had been on a benefit for most of the past ten years.

This graph should ideally show columns that are decreasing in height from left to right.

The numbers of people that are entering the benefit system at a young age each year (and remaining there) is significant. Each year around 5,700 people enter the benefit system at 16-17 years of age, and a further 4,600 people enter the benefit system on their 18th birthday.

How many of the 4,600 entering the system on their 18th birthday are graduating from their caregiver's benefit?

... among young Māori women in their twenties, around 40% were receiving a benefit.

Here's why;



This is a double whammy. First, according to census data, NZ has the second highest percentage of children living in sole parent households in the developed world and second, nearly half of the parents don't work.

No. There is definitely nothing here that should cause alarm.

(Here is a comment that has just be posted over there; The money paid out on benefits doesn’t just disappear, it’s spent on rent, food, power, phone… All of that money goes straight back into the economy, it’s really a subsidy for the whole of NZ in some kind of trickle down and around process.

Now that's neat. You and I are being subsidised by beneficiaries!)

Opposition and state media in denial

After completing an interview with Larry Williams last evening I listened in to the talkback response - all in favour of welfare reform - and then caught Wendy Petrie announcing that TV One would also be covering the Welfare Working Group Issues Paper, had talked to a young solo mum and had done some of their own number crunching which might surprise.

So I tuned in. They led with the unemployment benefit showing, with graphics, that the duration of stays on it are not that long. Then they interviewed a sweet young mum who studies and has been raising her much loved child on the DPB but is determined to get off it and repay the taxpayer.

First the paper is titled Long-term Benefit Dependency: The Issues. Paula Rebstock said yesterday that it is not about the unemployment benefit which has actually been operating quite well over recent years. The focus is on the DPB, sickness and invalid's benefit. The report shows (3.6) that at June 2009 170,000 people on a benefit had been on a benefit for most of the last ten years. So for TV One to "number crunch" the unemployment benefit was just a dishonest disgrace.

Second, the solo mum they interviewed is the exception to the rule. The report shows clearly that teenagers going on a benefit have the greatest risk of staying there long-term. That never got a look in.

Repeatedly yesterday I heard the complaint that, there are no jobs or, the government has manufactured a crisis.

Labour leader Phil Goff said that rather than a culture of long-term welfare dependency, the numbers on benefits reflected economic conditions.



"It's not that people don't want to work; the jobs simply aren't there at the moment and the situation's getting worse."

Shame on you Phil Goff. This is why you will never be Prime Minister. You don't deserve to be.

Let's re-group here. Again, the report is about long-term welfare dependency and what drives it - the type of dependency that persists during good economic times. As it points out, in 1960 about 2 percent of the working age population was on a benefit. In 2007, after a period of very low unemployment, the figure was around 10 percent.

Unemployment is only one factor driving long-term dependency and not even the most important. There are more people on the DPB than on the unemployment benefit. There are more people on the invalid's benefit than the unemployment benefit. Long-term dependence is about people having children with no means of supporting them; about making themselves unemployable through drug and alcohol abuse or unhealthy lifestyles; about a passive system that allows people to stay on welfare long-term.

Crucially the report identifies that teenagers going on welfare is a significant factor and teenagers have consistently entered the system during good and bad economic periods.

It is utterly defeatist to say there are no jobs so that's an end to it. The report, for the first time ever, has accurately described the dimensions of dependence and identified chronic dependence amongst certain groups. But those who are best characterised as 'on the left' are still in denial.

Data deficiency and disability insurance

At last the deficiency of the Ministry of Social Development's data is getting a public airing. The loss of individual benefit history pre-1996 is a serious systems failure. As a result, only estimates can be made about how many current single parent beneficiaries started on welfare as teenagers. MSD's latest official line is;

"We expect that the proportion of DPB clients who first received any benefit as a teenager is somewhat higher than a third, particularly as receipt of a benefit is such a common experience in people's teenage years."

