Bennett on welfare reforms

March 21st, 2013 at 12:00 pm by David Farrar

Kate Chapman at Stuff reports:

As the second round of welfare reforms come back before Parliament Social Development Minister says the 650 children born to women already claiming a benefit in January are reason enough for her tough reforms. …

There were 659 subsequent children born to parents already claiming a benefit this January, she said.Under changes introduced last October, they will have to return to work when that child is 12-months-old, if their older children are aged over 5.

Bennett said Work and Income staff used discretion to excuse 22 of those parents from the work requirement, largely because of timing around the announcement and implementation of the policy.

Meanwhile, in 2010 more than 7.5 per cent of live births – 4800 of 63,900 – were babies born to sole parents on the Domestic Purposes Benefit (DPB) and Emergency Maintenance Allowance.

And between 1993 and 2011, 29 per cent of sole mums on the DPB had another child.

”It does tell us that those that are already on benefits with children are still having subsequent children,” Bennett said.

I think there is a fundamental difference between having a child, and then ending up on welfare (because your partner leaves you, turns violent, dies etc) and already being on welfare and choosing to have further children.

Bennett admits work testing for sole parents was among the ”tougher” reforms.

But in 10 months of last year there were less people going onto the DPB that coming off. A feat which has only been achieved twice in the last 16 years, once when Working for Families was introduced.

A good start.

Tags: ,

67 Responses to “Bennett on welfare reforms”

  1. speters (108 comments) says:

    Surely the obvious question is if it’s in the child’s best interests to have a parent at home until x age, why is that no longer the primary consideration if their parent was already on the DPB?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 19 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. David Farrar (1,894 comments) says:

    Because it is not in a child’s best interest to grow up in a household where no adult ever works and they spend their entire childhood benefit dependent.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. speters (108 comments) says:

    Would such a parent get heavily subsidised/free childcare? Genuine question, I have no idea. I presume they would since a 12-month old requires fairly close attention

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. RRM (9,917 comments) says:

    But in 10 months of last year there were fewer people going onto the DPB that coming off. A feat which has only been achieved twice in the last 16 years, once when Working for Families was introduced.

    Fixed.

    Clearly a Stuff.co.nz article…

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. dime (9,972 comments) says:

    “Surely the obvious question is if it’s in the child’s best interests to have a parent at home until x age, why is that no longer the primary consideration if their parent was already on the DPB?”

    they get 12 months. a lot more than most career driven WORKING people take off

    Vote: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Lance (2,655 comments) says:

    I like the bit where beneficiaries say they “CHOOSE” to stay at home with the children.

    They leave out the bit about other people having to go out to work and pay for them to do that.
    That’s a fine sentiment if hubby (or modern equivalent) does the work to support the mother + child but not the ever pillaged tax payer.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. labrator (1,850 comments) says:

    I’m looking forward to the Aderninator’s response. Something like:
    “How does the Minister explain that in 2 months of last year there were more people going onto the DPB that coming off?”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. RRM (9,917 comments) says:

    David Farrar (1,699) Says:
    March 21st, 2013 at 12:22 pm

    Because it is not in a child’s best interest to grow up in a household where no adult ever works and they spend their entire childhood benefit dependent.

    Elaborate theories about what is “in a child’s best interest” are all very well, but it is pretty easy to write one to suit whatever economic policy you may be trying to implement. Come off it DPF!

    For example:

    When I drove through sunny Wadestown last week, a bunch of the children of company directors, land owners etc were merrily jumping up & down on the old tile roof of the bus stop, swinging from the neighbour’s tree, kicking the bus stop sign, etc. It was like Lord of the Flies except with pre-paid smartphones. CLEARLY it’s not “in a child’s best interests” to be born to parents who are independently wealthy. Little feckers don’t feel the jandal of maternal authority across their spoilt little arses anywhere near enough!

