- Date published:
10:45 am, August 12th, 2008 - 21 comments
Categories: benefits, cartoons, national - Tags: cartoon, dpb, welfare
The Child Poverty Action Group thinks that National’s welfare policy is likely to hurt vulnerable children.
So as soon as the CPAG are finished with their court case against the Labour govt because of WFF being unfair they can get into court against the incomming national govt.
I think the CPAG do good work, but I do wonder why political parties (both of the major parties in our FPP style two horse race govt) don’t consult with the likes of the CPAG a bit more before they launch into poll driven policy to gain power.
burt. Govts do consult with groups like CPAG. there’s a number of channels through which that happens, the most official and transparent being the select committee process. ministers regularly meet with lobby groups in their area of responsiblity.
thats right sp but the modern kiwi trend just like boy racers is to make stink and then walk away from it and hope like hell you get you piccy on tv. nobody wants to work through anything anymore. If its not instant like an auto tranny or a remotecontrol then forget it. even the group supposedly looking after the rights of children has itself become infantalised. thats postmodernism for ya dude.
CPAG havent become infantalised. Using TV to publicise the plight of children is not postmodern. Nor is it a girl racer infantile instant gratification to live on the DPB. The povertyline DPB is a shameful disincentive to stopping family violence. It financially punishes those who leave their violent partner. The DPB should be livable. Nationals open beneficiary bashing is directly dictated by the market. The Business response to Key’s statement along the lines of “we need this reserve pool of [cheap] labour” is mainline market modernism. What is infantile is that the Nats think that beneficiaries will see this policy as: “work making us free”.
The impact on children would depend on whether the people are able to get work during school hours presumbably?
Also there should be more emphasis on prevention, through making contraception cheaper & more easily available.
As the bow is drawn, kiwi child abuse and infanticide earns New Zealand its first Gold Medal on the World stage.Banjo must be due for another baby bash party – eh bro…..
Is that apple poisonous and from the big bad witch bitch orchard? Maybe its a Royal Helengala.
Careful with that weapon John Wee as you might damage a finger nail you jerk off wimp.
I’ll ignore D4D because as usual I can’t work out what the f%$# he’s on about.
Ben R – you talk as though the problem is too many solo parents and that the cause of the situation is that people have sex and then unexpected babies. Not supported by the numbers I’m afraid. A parent becomes a solo parent for a number of reasons and there is ample evidence to suggest that an investment in supporting them while they raise their kids has payoffs for their family as well as society as a whole.
The idea of “forcing” them back to work has nothing to do with any evidence or thinking about the best process for them and their families – it’s a simple vote catcher for an ignorant electorate
New Zealand has a lot of problems but they need to be put into perspective. Whether we like it or not we have managed to create an underclass that has little hope of elevating themselves out of their current position. I vote Labour but I do believe that they could and should do more to remedy this state of affairs.
The underclass that has been created isn’t exclusive to one race but it does seem to be over-represented in certain areas.
In my job I work with children as young as 5 who I can see are destined for jail or some other institution or possibly a young death. Nothing is done with these children except a 1 hour session with a behavioural specialist once a week. These children would benefit from early intervention.
There are retarded/special needs children who receive funding. These children have a chance of leading a normal life but I think that the money would be better spent on the children that really could be saved from themselves and their home environment.
A teacher aide – $30,000 a year
Prison – $60,000 plus a year
We need to look at how we can stop the cycle of poverty and hopelessness by putting our money in the right place.
I heard that SPARC had over 10 people on over $100,000 a year. This made me sick to my stomach.
Interestingly that same cartoon could be drawn for WFF.
Absolutely and pre-election policies to pay people earning up to $120K for having lots of kids is not the right place.
How can it hurt vulnerable children? If their parent is trying to better themselves?
Out of interest, what do you think the 6 and 8 year olds are going to be doing while their sole parent is working 15 hours a week for minimum wage during the school holidays?
What are 6 & 8 year olds doing when their average wage parents are working 40 hours a week ?
Having children is a responsibility that all parents need to manage. We have had a child at home with the flu yesterday and today, being self employed who pays for the lost billing time we through both taking a day off each this week ?
2 people x 40 hours x average wage > 1 person x 15 hours x minimum wage
2 people x (sick leave provision + annual leave provision) > 1 person x (sick leave provision + annual leave provision)
Only way to stop poverty is to replace capitalism as it’s capitalism that causes poverty. It needs it to even work but it still remains unbalanced.
Anita’s maths!comment FTW.
You haven’t answered the question. What are 6 & 8 year olds doing when their average wage parents are working 40 hours a week ?
I guess that two people earn more money than one, that’s kinda obvious but there is still children to be looked after outside of school hours so how do they do it?
Paid childcare, family, parents annual leave.
The first is um.. 3.95? times more affordable for a 2 earner average wage family than a 1 earner minimum wage family.
The second, twice as available to a two adult family.
The third, twice as available to a two earner family.
The fact that you even ask that question is revealing. The answer is that they juggle it, usually with some degree of difficulty, stress and guilt that they are not spending enough time with their children.
The main methods of managing schoolage children are:
1. Childcare. (A significant expense.)
2. Nightime work or split shifts. (Cleaners and bus drivers)
3. Many women work as teachers.
4. Commissioned sales or temp work that allows a parent to be at home from 3pm onward.
5. A relative, close friend, or older sibling fills the gap for a few hours.
6. They use up their annual leave, time the rest of us use for holidays.
All these options are tough for two parents. For a single parent who has to manage shopping, cooking and housework on their own… it is a grinding, soul sucking time of their life. They stick at it because they love their kids like mad, and at times that is the ONLY thing that keeps them going. They are often the most vulnerable members of our communities… and hell they deserve far better than the miserable treatment we dish out to them.
Thanks RedLogix, I should’ve included split shifts and staggered start/finish times.
Available to two earner homes, not available to one earner homes.
Yes indeed, they juggle and wing it. All do. I understand the life of solo parents. It takes a village to raise a child. Welfare with no incentive to work is not a replacement for the village. Giving people cash removes the need for the village. A child is raised in poverty but without the village. It’s not a simple equation and it’s not answered in a bipartisan way. Welfare good – welfare bad.
I see merit in the age when work is required being linked to the age it’s legal to leave a child unattended. I don’t think it’s reasonable for the state to say on one hand you must go to work while at the same time saying you must not leave your children unattended. But I also think it’s wrong to provide sufficient funds that a family can live in isolation from it’s ‘village’. A quandary.
We are almost on the same page here. I can see where you are coming from.
I’ve always believed myself that if we all DID take more responsibility for ourself, our families, and the vulnerable in our communities (rather than just talk about it) then indeed there would indeed a reduced need for the state to shoulder the whole burden of welfare. How much better if we could live in more cohesive, trusting society.
But we no longer live in villages. Most of us live in cities, and far too often we don’t even know our immediate neighbours, much less entrust our children into their care.
And your second para makes perfect sense. The state makes it a criminal offense to leave a child under the age of 14 alone, demanding then that the sole parent should be working once the last child is over 6 creates a needless dilemma… that is best solved not by a ‘one size fits all’ rule, but on a case by case basis as to what is possible for each family and best for the children.