Australian-based Peter Saunders has launched a new book, The Government Giveth and the Government Taketh Away
"We should be getting away from the idea that whenever we have a problem in life we turn straight to government. It infantilises us and destroys our 'can do' spirit."
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
It's not what you think that matters, Hone
I am not interested in what Hone Harawira thinks about John Howard's actions over the abuse of Aboriginal children. Objections about "racism" and "political motivation" are irrelevant. It is politically none of Harawira's business and most New Zealanders appear to recognise this.
To get a gauge of what Aborigines think I go to one who has been working in this arena for two decades and has the only long term plan I can see working (after Howard does the immediate stuff). He writes here about his reaction after being rung by the Indigenous Affairs Minister 15 minutes before the national emergency announcement was made.
To get a gauge of what Aborigines think I go to one who has been working in this arena for two decades and has the only long term plan I can see working (after Howard does the immediate stuff). He writes here about his reaction after being rung by the Indigenous Affairs Minister 15 minutes before the national emergency announcement was made.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Happy throw-away nappy news
Parents can now use you the ever-so convenient, hygienic, better-fitting and safe disposable nappies conscience free;
The announcement in the UK of a Government U-turn on their support for cloth nappies is a victory for parental choice according to the manufacturers of Huggies nappies Kimberly-Clark.
The decision follows a four-year research project at a cost of millions of pounds which found that the impact of burying disposable nappies in landfill sites was matched by the energy consumed and greenhouse gases generated by washing reusables or transporting them to laundries.
The Greens got it wrong again.
The announcement in the UK of a Government U-turn on their support for cloth nappies is a victory for parental choice according to the manufacturers of Huggies nappies Kimberly-Clark.
The decision follows a four-year research project at a cost of millions of pounds which found that the impact of burying disposable nappies in landfill sites was matched by the energy consumed and greenhouse gases generated by washing reusables or transporting them to laundries.
The Greens got it wrong again.
Economic illiteracy
This is a prohibition poster from 1924.
It claims that if the money spent on intoxicating liquor was transferred into other items a massive increase in trade would boost labour on farms and in factories, revenue from railways and general transportation, etc.
It ignores the employment and taxation revenue created by the production, freighting and sale of alcohol. It ignores the foreign receipts from importation that allow purchases of NZ goods.
They could have gone a step further and considered how much more employment could be created if alcohol became a significant export market.
Think it over and vote prohibition!
I've thought it over and you are full of ____
Lowering the alcohol limit for driving
A report released on April 17, 2007 showed that drink-driving deaths decreased faster than any other road deaths in the EU.
9 countries, the Czech Republic, Germany , Poland, Slovakia, the Netherlands, Latvia, France, Austria and Greece had alcohol-related deaths decreasing faster than other road deaths.
5 countries, Slovenia, Estonia, Denmark, Switzerland and Lithuania saw road deaths from other causes decreasing faster than alcohol-related deaths.
In 4 countries, Hungary, Finland, Spain and Great Britain drink-driving deaths actually increased in absolute terms.
The alcohol limits in those last four countries are respectively zero, 0.05, 0.05 and 0.08. New Zealand has the last of those limits - 0.08
Like the EU the trend here is a reduction in the rate of alcohol-related road deaths. In 2005 fatal crashes with driver alcohol as a factor represented 29% of all - down from 43% in 1988. The European Transport Safety Council estimates EU alcohol-related deaths account for 30-40 percent of all road deaths. Most EU countries have either 0.05 or zero alcohol limits yet we appear to be performing better.
I cannot see any good case for reducing our current alcohol limit.
9 countries, the Czech Republic, Germany , Poland, Slovakia, the Netherlands, Latvia, France, Austria and Greece had alcohol-related deaths decreasing faster than other road deaths.
5 countries, Slovenia, Estonia, Denmark, Switzerland and Lithuania saw road deaths from other causes decreasing faster than alcohol-related deaths.
In 4 countries, Hungary, Finland, Spain and Great Britain drink-driving deaths actually increased in absolute terms.
The alcohol limits in those last four countries are respectively zero, 0.05, 0.05 and 0.08. New Zealand has the last of those limits - 0.08
Like the EU the trend here is a reduction in the rate of alcohol-related road deaths. In 2005 fatal crashes with driver alcohol as a factor represented 29% of all - down from 43% in 1988. The European Transport Safety Council estimates EU alcohol-related deaths account for 30-40 percent of all road deaths. Most EU countries have either 0.05 or zero alcohol limits yet we appear to be performing better.
I cannot see any good case for reducing our current alcohol limit.
Monday, July 09, 2007
Hoisted with their own PC petard
Dear me. I confess to having something in common with the Prime Minister. I have recently used the word "leper" in a way which is apparently offensive to the 30 million lepers of the world.
The Leprosy Mission New Zealand is reeling over Prime Minister Helen Clark’s recent, insensitive use of the word ‘leper’in her comments as reported by TV One on Sunday, which is likely to offend over 30 million people who are affected by leprosy worldwide.
The Prime Minister was reported by Guyon Espiner of TV One News as saying that the self-appointed Prime Minister of Fiji, Frank Bainimarama, will be “treated something like a leper” if he attends the South Pacific Forum meetings.
However, the Concise Oxford Dictionary defines 'leper' as "Person shunned on moral grounds." Will the PM apologise? It would appear the left sometimes get hoisted on their own PC petard.
The Leprosy Mission New Zealand is reeling over Prime Minister Helen Clark’s recent, insensitive use of the word ‘leper’in her comments as reported by TV One on Sunday, which is likely to offend over 30 million people who are affected by leprosy worldwide.
The Prime Minister was reported by Guyon Espiner of TV One News as saying that the self-appointed Prime Minister of Fiji, Frank Bainimarama, will be “treated something like a leper” if he attends the South Pacific Forum meetings.
However, the Concise Oxford Dictionary defines 'leper' as "Person shunned on moral grounds." Will the PM apologise? It would appear the left sometimes get hoisted on their own PC petard.
We don't know how lucky we are
We often complain about the effect of government interference on our lives, but spare a thought for those less fortunate than ourselves.
The people of Zimbabwe are under the heel of one of the most autocratic and incompetent governments in the world. Top of the list of catastrophic mistakes made by the Mugabe government is its handling of the economy. Price increases ran at an annual rate of 4,500 percent in May of this year and the hyper-inflationary spiral shows no sign of stopping.
The route cause of the inflation is the take-over of white owned farms by the government in 2000. Experienced farmers were unceremoniously kicked off their land (in many cases at gun-point) and replaced with groups of "War Veterans." The results were predictably disastrous. The new land-owners knew nothing about farming and combined with a difficult growing season, productivity collapsed. The country's economy, which had depended heavily on farming, went into free-fall.
Having launched an attack on property rights, the government went after another plank of capitalism, financial stability. They started to print money in order to pay for wage hikes for the police and military. These two things together caused an immediate collapse of the value of the currency on international markets, meaning more money had to be printed to pay for foreign debts and to import the food they now needed. Needless to say, inflation is now out of control.
The government has come up with more and more bizarre solutions as the crisis has escalated. In February they made inflation illegal. It was simply against the law to increase prices. The latest move was to introduce price controls, accusing shop owners of causing the problems by being greedy and ordering the to cut food prices by 50 percent. This meant supermarkets now had to sell food at less than the cost they were paying the wholesalers. Needless to say, neither of these things worked.
So what makes Zimbabwe so especially tragic? Put simply, there is no good reason, none, why Zimbabwe should be in such a mess. All of the pieces were there 10 years ago. Elections, natural resources, education and so on. Constant meddling by the government has destroyed what was one of the strongest economies in Africa. It's hard to see where to go from here, but Robert Mugbe cannot possibly be part of the solution.
(From the Adam Smith blog)
I'm not offended Jim (and other stuff)
73 year-old intelligence expert Jim Flynn says that lesser educated women out-breeding those with a tertiary education is a problem. I agree. And I'm one of the dummies. I've had two children but have no tertiary qualifications. Fortunately their father has.
Michael Laws was advocating legalisation of drugs in his SST column. Why? Because prohibition isn't working. I wonder why he thinks banning gang patches will.
At the ACT regional conference Colin James spoke to us about 'risk'. Perhaps we need to learn to live with it instead of overreacting with draconian anti-terrorist measures. Now I see what he was alluding to. Travellers will be randomly taken and searched for explosives. A bridge too far I think.
I expect the illiberal National party to start saying they told us so when they said the party pill ban was taking too long to kick in. Look what has happened. People are stockpiling. Umm. I thought a prohibition-driven price increase was supposed to put people off yet they can find money to buy lots at once.
And finally more fatties. In the NZ Herald it's fat Asians and in the SST magazine it was fat dogs. I have come to the conclusion that as nanny can't do anything about the real evils that threaten innocent people, the rapists and murderers, the child abusers and paedophiles, she is going after those she can bully successfully into mending their wicked ways. Fatties, smokers and smackers.
Michael Laws was advocating legalisation of drugs in his SST column. Why? Because prohibition isn't working. I wonder why he thinks banning gang patches will.
At the ACT regional conference Colin James spoke to us about 'risk'. Perhaps we need to learn to live with it instead of overreacting with draconian anti-terrorist measures. Now I see what he was alluding to. Travellers will be randomly taken and searched for explosives. A bridge too far I think.
I expect the illiberal National party to start saying they told us so when they said the party pill ban was taking too long to kick in. Look what has happened. People are stockpiling. Umm. I thought a prohibition-driven price increase was supposed to put people off yet they can find money to buy lots at once.
And finally more fatties. In the NZ Herald it's fat Asians and in the SST magazine it was fat dogs. I have come to the conclusion that as nanny can't do anything about the real evils that threaten innocent people, the rapists and murderers, the child abusers and paedophiles, she is going after those she can bully successfully into mending their wicked ways. Fatties, smokers and smackers.
Sunday, July 08, 2007
DPB compounds problem
From the SST,
New research out of last year's census shows that less educated women are the powerhouse behind the country's birth rate. "They are the anchor of our fertility rate at the moment," said Statistics New Zealand principal demographer Mansoor Khawaja.
No surprises there. It has probably been the case for some time. Maori and Pacific females have higher fertility rates but are generally less well-educated.
I thought I'd have a look at the fertility rate of those on the DPB (allowing that for many this is a temporary situation and their children were born before they became dependent on a benefit.)
The most recent stats I can use are 2000 because typically the Ministry has changed (reduced) the available information in it's annual statistics report.
The average fertility rate is 1.79
Just under half of recipients only had one child.
But the other half with two or more children had a fertility rate of 2.54
Almost certainly (but I don't have the information to prove it) those who stay longest on the DPB have the highest fertility rates.
Looked at another way, right now just over half of DPB recipients are Maori or Pacific Island despite representing 21-22 percent of the general population. With their average fertility rates higher anyway (2.9 PI and 2.6 Maori in 2004) it is a fact that DPB is contributing to the problem of "less educated women [being] the powerhouse behind the country's birth rate."
New research out of last year's census shows that less educated women are the powerhouse behind the country's birth rate. "They are the anchor of our fertility rate at the moment," said Statistics New Zealand principal demographer Mansoor Khawaja.
No surprises there. It has probably been the case for some time. Maori and Pacific females have higher fertility rates but are generally less well-educated.
I thought I'd have a look at the fertility rate of those on the DPB (allowing that for many this is a temporary situation and their children were born before they became dependent on a benefit.)
The most recent stats I can use are 2000 because typically the Ministry has changed (reduced) the available information in it's annual statistics report.
The average fertility rate is 1.79
Just under half of recipients only had one child.
But the other half with two or more children had a fertility rate of 2.54
Almost certainly (but I don't have the information to prove it) those who stay longest on the DPB have the highest fertility rates.
Looked at another way, right now just over half of DPB recipients are Maori or Pacific Island despite representing 21-22 percent of the general population. With their average fertility rates higher anyway (2.9 PI and 2.6 Maori in 2004) it is a fact that DPB is contributing to the problem of "less educated women [being] the powerhouse behind the country's birth rate."
Friday, July 06, 2007
Creative maths - reduced credibility
Judith Collins is employing some creative maths in this press release. She says there is a total of $750 million owed in benefit debt. But fails to mention that the majority - 56% - is non-current ie the person owing the debt is no longer a beneficiary. Then she says the following;
"In March 2002 there were 343,000 working-age beneficiaries and total benefit debt stood at $537million. Now there are about 250,000 beneficiaries and the debt is $750 million, about $3000 for very working-age beneficiary."
Dividing the total debt between current beneficiaries is then, meaningless, except if you want the public to gasp. Divide current debt by current beneficiaries and the sum is closer to $1,300. And then factor in that much of this debt is legitimate recoverable assistance (also conveniently overlooked by the National Spokesperson).
Ms Collins headline is "Benefit debt recovery unchanged despite spending". In fact, per current beneficiary, it has improved.
It would almost certainly be more difficult to recover debt from people no longer receiving a benefit (which can be subjected to automatic deductions.) Growing non-current debt may be an aspect of reduced beneficiary numbers that has to be lived with. Or should we get all the ex-beneficiaries back on welfare in order that we can deduct their debts from guaranteed weekly payments?
"In March 2002 there were 343,000 working-age beneficiaries and total benefit debt stood at $537million. Now there are about 250,000 beneficiaries and the debt is $750 million, about $3000 for very working-age beneficiary."
Dividing the total debt between current beneficiaries is then, meaningless, except if you want the public to gasp. Divide current debt by current beneficiaries and the sum is closer to $1,300. And then factor in that much of this debt is legitimate recoverable assistance (also conveniently overlooked by the National Spokesperson).
Ms Collins headline is "Benefit debt recovery unchanged despite spending". In fact, per current beneficiary, it has improved.
It would almost certainly be more difficult to recover debt from people no longer receiving a benefit (which can be subjected to automatic deductions.) Growing non-current debt may be an aspect of reduced beneficiary numbers that has to be lived with. Or should we get all the ex-beneficiaries back on welfare in order that we can deduct their debts from guaranteed weekly payments?
Apologists rally
John Howard's plans to stop aboriginal child abuse and general lawlessness have provoked a New Zealand rally to show support - not for Howard but the indigenous people;
We aim to - Send a loud and clear message of solidarity to the indigenous peoples suffering from Howard's racist attacks on human rights.
- Raise awareness of issues concerning colonisation and stolen land, racism, family violence, and how indigenous peoples throughout the South Pacific face further loss of land to big mining companies.
We aim to - Send a loud and clear message of solidarity to the indigenous peoples suffering from Howard's racist attacks on human rights.
- Raise awareness of issues concerning colonisation and stolen land, racism, family violence, and how indigenous peoples throughout the South Pacific face further loss of land to big mining companies.
Life in the EU
Rt Hon David Miliband MP
Secretary of State,
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA),
Nobel House
17 Smith Square
London SW1P 3JR
16 May 2007
Dear Secretary of State,
My friend, who is in farming at the moment, recently received a cheque for £3,000 from the Rural Payments Agency for not rearing pigs. I would now like to join the “not rearing pigs” business.
In your opinion, what is the best kind of farm not to rear pigs on, and which is the best breed of pigs not to rear? I want to be sure I approach this endeavour in keeping with all government policies, as dictated by the EU under the Common Agricultural Policy.
I would prefer not to rear bacon pigs, but if this is not the type you want not rearing, I will just as gladly not rear porkers. Are there any advantages in not rearing rare breeds such as Saddlebacks or Gloucester Old Spots, or are there too many people already not rearing these?
As I see it, the hardest part of this programme will be keeping an accurate record of how many pigs I haven’t reared. Are there any Government or Local Authority courses on this?
My friend is very satisfied with this business. He has been rearing pigs for forty years or so, and the best he ever made on them was £1,422 in 1968. That is - until this year, when he received a cheque for not rearing any.
If I get £3,000 for not rearing 50 pigs, will I get £6,000 for not rearing 100?
I plan to operate on a small scale at first, holding myself down to about 4,000 pigs not raised, which will mean about £240,000 for the first year. As I become more expert in not rearing pigs, I plan to be more ambitious, perhaps increasing to, say, 40,000 pigs not reared in my second year, for which I should expect about £2.4 million from your department. Incidentally, I wonder if I would be eligible to receive tradable carbon credits for all these pigs not producing harmful and polluting methane gases?
Another point: These pigs that I plan not to rear will not eat 2,000 tonnes of cereals. I understand that you also pay farmers for not growing crops. Will I qualify for payments for not growing cereals to not feed the pigs I don’t rear?
I am also considering the “not milking cows” business, so please send any information you have on that too. Please could you also include the current Defra advice on set aside fields? Can this be done on an e-commerce basis with virtual fields (of which I seem to have several thousand hectares)?
In view of the above you will realise that I will be totally unemployed, and will therefore qualify for unemployment benefits.
I shall of course be voting for your party at the next general election.
Yours faithfully,
Nigel Johnson-Hill
(sent to me by a friend)
Secretary of State,
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA),
Nobel House
17 Smith Square
London SW1P 3JR
16 May 2007
Dear Secretary of State,
My friend, who is in farming at the moment, recently received a cheque for £3,000 from the Rural Payments Agency for not rearing pigs. I would now like to join the “not rearing pigs” business.
In your opinion, what is the best kind of farm not to rear pigs on, and which is the best breed of pigs not to rear? I want to be sure I approach this endeavour in keeping with all government policies, as dictated by the EU under the Common Agricultural Policy.
I would prefer not to rear bacon pigs, but if this is not the type you want not rearing, I will just as gladly not rear porkers. Are there any advantages in not rearing rare breeds such as Saddlebacks or Gloucester Old Spots, or are there too many people already not rearing these?
As I see it, the hardest part of this programme will be keeping an accurate record of how many pigs I haven’t reared. Are there any Government or Local Authority courses on this?
My friend is very satisfied with this business. He has been rearing pigs for forty years or so, and the best he ever made on them was £1,422 in 1968. That is - until this year, when he received a cheque for not rearing any.
If I get £3,000 for not rearing 50 pigs, will I get £6,000 for not rearing 100?
I plan to operate on a small scale at first, holding myself down to about 4,000 pigs not raised, which will mean about £240,000 for the first year. As I become more expert in not rearing pigs, I plan to be more ambitious, perhaps increasing to, say, 40,000 pigs not reared in my second year, for which I should expect about £2.4 million from your department. Incidentally, I wonder if I would be eligible to receive tradable carbon credits for all these pigs not producing harmful and polluting methane gases?
Another point: These pigs that I plan not to rear will not eat 2,000 tonnes of cereals. I understand that you also pay farmers for not growing crops. Will I qualify for payments for not growing cereals to not feed the pigs I don’t rear?
I am also considering the “not milking cows” business, so please send any information you have on that too. Please could you also include the current Defra advice on set aside fields? Can this be done on an e-commerce basis with virtual fields (of which I seem to have several thousand hectares)?
In view of the above you will realise that I will be totally unemployed, and will therefore qualify for unemployment benefits.
I shall of course be voting for your party at the next general election.
Yours faithfully,
Nigel Johnson-Hill
(sent to me by a friend)
Thursday, July 05, 2007
"Teen sells virginity for $25,000"
Oh Lord. Don't let the Greens get hold of this. They'll immediately scream, education should be free for all!
Well, no, it shouldn't. And if the seller can find a willing buyer that's her business.
Well, no, it shouldn't. And if the seller can find a willing buyer that's her business.
Why?
National Party leader John Key wants to take a more ethnically diverse range of MPs into the next election and is set to make the topic a priority when the party's list rankings are decided next year.
Any thoughts for merit? This is collectivist claptrap. Exactly the type of idea the Left would embrace. Don't forget women, John. And I don't think you've got a lesbian yet, or a Muslim, or a dope smoker. All groups needing representation in a special interests, what's-in-it-for-me parliament.
The more things change the more they stay the same.
Any thoughts for merit? This is collectivist claptrap. Exactly the type of idea the Left would embrace. Don't forget women, John. And I don't think you've got a lesbian yet, or a Muslim, or a dope smoker. All groups needing representation in a special interests, what's-in-it-for-me parliament.
The more things change the more they stay the same.
Wednesday, July 04, 2007
Why we marched - wilful ignorance
I can't get past this comment today. At a meeting calling for an end to Maori violence,
Organiser Suzanne Pene from South Auckland Family Violence Prevention Network said the country's tolerance for violence hit the streets during the furore over Sue Bradford's smacking bill. "I know that violence is not part of my tikanga but when I look at New Zealand marching [against the act] I think what have we become?"
Oh yeah. That's why I marched against Sue Bradford's bill. To enshrine the right of Maori to abuse their kids.
The Maori Party co-leader said men were responsible for the majority of violent acts but it was women who were left to find solutions to the problem.
Oh yeah again. Like Maori women never hit or hurt their kids. You're a denier Turia.
She said violence was not an ethnic problem, it was a problem all societies faced despite the hundreds of vitriolic emails she received every year whose angriest lines blamed violence in Maori culture for the depressing Maori crime statistics.
Violence is a problem for all ethnicities but more so for some than others. A disproportionate amount of violence in this country, be it against children or adults, is perpetrated by and experienced by Maori. 49 percent of children in Care and Protection foster placements are Maori. In 2003 the rate of substantiated child abuse per 1,000 0-16 year-olds was 11.9 for Maori compared to 5.9 for non-Maori.
The only real solution to this problem lies with the individual - male and female. Don't commit violence and don't accept it.
Organiser Suzanne Pene from South Auckland Family Violence Prevention Network said the country's tolerance for violence hit the streets during the furore over Sue Bradford's smacking bill. "I know that violence is not part of my tikanga but when I look at New Zealand marching [against the act] I think what have we become?"
Oh yeah. That's why I marched against Sue Bradford's bill. To enshrine the right of Maori to abuse their kids.
The Maori Party co-leader said men were responsible for the majority of violent acts but it was women who were left to find solutions to the problem.
Oh yeah again. Like Maori women never hit or hurt their kids. You're a denier Turia.
She said violence was not an ethnic problem, it was a problem all societies faced despite the hundreds of vitriolic emails she received every year whose angriest lines blamed violence in Maori culture for the depressing Maori crime statistics.
Violence is a problem for all ethnicities but more so for some than others. A disproportionate amount of violence in this country, be it against children or adults, is perpetrated by and experienced by Maori. 49 percent of children in Care and Protection foster placements are Maori. In 2003 the rate of substantiated child abuse per 1,000 0-16 year-olds was 11.9 for Maori compared to 5.9 for non-Maori.
The only real solution to this problem lies with the individual - male and female. Don't commit violence and don't accept it.
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
Research Confirms Two Parents Better Than One
Research Confirms Two Parents Better Than One
Tuesday, 3 July 2007, 10:27 am
Press Release: Lindsay Mitchell
Tuesday, 3 July, 2007
Research published in the July 2007 on-line journal of the International Child and Youth Care Network confirms that the best environment for children to be raised in is with two biological married parents.
Welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell says the research is significant for two reasons. "Firstly it represents meta-analyses of large numbers of studies, and second, it appears in a non-political, non-religious forum."
"Changes in US family structure are similar to those experienced in New Zealand, if not quite as dramatic. For instance in 2005, 36.8 percent of US births were non-marital compared to 45.2 percent in New Zealand."
Paul Amato, professor of sociology at Pennsylvania State University, examined the effect of family formation on children and what accounted for the differences between children raised by two biological parents and those raised by one. He looks at a variety of situations for children including having happily married parents, unhappily married parents, divorced parents, co-habiting parents, one parent from birth, step-parents and a widowed parent.
Overall the evidence is consistent that parental divorce during childhood is linked with a wide range of problems in adulthood. Similarly children growing up with a single parent because they were born out of marriage are more likely to experience a variety of emotional and behavioural problems. He says, "Specifically, compared with children who grew up in stable, two-parent families children born outside marriage reach adulthood with less education, earn less income, have lower occupational status, are more likely to be idle (that is , not employed and not in school), are more likely to have a non-marital birth (among daughters) have more troubled marriages, experience higher rates of divorce and report more symptoms of depression.'"
Interestingly Amato found children with co-habiting parents also had increased problems because co-habiting parents were more disadvantaged and the risk of relationship dissolution was substantially higher. "Growing up with two continuously cohabiting biological parents is rare. "
Experiencing the death of a parent also puts children at greater risk but not as much as does divorce or out-of-marriage birth.
Children in high conflict households experienced problems similar to those of divorced children or worse. But the majority of marriages that end in divorce were low-conflict. Partners were emotionally estranged. They did not fight frequently or express hostility to each other. While these parents viewed a separation as positive, their children often viewed it as 'unexpected, inexplicable and unwelcome' .
Where step-families survive, relationships can become supportive and close but often step- family formation is stressful for children involving loss of autonomy and upheaval. "Studies consistently indicate, however, that children in step-families exhibit more problems than do children with continuously married parents and about the same number of problems as do children with single parents."
Answering the question, why do single-parent families put children at risk, Amato examines economic hardship, the quality of parenting, exposure to stress and the likelihood of geneitc predispostion to traits that had 'selected' their parent into single parenthood.
Amoto concludes, "Compared with other children, those who grow up in stable, two-parent families have a higher standard of living, receive more effective co-parenting, are emotionlly closer to both parents (especially fathers) and are subjected to fewer stressful events and circumstances."
Responding to this research Mitchell comments, "It is both astonishing and deeply disappointing that despite overwhelming evidence many governments persist with social policies that undermine marriage. For forty years New Zealand has subsidised one parent families at the cost of two parent families. It is time the state adopted a far more neutral position allowing the course of family formation to revert to what works for children. "
ENDS
Full paper available at www.cyc-net.org/cyc-online/cycol-0707-amato.html
Tuesday, 3 July 2007, 10:27 am
Press Release: Lindsay Mitchell
Tuesday, 3 July, 2007
Research published in the July 2007 on-line journal of the International Child and Youth Care Network confirms that the best environment for children to be raised in is with two biological married parents.
Welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell says the research is significant for two reasons. "Firstly it represents meta-analyses of large numbers of studies, and second, it appears in a non-political, non-religious forum."
"Changes in US family structure are similar to those experienced in New Zealand, if not quite as dramatic. For instance in 2005, 36.8 percent of US births were non-marital compared to 45.2 percent in New Zealand."
Paul Amato, professor of sociology at Pennsylvania State University, examined the effect of family formation on children and what accounted for the differences between children raised by two biological parents and those raised by one. He looks at a variety of situations for children including having happily married parents, unhappily married parents, divorced parents, co-habiting parents, one parent from birth, step-parents and a widowed parent.
Overall the evidence is consistent that parental divorce during childhood is linked with a wide range of problems in adulthood. Similarly children growing up with a single parent because they were born out of marriage are more likely to experience a variety of emotional and behavioural problems. He says, "Specifically, compared with children who grew up in stable, two-parent families children born outside marriage reach adulthood with less education, earn less income, have lower occupational status, are more likely to be idle (that is , not employed and not in school), are more likely to have a non-marital birth (among daughters) have more troubled marriages, experience higher rates of divorce and report more symptoms of depression.'"
Interestingly Amato found children with co-habiting parents also had increased problems because co-habiting parents were more disadvantaged and the risk of relationship dissolution was substantially higher. "Growing up with two continuously cohabiting biological parents is rare. "
Experiencing the death of a parent also puts children at greater risk but not as much as does divorce or out-of-marriage birth.
Children in high conflict households experienced problems similar to those of divorced children or worse. But the majority of marriages that end in divorce were low-conflict. Partners were emotionally estranged. They did not fight frequently or express hostility to each other. While these parents viewed a separation as positive, their children often viewed it as 'unexpected, inexplicable and unwelcome' .
Where step-families survive, relationships can become supportive and close but often step- family formation is stressful for children involving loss of autonomy and upheaval. "Studies consistently indicate, however, that children in step-families exhibit more problems than do children with continuously married parents and about the same number of problems as do children with single parents."
Answering the question, why do single-parent families put children at risk, Amato examines economic hardship, the quality of parenting, exposure to stress and the likelihood of geneitc predispostion to traits that had 'selected' their parent into single parenthood.
Amoto concludes, "Compared with other children, those who grow up in stable, two-parent families have a higher standard of living, receive more effective co-parenting, are emotionlly closer to both parents (especially fathers) and are subjected to fewer stressful events and circumstances."
Responding to this research Mitchell comments, "It is both astonishing and deeply disappointing that despite overwhelming evidence many governments persist with social policies that undermine marriage. For forty years New Zealand has subsidised one parent families at the cost of two parent families. It is time the state adopted a far more neutral position allowing the course of family formation to revert to what works for children. "
ENDS
Full paper available at www.cyc-net.org/cyc-online/cycol-0707-amato.html
Prediction
Judith Collins has just put out a release detailing the increasing number of MSD staff administering a decreasing number of benefits. It's 10.30.
I could just about write the Minister's response which will appear some time today. He will explain that the increasing number of staff are responsible for the intensive efforts which have seen the number of beneficiaries decline. Want a bet?
Perhaps I should run a book on how long it will take. Oooops. Forgot. Nanny doesn't allow on-line betting. Perish the thought.
I could just about write the Minister's response which will appear some time today. He will explain that the increasing number of staff are responsible for the intensive efforts which have seen the number of beneficiaries decline. Want a bet?
Perhaps I should run a book on how long it will take. Oooops. Forgot. Nanny doesn't allow on-line betting. Perish the thought.
Dumbed down by the DomPost
There is a world of difference between Richard Long's columns and Michael Bassett's. Bassett would take an issue and give it historical and political context. When passionate about a topic he didn't hold back. Unless I am not paying proper attention, Richard Long merely cheerleads for National. Another column today is a typical example, "The creaking of third term-itis". It lists Labour's recent problems and re-inforces Clark's extremely unlikely chances of re-election based on past trends. It's like reading an election pamphlet. AND Long has omitted the usual declaration of interest that tags his columns.
Bassett was 'let go' because it was revealed he had a hand in Brash speeches and also shared and promoted ideas similar to those Brash might espouse. However Bassett did not write entire columns based purely on a political bias towards the National Party.
Yes, I am still angry that the DomPost deprived us of Bassett's shrewd views and replaced him with a politically-slanted scribbler.
Bassett was 'let go' because it was revealed he had a hand in Brash speeches and also shared and promoted ideas similar to those Brash might espouse. However Bassett did not write entire columns based purely on a political bias towards the National Party.
Yes, I am still angry that the DomPost deprived us of Bassett's shrewd views and replaced him with a politically-slanted scribbler.
Monday, July 02, 2007
Again - ACT philosophy is not right-wing
For the record I don't mind ACT supporting Labour IF the support is based on classical liberal principles ie less state and greater individual power. I hate ACT being described as right wing - here and here. I grew up in a Labour household and voted Labour before I voted Libertarianz and then ACT. I was pleased and appreciative of my ranking on ACT's list in 2005. It wasn't right-wing conservative ideas that got me there.
The Working for Families goose
I knew WFF represented a fairly dramatic lift in redistribution but the money available continues to surprise me. Here's a couple of stories from the latest Ministry of Social Development regional newsletters;
Recently one of Eileen’s clients was a woman on the Domestic Purposes Benefit who was experiencing severe financial and mental hardship. Eileen assessed that the woman was not receiving her correct family assistance entitlements, so on behalf of the client she made one phone call to IRD. Fifteen minutes later she was informed that her client would receive an extra $184 per week plus an $8,000 back payment from IRD. “Prior to our meeting she was showing signs of extreme distress. When she left us she was over the moon, a great weight had been lifted off her shoulders, all the stress and emotion had gone,” says Eileen.
Work and Income even go looking for people to give it to;
Forty thousand people over a four-day festival kept Work and Income staff busy at the Te Matatini National Kapa Haka competition held in Palmerston North. Work and Income staff were there promoting the Working for Families package, and information on Enterprising Communities. “This is a huge whänau event where we were able to provide families with information that can change lives. People were surprised at how much they can be earning and still be eligible for assistance, it’s great that we are out there reaching people who normally wouldn’t come to us for assistance,” said Rongo Puketapu, Working for Families Case Manager.
Whatever happened to New Zealanders, the rugged individualists.
Recently one of Eileen’s clients was a woman on the Domestic Purposes Benefit who was experiencing severe financial and mental hardship. Eileen assessed that the woman was not receiving her correct family assistance entitlements, so on behalf of the client she made one phone call to IRD. Fifteen minutes later she was informed that her client would receive an extra $184 per week plus an $8,000 back payment from IRD. “Prior to our meeting she was showing signs of extreme distress. When she left us she was over the moon, a great weight had been lifted off her shoulders, all the stress and emotion had gone,” says Eileen.
Work and Income even go looking for people to give it to;
Forty thousand people over a four-day festival kept Work and Income staff busy at the Te Matatini National Kapa Haka competition held in Palmerston North. Work and Income staff were there promoting the Working for Families package, and information on Enterprising Communities. “This is a huge whänau event where we were able to provide families with information that can change lives. People were surprised at how much they can be earning and still be eligible for assistance, it’s great that we are out there reaching people who normally wouldn’t come to us for assistance,” said Rongo Puketapu, Working for Families Case Manager.
Whatever happened to New Zealanders, the rugged individualists.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