    (No, not really, but do you see the point?)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Cunningham (844 comments) says:

    RRM (6,597) diffference is my taxpayer money doesn’t go towards paying for those kids because their parents do it (they may do a shit job but its there business). The ones on the DPB are getting money from the taxpayer and therefore it is the governments obligation to ensure that they aren’t taking the piss.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. RRM (9,917 comments) says:

    Yes of course Cunningham, that wasn’t meant to be a real argument!

    A few extra lines about the cost to ratepayers of delinquency and vandalism, and the near-impossibility of recovering damages might add to it’s appeal though, yeah?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Paulus (2,627 comments) says:

    I always thought that to have a child there needs to be a man to inseminate the woman ?

    I know that in years to come that will not necessarily happen as many woman would like a child without the use of a man, but not universal, yet.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Andrei (2,647 comments) says:

    The Elites have spent the last forty years undermining marriage and subsidizing solo parenting and now they are wringing their hands at the results.

    And instead of trying to strengthen the very institution, one which the elites have just about wrecked with their fiddling, and conceived to prevent this catastrophe they are about to double down by extending it to same sex couples. The effect of which will be to to make marriage even more meaningless than it already is, particularly to the poor.

    You can only shake your head in wonder

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Northland Wahine (667 comments) says:

    Speters, as a single mum with a young child, I can confirm that child care is heavily subsidize. It’s a blessing.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. duggledog (1,556 comments) says:

    What a huge ship this is going to be to turn around. But at least something is happening. Shit some people are going to be in for a rough ride ooooh boy

    Meantime, watch the ‘but where are the jobs’ brigade come out in force. Well, sure, there aren’t any, if you live somewhere distant from anywhere and are illiterate, unmotivated and unreliable = thousands upon thousands of kiwis.

    Paula, just phase the DPB out. You know someone has to at some point, or at least peg it to a % of GDP that is reasonable and only for women who have genuinely come a cropper.

    It was a great humanitarian dream that got hijacked by insane largess. The long term consequences for the fabric of this nation are disastrous and are all around us today

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. RRM (9,917 comments) says:

    :shock: Gay marriage will lead to MORE solo mums on the DPB!

    Wait, what??

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. SPC (5,619 comments) says:

    Given the DPB parent is covered to provide for her child until the age of 12 months, what is the governments problem extending parental leave for a working mother from 12 to 26 weeks?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. thor42 (971 comments) says:

    “…those that are already on benefits with children are still having subsequent children.”

    Yep, and *that* is the core of the problem.
    IMO, if someone has children and is on a benefit, it is *insane* for the government to support additional children that the person has.

    What kind of signal does that send them? “Hey, this benefit thing is a lark! The more kids I have, the more money I get!”

    Insane stuff.

    I agree with duggledog. Phase the DPB (*and* “Working for Families”) out.

    If you said that there’d be “no more applications accepted for the DPB as of date X”, then *shock, horror!* – people would actually be *forced to think for themselves*, instead of automatically making living on a benefit the default option for everything.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Viking2 (11,469 comments) says:

    Funny that just a few days ago Bennet conceded that actually there was a paucity of those jobs for people to go back to.

    something changed in the last week or so.

    Nah, just more talk and these ladies won’t qualify for youth rates. :lol:

    Its a dilema isn’t it.

    Babies just seem to be a part of life.

    Babies are more common to non working ladies than working ladies.

    That’s the way it is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. duggledog (1,556 comments) says:

    V2 – that’s the way it is… In New Zealand!

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Psycho Milt (2,412 comments) says:

    Meantime, watch the ‘but where are the jobs’ brigade come out in force.

    Well, yes, watch them. When you propose something that’s a bad idea, and it’s immediately obvious why it’s a bad idea, you can reasonably expect people to point out that immediately-obvious reason. The take-home lesson is to not propose bad ideas.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    I think there is a fundamental difference between having a child, and then ending up on welfare (because your partner leaves you, turns violent, dies etc) and already being on welfare and choosing to have further children.

