Helping kids in need
September 12th, 2012 at 12:00 pm by David FarrarAndrea Vance at Stuff reports:
Parents face having their benefits slashed in half if they don’t send their children to school or early childhood education centres and enrol them with a doctor.
They must also complete basic health checks.
Social development minister Paula Bennet has just announced new ‘social obligations’ which she says will give kids a better start in life. …
From July next year all beneficiary parents must ensure their children:
* attend 15 hours a week Early Childhood Education (ECE) from age 3
* attend school from age five or six
* enrol with a General Practitioner
* complete core WellChild/Tamariki Ora checks
If they don’t, a ”graduated sanction process” will allow three warnings before they face a cut of up to 50 per cent.
People say we need to do something about child poverty. I believe this will do more to help a lot of vulnerable children, than almost any other measure.
If the taxpayer is providing money to parents specifically for the purpose of raising children, then it is not unreasonable to have a requirement that the kid go to (free*) school, get their (free) medical check ups and attend (also free or close to it) at least 15 hours of ECE.
The three warnings regime means the stick will only be used as a last resort.
A case can be made that this requirement be extended to any family that receives family tax credits through Working for Families.
* free in this context means to the parent
Related posts:
- New definitions of “free”
- After smacking, tuckshops and showers, now it is your number of kids
- Free computers to school kids
- Government School Rating Website
September 12th, 2012 at 12:13 pm
What a sad sick little country we have become when the Gumint has to treaten sanctions against parents for not doing what animals in the wild do for their off spring.
Think about it you left wing supporters. Animals in the wild look after their off srping better than thousands of so called human beings in NZ.
These same so called human beings get paid significant amounts of money to look after their kids. Betcha if I was let loose on the so called poverty famililes I would find most wasting their money on everything and anything rather than caring for their kids.
the solution is take the kids off the waste of oxygens at birth and give them to the thousands of good couples who cant have their own and spend 10s of thousands on treatment to try and have children.
And then sterilise and castrate the wastes of oxygen so they cant breed anymore.
Problem solved.
Vote:September 12th, 2012 at 12:15 pm
Deadbeat parents will be deadbeat parents until the end of time.
Vote:Those savage individuals do not deserve a dollar in assistance.
September 12th, 2012 at 12:15 pm
It will not work, there are too many parents who have grown up expecting to live on the dole etc in a state house where buying booze etc comes first, second and third.
Vote:Want to break the cycle send kids to GOOD boarding schools at the age of six.
September 12th, 2012 at 12:20 pm
I can’t believe Bennett did not front this morning and just let Ardern and the Greens get away with that bullshit argument about the WFF tax credit.
The reason children of beneficiaries are being targeted is because they are over-represented in the group of parents whose children do not go to the doctor or pre-school or school. And Red Radio just let all the knockers get away with this bullshit argument.
Vote:September 12th, 2012 at 12:21 pm
David Shearer has just answered a Live Chat question on this:
So he’s not arguing against it, but make a valid point – early childhood education needs to be readily available.
Vote:September 12th, 2012 at 12:28 pm
Rights/Obligations
Vote:about fuckin time
September 12th, 2012 at 12:28 pm
This is good work. If the government supports you then you need to perform.
Vote:But we do have too much emphasis on government and not on the hopeless parents.
As a society we should have a clear and unrelenting expectation of these people at a personal level.
My mother in the 1950s would stop in the street and ask people. “why is this child not in school ??’.
We should have a social and personal expectation of others.
Current media approaches don’t help.
Media responses to this will be to grill politicians.
How about they get out to these ghetto neighbourhoods, to doorstep and demand of these parents, on TV, why their kid did not have breakfast etc. Or have national radios Mary Wilson, interrogating some of these rat parents in the same viscious relentless way she addresses bureaucrats.
September 12th, 2012 at 12:29 pm
If you think legally compelling children into ECE is a worthwhile policy then do it. For everyone. Doing it only for kids whose parents are beneficiaries is absolutely ridiculous…
Vote:September 12th, 2012 at 12:29 pm
If you want to end child poverty, the answer is to break the cycle of benefit dependency, not to dole out more money.
Beyond that it is cranking the economy up – a growing economy = growing jobs and growing wages = more money for families = reduced poverty [as long as you don't use the ridiculous measure of x% of the median wage as the definition of poverty - a measure that is guaranteed to grow poverty.]
Vote:September 12th, 2012 at 12:31 pm
> I believe this will do more to help a lot of vulnerable children, than almost any other measure.
What nonsense. Plenty of parents will already be doing these things. So suddenly they’re going to be better off? Somtimes you need to think before writing…
Vote:September 12th, 2012 at 12:32 pm
@garethw,
That would be a fair requirement for WFF entitlements. Beyond that, the govt can’t reduce benefit money it isn’t actually paying – half of nothing is the same.
Vote:September 12th, 2012 at 12:32 pm
Another symptom of our broken society.