I am sticking by my own estimate of over half. And I think that is conservative. I base it on two things;

1. The rate of teenage dependency on welfare in the late 80s and early 90s, during a deep recession, was very high. Those people are not captured in the current one third estimate.

2. Many single parents stay on benefits for a long time. Over half of the people on the DPB spent at least 80 percent of the last ten year period (at December 2005) on welfare.

The completeness of statistics aside, this whole business is very important because it shows that if the steady inflow of young people could be stopped the problem of long term dependence on the DPB would be largely diminished.

But I see that the welfare working group is preferring to focus on promoting insurance for sickness and disability. Paula Rebstock has prioritised this for the media since the group was created.

Employers may be asked to pay part of the costs if their employees have to go on sickness or disability welfare benefits under an insurance-based reform of the welfare system flagged in a new report today.

Insurance is fine. But employers can't be expected to stump up for sickness insurance and pay tax for the state-provided sickness benefit as well (not to mention ACC). Or are we looking at another of the National private/public partnership ideas?

I can hear struggling employers all over NZ groan as they read this latest bright idea which essentially tells them the government is going to punish them if their employees get sick. What about the responsibility of the individual in all this?

Update; To be fair, the DomPost is reporting about suggested individual employee premiums.

The Issues Paper is here.

A good day

Took the kids flying yesterday. Sam took this from the ground after take-off.



Originally she wasn't going up - "scared of heights". But once she sighted the plane and got caught up in the excitement Robert and I share she wanted first dibs (much to Robert's annoyance). We flipped a coin and she won. Always does. But the weather was closing in as I fiddled and faffed about familiarising myself with a plane I had never flown before. For instance their was no push-to-talk button on the control column so it took me some time to figure out how to transmit. Two tx buttons were on a second panel below the radio, which seemed blindingly obvious in hindsight. These planes are very old with updated electronics and nothing is ever standard. Consequently I only got one circuit in. Despite that Sam really enjoyed it except for when we were over the sea and I banked. Then she must have closed her eyes on landing asking me, "Have we landed yet? Have we landed yet?"

Avoiding the rain, we went off to Burger King, the best way to mollify Robert when he is angry, now thinking he wasn't going to get to fly at all. After an hour the wind had gotten up slightly but the rain had cleared so we returned to the field and Robert got his turn. As we lined up on runway 34 and I applied full power my previously virtual-reality-only co-pilot commented, "The graphics and sound effects are much better." Flying is beginning to look more attractive to him than law. And I am pleased about that. It was a good day.

Tom Scott pulls no punches

DPB - same story, different decade

Simon Collins' series of articles about sole parents and the DPB published in today's NZ Herald take me back to David McLoughlin's substantial article for the North and South, "The DPB Disaster". McLoughlin also visited suburbs and towns where sole parents proliferated - Glen Innes, Flaxmere and Tokoroa. Collins went to Kawerau.

McLoughlin's investigation was in 1995. 15 years ago and essentially nothing has changed. That is the year Maraia Enoka was born. Now she is 15, pregnant and describes herself as a "breeder". Just tragic.

Economic conditions in 1995 weren't dissimilar to right now. But between then and now we have seen good economic times. Yet the DPB disaster persists. And it always will if it continues to be laid at the feet of the economy.

Garth George - apologist for Harawira

Garth George says Hone Harawira is absolutely entitled to his views and desires and those of us who don't like it are victims of 'multiculturalism'. Please.

Why don't we simply acknowledge Hone Harawira is a Maori who takes great pride in his race and wants to keep his bloodline pure?

We don't because most of us, from the Prime Minister down, have become unthinking victims of the doctrine of multiculturalism, in all its politically correct dissimulation and deception.

32 years ago I was 'going out with' a German/Cook Island boy. I brought him home one night when he missed the last train to Porirua. He slept on the couch. My mum and dad treated him the same as any other boyfriend - if not better. My mother used to predict that I would "fall for" (northern vernacular for 'marry') a Maori because I was attracted to polynesians. That probably had everything to do with my closest friend being polynesian. (In fact, in later years the same friend admits she steadfastly avoided Maori boys because she didn't want to end up living the same lifestyle as an adult that she had as a child - overcrowding and lack of privacy. We both had our own prejudices. Perhaps mine could be described as positive and her's negative.) Anyway, my parents never gave any suggestion, not an inkling that they were against my partnering with someone of another race. Unsurprisingly my attitudes mirror their's.

And this was back in the 1970s. Long before political correctness had started strangling freedom of speech and thought.

As Britain's Chief Rabbi, Lord Jonathan Sacks, says in his book The Home We Build Together: Recreating Society, multiculturalism is a threat to liberal democracy, stifles free speech and has "led not to integration but to segregation". Lord Sacks defines multiculturalism as an attempt to affirm diverse communities and make ethnic and religious minorities more respected. But, he says, the movement has run its course.

"Liberal democracy is in danger. The politics of freedom risks descending into the politics of fear," Lord Sacks says.

Britain's politics had been poisoned by the rise of identity politics, as minorities and aggrieved groups jockeyed first for rights, then for special treatment.

The process, he says, began with Jews, before being taken up by blacks, women and gays. The effect had been inexorably divisive.

But George fails to notice that this has everything to do with the growth of government. Groups will always try to harness resources and influence as long as there are large governments capable of apportioning it.

Then he quotes at length passages about the political process known as multiculturalism and the emergence of thought control. I agree, that is a real phenomenon. But again it has been created by state institutions. From the vast bureaucracy that patrols bogus human rights through to the education system. Ironically it was a representative of one of these, the Race Relations Conciliator, who appeared most reluctant to haul Harawira over the coals. Probably because he believes nonsensical edicts like Maori cannot be racist because they are an oppressed minority.

Political correctness or thought control has nothing to do with my revulsion at Harawira's sentiments. I find his views abhorrent because they allow no room for the freedom of individuals, which must surpass race and gender. Mr Harawira wants to practice oppression of his own children's freedom by restricting their choice of partner. Or he wants to instil in them his own enmity to Pakeha so they won't choose one as a partner. I can't find any excuse for it at all. On any grounds. And certainly not on Garth George's grounds.

Forget illegal. What about immoral?

This case caught my eye only because the judge sent the defrauding mother to jail rather than the defrauding father. Both had been illegally receiving benefits from Work and Income. It appears the decision is based on the degree of fraud. He stole less.

I can no longer get very worked up about the illegal use of the benefit system for the simple reason that the much bigger story is the immoral use. Thousands of people enter the system every year due to avoidable circumstances. They cause their own incapacity or inability to be independent. That is, as they say, the elephant in the room.

Focussing on benefit fraud only allows supporters of the status quo the opportunity to say there is relatively little of it (that which is uncovered and prosecuted) and it is a price worth paying for the preservation of the safety net as it stands.

That's a bad enough cop-out but government's collective failure to confront to widespread misuse of welfare is a much bigger one.

MacDoctor writes to Pita Sharples

Pita Sharples is a likeable man. Politically he is the saving grace of the Maori Party. So it disappoints me enormously that he has gone to bat for Hone the Hater by claiming he is not a racist. MacDoctor is obviously more than just disappointed by this development.

Dear Mr. Sharples

I judge from your recent remarks that you are not aware of the definition of the word racist. In the interests of helping you understand your colleague Hone Harawira, I thought I might help you out:


racism

“Pronunciation:/ˈreɪsɪz(ə)m/
noun [mass noun]

“the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race , especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races

* prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on such a belief:

In case you are still puzzled, let me spell it out for you.

Hone Harawira is a racist.

If you think what he said was…

* Amusing
* Normal
* “Just a view point”
* Justifiable

…then that makes you a racist as well. Trust me on this. I’m ex-South African. I can spot a racist remark from 10,000 paces.

Now that I have appraised you of the reality, I trust that you will roundly condemn your racist colleague, Mr Harawira. Failure to do so will lead me to the inescapable conclusion that the Maori party is not merely ethnic in nature, but ardently racist. Should this be the case, I will be actively campaigning for you to be voted out of parliament in the next election. The last thing the Maori people need are representatives who are blinkered bigots. Racism has a nasty habit of spreading.

Your views would probably be welcome in Zimbabwe. Go there.

Yours Sincerely


MacDoctor

Where is ACT on the Foreshore and Seabed replacement legislation?

Further to yesterday's post. I was bemused over David Garrett's question - one so antithetical to what ACT previously stood for.


5. DAVID GARRETT to the Attorney-General: Will he commit to prohibiting Māori owners from charging other New Zealanders for access to beaches; if not, will he at least limit the amount they can charge to $5, the fee currently charged by the Māori owners of Takou Bay in Northland?

There is no doubt in my mind that this question was primarily intended to scaremonger. It is exactly the question Winston Peters would have put.

Let's not forget that last time the Foreshore and Seabed issue was a hot potato ACT voted against Labour, putting the view that Maori had every right to test their customary ownership through the High Court.

Richard Prebble, May 2004;

I rise on behalf of the ACT party to oppose the foreshore and seabed legislation.

ACT is a party that believes in private property rights, the rule of law, the citizens’ right to go to court for justice, and one law for all...

The bill discriminates against Maori, by removing the right that the Court of Appeal has found, that Maori have to seek a declaration from the courts that the seabed and foreshore is Maori land....

Let me make it clear that in upholding the rights of all citizens to go to court I am not lending support to claims that Maori under the Treaty own all the foreshore and seabed around New Zealand. As a lawyer it is very clear that in law, whether it be legislation or British common law or Maori customary law, it is very clear that Maori do not own the vast majority of the foreshore or seabed of New Zealand....

Both Maori and British common law require continuous occupation and control for common law ownership. If Maori controlled and occupied Takapuna beach I am sure we would have noticed.

But it does not follow that it is not possible there are some parts of the foreshore and the seabed that is still owned by Maori, and indeed I think it is likely that Maori do own some parts of the foreshore and seabed.....

Any claim by anyone to the foreshore and seabed should be brought in a proper court, and the appropriate court is the High Court...

I realise that the position the ACT party takes is not a populist one. In this country we have no written constitution. Our Bill of Rights is a totally inadequate piece of legislation that contains no property protections.

It is this parliament, and we 120 MPs, who are the guardians of citizens’ rights. A society that doesn't uphold the right of citizens to own property and the right of all citizens to go to court cannot be described as being free...

Now it would appear that David Garrett is going down the opposite track and will attempt to stir up fear and resentment amongst Pakeha over the implications of the legislation due to pass late this year whereby Maori will once more have the right to test their title.

But in my efforts to establish what the party's view is I came across this from ACT's Maori Affairs spokesman Peter Tashkoff.

“As ACT stated in our minority report on the Foreshore and Seabed Bill in 2004, it was never fair for Maori to have their right to their day in court legislated away. Recognition of that, now from all sides, is long overdue," Mr Tashkoff said.

“New Zealand has a long and established history of ownership issues being resolved by the courts, and the matter should now be left with them. There is no need for any further political involvement beyond the repeal of this pernicious legislation.

So what is ACT's position? Will they be doing some sort of double act, supporting the National government while also trying to frighten the horses? Or will they vote against the legislation? Against the right for Maori to test their property rights in the relevant court?

Parliamentary questions worth a decko

Couple of interesting questions being asked back to back in parliament this afternoon;

4. Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she stand by her June 2009 statement that stopping “the heinous and incomprehensible abuse of New Zealand’s children” is a priority?

Where will Annette King take this? Naturally the Minister will stand by it. What would Labour do that National hasn't? There must have been around 70 or so child murders while they governed.

5. DAVID GARRETT to the Attorney-General: Will he commit to prohibiting Māori owners from charging other New Zealanders for access to beaches; if not, will he at least limit the amount they can charge to $5, the fee currently charged by the Māori owners of Takou Bay in Northland?

Well this is really a mischief-making question. Of course Chris Finlayson could play with it at ACT's expense. The free market party advocating price-fixing, and by the state to boot?

Stupid. stupid. stupid.

I know there are a number of ACT-On-Campus people who are dead set against the war on drugs and I hope that one day their influence may count for something. A 'tough on crime' stance should attempt to sort out and campaign on what properly constitutes a crime, instead of just widening the net. 10 percent of prisoners are committed for drug offences (primarily). When I read stories like Craig McColl's I just shake my head. As taxpayers we will probably spend around $200,000 temporarily (one would hope) ruining this guy's life. If the state was consistent it would have taken the profit from Mr McColl (which was his plan anyway), just as it does with alcohol and tobacco producers, and left Mr McColl to his own devices (which included being a supporting member/business of his small community school).

New research affirms National's DPB policy

The NZ Herald reports new research that finds it's "OK for mums to go back to work" within a few months of their child's birth.

This is important not least because the author of the new research has changed her mind.

An earlier study provided the following abstract;

We investigated the effects of early maternal employment on children's cognitive outcomes, using data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth on 1,872 children who can be followed from birth to age 7 or 8. We found some persistent adverse effects of first-year maternal employment and some positive effects of second- and third-year maternal employment on cognitive outcomes for non-Hispanic white children, but not for African American or Hispanic children. These effects are present even after we controlled for a range of individual and family characteristics that affect child development, including those that are likely to be correlated with maternal employment, such as breast-feeding and the use of nonmaternal child care. Controlling for family fixed effects reduces the effects of early maternal employment on some cognitive outcomes but not on others.

That is a departure from the 2010 study then. The new conclusion is further explained in the Guardian:

The new study, led by New York's Columbia University School of Social Work, was published last week by the Society for Research in Child Development. The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Study of Early Child Care followed more than 1,000 children from 10 geographic areas aged up to seven, tracking their development and family characteristics.

It found that, while there are downsides to mothers taking work during their child's first year, there were also significant advantages – an increase in mothers' income and wellbeing, and a greater likelihood that children receive high-quality childcare. Taking everything into account, the researchers said, the net effect was neutral.

"The effect of the parenting itself is the key factor," said Waldfogel. "It is hugely important how sensitive you are to your child's needs. Even for women who have to work more than 30 hours a week, they can make things better for themselves, they just need to take a deep breath on the doorstep, dump all the office worries behind them and go in the door prepared to pay attention to all their children's cues. This is good news for all mothers.

The study is called FIRST-YEAR MATERNAL EMPLOYMENT AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT IN THE FIRST 7 YEARS by JEANNE BROOKS-GUNN, WEN-JUI HAN, AND JANE WALDFOGEL and published here (no abstract available).

Whether women want to return to employment or stay at home is their choice. It is none of my business until that decision relies on somebody else to fund it. Then it becomes a matter of public policy and public opinion unfortunately. If an individual wants to live off the taxpayer, the taxpayer's opinion becomes pivotal.

National should be taking heed of this research and using it to not only counter the considerable opposition to work-testing the DPB, but to push for much tighter time- limits in line with most other countries. I see the Greens once again labelling the requirement for single mothers to find part-time work after their youngest turns 6 as "draconian". Do they even know what draconian means? Harsh and cruel.

Yet thousands of single and partnered mothers take it upon themselves to pay for their own life choices and subject themselves to what is, by the Green's standards, harsh and cruel, everyday.

Deborah Coddington on ACT - right and wrong

Deborah Coddington writes that ACT has assisted the resurgence of Winston First by keeping alive his Law and Order policies. Like Deborah I believe ACT went too far down (and put too much focus on) this particular policy pathway but there was always conservative support within the party to do so. I cannot agree specifically however with her take on certain matters;

Act went populist instead of remaining principled. Take its opposition to the repeal of S59 of the Crimes Act, giving children equal status before the law if assaulted.

A liberal party, which opposes the initiation of force, should have supported this. How can hitting children, or using unreasonable force, be defined as self-defence?

If one wants to argue this from the libertarian/classical liberal perspective the removal of section 59 provides for the state to iniatiate force against adults in a way it previously could not. I would argue we now have more initiation of force; more uneccessary intrusion and intervention. Using unreasonable force against children was illegal. That seems to be forgotten. I supported the status quo although I can sympathise with the idea that smacking children isn't productive.

Act's "Laura Norder" policies are now taken straight from NZ First's pages, so we end up with a (three strikes) legislation that sees an elderly man suffering from dementia caught by this statute and sent to jail.

That's incorrect. It wasn't the three strikes legislation that sent the man to jail. He was sent to (and remains in) jail because nobody else will take him. That could have happened before three strikes. My concern is that indecent assault is on the three strikes list and what that will mean for this type of offender (and possibly many others) further down the track.

It would be ironically perverse if ACT has played a hand in keeping NZ First's election hopes alive and they end up fighting over the same authoritarian and nationalistic vote next year.

(Prediction; NZ First will promise to revive the Death With Dignity bill. That'll garner them a great deal of vote. Voluntray euthanasia is a top priorty at any Grey Power election meeting. That is one policy I wouldn't have minded ACT nicking.)

Harawira - confirmed racist

Blair Mulholland hits the nail on the head. Hone Harawira is an utter creep and crank. If Maori and Pakeha are so repulsive to each other why has there been widespread inter-marriage? Like Blair I would be more than happy to have Maori (or Asian or Indian) grandchildren if one of my children found someone who was good for them. Yes there can be problems when cultures meet but people can and do work through those differences. Good Lord. This is the clearest evidence yet of how racist Harawira is. Let's hope there is greater enlightenment and tolerance amongst the rest of his party. Because Harawira represents the sort of bigotry that ultimately fuels wars.

No-one will be normal

From today's NCPA news digest (highly recommended for subscription)

An updated edition of a mental health reference for doctors may include diagnoses for "disorders" such as toddler tantrums and binge eating, and could mean that soon no one will be classed as normal, says Reuters.

Leading mental health experts warn that the new edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), which is being revised now for publication in 2013 by the American Psychiatric Association (APA), could devalue the seriousness of mental illness and label almost everyone as having some kind of disorder. Citing examples of new additions like "mild anxiety depression," "psychosis risk syndrome," and "temper dysregulation disorder," they said many people previously seen as perfectly healthy could be told they are ill.

According to Wykes and colleagues Felicity Callard, also of Kings' Institute of Psychiatry, and Nick Craddock of Cardiff University's department of psychological medicine and neurology, many in the psychiatric community are worried that the further the guidelines are expanded, the more likely it will become that nobody will be classed as normal anymore:

* Technically, with the classification of so many new disorders, we will all have disorders.
* This may lead to the belief that many more of us "need" drugs to treat our "conditions," and many of these drugs will have unpleasant or dangerous side effects.
* The "psychosis risk syndrome" diagnosis is particularly worrying, since it could falsely label young people who may only have a small risk of developing an illness.


I suspect that this development is, in fact, further widening and is part of an ongoing process.

This may lead to the belief that many more of us "need" drugs...

...or benefits.

Which is exactly what is happening. With psychiatric and psychological conditions the fastest growing category for qualification for disability benefits in this country. A trend which is probably mirrored internationally.

Stopping work many be the worst course of action for someone suffering a mild disorder. At least (and at last) there seems to be a growing concern about this amongst health professionals.