    While there may be a moral difference, from the point of view of welfare policy, it is an irrelevant distinction. Kids still need to be fed, housed and clothed.

    Punitive welfare policies don’t work, since the main reason the targets are on welfare is that they are incapable of responding rationally to incentives, after all, having a child as a single parent is the easiest way to perpetual poverty for women. If they responded rationally to incentives, they wouldn’t be single mothers. You can’t modify people’s behaviour when they have already proven themselves immune to harsh incentives. All you end up doing is inflicting increasingly crueller and more punitive measures on them for no real gain.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. mandk (993 comments) says:

    No application for DPB should be entertained unless the mother is prepared to provide the name of the father.
    If they don’t know the name, they should be disqualfied on the gounds of having elected to put themselves into the situation in which they find themselves.
    It’s like being disqualified from unemployment benefit if you voluntarily give up your job.
    If we had the guts to do this, the number of babies being cared for by solo mothers would plummet.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. mandk (993 comments) says:

    @ Tom Jackson,
    The flaw with your argument is that, in reality, a lot of of single parents (and other beneficiaries) derive greater utility from not having to work to support themselves that they lose by being poor.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. RRM (9,917 comments) says:

    mandk

    Let’s say woman A has two kids and is on the DPB.

    She can’t/won’t name the father(s) so DPB is stopped as per your model.

    What do you suppose happens next?

    And can you and I, in good conscience wash your hands of all responsibility?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. speters (108 comments) says:

    How long can Mums remain on the DPB if it’s their first child? My point is that if the child’s welfare is the primary concern, how do you justify funding them more/less time with their mother based on whether they happen to be the first or second child.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Andrei (2,647 comments) says:

    Yeah and if she names the father the IRD takes so much from the wages from his deadshit job for his contribution it is no longer worth his while to keep working.

    Its a fucking mess way beyond Paula Bennets pay grade to fix but she can toss red meat to her supporters from time to time by “cracking down” as they say.

    But when it comes down to it nobody is going to let kids starve to death and while a few might think it would be a good idea to let nature take its course most people don’t

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. mandk (993 comments) says:

    RRM, I wasn’t actually proposing retroactive policy. But, yes, we are confronted by a thorny problem, and it requires tough choices.
    In your model, where the state assumes the consequences of people’s decisions, there is no incentive for individual responsibility and no way to break the cycle of deprivation.
    Let’s have your solution.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. RRM (9,917 comments) says:

    Yeah and if she names the father the IRD takes so much from the wages from his deadshit job for his contribution it is no longer worth his while to keep working.

    I know a dropkick father who pays something like a cool $61 per month, I would not have thought that would tip him over the edge…

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. wf (441 comments) says:

    PB could ‘freeze’ the DPB.

    Put an arbitrary stop on increased payments 8 months from the date of the announcement. If a single person on the DPB has a another child after that time there would be no allowance for that child.

    End of discussion.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. duggledog (1,556 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt, what’s the alternative then? Come on, I really want to know. Do we just make some jobs up, like, I don’t know, in railways and government quangos?

    Or do we just continue to pump billions of unproductive dollars into giving women the option of pumping out brats ad nauseum?

    The country can’t afford to do either my friend, and all political parties, MSD, ordinary folk (except you of course) etc know this. The same MPs who will decry the reforms on the other side of the house will not reverse any of them once they are elected, god forbid. Same as none of Roger Douglas’ reforms were. Wait and see.

    By the way, there are job, but you have to go to them. Find me an unemployed Chinese immigrant, even one that speaks no English. Auckland Hospital is full of Filipino nurses. Southland dairy farms are full of immigrants from South America.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. artemisia (242 comments) says:

    In America, non custodial parents who don’t pay (court-ordered) child support face increasing sanctions, including suspended driving licence and ultimately jail. Here, the sanctions seem to be financial penalties added to the arrears. Which are not working in many cases it seems.

