When the DPB was first proposed it had a very simple purpose, to allow mothers to leave abusive relationships, to allow them to protect their children from beatings, alcoholism and psychological abuse. It was intended to ensure that those children would have a real chance at a healthy and happy life. It did not, and could not, provide true equality to children raised in single parent households, but it could try.
Since then the DPB has changed, it is not exclusively for the children of solo mums, or exclusively for the children of an abusive parent. It remains true, however, to its original goal: ensuring that children in single parent households have a real chance, that their disadvantage is minimised.
Children in households dependent on the DPB have three key sources of disadvantage: financial (the DPB is well below the average income of a household with children), parenting (two loving parents can provide more than one in many ways), and acceptance (many people will negatively judge a child of a home “on welfare”). The parents in these homes, by and large, try their level best to give their children the opportunities that most other kids have.
One of the options for children in two parent homes is a stay-at-home parent: a parent who focusses their energy on creating a supportive, stimulating, warm and loving home. Many families scrimp and save to achieve this, and many make other choices with both parents working to gain other advantages for their children. But two parent homes have that choice, their children of two parent homes have that option.
With a change in the DPB forcing the solo parent to work that option has been taken away from the children. One of the precious pieces of equality will be taken from some of our most vulnerable children.
The DPB, as it was first created and as it continues today, is decidedly New Testament where a child should not be punished for the sin of the parents. No child should be disadvantaged because one of their parents was violent, or left the other. No child should be disadvantaged by the breakdown of their parents’ relationship.
The changes proposed by National are decidedly Old Testament; the sins of the father will be visited upon the children, and upon the children’s children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.
Anita.
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
rOb
Anita made her own points to justify her reaction to what I wrote. You might have noticed as a result of that there was dialogue and I think both of us have made some interesting points.
You didn’t do that, or even clarify what you were meaning by strange. However all that aside, I’ll think about it next time and also leave that offensive ‘M’ word out. The comment you refer to had that word and was also moderated.
You didn’t do that, or even clarify what you were meaning by strange.
Sorry B, I was and am a bit short of time today, I shouldn’t have been commenting at all let alone writing epics!
burt,
In a society with relative equality of income distribution then leaving the funding up to the family would be mostly equitable.
But in our society, with its wide division between haves and have nots, if we leave the financial obligation with the family then there is massive inequity – some children start off with a pretty huge disadvantage.
So yes, I’m not entirely comfortable with entangling the state in the purses of our families, but it seems fairer than setting up some children to fail.
To come back, for a moment, to the quote from Exodus I used in my post: is it fair that the disadvantage of poverty of a father should be inflicted on his children, grandchildren and great grandchildren?
Anita, the Israelities in Exodus, with their strong solidarity, knew that good and evil affected whole families, not just individuals.
Anita
Is it fair – that’s an interesting question.
Looking around us, the low level of GRI that is paid is making elderly people sell their assets (reverse mortgages etc) so wealth is not accumulated over generations. So current govt policies are saying that it’s OK and the way it should be.
Are you asking in the wider sense? – because in a completely broad all encompassing context NO, It’s not fair. It’s also not a certainty that it will happen. There are many examples of people who have made significant economic progress in either direction. Starting from poverty and ending with wealth and vise a versa. So I don’t quiet see how DPB can be presented as one of the significant mitigations to stop poverty being perpetuated. I think there is an equally valid position that welfare creates an economic outpatient mentality where there is a livable safety net so why strive for more. But your position and the contra position are hopelessly generalised and pretty much just partisan talking points.
The real issue is how people spend their money, what priorities they have, what values they have and how those priorities and values are supported or diminished by whatever mechanism we actually use.
Anita
Setting children up to fail – I don’t get that bit.
Parents that don’t want the best for their children are few and far between. These people put their own interest before the children to the extent that that can murder their own. I don’t understand these people so I’ll exclude them in the context of what I’m saying. Poor parents don’t fail their children, a system that allows the same mistakes to be perpetuated fails the children. Student loans have possibly done more to break the low income poverty cycle than any other policy. Interest free loans (excluding the logical consequence of people borrowing to invest) is also possibly a big mitigation of the poverty trap.
Entangling the state in the purses of families can only increase the likelihood of failure. Convenience of administration always diminishes flexibility. We simply cannot have a welfare value inspector checking every spending decision unless we provide some high tech voucher/card system with extensive audits. The only option we have is to carry the dead weight of welfare abuse. People will always work the system so targeted or means tested benefits provide a quagmire of bureaucracy and wastage, as we see today. Everybody gets less so that some people can profit from dishonesty.
However I would support a universal allowance paid to every NZ citisen over the high school leaving age. With a universal child allowance paid to parents while children are under school leaving age. If everybody gets it then it’s not a political point scoring device come election time.
Now what add ons would you sell me?
dad4justice
August 13, 2008 at 8:21 pm
“Anita, the Israelities in Exodus, with their strong solidarity, knew that good and evil affected whole families, not just individuals.”
Whoa dude.
Not that I have many prejudices but… I consider anyone who states that they are ‘pro-family’ is actually saying they are anti-gay, pro-life, gun-collecting, bible-bashing, ultra right, rabid and logic-free individuals.
On the same note I really despise Christine Rankin. Sorry to go off topic but she sure is one power dressing haircut with an opinion and over-sized earrings to boot.
Savage nutbar – book yourself in for a standard lobotomy.
[lprent: Please restrain yourself - too many grumpy people around this morning. ]
Savage
Whoa dude I don’t have many prejudices but I consider anyone who thinks that being pro-family is actually saying that they are anti-gay, pro-life, gun-collecting, bible-bashing, ultra right, rabid and logic-free – Is actually an anti-heterosexual, pro-abortion, religion hating, ultra left, tree hugging nutbar.
Oh and apparently you are a misogynist to boot …
“Ruth hasn’t a clue about parenting?” – dad4justice
Am I not the only one who takes issue with that comment?
[lprent: I was a bit flummoxed when I saw it. Ruth was a solo mother from what I remember. You usually have to be a parent and do parenting to raise kids?]
Anita
You must be on magic Mushrooms or seriously politically deluded if you think a speech writer for Ruth Dyson would write that speech without knowing the current direction in which she wants to take her Social Engineering plans.
Why is it you are prepared to accept barefaced lies from Helen & Heather Simpson if National did something like this and pulled it off their website within 2 hours of being questioned about it you would be all over it.
The shame is they are fooling no one everyone can see through it for the lie that it is. Just look around some other blogs and listen to the Radio it has damaged Labour people dont like their Social Engineering and legalising their perversions for their mates
[lprent: Anita has been asking you to provide references - ie links. Quotes (even if accurate) are often meaningless when partially quoted. The best way is to have the link to as close to the source as possible. The press releases like the ones you have been quoting from are almost always up in seek.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4651706a6479.html
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4653465a11.html
That took 3 minutes to do.
Personally I find people that don't post links are usually trying to hide something, if only the minuscule skills. You could and should have done that many comments ago.
I read both press releases and they are reasonably clear. They do not support your opinion. Speech writers do not make policy and often seem to only vaguely to be aware of it. If Dyson had actually said it, then it might have been interesting.
Don't insult other people as you did above just because you cannot support your own argument. ]
And the Tories stay true to form with this policy
hs:
There is a subtle but crucial difference between what Savage wrote (“anyone who states that they are ‘pro-family’ “) and what you responded to (“being pro-family”).
I think Savage was referring to ProFamily™ which is a phrase that is often used to disguise the type of hatred and bigotry described.
A bit like HardworkingKiwi™ or MainstreamNZ™ – they’re largely meaningless terms which could, if used literally, be applied to almost anyone. However they’re almost never actually used literally. They are used to exclude a secondary group from the definition, not to describe the primary group.
Rob,
Firstly, as someone who has worked in the public Service, I am absolutely sure it is possible for a public servant to write a speech without knowing what the Minister thinks.
Secondly, the point I made was that your comment was inaccurate (again). I made no comment on Dyson or the speech.
Thirdly, the insult is unnecessary IMHO – I play a pretty clean game here, it would be polite to do the same in return.
Finally, if I were to respond to your second paragraph it would be to ask for references (again) it looks grossly inaccurate (again).
burt,
Awesome comments which deserve a proper reply when I get home this evening!
burt,
I reckon (based on no empirical evidence, any idea where I’d find some?) that children born of wealthy parents are more likely to end up wealthy than those born of middle-income parents. Similarly children of poor parents are more likely to end up poor than the children of middle-income parents.
If that assumption is right then one can make a coherent argument that the DPB, by alleviating the poverty of single parent families (which is, on average, significantly worse than that of two parent families) significantly improves the chances of the children.
Sadly the situation isn’t as simple as I just pretended
Intergenerational poverty is complicated by intergenerational poor educational achievement and illiteracy, poorer employment related networks, etc etc. So for many kinds of poverty addressing the other of the issues is just as important as addressing the financial stress.
I think, however, that the DPB is probably a clearer case for financial support making a big difference all by itself. For a start many people on the DPB have relatively high educational achievements, they would have a relatively well paying job if they weren’t sole parenting. Secondly the direct financial disadvantage of a single parent household as compared to a two parent household should be directly addressed.
Dear Anita, at least the velvet underground sisterhood has made us GOLD Medalist’s in child abuse and infanticide.
I reckon (based on no empirical evidence, any idea where I’d find some?) that children born of wealthy parents are more likely to end up wealthy than those born of middle-income parents.
Anita, see this OECD data.
Or try “Moving from rags to riches is harder in more unequal countries”, or this brief article in the Guardian, and see this depressing stuff on income inequality in NZ.
burt,
re: setting up children to fail
Poverty sets children up to fail in a variety of ways, for example:
1) Poverty leads to poor quality housing leads to health problems leads to poor educational outcomes leads to poorly paid jobs leads to poverty.
2) Poverty leads to poor quality food leads to poor nutrition leads to poor health problems and poor educational outcomes …
3) Poverty leads to financial stress preventing full integration into society leads to limited social networks leads to disadvantaged work seeking and access to support services.
4) Poverty leads to financial stress preventing travel leads to disintegration of extended family networks leads to loss of effective role models …
and so on.
I’d totally buy your universal allowance idea. I’d also want policies and legislation to make more flexible employment available, acknowledgement of and space for the wide variety of families and family responsibilities that actually exist in our societies (let’s talk about some amazingly involved cousins, honorary aunts and so on), and access to free relevant supportive education for everyone. That’s just for starters
Just a lot of wank,as can be expected from a blog that isn’t in any way in breach of the vile EFA,insert tui here.Why don’t they just sort out the shambles known as the CSA,(how many billions are owed now?),or at least act on the intentions of the Act and start regarding the children first instead of just reclaiming DPB payments
[lprent: Bad graffiti artist. ]