I expect the leftists who campaigned to criminalise good prents (discipline) to oppose the gummint on this as it will be seen to be penalising the poor.
So why is it OK to penalise the good? National ,repeal the anti good parent law.
Vote:September 12th, 2012 at 12:36 pm
“That would be a fair requirement for WFF entitlements. Beyond that, the govt can’t reduce benefit money it isn’t actually paying – half of nothing is the same.”
But it’s got NOTHING to do with benefits? If you think ECE is so important for kids that you’re going to legally compel it then you can’t just do it for the minority of people that receive benefits. I don’t receive benefits – why should my kids not be compelled to attend ECE* when the kids of the family along the road are?
Vote:September 12th, 2012 at 12:36 pm
> So he’s not arguing against it
Pete, he’s saying that all kids should be entitled to ECE. Why limit it to those on a benefit? Of course the Right love demonising beneficiaries, so much so that they seem happy to see non-beneficiaries missing out on ECE.
Vote:September 12th, 2012 at 12:39 pm
SMTTC
I totally buy the WFF argument. If the policy is effective for beneficiary parents then why not WFF parents? Probably you are right to say that children of beneficiaries are over-represented in the group of parents whose children do not go to the doctor or pre-school or school.
But nevertheless, there will also be a lot of WFF recipients who don’t ensure these things for their children. Why should these negligent parents receive the taxpayer funding with no strings attached?
Vote:September 12th, 2012 at 12:41 pm
@PG – You’ve hit on a vital point. There are plenty of logistical hurdles that some parents will need to overcome to meet these targets, and if they can’t then the disadvantaged will become yet more so.
Vote:September 12th, 2012 at 12:43 pm
How the hell does it help vulnerable children – if their (vulnerable) parents have their benefits cut?
DUH?
All this WAR ON THE POOR – whilst the arguably UNDESERVING RICH ‘corporate welfare’ beneficiaries continue to engorge themselves at our local and central government ‘public troughs’?
Where’s the TRANSPARENCY and ACCOUNTABILITY being applied to long-term corporate welfare’ beneficiaries?
Where’s the (LONG OVERDUE) review of CORPORATE WELFARE John Key? Paula Bennet?
Penny Bright
‘Anti-corruption campaigner’
http://www.dodgyjohnhasgone.com
Vote:September 12th, 2012 at 12:44 pm
garethw, it requires a penalty for failure to comply. The penalty in this instance is a reduction in govt money being paid. If you don’t receive govt money then the penalty is meaningless and so, therefore, is the compulsion.
What is more, the penalty should be the same for all – perhaps they could achieve it by raising the tax rate for non-compliance? Quite extraordinarily difficult to administer I would suggest. A fine would be meaningless if the target doesn’t pay it.
And I suggested that the scheme could be applied to WFF recipients. That would increase the catchment pool quite significantly and should ease the concern around a minority.
Vote:September 12th, 2012 at 12:46 pm
“garethw, it requires a penalty for failure to comply.”
Vote:You can’t implement laws that only target very certain groups because of the ease of punishment… “I’m making it illegal for car drivers to not send their kids to ECE because I can revoke their licence more easily”
September 12th, 2012 at 12:47 pm
Outside of the ECE requirements, this is common sense.
In fact, not sending your kids to school is already illegal.
How the hell does it help vulnerable children – if their (vulnerable) parents have their benefits cut?
It’s a better alternative to putting them in prison.
But nice to see Penny doesn’t want people punished for refusing to do their legal obgligations as parents.
Vote:September 12th, 2012 at 12:48 pm
And if a child’s parent can’t or doesn’t send them to ECE, and their benefit is slashed, who the fuck do you think is going to suffer when there is no food in the house?
Paula Bennett is sadist. I genuinely wonder if she gets off on this sort of thing.
Vote:September 12th, 2012 at 12:50 pm
You can’t implement laws that only target very certain groups because of the ease of punishment…
No, but you can target laws towards those who are worst performing. For example, we have lower drink-driving limits for young people.
What annoys me about those protesting this one is that they are in effect protecting some of the worst parents in the country and by extension enabling child neglect. DPF is right – this will do a lot for child poverty.
Vote:September 12th, 2012 at 12:51 pm
Len Brown wants youth employment inquiry
Wednesday, 12, Sep, 2012 9:51AM
Auckland’s mayor wants an inquiry into how to keep young people in training and employment.
Len Brown says more than one in 10 young New Zealanders are either not in a job, not in school, or not in training.
He says there are already organisations which assist, like the Auckland Council and Tindall Foundation’s youth transition scheme which tracks and supports young people from school into work, training or further study.
But Mr Brown thinks we can do more.
He believes a national strategy that links different agencies would be a good start.
Real easy. Remove the wages barrier.Len. Tell your lefty mates in National.
Vote:September 12th, 2012 at 12:51 pm
And if a child’s parent can’t or doesn’t send them to ECE, and their benefit is slashed, who the fuck do you think is going to suffer when there is no food in the house?
Because it’s the punishment that’s the problem right? Not the behaviour.
Vote:September 12th, 2012 at 12:51 pm
Real easy. Remove the wages barrier.Len. Tell your lefty mates in National.
Here’s a thought: if you’ve never had a job and been on the dole for more than 2 years, no minimum wage applies.
Vote:September 12th, 2012 at 12:53 pm
But you can set terms and conditions on the receipt of govt monies. Which is exactly what they are doing.
There is an argument to be made that WFF recipients should have to do the same.
Vote:September 12th, 2012 at 12:54 pm
There is an argument to be made that WFF recipients should have to do the same.
However, that won’t work very well if payments are made annually.
Vote:September 12th, 2012 at 12:55 pm
No, but you can target laws towards those who are worst performing.
Vote:So you are directly equating receipt of some form of benefit with bad parenting? That needs some pretty significant evidence to be worthy of legislative intervention.
I have real trouble understanding why some middle-class stay-at-home Mum not sending her kids to ECE at 3 is totally fine but some benefit-receiving Mum needs to be legally compelled too…
September 12th, 2012 at 12:58 pm
True, but the annual payment option for WFF could be removed, leaving the weekly or fortnightly payment options.
It would be interesting to know the current % splits between those electing annual payments and those receiving weekly or fortnightly.
Vote:September 12th, 2012 at 12:58 pm
Thats right ross, start the smears, we all fucking hate beneficiaries, hell, I walk up to the fuckers in the street and smash em every chance I get.
Or not…
So your bullshit falls on deaf ears. We, the so called right, do not hate beneficiaries. We abhor waste, as we equally abhor parents who breed and then dont front up to their responsibilities. If you receive public money, you are part of a social contract wherther you like it or not (hey vto, off my roads yet ya loser?), and part of that is raising your kids well. So deflecting as per usual for left wing look over their calamity, sky is falling bullshit, meh, over it, pointless.
Oh, and Ms Batshit, thats right, its a war on the poor. Kill them poor fuckers any chance we get. Question to you, you demented hypocrite – paid what you cost the Auckland ratepayers yet? Oh and putting ‘ ‘ around words doesnt make them sensible. It makes you look ‘demented’.
Vote:September 12th, 2012 at 12:59 pm
I have a daughter in ECE. They run a preschool giving 20 FREE hours a week. No extra charges at all.
Do you think they can get the local (mostly maori) kids to attend. Not a bloody hope.
So they put on a van to pick the kids up. Guess what – the parents retreated even further. The parents wouldnt even get out of bed to get the kid ready – in one case they even asked the van driver to dress the kids.
Id be cutting the benefit to 25%. Theyd only miss one week and the parents would be back on line.
Yes – it punishes both – but to do nothing punishes the kids for the rest of their life.
Vote:September 12th, 2012 at 12:59 pm
And if a child’s parent can’t or doesn’t send them to ECE, and their benefit is slashed, who the fuck do you think is going to suffer when there is no food in the house?
That same argument could be extended to fines, child support, prison.
Vote:September 12th, 2012 at 1:01 pm
The idea is that if you’re using taxpayers money then you must raise your child the way taxpayers want.
Its not about enforcing rules or telling people how to raise their kids; it about ensuring our money for raising children is directed accordingly.
Vote:September 12th, 2012 at 1:02 pm
So you are directly equating receipt of some form of benefit with bad parenting? That needs some pretty significant evidence to be worthy of legislative intervention.
There are people who take responsiblity who are on the benefit. But by definition, those who take no responsiblity for their lives *are* on the benefit.
I have real trouble understanding why some middle-class stay-at-home Mum not sending her kids to ECE at 3 is totally fine but some benefit-receiving Mum needs to be legally compelled too…
I would have a problem with a proposal like that, and I do have a problem with that part of the proposal.
Vote:September 12th, 2012 at 1:05 pm
The idea is that if you’re using taxpayers money then you must raise your child the way taxpayers want.
No.
The idea is that if you’re recieving help from the taxpayer, that doesn’t absolve you from your basic responsibilities as a human being.
Vote:September 12th, 2012 at 1:07 pm
“The idea is that if you’re using taxpayers money then you must raise your child the way taxpayers want.”
Vote:Now that is consistent with the policy statement, yes. It’s appalling, but I suspect you’re right…
September 12th, 2012 at 1:10 pm
That same argument could be extended to fines, child support, prison.
Exactly.
It’s basicially arguing that children are hostages and we must give in to the demands of the hostage taker.
Not exactly a moral argument.
Vote:September 12th, 2012 at 1:12 pm
fish boy ppl have been saying that for 30 years – if u do anything re benes, it’s evil to the kid. Well the kid will get taken off the parents, which is a good thing.
Vote:September 12th, 2012 at 1:14 pm
Isn’t it interesting that Labour were so keen to stop qualified teachers from being freed up for ECE in poorer areas, but now they’re crying that there aren’t enough ECE centers in poor areas?
Vote:September 12th, 2012 at 1:16 pm
Why is Plunket protesting so much about the 50% cut idea? They argue that thay are advocating for the child, but I am highly cynical. I think i will give the Plunket collection a miss next year. The 50% cut could apply for two main reasons:
1. Beneficiary parents not meeting their reasonable obligations towards children. There will be two possible outcomes:
a. They will comply (or negotiate an execption) in pretty short order, so only one payment will be cut – there should be flexibility to pay the cut portion following compliance. If they do not, arguably they are too feckless to look after children and foster care should be considered.
2. Beneficiaries not being available for employment throgh drug / alcohol abuse. This calls into question their suitability as parents.
Herald is running a poll:
59% basically in support of National’s policies. 41% raises concerns (including 23% ‘heavy handed’).
Interesting ACT party’s stance on beneficiaries have been perceived as unreasonable and caused beneficiary bashing. Seems Paula and National is pitching a reasonable beneficiary policy which is gaining acceptance in the community while leaving lifestyle beneficiaries and their advocates out in the cold.
A significant portion of taxpayers supported labour’s tax increase policy in 1999 on the basis it was going to deliver more health, education and welfare – Labour instead squandered it on pen-pushers, tertiary students and schemes to stay in power. It is doubtful high tax policies would appeal to the electorate again, especially as Labour’s policies in 2014 are going to be rather meaningless because of Labour’s need to appease Greens, Winston and Hone.
Vote:September 12th, 2012 at 1:17 pm
Some parents don’t want to be told how to raise their children and feel singled out because they are required to better their childrens wellbeing and education.
Of course to hell with the benefits. More kids in kindy, more job ops. Healthy kids, less money required to be spent on health and maybe on more on education.
Do those who think if a child goes hungry in New Zealand, that it is really Paula Bennetts fault? Do we take away all accountability from parents? Is that the path you want to gp down?
Vote:September 12th, 2012 at 1:18 pm
Penny Bright – I have to ask – do you have to work at being such a complete fucking moron? Or are you just naturally gifted?
It helps vulnerable children by compelling their parents to get them to ECE where they learn to become socialised in a class of other kids, which helps get them ready for learning at school.
It helps them by compelling their parents to take them to get seen by a Doctor or a Plunket Nurse occasionally.
No-one is going to cut the supply of free taxpayer money to ANY parents, UNLESS the parents choose not to meet a few basic obligations to care for their child, that any sensible parent would be doing anyway.
This is not “war on the poor”… this is “war on crap parents who suck at what they do and need a kick up the arse.” I wish it well.
RRM
Attendee: “Slutwalk” Wellington 2011
Vote:Vehement supporter of gay marriage rights
Party Vote 1999: Labour
Party vote 2002: Labour
Party Vote 2005: Green
Party Vote 2008: Green
Voted: “Yes” in the “should a smack be illegal?” Referendum, 2009
September 12th, 2012 at 1:19 pm
Why is this not made compulsory for all people in NZ?
Bloody nanny state wowsers and hypocrites.
Vote:September 12th, 2012 at 1:21 pm
Why is this not made compulsory for all people in NZ?
For the most part, it is already.
This is one way of enforcing the rules in a group that contains the very worst offenders.
Vote:September 12th, 2012 at 1:24 pm
Arguing about WWF
WWF is take the money lose some then give it back.Rather than taking the money just lower tax to start with. this leads to more jobs more growth and more money for all
We have a huge problem with long term dependence on the benefit sometimes for three or more generations
Vote:These people are not the only ones failing their children BUT they are large proportion of family’s with failing children
Ask any social worker school teacher or a cop about their worst cases It will be a family of beneficiary’s This is the best policy I have seen yet to break the cycle The left just want to give more money and more money and … all that is incentive for the losers to keep multiplying the problem Give the kids food at school and the parents will spend more on shit and take even less responsibility for the kids. All the proposal is is you have a right to a benefit you have an obligation to look after your kids. Don’t up hold the obligation to look after your kids no right to a benefit.
September 12th, 2012 at 1:24 pm
Read it slowly vto, it might help with comprehension…
Because if you take state (taxpayer) money, you have a social contract (off our roads yet ya wanker) that you will do right by your kids. We, the taxpayer expect value for our investment. We expect shit parents to step up. Not rocket science. If youre not taking taxpayers money, different rules.
Do keep up.
Vote:September 12th, 2012 at 1:30 pm
As soon as you hear a lefty say “think of the children” you know your about to hear an argument without substance. It is nothing more than a manipulative play on emotion and an attempt to shut down opposition (who would dare object to kids being looked after !)
This is a great policy and should be applied to all tax payer funds given for the welfare of children.
Vote:September 12th, 2012 at 1:31 pm
Does “Beneficiary Parents” include those receiving working for families?
Vote:September 12th, 2012 at 1:33 pm
“Because if you take state (taxpayer) money, you have a social contract (off our roads yet ya wanker) that you will do right by your kids.”
Vote:Rubbish, your social contract obligations to do right by your kids exist regardless of whether you’re a beneficiary or not.
September 12th, 2012 at 1:36 pm
“..It’s basicially arguing that children are hostages and we must give in to the demands of the hostage taker.
Not exactly a moral argument…”
Thats right, never give in to hostage takers, even if you have to step over a starving child to tell the media how staunch you are!
Dickhead.
Vote:September 12th, 2012 at 1:37 pm
YES. THANK YOU.
GRIFF for PM.
Vote:September 12th, 2012 at 1:41 pm
Not rubbish garth, different social contract, as a result of a different context. I owe my kids the best upbringing I can offer – I dont OWE it to the state – the state isnt funding the majority of their upbringing, I am.
Vote:September 12th, 2012 at 1:51 pm
eeewwww RRM voted green
I foretell that RRM will be reconsidering his vote after spending time actually being exposed to the politics and debate from us. eeeewwww green
Every time there is a green issue of importance I trot over to flog blog any mention ?No lots of moari are the first people bone carving socialist rubbish and wanks about electric cars real “green” issues don’t even get a mention.
ps I just saw his post above and i am not taking this back
Vote:September 12th, 2012 at 2:04 pm
I’ve voted Green in the past (not 2008 or 2011). I still support having a Green presence in parliament but not so fussed on their priorities now.
RRM – if you don’t already, if you’re interested in adding blog posting to your repertoire get in touch.
Vote:September 12th, 2012 at 2:15 pm
I hardly ever hear grumpyhori saying anything I want to listen to but you are right on the money here.
Vote:September 12th, 2012 at 2:15 pm
homorightis “Because if you take state (taxpayer) money, you have a social contract (off our roads yet ya wanker) that you will do right by your kids. We, the taxpayer expect value for our investment. We expect shit parents to step up. Not rocket science. If youre not taking taxpayers money, different rules.”
Bullshit on all of that.
You are truly shallow and lacking in understanding and wisdom.
Vote:September 12th, 2012 at 2:23 pm
Penny ‘not so’ Bright wrote:
“How the hell does it help vulnerable children – if their (vulnerable) parents have their benefits cut?”
If the parents can’t get off their arses to meet a few simple obligations toward their children then the the children are better off elsewhere.
Remove children, slash benefit.
Cudos Paula for proactive targeted policies.
Oh and Penny have you and your cronies settled up the damages bill with Auckland council for your little camp out in Aotea Square yet?
Vote:September 12th, 2012 at 2:23 pm
And here I was thinking RRM was just a leftie. Turns out he is a slutty leftie:)
I agree with your post about kicking piss poor parents where it hurts. Maybe shock tactics will do some good.
However, you know that the left will rant and rave about kids being starved by a vicious Paula Bennett. Oh yeah right – fish_boy already accused her of getting a kick out of hurting children.
Vote:September 12th, 2012 at 2:31 pm
And in breaking news, Paula Bennett has just announced that all taxpayer parents who take their kids out of school for winter trips to Fiji or Disneyland will get their tax rates increased by 50%. “It is not much of an ask” she said “and is entirely consistent with our approach to beneficiaries.” She added that the policy will be extended next week to taxpayer parents whose children smoke marijuana and drink too many binges in the weekend.
arseholes
Vote:September 12th, 2012 at 2:55 pm
How is this WAR on the POOR – lawful?
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0082/latest/DLM304475.html
21Prohibited grounds of discrimination
(1)For the purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are—
(k)employment status, which means—
(i)being unemployed; or
(ii)being a recipient of a benefit under the Social Security Act 1964 or an entitlement under the Accident Compensation Act 2001:
(l)family status, which means—
(i)having the responsibility for part-time care or full-time care of children or other dependants; or
(ii)having no responsibility for the care of children or other dependants; or
(iii)being married to, or being in a civil union or de facto relationship with, a particular person; or
(iv)being a relative of a particular person:
(
(2)Each of the grounds specified in subsection (1) is a prohibited ground of discrimination, for the purposes of this Act, if—
(a)it pertains to a person or to a relative or associate of a person; and
(b)it either—
(i)currently exists or has in the past existed; or
(ii)is suspected or assumed or believed to exist or to have existed by the person alleged to have discriminated.
_________________________________________________________________________
Penny Bright
‘Anti-corruption campaigner’
http://www.dodgyjohnhasgone.com
Vote:September 12th, 2012 at 3:07 pm
I think you find most on the right are totally against Corporate Welfare
We may agree companies like South Canterbury finance shouldn’t have got a single cent.
Vote:The same should go for the likes of Kiwirail, Kiwibank/ NZ Post, Radio NZ, Maori TV and other bottomless pits.
September 12th, 2012 at 3:08 pm
Since when did Penny Dim care about the law? shes had no problem breaking it repeatedly in the past. she is such a hypocrite that its quite easy to simply ignore anything she says regarding the law.
also, block capitals dont make your point more vivid or more important, it just makes you look crazier than wearing a dead cat on your head (the two combined makes it evident for all to see)
amazing the number of lefties who want to defend benes ‘rights’ to not send their kid to school or take them to the doctor. they get 3 chances before they get docked once. even the most useless bene can sort their shit out in that time. and if they cant they dont deserve to have kids.
Vote:September 12th, 2012 at 3:20 pm
Thats right, never give in to hostage takers, even if you have to step over a starving child to tell the media how staunch you are!
Oh, so I’m a dickhead for pointing out the absurdity of your argument.
It’s not my argumentment that parents are holding kids hostage. It’s yours. Not to mention that you’re advocating zero consequences for child neglect – which means that there’s a good chance the child is starving anyway.
Vote:September 12th, 2012 at 3:30 pm
Grendel – I haven’t seen anyone on here defend the right of beneficiaries to not send their kids to school. Care to point some of these comments out to me?
As far as I can tell people are attacking this policy on the basis that it is targeted solely at beneficiaries, despite no evidence that beneficiaries are any worse at parenting than non-beneficiaries.
Having said that, I tentatively support the policy. It seems to me no different than saying to a student that you have to pass of your papers at Uni if you want to continue receiving the student allowance. Nobody is forcing you to ask for government assistance – and the government can reasonably ask that you abide by certain rules if it is to give you that assistance.
Obviously there will always be issues around what is a reasonable expectation, and I think we should err on the side of caution. Those listed above seem reasonable, socially desirable, and achievable.
Vote:September 12th, 2012 at 3:32 pm
How is this WAR on the POOR – lawful?
If you want to stop fighting it, go right ahead. I for one don’t think it’s right to stand in the way of kids getting medical care, but I guess that’s your choice.
Vote:September 12th, 2012 at 3:34 pm
Re Penny Bright – we already discriminate, positively, on the basis of one of the numerated prohibited grounds of discrimination (employment status) every time we give money to a beneficiary but not someone with an income. In fact we discriminate all the time.
These changes simply change the nature of that positive discrimination by limiting it.
Vote:September 12th, 2012 at 3:39 pm
despite no evidence that beneficiaries are any worse at parenting than non-beneficiaries
Again, that’s not the point. The point is that the worst parents are (by definition) irresponsible people and irresponsible people are (by definition) not able to hold down a job and are (by extension) beneficiaries.
Vote:September 12th, 2012 at 3:51 pm
So let me get this straight the left is saying don’t send your kid to ECE, don’t send your kid to school and don’t take them to the doctor?!? Are you guys insane? Plus if they didn’t send there kids to school how would they ever get fed?!?
Vote:I think if you don’t do those things you are a child abuser and shouldn’t have kids! If it takes 3 warnings and you still can’t do it you should lose your kids and your whole damn benifit you disgusting waste of space!
That this even needs to be debated shows how f&#ked this country is!
September 12th, 2012 at 3:54 pm
Its a weelly bad polacy cause all the dumb fucks will have to take their kids to the doctor and make them go to sckool and dats un fairs cause we all nows dat taken the kid to da doctor is bad an so is sckool we think dat you should just givs more moneys for p and piss cause dats our right and its our kids so if we thinks its to hard we should be aloud to slep in and buy p not kivs the kids din dins signed a nutter who wants a dead cat on his head
Vote:cos penny gots one
September 12th, 2012 at 3:56 pm
b1gdaddynz: “So let me get this straight the left is saying don’t send your kid to ECE, don’t send your kid to school and don’t take them to the doctor?!?”
No, nobody has said that. Don’t be such a fuckwit.
Vote:September 12th, 2012 at 3:58 pm
I think this is an excellent and long overdue policy. Kids are showing up to school completely unprepared and permanently disadvantaged because their parents aren’t doing their jobs. When Hattie did his famed study on what most effects learning outcomes he found parents were the biggest factor. We need to get these kids into an education environment earlier than we are and it is the kids in beneficiary households most at risk. If you take your income from the govt you give up some of your rights to do as you please. These parents should be thankful they live in a country providing such opportunities to their kids.
Also it upset me that in the Herald’s article about the mum unable to afford ECE for her kid it actually turned out she just failed to turn in the damn paperwork to get her subsidy.
Vote:September 12th, 2012 at 4:04 pm
No one has even explained HOW exactly the obligation (15 hours a week Early Childhood Education from age 3) will help kids in poverty. Are parents going to be freed up for all those ghost 15 hour per week jobs? Are all benefices bad parents and we need to get the kids away from home for a few hours a day?
[DPF: It ensures the kids are getting educated. If a kid does not do any learning before they reach five, they start school at a disadvantage they may never recover from]
Vote:September 12th, 2012 at 4:06 pm
speters – Then why argue against the policy? If you are against making people take their kids to ECE, go to school and doctors then you must be arguing that they shouldn’t have to!! So who is a f#&kwit?
Vote:September 12th, 2012 at 4:10 pm
I will always be grateful to my mother who taught me how to read when I was 3 as it made everything that follows so much easier! Parent’s have such a crucial role in pre-paring their children for life; if you can’t be bothered doing that then you set your children up for failure and are beneath contempt. I taught my children how to read before going to school. I have just been told that my 9 year old is reading at a year 12 level!
Vote:September 12th, 2012 at 4:18 pm
b1gdaddynz – as has been pointed out repeatedly above, the issue that some (not me) have isn’t whether the objectives are laudable, it is whether the policy being used to implement them is discriminatory and/or oppressive.
Disagreeing with the policy is not the same as saying “don’t send your kid to ECE, don’t send your kid to school and don’t take them to the doctor”.
If you can’t see the difference, then you sir, are a fuckwit.
Vote:September 12th, 2012 at 4:51 pm
“I will always be grateful to my mother who taught me how to read when I was 3 ”
So if she was receiving a benefit she would be punished for teaching you herself at home rather than sending you to ECE as mandated by law. If she was not receiving one (at the time) then she’s a wonderful person for helping you develop.
THAT’S the problem with this…
Vote:September 12th, 2012 at 4:56 pm
garethw – Where did I say I didn’t attend ECE?
speters – Semantics! If you disagree with a policy for any reason then the outcome of not having that policy is effectively what you are in favour of!
Vote:September 12th, 2012 at 4:58 pm
I’m sure you did but you weren’t mandated to by law. I’m also sure you can see the point I’m making…
Vote:September 12th, 2012 at 5:05 pm
Michael Laws was advocating these measures in his Sunday Star Times column 10 years ago – nice that National has finally caught up
I’d add in the condition of using contraception.
http://offsettingbehaviour.blogspot.co.nz/2012/08/coercion-everywhere-welfare-edition.html
Vote:September 12th, 2012 at 5:07 pm
@bigdaddynz
Semantics? Seriously? A policy of taking all children off their parents at birth and putting them into state-ran education facilities would also ensure children are fed and schooled adequately. If I don’t support that policy, does that mean I’m in favour of children not being educated.
Use your brain if you have one.
Vote:September 12th, 2012 at 5:31 pm
speters – Nice one you win that round! I think the key difference is that in the proposed policy if you are doing the right thing then the policy will have zero effect on you whereas your deliberately exaggerated one wouldn’t give anyone the chance to comply. I think if you are in the situation where the Government is paying for you to raise children then they have the right to set minimum standards of care. I think that these standards should apply to all parents but all parents do not recieve Government funding so would have to have a different deterent.
Vote:September 12th, 2012 at 5:57 pm
b1gdaddynz – Just pointing out that there are legitimate reasons to oppose a policy even if you agree with the stated objective. I agree with you that this policy is a good thing – as I mentioned earlier, welfare isn’t compulsory, and free money isn’t a right. In fact, I would absolutely go further and make welfare payments partially in some form of food stamps/supermarket store credit that can’t be spent on drugs or alcohol.
Vote:September 12th, 2012 at 6:10 pm
As I said in the first post on this item the aninal kingdon treats its offspring far far better than many so called parents in NZ. The animals care for and look after their offspring. The Morons and there are thousands of them dont care for their kids. Reason They are selfish areseholes who see their kids as a mean to take money off me and every tax payer.
Vote:Fact. All these morons are being asked to do is care for their children. Can you get that you dumb arse supporters of the Morons like Penny Bright and the other waste of oxygens
September 12th, 2012 at 8:37 pm
FFS Shearer; this is what you need to do: find out what % of GDP the welfare state was based on, upon introduction, and campaign on pulling it back to that level (god knows what it is now) in your first term. John Key will shit his pants
Someone’s got to do it; mate you’ve got nothing to lose and everything to gain. The welfare socialist state so beloved by Bryan Bruce et al has rotted this country from the inside out. It’s indefensible and unaffordable in its current form. Our colossal spends in education, health and policing / court system have deep roots in the welfare state
Vote:September 12th, 2012 at 8:38 pm
Graeme Edgeler (2,522) Says:
September 12th, 2012 at 1:31 pm
Does “Beneficiary Parents” include those receiving working for families?
oh and what about the Grand Parents who are bringing up thier grandkids.
Vote:September 12th, 2012 at 8:59 pm
Graeme being mischeivous again, methinks. But he raises an interesting point.
For example, does “Beneficiary Parents” include those who drive their kids on state funded highways to state funded schools?
And does “Beneficiary Parents” include those who take their kids to state funded or subsidised doctors or to state funded hospitals?
And, can anyone answer this little teaser? When the government wants our (mainly) white rich bros to work harder to “create more jobs” it incentivises them with loot, oops, lollies, oop, sorry, carrots. But when it’s the poor brown shite that we want to get to do more, we instantly wave the big stick.
Finally, while we are are on about poverty etc., Bill English on Nine to Noon this morning surely planted his flag firmly in his puritanical mindset when, in the face of being told that the benefit cuts of a previous National government were a prime cause of poverty today, to his credit, he didn’t challenge that point, he just effectively said, tough.
Says it all really: problem identified, remedy obvious, but he’s far to busy handing out $1.5 billion per year in tax cuts to the aforesaid (mainly) rich white folk, to worry about doing something our poverty levels that may actually work!
I’d be interested in looking at the peer-reviewed research papers used by Bennett to formulate this “kick ‘em when they’re down” policy, though. What’s that? There are none? Oh, silly me.
Vote:September 12th, 2012 at 9:52 pm
Penny you poor sad individual.
It’s not discrimination but a conditon of employment. Lets face it – the bludgers look at our gift (not an entitlement) to them as their wages/income. Paula is simply saying to get your wages you must do this. You will note they have an option of not doing it but their “wages” will be reduced by 50%. A simple agreement – not discrimination as you would love to push.
Penny – you may have noticed the strongest and most dominant emerging nations in the world today are all Asian. Guess what they don’t have. A SOCIAL WELFARE SYSTEM. Mean while the home of the social welfare system is rooted. Most of Europe is bankrupt after following the social welfare model for way too long. Maybe us european NZ’rs could sue our English ancestors for the wrongs the did to us by not finnishing the job they started when they settled here and then gifting us a social welfare mentality. Could be a big settlement for us!!!
Vote:Wake up Penny.
September 12th, 2012 at 10:38 pm
Biggest load of shit ever. I’d say the vast majority of parents do the last 3 points anyway, even beneficiaries. As for early childhood education, it’s so overrated as a concept. Many kids learn at different speeds, it’s pissing money against the wall.
This is more of the Labour control freakism that we voted out at the last election…it will achieve nothing & continue the social spending behemoth enlarged by the Labour idiots during their last term. Maybe Paula should just build workhouses, or forced abortions, whatever…the idiot. Feel good window dressing for the middle class pawns who vote for them.
The middle class who fill the useless, ultra-costly bureaucratic layers in government departments, universities, hospitals, etc., is where the real largesse & fat in the system is…their time will come next when they can’t shave any more off the bene’s & blue collar slaves, when they realize all these “austerity” measures don’t work.
Vote:September 12th, 2012 at 11:13 pm
No, no, there is no “contract”, just retrospective bulldozing of conditions to save money on the backs of an admittedly non-performing sector of the community by the government…because they can.
No, no, we the taxpayer just need to be sure we pay our taxes. It’s not an investment, I’d rather not pay any thank you, it’s an obligation imposed by the state. Any “persuasion” by the taxpayer of how the tax is used by government is not due to any residual sense of “ownership” of the taxes once they’ve been paid…but by a sense of electoral/political pressure by taxpayers on the govt of the time. Once they’re paid, they’re not yours…vote the government out if you’re not happy about it. Be happy your doing well…even while paying taxes, moaner.
No, no, I only expect myself to step up, or those I know because I care for them. You don’t really care, you just don’t want to be paying more taxes than you think you should (just like me). Again, be happy you’re breathing…or get serving on a soup kitchen or something.
Vote:September 13th, 2012 at 6:26 am
Couple of points:
First, I reject people saying us righties don’t care about beneficiaries. After all it’s not like I’m trying to be mean when I invite a whole heap of them to my house at Christmas and eat a big turkey dinner in front of them while they’re sitting in a corner
.
Second, and on a serious side, I don’t think it’s quite as easy as saying “if ECE is forced on beneficiaries it should also be forced onto tax payers.” I don’t have the latest figures for the last 18 months (much of them are almost impossible to decipher in NZ), but the figures for most of the rest of the western world (Australia, Canada, US and the UK) bear very sobering reading. Children in benefit, solo parent families are 37x more likely to be sexually abused and between 40-85 times more likely to be physically abused. The figures show the traditional family with both biological parents caring for the children is still the absolute best place for them.
I am not of course saying that sole parents are inherently bad parents. But if the figures show throughout the developed world that that group is a hot spot then it makes sense to produce policies that are specific to them. I wouldn’t have thought that by and large the good solo parents would have had much problem with this policy anyway. The bad buggers will, but hey, that’s just doing Gods work.
Vote:September 13th, 2012 at 7:16 am
leftys are all floundering around to find a reason why sending your kids to school and taking them to the doctor is bad.
Vote:The early childcare will hopefully get the little ones tamed before real school. Poor teachers have to try to socialise the ferrals kids when they turn up at 5 already tainted by their parents culture to bash and steel they way though life.
September 13th, 2012 at 8:00 am
If you receive money from the Government to raise children then effectively the Government is your employer; this is an employer exercising their right to performance review and manage their employees! If you aren’t performing then your salary might get cut!
Vote: