Large welfare families

July 15th, 2012 at 12:00 pm by David Farrar

The HoS reports:

Taxpayers are forking out $2000-plus a week to a select group of benefit-dependent parents with more than 10 children.

Official figures show that twelve families on have 10 or more kids, receiving a range of top-up payments on top of their average of nearly $1000 a week.

It would be interesting to see how many families there are with more than 10 children who are not on welfare. A generation ago there would have been quite a few. Jim Bolger had nine kids for example. I suspect far fewer today. Even the Catholics seem to manage to restrict themselves to four or five kids – Vatican roulette must have got better over the years :-)

As for the 12 families on welfare with over 10 kids, what I’d be interested in is whether the kids came before or after they were on welfare. If one parent died, then their surviving partner would go onto welfare with the kids. That is how it should be (although I would recommend life insurance for parents with large families). But if a family has had 11 or more kids, and the parents have never been in the workforce – that is not a good thing.

“There’s two words we don’t use often enough in this country and that’s self-responsibility,” Bennett told the Herald on Sunday. “The size of someone’s family is their business, so long as they don’t expect someone else to pay for it.”

Absolutely. So long as the parents are capable of providing for their family, it is no one’s business how many kids they have. However if you are already unable to provide for your existing kids, and you choose to have more – then the taxpayer does take an interest.

The data, released by the Ministry of Social Development under the Official Information Act, shows there are 143 parents on Work and Income’s payroll who have eight or more children and receive basic payments of $7 million a year, plus supplements.

There are more than 3000 large families with five children or more on the benefit. One-third have been on the benefit for more than five years and 430 for more than 10 years.

This is what the recent welfare reforms are designed to reduce – long-term welfare dependency.

Bennett said there were some people, such as grandparents and foster carers, who had taken children into their care who were doing a valuable duty for the community – but others who were taking advantage of the system.

Yep, need to differentiate.

But beneficiary advocate and former Green MP Sue Bradford said everyone would be better off if beneficiaries received more money.

Umm, except taxpayers I presume. I would also dispute that keeping people on welfare is good for those families long-term.

Tags: ,

72 Responses to “Large welfare families”

  1. Mr_Blobby (157 comments) says:

    Happy that as an employer, I don’t have to pay my staff based on the number of children they have.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Harriet (4,723 comments) says:

    “….Vatican roulette must have got better over the years…”

    Lets look at Muslim immigration in Australia and Eurasia and see the level of POVERTY -by NZ’s left standards- and prevent that from happening here with a family starting with just 2 kids.

    Male Muslim youth from particular Muslim countries in Australia have an average of 5 yrs on the unemployment benefit.Nearly ALL Muslim women who immigrate with children NEVER enter the Australian workforce.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. thor42 (971 comments) says:

    John Key and Paula Bennett are **soft**. They will never do anything that will actually work and stop this kind of thing from happening.
    My solution? Announce that as of (say) 1st October, no more people will be accepted for the DPB. Doing that would guarantee that the numbers would go down.
    After that, announce that no-one under 20 gets the dole. Put a three-month time limit on it, and **no right of refusal** for any job that comes along for which you are suited.

    [DPF: Abolishing the DPB would reduce the number of sole parents. But having babies die of starvation is unlikely to be a popular policy]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. thor42 (971 comments) says:

    Btw, I agree with Harriet. I wouldn’t mind betting that a number of these huge families on the benefit are Muslims. That is definitely the case in the UK, and it is probably no different here.

    There is ***no way*** around it, folks. Time limits for benefits. I don’t care if you are a dopehead from the Coromandel or a Muslim immigrant – you get “x” months and then you’re off. End of story.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Mark (1,462 comments) says:

    There seems to be something in this blog that brings out the prejudices of a few. WTF did Farrar say here that lead this conversation to Muslim youth unemployment?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. jims_whare (401 comments) says:

    What would be interesting would be to see how many of these families are single vs 2 parent families.

    From my own experience (youngest of 12 kids – non catholic) my folks worked darned hard to feed us when we grew up.

    My mum was an op shopoholic and believed in hand me downs + 3 vege gardens. My dad ran his own small farm and worked off farm at times as well.

    We never had a lot when growing up but was still a lot of fun!. ( I can’t complain about the size of the family as I’d be the first to get the chop!)

    My folks were never on the dole apart from getting family support payments when they qualified??

    As to being a burden on the state basicly this is how they all turned out:

    Self Employed Contractor/Teacher/Missionary/Nurse/Farm Supervisor/Farmer/Nanny/Doctor/Polytech Director/Vet/Farmer+Cop.

    Throw in around 30 odd grand kids and thats the tribe so far.

    Big families can work if the parents see it as their mission in life to rear their kids properly – I feel sorry for the deadbeats who see kids as a free money spinner.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Longknives (4,686 comments) says:

    “Sue Bradford said everyone would be better off if beneficiaries received more money.”

    The pokie machines certainly would be….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Northland Wahine (660 comments) says:

    Longknives… so would finance companies and shop at home trucks.

    Yet no one, no one at all twist their arms to join up with ths guys.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Mark (497 comments) says:

    I would hate to see how these families think that’s it’s a good idea to have so many children and live on welfare.

    They have doomed thier children to a life of failure, just like Sue Bradford.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Manolo (13,517 comments) says:

    The parasites and bludgers like to reproduce at someone else’s expense. They are scum.
    Their children are doomed to repeat the cycle.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    And these are just the scariest statistics. They seem to confirm that long-term welfare dependency is a relatively small problem.

    Like Mark above, I’m wondering how Harriet and thor42 made the leap to this being a Muslmi problem. WTF?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. hj (6,794 comments) says:

    Someone on a Green Party Population discussion howled about “cultural imperialism” when the subject of large families came up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. hj (6,794 comments) says:

    @ mikenmild (5,063) Says:

    yes it’s prejudice if it is wrong but not if it is right. But checking (as in officially recording) would be racism or “bashing”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Bob R (1,358 comments) says:

    ***But beneficiary advocate and former Green MP Sue Bradford said everyone would be better off if beneficiaries received more money.***

    I would actually support that – on the condition that ongoing entitlements are linked to contraception use. This could be done via contraceptive shots before payment. I wish the govt would consider this and take the issue seriously.

    http://kidshealth.org/teen/sexual_health/contraception/contraception_depo.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. smttc (721 comments) says:

    Mikenmild, you and I seem to live on different planets.

    I do not regard 3000 large families on a benefit, one third for 5 years or more and 430 for 10 years plus as “a relatively small problem”. It is a big problem because all these people are seemingly locked into long term welfare dependency and are set to be a big problem for the taxpayer.

    Like Bradford, you obviously don’t see the taxpayer funding all this as a problem.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    Well, I expect it to be the biggest problem this government will attempt to address, with its promised crackdown. That doesn’t mean it’s an enormous issue overall though.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Harriet (4,723 comments) says:

    thor 42

    Governments role is really about ‘maintainence of the normal’ mum dad and the kids. We arn’t planning on winding up the economy anytime soon by stopping to breed, or disallowing those of working age to immigrate here.

    It is best for government to concentrate on those that work and what that means to society as a whole, and as individuals – as working is the only way an individual can maintain his ‘normal’ – even for gays and other narssicists like drug addicts.All policy should be based around the asumption that all people work or are going to in the very near future.

    The unemployment benefit was based upon this notion when it was first introduced.So too was ACC.So to was education at all it’s levels.Health policy is mostly about getting people into a state of being physicly and mentaly active – working in paid or unpaid jobs is seen as the best state of ‘normal’ here.

    Everything that government is, does, says, is built on the fact that people work and pay taxes so that government exists, it therefor follows that governments role is at best maintaining this ‘normal’.It is not ‘normal’ for government to see those who don’t work or pay taxes as contibuting to society – as health and education policy says they are not contributing to themselves without working[university education is seen as working].

    Those who don’t want to work and those who harbour them, advocates like Bradford, are nothing but anarcists against the running of a government and country that is running at it’s best when people are working and in a ‘normal’ state.

    Running a country based around the idea that ‘normal’ is mum, dad and the kids working to get ahead is easy. Just ask John Howard – or Australia’s Unions – who mostly operate in the private sector. NZ listens too much to PS Unions, advocates for single mums and the divorced, those numbers who prop-up the tax funded employees of these unions with the ‘puzzle’ of solving their complex disfunctional problems.

    Working should be taken for granted as being normal for anyone with kids.And any public servant who states otherwise should be fired.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Manolo (13,517 comments) says:

    Free welfare money, exactly like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luo40WjBKWI

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. kowtow (8,091 comments) says:

    Sorry folks we’re all about equality these days.

    Equality demands that all people are treated equally.So if you have one kid or 15 equality must apply.

    There can be no discrimination against anyone.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Reid (16,170 comments) says:

    Like Bradford, you obviously don’t see the taxpayer funding all this as a problem.

    The funding of it is the least problem. I don’t personally care about the relatively trivial amount of cash this particular issue consumes, it’s the principle I care about.

    The principle is: personal responsibility.

    One of Bradford’s other comments in that article is: “Do the maths on it and have a bit of compassion. Anyone who calculates how much it costs to feed and clothe those kids will know how hard it is,” she said.

    In other words, it’s the taxpayer’s fault for not being generous enough and the solution, in Bradford’s mind, is to give them enough so they can have a comfortable lifestyle. I’m not sure what, in her mind, would be “enough” but let’s assume it would be enough so they could fund themselves a nice mortgage on a house in say, Greenlane and send their kids to EGGS and Grammar. Let’s assume that would be the target, in Bradford’s mind.

    She used to be a politician. This person used to make laws that operate in the real world. Honestly her mind is so incredibly warped and twisted its hard to begin to explain the flaws in her thinking. The worst part about it is in my mind, her complete and utter failure to recognise that any parent who chooses to bring up a child on welfare is by definition a person lacking the most elementary sense of compassion. Bringing another person into the world where they are bought up with nothing more than welfare, when it’s a chosen lifestyle, is not an act of love it’s an act of hate. A child whose parent is on welfare is not only deprived of most material things like memberships in clubs, holidays and other experiences that only working people can afford, they are also emotionally deprived because they don’t get any of the role modelling that comes from parents who work to provide for their children. Thus they themselves are likely to grow up with warped and twisted attitudes and lo, big surprise, we see this now, don’t we, with multi-generations of tragic excuses for proper human beings. If the left love the poor so very much, then why do they keep coming up with policies that only serve to enslave them? I actually think the left hate poor people, they must do. None of their policies do anything to empower them, all of them simply wrap the bonds of slavery tighter and tighter around their necks.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. kowtow (8,091 comments) says:

    2 posters ask why Muslims?

    OK, the Vatican and Catholics was explicitly mentioned by our host in the context of large families in the past.

    Goose / gander.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Other_Andy (2,553 comments) says:

    @mikenmild

    “Like Mark above, I’m wondering how Harriet and thor42 made the leap to this being a Muslmi problem. WTF?”

    Where you also wondering why DPF had to mention Catholics?

    “That doesn’t mean it’s an enormous issue overall though.”

    Financially, in the sheme of things, it might not be an enourmous issue.
    What are we talking about, $150 million a year?
    Morally, try telling a family where both parents are working, taking home $60.000 a year and are paying for those those that will get $100.000 for doing nothing that it is not an enourmous issue.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Other_Andy (2,553 comments) says:

    Kowtow

    *snap*

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Northland Wahine (660 comments) says:

    Be the family large or small, if you can not afford to feed or clothe your children nor possess the skills to do so, ie … have a garden, sew, cook, budget… then not only do you have a financial responsibilty to cut costs, but also a moral one… for your childrens sake.

    I appreciate these basic skills are considered old fashioned. But they should be mandatory.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Harriet (4,723 comments) says:

    Reid #

    Fully agree.

    But Bradford is just one person.

    Half of Wellington are employed because of the same mindset. There are bludgers and then there are bludgers.

    You can’t ever be helped unless you help yourself, so the first thing that needs to be done is to admit you have a problem “I’m not helping myself or my kids because I’m not working” should be shouted at the likes of Bradford.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Other_Andy (2,553 comments) says:

    For the likes of Sue Bradford, may I suggest they form an organisation, “The Bleeding Hearts Club”. Anybody who is a member of the ‘Greens’, Mana or Labour will get automatic membership.
    All members pay an extra tax, of say 50%, to fund their favourite ‘breeders’ and ‘bludgers’.
    All other New Zealanders will receive a proportionate tax cut.
    Sounds fair to me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Reid (16,170 comments) says:

    Half of Wellington are employed because of the same mindset.

    Yeah I agree, it’s frankly shocking to compare the mindset of your average office worker in Auckland to your average office worker in Wellington. Totally different perspectives, in just about every way, and it’s all subconscious.

    I reckon that people should not be allowed to work for a govt dept for more than 15 years in their entire career. It can be broken into several stints at different times in their career cycle but the whole country would be a better place if every single govt worker in this town was forced to spend 2/3rds of their career working outside the govt sector. The dysfunction you get from senior management lifers in this town, is incredible. Half the time is spent on complete bullshit like privacy impact assessments, instead of actually getting things done. And this is what the senior management require, because to them, the politics IS the job, so even when it doesn’t make any sense, these people are apt to design and enforce idiotic processes with built-in inefficiencies, simply because that manages their risk and to them, that’s the only thing that counts. If these people were forced to spend time in the commercial environment when efficiency and profit is the imperative not the politics, the whole country would benefit. They would of course hate this idea because as you say Harriet, their whole mindset is twisted, just like Bradford’s is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    Gee Reid, only allowed to serve my fellow citizens for 15 years? I have so much more to give.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Reid (16,170 comments) says:

    Let someone else have a turn, mm. Just think of the country.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Kimble (4,443 comments) says:

    Let someone else have a turn, mm.

    Thats so brilliant its practically French!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Harriet (4,723 comments) says:

    Reid #

    “…And this is what the senior management……………these people are apt to design and enforce idiotic processes with built-in inefficiencies, simply because that manages their risk…… If these people were forced to spend time in the commercial environment……..They would of course hate this idea because as you say Harriet, their whole mindset is twisted, just like Bradford’s is….”

    If they had jobs in the private sector they would then need to manage their own risk when deciding on what size of family to have…….then they COULD lead by example when dealing with their clients….the divorced and single parents.

    Instead, as you suggest, they spend the best part of what is described as a ‘career’ working out how to get their ‘clients’ to ‘manage’ their ‘own problems’ ‘easier’ than they are ‘now doing’. ‘Targets’ are then ‘meet’ showing that single mums are ‘happy’ with their kids being feed, housed and clothed by the tax payer, and the kids ‘results overall’ at school are ‘satisfactory’ given that they are from ‘disadvantaged’ ‘backgrounds’.

    More like priviliged backgrounds – an entire public service to cater to all their needs at the beck and call from the likes of Bradford.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    Strange Harriet – it’s not my experience of how things work in the public service.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. duggledog (1,478 comments) says:

    What is it with Sue Bradford. I remember all through that carry on about her smacking bill, I was trying to see both sides of the debate.

    She eventually lost me when someone on National Radio finally nailed her down and asked her whether she saw any difference between belting a child with a piece of 4×2 or a smack round the bum. Her answer: ‘No, they are both assault’.

    And that’s the way it is with her. Why anyone even bothers to ask her opinion is beyond me

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Elaycee (4,348 comments) says:

    Reid says: “I reckon that people should not be allowed to work for a govt dept for more than 15 years in their entire career. ”

    You’re right… no argument.

    But can you imagine the howls of outrage from these same ‘public servants’ when they found out that the private sector doesn’t tolerate ‘employees’ who spend most of the working day trolling through blogs, reading unionist propaganda, spending hours viewing internet news sites and scrolling through Google when they should really be engaged in productive work for their employer?

    Nah – they just couldn’t handle it. It’s called responsibility. :P

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Manolo (13,517 comments) says:

    We all love these bludgers, who should multiply even more and lead us to Fourth World status.
    It’s their basic human right, after all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Harriet (4,723 comments) says:

    “…Strange Harriet – it’s not my experience of how things work in the public service…”

    Those in education who were taught in the past to a high standard, and by teachers who set high standards, both personal and educational, have done nothing more than –

    Lift the ladder of success up along with them – after they themselves have climed it.

    Disruptive kids at school should be thrown out of class at every available oppotunity.

    Kids at school in the 50’s and 60’s weren’t disruptive.

    Kids haven’t changed MM.

    It’s the fucken adults who have!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Viking2 (11,332 comments) says:

    kowtow (2,209) Says:
    July 15th, 2012 at 1:53 pm

    2 posters ask why Muslims?

    OK, the Vatican and Catholics was explicitly mentioned by our host in the context of large families in the past.

    Goose / gander.

    There’s more.
    I read yesterday that the Jews and the Mussies are upset at a High court ruling in Germany that says they can no longer circumsize their boys toys. The court has ruled its abuse of a child and assualt.
    This has got their penises in a knot and an unholy alliance of the two arch enemies are going back to court to protect their ancient rites.

    http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-news/jewish-muslim-leaders-blast-german-court-s-decision-to-outlaw-circumcision.premium-1.444174

    https://www.google.com/webhp?btnG=Google+Search#hl=en&gs_nf=1&tok=0J-Ra2cljAcjH5EZJ9wquQ&cp=20&gs_id=28a&xhr=t&q=jews,muslims,+high+court&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&oq=jews,muslims,+high+court&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=6442e3600b798b5d&biw=1024&bih=592&bs=1

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Viking2 (11,332 comments) says:

    Kids at school in the 50′s and 60′s weren’t disruptive.

    I’m old enough to call bullshit on that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Harriet (4,723 comments) says:

    Disruptive kids at schools in the 50’s and 60’s were thrown out of class or canned at every available opportunity.

    Call bullshit on that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. nasska (11,047 comments) says:

    V2

    There were some who wished to be disruptive but they were too bloody scared of the consequences.

    Harriet wasn’t far off the mark when she opined that kids haven’t changed much…..it’s only the nannies preventing any meaningful punishment, the predominance of women in the teaching racket & slack parenting that has changed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. bc (1,357 comments) says:

    More bark but no bite from Paula Bennett. But as this site shows, it sure gets the lapdogs yapping!
    Notice how she does it when the heat is being placed on the government?
    Last time was when Parata was showing her true incompetence.
    Now as the pressure goes on with asset sales, it’s time for Paula again!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Reid (16,170 comments) says:

    Why anyone even bothers to ask her opinion is beyond me

    Because dd, half of the country think she really does stand up for beneficiary rights because beneficiaries are “victims” and if you don’t give every single one of them a great big fluffy cuddle everytime anything related to them is discussed that means by definition you’re a harsh and oppressive meanie who needs re-educating because you’re not thinking properly, your values are all skew-whiff and you just don’t understand anything about how to be a good and loving human being.

    According to my latest data I got last week, 99.78% of the journalists in this country and 109.37% of the lefties in this country are like this (up from 103.67% last month – so it’s rising fast). (Yes I know in conventional stats 100% is all you normally get but we’re through the looking glass here, dd, it’s quantum mechanics territory when you enter the lefty field. Everything changes and the usual rules no longer apply. That’s why it never, repeat never, makes any sense.)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Reid (16,170 comments) says:

    But can you imagine the howls of outrage from these same ‘public servants’ when they found out that the private sector doesn’t tolerate ‘employees’ who spend most of the working day trolling through blogs, reading unionist propaganda, spending hours viewing internet news sites and scrolling through Google when they should really be engaged in productive work for their employer?

    Elaycee in my 6 years in this town, I’ve found public servants are actually as productive as anyone in Auckland and they are all extremely skilled and professional, it’s just they are mis-directed: i.e. they are required by senior management to spend their time on things that don’t matter, rather than on the things that do. Hence they are inefficient. This is not their fault, it’s senior management’s fault.

    My 2:45 should probably more properly be applied only to those wishing to move into senior roles in any govt dept. Let’s say, those interested in the CEO, tier 2 and tier 3 management roles. That’s the level at which the discipline of building in private sector values into their DNA, would bring quantum changes to the entire organisation. But it has to be more than a sabbatical to the commercial sector, like I said, their thinking needs to be 2/3 private, 1/3 govt. It’s no good sending them on a Fulbright scholarship, that changes nothing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    I don’t discern too much difference in fundamental attitudes to work between those in the public and private sectors. The incentives are completely different different however; the absence of the profit motive makes performance in the public sector acutely problematic. While pleasing your masters in a private company usually tends towards commercial success; in the public sector doing the same is much more to be at the direction of ultimately unsuccessful political motivations.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Other_Andy (2,553 comments) says:

    @mikenmild

    “I don’t discern too much difference in fundamental attitudes to work between those in the public and private sectors. The incentives are completely different different however; the absence of the profit motive makes performance in the public sector acutely problematic. While pleasing your masters in a private company usually tends towards commercial success; in the public sector doing the same is much more to be at the direction of ultimately unsuccessful political motivations.”

    Can you translate that from civil servant English into ‘Normal’ English…..?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    In the private sector, performance is measured by the money you make; in the public sector, performance is measured by the people you please – ultimately the politicians.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Manolo (13,517 comments) says:

    Is mikenmild a civil servant and loyal Labour supporter, a comrade to the nth degree? No, he cannot be.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Reid (16,170 comments) says:

    In the private sector, performance is measured by the money you make; in the public sector, performance is measured by the people you please – ultimately the politicians.

    Not wholly accurate mm in terms of in private it tends to be efficiency which is measured by money – no point making a lot of money if your reputation will be trashed by releasing an unreliable product for example – but good analysis of the public sector element.

    And this is my point. That you have people in high positions whose values have been wholly shaped for their entire careers by that dynamic. In fact I’d say to you that almost all people in Wellington govt depts in those CEO and tiers two and three positions are all like that. The stats would be most revealing, and quite simple to gather.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    That’s not to say that such people are not performing useful service; for the most part they are; but the context in which they work inevitably shapes the results.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Reid (16,170 comments) says:

    MM, I’d like to respond but I fear for my Wgtn future if I told you what I really think.

    Suffice to say, I think the SSC could implement a step-change improvement in every single govt dept by developing policies around what we’ve been discussing.

    Remember:

    There is nothing so vigorously defended as a vested interest disguised as an intellectual conviction.

    The incumbents would come up with argument after argument against it. This Nat govt is the only one capable of putting this forward. Liarbore have no business contacts, they have vested interests in bloated public services: i.e. if it’s not done now, it will never be done. And this would be, as I said, a step change for every single dept.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    Imagining that the SSC could implement anything is sort of touching – they never have before.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Harriet (4,723 comments) says:

    “…That’s not to say that such people are not performing useful service; for the most part they are; but the context in which they work inevitably shapes the results….”

    For the most part they are not.

    Police, Military etc are a role of government so of course we need these people – but for the last 20yrs as much as is reasonbly possable within these groups is contracted out to the private sector – the left actually DEMAND this.And the reason is because the private sector does it because they are MORE efficient, so more cheaper.Savings can be made.And the savings made available for the lefts pet causes: Aiding, servicing, patronising and appeasing those who are performing worse.

    Government ‘have’ to help the obese, drunk, addicted, broke shopper, thoughtless pregnant teen, lazy, criminal individuals.

    Simply because political parties on both sides say so.

    If we don’t ‘help’ them, then what’s the worse that could happen MM – private citizens step in like they did in the past ?

    Or has the left in government got a monopoly on kindness ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    I’m really not sure what point you are trying to make about contracting to the private sector.
    When you talk about the government helping people like it is a bad thing; then perhaps you have made a wrong turn.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Psycho Milt (2,401 comments) says:

    If we don’t ‘help’ them, then what’s the worse that could happen MM – private citizens step in like they did in the past ?

    Pretty much. Just out of curiosity, have you ever wondered why we replaced that approach with a public welfare system in the first place?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Harriet (4,723 comments) says:

    If the private sector is cheaper, it then means it is more efficient, which in turn means that public servants are at times, or for some individual public servants, performing duties that are NOT necessery.

    No, I’m not saying that government helping people is a bad thing, what I am saying is that it is NOT nessecery the role of government to help people.In the past people were helped but not by government.Orphanages for example.Pregnant teens helped by churches another.Who’s helping pregnant teens now btw? arn’t they just given money and sent on their way under ‘freedom of choice’?

    And in some cases as I’ve pointed out, government has no need to help – what’s the worst that can happen by having a gambling addiction ? You run out of money each week till you wake up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Joseph Carpenter (213 comments) says:

    Beneficiaries receiving more than $2,000 a week? F.. me thats equivalent to earning over $146,000+ a year! How many taxpayers in NZ are working their bloody arses off for a fraction of that? Is this truly the state of the “Welfare State” St. Michael (the Savage) wanted, Jesus wept, talk about perverse incentives. Seriously, NZ simply can’t afford this.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. KH (694 comments) says:

    And we keep hearing of 16 people living in a house. Supposed to be terrible. But those telling us this never seem to want to tell us what is the combined benefit income of the 16.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. NeutralObserver (93 comments) says:

    Gone from large welfare families to the inefficiency of the public sector, love the logic. Maybe H is right and we should leave everything to the private sector – there must be a few London Bankers and mid west mortgage brokers looking for work who would love to have a crack at running the welfare state. Bet they’d do a great job, super efficient. Can I turn this augment on its head Maybe NZers need to face the fact that the great failure of the last 30 years is the abject failure of the NZ private sector to take advantage as one of the most internationally recognized best practice light handed regulatory environments around and simply cannot match their international competitors. We still rely on dead meat, milk and logs for the vast majority of our income, and the private sector seem incapable here of matching the innovation, ideas, hard work of other OECD private sectors. Maybe it’s the private sector which needs to raise its game (more cheaper??..Jesus no wonder we are rooted)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Cactus Kate (549 comments) says:

    Joseph carpenter says it best.
    Have 9 kids that you will never afford or educate yourself enough to be the very few who earn $150k+ in the workforce?
    That’s the career choice for young women which is why welfare is unsustainable in NZ
    Well done HoS for reminding the country again.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Redbaiter (8,217 comments) says:

    “DPF: Abolishing the DPB would reduce the number of sole parents. But having babies die of starvation is unlikely to be a popular policy”

    So all babies born in countries where there is no DPB die in poverty?

    Like Singapore right Mr. Farrar?

    Gawd, what a disgrace to its founders the National Party has become.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    It would be interesting know how many of these families are sole parent. And while personal responsibility is called for, it’s nearly always the males (the vast majority of the commenters here) who run from it after sweet talking their way into a woman’s (or womens) bed.

    JK himself, that demigod of PMs, once said 100 million is chump change. 150 mil is just a bit chumpier!

    Just look after the kids, give them the best education we can, and reap the benefits (sorry about the accidental pun). As Bernard Hickey said in the same rag, we need a higher birth rate. I know this will coma as a surprise to many here, but there ain’t no free lunch when it comes to increasing our birth rate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Psycho Milt (2,401 comments) says:

    As Bernard Hickey said in the same rag, we need a higher birth rate.

    Not necessarily. People tend to raise kids who turn out much like themselves, so we definitely don’t need or want a higher birth rate among the stupid, the lazy, the incompetent and the malicious, or among sufferers of foetal alcohol syndrome, poverty, neglect and abuse. Kids with sole parents on a benefit are at a higher risk for all of the above, and that’s exactly where we’ve got the higher birth rate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. big bruv (13,650 comments) says:

    “Like Singapore right Mr. Farrar?”

    Ah yes, Singapore, that bastion of freedom.

    The country where each news bulletin (on state run TV) starts with ‘Today our glorious givovernment…..’

    I find it laughable that anybody who talks about freedom would use Singapore as an example of how to do anything.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Bogusnews (475 comments) says:

    If I was the (not so) benign dictator for a year in NZ the benefit culture would be the first thing to be worked on.

    My approach would be this: by the end of this year there would be NO NEW dpb cases. Full stop, two exclamation marks. Those currently on the benefit could stay on it for (say) three years. This would give them enough time to get some new qualifications.

    I would further make parents financially liable for their kids behaviour until they were about 19 or 20. So if your young adult is out robbing and stealing cars, you the parent have to appear in the dock with him to explain yourself.

    I think the earlier commenters who talked about the dreaded swear words “personal responsibility” hit the nail on the head.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    Oh yes, penalising the already vulnerable by refusing to help them would be great.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. RRM (9,737 comments) says:

    One of my bosses is an almost-retired catholic chap who had a traditional massive family.

    They weren’t all at home at the same time though, his youngest are the same age as his eldest grandchildren.

    Nice if you can figure out the key to one awesome income that can pay for it all.

    (I don’t know if I’d want to be a constantly-pregnant housewife though…)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. mister nui (1,016 comments) says:

    You’re right to a certain extent bruv, re Singapore not being a bastion of freedom.

    But, It. Works.

    The only system that does work is a benevolent dictatorship, such as Singapore. No buying votes through thieving money off you through the tax system, then give it back to you as an inducement for your vote.

    You wouldn’t complain about an effective tax rate of just over 10% on your first 200 nicker, would you?

    Druggies, murderers and rapists swinging from ropes.

    Booming economy, who aren’t scared to tell the greenies to fuck off when they get in the way of development.

    I for one would have a bit of that here…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Elaycee (4,348 comments) says:

    @Bogusnews: The terms ‘personal responsibility’ and ‘political left’ are mutually exclusive.

    So no surprises that the most vocal opponents of the principle called ‘personal responsibility’ are those who make a career out of living off other people’s money.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. mister nui (1,016 comments) says:

    Oh yes, penalising the already vulnerable by refusing to help them would be great.

    And the lefts policies of raising taxes, such as the ETS, is helping the vulnerable milky?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Paulus (2,586 comments) says:

    The Wellington Public Service IS a mindset.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. RRM (9,737 comments) says:

    This leftie would like to see the DPB have an absolute cap on it… WELL under $2,000 pw… just sayin’…

    There are plenty of ways a young mother can find herself temporarily in real crap, and the village should certainly play a role in helping them.

    But there is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY that families of worthless breeders / eaters should be getting the equivalent of $146,000 given to them for sitting at home eating and breeding. It’s not impossible to work and earn money in New Zealand. Fucking lazy parasites.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. KevinH (1,191 comments) says:

    On the subject of financial assistance to families, the following is an indication of how much support the tax payer provides:

    Expenditure on the Domestic Purposes Benefit 2009/2010 : $2.037 billion.( MSD) :
    http://statistical-report-2010.msd.govt.nz/main+benefits/domestic+purposes+benefits/expenditure+%96+domestic+purposes+benefits

    Expenditure on Working for Families 2011/2012 : $2.8 billion. (Treasury) :
    http://www.treasury.govt.nz/budget/2011/execsumm/11.htm

    Therefore with consideration to the above information it is fair and reasonable to state that New Zealand is generous and non discriminatory, in it’s support of families.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.