    Coming off the DPB, and getting support for childcare, WfF and child support from the father/s would almost certainly make the custodial parent better off, financially at least. But that is not much help if the child support is not being paid (or the other parent is not named). So how about more draconian measures to get child support paid?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. duggledog (1,556 comments) says:

    WF – best idea yet. These poor little babies would stop being born, just like that, with a resulting plummeting figure of neglect cases, abuse and crime stats in the years afterwards.

    I believe most women aren’t dumb, unlike most left leaning twats, who clearly believe otherwise. Once the money tap gets turned off so does the bareback sex.

    RRM we’ve already washed our hands of any responsibility. No-one really cares about the ferals. You can’t help them. Parts of this country bear no resemblance to the country I grew up in

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. RRM (9,917 comments) says:

    mandk – this is a cost saving exercise, and IMHO DPB is the wrong place to look for cost savings.

    1a) I would seek to get far more value for money out of unemployment beneficiaries, by making them civil servants instead of beneficiaries. Which in practise means roping them into work gangs and putting them to work carrying rocks and building “uneconomical” highways etc. We are already paying this massive work force, they might as well be working, huh? And they might even become motivated to look for better jobs in the private sector after they’ve carried a few rocks.

    1b) Absconding from this work would become a jail time offense.

    2a) School-aged children of parents on DPB are fully funded by govt into boarding primary schools (or primary schools with 3pm-6pm after school care programmes).

    2b) Preschool-aged children of parents on DPB are fully funded in 45hr a week starting on their first birthday.

    2c) DPB parents with no children under 12 months of age no longer have any impediment to seeking work, and can either find work or else proceed to the new-look unemployment benefit, as per 1a).

    2d) To be on the DPB, you therefore need to have a child under 1yo at all times. Now, certain lunatics on here will tell you “DPB mums” would happily do this to keep their DPB, but I doubt any of these people have carried a baby to term ;-)

    2a and 2b will of course cost a lot of money. BUT – the real idea of 2a especially is to get those kids out of the possibly-harmful environment of a beneficiary household, to mingle with other people with better horizons. But it also sets in motion a cunning scheme (2c) to get DPB parents (and all unemployed) into some sort of constructive work.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    I agree that having a subsequent child whilst on the DPB is not on, however do note that Bennett did not say whether the parent may have been pregnant when they first applied for the benefit. Of course it would not be in her best interests to do that – far more shock and disgust value by letting people believe they are going without because some little ‘slapper’ is taking their money.

    There will be those that have another child on purpose, and some do it on purpose because they don’t want to work, can’t work (no skills, record, drugs, unemployable) but to presume that all of the have had a subsequent child deliberately is not realistic.

    The (type 2) Precariat Song – and everyone dances.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Andrei (1,973) Says:
    March 21st, 2013 at 3:19 pm
    ————————

    For once I agree with you Andrei. How long have we all been having this same conversation?

    There is no way any of us would allow a child to starve, but there is no way we can force a person to surrender their child for adoption.

    I believe we need to get rid of separate types of benefits. There should be a basic income available to all people should they be unable to work. (When I say basic, I mean REALLY basic – subsistence level only)

    That should be standard, regardless of whether the person has a child or not and should be payable from school leaving age onwards. That way each and everyone no matter what the age has the security of knowing they are not going to starve to death, and HOPEFULLY would stop these immature young woman from thinking they have to have a child or several in order to survive. Plus it gives security to everyone knowing that no matter what happens, there is a safety net for them.

    So that removes the incentive to have a baby. There is no need to bring another person into the picture (a baby) – immediately we solve the social problem that some of these children raise later in life due to being born in inappropriate circumstances and with poor role modelling.

    Of course then we have to deal with getting the single person out into the work force – but without a child in tow, training etc does not become a stumbling block.

    We have to stop children being used as a means for people to live. That is the biggest and most important aspect. Break that cycle (and it will cost money to do it) and with a few other minor measures, the welfare budget will be controllable.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. wat dabney (3,756 comments) says:

    Let’s say woman A has two kids and is on the DPB….can you and I, in good conscience wash your hands of all responsibility?

    No. Our responsibility is clear. Forced sterilization for such unconscienable breeders.

    Next problem.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Black with a Vengeance (1,861 comments) says:

    Get cashed up iwi to subsidise welfare payments and even more so, provide cheap housing if both parents go back to the rohe and work the land…

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Black with a Vengeance (1,861 comments) says:

    Forced sterilization?…nah just rip the baby out of the mothers arms and sell them as serfs and sex slaves to the well to do. Make the little blighters pay their own way from day one, while punishing the parents.

    win/win!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Black with a Vengeance (1,861 comments) says:

    Pay mothers to neglect their own kids and look after someone else’s.

    20 hrs a week nannying for a career oriented mother while your own get farmed out to the rellies…welcome to the bright future!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. thedavincimode (6,759 comments) says:

    This is just another “ambulance at the bottom of the cliff” response. Gummint needs to be more pro-active and promote anal sex as a viable option for solo mothers who don’t want to take up the offer of free contraception. Anal sex: the socially responsible choice. The Conservative Party might like to campaign on this.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. muggins (3,688 comments) says:

    Most working women have planned pregnancies it would seem. So either they are on the pill or they insist that their husband/boyfriend or one night stand wears a condom [ and then there is the morning after pill as well].
    It would appear many solo mothers don’t take any of these precautions.
    What is the answer to this anomaly?
    If someone is already claiming a solo mother’s benefit and they have another child there has to be some sort of a disinsentive,but what form should that take.?
    Monetary,ie only half the benefit pay-out for the second child, or
    Sterilise the mother after the second child is born, or
    If a man is known to have had two children where the mother is on the benefit vasectomise him.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. labrator (1,850 comments) says:

    1a) I would seek to get far more value for money out of unemployment beneficiaries, by making them civil servants instead of beneficiaries. Which in practise means roping them into work gangs and putting them to work carrying rocks and building “uneconomical” highways etc. We are already paying this massive work force, they might as well be working, huh? And they might even become motivated to look for better jobs in the private sector after they’ve carried a few rocks.

    I’m pretty sure we’ve tried to bring in “work for the dole” before. Was it Jeanette Fitzsimons that labelled it “slavery”? Whoever it was in the Green’s couldn’t explain why working for the dole was slavery but tax isn’t theft.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. thedavincimode (6,759 comments) says:

    muggins

    If a man is known to have had two children where the mother is on the benefit vasectomise him.

    Why not just get him a goat?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. thedavincimode (6,759 comments) says:

    The Responsible Choice

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. RRM (9,917 comments) says:

    anal sex: the socially responsible choice. The conservative party might like to campaign on this.

    :mrgreen: Comment of the week!

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. muggins (3,688 comments) says:

    thedavincimode (4,620) Says:

    March 21st, 2013 at 5:48 pm
    muggins

    If a man is known to have had two children where the mother is on the benefit vasectomise him.

    Why not just get him a goat?

    davinci,
    I don’t know if that would work, I think most men would would prefer a female of the opposite sex.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. thedavincimode (6,759 comments) says:

    muggins

    Not in Dunedin by all accounts.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. nasska (11,491 comments) says:

    Only someone who has never watched fat solo mothers waddling into Kentucky Fried on benefit day would rule out goats.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. nasska (11,491 comments) says:

    Have you seen this Davinci? Ref: http://imgur.com/gallery/DBD4Esu

    The Great Blogger’s American allies are going to get especially bitter & twisted. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. thedavincimode (6,759 comments) says:

    Not before dinner thankyou nasska.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. thedavincimode (6,759 comments) says:

    Perhaps it’s time to invest in some Tauranga real estate nasska.

    We could start a fund and have one of those little money “thermometers”. I’m sure there would be plenty of willing contributors.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. nasska (11,491 comments) says:

    Right across the road from the pensioner flats would be prime real estate Davinci.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. thedavincimode (6,759 comments) says:

    … not quick enough ..

    Paeroa has its L&P bottle, Ohakune its big carrot. Tauranga could have a giant cock rammed up a giant arse outside ‘baitey’s place.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Viking2 (11,469 comments) says:

    Lots of shallow claptrap about today.

    I could almost be certain that the same people berating these ladies also are supporters of wage controls, the RMA and all those mandated rules and regulations, supporters of free and open access for importers etc that prevent commerce operating in a free envionrment. All those rules that get in the way of job creation and its brother job destruction.
    Job destruction has been the norm and thus we have young people who remain in school wasting their lives away without purpose and who end up in this situation.
    (Think about the rate of youth unemploymentat 25+% and you could perhaps understand why having a baby is better than, well sitiing around doing nothing.)
    Girls will always get pregnant and God forbid that Bennet takes us back to the days of adoption almost by force because we refuse sufficient compassion to assist people.
    I’ am no supporter of the idle but unless we change NZ to produce keen and motivated young peoplewith good job oppourtunities and the chance to undertake those carrers this situation will continue, and if Bennet has her way we will go back to the past, for their is no other journey.

    Interesting that today, in Australia, Gillard apologised to adoptee’s and their mothers for that behavoir and although NZ’s history wasn’t quite as brutal in the 60’s and early 70’s there are many young ladies who essentially had their babies forced out of their lives by the God Fearing that frequented various hospitals and birth places as such. The main reason was that “you can’t support thio child” and they pressured the mother’s into giving their babies away.

    Most of you weren’t even born when this was happening so you have no idea at all. i.e. you are uneducated and without experience in these things.

    And no it didn’t involve me but I do know other men and women who did get treated this way.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. nasska (11,491 comments) says:

    V2

    ….” in the 60′s and early 70′s there are many young ladies who essentially had their babies forced out of their lives by the God Fearing that frequented various hospitals and birth places as such”….

    I reluctantly admit to being born, educated & working by the times you refer to & if things were bad then they were worse in the fifties & earlier. At least by the late 60’s the pill was available even if an unmarried woman had to hunt around to find a doctor prepared to prescribe it. The arrogant old farts in the medical profession got to give their self opinionated homilies on a regular basis.

    The Christianity saturated fifties & early 60’s were when the God addled were at their peak. Like most situations humans can influence the pendulum has swung too far the other way but we should ignore all calls to turn back the clock to those wretched times.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Muzza M (291 comments) says:

    How about, go on the DPB with x children, don’t expert anymore money if you choose to have x+1,2,3 … while on the benefit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Monique Watson (1,062 comments) says:

    Basically National are exist pigs. They’re a party of stupid old cunts who believe that beneficiary bashing is they way to a greater vote take. BiG Fail in post 1951 unionist NZ. Just throws more power to the the dreaded socialists.
    Silly bints like Bennett will never exercise any great power unless they kick the old cunts to the curb by insisting that policy change be exercised in a region by region basis or limited to a specific demographic. IE 17 to 25 yr olds.
    I grew up in a town in a home with the children that got”forced out”.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. SPC (5,619 comments) says:

    One wonders what the requirement to go back to work when the youngest is 12 months actually means in practice.

    1. will they be required to look for part-time work or full-time work?
    2. is their ability to work limited by need to have accessible and affordable childcare before they can?
    3. will they find work?
    4. do they need to undertake training/further education to help them find work?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Monique Watson (1,062 comments) says:

    @SPC. It means an enlargement of the bureaucratic underclass. Stupid tits who don’t have a real career telling other stupid tits what to do with their lives.

    ”It does tell us that those that are already on benefits with children are still having subsequent children,” Bennett said.
    Some advice from a former benefit child: Shitcan the fucking benefits Bennett. Rely on the charitable element of civil society to full the gap. Which it will.
    FFS. Shit or get off the pot, but stop whinging about your fellow sex Bennett, you stupid tit. Stop throwing women under the bus.

    GOD. There is nothing worse than a stupid bureaucrat who is too scared to take the drastic measures to curb welfare dependency except for a stupid bureaucrat who fucks over women and takes half measures because the Bovver Boys; Brownleee and Joyce ganged up on her. Fucking mole. I’d have no faith in National Women if it wasn’t for Collins.

    Can someone start a real right wing party whose charter doesn’t exist on the premise of reassigning women to the kitchen.
    Oh yeah.
    Cunts.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Monique Watson (1,062 comments) says:

    Oh yeah. That post at 9.01 did refer to “exist pigs”, rather than “sexist Pigs”. Ie the type of politician that enacts the same conditions that existed circa 1991.
    As in, they only exist to advance their own career.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. kowtow (8,454 comments) says:

    Actually it all started with the Old Age Pension all those years ago.

    After that every one wanted something for nothing and now it’s all pretty unaffordable.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Reid (16,447 comments) says:

    There is nothing worse than a stupid bureaucrat who is too scared to take the drastic measures to curb welfare dependency except for a stupid bureaucrat who fucks over women and takes half measures because the Bovver Boys; Brownleee and Joyce ganged up on her. Fucking mole. I’d have no faith in National Women if it wasn’t for Collins.

    Monique, my mileage these days is a lot of women are becoming a bit like a lot of Maori. In that despite all the kowtowing bullshit the rest of we non-women and non-Maori have done for them [yes, you heard right, for them] over the last 4 or so decades, a lot of them still munt about discwimination and such-like, when as far as we non-women and non-Maori are concerned, there isn’t any, there never was, but we’ve changed it all anyway, and what the fuck else do you want us to do?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Monique Watson (1,062 comments) says:

    My main gripe is that in order to appeal politically to the sexist Baby-Boomer generation, National pushes the message, “the world will end if we don’t target the DPB”. message. It’s a core part of their platform. It is old and stale and causes a crap ton of problems for women.
    Look, Paula sees the real bad shit going down. I don’t argue with that and I fully indorse some of the policies. But when you push out stories that tar all women with the same brush then you’re actively working against the welfare of your own sex:

    http://nowoccupy.blogspot.com/2013/03/why-women-hate-national-paula-bennett.html

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Monique Watson (1,062 comments) says:

    As for changing it all anyway, “and what the fuck else do you want us to do?”

    It’s simple at the end of the day.
    1. Paid Parental Leave : Max Four Months.
    2. any parents’ benefit: max two years on full and then food stamps, accommodation and relocation expenses to centers of NZ that have less than 4% unemployment rates.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Viking2 (11,469 comments) says:

    All about human relations, young people, aspirations and education of those young people and of course usual work.

    That young person that used to operate the lollipops at road works is now unemployed and his place taken by retirement age people . What do we expect the to young to do?

    Imagine how bad it would be and how much more taxpayer money we would be short of if 50,000 people hadn’t left NZ for Aussie each year since the Nats. were given Govt. with the promise to empty Air NZ airplanes of departing people.

    All related to hopeless politics. Nats have bent over to the greens and Maori and failed to reform the RMA in any meaning ful way so jobs and incomes have remained in the doldrums.
    Key yesterday called the Greens scare mongers. Well he needs to toughen the fuck up and boot them out of his Govt. along with that smith stooge and the Maori’s and do what he was elected to do. Get NZ working.
    Plenty of support for doing that but beating up beneficiaries ain’t the way forward even if its inextricably intertwined in the Nats. DNA.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Nostalgia-NZ (5,199 comments) says:

    Good stuff Monique.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. SPC (5,619 comments) says:

    The only place with New Zealand unemployment below 4% is Oz.

    Food stamps would have to include other household expenses and accommodation costs would have to include power. Then there are school fees and clothing for the children. The parent would need cash to get to Work and Income via petrol or public transport etc.

    The costs of such systems means that the increased hardship impact on the recipient is matched by the increased cost of administration.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote