Children not a meal ticket

On the 'subsequent child' policy in parliament today

Dialogue in Parliament today with my italicised comments interspersed:

Question No. 5—Social Development

5. WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development: What recent announcements has she made about putting children first as part of the Government's welfare overhaul?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): Yesterday, I announced that this Government is putting children first and making our welfare system fairer by removing the punitive subsequent child policy. The subsequent child policy was introduced in 2012. The policy has meant that parents who have a subsequent child whilst on a benefit have work obligations imposed on them earlier, from when their youngest child is just one year old, and, depending on the age of their next oldest child, this can also affect their eligibility for the sole parent support benefit. This is a policy that has furthered inequities in the welfare system for parents and their children, undermined the value of parenting, and exacerbated stigma and stress for many families.

Willow-Jean Prime: What difference will this make for parents and children?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The subsequent child policy has a disproportionate effect on Māori women. 

Most children being added to an existing benefit are Maori. That has long been the case.

By removing the policy, we can further our commitment to improving outcomes for Māori and valuing the role of carers, who are predominantly women. 

The research resoundingly shows children born onto a benefit have poorer outcomes. Condoning - even encouraging this occurrence - will not improve "outcomes for Māori".

The first 1,000 days of a child's life are critical for their long-term development. It is not fair that these children might not be given the same time and support simply because they were born while their parents were on a benefit. 

Most children today do not have the luxury of 1,000 days with their mothers. To buy a home requires two incomes.  Prospective mothers and fathers plan around this reality and wait to have their children hence the ever-increasing average age of first time mothers. They wait and save while people on benefits keep having kids.

Removing the subsequent child policy will give the estimated 9,000 parents affected the flexibility to be carers. However, the removal of this policy does not preclude parents who are able to work from getting access to the employment and upskilling support from the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) that this Government has significantly bolstered investment in.

The "flexibility to be carers" comes at the expense of those taxpayers denying themselves the same luxury. And "this government" did not significantly bolster investment in access to employment support. Quite the opposite. It reduced case manager engagement at that level.

Last year the Expert Advisory Welfare Group pointed out, "In June 2014, employment-focused case managers engaged proactively with 50% of their clients every month to support them into employment. This has fallen to an all-time low of 19%, and, over the past year, has continued to drop by an average of one percentage point per month."

Willow-Jean Prime: Why is the subsequent child policy being removed?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: MSD has found no evidence that the subsequent child policy has positively impacted financial or social outcomes for those affected. This highlights, for me, how punitive policies, underpinned by judgment of those in our welfare system, are ineffective and only serve to stigmatise people who, in this case, have been disproportionately Māori women. 

The 'subsequent child policy' has not worked. Reckless or exploitative fertility continues. All that means is a different policy is required - not a surrender.

Under our confidence and supply agreement, this Government has committed to creating a fairer and better welfare system and removing excessive sanctions, and this—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think the member has answered the question, thank you.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I'd like to finish my answer—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm sorry, but I think the member has already answered the question—

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Point of order, Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No—

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Actually, my word count is—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm sorry, sit down. Sit down. It was a very long answer. It was a very simple question, much of which in the member's answer had already been stated. I think the answer has been completed.

I was left with an uncomfortable feeling that the Minister is framing the issue around Maori women to deliberately ward off criticisms of the policy repeal. It sets up the government to paint detractors as racist.

If the kids really come first their life chances should not be thwarted by the politics of race.

More reversal of welfare reforms

What a lot of dangerous codswallop. Sepuloni says she is putting children first by removing National's 'subsequent child' policy.

I remember back in 2012, with the Nat's welfare reforms, there was a drive to get sole mothers in particular back into work because it was good for them and good for their children. Work gives adults a community, an independent income, self-esteem and discipline. And all of these are important for their children to experience firsthand.

So they increased work obligations in terms of how much and when (in relation to age of youngest child). 

But there was always the legitimate concern that some mothers would simply keep having children to avoid work. 

To that end they devised a policy whereby when a child was added, the existing work obligation kicked back in when that child turned one.

Now Sepuloni, no doubt 'encouraged' by the Greens, is doing away with it as part of the not-naming-fathers and indexing benefits to wages package.

There is a wealth of data analysis showing children added to benefits stay there the longest and have the worst outcomes. But she doesn't seem to have given the research a second thought.

Last year one in ten babies was added to an existing benefit at birth. For many of them it's a life sentence to neglect, abuse, transience, involvement with OT and eventually their own criminal offending and custodial sentences.

Aspiring SOAP candidate campaigning for a brighter future

Aspiring SOAP candidate campaigning for a brighter future:

A party whose time has come

A party whose time has come:

More

The generational voting divide

Ten days ago I wrote a post entitled "The Young Don't Vote"

Here are the latest enrollment stats:

And here are the actual voting percentages in 2017:

In raw numbers there are an estimated 450,500 18-24 year-olds with 277,151 or 61.5% enrolled at June 9. The figure will  increase but in 2017 the final enrollment number was 333,164 and 69.3% of them voted.

It is safe to say only between 4 and 5 out of all 18-24 year-olds vote.

For comparison 96% of voters aged 55 or older enroll and they turnout in the mid to high 80% range.

Chris Trotter is worried about this. He writes:

If voters aged between 18 and 25 registered and voted in anything like the same numbers as the centre-left’s core vote, Labour would long ago have become New Zealand’s “natural party of government”.

Pie in the sky. It is the young's prerogative to not vote if that's their inclination. I took no particular interest until I became a mother. People become increasingly involved as they age and are more invested, stable and life-experienced.

He is worried this divide opens the door for Collins. As my post suggested, I agree, but happily. And for those voting youth who are averse to National's new leadership team but not left-inclined, ACT fills the void. Collins v Ardern contrasted neatly by Seymour v Peters.

Two a penny scandals

My God I get sick of the 'scandals'. I put the word in inverted commas because who knows whether an action merits the word or not? Their occurrence is a plague across parties.

All I want is someone to tell their version of the truth directly and publicly. Politicians exist at our expense and our patronage.

But no. We get political management, employment law, the circling of self-interested wagons, despicable mental health excuses, all resulting in a vacuum fostering fertile imaginations and gossip.

While titillation and gratification consume and divert, we are being sucked down a debt vortex the likes of which we have never seen.

Fairness?

Isn't it intriguing that National AND Labour have suddenly become so solicitous of taxpayer's money:

“National’s policy is about fairness. Many Kiwis have only one or two overseas holidays in their lives. National won’t expect taxpayers to pay for other Kiwis returning from high-paying careers or expensive holidays in Europe,” deputy leader Gerry Brownlee said".

Fairness! That's opening a can of worms. Now what about taxpayer's funding universal winter heating payments, Super goldcards for the wealthy aged, Super for people who work, private schools where the wealthy send their children, etc. What else can we now expect?

It seems to me there are two quite different scenarios. New Zealanders returning home for the first time since Covid, often young and without means. And those who have chosen to leave NZ because the two week quarantine on re-entry is tolerable. There is a case for charging the second.

But I am opposed to people having to pay for their state-imposed isolation when they are returning because they have no choice. This could eventually apply to thousands of people currently supported by wage subsidies in Australia. 

If the collective demands protection from first-time returners they must fund their quarantine as part of the public health system.

 

Tale of two tenets

As the election looms, two minor parties, both likely to feature in the next parliament – ACT and the Greens – couldn’t be further apart in their tenets regarding welfare and child well-being.

Perhaps the single-most underrated and under-reported issue in New Zealand is the practice of adding children to existing benefits. Oodles is spoken and written about child poverty, particularly by the Prime Minister who appointed herself Minister of Child Poverty Reduction in 2017. But the fact that 6,000 children are added to an existing benefit and a further 3-4,000 are reliant on welfare by their first birthday never rates a mention. The numbers have varied only slightly over the past 30 years and persist at very high levels. One in ten babies goes home from hospital to a benefit- dependent family.

The links between welfare dependence from birth and poor, if not disastrous outcomes, have now been well-explored by institutions like AUT and Treasury. The latter identified 4 indicators:

1)    a finding of abuse or neglect;
2)    spending most of their lifetime supported by benefits;
3)    having a parent who’d received a community or custodial sentence; and
4)    a mother with no formal qualifications

Using retrospective data they were able to predict outcomes:

“Compared to children with none of the four indicators, children aged 0-5 years with two or more of the four indicators are:

– eight times more likely to have contact with Youth Justice services before age 18 (14% compared to 2%)
– three times more likely to leave school with no qualifications (36% compared to 13%)
– six times more likely to receive benefits for more than two years before the age of 21 (20% compared to 3%)
 – ten times more likely to spend time in jail before the age of 21 (6% compared to 0.6%)
– four times more likely to receive benefits for more than five years when they are aged 25-34 years (21% compared to 5%).”

72% of the children with all four indicators were Maori. These heightened risks lie at the heart of the country’s ongoing inter-generational failure.

It is a logical conclusion to draw that reducing the incidence of child benefit dependence is a desirable goal. But the PM doesn’t agree. And neither do the Greens. For them, increasing the income provided by benefits is the most important aim.

Labour has already headed down this road by substantially increasing child tax credits and introducing a whole new payment, Best Start, for children aged 0-2. The Greens want to develop on this by universalising and increasing Best Start to $100 weekly,  a $110 top-up for sole parents, and “no stand-down periods, no deduction of child support and no sanctions” (i.e. no individual  responsibility).

ACT, on the other hand, has firmly focused their policy on the phenomenon of children being born onto welfare and not infrequently spending their entire lives there. They point out that it isn’t acceptable for these families to keep having children when other families wait and sacrifice, and sometimes never have their own or additional children. More to the point, it is entirely unacceptable for children to be carelessly thrown into environments that harm them and rob them of their potential.

ACT’s policy says that if someone already on a benefit adds another child their benefit income will thereafter be managed. Rent and utilities will be paid direct, with the large part of the remainder of their benefit loaded onto an electronic card to be used in specified retail outlets. Work and Income already has the technology to do this. They operate income management for Youth and Young Parent beneficiaries in this fashion.

Under this regime children should be guaranteed a secure roof over their heads instead of the insecure transience resulting from unpaid rents, evictions and homelessness. Their schooling would be less interrupted with increased geographical stability. They should have adequate food in their tummies in and out of term time (not assured under school lunch programmes).  Their  mother may be encouraged to take advantage of the fully- subsidised, highly effective,  long-acting contraceptives now available, ameliorating the overcrowding which is a significant factor in New Zealand’s horribly high rate of rheumatic fever. Perhaps most importantly their parent(s) will actually decide working is a better option if they want agency over their income. There is a risk caregivers will try to supplement their incomes in other undesirable, illegal  ways but no policy is risk free, and this almost certainly already happens to some degree.

Increasingly throwing money at dysfunctional families provides no assurance parents will suddenly become better budgeters, or not simply spend more on harmful behaviours. Gambling and substance abuse don’t just hurt the parent. They hurt the child directly (damage in the womb, physical abuse or neglect under the influence) not to mention indirectly through parental role-modelling that normalizes bad behaviours, especially violence, to their children.

The two approaches to child benefit dependence are a world apart. One continues the ‘freedom’ of the adult to use taxpayer’s money as they wish; the other prioritizes the best interests of the child -their right to security, stability and safety – or, as ACT puts it, what the taxpayer thinks they are paying for.

The country cannot go on merely paying lip-service to the idea of ‘breaking the cycle’. Now is not the time for more of the same. More than ever New Zealand cannot afford the social cost and lost potential that occurs monotonously in an easily identifiable portion of every generation.

ACT and the Greens present very clear alternatives in their beliefs and policy, and while neither will form the next government on their own, either could be an influential part of it. One promotes the best interests of the child, while the other promotes the best interests of the so-called ‘grown-ups’ euphemistically called ‘caregivers’ – I know which one I will be supporting.

(First published at NZCPR)

Broken benefit system?

Obviously the sharp increase in benefit numbers to 353,440 or 11.8% of the working-age population at the end of June is a result of the economic response to Covid.

However there are other factors contributing to increased numbers.

Firstly benefit cancellations for medical reasons have dropped right away. That means people are not getting fixed in the health system. The issue hasn't been getting a lot of coverage yet but the growth in waiting lists must be significant. Firsthand experience and plenty of anecdotal evidence tells me this is the case.

Secondly sanctions have been all but suspended due to resources going into processing new applications. With the Greens actively campaigning for sanctions to go permanently one wonders if they will ever be re-instated. Without sanctions there is no point in obligations. Without obligations the system is open slather.

The young don't vote

Not an excitable person by nature, I still managed to say out loud, walking on the beach with my dogs today, earphone in and listening to Magic Talk, "Bullshit."

Some panelist or commentator was saying that because Jacinda appeals to the young, National had to select a leader who could do the same.

Idiocy.  National should represent the values it traditionally has and appeal to the older voters that reliably go to the ballot boxes. Demographics are on their side. Proportionately the young vote less,  and their share of the electorate is shrinking proportionately.

Certainly, parties need to renew their voter base over time but right now, in these extraordinary times, that consideration is not a priority.

Pleased Judith Collins is new leader and I like Gerry as deputy.

Now we'll see how much real support there is for the political status quo.

(Written as an ACT voter).

A poverty of plain speaking never affected Judith Collins

Judith Collins has been in parliament for a long time and I have blogged about her for the duration. Not extensively but when I agreed or disagreed with her comments. She was, after all, National's spokesperson on Social Development from 2005-08. She once made a deliberately audible comment when I approached her at a welfare forum, "Here comes Lindsay Mitchell to tell me I am too soft on welfare." Didn't bother me bar I never saw myself as 'hard' on welfare. I just believed welfare was hard on kids.

But here's a relatively recent contribution (2016) that contains more than a kernel of truth. It's also a good example of why I wrote this morning, "...she says what she means and means what she says." The link is still live:

Reported on Radio New Zealand:

Ms Collins was challenged at the Police Association's annual conference in Wellington today by a delegate, who said poverty was making law enforcement harder.

The delegate said his officers had been very busy with gangs, which he said were often filled with people who had experienced poverty as children.

The government's approach to child poverty was criticised in a recent United Nations report, as well as by opposition politicians.

Ms Collins responded by saying the government was doing a lot more for child poverty in New Zealand than the UN had ever done.

In New Zealand, there was money available to everyone who needed it, she said.

"It's not that, it's people who don't look after their children, that's the problem.

"And they can't look after their children in many cases because they don't know how to look after their children or even think they should look after their children."

Monetary poverty was not the only problem, she said.

"I see a poverty of ideas, a poverty of parental responsibility, a poverty of love, a poverty of caring."

As the MP for Papakura, she saw a lot of those problems in south Auckland, she said.

"And I can tell you it is not just a lack of money, it is primarily a lack of responsibility.

"I know that is not PC, but, you know, that's me."

I see a poverty of plain speaking holding NZ back, badly, if the practice is not re-established. Collins could trigger its return.

Two minute Todd

Who knows what goes on in the National Party? Like most of the public I can do no more than speculate on the veracity of the reasons Todd Muller has given for resigning this morning. But I can limit my response to that perspective.

Todd tried too hard. I responded to his Te Aroha speech here concluding he was trying to play Jacinda at her own game. Too risky.

Consequently he never appeared to be 'his own man' and that is absolutely vital for a leader and someone trying to sell himself as such in extremely uncertain times.

If my sense of the mood is accurate, at least half the country wants a very different alternative to Labour. They are turned off by identity politics -  accusations of racism, sexism and ageism that know no bounds or definition. Witch-hunting Me Tooism. Ever increasing wealth redistribution to address 'inequality' when equality of opportunity has never been greater. The soaking of the public service in Maori spiritualism in a secular society. The obsession with diversity (which preempted Muller's second hiccough.) And the religion of climate change which wrongly insists unsettled science is settled.

Todd was either trying to tiptoe through this cultural minefield or is genuinely conflicted. Anyone who is a parent right now, especially of teenagers and young adults, faces the chasm in thinking between generations on multiple issues. And forget the media and your colleagues: your offspring can be the toughest critics to handle because you have to listen to them.

But who now?  Judith "Is there something wrong with being white?" Collins?

She's tough enough. Listening to her promoting her new book there is no sense of her wanting it but there is a strong sense of her not leaving politics any time soon. And there also appear to be a few scores she would like to settle, even if she can't directly.

She'd be my pick if for no other reason than she says what she means and means what she says.

Govt attacking 'traditional masculinity'

Extension of the government's 'It's Not OK' anti-violence strategy was released yesterday. The campaign has run since 2007 but it is now turning it focus wholly on 'gendered intimate partner violence.' Men as perpetrators.

Some extracts:

The campaign has re-set its strategic intent, with the next phase strengthening its focus on preventing violence by men, who generally cause most harm, with evidence suggesting gender inequities are a fundamental driving factor. 

Did they miss a word out? I would have prefaced 'harm' with 'physical' myself.

Factors associated with practice of violence
Women’s lack of autonomy and male dominance of decision-making in public life,
families and relationships.

Question: How many women do you know that 'call the shots' or 'wear the trousers' in their families? In my experience it's almost the norm. And that is not a slur on women.

The traditional societal construct of masculinity, and social norms around adhering to that construct, are identified as key factors in the prevalence of violence and a primary focus of this strategy...  Social norms that promote male domination, aggressive and stoic male relationships and acceptance and minimisation of violence against women have a strong influence on behaviours. These norms create an environment within which violence is condoned, enabled and promoted...There is a clear link between the more strongly held ideas of traditional masculinity and a greater likelihood of an individual man using domestic violence against women.

An end to traditional masculinity? An end to a man supporting and protecting his family?

The left has already gone a long way in this aim by robbing many men of the role of fatherhood. They are now actively encouraging mothers to not even name the fathers of their children. But maybe my idea of traditional masculinity is awry.

I grew up with three brothers and a Dad who was always there for me. They all embody my idea of traditional masculinity. Steady, stoic (is there something wrong with being stoic?), sensitive but not given to over-emotionalism, dutiful, good-humoured and loyal.

For balance the writers do add:

 Not all men are violent, and women can be violent too, but there is overwhelming evidence that family and sexual violence is largely gendered in terms of victimisation, perpetration and impacts.

There had to be a BUT.

Perhaps I shouldn't let this stuff bother me. Maybe it's about a community and culture I don't understand. But a gut feeling persists that government intervention only drives a wedge between men and women. For instance, with benefit-dependence dressed up as female financial independence, many boys have grown up in homes without fathers, exposed to disinterested non-fathers or their mother's anti-male attitudes. The wedge between male and female is driven yet deeper leading to a greater gulf in the next generation.

Here we are today. Feminists still waving the gender inequality banner as a reason for male violence when it's feasible that decades-long policy changes made in the name of feminism have actually fueled the problem.

And you know why we get all this tosh from the public service - yes, you are paying for it - Because of traditional masculinity. Thinking men just switch off, stolidly take it on the chin, and peacefully retreat a little more into their self-imposed quietude...

Politicising personal tragedy

My personalized latest e-mail from Jacinda says:

Over the last 15 months, we have been through a lot together - a terrorist attack, a volcanic eruption, a global pandemic and now its ensuing financial crisis - and I am truly thankful to each and every one of you for all you’ve done to support each other through difficult these times.

If I had personally experienced the terrorist attack or volcanic eruption - directly or through family - I'd be thoroughly pissed off with the universalizing of these events.

It diminishes the pain, the very private intense pain that was endured.

Jacinda is quite crude and cruel in her disregard for this.

She co-opts events for her gain.

I'd be ashamed to stand behind such a statement.

Highest dole number ever

There are now over 200,000 people on the Jobseeker/Covid relief payment. In absolute terms, a historical high.

In June 2010 there were 62,085 - the peak after the GFC

In June 1992 there were 170,367 - the peak after early 1990s recession

The last number represented 6.6% of the working-age population compared to 6.3% currently

(There may have been a higher quarterly number during 1992/93 but I've used June as the reference month.)

Now, there is another caveat. During the welfare reforms the Sickness Benefit was folded into the Jobseeker Benefit. Adjusting for that:

In June 2010 the combined total would be 120,550
In June 1992 the combined total would be 190,514

Lastly, today's Jobseeker also includes some sole parents with children older than 14 but I do not have sufficient information to make that adjustment.

As David Seymour pointed out today, it is a bleak milestone to pass.

"Babies lives matter"

How often is this 'lives matter' phrase going to be conveniently co-opted?

The latest version is from a group called Wahine Maori, a collection of high profile Maori women who continue to call for the resignation of the head of Oranga Tamariki and the Children's minister.

Seems Newshub is doing a hatchet job on Grainne Moss with lengthy investigations into her background and suitability to head up OT; complaints from current and former CYF/OT workers about the workplace culture, "bullying"  and fudging of stats. That is not an exhaustive list.

I am in no position to know the truth. Indeed individuals have their own 'truth'.

I don't implicitly trust journalists. Neither do I automatically trust  civil servants.

Perhaps the ongoing conflict is best summed up by these two views.

Head of OT responding to the Children's Commissioner investigation into the uplift of Maori babies:

“...although the role of the Children’s Commissioner is to support and advocate for the welfare of children, the report has focused on the experience of their mothers, and remains silent on the interest of their babies”.

And then, Mere Mangu, the CEO of the largest Iwi in Aotearoa, in an affidavit filed in the Waitangi Tribunal stated: “To me this statement demonstrates a very profound misunderstanding of our Tikanga and of the role of wāhine as mothers. It is of great offence to us that pēpi can be taken from their mothers in such callous, brutal and inhumane ways, let alone taken at all. In our tikanga, one cannot separate the interests of pēpi from the interests of their mothers. They share a sacred bond, which should not be so readily interfered with. They are intertwined biologically, spiritually, and by whakapapa.”

I wonder how long this standoff can continue?

Support for Greens wealth grab contorted

From this morning's DomPost, here's the manager of the Auckland's Women's Centre supporting the Greens 'wealth reduction to increase welfare' policy:

If the Government is trying to break up relationships and keep us single, isolated and lonely, it could hardly have designed a more effective social security system than the current one.
If you lose your job and have a partner in paid full-time work, your Jobseeker entitlement is kore, zero, zilch, zip. Nothing. You and your partner are both supposed to be able to live on one wage, even if it’s the minimum wage.
The income support available for people in relationships is even worse than the dire levels the Government imposes on single people. If you have kids, you may get family tax credits, and if you’re “lucky” (i.e. without savings but still paying high rent), you may get some help with housing costs, but only if you meet strict criteria.

At the end of May there were 344,000 accommodation supplements being paid. Traditionally about 80% go to beneficiaries. Contrary to the writer's implication, most people on benefits get help with housing costs.

Here at Auckland Women’s Centre, we know of couples who can’t afford to keep living together so separate. Thus in one fell swoop, the Government causes heartbreak and worsens the housing crisis.Meanwhile, many sole parents (mostly women) are forced to forego the potential loving support of a partner, or risk not meeting their children’s basic needs...

 It is time to scrap this unfair policy that was designed over 80 years ago. The Greens' new income support policy would do that, and I hope we’ll see other parties also addressing this important issue in their announcements to come.

The Greens new policy will increase support for a sole parent by $110 a week and substantially increase child tax credits. That will incentivise couples to split up and single parents to stay single.

The right to individual entitlement is about women’s right to be financially independent. 

Reliance on the taxpayer is not financial independence.

There's a lot more bollocks about the "patriarchal society where economic scales are already tipped in favour of men", "the law doesn’t know anything about feminism", and "systems beyond the control of individuals: colonisation, structural racism and migrant worker exploitation."

Still it's not really her fault. You can't get through a degree in social work or social policy without being brain-numbed by this bullshit.

Stepfamily report gets a solid hearing

Peter Williams on Magic Talk picked up on my report and read it. Invited onto his programme at 9.30  this morning, I listened from the top of the hour  wondering what there would be left for me to say! He quoted from it extensively and I am eternally grateful to him. The calls started immediately and never let up through to noon.

Many people had a story and they didn't whitewash it. The family complexity outlined in the report was mirrored in the myriad of circumstances related. The caller just before me "personified the research findings" (as I pointed out) having traveled through step relationships from childhood to parenthood. Now on his own second go at parenthood, but with animosities with the ex (and ex's new useless partner) ongoing and various children suffering from these.

From being children of failed relationships to being being parents in failed relationships; the inter-generational link was very evident.

A single parent who had consciously decided to not repartner due to the difficulties she foresaw.

A grandparent raising grandchildren due to her own child's two failed  relationships.

A Maori kuia explaining whananga, trying to teach the young people ("we don't have a word 'step'") while giving unconditional love regardless of their mistakes.

A brief debate between callers about degenerating morality which gave pause for thought. Procreative morality has certainly slipped in respect of some fathers feeling no sense of responsibility for their offspring, especially on the back of Labour welfare reforms whereby mothers on a benefit no longer have to name them. Whereas other moral spheres have probably improved eg intolerance to domestic violence.

A wicked stepmother story featuring an ageing high profile father remarrying a much younger women who was determinedly keeping the father away from his sons and grandchildren, and succeeding for years.

A stepfather who had taken on two children who was being sued by the biological father because the stepfather wasn't giving him access - surprisingly, quite justifiably. Just so many convoluted scenarios.

But a general sense emerged that  greater commitment to their relationship was needed between couples. For their children's sake if not for their own. One woman said, "Fight it out, talk it out or cry it out." But make the relationship bigger and more important than the problem at hand.

Another said occasionally she loathed the sight of her husband but she understood that happiness comes in waves. It isn't there constantly. He held on to her when she was about to let go and vice versa.

My own oral contribution wasn't the catalyst. I'm a better writer than verbal communicator.

But it was massively rewarding just to get people talking publicly, sharing their experiences and most importantly, what they learned from them.

Someone will have connected with someone this morning and maybe somewhere a penny dropped.

New report says NZ needs better data on stepfamilies

Many children’s lives today are marked by family turmoil. They live with parents who experience multiple relationship transitions leading to fractured family and friend networks, changes of neighbourhoods and schools. These children live with loss and torn loyalties which may affect them into adulthood. Yet, surprisingly little is known about the nature and parameters of the problem in New Zealand.

The Challenges Facing Children in Stepfamilies: What we know, don't know, and how to fill the gaps - a new report from Family First - gathers together local and international research into the experiences and outcomes for children in stepfamilies. The greater the number of transitions experienced, the worse the child outcomes tend to be. These include greater risks of poor educational achievement, poverty, behavioural problems, anxiety, early exit from home, poor adult relationships and incarceration.

Whereas early last century stepfamilies generally formed through remarriage after the death of a spouse, today de facto or marriage dissolution, or an early unintended birth to a single mother and later partnering, are more likely pathways. Rates of multi partner fertility (MPF) – men and women having children with more than one partner - are increasing internationally.

Report author Lindsay Mitchell was however frustrated at the lack of New Zealand data. "Unlike other English-speaking nations New Zealand does not collect information about stepfamilies in the national Census. Surveys and longitudinal studies provide some data but that is comparatively sketchy and dated.  Growing Up in New Zealand data shows that 17 percent of mothers experience 1-4 relationship transitions between pregnancy and when their child is 4.5 years. But this is an under-count due to sample attrition and methodology shortcomings."

To this end the paper makes four recommendations about how to collect better data using existing surveys and longitudinal studies in order to substantially improve our knowledge.

"We hope that a Prime Minister and government that have prioritised making New Zealand the 'best place in the world to raise children' will adopt these recommendations. Understanding what is driving children’s well-being (or otherwise) is fundamental to any country’s future. If there are shortfalls that can be made up, or circumstances that can be avoided, we can only go forward from a position of knowledge."