When the DPB was first proposed it had a very simple purpose, to allow mothers to leave abusive relationships, to allow them to protect their children from beatings, alcoholism and psychological abuse. It was intended to ensure that those children would have a real chance at a healthy and happy life. It did not, and could not, provide true equality to children raised in single parent households, but it could try.
Since then the DPB has changed, it is not exclusively for the children of solo mums, or exclusively for the children of an abusive parent. It remains true, however, to its original goal: ensuring that children in single parent households have a real chance, that their disadvantage is minimised.
Children in households dependent on the DPB have three key sources of disadvantage: financial (the DPB is well below the average income of a household with children), parenting (two loving parents can provide more than one in many ways), and acceptance (many people will negatively judge a child of a home “on welfare”). The parents in these homes, by and large, try their level best to give their children the opportunities that most other kids have.
One of the options for children in two parent homes is a stay-at-home parent: a parent who focusses their energy on creating a supportive, stimulating, warm and loving home. Many families scrimp and save to achieve this, and many make other choices with both parents working to gain other advantages for their children. But two parent homes have that choice, their children of two parent homes have that option.
With a change in the DPB forcing the solo parent to work that option has been taken away from the children. One of the precious pieces of equality will be taken from some of our most vulnerable children.
The DPB, as it was first created and as it continues today, is decidedly New Testament where a child should not be punished for the sin of the parents. No child should be disadvantaged because one of their parents was violent, or left the other. No child should be disadvantaged by the breakdown of their parents’ relationship.
The changes proposed by National are decidedly Old Testament; the sins of the father will be visited upon the children, and upon the children’s children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.
Anita.
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
rOb
No rOb, not strange just not locked into a “status quo good’ mentality like some Labour apologist muppets.
r0b – Maybe I can make my point in a different manner. A solo mother on the benefit is hardly the ideal situation for any child. The only way to change this, to increase the family income and therefore lift that childs prospects if for that mother to get a job (and hopefully a career). National is providing incentives (quite strong too) for this to happen.
any mother who is alone with a dependent child obviously needs as much support as they can get. low grade threats from national about making people work when patently there is no work is typical rightwing whinge politics to make some sections of the middle class justified in their righteous wrath and anger…pooh pooh pooh. I must say I feel justified in using faux teen slang and say get a life and let other people get on with theirs. society provides plenty of incentives and peer group pressures without tory stickybeaks getting involved.
Burt: No rOb, not strange just not locked into a “status quo good’ mentality like some Labour apologist muppets.
I’ve missed you too buddy!
Greg: Maybe I can make my point in a different manner.
You mean without stigmatising those that can’t achieve the impossible as “bad parents”? I think that would be an excellent idea.
A solo mother on the benefit is hardly the ideal situation for any child.
In terms of family income it may not be ideal. In terms of family structure (e.g. escaping an abusive partner) it may be by far the best option.
The only way to change this, to increase the family income and therefore lift that childs prospects if for that mother to get a job (and hopefully a career).
Nope, you’ve missed another way, a way that would raise the family income and let the mother/parent be a full time care giver. I wonder if you can work out what that other way is Greg?
Are you advocating income splitting for couples rOb
Are you advocating income splitting for couples rOb
You might want to read the thread HS.
So how do you propose raising the family income and letting the mother/parent be a full time care giver.
Is it the throw more money at welfare theory which has worked so well over the last thirty years or are you advocating something different?
Is it the throw more money at welfare theory which has worked so well over the last thirty years
Yup, that one! Bravo HS, gold star for you. If the issue is increasing family incomes for the DPB well let’s increase the benefit rate. And work well it has too, who knows how many children raised with a decent chance at life, and over the last 9 years with benefit rates declining naturally.
The only reason to force people into work (that will almost certainly damage their solo caregiving role) is some kind of punitive puritan moralistic nanny statism. If that’s your kick well fine good for you, but don’t try and window dress it as raising incomes. Be brave enough to call a spade a spade.
I thought the Nats were advocating the linking of the benefit to inflation ?
I don’t know, perhaps they are. If so good for them, but I’d like to see the base level raised as well. I think Labour has been far too timid in this area.
I agree with the comment about the National Party being a party of choice.. this policy takes away choice.
This policy is not about making bene’s give back for what they are receiving from the government. It is about a mother having to work 15 hours a week because she should be able to handle this because the children are at school. That is a load of bs… where are all of the employers lining up to higher mothers from 9-3, they do not exist, particularly for families in the country.
By this same logic, a two parent family with a stay home mother, she should be out doing her 15 hours as well.
We shouldnt be punishing our peers in society for falling on hard times. I reject this idea of someone going out of their way to have babies just to stay on a DPB. some provide some proof to prove me wrong please…
Once all the electioneering is out of the way I’d like all parties to get together on the best way to move forward with welfare.
I think everyone supports (apart from nutters) welfare for those in need but I’m mindful of the comments of Pita Sharples and the like who think that welfare has had a negative effect on Maori overall.
Personally I think there must be some way to balance giving those in genuine need more and helping people out of and away from welfare.
Sadly I think there will be little change with either National or Labour in control of this area.
A comment I can agree with almost completely HS.
With one minor point – “I think there will be little change with either National or Labour in control of this area” – as long as National keeps dog whistling red neck beneficiary bashing and making it politically difficult to move on the issue. If there was bipartisan agreement I hope and expect there would be quick progress on this.
burt,
I think that here, and earlier in the comments, you’re advocating reducing assistance to families to increase child poverty to make it easier for grandparents to buy love.
I am pretty weirded out!
“as long as National keeps dog whistling red neck beneficiary bashing and making it politically difficult to move on the issue.”
Isn’t another point that some people seem to react with outrage and calls of ‘beneficiary bashing’ whenever this issue gets raised?
Anita
No that is not what I’m saying at all. Did you notice the comment about Tertiary education funds????
The issue is the wise use of tax payers money in the best interest of the children. Not the day to day purchase of consumer goods as advocated by WFF advertising. Welfare should be about maintaining a minimum living standard – not providing an alternative to work. I appreciate work can be inconvienant for solo parents.
I know all about child poverty and solo parenting hardship. I agree with the principles of the DPB. But the principles and the application and the way it’s used as a political poll device is shocking and wrong.
Somebody mentioned earlier that we need to be sure the money gets to where it is needed, sometimes the parents are not the best people to decide that. Particularly if they do not always have the best interests of their children ahead of their own day to day desires such as alcohol, gambling or big screen TV’s.
hs,
Well I would advocate valuing caring for dependant children (and other family members) and paying a real wage for it. This doesn’t just mean stay at home parents, it also means grandparents caring for grandchildren, people looking after disabled siblings, and children looking after elderly dependant parents – the whole works. So we value it, we recognise it as a vital activity, we pay for it.
But that’s probably too radical for many people
A far less radical solution is to provide significant tax relief to families (WFF anyone?), and raise the DPB to a level which is at least equivalent to that of a low wage one earner household. Plus ensure that the DPB is a right for all sole non-earning caregivers (grandparents looking after grandchildren and so on too).
On top of that we should make sure that when the right solution for the family is for the parents to work that there is family friendly work for them. The choices to work full-time, or part-time, or not at all should be equally valued as they are all valid choices for a family raising children.
burt,
You want to withhold WFF from families with immediate financial needs and give it to the grandparents. The grandparents might then hang on to it for later (e.g. tertiary education) or give use it immediately.
But either way you don’t want the WFF money used for cellphones and things like that because that makes it harder for grandparents to stay relevant because they can’t compete when buying christmas presents.
That really (really!) seems to be what you said.
Anita
Call it compete if you want to cast it that way, I think it’s more a mater of be involved, contribute and be active in the role of the extended family. I can see how you might want to read what I said that way – ignoring my comment that it was not what I was saying.
Kids don’t place a lot of value on the time grandparents contribute to the family and on GRI grandparents have precious little else to give. Meanwhile parents get welfare to provide a lifestyle that is not essential, rather it’s feel good stuff.
iPods are not an essential part of growing up, neither are big screen TV’s. Grandparents with sufficient funds to afford travel/incidental costs associated with spending time with grand kids is a lot more important that throwing cash at families so they vote for XYZ political party.
It always stuns me how many beneficiaries can afford a big screen TV but can’t afford to pay for activities such as kids swimming lessons, bikes and stuff that is good for them rather than stuff that helps them fell that they are keeping up with their mates.
Peoples expectations for lifestyle are loosly based on how they percieve others. If my neighbour has a big screen TV and Sky then why don’t I… The answer might be as simple as your neighbour works and you don’t – but that answer is pretty unpopular so in the interests of good polling we talk up welfare spending. Sad how easily people are bough by instant gratification.
Oh, I’m not a grandparent either.
Anita
That is more along the lines I was heading with pay WFF to grandparents – IE: Here is some money spend it on your grandchildren. The result being that grandparents are involved in the raising of the children and are funded to do so. Back to the idea I started with that it takes a village to raise a child.
burt,
You said compete, I think that’s the point at which my jaw dropped and I thought you’d fallen off the rails
That’s not true in all families or of all kids (I say defensively
)
I reckon that the solution to it, where it does exist, is not to decreased the family income, or increase the size of the bribes that grandparents can afford. It’s to address the breakdown of the extended family, address the lack of value our society places on the elderly, and try to unravel some of the damage done to children by a consumerist society which values stuff before people.
I believe this is correct and if you sin and lie and try to deceive you will surely be caught out.
In today’s paper Ruth Dyson claims she knows nothing about her Social Engineering speech, or where it came from. But on Monday her office said she rejected the speech and refused to deliver it.
Both cannot be true.
Either she knew nothing about it, or she rejected it. What will tomorrow’s “clarification’ have us believe?
[lprent links? Don't be so damn lazy!]
Rob,
Reference?
Ruth’s problem with the bottle is evident if you meet with her in her electorate office first thing on a Saturday morning.Ruth was such a laugh when she lived with all the other stamp lickers in Millerton on the West Coast.Ouch !!
Feminists have destroyed the family unit and are responsible for the breakdown of the traditional family with their insidious social engineering policy.
Anita
Dyson said yesterday that she did not deliver the speech and had “no idea” what the term “triples” referred to.
Anita
Just for you
The speech should never have been posted on the Government’s website, she said.
“It’s entirely my responsibility what goes out under my name, so it’s my fault that I didn’t know that a speech that I hadn’t given had been put on the website,” Dyson said.
“I get speeches a lot that I don’t give. I don’t want to be too critical of people who draft my speeches, but I get a lot of speeches, in draft, that I never use. They have no relationship with what I say.”
She “didn’t have a clue” what the speech notes meant nor what they were referring to.
“I haven’t bothered asking because I’m not interested in it,” she said.
Everyone went yeaa right we beileve you Ruth!!
[lprent: Put a link in as well. Quotes (even if accurate) are often meaningless when partially quoted. The best way is to have the link to as close to the source as possible.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4651706a6479.html
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4653465a11.html
That took 3 minutes to do. Personally I find people that don't post links are usually trying to hide something, if only the minuscule skills. ]
Ruth hasn’t a clue about parenting. She thinks a triple three shots of vodka and a song and dance will make all her past go away.
Just look at CYFS who are nothing more than hard core feminists destroying children at random.Oh, by the way Ruth young Jadin tried to commit suicide last night !!!Remember him? I asked you to assist him months ago.
[lprent: I seem to remember that she was a solo mother - sounds like parenting to me. ]
Rob,
Yep, that’s what I’d read, which means your comment is completely wrong.
She didn’t say she knew nothing about the speech; she said didn’t know what was meant by “triples” or about who wrote it.
So it is entirely consistent that she rejected it.
Why are you so consistently wildly inaccurate?
burt,
Do you think we should just generally raise the GRI rate? Most elderly people, whether they’re directly grandparents or not, are involved in the raising of younger people. If the current rate prevents them participating in this important activity it sounds sensible to raise the rate.
We should also, separately, provide reasonable assistance to grandparents who take on the primary care of their grandkids. The UCB really isn’t flexible enough right now.
Coming to this discussion late I can only reiterate what Bill said – raising a child is work. It requires labour, it fulfils a social function.
That many seem to think work is only those things that people who own factories are willing to pay for doesn’t make it any less true.
Ps. Matt – that sweaters and socks comment was the best I’ve seen in a while.
Anita
Firstly, I checked back and I did say ‘compete’ in the context of ‘consumer’. That word was badly chosen and the phrase was sloppy. It was a poorly worded way to make a point. I’ll try again.
In my situation. If I send my children to my mothers place for a few days they are too expensive for her to ‘maintain’. They eat sh1t loads and they want to do stuff that costs money. My solution to that (as is the solution to my mother not having much money come birthdays and xmas) is to provide the cash required in these situations. I can do that and that’s cool. Grandmother gets to do what she wants to do without having the power disconnected, kids are (mostly) enriched by her influence and experience. Great.
Low income families cannot afford to do that. So what happens is the role of the grandparents diminishes, particularly when they do not live in the immediate neighbourhood. This is what I was referring to with the word ‘relevant’. The kids want to stay home and watch the big screen TV rather than go to grand parents place and watch the 21″ 18 year old TV with no play station and only 4 channels. This is consumerism and where the concept of ‘compete’ was coming from.
You cover this with.
Do I think we should lift the GRI. Most definitely. People on GRI today were sold the ‘cradle to the grave’ deal that paying higher taxes now for current spending will be rewarded by them being supported to a reasonable standard in retirement. They are not, they are at best ‘getting by’. People who have accumulated assets over their life time have them to fall back on, to liquidate rather than pass on to their family when they die. This is not how it should be given the successive Labour govt’s that sold the cradle to the grave concept and given we have had a Labour govt for almost 9 years.
Firstly, I checked back and I did say ‘compete’ in the context of ‘consumer’. That word was badly chosen and the phrase was sloppy. It was a poorly worded way to make a point. I’ll try again.
I flagged exactly the same concern as Anita (albeit much more briefly) in my comment of 1:35pm.
You might want to actually think about such replies to your comments Burt, instead of reflexively writing them off (as you did on this occasion, Mr Grumpy Pants) as the rantings of Labour muppets.
Hmmm – tonight I’ve had two comments that contain no links at all that have been caught in moderation. I don’t think my IP address has been being naughty either. The moderation tools seem to be in overdrive!
Anyway, time to head home (just another lazy socialist!) and get some dinner.
Tane
That is true. But who’s responsibility is it to fund that work? Who said the state should be the funder in this situation. The state should be the last resort unless we have totally adopted an approach where the best interests of the children are placed in the hands of the state, with the parents (or state nominated guardians) being the current service providers.
I don’t see how we can expect any other outcome than rampant welfare abuse if the state acknowledges the effort of parenting as financially rewardable labour.
rOb
If you have used the word ‘ m – u – p – p – e – t’ that seems to get captured by the moderation trap.
Hey – good guess Burt! Thanks. Here is the moderated post, and I really am off now:
Firstly, I checked back and I did say ‘compete’ in the context of ‘consumer’. That word was badly chosen and the phrase was sloppy. It was a poorly worded way to make a point. I’ll try again.
I flagged exactly the same concern as Anita (albeit much more briefly) in my comment of 1:35pm.
You might want to actually think about such replies to your comments Burt, instead of reflexively writing them off (as you did on this occasion, Mr Grumpy Pants) as the rantings of Labour m*u*ppets.