Recent painting

Updating my artist blog so cross-posting.

Just used this painting in an ad going into the new Petone Chronicle being produced out of Eastbourne. It's an oil painted on canvas primed with burnt sienna to create a warm glow feeling which is how I feel about dogs.

DPB birthday?

Stuff reports today on the 40th anniversary of the DPB coming into being.

The DPB turns 40 today, but beneficiary advocates say it's no cause for celebration.

Except the DPB can't turn forty today because it no longer exists. This is like celebrating the birthday of someone who is dead.

 Before the domestic purposes benefit was introduced by Norman Kirk's Labour Government on November 14, 1973, only widowed solo mothers received income support.

Wrong again. A National government introduced the DPB emergency benefit in 1968 and prior to that single mothers could access emergency benefits but there was no legislated entitlement.

Wellington City Mission chief executive Michelle Branney (said) it was increasingly hard to get off the DPB, with the financial slowdown meaning fewer available jobs, and employers being less willing to give solo parents the flexibility needed to work around childcare commitments, she said.

Yet the employment rate for sole mothers has steadily increased.

 The cost of living had since "gone ballistic", he said. He remembered paying $10-$20 a week in rent, which the Reserve Bank's inflation calculator puts at $43-$86 in today's money.

Yes, I can remember paying $22 a week for a one bedroom flat in Wellington in the late seventies. But accommodation supplements and income related rents are far more generous now.

Conservative Party chief executive Christine Rankin, a former families commissioner and Work and Income boss, was briefly on the DPB in 1978 in Auckland, while caring for her two preschool-aged sons.
"It was really tough. You have to be very skilled in terms of how you manage your money."
After about two months, she got a job that paid only slightly more than her benefit, but it set her up for a career, she said.
She did not believe it was any harder now than then to survive on the DPB or its successors. "We didn't have very much, and life was a real challenge then."

There's a surprise. I didn't know that Christine Rankin was Conservative Party CE. That makes them a good fit for National in the welfare reform arena.

On welfare due to drug or alcohol addiction - the good news

Stuff has reported on the number of people on benefits for drug or alcohol addiction

 More than 5000 people are collecting benefits because drug and alcohol addiction is preventing them from working.

5,349 to be specific.

Last time I asked the question, June 2011, there were 5,855.

That's an 8.6% decrease.

However,

In 2009, 1181 people had spent four to 10 years collecting the benefit, and 291 people had been doing so for more than 10 years.
This year, 1394 people had spent four to 10 years on the benefit, and 485 had been on it for 10 years or more.

This would indicate that the hardcore remain but fewer people are being admitted onto a benefit for addiction reasons.

Labour's social development spokeswoman Sue Moroney said the figures showed the Government's reforms were not working.
"In fact, they've made things worse," she said.
"The number of Kiwis consigned to long-term unemployment has increased by more than 4000 people since the so-called reforms were introduced in July."

I'm not sure how overall long-term unemployment relates to this specific story or where these figures are sourced from.

In fact, the number of long term Jobseekers (dependent one year or more) reduced by 8 percent in the year to September 2013.

Labour has no grounds to complain anyway.

Here's a quote from a press release from 2009,

  Welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell said that in June 2002 3,202 people relied on one of these benefits because of substance abuse. "Information just released to me from the Ministry of Social Development shows that number has risen to 5,838."

Jackson and Tamihere gone for now

The show is over for the rest of the year.

I guess that's the market. Their detractors spoke and, in turn, the advertisers spoke. But it's still a disturbing example of the repercussions of thinking the 'wrong stuff' out loud.

Living wage promises little to the poorest

A reader has kindly sent me a copy of the Treasury report which analyses the proposed living wage.

Below is a table from it showing how much more the living wage will provide to various earners. The red section however will benefit the government, not the earner.

Take the first row. It is well known that sole parents are proportionately the poorest families in NZ. If a sole parent with two children (in a 3 bedroom home paying $380 in rent)  moves from $15 an hour to $18.40 he or she will only be better off by around $24 because of losses in accommodation supplement and other tax credits.

The report goes on to comment on the research that developed the $18.40 living wage:

    Treasury questions whether the methodology used to arrive at $18.40 is robust, for the following reasons (A more detailed explanation is provided in Appendix 3):

·                The research is based on a family composition of two adults and two children.  The research acknowledges that while it is possible in principle to identify different wage levels for different numbers of dependants, this is not done because it would make the Living Wage estimate unhelpful as a communication tool.

·                Families comprising two adults and two children represent only 6% of families earning below the Living Wage. Those who have the highest deprivation level (i.e. absolute, not relative) are sole parents and this analysis generally does not apply to them.

Treasury can't call the Family Centre Social Policy Unit research nonsense, but I can. Why base a calculation on an atypical low-income earner?

The report goes on:

" The research is inconsistent with Household Economic Survey which finds that at least 70% of people in even the lowest income band say that their current income is either just enough or better."

And here are two more noteworthy tables showing that 1/ internationally NZ has a relatively high minimum wage, and 2/ NZ has a low proportion of its population earning low incomes. 

Going back to the first graph, there is a question nagging at me. Could a strictly voluntary living wage be a good thing if it reduces the burden on the unrelated party (taxpayers) and shifts it to the party who gains the benefit of the labour paid for? If an employer can pay more (acknowledging all the 'ifs' that entails) isn't that preferable to taxpayer subsidies?




The answer is yes. Problem is though, most of the people who would benefit from the living wage aren't currently subsidised (my inference from other data provided). So the living wage does not provide an efficient solution to reducing working welfare.

On Guy Fawke's night explosions

Last night's thunderous Wellington display,  combined with a neurotic, extremely anxious dog with an existing tummy upset manifesting in diarrhoea,  does not make for a fun night...

I must be a dinosaur too

The current backlash against the 'rape culture'  personified by Roast Busters, dictates, insists,  the 'victim' has no culpability.
I don't accept that and here's why.

Because if I accept that I must tell my 15 year-old she can get herself into any situation of vulnerability, go to someone's house where there will be a bunch of boys or even one boy, drink alcohol, do whatever happens with the loss of inhibitions that causes, and she is totally blameless.

Sorry. I'm not giving her that message.

If I did I wouldn't be protecting her.

Only she can take responsibility for avoiding unwanted events outside of my knowledge or control.

The attitude that she is blameless might be emotionally useful after the event.

But that's too late.

(Published with the consent of my 15 year-old).

Implications of living wage

I have noticed that the living wage is now being touted as the level of income necessary to participate in society. I heard a British proponent using this phrase on NewstalkZB yesterday and here is an earlier reference:

A Living Wage of $18.40 an hour is being launched today - that allows people to have the basics but still participate in society.

This is the exact language used in the 1972 Royal Commission on Social Policy which recommended  benefit levels should be set at a level  "which would enable [beneficiaries] to participate in and belong to the community (Royal Commission of Inquiry 1972:65)..."

So as the living wage gets progressively rolled out, the implications for the benefit system are obvious.

(It might be argued that rather than allowing people to participate in society, benefits allow people to not participate. The need to support themselves and their families through paid work and family networks is often what draws people into society. In some cases benefits allow people to drop out of society.)

Teenagers behaving more responsibly

Amidst all the furore about teenage sex, not only the sordid West Auckland carry on but the supply of free condoms to adolescents, the following statistics are interesting.

In 2012 only 18 girls under 15 years old gave birth.  There is a strong downward trend.

 

1996	27
1997	48
1998	34
1999	30
2000	31
2001	28
2002	29
2003	29
2004	36
2005	37
2006	35
2007	52
2008	39
2009	29
2010	26
2011	25
2012	18

Neither is this downward trend caused by increased abortions. They are also falling rapidly, more than 50 percent since 2006:

 

1996		60
1997		56
1998		65
1999		56
2000		74
2001		66
2002		78
2003		89
2004		85
2005		92
2006		105
2007		104
2008		83
2009		79
2010		84
2011		68
2012		51

These patterns are also reflected in the 15-19 year-old population.

These stats do not prove that teenagers are having less sex. Or that they waiting till they are older to start having sex. But they do show that teenagers are behaving more responsibly in the area of birth control and pregnancy prevention.

A law change won't stop worst offenders

In today's DomPost:

The law could be changed to zero tolerance and have as much effect on drink-drivers as the smacking ban has had on child abusers.

Quote of the day

I couldn't resist posting this one, from the Freedom Foundation today:

The greatest threat to the future of our nation -- to our freedom -- is not foreign military aggression … but the growing dependence of the people on a paternalistic government. A nation is no stronger than its people and the best measure of their strength is how they accept responsibility. There will never be a great society unless the materialism of the welfare state is replaced by individual initiative and responsibility.

 

- Charles B. Shuman

"Real men don't whine" - Cunliffe

Newstalk ZB just featured Labour leader David Cunliffe talking about discomfit with the man ban saying, "Real men don't whine". This is a reference to potential and existing male Labour MPs who have dared to take issue with the gender quota.

That's a nasty new low. But so typical of the left's modus operandi. To paint your detractor as having a flawed or weak character rather than argue the idea.

Achievement should be based on merit. No more and no less. Start basing it on anything else and it becomes meaningless and damaging. But male readers, don't agree with me or you're a wuss, a big girl's blouse.

There is a clear development here. Cunliffe is saying any man that doesn't support feminism is not a "real man".

The Labour party has effectively put up a sign, "Feminists only need apply."

Asia rising

Since changing laptops I have been unable to post images, and my sitemeter and search function both disappeared. The problem is now fixed and am belatedly posting a graph that caught my eye  last week depicting the rising fortunes of Asia and waning fortunes of the West. We are lucky to be well-placed to take advantage. The rankings depicted are 2009-2013.

Does parental separation affect children's partnership outcomes?

I don't want to misrepresent this study and the findings so will just cut and paste the extract and you can draw your own conclusions:

Parental separation/divorce in childhood and partnership outcomes at age 30.

Fergusson DM, McLeod GF, John Horwood L.

Source

Department of Psychological Medicine, Christchurch Health and Development Study, University of Otago, Christchurch, New Zealand.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Previous research has found that children exposed to separation/divorce may also experience relationship problems in adulthood. The aim of this investigation was to examine this issue in a birth cohort of over 900 New Zealand children studied to age 30.

METHODS:

Data were gathered over the course of the Christchurch Health and Development Study (CHDS). The CHDS is a 30 year longitudinal study of a birth cohort of 1265 children born in Christchurch (NZ) in 1977. The data collected included the following: (a) timing and number of parental separations and divorces from birth to 15 years; (b) partnership outcomes (16-30 years) of the number of cohabiting/marriage partnerships; positive partner relations; negative partner relations; partner adjustment/conduct problems; and interpartner violence victimization and perpetration; and (c) potential covariate factors.

RESULTS:

Study findings showed the presence of significant associations between childhood parental separations/divorces and number of cohabiting/marriage partnerships (16-30 years) (p < .001), negative partner relations (p = .021), extent of partner adjustment/conduct problems (p < .001), and perpetration of interpartner violence (p = .018). Childhood parental separation/divorce explained less than 2.5% of the variance in partnership outcomes. These associations were explained statistically by a series of covariate factors associated with childhood parental separation/divorce including parental history of illicit drug use, childhood sexual abuse, childhood conduct problems (7-9 years), interparental conflict and violence, childhood physical punishment/maltreatment, family socio-economic status at the child's birth, and parental history of criminality. Tests of gender interaction showed that the effect of childhood parental separations/divorces may be the same for males and females. Analysis of the number of childhood parental separations/divorces experienced into three age groups (birth to 5, 5-10 years and 10-15 years) yielded similar results.

CONCLUSIONS:

These findings suggest that the general associations between childhood parental separation/divorce and partner relationships in adulthood reflect the consequences of various contextual factors that are associated with childhood parental separation.
© 2013 The Authors. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry © 2013 Association for Child and Adolescent Mental Health.

Labour "delutes" pension policy

It was the word "delutes" that caught my attention. Never totally secure about my own vocabulary I did check to see if this was a real word. It isn't. Labour have 'diluted' their pension policy. Vernon Small reports:

Finance spokesman David Parker, a strong advocate of raising the age, downplayed the significance of the policy platform change.
He said it was a high level document and the party's detailed policy would not be known until closer to the 2014 election.
He said "you will have to wait until we release our manifesto" when asked if a rise to 67, or some other age, would be part of Labour's manifesto.
Yesterday former MP Jenny Kirk said all options should be investigated to maintain the current 65 pension age.
Lifting the age to 67 was "an electoral turnoff".
But Parker argued against holding the age at 65, saying it would make his job harder.
He said Labour was always positioned as a tax and spend party by National and as finance spokesman he would have a much tougher job promoting extra spending on Labour policy in health and education if the state pension age did not rise over time.

Parker has my sympathy. Anything that cuts handouts is an "electoral turnoff". What a gutless position. This was the one policy that made me take Labour seriously.

Update: Headline now corrected.

Tribalism: Blood is thicker than water

There's an interesting thread developing between sharihyder and Jigsaw on my post about the Memorandum of Understanding developed between Tainui and MSD.

I used to be in the Jigsaw camp and was totally opposed to tribalism. But my years of volunteering took me into Maori homes and  the philosophical difference between Pakeha and Maori (not withstanding there is plenty of overlap as well) became more obvious. It doesn't require clever language to describe the difference. Maori are bound to their immediate and extended whanau more strongly than Pakeha. There isn't necessarily a choice operating, though it would be ridiculous to describe the bonds as onerous. But there is obligation to the group over self. For Maori blood is thicker than water.

Pakeha have moved increasingly away from that proverb. We tend to choose our networks. Friendships can outweigh family ties, especially to the extended family. Our immediate family - parents siblings brothers and sisters - are hugely important but we still choose to what degree those ties shape our lives. We are the dominant individualist culture - Maori are the minority collectivist culture.

The intermingling of these cultures has not resulted in a diminishing of tribal feeling. Pakeha marriage and nuclear family living seemed to gain favour post war but now Maori marriage rates have dropped off. It recently dawned on me when reading Surviors of Nga Morehau that Maori adopted formal marriage to qualify for the family benefit. Once they didn't need to be officially married to get welfare the marriage rate plummeted

Which brings me to what IS the problem with tribalism. Pakeha made whanau and tribes weak through welfare. They reduced their strength, their capacity to nurture and provide for their own by reducing the need to work the land, the sea or to find other employment.

My philosophy prioritises individual freedom and responsibility and I doubt I could be assimilated into Maori culture. Such an unhappy prospect, probably shared by many readers, should give pause to those who would impose individualism on Maori.

And I also remind myself to live and let live. So have your tribalism but make it a strong institution that is self-sufficient, that prioritises a positive responsibility to each other - not an exploitative burden on each other.

It's not for me to tell Maori how to live. But neither should I be forced to pay for their preferences. That I have been has only weakened this long-standing Maori institution.

Living wage calculation exposed

Back in March I wrote in a Truth column,

The ‘living wage’  idea poses more questions than it answers.
Apparently the proposed non-compulsory hourly wage of $18.40 is based on the needs of a family with two children, with one full-time and one part-time worker.
But someone with dependent children who is earning less than the living wage will almost certainly be receiving  Working For Families assistance.
As well, someone without children might be receiving an accommodation supplement which helps with rent, board or a mortgage.
Because these are income-tested payments, they reduce as the employee’s salary or wage increases.
Under the living wage scenario then, an employer would pay more, but in many cases the worker’s income would remain the same as he progressively loses other government assistance, especially the accommodation supplement.  Who has gained? Neither of them. The gaining party would be the government.

Kiwiblog has just reported on Treasury analysis of the living wage in a post coincidentally titled:

 Living Wage proposal would mainly help the Government, not low income families

 The data fatally undermines the policies being pushed by Labour and Greens. Only 6% of those who earn below the living wage are in the type of family the calculation is based on. Who would you set wages for 94% based on a situation which doesn’t apply to them?

AGCP and MSD at odds?

This is interesting. MSD has just published a report by the Advisory Group on Conduct Problems (a bunch of academics) at its website. MSD has however taken issue with some of it:

Caveat statement

With regard to Chapter 5, the Ministry of Social Development wishes to comment on the current wording in the Adolescent Report that presents the use of the Family Group Conference (FGC) as a practice that addresses conduct problems.
The FGC is a statutory process for making decisions concerning children and young people. It is a participative approach to child protection and youth offending and involves the child / young person, their parents, members of their extended family/ whānau and professionals coming together to develop solutions to specific situations.
The FGC should be seen as a process that enables decision-making on subsequent approaches to respond to the broader needs of a child or young person (including conduct problems).
It is these subsequent approaches that need to be evaluated to measure their effectiveness in changing the behaviour of young people.
Furthermore, the report does not acknowledge that Child, Youth and Family have recently partnered with the University of Canterbury to evaluate FGC practices and outcomes.
The evaluation objectives are to (a) identify the effectiveness of the FGC process for facilitating positive outcomes for children and young people and their whānau, (b) to identify best practice for implementing FGCs, including culturally appropriate practices and (c) further develop the theoretical underpinnings of how the FGC process effects change for children and young people and their whānau.
The University of Canterbury has completed a scoping phase which provides the foundation for the next phase of the evaluation.

You would have to assume some discussion preceded the decision to add this caveat. Some discussion/disagreement that could not be resolved.

Naturally I'd like to read the report but the link (at 12:12pm) doesn't work.

(Post note. Link now up.)

'Memorandums of Understanding' with Maori

It'd be interesting to know where these  MoUs fit with whanau ora.

Regardless, that Maori are confronting the CYF-related problem by tribe is probably positive. Collectivism is still a way of thinking and living for many Maori. We can rightfully complain when it imposes a burden on those outside of the collective but that doesn't automatically confer a right to demand Maori adopt individualism. If their child abuse and neglect problems can be eased best through the tribal community, all well and good. That the negotiations have been with a National government rather than Labour gives me more cause for optimism.

Child, Youth and Family and Tainui connect

Thursday, 31 October 2013, 4:51 pm
Press Release: New Zealand Government Hon Paula Bennett
Minister for Social Development
Associate Minister of Housing
31 October 2013 Media Statement
Child, Youth and Family and Tainui connect
An agreement between CYF and Tainui marks a new understanding and connection between the two says Social Development Minister Paula Bennett.
The Memorandum of Understanding was signed in Waikato today.
“This is the third agreement to be signed with iwi and is a significant step forward,” says Mrs Bennett.
“A new working relationship will focus on protecting children, using iwi networks to proactively support whānau in need.”
“Too many Māori children are hurt and abused; by openly acknowledging this and working together with iwi we can support these children and their families earlier, and then this MoU will really mean something.”
Child Youth and Family had a staff member seconded to Waikato Tainui for the last twelve months to help pave the way for the new relationship.
Tainui and Child, Youth and Family will work together to put the interests of vulnerable children first.
There are close to 5,000 children in the care of CYF, 441 of those children are affiliated to Waikato Tainui.
Child, Youth and Family has now signed Memorandums of Understanding with Tainui, Ngapuhi and Ngati Porou.
ENDS

John Campbell Show can never credibly cover 'bullying' as a subject again

The John Campbell Show made a rare appearance on my TV screen tonight. His hectoring, biased style turned me off long since. But trailers during the TV3 News persuaded me to stay tuned. Another chance wasn't warranted though. His protege went stalking John Palino with some "serious questions, SERIOUS QUESTIONS." One actually. Why had he spent so long in the car with Bevan Chuang? Now, I can imagine many plausible answers to this. Some good, some not so good. But Palino maintains he talked about the threatening texts at her request. He engaged with the shouty she-Campbell to the best of his ability referring her back to a comprehensive statement he'd released earlier and continuing to hold that he didn't know about the Chuang/Brown affair. All the time she over-talked, interrupted, and ear-bashed Palino. He did well to stay as calm as he did.

Then we flick back to the studio where Campbell oh so reasonably and humbly insists that the invitation was open to Mr Palino to go on the show and tell his side of the story. Give me a break. He would have been subjected to even worse thuggery than he met in the carpark.

Again, I'm not holding a candle for either side. As such I am  interested in objective reporting. Once again Campbell illustrates why his show isn't the vehicle for that. It has become an enclave for bully-boys and girls shameless in their efforts to take down their targets.