Astonishing claim

In Australia "health and welfare " jobs have just overtaken the retail sector in terms of employment. Currently 1 in 9 jobs is in health and social assistance.

According to The Age;

"It will keep getting bigger," says labour market specialist Mark Wooden, of the Melbourne Institute.

The entire sector will one day account for one in every two workers ".

Good lord. How can that be sustainable?

In NZ one in 10 workers is employed in health and social assistance (it rises to closer to 2 for females). But 1.5 works in retail trade and accommodation.

The same upward trend is occurring though. In September 2004 the sector accounted for 8.9 percent of the workforce. Five years later it stood at 10.2 percent.

Returning to the claim I guess what he is saying is that society will become so efficient at creating wealth without labour input that it will be able to afford for every second worker to be a health or care worker. Can't see it myself.

The criminal class has society over a barrel

The criminal class has society over a barrel. Look at the news coverage.

On Tuesday night in Hamilton two young women attempted to rob a family a home. The father acted to prevent them and eventually neighbours became involved. The police say:

"Here we have neighbours looking out for each other resulting in the arrest of the woman, which is to be commended, but we also have a homeowner suffering a stab wound trying to defend his property in what could have been very tragic circumstances.

"We would prefer people capture details and descriptions rather than place themselves at risk. If at all possible, call 111 and let us respond to the problem."


In other words, let them rob you.

Then up the road in Huntly business owners are sick and tired of increasing property crime and theft. They met with their local MP to express their understandable unhappiness;

But Huntly Community Board chairman Frank McInally, who is a strong advocate for the installation of security cameras, yesterday told the Times that most retailers were "their own worst enemies".

"They won't put their hand in their own pockets to contribute towards the cameras," he said.

"You hit them up for $1000 each for cameras and they don't want to know about. But they're happy to talk about increased insurance premiums. "They talk a lot, but will do absolutely nothing off their own bat."

So again the message sent to thieves is, do your worst. Why the hell should small business owners be coughing up for street security when they already pay their rates and taxes for a reasonable level of law enforcement?

But worse than any of this is the fact that we are forced to support the criminal class through a benefit system that has gone haywire; is bereft of a moral compass.

BIG RISE IN BENEFICIARIES GOING TO PRISON

Thursday, March 18, 2010

Figures released under the Official Information Act show there has been a sharp increase in the number of people who have had their benefits cancelled because they went to prison.

"In 2009 4,192 people had their benefit cancelled because they were going to prison. That is 37 percent up on the 2008 figure, and 47 percent up on the 2007 figure," according to welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell.

"58 percent were Maori, 89 percent male and 47 percent came off a sickness or invalid's benefit."

"468 parents or caregivers also left the DPB to go to prison. "

"Most criminals break the law many times before they are incarcerated. No doubt there are thousands more people who are serving community sentences or home detention while continuing to receive welfare. Additionally 3,496 people were granted a benefit last year on release from prison."

"This situation rather puts paid to the idea that benefits discourage crime by providing people with a living income."

"The Prime Minister was correct when earlier this year he described New Zealand's welfare rolls as out of control. Welfare was not designed to aid and abet thousands of criminals. "

So we are damned if we do, and damned if we don't. I am rather starting to prefer the idea of damned if we don't.

In the home stretch

Winding down to the exhibition now. With oils you have to have the work finished well before installation and this week I have been able to embark on a new project - soon to be announced. Here is some of the work of other artists involved. Mine is the top right portrait. And below is a publicity shot Sam took yesterday for local papers. Fingers crossed I sell as well as at the last show.

Creeping separatism

It is rumoured that whanau ora is going to be administered by Te Puni Kokiri.

Inasmuch as the DPB is a social policy which benefits (?) mainly women, shouldn't it be handed over to the Ministry of Women's Affairs?

And if there is going to be a Minister of Whanau Ora what about a Minister of DPB?

And why not hand the administration of Super over to the Retirement Commissioner and have a Minister of Super?

National tell us that they want trim down public services and bureaucracy and go in exactly the opposite direction with Maori. Pure politics.

Politics aside, the real question is, can Maori providers sort out Maori social problems? How will we know whether the new approach is working? (That question pops into my head because I was reading the other day about the continuing creation of marae courts. In nearly two years since the first began hearing cases no formal evaluation has been conducted.)

My suspicion is that families under the whanau ora scheme will be treated differently to families who are not. That could manifest in avoidance of work-testing for example. It is no secret that the soon-to-be Minister of whanau ora is absolutely against work-testing mothers on the DPB. Whanau ora may provide the political solution to that conflict.

A very close watch needs to be kept on what develops under whanau ora. But my guess is that scrutiny will be impeded by the fact of it being run by the Ministry of Maori Development.

Timid welfare reforms

Some years back I was approached by a parent of children that went to school with mine, who had read my letters, knew my politics etc. She was from the US and very sympathetic to my views about welfare. What she wanted to convey to me was that when she lived in the US she considered herself to be left-leaning. But without changing her own political views, in this country she felt decidedly to the right of the spectrum. In particular she felt NZers were too politically correct and had an over developed sense of being owed. Whereas in the States she would vote Democrat here she would be more likely to vote Act.

It doesn't matter which main party is in power (except for the aberrations of the late 80s/early 90s) New Zealand is essentially very collectivist and socialist. Where once that mentality saw NZ innovating and leading in social policy (eg social insurance paid by the state rather than the employer/employee) it is now creating paralysis.

WHY?

Mistakes happen. Yesterday for instance I had a letter published in the DomPost and after my name it said "Point Howard". I have been writing to the DomPost for years. Why would someone suddenly take it into their heads that I live in Point Howard? Apart from the fact that people are going to keep asking me if I have moved (which happened when the Dompost temporarily started using the identifier Muritai instead of Eastbourne) it's no big deal. But why?

Anyway, here is a really big "why?"

A Boston cat has been called for jury service. But that's not the why. He was entered on the last census forms as a pet, Sal Esposito. Someone in officialdom has their wires crossed and Sal has transformed into a human. One old enough to do jury service mind you.

No, the why is WHY won't the jury commissioner relieve the cat of his civic duty?

(Hat tip Reason.com)

Ripping off charity

The mentality of someone who rips off the taxpayer is comprehensible. The taxpayer is invisible, indeed the individual himself is one and just getting back some of what he put in.

But ripping off a charity? I suppose donors are also invisible. But the recipients of the charity, especially children, certainly aren't.

I began volunteering in 2004 and up until last year, when I had a client that involved more travel than previous clients, I didn't claim for mileage. I had made a reasonably sized donation to the charity and it seemed illogical to then take money out. But last year I wasn't as flush and when I was asked to take on a client some distance away said yes, but that I would have to claim for mileage.

So if Roger McClay has been ripping off various charities, has he fallen on hard times or is it simply a matter of greed? Perhaps he really rates himself and mentally justifies his actions because they are damn lucky to have his services. Maybe he has a gambling addiction or some other expensive hobby.

Whatever has happened in his head, it is sad to see someone throw away their reputation and future prospects because he will get little sympathy and probably no second chances. And now that I look for a link to the story I discover one of the charities he is accused of ripping off is World Vision, who we have supported for nearly twenty years. Thanks Roger. I wasn't faceless after all.

Am I getting anywhere with this?

Regular readers will know that when I think a comment or a criticism or a revelation is important I will distribute it as a media release. Sometimes I get feedback along the lines of, why isn't it getting picked up?

Actually they do get picked up. But someone who listens only to National Radio for example can be forgiven for thinking they do not.Increasingly I get calls from NewstalkZB, Radio Live and, less so, Rhema. I have been on Radio NZ but only a couple of times. My local paper gives me a bit of coverage as per below which ran in the Hutt News and The Leader and the readership of local papers is quite high because they are distributed free to all homes. Over the years the NZ Herald has published a number of articles but there prime social issues reporter is not sympathetic to my views. Breakfast TV is also calling me if there is a relevant issue.

Courting the media is very difficult. I hate seeing my name in print. I get an immediate but irrational sinking-stomach feeling. The thought of a TV appearance or speech sends my stress levels into the troposphere. But I cope. If I want to advance welfare reform I have to. And advancing welfare reform isn't about beating a political drum for the sake of it. It's about changing how we think about need, how we meet it without creating more; without causing so much unnecessary and additional hurt and waste along the way.

Maori adoption and parallel worlds

The following is from a letter to me from the Ministry of Social Development. It clarifies the difference between adoption in the Maori and non-Maori world. I suspect that quite a number of Maori babies are 'adopted' out (whangai) but there are no statistics available. I suspect that most Maori babies born to unpartnered or young Maori are supported by welfare but cannot confirm this because MSD says it does not record the relationship status between the person receiving the benefit and the dependent child who provides eligibility. And the ethnicity of the child is not recorded, only the ethnicity of the caregiver. I have written previously about the potential for the exploitation of children in this respect.

Anyway, another brick wall hit, but some of you may nevertheless be interested in the different processes.

Do people on the DPB want jobs?

In 2002 research was commissioned into whether people on the DPB were interested in looking for work. An external research company phoned 1,233 people on the DPB and asked about their level of interest and found;

Very interested 32%
Fairly interested 29%
Not that interested 19%
Not interested at all 17%
Unsure 3%

I had just come across this again and was musing about how honest the responses were. Perhaps it would be like my GP saying to me, how interested in cutting down your alcohol intake are you Lindsay? (She thinks I drink too much wine but in my defence my intake, apart from periods of total abstinence, doesn't go up and it doesn't go down).

The answer she wants is very interested. What she wants to hear is certainly being mentally processed. So is the honest answer, not interested at all. Should I plum for somewhere in between? Or isn't it true that I am fairly interested, so long as it doesn't actually happen? If an alcohol free wine was invented that tasted great and gave a nice buzz, I would certainly be fairly interested.

So how indicative is that research? I recall at the time Mr Maharey making a big deal about how most people on the DPB wanted to work. Actually, the veracity of the results notwithstanding, they were interested in 'looking for work'. That's a different thing. Being interested in looking for a job doesn't translate into accepting it if it pays only slightly more than a benefit.

And as much as those who said they weren't even interested in looking can make a taxpayer feel rather testy, at least they were honest.

Admitting a mistake

You will find this post dry and boring but it is necessary.

I have been getting it in the neck from a patronising commenter for making a statistical error.

I divided an average figure into a median figure. Wrong.

The corrected figure is;

Government transfers account for 8 percent of the average male income and 19 percent of the average female income (not 8 percent of the median male income and 24 percent of the median female income, which I originally posted.)

The commenter goes on the tell me what I should have done;

Taking the median (if you want to use medians) weekly govt transfers by gender from Table 12 and putting them against median aggregate income in table 1, you'd be horrified to know that the median male weekly govt transfer income is 40% of the median male income from all sources, but the ratio for females is 64%.

So why the huge difference between the two sets of figures? My erroneous figures looked far more likely than these, which is why I didn't spot the mistake.

Because Table 12 is Median Weekly Income by Income Source for those receiving that source of income.

Hence it is an error to divide those figures into the figures at Table 1 which is Average and Median weekly Income for all people aged 15 and over.

So the anonymous commenter, who demands I admit my mistake or lose my credibility, might like to join me. Especially as he or she says "what really irritates me is the abuse of statistics."

Recent painting puzzles

This photo has fascinated me since I first saw it at the Alexander Turnball Library. It is of a district nurse visiting a family in Northland (1950s?). The man next to her is holding a clipboard one imagines on which to record the baby's weight. Is he a doctor? I doubt he is the man of the family. If he was the father and a farmer, he would be dressed differently.

I very rarely paint landscape matter but really wanted to preserve this scene.

What I love is the look on the various children's faces and the way the baby is focussed on the photographer. The way the mother has the two young ones in her grasp as though to keep them under control or just near. The juxtaposition between the families bare feet and the visitor's shiny shoes. I didn't struggle too much with likenesses but more on expressions. It is hard painting tiny little faces and making them read right. My eyesight isn't what it was but reading glasses don't work as I am constantly standing back to check the distance impression. Also I have put space around the group but wonder if it adds anything. Perhaps I should cut it differently.





And here I have reworked "Reona". No I didn't change the face colour. It's just the photograph. I had a problem with the clothing because I had added/invented it and it wasn't sitting comfortably. She looked like a cardboard cut out but taking the image to the edge of the canvas made it worse. The re-work is an improvement I think. More harmony. What I should have done in the first place.

Why did US unemployment go so high?

It appears that the US suffered much higher unemployment during the recession than NZ. And this has surprised me because the US, in previous recessions, has fared better than other countries in terms of unemployment.

But there is something different about their current rate of 9.7 percent.

Because the number of parents (mainly mothers and single) receiving welfare was enormously reduced due to the 1996 (and earlier) reforms and far more now have an attachment to the work place, they qualify for unemployment insurance and are officially counted as unemployed.

Just a couple of rough calculations shows what a difference that has made.

US population = 309,000,000
NZ population = 4,360,000

In the US 11.4 million are receiving unemployment benefits (insurance) or 3.6 percent of the population.

In NZ 66,300 are receiving an unemployment benefit, only 1.5 percent of the population. But if you added in 70 percent of the DPB population ( roughly the percentage the US reduced their numbers by) the proportion would rise to 3.3 percent.

I have left sickness and invalid benefits out because they equate to US Supplemental Social Security assistance - another programme. However we do have greater comparative numbers in that area.

So I am now thinking that the US isn't in quite as bad shape as their numbers would indicate.

(It goes without saying that my workings are very sketchy eg I have used total population instead of working age. This is just a blog post, not a thesis.)

Voluntary sterilisation is "self-mutilation"

Garth George makes some fairly astonishing statements in his column today. Bearing in mind many men and women choose either to have a vasectomy or tubal ligation (myself included) theses pronouncements are just weird;

It [voluntary sterilisation] would be accepted by only a handful of men and women, if that, since even the mentally challenged - as child abusers invariably are - would shrink at being reduced to sterility, robbed of the inalienable human right to reproduce.

...I have a dear friend here in Rotorua, a man rich in years, in experience and wisdom, strong and enduring in his Christian faith, who has spent a lifetime serving his God, his family and his church.

We talk often and at great length of the things of God and the things of the world. He contends, and I agree, that voluntary sterilisation amounts to self-mutilation and renounces the natural law of self-preservation.

Thanks for sharing such an enlightened view Mr George.

We could do with a Winston Smith at Work and Income

This morning I came across a blog previously unknown to me. Winston Smith (a pseudonym) works in Supported Housing in the UK and writes about his daily dealings with 'clients'. (It occurs to me if I wrote an anonymous blog about my volunteer work and experiences it would not differ much though my writing talents would not match Mr Smith's. You win some but you lose more.)

I will add him to my blog roll. Here are some excerpts. The last is long because it is just too good to cut.

Bribing addicts to meet targets

Now, call me a cynic but when I read about bribing members of the underclass in order to ascertain their views I smell the scent of performance targets. Why? You may ask. Well, we in Supported Housing have our own targets, (the QAFS. see earlier posts) one of which is consulting residents about various aspects of the project. One of the problems though is that most residents don't want to be consulted they just want to be left on their own in their rooms staring blankly at TV screens, knocking each other up, spreading chlamydia and avoiding any contact with reality. To get them out of their rooms and to hear their insane ideas we use fast food, cash incentives and sugary fizzy drinks. It always works. I'd put good money, if I earned it, that the Drug and Alcohol action team are using a similar tactic. Just like us their jobs depend on it. If they could get away with giving them drugs or alcohol to get them to the meeting then I have no doubt they'd be tempted. If you think about it they have done just that. What do you think all those junkies, potheads, pill poppers and alco-teens are going to spend that ten quid on? Hazard a guess go on.

Can the Drug and Alcohol team be that naive and stupid? Believe me I regularly encounter people in this industry who are that thick and worse. If you pay circus wages you will often attract clowns. However, it is just as possible that in the interests of meeting performance targets the judicious decision was discarded in favour of the expedient.

Failing to scrounge from the state

Five minutes after getting rid of Gavin, Kenny, 21, knocks on the office door. He too is failing to successfully scrounge from the state. I’ve seen slugs with more get up and go. Soon, his ex-girlfriend with whom he has a fractious relationship, will be bearing him a child. There are similar scenarios throughout the project and indeed up and down the country ensuring that Britain has yet another generation of employment and education averse youngsters to take the place of today’s underclass when they go to the great Burberry factory in the sky. He seeks my sage advice in relation to benefits.

“Any chance you could help me think of an excuse to tell the Job Centre why I’ve missed signing on?”

Is being a toe-rag an excuse or is it a reason? I ponder. I’m in no mood for him and I’m not employed to lie for him so I tell him exactly what is on my mind, well with some modification.

“Go away Kenny. I’m not paid to lie for you and besides if you can’t even manage to sign on once every two weeks to get free money without it turning in to a drama what hope is there for you in life,”

Kenny shuffles off swearing under his breath as he goes. He isn’t used to such straight talk, even from me. I was a bit more forthright than usual. In fact, were he to fill in a complaint form I could get in trouble as such direct talking could be interpreted as “oppressive” language, in the terminology of the social sector, and as such could be detrimental to his self-esteem. Well, as far as I’m concerned if you are sitting around on your arse 24/7 and making no efforts to do anything constructive and can’t even manage to draw the dole then you should have very low self-esteem. The only things that Kenny has contributed to society are several bouts of chlamydia and a child he will soon abandon. I know it’s not much in fashion these days but just the smallest amount of shame can be a great motivator to change and regulator of one’s behaviour.

Britain: The Land Where The Criminal's Victimhood Supersedes That of The Decent and Law Abiding

A couple of weeks before the Christmas, one of our residents, Mike, 18, openly divulged to several staff that he had acquired some of his yuletide gifts for his family by stealing them. Although starved of intelligence and devoid of manners, Mike is in no ways cash hungry. He is on lucrative benefit payments and receives regular cash donations from his father who works abroad. However, much of his income is regularly being paid out on various fines he receives from the courts and the police whilst persuing his favourite hobby of being a public nuisance. In defence of his latest criminal activities Mike felt that it should be appreciated that he was no longer burglaring people's homes as he had lately required a conscience in this area. One of my colleagues actually congratulated him for this, as if he was doing the local community a favour by no longer 'choosing' to break in to people's homes.

Anyway, when trying to talk to him about his immoral behaviour I became aware that both myself and my colleague were trying to get Mike to see the error of his ways by appealing to how crime would affect him as opposed to the effects it has on others. My colleague made no mention of the victims of his actions and I only made reference to it and was immediately accused by Mike of the greatest taboo in the social delinquents perpetuation sector: judgmentalism. My colleague was quick to assure Mike that he wasn't being judged. Instead, I took to plain speaking and told him that it wasn't I that was going to judge him but rather someone called a Judge who would indeed be judgemental as his job description requires just that. However, as I have said the angle we were taking was one of trying to make him see how crime would affect him should he continue to keep appearing in court. Should we have employed a technique of say condemnatory language for his actions as well as trying to make him ashamed of himself by being harsh in describing how his crimes affect other people we could have well faced disciplinary action should he have made a complaint, which is his right, about the way and manner we spoke to him.

In fact, Mike did just that with regards to a colleague verbally reprimanding him for bad behaviour on the project the year before. The colleague was suspended and an investigation was launched. She was so demeaned by this experience that she resigned her post whilst being investigated for the crime of plain speaking to a feral yob. Mike openly boasted of how he got rid of her. The threat of such complaints censors many staff from plain speaking when dealing with young people engaged in crime or other anti-social behaviour. One wrong word or misconstrued phrase and you could find yourself up on a disciplinary hearing for 'oppressive' language. This culture where 'judgmental' language is seen as the ultimate taboo allows for criminals like Mike to shift the balance of power in their direction in that support workers fear telling the truth or evoking shame in a resident for fear of a complaint being made against them.

What I have highlighted in the above example is indicative of a trend in the wider society and that is how perpetrators of crimes, even the most heinous, can so easily achieve victim status even superseding the rights of those they have commited crimes against. This trend is being reported more and more by the media lately. The actress and singer Myleene Klass was warned by police for trying to protect herself in her own home. There was the high profile case of the business man jailed, but later released for the crime of defending his home against vicious and dangerous criminals.

After the horrific case in Edlington where two boys attacked, tortured and brutalised two boys of a similar age,the social care magazine, Children and Young People Now advocates reaching out to future torturers and trying to understand them. No mention is made of providing services for their victims. Whilst I agree that the torturers were to a degree a product of their environment and don't advocate or support lynch mobs to deal with such people something in me cringes when reading an article that makes no mention of the people who have suffered at the hands of the people they are defending.

Instead of arguing for targeting dysfunctional families whose children may be being socialised in to savage torturers would it not make more sense to prohibit such people from breeding in the first place? However, that wouldn't suit the social services and social care industry which requires the children of the extremely dysfunctional and disturbed for its perpetuation. Many livelihoods and lucrative salaries depend on Britain remaining in the social morass in which it finds itself. As a boss of mine once said, "If we do our job correctly we do ourselves out of a job."

Harawira harebrained

According to Hone Harawira people want to drink alcohol, they want to smoke cannabis but they do not want to smoke tobacco. That is why banning tobacco wouldn't create a black market. People don't want to smoke cigarettes or rollies. There would be no consumer demand. Nil. Zilch. Zero.

Have you ever heard anything so absurd?

Same unemployment rate - far fewer on dole

Got into an argument over at The Standard again. One of their writers claimed that the unemployment rate when Labour took office in 1999 was nearly double what it is now. Of course that is quite wrong. It was 6.8 percent in September 1999 and it is 7.3 percent now. Another writer then said the first had intended that the number of people claiming the unemployment benefit was nearly double. He is right there. But the situation was still not so very different as the total number of people claiming main benefits was higher then but only by 16 percent (yes I know the population has grown). So, as I have said many times before, and as is now accepted in places like the UK, the sickness, invalid, incapacity, disability benefits (call them what you will) are mopping up those who would otherwise be on an unemployment benefit.

Other reasons that fewer people are on benefits than was the case in 1999 may be;

1/ We are coming off a boom and people have greater assets/savings and are not qualifying for the dole, whereas in 1999 we were still recovering from the deep recession of the early nineties.

2/ Equally families and partners are better placed to support unemployed members

3/ Work and Income are being more stringent in their application of eligibility rules

Need anyone to carry your bags?

Ow. What was that. A little twinge of jealousy perhaps? Minister for Social Development, Paula Bennett will spend 5 weeks in the US looking at private sector involvement in welfare. In the states that will no doubt include a fair bit of faith-based as well as corporate activity.

What a great opportunity for her. Now watch for the knockers to roll out with strident admonitions about Paula's visit being precursory to privatisation of the welfare system.

Women's income

The Human Rights Commission has released a report about the status of women's human rights. One of their concerns is that more women live in poverty than men.

Is this a valid 'human rights' issue?

They complain that women have incomes more than one third less than men. But there are good reasons for this.

1/ Many women rely on a partners income, especially when children are young.
2/ Many women choose a benefit over a relationship.
3/ More women than men receive Super alone because women have longer life expectancies and are less likely to have income from investments.

If equal income is a human right then the Commission is going to have to look at disparities between ages, ethnicities, regions, occupations, etc.

And how, anyway, would the gap be closed? I contribute to the imbalance because my income is far below my husbands but that is my choice. And I believe it reflects a happier household than would be the case is I was earning at the same level as he is.

Of course groups like the Human Rights Commission would probably favour greater wealth redistribution by the state, which is essentially taking the product of one person's labour and giving it to someone else. Is that an abuse of their human rights? Don't expect a debate about that any time soon.

Dole down - student allowances up

Unemployment benefit numbers are down. Particularly for young people. The Minister says there is light at the end of the tunnel. Their work schemes - Job Ops and Community Max - have made a difference.

But look at the student allowance numbers;

2005 56,806
2006 59,431
2007 62,479
2008 65,702
2009 82,636


So many more people than usual are either qualifying for a student allowance or many more people than usual are applying. Or both. It would be interesting to see what the numbers are for the Jan - Mar quarter when available. Moving from the dole to a student allowance may be part of the reason for the drop in unemployment benefit numbers.

Children's Day

Honestly. Hrrmmmpphhh. Why do we need a Children's Day and why do we need talking heads like Murray Edridge to inveigle us to spend time with our children and remember how much they mean to us? It's not the touchy-feeliness oozing out. I can suffer that. It is the arrogance that assumes we don't think about how much they mean to us unless he reminds us to.

I remember 2 or 3 days after Robert was born, standing at the kitchen sink weeping. In hindsight it was probably just hormonal. But trying to rationalise my tears at the time, I felt it was because it had suddenly dawned on me that I was in love with this new entity and I would remain so all my life and if anything ever happened to him the pain would be unbearable. Did you know that mothers actually experience a physical reaction when they see their child hurt? Or if he stepped too close to the edge of the wharf for instance I would get this zing, something like hitting a funny bone. Anatomically I think it was in the region of the ovaries (I just had to check with Sam where the ovaries are - at 11 she knows much more about human reproduction than I do). It happens when you see a wound on your child.

My children are always around me. Physically - alot and spiritually - alot. Yesterday Sam and I spent time playing Connect Four and then Mastermind, which is a fantastic game for developing powers of deduction. How to solve using a hypothesis. Later we watched American Idol together. We searched for new music for her to sing going through a pile of sheet music we brought home from the library Friday after she, Robert and I had all been to the hairdressers together. Yes we all share the same hairdresser. A very entertaining hairdresser he is too. I listened while Robert practised his latest piano piece and cursed at him for cursing at the piano. We sit side by side at our computers on and off during the day, pouring scorn on the reaction to the child making a couple of air traffic control transmissions at JFK, obviously supervised by a doting father now suspended. I am closer to my children than my parents were to me. That isn't a criticism of them. They both worked full-time, there were four children and times were just different. Funnily they are closer to their grandchildren than they were their own at the same age. The generational divide isn't there. We all seem to be more grown up somehow.

I worry about what life will be like when they flee the nest. There will be an emptiness but I know I will fill it because there is always so much to do. So much to do that sometimes I feel perhaps I neglect them a tad. But then they are always doing as well. We often tend to be doing alongside each other more than together. That's fine too.

It doesn't need a Children's Day to make me appreciate or agonise over them. That is a daily business. I really don't need to be told how to think and act. So all you do-good dipsticks, keep your sticky beaks in your own business and butt out of mine.

"Lefties too clever by half"

I couldn't resist posting this in its entirety. It comes from the Centre for Independent Studies newsletter;


Lefties too clever by half

This week’s news held an unpleasant surprise for the world’s conservatives and religious. Luckily for them, they were probably too dumb to understand it.

A long-time study by the London School of Economics (LSE) just revealed that being politically conservative or religious goes hand in hand with lower intelligence. The more respondents identified as left-wing or atheist, the higher their IQ. Conversely, conservative or religious convictions correlated with lower intelligence.

The differences were too large to be random. While young adults who thought of themselves as ‘very progressive’ scored 105 points on average, their ‘very conservative’ contemporaries only managed 95 points on the IQ scale. The gap between the atheists and the faithful was smaller, but the non-believers still beat the religious by 103 to 97.

Dr Satoshi Kanazawa, a psychologist at the LSE, has a simple explanation for these patterns. He believes that more intelligent people were better able to respond to new problems and thus willing to question traditional beliefs and values.

Unfortunately, he did not say whether this was, in fact, an intelligent strategy. True conservatives, at least the barely literate among them, could argue that it is not a sign of great cleverness to fiddle with time-tested institutions such as property rights or civility.

In the same way, we may well wonder about the wisdom behind another of Dr Kanazawa’s findings. In previous times, he said, we only cared for friends and families. But the more intelligent among us had left this ancient pattern behind to reach a higher evolutionary level. Lefties are now ‘caring about millions of total strangers and giving up money to make sure that those strangers will do well.’

This may well explain the left’s support of the welfare state and foreign aid. And yet, at least in historical terms, there is no example of a people becoming prosperous because strangers wanted them to be. Again, conservatives would intuitively understand this, although they may not be able to put this thought into a complete sentence.

The LSE findings may not cheer up conservatives, but they don’t need cheering up anyway. According to another study by the Aarhus School of Business in Denmark, personal happiness is far more widespread among conservatives than among lefties. And yet another study, this time by the University of Florida, revealed that conservatives also have higher incomes than the unhappy left-wing ‘intelligentsia.’

Considering all this evidence, perhaps being a leftie is not such a clever idea after all?

DPB - an investment?

Colin James looked at the recommendations of the expert panel on child abuse in his Press column this week and made this observation;

... Bennett -- a rarity in a National cabinet -- knows social assistance can be an investment. She got educated while on a domestic purposes benefit.

The problem is while Bennett used her time on the DPB wisely, most do not. Those who use it wisely, and temporarily, then make much of defending its very existence despite the evidence that long term dependence is bad for parents and children. Encouraging and allowing long term dependence is not an investment. Long term dependence is encouraged by admitting people into the system as young as 16 with no limit on how long they can stay there.

Personally I do not see why the taxpayer has to fork out for someone's living costs because they have a child and no partner and want to participate in tertiary training or education. Single mothers used to do things like put themselves through teacher's training college with the support and help of their families. Having a child young posed a difficulty but families managed.

However if someone is going to be on the DPB (and it isn't going away any time soon) it is better that they use that time wisely and come off it better equipped to provide. But that could happen within a regime of strict time limits.

What really annoys me is when women who have been on the DPB fight for its retention on a status quo basis because it helped them. They are not prepared to acknowledge and accept that it isn't helping a great deal of others who are still stuck there.

Why is Stephen Joyce using old data?

According to Stephen Joyce, on Wednesday, March 3, 2010;

Young drivers make up 14.5 percent of New Zealand's population and 16 percent of all licensed drivers, but in 2008 they were involved in around 37 percent of all serious injury crashes.

The latest annual road crash statistics to the end of January 2010 show that young drivers were involved in 32 percent of all injury crashes.

From the same release;

"Across the Tasman, for example, young Australians have a road fatality rate of 13 per 100,000 of population, while young New Zealanders have a fatality rate of 21 per 100,000 of population."

In NZ there were 47 15-24 year-old driver fatalities in the most recent year.

According to the HLFS estimated working age population at Dec 2009 there were 627,300 15-24 year-olds.

That means the fatality rate for young drivers was 13.3 per 100,000. The fatality rate for all 15-24 year-old drivers, passengers, pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists is 17.7 per 100,000.

If he is going to use annual statistics, why not the most recent? Because they are not as bad?

The Experts Forum on Child Abuse

A panel of experts gathered for two days and put this document together. It is only 10 pages and simply written. Marks for that. It begins;

History shows us that many projects and programmes have started with enthusiasm and promise. Many millions have been spent. And yet Forum participants do not believe the rate of child abuse/neglect is falling.

In the Forum’s view, resources are wasted in two ways:

3.1 ineffective programmes are allowed to continue and;
3.2 effective programmes are allowed to wither away.

Neglected and abused children are the taxpayers of the future. It is in the
interests of all of society that we find new ways to protect these children so
that they can grow up to fulfil their potential.

A comment on the last. I find it really offensive when children are reduced to the status of future taxpayers. Children's lives have inherent value to them. Their lives belong to them and not the state. In any case "neglected and abused children" are very often not future taxpayers. Their lives will never be productive. They will never contribute because they will be damaged. Our passive welfare system will exacerbate this outcome.

Next general principles are outlined including;

All programmes must be consistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and responsive to Maori.

Heaven forbid the Treaty doesn't get a look in.

Next they define the issue and observe;

Nor will it ever be possible to say, even with the best policy mix, that no more children will be abused or killed by their abusers. But the Forum believes we can do better.

Agree. Considerably better.

Barriers are identified which include statutory responsibility being confined to MSD, Justice and the Police. And the Privacy Act. Not enough information sharing. Likely families are often known to various agencies who are not talking to each other. (How often have we heard this before?)

Steps need to be taken to actively foster relationships and engender a culture of shared responsibility.

Surely the culture of shared responsibility is underlying the mess. It starts with the parent of the child who refuses to take individual responsibility for their child and fans out from there.

The forum believes lots of money will need to be spent but can be obtained from existing Votes. In particular workforce capacity needs to be lifted in size and ability.

So Recommendation 1;

Universal Well-Child Support

This was the Cindy Kiro's baby and the torch is still being carried. Apply greater scrutiny and intervention with all children.

Why? The vast majority of children are not abused.

Targeted home-based support

This will apply to an estimated 15 percent of families (which begs the question why use resources screening the other 85 percent?)

Recommendation 2

Files should always stay open. Where abuse has occurred the family should be monitored. Agree. At least in the short-term. But people do have a habit of growing up and that should be recognised.

Recommendation 3

They want a statutory statement about governmental responsibility. And responsibility written into education and health acts. Ironic because child welfare used to be the statutory responsibility of the Education Department. Again all this extra responsibility is really only more fingers in the pie. And we seem to ricochet between tightening it and then broadening it, to no appreciable effect.

Recommendation 4

A focus on families with mental health problems. This is very important. The volunteer group I work with are dealing increasingly with people who have (or claim to have) mental health 'issues'. Their children are particularly vulnerable.

In conclusion they ask for data-matching, evaluation and capacity building. It gets a bit jargonish towards the end.

Anyway, am I surprised that there is no mention of the bigger picture? The social policies and attitudes that have created an environment where children needs are secondary to the rights of their poor excuses for parents? No.

The team at the top of the league table may have changed but the players are still the same.

Welfare reform reduces child abuse

Media Release

WELFARE REFORM REDUCES CHILD ABUSE

Thursday, March 4, 2010

Debate has flared on the back of calls for sterilisation of the worst child abusers. When a problem is extreme, as is the incidence of child abuse in New Zealand, people sometimes understandably react with extreme ideas, welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell said today.

"However, there is now clear evidence from the US that a massive reduction in welfare dependence has coincided with a significant drop in child abuse. This is because children in two-parent working homes are the least likely to suffer neglect or abuse."

"Beginning in the 1970s, each decade the US Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has reported to Congress on the incidence of child abuse and neglect. Early this year their 4th report was published. It found a 32 percent decrease in the rate of abuse per 1,000 children since 1993."

"Here in New Zealand there is a clear overlap between clients of Work and Income and clients of CYF. In 1996 a study showed that children whose caregivers were beneficiaries were 4 times more likely to be subject to a CYF care and protection notification."

"Unfortunately some people - certainly not all people who find themselves on welfare - regard children as meal tickets. They are seen as both a way to increase income and avoid work. Such poorly motivated parents are the most likely to neglect or abuse their children. Abuse is also associated with very young mothers who are not emotionally equipped for the stress of parenting and also have multiple partners who may abuse them or their children. These potentially dangerous partners are additionally attracted by the steady benefit income."

"Until we start to acknowledge the role of welfare dependence in the incidence of child abuse we cannot begin to tackle the problem. The US faced up to the family dysfunctionality created by welfare, by introducing time limits and family caps. They removed the incentives that encouraged people to have children they were ill-prepared to care for. By requiring families to work wherever possible they restored structure, routine, motivation and purpose."

"There is good news here for New Zealand's social policy makers. We can lower the rate of child abuse by introducing common-sense welfare reforms. There is no need for extremism."

Update on Tom

Thank you to the well-wishers. Tom is making good progress and thoroughly enjoying all the tea and sympathy. He can never get enough attention this one. As long as he keeps the leg dry and no infection sets in he should be able to bring it home with him again after tomorrow's inspection under anaesthetic.

What role the driving age?

A commenter over on Whale Oil has provided updated statistics for the NSW road crash toll and pointed out that most recently, under 26 year-olds were involved in only 20 percent of fatal crashes. A significant improvement on the average of 36 percent in the five years to 2003, the stats I used yesterday.

The question remains in my mind however.

The dri­ving age was 17 dur­ing the 5 year period to 2003 and it has remained at 17 since. The post 2003 improved per­for­mance is not related to any rise in the dri­ving age. Yet NZ is push­ing the case that rais­ing our age will bring the type of improve­ment seen in NSW?

Here are the changes implemented in July 2007.

David Garrett makes headlines again

A post appeared over at Kiwiblog yesterday (latterly identified as written by Jadis) responding to Michael Laws' call for voluntary sterilization of parents who have perpetrated the worst abuse on children. David Garret contributed a couple of comments, The Standard slammed him for it in their typically misleading modus operandi and now it has made MSM.

No discussion is possible in this country about people's rights and ability to procreate and parent without someone inevitably turning it into a hysterical accusation of advocating eugenics.

Let's not forget what is driving this discussion. The horrid abuse and sometimes possibly merciful death of children who were never wanted, got in the way, provided a target for sadism or relentless cruelty for someone who hasn't emotionally developed because they were treated the same appalling way.

I am not defending Laws or Garrett. But I am defending the freedom of expression without misrepresentation.

For the record I also made a comment;

Most (but not all) of the worst abuse goes on in benefit dependent homes. Some people have babies for the wrong reasons, one being that they are meal tickets. If you doubt that, watch the family wrangles that go on in the court over custody when a beneficiary parent stands to lose their source of income. Having had children for the wrong reasons they do not make good parents. So another approach could be to make using a long-acting contraceptive a condition of receiving welfare. In order to keep getting an income from the state the mother cannot have any more children. Anyone using the DPB the way it was intended would be avoiding having more children anyway. No need to sterilise men or women. No coercion.

At the same time, for people not already parents, change expectations. No more open-ended, easy-to-get-on and easy-to-stay on welfare. Reforming welfare isn’t the whole answer. Like others I do not think there is a total solution. Child abuse, like other crime, will always be with us. But we shouldn’t be encouraging it by attaching substantial cash incentives to babies.

That's needs further clarification. In the worst cases the children would have been removed and the welfare would be the dole. But in general anyone on the DPB should, in any event, be using contraception.

Tough

Our oldest cat Tom, 10, went missing last Wednesday. We scoured the neighbour-
hood,talked to people, checked the SPCA, local noticeboards etc. All to no avail. We figured either he was hurt - or worse - and unable to get home or had had enough of the invasion of kittens and gone on the hunt for a more suitable home for a slightly grumpy middle-aged man. The kids were very upset.

Yesterday I was painting when I heard a bit of a clatter and thump. I opened my studio door - closed against kittens who scratch canvas (expensive lesson) and there was Tom, just through the catflap, hobbling and dragging a dreadfully damaged back leg. He was emaciated, dehydrated, dirty and bleeding. Foolishly I rushed to offer him food and water not thinking that the vet may have to administer anaesthetic. Fortunately he did not want either.

He was losing a fair bit of blood but it appeared to be from a wound just re-opened. He was, suffice to say, distressed but quite malleable as I laid him in his cage on a towel and left immediately for the vets. He cried a fair bit during the short journey but at least I knew he was still in the land of the living.

Tom stayed with the vet who rang me later to say his injury was consistent with being run over or possibly trapped somehow. Much of the tissue above and below his paw had to be removed but he was hopeful that the limb could be saved. There were no fractures. They wanted to keep him in because of his condition. He was being fed a drip with antibiotics etc. His weight was down one and a half kilos - roughly a third of his normal body weight.

I rang today to be told he may come home. His temperature and appetite are good but he will need to be kept inside, away from the rest of the menagerie and return regularly for dressings under anaesthetic.

Of course we will never know what happened to him between when he received his injury, which the vet said was 5 or 6 days old, and when he eventually found his way home yesterday. But his tenacity and survival instincts are very strong. And although you cannot put a financial value on a pet, when I pay the bill today he will become an even more valuable cat. Can't wait to get him home and spoil him rotten.

Road toll statistics - how are we doing?

With all the current talk of tightening up on driver licensing and regulations I thought I would just blog some statistics.

The first shows how NZ compares to other countries in deaths per 10,000 vehicles. Not too badly;



The second shows the growing vehicle fleet and casualties compared to 1990. Not too bad;



The third shows the number of 15 to 19 year-olds involved in fatal crashes. Not good but generally going in the right direction;



The fourth shows the age distribution of road deaths for selected countries which shows NZ has a high proportion clustered in the young age group. Important point here is that those deaths include passengers. In the year to end January 2010 47 15-24 year old drivers were killed but so were 49 15-24 year-old passengers. This is the only age group which has this kind of pattern. In every other age group (bar 45-54) the ratio is around 3 drivers killed to 1 passenger.

Note on this page the completely different profile for Japan and South Korea. South Korea, which has a much higher road toll than NZ has its problem heavily clustered at the other end of the age spectrum.



Finally I had a look at NSW where the driving age is 17. What difference does it make?

People under 26 are involved in 36 percent of road fatalities.

Here people under 25 are involved in 28 percent of road fatalities (111 deaths out of 391 to the end of Jan 2010.)

(The NZ statistic includes one extra year.)

In NSW the clamouring is to raise the driving age to 18 because 17 year-olds are killing themselves and their mates on the road.

Two sides to every story

Labour is opposing a rise in GST and has taken to the roads (more David Shearer on Guitar?) with "Axe the Tax" as its slogan. Lou from No Minister has whipped around the other side with his camera;

Rack up another $240 M

Today the annual rise to benefits and Super is announced. The increase is 2 percent for most and 2.3 percent for Superannuitants. The net cost will be around $240 million.

I don't have a fundamental problem with benefits and super being adjusted for cost of living but it is easy to see why the total social security bill continues to grow and some. It is also of no comfort to people who have had their hours cut, weeks shortened, or businesses dry up to observe the relative security of those receiving their income from the state.

Poke him with a stick

Kurariki Bailey is a very disturbed, and potentially dangerous young man. He is comparable to a maltreated cur, but the media pokes him with a stick and then cries foul when he reacts.

He has legal restrictions laid on him. Its about time some were laid on the media. Our fleeting titillation is not worth the further wreckage of his and anybody else's lives.

I know I am supposed to be outraged at the ongoing refusal of Bailey to fit back nicely into society, but it is the press, and other talker-stalkers that really raise my ire.

Observation about commentary on ACT

Expressing an opinion about ACT is risky territory for me but what is the point of a blog if not used to articulate a thought or impression?

The attacks on ACT in the trail of this weekend's conference have been many. They come from the left and the right; from without and within; overtly and less overtly. And perhaps attendees are still sleeping it off, but I see no-one defending or counter-attacking (accept for the Cactus who has been multi-tasking). Perhaps because the party appears split. Split along personality, and to a lesser degree, identity lines. This is very different from the straight forward philosophical division which was survivable. Someone once commented to me that Prebble managed the liberal/conservative tension successfully.

But this current division of loyalties and purpose will quite possibly weaken ACT to the point of no return.

There are now two swinging voters in this house and our perception of what is happening - right or wrong - takes us no closer to a decision that favours ACT.

The Standard - what are they complaining about?

The Standard claims Don Brash called voters "stupid and greedy".

He actually descibed them as "venal and ignorant".

Venal - open to bribery

Ignorant - lacking knowledge

Labour have been trading on this fact since its conception.

Big rise in child deaths through family violence

Dying at the hands of a family member is becoming more common, although it is still a rare event. Of course the sort of activity which precedes a death is far more widespread than what the fatality statistics represent.

The Family Violence Death Review Committee released figures showing the number of deaths uncreased from 18 in 2008 to 41 last year. 16 were children. Typically these will be the deaths of very young children. The first two years is the most dangerous time for a child in a dysfunctional environment.

But 16. That is high.




How long have New Zealanders been collectively wringing their hands over child abuse? About 50 years. During which time it has probably worsened. One cannot say with absolute certainty that this is the case because of the hidden nature of abuse and the robustness of identifying and reporting over time.

There have been so many attempts to 'fix' this problem via the state and private initiatives, yet it persists. And I have nothing new to say. If a child is loved and wanted it will not be abused.

But I find myself agreeing less and less with the sentiment expressed by John Sax of For The Sake Of Our Children Trust;

Mr Sax says questions need to be asked about what is happening with social policy. He believes there needs to be a holistic approach to family violence, with a big focus on trying to keep children with their immediate family where possible.

That is exactly the philosophy CYF has been operating under for the last few decades.

Update; Having found the source of the figures I should include a comment from their spokesperson;

"We are working with a broader definition to ensure we look as widely as possible at the problem, and this means we have come up with a higher figure than has been suggested from previous work in this area."

The statistics come from the Police but the Death Review committee says it uses a different definition of a family violence death. As yet I haven't been able to work out the difference from reading their report.

Their definition;

Family violence death is defined in the Terms of Reference as:
The unnatural death of a person (adult or child) where the suspected perpetrator is a
family or extended family member, 4 caregiver, 5 intimate partner, previous partner of the victim, or previous partner of the victim’s current partner.

They may have broadened the relationship status beyond that considered by the policy as 'family'.

The report contains this quote;

Family violence is a global problem affecting all cultural, religious and economic groups and is caused by a multitude of complex factors (Ma¯ ori Reference Group for the Taskforce for Action on Violence within Families 2009).

And then this;

The over-representation this year of Ma¯ori as victims and perpetrators of family violence deaths signals an impact on the fabric of Ma¯ori society. Preliminary data indicates that three-quarters of family violence deaths involve Ma¯ori. While Ma¯ori have been involved in a large number of the identified cases this year, the issues are not for Ma¯ ori alone to address.


So the Review Committee is taking the politically correct line.

The Committee will work with the community as a whole, but will also engage with Ma¯ori in as many ways possible to ensure it is operating in a culturally appropriate, sensitive and responsive manner.

The committee should be working primarily, and as a priority, with Maori. That would be the best use of its resources which they complain have been too few.

Single parents on benefits through 'lifestyle choice'

I always get it in the neck when I use the words 'lifestyle choice'. "Why would anyone choose to be on a benefit?" DPB defenders remonstrate.

Well research from Geoff Dench, a fellow of The Young Foundation, has confirmed that many single mothers are making a lifestyle choice and favouring benefits over fathers.

As reported in the Mail Online;

One in four mothers is now a single parent, having made a 'lifestyle choice' to rely on benefits rather than a partner, a report revealed yesterday.

In NZ at last census 28 percent of parents with dependent children were single. Around three quarters rely on welfare.

More than half of mothers with children under 13 have never married or lived with a boyfriend and find it 'rewarding' to stay at home supported by state handouts, it said.

So how does NZ compare?

Nobody knows.

The Ministry no longer collects this information. Last time I asked they replied;

With regards to your other question on the reporting of the relationship status of single parents currently receiving the DPB, up until 2000 the Ministry included data on the relationship status of clients at the time they were granted Domestic Purposes Benefit in the Statistical Report. However since 2000 this information has not formed part of the Ministry's formal reporting and has not been reported on since 2003. As you are aware the Ministry is not required under the Official Information Act 1982 to create information in order to meet the specific requirements of an individual request. For this reason your request for this information was declined under section 18(e) of the Act.

Continuing from the Mail;

Researcher Geoff Dench, a fellow of the Young Foundation research group, said: 'The existence of state benefits as a source of economic security seems to be encouraging young mothers not to bother with male resident partners.'

...The report said there is growing evidence that 'lone motherhood is less a result of relationship breakdown, more a lifestyle choice'.

...The findings run counter to the claim, regularly made by pressure groups for single parents, that women most often become lone mothers because of divorce or separation.

...The analysis was based on findings from British Social Attitudes, the annual Government-backed survey of opinions and lifestyles that has been run every year since the early 1980s.

It shows that in the 1980s it was true that a typical single mother had broken up with a partner after years of marriage or cohabitation. In 1986 only 15 per cent of single mothers of children under 13 said they had never married or lived with a partner.

But by 2006, 57 per cent of single mothers had never lived as part of a couple.

...At the same time, more than three million men are classed as 'economically inactive', and live on sickness benefits, state handouts or in the black economy.

Anglicans making sense

Good for the Anglicans. At last a religious organisation prepared to break with the usual advocacy stance of the Social Service and Catholic councils. In Australia the Brotherhood of St Lawrence are backing the government plans to extend income management beyond Aboriginal communities. Income management means a beneficiary receives their income part cash/ part credit, which can only be used for specified purposes. There is less potential for cash to be misused or stolen and greater potential for children to get fed and clothed.

Typically,

The Australian Council of Social Service has said the changes would make income support recipients' lives harder and less dignified, and Catholic Social Services Australia has said they are unjust and may undermine social inclusion.

These groups have their counterparts in NZ. Invariably the Salvation Army, the NZ Council of Christian Social Services and National Council of Women oppose any suggestion of tightening welfare.

But the Brotherhood of St Lawrence have taken a different tack, the common-sense approach.

''If taxpayers are making an investment in social services, it's reasonable to expect people to change their behaviour,'' executive director Tony Nicholson told The Age. ''Our view would be that quarantining is a legitimate part of the welfare system - but it also ought to be easy for people to demonstrate they are meeting their obligations.''

Hardly radical.

Generally I reject paternalism but if people can't manage their own lives, and as a result are damaging the lives and prospects of their children, then something has to give. If a dysfunctional beneficiary doesn't want their income managed there is a solution. Get a job.

Inhabitants of Wonderland

There are people whose comprehension of a given situation is exactly the reverse of mine. Here are two examples.

Benjamin Easton is a 'professional' activist but nobody is willing to pay him for his activism so he draws the unemployment benefit and says...

"It is a sacrifice, really. I am perfectly capable of earning."

A sacrifice? It's abuse. It's abuse of those who fund a welfare system which is sold as being there for people who genuinely cannot support themselves through work.

And then there is Millsy who unimaginatively continues to misrepresent my opposition to the DPB. He or she comments at the Hand Mirror;

It would seem to me that the Lindsay's of this world tend to want women to be trapped in unhappy and sometimes abusive marriages 'for the sake of the kids'.

I find that unacceptable. People's family arrangements are no place for anyone to stick their nose in.

Especially the 'collective' people as represented by the state.

Oh no, I forgot. Feminists approve of that.

They want their next door neighbour to fund them out of a bad relationship but otherwise, keep their nose out. Very convenient.

Feminists are clamouring for the state to stick its nose into family affairs when it suits. Paid Parental Leave, subsidised childcare, marital property legislation, state-funded anti-violence campaigns, state-funded pro-breastfeeding campaigns, a female biased Family Court. The examples are many. They even have their own government department.

So there are two examples of people who inhabit this Alice in Wonderland world we live in. Where up is down, and down is up.

Auckland brewing social problems

Statistics NZ has released projections that show Auckland's population will grow to 38 percent of the country's total by 2031. Two thirds of the growth will come from natural increase - births minus deaths.

The population of Auckland has been growing faster than the national average for some time. The natural growth that has already occurred is reflected in numbers on the DPB.

Between 1999 and 2009 the national DPB total dropped 1 percent.

But in Auckland the number rose by 16 percent to 37,376. Additionally the numbers that are aged 18 and 19 grew by 38 percent.

Auckland certainly is breeding and brewing plenty of social problems for itself. The forum on Auckland social policy should have this issue as its number one priority.

The Clayton Weatherston potrait

The National Portrait Competition is gaining unusual publicity this year due to the exhibition of a large sketch of Clayton Weatherston.

I was disappointed not to be part of the exhibition this year. It's the first time I have missed out. Strangely with what I thought was probably my best entry since it began. So it is always interesting to see what does get selected.

I left my entry very late and then quickly painted this of a friend. I hadn't developed a background or honed in the features and clothing because I sometimes get criticised for tending towards too much realism and time prevented it. The colours are also stronger and more various than I would normally use. Now I may rework it and show it in my April exhibition.


But I can hear my friend when she sees the front page of the DomPost this morning at teabreak. "Eh? They turned me down and took him?? Faaa....."

I think the Weatherston portrait is very good. Sometimes I think over-size faces are a bit gimmicky but there is no question over whether or not it should have been exhibited.

Growing political cynicism of Americans

What must it be like living in the States right now? Putting aside the financial hardship many are enduring (that is not to minimise it in any way) I might rather enjoy the growing level of political cynicism. Most Americans think Washington is screwed and most think neither the Democrats nor Republicans have answers worth voting for. I wish a few more New Zealanders would wake up to the problem of the big government parties on both sides of the political spectrum.

CNS reports;

After he signed a law last week authorizing the U.S. Treasury to borrow an additional $1.9 trillion, President Barack Obama delivered a characteristically sanctimonious speech. It was about his deep commitment to frugality.

“After a decade of profligacy, the American people are tired of politicians who talk the talk but don’t walk the walk when it comes to fiscal responsibility,” he said. “It’s easy to get up in front of the cameras and rant against exploding deficits. What’s hard is actually getting deficits under control. But that’s what we must do. Like families across the country, we have to take responsibility for every dollar we spend.”

To put Obama’s Olympian hypocrisy in perspective, one need only examine the federal budget tables posted on the White House website by Obama’s own Office of Management and Budget.

More

Solo mums sacrosanct

Family First issued this statement today;

...Fatherlessness is a major contributor to increasing rates of juvenile violence,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

“Scientific research is unanimous on a number of conclusions regarding family structure – that strong marriages increases the likelihood that fathers have good relationships with their children and lowers the risk of alcohol and substance abuse, domestic violence and child abuse,”

“Conversely, parental divorce or non-marriage appears to increase children’s risk of delinquent and criminal behaviour, amongst other factors. One only needs to observe proceedings at the Youth Court to see the effect of fatherlessness.”

“According to The Heritage Foundation, an influential US research institute, an analysis of social science literature over 30 years shows that the rise in violent crime parallels the rise in families abandoned by fathers. A state-by-state analysis indicated that a 10% increase in the percentage of children living in single-parent homes lead typically to a 17% increase in juvenile crime. The research found that criminal behaviour has its roots in habitual deprivation of parental love and affection going back to early infancy.”

“Research has shown time after time that the father’s authority and involvement in raising his children are great buffers against a life of crime,” says Mr McCoskrie.

“There are other factors such as violence in the media, the ‘rights’ culture being fed to young people, and the undermining of parental authority which are contributors, but family structure is a crucial place to start.”

“Violent crime will continue to increase as long as we downplay the importance and significance of having two parents, a mum and a dad, committed to each other and to their children.”

The feminist blog, The Hand Mirror, has interpreted this as an attack on solo mums.

NZ is particularly prone to letting the left rule the roost on this sort of stuff. Middle (apolitical) NZ has let feminists shut down the debate on the whether family structure matters by being bullied into accepting that solo mums are victims. Feminists, who know how powerful a weapon guilt is, wield it unhesitatingly and very effectively. Mothers, particularly sole mums, are sacrosanct.

Perhaps it is time to start recognising that it is children who are victims. If children's need were elevated above those of their mothers, because their needs are often conflicting, perhaps some progress could be made.

Whanau Ora - a cautionary note

Though frustratingly little is known about whanau ora it is safe to say that it is about Maori solutions for Maori problems. Doing things the Maori way.

But I am reminded of one of Professor Fergusson's papers released last year. The emphases are mine;

The Role of Cultural Identity

To explore the possible role of cultural identity in mediating associations between ethnicity and childhood maltreatment, the group of Māori respondents was subdivided into those of sole Māori identity and Māori/other identity. The data were then re-analysed to examine the premise underlying current theories in New Zealand that claim that strength of Māori cultural identity mitigates the risk of young Māori people being exposed to child maltreatment. Following adjustment for socio-economic and family functioning factors, this re-analysis revealed a complex set of relationships between cultural identity and risks of childhood maltreatment.

In terms of childhood sexual abuse, those of sole Māori identity had the lowest adjusted rate of exposure. Although these differences failed to reach statistical significance, the findings provide some support for the view that being of sole Māori identity may be a protective factor that reduces risks of exposure to childhood sexual abuse. However, quite the opposite pattern was observed for exposure to childhood physical abuse and exposure to inter-parental violence, with those of sole Māori identity being at greater risks of these outcomes. The results suggest that sole Māori identity may be a risk factor for exposure to physical child abuse and inter-parental violence. The findings are in general agreement with research by Kukutai (2003), who suggested that the degree to which an individual identifies with Māori cultural identity may be associated with increased risks of social and economic disadvantage.

These findings, however, are not consistent with the assumptions underpinning influential theories, social policies and a number of intervention guidelines (Department of Social Welfare 1988, Ministry of Social Development 2002, Balzer et al. 1997, Stanley and Thompson 1999, Kiro 2000, Stanley 2000, Kruger et al. 2004), which claim that strengthening Māori identity and links with traditional Māori cultural practices will lead to reduced rates of child abuse among Māori. To the contrary, while the findings of this study suggest that this approach may lead to reduced risks of childhood sexual abuse, it may also be associated with increased risks of childhood physical abuse and exposure to inter-parental violence. These findings do pose a challenge to current policies aimed at reducing the over-representation of Māori children in rates of child maltreatment, which emphasise “identity interventions” that are not evidence-based and are largely ideologically driven. Even though such policies are no doubt well intentioned and observe statutory requirements unique to the New Zealand context, following the view expounded by UNICEF (2003, 2007), they must be exposed to ongoing critical scrutiny and empirical evaluation.