DPB and the exploitation of women

I can't understand why feminists so fiercely defend the DPB.

It is a two-sided coin yet feminists only ever see heads when it's flipped.

While it furnishes some freedom from men who would hurt women, it has increasingly made them more vulnerable to those very same individuals.

Men attach themselves to women who have a certain level of cash security, four walls and a roof over their heads. The logic of that is clear.

But a NZ Herald piece I missed last weekend exposes another way in which men exploit the DPB and the women who rely upon it.

Children's advocate Dame Lesley Max wants more promotion of contraception as a step towards tackling child abuse.

She told a public meeting in Mt Roskill yesterday about a man who came to a parenting class in Papakura saying his goal in life was to have 11 children - even though all his children so far had been taken off him by Child, Youth and Family.

"He doesn't care for them. He can't care for them. He enters relationships with one vulnerable woman after another, and our system enables him to do so."

At last count the man had exceeded his target, fathering at least 12 children with at least three women. Dame Lesley said he was not working. She thought all his ex-partners were on the domestic purposes benefit.

Of course he is not working. Paying child support for 12 children (IF he is the named father) means working makes him no better off. Financially he is better off on a benefit paying the bare minimum. That leaves him broke and he's back to looking for someone else to sponge off.

But who would welcome him? Someone else looking for free money. And his babies guarantee it.

 "My experience, after 20 years of being responsible for a community agency with families facing multiple challenges, is that the planning of families is something that is hardly considered, hardly talked about, and children just happen without intent."

Maybe. Maybe not. While not denying it is a factor, contraception is the wrong primary focus. The attention needs to go on the incentive. The money.

These kids won't be best served by paid workers

The following is copied from the Centre for Independent Studies (Australia) weekly newsletter. No explanation needed.

Hardly fair to vulnerable children

 

For the last three years, I have been arguing that Australia’s failing child protection system is being run in the interests of social service providers and not ‘at risk’ children.

In the name of ‘family preservation,’ state community service departments are leaving children for far too long with highly dysfunctional families and only remove them as a last resort when they have been damaged, often permanently, by parental neglect and abuse.

While the childhoods and life opportunities of children ebb away into intergenerational disadvantage, social workers employed in the public sector and non-government ‘charitable’ organisations receive taxpayer funding to provide an array of support services that try and fail to do the impossible – fix broken families with serious drug and alcohol, domestic violence, and mental health problems that can’t be fixed.

The Fair Work Australia decision on Wednesday to award ‘equal pay’ to more than 150,000 community sector workers at a cost of $2 billion to taxpayers is indecent in its illustration of the political problems in the child protection system.

Forget that the decision is based on dodgy comparisons – why should someone with a three-year social work degree have income parity with a trained economist or scientist? Sadly, the federal government was not only willing to support the claim but also provided the $2 billion additional funding to foot the higher wage bill at a time of looming economic woes.

Many commentators are justifying the pay rise by saying those who choose to work with the poor are saints. The real question is why is failure being rewarded? Public choice, dear reader. I just wish vulnerable children had a public sector union to advocate on their behalf, replete with tame factional serfs in the Labor caucus.

That feathering their own nests has been the priority at a time when the child protection system is crumbling all around us and stumbling from one crisis to another means that social workers have surrendered any pretensions to their ‘professional’ status.

This sorry episode has reinforced my belief that the answer to the perpetual crisis engulfing child protection is to restore citizen-control over the system by re-establishing decentralised, community-governed child protection agencies.

Dr Jeremy Sammut is a Research Fellow at The Centre for Independent Studies and author of Do Not Damage and Disturb: On Child Protection Failures and the Crisis in Out of Home Care in Australia.  

Maori economic situation worsens

The Briefing to the Incoming Minister of Maori Affairs  contains this statement:

Recent research shows that Māori households spend approximately $5 billion more than they earn annually, and transfer payments to Māori now exceed the tax contribution that Māori make to the economy.

I am unsure whether this indicates overspending regardless of source of income, or that by using the word "earn" paid employment is indicated and  the difference is down to benefits.

Back in 2003 a paper (pg12, table 3) by the Institute of Economic Research showed that Maori were paying slightly more in tax than they received in transfers. Specifically they paid $2.404 in tax and received $2.312 in social benefits. So the situation has worsened. Unfortunately the new "recent" research isn't referenced.

What our children face

My children were born in 1994 and 1998. They will turn 65 in 2059 and 2063.

Just looking at some tables  (XLS, Figure 14) in the Treasury Briefing to Incoming Finance Minister.

At the moment there are five 15-64 year-olds for each 65+ individual.

By 2061 the ratio falls to only 2.3 15-64 year-olds for each over 65 year-old.

Charter schools - why the fuss?

I am still perplexed about the fuss over charter schools. According to Stuff:

The charter school system would allow private business, religious organisations, iwi, or charities to take over the management of failing schools and retain state funding.

There are already many examples of existing schools that are run by private organisations and government subsidised. Not least are the Exclusive Brethren schools which teach the state curriculum and employ non-Brethren teachers. Their rolls are growing. There are Catholic schools, Kura Kaupapa Maori, and others, all seemingly schools that parents line up to send their children to.

There are also some good state schools, especially those that have a certain character and ethos that staff are committed to.

But there are state schools that are unsuccessful. Personally I believe the home environment dictates a child's willingness to learn and participate and many schools are just up against it. But if an organisation - or just a dedicated inspirational individual -  is willing to try and improve the prospects of those children, why oppose them?

Jacinda Ardern - nutter

Jacinda Ardern is desperate to get some traction as the new Labour Social Development spokesperson and issues say-nothing press releases in the process. But yesterday's is even worse than saying nothing:

Jacinda
ARDERN
Spokesperson for Social Development

31 January 2012 MEDIA STATEMENT
Statistics can’t hide the truth
With almost twice as many people on the unemployment benefit now as when National first became the government, it is glaringly obvious it has to take a serious look at its policies, Labour’s Social Development spokesperson Jacinda Ardern says.
“Statistics, which should have been released before now, show that as of the end of last month there were 29,456 more Kiwis receiving the unemployment benefit than in December 2008.That’s a 96.5 per cent increase in just three years.

The December quarter benefit factsheets were released "before now" (31 January). They were released last Wednesday, January 25. Which is fairly typical for quarterly statistics, towards the end of the month following end of the quarter. If Ardern had been monitoring the MSD website, her job, she would have noticed them sooner.

On the matter of unemployment the numbers are down. Here is what the fact sheet actually says:

At the end of December 2011, 60,000 working-age people (aged 18–64 years)[1] were receiving an Unemployment Benefit[2].   Over the year to December 2011, the number of recipients of an Unemployment Benefit decreased by 7,000, or 11 percent[3].

Ardern continues:

“The Government has been banging on about a brighter future and more jobs for a while now. The rhetoric is fine, but words without actions are meaningless,” Jacinda Ardern said.
“The figures tell their own story. It’s obvious now why the Minister sat on them for two months to avoid pre-election coverage; they show the Government is failing to stem the tide of jobless.

What? How can the Minister sit on December quarter statistics during November??

And to blatantly ignore the positive unemployment trend and then issue a statement entitled Statistics can’t hide the truth is comedic. Nutter.

Utterly absurd requirement

Just listening to the lunchtime news and I was alerted to the law change that will require trainee drivers to undergo 120 hours of supervised driving before they can sit their restricted licence.

This is UTTERLY ABSURD.

Do you know how many hours one has to fly to sit a private pilot's licence?

50

And some of those will be solo.

But driving a (probably) automatic car, with a couple of instruments to monitor, in one dimension, with the extra security that if the engine stops you glide to a halt rather than fall out of the sky (sorry, within the 50 hours pilots are taught how to perform an emergency landing in the event of engine failure), not having to communicate orally with other drivers or a control tower simultaneously, monitor weather or track,  can only be taught to licence  standard in 120 hours???

Student allowances hide rate of benefit dependence

The most recent student allowance data available is Jan-June 2011. In that period 82,267 student allowances were paid. In 2007, during the same period, the number was 52,231.
That's an increase of 57.5 percent.

To my mind a student allowance is a form of benefit. But it is not paid out of the Ministry of Social Development budget. It comes out of the Education budget, specifically Tertiary Funding.

One consequence of this is  MSD benefit numbers are held down. People who might otherwise have been on unemployment or domestic purposes benefit are on a student allowance and out of the Social Development Ministry's hair.

But it must put incredible strain on the Education budget as more people opt to stay in tertiary education because their job prospects are poor.

I wonder too if student allowances don't have a negative influence in accustoming people to living at a certain income level, thereby creating a tolerance for benefit-living post tertiary education. In the same way that student loans accustom young people to living in debt.

From the state's viewpoint it is better to have young people in education  and out of the NEET group (which seems to be the overarching focus currently) but there is nevertheless an element of 'sweeping problems under the carpet' in play.

Brain teaser

Here is an interesting coincidence I just came across.

Two numbers from the last Census

251,688

251,130

They represent two distinct groups of New Zealand residents by birthplace.

Any ideas?

Make fatties the new smokers?

In her Herald column today Deborah Coddington slams the growing tendency for various parties to blame obesity on the food industry. I don't disagree with her. But there is a paragraph that has an implication I don't like:

Every day, in every town and city, we all see fat people waddling along, heaving themselves into planes and cars, but are we allowed to comment on this, the way we were encouraged to shame smokers into quitting (who also cost taxpayers dearly in terms of the public health bill)?

Putting aside that smokers pay for their health needs via taxes on tobacco, and fat people who getting themselves around in planes and cars are also paying taxes, and that smokers and fatties will pop their clogs early and not draw on the largest publicly-funded transfer - Super - do we really want to see fat people 'shamed'?

Why? Does it make us feel better when we can point out someone else's very overt weakness while conveniently ignoring our own hidden ones? Is it a collective bullying impulse that needs to be satisfied at a more 'civil' level?

The thought of shaming fat people depresses the hell out of me. And I'm not fat. So how the prospect appeals to a fat person, lord only knows.  But is hardly surprising there is so much psychological ill-health associated with obesity (which by the way manifests in the taxpayer picking up a benefit tab).

There are only two healthy ways to approach the problem of overweight people. Leave them alone. They are allowed their choices too. They own their own bodies after all. And from a government point of view they probably appear in the nett contributor ledger over their lifetimes.

Or overhaul the way people fund their lifetime needs. Institute individualised savings accounts so that incurred health costs are borne by the person that caused them.

Then all the thin people can stop feeling aggrieved and resentful. Quite why they are I am still not sure. It isn't the fat people who go around saying it isn't their fault they are fat. It is the people who make their livings off studying them.

Deborah has identified the right target for our scorn.

Work-testing not working

The December 2011 benefit factsheets have been released. The DPB total climbed a further 1 percent over the year to reach 114,230. the work-testing implemented in September 2010 hasn't made an impression yet.

Here's the breakdown:

 

Characteristics of working-age Domestic Purposes Benefit recipients (aged 18–64 years), at the end of December 2006 and at the end of December 2011

Percentage of recipients who were:	Dec-2006	Dec-2011
Male	10.2	12.3
Female	89.8	87.7
Māori	40.4	42.4
Pacific people	9.5	10.1
18–19 years	3.0	2.8
20–24 years	14.8	16.8
25–39 years	51.1	45.9
40–54 years	26.6	28.6
55–64 years	4.5	6.0
Declaring earnings	20.4	16.1
Caring for a dependent child aged 6 years or under*	60.1	62.4
Caring for a dependent child aged 7–13 years*	30.0	27.3
Caring for a dependent child aged 14 years or over*	9.9	10.3
Caring for two or more dependent children*	51.1	47.9
Number of working-age Domestic Purposes Benefit recipients (aged 18–64 years)	100,309	114,230

Manipulating outrage

I wasn't alone yesterday in interpreting media reports about women breastfeeding while driving as applying to women drivers, such was the implied sense of outrage. Look at the NZ Herald coverage. They have a photo with a caption, Breastfeeding behind the wheel has not impressed the police. But the content of the report says nothing of the sort.

The three mothers observed were  passengers. OK. Still an element of risk but an entirely different scenario. I can't even be sure I didn't do this myself, in the backseat, with the seatbelt over the baby and myself, when it wasn't possible to just pull over and the baby was getting very distressed.

Of course, if the baby was bottlefed that could be achieved more  safely in transit. But wait, what about the outrage over bottle-fed babies? Don't under-estimate the potential of the current extraordinary pressure to breastfeed resulting in some people thinking they are doing the right thing regardless of circumstance.

Then there is the punishment for this 'reckless' act. A $150 fine. So the mother is going to be $150 poorer. That's $150 less to put food in her children's stomachs. BUT IT WASN'T THE CHILD'S FAULT. Isn't that the argument advanced whenever we hear about children going hungry because their parents have spent their budget on the wrong things? Personally I don't accept this objection because it allows parents to use children as hostages to their own interests.

Nevertheless I increasingly find 1/media hype 2/ police nannies and 3/ inconsistent attitudes very tiresome.

She's not unusual

Simon Collins has typically turned up another case of someone who doesn't want to work if it doesn't pay better than being on a benefit. Significantly better.

She isn't unusual. Not by any means.

Read it and recall that 46 percent of Maori females aged 20-29 are on welfare.

Call for the suspension of political agendas naive

The writer of yesterday's NZ Herald editorial takes what he or she thinks is a considered and objective stand on child abuse. The piece is titled , Find practical way to save our children

Another baby, 2-month-old Hinekawa Topia, has died in hospital of a head injury police do not consider accidental.

Another round of hand-wringing ensues. Social Welfare Minister Paula Bennett reminds critics that she issued a Green Paper on Vulnerable Children six months ago and it is open for discussion until the end of February. Labour's spokeswoman Jacinda Ardern repeats a call for a cross-party study of abuse as an issue of child poverty.

All of this, of course, leaps far ahead of the known facts in the latest death which is under police investigation. The officer in charge of the homicide inquiry warns against leaping to conclusions. But it does no harm to be reminded yet again that this country must do something about its high rate of child abuse and that it should be a subject beyond political point-scoring.

Separating politics and social problems is not possible.  Politicians make policy. Even the repeal or reform of bad policy requires political action and it will always be contentious because human interests will always conflict.

So far the Government has spurned Labour's request to be included in a study of child poverty, which is to be undertaken by a committee of ministers. The Government sounds serious in its undertaking to do something for children in impoverished circumstances, just as it must want to reduce the country's incidence of child abuse.

But it will be wary of confusing the issues.

Not all children in poverty are abused, not all abuse occurs in poor households. There may be a heavy co-relationship between them but each problem deserves dedicated attention. Neither should be happening in a small society with well-developed social services, good accessible schools and reasonable levels of income support.

What is a "small society"? This may be a small country in terms of land mass and population but it is not a small society. A society implies common values, interests and interdependence. Does anyone believe that describes NZ today?

But still we get cases such as Mikara Reti, killed last January by a blow to his liver, aged 5 months, Serenity Scott in April, dead of brain injuries, also 5 months, baby Afoa, a week old, whose body was found in a makeshift grave in June and James "JJ" Lawrence, 2 years old when he was killed in November.

Every possible way to prevent these things should be considered. No civil liberty should stand in the way of a practical precaution, no ethnic sensitivity must restrict useful discussion, no political agenda should apply.

All New Zealanders care for these children and all want them to be raised safely and well.

No civil liberty should stand in the way....

Again, this is unworkable. The writer advocates the suspension of civil liberties but wants it disassociated from political agendas. Some of us actually value civil liberties. And we are sophisticated enough to understand the fight for them goes beyond that of our own.

Ironically , when the overall tone of the piece is considered, even the writer has their own political agenda. That is their tacit belief in collectivism and assumption that it is desirable for government to dominate social spheres.

A gang initiation act?

Ah. Too late for me to say, I told you so. Well, I can to my husband. But I didn't blog about my suspicion that the Turangi attack might be a gang-initiation act. There was no sign that the offender was mentally unstable, no record of him acting similarly in the past, no record of him interfering with other children from an early age, no previous sexual assaults. And the circumstances didn't describe a temptation that just happened to present itself. An ulterior motivation was the only explanation that made any sense to me.

And Turangi....

Well, whichever gang it was, he'll be able to join them inside. He'll  need to.

Rodney Hide hosts talkback

Rodney Hide co-hosted the Radio Live Willie Jackson and JT show yesterday, standing in for John Tamihere . Anyone familiar with the show expects Willie to get over-excited and combative and he was. That makes it nigh on impossible to have a measured discussion, which was especially so given the topic of conversation - the Ports of Auckland. But Rodney wasn't letting Jackson out-shout him. Freed up from representing a party or the government he was throwing the BS word liberally at his co-host. But in typical Hide-style following it up by explaining why.

Prior to that discussion, which dominated the programme, Willie asked Rodney whether Gareth Morgan should have paid for the Blanket Man's funeral. That's his business Rodney replied. Willie asked, "But did he do it for publicity?" "Yes" said Rodney. "Otherwise why would you ring the paper to tell them about it. If you didn't want the publicity you would pay for it anonymously." Quite.

Jackson canvassed the melt-down of ACT probing how Rodney had handled it. How tough it had it been emotionally.  "Nobody died," Rodney shot back, "Living through the Christchurch earthquakes is tough. Losing a loved one. That's tough." He was upbeat on the new opportunities ahead. I had a sense that his refusal to sob over spilt milk frustrated Jackson.

But he did relate a discussion he'd had with Don Brash about Don's publicly-stated goal of getting 15 percent of the vote as ACT leader. He apparently counselled Brash to scale it back and over-deliver. But Don was adamant that as he had taken National to however many percent of the vote in 2005 he could expect as much for ACT. Rodney said Don couldn't understand that it wasn't his vote.

Of course the tired 'R' words - raving right-winger, rich mates, red neck, racist, radical - labels were getting a fair airing from callers and Jackson. Rodney tried to get Jackson to see that it is he, Willie, that has a closed mind. That he was  raised on socialism and can't look at matters any other way. "There is no space in your head for different ideas." Then he called him a lefty-liberal pinko. It was quite jolly.

What I most enjoyed was Hide's lack of hesitation in calling-out talkers on real racism and ignorance. One man bemoaning foreigners taking all the jobs was reminded very firmly that when he needed medical care  he would likely find himself relying on a foreigner. And would be glad of it.

When asked how NZ First and Winston would work out he said Winston won't work. He doesn't work. He is lazy. The laziest MP.

It was mentioned that Rodney was at Lincoln University with David Shearer. He said he oversaw Shearer's PhD work.

That's most of what I can remember. With my on and off attention span it might not be totally accurate. I was listening through one earphone, writing an article and dealing with the odd customer simultaneously. If you want to check it out you can.

I look forward to him co-hosting with John Tamihere who is far more erudite  than Willie and a better match for Hide's intellect. Or even better. Hosting solo.

Families receiving welfare - NZ versus US

Attempting to follow the progress of the US welfare reforms can be difficult simply because Americans mean different things when they use the terms 'government benefits' and 'welfare'. It is correct to believe that there is far less cash welfare to families than before the 1990s reforms. But headlines like this, "Nearly half of US Households receive government benefits" appear to contradict that.

Not included in 'welfare' are benefits like unemployment (funded through payroll taxes), supplemental social security (funded through social security taxes) food stamps, housing subsidies and Medicaid (health provision for the poorest).

The last sentence of the following NCPA summary is the one that interests me most:

Nearly Half of U.S. Households Receive Government Benefits

The pool of Americans relying on government benefits rose to record highs last year as an increasing share of families tapped aid in a weak economy, says the Wall Street Journal.
Expanding government programs combined with the worst downturn since the Great Depression have led to an explosion in the share of Americans relying on outside help.

• Some 48.6 percent of the population lived in a household receiving some type of government benefit in the second quarter of 2010, up a notch from 48.5 percent in the first quarter, according to Census data.
• To combat prolonged economic weakness, Congress extended unemployment benefits to a record 99 weeks (up from the normal 26-weeks offered in most states).
• The food stamp program was tweaked so it was more generous.
• Americans flocked to Social Security disability, a last bastion of support for some of the long-term unemployed.

The largest chunk of benefits flowing to families came from means-tested programs.

• In the second quarter, 34.4 percent lived in a household benefiting from food stamps, subsidized housing or Medicaid, among others.
• That number is up from 32.8 percent a year ago (when a total of 46.8 percent of the population lived in a home receiving benefits).
• The biggest increases came from an uptick in those turning to food stamps and Medicaid.
• Nearly 15 percent of Americans lived in a household receiving food stamps in mid-2010; almost 26 percent had access to Medicaid.

Only a small share of the population accessed cash welfare benefits as the 1990s overhaul made it more onerous in many cases to receive and maintain those payments.  Some 1.9 percent of the population lived in a household that received welfare in the second quarter of 2010.

Latest figures from the US Government Accountability Office show the following:

Only 5 percent of the families receiving cash assistance are two parent so the figures relate mainly to single parent. 1.9 million families just happens to coincide with around 1.9 percent of the US population (x 1.9 million families by 3/ 308 million total population). If we compared NZ DPB figures from June 2010 using the same formula the result would be 7.6 percent of the total population (x 112,000 families by 3/ 4.4 million total population) . Much higher despite our unemployment rate being considerably lower - 6.6 percent (NZ) versus 8.5 percent (USA).

(My calculations do not take into account a number of details and are non-specific but they serve the purpose of making a broad comparison between the two countries.)

Guest Post: Cuts to CalWorks

Cuts to welfare budgets have become a reality across nations. A reality that NZ has so far avoided. Elaine Hirsch looks at cuts to California's Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) programme, CalWorks:

Scheduled Cuts to CalWorks

The state of California was among the hardest hit by the bursting of the subprime housing bubble and the events which followed: a global financial crisis, national recession, and a weak economic recovery. As a result, annual revenue plunged and the budget deficit exploded, reaching a peak of $40 billion for the fiscal year 2009-10. Since taking office in January 2011, Democratic governor Jerry Brown has sought to impose fiscal discipline on the budgetary process through a combination of cuts to social services and higher education. Among these were cuts to CalWorks (California’s welfare program) the program which moves poor families from temporary financial assistance to work.

According to the non-profit advocacy group California Budget Project, these changes include an overall cut to CalWorks of about $1 billion (16% of its budget,) an 8% cut for direct cash assistance to needy families, a lowering of the earning limit for enrollees (from 112% of the poverty line to 88.7%,) a reduction of the lifetime cap from 5 to 4 years, and cuts to welfare-to-work transitional programs such as child care and job training. The cuts are expected to have a significant impact on many families, especially parents who may be forced to drop out of state-funded job training programs without yet having secured a job. Although these cuts will hurt public sentiment in the short run, it will also be a source of motivation for individuals to seek out new education opportunities such as community colleges or online MBA programs. Another significant budget decision was the one year suspension of Cal-Learn, the program which paid for transportation and other costs for pregnant and parenting teens to complete high school.

Non-profits such as Catholic Charities have struggled to meet the increased need. Its Los Angeles chapter, for example, saw a 21% increase in clients during 2008-09, and another 13% increase in 2009-10. The charity maintained its budget by increasing its appeals to foundation grants and private donations, as well as relying more heavily on volunteers. The United Ways of California is also preparing for greater demand for services, criticizing the proposed cuts and predicting that many California children would lose access to health care as a result.

Non-profit partnerships with counties are responding to the changes as well. The Community Services Agency, for example, which partners with Stanislaus County to administer the county's CalWorks programs (StanWorks), has used $3.4 million in state funding to hire an additional 41 employees to stem the tide. Positive responses from private-sector entities are a much-welcomed sight to see during times of fiscal deficits.

Though cuts to CalWorks have saved the state approximately $3.5 billion since 2008, including about $940 million projected for fiscal year 2011-12, the most recent budget cuts are only accelerating a long term trend. Since 1996, when legislation signed by President Clinton converted the federal welfare program into a block grant for states and implemented welfare-to-work standards for those receiving assistance, the percentage of the state's budget devoted to welfare has fallen by more than 50%, according to Jean Ross of the California Budget Project.

Unfortunately, many of the federal law's provisions which were friendliest to needy families -- such as subsidized child care, job training, and other support for families in transition -- have been scaled back due to the new fiscal reality. It is highly questionable whether the budget can ultimately be balanced by cuts to social services that so many families depend on. Rather, the true measure of the state's fiscal health is its long-term economic outlook. The one number from Governor Brown's 2011 budget that politicians made the most of is 4, as in $4 billion in additional revenue projected over the next fiscal year. That's the rosy scenario the Governor is counting on to make the numbers work as the state tends to its future.

Poverty. The word for 2012.

Had enough of it yet? Take a deep breath because the word 'poverty' is going to sound like a stuck record this year.

I respect David Fergusson and the research he does but today's report from the NZ Herald made me baulk at a couple of comments:

"It could be that competent, bright families transmit their skills to their children and also earn higher incomes.

"It could also be that being bred in a high-income family provides children with role models and resources for both educational achievement and career success."

Is there any need for the "could" in either of those sentences? I know that academics have to split hairs and become almost paralysed by preciseness but the results sound antithetical to common sense.

Professor Fergusson said children being born in poor families today might face even worse outcomes than their parents born in the 1970s and 80s because of the greater disparity in earnings.

I agree with the first part. Children born today are more likely to be born to an unpartnered mother, more likely to lack a working role model, more likely to have a parent affected by drugs and alcohol and more likely to spend a longer time on welfare than if they had been born in the 1970s and 80s. But I wouldn't prioritise disparity in incomes (let's not call them "earnings" when many are not) .

 The study results are reported in a newsletter published by Children's Commissioner Dr Russell Wills, who has said that attacking child poverty should be the first of seven goals in an "action plan" arising out of a Government paper on vulnerable children.

There they go again. Come back to the fact that plenty of children in 'poor' families do well, especially those from Asian and Pacific families. Stop focusing on poverty per se but the differences between various poor families and the source of their incomes. You already know that when incomes are low and similar, the children from benefit-dependent homes have worse outcomes.

But let's finish on a positive note:

Professor Fergusson said the study showed that income inequality and behavioural issues, such as parents' addictions, both had to be tackled to fix social problems. "For example, increasing the income of substance-using parents may be counter-productive since it will give them more access to purchasing alcohol or drugs," he said.

Which is a perfect example of why simply lifting the benefits of parents is no panacea. There is no guarantee the extra income will be used on the children. But that was the policy of The Maori Party, The Greens and belatedly, Labour. Thank goodness they lost.

Why do people get wound up about child abuse and neglect?

I am tossing up whether to make a submission on the government's Green Paper on Child Abuse and Neglect. 

I spent an hour or so looking over their "Children's Action Plan"  and my shoulders slumped, progressively.

On the front page of the website it says, "Every year an average of 10 children die at the hands of the people closest to them, the people they love and trust."

My first reaction was to the words "love and trust". Do we really believe children love and trust the people who abuse or neglect them to the point of death? Who wrote that bit of fluff?

Then I thought about the number. Ten. A lot more children die from drowning, transport accidents, cancer, etc than ten, yet child abuse and neglect is the issue that really gets people going. The monologue in my head says, that's because it is only the tip of the iceberg. We all know that thousands are living pretty shitty lives and will go on to become pretty shitty parents.

Or is it guilt? Because people buy the poverty-causes-abuse argument so feel somehow shame-faced that they have, others have-not, so they are, by implication, responsible? In many cases I suspect so.

But then there is the other group not buying into the proposition and feeling angry that they are getting the blame for "New Zealand's shameful statistics".  They are equally wound up.

Why do I get wound up? If I don't know how can I make a submission? People would think I should know by now. But the reasons have changed or taken different priority over the years.

Back in 2001 I would get highly emotional about what a child had suffered. Probably because I was a mum with a young child. That's the mindset mums of babies are in.

But now I am more clinical. I guess the overriding feeling is anger. And that isn't even directed at the useless perpetrators. What's would be the point of that? Punishment and string 'em up responses have never been my cup of tea. Unless fury and horror can be harnessed and provoked amongst the peers of the parents it only serves to create more them and us, alienation, resentment and greater risk for the children.

No. My anger is directed at the establishment. The academics, the professionals across the justice and social work arena, government agencies and politicians. Because of their wilful ignorance of elephants in rooms.

Self-interest in a civil society is good. It leads to the willing exchange of goods, services and IDEAS. But in a society funded by government it is bad. And those charged with the well-being of children are in a government funded society. Paid to talk, paid to analyse, paid to practice, paid to plan, paid to liaise, paid to make policy, paid to protect their own patch, paid to perform. They think they want to change the world but the very core of their necessary self-interest is dictated by responsibility to the state. This prevents change from happening. Because they are wedded to the idea that the state is the ultimate provider and no-one must want. They are horrified at the thought of just leaving people to find their own solutions. They can't accept that if the state fails to step into the breach someone else might. Or, even more radical, the breach might not even open up.

So I am on a different planet to those who say they want to hear me.

Stop asking me what I want the state to do. Bugger off and do nothing.  Even 'less' would be better. Perhaps I should submit a single sentence. In the case of child welfare and state intervention, less is more.